More damage for rolling well

[Ninja-Bear]

Thanks for the reply Tholomyes. I disagree about the 12D6 comment above. The whole point is to come up with a way to have a better than average roll. And now i'll have to go back a check those math terms again too. At least my Daughter knows those terms

[Ninja-Bear]

Just found Purple Math so yes for average I am looking at Mean.

[Doc Democracy]

Thanks for the reply Tholomyes. I disagree about the 12D6 comment above. The whole point is to come up with a way to have a better than average roll. And now i'll have to go back a check those math terms again too. At least my Daughter knows those terms

 

There is a reasonable point here.  When we as GMs put limits on things, like how many dice you can roll, what are we actually saying?

 

1 - I am content that you will do sufficient damage to be viable in my world

2 - I am content that you will not do so much damage that I will need to unduly raise defence values on my villains.

 

We know, as GMs, that a 10D6 attack will usually do around 35 STUN 10 BODY and that will usually vary between about 29 - 42 STUN depending on how well the damage roll goes.  It is POSSIBLE that an attack will do as little as 10 STUN or as much as 60.  Everyone around the table would be stunned if that happened though (even for our worst dice rollers!).

 

If you purchase additional dice simply to boost damage then you are moving away from that cozy arrangement.  Suddenly I have to accept that your character will be doing, on average, 41 STUN and probably varying between 35 and 47.  That is a significant shift,  as significant as allowing the character 12D6.

 

Capping damage at 60 STUN does not actually limit the attack so much as everyone would still be amazed if you rolled 54 STUN on those 10 dice.

 

However, if you capped the damage about 42, then you would be beating the bell curve - as the results would pile up around that number and abnormally high rolls would be ignored.

 

As such, there is limitation in capping damage but you need to be careful about what and where you cap if you want it to have actual impact in the game.

 

Both your proposal and mine, increase the damage available in the game and mine actually makes the damage more variable (so you cannot game the balance as easily).  

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

So 2 OCV give you one DC (3.5 STUN and 1 BODY)

 

In my proposal for a 12D6 attack (where 1 dice for each one the score was made by was an off the top of the head simple application rather than the result of careful balance analysis) the first two dice provide 3 STUN, the next two also provide 3 STUN.  That is not too far off but obviously my proposal has the advantage of not reducing the actual chance to hit. So it does indeed provide a damage bonus for higher OCV.

 

I think it would have to be used with a very carefully balanced Rule of X system that balanced increased OCV against DCV, defences and STUN.

With OCV as powerful as spending the sample points on DC's, plus enhancing the likelihood you will hit, this approach still skews the characters to higher OCV, lower DC builds.

[Doc Democracy]

With OCV as powerful as spending the sample points on DC's, plus enhancing the likelihood you will hit, this approach still skews the characters to higher OCV, lower DC builds.

 

Not sure I said it here but I am looking at providing a corollory glancing blow element for the heavy hitters.  Possibly remove a six from the damage pool to gain an extra +1 OCV.  Or something like that.

 

I am tired of superhero combats where it is all just a little bit too predictable and where I have balanced it so well that things take a little bit longer to resolve.  I could push different builds in different ways but I want there to be different ways to achieve stuff and I want to push people into more extreme versions of the archetypes.  It is probably my fault but too many of my friends characters end up with a broad range of everything and there is nothing in the system that then adds in the variability I like to see.

 

So, something for the high OCV folk to maximise their damage and something for the heavy hitters to deliver glancing blows.

 

There is indeed nothing in the system that says the to-hit roll is involved in how well someone hits (or how well someone delivers damage) but I am interested in trying it.  And even if it works for me and my group - there is no reason that it will necessarily work for anyone elses...  :-)

 

However, I think I almost enjoy talking about what I want to do more than I enjoy doing it....  :-(

 

Doc

[eepjr24]

Haymaker already provides for one method of that (High OCV ability ot increase). You could easily set up a similar maneuver for sacrificing damage for OCV. Call it something like:

 

Sweep: For each 5 points of STR sacrificed, player gains +1 OCV versus one target in hand to hand combat. This attack occurs in the segment after it is declared.

 

- E

[Doc Democracy]

This may be purely my group but they do seem to like being rewarded for good rolls.  I like rewarding my players in game, it makes it a more rewarding experience for all of us.  :-)  As such this cannot be about choosing a manoeuvre.

 

This process is one way where I can provide an easy bennie to my players when they feel like they have done well. 

