Unstructured Caster concepts?

[Arthur]

Personally, I (loosely) apply the law of diminishing return. The more you stack flaws into a single area (formulaic magic in this case), the less those flaws are worth. Until they are worth nothing. I find that it prevent munchkinism.

So, to a player who wanted to stack Rigid Magic and Unstructured Caster, I'd probably say "Sure, but count Rigid Magic as a minor flaw, because you've already eliminated over 90% of his ability to use formulaic magic."

The "order" in which you introduce the flaws have no relevance to me. It's the whole package that I evaluate.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

@Arthur

Personally, I (loosely) apply the law of diminishing return. The more you stack flaws into a single area (formulaic magic in this case), the less those flaws are worth. Until they are worth nothing. I find that it prevent munchkinism.

So, to a player who wanted to stack Rigid Magic and Unstructured Caster, I'd probably say "Sure, but count Rigid Magic as a minor flaw, because you've already eliminated over 90% of his ability to use formulaic magic."

The "order" in which you introduce the flaws have no relevance to me. It's the whole package that I evaluate.

Ah, that's a different perspective from both JL's and mine. You and I don't agree about the value of the package, but I think we do agree about the primacy of placing a value on the net effect.

Anyway,

Ken

[Arthur]

@Ovarwa

Ah, that's a different perspective from both JL's and mine. You and I don't agree about the value of the package, but I think we do agree about the primacy of placing a value on the net effect.

That doesn't seem that clear to me, since in previous posts you have implied that the order in which the player took the flaws would change how you evaluate them.

Specifically:

@Ovarwa

b) If you look at the flaws in JL's order, then sure, the last flaw on the list does nothing. But if you look at them in a different order, then none of the flaws are redundant: Loose Magic, Poor FM, Rigid Magic, UC. Each further restricts the character. I'm not telling anyone to agree with me! Like I said up front, feel free not to. But each flaw is a flaw. From a certain point of view.

@Ovarwa

I don't need to. I merely need to show that Unstructured Magic is a Flaw for someone with PFM and RM.

Both of these seemed to indicate that the order in which the player has an impact on how you evaluate it. Now you say it doesn't. So which one is it, really?

I'm not trying to be snarky. Just saying that the way you present your position is a bit inconsistent.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

@Arthur

@Ovarwa

Ah, that's a different perspective from both JL's and mine. You and I don't agree about the value of the package, but I think we do agree about the primacy of placing a value on the net effect.

That doesn't seem that clear to me, since in previous posts you have implied that the order in which the player took the flaws would change how you evaluate them.

Specifically:

@Ovarwa

b) If you look at the flaws in JL's order, then sure, the last flaw on the list does nothing. But if you look at them in a different order, then none of the flaws are redundant: Loose Magic, Poor FM, Rigid Magic, UC. Each further restricts the character. I'm not telling anyone to agree with me! Like I said up front, feel free not to. But each flaw is a flaw. From a certain point of view.

@Ovarwa

I don't need to. I merely need to show that Unstructured Magic is a Flaw for someone with PFM and RM.

Both of these seemed to indicate that the order in which the player has an impact on how you evaluate it. Now you say it doesn't. So which one is it, really?

I'm not trying to be snarky. Just saying that the way you present your position is a bit inconsistent.

I'm saying more than one thing:

a) I'm happy to look at the order of Flaws taken, even during character creation.

b) In this case, I'm quite happy with the result, since I believe that losing the ability to cast all formulaic spells is worth 8 flaw points, imo.

The conversation between JL and me focused on (a), but (b) is more important to me.

Does that make more sense? (Even though you disagree about (a), and arrive at a different package cost for (b)?)

Anyway,

Ken