PDA

View Full Version : Daze Advantage--what's the use for it?



Darkdreamer
10-31-2014, 12:56 PM
I'm just getting back into the system, and never used 3e much before I got out of supers for a couple years. So I'm refamiliarizing myself with the rules and get to the Daze advantage.

Now, I understand why they removed the Advantage's predecessor; Distract was a bit overpowered, and could be incredibly so under some circumstances. But I'm finding myself hard-pressed to come up with a situation where its worth trading your standard action for someone else's move action, which is essentially what the Daze advantage does.

Am I missing some sort of tactic here? Even against melee opponents that doesn't seem a good trade, and against those with ranged attacks, I'm having trouble coming up with any situation where its a winner.

Monolith
10-31-2014, 04:21 PM
It's basically just the ability to do something extra with a skill. Not every character has powers, so the ability to make someone hesitate is a decent way of representing various types of presence attacks from intimidation or surprises from deception.

As far as advantages, if you can't move and attack and your foe can you're at the short end. If you're melee and someone can punch you and move away that's an advantage. If you're ranged and someone can hit you and move out of your maximum range, or even put you in -5 range to hit them, that's an advantage. With the movement distances in this game it's very easy to move outside of someone's maximum range in a move action; meaning they have limited options..

Darkdreamer
10-31-2014, 11:30 PM
Yes, but the point, unless you're setting someone else up, none of that matters; you've used up your own standard action to do that, after all. And even when it does help someone else, the effect is often minimal, because ranged attacks usually don't care. At the best, all I can see it do is let someone else retreat; it won't help you, because you've sacrificed everything but your move action anyway, so the target can either shoot at you anyway (and if you're far enough away just the move will prevent that, the double move you could have taken without bothering with the Daze would have too) or Charge you and still hit (and the same thing applies).

I mean, seriously, describe a situation where this is a better choice than doing something else with the standard action; not in generality, but give an example. I can't find a one where it benefits you personally, and it doesn't even do much of a job of setting up a benefit for someone else.

Edit: The range issue only matters for a small range of relative powers, for example; otherwise either the target will still be in the range, or could have been out of the range even if the target of the Daze was able to move (at a certain point even one step of speed differential is bigger than most range increments); if he is in that, all the Daze user has done is buy them time at best, and time for--what, exactly? And of course the Daze isn't likely usable against a lot of targets at really long ranges because you likely can't interact enough to use it unless the target has super-senses of the right kind.

It seems like a very corner-case Advantage at best.

Monolith
11-01-2014, 07:49 AM
I'd say first, most people don't play alone so teaming, and team tactics, does matter. I can also go into the idea that sometimes characters take more then 1 standard action in a round, so dazing, punching, and moving aren't that uncommon. Finally, I'd say that in a game where a rank 12 blast has a maximum range of 1200' and a -5 to hit range of 601' to 1200' that having rank 5+ movement of some type to take advantage of those penalties does matter. To an injured character it can be the difference of staying up or going unconscious. Still, feel free to use it or not. Every advantage in the game isn't right for every game.

Darkdreamer
11-01-2014, 09:49 AM
I do agree team tactics are a thing, but even when supporting someone else it seems marginal; and if you bring surge into it, the Dazed character can still do that too, negating most of the benefit, if it comes to that.

Its not your responsibility to sell me on it, of course, but I'm still having trouble picturing a situation where trading one of your standard actions for one of someone else's move actions is all that useful; even when it does something good, its not clear to me why it'd be the most useful thing to do with a standard action.

kariggi
11-01-2014, 10:35 AM
It seems like a bad trade, but a lot in this game is situational, and since the end-all be-all in this game isn't beating every opponent into the ground, it likely has its place.
I'll point out that it is the second degree of damage failure, so there are instances where it could do more than a standard action used to punch/kick/blast someone. Also reducing the overall number of actions an opponent can take can be key to their capture or defeat. If they intended to bust out of a cell and flee, they wouldn't be able to flee this turn, or snatch the diamond from the curator and then teleport off, and since move actions can be used for effects other than moving such as activated abilities or even the use of certain powers, it limits their options, especially in a team game limiting the villains options can be key, just making her choose between killing the hostage or escaping can be the difference in a heroic outcome, or a scandalous publicized failure.

