Oaf only to activate

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Oaf only to activate

 

Why not an Aid that's OAF Pills? You can take the pills away, but once you've swallowed one, that doesn't make the Aid wear off.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Oaf only to activate

 

Basically, I would say that there are enough common builds where removing/controlling/destroying the Focus itself shouldn't interfere with an already instantiated effect created with that Focus that it is probably unreasonable to assume the risk of interruption is really a part of the Focus Limitation. Put it, instead, in the realm of other aspects of the Power/Modifiers/SFX (plus common and dramatic sense) of the power in question. Could the power's effects be interrupted by somehow targeting the owner of the power, were the Focus Limitation not present? If so, then similar interruption should be possible by messing with the Focus. If not, then messing with the Focus often shouldn't interfere with the (already created effects of the) power.

[torchwolf]

Re: Oaf only to activate

 

As the example pills usually would use the Delayed Effect (or possibly Trigger) Advantages, the Power has already paid for the privilege to have some Limitation apply to the preparation part of the Power - any Limitations applied to the release part of the Power would affect this Power with the effects of being OAF. The Expendable variant of Foci also assumes that the Power is Limited in the way it can be reused. Also, there is a risk associated with having to protect the Focus until used, since unless you know exactly when to apply even a Continuing Charge, it might cease to have effect prior to an anticipated combat. Also, an ambush could easily deprive you of the use of Foci.

[tesuji]

Re: Oaf only to activate

 

Question: if the power were built this way:

 

3d6+1 Aid to STR and SPD (Standard Effect): OAF Pills (4 charges)

 

Would anyone have a problem with either:

 

1. The effect continuing even if the rest of the pills (and bottle) were snatched away?

 

2. The OAF limitation at -1?

 

nope

 

but this power while costing the same or close enough 17 vs 16 requires an attack roll as part of its actication and an action.

 

i can pop the constant power pill and punch you same phase.

not so with this.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Oaf only to activate

 

When I saw "Oaf only to activate" I immediately thought it was a power that can only be activated if the character is a clumsy, stupid person.

 

ETA: I believe that a limitation that doesn't limit is worth nothing. Therefore a limitation that limits less than normal is worth less than normal. I'd recommend dropping the OAF down to OIF cost, and specifying that the focus (one specific charge, to be exact) may be stolen only in the segment the character pulls it out to take it. If the character can be restrained to the point that a normally inaccessible focus could be removed, the entire focus can be removed. Due to SFX, the guy might be able to go back to his lab and make more, but that's another issue.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Oaf only to activate

 

I'm saying that if you built the force field as a continuing charge then it would continue to protect you even if the force field belt were removed.

 

I hadn't been thinking about building the force field with continuing charges, but if you do, it works exactly the same way. That's my take on it anyway.

 

It seems that, by the books, once the continuing charge is activated, it should continue whether or not any limitations related to the power are still in effect. If the character has no charges left, his continuing charge runs it course. If it took extra time, gestures, incantations, etc. to fire up the Force Field, after which the Charge runs its course, the inability to gesture, incant or take extra time during the charge's duration has no effect. So why should Focus be different?

 

Maybe the change in limitation for making the charges Continuous should be different if a focus (or other limitation) is required throughout the period the charge would run. Or maybe the force field belt's "common means of turning off Continuous" is to remove the belt - what is the way to shut off the pill once it has been consumed? If there is none, it doesn't meet the requirement of a continuing charge. That would seem to suggest Aid might be a better mechanic than Continuing Charge, and no one would argue the OAF and the (non-continuing) Charges limitations are not valid on limitations to the Aid.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Oaf only to activate

 

It seems that, by the books, once the continuing charge is activated, it should continue whether or not any limitations related to the power are still in effect. If the character has no charges left, his continuing charge runs it course. If it took extra time, gestures, incantations, etc. to fire up the Force Field, after which the Charge runs its course, the inability to gesture, incant or take extra time during the charge's duration has no effect. So why should Focus be different?

 

Maybe the change in limitation for making the charges Continuous should be different if a focus (or other limitation) is required throughout the period the charge would run. Or maybe the force field belt's "common means of turning off Continuous" is to remove the belt - what is the way to shut off the pill once it has been consumed? If there is none, it doesn't meet the requirement of a continuing charge. That would seem to suggest Aid might be a better mechanic than Continuing Charge, and no one would argue the OAF and the (non-continuing) Charges limitations are not valid on limitations to the Aid.

 

You could stick your fingers down their throat

 

Seriously though - that is an excellent point: continuing charges doesn't work as written here, and whilst I'm sure most would be willing to handwave that, it is unfortunate that it is there as an example build: I always feel examples should stick to the letter of the rules (unless examples of how to bend the rules).

 

I think that a large part of the problem here though is caused by overlap. Persistent/uncontrolled/charges/focus all overlap each other or other areas of the rules.

 

It would be better if the elements of duration and maintenance were broken down:

 

Doesn't require LOS to maintain

Doesn't have to be within range of the power to maintain

Doesn't have to be conscious to maintain

Doesn't have to be alive to maintain

 

Similarly I think charges should simply limit the number of available uses - not remove END requirements or any of that mularkey. I appreciate that 'charges' is a convenient shorthand, but I have an answer for that too: 'Overall Modifiers'

 

An overall modifier is a 'pre-built' combination of advantages and limitations, much as a Talent is a 'pre-built power. So, you could have:

 

'Charges 0 END Does not require any maintenance, lasts a turn' might be your build, but you simply record it as '1 turn fuel charge' and use the overall modifier (either as a net value or +x, -y).

 

Simples, no?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Oaf only to activate

 

What about using Trigger (as in the Trigger is swallowing the pill)? Not a Focus that way.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Oaf only to activate

 

What about using Trigger (as in the Trigger is swallowing the pill)? Not a Focus that way.

 

The problem is not the focus but the fact that you need a way to turn off a continuing charge, in the same way you need a way to turn off an uncontrolled power.

 

The focus thing just complicates it.

 

The easiest way if not to buy it as a constant power, through charges or otherwise.

 

You could buy it as a species of OIHID: the 'activation action' is uncorking the bottle and swallowing a pill...but you still wind up with the requirement to have a way to stop it if you use continuing charges.