What makes Luck "Special"

[Christopher]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

The focus is equally vulnerable to destruction whether or not it is in a framework.

But a Special power is different if it is on a Focus or not. And we talk about the Special Power here, not about Foci that are or are not in Framework

 

The character who places a Focus on a power gets a cost break' date=' which is intended to account for the potential loss of the focus itself. Again, if that's a Cosmic Gadget Pool, points can be reallocated as a zero phase action with no skill roll. The character can move another 7 points into another pair of 10 Flash Def OIF Sunglasses.[/quote']

This is either a book Gadget VPP (Controll Cost has Focus as well), wich means he looses pool points permanently.

Or a non book Gadgt VPP where loosing the Focus has other downsides (like not being able to built flash defenses anymore).

But that is more a question if Focus is a Viable/Limiting Limitaiton for that VPP and has nothing to do with "is this Special power built allowable".

 

Arguably' date=' he can move 5 points to have twice as many Flash Defense Sunglasses. His Focus makes the powers "gear", providing (arguably) access to this multiplier.[/quote']

Five point rule is eplicitly excluded from VPP's. See the arae for building Vehicles in a VPP.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

But a Special power is different if it is on a Focus or not. And we talk about the Special Power here' date=' not about Foci that are or are not in Framework[/quote']

 

I think many of us are discussing powers in a framework, whether the special power restriction is needed, and why, if it is needed, there are such specific exceptions spelled out in the rules.

 

This is either a book Gadget VPP (Controll Cost has Focus as well)' date=' wich means he looses pool points permanently.[/quote']

 

Cite where points are lost permanently, please. 6e removed the Independent limitation. Lost foci can be replaced over time. Lost foci from a VPP are no different.

 

Or a non book Gadgt VPP where loosing the Focus has other downsides (like not being able to built flash defenses anymore).

But that is more a question if Focus is a Viable/Limiting Limitaiton for that VPP and has nothing to do with "is this Special power built allowable".

 

I agree - it does not matter whether it is a gadget pool or some other type of VPP.

 

Yet it is the gadget pool the rules cite for exceptions to the "no special powers in a VPP" rule. That seems to suggest a link between "gadget/focus" and "is this Special power built allowable". And you have been defending that differentiation, have you not?

[Christopher]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

Cite where points are lost permanently' date=' please.[/quote']

6E1 412. The same rules exists in 5E. Nothing to do with Independent.

 

I agree - it does not matter whether it is a gadget pool or some other type of VPP.

You are half right. It maters if this built comes with a Limit.

Either time to change the selection and "re-slot"/"unslot" it.

Or a viable Focus Limitation with whatever downside it has for that Framework.

[Christopher]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

I found a interesting reason why Flash defense in particular is a Special Power:

If you can activate it as 0-phase action, you can abort to activating it.

But by the rules one should never be able to abort to defend against a flash (you can't abort to look the other way).

[bigbywolfe]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

I think there's a pretty big difference between "Aborting to 'look away'" and "Aborting to activate a Defense I payed Character Points for". Also, an action doesn't have to be a 0-phase action to Abort.

[Christopher]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

I think there's a pretty big difference between "Aborting to 'look away'" and "Aborting to activate a Defense I payed Character Points for". Also' date=' an action doesn't have to be a 0-phase action to Abort.[/quote']

First part:

What is the difference between covering your eyes and "15 Sight Flash Defense" vs a 60 AP Sight Flash (12d6)?

 

Second:

That only reinforces my argument. Whenever you can abort to "just enough Flash defense to make me not care", this the flash can be avoided.

 

As I would guess you should either:

Have Flash Defense naturally (bought outside; paid character points). So the foes will know after one attack/by studying you.

Have it visibly (OIF googles) - so the foes see it before an attack.

Or not on easy access (nothing under an abort).

[bigbywolfe]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

So if you have PD, ED and Flash Defense, all Linked and Cost END (or Force Field with FD in 5E) and someone shoots a gun at you from point blank range you can Abort to get your force field up and lessen the damage, but if "muscle-bound beach bully" kicks sand in your face you can't (not all Flash attacks are light based, or even sight based for that matter) you can't Abort to your force field to lessen the effect of the Flash? Yeah, that makes perfect sense...

