Lower Water and Part Water

[Paragon]

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

 

Doc, too much double and tripple-posting

 

First thing that came to my mind: Life Support, AoE, Megascaled. By the way: Megascale is *perfect* for this problem. Big area, not quite perfectly exact (but that's definitely not required, we're talking big after all) and brings down the cost a lot.

 

 

As I mentioned, suggesting megascale may well be the most useful thing I've gotten out of the discussion, if I'm recalling right that you can define the smallest megascale increment as smaller than a klick as long as that's always what it is, as that'll allow me to address some of the cost excesses of my builds above.

 

would probably go with Life Support and Elemental Movement. And yes, that does not allow you to crash down the walls and do immense damage. If you want to be able to do that, buy a EB 10d6, Area of Effect Megascaled, will you? After all, powerful stuff costs lots of points. "Only works on big bodies of waters" is easily -2 or more, depending on campaign, so that is where points get reduced by a lot.

 

As I said, I'm not liable to have much sympathy for a side property cost that costs that much given how relatively rarely that portion of the power's effect is going to be usable.

 

You know, Moses was a pretty powerful guy (in the same way Magneto is. Fictional, but powerful ). Why should his stuff be very cheap? You want a power which allows hundreds of people to cross an ocean and then kill a legion of soldiers. For cheap? Certainly not!

 

Given the soldiers have to decide that following into the trough of the obviously dangerous magical water parting, which strikes me as deliberately sticking your head in the bear trap, I don't see any reason it should be particularly expensive. Even the Lower Water example (where you use it to kill a lot of water breathers) is rather specialized, and the drown-the-soldiers example is so specialized that I in no way think a high cost is justified.

 

(Admittedly, this is partly my developed irritation in Hero over the years with Active Point bloat on otherwise cheap powers, but its not like Hero hasn't chronically been over-conservative with the Limitation value for hyperspecialized and hard to apply effects, too).

[Paragon]

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

 

I get carried away and reply to stuff as I see it rather than reading and digesting (or thinking) before typing.

 

Then I get crazy after thoughts and have to post again....

 

I only do it when I'm interested, that's why my post count is so low...

 

 

Doc

 

I'm pretty much the same way in my posting habits, so don't feel bad on my account.

[Paragon]

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

 

Well' date=' you need a pretty rare focus: a whole bunch of enemies stupid enough to follow you between two 'cliffs' of water [/quote']

 

Ah-yup.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

 

(Admittedly' date=' this is partly my developed irritation in Hero over the years with Active Point bloat on otherwise cheap powers, but its not like Hero hasn't chronically been over-conservative with the Limitation value for hyperspecialized and hard to apply effects, too).[/quote']

 

 

Well, unless you have really strict rules on active points it doesn't really matter that much.

 

If it is magic rolls that are the issue, make GM call rules where you can ensure that high active point - low real point spells do not provide such high limitations.

 

The high active points accurately reflect the power of the spell...

 

 

Doc

[SteveZilla]

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

 

For parting the water' date=' I'm with Doc that tunneling is the least problematic way to proceed, although, arguably, you could create a tunnel through water by making it Desolid, which has the advantage of acting as a barrier to ships too. the water is still there though and, depending on the GM you might need to buy Life Support for anyone passing through the trench.[/quote']

 

You would need to buy Life Support. If a Desolid character can't breath while "immersed" in something other than Air, then it stands to reason that a solid character also cannot breath while "immersed" in a Desolid substance that isn't Air.

 

Parting the water: Desolidification , Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Usable As Attack (+1), Area Of Effect (320" Long, 8" Tall, 1" Wide Line; +2 1/2) (200 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses almost all of its effectiveness (Only works on bodies of water; -2) 67 real points

 

This produces a 320 metre long, 16 metre deep 'trench' in a body of water. Sounds about right. You can add plenty more limitations to bring the cost down, and you could potentially use megascale to make it even cheaper.

 

Actually... not quite. UAA powers have a specific mass restriction (when used against things that are objects) that can only be bought up in certain ways. Either though the base power (if it has that option), or though the UAA Advantage. Since the above power doesn't have either, it can only affect 100 kg of water. AoE doesn't override this.

 

Is that still Steve's take on that? If so its not a problem for me because I cheerfully ignore it. Its no more sensible than spreading the damage out across an area.

 

Either way you slice it, there will be "disconnects" IMO. Say you house rule that an AoE TK can lift it's STR in each Hex. Okay, so at 10 STR and 7 Hexes we could lift 700 Kg of separate objects. But what about a single object (Multi-Hex or not) that weights 700 kg?

 

Not to mention that with only a doubling of cost his effective STR (in certain circumstances) has gone up by x7.

 

As I mentioned' date=' suggesting megascale may well be the most useful thing I've gotten out of the discussion, if I'm recalling right that you can define the smallest megascale increment as smaller than a klick as long as that's always what it is, as that'll allow me to address some of the cost excesses of my builds above.[/quote']

 

That also avoids the possible problem of the AoE (Line?) being too wide. Who wants to create a 10km long, but 1km wide hole in the lake?

 

I don't see Tunneling as being a viable option though water, as water is not a solid. Tunneling though water is about as problematic as trying to dig a hold in water.

 

Really, the most cost-doable form IMO is the Teleportation Gate w/ Limitations. Effectively overlaying a "dry path of land with "towering cliffs of water" on top of the reality of the body of water

 

Let My People Go!: Teleportation 5", Continuous(+1), AoE: Radius(8"; +1), Usable Simultaneously(1,048,576 people; +5), Megascale Length(1"=1 km; +1/4), Reduced Endurance(0 END; +1/2)(87 Active Points); Gate(-1/2), Gate's Internal Distance = External Distance(-2), Gate Open Along Full Length(-1)

 

Real Cost: 19 END Cost 0 (Though the travellers still have to spend END for their own movement powers to get though the Gate).