 

I guess another way round that is to throw them a Hero Point every time they roll really well - something they can use now or can store up for use another time.  Like in FATE, I think that if they get a steady flow of HERO points that they would use them more frivolously too...

[Christopher R Taylor]

I do like the concept of maneuvers to increase damage or accuracy.  They make sense in real life too: you can hit someone a good 99 times out of 100 if all you want to do is contact, but you're not going to do any damage that way.  And you can hit a lot harder if you don't care about actually hitting, just pure impact.  So sacrificing a damage class to get +1 OCV or one OCV to get +1 damage class seems very reasonable to me.  But no matter how much I sold or explained them, nobody actually wanted to do it.

[Ninja-Bear]

There is a reasonable point here. When we as GMs put limits on things, like how many dice you can roll, what are we actually saying?

 

1 - I am content that you will do sufficient damage to be viable in my world

2 - I am content that you will not do so much damage that I will need to unduly raise defence values on my villains.

 

We know, as GMs, that a 10D6 attack will usually do around 35 STUN 10 BODY and that will usually vary between about 29 - 42 STUN depending on how well the damage roll goes. It is POSSIBLE that an attack will do as little as 10 STUN or as much as 60. Everyone around the table would be stunned if that happened though (even for our worst dice rollers!).

 

If you purchase additional dice simply to boost damage then you are moving away from that cozy arrangement. Suddenly I have to accept that your character will be doing, on average, 41 STUN and probably varying between 35 and 47. That is a significant shift, as significant as allowing the character 12D6.

 

Capping damage at 60 STUN does not actually limit the attack so much as everyone would still be amazed if you rolled 54 STUN on those 10 dice.

 

However, if you capped the damage about 42, then you would be beating the bell curve - as the results would pile up around that number and abnormally high rolls would be ignored.

 

As such, there is limitation in capping damage but you need to be careful about what and where you cap if you want it to have actual impact in the game.

 

Both your proposal and mine, increase the damage available in the game and mine actually makes the damage more variable (so you cannot game the balance as easily).

 

Doc

I have to ponder this. I think Im not explaining myself rightly. Right now I just cannot put my finger on it.

[Christopher R Taylor]

If you purchase additional dice simply to boost damage then you are moving away from that cozy arrangement. 

 

 

As a GM I tend to balance my games around maximums as well as averages.  So I look at the worst case scenario and decide if that's going to break the game. Then I look at averages and decide if that's going to give the overall results that I want to happen most of the time.

 

However, it is true that generally speaking, when something shifts the power in the favor of the player, it costs more points rather than being a freebie for rolling well.

[Tholomyes]

 

 

As a GM I tend to balance my games around maximums as well as averages.  So I look at the worst case scenario and decide if that's going to break the game. Then I look at averages and decide if that's going to give the overall results that I want to happen most of the time.

 

However, it is true that generally speaking, when something shifts the power in the favor of the player, it costs more points rather than being a freebie for rolling well.

 

 

The problem with this is that is (assuming 12d6), the Maximum Roll occurs about 1 in 2 billion rolls (even assuming 10d6, it's still 1 out of 60 million). If you're concerned about realistic maximum damage, I'd just tend to set a cut off percentage. For example on a 12d6 you're only ever going to see a 50 or higher about 10% of the time, a 52 or higher about 5% of the time, and 56 or higher 1% of the time. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Sure, but it only has to happen once for Joe the Barbarian to one-shot the Dragon King and make everything look silly.

[ghost-angel]

Been thinking on this one a little bit, a lot of balance issues have been brought up... I don't share the concern that adding dice for the purpose of trying to approach the cap is that unbalancing; as noted you're not taking 12D6 and capping it at the top of 10D6, you're taking 12D6 and choosing the best 10 (assuming I read the original proposal correctly). Which is different.

 

I think, if you want to balance out Epic Rolls with Game Balance... every +3 over the OCV allows rerolling of low numbers. Make OCV by 3-5 and any 1s on Damage you get are rerolled. By 6-8 more and any 1s and 2s on damage are rerolled. 9+ and any 1s, 2s, and 3s are rerolled. I'd stop there.

 

Or more simply, if you make the attack roll by 3 or more all 1s become 2s on the dice. at 6+ all 1s become 2s, 2s become 3s (not counting the upticked 1s, only rolled 2s); and at 9+ a truly epic hit has occured (precision, brute strength, found the weak spot...SFX vary) then rolled 3s become 4s (and previous effects).

