Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

[The Main Man]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

Well' date=' no such method for balancing is going to be suited for everybody. I don't know if I'd use it myself for that matter, though it's probably worth playing around with a bit if I ever actualy run an applicable campaign again. However, even if it's not ideal for everyone, it's almost certainly better than nothing. And if it keeps you actively thinking about balancing things and keeping an eye on character abilities, I see it as a positive thing. Just don't succumb to the temptation to use it as a crutch and set things in concrete. There are always exceptions and corner cases.[/quote']

I agree. I've learned how to handle HERO game balance over the years, and I like to think that I'm pretty good at it. This is my current method and while different GMs have different ideas about game balance, why not share mine? Is that not the point of discussion forums?

 

My counterarguments in this thread may make me sound like an overbearing, dictatorial GM, but that's because I keep having to dispel perceived misunderstandings - namely Fireg0lem's.

[dmjalund]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

allthough, I feel there is a tendency to design members of a team as if they were solo heroes.

 

I feel that teams can be made of individuals who might not make good solos, but as a group cover each others' weaknesses

[The Main Man]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

allthough, I feel there is a tendency to design members of a team as if they were solo heroes.

 

I feel that teams can be made of individuals who might not make good solos, but as a group cover each others' weaknesses

And that's where I think that reallocation shines. Furthermore, that's a big reason why I've pooled Defense powers for years, even before I concocted this. Sure, your Mentalist can't take a punch as well as the Brick, but when Menton comes to town, he's left standing.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

A classic Mystic trend such as that is perfectly allowable under this method. Power Frameworks to the rescue!

 

 

*Pause*

I think this is another fundamental misunderstanding. Field allocation is done before one truly makes their character. It sets their limits and does not fluctuate in game play. Your example would be grossly inefficient if the character allocated to 100%, but oddly creative in some ways if at only 50%. Furthermore, allocation deals less with shifting percentiles than with shifting the original results.

 

This is the same case as Martial Maneuvers - an inactive slot is an irrelevant slot in the heat of the moment.

 

Am I right or wrong when I say that "In order to have the first multipower (dude A) a character would need to have [at least] 50% assigned to DC and Defenses, and in order to have the second multipower, Dude B would need to have [at least] 50% allocated to DC and 100% allocated to defenses?" If I'm wrong, what should those numbers be? Or do you mean merely that Dude B could have that multipower, but if he only had 50% assigned to Defenses, he couldn't ever actually turn on the second slot?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

Second, do you really, honestly think this attack should count as 4 DCs?

 

"Everybody Is On Fire Now" Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6, +1 Increased STUN Multiplier (+1/4), Area Of Effect (32m Radius; +1), Selective (+1/4), Damage Over Time, Target's defenses only apply once, Lock out (cannot be applied multiple times) (12 damage increments, damage occurs every Segment, +4) (97 Active Points)

 

In my experience as a GM, this attack is in fact a 19 DC attack, and should be balanced based on being 19 DCs, not 4.

 

Again enlighten me' date=' because your DOT build didn't convince me. For one thing, you compared 97 Active Points as better than 20. For another, you [i']still[/i] haven't demonstrated/explained how anything besides my listed Advantages affects damage.

 

OK, let's compare this to a more straightforward attack under your system. Let's assume the rule is 100 AP and 75%, since that was your starting point. So, for comparison, let's say that the plain vanilla character has:

 

16d6 Blast, 1/2 END (100 points) That's 80% because he trades off SPD down the chart.

15 OCV

15 DCV

7.0 SPD

75 total defense points, of which he has 25/25 PD and ED.

 

Our DOT character is built as follows:

 

16d6 Blast, 1/2 END (100 points) That's 80% because he trades off SPD down the chart.

15 OCV

15 DCV

7.0 SPD

75 total defense points, of which he has 25/25 PD and ED.

