Setting Campaign Limits

[GeekySpaz]

So I'm starting a new campaign soon that is an adaptation of White-Wolf's Exalted into HERO 6E. I've sat down with most of my players and started building their characters and we've even completed a couple of them. But I'm not all that thrilled with either of the characters we've come up with. The character concepts are fine but the final builds are leaving me a bit troubled. One character is a bit of a glass cannon and the other is a reasonably efficient tank. A couple of my players, the owner of my local game store, and I sat down and hashed out a set of limits on characteristics and power that at first I liked but as I see characters taking form I'm less happy with. I would like a set of limits similar to what I used, to good effect, in the last champions game I ran which was a 5ER game. I'm having trouble adapting those ideas to 6E and to the power level of the game I'm developing. The champions game was a low powered superheroic game while I planned on making this one a standard superheroic game. A big part of the problem I'm having adapting the previous limits I used for my champions game is the removal of figured characteristics from 6E. Under 5E it was easier to set effective limits on the figured characteristics based on what the limits on the primary characteristics are. In 6E it doesn't seem to be quite so strait forward.

 

In a bit I'll post the specifics on what I used in my champions game and on what we came up with initially for this game. I have some other things to do first.

 

Any advice people have would be appreciated.

[GeekySpaz]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

So for the champions game I ran, began it in Oct 2007, ended in Feb 2010, the limits I established were as follows:

 

Characters were built on 150 pts with 100 pts of disadvantages. The primary characteristics were capped at 20, but each character could buy 2 of them up to 25 and one more up to 30.

 

The figured characteristics were capped as follows:

PD/ED 10(12), SPD 4(6), REC 11(12), END 60(80), and STUN 56(75).

Any of the figured characteristics could be purchased up to the value outside of the parentheses. One characteristic could be purchased up to the value in the parentheses.

 

Resistant defenses were capped at 12. Powers were capped at 50 base points (before advantages or disadvantages) and 80 AP.

 

For each 50 xp each character earned the caps on the primary characteristics went up by 5, the base point cap on powers went up by 10 and the AP cap on powers went up by 15. I also had a system for how the figured characteristic caps went up but its a bit long to post here.

[GeekySpaz]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

The system my group and the local game store owner helped me come up with is a bit more complicated. The 17 characteristics, and 4 defenses, were broken down into categories as follows:

 

Characteristic; (High/Middle/Low); Selections

Category 1:

STR,DEX,CON,INT,EGO,PRE,BODY; (35/30/25); 1 high, 2 middle, 4 low

 

Category 2:

OCV,DCV,OMCV,DMCV; (12/8/6); 1 high, 1 middle, 2 low

 

Category 3:

SPD; (6/4/3)

REC; (16/12/8)

STUN; (100/80/50); 1 high, 1 middle, 1 low

 

Category 4:

PD, ED; (16/12/8)

END; (70/50/30); 1 high, 1 middle, 1 low

 

Category 5:

Flash Def, Power Def, rPD, rED (16/12/8); 1 high, 1 middle, 2 low

 

I have this all laid out in a nice table in office but I can't figure out how to post that here.

 

A character sets the cap that they may buy the characteristic, or defense up to, by choosing high, middle or low. Within each category each a number of high middle and low choices are available indicated by the letters in the far right column. For example H-M-L-L means one high, one medium, and two low selections.

 

The defenses do not include mental defense. The store owner recommended eliminating mental defense seeing it as a cheap way to get around the cap on EGO. Upon further reflection I don't really think I agree with him on that one.

 

In addition to the above powers are capped at 60 AP and attacks are capped at 21 DC.

 

I'm not really happy with this set of limits. But I can't really put my finger on exactly what's troubling me about it. I like what I've done with the basic 7 characteristics but the others I'd like to put more of a "Rule of X" type limit on them.

 

My general objectives are this:

Each character should be able to be better than the others in at least one area and those areas should not overlap much between characters. No character should be able to outpace the other characters by too much even in their specialty areas (how much is too much? I don't know). Caps on powers and characteristics should increase as character's earn experience.

 

One of my concerns is that once I establish my limits on characteristics and powers, that each character will buy the abilities they care about most up to those caps (not a problem yet) but then as they earn experience and can't raise those abilities further they will go back and fill in the gaps until all the characters start to look alike. So I want to preserve each characters ability to better than the others within a narrow scope of specialty while not allowing any character to become over-specialized. No glass cannons, and no nerf packing tanks.

