Not really got a horse in this exact race, but I think most of us here are adult enough to not play mean or with foul intent, so getting super nitpicky on rules before anything is even a problem might be a bit much.
I also think setting blanket rules on how a power works 'for all people with X power' like all portals are see through takes away something from a player or even yourself as the gm. Like.. let's say we have someone who uses shadow rifts(portals) doesn't make a whole lot of sense that you can peer through what is described as a black void. Or let's say said Shadow wielding villain makes a daring get away and portals away, but we see exactly where they flee to via the portal so Rash just follows and we continue beating their ass ad nauseum until one group fails the roll to follow.
I'd like to think we're all adult enough to, just let people describe/use there powers as is. But if something is done in bad faith or in a way that seems counter to the we're the mostly good guys plot like buzz sawing a person in half(which would be an attack power but could still be flavored as a portal ripping at them) then stop and be like hey not cool let's roll that back a bit, which I understand is a bit more difficult on pbp, but seems more intuitive to me than having long pauses for rule discussions every ten posts.
And hey if anyone wants to do something really whacky like use a portal as a high pressure water gun or space vacuum to get rid of the ticking time bomb or super duper definitely needs to die villain. Then call it a benny, a stunt(using a power as another power so long as it makes sense), and a roll and call it a day maybe, cause slicing interesting, creative, and unusual uses for powers is also kind of lame.
Rule of cool and all that, just don't be an a-hole and play dirty with it.
The last ten(ish) posts have been just trying to move the plot forward countered by 'tire spinning in the mud' rule discussion about powers. If we wanna really bare bones it, 'they work like the book says and for any other edge cases consult the gm and group'.
Sorry if this comes off as rude, I just wanna do the thing instead of talking about how to do the thing.
Hellion - you make some good poionts, but the whole discussion started because Rashomon was trying to use portals in a manner to explicitly get around the "-4 if you haven't seen it" rule.
You're right, I could have just said "no" to that, but I came up with the rules so that if portals were to be abused in the future, we wouldn't have to stop and debate that particular abuse. So having a small rule set should actually speed up future gameplay, since the players already know what they can and can't do. I think the "portals are clear and two-way" rules are needed for fair gameplay. Further exceptions can be handled quickly if they come up.
My last proposal is a short list, and Rashomon has agreed to it, with some counter-suggestions (which I'll deal with below). So...
ALL - Rashomon and I can continue this debate here, it isn't relevant to Gameplay right now, so let's go back there!
Rashomon - I'll agree to the portals being able to open between locations of the same pressure, but *only* if they're close to the same pressure, because any penalty can be overcome with enough rolls.
I said the edge of a portal is immaterial so that you couldn't, say, be floundering around in deep water, create a portal just above the water, and then grab the edge of it to pull yourself in. ;) Or, less specifically, if someone is trying to pull you thru the portal, you can't grab on to its edge and hang on.
I think portals are powerful enough without being able to drive a vehicle thru them. Their advantage is they give you quick access to get to a far-away place, but from then on, you're on foot.
Regarding enemies, portals are different than teleportation, as you noted. You could create a horizontal portal underneath someone's feet, and put the exit 12" straight up, doing 6d6+6 damage when they hit. Now, you can do that with teleport, but with a portal, like in some cartoons, he could just continue to fall thru the portal again, picking up speed each cycle, until the portal runs out, doing 10d6+10 damage. A simple Reflex roll to avoid that much damage doesn't seem like enough. Anybody have any ideas about how to limit this? What about Reflex+2 (and Reflex on a portal Raise)?
Solid points from Helion. I agree, and I don't like getting bogged down in rule disputes. I also don't like making blanket rules for situations that haven't come up yet.
This is a discussion I've had with ZenFox before, and our opinions differ. I believe we should play with the rules as written, until a problem or game disrupting issue is discovered. ZenFox prefers to look ahead, and head off what he sees as potential abuses before they happen. I feel that paints with an overly wide brush, and causes more issues than it fixed, which I think was demonstrated in our early game, in which the power levels of various characters were really disparate.
