Aberrant RPG - Misunderstood Powers

[Jackson Creed]

3) Disrupt affects a power NAME. e.g. Disrupt [invulnerability] takes out Invulnerability (Fruit) and Invulnerability (impacts);

Okay, what about Disrupt [invulnerability] versus Invulnerability [Disrupt]?

::brick

JC

[ProfPotts]

Okay, what about Disrupt [invulnerability] versus Invulnerability [Disrupt]?

Invulnerability [Disrupt] would be a pointless power, since Disrupt doesn't target Soak or Willpower - which are the things Invulnerability gets to boost. Part of the whole 'no Invulnerability [Quantum powers]' deal.

[brilyn]

Okay, since it seems popular, I've taken a close look at the 'multiple versions of the same power' issue. Here's what I've concluded:

[stuff]

Seems prett reasonable to me.

Not quite the way I'd run it myself, but seems a reasonable compromise.

Not that I plan on running chars with multiple versions of one power, or anything....

[Blue Thunder]

That sounds great actually.

You can take multiple instances of powers, as long as every instance of the powers are not identical, but the dots still add up and cannot exceed 5 and cost as much as if they were all added together.

If you have 4 dots of Quantum Bolt (area), a single dot of Quantum Bolt (homing) would cost as much as a fifth dot.

This means Thermo could be a master (5 dots) with fire bodymorph...or more balanced with fire (3 dots) and ice (2 dots) bodymorphs that aren't as powerful as the single maxed fire bodymorph. One bodymorph maxed would be more powerful, but two bodymorphs make up for strength with versatility. This gives me an idea for a nova with 5 Bodymorphs, each 1 dot and based on an element.

It works ^^

[BlueNinja]

In that case, how do you handle the canon characters that have multiple versions of a power (well, just Invulnerability, it seems to be) that add up to more than five? (I don't believe that Andy is the only nova to go above and beyond five dots in a power.)

My ST's rule on this is that the power has to be demonstratably different to be allowed to take it a second time. Invul (Kinetic) is different than Invul (Energy) is different than Invul (Mental). Elemental Mastery (Fire) is different than Elemental Mastery (Air) is different than Elemental Master (Shadows). In the case where the ST rules it to be an overlap, he informs you that you are buying the more expensive power, whichever that is.

[Ayre el KaBeer]

If you have 4 dots of Quantum Bolt (area), a single dot of Quantum Bolt (homing) would cost as much as a fifth dot.

←

In this case yes, you'd essentially have 5 dots in your selected power even if one instance only deals the equivalent damage of a single dot of quantum bolt (even if that 1 dot shot is backed by 5 Quantum ::wink ). It's expensive when talking a 4/1dots in the power, it would be better suited for low to medium level combinations to maintain the versatility benefit this offers.

If you have a 4 dot QBolt, you'd probably be better off taking something like elemental mastery (if the ST see's it as apropriate) with the first dot being elemental blast, it would give far more versatility (since you can access the other powers of the suit at double cost) and it can be increased above one dot. An added benefit to a mastery or other suit power, that some st's aren't going to allow, unlike trying to fire off more than one Qbolt per round (you can't, stated in the Qbolt description) there's nothing in the rules (unless it's in the errata) that says you can't take a multiple action and unload both, a Qbolt(fire) and Elemental blast(ice) into your tagret/s.

I like this, as brilyn said it's a good compromise, especially for players who want to mix up their powers.

[Timeslip]

Folks, here's what the book says (page 230 of the main book):

A power with an Extra is considered a separate, distinct power.

Here's what the answer guy at White Wolf (Conrad Hubbard) says:

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.

Conrad's position is identical to that of one of the former Aberrant developers that I chatted with a few months back. And Conrad is currently trying to get for me the opinion of the main former Aberrant developer (Blackwelder), if he can get him to answer an e-mail (Blackwelder isn't with WW anymore), but already knows from previous conversations that Blackwelder's stance is the same.

So if you want to have Force Field 5 and Force Field 5 (Wall), feel free, so long as it makes sense for your character concept...just remember that you can't stack them, and that it's going to cost you a metric buttload of Nova Points and/or Experience Points to do so.

