|
Post by Reemo on Feb 26, 2009 8:08:15 GMT -5
I really don't want to derail this conversation as it has been moving in a lot of good directions. I also realize i have not contributed to anything, but I am reading everything.
How would Overstrain be handled? Is it an Advantage, a Disadvantage or both?
And are there levels of Overstrain that mean you're out for hours instead of weeks? Or is it up to GM interpretation?
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Jul 14, 2009 18:52:27 GMT -5
Sorry for the level 5 necromancy here, but I want to run an idea by you guys.
I've always struggled with the concept of powers that "stun" people - and by "stun" I mean they effectively KO you for a number of panels (I prefer to call this "disable" rather than "stun"). Typically it's a number of panels equal to stones of damage, which is usually too much..
.. but what about panels equal to white stones of damage?
For example, let's say someone has a Force Blast with a "sonic" element, and they want to give it an Advantage that allows them to disable opponents with nausea and/or disorientation. Let's say that in a fight they put in 7 stones of attack, and their opponent only has 3 defense. Instead of doing 2 white of damage, they disable the opponent for 2 Panels.
Being disabled generally sucks, but I think this sort of rule would at least keep it from being overpowered. Along with a reasonable price (I'm thinking +4 or +5 CL?) it might be okay. (I still hesitate to use this against PCs very often, as it is very boring being knocked out of play - at least when you're damaged you can still post.)
Perhaps Disabled characters should be allowed to allocate stones to defense? This might keep the Big Bad from getting too much of a beat down by a group of heroes..
Thoughts?
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Jul 15, 2009 1:35:55 GMT -5
Well, to me there is Stun and Paralyzis.. Stun is the one who takes red stones out of the targets pool and paralyzis disables completly for x panels..
But it dosnt sound bad that its 1 panel per 1w stone of damage.. Lets try it.. But Im not sure about +5.. Seems like allot.. And defensewise, I think you should be allowed to defend your self unless the attack is literally paralysing you... Which usually means, you can't move at all.. Uh! Maybe make a +3 or so option, which just imposes a negative sit mod on the target because he becomes disoriented, which in my head, could represent Sonic-like attacks really well..
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Jul 17, 2009 17:07:02 GMT -5
I think what I'm worried about is this scenario:
A team of (let's say) 4 super heroes is squaring off against the big bad, who is some super tough guy. It's bound to be a good fight... until one of the players cuts loose with their Force Blast:
Amazin' Laser 7 (15 white) - as Force Blast (2 CLs of options for free) - attack vs. Durability to disable
He puts in 7 stones, gets 2 for Leadership, and uses a Flashback panel for a total of 11 stones of attack. If the big bad can't possibly have a Durability of 11, so he suffers at least 1 panel of disability. That means he loses all Actions for the next panel! Chances are that the group can destroy the guy in one panel if he can't even defend himself.
That's the scenario I'm worried about. It's too damn tempting.
Your suggestion about imposing a penalty to actions is sorta neat, though.. I'll have to think about that one! ^__^
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Jul 18, 2009 4:16:35 GMT -5
Hmm.. Thats true... But then its the GMs fault not making the Big Bad Guy so big and mean as he should be.. I mean, if a player gets a time travel power (and the GM allows it), the GM must have a way of dealing with it or it will all fall appart... If someone has a disabling attack, the GM has to plan that into the campaing, or these things will happen..... Actually, its the same thing everywhere... If they players selected a bunch of powers and start using them in a maner that is really smart, but makes it to easy to get through the story, then its GMs duty to make it more challenging.. I mean, if a GM sais yes to something (even normal things), he has to take that into account when making the story... Phew..... Not sure if Im that clear, but did anyone understand that?
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Jul 18, 2009 9:41:27 GMT -5
Yeah, I get what you mean, Neros. I do the same thing as a GM, usually. If the players come up with a clever solution around the obstacles I've planned, I ask myself one question:
Is it more or less fun for everyone to let their clever plan work?
Sometimes it's more fun to let the players succeed when they've been clever. At other times, it's boring and anticlimactic if they can so easily defeat what should be a proper challenge.
But the trouble with making the Big Bad resistant to this sort of disabling power is that you have to essentially make him immune to damage. That's.. pretty hard to do, and begs the question: if they can't even deal 1 white of damage to him, then how are they going to beat him? Does EVERY big bad have to be beaten with telekinesis? lol
The other way to approach this problem is: Would we really miss a Disable rule if we didn't include it?
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Jul 19, 2009 1:21:25 GMT -5
Well, depending on how his Touch attack works, the Big Bady could either be a robot or have a armor that protects him from such trifle attacks... Then the PC's would have to work their way through the nut to the mushy center But I don't think it would be missed that much, but I still think it should be there so that the option to make someone with a strong nerve disabling touch is possible.. But so fare, we could just have rules for stunning.. Like sonic, electricity, cuteness, mindblasts.. Which could be the negative thing, or that you lose energy stones..
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Jul 19, 2009 8:01:29 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm interested to see if Stun attacks are actually useful in 2.0. I had hoped that players would keep their Energy recovery and Modifiers fairly low, but pretty much everyone jumped on the "omg gimme a modifier" bandwagon. So argh. We'll see how it goes.
The point is that I want people to actually use their reserve for a change, instead of just dipping into it casually once or twice, ever. If you actually use the energy in your reserve, instead of just what you Recover + Modifiers + Static Defense, then having that reserve depleted is actually a threat.
Back in 1.0 it was like "Oh noes, my energy! Oh well, I still recover 6 energy this panel, which I put into my efficient Mastery Force blast with x2 damage, plus I have Targeting 4, so neener neener."
I at least have one ace up my sleeve: I currently haven't established a rule that links Health to Energy Recovery. I may have to implement one.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Jul 21, 2009 9:37:33 GMT -5
A couple thoughts:
1. Whats the cost to increase the "Free Area" for the area effect? I mean increasing it from 2 to 3 or maybe even remove the free area?
2. Whats the cost to decrease the range of a action/modifier?
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Jul 21, 2009 15:42:00 GMT -5
A couple thoughts: 1. Whats the cost to increase the "Free Area" for the area effect? I mean increasing it from 2 to 3 or maybe even remove the free area? We don't currently have a rule for an Advantage that gives you an even better Area of Effect. I'd sorta prefer we keep away from making AoE even more uber. +/- 1 CL per point of range. ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Jul 22, 2009 2:41:11 GMT -5
1. Okay, but there still might be someone who wants to have a higher free range for area effect... Like I heard of bombs and rockets who could blow up more than a puny area of 10ยด 2. Well, then you might want to mention that you also can decrease the range of a power Remember, we have to cover as much as possible... Or atleast more than what the original books did.. I mean, there was to much "No idea how this works, but i guess its like this".. So each GM would more or less have a different way of doing things
|
|