combat luck

[Sean Waters]

Re: combat luck

 

I think the problem with Combat Luck is the luck part. I don't get why "luck-based" is a disadvantage. Following the principle that a disadvantage that's not disadvantageous doesn't save you any points' date=' [i']3 PD/3 ED, hardened, non-persistent [/i], should cost 9 points. If you want it to cost 6 points, then either it should be just 2 PD/2 ED or you should add another disad (such as limited stacking with armor). At the higher cost it's not un-balanced.

 

One way to approach limiting CL's stacking with armor might be to use the DCV penalty for armor encumbrance as a penalty to CL. So if a fighter is wearing heavy armor that encumbers him for -2 DCV, his Combat Luck would be reduced from 3 PD/3 ED to just 1 PD/1 ED.

 

(I'm feeling a bit guilty about my light fighter's recent purchase of Combat Luck.)

 

One way to approach CL stacking might be to buy it with the litiation 'doesn't stack with any other resistant defences (-1/2) to replace the 'luck based'

 

Frankly I think it needs more than 'non-persistent' though - otherwise, so long as you are expecting it, you can be stabbed with a knife and have 3 points off the total. Maybe the limitation should be "only if reasonably avoidable" - OK a GM interpretation there and maybe only worth -1/4, but it seems more realistic than the current very wooly 'luck based' thing. Luck COULD get you out of anything, but as it is a limtiation that is clearly not what is meant.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: combat luck

 

One way to approach CL stacking might be to buy it with the litiation 'doesn't stack with any other resistant defences (-1/2) to replace the 'luck based'

 

Frankly I think it needs more than 'non-persistent' though - otherwise, so long as you are expecting it, you can be stabbed with a knife and have 3 points off the total. Maybe the limitation should be "only if reasonably avoidable" - OK a GM interpretation there and maybe only worth -1/4, but it seems more realistic than the current very wooly 'luck based' thing. Luck COULD get you out of anything, but as it is a limtiation that is clearly not what is meant.

All of my magical items in the Easthaven system have:

 

"Doesn't Stack with Similar SFX Powers -1/4" to represent the fact that I don't want people able to stack powers on top of each other. Someone could use something similar to that if they wanted.

[ghost-angel]

Re: combat luck

 

I would just state that Combat Luck does nothing for you if you're not actively avoiding the incoming attack ... so you can't just stand there and take a knife hit to show off, nor does it work if you're doing anything that reduces your DCV to 0. And forget surprise attacks, no good their either.

 

I see the Luck as "Whew, Lucky me I moved just right to only get a tear in my shirt." after a fashion.

[Old Man]

Re: combat luck

 

 

 

Another idea is to apply the defences AFTER the first point of BODY and STUN - that means that every time you are hit your combat luck will let through a minor injury, but you turn away from the bulk of it - more like 'Ha! Only a flesh wound!' I would allow this version to still reduce killing attack stun as for aomeone with resistant defences, or the ability is pretty pointless.

 

This sounds more like Damage Reduction (Evassive/Dodgey) than Combat Luck.

[Gummibear]

Re: combat luck

 

Gosh' date=' I should SO do this. Haha.[/quote']

 

Now all you have to do is hire some thug to break in on you when you're in the tub. I hear Kato is available...

[Manic Typist]

Re: combat luck

 

Go down! Not up! Use the soapy water to your advantage!

 

Slide man slide!

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: combat luck

 

This sounds more like Damage Reduction (Evassive/Dodgey) than Combat Luck.

 

Yes, but Combat Luck with the limitation that it lets the first point through is cheaper to purchase and easier to use.

[Sean Waters]

Re: combat luck

 

Go down! Not up! Use the soapy water to your advantage!

 

Slide man slide!

 

 

Ever met Kev?

[Manic Typist]

Re: combat luck

 

Ever met Kev?

 

No. I haven't.

 

Why?

 

Who is Kev?

[ThatDarnCat]

Re: combat luck

 

I had a player ask if he could have Luck, always on and I said, "Um... No!"

 

As with everything in the game it really depends on the player, the character concept, and the game. I would allow Combat Luck with very light armor like heavy clothing (1rPD/1rED) like velvet coat you see in movies like Three Musketeers, but nothing heavier.

