Benificent Link

[Sean Waters]

This is not a 6e issue, as Link has not changed that much.

 

I'm thinking: if you link powers you are best off linking them to defensive powers because defensive powers are much harder to drain. Shouldn't using Link to a Defensive power halve the value of the limitation because the base power is twice as hard to drain?

 

It also seems to me that, far from being LESS of a limitation, linking to a smaller power is a bigger risk as it is easier to take away, and should be just the same limitation value.

 

Linked doesn't seem to work as it should, IMO.

 

While I'm ranting, I'm not keen on the rule that linking a persistent power to a constant power (or an instant one) makes the persistent power constant (or instant). I could get behind a rule that said you could only link an instant or constant power to a constant power, and only link an instant to an instant, but I don't like the 'double' penalty this rule can create.

 

I also think that, even if you don't have to use the powers proportionately, it should be made clear that the maximum amount of the linked power you can use is proportional to the maximum amount of the base power that you are able to use. That may be the intention but it is not that clear.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Benificent Link

 

When you drain one Linked power, you do not Drain the other, it has never worked that way.

 

Also, the Drain is only halved in effect against the Defense Power, not any others that might Drain with it.

 

To have both affected by a Drain you use Unified.

 

Unified And Linked are not mutually exclusive.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Benificent Link

 

Though G-A has pointed out that Linked doesn't work that way, I wanted to look at a couple of your comments for the purpose of discussion:

 

Shouldn't using Link to a Defensive power halve the value of the limitation because the base power is twice as hard to drain?

 

For the purpose of this answer, let's assume that Linked _does_ work as you're suggesting.

 

No; I would not call for a reduction in the value of Linked because it was suddenly harder to Drain. The reason is because the value of Linked is not and has never been determined by how difficult something is to Drain, Dispell, or Suppress. The value of Linked is based entirely on the idea that you cannot use this power unless you are already using the "base power." Making it harder or easier to Drain does not in any way alter that condition, so the value, I would rule, stands.

 

 

 

It also seems to me that, far from being LESS of a limitation, linking to a smaller power is a bigger risk as it is easier to take away, and should be just the same limitation value.

 

That is part of the value already assigned to Linked. If you can't use the base power, then you can't use this one, either. That is the inherent nature of this limitation, what the original value is actually derived from. Given that this seems to be the very basis of the limitation, I can't justify giving it _more_ value because it truly is a limitation. Sort of a "Hey, GM-- this really _does_ suck! Can I get a little extra kick-back?"

 

 

Linked doesn't seem to work as it should, IMO.

 

Now that I can agree with, and have rarely used it as-written.

 

While I'm ranting, I'm not keen on the rule that linking a persistent power to a constant power (or an instant one) makes the persistent power constant (or instant).

 

Never played it that way, either. We've always played it pretty straight forward:

 

Linked means you can't use the Linked power unless you are currently using the Base Power, period. I have no problems allowing any kinds of powers-- constant, instant, whatever-- being linked to any other powers, simply because I do tend to provide my players all the creative latitude that I can. If a player has a solid SFX and solid justification for why his Force Field only works when he's firing his laser cannon, then so be it. However, I am not cruel: I explain to him in no uncertain terms beforehand what that means in game terms. If he still feels it's vital to his conception, then I have no problem allowing it.

 

Similarly, I'm not going to require a power to be "upgraded" to match the base power, either.

 

I think I've posted this before, but (and I have no doubt I'll catch some stones for this, but hey; I'm just sharing) I've allowed players to Link Power A to Power B, and then Link Power B back to Power A. On rare occasion, this really does seem to be the best way to model a particularly unusual power. With this construction, the two powers together work as a single new power, in direct proportions, etc-- all that goes with being Linked.

 

Rrare, to be sure, but if properly justified, and not game-disrupting, I don't have a big issue with allowing it. Now like I said: _solid justification_. I'm not going to have something goofy like "extra knockback" Linked back and forth with an Energy Blast or something like that. There's a line between bending the rules for concept and thrashing them for points

[Sean Waters]

Re: Benificent Link

 

When you drain one Linked power, you do not Drain the other, it has never worked that way.

 

Also, the Drain is only halved in effect against the Defense Power, not any others that might Drain with it.

 

To have both affected by a Drain you use Unified.

 

Unified And Linked are not mutually exclusive.

 

I recalled you commenting similarly recently, so I went and looked at Linked again.

 

An example might help.

 

SilverFire has Telekinesis at STR 40, costing 60 points.

