Combat luck and armor

[Hugh Neilson]

52 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Of course it's not that bad.  But playing an unarmored character in a killing-damage heroic campaign is very all-or-nothing in a way that's not always fun.  Especially if hit locations are used.

 

BINGO - now toss that character into a Supers game where the villains occasionally fire off a KA.  4d6 BOD versus your " no resistant defenses" creates a dead character pretty quickly.  

 

We used to see fairly high DCV characters with some Damage Reduction, an armored costume, etc. to deal with the reality that someone will eventually get in a lucky shot.  Replacing that Damage Reduction with some Combat Luck has a similar effect - the attack is blunted enough that the PC can survive an occasional lucky shot.

 

When we drop the DCs to a level where a typical attack is not equivalent to "dead or dying, at least hospitalized", other options come into play, especially if we also toss in "healing magic", or just an expectation that enough time will pass between major battles to allow BOD to be recovered.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

If I wanted to translate a monk to Hero with the differences in how armor works, I would use combat luck for that part.

 

Oh I made guys with the same basic power before, someone with super dodge: takes less damage if he's aware of it.  Lots of speedsters with that kind of ability, you just can't get a square hit on them.  But since its a power now, people buy it as "I need defenses" rather than "my character concept is..." and so we have this discussion.

 

Quote

But playing an unarmored character in a killing-damage heroic campaign is very all-or-nothing in a way that's not always fun.  Especially if hit locations are used.

 

But that can be genre.  Play an old west or a WW2 game and the name of the game is "keep your head down" not "stride into combat and rely on your armor."

[Christopher]

10 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Yeah me too, in fact I can't remember EVER having a character die before 5th edition came out except in deliberately extremely lethal games.  I was being sarcastic because Hugh made it sound like everyone needed resistant defenses or there would be characters strewn on the battlefield like harvested hay.

He has a point to a certain degree. The feasibility/unfeasibility of killing vs normal damage is in part enforced via amount of Resistant Defenses vs total defenses.

 

But there are better ways to make certain the game does not become lethal/stun heavy.

 

3 hours ago, Old Man said:

Of course it's not that bad.  But playing an unarmored character in a killing-damage heroic campaign is very all-or-nothing in a way that's not always fun.  Especially if hit locations are used.

That is a textbook definition of "Intentionally Lethal Game" if I ever saw one.

[Christopher]

11 hours ago, akrippler said:

well this thread took a turn.

You left us alone to argue for almost two weeks. Stuff like this happens

 

11 hours ago, akrippler said:

if anyone is still interested: we've decided to just roll with combat luck stacking on armor for now. agreed as a group to re-evaluate if anyone thinks it has become a problem... tankiest character in the group is 9rpd/12pd with armor. it seems a little high, but were playing a more role-play heavy game, and hes still in danger of getting knocked unconscious.  which to a degree makes sense to me..

Total caps are a reliable, time proven approach.

 

Note that there is another relevant factor besides total defenses: Ratio of Resistant defenses to total defenses.

By math Killing attacks do barely any additional BODY damage. For 3 DC of attack it is on average:
3 BODY for Normal Damage
3.5 BODY Killing Damage

But the part where less defenses are resistant (and thus working against the Killing damage) are what makes Killing damage more ... killing.

[Old Man]

I'm not sure stock FH is intended to be "intentionally lethal".  FH combat is certainly more dangerous than in hit-point-based games, which is a feature, not a bug.  But Hero is costed for supers; if you want to play cinematic, swashbuckling, unarmored characters in FH, something like Combat Luck is helpful.  The default game is pretty heavily skewed toward fully armored tanks.

 

Ironically, in supers games where 4d6Ks are being thrown around, Damage Reduction is affordable and easier to justify, and Combat Luck isn't really necessary.

[Scott Ruggels]

22 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Before Combat Luck, every  character died in games, it was horrible.  Because they didn't have any resistant defenses, they were cut down like wheat, it was unbelievable the lethality of Hero games.

I think that was only my Fantasy Hero games XD

[Christopher]

8 hours ago, Old Man said:

Ironically, in supers games where 4d6Ks are being thrown around, Damage Reduction is affordable and easier to justify, and Combat Luck isn't really necessary. 

Combat luck is not nessesary, because nobody bats an eye if your bat armor is a decent amount of resistant protection.

And unless you bought it with a Limitation, you will propably have it always on.

 

I has actually been illegal to come "armed or armored" to the British Parlamaint since 1313:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_forbidding_Bearing_of_Armour

A literal case where you would have to leave your armor behind and rely on combat luck - or not being attack at all.

[Toxxus]

9 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

I think that was only my Fantasy Hero games XD

 

We lost so many characters in FH 4th edition.  All it required was a crit to the eyes or vitals and someone would be down, dying or already dead.

 

So far I've managed to not kill any of my D&D converts (the best place to harvest new players for FH), but it's only a matter of time before the dice gods require blood.

[Scott Ruggels]

35 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

 

We lost so many characters in FH 4th edition.  All it required was a crit to the eyes or vitals and someone would be down, dying or already dead.

 

So far I've managed to not kill any of my D&D converts (the best place to harvest new players for FH), but it's only a matter of time before the dice gods require blood.

Allow them armor  over the 3,4,5, and 13 hit locations. Minimum is 6 rPD for chain mail, and higher with plate helmets. Cuts it down quite a bit. Nice thing about FH is there are no class restrictions on armor. 

[Chris Goodwin]

For those who are losing a lot of characters, what are your typical Active Point and DCs?  And are your PCs all building to them consistently?  Are your opposition all built to them as well?

[Hugh Neilson]

22 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Yeah me too, in fact I can't remember EVER having a character die before 5th edition came out except in deliberately extremely lethal games.  I was being sarcastic because Hugh made it sound like everyone needed resistant defenses or there would be characters strewn on the battlefield like harvested hay.

 

This depends a lot on genre.  However, it does not have to be a guaranteed death in the first scenario.  A PC will see a lot of combat.  Eventually, someone will roll a 3 to hit, or a Head Shot, and do substantial BOD.  The character with rDEF will weather the blow and survive.  The character without rDEF will need to be replaced.  Or, perhaps, just be out of action for weeks while recovering that lost BOD.

 

Games like Danger International or Justice Inc., where rDEF is not expected to be common, if available to PCs at all, will be structured differently.  The expectation will not be that PCs engage is a half dozen gunfights over a day or two, taking two or three hits for 1-6 BOD in each (and thus being down about 40 - 60 BOD at the end of these battles).  We would also not expect to see a 4d6 or 5d6 KA targeting our PCs.

 

In a Supers game, where the average character will have enough rDEF to stand up to a 4d6 KA, and weather a 6d6 KA, our Speedster or Martial Artist who seldom gets hit needs to worry about that lucky shot that rolls 21 BOD.

 

In a Fantasy game where most attacks are KAs, and most characters have 4-6 rDEF, having no rDEF is also likely to mean "dead character" over time.  That can be mitigated with the standard Fantasy trope of readily available healing magic, which for 4e and prior was the default.  Aid and Healing first appeared in Fantasy Hero, as I recall.  They folded into 4e with Aid also Healing by default.  Unlimited healing potential was a problem in many games (I recall a speedster with 1d6, maybe it was 1/2 d6, of Aid, All Abilities below Maximum, Constant and Persistent, representing that rapid Speedster metabolism recovering from injury), so Healing got capped in 5e.

 

13 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

But that can be genre.  Play an old west or a WW2 game and the name of the game is "keep your head down" not "stride into combat and rely on your armor."

 

 

Sure.  And in that game, no one is likely to have rDEF.  We either have a very lethal game (sooner or later you will take a hit, unless only PCs are smart enough to keep their heads down, and the Black Hats stand out in the open waiting to be mowed down) or we have a game designed around combats which are relatively low damage, and/or spaced out to allow BOD to heal over time.

 

I find Hero a poor choice for a high lethality game because of the up front investment in character design.  If we expect new PCs every two to three game sessions, don't expect players to devote hours to careful character design, and intricate PC personalities.  What source material are you drawing on for your old west or WW2 game?  A lot of that source material looks like the protagonists have some measure of combat luck, as they survive a lot more firefights than their foes do.

 

2 hours ago, Christopher said:

Combat luck is not nessesary, because nobody bats an eye if your bat armor is a decent amount of resistant protection.

And unless you bought it with a Limitation, you will propably have it always on.

 

What makes that superior to "Spandex tougher than full plate mail or riot gear is not necessary, because no one bats an eye if your character's cinematic ability to roll with a hit provides a decent amount of resistant protection"?

