Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'balance'.
Found 2 results
54 downloadsThis spreadsheet is my attempt to make a workable 'Rule of X' for my own personal campaign use (and personal edification). I'm sharing it for others to use (or not use) as they see fit. The 'Rule of X' basically states that given a set of input parameters (OCV, Damage Dice, etc.) you should be able to calculate some number to represent a character's combat effectiveness. Read HS62.282 for a more in depth explanation. Personally, I found the official rules vague and hand-wavy so I thought this would be a fun project to take on and see if I could make something interesting. This is one of many tools and techniques GMs have to bring some hard and fast rules in to balance their campaign. This is not meant as a substitute for a GM's critical analysis of a character; it's an experiment that's attempting to make the 'Rule of X' workable for my own campaign. Consider this a tool in your toolkit and like any other tool it can be used and abused...munchkins will be munchkins. Campaign baselines are vitally important to the equation and the impact of them should not be underestimated! Everything is configurable; so if you don't agree with how I've weighted abilities, then change it to what you feel is reasonable. The same goes for your own campaign baselines. Disclaimer: I didn't invent the 'Rule of X' and I'm not interested in arguing it's merits endlessly on the interwebs, if you don't like it don't use it! Theory of Operation All campaigns have some notion of baseline stats like DEX, SPD, CVs, etc The spreadsheet takes those baseline statistics as adjustable parameters and assigns a weight to each The Rule of X is the sum of all weights Characters who deviate from the norm are affected like this: Going above the campaign average costs the character proportionally more depending on how much more they exceed the norm Going below the norm discounts the stat for the character in the same manner as going above it does (ie. proportionally) There's a column labelled "+/- %" that tells you how close a character is the campaign Rule of X I recommend trying to keep characters within +/-5% of the Rule of X, max Notes: All input variables (CON, DCV, oAP, etc) assume the highest possible values a character can generate (without pushing) it's not about what a character is likely to be at on any given segment of combat it is about what they could theoretically achieve if they had to put everything into a given task (like hitting a target or evading attacks) Do not factor in standard or optional combat maneuvers into the variables if anyone can perform the maneuver then it's not relevant to the calculation (everyone can Dodge so we don't include that in the DCV entry, for example) For Martial Arts: pick the greatest OCV bonus from your list of offensive maneuvers do the same for DCV except Martial Dodge counts as +2 only (the other +3 everyone has access to via standard Dodge)
There are two challenges I would like to overcome before running a StarHero campaign. The first is the constant wrestling match between the SciFi genre and Sir Isaac Newton. I like the realistic movement endurance rule and the realistic space acceleration rule, but I don't believe they combine logically enough for my taste. Sure, accelerating a big ship costs more endurance, but it still costs 15 points to buy 15m of flight. Combined with the maximum velocities per turn that the book suggests, there is no reason why a battleship wouldn't buy the same acceleration as a fighter. This makes interceptors unable to, well, intercept... I'm toying around with a few ideas to fix this, but maybe the community already has one? Right now my leading idea is to enforce an adder on the flight power somehow based on the vehicles size - that way flight costs more on bigger ships, and more endurance. This should artificially cause larger ships to accelerate slower than smaller ones. The reason I believe this works is due to the second rule I am toying around with: Upper limit of vehicle cost based on size. I was talking to a USAF friend of mine about how modern military vehicles are designed. I summation, the #1 restraint of a modern military vehicle is size. Sure, you can make a battleship go 50 knots, but half of its space and displacement will be utilized by engines. If you want a fast ship with limited projection capabilities, great! But most modern militaries would choose a larger radius of efficacy over raw speed, so smaller engines and more space for guns and planes. I was crunching some numbers on the example vehicles, and saw that they all spent between 8 and 19 times more points on capabilities than size. So I set ship class sizes (DD 13, CR 16 etc...) and simply said a ship can only spend 15x more on powers than on size. I think this will adequately represent space limitations on ships. And the starter ship for my PCs it's only 5x or 10x to represent being a run down, old POS ship. Does this approach make any sense? What other tools and mechanics have been used to balance and normalize ships? Thanks!