combat luck and armor........

[Markdoc]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

Regardless of the etymology of the word stacking (which I also use to refer to piling books) I don't allow combat luck to stack with natural armour.

 

The in-game rationale is simple enough: Armour gives you protection, though being able to deflect (or even stop) blows. Combat luck gives the ability to dodge the worst of the blows. If you take a hit where your armour's defence is relevant then by definition it hit solidly - so your combat luck was obviously on the fritz. Armour doesn't *cancel* combat luck - so you get the better of whichever applies, but you don't get both.

 

Game mechanism rationale: allowing combat luck to stack with armour stiffs the light fighter and raises balance issues. Eventually *all* of your fighters will want as much combat armour as they can buy, and when players can have rDEF 12 or more, a rapier isn't going to cut it. Stacking encourages an arms race - heavier armour, larger weapons.

 

I speak from experience here - not just from my own games, but from friends' as well. We've been using combat luck for many years and players soon learn there is nothing more important than rDEF, when almost every foe will have a killing attack.

 

If combat luck stacks, then there is no real choice between "light fighter and heavy fighter" - both will want as much combat luck as they can get, because there is no penalty for using armour. In practical terms, the heavy fighter actually benefits from it *more* since he gets a critical multiplier advantage, which mean he not only sheds practically all BOD damage, but also significantly reduces his chance of being stunned (because almost all weaponry acts on multipler of 2-12 BOD, there's a fairly broad middle ground where an rDEF+STUN of 12 or more significantly reduces your chance of being stunned).

 

Thirdly, there's a game design issue here. In a heroic game, ordinary weapon and armour are free - so the argument "they paid for it, it can stack" holds zero water for me. They *didn't* pay for it. And it doesn't stack - at least not in my game.

 

This also holds true for weapons (actually, it holds true for all "real-world" equipment). So Deadly Blow, and all of the constructs based around naked advantages don't fly in my game. It is quite possible (and in fact, it's common) for fighters to have "Deadly blow" or "Flurry of blows" signature attacks, but they build the powers straight, with the weapon as a focus (if they want), not a freebie add-on.

 

So if a player *wants* to pay for armour and combat luck, then yes, they can stack. Otherwise, no: no more that two sets of real armour stack or two real shortswords act the same as a real two-handed sword.

 

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

 

Oh, and Von D-Man: Appeal to Ridicule combined with Straw Man. My point is that "stacking" is a way of thinking that belongs to D&D.

 

No, your dialectical analysis does not stand. I proposed your objection to the terminology being used was, in effect, an attempt to control the speech of others because you, personally, don't like the connotations associated with the term. I stand by that. The fact that you understand that terminology forms cognition is clear in the way you phrased your initial argument, which was based on the notion that the term was associated with the cognitive norms of a particuliar gaming system, and carried a clear negative value judgement as to whether or not that thinking was "correct" as it pertained to Hero.

 

You are, indeed, attempting to sanitize the jargon we are using based on your personal, and unfounded I might ad, prejudices. I utterly reject your characterization of my argument, which is, in of itself a mere attempt at rhetorical aki-jitsu. Perhaps you should read the definition of straw man again before you start jabbing your bony-little fingers at others. You yourself refused to address the point that was being made, which was that you are trying to bushwack a common term the rest of us have no problems with because of your personal baggage surrounding a system you don't like.

 

And futher, I challenge you to prove you have a leg to stand on. Stacking did not become a prominant issue in DnD until 2nd Ed. It was a factor to some extent before that, as it was in all systems prior to that point, but it was not in any way unique to DnD. There are several systems that pre-date 2nd Ed. in which stacking played a much more prevalent role - and many of the changes between AD&D and 2nd Ed. AD&D were inspired by those systems - for better or worse.

 

What is more, I would like you to prove that there is, in fact, a way of "Hero thinking" that Hero gamers adhere to as a group, or a "correct" way of thinking that one must adopt to make use of the Hero System. Its a game, and gamers come in all different shapes and sizes, and have all manner of approaches to the hobby as a whole, and I would bet some of the get a totally different kick out of it, and think about it in a radically different way, than you do.

