ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Sanctaphrax on August 20, 2011, 02:53:51 AM
-
There are some stunts that, while balanced in theory, become rather unfair when combined with supernatural powers.
For example:
Off-Hand Weapon Training can add more than 2 to an attack's stress if the character is dual-wielding weapons rated above 4. This can easily happen with enchanted items, and it isn't terribly improbable with Items Of Power either.
Swing For The Fences loses its drawback if the character is using an unconventional skill or an enchanted item to defend himself.
Deceit or Intimidation stunts giving +2 to the creation of emotions become too strong if used with Incite Emotion. Stunts boosting physical attacks are limited to a +1 accuracy bonus, and there's no good reason why mental attacks should be easier to boost.
I'm sure I could find more if I looked, but this is ought to be enough for now.
How do you handle this sort of issue? Do you balance stunts in the context of the character taking them? Do you just re-interpret problematic stunts? Do you do something else?
And are there any other stunts that have given you trouble of this sort?
-
Okay. Let's go through these.
Off Hand Weapon Training -- I think that the limiting factor on this is that you need a weapon:4+ weapon and a weapon:5+ item (each that you can wield in one hand) in order for this to pay off more than 2. After all, if you have a 3 and a 5, you can add 2 to your 5 (for 7) and not break the +2 cap, or break the +2 cap to add 3 to your 3... but do less damage at the end of the day. This gets to be pretty resource intensive to get two huge weapons that you can use one-handed.
Swing for the Fences -- Don't see this. Page number?
Deceit or Intimidation Stunts -- These should give +1, not +2. The guidelines for attack Stunts are clear on this, and they don't specify physical attacks.
-
The Off-Hand Weapon Training thing is pretty resource-intensive. But if one is making a Crafter, and one has access to weapon 10 enchanted swords, then Off-Hand Weapon Training starts looking pretty damn attractive. Too attractive, actually. It's just better than other stress-boosting stunts in that situation.
Swing For The Fences is from Fix's writeup in OW.
Your point about attacks is legitimate, but unfortunately it is directly contradicted by one of the sample stunts. Specifically, Infuriate from Intimidation. My current reading of this contradiction was that they meant to specify physical attacks. But it could be that Infuriate is just badly written.
-
Off-Hand Weapon Training can add more than 2 to an attack's stress if the character is dual-wielding weapons rated above 4. This can easily happen with enchanted items, and it isn't terribly improbable with Items Of Power either.
The Off-Hand Weapon Training thing is pretty resource-intensive. But if one is making a Crafter, and one has access to weapon 10 enchanted swords, then Off-Hand Weapon Training starts looking pretty damn attractive. Too attractive, actually. It's just better than other stress-boosting stunts in that situation.
If someone wants to dual wield IoP weapons, I would probably just make the weapons a set anyway, giving them a weapon rating that would represent (and possibly include) this stunt or something similar. Maybe at weapon 4 or 5 when wielding both of them, while each on their own would be a weapon:1. That way, the character concept is concentrated on 1 IoP rather than 2 or more, while still keeping the style of the dual wield.
If a player absolutely wants to dual wield swords of the cross, he better have a damn good reason for it. Plus, it would cost him 9 refresh alone to do so (3 for the first sword, 5 for the second, 1 for the stunt), which would mean, he would not be able to pick up any of the other true believer powers in a game that starts at 10 refresh, which kind of makes the concept itself broken. And even then, a sword of the cross is written as a weapon:2, if they are one handed. On the other hand, having a second sword of the cross would not give him any new powers, so the second sword can mechanically be seen as a mundane sword, there is no difference if he has 1 or 2. He would not have to pay refresh on the weapon, but it would only grant him +1 weapon rating for the stunt, which is good, but not overpowered.
