Difference between revisions of "Talk:Game Systems/Mechanics"

Revision as of 10:26, 20 August 2008

--Gdaze 23:49, 20 July 2008 (MST) So wait, even though weapons are usually bought at zero END, we should buy them with costs END? This means a Rapier would cost 3 End to use a turn (plus STR) while a short sword would cost 2 End (plus STR). Which is the same as a Stiletto (it only does 1D3 but has AP, so its active cost is high). Do we have to buy armor with costs END also then?

--Matts 00:05, 21 July 2008 (MST)Armor, the power, normally doesn't cost END, and if you buy it OIF I don't see why it would.

--Gdaze 00:11, 21 July 2008 (MST) Well right, and weapons usually don't either and I noticed he said "wearing armor makes you tired" so I thought maybe armor will too.

Oh, can my dude start with the full compliment of potions?

BEN: For simplicity's sake, i am just going to go back to the way the book suggests: weapons and armor cost 0 END. I'll have to think about the potion thing, although I will tentatively say yes: it will probably depend on what potions you want to be able to make.

GABE: Sweet. So far I have 3 potions, but may add another one. I have an oil that takes a minute to apply but ups the def of an armor by 3r/3r. I MAY change this to one that you apply to the body that has 5r/3r since nobody has armor. It lasts for the day.

Next up I have one of underwater comfort. It allows the user to breath underwater and withstand extreme cold, it lasts for a few hours. Very useful in such a water based world.

And finally I have a potion of dragon breath. It takes a full phase to use, drink and spew, and does 2D6 fire damage to one hex. I guess it has a range of 8 meters as well.

I may also add a potion of nightsight, which allows you to see in the dark as long as there is a little light, like the moon. Or a potion that ups STR by like 10.

BEN: any of those are reasonable, thanks for taking out the +40 str. one at this stage of the game. You can start with a full complement from those potions that you have described, just check with me again if you change them.

--Edmiao 19:03, 21 July 2008 (MST) are you sure you want to penalize the buy back for equipment? i would imagine that fighters would be trading in weapons and armor more often while i envision my illusionist buffing up his spells, so images from 1d6 to 2d6, etc, which is an increase of the same power. similarly, trading in leather armor for chain mail or a small sword for a long sword could be considered increasing the same power. I'd hate to penalize the armor dependent classes and not the magic dependent classes (i've always advocated equalized/fair xp distribution). As long as trade ins don't become abused of course.

--Gdaze 19:34, 21 July 2008 (MST) Yeah... it does make spell casters get kinda an advantage as all spell schools pretty much have the ability to have defensive magic. If there is a penality invovled it'd be better to pick up nice shit right away. I also thought we could just buy items and that everything was avaible long as we have the points, or rather that was one of the points of the system?

BEN: alright, if you think it will unfairly penalize it, you can just trade things in, that's fine.

--Edmiao 11:55, 3 August 2008 (MST) i don't see anything about dcv penalties for armor in the book. is that in the fantasy book?

--Edmiao 09:50, 19 August 2008 (MST) what is extraordinary feat?

--Edmiao 09:56, 19 August 2008 (MST) for skills, you say the limit is 13-, i recall in the skills book that it said you could buy penalty skill levels that would not take you over 13- but would offset any negative modifiers and by the skills book they allowed this with the normal skill maxima of 13-. can i buy these for Magic Power Skill at normal cost in the OAAAA or do you want to make magic top out? I ask because all magic comes with requires a skill roll that is usually decreased by active cost, so for example a magic roll of a 30 active cost spell at magic power skill 13- would be rolled at 10-.

BEN: dcv penalties are in the fantasy book...I haven't decided which of their optional rules I'm going to use, but basically, as DEF goes up, DCV/DEX go down. I think up to 1 point of armor will be free of penalty, 2-3 is -1 DCV/DEX, 4-5 -2, 6-7 -3, etc.
extraordinary feat is: if you have a skill of 18- or better, you can perform "impossible" tricks with that skill at a base penalty of -10 (their example is breakfall to land on your feet after jumping out of an airplane).
Oh, I also meant to add the bit about how if you fail at a skill roll, you can't repeat it until you get at least a +1 to your roll (ie, things turn "in your favor", as they describe it) from some source.
a normal maxima isn't a fixed max: you just pay more to go above it. If they say in the book penalty skill levels are ok, that's fine by me, although they also warn against letting players "get around" the normal max by just taking penalty skill levels instead of increasing their skill. I think a good guideline would be that you can't spend more on skill levels on a skill (or set of skills, in which case it would be for the lowest points spent) than you have spent on the skill itself.

