Vagaries of the rule of X

[sentry0]

I added in a column for CSL and gave it a weight...for fun I threw in the characters included in Champions Complete and got some surprising (and unsurprising) results. 

 

Surprising: Shrinker only came out to +0.6% even with a potential 18d6 attack.  Witchcraft came out to +8.8%, the most of all the Champions.

 

Unsurprising: Green Dragon was way over the +5-10% range at +13.5%...his high DEX, Speed, and CVs added up quickly

 

All things considered it seems "good enough" for my personal campaign needs, YMMV.

 

Here's a screengrab

 

[Hugh Neilson]

A lot of "rule of X" proponents set defaults for CSL,s, such as assuming they will be applied to OCV to the extent possible, then to DCV.

 

Often, the "best attack" is used, with an adder for additional attacks (so a MA with four attack maneuvers would have a base Rule of X based on his highest Rule of X attack, or the one likely to be used most often, and X points per additional attack - same for the Attack MultiPower character).  Tacking on the same weight as an added attack for M Block or M Dodge (an option not available to a player who paid no points for extra maneuvers) seems reasonable.

[Hugh Neilson]

I suspect Shrinker is getting a great deal because her Shrinking-based DCV adds far less points than buying DCV - or skill levels intended to be used for DCV but which could be used for OCV. 

 

I suspect Green Dragon is getting overvalued due to his Martial Arts.  But if you just drop his mCVs back to 3 (like the 4s will help him anyway) and he is back in line with everyone else.

 

Psychics get overvalued, I think, especially versatile psychics like Witchcraft who buy up both mental and physical OCV and DCV.  They can’t use both at the same time. 

 

As I look at it, for those wanting some defense against mentalists, buying Mental Defense, not mDCV, will lower your Rule of X. If Defender dropped his mDCV and mOCV to 3 each, and bought 15 Mental Defense instead, he would be much more resistant to the Mentalists on the chart (who still hit a 5 mDCV on a 14-) and have by far the lowest X.  Is he really that underpowered compared to the others, or does the fact that versatility of attack choices and exotic defenses are not weighted skew the results? 

[sentry0]

8 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I suspect Shrinker is getting a great deal because her Shrinking-based DCV adds far less points than buying DCV - or skill levels intended to be used for DCV but which could be used for OCV. 

 

I suspect Green Dragon is getting overvalued due to his Martial Arts.  But if you just drop his mCVs back to 3 (like the 4s will help him anyway) and he is back in line with everyone else.

 

Psychics get overvalued, I think, especially versatile psychics like Witchcraft who buy up both mental and physical OCV and DCV.  They can’t use both at the same time. 

 

As I look at it, for those wanting some defense against mentalists, buying Mental Defense, not mDCV, will lower your Rule of X. If Defender dropped his mDCV and mOCV to 3 each, and bought 15 Mental Defense instead, he would be much more resistant to the Mentalists on the chart (who still hit a 5 mDCV on a 14-) and have by far the lowest X.  Is he really that underpowered compared to the others, or does the fact that versatility of attack choices and exotic defenses are not weighted skew the results? 

 

Shrinker is an interesting case...like most characters with Shrinking they're effectively unhittable with a standard OCV to DCV roll.  It's part if the gimmick if being a shrinker after all.  The 18 die attack is extra gimmicky though but w/e.  If anything I feel like she's a great example as to why you need to dig deeper behind the numbers as a GM.

 

Part of me is ok with Witchcraft's valuation, she did pay for all those points in CVs etc.  She is effectively double dipping in the sense that the majority of characters never spend that many points on CVs and stick to physical CVs by a large margin.  Maybe it makes sense to raise the campaign baselines for OMCV/DMCV...it would lower the Rule of X accross the boards for everyone.   I'll tinker around with that later and see if I can put something together for mentalist valuations to level the field.  

 

Which brings me to your point about Defender and his allocation to MCVs.  I personally don't see mental defense on a character like Defender and wouldn't likely let it fly in my game without a believable explanation from the player.  Coming from 5th I DO see the rationale for higher MCUs because if his 15 EGO and how ECV used to be calculated.  Although his 4 OMCV seems pretty pointless and feels like it would be better spent elsewhere ?

[Ninja-Bear]

For 6th ed characters, I do buy up some mDCV but not mOCV unless a mentalist.

[sentry0]

37 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

For 6th ed characters, I do buy up some mDCV but not mOCV unless a mentalist.

 

That makes sense to me

[sentry0]

I tweaked a few baseline stats in the spreadsheet:

• baseline EGO is 13
• baseline DMCV is 4
• baseline STUN is 40

This puts Witchcraft at +4.8% which still puts her on top of her fellow Champions but much less so than before. 

