|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 6, 2009 12:41:04 GMT -5
Hey gang,
So, let's talk Advantages and Disadvantages. I may be mistaken, but I don't think there are so many problems that we need to organize them in a list (as I'm trying to do for problematic Actions and Modifiers). But let's try to tackle one thing at a time.
ALSO, let's not discuss any options that are specific to an Action or Modifier (and instead talk about those in the Action & Modifier thread). This should be for general Advantages and Disadvantages only.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 6, 2009 12:41:22 GMT -5
[reserved for Advantages]
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 6, 2009 12:41:40 GMT -5
Disadvantages
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 6, 2009 12:43:18 GMT -5
For starters: I'd like to propose that we break up "out of control without device" into fragments:
-1 CL: Requires Device For one cost level, you need a device of some kind in order to use your power. This device is not the SOURCE of the power - you are - but for whatever reason you can't get it to work without help.
-2 CL: Out Of Control Without Device As usual. The power functions normally so long as you have your device; however, if you lose it, your power goes wildly out of control.
-3 CL: Out of Control No device can help you. Your power is always on, and you can't even direct it to do what you want it to.
The trouble is, it's never been formally decided what happens when your power goes out of control. It makes sense to let the GM decide... but what should the GM decide? I suggest that this sort of detail be worked out at character creation. A good general suggestion is to put the character's energy recovery directly into the action box (assuming it's an Action). If it's a modifier, it "activates" constantly, either at full strength or at some predetermined strength as decided by player and GM (or just GM).
Thoughts?
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 6, 2009 12:45:47 GMT -5
I'm all for "GM Discretion with player input" on things like that. Using Cyclops' power as an example is probably a good start.
Though, it does lead to an additional question... how WOULD Cyclops' power work when it goes out of control? In the comics, Cyke never runs out of power to "fuel" his Optic Blast, so the thing just goes full-bore (unless he closes his eyes) all the time. Obviously, we can't let Cyke blast away at full power all the time because resource management is an important aspect of the game, and yet thats what SHOULD happen if he loses his visor...
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 6, 2009 13:10:33 GMT -5
I know, it's silly. To be honest, I've never seen Cyclops get tired from blasting. If I was to make his CAD as honestly as I could, I'd make it a full-out Modifier. But man is that ever boring!
If it becomes a Modifier when it's out of control, characters will just take the visor off when they want to and go nuts. (Certainly, Cyclops is at his coolest when he does this, but whatever. Were you the one who hasn't read Joss Whedon's run on Astonishing? Coolest thing Cyclops ever said: "I want this thing off my lawn.")
The way I have it in New Mutants it that his recovery goes straight into his action box (do not pass "Go", do not collect $200) without the visor. This rule seems okay at first, but its obviously silly if he's injured or something. I hope it doesn't come up.
(Actually, I just realized that he's an NPC! I'm so stupid! Who's fun am I spoiling by making it a modifier? Geez.)
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 6, 2009 13:22:21 GMT -5
Its boring, but it allows Cyc to fire at the oppont and lead the team.. Or defend himself and fire at the opponent.. But how a power goes out of control should be talked about.. The GM and player can sit down and look at the characters power and see if they can come up with a suggestion.. If the character already has and idea, then the GM should hear it.... Then say yes or no as he sees fit Just thought about something.. How many characters do have the "power out of control" disadvantage besides Cyc??
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 6, 2009 13:23:56 GMT -5
One thing to consider is simply changing the way you look at the Force Blast.
You could say that the blast is firing off full-bore if he's not wearing the visor, and reason it out by saying that the stones of effort put into the Action when its under control represent not the strength of the blast itself, but the effort put into properly targeting the blast (I know its a little "D&D" to alter the scene to match the system rather than the other way around, but it does work on some level)
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 6, 2009 13:44:11 GMT -5
Hmm... You could explain it that way, but cyc can still take it off his visor and shoot something.. Or even better, he can lose it and then has to shoot without it...
How about making a Advantage which could represent what happens when he takes it off? Not sure how it should work though... The thought that hit me was: Its double MN when out of control, but we would still end up with the same problem..
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 6, 2009 13:47:33 GMT -5
Aside from this problem, do you guys agree with breaking down the out of control/device that way?
Because I'd like to attempt something similar with Action as Modifier (breaking it up between not-using-an-action and stones-are-free and such).
I'm also kinda irked that some modifiers don't really modify anything at all. Healing factors and such. I've always felt that there should be a difference between Modifiers (which literally modify an Action when you use it, such as Claws) and "Attributes" (or whatever you want to call it, that are more like stand-alone features).
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 6, 2009 15:54:38 GMT -5
Im all for it.. There should be various degrees of "out of control" Well, a healing factor modifies the rate you regain your health But thats also a aspect of the game they dident mention.. If you make a Action into a modifier, does it take and action to use? But as i see it, there is three types of modifiers: * Modifier that takes and action * Modifier that combines with and action (and there by, also requires one) * Modifier that don't require and action
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 6, 2009 16:14:27 GMT -5
You could add a fourth category:
a) Requires the use of an action, but stones are free. (new idea) b) Does not require the use of an action; stones are not free. (new idea) c) Does not require the use of an action; stones are free d) Only combines with another action (claws, targeting, etc)
That's in addition to defensive modifiers, and stuff like Recon Self that really don't resemble Actions at all.
I'm not sure any of this is a great idea (they all seem open to abuse) but in theory the game mechanics allow for these distinctions so I brought them up. ^__^
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 6, 2009 16:38:39 GMT -5
What the.. Please explain b) So its a modifier, but it adds no stones.. Are you thinking about modifiers like reconstitude self? If so, i was only thinking about when you make a Action into a modifier..
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 6, 2009 18:30:52 GMT -5
Oh, sorry. To clarify, the Action in question wouldn't use up one of your two actions per panel, but you'd still have to spend stones on it. It's just like the usual Action as Modifier, only you have to pay for the stones.
So, if Captain America had Action as Modifier (of that variety) on his Leadership, he could use Close Combat and Acrobatics in the same panel, and still spend stones on Leadership. The stones wouldn't be free, but he essentially can always use Leadership no matter what he's doing.
Like I said, doesn't seem horribly useful, but the mechanics allow for it. It's a matter of whether we think it's even worth calling an actual rule.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Kaimontfendo on Feb 6, 2009 18:53:55 GMT -5
I know WildKnight is already a fan on this one, but since you're tweaking the rules you may as well, make it official (or "semi-official", or whatever this rule-set is.) But Area Effect is pretty potent for its price. The "pay for area beyond 2" rule seems pretty fair, although I personally feel that may be a level too expensive at +3.
Also, I don't think there's an official "Stun Only" disadvantage.
"Others Benefit from Power" and "Artificially Intelligent" need far better explanation. Actually, any explanation would be an improvement. Is there a range for others benefit? Do they have to pay the energy to use such an action? And Artificially Intelligent is pretty useless since it only applies to Modifiers which are "always on" anyway.
|
|