[Duane From RI]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

The italics on 6E 161 has two very important words that govern how Special powers might end up in a framework. The first key word is "reasonable". The GM decides that 5 points of Flash Defense is "reasonable". The second key word (actually two word phrase) is "potentially unbalance". The Gm decides that Duplication is potentially unbalancing.

It doesn't matter if a framework is cosmic or not, it doesn't matter if they are foci or not. The key is the GM determines if a power in a framework is potentially unbalancing or reasonable. Reasonable doesn't have to imply a real world example, doesn't have to imply something with limits. The only possible definition of "reasonable" that can be gleaned from the words in the example is that it is NOT potentially unbalancing. No other aspect of campaign, real world, limits or any such other considerations are discussed in the example.

That's the way I read the Technon example.

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

So if you have PD' date=' ED and Flash Defense, all Linked and Cost END (or Force Field with FD in 5E) and someone shoots a gun at you from point blank range you can Abort to get your force field up and lessen the damage, but if "muscle-bound beach bully" kicks sand in your face you can't (not all Flash attacks are light based, or even sight based for that matter) you can't Abort to your force field to lessen the effect of the Flash? Yeah, that makes perfect sense...[/quote']

 

Can't you buy that as one Resistant Protection with Cost END on it? You don't need to buy them separately.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

I think there's a pretty big difference between "Aborting to 'look away'" and "Aborting to activate a Defense I payed Character Points for".

First part:

What is the difference between covering your eyes and "15 Sight Flash Defense" vs a 60 AP Sight Flash (12d6)?

 

How much Flash Defense does the book define your hands providing? Is it the same whether the Flash's SFX is Light or Gas or [insert a dozen other SFX]? There are cases when "turning away" (which doesn't have a defined in-game mechanic) wouldn't even justify avoiding the Flash (AoE Flash, many Hearing Group Flashes, et cetera). The difference is one is defined and the other is not. You can't "Abort to 'looking away from the Flash'" because it would basically mean you could Abort an action to get an absolute effect (the Flash doesn't effect you). If you want to try to avoid the Flash you can Abort to Dodge, like any other attack. OR you can Abort to activate a Defensive Power, just like you can when targeted with any other attack.

 

Also' date=' an action doesn't have to be a 0-phase action to Abort.[/quote']

Second:

That only reinforces my argument. Whenever you can abort to "just enough Flash defense to make me not care", this the flash can be avoided.

 

First, you're making a few pretty big assumptions here, the first one being that you will always magically know how strong the Flash attack you are about to face is.Second, you could say the same thing about Aborting to activate regular defenses against a standard attack. Third, nothing about what I said even remotely reinforces your argument in any way, shape, or form. If your GM considers it a defensive action (and most would) you can Abort to construct an Opaque Barrier (Opaque Blocks Senses and Flashes that would target them) which would normally be a Half-Phase action, and (if I remember correctly) a phase ending Attack Action. You can Abort to put up a Force Field (or the equivalent 6E build) which includes Flash Defense. Why would a Shape Shifter with shapeshifting tricks (whether or not their in a framework is irrelavent since your point was that Flash Defense itself couldn't be Aborted to) not be able to Abort to form his Nictating Membrane (Bought as Flash Defense, Cost END only to activate [all his Shapeshift power cost END])?

 

 

 

As I would guess you should either:

Have Flash Defense naturally (bought outside; paid character points). So the foes will know after one attack/by studying you.

Have it visibly (OIF googles) - so the foes see it before an attack.

Or not on easy access (nothing under an abort).

 

I don't have my books here at work with me. Does anything in the rules back up this interpretation? Does RAW say you can't Abort to activate Flash Defense or "Special Powers"? Or are you just making this up as you go along to try to support why you think they qualify as a "Special Power"?

[bigbywolfe]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

Can't you buy that as one Resistant Protection with Cost END on it? You don't need to buy them separately.

 

Probably, which just makes my point stronger.

[Duane From RI]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

6E1226 discusses being prepared for a Flash. The paragraph describes "defensive actions" as "covering their eyes with their hands or something similar" and specifies that you can't Abort to that, you must be prepared.

