Reasoning: Most campaigns are limited to characters at only one Power Level, but as we have allowed Power Level 8 and Power Level 10 characters, we are going to run into issues of blanace. Because of the 2 seperate levels there is naturally going to be an issue with balance. The larger the allowable trade off, the more difficult the balncing of Villians, and of balancing the setting in general. For example, lets take a +5/-5 trade off, if a character takes a +5 toughness trade, then this will place him at 15, thats a 7 point range between the allowable trade offs and the average power level 8 character.
To limit this difference in effective power levels, I am putting forward a limit of +3, which would keep the range down to 5, the difference between a bruised and a stunned result, or a stunned and a staggered condition. a +3 limit still allows heros to be more powerful then the average hero in their speciallized area, but it keeps it in a much more manageable range.
How about a max defense/toughness/attack/DC of highest PL plus 3? This allows the PL 8 charachters to be highly specialized without causing real problems balance wise. Another possible solution is maxing Impervious toughness at a charachters PL or possibly the highest PL in the game at current.
Just throwing out additional ideas. I am not sure how they would work over all.
I think 50% of your PL, rounded down, is a better limit.
The +3 is somewhat restricting, and I don't see how even with a PL spread, it effects game balance that badly. Anyone with a +15 will only have a +5 on the other side, so will either not hit often, not do much damage, be hit often, or fail damage saves regularly.
Running a few numbers myself (unnofficial stuff), it didn't seem to sway a PL 8 and PL 10 balance, and there was no significant advantage a 0 adjustment had over a 2, 4, or 5. Even if you build a bigger super villian, when a higher PL becomes deadly to any one PC regularly, it's deadly to any and all PCs.
I agree we should limit it (otherwise a -8/+8 is just stupid), and I think 50% is good as a floating number.
The Highest PL+3 doesn't work simply because once the first player to get to PL11, suddently all the other PL10s can change their adjustment, ect. I'd rather have it relate to the character directly.
__________________ PbP Mod. PM or E-mail if you have questions or issues. Visit Bront.org
The Highest PL+3 doesn't work simply because once the first player to get to PL11, suddently all the other PL10s can change their adjustment, ect. I'd rather have it relate to the character directly.
Actually, you don't automatically increase your PL as you gain PP, if PL 10 is what is set for PCs, then while characters would accumulate PP they wont go to PL 11. A PL 10 character can have 220PP.
Actually, you don't automatically increase your PL as you gain PP, if PL 10 is what is set for PCs, then while characters would accumulate PP they wont go to PL 11. A PL 10 character can have 220PP.
I guess that's something we're going to have to discuss at some point, if and how we'll increase the PL of the characters.
__________________ PbP Mod. PM or E-mail if you have questions or issues. Visit Bront.org
Ok, here's a statistical analysis of the chance to damage based off the % chance to hit and % chance to damage, assuming that total defense + Toughness = 20, and Attack + Damage = 20. This ignores critical hits, which would raise the numbers slightly.
Quick breakdown of how I got the number.
Min 5%, Max 95% of any individual %, as a 1 always fails, and a 20 always succeeds.
Chance to hit/Attack = 5% * ( (20 + Attack Bonus) - (Damage Bonus + 10) + 1)
20 = highest roll, 10 = base defense.
Basicly, for every number 20 or below you can roll and still hit, you have a 5% chance to hit. So, the difference between that total defense and the max attack +1 (to include when they equal) gives you the total base chance to hit.
If hit:
Chance to Resist/Hit = 5% * ((20 + Toughness) - (15 + Damage) + 1)
Chance to Damage/Hit = 100% - Chance to Resist
20 = highest roll, 15 = base damage save DC
Basicly, for every number 20 or below you can roll and still hit, you have a 5% chance to damage. So, the difference between that total damage and the max toughness +1 (to include when they equal) gives you the total base chance to resist damage. The chance to damage is the other option, so you subtract the resist chance from 100%.
So,
Chance to Damage/Attack = Chance to Hit * Chance to Damage/Hit
Basicly, we're taking the % chance to damage per hit of the chance to hit per attack.
Here are the results. (Note, this does not add any other modifiers.
So, what do those numbers mean? Well, the best you'll ever do as far as chance to damage per attack assuming all are maxed out at your current power level on both sides, is when your attack bonus is 1-2 points above your opponents defense bonus, while your damage bonus is 1-2 points below your opponents toughness save.
I don't see a huge variance with a +5/-5 tradeoff, and it can be potentialy detrimental. The wose case, is someone who took one +5 Attack/ -5 Damage attacking a -5 defense/ +5 Toughness has only a 19% chance to do damage, or someone who took -5 Attack/ +5 Damage attacking a +5 defense/ -5 Toughness has only a 4.75% chance to do damage, but those are the extremes.
Those numbers should play out at higher or lower numbers, so I think a flat +5/-5 is ok, or +4/-4 for for PL 8 and 9 and +5/-5 for PL 10+ is also fine, and keeps some sanity on the lower ends.
__________________ PbP Mod. PM or E-mail if you have questions or issues. Visit Bront.org
The trade-off system is new, and nobody is yet an expert in it. In my tabletop game, I've allowed a Trade-off of half PL.
