New Power: Quasi Solid

[unclevlad]

Looking for feedback.  Alternate Desolid from APG doesn't really work for me;  being Desolid is more about damage negation or reduction than straight PD or ED to me.  Reduction would probably work IF I went with the expanded Damage Reduction charts/power choices, but I first thought of this as using damage negation.

 

So...what I'm considering.  Quasi Solid is purchased in levels, like Shrinking or DI.  Each level gives:

1 DC physical and energy Damage Negation.  This does NOT apply to powers with Affects Desolid.  (Like the PD/ED from Alternate Desolid.)

x1/2 Mass

x1/2 Size, only for purposes of passing through non-solid objects.  I define a standard character box, for this purpose, as 2m by 1/2 meter by 1/2 meter.  So with 3 levels of quasi solid, you can pass through bars 3" apart.

+2" Knockback.  This affects distance only, not velocity or velocity-related damage.  (This is straight from Alternate Desolid.)

 

The power is Constant and costs END.

 

For the time being, I assigned a temporary price of 12 points per level;  the damage negation is 10 on its own, but normally doesn't cost END.  The small size helps infiltration often enough to be worth something...but perhaps not as much  as I'm thinking.  The move through solids of Alternate Desolid is generally stronger.  So I could certainly see making this 10 points per level.

 

Note that this is not Desolid, and you don't need to buy anything with Affects Desolid.  It has no Life Support issues.  So it's closer to Desolid with Selective Desolidification.  It probably only makes mechanical sense if buying around 3-6 levels;  more, and you're probably better off buying Desolid and Selected Desolidification, even if it feels like a dodge (and it does to me, I'm not a big fan of Selective Desolid).  Less, and heck, just buy the Damage Negation.  The size aspect won't help *that* much.

 

Thoughts?  Modifications?  Change how you pass through objects somehow?  I'm not saying this is perfect, but it at least does scale, and I don't like Alternate Desolid's allowance of passing through completely solid, if not terribly robust, items.  I want this closer to Not Through Solids...with something scaling to say your penetration ability improves as you buy more.

[Doc Democracy]

I wonder if you are deliberately breaking the square-cube law as you reduce size and mass by the same proportions.  Isometric scaling happens when proportional relationships are preserved as size changes during growth or over evolutionary time and is governed by the square-cube law. An organism which doubles in length isometrically will find that the surface area available to it will increase fourfold, while its volume and mass will increase by a factor of eight.

 

Why do you think a new power is needed?  Could you not accomplish by buying a limited Shrinking alongside a linked Damage Negation.

 

Really all that you are doing is adding the reduction of damage to the shrinking and removing the DCV and PER bonuses of Shrinking.

[unclevlad]

The size change is not actual.  There's no Shrinking going on, per se.  The "size change" is for determining how readily you can pass through things...so, for example, with 1 level you can't pass through a chain link fence.  You're still too solid.  

 

[unclevlad]

The point of the power is a scaling alternative to Desolid.  APG's Alternate Desolid doesn't make that much sense, in that for 5 points you can, if slowly, pass through completely solid objects.  That's like you're phasing into a different dimension.  Here, the notion is you're becoming dispersed;  all parts of you are solid matter, but now with gaps/spaces.  

[Doc Democracy]

I will need to think about the costing.  I get the scaling difference but now wondering why you are suggesting additional KB.  If the dispersed character is “spongier” or “dislocated” that allows him to squeeze through spaces, wouldn’t he be less likely to get knocked back?

 

Essentially it all comes down to costing and I haven’t had time to crunch any numbers.

 

Doc

[unclevlad]

It's a tossup on the KB, yeah.  The notion is he's so light, he's easier to knock around, but yeah, it's tough to make solid contact.  That KB is in Alternate Desolid.  I could drop it to 1" per level or just get rid of it;  I'm not wedded to it.  

[Hugh Neilson]

16 hours ago, unclevlad said:

The size change is not actual.  There's no Shrinking going on, per se.  The "size change" is for determining how readily you can pass through things...so, for example, with 1 level you can't pass through a chain link fence.  You're still too solid.  