[Tasha]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

IMHO you might be over-thinking this somewhat. For 6e you could take your 5e power levels and add like 25 pts (175 pts total inc 50pts of Complications) and your 6e characters will be close to the same powerlevel as the 5e game you played in.

 

With the limited amount of points, your players won't have the points to max out everything. They have to find points to have decent Characteristics, a smattering of skills (for when they aren't beating villians into a pulp), and an Attack (or attacks), enough defences to not be a glass cannon, and enough movement that they aren't running around like a normal schlub.

 

What I always do for my Players is to document what the Campaign average is for Dex, SPD, Damage Class (ie how many normal dice of damage an average attack does), OCV and DCV. Knowing those average values, I can figure out where my character's power needs to be to be competitive (ie to do enough damage to help, and have enough defense to take a few hits).

 

I talked a bit about how to create competitive characters in this buried thread.

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/82091-My-character-building-technique-(How-to-build-Hero-System-Characters)?p=2077452#post2077452

 

Once you understand how everything relates you can gauge character power better.

 

Also it's perfectly in genre to have more than one kind of character. In a perfect world you would have a Brick, Martial Artist, Energy Projector, Controller/Setup Person. Typically you will end up a bunch of energy projectors and not much else. As long as the PCs have different Special effects, it has never been an issue with having more than one of a type. Usually, players approach a character type in such a different way that

 

Now for a Champions game you are playing a fairly low powered game. You will find that things published for 5e and 6e will overpower your poor PCs. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's good to be aware of it before a published Villain stops your PCs into putty.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

Good advice from Tasha there. The problem with HERO is that you have so many things to alter that you feel the need to include them all in your guidance.

 

If you focus down to the need for offence, defence, movement and skills then you can set a few guides for each of these. Tell them what is poor, sub-standard, average, good, superb for each of these categories and tell them that they need to have, for example no more than one area as poor or two areas as sub-standard.

 

It keeps the guidance simple and will not scare the horses. The problem with many games is that you feel you need to be a financial lawyer before you can even understand what the rules about the rules are!

 

 

Doc

[ghost-angel]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

Use the same guidelines for maximums as alwats and the suggested 6E character point totals. You shouldn't have any issues.

[GeekySpaz]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

IMHO you might be over-thinking this somewhat.

 

I'm an engineer. I tend to do that. My instincts are to try and establish limits based on some sort of consistent formula so that none of the limits seem too arbitrary. Though this may be one of those times were an empirical approach is better, and I base things on the experience of those more experienced in the HERO system than I am. But it is a hard habit to break.

[Ice9]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

A couple things I noticed:

Category 3:

SPD; (6/4/3)

REC; (16/12/8)

STUN; (100/80/50); 1 high, 1 middle, 1 low

SPD is just the best one here, by far. Somebody may choose to be slow for concept reasons, but there's no mechanical reason not to take SPD as your "high" pick.

 

PD, ED; (16/12/8)

With 60 AP / 12 DC attacks (I'm assuming 21 DC was a typo), these are very low defenses. Somebody trying to be a Brick (picks high for DEF & STUN), is still going down in four normal attacks, or potentially two Autofire attacks (and incidentally, the low DEF makes Autofire very good and Armor Piercing somewhat useless). Somebody who picked "low" in DEF and STUN could go down in one lucky shot, and will be taking BODY from most attacks - which means either mandatory Regeneration or long stays in the hospital.

 

Speaking of Bricks, the 35-point cap on Strength rather conflicts with the 12 DC attack limit; you can't be a pure-Strength brawler?

 

 

 

What I usually do is start with some sort of "Average Hero", like this:

 

Average Man

SPD 5, Initiative 20

OCV 8, DCV 8, MCV 8 (the higher of MOCV/MDCV)

DEF 25, rDEF 15, STUN 70, REC 15

Standard Attack: 12 DC

Difficult Attack: 15 DC (Note: few uses a day, non-trivial side effects, extra phase to fire, something like that).

Presence Attack: 6d6

 

And then set the rule as "For every area you're above this, you should be below it in another".