6E2 21 says that "generally" a character cannot abort to "shield his eyes" or "otherwise protect himself" and then very purposefully refers to "the rules" on being prepared.

The way these two are written, "otherwise protect himself" on 6E2 21 lines up as equivalent to "or something similar".

OK. So the big question I have to ask myself is this: How is "covering their eyes" different from Blocking a Ranged Attack (6E2 59) such that you have to be "prepared". What do we know from what is written that sets apart a Flash from a Laser Beam? As near as I can tell the only thing that sets apart Flash from a Laser Beam is that you need your senses to participate in the battle and are thus very open with your senses.

So how far does "or something similar" go? The concrete example of "shield his eyes" specifically means that you are taking your vision away.

Based on just what can be specifically gleaned from the written words, I would say you have to be "prepared" to take your sense away.

As a GM, this is what I would use to guide my interpretation of the word "Generally". As a stickler of a GM I might go so far as to say you have to be prepared to do anything that will even momentarily bullox your sense and therefore rule based on special effect. Putting on sunglasses might get in the way of seeing even if just for a moment. Switching on overload protectors in your cyber eyes probably doesn't.

And therefore putting Flash Defense in a framework can be "unbalancing". A Cybereye multipower with Flash Defense and Enhanced Senses allows the user to save a TON of points considering he is never going to need Microscopic Vision on the phase that he aborted to Flash Defense.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

That fair argument about putting FD and Enhanced Senses in a Framework. IMO it is less convincing in regards to Aborting to activate FD in general. I still think there is a big difference between being able (or not able) to Abort to do something anyone can do (cover there eyes, et cetera) and being able to Abort to activate a defensive Power you paid CP for.

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

But by the rules one should never be able to abort to defend against a flash (you can't abort to look the other way).

 

I agree with bigbywolfe. That rule exists only in your head. You're taking the lack of a standard action that gives flash defense and extrapolating in a very silly direction.

 

You can't abort to cover your eyes, barring a lim on the flash, because there's no official action to abort to. No more, no less.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

needless 'balance' rules

 

Wat.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

I agree with bigbywolfe. That rule exists only in your head. You're taking the lack of a standard action that gives flash defense and extrapolating in a very silly direction.

 

You can't abort to cover your eyes, barring a lim on the flash, because there's no official action to abort to. No more, no less.

 

You might be able avoid the effects of the Flash with an abort to Dive For Cover (IF there is something that is opaque to the Flash to dive behind of course).

[bigbywolfe]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

You might be able avoid the effects of the Flash with an abort to Dive For Cover (IF there is something that is opaque to the Flash to dive behind of course).

 

Couldn't Diving for Cover, or Dodge for that matter, simply make the attack miss?

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

Let me check, do flashes need to make attack rolls vs DCV? Yep, they do. So, you can dodge with the SFX of, "I close my eyes." failure meaning that you didn't do it fast enough or you peaked.

 

I should have noticed this earlier, but I've never actually used Flash myself.

 

So, yeah. Unless there's a page I missed that explicitly says, "one cannot abort to flash defense." I'm pretty sure the rule stating one can abort to any defensive action still applies here.

[Christopher]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

So if you have PD' date=' ED and Flash Defense, all Linked and Cost END (or Force Field with FD in 5E) and someone shoots a gun at you from point blank range you can Abort to get your force field up and lessen the damage, but if "muscle-bound beach bully" kicks sand in your face you can't (not all Flash attacks are light based, or even sight based for that matter) you can't Abort to your force field to lessen the effect of the Flash? Yeah, that makes perfect sense...[/quote']

Resistant Protection (even Resistant Special Defenses) are not a Special Power.

(no-resistant) Flash-, Mental- or Powerdefense is.

 

I have thought a little bit. Maybe it is not about the costbreak, but about a certain certinity on the side of the attacker. Rare Defense Attacks only work on that basis that you have somewhat certinity that your target either does or does not has the defense. The defender needs to invest the full real points if he wants to have that "deterrent".

 

That you "can't use other powers" is not a argument why Special Defense should not be special. That you can't use other powers is part of the Framework. This is WHY your recieve a 40+% Discount on thoses Framework powers.

That you recive a big discount is the reason you even want to put them in there. The costbreak/lockout has nothing to do with why a power is special.