 

That raises the average damage without exceeding or changing the amount of dice rolled. Better hits guarantee a certain level of better damage (that can still be obtained with a really good roll anyway).

 

You're not really doing extra damage, so much as preventing a really good Attack Roll from doing poor damage. It feels more balanced personally.

[Tholomyes]

If Joe the Barbarian gets the 1-in-2 Billion Dice roll, then I don't care if I look silly, that was a 1-in-2 Billion shot. I'm taking Joe's player to Vegas.

 

Seriously, though, if I wanted to worry about things that happen a minute fraction of the percent of the time, "the barbarian one-shotting the dragon" isn't high on my list of concerns. I'm more likely to get struck by lightning within the year than anyone at the table rolling max damage on 12d6. Which is why I recommended the "realistic Maximums" someone at the table may roll really well and get a 56, or so. It's unlikely, but within the realm of a reasonable assumption. If you care about the dragon getting one shot, make sure they can take a "realistic Maximum" hit, and maybe throw in a couple extra STUN or BODY for a buffer. but planning around the max, when the max (and numbers approaching the max) occurs a bafflingly infrequent percent of the time is just absurd to me.

 

Been thinking on this one a little bit, a lot of balance issues have been brought up... I don't share the concern that adding dice for the purpose of trying to approach the cap is that unbalancing; as noted you're not taking 12D6 and capping it at the top of 10D6, you're taking 12D6 and choosing the best 10 (assuming I read the original proposal correctly). Which is different.

 

I think, if you want to balance out Epic Rolls with Game Balance... every +3 over the OCV allows rerolling of low numbers. Make OCV by 3-5 and any 1s on Damage you get are rerolled. By 6-8 more and any 1s and 2s on damage are rerolled. 9+ and any 1s, 2s, and 3s are rerolled. I'd stop there.

 

Or more simply, if you make the attack roll by 3 or more all 1s become 2s on the dice. at 6+ all 1s become 2s, 2s become 3s (not counting the upticked 1s, only rolled 2s); and at 9+ a truly epic hit has occured (precision, brute strength, found the weak spot...SFX vary) then rolled 3s become 4s (and previous effects).

 

That raises the average damage without exceeding or changing the amount of dice rolled. Better hits guarantee a certain level of better damage (that can still be obtained with a really good roll anyway).

 

You're not really doing extra damage, so much as preventing a really good Attack Roll from doing poor damage. It feels more balanced personally.

 

 

I think you are misinterpreting the post (or else confusing the post that I took issue with; I was responding to Ninja-Bear). He gave the example of "I.e. if you had a 10d6 blast, you could buy +2d6 but you could not exceed 60 Stun or 20 body, the max on 10D6" which reads pretty clearly to me as 10d6+2d6, capped at 60 STUN and 20 BODY. If it is choosing the best 10, it does about 5 more damage than the straight 10d6, which would still give me pause, but I'd be more likely to allow it, depending on other factors (highest 9 of 11d6, for example, would be nearly as balanced in a 10d6 game as certain other RAW legal options, so I might allow that for instance).

 

As for the notion about preventing a good attack roll from doing poor damage, the specific implementation doesn't look too damning (hitting by 3+ will only boost damage by about 5%, an would only occur about 37.5% of the time, or about 50% of hits, even assuming favorable OCV vs DCV, and hitting by 6+ would occur about 10% of the time, or 12.5% of hits, and would only boost damage by about 14%; hardly enough to matter. However, I see nothing wrong with the idea that you can have a good attack roll and poor damage roll: in building a character there tend to be certain trade offs. A brick will tend to do good damage but not hit as often. A speedster will tend to hit with more attack rolls, and hit more often with speed, but won't do as much damage. Removing those trade-offs, or diminishing them means (at the very least) the cost structures must be adjusted, and (probably more likely) the game would have to accommodate low OCV-High DC concepts. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well that's just it, I wouldn't base the entire build around the max, but its something I like to keep in mind.

[Ninja-Bear]

To be clear I never said roll 12 and keep the best 10. Sorry if I confused people.

[Ninja-Bear]

The problem with this is that is (assuming 12d6), the Maximum Roll occurs about 1 in 2 billion rolls (even assuming 10d6, it's still 1 out of 60 million). If you're concerned about realistic maximum damage, I'd just tend to set a cut off percentage. For example on a 12d6 you're only ever going to see a 50 or higher about 10% of the time, a 52 or higher about 5% of the time, and 56 or higher 1% of the time.

