|
Post by Neros on Feb 3, 2009 11:28:32 GMT -5
Found a couple questions more: Why have you priced the following as you have? Flight +0 General Knowledge +0 Shapeshift +1
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 3, 2009 11:32:08 GMT -5
Because I don't think any of them are good enough to justify what they cost in the book.
Flight is nifty, but not overtly as useful as any AN+2 action that I can think of. General Knowledge is barely used at all, and Shapeshifting is only marginally better than taking a Disguise Specialty for Black Ops or Thievery (it costs far fewer energy stones... but its not nearly as broadly useful as those other actions)
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 5, 2009 7:45:11 GMT -5
I agree with General knowledge and shapeshifting.. But it reminds me, why was it you wanted to charge +2 for Black Ops? But i kinda disagree with flight.. Being able to fly at the speed of sound for more or less no stones is good, and bein able to combine it with other actions also helps allot.. Its not as good as teleportation, but its still better than running..
Also, diden't you have any comments to my Mastery question teleportation suggestion? I would really like to clarify some of these things so i can make the needed changes to the guide..
|
|
|
Post by Rinjo on Feb 19, 2009 14:09:09 GMT -5
Did you ever get my file WK? It works on my home PC but I am having trouble porting it to work. Let me know if you are having the same trouble with the file...
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 19, 2009 14:15:04 GMT -5
I had dropped you an email saying I couldn't get it to load, but now the point is moot as MURPG character generator itself has stopped working on my PC. Something about the .net framework or something like that... odd since I haven't changed or added anything.
|
|
|
Post by Jet on Feb 19, 2009 14:49:24 GMT -5
Okay, here are few reasons why I think Flight SHOULD NOT be costing just AN +0 -flight chart is much better then Speed, both in speed and energy cost -compare it to other ways of moving in three directions, like acrobatics and climbing and notice that flight OWNS them in every possible way I can think of -it combines with many actions, most notably- close combat, which is often used for large attacks -if it costs the same as speed, WHY would someone bother to actually have speed in the first place? Speedsters are one thing- they get ability bonus and nifty special moves, but everyone else?
|
|
|
Post by andyman on Mar 1, 2009 13:15:19 GMT -5
Okay, here are few reasons why I think Flight SHOULD NOT be costing just AN +0 -flight chart is much better then Speed, both in speed and energy cost -compare it to other ways of moving in three directions, like acrobatics and climbing and notice that flight OWNS them in every possible way I can think of -it combines with many actions, most notably- close combat, which is often used for large attacks -if it costs the same as speed, WHY would someone bother to actually have speed in the first place? Speedsters are one thing- they get ability bonus and nifty special moves, but everyone else? I find myself agreeing with playah. I need to take a shower now.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Mar 1, 2009 13:56:41 GMT -5
I've been over and over this with you playah. We disagree. I'm not going to change my mind. I've run this game for years now. I've never seen ANYTHING to make me believe that Flight is as valuable as the Control Others option of Telepathy, Mastery of Magic, or Teleportation.
|
|
|
Post by Pope Mega Force on Mar 1, 2009 15:30:13 GMT -5
I'm not even going to argue with the whole flight thing. I disagree with you but oh well. There are however other things I'd like to comment on. Specifically three things. First off, Charge Objects. I know it seems kind of like a useless thing to comment on but it's actually been a favorite action of mine for some time. I don't even know why. I never actually liked Gambit much more than any other character but the action in the book seemed overpriced. This action is essentially ranged combat with a x2, shortened range and a small area effect. Normally the area effect would make me reconsider what I'm saying but in this case, it feels silly. I feel like the area effect isn't even defined by your AN or anything. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. Second, I love...absolutely love what you've done with the Phoenix Force. When we were playing with MURPG and my brother was GMing, I had a Phoenix Force character and we did something similar except you could exceed your AN just in a general sense. But we were new and still working on fully understanding the game. I really liked what you did with it here though. Makes me want to play with the Phoenix Force in a game of yours. Third, if you could, define the NO BONUS disadvantage a little more. I've seen people on numerous occasions do the following: Ninja: 5 (Agility Bonus and Weapon Modifier or Two Weapon Modifiers) -No Modifier -2 -No Modifier -2 And just like that, they get -4 to the action. Just a tad ridiculous. Anyway, if you could define the adding and subtracting of modifiers and bonuses a little more, that'd be awesome. I feel like there's more but I currently have two papers to write and that's actually why I came to the library. Then I just found my way to the boards and saw this deciding to comment. Other than that, I liked what you did for a lot of these. I'll comment another time. Sorry I couldn't give a more thorough overview of them.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Mar 1, 2009 17:34:37 GMT -5
The only one I'm going to respond to is the Charge Objects bit. For the other two... "thanks for the compliment" and "its up to the GM I guess." (I'd be more interested in thoroughly defining it if I weren't involved in a project to update the entire rules set that will make all of this obsolete anyway).
As far as Charge Objects... I haven't changed anything from the core book except the price. This was based strictly on my experiences with Charge Objects being really potent when compared to the hand-to-hand fighters in the same groups. I ended up finding out that this was due to the fact that Ranged Combat is just way better than hand-to-hand, the way the system is built, and I'd go into methods of correcting that, but again... I'm involved in the 2.0 project so theres not much point anymore.
Mind you, I'll end up having a retread of 2.0 because I still don't feel enough is being done to mimic the comic book feel of "a heroes hands are all the weapon he needs."
|
|
|
Post by honestiago on Apr 23, 2009 16:46:56 GMT -5
I agree with most of the tweaks I've seen here. I didn't see "action to mod" as an inherent problem until recently, when a player here used A-M for acrobatics. Suddenly, you have this free movemen/attack/defense mod that does not count as an action -- extremely powerful and underpriced. I'm not certain, however, that the AN +5 isn't a bit heavy handed, especially since you'd have to buy the attack/def options at an additional +3 CL. This makes a mere +2 insanely expensive. Then again, if you allow the option "only works through other action," that would mitigate the cost somewhat. The problem here, naturally, is that the player with Acrobatics is funneling it though Ninja, which makes it a double whammy for the GM. Four free stones for any CC or RC action, shifted either way. Cheaper than buying RD or Toughness, all through the single Action to MOD.
Anyway, I plan to experiment with these CLs when I run my own campaigns. Thanks for the work, WK.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Apr 23, 2009 17:13:00 GMT -5
I'd like it noted that, if I kept up with these, several of the costs represented here would be changed by now. A lot of these were based on preliminary things that I now have more experience with.
Though the one that seems to bother most people, Flight... I'm still not remotely convinced its worth AN+2
|
|
|
Post by honestiago on Apr 23, 2009 17:20:04 GMT -5
I did the math again with Acrobatics, and now I think WK's +5 to CL is too low (lol). Basically, movement, RD and a Targeting equivalent, all in one. I'm pretty well convinced that Action to Mod is more trouble than it's worth. I don't think I'll be allowing it in my campaigns at all.
I think a lot of the potential problems I'm seeing with the local campaign (which I am not running or playing, but sort of trying to mentor), is that players have been using the java program to generate characters, and so do not understand how the cost system really works. Plus, the program, while a GREAT tool, is not self-regulating. One of the players here has "doesn't help friends" with Acrobatics, which is a silly disad for that action. But since it appeared on the list, he believes its acceptable. He says he can't carry people with it. So what? You can still pick them up and run. This makes the disad not a disad. Free cost reduction, if it's allowed (grrrrrr....min-maxing...grrr.....). His argument -- it's fair because anyone else can do it. I can't seem to get across the importance of system balance. You take outlandish powers, the GM has to do outlandish things. "You ALL have FF as an A to Mod? Fine, now ALL my bad guys have Ability-attacking powers, super high AN's," and so on and so on. Not everyone is like that, but it sure seems like a lot of folks see themselves as against the system, rather than the in-game challenges. All that results in is a numbers game, which the GM can always "win" because he's the GM, and that's that. I'd much rather deal with PCs who actually have to worry about threats. Players player more creatively when they are challenged.
Okay, that's the end of my min-max rant for today.
|
|
|
Post by Brainstem on Apr 23, 2009 18:37:23 GMT -5
I did the math again with Acrobatics, and now I think WK's +5 to CL is too low (lol). Basically, movement, RD and a Targeting equivalent, all in one. I'm pretty well convinced that Action to Mod is more trouble than it's worth. I don't think I'll be allowing it in my campaigns at all. Consider, though, that the total Modifier cannot be exceeded in a single Panel. If a person wanted to use Acrobatics as movement, then those stones wouldn't go toward Defense or combat. Another thing is to consider that, no matter how Acrobatic someone is, they shouldn't be able to go to the peak of the Speed Chart, so it shouldn't be a *huge* issue in that sense.
|
|
|
Post by honestiago on Apr 23, 2009 20:32:37 GMT -5
That is true. But it's still a swiss army knife, and when you get it at 5 (for a cost of 2WS [thank you silly disad]), it's definitely a bit too cheap for its multi-use capability. It's a pretty big issue, b/c the player basically got the equivalent of a 24WS mod for 2WS's (if you add the raw cost of RD, Targeting, and Movement 5). And --here's the kicker -- it doesn't take up an action.
I was thinking maybe you could go with AN+5 on Act to Mod, then maybe flip WK's ads into disads (ex: -1 CL, can't shift to offense; -2 CL, can't shift to defense, -1 can't use for movement). A cost of AN+5 brings the price *somewhat* in line for what you get (at least for Acrobatics). I understand you lose an ability bonus, but I don't think that mitigates the advantage, since the stones are free. On paper, I like the ability to transform an action into a mod. But seriously, if you use Efficient, you get a decent approximation, without the overwhelming advantage of free stones being applied to so many different areas at quite a discount in creation. On another note, I haven't seen anyone here do FF A as Mod yet, but I'm sure it's coming.
|
|