|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 9, 2009 15:34:18 GMT -5
I think I've mentioned this before but it probably deserves its own thread. The reason that ranged combat turns out to be superior to most options is the amount of free stones it can get, the fact that weapons are cheap to either buy with wealth or construct, and then you add targeting on top of that. You end up with something superior to just about any other power for dealing damage.
Example. Gun +4 (bought with weatlh 3, which cost 1 white stone), Ranged Combat 4 (2w), and targeting 4 (9W, our priciest component). For 1 stone, gun toting character can deal 9 stones of damage or 4 stones he can deal 12 stones of damage.
Compare to close combat character (before options) with Str 6 and CC 6. He needs to expend 12 stones to deal 12 damage.
Now give gun toting character 2 guns and 2 targets. He can deal 2 + 4 + 2 = 8 stones to target A and 2 + 4 + 2 = 8 stones to target B for a total expenditure of 4 stones energy. Total damage output 16 stones, total expenditure 4 stones.
Close combat character with Str 6 and CC 6 expends 12 stones and can deal 6 stones to each target. Total damage output 12 stones, total expenditure 12 stones.
This gets even crazier when you go with PA and 6 different +6 weapons, and then use just 1 stone to activate each of those 6 weapons with your AI of 6 and PA targeting of 6. But let's not even go there.
Ok anyways close combat will be fixed in 2.0 so let's move past that and stick with the topic of how to fix ranged combat in 2.0.
My fix is simple. When using ranged combat, free stones added to RC cannot exceed actual stones of effort put into it. So if you have a +4 gun and you only put 2 stones into the ranged combat action, the weapon will only add +2 stones to your attack. That is, you may have a high quality weapon, but if you're not using equivalent effort to use it properly, you won't get its full benefit. The same limitation should also apply to Close Combat using a weapon.
Ranged combat and armed close combat will still be pretty efficient, but hopefully with that little tweak it won't be too powerful compared to other combat alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 9, 2009 15:36:09 GMT -5
We've covered this... Targetting and Claws are disappearing, and there's going to be a universal generic modifier that can be flavored to your needs.
And weapons aren't any harder to get for RC then they are for CC.
|
|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 9, 2009 16:23:17 GMT -5
We've covered this... Targetting and Claws are disappearing, and there's going to be a universal generic modifier that can be flavored to your needs. Right but whatever this modifier is called, how much of it will be allowed to apply to the combat action? I think there should be a limitation on free stones proportionate to the actual stones of effort invested in the action. I know that which is why the thread is entitled "ranged combat and armed combat in general."
|
|
|
Post by bubuniu on Feb 9, 2009 16:27:55 GMT -5
I was thinking about limiting possible "action helpers" like wep. mod., mod. in general, ability bonus etc. to AN number. All of them. If you have RC 4, +4 weapon and targeting of 4 you still can only make 8 stone attack not 12.
Dio: but you loose ability bonus in CC and it does not have modifier with potential like targeting... Almost anyone can have Targeting while not everyone has claws! What I was thinking about was adding the previous rule with addition of Strength (throwing only) or Agility (Shooting only) to RC and making adding wep. bonus and (instead of or) abil. bonus free to make potential of both the same. But the more i think about it the more bad things I'm finding in this idea.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 9, 2009 16:34:30 GMT -5
Bub.... what the devil are you talking about? This has nothing to do with Unarmed Combat.... Unarmed combat was fixed awhile ago.
|
|
|
Post by bubuniu on Feb 9, 2009 16:39:10 GMT -5
I missed something?
|
|
|
Post by de5pa1r on Feb 9, 2009 17:12:13 GMT -5
vjcsmoke:
Your example: Gun +4, Ranged Combat 4, and Targeting +4
My counter-example: Sword +4, Close Combat 4, and Knack for Close Combat +4 (house rule, easy call)
Just because you put Close Combat and Ranged Combat on different playing fields doesn't mean they're broken. You just compared apples and oranges. The only thing unbalanced about this scenario is that guns do 2x damage. If you're going to point at something as broken, complain about that.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 9, 2009 17:13:41 GMT -5
Actually... we've retconned that...in 2.0 Guns will not do 2x damage unless specified.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 9, 2009 17:22:29 GMT -5
Are you talking about the redone Action as Modifier advantage I made up? Because I don't think everyone's really weighed in on that yet. Even I'm not sure it's balanced.
I'm totally for this. Basically, you're saying that weapon modifiers should work the way Targeting does: 1:1 stones. If you put in 3 stones of RC, you can have up to 3 stones of modifiers. End of story.
I hope we do the same thing with Psi Weapon because holy crap I hate Psi Weapon.
Oy, let's absolutely ditch the two gun rule. It's moronic. If you want a second modifier, pay +5 CL. "Guns akimbo" is a good specialty to go with it.
I have two more fixes in mind:
1. Ranged Combat should cost AN + 1CL. I know it isn't a huge increase, but it's a start.
2. Enough with the friggin' "oh it's a custom pistol" crap! Let's keep those modifiers low. Also nix the default x2 damage. x2 damage should be for shotguns and assault rifles.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 9, 2009 17:47:33 GMT -5
I seem to recal that at some point during the original 2.0 thread, it was suggested that Weapon mods where removed and where just used to add flavor (unless it was a truelly powerful weapon)..
I also think one of the problems the original book had with weapons, was giving a approbriat modifier to smaller weapons.. A sling has the same damage as a bow and a cheap rifle (yea it has 2x Damage, but still)...
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 9, 2009 17:49:18 GMT -5
Yep.
I'm all for ditching Weapon Modifiers for "normal" weapons and reducing the best weapons in the game (Cap's Shield, Thor's Hammer, etc) to +1 or +2 Modifiers (or no Modifier at all, really) that can add "effects" to attacks (such as range, Area Affect, Damage Multipliers, and the like)
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 9, 2009 17:56:44 GMT -5
I wasn't talking about any Action to Modifier thing... I was talking about WK's original idea of the Generic Combat Modifier that could be flavored anyway you wanted... You want it to be claws... fine... you want it to be targetting? Fine.... you want it to be Ultra Strength fine. You want it to be an annoying fairy that shouts "Hey! Listen! Use the Z Button to Target" fine
As for ditching Weapon Modifiers completely, I'm so against that it isn't funny... I was in the beginning and I will be til the end. Why? Because that reduces characters like Hawkeye and Bullseye from genuine threats to genuine panseys..
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 9, 2009 18:03:39 GMT -5
Oh, because that's what I proposed in the Advantages thread. lol
I think I'm also against removing weapon modifiers ENTIRELY. I thought it was a sexy idea when I first read it, but I playtested it a little and it doesn't work very well. Part of the problem is that there aren't enough "effects" to go around. x2 damage, x3 damage, range, Armor Pentration... maybe efficient? ... uhm.... and that's about all I can think of.
When a character picks up a baseball bat, it should be worth something in an unarmed fight. I'm not sure that something is any of those things.
I also toyed with the idea of weapons effectively increasing your AN. In other words, if you have Ranged Combat 3 and you pick up a +2 rifle, you can spend a total of 5 stones; it's just that those stones aren't free. In the end, though, this also kinda sucks. It especially sucks for Punisher (can you say energy problems?)
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 9, 2009 18:03:42 GMT -5
Not at all. What it does is show the fact that its the man, not the weapon, that does the work.
Hawkeye and Bullseye are both dangerous as hell because they could shoot a fly at half a mile with a rubber band gun that normally shoots about 20 feet. Its the man, not the weapon.
In Hawkeyes specific case, obviously his arrows should still provide "effect", but that was already included in my statement above.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 9, 2009 18:20:47 GMT -5
I understand and agree with your point WK, but you have to remember, removing Weapon Modifiers eliminates their effectiveness... Without it, they're just two schlubs with an 8 Ranged Combat... Granted that's g'damn in most scenarios, until you remember that Hawkeye routinely tangles with people who have better personal armor than the Hulk, and can pierce them with his arrows by finding chinks in their armor. Unless you're going to call all Arrows armor penetrating (which we'd both be shot by each other for) it doesn't exactly fly.
|
|