 

4 DC DOT attack (that frees up 11 to apply to other abilities)

20 OCV (that's 5 spent and he will hit on 16-, about 98% of the time, on a 16-)

20 DCV (that's another 5 so he will be hit just under 10% of the time, on a 6-)

4.0 SPD (that frees up another 7, so he has 8 left)

75 + 40 = 115 AP of defenses. He divides them between PD and ED, so he has 45 PD and 45 ED.

 

On Phase 12, both characters get an action. DoT Man hits everyone on the other team using his selective AoE. He hits everyone (on a very bad roll, he will miss one). Over the next turn, he rolls 4.5 BOD and 13.5 STUN every segment. By end of turn, each opponent has taken 13.5 x 12 = 162 STUN, less their 25 Defenses applied once = 137 STUN. They also take 4.5 x 12 = 54 BOD less their rDEF applied once (29 BOD if all of their defenses are resistant, more otherwise).

 

AverageMan fires off his 16d6 EB. If he hits (10% chance), he does an average of 11 STUN past DOT Man's defenses. Over the course of a turn, he should average less than one hit. By the end of that turn, DOT Man's attack has fried him like an egg, along with all of his teammates.

 

It seems like it would make precious little difference what else I give either character to complete the builds. I suppose AverageMan can use his superior Speed to Dodge every time DOT Man attacks, but he will still be hit on a 13- (just under 75% of the time), and he still only hits with 10% of his attacks, so he'll average over three turns for every 11 STUN past DOT Man's defenses. He's not going to last anywhere near three turns, so one lucky hit is still all he can hope for.

 

So, is that DoT attack REALLY only 4 DC's?

 

Your OP asked for feedback and chinks in the system. I think FireGolem has identified some, but you seem more intent on defending your system than on objectively assessing the feedback you requested.

[The Main Man]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

Am I right or wrong when I say that "In order to have the first multipower (dude A) a character would need to have [at least] 50% assigned to DC and Defenses' date=' and in order to have the second multipower, Dude B would need to have [at least'] 50% allocated to DC and 100% allocated to defenses?" If I'm wrong, what should those numbers be? Or do you mean merely that Dude B could have that multipower, but if he only had 50% assigned to Defenses, he couldn't ever actually turn on the second slot?

 

Let's say in a 100 AP, 75% game, I shifted away 20 AP to make my limit 55 AP (to account for base 2 PD and 2 ED).

 

I then make a Multipower, 51 point Reserve with the following Variable slots:

1) +51 PD

2) +51 ED

3) 51 MD

4) 51 PowD

 

I could activate any combination of 51 AP of those slots at a given time. That's okay because inactive slots/AP do not effectively violate the 55 AP limit because only 55 total AP is ever active at any given point. If I'm shifted to +26 ED, 25 MD, I'm okay because I only have 2 PD and 0 PowD momentarily active. What would be a violation is if the MP was 75 and I shifted to +25 PD, +25 ED, and 25 PowD, because that's 79 AP of active defenses even though I allocated to have a limit of 50.

[Hida Tsuzua]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

allthough, I feel there is a tendency to design members of a team as if they were solo heroes.

 

I feel that teams can be made of individuals who might not make good solos, but as a group cover each others' weaknesses

 

In my experience, synergy of tactics and powers is a far better way to do "team builds" than having low PD and high ED. Mainly because the latter is more luck based (you fight the Human Fireball today instead of Punchomatic) and there really any decision making. Simple teams based build combos like grab + guy with lots of CSLs, teamwork attacks, aid str + a brick, and fastball specials are tactically interesting (do I want to see if my teammate can set up an entangle or do I want to attack now?) and players get to control when they happen.

 

Encouraging balanced defenses also makes sure there aren't mistakes either. If there's 15 stun on the line (30 PD versus 15 ED), it makes a difference the PC gets the defense right (those flaming stone fists were PD or ED?). For dudes with weaknesses, limitations like "Does not work against fire" or complications like Vulnerability : Fire work well.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

Let's say in a 100 AP, 75% game, I shifted away 20 AP to make my limit 55 AP (to account for base 2 PD and 2 ED).

