Strict31 wrote:At any rate, in response to Seehawk and Marshal Law, the statement on page 96 still exists, and has since the game was published. So even if Steve has said otherwise, or has changed something, the text provides the reason to assume (I suppose, now, incorrectly) the existence of universal trickle-down. It does not specifically differentiate between one type of Extra and another. It does not even hint that there is supposed to be a difference in application.
I believe you're taking that one statement from page 96 out of context which clouds its meaning a bit.
That statement is under the heading "Extras" and under the larger heading "CREATING POWERS". The first thing hit upon in this section is "Effects" and how many effects a power has. The inference (to me) is that when making a power from scratch, as opposed to using the ones in the book, you can have as many effects as you want with each effect being a seperate power. In other words, you won't really have "powers as extras" when creating a power from scratch, you'll just have multiple effects.
The above not-withstanding (because I do realize it's all opinion and inference on my part) the more supportive statement is in the paragraph just above the one you quote. The section is CLEARLY referring to "extras" not "powers as extras".
"Extras" section, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence, begins on page 95:
"Each extra applied to a power increases its cost per rank by 1 power point."
It then goes on to point out that these 1pt extras
can be applied multiple times, be used optionally and combined (as you point out). But all that followup stuff is contingent upon that "cost 1 per rank" bit.
The section then goes on to list a bunch of 'standard' 1pt extras such as Area, Autofire, etc, etc.
So forget about what Steve or anybody else said and just look at the statement you yourself quoted - but look at it in context. The section you're quoting applies to +1pt extras, not powers as extras or addtinal effects
In part, you are misquoting.
What it says is "Some extras can be applied to the same power multiple times." This section may specifically refer to general or ordinary extras. I don't dispute that. But it previously says on page 56, "In some cases a power may have another power as an Extra." The only difference stated or inferred is one of cost. Obviously, powers as extras have a cost based on their stated cost minus one. Which is also obviously because that "minus one" is assumed to be the base one pp cost that all powers have which is not applied more than once to a given power build. In other words, it groups them all together and gives no indication that one version of extra should be treated differently than another version outside of cost alone, which is consistent with what is later written about power cost and building. There is no text that states that powers-as-extras should be otherwise treated any differently than general extras.
And to return to the issue of pg 95-96, the next paragraph down from the one I quote says, "The Power Descriptions
section of this chapter includes hundreds of suggested extras, most of which are specific to the power they modify. The below list includes extras appropriate for a wide variety of powers, which you may purchase with the approval of the GM." At no point does the text suggest infer or state that there is any other difference between these and any other type of extras aside from the fact that the listed ones are generic. There is no inference, suggestion or statement that generic extras should be treated differently. You can assume that, but there's nothing in the text to suggest it. Nothing.
Furthermore, the quoted text muddles things by referring back to a different section (power descriptions) in which both generic extras and powers-as-extras are broadly grouped side by side, wherein, again, the only stated difference is a potential difference in cost. I don't have a problem with there being a difference in cost, potential or otherwise, because that difference, and the reason for it, is clearly detailed and explained in the text. And is clarified in the available errata. I concede to Marshal Law that the text makes the difference between powers-as-extras (or Effects) and generic extras ambiguous instead of contradictory. But I used the term "contradictory" only to say that people here have seen Steve say something different than what is currently being said, and that I have no idea when he started saying something different. Presumably, it will be detailed in either the Annual or the 2nd printing. It helps to know there is a difference, but at no point in the available text or errata is a difference stated or detailed.
Regardless of what you may think, you have not pointed one out. You have tried to say that, because the section precedes a section about generic extras, that it doesn't apply to other types of extras, when the text of that preceding section does refer to both types. All you have done is point out further evidence of ambiguity.
Strict31 wrote:It is impossible to follow every discussion in which new specifics that did not previously exist are stated; the only way a thing that contradicts print can be followed adequately is through published or downloadable, and updated errata.
Quite simply, the "logical reason" exists in print. It may be specified, or changed or contradicted by Steve, but it still exists. In lieu of Steve stating otherwise, there was no reason to assume the text was invalid, or limited in scope.
You are entirely correct. The text you quoted isn't invalid, just incomplete. You quote one line from one paragraph while ignoring the paragraphs before and after it.
Given the light of what Steve has recently told you, I would agree the entire section is incomplete. But I cannot reference that which doesn't exist. As I've stated above, I haven't ignored the paragraphs before and after it. A single statement such as, "These generic extras must be applied each time to each effect they are meant to modify" would have removed any ambiguity. That statement doesn't exist. I'm ignoring nothing. Well, perhaps I am ignoring an uncertainty
, but in the text, there's nothing to clear up that uncertainty. As such, I can't rely upon an uncertainty to determine rules by which to play.
In the face of that uncertainty, you can still rely back on the weight of the text which states that powers (or, if you prefer, "Effects" or "groups of Effects") can be bought as extras. It does not say, powers can be bought as extras, but extras apply to those powers individually. It further goes on to say that extras can be used in any combination. It doesn't say "except extras that apply to powers bought as extras."
Jumping back to a previous post of yours...
