commonality of unusual defenses

[Agent X]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Yes, it is; however, like the above post mentioned, this had become a habit because the GMs were creating villains that covered every defense we thought up. Since I've done this, I haven't had a complaint. I'll explain why to them and they agree with it. I also don't let PCs stock up on various defenses (such as the 'exotic ones') for their beginning characters nor do I let two PCs have the same "unique feature" about them. I don't allow two to start off with 15 points of wealth, nor two to be "the best X-type character." I like to find out where they want to shine and make sure the others don't step on them or overlap them.

 

 

 

I don't either. But it is quite genre to have one villain team that exploits the hero team's weaknesses until the heroes figure out the secret. (Such an example of when the Justice League was 'beat' by Martians disguised as peaceful alien supers where Batman figured out their fear of fire.

 

 

 

In your opinion. Luckily, your views don't trump this previous group's preferences. We did enjoy subtle clues and mysteries. We didn't generally didn't enjoy straight forward scenarios, unless the previous adventure was taxing on us, or the "straight forward" scenario was but a small scene prior to the real story being told.

 

We've had an entire adventure consisting fo about 6 or so 6-8 hour sessions where we were trying to protect a normal female from a villain team. It turned out that the female we were trying to protect was actually their leader, and the wild goose chase we were on was actually a cover-up designed for her to succeed at something. Instead of retreating into turtle shells, we applauded the GM for his well-thought-out game. (This is the same GM who had the 6-man invisible VIPER team squads.)

 

Simply because it doesn't suit *your* tastes or your group's tastes, doesn't mean it can't suit my group's enjoyment.

I believe you're building a straw man here. What I'm saying is that you have to be very careful about your "riddles." If the players think they are unfair or feel burned before the clues come up, they aren't open to solutions; they're interested in avoiding the unpleasant encounter. That's a bad thing for a game.

 

We've used Trojan Horses and Riddles in our games too, but we make an attempt to make sure there is more than one way to reach the truth AND the GMs try to make sure they have a parachute if the PCs don't "get" it.

[Metaphysician]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Sure. And I'll use a 1d6+1 RKA, AVLD vs Power Defense, +3 Stun Multiplier.

 

After all, don't most combatants lack Resistant Power Defense?

 

 

Yeah, but anyone with Mental Illusion can create this illusion, whereas you'd need a VPP more or less to do your trick.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

No' date=' mainly because I do not like unnecessary complications.[/quote']

 

I don't find hardening a portion of defenses exceptionally complicated. In the example given, the character has 20 PD and ED, 10 Hardened. If hit with an AP attack, he has 15 defenses (10 hard + 1/2 of 10 not hard). A character with a hardened force field and non-hardened PD/ED gets the same result.

 

The math is quite a bit easier than designing many advantaged/limitation'ed and/or framework'ed powers. And you can just note on the chjaracter sheet "PD 15 vs AP".

 

Penetrating, of course, is blocked. If someone wanted to harden 1/1 DEF for that benefit, we'd have a little discussion (or I'd house rule 1 hardened DEF stops 1 point penetrating, but I think discussion would solve it).

[Kirby]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Take a moment and see what you are doing: you are limiting the players to the types of characters you would create. Micromanaging the other players' characters is not good. It's a step on the road to Bad GMing.

 

(I know you won't listen to me now. But maybe down the road the light will come on.)

You assume way too much, especially from one rule. Aside from me not allowing PCs to have a killing attack with more active points than their standard attack(s), this is the only other "tough" rule I have for starting characters. Aside that in my current campaign we're the start-up characters are built on 250 point requirements/restriction, though it's a 350 game. (But this also deals with the low # of players and that they're very new to the game.) I also don't let a single character have all the "STOP" and " ! " powers. That's not micromanaging. That's keeping it balanced. Micromanaging would be me telling them where to put all their points or what all powers they need.

