sentry0
-
Posts
727 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
News
Store
Forums
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by sentry0
-
-
2 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:
Yes but according to source materiel, sanity doesn’t happen that way. You lose it permanently That Call of Cthulhu for you.
That was before Xanax
- Brian Stanfield and RDU Neil
-
1
-
1
-
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.
-
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.
-
With a system as flexible as HERO there are a plethora of combinations of powers/Advantages/Limitations that could be construed as munchkiny.
Some are right in your face like this little gem at a bargain price of 35 AP....
Area Of Effect (1m Radius; +1/4), Armor Piercing (+1/4) for up to 70 Active Points of STR (35 Active Points)
Then there's all the myriad of subtle power combinations that players can bring into the game. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes by accident.
Balance is a daunting task that requires careful consideration and vigilance on the part of any GM. One wrong move and your game could be in jeopardy. It also requires trust in the players and the players to adhere to the implicit contract between the GM and players which is "I won't mess up your game on purpose if you don't screw my character over". Seems juvenile...but hey, it's all just a game
-
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.
-
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.
QuoteGreen 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.
-
23 hours ago, Greywind said:
Have you cleared your browser cache lately? Just a thought.
I switched to an alternate browser and did that, no love.
-
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
-
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
-
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 ?
-
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
-
1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:
Like MA, it seems unfair that Ogre has to count his 3 CSLs to both OCV and DCV (and, if that is equitable, why does he not also have to reflect the added DC he could get by applying 2 CSLs to damage?). A character who always has a 10 OCV and a 10 DCV has a marked advantage over one who has a 7 OCV, a 7 DCV and three levels he can swap between the two. Even more so if he has levels that apply to only some abilities or maneuvers he is likely to use.
Were I building a Martial Artist, I guess I should lean to Block rather than Dodge since Block will not impact my Rule of X calcs.
Those are all good points that I have no answer for off the top of my head.
Maybe CSLs need to have their own column and weight in the equation. That may make them more manageable and stop them from inflating peoples CVs. Ogre is pretty expensive right now because of them.
-
I'm attaching a version of the spreadsheet to this post (it's made using LibreOffice). It's reasonably functional for my own needs but far from perfect...if you're interested in playing around with it then go for it and put feedback here or PM me.
Buyer Beware: As has been discussed numerous times in this thread already this is not meant as a substitute for a GMs critical analysis of a character; it's an experiment that's attempting to make the rule of X workable.
Theory of Operation
-
All campaigns have some notion of baseline stats like DEX, SPD, CVs, etc
- The spreadsheet takes those baseline statistics as adjustable parameters and assigns a weight to each
- The Rule of X is the sum of all weights
-
Characters who deviate from the norm are affected like this:
- Going above the campaign average costs the character proportionally more depending on how much more they exceed the norm
- Going below the norm discounts the stat for the character in the same manner as going above it does (ie. proportionally)
-
There's a column labelled "+/- %" that tells you how close a character is the campaign Rule of X
- I recommend trying to keep characters within 5-10% of the Rule of X (leaning more towards 5%)
Notes:
-
All input variables (CON, DCV, oAP, etc) assume the highest possible values a character can generate (without pushing)
- it's not about what a character is likely to be at on any given segment of combat
- it is about what they could theoretically achieve if they had to put everything into a given task (like hitting a target or evading attacks)
- CSLs are tricky and I recommend counting them 2x if applicable (Ogre has 3 HTH CSLs that get factored into both his OCV and DCV, for example)
-
Do not factor in standard or optional combat maneuvers into the variables
- if anyone can perform the maneuver then it's not relevant to the calculation (everyone can Dodge so we don't include that in the DCV entry, for example)
-
Martial Arts are also tricky
- pick the greatest OCV bonus from your list of offensive maneuvers
- do the same for DCV except Martial Dodge counts as +2 only (the other +3 everyone has access to via standard Dodge)
There are certainly things that require more thought and some things I think will never be achievable. I will state it again, this is not a substitute for a GMs eye...it's meant to be a possible resource for a GM not the sole means by which they judge a characters campaign viability.
