Jump to content

Touch of chaos


Tech
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm thinking of a character that can add some chaos to any attack attempted, whether a Blast, a punch, a thrown rock, etc (ranged or HTH). The chaos power is added to whatever attack is used at an opponent. At this point, I'm also thinking about making the bonus (chaos) damage between one of two possible random effects: 1d6 NND or 1d6 Drain. 

 

Again, just don't have time to work on this right now so I'm interested in seeing suggestions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Chaos a Special Effect? What is it's meaning in yoru Campaign?

Is it just adding more Randomness?

 

What you describe makes me think "Adding Minor Side Effect" to powers.

Minor Transform can add a -1/2 Limitation.
Major Transform a -1.

APG I 82 also has Optional Rules to make Change Environment add Advantages/Limitations/Complications. But as anything in the APG, it is rather experimental. And they are additionally marked with a warning Sign.

The only real limit is that those "can not completely remove the useability of the power", given the circumstances.

 

Side Effects can explicitly be used to deal damage to the user and by default, this damage ignores defenses (what I asume you tried to do with NND or Drain).
"Any Side Effect automatically affects the character (or environment or recipient) — no Attack Roll is necessary. The character, environment, or recipient gets no defenses against the Side Effect — not even if he’s Desolidified or otherwise protected from that form of damage under ordinary circumstances"

Minor side effect (-1/4, x2 for being always there) is "15 Active Points, or one-fourth of the Active Points in the power (whichever is greater)". That is enough for 3D6 Damage that defenses will not prevent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christopher...  "The chaos power is added to whatever attack is used at an opponent." 

 

Chaos is a special effect so it doesn't matter, only giving reason for the power. The focus of my request: the power adds to whatever damage is done to an opponent. It is not a side effect causing damage to the user. It adds a little more damage to whomever gets hit by any attack made by the attacker, whether ranged or HTH. The additional damage is random whether it's a NND or Drain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tech said:

Christopher...  "The chaos power is added to whatever attack is used at an opponent." 

 

Chaos is a special effect so it doesn't matter, only giving reason for the power. The focus of my request: the power adds to whatever damage is done to an opponent. It is not a side effect causing damage to the user. It adds a little more damage to whomever gets hit by any attack made by the attacker, whether ranged or HTH. The additional damage is random whether it's a NND or Drain.

Sounds like UBO on a multipower to me. 

 

- E

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Clarification please.  Is the chaos added to all attacks this character makes or is it added to all attacks made at a particular target

The former is just a Multipower and use of the Multiple Attack rules or maybe a Trigger.  The latter is a lot trickier. 

 

The extra damage is added to all/any attacks the character successfully hits. Any target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tech said:

The extra damage is added to all/any attacks the character successfully hits. Any target.

I'd build that as a Multipower with 1d6 NND Blast and 1d6 Ranged Drain and a -1/4 "Randomly determine used slot" Limitation on the reserve. 

Then just Multiple Power Attack (Combined Attack in 6e) with [whatever] and a Multipower slot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2019 at 5:08 PM, Tech said:

The focus of my request: the power adds to whatever damage is done to an opponent. It is not a side effect causing damage to the user. It adds a little more damage to whomever gets hit by any attack made by the attacker, whether ranged or HTH. The additional damage is random whether it's a NND or Drain. 

That could just be a wide Spectrum Aid on the attacker.

Or a Drain Def on the target, as @Tom Cowan said.

Maybe give the Target a Succeptabilty Complication via Transform/Change Environment?

Maybe a Damage Ability, Triggger (everytime he is attacked, automatically resets as free action), UAA (to 'stick' it on the Enemy).

