Thinking about combat numbers

[Sean Waters]

I know this is straight forward, but it may not be obvious. In order to be hit and avoid being consistently stunned you need to have CON+(relevant defence)=likely average campaign damage.

 

 

CON+(relevant defence) I term 'Stun Number' - not a system measurement, but a useful one nonetheless.

 

First off let me say that there is nothing wrong with having a SN less than likely average damage (LAD), but you should be aware when you are doing it.

 

Likely damage is, of course, 3.5xDC where DC stands for the Damage Class of the sort of damage you expect to be regularly encountering.

 

I tend to use this to determine the minimum CON value based on expected defences.

 

I normally expect defences to be in the range 1.5x to 2x DC, which means that minimum CON should be in the 2x to 1.5x DC range. For example if you are playing in a DC 12 game, I would expect pd and ed to be in the 18 to 24 range, with minimum CON being the difference between 42 (likely average damage): if the character has 18 pd and ed, he should consider a CON of at least 22, whereas if he has higher defences, a lower CON may serve.

 

The other aspect to this is that you can use the numbers to calculate how long a combat is likely to last: LAD-(relevant defence) gives you expected damage per hit (EDH) and STUN/EDH gives you the maximum number of hits you can stay conscious without taking a recovery. I'd expect STUN/EDH to yield a number in the 2-4 range generally: so 2 to 4 hits KOs you. Much more than that and combats drag. Much less and it is all about who gets the first hit in.

 

A GM looking to set campaign limits should have these various numbers and ratios in mind as they can substantially affect campaign tone.

 

Hmm. Anyway. No great insights, just an interesting thing to think about when building characters.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Thinking about combat numbers

 

Thinking a bit more, that means that (minimum) CON should be in the range of 1.5x to 2x DC for the game. that is interesting because it sets a characteristic at a given level: for a 12DC game (never mind hard caps - that is the highest likely damage class you'll most often face) that sets 'superheroic' CON to 18-24 points.

 

I can see no good reason why other characteristics should not be in a similar range: why should CON be out on its own, or if it is, why?

 

The other characteristic that you can (sort of) calculate from scratch is PRE: You would not expect superheroes to be constantly gawping in awe at stuff they encounter all the time. That is a bit of a moveable feast, but let us assume:

 

In combat -1d6

Exhibiting a power +1d6

Violent action +1d6

 

Total +1d6 (may be MUCH higher - but that is an average PRE attack with no special circumstances.

 

+1d6 = 3.5 points on average.

 

Things then get complicated: the actual total, assuming equal PRE for attacker and defender, depends on the base level: assuming 10 PRE, you get an average roll of 7, add the 3.5 as above and that comes out at 10.5: over PRE, so you'd be awed by other superheroes all the time.

 

15 PRE gives a total of 14 (with the +1d6) and so is the minimum you can get away with and not tremble in your boots every time you face equivalent opposition.

 

So that gives a PRE minimum of 15, and a CON minimum of 18-22.

 

We COULD deduce from that the the normal range of superheroic characteristics is 15-22: i can't think, off the top of my head, of any other 'calculateable' characteristics...you might be able to.

[tesuji]

Re: Thinking about combat numbers

 

a good imo rule of thumb is this...

take dcx4

so if the gaem is 12 dc have dcx4 of 48

 

make sure con and def equal that amount or more unless you are playing a dodgy eggshell.

 

i have built a number of bricks based on say a 40 con, with very low defense and high stun totals.

 

they may take 30 stun on an average hit but are well short of con stunning and can take 2-3 hits and stay up.

 

this way you get the tough guy who isnt rock hard, he can be hit and hurt by even agents but can take a lot.

 

this worked fine in 5e with all the figs that con gave but i have yet to run the numbers and see how well it works in 6e but i think with con and stun being cheaper it may be even more viable.

 

its an atypical 5e build for sure but i loved those.

 

con 40 costs 30

pd ed 10 each costs 16

stun 80 costs 30body 20 costs 10

add a little resistant def or regen

 

hmmm...

[phookz]

Re: Thinking about combat numbers

 

Things then get complicated: the actual total, assuming equal PRE for attacker and defender, depends on the base level: assuming 10 PRE, you get an average roll of 7, add the 3.5 as above and that comes out at 10.5: over PRE, so you'd be awed by other superheroes all the time.

 

15 PRE gives a total of 14 (with the +1d6) and so is the minimum you can get away with and not tremble in your boots every time you face equivalent opposition.

 

Awed is actually used as a description in the effect for PRE + 20, so you might want to refrain from using it for the description above. The average of 10.5 means that on average you'll be impressed, and the attacker may act before you on that Phase.

 

I like the idea of theorycrafting some useful numbers for these attacks, both the PRE attacks in this post and the normal damage attacks above. Some formulas for coming up with these numbers would be a better approach rather than just giving a range; the range is very dependent on the campaign levels the GM sets, and these would be good numbers to have for helping to choose those levels.