 

She has a Flash attack linked to it, an 6d6 Flash, for 30 points.

 

If her TK is drained of 30 points, her Flash is not drained of 30 points too, but it is only useable in proportion to her base power. The base power (TK) was 60 points. It is now at half value. So is her flash.

 

Given that she's never likely to use the flash at less than full value and having to have her TK 'active' is not much of a burden (she uses it most of the time anyway and is only ever likely to need the Flash in a combat situation), the only real downside of this -1/4 limitation (TK is constant and in use most of the time) is the 'drain' effect.

 

Compare that to - same example - but SilverFire has linked her Flash to her Resistant Protection, also 60 points worth.

 

The same considerations apply - only ever likely to be used in combat etc - but this time 30 character points of drain on the Resistant Protection only knock off 15 points - so she has 3/4 of the power and so can use 3/4 of the power of her Flash attack: 23 points instead of 15 in the above example.

 

That's why it seems to me that linking to a defensive power is less resiticyive than linking to a non-defensive power.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Benificent Link

 

OK, Proportionality. Linking things to Defensive Powers will help in that regards.

 

If you reduce the value of Linked by 1/4 you can use any side at any level you want.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Benificent Link

 

OK, Proportionality. Linking things to Defensive Powers will help in that regards.

 

If you reduce the value of Linked by 1/4 you can use any side at any level you want.

 

What it says is that you do not have to use it proportionally. I'd suggest that this means that if you have the version where a lesser power is linked to a greater power, the maximum number of points you can use in the lesser power is teh number of points you can use in the greater power - so drains still have an effect.

 

If you have a greater power linked to a lesser power the same would not apply, but generally it will be the proportional version as it is woth no saving otherwise and, even if it is not, if the lesser power is completely drained you should not be able to use the greater.

 

I'm still puzzled therefore why 'greater linked to lesser is +1/4 more - sure you save a lot more points but the trade off is that the greater power is MUCH more vulnerable.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Benificent Link

 

When I read "does not have to use it proportionally" I read "if you use only 33% of Power A you can still use 100% of Power B"

 

Or, if you've been Drained of half your main power, you can still use your secondary power at full value - i.e. they are no longer proportionally used. Voluntarily or otherwise.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Benificent Link

 

When I read "does not have to use it proportionally" I read "if you use only 33% of Power A you can still use 100% of Power B"

 

Or, if you've been Drained of half your main power, you can still use your secondary power at full value - i.e. they are no longer proportionally used. Voluntarily or otherwise.

 

If the lesser power is linked to the greater, and they do not ahve to be used proportionally, the lesser power has to be LESSER or the limitation conditions do not apply. I would suggest that, in that case, you can not use the lesser power at more active points than are in the lesser.

 

If it is the other way around and not proportional it is -0 anyway. If it is proportional then the lesser power can be drained to zero at which point it stops working* and so does the greater power, and the amount you can use reduces proportionally as it goes down to zero.

 

That's how I read it, but you know what I'm like

 

 

 

 

 

*Except characteristics, which you can use but not very well. What?

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Benificent Link

 

If the lesser power is linked to the greater' date=' and they do not ahve to be used proportionally, the lesser power has to be LESSER or the limitation conditions do not apply. [/quote']

 

Now that I can almost get behind-- almost. I can see some exceptions (every fifth round is a HEET round; a Ranged Attack defined as special application of Force Wall; etc), but I can still get behind it _if_ you can accept one minor change:

 

If the greater power is Drained, Suppressed, or Dispelled, than the lesser power cannot be used at any level that _exceeds_ the current level of the greater power.

 

At least, I wouldn't have a problem with such a condition being made official.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Benificent Link

 

Lesser/Greater - as I interpret it - only applies at purchase. And please note that the Lesser Power does not have to be less. While the book cautions against Linking a smaller AP power to a greater AP power, it is not disallowed and the terms "greater" and "lesser" are more labels of "linkee" and "linker." - In fact more often than note a Poisoned Knife (the classic Linked example) may have a knife that costs less than the poison on it.

 

If someone Drains your Greater Power you can still use your Lesser Power at maximum value if you have so built your Linked Limitation.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Benificent Link

 

a Poisoned Knife (the classic Linked example) may have a knife that costs less than the poison on it.

 

Another excellent example!

 

I've already discussed how I handle Linked, and will continue to handle that way without regard for Lesser or Greater. However, Sean's proposed "this Power diminishes because that one does" just didn't set well with me. I could, however, be happier ignoring one that says "is limited to the same level" than I could be ignoring one that says "is limited proportionately."

