We are Legion (OOC)

[Barnum]

So that's 2 bruises for you now.

BTW, I am updating the first post in this thread with the relevant info. Are the HP totals there (recorded by Cos, I assume) correct?

[Jack of Tales]

As far as I know they are. Kiera's getting battered!

After this fight I'm definately boosting my defense bonus and defensive roll feat o.o

[Dr Archeville]

Archeville should have 3 HPs, not one -- he's got Luck 2, and hasn't used any Hero Points this adventure.

Is Keira's 20 feet o' darkness going to cover the other Tech-Priest or Archeville?

If it doesn't cover him, Archeville's plan is to examine/fiddle with the staff in his hands to jury-rig some sort of electromagnetic pulse to knock out the Tech Priest's tech.

[Jack of Tales]

I hope not, I really only wanted to get her and the priest in it...alone for some fun, old-fashioned smackdown :P

[Barnum]

If there is anything you guys need from me before you post, let me know. :)

[Dr Archeville]

I need to know where folks are, to see if Keira's 20 feet o' darkness has engulfed Archeville or not. ;)

[Barnum]

I was happy with JoT's answer. She only wants it to engulf her and her opponent, so . . . let's go with that.

[Dr Archeville]

Works for me! :)

[Barnum]

I have PMed Legionnaire. If we don't here from him by tomorrow, I'll NPC him and post and update.

[Barnum]

OOC: Attempting to use inventor/jury-rig a 1pp power feat for the staff's Blast power. The power feat is alternate power. Specifically, Nullify (all effects of a tech descriptor at once; Extras: Burst Area, Selective Attack; Flaws: Range/Touch, Side-Effect [failure to successfully use causes a backlash that affects Archeville as the Stun power]), at a rank equal to that of the Blast. It'll take one round to make, so he can try and use it next round.

For the record, I think "Inventing" a 1 PP Alt Power for an existing device (that was not your own) as an "end run" around the inventing rules is pretty cheesy, but since the goal here is to wrap up this thread that has already had to wait far too long and since an instant Nullify isn't very useful in combat, I say let's roll with it. No need to roll or anything.

[Dr Archeville]

It can just as easily be a use of Extra Effort (and an HP to offset the fatigue) to get the Alternate Power power feat for the stolen Device (unless the Devices are Restricted). Not Inventing/Jury-Rigging per se, but in-character it would look that way.

And an instant nullify can be useful, if the timing's right (i.e, allies attack before the foe can re-activate his device). Though I can't actually remember what the initiatives are, so my plan may be failing anyway. But, at least it should look neat, and is in-character for the mad scientist ;)

[Barnum]

Oh yeah, because using extra effort on someone else's device is far less abusive . . .

I wonder if you could do that with someone else's device while they were still holding it. Now that would be something (and make about as much sense)!

The initiative order is:

1. All ya'll.

2. Them.

:D

[Dr Archeville]

Oh yeah, because using extra effort on someone else's device is far less abusive . . .

About as "abusive" as using Mind Control/Power Control on someone to stunt a new trick off their existing powers. Except my Power Control has been "paid" for by them, by having a Device and not inherent powers.

Where's the abuse? If someone's powers are in an unRestricted Device, they should get it taken from the once in a while and used against them -- it's part of the reason Device gets a cost break. And if the person taking & using it is a specialist in that type of device (magical, scientific, whatever) and can find a way to use it better/differently than the original owner, why not allow them to power stunt new effects off it?

I also don't see the problem in using Inventor/Jury-Rigging to make 1pp Alternate Powers for existing Devices. IMO, modifying an existing Device should be a lot easier & quicker than building one from scratch (even if you're MacGyvering it).

I wonder if you could do that with someone else's device while they were still holding it. Now that would be something (and make about as much sense)!

IMO, no, since they've still got the Device, they've not been disarmed. If I want to use someone else's Device (either as-is or to modify it), I should have to disarm it from them first. And if someone wants to usurp one of mine, they should disarm it from me first. (And, no, it doesn't make as much sense, since Archeville couldn't very well re-wire a Tech-Priest's Staff if the Priest was still wielding it against us )

[Barnum]

About as "abusive" as using Mind Control/Power Control on someone to stunt a new trick off their existing powers.