I would probably try to keep IoPs in the lower weapon ratings anyway. A sword is a sword is a weapon:2 (or 3 as a 2 handed weapon). If you want to add to this, there are things like "True aim", which is on the swords of the cross. Or give the weapon a damage bonus like the strength powers provide, but don't make them flat out higher weapon ratings. That way, the stunt still makes sense and will always simply give a +1 to the weapon rating of an attack (because 1 handed weapons are thought to be weapon:1 or 2 at max), except when you can attack with 2 twohanded weapons (probably reserved for hulking size and/or strength powers), where it is a +2 and that is it. Of course that would still become problematic, if you are carrying 2 IoP with different special effects, but that would become a refresh problem again, very quickly.
In the case of the dual wield IoP described above, I would probably make them both a weapon:1, resulting in a weapon:2 with the incorporated stunt, and then give them a power that would boost their damage. Maybe a stunt that would add an aspect on a successful hit, that has to be tagged on the next attack and can't be given to another player. It would make the weapons sort of lock onto a target. Pretty powerful, once you have connected (or maybe inflicted at least 1 stress, "thirst for blood" sounds good for an IoP power) ,but you would still have to hit without the bonus.
If you have enchanted weapons, activation the enchantment is a full action, and I would not allow a double trigger on enchanted items. Even when using the stunt, that would be a weapon:10 attack plus a weapon:2 / 2 resulting in a weapon:11 attack. Yes, that is a lot, but 1 weapon rating really does not make much of a difference. If you would have 2 weapon:10 attacks on the same exchange, resulting in a weapon:15 attack, I agree, that is too much. Though I would probably not even allow the use of the stunt AND the enchanted item. The action is either about your super sword fighting skills, or it is about the enchanted sword, not both.
Swing For The Fences loses its drawback if the character is using an unconventional skill or an enchanted item to defend himself.
This one is simple to solve. Sure it says "weapons, fists or athletics", but I would simply have it say "on your defence roll", whatever skill is used. The idea behind the stunt is, that you can make a more powerful attack by opening your defence and making yourself vulnerable, and you are not less vulnerable from that move, just because you use a different skill.
Deceit or Intimidation stunts giving +2 to the creation of emotions become too strong if used with Incite Emotion. Stunts boosting physical attacks are limited to a +1 accuracy bonus, and there's no good reason why mental attacks should be easier to boost.
Your point about attacks is legitimate, but unfortunately it is directly contradicted by one of the sample stunts. Specifically, Infuriate from Intimidation. My current reading of this contradiction was that they meant to specify physical attacks. But it could be that Infuriate is just badly written.
There are a lot of stunts that give you a +2 when creating maneuvers with a skill. Suddenly this stunt is the equivalent of a social or mental gun, that seems very wrong. I would change it to only apply when trying to put a temporary aspect on the target. It would still be strong, and it could be tagged on the subsequent incite emotion roll, but it would take 2 exchanges to do so, which would be in line with any comparable stunt.
I think the most important part is to look at the spirit of a stunt, not so much at the wording (which is a bit off at times). I know, players and GMs discussing this can be like a fay bargaining, but I think any of the solutions above leaves the stunts viable, while removing the part that would be overpowered or badly worded.
I hope that helped. If something is unclear, please ask.
-
The Off-Hand Weapon Training thing is pretty resource-intensive. But if one is making a Wizard-level Crafter, and one has access to weapon 10 enchanted swords, then Off-Hand Weapon Training starts looking pretty damn attractive. Too attractive, actually. It's just better than other stress-boosting stunts in that situation.
I don't actually see this as a 'real' problem though. Sure, using a properly 'built' Crafter, a player could end up with a pair of highly potent enchanted weapons. However, just how much did the character have to 'spend' to get enchanted weapons that potent? Off the top of my head, in order for a character to have a Weapon: 10 effect, the Crafter would need to have Lore: Superb (+5) or thereabouts. Also at least two Enchanted Item slots are required, as are several points of Refresh to purchase Refinements to boost the level of the effect, potentially allow other wielders of the enchanted weapon(s), and/or increase the number of uses. In effect, if the character is powerful enough to create two Weapon:10 enchanted items, or even just a single Weapon:10 and another one at Weapon:8, the character most likely not have the skills or other abilities to make good use of such potent enchanted items.
