Rules talk:Focused Offense
NO usage of PD? For one, that's a crock. For two, that is the precise opposite of how I was told a year ago to handle it when I specifically asked Kyle. I'd be willing to accept double damage to PD - that was how I played it before I asked Kyle for clarification - but I think NO PD is too harsh and unfair unless the same rule applies to mage barriers as well. And, as has been pointed out, the psionic equivalent does not suspend all other forms of durability while it's used. I don't know if this is someone's unwritten idea of "how it was always supposed to be" and that's why the change was never announced, but it DIRECTLY contradicts what I was told by staff and I think it's unbalanced and ill-thought-out. Talisantia 16:18, 23 December 2006 (CST)
- I don't remember there being the "no PD" restriction back when you asked me, so that's all I have to say about that part.
- While we're complaining about this tech, can I reiterate my complaint that dividing durability by 2 is retarded? :) Tiryst 21:02, 23 December 2006 (CST)
- I'd thought I'd announced the change when I made it, but perhaps I forgot this one. The reason behind it is that the utilization of psionic defenses without double damage to them entirely negates the significant flaw of FO, which is what makes FO so very very inexpensive for what it does. Your point about mage barriers is well-taken, however, and I'll edit the technique to reflect that. On the other hand, if you want to apply for an original tech upgrade to FO that permits you to use passive defences, it's certainly possible, but I'd expect it to be reasonably pricey, especially if they don't suffer double damage while active. Hroefn T 22:21, 23 December 2006 (CST)
- Also, if you have concerns about the psionic equivalent, Aggressive Mind, then feel free to comment on it. It's not finished, much less in play, after all. Hroefn T 01:09, 24 December 2006 (CST)