 

I have one experimental Idea I never playtested. The Ability is Irooni from Bleach:

As a warning ahead of time, most Zanpaktou abilities are broken. Most of them can not be parsed to something as balanced as Hero at all. This ability is a borderline case.

https://bleach.fandom.com/wiki/Irooni
" This is a color-based game where the participants say the name of the color they want to cut with their weapons and are unable to cut anything else.[1] If the color the participant calls does not exist on their body, the damage is minimal, even if the attack would normally inflict a much more severe wound.[2] The opposite is true as well; by calling out a color they are wearing and attacking, the damage dealt is proportional to the amount of that color on them.[3] To maximize damage, the participants have to use a color which maximizes the risks to themselves, as well as their enemy's. For example, by wearing black robes and naming black, one would inflict massive damage on an enemy if they hit,[4] even if the actual blow itself was minimal or minor, but the caller would also suffer severe damage if they are struck by the enemy in return.[5] "

Basically both parties have their Defenses Reduced, but also can opt to get equal or greater defenses - but the enemy also get's those defenses.

 

Here is what I came up with:

20 Defenses, Area of Effect, Minor Side Effect (everyone affected looses 15 AP of Defenses), both sides can pick magnitude.

This would debuff all Defenses in an Area (side effect). But you get to choose to grant yourself (and your enemy) more defenses then you lost.

As I said: experimental. I put Area of Effect on Defenses (wich is not allowed) and worked a Side Effect affecting the unwilling target into it as well (not allowed). But I think the combination might just make it work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

I'd build that as a Multipower with 1d6 NND Blast and 1d6 Ranged Drain and a -1/4 "Randomly determine used slot" Limitation on the reserve. 

Then just Multiple Power Attack (Combined Attack in 6e) with [whatever] and a Multipower slot. 

Mostly agree, however I don't believe the reserve is limited. 

 

Consider:

 

1d6 NND or 1d6 Drain would each cost 10 points.

 

A -1/4 reserve on the MP reduces its cost to 8, and we pay 1 for each slot, for the same 10 points.

 

The 1d6 NND would not affect anyone with the defense, ever.  The MP has a 50% chance of getting a 1d6 Drain instead.

 

While I would say any limitation applies to the slot costs, limitations will have no real impact on the slot costs.  I would suggest that, with two choices, each slot cost is effectively "act 10-" (a 50% chance).  Randomly selecting one removes the potential of neither one working, but also the potential for both to work, so that's a wash, in my view.  The limitation on each slot would be much higher with 3 slots (closest to 1/3 chance is Act 9-, at 37.5%) or 4 slots (closest is 8-, at 25.93%).  5 or 6 slots is 7- (16.2%).  Up to 11 slots is 6- (9.26%).  up to 21 or so is 5-.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

Hugh, I normally agree with everything you say.  ?

 

In this case, I disagree, I think that we are look at a +1/4 version of no conscious control (and that does affect everything quite equally).

 

Doc

Plus 1/4?  Please run your logic by me, I'm not understanding how inability to pick mode is advantageous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

Hugh, I normally agree with everything you say.  ?

 

That makes a grand total of one :)

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

In this case, I disagree, I think that we are look at a +1/4 version of no conscious control (and that does affect everything quite equally).

 

I assume that's a 1/4 limitation, which is a simple approach.  But, again, should having two potentially harmful (to the opponent) possibilities without the ability to select which one acts at any given time be worth more than having only one possibility, just as it should be worth less than getting to choose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a limitation, I am poor with the notation!  As soon as you have no choice things are worth less (IMO). You have no choice to switch it off and cannot pick the most advantageous supplement to the attack.  If it was simply a single power that always accompanied the first, I could buy linked, which would be worth more than -1/4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

It is a limitation, I am poor with the notation!  As soon as you have no choice things are worth less (IMO). You have no choice to switch it off and cannot pick the most advantageous supplement to the attack.  If it was simply a single power that always accompanied the first, I could buy linked, which would be worth more than -1/4

 

I agree that having no choice is worth less than having full choice.  I think having more than one possibility is generally worth more than having a single possibility, though.  This is especially so with the combination of an NND (useless if the target has the defense) and a small Drain (useless against anyone with Power Defense).

 

By RAW, I believe you are more correct than I am.   However, in my view, limitations on reassigning the pool limit the individual slots, but not the pool as a whole.*

 

In this case, the reserve gets used every time - how is the reserve limited?  In my opinion, it is not limited - only the slots are not under the character's control solely from randomization of which slot activates.

