Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

House Rule thoughts on high defs vs high tough

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jmucchiello
    replied
    Re: House Rule thoughts on high defs vs high tough

    Originally posted by DeanH View Post
    I wasn't correcting you, I was answering your question of what I meant by maxing. Will/fort is more of an issue if all the characters are toughness shifted, but parry/dodge still matters. I don't get the impression your villains are trying to take the players out with cumulative afflictions which is what I'm talking about. I also don't think your idea will shift the optimal balance of toughness/defense and damage/accuracy more than one point, though you can do whatever you like in your own game.
    And yet they do that all the time. Trying to guess what my game is like based on the rule change I proposed is not the purpose of this thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeanH
    replied
    Re: House Rule thoughts on high defs vs high tough

    Originally posted by jmucchiello View Post
    Yes, I meant Power Level * 2. Why did you "correct" me?

    And while that's true. It really isn't that significant. The will/fort part is usually more of an issue. And my system would penalize the dodge/parry of 6 compared to 12 because on average the DC will be 1 higher when the attacker rolls "high".
    I wasn't correcting you, I was answering your question of what I meant by maxing. Will/fort is more of an issue if all the characters are toughness shifted, but parry/dodge still matters. I don't get the impression your villains are trying to take the players out with cumulative afflictions which is what I'm talking about. I also don't think your idea will shift the optimal balance of toughness/defense and damage/accuracy more than one point, though you can do whatever you like in your own game.

    Leave a comment:


  • jmucchiello
    replied
    Re: House Rule thoughts on high defs vs high tough

    Originally posted by DeanH View Post
    I meant =2*pl. Someone with, say, dodge/parry 6 and will/fort 10 is obviously going to do worse than someone with dodge/parry 12 and will/fort 10 against affliction and weaken.
    Yes, I meant Power Level * 2. Why did you "correct" me?

    And while that's true. It really isn't that significant. The will/fort part is usually more of an issue. And my system would penalize the dodge/parry of 6 compared to 12 because on average the DC will be 1 higher when the attacker rolls "high".

    Leave a comment:


  • DeanH
    replied
    Re: House Rule thoughts on high defs vs high tough

    Originally posted by jmucchiello View Post
    Define max power. Afflictions are limited like any other attack to attack bonus + effect rank <= power level * 2.
    I meant =2*pl. Someone with, say, dodge/parry 6 and will/fort 10 is obviously going to do worse than someone with dodge/parry 12 and will/fort 10 against affliction and weaken.

    Leave a comment:


  • jmucchiello
    replied
    Re: House Rule thoughts on high defs vs high tough

    Originally posted by DeanH View Post
    Are their afflictions max power and cumulative? I meant afflictions that can take people out of the fight.
    Define max power. Afflictions are limited like any other attack to attack bonus + effect rank <= power level * 2.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeanH
    replied
    Re: House Rule thoughts on high defs vs high tough

    Originally posted by jmucchiello View Post
    Just about all of my villains use afflictions. I still see the imbalance.
    Are their afflictions max power and cumulative? I meant afflictions that can take people out of the fight.

    Leave a comment:


  • jmucchiello
    replied
    Re: House Rule thoughts on high defs vs high tough

    Originally posted by DeanH View Post
    My point was that the advantage of high toughness can be balanced more effectively by the GM giving more enemies affliction and weaken than by the proposed rule.
    Just about all of my villains use afflictions. I still see the imbalance.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeanH
    replied
    Re: House Rule thoughts on high defs vs high tough

    Originally posted by jmucchiello View Post
    But there's no attack roll. So this rule doesn't interact with area effects.
    My point was that the advantage of high toughness can be balanced more effectively by the GM giving more enemies affliction and weaken than by the proposed rule.

    Leave a comment:


  • jmucchiello
    replied
    Re: House Rule thoughts on high defs vs high tough

    Originally posted by DeanH View Post
    You get a Dodge against Area afflictions unless they're perception range.
    But there's no attack roll. So this rule doesn't interact with area effects.