 

In addition to the tweaks to baseline stats I did the following:

• Fixed some issues with Kinetic's OCV/DCV being a little lower than it should have been
• Added +16 DCV to Shrinker to give a more accurate representation of what you'll likely see her at in combat

Green Dragon is a monster compared to the other characters...

• Reacts faster then a Kinetic and has the same SPD (Kinetic is a speedster)
• Can generate high CVs through a combination of MA, CSLs, and high base CVs
• High damage output potential (potentially as high as Ogre)

With how he's built I don't see him ever being within a sane +/- range of the calculation...he's pretty OP compared to any single (non-mentalist) character on that list except for maybe Shrinker.

 

Shrinker now has a +7.6% Rule of X which seems about right for someone swinging around that much raw damage with a massive DCV.

 

Black Harlequin looks like a punk at -5.6% which seems about right

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

23 hours ago, sentry0 said:

 

Shrinker is an interesting case...like most characters with Shrinking they're effectively unhittable with a standard OCV to DCV roll.  It's part if the gimmick if being a shrinker after all.  The 18 die attack is extra gimmicky though but w/e.  If anything I feel like she's a great example as to why you need to dig deeper behind the numbers as a GM.

 

Part of me is ok with Witchcraft's valuation, she did pay for all those points in CVs etc.  She is effectively double dipping in the sense that the majority of characters never spend that many points on CVs and stick to physical CVs by a large margin.  Maybe it makes sense to raise the campaign baselines for OMCV/DMCV...it would lower the Rule of X accross the boards for everyone.   I'll tinker around with that later and see if I can put something together for mentalist valuations to level the field.  

 

Which brings me to your point about Defender and his allocation to MCVs.  I personally don't see mental defense on a character like Defender and wouldn't likely let it fly in my game without a believable explanation from the player.  Coming from 5th I DO see the rationale for higher MCUs because if his 15 EGO and how ECV used to be calculated.  Although his 4 OMCV seems pretty pointless and feels like it would be better spent elsewhere ?

 

I'm not sure how changing the baseline changes the results - everyone is still different from the other characters by the same amount.  I see nothing (other than the historical link to EGO) which suggests a strong-willed person is any less entitled to mental defense than to mental DCV.  Does either make sense if the characters has never been exposed to psychic combat?  How is one easier to train than the other?  We accept Defender can build and maintain a shell of metal that can fly and project concussive blasts, but we can't wrap our heads around him being strong-willed enough to have greater resistance to mental attacks (but we can accept that he's harder to target instead of harder to affect)?  What real world research are these conclusions that any are more or less believable based on?

 

19 hours ago, sentry0 said:

I tweaked a few baseline stats in the spreadsheet:

• baseline EGO is 13
• baseline DMCV is 4
• baseline STUN is 40

This puts Witchcraft at +4.8% which still puts her on top of her fellow Champions but much less so than before. 

 

In addition to the tweaks to baseline stats I did the following:

• Fixed some issues with Kinetic's OCV/DCV being a little lower than it should have been
• Added +16 DCV to Shrinker to give a more accurate representation of what you'll likely see her at in combat

Green Dragon is a monster compared to the other characters...

• Reacts faster then a Kinetic and has the same SPD (Kinetic is a speedster)
• Can generate high CVs through a combination of MA, CSLs, and high base CVs
• High damage output potential (potentially as high as Ogre)

With how he's built I don't see him ever being within a sane +/- range of the calculation...he's pretty OP compared to any single (non-mentalist) character on that list except for maybe Shrinker.

 

Shrinker now has a +7.6% Rule of X which seems about right for someone swinging around that much raw damage with a massive DCV.

 

Black Harlequin looks like a punk at -5.6% which seems about right

 

Green Dragon was pretty competent.  However, I don't think being able to have, say an 11 OCV, 13 DCV attack for 10 DC or a 10 OCV, 12 DCV attack for 12 DC, or an 8 OCV, 11 DCV attack for 14 DC is as powerful as being able to have an 11 OCV, a 13 DCV and 14 DC damage at the same time. And I still see having multiple options being more effective than being limited to only one option.

 

If the goal is "the best OCV one can have" appearing on the sheet, shouldn't we give Shrinker +17 OCV?  She can always Spread her blast to trade DCs for OCV, so she can have a higher OCV if she wants  one.  That's extreme, but adding 4 OCV to hit Green Dragon's 11 DCV reliably with 14 DCs instead of trying to hit him with OCV 8 in the hopes of a full 18 DC hit seems at least as valid a tactical choice as using a Defensive Strike to boost DCV instead of an Offensive Strike to boost DCs, or moving CSLs around.

[Ninja-Bear]

Hugh fwiw, I have no problem giving Defender some mental defense. I know I wanted to buy some for my Ninja, Shadow.

