Componant flaw

Here M&M GMs can trade tips and seek inspiration. Look out for SPOILERS! Players, surf elsewhere or ruin your own fun.
Locked
Pardum
Bystander
Bystander
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 6:01 pm

Componant flaw

Post by Pardum » Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:18 pm

What do think about the idea of a -1 flaw called components required? Essentally the flaw is for a magic user who can only use a spell if they have a specific set of components, like a lock of hair or specific alchemical ingredients. Should I make this a specific flaw or just use the limited flaw?

FuzzyBoots
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 9719
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:15 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: Componant flaw

Post by FuzzyBoots » Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:52 pm

Pardum wrote:What do think about the idea of a -1 flaw called components required? Essentally the flaw is for a magic user who can only use a spell if they have a specific set of components, like a lock of hair or specific alchemical ingredients. Should I make this a specific flaw or just use the limited flaw?
Sounds a bit like a Power Loss Complication or the Hard-to-Remove device flaw (here, modeled as that the pouch of components is the "device" necessary for the magic). A general -1 Flaw seems a bit too much.

hypervirtue
Zealot
Zealot
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:12 pm

Re: Componant flaw

Post by hypervirtue » Sun Jan 05, 2014 12:51 pm

This is already covered in the game.

It is a 1 point flat flaw. Not a "per rank" flaw. It is the same as a Magnetic Controller taking "Blast" as an alternate power, where they throw metal at someone, and taking the flat flaw "Quirk: Requires Metal" from Power Profiles. In this case it is, "Quirk: Requires Components"
One can lift a rock with pure power, but a pure heart can move mountains.

Fists of Dorn
Hireling
Hireling
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:51 am

Re: Componant flaw

Post by Fists of Dorn » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:23 am

hypervirtue wrote: This is already covered in the game.

It is a 1 point flat flaw. Not a "per rank" flaw. It is the same as a Magnetic Controller taking "Blast" as an alternate power, where they throw metal at someone, and taking the flat flaw "Quirk: Requires Metal" from Power Profiles. In this case it is, "Quirk: Requires Components"

A mage being without his spell components is not quite the same as a master of magnetism being deprived of metal due to how common metal is compared to the mage's specific spell components; it is a difference of availability. Finding a newt's eye, the eye lashes of a newborn, and a personal possession of the spell's intended target are generally going to be harder to come by in most settings.
I agree that it does not warrant a '-1 per rank' flaw, but instead a few ranks of the Quirk flat flaw would fit this particular descriptor better than a single rank of the same flaw.

However this is a situation that I think would really be best covered by the use of a Power Loss complication; it works out to providing the GM a handy tool to better control the flow of the story and provides the player with a resource that can aid his character in succeeding in a task.




-Fists.

Pardum
Bystander
Bystander
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 6:01 pm

Re: Componant flaw

Post by Pardum » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:16 pm

Thanks everybody. I wasn't even thinking about the power loss complication at first but this does seem the best way to represent the fact that some spells need components.

Locked