Difference between revisions of "Azurelight/BoASuggestions"
m |
m (link fix) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| − | [16:09] GreenLantern: Honestly, in Artifacts, I often take the weapon out of the equation, simply noting that an artifact at at given rating tends to be 'so' deadly. Then I arrange the points (acc, damage, etc) such that the point spread resembles the shape of the weapon.<br> | + | [16:09] [[GreenLantern]]: Honestly, in Artifacts, I often take the weapon out of the equation, simply noting that an artifact at at given rating tends to be 'so' deadly. Then I arrange the points (acc, damage, etc) such that the point spread resembles the shape of the weapon.<br> |
(Irrelevant, horribly mispelled line)<br> | (Irrelevant, horribly mispelled line)<br> | ||
| − | [16:10] GreenLantern: Thus, a sword has more accuracy and damage, while a seven-section staff or a sai would have a higher defense.<br> | + | [16:10] [[GreenLantern]]: Thus, a sword has more accuracy and damage, while a seven-section staff or a sai would have a higher defense.<br> |
| − | [16:10] GreenLantern: I'm just saying that in a perfect system, you wouldn't care jack about the base weapon resources cost. <br> | + | [16:10] [[GreenLantern]]: I'm just saying that in a perfect system, you wouldn't care jack about the base weapon resources cost. <br> |
| − | [16:10] GreenLantern: (Or at least in /my/ perfect system)<br> | + | [16:10] [[GreenLantern]]: (Or at least in /my/ perfect system)<br> |
| − | [16:11] Azurelight: well...the reason is becose wonk is becase the weapon tables ARE VeRY WONKY IN AND OF THEMSELVES<br> | + | [16:11] Azurelight: well...the reason is becose wonk is becase the weapon tables ARE [[VeRY]] WONKY IN AND OF THEMSELVES<br> |
| − | [16:11] GreenLantern: True. That's why any artifact system should use this opportunity to fix it up.<br> | + | [16:11] [[GreenLantern]]: True. That's why any artifact system should use this opportunity to fix it up.<br> |
Ok, here is the reply I didn't have time to make to this section. I deagree with to things above.<br> | Ok, here is the reply I didn't have time to make to this section. I deagree with to things above.<br> | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
As A tanget, the reason I kept with the corebook reasources when i wrote this was becuase I wrote int for my game, and they refused to accept The forrunner of POM since that system could not generate a weapon with negative defense. | As A tanget, the reason I kept with the corebook reasources when i wrote this was becuase I wrote int for my game, and they refused to accept The forrunner of POM since that system could not generate a weapon with negative defense. | ||
| − | [16:16] GreenLantern: I'd also note that you seem to be using the S&S as a baseline, where tokens can be spent for things such as "+2 Str"<br> | + | [16:16] [[GreenLantern]]: I'd also note that you seem to be using the S&S as a baseline, where tokens can be spent for things such as "+2 Str"<br> |
[16:17] Azurelight: yep<br> | [16:17] Azurelight: yep<br> | ||
| − | [16:17] GreenLantern: Then later go on to say that you shouldn't use 'grab bags' of powers.<br> | + | [16:17] [[GreenLantern]]: Then later go on to say that you shouldn't use 'grab bags' of powers.<br> |
| − | [16:17] GreenLantern: Then, later go on to point out a "Usefulness" category, which points out that level 5 <br> usefulness is in fact, more generically useful than power armour - which, you provided as an example of a grab bag of powers.<br> | + | [16:17] [[GreenLantern]]: Then, later go on to point out a "Usefulness" category, which points out that level 5 <br> usefulness is in fact, more generically useful than power armour - which, you provided as an example of a grab bag of powers.<br> |
This was most likely due to a grammatical error, which in turn was a symptom of Swedish over-confidence in secondary English. I <i>meant</i> to say that power armour is about as grab-baggy as it <i>should</i> get while still being ok. | This was most likely due to a grammatical error, which in turn was a symptom of Swedish over-confidence in secondary English. I <i>meant</i> to say that power armour is about as grab-baggy as it <i>should</i> get while still being ok. | ||
Latest revision as of 01:14, 6 April 2010
[16:09] GreenLantern: Honestly, in Artifacts, I often take the weapon out of the equation, simply noting that an artifact at at given rating tends to be 'so' deadly. Then I arrange the points (acc, damage, etc) such that the point spread resembles the shape of the weapon.
(Irrelevant, horribly mispelled line)
[16:10] GreenLantern: Thus, a sword has more accuracy and damage, while a seven-section staff or a sai would have a higher defense.
[16:10] GreenLantern: I'm just saying that in a perfect system, you wouldn't care jack about the base weapon resources cost.
[16:10] GreenLantern: (Or at least in /my/ perfect system)
[16:11] Azurelight: well...the reason is becose wonk is becase the weapon tables ARE VeRY WONKY IN AND OF THEMSELVES
[16:11] GreenLantern: True. That's why any artifact system should use this opportunity to fix it up.
Ok, here is the reply I didn't have time to make to this section. I deagree with to things above.
"I'm just saying that in a perfect system, you wouldn't care jack about the base weapon resources cost. " I disagree with this. To, me it is important that artifact weapons have some realtion to their mundane counterparts
"True. That's why any artifact system should use this opportunity to fix it up."
Yes and no. In my case no, because that is not what I set out to do. I wasn't attempting to fix the wonkines of the normal weapons. They are not my problem in that sense, and that was supposed to be my next projekt. Besides most of the discripansies dreowned in artifact stats anyway. Belive it or not, I have met many players who do not find the tabels wonkey.
I still maintain that averaging with resources is sound. However, I do agree tha this would work better if the weapons were balanced on a reasources level. This sytem could probably be favourably combined with the mundane aspects of Panploy of Mars or the Exalted Armamorium, but I don't want to dictate that as a have to. If people can stomach the base statlines in the core book, good for them.
I SHOULD, however sugest an alternate practice, that is true. I am actuall going to playtest it in combo with Panoploy of Mars in my online game.
As A tanget, the reason I kept with the corebook reasources when i wrote this was becuase I wrote int for my game, and they refused to accept The forrunner of POM since that system could not generate a weapon with negative defense.
[16:16] GreenLantern: I'd also note that you seem to be using the S&S as a baseline, where tokens can be spent for things such as "+2 Str"
[16:17] Azurelight: yep
[16:17] GreenLantern: Then later go on to say that you shouldn't use 'grab bags' of powers.
[16:17] GreenLantern: Then, later go on to point out a "Usefulness" category, which points out that level 5
usefulness is in fact, more generically useful than power armour - which, you provided as an example of a grab bag of powers.
This was most likely due to a grammatical error, which in turn was a symptom of Swedish over-confidence in secondary English. I meant to say that power armour is about as grab-baggy as it should get while still being ok.
About essence drawback, my reasons are thus: items with higher levels of that drawback are are not supposed to be powered by the Exalt alone. They are items that draw from hearthstones or manses. Maybe I should be more explicit about that. Still, if you have an alternate idea on how to scale it...fill me in. I never liked it much, just wasn't able to come up wit anything better
This is as much as I can address tonight. I hope in do not come across as snide, because that is not my intention. Fell free to add any bits you like of our chat, I took the pieces I perceived as relevant - Azurelight
