[Powers] What is the point in buying Create (Destruction Only) instead of Create (Tra

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by naloth

For a clever user it's at least as effective as Create Air and at 5/lvl it's cheap too. For 60 base Create (Destroy) Air lvl 12 can destroy a 12 radius area of air which will basically remove the atmosphere in many subs, planes, or spacecraft compartments. In other areas the resulting sudden loss of pressure and resulting crash from air rushing in could cause deafness. Using P93, Create as an affliction that's HT-12 for a single subject or HT-4 for the radius. Take Ranged and it's still more cheaply priced than a comparible deafness Affliction.

I don't think the effect necessarily happens quickly enough to make a thunderclap, unless it's Create(Thunderclap). The section repeatedly mentions that the effect comes from the presence of the subject substance, so you get the effects of air's presence, and of air's absence, but not of the transition; the transition could be made the subject of a valid alternative ability, though.

[PK]

Originally Posted by naloth

I don't think you would allow someone with Create (Gas -> Solid) to create documents.

No, but that's not what's happening here. If some superhero has the ability to transmute stuff, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that another has the ability to transmute it back. It's not a case of neogenesis -- this is undoing that which was done.

Frex, if I walked up to two statues, and one was carved while the other was a dude who looked at a gorgon wrong, and I used a Stone to Flesh power or spell both of them, one is going to be an inanimate, fleshy, man-shaped lump, while the other will be a living, breathing thing. I used the same effect, but the subject differed.

Anyway, the specifics will depend on the game, but it's safe to say that anyone allowing transmutations like this in their game isn't exactly running a hard science game, so there will be anything from divination spells to super-science scanners that can figure out which molecules to put back together the right way. Magicking something into something else always leaves the possibility that someone can figure out what you did and fix it back to the way it was.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

No, but that's not what's happening here. If some superhero has the ability to transmute stuff, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that another has the ability to transmute it back. It's not a case of neogenesis -- this is undoing that which was done.

Frex, if I walked up to two statues, and one was carved while the other was a dude who looked at a gorgon wrong, and I used a Stone to Flesh power or spell both of them, one is going to be an inanimate, fleshy, man-shaped lump, while the other will be a living, breathing thing. I used the same effect, but the subject differed.

Anyway, the specifics will depend on the game, but it's safe to say that anyone allowing transmutations like this in their game isn't exactly running a hard science game, so there will be anything from divination spells to super-science scanners that can figure out which molecules to put back together the right way. Magicking something into something else always leaves the possibility that someone can figure out what you did and fix it back to the way it was.

That sounds like a case of supernatural countermeasures to the Power used for the job. Which assumes, as people often seem to, that some sort of power modifier is implicit when dealing with exotic advantages. But that isn't automatic.

If your Transformation leaves the information required to reverse it floating around the scene, that's clearly worth some points as a limitation.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Let's see your build.

Uh, a GM's ruling that something that has been altered with Create (Transmute) can be changed back into what it was previously with Create (Transmute), even if that trait nominally lacks the ability to make such an item from thin air?

Basically, a decision that in my setting, magic works in such a way that air that used to be documents (or any other magical alteration you'd like to name) is fundamentally different from other air and that restrictions which would apply to normal uses of Create (Transmute) on air might not apply to air that was previously something else.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

That sounds like a case of supernatural countermeasures to the Power used for the job. Which assumes, as people often seem to, that some sort of power modifier is implicit when dealing with exotic advantages. But that isn't automatic.

In my campaign, all supernatural abilities come with the 0% power modifier that the GM reserves the right to have them interact with other supernatural abilities according to the setting's metaphysics.

[Agent]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

That sounds like a case of supernatural countermeasures to the Power used for the job. Which assumes, as people often seem to, that some sort of power modifier is implicit when dealing with exotic advantages. But that isn't automatic.

If your Transformation leaves the information required to reverse it floating around the scene, that's clearly worth some points as a limitation.