 

 

Which is why many "desolid" characters have limitations like "cannot pass through solid objects".  They are still quasi-solid, perhaps made of liquids or sand.  Link in some defensive powers and away we go.

 

16 hours ago, unclevlad said:

The point of the power is a scaling alternative to Desolid.  APG's Alternate Desolid doesn't make that much sense, in that for 5 points you can, if slowly, pass through completely solid objects.  That's like you're phasing into a different dimension.  Here, the notion is you're becoming dispersed;  all parts of you are solid matter, but now with gaps/spaces.  

 

Given you are basing the ability to pass through objects on size, it sure feels a lot like Shrinking.  Shrinking's DCV bonus also works pretty well for "it's so tough to land a solid blow".  Limited  by providing no penalties to PER roll, and not changing the character;'s actual size because SFX.

[unclevlad]

Hugh, Alternate Desolid from APG lets you pass through completely solid objects too.

 

Can't pass through solids still requires you to take Affects Physical World, or Selective Desolid.  And we're still talking all or nothing.  This power, I hope, largely provides a path from Selective Desolid, Can't Pass Through Solids, to close to a pure Selective Desolid.  

 

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

I'm not looking at Alternate Desolid because it allows automatic passage through walls.  It's a GM prerogative to allow that some level of limited Desolid does not require "affects physical world".  While a clear rule change, it's no more invasive than a brand-new power.

 

Actually, a reasonable approach is probably to override the rule that "does not protect against damage" still requires Affects Solid World.  As only a -1 limitation, that leaves a cost of 20 points to be able to move through solid objects.  A bit of Triggered Teleportation could accomplish the same thing, and could be constructed at a much lower cost (especially if you want it to be 0 END).

 

Desold that Cannot Pass through solid objects costs 27 points, and protects against all damage.  Offsetting that, you need "affects physical world".  How many points would your method cost to allow the character to pass through a screen door or porous substance (say 1 micrometer spaces)?  How much effective defense would it grant?

 

One problem with RAW is that Affects Physical World is really an advantage to Desolid, not to the attack powers, but is applied to the attack powers.  Making Desolid cost 120 points (and 12 END) to remove the inability to affect the solid world seems like it would be expensive enough, especially if we make that an 80 point Adder rather than a +2 Advantage.  We could then have some lower-cost adders for specific variants, like only one attack which can affect the solid world costing, perhaps, 20 points.  Definitely a Stop Sign, but Desolid itself is already in that category.

 

What do I get for 120 points in your model?

 

10 DC Physical and Energy Negation, not for attacks which affect the desolid (normal cost 100/1.75 since it Costs END = 57)

 

10 levels of Shrinking with no DCV bonus and no PER roll modifier.  A level of Shrinking, 0 END costs 9 points, so 10 levels would normally cost 90 (given the Negation is already providing the END cost).  The removal of the PER roll modifier is a -1/4 limitation, so 72 points.  The loss of 20  DCV is a 100 point reduction in the value of that 72 points, so -28.

 

That suggests a cost of 29 points for 10 levels of your proposed ability, which would be about 3 points per level, but that mitigates the END cost considerably.

 

Make the Damage Negation cost END and it would be worth 80 - 28 = 52 points for 10 levels, so maybe 5 points per level with no END by default would be in the ballpark.

 

Based on that analysis, no way would I invest 12 points per level.

 

Another alternate build:

 

40  Multipower

4  u +4 DC Negation, Physical and Energy (40 AP)

4  u Desolid (40 AP)

 

For 48 points (the cost of 4 levels of your power), I can get the same Negation (not limited for Affects Desolid) or be fully Desolid (pass through anything).

 

While passing through objects, I do not get to affect the solid world, but that seems like a pretty minor drawback for the huge advantage over your construct.  And I can buy more unlimited Negation for 10 AP per +1 DC of physical and energy Negation.