[Blue Thunder]

So...confused...*head implosion*

[ProfPotts]

Of course, we all know that WW books are written by comitee & violate & contradict their own rules in loads of places - so in the end it'll always be (as we're said on this thread many times) up to the individual groups playing to decide what to do - no matter what ex-developers who are no longer interested in the game may say... ::wink

[Timeslip]

Of course, we all know that WW books are written by comitee & violate & contradict their own rules in loads of places - so in the end it'll always be (as we're said on this thread many times) up to the individual groups playing to decide what to do - no matter what ex-developers who are no longer interested in the game may say... ::wink

←

This sounds, in combination with your previous post, painfully like you are saying, "my interpretation of the rule is the real canon, even if the rule printed in the game, the intent of the people who wrote the rule and the official word from the company that published the game all say something different than what I say." I rather hope that I'm reading your post incorrectly, ProfPotts.

[Blue Thunder]

This sounds, in combination with your previous post, painfully like you are saying, "my interpretation of the rule is the real canon, even if the rule printed in the game, the intent of the people who wrote the rule and the official word from the company that published the game all say something different than what I say."  I rather hope that I'm reading your post incorrectly, ProfPotts.

←

And don't forget "Happy Birthday ProffPotts!"

Heh, I'm just messing around.

In the end it all comes down to the roleplaying. The rules exist to make the roleplaying possible, not the other way around. I say if having two powers of the same name from the book (two Force Fields, two Quantum Bolts) that are different in-game and that make sense in-game then it should work in the rules.

[ProfPotts]

This sounds, in combination with your previous post, painfully like you are saying, "my interpretation of the rule is the real canon, even if the rule printed in the game, the intent of the people who wrote the rule and the official word from the company that published the game all say something different than what I say." I rather hope that I'm reading your post incorrectly, ProfPotts.

Of course you are. What I said was - each group has to decide for themselves - which is what we've all been saying all along.

Take your last post for example: you say that both a) Powers with Extras are totally seperate, & You can't stack a Force Field with a Force Field + Wall. Those two statements contradict each other. We get this sort of stuff from WW games all the time. We then discuss it on threads like this. Then we each go off & play the game in the way we think is best.

Adding things that writers & developers have said to people unofficially over the years helps to add to that confusion - they also tend to contradict each other & the published, printed, rules. I'm not saying what ex-developers may think isn't interesting, I'm just saying that - like any other aspect of the game - the people playing the game will still, in the end, need to decide for themselves how to apply the rules.

I never say that my interpretation of the rules is written in stone. I just present my interpretation with evidence & reasoned argument. What people choose to use or not use is up to them. Sometimes I even happily re-write the rules entirely - so sue me already!

Swooping in & declaring that we're all wrong for even discussing the thing 'cos a mate of your mate was on the development team & he says something different is, frankly, insulting to all of us who bother to discuss these things.

[Bahamut810]

[MOD]

Let make sure to keep this civil. Not saying anything un-civil has happened. Just a forewarning.

[/MOD]

[Timeslip]

No insult was intended, ProfPotts, but I saw no point in letting the discussion continue to ruminate without pointing out the intent that the developers had in the first place (and the official interpretation from WW). Doesn't mean it has to run roughshod over anyone's game, but it does shed some light on the subject from a standpoint of original intent.

[brilyn]

intent that the developers had in the first place

That implies some sort of unified intent, which is clearly absent in the design of the books.

[Timeslip]

There's plenty of dysfunctional design in Aberrant; whoever made the decision that "this is not the Super-Friends" apparently never managed to get that concept across to the art department, at any rate (and were it in my power, the clowns in the art department would have been hung by their collective nipples for that Boobs McChesty thing at the Mega-Appearance header).

However, I'm far from convinced that the matter of whether or not different versions of a power are independent of each other for the purpose of the 5-dot cap was one such point of disagreement amongst the developers.

An argument can be made that soak from similar powers can stack. Mind you, permitting it kicks play-balance firmly in the nads -- at the very least; it may go so far as to shove play-balance in a weighted sack and drop it off the Tappan Zee Bridge -- but it's an argument that can be made from a purely pedantic standpoint.

It's harder, however, to make a convincing argument against simply having similar powers, given that the description given on page 230 makes the very flat statement that "a power with an Extra is considered a separate, distinct power".

