|
Post by Neros on Feb 12, 2009 16:27:05 GMT -5
Im rather not much for the Stun thing.. It seems wrong that you spend stones and then lose even more stones..
What about not allowing Force Field to stake with other Defenses? Its kinda like having to go through a wall to get to the cake.. First you break down the wall then eat the cake.. Even though the cake had extra frosting to protect itself, it will still not be as strong as the wall... Wait wha??... Dam lack of sleep and loong posts which where missed!!!! NOTE: This is a half-minded attempt to come with a suggestion..
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 12, 2009 16:34:51 GMT -5
I can see that... But a Force Field would logically stack with Reflexive Dodge... maybe not Toughness unless it's like Superman, but.....
The thing I was going for was that if you are putting in the strain to keep it up, someone pounding on it is going to make you more tired faster. Kinda like Carrying something is supposed to work... Each turn it gets higher on the weight chart, until you can't carry it anymore. This is kinda the same thing, except that instead of the strain going up every turn, it goes up if massive damage is applied to the barrier. (Which whould have to be > 1/2 the Barrier's Defense Bonus)
And, for those that don't have that problem, I did inlcude a option to eliminate that innate flaw.
|
|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 13, 2009 20:54:16 GMT -5
First of all I don't think you should be able to designate more than one action as defensive per turn. That right there cuts down on total defense that you can muster.
Second of all, until we can determine what will be the average attack, it's hard to see what average defense will be sufficient.
I don't think making all forcefields like Sue's and charging +4 CL to get rid of the disadvantage is the answer. If it appears that 2x forcefield is too strong from testing, just leave at at 1.5x and don't give a 2x option.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 13, 2009 21:08:33 GMT -5
Ok... once and for all... I'm tired of people saying I'm making all Force Fields like SUE'S
I'm not... I'm making it logical!
It's a strain on the body and the mind to keep up, and I came up with a logical solution. That's it!
The +4 is negotiable... I was thinking of dropping it to a +2 anyway. 2x isn't too strong, it just Shouldn't be part of the BASE Force Field...
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 14, 2009 7:21:13 GMT -5
So whats the base force field at the moment?
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 14, 2009 9:43:14 GMT -5
We're still hashing that out....
|
|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 14, 2009 12:55:18 GMT -5
Ablative Force Field is utterly broken. I invest 6 stones to get a 6 stone Force Field with 6 health levels, and 6 defense on each health level... So for 6 stones, I get a super-layered defense that will probably mean nothing touches me for at least 2 or 3 panels... and that I can readily "turn on" again at least every other panel. Crazy. Oh I totally agree. I noticed that in the Transformers game when I was reading over the rule. The forcefield itself has health, and you can keep renewing it when it gets damaged if you want to, but if it's still alive, you can just keep blasting the enemy with a free forcefield in place protecting you. BTW WK and Dio, you keep referencing things that you two have come up with and acting like it's something already decided without sharing with the rest of us what it is you came up with. For example this Armor Penetration system that you reference to Force Field. Please put up a separate thread detailing it in the 2.0 system forum instead of assuming that people want to hunt through and find it elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 14, 2009 13:01:06 GMT -5
(I've asked them to put up their own Armor Penetration thread like 6 times. You're wasting your breath. If you want things done, gotta do it yerself. ^__^)
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 14, 2009 13:09:05 GMT -5
How am I supposed to agree with their version of Forcefield, when they incorporate an element (AP system) that they haven't even explained?
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 14, 2009 13:34:49 GMT -5
I'll post a thread and coax out the rule. It was posted somewhere in an inappropriate thread, after I asked at least twice. At least the mechanic is okay.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 14, 2009 14:36:48 GMT -5
Wait... didn't we do that? Oh sunnava... I'll post it if it hasn't been already...
Sorry! I thought we posted it!
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 14, 2009 14:50:24 GMT -5
Just did, so no worries. ^_^ I would have done it sooner myself but we've had a lot on our plate already. Fortunately, I predict that everyone will be more or less in agreement about the rule.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by de5pa1r on Feb 16, 2009 15:00:21 GMT -5
If 1.0 FF is broken because it gives too much bang for its buck, why don't we just increase the cost level by one or two? Maybe slap on "Damage Comes from Energy Pool instead of Health: +1 or 2" "FF has x health: +2 or 3," and/or "AP 4 rather than 3: +2 or 3" options and call it good? Really, tearing the whole action down just because it's overpowered, and not because the mechanic is fundamentally broken, isn't necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 16, 2009 15:02:47 GMT -5
I suggested a "Damage comes from Energy Pool" solution... everyone thought I was trying to make the FF like Sue Storm...
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 17, 2009 19:30:26 GMT -5
My suggested fixes, any one of which would probably go a long way toward balancing the action:
1. You choose the "basic shape" of your forcefield when you purchase the action. You can have the standard globe that covers you on all sides but only protects you with as many stones as you put into the action, or you can get a directional field that protects you at 2x stones but leaves your flanks open. Balance it against Reflexive Dodge and Toughness by making it cheaper than them when it possesses no advantages.
2. The description of area and range should be more explicit, but more effective is making them pay for the ability to manipulate that area and range. You can make them pay when they buy the action for the capacity to manipulate, or make them pay when they use it for the extra stones of effect.
3. I typically don't care about this. The person with Force Field can control it well enough to attack and defend well. However, allies protected by their teammate's forcefield should be dropped to his initiative (If their agilities are higher) or should suffer penalties for trying to sync their attacks with the attacks of whoever is protecting them with a force field
4. Force Field in MURPG is unique compared to most other actions in that it doubles your stones of effort. Modifier = No effort. So if you double your stones of effort, then it must be an action or an ability and by definition can NOT be a modifier. This alone should be enough for most GMs to figure out that applying "action to modifier" is NOT ok with Force Fields. If you let your players do this, you earned the grief it caused and I hope you learned from the mistake.
|
|