Imbued with a Divine Aura...

[Regularguy]

Just got an unusual idea for a starting-at-first-level hero: let's say he's Imbued, and let's say it's the kind with no addiction, and let's say it's the kind that can be used as needed or desired by anyone.

And so he starts play Imbued with a Divine Aura -- which means he starts play with an awestruck devotee who'll believe whatever he says, regardless of contrary opinions or evidence, and will do anything asked without question or hesitation. I mean, he gets other stuff, too; maybe he gets to be a classic superhero with Invulnerability and Sonic Flight and X-Ray Vision, or maybe he can change the world with Transmutation and Mirror Mastery? Still, leave that for later; whatever else he's got, figure he lets his awestruck devotee benefit from the secret technique, and so his awestruck devotee gets a Divine Aura and -- an awestruck devotee.

And figure that awestruck devotee gets to benefit from the secret technique -- because, really, why wouldn't he? -- and so gets a Divine Aura and an awestruck devotee; and so on, and so on.

Again, maybe they're all bulletproof flying strongmen, or maybe they all make duplicates of themselves to transmute stuff -- but, regardless, the point is that he can get dozens of them, or hundreds, all cheerfully following orders while he's still just a first-level character, right?

[Stone Gargoyle]

As a GM, that sort of thing would not fly. Whatever the imbuing agent, it would be geared toward that character only and not be passed around like a party favor.

[Regularguy]

As a GM, that sort of thing would not fly. Whatever the imbuing agent, it would be geared toward that character only and not be passed around like a party favor.

But isn't that the whole point of the category?

I mean, yeah, there's the option where, like you just said, the imbuing agent only works on the hero; but then there's a second option, where it works on anyone of the hero's bloodline -- and then there's an option where it works on anyone who gets a version tailored to their body chemistry -- and then there's the option that takes it one step further: "Anyone and everyone."

Why declare that it'd be geared toward the PC only, if the category specifies that "geared toward that character only" is merely Option #1 alongside Option #2 and Option #3 and Option #4?

[Stone Gargoyle]

Why declare that it'd be geared toward the PC only, if the category specifies that "geared toward that character only" is merely Option #1 alongside Option #2 and Option #3 and Option #4?

To put limits on the way certain powers can be abused. As a GM, certain categories have limits put on them in my games.

[Regularguy]

Would you likewise stop a PC from passing an Enchanted Object around, or would you go by the rules as written for that category?

[eliakon]

Yes, in theory you could break the system and abuse the power category.
If the GM is willing to allow it.
That however is why you have a GM.
The GM has this amazing power. it is called the power of "NO".
The power of NO is there to tell people "nice idea, you get the cleaver idea XP, but I am not letting you break the game world with the twink de jour"

As to the "but the rules say"... that is what is known as "Rules Lawyering" and is pretty much not tolerated by any GM I have ever met. Ever.

[Regularguy]

Yes, in theory you could break the system and abuse the power category.
If the GM is willing to allow it.
That however is why you have a GM.
The GM has this amazing power. it is called the power of "NO".
The power of NO is there to tell people "nice idea, you get the cleaver idea XP, but I am not letting you break the game world with the twink de jour"

Well, look, it seems to me there could be drawbacks as well. If, for example, your powered-up devotee dies, then what happens to his powered-up devotee? There would, arguably, no longer be someone he obeys without question -- and so he'd suddenly be able to use his powers however he pleases; and he'd still have a super-powered devotee of his own, (a) obeying him without question but (b) not listening to you.

So, yeah, a plan to break the game world would work great as long as nobody gets killed -- but as soon as that happens, things could get weird fast. And so you'd have to be smart about it: weighing risks and benefits, planning for the worst while struggling to manage trouble such that it's those closest to the end of the chain of command who get put in danger. It'd be interesting, and could still backfire, is my point.

As to the "but the rules say"... that is what is known as "Rules Lawyering" and is pretty much not tolerated by any GM I have ever met. Ever.

Fair enough, but you regularly let "the rules say" stuff when it's not too broken, right? So if there is a potential problem with this approach -- if a guy who imbues a guy who imbues a guy thereby risks Guy #3 becoming an evenly-matched archenemy -- is that enough to reassure you that this is one of the many situations where the rules can simply apply, instead of one of the few situations where you should discard them?

[Stone Gargoyle]

Would you likewise stop a PC from passing an Enchanted Object around, or would you go by the rules as written for that category?

I really don't know, as it's never come up. My point is simply that certain things get abused very easily and it is the role of the GM to set limits regardless of what is in the books.

[LeeNapier]

1) Devotees don't appear out of thin air, and would still be subject to the duration of the imbuing agent. And unless I'm wrong, once the imbuing agent wears off, so does their devotion.

2) If I were to let this happen in my game, as a GM, it would only be so that I could then attack and mind-control or possess that character and turn HIS army of fanatical devotees into MY army of fanatical devotees, to use against the group.

[Regularguy]

1) Devotees don't appear out of thin air, and would still be subject to the duration of the imbuing agent. And unless I'm wrong, once the imbuing agent wears off, so does their devotion.

Fair enough, but that's why I mentioned the kind of imbuing agent that can be used as needed or desired: if it's the kind that can only be used once per day and wears off in a single-digit number of hours, then, sure, the plan has a huge built-in flaw; but if you can time it carefully, and swiftly re-up each time it runs out, then I figure it could work.

2) If I were to let this happen in my game, as a GM, it would only be so that I could then attack and mind-control or possess that character and turn HIS army of fanatical devotees into MY army of fanatical devotees, to use against the group.

Well, sure. But, in a sense, doesn't a guy with a Divine Aura already get a dozen-plus fanatical devotees at higher levels? Figure you could already possess the PC and command all the guys that he's been equipping with futuristic gear or hitting with Grant Powers or whatever.

[eliakon]

There is also the fact that as soon as you activate the power you pretty likely to have your ME or MA go over 8 are no longer qualified to be a Follower...

I would also question if it is possible for a person to have both a full Power Category (which teaching them the Imbuing Agent automatically does)

Third, I would honestly question if you even GET Followers...
...since you are only "divine" for a limited amount of time unlike the normal which would make it difficult to keep and impress a person.
If I were the GM, I would basically have it so that when out and about "powered up" you would get your groupies... but they would be what ever weak willed individuals were around at the time and not necessarily the same people every time.

[Regularguy]

I would honestly question if you even GET Followers...
...since you are only "divine" for a limited amount of time unlike the normal which would make it difficult to keep and impress a person.
If I were the GM, I would basically have it so that when out and about "powered up" you would get your groupies... but they would be what ever weak willed individuals were around at the time and not necessarily the same people every time.

Presumably, that could still be gotten around with some planning -- maybe you make a point of always retiring to your HQ with your current groupies, and only your current groupies, before the power wears off, so they're the only individuals around when you power back up? -- but I'm curious: would you apply that switcheroo to all the other Divine Aura types who lose their signature power? Enchanted Object guy who only has the power when his eyes are glowing? Mystic Bestowed guy who only has the power in his 'super' form? Experiment guy who only has the power when he's transformed? Empowered guy who only has the power when he's a demigod? Do you figure they'd all get an ever-rotating retinue?