--Gdaze-- Oh snap, didn't see that about double the points for skills over 13, yikes, gotta re-do my guy... a bit... a really bit.

--Edmiao 10:52, 19 August 2008 (MST)yeah, that's why i ask, because penalty skill is getting around the rules, kind of like power based characteristics can get around the rules. so just make sure you double check that balance as time goes on. That skill book is good, yes? definitely worth the money, unlike the spells book.

--Gdaze-- Man, you must have some major buyer regret to still be talking about that!

Well I guess I'll have to drop my alchemy skill down to 13-, it was at 15- heh heh. Hey for my potions, it says that I can have an amount equal to my INT. And they take six hours to make, is that for each potion or for all the potions for that type (thus 18 armor potions for example)? Or is that the time for ONE potion? And if I fail a roll, where in the time frame should it happen? Right away? After 3 hours? At the very end? The magic book didn't cover these details but I think the fantasy main book does.

BEN: I'll look into it. I would say that, barring the book saying different (and I'll defer to the book if it does), that is the time for ONE potion. A potion is a magical thing, not a stew, and in my mind it shouldn't "scale". As for rolls: I would say potion rolls should be done in secret by me. If you succeed, you know you succeeded. If you fail by 1-3, you fail 1D6-1 hours into it, and know you failed. If you get a critical failure, you think you succeeded and the potion has side effects. If you critically succeed, you get a benefit: either you finish it quickly, it works "extra good", or something like that.
If the book says something else, I'll let you know, or we'll look it up friday before game if I don't have time.

--Gdaze-- Hmm, I don't think I should be penelized because my spells have delayed effect, that is after all an advantage. Wizards know right away if their spells fail. So I don't mind not knowing till right away, half way, or at the end. I didn't buy side effects for them however so it'd be kinda odd to give me a disadvantage that didn't make my powers cheaper. I don't mind other affects for critical failure or success like half time, or double time, but not knowing till I drink it is almost like having a form of uncontrolled on it.

BEN: ok, that's fine. We'll do it that way unless the book has specific thoughts on it.

--Gdaze-- If you wanted potion makers to be more unstable I could take side effects on them. It happens when you fail the skill roll.

--Edmiao 13:26, 19 August 2008 (MST) If we are to play with critical failures in general, my opinions are: If a magic spell can have a critical failure, it happens immediately. If a skill roll critically fails, it happens immediately. If an attack roll fails, it happens immediately. if a potion or another power with delayed effect has a critical failure, it happens when the power is triggered. you can't bypass the critical failure rule by buying delayed effect. The Disadvantage: Side Effect, if taken, would occur with every failure, not just critical failure, according to the book. I think critical success/failure is an optional rule that Ben has chosen to use to add cinematic appeal.

--Matts 13:34, 19 August 2008 (MST)Critical failure could just have a side effect immediately when making the potion, like he inhales burning sulfur or smells like pork butt for a week.

--Edmiao 13:56, 19 August 2008 (MST) true. depends on what makes more cinematic and dramatic sense for the game, would be what i would say. in other words, up to the GM

--Gdaze -- Delayed effect just means I can store the power. I'm not trying to by-pass it, but the hero system uses points, and I paid for advantage (+1/2 mind you) that due to some cinematic appeal would now hinder me? Plus, your not playing a character with my power set... If potions are going to be that un-stable I'll most likely just play a mage with similar powers. I just wanted potions because I thought potions were neat. But if you "feel" like I'm "by-passing" the critical failture, I'm down with changing.

Um, side effects do not always occur with every roll, I remember reading they are recommanded for powers with activation or skill rolls. I'll look up when I get home.

BEN: I've already said we will run potions as they are described in the rules: I will post what it says in the grimoire tonight. Since "critical failure" effects will affect any roll (not just potions), it's not a limitation: what the specific effect is depends on the roll. So if you fail a climbing roll with a critical failure, you could fall and take a bunch of damage, rather than just not progressing, while for potions it might make you sick, turn you into a toad, or whatever. If the idea of critical failures doesn't appeal to you guys, we'll get rid of them, though this of course means you won't get critical successes, either.

--Matts 15:19, 19 August 2008 (MST)Here's a point: Wizards know when they use the spell whether or not it critically failed; they don't get to cast, and then decide not to use the power if they critically fail. So I don't see how gabe's being penalized anyways, aside from the fact that his potions take forever to make, which is in the cost of the power isn't it?

--Gdaze Yeah I don't mind them taking forever and failing at the end. But if it comes down to having not knowing if my potions work or not, thats what would bother me the most. Wizards would get to make their power rolls while I'd just hope I got them and not know. You could say well that is the limitation of potions! Potions already have a ton of limitations on them to reflect their potion like nature. Whats why I said if we want potions to be more unstable I'm okay with side effects.

But as you said Matt Hero is a great system to see how characters stack up against each other. So secret rolls for my powers, in which I wouldn't know until I used the potion, is something added as a story effect but I see as a disadvantage. If that is the case all characters shouldn't roll for their spells. But since some people seem to think I'm dodging rules or what not secret rolls are fine, or whatever other rules people want. Its also kinda harsh since any roll of 15 or over is an auto-failure. I'd like to at least know if my power fails, like the potion goes flat, whatever. But really I'm quickly loosing interest in playing a potion maker if its this much of a pain in the ass.

As for the argument of the power being "triggered" delayed affect means you turn on the power and basically save it for later, thus it would be triggered at the end of six hours.

--Matts 16:27, 19 August 2008 (MST)Why not roll at time of use of the potion, as a sort of retroactive thing, instead of when you make the potion? That way it's exactly the same as other magic users.

--Gdaze 17:52, 19 August 2008 (MST) Well... in a way I'm already like other magic users. I use the power and then store it. Thats the advantage I'm paying for. The disadvantage is I can only have so many and each one takes six hours to make while another spell caster can kinda just toss 'em out there. I think I should waste at least half the time, maybe even the full six hours. But I think I should know the roll. My potions are already very limited. Lets say I want an armor potion, well I drink it, roll, fail, then what? I have to take another one, but maybe I don't have any more, that is my limitation is that I only have so many. A wizard, if he fails a roll can continuely re-cast before an adventure almost unlimited times, messes up five times in a row? No problem, he can just take a recovery. Plus six hours to make one potion. I think a wasted six hours is already a big enough disadvantage then not knowing if my power works. And like I said I actually trigger the ability once the extended time is done.

Also note I can't do ANYTHING else for that six hours. Not walk around town, nothing, I have to be brewing.

But really up to the GM.

--Gdaze 18:25, 19 August 2008 (MST) Actually rolling when I use the potion is cool I guess. Although it does go against the delayed affect advantage a bit.

--Edmiao 22:18, 19 August 2008 (MST) it doesn't go against the delayed affect, that lets you do the prep time in advance while other characters have things like incantations and gestures to limit them. in theory, whatever disads you have to take for potions should bump down the cost of the powers and make it so that they are much more powerful. they can be more easily transferred to non magic users, they can be used by all the party simultaneously in one turn, they are probably more powerful in active points than a non potion spell. i haven't looked at the math, but that's what i figure. personally, i think an alchemist who has to spend 6 hours for potion making would really be annoying in game play. same reasoning is why i made all my spells without the focus limitation; i just didn't want to spend all day looking for feathers and shiny rocks to cast spells. i had some of that with Shennong but he could batch huge amounts of his shit in andvance and make like 12 at a time. it was an all day affair but happened only rarely.

