Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SWADE AoE spells and Selective

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • zgreg
    commented on 's reply
    I didn't write that blast is "extremely powerful", only that the (cheap) Selective + Blast combo makes it very easy to use and tends to make fights duller. Some interesting tactical decisions, need to plan and coordinate become simply unnecessary. Partially you are right - the changes I propose make it easier to handle "my part of the problem"

    A a side note, having every encounter designed with this specific combo in mind, having every group of opponents ready for such a tactic seems artificial (and is troublesome in the Evernight campaign, which I run).

  • ValhallaGH
    commented on 's reply
    Your post reads like you don't intend to change any of your tactics, encounter design, or other elements that make blast "extremely powerful".
    Which reads like you're ignoring half of the problem and thus half of the solutions.

  • zgreg
    replied
    I have the same problem, Blast + selective seems like a no-brainer tactic (especially in confined spaces). It makes the fights duller, as the caster and his allies can just use it to quickly dispose of a lot of opponents without a deeper thought :/

    I was thinking of the same idea for a solution as mentioned here, to change it to require 1PP per excluded target, but I've found this answer:
    https://www.pegforum.com/forum/savag...fier-questions
    It seems that Selective is even more powerful RAW, as it doesn't require the caster to list the excluded targets up front, she can decide who is affected and who is not on a whim This makes no difference for a Blast, but can be interesting for powers with longer lasting effects. I can imagine interesting scenarios, like the caster allowing the foe to cross a Barrier and interrupt his action at the exact moment he crosses it, making him stuck inside

    In the end I think I'm going to change Selective to:
    1. require specifying excluded targets up-front
    2.cost 1PP per such a target.
    That seems to be a good compromise.

    Leave a comment:


  • lunchmoney
    replied
    Originally posted by ValhallaGH View Post

    ... If you think it is that overwhelmingly powerful then just disallow it..... master your game and tell your players that XYC is not allowed.
    Rule 1 of any RPG.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteelDraco
    commented on 's reply
    Mostly a conceptual thing. I'd rather it was a product of training to be able to do it. That's an Edge, not a Benny ability.

  • SeeleyOne
    replied
    It is not THAT powerful. At least, not in my experience. Maybe it would be in Rifts. The most damage we have rolled is 4d6. The real question is how much damage you are likely to roll vs the Toughness of allies. Most of the time when we have not used selective, the damage roll was thankfully too low to need a Soak roll. Basically you are paying the point to say "hey, don't worry about soaking this and let us save some time by me not rolling damage on you". Most of the time, you are really paying the point for the tactical benefit, due to positioning of the caster and targets on the map. It is a convenience tax. +1 per person seems like a good idea until you do it for a session or two. It is too much.

    Maybe it is either +1 or half the number of allies to bypass (drop fractions)? That could be a good rule. I will consider using that one as it does not potentially double the cost.

    Leave a comment:


  • ValhallaGH
    replied
    Originally posted by Psitraveller View Post
    You could do a SWADE 5.8 and tier the Power Modifiers. Take an Edge and you get cheaper modifiers, or access to a special list of the more powerful/useful modifiers. Selective may be worth an Edge if it normally cost 1 PP per person, and only 1 if you take the Edge. Something like that perhaps?
    ... If you think it is that overwhelmingly powerful then just disallow it.
    It's not a Mega Power that needs to be Edge gated, it's the 2nd level class feature of an Evocation Wizard. It's one of the options for a 3rd level Sorcerer's metamagic feature.
    If you think Selective is too disruptive for your style and tone of game then master your game and tell your players that Selective is not allowed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Psitraveller
    replied
    You could do a SWADE 5.8 and tier the Power Modifiers. Take an Edge and you get cheaper modifiers, or access to a special list of the more powerful/useful modifiers. Selective may be worth an Edge if it normally cost 1 PP per person, and only 1 if you take the Edge. Something like that perhaps?

    Leave a comment:


  • Deskepticon
    commented on 's reply
    A Benny and an Edge are roughly equal value. If you're willing to Edge-gate the modifier, why aren't you willing to Benny-gate it instead?

  • SteelDraco
    commented on 's reply
    Yeah I don't think it's worth a Benny. Most of the time you're preventing damage to 2-3 PCs in my experience. Even if you make it 1pp per person it's rarely worth a Benny.

  • SeeleyOne
    commented on 's reply
    If you go the benny route, I would recommend it having a +0 PP cost. A benny is worth 5 PP.

  • Ndreare
    commented on 's reply
    Have you considered adding a benny tax to it?

  • SteelDraco
    replied
    Selective is the only Power Modifier powerful enough that I've considered making access to it an Edge. It's quite powerful.

    Leave a comment:


  • SeeleyOne
    commented on 's reply
    Ah, I did not mean it to sound like an official rule. I should have been *very* clear. I do not want to confuse people of the RAW. There have been a couple sessions where I have hit allies in an area or an ally has hit me in an area. The last session, fortunately I rolled bad. When I did it before some of the damage aced and I gave them one of my bennies to soak. We had Common Bond in that campaign. A player gave me one of his in a similar situation. Oops. They were calculated risks and very good for the tactical situation. My character, in both cases, was Ruthless.

  • Deskepticon
    commented on 's reply
    Offering table solutions is fine. The issue was your post seemed to be presenting them as official rules. I know that wasn't your intention, but that's how it read.
Working...
X