Oh okay, there it goes. Never mind ^-^

Yea, in the comment section of the kickstarter they got rid of Speed all together. It seems to be a buy in from the vigor pool. I suspect that some Morphs wont have any or have a negative starting pool, and that mods add or take away from these pools. I suspect something like Pheremones will give you Moxie boost in your pool. A side effect maybe a condensation and lack of variety in the cyberware, which is good or bad. If their effects to a degree or broken down to which pool they modify, then its hard not to see various cyberware as redundant.

How long do Vigor and Insight allow you to ignore the effects of 1 trauma or wound?

As a fan of the EotE lines, I'm personally okay with the distinction between Advantage and Triumph - I also personally really like the codified aspect for both Critical and Superior, I know some people will not like it, but as a GM having hard and fast examples when people just do better at rolls is always great. I personally would have to wait until I see about the sources of such points until I give a full thought on the pools - I like the distinction between Mental/Social/Physical/Luck and how you can have characters with high "currency" in different focus now, as opposed to just EVERYBODY should buy as much MOX as they can handle because it's so valuable. Presumably replacing aptitude bonuses from Morphs with the pools sounds good though. Also like the codifying of actions per Turn, that was always unnecessarily nebulous in 1E. Oh, and much like people being mad about narrative currency with Flex, I know some people who will and already are butthurt about "Short and long rest", I think it's fine again, just structuring something which before was all on the GM to decide before. The 1d6 for a Short rest seems a little weird unless we're planning on using different sized dice for other things now, though.

I like how Excellent, I mean, Superior Success has breakpoints at 33 and 66 instead of 31 and 61. No more buying one extra point into skills at 60 for that double excellent result! I also like how the system better spells out what it does outside of combat. I often wasn't sure what to do with critical or excellent rolls outside of combat. I also like how Task Action Times are still something players have more effect over, but with fewer moments when I pull out my TI at the table. I like speed being gone. It's such a hard mechanic to work around that I bet trying to keep it would make combat a very contorted design space. I will miss super-room clearing characters. It was fun even if it made combat non-participatory for most of the party. Perhaps somewhat hypocritically I also like the various pools, and I'm interested to see more of how they work. I'm guessing various personal augmentations can add to various pools or refresh them more quickly, and I know they're supposed to be morph connected. It'll be really cool to have a Menton or Hyperbright have more mechanics than a huge COG thrown their way. I really like the breakdown of opposed tests. It's extremely clear. It's also nice to have the rest lengths for Moxie and the other pools spelled out. Previously I hadn't been totally sure whether a significant rest meant hours or days. Stuff I kind of dislike: The movement and jumping rules feel a little weird to me. The horizontal jump numbers feel extremely short. IIRC the average long jump for HS freshment is like ~4.8 meters so a 3 meter base seems weird for morph which are often above human norms. Maybe change the base standing horizontal leap to 3 meters? (1.9 meters is apparently "very poor" on fitness tests) And change the running leap to 6? Still pretty round numbers but they don't make me think that an Olympian wouldn't be able to play Varsity track and field in high school without being very lucky. The additional distance gained by Rushing and making a check should be increased. In EP1e it was +.25 m per 10 MoS, and now it's .25 per 33 MoS! Tripling that number seems good to me, and allows a skilled transhuman long jumper to cross 7.5 meters, which is still well below the current world record. I don't want to get too involved here though, because EP is not the game of transhuman high school sports and horror. (though that might be really cool) Hover and Thrust Vector are not explicitly stated to not work in vacuum like several other flight related movement rates. It that intentional so those two do work in space? Finally, it looks like Coordination might be gone (from the blurb about defaulting on Guns rolls on page 3). I hope that is not the case because splitting Dex into two different skills was a nice thing, Dex is too often a god-stat in RPGs. That said, I don't think it'd really break the game too badly in EP, I just liked it. Of course, as I haven't seen the skill list I might be totally off base here.

This is a very strange playtest, releasing the playtest rules in a state that can't actually be playtested. I guess we could use the existing character creation and gear rules and staple them onto the new core mechanics, but doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of playtesting the new edition?