 

Doc D, have you crunched any numbers?  Do mine make sense?

[Doc Democracy]

On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 4:26 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

10 levels of Shrinking with no DCV bonus and no PER roll modifier.  A level of Shrinking, 0 END costs 9 points, so 10 levels would normally cost 90 (given the Negation is already providing the END cost).  The removal of the PER roll modifier is a -1/4 limitation, so 72 points.  The loss of 20  DCV is a 100 point reduction in the value of that 72 points, so -28.

 

This is my biggest issue with your numbers, I do not think that any decent consideration on the shrinking can result in 10 levels giving you 28 points.  ?

 

I do think there is an issue with shrinking - it is very effective due to reduced PER and the DCV.  You're effectively saying that the ability to pass through small spaces and an increase in knockback is a disadvantage of almost 30 points...

 

I would probably set the shrinking at a cost of 28 (-1/4 for the PER, -2 for the DCV)

 

That would come to 85 points for 10 levels, maybe 9 per level...

[Hugh Neilson]

There is a definite value question for Shrinking, but I find Shrinking largely a form of DCV with frills attached.

 

+20 DCV that costs END would cost 67 points.  10 levels of Shrinking gives the same DCV  bonus at a lower END cost(6 rather than 10).

 

+6m Knockback is a lot.  Knockback Resistance is 1 point per meter, but also reduces damage where the Shrinking does not, so it would not be 6 AP of Side Effects.

 

If we boil it down, Shrinking is +2 DCV and -2 to PER rolls (call that a +2 bonus to Stealth checks and it's another 4 points).  Leaving aside the ability to move through small spaces, that's 14 AP, or 140 AP for 10 levels.

 

So how do we get down to 6 points?

 

It costs END, but only about 1/3 of the END implied by its AP - call that -1/4.

 

As a Size Affecting Power, it is Obvious, so that's probably a -1/4 limitation (from Inobvious characterstics) - counterintuitive in that it makes him hard to see, but he is obviously smaller.

 

The +2 Stealth bonus is Linked to DCV, and the DCV is Linked to the Stealth Bonus - that's -1/2 and -1/4 at most generous (similar to the DI discussion in another thread).

 

A Minor side effect that always occurs should be -1/2 (is it -3/4 adding an extra +1/4 because it is a Constant power?  I'm going with -1/2).

 

So that's +20 DCV, half END (-1/4), Obvious (-1/4), Linked to Stealth Bonus (-1/4), Side Effect (-1/2) = 100 AP, 44 RP, plus

 

+20 Stealth, half END (-1/4), Obvious (-1/4), Linked to DCV Bonus (-1/2), Side Effect (-1/2) = 40 AP, 16 RP

 

60 points in total, 6 points per level.  Slipping through small spaces is effectively free from the SFX of the power if this pricing in right.

 

Our guy is getting Negation instead of DCV, no Stealth bonus, pretty much the same side effects and the same ability to slip through small spaces.  1 DC of Physical and Energy Damage Negation is the same starting cost as +2 DCV, so if the loss of the Stealth Bonus is -1/4, then we go from 60 points for 10 levels of Shrinking to 48, which is pretty close to 5 points per level of Quasi-Sold.  Assuming DCV and Damage Negation are of equal values, applying the same modifiers to a power based on +2 DCV to +1DC of P & E Negation seems reasonable to me.

[Doc Democracy]

That is probably a better way to compare.  Substituting components of the compound power for equivalent ones.  I can agree with this way of costing...

[unclevlad]

Your Linked is illegal by 6E1 383.  

 

When Linking two powers, a character should only take Linked for the power that costs fewer Active Points. If both the greater power and lesser power have the same Active Point cost, take Linked for the one with the lowest Real Point cost before Linked is applied. If their Real Point costs are also the same, apply Linked to only one of them, chosen by the player (hereafter considered the “lesser power”).

