Jump to content

Aberrant RPG - Force Field


Ammonites

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Also, it's worth noting that ProfPotts' lengthy analysis conveniently ignores the simple, flat statement on page 230 of Aberrant:

,,
Quote:
A power with an Extra is considered a separate, distinct power.
Because of that, Shroud (Sensory Deprivation Field) is a separate, distinct power from Shroud (Semisolid), and there is exactly nothing in the rules preventing a character with the appropriate quantum minimum from taking 5 dots in each.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We got to this point as follows:

Vance was advanced as an example of a character with multiple versions of a single power that aggregated to a value higher than 5.

Vance also was advanced as an example of a character that has two separate instances of a power that could overlap (Cutting Attacks).

I'm currently focusing on the issue of whether Vance's powers can be reconciled as things that do not over lap through a simplistic and intuitive use of the rules. In simpler terms, I'm talking about a very narrow issue at the moment and it doesn't mean I'm leaving the larger picture (Vance's total levels of Invulnerability) or the overall picture (stacking multiple versions of the same power).

Now: I believe you're getting overly complex, if not pedantic, with your application of the term Cutting Attack. All damage caused by physical and energy attacks are physical. Fire burns my skin, creating a physical result. Someone punches my face and the resulting black eye is a physical result. Admittedly, I mixed the terms in my last post in my haste, hence (to clarify what I said before) the attacks done to Vance (the source of his damage) were all physical and none were energy. Additionally and much more succinctly, the power states "Cutting Attacks," not "Cutting Damage." The issue is the source of the attack, not the type of damage.

Reading the phrase "Cutting Attack" with such broad terms as to break the broad categories of "Physical Attacks" and "Energy Attacks" would be an overly expansive application of the system and, arguably, an example of rules lawyering (which, oddly enough, really isn't at all like real law or at least good use of the law). Reading "Cutting Attacks" as any attack that "cuts" someone, regardless of the source of the damage, may appear to be logical when only that term is considered.

However, Invulnerability alone already precludes such an expansive application through the express availability of the two broad categories, "Physical Attacks" and "Energy Attacks." Also, since none of the powers operate in a vacuum, there are multiple examples of all sources of bodily damage being divided up into the two broad categories, Absorption and the orbital weapon for example.

By categorizing all non-mental attacks under those two broad categories, we clearly follow the express and implied intent embedded in the rules. Game balance is gained by balancing out the relative advantages and disadvantages of Armor and Invulnerability and we have a consistent application of every attack. Either it's a "Physical Attack" or an "Energy Attack." If we treat "Cutting Attacks" as something that transcends the broad categories, we not only give a standard power the ability to circumvent the hard lines drawn by the Broad Category Extras, we also open the door to amorphous and arbitrary application of the rules. We create a situation where a "rules lawyer" can use their poorly but strategically defined power to apply to almost any situation. While that might appear as one valid way of looking at the literal words on the page, it is a clear violation of the spirit of the rules (or good faith, if you will).

More clearly, treating "Cutting Attacks" as "any attack that cuts" can lead to inequitable application of the rules and increased complexity in game play. Treating "Cutting Attacks" as a subset of the "Physical Attacks" broad category leads to an application of a rule consistent with the other rules in play and provides an objective standard to which apply the rule.

Hence, if Vance's "Cutting Attacks" Invulnerability is just a subcategory of the "Physical Attacks" broad category, then all three of his Invulnerabilities are truly unique (aside sharing the same root name). Meaning that each of those three powers cannot be aggregated together to reach the rule of five because they are separate and distinct powers that merely share a similar moniker.

Therefore, Vance is an applicable model of a canon character having multiple instances of a single power that do not stack. He has a "Physical Attack" defense, an "Energy Attack" defense, and a "Mental Attack" defense, each one of them working against separate types of attacks. Meaning that we still do not have an example of a canonical character staking the same defense power (the whole multiple Force Fields argument from before).

And who the heck wrote that quote? It just appears to be an unnamed person's interpretation of the rules, hence I don't really find any authority in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, a laser does not cut. it burns. They use the term "cut" to relate it to a scaple. It burns a narrow line or whatever that resembles a cut, but it does, in fact, burn. Inv: Cutting attacks would not do squat against a "cutting" laser.

Cutting requires a two pieces of matter. One with a (more or less) sharpe edge to do the cutting and one to be cut with the edge.

~Noir

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the the invulnerability to 'cutting attacks' is created by using strenghths and/or weaknesses.

For example: take invulnerability: physical cutting attacks and have that power crosslinked with invulnerability: energy attacks (with a target restriction to only those attacks that cut the skin). They would be simultaneously activated powers. There are many other combinations that could be used as well.

I do not have the book that has Vance's stats in it, so I may just be speculating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Thoughtwave: Also, it's worth noting that ProfPotts' lengthy analysis conveniently ignores the simple, flat statement on page 230 of Aberrant:
Quote:
A power with an Extra is considered a separate, distinct power.
He ignores it because the “separate, distinct power” applies to what it was before. It is level 3, not level 2. It uses level 3 quantum charges (i.e. 3q), it uses level 3 experience costs, etc. You aren’t allowed to go back to “2”, which means it isn’t relevant to this conversation.

And your example would let me have 15 dots in Armor.

Quote:
Ashnod: The whole "can't ACTIVATE" two different forcefields doesn't seem possible. If they are distinct powers, why on earth can you not activate them separately. The stacking soak issue completely aside, that's inane.
Exactly. That’s a huge argument that they aren’t distinct powers. And the stacking soak issue can’t be taken aside.

Quote:
Harold 'Mythic' Anderson:Reading the phrase "Cutting Attack" with such broad terms as to break the broad categories of "Physical Attacks" and "Energy Attacks" would be an overly expansive application of the system… Reading "Cutting Attacks" as any attack that "cuts" someone, regardless of the source of the damage, may appear to be logical when only that term is considered.

…Either it's a "Physical Attack" or an "Energy Attack." If we treat "Cutting Attacks" as something that transcends the broad categories…

However, Invulnerability alone already precludes such an expansive application through the express availability of the two broad categories, "Physical Attacks" and "Energy Attacks." Also, since none of the powers operate in a vacuum, there are multiple examples of all sources of bodily damage being divided up into the two broad categories, Absorption and the orbital weapon for example.
There are lots of other INVs I could take that aren’t subsets of your three categories.
1) INV:All powers from the nova I’m using Q-Imprint on, then that INV works on anything that one person does, mental, physical, or energy (but not if they pick up a gun).
2) INV:My Brother (mutant twins immune to each other’s powers)
3) Poison is outside all three of your categories.
4) INV: Water Powers works against Water Blasts from EC:Water (which would be physical) and a Disintegration attack based on dehydration (I think this would be energy).
5) INV: Ice Powers works against Ice Blasts from EC:Ice (which would be physical) and a Disintegration attack based on totally sucking all the heat out of the target’s body.
6) Adaptive INV would work against the last attack that hurt me (INV: Last Attack).

Quote:
Harold 'Mythic' Anderson: And who the heck wrote that quote? It just appears to be an unnamed person's interpretation of the rules, hence I don't really find any authority in it.
He hangs out over at Eon. In the many, many rules lawyer arguments I have seen or taken part in I’ve seen him lose or be corrected only once, and that was purely a math thing. Maximizing the chances for a botch occurs with two dice, not one. As near as I can tell he consults the books for every argument and then goes by what they say (thus not merely what he thinks they say).

Quote:
Noir:Cutting requires a two pieces of matter. One with a (more or less) sharpe edge to do the cutting and one to be cut with the edge.
You ever hear of a "water lathe"? It's a stream of water so strong and fast it can cut metal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, a water lathe would be using two pieces of matter. One with a more or less sharp edge (high pressure stream of water) and one to be cut with it (steel).

Exactly. That’s a huge argument that they aren’t distinct powers. And the stacking soak issue can’t be taken aside.

Actually, it CAN. Regardless of whether or not multiple forcefields can stack has no bearing on whether you can activate multiple, different forcefields.

I have more to say on that, but I'm going to hold off for the time being to see how this plays out further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troll, do you mean to tell me that a nova who uses Quantum Imprint on another nova would be invulnerable to that nova's powers? For example: if you had Q-Imp 2, you would soak 12 against any attacks from the nova whos quantum signature you copied. I like it, but I can't find where it says that in my books. I do not have all the books either, so you may be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troll,

All of those invunlerability exacples are not allowed. They are too broad. The boardest you can get is "physcial", "energy" or "mental".

And "poison" is going to be one of the three, categories. Phsycial for something like a snake's venom, enegry for some time of ligering enegry field, or mental for some time of slow mental,psychie damage.

~Noir

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
The White Rat:
Troll, do you mean to tell me that a nova who uses Quantum Imprint on another nova would be invulnerable to that nova's powers?
No, I'm saying that if you had Q-Imprint you could also buy INV:Current Victim to represent that you are also now largely immune to his powers as well. So if you are mimic-ing Totentanz you'd be immune to his Disorient, (I think) Q-Leech, & M-Str punches. This would be less useful than it sounds since his Spears aren't part of his powers and wouldn't be covered.

INV:Current Person I'm fighting would be broken and not allowed by the same logic that disallows Quantum Powers.

INV:One Specific Person would be allowed but not many people have themes that allow this, and it's likely to not come up often enough to bother.