 

I would allow a limitation on the entire MP for only being usable in conjunction with another attack on the same target.  If there is any down side to adding it (even 1 END cost), then that limitation would be enhanced if it is required to be used every time one of a group of attacks are used.

 

* This is an issue someone on the Boards educated me on some time back, as I initially was on the other side.  Consider, however, a 12d6 Blast (60 points).  If we allow that to be put in a Multipower with a 12d6 Flash, and it takes five minutes to switch slots, what should that cost?  That's a -2 limitation, or -1 only to activate.  If we allow a -1 limitation on the reserve, it costs 30 points.  Even if we allow no limitation on the slots, the cost is 42 points.    So this character can use a 12d6 Blast all the time, and only paid 42 points - 18 points less than the character who lacks the option to ever have a Flash attack instead.

 

Fair?

 

The only way the limitation should be available on the reserve is if the extra time to activate is as limiting on each power as it would be on a single power with the same limitation.  That means you cannot use either power until you spend 5 minutes to activate it, not that you have one slot available by default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

* This is an issue someone on the Boards educated me on some time back, as I initially was on the other side.  Consider, however, a 12d6 Blast (60 points).  If we allow that to be put in a Multipower with a 12d6 Flash, and it takes five minutes to switch slots, what should that cost?  That's a -2 limitation, or -1 only to activate.  If we allow a -1 limitation on the reserve, it costs 30 points.  Even if we allow no limitation on the slots, the cost is 42 points.    So this character can use a 12d6 Blast all the time, and only paid 42 points - 18 points less than the character who lacks the option to ever have a Flash attack instead.

 

Fair?

 

The only way the limitation should be available on the reserve is if the extra time to activate is as limiting on each power as it would be on a single power with the same limitation.  That means you cannot use either power until you spend 5 minutes to activate it, not that you have one slot available by default.

It's limited in the same way 20 PD Extra Time 5 minutes only to activate is limited.  If the player is walking around with their PD on all the time, the limitation isn't applying and they need to buy it off.  If the player is walking around with their beamy less-than-lethalray primed and ready all the time then the limitation isn't affecting them very hard. 

I'd just tell the player that putting Extra Time only to switch slots on a multipower reserve means it starts each fight with no slot selected unless they know they're on combat footing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you need to think harder about stuff when you begin throwing large limitations around.

 

I am of exactly the opposite opinion to you here.  I think the reserve is limited but the slots are not and the limitation is not as severe as the rules say for no conscious control. 

 

If you allow a limitation that does that does not limit the character then you have gone wrong.  I would have slashed the value of the limitation on the reserve to -1/4 making the reserve cost 48 points, a fixed slot cost 6 (no limitation as it is not the power that is limited it is the ability to switch between powers). So 60 points to have the ability to switch between blast and flash.  Same price, more utility but I think I could live with that...or I might allow the full delay limitation but they apply to the slots as default, so it always takes five minutes to activate a power, much more restricted, much cheaper.

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off,  why should anyone buy a standard power if the cost for two powers I can choose between (even requiring an out of combat switch) is the same?

 

More importantly, by applying the limitation to the truly limited element (which is the slots - if there is a "default slot", when is the reserve unavailable?), we can use the standard limitations pricing model. 

 

I would definitely allow the full limitation on slots and reserve if there were no default time and the extra time to switch applied to initial use of either power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

First off,  why should anyone buy a standard power if the cost for two powers I can choose between (even requiring an out of combat switch) is the same?

 

I think you really are at the coal-face of, is there a limitation, and is it worth anything.

 

As a GM, I am looking and saying that, in my judgement, there will be times that the 12D6 blast will not be available to the character at times when he wants it to be.  I am saying that the lack of this 12D6 will significantly impair the effectiveness of the character but perhaps only as often as an IIF focus.  

 

Good grief, ?I have just realised that I have wandered down a rabbit hole.  I have stopped talking about the use of a no conscious control limitation on the reserve of a small bonus damage element to a main power to its use on primary powers.  I am inclined to be a little bit more generous on the bonus colour items than the core stuff.  