 

Anything can be abused by an abusive player, but in the same vein a good player is willing to take the hit when it enhances the story.

[ghost-angel]

Re: combat luck

 

I had a player ask if he could have Luck, always on and I said, "Um... No!"

 

As with everything in the game it really depends on the player, the character concept, and the game. I would allow Combat Luck with very light armor like heavy clothing (1rPD/1rED) like velvet coat you see in movies like Three Musketeers, but nothing heavier.

 

Anything can be abused by an abusive player, but in the same vein a good player is willing to take the hit when it enhances the story.

Techincally ... Luck kinda is Always On, as in a good GM will apply it to any appropriate situation.

 

Unless he meant he wanted his Luck Dice rolled for every instance of anything - in which case that just bogs the game down waay to much.

[ThatDarnCat]

Re: combat luck

 

Techincally ... Luck kinda is Always On, as in a good GM will apply it to any appropriate situation.

 

Unless he meant he wanted his Luck Dice rolled for every instance of anything - in which case that just bogs the game down waay to much.

That's basically what he wanted. And he wanted 10 dice of it. It took a bit of explaining to help him understand what kind of situations luck, and unluck, was for.

[ghost-angel]

Re: combat luck

 

That's basically what he wanted. And he wanted 10 dice of it. It took a bit of explaining to help him understand what kind of situations luck' date=' and unluck, was for.[/quote']

50 points ... I can think of more effective, and useful, ways of spending 50points.

[ThatDarnCat]

Re: combat luck

 

50 points ... I can think of more effective' date=' and useful, ways of spending 50points.[/quote']Yeah, that's one of the things I pointed out. He is also new to Hero and is enamoured with all the quirky possibilities available.

[Jhamin]

Re: combat luck

 

This is a great ability for a game where the Characters swash buckle around in white shirts ( 0 DEF ).

However I find that as soon as anyone wears armor, it becomes abusive - to my way of thinking -

>>>SNIP<<<

My house rule for armor stacking is : Pick one armor as the best, add to that 1/2 the DEF of the second armor. The Result can not exceed the Limit I have already set ( in latest campaign 12 ), get encumbrance penalties for both...

 

This is a good way of working it in a game where everyone has the same armor. As I see it, combat luck is one of those thing that is incredibly useful for helping some characters survive when drama says they should but logic says they shouldn't.

 

My examples:

 

-The "D&D style" high fantasy.

Knights in full plate and rogues in leathers travel in the same party. In fiction this works, in gaming eventually they all get hit by the same area attack and the rouge is paste.

In this genre, you let combat luck stack with light armor but not heavy. The Rogues leather plus luck takes him to Def 5-6 while the knight lives at def 8. He is still tougher overall but is way less competent when both find themselves naked.

 

-The "military heroes" genre.

This actually came up in the Stargate thread. In alot of military/action fiction all the enlisted guys have the same armor, but the heros only get really hurt in situations where NPC redshirts get wasted. Why? Because everybody has Def4 flack vests, but the heroes have 3-6 Def worth of combat luck on top of that. (Which is hardened, don't forget).

Thus, an 10 body AP Killing attack would do 8 body to a typical grunt, but only 2 to the main characters/PCs.

[Jhamin]

Re: combat luck

 

I think the problem with Combat Luck is the luck part. I don't get why "luck-based" is a disadvantage. Following the principle that a disadvantage that's not disadvantageous doesn't save you any points' date=' [i']3 PD/3 ED, hardened, non-persistent [/i], should cost 9 points. If you want it to cost 6 points, then either it should be just 2 PD/2 ED or you should add another disad (such as limited stacking with armor). At the higher cost it's not un-balanced.

 

"Luck based" is written up as a -1/2. So we can take it pretty far.

Basically, I run combat luck as that factor that keeps the nimble guy alive in a dangerous world. It keeps working as long as you are aware and mobile. The moment you stop, go to sleep, or stop paying attention it stops working.

 

-Are you dodging a hail of gunfire from guards 50ft away? You can get lucky. Did someone yell "freeze" after they have you dead to rights with their pistol? You are in trouble and luck won't save you.