I truly believe Super-Hero roleplaying requires more imaginative play and greater buy in than most other genres, and that it pushes normal practicality and mechanically based decisions to the side in favor of a better cooperative narrative when its at its best.

but eh I don't have a character with the Daze advantage built either so meh I get your point, but if I ever built a character for whom the decision to include it seemed right I wouldn't hesitate to pay a point for it and then take it around the block a few times.

Darkdreamer
11-01-2014, 09:49 PM
I'll point out that it is the second degree of damage failure, so there are instances where it could do more than a standard action used to punch/kick/blast someone.


To be honest, I'm underwhelmed by Daze as a combat effect generally, too; 2e Stun was too strong, but 3e Daze may well be too weak. The major benefit of most combat strikes to me is the accumulated resistance penalty leading to Staggered and ultimately incapacitated was the real gig.



Also reducing the overall number of actions an opponent can take can be key to their capture or defeat. If they intended to bust out of a cell and flee, they wouldn't be able to flee this turn, or snatch the diamond from the curator and then teleport off, and since move actions can be used for effects other than moving such as activated abilities or even the use of certain powers, it limits their options, especially in a team game limiting the villains options can be key, just making her choose between killing the hostage or escaping can be the difference in a heroic outcome, or a scandalous publicized failure.


Which is what I was classing in corner cases. I won't deny there are cases when robbing someone of a move action can be useful; what I'm questioning is how often its more useful than other things you could be doing to them with a Standard action.

badpenny
11-02-2014, 06:05 AM
Steve made a lot of mistakes when he moved to 3e. There were several things that were too good in 2e, but he totally nerfed them in 3e.

The easy solution to move away from 2e's Stunlock, was to switch to Dazed (no actions, but defends normally). 3e's Dazed is barely worth noticing (like Fatigue, and I'd argue that really cheapens the nature of Extra Effort when you can acquire a condition that literally means no impact for most players--perhaps save for grounders with no extra movement or appreciable Athletics skill).

2e's Distract was too good, but my house rule was to make the Feat ranked: one use per combat per rank limited to half PL.

The easy solution if you're the GM is to change the nature of the condition. If you're a player, you can ask the GM about changing it, and be prepared to put your point into something else if s/he is going to run Daze per RAW.

kariggi
11-02-2014, 10:22 AM
Badpenny, do you have any suggestions for 3E fatigued. My players have just fully discovered Extra Effort, especially the flyers.

badpenny
11-02-2014, 12:59 PM
Badpenny, do you have any suggestions for 3E fatigued. My players have just fully discovered Extra Effort, especially the flyers.

While I'm happy with super-fast recovery times, and glossed-over lifting strengths, Fatigue is annoying that it's such a trifle. I want my players to have to take it on the chin when they decide to acquire Fatigue.

For Fatigued, you could go with:


-1 STR (-1 Damage and -1 rank of lifting)
-1 AGL/DEX (-1 Dodge, -1 Initiative, -1 to both Acrobatics and Stealth; -1 Ranged Attack, -1 to both Slight of Hand and Vehicles)
-1 FGT (-1 Parry, and -1 Close Attack)


Exhausted would be at least -2 STR, -2 AGL/DEX, -2 FGT; Hindered, and maybe even Dazed.

FuzzyBoots
11-03-2014, 05:21 AM
I'll disagree with you on Fatigued. The first use of extra-effort gives you Fatigued, which slows you down. The second use gives you Exhausted, which also makes you Impaired, with the -2 penalties to attack/etc. To me, that encourages at least one use of Extra Effort during combat for something like a power stunt or making that one hit just slightly more damaging by raising the rank of the power. I definitely agree on the changes for Dazed/Stunned. It made things considerably less useful.

badpenny
11-03-2014, 06:39 AM
Fatigued makes you Hindered--slowing you down by -1 Speed. That only affects characters who don't have any more than base Speed 0 and who can't increase it with an appreciable Athletics check. Going from a 30 foot move to a 15 foot move is considerable--it's a genuine tactical distance.

Someone with Flight 8 drops to Flight 7. That's a difference of 1 mile in a move action being reduced to half a mile. That has absolutely zero effect on combat.

When you compare what you can do with an HP, spending an HP to remove Fatigue is not worthwhile. So that first Extra Effort is nearly entirely free (and cheapens the whole notion for me).

In 3e, I'm tempted to remove stunting from Extra Effort and make it a function of a Hero Point instead.