Strict31 wrote: Say you've got a PL 10 Shapeshifter who wants, as his concept to be able to turn into any animal. And he doesn't want to shift back to normal shape when he's stunned. He takes Continuous to represent that. Then he takes Growth, maybe Mimic, and Shrinking (each of which are Sustained Durations, so you've now got to add the Continuous Extra three more times). Maybe you can get away with leaving movement effects, protection and Shrinking to Mimic, but it still becomes expensive...You're now looking at a character who has spent around 120-130 (and possibly more)pp of 150pp on powers when the average expenditure for a balanced character probably should be around 60-80pp. He is either forced to take partial ranks for some of his extras or to build a character who is underbalanced in everything else besides powers.
Couple responses here;
First, yes. The power you describe would be very expensive. 120pts for PL10. But the power you describe is also immensely powerful. Remember that Growth +10 brings with it Super-Strength +10 and Protection +10.
For that 120pts you're getting maximum level (for a starting character) in:
Shrinking, Growing, Super-Strength, Protection, Immovability, Mimickry and Shape-Shifting. AND everything except for the Mimic power is a free action and continues to work even if you're unconscious.
Does it cost twice as much as most starting character's powers would? Yes....because it does twice as much as most charactres powers do. Just because you WANT to make a character that does all of this stuff doesn't mean you can do it all when your character first starts out. The rules aren't (or shouldn't be) designed so that you can make a character that does everything you can imagine at maximum level the first day he walks out on the street to fight crime.
Seehawk wrote:The fact that you can create an expensive power doesn't have anything to do with whether or not extas trickle down. Your implication seems to be "Extras trickle down because if they didn't it would be more expensive to make this character." Non Sequitor. That's tantamount to saying that because I can create a cheap power (like Armor) extras should be MORE expensive.
And there's no reason in the text provided to think that such a power build is providing you with more than you are already entitled. If you buy growth as an extra, you're paying for every single effect the power contains. You're not getting something for nothing. Shapeshifting is an expensive power build if you buy it with the typical bells and whistles we see in comic book shapeshifters. There's no reason to think that you are not equitably paying for what you get. But now there is, considering you'd have to add Continuous to more Effects within in order to have it function the way we see it do in comics.
That's why I also provide the example of a character turning into an elephant without applying the continuous extra to both Shapeshift and growth. We never see shapeshifters get knocked out and turned into, say, a human sized elephant. Either they get knocked out and return to human shape, or they get knocked out and maintain their current shape. Unless you want your character to look like a rather silly unconscious elephant, you've got to pay a lot.
I use the example to pose the question "is that what the rules intend?" Not to say, "it's too expensive that way, and thus it is wrong." And to show the results, if the rules do intend it that way. It might be a fine edge to the question posed, but I'm sure everyone here can at least acknowledge it, even if they disagree that the cost seems prohibitive. It is a valid point of consideration.
I'd point out another power build which is now cast in doubt, done by Steve himself. Maestro, on Page 144 of the FC book. His baton is a device with a lot of effects and Area. To which effect does area apply? The base effect? Energy Blast? Mind Control? Who knows? If it is now true that generic extra must be individually applied to each effect it modifies, that's fine. But which effect is it modifying? Do we determine it by the order in which it appears? Of course, it doesn't help that the power build is written in alphabetical order...What about Argo? another alphabetically ordered build. Does Continuous apply to Ability Scores? To All Attributes? Impossible to say, because it is obviously (as we now understand it from the cost) not meant to apply to all of them, but only one. So, which one? You can disregard these issues. Or disagree with the conclusions I reach. But they are worth discussing in the light of new information.
Strict31 wrote:And I would add that in my case, at least, my response to Seehawk's initial question was an attempt to provide assistance. Not to gloat about a higher post count. So personally, I'd appreciate it if you did not infer insult or mockery by placing the above words in quotations.
Methinks you might need to buy an "extra: Thicker Skin +10".
I didn't imply insult or mockery toward you and I can't control what you infer, but my use of quotes was in response to Marshal Law's post, not yours and I used quotation marks specifically to point out that those WEREN'T my words but were instead a previous posters (the point of quotation marks I believe). I was expressing agreement with Marshal Law's statement. If you're insulted by the fact that people disagree with you, that's not my problem.
Quite frankly I didn't know what the heck you were talking about with your "insult & mockery" comment until I went back and saw that you posted on this thread already. Bottom line: my comments weren't directed at you. I don't know you and didn't know you were even part of the thread. Any insult you infer was not purposefully implied by me.
Fine. But methinks you need to appreciate that everyone who responded to your initial inquiry was trying to provide assistance in good conscience, since we've all asked for assistance and clarification before. I know I have. Any of us could have easily said, "Do a search. This is an old question." In point of fact, this triggered issue arose again a few weeks or maybe a month or so back. That would have been easier to say, and on many boards, people do say exactly that. Not here. Instead, you got feedback.
In retrospect, perhaps I was projecting something upon your words. You say you meant no insult. Okay. It doesn't seem worth arguing what you may or may not have intended, or what I perceived from the manner in which you said it.