Yet Another Damage Shield Criticism

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by J4y

If, at the same time, you don't have AP caps then yeah, you've house-ruled/GMed the problem completely away.

There are no official rules in HERO regarding point caps, so we are not really "house ruling" the problem away. Active point caps are in themselves house rules.

 

I will confess that for the first 11 years of my campaign we used active point caps as well as caps on total defenses. But since releasing the caps last year with the release of FREd I've seen nothing but benefits to the game. Character design has become much less stilted, and our defenses and attacks have considerably more variation. Players are no longer afraid to experiment. When I had a 60 AP cap everyone's character did 11d6 or 12d6 damage, now the spread is from 8d6 to 14d6 and our team mentalist has a 90 point VPP. And no, he's not unbalanced in the least with the other characters.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Why not? Doesn't that tend to create a rather cookie-cutter sameness to characters if their defenses are all within 10 points of each other? If the martial artist has 20+ PD, what makes the brick's 30 PD special? Our spread is 21 points (12 - 33 PD) and I'd be happy if it were higher. Now admittedly I play in (and GM) a 4-color game; I'd never attempt to use such low defenses in a Dark Champions or "graphic novel" style game. In 4-color games superheroes don't get shot by goons; it just isn't done unless it's relevant to the story. When was the last time you saw Spider-Man get shot by some thug robbing a liquor store? Goons are to get everybody warmed up before the battle with the boss.

 

I've never really cared for the four-color atmosphere. A world like that is harder on my suspension of disbelief than the powers themselves are. I'm not doing Dark, either, though. My Champs games fall in middle ground / "graphic novel" area.

 

As much as certain comics characters rely on not getting hit, that's not a viable defense in a game. In a game, with dice and without absolute authorial fiat, someone is going to connect with that "can't hit me!" character, and paste him. (see pg 138 of Champions under "The Artful Dodger" for a passage that basically says the same thing.)

 

If you have such a low spread between defenses, then I don't blame you. I wouldn't either. If average defenses in your campaign, including between villains, were lower then such attacks would not be ineffective.

 

The defenses don't go that *high*, either.

 

On the other hand, the "average damage through" range of the attacks is probably more compressed than in your game as well.

 

I don't like extreme randomness. It makes game balance harder to maintain, and contingencies harder to account for.

 

It really hasn't led to sameness in the past. There are plenty of ways that characters can differ that have nothing to do with the DCs of their main attack or the toughness of their defenses. Besides, a range of 10 def is a *lot*. The character at the low end is taking about 20 more STUN per turn, is CON-Stunned by the average hit from an attack that is 3 DCs lower, etc. Then there's the variations in STUN and REC. As someone else pointed out, a 25 PD/ED - 50 STUN - 15 REC character is far harder to take down than the 25 PD/ED - 35 STUN - 10 REC character.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher

I've never really cared for the four-color atmosphere. A world like that is harder on my suspension of disbelief than the powers themselves are. I'm not doing Dark, either, though. My Champs games fall in middle ground / "graphic novel" area.

When I say "4-color" I don't mean there is no ugliness in the world and we all live in Disneyland. We're simply running in a less morally ambiguous game world. Bad guys are evil, superheroes are good, normals need rescuing, etc. It's really more reminiscent of the comics of the 50's and early 60's even though our campaign is contemporary. But we've still got the usual shenanigans by government agencies, criminal conspiracies, terrorists, rogue nations, supervillains of various stripes, etc. In our game universe paranormal powers first manifested themselves in the late 90's and didn't go public untl 2000, so we have a much less crowded field of supers to compete with for attention. There are only a few hundred paranormals on Earth instead of the thousands in Marvel, DC, or the Champions universe.

 

It's our characters who are different from the modern comics. No brooding loners, no sociopaths with claws, no alcoholics or drug addicts, no angst-filled teenagers or any of the other staples of modern comics. There isn't any leather in the costume of a single one of our characters. It may be "Ozzie and Harriet with superpowers" in the eyes of some, but we play to escape reality, not to immerse ourselves deeper in it. We have a great campaign, with excellent players and several talented GMs, that has been running since 1992. We have interesting characters, and our team MidGuard is the Justice League/Avengers of our world. What could be better?

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher

I don't like extreme randomness. It makes game balance harder to maintain, and contingencies harder to account for.

 

It really hasn't led to sameness in the past. There are plenty of ways that characters can differ that have nothing to do with the DCs of their main attack or the toughness of their defenses. Besides, a range of 10 def is a *lot*. The character at the low end is taking about 20 more STUN per turn, is CON-Stunned by the average hit from an attack that is 3 DCs lower, etc. Then there's the variations in STUN and REC. As someone else pointed out, a 25 PD/ED - 50 STUN - 15 REC character is far harder to take down than the 25 PD/ED - 35 STUN - 10 REC character.

