Are Defenseces to low?

[JmOz]

I don't know, but the current standards seem to be about 5 points to low (an Average of 25, Range 15- 35)

 

What do you all think?

 

(Still use the 2.5 method personaly)

[Hermit]

Yup. About five points off what I consider practical. I am sticking with the 4th ed 'average' defense.

[Monolith]

It seems like we have only had this "discussion" a half dozen times now.

 

I made it a point to use the levels in FREd for my new campaign. Losing that 5 points took some getting used to, but it also made my players more apt to not stand around and suck up the attacks as they would in the past. Attacks actually became something to be a little worried about rather than just shrugged aside. I actually liked that fact.

[JohnOSpencer]

I think they are a little low, not quite 5 points, about 2 or 3 maybe. Some one like defender should have 23-24 DEF, Ironclad should have 28-30, and witchcraft should have 20.(Just to use the champions as examples.)

 

John Spencer

[Grailknight]

It depends on the campaign feel you're going for. The present levels seem too low to me for my older campaign but are correct for my newer one. Old campaign was using the DC universe type of adventures, Newer campaign real world tech and renegade mutants. It really depends on how much of a threat normals are to the characters, PCs and villains both.

[Jhamin]

This is indeed an old discussion.

 

My take is that the 5 point drop does two things:

 

* It now takes about one less hit to drop someone, making fights quicker.

 

* Con stuns happen alot more often, but not a majority of the time.

 

I think this makes most superfights move quicker. You get all the tactical crunch of Hero without the endless combats of old school Champions.

[Crimson Arrow]

Jhamin's got it right, in my opinion.

 

I think the two issues he's highlighted are the main reasons for the change.

 

There is one other advantage, which is that by dropping both your PD and ED (resistant or otherwise) by 5 points frees up about 10 points to use elsewhere on your character.

 

The way 5th Edition characters are constructed really seems to be encouraging heroes (and villains) with a range of powers and skills. Not only do standard level starting characters get an extra 100 points right off the blocks, but also defences and DEX scores are generally lower.

[TheTemplar]

I actually don't mind seeing the DEX and Defenses a bit lower, for all the reasons mentioned here. In addition, it seemed like before most all defenses were in the 30-35 range...which makes it tricky from a villain creation standpoint. You want to be able to hurt the PC's without putting them at -25 STUN on each hit, and (using my old team as an example) having 4 players at 35+ DEF your villains had to be offensive powerhouses to be effective...and if they ever went after one of the other 2 characters, w/ DEF's in the 15-25 range, then they were toast. It seems to me that the way it works in the new system, the average DEF's are in the 20-25 Range, w/ 30 for a Brick, MAYBE 35 for one along the lines of Colossus or The Thing. Then your low DEF characters (traditionally Speedsters, Mentalists, MA's, etc.) can clock in at about 15-20 at the most, and not have to worry about getting killed (literally) every battle because the only attacks capable of damaging their teammates are 8-10d6 KA's.

 

Same applies to DEX. It seemed like before, 26 was the average for most characters. This always seemed high to me. While a super would probably be more agile than normal, with the exception of MA's and Speedsters, would a beginning super REALLY be that much more agile than the most dextrous man alive? Using NCM as a model, the most agile normals in the world (olympic athletes, high-level Black Belts, etc.) would be a DEX 20. It seems to me that while most supers in the comics would be more agile than these Specimens of the Ideal Human, they wouldn't have more than maybe a +1 CV advantage over them. Dropping the average for most supers to 23 reflects this perfectly, and it allows for Speedsters and MA's, who by the very nature of their concepts should be higher DEX supers to fit in the combat order where they should w/out having to buy a 33-38 DEX. (To me, 38 is Spidey level...and nobody touches Spidey..IMHO, of course. What can I say. I'm a huge fan.)

Speedsters and MA's can start out in the 26-28 range and will still feel like their character is the "specialist" in that area on the team, and still have points left over to buy skills/perks/talents/MA's whatever.

