Superhero Chat

[Valiantheart]

I have read many Super books and I think M&M is by far the best. That said though, M&M does have its own flaws.

1) Attacks are still influenced by Strength and Dexterity scores. This creates a problem in that a Brick with a range attack will never use it. Why should they when their melee attacks are so much more accurate than any range attack they use.

The other common problem is that a PL 10 Brick hits 50% harder than a PL 10 blaster because they get to add their base strength score to thier melee attacks. Some argue that the blasters range is advantage enough but you would soon disagree when the brick picks up a bus to throw an area attack at you...with a +5 point damage bonus.

Solution:
Make BAB and feats the only determining factor in To-Hit rolls. Melee damage should be separated from strength scores or Super Strength should be an entirely different mechanic from strength.

2) The default 1:1 skill ratio is a major problem in M&M IMO but I dont want to go into that again.

Solution:
Use a 1:2 or 1:3 ratio. Modify a couple of the skill focus/talented feats to allow rerolls instead of skill bonuses.

3) Not all devices are created equal but M&M treats them like they are. You get the same cost cutting effect wearing a suit of armor than can only be blasted off of you as a character who carries a gun that could be: disarmed, dropped when stunned, taken and used on you, or destroyed.

Solution:
Use different levels of devices to determine the players cost break. The more effects that can happen to the device the more of a price break i.e the gun in the above example would give a much larger price break than a suit of armor than can only be destroyed.

4) The sidekick rule is just broken. For 2pp you can have an additional character worth as much as 135 pp.

Solution:
Dont use it.

5) Multiple attacks is a major flaw of the combat system and the refuge of all power gamers. Who wouldnt want to spend 2pp to essentially double their combat effectiveness.

While useful in a system that allows multiple attacks based on BAB/Class level, in the M&M system where you are supposed to only get one attack it is extremely overpowered.

Solution:
Either outlaw them all together or change them to allow for multiple hits if you beat your opponents Defense by 5, 10, 15 points (for 1-3 additional hits as an example).

6) Power Level Limits are too limiting. M&M has a default power limit that the maximum ranks in your power cannot exceed your power levels. The problem with this rule is lots of comic characters tend to have only 1 or 2 powers which are very strong and other than that they are normal.

For instance, by the rules you cannot make someone like Cyclops who has an Energy Blast of +14 unless he is also Power Level 14 despite the fact that Cyclops isnt particulary skilled nor does he have any other power than his optic blast.

More annoying is despite the Power Ranks being the default rules character write ups in published material commonly break that rules and mooks in the books are assumed to break it.

The rules tend to loosely encourage characters with multiple powers over one trick wonder types.

Solution:
Dont use it. Leave limitations the domain of the GM only and design characters freely as the system was originally intended.

7) Base cost is added to most but not all powers. M&M power design is the best I have seen, that said it does have a major problem. Some powers have a base cost of +1. The base cost only effects the FIRST power purchased in a set of powers however it creates some design problems and some degree of confusion when building powers.

Solution:
Base cost needs to go. Powers should cost the same amount regardless of how they are purchased.

 

[takyris]

1) Attacks are still influenced by Strength and Dexterity scores. This creates a problem in that a Brick with a range attack will never use it. Why should they when their melee attacks are so much more accurate than any range attack they use.

How is this different from the comics? Most comics I can think of offhand have enormous bricks, uh, not firing much, unless it's an area attack.

The other common problem is that a PL 10 Brick hits 50% harder than a PL 10 blaster because they get to add their base strength score to thier melee attacks. Some argue that the blasters range is advantage enough but you would soon disagree when the brick picks up a bus to throw an area attack at you...with a +5 point damage bonus.

You mean as an improvised weapon? Which breaks if the damage it delivers (equal to the Strength bonus) is greater than the hardness? So it's essentially good for one shot, at drastically reduced ranges (see page 112)? And can be limited by the GM's descriptions of the environment?

I don't see that as unbalanced, really.

Solution: Make BAB and feats the only determining factor in To-Hit rolls.

Actually, I think this is handled just fine by having only normal Strength add to attack rolls. You can make Juggernaut or the Hulk perfectly well by taking a relatively average normal strength (12 or 13) and then putting a big ol' boatload of Super-Strength on top of it. That means that he does a ton of damage when he hits, but gets very little in the way of bonuses to attack. An ogre in the classic sense (swings hard but inaccurately) has a low-ish BAB, an enormous Super-Str, and an average Strength.

Same with Super-Dex. Doesn't add to attacks.

Your problem isn't the stats. Your problem is folks who never get Super-X without maxing out "X" first. Which isn't good. Spidey shouldn't have Super-Strength 10(or whatever) and Strength 20, because Peter Parker ain't got Strength 20 normally. Peter Parker has Strength 12 or 13 tops -- at this point, he'd be in decent shape if he lost all his powers, but not an olympic athlete by any stretch.

2) The default 1:1 skill ratio is a major problem in M&M IMO but I dont want to go into that again.

Usually, if I don't want to go into something, I don't go into it. That said, I use 1:2 in my game, and it's fine -- but then, I'm running a swashbuckling musketeers game with M&M doing the system work in the background. If I were doing a normal superhero game, I think 1:1 would do fine, provided that you used Super-Abilities flawed to "Skill Bonuses" for characters meant to emulate Batman -- like "Raven" does in the corebook.

3) Not all devices are created equal but M&M treats them like they are. You get the same cost cutting effect wearing a suit of armor than can only be blasted off of you as a character who carries a gun that could be: disarmed, dropped when stunned, taken and used on you, or destroyed.

A-heh-heh-heh.

This would be your GM being far too kind.