Regarding getting around the -4, the -4 is not really an issue, and with a portal, especially outside of combat, is no big deal. If it opens in the wrong spot, or fails to open, he just tries again, so getting around it affects nothing.
To put it another way, if he teleported to the coordinates, and found that his target was off a bit, he'd end up in the water, look around, see if he could see the boat, and then teleport to it. With portals, he doesn't have to step through, so the process is the same, but without getting wet, that is all I was saying.
I think the "portals are clear and two-way" rules are needed for fair gameplay. Further exceptions can be handled quickly if they come up.
Being able to shoot through portals is actually listed in the description for portals, so wasn't really ever in question. Making the portals black would have been an overt change to the rules.
The hero can open an entry and exit portal within her teleport Range, allowing anyone adjacent to the entry portal to act as if adjacent to the exit portal. This allows them to make melee attacks, angle ranged attacks from different directions, pass items, etc. It does not grant a Gang Up bonus for melee attacks, however.
While it does not explicitly state the portals are two-way, I think it is clearly implied.
Rashomon - I'll agree to the portals being able to open between locations of the same pressure, but *only* if they're close to the same pressure, because any penalty can be overcome with enough rolls.
I said the edge of a portal is immaterial so that you couldn't, say, be floundering around in deep water, create a portal just above the water, and then grab the edge of it to pull yourself in. ;) Or, less specifically, if someone is trying to pull you thru the portal, you can't grab on to its edge and hang on.
I've no issue with either point here. As Hellion suggested, I think using a water or magma spout and such should be theoretically possible, but as suggested, if probably more suitable to a power stunt than as a routine use of the power.
I think portals are powerful enough without being able to drive a vehicle thru them. Their advantage is they give you quick access to get to a far-away place, but from then on, you're on foot.
Agreed, as far as the default power is concerned, but I think it should be available as a potential future upgrade.
LARGE (+1) Teleporters capable of making portals can create larger portals, allowing a larger number of individuals, larger creatures, or vehicles to move through. By default, the Teleporter may create portals 2" (4 yards) in diameter. Each level of the Large modifier allows them to increase the maximum size by a factor of 1. (So at 1 level of LARGE, the portal would have x2 the diameter; at level 2 it would have 3x the diameter, etc.)
Regarding enemies, portals are different than teleportation, as you noted. You could create a horizontal portal underneath someone's feet, and put the exit 12" straight up, doing 6d6+6 damage when they hit. Now, you can do that with teleport, but with a portal, like in some cartoons, he could just continue to fall thru the portal again, picking up speed each cycle, until the portal runs...
It would be easier to link Teleport other and Traverse, and portal them a mile up, or into outer space. 10d6 is not that much more damage than 6d6+6, and would require him to use multiple turns to use that strategy. I think this is a non-issue, and not a potential abuse, but an intended possible use of the power. I think a switch to Reflexes is reasonable, and likely an advantage to the foe, as Reflexes is often higher than Spirit. I don't think any other changes are warranted.
I wouldn't say the discussion is irrelevant to gameplay since Rashomon and this teleport is sort of our vehicle forward to the boat within a reasonable time frame.
I am getting impatient with all this debate about how to teleport or portal to the ship. If there is no good way to do it, then let us know and we can wait for the ship to get within view of the port and then teleport or portal with assurance.
Getting there is not very interesting compared to what we do when we get there. I see this mission as mainly a shakedown exercise to find out how we work together as a team. That is why I voted to just attack the HQ, which we can do without much fuss and have fun with the battles.
Can we take it as read that we figure out a way to either teleport or portal to the ship and move on from there?
"Personally seeing" doesn't rule out telescopes or binoculars. If Rashomon sets up somewhere near the dock in an old building in one of the top floors, he could "see" the ship while it's still a ways away. How about it?
Or, just using teleport (not portal) twice as Rashomon suggested above is fine, too.
I'm willing to put further debate aside until if or when it's needed, and get on with the game.