 

So you can't take the limitations on both.  It won't matter that much, I'll grant but it's there.  In either case, these are not linked but Unified...you can't have one without the other, so they're a flat -1/4 on each.  As I say, it's not going to change the costing that much

 

Second point is whether what you're calling a 'side effect' is justified here, at the value you're giving it.  That's very difficult to read, but IMO, you're overvaluing it.  And is Obvious *really* worth another 1/4 here?  Should you get both the Obvious reduction and the Side Effect reduction at full values?

 

I'm not saying that Quasi Solid isn't overpriced;  I am saying this deconstruction on shrinking is problematic.  

 

I'm leaning to drop the cost on the Quasi Solid because the very high base cost is an inherent problem when it comes time to consider any advantages;  the impact is more severe than is normally the case.  And I'm gonna drop the extra KB.  

AHHH...how about this.  Rather than the weird size thing...+1 to Contortionist per level.  That gets across the point that the form is more fluid, and lets it work more simply, in more situations.  That's much nicer.

 

On that basis, the simple deconstruction is 8 per level...12 active for the damage negation and +1 roll, -1/2 for Costs END.  I darn sure wouldn't allow Linked or Unified to apply to the damage negation...MAYBE on the skill level but even that feels very cheesy.  Obvious...ok.  I can see that...but.  Defense powers are Inobvious with a qualifier that they may become obvious through circumstance...so taking the limitation should be done with some caution.  And the Contortionist aspect wouldn't really be Obvious despite the power classification...it's Inobvious that can become Obvious.

 

So ok...8 on the high side, possibly 7.  The DI discussion is making me lean to 8 because even the Costs END isn't always worth the full 1/2.

[Hugh Neilson]

The deconstruction on Shrinking (and DI in the other thread) is based on the assumption all limitations are at RAW value.  Taking the comments in order.

 

Linked - 6e1 p 383 states that:

 

In some cases a character may want to have a lesser power that he must use whenever he uses the greater power. In other words the powers are jointly Linked, because neither can be used without the other (as compared to the usual arrangement, where the character can use the greater power without activating the lesser power). Typically this doesn’t affect the value of Linked; it’s a -0 addition to the Limitation’s value. But if the lesser power costs a lot of END or otherwise inconveniences the character significantly, the GM might grant an additional ¼ more Limitation. Alternately, the GM may give the lesser power the standard -½ Linked value, and let the greater power take a -¼ Linked.

 

IMO, a greater power which can only be used with the lesser power is more limited than a greater power which can be used without the lesser power.  Whether that is sufficiently limiting to merit -1/4 is a good question, but if both powers cost END, it seems like there is a drawback in some form.

 

Actually, they are also Unified Powers, aren't they?  That is another -1/4, regardless of how we price Linked.  Maybe that puts us back to Linked on the smaller power, and Unified Power on both. -1/2  combined for the greater power is clearly excessive.

 

Side Effect is -1/4 for being minor, doubled for happening every time the power is used (so -1/2) and not modified for being on a Constant power (which is a further +1/4, but as I read it, only where the power need an activation roll risking the side effect every phase - which seems unfair when, with no activation, there is no hope of avoiding the side effect).  The question is whether the Side Effect is limiting enough.  A Minor side effect is "a  minor or trivial effect such as a penalty to PER rolls or a skill roll".  6 meters of KB resistance costs 6 points.  That's nearly half of the 12 point cost of +2 Stealth and +2 DCV, but since the extra KB does not increase damage, it's a bit of a tradeoff.  I note also that the added knockback adds after the roll, so if our 1 level Shrunk hero is hit by a 2d6 swat, for 7 STUN, 2 Bod and -9 on the 2d6 roll, he flies back 2 BOD - 9 rolled = 0, +6 meters.  The roll does not offset the added KB.  I'd call that at least Trivial - any hit from an attack that does KB means the character is moved and likely prone.

 

Moving from Inobvious to Obvious is a -1/4 limitation.  Should it be?  I don't know, but that is a separate discussion.  If we cannot constrain the variables, we can't evaluate any single change.