-Cheers
-
I think the balance factor of infuriate is that it means the character using it draws a ton of aggro (gets attacked a lot) as the stunt explicitly references that all consequences created reference the user.
Swing for the Fences lowers your defense, block aren't defense roll they are block with have a different mechanic so swing for the fences wouldn't effect them even if you did extend it beyond athletics, fists and weapons.
-
The Off-Hand Weapon Training thing is pretty resource-intensive. But if one is making a Crafter, and one has access to weapon 10 enchanted swords, then Off-Hand Weapon Training starts looking pretty damn attractive. Too attractive, actually. It's just better than other stress-boosting stunts in that situation.
Well, everything starts to break if you do things like that. If you want to prevent things like that without rewriting how Thaumaturgy works entirely, just rule that weapons more potent than, say, weapon:5 require two hands.
Swing For The Fences is from Fix's writeup in OW.
Ah. That's why I couldn't find it. I was looking for a Stunt in the Stunt section. Silly me.
Anyway, yeah. That Stunt is broke sauce. Ask your wizard buddy to Block for you or take a Stunt that lets you defend otherwise, and you just get a +2 to hit (which is huge) every turn. That needs some errata lovin'.
Your point about attacks is legitimate, but unfortunately it is directly contradicted by one of the sample stunts. Specifically, Infuriate from Intimidation. My current reading of this contradiction was that they meant to specify physical attacks. But it could be that Infuriate is just badly written.
I'm going to say poorly written, yeah. When examples break general rules and don't note that they're able to do so, I assume that they are a mistake. Since that gets rid of an obvious problem, I'm comfortable with it.
-
Anyway, yeah. That Stunt is broke sauce. Ask your wizard buddy to Block for you or take a Stunt that lets you defend otherwise, and you just get a +2 to hit (which is huge) every turn. That needs some errata lovin'.
I'm going to say poorly written, yeah. When examples break general rules and don't note that they're able to do so, I assume that they are a mistake. Since that gets rid of an obvious problem, I'm comfortable with it.
I think if your wizard buddy is doing the defence, that is not broken. Harry and Murph work like that all the time. That is just good teamwork, not a broken rule. The wizard himself would never get to attack, if he only blocks. If the wizard would create an aspect every turn for the other one to attack, it would also be +2 every time, so I think it is absolutely ok that way.
-
I think if your wizard buddy is doing the defence, that is not broken. Harry and Murph work like that all the time. That is just good teamwork, not a broken rule.
Having your wizard buddy block is only one way to take advantage. You can use a magical Block yourself if you're magically inclined. You can use a Stunt that allows you to use another Skill to defend.
The point is, it gets you a +2 attack bonus with a disadvantage you can get around without much of a problem.
-
The point is, it gets you a +2 attack bonus with a disadvantage you can get around without much of a problem.
That's just it, it doesn't. I said something about using another skill before, I would still apply the -2 there, because that is what the stunt does, you can't get around the penalty by simply taking another skill to defend. You basically give yourself the aspect "vulnerable defence", which your attacker then tags.
But if you use one exchange to put up a block and then use the next action with swing to the fences, there is pretty much no difference between that and first setting up a maneuver and then tagging it to get +2 on your attack, you are essentially sacrificing 1 action for a +2 bonus on the next, which seems fine to me. If you put up a mundane block before, I might be inclined, depending on the kind of block you did, to say once you do your swing to the fences move, the block is gone, because you can't simultaneously lunge forward and keep up a good defence with it.
