Porous? and the adder

[badger3k]

From the UNTIL Superpowers database - put here since I think the modifier will be used in all genres.

 

Two questions:

 

The first is a minor point, but how does anyone get porous -

 

(1. Full of or having pores. 2. Admitting the passage of gas or liquid through pores or interstices. 3. Easily crossed or penetrated.

 

[Middle English, from Old French poreux, poros, from Medieval Latin por?sus, from Latin porus, passage. See pore2.]po?rous·ly adv.

po?rous·ness n.

 

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)

 

as being able to contain liquids or gasses? The closest I might find is "able to absorb fluids" from Wordnet 1.6 at Princeton University. To my mind a porous power would either not hold liquid or gas (having pores), or have some kind of permeable effect - it can hold a certain amount then more would get through, or it would stop something for a limited time. That might make interesting affects (look - it's SpongeBoy!) - maybe an ablative style force-field effect? Affects porous sounds like it can only affect something that has holes in it, such as a gas attack that can't penetrate sealed chambers or systems.

 

Like I said, a minor point that just is confusing to me, and doing a search turned up no reason for the usage, other than (perhaps) trying to tie liquids and gasses under the same advantage, while not wanting to use "liquids and gasses". Is it just that it sounds ok?

 

Second question: Why is it one +10 adder for liquids and gasses? The USPD says (pg 10) that "characters cannot ordinarily use telekinesis to pick up liquids", but p 147 pf FRED has water manipulation in the sidebar for Telekinesis. According to one of the FAQs this is not the case, as it says the +10 adder only affects liquids (references the ultimate mentalist) while gasses are different (since I haven't seen the ultimate mentalist, I'm not sure if this is a 5th ed rule or not - it contradicts the USPD though).

 

If TK can't affect liquids, shouldn't it be put into the errata (since it's a rule correction)? If it can, why a +10 for basically just getting to control gasses?

 

Hmm - started out questioning the English-usage, but ended up with an actual point of confusion here. I have read all the (few) threads I can find, but since they were at least 1-2 months old, I wondered if anything "official" has come down. I am not looking to start up the previous threads again, just looking for new insight.

 

And for the record - I was looking at using a modifier called "impermeable" to make TK (or force wall, or whatever) affect gasses. Not sure if it'd be an advantage or adder though.

[Peregrine]

'Porous' as a shorthand for 'Affects Porous', perhaps, uing 'porous' as a classification for non-solids?

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Peregrine

'Porous' as a shorthand for 'Affects Porous', perhaps, uing 'porous' as a classification for non-solids?

 

Appreciate the reply. My point on that is that it's the wrong use of the word - the definition requires a solid (i.e. something having the capacity to hae pores or to be able to absorb liquids). From my background and training I tend to try to be exact in writing (speech is another matter, at least common usage among friends). Like I said, a minor point, but one that I'm curious about.

 

Again, thanks for the response.

[Stray Cat]

Certainly it is a semantic issue. It would not be the first time a word with an incongruous meaning was used such a way. I can't speak for the people at HERO, but it does sound to me like the effect being described is a kind of impermeable membrane, perhaps constructed of pure force (or whatever depending on SFX). Maybe the "affects porous" adder should have been called "membrane" or even "affects fluid." However, the practice is set already. The rule in some form or other has been in use for long enough that it will be difficult to change.

 

There certainly does seem to be some confusion about TK between FREd and USPD. I was originally under the impression that the TK Water Control in FREd was actually using water as a special effect. A successful standard TK attack would do damage regardless of the solid object it struck. But the water control TK attack would not even be possible if there were no water to call on. (Side note: I am not sure I would grant that a 1/2 limitation since water is so plentiful, but that's a different story.) If the water control TK attack were to affect a gas or liquid, it would seem according to USPD that the 10-point adder would need to be applied. So the water manipulation TK in FREd cannot affect water? Is that the corner into which we're painted?

 

I call "no way." SFX and GM common sense would surely override litigation on this side of the wire.

 

(Reading on, for TK to affect a gas the power needs not only the 10-point adder, but also the area-effect advantage. Depending on SFX, I'd consider allowing a player in my games to affect gases as described in USPD p.12 without the advantage once or maybe twice in a session as a power stunt provided he or she made successful Power skill rolls. Afterward I'd strongly suggest the Dispel power with telekinetic effects.)

 

Cat