Trebuchet

Re: Rule of X?

 

And if she had really high defense' date=' she'd probably use more of those actions to attack, making her pretty devastating. I'd guess this a case of having a pretty high offense value but a relatively low defense value if we were going with my metrics. As a rough guide to how unbalanced a character is, it'd probably work fine even for your MA.[/quote']If her defenses were high, she'd be unbalanced for our campaign. I wouldn't need any formula to tell me that; and I wouldn't need the GM to enforce it either.

 

I don't like Rules of X any more than I like caps. I know there are campaigns out there where they may be a necessary evil, but they're still an evil IMO. I prefer playing with a group where we trust each other and self-police potentially unbalancing builds.

Re: Rule of X?

 

The faster you are' date=' the more times you are going to hit. The more times you hit, the less damage you should do per hit to keep things balanced.[/quote']That's true only to a point. The faster you are, the more likely you are to spend some (perhaps many) of those Phases performing defensive Actions. DEX is a better indicator of hit probabilities.

 

My SPD 9 MA Zl'f spends an average of 4 or 5 Phases each Turn Martial Blocking, Martial Dodging, Diving for Cover, or taking a Recovery. Sure, she has a damn good probability of hitting when she does attack, but she's seldom getting in more than one or two attacks per Turn more than our SPD 4 brick Silhouette even though Silhouette does 45% more damage per hit.

Re: Rule of X?

 

That's great if you plan on having PCs fight each other a lot. This rarely if ever happens in our games.

It's not a matter of them fighting each other - beyond a single classic case of mistaken identity (a staple of superhero comics) I can't remember the last time this happened in our campaign - but that characters need to feel at least somewhat equally useful within the context of combat, which is all any Rule of X could conceivably measure anyway.

 

I don't care how many variables are in a Rule of X formula, no system is going to accurately predict "balance" (whatever the Hell that is). There's simply no way for a system to say "This guy's Rule of X value is 19.35, and this other guy's is 18.67, and therefor the first guy will always win." Even the players have a significant impact on character performance in combat; some players are just more skilled or innovative in combat. Sure, gross imbalances might be predictable, but I contend such a gross imbalance would just as easily be spotted by simple examination of the characters. The MA dishing out 8d6 max damage is simply not going to beat the brick with 40 PD. That being the case, the simplest possible Rule of X is just as useful as a ridiculously complicated one.

Re: Rule of X?

 

no, what you need to do is look at the character sheet for values in bold.

 

Then compare them to a GM supplied average opponent.

IOW, the GM still has to gin up a non-existent "average" opponent and then compare it to each individual Player Character. Besides, that's not what your previous post said:

 

Calculate hit percentage against a campaign benchmark DCV.

 

Calculate average damage against a campaign benchmark def.

 

Calculate how many segments it will take to drop a campaign benchmark combatant.

To get a benchmark, you have to know what its opposite number is. You can't figure hit probabilities until you know both the OCV and DCV of the opponents. You can't figure out how many hits it takes to put down an opponent until you know the attacker's damage and the target's defenses and toughness.

 

Your method is simpler, true. It measures things without quantifying them in any meaningful way.

It's not intended to quantify them or evaluate their probabilities against opponents; it's sole purpose is to compare PC's. "Hero A's score is 20, Hero B's is 19. Should be a pretty good match. Hero C's, OTOH, comes out at only 13 and he's likely to be badly outclassed in the game compared to his teammates. You might want to rethink that."

 

Without context, all numbers on a hero system character sheet are meaningless. Is 20 DEX, SPD 4 a martial artist or a brick? Without knowing the campaign, you can't tell. So, by introducing context in the form of a benchmark opponent, my proposed method gives meaning to the numbers.

What's the point of introducing context in the first place? The GM has all the points he needs to build any opponent he wishes. The important factor to campaign success is maintaining some sort of equilibrium between PC's. That's all our formula attempts to provide.

Re: Rule of X?

 

The best metric is "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop?"

 

Calculate hit percentage against a campaign benchmark DCV.

For that, you first need to calculate a campaign benchmark OCV.

 

Calculate average damage against a campaign benchmark def.

For that, you first need to calculate a campaign benchmark attack.

 

Calculate how many segments it will take to drop a campaign benchmark combatant.

For that you first need to calculate a campaign benchmark SPD, a campaign benchmark STUN and/or CON, and a campaign benchmark defense.

 

There's your X.

