|
Post by Dionon on Feb 17, 2009 16:30:28 GMT -5
*shrugs* It was an idea... but your right TWF, because we've taken the "Weapon Modifier" away from weapons, making a Force Blast a Weapon Modifier wouldn't be good either...
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 17, 2009 16:57:40 GMT -5
The +2 CL thing is why, IMO, normal weapons shouldn't provide bonuses. If a handgun doesn't provide any benefit (other than the ranged weapon required to use Ranged Combat in the first place), then there's no need whatsoever to add anything to Force Blast.
In other words... to get weapons with special options (like X2 damage or Area Affect), players will have to have Wealth (to buy rocket launchers) or pay in creation stones. Force Blasters will have to pay creation stones to get advantages added to their Force Blasts. Its very symmetrical, and the only hole is GMs who don't have the guts to tell their players that they can't buy a X3 damage Area Affect attack vs. Dur weapon off the shelf...
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 17, 2009 17:11:56 GMT -5
It shouldn't take as much as a rocket launcher to grant x2 damage as a weapon modifier, WK. That's silly. Being shot with an AK-47 is not equivalent to a ranged 4 punch, no matter WHO is throwing the punch.
Besides, I'd like Force Blasts to be better than Ranged Combat on at least some level. Ranged Combat gets free specialties and FB doesn't. Ranged Combat can be learned by anyone, anytime, and FB is a power.
Arguably, the only advantage Force Blast naturally has over (the new) Ranged Combat is that it's easier to justify a x3 damage AN 9 Class 4 Material Force Blast: as long as you're a super, just pay the stones. Having Ranged Combat 9 with a Javelin missile launcher in your back pocket is a wee bit harder to fathom. But at best that's a minor advantage: in cases where clever(ish) players can explain away anything in a long enough background, it isn't an advantage at all.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 17, 2009 17:15:24 GMT -5
It shouldn't take as much as a rocket launcher to grant x2 damage as a weapon modifier, WK. That's silly. Being shot with an AK-47 is not equivalent to a ranged 4 punch, no matter WHO is throwing the punch. ~TWF I'm sorry, I've been reading comic books all day... and you're just plain wrong. If you were right, more heroes would CARRY AK-47's. In the comics I've read today, people have been shot repeatedly with very little obvious effect other than a word bubble indicating they might be suffering some pain ("ack" or "arghhh"), while punches have put people through walls... You know I generally respect your opinion, but in terms of repping properly the way things work in comics, you're wrong on this one. Sorry
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 17, 2009 17:36:45 GMT -5
While your depiction of comics is correct (I completely agree with it), your translation of that into the rules seems off to me.
Mathematically, x2 damage is not as brutal as you seem to think it is (x3 damage is hardly a step up, too). Consider two characters:
Bob has Ranged Combat 5 and has a .50 hand cannon worth x2 damage and range 4. Tina has Close Combat 5, and because she's a mutant she has Strength 4. Raar!
Bob can only put 5 stones in his box. No matter how spiffy x2 damage sounds (ooh, x2 damage!) it ain't worth CRAP unless his 5 stones actually hits someone. AND, even if it DOES hit someone, x2 damage does not always equal x2 health loss. If Bob's target has 4 defense, he does 1 damage. 1 damage x2 = 2 damage. Either way, it's still rounded up to 1 white. Effectively, Bob has to hit someone with a Defense of THREE before his x2 damage even makes a difference.
Tina, meanwhile, can put NINE stones in her Close Combat. She only does x1 damage, and yes, 9 stones is a lot of energy, but what happens when she hits someone with Defense 4? They take 2 white, whereas Bob only did 1 white.
Tina is capable of a higher attack output, but it costs more energy. Bob conserves a lot of energy, but against anyone with a reasonable defense (ie, other heroes) he's crap.
That's the pattern. That's why guns tend to be useless against actual heroes, but deadly to normal Joe Schmoes. And it's why people who find themselves launched through walls were probably done so at the end of someone's fist.