[b]When to roll and the Starbucks Menu of difficulties:[/b] "Roll the dice when the results may influence the plot or have other consequences, when the situation is [u]challenging[/u], when a character is unskilled, or when a character is opposed by another force. Don’t make tests for mundane, everyday tasks." - p. 2 The table of modifiers (same page) then lists seven different levels of difficulty: Effortless, Simple, Easy, Average, Difficult, Challenging, and Hard. Taken together, this somewhat awkwardly implies that most rolls should be made at -20, which I'm not sure is the intended reading. If not, different terms should probably be used to avoid any confusion. Speaking of synonyms, while the differences in magnitude of the modifiers makes it clear that "Easy" and "Simple" are two different things, the terms are basically synonyms, which means they add no clarity what different modifier mean. When is something Easy but not Simple? I don't know, and a trip to Dictionary.com was no help. The same applies to "Hard", "Challenging", and "Difficult". They're synonyms! Also, "Effortless"? Surely if something requires no effort, I should not have to roll? [b]00, 99, succeeding, failing, superior successes, critical failures, etc.[/b] Consider rewording this so that it's clear that you can't succeed and critically fail at the same time. It becomes especially relevant for a roll of 99 under a skill of 99 or more. This is a critical failure. It is also a successful roll greater than 66, giving two Superior Successes. One might think that a critical failure cancels a Superior Success, leaving the roller with a Superior Success and a Critical Failure on the same roll. [b]Critical Examples[/b] Examples #2 and #5 are applicable to any situation. Results #1 and #3 seem to be things mostly relevant in combat. This leaves result #4 as the only example of what a critical success/failure is supposed to be outside of combat. [b]Opposed Tests and Edge Cases for Dice Rolls[/b] "If both sides tie or fail, either the opponents remain deadlocked or the highest roll wins (GM’s choice)." What happens if both sides tie, but a deadlock would not be appropriate? E.g. dodging a swung club; either it hits or it misses, there's no in between. "If both opponents roll criticals, the higher roll critically succeeds, the lower critically fails." What happens on a tie with criticals? [b]Opposed Tests and Superior Successes[/b] Two terms are used; to "succeed" and to "win". As written, it is possible to get Superior Successes while losing the opposed roll, or to get Superior Failures while winning. This is somewhat counter-intuitive, and should perhaps be pointed out! [b]Action Turns and the list of stuff you can do[/b] Might I suggest the following? Instead of the way it's currently listed, write it as something like: "Each turn you may perform base or full movement, take 1 Quick Action, and one of the following: [list] [*]1 Complex Action [*]1 Task Action [*]2 extra Quick Actions" [/list] [b]Declaring Movement Type[/b] "Each action turn, you declare one type of movement action (with the exceptions of jumping and standing up, which may be combined with others) at the beginning of your initiative." This awkwardly implies that you need to declare how you're moving even if you're choosing to stand still. [b]"Amounts" when Rushing[/b] You should probably specify that the amount a Superior Success adds to the Full Move is the Base Move, and not some other amount. [b]Standing jumps while Rushing[/b] You get the benefit of Rushing when Jumping even while making a standing jump. While this makes mechanical sense (spending a Quick and a Complex action to jump longer), it's not intuitive that long standing jumps are best performed by first taking a Rush action and then not using it to run. [b]Triple Jump[/b] If I take 3 Quick Actions for my turn, can I use them to jump thrice? [b]Prone to Jump[/b] If I take 3 Quick Actions for my turn, start prone, use one QA for Standing Up and one for Jumping, is my jump distance halved? [b]MOVEMENT IN DIFFERENT GRAVITIES[/b] People walk faster in strong gravities and slower in weak gravities, not the other way around. [b]Hopper Locomotion[/b] Hopper + Rush + Jumping, that is, a Hopper maximizing its horizontal jumping, gets a greater increase in total movement than a Walker + Rush (+ Jumping) does. Why can the Hopper, already hopping, hop farther than it hops when Rushing, but the Walker, walking, not walk farther than it walks while Rushing? [b]Submarines are faster than surface boats![/b] Really, that is all.

TheGrue wrote:

This is a very strange playtest, releasing the playtest rules in a state that can't actually be playtested.

One thing we have found to happen in the past, when releasing more playtest stuff at once: people jump to the more complicated stuff, immediately begin making characters, etc. -- using their understanding of the _previous_ edition to guide them through it. By giving everyone a couple days to absorb the basics, we think the next few chapters will flow more smoothly for both the testers, and those of us collecting and analyzing the feedback. :-)

Decivre wrote:

So Athletics has replaced Free Fall, Freerunning, Flight and Swimming? But no similar simplification for Pilot? I feel like both should have similar levels of simplification, since most groups with a pilot are only gonna have one guy working all the vehicles, and it's odd he'll get stuck with multiple skill dedications just for movement even though everybody else can swap from feet to fins with no problems

It's not as obvious, but it looks like the fields for Pilot have been collapsed with "Naval" and "Aerospace" as examples, so there's probably some broader application of them - but I think it should stay a field skill, driving a car has bugger all to do with piloting a boat or flying a plane other than maybe some roughly similar control concepts and related underlying talents - i/e defaulting.

