[naloth]

Originally Posted by Plane

B107 "Ranged" says "gives range to an advantage that normally affects your immediate area, or that requires a touch to affect others." Would you oppose taking Ranged+Emanation (net +20%) to enable AE on Aura? Your opposition seems to be based on the idea that you should only be able to take AE on "range" instead of "reach" abilities?

Actually my opposition is based on the notion that you're trying to 'spain an advantage rather than pay for advantage. That is based in the facts of what Innate Attack and the modifiers you're assigning do.

Your rather convoluted argument still relies on notions of what they could do if the GM decides to alter how ranged attacks are treated, incorporate some of your ideas on expanding their profile to have a physical, attack-able component, then allows Auras to effectively create a defensive shield around you (even though Auras expressly can't defend) at a longer reach than the other modifiers permit.

The bottom line has always been that in a point based system abilities are based on paying points for the mechanics they provide. How you explain those mechanics working in a particular game world to achieve that effect doesn't alter the game mechanics nor do those explanations give you advantages that would effectively be new powers.

Also wondering, with the insistence of Auras working like Melee Attacks, do you think you can AOA:Strong with an Aura to get a damage bonus?

You would get to add AoA: Strong to your punch damage. The Aura is concurrent, not a follow up. It would be separate damage.

[quote]AuraIAs always had the benefit of thwacking stuff that hit the target.[quote] Yes, the guy with aura being hit is the trigger for it to "thwack" anything.

Ignoring, or acknowledging and altering per adds?

Enhancements don't negate limitations, period. You couldn't take Always On -30% then Switchable +10%, which is the same as taking no reach then adding reach. Furthermore, enhancements aside from Cosmic can't negate a built in restriction (such as a restriction in Melee that prevents range from being added), either.

Of course, this is entirely aside from the other problem, that you still don't have a reasonable rationale for attacks targeting *dice* of damage with any basis in the rules.

"might not" isn't "isn't".

Ah, you're back to something which at best doesn't offer any rules commentary whatsoever, and at worst confirms that it's not canon. Either way, it's still not permission to attack incoming attacks, so I don't see how it helps you. Your whole notion relies on not 1, not 2, but at least 3 major changes in how things are typically done *plus* a GM that's generous enough to build a world where the values fit your notions of what should happen.

If you want to be super-literal, "If a weapon strikes you, your aura affects the weapon" only refers to the 2nd half. It shouldn't allow auras to affect weapons you strike, only weapons which strike you.

The prior statement has other conditions.

Area Effect makes it possible to affect groups of people with non-attack advantages that normally affect just one target; e.g., Healing, Mind Control, and Telekinesis.

Powers expands on those as range 0 abilities. Of course, if you could add Melee to TK or Mind Control as well. Area+TK+Melee was an early suggestion for "touch TK" allowing you lift a car by its fender without worrying it would break off. The "Area" was high SM much like Affliction allows it to counter the penalty would you get for afflicting it.

Innate Attacks can be perceived "non-attack advantages" when they are made into Auras. You no longer make attacks with them, instead you use Readies (or Concentrates, if you change from physical to mental) to switch them on and off.

Where did you get the notion that what maneuver you take has anything to do with if it's an attack or non-attack advantage? Besides, if you can touch someone and set them on fire, how is that any less of a burn attack than setting them on fire by throwing a fireball at them?

Telekinesis can result in attacks on targets, but the user is not actually attacking, it is their TK attacking after they do a Concentrate maneuver to activate it. Same with Mind Control and forcing enemies to attack. Aura's like that. The user just activates it, they never attack directly with it, and that is what "attack advantage" means in this context.

TK is strength at a distance. You don't get your hands dirty wielding a sword with your hands, either, but you're attack with a weapon (directly) regardless if it's muscles or TK doing the swinging.

Mind Control allows you to direct someone, so I suppose you're indirectly attacking, but there's still a 1 to 1, you do, action happens relationship.

Aura isn't like either of those. Aura has a trigger: touch, which works on targets after they contact you. Even if you can extend that area, the mechanics still don't say anything about negating/affecting attacks before they contact you to trigger the aura.

In the case of the "persistent damage area" it's assessed once per turn. It's not intended to stop dice of damage from anything. Indeed, if you had someone already inside your Aura and he fired a gun, it wouldn't make sense to assess it against the bullet (since it's already been assessed against the character prior).

I believe this wording on P100 may be the basis for the idea of applying AEs to Auras. Due to that, the 4 bullets (multiplying FP cost by radius, separate contests, penalty summing, same effects) should apply.

I really don't follow how you could apply anything there to ignore rules elsewhere.

If "however the ability get it is good enough" then why "isn't applied to Aura, so it can't change the fundamentals of how Aura works"? Aura changes how the ability works, and then AE changes the ability. Same thing.

The problem with that statement is that Aura doesn't add DR mechanics. Area doesn't add Selective Area mechanics. Aura doesn't slice bread and serve you in bed either. Aura is adds the mechanics described in Aura and other modifiers don't get to ignore how Aura works.

P108 "converts a defensive trait into a field projected a short distance from your body." and IA w/Aura has been described as "Defensive" (P144)

Are you referring to the header "Defensive Venoms" inside the "Attacks" example section? You should look at the description of how they work, since they at best discourage contact rather than offer you a defense.

Trigger and effect are inexorably linked for passive abilities, Psi-Static and the 2 Mana advantages show us that.

You're suggesting that walking beside but not touching a land mine is the same as stepping on it?

I'm not going to quibble about subjective things like fairness, I value DR more highly than you do.

Apparently not, since you are encouraging others to buy things that potentially offer a better defense cheaper.