If you want a formula, then base it off the Active Points or % Change, whichever is more. So for instance, if you want SPD 6 (+10p / 20%), then you can balance that with DEF 20 (-10p / -20%), or STUN 50 (-10p / -29%).

If you're worried about glass cannons, then set a maximum change limit.

 

You'll note there's a lot of things I don't factor into this:

Primary Stats: STR, DEX, and PRE are indirectly limited by their effects. Other than that ... spending massive points on CON or BODY still won't make you invulnerable to KO (how 90%+ of fights are decided), and super-high EGO may be useful, but it's also expensive.

END: Super-high END has never been a balance problem in any campaign I've even heard about. And low END is too easily bypassed to be a compensating factor for other high values.

Flash / Power / Mental Defense: These are expensive enough that people won't be throwing in points for the heck of it, and if someone really wants to be "The Unflashable Man" - I don't have a problem with that.

[GeekySpaz]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

A couple things I noticed:

SPD is just the best one here, by far. Somebody may choose to be slow for concept reasons, but there's no mechanical reason not to take SPD as your "high" pick.

 

With 60 AP / 12 DC attacks (I'm assuming 21 DC was a typo), these are very low defenses. Somebody trying to be a Brick (picks high for DEF & STUN), is still going down in four normal attacks, or potentially two Autofire attacks (and incidentally, the low DEF makes Autofire very good and Armor Piercing somewhat useless). Somebody who picked "low" in DEF and STUN could go down in one lucky shot, and will be taking BODY from most attacks - which means either mandatory Regeneration or long stays in the hospital.

 

Speaking of Bricks, the 35-point cap on Strength rather conflicts with the 12 DC attack limit; you can't be a pure-Strength brawler?

 

Actually the 21 was not a typo which just makes your point all the more valid. The guy who's helping me with this played in a HERO game a few years ago that used a house rule that he has strongly encouraged me to use that I completely disagree with but I think explains his preference for high DC low DEF games. In that game killing attacks were generally favored (more by concept than by mechanics I think). They implemented a house rule where the stun multiplier only applied to body damage after defenses were applied. So the body of the killing attack had to exceed the defense of the target in order to do any damage. This made defenses much more effective in their game. I also think it tends to diminish killing attacks when compared to normal attacks when it comes to how quickly you can remove a target from combat.

 

So with that in mind I'll probably have to reduce the max DC of the campaign. I tend to aim for around a 1:1 ratio between DC and rDEF, which many may consider too low as well. More on my thought process on that later.

 

What I usually do is start with some sort of "Average Hero", like this:

 

Average Man

SPD 5, Initiative 20

OCV 8, DCV 8, MCV 8 (the higher of MOCV/MDCV)

DEF 25, rDEF 15, STUN 70, REC 15

Standard Attack: 12 DC

Difficult Attack: 15 DC (Note: few uses a day, non-trivial side effects, extra phase to fire, something like that).

Presence Attack: 6d6

 

And then set the rule as "For every area you're above this, you should be below it in another".

If you want a formula, then base it off the Active Points or % Change, whichever is more. So for instance, if you want SPD 6 (+10p / 20%), then you can balance that with DEF 20 (-10p / -20%), or STUN 50 (-10p / -29%).

If you're worried about glass cannons, then set a maximum change limit.

 

I actually really like the idea you have there. So are Average Man's stats actual the campaign averages or more of a suggested ceiling?

 

You'll note there's a lot of things I don't factor into this:

Primary Stats: STR, DEX, and PRE are indirectly limited by their effects. Other than that ... spending massive points on CON or BODY still won't make you invulnerable to KO (how 90%+ of fights are decided), and super-high EGO may be useful, but it's also expensive.

END: Super-high END has never been a balance problem in any campaign I've even heard about. And low END is too easily bypassed to be a compensating factor for other high values.

Flash / Power / Mental Defense: These are expensive enough that people won't be throwing in points for the heck of it, and if someone really wants to be "The Unflashable Man" - I don't have a problem with that.

 

I generally like to tweak my combat rules such that KOs are not the norm unless I'm running an actual champions game. The main tool I use for this is to count resistant defenses twice against STUN damage. That tends to really increase the BODY:STUN ratio, especially for killing attacks, and tends to make the bad guys go down dead or dying more than KO'd.

