Yes. I hope not seriously.
> > I'd probably pass it as an edge augment. Double dipping thus
>> is bad for game balance always
>...
>
>I think it comes down to cost effectiveness. If a player can use an
>ability twice, that makes the ability more valuable. If that extra
>value is offset by extra cost, game balance can be preserved.
Its not that simple, because the ability becomes hugely more valuable in particular circumstances, but not others. So if you give it an extra cost, it makes in too expensive for everyone who ISN'T planning to use it in ambush etc. Which also damages the game. And determining what the extra cost should be is difficult - because its not actually worthwhile until you start stacking on feats, but can be very efficient at times.
And even if it IS balanced, it can still skew the game towards particular tactics and focus that might not be what you are after. After all, its not like the effectiveness of ambushes is harked on as a major theme.
Much much better to just stop.
>Affinities cost more to increase; presumably the game designers made
>this so because they *recognised* that allowing multiple augments
>from an affinity made affinities more valuable that simple abilities.
That would come as somewhat as a surprise to this rules consultant.
>If you make affinities less valuable, you should also make them
>cheaper.
And I thought they were valuable already because you could effectively add a whole new (similar) ability as a feat, improvise new ones on the spot, perform otherwise impossible effects, and so on. That all sounds pretty cool to me!
> > should being a
>> devotee make ambushes vastly more devastating? You haven't really
>> addressed that point at all.
>...
>
>Yes, if you are a powerful devotee of a DEATH and COMBAT god. The
>example that triggered this thread is not merely 'a devotee'; the
>character has had over 250 HP spent on it.
Sigh. Not an AMBUSH god, in fact an ANTI-ambush god, which makes the idea that their devotees powers should be so much more useful for ambush than in normal combat rather counter-intuitive.
You are desperately trying to reclassify a bug as a feature, because sometimes it vaguely resembles something right. But when you look at it closely, its still wrong.
Cheers David
Powered by hypermail