(How about a guy who gets hit with Negate Super Abilities each evening?)

[eliakon]

I would honestly question if you even GET Followers...
...since you are only "divine" for a limited amount of time unlike the normal which would make it difficult to keep and impress a person.
If I were the GM, I would basically have it so that when out and about "powered up" you would get your groupies... but they would be what ever weak willed individuals were around at the time and not necessarily the same people every time.

Presumably, that could still be gotten around with some planning -- maybe you make a point of always retiring to your HQ with your current groupies, and only your current groupies, before the power wears off, so they're the only individuals around when you power back up? -- but I'm curious: would you apply that switcheroo to all the other Divine Aura types who lose their signature power? Enchanted Object guy who only has the power when his eyes are glowing? Mystic Bestowed guy who only has the power in his 'super' form? Experiment guy who only has the power when he's transformed? Empowered guy who only has the power when he's a demigod? Do you figure they'd all get an ever-rotating retinue?

Absolutely. They too would not get a stable set of followers, unless as you said, they took specific pains to do so above and beyond simply having the power. They all have the same identical situation. Specifically they only have their divine aura for highly limited periods of time and that the rest of the time they are not super charismatic and thus the followers stop being fanatically interested in them.
If you want to use the power as a stepping stone to recruit minions though? Have at it, that is what roleplaying is all about.

(How about a guy who gets hit with Negate Super Abilities each evening?)

Now this? This is a good example of reductio ad absurdum.
Aka it is a hypothetical edge case that could only exist in a specific unique situation that basically exists to try "prove" a logical argument false. As there is no rational way that that could ever come up in any game what so ever with out it being explicitly and specifically being done by the GM on purpose...
...then the GM would, obviously, be doing something very specific and deliberate in that case and the answer would there for, intrinsically be "What ever the answer is that is part of this unique situation that you have created for this specific scenario and/ or game."

[Stone Gargoyle]

I'm just trying to wrap my head around this whole thing. If you have characters who have been controlled by Divine Aura, wouldn't they leave once the control over them left? Why would they hang around if they know they've been controlled? Wouldn't they be angry about it? Then you give them the power to do it to someone else? Imbuing agents only last a limited time. Plus if they are doing it to other people, wouldn't they know it was the imbuing agent causing it? Why would they not leave the first chance they got?

[Regularguy]

Now this? This is a good example of reductio ad absurdum.
Aka it is a hypothetical edge case that could only exist in a specific unique situation that basically exists to try "prove" a logical argument false. As there is no rational way that that could ever come up in any game what so ever with out it being explicitly and specifically being done by the GM on purpose...
...then the GM would, obviously, be doing something very specific and deliberate in that case and the answer would there for, intrinsically be "What ever the answer is that is part of this unique situation that you have created for this specific scenario and/ or game."

Not necessarily; it could be a campaign with two PCs, where one has Divine Aura and the other has Negate Super Abilities, and the former shuts down the latter's powers without the GM planning it or even expecting it.

[Regularguy]

I'm just trying to wrap my head around this whole thing. If you have characters who have been controlled by Divine Aura, wouldn't they leave once the control over them left? Why would they hang around if they know they've been controlled? Wouldn't they be angry about it? Then you give them the power to do it to someone else? Imbuing agents only last a limited time.

Yeah, but, again, while some imbuing agents can't be used again until hours and hours and hours have gone by, some imbuing agents can be used again as soon as they've run their course.

Plus if they are doing it to other people, wouldn't they know it was the imbuing agent causing it? Why would they not leave the first chance they got?

They not only do whatever is asked, without question or hesitation; they believe whatever he says, regardless of contrary evidence. It's a weirdly specific power.

[eliakon]

Now this? This is a good example of reductio ad absurdum.
Aka it is a hypothetical edge case that could only exist in a specific unique situation that basically exists to try "prove" a logical argument false. As there is no rational way that that could ever come up in any game what so ever with out it being explicitly and specifically being done by the GM on purpose...
...then the GM would, obviously, be doing something very specific and deliberate in that case and the answer would there for, intrinsically be "What ever the answer is that is part of this unique situation that you have created for this specific scenario and/ or game."

Not necessarily; it could be a campaign with two PCs, where one has Divine Aura and the other has Negate Super Abilities, and the former shuts down the latter's powers without the GM planning it or even expecting it.

Again, like I said
Reductio ad absurdum.
It is an edge case with so many caveats that it is... well absurd.
A super contrived PvP situation is, again pretty contrived.
BUT in that case... I would say that yep, sucks to be god-guy because your minions are going to wake up, figure out what is going on and leave...
...but that is what you get in PvP so no shock there.

[Regularguy]

Again, like I said
Reductio ad absurdum.
It is an edge case with so many caveats that it is... well absurd.
A super contrived PvP situation is, again pretty contrived.
BUT in that case... I would say that yep, sucks to be god-guy because your minions are going to wake up, figure out what is going on and leave...
...but that is what you get in PvP so no shock there.

Does it ever occur to you to ask questions instead of just making claims?

Why do you simply assume it's a PvP situation? Maybe the Divine Aura guy has a second power that can be a bit of a hindrance -- possibly making it difficult to 'pass' as a secret-identity normal -- and also has a cooperative teammate with Negate Super Abilities who routinely helps him out.

(Heck, given your unusual idea that the followers "would be what ever weak willed individuals were around at the time" during each power-up, maybe a guy with Divine Aura could build plans around voluntarily having his power negated until the only weak-willed individuals around are the freshly-captured henchmen of the villain du jour. Who knows?)

[eliakon]

Again, like I said
Reductio ad absurdum.
It is an edge case with so many caveats that it is... well absurd.
A super contrived PvP situation is, again pretty contrived.
BUT in that case... I would say that yep, sucks to be god-guy because your minions are going to wake up, figure out what is going on and leave...
...but that is what you get in PvP so no shock there.

Does it ever occur to you to ask questions instead of just making claims?

Flip that around and ask if it occurs to you to actually provide facts rather than try to offer trick questions?
Or does that not seem polite?
After all, you have provided no information and thus we are forced to speculate on what we have and the norms of a game.

Why do you simply assume it's a PvP situation? Maybe the Divine Aura guy has a second power that can be a bit of a hindrance -- possibly making it difficult to 'pass' as a secret-identity normal -- and also has a cooperative teammate with Negate Super Abilities who routinely helps him out.

(Heck, given your unusual idea that the followers "would be what ever weak willed individuals were around at the time" during each power-up, maybe a guy with Divine Aura could build plans around voluntarily having his power negated until the only weak-willed individuals around are the freshly-captured henchmen of the villain du jour. Who knows?)

I assumed that because it is one player negating another player every day?
That would (as far as I can tell) be either:
1) PvP
or
2) Again a unique, campaign specific edge case
or
3) Munchkins trying to game the system to get a specific super power but not have to suffer the drawbacks of it.

This Combined with
4) The fact that, canonically, there are no super powers that Negate Super Ability can neutralize that "can be a bit of a hindrance" unless you are back to trying to deal with the minion issue (bringing us back to the edge case issue) or trying to munchkin the system (in which case the GM hauls out Da Hammer)

Thus
1) PvP in which case its the players problem, not mine
2) a campaign issue, in which case I already know what I am doing before hand
3) Trying to get around the limitations of one of the few other powers, In which case I would say that stripping a munchkin of their minions is basically a Platonic Good.