Please drop by my campaign with your "It's a Device but really there's no way it would ever fail" devices any time you like. That suit of techno-armor does have a tendency to short out from time to time, or lock up when it gets too much of an electric jolt, or... gosh, there's just a whole range of things that can go wrong with it.

In order to make it really really easy for me as a GM to decide for something to go wrong, I just tell my players "Any time you roll a 1, a device related to what you were doing has just run of out ammo, jammed, overloaded, or warped into an alternate dimension. That's the rule. We'll flavor-text it appropriately." That makes it a whole lot faster than trying to remember that I should steal Tony Stark's armor every now and then.

4) The sidekick rule is just broken. For 2pp you can have an additional character worth as much as 135 pp.

My players have never asked for a sidekick. If they do, I'll let you know how it goes. We've got a lot of players, though, so they're already in streamlining mode. Nobody wants to complicate things more. In a small game, with fewer players, I think adding a sidekick is a good idea.

Yeah, you can do it to break the game -- provided that you have a GM who's dumb enough to let you. "Uh, no skills, no powers, no BAB, no BDB, and 75 sidekicks? Sure, why not?"

If your method for determining a game's value is "Can it be broken, and if so, how easily?", then M&M is not the game for you. M&M is a game designed to be run by a GM who a) Says "No" and b) Tailors encounters to let the party show off its strengths and pay for its weaknesses or flaws.

(Or, in other words, if you play in my campaign, and you play Green Lantern, there will be at least one thing per adventure that uses the color yellow. Might not be a killer each time, and it'll never be an entire armada of yellow ships, but there'll be something every time, somewhere. Just like there'll always be something that you can handle best -- you might not be the only one who can do something, but there'll be something that you can do better than anyone else.)

5) Multiple attacks is a major flaw of the combat system and the refuge of all power gamers. Who wouldnt want to spend 2pp to essentially double their combat effectiveness.

Partially agree. I like rapid-attack for its simplicity, and I like Two-Weapon fighting for allowing people to use two weapons, but combining the two leads to oogyness. I suspect that if M&M sees another version, this'll be cleaned up.

(And "Improved Two-Weapon Fighting" is, I think, tacitly admitted to be a mistake -- although I'm not sure.)

6) Power Level Limits are too limiting...

For instance, by the rules you cannot make someone like Cyclops who has an Energy Blast of +14 unless he is also Power Level 14 despite the fact that Cyclops isnt particulary skilled nor does he have any other power than his optic blast.

Why does Cyclops have to have a +14? I mean, you make Cyclops at PL10, you max out the blast, give it a few extras and stunts, and then you buy a whole lotta skills, saves, and feats -- and judging by his build in that costume, you also make his basic ability scores pretty high -- 18-20 for Strength, Dex, and Con.

You can always come up with uses for those extra points. Bunches of skills and feats, namely. Including that feat that gives you more Hero Points to play with, so you can do fancy tricks with your optic blast or not die the moment Sabretooth comes around the corner and takes a swipe at your non-armored normal-human body.

My players are big on "Oh, dude, extra points! Up go my saves, and then I'll buy more Hero Points!"

Add in the Penetrating Attack feat (in its errata'd form) for the Optic Blast, and you've got a guy who can do some nasty stuff to just about anyone, even if their force field is strong.

(Re: the optic blast: Making it do more damage is not always the best way to make it cooler. Adding in something like a Stun and/or Dazzle effect is going to make it uglier. As a GM, I get leery when someone comes to me with Energy Blast with Stun, Dazzle, Knockback, Knockdown, and Drain(Intelligence) to simulate an energy blast that whacks people around so hard that they fall down, get stunned, fly across the room, and can't think straight. However, that's closer to what ol' Cyke has than "Energy Blast +14" all by itself.)

7) Base cost is added to most but not all powers.

Reading this, I'm not sure if you understand how to build a power. Maybe you do, but your post didn't indicate that terribly well. A power costs "X" as its base cost. It costs "X-1" if purchased as an extra of another power, with the caveat that a power can't be reduced to costing 0, so 1-point powers still cost 1 point per rank.

So Telekinesis and Flight both cost me 2pp/rank (before we apply any flaws), so if I have Telekinesis from years of mental training and flight because I was bitten by a radioactive superhero (two separate powers), then they each cost 2 pp/rank.

If I have Flight because of my TK (I'm lifting myself through the air), then Flight is an extra of TK, so it costs 2-1=1 per rank -- but if something ever happens that messes up my TK, it also messes up my Flight (Drain, Neutralize, etc).

As long as your GM approves, any power can be applied to any other power as an extra -- although it's good manners to make the most expensive power the base power, just so you don't benefit from shaky math.

(Shaky math: If you take Flight (2pp) with Amazing Save (1pp) as an extra, it still costs 3, because Amazing Save can't drop below 1pp/rank. So some quick-thinkers will say "Okay, I'll take Amazing Save with FLIGHT as an Extra -- so Amazing Save costs 1, and Flight Costs 2-1=1. Total cost of only 2pp/rank! Haha, I've outsmarted the system!" And then the GM hits you with those four-siders he's not using in this system and kicks your butt to the curb. Or your GM stops this entirely by saying "No 1-point powers as base powers" or "Most expensive power as the base power" or something.)

Now, as to the question of whether this is broken: It can be, if the GM lets it be. If your GM never Drains, Neutralizes, or otherwise nerfs some of your powers, then it's far cheaper to load them all into one basket. Does "cheaper" mean broken? Eh. It can, depending on the campaign. Sorcery, Cosmic Power, and Super-Speed are pretty much powers built from mashing other powers together. The only reason that those are basic powers instead of "totally broken combinations of powers and extras" is that the designers saw that enough comic-book people used a power sort of like that that it made sense to put them all together. If you have a valid concept, and can put it together in a way that makes sense, it's no more broken than Super-Speed or Sorcery is.

