|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 14, 2009 13:06:45 GMT -5
Post your interpretations of this action here.
Here's my take.
Close Combat + 1/2 Relevant Stat + Relevant Modifier = Stones of damage.
Rule 1: You cannot get more stones from the modifier than actual stones invested into the action.
Optional Rule: All out attack. Increase your attack stones by 1.5x. Your defense is halved for the panel. You may not declare All out attacks in consecutive panels.
Example 1A. Wolverine. CC 7 Agi 4 Claws 3
Wolverine wants to open a can. He puts 1 stone into CC, gets 2 stones from natural AGI, and gets 1 stones from claws for a 4 stone attack on the can. It opens easily.
Example 1B. Wolverine.
Wolverine fights a street thug. He puts 3 stones into CC + 2 stones from natural AGI, and gets 3 stones from claws for an 8 stone attack. He beats the street thug easily.
Example 1C. Wolverine.
Wolverine fights Juggernaut. He knows that Juggernaut is a tough nut to crack. He puts 7 stones into CC + 2 from natural AGI, and gets 3 stones from claws for a 12 stone attack that can hurt even Juggernaut.
Example 1D. Wolverine.
Wolverine's fight is getting desperate with Juggernaut. He declares an all out attack. Wolverine's attack is increased to 18 stones for this panel, however his defense is halved, so he better hope that Juggernaut goes down with this attack or he will be in for a big time hurting.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 14, 2009 13:30:53 GMT -5
I'm 100% opposed to any sort of Ability-as-free-modifier rules. I cannot stress that enough.
All-Out Attack is neat, but it's going to kill every "boss" character in the first panel. I get what you're trying to represent, but I strongly feel that it should be represented by the player putting max stones in the box, and not shifting much/any to defense. For that to be a significant risk, characters need to be built so that they don't constantly have enough free energy (ie, modifiers and high energy recovery numbers) to be able to do this constantly.
If there is too much energy in the game, and too many modifiers, Actions are always going to be maxed out. That reduces the risk of the game to next to nothing - outcomes of fights become predetermined.
I think you're trying to fix something that isn't broken. It's not a major problem, but I'm completely confident that its a step in the wrong direction.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 14, 2009 13:42:28 GMT -5
What about Toughness based characters? Would their Defense be halved as well?
Not sure why, but im not much for the halving part idea.. But do you round down or up if your ability is uneven?
|
|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 14, 2009 13:50:23 GMT -5
What about Toughness based characters? Would their Defense be halved as well? Not sure why, but im not much for the halving part idea.. But do you round down or up if your ability is uneven? As a rule of thumb, attack stones should round down and defense stones should round up to promote survivability. And I'm completely confident that to overcome the base problem of defense being too high, that a bump up for attacks will be necessary. Besides it makes a LOT of sense that natural ability should factor into how well you can fight or how much damage you can deal.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 14, 2009 14:50:51 GMT -5
I'm 100% opposed to any sort of Ability-as-free-modifier rules. I cannot stress that enough. All-Out Attack is neat, but it's going to kill every "boss" character in the first panel. I get what you're trying to represent, but I strongly feel that it should be represented by the player putting max stones in the box, and not shifting much/any to defense. For that to be a significant risk, characters need to be built so that they don't constantly have enough free energy (ie, modifiers and high energy recovery numbers) to be able to do this constantly. If there is too much energy in the game, and too many modifiers, Actions are always going to be maxed out. That reduces the risk of the game to next to nothing - outcomes of fights become predetermined. I think you're trying to fix something that isn't broken. It's not a major problem, but I'm completely confident that its a step in the wrong direction. ~TWF Yeah... what he said.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 14, 2009 15:04:42 GMT -5
I agree with you that it makes sense, but unfortunately sense has to take a back seat to maintaining the system. Abilities as mini-modifiers will ruin the game, and the more we try to keep that from happening, the more compliated the system will get. I think it's premature to assume the high-defense problem is still.. well, a problem in 2.0 as we know it. A lot has changed. I'd prefer to accumulate what we have, playtest it, and see what falls off, so to speak. If defense is a problem then, we'll fix it - but I promise you, more free modifiers are not the best solution. Also, I find it really bizzare that you're trying to compensate for defenses that are too high when you yourself proposed a system that gives everyone gigantic defensive modifiers essentially for free, whether or not they even want them. ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 14, 2009 19:05:35 GMT -5
I'm not married to giving half the ability stones for free, but I don't think that you can strip abilities away from combat actions. Otherwise it becomes a flat out bland, my AN is higher than yours, I win, type of game. Besides it makes ZERO sene that Hulk wouldn't be able to take advantage of his massive strength for close combat and Quicksilver wouldn't be able to use his speed to his advantage to close combat either.
I pose you this - Juggernaut, toughness 8, plus forcefield action. How do you get by his defense? Nuff said. If you don't anticipate the potential problems ahead of time, you get 1.0 all over again. And if you don't like the solution posed, why don't you proffer an alternative that makes more sense?
How about NOT TRUE? In the defensive matrix, reflexive dodge and toughness don't stack. Compare this to 1.0 where you can buy 10 toughness and 10 RD and have them stack for 20 defense. The defense matrix means inherently lower static defenses by virtue of that alone. I'm sorry that you think toughness of 1 is THE OVERPOWERED for normal humans. But it's really not. Not even close.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 14, 2009 21:34:16 GMT -5
We didn't strip Abilities away from Close Combat dude... we stripped Weapons..
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 14, 2009 23:34:22 GMT -5
You misunderstand a couple things, vjc. For starters, I have never suggested that we take Ability bonuses out of Close Combat - I just don't want any of those stones to be free. I'm perfectly fine with the old system as is.
As for the defense matrix, you have to admit that it gives everyone at least some Toughness and Ref. Dodge, even if they don't fully stack (I don't like the mechanic of ref. dodge acting like 1.0's Bad Luck.. you should be able to partly dodge something). On average I think defenses will be higher with what you proposed. They certainly won't be lower.
~TWF
|
|