 

In fact, I would recommend you peruse the thread again and take note of the fact that most of the Hero-thinkers here, and some of them are indeed well regarded Hero-thinkers, are in fact using the term "stacking" and have no objection to its use, or what it implies. You don't like the term? Bully for you. Don't use it. But please don't try to burden the rest of us with your personal gaming Newspeak.

 

I propose, since you want an argument, that you are not the arbiter of whether or not a particuliar term is "correct" or "incorrect" as it relates to the Hero System; that that there is no such thing as a uniforom, or correct, thought as it relates to hero; and that the common usage on the baords includes "stacking" because, while you may not consider it politic, it is accurate and applicable to the discussion we are having.

 

There is no "one Hero-think to rule them," or to bind them for that matter.

[hancock.tom]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

 

[Rick James Voice] Cold....Blooded.... [/Rick James Voice]

 

[Killer Shrike]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

Marcdoc makes some valid points. Personally, in my campaigns wearing armor DOES have penalties, and also requires proficiency. Even with proficiency a person suffers DEX and DCV penalties wearing armor, which can be offset with PSL's.

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/armamentsNotes.shtml#ARMOR

 

I also cap the number of levels of Combat Luck characters can have by character points:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/armamentsNotes.shtml#COMBAT%20LUCK

 

(I also cap the number of levels of Deadly Blow a character can have as well by the same method):

 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/armamentsNotes.shtml#DEADLY%20BLOW

 

This changes the dynamic quite a bit. If I didnt penalize Armor use at all and it was free for anyone to just toss it on, then I would be much more strict about CL stacking w/ armor suits as well.

[Mr. Negative]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

"Stack"---isn't that a D&Dism? A D&D way of thinking??

 

Just an irrelevant point noted here:

 

Whether or not 'stacking' is a D&Dism, Combat Luck appears to be a D&D inversion. In D&D, armor is represented as 'being more likely to be missed by attacks'. Combat Luck is 'being more likely to be missed by attacks' represented as Armor.

 

Of course, it is also a "dodge" to reduce effectiveness (specifically the effectiveness of weapons).

 

And on a more serious note, preventing stacking is quite a good idea for several genres. Another idea would be to limit Combat Luck to prevent it from stopping the first point of BODY damage. This would allow for characters who are scratched up, but not seriously wounded. It also allows poisons and other attacks based on "must do BODY" limitations to function. This is a different sort of Combat Luck though; more of a 'Only a Flesh Wound' sort than a 'Just Missed Me!' feel.

[assault]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

Whether or not 'stacking' is a D&Dism' date=' Combat Luck appears to be a D&D inversion. In D&D, armor is represented as 'being more likely to be missed by attacks'. Combat Luck is 'being more likely to be missed by attacks' represented as Armor.[/quote']

 

Hmm...

 

DnD armour was/is more like HERO system DCV.

 

That's fine, except, that DnD characters gain more hit points as they level up. HERO system characters don't level up, or necessarily gain more ability to absorb damage.

 

Neither did characters in Runequest, which preceded HERO, and was one of the first major RPGs to be skill, rather than level, oriented. In Runequest, armour absorbed damage, as it does in HERO. Increased skill did reduce the possibility of being hit, through Parries and so on, but mainly it was a case of relatively constant hit points and armour absorbing damage. Like HERO, in other words.

 

You probably could set up a HERO game where you did "level up" in a DnD type of way. Essentially you would be defining the way characters had to spend their experience, and would have to lose NCM, but you could do it if you insisted.

 

To replicate a Runequest approach, what you do would be to outlaw Combat Luck, and instead make Healing magic relatively common.

 

Neither of the "classic" early approaches in Fantasy RPGs really replicate the effects of Combat Luck.

 

I'm tempted to say that Combat Luck doesn't really belong in the Fantasy genre at all, except for the obvious fact that there are sub-genres where armour is not the be-all and end-all. So it does.

