Klaus Mogensen

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? People have suggested that my analysis fails because it fails to take exotic attacks into account. I will attempt to address that here, though such an analysis must include many more assumptions. Let's take a basic superhero as an example, and see how he would be best off spending his experience points: On defenses, or on STUN/BODY/REC/CON. Let's say he starts with 20 rDEF and 10 each of Mental Defense and Power Defense, though these values aren't important for the analysis. In his last epic battle, lasting two and a half turns, our hero was hit by: 4 agent attacks vs. PD, 2 of which did STUN 2 agent attack vs. ED, 1 of which did STUN 3 powerful energy attacks, all of which did STUN, and one of which did BODY and stunned him 3 powerful physical attacks, all of which did STUN, and one of which did BODY and stunned him 1 EGO Attack, which did STUN 1 attack vs. Power Defense, which did STUN +1 PD would have saved him 5 STUN and 1 BODY +1 ED would have saved him 4 STUN and 1 BODY +1 Mental Defense would have saved him 1 STUN +1 Power Defense would have saved him 1 STUN Hence, +4 points worth of defenses would have saved him 11 STUN and 2 BODY and reduced his chances of becoming stunned, similar to having +1 CON. If STUN, BODY and CON all cost 1 each in 6e, that's 14 points worth for 4 points. Now, the hero also gets two PS12 recoveries. Having +4 REC would replace 8 of the lost STUN, so we could also compare the 4 points of defense with +3 STUN, +2 BODY, +1 CON, +4 REC, or 14 points. The value of REC also recovering END we can set at 4 points, so the net value is 10 points - still 2½ times the cost of defenses, including MD and PowD. Comments? - Klaus

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? Please make what you consider a fair cost comparison, then. - Klaus

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? Which is exactly why I advocate making PD/ED a less powerful option than it is now. - Klaus

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? I clearly state that I'm only looking at how many non-exotic attacks a character is typically hit with in a turn. Additional exotic attacks may be defended with by having more Stun or by having exotic defenses; this isn't important for my analysis. Given that exotic attacks typically are much rarer than attacks vs. DEF (and may not exist at all in many campaign types), I chose to disregard them for this simple analysis. That actually strengthens my point - now +1 PD, +1 ED has a value of 6 points rather than 5.8. That is a very complex analysis where you have to take into account the different distributions of different numbers of dice. Ideally, such an analysis should be done, but I don't have the week or so available to do it right now. Also, you mentioned on Superpowered Attacks - but don't define them. You're being Genre Inclusive and trying to fix the system against only one level of Attack. That is ultimately useless. The distinction between "superpowered" and "agent" attacks was introduced by ajackson in the 6e Characteristics thread. The main point is: Some attacks are big enough to consistently let Stun through - call them "hero-level" attacks, if you prefer. Other attacks only let Stun through on about every other hit, since the average damage is about the same level as the hero's defenses - call these "mook-level" attacks. With this distinction (rather than superpowered/agent), we become genre inclusive without changing the results of my analysis. - Klaus

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? I agree (see above) that lowering the cost of REC and STUN is better than increasing the cost of PD and ED - I was a little too quick there. However, I don't agree that Reduced END is a better alternative than buying more END and REC: The Reduced END and 0 END advantages reduce END cost at a price of 5 points per END saved. At the current cost, the same 5 points will buy you +10 END - enough for 10 uses of the power. If we assume a power is used 4 times per turn, you need +4 END and +4 limited REC (END recovery only; -1), at a current cost of 6 points, to match the effect of Reduced/0 END. This is just one point more, and is much more flexible, since you can use the extra END and REC for all powers, not just the one. Also, if a power costs END, you can save END for other uses by using it at less than full strength - you get no similar savings by using a 0 END power at less than full strength. If the cost of REC is reduced to 1 in 6e (which the STUN/REC vs. DEF discussion above suggests), the cost of +4 END and +4 limited REC will be just 4 points - cheaper than buying Reduced/0 END. You would have to use a power more than 5 times a turn before Reduced/0 END saves more END and REC than you can buy for the same points. One solution would be to increase the cost of END; but as you say, we should look to reduce costs instead. We could make 0 END a +1/4 advantage, doing away with Reduced END. Or, more flexiibly, we could instead introduce a new adder, Reduced END Cost, at e.g. 3 points, which would reduce the END cost of a power by 1. - Klaus

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? I'm hoping there's still a chance to correct some costs if necessary. This may not be the case, but hope is eternal. Where do you get that idea? I included CON in the calculation because if your DEF is lower, you need more CON to avoid getting stunned. I set the cost at 1, which seems the most likely for 6e. Yes, I took all that into account, as you would know if you had read my post: In what way? - Klaus

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? Yes, halving the cost of Stun and Rec might be a better idea, or defenses may become too expensive compared to attacks. This will reduce the value of +1 PD, +1 ED to 3.3 points (according to the analysis above), still more than half again the current cost, but not as bad as before. - Klaus

This topic came up under the 6e Characteristics thread, but I think it is important enough to have its own thread. Basically, I did an analysis that suggests that even if the costs of PD and ED were doubled, they would still be a very good deal compared to buying more Stun. I repeat the analysis below, and I would like to hear that I'm wrong - if not, I think it is vital to increase the costs of PD and ED in the new edition. I'm not considering attacks not vs. DEF at all in my analysis. I'm saying: If you get hit by so-and-so many attacks versus DEF in a battle, how much Stun will each point of DEF save you? If you also get hit by exotic attacks, that's besides the point: You would need the same extra Stun whether you've based your character on high Stun or high DEF. We can assume that whether you base your hero on high DEF or high Stun, you will have enough Stun to withstand typical exotic attacks. We can also assume that both the Stun-based and the DEF-based hero have enough rDEF to avoid taking BODY from typical attacks, hence we only look at how good an idea it is to buy non-resistant PD and ED on top of that. So let's make the analysis: In a typical turn of intense combat, I assume a hero will get hit by an average of either 2½ superpowered attacks vs. DEF (in a 1-on-1 battle) or by 1½ superpowered attacks vs. DEF plus 2 agent attacks vs. DEF. We assume that superpowered attacks do enough Stun so that each extra DEF saves 1 Stun per attack, and that every second agent attack does Stun through defenses, meaning that each extra DEF saves 0.5 Stun per attack. In either of the above cases, each point of DEF will save an average of 2.5 Stun per turn. To match the effect of +1 DEF, a hero will thus need +2.5 Stun and +2.5 REC (only to recover Stun; -1) for a total of 5 points. To resist becoming stunned, he will also need +1 CON (not for CON Rolls; -1/4), 0.8 extra points. The value of +1 PD, +1 PD is thus about 5.8 points, but costs only 2 points. It looks like an extremely good deal to buy high PD and ED! Let's say that we put PD and ED at 2 points each, double the current cost. How many attacks vs. DEF would you have to be hit by per turn in order for DEF at 4 points to be a decent choice compared just buying more Stun? The Stun-based hero will still have to buy +1 limited CON at 0.8 points; this leaves 3.2 points. Split evenly between Stun and limited REC, this gives +1.6 for each. So DEF breaks even if the hero is hit in an average turn of intense combat by 1.6 superpowered attacks vs. DEF or 3.2 agent attacks vs. DEF. This doesn't look like very intense combat to me, so even at 2 points each, PD and ED seem like a good deal compared to buying more Stun and (limited) REC and CON. Also consider that in light combat, with fewer attacks per turn than outlined above, neither type of hero will be in serious trouble. However, in very intense combat, with more attacks per turn, the DEF-based hero will be much better off than the Stun-based hero. This means that the value of DEF may be even greater than outlined above! - Klaus