-
I thought with enchanted items you could only activate 1 offensive item a turn so even if you did have 2 enchanted blades of peerless cutting and the stunt you could only activate 1 at a time so you would have one weapon 10 weapon and one weapon 2 weapon rather than two weapon 10, so a final weapons rating of 11 rather than 15, +1 which isn't unbalanced for a stunt.
-
That's just it, it doesn't. I said something about using another skill before, I would still apply the -2 there, because that is what the stunt does, you can't get around the penalty by simply taking another skill to defend. You basically give yourself the aspect "vulnerable defence", which your attacker then tags.
That's your house rule, not what the book says. Which is fine as fixes go, but we're talking about what the Stunt actually does according to the book.
But if you use one exchange to put up a block and then use the next action with swing to the fences, there is pretty much no difference between that and first setting up a maneuver and then tagging it to get +2 on your attack, you are essentially sacrificing 1 action for a +2 bonus on the next, which seems fine to me. If you put up a mundane block before, I might be inclined, depending on the kind of block you did, to say once you do your swing to the fences move, the block is gone, because you can't simultaneously lunge forward and keep up a good defence with it.
I'm talking about a magical block. Those can last for a while and apply to several defenses. A single free invocation happens once. Then you're using a single action to set up a couple rounds of defense that get around the -2 penalty and taking advantage of the +2 bonus. You can get a significantly higher bonus this way.
-
That's your house rule, not what the book says. Which is fine as fixes go, but we're talking about what the Stunt actually does according to the book.
I'm talking about a magical block. Those can last for a while and apply to several defenses. A single free invocation happens once. Then you're using a single action to set up a couple rounds of defense that get around the -2 penalty and taking advantage of the +2 bonus. You can get a significantly higher bonus this way.
As opposed to a caster using a single action to set up a block lasting several exchanges, thus making up for the fact that they have crap all in any conventional defense skill?
-
That's your house rule, not what the book says. Which is fine as fixes go, but we're talking about what the Stunt actually does according to the book.
And you are talking about a house rule stunt that moves the defence action to a skill that isn't weapons, fists or athletics, and if you do that, you should look at how it might affects other stunts and adjust them accordingly, I do not see the problem.
I'm talking about a magical block. Those can last for a while and apply to several defenses. A single free invocation happens once. Then you're using a single action to set up a couple rounds of defense that get around the -2 penalty and taking advantage of the +2 bonus. You can get a significantly higher bonus this way.
If you can set up a decent block for a few exchanges, you have put significant amounts of refresh into that power, so I don't see, why it should not be an advantage. A character with supernatural speed or toughness would equally not suffer from this stunt as a mortal would. Evocation + a few points of refresh are more expensive and need a full action to be set up, I don't see why the character should not be able to benefit from it. And the attacker can even break through the block, something that a speed or toughness power does not have to deal with.
-
Mm. Truth be told, I'm not really worried about these specific examples. I can fix them, no problem. But I was interested to see what general approaches you guys had to these things.
Swing For The Fences could easily be rewritten to give a bonus to attacks against you, like Hulking Size.
Infuriate could be rewritten in a number of ways. Like Mouse says, it's likely only problematic because of a mistake in the first place.
Off-Hand Weapon Training could easily be made into a general +2 stress while dual-wielding.
There are two arguments for the balance of Off-Hand Weapon Training that I'd like to address.
First, I know of no rule limiting you to activating one enchanted weapon per turn. A page reference would be appreciated if possible.
Second, the resource investment needed to make the stunt overpowered is not relevant. Partly because stunts are not drawn from a fixed list, but mostly because some characters will have made that investment anyway.
Anecdote time.
I was making a Warden as a personal antagonist for a player character in my PbP game, and because the player character in question is pretty well optimized I decided to make him similarly powerful. I chose to make him a Crafting specialist, and I gave him a Crafting power of 12. Then I looked around for Weapons stunts, because he was supposed to be a master swordsman to go with the Warden Crafter thing. At that point I realized that both Swing For The Fences and Off-Hand Weapon training were way overpowered in this guy's hands*.
