quotemyname Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 Anyone ever play Magic: The Gathering? Some cards have an ability called Protection (from a certain color or card type) which basically makes them immune to all effects of that color or card type. Those cards also take no damage from those sources, cannot be targeted by those sources, etc. etc. If you've played the game you know what I'm talking about. Is there any way to model that in M&M?
angrydurf Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 Immunity(all effects of a given descriptor) [cost varies dependent on how common the descriptor is]
quotemyname Posted January 13, 2010 Author Posted January 13, 2010 Would that take into account the fact that all of an opponents applicable defenses of that descriptor are useless? I.E. Red creatures cannot block a card with protection from red?
angrydurf Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 No for that all of your offensive powers would need a linked nullify(Effect of given descriptor)
Dr Archeville Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 Just be sure to keep those descriptors narrow. Immunity (all mutant powers) & Nullify (all mutant powers) (or replace "mutant powers" with "magic") probably isn't gonna fly.
N/A Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 Immunity to all effects of a certain descriptor costs either 5PP for uncommon descriptors, 10PP for common ones, or 20PP for very common ones.
quotemyname Posted January 13, 2010 Author Posted January 13, 2010 So Immunity to people wearing the color red? Or Immunity to Mammals? How narrow are we talking? Immunity to goblins only on the third Sunday of the month when I've eaten bacon for breakfast?
quotemyname Posted January 14, 2010 Author Posted January 14, 2010 Yes, I see that, but how common of a descriptor would you be allowed to pick?
angrydurf Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 The very common entry would be the most common things you could get away with. So things like bullets. Or Melee Attacks. That level of commonness. Is there something specific you are considering? It's probably easier just to tell you its too common or not than to give more examples than that.
quotemyname Posted January 14, 2010 Author Posted January 14, 2010 Actually, that's the problem. I DON'T have any specific ideas. I was just kind of chalking this one up to theory. Wondering if it was possible sort of thing. Would you be able to bypass someone's defenses, like protection, if it were protection granted by mutant powers for example? Or would that be something in the domain of the Nemesis power? Or would that just never happen?
angrydurf Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 That would be a linked nullify (mutant powers) not an immunity the Immunity allows you to auto succeed on saves VS the included effects. But in theory yes you could have a character that had immunity to Fire or darkness for instance and also linked nullify for the same descriptors on his attacks. What those descriptors could include is limited to what would be balanced. Nothing so common or broad that you are going to be immune/ignore most things you encounter. In the genre both mutation and magic are common enough descriptors that they would likely be over powered.
Dr Archeville Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 And just b/c it's possible doesn't mean it should be allowed -- that would be more a function of the genre (and mood and tone) of the game you're in, and what the Refs would permit in the interests of allowing for cool games/stories.
quotemyname Posted January 14, 2010 Author Posted January 14, 2010 Actually, let me rephrase. Rather than possible I should have used the word allowable. Anything's possible in this game, but I was looking for a judgment on the type of thing a proper game master (In any setting) should allow.
angrydurf Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 I would say certainly descriptors like elemental ones (Fire, Ice, Lightning) or subtypes of magic(Infernal, celestial, necromantic, divine, etc.) or ones like psychic maybe but that's on the edge of being too broad more like psychic(mentalism) or other slightly more restricted versions of psychic phenomena. Generally though it'd be a very case by case basis personally.
N/A Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 Quote, why don't you just tell us what you have in mind?
quotemyname Posted January 14, 2010 Author Posted January 14, 2010 Okay, Thanks Durf. I think I got everything I needed. Like I said, earlier, Shaen, I wasn't looking for anything specific.
Dr Archeville Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 If you don't have anything specific in mind, then you probably shouldn't be asking if it's allowable.
quotemyname Posted January 15, 2010 Author Posted January 15, 2010 Well, it was a concept a friend came up with for a home game that I was GMing. I was really looking for some GM advice on what would be allowable, but I can't be more specific than what he was asking (which wasn't very) :(
Recommended Posts