Componant flaw

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

Componant flaw

Postby 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?

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

Re: Componant flaw

Postby 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

Postby 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

Postby 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.

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

Re: Componant flaw

Postby 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.


Return to “GMs' Eyes Only”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests