Defenses compared to Attacks

[assault]

Relative levels of defense compared to attacks make a big difference to the feel of a game.

 

Relatively high defenses can lead to slugging matches, which can be time consuming in real world time.

Relatively low defenses can lead to fights being over quickly, but can also result in them featuring lots of defensive maneuvering, which can be time consuming in real time.

Defenses in between these can lead to both problems.

 

Hmm. Maybe this should be a poll.

 

Levels of defenses can also impact on what types of characters will appear in a campaign. At a certain point "trained humans" start to wear armour, "mutants" tend to feature defensive powers as part of their mutations and so on.

[JmOz]

I chose the 1.5 - 2.0, however really depends on the campaign to me.  More 4 color silver age would be higher, more gritty city game lower (my current campaign is this)

[Christopher]

The Poll question is not answerable for me, as it strictly depends on what kind of game you are going for. Either one of those could be the right and/or wrong answer for any given game.

 

Without context, I see no way to answer.

 

1 hour ago, assault said:

Relatively high defenses can lead to slugging matches, which can be time consuming in real world time.

Relatively low defenses can lead to fights being over quickly, but can also result in them featuring lots of defensive maneuvering, which can be time consuming in real time.

Defenses in between these can lead to both problems. 

You might be making a mistake by only looking at the time spend of combat resolution. What you should be looking at is the time players spend making meaningfull decisions.

 

Relatively high defense might cost time in combat resolution (propably why D&D does not have damage reduction/Element Resistance asa default mechanic). But on the other hand, you get to make active decisions. You do not spend all your actions on Aborting and get to make choices about how to approach any given problem. Including possibly non-damaging solutions (like a Grab).

 

Realtively low defenses often have one of two purposes:

a) Getting the players to look for non-combat solutions. i.e., get them to use more Social Skills or Roleplay more

b) creating a feel of a dangerous world

 

And wich one is right depends entirely on your group and is a decades old, hard game design problem. Or to quote Picard:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-J9dpG6-Pc

[assault]

23 minutes ago, Christopher said:

Realtively low defenses often have one of two purposes:

a) Getting the players to look for non-combat solutions. i.e., get them to use more Social Skills or Roleplay more

b) creating a feel of a dangerous world

 

This is the kind of feedback I am looking for. Neither of these options had occurred to me.

[assault]

25 minutes ago, Christopher said:

The Poll question is not answerable for me, as it strictly depends on what kind of game you are going for. Either one of those could be the right and/or wrong answer for any given game.

 

Without context, I see no way to answer.

 

I had better respond to this too.

 

I'm going for "generic supers". I'm trying to work out what other people think they are like.

 

I haven't cast a vote myself, but I see most characters (heroes and villains) being down around 1.5, with another cluster around 2.5, and not much in between.

[Scott Ruggels]

We loved combats a lot and had a high number of bricks and brick hybrids. So 24-30PD sounds about right, except for the high DCV types. I had a character with 30RPD, but that was a military armored suit. Yes those slug tests took a long time, but it allowed for people to revive unconscious team mates, set up maneuvers, and actually put villains in Stronghold. Real time concerns were irrelevant in high school as we would start gaming after school Friday; and wrap up about lunch time on Sunday. Good times. Later when I played in later Champions games at Planet 10 Comics and Games, it had a 4 hour limit before 6pm, but could go longer after 6. 

[dsatow]

I'm generally of the assumption def should be (3.5 x dice) - 15.  i.e. an average of 15 stun should get through on an attack.  Of course, this depends on the CON values of your players.

[massey]

I used to cram as many defenses on characters as I could.  3x the dice wouldn't be uncommon at all, and often I'd have something like 2.5x the dice plus 50% damage reduction (both sides).  Damage Reduction was pretty standard in our group for many years.

 

Within the last few years, I've experimented with other options.  We're still a point-crunching, combat heavy group, so I've made sure my characters are still effective.  But I've played with characters with far lower defenses than I'm used to.  So far I've tried:

 

--High defenses (3x or 2.5x with reduction) -- these guys are thick.  Combats take a long time, and you can shrug off much larger attacks than the campaign average.  You never bother to dodge, because avoiding a hit isn't that important.  Pushed haymakers can sting, and often those (plus a good damage roll) are the only way to really Stun him.  Every battle is a classic comic book slugfest where people are getting smashed through walls and then get up.