I am really hard pressed to think of a case 4

[Regularguy]

Again, like I said
Reductio ad absurdum.
It is an edge case with so many caveats that it is... well absurd.
A super contrived PvP situation is, again pretty contrived.
BUT in that case... I would say that yep, sucks to be god-guy because your minions are going to wake up, figure out what is going on and leave...
...but that is what you get in PvP so no shock there.

Does it ever occur to you to ask questions instead of just making claims?

Flip that around and ask if it occurs to you to actually provide facts rather than try to offer trick questions?
Or does that not seem polite?
After all, you have provided no information and thus we are forced to speculate on what we have and the norms of a game.

But you're not! No one is forcing you to speculate!

I asked whether you'd rule the same way if someone routinely switched off his Divine Aura -- either due to being Mystic Bestowed, or being an Experiment, or whatever -- and your flat answer was simple, with no speculation: "Absolutely." You then got to the part about someone who gets his powers negated, and -- for some reason insisted that "there is no rational way that that could ever come up in any game what so ever with out it being explicitly and specifically done by the GM on purpose".

I mention that one PC could do it to another -- and you immediately reply that "super contrived PvP situation is super contrived."

I mention that it doesn't have to be a PvP situation, and you -- reply that you're forced to speculate? You're not forced to speculate! You could've simply responded as you did before: "Absolutely." Or you could've asked: 'Why would one PC do that to the other?'

This Combined with
4) The fact that, canonically, there are no super powers that Negate Super Ability can neutralize that "can be a bit of a hindrance" unless you are back to trying to deal with the minion issue (bringing us back to the edge case issue) or trying to munchkin the system (in which case the GM hauls out Da Hammer)

Well, look, if you're negating a power because it "can be a bit of a hindrance", then, yes, you could obviously describe that as "trying to munchkin the system" -- since you'd be trying to offset that hindrance. Heck, every time you use any Power A to mitigate some drawback of Power B, you can describe it as "trying to munchkin the system".

You can, if you want, effectively define one in terms of the other.

But why do that?

[Stone Gargoyle]

I'm just trying to wrap my head around this whole thing. If you have characters who have been controlled by Divine Aura, wouldn't they leave once the control over them left? Why would they hang around if they know they've been controlled? Wouldn't they be angry about it? Then you give them the power to do it to someone else? Imbuing agents only last a limited time.

Yeah, but, again, while some imbuing agents can't be used again until hours and hours and hours have gone by, some imbuing agents can be used again as soon as they've run their courses.

So under very specific conditions, ones that likely would not happen in a game, this result might be allowed to happen if the GM was very lenient. Sounds like a very hypothetical situation that you think might actually work but probably wouldn't.

They not only do whatever is asked, without question or hesitation; they believe whatever he says, regardless of contrary evidence. It's a weirdly specific power.

Unless they also had the power. Most times if two characters have the same power I would say they are immune to people using it on them. But that is just me.

[eliakon]

Again, like I said
Reductio ad absurdum.
It is an edge case with so many caveats that it is... well absurd.
A super contrived PvP situation is, again pretty contrived.
BUT in that case... I would say that yep, sucks to be god-guy because your minions are going to wake up, figure out what is going on and leave...
...but that is what you get in PvP so no shock there.

Does it ever occur to you to ask questions instead of just making claims?

Flip that around and ask if it occurs to you to actually provide facts rather than try to offer trick questions?
Or does that not seem polite?
After all, you have provided no information and thus we are forced to speculate on what we have and the norms of a game.

But you're not! No one is forcing you to speculate!

I asked whether you'd rule the same way if someone routinely switched off his Divine Aura -- either due to being Mystic Bestowed, or being an Experiment, or whatever -- and your flat answer was simple, with no speculation: "Absolutely." You then got to the part about someone who gets his powers negated, and -- for some reason insisted that "there is no rational way that that could ever come up in any game what so ever with out it being explicitly and specifically done by the GM on purpose".

I mention that one PC could do it to another -- and you immediately reply that "super contrived PvP situation is super contrived."

I mention that it doesn't have to be a PvP situation, and you -- reply that you're forced to speculate? You're not forced to speculate! You could've simply responded as you did before: "Absolutely." Or you could've asked: 'Why would one PC do that to the other?'

The reason I answered the way I did was because it looked like you were attempting to make a trick question.
And that was because the first situations were all examples that all come up in play all the time. The last one? It was, exactly like I said, an exotic case that requires a nigh unique combination of events...
...that sounds like the definition of "edge case" to me. And frankly when someone who is trying to defend their stance that a power stunt is fine, after having every book example of it shot down pulls out a highly contrived, carefully worded and only partially explained edge case? Yeah that looks like, walks like, and quacks like a trick question.
So it gets the highly technical answer.

This Combined with
4) The fact that, canonically, there are no super powers that Negate Super Ability can neutralize that "can be a bit of a hindrance" unless you are back to trying to deal with the minion issue (bringing us back to the edge case issue) or trying to munchkin the system (in which case the GM hauls out Da Hammer)

Well, look, if you're negating a power because it "can be a bit of a hindrance", then, yes, you could obviously describe that as "trying to munchkin the system" -- since you'd be trying to offset that hindrance. Heck, every time you use any Power A to mitigate some drawback of Power B, you can describe it as "trying to munchkin the system".

You can, if you want, effectively define one in terms of the other.

But why do that?

Because they are not trying to just 'live with the power'
They are trying to get all the benefits of player A having the powers AND not pay the price of the power at all.
That is gaming the system and is one of the major warning signs of munchkinisim.
Especially when the trick requires not one person selecting their own powers in a way that they get the powers they want, and then they select another power to negate some drawbacks... no in this case they take the powers that are useful and then a totally different person comes along and provides the mitigation of the drawbacks. That is why I called it trying to munchkin the system. Because at that point it walks, talks, and quacks like a munchkin and I would need a very good explanation of why this abusive combination should be allowed and why I should not be reaching for the Munch-Bat.
This gets REALLY abusive if "Player B" turns out to be a convenient minion that the player has arranged to be a 'convenience switch' for his powers drawbacks.
Now, I might allow this in a game. But I would need a really really good explanation of why I should allow it because as presented it smacks of attempting to have ones cake and eat it too. And unless your game is about that sort of thing...
...preventing that sort of abuse is one of the GMs jobs.

[Regularguy]

The reason I answered the way I did was because it looked like you were attempting to make a trick question.

Well, that's -- nuts?

Obviously I disagree with you about whether this should be allowed -- I don't override the rules as written so breezily -- but if I did have your willingness to ban possibility after possibility after possibility after possibility with a breezy "Absolutely", then I wouldn't suddenly wonder whether the fifth one was a trick question; I'd just say "Absolutely".

Second, I'm not sure you know what a trick question is:

And that was because the first situations were all examples that all come up in play all the time. The last one? It was, exactly like I said, an exotic case that requires a nigh unique combination of events...
...that sounds like the definition of "edge case" to me. And frankly when someone who is trying to defend their stance that a power stunt is fine, after having every book example of it shot down pulls out a highly contrived, carefully worded and only partially explained edge case? Yeah that looks like, walks like, and quacks like a trick question.