The seeing from a roof would mean we'd have to wait days for it to get close enough to defeat the, let's hit it before they get to port point of the operation.
But yeah I'd rather we just get on with it cause man this is such a gigantic headache for almost no reason in my opinion.
You said "I feel that [creating rules] paints with an overly wide brush, and causes more issues than it fixed, which I think was demonstrated in our early game, in which the power levels of various characters were really disparate."
I would just like to point out that my rules merely set caps on what people could start with, to minimize disparity. It was *your* PC, Enkidu, which provided the greatest disparity, which was because of a hole I didn't plug with a cap rule.
The hero can open an entry and exit portal within her teleport Range, allowing anyone adjacent to the entry portal to act as if adjacent to the exit portal. This allows them to make melee attacks, angle ranged attacks from different directions, pass items, etc. It does not grant a Gang Up bonus for melee attacks, however.
I would argue that this does not explicilty say that portals are two-way. It merely talks about what someone on the entry side of the portal can do to someone on the exit side. I believe the comment about Gang-Up was that someone attacking from the entry side doesn't count towards Gang-Up on the target on the exit side.
You said "I feel that [creating rules] paints with an overly wide brush, and causes more issues than it fixed, which I think was demonstrated in our early game, in which the power levels of various characters were really disparate."
I would just like to point out that my rules merely set caps on what people could start with, to minimize disparity. It was *your* PC, Enkidu, which provided the greatest disparity, which was because of a hole I didn't plug with a cap rule.
Actually, that is exactly what I was pointing out. It was definitely my character that was ruining the curve. My point however, was that if the extra artificial caps you instituted had not existed, then other characters would have been just as powerful, and the disparity would not have existed. The overall power level of the group would have been higher, but that is easier to cope with than a varied level of ability within the group. I feel the disparity was caused by the changes to the rules, and not due to merely not thinking of every eventuality.
This is essentially just a rehash of the same discussion we had back in the day, and my opinion is unchanged, though I can respect yours as well. From my point of view, the rules have been playtested, and the easiest way to have a balanced group is to not introduce extra rules trying to limit certain powers. When you do, you have a greater chance of creating accidental imbalances, because there will always be holes and neglected powers that weren't caught in the web of new rules. If an obvious or unintended exploit comes to light that was clearly not the way the rules were intended to work, or is severely affecting the game, you adjust it when it comes up, not before, due to the law of unintended consequences as outlined above.
I know you feel differently, and this is your game, so you get to make the rules. However, I will continue to point it out when I feel an adjustment is likely to cause more problems than it solves, or when it curbs or eliminates what appears to be an intended use of a power.
I would argue that this does not explicilty say that portals are two-way. It merely talks about what someone on the entry side of the portal can do to someone on the exit side. I believe the comment about Gang-Up was that someone attacking from the entry side doesn't count towards Gang-Up on the target on the exit side.
This sounds like you're agreeing with me, but stating it in a way that sounds like you are disagreeing? Here's what I wrote:
While it does not explicitly state the portals are two-way, I think it is clearly implied.
The part to me that strongly implies that the portals are two way is the idea of passing items. It doesn't say the item can only be passed in one direction, and presumably, even if the item could only go from entry portal to exit portal, I can reach across, give you something or retrieve it, and then bring my hand back through the portal to where the rest of me is standing. So, while it does not say portals go two ways, it is the most obvious reading of the passage, thus it is implied.
When it comes to the Gang Up bonus, I actually read it as not being able to get a gang up bonus on an individual by yourself. I was picturing a person fighting in melee, opening a portal beside themselves that exited behind their opponent. Therefore, because of the portal, I am both in front and behind my opponent. I can see a player arguing they should get the gang up bonus in that situation, and the rules saying, no, you both have multiple angles of attack on each other, so it doesn't count.
At the end of the day, it is your game, and your rules, and I'll always respect that. However, as long as you are open to feedback when trying to implement those rules, I'll try to advocate for the lightest possible touch.
