Help with an Ineffective Ice Mage...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Help with an Ineffective Ice Mage...

 

I could have sworn that the Normal Attack WAS Autofire as well. Perhaps he changed it. Though 4d6 is pretty ignorable as an attack. Not worth the end spent keeping the thing running.

 

It's no more than a nagging nuisance in the update - 4 1/2d6; average 16 roll, should get a few points through per hit.

 

Maybe 4d6 Uncontrolled (+1/2), Continuous (+1), NND (+1; immunity to cold or close proximity to a significant heat source) for 50 AP; tack on half END so he can make it last longer for 60 AP in the upgrade. Now the target's taking 14 STUN on each of the caster's phases. Toss in, say, 25 END for 5 uses and the target should be pretty low on STUN by the time it runs out. Good opening attack on a powerful opponent - he could toss in 60 END on Ph 12 combat start, get 10 back immediately and still have 4 turns to go (at 4 SPD) before the battery fizzles out. If the fight's not over after 2-3 turns, it's likely he's only using END for the flight spell anyway...

[Ice9]

Re: Help with an Ineffective Ice Mage...

 

This may be a bit after the fact, but what's with all the restrictive archetype stereotyping? "The typical mage is not fast"*, "the typical mage is out of shape", "the typical mage wears a pointy hat and smokes a pipe". Maybe entirely true, but why would we assume every magic using character is the typical mage? And why use a point-based system designed around extreme flexibility, and then set up archetype rules more restrictive than many class systems?

 

And for that matter, what about the mage-as-gunslinger archetype, entirely fitting for a combat-oriented wizard? When two mages with earth-shattering power and fragile unarmored bodies face off, victory goes to the quick.

 

Back to the OP, an idea for the Ice Armor power - while moving it outside the Multipower is tactically sound, it's also not that interesting. An alternative would be to put Uncontrolled on it, giving you short-lasting but potent protection. I think it could be fairly strong without stepping on toes, since it doesn't work against surprise attacks and you have to waste time activating it every few phases, or else tie up lots of END.

 

*Incidentally, I find this one amusing, because I also play D&D, where Dex is often a Wizard's second highest stat, usually higher than everyone except the Rogue. So "the typical mage" is in fact quite fast.

[AnotherSkip]

Re: Help with an Ineffective Ice Mage...

 

in most versions of DND i played Dex is your second highest stat unless your rolls/class dictate otherwise period end of sentence. Up to a bonus of 4 AC? Nothing to sneer at any day of the week. A cavalier with no magic could have a -4 AC in 1st Ed. That is choice right there.

[Hierax]

Re: Help with an Ineffective Ice Mage...

 

add Ablative (simplified, H5er.115-116) to the Magic Ice Armor, it'll feel more ice-like and less like a generic power.

[Hierax]

Re: Help with an Ineffective Ice Mage...

 

Life Support vs. Cold is oddly absent appropriate and cheap power, add it. Either full powered as per standard rules or 50% effect for half-price -- e.g., Eosin's Last Dominion book nicely did this reduced effect for his tough Trollkins and it's even more appropriate here for a cyromancer!

 

Heck, I'd put in some DEF vs. Cold SFX attacks as well -- rDEF and nDEF and/or Power Defence.

 

Add some minor Vulnerability/Susceptibility to heat/fire as a Disadvantage/Complication.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Help with an Ineffective Ice Mage...

 

I find it hard to see this as having minimal impact on one of two characters and substantial impact on the other, but the two characters having equal SPD would not seem to put the Wizard at an unfair disadvantage compared to the other PC. Having a higher SPD isn't either one's schtick.

 

 

 

 

 

Someone pointed out earlier that the mage has no "just hit the opponent hard" slots in his multipower. The warrior is likely all about attacks that hit one opponent hard, and that may be where the perceived reduced utility of the mage lies.