 

I then make a Multipower, 51 point Reserve with the following Variable slots:

1) +51 PD

2) +51 ED

3) 51 MD

4) 51 PowD

 

I could activate any combination of 51 AP of those slots at a given time. That's okay because inactive slots/AP do not effectively violate the 55 AP limit because only 55 total AP is ever active at any given point. If I'm shifted to +26 ED, 25 MD, I'm okay because I only have 2 PD and 0 PowD momentarily active. What would be a violation is if the MP was 75 and I shifted to +25 PD, +25 ED, and 25 PowD, because that's 79 AP of active defenses even though I allocated to have a limit of 50.

 

Right, so I believe I do understand it correctly. The problem arises thus:

 

If you want to make a character who can either have 75 AP of attack and 50 AP of defense, OR can have 50 AP of attack and 75 AP of defense, your system says that he needs to have allocated 75% to attack and 75% to defense. This is the same allocation needed by a guy who can have 75 AP of attack and 75 AP of defense at the same time. Hopefully the example I'm working on will make this more clear.

[The Main Man]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

OK' date=' let's compare this to a more straightforward attack under your system... *snip*[/quote']

I stand corrected on DoT as affecting Damage Classes, but only because it directly affects the target's defenses in that particular case. It also seems to take more than just Active Points to determine the DC's of such an example though - DoT is different. It seems that you should properly multiply the base damage by the number of damage increments to get the true DCs of a DoT attack.

 

Imagine that same DoT attack except that the targets' DEF do apply at every increment though. The power is instantly neutered and utterly effete (until you apply Penetrating like the book suggests, but then it becomes an even bigger clusterfuss to figure out its DCs). The more I look at it, the more that DoT is an exception that requires a little more eyeballing than others. It's kinda like Autofire, except that Autofire is not guaranteed every hit and each shot is affected by the target's defenses.

 

This begs a question though: what do my opinions on Damage Classes have to do with my proposed percentile method? What would be different about this method if my DC philosophies were different?

 

And what's wrong with defending it when I feel that there's misunderstandings? Did I ignore someone by accident?

[The Main Man]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

Right, so I believe I do understand it correctly. The problem arises thus:

 

If you want to make a character who can either have 75 AP of attack and 50 AP of defense, OR can have 50 AP of attack and 75 AP of defense, your system says that he needs to have allocated 75% to attack and 75% to defense. This is the same allocation needed by a guy who can have 75 AP of attack and 75 AP of defense at the same time. Hopefully the example I'm working on will make this more clear.

No. If your maximum damage will be 15 DCs, then you must allocate for that. It doesn't matter how you get there. If your maximum DEF AP are at 75, then they must allocate for that, it doesn't matter how you get there. It's all done at character creation. If you allocated to 50 max DEF AP, it will never reallocate to 75 AP during gameplay, because your character was designed to reflect that limit at best. If you allocated to have 15 DCs, then you'll never reallocate to 10 or whatever because your character was designed to reflect being capable of using 15 DCs.

 

A character with a static max attack and defense only has an arguable edge against the flexible/compartmentalized character because he deserves it - he paid more for it. The more flexible character can shift what he has in the first place though, and he probably has more utility in any given situation- that's his reward for saving points and being built the way he is.

 

It would be the same predicament in a straight Active Point limit system though. I fail to see how this is a unique predicament to the proposed method.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

Well, it's largely a problem unto itself, and it can be fixed separately from other problems. What I would suggest you do is use 6e's advice for what is and is not DC-increasing, with two exceptions: count Telekinesis as 2 DCs per 15 base AP, and count Variable Advantage as only partially DC-increasing (based on the size of the advantages it can apply rather than the size of itself as an advantage), or not DC increasing if it cannot be used to assign DC-increasing advantages. Then throw out the AP cap for attack powers altogether.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

No. If your maximum damage will be 15 DCs, then you must allocate for that. It doesn't matter how you get there. If your maximum DEF AP are at 75, then they must allocate for that, it doesn't matter how you get there.

