|
Seems like there's some obvious gimme Flaws here, like penalties to one of the dozen or so listed non-combat actions, penalties to physical attacks if you're making an energy attacker or vice versa, etc. Also you buy challenge bonuses out of the same pool of points you buy combat bonuses with...?
Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Feb 24, 2016 |
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:50 |
|
|
Eopia posted:Well, GMs are supposed to veto flaws that won't actually have any effect in play rather than players being able to take them for free points at least. This is a losing proposition. I can only take Weak Physical Attacker if I also spend some of my TP on a physical attack? I can only take a penalty to Negotiate if I pinky swear to try to negotiate all the time? How many TP? How often? At the very least, the "bad at [attack form]" should really be in the inflicted-by-powers only category, since you can already be bad at physical attacks by... having low Str/Dex, or taking no physical powers, or taking weak physical powers. Also, unless I'm missing something, since you can increase three of your five stats each level, but have five different stat-derived defenses, only three of your defenses will scale properly; by the end of the game, your weak defense will be 9 points lower relative to your strong defense than it was at the beginning of the game. Is this on purpose, and you're just supposed to always be substituting strong defenses for weak ones at higher levels? Behold the Void posted:Regarding combat and challenge skills drawing from the same pool, that is definitely intentional since that entire pool is meant for customization with a number of passives and unique abilities. All characters will still have their base challenge ability by virtue of their core stat-line and will have their Techniques to see them through in combat, skills let you pick what you want to emphasize and in what ways. You should, at the very least, provide an official suggestion as to a default split or some other "siloing" rule, where characters get X combat skill points and Y challenge skill points.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
There are eleven listed challenge scene actions followed by an "...and more!" category. The flaw that makes you bad at them is literally a -1 to the roll. Even if you pick eight of those actions to be bad at in exchange for maxing out your allotted level 1 flaws (you can go all the way to level 4 before you need to start picking real flaws), you will by no means become full-on incompetent at anything... you'll have -1, on a d10 roll. Whatever! And this comes at a serious cost to you in terms of believability or distinctiveness because most of the flaws are interesting character elements that legitimately affect how you play, since if you're vulnerable to physical damage you'll try to stay out of melee, if you take penalties when an ally falls you'll be far less inclined to leave people in tricky situations because you're pursuing a Big Play of your own, etc. The "Non-Proficient"s are pretty much invisible. These things suck and need to go. Other notes: * The system would seem to inherently discourage splitting between different kinds of attacks because you can only max out so many attributes and not making one of those Guts has its own problems. Why include the Energy Attacker and Physical Attacker skills when they just push you further in that direction, and otherwise represent a "well, no duh" automatically-spent-SP to anyone who likes doing damage? * Doesn't Persistent Effect allow for effective multiattacks, since you can throw a persistent effect on one turn, and then make your own attack on the next turn when the persistent effect re-triggers? * Isn't the same true of Summons, since you command one to attack with a Support action and then get to attack on your own? * Is it as much of a no-brainer as it looks to just give yourself a self-only Boost power that enhances your accuracy or other generic all-good trait and make sure to always use it on cooldown?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 18:10
|
|