Errata questions - post em here

This board is locked, but is preserved here as an archive of all your hard work posting. Please register on the new M&M boards, over at http://atomicthinktank.com/

Moderator: Super Moderators

Postby bwgwl » Sat Mar 08, 2003 7:36 am

no, actually Tesuji is right. as he says, look at the definition of sustained on page 60. taking a free action to activate is part of sustained already.

taking slow as a second flaw on Force Field would be like taking both "range: touch" and "can only be used in melee" on Energy Blast. :roll:
User avatar
bwgwl
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 4:38 pm
Location: Freedom City, New Jersey

Postby Aleph » Sat Mar 08, 2003 8:02 am

bwgwl wrote:no, actually Tesuji is right. as he says, look at the definition of sustained on page 60. taking a free action to activate is part of sustained already.

taking slow as a second flaw on Force Field would be like taking both "range: touch" and "can only be used in melee" on Energy Blast. :roll:


That is not what Sustained says. You're confusing activating a power with maintaining it. Sustained (p60) has no information on how long it takes to activate a power. It talks about keeping an already activated power active as a free action. This is not the same thing - that's why there are two different categories for the action a power takes and its duration.

Activating a power could take anywhere from a non-action (granted, generally only suitable for continuous and permanent powers as per description on 58, but not an included flaw of sustained), a reaction (not noted in Slow listing, but probably the appropriate highest level for a sustained power), free, half, or full - this has nothing to do with what it takes to keep a power going once it is activated.

The answer to this question is already in the rules and therefore shouldn't be in errata.
Aleph
Cohort
Cohort
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 11:57 am

Postby Tesuji » Sat Mar 08, 2003 9:00 am

Wow...

well, there is little point in arguing. if thats how your Gm wants to run it, its cool.

Officially, the errata errata listed here says its 2 which basically makes my case, As soon as its worked into the errata proper, then your GMs house rule as to force field's cost will still remain fine and dandy.

enjoy your games.
Tesuji
Super Poster
Super Poster
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 11:10 am
Location: Cary NC USA

Postby Chris F. » Sat Mar 08, 2003 9:03 am

Why is it that Growth increases your base movement speed by 10 feet per size category and Shrinking reduces it by 5 feet per size category?
Chris F.
Dabbler
Dabbler
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 10:18 am

Postby Aleph » Sat Mar 08, 2003 9:38 am

Tesuji wrote:Wow...

well, there is little point in arguing. if thats how your Gm wants to run it, its cool.

Officially, the errata errata listed here says its 2 which basically makes my case, As soon as its worked into the errata proper, then your GMs house rule as to force field's cost will still remain fine and dandy.

enjoy your games.


You too - but the way my GM runs it is the right way, according to the mechanics which Greenronin has given us. It can certainly be rebalanced to 2 points per level if that's what the MnM folks decide its in-play value is, but taking a adding an extra, a duration flaw, and a slow flaw to a 2 point power should still make it be a one point power. If you wanted to make a custom power, from protection you could make a "reaction/sustained power" which would be 1 flaw (assuming from the lack of reaction's placement on the chart that it is equivalent to none). Such a power could be raised on another character's turn but would go down when stunned, unlike protection. Isn't this a measurably different power from free/sustained?

I'm happy either way - FF is a power stunt on Sorcery for me. But mechanically, anything other than 1pp/level is inconsistent.

NOW, all that said, many of the extras offered on FF are powers, and powers can't be less than 1pt as an extra. So 2 points/level works for those. But it is not because slow and duration are the same thing, and it doesn't work in those cases where you pick Affects Others or Impenetrable, which are not power extras. I understand for simplicity it makes sense to go with 2/level for that reason, but mechanically it is still sketchy. Perhaps a further errata should make all force fields impenetrable - Force Field at 2 points/level with a free extra, impenetrable, and 2 flaws balances.
Aleph
Cohort
Cohort
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 11:57 am

Postby Space Librarian » Sat Mar 08, 2003 10:29 am

Tesuji wrote:Wow...

well, there is little point in arguing. if thats how your Gm wants to run it, its cool.

Officially, the errata errata listed here says its 2 which basically makes my case, As soon as its worked into the errata proper, then your GMs house rule as to force field's cost will still remain fine and dandy.

enjoy your games.


