"Container" Question (Part Two)

[Folkert]

Can I put a Power Loss Drawback (-1) directly into a "Container" structure to bring the overall cost down to conform to the standard 5pp per 5pp?

Example: A "Racial Traits" container with powers that amount to 6pp, but one of which is subject to a Power Loss DB (-1). Would this be okay?

Thanks!

[Dr Archeville]

Technically, yes, I believe that is allowed.

Realistically, we'd need to actually see it before okaying it.

[Folkert]

Another container question concerning the following:

Touch of Chaos [Container; 5 PP] (Origin: Bestowed) (Source: Chaos)

- Enhanced Feat 1 [Attractive 1; 1 PP]

- Feature 1 [Lady Luck (never loses at games of chance); 1 PP]

- Morph 6 [humanoids (+30 to disguise); PF: Precise; Flaw: Action –3 [Full-round Action]; 3 PP]

I've just been told that a build like above "shouldn't" be done as its only effect is to make the 6 ranks of Morph more easily nullified/drained since it is now part of Rank 1 container which can be nullified as a whole.

Is this correct?

[Dr Archeville]

I'd be more concerned about whether requiring a full round action to morph is worth a -3 Flaw. I'd say it's more a Drawback, like on Super-Senses (so full round would be a -3pp Drawback).

This is my own opinion and is not necessarily shared by other Refs. ;)

[Folkert]

I'd be more concerned about whether requiring a full round action to morph is worth a -3 Flaw. I'd say it's more a Drawback, like on Super-Senses (so full round would be a -3pp Drawback).

Well, two of the more recent instances of Morph with a higher Action rate had it both approved as flaws, so that's what I went with. (Mongel Angel and Exile)

[Dr Archeville]

Yeah, but neither of those characters are active, so it's probably not best to go by them (since they're not being used and thus not being tested for balance).

Plus, I didn't approve either of those, so my "this is my opinion" still stands ;)

[Folkert]

Plus, I didn't approve either of those, so my "this is my opinion" still stands

Oh, absolutely, but since you didn't put that part in until after I took the quote this was nothing I could have adressed in my post.

Yeah, but neither of those characters are active, so it's probably not best to go by them (since they're not being used and thus not being tested for balance).

This I find way interesting. Both went successfully through the standard approval process here. In both cases the full-round Action flaw was not objected to and now these decisions are being invalidated just because the player didn't post anymore? :shock:

[Dr Archeville]

This I find way interesting. Both went successfully through the standard approval process here. In both cases the full-round Action flaw was not objected to and now these decisions are being invalidated just because the player didn't post anymore? :shock:

RPGs are living and evolving things. Rules change as they're tested.

And do remember that the rule's not being invalidated, I'm just expressing my disagreement with it. There is a difference.

[Folkert]

RPGs are living and evolving things. Rules change as they're tested.

No doubt about that (and no objection at all), but there's got to be a certain standard (a ruleset of any version, if you will) to go by.

What if the player came back? Having an (old) flawed Morph and a (new) DBed Morph in game at the same time seems a bit strange, especially since I have my misgivings abouts this part:

[...] they're not being used and thus not being tested for balance.

And do remember that the rule's not being invalidated, I'm just expressing my disagreement with it. There is a difference.

Got me here. I was about to rephrase my post a bit to make it clearer what I tried to refer to, but saw that you had already replied.

(The whole matter is still not without its problems, though. Very unfortunately, but that's a different matter. )

[Dr Archeville]

especially since I have my misgivings abouts this part:

You've never been in a game where a character, at start, seemed fine, but in the course of play showed to have some combination of things that made them a game breaker?

[Folkert]

I see I wasn't clear enough.

You've never been in a game where a character, at start, seemed fine, but in the course of play showed to have some combination of things that made them a game breaker?

More than I care to admit (or remember). [in fact, I am known/despised (take your own pick) for wanting to continue fiddling with a PC till it fits my vision even after a game starting.]

My doubts regarding "being tested for balance" and the implied "the results of such tests being subsequently applied" concern this site.

[Dr Archeville]

My doubts regarding "being tested for balance" and the implied "the results of such tests being subsequently applied" concern this site.

Why shouldn't they? It is, if I recall, how the various Board Rules regarding Duplicate/Summon came into being.

[Folkert]

While at the same time the whole "Drawbacks as free bonus points because they never come into play" issue never came up.

Character Creation Guidelines, # 11 Players may not purchase more than 2 ranks of Improved Critical per Attack power (i.e. a max critical threshold of 18-20).

Makes one think there shouldn't have been a PC with more ranks of Improved Critical in play after that rule was established. Hmmm.

Now, I certainly don't demand perfection. How could I since I am so very far removed from that state myself? But things like this and some others make me keep my doubts.

But these are my misgivings, mine alone to bear and decide what to do with, and thus I suggest returning to the original issue at hand. :)

[Dr Archeville]

While at the same time the whole "Drawbacks as free bonus points because they never come into play" issue never came up.

That is being worked on.

Makes one think there shouldn't have been a PC with more ranks of Improved Critical in play after that rule was established. Hmmm.

Never said we catch all of 'em. And, again, archived character. And, again (again), my own opinions, not necessarily those of all the other Refs.

Now, I certainly don't demand perfection. How could I since I am so very far removed from that state myself? But things like this and some others make me keep my doubts.

But these are my misgivings, mine alone to bear and decide what to do with, and thus I suggest returning to the original issue at hand.

Indeed... but since the original issue is tied quite closely to the cost of Morph (which is what would let the high-ranked thing fit into the low-ranked Container in the first place), it would seem there'd need to be a consensus on that issue first.

But, in a broader sense, we can look at other official/published containers and see how they're done. Do any of them have powers in them that are ranked higher than the Container itself?

Yes, several do, most notably in assorted Devices.

So, are higher-ranked thing allows in a lower-ranked Container? Certainly.

But that's not what I'd be concerned about.

[Folkert]

Won't touch the first parts since I've said I'd stop here (though I'd still have a number of things to say regarding them).

So, are higher-ranked thing allows in a lower-ranked Container? Certainly.

This is all fine, Dr. A., but that wasn't really my concern. And neither is how exactly Morph will be regulated (via DB or Flaw *), but what effect being part of lower-ranked container has on a higher-ranked power regarding the standard trait effects.

* The basic issue stays the same either way:

Morph 6 [humanoids (+30 to disguise); PF: Precise; Flaw: Action –3 [Full-round Action]; 3 PP] in a rank 1 container

or

Morph 2 [humanoids (+10 to disguise); PF: Precise; Drawback: Action –3 [Full-round Action]; 3 PP] in a rank 1 container.

[Dr Archeville]

Yes, the entire Container can be nullified as a rank 1 effect. Though it would require that "all traits of [some] descriptor" level of Nullify, not the "one at a time" level, since the Container contains numerous things.

At least, that's my interpretation.

[Folkert]

Thanks, Dr. A!

That's exactly what I wanted to hear. (Well, not exactly, but you know what I mean. )

I think I'll let everything stay in the containers I assigned because, thematically, they make sense and it fits if, because of their interwoven nature, either all powers or none go.