Is this a legal Elemental Control?

[Scifi_Toughguy]

I've never built an EC before but think it fits in this instance. The character has heat (but not fire) based powers.

 

 

20 Pt EC

 

edit: Force Field 20pd/ed

Flight 20"

EB 12d6

Invisibility to sight group

 

for a total cost of 120 points.

 

Opinions welcome.

[gojira]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

Is that Force Field 40 PD/ 40 ED? That's 80 points right? I get 160 points adding it up in my head. Don't forget the 20 points of the EC itself.

 

Looks ok if your GM is happy with the SFX and the character in general.

[Jaxom]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

What is the basis of the powers?

 

Force Field and EB I can see.

 

Flight? Does the guy have ballast tanks in his suit with vents that jet super-heated air?

 

Invisibility - Sight? With fringe caused by heat-haze?

 

These are points you have to work out with your GM and to his satisfaction, not mine, but I am not sure how these are all heat related.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

I've never built an EC before but think it fits in this instance. The character has heat (but not fire) based powers.

 

 

20 Pt EC

 

edit: Force Field 20pd/ed

Flight 20"

EB 12d6

Invisibility to sight group

 

for a total cost of 120 points.

 

Opinions welcome.

 

Yep.

 

I would probably pull the EB out and stick it in its own attack multipower though.

[Jaxom]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

I would probably pull the EB out and stick it in its own attack multipower though.

 

That is a separate but valid issue. The first time you are flying along and pull up to blast someone you'll be surprised when your GM tells you you are starting to fall.

[Scifi_Toughguy]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

What is the basis of the powers?

 

Force Field and EB I can see.

 

Flight? Does the guy have ballast tanks in his suit with vents that jet super-heated air?

 

Invisibility - Sight? With fringe caused by heat-haze?

 

These are points you have to work out with your GM and to his satisfaction, not mine, but I am not sure how these are all heat related.

 

Flight would be the manipulation of heat currents in the air.

 

Invisibility would (I believe) be similar to your thoughts here. I was entertaining the idea of doing images, would that work?

[Scifi_Toughguy]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

That is a separate but valid issue. The first time you are flying along and pull up to blast someone you'll be surprised when your GM tells you you are starting to fall.

 

Falling in which instance? If Ileave it in the EC there is lots of flying while blasting, no?

[LoresLost]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

I Think what Hyper-Man is saying is that the character should have an attack multipower eg:

This is off the top of my head so is wrong in the math department (Edit: I uncheated and used HeroDesigner)

 

20 Heat: Elemental Control, 40-point powers

20 1) Force Field (20 PD/20 ED) (40 Active Points)

20 2) Flight 20" (40 Active Points)

25 3) Invisibility to Sight Group , No Fringe, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (45 Active Points)

 

60 Heat Stroke Attack Multipower, 60-point reserve

6u 1) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points)

6u 2) Energy Blast 8d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (60 Active Points)

6u 3) Energy Blast 6d6, Area Of Effect (7" Cone; +1) (60 Active Points)

 

Powers Cost: 163

[gojira]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

Falling in which instance? If Ileave it in the EC there is lots of flying while blasting' date=' no?[/quote']

 

You are correct. There's no rule mechanic that would require that your GM to make you lose flight while blasting, and no good SFX reason for your GM to do so either. Hyperman was thinking of Multipowers, not the Elemental Control that you have.

 

Hyperman's MP can be a more efficient way of doing things, but your's is perfectly fine and even has great historical (Champions) precedent.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

I Think what Hyper-Man is saying is that the character should have an attack multipower eg:

This is off the top of my head so is wrong in the math department (Edit: I uncheated and used HeroDesigner)

 

20 Heat: Elemental Control, 40-point powers

20 1) Force Field (20 PD/20 ED) (40 Active Points)

20 2) Flight 20" (40 Active Points)

25 3) Invisibility to Sight Group , No Fringe, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (45 Active Points)

 

60 Heat Stroke Attack Multipower, 60-point reserve

6u 1) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points)

6u 2) Energy Blast 8d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (60 Active Points)

6u 3) Energy Blast 6d6, Area Of Effect (7" Cone; +1) (60 Active Points)

 

Powers Cost: 163

 

