My "High-Improbability Cannon" want's some questions answered.

[Sociotard]

I felt inspired by acounts of "improbability fields" in Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker novels. I wanted to come up with a weapon that worked on that principle, and had the consequently unpredictable effects. I just need you to answer a few questions about how legal it is.

 

Orbital Improbability Cannon

[3d6 RKA/Transform (+½ Line of Sight) (+½ Explosion) (+½ Penetrating)

5d6 Unluck (+1 Usable as attack) (+1 Ranged & Line of Sight) (+1 Area of Effect) (+½ Persistent) (+0 Uses same attack roll as above power)] 225

(-¼ Linked “Powers must always be used at the same timeâ€) (-1 Four Charges) (-1½ Bulky OAF) (-½ Extra Segment) (-¼ Costs END) 50 character points

 

1) By RKA/Transform, I meant that on a even attack roll, a 3d6 RKA happens. on an odd attack roll, some kind of transform happens (What kind of transform is random and left up to the GM's devilish imagination. anything so long as it affects something in the blast radius, and isn't pleasant. 9d6 cosmetic, 4d6 minor, and 3d6 major transforms are possible). The defender can choose between resistant ED and Power defense to resist either variation. Is that legal?

 

2) I recognize that Transforms should be defined ahead of time, but what happens when a character has absitively positlutely no control over what transforms into what? I figure +1 for anything into anything, -1 for no concious control = +0

 

3) Can I use Unluck as an attack? Will targets only experience unluck so long as they remain in the area of effect? (this was actually the big question)

 

4) The cannon sits on an orbital spy satelite with incredible senses, including N-ray vision. ergo, he can establish LOS with people behind walls. Since everything in this power is LOS, could he shoot them? Or would that require indirect?

[OddHat]

If you're the GM, this works by GM fiat. If you're the player, the GM would be crazy to let you have it.

 

The RKA/Transform is illegal. You'll have to buy both, maybe link them, and apply a custom modifier (maybe -1/2) that says that one or the other works at any one time. An activation roll isn't the right way to handle it, as one always activates.

 

You have to add the advantage and the limit to the transform; they don't cancel out when calculating active point costs.

 

Unluck can't be used as an attack. You need to transform a target into someone "unlucky."

 

Yes, you need indirect.

[Farkling]

but really, you only need the one big transform...the transform could make someone so unlucky they get hit/smashed/burned/blown up/mauled by the environment in some manner.

 

If you wish to hit people inside buildings, you have to acquire LOS...and you can't without FVP ("funky vision powers")...so, you don't even need LOS...the satellites have telescopic targetting sense...use that. (actually, you are hitting DCV 3, you don;t even need a targetting sense)

 

If it's an orbital chaos weapon...apply Megascale once for range and once for area...and hit the whole block with it...Mr. Adams would be proud...and Dirk Gently would be out of town.

 

THe Transform gets a big stack of dice, and for every 5 points you exceed the necessary transform roll by, the character get 1d6 Unluck until the tranform reverts. so...you need a roll of at least...um...60? To grant 10d6 Unluck. so, a 20d6 Major Tranform. OUCH. Orbital Plasma Cannons would be cheaper.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by OddHat

The RKA/Transform is illegal. You'll have to buy both, maybe link them, and apply a custom modifier (maybe -1/2) that says that one or the other works at any one time.

 

I'd say that the modifier should be -1, since each one only operates half the time. A -1 lim gives half the real cost.

[Sociotard]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious

I'd say that the modifier should be -1, since each one only operates half the time. A -1 lim gives half the real cost.

That makes sense. Here's the thing, they each (without the other modifiers) cost 45 points, so they'd sum up to 90. with a -1 modifier, you have 90/2 = 45. which is the same number I had in the first place, only with less paperwork.

Let me figure out if there's a difference with the other modifiers. Okay, the former way it cost 25 points, the latter cost 45. Hmmmmm, 20 point difference is significant. I may just take the point increase.

