General Discussion Thread II

[rgordona]

My gut insticts. On devices etc.

I would be perfectly fine with a device as an alternate power of a normal power, especially for someone like Circe who channels her mental/magical powers through the device in order to get some effect.

However I would rule that if a character got disarmed while using a device all their esence was still tied up in the device so they could not take the free action to switch out. The whole array goes down untill they get the device back.

(I am not sure about the case where the vilian steals the device (while its not in use) and then tries to use it at the same time as the hero uses an alt power, (some nasty feed back perhaps) anyway that is a godd reason for insisting that such devices have the use only by owner feat. (Restricted x2)

[sblock=Ironman]If Tony Stark has a spare set of armour back at his lab that sounds like two devices to me, its not as though he is limited by points anyway :>[/sblock]

 

[Rystil Arden]

My gut insticts. On devices etc.

I would be perfectly fine with a device as an alternate power of a normal power, especially for someone like Circe who channels her mental/magical powers through the device in order to get some effect.

However I would rule that if a character got disarmed while using a device all their esence was still tied up in the device so they could not take the free action to switch out. The whole array goes down untill they get the device back.

(I am not sure about the case where the vilian steals the device (while its not in use) and then tries to use it at the same time as the hero uses an alt power, (some nasty feed back perhaps) anyway that is a godd reason for insisting that such devices have the use only by owner feat. (Restricted x2)

[sblock=Ironman]If Tony Stark has a spare set of armour back at his lab that sounds like two devices to me, its not as though he is limited by points anyway :>[/sblock]

That's definitely a viable idea. I would say if we decided on this, then it would at least need to depend on whether it was in use at the time though (it wouldn't harm her to just grab the ring off her finger while she's doing something totally different that doesn't involve the ring, frex). It still doesn't work right with Gun Monkey, though--he would still lose access by that ruling if he loses even one gun, as long as he fired the gun that round, and it wouldn't work for the Wizard losing his staff and becoming weakened but not totally lost.

Another thought is that maybe it would only lock out all powers if the villain was of the right type to use the device.

Personally, of course, I prefer that it locks out that power only.

 

[Hand of Vecna]

Looking at your cross-post, the ring and the diamond are both easy to lose.

The Rings' easy-to-lose? It's as easy to take away from her as the diamond? She doesn't so much as need to be grappled in order to take it?

As for restricted, I forgot about that--I have a few things I don't really need on both of them, so I can just swap out say, Subtle on the Ring, for Restricted to magic users who can power the items.

Honestly, I can see Restricted staying on -- if it looks like a normal ring, only detectable as magical by things like Detect Magic/Magical Awareness, then one rank of Subtle'd be perfect.

By this logic, Gun Monkey couldn't fire his second gun if someone took the first one. I'm guessing that this is not the case.

That's just my point, though -- I'm not sure an AP on the Device should allow him to have a back-up at all.

That's definitely a viable idea. I would say if we decided on this, then it would at least need to depend on whether it was in use at the time though (it wouldn't harm her to just grab the ring off her finger while she's doing something totally different that doesn't involve the ring, frex).

Another thought is that maybe it would only lock out all powers if the villain was of the right type to use the device.

Personally, of course, I prefer that it locks out that power only.

I like Rgordona's idea, too (since it sorta matches what I'd said ).

But if it only locks out that power, then it'd seem to imply that that powers is solely in the Device, so it shouldn't be an AP, it should be its' own thing. (or, at the very least, be Restricted 2/to Circe only, since it's her energy that's fueling it).

 

[Rystil Arden]

The Rings' easy-to-lose? It's as easy to take away from her as the diamond? She doesn't so much as need to be grappled in order to take it?

Correct--rings can be disarmed in D&D too. She definitely doesn't need to be knocked out to take off the ring, and since it may be borderline, I chose to have it disarmable because M&M severely punishes a character with poor grapple if they allow their device to be removed on a grapple but not a disarm (since you only get the same points as if it could only be removed while unconscious). I'll note also that Sierra has extremely bad skill at opposing disarm with no intention of improving it--I wanted it to be easy for GMs to remove her devices if they don't want her using that sort of power (because some times like in TTP those powers are very useful to the GM to help the plot, and other times they are troublesome to the GM). That's the answer to your earlier question of why she gains Attack Focus and not Base Attack: gaining Base Attack would make her disarm too good! Of course, if there's a retcon ruling that she loses everything when disarmed in the middle of using a device, I would by necessity need to get her disarm up (easy enough to do)

Also, I notice you didn't edit the ATT post. That's okay, but I'll bet you anything you get 5:1 responses that go into other random sections (the Illusions with the 'Blast' are an example of one tangent they might mention--I worked that out with Hero4Hire because I initially had it as a more expensive Strike power, but he liked the way it looked with Blast). It's like my thesis advisor always says--when you elicit a question from someone over the internet or ask them to do something, you need to make sure that there is only one main point they can answer, or they'll get sidetracked with the rest and maybe never get to your question.