 

Talking about the bonus additions, the player has no choice as to whether his 12D6 blast is supplemented with a small flash or minor drain or a bit of NND damage.  It happens always and randomly.  That is not hugely important and the savings over purchasing a flash that only goes off when the core power goes off is zero.  I might allow the NNC to give a -1/2 limitation to the reserve, same as the linked limitation.

 

In the event of NNC being added to the reserve of the multipower you were talking about, the player would have no conscious control of when the points in the reserve shifted.  That would bring the time factor into play much more regularly and be FAR more limiting than a straight 12D6 blast...

 

So while I see the principle you elucidated using the 12D6 multipower, I think it is a different judgement being applied to core powers and flavour elements around the core powers.  I also think that there is a real difference in applying NCC to the reserve than time taken to activate.  Each one comes to a different judgement when I apply the “will it limit the character” test.

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doc, there are two limitations at play here.  One is that the Touch of Chaos only works when used in tandem with another attack.  That is clearly Linked, and that limits the reserve and the slots.  Should it be the full -1/2?  I'm inclined to say yes - it's less limiting than "it only works in tandem with this one specific attack", but much more limiting than being used on its own.  I think I would allow -1/2, but perhaps only -1/4 if the character can choose whether any given attack adds the Chaos effect.

 

The player always gets some effect - the reserve is never unavailable when he meets the Linked terms.  To me, that says the reserve is not limited.  Let's consider:

 

Player A buys 2d6 Flash, Linked to All Attacks, must add to every attack.  OK, that costs 10/1.5 = 7

 

Player B buys a Multipower of three 10 AP attacks with the same Linked, and random choice of which one  goes off.  10 point reserve, 3 points for slots, = 13 points before any limitations. 

 

Clearly  he gets the same Linked limitation, so the cost is no more than 10 (10/1.5; the limitation doesn't round the slot costs down, so they still cost 3 points).  If we allow a further reserve of -1/4 on the reserve, the cost is now 6 + 3 = 9, which does not seem unreasonable.  Make it -1/2 and the cost drops to 5 + 3 = 8.  Still a bit more expensive than just the Flash.

 

But this is caused by rounding.  What if these attacks were 6 DC?  Now Player A is spending 20 points.

 

Player B buys a 30 point reserve and three slots, 3 points each.  After the Linked limitation, he spends 26 points.  If we allow a further -1/4 for no choice of slots, he spends 17 + 6 = 23, still marginally more than the first character.  At -1/2, he pays 15 + 1 + 1 = 18 and pays less for his added versatility.  To me, that is clearly wrong.  Targeting a blind target, Player B has a chance of getting a useful effect, and Player A has no chance.  Clearly, Player A is more limited, not less limited, and should not pay more than Player B.

 

OK, let's remove Linked.  Player A has a 6d6 Flash, and Player B has a multipower of three 6 DC effects.  Player A spends 30 points.  Easy peasy.

 

Player 2 buys a Multipower for 30 + 3 + 3 before any limitations, so 36 points.  If we give him a -1/4 limitation on slots and pool, he pays 24 + 2 + 2 points, or 28 points.  It is cheaper to have three possibilities than only one.  Again, when targeting the Blind Worm Beast, Player A gets no benefit from his Flash, ever.  Player B has a 1/3 chance of getting nothing, a 1/3 chance of doing some NND damage and a 1/3 chance of inflicting a Drain.  Player B gets better results - he should not pay less points.

 

If we apply the limitation to the slots only, he pays 30 + 2 + 2 = 34, more than Player A (as he should) and less than Player C, who builds the same MP, but without random selection (36 points).

 

Compared to Player A, Players B and C get more choice.  The base cost of that extra choice is 6 points (3 slots for the MP - the pool costs the same as a single power).  Only the cost of the choice (6 points) should vary when the limitation only affects the choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I agree that having no choice is worth less than having full choice.  I think having more than one possibility is generally worth more than having a single possibility, though.  This is especially so with the combination of an NND (useless if the target has the defense) and a small Drain (useless against anyone with Power Defense).