 

A character with a static max attack and defense only has an arguable edge against the flexible/compartmentalized character because he deserves it - he paid more for it. The more flexible character can shift what he has in the first place though, and he probably has more utility in any given situation- that's his reward for saving points and being built the way he is.

 

It would be the same predicament in a straight Active Point limit system though. I fail to see how this is a unique predicament to the proposed method.

 

It's not really unique to your proposed method, no. That doesn't mean its not a problem, just that you're not the only one to create a system with this problem.

[The Main Man]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

It's not really unique to your proposed method' date=' no. That doesn't mean its not a problem, just that you're not the only one to create a system with this problem.[/quote']

That may be so, but it is off topic. Perhaps a new thread for that? I can start one up later today because it may be worth discussing, if only because there may be two schools of thought on the phenomenon.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

Defenses normally do apply to each application of Damage Over Time. That option is very much GM-option territory and should always be looked at very carefully.

[The Main Man]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

Defenses normally do apply to each application of Damage Over Time. That option is very much GM-option territory and should always be looked at very carefully.

Yes indeed. But then, what of the plight of someone with not enough defense to fend off even a small increment? Or what about applying Penetrating? Really muddies the waters. "!" sign indeed.

[Clovis]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

This is potentially a problem' date=' because while you could say they have more points left over to buy other stuff, they can't buy stuff that makes them significantly better at fighting and they may want to be just as good at fighting as the other guy. [/quote']

 

I disagree with this claim. Those extra points could go to buying other attacks/abilities that allow for broader damage types. Being able to adapt in combat does make them better at fighting, otherwise everyone may as well only buy one attack per character that's super powerful.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

EDIT: I can't figure out how to turn HTML on. I'm just going to upload the sheets in a different format.

 

I tried to make both characters reasonably parallel in things that aren't easy to compare (like, they have the same amount of rPD, neither of them have limitations like Focus, etc) because I wanted to keep the comparison "on topic."

 

Also, note that Weapon Zed has more variety of attacks than he really honestly needs, this is because I wanted to make it clear that the problem is not one particular advantage. IE, fixing DOT but leaving everything else alone, he could be fine with the rest of his attack powers. Also, if he had more points, he would probably want more DMCV, but as it stands he's not actually worse than Kung Fu Giant in that area anyways.

 

EDIT: Okay, I attached PDFs. Does anyone know the right way to get a character sheet to display inline? I tried the one advertised as good for copying to the HERO boards, but it seems to need HTML and I can't figure out how to turn HTML on.

 

Weapon Zed: A product of the Canadian super soldier program during World War II, Weapon Zed was originally intended to be a soldier without free will used to hunt down and defeat enemy superhumans. Exposure to the politeness of Canadian citizens and their remarkably clean cities made him spontaneously develop a soul and free will. Now he wanders around righting wrongs as a superhero.

 

Quotes: "For peace, order, and good government!"

"I'm the best at what I do, and what I do is encourage superhumans to use their powers responsibly as members of the global community."

 

Percentile Effectiveness:

Damage 41.66% (5 DC)

Defenses 88.33% (53 AP)

SPD 100% (6 SPD)

OCV 50% (6 OCV)

DCV 91.66% (11 DCV)

 

(He's at all the caps, except that his DMCV is lower than his DCV as mentioned above).

 

Kung Fu Giant: He's a kung-fu master from a secret monastery. He's also a superhuman who can grow to four times his normal height. Kung Fu Giant was sent to America to help American heroes combat the sinister Dark Dragon Society abroad.

 

Quotes: "Tree Falls On Squirrel Technique!"