So then why you against the bonus dice method? It will for most cases just increase the average roll but not sognificantly increase the chance of max damage.

[ghost-angel]

I was not replying to any of the conversation directly before my post, or I would have quoted it; I was replying to the OP. Who said "Count the best 12 of a 12+Extra Roll" - which is exactly why I was pointing out as not actually being all that unbalancing.

 

 However, I see nothing wrong with the idea that you can have a good attack roll and poor damage roll: in building a character there tend to be certain trade offs. A brick will tend to do good damage but not hit as often. A speedster will tend to hit with more attack rolls, and hit more often with speed, but won't do as much damage. Removing those trade-offs, or diminishing them means (at the very least) the cost structures must be adjusted, and (probably more likely) the game would have to accommodate low OCV-High DC concepts. 

 

1) I didn't say I saw anything wrong with it. But the topic is about rewarding a really successful hit. I think it's an interesting idea. On a meta level players like really good rolls to do really spectacular things. We have it built into Skills that the more you succeed a skill roll by the better the success from it is... why not Attacks as well.

 

2) Unless you're going by pure Speed Characteristic where 'bricks' simply have less action; I see no reason that archetype should 'hit less often' and I see no reason why a speedster type should 'do less damage' (in fact, I see no reason why buying up speed should in any way involve buying a smaller attack...). I find the entire idea that bricks should have a lower OCV simply because of the archetype to be not just absurd, but offensive. More often than not archetypes become code for 'class based limitations' when we don't have that in this game and therefore shouldn't be much of a consideration outside the context of a Campaign (which this discussion is).

 

Which brings me to my last point:

 

The OP asked for ideas to reward a really successful Attack Roll, instead of crapping all over the idea with statistics, how about we offer up ideas for them to use with both pros and cons.

[Tholomyes]

So then why you against the bonus dice method? It will for most cases just increase the average roll but not sognificantly increase the chance of max damage.

 

That's why I'm against it. (Not the fact that it doesn't increase max damage, but the fact that it increases the average). Max damage doesn't matter. The fact that you can theoretically roll 10 6s on a 10d6 doesn't really change the phase-to-phase damage that a character can do. But if you have characters based around the idea that 10d6 is the average damage that a character can do, and you have a character who, because of your rule, can do (effectively) 12d6 damage, without some sort of trade off elsewhere (such as via a Rule of X), that exceeds those expectations. Any situation where a 12d6 (capped at 60 STUN) damage character would be allowed, a 12d6 damage character should also be allowed, because the 99.95% of the time, the result of 12d6 is 60 or under (and thus the capped damage wouldn't even be worth any limitation, because a limitation that does not limit the character is worth no points).

 

The construction of it as 10d6, plus 2d6, only to boost average damage, seems very intellectually dishonest, because it's a 12d6 attack, and should be treated in all ways like a 12d6 attack. In point cost, in campaign caps, in everything. The difference is so minuscule it can be safely ignored. I feel like a broken record, because I can't think of any fresh or more clear way to put it that I haven't already said. Increasing average damage is the domain of adding extra dice. Adding extra dice is, in nearly all cases, limited by an active points cap, a DC cap, a Rule of X. If your goal is to increase average damage, beyond what the current campaign limits allow, then that's a sign that the campaign limits should be adjusted to allow for that. Otherwise those limits aren't really limits because they don't actually limit anything. (And in the case where there aren't campaign limits, this logic still applies. Either it's not actually increasing the average damage, since 12d6 could be taken for the same points cost, or if you're not making it a -0 limitation, you're providing a points discount for a limitation that doesn't actually limit anything).

 

I was not replying to any of the conversation directly before my post, or I would have quoted it; I was replying to the OP. Who said "Count the best 12 of a 12+Extra Roll" - which is exactly why I was pointing out as not actually being all that unbalancing.

 

 

1) I didn't say I saw anything wrong with it. But the topic is about rewarding a really successful hit. I think it's an interesting idea. On a meta level players like really good rolls to do really spectacular things. We have it built into Skills that the more you succeed a skill roll by the better the success from it is... why not Attacks as well.

