Quote:
Originally Posted by CarrionPeacock
Are cases like the second example still fair and balanced? I'm afraid breaking the system by using it.
|
Even if an ability is technically legal within the rules and setting being used, the GM still has the final word on whether any ability is allowed for whatever reason they want.
I doubt many GMs would consider the example you use an exploit, but doing the same type of math with an innate attack with an area of effect and you could easily end up with something that can circumvent just about any encounter that would be reasonable for the rest of the party.
Something like
Crushing Attack (Area Effect (32 yd), +250%; Costs FP (2), -10%; No Blunt Trauma, -20%; Emanation, -20%; Magical, -10%; Takes Recharge (15 seconds), -20%)* would have a cost of 13.5 points per level with Additive Modifiers but 3.5 points per level with Multiplicative Modifiers. A character with 10 levels of this Innate Attack would likely be able to go into an area, explode, then pick up all the loot and proceed to the next room. That might be ok for 135 points, but it feels a bit too good at 35 points unless all party members have similar broken stuff and the challenges are tailored to them having those abilities.
Overall, the GM should always police the abilities the players try to come up with to make sure there isn't a major disparity in what they can do. If you have eg. a barbarian with a good amount of Strength, solid skill and a big sword, they're going to feel useless if paired with a mystic using the above ability at 3.5 points per level. "I swing my sword and deal 3d+4 damage!" (ST 20, Fine Broadsword) feels inconsequential compared to "I walk into a room and deal 10d damage to everyone", especially if the sword swinger likely paid close to 200 points for their feat (ST, DX and Skill) while the mystic paid 35 points (even if they spend 2 FP and need to wait 15 seconds to repeat it).
*The exact limitations aren't important, the fact that they combine to -80% is.