Contagious Immunity

[Aldric]

Originally Posted by oneofmanynameless

I'm curious what the issues are with both of them. If you would be willing link to those discussions or paraphrase them for me.

Now, these are a few examples of the can of worms I was talking about, and this is before you try to decide how much damage, if any you suffer from brief contacts with an Area Effect.

And all that is not really relevant to this thread.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Varyon

The logical thought for "Aura plus Area Effect" is "Area Effect around me."

... which is fine until you look at "Melee" which doesn't allow for range. Really, it is a mess that should be clarified officially. I'd prefer that Aura was errata'ed that a variant of that enhancement was created to that was compatible with Area and Wall.

Powers describes this as a "Field" rather than a touch ability, so I'd go with Area + Emanation + Always On. Note that it only works once each time anyone enters the field, not every turn someone is inside the field.

[AlexanderHowl]

Not really, it is a design choice. Field attacks everyone when they first come into the area (Powers, p. 39) or everyone in the area every turn (Powers, p. 54).

[naloth]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Not really, it is a design choice. Field attacks everyone when they first come into the area (Powers, p. 39) or everyone in the area every turn (Powers, p. 54).

Possibly... also possibly how Fields work with Affliction vs how fields work with Innate Attack.

In any case, it's a muddy situation.

[oneofmanynameless]

Okay but like... it's an aura that persists on and around you and extends into the surrounding area. It's literally aura with reach, aura with area.

Emanation is a limitation because it removes your range. Aura is an enhancement because it provides a lot of benefits from persistence, to mobility, to defensive benefits when people try to tackle you, etc. This ability has all the benefits of Aura. Adding two limitations (emanation + always on) totaling -50% of limitations do not add up to a +80% enhancement (or +50% after you include melee: reach C, but see below).

Furthermore persistent doesn't get around this effect. For one, it's a smaller enhancement then Aura in the first place and it should be because it gives 10 seconds of in place persistence and does not make an ability that can be toggled on and off but while on can be left on indefinitely. Nor does it allow the field to move with you. Aura does do that, both of those things. That's it's point.

Aura fills reach C of you constantly (while on), hence it requires Melee: Reach C. Arguably an Aura that hits a larger area might get around the limitations of Melee: Reach C to some degree. I'd argue that's what you're paying Area of Effect for, but a GM could totally require Melee: Reach c-1, or c-2, or c-3, or c-4, etc based on how they want to define area of effects on a hexmap, if the GM feels that's fairer. OR they could just replace Melee: Reach C with Emanation for the aura because an aura with area of effect is more like an emanation than a melee attack with reach C in terms of the limitations involved... but Melee: Reach C and Emanation cost the same amount so who cares!?

Call it Affliction (Aura, Emanation, Area of Effect, other modifiers). And work out the questions of when it hits people and when it doesn't as per any persistent mobile area of effect affliction: check powers and make a judgement call as a GM.

And if you're not the GM then you probably need to get the GM to build this power... or any other power. Because building powers requires GM judgement calls constantly. About world state, about whats possible, about how what is possible should be done, about which rules should be used (does the GM feel swapping out melee: reach C is necessary? and if so should it be replaced with emanation or melee: with a reach? or which rules in powers should apply to this new ability about how it should hit an area? It practically doesn't matter what rules you pick as long as you're consistent about it for the whole game, thus it's a GM judgement call), etc

[naloth]

Originally Posted by oneofmanynameless

Okay but like... it's an aura that persists on and around you and extends into the surrounding area. It's literally aura with reach, aura with area.

Powers defines field effects differently than auras.

Fields are area + emanation. Auras are you touching or being touched. There isn't such a thing as "aura + area" until Auras of Power which have a combination of modifiers that aren't typically allowed (special case?) and behave a bit differently than fields as defined in Powers.

Emanation is a limitation because it removes your range. Aura is an enhancement because it provides a lot of benefits from persistence, to mobility, to defensive benefits when people try to tackle you, etc. This ability has all the benefits of Aura. Adding two limitations (emanation + always on) totaling -50% of limitations do not add up to a +80% enhancement (or +50% after you include melee: reach C, but see below).

You should include Always On as part of this analysis. It's a net drawback on an Area Emanation. Auras are much less of a problem as always on because you can often just slap on a pair of gloves or just avoid touching people you don't want affect to essentially ignore the limitation.

In any case, you can house rule it however you want but the rules (per Powers) seem to favor just leaving off Aura for this build.

[oneofmanynameless]

Originally Posted by naloth

You should include Always On as part of this analysis.

I did. Also, aura's of power are pretty darn close to this exact scenario. Plus, GURPS rules aren't like... legal precedents. Every supplement plays fast and loose with the strict rules and frequently does things like... noticing that an aura of power is best modeled by Aura + Area of Effect, which they previously said can't be combined. And that having an aura around you in an area that persists provides more advantages than it does drawbacks, even if it does provide drawbacks. Thus it's enhancement, even if it's always on. Actually it should actually have both and one of emanation or melee: reach c.

Affliction (Aura, Emanation, Always On, Area of Effect, other modifiers)

EDIT: also, Always On just makes an ability that is normally toggle-able always on and unable to be toggled off. It can only be applied to abilities that can normally be switched off and that it is inconvenient if you can't turn off. This does not include attacks and afflictions because they are not abilities you toggle on and off at all. They fire and are done. Emanation afflictions, even ones with persistent, are not toggle-able by default. So even if you want to be extremely precise about the rules, Always On is incompatible with an emanation affliction unless you include the Aura modifier which makes the affliction a toggle-able ability instead of an attack.

[AlexanderHowl]

Powers, p. 39 gives us an example of an Affliction with Emanation and Always On. Emanations are a special category discussed on Powers, p. 165) that can be turned on every turn with a Ready action.

[oneofmanynameless]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Powers, p. 39 gives us an example of an Affliction with Emanation and Always On. Emanations are a special category discussed on Powers, p. 165) that can be turned on every turn with a Ready action.

Alright. I've read that. I see where you're coming from. I get why that might have been written that way, however that has a lot more play problems then using Aura with Area of Effect. I still think that aura of power as a precedent is a far more usable and intuitive way of doing this that will encounter fewer issues in play. (The example in powers for an always on emanation only makes sense in a fairly static scenario and does not at all answer questions about how frequently that could affect someone. Does it affect them only once ever? If someone is constantly moving in and out of the area of effect [for example in combat] how often do they have to make the resistance roll? etc.)

[AlexanderHowl]

Once per turn, at least that is my take on it.