[sentry0]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I'm not sure how changing the baseline changes the results - everyone is still different from the other characters by the same amount.  I see nothing (other than the historical link to EGO) which suggests a strong-willed person is any less entitled to mental defense than to mental DCV.  Does either make sense if the characters has never been exposed to psychic combat?  How is one easier to train than the other?  We accept Defender can build and maintain a shell of metal that can fly and project concussive blasts, but we can't wrap our heads around him being strong-willed enough to have greater resistance to mental attacks (but we can accept that he's harder to target instead of harder to affect)?  What real world research are these conclusions that any are more or less believable based on?

 

None of this is based on real world, it's a game where you can special effect things to be whatever you and your GM are comfortable with.  Mental Defense is power and an exotic defense to boot I personally just don't buy Defender having it given his shtick but I can buy him being a little evasive in mental combat because of his high EGO.  There's a huge difference between being strong willed and having the power of mental defense IMO...you could certainly special effect MD as an iron will but again I just don't see it for Defender.  If your GM is cool with it then power to you, it wouldn't fly in my game unless I trusted that the player wasn't just being a munchkin.

 

Quote

Green Dragon was pretty competent.  However, I don't think being able to have, say an 11 OCV, 13 DCV attack for 10 DC or a 10 OCV, 12 DCV attack for 12 DC, or an 8 OCV, 11 DCV attack for 14 DC is as powerful as being able to have an 11 OCV, a 13 DCV and 14 DC damage at the same time. And I still see having multiple options being more effective than being limited to only one option.

 

If the goal is "the best OCV one can have" appearing on the sheet, shouldn't we give Shrinker +17 OCV?  She can always Spread her blast to trade DCs for OCV, so she can have a higher OCV if she wants  one.  That's extreme, but adding 4 OCV to hit Green Dragon's 11 DCV reliably with 14 DCs instead of trying to hit him with OCV 8 in the hopes of a full 18 DC hit seems at least as valid a tactical choice as using a Defensive Strike to boost DCV instead of an Offensive Strike to boost DCs, or moving CSLs around.

 

I don't include standard combat or optional maneuvers in the calculation, I'm only concerned with unique abilities across characters.  You're getting into tactics which is not the goal of my experiment.

 

 

[sentry0]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Green Dragon was pretty competent.  However, I don't think being able to have, say an 11 OCV, 13 DCV attack for 10 DC or a 10 OCV, 12 DCV attack for 12 DC, or an 8 OCV, 11 DCV attack for 14 DC is as powerful as being able to have an 11 OCV, a 13 DCV and 14 DC damage at the same time. And I still see having multiple options being more effective than being limited to only one option.

 

Isn't his versatility already reflected by his stats? 

• When he needs to he can generate a high DCV at the expense of his damage
• He can throw down an impressive 13 dice (or 14) if he has the opportunity
• He can generate a high OCV if he needs to
• He can choose to generate some variation of the 3 by picking a maneuver and allocating his level

Do you have an alternate way of representing that versatility?

 

I'd love to have your feedback on making the sheet better.

[Hugh Neilson]

As I noted earlier, my starting point would be "attack maneuver with highest Rule of X", and an addition to X for every other viable attack form the character has paid for.

 

The problem I have with this model is that a character who can generate a high DCV at the expense of his damage, or a high OCV at the expense of his DCV, or high damage at the expense of CV, is not as powerful as one who can have that high OCV, high DCV and high damage at the same time.  But your system weights them the same.

 

If we have a character with 7 OCV, 7 DCV and a 10d6 Blast, who also has a Multipower of fixed slots - "SniperMode - +6 OCV"; "EvasionMode - +6 DCV" and "OverCharge - +6 DC to Blast", he falls into your sheet as if he has a 13 OCV, 13 DCV and 13d6 Blast.

 

He gets the same X as a character who has a 13 OCV, 13 DCV and 13d6 Blast.  Yet the character who always has those abilities will wipe the floor with Multimode Man, contrary to their identical weighting in the spreadsheet.

 

I'd instead weight MultiMode Man based on the perceived most powerful combination (which is the 13d6 Blast, based on the weightings you have assigned), and consider an addition for his ability to have alternative choices which, while lower Rule of X than the "general optimized" choice, provide him with other valid options(high DCV to avoid a hit; high OCV to hit a fast, but soft, target).

 

You say you do not want to weight tactics, but you are weighting the tactical advantage of having multiple martial arts maneuvers without weighting anyone else's access to tactical choices.

 

I think the weightings are way off in many areas, but I am not sold that any amount of fine tuning will make it accurate.

 

Spending a couple of minutes looking at the weightings…

 

I would buy up defenses in preference to STUN in a heartbeat, yet they are weighted equally (well, technically STUN is rated twice Defenses, as I would want to raise both PD and ED).  Sacrifice +1 SPD to have +3 OCV and +3 DCV? Sure!  Happy to move last with a low DEX too, and use the savings to pump up defenses. 

 

Your pricing sets a CSL as less valuable as any one of the components it can enhance.

