Mutants and Masterminds - limited copies available!

[Teflon Billy]

Since you are here Steve,is there any way to replicate the "Energy Field" Extra on the Weapon Power?

I mean, it was grossly undersosted before (and extra Damage save? :eek) but seemd to be working itself out in the "Laced" Extra in Gimmick's Guide to Gadgets but now the only thing I can see ifs that "Linked" Power feat...and it seems to imply that the Benefit of firing off two (or more) attacks is worth +0 points.

The implication seems to be that the inability to use the attacks seperately is enough of a disadvantage that it blaances out, but this seems crazy to me.

Tell me I am missing something. Like the old "Triggered" extra at least

 

[Kenson]

Since you are here Steve,is there any way to replicate the "Energy Field" Extra on the Weapon Power?

Not really, no. That extra went away with good reason: effects invoking multiple saves of the same type, particularly multiple Toughness saves, are disproportionately effective.

The basic design philosophy of M&M 2e was that multiple instances of a similar effect (e.g. Autofire) increase the pre-existing save DC rather than adding another save. So the closest you'd come to the old Energy Field extra would be to increase the weapon's damage and apply a different descriptor (such as "bludgeoning/electrical" for example, indicating the damage is half one, half the other).

The Linked modifier specifically doesn't allow you to link the same power to itself; so no Blast with four linked Blasts. You can link together different multiple effects but: 1) It's one all-or-nothing attack roll, they either all hit or all miss; 2) It's one saving throw of each type, so even if it's two effects requiring a Fortitude save, one Fortitude save is made against both (the results compared separately, if they happen to have different DCs); 3) Linked attacks don't benefit from the cost-savings of having additional effects as Alternate Powers; you pay the full price for all components; 4) You don't normally have the option of using the individuals components; it's all or none.

So this power is possible:

Blast X (Dazzle X [auditory and visual, Linked to Blast], Stun X [Ranged, Linked to Blast], Trip X [Ranged, Linked to Blast])

It damages, dazzles, potentially stuns and knocks over an opponent (who gets a Toughness save against the Blast, a Reflex save against the Dazzle and Trip, and a Fortitude save against the Stun). It also costs a whopping 10 points per rank: odds are it has fairly low ranks (and save DCs) or the character is a true one-trick pony and the GM might cast a jaundiced eye over such a concept (depending on the campaign it's possible the characters are supposed to be one-trick ponies).

 

[Teflon Billy]

Excellent.

I hoped it would be something like that.

 

[Michael Tree]

Not really, no. That extra went away with good reason: effects invoking multiple saves of the same type, particularly multiple Toughness saves, are disproportionately effective.

So does that mean that Aura powers don't also attack when the character makes a melee attack? For example, if a character with Str 30 and Strike Aura 10 punches a villain, does the villain have to save against both the punch damage and the aura damage separately?

 

[Teflon Billy]

So does that mean that Aura powers don't also attack when the character makes a melee attack? For example, if a character with Str 30 and Strike Aura 10 punches a villain, does the villain have to save against both the punch damage and the aura damage separately?

Good question. It pretty clearly states that that *is* the case...

What stops you from (leagally) slapping all of this into a "Device" and having the 2 Toughness (nee: Damage) Saves thing all over again?

 

[Michael Tree]

Good question. It pretty clearly states that that *is* the case...

What stops you from (leagally) slapping all of this into a "Device" and having the 2 Toughness (nee: Damage) Saves thing all over again?

If the book states that, then maybe an errata, FAQ clarification, or house rule suggestion is in order. The general rule of M&M seems to be that no attack can provoke two of the same type of saving throw, and this contradicts that rule.

I suppose that you could treat such an attack like a Combined Attack, giving +2 to the saving throw DC of the more powerful attack if the less powerful attack is within 5 ranks of it, but without needing to roll to hit on the secondary attack.

Of course, there's no problem if the Aura provokes a different sort of save than Toughness, such as a Stun aura.

 

[Super Girl]

Since you cannot link multiple instances of the same power, has fatigue been put on a scale? Ie, to put someone out, you had to hit them with 3 fatigues, a real pain in the butt for someone who's power was to just put people to sleep, the best way to model it was linking two extra fatigues on it, this seems no longer possible.

 

[jonrog1]

Hey all, back from a loooong hiatus.

Been slaving away between assignments on coming up with a modern/universal D20 system based on what was the best IMHO D20 product of last year -- Green Ronin's TrueD20. Really, just fantastic piece of work, stripped out many of the old cluttering rules ... I cannot compliment you enough on that product. And the fact you can actually read the damn thing, especially when stacked up against some recent products (and WOTC's imfamously obtuse text) -- again, a must-buy.

Enough fanboyism. What was bumping me was figuring an effective FX system. Now it looks like M&M 2E is damn close to a universal RPG with integrated powers. What I'm wondering is -- can one modulate the "powers" level of a campaign world by, instead of capping PL, instead cap allowable levels for non-equipment powers alone? That is, let characters level up to powerful super-spy types with their feats and skills, but the "FX level" of the campaign world stays at a slightly higher than real world, oh, say PL5-7?

Or would a more effective path be to consider: if you eliminated powers altogether, would one then reduce the number of points per PL? I'd love to find (and will try to develop) a way to use the great point-buy system of M&M but without supers/low supers threshold.

I realize this is all speculative, and may be covered in the book itself or the promised alt-rules expansion. But on the odd chance nobody had put any thought into this -- any guesstimates?

Again, thanks for the great work, looking forward to the book. And any rumors that I'll trade bootleg DVD's of Global Frequency or the first 30 pages of the Transformers movie script for an advanced copy are just wrong.

 

[Kenson]

If the book states that, then maybe an errata, FAQ clarification, or house rule suggestion is in order.

Hmmmm so it would seem... [scribble, scribble]

 

[Kenson]

What I'm wondering is -- can one modulate the "powers" level of a campaign world by, instead of capping PL, instead cap allowable levels for non-equipment powers alone?

Sure. In fact, the way equipment is set up in M&M 2e, you could eliminate powers altogether for a "normals" game (reducing starting power point total as well). The Mastermind's Manual will examine "tech levels" for equipment and what counts as "common" equipment for particular settings (e.g., a far future sci-fi setting vs. the present day or the ancient world).

You could also set up guidelines for only specific powers, descriptors, maximum allowable power ranks, and so forth. For example, you could do a "modern psychics" M&M game by saying all powers have to have the "psychic" descriptor and the only available powers are mental and sensory powers, and other appropriate powers (like Telekinesis) with the GM's permission.