 

 

I think you missed my point here. Bob has SPD 4, Tom has SPD 3. If Bob jumps down to SPD 3, I seriously doubt he'll feel cheated of spotlight time. He and Tom are (theoretically) each getting about half of the attention devoted to them. Previously, however, Tom spent one Segment every turn just watching Bob act. In short, the jump down in "spotlight time" for Bob is small, but the jump up (from "less" attention to "equal" attention) is likely greater. Now, if we had a larger group then the equation would change, but since there are only two players the circumstances are more unique.

 

Except it's the opposite. In the original builds, the mage could take more damage and dish out more damage, at range. On revision, it was tough to reach up to his levels to the SFX of their archetypes. Using weapons carries with it certain restictions, i.e. limitations on how much you can add damage by, even with martial maneuvers. There are workarounds for this, but they aren't as apparent to newer players and of course they cost more points.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Help with an Ineffective Ice Mage...

 

In short' date=' the jump down in "spotlight time" for Bob is small, but the jump up (from "less" attention to "equal" attention) is likely greater. [/quote']

 

I think it's an equitable change to equalize their Speeds, assuming each can be equally effective with each of their phases. Neither needs to be faster than the other for their schtick. But I think that losing that "one phase where I act and you watch" is a significant drop for the mage. It's a drop that's fair for him to take, though.

 

Except it's the opposite. In the original builds' date=' the mage could take more damage and dish out more damage, at range.[/quote']

 

I disagree with that assessment. I'm assuming the first post shows the original build.

 

The ice mage build allowed him to take more damage OR dish out more damage, as he could either use the Armor spell, or an atack spell, but not both. The Multipower allowed only one at a time. If that were the intended design, I think he needs a higher SPD to be effective, since he'll likely need to abort to turn on his defenses pretty often.

 

Actually, I suspect the warrior could still take more damage, as I suspect his nonresistant defenses, STUN and BOD were superior, but the Wizard could have better resistant defenses (12 vs 9).

 

The mage's attacks are tricked out, but not high damage. He's got a nice entangle, and a decent Flash attack. His direct attacks are 5 DC's and 4 DC's, but with the potential for multiple hits (either in the phase with Autofire or long term with Deep Cold). In fact, he's built for teamwork - Flash the big opponent to allow the warrior to Sweep/put levels in Damage/what have you.

 

Of course, I only see half the picture since the Warrior character has not been posted, but I suspect he was capable of doing more than 1 1/2d6 KA, has quite a bit better than 4 PD and 4 ED, counting the robes (I know he has 6rDEF armor + 3 Combat Luck). I'd bet his CON and BOD are higher than 10, and he has well above 19 STUN as well.

 

On revision' date=' it was tough to reach up to his levels to the SFX of their archetypes. Using weapons carries with it certain restictions, i.e. limitations on how much you can add damage by, even with martial maneuvers. There are workarounds for this, but they aren't as apparent to newer players and of course they cost more points.[/quote']

 

I'm not sure how you place levels on archetypes. The wizard has +3 DCV casting spells. The warrior likely has a shield bumping his DCV for no points. You want more? Buy levels with your shield for 3 points each. I don't know whether they're presently balanced, but I doubt balancing them would be too tough. At the same time, the Warrior archetype is generally all about high damage to one foe - mass damage is the forte of the wizard. The Warior role often is "keep the bad guy ocupied long enough for the Wizard to get off a fancy spell that takes him out".

 

In our games, the question generally isn't "is one PC more powerful", but "how do we leverage our abilities together to best deal with our opponents". The other PC is my ally - I hope he is powerful. From the first game session, the warrior wasn't the one that came away so unhappy with his character that he posted it online with a request to help make it "not ineffective". I attribute that to luck more than anything, but I don't think the ice mage is an ubercharacter by any stretch. A 200 point warrior should be able to be quite competitive. And I suspect he'd get all sorts of advice on being more effective if he wanted to post his character, as well as possibly some suggestions for keeping the two in reasonable balance

[Manic Typist]

Re: Help with an Ineffective Ice Mage...

 

The ice mage build allowed him to take more damage OR dish out more damage

 

You're right. I did fail to make that distinction.