 

Percentile Effectiveness:

 

Assignments:

Damage 100% (60 AP) [sTR 10 + 30 STR while grown + 4d6 from Offensive Strike]

DEF 66.66% (40 AP) [While grown]

SPD 66.66% (40 AP = 4 SPD)

OCV 66.66% (40 AP = 8 OCV) [Martial Block with levels on OCV]

DCV 75% (40 AP = 9 DCV) [Defensive strike with levels on DCV while not grown]

 

He's also at all the caps. I noted how above.

 

 

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]37246[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]37247[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]37244[/ATTACH][ATTACH]37245[/ATTACH]

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

I stand corrected on DoT as affecting Damage Classes' date=' but only because it directly affects the target's defenses in that particular case. It also seems to take more than just Active Points to determine the DC's of such an example though - DoT is different. It seems that you should properly multiply the base damage by the number of damage increments to get the true DCs of a DoT attack.[/quote']

 

Here, I also disagree. An attack that can inflict 12d6 damage instantly is more powerful than an attack that can inflict 12d6 over the course of a turn. And I note the example power was restricted in requiring the full time period to elapse before the target could be affected again, so the user of the DoT attack can't just keep piling additional damage on every phase.

 

Imagine that same DoT attack except that the targets' DEF do apply at every increment though. The power is instantly neutered and utterly effete (until you apply Penetrating like the book suggests' date=' but then it becomes an even bigger clusterfuss to figure out its DCs). The more I look at it, the more that DoT is an exception that requires a little more eyeballing than others. It's kinda like Autofire, except that Autofire is not guaranteed every hit and each shot is affected by the target's defenses.[/quote']

 

An Autofire AVAD or DoT AVAD has similar effects without needing "defenses only apply once". And, since Autofire is not a DC affecting advantage in your system, the extra +1 for attacks that bypass normal defenses appears to also have no impact on damage classes. Having a 12d6, 3 shot autofire attack may well be more effective than having a 15d6 attack, especially if the character uses the 3 DC reduction under your system to bump his OCV up 3 - he will now hit with 2 shots on any roll the 15d6 attacker would connect with at all. Against a target with 31 or less defenses, 2 hits of 12d6 will inflict more damage than a single 15d6 hit.

 

This begs a question though: what do my opinions on Damage Classes have to do with my proposed percentile method? What would be different about this method if my DC philosophies were different?

 

Selection of certain attack types would not permit the character to exceed campaign norms in non-attack areas.

 

No. If your maximum damage will be 15 DCs' date=' then you must allocate for that. It doesn't matter how you get there. If your maximum DEF AP are at 75, then they must allocate for that, it doesn't matter how you get there. It's all done at character creation. If you allocated to 50 max DEF AP, it will never [b']re[/b]allocate to 75 AP during gameplay, because your character was designed to reflect that limit at best. If you allocated to have 15 DCs, then you'll never reallocate to 10 or whatever because your character was designed to reflect being capable of using 15 DCs.

 

So who is more powerful, a character who has a 15d6 attack and, at the same time, 35/35 defenses, or a character who has a 9d6 attack and 20/20 defenses, and can add up to 6d6 to his attack, or up to 15/15 defenses, but must pro rate between the two? I would suggest the first character is more powerful, but your system places both as equal. Why is a Multipower (say) of attacks and defenses assumed to have maximum power to both abilities at the same time when, from your comments above, a multipower with nothing but defenses is assumed to have only its maximum total point allocation active at any one time?

 

A character with a static max attack and defense only has an arguable edge against the flexible/compartmentalized character because he deserves it - he paid more for it. The more flexible character can shift what he has in the first place though' date=' and he probably has more utility in any given situation- that's [i']his[/i] reward for saving points and being built the way he is.

 

The flexible character described above does not have more utility in any situation - he can only match (never exceed) the damage done by StaticMan, and he can only match (never exceed) the defenses possessed by StaticMan. If point spending is sufficient to provide balance, why is your system needed at all?