Yeah . . . I'd never allow that either.

Where's the abuse? If someone's powers are in an unRestricted Device, they should get it taken from the once in a while and used against them

That's not what you are doing here, so that argument is a complete non sequitur. You are trying to find a cheesy way to do something that should take hours in only 6 seconds . . . all while completely dodging the normal check roll.

I also don't see the problem in using Inventor/Jury-Rigging to make 1pp Alternate Powers for existing Devices. IMO, modifying an existing Device should be a lot easier & quicker than building one from scratch (even if you're MacGyvering it).

That is almost never true, and when it is true, it is highly situational. The descriptor on the Tech Priest's staff is heat. It is a glorified flamethrower. And I'm guessing that you couldn't even turn a flamethrower in to a universal technological disruptor much less legitimately claim that said universal technological disruptor would be much, much easier to build because you started with fully assembled flamethrower parts.

I think on the next round, the Tech Priest (who actually has the Inventor feat) is going to jury-rig the floor (which has about 14 PPs worth of Impervious Toughness built into it) into a Teleportation attack device.

Or maybe run outside and jury-rig a car into a battle suit and fly away.

:rotfl:

[Jack of Tales]

Yay my first critical! Or at least a threat..

Strike: 28

Critical threat: 25!!!

Now I need to read how crits work in M&M anyway ><

I'd also like to note that Kiera was doing lethal damage (decided before the crit, Ouch bad choice)

So that's a toughness of 31!

[Dr Archeville]

Natural 20s are an auto-crit in M&M; you don't need to roll to confirm like in D&D. Critical hits add +5 the the damage rank.

[Dr Archeville]

Yeah . . . I'd never allow that either.

May I ask why not? (UP says it's possible to do it with GM permission; why would you not allow it?)

That's not what you are doing here, so that argument is a complete non sequitur. You are trying to find a cheesy way to do something that should take hours in only 6 seconds . . . all while completely dodging the normal check roll.

Hours? Jury-Rigging takes rounds. Or do you not allow that, either?

That is almost never true, and when it is true, it is highly situational. The descriptor on the Tech Priest's staff is heat. It is a glorified flamethrower. And I'm guessing that you couldn't even turn a flamethrower in to a universal technological disruptor much less legitimately claim that said universal technological disruptor would be much, much easier to build because you started with fully assembled flamethrower parts.

Ah, okay, now I see a disconnect. See, from the descriptions I'd been reading, I was thinking the blasts were all just funky Kirby-esque energy, not fire/heat. If all these things are is glorified flamethrowrs, then, you're right, there's no way Archeville could jury-rig any kind of tech-wiping EMP for it. In fact, if I'd known that's what they were shooting, I wouldn't have even tried it in the first place. (And rather than let me continue, you should've told me up front it wouldn't/couldn't work.)

May I change my action for this round, since last round he would've found out he could not do what he was hoping to do this round?

I think on the next round, the Tech Priest (who actually has the Inventor feat) is going to jury-rig the floor (which has about 14 PPs worth of Impervious Toughness built into it) into a Teleportation attack device.

Or maybe run outside and jury-rig a car into a battle suit and fly away.

:rotfl:

Now you're just being rude.

[Barnum]

May I ask why not? (UP says it's possible to do it with GM permission; why would you not allow it?)

Because in most cases it stretches the bounds of credulity. Most heroes don't even have enough control over their own powers to perform a power stunt regularly. If they did, it would be an Alt Power. That is why it takes "extra effort" to pull off a power stunt on the few occasions they do try it. It is too much of a stretch for me to think that I could jump into your head and have the know-how to also pull off a power stunt with your powers. Or for that matter, even know how to operate your device just by picking it up.

Hours? Jury-Rigging takes rounds. Or do you not allow that, either?

Inventing takes hours. Jury-rigging takes rounds. Jury-rigging an alt power only takes 1 round, though you are getting ~20 rounds worth of benefit for nothing.

Ah, okay, now I see a disconnect. See, from the descriptions I'd been reading, I was thinking the blasts were all just funky Kirby-esque energy, not fire/heat. If all these things are is glorified flamethrowrs, then, you're right, there's no way Archeville could jury-rig any kind of tech-wiping EMP for it. In fact, if I'd known that's what they were shooting, I wouldn't have even tried it in the first place. (And rather than let me continue, you should've told me up front it wouldn't/couldn't work.)