[Markdoc]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

Another idea would be to limit Combat Luck to prevent it from stopping the first point of BODY damage. This would allow for characters who are scratched up' date=' but not seriously wounded. It also allows poisons and other attacks based on "must do BODY" limitations to function. This is a different sort of Combat Luck though; more of a 'Only a Flesh Wound' sort than a 'Just Missed Me!' feel.[/quote']

 

We do both in my game. The "only a flesh wound" defence is called toughness. Unlike combat luck you always take some damage, but also unlike combat luck, it always works. So you can get nickled and dimed to death, but you can't get knocked out by a blow to the head you didn't see coming.

 

Toughness, of course works best for big, strong characters, while combat luck works best for nimble canny ones.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

Marcdoc makes some valid points. Personally, in my campaigns wearing armor DOES have penalties, and also requires proficiency. Even with proficiency a person suffers DEX and DCV penalties wearing armor, which can be offset with PSL's.

 

SNIP

 

This changes the dynamic quite a bit. If I didnt penalize Armor use at all and it was free for anyone to just toss it on, then I would be much more strict about CL stacking w/ armor suits as well.

 

Actually, in my game, I penalise armour use in a similar fashion to you (-1/-2/-3) for light, medium and heavy armours to DCV and DEX roll (in addition to any encumbrance). Armour on the head adds the same penalty to PER rolls. I don't require proficiency, but like you allow PSLs to offset the penalties.

 

One thing I am considering is applying this penalty to REC as well, so prolonged action in heavy armour will eventually wear people down - tough characters could of course buy more REC to offset this.

 

Even *with* the current penalties, armor is extremely attractive to players - I find too much so, if it's allowed to stack with combat luck. OTOH, I don't cap how much combat luck people can buy - it's more negotiation on a case by case basis.

 

cheers, Mark

[Old Man]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

We used to get around the tank-vs.-light fighter balance issue by treating the BODY stat as if it had IPE. You could justify having a 20 BODY if your character were lucky, or ornery, or whatever.

 

Of course, that didn't stop the tanks from buying 20 BODY also.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

Not sure what you mean about IPE BODY. Any character can buy their BODY up to whatever level they want it to be and can afford.

 

And either way, characters rarely get killed because they take a lot of BODY in one shot in Fantasy HERO. Far more often characters die because they got staggered (took STUN in excess of their CON) and never got a chance to recover from it before they were hit again unless an ally interceded or some unusual circumstance occured in their favor.

 

Sure, part of the usefulness of having rDef is to allow a Character to not take as much Body damage, but the biggest advantage to it is getting to apply base PD or ED plus whatever the rDEF grants against the STUN damage from Killing attacks.

[assault]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

Sure' date=' part of the usefulness of having rDef is to allow a Character to not take as much Body damage, but the biggest advantage to it is getting to apply base PD or ED plus whatever the rDEF grants against the STUN damage from Killing attacks.[/quote']

 

Which is why Combat Luck has a threshold effect. Having even a little rDEF is a lot better than having none.

 

If your game is the kind where armour is common in serious combat, I would suggest limiting Combat Luck to the 6 point (3 DEF) level, but wouldn't otherwise stress out about it. Some heroes are just plain lucky...

 

You should, of course, be aware that characters will be stacking when you design your game.

[Old Man]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

Not sure what you mean about IPE BODY. Any character can buy their BODY up to whatever level they want it to be and can afford.

 

Here we made a clear distinction between BODY as related to object size and BODY as related to character killability. Otherwise a high BODY score would imply a large character, whether this is spelled out in the rulebook or not.

 

And either way, characters rarely get killed because they take a lot of BODY in one shot in Fantasy HERO. Far more often characters die because they got staggered (took STUN in excess of their CON) and never got a chance to recover from it before they were hit again unless an ally interceded or some unusual circumstance occured in their favor.

 

This is exactly opposite my FH experience, wherein PCs either get killed outright from a severe hit to the head or vitals, or are saved by healing magic or other chirurgy.