UnitOmega wrote:

driving a car has bugger all to do with piloting a boat or flying a plane other than maybe some roughly similar control concepts and related underlying talents - i/e defaulting.

In that same vein, I knew a high school track-and-field athlete that couldn't doggy-paddle to save his life. But I still see value in merging skills. The way I see it, future education is more comprehensive. Just as many talents we take for granted today were once not taught so broadly, perhaps broader understanding of underlying physics became a staple of all vehicular training, and that combined with mesh-based interfaces makes the differences moot. If a weekend jogger can somehow also learn to be master of zero-gravity maneuvers, then that's no more realistic than an umbrella pilot skill.

I kind of get the feeling that, at the least, running jumps should take into consideration the movement speed of the character. The Hopper movement type has a built in modifier, but I'm not sure it makes sense for a Roller moving at ~48m/at to only be able to running jump the same distance as a Snake moving at 20m/at. Divide rush speed by 20 and add that number of metres to the distance jumped, for example?

'Before rolling: Ignore all negative modifiers to the test.' Any modifiers at all? ....

My thoughts: Dice basics I confused six-sided dice a little. Of course I have them and I figure most of RPG players have also, I am feeling D5 is better. It is niggling to have two types of dice, I think. The 33/66 rule I like it. I am figuring MoS, Mof, Excellent Successes and Severe Failures are replaced with it. Opposed tests >If both opponents roll criticals, the higher roll critically succeeds, the lower critically fails. It sounds doubles-and-succeed can be a critical failure sometime. If I roled 33 against TN 50 but my opponent roled 44 against TN 50, It means I scored a critical failure. Am I correct? If so, how the 33/66 rule are applied on it? Is it a superior success, because "TN or less" and "33 or more"? Or a superior fail, because "critical FAILURE" and "66 or less"? Pools Fantastic idea, but I have some questions. 1: if they are acquired upon sleeving. can resleeving refresh them? 2: none of pools are rerated with COO aptitude. Does it gone? 3: is other upgrading ("one superior success to two" or "two superior successes to critical") possible? 4: if Biomods (require 4 hours sleep) can reduce long rest time, can Circadian Regulation (require 2 hours sleep) reduce it also? How about synthmorph (require no sleep)? How about rests in subjective time simulspaces? Task Actions I am fine about modifiers changes (it is used to be +10 at +50% and -10 at -10%). But I liked "I know it failured at Mof% time later". Does the rule gone? Initiative and order of actions Speed stat are gone, but I like it. Honestly, it was Shadowrun 4th legacy.

Alright, lets do this...

Quote:

For some other rolls (damage, stress, refreshing pools), Eclipse Phase uses both six-sided (d6) and ten-sided (d10) dice. These dice are added together, sometimes with a modifier, to get the result. A 2d10 + 3 damage roll of 5 and a 3 would result in an 11.

Picking this apart requires actually seeing the rules this affects, but I still want to raise it: Why not d5s? Kingdom Death already went a fair ways to getting people used to the idea of them not so long ago, and the idea of d3s have been around for roughly eons. Moreover, means that a player only needs to remember the d100 and they're solid. Admittedly I'm biased, I go out of my way to dispense with the need of a bathtub full of d6s.

Quote:

Insight pool is linked to mental capabilities: Cognition, Intuition, and their linked skills. Moxie pool is linked to social interactions: Savvy, Willpower, and their linked skills. It may also be used for Networking Tests. Vigor pool is linked to physical efforts: Reflexes, Somatics, and their linked skills.

Does this mean no more Coordination stat (rolling it into Som and Ref does make sense but...) As for the 4 pools... Don't Rest Your Head gets away with this by being a crunch-light, narrative focused game where the mechanics are merely there to give structure to the story being told. Now I absolutely LOVE Don't Rest Your Head, but... Eclipse Phase is a very different beast. Eclipse Phase is crunch-heavy, but given the tonal shifts of EP (The gears change between Futurama, Ghost in the Shell and Dead Space), the character sheet being the single island of stability in that triad of 'modes' the campaign takes place over is a necessity. Dice pools like this can easily slip into narrative, abstract territory if not handled carefully. And given the split this seems to be causing already - it might be worth investigating alternative rulesets for DMs who prefer 1st ed's way. Hell, one of the biggest factors I use to judge RPG systems by is how they handle optional rules, a well thought out alternative here and there is something I consider a benefit (because it tells me the designers' considerations regarding the system and how they're choosing to deal with it). Admittedly though, the editors' notes in Savage Worlds alone taught me a surprising amount about the nature of RPG design, and I love anything and everything that gives glimpses of insight into that side of things. Brings up another question: when's the character sheet drop? I find that the character sheet is the most useful tool in judging how a system functions.

