|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 12, 2009 14:36:50 GMT -5
Hey gang,
So, we talked about this in another thread, but I think it deserves its own. Modifiers (the kind that actually give stones to other Actions) have been a source of a lot of debate in 1.0. I hope we can clear a lot of that up in the transition to 2.0.
It's been proposed (and largely agreed upon) that all Modifiers should be derived from the same formula. The trick is making that formula balanced.
So, our goal should be to create a mechanic that:
* takes into account the base cost of Actions. A Close Combat modifier and a Phoenix Force modifier should not be created equal. You're obviously getting more out of one than the other, and the price should reflect it.
* takes into account the options you have for the chosen Action. Even though Close Combat and Telepathy are both "cost = AN" powers, Telepathy gets quickly laden down with Options, making it a far more expensive Action overall. Once again, the cost should reflect these differences
* prevents people from buying a gigantic modifier and using it with only a tiny contribution of energy from their actual Pool. Someone with 1 stone in Close Combat and a Modifier of +10 is getting away with bloody murder.
* can recreate the likes of Claws and Targeting with a reasonable/comparable cost.
* doesn't violate KISS.
Now, a lot of that is review for people who were involved in some of the previous discussions. Here are some of the ideas that been discussed:
1. MN + 2 CL as a base cost (I think this might be too cheap)
2. WK suggested that we add 1/3rd of the Action's base cost, plus any relevant advantages, disadvantages and options (round down). For example, if you have something like Force Blast with +5 CL worth of options on it, you'd add +1 CL to the total. Perhaps it should be 1/2.
3. All Modifiers follow the Targeting rule: You get 1 point of Modifier for every stone invested, up to a max of the MN.
Are there any other ideas? Would anyone like to test some Modifiers out?
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 12, 2009 14:45:44 GMT -5
Okay... I know this is scattered and out of order, so if I miss something, I apologize, (but its in order of whats important to me)
I solidly agree with limiting Modifiers based on the stone output from the player. I prefer the notion of it being double the stones (rather than equal to the stones), just because I think its plenty fair for a character to get 2 free stones if he invests 1, and so on... BUT I'm perfectly content with a 1-for-1 maximum as well. Either way it results in a maximum benefit from modifiers rather than allowing people to do the thing which I think we all agree is cheesy... invest 3 or 4 stones to accomplish an 18 stone task.
Second, I don't think MN+2 is too cheap as a base cost. Its mostly just a "gut instinct" but I really think that basic Actions like Close Combat and Social Skills should be relatively cheap to modify.
Finally, I advocate a cost of 1/2 (not 1/3rd, and sorry if thats what I put in the other thread) as an additive cost. So if you wanted to buy Limited Phoenix Force (AN+13) and get a Modifier for it, it would cost MN +8 (+2 base, +6 additive)
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 12, 2009 14:51:11 GMT -5
We should ensure that the additive cost never goes negative. Otherwise you get gargantuan modifiers.
The first test I did was a Cyclopsish Force Blast. AN9+0 base cost. x2 damage, Efficient, out-of-control-w/o-device, can't-improve-by-lines. Works out to -1 CL total base cost! I wasn't sure what to do. Giving him a Modifier even at just MN +2 CL seemed cheap, and I started to worry this extra rule dropping that price even more.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 12, 2009 14:52:44 GMT -5
I don't think Disadvantages should be able to reduce the "+" below half
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 12, 2009 15:31:20 GMT -5
You know, now that I think about it, I'd prefer a simple MN + Action's Base Cost *OR* MN + 2, whichever is highest.
For example, Close Combat (base cost +0) would be MN +2 CL. However, Stretching would be MN + 5 CL.
I know it doesn't really account for an Action that's been optioned out to hell, but the fact the Targeting rule should keep it relatively honest. Plus good sense on the part of the GM to spot abuse in advance, as always.
I'd still feel more comfortable with a line in the Force Field description that says stones from the General Pool aren't multiplied as defense.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 12, 2009 16:09:37 GMT -5
So let me get this straight...
I want a Modifier to directly effect my Telekinesis...
My Telekinesis is the following
Telekinesis 4 (Intelligence Bonus and Weapon Modifier) - Bought with Telepathy
So my total CL is 7, so to get the Modifier I would have to pay MN+7? or MN+3.... what?
