Hero System Vs. Mutants & Masterminds. Which is the better super-hero game?

Which one makes for the better superhero game? Hero System or Mutants & Masterminds?

  • Hero System

    Votes: 30 28.8%
  • Mutants & Masterminds

    Votes: 74 71.2%

... I found that when using points to buy everything ... is that usually you'll have lower saves and attack bonuses if you want more powers, and less powers if you want more saves and attack bonuses.
Okay. I'm curious, where you trying to get everything to be equal to your PL or at your PL caps? It doesn't matter, but I am curious.

And for the record, the cheapest way to do what you described is to use the Enhanced Ability power (with the Permanent flaw). For 30 power points you can get a 30 Dex, 30 Con, and 30 Wis; this gives you +10 in all four of your saving throws. Spend another 40 points to get your attack and defense to +10, and you have 80 points for feats, skills, and powers, while having most of your combat stuff at PL 10.
powers will not necessarily be even with your level.
Most powers don't need to be near your PL.
Flight, for example, should almost never be near your PL for a PL 10 hero.
But then again, and I absolutely stress this point, is that it all depends on what the player wants for their character concept.
Absolutely true, and I couldn't agree with you more.
But as for myself as a player and not a GM I like having these things evened out with my character level and prefer the automatic level advancement at least for saves and base attack bonuses.
Two points.
First, M&M is not a level-based game. Advancement is by power points, with hard limits set by the GM (yes, the limits are known as power levels; that ain't the same as character levels in D&D).
[sblock=Explanation of Power Level]PL is used to set the tone and general character power of the campaign.
PL 0 - average person on the street. Some professional training (a skill or two at rank 1 to 5), but no combat ability and average overall ability scores. Your basic Innocent Bystander.

PL 3 - World renowned experts. Most Nobel prize winners end up here due to high skill ranks (up to rank 8) and high intelligence scores (~16, but up to 26).

PL 4 - "Hollywood Cops", or cinematic police officers that you tend to see in action movies and in action-heavy police dramas.

PL 5 - average professional infantry soldier. Well trained and equipped, with a broad group of skills focused on combat, survival, and movement.

PL 6 to 8 - most military special forces. U.S. Navy SEALs, Green Berets, CSOR, SAS, Mossad and other elite units would fall into this range. With the right equipment and a good plan, they can take down almost any target, though they're still very human (and extremely vulnerable if caught by surprise).
Also, most Luthor-like villains (brilliant, evil billionaires) would fit into this range due to their skill ranks (and possibly personalized martial arts training).

PL 7 to 9 - Most starting super heroes. Enough power to shake a city, but without the experience and skill to really change it. However, the potential is all there.

PL 10 - Veteran super heroes that have a couple years of experience and have a city of their own that they protect. If you mess with that city, you'll have to deal with this hero. By this point they should have a nemesis, a fan base (even if a small one), or a growing urban legend "known" to be true by the residents of their favored neighborhoods.
Some rookies start here, but they tend to be incredibly powerful, able to melt tanks (and buildings, let alone bank robbers) with no effort and possibly by accident.
Low-rank gods are generally at this level. Fairly minor deities, like Pan, are in this range. Extremely powerful, but limited.

PL 12 - this is probably the level I'd cap the veterans of the Avengers at. Most heroes won't go past this PL and very few of them ever should. At this point, a single character should be a viable threat to an entire country, assuming that his power set allows him to be threatening.
Normals shouldn't go past this point, as training and experience can only do so much.
Moderate-power gods will largely be here. They have abilities that no normal mortal can resist but that powerful and lucky individuals can withstand (at least temporarily).
Powerful demi-gods, such as Heracles, would stop right about here.

PL 15 - The gods of superdom, this level is generally reserved for those few individuals (hero or villain) that change the world just by existing. At this point, a hero can be so talented that their ability is measured on a universe scale. Superman, Shazam, Thanos, occasionally Thor, and others of a power that rivals gods.
Major gods like the Greek deity Hades fit right here.

PL 16+ - that handful of characters that alter all of reality. A creature that can personally kill an entire city in an hour or so (by individually gutting the citizens with it's hands), before sweeping across the rest of the planet. An inter-stellar conqueror, leader of a warband composed of half a galaxy, and personal champion of his own nigh-endless hordes. The interdimensional ruler-invader that could decide to unmake the universe the heroes are in, if they annoy him enough. That kind of guy.[/sblock]
Second, you're free to have whatever tastes you want, and I certainly won't berate you for them. No one around here should, either. What I will do is point out where your tastes are based upon false impressions or bad information; as long as you're well informed, what you choose to like doesn't much matter to me. It's your life, enjoy it.
Basically, I prefer the Occam Razor approach to rpgs, in that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". Or tp put it another way, don't unnecessarily complicate things.
Heh. Maybe you should stay away from super-hero games, then. Every one I've come across has been complicated. :D
Also, I don't have the Mastermind's Manual and have never read it. But it sounds like you're insinuating they created a level based save and attack bonus progression for the character's power level.
Well, now I'm stating it.
It's one of the (many) advancement options presented in the Mastermind's Manual. The idea is to provide minimum base-line abilities that all heroes have to have. It requires +1 attack / defense at each PL (4pp per PL), 2 + 1/2 PL to one save (2pp at PL 1, plus 0.5pp per PL), 1/3 PL to two saves (0.66pp per PL), and 9 power points to spend freely on feats, powers, ability scores, and further saving throw or combat bonuses at most PLs.
I really dislike how it makes the game feel like a level-based one, but that's just my tastes.
(the example you used was a bit extreme)
Possibly, but not irrelevant. I've seen some stupid character creations before, where family, name, and basic appearance were bought with character points. And often didn't matter at all for the game mechanics.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Wrong.