 

-Might luck save you if someone went after you with a knife in barfight? Sure, you might twist away. What if you got knifed by a seductive assasin? You probably wanted to be close to them. Luck won't save you.

 

 

 

Remember, every GM has the right to set limits to attacks and defences. If Def 8 armor is the limit for your game, then that is it. On the other hand, Lancelot used to wade through battles unscathed even though he had the same armor as the knights getting killed around him.

[Trebuchet]

Re: combat luck

 

"Luck based" is written up as a -1/2. So we can take it pretty far.

Basically, I run combat luck as that factor that keeps the nimble guy alive in a dangerous world. It keeps working as long as you are aware and mobile. The moment you stop, go to sleep, or stop paying attention it stops working.

 

-Are you dodging a hail of gunfire from guards 50ft away? You can get lucky. Did someone yell "freeze" after they have you dead to rights with their pistol? You are in trouble and luck won't save you.

 

-Might luck save you if someone went after you with a knife in barfight? Sure, you might twist away. What if you got knifed by a seductive assasin? You probably wanted to be close to them. Luck won't save you.

An excellent set of examples. In our group we've always viewed Combat Luck as shorthand for "Doesn't work while asleep, surprised, drugged, or otherwise caught off guard." That's just too long to write out on a character sheet. Of course, we also keep in mind that a -½ Limitation is the same value as an Activation 14-, and hence the ability should still work 90.7% of the time.

 

Remember, every GM has the right to set limits to attacks and defences. If Def 8 armor is the limit for your game, then that is it. On the other hand, Lancelot used to wade through battles unscathed even though he had the same armor as the knights getting killed around him.

No doubt. Of course, that may have been attributable more to his high DCV than his armor or Combat Luck.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: combat luck

 

Of course' date=' we also keep in mind that a -½ Limitation is the same value as an Activation 14-, and hence the ability should still work 90.7% of the time.[/quote']

 

While I concur with comparing utility for a similar limitation, I've always felt a predictable limitation - that is, one where the player/character knows when it will or will not work (and whether "luck based" is predictable may be a matter of debate) - should affect the power more often than Activation.

 

After all, if my defense isn't going to work because my character is tied up, I know that and so I won't rely on the defense. If I know I'm free and loose so my combat luck will work, I can attack knowing I have my defenses. If I have an activation roll, I never have that certainty, and I can never take any actions that allow me to access the power without risk of failure. To me, this is a major part of the drawback of an activation roll.

[Trebuchet]

Re: combat luck

 

While I concur with comparing utility for a similar limitation, I've always felt a predictable limitation - that is, one where the player/character knows when it will or will not work (and whether "luck based" is predictable may be a matter of debate) - should affect the power more often than Activation.

 

After all, if my defense isn't going to work because my character is tied up, I know that and so I won't rely on the defense. If I know I'm free and loose so my combat luck will work, I can attack knowing I have my defenses. If I have an activation roll, I never have that certainty, and I can never take any actions that allow me to access the power without risk of failure. To me, this is a major part of the drawback of an activation roll.

Agreed. Then again, theoretically a character with Combat Luck isn't going to know when he'll be surprised or attacked in his sleep.

 

Another HUGE flaw of Combat Luck is that it does not protect the character from harm he does to himself; such as from doing a Move By/Through, hitting a Damage Shield, or interposing his body to protect another. That's quite possibly worth a -½ Limitation all by itself.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: combat luck

 

Agreed. Then again' date=' theoretically a character with Combat Luck isn't going to know when he'll be surprised or attacked in his sleep. [/quote']

 

And a character whose defenses don't work at night, or don't apply versus electrical attacls doesn't know when these circumstances will apply. Once they do apply, he knows it's happening.

 

A character relying on Combat Luck will know not to make himself a target for the sniper, relying on high defenses to protect himself, as an example.

 

Another HUGE flaw of Combat Luck is that it does not protect the character from harm he does to himself; such as from doing a Move By/Through' date=' hitting a Damage Shield, or interposing his body to protect another. That's quite possibly worth a -½ Limitation all by itself.[/quote']

 

I don't see that worth -1/2 all by itself. It is a factor in the overall -1/2. I have to agree that "luck-based" is a pretty inaccurate description. Once again, the character has knowledge that "If I do a Move Through, my defenses will fail against the damage I take, and against his damage shield." The guy with Act 14- doesn't know whether his defenses will be there or not, so he is at risk whatever he does.