 

END will play more of a role in this game than in most HERO games I think. END is a very important concept in Exalted (representing Essence) and players need to know to use it sparingly. I've ruled that for the most part reduced END is not allowed for any powers the characters purchase, which makes END a very valuable commodity.

 

As a GM I've always considered Flash attacks one of my favorite tools to make the PCs lives exciting, partly because nobody ever seems to take flash defense . I saw listing it up front in this way as a good way to hint to the players that they might not want to overlook it this time .

[ghost-angel]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

One thing to keep in mind: KAs in 6E use a much lower Stun Multiplier than before - I recommend playing with that first and seeing if it doesn't fit better with your preferences for DCs to Defenses ratio

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

SPD is just the best one here' date=' by far. Somebody may choose to be slow for concept reasons, but there's no mechanical reason not to take SPD as your "high" pick.[/quote']

 

I can't see a lot of characters choosing SPD 4 to bump their STUN or REC, and I don't envision anyone choosing SPD 3. The REC spread is such that I'd be inclined to take more defenses/DCV, more STUN and more END or reduced END.

 

With 60 AP / 12 DC attacks (I'm assuming 21 DC was a typo)' date=' these are very low defenses. Somebody trying to be a Brick (picks high for DEF & STUN), is still going down in four normal attacks, or potentially [i']two[/i] Autofire attacks (and incidentally, the low DEF makes Autofire very good and Armor Piercing somewhat useless). Somebody who picked "low" in DEF and STUN could go down in one lucky shot, and will be taking BODY from most attacks - which means either mandatory Regeneration or long stays in the hospital.

 

Those numbers (even with 12 DC) suggest stunned targets will be the norm. With a 20 or 25 CON and 16 defenses, the average 12d6 normal attack will stun the target. How many characters will choose CON as their sole 30 point stat? Well, only those who want to take a hit without being stunned, I suppose.

 

Speaking of Bricks' date=' the 35-point cap on Strength rather conflicts with the 12 DC attack limit; you can't be a pure-Strength brawler?[/quote']

 

In setting any caps or guidelines, I'm much more inclined to cap total PD/ED, rPD/rED, SPD, OCV, DCV, DC's and perhaps movement than to cap specific characteristics. Then again, I'm more a fan of viewing the character as a whole than making individual caps.

 

What I usually do is start with some sort of "Average Hero", like this:

 

Average Man

SPD 5, Initiative 20

OCV 8, DCV 8, MCV 8 (the higher of MOCV/MDCV)

DEF 25, rDEF 15, STUN 70, REC 15

Standard Attack: 12 DC

Difficult Attack: 15 DC (Note: few uses a day, non-trivial side effects, extra phase to fire, something like that).

Presence Attack: 6d6

 

And then set the rule as "For every area you're above this, you should be below it in another".

 

I also like to set typical ranges - eg. 5 is the normal SPD, maybe 4 and 6 are uncommon and 7 is rare, with higher SPD's not available and lower SPD's not recommended.

 

Actually the 21 was not a typo which just makes your point all the more valid. The guy who's helping me with this played in a HERO game a few years ago that used a house rule that he has strongly encouraged me to use that I completely disagree with but I think explains his preference for high DC low DEF games. In that game killing attacks were generally favored (more by concept than by mechanics I think). They implemented a house rule where the stun multiplier only applied to body damage after defenses were applied. So the body of the killing attack had to exceed the defense of the target in order to do any damage. This made defenses much more effective in their game. I also think it tends to diminish killing attacks when compared to normal attacks when it comes to how quickly you can remove a target from combat.

 

It makes defenses more effective only if they are resistant (to stop the KA BOD), and only against killing attacks. As has been noted, KA's see an overall stun multiple reduction in 6e. To my mind, if you want to discourage killing attacks, do so. Prohibit them, at the extreme. Require they take "-2 Stun Multiple" so the lottery goes away and KA's become attacks to inflict BOD, not STUN. Or just use the 6e rules, which render KA's pretty useless in a game where significant resistant defenses are commonplace.

 

So with that in mind I'll probably have to reduce the max DC of the campaign. I tend to aim for around a 1:1 ratio between DC and rDEF' date=' which many may consider too low as well. More on my thought process on that later.[/quote']

 

At that ratio, a killing attack with an average roll will slip through half a BOD per 3 DC's. Taking BOD from killing attacks will be reasonably common, so they will be at least a threat to the life of the target. If that's the effect you want, I think there's nothing wrong with that ratio (I'd be looking for a character concept that includes Regeneration, myself, especially if KA's are common). Characters can always have additional nonresistant defenses to avoid easy knockouts.