Here's another variation closer to the cost of the original example:

 

20 Heat: Elemental Control, 40-point powers

20 1) Force Field (20 PD/20 ED) (40 Active Points) - END=4

20 2) Flight 20" (40 Active Points) - END=4

25 3) Invisibility to Sight Group , No Fringe, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (45 Active Points) - END=0

 

48 Heat: Multipower, 60-point reserve, (60 Active Points); all slots Limited Power All slots affected by adjustment powers as if in an Elemental Control framework (-1/4)

5u 1) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points) - END=6

5u 2) Energy Blast 8d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (60 Active Points) - END=0

5u 3) Energy Blast 6d6, Area Of Effect (7" Cone; +1) (60 Active Points) - END=6

 

POWERS Cost: 148

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

I've never built an EC before but think it fits in this instance. The character has heat (but not fire) based powers.

 

 

20 Pt EC

 

edit: Force Field 20pd/ed

Flight 20"

EB 12d6

Invisibility to sight group

 

for a total cost of 120 points.

 

Opinions welcome.

 

 

It is not legal as writ: the invisibility does not cost enough to go in a 20 point pool EC (allt he powers have to cost at least twice the EC pool value). You either need to reduce the pool value (thus incerasing cost overall) or make the invisibility more expensive with adders or advantages. Here's an example.

 

20 Elemental Control, 40-point powers

40 1) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points)

20 2) Flight 20" (40 Active Points)

20 3) Invisibility to Sight Group , Reduced Endurance (0 END; +½), Persistent (+½) (40 Active Points)

20 4) Force Field (20 PD/20 ED) (40 Active Points)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

Here's another variation closer to the cost of the original example:

 

20 Heat: Elemental Control, 40-point powers

20 1) Force Field (20 PD/20 ED) (40 Active Points) - END=4

20 2) Flight 20" (40 Active Points) - END=4

25 3) Invisibility to Sight Group , No Fringe, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (45 Active Points) - END=0

 

48 Heat: Multipower, 60-point reserve, (60 Active Points); all slots Limited Power All slots affected by adjustment powers as if in an Elemental Control framework (-1/4)

5u 1) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points) - END=6

5u 2) Energy Blast 8d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (60 Active Points) - END=0

5u 3) Energy Blast 6d6, Area Of Effect (7" Cone; +1) (60 Active Points) - END=6

 

POWERS Cost: 148

 

I doubt I'd allow that because you are getting mroe utility from the limtiation than if you had simply linked the MP to a slot in the EC - in that instance the value of 'linked' would be -0 (greater power linked to lesser power, can use in any phase constant power in use).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

I doubt I'd allow that because you are getting mroe utility from the limtiation than if you had simply linked the MP to a slot in the EC - in that instance the value of 'linked' would be -0 (greater power linked to lesser power' date=' can use in any phase constant power in use).[/quote']

 

But in that case, draining one slot in the MP would not also drain the EC.

[Scifi_Toughguy]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

Hmmm, so if I make it a 10 point EC, then it increases the overall cost to 130 but becomes a legal build in my original example?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

Hmmm' date=' so if I make it a 10 point EC, then it increases the overall cost to 130 but becomes a legal build in my original example?[/quote']

 

Yup.

 

The better (ie more efficient) approach would be to remove Invisibility from the EC, possibly adding the -1/4 limitation "drained as the EC", and maintaining the point savings of the higher value EC.

[Scifi_Toughguy]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

Yeah, thats what I was thinking needed to happen.

[incrdbil]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

I've never built an EC before but think it fits in this instance. The character has heat (but not fire) based powers.

 

 

20 Pt EC

 

edit: Force Field 20pd/ed

Flight 20"

EB 12d6

Invisibility to sight group

 

for a total cost of 120 points.

 

Opinions welcome.

 

To kepe it simple (after all, there's no requirement for the attack multipower, especialy if the campaigh focuses on heroes with just one or a small set of powers.)

 

So, this is what you have so far

 

20 Elemental Control (40 point active point base powers)

20 Flight 20" (40 active points)

40 12d6 Energy Blast (60 active points)

20 Invisibility to Sight Group (20 Avtive points--you must pay the minimum slot costs).

 

120 points.

