Vagaries of the rule of X

[sentry0]

I recently bit the bullet and updated from 5th to 6th edition and have found the changes to 6th to be really refreshing and good.  In particular, I have really liked how DEX has been decoupled from OCV/DCV...I knew that was a thing but actually sitting down and building a character that didn't have superhuman levels of DEX because their concept didn't call for it was gratifying.

 

The one thing that irks me in 6th is that the rule of x is so vague.  I really liked the old tables that existed in 5th edition (page 15 of the core book) that listed the point costs and character abilities guidelines better than the rule of x IMO.  However, I think the rule of x has so much potential that I want to use it...I just need a more solid calculation

 

Here's my preliminary thoughts for my rule of x calculations:

 

Offensive Rule of X

• SPD * 2 (or 3 or higher???  Speed has such a massive impact on combat that I feel it should be weighted)
• OCV
• Highest offensive power/attack AP / 5

 

Defensive Rule of X

• Highest defensive power AP /5
• DCV
• SPD * 2 (see above)
• STUN / 5 * (1 + (Damage Reduction percentage / 100))

 

The math nerd in me says that there are many variables, some that interact with other variables, some variables that should be weighted higher, that someone must have done the math on this.

 

So, does anyone have a really slick rule of x to share or have anything to add to my calculation???

[Hugh Neilson]

I find these rules tend not to work well in practice - there are too many variables.

 

Some comments here:

Highest AP attack will weight a 6d6 Blast, 0 END, Personal Immunity, Affects all Desolid attack (67 AP) more offensively powerful than a 12d6 Blast.  Which one will have more impact on the character's offensive capabilities?  I'd use Damage Classes.

 

How does the system factor in  velocity damage or martial arts/skill levels?

 

I find a versatile character has an advantage, but this weighting means a 12d6 Blast is the same offense as a dozen different 60 AP attacks in a multipower.

 

Similar issues exist for defensive powers - is a character with 30 Power Defense, 15 PD and 15 ED better defended than one with 25 PD,. ED, Mental Defense, Power Defense and Spatial Awareness (to avoid Flash)?

 

Isn't Damage Reduction a defense power?  Does that mean it counts twice? 

 

50% damage reduction means twice as much STUN has to get past defenses to KO the target (75% means 4x).  Is your formula intended to generate a lower multiple to acknowledge there are likely ways the character will take unreduced STUN?

 

Is 75% Damage Reduction vs Fire Only more potent than 50% energy, physical and mental damage reduction? 

 

Generally, I find rules of X are at best Guidelines - the system is complex, so judgment has to be applied.

[Ninja-Bear]

I know for myself, figuring in martial arts is hard. I used to add in all but then for damage classes which ones? Offensive strike because it adds +4 DC or martial strike with +2?  And how about Martial Dodge? A rough guideline which some advice I picked up along the way, is when defining DCV, I include standard Dodge since it’s available to everyone. Martial Dodge, not everyone should have but imo you shouldn’t be hit anyways when using martial Dodge. For DCs it’s trickier, however my characters usually have martial strike so I feel comfortable of including that into figuring Defs but I ignore offensive strike as in it should be more damaging and it comes with a -2 to hit making it less likely to hit.

[IndianaJoe3]

I developed a token system where characters could buy all their various abilities (damage, defense, CV, SPD, characteristics) up to a cap, and then spend tokens to raise the caps in one area. I did not count dodges against the CV caps. In hindsight, I might not have excepted the Flying Dodge since it does allow a full move.

[sentry0]

8 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I find these rules tend not to work well in practice - there are too many variables.

 

Some comments here:

Highest AP attack will weight a 6d6 Blast, 0 END, Personal Immunity, Affects all Desolid attack (67 AP) more offensively powerful than a 12d6 Blast.  Which one will have more impact on the character's offensive capabilities?  I'd use Damage Classes.

 

How does the system factor in  velocity damage or martial arts/skill levels?

 

I find a versatile character has an advantage, but this weighting means a 12d6 Blast is the same offense as a dozen different 60 AP attacks in a multipower.

 

Similar issues exist for defensive powers - is a character with 30 Power Defense, 15 PD and 15 ED better defended than one with 25 PD,. ED, Mental Defense, Power Defense and Spatial Awareness (to avoid Flash)?

 

Isn't Damage Reduction a defense power?  Does that mean it counts twice? 