Where it gets broken is if some players build characters with stuff wrapped up into one power, and some players don't. That's no good -- unless the GM slaps down the Drains on a regular basis, in which case it becomes a viable option.

If you have good players, they'll do what makes sense. Sometimes it makes sense for all the powers to be grouped together. Sometimes it makes sense for some powers to group with other powers (as in, you got some powers from combat training and some powers from being gifted with magic by a genie, so group Strike, Combat Sense, Amazing Saveamage and Reflex, and Running under "combat training" and group Telekinesis, Flight, and Incorporeality under "Genie's Gifted Powers").

It's actually pretty elegant once you get used to it. It can be broken, yeah, but I'm kinda past the point in my life where I go looking for games with people who try to break the game system.

 

[Valiantheart]

Well I can already see I have to equip a +10 Anti-Condescending device to bother to respond to this message.

How is this different from the comics? Most comics I can think of offhand have enormous bricks, uh, not firing much, unless it's an area attack.

You mean like Superman, Thor, the Silver Surfer, Thanos, Darkseid, Orion, the Martian Manhunter, Bishop, a Sentinel, or pretty much any character with a higher strength score than dexterity score?

All characters with significantly higher strength scores than dexterity scores are at a disadvantage using their range attacks if they have equivalent melee attacks because their melee ones hit so much more accurately (and thanks to the damage rules harder too). Combine that with the fact that all originals and most bricks have a movement power and can perform a charge for double movement they rarely if ever need to use their range attacks.

“Because creature xxx is weak against….” I’m sure your itching to add. It doesn’t change the fact that melee attacks hit harder and more accurately in 90% of combat situations.

You mean as an improvised weapon? Which breaks if the damage it delivers (equal to the Strength bonus) is greater than the hardness? So it's essentially good for one shot, at drastically reduced ranges (see page 112)? And can be limited by the GM's descriptions of the environment?

I don't see that as unbalanced, really.

No? Well since most blasters archetypes don’t tend to have a lot of defense to begin with AND since its an area attack which has a very low chance of missing AND since only a few select environments can prevent a brick from throwing huge hard things AND since as you say, it places a requirement on the GM to limit it then yes it’s a problem..

Actually, I think this is handled just fine by having only normal Strength add to attack rolls. You can make Juggernaut or the Hulk perfectly well by taking a relatively average normal strength (12 or 13) and then putting a big ol' boatload of Super-Strength on top of it. That means that he does a ton of damage when he hits, but gets very little in the way of bonuses to attack. An ogre in the classic sense (swings hard but inaccurately) has a low-ish BAB, an enormous Super-Str, and an average Strength.

Same with Super-Dex. Doesn't add to attacks.

Your problem isn't the stats. Your problem is folks who never get Super-X without maxing out "X" first. Which isn't good. Spidey shouldn't have Super-Strength 10(or whatever) and Strength 20, because Peter Parker ain't got Strength 20 normally. Peter Parker has Strength 12 or 13 tops -- at this point, he'd be in decent shape if he lost all his powers, but not an olympic athlete by any stretch.

So then essentially what you are telling me is I have to place restrictions on the designs of my players in order to more closely model Brick hit rate? Yep any system that requires a GM place additional restrictions in order to model it properly must be perfectly designed.

And for the record, yes it is accurate to give someone like Parker a 10-13 normal strength score before adding Super strength. He’s about 6 feet and 150 pounds, but what is the rational for giving a 7 foot 600 pound mound of muscle like the Hulk a strength of 12 before adding super strength?

Usually, if I don't want to go into something, I don't go into it.

Ah nice, nothing like direct condescension. So I shouldn’t have even raised the issue because I didn’t feel like posting a 3 page dissertation that has been dissected and discussed here and on other boards numerous times? Nice argument there.

A-heh-heh-heh.

This would be your GM being far too kind.

Please drop by my campaign with your "It's a Device but really there's no way it would ever fail" devices any time you like. That suit of techno-armor does have a tendency to short out from time to time, or lock up when it gets too much of an electric jolt, or... gosh, there's just a whole range of things that can go wrong with it.

In order to make it really really easy for me as a GM to decide for something to go wrong, I just tell my players "Any time you roll a 1, a device related to what you were doing has just run of out ammo, jammed, overloaded, or warped into an alternate dimension. That's the rule. We'll flavor-text it appropriately." That makes it a whole lot faster than trying to remember that I should steal Tony Stark's armor every now and then.

So then there is no problem, but you felt a need to add a personalized house rule to level the playing field between devices. Gotcha.

Why does Cyclops have to have a +14? I mean, you make Cyclops at PL10, you max out the blast, give it a few extras and stunts, and then you buy a whole lotta skills, saves, and feats -- and judging by his build in that costume, you also make his basic ability scores pretty high -- 18-20 for Strength, Dex, and Con.

M&M has a set of guidelines that models the general effectiveness of an attack form. A PL 10 attack is the equivalent of a main battle tank. A PR 14 is the equivalent of a blast from the main gun of a battle ship. Cyclops’ optic blast as described in MSH and other sources is the equivalent of a Main Battleship gun or PR 14. However, due to M&M restrictions the only way he can have a PR 14 blast is by being PL 14…unless he’s an NPC of course. So Cyclops must garner 60 extra PP to increase the cost of his energy blast 8 pp.

Reading this, I'm not sure if you understand how to build a power.

