Aberrant: Defense and Quantum Deflection?

[econclark]

I agree that the Armor example is pure cheese!

Most of the function pretty well at low-mid power level, however, sometimes things break down when you get to high power levels, that is why I like to come up with extreme examples to see how it would function.

I would allow the armor cheese, but I would make it very difficult to pull off, adding complications (to symbolize touching the armor rather than the person), and if the complications are not bought off, it will effect the person, and if the armor fully encompasses the person, I would agree with your ruling that it would work just like putting it on the person (if it is sealed, there is only one "outside").

Having a power with the Incendiary tag could do something similar definitely (however, that is more or less limited to fire).

It would be similarly difficult to put it on an enemy's weapon and that is a double edged sword (literally).

[Eternl Knight]

I do like the idea of putting Quantum Aura on doors, but also other's armor (pretty easy and devastating) or weapons (harder).

Honestly, as the SG, I wouldn't let someone impose Quantum Aura onto armour or, if I did, it would be no different to imposing it onto the person themselves - the Quantum Aura would prevent others from getting close but wouldn't harm the target. As you point out, the idea of making their clothes harmful to the wearer is too devastating otherwise. Quantum Aura is somewhat balanced by there being a choice or chance to evade the damage by not touching the nova. Forcing the contact by it being on armour they cannot easily get out of is cheese I would rule won't work at my table.

Now, if you wanted a power that sets people alight for damage over time - I'd suggest a Quantum Attack with the Incendiary power take. Similar effect, similar defence (armour with Environmental tag), and with enough successes it sets the target alight (i.e. the "damaging aura") inflicting Continuous(round) damage at a rating equal to the attack. Quite powerful, completely within the rules, and without having to cheese it through odd power / power tag combos.

I know they might seem alike (and they are), but Quantum Aura is a Maintained power costing 1 QPt. Quantum Attack costs 2 QPts *and* the person you set alight can jump into a pool of water, be doused by a fire extinguisher, or similar to end the effect. Seems more balanced and uses less "gotcha" rule interactions.

[Eternl Knight]

Sure, I was thinking more like Gambit, usually its all about exploding cards, and once in a while he can explode an entire door, but if the idea is to make it regular, I would create a power or technique just for that.

I still think the idea for the exploding thing is Quantum Attack with explosion tag, not going for a Quantum Aura with sef destruction.

Oh, I agree with all that. If I were putting it together, Gambit's powers on the character sheet (for this specific ability at least) would be along the lines of:

Molecular Acceleration: Quantum Attack 4 [ Variable(4) ] - Charges objects with kinetic energy so that they explode or hit with increased power.
Variable options include:
- Charged Small Object: Explosive(Ranged, 2), Destructive(2) - requires small object to throw, which is destroyed (flavour)
- Charged Melee Weapon: Destructive(2), Deadly(1), Charge(1) - requires a melee weapon made of metal or other dense material (flavour)

And if the player wants to use it to explode a door or similar, I'd call for a power stunt.

Think the confusion here is that we've gotten side-tracked by me mentioning Gambit & Bishop as examples of using/abusing Absorption. Quantum Aura really isn't a Gambit thing at all.

[econclark]

I think Gambit is better described by Quantum Attack, no question about that from me.


I also believe that Impose does allow for imposing onto inanimate objects. However, I agree that bestow cannot/is useless if you do (it needs to be activated by whatever it was bestowed to). That is where some of the fun comes in.

For Quantum Aura, it doesn't have to be something thrown, that is just an option to get the Aura some range. However, I do like the idea of extremely deadly Bouncy Balls rocketing around the room taking out random mooks.I actually think that it would be generally more useful on doors etc. Particularly if you can also buy the Subtle tag (think extreme heat but no flames)...You can pretty effectively cut-off/slow down most pursuit. Quantum Construct can do this in a less damaging but more versatile way. (Molecular manipulation can also take care of most doors (either removing or creating a barrier)).

I do like the idea of putting Quantum Aura on doors, but also other's armor (pretty easy and devastating) or weapons (harder).

I think that unless the nova also has the immunity tag, they may also be effected by the Quantum Auras that they place on items/others...not 100% on that and they can always cancel it, but they may carry around an ove-glove for those situations.

[Mateus Luz]

Don't disagree with anything else you said. I think, reading the rules as written, Impose would work for most of it.

The issue I have with the above is that "power stunts" read (to me) like their meant to cover "exceptions", not be a "regular power" thing. Using the Gambit power as the example, the thrown items ALWAYS explode (though oddly, not the stave/bo he uses in melee), not occasionally when he wants them too. In fact, having things NOT explode would seem to be the exception here.

That said, I don't really think it needs a special rule for the general case. Make a note that the power needs (& consumes) small objects for purposes of the attack (so a clever SG can make it a negative Condition every now & then) and call it a day. We don't go into the details of a gun "destroying" the bullets it uses up because it's too low level. Same applies here for throwing cards, marbles, or whatever other small objects come to hand. For using the power to expressly destroy a Macguffin important to the story then make use of a Power Stunt. Until then, it's no more important to make a mechanic out of the ammo's destruction for this ability than it is for exploding arrows and armour-piercing bullets.

Sure, I was thinking more like Gambit, usually its all about exploding cards, and once in a while he can explode an entire door, but if the idea is to make it regular, I would create a power or technique just for that.