And there's your problem - this keeps getting more complicated by the minute. You're already up to 8 or 9 variables, and we haven't even considered Invisibility, Desolidification, or other complicating Powers. It's never an issue of just 2 or 3 variables; each new variable introduces more variables. I've personally seen numerous Rule of X's run on spreadsheets with literally dozens of variables calculating some mythical "combat value" down to two decimal places. IME none were worth the time it took to enter the numbers in the formula; much less did they produce some sort of balance. IMO, they just don't work. (How effective a character is is probably at least as dependent on the player running him as on the actual build.)

 

That's why I feel our method (SPD + DC <= 20) is superior. It is simple, easy to remember, and there is no need to pre-work up a dozen or more campaign benchmark numbers for a non-existent "average" character. With our approach both numbers - SPD and Damage Classes - can be taken directly off each individual character sheet.

Re: Speeding up combat "Restrict SPDs" is Dead Wrong

 

Yes' date=' it was a number of Phases rather than Segments before 5E. Which made the effect the same in terms of the number of your own actions you lost (and the number of opponents' actions that could be used against you if we're talking campaign-average Speeds), and gave a character with a high [i']relative[/i] Speed compared to his opponents an advantage because he would recover quicker compared to the number of actions the opponents got. So as the average campaign Speed increased, Flash scaled pretty well before 5E, as opposed to becoming more and more effective as average Speed goes up in 5E+.

 

I would have been happier with the change if the system had at least held onto an official option for keeping Flash per-Phase rather than per-Segment. Nothing wrong with more options, and being able to keep an effect around for a certain amount of game-world wall clock time is admittedly nice, but it doesn't balance nearly so well IMO so a total change wasn't great.

I think the change to Flash in 5th was a big improvement. Nor do I see it as harming faster characters more than lower SPD ones. When the Flash goes by Segments instead of Phases, each character suffers the same percentage of Phases blinded. The faster character may lose more Phases, but they also have more Phases to lose.

Re: Rule of X?

 

It is more complicated (and requires a 3d6 probability chart) but you only really have to do it once. I think even with a simpler method, comparing DCs-past-defense, instead of total DCs, will give you more accurate results.

 

For example, if average defense is 24 (about 7 DCs), then a 10 DC attack is at least twice as strong as an 8 DC one - definitely more than 25% better. Which admittedly doesn't matter if you're just adding things, but when multiplied it makes quite a difference.

I think your second suggestion is better, but I still like our method more. I feel it takes attacks adequately into account even without considering "average" defenses - whatever those are - and still compensates for the number of actions per Turn the character has.

 

How much better an 8d6 attack is than a 7d6 one is entirely subjective by campaign. In a low powered game with correspondingly low defenses the 8d6 may be significantly more effective; whereas in a higher powered game with average defenses in the 30+ range either may be equally useless. In our Champions campaign our brick would take no harm at all from an average 9d6 attack that would Stun (or even KO with a good roll) our most lightly defended MA. That's why my adage has been "How much more damage does each 1d6 do? Why, 1d6 more."

Re: Rule of X?

 

Too complicated for my taste.

 

We use SPD + Damage Classes <= 20. Simple as it gets.

Re: Expanding the Root manuever

 

I think the Block approach works best. However, since Block is an OCV vs OCV maneuver, a bonus to OCV rather than DCV might work better.

 

A Power-based variant might be to simply buy enough Density Increase to make the character difficult/impossible to throw. Density Increase 6 levels Only to resist Throws -2

Re: The Incredible Shrinking Species

 

Zl'f: Hell yes!

Re: The Kid with limitless Energy

 

REM sleep seems to be essential to humans; humans deprived of such for extended periods have lost their grip on reality. It seems we need deep (REM) sleep to organize our thoughts and memories. Obviously in a superhuman world that might all fly out the window, but I'm not certain it would be worth 0 points as a Disad.

Re: Oaf only to activate

 

What about using Trigger (as in the Trigger is swallowing the pill)? Not a Focus that way.

Re: Omcv 1?

 

Ah. Thank you. I have to agree. It's really not so different for martial artists. Hitting is usually easy; penetrating the target's defenses enough to have a effect is a lot harder.

Re: Omcv 1?

 

for me where will the fight the effects off at

is it at the DMCV or overcoming their ego

for me it is at overcoming their ego

the hitting is the easy part

it is the overcoming where the battle takes place

 

Can anyone provide a translation of this?

Re: Oaf only to activate

 

That's what I'm saying: The pills really don't qualify as foci because they can't be taken away once the Power is activated. They're just Charges. (Besides, what are the odds the PC will carry them all together in a nice, visible, easily taken pill bottle? He'll have them each individually stashed about his person.)

