More damage for rolling well

[Hugh Neilson]

I like using the skill level model. However, I think the cost of raising damage with skill levels directed to that purpose has to be lower than the benefits gained from a good roll, or there is no incentive to direct skill levels to raise damage, rather than OCV.

 

For example, if I have 4 skill levels and a 6 OCV, and my opponent has a 4 DCV, I might choose to put my 4 levels to damage enhancement, trusting I'll roll 13- and hit. So I get the +6 STUN or +2 BOD if I hit.

 

But if I can get +3 STUN or +1 BOD for every 2 points I hit by, I may as well put my skill levels to OCV. if I roll a 13, I get my +6 STUN or +2 BOD, and if I roll a 15, I still hit and get +3 STUN or +1 BOD, where directing the levels to damage means I would have missed.

 

Maybe I get +1 STUN per point I hit by, or I can have +1 BOD for hitting by 3.

 

It seems like this will devalue skill levels beyond +1 OCV with my favourite attack, since I can enhance damage with OCV alone and don't need skill levels to do so. I still get the option of DCV, and maybe more effective damage enhancement depending on the approach taken for "good roll gets more damage", but the value of skill levels is being eroded. Of course, if everyone puts skill levels in OCV most of the time anyway, no big change, and if they normally put them to DCV, that's not really likely to change either.

[Doc Democracy]

I like using the skill level model. However, I think the cost of raising damage with skill levels directed to that purpose has to be lower than the benefits gained from a good roll, or there is no incentive to direct skill levels to raise damage, rather than OCV.

 

For example, if I have 4 skill levels and a 6 OCV, and my opponent has a 4 DCV, I might choose to put my 4 levels to damage enhancement, trusting I'll roll 13- and hit. So I get the +6 STUN or +2 BOD if I hit.

 

But if I can get +3 STUN or +1 BOD for every 2 points I hit by, I may as well put my skill levels to OCV. if I roll a 13, I get my +6 STUN or +2 BOD, and if I roll a 15, I still hit and get +3 STUN or +1 BOD, where directing the levels to damage means I would have missed.

 

Maybe I get +1 STUN per point I hit by, or I can have +1 BOD for hitting by 3.

 

It seems like this will devalue skill levels beyond +1 OCV with my favourite attack, since I can enhance damage with OCV alone and don't need skill levels to do so. I still get the option of DCV, and maybe more effective damage enhancement depending on the approach taken for "good roll gets more damage", but the value of skill levels is being eroded. Of course, if everyone puts skill levels in OCV most of the time anyway, no big change, and if they normally put them to DCV, that's not really likely to change either.

 

I love reading Neil's posts, he thinks about things in a way that I do not and, even if I do not always agree, it is useful.  :-)

 

To my view, the value in levels is the ability to switch from OCV to DCV depending on circumstances.  levels may not compete with OCV in this respect for hitting or for doing added damage but they do mean I might get hit less and for less damage when facing someone with a much higher OCV.

 

When you buy levels you are paying for flexibility...

[Kesedrith]

I like using the skill level model. However, I think the cost of raising damage with skill levels directed to that purpose has to be lower than the benefits gained from a good roll, or there is no incentive to direct skill levels to raise damage, rather than OCV.

 

For example, if I have 4 skill levels and a 6 OCV, and my opponent has a 4 DCV, I might choose to put my 4 levels to damage enhancement, trusting I'll roll 13- and hit. So I get the +6 STUN or +2 BOD if I hit.

 

But if I can get +3 STUN or +1 BOD for every 2 points I hit by, I may as well put my skill levels to OCV. if I roll a 13, I get my +6 STUN or +2 BOD, and if I roll a 15, I still hit and get +3 STUN or +1 BOD, where directing the levels to damage means I would have missed.

 

Maybe I get +1 STUN per point I hit by, or I can have +1 BOD for hitting by 3.