 

By RAW, I believe you are more correct than I am.   However, in my view, limitations on reassigning the pool limit the individual slots, but not the pool as a whole.*

 

In this case, the reserve gets used every time - how is the reserve limited?  In my opinion, it is not limited - only the slots are not under the character's control solely from randomization of which slot activates.

 

I would allow a limitation on the entire MP for only being usable in conjunction with another attack on the same target.  If there is any down side to adding it (even 1 END cost), then that limitation would be enhanced if it is required to be used every time one of a group of attacks are used.

 

* This is an issue someone on the Boards educated me on some time back, as I initially was on the other side.  Consider, however, a 12d6 Blast (60 points).  If we allow that to be put in a Multipower with a 12d6 Flash, and it takes five minutes to switch slots, what should that cost?  That's a -2 limitation, or -1 only to activate.  If we allow a -1 limitation on the reserve, it costs 30 points.  Even if we allow no limitation on the slots, the cost is 42 points.    So this character can use a 12d6 Blast all the time, and only paid 42 points - 18 points less than the character who lacks the option to ever have a Flash attack instead.

 

Fair?

 

The only way the limitation should be available on the reserve is if the extra time to activate is as limiting on each power as it would be on a single power with the same limitation.  That means you cannot use either power until you spend 5 minutes to activate it, not that you have one slot available by default.

 

I agree on the issue of the 5 minute slot switch.  You could just leave it in Energy Blast the entire time and enjoy the discount.  But in this circumstance, you don't have control.

 

Without the limitation, Chaos Lad fires his regular attack, and chooses which additional effect he wants.  1D6 NND, or 1D6 Drain?  He selects the NND (the defense is having something random on the character sheet, like an activation roll on a power or an accidental change).  Crap!  It appears his target has the defense and the NND does nothing.  Okay, from now on he'll use the Drain against that target.

 

But with the limitation, he's only got a 50% chance of being able to use the Drain.  Same thing happens if the target has a Vulnerability, or if they're really close to unconsciousness and you really want that extra D6 of Stun (instead of Drain Dex or whatever).  The lack of ability to choose is a real limitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the issue is in comparing a naked power to a multipower, and when does a multipower limitation become too big a cost savings versus that naked power?

 

Let's say Chaos Lad buys his regular attack, and then he just purchases a 1D6 NND that links to it.  He doesn't bother with a multipower.  Now when he uses this attack against somebody, if they've got the defense against his NND, he just doesn't get extra damage.  He doesn't have the possibility of maybe getting a 1D6 Drain instead.

 

So you say "that's not fair, that's why the reserve shouldn't be limited".

 

But...

 

1)  Chaos Lad is paying extra for the option to have both powers.  He's buying the pool plus the slot costs.  He's paying more, baseline, than if he just bought one power.

2)  The lack of ability to choose is a real limitation.  It affects him in actual play.

3)  The limitation on the multipower doesn't reduce the cost below that of the naked power by itself.  (1D6 Drain linked is 7 pts, 10 pt MP with two slots linked and extra -1/4 is 8 pts)

4)  The limited pool can (in certain circumstances) be less useful than the naked power by itself.  (Consider that Chaos Lad is facing two opponents.  One has 5 points of Power Defense.  The other has the defense against the NND.  Who does he shoot?  Theoretically he has the ability to hurt either one with his Touch of Chaos power.  But he also could fail to affect either one.  If he had purchased only a single power, he'd attack the appropriate villain and leave the other to a teammate.  As it is, he doesn't know which power will activate.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I left my helmet out on the bike, so be careful with the beatings-- aim low, please. :D

 

I know that of late I've had a tendency to be the unpopular voice, but bear with me:

 

First, I have _thoroughly_ enjoyed this conversation.  Seriously.  I've been skimming a lot and ignoring a lot lately because of time constraints and my desire to get at least one book scanning done, so I have stayed out of a lot of things I wanted to comment on.  (unfortunately, not all, but a lot. ;) ).