 

Actually, I suspect the warrior could still take more damage, as I suspect his nonresistant defenses, STUN and BOD were superior, but the Wizard could have better resistant defenses (12 vs 9).

 

Actually, the warrior had rDEF of 6 in the first session.

 

Of course, I only see half the picture since the Warrior character has not been posted,

Another actually: he has been. He's in the thread in which the original builds were being built, and all the modifications since have been kept to that original thread. First full point warrior build starts on this page: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73627&page=3. Also of note is the combat log that really represents the bulk of the session, and the TPK that elicited all of these discussions (in both threads).

 

but I suspect he was capable of doing more than 1 1/2d6 KA,

2d6 with STR, which means his +4 DC Martial Maneuver was a "waste" of points, since he couldn't add any more damage to it.

 

 

has quite a bit better than 4 PD and 4 ED, counting the robes (I know he has 6rDEF armor + 3 Combat Luck).

Nope. 3 PD/ED. And again, it was 3rDEF armor+ 3 Combat Luck.

 

 

I'd bet his CON and BOD are higher than 10, and he has well above 19 STUN as well.

15 and 11, and 27 (I'm not sure if that's "well above" by your definition or not, but I doubt it).

 

 

The wizard has +3 DCV casting spells. The warrior likely has a shield bumping his DCV for no points.

No. The player wanted to be a dual wielding martial artist, so he had two short swords.

 

In our games, the question generally isn't "is one PC more powerful", but "how do we leverage our abilities together to best deal with our opponents".

I personally don't care about character "power" and haven't raised the issue. I'm only concerned with utility, and if one build completely overshadows another build (not saying that that's the case here), then one or both builds need to be revised, because then one character has no utility (or no utility that is fun for the player, presumably).

 

From the first game session, the warrior wasn't the one that came away so unhappy with his character that he posted it online with a request to help make it "not ineffective".

Instead he came to me, the person who built the character, explained what happened, and I jumped on rebuilding the character. I've posted builds, but have received a fraction of the responses you see in this thread. I suppose it's because people aren't checking the campaign thread.

 

 

Please keep in mind: this is all discussing the ORIGINAL builds. The warrior has undergone significant changes in the meantime. They asked me to give him more CSLs, so I did (though they weren't using the martial maneuvers). I took out the dual wielding and gave him a shield, and a strong suit of chainmail. If you want to see the latest draft, you can find it on the other thread if you so care. The GM tested out the newest build and said it was ok (to my surprise. I considered him to almost be excessive... but then again, if you look at what the lowly grunt/minions can do in that combat log, perhaps rush to the opposite extreme was justified).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Help with an Ineffective Ice Mage...

 

Another actually: he has been. He's in the thread in which the original builds were being built' date=' and all the modifications since have been kept to that original thread. First full point warrior build starts on this page: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73627&page=3. Also of note is the combat log that really represents the bulk of the session, and the TPK that elicited all of these discussions (in both threads).[/quote']

 

Looking at the transcript, I see a good roll for the first Vampire (11 BOD on 2d6+1) hurt the warrior right off. I also see them outnumbered, 3 to 2, by opponents who do more damage than they do (2d6+1 vs 2d6 and 1 1/2d6 max KA), although they look to have some backup (militia archers).

 

Then more bad luck on the missed side effect.

 

2d6 with STR' date=' which means his +4 DC Martial Maneuver was a "waste" of points, since he couldn't add any more damage to it.[/quote']

 

The short sword does 1d6 with a STR Min of 10, so at 15 STR, 1d6+1. DC's added by MA to KA's are halved, so 2 more DC's makes 2d6. Not wasted at all.

 

Gotta say that what I see of the warrior now is not really consistent with "a tank".

 

15 and 11' date=' and 27 (I'm not sure if that's "well above" by your definition or not, but I doubt it).[/quote']

 

Still significantly better than the wizard.