 

Anyway, I've gone on WAY too long here. It just seemed to me like power levels were getting way out of hand (at least in my old campaign) and lowering the DEF's and CV's a tad will go along way to curb that (I hope so anyway...because my new speedster is a 15 DEF w/ 20 CON! He gets hit, game over, baby! Game over!! ;-) )

 

-T

[Hermit]

I LIKE taking bullets on the chin and smiling

 

Weird. I get the opposite effect. To compensate for the now more frequent Con stuns when their DEF DO Match 5th Ed rules, I hear stories of dex wars (See another thread) or DCV levels out the wazzoo.... and all the dodging and diving for cover that the PCs feel required to do means that the battles really aren't that much shorter at all.

 

What's more, it kills (or at least weakens) some concepts. An example, for those wanting an Energy Projector of the 'Heavy Artillery' variety, one who stands there and blasts behind the forcefield...the concept seems actively discouraged. The nimble flying projector is largely unaffected.

 

The result of this sometimes is a feeling of futility... in order to keep from being removed from combat FAST, PCs must dodge and abort to this or that constantly... but that means they make little progress in the battle. It can be very frustrating, and while I can understand the urge to 'speed' combat up, but it's not worked as intended. Speaking just for myself and others I've talked to, natch.

YMMV

[sbarron]

I'm happy there was a shift down in characteristics. But then I'm a big fan of Supers w/out super abilities having "normal," though above average stats. The defenses being lower seems like a good idea as well, but I haven't played using the new standard yet.

[TheTemplar]

Well, to your point Hermit, bear in mind that the DC of the Attacks used needs to be brought down in proportion to the defenses. It's not necessary to abort to dodge to avoid a Stun situation if you've got a 20-25 DEF vs. attacks that are approximately in the 8-12d6 range ( Average of 42 STUN on 12d6 vs. a 25 PD would let 17 through.) Enough to hurt, sure, but not to Stun unless the super has a really low CON...in which case it would fit the character that a hit that strong would stun them. Now, if the defenses are low, and attacks stay in the 12-16 d6 Range, then yes..that is going to cause combat to take forever because everyone has to either Recover every other active phase or constantly abort. Also, I get the impression that the new Champions systems assume that KA's will not be the norm, provided the PC's don't have a tendency to use lethal force. Now, if you want to use more KA's, then you probably should increase the DEF's of most characters by 5 to compensate for the wildly unpredictable STUN multiplier.

 

And to get to your other point about it killing concepts, I say ALWAYS go with the concept first. If a character wants to be heavy artillery, give them Brick like DEF (I'd say 30 is good) but also give them Brick like DEX and CV's. As long as the DC's in the villains attacks are comprable to the DEF's of the characters, then a 30 DEF Heavy EP is going to feel pretty studly most of the time (bullets bouncing off the chin, etc.)

 

The great thing about HERO is that if you want to have higher DEF's, then you can, or vice versa. Personally, I think the benefits of keeping power levels in check are more numerous than having characteristics like DEF, Dex, and Con in the 35+ range, but that is simply my opinion. I certainly don't think there's anything wrong about the ways anyone else chooses to play, so please don't get me wrong here.

 

-T

[Hermit]

That's cool Templar, and really, to each their own... however, it seems the DCs stayed the same, or even went up a little, while the defenses went lower. Add that to more ways to make multiple attacks in the same phase, and oouch. It just doesn't work as well for a few of us, but glad if it works for others, more power to em.

[TheTemplar]

Originally posted by Hermit

That's cool Templar, and really, to each their own... however, it seems the DCs stayed the same, or even went up a little, while the defenses went lower. Add that to more ways to make multiple attacks in the same phase, and oouch. It just doesn't work as well for a few of us, but glad if it works for others, more power to em.