Re: Oaf only to activate

 

I wouldn't allow the OAF at all. I'd give the Power the total Limitations appropriate for 4 Charges and however long each Charge lasts.

 

The "pills" are just an sfx.

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Has anyone found a good way to use DN without the opposing character/players knowing precisely how much DN the character has? When I build villains, I try to avoid the players knowing how tough the villain's defenses are; and I can't see a good way to do that which doesn't involve a lot more die rolling.

Re: Staggering SPD- 5th Ed.

 

We've Held Actions through Post-12 for decades; so if you can't we've been doing it wrong for years.

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

You can abort to desolid, as it happens: 6.2.23.

 

I'd assumed you couldn't because it is not listed as a defense power.

Based on that precedent, then Flying Dodge is valid because a dodge is - by definition - a defensive action.

 

As I said previously, we have not found it to be problematical in our campaign. I'm sure there are ways to abuse it, but that applies to many things in this system.

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

You could be a 50 point agent with Flying Dodge (it may only be on a couple of MA lists' date=' but it is on the big list, and there is nothing to stop anyone taking it) and they can avoid the melee attack of a 50 DEX, 12 SPD, 20 OCV character [i']without making a roll[/i].

 

That can not be right.

On this, we agree. Sounds like a good place for the GM to put his foot down and say "No!"

 

I should point out, of course, that that trick will only work once against that theoretical 50 DEX, 12 SPD, 20 OCV opponent. The next Segment he's dead meat. Clever tricks stop being so clever if they're overused.

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

By this argument there would never be any point in using dodge either.

Hardly. A Dodge still keeps you in range to fight. Beyond the +4 DCV the only difference between a Flying Dodge and a Full Move is that you can Abort to FD; and you can't do either if you've already taken your action.

 

IME (and one of my co-GMs as well), Flying Dodge looks more unbalancing on paper than it is in actual play. What in particular have you found unbalanced in actual game play as opposed to the abstract?

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Fighting one one one it only needs to work against one attack. Against HtH it is automatic: attacker misses' date=' against ranged it is +4 DCV AND whatever range modifier you can manage - which is not going to be far off an automatic miss.[/quote']If you haven't already moved, it gets you away from an HtH attack. So does the free DfC; Flying Dodge costs 5 Points. You've just blown a Phase running away. You don't win fights by fleeing.

 

I still haven't seen anything in writing which indicates FD automatically evades HtH attacks; only that it provides a +4 DCV bonus. Any character already has the option of moving out of HtH range during his Phase; FD just permits him to Abort to such a move.

 

I see no reason to permit additional range mods for Flying Dodge: range penalties are already assessed before movement precisely so characters cannot gain huge penalties by moving away.

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

The problem with 'Flying Dodge', as far as I'm concerned is that it is a 'get out of jail free' card. You can just use it: no roll needed. I don't like DFC because I don't think it is fair and balanced, but at least you have to make a DEX roll (even if success is almost inevitable for some characters). Flying dodge just is, and what it just is is wrong.

 

Sure there are tactics you can use against it, if you've built your character to, but that's no good reason to include it. It doesn't work like other stuff, it violates a rule principle (no aborting to movement) and I plain don't like it.

 

Your view may differ.

If the defender has already acted, he can't use DfC or Flying Dodge. That hardly seems something requiring special tactics to counter.

Re: How to balance the heavy brick ?

 

27d6 would flatten most opposing bricks in one hit even in fairly powerful games. Your player may not have a lot of fun if he defeats every opponent with his first punch that connects.

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

 

Its rare, true, but also listed in 'Drunken Clown' MA.

 

Whilst a speedster could just take a Desolidification slot, that won't disengage the character from combat for free, moving him what could be a vast distance away. He could still be affected by powers with the Affects Desolid advantage (say a HA) thus not causing an auto miss because the character is no longer in HtH range.

 

I suppose I'm having problems with this because it allows you to abort to movement. At least with DfC there is some sort of roll for success required.

I can't see why Aborting to movement is somehow worse than Aborting to activate defensive Powers.

 

Flying Dodge provides +4 DCV. If the attack hits despite the extra DCV, then it hits. What's the problem?

 

In our campaign it gets used mostly as a way to half move while keeping DCV high. My PC Zl'f has it, but hardly ever uses it. The other MA, Cloud Dragon, uses it a bit more often, but then he also uses Teleport for a substantial portion of his movement.