And reading this makes it obvious you didn’t bother to read the rest of the point, or you are oblivious to M&M design issues.

I said the base cost leads to conflicting power builds, cost and designs.

Example:

Super Strength [Extra: Super Constitution, Super Dexterity; Cost: 10pp/rank, 100pp] +10
Total: 100

Counter Example:

Super Strength +10 [Cost: 4pp/rank, 40pp]

Super Constitution +10 [Cost: 4pp/rank, 40pp]

Super Dexterity +10 [Cost: 4pp/rank, 40pp]

Total: 120pp

Here the issue should be obvious. You need only to peruse your favorite M&M source book to see some characters designed using the first example while others are designed using the second.

“So” I’m sure your about to add. “The second version protects from drain…etc, etc, etc”

The issue is it creates a lack of uniformity in power design principles and an unnecessary level of complication to the procedure. Further in creates published material with conflicting design types (read the Annual).

If M&M did away with base cost there would be only 1 primary power design scheme and it would be greatly simplified. GMs would no longer have to look through character descriptions to check if a player is cheating the system or adding extraneous flaws to counter the base cost of a power. The power costs the same regardless if it is an extra or stand alone power.

 

[takyris]

Well I can already see I have to equip a +10 Anti-Condescending device to bother to respond to this message.

Hey Valiantheart,

I apologize if I came off as condescending. I wasn't trying to be condescending. I was treating you like somebody new to the system, because the complaints you're making are the complaints that people new to the system make. Some people keep making those complaints after lots of thoughtful discussion, but my initial reaction, based on what you wrote, was, "This guy is new and hasn't really played much." Sorry if that was wrong.

All characters with significantly higher strength scores than dexterity scores are at a disadvantage using their range attacks if they have equivalent melee attacks because their melee ones hit so much more accurately (and thanks to the damage rules harder too). Combine that with the fact that all originals and most bricks have a movement power and can perform a charge for double movement they rarely if ever need to use their range attacks.

Not Condescending -- just to clarify here -- you do know that Super-ability scores don't add to to-hit bonuses, yes? So Superman, who would have a Strength of 13 or 14 (in shape, but not an Olympic athlete, if he gets whacked by Red Sun Radiation) and a Dexterity of 12 or 13 (not a klutz, but not really a fantastic gymnast) would have a ranged attack bonus that was 1 point lower than his melee attack bonus. And for Spider-man, I could see Peter Parker's natural Dex being higher than his natural Strength, meaning that Spider-man has a higher ranged to-hit than his melee to-hit.

Again, I see this as something that certainly can be a problem, if you let your players get away with it, but I don't see it as an inherent problem in the system. If you build the way the designers intended you to build (ie, you don't slap Str20/Dex20 on somebody unless they're actually an Olympic-caliber athlete even without any of their powers), you don't run into this problem.

(Actually, looking at the archetypes, I see that they did that in some cases. So but then, I don't have a problem with Minotaur being really good at hitting stuff but not so good at shooting a gun. That doesn't bother me.)

“Because creature xxx is weak against….” I’m sure your itching to add. It doesn’t change the fact that melee attacks hit harder and more accurately in 90% of combat situations.

That's a blanket statement that is just plain not true. Some situations, certainly. Not all. Not even the vast majority. This is analogous to someone complaining that ranged combat is totally weak in all fights in D&D, and then we learn that his DM starts all fights with the bad guys 30' away or closer with the party surrounded. In the world his DM created, yeah, ranged combat is totally weak. But that doesn't mean the system is broken. It means that the DM is breaking it himself by designing encounters in such a limited way that certain skills and abilities are effectively useless.

No? Well since most blasters archetypes don’t tend to have a lot of defense to begin with AND since its an area attack which has a very low chance of missing AND since only a few select environments can prevent a brick from throwing huge hard things AND since as you say, it places a requirement on the GM to limit it then yes it’s a problem..

How is throwing a bus an area attack? Is a really big rock an area attack in your game? No offense, and not trying to be condescending. I've just never read anything about making a thrown improvised weapon an area attack, ever. I wouldn't let anybody using an improvised weapon start slapping extras like "area" onto their attacks. That's unbalanced.

- I personally believe your assumptions that blasters don't have good defenses to be flawed. The designers were pretty clear in their suggestions -- everybody should have an offensive power, a defensive power, and a movement power. I add "and a utility power" to that, something that isn't necessarily combat-related but can be useful or fun. If you're playing a blaster who doesn't have Protection, Armor, Amazing Save - Damage, a high Defense due to Super-Dex or Super-Speed, or something else that makes him hard to hit or hard to damage, then yeah, you're gonna get trounced by the first bus that comes your way. Sucks etre vous, but that's not the game's fault. That's a dumb build on your player's part.
- I believe that your assumption that something that has to be watched by the GM is also a problem is flawed as well. M&M inherently assumes a GM who is involved. That's not good or bad -- that's what it is. If you don't want that -- and some folks don't, and not because they're bad or anything, it's just 'cause they want something that will play the same no matter whose table they're at -- then this is not the game for you.

So then essentially what you are telling me is I have to place restrictions on the designs of my players in order to more closely model Brick hit rate? Yep any system that requires a GM place additional restrictions in order to model it properly must be perfectly designed.

I understand that you felt I was being condescending, so I'm okay with the sarcasm, but if you really don't see the difference between the GM tailoring encounters to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of his group and a GM having to drastically alter things in order to fix a broken system, then I don't know how much good a conversation is going to do.

If a Super-Strength PC's player wants to be able to throw enormous objects at flying people every round, and never have to worry about not having something to grab, not having something as big as he wants, not having something hard enough to really hit, and so forth, then that PC needs to be built with the Ranged Extra on his Super-Strength. If a character pays for that power, then the GM should, barring unusual circumstances, let him scoop up something and throw it at people every round. The scooping is just flavor-text for his power.