 

We can easily calculate the average PRE with minimum effect based on a given PRE value. For the attacker PRE, simply multiply the number by 0.7, then add 3.5 for each bonus dice, + 1 to make sure you're above the number.

 

So, if you don't want to be effected by the average PRE attack in the campaign, you need a minimum PRE of (AVG_PRE_ATTACK * 0.7 + 3.5 + 1). So if the average PRE is, say, 25, you should have a minimum PRE of 22.

 

That's the minimum PRE to not be effected by an average attack roll; you're still going to be effected if the attacker rolls better than average. If you see your character as particularly PRE resistant, it's simply a matter of adding the appropriate level you'd like to resist.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thinking about combat numbers

 

its an atypical 5e build for sure but i loved those.

 

con 40 costs 30

pd ed 10 each costs 16

stun 80 costs 30body 20 costs 10

add a little resistant def or regen

 

hmmm...

 

Why not give him a bit of both? Say Regen that recovers 1 BOD/hour and maybe 5 rDEF, for a total of 15 defenses.

 

Now buy him a 30 REC for another 26 points.

 

A typical 12d6 attack gets 27 damage through (no danger of being Stunned). If he's hit 3 times a turn, he's KO'd, but gets a Seg 12 recovery plus a PS 12 recovery, bouncing back with 59 STUN in Turn 2.

 

Of course a lot depends on how long your combats run, but it would be fairly easy to modify for greater staying power. If the other Brick would have another 5 PD and ED, you can have another 30 STUN (or another 10 REC, or whatever combination). And with that REC, you won't need to buy reduced END, or pump your END up, to keep from tiring out either.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thinking about combat numbers

 

Awed is actually used as a description in the effect for PRE + 20' date=' so you might want to refrain from using it for the description above. The average of 10.5 means that on average you'll be impressed, and the attacker may act before you on that Phase. [/quote']

 

Seems a reasonable result - a typical character can be startled with no lasting effect.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Thinking about combat numbers

 

Seems a reasonable result - a typical character can be startled with no lasting effect.

 

I don't know: I wouldn't not expect most characters to be 'startleable' in every combat. The lasting effect may well be that they end up unconscious or dead

 

Someone who is used to combat wit SPBs should rarely be taken by surprise by what they do IMO, but I suppose that is a matter of preference.

 

Are there any other 'logically calculateable' characteristics?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thinking about combat numbers

 

I don't know: I wouldn't not expect most characters to be 'startleable' in every combat. The lasting effect may well be that they end up unconscious or dead

 

20 PRE +1d6 for a violent action + 1d6 for exhibiting a power = 21, just enough to make a 20 PRE target hesitate.

 

Drop PRE to 15 and we get 17.5, and the same result. 10 PRE gets 14, and again the same result.

 

Remove 1d6 for being in combat, and an average result has no impact until we drop down to 10 PRE characters.

[Vulcan]

Re: Thinking about combat numbers

 

I know this is straight forward, but it may not be obvious. In order to be hit and avoid being consistently stunned you need to have CON+(relevant defence)=likely average campaign damage.

 

 

CON+(relevant defence) I term 'Stun Number' - not a system measurement, but a useful one nonetheless.

 

First off let me say that there is nothing wrong with having a SN less than likely average damage (LAD), but you should be aware when you are doing it.

 

Likely damage is, of course, 3.5xDC where DC stands for the Damage Class of the sort of damage you expect to be regularly encountering.

 

I tend to use this to determine the minimum CON value based on expected defences.

 

I normally expect defences to be in the range 1.5x to 2x DC, which means that minimum CON should be in the 2x to 1.5x DC range. For example if you are playing in a DC 12 game, I would expect pd and ed to be in the 18 to 24 range, with minimum CON being the difference between 42 (likely average damage): if the character has 18 pd and ed, he should consider a CON of at least 22, whereas if he has higher defences, a lower CON may serve.

 

The other aspect to this is that you can use the numbers to calculate how long a combat is likely to last: LAD-(relevant defence) gives you expected damage per hit (EDH) and STUN/EDH gives you the maximum number of hits you can stay conscious without taking a recovery. I'd expect STUN/EDH to yield a number in the 2-4 range generally: so 2 to 4 hits KOs you. Much more than that and combats drag. Much less and it is all about who gets the first hit in.

 

A GM looking to set campaign limits should have these various numbers and ratios in mind as they can substantially affect campaign tone.

 

Hmm. Anyway. No great insights, just an interesting thing to think about when building characters.

 

Now if someone could just convince my GM of this. He thinks 25 DEF and CON (50 'Stun Threshold') is really high - i.e. brick level - in a 15 DC game...

[prestidigitator]

Re: Thinking about combat numbers

 

Besides, it's only going to work once.