Standard Effect Table

[techogre]

Here is a little chart I plan to be using to speed up play without sacrificing all random effects. I kept the random element at 3 dice so players will not need any additional dice. I also included my Killing Stun table. Any comments?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Standard Effect Table

 

Since there haven't been any comments yet, I figure I'll make one and bump this to the top.

 

These are kinda cool. I suppose it could save some time. Personally, I wouldn't use anything like this (except for the KStun table). My players all like the idea of rolling a hand and a half of dice when the hit, and I've already got the SE listed on the NPCs I use it for.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Standard Effect Table

 

I like the idea of a small random variation in the standard effect. Nice tables.

 

As you have chosen (for all but the smallest DCs) 3d6, you could save yourself some time and use your roll to hit as the random variation.

[Kdansky]

Re: Standard Effect Table

 

you could save yourself some time and use your roll to hit as the random variation.

Bad idea, as everytime you did really hit you did roll low. This will reduce the average damage significantly. On the other hand I never liked the 1d = 3 pts rule, as a wide random range is generally an advantage:

 

Suppose you're using 10 DCs. If you're fighting some guy with 0 armor.

Standard Effect: 30 stun

Rolling: 35 stun (average)

So Rolling is sightly better (+12%). Against the really weak characters, this is probably better, because you _know_ they will drop down after one hit. Sucks if they have 30 stun and 2 PD, though...

 

Now when you fight someone with 30 armor, things look differently:

Standard Effect: 0 stun (everytime, you can't even scratch that guy)

Rolling: often, you will do 0 stun too, but every second roll you will do more than 30 and if you're lucky, you can still to very ugly damage (this effect is even stronger with KAs, when you roll 12+ with your 3 dice and then a 6 for stunmultiplier)

 

I had a character with a summon and used standard effect because rolling 3d6 KA * Stun Multiplier for 9 guys was terrible, but I will not do that again because in one fight the standard effect really nearly killed me because the enemies had high armor. Without standard effect, I could've hurt them easily. (Because if 6 our of my 9 guys hit, I will usually have at least one good roll on one of them. Many rolls -> High variation, which is good)

 

I'd use Standard Effect = 3.5 or even 4, to make up for that. Standard Effect as it is now is 90% disadvantage, 10% advantage, but you pay for it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Standard Effect Table

 

Bad idea, as everytime you did really hit you did roll low. This will reduce the average damage significantly. On the other hand I never liked the 1d = 3 pts rule, as a wide random range is generally an advantage:

 

Suppose you're using 10 DCs. If you're fighting some guy with 0 armor.

Standard Effect: 30 stun

Rolling: 35 stun (average)

So Rolling is sightly better (+12%). Against the really weak characters, this is probably better, because you _know_ they will drop down after one hit. Sucks if they have 30 stun and 2 PD, though...

 

Now when you fight someone with 30 armor, things look differently:

Standard Effect: 0 stun (everytime, you can't even scratch that guy)

Rolling: often, you will do 0 stun too, but every second roll you will do more than 30 and if you're lucky, you can still to very ugly damage (this effect is even stronger with KAs, when you roll 12+ with your 3 dice and then a 6 for stunmultiplier)

 

I had a character with a summon and used standard effect because rolling 3d6 KA * Stun Multiplier for 9 guys was terrible, but I will not do that again because in one fight the standard effect really nearly killed me because the enemies had high armor. Without standard effect, I could've hurt them easily. (Because if 6 our of my 9 guys hit, I will usually have at least one good roll on one of them. Many rolls -> High variation, which is good)

 

I'd use Standard Effect = 3.5 or even 4, to make up for that. Standard Effect as it is now is 90% disadvantage, 10% advantage, but you pay for it.

 

If you assume 3 is the best roll you can get then using the to hit roll doesn't work well. If, on the other hand you look at it that 3 always hits so it can be assumed to be the 'minimum hit' then it looks better. The higher you roll and still hit the more damage you do. Only combatants with an OCV advantage will be doing above average damage. Seems perfectly realistic to me...

 

On to your other point, comparing standard effect to rolled or average damage misses the utility of knowing what the result is going to be. No one in their right mind is going to take standard effect on their EB, but it makes more sense to have it for your 3d6 dex drain so that you know you'll be subtracting 3 dex every time you hit. Standard effect is 86% of average damage, but rolled damage can be a lot less than 86% of average damage. To up the damage ratio would be to make it too attractive as an option.