I like randomness, it adds a, well, random element to the games which I find adds a dash of interest. YMMV.

 

In my campaign my martial artist Zl'f would be Con-Stunned by an average 9d6 attack that wouldn't even leak Stun through her chum Silhouette's defenses. (Zl'f: 12 PD, 18 CON; Silhouette: 33 PD, 33 CON) Do I feel my character suffers in combat compared to her comrade? Nope. Zl'f acts more than twice as often per turn (9 SPD vs 4 SPD), is more mobile (30" Running), and in many ways is the "heart" of our team just as Captain America is the core of the Avengers. (She's the only character who has been continually played since our campaign started in 1992.) Zl'f may spend more time unconscious than Silhouette (There's an understatement!), but she's still tremendous fun to play, and I think to play with as well. Both characters are very effective, just in different ways. We base our effectiveness on our abilities as a team. Who would win in a fight between the two? Who knows? We don't do "arena" battles.

[Osprey]

Thats why I think the +1/2 for regular DS and +1.5 for non-standard DS (similar in thought to the way autofire works) is the better rule.

 

I think that this may be the best way to settle the whole issue.

I hope Steve isn't letting his pride keep him from reading this thread, because he really should think about the above advice.

 

If he rules either way on the above idea, I'll drop the subject!

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

I like randomness, it adds a, well, random element to the games which I find adds a dash of interest. YMMV.

 

In my campaign my martial artist Zl'f would be Con-Stunned by an average 9d6 attack that wouldn't even leak Stun through her chum Silhouette's defenses. (Zl'f: 12 PD, 18 CON; Silhouette: 33 PD, 33 CON) Do I feel my character suffers in combat compared to her comrade? Nope. Zl'f acts more than twice as often per turn (9 SPD vs 4 SPD), is more mobile (30" Running), and in many ways is the "heart" of our team just as Captain America is the core of the Avengers. (She's the only character who has been continually played since our campaign started in 1992.) Zl'f may spend more time unconscious than Silhouette (There's an understatement!), but she's still tremendous fun to play, and I think to play with as well. Both characters are very effective, just in different ways. We base our effectiveness on our abilities as a team. Who would win in a fight between the two? Who knows? We don't do "arena" battles.

 

Wow, much greater SPD range as well, which does help offset the other ranges being greater (more chances to do damage, more chances to take RECs).

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Osprey

I hope Steve isn't letting his pride keep him from reading this thread, because he really should think about the above advice.

[/size] [/b]

 

I would not expect, from various posts i have seen from him, that Steve Long would allow pride or ego to get in the way of what he believes is good for the game, based on his own understanding of both the game and the people he is marketting the game towards.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher

Wow, much greater SPD range as well, which does help offset the other ranges being greater (more chances to do damage, more chances to take RECs).

I'll take that as a compliment.

 

One thing I should have made clear: The wide range of DEF, attacks, etc., in our campaign did not come about by accident. It was a deliberate attempt by the two (now 3) GMs to steer the game in that direction. We explained to our players that we wanted some lightly defended characters, and if they played them they would not be penalized in play for those low defenses. This required a certain level of trust by both sides; from the players that the GMs would not attempt to screw them over, and from the GMs that the players would not try to build cheesy character designs. Batman can work with Superman if your campaign is properly tailored. (While my martial artist is tremendously fast (43 DEX, 9 SPD) and would be an absolute terror if her fighting style included blades, I have so far resisted the impulse to make her The Amazing Buzzsaw.)

 

So far it has worked beautifully, and has given us characters with tremendous variations in skills, defenses and attacks. Nobody feels useless, and as long as everyone plays to concept it just keeps getting better. I don't rate combat effectiveness as being solely based on DCs and hit probabilities, but on the ability of the character to change the course of the battle. As an example, in a recent fight we had to fight against an incipient demi-god whom my character was essentially unable to harm with her max 10d6 attack due to his high defenses (30 PD, 50% Damage Reduction, 150 Stun). Since he had no minions to fight, she didn't have anything to do, right? Wrong! He was very quick and had a high CV, but my character was faster still and spent virtually the entire fight Leg Sweeping or Shoving him across the room to keep him off balance. He spent almost the entire fight at half DCV due to being prone, which allowed our lower OCV/higher DC characters to pound on him. We brought him down with teamwork.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

I'll take that as a compliment.