[Markdoc]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

This is exactly opposite my FH experience' date=' wherein PCs either get killed outright from a severe hit to the head or vitals, or are saved by healing magic or other chirurgy.[/quote']

 

And I've had a bit of both - I've certainly seen characters dropped from healthy to dying with one good hit to the 13's. However the "hit, stunned then hit multiple times" scenario plays out pretty regularly as well - in fact one character amost ended as zombie-chow in the last session that way.

 

I don't have a problem with light fighters having high body - as you say it can reflect luck, grit, will to live, whatever. And I don't have a problem with combat luck.

 

Noooooo, my problem is what I call the "Ke'el effect" after the character who first made it obvious (back in 1985, which shows you how long we've been using combat luck in our FH games). He combines BOTH of these things.

 

Let's say a character - call him Ke'el - has STR 18 and spends 4 on PD. He's got a 8 PD which is high, but hardly outrageous. He has 13 CON - again, that's not gross. He has two levels of combat luck. Pretty good, but since he's the party's tank, again, not a real danger signal. He acquires a suit of plate armour.

 

The combination of the two is where the problem starts.

 

If they stack - and we allowed that back then - suddenly he has 14 DEF versus the BOD from killing attacks. You need a really muscly guy with martial arts and a two handed sword to even *scratch* him. So your scenario of hit in the head or vital and dying doesn't apply - it's almost impossible to get *any* BOD through his defences, so doubling is irrelevant.

 

Nearly as bad, he now has 22 DEF versus the STUN of any attack. Ordinary missile weapons will pitter-patter on his armour like gentle rain. He can run through a hail of heavy longbow fire with no chance of taking any physical harm at all and very little chance of taking much STUN - he basically ignores anything except exceptional rolls to the torso and thighs or better than average rolls to head and vitals. You need to do 36 STUN to even stun him, which mean that regular attacks less than 11d6 and and killing attacks less than 4d6 won't do it on average.

 

This addresses KS's point: such a character is almost invulnerable to being Stunned, so he's rarely going to be stuck at 0 DCV in combat like his buddies. The only way to take this guy down is by removing all his STUN, which is going to take very, very many hits when a 2d6 HKA on average does 0 STUN on him.

 

Now the character can be taken down by smaller attacks, to be sure. He's not invulnerable - a heavy longbow shot to the head that rolls well, will stun him. But anything that stands even an average chance of dropping Ke'el is lethal to most other people. To actually *hurt* him when he's armoured you need siege ordinance. And we're talking about 16 XP invested in defence - well within reach of a starting character. If, in a few month's play he acquires 1/4 damage reduction (Stun only, -1/2) - and Ke'eel did - suddenly you need a 6d6 killing attack to stand an average chance of stunning him...

 

This came to light when our party got caught by the uber-powerful evil priest. He throws a "Doomkill" spell (pretty much the nastiest exploder-type spell in that campaign) and hits us. Most of the party drops, badly injured, a few even dying. All the NPCs shrivel up and die like burning leaves. Ke'el? He's not even stunned and proceeds to beat the sorceror into mush despite a continuous barrage of spells and swordblows from his acolytes. At that point the GM and I decided, we needed to revise the rules - and Ke'el's player (also a GM for our group) agreed - though he was grinning a lot as he did it.

 

However, if combat luck and armour don't stack, then the picture suddenly changes dramatically. In (or out of, for that matter) his armour, Ke'el's still one tough MoFo, but heavy weapons like greatswords, and arbalests can inflict some physical harm on a better than average roll. The level of attack needed to stun him on average falls from 4d6 killing to 3d6. Still pretty gross, but coming back into the range of man-powered weapons - more importantly, it moves him from the "hardly ever" to the "from time to time" category with regard to good rolls taking him down. It means he's tough, but not a nigh invulnerable killing machine o' doom.

 

cheers, Mark

[Killer Shrike]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

Here we made a clear distinction between BODY as related to object size and BODY as related to character killability. Otherwise a high BODY score would imply a large character, whether this is spelled out in the rulebook or not.