 

12 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Oh I made guys with the same basic power before, someone with super dodge: takes less damage if he's aware of it.  Lots of speedsters with that kind of ability, you just can't get a square hit on them.  But since its a power now, people buy it as "I need defenses" rather than "my character concept is..." and so we have this discussion.

 

Any mechanic can be abused by purchases out of context.  Why is this one different?  It seems like Marvel and DCU heroes in cartoons, TV and movies take quite a beating and keep on fighting, regardless of their lack of obvious defenses, resistant or otherwise.  Combat Luck is a decent model of that cinematic trope.

 

36 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

 

We lost so many characters in FH 4th edition.  All it required was a crit to the eyes or vitals and someone would be down, dying or already dead.

 

So far I've managed to not kill any of my D&D converts (the best place to harvest new players for FH), but it's only a matter of time before the dice gods require blood.

 

Fantasy is a good example where the assumption is a specific level of rDEF, common killing attacks and a lot of combat in short time periods.  If my character has 6 rDEF, and takes a 2d6, 12 BOD head shot, he takes 12 BOD (12 rolled - 6 DEF = 6 x 2 for hit location = 12), is stunned and probably KOd.  Out of the fight, but not out of the game.  With no rDEF, he takes 12 x 2 = 24 BOD - bleeding out if not dead instantly.  I don't think 2d6 KAs are that uncommon in a standard Fantasy game.  Give him a level or two of Combat Luck, and he can probably hang in there until a teammate can at least stop him from bleeding out.

20 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

If you're in a game where you can justify armor, wear some!  Even 3 DEF can help you survive long enough to get healed up.  I don't recall many of my characters having more than 3 DEF armor.  

 

GMs: if your players feel like they need resistant defenses in order to survive, stop hitting them with Killing Attacks!  Easier in superhero games, true, as most other games have characters facing swords, claws, teeth, bullets, and other methods of destruction, but those latter games also tend to be the ones that are easier to justify armor. 

15 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

Allow them armor  over the 3,4,5, and 13 hit locations. Minimum is 6 rPD for chain mail, and higher with plate helmets. Cuts it down quite a bit. Nice thing about FH is there are no class restrictions on armor. 

So why is a character concept that does not wear armor so frightening?  Why is it OK for every character to wear 3 - 6 rDEF armor, but not OK for a character to wear no armor and have some Combat Luck so he can survive in combat?  I don't think that the game is radically different if Hawkeye, Black Widow, Green Arrow and Black Canary have rDEF with the special effects of "combat luck" rather than "combat spandex", or if Red Sonja and Conan have "combat luck" rather than a "chain mail bikini" or "loincloth of protection".

 

Stacking rDEF to unreasonable levels causes issue, sure.  So we don't allow stacking to unreasonable levels. 

 

Out of curiosity, would you be happier if the Fantasy Wizard instead had a "spell of protection" which was purchased as +6/+6 rProtection, Hardened?  It always works because he maintains it monthly, outside of adventuring.  Maybe the rogue also has that spell cast on him by a friendly wizard or cleric - perhaps his is a blessing cast when he was  born which requires no maintenance.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

11 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

For those who are losing a lot of characters, what are your typical Active Point and DCs?  And are your PCs all building to them consistently?  Are your opposition all built to them as well?

 

Chris, to me this is the WHOLE POINT of Combat Luck.  It allows PCs to build to the campaign expectation of rDEF consistently, instead of having the character whose concept calls for light or no armor either:

 

(a)  being built with rDEF lower than the campaign norm, so tending to higher mortality rates; or

 

(b)  not being built at all - such characters are effectively banned by mechanical ineffectiveness.

 

As you noted above, "all of your characters" wore a bit of armor.  Would those games have markedly changed if some had 3 rPDr/ED combat luck, instead of 3 rPDr/ED armoured clothing?

[Chris Goodwin]

24 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Chris, to me this is the WHOLE POINT of Combat Luck.  It allows PCs to build to the campaign expectation of rDEF consistently, instead of having the character whose concept calls for light or no armor either:

 

(a)  being built with rDEF lower than the campaign norm, so tending to higher mortality rates; or

 

(b)  not being built at all - such characters are effectively banned by mechanical ineffectiveness.

 

As you noted above, "all of your characters" wore a bit of armor.  Would those games have markedly changed if some had 3 rPDr/ED combat luck, instead of 3 rPDr/ED armoured clothing?