 

One thing I should have made clear: The wide range of DEF, attacks, etc., in our campaign did not come about by accident. It was a deliberate attempt by the two (now 3) GMs to steer the game in that direction. We explained to our players that we wanted some lightly defended characters, and if they played them they would not be penalized in play for those low defenses. This required a certain level of trust by both sides; from the players that the GMs would not attempt to screw them over, and from the GMs that the players would not try to build cheesy character designs. Batman can work with Superman if your campaign is properly tailored. (While my martial artist is tremendously fast (43 DEX, 9 SPD) and would be an absolute terror if her fighting style included blades, I have so far resisted the impulse to make her The Amazing Buzzsaw.)

 

So far it has worked beautifully, and has given us characters with tremendous variations in skills, defenses and attacks. Nobody feels useless, and as long as everyone plays to concept it just keeps getting better. I don't rate combat effectiveness as being solely based on DCs and hit probabilities, but on the ability of the character to change the course of the battle. As an example, in a recent fight we had to fight against an incipient demi-god whom my character was essentially unable to harm with her max 10d6 attack due to his high defenses (30 PD, 50% Damage Reduction, 150 Stun). Since he had no minions to fight, she didn't have anything to do, right? Wrong! He was very quick and had a high CV, but my character was faster still and spent virtually the entire fight Leg Sweeping or Shoving him across the room to keep him off balance. He spent almost the entire fight at half DCV due to being prone, which allowed our lower OCV/higher DC characters to pound on him. We brought him down with teamwork.

 

Absolutely. You'll get no disagreement from me on the basic concept there. I've been in those fights playing the character who couldn't do much direct damage, and still did more to control the fight than any other PC.

 

But...smaller groups, different atmosphere, etc, change the equation.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher

Absolutely. You'll get no disagreement from me on the basic concept there. I've been in those fights playing the character who couldn't do much direct damage, and still did more to control the fight than any other PC.

 

But...smaller groups, different atmosphere, etc, change the equation.

Now let's turn this back to the original topic; Damage Shields. In the incident I just related above, if the villain had bought even a small (5 or 6d6) Damage Shield my character would not have been able to engage him with impunity. Three average 5d6 attack rolls from a DS would have rendered my character unconscious, with serious consequences for our entire team. In fact, if he'd had a DS I seriously doubt our team would have prevailed. Our second MA had been hit for 70 points of Stun, so he was out cold till the cows came home (We carried him out as the temple, in classic form, collapsed.). Without my character constantly halving his DCV by Leg Sweeping him and knocking him prone, he would have only been hit half as often (or less, IIRC he had an 11 DCV) by the remaining characters. Damage Shield would have been tremendously useful for this particular megavillain, but without it MidGuard ground him up and spit out the bones.

 

Had he but purchased the "overpriced" DS, the villain would probably have beaten Earth's premier superhero team, MidGuard, and been well on his way to godhood. To paraphrase William Shakespeare in Richard III: "A Damage Shield! a Damage Shield! my kingdom for a Damage Shield!"

[J4y]

Now let's turn this back to the original topic; Damage Shields. In the incident I just related above, if the villain had bought even a small (5 or 6d6) Damage Shield my character would not have been able to engage him with impunity. Three average 5d6 attack rolls from a DS would have rendered my character unconscious, with serious consequences for our entire team. In fact, if he'd had a DS I seriously doubt our team would have prevailed.

 

With 9 actions you could have swept and recced and still kept him down much of the time, the damage shield would have only slowed you down. You said previously "In my campaign my martial artist Zl'f would be Con-Stunned by an average 9d6 attack." For the same cost as the damage shield he could have had a 12d6 EB and taken your character out of the battle in 2 rounds, maybe killed her outright.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by J4y

With 9 actions you could have swept and recced and still kept him down much of the time, the damage shield would have only slowed you down. You said previously "In my campaign my martial artist Zl'f would be Con-Stunned by an average 9d6 attack." For the same cost as the damage shield he could have had a 12d6 EB and taken your character out of the battle in 2 rounds, maybe killed her outright.

True, but he would still have had to hit her with his attack. He did in fact have a rather substantial EB, I believe it was 14d6. Even spreading his EB for a +5 to hit would not have guaranteed a hit on Zl'f, her DCV with a Martial Dodge and levels is 20. The bad guy (His actual name was one of those mile long and totally unpronouncable Aztec god names.) would have needed a 7 or less to hit; that's only a 16.2% chance of hitting. Even if he hit her she would have quite possibly Recovered before he got off his second shot anyway, since he had a 6 SPD compared to her 9. He was focusing his attacks on the characters that were actually hurting him; she was "merely an annoyance." He was also fighting a team of five; if she had gone down one of her teammates would have covered her until she recovered, just as she has done many a time for them.