 

I personally don't care about character "power" and haven't raised the issue. I'm only concerned with utility' date=' and if one build completely overshadows another build (not saying that that's the case here), then one or both builds need to be revised, because then one character has no utility (or no utility that is fun for the player, presumably).[/quote']

 

Absolutely.

 

Please keep in mind: this is all discussing the ORIGINAL builds. The warrior has undergone significant changes in the meantime. They asked me to give him more CSLs' date=' so I did (though they weren't using the martial maneuvers). I took out the dual wielding and gave him a shield, and a strong suit of chainmail. If you want to see the latest draft, you can find it on the other thread if you so care. The GM tested out the newest build and said it was ok (to my surprise. I considered him to almost be excessive... but then again, if you look at what the lowly grunt/minions can do in that combat log, perhaps rush to the opposite extreme was justified).[/quote']

 

Yup. Looks like the opposition anticipated more powerful PC's. I'd have to say, I'd expect more PC power at 200 points, but I also wound't call OCV 7, 2d6+1 KA "grunt minions" at that point level.

 

Looking at the warrior build at Post 72 on the campaign thread, he looks reasonably competetive. I'm unclear how it's getting 17 rDEF (looks like it adds the helmet and the armor together).

 

I'd ditch Lightning Reflexes (because I find them overpriced, so I'd ditch it for both warrior and wizard). Another level with HTH would be good for the warrior's points, although he has lots of choices. For 1 more point, he can buy +3 DEX, and get his Lightning Reflexes and +1 OCV/+1 DCV.

 

If he wanted to keep the Two Swords schtick, there's no reason he couldn't use two longswords, or a longsword/short sword combo. Maybe buy extra DCV "only when fighting with two weapons", or place a lot of reliance on "Block/Counterstrike" (maybe with an extra SPD point since he'll be losing actions to Block).

 

Why not carry a missile weapon? They do come in handy, even if he's not tricked out for it.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Help with an Ineffective Ice Mage...

 

The short sword does 1d6 with a STR Min of 10' date=' so at 15 STR, 1d6+1. DC's added by MA to KA's are halved, so 2 more DC's makes 2d6. Not wasted at all.[/quote']

 

While they weren't using STR mins, I find it almost hilarious how it worked out to be exactly the same anyway. It's almost eerie.

 

Gotta say that what I see of the warrior now is not really consistent with "a tank".

 

I don't think he was intended as a tank. I certainly didn't try to build him that way at first. I was thinking more of a scrapper, which I consider more in line with a martial artist anyway. However, now I've turtled him up some.

 

 

Yup. Looks like the opposition anticipated more powerful PC's. I'd have to say, I'd expect more PC power at 200 points, but I also wound't call OCV 7, 2d6+1 KA "grunt minions" at that point level.

 

Exactly, and the GM described them as such. Minions, albeit tough. So, that warns me about what to expect in the future.

 

Looking at the warrior build at Post 72 on the campaign thread, he looks reasonably competetive.

That's what I'm hoping. We'll see!

 

I'm unclear how it's getting 17 rDEF (looks like it adds the helmet and the armor together).

I think so as well.

 

I'd ditch Lightning Reflexes (because I find them overpriced, so I'd ditch it for both warrior and wizard). Another level with HTH would be good for the warrior's points, although he has lots of choices. For 1 more point, he can buy +3 DEX, and get his Lightning Reflexes and +1 OCV/+1 DCV.

If I end up having to revise him again, perhaps to turn down the CSLs, I'll certainly keep this in mind.

 

Why not carry a missile weapon? They do come in handy, even if he's not tricked out for it.

I'll try to add in the weapon so he can remember he has it, next time I make a draft. Thank you.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Help with an Ineffective Ice Mage...

 

I don't think he was intended as a tank. I certainly didn't try to build him that way at first. I was thinking more of a scrapper' date=' which I consider more in line with a martial artist anyway. However, now I've turtled him up some.[/quote']

 

Sorry - there's a statement from his player (IIRC) somewhere above that he's the tank, which had me thinking of a very different set of abilities.