Jump to content
Cassandra

Linked Question

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, cptpatriot said:


Current rules say that you don't buy Growth always on

 

No disrespect intended; offered only for clarification:

 

Like me, Cassandra doesn't play the current edition.  She plays one of the 5s: revised, if memory serves. 

 

I admit, though, that it makes similar recommendations.  However, in 5, they are just that: recommendations. 

 

1 hour ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Agreed.  If you can only use Power X if you're using Power Y, and Power Y is Always On, when can you not use Power X?  Never.  So it's not a Limitation. 

 

I am not familiar enough with the newer stuff to cite any, but I seem to recall discussion of more than one published example of a character doing just that thing and getting a savings for the limitation.  Now as I said: it was board discussion, and it may not have been published characters under discussion, but there were enough people involved to make me believe that there were more people familiar with the character than just a particular group of players. 

 

It isn't _extremely_ limiting, but it is limiting, for just this reason:

 

1 hour ago, dsatow said:

Depends.  It's maybe is only worth -1/4.  If growth is drained, the linked power will turn off if enough growth is drained. 

 

Drain, Supress, and even T-form can all deny the base power, which would deny any power linked to it. 

 

Again, I don't think it's worth _much_ of a Limitation, but if any of these powers are in use in your campaign, I would think it was worth at least -1/4. 

 

With appolgies to Cassandra, I don't know any "official" builds from 5e that I can reference, but - 1/4 feels right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5th and 6th Edition don't use Growth for permanently large people (Look at the Appendix starting at 5ER 573)

 

The linked Armor would always be on because the Growth is always on. Now, having Always On Armor is a whole different issue but Linked to an Always On power is not a limitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amendment:

 

I have no idea what Cassandra plays.

 

For reasons I can't fathom, I had her confused with Tasha.

 

Forgive the mistake.

 

[EDIT:

 

additional comment removed because on re-reading, it sounded snarky.  It wasn't supposed to, but I can figure out how to say it without the potential of it being read that way.  To keep it simple and inoffensive, continue just pretending it never happened]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Drain: magic

 

Suptess: mutant powers

 

:transform: incompetent normal

 

 

 

The first two are highly campaign-dependent.  In a "mutants only" game, I suspect Mutant Powers would have Unified Power (6e) or likely be in an Elemental Control (pre-6e), and already be getting Adjusted together which makes Linked not much of a limitation anyway.

 

If the character is Transformed to an incompetent normal, they have already lost all of their powers, both Growth and Armor, so what makes Linking them any more limiting.

 

This is a case where the technical rules need to stand back and let GM Judgement take the driver's seat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:


The first two are highly campaign-dependent. 

 

Thank you. 

 

The initial question is highly campaign dependent.  Given the nature of the question, I think we can safely assume "Growth: Always On" is being allowed, rendering all of the "the book says no" answers somewhat less that helpful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2019 at 10:23 PM, PhilFleischmann said:

Has anyone ever seen or used a Drain Growth or Suppress Growth?  Are there any published characters with Drain Growth or Suppress Growth?  I'd say it's worth a -1/20 limitation at the very most.  If you only use multiples of 1/4 for your limitations, then it rounds down to -0.

 

Funny you should mention it, I had a villain which could change people's sizes.  So when a character was hit with a shrinking ray, they would get all the benefits of shrinking (higher DCV) but a few disadvantages like reduce running, reduced reach, reduced strength, etc.  It made for an interest combat problem but it wasn't a very memorable villain.

 

I forgot to add, they had a growth drain to drain one of the people's growth powers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Anyone about my age remember Dr. Shrinker?

 

"Hugo!  I'm warning you!"   :rofl:

 

 

No idea what your age is, but yes; I remember that.  :lol:

 

I remember when live-action dominated Saturday kids programming and all the weird stuff the Krofts threw onto the screen with almost no budget.  Not much of it was very good, but they managed to get remarkable production values out of the next-to-no-budgets they were working with.

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...