Full Power

[mrinku]

Beam is a neat, common one to use, but for a start does not apply to area effect powers or non-attack powers. If Cantriped is also applying house rules that limit it such as disallowing Pulling Your Punch, that's Cantriped's call. He didn't say he'd always take it as -¼.

 

Having said that, I agree with you that when applied to a non-AoE Blast, Must Be Used At Full Effect should be worth -0, not -¼, because being able to still Spread it means it's basically not limited. And any other situation where the power in question doesn't lose at least a quarter of its overall effectiveness, per RAW.

[Surrealone]

2 hours ago, mrinku said:

Beam is a neat, common one to use, but for a start does not apply to area effect powers or non-attack powers. If Cantriped is also applying house rules that limit it such as disallowing Pulling Your Punch, that's Cantriped's call. He didn't say he'd always take it as -¼.

 

Having said that, I agree with you that when applied to a non-AoE Blast, Must Be Used At Full Effect should be worth -0, not -¼, because being able to still Spread it means it's basically not limited. And any other situation where the power in question doesn't lose at least a quarter of its overall effectiveness, per RAW.

A blast (of any kind, whether AoE or not) .... is not a body-affecting power.  Thus, Must Be Used at Full Power should not be applicable, at all, per RAW.

 

Again, I'm focusing on RAW, here -- not house rules, not GM fiat, not Limited Power (which entails use of GM approval/fiat) ... or any other wiggly way to dodge the question I asked.  I'm looking at just plain RAW because Lucius asserted Must Be Used At Full Power applied in this situation (which originally pertained to a 12d6 Blast).  I'm not seeing it, but I'd really, really like to -- because I have some uses for that if it's legit and actually codified in RAW.

 

Cantriped already stated he breaks up the component parts of the Beam limitation, but it's been my experience that most GMs don't ... which means most GMs won't give a (-1/4) limitation for something that merely comprises a limitation like Beam ... whose total value is (-1/4).  This is driving my desire to find something in RAW supporting one of those components being worth (-1/4) by itself, without GM fiat (as in Cantriped's game ... or via Limited Power, as that's fiat-based too).

 

Personally, I don't think it's there... meaning I think Lucius was, indeed, mistaken when he asserted applicability of Must Be Used At Full Power for a Blast.

[mrinku]

I was just using Limited Power with the same or similar name (I actually called it Must be Used At Full Effect, though that wasn't deliberate). I'd have thought that was clear from my context, but oh well.

 

Since I'm operating out of CC, the name doesn't confuse me

 

For further reference, let's go with "Limited Power (Full Bore)", worth -0 unless there are clear problem for the user, such as being often unable to use the power without affecting others (as with a large radius nonselective AoE). If those problems exist, but rarely come up in play it's still a -0.

 

It's fair to stick to RAW in these discussions, since GM's permission is assumed to be in play at all times anyway, but Limited Power IS Rules As Written. It's just as valid as any other modifier... possibly more so, since its whole function is to deal with limitations that aren't covered elsewhere. How much you get for the circumstances is pretty well defined.

 

But if 6e says Must Be Used At Full Power only applies to body-affecting powers, then you are correct that it shouldn't be applied as such to attacks. And per the RAW, if there is no other applicable modifier for the desired limitation, you consult Limited Power and work one out.

[Cantriped]

14 hours ago, Surrealone said:

Again, I'm focusing on RAW, here -- not house rules, not GM fiat, not Limited Power (which entails use of GM approval/fiat)

I take issue with the idea that you believe that the Limited Power is somehow not part of the RAW. Limited Power isn't an Optional Rule, it doesn't have a Caution Sign, or a Stop Sign, and it has been published in every version of 6th edition (6e1 382; CC 108; FHC 128).

It is not like we are telling you "there isn't a modifier that does that, just have your GM make something up". No there probably isn't any RAW that explicitly states that the specific modifier from the Body-Affecting Powers section of 6e1 applies elsewhere, and the fact that it didn't make it into CC/FHC (officially the most recent versions of the 6th edition rules) indicates it was an optional rule anyway. But that doesn't matter, because we can point to RAW from multiple credible sources that provide fair, if subjective, guidelines and metrics for determining the value of any limitation or condition which hasn't already been defined elsewhere; said sources even provide us with numerous common examples of each.

So if a character wants a Hand-To-Hand Attack Power that Cannot Be Reduced (like a Beam Attack), the RAW provides explicit support for this, and guidelines for what the value of said modifier should be. Although yes, the GM does have to approve the value you assign, just like they have to approve an Unbreakable Foci's destruction condition, a Transform's recovery condition, or the defenses of NND/UAA Powers. As for your counter argument regarding the value of Beam. It is true that it's list of effects indicate that each of those effects is individually worth less than -1/4. However, in practice separate Limited modifiers such as Cannot Be Reduced and Does Not Leave Holes must be worth at least -1/4, because few are going to pick out (or accept having forced upon them) a -0 Limitation that actually limits their powers in a way they care about. However, I could see the soundness of the argument that when combined back into Beam (or some Melee-friendly variant of it), Cannot Be Reduced and Does Not Leave Holes are still only worth -1/4 (because rounding and minimum values are inconvenient like that sometimes).

[mrinku]

At the end of the day, the -0 level is a more modern notation of the original principle that a limitation that doesn't sufficiently limit the character isn't worth a bonus.

 

Some version of Limited Power or Custom Limitation has been in the rules since at least 2e (I can't speak for 1e, but I'd be fairly sure it had it).

[Cantriped]

15 minutes ago, mrinku said:

At the end of the day, the -0 level is a more modern notation of the original principle that a limitation that doesn't sufficiently limit the character isn't worth a bonus.

Not always. Charges sometimes comes out to (or caps at) a value of -0. Normal Equipment is often required to take -0 modifiers (such as STR Mins of 1-3, or One-Handed) which do limit the power, but it's generally okay because you get that stuff "for free", so it being points efficient is irrelevant.

[mrinku]

Well, it's also inclusive of "required, but points neutral choices" such as "Breakable" vs "Unbreakable". Old rules just said "make a choice" while the current notation lists them as -0.

 

So, yes, it's not just for "not limiting enough, no bonus I'm afraid" situations, but is applied to anything that doesn't affect the cost calculation. Under previous rules such things were just stated to have no effect on the calculation without assigning a modifier value.

[Lucius]

20 hours ago, Surrealone said:

 

Personally, I don't think it's there... meaning I think Lucius was, indeed, mistaken when he asserted applicability of Must Be Used At Full Power for a Blast.

 

Nothing is applicable if you flatly refuse to apply it. That is nearly a tautology.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I you refuse to accept that this is a palindormedary tagline, you can deny that this post has a palindromedary tagline.

[Surrealone]

9 hours ago, Cantriped said:

I take issue with the idea that you believe that the Limited Power is somehow not part of the RAW. Limited Power isn't an Optional Rule, it doesn't have a Caution Sign, or a Stop Sign, and it has been published in every version of 6th edition (6e1 382; CC 108; FHC 128).

I never said Limited Power is not part of RAW.  What I indicated was that by its very nature it requires GM fiat -- as a GM who states that all RAW will apply as written must still rule on the applicability/value of any/all uses of the Limited Power limitations ... unlike, say, the Beam limitation which requires no such ruling by a GM who is adhering strictly to RAW (because of its well-defined nature -- which is what Limited Power lacks).

 

Put another way, Beam requires no GM ruling by a GM who says all RAW apply as written ... but Limited Power still does ... if nothing else to agree on the value.  

 

This, sir, is why I made it clear that a pivot to Limited Power dodged my inquiry, because I made it completely clear that wanted a citation of strict RAW ... without any GM call/fiat being required.  Limited Power always requires a GM call.

[Cantriped]

16 hours ago, Surrealone said:

I never said Limited Power is not part of RAW.  What I indicated was that by its very nature it requires GM fiat -- as a GM who states that all RAW will apply as written must still rule on the applicability/value of any/all uses of the Limited Power limitations ... unlike, say, the Beam limitation which requires no such ruling by a GM who is adhering strictly to RAW (because of its well-defined nature -- which is what Limited Power lacks).

 

Put another way, Beam requires no GM ruling by a GM who says all RAW apply as written ... but Limited Power still does ... if nothing else to agree on the value.  

The Hero System doesn't function very well if your GM behaves like a machine with no subjective judgement, critical thinking skills, inclination to interact with the system, or authority over their own table (if that is what you are looking for, I suggest joining the Pathfinder Society). Likewise I don't think you can have a productive discussion of this system while operating under such harsh hypothetical assumptions. Even if a GM is adhering strictly to the RAW (few do), the Limited and Conditional modifiers provide enough metrics to make reasonable evaluations most of the time (When they can't, there are trolls  Herophiles like us on the internet). Further, trying to ban or dismiss the use of using any game elements that require the GM to make a decision is far more drastic than simply performing the basic auditing and adjudication the RAW assumes you are capable of as GM. 

 

16 hours ago, Surrealone said:

This, sir, is why I made it clear that a pivot to Limited Power dodged my inquiry, because I made it completely clear that wanted a citation of strict RAW ... without any GM call/fiat being required.  Limited Power always requires a GM call.

We did not dodge your inquiry, it was answered it with the RAW that are available. I'm sorry you didn't like the answer.

[Beast]

what about 2+ slots that use the same amount of charges(rocket motors) and just swap warheads

s1   12d6

s2  9.5d6 area cone 8m

s3  4d6 rka

[mrinku]

3 hours ago, Beast said:

what about 2+ slots that use the same amount of charges(rocket motors) and just swap warheads

s1   12d6

s2  9.5d6 area cone 8m

s3  4d6 rka

 

Sounds like Charges applied to the Framework. If there are also limits on the number of warheads of each type, you might be able to apply a separate allocation of charges on each slot, but you need care with that.

[jimofpeace]

What does, "RAW," stand for?

[dmjalund]

28 minutes ago, jimofpeace said:

What does, "RAW," stand for?

Rules As Written

 

[jimofpeace]

14 minutes ago, dmjalund said:

Rules As Written

 

Ah, I see.  Thank you. 

[Surrealone]

14 hours ago, Cantriped said:

The Hero System doesn't function very well if your GM behaves like a machine with no subjective judgement, critical thinking skills, inclination to interact with the system, or authority over their own table (if that is what you are looking for, I suggest joining the Pathfinder Society). Likewise I don't think you can have a productive discussion of this system while operating under such harsh hypothetical assumptions. 

You can, indeed, have a productive discussion of this system operating under such hypothetical discussions. In this case, I was focused on discussion about objective RAW (instead of subjective GM interpretation) -- which was rather the point of the exercise.  Another key point of the exercise was to deal with RAW because it's the same at every GM table wherein the same versions of the rules are present ... whereas subjective GM opinion varies from table to table.  Painted in that context, the hypothetical assumptions were not harsh, but actually very reasonable, as they limited us to a game facet that a player might potentially take to every GM table on firm RAW-based footing ... prior to any subjective opinions being levied.  (This, too, was a key point of the exercise - to focus on what was actually codified in RAW, rather than focusing on mere opinions on the matter ... to establish said firm footing ... or eliminate it.)

 

 

14 hours ago, Cantriped said:

Further, trying to ban or dismiss the use of using any game elements that require the GM to make a decision is far more drastic than simply performing the basic auditing and adjudication the RAW assumes you are capable of as GM. 

