Difference between revisions of "Rules talk:Elves"
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::Done. If that's acceptable, then how about we kick this stuff into playtest? I think I've got just about enough fluff in at the moment, to start... just need a few more House names. [[User:Alothin|Hroefn]] 14:49, 6 September 2006 (CDT) | ::Done. If that's acceptable, then how about we kick this stuff into playtest? I think I've got just about enough fluff in at the moment, to start... just need a few more House names. [[User:Alothin|Hroefn]] 14:49, 6 September 2006 (CDT) | ||
| − | It all looks excelent, but wouldn't doubling the cost on stam drain and stam boosting techs be a little detrimental for a race supposedly dependant on magic? I don't think that balances with the good. That is my own oppinion though.[[User:Dark Wolf|Dark Wolf]] 15:48, 2 October 2006 (EDT) | + | It all looks excelent, but wouldn't doubling the cost on stam drain and stam boosting techs be a little detrimental for a race supposedly dependant on magic? To me that is like saying you are a dairy farmer, must live on milk but you are lactose intolerant. Might it be better to instead of putting double stam costs across the board to something along the lines of just knocking it down to Neutral bias for every PL but magic?I don't think that balances with the good as it stands. That is my own oppinion though.[[User:Dark Wolf|Dark Wolf]] 15:48, 2 October 2006 (EDT) |
Revision as of 11:52, 2 October 2006
Looking all right. However, I'm not sure the Arcane Tradition/Family Spec combo is as effective of a disadvantage as might be assumed. At the most, it'll cost the character 500 PL, put to a "useless" PL type.Tiryst 20:16, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
- Good point. I was thinking of fixing that by requiring that one-third of gains, up to maximum allowable cap, would be required to be put to the secondary power level(s). How about that? Hroefn 23:29, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
It might be easier just to require that the secondary power be no less (and no more?) than a certain fraction of the first, or of the total PL. Same effect, easier concept to grasp. --Ice 01:15, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
- Probably a decent way to go about it, yeah. Tiryst 02:42, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
- Done. If that's acceptable, then how about we kick this stuff into playtest? I think I've got just about enough fluff in at the moment, to start... just need a few more House names. Hroefn 14:49, 6 September 2006 (CDT)
It all looks excelent, but wouldn't doubling the cost on stam drain and stam boosting techs be a little detrimental for a race supposedly dependant on magic? To me that is like saying you are a dairy farmer, must live on milk but you are lactose intolerant. Might it be better to instead of putting double stam costs across the board to something along the lines of just knocking it down to Neutral bias for every PL but magic?I don't think that balances with the good as it stands. That is my own oppinion though.Dark Wolf 15:48, 2 October 2006 (EDT)