 

Errrgh...well, yes. If the DC's have all stayed at the same level or increased, then that would be problematic. The GM that I play with uses very little "published" material for our campaigns (no Millenium City, no Champions, no battles w/ Dr. D in our last campaign, etc) so I'm not sure about how many DC's attacks are checking in at these days. What we're using has worked well for us, but it may very well be watered down from what you'll find in CU or CKC.

 

The only reason I can think of why HERO would've gone with lower DEF's but same attacks might be that they felt the game was out of balance in favor of having a high Defense...I'm not saying it was or anything...that's just the only guess I can come up with.

I'm currently working on the reconstruction of a Persistent World for a guild I belong to in the Neverwinter Nights Online gaming community (DnD based PC MMO in case anyone is unfamiliar w/ the title), so I understand how great a concern balance can be when you're trying to create a system, or an entire world for that matter...

Maybe they thought heroes were having too easy a time of it? (They obviously never played in one of our old campaigns...hehe. My backside became very familiar with the ground in many, many battles after all the time it spent there.)

 

-T

[JmOz]

To add a little bit of info, I asked Steve about this a while ago (In a chat), his answer was that he did not feel that defenses had been lowered. I suspect the reason for the change might be in what Steve was use to in his own games, to my knowledge he never admited to it being a change (admittingly it is not a change in the rules, but rather in the guidelines)

[tesuji]

Actually, as an aside, from my experience the DCs went up while the defenses went down.

 

Now actually the dice rolled did not increase, but there are more ways to get more damage now.

 

Obviously, haymaker being expanded to cover even non-hth means the ranged shots if well timed get an uppage of 4d6.

 

Also, the addition of rapid fire makes the possibility of "an attack" being 2-3 shots a definitely reality, in addition to raise the stock values of "target and entangle both take damage" entangles and "stun only" EBs.

 

A 12d6 eb becomes a 16d6 haymaker, doing 56 syun - 20 defenses = 36 stun. Thats a CON STUn or often a one shot KO against 20 defenses.

 

This requires good timing.

 

A pair of 12d6 EBs vs 20 defenses are going to do 44 stun total, 22 per hit, and against a 23 con thats not too unlikely to get one of the hits high enough to con stun. Three shots seems much more deadly and an auto KO vs anything but bricks.

 

**********************

 

The combo of lowered defenses and the various additional options for greater damage seems to be acting as a double whammy.

 

*****************

 

Now, in some ways that is a good thing. Tactics have changed from hammering the bad guys to finessing to get the single big whammy smackdown. Hold action to setup the haymaker, wait for your partner to throw his pass-thru entangle then rapid fire three shots at the 0 dcv with a stun only eb, etc.

 

This also encourages counter tactics like an enemy super holding an action so he can missile deflect shots against the member of the team webbed up OR holding action to drop a darkness around the entangled ally "laying down smoke" so to speak.

 

The fact that a suoper cannot just expect that the first couple of hits against him will hgit the "wall" and provide no real effect (other than the bookkeeping assault on the player) has some merit to it as it does prtomote thinking outside the sgrug.

 

Not totally sure that early Kos is a good thing though.

[Gary]

Chance of con stunning a 23 con opponent with 12D6 EB:

 

15 Def 72.1% chance

18 Def 53.3% chance

21 Def 33.8% chance

24 Def 17.8% chance

27 Def 7.6% chance

30 Def 2.5% chance

 

As you can see, shifting just a few points in Def can have drastic shifts in the probabilities of stunning opponents.

 

The curve is a lot flatter than this with killing attacks though, with a 4D6 RKA ranging from 43.2% chance with 15 Def to 25.9% chance with 30 Def.

[Monolith]

Fundamentally nothing has really changed. A 20 DEF, 23 CON, 33 STUN character still needs two hits to be knocked out just as a 25 DEF, 23 CON, 33 STUN character does.

 

12d6 attack = 42 STUN on average.