For example, you could buy 5 dots of INV:Totentanz and always be immune to him. But unless you are the girl friend that made him erupt, and/or you erupted at the same time, I don't see how or why someone would have a theme or desire to do so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are lots of other INVs I could take that aren’t subsets of your three categories.

1) INV:All powers from the nova I’m using Q-Imprint on, then that INV works on anything that one person does, mental, physical, or energy (but not if they pick up a gun).

2) INV:My Brother (mutant twins immune to each other’s powers)

3) Poison is outside all three of your categories.

4) INV: Water Powers works against Water Blasts from EC:Water (which would be physical) and a Disintegration attack based on dehydration (I think this would be energy).

5) INV: Ice Powers works against Ice Blasts from EC:Ice (which would be physical) and a Disintegration attack based on totally sucking all the heat out of the target’s body.

6) Adaptive INV would work against the last attack that hurt me (INV: Last Attack).

Hey some of those are pretty cool. In fact, some of those are worthy of basing a character around.

And Noir, I don't think a single one of them even counts towards 'broad category'. The GM might rule against the first one (as impossible, or overpowered), but none of those would even qualify for 'broad category', since they're quite specific in what they apply against.

As an example of an invulnerability that doesn't fall into the standard categories, Alchemist has 'Invulnerability (broad category): Chemical disruption'. It protects him against drugs, poisons, acids, certain disintegration attacks, and fire (although he's never realized the last).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creating more and more outrageous examples doesn't serve your point. All you're doing is asking me to continuously apply a very simplistic and balanced way of approaching the rules. Also, point 1 comes from Quantum Forgery, not Invulnerability, point 2 is distinguishable from your method of approaching the Cutting Attack question because it's a much narrower application of the power, point 3 doesn't apply because Poison is an effect not damage, points 4 and 5 (the Disintegration attack based on removing heat is a little specious as something protected under Ice powers) are a mischaracterization of the Cutting Attacks argument and may not even apply as normal Invulnerabilities, and point 6 also raises significant power balancing questions.

Regarding Potts, his ability to convince people has nothing to do with him being "right." If you want to advance his statement as a valid argument, go for it. But your characterization of his style/history ties into an underlying issue I'm seeing here: abusive and open-ended interpretation of the rules.

Merely pointing to a rule and saying "But it says I can do it!" may seem to be fully supported at first glance, it can easily (and correctly) be attacked under a game balance or a spirit of the rules argument. Open-ended powers and abilities, such as Invulnerability, necessitate a common sense/game balance/spirit of the game/whatnot analysis or review, not as a matter of house rules but as a matter of game design. White Wolf clearly could have taken the Dungeons and Dragons route by writing extremely detailed rules (which indicates the very long legacy of petty rules lawyering discussions) but they erred on the side of creative freedom for the players, hence opening the door for abuse of the system through absured power choices (again, "But the book says I can!").

So far, the examples you've provided sound like things that a "strict" reading of the rules would allow and have been subjected to some kind of scientific affect analysis but they all seem to be completely void of the common sense/game balance analysis. Also, your adherence to the rule of five and limitations on extra'ed powers being distinct has only a shaky "strict" reading support in the book and, beyond that, it still hasn't been subjected to a game balance/spirit of the game analysis

More simply, your examples smack of the vices of rules lawyering/twinkery and the hardline application rule of five against extra'ed powers seems to be a blind reading of rules without considering the intent/theme of the game.

Regardless, the only developer who's chimed in on this issue has already fallen on the side of extra'ed powers being distinct and not subject to the rule of five as an aggregate. Until we find another developer who says otherwise, there is clear authority that Vance (et al) are perfectly legal and canonical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Inv: Current victim stuff REAKS of powergaming because it is so broad. It goes from person to person, affecting all their attacks.

And Alchmist,

Inv: Chemical Disruption would not affect most drugs because many of them do not do damage (at the very least).

~Noir

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noir,

I count it as additional dice on a resistance roll against the drug's effects. Because Alchemist is so aware of his own chemistry, and can easily control it, he can nullify the effects of drugs on himself. And does so even at a subconscious level. Hence the invulnerability applying to drugs.

This is a more character oriented reason than game-rules based reason, since I see Alchemist as more of a Character in a story than a playable character.

However, when I act as GM (or ST), I apply the same reasoning to my rulings, so that the story can flow more smoothly and reasonably.

As for the issue at hand: If you're going to pay the XP for two kinds of forcefield, and the GM lets you, you should be able to have both, and get protection from both. Of course, there's always the possibility that someone will get past your 'Wall', but that's a risk you have to take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple FACTS are as follows:

1.) Andy Vance IS CANON (like it or not) and does have several, non-overlapping/non-stacking Invulnerabilities totaling 9 dots.

2.) NO canon character (even Andy Vance, “the most indestructible nova”) has overlapping/stacking defenses that are the same power (even with extras).

i.e. Armour and Armour: Superheavy and Armour: Impervious.) NOT ONE.

