|
Post by malice on Feb 19, 2009 11:24:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 19, 2009 12:32:11 GMT -5
Hmm.. I think one of the reasons they made Ninja into a "package" is because you can only do 2 actions per panel, and allot of times, ninjas will usually be Climbing, sneaking and assasinating at the same time...... After that, the staff must have watched a ninja movie and gone amok with the free bonus's
|
|
|
Post by Kaimontfendo on Feb 26, 2009 4:12:21 GMT -5
I'm very surprised by how many ideas in this thread are actually really good. I definitely agree that Ninja has a place, even if it was never very well-balanced. Part of that is the two actions per panel limit, and the built-in limitation that Ninjas have to split their AN between stealth and attacks. I can't begin to tell you how much I HATE the Mastery of Kung Fu action, and it should absolutely NOT be represented in 2.0 in any way. For the most part, I agree that it was crap, but I think there were some good ideas in there. Nothing is completely wrong with an action that covers both close and ranged combat, or even that allows a weapon and ability bonus. But an action that does all that, for AN cost was not thought out at all. You and I have talked about this before, but I don't think I mentioned that it is easily the single most offensive action I've ever seen, even more than Telepathy or Blasting. I am very thankful that it's not one of the official actions. If you want to fill the void of "Crazy-good action that covers a lot of stuff" then build a template action which players can plug in their own preferences to custom-fit it. So after completely deleting the Ninja action, create this action: Combat SpecialistAN + 5 (Working cost) Upon buying this action choose one of the following bonus sets: 1. (2 Weapon modifiers) 2. (Ability Bonus and Weapon Modifier) 3. (Ability Bonus and Combinable Action [So you could choose "Acrobatics" as your combinable action and ALWAYS combine it]) 4. (Weapon Bonus and Combinable Action) Next decide whether this action will function as Close or Ranged Combat, or both. If you only pick one, then you may pick an additional bonus pairing from above to use when you're not using the first pairing. So you could pick Pairings 1 and 3, and could either use 2 weapons OR an ability bonus and combined action. Next select a modifier that can be purchased at MN = Cost level and you gain that modifier at your Action Number. Finally, you may rename the action to suit your decisions. Example: Billy the Kid wants to specialize in drawing his guns faster than his opponents and shooting them down just as fast. He buys this Action at AN 5, makes it Ranged Combat only, chooses 2 Weapon Modifiers or an Ability Bonus and Weapon Modifier. He makes Fast Draw his free modifier and therefore gains it at MN 5. He names the action "Quickdraw Combat"Example 2: Alpha wants to use his telekinesis in combat all the time. He wants to throw things at his enemies and he wants to throw his enemies at his enemies. He also wants to be capable of defending himself in Close Combat. He buys this action, makes it count as Close and Ranged Combat, and gets a Weapon Bonus + Combinable Action (Telekinesis). For his Free Modifier he buys Sonar Senses so that he can know where things are and control them 360 degrees around him without having to turn around. He names the action "Psychokinetic Combat"This action idea sounds pretty solid. It's not as broad or flexible as Ninja, but it's also not as abusable. The only thing is, with weapons getting nerfed for 2.0 by only adding advantages, it makes paired weapons pretty much useless. "This energy pistol has damage or stun at will. That energy pistol also has damage or stun at will. Why do I carry two of these again?!" Personally, I think the original rules should have allowed characters to use two weapons without taking some expensive advantage or action, since anyone with two working arms can use two weapons, but oh well... There's no point in whining about that, is there?
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 26, 2009 13:48:39 GMT -5
This action idea sounds pretty solid. It's not as broad or flexible as Ninja, but it's also not as abusable. The only thing is, with weapons getting nerfed for 2.0 by only adding advantages, it makes paired weapons pretty much useless. "This energy pistol has damage or stun at will. That energy pistol also has damage or stun at will. Why do I carry two of these again?!" If there's no benefit to having two weapons in 2.0 then it's something wrong with 2.0 not having two weapons. Although dual-wielding ranged weapons is realistically a waste of time, dual-wielding melee weapons is handy, and both should be allowed to the player who wants that kind of flavor. The weapon-as-effect system is pretty cool, but only as long as it also ups your modifier slightly. Guns are effective because centuries worth of brilliant minds have been perfecting them into easy-to-use tools of murder. To say they don't make hitting someone and killing them easier is just plain foolish.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 26, 2009 13:51:45 GMT -5
... unless you're talking about comic books, in which case, as I've REPEATEDLY illustrated, its obviously true that bare hands are superior to guns for the majority of combatants.
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 26, 2009 13:58:07 GMT -5
Comic books are also trying to give healthy images of heroes to youngsters and not promote guns as "cool". There's a lot going on there that has nothing to do with how MURPG should work. Marvel has also recently warmed up to guns, especially the effectiveness of sniping an unguarded target.