Why the heck do you think that's a trick question? Why would something being an edge case automatically make it a trick question? If someone asks a general question while secretly keeping an edge case in mind, then, yeah, that could maybe qualify -- but I'd already said "Negate Super Abilities". You'd already tossed aside the rules-as-written with a quick "Absolutely" in general before addressing negation. It's too late for it to be a trick at that point; you already know it's negation, you can already toss another "Absolutely" out there.

So it gets the highly technical answer.

How was it a highly technical answer? First you incorrectly assumed it'd be the GM doing it -- and then, when I noted that another PC could be doing it, you incorrectly assumed it'd be a PvP scenario. Do you think "highly technical" means "makes incorrect assumptions"?

Because they are not trying to just 'live with the power'
They are trying to get all the benefits of player A having the powers AND not pay the price of the power at all.
That is gaming the system and is one of the major warning signs of munchkinisim.
Especially when the trick requires not one person selecting their own powers in a way that they get the powers they want, and then they select another power to negate some drawbacks... no in this case they take the powers that are useful and then a totally different person comes along and provides the mitigation of the drawbacks. That is why I called it trying to munchkin the system. Because at that point it walks, talks, and quacks like a munchkin and I would need a very good explanation of why this abusive combination should be allowed and why I should not be reaching for the Munch-Bat.

See, I'm the other way around: I need a very good explanation of why something shouldn't be allowed. I look at planning and teamwork and problem-solving and think, "hey, if it's by-the-book legal, then I'd have to hear a really terrific reason to ban it."

Now, I might allow this in a game. But I would need a really really good explanation of why I should allow it because as presented it smacks of attempting to have ones cake and eat it too. And unless your game is about that sort of thing...
...preventing that sort of abuse is one of the GMs jobs.

Since your way of thinking is so alien to mine, I'd genuinely appreciate hearing a few other examples of book-legal stuff that you'd figure is have-cake-and-eat-it-too abuse that you'd have the job of preventing.

[Stone Gargoyle]

It's not a question of expanding the limits of the power slightly with your interpretation. What you have described could be used to make literally hundreds of followers under the control of your starting character. That is game breaking. When I tell someone to roll up a character, this is not what I expect them to do. You've literally allowed the character to have his own army at level one. Divine Aura has limits which are in place for a reason. Trying to get around them flies in the face of that reason.

[Regularguy]

It's not a question of expanding the limits of the power slightly with your interpretation. What you have described could be used to make literally hundreds of followers under the control of your starting character. That is game breaking. When I tell someone to roll up a character, this is not what I expect them to do. You've literally allowed the character to have his own army at level one.

Heh. You're maybe going to hate the other idea I've been mulling: a guy who starts play with Karmic Power from his imbuing agent, and -- shares that technique with the globe on Day One of his career as a superhero.

So from that day on, however many people on the planet are (a) good, like the hero is; and (b) want super powers, like the hero has? Maybe it's thousands of people, maybe it's millions of people? If they want to be on Team Hero, complete with whatever else gets included in that package deal -- extraordinary intelligence? An immunity to disease? -- they can gain the power to champion benevolence!

(All over the world! It's the dawning of a whole new age!)

[Stone Gargoyle]

No sir, don't like it.

[eliakon]

It's not a question of expanding the limits of the power slightly with your interpretation. What you have described could be used to make literally hundreds of followers under the control of your starting character. That is game breaking. When I tell someone to roll up a character, this is not what I expect them to do. You've literally allowed the character to have his own army at level one.

Heh. You're maybe going to hate the other idea I've been mulling: a guy who starts play with Karmic Power from his imbuing agent, and -- shares that technique with the globe on Day One of his career as a superhero.

So from that day on, however many people on the planet are (a) good, like the hero is; and (b) want super powers, like the hero has? Maybe it's thousands of people, maybe it's millions of people? If they want to be on Team Hero, complete with whatever else gets included in that package deal -- extraordinary intelligence? An immunity to disease? -- they can gain the power to champion benevolence!

(All over the world! It's the dawning of a whole new age!)

This is one of the reasons why I don't let PCs have the option of "Anyone can use this" imbuing agents.
Exactly to prevent munchkin shenanigans like this or the ever popular "we all make them, and then swap recipes so we can all have all the powah!"

My attitude to this sort of thing is that if the GM is doing it as a plot hook... then sure.
If a PC is doing it to break the game? They can go play at a different table I don't need griefers at mine.

[eliakon]

The reason I answered the way I did was because it looked like you were attempting to make a trick question.

Well, that's -- nuts?

Obviously I disagree with you about whether this should be allowed -- I don't override the rules as written so breezily -- but if I did have your willingness to ban possibility after possibility after possibility after possibility with a breezy "Absolutely", then I wouldn't suddenly wonder whether the fifth one was a trick question; I'd just say "Absolutely".

Second, I'm not sure you know what a trick question is:

Yes, I am quite aware of what a trick question is.
It is setting up a question so that you can get an answer that you can then turn around and make to support a stance other than the one the speaker intended.

And that was because the first situations were all examples that all come up in play all the time. The last one? It was, exactly like I said, an exotic case that requires a nigh unique combination of events...
...that sounds like the definition of "edge case" to me. And frankly when someone who is trying to defend their stance that a power stunt is fine, after having every book example of it shot down pulls out a highly contrived, carefully worded and only partially explained edge case? Yeah that looks like, walks like, and quacks like a trick question.

Why the heck do you think that's a trick question? Why would something being an edge case automatically make it a trick question? If someone asks a general question while secretly keeping an edge case in mind, then, yeah, that could maybe qualify -- but I'd already said "Negate Super Abilities". You'd already tossed aside the rules-as-written with a quick "Absolutely" in general before addressing negation. It's too late for it to be a trick at that point; you already know it's negation, you can already toss another "Absolutely" out there.

I could have sure.
But I qualified it, because as I said, it smacked of a trick question and I have decades of experience telling me that when someone is trying to justify a munchkin concept and they make a few obvious examples and then suddenly make a highly abstract, highly qualified, and obscure example...
...that there is a trick hidden in there.
As I don't have time to sit down and play semantics games with every potential trick question that might come up, I tend to be proactive and make it clear in advance that I am making a ruling on that one, unique situation and that I am leery that it is a trick.

So it gets the highly technical answer.

How was it a highly technical answer? First you incorrectly assumed it'd be the GM doing it -- and then, when I noted that another PC could be doing it, you incorrectly assumed it'd be a PvP scenario. Do you think "highly technical" means "makes incorrect assumptions"?

It was highly technical because it was qualified.
I assumed it was the GM doing it because the idea that one PC would let another PC turn off his characters powers, every night, willingly, for any reason other than pure munchkinism is not something that I find believable.

Because they are not trying to just 'live with the power'
They are trying to get all the benefits of player A having the powers AND not pay the price of the power at all.
That is gaming the system and is one of the major warning signs of munchkinisim.
Especially when the trick requires not one person selecting their own powers in a way that they get the powers they want, and then they select another power to negate some drawbacks... no in this case they take the powers that are useful and then a totally different person comes along and provides the mitigation of the drawbacks. That is why I called it trying to munchkin the system. Because at that point it walks, talks, and quacks like a munchkin and I would need a very good explanation of why this abusive combination should be allowed and why I should not be reaching for the Munch-Bat.

