Are there any official rulings on Link and Follow-Up? + some Questions

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Yako

If I look at those rulings it seems though that it is in particular about follow ups on natural attacks, I mean, it gives leech as an example, stating that it would need a blood agent limitation instead of a follow up enhancement, right?

Leech can be Ranged, and it still won't be valid with Follow-Up by the RAW [RPK once suggested a Cosmic work-around for this]. The example should not be taken to mean that only those types of attacks are so limited. If that was what was meant, I'd expect it to just say so in the sentence before.

And even reading it like that, doesn't that make it even more strange that attacks which actually benefit from a follow up (possibly gaining ignores DR) are cheaper to link up than stuff which doesn't get any extra benefits from this kind of link?

Strange? I don't think so. Continuing to use Obscure: If it were possible to attach it as a Follow-Up to an IA, then you would have two effects going off with only one attack roll. If the IA hit, then you know that the Obscure is covering the target area. Why should you get that assurance at the price of Follow-Up instead of paying the Link premium?

[Yako]

Umh, no, follow up and Malediction explicitly cannot be combined, this is absolutely clear in basics, while I do think the passage in Powers, especially with the example given, sounds more like it wants to prevent you from using an enhancement instead of a limitation (it gives exactly this advice with leech).
And maledictionless Leech is not allowed either so...
Though I agree that some form of non maledictory ranged leech should be possible, given that certain abilities would demand it.

Well, so you do with another innate attack, or an affliction. Difference is, those attacks get a benefit from follow up which link does not provide, so, no one would link them. Link to obscure does not benefit the obscure any further than what the follow up does for free in it's worst case scenario.
Furthermore, and I think this you won't deny, obscure, a nonlethal attack by definition, looses any potential to be used without harming anyone.

Why is sthe cost and effect of combining two abilities into one so all over the place without any real guideline as to why to use which of them?
I have abilities which get a discount if they are connected, abilities which can be freely combined and finally those who cost extra to work simultanously.
You really think that makes much sense?

Also, does it say much in favour of link if there is apparently only ONE instance where it would be used?
Why treat blinding smoke which stays in place different from a blinding affliction?
I think it weird that affliction is free (and usually benefits the most from follow-up) and binding or obscure not.

I mean, what is the reasoning there?
Afflcition actually is a good case since it can easily model very similar effects to binding or obscure.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Yako

Though I agree that some form of non maledictory ranged leech should be possible, given that certain abilities would demand it.

You can take Weaponized on it.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Yako

Well, so you do with another innate attack, or an affliction. Difference is, those attacks get a benefit from follow up which link does not provide, so, no one would link them. Link to obscure does not benefit the obscure any further than what the follow up does for free in it's worst case scenario.
Furthermore, and I think this you won't deny, obscure, a nonlethal attack by definition, looses any potential to be used without harming anyone.

*shrug* If you really wanted to combine it with IA, presumably the question of lethality has already been resolved... I note that you could use a No Wounding attack.

I'm not sure I am understanding just what it is you don't like about the two modifiers. Perhaps explicit examples would illustrate better what you mean.

[Yako]

As I said, you can built very similar abilities, one which is allowed follow up, another which isn't.
Take a cold attack with either a follow up paralysis affliction or a linked binding.
Or a linked obscure (sight) versus a follow up blindness affliction.

I don't see why the one which gets the extra benefit of a rather good penetration modifier should be cheaper.

Again, follow-up IS the more beneficial option and it is cheaper...