Aberrant was a brilliant concept, but the execution left something to be desired. What the developers should have done, and failed to do, was to include a FAQ along with that heaping slab of errata in the Player's Guide; said FAQ should have addressed things such at this. At the very least, they could have included a bit of errata stating whether or not soak from different versions of the same power stacks (the current word from the few developers that have been willing to say anything at all is that this would have been in the "not" category), which would have done wonders to prevent exactly the sort of rules debate that we're having now.

The Golden RPG Rule applies, of course. It's a game, and the Brute Squad shall not descend upon your abode should you choose to implement whatever house rules you feel make for a good game. However, what limited contact with White Wolf and the developers has been possible after-the-fact has given a fair indication of what, in this specific case, they were shooting for, even if they failed to spell it out properly in the books. And I believe that my error here was that I assumed -- yes, the Bad Word -- that this thread was about trying to figure out what were actually the canon rules, rather than what people prefer for their house rules.

[Timeslip]

As an additional note, it is apparently the intention of the Aberrant Storytellers Handbook developers (over at Continuing the Continuum) to include a FAQ in their e-book. However, as there hasn't been a peep from those folks since a promise from back in April to have an outline posted "in a few weeks", and as will be a fan-based product even if it does ever get done, I doubt said FAQ will really settle anything for anyone (other than perhaps the folks designing it).

[Alex Green]

It's harder, however, to make a convincing argument against simply having similar powers, given that the description given on page 230 makes the very flat statement that "a power with an Extra is considered a separate, distinct power".

That statement is out of context. Later we have "An extra, once purchased for a power, must always be used when that power is used." That means after you have Wall on your FF, every time you turn on FF you must turn on Wall as well.

We also have in the same section, "A character may not buy one power and several Extras and then "trade off" the Extras from turn to turn to get the most effective attack." This implies the same.

...At the very least, they could have included a bit of errata stating whether or not soak from different versions of the same power stacks (the current word from the few developers that have been willing to say anything at all is that this would have been in the "not" category), which would have done wonders to prevent exactly the sort of rules debate that we're having now.

The errata isn't needed if it simply isn't possible to mix powers. Or if the Prof's 5 dot rule above is followed.

[ProfPotts]

... which would have done wonders to prevent exactly the sort of rules debate that we're having now.

I think that's the problem right there. We're not having a 'rules debate' - which implies winners & losers & right & wrong. We're having (whatever you may have taken the implications of my, or anyone else's, posts to be) a 'rules discussion' - which is the sort of thing we like to do in the 'General Discussion' thread. I'm pretty sure that all of us are aware that there is no all-powerful holy Truth to the rules of the game - we just like to explore, & maybe even expand, on what material there is.

And I believe that my error here was that I assumed -- yes, the Bad Word -- that this thread was about trying to figure out what were actually the canon rules, rather than what people prefer for their house rules.

The whole point is that there are no 'canon rules' on this issue - if there were, we wouldn't need to discuss it, now, would we? What ex-developers say after the fact is never going to be 'canon' any more than fan-published stuff is 'canon'. The only 'canon' is what's in the books - & that we have been looking at.

Ex-developers could announce to the world that all Novas are always raving homosexuals with no exceptions, but I wouldn't take it as canon, & I doubt many others would either. Like I said - their opinions are obviously of interest, but they in no way stamp 'WRONG' over everyone else's opinions. Considering we all know that the Trinity Universe developers & writers disagreed on a buttload of fundamental issues anyway, telling us that their words are the words of god doesn't really help much.

What we usually look for around these parts is reasoned opinion supported by evidence & example - not decree from on high. On the whole, it tends to be more helpful to those of us who actually play the games.

[phoenix]

Actually at the moment you are having a rules debate, because you're debating whether or not there is a canon rule for the whole multiple powers thing.

Pip pip. ::cool

[Timeslip]

Thank you ever so much, ProfPotts, for speaking down to me, and instructing me in how you do things "around these parts", not to mention your thinly-veiled implication that I do not play the game. Thank you further for clarifying that you will accept no official opinion from White Wolf and will rather insist that there is no and will be no official position on this rule, clearing the way for whatever you wish to pontificate. Both points save me a great deal of time that could otherwise have been thoroughly wasted in this thread.