 

I don't see any level of Contortionist allowing a character to wriggle through the holes in a chain link fence.

[unclevlad]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The deconstruction on Shrinking (and DI in the other thread) is based on the assumption all limitations are at RAW value.  Taking the comments in order.

 

Linked - 6e1 p 383 states that:

 

In some cases a character may want to have a lesser power that he must use whenever he uses the greater power. In other words the powers are jointly Linked, because neither can be used without the other (as compared to the usual arrangement, where the character can use the greater power without activating the lesser power). Typically this doesn’t affect the value of Linked; it’s a -0 addition to the Limitation’s value. But if the lesser power costs a lot of END or otherwise inconveniences the character significantly, the GM might grant an additional ¼ more Limitation. Alternately, the GM may give the lesser power the standard -½ Linked value, and let the greater power take a -¼ Linked.

 

IMO, a greater power which can only be used with the lesser power is more limited than a greater power which can be used without the lesser power.  Whether that is sufficiently limiting to merit -1/4 is a good question, but if both powers cost END, it seems like there is a drawback in some form.

 

Actually, they are also Unified Powers, aren't they?  That is another -1/4, regardless of how we price Linked.  Maybe that puts us back to Linked on the smaller power, and Unified Power on both. -1/2  combined for the greater power is clearly excessive.

 

Side Effect is -1/4 for being minor, doubled for happening every time the power is used (so -1/2) and not modified for being on a Constant power (which is a further +1/4, but as I read it, only where the power need an activation roll risking the side effect every phase - which seems unfair when, with no activation, there is no hope of avoiding the side effect).  The question is whether the Side Effect is limiting enough.  A Minor side effect is "a  minor or trivial effect such as a penalty to PER rolls or a skill roll".  6 meters of KB resistance costs 6 points.  That's nearly half of the 12 point cost of +2 Stealth and +2 DCV, but since the extra KB does not increase damage, it's a bit of a tradeoff.  I note also that the added knockback adds after the roll, so if our 1 level Shrunk hero is hit by a 2d6 swat, for 7 STUN, 2 Bod and -9 on the 2d6 roll, he flies back 2 BOD - 9 rolled = 0, +6 meters.  The roll does not offset the added KB.  I'd call that at least Trivial - any hit from an attack that does KB means the character is moved and likely prone.

 

Moving from Inobvious to Obvious is a -1/4 limitation.  Should it be?  I don't know, but that is a separate discussion.  If we cannot constrain the variables, we can't evaluate any single change.

 

I don't see any level of Contortionist allowing a character to wriggle through the holes in a chain link fence.

 

The jointly linked is written horrendously, but taking it as written, the greater power can get a limitation if the lesser power creates an unusual burden...not their language but my interpretation.  Generally it's END,-related but if the lesser power is Obvious and the greater is Invisible, then it might be a reasonable ruling to give the greater the price break.  However, this is NOT the default, and simply costing END is not in itself adequate IMO.  

 

Side effect is a terrible limitation because it's so vague.  I know what the rule says, but it's what it DOESN'T say.  Is -1 PER an acceptable side effect?  Is that really worth, say, a 1/4 Limitation on a 50 point power?  And trying to use this in a deconstruction approach is...tricky.  

 

On contortionist:  

 

Lastly, Contortionist allows a character to contort his body so he can fit into tiny spaces which he’s normally too big for. This is ideal for escaping from collapsed mine shafts, hiding in small cupboards, and so forth.

 

If you can get through a collapsed mine tunnel, you can get through a chain link fence.   

[IndianaJoe3]

6 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Side effect is a terrible limitation because it's so vague.  I know what the rule says, but it's what it DOESN'T say.  Is -1 PER an acceptable side effect?  Is that really worth, say, a 1/4 Limitation on a 50 point power?  And trying to use this in a deconstruction approach is...tricky.  

 

At the risk of going off on a tangent here, I've used Change Environment as a model for an appropriate cost for a skill/perception roll penalty Side Effect.

