Dedicated Controls

Dedicated Controls is listed on B43 as a variation of Compartmentalized Mind.
*Like Controls it's questionable if this remains a mental advantage, or if the variations are considered physical ones.
This could be thought of as Controls (One Ability Only -60%) being 10/lev instead of 25/lev
*this is consistent with the pricing of One Attack Only -60% for Striking ST in Powers
**It falls somewhere between the One Power -50% (B71) and One Ability -80% (P97) limitations for Neutralize.
This might be thought of as an Unusual Background for buying Can Be Wielded +20% for Innate Attacks (the enhancement cannot be purchased without it).
It is also a UB for taking the two kinds of Must Be Wielded limitations (-40 stoppable or -50 unstoppable) for Innate Attacks. It's not entirely clear which of the "Musts" the "Can" functions like. Presumably the "stoppable" kind.
==Note==
T119 Must Be Wielded and Can Be Wielded are designed for attack advantages, but floating them to represent other things like Basic Move would be interesting.
*Fixed ST as External ST isn't done that way, it's priced as a bonus relative to the user's own ST as a Gadget with Granted By Armor and buying the armor as an Ally
*Powers explores Affects Others for movement abilities, so buying that on all move from 0 is one option
**the difference however is maneuvers: the granter still needs to use maneuvers to move his allies around at the same speed (they are not granted flight or increased move relative to THEIR point totals, presumably...
***...or else if they are, the granter would be limited to the slowest of modifies moves for the group travel rate
There is a distinction between DR grantings:
*FF+AE+AO grants to all in an area, needs selective to exclude enemies (unlike the 50/level where you specifically opt in just allies) AE is pointless to add to FF without AO too
*payload plus DR means they need to overpenetrate you to hurt the ally
*payload plus internal DR means that too, but DR is cheap if it only protects passengers but not yourself
*Affliction (Advantage) or Innate Attack (Symptoms: Advantage) are other ways to give DR which can be ended by external forces
MBW being -20 or -30 could be viewed as net -40 or -50 atop CBW's +20% enhancement. Wieldable is a single-word way to rename CBW too.
*MBW should thus be split/renamed atop the CBW (similar to splitting Affects Insubstantial from Insubstantial Only) for example:
*Cannot Wield Self -50%
*Prevent Wielder Use +10%
==PWU as Selectivity==
With Selectivity +5% enhancement you can turn off enhancements, so turning off CBW/wieldable prevents use.
*this is not an option however if MBW is not considered to be a meta-modifier
==PWU using MBWs to limit an enhancement==
One could design the -30% version of Must Be Wielded as a limitation on some other enhancement. If there is selectivity, switching off the enhancement removes the limitation too.
This could be done with a cheap placeholder like Accurate 2, reducing +10% to +7%
*or to save points on something massive, like AE+50% reduced to +35%
The vulnerability here is: if you can't "wield" the ability, you probably can't use the "selectivity" either, you'd need a wielder to do that for you, so they'd have to voluntarily give up control. But once they did, you would be non-wieldable again and regain control of your selectivity.
This vulnerability isn't really helped with the -20% version either: you could prevent your wielder from "using" selectivity but that won't let you flip it back yourself. It just gives you negotiation leverage to RP convincing them to use selectivity to give back control.
==PWU as Switchable==
PWU is very similar to Switchable (except maybe w/ Reduced Time since it mentions no action, so it's probably a Free Action to use that) because if you can switch off the advantage then obviously the wielder can't use it! The only difference might be that normally a wielder could switch the ability on and off (the sword could if it could wield itself, but not if it couldn't) instead of the weapon.
This could be thought of as a "Master Switch": it needs to be switched on AND the ability needs to be switched on for it to be usable. You could still by normal switchable for the advantage so that the user could switch it on or off using their own maneuvers instead of yours.
Note that if someone knocks out the weapon, you can't choose to "prevent your wielder". If it was already switched on, it will stay on!
*While conscious can prevent that (switches ability off automatically when you fall unconscious). This accessibility is not normally allowed for Innate Attacks but you're not buying it for the root trait, you are buying it for the PWU enhancement instead.
*Requires Concentrate is another option but would mean eating up maneuvers to actually prevent the use
==PWU as Limited CBW==
The +20% could be limited to anywhere from 4% to 19% by taking 5% to 80% of limitations on the enhancement via Limited Enhancements. For example:
*requires Concentrate or requires Ready would require constant occupation with maneuvers to be wieldable, otherwise it reverts to non-wieldable next second
*while conscious requires a single concentrate to turn on the enhancement, however since WC requires an ability be switchable first, you would need Selectivity as a prerequisite.
**Selective While Conscious would be the application of "while conscious" -5% to Selectivity +5% to reduced it to +4.75%.
***note that selectivity is NOT a prerequisite for "while conscious" on the root advantage itself, that still requires switchable, subbing selectivity for switchable only makes sense for allowing WC to limit an enhancement, not the root advantage
"While conscious" can't really even be taken for non-aura innate attacks since they are transient. Aura is the only thing that explicitly turns an Innate Attack into something explicitly (and inherently) switchable.
*as a house rule it would seem reasonable to also allow switchable (and thus WC) to be purchased on innate attacks which are ongoing in other ways, such as if an AE enhanced with Persistent, or perhaps if enhanced with Cyclic or Delay or Onset where the effect of the attack persists for some time
**or for other attacks like Affliction or Binding
Affliction's Cancellation enhancement could be precedent to forbid "switchable" to allow the EFFECTS of an attack to be terminated by switchable (and thus WC) though, since that has an equal cost to Switchable yet has complications: requiring an attack to "hit" the effected target to end the duration prematurely.
One possible explanation is that this might be like having 'switchable' by default turn off ALL INSTANCES of an attack's duration, so "Cancellation" might just represent FINE CONTROL of such off-switching.
Switchable were a separate ability (example: a perk, since Affliction has a base cost of 10) then perhaps Selective Effect +20% allows you to switch off PARTS of your ability's effects (ie cancel the sleep affliction on an ally, not an enemy) and "requires activation roll" is a -20% limitation which offsets it.
"a second, successful activation roll with whatever range penalties (to the subject) would normally apply" is worse than just something like "requires Innate Attack roll". An "activation roll" is presumed to be the default DX roll to hit, or whatever might replace it (Will via Malediction, other things by the Different (Attribute) Roll enhancement...) which may mean it could be either defended against (normal affliction) or resisted (malediction) as before.
The fixed +10% price regardless of what trait affliction causes means it can't be rationalized as Alternative Enhancements (though that's a pretty logical approach) where you just swap what you're doing. This would actually be equal or cheaper for enhancements costing +50% or less though. The problem though is that this isn't as straight-forward with ongoing noxious effects, unless you allow "Not Noxious" to remove that ability for a duration.
Category:Advantages