BEN: I've looked up potions. according to the rules for POTIONS, there is no comment on secret rolls. As I've said already, for anything other than a critical favor, I'd tell you anyways. In the Ultimate Skill, under the section entitled "hiding skill rolls" it says that you can hide rolls when a.) the outcome would be in doubt (such as potion brewing) and b.) where it would add fun to the game. Since it sounds like it would have a detriment on your fun to hide the rolls, I won't do it. This creates a bit of a dilemma though. In the potions rules, side effects is a storing limitation. But this is totally separate from any critical failure rules, which are optional rules from the Ultimate Skill. Spectacularly bad effects should be the result of critical failures, but the beauty of delayed effect is that it's a "sure thing": yes, a spellcaster can cast 3 times in a row, but if he needs that spell NOW, he may not get it, whereas a properly brewed potion is a sure thing. Thus, a spectacularly failed potion could just be tossed in the trash like a regular fail, thus negating criticals.
I see 3 solutions. One, which everyone seems to like, is to make your potion roll at the time the potion is drunk. I think this is an elegant solution that will create interesting and fun scenarios. The second is that we just get rid of criticals altogether both for success and failure. I'm indifferent to this one: as I've said before, criticals increase the chance of both spectacular victories as well as crushing defeats, and if that kind of variance is too unpredicatable and infuriating for y'all, we should probably skip it. The third is that, rather than affecting the drinker, a critical failure has bad effects at the time of BREWING. Your alchemical lab explodes, your potion turns to acid and burns you, all your ingredients turn into dust, whatever.
On top of these things, let me reiterate a couple of optional potion rules I want to implement. First, potions are distinctive, and people with the proper KS can identify what a potion is from the smell, taste (small tastes don't activate the effect), and color of a potion. Second, drinking two magical potions at the same time, or drinking one while another hasn't yet worn off, will cause both potions to affect the drinker, BUT ALSO will have strange, unprecedented, effects from the interaction of the potions. These effects are up to the GM, and will sometimes be good, sometimes be bad, or a mix of both. Third, the rules state that a person can carry INT/5 potions at a time, although there is the suggestion that you can increase this amount. I don't know what you've read on this.
An important note in the section on potions, and I don't think you will like this, Gabe, is that it says that "in adventuring groups where PCs frequently share potions, the GM should require the "usable by other" advantage for potions, rather than just relying on the universality of the focus". I would say there is a 99% chance that our group falls into this class, so we should discuss this: it will increase the cost of your potions considerably, I think.
Let me mention here how powerful I think potions are. They aren't better than spells, per se, because of the prep time needed, but they have distinct, notable advantages. 1.) delayed effect means, as I said above, that they are a "sure thing": every potion you keep is going to go off exactly how you want when you want (unless we use that rule above), and being able to rely on something is very powerful. 2.) If the time comes to pull out all the stops, potions effectively turn every character into a magic user for a turn: a wizard can keep casting spells, but if potions are doled out, every character can cast a spell, effectively, in a turn. That's useful. Even just usable by other is a powerful effect. So, even if we decide that "usable by other" should be a potion advantage, I still think they are very, very good.

--Edmiao 23:59, 19 August 2008 (MST) the beauty of the hero system is that you can make up whatever you want. I presume potions are Power, with advantage: trigger, and disad: concentration (0DCV), gestures (2 hands), incantations (complex), extra time. the good thing that balances trigger is that your other disads can be more severe, like concentration 0 DCV would suck in combat. So that said, is it necessary that the extra time limitation be 6 hours? the following are the extra time limitations and values: 1 minute (-1.5), 5 minutes (-2), 20 minutes (-2.5), 1 hour (-3), 6 hours (-3.5). why not use 20 minutes or 1 hour instead of 6? guess that is a question for Ben. 6 hours per one potion is really bothersome, i think. i mean you could quaf 6 potions in a combat and then its a 3-4 day extravaganza to remake them.

--Gdaze-- There is a reason they set it at six hours. Because potions are so useful, there should be a limitation so that I can't pump out a ton of them. I think it would be easier to just be a priest of one of the god's and buff people. Also if I take a bad spill or get hit hard, my potions are very likely to break (OAF Fragile). They have a ton of limitations on them as is. Also even though they aren't independent, they still could be driken by other people, even enemies.

I'm glad for your concern Ed, but I already knew my guy would spend a lot of time making potions.

Yeah I read about Int/5, all delayed powers have to have some limiting factor but you can bump this up for 1/2, I just went by what was in the spellbook.

I'm not really a fan of the rule that two potions at once will cause some other random affect, and I think if that is the case I should get a -1/4 disadvantage for it, or something... kinda like the spell dis-ad. Even more so since I'll be using a two potion combo a lot (armor and fire breath).

Also if we do have critical failure, I think we should take out the any roll over 15 auto fails. If we are suppose to be able to become epic, we should have high chances, but just minuses to the roll. I don't mind spending double for anything over 13 though.

BEN: ok on the advantage to increase the # of potions you can carry. As far as "brewing time" goes, I'm not too concerned: if you want to be able to make a batch of potions instead of just one, that's fine too. I thought the "two potion combo" effect was neat, but if you don't like it, it is your character and we can scrap it.
a 16+ on 3D6 is a 10/216 chance, which comes out to just about 4%. 17+ is 4/216, wich is just under 2%, and 18+ is 1/216, which is less than .5%. I'd prefer there to be some possibility of failure (you can still take skills above 15, it just won't matter unless you have minuses to the roll), so I'm going to keep the 16+ is an auto fail. That being said, if the other players also want to be able to increase their chance of success to 98-99.5% on rolls, I'm ok with that and we'll change it.
I'd also like a quick sound-off on criticals: it sounds like Gabe really doesn't like the idea, so we will remove them unless other players want to try them out: I'm indifferent either way.
Gabe, could you comment on the "usable by others" advantage issue I posted above?