Quote:

You may spend points from your pools to affect the tests you make. Each pool may only be used for tests that use their linked skills or aptitudes (i.e., a Vigor point can be used on a skill test or aptitude check linked to REF or SOM). Flex my be used on any tests. Before rolling: Ignore all negative modifiers to the test. Before rolling: Add +20 to the test’s target number. After rolling: Flip-flop a d100 roll. For example, 83 becomes 38. After rolling: Upgrade a success to a superior success. After rolling: Downgrade a critical failure to a regular failure.

Okay, so the pools replace moxie. And... judging by the ruling the pools also replace morph bonuses for stats? This sounds like a lot of dicking around to keep track of. Given that rep favours are already a pain in my forever DM side. Again, going to have to see the in depth one of this, either this is very, very clunky, or very, very streamlined.

Quote:

33/66 rule

This sounds inelegant to me, but I've a reason for being biased. 33 and 66 are already crit thresholds and I don't see why doubling up on their significance is useful - it's already a pain when players insist on trying to squeeze out a couple extra points to hit a crit threshold (good thing 55 is a solid number to reach and easy to work with). Overweighting those thresholds is something I can see awkward problems with. 30 and 60 already have a similar importance as it stands, albeit for different reasons (30 being the aptitude max for nearly all morphs, 60 being the 'softcap' for character generation), so why shift these goalposts ever so slightly askew? But, I admit I'm tackling this from an odd angle. See, whenever I run EP, I have a houserule that skill checks of 91+ are auto-failures (imho this is implied to be the way the game's supposed to be run because of the fact that 90 is the 'hardcap' for skills, but I know others disagree). Because of this, I used a variation of this rule - 30/60/90 I give a lot of weight to degrees of success, and I treat 00s the way D&D players treat nat20s. If the PC pulled off a roll of even 90 on a skill they have that high, they deserve special treatment.

Quote:

If you lack the skill you need to make a test, you can rely on your character’s innate talents and default to the skill’s linked aptitude instead (see Aptitudes, p. XX). For example, if you lack Guns skill, you can still shoot using your Reflexes aptitude as the target number. There is no modifier for defaulting, but critical successes are ignored.

Wait, does this mean there's a checkbox for 'proficiency' on character sheets now? because honestly, given the nature of the system that seems like an arbitrary hurdle to jump though in an already lengthy chargen process. If the character sheets are laid out anything like 1st ed, then it's just going to be frustrating to keep tabs on. In current rules, I just treat skill tests with whatever was on the character sheet, no defaulting to me simply meant you cannot use related skills - what was listed was what you got, no arguments. Simpler that way. No arbitrary penalties, as given the stakes that EP can get into and how painful failure can be (pass a durability test or a nanoswarm [i]eats you alive[/i]) the low skill rating is penalty enough. The penalty for deferring to a different skill however is reasonable, and I'm all for that rule. I'd also like to use this space to add something I houseruled to consolidate the inconsistent, x3 and x2 chaff that littered the books: Apt x3 tests I referred to as Aptitude Checks, used them in edge cases where skills make no sense - (like, Somatics Check to drag the heavy thing) Apt x2 tests I referred to as Saving Throws. You get where I'm going with this. Roll me a SOM save to not be crushed to death. Reflex to catch the railing so you don't fall down the mineshaft. Durability was only ever used as the basis of a check or save if the only factor on the outcome was how well constructed the body was - no action on your part would change anything (e.g. nanoswarm eating you - though even then I'd permit a reflex save on a character hitting guardian hive).

Quote:

There are two types of rest actions: short rests and long rests.