 

Out of the three players in the group, I haven't told any of them what to play. One is a Batman/Blue Beetle type that can shapechange into a homid cheetah form, the second has darkness powers (a theme generally associated with the bad guys) and the third started out as a man with time powers, then opted to change his character to a mystic and is now thinking of a brick. I'm not limiting or managing their characters for them. The players know that once the campaign kicks into gear, I'm going to introduce them to a team that they have the option to join. The team consists of a Cpt. America/Hawkman type, a mentalist and a brick. That would put TWO bricks on the same team (IF they choose that route) and I'm not restricting them. At the time of the first mock combat, all three players had "thrill seeker" as a Psych disad. Two of them actually like the concept of sneaking into places and taking things. Not exactly a 4-color team, and yet I'm not restricting them.

 

This is a bit of an explanation to clarify your misunderstanding, but you need to not jump to conclusions so quickly. While your advice and suggestions are appreciated, your inaccurate assumption along with your parting shot is not appreciated.

[Kirby]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

ISimilarly' date=' I can see alot of MAs with lots of combat luck, which is hardened.[/quote']

Is it? Interesting. This is the first group I've played 5E with, so that's something new to me. Food for thought. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Kirby]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Am I the only one who will take a character with 20 PD & ED and only harden the first 10 points?

Nah, I had a quasi brick who had 15/def w/8 resist & only 8 points (of both) were hardened. He had 50% dmg red/res (PD&ED) of which none was hardened. He ended up dying because of that (and a newly given power to the villain, along w/a house rule that was changed *after* my character's death because it affected the GM's N/PC). But I'm not bitter about that.

 

Come to think of it' date=' I never give anybody Find Weakness unless they are a master-level villain, either.[/quote']

As NPCs, or even allowed it in the game? As a PC, I've only created FW with martial artists and weapons experts. I don't like any other 'types' to have it. As for villains, Eurostar (ugh) and I created a villain who had a 4d6 attack, but he had an 18- w/FW autofire (VERY expensive). His "drawback" was that he could only attempt FW once per person (which didn't really matter with the autofire). He beat up one hero real mean-like. Unfortunately for him, I didn't give him any range levels, and he was knocked back pretty far by the energy blasters who kept away from him. After hurting two PCs, he was knocked out.

[Kirby]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

I've never had Lack of Weakness on a PC' date=' because I've never seen a GM use Find Weakness. [/quote']

Lucky you. I've never had a GM who didn't. The worst was the GM who used Eurostar and those that had FW had sight/range levels so they could FW from hiding.

[nexus]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Lucky you. I've never had a GM who didn't. The worst was the GM who used Eurostar and those that had FW had sight/range levels so they could FW from hiding.

 

whoa, ouch! That's just cruel.

[Kirby]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

I believe you're building a straw man here.

 

What I'm saying is that you have to be very careful about your "riddles."

You'll have to pardon me, then, because no where in your post (#30) did I see the word "caution" or "be careful" or "concern." What I did see was this:

 

"That's sort of inflexible. ... This kind of talk turns me off of playing games with GMs who make statements like this. ... This doesn't sound like fun to play in to me. ... Once you've done that, there is a trust issue and players aren't going to stick their neck out and follow subtle hints. They are going to retreat and look at each other and frustratedly curse the experience." [Emphasis mine.]

 

 

Then you state:

We've used Trojan Horses and Riddles in our games too' date=' but we make an attempt to make sure there is more than one way to reach the truth AND the GMs try to make sure they have a parachute if the PCs don't "get" it.[/quote']

So somehow it's okay for you to use "Trojan Horses and Riddles" but if it's done in a way that you don't approve, it's bad for gaming? As a reminder of what I stated before on this:

1. The villains mentioned they had been hired to *assassinate* the PCs.
   
2. The villains each targeted the PC who was succeptible to their attack.
   
3. The mage knew his attacks were doing more damage to the villains than normal.
   
4. The mage knocked out two villians early on.
   
5. The PCs (except the mage) never switched the target they were attacking.
   

So there weren't enough clues for them? or for you? As an additional note, we don't design every encounter for the PCs to come out victorious. We state up front that there will be many challenging encounters that could go either way. Sometimes, (just like in the comics) the encounter is stacked against the heroes, so that they either rethink their tactics on the spot, or when they're finished cleaning the dust out of their mouth, they come up with a better plan for the rematch.

 

You may want to give your PCs a parachute for every trick, but I don't, nor have the other GMs I've been with. If every challenge was predestined to be victorious for the heroes, where's the fun in that?

