[Powers] limited duration with short recharge

[Gnome]

I am trying to build an ability that gives the user an Extra Attack, but only for a limited amount of time (say ten seconds), after which it requires a "recharge" time of ten seconds before it can be used again.

I've looked at Limited Use, Maximum Duration and Takes Recharge, but they all seem semi-overlapping and hard to combine.
I think I basically want Maximum Duration but with a shorter recharge time, which would seem like an enhancement on the Maximum Duration limitation, but the value of that is hard to assess.

[AlexanderHowl]

Maximum Duration is really only appropriate for switchable and beneficial abilities that you would normally use indefinitely (Extra Attack does not really apply). Takes Recharge (-10%) would give a minute of use before requiring two minutes of recharge, so 10 seconds of use and 20 seconds of recharge may be an equivalent limitation, since it would have a 1:2 ratio of use:recharge. A 1:1 ratio of use:recharge would likely then only be worth only -5%.

[DangerousThing]

How many fights last more than 10 seconds?

[AlexanderHowl]

When you are talking about supers, the combination of high defenses and high damage reduction can cause fights to last for a while. I have seen fights last for over two minutes in game time (which ended up being over two hours in real time).

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by DangerousThing

How many fights last more than 10 seconds?

Not many. Ideally I would want to be able to choose duration and recharge time. With the 10s, it should last for one fight but not another if it comes on the heels of the first. But I might want to tweak it to 5/5 so it’s likely it runs out during a fight and might even come back if you can stall the fight a bit.

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Maximum Duration is really only appropriate for switchable and beneficial abilities that you would normally use indefinitely (Extra Attack does not really apply). Takes Recharge (-10%) would give a minute of use before requiring two minutes of recharge, so 10 seconds of use and 20 seconds of recharge may be an equivalent limitation, since it would have a 1:2 ratio of use:recharge. A 1:1 ratio of use:recharge would likely then only be worth only -5%.

I’m not really seeing how Max Duration doesn’t apply. The only canonical use I can think of is on ATR in DF11 (Uninterrupted Flurry). How is ATR different from EA with respect to duration?

[AlexanderHowl]

Originally Posted by Gnome

I’m not really seeing how Max Duration doesn’t apply. The only canonical use I can think of is on ATR in DF11 (Uninterrupted Flurry). How is ATR different from EA with respect to duration?

ATR makes it impossible to socially interact with people, or use Feint against people, who do not possess an equivalent ATR, meaning that you have to switch it off (beneficial and switchable, but problematic if always left on). Conversely, there are not associated problems with using Compartmentalized Mind or Extra Attack, so they are always on.

There is also that matter of game balance. There is no reason at all why people would not take Maximum Duration with Compartmentalized Mind or Extra Attack if it was an option. For example, imagine a superhero with Extra Attack 4 (Maximum Duration, 20 seconds, -75%; Multiattack, +20%; Single Skill, Karate, -20%) [25]. For 25 CP, they could make 100 attacks in 20 seconds, and parry 120 times, easily allowing them to take out an infantry company and defend against all their attacks.

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

ATR makes it impossible to socially interact with people, or use Feint against people, who do not possess an equivalent ATR, meaning that you have to switch it off (beneficial and switchable, but problematic if always left on). Conversely, there are not associated problems with using Compartmentalized Mind or Extra Attack, so they are always on.

There is also that matter of game balance. There is no reason at all why people would not take Maximum Duration with Compartmentalized Mind or Extra Attack if it was an option. For example, imagine a superhero with Extra Attack 4 (Maximum Duration, 20 seconds, -75%; Multiattack, +20%; Single Skill, Karate, -20%) [25]. For 25 CP, they could make 100 attacks in 20 seconds, and parry 120 times, easily allowing them to take out an infantry company and defend against all their attacks.

If the infantry company can stall a bit, perhaps by fleeing for 20s, the ability shuts off for 5 minutes. That seems significant. Also, doesn’t similar logic apply to ATR? CM and EA just seem like limited forms of ATR.

[AlexanderHowl]

No, CM and EA are not limited forms of ATR, because they do not cause difficulties with interactions. CM and EA can also represent being controlled by another party. In additiom, CM grants effective partial immunity to mental effects, as mental effects normally only target one mind at a time.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

ATR makes it impossible to socially interact with people, or use Feint against people, who do not possess an equivalent ATR, meaning that you have to switch it off (beneficial and switchable, but problematic if always left on).

That's not quite correct. The RAW says you can interact with people but you must "deliberately "slow down" and function at his speed". That's not the same as switching the power off.

Originally Posted by Plane

I'm approaching it like it's an ability which can be activated as a free action at the start of your turn and lasts one second.

That's not a correct approach. EA is always on even when you are choosing not to use it. If you have Acute Vision, it's not switched off just because you've closed your eyes. Likewise if you have Extra Attack, you still have it even if you're not attacking.

With ATR1 it feels like maybe even if they couldn't switch it off perhaps they could do some kind of IQ check to try and talk at half-speed to be understood?

The text specifically contemplates that the character can opt to go slower and it doesn't mention a need for a roll.

Alternatively: what if we just perceive it being inherently switchable as a free action?

That would be importing an interpretation that is neither correct nor necessary.