Doc Democracy

Hi @Ermenegildo,
 
I think the first question is, how easy is it to create the Mindblade?  How long does it take, how much effort and how much resources?  All of that can make a difference.  At the minimum, the weapon becomes OIF rather than OAF, inaccessible because while it may be disarmed, it can be immediately recreated in the wielder's hand, requiring no effort or delay. 
 
Doc

As someone who works in a democratic institute, I appreciate the humour, but have concerns that this is entirely the kind of thing that anti-democratic folk build upon.  If you get convinced that you can trust no-one, that there is no value in voting and that those who seek public office should be barred from it, then you open the door to populists like Trump, who tell folk that he is the ONLY one you can trust and we can all see where that gets you.

It is an insidious tendency and undermines both our democracy and our democratic institutions.  Once it is mainstream that you can believe nothing then there is a chance that you will believe anything.
 
I work with politicians every day and I can tell you that they are human beings like the rest of us, the vast majority of those that I meet have honest intentions to make things better, even if their version of better does not match with mine.  I do see their public presentation be skewed by party political stress and the fact the media constantly looks to highlight those that speak differently from their party and forcing the tendency not to deviate from the party line in public discourse.  Intheir work I see nuance and humanity, I wish everyone could have the same insight and engagement.

Doc

Restrainable and Physical Manifestation are also options.

As someone who works in a democratic institute, I appreciate the humour, but have concerns that this is entirely the kind of thing that anti-democratic folk build upon.  If you get convinced that you can trust no-one, that there is no value in voting and that those who seek public office should be barred from it, then you open the door to populists like Trump, who tell folk that he is the ONLY one you can trust and we can all see where that gets you.

It is an insidious tendency and undermines both our democracy and our democratic institutions.  Once it is mainstream that you can believe nothing then there is a chance that you will believe anything.
 
I work with politicians every day and I can tell you that they are human beings like the rest of us, the vast majority of those that I meet have honest intentions to make things better, even if their version of better does not match with mine.  I do see their public presentation be skewed by party political stress and the fact the media constantly looks to highlight those that speak differently from their party and forcing the tendency not to deviate from the party line in public discourse.  Intheir work I see nuance and humanity, I wish everyone could have the same insight and engagement.

Doc

Plus, as we've said, the notion built into Allocatable is a useful one...as long as it's used appropriately.  This definitely feels like such a use.

Agreed, Doc - taken to its ultimate extreme, that rule should eliminate Mental Attack in favour of a Blast with IPE, LoS range, AVAD and ACV.
 
All the options seem to come in a pretty comparable prices, and clearly the cot should land somewhere between "16m, 6 DEF, no variation" and "16M, 13 DEF all the time".

I think that rule is there for someone using stuff beyond its intended use to achieve an effect that is reasonably directly covered by a power that costs more.

Thanks, everyone, for all your comments.
 
Looking at them, I think I'm going to <sigh> fudge it slightly and use Allocable (+1/4) on 14 Active points worth of PD/meters. That would give me:
3 (base) + 1 (2m Tunneling) + 10 (6 PD material) = 14
+ 14 * 1.25 (Allocable between meters and PD) = 17
for a total of 31 pts.
 
I was thinking of doing something with Lockout on the PD and Meters above the minimums (2m and 6 PD):
3 (base) + 1 (2m Tunneling) + 10 (6 PD material) = 14
+ 14 / 1.25 (+14m Tunneling) + 14 / 1.25 (+7 PD), both Lockout on the other (cheesy, I know) = 11 + 11 = 22
14 + 22 = 36
 
And the RAW do say you should go for the more expensive option...
 And 36 isn't a crazy amount for the ability, considering the alternative is only 31 pts.

Hugh provoked me to go look at numbers. 
 
If you look at the "full power" here you would have 16m Tunnelling through 13PD.  That is 3+15+24 = 42 points.  Any answer to the cost of the more limited power needs to cost less than this. 
 
If you look at LoneWolf's plan, then the core cost is 28 points, with an additional 12 points that add PD at the cost of reducing movement.  With a -1 limitation that is +12 points that comes to a total of 40 points.  I think the limitation on this power is probably worth more than two points.
 
If you used my custom limitation then you would be paying 28 points...it is the same as the extreme at either end so you might think that you have more flexibility than purchasing either extreme, so perhaps a 1/4 limitation is the right one.  that comes to a cost of 34 points.
 
Doc
 
 
 
 

Well.  There are other options.  I had the shadows as the physical manifestation of the additional SPD I suggested.  I would consider allowing the attack to be Blast with a +1/4 no range (meaning the attack could be delivered where either the main character or one of the shadows was in melee range.
 
That not only avoids indirect and stretching, it gives a bonus.  The drawback is that it does not allow all of the skills etc that Zed might have.  However, you could buy indirect or stretching on a much smaller amount of STR to do much of that stuff.
 
These are not complicated in mechanics just a bit of a mind stretch to apply SFX to those mechanics.
 
I would be considering this as a bit of a speedster character, acting more times in a round than most other characters but not the 3-4 times as often as characters with Duplication or Summons.

I suppose it reflects a defence that is perfect until it collapses catastrophically.  I agree though that it looks like something only villains will use! GMs can afford to be profligate with their points...

Hugh provoked me to go look at numbers. 
 
If you look at the "full power" here you would have 16m Tunnelling through 13PD.  That is 3+15+24 = 42 points.  Any answer to the cost of the more limited power needs to cost less than this. 
 
If you look at LoneWolf's plan, then the core cost is 28 points, with an additional 12 points that add PD at the cost of reducing movement.  With a -1 limitation that is +12 points that comes to a total of 40 points.  I think the limitation on this power is probably worth more than two points.
 