Does the GM really care about the balance between Create: destruction and Create: transmute if he's not using power modifiers in a game that includes such abilities?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Icelander

In my campaign, all supernatural abilities come with the 0% power modifier that the GM reserves the right to have them interact with other supernatural abilities according to the setting's metaphysics.

I'm dubious about the assumption that that's worth 0% across the board. Though in this case, since it gives Transmutation both "can be reverted" and "can be used to revert transmutations", that might be legitimately break-even.

Originally Posted by Agent

Does the GM really care about the balance between Create: destruction and Create: transmute if he's not using power modifiers in a game that includes such abilities?

Why not? Power modifiers are supposed to be optional and balanced with 'wild' abilities, aren't they?

[Gurps Fan]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

That wasn't the point. The point is that lets say you use Create (Transmute Solid to Gas Only, -50%) to turn a pile of documents into air. Then you walk away. Later on, an NPC who knows what you did comes along and uses his own Create (Transmute Gas to Solid Only, -50%) -- or equivalent ability -- to turn the air right back into the incriminating documents. That's a perfectly reasonable call on the GM's part, since you didn't destroy anything -- you just changed its state.

Ah, I think now I see the point. Sorry, English is difficult for me.

Still, that doesn't sound convincing to me. Create (Transmutation) is a modified Create advantage, and it entirely follows the rules written on pp. 92-94. See the Other Restrictions section on p. 93: "Create produces bulk matter, not specific shapes, much less machines."

So, once you used Create (Transmutation, Solid to Gas) to turn my documents into air -- assuming that I have my own Create (Transmutation, Gas to Solid) and that I managed to gather every molecules of the resulting air that disperses as time passes -- I can only convert it back to a simple bulk of paper, not specific paper size, much less the original documents. To fully turn it back into the original, I must first cut it into 8.5" x 14" sheets and then write the contents again on that sheets. It's not very different from saying "Too bad, your documents are gone."

[Agent]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Why not? Power modifiers are supposed to be optional and balanced with 'wild' abilities, aren't they?

Not really my point. If a GM builds a world where power modifiers aren't required on supernatural abilities, it seems doubtful they'd be worried about transmute miming the capacity of destruction. Because he just deliberately stripped himself of some interesting and perfectly excusable restraints and complications that help differentiate the two modifiers. Which Rev. Pee Kitty helped to illustrate.

Obviously he can wing it, or use other options, but the power modifier is an aid to GM option and justification in these scenarios. In fact, its perfect for unforeseen issues which this could have very well been.

The issue you raise is valid from a rules standpoint, of course, but personally the first question I'd have in a scenario where the wild version is used and the balance issue rears its head would be, 'why didn't the GM use power modifiers for things like Create?'

If they didn't, it seems the type of game where this quibble wouldn't be relevant. But who knows, I guess.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Agent

Not really my point. If a GM builds a world where power modifiers aren't required on supernatural abilities, it seems doubtful they'd be worried about transmute miming the capacity of destruction. Because he just deliberately stripped himself of some interesting and perfectly excusable restraints and complications that help differentiate the two modifiers. Which Rev. Pee Kitty helped to illustrate.

Obviously he can wing it, or use other options, but the power modifier is an aid to GM option and justification in these scenarios. In fact, its perfect for unforeseen issues which this could have very well been.

The issue you raise is valid from a rules standpoint, of course, but personally the first question I'd have in a scenario where the wild version is used and the balance issue rears its head would be, 'why didn't the GM use power modifiers for things like Create?'

If they didn't, it seems the type of game where this quibble wouldn't be relevant. But who knows, I guess.

How can you equate not requiring a power modifier to not caring about (possibly) imbalanced costs?

No power modifier is not a sacrifice of flexibility. It's an equally valid option within the spectrum. I suppose it is a sacrifice of the GM's ability to diddle the PCs, but balance doesn't mean 'I have an excuse to quash you with a deus ex machina at whim', it means that your abilities cost what they're worth. The former can change the cost for the latter, but beyond that they don't have much in common.