 

Originally posted by OddHat

Unluck can't be used as an attack. You need to transform a target into someone "unlucky."[/Quote]

*sigh* you're probably right. I (at the time) just didn't see the difference between a character being lucky and having unlucky enemies, depending on who outnumbers whom. If the baddies outnumber my team, it's better for me to be lucky. If my team outnumbers the badies, it's better for one of them to be unlucky. It seemed especially fair with the points I had to shell out for the UaA advantage. Still, you're probably right.

[Gary Ciaramella]

How about a multipower with uncontrollable on the pool... then 4 slots... the killing attack... then a cosmetic, minor and major transformation... the GM can decide what the result is when you use it...

[Dust Raven]

A really ,really large, non-cumulative Transform should do it. Orbital would have Mega RAnge and Mega Area (and Area Effect, naturally). If you want to affect people indoors, apply Indirect at +1/2 as well. I'd rule that the random effect is a +0 Modifier, as it is equally advantagous and limiting. I'd even go so far as to say that the type of Transform (Cosmetic, Minor or Major) would be random as well, and just figure out the number of dice based on the Base Points.

 

Special Note: I don't think I'd ever allow a player character to have a power like this unless I was running a Hitchikers style game.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious

I'd say that the modifier should be -1, since each one only operates half the time. A -1 lim gives half the real cost.

 

I disagree. He always wants one or the other of them to work. If both had an 11 or less activation roll (-1) there would be times when both failed and times when both worked. That extra reliability is what bumps the value down to -1/2.

 

There's also the guidelines on limited powers; loses about 1/2 effectiveness is a -1/2 limit; that's the situation here.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by OddHat

I disagree. He always wants one or the other of them to work. If both had an 11 or less activation roll (-1) there would be times when both failed and times when both worked. That extra reliability is what bumps the value down to -1/2.

 

I think I'd structure this as a multipower with no control over which slot is selected, and give the whole construct a -1. With two Ultra slots, the wholse construct costs 60% what either power would have cost (ignoring the other limitations the power will have - immobile focus, for example).

 

Originally posted by OddHat

There's also the guidelines on limited powers; loses about 1/2 effectiveness is a -1/2 limit; that's the situation here.

 

Doesn't a power that activates about half the time lose about half its effectiveness? The problem with those guidelines is that the point savings and the effectiveness aren't near commensurate. Given this power likely has at least -2 already, the point savings as a percentage of the power cost won't be all that different whether you use -1/2 or -1.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I think I'd structure this as a multipower with no control over which slot is selected, and give the whole construct a -1. With two Ultra slots, the wholse construct costs 60% what either power would have cost (ignoring the other limitations the power will have - immobile focus, for example).

 

The sticking point is that something nasty will always happen to the target; there's never a chance of a fizzle. That is not worth -1. A multipower with no choice at -1/2 might be fair.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Doesn't a power that activates about half the time lose about half its effectiveness? The problem with those guidelines is that the point savings and the effectiveness aren't near commensurate. Given this power likely has at least -2 already, the point savings as a percentage of the power cost won't be all that different whether you use -1/2 or -1.

 

Good, so we'll use the -1/2 and he'll pay a few more points.

 

That said, this is a GM fiat of a weapon anyway. No reason to give it stats at all.

[Mr. Negative]

 

Let me argue another way for the -1 limitation (not on the Multipower)

 

Instead of a Killing Attack (45 Active Points) and a Transform (45 Active Points) alternating with no control from the character, suppose instead that each effect is a 3d6 Killing Attack. 50% of the time, the attack generates Killing Attack A, doing 3d6K. The other 50% of the time, it generates Killing Attack B, doing 3d6K. By your reasoning, this should cost more than a single Killing Attack that does 3d6K.

 

Now, if the attacker could CHOOSE between the two types of attack, then I would certainly see the advantage. As he cannot, I don't see why he should pay more for it. While, on occasion, it may be to his advantage to hit someone with attack A instead of B, it may also, on occasion, be to his disadvantage to have hit them with A instead of B.