(Note about high level play: Without a modifier, Ranged Combat characters will rarely have the stones to seriously wound a competitive hero, and even when they do, the x2 damage won't always improve the damage anyway. At higher levels of play a Ranged Combat character will probably have a nice, sexy Targeting modifier, which makes them very dangerous (and very efficient, energywise) but Close Combat characters at high levels of play will probably be smart enough to buy their own x2 damage at some point, and probably their own modifiers, too.)
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 17, 2009 17:38:56 GMT -5
Uh... Ranged Combat people will have a modifier... Targeting... AND the ability to buy weapons with creation stones that provide benefits like X2 damage.
I just don't think an off-the-shelf available for nothing AK-47 should do X2 damage, since it creates so many balance issues AND is not reflective of what we see in the comics.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 17, 2009 17:47:52 GMT -5
Damage chart, for those interested in the math: Dmg = stones that exceed defense (stones of damage) x1 = number of white stones of health normally lost +1 = number of white stones of health lost with +1 damage x2 = number of white stones of health lost with x2 damage x3 = number of white stones of health lost with x3 damage Dmg | x1 | +1 | x2 | x3 | 1 | 1w | 1w | 1w | 1w | 2 | 1w | 1w | 2w | 2w | 3 | 1w | 2w | 2w | 3w | 4 | 2w | 2w | 3w | 4w | 5 | 2w | 2w | 4w | 5w |
Most of the time, x3 damage is only 1 health better than x2 damage. If the damage is low enough (1 or 2 stones in excess of defense) there's absolutely no difference at all. In included "+1 damage" as it's own column as I suggest handing this out to most "weak" weapons, such as knives, low caliber firearms (9mm and below) and improvised weapons like 2x4s and such. As you can see, it's hardly ever of any benefit, but it's better than nothing. ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 17, 2009 17:50:13 GMT -5
Uh... Ranged Combat people will have a modifier... Targeting... AND the ability to buy weapons with creation stones that provide benefits like X2 damage. I just don't think an off-the-shelf available for nothing AK-47 should do X2 damage, since it creates so many balance issues AND is not reflective of what we see in the comics. All Ranged Combat people will have Targeting? Why? That doesn't seem right to me. That's like saying all X-Men will have Claws. You seem to think there's a problem with Ranged Combat. I think the problem is that you assume everyone with a gun has Targeting. ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 17, 2009 17:54:04 GMT -5
Uh... no. I assume that everyone who is really good with a gun (which are the only people who should be remotely as lethal as a person who fires energy from their fists in a comic book setting...) will have Targeting.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 17, 2009 18:00:42 GMT -5
If you allow Bob Targeting X it's not a huge stretch of the imagination to give Tina Claws X. It hardly changes the principle, does it?
Bob's free bonus is x2 damage. Tina's free bonus is she gets to put up to her best Ability in extra stones of attack.
In principle, Bob spends less energy, but Tina is capable of overcoming higher defenses.
What part of this feels wrong to you? I find it pretty elegant.
Bob has Ranged Combat 7 and Targeting 3 and a gun with x2 damage. He's fighting Colossus, who has Toughness 7. If Colossus shifts so much as 3 stones into defense, Bob can't touch him. Tina, on the other hand, assuming equal Close Combat and Modifier, and even a modest Ability bonus probably CAN hurt Colossus. She could, I don't know, say, throw him through a wall while Bob's bullets bounce around harmlessly.
Let's say Bob DOES manage to wound Colossus (Colossus' player gets careless and doesn't shift enough, or whatever.) Check the chart I posted to see how much more damage he actually does with his x2. It's crap. Most likely it's ONE extra stone of health. This does not scream broken to me.
Honestly, what is wrong with that?
EDIT: You're hurting Scalphunter's feelings.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 17, 2009 18:04:32 GMT -5
By technicallity dude....
While Bob has Targeting X Tina might not have Claws X, but she might have Steel Fists X or Nerve Strikes X or Bone Weapons X.... Most people that build characters in this system are going to be fools for not buying the Generic Modifier for at LEAST one of their actions...
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 17, 2009 18:08:15 GMT -5
Precisely.