If you used my custom limitation then you would be paying 28 points...it is the same as the extreme at either end so you might think that you have more flexibility than purchasing either extreme, so perhaps a 1/4 limitation is the right one.  that comes to a cost of 34 points.
 
Doc
 
 
 
 

Check your math on my way.  The base cost is 28 +14 (Active cost) to go through an additional 7 DEF for a total of 13 DEF.   The cost of the extra DEF is 7 points not 12 (14/2 = 7). That puts it to 35 not 40.  You are paying 1 point per extra DEF you can move through.  Being able to tunnel through more than 6 DEF should cost more than tunneling through 6 DEF.   Your method cost the same as tunneling through 6 DEF.  

Seems like a custom limitation "Movement through substance reduced 2m for every +1PD above 6PD".  You simply then have to consider how much that is worth.  +1/2??
 
I think people sometimes look for complexity rather than reach for the obvious solution but this looks nailed on to me.
 
Doc

Seems like a custom limitation "Movement through substance reduced 2m for every +1PD above 6PD".  You simply then have to consider how much that is worth.  +1/2??
 
I think people sometimes look for complexity rather than reach for the obvious solution but this looks nailed on to me.
 
Doc

Seems like a custom limitation "Movement through substance reduced 2m for every +1PD above 6PD".  You simply then have to consider how much that is worth.  +1/2??
 
I think people sometimes look for complexity rather than reach for the obvious solution but this looks nailed on to me.
 
Doc

I'd start by looking at the cost of 16m through 6 PD and 2m through 13 PD (the two extremes).  Either would cost 28 points.
 
A Multipower of both would cost 28 + 3 + 3 = 34 points.
 
If we went to the extreme of a multipower for every increment, there are 8, so 52 points. 
 
Usable as a second form of movement is +1/4 - I'm not sure anyone has ever assessed how this might be applied to Tunnelling, but it feels like we have multiple modes of Tunnelling here.  We'd have to assess how many different forms.
 
Allocatable resistant protection is a +1/4 advantage (with a caution sign). It seems like moving defenses around is no less useful than shifting Tunneling around.  If we applied a +1/4 advantage to one of the two extremes, we would get 35 points, which is remarkably close to placing the two extremes in a Multipower (although that's skewed a bit by rounding - we could bump to 20 meters/6 defense or 2 meters/15 defense for 32 + 6= 38 vs 40 for a ++1/4 advantage on 32.  Still in the ballpark.
 
This is a bit more flexible than just choosing one or the other.  I'd also interpret it as "auto-adjusting" - the player moves 4 meters through defense 6 (or less), then hits rock with 10 PD, so "spends" 8 meters to shift up to 10 defenses and has 4 meters remaining, just as if he had allocated 18m/8 PD from the outset.
 
 
If it were a VPP, it could have a 28 point pool, Cosmic, no skill roll, Tunnelling Only(-1 1/2), so 28 + 17 = 45 - a bit more pricy but with many more variations (including advantages) available.  That also backs up 42 points.
 
So a bit more flexible and valuable than a +1/4 advantage, which leads me to a +1/2 advantage or 42 points.  More pricy than a "pick one or the other" multipower and less pricy than "pick any combo" as a multipower.  This does not seem unfair, so let's call allocatable a +1/2 advantage.

I think I'd also call it +1/2 for defenses, and even for Entangle switching between dice and defenses.

I would probably do a partially limited power.  Buy the movement and 6 PD with no limitation and buy extra PD with a custom limitation like Doc is recommending.  I would place the value of the limitation higher if doing this way because it is more restrictive on what it is being applied for.  About a -1 limitation seems right.  The cost work out pretty close either way but this is a more accurate way of doing it.    

Currently playing in Glorantha.  Am using the gritty BRP Runequest for the base gameplay, the using the narrative-heavy HeroQuest for when they enter the Hero Plane or when extreme magical events take place.
 
The contrast is really useful.

That's a fun way to draw contrast. 

Currently playing in Glorantha.  Am using the gritty BRP Runequest for the base gameplay, the using the narrative-heavy HeroQuest for when they enter the Hero Plane or when extreme magical events take place.
 
The contrast is really useful.

In the real world, I am 100% with you.  In a superheroic world, then I think I need to be as open to universal attractiveness as I am to flight, force fields, invisibility and pre-cognition.
 
I am presuming that you understand I am not in the Bring back COM caucus.  I mean I have publicly declared that i would get rid of all non-game-mechanical characteristics! 🕵️‍♂️

There is a difference, the one I think Duke is making, between generally, mostly and universally. I do not think I know of anyone that gets to the universal category.  My wife hated Tom Selleck. There are a number of supermodels I don't rate (and some I cannot look away from).
 
I think Duke's take is decent.  He has a COM number that is the equivalent of text in the character description saying beautiful to men and women alike.  The GM can take either under advisement.
 
If the player buys 10 PRE, with the subtext of Incredibly beautiful, then the player has bought an extra 2D6 PRE attack, gets +2 to PRE based skills and, in most games (not Duke's), the confidence provided by growing up with such adulation, protects them from others influencing them (in the form of PRE attacks).
 
Duke's take is that comeliness is not buying game effect, it is SFX with the influence that SFX can have throughout the game, soft power rather than hard mechanics.

In the real world, I am 100% with you.  In a superheroic world, then I think I need to be as open to universal attractiveness as I am to flight, force fields, invisibility and pre-cognition.
 
I am presuming that you understand I am not in the Bring back COM caucus.  I mean I have publicly declared that i would get rid of all non-game-mechanical characteristics! 🕵️‍♂️

Are you saying you will believe a man can fly and shoot lightning from his fingers but not be universally attractive?