I can see your point from the previous posts on this topic, but I think having the Duration of the power dictate the Action of a power will mess up more than the Force Field power. There are many sustained powers that require a half action to get them going. They are not listed as half action at first and then free action, and I don't believe they were intended to cost a half action each round (otherwise these powers would have a serious drawback).

As Aleph pointed out, there is a great benefit to an action being faster than free, you can't be caught with it down. In fact, if a player of mine wanted to slap Slow (free) on his Super-Constitution, I would gladly refund him a point per level. And he better hope he smells the poisonous gas before it is potent enough to choke him.

And if a player of mine wanted Force Field to be faster (moving its action into the none category), I would most definitely charge him an extra point per level. Why, then, should he not get points from a flaw whose opposing extra I'd be willing to charge for?

As I interpret the description of Sustained on page 60, it is just a shortcut to saying the power can not be maintained if the character is stunned, unconscious, paralysize (if the power requires physical movement), bound (if the power requires movement of the bound parts), or in any number of conditions which would not allow the character to perform a free action. It would be impossible to predict and list all such conditions, but it is safe to assume that anything that would prevent a character from maintaining a power would also prevent the character from performing the easiest of actions. This isn't necessarily what is required to fire-up the power in the first place.

On a side note, I read a bit of hostility into your previous posts, which I'm not sure if you intended. If you did, I want you to know, I mean you no harm. If you didn't, then I apologize for the assumption (and still mean you no harm).
User avatar
Space Librarian
Bystander
Bystander
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2003 7:23 am

Postby Tesuji » Sat Mar 08, 2003 11:02 am

Sigh...

You know, if one reads the entire definition, its really obvious.

Definition of NONE on pg 58 last sentence

"this is generally only the case with continuous or permanemt powers, AND CONTINUOUS POWERS TILL REQUIRE A FREE ACTION TO ACTIVATE OR DEACIVATE."

ALL CAPS mine for emphasis.

So, even with NONE continuous powers still require a free action to activate.

Definiton os SUSTAINED on page 60 "if you are incapable of taking free actions... the effect ends."

So lets run the numbers, shall we...

A sustained protection power...

Can it be activated without spending a free action? No per the definition of NONE and continuous on page 58. You quoted the first half of the sentence and left the part about free action off. Was this accident?

Can it be continued without spending a free action? NO by the definition of sustained on page 60.

So, please, cite me one specific circumstance where protection sustained can be used abd when protection sustained+slow cannot.

Show me one distinct case where the extra flaw earns ytou a limitation that the sustained did not alreay cover?

Show me where "the flaw must limit the power in some way" is met by taking free action slow on top of sustained?

Sapphire has protection-flaw sustained while Emerald had protection flaw sustained and flaw slow. Show me the case where IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES sapphire is able to use her protection but Emerald is not.

FF is protection with 1 extra. That sets its base power at 3pp minus the flaws. Whether it has one built in flaw or two matters a great deal.

So show me the limitation in play? Show me the case.

As far as i can tell, the only difference would be if the GM house ruled out the fact that continuous powersd require a free action to activate or deactivate.

Show me the limit.


Three rules... pages 58, 60, and 97.
Tesuji
Super Poster
Super Poster
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 11:10 am
Location: Cary NC USA

Postby Aleph » Sat Mar 08, 2003 11:45 am

Tesuji wrote:Sigh...

SNIP

So, please, cite me one specific circumstance where protection sustained can be used abd when protection sustained+slow cannot.

SNIP
Show me the limit.


Three rules... pages 58, 60, and 97.


Sigh back...
I don't have to show you the former to show you the latter, and I assure you it is really just as clear and obvious to me that you are wrong as it is to you that I am. It says, clearly, under slow on p 98 that from none to free is a one level flaw. Show me a case where your argument would have that be a flaw, which it is according to the text. If you can't, then I can easily show you Protection Continuous/Free, which is clearly a better power than Protection Sustained/Free because it doesn't take a free action to sustain.

Your question is, "How is that worse than None/Continuous?" Good question. Besides the idea that "None" defaults to on and "Free" to off, there are three answers - 2 interpretations and a logical fallacy.

1) We have interpreted this (completely on our own, but reasoning from the powers) that None, in addition to defaulting to on rather than off, is equivalent to Subtle, so that characters with Super-Dex or default protection are not immediately visible as such because you aren't "using" them. That's our house rule. You don't need to take that to understand parts 2 and 3 though.

2) "None" is probably about equal to "reaction", judging from the fact that reaction is not on the slow chart but is below none on p 58. Do you see that Protection Reaction + Sustained is better than Protection Free + Sustained?