Have a nice day.

[BlueNinja]

the clowns in the art department would have been hung by their collective nipples for that Boobs McChesty thing at the Mega-Appearance header

But it's one of the more fitting pictures for powers in the book! ::laugh

[Finbar]

That statement is out of context. Later we have "An extra, once purchased for a power, must always be used when that power is used." That means after you have Wall on your FF, every time you turn on FF you must turn on Wall as well.

The errata isn't needed if it simply isn't possible to mix powers. Or if the Prof's 5 dot rule above is followed.

A sad attempt to unite all three:

I'm not seeing a contradiction between the three of them, but it's probably because of too many Champs games...

Let's take three Force Fields: Force Field, Force Field (Wall), and Force Field (Wall, MIRV, Increased Area). Under the first rule ("a power with an extra is considered a unique power"), each are considered seperate powers.

The second rule ("an extra, once purchased for a power, must always be used when that power is used") won't come into play for the first power, will definitely effect the second one, and will make the third power real fun (big force bubble machine gun!). However, that player will be forced to use all three extras each time he uses the power. (Although the Champs geek in me would suggest a new extra: Variable (can use different extras; each Extra costs 2.5 strength points, with a base cost of 5 per Extra that can be used at one time), but I'm weird that way!)

We also have in the same section, "A character may not buy one power and several Extras and then "trade off" the Extras from turn to turn to get the most effective attack." This implies the same.

I'd argue that it doesn't impy anything, just clarifying the "must use your extras" rule. Read: I don't see your implication if a power with an Extra is considered a different power...

Obvious question: Would two powers bought with different weaknesses/strengths be considered seperate powers as well?

But, back to point: The last issue to be decided is if they are seperate enough to not stack. Personally, I'd rule that any powers from the same base power can't stack (so all three Force Fields can't stack), especially when you consider the offensive powers and maintenance extras. I know it's a contradictino of sorts (after all, I can stack Armor and Frce Field, so why not two seperate Force Fields?), but it does consider game balance, so I'd over-rule it sorta in this case.

I like the Prof's idea, but I'd rather be able to build Andy Vance than not. (Thus giving me the chance to ask the question: Does Invulnerable (Fruits) give a Armor bonus or a Willpower bonus?)

My two cents...

FR

[brilyn]

Thank you ever so much, ProfPotts, for speaking down to me, and instructing me in how you do things "around these parts", not to mention your thinly-veiled implication that I do not play the game.  Thank you further for clarifying that you will accept no official opinion from White Wolf and will rather insist that there is no and will be no official position on this rule, clearing the way for whatever you wish to pontificate.  Both points save me a great deal of time that could otherwise have been thoroughly wasted in this thread.

Have a nice day.

Could you point me at the official position on this rule? I appear to have missed it in the published rules.

Also, if the Prof was speaking down to you (and I don't think he was), he could easily claim that turnabout was fair play......

[Ayre el KaBeer]

[MOD]

Ok all it's natural for people to get deffensive, I'm going to ask you all to limit this to on topic issues. Keeping things civil is one thing, keeping them friendly is far more important as far as I'm concerned.

[/MOD]

Fred.

[ProfPotts]

Thank you ever so much, ProfPotts, for speaking down to me, and instructing me in how you do things "around these parts", not to mention your thinly-veiled implication that I do not play the game. Thank you further for clarifying that you will accept no official opinion from White Wolf and will rather insist that there is no and will be no official position on this rule, clearing the way for whatever you wish to pontificate. Both points save me a great deal of time that could otherwise have been thoroughly wasted in this thread.

::sigh:: I guess some people just read what they want to & ignore what's actually been written. Just not something we often see on Eon.

No, I wasn't 'talking down to you' or 'implying you don't play the games', & I certainly have no interest in 'pontificating' anything. You may have noticed in a few of my posts that I am, when it comes to game rules, a 'pro choice' supporter - I run my games my way, & are happy for others to run theirs how they like. Heck, I've even been known to play in a few...

I started this thread to discuss ways that the unclear text in the aberrant rules can be interpreted - which I thought might be an interesting topic of conversation. I never really considered the possibility that anyone could find that so offensive that they feel the need to repeatedly insult me & point out to us all that we've all been playing the game the wrong way 'cos the ex-developers say so. Guess I'm just naive that way - sorry. ::cry

[Timeslip]

ProfPotts,

Re-read your posts to me. They most certainly are condescending.