In comics, there are threats, and there are non-threats. Non-threats might conceivably "hurt" Spider-Man, but they're not going to change his life or lay him up in the hospital. Non-threats might not have Targeting... but Bullseye sure as hell will.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 17, 2009 18:11:39 GMT -5
You guys realize you're making the issue about Targeting and Generic Mods in general, and NOT about the x2 damage firearms issue, right? You're changing the battlefield because you can't fight me on this one.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 17, 2009 18:18:47 GMT -5
Uh... no we're not. YOU brought up Targeting because YOU said that the guy with the gun should get some advantage because he doesn't have a Modifier... and as I'm pointing out, he probably WILL have a modifier.
The X2 damage thing for normal guns is a horrendously bad idea, and puts all of the advantages back in the hands of people with weapons, when that DOES NOT reflect what we see in the comics.
The vast majority of characters in comics fight with bare fists. Yet with the rules as proposed (X2 damage for free if you can afford a handgun, free benefits for Force Blasts, presumably additional benefits if you're wielding a sword or something), fighting with your bare fists goes back to being the ugly stepchild of this system, which SHOULD NOT be the case.
I've already illustrated repeatedly that A) Guns are NOT as effective in comic books as bare fists most of the time... much less MORE effective as you propose
B) The majority of characters fight with their bare-hands, which would not be the case if generic off-the-shelf weapons were as advantageous as you seem to want to make them.
C) By not granting generic off-the-shelf weapons any kind of benefit, we level the playing field in terms of cost across the board between guys with guns, guys with swords, and guys with bare fists. Everybody pays for the advantages they get (except for range... the guys with guns get that for free, but I'm fine with that).
I'm just not sure WHY you're so insistent on granting some benefit (no matter how small you claim it is) to every single weapon, when the comics CLEARLY don't follow that logic. Even the weakest hero with his bare hands is worth dozens of cops armed with guns in the comics...
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 17, 2009 18:38:51 GMT -5
YOU brought up Targeting because YOU said that the guy with the gun should get some advantage because he doesn't have a Modifier For starters, I never said that, and you now how much it pisses me off when someone puts words in my mouth. I take it as a personal insult. If we're talking about Bullseye or Punisher, sure. I'm totally okay with that idea, and I already expressed something similar. My example dealt with very low-powered characters (mostly because it's easier to demonstrate the principles with a simple equation), but I went on to say that at higher levels of play, modifiers like Targeting become very affordable. Hence guys like Bullseye and Punisher, who may not be beating up Captain America any time in the foreseeable future, they're a friggin' menace to weaker opponents. If you actually understand the very simple math I showed you, you'd see that it describes characters like Punisher really, really well. x2 damage only racks up a significant amount of damage against weaker opponents. It doesn't help you against anyone with significant defenses. You're just recycling the same line that I've already debunked. Guns with no weapon bonus, but a x2 damage advantage (and remember, I'm not talking about 9mms Glocks here, I'm talking about hand cannons and assault rifles and above) are great against weaklings, but suck against heroic defenses. Again, stating the same crap over again. I'm convinced you don't understand the math. So have I. Also, I have NOT said that guns should be more effective than fists, so that's TWICE in the same post that you've put words in my mouth. Seriously, stop doing that. I lose respect for you every time. Again, you don't understand the math. If I was a hero with a decent Ability (let's say Strength 4+) and I have equal amounts of Ranged Combat and Close Combat, I'm better off attacking Captain America with my fists than with an assault rifle. Why? Because I probably won't do crap all damage with a gun, and ZERO damage TIMES TWO is still ZERO DAMAGE. If you understood the math, you'd see why this isn't necessary. I'm not insistent on giving every weapon a bonus. If I really felt it was unbalanced, you KNOW I would get rid of it right away. I've been very flexible on a lot of issues and I'm not afraid to toss ANYTHING away if it isn't working. I've reworked Force Field a half dozen times and I'm still unsatisfied with the results. I suggest giving bonuses to weapons because it's possible without unbalancing the game at all. ~TWF
|
|