See, I'm the other way around: I need a very good explanation of why something shouldn't be allowed. I look at planning and teamwork and problem-solving and think, "hey, if it's by-the-book legal, then I'd have to hear a really terrific reason to ban it."

I have better things to do than run games for rules lawyers.
Brian is amusing in the Knights of the Dinner Table comic. He is not amusing at my table.
I know how easy it is to rules lawyer the rules 'as written' to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate the game to the whims of the munckin rules lawyer.
When I game I have two goals
1) I want my players to all have fun
2) I want to have fun (I will waive this rule for situations where I am acting as a professional GM, such as in my Unit, at Collages, Conventions, or being paid/compensated. Otherwise its a fun hobby not my job)

I have yet to be in a game with a rules lawyer where either goal was ever accomplished.

Now, I might allow this in a game. But I would need a really really good explanation of why I should allow it because as presented it smacks of attempting to have ones cake and eat it too. And unless your game is about that sort of thing...
...preventing that sort of abuse is one of the GMs jobs.

Since your way of thinking is so alien to mine, I'd genuinely appreciate hearing a few other examples of book-legal stuff that you'd figure is have-cake-and-eat-it-too abuse that you'd have the job of preventing.

Off the top of my head?

The Mega-Hero who tried to make an undead that had a vulnerability to silver...
...and then take Metal Manipulation to be immune to all metal.

Or combining a weakness to fire with immunity to fire.

Or a weakness to magic with immunity to magic

Or immunity to psionics and immunity to magic on a character who, as a spirt, is only vulnerable to psychic and magic attacks...

Or the character who wants to take "Cool power X that is sooo cool it comes with a built in limitation Y to make it reasonable in game"...
...and since they don't want to be limited by that limitation and want moar poawah! just take something that allows them to circumvent the limitation so that they can have all the power but not pay the price that everyone else has to pay for it.

Or the Character who makes an empowered who can teach anyone the trick...
...teaches the entire party how to do it, and then gets their character killed/arrested/whatever so they get a new character...
...who can join the group of now mega-heroes, learn the trick and have all their powers plus the empowered. (wash, rinse and repeat!)

Or the person who wants to play a Scarecrow/Burster

Or the Faustian/Phase Mystic

Or...

I could go on, and on. The munckins can, and do, all the time.
I don't see a reason to cater to them. I spent my first decade as a GM learning that I had the ability to tell the munchkins and rules lawyers "no"
That doesn't mean I have to be a control freak, nor that I don't reward creativity.
But I don't have to idly sit by one player breaks the game for the rest of the group.
Now, if the entire group wants to play a no-holds-bared high powered game? Oh yeah, Bring It On.
Every so often I do run that sort of game. And in those games I am perfectly fine with anything that is rules legal (and I often have fairly liberal definitions of 'legal').
But unless its a group decision then no.
The best example I can give is one of the regulars here by the name of 13eowulf has made a character called "Noah".
Noah is, technically, rules legal (for a certain value of the word 'legal')
They just have a convoluted backstory... that allows them to take advantage of every perk, gimmie, loophole and exploit in the system.
The resulting character is, at level one, more or less omnipotent.
I am considering having the character printed out, perfect bound (the character sheet is several dozen pages in length... and growing) and having it handy to show to the rules lawyers as an example of "rules legal" does not mean "Good idea"

[Stone Gargoyle]

What it comes down to is that a character so obviously overpowered at level one would never be allowed in most games. Try to justify it all you like, the character is a munchkin gamer's creation, making you a munchkin gamer for even suggesting it. As Eliakon has pointed out, there are many ways to try and create what is basically a cheat character.

[13eowulf]

Wait, I can just add a whole bunch of imbuing agents to Noah? Sweet, 15 minors and 11 majors wasnt enough anyways!

[Regularguy]

Yes, I am quite aware of what a trick question is.
It is setting up a question so that you can get an answer that you can then turn around and make to support a stance other than the one the speaker intended.

But how is that relevant, here?

I asked you about a guy who gets his Divine Aura negated every evening. As far as I can tell, your answer to that would've been "Absolutely", just like it was to the other ones. If you'd said "Absolutely" one more time, I would've -- what? Where's the new stance? What's the trick? I'd have just shrugged at you doing the "Absolutely" thing one more time, is all.

I could have sure.
But I qualified it, because as I said, it smacked of a trick question and I have decades of experience telling me that when someone is trying to justify a munchkin concept and they make a few obvious examples and then suddenly make a highly abstract, highly qualified, and obscure example...
...that there is a trick hidden in there.
As I don't have time to sit down and play semantics games with every potential trick question that might come up, I tend to be proactive and make it clear in advance that I am making a ruling on that one, unique situation and that I am leery that it is a trick.

Well, you were -- wrong, I guess? Those decades of experience seem to have simply pointed you in the wrong direction, is all.

I assumed it was the GM doing it because the idea that one PC would let another PC turn off his characters powers, every night, willingly, for any reason other than pure munchkinism is not something that I find believable.

::shrugs:: So ask, instead of assuming.

I have better things to do than run games for rules lawyers.
Brian is amusing in the Knights of the Dinner Table comic. He is not amusing at my table.
I know how easy it is to rules lawyer the rules 'as written' to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate the game to the whims of the munckin rules lawyer.
When I game I have two goals
1) I want my players to all have fun
2) I want to have fun (I will waive this rule for situations where I am acting as a professional GM, such as in my Unit, at Collages, Conventions, or being paid/compensated. Otherwise its a fun hobby not my job)

I have yet to be in a game with a rules lawyer where either goal was ever accomplished.

See, with your approach, I can't help but wonder how little fun it'd be to always have to guess what you're going to call 'rules lawyering' next. What was that line you used? ''As to the "but the rules say"... That is what is known as "Rules Lawyering" and is pretty much not tolerated by any GM I have ever met. Ever.'

So if I were playing a hero with Invulnerability in your campaign, and you ruled that mundane crooks had just now injured my character with conventional firearms -- what? If I blurt out a "but the rules say," your comeback would be obvious. If my character went to lift a car off some innocent trapped beneath it, only for you to rule that, no, his strength doesn't count as superhuman for such purposes -- what? I'd sputter something about "but the rules say," and you'd again tut-tut about how that's known as rules lawyering?

Or would I at least start play knowing whether the character I'd built works according to the HU rules or according to how you feel the rules should've been written?

Or the character who wants to take "Cool power X that is sooo cool it comes with a built in limitation Y to make it reasonable in game"...
...and since they don't want to be limited by that limitation and want moar poawah! just take something that allows them to circumvent the limitation so that they can have all the power but not pay the price that everyone else has to pay for it.

Huh. Well, I appreciate that answer -- and the others -- but it still strikes me as kind of weird that you'd said it was especially a warning sign of munchkinism if a second character is mitigating the drawbacks. (I mean, if you already figure that one guy taking a power to circumvent some limitation is an example of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too abuse that it's your job to prevent, then what difference does it make that a teammate is supplying the synergy?)