 

50% damage reduction means twice as much STUN has to get past defenses to KO the target (75% means 4x).  Is your formula intended to generate a lower multiple to acknowledge there are likely ways the character will take unreduced STUN?

 

Is 75% Damage Reduction vs Fire Only more potent than 50% energy, physical and mental damage reduction? 

 

Generally, I find rules of X are at best Guidelines - the system is complex, so judgment has to be applied.

 

All that makes sense.  There's never going to be a substitute for GM eyes on a character.  I think any GM and/or player blindly accepting some variation of the Rule of X calculation as proof a character is ready for playtime is going to be in for a bad time.

 

The Rule of X is really this games version of horseshoes (or hand grenades) where close counts but there should be an objective way to say you are completely off target, right?

 

I'm wondering if there isn't a way to come up with a "good enough" calculation that could help get characters in the right general vicinity.  I think it makes sense to combine Offensive and Defensive Rules of X into a single monolithic calculation.

 

If you look at the old 5th edition tables they list these as factors for power levels:

• Characteristics
• SPD
• CVs
• DCs
• Active Points
• Skill Points
• DEF/rDEF

This is a good starting point but some are just not important and some need to be broken out into separate variables.  Here's what I propose as the main factors in a characters power:

• SPD * 2 (maybe more)
• OCV
• DCV
• DC of highest attack
• AP / 5 of greatest attack power
• (PD + ED) / 2
• (rPD + rED) / 2
• STUN / 5
• AP / 5 of greatest defensive power (including desolidification, deflection, invisibility, etc)
• Maximum velocity meters / 6 (does not count teleportation)

These 10 factors may be the "good enough" variables the monolithic equation needs.  Of course it's not perfect, there's a big difference between 60 AP in power defense and 60 AP in Damage Negation those are where the GM needs to intervene and use their  own judgement.  Their simply is no substitution for human GMs interpretation of a character.

 

Anyways, this is all just me shooting from the hip here...I want to play around with this some more and run some characters through the equation before I come to any conclusions.

[sentry0]

I built a spreadsheet last night to calculate the Rule of X based on my previous post, I think it turned out pretty good.

 

Some observations:

• I ended up weighting SPD and DCV heavily because of the massive impact those stats have on combat
• I added in CON to factor in how hard it is to stun the character
• DEX was likewise included to get a sense of initiative
• I ran 4 fresh characters I'm building for a mini-con through the sheet
• All the characters were within 10% of the campaign Rule of X

It still needs more tweaking I think but I think it's a decent first attempt.

 

Anyone see anything strange or concerning with my approach?

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Is it fair to haye the Martial Artist on a DCV including Martial Dodge?  That means he is not attacking.  Everyone else can forego a attack and get +3 DCV for free (maybe spend 6 points on +2 DCV with Dodge instead of buying Martial Dodge, Anders – that should lower your Rule of X a lot).  I’d be inclined to run the test on common attacks, rather than all-out avoidance of being hit.  That could be as simple as “best possible DCV modifier from any offensive martial maneuver”, rather than running multiple maneuvers through.  However, that will combine the best OCV and DCV mods with the highest DC martial maneuver, despite the inability to ever have all of those benefits in a single attack. 

 

Makes Legsweep look nice – knock the target prone at the cost of 1d6 damage, and that 1d6 reduces your rule of x number so you can be higher somewhere else.

 

I am thinking a low DEX, low DCV character with a ton of defenses might be pretty effective.  What if we adjust Ogre by:

 

• Dropping DEX to 5 – he’s a big, slow brute, slower even than a typical Normal.  That shaves off 15 points (and 30 CP).

• Dropping DCV to 2 – again, big and slower than a Normal – that’s another 35 points (and 35 CP) saved.

• Pump those savings into PD and ED, non-resistant – say, +30 to each (costs 60 points and bumps his Rule of X up 30 as well).

• Now his Rule of X is 181- least of the group – and he has 5 CP to buy something nice with.  +1 OCV, maybe?  Still the lowest Rule of X in the group.  With 57 defenses, a 17d6 attack (Aaron) will average 2.5 STUN past his defenses.  Ogre’s OCV 10 punch will hit DCV 5 as easily as Aaron’s OCV 7 will hit Ogre’s new DCV 2, and Ogre will punch an average of 15.5 STUN past Aaron’s 30 defenses with a 13d6 Punch.  Pretty clear who will win that battle. 

