A Design Curiousity

[JohnUghrin]

I was thinking about Capes today, and a question for the playtesters/designer occurred to me:

What is the reason for "cross out three"? I mean is there a mechanical reason not to have three ranks of traits running 1 - 5? Other than some variety in characters produced via "Click-n-Lock?"

[Eric Sedlacek]

I do think that it matters that you only have one trait at level 5.  That level 5 trait can be defining, especially the simple fact of whether or not that trait is powered.

When you think about it, the difference between a character who is troubled (receives debt) by doing what he is best at and a character who is not similarly troubled is quite striking.

[oreso]

I have to admit, I've practically houseruled that there should be a 5-4-3 ability split. And the 5 should go on a Powered ability.

It just makes far too much tactical sense.

[TonyLB]

It both magnifies the importance of the level-5 ability (as people have correctly pointed out) and magnifies the interest of the level-1 and -2 abilities.

My experience in playing the system in its early stages is that if all of the abilities are kept, there are inevitably two or three "trash abilities" that are in the templates but don't really make any sense for the character.  People would, sensibly enough, put those abilities down at level 1 or 2 and then never use them.  So the "cross out three" rule effectively forces people to push those abilities to the top of the spectrum (removing two fives and a four), maintaining some fun and interest in the abilities down to the lowest level.