So I started made this thread.
*I might just use them in their original forms anyway, though. I suspect that the player would do the same.
-
Your right it doesn't say you can't use two charges a turn well I suppose with the appropriate investment that isn't anymore unreasonable than a discipline maxing wizard for raw damage.
-
First, I know of no rule limiting you to activating one enchanted weapon per turn. A page reference would be appreciated if possible.
Second, the resource investment needed to make the stunt overpowered is not relevant. Partly because stunts are not drawn from a fixed list, but mostly because some characters will have made that investment anyway.
Well, you are right, there is no rule that explicitly says that you can only activate one enchanted item. But I kind of see it as a given, that activating an enchanted item is a full action. In the case of an enchanted weapon, you choose to activate the weapon and then make the appropriate attack roll, which can be the weapon skill, but you could also activate and target a spell imbued in a sword with discipline or any other skill you chose when enchanting it. That means, there is no attack roll with the swords, there is an attack roll for the spell on the sword, and the stunt would not apply. At least that's the way how I interpret enchanted items.
There is however the case of Harry using all of his force ring charges at once, which would contradict this. Though that might be doable by trading in uses for power on that one occasion, if the GM allows. Again, that would be how I'd probably do it.
-
Then in terms of rules attacking with two weapons is two turn (attacks) the stunt allows you to gain half the benefit of a second attack, so as long as the two attack with enchanted weapons resolve as one attack I don't see why it can't be done, activating and enchanted item dosen't take at turn (see enchanted blocks) attack with them does.
-
activating and enchanted item dosen't take at turn (see enchanted blocks)
Actually, that's written as a special exception for defensive items, which - at least as I read it - strongly supports the interpretation that the base assumption is for an enchanted item to take a standard action to activate.
And, since you can't make a magical attack that has a duration in it, that quite solidly puts the clapper on dual-wielding weapon 10 enchanted swords.
-
Pretty sure that Haru's interpretation is wrong.
First of all, the attack with the sword can be treated mechanically as the targeting roll for the enchanted item activation. This is explicitly allowed.
And secondly, the Warden Sword's writeup seems to indicate that the dual-wielding trick works.
-
Here is the Warden Swords write up from Your Story, it seems to support Sanctaphrax's interpretation.
Warden Sword
Built by Luccio’s formerly impressive crafting,
the Sword can produce one of the following
magical effects 3 times per session:
The Sword may be treated as a Weapon:6
item for one attack.
This means that in the case of duel wielding warden swords with the stunt you are dealing with weapons 8 with one enchanted item use or weapons 9 with 2 enchanted item uses, pretty good. If you taking this with an optimized crafter you get a 12 weapon attack with one use and a 15 weapon attack with 2 enchanted items uses, pretty grim.
No where does it actually say using an enchanted item effect takes up a turn so this build is raw as you are only attacking once in the turn. In fact if using the enchanted item cost a turn that would mean you couldn't attack on the same turn as you used the swords as you would need 1 turn to use your enchanted item to buff your sword and another to attack with the buffed sword that and the fact that enchanted blocks don't cost a turn to activate seems to indicate that using enchanted items doesn't cost a turn of itself but attacking with or maneuvering with enchanted items does.
-
...Activating the enchanted item *is* the attack. As in, you spend your action, and you get the magical effect of a melee attack at weapon: 6, using your weapons skill to determine the accuracy.
No, it doesn't say anywhere what kind of action activating an item is, except for that one line on YS280 about "Defensive items often don't require a separate action to activate" - which can be interpreted as an extension of the rules for free actions on YS213, where it states that defense is a free action. I'd also point out here that YS213 is very clear that free actions are limited to what the group & GM is willing to allow. So - you can, by RAW, activate your two enchanted swords, and your enchanted armlet that gives you a free tag on "burst of speed", and whatever other junk you've got on hand, letting you make your attack at weapons skill plus 2 (or more!) and weapon rating 15 if and only if your gaming group & GM is OK with that. I wouldn't be.