[eliakon]

Yes, I am quite aware of what a trick question is.
It is setting up a question so that you can get an answer that you can then turn around and make to support a stance other than the one the speaker intended.

But how is that relevant, here?

Ummmm because you just said that you didn't think I knew what it was?

I asked you about a guy who gets his Divine Aura negated every evening. As far as I can tell, your answer to that would've been "Absolutely", just like it was to the other ones. If you'd said "Absolutely" one more time, I would've -- what? Where's the new stance? What's the trick? I'd have just shrugged at you doing the "Absolutely" thing one more time, is all.

I just explained why. In fact the next section here has my explaination in it...
...which is, I think, a pretty good reason to assume that I have already answered this?
Yes? No?

I could have sure.
But I qualified it, because as I said, it smacked of a trick question and I have decades of experience telling me that when someone is trying to justify a munchkin concept and they make a few obvious examples and then suddenly make a highly abstract, highly qualified, and obscure example...
...that there is a trick hidden in there.
As I don't have time to sit down and play semantics games with every potential trick question that might come up, I tend to be proactive and make it clear in advance that I am making a ruling on that one, unique situation and that I am leery that it is a trick.

Well, you were -- wrong, I guess? Those decades of experience seem to have simply pointed you in the wrong direction, is all.

No, I told you what it looked like.
It may not have been one, but that doesn't change the fact that it did look like one, and thus got a nuanced answer just like one.

I assumed it was the GM doing it because the idea that one PC would let another PC turn off his characters powers, every night, willingly, for any reason other than pure munchkinism is not something that I find believable.

::shrugs:: So ask, instead of assuming.

Why?
No seriously why?
I don't see a single reason why I should need to ask to get details on something. If the details were pertinent then you should have offered them in your original post.
You didn't, so I was forced to go off of what you did post.
I did so, and I explained why I did so.
And that is because I did not (and frankly still do not) find it believable that one PC would allow another PC to turn of their powers, every night, for any reason other than pure munchkinisim.
Since I did not find that to be a believable premise I do not see any reason why I should have considered it when making a decision.
I mean, I could just as equally assumed that the player does this out of a deep and abiding religious conviction that makes doing this a tenant of their real world faith, or that space aliens attend your game and if you do not do this as an offering to them they will be required by regulation to subject you all to abduction and probing...but I don't see any reason why I should have considered those when making my response either.
I just needed to consider the plausible explanations.
Though to be fair, if something like that did apply, then you could say "Well, you see it is a religious tenant of Space Elvis that no super power be left running after dark"... at which point our information set changes and we can reevaluate things.

I have better things to do than run games for rules lawyers.
Brian is amusing in the Knights of the Dinner Table comic. He is not amusing at my table.
I know how easy it is to rules lawyer the rules 'as written' to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate the game to the whims of the munckin rules lawyer.
When I game I have two goals
1) I want my players to all have fun
2) I want to have fun (I will waive this rule for situations where I am acting as a professional GM, such as in my Unit, at Collages, Conventions, or being paid/compensated. Otherwise its a fun hobby not my job)

I have yet to be in a game with a rules lawyer where either goal was ever accomplished.

See, with your approach, I can't help but wonder how little fun it'd be to always have to guess what you're going to call 'rules lawyering' next. What was that line you used? ''As to the "but the rules say"... That is what is known as "Rules Lawyering" and is pretty much not tolerated by any GM I have ever met. Ever.'

So if I were playing a hero with Invulnerability in your campaign, and you ruled that mundane crooks had just now injured my character with conventional firearms -- what? If I blurt out a "but the rules say," your comeback would be obvious. If my character went to lift a car off some innocent trapped beneath it, only for you to rule that, no, his strength doesn't count as superhuman for such purposes -- what? I'd sputter something about "but the rules say," and you'd again tut-tut about how that's known as rules lawyering?

No.
That is not rules lawyering.
Though I do find that your attempts here to play semantics games to be enlightening
There is a world of difference between pointing out a core mechanic and asking if there is a reason it doesn't apply (there might be a reason that the guns work) and trying to string a number of edge cases together to justify something.
The first is what we call "clarification"
the second is what we call "rules lawyering"

Or would I at least start play knowing whether the character I'd built works according to the HU rules or according to how you feel the rules should've been written?

Yes, you would play with them as written.
Which means I am not changing how invulnerability works after you take it with out telling you first.
What it does not mean is that I am going to sit back and let someone find obscure rule X, then obscure rule Y, then obscure rule Z and combine them to make a god mode cheat code and then claim that since it is in the rules that they are perfectly justified in doing it and that I can't close the loophole because it would be just like changing how strength works.

Or the character who wants to take "Cool power X that is sooo cool it comes with a built in limitation Y to make it reasonable in game"...
...and since they don't want to be limited by that limitation and want moar poawah! just take something that allows them to circumvent the limitation so that they can have all the power but not pay the price that everyone else has to pay for it.

Huh. Well, I appreciate that answer -- and the others -- but it still strikes me as kind of weird that you'd said it was especially a warning sign of munchkinism if a second character is mitigating the drawbacks. (I mean, if you already figure that one guy taking a power to circumvent some limitation is an example of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too abuse that it's your job to prevent, then what difference does it make that a teammate is supplying the synergy?)

Because it raises all sorts of red flags:
The first of course is still the whole 'negating weaknesses' thing. That always raises red flags. Especially when there are multiple people, since that tends to be a 'circular cure' situation where each person argues that they are perfectly legal since they don't negate their own weaknesses...
...the just negate the weakness of the guy to the left...
The second is that since the original post was about ways to weasel an infinite army of minions I would be suspicious of if it was going to really be a second PC
The third is that it smacks of OOC collusion to metagame the system.

[Regularguy]

I assumed it was the GM doing it because the idea that one PC would let another PC turn off his characters powers, every night, willingly, for any reason other than pure munchkinism is not something that I find believable.

::shrugs:: So ask, instead of assuming.

Why?
No seriously why?
I don't see a single reason why I should need to ask to get details on something. If the details were pertinent then you should have offered them in your original post.
You didn't, so I was forced to go off of what you did post.

But, from my perspective, the details weren't pertinent.

Put yourself in my shoes: I asked about a PC getting his powers negated every evening -- because I genuinely didn't know how you'd rule on that -- and, well, you could've replied in any number of ways. "Absolutely," you could've said, and I would've known your position. "Absolutely not," you could've said, and I would've known your position. There are plenty of other things you could've said, and I would've known your position.

Anyway, you -- assumed it would be the GM doing it? That struck me as an odd detail for you to throw in; it didn't strike me as pertinent. But what if you thought it was pertinent? I mean, why the heck else are you mentioning that assumption, unless it matters to you?

And so I pointed out that your answer doesn't actually let me know your position: you assumed a detail that may or may not be in effect. Your answer -- by assuming the opposite -- didn't tell me your position on a PC who gets his powers negated by another PC every evening.

Again, at that point you could've said "Absolutely," or "Absolutely not," or any one of a hundred other responses. But you replied by -- assuming PvP? That struck me as an odd detail for you to throw in; it didn't strike me as pertinent. And so I pointed out that your answer again assumed a detail -- and I still didn't know your position minus that assumption.