3) You seem hung up on the fact that sustained + free = sustained + none. It isn't. Sustained + none makes no sense: you (generally) cannot have a sustained duration power with a speed of "none" as per "none" on 58. This means that sustained + none falls outside the rules. You have to flaw it again to make it fall inside the rules. That's still 2 flaws, though.
Aleph
Cohort
Cohort
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 11:57 am

Postby Space Librarian » Sat Mar 08, 2003 12:18 pm

Aleph wrote:3) You seem hung up on the fact that sustained + free = sustained + none. It isn't. Sustained + none makes no sense: you (generally) cannot have a sustained duration power with a speed of "none" as per "none" on 58. This means that sustained + none falls outside the rules. You have to flaw it again to make it fall inside the rules. That's still 2 flaws, though.

I think this is the key reason this discussion hasn't been resolved. Clearly there are two ways to look at the situation:

View 1: Making a Continuous/None power into a Sustained/Free power is already built into the cost of making a Continuous power into a Sustained power because Free is a condition of Sustained.

View 2: Making a Continuous/None power into a Sustained power costs two flaws because Sustain requires that you also make it Free.

Obviously Aleph and I see it the latter way. Please don't be exasperated by that. Nothing in the rules contradicts either view.
User avatar
Space Librarian
Bystander
Bystander
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2003 7:23 am

Postby Tesuji » Sat Mar 08, 2003 1:38 pm

[/quote]

Aleph wrote: It says, clearly, under slow on p 98 that from none to free is a one level flaw.

Yes indeed. And for SOME POWERS that is a valid flaw. Valid as defined in the section on flaws where it says it has to limit the power in some way.

However, protection is an action NONE power that is continuous. According to the specific rule on page 58, even if none, "continuous powers till require a free action to activate and deactivate."

So, since the continuous/none power still requires a free action to activate, then taking slow "none oto free " on said power is a non-limiting flaw.

So we can drop the sustained portion of our discussion altogether.

I hope this makes it simpler.

Aleph wrote:
Show me a case where your argument would have that be a flaw, which it is according to the text. If you can't, then I can easily show you Protection Continuous/Free, which is clearly a better power than Protection Sustained/Free because it doesn't take a free action to sustain.

Uh, keep up. i have continually stated that sustained is a valid flaw for protection. I have comtinually argued that slow/free is not a valid flaw for a sustained protection.

heck, given that protection/none requires a free action to activate per page 58 under the definition of none, the case is even closer... slow/free is not a valid flaw on protection at all.


snip the two house rules you trot out.

Obviously there arew millions and millions of house rules by which one could add conditions like "subtlety" or "flashiness" or even "flavor of ice cream produced as a by product" to the definitions of none and such presented in the rules.

its humorous to have someone on one page argue how the duration does not mean activation and get so up about people not keeping those precise game definitions distinct to the drag out their own house rules which add other thing into those definitions to support their claims.

Aleph wrote:
Your question is, "How is that worse than None/Continuous?" Good question. Besides the idea that "None" defaults to on and "Free" to off,

Actually i think that depends on the character choice. unless events prevent the use of free actions, the character can have a power on or off by choice.
Aleph wrote:3) You seem hung up on the fact that sustained + free = sustained + none. It isn't. Sustained + none makes no sense: you (generally) cannot have a sustained duration power with a speed of "none" as per "none" on 58. This means that sustained + none falls outside the rules. You have to flaw it again to make it fall inside the rules. That's still 2 flaws, though.


magnificent illogic.

hats off.

Protection/None/continuous starts as a power that requires a free action to activate and no action to maintain. (page 58 under none)

Applying the sustained flaw does NOTHING to the ACTION at all. It changes the duration to sustained... resulting in with one flaw a power that requires a free action to activate (page 58 none) and which requires a free action to maintain (page 60 sustained.)

At this point, trying to add slow/free to it as a flaw and get points back is invalid by the requirement that the flaw provide a limit to the power in order to be worth points.

The rules REQUIRE the falw to be limiting to be valid when applied to a power.

the onus is on the one wanting POINTS BACK, not the other way around.

If you see a definite and clear difference between the sustained protection and the sustained/dlowed protection and use it in your games, thats great! i wish you would show us what those cases are so that we all can share in your brilliance. (That is, assuming they aren't just house rules you added.)
Tesuji
Super Poster
Super Poster
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 11:10 am
Location: Cary NC USA

Postby Aleph » Sun Mar 09, 2003 5:36 am

Tesuji,

"Uh, keep up. i have continually stated that sustained is a valid flaw for protection. I have comtinually argued that slow/free is not a valid flaw for a sustained protection."

Yep, but that's not what I asked you to do, so all the arguements in the world on that point don't help. I said, "It says, clearly, under slow on p 98 that from none to free is a one level flaw. Show me a case where your argument would have that be a flaw, which it is according to the text."

I'll restate for clarity. My challenge was to name a power, according to your interpretation, where moving from Action: None to Action: Free is a flaw, as it clearly is according to the text on 98. Your interpretation, as I see it, says that move isn't a flaw, no matter what. The text says it is a flaw, at least in some cases. Can you find any case where your interpretation doesn't directly contradict the text? And if that is the case, can you not admit the slightest possibility that your understanding of None is wrong?
Aleph
Cohort
Cohort
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 11:57 am

Postby Tesuji » Sun Mar 09, 2003 6:14 am

My understanding of none is derived from the EXACT text in the definition of None on page 58 which says in simple clear english "continuous powers still require a free action to activate or deactivate."

Note that the words "require" is fairly strong and clear.

I cannot admit there is any doubt whatsoever as to what that means.

Since continuous/none powers BY DEFINITION (page 58 under none) already require a free action to activate, it is not a valid flaw to apply slow/none-free to them any more than it is valid to apply the flaw range/touch to strike.

Are you saying that text on page 58 is invalid and should be ignored? If so, for what reason?

Now, as to flaws, the general flaws are not necessarily intended to be used on every power. As is stated under flaws, sometimes a flaw might not actually be limiting, in which cvase it is not worth being treated as a flaw on a given power. Thats why they defined the responsibility IN THE RULES as to the GM/player to make sure the flaw is actually restrictive. The GM/player is not tasked with having all flaws be limiting.

Since continuous/none powers BY DEFINITION (page 58 under none) already require a free action to activate, it is not a valid flaw to apply slow/none-free to them any more than it is valid to apply the flaw range/touch to strike.

Nowhere in the rules is the GM/player tasked with the responsibility of making sure all the printed flaws are used or permitted. he doesn't have to allow touch flaw to be put on attacks that are already touch range just to make sure the touch flaw is used in his game. Nor does he have to ignore the definition of None (page 58) so that the slow/free flaw is pretended to be worth actual points.

As to your question, within the rules as printed there are NO core powers listed as none which are not continuous. Thus, if one goes only by those powers, there are no powers listed in the core samples which would be able to gain points back for the slow (none-free) flaw. That does not mean that the definition of none should be discarded. All it means is that when you restrict yourself to the samples powers given there is no direct application. Of course, restricting oneself yo the core powers given, when you are talking about modifying them, is rather silly.

However, the GM is not tasked by the rules to make all the printed flaws available and to go to the extreme of even allowing those on powers where it is no limit in order to accomplish this. So, whether there are powers in the core sample that make slow/none-free is pretty irrelevent.

Since continuous/none powers BY DEFINITION (page 58 under none) already require a free action to activate, it is not a valid flaw to apply slow/none-free to them any more than it is valid to apply the flaw range/touch to strike.

Let me give you a simple example. A GM has the option stated within the rules to run restricted source campaigns. This is not even set aside as an optional rule sidebar. In a one source campaign, the Gm has no reason and no requirement to allow players to take points off various powers for "only affects one source" just because those are listed in the core powers time and again. In that circumstance, those flaws have no value because they do not effectively limit the power.

Since continuous/none powers BY DEFINITION (page 58 under none) already require a free action to activate, it is not a valid flaw to apply slow/none-free to them any more than it is valid to apply the flaw range/touch to strike.

Perhaps, in the next spate of errata, they will decide to change the continuous requires free action to activate thingy. When that happens, things will obviously change on this debate.

IF continuous powers with none were changed so that they did not require a free action to activate, then sustained/free would indeed be two flaws down from continuous/none. Why? Character gets stunned by enemy on enemy's initiative 12. next round on that same enemy's initiative 12, he comes out of it and now he will not get his normal action until initiative 6, his own initiative. a none action protection would come up immediately IF it did not require a free action. A free action would have to wait until initiative 6. So, once the definition of none/continuous is changed to remove the free still required clause, then there is a clear and definable limit which should come up in play frequently enough.