I don't see any issue of having someone with an high attack rating or defence rating. Where I wonder a bit more, it is high damage and high impervious toughness. In the first case, you can get down someone very fast, turning fast the tide of a combat if you are lucky, because you are more likely to miss. For the Impervous Toughness, you become just invulnerable to most damaging attack. Let's say you also have a high Mind shield, you become mostly unstoppable.
But at the same time, you have put PP in these, that make you weaker elsewhere. It might force people to be a bit more creative in combat situation.
I agree with Bront, and think we should limit it, but not too much, to leave poeple a bit more creativity in the concept. I think the lmit of half PL level, rounded down is a nice limit.
__________________ Living ENWorld di Senzio's Magical Shop, the best place to buy and sell magical items in Orussus
My only worry about 1/2 PL, is that the numbers presented above show that after about a +/-5 variance, the numbers tend to get a bit extreme, and that won't change at a higher PL (Since each +/-1 shift still has the same statistical effect if you're PL 10 or PL 15 since it's based on D20 rolls)
As far as impervious toughness goes, you're always going to have to deal with it, but toughness saves aren't the only ones. And isn't that how a super hero game works? Mr Completely Impervious rarely can do much else, but most fairly impervious people have some weakness. It's a game of checks and balances.
__________________ PbP Mod. PM or E-mail if you have questions or issues. Visit Bront.org
If I understand this right, for a PL 10 character vs. another PL 10 character, your offense is maximized if you build to about an 11 attack/9 damage. You have the max 39% chance to damage a 10 defense/10 toughness character, and no matter how your opponent builds his defense, your odds are never worse than 9.5% (for the bizarre example of a 10 defense/0 toughness character). Offense is self-limiting, since the farther one strays from 11/9, the weaker one's attack gets. This is strictly true for a "normal" (10/10) defender, but it's also true that the chance to do damage against a randomly-generated defender declines. For example, a 0/20 offense would have an average against a random opponent of
(38.5+37.5+36+34+31.5+28.5+23.75+19+14.25+9.5+4.75 +4.75+4.75+4.75+4.75+4.75+4.75+4.75+4.75+4.75+4.75 )/21=15.46% chance of doing damage,
vs. an 11/9 which would have a (14.25+19+23.75+28.5+31.5+34+36+37.5+38.5+39+39+38 .5+37.5+36+34+31.5+28.5+23.75+19+14.25+9.5)/21=29.21% chance.
Moreover, the worst an 11/9 offense would ever do would be 9.5% (against a somewhat freakish 20 defense/0 toughness).
That's actually good, because it shows that the game system encourages balanced characters, at least as far as offense goes.
The game changes, however, when defending. If you want to minimize your opponent's chances of doing damage, the "best" build is the 20 defense/0 toughness, followed by 19/1, 18/2 and (tie) 0/20 and 17/3. Here's where restricting the trade-off makes sense. For example, our 11 attack/9 damage character is only 31.5% likely to damage a 15 defense/5 toughness, vs. 39% vs. a 10 defense/10 toughness. That's slightly better than having a +1 on every attack!
Now, consider trying to optimize offense to beat a 15 defense/5 toughness. The "best" combinations are 16/4 and 17/3, neither of which is allowed if trade-offs are limited to +/-5. A 15/5 offense has a 38.5% chance/attack of damaging a 15/5 defender, which is near-optimal.
Now, lest you think everyone would rush to build 15/5 offenses, consider that it only has a 19% chance/attack to damage a 5/15 defender, which effectively gives the 5/15 defender a +4 advantage (compared to a 15/5 defender against a 15/5 offense). But a 5/15 defender is "beaten" by a 5/15 offense (38.5%).
So, offense tends to drive to the center of 11/9, but defending tends to drive toward the "corners" of 15/5 or 5/15. Also consider that an 11/9 offense never does worse than 31.5% against a 15/5 defender, and also does 34% against a 5/15 defender.
Yeah, probably more math than you want to think about on a holiday (if you're in the US) morning. But food for thought, at any rate.
PS. I wonder how all this changes when you consider PL 10 characters vs. higher-level villains.
He makes a solid point for keeping the +5/-5, as the only time things get realy nuts is the high defence/ low toughness scenerios, and they have to leave the +5/-5 threshold.
Also, of note, this does not deal with Stuns, just flat damage. Stunning is a bit higher, and will favor the higher toughness save a bit more than the current table, but not increadably so.
__________________ PbP Mod. PM or E-mail if you have questions or issues. Visit Bront.org
I'd vote for Trade-Off being limited to half your PL. So for PL 10 folks, it'd be a max of +/- 5, and for the PL 8 folks, a max of +/- 4.
__________________
Assorted Ramblings
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Tharizdun Oerth wgah'nagl fhtagn.
I'm better known as Dr Archeville on the Atomic Think Tank LOLTHULHU My MySpace page
My Published Stuff: at e23, at Lulu (all Cracked Mirror products, not just mine), and at RPGNow.
Personally I don't see the point in this. (at least for attack/dc) if you want a +10/-10 trade off you can just take +5/-5 and use the power attack feat all the time to bump it up further.
That said 20 points of impervious toughness would just be annoying, so I will vote yes. Either to +5/-5 limits or 50% of PL rounder down.
I don't see it matters much.
__________________ "Where there are so many all speech becomes debate without end" LotR
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