[Sean Waters]

Re: Benificent Link

 

Lesser/Greater - as I interpret it - only applies at purchase. And please note that the Lesser Power does not have to be less. While the book cautions against Linking a smaller AP power to a greater AP power, it is not disallowed and the terms "greater" and "lesser" are more labels of "linkee" and "linker." - In fact more often than note a Poisoned Knife (the classic Linked example) may have a knife that costs less than the poison on it.

 

If someone Drains your Greater Power you can still use your Lesser Power at maximum value if you have so built your Linked Limitation.

 

It may be a classic example, but I don't think it works well to model the effect.

 

I agree that a drained knife (however you manage that Rusting, perhaps?) shouldn't necessarily affect the potency of the poison on it, but this example creates plenty of other problems, nothing to do with 'drain', that make 'linked' inappropriate.

 

A poison knife should only work if you get the poison into or onto your victim (if it requires injection/contact). If you stab a victim and do no Body damage - you do not get through defences - then the poison should have no effect. I would build the poison as NND (requires injection) - well I would if that was not technically not legal...but we are not talking about NND here...and I would not link the poison to the blade - you could pour the poison into an open wound and it would work.

 

Moreover, as you say, the poison usually costs more than the knife, so you link the greater power (poison) to the lesser power (knife). If you are going to get any limitation value then they have to be used proportionally and THAT makes no sense either: say you have a 1d6 HKA knife (big knife ) and you stab someone with it at 'full value' - if you roll a 6 and hit 5rPD armour you get 1 Body through. OTOH if you use it at only 2DC and roll 3 damage but hit a target that has no armour then you get 3 Body through...more of the blade in the target but less poison damage (as it has to be proportional). What you ought to do, I belive, is use some custom limitation that the poison damage should be proportional to the Body damage you do through defences. 'Linked' doesn't work.

 

Just to be clear, I'm NOT saying that there shouldn't be a limitation value (I think there should), or arguing as to what it should be (-1/2) - I'm just saying 'Linked' isn't the tool for it, without some serious 're-imagineering'.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Benificent Link

 

Now that I can almost get behind-- almost. I can see some exceptions (every fifth round is a HEET round; a Ranged Attack defined as special application of Force Wall; etc), but I can still get behind it _if_ you can accept one minor change:

 

If the greater power is Drained, Suppressed, or Dispelled, than the lesser power cannot be used at any level that _exceeds_ the current level of the greater power.

 

At least, I wouldn't have a problem with such a condition being made official.

 

 

That is absolutely in accordance with what I think it should do...even if the powers are not proportional, the maximum you can use the lesser power at should be the current level of the greater power (otherwise it is no longer the lesser power and the limitation conditions do not apply).

 

Ghost-Angel makes the point that you can interpret that as meaning 'at the time of purchase. I disagree, otherwise you could link a 10 AP Blast to your 20 AP force wall and then, by spending XP, increase the Blast to 30 points: you'd have to change the limitation or not use the power. As you can not change the limitation value 'in combat' as the result of a drain, you can no longer use the power.

 

That is certainly open to interpretation though...but to me that is one of the hazards of buying a power with this limitation. If you take that away there are precious few others.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Benificent Link

 

The original justification of Linked works well with your thoughts: two or more powers that are being used to model one overall "new" power as opposed to simultaneous use of two or more powers.

 

However:

 

The essential problem-- and the reason that I tend to ignore a lot of the rules about Linked (at least as far as I know them to be; my "newest" rule set is now two generations out of date )-- with the idea that one power should be reduced in accordance to the other is precisely what G-A pointed out:

 

Rendering the poison inert does not in any way weaken the knife. Turning the knife to Nerf doesn't affect the poison in the least.

 

Linked is used _two_ ways. It is used to create a new, whole power from individual components. But it is also used as something of "automatic hit" for joining two completely disparate powers together. The poison knife is a valid construct by the books. (at least by the ones I have. You have newer material than I do.)

 

I would suggest, rather than trying to expand or rework or over-granulate Linked as it is written that instead you might consider a house rule:

 

Linked is used _exclusively_ to create a single power from two or more component powers.

 

If you wish to model a poison knife, put "Trigger" on the poison and trigger it with a successful knife strike.

 

That gives you what _seems_ to be what you're looking for: a consistent scaling, which would represent an over-all increase or decrease in something that's ostensibly one single power.

 

And anything that _can't_ be defined as a single power can't be built using Linked.

 

How's that sit with you?