 

Second: 

 

Hugh: do you by any chance remember the thread in which you were "educated?"  I'd like to read that thread as well, as I've missed it somewhere.

 

And finally, the observation I'd like to offer:

 

Now this is based entirely on this conversation, period; don't think I'm trying to pull some esoteric rule from somewhere or some psychobabble nonsense, please.

 

It appears that the reason you two are in disagreement is related entirely to your judging criteria.  Hugh, you seem to be working from "how is the Power limited?"  Doc seems to be working from "How is the Character limited?"

 

Aggravatingly, from outside the conversation, I can see both your points, crystal clear and shiny, and find them to both be completely valid.  There is no fault in either line of logic, so far as I can tell.  It falls back to POV in this (and many, many other, I am sure) instance.  In short, I don't think that there is a "right" answer here.   Without meaning to slight anyone on either side, I tend to fall in Doc's camp overall: I look at the game as being about the player characters themselves as the vector by which all things are done, and the powers as being the tools they use.  From this point of view (which I am not claiming is Doc's position, mind you; it's my position, and it lines me up more with Doc's ideas on the build), it doesn't matter how flawlessly or effectively the tools work, if you don't have the right one when you need it, the job becomes much more difficult for the character to do.

 

 

 

And that shoots my entire intellectual wad, right there.  I'll go back to watching and learning now.  :)

 

 

 

Duke

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, massey said:

 

I agree on the issue of the 5 minute slot switch.  You could just leave it in Energy Blast the entire time and enjoy the discount.  But in this circumstance, you don't have control.

 

Without the limitation, Chaos Lad fires his regular attack, and chooses which additional effect he wants.  1D6 NND, or 1D6 Drain?  He selects the NND (the defense is having something random on the character sheet, like an activation roll on a power or an accidental change).  Crap!  It appears his target has the defense and the NND does nothing.  Okay, from now on he'll use the Drain against that target.

 

But with the limitation, he's only got a 50% chance of being able to use the Drain.  Same thing happens if the target has a Vulnerability, or if they're really close to unconsciousness and you really want that extra D6 of Stun (instead of Drain Dex or whatever).  The lack of ability to choose is a real limitation.

 

Chaos Lad has a 50% chance of doing something effective.  The character with a 1d6 NND, no other options, has no chance of being effective.  Chaos Lad should pay more than NND Lad.

 

2 hours ago, massey said:

I think the issue is in comparing a naked power to a multipower, and when does a multipower limitation become too big a cost savings versus that naked power?

 

Let's say Chaos Lad buys his regular attack, and then he just purchases a 1D6 NND that links to it.  He doesn't bother with a multipower.  Now when he uses this attack against somebody, if they've got the defense against his NND, he just doesn't get extra damage.  He doesn't have the possibility of maybe getting a 1D6 Drain instead.

 

So you say "that's not fair, that's why the reserve shouldn't be limited".

 

But...

 

1)  Chaos Lad is paying extra for the option to have both powers.  He's buying the pool plus the slot costs.  He's paying more, baseline, than if he just bought one power.

2)  The lack of ability to choose is a real limitation.  It affects him in actual play.

3)  The limitation on the multipower doesn't reduce the cost below that of the naked power by itself.  (1D6 Drain linked is 7 pts, 10 pt MP with two slots linked and extra -1/4 is 8 pts)

4)  The limited pool can (in certain circumstances) be less useful than the naked power by itself.  (Consider that Chaos Lad is facing two opponents.  One has 5 points of Power Defense.  The other has the defense against the NND.  Who does he shoot?  Theoretically he has the ability to hurt either one with his Touch of Chaos power.  But he also could fail to affect either one.  If he had purchased only a single power, he'd attack the appropriate villain and leave the other to a teammate.  As it is, he doesn't know which power will activate.)

 

 

1)  Yes, he is.  And he should.  His cost should not be less than NND Lad's cost for one ability, no choices, nor should it be greater than Order Lad, who can select between the two slots at his discretion.