If a character tries to do that every round without paying for it through points, then effectively, he's outshining the blaster, who paid good points for that power. And the GM shouldn't allow it. That's not "drastically altering the system". That's the GM keeping the game balance in its intended place. The Super-Strength guy who wants to throw a car has to spend one round moving over to that car and picking it up, and then can throw it the following round. And then the next car nearby is going to require another move to go get to that car. And so forth.

In the comics, non-flying strong guys throw stuff every now and then as a trick to catch flying folks by surprise. They don't do it for the entirety of a combat. Trying to game the system this way is bad conduct on the player's part, and a good GM wouldn't allow it any more than he would allow the Super-strong character to do extra damage because of the heat friction his fists cause, unless said character also bought energy field.

And for the record, yes it is accurate to give someone like Parker a 10-13 normal strength score before adding Super strength. He’s about 6 feet and 150 pounds, but what is the rational for giving a 7 foot 600 pound mound of muscle like the Hulk a strength of 12 before adding super strength?

Ah, good point. Was thinking Bruce Banner. Dur. Yeah, Bruce does identity change, so Hulk is Strength 20. Good point. I would, however, look at the Hulk's fighting style and suggest that giving him a high BAB would not be terribly in character. He doesn't overcome his opponent's Defense by careful clever strikes that outshine his opponents at the skill level. He just punches really really hard and really really fast -- all Strength.

At PL10, then, Hulk has Super-Strength 10, Strength 20, and a BAB of maybe +5. So his total melee attack bonus is +10, the same attack bonus that somebody who is skilled but not terribly strong (like Psylocke, maybe? Hurting for an example here) would have by dint of a high BAB and an average Strength -- like Str12 and BAB of +9.

Ah nice, nothing like direct condescension. So I shouldn’t have even raised the issue because I didn’t feel like posting a 3 page dissertation that has been dissected and discussed here and on other boards numerous times? Nice argument there.

Well, I was actually just being snarky about the fact that you brought it up by way of saying, "But I don't want to talk about it." That's a pet peeve of mine. Sorry.

For a good discussion about the skill ratio stuff, check out the M&M forum and this particular thread, currently on the General Rules first page:

http://www.mutantsandmasterminds.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6605

Lots of good points on both sides.

And fundamentally, it varies by campaign. It's definitely right for some, and wrong for others. They wouldn't have put it in the sidebar as a variant rule if they didn't think it was a good idea for some people. So I'm not really against this one (and I also use it myself in one game).

So then there is no problem, but you felt a need to add a personalized house rule to level the playing field between devices. Gotcha.

I added the personalized house rule so that I didn't have to remind myself to whack people. I'm also not above stealing people's devices and such, but that house rule is a good way for me to be lazy and still get it done.

I agree with you that it would be good to have something in play that did make it straightforward, because a rookie GM will get thrown off by the player who tries to make Wolverine's claws Devices or who makes his bodysuit a device that, by its flavor text, can never get turned off or overloaded. So you're right. It'd be good to have something. In the FAQ, Steve Kenson says a lot of what I said in terms of those bodysuits getting overloaded or having systems fail after a big hit and stuff, but for lazy GMs (like me, in this case), it's nice to have a variant rule available that means I never have to think about it.

M&M has a set of guidelines that models the general effectiveness of an attack form. A PL 10 attack is the equivalent of a main battle tank. A PR 14 is the equivalent of a blast from the main gun of a battle ship. Cyclops’ optic blast as described in MSH and other sources is the equivalent of a Main Battleship gun or PR 14. However, due to M&M restrictions the only way he can have a PR 14 blast is by being PL 14…unless he’s an NPC of course. So Cyclops must garner 60 extra PP to increase the cost of his energy blast 8 pp.

Don't have the book on me -- is the battle tank, battleship stuff from the Devices and Vehicles section?

If that's what a battleship is listed as being, and that's what Cyke is listed as being, then, well, you're right. If you want somebody to have a PL14 attack, then you either have to toss out PL limits or make him PL14. No argument there.

As a GM, my response to a player who wanted this would be pretty much what I wrote before -- "Look, we're playing PL10. One day, your blast will be as powerful as a battleship, as you unlock more of your mutant optic-blast power. But for now, you're just learning to use it. So consider some of these cute tricks to get more mileage from your PL 10 blast, look at these Power Stunt options, and make yourself useful with a bunch of skills and feats."

And again, I'd have no problem buying Cyke at PL14. He's capable enough in a lot of ways without the optic blasts that, while Logan has spent almost all his points on powers or combat-related feats, leaving only a few for non-combat skills, Cyke has a lot more skill stuff available to him. Of course, that depends on what comic you're reading and what time period of that comic you're reading and such.

And reading this makes it obvious you didn’t bother to read the rest of the point, or you are oblivious to M&M design issues.

And again, you thought I was being condescending, so the attitude in this response makes complete sense. Again, I apologize for coming off as condescending.

I said the base cost leads to conflicting power builds, cost and designs.

Examples snipped...

Here the issue should be obvious. You need only to peruse your favorite M&M source book to see some characters designed using the first example while others are designed using the second.

Sorry, don't have any books beyond the corebook. Would you mind naming a few examples, and describing the flavor text that goes along with them?

I can think of very few examples in the comic worlds where somebody would have one super-ability that was not an Extra of another super-ability. Off the top of my head:

1) Folks who have battlesuits as well as inherent super-mental scores -- but the battlesuits have the device flaw, so these even out. (Well, pointwise -- there's the battlesuit-device issue, but we talked about that above. We don't agree yet, but we did talk about it.)