As for discussing vague rules, I don't take offense at it, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth stating that I do.

What did burn my beans was that I made an attempt to actually find out what the heck the developers had in mind for a particular vague rule that has been under discussion for ages, going out of my way to contact White Wolf (which ain't easy) and one of the former developers (also not easy) to do so, and when I posted what I had gotten from them, you didn't reply by posting the issues you had with those statements; instead, you dismissed it as "what ex-developers who are no longer interested in the game may say" and effectively threw it back in my face with, in effect, a "so what?"

I could give a rat's ass what you play and how you play it. I'm in canon and non-canon games, and frankly prefer the non-canon ones. But at the same time that you're making grand guestures about how this is all a friendly discussion and a matter of interpretation, there's no shortage of posts in this thread that are rather clear -- both in tone and in phrasing -- in stating "this is how it is" rather than "this is what seems to work best" or "this is my view of how it should be"...yours included. And it is those posts that made me think that this was about trying to find canon answers to vague rules. I was in error in that belief, and for that I am sorry. But when my first post attempting to address the issue is immediately dismissed by you with a wisecrack and an almost audible snicker, it isn't easy to stand around and discuss the matter with you with a smile on my face.

EDIT: By the way -- I think that Finbar did a dandy job of explaining the rule up above.

[Ayre el KaBeer]

[MOD]

I have to ask you both to drop this, as I and I'm certain everyone else would not want to see this thread closed. It's a good topic and it would be a shame to end it here.

[/MOD]

-Fred.

[ProfPotts]

I have to ask you both to drop this, as I and I'm certain everyone else would not want to see this thread closed. It's a good topic and it would be a shame to end it here.

Very happy to do so. ::biggrin

[Timeslip]

[MOD]

I have to ask you both to drop this, as I and I'm certain everyone else would not want to see this thread closed. It's a good topic and it would be a shame to end it here.

[/MOD]

-Fred.

←

Fair enough.

[Psilord]

Just a personal opinion on the subject, similar to some others...

Force Field (FF) is different than Force Field + Wall (FFw). Yes they are both maifestations of the same base power, but their application and manifestation are different. I think both should be allowed to be purchaced seperately and to the maximum. I agree that both should not be allowed to be mainested simultaneously, and thus could never stack. I agree that each purchace of the power, be it base or any extra combination, should count as increasing the same power: FF-5 with FFw-1 would have to be purchace with the cost of FF-6.

*I am Joe the nova hero. After eruption I found I had the ability to surround myself with a nice form fitting Force Field. Over time I strengthened my ability considerably (FF-5). However I sometimes found myself in the position wherein my personal shield was lacking for the situation, be it protecting another or even just temporarily shoring up a wall or dam.

I, Joe, began to explore a new way to manifest my ability with manipulating force. Eventually I had some success in creating a wall of force (FFw-1). I tried many times to create my new wall while being protected by my personal shield, but to me it seemed like trying to both lift and lower my arm at the same time; I could manage only one. Over the years I have mastered the ability to create walls of force (FFw-5), and even learned to create bubbles of force to capture my enemies (FFprojection-1), but I still can't sit and stand at the same time. Still, there are few, if any, that can manipulate force like I can!

[Alex Green]

Just a personal opinion on the subject, similar to some others...

::brick

Changing the subject back to INV for a moment.

Prof: Can INV describe two powers?

Example: INV: Fire + BC: Physical?

[ProfPotts]

Prof: Can INV describe two powers?

Example: INV: Fire + BC: Physical?

I'd tend to say 'no' (unless you're buying the power more than once ::rolleyes ) - you'd need an overall theme for what it protects against. Invulnerability [Physical] (Broad category) is already a full power in itself, adding a 'free' Invulnerability [Fire] to that seems wrong.

On the other hand if you could come up with some category which covers both physical & fire damage, then you might be able to get away with it - say, invulnerability [Kinetic] (Broad category): but then you wouldn't be protected against, for example, acid - where a guy with Invulnerability [Physical] (Broad category) would be. As usual, very much a ST call I think.

