Effective, but Simple Rule of X (is it possible)

[Tasha]

If Speed is so important why isn't Dex?

 

After all, just going first was deemed so important that DEX costs twice as much as any other Primary Stat.

 

There seems to be a reasoning I'm not seeing that includes taking actions, but not the order in which you appear in the sequence.

First as you probably know Going first AND having the majority of Skills use Dex to determing rolls was the reason that Steve made Dex 2pts ea. Besides the cost of anything is WAY out of our control (unless we start to House rule and I want to prevent that)

 

It is important, but not as important as Spd in doing Damage. One assumption is that a PC will buy enough end to run their powers for at least a full turn. Of the two Archetypes that are generally high dex, Martial Artists tend to not need a ton of end since MA's don't cost extra end. Speedsters should be pretty lean as well since their movement and DC's tend to come from their movement powers.

 

I know that going first is important, but honestly not really as important as going more often in a Turn and having a decent Combat Value. Also keeping this simple so one can spitball the power level of a character vs another character is very important.

 

Stun is harder. A high DCV character with enough Stun to take 3-4 hits is way more powerful than the glass cannon build that can take one good hit and the second hit KOing the PC. It's also important that the Brick be able to take quite a few shots before they go down. The question is how to weigh Stun properly.

[ghost-angel]

I've never been worried that characters all do the same damage, or have a close cluster of CVs/Defenses.

 

it's the other tactical abilities, non-tactical abilities, and the skills that tend to send characters apart.

 

Generally, you want a full team of combat competent characters. Which means a group all approaching the same level. It's less of a problem when one exceeds a cap, but becomes a problem when a Rule Of X causes someone to go below a cap and become combat-ineffective.

 

Sure, they may get higher Speed, and possibly a slightly higher Defense, but if it's at the expense of Damage Classes and they can never hurt anyone... all that becomes moot. "Yay, I hit him for no damage! again!"

 

This is why I like the CV/DC/Def/AP caps.. you get a ceiling as a known, but the rest of it becomes the actual character. As in, what happens when the hitty part is over?

[ghost-angel]

First as you probably know Going first AND having the majority of Skills use Dex to determing rolls was the reason that Steve made Dex 2pts ea. 

 

No. The answer when asked was pretty explicit - it was going first, and going first Alone that is the reason Dex costed at 2 points.

 

That's it. There wasn't a debate on that point. Going First was his exact stated reasoning.

 

And once you include the various types of Knowledge Skills (Science, Area, Culture) it's actually INT that carries the brunt of the skills. PRE is not shirking it's duties in that area either.

 

And put another way: Given two characters with equal Speed and Equal "X" - the higher Dex Character will have superiority over the lower Dex Character; because it is primarily a Combat Oriented Stat and therefore should be factored into any Combat Rule Of X equation.

[Kraven Kor]

I've never felt particularly strong about player characters needing to be balanced against one-another.

 

A "rule of X" would be more useful, to me, for evaluating whether published NPC's or other resources I don't / don't want to build myself are going to match up to my PC's.  

 

I've done fairly well at balancing stuff against the players and ensuring every player has a moment to shine or is more or less matched up to one another.  And it can be an issue; in this or any other system with any kind of "building" to it, including D20; a very optimized character is going to "steal the thunder" from a not-very-optimized character.  

 

Characters don't have to be identical or even need it to be a "fair fight" between them; but all characters should be able to contribute and a poorly built character playing second fiddle to Captain Optimal may cause some friction or boredom.

 

I'm sure we've all had that player who just has to excel at everything, win every encounter, and have a defense against every attack; and they can be really, really annoying to the other players who might have more interest in a compelling story and have thus put together a more believable, flawed character.

[Greywind]

Those tended to be weeded out of our group in favor of everyone having fun.

[Derek Hiemforth]

PS please weigh in with an equation   I am really looking for help. As you can tell I am brainstorming and thinking as I write.

 

I don't really have an equation to suggest, because I would never use a Rule of X.  I agree with basically all of the cautions against numerical "effectiveness ceilings" described on CC page 190. 