20 DEF: 42-20=22; 33-22=11. 2 hits knocks an average character out.

25 DEF: 42-25=17; 33-17=16. 2 hits knocks an average character out.

 

The 20 DEF character has a better chance of being "stunned" with an above average roll, but on a purely average basis there is not enough difference between the two defense levels to make much of a difference in the game, IMO.

 

My own experience is that the lower DEF now allows for the characters to use more combat maneuvers in combat. In the past my 15 PD martial artist would scoff at 4d6 attacks from normals with clubs. Now my 10 PD martial artist has to actually think about jumping into a group of 6 agents. I like the fact that characters need to Dodge, Block, Roll, and Dive now. Those were maneuvers I seldom saw non-martial artists use in 3rd and 4th edition.

 

Either way though, it is always easy to just add +5 DEF to all the heroes and villains in the game if you do not like the new levels.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Monolith

Fundamentally nothing has really changed. A 20 DEF, 23 CON, 33 STUN character still needs two hits to be knocked out just as a 25 DEF, 23 CON, 33 STUN character does.

 

12d6 attack = 42 STUN on average.

20 DEF: 42-20=22; 33-22=11. 2 hits knocks an average character out.

25 DEF: 42-25=17; 33-17=16. 2 hits knocks an average character out.

 

The 20 DEF character has a better chance of being "stunned" with an above average roll, but on a purely average basis there is not enough difference between the two defense levels to make much of a difference in the game, IMO.

 

My own experience is that the lower DEF now allows for the characters to use more combat maneuvers in combat. In the past my 15 PD martial artist would scoff at 4d6 attacks from normals with clubs. Now my 10 PD martial artist has to actually think about jumping into a group of 6 agents. I like the fact that characters need to Dodge, Block, Roll, and Dive now. Those were maneuvers I seldom saw non-martial artists use in 3rd and 4th edition.

 

Either way though, it is always easy to just add +5 DEF to all the heroes and villains in the game if you do not like the new levels.

 

Those 5 pts of Def make a huge difference. You're nearly tripling the odds of con stunning the defender with those 5 pts. A 20 Def 23 Con has a 40.1% chance of being con stunned by a 12D6 attack, while a 25 Def 23 Con has a 13.8% chance of being con stunned by the same attack.

 

This is enormous, and would force most players to fight more defensively.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Gary

This is enormous, and would force most players to fight more defensively.

Which I think is the whole point of lowering the DEF.

[Marchwarden]

I thought they were too low at first, but now that the group has learned to rethink old habits, I think that they encourage teamwork on several levels.

 

- Many of the heavy-duty attacks (Haymaker, Rapid Fire, Sweep) impose serious DCV penalties. Pairing up and alternating normal attacks with held actions can dissuade villains from attempting the Mega Smackdown for fear of immediate CounterSmackdown.

 

- Since even the most resilient characters have to be at least a little worried about super-level attacks, heroes learn to stick by each other. My group drills for scenarios like this. It's still not easy to whomp someone clean into GM's option, so if the PCs develop good "man down" tactics, a hero who's been Stunned or even KO'd - but can be protected for a phase or two - can get back into the fight. My character (high DCV and some defensive maneuvers, but nothing too heavy for armor) has been clocked rather heavily a few times, but he has never yet (knock on wood) finished a fight unconscious, because his teammates know exactly what to do when any given one of us goes down.

 

Now, villains can use these tactics (and others which have already been mentioned), but overall I'd say that:

 

- Overall, it favors the Heroes. Heroes, in general, tend to be more selfless and team-oriented, and more willing to train together. Villains, in general, tend to be more selfish, unstable and generally unlikely to put so much effort into teamwork. (This also means that exceptions, such as the War Machine, will gain extra intimidation power and maybe a little grudging respect) Also, giant solo villains, like the Monster or Grond, don't have anyone to work with ; This is a big asset when dealing with the heavyweights.