 

That odesn't mean Combat Luck should only work 2/3 of the time (some of the drawback is in the ability of opponents to ciurcumvent it automatically), but it should fail more often than a 14- Act Roll.

[Trebuchet]

Re: combat luck

 

And a character whose defenses don't work at night' date=' or don't apply versus electrical attacls doesn't know when these circumstances will apply. Once they do apply, he knows it's happening.[/quote']Characters in your game don't know when it's night?

 

A character relying on Combat Luck will know not to make himself a target for the sniper, relying on high defenses to protect himself, as an example.

Snipers don't usually take out radio and TV ads announcing they'll be shooting any heroes at Broadway and 11th at 4:00 PM Tuesday. I'd always expect a sniper or other ambush to get at least one "free" shot.

 

I don't see that worth -1/2 all by itself. It is a factor in the overall -1/2. I have to agree that "luck-based" is a pretty inaccurate description. Once again, the character has knowledge that "If I do a Move Through, my defenses will fail against the damage I take, and against his damage shield." The guy with Act 14- doesn't know whether his defenses will be there or not, so he is at risk whatever he does.

And a character with Combat Luck might well decide to take that hit even knowing he's going to get hurt. My character Zl'f has done that several times; and Mentor's mentalist Prodigy also took a hit knowing he had no defenses in order to save a hostage (and took 12 BODY as a result). I don't see where that's any less of a Limitation than Activation.

 

That doesn't mean Combat Luck should only work 2/3 of the time (some of the drawback is in the ability of opponents to ciurcumvent it automatically), but it should fail more often than a 14- Act Roll.

I'd say it's just about even in actual play. YMMV.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: combat luck

 

Characters in your game don't know when it's night?

 

They don't know when the game will take place at night. Once it IS night, they know their "only at night" defenses won't work. And if it's daytime, they know they will work.

 

Similarly, our Combat Luck character knows that his defenses will fail against that sniper. So, if there's a sniper in the woods, he knows not to stand up out of his foxhole so the sniper will take a shot, possibly revealing his location by muzzle flash.

 

The guy with "Act 14-" knows his defenses can fail (or succeed) at any time. He doesn't know they will work when he charges the 5 gunmen (when our Combat Luck character knows he's OK). He doesn't know the sniper's bullet will be defended against because it's not nightime. He can never mitigate the risk of rolling a 15-18 by minimizing his exposure to situations where his defenses will not activate.

 

Snipers don't usually take out radio and TV ads announcing they'll be shooting any heroes at Broadway and 11th at 4:00 PM Tuesday. I'd always expect a sniper or other ambush to get at least one "free" shot.

 

Absolutely. But if my team is trying to draw the sniper out, it won't be the character with Combat Luck who acts as bait. It will be a character with persistent rPD who can look like he doesn't have resistant rPD (assuming we have such a character - we don't have one w/ Combat luck, to my knowledge, but we have a couple w/ Force Fields, so they won't be selected as sniper bait).

 

And a character with Combat Luck might well decide to take that hit even knowing he's going to get hurt. My character Zl'f has done that several times; and Mentor's mentalist Prodigy also took a hit knowing he had no defenses in order to save a hostage (and took 12 BODY as a result). I don't see where that's any less of a Limitation than Activation.

 

You KNOW ABSOLUTELY you will take that damage, or you KNOW ABSOLUTELY your defenses will work. Z'lf can feel much more secure charging the half dozen armed bank robbers because she KNOWS her combat luck is in effect than Mr. "Act 14-" can feel. Bad example for Z'lf, since the 1 in 216 chance of actually getting hit is far more security anyway.

 

But look at, say, a "Cops" game. One character has Combat Luck. The other is wearing Kevlar (act 14-). Which one should charge across the street in the bank robber's field of fire? In my game, the Combat Luck character would always be the correct choice - if he is hit, his Combat Luck will reduce the damage 100% of the time. Mr. Kevlar bears the risk of failed activation every time. That inability to mitigate risk when the defense does not apply is, itself, a drawback to Activation that "situational limitations" do not share.