But, unless and until the textbook definition of none on page 58 is changed, a flaw put on a continuous power to change none to free is just as invalid as putting the range/touch flaw on strike. it is an attempt to gain points by assigning a flaw the power already has, that it requires a free action to activate or deactivate the power.

As always, a GM can devise any number of house rules he wishes to make things work differently in his game, including things like making free powers automatically gain some other FX requirement like the extrusion of vanilla ice cream as a part of the flaw. The Gm is responsible for the house rules and their effect on his game.

Summary...

Why do i believe that continuous/none powers are BY THE RULES required to use a free action to activate? Because on page 58 under the definition of none it specifically says so.

Why do i believe that BY THE RULES a flaw is invalid if it does not limit the power and that the GM is tasked with making this determination as a part of the rules? because the text under flaws on page 97 says so.

Why do i believe that BY THE RULES a flaw which requires a power to use a free action to activate is invalid by these definitions when applied to a power that already requires a free action to activate? Well, here i have to rely on common sense but can also cite the example given on page 97 which shows the dead spot on case of applying a flaw (touch) to a power that is already limited to touch as an example of invalid. Substitute "requires a free action for activation" for touch in that sentence and we have the precise case listed here.

Why do you seem to believe that the GM is tasked with the responsibility of making sure every printed flaw is used or viable in his game and is worth points even if the power already has that trait? You have given no rules cites so i can only guess that this is a "feeling" you have. if you have a rule cite to support your notion that the GM is supposed to do this, please, post page and paragraph.

Otherwise, i doubt there is much left to say.

Enjoy your game, including your house rules.
Tesuji
Super Poster
Super Poster
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 11:10 am
Location: Cary NC USA

Headcase

Postby StrawMan » Sun Mar 09, 2003 7:12 am

Just wondering how the cost of the psychic archtype, type 1 works out to 50pp?

This is how I see it:
Esp (base cost 2pp/lv)
Extra:Combat Sense (base cost 1pp/lv - 1 [extra] - 1pp/lv [minimum possible])
Extra:Precognition (base cost 3pp/lv - 1 [extra] = 2 pp/lv)
Extra:Postcognition (base cost 3pp/lv - 1 [extra] = 2 pp/lv)
for a total of 7pp/lv or 70 pp at lv10
StrawMan
Bystander
Bystander
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 6:58 am

Postby i3ullseye » Sun Mar 09, 2003 7:56 am

Hmmm.... looks like one of the last cognitions were left off. Even if you want to be generous and allow them to be technically power stunts of each other since only one can be used at a time, it would then be 52.
i3ullseye

~"You're pretty good, but me? I'm magic!"
http://murpg.proboards19.com
User avatar
i3ullseye
Henchman
Henchman
 
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 7:10 pm

Postby Aleph » Sun Mar 09, 2003 10:07 am

Tesuji

Putting the question of prebuilt powers aside, then - can you construct from scratch any possible power where your interpretation of "none" is not in conflict with the first part of the slow flaw? Not just limiting yourself to continuous powers... any power? If the answer is "No", then answer this - if it is never a flaw to move from Action: None to Action: Free for any possible constructed power, why is it there on p 98? More pointedly, why does None even exist as an action category?

My summary -

You believe - because a flaw must be limiting (true, confirmed on p 97), and there is no clear difference between none and free (true, confirmed in text on p 58), that moving from none to free is a non-issue and shouldn't be worth any points (not in text, an interpretation which contradicts p 98). The implication is that None as a category has no meaning at all, separate from Free (which contradicts every instance of its appearance as well as 98).

I believe - because none to free is a flaw (true, confirmed on p 98) and that a flaw must be limiting (true, confirmed on p 97), then the difference between none and free must be meaningful (not in text, an interpretation which requires more information than is found on p 58). The implication is that there is some idea that Green Ronin has about None v. Free which is not capture on 58, which may have been meant to be elsewhere and was not included. This would only require the addition of a missed sentence in the errata to make meaningful - perhaps with "None" being above "Reaction" on page 58 GreenRonin did not feel the need make explicit the fact that the free action required by None could be done in another person's turn. This would be an oversight on their part - but it's easier to fix than what I think you are proposing.

