Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9746909" data-attributes="member: 6799660">So, my group and I have run several one-shots, and now started our first long-form campaign. I've gone through the rulebook a couple times now and am slowly but surely picking up all the different bits and bobs. One thing that I didn't notice much the first few goes through was loadout, vault, and recall cost (since at the lowest levels, the don't come up). I finally noticed them looking over my School of Knowledge Wizard and extrapolating them over the levels. Overall, I like the notion. One of the real issues with games having spells/'powers' (atomic blocks of rules text opening up new action options) is having a huge list of them can slow down what-to-do decision making, especially for newer players. Keeping the list of active options smaller (with a high-cost option to switch them out if needed) has clear and obvious benefits to a game (provided it is built with that assumption in mind). I did notice some things and some implications.Firstly, I now realize that the School of Knowledge bonus ability (and option everyone has at level-up, once per tier) of getting an extra domain card is slightly less valuable than I thought, since you can have all the domain cards you want, but still will only have up to 5 readily available. I'm not a power-gamer, and I think the game works best with limitations, so I'm not upset. It does mean some more careful planning and some things being less valuable than I assumed. It will be interesting. More notably, I realized that there were no level-up options, class features, spells, species, communities, etc. that modified your loadout limit. Given that you can get extra stress, hope, hp, domain cards, armor slots, damage thresholds, and even proficiency, it seems notable that this is left out as a number to tweak with various options. Has anyone else noticed this? Do you think it was intentional, and what the reasoning is ('we really thought limiting in-the-moment options to be super-important' being the most straight-forward)?</blockquote>

Verification