JmOz Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 End Cost to keep power off -1/4 This power would need to be persistant, then to turn the power off the character must spend End each phase to keep power off The cost was determined by reducing the cost of "Always On" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobGreenwade Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 I sure would. (I even tried suggesting such a thing for FREd, but no go.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monolith Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 This could also be fashioned as a Physical Limitation Disadvantage, or even as a Side Effect Limitation. Depending on the SFX I would probably go with Physical Limitation because it always seem harder to come up with interesting Physical Lims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caris Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 Re: Would you allow this Lim? Originally posted by JmOz End Cost to keep power off -1/4 This power would need to be persistant, then to turn the power off the character must spend End each phase to keep power off The cost was determined by reducing the cost of "Always On" I'm just not sure if it quite makes the cut, since a GM could allow you to turn off an "Always On" power for 5 times the END cost at the -1/2 lim level. I'm not sure that normal END cost would qualify for the -1/4 level, but I'd allow it on a trial basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobGreenwade Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 Re: Re: Would you allow this Lim? Originally posted by caris I'm just not sure if it quite makes the cut, since a GM could allow you to turn off an "Always On" power for 5 times the END cost at the -1/2 lim level. I'm not sure that normal END cost would qualify for the -1/4 level, but I'd allow it on a trial basis. This is a valid point. How about double END cost? That would be the equivalent of a -1 Limitation on the standard Always On Limitation (-1/2 for Costs Endurance, and -1/2 for Increased Endurance Cost). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 That Would Depend on the power. If it is not really a disadvantage then no. Take Regeneration, cost end to turn power off. What would be the point? Now if it was something like 2d6RKA Always On, Personal Immunity.No range, Cost End to Turn Off 60 Active Points (6 End) then I could see it. As long as your Recovery doesn't allow you to get all the End back each turn. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drrushing Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 I agree with Argus Although, the mechanics would be unusual, the characters recovery directly effects the overall value of the "limitation". If the character has an astronomical recovery(as many bricks do), then this would be almost pointless. On the other hand, how would it work if the character couldn't sustain recovery and began taking stun. Would the character eventually fall unconscious, and then the power automatically fail, or how would it work? Just some rambling thoughts............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEmerged Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 Shoot, I've got an NPC with this at that cost -- Invisibility being the power in question. I could see different values for different powers, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlestaff Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 IIRC, there was a character in the old Enemies II or Enemies III book that had a similar power. I don't remember her name, but she was a mystic character that had an HKA damage shield, always on. However, she could spend endurance to turn off the field for limited periods of time, such as when she tried to get close to a hero (she was designed to fall in love with a hero, but with the damage shield it was dangerous, etc.). When I get home tonight, I'll see if I can dig up the book and get the specifics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Posted December 2, 2003 Report Share Posted December 2, 2003 We always ran this as a -0. We figured that the ability to have a power always on without END, with the option to turn off with an END cost was an even trade. Could vary on the power I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magmarock Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 Wouldn't it be nice if Rogue could shut off her powers this way? By consciously paying END for it? I think the writers for X-Men should allow it! Give the poor girl a break, already! One question: If I had a PC that had (in 4th Ed) Growth always on, and had to change that to the new rules for 5th Ed, then wouldn't it be more correct to buy Shrinking- only to normal size, instead of paying END to shut all those smaller powers off? Just curious. Mags PS: And, yes, I would allow this LIM if the 'always on' power(s) was one that had consequences when on- like a Damage Shield, or the Invisibility.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oruncrest Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 Battlestaff, I believe you're thinking about Demonfire from Enemies III. JimOz, Have you looked at Inherent on pg 165 of the FReD? It says that at the GM's option, a character can turn off an inherent power by paying END. It would make the power cost more (it's an advantage), but you could buy Always On to make it cheaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.