M&M 3e, Young Protectors OOC (Full)

[EpicEclipse]

I didn't think you rounded up for removable.

It was changed in Penultimate edition. I was dubious when it was pointed out to me in another thread too, but there it is on page 201

Removable applies to the power as a whole and not individual
effects, although it may apply to a power with
only one effect. The flaw is worth –1 point (–2 points
for Easily Removable) per 5 total power points of the
power’s final cost, rounded up, after applying extras and
flaws to its effects.

[Syncretik]

Or you can reduce the range to Close;

Snare Wire: Cumulative Affliction 6 (1st: Hindered & Vulnerable, 2nd: Defenseless, Immobilized), Concentration, Extra Condition, Alternate resistance(Dodge), Diminished Range, Instant Recovery, Limited Degree, Distracting

I think those are your best options. Anyone note if I missed anything (again)?

Not that it matters, given that Hawk went with the ranged version, but my inner pedant compels me to point out that you can't have Diminished Range on a Close range attack.

Is it just me, I think Yeoman and Warlock are a "classic" combo

If Warlock embeds Yeoman's sword in a stone, it locks the whole array, right?

[StarGuard]

Surrogates for Guinevere and Lancelot might make for a nice addition to the team (with Owain to spice things up)

[Horsenhero]

I didn't think you rounded up for removable.

It was changed in Penultimate edition. I was dubious when it was pointed out to me in another thread too, but there it is on page 201

Removable applies to the power as a whole and not individual
effects, although it may apply to a power with
only one effect. The flaw is worth –1 point (–2 points
for Easily Removable) per 5 total power points of the
power’s final cost, rounded up, after applying extras and
flaws to its effects.

Seems to me this is going to end up one of those things that bites them in the ass (too easily abused) and will have to be changed at some point. Call it my conservative nature about these things, but skewing toward "less" rather than "more" has always seemed to work out better in the long run as far as game design goes. Rounding up for the math in anything in gaming is an invitation for abuse.

[StarGuard]

I tend to agree with all of the above. I need to remember to make sure I incorporate the flaw as often as sensible in the story for my MCU 2.0 game once combat starts rolling (Sunday ) and yes I know Kal'annar is also a device monkey subject to even more of the same since his are bought as equipment.

I actually think Devil might be better off at PL7 buying most of his stuff as equipment. That's just me though, I like the flavor of equipment breaking or being broken by the bad guys brings to a story.

[EpicEclipse]

I really don't understand all the concern over removable. It seems largely baseless given all devices are susceptible to Smash attacks to damage them and being destroyed (Indestructible maybe not, but they can be plot-pointed away or destroyed as well, see Captain America's shield)

All flaws give a power point discount in exchange for some manner of drawback. For removable it's making powers vulnerable to being taken out by Smash (and disarm in the case of easily removable) maneuvers, and not only nullify. Keeping in mind Smash and Disarm are available to everyone and for 1 point each can be done without a penalty, making them significantly more accessible for dealing with devices than nullify.

[Horsenhero]

I really don't understand all the concern over removable. It seems largely baseless given all devices are susceptible to Smash attacks to damage them and being destroyed (Indestructible maybe not, but they can be plot-pointed away or destroyed as well, see Captain America's shield)

All flaws give a power point discount in exchange for some manner of drawback. For removable it's making powers vulnerable to being taken out by Smash (and disarm in the case of easily removable) maneuvers, and not only nullify. Keeping in mind Smash and Disarm are available to everyone and for 1 point each can be done without a penalty, making them significantly more accessible for dealing with devices than nullify.

Because in a case of rounding up, 16 rounds up to 20 which gives 4 "free" points, which is absurd...that's why. Now, as I mentioned to hawk, I'm sticking with the rules as written, so there won't be any house rules dealing with this, but I do feel it's a definite error in game design. It favors characters with devices over almost any other form of build to a ridiculous degree that "smash" maneuvers really don't make up for.

[Shock]

Removable applies to the power as a whole and not individual
effects, although it may apply to a power with
only one effect. The flaw is worth –1 point (–2 points
for Easily Removable) per 5 total power points of the
power’s final cost, rounded up, after applying extras and
flaws to its effects.

I apologize if I'm butting in but I think you're interpreting that wrong. The flaw is worth -1 point per 5 points of cost rounded up. It's just an awkward way of saying that the flaw is worth -1 for 1 to 5 points of power, -2 for 6 to 10, etc.

[Flynnarrel]

Removable applies to the power as a whole and not individual
effects, although it may apply to a power with
only one effect. The flaw is worth –1 point (–2 points
for Easily Removable) per 5 total power points of the
power’s final cost, rounded up, after applying extras and
flaws to its effects.

I apologize if I'm butting in but I think you're interpreting that wrong. The flaw is worth -1 point per 5 points of cost rounded up. It's just an awkward way of saying that the flaw is worth -1 for 1 to 5 points of power, -2 for 6 to 10, etc.

This makes more sense.

[EpicEclipse]

Removable applies to the power as a whole and not individual
effects, although it may apply to a power with
only one effect. The flaw is worth –1 point (–2 points
for Easily Removable) per 5 total power points of the
power’s final cost, rounded up, after applying extras and
flaws to its effects.

I apologize if I'm butting in but I think you're interpreting that wrong. The flaw is worth -1 point per 5 points of cost rounded up. It's just an awkward way of saying that the flaw is worth -1 for 1 to 5 points of power, -2 for 6 to 10, etc.

That is how I have been using it.

[pathfinderq1]

So, with the extended discussion of Removable...

What you are saying is, I should learn an attack teleport power with Affects Objects and Improved Disarm ASAP. Right?

[Flynnarrel]

It's no better or worse than it always was. There'll be times that the device is not on hand. There'll be times it's damaged. There could even be whole storylines revolving around someone stealing it. What we are discussing is the nature of the points reduction allowed by rules. There are two ways to interpret the rules as written. In one you get -1 (or -2) for every multiple of 5. In another you round up to the next number divisible by 5, then apply the reduction. Ultimately you still only gain an extra pp or 2 or three.

Devices can still be targeted with improved smash. And easily removable can be disarmed.

[Horsenhero]

Woof...I'm kind of regretting not doing this game in 2e. I know 2e like the back of my hand. I obviously will be learning some 3e stuff "on the fly".

[EpicEclipse]

I would have to dig out my old 2E books (I don't have them on PDF), but I could convert Blitz easily enough I think if you wanted to switch to what you're more comfortable with.

Personally, there are things about 3E I like more than 2E, that just feel smoother in practice than 2E, but 2E felt like it had a bit more overall depth that the smoothing out of the system took away from it.

[McGuffin]

I like 3e for the more stream-lined feel of it, though you lose something when going there from 2e. Ease of use beats depth for me, I guess, but I can work with both.