Strange house rule. Seems needlessly restrictive, but if it worked for you...

This is exactly opposite my FH experience, wherein PCs either get killed outright from a severe hit to the head or vitals, or are saved by healing magic or other chirurgy.

 

It probably comes down to the range of play; I typically run "High" Fantasy (as illustrated by my "High Fantasy HERO" web site) where characters tend to be more capable and at a higher points range -- between 150 and 500 points and averaging around 250, depending on the particular campaign.

 

The Staggering vicious circle has claimed far more characters than getting one shotted and...oops, bleeding out.

[Eosin]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

Here we made a clear distinction between BODY as related to object size and BODY as related to character killability. Otherwise a high BODY score would imply a large character, whether this is spelled out in the rulebook or not.

 

We tend to have a similar view of BODY. Basically, you need to justify anything larger than a 13 of so BODY with some concept stuff. You can't buy it just cause. This tends to keep all weapons within a lethal range and avoid the "I stabbed him in the eye with my dagger for max damage.... What? He ain't dead! Stab him again!!" Syndrome. It does make those head and vitals shots a little more dreaded.

 

Noooooo' date=' my problem is what I call the "Ke'el effect" after the character who first made it obvious [/quote']

 

I call it the "That's not fair or fun effect." We had a half orc in full plate with something similar. He faced down a super bad monkey elven swordsman (OCV 10 DCV 8 versus the Orcs OCV 7 DCV 4) but the elf had to run cause he could not hurt the brute. Funny enough, the Orc pushed his SPD 3 and 9" running and overtook the elf with a 4 SPD and 7" running. The elf was out of END...

 

 

As Edsel stated earlier, I use a 8.99 total body armor rule (applies to wizards as well). This does allow for some tweaking of the armor, like having 11 rPD on the head and 5 on the hands and feet. The unstated rule is no more than 2 levels of Combat Luck and 2 levels requires a "light fighter" concept. Tanks generally wear plated armor and have a level of Combat Luck. This combined with an 8-10 PD comes out to be 16-20 total DEF which helps with the low STUN total characters that populate the 100-150 point range.

 

What I have toyed with is giving the PCs a base STUN as BODY*2 + (STR/2) + (CON/2)... That would put most PCs in the 30-45 range opposed to the current values of 25-32. I also toyed with refiguring PD to be about 50% higher than standard value (12 PD NCM). In the end I suspect that I will make one or both of these changes or something similar to avoid the "STUN ---> dead" syndrome. I don't mind beating the characters to death in 3-4 good shots but the single shot leading to a stunned characters who gets gutted can be a lightining quick, unsatisfing end to a PC.

[Old Man]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

I don't mind beating the characters to death in 3-4 good shots but the single shot leading to a stunned characters who gets gutted can be a lightining quick' date=' unsatisfing end to a PC.[/quote']

 

Part of the reason we tended not to have this problem was GM-enforced NPC mercy/stupidity. If a PC were stunned by an NPC, the NPC was just as likely to switch to a different target--or do something stupid and flashy--as he was to finish off the stunned PC.

[Markdoc]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

I call it the "That's not fair or fun effect." We had a half orc in full plate with something similar. He faced down a super bad monkey elven swordsman (OCV 10 DCV 8 versus the Orcs OCV 7 DCV 4) but the elf had to run cause he could not hurt the brute. Funny enough' date=' the Orc pushed his SPD 3 and 9" running and overtook the elf with a 4 SPD and 7" running. The elf was out of END... [/quote']

 

Yep. That's the Ke'el effect!

