|
Post by Neros on Aug 10, 2007 19:07:58 GMT -5
So none Range Weapons is Cost Level +0? I still find it hard to decide what to take for weapons... Either they are to powerful, or they are to cheap...
|
|
|
Post by malice on Aug 10, 2007 20:04:17 GMT -5
Remember that basic Toughness negates the 2x damage from firearms below a certain modifier. It's only weapons modified to do 2x damage (i.e. +2 to cost level) or weapons of a higher modifier that do 2x damage through unenhanced toughness. So that +1 to cost level on firearms isn't the same as +2 for 2x damage -1 for collateral damage.
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Aug 11, 2007 6:20:45 GMT -5
Awhat?? Where does it say that?
|
|
|
Post by Scriptus on Aug 11, 2007 8:40:43 GMT -5
I think what malice is refering to is under "damage modifiers" on the second column of page 124 in the core book.
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Aug 24, 2007 4:30:48 GMT -5
Aaah, found it... So Simple weapons below +4 wont get 2xDamage against a person with Toughness...
EDITED: Just thought about something... Why not remove both Close and Range Combat weapon +1? Where they both work the same (or in a sense... One can be used for defense, and the other can be used at range)...
EDITED (once again): How should Ranged Weapons be priced for shorter/Longer range? Should the rules used for Power Armors energy weapons be used? (1w for each increase/decrease)
I looked at the Stinger Glows in the Avengers Book (which costs 7w), and according to the result i got (using your rules), the glows should cost 6w...
Close Combat +3 (3 = Cost Level 3 = 1w) Range Combat +3, Range 2 (2w) 3 x 2 = 6w (I take he has two of these, since he can use them both for close and range combat)
With the original System, they would/should have costed: Close Combat +3 (3 +1 = Cost Level 4 = 2w) Range Combat +3, Range 2 (3 + 1 = Cost Level 4 = 2w) 4 x 2 = 8w
|
|
|
Post by Grimsolace on Aug 24, 2007 15:24:47 GMT -5
The difference between a gun and a sword is the following.
The gun gets x2 Damage (AN+2) Collateral Damage (AN-1) AND Works at Range 4 (AN+4) Over the sword, which, if you have been counting is an additional +5 to cost level.
Malice justifiably made Ranged weapons more expensive then close combat weapons.
Each additional distance increment a ranged weapon is good over adds +1 to the guns cost level, likewise (technically) each increment less nets a -1. Do to the generosity of the ranged weapons I would be hesitant to allow such reductions as characters could make what is basically a close ranged weapon for much less then what actual close range weapons cost.
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Aug 26, 2007 6:35:06 GMT -5
Theres also the fact, that a Close Combat Weapon can be used for defense (which range combat can't.... Or i can't see how)...
|
|
|
Post by Grimsolace on Aug 27, 2007 13:53:32 GMT -5
Ranged combat weapons can be shifted towards defense. I've always considered it as the character spraying cover fire, keeping the enemies head down somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by Jet on Aug 29, 2007 13:26:32 GMT -5
Or blocking attack with gun. Not like it doesnt happen.
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Sept 2, 2007 7:21:51 GMT -5
Or blocking incoming bullets with your own bullets... Thats happened as well But the reason for this responds isn't because of that, i just thought about another thing that Marvel seem to have left out... Some of the Free Stone items take a Action to use, while some others don't... A example could be a Invisibility Belt, which is on as long as the switch is flipped (or however its activated), while Mjolnir's powers take up one of the wielders actions... Should there be a different cost for either items and if so, how should that be done?? I could imagen a -1/+1 to Cost Level, but im not sure which one... I think it should be more expensive for and item that adds free stones without taking an action..
|
|
|
Post by Jet on Sept 2, 2007 10:29:12 GMT -5
Mjolnir requires some skills to use and it uses Thor's strenght to couse all those portals or lightnings, so it makes sense that he has to use them as action.
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Sept 3, 2007 7:19:03 GMT -5
Sure it does, but should it cost less for things that uses a action, or should it cost more for things that dosent use a action?
|
|
|
Post by kxjubilee on Sept 3, 2007 15:36:36 GMT -5
You could always just say that even the belt takes an action to turn on. I know that the game allows you to move a 5mph or less effortlessly though I think that still takes up an action, and I think turning on a belt would be the same. If that isn't the case I could see a -1CL discount.
Also to me the gear adding to you abilities makes it sound like it stacks and should in fact get the +3CL. Maybe the current rule could be added to stacking abilities to create a maximum stack level and then the basic rule of the item giving you a new ability score should be you buy the ability just like you would if you pay for your own score to be what the item makes it.
The only other thing that I really see is that this system seems to be set up to lower the cost of the higher end gear and leaves the lower end gear alone all together.
|
|
|
Post by malice on Sept 3, 2007 15:57:29 GMT -5
For items that give free stones to actions that NEVER required many stones (Invisibility never costs more than 2 to use) I would allow the player to get the free stones for a discount, but that's for each individual GM to decide.
|
|
|
Post by Grimsolace on Sept 4, 2007 13:54:41 GMT -5
Blocking an attack with a gun would be using close combat with a {+1/+2} weapon modifier for using the gun as a club.
|
|