[Hugh Neilson]

20 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

The jointly linked is written horrendously, but taking it as written, the greater power can get a limitation if the lesser power creates an unusual burden...not their language but my interpretation.  Generally it's END,-related but if the lesser power is Obvious and the greater is Invisible, then it might be a reasonable ruling to give the greater the price break.  However, this is NOT the default, and simply costing END is not in itself adequate IMO.  

 

Side effect is a terrible limitation because it's so vague.  I know what the rule says, but it's what it DOESN'T say.  Is -1 PER an acceptable side effect?  Is that really worth, say, a 1/4 Limitation on a 50 point power?  And trying to use this in a deconstruction approach is...tricky.  

 

On contortionist:  

 

Lastly, Contortionist allows a character to contort his body so he can fit into tiny spaces which he’s normally too big for. This is ideal for escaping from collapsed mine shafts, hiding in small cupboards, and so forth.

 

If you can get through a collapsed mine tunnel, you can get through a chain link fence.   

 

Jointly linked is challenging.  Let's look at a 4d6 Flash and 12d6 Blast, just for illustration.

 

 - If neither power is limited, I can use the Flash independent of the Blast, the Blast independent of the Flash, or both together as a Combined Attack, in whatever proportions I want.

 

 - If I can only use the Flash as part of the Blast, proportionally (1d6 Flash per 3d6 Blast), I put a -1/2 Linked limitation on the Flash.  I can still use the Blast without the Flash.

 

 - What if I have to use the Flash in order to use the Blast (1d6 Flash per 3d6 Blast), but I can use the Flash independently?  The Blast is limited.  The least limitation possible is -1/4, so that saves 12 points on the Blast.  The obvious question is "what about 12d6 Blast, 1d6 Flash - pay 5 for Flash and save 12 for Blast - MUNCHKIN!!!"  But I could have Limited the blast to only be usable at full power, and not bought the Flash at all.  That's a -1/4 limitation.  Or I could have made them Unified Powers for a -1/4 limitation on each, and kept full flexibility to use them independently or in tandem.

 

Given all of that, I do not see -1/2 for the lesser power(s) and -1/4 for the greater power(s) when they must always be used in tandem as unreasonable.  However, I am starting to wonder why "Linked" and Unified Power" should  not be consolidated. 

 

Side Effect requires judgement.  The broader the mechanic, the more judgment is going to be required.   

 

To contortionist, I read the description.  There is a world of difference between a human who can squeeze into a suitcase (which some people can) and a human who can squeeze through a space 3" in diameter (which no human can).  Even if we accept that, you need to set the penalty levels for the skill roll, so I don't think using Contortionist saves us any work. 

 

13 hours ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

At the risk of going off on a tangent here, I've used Change Environment as a model for an appropriate cost for a skill/perception roll penalty Side Effect.

 

That's fair.  I've used Drain, and I think that is more fair than Blast since you get no defenses.  I've never found "takes damage" a very interesting Side Effect anyway.

[unclevlad]

Quote

 What if I have to use the Flash in order to use the Blast (1d6 Flash per 3d6 Blast), but I can use the Flash independently?  The Blast is limited.  The least limitation possible is -1/4, so that saves 12 points on the Blast.  The obvious question is "what about 12d6 Blast, 1d6 Flash - pay 5 for Flash and save 12 for Blast - MUNCHKIN!!!"  But I could have Limited the blast to only be usable at full power, and not bought the Flash at all.  That's a -1/4 limitation.  Or I could have made them Unified Powers for a -1/4 limitation on each, and kept full flexibility to use them independently or in tandem.

 

 

Not quite accurate, IMO.

 

A condition that does not fundamentally restrict the ability to use a power does not count as a limitation for that purpose;  it's stricty SFX.  How does the Flash in this example restrict your use of the Blast?  Under what circumstances?