 

I generally like to tweak my combat rules such that KOs are not the norm unless I'm running an actual champions game. The main tool I use for this is to count resistant defenses twice against STUN damage. That tends to really increase the BODY:STUN ratio' date=' especially for killing attacks, and tends to make the bad guys go down dead or dying more than KO'd.[/quote']

 

Rather than tweak counting of defenses, why not just require characters to have no more than half their defenses be resistant? Your preference for a high body count supports your DC to rDEF ratio - sounds like you have a pretty reasonable structure for the type of game you want to create.

 

END will play more of a role in this game than in most HERO games I think. END is a very important concept in Exalted (representing Essence) and players need to know to use it sparingly. I've ruled that for the most part reduced END is not allowed for any powers the characters purchase' date=' which makes END a very valuable commodity.[/quote']

 

You may want to consider the long term END rules, which can have a high impact on rapid use of END.

 

As a GM I've always considered Flash attacks one of my favorite tools to make the PCs lives exciting' date=' partly because nobody ever seems to take flash defense . I saw listing it up front in this way as a good way to hint to the players that they might not want to overlook it this time .[/quote']

 

I find Flash can be very effective, but can also be very frustrating for characters who are blinded for extended periods. Makes things like Radar, Targeting hearing, etc. much more popular, as these are a very effective substitute for flash defense.

[GeekySpaz]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

One thing to keep in mind: KAs in 6E use a much lower Stun Multiplier than before - I recommend playing with that first and seeing if it doesn't fit better with your preferences for DCs to Defenses ratio

 

I came up with that one when the STUN multiplier was still 1d6-1.

 

I tried an experiment last night with the 1/2d6 6E stun multiplier and found that attacks usually do less STUN than body with my rule such that the character takes a point of STUN for every body because that's the minimum. So with the current stun multiplier that rule may not work as well as it used to. However I still think its appropriate for normal attacks that do 3.5 STUN per BODY on average. So a better rule might be double resistant defenses against the STUN of normal damage attacks.

[GeekySpaz]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

I can't see a lot of characters choosing SPD 4 to bump their STUN or REC, and I don't envision anyone choosing SPD 3. The REC spread is such that I'd be inclined to take more defenses/DCV, more STUN and more END or reduced END.

*

 

 

Yeah I need to rethink that grouping assuming I even stick with that concept at all. SPD needs to be grouped with something more important. Ideally I'd like to more emphasize that characters shouldn't be so stingy when it comes to REC but to do that it would be better to group it with other stats that aren't that important.

 

 

 

Those numbers (even with 12 DC) suggest stunned targets will be the norm. With a 20 or 25 CON and 16 defenses, the average 12d6 normal attack will stun the target. How many characters will choose CON as their sole 30 point stat? Well, only those who want to take a hit without being stunned, I suppose.

 

If I went with the rule that resistant defenses count twice against the stun of normal attacks then a character who choose 12 def and 12 rdef would get 36 points against STUN. If the average 12d6 attack does 42 STUN then even an average character with 10 CON could take an average hit without being stunned. If the attack were a 12 DC KA (4d6 KA) then it would do an average of 14 BODY 28 STUN so the same character would take 4 STUN and 2 BODY. I think that works pretty well at a first pass.

 

 

My thought is count defenses normally against killing attacks and count rDEF twice against the STUN of normal attacks.

 

 

 

In setting any caps or guidelines, I'm much more inclined to cap total PD/ED, rPD/rED, SPD, OCV, DCV, DC's and perhaps movement than to cap specific characteristics. Then again, I'm more a fan of viewing the character as a whole than making individual caps.

 

 

 

I also like to set typical ranges - eg. 5 is the normal SPD, maybe 4 and 6 are uncommon and 7 is rare, with higher SPD's not available and lower SPD's not recommended.