[Kraven Kor]

And I lack the mathematical skills to even formulate an equation, much less *this* equation

 

Somewhere, long ago, I knew some basic geometry, but that's about as far as I got and the knowledge, unused, has now slipped away.

 

So whoever believes "HERO is for Math Majors" is so very, very wrong

[JasonPacker]

Well, adding to the general discussion on effectiveness equations, I think that SPD ought to be a multiplier, not additive, and probably only multiply against offensive power, not defensive.

 

So (SPD/2) * (DC + CV) perhaps as part of the equation.

 

And END should figure in as a ratio of END to END used per turn (minus REC), to determine how many turns you can go without requiring in-turn recoveries (with an upper limit - if the ratio turns out to be over 25, cap at 25; If END costs all bought to zero, assume 25; If charges, figure in autofire and cap at 25 turns worth of ammo)

 

'Fraid I'm rapidly leaving "simple" behind...

[Tasha]

No. The answer when asked was pretty explicit - it was going first, and going first Alone that is the reason Dex costed at 2 points.

 

That's it. There wasn't a debate on that point. Going First was his exact stated reasoning.

 

And once you include the various types of Knowledge Skills (Science, Area, Culture) it's actually INT that carries the brunt of the skills. PRE is not shirking it's duties in that area either.

 

And put another way: Given two characters with equal Speed and Equal "X" - the higher Dex Character will have superiority over the lower Dex Character; because it is primarily a Combat Oriented Stat and therefore should be factored into any Combat Rule Of X equation.

 

Sure that's ok, now show me how to balance that in a rule of X that makes sense. ie Show me your Equation and then show me a couple of different characters that used to test the equation I am willing to entertain other ways.

[Tasha]

Sure that's ok, now show me how to balance that in a rule of X that makes sense. ie Show me your Equation and then show me a couple of different characters that used to test the equation I am willing to entertain other ways.

 

Ok that came off as being much more defensive than I meant it to be. I really do want people to give it some thought and while keeping the KISS in mind (Keep it Simple Sam). How do you weigh the importance of Going first in a Rule of X? I know that it's important for GM's to keep it in mind, but is it important enough to model in the Rule of X?

[Tasha]

Should have done this before: The Rule of X came from the much complained about Fuzion system. IT divided it's rules of X into Attacking and Defending.

 

Fuzion Rule of X (converted to Hero)

Attacking:
DC of highest attack + OCV + Skill levels = X
Defending
Stun /5 + Greatest Def /5 + DCV + Skill Levels that apply to DCV = X
This is a bit of a conversion, but still IMHO is correct

Campaign Chart                             Rule of X
Everyday (Gritty Realistic)                  14
Competent (Elite, Semi-Realistic)            16
Heroic (TV Action Show)                      18
Incredible (Olympics, Action Movie)          20
Legendary (Blockbuster, Action Movie)        22
Superheroic (Comic Books(Marvel?), Myth      24

 

Perhaps this is good enough

[Beast]

First strike can be offset by high def and lots of stun

This is from an early edition of Adventures Club ( say 2nd or 3rd ed)

 

http://www.trimira.com/hero_stuff/combat_rating.html

 

it rates a character in 3 fields

Offense

Defense

Mobility

the adds them together for an over all number

 

 

Ok that came off as being much more defensive than I meant it to be. I really do want people to give it some thought and while keeping the KISS in mind (Keep it Simple Sam). How do you weigh the importance of Going first in a Rule of X? I know that it's important for GM's to keep it in mind, but is it important enough to model in the Rule of X?

[Hyper-Man]

I have yet to see a Rule of X that is easy to apply to character's with a big VPP with options to change many if not all of the measured stats like my version of Superman and The Flash.

 

Also, do any of them take into account a hero's CvK or attempts to give the bad guys a chance to surrender first?

[Tasha]

I have yet to see a Rule of X that is easy to apply to character's with a big VPP with options to change many if not all of the measured stats like my version of Superman and The Flash.

