Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Arcane Snowman

Varying Trade Offs

Recommended Posts

The character that I'm currently working on is in the possession of 3 different Alternate Forms, now what I want to ask is:

Would it be allowable to have seperate trade offs dependant on the different forms, for example:

Form one has +3 Attack, -3 Damage, -2 Toughness, +2 Defense

the second +2 Damage, -2 Attack, +3 Toughness -3 Defense.

and the third has +1 Damage -1 Attack, -2 Toughness +2 Defense.

Is such a thing allowable as long as the unaltered form does not exceed any of the limits?

Share this post


Link to post

As far as I understand it, this type of thing IS allowed. In my mind this follows the same theory as being able to vary trade offs between ranged and melee.

Feel free to step in and prove me wrong, people :P

Share this post


Link to post

Correct... provisionally.

I've no problem with varying trade-offs, but I'd rather not see a char who can, say, quickly switch between Brick/Powerhouse and Speedster at will. Characters should have moderately well-defined roles, and a char who is a Generalist/able to shift things around should not be as good at A, B, C, or D as someone who Specializes in A or B or C or D.

Share this post


Link to post

So maybe the brick form of the character that you make should have tradeoffs in the 2's rather than 3's? and the same on the opposite side of the spectrum? am I following you correctly?

I am concerned, because I too am trying to design a character that may use this.

Share this post


Link to post

In which case, would it be possible to allow varying trade offs, but limiting the cap, I.e. I can do a maximum trade that in total adds up to 3 (or some similar number, just used this because the total trade off possible normally is 6 and I just took half that), so that:

One form would have +2 Toughness, -2 Defense, -1 Attack, +1 Damage

Another could have +3 attack, -3 damage

and the last -2 Toughness +2 Defense, -1 Damage +1 Attack

Or would you prefer that the trade offs cap at 2 instead of 3?

Share this post


Link to post

That's actually an interesting idea. I am not sure why you are trying to relate the offensive and defensive caps though.

Another Idea might be to allow him to have a maximum of 3 points traded off offensively and 3 points traded off defensively over all of his forms.

Share this post


Link to post

It would be helpful if you gave more concrete examples of what you're looking to do. Judgments can rarely be made in a vacuum.

Share this post


Link to post

That's actually an interesting idea. I am not sure why you are trying to relate the offensive and defensive caps though.
Because it allows for versatility whilst not being as potent as a specialist's options.

Another Idea might be to allow him to have a maximum of 3 points traded off offensively and 3 points traded off defensively over all of his forms.
That just fails at the first hurdle, as it becomes more watered down with every form you acquire.

Share this post


Link to post

My example is that I am creating a werewolf type character (with themes taken from various types of fantasy, non of which really agree on what a werewolf actually has / can do, so I picked what I thought would fit or be cool / fun to play. This character may or may not ever see play on this site, but all the same...)

He has a human form (when no alt form power is active)

He has a Hybrid or War-Form (partially man partially wolf) dubbed "Rahu" form (first of two alt froms)

He has a wolf or spirit-form form dubbed "Gauru" (2nd of two alt forms)

His human form has no tradeoffs, but this is a moot point because he doesn't meet any caps in this form anyway.

His Rahu form has +2 damage, -2 attack / +2 toughness, -2 defense

His Gauru form has +2 attack, -2 damage / +2 defense, -2 toughness

That just fails at the first hurdle, as it becomes more watered down with every form you acquire.

My point for that was it's more applicable for characters that do not plan on acquiring more forms.

Share this post


Link to post

It would be helpful if you gave more concrete examples of what you're looking to do. Judgments can rarely be made in a vacuum.

Okay then here are the three forms of my Totemic:

Form of the Widow Spider: This form is inteded for stalking and sneaking around, and as it isn't going to be in combat for very long, I'm thinking of increasing it's defense and attack for a hit and run style. With my cap suggestion, I'm going with +2 Attack, -2 Damage, +1 Defense, -1 Toughness.

Form of the Swallowtailed Butterfly: This form is going to be the "seductress" and "travel" form, allowing for varying degrees of social interaction as well as flight. This one isn't actually designed for combat, so I'm planning on giving it as much defense as possible, to allow for minimal damage on my part so that I can turn into something else. +3 Defense, -3 Toughness for this one.

Lastly Form of the Bombadier Beetle: This is the combat form, trade offs +2 Toughness, -2 Defense, -1 Attack, +1 Damage.

all of these trade offs are with reference to my suggestion, if something else gets approved I'll change it accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post

Was there ever a decision on this?

I am considering new forms for Breakdown, and I was wondering if I could get a ruling here.

Yes tradeoffs? / Only +-1 Tradeoffs? / No tradeoffs?

Share this post


Link to post

Just a thought:

Consider the example of a character that does not meet caps in his most basic form. This character possesses alternate forms. Each alternate form contributes as set of powers and abilities that contribute to him meeting these caps. If these forms end up totaling to different numbers, resulting in varying trade-offs for the character, can it really be said that they are changing the trade-offs? The argument could be made that they are just allowing him to actually meet caps in a certain way.

I consider this similar to the way that a PL10 character may be built with the following abilities:

Example 1: Depending on which strike is used this character is either (+2ATK,-2DC/+2DEF,-2TOU) or (-2ATK,+2DC/-2DEF,+2TOU) respectively.

Base Attack 8 [16pp]

Base Defense 8 [16pp]

Strike 8 PF: Accurate 2 AND Enhanced Feats (Dodge Focus 4) [14pp]

AP: Strike 12 [1pp]

Example 2: A character may use a different offensive trade-offs for both ranged and melee attacks

Base Attack 7 [14pp]

Base Defense 7 [14pp]

Attack Focus (Ranged) 6 [6pp]

Blast 7 [14pp]

AP: Strike 13 [1pp]

So would those forms actually be changing the characters trade-offs any more than these simple sets of powers would be?

Share this post


Link to post

Well i personally diasagree with varying tradeoffs between powers so while I agree its no worse than the examples you gave I'm not really happy with either being allowed.

But I'm not a Ref so *Shrug*

I will say that with the structure of M&M being so focused on hitting caps (at least in you specialty) that trade offs are IMO the only way really to differentiate your character from the others mechanically, its something I value but might be one of those thing that M&M doesn't do and I live with because I like the other bits enough. Like autofire and byzantine grappling rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...