Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9168990" data-attributes="member: 7026617">If you believe they should pay for what they get, I don't think that follows.In their cases because they're covering a basic conceptual problems; powers you can all use at once are more useful than powers you can only use in alternation.&nbsp; If you didn't give a cost break on the typical array of attacks, you'd never, ever see them.&nbsp; That was a big part of why they were done in the first place.&nbsp; It could have been constructed as a Limitation on successive attacks or movement powers or the like, but that would have been even more messy than frameworks were.The problem with ECs is that they rewarding a player for having a power set that the GM liked more than anything else; they didn't even have to include (and frequently didn't) anything but powers that were always potentially usable at once (which wasn't true with the proto-type ECs).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 9168990, member: 7026617"] If you believe they should pay for what they get, I don't think that follows. In their cases because they're covering a basic conceptual problems; powers you can all use at once are more useful than powers you can only use in alternation. If you didn't give a cost break on the typical array of attacks, you'd never, ever see them. That was a big part of why they were done in the first place. It could have been constructed as a Limitation on successive attacks or movement powers or the like, but that would have been even more messy than frameworks were. The problem with ECs is that they rewarding a player for having a power set that the GM liked more than anything else; they didn't even have to include (and frequently didn't) anything but powers that were always potentially usable at once (which wasn't true with the proto-type ECs). [/QUOTE]

Verification