 

The purpose of Jointly Linked is for a case such as Invisibility to Sight, No Fringe, with a Usable Simultaneously that, let's say, nets out at +1/2.  No Reduced END.  That's 30 points;  adders are killers when you want to slap advantages on.  The other power is 4 DCs physical and energy damage negation.  That's 40, so it's the greater.  When we make them jointly linked, the damage negation now becomes burdened with a 3 per phase END cost...which also means it loses Persistent implicitly.  THAT is now a limitation on the DN so you get the -1/2 on the Invis, and the -1/4 on the DN.  

 

Scenario 2:  Same DN.  Invis, No Fringe, Usable Simultaneously that nets to +1/4 only.  Now add 1/2 END.  Same 30 points, but the END cost is now 1 rather than 3.  Yes, the DN is still fundamentally losing Persistent, but the overall impact is much lower.  Yes, this is still likely worth giving the DN the -1/4 Linked, but it's borderline.

 

Next, take the Invis to 0 END, even if not persistent.  IMO you haven't imposed enough of a limitation to justify giving the DN the extra -1/4.  Even tho it's losing Persistent, that's not going to kick in often enough for me to allow the limitation.  That said, you can argue that the DN is still getting Nonpersistent, and that should be enough.  GM's call.

 

Last, of course, if you kill the Usable Simultaneously but go to 0 END, persistent...still only 35 points, still the lesser power...but there's absolutely no restriction imposed on the DN by the Invis.  Therefore, there is no cost break on the DN.

 

I think I would very rarely allow 2 attack powers to take Jointly Linked.  Won't say never, but you need a good argument.  

[Hugh Neilson]

On 8/24/2018 at 10:20 AM, unclevlad said:

 

Not quite accurate, IMO.

 

A condition that does not fundamentally restrict the ability to use a power does not count as a limitation for that purpose;  it's stricty SFX.  How does the Flash in this example restrict your use of the Blast?  Under what circumstances?

 

When I do not want to use the Blast at full power, since they are proportionate, I can use the Blast at 12d6 and the Flash at 1d6, but if I want to Blast at 9d6, I can't use 3/4d6 of Flash. 

 

As we do not round down to 0, I have effectively added 1 END every time I want to use the Blast, even when the Flash is useless.  Not a huge deal, until I recover from being KOd and have limited END, or I have run low on END for other reasons.  Do you look at the character's END and REC before allowing Increased END as a limitation?

 

One question which arises is what happens if the Flash is drained or suppressed.  Does that mean I cannot use the Blast?  I would get -1/4 for Unified Power, in which case 5 points of Flash drained would reduce my Blast by only 1 DC, and allow me to use the Blast without the Flash if I want to.

 

When I look at your example, I get the sense you are very stingy on limitations.  That's fine - every game is different - but I think it disincents abilities with some extra flavour.  If there is no cost break for being unable to use the Blast without the Flash, then the character may as well be able to use the Blast without the Flash. 

 

Given a -1/4 limitation is available for Nonpersistent to begin with, suggesting that making a persistent power nonpersistent is insufficient to justify any point savings is inconsistent with the rules as written.

 

I'd say not having my Damage Negation when I am targeted by a sniper while giving a speech is a valid limitation.  I'd also like my Damage Negation in a crowded battle with dozens of agents, but I'd also like (even with my Negation) not to be caught in AoE attacks launched by my allies.  It seems Limiting to me if I can't be visible and defended at the same time.  Obviously, YMMV. 

 

Without running through the math, I guess I will just make them Unified Powers and make the Damage Negation nonpersistent.  Now I get -1/2 on the larger power and -1/4 on the smaller power, and can use my Damage Negation while I am not invisible.  More versatility and lower point cost, but that's how your interpretations drive the results.  I'd say the jointly linked powers are less versatile, so they should cost less.

[unclevlad]

6E1 383.

 

Quote

In some cases a character may want to have a lesser power that he must use whenever he uses the greater power. In other words the powers are jointly Linked, because neither can be used without
the other (as compared to the usual arrangement, where the character can use the greater power without activating the lesser power). Typically this doesn’t affect the value of Linked; it’s a -0 addition to the Limitation’s value. But if the lesser power costs a lot of END or otherwise inconveniences the character significantly, the GM might grant an additional ¼ more Limitation

 

Emphasis mine.

 

So you have to prove to me, if I'm wearing the GM hat, that you're significantly impacted.  The Invis + DN...you did come up with something I'd have to consider.  Linking the DN to the Invis is largely also equivalent to saying "in alternate ID only".  That's a different basis for discussion.

 

It's too easy to abuse this to get something for nothing.  Can I take Reduced END on my Blast?  You're giving me a cost break that may let me afford it.  When I fire only 1 DC of Flash and 3 DCs of Blast...it doesn't matter.  When I fire 2 DCs of Flash for 1 END, now it's 6 DCs of Blast, normally 3 END...but now 1 END.  And what if I've bought the Flash to 0 END?  It's still the lesser power.

 

Say it's 1 DC Flash, 4 DCs Blast.  Now the -1/4 Limit on the Blast you're asking for, equals the active cost of the Flash, and exceeds the real cost.  That's de facto something for nothing...because you're gonna link it, the flash will *give you* more points if you buy it.

[Hugh Neilson]

I can also buy 1d6 Flash, put Unified Power on it and the 12d6 0 END Blast, and pay 4 points for Flash, saving 15 points on the Blast.  

 

I will note, however, that I disagree with the default being "no extra limitation".  If the cost of 12d6 Blast and 1d6 Flash that can be used only with the Blast (but need not be used to use the Blast) is the same as the cost of 12d6 Blast and 1d6 Flash that must always be used together, why limit the Blast?  Even if I only want to use it without the Flash once in the campaign, there is no reason to limit the Blast, mechanically.

 

At some point, of course, there is a granularity issue because the lowest limitation is -1/4, so we have to stop and question whether the limitation is really enough.  But once we say "no point value", why should the player limit the power?

 

For this purpose (and for Shrinking, Density Increase, etc), however, Unified Power works just as well, or better.  UP on all the powers for -1/4 and Linked on the smaller power(s) for -1/2.

[dmjalund]

I vote - increase granularity! bring back -1/8!

[schir1964]

If only my threads were accessible on this idea. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Duke Bushido]

So....

 

I'm the only guy who uses -1/8 Limitations / Advantages?

 

And yeah, Chris; I know the feeling.....

 

Evidently there was a purge of some time (to be expected, I suppose-- this place is huge!

 

going back to the quasi-solid-- and I have to ask this because I don't have APG for 6e (at least, not yet.  Likely won't, but if it comes along at the right price, I'll pick it up).

 

"Affects Solid" (or whatever terminology it uses now) is a well-known Advantage in most any edition.  Is it not reasonable to reverse the value and create the Limitation "affected by solid" to mean that the character takes damage, can't pass through solid walls (without open windows-- fool me once... ), etc?  Wouldn't that give a nice clean resolution?

 

If he wants particular types of barriers to be more difficult to pass, perhaps stepping back to an older edition's version of Desolidification where he buys the ability to pass through X BODY every segment?  Or a variant of the same concept that allows him to shift X mass per Phase, limited by the amount of mass he could reasonably pass through a given porosity?

 

Just wondering.

[schir1964]

I had a thread that had a New Power: Protean that addressed the non-desolid character that can squeeze through or flow through things with openings.

Worked on it quite a bit. Had a lot of discussion with some useful and some not so useful (8^D).

 

The lost threads doesn't make sense. I've found other threads I've created from 2000 to 2006, but after that nothing. Really strange. I even lost the thread that was simply a collection of various ideas people had on New Power/Options.

 

It had a cost structure that allowed for just how Protean a character was and that would determine just how small an opening they could go through.

I also had limitations that defined time constraints and so forth to make handling various SFX easier.

It would make handling various SFX much easier (Sand Man, Robots that can re-assemble themselves, Fluid like characters, and so forth).

 

I found Desolid just too far removed from what you need for a Protean character. I found trying to use Desolid like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.