|
Post by mcfly on Sept 20, 2008 12:38:18 GMT -5
to be honest i agree with most of the changes up there.. alot of actions were plain out of wack with what they should cost.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Sept 20, 2008 13:10:34 GMT -5
Also going to point out that I like that you're attempting to revise the rules as opposed to scrapping what's there and adding something totally different (such as dice....). IMO, theres no point in a lot of that (no offense to the people who who have worked hard to make their own systems). I can play super hero games in any number of formats... I have rules using cards, dice, etc. MURPG is my favorite, and the reason is its simplicity. So I'm trying to maintain that, keep the system as-is, and just tweak here and there as needed. Some rules (such as my ides on breaking Illusions and Mental Controls) are "added rules" entirely of my own devising, but I do think (or hope at least) that they feel like natural extensions of the rules that already exist, and that they make some of the more difficult to implement options more usable.
|
|
|
Post by jeffhazelwood on Sept 20, 2008 13:47:18 GMT -5
I like most of the changes, can't wait to see what you do for the X-men guide actions. [EX: Blasting need to be fixed some]
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Sept 20, 2008 14:13:53 GMT -5
Blasting is up now, take a look. I kept the cost the same (check the house rules for how it works though)... I'm still a little uneasy about that one. It may need to be increased to AN+3, even with my changes.
|
|
|
Post by jeffhazelwood on Sept 20, 2008 15:24:02 GMT -5
Blasting is up now, take a look. I kept the cost the same (check the house rules for how it works though)... I'm still a little uneasy about that one. It may need to be increased to AN+3, even with my changes. Is it still double the stones in the force field if it is defintly +3, if just = to the amount you putting to offence the the + 2 works Imo.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Sept 20, 2008 16:11:35 GMT -5
No, its doubled stones. Its still a Force Field, just like the action Force Field
<Edit> I realized that doesn't read at all like what I meant it to say. I intended it to make you split stones 3 ways (1 for movement, 1 for offense, and 1 for Force Field stones)
|
|
|
Post by jeffhazelwood on Sept 20, 2008 16:31:12 GMT -5
No, its doubled stones. Its still a Force Field, just like the action Force Field <Edit> I realized that doesn't read at all like what I meant it to say. I intended it to make you split stones 3 ways (1 for movement, 1 for offense, and 1 for Force Field stones) Okay then definitly + 2 works for that.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Sept 20, 2008 17:30:18 GMT -5
Check out the revised version and see what you think
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Sept 22, 2008 8:47:59 GMT -5
I THINK I've got all the Actions from the core books finished.
|
|
|
Post by talon on Sept 22, 2008 10:57:31 GMT -5
I like the Mastery explanations up there. Something you might want to consider, though it might break the KISS rule. For Mastery Force Blast options, make set cost options. Keep the +1 for the FB but it's JUST a FB with the option to further specialize it with say 2x dmg for a set 2w or however many you think it should cost. I wish they'd had a better system for masteries :\.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Sept 22, 2008 11:12:16 GMT -5
I think the cost is fair, as is, because of the overall expense of Masteries in general. By paying for the package, you do get some options cheaper. HOWEVER its important with this system for GMs to have the ability to say no. A player who approaches with a "Mastery" that is nothing more than a Force Blast should be told to go re-price it as a Force Blast with the proper Advantages.
Theres also the possibility that a player would figure out the brilliant move of a "Mastery" that only provides Force Blast & Free Force Field... heck of a bargain for AN+3.
Honestly, I don't think this system could EVER be made to be truly balanced, without a GM willing to to put the kibosh on players going wild.
|
|
|
Post by jeffhazelwood on Sept 22, 2008 18:42:19 GMT -5
Can't wait for you to get to Magic.
|
|
|
Post by talon on Sept 23, 2008 8:14:14 GMT -5
Maybe say that (this could be enforced by GM house ruling)... to take a Mastery, you must have at least +X worth of options. I have a cheesed boss in my campaign right now that's using mastery for FB/FF and create/manipulate. Then again, I'm the GM and it's just cheese enough to keep my players on their toes Do you think a Masters should be forced to have create/manipulate or some means of making their element (flame thrower) before they can use FB/FF?... that seems fair to me. A Master of Fire with no fire around that can't make it himself seems kinda boned imo.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Sept 23, 2008 9:37:41 GMT -5
A Force Blast with a Mastery (just like a Force Blast without one) assumes that you can generate the element into a force blast. There are some like Pyro that can't, but thats the exception not the rule.
|
|
|
Post by Brainstem on Sept 23, 2008 9:46:55 GMT -5
Maybe say that (this could be enforced by GM house ruling)... to take a Mastery, you must have at least +X worth of options. I have a cheesed boss in my campaign right now that's using mastery for FB/FF and create/manipulate. Then again, I'm the GM and it's just cheese enough to keep my players on their toes Do you think a Masters should be forced to have create/manipulate or some means of making their element (flame thrower) before they can use FB/FF?... that seems fair to me. A Master of Fire with no fire around that can't make it himself seems kinda boned imo. However, a Master of Fire that doesn't have the ability to create his own fire saves at least (probably) 1w or 2w, if not more, in character creation. Plus, a smart player should be able to find a way to latch onto a flame. All you need is a spark...
|
|