FuzzyBoots
11-03-2014, 07:11 AM
I think it's just a difference of opinion as to whether allowing that one "free" stunt in the encounter is a good thing. Personally, I'm weighing toward it being a way to encourage creativity for both the heroes and villains.

badpenny
11-03-2014, 07:28 AM
I come at this from another POV--not whether it should be free or not, but if you're going to make it free, make it free. If you're going to impose a condition, make it one that actually has a meaningful effect.

All Hindered does is further hamstring a certain class of characters, ones who typically already suffer under attack-shifting being meaningless and defense-shifting being less advantageous than Toughness-shifting, e.g. Weapon Masters, Martial Artists who typically don't have high movement.

Free isn't really free--only to those with high movement.

Edit: And don't forget the Tiring Flaw. Flaws should reduce effectiveness roughly by half, and yet that first rank of Fatigue imposes no real penalty.

I hate half-assedry.

FuzzyBoots
11-03-2014, 07:45 AM
You're right on Tiring. I hadn't considered that. Much like the hamstringing of Daze, and a few other areas, it's a side effect of changing a few things without checking to see what else it affects.

JDRook
11-03-2014, 09:08 AM
For Fatigued, you could go with:


-1 STR (-1 Damage and -1 rank of lifting)
-1 AGL/DEX (-1 Dodge, -1 Initiative, -1 to both Acrobatics and Stealth; -1 Ranged Attack, -1 to both Slight of Hand and Vehicles)
-1 FGT (-1 Parry, and -1 Close Attack)


Exhausted would be at least -2 STR, -2 AGL/DEX, -2 FGT; Hindered, and maybe even Dazed.

For simplicity, why not just make Fatigue a -1 circumstantial penalty to all checks?

EDIT: in fact, tacking that on to Dazed with an Instant Recovery might make it a little more worthwhile.

digitalangel
11-03-2014, 09:53 AM
Tiring is still a worthy flaw from my point of view. Yes that first level of fatigue isn't huge, but getting hit with a level of fatigue every time you use the power (or every round it's active for sustained and continuous) becomes a big flaw unless it is something you only use once.

Alyssa Anders
11-03-2014, 06:34 PM
The Daze advantage allows you to throw an entire group of minions off-balance, which is pretty useful in combat. If you don't think the advantage is powerful enough, try upping the effect by making it last longer - 2 rounds on 2 degrees of success, 5 rounds on 3+ degrees.

For alternate forms of Fatigued, why not bump it up to Impaired rather than Hindered? Exhausted would then be Disabled and Hindered.

Darkdreamer
11-04-2014, 07:13 AM
The Daze advantage allows you to throw an entire group of minions off-balance, .

Howso? And even if true, it doesn't change the fundamental effect, which will often be useless.

Alyssa Anders
11-04-2014, 09:54 AM
You can base Daze off of Intimidation, which explicity allows you to terrorize entire mobs of minions.

I like the idea of making the effect last longer based on degrees of success. I'm going to add that to my list of houserules and see how it goes.

Darkdreamer
11-04-2014, 09:59 PM
You can base Daze off of Intimidation, which explicity allows you to terrorize entire mobs of minions.



I don't think it necessarily follows that that property carries over with Daze, since Daze changes the effect of the skill.

Batgirl III
11-05-2014, 12:21 AM
Someone with Flight 8 drops to Flight 7. That's a difference of 1 mile in a move action being reduced to half a mile. That has absolutely zero effect on combat.


That one rank speed difference absolutely should effect on combat. Not every combat, true, but definitely the big set-piece battles that capstone an adventure. The thumping muggers in a alley scenes? No. But the Battle of New York or Massacre of Metropolis? Hell yes.

You need to have combat take place outside and at greater distances. I have very rarely seen a M&M game where a majority of the party wasn't flying and/or running at Rank 7 or greater. At PL8 or 10, Rank 10+ ranged effects are almost universal: that's a 1,000' range, standard... Tack on extended or even perception range? Miles.

Therefore, enemies should either have similar movement capability, similarly ranged attacks, and/or be spread out significantly (preferably in three-dimensions.)

badpenny
11-05-2014, 05:15 AM
Blast 10 has range penalty increments of 250 ft/500 ft/1000 ft. Only at the latter two ranges do you suffer any penalties. Having your range cut from a single move action of one mile to half a mile makes no effective difference to anyone. You can still move entirely out of range in a single move, and you can also move into the 0 to-hit penalty range from beyond it.