 

 

As Edsel stated earlier' date=' I use a 8.99 total body armor rule (applies to wizards as well). This does allow for some tweaking of the armor, like having 11 rPD on the head and 5 on the hands and feet. The unstated rule is no more than 2 levels of Combat Luck and 2 levels requires a "light fighter" concept. Tanks generally wear plated armor and have a level of Combat Luck. This combined with an 8-10 PD comes out to be 16-20 total DEF which helps with the low STUN total characters that populate the 100-150 point range.[/quote']

 

Unfortunately, point caps are something I detest. I hate being told "You're brick, so you can't be fast" or "You're a martial artist, so you can't be strong". Equally "light fighter" and "heavy fighter" are useful discussion concepts, but I'd hate for them to become shackles of iron on me - or on my players. It's too D&D for my taste.

 

I understand that if you allow combat luck and armour to stack, then you need some kind of restriction or the game will suffer, but it's definately not a solution I would ever consider.

 

cheers, Mark

[Eosin]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

Part of the reason we tended not to have this problem was GM-enforced NPC mercy/stupidity. If a PC were stunned by an NPC' date=' the NPC was just as likely to switch to a different target--or do something stupid and flashy--as he was to finish off the stunned PC.[/quote']

 

I run games with a strict tit-for-tat policy.The players in our games (mine and Edsels) chose to be hyper leathal, going back and ensuring that everyone is dead ect.. As the DM, I feel required to level the exact same amount of oomph in the bad guys.

 

The same goes for other ugly tactics like poisons, mind-*****, and wonky builds. If a player brings something into the game then it should be equally applicable for the gamemaster to use it on them. It is the anti-shenanigans policy.

 

[Eosin]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

Unfortunately, point caps are something I detest. I hate being told "You're brick, so you can't be fast" or "You're a martial artist, so you can't be strong". Equally "light fighter" and "heavy fighter" are useful discussion concepts, but I'd hate for them to become shackles of iron on me - or on my players. It's too D&D for my taste.

 

I think having a point cap on armor is the same as having a point cap on attacks. Personally, I don't let players equip a character with a "really wicked Katana" that does 3d6+1, 1.5 handed, 3 STR Min, +2 STUNX because they "can." You can change that into any of a dozen applicable categories such as a wizard buying the 8d6 RKA, AOE, NND, DOES BODY, inherently accurate (+10 to OCV) disintegrating ray of death.... Or the confidence man buying, 30 PRE, +5 REP, and +30 PRE only for Attack (17d6 Presence attack).

 

To enforce the genre, whatever that genre may be, there will always be caps (laid out in black and white or unspoken). We just tend to balk at the concept of "hard caps" as a group when it comes the much more narrow range found in heroic genres. It think most of the disagreement occurs because we all have different norms for attack values, damage ratios, and the characters ability to weather said damage. What is perfect for one group may be way out of synch with anothers standard. Let me ask, where is your cut off for Combat Luck.... I could swing 30 points and still field a decent character in a 75 + 75 game, would you allow that? 60 points of Combat Luck would cripple any character concept but is still managable for a Psycho-killing machine. I can't imagine many fantasy games where that would work but I could build it...

 

The easy answer is to have players that are more interested in building a character than in building an unstoppable monster but in the games I play in - if you don't set a cap, at least one player will step in and push the game into the death spiral of abuse (either attack values, defense, SPD, or raw killing damage).

[Markdoc]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

I think having a point cap on armor is the same as having a point cap on attacks.

 

I'd agree. I don't cap attacks, either.

 

Personally' date=' I don't let players equip a character with a "really wicked Katana" that does 3d6+1, 1.5 handed, 3 STR Min, +2 STUNX because they "can." You can change that into any of a dozen applicable categories such as a wizard buying the 8d6 RKA, AOE, NND, DOES BODY, inherently accurate (+10 to OCV) disintegrating ray of death.... Or the confidence man buying, 30 PRE, +5 REP, and +30 PRE only for Attack (17d6 Presence attack). [/quote']

 

These are all pretty grim and I agree I would be unlikely to accept them at face value

 

Fortunately, I've never had players who asked for things like that (probably only because of the outrageous cost . On the other hand, I have had player characters who could dish out 4d6 HKA (two handed sword+muscles+martial arts) - though it took the player a while to reach that point. In the current game we have PCs with area effect and autofire HKAs.