 

It would be the same predicament in a straight Active Point limit system though. I fail to see how this is a unique predicament to the proposed method.

 

The fact that there are other systems which also have problems (and which I don't use for that reason) doesn't reduce the problems with your proposed method. It just means other proposals could be worse.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

Defenses normally do apply to each application of Damage Over Time. That option is very much GM-option territory and should always be looked at very carefully.

 

While I agree, isn't the point of a system such as that proposed to reduce the need to carefully review the characters by having a formula that imposes better character balance?

[The Main Man]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

While I agree' date=' isn't the point of a system such as that proposed to reduce the need to carefully review the characters by having a formula that imposes better character balance?[/quote']

 

If you read the first post, the point is to hit a sweet spot between effectiveness ceilings and Rules of X. Rules of X in most any fashion require careful scrutiny. I guess I made the mistake in thinking that it was implied.

 

Furthermore, the reason that there is a maximum Active Point level and then a percentile limit is so that there's wiggle room for PCs to establish niches between themselves instead of wallowing in homogenization. Technically speaking, any campaign that just imposes a straight Active Point limit is using a 100% rule.

[The Main Man]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

Here' date=' I also disagree. An attack that can inflict 12d6 damage instantly is more powerful than an attack that can inflict 12d6 over the course of a turn. And I note the example power was restricted in requiring the full time period to elapse before the target could be affected again, so the user of the DoT attack can't just keep piling additional damage on every phase.[/quote']

True, and that was my initial thoughts as to why it might not be *as* bad, since the guy can only apply it once at a time, but I don't think that it automatically makes DoT a moot point in any method of effectiveness.

 

An Autofire AVAD or DoT AVAD has similar effects without needing "defenses only apply once". And, since Autofire is not a DC affecting advantage in your system, the extra +1 for attacks that bypass normal defenses appears to also have no impact on damage classes. Having a 12d6, 3 shot autofire attack may well be more effective than having a 15d6 attack, especially if the character uses the 3 DC reduction under your system to bump his OCV up 3 - he will now hit with 2 shots on any roll the 15d6 attacker would connect with at all. Against a target with 31 or less defenses, 2 hits of 12d6 will inflict more damage than a single 15d6 hit.

OTOH, I still have a maximum AP limit. That +1 Autofire surcharge still costs points.

 

So who is more powerful, a character who has a 15d6 attack and, at the same time, 35/35 defenses, or a character who has a 9d6 attack and 20/20 defenses, and can add up to 6d6 to his attack, or up to 15/15 defenses, but must pro rate between the two? I would suggest the first character is more powerful, but your system places both as equal. Why is a Multipower (say) of attacks and defenses assumed to have maximum power to both abilities at the same time when, from your comments above, a multipower with nothing but defenses is assumed to have only its maximum total point allocation active at any one time?

Not every tool is right for a job. The 15d6 guy is good when his attack is needed, but 9d6 +6d6 guy was presumably designed to be able to shift to alternate attacks because he saved the points to be more flexible. That or, in your examples case, maybe he'd be poorly designed even if the game was set to 100%.

 

 

The flexible character described above does not have more utility in any situation - he can only match (never exceed) the damage done by StaticMan, and he can only match (never exceed) the defenses possessed by StaticMan. If point spending is sufficient to provide balance, why is your system needed at all?

 

1) Because you must consider both at the same time. Again, why is it that a guy who divides his attacks only a phenomenon because of this proposed method? Are you implying that it could never happen if I just used straight Active Point limits? Might the "flexible character" example you gave actually have other slots to switch between, or are you setting up a divided character as a poor strawman?

 

Straight up guy buys the attacks and defenses he wants, and that's all he ever has. Flexible guy can change to fit the situation. Evidently, Multipowers and VPPs aren't such a hot idea as this thread seems to imply.