PL != Level.

PL = level. PL sets the maximum value for advancement. In 3e terms, every level, you multiclass in a class of your own design, which may have any level of progression from none to "fast" on any bonus, within your total budget. M&M is a level-based game with secondary advancement within a points scheme. You wouldn't say an AD&D 2e thief isn't level-based, just because he can allocate his thief skills, right?
 

d20 Call of Cthulhu is a level-based game. It has level progression tables for character advancement.
Mutants & Masterminds is not a level-based game.

Progression tables are not a requirement for a level-based game, only progression.

If you wish to challenge either of these, I will require evidence. (Note that you cannot prove a negative, therefore no proof has been provided. You can prove a positive, therefore proof is required.)

1. People who misuse "proving a negative" do not have a firm grasp of logic.
2. You are misuing "proving a negative."
3. Therefore, you do not have a firm grasp of logic.
 

Progression tables are not a requirement for a level-based game, only progression.
The only progression M&M has is in points.

Power Level is either a limit on broad capabilities or an indication of ability (or both) ... but it's not a progression. A campaign can stay at PL 10 forever, if the DM wants, and the characters will still continue to develop. (They'll develop in versatility, not in raw power, but they'll develop.)

I don't have anything against level-based games, but M&M isn't one.
 

Progression tables are not a requirement for a level-based game, only progression.
...
So, GURPS, HERO, Traveller, and the original Deadlands systems are level-based. Because they have progression.
...
Something is extremely wrong with that logic.


Apparently we need to agree on what "level-based" means before we can discuss which systems are and are not level-based.
[sblock]
1. People who misuse "proving a negative" do not have a firm grasp of logic.
2. You are misuing "proving a negative."
3. Therefore, you do not have a firm grasp of logic.
You're confusing the "negative proof" fallacy with "proving a negative". Therefore premise 2 is invalid.[/sblock]
 
Last edited:

PL = level. PL sets the maximum value for advancement. In 3e terms, every level, you multiclass in a class of your own design, which may have any level of progression from none to "fast" on any bonus, within your total budget.

This sounds a bit like you do not really know what the PL in M&M actually is.

The PL is a campaign variable. You normally do not progress in PL at all.

Bye
Thanee
 

Apparently we need to agree on what "level-based" means before we can discuss which systems are and are not level-based.

Well, to me "level-based" means you advance in ordered steps (called "levels" or whatever), where each step tells you what abilities you gain (which could, partially, be points to buy abilities).

I know of two systems, where this works the other way around, but that do have levels. You learn what you want, and once you learned a certain "value" of abilities, you advance a level (which has no real effect, other than maybe allowing you to learn more advanced abilities). In that case, level is mostly an indicator of your experience. While somewhat based on the concept of levels, I wouldn't even call these "level-based", but it could be argued either way, I guess.

Point buy systems, which allow you to learn whatever you want up to a predetermined maximum (usually set by campaign limits), are not "level-based" in any way. They are more like the opposite of "level-based".

Bye
Thanee
 

...
So, GURPS, HERO, Traveller, and the original Deadlands systems are level-based. Because they have progression.
...
Something is extremely wrong with that logic.

You are correct, something is wrong with that logic. I only said level-based meant a level-based progression, rather than specifically having a chart. I did not say any game that has progression is level-based.

Apparently we need to agree on what "level-based" means before we can discuss which systems are and are not level-based.
[sblock]
You're confusing the "negative proof" fallacy with "proving a negative". Therefore premise 2 is invalid.[/sblock]

You seem to be confused. Proving a negative is not only possible, but trivially easy. I gave one example, but if you don't like my premises, how about this?

1. An apple is a fruit.
2. Fruits are not metamorphic rocks.
3. Therefore, apples are not metamorphic rocks.

See? Works great.
 

This sounds a bit like you do not really know what the PL in M&M actually is.

Would it be reassuring if I told you I own the book and am quite familiar with it?

The PL is a campaign variable. You normally do not progress in PL at all.

Bye
Thanee

It is suggested that it be advanced very so often. That said, level advancement is not a necessity for a level-based game. AD&D would still be level-based even if you froze the characters at 10th level. E6 is level-based, even if you stop gaining levels after 6. If you run a Pathfinder and you use the "gain a level when I say so" method, you are running a level-based game, and rather similar to the default M&M level advancement system, at that.
 

The only progression M&M has is in points.

Power Level is either a limit on broad capabilities or an indication of ability (or both) ... but it's not a progression. A campaign can stay at PL 10 forever, if the DM wants, and the characters will still continue to develop. (They'll develop in versatility, not in raw power, but they'll develop.)

I don't have anything against level-based games, but M&M isn't one.

In a level-based game, characters are on a limited, mathematically specific tier of ability, which is supposed to make them roughly equivalent. M&M is that. You can't get above X attack, X skill ranks, and so forth in D&D 3e, for each specific level, and you can't in M&M either.
 

Remove ads

Top