 

2) Unless you're going by pure Speed Characteristic where 'bricks' simply have less action; I see no reason that archetype should 'hit less often' and I see no reason why a speedster type should 'do less damage' (in fact, I see no reason why buying up speed should in any way involve buying a smaller attack...). I find the entire idea that bricks should have a lower OCV simply because of the archetype to be not just absurd, but offensive. More often than not archetypes become code for 'class based limitations' when we don't have that in this game and therefore shouldn't be much of a consideration outside the context of a Campaign (which this discussion is).

 

Which brings me to my last point:

 

The OP asked for ideas to reward a really successful Attack Roll, instead of crapping all over the idea with statistics, how about we offer up ideas for them to use with both pros and cons.

 

Ok, my apologies for assuming you were replying to me. However, to answer your points:

 

1) With skills, there are no effect rolls. The degree of success from the skill roll is the only way to determine the degree of success at that skill. This makes sense because for skills, your ability at that skill generally is a single parameter. While there is perhaps a reason to justify to create two parameters, similar to attack and damage rolls, to simulate the difference between an inexperienced, but naturally talented character and a character with experience, but no natural aptitude: someone with experiential skills will succeed more often, due to greater practice, but their successes won't be as great, because they don't have the necessary aptitude for the skill. The person with natural talent, but not much experience, will fail often, because of their inexperience, but when they succeed they have greater results, because they have a more intuitive understanding. An easy example would be math. Someone who's done a ton of rote math will mess up less often, but might not be able to solve problems as elegantly. Meanwhile someone, for whom math is intuitive, but who hasn't done rote memorization, will mess up some, but their approach will be stronger because they aren't necessarily blindly following the steps, but they have some intuitive understanding of why certain mathematical formulas or properties work. However, this doesn't really add much, and the greater abstraction of skills probably serves the system better.

 

For attacks, however, this single parameter paradigm does not hold. There are characters, such as Bricks, who can't hit the broad side of a tank, but if they land a hit, they hit hard. On the other side, there are Martial Artists, or Speedsters or the like, who tend to hit with more of their attacks, but who don't do as much damage on a hit. Changing damage to be a function of how well a character hit skews the balance between these two ends of the spectrum towards the OCV-high characters. This isn't really warranted. It would necessitate a change to the cost of OCV/DCV/CSLs/ect, as well as necessitate a change to the way CSLs can be used to boost damage, how spreading an attack works, and so on. For what reason? What is the goal? If the goal is to give High OCV characters a boost vs Low DCV, High Def characters, there are already RAW options: Haymaker (including the optional Offensive Haymaker), Offensive Strike, ect. If the goal is the "gut feeling" that an especially low attack roll should somehow correspond to high damage, then you've lost me completely. The notion of separating a glancing hit from a full hit from a critical hit (or whatever) is not something that I think adds anything to the game. RPGs, by their nature, feature abstraction. One aspect of that abstraction is the notion that hitting and damage are separate rolls, a fact which isn't just unique to HERO. And it's baffling that this is even an issue in an effects based system like HERO.

 

2) I suppose it's just my tendency to use a "Rule of X" for my games. Bricks hit less often because they shift more of their "X" from OCV, DCV (and often times SPD) to DC and DEF. Speedsters do less damage, because of a shift in the opposite direction. But go ahead and think it's "absurd" and "offensive" that characters might not have identical combat values, because they chose to invest more in combat values that make sense for the archetype, and less so in ones that don't.

 

Last Point) Whenever you want to make a rules change that impacts basic assumptions about how the game works, it is generally best practice to at least know the consequences of making those changes. "Crapping all over the idea with statistics" as you put it, is simply doing just that. This thread is filled with rules ideas that come from a basis where it seems the consequences are ignored based on what 'feels right' by some dubious notion of how the game should work. Statistics are an empirical way to show those impacts free of personal bias over what 'feels right'. But pros and cons, if you wish:

 

Pros:

-OP's solution Selects dice from a pool, which has the benefit of skewing the results, without simply shifting the average, which results in a more manageable increase in average damage. (Still probably worth a recalculation in terms of cost, but it's not the massive increase it might otherwise be.)

-The method by which the rule skews damage for lower DC characters allows for higher defenses (a higher defense/DC ratio generally works better with a lot of the other mathematical assumptions of the system, but can make low DC characters struggle to get any damage in). Since the distribution of damage is skewed, the impact of the shift works differently for the median and mean (which is nice, since it means even after other fixes to bring the cost structure of OCV/DCV/ect in line, and such, there will be fewer "feel-bad" moments where you hit but do no [or a piddling amount of] damage, even when average damage isn't too far off the other characters)

 

Cons:

-Cost structure requires extensive changes due to the relative importance of DC vs CVs as well as existing links between Damage and CV (CSLs, spreading an attack, ect). Any balance structures need to be changed as well, such as caps, Rules of "X", or the like, and it will be generally more difficult to match the right values without some statistics.