 

I didn’t put a huge effort inti optimizing him.  Does he need 27rDEF?  A 4d6 KA with max damage passes no BOD through.  With those bumped-up defenses, maybe he can get by with less STUN? 

 

I suspect taking similar extremes might have similar results. 

 

By the way, Aaron is similar, but less extreme – low CVs, SPD and DEX, pumping the savings into slightly higher defenses and a massively greater attack DC.  That OCV will hurt him, though.  Why doesn’t he dump OCV entirely – drop it down to 3 (and take 4 off his Rule of X) and buy a Naked Advantage – 1 hex area (+1/4) on his hug, ham-sized fists. That takes his 17 DCs to 21, offsetting the 4 points reduced for OCV, but now instead of rarely hitting, he will rarely miss.

 

Might as well buy up exotic defenses, since these have no impact on the Rule of X.  Multipowers with lots of attack options too – may as well be flexible, as Rule of X is not differentiating between a one trick pony and a highly versatile combatant.  But not a versatile martial artist!

[Hyper-Man]

I've always been a little skeptical about such codified tables because I have yet to see them handle the asymmetrical VPP based combat abilities at the core of my rookie Clark and Barry builds.  Those builds are powerful but not overwhelmingly so.  Example: Clark would have trouble vs Ogre the first time they meet if he doesn't stick to one plan.

 

Anyway, I commend the effort to such a noble goal and hope you find the winning formula.

[sentry0]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Is it fair to haye the Martial Artist on a DCV including Martial Dodge?  That means he is not attacking.  Everyone else can forego a attack and get +3 DCV for free (maybe spend 6 points on +2 DCV with Dodge instead of buying Martial Dodge, Anders – that should lower your Rule of X a lot).  I’d be inclined to run the test on common attacks, rather than all-out avoidance of being hit.  That could be as simple as “best possible DCV modifier from any offensive martial maneuver”, rather than running multiple maneuvers through.  However, that will combine the best OCV and DCV mods with the highest DC martial maneuver, despite the inability to ever have all of those benefits in a single attack. 

 

Makes Legsweep look nice – knock the target prone at the cost of 1d6 damage, and that 1d6 reduces your rule of x number so you can be higher somewhere else.

 

I am thinking a low DEX, low DCV character with a ton of defenses might be pretty effective.  What if we adjust Ogre by:

 

• Dropping DEX to 5 – he’s a big, slow brute, slower even than a typical Normal.  That shaves off 15 points (and 30 CP).

• Dropping DCV to 2 – again, big and slower than a Normal – that’s another 35 points (and 35 CP) saved.

• Pump those savings into PD and ED, non-resistant – say, +30 to each (costs 60 points and bumps his Rule of X up 30 as well).

• Now his Rule of X is 181- least of the group – and he has 5 CP to buy something nice with.  +1 OCV, maybe?  Still the lowest Rule of X in the group.  With 57 defenses, a 17d6 attack (Aaron) will average 2.5 STUN past his defenses.  Ogre’s OCV 10 punch will hit DCV 5 as easily as Aaron’s OCV 7 will hit Ogre’s new DCV 2, and Ogre will punch an average of 15.5 STUN past Aaron’s 30 defenses with a 13d6 Punch.  Pretty clear who will win that battle. 

 

I didn’t put a huge effort inti optimizing him.  Does he need 27rDEF?  A 4d6 KA with max damage passes no BOD through.  With those bumped-up defenses, maybe he can get by with less STUN? 

 

I suspect taking similar extremes might have similar results. 

 

By the way, Aaron is similar, but less extreme – low CVs, SPD and DEX, pumping the savings into slightly higher defenses and a massively greater attack DC.  That OCV will hurt him, though.  Why doesn’t he dump OCV entirely – drop it down to 3 (and take 4 off his Rule of X) and buy a Naked Advantage – 1 hex area (+1/4) on his hug, ham-sized fists. That takes his 17 DCs to 21, offsetting the 4 points reduced for OCV, but now instead of rarely hitting, he will rarely miss.

 

Might as well buy up exotic defenses, since these have no impact on the Rule of X.  Multipowers with lots of attack options too – may as well be flexible, as Rule of X is not differentiating between a one trick pony and a highly versatile combatant.  But not a versatile martial artist!