The only aspect it does matter is in some kind of "tag" scenario, i.e. pursuit. If your speed has dropped, it's dropped and, yes, you might be caught now.

But my point takes into consideration all characters, all archetypes and the actual effect it has on them. Being Hindered is just about the mildest penalty there is, and especially so when you compare it to the penalties for Fatigued in 2e.

Heroic effort should come with a penalty you feel so that your effort means something. It's like having a code of honor: if it means nothing for you to be honorable, i.e. no loss, no penalty, no disadvantage, then it has no value. You should have to sacrifice something.

savijmuhdrox
11-05-2014, 07:35 AM
Wouldn't Daze be useful in a situation where you cant reasonably expect to hit with anything else?

It has different defenses then simply punching someone, so if you cant expect to actual damage someone, then at least you can slow them down, right?

It all functions as part of a group dynamic..

AND.. if i have two players and one just keeps punching Big Rock Dude to no avail; but the other pauses and decides to Daze him.. i'm giving player 2 a hero point for roleplaying..

thaumonuclear
11-05-2014, 01:18 PM
Do you really want to require a advantage for a move with minimal effect that you use when you're otherwise worthless?

Should this just be a use of the skills that anyone can use?

Darkdreamer
11-05-2014, 01:21 PM
That one rank speed difference absolutely should effect on combat. Not every combat, true, but definitely the big set-piece battles that capstone an adventure. The thumping muggers in a alley scenes? No. But the Battle of New York or Massacre of Metropolis? Hell yes.

You need to have combat take place outside and at greater distances. I have very rarely seen a M&M game where a majority of the party wasn't flying and/or running at Rank 7 or greater. At PL8 or 10, Rank 10+ ranged effects are almost universal: that's a 1,000' range, standard... Tack on extended or even perception range? Miles.

Therefore, enemies should either have similar movement capability, similarly ranged attacks, and/or be spread out significantly (preferably in three-dimensions.)

Does not match my experience at all. Most of the time movement speeds over 5 were only relevant for covering distance. In addition, unless working on a flat plane with nothing to hide in, all someone has to do if they don't want to be a sitting duck is move into a building. They may not be able to return fire, but depending on what they're doing, letting the fight come to them may be fine.

Darkdreamer
11-05-2014, 01:24 PM
Wouldn't Daze be useful in a situation where you cant reasonably expect to hit with anything else?


In most cases if that's really the case you're better off power stunting something that will have a real effect than using something you have that won't. And only pretty narrowly focused characters are liable be in that situation in the first place, since in usually requires all your attacks to be against one resistance.

Darkdreamer
11-05-2014, 01:25 PM
Heroic effort should come with a penalty you feel so that your effort means something. It's like having a code of honor: if it means nothing for you to be honorable, i.e. no loss, no penalty, no disadvantage, then it has no value. You should have to sacrifice something.

Eh. I figure its like being hit but only taking a bruise; it may not do much by itself but it does leave you more vulnerable to the next time. That's all making it run purely on hero points would do, in the end.

dream
11-05-2014, 01:56 PM
I'm just getting back into the system, and never used 3e much before I got out of supers for a couple years. So I'm refamiliarizing myself with the rules and get to the Daze advantage.

Now, I understand why they removed the Advantage's predecessor; Distract was a bit overpowered, and could be incredibly so under some circumstances. But I'm finding myself hard-pressed to come up with a situation where its worth trading your standard action for someone else's move action, which is essentially what the Daze advantage does.

Am I missing some sort of tactic here? Even against melee opponents that doesn't seem a good trade, and against those with ranged attacks, I'm having trouble coming up with any situation where its a winner.


Yes, but the point, unless you're setting someone else up, none of that matters; you've used up your own standard action to do that, after all. And even when it does help someone else, the effect is often minimal, because ranged attacks usually don't care. At the best, all I can see it do is let someone else retreat; it won't help you, because you've sacrificed everything but your move action anyway, so the target can either shoot at you anyway (and if you're far enough away just the move will prevent that, the double move you could have taken without bothering with the Daze would have too) or Charge you and still hit (and the same thing applies).

I mean, seriously, describe a situation where this is a better choice than doing something else with the standard action; not in generality, but give an example. I can't find a one where it benefits you personally, and it doesn't even do much of a job of setting up a benefit for someone else.

