08-15-2010, 07:03 PM | #11 | |
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Re: Link House Rule
Quote:
So, odd example, because the RAW actually allows a better version of what you're suggesting is inherently broken. EDIT: Sorry, I may be coming off as a bit venomous here. I'm glad for the discussion. You're not wrong. Link works fine. I'm suggesting a +0% version of Link would be better, but the actual benefit to the game is pretty minimal. It makes the math a little more consistent and logical for the reasons I've outlined, and thus appeals to my sense of game design aesthetic, but the point difference between my version and the RAW probably won't make more than a 10-cp difference even on most Supers. Last edited by Ejidoth; 08-15-2010 at 07:09 PM. |
|
08-15-2010, 07:09 PM | #12 | |||
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
|
Re: Link House Rule
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In addition to the Pattern Analysis example, having Link shut down all the Linked powers when one goes down puts down too many other concepts. For example, if I was creating a character with a built-in gun that fired incendiary bullets, I'd do it as a piercing attack Linked to a burning attack. It doesn't make sense, given the description, for me to be unable to use this ability in a room full of Halon, or when Ice-Man is suppressing all fire within a 1-mile radius. |
|||
08-15-2010, 07:12 PM | #13 | |
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Re: Link House Rule
Quote:
Forcing an innate attack to be linked to shapeshifting is actually a huge disad on the innate attack's side, so counting it as +0% doesn't seem like a big deal. Though, aura's an odd example again, because it's passive. An aura of fire with Accessability: Only While Shapeshifting would be perfectly valid by the RAW and wouldn't require Link either. |
|
08-15-2010, 07:15 PM | #14 | |
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Re: Link House Rule
Quote:
|
|
08-16-2010, 07:42 AM | #15 | |
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Re: Link House Rule
Quote:
Not all enhancements are suitable for all advantages. This is one of my main objections to them in the first place really, by sticking them into the core rules you encourage people to think builds that don't make sense should be fine, since they follow all the rules. If you don't think a link is worth +10% *don't take it*. If you are correct and it genuinely is worth nothing, this won't matter right? Your character loses no abilities for not having it. If you want a zero point feature for having to use two abilties together add "only while using second ability -0%" on one of them rather than link.
__________________
-- MA Lloyd |
|
08-16-2010, 08:05 AM | #16 | ||
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Re: Link House Rule
Quote:
As for this: Quote:
It's true that one option for an over-priced ability is 'pretend it doesn't exist and don't ever use it', but another option is 'figure out the correct price for it'. I much prefer the latter - it takes more effort, sure, but it's more rewarding. Last edited by Ejidoth; 08-16-2010 at 08:09 AM. |
||
08-16-2010, 08:14 AM | #17 |
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Re: Link House Rule
Ideally, there are a few specific things I'm hoping for from this discussion:
1) A good reason for Link to be as expensive as it is; or even better, a description of something bad that might happen if I implement my houserule. That is, I'm looking for honest criticism that isn't just the standard reactionary 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' defense of the RAW which tends to bog down house rules threads. 2) If it won't break anything, some confirmation from other people that have given it some thought. Possibly also some suggested modifications to make the house rule work even better. 3) Some discussion on the secondary part of my house rule, which nobody's even touched so far: the 'if two linked abilities have Costs FP 2, it only costs 2 FP to use both of them together' thing. I think it's balanced, but I honestly expected having to defend myself a lot more over the fallout from that, than having to defend myself against cutting the (obviously, I think) overpriced 10% Link cost. On the topic of #3, I should explain my reasoning there. It goes similarly to the Link reasoning. Basically... if you have a 100 point ability with Costs Fatigue 2, it costs 90 points. On the other hand, if you have a 100 point meta-ability (which is, say, really three passive abilities stuck together) and you want it to cost 2 fatigue to use, it ends up costing FP or more character points, because you either apply the Costs Fatigue 2 to all three sub-abilities and end up paying 6 instead of 2 to use it, or you apply Costs Fatigue 2 to one of the abilities and don't save as many points. Now, this makes sense if the abilities are wholly unlinked; if each one can be independently active or inactive, it makes sense that you'd pay the fatigue individually for each one you have active. If they all have to be active at once, though, the savings for Costs Fatigue 2 should be the same whether it's a 100 point ability or a 100-point meta-ability made of a few different things. Last edited by Ejidoth; 08-16-2010 at 08:18 AM. |
08-16-2010, 08:22 AM | #18 | |
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Re: Link House Rule
Quote:
One can of course construct hypothetical situations in which it is both useful and disadvantageous, and those approximately balance, but you will have to make assumptions about the hypothetical situation which are even less generic than for the RAW. In effect, this converts the argument into not "Link should cost +0% instead of +10%" but "the benefits and drawbacks of Link are so variable it can't be assigned a fair cost as a straight percentage". Which I'd agree with, and for almost all enhancements and limitations, it's an unavoidable flaw of trying to apply simple modifiers across too many situations.
__________________
-- MA Lloyd |
|
08-16-2010, 08:37 AM | #19 | |
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Re: Link House Rule
Quote:
I think link is intended for is abilities that need to be activated in combat time. So say you have a DR forcefield and switchable Magic Resistance that require an action to ready. The character with Link can activate both at once, on his the first turn, the guy without it lacks one of those defenses until his second turn. Given that combats may only last a few seconds, this can be a pretty significant slice of the situations in which those abilities would be useful. In a sense Link is something like a Fast Draw (Power) technique that lets you draw two of them at once. If that isn't something that sounds useful for this pair of powers, link is probably the wrong choice.
__________________
-- MA Lloyd |
|
08-16-2010, 08:40 AM | #20 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Link House Rule
Quote:
Limitations lessen abilities. Enhancements improve them. Basic rule of thumb here. You're apparently using your own definition of the word 'link' to impose a vulnerability of one trait to those of another. Unless the description of link EXPLICITLY attaches these limits onto the enhancement, it doesn't behave the way you're claiming it behaves. Alternate abilities is a pretty hefty limitation (-80%) attacking one power should affect the others. That Flame Aura works and Shapeshifting doesn't due to a static or Neutralize attack by a foe means Shapeshifting shuts down. The Static or Neutralize would have to specifically also take out Flame Auras or... It does not take them out.
__________________
...().0...0() .../..........\ -/......O.....\- ...VVVVVVV ..^^^^^^^ A clock running two hours slow has the correct time zero times a day. |
|
Tags |
kromm explanation |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|