 

Try revising Green Dragon to have a base OCV and DCV of 7 and 5 (6 lower than your present w/u) and 15 more Skill Levels - I believe that drops X to [126 – 30 – 30 + 45 =] 111, but I like his odds in combat way better than the current model.  He can have exactly the same OCV and DCV, with three skill levels left over to use as he sees fit.  Or he can massively boost OCV, DCV or even damage as needed.

 

Why would I ever buy more DC’s – take 4 DCs off and invest in 12 CSLs – X falls by 64, and I can use 8 CSLs for +4 DCs with four left over to apply as I see fit.  And if I don’t want to attack, I can have +12 DCV!

[Hugh Neilson]

18 hours ago, sentry0 said:

 

None of this is based on real world, it's a game where you can special effect things to be whatever you and your GM are comfortable with.  Mental Defense is power and an exotic defense to boot I personally just don't buy Defender having it given his shtick but I can buy him being a little evasive in mental combat because of his high EGO.  There's a huge difference between being strong willed and having the power of mental defense IMO...you could certainly special effect MD as an iron will but again I just don't see it for Defender.  If your GM is cool with it then power to you, it wouldn't fly in my game unless I trusted that the player wasn't just being a munchkin.

 

When the GM decides his vision of my character is superior to my vision of my character, it is time to find a new GM.  But I don't see "my character is strong willed so he has a few points of mental defense"  as munchkinism.  Practically, I do see "my character has been training with the team psychic in mental defense techniques" to be more than sufficient justification for mental defense, and "a strong will" is just as reasonable for a starting character.   But then, mOCV and mDCV seem pretty exotic to me, regardless of game nomenclature.

[sentry0]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Try revising Green Dragon to have a base OCV and DCV of 7 and 5 (6 lower than your present w/u) and 15 more Skill Levels - I believe that drops X to [126 – 30 – 30 + 45 =] 111, but I like his odds in combat way better than the current model.  He can have exactly the same OCV and DCV, with three skill levels left over to use as he sees fit.  Or he can massively boost OCV, DCV or even damage as needed.

 

Why would I ever buy more DC’s – take 4 DCs off and invest in 12 CSLs – X falls by 64, and I can use 8 CSLs for +4 DCs with four left over to apply as I see fit.  And if I don’t want to attack, I can have +12 DCV!

 

Your math is wrong, the sheet uses a simple formula: Stat / Baseline * Weight...the higher you exceed the baseline the more you pay.  Your scenario actually increases him in my latest model (I simplified weightings) to +16.2%.

 

I like your idea about choosing the ability with the highest Rule of X...maybe it makes sense to just say pick the attack you're most likely to be using?  For most that would be Martial Strike I suspect but the player could claim anything I suppose.

 

[sentry0]

52 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

When the GM decides his vision of my character is superior to my vision of my character, it is time to find a new GM.  But I don't see "my character is strong willed so he has a few points of mental defense"  as munchkinism.  Practically, I do see "my character has been training with the team psychic in mental defense techniques" to be more than sufficient justification for mental defense, and "a strong will" is just as reasonable for a starting character.   But then, mOCV and mDCV seem pretty exotic to me, regardless of game nomenclature.

 

Like I said in my post, unless the character can come up with a plausible explanation I don't see it.  If your GM is fine with your explanation then go for it I say.

[Ninja-Bear]

Hugh fwiw, I have no problem giving Defender some mental defense. I know I wanted to buy some for my Ninja, Shadow.

 

i can see a small amount of mental defense being similar as Combat Luck.

[Hugh Neilson]

20 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

When the GM decides his vision of my character is superior to my vision of my character, it is time to find a new GM.  But I don't see "my character is strong willed so he has a few points of mental defense"  as munchkinism.  Practically, I do see "my character has been training with the team psychic in mental defense techniques" to be more than sufficient justification for mental defense, and "a strong will" is just as reasonable for a starting character.   But then, mOCV and mDCV seem pretty exotic to me, regardless of game nomenclature.

 

19 hours ago, sentry0 said:

 

Like I said in my post, unless the character can come up with a plausible explanation I don't see it.  If your GM is fine with your explanation then go for it I say.

 

How many of us would have accepted Danger Sense as a Spider-Power had Stan Lee not given it to Spider-Man? 

 

Does having a flaming halo around one's body really shield the character from damage from, say a lightning bolt or a thrown rock?  Or allow one to fly?

 

Exposure to radiation causing massive beneficial physiological change is pretty unlikely - can you show me even one real world example?

 

We accept a lot of implausible explanations - far less plausible than "a strong will can allow a person to resist mental attacks".  How is Mental Defense, not versus mental blast any different from a high EGO resisting mental attacks?  It seems like I could challenge most justifications for mental defense as easily as the justification of "strong will". 