 

I see a point that could be made in that having two different Attack Powers, even if they are not selectable, is an advantage over having only one attack power, as it requires the target to have 2 different types of defenses to be protected. However, if the attacker had two types of attack powers (A and again, which he could freely select between, he would also possess that advantage, but we wouldn't charge him any more points for it (than paying for the base powers).

 

Maybe instead it could be "justified" as -1/2 Cannot Use Power when Other Power is being used and -1/2 No conscious control over which power is used?

 

Now, if it is written up as a multipower, where the character isn't paying points for each Attack Power individually, but paying for a reserve, and two Ultra slots which both use the full reserve, THEN I can see a limitation on the Reserve (only) that there is No Conscious Control over which Power is used (for -1/2, or possibly even less, as both powers are probably quite effective in combat, so either would be a decent choice). The other "disadvantage" of not being able to use both powers, would be subsumed into the points discount for a multipower.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Mr. Negative

Let me argue another way for the -1 limitation (not on the Multipower)

 

Instead of a Killing Attack (45 Active Points) and a Transform (45 Active Points) alternating with no control from the character, suppose instead that each effect is a 3d6 Killing Attack. 50% of the time, the attack generates Killing Attack A, doing 3d6K. The other 50% of the time, it generates Killing Attack B, doing 3d6K. By your reasoning, this should cost more than a single Killing Attack that does 3d6K.

 

Nope. My reasoning is that there's just not that much of a disadvantage here. He's always going to hit the target with something; he just can't pick what. That is not worth a -1.

[Sociotard]

Originally posted by Mr. Negative.

I see a point that could be made in that having two different Attack Powers, even if they are not selectable, is an advantage over having only one attack power, as it requires the target to have 2 different types of defenses to be protected.

That's just the thing. I thought of that ahead of time and decided to make a concession: The target may choose between power defense (which is what normally defends against Transforms) or Resistant Energy Defense (which is what normally defends against RKA's). Either one. So if I hit a VIPER agent with this and the dice said it was a transform, he could resist with whichever of the two stats was higher in his case. Of course I also gave the attack the penetrating advantage, so that wasn't much of a concession.

In case anyone was wondering why I had coupled the two, it was to simulate transforms that were deadly. "Your heart changes into a lump of cheese." or "your gun turns into an adder and attacks you". You get the Idea. Remember when the missile turns into a whale? I love that part.

With regard to the illegality of using Unluck as an attack, what if I just called it luck with a +1/2 advantage, "your luck manifests itself by making bad things happen to whoever you hit with your RKA", which is almost exactly the same thing. hmmmm. I would need to think up what would defend against it . . .

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by OddHat

Nope. My reasoning is that there's just not that much of a disadvantage here. He's always going to hit the target with something; he just can't pick what. That is not worth a -1.

 

Assume he's hit with the Transform on the last three shots. the target is 1 BOD away from Transformed. he is at full STUN and BOD, however, as he hasn't been hit with anything that does actual damage. To me, the 50% chance he will get the RKA, rather than the Transform, has become very limiting.

 

Alternating between the two attack modes will be considerably less effective than being able to select one over the other. To me, that justifies a -1 limitation on the powers. They are substantially less effective than a construct permitting a free choice would be.

[Hugh Neilson]

Thinking on it further, let's look at an alternate structure. Buy each power separately (90 points each, I think). Now Link them both (-1/4 to each power - they have to be fired simultaneously; somehow I thought that was -1/2, but anyway...). Now make each one act on an 11-. Both will work 25% of the time. neither will work 25% of the time (special effect - a perfectly harmless improbability - a troop of penguins marches by).

 

Yes, there will be attacks where neither one will work. There will also be attacks where both will work which, in my view, balances it out. That's why I think "random selection" is as limiting as each power acting on 11-. But it gets around Oddhat's differing opinion quite nicely.

 

With no other limitations, this costs 80 points (90/2.25 x 2). A multipower, even with only a 1/2 limit on the pool and no limits on the slots for "no choice" would cost 78, so pretty comparable.

[Pteryx]

And don't forget...

 

...the chance of a small (say, 50-point) Summon of basically anything that fits the point total. -- Pteryx