 

- Overall it also favors the players. Combat is tense and exciting, and the need to cooperate solidifies the bonds of comradeship within the group.

[Talon]

When I ran a low-defense game in 4th, I found that it promoted clever tactics both in and out of combat; players would think harder about their approach to combat situations as well as their actions during combat.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Monolith

12d6 attack = 42 STUN on average.

20 DEF: 42-20=22; 33-22=11. 2 hits knocks an average character out.

25 DEF: 42-25=17; 33-17=16. 2 hits knocks an average character out.

 

Actually, that looks like a rather big difference.

 

Below average occurs near 50% of the time and above average does so as well, however, well below average occurs a lot less.

 

With the numbers you show above, a slightly below average pair of hits or a normal pair of hits separated by a single recovery keeps the 25 def character up.

 

It would take two significantly below average attacks to not Ko the 20 defense guy.

 

In addition there is the much better chance of being con stunned.

 

Adding this in with maneuvers...

 

the 20 defense guy can on **average** be KOed with a single +4d6 haymaker. The *average * 25 defense guy wont be.

 

So i do see these numbers for lower defenses combined with more "more damage" options as making for a significant change. It certainly seemed that way in my hero5 games, and we weren't even down at 20.

 

********************

 

That said, i personally think it is a good thing. i know i much prefer a game of supers where the chance of getting con stunned from a "routine supers" attack is present and heck, maybe 40.1% is a little high but probably 25% is more apropos.

 

1 shot potential (or even two shot typical) KOs might not be everyone's cup of tea, knocking out a super in that quickly.

 

For example...

 

"Some people consider this comic book like, personally I have seldom read a comic where the main villain was taken out in 2-3 panels. "

 

But then again, people's tastes vary.

[TheEmerged]

I'm definitely from the Higher Avg DEF = More Enjoyable Combat school of thought. My experience with lower DEF campaigns seem to be different -- instead of encouraging more defensive thinking, it encouraged my players to go all-out offense ("I can only survive two blows, I have to take him out NOW!"). My experience also tended toward too much randomness (fewer dice, weaker curves, more power to random chance).

 

True, lower DEF scores leads to shorter combats -- but that's solving the problem on the wrong end of the candle, in my opinion.

 

It's a fine line between a campaign in which players are too terrified to take chances and so overconfident they don't worry about being taken by surprise. One of the reasons I tend toward carefully establishing baselines/limits/caps is that it helps me hew closer to that line.

[Fedifensor]

Lowering defenses has a dramatic effect on the way the game is played. The question is...do you want more fragile heroes? When your average super drops in two hits, that just doesn't seem very heroic.

 

Lowering average DEF in a game does several things:

* SPD and DEX are a lot more important...two characteristics that already were more effective than their cost suggests. If the average character drops in two shots, it's very important to get those two shots before your opponents. Especially if the first shot CON-stuns your opponent.

* Likewise, special defenses suddenly become even more effective. Invisibility, Darkness (that the character can see through), and Desolidification will become much more common.

* With faster combats, Flash attacks are increased in effectiveness, especially AoE Flashes. If you can blind your foes for a few segments, even a weak primary attack will finish them off before they recover.

* NND's are less effective, as normal attacks will do about as damage even against high DEF characters. If the average brick has 25 DEF instead of 30, a 12d6 attack only does 4 less STUN than a 6d6 NND...and the 12d6 attack works against everything, does knockback, and can do BODY as well.

 

Honestly, if I wanted that sort of game, I would increase the cost of DEX, SPD, and a few powers to compensate. But using the costs in FRED, I prefer to keep defenses at their 4th edition levels.

[Enforcer84]

Personally, I have such a variety in scale for my universes that its not an issue. I've kept defenses around 30 Def because I have damages ranging from 7-20+d6. Starting out I keep player damages about 12 d6 and def 30 pts. this leads to 3-4 hit fights more for bricks. I've never had a problem with my groups we never saw combat as tedious.