Standard Effect ... why 3?

[CrosshairCollie]

Something I was just mulling about last night ... Standard Effect in Champions is listed as a flat 3, rather than the more mathematically accurate 3.5 ((1+6)/2=3.5). Now, obviously, the game uses integers rather than rational numbers for computations, that's just common sense ("I've got .25 Stun left ... am I still conscious?").

 

With the rules-as-written, the rounding takes place at every d6 increment rather than at the culmination of the affair. So, 3d6 becomes 9 (rounding 3+3+3) rather than 10 (3.5+3.5+3.5=10.5, round down to 10). This doesn't mean much at low diceage, though it gets a bit more significant as the dice add up.

 

Other than the KISS principle, is there any reason not to make Standard Effect a 3.5 per die rather than 3, then round at the end?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

Make the adding math easier I suppose.

[Adventus]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

Because He said so.: points at Steve Long.

[The Souljourner]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

I think you answered your own question, but if you want another answer... you could say that standard effect is a benefit to the PCs. Randomness almost always favors the enemies, since they're essentially infinite, while the PCs are very finite. Getting 20 body on a 10d6 EB means one villain could be dead... but next week, you're fighting someone else. A PC taking 20 body from a 10d6 EB could also mean death... except now it's someone's PC and not a random faceless bad guy.

 

So, since it's a benefit to PCs, the average is lowered slightly.

 

...but yeah, it's because they wanted to make the math easier. Use 3.5 if you want, I don't think it'll break anything.

 

-Nate

[schir1964]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

Beyond making it a whole number to make things easier, you taking a an relatively unknown result and replacing it wth a know/dependable result.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[austenandrews]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

I use 3.5. I also allow players to choose an average result on a roll-by-roll basis, rather than setting up the power to always use it or not.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

I use 3.5. I also allow players to choose an average result on a roll-by-roll basis' date=' rather than setting up the power to always use it or not.[/quote']

 

Not a bad plan. I was considering trying to speed up play be doing a 'partially standard' effect, with half of the effect being standardized and half randomly rolled, so fewer dice to spend time counting up.

[Springald Jack]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

Beyond making it a whole number to make things easier, you taking a an relatively unknown result and replacing it wth a know/dependable result.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

THis would tend to be my feeling and while I don't mean to compare Mr. Long with the developers of D&D 3 in the optional rules for non-random hit points they also use slightly less than average numbers and say that it is fair because of the predictability to undershoot it.

 

All that said it would hardly destroy the HERO system to base standard effect off 3.5 rounded only at the end in your own games.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

I use 3.5. I also allow players to choose an average result on a roll-by-roll basis' date=' rather than setting up the power to always use it or not.[/quote']

 

This would have certainly benefitted me in yesterday's game...

 

Sheesh, the only time I rolled above average was on to-hit rolls....

[mattingly]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

I don't mind 3 being the Standard for 1d6, but I'd really prefer it if 10 were the standard for 3d6. It'd make the math a lot friendlier for certain power constructs.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

I understand the logic of "predictable so lower than average", better than "math easier" (you only do the math once).

 

But, unlike D&D hit points (where a bad roll stays with you forever), standard effect actually works to the character's disadvantage, IMO, even if it is 3.5 per die.

 

Look at all the threads on killing attacks - lower average stun, but greater volatility, delivers more STUN on average over time. The same logic says standard effect isn't beneficial. When I get a low rill, maybe no damage gets through, but a high roll gets extra damage through.

 

One hit that does 50 and one that does 30 is probably better than two hits doing 40 (and almost certainly no worse). If the target has 40 DEF, the random rolls got 10 Stun through. If the target has 20 DEF and 25 CON, the random rolls stun and the fixed roll never will. Even without lowering the average, volatility still seems superior.

 

Consider knockback as well. If my target has 5 points knockback resistance and Standard will do 10 BOD, I won't get Knockback very often. More volatility enhances my odds of at least knocking the target prone.

 

And the proof is in the play - how often do you ever see someone take standard effect?

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

But, unlike D&D hit points (where a bad roll stays with you forever), standard effect actually works to the character's disadvantage, IMO, even if it is 3.5 per die.

 

Look at all the threads on killing attacks - lower average stun, but greater volatility, delivers more STUN on average over time. The same logic says standard effect isn't beneficial. When I get a low rill, maybe no damage gets through, but a high roll gets extra damage through.And the proof is in the play - how often do you ever see someone take standard effect?

 

Excerpted.

 

Good point about the HP.

 

My solution to killing attacks is to use the Hit Locations chart for the Stun Multiplier, so things should balance in the x3 range but still allow for some variance. So, at the very least, it's UNLIKELY to win (or brown out) on the Stun Lotto.

 

I've assigned (nobody else really knows how to make characters, so it usually falls to me to make them with much input ... and I mean in the mechanical sense, not the 'THIS IS JUST A PILE OF POINTS WEARING A CAPE!' sense) Standard Effect a few times, normally to simplify Absorption since that's one of the few things that involves lots of dice that a PC is in charge of that goes off between his turns. I'm also thinking of applying it to Knockback Damage to speed that part of the game up ...