 

"But life Support..." is only effective against NND's. One reason why NND's are so cheap (1/2 less advantage or more limitation). So maybe 1-2 points of Special Defenses are okay, as they protect against NND's. 1-2 points are hardly something that will affect a Flash, Drain or Transform not built with NND.

As I see the source material, every time a character does come up with a Gadget/Simple protective spell it was because that "Vertigo Effect"/Cold Blast/Specific Slot of "Black Canary Scream" Multipower was built with NND. NND gives you a good chance to stun your foe, if he is not prepared. But if he is, then you just see why it makes the power cheaper.

 

"But the character doesn't know..." what attack is about to hit him for the first time. The first time.

After that first time, they can identify that attack before they have to declare an defensiveaction. 6E2 85 deals with this. Among the things most likely "obvious" Area of Effect Attacks are Flamethrowers, Grenades (note that each are obvious Foci) and "attacks previously encountered".

It should not be hard too hard to figure out how "attack X" looks like before he fires. The soure material indicates it is rather common that the attacker knows after being hit once.

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

And experienced and dangerous villains should have IPE build to hide which power he's using until after you got hit with it, so that you don't know any time.

 

In fact, I'm pretty sure this kind of thing happens in source material for, at the least, martial artist and wizard duels.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

6E1 412. The same rules exists in 5E. Nothing to do with Independent.

 

I would take those rules no further than the usual rules for focus. From 6e p 379:

 

A character can repair, rebuild, or replace a Breakable Focus with some effort. This usually involves acquiring or building a replacement. Of course, this may not always be possible in the course of some adventures — if a character is in a distant land or another dimension, it may be a while before he can replace or repair a damaged Focus. The GM should decide how the Focus gets replaced based on the special effects involved and the exact circumstances. Replacing a Focus can even form the basis of another adventure. However, regardless of the method used, replacing or repairing a Focus does not cost the character any more Character Points.

 

Until the focus is replaced, that portion of the pool is gone. Just like any Focused power is gone until you can replace the focus.

 

I find it inappropriate that loss of a focused power in the VPP only reduces the points available if the limitation was taken on the control cost. If, when the focus is lost, I can just reallocate the points, that focus is not really limiting - it could be Restrainable, or have a Physical Manifestation, but it doesn't really have a focus.

 

You are half right. It maters if this built comes with a Limit.

Either time to change the selection and "re-slot"/"unslot" it.

Or a viable Focus Limitation with whatever downside it has for that Framework.

 

This is your opinion and the manner in which you may prefer to balance your game. It is not RAW. RAW looks to the appropriateness of this power being placed in this framework.

 

Example: Technon is a gadgeteering superhero with a Gadget Variable Power Pool. He wants to build a set of tinted goggles that provide him with

5 points of Sight Group Flash Defense. The GM decides this is reasonable and grants permission. Later, Technon decides two of him would be better than one, so he wants to build a Metaphysical Essence Splitter to divide himself into two people (bought as Duplication). The GM thinks this could potentially unbalance the campaign and denies permission.

 

So, would this be any less relevant of accurate if it read:

 

Example: Technon is a gadgeteering superhero in a game with no frameworks. He wants to use his xp to build a set of tinted goggles that provide him with

5 points of Sight Group Flash Defense. The GM decides this is reasonable and grants permission. Later, Technon decides two of him would be better than one, so he wants to build a Metaphysical Essence Splitter to divide himself into two people (bought as Duplication). The GM thinks this could potentially unbalance the campaign and denies permission.

 

The GM needs to vet any proposed structure with an eye to balance. Whether it's in a framework or not is irrelevant. I could see ruling that Special Powers may not be placed in a framework. But, having done so, that should be the rule. Would it be any less unbalancing to allow a typical Attacks Multipower to add a slot for "Turtle Mode"? Whenever the character doesn't attack, he shifts the point to the slot that adds rPD and rED to the full AP of the Multipower, say +20/+20 since the MP has 60 AP. Of course, the character will switch to that slot whenever he Aborts to Dodge or Block. Perfectly legal, of course. Is it balanced? Depends on the game.

[Christopher]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

I would take those rules no further than the usual rules for focus. From 6e p 379:

[...]