 

I get what you're saying and none of those munchkinized characters would make it past me personally as a GM.  People can (and will) game any system devised, the value of the Rule of X for me is as a relatively quick sanity check...the real work would still be done by the GM in terms of campaign viability.  Like I said earlier in this thread: there is no substitute for a GMs judgement.   Would you let someone into your campaign with a 57 PD/ED?  I don't think so.

 

One thing to keep in mind (that I didn't explicitly call out) is the campaign "baseline" stats established on row 3 of the spreadsheet.  You could argue that is someone did what you suggested to good old Ogre there would be red flags all over his line item when compared to campaign baseline values.  His DEX would be way low, he would have massive defenses and above average damage compared to the campaign averages.  That's actually an argument in favor of the Rule of X as it quickly spots deviations from the norms.  The end number could be in range of the campaign Rule of X but that character would never pass the sniff test by even a modestly caffeinated GM

 

[sentry0]

31 minutes ago, Hyper-Man said:

I've always been a little skeptical about such codified tables because I have yet to see them handle the asymmetrical VPP based combat abilities at the core of my rookie Clark and Barry builds.  Those builds are powerful but not overwhelmingly so.  Example: Clark would have trouble vs Ogre the first time they meet if he doesn't stick to one plan.

 

Anyway, I commend the effort to such a noble goal and hope you find the winning formula.

 

VPPs are crazy, I have no idea how to calculate their relative value in this equation

 

I really don't know if this will go anywhere...I'm just spitballing here.  If something comes of this thread then cool but nothing ventured nothing gained I say.

[sentry0]

I was thinking about this little experiment over lunch...

• Weighting is off in general I think
• OCV needs to be equal weight to DCV
• DCs and Speed need an adjustment
• Velocity needs an increase too...proportional to the DC weight increase 
• Not sure what to do with psychics

 

[Hugh Neilson]

9 hours ago, sentry0 said:

 

I get what you're saying and none of those munchkinized characters would make it past me personally as a GM.  People can (and will) game any system devised, the value of the Rule of X for me is as a relatively quick sanity check...the real work would still be done by the GM in terms of campaign viability.  Like I said earlier in this thread: there is no substitute for a GMs judgement.   Would you let someone into your campaign with a 57 PD/ED?  I don't think so.

 

So what benefit does the Rule of X have if it cannot actually be relied upon.  If these relative weightings are accurate, then sacrificing DCV for Defenses, or vice versa, should generate relatively equally competent characters.  But it doesn't.  How much +1 DCV is worth depends a lot on how close you are to the campaign average OCV.  High enough defenses and you are functionally invulnerable, and don't need DCV.  But you can simulate high defenses with high STUN and REC (REC not being on your chart). 

 

That's just trading defense stats.  What if I accept a weakness in offense to beef up defense, or vice versa?  If I drop my def and rDEF by 5 each, I can bump my DCs up by 10.  Good deal.  Probably catches me with oAP, so I can't raise it that much,  but even 3 DCs is 10 more damage past defenses on an average hit. Not sure how OAP works - a lot of 60s over a wide DC spread and Ogre only has 20?

 

Let in 57 defenses?  Probably not.  But I doubt I would let a 17 DC attack sail in either, and there is one in your chart.  The next highest is 14 DC.  Lowest is 10.  That's quite a spread.  If 10 DC can do, say, 10 damage past defenses, 17 DC should punch through 34.5 on average.  Enough to stun everyone on the list.

 

Mutants & Masterminds allowed a small spread between "tough to hit" and "hard to hurt", and between "accuracy" and "damage done", but only a small spread.

 

9 hours ago, sentry0 said:

One thing to keep in mind (that I didn't explicitly call out) is the campaign "baseline" stats established on row 3 of the spreadsheet.  You could argue that is someone did what you suggested to good old Ogre there would be red flags all over his line item when compared to campaign baseline values.  His DEX would be way low, he would have massive defenses and above average damage compared to the campaign averages.  That's actually an argument in favor of the Rule of X as it quickly spots deviations from the norms.  The end number could be in range of the campaign Rule of X but that character would never pass the sniff test by even a modestly caffeinated GM

 

Seems like the whole purpose of a rule of x is to balance out characters who deviate from baselines.  And they all deviate a lot - 183 to 201 points from baseline.

 

I think campaign norms are more useful than any rule of x.