 

This produces a dry pathway from one shore to the other (provided it's at least 1 km away) up to 5 km in length. The depth of the water is irrelevant. People traveling the gate must use their own movement powers to travel the full (external) distance between the endpoints. Attacks and movement can be done both from and into the gate along it's entire lenght, not just though the endpoints.

 

If you want the "Walls of Water" (F/X) to crash down upon whoever is there when the gate is closed, add a linked AoE Energy Blast (I don't think you'd need Triggered). Otherwise, the water flows in from the bottom-up without causing damage. Though this will still strand anybody in the gate in the middle of the body of water...

[Paragon]

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

 

Well, unless you have really strict rules on active points it doesn't really matter that much.

 

 

I think in the context of a number of the mechanics in the game including END expenditure and skill roll modifiers for spells, you're underestimating how much impact it has. In superheroic games, it also does strange things in frameworks.

 

 

If it is magic rolls that are the issue, make GM call rules where you can ensure that high active point - low real point spells do not provide such high limitations.

 

 

And the more I have to do that, the less I like it.

 

The high active points accurately reflect the power of the spell...

 

 

 

If I agreed that was the case, I wouldn't be complaining about it. I don't think it does, honestly.

[Paragon]

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

 

Either way you slice it, there will be "disconnects" IMO. Say you house rule that an AoE TK can lift it's STR in each Hex. Okay, so at 10 STR and 7 Hexes we could lift 700 Kg of separate objects. But what about a single object (Multi-Hex or not) that weights 700 kg?

 

 

What about it? The area rules don't do damage to each hex of a large object, so that's no different here. Its the inconsistency I find unacceptable.

 

Not to mention that with only a doubling of cost his effective STR (in certain circumstances) has gone up by x7.

 

And when you buy area damage, the effective overall goes up enormously too in some senses. Let me give the example I find silly;

 

You have a collection of stones in an area. It takes X damage to destroy and Y Strength to lift each of these stones. When you make them area, it still takes X damage to destroy them, but suddenly it takes Y times a lot to lift them.

 

Amorphous materials like water confuse the issue, but not enough to concern me.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

 

What about it? The area rules don't do damage to each hex of a large object' date=' so that's no different here. Its the inconsistency I find unacceptable.[/quote']

 

I was only pointing out that you (IIUC) have only moved the location of the inconsistency, not eliminated it.

[Paragon]

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

 

I was only pointing out that you (IIUC) have only moved the location of the inconsistency' date=' not eliminated it.[/quote']

 

No, I've removed one level of it. The fact things don't multiply effect multi-hex objects when bought area will be there whether TK is spread or effects each object individually; however the latter introduces a _second_ level of inconsistency.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

 

Ah, I see now. Though I still think it's impossible to get rid of all of the inconsistency without endangering game balance.

[Paragon]

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

 

Ah' date=' I see now. Though I still think it's impossible to get rid of all of the inconsistency without endangering game balance.[/quote']

 

I don't see them as the same kind of inconsistency, honestly; the "area against large object" generic problem is a problem of base mechanics (since it involves how you damage things in general); the other is a case where the mechanics aren't even consistent with themselves.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

 

I can see that. I am just wary of someone using AoE TK to pick up many large objects (each at their STR capacity), then "stacking" those objects on some victim to get the crushing damage from the total weight (which the TK ordinarily couldn't budge in one object). So I tend to hedge against allowing lifting capacity to be multiplied by AoE as a precaution.

[Paragon]

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

 

I can see that. I am just wary of someone using AoE TK to pick up many large objects (each at their STR capacity)' date=' then "stacking" those objects on some victim to get the crushing damage from the total weight (which the TK ordinarily couldn't budge in one object). So I tend to hedge against allowing lifting capacity to be multiplied by AoE as a precaution. [/quote']

 

Honestly, in most contexts once someone has TK, the best way to damage them is pick them up and drop them anyway; even with the limits of movement, its still easier and more damaging than anything you're likely to do with trying to be cute with piling rocks on them.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

 

Let My People Go!: Teleportation 5", Continuous(+1), AoE: Radius(8"; +1), Usable Simultaneously(1,048,576 people; +5), Megascale Length(1"=1 km; +1/4), Reduced Endurance(0 END; +1/2)(87 Active Points); Gate(-1/2), Gate's Internal Distance = External Distance(-2), Gate Open Along Full Length(-1)

 

Real Cost: 19 END Cost 0 (Though the travellers still have to spend END for their own movement powers to get though the Gate).

How 'bout a Teleportation gate going the other way? Along the "water cliff walls", teleporting all of the water (and fish) from one cross-section of the riverbed to another a few hexes downstream. Then you just make the gates wide enough to cover the whole cross-section of the river. Then the water simply bypasses the section between the gates.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

 

...

 

Wow. Actually, that's not a bad idea, IMO. Might have to play around with the shape of the AoE for the gate endpoints, and would have to buy up the Mass considerably, but I think that build would actually work the best. It actually parts the water, after all.

[Paragon]

Re: Lower Water and Part Water

 

How 'bout a Teleportation gate going the other way? Along the "water cliff walls"' date=' teleporting all of the water (and fish) from one cross-section of the riverbed to another a few hexes downstream. Then you just make the gates wide enough to cover the whole cross-section of the river. Then the water simply bypasses the section between the gates.[/quote']

 

Hmmm. I'll have to think about this one.