Playing D&D5e? I have to admit, I do like this system. Gives concrete downtime. For those running a full horror campaign this is actually a really good tool: without the assurance of 'I'll get it back at the start of next session' like the old moxie, you can really grind them down. To be honest actually, I'd take another leaf out of 5e's book and give expanded rules on quality of rest as well - situational lengthier times and an incrementally worsening fatigue system for not taking said rest. Given that this can be a really easy way for DMs to throttle the tone of the campaign, (shorter rest timeframes = pulpier feel, longer rest timeframes = grittier feel), I feel a lot of thought should be put into making sure this rule is implemented well. Might also be worth tying healing/stress and wound/trauma management into this rest framework. For instance, with my last group I reasoned that because muses are actively trying to keep the players sane (it was a more horror themed campaign after all), the muses would roll Academics: Psychology every session when the moxie refreshed - successes removed d5 points of stress, +1 per level of exceptional [See above], d10 on a crit. Alternatively the player could choose to attempt to remove traumas - 1 on a success, the same removal of stress points on exceptionals, 2 on a critical. This might sound overly nice to the players as a system, but I still managed to have two characters restore from backup after hitting IR, with a third opting to just reroll. For healing I used the rules as written because everyone had medichines because [i]why would you ever not[/i] - but I wished I had the ability to use the same mechanics as I homebrewed for the muse stress management. Tying healing (and therefore medichines) into this system would go a long way to simplifying that side too.

Quote:

An action turn represents roughly 3 seconds. There are 20 action turns per minute. During each action turn you may undertake one of the following: 1 complex action and 1 quick action 1 task action and 1 quick action 3 quick actions Additionally, you may take any number of automatic actions per action turn. The GM may allow you to make additional quick actions, depending on their nature. Note that basic movement such as walking or running does not require an action (Movement, p. XX). More complex forms of movement, however, may require quick, complex, or even task actions.

All I ask is that when you get to mental/mesh actions and mental speed/multitasking implants, that the writeup for them be as clear as the writeup here. But it seems like speed as a stat's no longer a thing by the way this is written? because honestly, that would actually be a shame. The speed system was actually one of the things I raved about with EP.

Quote:

Movement types

And we get clear distinctions what skills can use what move system? ALL OF MY YES! ... Another question then, would you prefer new posts when the game gets amended or edited posts?

Just realized an inherent flaw of the rest system. Is the rest limitation based on Earth time (2 short rests and 1 long rest every 24 hours), or whatever planet you happen to be on? Because this could be problematic for, say, a tidally-locked exoplanet or moon. Or even just a place with extremely-long days.

Laskeutua wrote:

This sounds inelegant to me, but I've a reason for being biased. 33 and 66 are already crit thresholds and I don't see why doubling up on their significance is useful - it's already a pain when players insist on trying to squeeze out a couple extra points to hit a crit threshold (good thing 55 is a solid number to reach and easy to work with). Overweighting those thresholds is something I can see awkward problems with. 30 and 60 already have a similar importance as it stands, albeit for different reasons (30 being the aptitude max for nearly all morphs, 60 being the 'softcap' for character generation), so why shift these goalposts ever so slightly askew?

There are some interesting properties of those numbers on a d100. By splitting the die at exactly 33 and 66, they've made it so that there are exactly 30 non-critical results between each interval (so there are 30 non-criticals between 00 and 33, 30 between 33 and 66 and 30 between 66 and 99). This means a perfectly even distribution of these three roll target areas that should be fairly easy to remember. Also, doing so at the critical marker is more elegant than saying "32 or less for double superior failure, 34 or better for superior success".

Laskeutua wrote:

To clarify some meaning here, because I'll be using these terms: softcap is 'can be exceeded but inefficient to do so' while hardcap is 'system says no, you can't go beyond this point'. I'm thinking of things more in relation to other standards shown in the system: 30 is aptitude softcap, 40 is aptitude hardcap. 60 is skill softcap. 80 is is another softcap, harder to push past. 90 is hardcap. Therefore the thresholds I see that a player would care about in chargen is 30, 40, 60, 80, 90 - because these are the numbers that determine how they place their build points. Without knowing that spread of even distribution, 33 and 66 kind of sound arbitrary, and some players might even see it as a 'tax' of sorts (and believe me, talk to D&D players sometime about those kind of taxes they feel the system imposes upon them, you'll be there all day) - whereas numbers that relate to system caps feel less tax-like and less arbitrary as there's something inherently tangible that can be related to the character creation process that a player could identify.

Out of curiosity, where did you get the 90 as hardcap number? I only ask because the original game's hardcap was 99 (core page 152). I remember that because I once tried starting a debate about the uselessness of that final point (99 still counts as a failure).

Decivre wrote:

Out of curiosity, where did you get the 90 as hardcap number? I only ask because the original game's hardcap was 99 (core page 152). I remember that because I once tried starting a debate about the uselessness of that final point (99 still counts as a failure).