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 12, 2009 16:30:18 GMT -5
So let me get this straight... I want a Modifier to directly effect my Telekinesis... My Telekinesis is the following Telekinesis 4 (Intelligence Bonus and Weapon Modifier) - Bought with Telepathy So my total CL is 7, so to get the Modifier I would have to pay MN+7? or MN+3.... what? Telekinesis is AN + 2 CL. Let's just have that in writing to start with. Your Telekinesis is AN 4 + 2 CL (base) -1 CL (bought with telepathy = AN 4 + 1 CL. The "+1 CL" part is important; the AN is not. WK is suggesting MN +2 to start with. Then take that +1 CL and divide it by 2. In theory round down to zero, and add that to MN +2. Ha ha, works out to just MN +2 so this isn't the best example after all. Time for a new example. ============================== Telekinesis (AN +2 CL) - weapon modifier +1 CL - x2 damage +2 CL Applying the same formula: The basic formula is MN + 2 CL. Then you add a derivative amount: Take the base cost (+2 CL) and the options (+1 CL and +2 CL) and add 'em all up. You get +5 CL. Now, divide this by 2 and round down. You get +2. So, with what WK is suggesting, your Modifier costs MN + 4 CL. What I'm suggesting is to pay either MN + 2 CL OR pay MN + Base Cost, whichever is highest. Again, the base cost is +2 CL so my way it works out the same either way. I'm mostly advocating this because its simpler. ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 12, 2009 16:37:58 GMT -5
Too much math.... Way too much math...
How bout this...
Generic Modifier = AN + MN CL
DESCRIPTION
Choose an Action you posess... this Modifier adds directly to that Action when using it.
EXAMPLE CraniumDude has Telekinesis rank 5... he wants to buy the Modifier at Rank 3... he has to pay 9 stones for it (AN=5, MN=3) It's kinda like Deep Reserves, but for Actions. Now he gets 3 stones free to his Telekinesis every turn.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 12, 2009 16:42:24 GMT -5
You can't be serious.
EDIT: I don't mean to be rude, I'm sorry. It's that even a 5 second examination of that suggestion will reveal that it does the opposite of what we're trying to accomplish.
We're trying to account for the base cost of an action and the options applied to it. Your idea ONLY accounts for the Action Number. It also makes it insanely expensive (Wolverine's Claws would be 20+ stones).
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 12, 2009 17:24:55 GMT -5
Ok... how bout
Full CL + MN... there, that's better... It was just an off the coff thing...
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 12, 2009 17:28:54 GMT -5
To much math? I don't see it as to much math and im proberly the least mathemathical person on the... Okay, I might not be, but still... * If the Action the Modifier combines with has a Cost Level lower than or +2, then the price of the modifier is +2 * If the Actions bade cost level is above +2, the Modifiers cost will equal the Cost Level of the Action (if it has a base of Cost Level +10, the Modifier would be Cost Level +10).
I also like the 1-for-1 one idea, but what if you have a AN of 4 and a Modifier of 7? Then you would get 4 stones from the modifier since you can only place 4 stones?
And another thing which I've asked about at a earlier time, which I think is important: Should Modifiers allow you to beat a Difficulty? I would say no to this, since you then could have technology 3 and a Modifier of 4 and be able to (following the old D&R chart) play around with Kree Technology...
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 12, 2009 17:31:39 GMT -5
Yeah, that's pretty much what I already suggested, Nero (it's like we're sharing a brain today). The way I put it, it's MN + 2 CL or the base cost of the Action, whichever is highest.
I'd say no, they shouldn't allow you to beat difficulty.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 12, 2009 17:35:54 GMT -5
See, it wasn't the basics that got me... It was this: Telekinesis is AN + 2 CL. Let's just have that in writing to start with. Your Telekinesis is AN 4 + 2 CL (base) -1 CL (bought with telepathy = AN 4 + 1 CL. The "+1 CL" part is important; the AN is not. WK is suggesting MN +2 to start with. Then take that +1 CL and divide it by 2. In theory round down to zero, and add that to MN +2. Ha ha, works out to just MN +2 so this isn't the best example after all. Time for a new example. ============================== Telekinesis (AN +2 CL) - weapon modifier +1 CL - x2 damage +2 CL Applying the same formula: The basic formula is MN + 2 CL. Then you add a derivative amount: Take the base cost (+2 CL) and the options (+1 CL and +2 CL) and add 'em all up. You get +5 CL. Now, divide this by 2 and round down. You get +2. So, with what WK is suggesting, your Modifier costs MN + 4 CL. What I'm suggesting is to pay either MN + 2 CL OR pay MN + Base Cost, whichever is highest. Again, the base cost is +2 CL so my way it works out the same either way. I'm mostly advocating this because its simpler. ~TWF Screw it... just have it be Full CL+MN (So like Cyclops would have to pay 6+4 (if that were his MN) or 15 stones...)
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 12, 2009 17:45:36 GMT -5
What does "Full CL" mean? I'm trying to figure out how Cyclops has 6 of it.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 12, 2009 17:58:50 GMT -5
In the old system... 1.0... Cyclops' force blast is CL 6... wait... SORRY! 7.. CL 7!
my bad.... So 20 stones for the modifier.
|
|