 

Also, do any of them take into account a hero's CvK or attempts to give the bad guys a chance to surrender first?

To be fair Characters built around big VPP's are the hardest characters for GM's to evaluate for power. In those cases it's probably best to test with the best configuations that the VPP is capable of. One could also just recognize that the Rule of X is only a tool and as a tool it doesn't always work in every circumstance.

 

It is a Combat oriented tool. GMs have caps on Pre and varioius RP skills. As for the CvK it's a complication, it's supposed to complicate the PC's life. To ask that a Rule of X take complications into account is beside the point.

 

Rule of X shouldn't be a straight Jacket. It's like the equations in my Building Balanced Characters Thread. They are a guide. Properly used they can provide some kind of revelation about the Characters that are tested. They also allow a way for Players to Gauge a build To see if they are over powered to the GM's vision. At it's best it allows for Radically different builds to be able to compaired to one another.

 

BTW I did remember what I didn't like about Fuzion's Rule of X, is that it didn't allow for PC's that wanted to give up some Attack and pick up some Defenses or vice versa. I guess one could say that they could short either Attack or Defense by 4 pts (for Superheroic games) and apply those points to the other Rule of X. Aka trade points of Defense to increase Attack or vice versa.

[ghost-angel]

Sure that's ok, now show me how to balance that in a rule of X that makes sense. ie Show me your Equation and then show me a couple of different characters that used to test the equation I am willing to entertain other ways.

 

I can't. Because I don't think it's possible, especially using KISS. Because it's not a simple situation you're trying to reduce down to a single number.

 

I'm actually here pointing out why Rule Of X is a bad idea - it's riddled with little flaws like this; like the idea that Going First is important and costed as such. Or as Hyperman pointed out, character's who are able to shift their abilities. He used VPP, but a simple group of Combat Skill Levels can be moved to all OCV, all DCV, or split.

 

I honestly believe the attempt to come up with a Rule Of X in even a moderately complex equation is bound to fail.

 

(Also, you didn't come across as defensive, maybe a little snarky, but I can handle that )

[Greywind]

First strike can be offset by high def and lots of stun

 

This is from an early edition of Adventures Club ( say 2nd or 3rd ed)

 

http://www.trimira.com/hero_stuff/combat_rating.html

 

it rates a character in 3 fields

Offense

Defense

Mobility

the adds them together for an over all number

 

I still use that from time to time as a rough guide.

[Christougher]

Well, adding to the general discussion on effectiveness equations, I think that SPD ought to be a multiplier, not additive, and probably only multiply against offensive power, not defensive.

 

So (SPD/2) * (DC + CV) perhaps as part of the equation.

 

And END should figure in as a ratio of END to END used per turn (minus REC), to determine how many turns you can go without requiring in-turn recoveries (with an upper limit - if the ratio turns out to be over 25, cap at 25; If END costs all bought to zero, assume 25; If charges, figure in autofire and cap at 25 turns worth of ammo)

 

'Fraid I'm rapidly leaving "simple" behind...

 

So, SPD 4, 10 OCV, 10 DC  = 40.   SPD 6, 10 OCV, 10 DC = 60.  So +2 SPD is +50% effectiveness?

 

To balance that SPD 6, I would need to be 6 OCV, 7 DC.  Or for a SPD 10 speedster, OCV 2, DC 2. 

 

This is why multiplicative speed doesn't work.   Yes, it's more valuable than most straight CV or DC values, but that's way out of bounds.  

 

And 25 *turns* of combat is incredibly long.  That'll require a HUGE investment in charges or END to meet.  I can't name the last combat that ran over 2; most of my characters are aimed at 2 turns of combat and that is plenty.

 

Chris.

[Christougher]

I don't really have an equation to suggest, because I would never use a Rule of X.  I agree with basically all of the cautions against numerical "effectiveness ceilings" described on CC page 190. 

 

So you would allow a PC with an attack with twice as many DCs as the rest of the team?  Presumably, you'd want or need something to counterbalance that.  Lower CV or Speed or Defenses...  But just how low should they be?  