I still think the idea for the exploding thing is Quantum Attack with explosion tag, not going for a Quantum Aura with sef destruction.

[Eternl Knight]

Again, not the use for mimicking Gambit’s timed explosion, but a power stunt may be the deal for that, something like impose self destruction explosion.

Don't disagree with anything else you said. I think, reading the rules as written, Impose would work for most of it.

The issue I have with the above is that "power stunts" read (to me) like their meant to cover "exceptions", not be a "regular power" thing. Using the Gambit power as the example, the thrown items ALWAYS explode (though oddly, not the stave/bo he uses in melee), not occasionally when he wants them too. In fact, having things NOT explode would seem to be the exception here.

That said, I don't really think it needs a special rule for the general case. Make a note that the power needs (& consumes) small objects for purposes of the attack (so a clever SG can make it a negative Condition every now & then) and call it a day. We don't go into the details of a gun "destroying" the bullets it uses up because it's too low level. Same applies here for throwing cards, marbles, or whatever other small objects come to hand. For using the power to expressly destroy a Macguffin important to the story then make use of a Power Stunt. Until then, it's no more important to make a mechanic out of the ammo's destruction for this ability than it is for exploding arrows and armour-piercing bullets.

[Mateus Luz]

Reading again Bestow and Impose, I would say Bestow needs some kind of conscious mind to work, while it would work in objects, it would not work because the object would not have the will to use it, while impose would work on anything.

For example, Impose is one of the main tags of Teleport, used to transport other things (basically transmassion mode of Teleport, without the return effect), so it must work on objects too.

But, when the power is given to a target (person or probably an object), it won’t damage the target, so unless you give a self destruction effect, the flaming object will remain burning without damaging itself for as long the powers lasts.

Again, not the use for mimicking Gambit’s timed explosion, but a power stunt may be the deal for that, something like impose self destruction explosion.

[Eternl Knight]

Sounds like a job for Ask A Dev!!!

[Slagheap]

Impose cannot be applied to objects, only to people.

While I think you are correct that the text clearly indicates that imposing or bestowing was intended for use on people, I'm not so sure I'd go as far as saying they cannot be used on non-person targets. Bestow refers to "subject" before giving specific information about the types of people that can or cannot have a power bestowed. Impose refers to "target" and again gives specific information about the tag's interactions with specific types of people. But, neither tag expressly restricts use to only people. I'd probably allow it on a case by case basis.

[Eternl Knight]

Finally, now I am thinking of having a nova that has the "Impose" tag on their Quantum Aura, and uses it to put the Aura around objects that can then be thrown or put as obstacles (Make a door flaming to throw-off pursuit. Impose, unlike Bestow does not impose conditions on what it is applied to (just a target).

If you want something like Gambit, or a slow burning, better go for Quantum Attack with a restriction of needing ammunition, and describe the effect as an explosion or a area effect with certain duration.

I'm with Mateus on this one. Quantum Attack is very much a "mechanical effect onto which you super-impose your own narrative/visual effects" type power. It represents everything from laser beams from your eyes through adamantine claws that cut can steel all the way to exploding orbs of power you "throw" at your target.

Whilst the (relatively rare) use of Gambit's "delayed explosion" ability isn't covered by Quantum Attack, the ability to throw an exploding card, rock, etc at a target to cause damage is mechanically the same. The dice pool is "Aim + Dexterity" for the throwing, Quantum/2 as Damage Enhancement, and Scale that grows with Quantum Attack dots. Use the Explosive (Ranged) power tag to represent it exploding & affecting everyone around where it hits, and perhaps Variable(1) to allow charging up the objects more (Brutal) or less (Non-Lethal).

Gambit's "delayed explosion" or "triggered by touch explosion" abilities I would have to think about. Given the relative rarity of use, a power stunt would likely cover that use but if it's a more common thing, I'm not sure how to go about that if you needed it.

[Timecrafter]

in fact, I created a power just for this ("putting a power into an object"). It'll be in my upcoming nexus book.

[Mateus Luz]

As Timecrafter said.

If you want something like Gambit, or a slow burning, better go for Quantum Attack with a restriction of needing ammunition, and describe the effect as an explosion or a area effect with certain duration.

[Timecrafter]

Finally, now I am thinking of having a nova that has the "Impose" tag on their Quantum Aura, and uses it to put the Aura around objects that can then be thrown or put as obstacles (Make a door flaming to throw-off pursuit. Impose, unlike Bestow does not impose conditions on what it is applied to (just a target).

Impose cannot be applied to objects, only to people.

[Florin]

Sorry. I wasn't trying to be insulting. I was reading that as you stating the rules said you couldn't duplicate the effects of other powers. However, I went back and re-read it, and that wasn't what you said.

[Eternl Knight]

No, it literally says "If it succeeds, apply successes towards the desired Stunt. In general, successes can duplicate dots in another power or effect — one dot per success..." (Bolding mine.) I'm not talking semantics.

It literally follows that with "...or cause some dramatic effect, ranging from minor with one success to truly massive with five or more successes". Come on, at this point you aren't just differing in interpretation - you're deliberately leaving out half the sentence you're quoting. I have the rulebook too, I quite literally read that paragraph just before posting. Give me some credit, mate.

To you, duplicating QAttack is reasonable, to me a minor or major effect based on Scale is reasonable. We can differ on that, but please don't act like I can't read the rules as well as you can. It is insulting and, frankly, feels deliberately so.