Sure, you could've asked for details -- or you could've flatly answered, without assuming either. But every time you assume a detail, I ask whether you're making that assumption because you think it's pertinent.

Remember, I asked because I didn't know your position; if your answer includes an assumption, then I still don't know your position.

I have better things to do than run games for rules lawyers.
Brian is amusing in the Knights of the Dinner Table comic. He is not amusing at my table.
I know how easy it is to rules lawyer the rules 'as written' to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate the game to the whims of the munckin rules lawyer.
When I game I have two goals
1) I want my players to all have fun
2) I want to have fun (I will waive this rule for situations where I am acting as a professional GM, such as in my Unit, at Collages, Conventions, or being paid/compensated. Otherwise its a fun hobby not my job)

I have yet to be in a game with a rules lawyer where either goal was ever accomplished.

See, with your approach, I can't help but wonder how little fun it'd be to always have to guess what you're going to call 'rules lawyering' next. What was that line you used? ''As to the "but the rules say"... That is what is known as "Rules Lawyering" and is pretty much not tolerated by any GM I have ever met. Ever.'

So if I were playing a hero with Invulnerability in your campaign, and you ruled that mundane crooks had just now injured my character with conventional firearms -- what? If I blurt out a "but the rules say," your comeback would be obvious. If my character went to lift a car off some innocent trapped beneath it, only for you to rule that, no, his strength doesn't count as superhuman for such purposes -- what? I'd sputter something about "but the rules say," and you'd again tut-tut about how that's known as rules lawyering?

No.
That is not rules lawyering.
Though I do find that your attempts here to play semantics games to be enlightening
There is a world of difference between pointing out a core mechanic and asking if there is a reason it doesn't apply (there might be a reason that the guns work) and trying to string a number of edge cases together to justify something.
The first is what we call "clarification"
the second is what we call "rules lawyering"

But you realize I'd be flatly saying "but the rules say" both times, right? I mean, you'd call it "clarification" if I did it about the Invulnerable PC, and you'd call it "rules lawyering" if I did it about the Divine Aura PC, but it's just me blandly saying "but the rules say" each time?

What it does not mean is that I am going to sit back and let someone find obscure rule X, then obscure rule Y, then obscure rule Z and combine them to make a god mode cheat code and then claim that since it is in the rules that they are perfectly justified in doing it and that I can't close the loophole because it would be just like changing how strength works.

That seems like an exaggeration. After all, you'd also close the, ah, "loophole" of someone using one power to mitigate the drawback of a second power, right? And you'd close the "loophole" of one character mitigating a drawback by routinely negating a second character's power, too? You hardly need to say you'd close Three-Obscure-Rules loopholes if you're already ready to close Two-Powers-As-Written loopholes.

[eliakon]

I have better things to do than run games for rules lawyers.
Brian is amusing in the Knights of the Dinner Table comic. He is not amusing at my table.
I know how easy it is to rules lawyer the rules 'as written' to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate the game to the whims of the munckin rules lawyer.
When I game I have two goals
1) I want my players to all have fun
2) I want to have fun (I will waive this rule for situations where I am acting as a professional GM, such as in my Unit, at Collages, Conventions, or being paid/compensated. Otherwise its a fun hobby not my job)

I have yet to be in a game with a rules lawyer where either goal was ever accomplished.

See, with your approach, I can't help but wonder how little fun it'd be to always have to guess what you're going to call 'rules lawyering' next. What was that line you used? ''As to the "but the rules say"... That is what is known as "Rules Lawyering" and is pretty much not tolerated by any GM I have ever met. Ever.'

So if I were playing a hero with Invulnerability in your campaign, and you ruled that mundane crooks had just now injured my character with conventional firearms -- what? If I blurt out a "but the rules say," your comeback would be obvious. If my character went to lift a car off some innocent trapped beneath it, only for you to rule that, no, his strength doesn't count as superhuman for such purposes -- what? I'd sputter something about "but the rules say," and you'd again tut-tut about how that's known as rules lawyering?

No.
That is not rules lawyering.
Though I do find that your attempts here to play semantics games to be enlightening
There is a world of difference between pointing out a core mechanic and asking if there is a reason it doesn't apply (there might be a reason that the guns work) and trying to string a number of edge cases together to justify something.
The first is what we call "clarification"
the second is what we call "rules lawyering"

But you realize I'd be flatly saying "but the rules say" both times, right? I mean, you'd call it "clarification" if I did it about the Invulnerable PC, and you'd call it "rules lawyering" if I did it about the Divine Aura PC, but it's just me blandly saying "but the rules say" each time?

And you do realize that all you are doing here is demonstrating that you are trying to be a rules laywer?
No seriously.
You have your premise (I should get unlimited power)
You have found a way to cheat the system to get it by utilizing a flaw in the rules and, then when that flaw is closed, you then resort to arguing that it is not just legal, but that a question about a sudden change of a core mechanic during play is somehow identical to the claim that taking one of the more than one hundred super powers, then combining it with one of the five ways you can get powers from of the twenty plus classes and then arguing that this highly obscure combination should allow you to have an infinite number of fanatically loyal minions... should be given as much wight and consideration as any other rule and should be considered with just the exact same weight as rewriting a core mechanic to specifically make it not do what said mechanic is explicitly written for the sole purpose of doing?
Hmmmm
Yeah, that is pretty much text book rules lawyering right there.

What it does not mean is that I am going to sit back and let someone find obscure rule X, then obscure rule Y, then obscure rule Z and combine them to make a god mode cheat code and then claim that since it is in the rules that they are perfectly justified in doing it and that I can't close the loophole because it would be just like changing how strength works.

That seems like an exaggeration. After all, you'd also close the, ah, "loophole" of someone using one power to mitigate the drawback of a second power, right? And you'd close the "loophole" of one character mitigating a drawback by routinely negating a second character's power, too? You hardly need to say you'd close Three-Obscure-Rules loopholes if you're already ready to close Two-Powers-As-Written loopholes.

And here again you seem to be trying to play semantics games instead of actually making a point.
And my point still stands 100%
Rules Lawyering is the art of finding obscure interactions of rules that allow you to get bonuses vastly out of proportion to the investment...
...and neither I nor any other GM has any sort of obligation to sit back and let a player do it. Just because they can point to an obscure rule combination doesn't mean that "it must be allowed because its legal". All that means is that they have found a munchkin trick and should get some idea XP and the loophole gets noted and closed on the groups house-rules sheet so everyone knows not to try that one again and waste everyone's time with rehashing it.


Now if you have some counter argument to make...
...some justification as to why the Rules Lawyer has a right to break the game, or why the GM is obligated to let the Ruleslawyer munchkin the system I am all ears...
...but if all you want to do is just try and play semantics games with my words by trying to subtley shift them around to try and make it so that I sound unreasonable...
...with out actually stating why anything else is reasonable?
Just save us all the time please.

[Stone Gargoyle]

Also please note that no one has posted anything in agreement with this idea, save perhaps for someone also known for creating munchkin characters.

[13eowulf]

Also please note that no one has posted anything in agreement with this idea, save perhaps for someone also known for creating munchkin characters.

Speaking as that only poster in this thread you could be referring to (at this time) as potentially agreeing with the OP... I totally agree with eliakon here.

