>2) in Re the Lunar waxing/waning math effects - wouldn't it be more logical
>that we simply employ the HW system as-is rather than adding another
>mechanism (the multiplier) to make this work? IMO, it's simplest to say
>that the red moon (wherever you happen to declare it's cyclic effect valid)
>is a handicap when it's dark, and an augment (at some value) when full and
>different values in between?
I quite like this - effectively, its not that your ultimate chance of success is changed much by the phase of the moon, but it becomes much more difficult or easy to achieve significant results depending on moon phase.
Unfortunately, probably not what Greg really wants. But it would be very rules neat.
Alternately, give them some extra APs in the full moon. Easy, practical, no big game balance issues.
>Alternately, an even SIMPLER way to handle it
>is say that the Red Moon value is cyclic. So when full it's a value of 2w,
>when new it's 2. Then lunars use this to augment themselves for anything
>appropriate.
Interesting, but complicated - adds an extra step to any lunar magic, which is a big pain. Anyway, effectively this could easily become much the same as just adding a fixed bonus in practice - with a W2, for example, you could almost always successfully add +5, and in practice a conservative use like this might become standard (a reliable +5 is better than a very unrealiable +8).
> I just tend to (on the face of it) agree that
>multipliers are ungood, as they have relatively different effects at lower &
>higher power levels, and I'm not sure that's dramatically justifiable.
>
I am sure they are bad, particularly at high power levels.
Powered by hypermail