[sentry0]

45 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

So what benefit does the Rule of X have if it cannot actually be relied upon.  If these relative weightings are accurate, then sacrificing DCV for Defenses, or vice versa, should generate relatively equally competent characters.  But it doesn't.  How much +1 DCV is worth depends a lot on how close you are to the campaign average OCV.  High enough defenses and you are functionally invulnerable, and don't need DCV.  But you can simulate high defenses with high STUN and REC (REC not being on your chart). 

 

That's just trading defense stats.  What if I accept a weakness in offense to beef up defense, or vice versa?  If I drop my def and rDEF by 5 each, I can bump my DCs up by 10.  Good deal.  Probably catches me with oAP, so I can't raise it that much,  but even 3 DCs is 10 more damage past defenses on an average hit. Not sure how OAP works - a lot of 60s over a wide DC spread and Ogre only has 20?

 

Let in 57 defenses?  Probably not.  But I doubt I would let a 17 DC attack sail in either, and there is one in your chart.  The next highest is 14 DC.  Lowest is 10.  That's quite a spread.  If 10 DC can do, say, 10 damage past defenses, 17 DC should punch through 34.5 on average.  Enough to stun everyone on the list.

 

Mutants & Masterminds allowed a small spread between "tough to hit" and "hard to hurt", and between "accuracy" and "damage done", but only a small spread.

 

Seems like the whole purpose of a rule of x is to balance out characters who deviate from baselines.  And they all deviate a lot - 183 to 201 points from baseline.

 

I think campaign norms are more useful than any rule of x.

 

I want to reiterate that in my original post I said that I liked the way it was handled in 5th better than the Rule of X which was essentially campaign norms based on starting point levels.  The title of this thread is the "Vagaries of the rule of X" not "I love the rule of x"

 

The point of the exercise for me is to see if I can make a working Rule of X and see how well my first batch of 6th edition characters do.

 

I have been tweaking the weights in my spreadsheet and things are pretty different now both the speedster and brick show up above 10% which I think is fair.  The 17 die attack the brick has was questionable when I built him but I figured I would let it slide because it has Extra time and increased endurance costs.  Nothing the Rule of X would catch mind you but the new tweaks to weighting call it out pretty clearly as a culprit for his inflated +%.

 

I always pivot damage dice on SPEED and DCV in my games.  The lower you go under the average SPEED and the lower your DCV  the more defenses and damage I allow you to have, within reason obviously.  The inverse is true for characters with high SPEED and DCV.  It's simple and part art and part science but it allows for that spread so characters don't feel so homogenized.  I don't think I'm unique here either, I learned this from my Champions mentor and I'd wager that others do exactly the same thing.

 

I actually fully agree with you on the notion of the Rule of X being handwavy BS, especially the way it's spelled out in the official rules.  I still want to take a run at this and see how far I can take it without needing a degree in Math.

 

I guess I just like a challenge

 

[ghost-angel]

I don't want to just come with negativity on things like this, but honestly - Rule Of X has always felt like an extremely bad concept; and not just for the reasons Hugh has pointed out. Even if 5th it could be massively unreliable, to the point of (IMO) actual detriment to play.

 

What if I build a character with 0 Offensive/Attack Powers, but is still a valuable, and contributing member during combat. And not just with buffs. Rule Of X can never fully take into account Controller Types who alter the playing field indirectly in a constantly dynamic situation. (I am currently playing such a character, literally 0 Damage capability. Still effective.)

 

Even the official rules assume a character will have all the basic elements in, more or less, equal value. Reducing a character to a single number will almost always negatively impact the game.

 

There's a reason why there are Limit and Range tables of a full suite of stats at the start of the book.

[sentry0]

3 minutes ago, ghost-angel said:

I don't want to just come with negativity on things like this, but honestly - Rule Of X has always felt like an extremely bad concept; and not just for the reasons Hugh has pointed out. Even if 5th it could be massively unreliable, to the point of (IMO) actual detriment to play.

 

What if I build a character with 0 Offensive/Attack Powers, but is still a valuable, and contributing member during combat. And not just with buffs. Rule Of X can never fully take into account Controller Types who alter the playing field indirectly in a constantly dynamic situation. (I am currently playing such a character, literally 0 Damage capability. Still effective.)

 

Even the official rules assume a character will have all the basic elements in, more or less, equal value. Reducing a character to a single number will almost always negatively impact the game.