[Bahamut810]

I will go ahead and put my 2 cents in. Let it be known that I have not really read this thread...so I may be saying something that someone else had said.

1. According to the rules, a power with an extra is considered a different power then the first.

I.e. Armor is a different power then Armor+Superheavy. That is something that (like any power) the St should keep track of so a person does not become too powerful.

This leaves me to believe that it would be within the rules to get a total of 5 dots in each power.

2. Also according to the rules you can stack multiple powers with that grant soak.

I.e. Armor can be used along with Invunerability (Physical) to soak a punch.

This is common use, and applies to any power that gives soak.

This leads me to believe that since they are considered different powers you can also stack them. And is well within different character consepts.

I.e. Force Field man. It would make perfect sense for him to be able to make a personal forcefield (as per normal) and one that affects an area or makes a wall.

This is something that, like any powers, needs to be kept in line by the ST so it does not unbalance the game.

That said, any ST does have first priority with the rules. If he dont like it, he dosen't have to follow it.

The rules as I see them, however, lead me to think that you can stack a power with a power that has an extra attached and as long as it follows a persons 'power suite' (like force field man).

It would be good to mention as well, that doing that will over specialise a person. Thoes are NP/XP that wont be used in other places (like q-bolt or m-stats for example).

Take that for what it is worth (which is not much;D).

[knave]

The rules as I see them, however, lead me to think that you can stack a power with a power that has an extra attached and as long as it follows a persons 'power suite' (like force field man).

It would be good to mention as well, that doing that will over specialise a person.  Thoes are NP/XP that wont be used in other places (like q-bolt or m-stats for example).

Take that for what it is worth (which is not much;D).

←

Following the letter of the law would lead to a situation where powers should theoretically stack which would lead to a total invulnerabity (defensive stack, offensive don't) which is why this discussion happened. (Characters would regularly chuck Invulnerables into prison under the sea... kinda dull... consequently kinda bad)

Champions used to have a rule called MaxX, MaxY, or something similar, where X is the damage dished out by characters at the beginning of a game, and Y is the soak. Max X had to be > Max Y: Not too much though, because maximum drama is attained when characters can hurt each other, but not kill each other with single attacks. That way there gets to be 'Pithy Dialogue' in a fight - i.e. 'a good thing'.

You have to remember that the rules are there to facilitate drama as well as maintain world physics consistency.

[ProfPotts]

There are also some other mechanical issues if you count a power with an Extra as a totally seperate power: Force Field is the usual example to illustrate this.

While theoretical maximum Soak increases, this would appear to be limited to some extent by the cost of buying or improving multiple powers. But, look at the mechanics of the Force Field power:

- an extra dot in Force Field increases the power's duration by (in combat) 3 seconds, & adds a 40% chance that the character will gain an extra 2 Soak.

- the first dot in a new Force Field power adds [Quantum rating] + [(Stamina / Mega-Stamina successes) x2] + 40% chance of an extra 2 Soak (from the single dot of Force Field itself) Soak.

Plug this into a guy with Quantum 2, & Stamina 4 (nowhere near maxed for a Force Field character):

He starts with a dot of Force Field. This gives him 2 + ( twice the successes rolled on 5 dice) Soak; or an average of 6 Soak.

If he adds a dot to the power he ends up with only that 40% chance (one extra die) of getting an extra 2 Soak.

If he, instead, buys a new dot of Force Field + Reduced Quantum Cost, he gets the base Soak all over again; an average Soak of 12.

It soon becomes clear that you get a vastly improved Soak for a lot less cost if you just buy a single dot of Force Field repeatedly, instead of increasing the base Force Field power.

To buy 5 dots of Force Field with XP from scratch it costs (pre-Taint): 6 + 5 + 10 + 15 + 20 = 56 XP

For 56 XP you could instead buy a single dot of Force Field (for 6 XP), & 5 other Force Field + Extra powers (for 9 XP a time). That leaves you with 5 XP spare to boost your base Force Field by a single dot if you really want to pop the cherry on top!

This is clearly not gonna' maintain any sort of game balance.