- "If it ain't broke, don't fix it": even with a careful eye and some statistical analysis, messing with something as intrinsic as calculating damage will have unforseen side effects. Suddenly certain characters or actions or whatever will be a lot more or less powerful, and running around duct-taping everything fixed seems like an unappealing proposition when RAW works pretty effectively as is.

[ghost-angel]

Switching gears a little to your typical Heroic game that uses Hit Locations, along similar lines to use skill to try and inflict more damage; we tried in one campaign where Skill Levels allowed you to walk your Hit Location Roll up or down based on success over the needed target.

 

It worked pretty well, though often enough you were close enough to either a Vital or Head shot that you could easily move that hit there if you concentrated on it (it was at the same rate as adding Damage Classes: 2 Skills Levels = 1 Movement); mooks and low level enemies went down in one hit, which felt pretty epic a lot of the time.

 

You could do the same with well placed hits, though I wouldn't use the same conversion as Skill Levels, every 3 over allows you to move the Hit Location Roll one point up or down.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I use a system like that.  For a -2 to hit penalty you can try to get a location, and if you hit, you roll location normally.  Then, for each point you hit by, you can move your hit location roll by 1 toward that intended target.

 

So, you roll your attack at -2 OCV, then roll location.  Say, you targeted their head, and with the penalty managed to hit by 3.  You roll the hit location, a 9: shoulder.  Since you hit by 3, that is moved 3 points toward the head, which gives you a 6: he threw up a hand between you and his head!

 

It worked pretty well but I was nervous about people targeting vitals.  Since that's so central, its pretty easy to get a roll near that, as 10-11 is average on 3d6, and its a sweet x2 body, x4 stun hit location.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Not sure I said it here but I am looking at providing a corollory glancing blow element for the heavy hitters. Possibly remove a six from the damage pool to gain an extra +1 OCV. Or something like that.

 

I am tired of superhero combats where it is all just a little bit too predictable and where I have balanced it so well that things take a little bit longer to resolve. I could push different builds in different ways but I want there to be different ways to achieve stuff and I want to push people into more extreme versions of the archetypes. It is probably my fault but too many of my friends characters end up with a broad range of everything and there is nothing in the system that then adds in the variability I like to see.

 

So, something for the high OCV folk to maximise their damage and something for the heavy hitters to deliver glancing blows.

 

There is indeed nothing in the system that says the to-hit roll is involved in how well someone hits (or how well someone delivers damage) but I am interested in trying it. And even if it works for me and my group - there is no reason that it will necessarily work for anyone elses... :-)

 

However, I think I almost enjoy talking about what I want to do more than I enjoy doing it.... :-(

 

Doc

The Critical Hit optional rules say hello.

[Doc Democracy]

The Critical Hit optional rules say hello.

 

Hello critical hit optional rules, meet a graduated cousin...

[ghost-angel]

 

2) I suppose it's just my tendency to use a "Rule of X" for my games.

 

I really dislike these ... I specifically don't use them because if I wanted someone to tell me how to build my character I'd be playing a class-based system.

 

They are, in my experience, absolutely useless for any scenario that isn't directly tied to the specific X Formula, even detrimental to the discussion, and the System itself does not count on or use such a faulty mechanic.

 

There's no reason a high defense character can't also have a high OCV. Or a high Speed character should have low DCs. It's nothing more than a cage and a crutch.

[eepjr24]

I really dislike these ... I specifically don't use them because if I wanted someone to tell me how to build my character I'd be playing a class-based system.

 

They are, in my experience, absolutely useless for any scenario that isn't directly tied to the specific X Formula, even detrimental to the discussion, and the System itself does not count on or use such a faulty mechanic.

 

There's no reason a high defense character can't also have a high OCV. Or a high Speed character should have low DCs. It's nothing more than a cage and a crutch.

Interesting opinion, but it's just that. I don't specifically use Rule of X, but I do use campaign guidelines. Do you have the same opinion of those? Because in combination with starting points they really work out to a complex rule of X that covers all possible stats and powers.

 

- E