May I change my action for this round, since last round he would've found out he could not do what he was hoping to do this round?

But that is my point. Right here is the abuse. If the Refs agree with you . . . then there is no disconnect. A flame-thrower staff can have an Alt Power of Nullify. It can have an Alt Power of fly. We would approve that at character creation. Why would you not think it was appropriate to jury-rig that in this situation? Are you suggesting that jury-rigged Alt Powers have to "make sense" while Alt Powers bought normally don't?

I don't follow.

(But yes, you can do something different this round if you don't want to try the nullify.)

Now you're just being rude.

Nah. You ask "Where's the abuse?" I was just demonstrating. :)

[Dr Archeville]

Because in most cases it stretches the bounds of credulity. Most heroes don't even have enough control over their own powers to perform a power stunt regularly. If they did, it would be an Alt Power. That is why it takes "extra effort" to pull off a power stunt on the few occasions they do try it. It is too much of a stretch for me to think that I could jump into your head and have the know-how to also pull off a power stunt with your powers.

What if it's a stunt you have but they don't, though both have the same base power? Say some very experienced fire controller (who has Fire Control and a bunch of alt powers) uses Power Control to take over the powers of some novice Fire Controller (who has few or no APs). To me, it would make perfect sense to allow the expert to show the novice how to use their powers in new and different ways (the ways which the Controller already knows).

Or what if the Controller has far more experience with powers in general, and more imagination/outside-the-box thinking, and is against some unimaginative clod who only thinks to use his vast energy control powers to shoot off Blasts? If the Controller has experience with such characters & powers (especially that particular type of energy power), and sees new & different ways the character can use their energy powers, it makes sense to me to let them use Power Control to use the target's powers in new ways. (I'm almost certain there's a Marvel comics character who does something just like this.)

EDIT: The char I was thinking of was Synch, of Generation X. He's a mimic (so not exactly the same deal), but unlike most other mimics he can use the powers he mimics in ways the mimicked character doesn't/can't (he could use Chamber's energy powers to fly, something Chamber can't do).

Or for that matter, even know how to operate your device just by picking it up.

But that's exactly what Gadgeteers do -- they know how to use Devices, even those of others. And can tell the difference between a staff-shaped flamethrower and a Kirby-esque energy blasting staff (one has funky Kirby-esque circuitry and blinking lights inside, the other has a fuel tank and pipes). Couldn't Knowledge (Technology) be used for that? Or should that require some sort of acute analytical detect effects/functions of a technological Device super-sense? (They should also be able to see whether or not what they're hoping to invent/jury rig has even the slightest chance of working before they get done -- say, as soon as they see that the components they're hoping was there are obviously absent )

Inventing takes hours. Jury-rigging takes rounds. Jury-rigging an alt power only takes 1 round, though you are getting ~20 rounds worth of benefit for nothing.

~20 rounds? Where do you get that? Inventions (even jury-rigged ones) last for one encounter, that's the time limit. And Doc was jury-rigging, what makes you think otherwise? Archeville's in combat, he cannot be inventing!

But that is my point. Right here is the abuse. If the Refs agree with you . . . then there is no disconnect. A flame-thrower staff can have an Alt Power of Nullify. It can have an Alt Power of fly. We would approve that at character creation. Why would you not think it was appropriate to jury-rig that in this situation? Are you suggesting that jury-rigged Alt Powers have to "make sense" while Alt Powers bought normally don't?

I don't follow.

Because APs have to make sense for a given power & source. Magnetic Control shouldn't be allowed to have Mind Control as an AP (despite what Claremont says Magneto can do); Cold Control shouldn't be an AP of Electrical Control (though both could maybe possibly potentially be APs of Weather Control); infernal-sourced Magic shouldn't have a spell that compels someone to feel true & sincere love or that summons angels. Yes, for a character with Fire Control, they could have Nullify Fire Effects (or Fly, or Blast, or Force Field, etc.) as an AP... but a glorified flamethrower shouldn't. A flamethrower, even one disguised as a funky staff, can just spit out fire (as a Blast); at best it could be altered to grant Flight (like a short-lived rocket) or maybe some different types of fire Blast (Line or Cone Area, but Touch Range), but that's about all I can think of. A character has more leeway because of the more direct control they have over their abilities; a flamethrower has no control over its abilities (because it's an object) and there are limits to what can be done with it. A flamethrower cannot be altered to Nullify Fire Effects; an sonic blaster rifle cannot be altered to create Obscuring darkness; a stone floor cannot be altered to become a Teleporter (unless you're a Celestial, since some of their tech seems to be stone-based, but they're PL X entities anyway ).

Do you follow?

Also, Cos's description of them had them firing blasts of electricity/electrical energy, so I'd assumed you'd kept them the same; none of your descriptions have said anything about fire or heat. That is the disconnect I was talking about.

(But yes, you can do something different this round if you don't want to try the nullify.)

Thank you. Doc'll probably just blast away.

Nah. You ask "Where's the abuse?" I was just demonstrating.

No, you were demonstrating how silly it is to stunt nonsensical effects off other things (due to the miscommunication about just what the staffs were), not demonstrating how "abusive" it is to allow invention/jury-rigging to grant APs (which is what I was asking, a separate but related topic; "can you stunt anything off anything?" vs. "can you use inventor/jury-rigging to gain an AP?"). And seeming, IMO, a tad sarcastic and snarky (especially with the ROTFL emoticon at the end).

[nareik123]

I suppose the word "Owned" really sums up what Legionnaire is facing at the moment. Gotta hate tech priests.

[Barnum]

I suppose the word "Owned" really sums up what Legionnaire is facing at the moment. Gotta hate tech priests.

The "beat down" was just for flavor. Feel free to recover and act normally, if you want.

[Barnum]

~20 rounds? Where do you get that?

Nullify 10 (all tech descriptors at once) with +2/-2 Extras/Flaws = 20 rounds to jury-rig . . . by the book.

Because APs have to make sense for a given power & source . . . A character has more leeway because of the more direct control they have over their abilities; a flamethrower has no control over its abilities (because it's an object) and there are limits to what can be done with it. A flamethrower cannot be altered to Nullify Fire Effects; an sonic blaster rifle cannot be altered to create Obscuring darkness; a stone floor cannot be altered to become a Teleporter (unless you're a Celestial, since some of their tech seems to be stone-based, but they're PL X entities anyway ).

No, you were demonstrating how silly it is to stunt nonsensical effects off other things (due to the miscommunication about just what the staffs were), not demonstrating how "abusive" it is to allow invention/jury-rigging to grant APs (which is what I was asking, a separate but related topic; "can you stunt anything off anything?" vs. "can you use inventor/jury-rigging to gain an AP?").

Wrong. With the way we handle approving APs at character creation, those two (anything off anything and jury-rigging an AP) are one and the same. We have approved a Teleport APs off of Force Fields, Blasts, and Flight. Space travel off of Blast. The Battlesuit Archetype even has Super Strength APed off of Blast. I'm sure if you asked, the explanation in every case would be something "nonsensical" . . . "They use a common power source." That could be said of anything. It sounds silly when you apply it to a car, because we have a pretty good idea of how a car's engine works, and we don't have a clue how a Battlesuit's power source works, so we just accept the comic logic and say, "Sure!" But it's still just as nonsensical. It is equally nonsensical to think that a device designed for electrocution (or flame-throwing . . . there is really no logical difference) could be turned into a universal technological disruptor. "Here is your electric chair. Now use it to shut down that tank over there. You have 6 seconds. And . . . go!"

This is ultimately a question of balance (and trying to avoid yet another end-run around the Variable Array ban). I have no problem with a player RPing his invention however he wants (as alteration to an existing device, etc.). It's the getting it in 1 round with a DC16 check (when it should be 20 rounds and the check should be DC 35) that is unbalancing.

And seeming, IMO, a tad sarcastic and snarky (especially with the ROTFL emoticon at the end).

And to demonstrate that he is actually a good-natured little guy . . . here he is again (with his brother), devoid of context . . . snark free.