-
All campaigns have some notion of baseline stats like DEX, SPD, CVs, etc
-
50 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:
For a Martial Artist (or someone else with a lot of choice in maneuvers), I would be inclined to take the maneuver with the highest overall result (so sum of OCV Mod + DCV Mod + DC Mod).
A martial artist with, say, Offensive Strike, Legsweep, Defensive Strike and Martial Strike is getting treated as having +2 OCV, +3 DCV and +4 DC (+65 X) when the best he can do with any one maneuver would be 35 (Offensive Strike).
I'm not sure how your system handles skill levels, but they may be getting a similar beating. 4 skill levels = +20 for OCV, +20 for DCV and +20 for DCs, when the character can only do one at a time. That character is not equal to one that buys +4 OCV, +4 DCV and +2 Cs, and never has to trade off.
However, I also think some weighting has to be added for someone with a lot of choices. A 12d6 Blast, 6d6 STUN Drain, 6d6 Mental Attack (based on OCV so I do not need mOCV) and 12d6 Sight Flash I can choose between is a lot more combat-effective that someone with only one of the four powers.
[BTW, I hope that group never meets a mentalist...for their sake!]
Hah...yeah that group is for a campaign one-shot I'm planning on running at a mini-con...they would get stomped by a mentalist for sure. They're not "serious" characters per si they're for a very specific purpose so I skimped in some places and took some liberties with some balance choices (ie. the 17 die attack on the brick). My main goal with them is that they're simple to pick up and use and just fun to play...this mini-con is classically dominated by 5e D&D so I'm assuming the players will not be experienced players...hopefully I'm wrong!
I'm also taking the opportunity to switch to 6th so there's a lot of learning and experimentation going on for me right now. I'm using this as an opportunity to question everything I think I know and trying to approach the switch to 6th with equanimity. This is actually where this whole "Rule of X" experiment was birthed from for me.
Anyways, I appreciate your feedback on Martial Artists and will have to do some thinking on how to handle it fairly.
-
Actually, I can't see my like....curious and curiouser
-
Same issue here...I'll like your previous post.
-
7 minutes ago, ghost-angel said:
Not sure how you'd weight it, but PRE via PRE Attacks are very effective sometimes, especially in the opening phases of combat - losing 1/2 or even a Full Phase from a good Attack can alter a battle significantly.
And of course, this entire thing revolves around combat effectiveness and effectively ignores non-combat builds/encounters entirely.
That's an interesting idea. I'll have to think about that.
Thanks!
-
Changes to the calculation:
- Did a pass and modified just about all of the weightings
- I added in stats for psychics
- The DC and oAP columns are now mutually exclusive...this means characters based on EGO attacks or Drains will be handled consistently
Things to do:
- Possibly do something with dAP involving some sort of derived multiplier from DEF and rDEF
Here's a screengrab for those curious to see how this is evolving.
-
3 minutes ago, ghost-angel said:
I don't want to just come with negativity on things like this, but honestly - Rule Of X has always felt like an extremely bad concept; and not just for the reasons Hugh has pointed out. Even if 5th it could be massively unreliable, to the point of (IMO) actual detriment to play.
What if I build a character with 0 Offensive/Attack Powers, but is still a valuable, and contributing member during combat. And not just with buffs. Rule Of X can never fully take into account Controller Types who alter the playing field indirectly in a constantly dynamic situation. (I am currently playing such a character, literally 0 Damage capability. Still effective.)
Even the official rules assume a character will have all the basic elements in, more or less, equal value. Reducing a character to a single number will almost always negatively impact the game.
I don't disagree with any of what you're saying and of course there will always be outliers...I'm really just curious if this is at all workable or utter nonsense. Again, there is no replacement for a GMs judgement...I view this as a potential tool to aid the GM not supplant the GMs judgement.
QuoteThere's a reason why there are Limit and Range tables of a full suite of stats at the start of the book.