 

I don't disagree with any of what you're saying and of course there will always be outliers...I'm really just curious if this is at all workable or utter nonsense.  Again, there is no replacement for a GMs judgement...I view this as a potential tool to aid the GM not supplant the GMs judgement.

 

Quote

There's a reason why there are Limit and Range tables of a full suite of stats at the start of the book.

 

I don't think I understand this comment, is this a reference to the tables in the 5th edition core rulebook or something else?

[Hyper-Man]

I think it's a reference to this :

 

[ghost-angel]

8 minutes ago, sentry0 said:

 

I don't disagree with any of what you're saying and of course there will always be outliers...I'm really just curious if this is at all workable or utter nonsense.  Again, there is no replacement for a GMs judgement...I view this as a potential tool to aid the GM not supplant the GMs judgement.

 

 

I don't think I understand this comment, is this a reference to the tables in the 5th edition core rulebook or something else?

 

IMO - Utter Nonsense.

 

Yes, the Character Creation Tables, 5ER p28, also in 5E and 6E.

[sentry0]

Changes to the calculation:

• Did a pass and modified just about all of the weightings
• I added in stats for psychics
• The DC and oAP columns are now mutually exclusive...this means characters based on EGO attacks or Drains will be handled consistently

Things to do:

• Possibly do something with dAP involving some sort of derived multiplier from DEF and rDEF

Here's a screengrab for those curious to see how this is evolving.

[ghost-angel]

Not sure how you'd weight it, but PRE via PRE Attacks are very effective sometimes, especially in the opening phases of combat - losing 1/2 or even a Full Phase from a good Attack can alter a battle significantly.

 

And of course, this entire thing revolves around combat effectiveness and effectively ignores non-combat builds/encounters entirely.

[sentry0]

7 minutes ago, ghost-angel said:

Not sure how you'd weight it, but PRE via PRE Attacks are very effective sometimes, especially in the opening phases of combat - losing 1/2 or even a Full Phase from a good Attack can alter a battle significantly.

 

And of course, this entire thing revolves around combat effectiveness and effectively ignores non-combat builds/encounters entirely.

 

That's an interesting idea.  I'll have to think about that.

 

Thanks!

[Hugh Neilson]

For a Martial Artist (or someone else with a lot of choice in maneuvers), I would be inclined to take the maneuver with the highest overall result (so sum of OCV Mod + DCV Mod + DC Mod).

 

A martial artist with, say, Offensive Strike, Legsweep, Defensive Strike and Martial Strike is getting treated as having +2 OCV, +3 DCV and +4 DC (+65 X) when the best he can do with any one maneuver would be 35 (Offensive Strike).

 

I'm not sure how your system handles skill levels, but they may be getting a similar beating.  4 skill levels = +20 for OCV, +20 for DCV and +20 for DCs, when the character can only do one at a time.  That character is  not equal to one that buys +4 OCV, +4 DCV and +2 Cs, and never has to trade off.

 

However, I also think some weighting has to be added for someone with a lot of choices.  A 12d6 Blast, 6d6 STUN Drain, 6d6 Mental Attack (based on OCV so I do not need mOCV) and 12d6 Sight Flash I can choose between is a lot more combat-effective that someone with only one of the four powers.

 

[BTW, I hope that group never meets a mentalist...for their sake!]

[sentry0]

50 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

For a Martial Artist (or someone else with a lot of choice in maneuvers), I would be inclined to take the maneuver with the highest overall result (so sum of OCV Mod + DCV Mod + DC Mod).

 

A martial artist with, say, Offensive Strike, Legsweep, Defensive Strike and Martial Strike is getting treated as having +2 OCV, +3 DCV and +4 DC (+65 X) when the best he can do with any one maneuver would be 35 (Offensive Strike).

 

I'm not sure how your system handles skill levels, but they may be getting a similar beating.  4 skill levels = +20 for OCV, +20 for DCV and +20 for DCs, when the character can only do one at a time.  That character is  not equal to one that buys +4 OCV, +4 DCV and +2 Cs, and never has to trade off.

 

However, I also think some weighting has to be added for someone with a lot of choices.  A 12d6 Blast, 6d6 STUN Drain, 6d6 Mental Attack (based on OCV so I do not need mOCV) and 12d6 Sight Flash I can choose between is a lot more combat-effective that someone with only one of the four powers.