    Leave a comment:


  • jmucchiello
    replied
    Re: House Rule thoughts on high defs vs high tough

    Originally posted by Bothrops View Post
    And that's precisely the reason why I shy way from this kind of extensive "balancing" houserules: They tend to provoke a rat's tail of other complementing houserules, such as your Multiattack example. Another examples could be Impervious (whose value would be further diminished by your houserule), or Immunity 2: critical hits (the latter should logically work against your houserule's precision bonus, and thus rendered more powerful - prompting certain GMs to increase its cost, forcing players to retcon their characters...and so on). See what I mean?
    I see what you're saying and I don't care that one house rule can cause a cascade. The cascade ends at some point. In this specific example, I don't see my rule interacting with immunity to critical hits at all. This would just be "how it works." You can no more be immune to this rule than you can be immune to the incapacitated condition. Second, characters would be built with the rule change known. I would never introduce this to an existing campaign. And who buys Impervious?

    Also, do you think this houserule is really necessary? Why not simply use Power Attack (yields a very similar result)?
    Speaking of Power Attack: Accuracy-shifted builds are highly cost-effective. Since high accuracy is dirt-cheap, making a potent-but-expensive attack power (such as Corrosion) bought at a lower rank easily affordable. And then you use Power Attack to simply boost the latter's rank! Remember, Power Attack does not distinguish between simple melee damage (1p/rank) and Corrosion (3p/rank).
    Power Attack doesn't do what I want at all. In addition to the benefit of evening out high accuracy and high defense, I also want the first die roll just as INTERESTING as the second die roll. The first die roll is pass/fail. The second die roll has degrees of success. Rolling a 7 or 17 sometimes has the same meaning on the first roll. I find that boring.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops
    replied
    Re: House Rule thoughts on high defs vs high tough

    Originally posted by jmucchiello View Post
    Had not thought about Multiattack. Yes, probably need to remove the "single target" version of multiattack. The other versions still make sense.
    And that's precisely the reason why I shy way from this kind of extensive "balancing" houserules: They tend to provoke a rat's tail of other complementing houserules, such as your Multiattack example. Another examples could be Impervious (whose value would be further diminished by your houserule), or Immunity 2: critical hits (the latter should logically work against your houserule's precision bonus, and thus rendered more powerful - prompting certain GMs to increase its cost, forcing players to retcon their characters...and so on). See what I mean?
    Also, do you think this houserule is really necessary? Why not simply use Power Attack (yields a very similar result)?
    Speaking of Power Attack: Accuracy-shifted builds are highly cost-effective. Since high accuracy is dirt-cheap, making a potent-but-expensive attack power (such as Corrosion) bought at a lower rank easily affordable. And then you use Power Attack to simply boost the latter's rank! Remember, Power Attack does not distinguish between simple melee damage (1p/rank) and Corrosion (3p/rank).

    Leave a comment:


  • DeanH
    replied
    Re: House Rule thoughts on high defs vs high tough

    You get a Dodge against Area afflictions unless they're perception range.

    Leave a comment:


  • jmucchiello
    replied
    Re: House Rule thoughts on high defs vs high tough

    Originally posted by DeanH View Post
    High Toughness is best against Damage but useless against Affliction and Weaken. You can give more enemies these if you want to balance things out.
    Yes and no. Area afflictions are very common and they affect both high and low def characters equally.

    Leave a comment:


  • FuzzyBoots
    replied
    Re: House Rule thoughts on high defs vs high tough

    A slightly less severe version I've seen is making critical hits be a factor of three degrees of success. That means high accuracy characters will got them more often, and lower accuracy perhaps not at all. There was also a proposal of "tactical counters" which gave +2 or +5 for future attacks or defense in a given encounter.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeanH
    replied
    Re: House Rule thoughts on high defs vs high tough

    High Toughness is best against Damage but useless against Affliction and Weaken. You can give more enemies these if you want to balance things out.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X