 

You seem OK with higher mCVs based on strong will because, in a past edition, they were linked.  But in earlier editions, high Ego also provided a bonus to Mental Defense (no MD unless you at least bought 1 point, but anyone with any MD got ego/5 added to it).  So, if "they were linked in an earlier edition" is a valid justification, it applies to mental defense, not just mCV,.  Unless there is a limit to how many editions we are allowed to look back, so by 7e or 8e, mCV will no longer be allowed based on being strong-willed.

[Hugh Neilson]

19 hours ago, sentry0 said:

 

Your math is wrong, the sheet uses a simple formula: Stat / Baseline * Weight...the higher you exceed the baseline the more you pay.  Your scenario actually increases him in my latest model (I simplified weightings) to +16.2%.

 

I like your idea about choosing the ability with the highest Rule of X...maybe it makes sense to just say pick the attack you're most likely to be using?  For most that would be Martial Strike I suspect but the player could claim anything I suppose.

 

 

OK, messing with the sheet, I'm not sure why X = 105 instead of 100.  Looks like base X is the sum of all weights, which makes no sense to me.  But plugging your screenshot numbers into the download s/s doesn't get the same X anyway.

 

If I am exactly baseline, except that I have an 11d6 attack, how many additional CSL's can I have to offset that?  If it is exactly 2, I can bring my DCs back to 12d6, or have higher OCV or DCV.  However, I suspect if it is exactly 2, and my build keeps 12 DC but drops OCV and DCV by 1 each, I will not break even with the exact same number of CSLs.  As a CSL can replace either 1 lost DC or 2 lost CV points, shouldn't a 1 DC change equal a 2 OCV, 2 DCV or 1 OCV and DCV change?

 

That EGO weighting looks excessive to me - compare it to the other items weighted 5, and I suggest having high EGO will overstate my character's power.  Meanwhile, there is no weighting at all for exotic defenses, which also have an impact on character effectiveness (I guess single largest defensive power, but that means 30 points of Power Defense counts way more powerful than 10 points each of Flash, Power and Mental defense).

 

I think the answer to "which attack counts" is the one which has the highest Rule of X result - if the weightings are accurate, that is the most powerful attack.  Maybe a very limited attack should not be counted, but if you want "the best he can ever do" rather than "the best he will do under standard conditions", then a "1 charge, Only at the stroke of midnight, Requires a Roll of 8-" power should count.  I would count only powers expected to see pretty routine usage.

 

 

[sentry0]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

How many of us would have accepted Danger Sense as a Spider-Power had Stan Lee not given it to Spider-Man? 

 

Does having a flaming halo around one's body really shield the character from damage from, say a lightning bolt or a thrown rock?  Or allow one to fly?

 

Exposure to radiation causing massive beneficial physiological change is pretty unlikely - can you show me even one real world example?

 

We accept a lot of implausible explanations - far less plausible than "a strong will can allow a person to resist mental attacks".  How is Mental Defense, not versus mental blast any different from a high EGO resisting mental attacks?  It seems like I could challenge most justifications for mental defense as easily as the justification of "strong will". 

 

You seem OK with higher mCVs based on strong will because, in a past edition, they were linked.  But in earlier editions, high Ego also provided a bonus to Mental Defense (no MD unless you at least bought 1 point, but anyone with any MD got ego/5 added to it).  So, if "they were linked in an earlier edition" is a valid justification, it applies to mental defense, not just mCV,.  Unless there is a limit to how many editions we are allowed to look back, so by 7e or 8e, mCV will no longer be allowed based on being strong-willed.

 

Let me say it a different way: what you and your GM agree is believable in a game is between you and your GM.  It doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks.

[sentry0]

55 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

OK, messing with the sheet, I'm not sure why X = 105 instead of 100.  Looks like base X is the sum of all weights, which makes no sense to me.  But plugging your screenshot numbers into the download s/s doesn't get the same X anyway.

 

If I am exactly baseline, except that I have an 11d6 attack, how many additional CSL's can I have to offset that?  If it is exactly 2, I can bring my DCs back to 12d6, or have higher OCV or DCV.  However, I suspect if it is exactly 2, and my build keeps 12 DC but drops OCV and DCV by 1 each, I will not break even with the exact same number of CSLs.  As a CSL can replace either 1 lost DC or 2 lost CV points, shouldn't a 1 DC change equal a 2 OCV, 2 DCV or 1 OCV and DCV change?

 

That EGO weighting looks excessive to me - compare it to the other items weighted 5, and I suggest having high EGO will overstate my character's power.  Meanwhile, there is no weighting at all for exotic defenses, which also have an impact on character effectiveness (I guess single largest defensive power, but that means 30 points of Power Defense counts way more powerful than 10 points each of Flash, Power and Mental defense).