2) Spider-man, since the original Peter Parker could justifiably be said to have Super-Int just based on being a geeky teenager genius, but his Super-Str and Super-Dex come from his mutant powers.

3) Possibly Reed Richards -- don't know much about the Fantastic Four, but if he does have Super physical abilities (like, if he's described as super-strong and super-dextrous in addition to his flexibility), those powers might be from a different source than his Super-Int.

Could be others, no argument, but I don't know 'em.

If people in the books are given Super-Strength and Super-Con as non-connected powers, and they both come from the same source, then I'd call that a bad build. That is to say, I'd say that the Hulk's Super-Con is an Extra of his Super-Strength without question. That all hinges on the flavor-text, of course, but generally speaking, that's what I'd say. So, noncondescendingly, if you wouldn't mind posting some of these characters (uh, not so much that we get sued, but enough for us to see the discrepancies, along with the background, so it's clear where these powers came from), I'd appreciate it.

“So” I’m sure your about to add. “The second version protects from drain…etc, etc, etc”

The issue is it creates a lack of uniformity in power design principles and an unnecessary level of complication to the procedure. Further in creates published material with conflicting design types (read the Annual).

That is what I was going to say, although I'd add, "Fundamentally, make sure everyone at the table does it the same way. Then it's balanced." Because I as a GM don't use Drain or Neutralize very often, my way of balancing it was to say, "Describe to me how this power is an Extra of the other one," and then, when they do that, I say, "Okay," and I make sure that everybody builds them that way whenever appropriate.

Can't read the Annual, as I don't have it. Again, if you wouldn't mind posting short descriptions of people that you find problematic, I'd appreciate it.

If M&M did away with base cost there would be only 1 primary power design scheme and it would be greatly simplified. GMs would no longer have to look through character descriptions to check if a player is cheating the system or adding extraneous flaws to counter the base cost of a power. The power costs the same regardless if it is an extra or stand alone power.

You have some good points. Getting rid of the current scheme for base-power-plus-extras would simplify things a great deal, and would stop the pain-in-the-butt problem of the character who tries to explain how Slick is an Extra of his Super-Wisdom. Completely agree there.

The problem I have with this solution is that so many of the existing high-point-cost powers are made using this system.

(Please don't think I'm being condescending by adding this -- I just want to ensure that I'm making my point clearly: Super-Speed is Super-Dex flawed to not give bonuses to Dex skills and then with Extra'd Running, Sprinting, and Mundane-Task-Improvement added (4 -1 (no Dex skill bonuses) +1 (Running power) +1 (Sprinting Power) +1 (Mundane Tasks Faster) = 6pp/rank). Growth is Super-Strength with Protection and Immovability added (as well as the actual size change, which costs nothing, since it has advantages and disadvantages, from what I can tell). Cosmic Power is a package of a bunch of powers lumped together, as is Sorcery.)

If you change the system, then you definitely need to change all these powers too, or else they become much more attractive -- and they indirectly discourage creativity. "Sure, I could make a neat psychic with some cool powers that I lump together as a package, but I'll just go with Sorcery instead, since it's cheaper, even if it doesn't have those powers I wanted." "Well, I was going to make my flying energy-blaster guy really new and original by adding Absorption , so that when he got hit by enough energy he got stronger and would then land and pound people, and I wanted to add an Alternate Form that let him turn into the energy he fired if he used a Hero Point... but that got pretty expensive, like, 2+2+3+4(Flawed Alternate Form)... so I'll just use Cosmic Power instead. It's not really what my character concept was, but it's kinda close, and it's cheaper."

From a pure ego perspective, I don't see why M&M's power packages are any better than mine (heck, I just made up the flying energy-blaster who absorbs energy to get stronger and turns into energy in times of crisis, and he sounds pretty sweet). In fact, since they put in stuff about how to make a power, it seems like the designers explicitly wanted me to make new powers to get the character concept I wanted -- although they also wanted my GM to make sure that I didn't do anything abusive.

If your game would make the basic options more attractive than building my own powers, I'd probably end up playing characters built purely along the basic lines. That'd be fine, but it would cut out a lot of worthwhile options -- options that are perfectly valid and non-game-breaking, but were not included because a) They were running out of space and b) They fully intended for people to make custom-built powers, so they didn't feel it necessary to list every non-abusive power build. And if you as a GM would allow some of those builds (like saying, "Okay, substituting out a power or two in Cosmic Power is okay," then what you're really doing is saying that it needs to be watched over by a GM so that it doesn't get abused. And here, I agree with you.

Again, I'm sorry I came off as condescending, and I understand you being angry about that, if you really have played several games and possess an in-depth knowledge of the rules. Perhaps I read your post too late at night, because I really didn't get anything in your post that separated you from a new reader who hadn't grasped the actual balance behind the game. Sorry about that.

While we can continue to go back and forth here, I'd suggest that the Atomic Think-Tank on the M&M boards is liable to give you better arguments, both in agreement and disagreement. You'll get some voices here, but nowhere near as many as on their forums.

 

[Valiantheart]

Ok sarcasm mode off

The page in the Core book that describes the damage for tank/battleship is on page 117. For the record the Bship is listed as PR 12 not 14 but I think the point is still valid.

I think my problem with the current base cost is uniformity of character design. I cant say for certain, but it seems like the creator, Kenson, designed the EXTRA system with the idea of modifying a power only. For instance adding area or ghost touch to an energy blast. This worked fine and is entirely appropriate, but later he added the ability to add other powers as extras and people began combining all kinds of completely different powers together for the cost break stretching the system more and more.