 

Like you, I play tit for tat, so the players know that they could also meet people with similar - or even slightly larger - attacks. That voluntarily reduces their natural trend towards munchkinism.

 

To enforce the genre' date=' whatever that genre may be, there will always be caps (laid out in black and white or unspoken). We just tend to balk at the concept of "hard caps" as a group when it comes the much more narrow range found in heroic genres.[/quote']

 

Actually, I tend to balk at caps at all. In my experience (and not just mine, based by comments on these boards) caps become the definition. If rDEF is capped at 8.99, all characters will have rDEF 8.99.

 

I'm not saying that's EEEEEvil or that you're a doodoohead for setting such rule. I'm not saying it's unworkable or contravenes the rules or anything. But it's just not for me.

 

Let me ask' date=' where is your cut off for Combat Luck.... I could swing 30 points and still field a decent character in a 75 + 75 game, would you allow that? 60 points of Combat Luck would cripple any character concept but is still managable for a Psycho-killing machine. I can't imagine many fantasy games where that would work but I [i']could[/i] build it...

 

It's a reasonable question, but I don't know. I really don't have a cap, so I'd have to look at the character in question and hear the justification. I have turned players down on requests occasionally, but it's always been along the lines of "Can you explain to me why the player has this power?" Or "Do you really think it would be fun to play this?" I guess I'd rather the player *chooses* to tone things down than force them to do it.

 

The easy answer is to have players that are more interested in building a character than in building an unstoppable monster but in the games I play in - if you don't set a cap' date=' at least one player will step in and push the game into the death spiral of abuse (either attack values, defense, SPD, or raw killing damage).[/quote']

 

I have had (and do have, actually) players who are, shall we say, more than wiling to game the system and we are currently in the middle of a SPD increase race. I am resigned to the fact that by the middle of year 2 of the campaign all the hard-core fighters will be DEX 18-20 and SPD4. It always happens (sigh) although at least this time it took them almost 6 months play before the spiral took off. But I also know that's where the spiral tops out and it's not actually a bad thing for most of the PCs to be faster than "the norms" after a year's play. If I want to, I can still make their eyes pop out by introducing a SPD6 blademaster, but I am careful to do things like that *very* rarely so as to not push them towards even higher SPD.

 

But again in my experience, *setting* caps is usually the trigger for the arms race. It becomes a "race to the cap". I've found over time that by not having caps - and, crucially, by giving the players other things to do than hit things and by not continually taunting them with stronger/faster/killier monsters - that focus tends to shift away from being the strongest/fastest/killiest to a broader range of competencies.

 

Maybe I've been lucky in my players (though thinking about their general behaviour, I don't think so!) but that's the sum of my experience in more than 20 years of FH gaming, with many different players/groups

 

cheers, Mark

[Killer Shrike]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

I dont use caps either, on attacks or damage. Further since everything in the game is relative to something else, creep in one area is typically countered by creep in another area.

 

In other words if characters creep up into higher damage via Martial Arts, Deadly Blow, high STR, big weapons etc, and defense are also creeping up via Combat Luck, Armor, spells, and Magic Items it generally all works out in the end.

[Roland]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

I'm coming to this discussion late. I just read the whole thread.

 

Personally, I think the talents Combat Luck and Deadly Blow are a bit questionable in the first place. Even if they are allowed, however, they should be exceptional abilities for exceptional characters - just like any other talent - not ubiquitous abilities that every fighter has to acquire to stay competitive.

 

Needless to say, I find the idea of "multiple levels" of either talent ridiculous. While I can sort of understand, conceptually, what Combat Luck is intended to represent, I can't imagine what it would mean to have multiple levels of it. I think Combat Luck should stack with armor (perhaps with limitations, as in The Valdorian Age), but it should not stack with itself!