 But it was also necessary for the establishment or elimination of the aforementioned footing within codified RAW (without reliance on table-to-table subjectivity).

 

 

14 hours ago, Cantriped said:

We did not dodge your inquiry, it was answered it with the RAW that are available. I'm sorry you didn't like the answer.

It's not that I didn't like the answer -- it's that the answer either deliberately stepped outside of the boundaries in which the inquiry was made ... or someone failed to note those boundaries.  As should be obvious, by now, the inquiry was deliberately bounded to focus on two key points. By answering outside of those boundaries, those points were missed.  I used the martial dodge reference to provide you (plural) with an explanation of why I believe that miss happened. I'm sorry you don't like the fact that use of subjectivity (instead of sticking exclusively to codified RAW) completely missed what I was driving at ... while also failing to address the inquiry within its context/boundaries.

 

Surreal

 

P.S. If nothing else, the discussion was fruitful in that it unveiled yet another place where CC subtly deviates from 6e ... despite Tasha's steady insistence in past posts that CC is 1) complete, 2) correct, and 3) interchangeable with 6e. ("Must Be Used At Full Power" appears not to be mentioned, at all, as part of CC's RAW ... despite it being codified as cited in this thread within 6e.)

[Lucius]

2 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

 

It's not that I didn't like the answer -- it's that the answer either deliberately stepped outside of the boundaries in which the inquiry was made ... or someone failed to note those boundaries.  As previously noted, the inquiry was very deliberately bounded to focus on two key points. By answering outside of those boundaries, those points were missed.  I used the martial dodge reference to provide you (plural) with an explanation of why I believe that miss happened. I'm sorry you don't like the fact that use of subjectivity (instead of sticking exclusively to codified RAW) completely missed what I was driving at ... while also failing to address the inquiry within its context/boundaries.

 

Nobody dodged your question. You designed the question to dodge every possible answer.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I can't design a tagline to dodge every possible palindromedary.

[Surrealone]

12 minutes ago, Lucius said:

 

Nobody dodged your question. You designed the question to dodge every possible answer.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I can't design a tagline to dodge every possible palindromedary.

I designed it to get an either/or response based on 6e RAW, not subjectivity or CC deviations.  i.e. As framed, there were exactly two outcomes based on 6e RAW sans GM interpretation (i.e. if the respondent remained within the boundaries of the question):

1. Either "Must Be Used At Full Power" was limited to body-affecting powers only (per RAW) and valued at a default of (-0)  ... or
2. There was a 6e RAW citation elsewhere that showed it was applicable to more than just body-affecting powers (and potentially defaulted to -1/4).

I looked for #2 and couldn't find it -- but was very interested in it because I saw potential uses for your initial assertion (at lots of GM tables ... i.e. to bring it to them for their rulings, with a firm footing in RAW). 

 

You (Lucius) asserted the -0 limitation applied to something that wasn't body-affecting ... and then when I asked for RAW citation confirming applicability to non-body-affecting powers, you pivoted to Limited Power rather than saying, "I can't find it, so per RAW, it's inapplicable -- but a GM might rule otherwise." (Now why was that, hmm?)

 

So -- the question wasn't designed to dodge anything other than subjective interpretation.  By sticking with 6e RAW (and only 6e RAW), everyone is on the same (literal) page when responding.

 

[Tech]

Since your power armor suit has to have some way to trigger the mini-rockets, you can have a touch pad/internal headset/a llama/anything that designates how much of the rocket explodes. Any of the suggestions here works. If you have it in your concept that it must be at full power, take that limitation.

[Beast]

just using blast you could also lessen the damage by the concept that the energy stored in the missile does multiple things

1 guidance using the spreading rules for better targeting(1 slot doing 2 things)
2 trade pinpoint kenetic energy poisoning for shrapnel/heat/concussive area effects

3 off axis attack(indirect)

 

[Ninja-Bear]

If you are hitting something with multiple mini rockets, you can reduce the dice by saying you are shooting less rockets at them.