 

2) It's a way to get player so consider niches. I guess it's not a method for people who don't like 'em. That's not to say that the converse is automatically true either - that it is for someone who likes niches, but for someone who likes niches, this may be a method to experiment with.

 

 

The fact that there are other systems which also have problems (and which I don't use for that reason) doesn't reduce the problems with your proposed method. It just means other proposals could be worse.

That's why "rule of thumb" is a key phrase. I don't see how my Attack and Defense philosophies couldn't happen under completely laisseze-faire HERO rules. To imply that I concocted this method so that I could sit back and not have to look at my player's character proposals is a bold and false assertion.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

Any "Rule of X" which worked for absolutely all cases would simply prove that we have a game system that is way to rigid and stagnant. I wouldn't want Hero to turn into that, ever.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

One of the problems with using a 'rule of X' is that they invariably measure combat effectiveness when what we really need is something to help quantify a character's story effectiveness.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

One of the problems with using a 'rule of X' is that they invariably measure combat effectiveness when what we really need is something to help quantify a character's story effectiveness.

Good point! I agree. Unfortunately it can be incredibly cheap and easy to build a character who can easily overcome many, many non-combat challenges, and it can depend a great deal on the particular game and setting being run.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Effectiveness Based on Percentiles

 

OTOH' date=' I still have a maximum AP limit. That +1 Autofire surcharge still costs points.[/quote']

 

It costs points, but not including it in DC's frees the character up to be more effective in other areas. Presumably, you would not need the percentage limits and tradeoffs unless the characters were capable of hitting, and exceeding, the maxima if you had no further limits.

 

Not every tool is right for a job. The 15d6 guy is good when his attack is needed' date=' but 9d6 +6d6 guy was presumably designed to be able to shift to alternate attacks because he saved the points to be more flexible. That or, in your examples case, maybe he'd be poorly designed even if the game was set to 100%.[/quote']

 

Nothing stops 15d6 guy from having a suite of 15 DC attacks in a Multipower, does it? He can be just as flexible by spending a few more points, regardless of your settings. For myself, I generally look at the variety of attacks a character has available, and I might allow a one trick pony to have more DC's. Your system does not seem to measure flexibility, but only maximum power levels in each area. A character with a single 15 DC attack is measured the same for DC's as a character with several 15 DC attacks, unless I have missed something. And the character with several 15 DC attacks is measured the same as one with a single 15 DC attacks and a suite of lower powered attacks.

 

1) Because you must consider both at the same time. Again' date=' why is it that a guy who divides his attacks only a phenomenon because of this proposed method? Are you implying that it could never happen if I just used straight Active Point limits? Might the "flexible character" example you gave actually have other slots to switch between, or are you setting up a divided character as a poor strawman?[/quote']

 

In order to demonstrate to me that your system, which requires more work, is a good idea, you will need to show me not that it is no worse than an AP cap, but that it is actually superior. And both 15 DC Man and Flexible Guy could have a suite of alternatives without changing their measurement under your system, so that possibility doesn't change anything.

 

Straight up guy buys the attacks and defenses he wants' date=' and that's all he ever has. Flexible guy can change to fit the situation. Evidently, Multipowers and VPPs aren't such a hot idea as this thread seems to imply.[/quote']

 

Flexible Guy can match either the attack or the defense of straight up guy - he cannot match both. Yet they are both capped at the same CV's, the same SPD, etc. Flexible Guy cannot match Straight up guy's DC's and defenses simultaneously, yet he is still prohibited from enhancing his CV's or his SPD to be better than Straight Up Guy in those categories. Straight Up Guy can do anything Flexible Guy can do, and gets to do some things better. So where is Flexible Guy's niche? Comic relief sidekick?

 

It seems that characters who trade off within categories (eg. a Multipower of attacks and a Multipower of defenses) have the advantage over characters who trade off between categories (eg. a multipower with both attack and defense slots, or combat levels allowing selection between OCV, DCV or damage classes).