That really doesn't matter though, because I'm not out to make hand-to-hand better than guns or guns better than hand-to-hand. I'm 100% opposed to making one form of combat seem much better than another (Despite the fact that in reality and in the comics one way IS better than another).
I like the weapon-as-effect system, but I think it should also let weapons add to your attack a little like they do now.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 26, 2009 13:59:38 GMT -5
I'm not about making one superior either. I'm about making them even.
Which inherently CANNOT happen if you allow weapons to provide all of these benefits that people are dead set on giving them.
As far as the comic books not having anything to do with how the MARVEL UNIVERSE Role-Playing Game should work? Seriously? LOL
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 26, 2009 14:06:12 GMT -5
As far as the comic books not having anything to do with how the MARVEL UNIVERSE Role-Playing Game should work? Seriously? LOL I didn't say that. I said there's a lot going on that shouldn't have anything to do with how MURPG works, and I'll stick by it. Most of the players we deal with are NOT under the age of 10. Most the ones I've seen tend to be above the age of 15. That means they have a different idea about what's cool, what's fun, and making people with guns get owned every time they appear isn't going to help their development. Marvel strives to create characters who are role models, or at least that was an objective at one point in time. At that time people with guns would've been getting smacked around regularly to keep from glorifying firearms. THAT has nothing to do with how MURPG should work. Northstar being gay and helping other gay people doesn't have anything to do with how MURPG should work. Wolverine's creepy fetish for becoming a father figure to teen girls has nothing to do with how MURPG should work. There's a LOT going on in comics that should NOT be reflected in MURPG
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 26, 2009 14:11:06 GMT -5
The problem is that the other things you mention are role-playing considerations. The one we're talking about now directly affects the rules of the way the world works.
In the Marvel Universe, it is CLEAR that weapons do not offer any great deal of superiority, or more heroes would carry them. I couldn't care less WHY you think thats the case, it IS the case, and the rules should reflect that.
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 26, 2009 14:16:49 GMT -5
My point is that the reasons are not what you say they are.
More Marvel heroes don't carry weapons because that would be ridiculous. It would make every hero paramilitary, it would suggest Marvel were endorsed and heavily funded by the NRA, it would imply that every Marvel character felt safer with a gun on, it would also suggest guns were so readily available and universally-adored that everyone carried one.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 26, 2009 14:19:09 GMT -5
Wow, I guess its a good thing that I've pointed out the physical elements involved in what happens when characters get shot, stabbed, etc. as well, huh?
You can disagree all you want, but anyone who has ever read an issue of Spider-Man knows that getting shot doesn't hurt any more or any longer than getting punched or than getting thrown through a brick wall or than being caught in an explosion...
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 26, 2009 14:22:47 GMT -5
Until Bullseye, Punisher, Taskmaster, Deadpool, or Mystique are player characters. Then it has to hurt. If it didn't, it wouldn't be fair.
Marvel comics favor the PCs strength enormously. You're right, if you're reading Spider-man (who doesn't use guns) then bullets are nothing but an opportunity to show of your fancy dodging skills.
If you're reading a comic about a gun-toting hero though, suddenly the idea of a bullet intimidates the hell out of thugs and firing tons of bullets looks really cool in addition to being a valid way to win a fight.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 26, 2009 14:25:19 GMT -5
Thank you for making my point. I knew you'd stumble across it if I kept leading you.
Its not the weapon. Its the person using it.
Ergo, weapon bonuses = a bunch of bunk
Characters who are lethal with firearms having good Ranged Combat + Targeting = lethal
Just like if Jimmy Nobody punched Spidey, he ain't gonna feel it. But if Tombstone does it...
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 26, 2009 14:32:40 GMT -5
...and yet random B-listers and nobodies can blow away Marvel heroes when it's dramatic.
You definitely made your point; led me right to it. A gun really doesn't make it any easier to hit someone at range. In fact it just allows them to close the distance instantly and disarm you in an embarrassing fashion.
Did you forget the part, the part you mocked, about me saying a LOT of what was in the comics should have NO bearing on how things work in MURPG?
I DON'T think a "who's using it" should be all that makes something lethal. If my PCs laugh at a thug with a gun and fail to allocate to defense (assuming they don't have impressive modifers) they're gonna get SHOT and they're probably gonna get DEAD if they keep that stuff up.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 26, 2009 14:35:36 GMT -5
... because you insist on following logic that makes sense to you (and the real world), but doesn't follow what happens in the comics.
Thats fine for your games, but the MURPG rules should mimic the Marvel Universe.
Bullseye and Punisher are deadly with firearms because they're awesome. Not because firearms are awesome.
Spider-Man gets shot by the occasional thug and other than going "ow!" he doesn't seem much affected at all (actually, the same holds true when he gets shot by Punisher...). However, if someone like Bullseye were to shoot Spidey, no doubt he'd say more than "ow!"
|
|