[Ninja-Bear]

On 11/29/2017 at 7:00 AM, Surrealone said:

You can, indeed, have a productive discussion of this system operating under such hypothetical discussions. In this case, I was focused on discussion about objective RAW (instead of subjective GM interpretation) -- which was rather the point of the exercise.  Another key point of the exercise was to deal with RAW because it's the same at every GM table wherein the same versions of the rules are present ... whereas subjective GM opinion varies from table to table.  Painted in that context, the hypothetical assumptions were not harsh, but actually very reasonable, as they limited us to a game facet that a player might potentially take to every GM table on firm RAW-based footing ... prior to any subjective opinions being levied.  (This, too, was a key point of the exercise - to focus on what was actually codified in RAW, rather than focusing on mere opinions on the matter ... to establish said firm footing ... or eliminate it.)

 

 

 But it was also necessary for the establishment or elimination of the aforementioned footing within codified RAW (without reliance on table-to-table subjectivity)

 

P.S. If nothing else, the discussion was fruitful in that it unveiled yet another place where CC subtly deviates from 6e ... despite Tasha's steady insistence in past posts that CC is 1) complete, 2) correct, and 3) interchangeable with 6e. ("Must Be Used At Full Power" appears not to be mentioned, at all, as part of CC's RAW ... despite it being codified as cited in this thread within 6e.)

Ok for better or worse I’m going to chime in. First paragraph if I understand correctly you want to see if the Full Power modifier is listed in 6e and as to what cost? And if the book states it then it isn’t based on GM fiat? Correct? While I can appreciate what your asking, if you want to get to the nitty gritty, the rules have stated (since 4th) that even listed values of modifiers can and should be adjusted based on campaigns. Now I know that 99.9. % that this never happens in a game. Most GMs won’t bat an eye if there is no symbol beside a modifier however if truly want to find any rule that doesn’t have GM consent implies, you’re not going to find it.

 

As to your PPS. CC deviates as Basic does from 6th. I.e. it doesn’t. It may not have every modifier or rule as full 6th but it never was intended to. Basic purposely has a few powers missing. Btw if 6th is so complete why does Steve Long have to answer questions or why is there an APG I-II? Answer nobody can predict all the rules you’ll need in any game. So how is Complete not complete? Can you run a fully realized game? Yes. That is where the Complete is. 2) Why is CC incorrect? Because it’s missing an obscure limitation?  Is it because it’s missing Ranged Martial Arts? No just because it may not have every option available doesn’t mean the that rules present are incorrect. If CC changed a way a certain rule works then that’s a different story. 3) Again not interchangeable over an obscure limitation? Really that is a stretch. 

[Surrealone]

6 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

So how is Complete not complete?

Why is CC incorrect? Because it’s missing an obscure limitation? 

 

Remember: you asked.  I mention this because I'm only posting a detailed response on this because you asked.

Regarding your inquiry about CC being "not complete", some examples off the top of my head include:

• CC p71 states in the right-most top quadrant: (see the Images Complexity Table) ... while CC doesn't actually have an Images Complexity Table anywhere in it (like the one you'll find on 6e1 p237)

• 6e1 p149 details the concept and definition of CLASSES OF MINDS ... while CC completely lacks this concept/definition

• 6e1 p146 details the Cannot Be Used At Full Power Limitation for Body-Affecting powers .... while CC completely lacks any reference to this limitation.
• 6e1 p203 states: Ranged: Characters cannot buy this Advantage for Duplication ..... while CC states no such thing (making it ok to do so if relying solely on CC RAW as a guide ... when it actually isn't per 6e).
• 6e1 p195 covers the use of Dispel to break foci ... while CC's Dispel power description doesn't cover this concept, at all (meaning someone relying solely on CC would have no idea Dispel can break things)

 

The missing table  ... and omission of classes of minds ... are the ones I consider the most egregious omissions (from the above list), by the way -- because the former sends the reader off in search of a non-existent table which is actually pretty important for the Images power (specifically for someone who has never played this game before and is using CC as governing RAW) ... while the latter does away with a core concept for mental powers present in 6e and earlier versions.  That said, any one of the above (by itself) is typically enough to meet the criteria for "not complete" ... since a 'complete' set of rules is typically considered one that has no omissions. 