 

It seems like this will devalue skill levels beyond +1 OCV with my favourite attack, since I can enhance damage with OCV alone and don't need skill levels to do so. I still get the option of DCV, and maybe more effective damage enhancement depending on the approach taken for "good roll gets more damage", but the value of skill levels is being eroded. Of course, if everyone puts skill levels in OCV most of the time anyway, no big change, and if they normally put them to DCV, that's not really likely to change either.

This is getting close to how I have come to view things, and part of why I no longer even entertain the notion of "critical hits."  The hit roll itself has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy of the hit.  It is simply a roll made to determine whether or not you made contact on this attack.  The DAMAGE roll is where accuracy comes in.  A good damage roll is a well placed hit.  A low damage roll....eh...not so much.  This gives incentive to not "sandbag" (to use a term from the card game Spades), and simply throw everything you have into OCV when it's not needed.  You already have a base -14 roll to hit that target (translated as you seem to be making contact anytime you please), then maybe you don't need to focus on just trying to hit him, and instead shift some of those skill levels to DC and place the shot well to do more damage instead.  Rolling  well above what you need on the hit roll is not being more accurate, it's just going overkill on making sure you at least tap them on the shoulder.

[Doc Democracy]

This is getting close to how I have come to view things, and part of why I no longer even entertain the notion of "critical hits."  The hit roll itself has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy of the hit.  It is simply a roll made to determine whether or not you made contact on this attack.  The DAMAGE roll is where accuracy comes in.  A good damage roll is a well placed hit.  A low damage roll....eh...not so much.  This gives incentive to not "sandbag" (to use a term from the card game Spades), and simply throw everything you have into OCV when it's not needed.  You already have a base -14 roll to hit that target (translated as you seem to be making contact anytime you please), then maybe you don't need to focus on just trying to hit him, and instead shift some of those skill levels to DC and place the shot well to do more damage instead.  Rolling  well above what you need on the hit roll is not being more accurate, it's just going overkill on making sure you at least tap them on the shoulder.

 

So why does the hit location system focus on delivering more damage for hitting critical areas?

 

I think there is good evidence in the system for better hits gaining better damage (though it may not have been intentional!!).

 

I have nothing against folk not utilising the to hit roll to indicate better hits or more accurate hits but I am presuming that you would do hit locations differently too..  :-P

[Kesedrith]

So why does the hit location system focus on delivering more damage for hitting critical areas?

 

I think there is good evidence in the system for better hits gaining better damage (though it may not have been intentional!!).

 

I have nothing against folk not utilising the to hit roll to indicate better hits or more accurate hits but I am presuming that you would do hit locations differently too..  :-P

 

Because it doesn't?  It's completely unrelated to the hit roll unless you specifically try to hit a particular target location, and then, of course, it makes even making the contact harder to do.  The hit location is a completely separate roll, if it's even used, so there is no connection to the hit roll at all....unless you're doing that specific targeting, in which case, yes, it makes it more difficult.  

[Hugh Neilson]

So why does the hit location system focus on delivering more damage for hitting critical areas?

 

I think there is good evidence in the system for better hits gaining better damage (though it may not have been intentional!!).

 

I have nothing against folk not utilising the to hit roll to indicate better hits or more accurate hits but I am presuming that you would do hit locations differently too..  :-P

Do better hits do more damage? Sure. But that's a hit that connects with a more desirable hit location, or rolls higher damage, neither of which are presently connected to the 3d6 roll to determine whether or not the attack hits. A 3 is lucky in that it will hit anything, but not in any guarantee of how solid that hit will be.

 

Your proposal is to ad such a link, precisely because there is no such link now. At present, any effort to gain more damage requires making it more difficult to connect at all - either you get the higher damage hit (by sacrificing OCV and/or DCV to put your levels in Damage, or by reducing your odds of a hit by targeting a specific hit location), or you miss entirely. Your proposal removes the tradeoff - you have not reduced the chance of hitting at all in exchange for higher damage if you do hit.