Honestly, I can see Restricted staying on -- if it looks like a normal ring, only detectable as magical by things like Detect Magic/Magical Awareness, then one rank of Subtle'd be perfect.

That's what it currently is like for Subtle--I would be cannibalising Subtle for Restricted though. Clearly next time she gets some points, I can put one or two into Men to Beasts so I can then have 2 more to use later for Restricteds.

That's just my point, though -- I'm not sure an AP on the Device should allow him to have a back-up at all.

Fair enough. But you see why GM was precedent, I guess? The judges before were okay with it for that reason, and frankly it doesn't seem too big a deal. Ironically, though I was indeed worried about how Sierra would work with the new stuff, even with the limits I put in to make sure it would be okay, but so far, she's actually been asked to do more I'm happy either way--most of Sierra's stuff is backup/support anyway, and she is loath to use the ring except as a last resort (I only took the ring because Salix mentioned the need for a tankish character in his last adventure, and that seemed like a cool way for her to get at least a little bit tankish, though not as good as a real one).

I like Rgordona's idea, too (since it sorta matches what I'd said ).

But if it only locks out that power, then it'd seem to imply that that powers is solely in the Device, so it shouldn't be an AP, it should be its' own thing. (or, at the very least, be Restricted 2/to Circe only, since it's her energy that's fueling it).

Ironically, I actually am glad for magic villains to be able to use the items. That would be tres cool, and it fits the idea of how I think of these things (they fuel off of innate magical energy (represented as having a [Magic] power with enough points to take the Device as an alt), not just Sierra's, and allow diverse effects). Since the main reason to charge points for the Restricted flaw is to prevent it from being used by villains and I don't mind if they use it, would it be sufficient to pay 1 point so that it can be used by Sierra and any magical villains but not other PCs?

 

[Salix]

Don't bother voting on the withdrawn proposals.

 

[Salix]

I personally don't like the device as an alternate power. It might be street legal since it was approved, but I'm not sure it should have been. Ben Robbins thought it was out of whack also. For one thing, it's too many additinal points and powers for the price. The way to make a more powerful character would be for everyone to AP a device off of their most point rich power. In Sierra's case it doesn't really matter, since it has already been approved, but if it's going to be used more often we should come to a conclusion on how to handle it.

 

[Raylis]

An Device as an alternate power of a device seems odd to me. I can see some applications (Device: Power Armor that turns into Device: High Tech motorcycle) or some such. But that still seems overly munchinky to me. I would also be in the camp of: if you lose the first device you loose the alternate power devices since, esentially, it's one device with a myrid of forms.

 

[Raylis]

On a different note...

I distinctly remember reading somewhere how many votes it took to pass a proposal but for the life of me cannot find any mention of it.

Are we at majority or at X number of votes?

 

[Salix]

I'm not entirely sure now that you asked. That is a good question for Velmont or Bront, since they were in on the ground floor. One of the reasons we brought in an odd number was to ensure tiebreaking votes. If a proposal has been approved already consider it done. Same goes for the withdrawn ones.

I was reading through a number of the old threads and noticed several of the old proposals. However I couldn't find any centralized listing of all the proposals, including what has been passed, withdrawn or declined. I have noticed that several proposal's have been decided for or against, but simply do not have the votes to officially close the proposal (particulary in the case of NO votes).

To clarify things for myself, I created the following list, however I thought that perhaps others would be interested and thus have posted it here. Note that the only proposals that I have marked as having passed are those with 3 YES votes.

Proposal - Living Supers/M&M - Proposals for the Origin [3 Bront's World & 3 Adjusted timeline] (Proposed: 10-05-05; World & timeline approved)

Proposal - UN Available Gear, Transportation, and Resources [4 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 10-28-05; Passed)

Proposal - Stacking Attacks Limitation [4 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 11-12-05; Passed)

Proposal - Time Tracking [3 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 11-21-05; Passed)

Proposal - Power Level Tade-off Limits [1 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 11-23-05)
Proposal - Probability Control Power [3 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 12-17-05; Passed)

Proposal - The Training Room (Discussion) [0 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 05-18-06)
Archive - Game Master Rewards [3 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 05-19-06; Passed)

Proposal - Nullify (Affects Objects) [2 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 07-16-06)
Proposal - Fix for Boost [0 YES | 1 NO] (Proposed: 08-02-06)

Proposal - Resolute PR Department [0 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 09-15-06; Withdrawn)

Proposal - Ultimate Power [0 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 09-16-06; Withdrawn)

Proposal - Enhanced Traits [4 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 09-23-06; Passed)

Proposal - New Extra: Knockback [1 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 09-23-06)
Proposal - New Power Feat: Knockback [1 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 09-23-06)
Proposal - Targeted Areas [1 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 09-23-06)
Proposal - Task Force Informational Database [3 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 10-25-06; Passed)

Proposal - Proposal: 2 New Feats [0 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 12-18-06; Withdrawn)

Proposal - Power Feat: Variable Descriptor (from UP) [2 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 01-08-07)
Proposal - Mastermind's Manual - Skill Challenges [1 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 01-29-07)
Proposal - Comprehend-Spirits [2 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 03-30-07)

Proposal - Character Retirement/ Points Transfer [3 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 04-14-07; Passed)

Proposal - Ben Robbins's Universal Combat Maneuver [0 YES | 0 NO] (Proposed: 04-20-07)

Bold have been passed or withdrawn

 

[Hand of Vecna]

Salix, Raylis and I have voted on some of those.

Correct--rings can be disarmed in D&D too. She definitely doesn't need to be knocked out to take off the ring, and since it may be borderline, I chose to have it disarmable because M&M severely punishes a character with poor grapple if they allow their device to be removed on a grapple but not a disarm (since you only get the same points as if it could only be removed while unconscious). I'll note also that Sierra has extremely bad skill at opposing disarm with no intention of improving it--I wanted it to be easy for GMs to remove her devices if they don't want her using that sort of power (because some times like in TTP those powers are very useful to the GM to help the plot, and other times they are troublesome to the GM). That's the answer to your earlier question of why she gains Attack Focus and not Base Attack: gaining Base Attack would make her disarm too good! Of course, if there's a retcon ruling that she loses everything when disarmed in the middle of using a device, I would by necessity need to get her disarm up (easy enough to do)

They can?

*checks and re-checks books*

Hunh, so they can... though, by the RAW, so can worn armor (though it would require the target to be grappled and the defender would get a +4 bonus to the opposed check since it is secured).

Also, I notice you didn't edit the ATT post. That's okay, but I'll bet you anything you get 5:1 responses that go into other random sections (the Illusions with the 'Blast' are an example of one tangent they might mention--I worked that out with Hero4Hire because I initially had it as a more expensive Strike power, but he liked the way it looked with Blast). It's like my thesis advisor always says--when you elicit a question from someone over the internet or ask them to do something, you need to make sure that there is only one main point they can answer, or they'll get sidetracked with the rest and maybe never get to your question.

I trust in the folks at the ATT (well, some of them), and prefer giving too much info than not enough.

Fair enough. But you see why GM was precedent, I guess?

Still no. Having APs of a Device off a Device is not precedent for having a Device as an AP off a non-Device. It's just precedent for having lots of different Devices (which should actually be done as one large Hard to Lose Device, to represent how hard it is to truly disarm him).

Ironically, I actually am glad for magic villains to be able to use the items. That would be tres cool, and it fits the idea of how I think of these things (they fuel off of innate magical energy (represented as having a [Magic] power with enough points to take the Device as an alt), not just Sierra's, and allow diverse effects). Since the main reason to charge points for the Restricted flaw is to prevent it from being used by villains and I don't mind if they use it, would it be sufficient to pay 1 point so that it can be used by Sierra and any magical villains but not other PCs?

I'm not sure "NPCs with Magic or Magical powers" would be appropriate, since I don't think "NPC" should be a factor in Restricted. (Plus, with GM Fiat, most any NPC could use it anyway.)