Edit: The range issue only matters for a small range of relative powers, for example; otherwise either the target will still be in the range, or could have been out of the range even if the target of the Daze was able to move (at a certain point even one step of speed differential is bigger than most range increments); if he is in that, all the Daze user has done is buy them time at best, and time for--what, exactly? And of course the Daze isn't likely usable against a lot of targets at really long ranges because you likely can't interact enough to use it unless the target has super-senses of the right kind.

It seems like a very corner-case Advantage at best.

Hello, Darkdreamer.

I always use Daze as a more cliched-80's tough-guy move, where the PC or NPC does or says something that causes the target(s) to pause:

Usually, it works great against targets who intend to move towards your PC and attack, but can be equally effective against foes with distance attacks.

The key is hesitation. If the GM plays it right, affected targets will do just that, trying to decide what to do based on the action that triggers the Daze. A wild threat? An unexpected challenge/offer? Unorthodox behavior (dancing, acting crazy, "Hey, Look over there!", "I surrender!", ect.)

I always saw it as less of a tactical move, and more of a role-playing maneuver to knock the GM (or players) off balance in a way that trumps the usual "Meta". Think about "Rush Hour" and all the crazy things Chris Tucker's character did to confuse the criminals. Seemed like "Daze 101". I use it as a kind of "Intimidation/Deception-lite", especially when combat gets crazy.

This is just how I use Daze, but other people probably have a better grip of the advantage. Hope this helped some.

Darkdreamer
11-07-2014, 07:41 AM
Hello, Darkdreamer.

I always use Daze as a more cliched-80's tough-guy move, where the PC or NPC does or says something that causes the target(s) to pause:

Usually, it works great against targets who intend to move towards your PC and attack, but can be equally effective against foes with distance attacks.

The key is hesitation. If the GM plays it right, affected targets will do just that, trying to decide what to do based on the action that triggers the Daze. A wild threat? An unexpected challenge/offer? Unorthodox behavior (dancing, acting crazy, "Hey, Look over there!", "I surrender!", ect.)

I always saw it as less of a tactical move, and more of a role-playing maneuver to knock the GM (or players) off balance in a way that trumps the usual "Meta". Think about "Rush Hour" and all the crazy things Chris Tucker's character did to confuse the criminals. Seemed like "Daze 101". I use it as a kind of "Intimidation/Deception-lite", especially when combat gets crazy.

This is just how I use Daze, but other people probably have a better grip of the advantage. Hope this helped some.

The problem with this, Dream, is that your answer is "I treat it as more strongly than written." If it robbed someone of a full action--which sounds like how you're treating it--I wouldn't have needed to ask the question.

digitalangel
11-07-2014, 08:02 AM
For melee fighters, robbing them of a move action can be equivalent of robbing them of a standard action at times. If you make them lose their move action, and then they have to use their standard action as a move to close in range, then you have effectively taken their standard action away.

Also, I think that the interpretation of being able to use it on multiple minions at once is correct. Just one more things that you lose in the minion discount.

Remember that you can always build your own Advantages. All an advantage is is a 1 point power that trades being able to use extra effor tfor getting innate for free. I don't remember if it was UP or the Mastermind's Manual, but 2E went so far as stating this directly.

Daze "Advantage": Affliction 4 (dazed, stunned), perception range (pick your sense based on description, probably visual or auditory), limited degree, instant recovery, alternate save (opposed roll), flaw (opponent may use highest of Insight, same skill, of Will to save), check required (either Deception or Intimidate [chosen at creation]), innate, quirk (cannot use extra effort) = 1PP

Perfectly valid new version of Daze that is a little more powerful. It can stun an opponent if they fail by 5 or more, and Perception Range means that there is no question of being able to affect multiple opponents, even non-minions. This gives you 4 ranks of Affliction per PP spent in this configuration. making it effectively a ranked Advantage as long as you have a high enough Intimidation or Deception skill to make the check on it.

badpenny
11-07-2014, 08:28 AM
For melee fighters, robbing them of a move action can be equivalent of robbing them of a standard action at times. If you make them lose their move action, and then they have to use their standard action as a move to close in range, then you have effectively taken their standard action away.

And what about ranged fighters? They can stand (or hover) and blast away. Just like with the Hindered condition, only the characters with low movement are really affected.