Back to stats modifying to-hit roles, I think Superman is the perfect example to illustrate the entire problem:

Superman is a BIG man. 6'3'' 240-250 pounds and built like a corn fed Kansas football player. He is a the linebacker to the Batman's decathlete. I would easily put his strength score at 18 (like Protonik his homage in the Core book). So Superman has a +4 bonus to all melee attacks.

Now Superman is bigger than the Bat but he is not as agile. He's got a lot more muscle bulk slowing him a bit, but he's still in peak condition and more agile than most people, so a score of 12-14 seems entirely appropriate.

So here is your problem: We have an Original with lets say Super Strength and Energy Blast +16. He's Superman so he can move a lot in a round lets say flight 15 for argument.

How often do you think Superman here is going to use his heat vision? He can move 150 feet in a charge per round. His melee attacks have +2-3 more BAB AND he can charge if he likes adding 2 more. Further because his Strength is 18 he gets to add 4 more damage per hit than his heat vision allows him. Plus if Superman is really cranky he can ram people with pretty much no consequences for an additional +5 points of damage.

Superman can ram up to 150 feet in a round for 16+4+5= 25 damage with a +6 bonus to hit or he can fire his Energy blast at 16 damage with a +1-2 bonus to hit.

Therein lies the issue. Now if Stats were divored from damage and to-hit Superman has the same attack bonus for both his energy blast and his melee attack. Also, both would do the same amount of damage. Now he has real options to chose from.

Now as far as skills, that thread you listed is a good one. I have several posts in it with the arguments I didnt really want to rehash here

I do love the system, I just think it is time for a big revision.

 

[takyris]

The page in the Core book that describes the damage for tank/battleship is on page 117. For the record the Bship is listed as PR 12 not 14 but I think the point is still valid.

Yeah, that's still in there (although I'd argue that the difference between 12 and 14 is more than the difference between 2 and 4 -- there seems to be a "linear in tactical scale, exponentially in flavor-scale" thing going on with M&M).

How direct was the "As tough as a battleship" reference? Not to beat a dead horse, but just from a problem-solving perspective, I'd love to figure out how to make Cyke PL10 while still giving him that blast. I mean, if you make it PL10 and added Penetrating Attack as a Stunt and Stunning, Dazzle, and Fatigue as Extras (in addition to the ever-difficult Area-Shapeable kind of thing you have to do to let Cyke either scythe his beam around in wide arc or make a long line of energy that hits everyone in its path), it'd still only be PL10 compared to the PL12 of the battleship -- but a bad guy with Protection +14 would never have to save against the battleship's gun (unless, uh, the battleship has Power Attack), and he'd always have to save against Cyke's effects -- all of 'em, every time he gets hit.

If Cyke adds in Power Attack and All-Out Attack, sacrificing Defense to really lay into the bad guy with a massive blast (+5 on both, to net out a -5 to Defense, no penalty to attack, and +5 to Damage), he's getting into serious damaging territory. The average bad guy hit by a PL10 Power-Attacked Penetrating Energy Blast with Stun, Dazzle, and Fatigue on it might well say that he'd rather get hit by the Battleship's guns.

(This is possibly one of my workarounds -- I almost always have Power Attack, All-Out Attack, Expertise, and Accurate Attack for my heroes, and I've House Ruled away the ability score requirements for them -- a blaster should be Power Attacking a lot, to make up for the damage deficit you noted. He can either All-Out attack so that he still hits but is just hovering there, aiming and leaving himself open, or he can just Power Attack, so that he's firing heavy shots but ducking and weaving in order to not get hit.)

I think my problem with the current base cost is uniformity of character design. I cant say for certain, but it seems like the creator, Kenson, designed the EXTRA system with the idea of modifying a power only. For instance adding area or ghost touch to an energy blast. This worked fine and is entirely appropriate, but later he added the ability to add other powers as extras and people began combining all kinds of completely different powers together for the cost break stretching the system more and more.

Not sure. I don't know Steve's mind, but the rules book fully supports powers as extras of other powers, and he did that with so many existing powers that it seems strange to rule that it doesn't work.

I'm not saying that the game wouldn't be playable if all powers were separate -- just that, in the interests of fairness, I'd want to see existing "Package Powers" (everything above 2 pp/rank, I believe) broken down into sub-units, and then a section detailing how you'd put those together to get what you want.

(The danger, of course, is that this gets into even more min-maxing in some ways, once the base packages are removed. As a minmaxer, I almost always drop cosmic sense from cosmic power -- and also because it doesn't fit my character concept -- and that's with it in there, forcing me to create a flaw. If I had to build it myself, I'd never bother putting it in there in the first place.)

Back to stats modifying to-hit roles, I think Superman is the perfect example to illustrate the entire problem:

I think we have different ideas of what an 18 Strength is look, but the book fully supports you in this. I always thought that a 12 was reasonable and not bad, a 14 was adept, a 16 was something you could use to get money, an 18 was national competition level, and a 20 was olympic level, easily. But like you said, in the book, Protonik, who is clearly meant to be Supes, has an 18. And Minotaur has a 20. So... yeah.

But, if Protonik is clearly meant to be Supes, I'd argue that Supes kinda supports my argument as well as yours. Yes, with Super-Flight and Super-Strength and Ramming, Supes would, with an M&M build, have a fair better time with ramming people than he would with using his heat vision.

And in the comic, that's exactly true.

(Uh, guilty confession -- not much into the Supes comics these days. So I'm really basing this on "Justice League" on Cartoon Network. So, taking the honest route...)