So, what about not allowing a character's Force Fields to 'stack' their Soak? Well, it sounds good, but in practice it makes no sense:

Two Novas are fighting the army. Both have a Force Field giving them 10 Soak, but one has also put up a Force Field + Wall between the both of them & the army, giving 10 Soak also. The army guys fire a portable laser (doing 13[12]L damage) at each of the Novas. The guy with just his own Force Field takes 5L damage (his Force Field & his pal's Wall each reduced the attack damage by 10). The guy who put the wall up takes 13[2]L damage (his Force Fields weren't allowed to 'stack'). As he's dying the Nova who put the Wall up thinks, 'Well, that was a waste of time to develop...'.

Psilord suggested that the character just not be allowed to use both powers at the same time. This avoids the illogical situation above, but presents its own issues - especially if the two seperate powers (Force Field, & Force Field + Extra) have been defined with different special effects:

Bob Nova can both boost his regeneration to such an incredible rate that damage is healed before it even really effects him - he brought this effect as a Force Field, but took no Attunement (so his clothes aren't protected by the extra Soak the power grants). He can also create a barrier of shimmering light in the air which blocks attacks - this he brought as a Force Field + Wall. He can use all his other powers at the same time (Flight, Claws, & Invisibility for arguments sake) - why can't he activate his 'super-regeneration' & 'shimmering barrier' at the same time?

Again, the only real reason is the ST's 'because'. Yep, it helps game balance, but it doesn't cover game logic. You give with one hand, but take with the other. Internal game logic is much better served, IMHO, if characters aren't allowed to develop such duplicate powers in the first place - that way only the players notice, rather than the game characters themselves (since no game character should be thinking 'Hey - why can't I have 5 dots in this power?').

Knave's Champions import is another reasonable idea - a set cap on damage & Soak (& other aspects of powers as well, most likely). The trouble there is another layer of rules is added, & it also goes against the grain of the higher-powered characters which are meant to be in the game universe. A solution could be to grant higher 'max' limits to higher Quantum characters, but that not only adds rules, it increases the inherant value of Quantum, which again means you have to start to examine the game balance (do you charge more XP for Quantum, for example?).

So - no matter how you choose to work it, there's gonna' be issues. Personally, it seems to me that, in the end, not allowing characters to take the same power (or 'base' power if you insist) more than once is the simplest solution & preserves both game balance & internal game logic - at the expensive of a very small amount of versilitity on the part of chargen.

[Finbar]

Hmm...I just realized that I don't understand why the isue with letting the Force Fields stack...

Let's say that the person with the ten different Force Fields lets them all go off at one time. Yeah, he's going to be rolling a lot of die, and is going to have a very decent possible defense. At the same, barring weaknesses, he's still limited by the number of powers that you can activate each turn, and it's going to cost you (9 (the nine copies)x3=27+2 (original))=29 quantum each maintenance cycle.

So, asuming he can somehow get all ten Force Fields up (not bloody likely; at 1/turn and and only one dot in each, he'll have Q+1 force fields up, costing 3Q+2 quantum each maintenance cycle, this nova is not going to last in combat (I'm figuring about two, maybe three maintenance cycles). Admittedly, most combats aren't gonna last that long, and he'll have a lot of protection, but he's going to have to be very good at regulating his quantum...

In essence, he's paying out the nose for what he's getting, and I can make a good case for it, but I think there's enough checks and balances in it to not worry about it too much...

FR

[ProfPotts]

Sure it'd cost QP to put up more than one Force Field, but your example is an extreme one (to make the point, naturally enough).

Think about, instead, the character who buys Force Field, & Force Field + Reduced Quantum cost. For 3 QP he gets twice his Quantum in Soak, as well as getting to roll his Stamina / Mega-Stamina twice for additional Soak. For 15 XP from scratch that seems a lot better than the 2 dots of normal Force Field he could buy for 11 XP (the next dot costing him 10 more XP).

... So, asuming he can somehow get all ten Force Fields up (not bloody likely; at 1/turn...

I'm not sure what you mean here: each power activated by a Nova counts as an action, yes, but Force Field is a 'Multiple Action: Yes' power. You could activate more than one Force Field per turn - even ten is practical if you take the right Mega-Wits Enhancements & suchlike.