 

For my personal games that I run, I tell them that my concept is that the heroes are generally outnumbered and will usually win; they are the smaller force of greater good fighting the rampant evil. In 4th Ed, I tended to use villains from Enemies for Hire ranging from 175-250 points. When going up against PCs based on 250+ experience, you can see who the scenarios tend to favor, but there aren't any guarantees.

 

Challenges make life interesting. Overcoming them makes it worthwhile.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

I don't find hardening a portion of defenses exceptionally complicated.

 

Not "exceptionally" complicated. "Unnecessarily" complicated. I am not averse to complexity when it serves an interesting character conception, or makes the game more fun, or does something that can't be accomplished any other way. I have never seen a need for partially Hardening a character's defenses. (That could, of course, change tomorrow.)

 

I wouldn't discourage anyone else from doing it, of course.

[Kirby]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

whoa' date=' ouch! That's just cruel.[/quote']

Pantera was the worst. She would generally FW twice on each PC before she came in from over 30 hexes away. A 4d6 HKA when your skilled normal is at 1/4 defenses is NOT fun. Even our bricks took Body.

[Chuckg]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Pantera doesn't bother to think above the "Rip! Snarl!" level, much less use binoculars. I think your DM was being even cheesier than it first appears.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Pantera doesn't bother to think above the "Rip! Snarl!" level' date=' much less use binoculars.[/quote']

 

It might have been the grey Pantera. She's not quite as strong, but she is just as smart as Bruce Banner.

[Kirby]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Pantera doesn't bother to think above the "Rip! Snarl!" level' date=' much less use binoculars. I think your DM was being even cheesier than it first appears.[/quote']

Well, she does have +8 telescopic sight, +3 enhanced vision along with tactics of 'stalking her prey,' coupled with Fiacho's training. Plus, it's not like the GM can't change her; that's every GM's perogative to alter characters. I once had a campaign where Ogre actually had a 25 INT and the rep "Another dumb brick" just so he *could* be underestimated.

 

When it was revealed that he was actually the local VIPER Nest Leader...

[Victim]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Is it? Interesting. This is the first group I've played 5E with' date=' so that's something new to me. Food for thought. Thanks for pointing that out.[/quote']

 

Well, I said I can see lots of MAs built that they, not that I do see lots of them built that way. I don't have a group playing hero. But buying your resistant defense with a dodging special effect makes tons of sense for MA types. I generally build mine with Combat Luck or something like it, and also like to add it to other characters who are supposed to have lots of combat experience. But a sample of 1 is pretty worthless.

[Agent X]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

 

 

You'll have to pardon me, then, because no where in your post (#30) did I see the word "caution" or "be careful" or "concern." What I did see was this:

 

"That's sort of inflexible. ... This kind of talk turns me off of playing games with GMs who make statements like this. ... This doesn't sound like fun to play in to me. ... Once you've done that, there is a trust issue and players aren't going to stick their neck out and follow subtle hints. They are going to retreat and look at each other and frustratedly curse the experience." [Emphasis mine.]

 

 

Then you state:

 

So somehow it's okay for you to use "Trojan Horses and Riddles" but if it's done in a way that you don't approve, it's bad for gaming? As a reminder of what I stated before on this:

1. The villains mentioned they had been hired to *assassinate* the PCs.
   
2. The villains each targeted the PC who was succeptible to their attack.
   
3. The mage knew his attacks were doing more damage to the villains than normal.
   
4. The mage knocked out two villians early on.
   
5. The PCs (except the mage) never switched the target they were attacking.
   

So there weren't enough clues for them? or for you? As an additional note, we don't design every encounter for the PCs to come out victorious. We state up front that there will be many challenging encounters that could go either way. Sometimes, (just like in the comics) the encounter is stacked against the heroes, so that they either rethink their tactics on the spot, or when they're finished cleaning the dust out of their mouth, they come up with a better plan for the rematch.

 

You may want to give your PCs a parachute for every trick, but I don't, nor have the other GMs I've been with. If every challenge was predestined to be victorious for the heroes, where's the fun in that?