Re: 6e Characteristics

Re: 6e Characteristics You are comparing defenses, which remain after each attack, with stun, which is lost every attack. Of course you find that stun is a bad idea. Let's look at it a different way: Which is better to make you make it through a significant battle, DEF or stun? Let's assume that in a significant battle, a hero is hit by 5 agent attacks vs. DEF and by 3 superpowered attacks versus DEF. The agent attacks are assumed to do average damage close to the hero's DEF - say, average of 21 stun vs. 21 DEF. This means that every other attack will let stun through, so +1 DEF saves 0.5 stun per attack, for a total of 2.5 stun in the battle. The superpowered attacks are assumed to do average damage close to twice the hero's DEF - say, average of 42 stun vs. 21 DEF. This means that almost every attack will let stun through, so +1 DEF saves 1 stun per attack, for a total of 3 stun in the battle. So 1 DEF saves 5.5 stun in a typical significant battle. Assuming that the DEF is rDEF, it currently costs 3 points - a very good deal. Add to this that DEF will protect you from getting stunned, while stun won't. For each 1 DEF you don't have, you have to buy +1 CON instead (presumably at a cost of 1 in 6e). This makes the value of +1 rDEF 6.5 points - currently at the cost of 3 points; a very good deal indeed. Doubling the cost of PD and ED would be the best solution. A compromise between the current imbalance and truly balanced costs would be to set PD and ED at 1½ points each, with Damage Resistance still at ½ point. - Klaus

Re: 6e Characteristics

Re: 6e Characteristics It would work a little differently under my suggestion. END will be reduced by an absolute amount, not a relative amount. 5 points save 1 END regardless of how much of a power you use. So a 60-base point power with three levels of reduced END (total 75 points) would cost 3 END to use at 60 base points and 1 END to use at 40 base points. Well, if END costs 1 per, you'd be better off buying 4 END and 4 limited REC (END only) at a total of 8 points. Since the 5 points for END reduction only can be used for one specific power, while the extra END and REC can be used for all powers, this seems balanced. - Klaus

Re: 6e Characteristics

Re: A roll high variant I did suggest 2d6-2d6 as an option on the 6e discussion, mainly because it is zero-centrered. It doesn't extend the standard deviation by much (15.5%) since the bell curve is tighter, nor is the central result much less likely: 11.27% chance of getting 0, compared to 12.5% chance of getting 10 (or 11) on 3d6. Rather than having open-ended rerolls, the range can be extended in simpler ways, e.g.: Count 1s as 0 and 6s as 10. This extends the range to -20 to +20 while retaining a fairly nice bell curve. - Klaus

Re: 6e Characteristics My suggestion for organising the stats (with suggested costs): Primary Characteristics All cost 1 point, have a base of 10, and give a bonus of CHA/5. (Ideally, this bonus should always round the same way, unlike now when you round STR down to determine damage die, but round all other characterictics off to determine skill/characteristic rolls.) STR (physical force) CON (physical toughness) DEX (physical suppleness) PRE (mental force) EGO (mental toughness) INT (mental suppleness) Variable Characteristics These characteristics can go down due to damage or exhaustion and are recovered according to the REC characteristic, which for that reason is grouped with these. BODY base 10, cost 1 STUN base 20, cost 1 END base 20, cost ½ REC base 4, cost 2 Combat Characteristics SPD base 2, cost 10 PD base 2, cost 1½ ED base 2, cost 1½ OCV base 3, cost 3 DCV base 3, cost 3 OECV base 3, cost 2 DECV base 3, cost 2 Note1: I have increased the cost of PD and ED because I think they are too cheap now compared to buying STUN. Alternatively, reduce the cost of STUN. Note 2: Perhaps all of these should be given a base of 2 for streamlining. Skill Levels 1 point: +1 to a single skill or maneuver 2 points: +1 to three skills or maneuvers 3 points: +1 to a broad group of skills and maneuvers, e.g. all INT skills or all Ranged combat 5 points: +1 to all skills or all combat Note: combat levels of 2 points or more can be exchanged for damage at a rate of +1 DC for 4 levels (compare +1d6, 0 END, which costs 7½ points). - Klaus

Re: A new basis for PRE atatcks One problem with this is that it depends very much on the size of a "side". In a one-on-one match, every hit will trigger (a), and in big matches, ( is very common, but shouldn't matter much. Perhaps better: a) The leader or primary champion of a side falls. More than half of a side has fallen while less than one-third of the opposing side has fallen (major characters and mooks counted and tested seperately). - Klaus