Daze "Advantage": Affliction 4 (dazed, stunned), perception range (pick your sense based on description, probably visual or auditory), limited degree, instant recovery, alternate save (opposed roll), flaw (opponent may use highest of Insight, same skill, of Will to save), check required (either Deception or Intimidate [chosen at creation]), innate, quirk (cannot use extra effort) = 1PP

Perfectly valid new version of Daze that is a little more powerful. It can stun an opponent if they fail by 5 or more, and Perception Range means that there is no question of being able to affect multiple opponents, even non-minions. This gives you 4 ranks of Affliction per PP spent in this configuration. making it effectively a ranked Advantage as long as you have a high enough Intimidation or Deception skill to make the check on it.

This might sound like a good deal, but in reality it's a DC 14 check--something someone of near equal PL shouldn't have all that much trouble beating, and even within range for a minion. Plus, you only get active ranks based on how much you best your own required check.

The argument still comes down to is 3e Dazed worth anything, and my argument is that it's been too nerfed. 2e Stunned might have been too much. But 2e Dazed would have been an excellent compromise. 2e Distract was too good, so limiting it by use or circumstance would have been a good choice and fairly easy to solve.

Making 3e Daze only the loss of a Move action--like so many other 3e changes--shows a lack of playtesting and critical thought. So many people make the argument that 2e has just as many problems as 3e and I wholly--and stridently--disagree. 2e provided much more detail, and it's easier to to edit from a surplus than to extrapolate from a dearth of detail.

digitalangel
11-07-2014, 08:32 AM
You missed where I said treat it as ranked. 2PP gets 8 ranks, 3 gets 12.

Not everyone is playing PL 10+ either. Daze is more of something you use in a PL 4-8 street level game.

I probably shouldn't have bother with the alt save extra. Just will based with the flaw that your opponent can use Insight or the same skill. That would make it 8 ranks for 1 PP. Of course since I didn't put selective on it, you might daze your allies to.

Darkdreamer
11-07-2014, 01:21 PM
The argument still comes down to is 3e Dazed worth anything, and my argument is that it's been too nerfed. 2e Stunned might have been too much. But 2e Dazed would have been an excellent compromise. 2e Distract was too good, so limiting it by use or circumstance would have been a good choice and fairly easy to solve.

Making 3e Daze only the loss of a Move action--like so many other 3e changes--shows a lack of playtesting and critical thought. So many people make the argument that 2e has just as many problems as 3e and I wholly--and stridently--disagree. 2e provided much more detail, and it's easier to to edit from a surplus than to extrapolate from a dearth of detail.

While I agree that some of the 3e changes weren't improvements, I think on the whole things that got worse were much less important than things that got better. As an example at hand--at worst, its near irrelevance means no one takes Daze; 2e Distract was so thoroughly overpowered almost anyone who was serious about taking it was overpowered, and some builds with it were overwhelmingly broken.

I do agree some 3e things are a little inexplicable, but I'm hard pressed to see "lack of detail" as the problem. Things like Dazed are likely the consequence of it being a single feat/advantage and such wasn't used enough that many people reported on it. The only 3e change I have trouble understanding is Impervious.

badpenny
11-08-2014, 07:13 AM
Lack of detail runs all though 3e. They got rid of the distinction between Saves and Checks, so now with the Impaired/Disabled conditions--which states "-2/-5 to all checks"--what exactly is the scope? Toughness/Fortitude/Will checks? Those used to be Saves. They're now Checks. Defense? That's a Routine Check. If you allow all checks, especially Toughness, then you're breaking the entire Damage condition model and making the condition way too good because of the reflexive penalty to break out of the Affliction that caused the condition.

That's a serious lack of clarity, and it's impacted a bunch of games I've both played in and GM'd.

Immobile used to say that you "cannot move" but now it says "you cannot move from your spot." That's not so much a lack of detail as an outright nerfing, because now the Snare effect has not only gone up in cost to 3pp/rank, but you don't even get most descriptors for Snare working right. It's mostly now "you're feet are glued to the ground," not you're encased in ice, or wrapped up in webbing and are unable to move. Grabbing, since it's also based on Affliction, suffers from the exact same nerfing.

Mostly the changes made to 3e are bad ones: lack of critical detail or nerfing. I do not like the broad (and more expensive skills). I hate more Abilities, especially ones that do absolutely nothing (like STA/FGT/PRE/etc).

