Post "gotchas" here

[James Gillen]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Interesting. I heard they got rid of Transfer. Kind of odd...what replaces it?

 

As far as I know, nothing, other than linking Aid to a Drain.

 

JG

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Transfer is just a Drain with a Linked Aid. The fact that we had Transfer for two editions with no Aid, and Aid only showed up in a genre role in 3rd, is what seems more odd to me.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

So what's the "big reworking" of Adjustment Powers in 6E?

[Dr. MID-Nite]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Transfer is just a Drain with a Linked Aid. The fact that we had Transfer for two editions with no Aid' date=' and Aid only showed up in a genre role in 3rd, is what seems more odd to me.[/quote']

 

Ugh. That is way more clunky than simply keeping the Transfer Power. Especially as to keep the two values equal..which Transfer did automatically...you'd have to make both the Drain and the Aid standard effect. Double Ugh....can't see the logic behind making a concept more difficult to build. Hope the rules clears up how to effectively build the old power...

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

So what's the "big reworking" of Adjustment Powers in 6E?

 

Probably the costing of Advantages on them, though I guess it depends on what you thought needed to be reworked or not, or what a big change constitutes.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

It is interesting that now to build Transfer you have to either put Ranged on Aid or No Range on Drain. I don't see the synchronization of the two rolls as a big deal. Call that a +0 or a -0. Or another form of "standard effect" if you will.

 

EDIT: Oops. Or maybe not. Wait a minute. When you link two powers they are supposed to be targeted together and in the same way. But to build a Transfer you target someone else with Drain and yourself (or an ally, or whatever) with Aid. Those powers are aimed at two different targets. Is that even legal with Linked? LOL.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

The example builds puts a Trigger on the Aid; given that Linked only ever meant the two Powers had to be used together, the Trigger of a Self Only Aid that only works when Drain is used ... seems to me there is no confusion. You Drain them and get Aided yourself. No reason to get any more into it that that IMO.

 

Also, the "same target" thing only applies to Attack Powers - Aid is not an Attack Power.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Ugh. That is way more clunky than simply keeping the Transfer Power. Especially as to keep the two values equal..which Transfer did automatically...you'd have to make both the Drain and the Aid standard effect. Double Ugh....can't see the logic behind making a concept more difficult to build. Hope the rules clears up how to effectively build the old power...

 

I found many of the 5e Transfer rulings made the power more difficult to work with than it had to be. The Drain component stopped working if the Aid hit its maximum. If you wanted multiple abilities, you had to buy the advantage twice, once for the Drain component, again for the Aid, despite the fact the base cost included both Drain and Aid. The power could have been reworked, but it really was just a Drain and an Aid tied together.

 

It is interesting that now to build Transfer you have to either put Ranged on Aid or No Range on Drain. I don't see the synchronization of the two rolls as a big deal. Call that a +0 or a -0. Or another form of "standard effect" if you will.

 

EDIT: Oops. Or maybe not. Wait a minute. When you link two powers they are supposed to be targeted together and in the same way. But to build a Transfer you target someone else with Drain and yourself (or an ally, or whatever) with Aid. Those powers are aimed at two different targets. Is that even legal with Linked? LOL.

 

They aren't both attack powers, so the MPA rules are not applicable.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Hmm. I guess. I rather liked how they all worked in 4E. Hmph.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

The example builds puts a Trigger on the Aid; given that Linked only ever meant the two Powers had to be used together, the Trigger of a Self Only Aid that only works when Drain is used ... seems to me there is no confusion. You Drain them and get Aided yourself. No reason to get any more into it that that IMO.

 

Also, the "same target" thing only applies to Attack Powers - Aid is not an Attack Power.

 

Fair enough, but how do you get the equal status(what is gained equal to what is drained)? As written...you roll a die for each and could get wildly different results(like you roll a six for the Drain and then a one on the Aid die). Transfer didn't work that way. Just seems like more work than it needs to be written up that way, but in fairness...I don't use Drain/Transfer that often anyways.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Fair enough' date=' but how do you get the equal status(what is gained equal to what is drained)? As written...you roll a die for each and could get wildly different results(like you roll a six for the Drain and then a one on the Aid die). Transfer didn't work that way. Just seems like more work than it needs to be written up that way, but in fairness...I don't use Drain/Transfer that often anyways.[/quote']

 

It seems pretty easy to tie the two rolls together as a -0 limitation. The second roll would have been better sometimes and worse in other cases. A limitation on the Aid seems warranted as Power Defense blocking the Drain will also block the Aid.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Or if you buy equal dice, just rule that one Die Roll is for both effects. I wouldn't see that as a particular issue, personally.

[James Gillen]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Hmm. I guess. I rather liked how they all worked in 4E. Hmph.

 

So did I. Then it was decided that Aid was too cheap at 5 per die, so it got changed to 10 per die, same as Drain- which actually made Transfer a LOT more cost-efficient. So they averaged the cost of Drain and Aid and got rid of Transfer altogether. Go figure.

