tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post4669230463942964669..comments2024-02-13T23:14:23.536-08:00Comments on JAGS Blog: Active Cost, Multiple Attacks, and So OnUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-63142889587917036512011-01-26T13:49:07.379-08:002011-01-26T13:49:07.379-08:00We had a good discussion about this around "a...We had a good discussion about this around "activation time" -- where a weapon takes a non-trivial amount of time to draw at the beginning of a fight, but then can be used normally.<br /><br />The impact of the defect comes down to how many of a character's fights start from a situation where the character can have the weapon ready versus how many fights start with the characters surprised / unready.<br /><br />If you assume that characters are<br /><br />1) Usually on the offensive and<br />2) Not terribly concerned about the social implications of walking around with a weapon ready<br /><br />then activation time is a fairly minimal disadvantage.<br /><br />If you assume that characters typically get set upon by their enemies and are usually in civilized settings where having a weapon "at ready" would be a serious limitation (e.g. get them arrested) then it can be a fairly big disadvantage.<br /><br />All of this comes down to assumptions about what most game worlds are like and what most PC's are like -- assumptions that are likely to be *wrong* for any given character.<br /><br />I think the solution is to know what cost would be if 100% of the fights started with no weapons drawn (The maximum possible impact of the activation time) and the cost if 100% of the fights were started with weapons at ready (the minimum impact of activation -- basically no impact).<br /><br />Then I'd put the actual value of the limitation somewhere in the middle, probably close to the minimal value (I think PC's are likely to start fights and walk around with weapons ready a decent amount of the time).<br /><br />Cheers,<br />-E.rnsrndhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01296489690483215670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-24251218194388992032011-01-26T12:55:03.100-08:002011-01-26T12:55:03.100-08:00Range is a good issue. Right now the simulator doe...Range is a good issue. Right now the simulator doesn't care because in a "stand up fight" almost any weapon will be within range (it does care about /reach/ but the characters are rarely more than '5 yards' apart in the simulated battlefield.<br /><br />So what do we do about it?<br /><br />Well, Range /is/ very important in JAGS battles. One of the most gratifying fights I was ever in involved my character with an SMG pinned down by a team of commandos with M16's. Their range and mobility advantage worked wonders in the way it 'really would' and I was thrilled that the system worked for it.<br /><br />In other cases we've run into snipers or other long-range users who can manipulate a battlespace to huge advantage.<br /><br />On the other hand, getting a massive range advantage is not that easy if you are not dictating the terms of the battle. A dragon at 500 yards range is more likely to be able to get behind something or simply "get away" than have to slog 'up hill' against rifles. <br /><br />PCs who are in-doors won't have range issues and even outside, unless operating in a military fashion (open battle-space, specific terrain based objectives, etc.,) really long ranges aren't as common.<br /><br />So what do we do about it?<br /><br />1. We don't do much for intermediate ranges. If a weapon has a slightly better range than a hand gun, it just does. We don't change the values.<br /><br />2. If range is proportional to damage it may get something of a break (more powerful weapons may consider extra range "part of their advantage.")<br /><br />So for intermediate weapons the range may be longer and, well, it's longer.<br /><br />2. For very long range weapons, however--for the for-real sniper rifles and so on we will probably impose a (slight) modifier on the cost. <br /><br />The reason this is slight is, as stated above, we think that more than half the time the PCs will not be dictating the battlespace in such a way as to capitalize on extreme range.<br /><br />-MarcoMarcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01280274659630509724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924272278497773207.post-62922868432605934152011-01-26T10:40:09.187-08:002011-01-26T10:40:09.187-08:00That seems generally pretty reasonable.
The kicke...That seems generally pretty reasonable.<br /><br />The kicker with the original Champions multipower--which used real, rather than active point costs--was just what you discovered here: that intermittent use conditions mattered so much less in a multipower.<br /><br />I think you may find there are other cases you need to look at too, though, not just recharge time: some of them may rarely come up outside of a superhero context but that doesn't mean they won't come up at all. And one of them is sticky, and pertains right to your dragon example.<br /><br />That's range.<br /><br />I haven't looked at the archetypes build for this, so I don't know how much range factors into cost, but it can be a pretty distinct difference in utility depending on mobility of characters as typical and the conventions of encounter distance. Let's say your dragon is encountered outside at a distance of 500 yards. The time it takes for him to close with his opponents is critical, depending on their ranged capability versus his, and charging as though they were the same is problematic.<br /><br />Its just the commonest one, though; another example is area effects, which can be very hard to apply without hurting your friends, but when you can, can vacuum up opposition pretty fierce.<br /><br />Anyway, interesting post.Thomas5251212https://www.blogger.com/profile/03782253877619118041noreply@blogger.com