:rotfl: :point:

[Dr Archeville]

Nullify 10 (all tech descriptors at once) with +2/-2 Extras/Flaws = 20 rounds to jury-rig . . . by the book.

Ah, gotcha, I was misunderstanding what you were saying would take/last 20 rounds. My mistake, I'm sorry.

Wrong. With the way we handle approving APs at character creation, those two (anything off anything and jury-rigging an AP) are one and the same.

Wha? How do you figure that? How is "Can anything be stunted off anything?" the same question as "Can I use invent/jury-rig to make a 1pp Alternate Power"? Both are very broad questions, yes, but each addresses very different topics.

The answer to the first is tied to the basic rules of how powers work, how effects and descriptors govern powers and interact. The answer should be "No, the APs must make sense in the context of the base power's effects and descriptors and the internal logic of the game world."

The answer to the second is more a game balance issue. The answer would be determined in part by how much freedom and "loose-ness" the Refs want in the rules, and how much leeway they're willing to give the players.

We have approved a Teleport APs off of Force Fields, Blasts, and Flight. Space travel off of Blast. The Battlesuit Archetype even has Super Strength APed off of Blast. I'm sure if you asked, the explanation in every case would be something "nonsensical" . . . "They use a common power source." That could be said of anything. It sounds silly when you apply it to a car, because we have a pretty good idea of how a car's engine works, and we don't have a clue how a Battlesuit's power source works, so we just accept the comic logic and say, "Sure!" But it's still just as nonsensical.

Yes, and it's accepted because A) that's how it works in the source material (i.e., countless comic books and novels and movies and tv shows), and that's how the examples given in the rules of the book are.

It would seem to me -- and if I'm wrong on this, please let me know, and I'll readily apologize -- that you have problems with the "rubber science" aspect so common to comic books & sci-fi stories, especially Silver Age comics. That the "nonsensical" nature of it goes against your preferred style and tone. If this is true, then perhaps you should not GM characters who are centered on that conceit/element of the genre, like Battlesuit wearers and Gadgeteers (or Energy Manipulators).

It is equally nonsensical to think that a device designed for electrocution (or flame-throwing . . . there is really no logical difference) could be turned into a universal technological disruptor. "Here is your electric chair. Now use it to shut down that tank over there. You have 6 seconds. And . . . go!"

Set the capacitors (which store the electricity) to discharge all the electrical energy in one rapid burst though a single-loop antenna (made from the wires & electrodes which would've been used to pass the current through the condemned) or a magetron (a microwave generator, such as is found in a microwave oven or some radar systems), and you've got an EMP. Assuming thjere's enough electricity in the capacitors. (After having done some research, it would seem my remark in another thread about EMPs being much more difficult to generate than tv and movies have shown was a tad erroneous; the biggest problem is getting enough energy dumped in a one burst.)

There is a very large difference between a flamethrower and an electric blaster/taser, in non-game system terms (both are Blast, yes, but how each does it is different). Electricity can be turned into electromagnetic energy, an electric field in motion generates a magnetic field (and an EMP is just a short broadband burst of high-intensity electromagnetic energy). Fire cannot be turned into a fire nullifier, the closest you could get is like when firefighters do "controlled burns" to remove the fuel from an area to stop the spread a raging forest fire in a given direction... but that doesn't Nullify the existing fire, it just makes it change course. I see no way a simple flamethrower can be altered to do a Nullify Fire Effects power, short of making a big enough blast to completely consume all the fuel (including people) and/or oxygen (which'd also need a Linked Suffocate effect) from the area... but as you can see that has some very big problems.

And, again, Cos had clearly said the staffs were shooting off electrical blasts, and you gave no indication in any post that that had changed to fire/heat. You changed the descriptors/effects mid-game with no apparent explanation or indication. If I'd known you had changed them, I would never have tried to do what I did, since there's no way a flamethrower can do a Nullify Tech Effects power (short of making a blast big & intense enough to melt/fuse all the tech in an area, but that's just a big Area Blast).

[Barnum]

Tech priest #1 is dead. Now we'll see if the desire to throw Legionnaire in jail extends to Kiera too. Should be interesting.

Tech priest #2 shoots at Dr A but misses.

IC post is in the works.

[Jack of Tales]

Gah, that's going to leave an emotional mark o.o