2)  Yes, it is limiting.  He should pay less than the cost of the unlimited Multipower, or at least no more than that cost.

3)  The only reason it does not drop the cost below a naked power, as set out above, is rounding, because the limitation has no effect on the slot cost.  At a 30 AP limit, even a -1/4 limitation on the MP reserve will result in a cost of 28 (24 pool + 2/slot), 2 points less than the naked power.

4)  I do not believe that corner case justifies math that results in a lower cost than a single power.  However, to me, that "I can't know in advance" issue is also why Act 11- is a -1 limitation when the power still works 62.5% of the time, and Act 10- is -1 1/4, even though the power works half of the time.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Second: 

 

Hugh: do you by any chance remember the thread in which you were "educated?"  I'd like to read that thread as well, as I've missed it somewhere.

 

It would have been more than one iteration of the Boards ago - I believe it is lost to time.  It dealt with "extra time to change the reserve allocation".

 

6 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

And finally, the observation I'd like to offer:

 

Now this is based entirely on this conversation, period; don't think I'm trying to pull some esoteric rule from somewhere or some psychobabble nonsense, please.

 

It appears that the reason you two are in disagreement is related entirely to your judging criteria.  Hugh, you seem to be working from "how is the Power limited?"  Doc seems to be working from "How is the Character limited?"

 

Aggravatingly, from outside the conversation, I can see both your points, crystal clear and shiny, and find them to both be completely valid.  There is no fault in either line of logic, so far as I can tell.  It falls back to POV in this (and many, many other, I am sure) instance.  In short, I don't think that there is a "right" answer here.   Without meaning to slight anyone on either side, I tend to fall in Doc's camp overall: I look at the game as being about the player characters themselves as the vector by which all things are done, and the powers as being the tools they use.  From this point of view (which I am not claiming is Doc's position, mind you; it's my position, and it lines me up more with Doc's ideas on the build), it doesn't matter how flawlessly or effectively the tools work, if you don't have the right one when you need it, the job becomes much more difficult for the character to do.

 

My measuring stick for the "no choice multipower" is, at least in part, that it should not cost less than buying just one of the two powers, nor should it cost more than buying an unlimited MP.  The low cost of slots results in no discount from the "full choice" MP, due to rounding (the slot costs cannot go any lower).  Well, the normal rule is that you take the lesser limitation when your power is between breakpoints (for example, 13 charges has the same limitation as 16 charges), so "no point savings" is the right answer here, by that benchmark as well.

 

Technically, the Multipower approach is outside RAW. Practically, it feels like an equitable cost for the build.

 

Another approach would be:  1d6 NND, 0 END (12 AP), Linked to any one of a number of other attacks (-1/4), Act 10- (-1 1/4) so 5 RP; plus 1d6 Drain, Linked to NND (-1/2), Act 10- (-1 1/4), so 4 points, for a total of 9 points.  That's less than either base attack, in part due to advantage stacking (had I made the Drain 0 END, it would cost more; I'd rather make each 1/2 END, but that doesn't work with 1 END powers).  We'd have to handwave that the activation for one succeeds if the other fails.

 

Let's gross it up to reduce rounding oddities and use 1/2 END for each.

 

3d6 Drain, 1/2 END (37 AP),  Linked to any of a number of other attacks (-1/4), Act 10- (-1 1/4) =  15 real points + 3d6 NND, 1/2 END (34 AP), Linked to Drain (-1/2), Act 10- (-1 1/4) = 12 real points, for a total of 27.

 

Maybe we overthought it as a Multipower.  If you wanted more possible effects, the diminished return of reduced activation limitations would cause the cost to rise pretty rapidly, I suspect, but for two possibilities, this seems like the better approach.

 

This assumes the GM is OK with trading off the Activation Rolls so one of the two works every time, but he'd have to handwave the reserve points moving around at random as well.  He's either OK with the concept or he is not.

 

Gut feel, however, I think I would still be looking for a model where multiple abilities, one of which works, chosen at random, is more expensive than a single ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...