 

[BTW, I hope that group never meets a mentalist...for their sake!]

 

Hah...yeah that group is for a campaign one-shot I'm planning on running at a mini-con...they would get stomped by a mentalist for sure.  They're not "serious" characters per si they're for a very specific purpose so I skimped in some places and took some liberties with some balance choices (ie. the 17 die attack on the brick).  My main goal with them is that they're simple to pick up and use and just fun to play...this mini-con is classically dominated by 5e D&D so I'm assuming the players will not be experienced players...hopefully I'm wrong!

 

I'm also taking the opportunity to switch to 6th so there's a lot of learning and experimentation going on for me right now.  I'm using this as an opportunity to question everything I think I know and trying to approach the switch to 6th with equanimity.  This is actually where this whole "Rule of X" experiment was birthed from for me.

 

Anyways, I appreciate your feedback on Martial Artists and will have to do some thinking on how to handle it fairly.

 

 

[sentry0]

I'm attaching a version of the spreadsheet to this post (it's made using LibreOffice).  It's reasonably functional for my own needs but far from perfect...if you're interested in playing around with it then go for it and put feedback here or PM me.

 

Buyer Beware: As has been discussed numerous times in this thread already this is not meant as a substitute for a GMs critical analysis of a character; it's an experiment that's attempting to make the rule of X workable.

 

Theory of Operation

• All campaigns have some notion of baseline stats like DEX, SPD, CVs, etc
  • The spreadsheet takes those baseline statistics as adjustable parameters and assigns a weight to each
• The Rule of X is the sum of all weights
• Characters who deviate from the norm are affected like this:
  • Going above the campaign average costs the character proportionally more depending on how much more they exceed the norm
  • Going below the norm discounts the stat for the character in the same manner as going above it does (ie. proportionally)
• There's a column labelled "+/- %" that tells you how close a character is the campaign Rule of X
  • I recommend trying to keep characters within 5-10% of the Rule of X (leaning more towards 5%)

Notes:

• All input variables (CON, DCV, oAP, etc) assume the highest possible values a character can generate (without pushing)
  •  it's not about what a character is likely to be at on any given segment of combat
  • it is about what they could theoretically achieve if they had to put everything into a given task (like hitting a target or evading attacks)
• CSLs are tricky and I recommend counting them 2x if applicable (Ogre has 3 HTH CSLs that get factored into both his OCV and DCV, for example)
• Do not factor in standard or optional combat maneuvers into the variables
  • if anyone can perform the maneuver then it's not relevant to the calculation (everyone can Dodge so we don't include that in the DCV entry, for example)
• Martial Arts are also tricky
  • pick the greatest OCV bonus from your list of offensive maneuvers
  • do the same for DCV except Martial Dodge counts as +2 only (the other +3 everyone has access to via standard Dodge)

There are certainly things that require more thought and some things I think will never be achievable.  I will state it again, this is not a substitute for a GMs eye...it's meant to be a possible resource for a GM not the sole means by which they judge a characters campaign viability.

 

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Like MA, it seems unfair that Ogre has to count his 3 CSLs to both OCV and DCV (and, if that is equitable, why does he not also have to reflect the added DC he could get by applying 2 CSLs to damage?).  A character who always has a 10 OCV and a 10 DCV has a marked advantage over one who has a 7 OCV, a 7 DCV and three levels he can swap between the two.  Even more so if he has levels that apply to only some abilities or maneuvers he is likely to use.

 

Were I building a Martial Artist, I guess I should lean to Block rather than Dodge since Block will not impact my Rule of X calcs.

[sentry0]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Like MA, it seems unfair that Ogre has to count his 3 CSLs to both OCV and DCV (and, if that is equitable, why does he not also have to reflect the added DC he could get by applying 2 CSLs to damage?).  A character who always has a 10 OCV and a 10 DCV has a marked advantage over one who has a 7 OCV, a 7 DCV and three levels he can swap between the two.  Even more so if he has levels that apply to only some abilities or maneuvers he is likely to use.

 

Were I building a Martial Artist, I guess I should lean to Block rather than Dodge since Block will not impact my Rule of X calcs.

 

Those are all good points that I have no answer for off the top of my head.

 

Maybe CSLs need to have their own column and weight in the equation.  That may make them more manageable and stop them from inflating peoples CVs.  Ogre is pretty expensive right now because of them.