 

I hate to keep harping on this, but I think we're looking at the edition divide between 3rd and 4th.  We didn't have expected DCs, rDEF, and AP values; we didn't build to any, we didn't lose characters left and right without them, and we didn't need alternate sources of rDEF to make up for it.  And we weren't facing opposition built to them, either, that I know of.  

 

I guess those games wouldn't have been that much different with Combat Luck instead of armor, but my point is, we didn't have Combat Luck, or Powers.  We had our Characteristics and weapons, and occasionally magic items or spells, but we weren't building well rounded combatants.  We made sure we had plenty of DCV, through DEX, Skill Levels, or Dodging -- I remember aborting to Dodge a lot.  We were probably facing 1-2d6 Killing, maybe as much as 2 1/2d6 single shots, while the others may have been Autofire or something like a 2x1d6 multiple attack.  

 

I don't know what else to tell you.  The games, and the system, were different.  They were done differently.  We played and ran differently.  We weren't looking at a DC 8, 40 AP, 20 DEF game and building all of our characters to DC 8, 20 DEF, and 40 AP.  We didn't even do that in Champions, and somehow we survived.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Any mechanic can be abused by purchases out of context.  Why is this one different?

 

The power isn't different, the discussion is.  The only reason this discussion is even taking place is that people take Combat Luck reflexively for just about every character because "hey, extra defenses, and they're cheap!"  If it were not a power in the book, then only people who had a specific build reason would be getting a similar build and the GM would respond to their build as with all characters -- how's this going to affect caps, balance, etc.

[Toxxus]

47 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

The power isn't different, the discussion is.  The only reason this discussion is even taking place is that people take Combat Luck reflexively for just about every character because "hey, extra defenses, and they're cheap!"  If it were not a power in the book, then only people who had a specific build reason would be getting a similar build and the GM would respond to their build as with all characters -- how's this going to affect caps, balance, etc.

 

I find this is true too.  Combat luck provides a solid amount of hardened defenses with none of the pain of encumbrance (-dex rolls, -dcv, - movement) and it is cheap as dirt.

 

Part of the reason I max out defense stacking to a single point is to stop players from taking 2 ranks of Combat Luck and then putting on plate armor and being unkillable gods.

[Toxxus]

2 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

Allow them armor  over the 3,4,5, and 13 hit locations. Minimum is 6 rPD for chain mail, and higher with plate helmets. Cuts it down quite a bit. Nice thing about FH is there are no class restrictions on armor. 

 

My players with vulnerabilities fall into two camps:

1-  They didn't want to wear a helm or full helm due to perception roll penalties to hearing & vision.

2-  Calculating equipment weight was too painful and they avoid it by only working with full suits.

 

I don't understand it, though, I also remember when the internet and cell phones didn't exist.

[Scott Ruggels]

21 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

 

My players with vulnerabilities fall into two camps:

1-  They didn't want to wear a helm or full helm due to perception roll penalties to hearing & vision.

2-  Calculating equipment weight was too painful and they avoid it by only working with full suits.

 

I don't understand it, though, I also remember when the internet and cell phones didn't exist.

 In FH I didnt do traditional Dungeon crawls, so extra equipment was kept on Horses, Mules and carts. So weight calculations were based on armor, and personal items alone. Robbing unattended animals was far safer for thieves than confronting armed PCs XD. Adventures in the campaign were more travellogue, exploration, and politics, than pure Murder Hobo activities.

 

Unarmored characters were few and far between, but they did happen and in combat they mostly hid behind cover, and waited for the fighting to stop. 

[Scott Ruggels]

Also as to perception penalties, what would happen is that  the party would be riding or walking along, and someone would get suspicious, and make a perception roll, and if made, they would put their helmet on, and then the rest of the party would as well, and stop, take  time to make their perception rolls, until the opposition was detected.  If surprised, often their first action would be to put their helmet on, and NEXT action draw steel, depending on the situation.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well, its a little more complicated than putting a hat on to use more helmets, at least ones that are effective as armor.  Even a motorcycle helmet is more than just throwing it on your head.  There are straps and such to adjust, etc.  Putting armor on isn't like getting dressed.

[Toxxus]

I recommend suffering through an episode of Knight Fight for a rough idea of how a real helmet is donned.  It's like 2-3 turns of work.

 

But, those guys are taking head shots that would fell a bull and walking right through it.

[Hugh Neilson]

 

4 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

I hate to keep harping on this, but I think we're looking at the edition divide between 3rd and 4th.  We didn't have expected DCs, rDEF, and AP values; we didn't build to any, we didn't lose characters left and right without them, and we didn't need alternate sources of rDEF to make up for it.  And we weren't facing opposition built to them, either, that I know of.  

 

I guess those games wouldn't have been that much different with Combat Luck instead of armor, but my point is, we didn't have Combat Luck, or Powers.  We had our Characteristics and weapons, and occasionally magic items or spells, but we weren't building well rounded combatants.  We made sure we had plenty of DCV, through DEX, Skill Levels, or Dodging -- I remember aborting to Dodge a lot.  We were probably facing 1-2d6 Killing, maybe as much as 2 1/2d6 single shots, while the others may have been Autofire or something like a 2x1d6 multiple attack.  

 

I don't know what else to tell you.  The games, and the system, were different.  They were done differently.  We played and ran differently.  We weren't looking at a DC 8, 40 AP, 20 DEF game and building all of our characters to DC 8, 20 DEF, and 40 AP.  We didn't even do that in Champions, and somehow we survived.  

 

I think most of us built characters within the expectations of the game we were playing, even if those expectations were group and GM driven rather than book guidelines.  4e created more specific guidelines, but pre-4e I saw many players looking at published characters and other characters in their games for build guidance.  In a game where rDEF is rare, and KAs common, I would expect a lot more focus on DCV and Dodging.

 

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

The power isn't different, the discussion is.  The only reason this discussion is even taking place is that people take Combat Luck reflexively for just about every character because "hey, extra defenses, and they're cheap!"  If it were not a power in the book, then only people who had a specific build reason would be getting a similar build and the GM would respond to their build as with all characters -- how's this going to affect caps, balance, etc.

 

So putting a build in the book means the GM is  not permitted to question its effects?  I look at all forms of defenses when I evaluate a character.  I suppose Force Field had the same problem - every energy blaster had one, because it was a build in the book.  Never mind that there is no reason a flaming or electrical field should reduce the impact from a punch, an arrow or a sonic blast.

 

2 hours ago, Toxxus said:

 

I find this is true too.  Combat luck provides a solid amount of hardened defenses with none of the pain of encumbrance (-dex rolls, -dcv, - movement) and it is cheap as dirt.

 

Part of the reason I max out defense stacking to a single point is to stop players from taking 2 ranks of Combat Luck and then putting on plate armor and being unkillable gods.

 

If the PC were a LizardFolk with some natural armor (maybe his normal 6 PD and ED are Resistant), would you not have the same issue?  The price is the same as a force field.  That stacks the same way, works in some cases where combat luck would not and fails in some instances where combat luck would work.

 

How about +3 PD, +3 ED Resistant Defenses, Hardened (11 AP), Incantations (-1/4), Two Handed Gestures (-1/2)?  Same 6 RP cost, and once I fire it up, it keeps going, while stacking with my Armor.  Seems like that is somewhat better than Combat Luck.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

So putting a build in the book means the GM is  not permitted to question its effects?

 

Well that's one way of looking at it.  Another would be to take it as written: that were this not a printed power everyone just took without bothering to think it over then the discussion would take on another flavor entirely.  I mean you can read whatever you want into what people type but it seems ideal to take them at their word.

[Scott Ruggels]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Well, its a little more complicated than putting a hat on to use more helmets, at least ones that are effective as armor.  Even a motorcycle helmet is more than just throwing it on your head.  There are straps and such to adjust, etc.  Putting armor on isn't like getting dressed.

Yes, but the plate helmets have visors.  I was also a re-enactor for many years, and if your gear is set up right you can get it on and off fairly quick. 

[Scott Ruggels]

1 hour ago, Toxxus said:

I recommend suffering through an episode of Knight Fight for a rough idea of how a real helmet is donned.  It's like 2-3 turns of work.

 

But, those guys are taking head shots that would fell a bull and walking right through it.

Tourney helmets are incredibly restrictive. Combat helmets are a bit less so. A Crusaders bucket helm is 8rPD. Helmet off is 6 rPD, for the chain coif and padding beneath. but the Hit Location 3 was 0 rPD. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah those jousting helms were basically welded on, its a different setup for just combat but its definitely not a 1-phase operation like putting on a hat.