And I'll Form the Head! I agree, if one FlexBot is the size of a large dog three would be about adult transhuman size. Although you could always go for the classic five Power Ranger setup.

This conversation does bring up some topics about flexbots I've been wanting to discuss however, especially when it comes to the limitations of their ability to shapeshift: [list][*]How many prehensile limbs can a flexbot have? Is this number increased when in hover mode? Is this number increased with more combined flexbots? [*]What is the maximum carrying capacity of any given flexbot? [*]Is there a maximum limit to how many flexbots can be in a combination? [*]Should there be firing penalties and bonuses associated with flexbots? Neotenics are the size of a child and you get a -10 to shoot them. Do Flexbots get a similar penalty since they are only the size of a dog? Does this modifier change as more combine together? [*]Should a player get a SOM bonus to strength tests for having a larger combination of flexbots? How many?[/list] Unfortunately, modular morphs seemed to be one of the least explored aspects of the settings (though it is justified; there is only one modular morph in the core book). It would be awesome sauce to get more info, especially since they are within my top 3 for favorite morphs.

i find myself asking many of the same unanswered questions, so i bump this thread in the hopes of some more discussions. one thing i found myself wondering was how the strength of a flexbot is handled. That is, how much could a large flexbot actually lift? My first thought is that it becomes a kind of teamwork test, or SOM x 3 + 10 per extra flexbot added. But in a way that seems kinda limiting as with enough flexbots the combined body could become quite large indeed. I do wish they had fleshed out the modular description a bit more.

Flexbot made in Padma Aerostat Studio (Venusian Bollywood): [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svOlz2ei4Yk&feature=player_embedded[/url]

Thread necromancy, I know, but I wanted an answer on this subject as well and didn't want to create a new thread if one already existed. Namely, how many connected flexbots can be operated by a single ego? For example, if my character's ego is sleeved in a flexbot and the team discovers a maintenance bay with two more flexbots, can my character merge with the other two flexbots and control all three simultaneously? Would there need to be an Integration or Alienation test? IMO, the two possibilities are thus: 1) One ego per flexbot, period. That's what forking is for! Yay! 2) Any number of flexbots controlled by one ego with either a Simple Integration test and no Alienation test, or no test at all, since this is something that would have already been programmed into the morph and incorporated into the senses of the sleeved ego. Just as an ego has no problem seeing when sleeved in a morph with compound eyes, so too does that ego have no problem attaching new extensions sleeved in an innately expandable body. There's another interesting question: which is optimal, running multiple integrated flexbots with one ego, or forking yourself so that each flexbot in the network is occupied by one ego?

AFAIK, there are no given rules for multiple flexbots, whether for controlling or the capabilities of the combined unit. So, even if you houserule the controlling issue, there's no point unless you also houserule the combined-uses issue. :/ You've raised an excellent point.

In case anyone who wasn't here however months ago it was, I did a rewrite of the Modular enhancement that makes Flexbots a bit easier to use, at least in that the player can tell what will result from sticking multiple Flexbots together. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pOvIpXoDhLH9M6mB_lwTurLD-IZR_5kUrF8K... That is a link to the rules. I have used them in play a few times, and they seem to work quite well. It does however change the Modular enhancement quite a lot. And it was written quite a while ago, and probably late at night, so excuse if it reads like a ten year old wrote it.

Yerameyahu wrote:

Spitballing off an above comment: I'm not sure that combined (should we say 'integrated'?) flexbots are much harder to kill. In order to achieve the 'single morph' mental control situation, it seems reasonable that you're losing the redundancy of the separate flexbots. So, you're not just numerically stacking their durability. I wonder, too, if they suffer reductions in 'physical' apts (COO, REF, SOM) for the classic 'bumbling giant' effect. A big unit made of smaller independent ones could be less durable or maneuverable than a theoretical unitary big unit. You'd certainly get tradeoff benefits, though: I think the book suggests that they basically get big SOM boosts for things like brute strength? Maybe that only applies to slowly lifting heavy things, I dunno. :) My point is simply that there's not necessarily an 'unstoppable flexbot powercreep' problem, because there are a hundred tradeoff options. If I get a minute, I'll definitely take a look at the ideas the above posters linked to.

The power creep comes in with the fact that you combine the durability, wound threshold, and death rating of all the flexbots into one pool. When they separate, damage and wounds are spread evenly (with leftovers randomized or assigned by the GM). Honestly, though, I think the 'High' cost of flexbots will limit players from hoarding dozens of them in order to make an unstoppable juggernaut. Also, any 'bumbling giant' penalties would be offset by the bonus of having a larger frame and more limbs, so stats should balance out (which just so happens to also be the simplest solution to the stat issue :p).

Yerameyahu wrote:

No, I don't agree. My point is that (and AFAIK there are no rules to contradict me) you *shouldn't* pool the Durability/etc. Maybe just +10/bot or something, instead. On the subject of the bumbling giant, I said before: decrease things like 'quickness' while increasing things like 'main force'. You're right that a flat adjustment to SOM wouldn't work, which is why I specifically didn't suggest that. :)

Page 311, under modular design. The group is treated as a single morph, and all damage and wounds are distributed evenly when the group disbands. So yeah, flexbots do basically share their durability.

Yerameyahu wrote:

That doesn't actually say that it's a single morph with Dur*X Durability, but I see what you were referencing. :) It could be interpreted to mean that the parts are less heavily damaged after they split, which is fine with me. Simple summation is indeed simpler, but I thought we were discussing balance issues. I did misspeak, though: I shouldn't have said 'pool', when I meant 'simple sum'.

It's an implicit pool of their durability. All damage is distributed amongst all component flexbots, which while that doesn't explicitly mean "pool the durability", it does mean "the flexbot gestalt isn't destroyed until enough damage is dealt to distribute lethally to all components"... and that's effectively the same thing. However, I will say that many elements of a flexbot are self-balancing. A player still has to get ahold of all the flexbots necessary to produce the gestalt, and considering that each individual flexbot is expensive in its own right, that should be a hard challenge to fulfill.

what about flexbots that act on their own, like the boss in Deus EX H.R. or the automatons in Gundam 00? together, they form a block inside a container, and when released, each goes its own way the A-LAWS automatons: [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mZiQLOAiKkU/SOqdA5R4a1I/AAAAAAAAAKo/EZtqwo7EGG... the DPD riot bot: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOM6cYBPzzE[/url]

Quincey Forder: Um? I guess cosmetics are the easiest aspect to change, so you could do that if you really wanted to for some reason.