 

 

JG

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

So did I. Then it was decided that Aid was too cheap at 5 per die' date=' so it got changed to 10 per die, same as Drain- which actually made Transfer a LOT more cost-efficient. So they averaged the cost of Drain and Aid and got rid of Transfer altogether. Go figure.[/quote']

 

Yeah. And I'm still of the opinion that Aid and Healing really never needed to be separated. To create a non-cumulative version like Healing is now, another limitation on top of Only to Starting Values could have been added easily; and even another Limitation that boosted values Fade even below starting values. It'd keep the base version of the power(s) still dirt simple, instead of the quagmire we have now.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Ugh. That is way more clunky than simply keeping the Transfer Power. Especially as to keep the two values equal..which Transfer did automatically...you'd have to make both the Drain and the Aid standard effect. Double Ugh....can't see the logic behind making a concept more difficult to build. Hope the rules clears up how to effectively build the old power...

 

One would think that in cases of two powers with identical numbers of (the same kind of) dice that are linked together, there should be an option in Linked (possibly -1/4 since they would *always* be used together?) that sets them both to a single roll. That would solve the problem nicely IMO.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

So did I. Then it was decided that Aid was too cheap at 5 per die' date=' so it got changed to 10 per die, same as Drain- which actually made Transfer a LOT more cost-efficient. So they averaged the cost of Drain and Aid and got rid of Transfer altogether. Go figure. [/quote']

 

[soapbox]Aid did not change from 5 to 10 in isolation. It changed from 5 that costs END to 10 that does not cost END. From 5e to 6e, it changed from 10 that costs 0 END to 6 that costs END. 10/1.5 for "costs END" = 6 2/3. The cost of Aid that costs END changed by a whopping 2/3 of a point per 1d6. IMO, it should never have had the END cost removed in the first place, especially when this changed its visibility and eligibility to appear in an EC.[/soapbox]

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Maneuver bonus damage and Martial Arts Extra DCs now seem to add DCs to attack damage at the full rate for all types of attack; the effects are no longer halved for Killing Attacks.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Aye, the best part of damage adding simplification is a Damage Class is a Damage Class.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Or if you buy equal dice' date=' just rule that one Die Roll is for both effects. I wouldn't see that as a particular issue, personally.[/quote']

 

This seems the most practical way to go; sort of like adopting Standard Effects to the situation: the effect of Aid is always the same as the effect of Drain--

 

I don't know. Lacking the vocabulary, I suppose, but it _feels_ best. Granted, that may be because it feels the most like Transfer

[The Main Man]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Maneuver bonus damage and Martial Arts Extra DCs now seem to add DCs to attack damage at the full rate for all types of attack; the effects are no longer halved for Killing Attacks.

Yep, noticed that too.

 

I like it because it further simplifies adding damage.

[The Main Man]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Or if you buy equal dice' date=' just rule that one Die Roll is for both effects. I wouldn't see that as a particular issue, personally.[/quote']

 

Now that you mention that, that would have been a nice +1/4 value to add to Linked.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Not sure it'd be worth more than a +/-0 Personally. You could easily roll high on one side and low on the other, high on both, or low on both.

 

While it's probably desireably to always roll high, sometimes that low roll gets ya.

[sobran]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

This is from a couple pages ago but:

 

The method by which an attack is delivered and it's special effect are cumulative for the purposes of Vulnerabilities. I house ruled this away, I don't believe a player should get additional rewards for putting a VPP on his sheet and defining it as magic with a bunch of spells that generate various effects, or just for buying a gadget pool.

 

In previous editions, if I shot you with a magically generated fire effect, it was fire. Now it's fire AND magic.

 

If I shot you with technologically generated oatmeal in 5th, it was oatmeal. Now it's technological oatmeal.

 

I think that this needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. For example, I can't imagine that it would ever matter that your oatmeal thrower throws technological oatmeal. On the other hand, I could see your magic fireball triggering the Vulnerability on both Superman and vampires. Maybe Vampires too. VaMpIrEs?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

For that matter, who says that the amount Drained has to equal the amount Aided. We could be working with a variable and volatile exchange rate.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

On the, "In previous editions, if I shot you with a magically generated fire effect, it was fire. Now it's fire AND magic," thing, that's never been my view of SFX. You don't simply have to choose, "one of a list of simple effects," for your powers' Special Effects. The Special Effects are simply the descriptive portion of the power. It could easily be, "a blast of magical fire," or, "a magical heating of the air which causes normal, mundane fire to spring forth and pour over the target," or, "a chaotic swirl of fire, ice, and lightning," if you wanted.

 

It's up to the GM to place any limits he feels appropriate on your SFX for the game setting, and it's up to him to figure out how the power with the described SFX interacts with powers that happen to limit by SFX. For example, if you had that, "chaotic swirl of fire, ice, and lightning," and your target had a defense that worked, "only vs. fire," then it would probably be within reason to pick any of the following interactions (it's the risk you take with a complex description like that):

 

1. Your attack includes fire, so the defense works against it.
   
2. Your attack includes elements other than fire, so the defense does not work against it.
   
3. Your attack is partly fire, so the defense is at partial strength against it. Since equal importance seems to be given to each of the terms "fire", "ice", and "lightning" in the attack description, we'll put the defense at 1/3 value for this particular attack. If your intention was to be able to vary it to work at its full value against defenses that only worked vs. any one of those things, it would require Variable Special Effects. (This one would probably be my choice.)

 

That's one of the big creative elements of the system, and it's IMO a good thing. If you're not sure your GM's view on SFX interaction, it'd probably be a good idea to start that discussion sooner than later.