psyber624

This is one of those things where it is really going to be up to the GM as to how its handled. This is how "I" would handle it: First of all note that it requires a +3 roll to get any "powergamey" benefit at all. For the most part its the other things that I would give benefit to the more "select" versions. For instance if you have analyze style vs analyse combat technique, a +1 Roll with Style would allow me to tell you that he is using a Karate Nerve Strike attack with great proficiency, where analyse combat technique would only tell you that he is punching at a nerve cluster and he seems to know what he is doing. And with my GM'ing style I would also try to ensure that the extra knowledge gained would be of some use.. Also, some GM's may agree that "no style" is also a style itself and so getting that +3 would also be worth +1 DCV against someone without any martial arts training (basically stating that the plain old Strike, Haymaker, and other moves are a "generic brawling" style that everyone knows for free.) This could make both A:CT and A:Style equally "powergamey" for your tastes. If you wanted to create more specific Analyze skills for your campaign then you would have to setup some rules of your own as to how they function. If Analyze: Kung Fu is only useful against a Kung Fu user, but worthless against someone fighting with Savat then you will need to either forbid "generic" forms of Analyze or give the specific ones some benefit (maybe Specific analyzes only need +1 or +2 to get the +1DCV for instance)

In general unless there is a GM imposed ground rule restricting KA's or Mandatory CvK Complications you should expect KA's to be, on average, comparable in damage to other damage types on a point per point basis. The "standard" mantra i see on here is about 2x DC in defenses, 1/2 resistant. At that level Non-killing attacks will basically never do body damage and Killing attacks will rarely do more than a few points (1d6 of KA is 3 DC, so you are talking about 3 rDef vs a roll of 1-6, averaging .5 Body per die of killing damage. Even in a 12 DC campaign thats only 2 Body getting through on average). Now it is true that KA's can be deadly with a lucky roll, and some people don't like that (moreso if you use hit locations). However purchasing a lower DC of KA will result in you rarely doing Body damage AT ALL unless you get a lucky roll. Of course all of this depends on the DC's of your campaign. If you are running an 6 DC campaign then 2d6 is appropriate for KA's. If your running 12 DC however 2d6 is a waste of points.

If i were going to do this i would use the +1/2 per step up the time chart, with the standard Charges caveat that the final cost for charges cannot exceed +1/2 (as at that point you could buy 0 End for the same price.) This seems to make the most sense to me and feels balanced as well. If your buying lots of charges that recover quickly you dont have to pay too much, but you can have a few charges that are only useable after a set amount of time.

Actually, by the rules, you can have a trigger that automatically resets go off any number of times Therefore it would be up to the GM to rule whether the use of that trigger is permitted or not. If it is set to be a Zero phase action to reset the rules do state that you can only do ANY Zero phase action once per segment, but if you pay to have your trigger automatically, instantly reset this does not apply. As far as the "frequency of the event" triggering in a non-automatic resetting trigger that frequency is at best once per phase (as you have to take an action to reset it). If you wanted to modify the cost of an automatic resetting trigger by the frequency you could expect it to go off that would be up to the GM to determine based upon how frequently it would be likely to happen in his world.

Another possibility is have one of the powers triggered off the success of the first. If you are trying to get technical about exactly how it works it can get tricky (technically this sort of power should check that the attack roll hits first (since you cant heal if you miss), then do the heal, then do damage to the target that was hit (since you cant do more damage to the target than was healed). For this reason i would probably build it as an attack with a limitation that there must be a wound to heal and it cannot do more damage than the wound being transferred. Then have a heal triggered off the success of the attack, possibly limited to no more than the result of the attack, or GM Optioned to be the same as the damage done. If the heal is less than the wound that is sfx'd as "imperfect transfer" and failed to heal/transfer fully. edit: somehow missed the fact that bigby just suggested the same thing. Blame it on lack of sleep

And what is wrong with that. IE why do you question it? If a character "wanted to have shrinking on a character" why does it matter what the sfx of it is? Or how it fits their concept? I get that well designed and logical builds can be more fun to play, but if you deny a player a power he wants because it doesn't fit with the special effects or the "concept" he has of his character then you are essentially telling your players that they should all play characters with special effects/concepts that can allow anything. Magic Spell based characters are one of the most extreme examples of this (is there ANY power you cant find a spell for?) but Gadget guys can be almost as bad. And you can get away with absolutely anything by slapping the term "Mutant" onto your character.

I dont have issues with a gun with both charges and an End Reserve, but buying the Reserve itself with charges seems odd (which is what i read from your build). The issue is that the the limitation may not be all that limiting. I mean you bought 0 Rec for your End Reserve so by default it only has one "charge" and yet you applied a -1 1/4 limitation to the power which actually makes it BETTER since it now recharges once a day without paying for any Rec. Now granted this is a small item and the cost break on the End Reserve itself is extremely minor but this creates a precedent showing that you will allow this sort of build into your campaign. Consider the following build: End Reserve: 200 End, 0 Rec, 4 Charges (-1), 50 AP 25 RC vs your standard build: End Reserve: 200 End, 3 Rec, 52 AP, 52 RC. The charge build would actually be able to get 800 End per day, far more than needed, for less than half the cost of a "standard" End reserve. So the charge limitation is actually making the build MORE powerful, rather than less.

