|
Post by Dionon on Feb 19, 2009 22:16:19 GMT -5
Prophet, that is some very interesting stuff. My first concern, though, is that it's miles away from KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid), which is dear to the system. Some of those things don't need to have their own numbers. "Area" and "Transform" aren't really in need of their own ANs. I'd like to toss out shields entirely (screw Magneto, he can buy Force Field separately). And I'm okay with lumping Create/Manipulate together, though not all characters should have both. ~TWF This is why, in my example above, Create/Manipulate is +2 CL, Manipulate is +1 CL, and Unlimited Create/Manipulate is +6 CL It's not that they're all different abilities (As someone stated) They are the same ability... Create/Manipulate Element COST = +2 to Cost Level OPTIONS - Can only Manipulate (-1 CL) - Unlimited Create/Manipulate (+4 CL) Everything else can be done with other things... Want a Force Blast.... Buy a force blast Want to Transform into Element? Buy a Transform Self Modifier Want Force Fields? Buy Force Field Want to Fly for Reduced Cost? Slap on the Discount where it's condusive to the main power.... Why more current people don't do BOTH is beyond me Want to substitute your AN for an Ability? Just pay for the Ability by itself, and say flavor it. There's nothing else to really say for me here....
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 20, 2009 7:17:10 GMT -5
Hmm.. +2 seems abit much for being able to move around your element.. Oh, and as i understand it, the "create" part isent create your element, but create things out of your element.. Which is why they wrote Create/Manipulate..
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 20, 2009 7:42:59 GMT -5
Its sort of both. The only reason I say this is that Pyro is specifically listed as having "Create/Manipulate, No Create". OBVIOUSLY Pyro can create constructs out of fire. What he can't do is create fire itself.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 20, 2009 8:56:53 GMT -5
Which is why I created the Disadvantage for it lol... I really think this is the most balanced way to handle Masteries without being really unfair.
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 20, 2009 9:52:38 GMT -5
Thats true.. Kinda forgot about him
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 20, 2009 10:04:06 GMT -5
I'm nitpicking, but isn't it easier to have "Manipulate" as a +1 CL Option, and "Create" as another +1 CL Option? Shouldn't it be possible to create without manipulating? I'm not sure if anyone can really do that, but it should be possible, no? And even if it isn't possible, just give the "Create" option a prerequisite. That way we aren't dealing with negatives. It's the same diff in the end.
As for the Transform Into Element and what it actually does.. the simplest mechanic seems to be: - apply a -1 CL discount to Actions and Modifiers that will only function when you're transformed - maximum AN/MN of discounted Actions/Modifiers can't exceed double your Mastery AN. - total number of discounts should not exceed your Mastery AN.
But even that seems overpowered to me for a +1 CL option. We'd be getting into the sticky "Transform Self" territory, where we have to ask yourselves - is having to transform really a disadvantage?
Perhaps we should nix Transform Into Element altogether, and just reduce it to flavour.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 20, 2009 10:31:27 GMT -5
Ok... I like it.... so the Manipulate Only disadvantage becomes "Can Create OR Manipulate, not Both.." -1 CL
For transform into Element... personally everyone has a different view on what it means, so let's just have them make a Transformation and just stay away from "This is what this does" let the player decide.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 20, 2009 10:47:06 GMT -5
I'll rephrase: I'm happy to get rid of Transform Into Element (and replace it with Transform Self, as you suggested). I just took the long way of getting there. lol
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 20, 2009 10:48:46 GMT -5
LOL
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 20, 2009 15:25:01 GMT -5
Ok... I like it.... so the Manipulate Only disadvantage becomes "Can Create OR Manipulate, not Both.." -1 CL I don't like it. Exactly what sort of "Master" can't manipulate their element? How is that a "Mastery" at all? We're all familiar with the definitions of the words "Master", "Mastery", and "manipulate", right? A Mastery that can't manipulate, or even learn how to manipulate, isn't a mastery at all. I'm actually thinking Masteries should be +1 to begin with, with that +1 being the Manipulate option. I've actually felt that way since I first looked at Masteries. Really, what kind of "Master" can't manipulate their element? None! If you can't manipulate the element, then you don't have a mastery of it. And what the hell is "Force Blast" and "Force Field" if not manipulating the element?!? Maybe the +1 "Manipulate" should be prerequisite for a lot of advantages if you don't want to make it mandatory or just part of the action's base cost and description. I'm still for making Masteries include "Manipulate" in the cost and description, and NOT allowing players to remove it with disadvantages.
|
|
|
Post by Kaimontfendo on Feb 20, 2009 15:31:02 GMT -5
Sorry, Malice, but I've got to disagree with you on this one. If a player wants electrical powers, including an electrical blast, electricity absorption, and turning into electricity, but but doesn't want to be able to manipulate electricity (for whatever reason) They should be able to buy a mastery with the options they want, instead of having to buy everything separately or get Electrical Manipulation that they don't want and will never use.
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 20, 2009 15:37:37 GMT -5
...yeah but... it's silly saying it's a "Mastery".
Sorry, you're right, it's just that I'm an English major who's considering law. I get hung up on single words and their definitions. You are right though; people should be able to play the characters they want to play and it's our job to make that happen.
|
|
|
Post by Kaimontfendo on Feb 20, 2009 15:43:41 GMT -5
Then perhaps Master of Elements needs a new name. I don't have any good suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 20, 2009 15:50:59 GMT -5
Um... Malice? it's not a Mastery any longer.... I've Eliminated Masteries and dispersed their seperate components among other actions... the only thing that needed a game mechanic was Create/Manipulate..
There ARE no more masteries.
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 20, 2009 15:52:35 GMT -5
Then perhaps Master of Elements needs a new name. I don't have any good suggestions. I think the current name works. If a player wants it to be different but doesn't want to call it a Mastery they shouldn't have an easy way of doing so, it should go through the GM. Masteries get too powerful if they're not "Masteries". It's the same reason that you can't apply Mastery options to other actions, apply the "Additional Element" advantage (despite the joke that basic math reveals "Mastery of the Four Elements" to be), or rename your Mastery.
|
|