 

Allowing standard effect to be 3.5 per dice makes every roll average damage, which is far too useful, in my opinion: as you say those few points can make a big difference. Suggesting that you should allow standard effect to be 4 per dice is lunacy: why ever bother rolling normal attacks when you can guarantee above average results?

[Kdansky]

Re: Standard Effect Table

 

Your dex drain example does make sense, there it's actually useful to know how much you will be "rolling".

 

On the other hand: I would not take a 3.5 Standard Effect for my KAs, never! I'd think about taking 4, but not because I think it's effective. Everyone of us likes guaranteed results, even if the risky version is more profitable. Look at all the people taking 15- activation rolls, even if 13- is the best bang for the buck. What will you do with your 3d KA SE 4 -> 12 Body everytime against someone with 11 resistant armor? Whoa, a whopping 1 body per hit, now that's great. It would not matter if you roll a 10 or a 3, the result would be 0 everytime, but if you roll a 15, you do 4, which is 4 times more than 1. Wide range is good. I'd take 1d20-1 (avg 10) over 3d6 (avg 10.5) anytime, because chances are 20% that I will make a brutal hit of 15+.

And a 10d6 EB is superior to a 35 stun SE EB too. You can easily roll 40 on 10d6 (I've seen 55+) which is really devastating, whereas rolling 10 would not matter much as your enemy has some armor anyway and will absorb about 20 stun anyway.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Standard Effect Table

 

Your dex drain example does make sense, there it's actually useful to know how much you will be "rolling".

 

On the other hand: I would not take a 3.5 Standard Effect for my KAs, never! I'd think about taking 4, but not because I think it's effective. Everyone of us likes guaranteed results, even if the risky version is more profitable. Look at all the people taking 15- activation rolls, even if 13- is the best bang for the buck. What will you do with your 3d KA SE 4 -> 12 Body everytime against someone with 11 resistant armor? Whoa, a whopping 1 body per hit, now that's great. It would not matter if you roll a 10 or a 3, the result would be 0 everytime, but if you roll a 15, you do 4, which is 4 times more than 1. Wide range is good. I'd take 1d20-1 (avg 10) over 3d6 (avg 10.5) anytime, because chances are 20% that I will make a brutal hit of 15+.

And a 10d6 EB is superior to a 35 stun SE EB too. You can easily roll 40 on 10d6 (I've seen 55+) which is really devastating, whereas rolling 10 would not matter much as your enemy has some armor anyway and will absorb about 20 stun anyway.

 

Ah. I think I detect someone on the 'I like killing attacks just fine' side of the argument, and that is cool.

 

Your killing attack example: let us take 4d6 KA as the maths is easier.

 

Standard effect is 12.

Average roll is 14.

Suggested SE (4) is 16.

Roll range is 4 to 24.

 

Against 12pd armour you'll never get body through, but if you still roll your stun multiplier you can get up to 60 stun (80 with your suggested 4 point SE). Not many defences will stop that. Having a guaranteed reasonable roll to base your multiplier on is a huge advantage. OK, you are not going to hit the real extremes (Kewl - I rolled 5 sixes, that'll be 24 x 5...120 stun....), but I think that is a good thing. You rarely kill anyone in Champions anyway, and if you are not playing Champions the Body damage becomes really significant (OK, if yo are not playing Champions you won't be rolling 4d6, but you know what I mean).

 

If you use a standard multiplier too, you really do emasculate the killing attack, don't you? At least against supers: it is still going to hurt normals badly. No bad thing to my mind. You'll be disagreeing.

 

Take a 12d6 EB with your suggested standard effect of 4: you'll be doing 48 stun and 12 body every time. You are unlikely to roll a great deal higher than this and you'll usually roll lower. No one will want to roll dice if they can guarantee above average rolls without them.

 

In a campaign where everyone uses SE, then the GM has to look at relevent defences and adjust accordingly. If the GM creates a caracter that can not be hurt by the players attacks, there had best be a really good reason.

[Lord Beavis]

Re: Standard Effect Table

 

You could give the players the option (before rolling damage/effect) to select the SE table or killing attack table (whichever applies) or roll for random results.

 

Another suggestion is the minimum damage done is from the table (again whichever applies) and the player still rolls. If the rolls are higher, the player takes the result. If equal to or less, the table applies.

 

These rules have to be agreed on before the session begins and applies against the player as well as for the player.

 

Overall, nicely done tables.