[BoneDaddy]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

Standard effect is a boon to mentalists. Knowing that you can either control, delude, or mind-read a goon with little more than a hand wave is very nice. Add cumuulative, and you can know how many rounds you have to evade the baddy before you have him under your power.

 

It's also good for Transform, for the same reasons.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

Most of my players don't like Standard Effect, not because of a less than actual average effect, or a reduction in votality resulting in a less effiecient overall effect... but because they just like rolling dice. And let's face it, there's nothing quite like the sound of a dozen tiny plastic cubes clattering across the table, followed by the exclimation of "crap... no it's under your other foot... oh just let me get it!"

[BNakagawa]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

because someone who won't take risks shouldn't average the same amount of damage as someone who will.

 

You gain certainty. You know exaclty how much this is going to hurt.

 

You lose .5 stun/DC.

[Lemurion]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

because someone who won't take risks shouldn't average the same amount of damage as someone who will.

 

You gain certainty. You know exaclty how much this is going to hurt.

 

You lose .5 stun/DC.

 

Exactly, and it's a valid tradeoff-- Sometimes you need to get a given minimum

 

As a Champions GM I WANT my players to get that white-knuckle feeling sometimes, and set damage rolls is NOT the way to reach it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

I've assigned (nobody else really knows how to make characters' date=' so it usually falls to me to make them with much input ... and I mean in the mechanical sense, not the 'THIS IS JUST A PILE OF POINTS WEARING A CAPE!' sense) Standard Effect a few times, normally to simplify Absorption since that's one of the few things that involves lots of dice that a PC is in charge of that goes off between his turns. I'm also thinking of applying it to Knockback Damage to speed that part of the game up ...[/quote']

 

I could see Standard Effect being more useful as a campaign standard (eg. all attacks do Standard Effect for all but 3d6" minimizes variance and addition). Your examples to speed play are areas I'd consider using standard effect as a default.

 

However, given the choice, I've rarely (never say never) seen a player choose to sacrifice the volatility of their rolls (which, as noted above, can be advantageous rather than disadvantageous) in favour of a constant result which falls short of the average roll. I doubt many would take it if the standard effect were exactly average either.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

I wonder how many people would jump at standard effect for a to hit roll, however. It would have to be deemed a 12 (4 per die) for consistency, but knowing exactly how many levels you need to add to OCV (or how many dice you need to spread by), not to mention how large a range penalty you can afford, would change the dynamics of many characters' play.

 

On the other hand, if the best OCV you can get is a 12, an enemy with a 12 DCV is invulnerable.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

Standard effect is a good way to make a campaign combat-quick, but then everyone has it: I don't generally mix and match.

[The Souljourner]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

Rolling is exciting and fun. Standard effect is boring. Pretty much the only time I'd like to use it is when I don't really care about the outcome and just don't want to flub it. Being able to take 11 (I wouldn't go with 12.. 11 is already on the losing side of 3d6's average) on a 3d6 roll outside of combat would be cool. Otherwise, gimme the roll, man.

 

-Nate

[austenandrews]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

For me, using average rolls is strictly a means to speed up combat. I started using them when I was running a fantasy game with high-powered PCs who would frequently wade into groups of ordinary soldiers - in terms of power, basically superheroes v.s. agents. Average rolls allowed us to play out some pretty crazy combat situations without using up the entire session. Against high-powered bad guys, or when attempting tricky maneuvers, the players never took average rolls. For that matter, when a rare soldier would get a lucky shot and actually put a hurt on a PC, he would inevitably be the target of a handful of damage dice, just 'cause it's more satisfying that way.

[casualplayer]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

Some people buy fixed-rate CDs; some play the stock market. You lose a little potential for a guaranteed return.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

I wonder how many people would jump at standard effect for a to hit roll, however. It would have to be deemed a 12 (4 per die) for consistency, but knowing exactly how many levels you need to add to OCV (or how many dice you need to spread by), not to mention how large a range penalty you can afford, would change the dynamics of many characters' play.

 

On the other hand, if the best OCV you can get is a 12, an enemy with a 12 DCV is invulnerable.

 

I would never use Standard Effect for attack rolls. If you have a whatever % chance of hitting a target, you should hit that often. Using Standard Effect reduces the percentages to a simple 0% and 100% with nothing in between.

[Vorsch]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

Only standard effect i would use is on KA multiple, as you already have the random element of the KA body roll.

 

Stops 2d6 RKA handguns taking out the hulk which was why i thought the rule was introduced.

[zornwil]

Re: Standard Effect ... why 3?

 

I could see Standard Effect being more useful as a campaign standard (eg. all attacks do Standard Effect for all but 3d6" minimizes variance and addition). Your examples to speed play are areas I'd consider using standard effect as a default.

 

However, given the choice, I've rarely (never say never) seen a player choose to sacrifice the volatility of their rolls (which, as noted above, can be advantageous rather than disadvantageous) in favour of a constant result which falls short of the average roll. I doubt many would take it if the standard effect were exactly average either.

Definitely my observation as well. I think Standard Effect isn't worth -1/4, but the problem is it's not worth -0. Once upon a time I had a few -1/8 mods; this would have been one of them. I used to include -1/8 for "STUN only" as well. But that was back in my points-obsessed days.