 

 

 

It makes defenses more effective only if they are resistant (to stop the KA BOD), and only against killing attacks. As has been noted, KA's see an overall stun multiple reduction in 6e. To my mind, if you want to discourage killing attacks, do so. Prohibit them, at the extreme. Require they take "-2 Stun Multiple" so the lottery goes away and KA's become attacks to inflict BOD, not STUN. Or just use the 6e rules, which render KA's pretty useless in a game where significant resistant defenses are commonplace.

 

I actually would prefer the opposite. Killing attacks should be the norm. This campaign is intended as a superheroic power level but a fantasy theme. Combat should therefore have an edge to it.

 

 

 

At that ratio, a killing attack with an average roll will slip through half a BOD per 3 DC's. Taking BOD from killing attacks will be reasonably common, so they will be at least a threat to the life of the target. If that's the effect you want, I think there's nothing wrong with that ratio (I'd be looking for a character concept that includes Regeneration, myself, especially if KA's are common). Characters can always have additional nonresistant defenses to avoid easy knockouts.

 

To fit with the Exalted theme (where the PCs tend to heal fully from all but the most severe of wounds) I had intended to make sure every PC had some minimal amount of regen even if that meant making it an everyman ability for the PCs (since so far nobody's bought it).

Rather than tweak counting of defenses, why not just require characters to have no more than half their defenses be resistant? Your preference for a high body count supports your DC to rDEF ratio - sounds like you have a pretty reasonable structure for the type of game you want to create.

 

If I go with what I described above and left killing attacks alone I think that would get to the balance I'd like. But I haven't considered every angle yet.

 

I find Flash can be very effective, but can also be very frustrating for characters who are blinded for extended periods. Makes things like Radar, Targeting hearing, etc. much more popular, as these are a very effective substitute for flash defense.

 

Its just more a matter of drawing their attention to it. It gives them the hint that I'm likely to throw flash attacks at them from time to time (which I will ) so they don't want to ignore them completely.

[GeekySpaz]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

So as one guideline for overall attack power what about a rule of X, something like this (I haven't fully thought this through, I'm just throwing it out there so please be gentle ):

 

There are 5 general categories of attack: physical, energy, mental, flash, and power (I don't think I'm missing any, am I?). For each of them the rule of X is that the most powerful attack in that category + the resistant defense in that category must = 28 or less. In addition the two most powerful categories (such as physical and energy for most characters) must add to 48 or less. The three remaining categories have a rule of x of 16. In all cases the absolute Maximum rDEF is 16. Absolute Maximum attack is 16 DC.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

I came up with that one when the STUN multiplier was still 1d6-1.

 

I tried an experiment last night with the 1/2d6 6E stun multiplier and found that attacks usually do less STUN than body with my rule such that the character takes a point of STUN for every body because that's the minimum. So with the current stun multiplier that rule may not work as well as it used to. However I still think its appropriate for normal attacks that do 3.5 STUN per BODY on average. So a better rule might be double resistant defenses against the STUN of normal damage attacks.

 

I don't see much point buying normal defenses rather than resistant defenses in this case. Let's say I have a base 6 PD, non-resistant. +15 PD subtracts 15 from STUN damage of normal and killing attacks, and nothing from the BOD of killing attacks, at a cost of 15 points. For the same price, I can buy +10 rPD, reduce the BOD and STUN of KA's by 10 and reduce STUN from normal attacks by 20.

 

Against a 12d6 normal attack, on average, I take 21 STUN, 0 BOD or 16 STUN, 0 BOD. Against a 4d6 KA, I take an average of 7 STUN and 14 BOD or 12 STUN and 4 BOD.

 

Against normal attacks, I take less STUN with rDEF. Against killing attacks, rDEF will keep me alive - the reduced STUN damage won't matter since I'll be dead long before I get KO'd.

[GeekySpaz]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

When using an CV cap, how do people handle combat skill levels? Do they count towards the cap on CV or can characters use CSLs to exceed the caps for a limited range of attacks?

 

For my campaign I would ideally like to encourage all characters to take some CSLs. I like the flexibility that they offer, so that a character can, from phase to phase, focus more on offense, defense or damage. I haven't noticed too many of my players buying them, preferring to raise their base CVs. One idea I have would be to put one cap on base CV and another cap on total CV including base CV+CSL+Martial Maneuvers, but excluding other situational modifiers. But I'm struggling to determine specifics or come up with a better approach.