Best case for you: let's assume that there was no missing sentence, that in every instance "None" has the exact same effects as "Free". This leads to another problem, however. Even if this is granted, we have to assume from our knowledge of power construction (which includes inherent extras and flaws) as expressed in the formula on 99 that existing powers with "Action: None" are point balanced as costing 1 pt/level more than powers that say "Action: Free."

How this balance is corrected is a matter of interpretation - perhaps everything stays with the same effect, all old powers with "None" go to "Free" and keep their point totals. Perhaps to maintain the 1 pt distinction all "None" powers become "Reaction" powers. We don't know.

I think that might actually be all there is to say, until GreenRonin comes forth with a ruling on the status of "None." I think I'll post into the main forum on this with a ? for Steve - I'll wait for you to "sign off", if you like, on making sure I have stated your opinion properly. It's been interesting, in any case.
Aleph
Cohort
Cohort
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 11:57 am

Postby Tesuji » Sun Mar 09, 2003 1:52 pm

[/quote]

Aleph wrote:Tesuji


You believe - because a flaw must be limiting (true, confirmed on p 97), and there is no clear difference between none and free (true, confirmed in text on p 58), that moving from none to free is a non-issue and shouldn't be worth any points (not in text, an interpretation which contradicts p 98). The implication is that None as a category has no meaning at all, separate from Free (which contradicts every instance of its appearance as well as 98).

Absolute agreement, my PREMISES are in the book and my conclusion and the implication are not specifically stated in the text.

Aleph wrote:Tesuji

I believe - because none to free is a flaw (true, confirmed on p 98) and that a flaw must be limiting (true, confirmed on p 97), then the difference between none and free must be meaningful (not in text, an interpretation which requires more information than is found on p 58). The implication is that there is some idea that Green Ronin has about None v. Free which is not capture on 58, which may have been meant to be elsewhere and was not included.

Agreed, you PREMISE (none-free must be meaningful) and your conclusion are not in the text.

Do you see that fundamental difference in our two arguments? All the premises i rely on are in the text. Your fundamental premise, that none-to-free must be meaningful for continuous powers, is just your own notion, not found in the text.

A significant difference.
Aleph wrote:Tesuji
This would only require the addition of a missed sentence in the errata to make meaningful - perhaps with "None" being above "Reaction" on page 58 GreenRonin did not feel the need make explicit the fact that the free action required by None could be done in another person's turn. This would be an oversight on their part - but it's easier to fix than what I think you are proposing.

The rules in print can obviously be changed. if that occurs the basic tenets of this discussion will change one way or another.

I will leave it to the reader to figure out whether deleting none-to free as one portion/level of the slow flaw is simpler than creating new rules to differentiate the two and thereby change a whole lot of powers.
Tesuji
Super Poster
Super Poster
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 11:10 am
Location: Cary NC USA

Re: Headcase

Postby bwgwl » Sun Mar 09, 2003 3:47 pm

StrawMan wrote:Just wondering how the cost of the psychic archtype, type 1 works out to 50pp?

This is how I see it:
Esp (base cost 2pp/lv)
Extra:Combat Sense (base cost 1pp/lv - 1 [extra] - 1pp/lv [minimum possible])
Extra:Precognition (base cost 3pp/lv - 1 [extra] = 2 pp/lv)
Extra:Postcognition (base cost 3pp/lv - 1 [extra] = 2 pp/lv)
for a total of 7pp/lv or 70 pp at lv10

yeah, i noticed that too. only way to make it work if its either Precognition or Postcognition...

or somebody forgot those are both 3-point powers. :wink:
User avatar
bwgwl
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 4:38 pm
Location: Freedom City, New Jersey

Postby Aleph » Sun Mar 09, 2003 5:53 pm

Tesuji wrote:


Agreed, you PREMISE (none-free must be meaningful) and your conclusion are not in the text.

Do you see that fundamental difference in our two arguments? All the premises i rely on are in the text. Your fundamental premise, that none-to-free must be meaningful for continuous powers, is just your own notion, not found in the text.
[/quote]

I'm not saying anything about duration - you keep putting that in. In fact, in my last post I specifically said "Not just limiting yourself to continuous powers." While continuous powers is the most obvious category (because generally that's all none applies to), I specifically asked you to name any power, even one you made up.

I don't see the difference you clearly do with the validity of our premises - you'll have to spell it out.
1) None to free is a flaw - that's a premise from the text.
2) Flaws are meaningful - that's a premise from the text.
3) My conclusion is "None to free is meaningful."