Changing an area into an actual swamp would be "expensive beyond value", as that would require a transform. However making a limited area more "swamplike" is doable if you define what the GAME EFFECTS of swamp land are. Its boggy, so possible a CE with - Running Swamp Denizens can be a special effect of a Blast (Indirect, Reduced Penetration). You dont have to have full blown alligators if all you want them to do in game terms is bite people. Tangling Vines might be bought as an Entangle. And Etc. Etc. Just think about what effect the power will have on a character in the game and then use the appropriate swamp motif as the sfx.

Yeah, which is kind of the reason i don't allow Batman clones in my games. Batman works great in a comic because of the format. He gets to be crazy prepared with just the right gizmo for whatever situation he needs. But you stick him in an RPG and suddenly the rest of the players are extraneous. Whatever is needed, Batman can provide. Whatever the problem, Batman has a solution. Same issue that i have with magic. Fire Mutant? I cast Fire Spells. Psychic? I have the Malevolent Mental Maledictions of Mordant. Oh, your a swordsman? Fight my Blessed Blades of Balgador. Yes a GM can regulate these things. But "regulate" usually means saying no and that can get old. Especially after allowing them to have the Powers in the first place. I'd rather say no upfront once than have to shoot them down time and time again. And that's just my opinion. I don't fault others who choose to allow them, I just don't generally.

I can see potential for abuse with that, especially with charges as a limitation.

You have to be careful with this sort of thing to make sure that you are reasoning from GAME EFFECT and not SPECIAL EFFECT. If you make it two Multipowers you are VASTLY increasing the cost to the character. In return the character can conceiveably use both a spell and the staff at the same time. If you would not allow this, or the construct doesn't allow it (because the spells have limitations like Gestures or the like) then requiring them to be two different Multipowers is punishing the character for her choice of special effect. In GAME EFFECTS someone who had the same spell pool, but also had a teleport spell, an RKA spell, and a HA Spell as part of their "spell pool" would get a huge discount but would be effectively the same. Of course I am NOT saying it should be one multipower. I'm saying whether it should be 1 or 2 MP's is determined by how it works, not how it looks. This is one of the issues I have with Multipowers/VPP's in general. In many cases there is simply insufficient game effect reason NOT to cram all the powers you can into a framework as long as you can be reasonably sure you wont need them all at once. Forbidding it for certain archetypes/concepts because it doesn't "Fit the concept" is punishing a player for a special effect decision and encouraging all players to play concepts that are basically "anything goes". "Sorry Flambe The Fireguy, i don't think shrinking fits your "Flame powers" Multipower concept so you can't put it in there. But sure Batdude, your VPP can have a shrinking spray can if you want it, works for me!"

One of the issues with "special" powers in frameworks is that while frameworks are cheaper the "downside" is that you cant have all the abilities in use at once. However several of the special powers (skills especially) aren't really limited by being placed in a framework and so become essentially free points. So if i have a Multipower with 3 attack powers why not add tons of skills with high bonus's (as powers) since i get them for 1/10th the cost, or i can buy every enhanced sense in the book at 1-2 points each.. while i might not be able to use them ALL at once when exactly will I need to? And if you are going to buy ANY Exotic Defenses at all why not buy them ALL in a multipower? I mean how many enemies are going to be Draining/Flashing/Mentalists after all... And like I said before, "Only if it makes sense for the character" is a moot point. Someone created the character. Trust me it would be EASY to find a justification. "Im Batman. My utility belt has it all."

I think you could easily wind up with balance issues if you tried to use a characters full cmxspd as the modifier for move through and such. While it might seem to make sense in a real world kind of way it makes high SPD even more powerful than it already is. The plan you propose for instance would allow high spd characters to do MUCH more damage far cheaper than any other method. At that point you need to come up with some other balancing factor or things can get out of hand.

I believe your Endurance Reserve is built incorrectly (not sure how or why you would build an endurance reserve with a charge?) And it definitely would not be a "recoverable" charge. Recoverable charges are for things like Arrows or Shuriken or the like (i can go pick it up and use it again.) All charges are assumed to recover after 1 day by RAW (unless bought to work differently). Also with only 12 end on a 31 AP power you only get 4 shots, and this is an Autofire 3 weapon??? doesnt really add up...

For the tow cable i might use the "Physical Manifestation" limitation on the TK (since there is an actual cable that could be cut) although OAF works as well (just realize that means the cable can be "disarmed" from the hero.) If it is a cable built into the suit then OIF would probably be better (since it cant easily be "taken away" from the hero). As far as your limitation is concerned how to price it is up to the GM based upon how limiting he thinks the custom modifier will be in the campaign, although a -1 limitation might be about right for that IMO (possibly even more if he cant do ANYTHING else with the cable, no matter how "creative" he might get). Edit: should have been OIF not IAF, its quite obvious that the cable is the source of the power, its just not easily accessible.