[Psilord]

Internal game logic is much better served, IMHO, if characters aren't allowed to develop such duplicate powers in the first place - that way only the players notice, rather than the game characters themselves (since no game character should be thinking 'Hey - why can't I have 5 dots in this power?').  So - no matter how you choose to work it, there's gonna' be issues. Personally, it seems to me that, in the end, not allowing characters to take the same power (or 'base' power if you insist) more than once is the simplest solution & preserves both game balance & internal game logic - at the expensive of a very small amount of versilitity on the part of chargen.

←

The problem I have with that is also related to game logic...

Characters are allowed to strengthen and expand the powers they have, and also gain new powers as appropriate for the character concept and particular game; all this through expenditure of XP.

Take the aforementioned FF guy; its entirely logical for the character to try and develop new methods of manifesting his FF power (say the Wall extra). However, following the stricture (above) that no new instances to a base power should be allowed, he would suddenly have to forget how to create the trusty normal FF that he has used since eruption just because he learned something new (Wall extra).

Your right in that there will be issues no matter how you tackle the problem, but I find that total disallowment is too harshly restrictive to character versatility. I, personally, also feel that such a course strays away from the concept of character quantum evolution so touted in the books.

I would also say that STs would need to look at the extras before deciding if they could be characterised as a different power. FF and FF-wall could easily be said to be two seperate ways of minfesting the FF base power. I personally wouldn't allow FF-reduced cost to be counted as seperate, its not a new manifestation of the FF power -- just a modifier IMHO.

-----------------------

This may sound strange, but I would suggest (and plan on it with my ST) that extras be divided into two catagories: Permanent and Variable.

Permanent extras MUST be used with a power, no choice. These extras would include quality modifications to the power's use such as: Aggrivated, Armor Piercing, Burning, Homing, Impervious, Increased Duration, Increased Range, and Reduced Quantum Cost.

Such extras modify the quality or effectiveness of the power without greatly changing the method of manifestation. "Always on" powers may only have permanent extras. Permanent extras have the normal cost.

Variable extras may be activated with a power, or not, as the nova chooses at the time. Any variable extra may be purchaced as a permanent exta. Variable extras have twice (2X) the normal cost to purchace, but can be greatly useful for versatility. Variable extras also have any quantum costs, and other associated penalties, doubled (NOTE: This is activation costs for the extra, not the base power).

These extras change the power's method of manifestation, or greatly affect the scope of its manifestation and include such as: Area, Cloud, Explosion, MIRV, Range, Spray/Jet and the like.

When activating a power all permanent extras apply, no exceptions. However the character may choose which and how many, if any, variable extras will affect that particular activation. All associated costs for extras of either type must be paid; normal for permanent extras and 2X for variable.

The Wall extra for FF changes the very method of manifestation and thus would be a variable extra, while reducing the quantum cost is simply more effective manifestation and thus a permanent extra. Please remember that any variable extra may be purchaced as permanent for the normal cost.

Each extra, for each power, would have to be catagorized by the ST, as a permanent extra for power-A wouldn't fit quite right as a permanent extra for power-B. A simple process.

--------------------

Multiple action powers, like FF, can be activated multiple times and each use could be different through the use of variable extras. However, each subsequent use does become increasingly difficult as per the multiple action penalty listed in the book (Aberrant, p. 110). As regards the balance issue of multiple FFs being available to protect a character at the same time; reading through the power and noting its multiple action capability seems to clearly indicate that as the intent. Buying five different FFs at one dot each I certainly wouldn't think was intended, and such would be not allowed in the above system.

The above method certainly doesn't address all issues, but I think would be more logical IC and OOC and would allow greater versatility without straining game balance overmuch.

Please excuse any typos, I've been up for about fourteen hours now.. ::wacko

[Alex Green]

Hmm...I just realized that I don't understand why the isue with letting the Force Fields stack...

Combat is Abby is brutal and short. Generally speaking it's a few rounds. Yes, a guy with three forcefields will run out of juice three times quicker, but that's a concern IF combat lasts longer than Q+Level rounds (6 most likely).

Raising Forcefield can be a split action, but each one will still get you something like 15 soak if you build the character correctly. If you handle the character correctly you won't even need to split the actions, just raise them before combat (when it lasts a scene). I don't see how the game is improved by allowing Pax level soak for 9 nova points or 18 experience.