I don't think I understand this comment, is this a reference to the tables in the 5th edition core rulebook or something else?
-
45 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:
So what benefit does the Rule of X have if it cannot actually be relied upon. If these relative weightings are accurate, then sacrificing DCV for Defenses, or vice versa, should generate relatively equally competent characters. But it doesn't. How much +1 DCV is worth depends a lot on how close you are to the campaign average OCV. High enough defenses and you are functionally invulnerable, and don't need DCV. But you can simulate high defenses with high STUN and REC (REC not being on your chart).
That's just trading defense stats. What if I accept a weakness in offense to beef up defense, or vice versa? If I drop my def and rDEF by 5 each, I can bump my DCs up by 10. Good deal. Probably catches me with oAP, so I can't raise it that much, but even 3 DCs is 10 more damage past defenses on an average hit. Not sure how OAP works - a lot of 60s over a wide DC spread and Ogre only has 20?
Let in 57 defenses? Probably not. But I doubt I would let a 17 DC attack sail in either, and there is one in your chart. The next highest is 14 DC. Lowest is 10. That's quite a spread. If 10 DC can do, say, 10 damage past defenses, 17 DC should punch through 34.5 on average. Enough to stun everyone on the list.
Mutants & Masterminds allowed a small spread between "tough to hit" and "hard to hurt", and between "accuracy" and "damage done", but only a small spread.
Seems like the whole purpose of a rule of x is to balance out characters who deviate from baselines. And they all deviate a lot - 183 to 201 points from baseline.
I think campaign norms are more useful than any rule of x.
I want to reiterate that in my original post I said that I liked the way it was handled in 5th better than the Rule of X which was essentially campaign norms based on starting point levels. The title of this thread is the "Vagaries of the rule of X" not "I love the rule of x"
The point of the exercise for me is to see if I can make a working Rule of X and see how well my first batch of 6th edition characters do.
I have been tweaking the weights in my spreadsheet and things are pretty different now both the speedster and brick show up above 10% which I think is fair. The 17 die attack the brick has was questionable when I built him but I figured I would let it slide because it has Extra time and increased endurance costs. Nothing the Rule of X would catch mind you but the new tweaks to weighting call it out pretty clearly as a culprit for his inflated +%.
I always pivot damage dice on SPEED and DCV in my games. The lower you go under the average SPEED and the lower your DCV the more defenses and damage I allow you to have, within reason obviously. The inverse is true for characters with high SPEED and DCV. It's simple and part art and part science but it allows for that spread so characters don't feel so homogenized. I don't think I'm unique here either, I learned this from my Champions mentor and I'd wager that others do exactly the same thing.
I actually fully agree with you on the notion of the Rule of X being handwavy BS, especially the way it's spelled out in the official rules. I still want to take a run at this and see how far I can take it without needing a degree in Math.
I guess I just like a challenge
-
I was thinking about this little experiment over lunch...
- Weighting is off in general I think
- OCV needs to be equal weight to DCV
- DCs and Speed need an adjustment
- Velocity needs an increase too...proportional to the DC weight increase
- Not sure what to do with psychics
-
31 minutes ago, Hyper-Man said:
I've always been a little skeptical about such codified tables because I have yet to see them handle the asymmetrical VPP based combat abilities at the core of my rookie Clark and Barry builds. Those builds are powerful but not overwhelmingly so. Example: Clark would have trouble vs Ogre the first time they meet if he doesn't stick to one plan.
Anyway, I commend the effort to such a noble goal and hope you find the winning formula.
VPPs are crazy, I have no idea how to calculate their relative value in this equation
I really don't know if this will go anywhere...I'm just spitballing here. If something comes of this thread then cool but nothing ventured nothing gained I say.
-
4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:
Is it fair to haye the Martial Artist on a DCV including Martial Dodge? That means he is not attacking. Everyone else can forego a attack and get +3 DCV for free (maybe spend 6 points on +2 DCV with Dodge instead of buying Martial Dodge, Anders – that should lower your Rule of X a lot). I’d be inclined to run the test on common attacks, rather than all-out avoidance of being hit. That could be as simple as “best possible DCV modifier from any offensive martial maneuver”, rather than running multiple maneuvers through. However, that will combine the best OCV and DCV mods with the highest DC martial maneuver, despite the inability to ever have all of those benefits in a single attack.
Makes Legsweep look nice – knock the target prone at the cost of 1d6 damage, and that 1d6 reduces your rule of x number so you can be higher somewhere else.
I am thinking a low DEX, low DCV character with a ton of defenses might be pretty effective. What if we adjust Ogre by:
-
Dropping DEX to 5 – he’s a big, slow brute, slower even than a typical Normal. That shaves off 15 points (and 30 CP).
-
Dropping DCV to 2 – again, big and slower than a Normal – that’s another 35 points (and 35 CP) saved.
-
Pump those savings into PD and ED, non-resistant – say, +30 to each (costs 60 points and bumps his Rule of X up 30 as well).
-
Now his Rule of X is 181- least of the group – and he has 5 CP to buy something nice with. +1 OCV, maybe? Still the lowest Rule of X in the group. With 57 defenses, a 17d6 attack (Aaron) will average 2.5 STUN past his defenses. Ogre’s OCV 10 punch will hit DCV 5 as easily as Aaron’s OCV 7 will hit Ogre’s new DCV 2, and Ogre will punch an average of 15.5 STUN past Aaron’s 30 defenses with a 13d6 Punch. Pretty clear who will win that battle.
I didn’t put a huge effort inti optimizing him. Does he need 27rDEF? A 4d6 KA with max damage passes no BOD through. With those bumped-up defenses, maybe he can get by with less STUN?
I suspect taking similar extremes might have similar results.
By the way, Aaron is similar, but less extreme – low CVs, SPD and DEX, pumping the savings into slightly higher defenses and a massively greater attack DC. That OCV will hurt him, though. Why doesn’t he dump OCV entirely – drop it down to 3 (and take 4 off his Rule of X) and buy a Naked Advantage – 1 hex area (+1/4) on his hug, ham-sized fists. That takes his 17 DCs to 21, offsetting the 4 points reduced for OCV, but now instead of rarely hitting, he will rarely miss.
Might as well buy up exotic defenses, since these have no impact on the Rule of X. Multipowers with lots of attack options too – may as well be flexible, as Rule of X is not differentiating between a one trick pony and a highly versatile combatant. But not a versatile martial artist!
I get what you're saying and none of those munchkinized characters would make it past me personally as a GM. People can (and will) game any system devised, the value of the Rule of X for me is as a relatively quick sanity check...the real work would still be done by the GM in terms of campaign viability. Like I said earlier in this thread: there is no substitute for a GMs judgement. Would you let someone into your campaign with a 57 PD/ED? I don't think so.
One thing to keep in mind (that I didn't explicitly call out) is the campaign "baseline" stats established on row 3 of the spreadsheet. You could argue that is someone did what you suggested to good old Ogre there would be red flags all over his line item when compared to campaign baseline values. His DEX would be way low, he would have massive defenses and above average damage compared to the campaign averages. That's actually an argument in favor of the Rule of X as it quickly spots deviations from the norms. The end number could be in range of the campaign Rule of X but that character would never pass the sniff test by even a modestly caffeinated GM
-
-
I built a spreadsheet last night to calculate the Rule of X based on my previous post, I think it turned out pretty good.
Some observations:
- I ended up weighting SPD and DCV heavily because of the massive impact those stats have on combat
- I added in CON to factor in how hard it is to stun the character
- DEX was likewise included to get a sense of initiative
- I ran 4 fresh characters I'm building for a mini-con through the sheet
- All the characters were within 10% of the campaign Rule of X
It still needs more tweaking I think but I think it's a decent first attempt.
Anyone see anything strange or concerning with my approach?
Vagaries of the rule of X
in HERO System Discussion
Posted
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.