[Ice9]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

Side Note: The quoting on this thread is getting confusing - post #13 is quoting Hugh as me, and I'm not sure if some of Hugh's responses were to me or the OP.

 

On topic:

With the campaign parameters you're using, it probably would be worthwhile to factor END and BODY in. Still not sure you need CON though - if anything, the greater BODY:STUN damage ratio makes stunning unlikely.

For CSLs, it depends how much you want to encourage them:

 

Option 1: CSLs count toward caps as if they were evenly distributed. For instance, someone with 6 CSLs, OCV 6, DCV 6, and an 11 DC attack counts as OCV 8, DCV 8, 12 DCs for cap purposes. But on a round to round basis, they could go as high as 12 OCV, 12 DCV, or 14 DCs. With this option, I think people will get as many CSLs as they can afford - CSLs are more expensive, but they offer strictly superior versatility.

 

Option 2: CSLs count as 50% toward caps. So 4 CSLs count as +2 OCV / +2 DCV / +1 DC. In this case, there's a trade-off separate from price - someone with CSLs will be able to exceed the cap in one area, but will be inferior when evenly distributed. With this option, it'll still be worth getting some CSLs (especially for more defensive characters), but probably not a large number of them.

 

Option 3: Separate caps. In this case, it's advantageous to buy CSLs up to the cap difference, or (if the difference is large) at least as many as you can afford. So if the cap is OCV/DCV 8 (10 with CSLs), then 2 CSLs is a solid buy.

 

NOTE: I'm talking about the use of 5+ point CSLs for versatility. Single-weapon specialist types can still benefit from 2-3 point CSLs even with no cap increase.

[GeekySpaz]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

I don't see much point buying normal defenses rather than resistant defenses in this case. Let's say I have a base 6 PD, non-resistant. +15 PD subtracts 15 from STUN damage of normal and killing attacks, and nothing from the BOD of killing attacks, at a cost of 15 points. For the same price, I can buy +10 rPD, reduce the BOD and STUN of KA's by 10 and reduce STUN from normal attacks by 20.

 

Against a 12d6 normal attack, on average, I take 21 STUN, 0 BOD or 16 STUN, 0 BOD. Against a 4d6 KA, I take an average of 7 STUN and 14 BOD or 12 STUN and 4 BOD.

 

Against normal attacks, I take less STUN with rDEF. Against killing attacks, rDEF will keep me alive - the reduced STUN damage won't matter since I'll be dead long before I get KO'd.

 

That's a very good point. One problem I've always had with damage in HERO is that there is no defense that applies only to STUN. If you buy enough defense to keep the stun totals low then you have ridiculous amounts of defenses against normal body.

 

As a modification to my idea I could increase the cost of resistant defenses to 2:1 rather than 3:2. Then using the same example, instead of 10rPD 16pts would buy you only 8rPD. Then from a 12d6 normal attack you would take 21 STUN, 0 BOD or 20 STUN, 0 BOD. Against a 4d6 KA you take 7 STUN and 14 BOD or 14 STUN and 6 BOD.

 

With no house rule at all the damage is 21 STUN, 0 BOD or 28 STUN, 0 BOD vrs a Normal attack.

 

Not sure if that really improves the situation because the advantage remains in favor of the resistant defense. However I do want to be sure that every character has a reason to buy some of both non-resistant and resistant defense. I also want to favor killing attacks over normal attacks. Not strictly balanced but gives combat the edge that I desire. Otherwise characters may do what I would do if I played in a game that used the house rule I described before that applied stun multipliers only to the body that got past the target's rdef. If playing in such a game I would buy a large normal damage attack and a small KA. Then I would bludgeon opponents into unconsciousness and then coup de grace them the small KA. That's definitely not the feel I want combat to have in this game. So I definitely want normal attacks to be at a distinct disadvantage against armor so that the characters will default to using killing attacks.

[GeekySpaz]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

Side Note: The quoting on this thread is getting confusing - post #13 is quoting Hugh as me, and I'm not sure if some of Hugh's responses were to me or the OP.

 

Oops. Not sure how that happened. Must have copied the wrong HTML tag when inserting responses between quotes (is there an easier way to do that BTW?).

[Greywind]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

That's a very good point. One problem I've always had with damage in HERO is that there is no defense that applies only to STUN. If you buy enough defense to keep the stun totals low then you have ridiculous amounts of defenses against normal body.