 

For my personal games that I run, I tell them that my concept is that the heroes are generally outnumbered and will usually win; they are the smaller force of greater good fighting the rampant evil. In 4th Ed, I tended to use villains from Enemies for Hire ranging from 175-250 points. When going up against PCs based on 250+ experience, you can see who the scenarios tend to favor, but there aren't any guarantees.

 

Challenges make life interesting. Overcoming them makes it worthwhile.

I was concerned about the specific statements you made. You chose to broaden the scope and try to get me to argue against any riddle or trojan horse. I didn't bite. To my understanding:You set up an encounter that exploited every character's vulnerability but one and set up the villains to be tougher against everybody but that one. You gave them one clue but they didn't pick up on it and they ran. I have a feeling I know why they did. I think they probably scooted because they didn't trust that there was a solution to the encounter but to run, regroup, and rethink the situation or avoid the situation all together. When you hammer the PCs with new villains, they're not going to stop and reflect on the riddle while they are getting pounded. YMMV

[Kirby]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

To my understanding:You set up an encounter that exploited every character's vulnerability but one and set up the villains to be tougher against everybody but that one.

This is (another) assumption you've made to jump to your conclusions. I never stated that the villains were tougher, I merely stated that they had a specific advantage. Like your assumption on the "awful GM" where you "would have skated," your assumption here is again flawed. I tend to use lower power villains, an example used in post 27: 3-4 SPD, 20-30 STUN (which you qutoed in post 29) as well as in post 59, which you even quoted in your post (#60), though I'm guessing didn't bother to read or apply. Here it is again:

 

"

In 4th Ed, I tended to use villains from

Enemies for Hire

ranging from 175-250 points. When going up against PCs based on 250+ experience, you can see who the scenarios tend to favor, but there aren't any guarantees

."

 

Also, if you noticed, I stated in the original post (#28) that it didn't go so well, and in post #37 that I never brought them back to the game.

 

And though I would give you a better benefit of the doubt, given the evidence that you've presented, I could actually make a reasonable deduction that if games don't go your way, you leave using the "It's My Scattergories and I'm taking it with me," line. Regardless, it doesn't make "rhinocerous" a barnyard animal.

[Agent X]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

This is (another) assumption you've made to jump to your conclusions. I never stated that the villains were tougher, I merely stated that they had a specific advantage. Like your assumption on the "awful GM" where you "would have skated," your assumption here is again flawed. I tend to use lower power villains, an example used in post 27: 3-4 SPD, 20-30 STUN (which you qutoed in post 29) as well as in post 59, which you even quoted in your post (#60), though I'm guessing didn't bother to read or apply. Here it is again:

 

"

In 4th Ed, I tended to use villains from

Enemies for Hire

ranging from 175-250 points. When going up against PCs based on 250+ experience, you can see who the scenarios tend to favor, but there aren't any guarantees

."

 

Also, if you noticed, I stated in the original post (#28) that it didn't go so well, and in post #37 that I never brought them back to the game.

 

And though I would give you a better benefit of the doubt, given the evidence that you've presented, I could actually make a reasonable deduction that if games don't go your way, you leave using the "It's My Scattergories and I'm taking it with me," line. Regardless, it doesn't make "rhinocerous" a barnyard animal.

Are you upset?

 

Let's see. Let's say there are 5 heroes and 5 villains. 4 villains have attacks that do extra damage to 4 heroes. 1 hero has attacks that do extra damage against 5 villains. Let's assume they all have the same speed and let's assume the 1 hero is somewhat better than any 1 of the 5 villains. 1 hero takes out 1 villains before 4 villains w/specialties designed to exploit weaknesses and another villain take out 4 heroes. However, 1 hero does not take out 2 villains before the villains take out 3 heroes. 2 heroes take on 4 villains. Hero with advantage takes out another villain. Villains take hero with disadvantage. Now, it's 3 villains vs. the advantaged hero.

 

Now, I can't see the character sheets but I could easily see it going this way. Your players probably could too, even if they picked up on the advantage for the ONE hero. Probably why they retreated. I only chimed in on this one because it seemed, the way you posted, that you didn't pick up on what the problem was.