On Justice League, Supes holds off on his heat vision most of the time -- and when he does use it, he's almost always holding still and aiming carefully, or at least not making wild dips and dodges. (In other words, he's using All-Out Attack to sacrifice Defense for To-Hit.) If he does use it while weaving and dodging, I'd argue that it's either against something that he's pretty much gonna hit anyway (like a giant robot that is really really really easy to hit) or that it's in a climactic encounter where Supes would be spending Hero points.

But it's clearly a backup weapon for Supes. It's not meant to be his primary means of attack. He uses it on living creatures very rarely, and only when he's getting trounced. Ruleswise, I'd guess that it's something like an Energy Blast at his PL, with the Penetrating Feat, so that it can cut through almost anyone's armor, and with the duration extended from Instantaneous to Concentration, because there are multiple situations where he just steadily burns through somebody. Which, now that I look at it, is pretty nasty. And since it's Lethal damage, it makes sense from a personality perspective that he wouldn't unleash those bad boys very often.

So, if I were building Supes, that's what I'd add to his Heat Vision to make it attractive as a last resort -- the ability to keep it on somebody until they burn, the fact that its shown in the show as cutting through just about anything, and the fact that it's Lethal damage, when his Super-Strength clearly isn't (unless he really wants it to be). Beyond that, as a gamer, the only time I'd use heat vision is:

1) When I needed to use Extra Effort to make a reasonable one-time Extra or Power Stunt -- igniting an oil tanker to make an explosion, which wouldn't make sense with my unarmed attack, but which makes perfect sense with heat vision

2) When tactically it's important that I not be moving that round, because I'm holding up a bridge from dumping the local orphan-filled schoolbus into the volcano or something.

3) In the rare case when I'm fighting somebody that I can't hurt with my fists, because of some weird power on their part.

So, as a gamer, my heat vision, although powerful, would be a backup weapon, and if I used it, I wouldn't really be concerned that it wasn't as powerful as my primary weapons -- my fists.

I dunno, though. It's possible that we've taken one example out of context.

I do love the system, I just think it is time for a big revision.

Well, I love it too. And while I disagree with some of your points, it's always good to hash things back and forth. S'the only way new thoughts happen.

 

[The Grackle]

I think my problem with the current base cost is uniformity of character design. I cant say for certain, but it seems like the creator, Kenson, designed the EXTRA system with the idea of modifying a power only. For instance adding area or ghost touch to an energy blast. This worked fine and is entirely appropriate, but later he added the ability to add other powers as extras and people began combining all kinds of completely different powers together for the cost break stretching the system more and more.

Well, really the whole using-powers-as-extras isn't any different from putting a flaw on a power. Imagine if you flawed some powers so that if one power got drained or transferred, all other powers w/the same flaw get drained or transferred as well. The effect and point cost are identical*. This is just an easier/slicker way to write up a power.

Now you could argue that having powers linked together isn't much of a flaw, and that's a good point, BUT flaws in M&M aren't weighted. Look at full effect. On an energy blast that's not a bad flaw b/c yr probably going to be using it full-blast almost all the time, BUT it's still a flaw, so it''s worth a one 1pp/rank discount. You could design a power w/alot of nuisance flaws only, but it's up to the GM to approve it. A Good Gm should realize yr trying to cheat the system and disallow that power or not give you the full discount.

I do love the system, I just think it is time for a big revision.

I don't think it needs to be revised. Why? b/c A> it works really well as a straghtforward, 4-color supers system, and B> it's GREAT to customize. Why apply rules that some people don't want when it's so easy for everyone to alter it into the game they do want? Its like they give you a basic car, and it's up to you to decide what kind of low-rider you wanna turn it into.

Now if you meant it's time for big revisions in your own game. Go for it.


Taking out the strength (and dex) bonuses to hit seems unnecessary to me, but probably wouldn't mess things up too bad. But it gives maxed out defenders a 5pt advantage over maxed attackers, so expect alot more misses from everybody.


*Edit: Actually this isn't true b/c the base power doesn't get a flaw if it has extra powers attached to it. So it would be 1pp/rank cheaper to do it w/this method.

 

[The Grackle]

Partially agree. I like rapid-attack for its simplicity, and I like Two-Weapon fighting for allowing people to use two weapons, but combining the two leads to oogyness. I suspect that if M&M sees another version, this'll be cleaned up.

I've been wondering about this as I have yet to see any multiattack types in action. Just how sick can it get? I mean to find out. I built a really bad-ass double sword user to go man-to-man (or woman-to-demon rather) with my player's brick.
She's weilding two scimitars that have two linked attacks each. One is Stun linked to Neutralize, the other is Strike linked to Mental Blast. And if she lands 3 hits a round that means six saves!!!! whoa...

I also gave her invisibility flawed so she can be pinpointed (a blurr effect) for a 50% miss chance, and reactive deflection so all attack rolls are opposed. Making her very very hard to hit.

My players are gonna hate me.

 

[Valiantheart]

Takyris,

I agree those feats are a must for any blaster and can help to mediate the problem but still....


Back to Supes:
You still didnt address the main problem I dont think. The hit and damage bonus Superman has with his melee over his heat vision.

Any creature who has a high enough damage save to survive a couple of rounds with Big Blue in melee will be able to all but completely ignore his heat vision. Even if equipped with penetrating attack as suggested I think its pretty safe to say that if the creature can make his DC 40 damage save from Supermans ram with some regularity then he can laugh at the DC 31 the Heat Vision causes.

Also, while its true Supes doesnt use his heat vision against common mooks, he often uses it against those he knows can take it (your metallo, mongul, darkseid, doomsday types). Against those it is an effective and very accurate attack but in the M&M system its just not.