 

Rule of X.

 

Chris.

[Christougher]

I have yet to see a Rule of X that is easy to apply to character's with a big VPP with options to change many if not all of the measured stats like my version of Superman and The Flash.

 

Also, do any of them take into account a hero's CvK or attempts to give the bad guys a chance to surrender first?

 

VPPs are almost irrelevant.  Or at least as relevant as an MP is.   The VPP is a fixed amount of points.  If you spend it them to change the things that go into the Rule of X, you get a different Rule of X measure.  The same behavior is true of Martial Arts.  Different maneuvers affect CV and damage.  Pick one.  Do it for all of them if you want.  They're not going to change that much.

 

Chris.

[ghost-angel]

So you would allow a PC with an attack with twice as many DCs as the rest of the team?  Presumably, you'd want or need something to counterbalance that.  Lower CV or Speed or Defenses...  But just how low should they be?  

 

Rule of X.

 

Chris.

 

No, you would implement DC caps. No rule of X needed.

 

Give that a Rule Of X could even allow for such extremes in a single grouping, is part of the problem. Just because everyone can Formula out to the same X doesn't mean they're actually the same combative effectiveness. If one's DC are twice everyone else's but can't take even a middle-range hit or hit anything with it due to drastically reduced Defenses or CV all that damage isn't helping them.

[Lucius]

Is there some SIMPLE other way that this can be approached.

No.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks a Rule of X only leads to conFuzion

[Tasha]

No, you would implement DC caps. No rule of X needed.

 

Give that a Rule Of X could even allow for such extremes in a single grouping, is part of the problem. Just because everyone can Formula out to the same X doesn't mean they're actually the same combative effectiveness. If one's DC are twice everyone else's but can't take even a middle-range hit or hit anything with it due to drastically reduced Defenses or CV all that damage isn't helping them.

 

Yes, I know that the extremes are possible with a Rule of X. Again I am looking to create a tool that will allow me or a player to perhaps move 4 effectivness points around So that everyone isn't DC 12, CV 10, SPD 5 blah blah. Heck, perhaps this just something that I can use to create some templates (tested to make sure they aren't totally over or under powered) for various archetypes.

 

Btw you still probably need DC caps for VPP characters. VPPs are irrevelant IMHO due to how the GM MUST be right on top of PCs who have one due to how they are the most likely thing to totally overpower a campaign. VPP's would have to be judged separately from any Rule of X. Just because one power framework is unbalanced doesn't mean that the Tool can't work. You acknowledge that VPP's cannot be adequately judged using the tool.

 

Also is some of the resistance to this because it originated from Fuzion?

[Tasha]

No, you would implement DC caps. No rule of X needed.

 

Give that a Rule Of X could even allow for such extremes in a single grouping, is part of the problem. Just because everyone can Formula out to the same X doesn't mean they're actually the same combative effectiveness. If one's DC are twice everyone else's but can't take even a middle-range hit or hit anything with it due to drastically reduced Defenses or CV all that damage isn't helping them.

That's pretty easy to mitigate. You would still have allowable ranges for CV, DCs, Def, Stun, SPD. Making sure that it was clear that player characters stay within those ranges.

[ghost-angel]

Never played Fuzion. Read it, but never had a chance to test drive it.

 

Also, my experience is that - given CV Caps, or more frequently Ranges - not everyone automatically pegs the top end.

 

Rule Of X equations posted thus far also only account for removing a combatant via brute force. And given there are a number of ways to mitigate enemies that don't involve brute force - I once again contest that it will be a poor measurement comparative capabilities.

[Hugh Neilson]

I like 42

10 dcv

10 ocv

12DC's

6 spd

pd/13 =2

ed/13=2

Let's mess with it...

 

OCV 2 and 20 DC's (and I'll Spread to hit most of the time, but anyone slow or stunned...)

DCV 4 and +39 PD and ED

 

I think you have to cap the tradeoffs to prevent abuse.