 

That's the core of assessing whether this is, or is not, a good idea. If I can get the results of a head hit by rolling 8 better than I need to hit, and still hit if I roll anywhere from exactly what I needed to 7 better than I needed, why would I ever take the called shot option? If I can get all the benefits of directing my 8 skill levels to damage if I hit by 8, why would I ever designate them to damage instead of OCV?

 

The first question is whether we want higher OCV to be more advantageous than it is already. The second is how much more advantageous.

[Doc Democracy]

Yeah, you are right. Personally I think the toolkit should have the option for the GM and I would have this very much as a Champions option rather than the other genres.

 

I reckon most Champions games do not use hit locations (not a scientifically arrived at opinion) while many other genres do (likewise).

 

I never found hit locations particularly right for regular use in supers but useful every so often. This would provide an option that makes a link between damage and accuracy that feels better (to me).

 

I also never quite took to the binary accuracy lottery. I am so accurate I either hit perfectly or miss completely.

 

This provides a different route. It should be in place of hit locations, I don't see how they play well together. Lots of other wrinkles.

 

What I am interested in deciding is the grading, is one for one too powerful, too much out of kilter with current options. What I am not interested in I whether it I right and moral to connect accuracy with damage.

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Even the grading depends on the feel you want. I think an extra DC, or +3 STUN, for hitting by 1 is unbalanced for a few reasons. Off the top of my head, that extra DC would cost 5 points on its own, with no bonus to OCV. Second, the choice of getting +2 OCV or +1 DC/+3 STUN is no choice at all if hitting by 1 gets me the same +1 DC or +3 STUN benefit. I can trade 1 DC for +1 OCV by spreading an attack. That seems like a pretty solid choice as well, if hitting by 1 means I get another DC or comparable damage bonus.

 

So I would say one for one may not be too powerful in isolation, but I think it is too powerful in comparison to other tradeoffs between OCV and damage.

 

Hitting by 2 adding a DC or 3 STUN makes use of skill levels for damage instead of OCV the clear wrong choice every time. With that in mind, I think that's also too rich.

 

Once we get to hitting by 3 or more, we've still devalued other approaches to enhancing damage, but not by so much that OCV is clearly the choice in areas where a choice already exists, so 3 is the minimum grading I think does not markedly unbalance the game. In a Supers game, that might be better structured as +1 STUN per 1 point I hit by, with +1 BOD for every 3 as a possible add-on.

 

So now we are faced with, at the extreme, a target I can miss only on an 18 potentially granting +4 DC's (I can't quite get to +5), or +14 STUN. Is that enough to make it worthwhile? Maybe, if a good hit means a much better chance of stunning the opponent. Hitting by 1 or 2 has only a nominal benefit, so it may be brushed off as not implementing the "good hits should do good damage" theory, especially when we are tossing around 12 DCs from the outset.

 

What benefit do other attacks get? If my Flash hits by 3, do I add +1 phase, for example? If some attacks get the extra benefit and others do not, then the others become weaker choices by comparison, remembering that there is no down side, only up side, to this extra damage. That might suggest that attacks which get this benefit start with -3 STUN (the equivalent to -1 DC) if they just barely hit, so they need to hit by 3 to break even, and 4 or more to be at an advantage.

 

Part of the challenge here is deciding what is broken that we think we are trying to fix. I'm coming at it from a perspective of not wanting to change the balance for existing builds, or at least not change it markedly. If you think a great hit should do massively higher damage, then you want a marked change where OCV becomes much more valuable. That would lead to a steeper grade, but logically also to raising the price of OCV since it is now considerably more powerful. As DCV and OCV are opposite sides of the coin, DCV likely also needs to be repriced if we're making a substantial change. That means revisiting the price of skill levels, martial maneuvers, shrinking and growth - anything that changes OCV and DCV. To me, that's too much work just because someone occasionally combines a really good attack roll with a poor damage roll, and is unhappy with that result.