That munchkin character referenced above is pretty much satire that started as a thought exercise to showcase the ridiculousness of munchkinism and rules lawyering.

[Stone Gargoyle]

Also please note that no one has posted anything in agreement with this idea, save perhaps for someone also known for creating munchkin characters.

Speaking as that only poster in this thread you could be referring to (at this time) as potentially agreeing with the OP... I totally agree with eliakon here.

That munchkin character referenced above is pretty much satire that started as a thought exercise to showcase the ridiculousness of munchkinism and rules lawyering.

Okay, I wasn't sure. That's why I said perhaps.

[13eowulf]

Also please note that no one has posted anything in agreement with this idea, save perhaps for someone also known for creating munchkin characters.

Speaking as that only poster in this thread you could be referring to (at this time) as potentially agreeing with the OP... I totally agree with eliakon here.

That munchkin character referenced above is pretty much satire that started as a thought exercise to showcase the ridiculousness of munchkinism and rules lawyering.

Okay, I wasn't sure. That's why I said perhaps.

No worries

I just wanted to reinforce that there is no-one agreeing with the OP's position here.

Since everything has been so well put I didnt feel the need to add more.

[Regularguy]

And you do realize that all you are doing here is demonstrating that you are trying to be a rules laywer?
No seriously.

No, I asked because I took your line seriously: you wrote that 'As to the "but the rules say"... That is what is known as "Rules Lawyering". And so I got to wondering what it would be like to play in one of your games: I'd presumably find myself saying "but the rules say" -- since the rules say stuff, and I take 'em seriously -- and the one thing I knew to take seriously about you, is that you reply to "but the rules say" with a quick "As to 'but the rules say"... That is what is known as 'Rules Lawyering'."

How was I to know you sometimes think "but the rules say" is an entirely valid remark? The way you'd worded it, you gave the impression that you just do whatever you please and handwave the ensuing "but the rules say" as rules lawyering.

And so I asked, and you clarified -- and, were I to play at your table, well, I guess I'd pocket idea XP after idea XP as you closed loophole after loophole until I came up with a by-the-rules idea you'd okay; and then I'd play that character, with rules agreed-on ahead of time.

You have found a way to cheat the system to get it by utilizing a flaw in the rules and, then when that flaw is closed, you then resort to arguing that it is not just legal, but that a question about a sudden change of a core mechanic during play is somehow identical to the claim that taking one of the more than one hundred super powers, then combining it with one of the five ways you can get powers from of the twenty plus classes and then arguing that this highly obscure combination should allow you to have an infinite number of fanatically loyal minions... should be given as much wight and consideration as any other rule and should be considered with just the exact same weight as rewriting a core mechanic to specifically make it not do what said mechanic is explicitly written for the sole purpose of doing?
Hmmmm
Yeah, that is pretty much text book rules lawyering right there.

See, that's interesting. I figured that the purpose of that any-and-every mechanic in the "Imbued" category was that they genuinely wanted to make it available to anyone and everyone. (Heck, that description is more all-encompassing than the description of invulnerability: the latter, despite its name, builds in vulnerabilities -- but the former is just "Anyone and everyone".

What do you think was their intended purpose, when they wrote that "Anyone and everyone" option?

Now if you have some counter argument to make...
...some justification as to why the Rules Lawyer has a right to break the game, or why the GM is obligated to let the Ruleslawyer munchkin the system I am all ears...

Well, look, obviously I disagree with your premise; I think by-the-book should be the default, and someone trying to rules-make-stuff-up instead of rules-lawyer is the one who should justify doing so. But if I were to offer a justification, I guess I'd go with the question I'd just asked: given that they specifically wrote an "Anyone and everyone" option into the Imbued category, what must have been their intent for doing so?

That's not just some unintended consequence of combining three separate obscure rules, or even using one power to remove a second power's drawback; that, all by itself, is supposed to be an "Anyone and everyone" option. What do you figure the reasoning was, for that? Would you allow any "Anyone and everyone" imbuing agents for a PC?

[eliakon]

Anyone and Everyone?
Based on the other limitations offered, I would hazard a guess that it is so that you can have the classical "I am dying/to old/to frail/unable to breathe your air/otherwise-not-able-to-do-the-job take this plot device and go forth oh new hero" trope.
It sort of looses something if the dying mentor must first run a bio-scan on you to calibrate it. And you will need to do the same on your heir, and....

Now, sure it could be that they intended...
...it for people to go out and turn the entire planet into a world of supers
...or that they intended for one person to use this to get his own army of hundreds of fanatically loyal super powered minions at level one
...or that they intended for every PC party to run around with 10-20 major super powers at once...
I mean, yeah, I guess those are possible.

But I am going to go out on a limb here and say that not only is that unlikely, but that it is the least likely possibility and that I would be hard pressed to find an even lower probability possibility with out going even further down the munchkin hole.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Answering the OP, and repeating what has been said a few times.

"The game isn't perfect. There are ways to try and abuse things, because the game strives to give 'rules' to fictional depictions of life. You're never going to cover every combination of everything all added together. This is why you have a game master. One that 'runs' the game and prevents purposeful perversion of the rules or 'cheating' by applying rules or combinations that are clearly not intended.

In this case, the perversion comes by using a power category to try and gain powers that can be daisy chained and passing them to a prospective infinite number of others, in attempt to bypass or circumvent the built in limitations of the system."

This is the -exact- thing that GM's are around to prevent.
As a thought exercise, such as "Look at this loop hole found in the system" yes. It's a thing, but that's what it 'is'. A loop hole clearly not meant to be used or exploited by a PC. One that any GM worth his salt is going to shut down before the character is approved for play.

[Sir_Spirit]

So, I would rule that if they got a follower(I'd see no reason not to assume the follower stuck around when they aren't powered, they stick around when the hero is off heroing anyway). And they let that awestruck devotee have the imbuing agent. Then THEY end up as the devoted follower of their imbued devotee.
Nice closed circle that prevents the OP's scenario.

[Nightmartree]

So, I would rule that if they got a follower(I'd see no reason not to assume the follower stuck around when they aren't powered, they stick around when the hero is off heroing anyway). And they let that awestruck devotee have the imbuing agent. Then THEY end up as the devoted follower of their imbued devotee.
Nice closed circle that prevents the OP's scenario.

I agree that the follower will stick around. at least for a while, and possibly forever even if your power is negated or lost. If they agree with your ideas you could keep them on that merit alone, or if its an only temporary power WOWING them from time to time with you "true" glory. Basically they follow cause you impress them and they're weak willed, not because of some form of mindcontrol.

But unless your PC has a very low ME I don't see the above idea flying. Then again my views on the original idea of giving everyone divine aura are that it could make a good cult, but i'd probably have you going crazy from paranoia and excessive exposure to various divine auras, after all its an "extra" added onto you and not a constant effect...so unlike say a god or the person who actually has divine aura/other powers your just a normal man part of the time, a normal man getting hit by possibly dozens of auras of godhood and power that only go away when you take your "imbuement"...so how many insanities do you want for the power to have a cult at level one? cause i'm pretty sure by the end you can now hand that character over to your GM as a insane NPC villain and start a new one. All at first level.