3.) Even a developer has responded saying:

"I would say that yes you could have multiple similar powers."

and

"I do not believe you can activate them simultaneously, nor would I allow them to stack."

So, it’s all pretty cut and dry. Continuing to argue is more or less just not accepting the facts because you do not like them.

~Noir

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Originally posted by Noir:
Quote:
Originally posted by David 'Dr. Troll' Smith:
INV:My Twin Brother broader than INV:All Physical Attacks?
Yes, since you twin may have Energy, physcial and mental attacks.

~Noir
So I take it that same applies to INV:Ice Powers?
Funny that INV:Fire is one of the examples in the book (in the section for INV in the core book).
INV:Ice would be the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Originally posted by David 'Dr. Troll' Smith:
So I take it that same applies to INV:Ice Powers?
Funny that INV:Fire is one of the examples in the book (in the section for INV in the core book).
INV:Ice would be the same.
You take it how you like. I didn’t say anything about that applying to ice powers. You are trying to make something here.

But if you really want to get into that…

Fire is energy. Fire is not matter (hence not “physical”)

Ice is physical. Ice is matter (hence not “energy”).

Regardless. The question/discussion/argument that this thread started over is done with. The facts are clear.

Have a nice day.

~Noir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to throw a fox into the henhouse (and because I think Noir is being just a tad iffy with the Broad Category stuff), A few questions:

  • Someone who I attack has Invulnerability (Punches & Kicks). He also has Invulnerability (Fire). I'm a powerful Nova, with a heavy dose of Mega-Strength, and I decide to activate my Immolate, which sets me on fire, and then attack the Invulnerable Guy. How is this resolved, if Same named powers cannot stack?
  • I have an Invulnerability, but specifically, against "Time" - The vagaries of Time have no effect on me whatsoever, from Tampering with the timeline to Temporal Manipulation to Disintegrate Attacks built to erase me and my history. This is clearly not a Mental Defense, and it doesn't seem to be Physical, but I'm not sure I can justifiably call it an Energy Defense either, since I'm not actually defending against any form of energy. What am I defending against?
  • I decide to take Invulnerability (Temptation). My character is now totally immune to any attempt from any Nova to tempt me into doing anything that I'd in theory like to do. I then decide that I like this concept, and also take Invulnerability (Persuasion), making me immune from all forms of Persuasion (from Mental Attacks aimed at persuading me to do something, to Social Attacks aimed at persuading me to do something, to Physical Attacks aimed at forcing me to do something - ). Now, These are different Invulnerabilities - you don't need to Persuade someone to Tempt them, nor do you need to Tempt someone in order to Persuade them, so clearly they are different things. So, can I stack them?

Just some thoughts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirby1024:
Just to throw a fox into the henhouse (and because I think Noir is being just a tad iffy with the Broad Category stuff), A few questions:
No problem.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirby1024:

  • Someone who I attack has Invulnerability (Punches & Kicks). He also has Invulnerability (Fire). I'm a powerful Nova, with a heavy dose of Mega-Strength, and I decide to activate my Immolate, which sets me on fire, and then attack the Invulnerable Guy. How is this resolved, if Same named powers cannot stack?


The damage from a punch while Immolated is two separate pools. Some defenses may only apply to the punch, others only to the Immolate.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirby1024:

  • I have an Invulnerability, but specifically, against "Time" - The vagaries of Time have no effect on me whatsoever, from Tampering with the timeline to Temporal Manipulation to Disintegrate Attacks built to erase me and my history. This is clearly not a Mental Defense, and it doesn't seem to be Physical, but I'm not sure I can justifiably call it an Energy Defense either, since I'm not actually defending against any form of energy. What am I defending against?


Well, all it could do is soak damage/give you a boot to a willpower roll. I am not sure how that would stop somebody from tampering with the timeline tog et rid of you, especially before you got your powers. Nor would it stop slowing affects and the like (unless the power allows a resistance roll). The only really damaging attack from time would have to do with affecting the age of a part of the body rapidly. And in this one instance, classification is (admittedly) a bit fuzzy.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirby1024:

  • I decide to take Invulnerability (Temptation). My character is now totally immune to any attempt from any Nova to tempt me into doing anything that I'd in theory like to do. I then decide that I like this concept, and also take Invulnerability (Persuasion), making me immune from all forms of Persuasion (from Mental Attacks aimed at persuading me to do something, to Social Attacks aimed at persuading me to do something, to Physical Attacks aimed at forcing me to do something - ). Now, These are different Invulnerabilities - you don't need to Persuade someone to Tempt them, nor do you need to Tempt someone in order to Persuade them, so clearly they are different things. So, can I stack them?