I know you feel differently, and this is your game, so you get to make the rules. However, I will continue to point it out when I feel an adjustment is likely to cause more problems than it solves, or when it curbs or eliminates what appears to be an intended use of a power.
No problem, I can respect that.
Sorry about the confusion about two-way portals, I didn't re-read your post immediately before I wrote mine, and I have a terrible memory. So I wasn't disagreeing with you about the explicit part, I was disagreeing about the implied part. The entire description is about what the caster of the portal can do, so I interpreted "passing items" as the caster could pass items to someone on the exit side (but not the other way around).
But it is definitely unclear, so we'll never know for certain. :(
Heads up I am out of town now, so posts will be a bit sporadic till I get back probably
Oh yeah we've got nore than 4 but less than 6 people so groups of 2 wont work lol
Fortune could potentially detect the cargo container with the goods, but it will probably take some other method to locate likely containers or it will take way too long. Cargo manifest is probably the best thing to locate.
ABOUT LIGHT
Everyone knew that you'd be going to the ship at night, so I'm ret-conning that everyone has a flashlight. If you cover it with a cloth like Fortune, your Stealth is now at +3. That is different than what I originally told Fortune. I've checked, and it doesn't affect anyone's previous rolls.
If other PCs have powers that can efficiently achieve a task with minimal PP usage, that can allow Fortune to save her spells for more serious situations. I'll generally let everyone know what she can do, but if someone can do it more easily, that will leave her more bennies for spells and rerolls. But I'm happy to use the spells when it helps.
Thankfully Hellion doesn't need lights since she's got Infra and lowlight
If other PCs have powers that can efficiently achieve a task with minimal PP usage, that can allow Fortune to save her spells for more serious situations. I'll generally let everyone know what she can do, but if someone can do it more easily, that will leave her more bennies for spells and rerolls. But I'm happy to use the spells when it helps.
That's what I was figuring. Rashomon has Super Science to accomplish the same sorts of things, but it's best to save bennies if they're not needed.
If other PCs have powers that can efficiently achieve a task with minimal PP usage, that can allow Fortune to save her spells for more serious situations. I'll generally let everyone know what she can do, but if someone can do it more easily, that will leave her more bennies for spells and rerolls. But I'm happy to use the spells when it helps.
Like I said Hellion could probably just cut through the chain with her monomolecular sword with no issue or much sound other than chain hitting the ground
I just need to know if that's like a viable action, if it needs a roll, Etc.
Rashomon teleported the lock away, but for future reference, "attacking" a stationary object requires no roll.
However, I don't see monomolecular sword in your character sheet? I only looked under the Notable Equipment spoiler. And I don't see such a thing in the SWADE Supers book, either?
Trademark weapon Molecular longsword, which looking at it I think i skimped down to normal longsword for budget reasons and will update my powers sheet accordingly, so not monomolecular my bad it's the AP 4 version page 72 of the SWADE Core. Molecular blade was also in the old supers book, will have to check later if it's in the new one or not. But yeah if the locks dealt with then we crack this bad boy open and see what's inside. And hopefully not ubleash the wrath of Ahankhet Mummified lich lord of the 3rd dynasty on Star City XD.
Ah - I searched for "monomolecular" last time. I just searched for "molecular" and found what you're talking about. Page 16 of the SWADE Supers book. +2 damage and AP = (damage die)/2. It's a $500 add-on to an existing weapon.
Fortune has Speak Language, but when she gets to add more power points, I may add the "Written Language" option. The speak language requires a person has heard the language before at least for a few minutes or hours. Can I assume she has heard V'sori? How would we determine if so or not, so that if it is useful in the future, we'll have it worked out?
I'm going to be out of town at Walt Disney World Dec 1-6 and will likely be unavailable to post (though if I get a moment, I may check-in). Please bot me as necessary during this period.
Sorry folks been a busy weekend and rather low on creative juices as of late so been hard to make good meaningful posts all around. With luck I can get my OT done for the week tonorrow and focus on relaxing and getting my thinky bits working again.