90 is the highest a skill can be raised to in character creation without the use of external gear or implants. It requires that a character either invests in specialisations or in the Expert positive trait. I argue that this [i]implies[/i] that 91+ is meant to be a failing roll even though nothing in the rules explicitly states so (in fact the only thing I could find was that 99 is always a critical failure), but I'm also fully aware that I might be alone in this perception and that most would disagree with me. Worth mentioning that rolls are only supposed to be taken if: there is a risk of failure and/or there is something of value at stake. I don't consider a 1% chance of failure a meaningful risk as a GM, but a 9% chance, with 1% reserved for exceptional failure, is something I'm happier to work with.

Trappedinwikipedia wrote:

We haven't seen how character creation works, skill and aptitude soft caps may have been moved or changed. Purchasing skills may have changed as well. That's a really good catch for rest Decivre, Venus has ~118 earth day long days, so only allowing a long rest about every 4 months would be a problem. Specifying earth days (or 24 SI hours of proper time, so to make sure gate-stuff doesn't mess with the rules)

As a recommendation on this, perhaps it would be easier to specify the amount of time you must spend active between rests, rather than a limit per day. Hours, minutes and seconds will likely stay the same regardless of locale, so a limit of, for example, 6 hours between short rests, and 16 hours between long rests minimum might work better than 2 short and 1 long per day. Ooh, and it could open up the possibility of implants and sleights that manipulate your capacity to rest....

asura8 wrote:

RobBoyle wrote:

Quote:

[*]I hope that Flex won't be a morph pool, because I think it odd to have narrative control be a morph trait. I can't even imagine what a morph that grants more narrative power might look like. It feels like it should be the replacement for the original Moxie pool.

It is a morph pool. It's more common among low-end morphs, who don't have other pools/advantages, as an offset and to make them still worthwhile.

Woah. Woah woah woah. Stop there. I already know I am not the only person who has voiced this opinion online. One of our big fears for the Flex pool was that it was going to be a Morph trait. It just does not seem to fit there. I understand that it is a balancing mechanic for low-end morphs in that form, but there has to be better cost related ways to offset that. The setting is about transcending your humanity on a fundamental level. Why would Flats and Synths have a higher amount of the most powerful Pool? That is intensely troubling. What about having a worse morph is suggestive that you should be more capable of taking narrative control? It really should be limited to Ego Traits like Good Luck / Patron / etc, which gives you a concrete connection to help explain the narrative control.

"So our party consists of a Street Samurai, a Hacker in a high end synth, an AGI drone jammer and there's also Jeff, the Fate Point Bitch." I have to agree with Asura8, mechanical parity despite setting themes seems... an act of wanton dissonance: mechanics should reinforce the conceit of the setting. CP was the balance/parity lever, is this an implication that morphs are not costed via build points anymore?

Decivre wrote:

Laskeutua wrote:

"So our party consists of a Street Samurai, a Hacker in a high end synth, an AGI drone jammer and there's also Jeff, the Fate Point Bitch." I have to agree with Asura8, mechanical parity despite setting themes seems... an act of wanton dissonance: mechanics should reinforce the conceit of the setting.

More to the issue, it is strange to me that the tradeoff for using a weaker morph is to get [b]the most powerful morph pool available[/b]. If that's what Flex is for, it needs to come down in overall power. I used to play a Luck Adept in Shadowrun... a character whose whole gimmick was dumping as much into Edge as possible, and exploiting that for every advantage... so I have no problem with a character built around luck. My problem is that luck is somehow tied to inferior morph choice. Alternatively, this might be used to balance out a low-stat, high cost morph. Flats are often rare and valuable, it makes sense that a GM with a mind for balance would want you to get something out of that price. That said, it should still be heavily checked; it's the most powerful pool.

Getting that Luck Adept in Shadowrun is kind of a niche thing though, not the easiest character to put together nor the easiest to play and relied on in depth player knowledge. My issue is when things like that become the low hanging fruit of character generation, it inevitably becomes part of the party 'checklist'. Combat character, check - tech character, check - face, check - fate point bitch, [i]check[/i]. How many times have you joined a D&D table only to be told 'by the way... we don't have a healer... [i]hint, hint[/i]'. Now, if this were specific to [i]flats[/i] sure, I can accept that. I've come upon EP players who play Jovians and go in with a hardcore [i]humanist[/i] bent. That specific case I'm fine with because it opens up a particular theme for EP to explore. But if you were to tell me a [i]case[/i] gets that same flex entitlement... that's where you're going to lose me.