Until the focus is replaced, that portion of the pool is gone. Just like any Focused power is gone until you can replace the focus.

 

I find it inappropriate that loss of a focused power in the VPP only reduces the points available if the limitation was taken on the control cost. If, when the focus is lost, I can just reallocate the points, that focus is not really limiting - it could be Restrainable, or have a Physical Manifestation, but it doesn't really have a focus.

Like I said already(feels like three times in this thread alone):

Having a VALID Focus Limitation may makes this balanced.

However that validity is reached is not part of the question.

 

This is your opinion and the manner in which you may prefer to balance your game. It is not RAW. RAW looks to the appropriateness of this power being placed in this framework.

Can 15 Sight Flash Defense in a VPP without (VIABLE!) limitations be balanced, if you can change that VPP at will? I highly doubt that.

1-2 Points that will only stop NND/UAA's? Likely.

 

 

If the GM doesn't allow the character to have Duplication at all, the question of Duplication in a Framework is moot.

When the GM does not allows +20 rPD/+20 rED Powers in addtion to what the cahracter already has, the question of allowing the same in a Framework is moot.

So you only point out that if powers are not allowed, they aren't allowed in Framework. Wich is fairly obvious and pointless to point out.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

The issue with flash defense is the same as that with enhanced senses. They are too efficient when allowed in frameworks. Both have viable alternatives (resistant defense & clairvoyance).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

The issue with flash defense is the same as that with enhanced senses. They are too efficient when allowed in frameworks. Both have viable alternatives (resistant defense & clairvoyance).

 

Seriously, if allowing VPP Man to switch his VPP to, say, +30 Flash Defense would be unbalancing, how is it not unbalancing that he can switch it to +20 Resistant Defense: Flash Defense? That's a standard power, so it's allowed in frameworks. If allowing Flash Defense in a framework would be horribly unbalancing, it seems this easy workaround should be removed.

 

Do we really need a separate statement that "special powers" are only allowed in frameworks with GM permission when both frameworks are marked (caution and stop) to indicate they should have careful GM consideration in any case? How many times do the rules need to say "it is possible to build unbalanced constructs and the GM should be alert for this"?

[bigbywolfe]

Re: What makes Luck "Special"

 

Resistant Protection (even Resistant Special Defenses) are not a Special Power.(no-resistant) Flash-' date=' Mental- or Powerdefense is.I have thought a little bit. Maybe it is not about the costbreak, but about a certain certinity on the side of the attacker. Rare Defense Attacks only work on that basis that you have somewhat certinity that your target either does or does not has the defense. The defender needs to invest the full real points if he wants to have that "deterrent".That you "can't use other powers" is not a argument why Special Defense should not be special. That you can't use other powers is part of the Framework. This is WHY your recieve a 40+% Discount on thoses Framework powers.That you recive a big discount is the reason you even want to put them in there. The costbreak/lockout has nothing to do with why a power is special."But life Support..." is only effective against NND's. One reason why NND's are so cheap (1/2 less advantage or more limitation). So maybe 1-2 points of Special Defenses are okay, as they protect against NND's. 1-2 points are hardly something that will affect a Flash, Drain or Transform not built with NND.As I see the source material, every time a character does come up with a Gadget/Simple protective spell it was [i']because[/i] that "Vertigo Effect"/Cold Blast/Specific Slot of "Black Canary Scream" Multipower was built with NND. NND gives you a good chance to stun your foe, if he is not prepared. But if he is, then you just see why it makes the power cheaper."But the character doesn't know..." what attack is about to hit him for the first time. The first time.After that first time, they can identify that attack before they have to declare an defensiveaction. 6E2 85 deals with this. Among the things most likely "obvious" Area of Effect Attacks are Flamethrowers, Grenades (note that each are obvious Foci) and "attacks previously encountered".It should not be hard too hard to figure out how "attack X" looks like before he fires. The soure material indicates it is rather common that the attacker knows after being hit once.

You give a reasonable argument to why they shouldn't be allowed in frameworks (not that I agree) but my post you responded to and the much more detailed one you completely ignored, was not debating that point. I was only debating your assertion that Flash Defense could not be Aborted to, which you have not given a rules reference, or a remotely logical reason, to support.