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far There were lots of suggestions to replace both of these. The point with a different roll mechanic was not mainly to flatten the curve, but more to extend the range for increased granularity. Median20 doesn't do that all that much - perhaps enough to justify CHA/4 rather than CHA/5, but no more. Among the better suggestions were 3d12, d20+2d6, 2d6+(d6x3), and 2d6-2d6. The last two are "d6 pure". While 2d6-2d6 doesn't do much to increase the spread, it is zero-centred, which is a point in itself: Roll+OCV >= DCV to hit - very simple. I myself suggested at least a dozen alternatives to the SPD Chart, but none were without problems. No worse than the SPD Chart, but neither so much of an improvement as to be obvious replacements. For finer granularity SPD at the low end, you could buy +1 SPD with an activation roll: Roll at the beginning of each turn to see if you get the +1. Or allow half-value SPDs and flip a coin the first turn of combat to see if you round up or down, and then alternate rounding up and down every turn after that. - Klaus

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I would have liked to see all these changed, but I can understand why they aren't - none of the alternatives were truly streamlined. A good change. A good change, too. This deals with one of my biggest issues with older editions. A bit unexpected, but not a bad idea. It seems to work in Mutants and Masterminds 2e. It will probably also mean that all primary characteristics can get a cost of 1. Probably necessary, though point inflation will make fixed-cost powers like Senses and Life Support relatively cheaper. Not entirely happy about this one, but if skill level costs are reduced, it isn't too bad. If skill level costs remain unchanged and INT cost remains 1, though, INT will be much too good a bargain (as it is now). Good change. Fair enough, though too many toolkitting options can harm the integrity of the system. While I see the reason for this, I'm not sure Charm is the right name. You can seduce with money or promises of power, and neither requires charm. Temptation may fit better. No comment until details are known. No big deal. No big deal, either. I would however like to see a system where skill levels can be used to bypass armor, at least worn armor. Probably needed; hope the changes improve matters. I think reducing StunX to d3 is overdoing things. It has always seemed ridiculous that a single point of rDEF could make so much difference. However, with the new, nerfed StunX die, I would rather see Normal Defenses being ineffective vs. Killing Stun no matter what. nDEF vs. Normal Attacks, rDEF vs. Killing Attacks, with no crossover - what could be simpler? No comment. It is always nice when simple effects can be made with simple solutions. Is this adding damage with skill levels, or what? It is good to see EC go, but I would have liked to see MP and VPP unifiee more. Why is it e.g. impossible to have a Multipower where it takes extra time to switch slots, like you can with VPP? I hope it gets expanded to include ranged attacks, also of the non-physical kind (e.g. "look at me and be struck blind"). Sounds good unless it becomes too complex. Makes sense. Now we just need to rename Limitations as Disadvantages (opposite of Advantages) - though I guess this will have to wait until 7th editition. Indexes are good! - Klaus

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I also find a d3 StunX overkill. In particular, there will still be a one-third chance of x1, which is not only weak, but also superfluous, since you take at least as much STUN as BODY anyway. It might as well be x0. I think d2+1 might be a better solution: x2 on a roll of 1-3, x3 on a roll of 4-6. Average 2.5, meaning 1d6K will do 8.75 average STUN, still far less than the 10.5 for 3d6N. One of my GMs used a d4, that also worked well (but ruined the d6 purity). On the hit location chart, I imagine head shots will be reworked to x4 rather than x5. Or maybe the Killing column will be removed and the "N STUN" column made universal. - Klaus

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I think most of the changes make sense, though I am a bit disappointed about some of the non-changes. I would have liked to see more streamlining. Now that EGO no longer adds to ECV, it seems a relatively useless characteristic. It protects vs. PRE attacks, but so does PRE itself (unless that is changed), and it protects against certain mental effects (useful, but only in campaigns where mental attacks are relatively common). Will EGO be repriced to ½? Doubtful. A better idea may be to let some skills - e.g. "Concentration Skills" - be derived from EGO. Many of the 4e "General Skills" could apply: Demolitions, Forgery, Gambling, Shadowing, Survival. Perhaps also Lip Reading, Mimicry and Ventriloquist, since these in the source material often are seen with mentalists/hypnotists. The Resistance Talent could also be reworked as a Concentration Skill. - Klaus