 

Note that I'm not arguing -1/2 is too great a limitation - I think it's appropriate. But I think it's appropriate because I think that limitation will come into play more than 10% of the time, probably more like 15-20%. As well, the GM controls when it applies and, unlike ActivationMan, the power will fail throughout the period of time the situation is in effect. ActivateMan has the advantage of knowing he will probably only take one hit without his extra defenses.

 

So I agree it's equally disadvantageous in actual play in a typical game. [it does beg the question whether the limitation should be reduced if the character has high level Danger Sense, and is thus much tougher to surprise, but that's a very specific issue. Probably best handled similar to a character with powers "Only outside sunlight" and having Darkness to put on himself.

[Trebuchet]

Re: combat luck

 

Well reasoned; and you present your case convincingly. Allow me to make one observation with regard to Combat Luck vs. Activation:

 

Defenses with an Activation roll present a defense every time the roll succeeds, regardless of whether the character is aware of the attack (or is even conscious). Surprised, sleeping, out of combat, watching TV, whatever. If he makes the roll, it works.

 

The defenses provided by Combat Luck may at first seem more reliable, but not only are there numerous situations where the Combat Luck won't work at all (surprised, sleeping, restrained, etc.) but under certain circumstances the character will possibly need to forego those defenses voluntarily (Opponent with Damage Shield, protecting a teammate, Move Through/By). And while the character may know what those circumstances are, he's no more likely to know when those particular circumstances will arise than your example character knew that the upcoming adventure would be fought at night.

 

So in general I'd say the two are roughly equivalent in overall game effectiveness. I am not, by the way, a fan of Activation on defenses unless it's for an "auxiliary" defense such as a shield in addition to body armor. I would never build a character whose primary defenses depend on a die roll which can't even be modified by tactics. I consider the Combat Luck possessed by Zl'f (50% of her total defenses) to be subsidiary to her primary defense, which is her base 14 DCV. Because in our campaign, any attack of 9d6 or higher (3d6 less than the campaign's average attack) will Stun her regardless of whether her Combat Luck applies or not. If it doesn't kick in for whatever reason, then we're talking serious BODY damage.

 

Good discussion, Hugh. Thanks.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: combat luck

 

Defenses with an Activation roll present a defense every time the roll succeeds, regardless of whether the character is aware of the attack (or is even conscious). Surprised, sleeping, out of combat, watching TV, whatever. If he makes the roll, it works.

 

The defenses provided by Combat Luck may at first seem more reliable, but not only are there numerous situations where the Combat Luck won't work at all (surprised, sleeping, restrained, etc.) but under certain circumstances the character will possibly need to forego those defenses voluntarily (Opponent with Damage Shield, protecting a teammate, Move Through/By). And while the character may know what those circumstances are, he's no more likely to know when those particular circumstances will arise than your example character knew that the upcoming adventure would be fought at night.

 

My contrast was generally with Activation vs Situational limitations. Combat Luck falls between the two in that, while it lacks an omnipresent failure chance, its accessibility is less ascertainable than, say, "not at night" or "not vs electricity". Assuming we set these at -1/2 as well, I would expect "nighttime" and "electricty" to arise more often than situations which cause combat luck to fail, and those situations to arise more than the 10% activation roll to fail. Of course, when these situations arise, they last more than one phase, so they ,may appear less common than they really are.

 

Overall, I agree the two are evenly limiting. Your point regarding the weakness of setting your primarey defenses on activation is well taken, but that's a design/efficiency issue more than "how limiting is the limitation". I'd be reluctant to send out a character who will die from a decent roll on a typical attack should his activation roll fail.

 

Good discussion' date=' Hugh. Thanks. [/quote']

 

Always good going over this type of issues with you, Treb - when we're done, we've got a decent analysis that (I hope) lurkers can read and make their own assessment on.

[Manic Typist]

Re: combat luck

 

I just don't see why combat luck would be effected by night. To me, it wouldn't, as long as the character wasn't suprised by something. But if he was going into a firefight, and it was night, I would say he gets his luck.

 

Negatives to his DCV if he fails to see certain attacks maybe, but he is alert.