|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 19, 2009 12:03:52 GMT -5
What he said... except had I typed it, it would have been rude. ;D
Seriously... what's the problem with erring on the side of caution FIRST?
For the record, I split the difference between you two in opinion on cost. I think that +3 is too little, and +5 is probably too high (+6 definitely). I think +4 is a nice middle ground.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 19, 2009 12:10:07 GMT -5
Yeah, I suppose I do prefer to err on the side of caution first. I can deal with +4 on a test, although I'm worried that no one will buy it and I'll never conclusively know if it's fair or not. Then again, I suppose finding out that +3 CL is certainly too cheap doesn't really tell me what is a better price.
I can go with +4 CL to start with. Man, we've really done a number on Action as Modifier.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 19, 2009 12:16:32 GMT -5
If you ran "Stones spent in this action come from the general pool" for +4 I promise I'd take it.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 19, 2009 12:21:13 GMT -5
*nod nod nod*
Oh hell yes. Would I rather have Close Combat 2 for free or Close Combat 6? CC2/free stones wins every time. Well... every time that I'm planning on the game lasting long enough for me to get LOE. If you're thinking long-term, you're pretty stupid NOT to take the option, even at +4
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 19, 2009 12:24:52 GMT -5
Perhaps we should limit the free stones to free stones up to your AN, as it's sick with any Action that has an Ability bonus.
I admit I've been thinking about Force Blast so far. I compare:
Force Blast AN 6 w/ Unlimited Power, to Force Blast AN 9 w/ Efficient.
I'd rather have the latter, to be honest. But throw in an Ability bonus.. and eww.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 19, 2009 12:30:38 GMT -5
I'd rather have the free stones. It means I can spend less on Energy Pool AND on Energy Regeneration (assuming Force Blast is my primary "thing"), OR that I have a free attack every panel that can blast a weak or unwary foe while I continue to pound away at JoJo the Armored Monkeyboy with my fists.
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 19, 2009 12:32:38 GMT -5
An ability bonus is bad
So is an action that requires a panel to prepare. Suddenly the prep panel isn't such a disadvantage.
Actions that can accumulate energy are also badass with free stones.
What about actions that combine with other actions as their primary function? Suddenly you have a modifer that takes up an action per panel but applies to tons of different actions.
Or just grab cheapo actions that you can now use every panel for free.
Also attacking someone every panel for free - even if it doesn't get through their defenses - makes them keep their defenses up costing them energy and an action per panel
I need to get a nice action that can be sustained/maintained so I can hit'm hard for free and maintain doing so every panel for free while I hit someone else with the same action at 1 stone less power for free!
I would love me some free stones.
Next question: Can the free stones advantage be applied to abilities? If so... yummy.
I could make actions that boost ability scores count for something. Buy the ability at 2 with the advantage, then boost it with an action or piece of equipment and all those stones are free.
Seriously, I'm up for it. Like I said I've been trying to pin down a fair cost for a free stones advantage for awhile now, because a lot of things would be soooo much better if you could just didn't have to spend the energy.
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 19, 2009 12:40:22 GMT -5
I think the Accumulate Energy advantage should only be aviable to Actions...
But as far as i can read, the "topic" so far has been free stones (havent this been in more than one thread??).. A +4 seems like a good place to start out.. If thats to cheap/expensive, we can alter it accordingly and maybe add some more rules to it..
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 19, 2009 12:41:35 GMT -5
Wow... Malice just turned what I thought was a relatively simple issue into a nightmare...
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 19, 2009 15:02:11 GMT -5
I plan on taking a lot of these things into account when I do a final version of my test game rules. It's good stuff.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 19, 2009 15:20:53 GMT -5
Looking back in the thread I found this: "Others Benefit from Power" and "Artificially Intelligent" need far better explanation. ..and saw no solid consensus. So I figure I'd weigh in on these mysterious advantages. Before I say how I interpret them, I'll say that we must first decide whether they are to be included in 2.0 (Do NOT let their previous haze cloud your decision, because...) because if we do choose to include them we can write them to work however we want. SCREW intepretation, there wasn't enough information in the original so we may as well just decide now what these advantages do. I want to keep them, and I want the people working on MURPG 2.0 to decide what they do. That said, he's my guesses for their original functions: Others Benefit from Power should probably have the power's range if it has a range, or a default range of 3 or 4 (Telepathy and Force Blast are 4 I think, so there's precedent for 4). What this actually ends up being is the highest range players are expected to ever need. As for what it does, I always thought it was a rather nasty advantage that let everyone else in your group benefit from your powers just as you do. You could argue it only works on non-attack actions for balance purposes. Essentially whatever action, modifier, or ability score you place this on is then gained by your allies whenever they're within range. It might be best to restrict it to actions only, because then you can restrict it to working only when the person with the advantage activates (Spends stones in) their action. I have no clue for Artificially Intelligent. I also find this extremely disappointing because the concept of an artificially intelligent modifier sounds very interesting. Sadly no modifiers really benefit from the potential of being intelligent. Kaimontfendo pointed out that it works OK when applied to actions that have been made modifiers, but is extremely expensive.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 19, 2009 15:33:55 GMT -5
How many Marvel characters actually display an AoE? Arguably Storm.. who else? Because I think a lot of people are splitting stones.
"Others Benefit from Power" should be broken down into two varieties: a) pay 1 red per "passenger" (possibly +2 CL?) b) anyone you can touch, for free (possibly +4 CL?)
Actions that are already 1 red per "passenger" could have the option of upgrading to b).
Anyone affected by your power gets the full benefit of your Action. For example, there's an NPC in one of my New Mutants games who has Flight with "others benefit"; he flies by riding on rafts of solid cloud, and can bring along a small number of people (as many as he could reasonably touch at once, usually ~8 max) without paying extra stones for them, or involving his Strength (which is 1!). When making up his CAD I put this down as a +2 CL option, since Flight already allows you to bring people along for an energy cost. It worked out pretty well.
Great for Actions such as Invisibility (I so want this for my Mutant High character). Potentially broken in conjunction with Growth.
As for Artificially Intelligent, I've played this game for a year without needing it. *shrug*
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 19, 2009 15:52:42 GMT -5
Ok, I know no one uses Artificially Intelligent. That's because no one knows what the hell it was supposed to do. If we figure out what it's supposed to do, we can make it happen in the system.
So, when does a character appear to have "Artificially Intelligent" modifiers in the comics?
That Darwin dude seemed to have it. And Lifeguard's power could arguably be said to be an Artificially Intelligent modifier that was made into an action in order to restrict its own power (By taking up one of her 9 action boxes and an action per panel when in use).
Potential example:
There's going to be a flat "Adds to attack action" modifier in MURPG 2.0, right? Something that serves the purpose of Targeting and Claws while being neither?
Take this modifier, and stick "Artificially Intelligent" on it.
What you now have is a modifier that adds to EITHER your Close or Ranged Combat, decided by which you use.
Captain America has Combat Aptitude at 4 with the Artificially Intelligent advantage. His aptitude adds to his Close Combat whenever he uses it, but whenever he throws his shield and isn't threatened in melee, it adds to his Ranged Combat instead.
That's just one possible use for it. Unfortunately at the current cost and using my example you're better off buying two seperate modifiers. Obviously Artificially Intelligent was supposed to be better than I make it here.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 19, 2009 16:16:50 GMT -5
I think coming up with a name for something, and THEN trying to figure out what it does is lunacy. At best its putting the cart before the horse.
We are already planning on allowing Modifiers to apply to more than one Action. We don't need to name it "Artificially Intelligent".
It's a neat idea, but you're reaching too hard.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 19, 2009 16:40:15 GMT -5
Yeah you're right. I just like the concept and I know a lot of players who would like some aspects of their powers to have a level of "autopilot".
It may sound terrible at first, but usually these players are trying to build a character they'll enjoy roleplaying rather than a character to smash bad-guys with, and I like to make way for that kind of thing when I can.
Who wants to play Darwin? "Look, I can survive almost anything by means I can't control, and that's ALL I can do!" Roleplay-heavy players is the answer.
Also what if it's applied to Healing Factors? Maybe it ramps up your energy regeneration when you're not taking damage, keeps the normal balance when you're in combat, and ramps up the white stone regeneration when you're out of combat and injured?
I just liked the idea of keeping something with potential rather than scrapping it because it costs us nothing. However you're definitely right that naming something before figuring out what it does is bass ackwards and I'm reaching too much.
|
|