-
Mmm. Semantics. wyvern's reading is valid, but not necessarily correct.
The fact that we are even having this discussion is proof that the stunt interacts badly with Crafting.
The original question of this thread, the one that I actually want to discuss is, how do you handle things like this?
Looking around for technicalities in the rules to solve the problem is not a good approach. It just leads to endless arguments and bad precedents.
Does anyone have a better idea?
-
Well, like I said, I try to look not at the wording but at the intent behind a stunt. Most of the times, it solves the issues. The rules state pretty clearly, what a stunt can and can't do, if it is doing more than that, it should be dialled down to a version where it would work as intended.
Example:
In the case of Off-Hand Weapon Training, I look at the table of what weapon ratings the author feels one handed melee weapons should have. That is effectively 1 or 2. A weapon:3 would already be a two handed weapon. If you then look at the stunt again, it gives you half the weapon rating rounded up, which in both cases (weapon 1 or 2) would be a +1 weapon rating. That means, the stunt could also be worded "grants +1 weapon rating when attacking with both a main and off-hand weapon.", which would make it fit perfectly into the stunt rules. The only situation it would not apply like that, would be when someone was attacking with 2 twohanded weapons and supernatural strength or hulking size, that would become a +2 bonus by the original wording, which might or might not be granted on a case by case basis, but since hulking size and strength already provide much additional stress, that 1 point is not going to make a big difference.
If in the game there still comes a situation, where a stunt (alone or in combination with a power) would cause problems, I would simply look at what the stunt should do at the most. So if the wording of the stunt would provide the character with a +3 on a maneuver, I'd reduce that to the +2 it should be. More than +1 on an attack? Same thing.
-
I disagree with you about Off-Hand Weapon Training if they wanted to give a +1 to weapons they would have given a +1 to weapons, considering that the level strength gets to in the game (at mythic strength you could duel wield London buses) the bonus is meant slide between 1-3 depending on the strength of the character. Though I personally think the stunt would be better with flat out +2 to weapons rating when duel wielding which would fit the stunt guideline.
I usually try to go with perceived aims of stunts which doesn't steer me wrong when gming when playing I like to interpret stunts towards my aims. Infuriate is an odd stunt it is clearly meant to benefit both mental and social attacks and maneuvers (it was explicitly stated in the stunt) with the aim of enraging someone, I suppose to balance it I would make the stunt give a +1 but not make all consequences it dealt reference the PC who created them. This would make the stunt compatible with the stunt guidelines and also make it more powerful than its current version as it would allows PC's with the stunt to get enemies to fight each other rather than causing enemies to attack the PC).
-
Okay, sounds reasonable.
Thanks.
-
I simply wouldn't allow infuriate to stack with Incite Emotion.
-
That would also work.
-
I have to question the premise a bit. Not anything Sanctaphrax said about the stunts interacting - it certainly would appear to provide the stated bonuses. My question is, why is that a problem?
Seriously. This is a game where people consistently discuss optimizations allowing +10 or better spellcasting. A game where everyone can gain a +2 every round just by making an appropriate Declaration. Why are these interactions, which gain +1 to +2 for the most part, seen as egregious?
Even the worst of them - dual wielding - is only an issue if you're already allowing escalated weapon values.
-
Because you can make stunts freely.
If it's okay for stunts to interact in ways that make them more powerful than they should be, then why not just design such things into them?
I really like stunts. I think that their power level is great. I don't want to see it messed with.
PS: Optimization does not preclude the use of stunts. Optimizing for social combat is all about stunts, in fact. And sometimes two combat stunts are better than a level of Strength or Speed or Toughness or Recovery.
-
Because you can make stunts freely.
If it's okay for stunts to interact in ways that make them more powerful than they should be, then why not just design such things into them?