 

 

Regarding your inquiry about CC being incorrect, here's an example off the top of my head that came up in another thread (recently):

• CC p105 states (in the section on durability): By default, a Focus is Breakable ... while 6e1 RAW Focus Limitation verbiage indicates no such thing (i.e. CC's author appears to have made something new up with that one, since 6e rules clearly state that the player chooses whether a focus is breakable or unbreakable, with no defaulting of any sort mentioned on 6e1 p378 in the durability section pertaining to foci)

 

You are both welcome and encouraged to correct any/all of the above (please, show me where the Images Complexity Table is within CC!  What page?!).  I'd very much like to be wrong regarding the above citations -- but, so far, I have not found citable supporting evidence to that effect.

 

Note:
Since it's not my job to create/collate/aggregate errata lists (i.e. that's 'work' ... and I like to get paid for doing 'work') ... and since there's actually an owner/author of CC whose wheelhouse such 'work' might actually fall under, I'll refrain from listing additional issues I've found, especially since a small group of prickly folks here seem to bristle when I dare to point out the (factual) inconsistencies in the (obviously differing in some ways, see above) rulesets.  How dare I render valid criticism that I can back up with citable facts?  Oh, the horror of it!

 

Remember:  I only posted the above details on this because you asked.

[Ninja-Bear]

Alright let’s deal with your points. Images missing table. That’s an unfortunate errata thing. It’s a pain but it happens to many a game book. So does that mean when the BBB came out with all its errors, it was incomplete? Actually can you really name a book that doesn’t have an errata?  So is Fifth incomplete because Fifth revised came out and expanded and corrected errata from Fifth?  Not being a pia but really? I had to down load a bunch of tables for Villainy Amok awhile ago. 

 

Class of minds. Now that was a deliberate change by Derek in CC from 6th. He changed it by the way it was presented to going back to earlier editions way (I believe 5th introduced class of minds). Btw in 5th Steve also mentioned that you didn’t have to use class of minds.

Fwiw I can’t find class of minds in Basic either.

 

As to Durability, I notes up stream that language is similar to 6th Basic written by Steve.

 

Let me be clear though I understand that in Rules Questions though 6th does super cede CC as it does Basic. I like how Chris Goodwin calls CC abridged version.  So yes CC is complete in that it can run a game.  It still compatible to 6th. 

[Surrealone]

4 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

So yes CC is complete in that it can run a game.

Unless you want to play a guy who uses Images ... and the only version of the game you've ever owned is a hardcopy of CC someone gave to you as a gift (meaning you don't know these forums exist, either).  Then you're SOL -- because the book is actually not complete enough for someone to know how to properly use that power ... or for a GM to adjudicate it properly.

 

So no, it's not actually complete ... in that it can't run a game properly on its own ... where proper is what's defined by 6e, of course.  The foregoing is but one example, but all of the other citations are places where improper things occur when running with only CC by itself ... as a result of its omissions.

 

But continue to call something with omissions (be they accidental ... or intentional) 'complete' if it suits you.  I've given you enough facts to prove the point beyond question, but I can't make you accept them, nor am I trying to do so.  You asked and appear to dispute the response I provided based solely on opinion -- without any evidence/citations from CC or 6e that disprove the omissions (errors?) I've noted ... and therefore we must agree to disagree.  If a missing table (that is actually referenced by the book which lacks it) doesn't prove something is incomplete when you ask about how it is incomplete ... I don't know what will.