By your own definition, they do not stack. They protect against different things, so there is no stacking, (I do think basing the argument on the difference between tempt and persuade is pretty flimsy. Heh.)

Just like Ironskin’s different invulnerabilities. They do not stack. They all work against different things.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirby1024:

Just some thoughts...
Thought are always welcomes, though a new thread might be in order.

~Noir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The White Rat: So if you crosslinked the Invulnerability to your Quantum Imprint, you could buy the inv: current victim at a cheaper cost. Or you could add some strengths.

No weaknesses and they aren’t linked. INV works on a condition. That condition is “who ever you are mimicking”.

Noir: This Inv: Current victim stuff REAKS of powergaming because it is so broad. It goes from person to person, affecting all their attacks.

Speaking as a proficient power gamer, it’s just the opposite. It isn’t strong enough or broad enough to be effective. It’s more theme and flavor than useful.

Granted, you can switch it from person to person, but in order to do that you need to use QI on them, which isn’t easy and requires both an action and a successful touch. So you generally are pretty exposed to attack before you can raise your defense. Worse, you lose your INV if you stop paying quantum on your QI. You have NO protection from any friends your target might have, or from anything any baseline might do to you.

Noir: The simple FACTS are as follows:

1.) Andy Vance IS CANON (like it or not) and does have several, non-overlapping/non-stacking Invulnerabilities totaling 9 dots. … Continuing to argue is more or less just not accepting the facts because you do not like them.

Fine, two can play at that game.

The simple FACTS are as follows:

1.) NPCs with Q5 and Disintegration and an Extra ARE CANON (like it or not). This happens not once but TWICE in the same book that gives Ironskin his 9 dots. It is also CANNON that an NPC has Clone at Q4 as part of a level 2 power.

… Continuing to argue is more or less just not accepting the facts because you do not like them.

It’s just as silly when you do it, and the evidence is from the same book and is stronger for this since they did it twice.

Noir: You take it how you like. I didn’t say anything about that applying to ice powers. You are trying to make something here.

Now I’m confused. I listed INV:Ice Powers as one of my examples above (which would defend you against some types of Physical and some types of energy). You claimed all my examples, presumably including it, were too broad.

If INV:Fire is allowable, then INV:Ice should be as well.

What do people think of

1) INV:Light

-or-

2) INV: Mega-Strength Attacks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Originally posted by David 'Dr. Troll' Smith:
Noir: This Inv: Current victim stuff REAKS of powergaming because it is so broad. It goes from person to person, affecting all their attacks.

Speaking as a proficient power gamer, it’s just the opposite. It isn’t strong enough or broad enough to be effective. It’s more theme and flavor than useful.

Granted, you can switch it from person to person, but in order to do that you need to use QI on them, which isn’t easy and requires both an action and a successful touch. So you generally are pretty exposed to attack before you can raise your defense. Worse, you lose your INV if you stop paying quantum on your QI. You have NO protection from any friends your target might have, or from anything any baseline might do to you.
Did I say anything about having to use QI on the target?

Quote:
Originally posted by David 'Dr. Troll' Smith:
Noir: The simple FACTS are as follows:

1.) Andy Vance IS CANON (like it or not) and does have several, non-overlapping/non-stacking Invulnerabilities totaling 9 dots. … Continuing to argue is more or less just not accepting the facts because you do not like them.


Fine, two can play at that game.
It’s not a game. It is simple truth, like it or not.

Quote:
Originally posted by David 'Dr. Troll' Smith:
The simple FACTS are as follows:

1.) NPCs with Q5 and Disintegration and an Extra ARE CANON (like it or not). This happens not once but TWICE in the same book that gives Ironskin his 9 dots. It is also CANNON that an NPC has Clone at Q4 as part of a level 2 power.
… Continuing to argue is more or less just not accepting the facts because you do not like them.


It’s just as silly when you do it, and the evidence is from the same book and is stronger for this since they did it twice.
Silly? Truth is truth. Your evidence is not “stronger”. If anything, it just makes you look more silly. Disintegration has a Q minimum of 5. The books do not list the strengths and weaknesses placed on an NPC’s powers (though they are often pretty clear if you read the background and flavour text) . For 3 levels of weakness you can by an extra for 3 NPs without raising the level of the power. It is pretty damn easy to do.

And “an NPC has Clone at Q4 as part of a level 2 power” ?? What the bloody hell are you even talking about?


Quote:
Originally posted by David 'Dr. Troll' Smith:
Noir: You take it how you like. I didn’t say anything about that applying to ice powers. You are trying to make something here.

Now I’m confused. I listed INV:Ice Powers as one of my examples above (which would defend you against some types of Physical and some types of energy). You claimed all my examples, presumably including it, were too broad.

If INV:Fire is allowable, then INV:Ice should be as well.
I never said Inv: Ice should not be allowed. I was pointing out that Invul: Ice as you seemed to try to describe it would not be allowed (Disintegration by sucking the heat out is not an “ice” power. It is a “heat” or “cold” power) and pointed out that Inv: Ice would fall under physical damage when you tried to say it would not fit into any of “physical, energy, mental” categories.

As I said, you are trying to make something here.

~Noir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-sighs-

Troll,

You are looking into the face of simple facts, truth and logic and just stare right past, marching on oblivious. It is clear you will not settle until you are right, no matter what simple facts, truth and logic are presented to you. if it does not make you right, then you seem to ignore it.

So with that said, continuing this is pretty pointless. The facts are clear (like them or not). The issue is pretty much settled. At this point, you are just trying to drum up old arguements that have been explained already (like people having Q5, Didin and an extra) or just trying to make an arguemtn out of anything you can (like what you are trying to make out of the Inv:Ice thing).

So all I can say is have fun doing it alone. The longer you continue, the more silly you look. You'll get no further pleasure from me. The facts are clear. The matter is settled for me and many, many others.

"Thank you. Come again." ~Apu

~Noir

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Originally posted by Noir:
The damage from a punch while Immolated is two separate pools. Some defenses may only apply to the punch, others only to the Immolate.
This is true to an extent - But if you accept that I can use each Invulnerability on a different portion of the damage, aren't I technically stacking two Invulnerabilities? Certainly looks like it to me smile

Quote:
Well, all it could do is soak damage/give you a boot to a willpower roll. I am not sure how that would stop somebody from tampering with the timeline tog et rid of you, especially before you got your powers.
Oh, they could tamper with the timeline... simply that the effects of said tampering wouldn't affect me during the period that I got my powers - I'd exist in that point in time regardless of the state of the timeline. But this is, of course, entirely a dramatic system, and is irrelevant to the question at hand.

Quote:
And in this one instance, classification is (admittedly) a bit fuzzy.
I could give you more fuzzy examples if you wish, but this does point out that a creative player can (without being evil about it) come up with possibilities that don't correctly connect to your trilateral theory of attacks. And if we claim that this doesn't connect to the trilateral theory, then we can claim that no matter what the broad category is, I can attack you with temporal attacks without a care, since they're not mental, physical or energetic. If we're claiming that all attacks/defenses have to be placed into this framework, temporal attacks are a distinct problem.

So, for that matter, are social attacks - they're not actually mental (since they don't play with your brain directly), they're not physical, nor are they energetic. There's clear benefit to defending against them (anyone attempting to perform the defended social task on you will get at least a +6 difficulty to their actions, or possibly 6 Willpower dice), and there are clear abilities and powers that assist in social attacks that aren't Mental in origin (see, well, just about any Mega-Social Enhancement).

There are also some specific borderline cases that are present in the canon, that the trilateral theory has issues with - Caestus Pax has the ability to project kinetic energy. Which, if you think about it for the second, would technically be just physically pushing people with a lot of energy, since physical attacks are, technically, simply attacks with a large amount of kinetic energy behind them.

You can say that it must be energy since I'm describing it so, but there's a solid argument that if you accept this, then there's no such thing as physical attacks - all attacks are energy-based. If we describe it as a Physical attack we get around this, but clearly there's no physical object attacking them - it's only the energy itself that's affecting the person, not any physical item.

It's borderline, and you should make a decision either way, but the choice isn't clear-cut. And as such, this points out that the trilateral system is not quite as robust as you would claim it to be.

Quote:
By your own definition, they do not stack. They protect against different things, so there is no stacking, (I do think basing the argument on the difference between tempt and persuade is pretty flimsy. Heh.)
Actually, I merely stated that they were not analogous, and were independent entities, not that they could not stack. What if someone attempts to persuade me to do something by tempting me with something? Make the assumption that my argument on their division is correct (just for this exercise). Would I have a justifiable argument at this point for saying that the two abilities stack?

Quote:
Thought are always welcomes, though a new thread might be in order.
Nah, not really needed. We are technically discussing the same thing, just the target's changed a little...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, enough of this. I'm going to call a spade a spade.

Dr. Troll, you are trolling. Your position is indefensible, and you are now arguing for the sake of it, relying on false analogies, slothful induction, and a host of other logical fallacies and distraction techniques to continue your tireless defense of the indefensible.

The simple fact of the matter is that you can have multiple versions of the same power, each treated as a separate power. The rules say so (page 230 of Aberrant). The White Wolf answer guy says so. A former developer of Aberrant says so. And I'll guarantee you that if you could get Blackwelder on the horn, he would say so as well.

You also cannot stack soak provided by multiple versions of the same power. While not explicit in the rules, the aforementioned WW answer guy and former Aberrant director both agree on this point, as do both common sense and game balance.