I do like the integrated STR/distance/time chart; that's a simplification I heartily approve of. As well as simplified recovery and lack of lasting injuries. Emphasis on Complications over Drawbacks. A standardized bonus scheme (+2/+5). But those changes, and many refinements from the 2e ORQ thread would have made a killer 2.5e. I feel that DC wanted a big departure from the d20 model and what we ended up with is 3e. After four years of struggling with it, I'm going back to 2e. Even with 2e's issues, I'd rather play a game of RAW 2e over RAW 3e.

Monolith
11-08-2014, 08:13 AM
Lack of detail runs all though 3e. They got rid of the distinction between Saves and Checks, so now with the Impaired/Disabled conditions--which states "-2/-5 to all checks"--what exactly is the scope?
I'll just point out, again, that nowhere in the book does it use the word "all." "All" is not used under impaired or disabled under the conditions section in the front of the book. "All" is not used under affliction in the middle of the book. "All" is not used under impaired or disabled in the glossary in the back of the book. The description simply says "circumstance penalty on checks." It is you and some other who keep adding the word "all" into the descriptive text.

Darkdreamer
11-08-2014, 08:37 AM
The problem, BP, is that I think you're conflating "I don't like them" with "problematic". There may well be some clarity issues--but 2e was rife with those too--but detail is not the issue, or it'd have been one in the game I ran of it, given the group.

badpenny
11-08-2014, 08:56 AM
There's no real difference syntactically between "all checks" and "checks" since there's no distinction between Saves and Checks any more.


Whenever a character in Mutants & Masterminds attempts something where the outcome is in doubt, it requires a check of an appropriate trait: ability, skill, power, etc. (also known as a “trait check” or a “[fill-in trait name]” check, like a “Dexterity check,” for example).

Ability, Skill, Power, etc. It leaves what "etc" expands to in doubt. Resistance checks are not off the table since they no longer have protection by being called a Save.


Active defenses in combat, where characters are focusing on other actions, are generally routine opposition, which is why attack checks are made against a DC of 10 + the appropriate defense. Active opposed checks in combat are an option when a character goes on the defensive

I've had GMs declare that Impaired/Disabled applied to Defense even because it was a "routine check" and the condition applies to "checks."

[In all cases, emphasis mine.]

badpenny
11-08-2014, 09:02 AM
The problem, BP, is that I think you're conflating "I don't like them" with "problematic". There may well be some clarity issues--but 2e was rife with those too--but detail is not the issue, or it'd have been one in the game I ran of it, given the group.

Disagree. People keep saying roughly the same thing: you complain about 3e, but 2e had problems, too.

The difference is there was support for 2e. The ORQ thread answered a lot of questions, and both Elric and Paragon operationalized some practical house rules to the system. See Paragon's great thread The Limits of PL (http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?t=31064) as just one example.

3e is not only written poorly, but there's no official support. Changes were made from 2e that don't even make any sense: FGT/Impervious are just two simple examples. FGT feels entirely like "let's change something so it seems different."

Immobile has clearly different text than from 2e. Was it a typo, someone not paying attention to detail, a purposeful change? I don't know, but it was a bad move since Snare is more expensive and you get far less.

Darkdreamer
11-09-2014, 09:58 PM
Disagree. People keep saying roughly the same thing: you complain about 3e, but 2e had problems, too.

The difference is there was support for 2e. The ORQ thread answered a lot of questions, and both Elric and Paragon operationalized some practical house rules to the system. See Paragon's great thread The Limits of PL (http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?t=31064) as just one example.



I do agree that's a problem, but it was a problem long before 3e came out, and its hardly unique to M&M anyway. We'd just gotten spoiled by Steve's easy availability back in the day.

(By the by; I am Paragon; I had some problems trying to transfer over to the new board, and in the end it just was easier to do a new registration.



3e is not only written poorly, but there's no official support. Changes were made from 2e that don't even make any sense: FGT/Impervious are just two simple examples. FGT feels entirely like "let's change something so it seems different."



I agree about Impervious, but not Fighting; Fighting exists largely to make the numbers for the attributes, advantages and skills in combat come out right.



Immobile has clearly different text than from 2e. Was it a typo, someone not paying attention to detail, a purposeful change? I don't know, but it was a bad move since Snare is more expensive and you get far less.

I have to assume its a purposeful change. I'm not in love with it, but I simply don't see it as the major problem you do.