"More powerful than they should be"? That's a matter of perspective not an objective measure. I tend to agree with your concluding question, why not design interaction into the stunts? Stunt trees are common in some FATE games.
Not saying you can't go overboard, anything can be taken too far. I'm just not going to worry about an extra +2 when wizards drop the hammer at five times that.
I really like stunts. I think that their power level is great. I don't want to see it messed with.
PS: Optimization does not preclude the use of stunts. Optimizing for social combat is all about stunts, in fact. And sometimes two combat stunts are better than a level of Strength or Speed or Toughness or Recovery.
Yep, it's what keeps mundane humans in striking distance of the supernaturals. A Good Thing (TM)! ;)
-
The problem with the stunts in this example is that they out-compete other stunts.
Remember the Crafter Warden I mentioned?
Why should he take any accuracy-boosting stunt that isn't Swing For The Fences? From an optimization standpoint, there is no reason. And that's a problem, because it encourages one character concept above all others.
Crafter-boy would be mildly overpowered without any broken stunts. Crafter builds are pretty scary. And unlike wizards, they usually have a stunt or two.
I'm not too worried about mortals. I'm worried about people already on the edge of fairness becoming stronger.
Stunt trees are a form of controlled interaction, where the bonuses can be kept balanced. What we have here is uncontrolled interaction, which should be avoided.
PS: I'd actually like to design some more stunt trees in the future. If you check out the master list, you'll find a couple of short ones that I've made already. Your opinion would be appreciated, especially since stunt tree design is something I'm not totally comfortable with yet. I need more practice.
-
What we have here is uncontrolled interaction, which should be avoided.
As GM, I try to err on the side of permissiveness rather than trying to control everything. In the end, we're all there to play a game. Most balance issues can be resolved by out of game communication.
PS: I'd actually like to design some more stunt trees in the future. If you check out the master list, you'll find a couple of short ones that I've made already. Your opinion would be appreciated, especially since stunt tree design is something I'm not totally comfortable with yet. I need more practice.
I admire the work you've put into that (and other threads). I think it's a good resource and an excellent place to find ideas. That said, I tend to edit things once I have a purpose in mind. Designing to some arbitrary standard is too much like work (I have to write far too many process documents)...and one reason I'll never publish a game. ;)
In case it hasn't been said, thanks for putting the list together!
-
Because you can make stunts freely.
Faulty premise.
All created stunts, all characters, require the consent and approval of the GM, if not the table as a whole.
-
Faulty premise.
All created stunts, all characters, require the consent and approval of the GM, if not the table as a whole.
That is true, but I would say that new stunts generally have a lower "barrier of entry" that new powers, so long as they fit within the guidelines.
-
That is true, but I would say that new stunts generally have a lower "barrier of entry" that new powers, so long as they fit within the guidelines.
At least the effects available from stunts HAVE guidelines.
And what 'barriers to entry' a particular group sets is up to that group. It's not encoded anywhere in the rules.
-
I don't handle it at all.
This is an RPG - not an mmo. I don't worry about balance issues much.
-
Truth be told, I don't worry too much about balance when I'm actually playing.
But when I'm designing, it's one of my primary goals.
And I'm designing right now. What Tedronai and UmbraLux have said seems to me to boil down to
"The problem is easily ignored or dealt with, and therefore not a problem."
And that, while a decent way to approach these things at the table, is not a good design philosophy.
PS: Thanks and you're welcome, UmbraLux.
-
Truth be told, I don't worry too much about balance when I'm actually playing.
But when I'm designing, it's one of my primary goals.
And I'm designing right now. What Tedronai and UmbraLux have said seems to me to boil down to
"The problem is easily ignored or dealt with, and therefore not a problem."
And that, while a decent way to approach these things at the table, is not a good design philosophy.
PS: Thanks and you're welcome, UmbraLux.
I agree with you... but in that case it's only something you should be worrying about when creating house rules or writing your own RPG.
While playing one - not so much.