Damage Reduction only vs the STUN.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

Side Note: The quoting on this thread is getting confusing - post #13 is quoting Hugh as me' date=' and I'm not sure if some of Hugh's responses were to me or the OP.[/quote']

 

I noticed that too. My comments are to whoever wants to read them.

 

With the campaign parameters you're using' date=' it probably would be worthwhile to factor END and BODY in. Still not sure you need CON though - if anything, the greater BODY:STUN damage ratio makes stunning unlikely.[/quote']

 

Actually, what if BOD, END and SPD were grouped? You can either be fast, durable or tireless.

 

For CSLs' date=' it depends how much you want to encourage them:[/quote']

 

Good options here - nothing to add.

 

That's a very good point. One problem I've always had with damage in HERO is that there is no defense that applies only to STUN. If you buy enough defense to keep the stun totals low then you have ridiculous amounts of defenses against normal body.

 

NOt true. With 6e, you can design a game around characters who will take BOD if they take STUN, which may be a very effective choice for this game. Restrict or prohibit PD and ED, resistant or otherwise. Characters purchase defense as Damage Negation, which reduces the DC's of attacks they are hit with. Mook attacks will pretty much bounce right off. But any attack that does get through is likely to get BOD through.

 

As an example, if the characters are allowed up to (say) 6 PD and 6 ED, 3 of which can be resistant, and up to 8 DC's of Damage Negation, a maxed out defender hit with a 12d6 Normal attack takes 4d6 past Negation, which will average 14-8 = 6 STUN and 0 BOD (an unusually high roll, not wholly unlikely on four dice, will get some BOD through). A 4d6 KA is reduced to 1d6 +1 and averages 4.5 BOD (take 1.5) and 9 STUN (take 3). As DC's rise, the damage quickly rises.

 

The KA is favoured for BOD and the normal attack for Stun.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

That's a very good point. One problem I've always had with damage in HERO is that there is no defense that applies only to STUN. If you buy enough defense to keep the stun totals low then you have ridiculous amounts of defenses against normal body.

 

You are forgetting that this is HERO. You can buy PD or ED as 'only versus STUN' if you want. Probably worth a 1/4 or 1/2 limitation...

 

Doc

[Zamrod]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

I am starting up a new campaign soon. I'm really just getting used to the 6th ed rules, and running Champions in general. I'm wondering if there is a place where "average" numbers for attacks, defenses, stats, and other powers depending on your point totals are listed.

 

My experience with briefly starting up a 4th ed, a 5th ed, and one previous 6th ed game in the past was that nearly no character created by any player was capable of fighting in a single battle without dying or being completely ineffective.

 

This was mostly because they had put too many points into things like movement powers and not enough elsewhere OR they had put nearly all their points into a single attack. Either that, or they just neglected their defenses and dropped the first time they were hit because they weren't aware of what qualified as a "good" defense.

 

I've found that without strict controls on how many points players are allowed to put into each power/stat/etc and good guidelines as to what the minimum they should put into something is.

 

Plus, my players are sometimes rather good at powergaming. If I put limits on them like "No more than an OCV of 15, you can be assured that nearly everyone in the group will have an OCV of 15.

[Tasha]

Re: Setting Campaign Limits

 

I am starting up a new campaign soon. I'm really just getting used to the 6th ed rules, and running Champions in general. I'm wondering if there is a place where "average" numbers for attacks, defenses, stats, and other powers depending on your point totals are listed.

 

My experience with briefly starting up a 4th ed, a 5th ed, and one previous 6th ed game in the past was that nearly no character created by any player was capable of fighting in a single battle without dying or being completely ineffective.

 

This was mostly because they had put too many points into things like movement powers and not enough elsewhere OR they had put nearly all their points into a single attack. Either that, or they just neglected their defenses and dropped the first time they were hit because they weren't aware of what qualified as a "good" defense.

 

I've found that without strict controls on how many points players are allowed to put into each power/stat/etc and good guidelines as to what the minimum they should put into something is.

 

Plus, my players are sometimes rather good at powergaming. If I put limits on them like "No more than an OCV of 15, you can be assured that nearly everyone in the group will have an OCV of 15.

 

6e1 pg 34. Though you will have to extrapolate your own "averages"