Now, that clearly has to be nuanced by an understanding that not that every flaw has to be equally applicable to every power - but in order for it to be a flaw, it should be applicable to some power, either one found in the text or one we could make up. Please show me a power where the change from your interpretation of none to free is a flaw - if you can, that will help this conversation end.
Aleph
Cohort
Cohort
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 11:57 am

Postby Tesuji » Sun Mar 09, 2003 6:50 pm

Aleph wrote:I don't see the difference you clearly do with the validity of our premises - you'll have to spell it out.
1) None to free is a flaw - that's a premise from the text.
2) Flaws are meaningful - that's a premise from the text.
3) My conclusion is "None to free is meaningful."


Actually the text does not say flaws are meaningful. It even goes as far as to give directions on how flaws when applied to specific powers may not be meaningful. It tasks the GM to watch this.

the specific example given is applying a touch flaw to a power that already has touch.

How far is that from applying the flaw that requires a free action to activate to a power that already requires a free action to activate.

All flaws do not have to be meaningful and the specific example of trying to add to a power a flaw it already has (in this case free action required to activate is on point.)

Your premise is that all flaws must be meaningful and that is not in the text. Its your invention.
Tesuji
Super Poster
Super Poster
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 11:10 am
Location: Cary NC USA

Postby Dellenor » Sun Mar 09, 2003 8:24 pm

See, Tetsuji, here's the thing I don't get about your argument... According to what you say, the Armor power with the action "Free" instead of "None" is the same since, as it states on page 58, continuous powers still require a free action to activate or deactivate. Thus adding the "Slow" flaw to the Armor power is inconsequential, and not a flaw at all. However, it's obvious that Armor with the action of "Free" is far less advantageous than Armor as it is in the book, because armor that requires a free action to activate isn't always providing its protection. To be perfectly honest, I think this entire argument you've been having has spawned from you reading that one phrase at the end of the paragraph out of context; I have yet to see you mention the first part of that paragraph where it says "using the power does not require an action or any conscious effort on the character's part". If we are supposed to interpret the last sentence as you do, then the two sentences in the paragraph logically contradict themselves, and the paragraph makes no sense. Personally, I think the only reason they added that last sentence was to cover the cases where the power in question was either neutralized, or shut down voluntarily by the character. Perhaps Green Ronin should have worded it better...
User avatar
Dellenor
Bystander
Bystander
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 6:37 pm

Postby Tesuji » Sun Mar 09, 2003 10:11 pm

I agree with you in part.


[/quote]

Dellenor wrote:See, Tetsuji, here's the thing I don't get about your argument... According to what you say, the Armor power with the action "Free" instead of "None" is the same since, as it states on page 58, continuous powers still require a free action to activate or deactivate. Thus adding the "Slow" flaw to the Armor power is inconsequential, and not a flaw at all. However, it's obvious that Armor with the action of "Free" is far less advantageous than Armor as it is in the book, because armor that requires a free action to activate isn't always providing its protection.

Joe Armor dude has FREE armor.

When he "puts on" his armor to start heroing, he uses a free action to start his armor. When he tkes it off he uses a free action to deactivate it.

How is that different in any regard to Sam Armor dude who has NONE armor (continuous) but needs to spend a free action to activate it or deactivate it (again when taking it off or on)?

Joe and Sam both get hit by some effect that turns their powers off momentarily. Since both require free actions to start up their armor, both will have to wait until their next actions to do so.

How are they different?

You seem to be imagining that "free" activation somehow means "you must wait until the last instant" or something. That aint in the description.

Both guys turn their armor on and off the exact same way. Why would one get points for it?
Dellenor wrote: To be perfectly honest, I think this entire argument you've been having has spawned from you reading that one phrase at the end of the paragraph out of context; I have yet to see you mention the first part of that paragraph where it says "using the power does not require an action or any conscious effort on the character's part".

Thats the general rule. The specific case of activating continuous/none is covered later.
Dellenor wrote: If we are supposed to interpret the last sentence as you do, then the two sentences in the paragraph logically contradict themselves, and the paragraph makes no sense.

The first is the general case. The second is the specific definition for continuous/none activation.
Dellenor wrote: Personally, I think the only reason they added that last sentence was to cover the cases where the power in question was either neutralized, or shut down voluntarily by the character.

I agree... but when else is this issue relevent? What makes you think a continuous/FREE is subject to any more cases than the ones you list?
When would FREE action be different and thus worth points back?