Don't like it? Too bad. Wanna push the point? We'll have a nice little vote that will decide the matter for N!Prime purposes, and you will lose -- overwhelmingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so... on that day... that glorious day... Invulnerability: Dr. Troll was added to the list of Quantum Powers.

Peace returned to the lands, the sun rose and cast its warmth upon the land, birds chirped and sang songs of joy, and rabbits did that cute little thing with thier nose that makes 7 year old girls want them so badly... and never take care of them afterward.

But I digress...

~Revenant

<bamfs out in a divine light>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This is true to an extent - But if you accept that I can use each Invulnerability on a different portion of the damage, aren't I technically stacking two Invulnerabilities? Certainly looks like it to me [smile] "

The immolate is resolved separately from the punch, so they are not stacking. They are soaking different damage pools, not portions of damage of the same damage pool (which also means each attack still gets to roll one dice of damage if the soak exceeds the damage pool).

“Oh, they could tamper with the timeline... simply that the effects of said tampering wouldn't affect me during the period that I got my powers - I'd exist in that point in time regardless of the state of the timeline. But this is, of course, entirely a dramatic system, and is irrelevant to the question at hand.”

Huh? All Invulnerability does is give you a big soak or boost your resistance rolls. That’s all. If I am not inflicting damage to the person with Invulnerability or doing something to them they their Invulnerability gives them a boosted resistance against, then the Invulnerability means nothing. You Invulnerability: Time wouldn’t mean a thing to me giving your 2 year old self a full cranial evacuation with my .45 automatic.

So, for that matter, are social attacks - they're not actually mental (since they don't play with your brain directly), they're not physical, nor are they energetic. There's clear benefit to defending against them (anyone attempting to perform the defended social task on you will get at least a +6 difficulty to their actions, or possibly 6 Willpower dice), and there are clear abilities and powers that assist in social attacks that aren't Mental in origin (see, well, just about any Mega-Social Enhancement).

If you –really- want to get into that…

Show me a “Social Attack” first. There are none. Even things like the M-Manipulation enhancement “The Voice” are mental because they are control you.

“You can say that it must be energy since I'm describing it so, but there's a solid argument that if you accept this, then there's no such thing as physical attacks - all attacks are energy-based. If we describe it as a Physical attack we get around this, but clearly there's no physical object attacking them - it's only the energy itself that's affecting the person, not any physical item.

It's borderline, and you should make a decision either way, but the choice isn't clear-cut. And as such, this points out that the trilateral system is not quite as robust as you would claim it to be.”

It is quite robust. Going with some of your logic, all energy damage could be labeled “physical” because it is causing physical harm. –rolls eyes-.

Pax does do either physical or energy damage with this “Kenetic energy” attacks. That is somewhat up to each ST or gaming group, but the fact that it is directed energy and not matter, would pretty solidly indicate that it is “energy” and not “physical”

Damage from “time” more often than not (unless you get –really- creative-) is physical. There is no directed energy doing the damage and it is causing the physical body to age or what have you.

Actually, I merely stated that they were not analogous, and were independent entities, not that they could not stack. What if someone attempts to persuade me to do something by tempting me with something? Make the assumption that my argument on their division is correct (just for this exercise). Would I have a justifiable argument at this point for saying that the two abilities stack?

As I said, a flimsy example. You are trying to use something that a ST would definitely have to make a call on to allow or not, based on his/her judgment of the difference, if any. But to go along with your flimsy argument, in that case, since they cannot stack (as stated by developers now) you would then pick which –one- you wish to use to resist (since they may have different ratings)

Nah, not really needed. We are technically discussing the same thing, just the target's changed a little...

Actually, it has changed a great deal, to the point that we are no longer discussion the same thing. The original question has been answered. Now it is just a scant couple of people trying to get into the definition of damages (which was not the original question).. So, as such, I am done. If you would like to carry this on further Kirby, you are welcomed to PM me. But as far as this thread, the question has been answered, so I am done.

People can say all they like here. Make no difference to me.

Buhbye!

~Noir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

• Inv: Quantum Manipulation (invulnerable to powers such as Quantum Leech and Quantum Imprint)

• Inv: Probability Manipulation (invulnerable to Entropy Control and any random custom powers that produce related effects)

While I haven't stated Alex, I generally consider him to have some rating of both of those. Neither fits into a physical/energy/mental arrangement.

I just throw these out as examples, but others could be generated (Kirby did a couple himself).

Also, Invulnerability to social 'attacks' makes perfect sense. For instance, an intimidation attempt is just as much an attack as a telepathic assault, and is seems quite appropriate to have an Invulnerability that would give you a boost to your rolls to resist intimidation (or seduction, or similar).

Now, all of the above examples are clearly illegal, and I'll admit that. As stated in the book, Invulnerability will give you a +6 soak against a certain type of attack, or will give you +6 succ on the Willpower roll against a mental attack. Nothing else is fair game, by the book.

However, playing a little more loosely with Invulnerability doesn't seem inappropriate. There are many, many concepts that would be well suited with a simple resistance to a certain type of intrusion - including a number that involve neither soak nor Willpower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if Quantum Manipulation is available as a level 2 or level 3 power (neither of which I agree with, but I digress), it would be inconsistent to make Quantum Imprint apart of it's protection.

The target's quantum signature is not being altered or tampered with, it's just being copied. Rather, the target's quantum isn't being manipulated. It's nitpicky but that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noir,

Let’s just review the quality of our “Cannon” information from AB:WWII.

Characters who are in gross violation of the rules and CAN NOT be created.

1) Apocrypha (Level 3 power with an Extra).

2) Tenebrae (Clone with Q4, Clone as a level 2 power)

3) The Bomber (Level 3 power with an Extra).

4) Ironskin (9 dots of INV)

5) Turncoat (Should have 5 aberrations, only has 1)

Characters who have powers that don’t make any sense

1) The Bomber (Has “Ranged” on a power that already has a range, presumably they meant “Extra Range”)

2) Tenebrae (Has Immolate which can only be used with enough Density Decrease that it can’t hurt anyone).

Characters whose character sheet doesn’t match the text.

1) Phosphorus (Erupted in a hail of bullets, has a soak of 2 against bullets)

2) Angel of Bones (Immobilize is poison based but is against willpower, not stamina.)

3) Angel of Bones (Immobilize allows other characters could break the victim out of the cage without harming them. Worse, they have to in order to attack the victim. IMHO it has the wrong extra.)

4) Vlad (big nasty elite but his big power does 3 dice of Aggravated damage).

Characters with problems with the plot.

1) Turncoat has a social difficulty of +3, good luck with disguise, perform, or subterfuge.

2) Ragnorrocket is laid low by poison, but she’s been to the moon, she must have Adaptability.

3) Scarcrow has to use his “Boost:Stamina + Other” to keep someone alive for a while, but the duration of that power is extremely limited.

Characters with other problems with their character sheet.

1) Aureole doesn’t have any backgrounds.

2) Dirge doesn’t have any backgrounds.

3) Fidei Def. doesn’t have any backgrounds.

4) Tenebrae doesn’t have any backgrounds.

I count 14 characters that need to be edited here.

Yes, it is possible to claim only 13 characters need to be edited and Ironskin re-writes the 5 dot minimum rule, but I don’t see the quality of information justifying that any more than I see it justifying reducing Clone's Q-Min.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troll, you just don't get it, do you? You're wrong. The developer says so, White Wolf says so, the freaking rule in the book says so, and the overwhelming bulk of the N!Prime community says so. Your endless ranting is just that -- ranting.

Give it up, go buy yourself a clue, and STFU. Or, if you really want, continue to babble to yourself in the corner. You're selling a crock of dung, and we're not buying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughtwave,

Feel free to actually debate the argument rather than chanting "you're wrong". Do you disagree with what I posted? Yes? Why is that? Feel free to back up your posts with logical reasoning.

RE: Developer

Feel free to post a quote (hopefully a saved conversation or email). What I've seen is (at best) second hand hearsay and I have no way to judge how much thought was put in to it.

RE: White Wolf Says so...

Excellent!! Now we are getting somewhere. Please provide references. Or did you just mean Ironskin from one of my list of 14?

My purpose in the above post was to attack the "Ironskin has it so it's CANNON" line of thinking. I think I did a good job, but if I made any errors of reasoning or there are any factual problems, by all means point them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troll,

I e-mailed WW on the topic; the quotes I gave on page 2 of this ridiculous thread are what Conrad Hubbard e-mailed me back. Here's the full quote from the e-mail:

Quote:
> 1. Can a character in Aberrant can have multiple versions of a given

> Power by way of having different Extras associated with each instance

> -- for example, could one have both Shroud and Shroud (Sensory

> Deprivation

> Field) as two separate Powers?

I would say that yes you could have multiple similar powers.

>

> 2. If the answer to part 1 is yes, then if a character has multiple

> versions of a Power that provides soak -- say, both Force Field and

> Force Field (Wall), or both Armor (Superheavy) and Armor

> (Impervious) --

> would it be possible to activate both powers simultaneously and have

> the soak provided from each of them stack?

I do not believe you can activate them simultaneously, nor would I allow them to stack.

As for chats with a developer, I'm afraid I don't have a chat-log. That said, it's not too hard to run down some of the old Aberrant developers. Fell free to do some legwork of our own and see what they have to say.

If Hubbard manages to get e-mail back from Blackwelder -- which he's currently trying to do, for completeness' sake -- I'll post that as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...