 

What I'd suggest is increasing the cost of the invisibility power through advantages. Reduced Endurance, and no fringe woudl make the slot 45 points. So you would pay 5 points more, but get a lot more value out of that slot.

 

I'd at least slot the reduced end modifier. You could keep the fringe, but buy the power recuced end, persistant, which woudl make it 40 active points exactly.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

For 120 points, he could have a 30 Point EC (60 Point Powers) and three powers at 60 AP each.

 

In other words, he could increase both Invisibility and Flight considerably with Adders/Advantages and still spend the same number of points.

[Scifi_Toughguy]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

An additional question. If you have an EC set up and other powers outside the EC construct (say the attack multipower or the invisibility outside the EC) can you activate both at the same time, or will one forgo the other like in a multipower?

[Bloodstone]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

You can have them all running at once.

[gojira]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

Yep, not like Multipower. That's why Mulipowers get a bigger point discount.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

But in that case' date=' draining one slot in the MP would not also drain the EC.[/quote']

 

True, but that is really a limtiation on the EC, not on the MP. Moreover givent he very different ways in which MPs and ECs react to drains, it would be really quite difficult to administer (to drain a MP you need to drain the pool and all the slots IIRC)

 

The way to do it then would be to work out the discount if you allowed a link in both difrections: the limtiation ont he MP would be -0, as demonstrated. The limtiation for linking th eEC to the MP (if you could do that) would be far more difficult because, although you start off with a -1/2 base, you have the probelem that you are linking a set of constant powers to an instant power: technically you could only use the EC when attacking. If that is the case, then you could take a limtiation, certainly, if not, well, it isn't really linked, and if it was it still probably wouldn't be worth anything.

 

I can see that 'draining one framework drains another' is a limtiation, of course, I'm just not sure that, fitting in with existing limtiation values, it is one worth a point discount.

[jtelson]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

I doubt I'd allow that because you are getting mroe utility from the limtiation than if you had simply linked the MP to a slot in the EC - in that instance the value of 'linked' would be -0 (greater power linked to lesser power' date=' can use in any phase constant power in use).[/quote']

 

But in that case' date=' draining one slot in the MP would not also drain the EC.[/quote']

 

He wrote the limitation as 'All slots drained as if in an EC' so if I drain slot A, slots B, C and the pool (?) are also affected. There's no as written relation between the MP and the EC. If the EC was also affected by the MP being hit then there would be a limit on the EC, and if the MP was affected when the EC was drained it might be an additional linit on the MP or not depending on the commonality of drains etc in the campaign.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

He wrote the limitation as 'All slots drained as if in an EC' so if I drain slot A' date=' slots B, C and the pool (?) are also affected. There's no as written relation between the MP and the EC. If the EC was also affected by the MP being hit then there would be a limit on the EC, and if the MP was affected when the EC was drained it might be an additional linit on the MP or not depending on the commonality of drains etc in the campaign.[/quote']

 

I get that but I was conmparing, in order to get an appropriate cost, an existing limtiation; a custom lim shouldn't be giving more of a bonus than an existing lim, probably. Comparing the value of a linked lim tot eh proposed one, I don't think the proposed one should really be worth anything.

 

Moreover, it seems to me, as you specifically can't link frameworks, it is a work round the existing rules.

 

Matter for individuals though - I'm not speaking with any authority but shaky precedent, and I wouldn't be surprised if that sort of lim had not been used in an official product somewhere - we are not always terribly consistent in approach

[jtelson]

Re: Is this a legal Elemental Control?

 

I get that but I was conmparing, in order to get an appropriate cost, an existing limtiation; a custom lim shouldn't be giving more of a bonus than an existing lim, probably. Comparing the value of a linked lim tot eh proposed one, I don't think the proposed one should really be worth anything.

 

Moreover, it seems to me, as you specifically can't link frameworks, it is a work round the existing rules.

 

Matter for individuals though - I'm not speaking with any authority but shaky precedent, and I wouldn't be surprised if that sort of lim had not been used in an official product somewhere - we are not always terribly consistent in approach

 

I'm confused I guess. I don't see where Linked comes in as a baseline for comparison since his build doesn't tie the two frameworks together at all.