Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 4961565" data-attributes="member: 3424">Responding to the points out of order for better flow.Except that the rules don't say that the effect occurs when you hit or miss with the power. The rules say that the effect occurs when you use the power, whether or not you hit with it. If you don't attack anything, it's still not a hit. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> To my mind, the emphasis on hitting is to distinguish &quot;Effect&quot; entries from &quot;Hit&quot; entries: you get the benefit of &quot;Hit&quot; entries only when you hit a legitimate target, whereas you get the benefit of &quot;Effect&quot; entries simply by using the power. To me, it's a matter of balance. &quot;Effect&quot; benefits are usually less useful than &quot;Hit&quot; benefits. Powers with Effects are thus less risky since they don't depend on you hitting, but have a lower payoff. &quot;Hit&quot; entries need to be specially called out to prevent players from enjoying them too easily or in conditions of minimal risk. &quot;Effect&quot; entries can already be enjoyed easily and without risk. So, I would generally have no problems with allowing the players to take advantage of Effects without needing to make an attack roll (individual powers may be problematic, but that's a problem with the individual power). I'd say that the distinction between Attack power and Utility power is not very stark since many Utility powers can be used in combat. So, I would not have a problem if a small number of Attack powers have out-of-combat applications. I think the key philosophy behind that design decision was to ensure that all characters had at least some Attack powers, not to ensure that all characters had fixed proportions of combat and out-of-combat abilities (after all, they could select Utility powers that have mostly combat applications). And my view is that as long as you can still contribute to both combat and out-of-combat situations, it doesn't really matter if you select Attack powers that can be used in out-of-combat situations, or Utility powers that can be used in combat situations. I think that too much siloing would shift the game too far towards characters that are too homogenous. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="FireLance, post: 4961565, member: 3424"] Responding to the points out of order for better flow. Except that the rules don't say that the effect occurs when you hit or miss with the power. The rules say that the effect occurs when you use the power, whether or not you hit with it. If you don't attack anything, it's still not a hit. :) To my mind, the emphasis on hitting is to distinguish "Effect" entries from "Hit" entries: you get the benefit of "Hit" entries only when you hit a legitimate target, whereas you get the benefit of "Effect" entries simply by using the power. To me, it's a matter of balance. "Effect" benefits are usually less useful than "Hit" benefits. Powers with Effects are thus less risky since they don't depend on you hitting, but have a lower payoff. "Hit" entries need to be specially called out to prevent players from enjoying them too easily or in conditions of minimal risk. "Effect" entries can already be enjoyed easily and without risk. So, I would generally have no problems with allowing the players to take advantage of Effects without needing to make an attack roll (individual powers may be problematic, but that's a problem with the individual power). I'd say that the distinction between Attack power and Utility power is not very stark since many Utility powers can be used in combat. So, I would not have a problem if a small number of Attack powers have out-of-combat applications. I think the key philosophy behind that design decision was to ensure that all characters had at least some Attack powers, not to ensure that all characters had fixed proportions of combat and out-of-combat abilities (after all, they could select Utility powers that have mostly combat applications). And my view is that as long as you can still contribute to both combat and out-of-combat situations, it doesn't really matter if you select Attack powers that can be used in out-of-combat situations, or Utility powers that can be used in combat situations. I think that too much siloing would shift the game too far towards characters that are too homogenous. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification