|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 12, 2009 18:04:14 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 That definitely doesn't work for me... I don't think its reasonable that Telepathy with all possible options should be Modified as cheaply as Close Combat.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 12, 2009 18:06:57 GMT -5
What about mine?
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 12, 2009 18:08:51 GMT -5
Yours makes no distinction between Telepathy with all Options and Close Combat either, as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 12, 2009 18:15:58 GMT -5
I know what you mean, WK, but the way I see it, I'm not so afraid of Telepathy these days. At least not with the re-written Options I presented - they're pretty much all based on how high your Action Number is. If someone has a ton of Options AND a high AN to actually put them to use, they've already paid a TON of stones. I don't think charging them more for a modifier is really necessary.
Is it optimal? Yes. But the formulas we have so far are kinda messy. It's really hard to explain, too, without setting some new terms. We've been tossing "base cost" around a lot and it's already confusing folks.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 12, 2009 18:19:34 GMT -5
To WK Actually mine does.....
You have to take your action's Final Cost Level and add it to your Modifier Level to get the Cost Level...
SO if you had Telepathy with all options... that's like what... +13? And you wanted a +4 Modifier... that's a CL of 17....
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 12, 2009 18:22:34 GMT -5
Oh thats pretty rough Dio ;D
TWF... don't be so literal. Forget Telepathy for a minute... consider any Mastery. I just don't think its a good idea not to take Options into account when pricing a Modifier... obviously the number of things one can do with an Action are clearly linked to the utility of that action.
I also think its a bad idea to make a distinction in any case between what something costs before options, and what it costs with the options the character actually has. As I said before... Telepathy with +5 worth of options is not a "Cost: AN" action, IMO. Its a "Cost" AN+5" action.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 12, 2009 18:25:24 GMT -5
Yargh. I know you're right. It's just so awkward.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 12, 2009 18:32:11 GMT -5
Better awkward than unbalanced... and its only going to matter at character creation anyway. After that, you'll probably never have to worry about it again ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 12, 2009 18:38:04 GMT -5
Yeah, I might be rough.... but it's Balanced, and takes into account Advantages, Disadvantages and Options
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 12, 2009 18:40:26 GMT -5
Right... but thats why I proposed paying half the total cost, which accomplishes the same thing without being crippling. So for your +13 Action it would cost MN +6, which is a ton considering you also bought an AN+13 Action.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 12, 2009 18:42:21 GMT -5
I can get behind that.... but we should incorporate the +2 minimum.... I did like that.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 12, 2009 18:45:48 GMT -5
Oh yeah definitely behind the +2 minimum. Though TWF seemed to think that was expensive, and he's more of a math guy than I am.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 12, 2009 19:08:32 GMT -5
+2 isn't that expensive though... I mean it's actually less than the old modifiers...
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 13, 2009 1:18:57 GMT -5
Woah, I didn't think +2 was expensive.. I actually said it wasn't expensive enough. What I *DID* say is that it's simple.
I am perhaps a little concerned that, since we've nerfed weapons, Claws (and similar modifiers) are going to be all the rage. It's also little hard to reconcile that a sword only gives something like x2 damage, while Wolverine's claws give a +3 modifier. But hey, its comics. I can deal with that. ^__^
So, to be clear, is the rule:
a) Cost = MN +2 CL + (Action's CLs / 2), with a minimum of MN +2
OR
b) Cost = MN + (Action's CLs / 2), with a minimum of MN +2
And also, I'm dreading putting this into words, formally. It is the most awkward thing I've had to type so far in 2.0.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 13, 2009 6:11:04 GMT -5
I'm going with B myself....
|
|