 

I've made my share of mistakes as a GM and Player and thought you might want to hear from others. I guess I was wrong. Makes me wonder why you posted it here. I'll give my advice anyway because there are others reading these posts as well. Core of my posts here has been this: Think about how you, if you are or were a typical gamer, would react in the circumstances that you plan on placing your players. Also, if you know your players, think about how you suspect they will behave. What sounds like fun with insider information may not feel so entertaining to those outside.

 

As far as your reading into my character, I think you need to put more time into that to draw conclusions about my behavior and stop using "stock assumptions" to make you feel better about what I've said.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Is there any chance that this thread can get back on target? I really am interested in its nominal topic. I am somewhat less interested in Kirby and Agent X's argument. (Looks guys, maybe Kirby made it sound harsher than it was, or maybe Agent X thought it sounded harsher than it was, or maybe it is a little harsh but Kirby's group is okay with it.... Can you just let it go? I know, easy for me to say....)

 

Woot! Four dots! Hootie-hoo!

[Trebuchet]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Is there any chance that this thread can get back on target? I really am interested in its nominal topic. I am somewhat less interested in Kirby and Agent X's argument. (Looks guys' date=' maybe Kirby made it sound harsher than it was, or maybe Agent X thought it sounded harsher than it was, or maybe it is a little harsh but Kirby's group is okay with it.... Can you just let it go? I know, easy for me to say....)[/quote']Consider that motion seconded.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

As my token attempt to get the thread back on track, here is something I have been thinking about. When I am creating villains, I am going to start really thinking about it before I give them exotic defenses or enhanced senses, even ones as trivial as IR Vision. Why? Because a character should not have to sink 50 points into a smoke grenade just to have some slim hope people won't be able to see through it. I am going to think twice, even three times, before giving every Tom, Jane, and Walter any Mental Defense or Power Defense. I want combat to be kooky and interesting again. I want players to use weird attacks.

 

On the other hand, I think I am also going to take a look at my roster of villains and NPCs to see if Find Weakness makes any sense for them. I think I have overlooked an interesting opportunity there.

 

(Woot! Four dots! Speaking truth to power does have some small benefits. )

[The Watcher]

Re: rarity of unusual defenses

 

Well... despite the fact that that we are all 800+ point JLA-level heroes, less than half of our members have any real Mental Defense. Only two of us have even as much as 10 points of Power Defense, either... and only /one/ of us has any great amount of either. Life Supports are more common.

 

However, the /only/ member of ours to combine Power Defense, Mental Defense, /and/ Total Life Support is our Superman-style brick -- whose specific concept is that he's invulnerable to damn near anything.

 

The other Mental Defense is on our mentalist. (My own character, Starguard, has Invisibility to Mental Sense Group -- she's impossible to mind-read -- but is wide-open on everything else except straightforward Force Field and Life Support. And this despite a concept that would gladly support any combo of exotic defenses imaginable.)

Actually, Warp has Mental Defense too thanks to the state of the art Psi-Blocker he owns, so that would make exactly half of the team possessors of Mental Defense.

 

And he will pick up some other exotic defenses later on when forced to adapt to the proper stimuli.

[Rapier]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Consider that motion seconded.

And carried.

[OddHat]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

I can't imagine NOT thinking carefully before giving out exotic defenses or enhanced senses. My own games are concept and story oriented, with combat used to move the plot along and keep things interesting. Exotic defenses (and senses) on characters that should not have those abilities as part of their concept is just war-gaming, something that doesn't work all that well when it's GM vs Players.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

I can't imagine NOT thinking carefully before giving out exotic defenses or enhanced senses.

 

How wonderful for you.

 

For myself, I have been playing Champions a long, long time, and I confess after a while certain things have just become routine. Routines are not all bad. Routines are why I can stat up a new villain in a few minutes, or run a game off the cuff without any preparation whatsoever: I have some tropes that work most of the time, and if I don't have time to custom craft a plot idea, at least I know folks will be entertained. But routines have their down side, too. You (well, maybe not you, but he general "you") stop paying close attention to certain details, out of habit.

 

Maybe this won't ever be a concern for you. It is for me.

 

My own games are concept and story oriented' date=' with combat used to move the plot along and keep things interesting.[/quote']

 

All of the best ones are.