 

--Below average defenses (~1.75x) plus high DCV -- they rely on avoiding hits, but one blow isn't catastrophic.  Combats take a long time because you're always dodging.  You need a higher Speed than your opponent if you're going to be able to attack back.  As long as your Def + Con is higher than the average Stun roll (so in a 12D6 game, maybe 20 Def + 25 Con), you can probably survive a lucky to-hit roll, but don't count on it.  This character requires a more active play style, because you're always on the knife edge of getting knocked out.  But they can still be combat effective because most attacks will miss.  You want a DCV at least 3 higher than the average OCV though (before dodging).

 

--Pitiful defenses (less than 1.5) plus a special trick -- you rely entirely on your trick, if it doesn't work, you get knocked out (or hospitalized).  Desolidification, Invisibility, Shrinking, things like that.  These characters are somewhat frustrating, because it's a total rock/paper/scissors game.  Either somebody has something that can affect you or they don't.  You either have total free reign to do whatever you want or you get blasted into the dirt immediately.  It also puts the GM in a bind, because they know when they're setting up the scenario whether the enemies will have the tools to counteract your "one cool trick".  These characters tend to get played for a few sessions and then retired because you know the GM is gonna get sick of it soon.

[assault]

7 hours ago, massey said:

--Below average defenses (~1.75x) plus high DCV -- they rely on avoiding hits, but one blow isn't catastrophic. 

...

--Pitiful defenses (less than 1.5) plus a special trick -- you rely entirely on your trick, if it doesn't work, you get knocked out (or hospitalized). 

 

Splitting the difference between these works quite well. "Below average defenses" plus a special trick is usually affordable.

 

"Pitiful defenses" is always a bad idea, and I would pull a GM veto on any such character in a game I was GMing.

 

As far as special tricks go: every such character should have a Hunted that can negate or match their trick. I would probably have another character handy who can do that as well.

[Christopher]

15 hours ago, massey said:

--High defenses (3x or 2.5x with reduction) -- these guys are thick.  Combats take a long time, and you can shrug off much larger attacks than the campaign average.  You never bother to dodge, because avoiding a hit isn't that important.  Pushed haymakers can sting, and often those (plus a good damage roll) are the only way to really Stun him.  Every battle is a classic comic book slugfest where people are getting smashed through walls and then get up.

That is simply put brick defenses.

 

15 hours ago, massey said:

--Below average defenses (~1.75x) plus high DCV -- they rely on avoiding hits, but one blow isn't catastrophic.  Combats take a long time because you're always dodging.  You need a higher Speed than your opponent if you're going to be able to attack back.  As long as your Def + Con is higher than the average Stun roll (so in a 12D6 game, maybe 20 Def + 25 Con), you can probably survive a lucky to-hit roll, but don't count on it.  This character requires a more active play style, because you're always on the knife edge of getting knocked out.  But they can still be combat effective because most attacks will miss.  You want a DCV at least 3 higher than the average OCV though (before dodging).

That is the range for all non-bricks.

 

Basicalyl SPD and Defenses should have a tradeoff. The stronger your defenses (and thus less phases spend on actively defending) the less SPD you are allowed to have.

Meanwhile exceptional SPD should imply lowered attack ability in some form.

 

15 hours ago, massey said:

--Pitiful defenses (less than 1.5) plus a special trick -- you rely entirely on your trick, if it doesn't work, you get knocked out (or hospitalized).  Desolidification, Invisibility, Shrinking, things like that.  These characters are somewhat frustrating, because it's a total rock/paper/scissors game.  Either somebody has something that can affect you or they don't.  You either have total free reign to do whatever you want or you get blasted into the dirt immediately.  It also puts the GM in a bind, because they know when they're setting up the scenario whether the enemies will have the tools to counteract your "one cool trick".  These characters tend to get played for a few sessions and then retired because you know the GM is gonna get sick of it soon.

 

7 hours ago, assault said:

"Pitiful defenses" is always a bad idea, and I would pull a GM veto on any such character in a game I was GMing.

Champions 6E actually discusses how unfeasible such characters are in a RPG. They are called "Artfull Dodger" or "Glass cannon". Their swinginess of their performance is the problem.