According to FREd, the value of the variable limitation limitation is set when defining a power, then the total value of effective limitations that must be taken each time the power is used is determined by doubling that initial value.
Since there is no dividing involved, it seems like Hero rounding should not be an issue.
This raises the question. If a player wants a power which requires that -3/4 (or some other odd number of quarters) worth of limitations to be applied each time it is used, how does he do this?
I see three options.
1. He can't.
2. Divide -3/4 in half and use hero rounding, for a limitation value of -1/2.
3. Take a -1/4 variable limitation, and just say it requires and extra -1/4 worth of limitations over the normally required -1/2.
4. Something I haven't thought of.
I don't like to say that something non-abusive can't be done, so option 1 doesn't look good.
Option 2 has the problem of specifically contradicting the book, since the book says that the effective limitations applied must equal two times the limitation value, so you should have to apply -1 worth of limitations if you are getting a -1/2 value for your variable limitation.
That leaves me inclined toward number three, but I'm curious as to what the official ruling would be.
Question
Dr.Device
According to FREd, the value of the variable limitation limitation is set when defining a power, then the total value of effective limitations that must be taken each time the power is used is determined by doubling that initial value.
Since there is no dividing involved, it seems like Hero rounding should not be an issue.
This raises the question. If a player wants a power which requires that -3/4 (or some other odd number of quarters) worth of limitations to be applied each time it is used, how does he do this?
I see three options.
1. He can't.
2. Divide -3/4 in half and use hero rounding, for a limitation value of -1/2.
3. Take a -1/4 variable limitation, and just say it requires and extra -1/4 worth of limitations over the normally required -1/2.
4. Something I haven't thought of.
I don't like to say that something non-abusive can't be done, so option 1 doesn't look good.
Option 2 has the problem of specifically contradicting the book, since the book says that the effective limitations applied must equal two times the limitation value, so you should have to apply -1 worth of limitations if you are getting a -1/2 value for your variable limitation.
That leaves me inclined toward number three, but I'm curious as to what the official ruling would be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
1 answer to this question
Recommended Posts