 

I think the answer to "which attack counts" is the one which has the highest Rule of X result - if the weightings are accurate, that is the most powerful attack.  Maybe a very limited attack should not be counted, but if you want "the best he can ever do" rather than "the best he will do under standard conditions", then a "1 charge, Only at the stroke of midnight, Requires a Roll of 8-" power should count.  I would count only powers expected to see pretty routine usage.

 

 

 

I've put the spreadsheet out there; it serves my needs reasonably well.  At this point I would say it's up to the individual to use (or not use) as they see fit.  It's not like people are going to magically like the 'Rule of X' now if they didn't like it before.

 

Everything is configurable so if you want to re-weight things and set campaign specific baselines and rules you can do that.  If you don't agree with how I handled Martial Arts then by all means change it to suit your needs.

[massey]

The biggest problem with a Rule of X is that it's either so simplistic that anybody with any experience doesn't need it, or it's so complex that it creates the illusion of being more accurate than it really is.

 

The spreadsheet above is an example of the latter.

 

Green Dragon is a glass cannon.  I'd say he has gaping holes in his defenses, but that would imply that he had some kind of defense at all.  He's quick and he hits hard.  He can be pretty effective in very limited circumstances.  But most any hero worth his tights can drop him like a bad habit.  He's susceptible to every kind of attack there is.  Mental powers will hammer him.  You can spread an attack to get a bonus to OCV (if you have a 12D6 attack, go ahead and spread for +4 to hit -- even an 8D6 attack will have about a 50/50 chance of Stunning him).  Flash or Entangle will screw him.  Area of Effect attacks will do the same.  He's only really effective when heroes have very limited combat options.  And yet, with the above spreadsheet, he's the most powerful character in the basic book.  But if Black Harlequin (the weakest character in the list) can figure out a way to not get his face punched in on segment 12, he'll completely own Green Dragon.  If he's got his gadget pool set up with something that prevents a one-hit KO, he can just throw his cherry bombs (8D6 area effect) and the fight is over.

 

The chart makes it look like Green Dragon is easily the mightiest character.  But he's so unbalanced towards offense that he's actually quite weak.  His defense is not getting hit, but there are so many ways around it that it isn't really that good of a defense.

[massey]

If I was going to establish a "Rule of X" (and I'm not going to do the legwork on that), I'd look at what actually makes Champions characters effective.  Start with a baseline "average" character for your campaign, presuming that he will be built and played intelligently.  Figure out what Captain Generic will probably have, and define that as your standard.  As a character drifts from that standard, determine whether that makes them more or less effective, and assign a bonus or a penalty based on that.  Instead of raw numbers, I'd look for certain boxes to check.  For instance, Green Dragon has 40 Stun.  That's pretty good.  But he's only got 10 PD and ED, and that sucks.  Instead of assigning him a score for his 40 Stun, I'd look at "can he stay up through more than two campaign average hits?"  The answer is no, he can't.

 

Let's say that Captain Generic has the following abilities (5th edition):

 

12D6 attack

8 OCV/DCV

25 Con

25 Def

5 Speed

18" movement

one special defense 5-10 pts

one extra targeting sense

one primary attack, two secondary attacks (flash, entangle, NND, area effect, etc)

enough Stun to stay conscious through two 12D6 attacks

enough Endurance to move, keep his defenses up, and attack each phase for one turn

 

 

Anybody who falls roughly within this range is going to be acceptable.  They're average for the campaign.  What things push them beyond the average?  What things should a GM look for that could potentially throw the game out of whack?  Well, having one extra OCV isn't going to do it.  A guy who is completely average, except he has a 13D6 attack, is more powerful, but that's obvious.  What we're really looking for here are game-breakers.  So we start asking questions.

 

--Does the character have a special defense that makes him very tough to damage?  We're talking Invisibility, Desolidification, or a large area of Darkness that he uses on himself?

--Can the character use this defensive power and still attack unimpeded?  Can he attack while desolid?  Does he have Darkness vs sight 6" radius, and also a Radar sense?  Can he turn invisible and also has invisible attacks?

--Does the character have an OCV/DCV more than 3 higher than the average, that he can use consistently?  It's hard to hit somebody if you have to roll lower than an 8.  And if he still hits on a 14, he probably won't miss much.

--Does the character have a Speed score of 3 or more above average, and the Endurance to use it effectively?

--Does the character have a special movement power (like Tunneling, Desolid, or Megascale) that will bypass conventional obstacles?

--Can the character stay conscious through 4 or more average hits?

--Will the character Stun an average opponent with an average damage roll?

--Can the character Stun/KO a group of 3 or more "agents" with average to-hit and damage rolls?

--Does the character have an attack that most people won't have any defense against?

--Does the character have more than 3 attack methods?  A guy with 9 different attacks in his multipower will nearly always have something the enemy can't stop.

--Does the character have any powers that are unusually effective together?  We're looking for combos.  Desolid, Flight, N-Ray Vision, and Density Increase lets you fly though the ground, come up behind people, and hammer them.

--Does the character have any Stop Sign powers where it's very clear that this is why the stop sign exists?

 

Check these boxes off as you go through the list.  If the character checks off more than one or two, you should look at it very closely.  However, these boxes can be countered by someone who has the following negative boxes:

 

--Will the character be Stunned if he is hit by the campaign average attack?

--Does the character have a Vulnerability to something that is fairly common?

--If the character has a special defense (Desolid, Invisibility, Shrinking), is he reliant on that power for most of his defense?

--Will the character be knocked unconscious by two campaign average hits?

--Does the character have an OCV/DCV that is 2 or more less than campaign average (does he need a 9 or less to hit the average foe)?

--Is the character's offense all special attacks?  Does he lack just a straight XD6 damage attack?

--Does the character run out of Endurance before the end of the turn?

--Does the character lack any sort of enhanced senses and/or special defenses?

--Will the character take Body from a campaign average attack?

--Is the character in danger of being Stunned by the attack of an agent?

--Does the character lack a good movement power?  Is his movement 1/2 or lower than the average?

 

 

Check those boxes.  If the character's "negative" boxes equal or exceed his "positive" boxes, he's probably okay.  Not every box is equal, but that's okay.  So let's say that you've got Amazing Lad.  Amazing Lad is right at the campaign average, but he has 11 OCV/DCV and an 8 Speed (where 8/8 and 5 Spd is average).  If that's the only difference, he's probably too powerful.  But... let's say that he's got a x2 Vulnerability to Fire, and he'll blast through all of his Endurance in 6 phases.  Well suddenly he looks not nearly so tough.  Now his two "good" boxes are both really good, and his two "bad" boxes checked don't quite seem to fully counter it.  But what if he also has no enhanced senses, no power defense, no mental defense, no flash defense?  Now he doesn't really seem so bad to me.  Now he's just a guy who is fast.  Somebody can spread a 12D6 Sight Flash and Amazing Lad is hosed.

 

Anybody can tell that a guy with a 13D6 attack hits harder than a guy with a 12D6 attack.  That's pretty easy.  But will an average of an extra 3.5 Stun really make that much of a difference?  Probably not, unless it just edges past the villain's Con score.  That's why it's more important to look for whether somebody gets Stunned/KO'd by an attack.  These are the things that really make the difference.  Go with something like this system, and I think you'll get a much better balanced game than a rigidly numerical Rule of X.

[sentry0]

2 hours ago, massey said:

If I was going to establish a "Rule of X" (and I'm not going to do the legwork on that), I'd look at what actually makes Champions characters effective.  Start with a baseline "average" character for your campaign, presuming that he will be built and played intelligently.  Figure out what Captain Generic will probably have, and define that as your standard.  As a character drifts from that standard, determine whether that makes them more or less effective, and assign a bonus or a penalty based on that.  Instead of raw numbers, I'd look for certain boxes to check.  For instance, Green Dragon has 40 Stun.  That's pretty good.  But he's only got 10 PD and ED, and that sucks.  Instead of assigning him a score for his 40 Stun, I'd look at "can he stay up through more than two campaign average hits?"  The answer is no, he can't.

 

Let's say that Captain Generic has the following abilities (5th edition):

 

12D6 attack

8 OCV/DCV

25 Con

25 Def

5 Speed

18" movement

one special defense 5-10 pts

one extra targeting sense

one primary attack, two secondary attacks (flash, entangle, NND, area effect, etc)

enough Stun to stay conscious through two 12D6 attacks

enough Endurance to move, keep his defenses up, and attack each phase for one turn

 

 

Anybody who falls roughly within this range is going to be acceptable.  They're average for the campaign.  What things push them beyond the average?  What things should a GM look for that could potentially throw the game out of whack?  Well, having one extra OCV isn't going to do it.  A guy who is completely average, except he has a 13D6 attack, is more powerful, but that's obvious.  What we're really looking for here are game-breakers.  So we start asking questions.

 

--Does the character have a special defense that makes him very tough to damage?  We're talking Invisibility, Desolidification, or a large area of Darkness that he uses on himself?

--Can the character use this defensive power and still attack unimpeded?  Can he attack while desolid?  Does he have Darkness vs sight 6" radius, and also a Radar sense?  Can he turn invisible and also has invisible attacks?

--Does the character have an OCV/DCV more than 3 higher than the average, that he can use consistently?  It's hard to hit somebody if you have to roll lower than an 8.  And if he still hits on a 14, he probably won't miss much.

--Does the character have a Speed score of 3 or more above average, and the Endurance to use it effectively?

--Does the character have a special movement power (like Tunneling, Desolid, or Megascale) that will bypass conventional obstacles?

--Can the character stay conscious through 4 or more average hits?

--Will the character Stun an average opponent with an average damage roll?

--Can the character Stun/KO a group of 3 or more "agents" with average to-hit and damage rolls?

--Does the character have an attack that most people won't have any defense against?

--Does the character have more than 3 attack methods?  A guy with 9 different attacks in his multipower will nearly always have something the enemy can't stop.

--Does the character have any powers that are unusually effective together?  We're looking for combos.  Desolid, Flight, N-Ray Vision, and Density Increase lets you fly though the ground, come up behind people, and hammer them.

--Does the character have any Stop Sign powers where it's very clear that this is why the stop sign exists?

 

Check these boxes off as you go through the list.  If the character checks off more than one or two, you should look at it very closely.  However, these boxes can be countered by someone who has the following negative boxes:

 

--Will the character be Stunned if he is hit by the campaign average attack?

--Does the character have a Vulnerability to something that is fairly common?

--If the character has a special defense (Desolid, Invisibility, Shrinking), is he reliant on that power for most of his defense?

--Will the character be knocked unconscious by two campaign average hits?

--Does the character have an OCV/DCV that is 2 or more less than campaign average (does he need a 9 or less to hit the average foe)?

--Is the character's offense all special attacks?  Does he lack just a straight XD6 damage attack?

--Does the character run out of Endurance before the end of the turn?

--Does the character lack any sort of enhanced senses and/or special defenses?

--Will the character take Body from a campaign average attack?

--Is the character in danger of being Stunned by the attack of an agent?

--Does the character lack a good movement power?  Is his movement 1/2 or lower than the average?

 

 

Check those boxes.  If the character's "negative" boxes equal or exceed his "positive" boxes, he's probably okay.  Not every box is equal, but that's okay.  So let's say that you've got Amazing Lad.  Amazing Lad is right at the campaign average, but he has 11 OCV/DCV and an 8 Speed (where 8/8 and 5 Spd is average).  If that's the only difference, he's probably too powerful.  But... let's say that he's got a x2 Vulnerability to Fire, and he'll blast through all of his Endurance in 6 phases.  Well suddenly he looks not nearly so tough.  Now his two "good" boxes are both really good, and his two "bad" boxes checked don't quite seem to fully counter it.  But what if he also has no enhanced senses, no power defense, no mental defense, no flash defense?  Now he doesn't really seem so bad to me.  Now he's just a guy who is fast.  Somebody can spread a 12D6 Sight Flash and Amazing Lad is hosed.

 

Anybody can tell that a guy with a 13D6 attack hits harder than a guy with a 12D6 attack.  That's pretty easy.  But will an average of an extra 3.5 Stun really make that much of a difference?  Probably not, unless it just edges past the villain's Con score.  That's why it's more important to look for whether somebody gets Stunned/KO'd by an attack.  These are the things that really make the difference.  Go with something like this system, and I think you'll get a much better balanced game than a rigidly numerical Rule of X.

 

My way is far from perfect but it's good enough for me.  Your approach is interesting and while I appreciate you saying you don't want to do the legwork I would encourage you to seriously consider doing it.  Someone may find your approach really useful, you may help a struggling new GM and provide a useful tool for the community.

[sentry0]

Just because this has become a thing again for me, I wanted to (at the risk of rekindling a war) shine a light on some work being done on this old project.

 

 

[Doc Democracy]

I wish I was good at coding!

 

I don't use a rule of X, but do something similar.  I know the kind of combat I want in my game, if players go toe to toe, fights will be brutal and short, I want the character builds to effect that.

 

So I have a campaign "straw man", based on best offence, and best defence, I run a "combat" based on average roll/average damage and see, over two turns, the damage delivered/taken.

 

So (picking numbers off the top of my head).  If straw man has offence (12D6 damage, SPD 5, CV 6, defence 20, STUN 50, CON 30) and the player has offence (8D6 AP, SPD 6, CV 7, defence 25, STUN 40, CON 25). 

 

I can say that the player, in an offence versus offence fight, has a 74% chance of hitting, doing 18 STUN and 0 BODY with less than 1% chance of stunning his opponent.  Over 2 turns that would mean on average 9 hits doing 162 damage.

 

At the same time his opponent has a 50% chance of hitting, doing 17 damage and 0 BODY with a 10% chance of stunning.  Over 2 turns that would mean 5 hits doing 85 damage.

 

I do thus straw man three times with each PC and villain, it gives me a decent idea of offensive and defensive power and whether I want the player to tweak his character up or down to get the kinds of fight I want.

 

Obviously players are unlikely to stand and trade blows but that comes into tactics for me, a good thing and irrelevant to raw power.

 

My issue is that it is reasonably work-heavy.  It should be possible to do a spreadsheet to do this for me, but I am a pen and paper man at heart, and so I use a LOT of scrap paper at the start of a campaign!  And I do not often test characters against villains, which I should.

 

Doc