Dellenor wrote: Perhaps Green Ronin should have worded it better...


They worded it clear.

If they meant something else, then they needed different text.

You seem to see clear disadvantages for continuous/free vs continuous/none. What are those cases? Why would C/f be subject to activation issues any more than C/n and the neutralized, drained and voluntarily shut down you already covered?

Show me the points?
Tesuji
Super Poster
Super Poster
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 11:10 am
Location: Cary NC USA

Postby Yesterday's Hero » Mon Mar 10, 2003 2:19 am

Tesuji wrote:I will leave it to the reader to figure out whether deleting none-to free as one portion/level of the slow flaw is simpler than creating new rules to differentiate the two and thereby change a whole lot of powers.

No need for this at all as there is already a difference and it has nothing to do with Continuous powers. You can apply the Slow flaw to Action: None powers like Luck, thus preventing the character from "using" the power while he/she is incapacitated (KO'd, stunned, etc.).

I win! ;)
User avatar
Yesterday's Hero
Bystander
Bystander
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 3:21 pm

Postby Aleph » Mon Mar 10, 2003 5:21 am

Yesterday's Hero wrote:
Tesuji wrote:I will leave it to the reader to figure out whether deleting none-to free as one portion/level of the slow flaw is simpler than creating new rules to differentiate the two and thereby change a whole lot of powers.

No need for this at all as there is already a difference and it has nothing to do with Continuous powers. You can apply the Slow flaw to Action: None powers like Luck, thus preventing the character from "using" the power while he/she is incapacitated (KO'd, stunned, etc.).

I win! ;)


Actually, you can't if it requires a free action as Tesuji suggests, since you can't use free actions when stunned. If you can, on the other hand, then the "free" action under None is a different kind of free action - which would imply, again, a difference which could apply to other types of powers, and thus would at least potentially be a meaningful difference to be flawed against.

Tesuji -

I don't mean to start the sub-flame war that we almost got into again, but it's really frustrating when you argue around my points instead of with what I am actually saying. Again, please answer the challenge. I'm not saying "a flaw must be meaningful in all cases", which is not in the text (as you note). I am saying "to be considered under the category 'flaw' (which it is by virtue of its placement there), None->Free must be meaningful in at least one case" - which is why I am pressing you to find that case. Yesterday's Hero attempted to do just that - but under your definition, it doesn't work. You need to do the same.
Aleph
Cohort
Cohort
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 11:57 am

Postby Tesuji » Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:19 am

Actually, we have a winner...

Luck is a NONE action and Instant power.

As such, it DOES NOT require a free action under page 58. The page 58 reference for NONE says that CONTINUOUS powers still require a free action.

Let me repeat.. luck is NOT a continuous power.

Luck is an INSTANT power.

Luck therefore as written does not require a FREE action to activate as for instance protection does.

***************

If we add the flaw" Slow none to free, then the limited luck now requires a free action to use, which is definitely limited since that means it aint there when stunned and normally cannot be used except on your turn, when you can spend free actions.

For several pages now you have been harping again and again on the need for at least one power to make the flaw have meaning.

We now have it with Luck, the action NONE duration instant power. It does not get whammied by the CONTINUOUS still requires free action.

*****

Now that you have your case, the one you have clamoured for, will you retract or just rephrase and come in again?
Tesuji
Super Poster
Super Poster
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2002 11:10 am
Location: Cary NC USA

Postby Aleph » Mon Mar 10, 2003 2:03 pm

Now that you have your case, the one you have clamoured for, will you retract or just rephrase and come in again?
--

I'll take that - a case has been found where none can be meaningfully flawed to free. But I'll come in again as well, since it doesn't end the base debate. When I first asked to you make up a power where it was meaningful (bottom p 4), I also noted that if there is really no difference between None/Cont and Free/Cont that the None/Cont powers found in the text are likely balanced as if they were a point/level better than Free/Cont. If so, their costs still need to be adjusted.

The point of there being no cognizable difference between None and Free for Continuous powers should, at the very least, also be noted to Steve for future editions. Therefore, I'm going to push him on that question - not because Luck fails to satisfy my requirements (it does satisfy those), but because the only case that could be found to satisfy a meaning to the "None" action is a power which falls outside the "general only" use of none - that is, continuous and permanent powers.
Aleph
Cohort
Cohort
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 11:57 am

PreviousNext

Return to Mutants & Masterminds Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests