|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 10, 2009 17:38:37 GMT -5
Hmm.. So if you have a Action Number 3 and a Modify Number of 6, you wouldent be able to get all the 6 stones since you don't have a AN of more than 3? It's not a matter of AN, it's a matter of how many stones you put in. For example, if you have an AN of 6 and a modifier of +6, but you only put in 3 stones, you only get +3 from your modifier. The rule is attempting to correct the tendency for players to load their characters with modifiers, then spend 1 stone +18 modifiers and kill everyone without breaking a sweat. (It's an exaggeration, but it illustrates the point.) EDIT: And it's still a very recently proposed rule. Hasn't been discussed much. I think we should have a thread about that later, when more of these rules are hammered out and mostly agreed upon. Then we can talk about specific situations where Difficulty is overcome by what, and so on. If we can't put down specifics, then we can at least talk in general guidelines and let GMs figure it out themselves. ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 11, 2009 4:25:20 GMT -5
I can only agree with your example.. Even though its exaggerated, its still possible.. But what if you have a AN of 4 and a Modifier of 6? Or should it be a rule that your Modifer cannot exceed your AN? In which case, what if it adds to more than one Action? Do the Actions then have to have the same AN?
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 11, 2009 8:46:58 GMT -5
I don't think AN should be a limit - you can always buy the AN up later. It's possible that stones from Leadership would count as "in the box" stones too.
I think the only complaints I have about the formula for this modifier mechanic are:
1. It's maybe a little inexpensive.
2. It doesn't take into account the cost of the Action its modifying. Though I doubt anyone would allow a Phoenix Force modifier, for the sake of illustrating the point, a +3 Phoenix Force modifier costs the same amount as a +3 Social Skills modifier.
The fact that I had to pick Phoenix Force to illustrate the point, though, means that it really isn't that big of a deal. I looked down the list of Actions for one that looks really expensive, and I didn't find much. Stretching stood out, but I don't really care that much if you get a cheap Stretching modifier. *shrug* Telepathy is maybe the only one I'm worried about (since you can LOAD that with options at a weak AN, then get all your power from a cheap modifier). And possibly Force Field.
Still want to playtest this. I plan to make it a part of my upcoming game.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 14, 2009 11:52:33 GMT -5
I don't think AN should be a limit - you can always buy the AN up later. It's possible that stones from Leadership would count as "in the box" stones too. I think the only complaints I have about the formula for this modifier mechanic are: 1. It's maybe a little inexpensive. 2. It doesn't take into account the cost of the Action its modifying. Though I doubt anyone would allow a Phoenix Force modifier, for the sake of illustrating the point, a +3 Phoenix Force modifier costs the same amount as a +3 Social Skills modifier. The fact that I had to pick Phoenix Force to illustrate the point, though, means that it really isn't that big of a deal. I looked down the list of Actions for one that looks really expensive, and I didn't find much. Stretching stood out, but I don't really care that much if you get a cheap Stretching modifier. *shrug* Telepathy is maybe the only one I'm worried about (since you can LOAD that with options at a weak AN, then get all your power from a cheap modifier). And possibly Force Field. Still want to playtest this. I plan to make it a part of my upcoming game. ~TWF The Phoenix Force limited modifier should cost more than the CC modifier. I've already suggested a cost system based on the CL of the action that's being modified. In this case a modifier for Phoenix Force limited would be MN+6.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 14, 2009 12:27:51 GMT -5
I think any GM who allows Phoenix Force to begin with is asking for trouble. I don't see how a cheap Modifier is going to unbalance anything that wasn't already royally screwed up. I think we should be using a different standard.
It's already been suggested that Telepathy and Masteries are the most problematic Actions for a generic modifier with a standard cost (ie, always MN +3; I like +3 better than +2 if its going to be generic).
I don't see Telepathy as a huge problem. I'll write out some examples and try to break the system. My "MN +3" is going to be called "Cheap Modifier". Yours is "Balanced Modifier" since it balances the cost. I'll try a pretty modest Telepathy first.
Telepathy 3 - int bonus +2 CL - 5 CLs of options (7 CLs of options total) COST: 15 white
Cheap Modifier 7 Cost: MN + 3 = 15 White
Balanced Modifier 7 Cost = MN + 4 = 20 white
Not a huge difference, really. 5 white difference.
============================== Telepathy 3 - int bonus +2 CL - 10 CLs of options (12 CLs of options total) Cost: 40 white
Cheap Modifier 7 Cost = MN + 7 = 15 white
Balanced Modifier 7 Cost = MN + 6 = 30 white
It still isn't a huge difference, really, is it? I mean, we're talking about a character spending 70 white or 55. Neither are terribly affordable. Also, if we limit the modifier to the Actions AN (in other words, in both of these examples, the player could only benefit from 3 stones of modifiers) then the point is almost entirely moot. I'm not sure I'm for that rule, just stating facts.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 14, 2009 12:44:38 GMT -5
The 5 white stones difference in the first example and and the 15 white stones difference in the latter example don't seem significant at first but those are stones that can't be invested to improve other aspects of the character. So in effect if the player wants to become a 'one trick' poney and make one action stronger with a modifier, it will come at the cost of stones that could have been invested into other actions.
To break the numbers down: In a low stone count game, 5 white stones is 10% of the stones allocated. It doesn't sound like a lot but it DOES make a difference. In a 100 stone game, 15 white stones is still 15% of the budget. In a mid+ game say 60 + 20, 15 white stones represents 18.8% of the budget. That's still a significant percentage of stones and it will make a difference.
And when you factor in the limiting rules I proposed that: A) You cannot get more free stones than the actual stones invested in the action and B) The modifier cannot be greater than half the AN OR if we're feeling more liberal, greater than the AN of the action then you've made a difference in 'powering' down the amount of free stones provided by modifiers alone.
If you want to limit the flow of free stones, you need to put some limitations in place. Wasn't your idea to limit energy generation and free stones to make the game more about resource/energy management?
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 14, 2009 12:59:48 GMT -5
For starters, I know very well that those 5 or 15 stones can be spent elsewhere. That's painfully obvious, and completely beside the point: The point is whether or not the price paid for the Modifier is fair, and whether the degree to which it is fair is worth the complexity of the rules we're proposing.
Also, part of what I'm saying is that if you allow both rules A and B, I don't think we need to work too hard to balance the modifiers any more. If someone loads an Action down with options, buying up their AN is going to be hella expensive - but thats what they'll have to do if they want a juicy modifier.
I want to make one last thing clear: I'm not really trying to get the flat MN + 3 CL modifier cost to be the rule, I'm really just playing devil's advocate. Its already been said that I "want" the Modifier to be a certain way - I DO NOT. Just want to clear that up in case people get the wrong idea again.
~TWF
|
|