 

With that said . . . My own FH character, a light fighter, recently acquired Combat Luck. I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but it fits the character and helps him to stay within concept. He has always worn ring mail because heavier armor would interfere with his minor spell-casting abilities (by increasing the DEX penalty to his Magic Skill roll). But as we began facing more powerful enemies, I found him donning chain mail before major battles. Changing armor and weapons depending on the situation is perfectly within character - members of his order actually pride themselves on their flexibility with equipment - but I didn't see him as someone who wore heavy armor routinely. So the GM suggested Combat Luck as a way to allow him to stick with light armor and remain competitive with the chainmail-clad fighters in the party. We talked about armor restrictions and decided against them for now - but it was made clear that if I started wearing heavy armor all the time my Combat Luck would become less effective.

 

I think the suggested use of Combat Luck with an additional limitation prohibiting heavy armor in The Valdorian Age makes sense as a way to simulate the S&S genre convention of lightly armored urban and barbarian heroes.

 

One thing that bothers me about Combat Luck is the luck part. I think "Luck-based" is a bit too vague to warrant the -½ limitation. If it is intended to simulate the character's ability to dodge, perhaps "DEX-based" would be a better limitation to simulate it; if the character can't use his DEX, then he would not get the benefit. We can imagine pretty easily whether someone can use his DEX in a given situation; it's harder to imagine when one's luck is inactive.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

One thing that bothers me about Combat Luck is the luck part. I think "Luck-based" is a bit too vague to warrant the -½ limitation. If it is intended to simulate the character's ability to dodge' date=' perhaps "DEX-based" would be a better limitation to simulate it; if the character can't use his DEX, then he would not get the benefit. We can imagine pretty easily whether someone can use his DEX in a given situation; it's harder to imagine when one's luck is inactive.[/quote']

 

In prior editons, a imitation for "must be conscious, mobile and aware of attack" was reasonably common for defensive powers representing avoidance of the worst of the blow. I saw it more for damage reduction than defenses, but the same logic applies.

[Outsider]

Re: combat luck and armor........

 

The way I've thought of dealing with stacking & balance issues involving Combat Luck and armor is to simply count Combat Luck as '7.0 kgs' of armor pseudomass for one level, or '20.0 kg' of armor pseudomass for 2 levels, add the actual mass of real armor worn, then determine the final rDEF by the mass table.

 

Thus

 

1 level of Combat Luck (7.0 kg pseudomass)...

_with rDEF 1 real Armor (3.5 kg) = 10.5 kg total = 4 rDEF

_with rDEF 2 real Armor (5.0 kg) = 12.0 kg total = 4 rDEF

_with rDEF 3 real Armor (7.0 kg) = 14.0 kg total = 5 rDEF

_with rDEF 4 real Armor (10.0 kg) = 17.0 kg total = 5 rDEF

_with rDEF 5 real Armor (14.0 kg) = 21.0 kg total = 6 rDEF

_with rDEF 6 real Armor (20.0 kg) = 27.0 kg total = 6 rDEF

_with rDEF 7 real Armor (28.0 kg) = 35.0 kg total = 7 rDEF

_with rDEF 8 real Armor (40.0 kg) = 47.0 kg total = 8 rDEF

 

 

2 levels of Combat Luck (20.0 kg pseudomass)...

_with rDEF 1 real Armor (3.5 kg) = 23.5 kg total = 6 rDEF

_with rDEF 2 real Armor (5.0 kg) = 25.0 kg total = 6 rDEF

_with rDEF 3 real Armor (7.0 kg) = 27.0 kg total = 6 rDEF

_with rDEF 4 real Armor (10.0 kg) = 30.0 kg total = 7 rDEF

_with rDEF 5 real Armor (14.0 kg) = 34.0 kg total = 7 rDEF

_with rDEF 6 real Armor (20.0 kg) = 40.0 kg total = 8 rDEF

_with rDEF 7 real Armor (28.0 kg) = 48.0 kg total = 8 rDEF

_with rDEF 8 real Armor (40.0 kg) = 60.0 kg total = 9 rDEF

 

So, effectively, Combat Luck and Armor partially stack with one another, unless one is much more rDEF than the other, and in no case does it have an extreme effect at high rDEFs.