Link House Rule

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Ejidoth

True.

The problem is, Link is currently stupid to use if you can find any other way of doing the thing, because as I've said it's basically a 10% surcharge on making an ability complex, rather than really having anything to do with power level.

I want a version of Link that isn't stupid to use, because it's useful to model many things but every time I think about using it I'm thinking 'ugh, that's wasting points.'

Link is a powerboost (albeit with a potentially grave drawback) in many contexts. Linking an array of toggleable abilities, say. Possibly also linking a ranged attack to an emanation, or similar things? So Link has to cost appropriately for these.

I don't think I can come up with a circumstance when using it to stat out a complex single attack isn't going to hurt you, though. There should be a better way to stat an 'impact firebolt' that does both crushing and burning damage.

[Ejidoth]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Link is a powerboost (albeit with a potentially grave drawback) in many contexts. Linking an array of toggleable abilities, say. Possibly also linking a ranged attack to an emanation, or similar things? So Link has to cost appropriately for these.

I don't think I can come up with a circumstance when using it to stat out a complex single attack isn't going to hurt you, though. There should be a better way to stat an 'impact firebolt' that does both crushing and burning damage.

Most toggle-able things work better with Accessibilty: only when <other advantage> is also on, rather than Link, anyway. If you want a force field that only works when you're flying, you don't link the force field to flight, you take an accessibility on the forcefield.

(Edit note: though if you fly by shooting lasers from your hands, I suppose it would make sense to use link at +10%, fairly, to represent that you use your Air Move as part of your Attack action, rather than requiring a Move and Attack. Maybe. That's kind of an odd case.)

Forgetting this complicated some of my posts earlier in the thread. ^^;

In general, Link is almost universally used with active abilities that 'happen' when you use a single action, and 90% of the time Link is going to be used specifically for attacks.

[Dragyn]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I don't think I can come up with a circumstance when using it to stat out a complex single attack isn't going to hurt you, though. There should be a better way to stat an 'impact firebolt' that does both crushing and burning damage.

Is there any reason you can't just take a single innate attack that does 5d (burn cr) damage as 10 points per level for a base cost of 50 points and modify it from there? Like I said, I haven't done much with powers kind of things with 4e, and I don't have my book at the moment, but it seems reasonable.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Ejidoth

Most toggle-able things work better with Accessibilty: only when <other advantage> is also on, rather than Link, anyway. If you want a force field that only works when you're flying, you don't link the force field to flight, you take an accessibility on the forcefield.

Flight isn't normally switchable, it's always on, so that example doesn't make much sense...

ink isn't for building a for building a forcefield that only works when flying, anyway. That's an obvious case of accessibility. If, on the other hand, you were building a defense array that gives you a force field, Injury Tolerance, and ETS when activated you might want to Link it so that you can go shields up in one second rather than three.

You could build it with Switchable on one and Accessibility on the others, but then if you lose the trigger ability you can't use any of them.

Originally Posted by Ejidoth

In general, Link is almost universally used with active abilities that 'happen' when you use a single action, and 90% of the time Link is going to be used specifically for attacks.

It only has any effect on actions, but for anything switchable turning it on or off is an action.

And Citation Needed on the statistic.

Originally Posted by Fragwulf

Is there any reason you can't just take a single innate attack that does 5d (burn cr) damage as 10 points per level for a base cost of 50 points and modify it from there? Like I said, I haven't done much with powers kind of things with 4e, and I don't have my book at the moment, but it seems reasonable.

Stacking dice of different damage types together in a single IA sounds reasonable-ish to me. But I don't think it's anything like RAW.

[Tuoni]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Switchable Invisibility and Insubstantiality with Link, +10%: You can turn on both in just one second (good). You must switch on one to switch on the other (bad). If one is shut down, the other is fine – switching on both merely switches on the one that's still fine.

Alternatively, for 20 points less you can stick Accessiblity: Only while Insubstantial -10% on Invisibility. Is the ability to still go invisible if your insubstantial is disabled (insubstantial still works if invisible is disabled here) really worth 20 points?

Originally Posted by Fragwulf

In that example, you're paying that 5 points extra to make two attacks at the same time. If they also have the same "weapon stats" (1/2D, etc), then you only have to make one attack roll.

Much like a dual weapon attack vs a single target.

Your also paying 5 more points for doubling the basic DR of the opponent.

[Ejidoth]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Stacking dice of different damage types together in a single IA sounds reasonable-ish to me. But I don't think it's anything like RAW.

Rules go a little weird (not impossible to do, but weird) if you try to do that as one damage source, which is why RAW requires it to be Link or Follow-Up.

It's odd, though. You *can* do a 5d crushing attack with 5d burning follow-up, and it costs 50, and if the crushing penetrates the burning doesn't have to, but if the crushing fails to penetrate the burning does still apply. A link 5d crushing 5d burning costs 55 and doesn't have the penetration bonus. Odd, no?

[Ejidoth]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

If, on the other hand, you were building a defense array that gives you a force field, Injury Tolerance, and ETS when activated you might want to Link it so that you can go shields up in one second rather than three.

To me, it seems more like a 0-point feature rather than something that should cost 10% extra. Basically, you have two options:

1) You don't link them. You have to activate them one at a time, but you *can* choose not to activate some of them if you have reason (say, if your forcefield has a nuisance effect that it makes loud electrical noises and you don't want to draw attention, or whatever).

2) You link them. You can activate them all as one action, because they're all one (meta)-trait which you're spending an action to switch on. However, you can't activate only one or two of them, because there's 'really' only one trait there which just has the combined effect of multiple traits.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Ejidoth

Rules go a little weird (not impossible to do, but weird) if you try to do that as one damage source, which is why RAW requires it to be Link or Follow-Up.

Yep. Considering follow-up, perhaps 'independent penetration' ought to be a discount...but that'd be cheesy if you had penetration aid enhancements...

Originally Posted by Ejidoth

It's odd, though. You *can* do a 5d crushing attack with 5d burning follow-up, and it costs 50, and if the crushing penetrates the burning doesn't have to, but if the crushing fails to penetrate the burning does still apply. A link 5d crushing 5d burning costs 55 and doesn't have the penetration bonus. Odd, no?

It's odd because that's not a good way to use Link, and thus probably not what Link is balanced for. Whereas that's a perfectly reasonable way to use Follow-up.

[Dragyn]

Originally Posted by Tuoni

Your also paying 5 more points for doubling the basic DR of the opponent.

It's two seperate attacks, whether you're doing it in one round or two, therefore the DR applies to each attack regardless of whether it's linked or not.

[Dragyn]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Stacking dice of different damage types together in a single IA sounds reasonable-ish to me. But I don't think it's anything like RAW.

Actually, I seem to remember some Enhancement that allows an incindiary effect to be added to other attack-types for +25 or +30% or so. So at least for the 'Impact Firebolt', that seems to be cheaper.