Would this power be legal?

This is the catch-all forum, for Mutants & Masterminds threads that you're not quite sure where to put.
Monolith
Superhero
Superhero
Posts: 2087
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:07 pm

Re: Would this power be legal?

Post by Monolith » Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:58 am

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:That sounds more like the rule needed to be that all four saves were linked PL-wise sort of like the way Fort and Will are in 3e so if you had high Toughness you couldn't have very high Fortitude.
Since toughness and fort come from stamina it would be virtually impossible to link them in a tradeoff. You'd effectively be saying no one at pl 10 could ever have more then 10 stamina.

JDRook
Superhero
Superhero
Posts: 1957
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:44 pm

Re: Would this power be legal?

Post by JDRook » Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:05 am

Monolith wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:That sounds more like the rule needed to be that all four saves were linked PL-wise sort of like the way Fort and Will are in 3e so if you had high Toughness you couldn't have very high Fortitude.
Since toughness and fort come from stamina it would be virtually impossible to link them in a tradeoff. You'd effectively be saying no one at pl 10 could ever have more then 10 stamina.
Unless you ruled that you could tradeoff within Stamina, so to speak. For instance, a PC with Stamina 10 could have Toughness 12 and Fort 8. Alternatively, you could do away with Abilities and stick with a la carte traits.
Sorry, I can't hear your argument for realism over the sound of my eye beams. :P

My original characters thread (2e)
My League of Legends conversion thread (3e)
My Rules Musings in 3e

SilvercatMoonpaw
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 10068
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:57 am

Re: Would this power be legal?

Post by SilvercatMoonpaw » Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:15 am

Monolith wrote:Since toughness and fort come from stamina it would be virtually impossible to link them in a tradeoff. You'd effectively be saying no one at pl 10 could ever have more then 10 stamina.
As someone who doesn't really like Abilities I'm okay with that.

hypervirtue
Zealot
Zealot
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:12 pm

Re: Would this power be legal?

Post by hypervirtue » Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:27 am

Monolith wrote:
hypervirtue wrote:I really am against the idea that Batman can punch Superman and actually damage him.
The maximum damage Batman can do with a punch is 8. Superman is invulnerable to anything 9 or less. The rules and build seem to agree with what you are against. :)
I thought he could hit 10 on power attack. Regardless he's a heavy accuracy shift. You get the idea.
I'd also say that in many cases the character with the 14 impervious toughness in 2e also had a 14 fort save; which still made them hard to hurt if you considered alternate resistance to be a +1. That meant the only things which could hurt him were will save attacks. It's quite uncommon to power stunt from toughness to will: Cyclops isn't going from kinetic blasts to mental attacks; which meant that even with power stunting the character was still virtually unstoppable.
He can do something non-damaging. Use his brain. Like when he melted steel to trap Juggernaut. (Stunted into a snare.)

Why the heck are people so hung up on damage?

90% of comic book characters have/commonly use non-damage effects regularly.
Impervious was flawed in 2e and had hundreds of posts and threads about it over the years; and generated dozens of different house rules. Considering all the debate over the years I can't see how anyone is surprised impervious was changed.
Never saw a legitimate claim against impervious that wasn't a baseless whine to be honest.
One can lift a rock with pure power, but a pure heart can move mountains.

FuzzyBoots
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 9719
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:15 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: Would this power be legal?

Post by FuzzyBoots » Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:43 am

hypervirtue wrote:
Impervious was flawed in 2e and had hundreds of posts and threads about it over the years; and generated dozens of different house rules. Considering all the debate over the years I can't see how anyone is surprised impervious was changed.
Never saw a legitimate claim against impervious that wasn't a baseless whine to be honest.
Eyeh, I don't know that I'm entirely with you on that. It didn't necessarily take much of a swing to make things difficult. Just look at the Martial Artist and Battlesuit archetypes in the core book. The Martial Artist could do, at most, +8 damage with full Power Attack. The Battlesuit had Impervious 12, which protected him from effects up to +11. The most common house rule / GM decision on characters was simply to limit Impervious to PL, which meant that attacks with a damage bonus at PL could break through. Area Effects reduced to half damage, attacks from minions, and lower-ranked Perception Attacks did not. I personally thought that pretty much did the trick.

Part of the problem with 3E Impervious (outside of the rule fixes in the Armor Power Profile, of course) is that it worked on fractions rather than on an arithmatic progression from PL. I know someone sat down and worked out at what Toughness Impervious became completely irrelevant because any effect that the Impervious stopped was also too wimpy to do damage and I seem to recall it wasn't that horribly high. Compare that to something like having the effect work up to PL - 5 (equivalent at PL 10) and you can see where Impervious stays just as useful as PL increases. Similarly, there have been a number of discussions of house rules to fix 3E Impervious... which suggests that it's just as broken, just in the other direction.

Doctor Devious
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 521
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:28 pm

Re: Would this power be legal?

Post by Doctor Devious » Sun Feb 09, 2014 4:05 am

Given the non-linear nature of PL, "half" has always been a very suspect operation: -5 ranks is both easier and works better: what's not to like?

Monolith
Superhero
Superhero
Posts: 2087
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:07 pm

Re: Would this power be legal?

Post by Monolith » Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:36 am

hypervirtue wrote:He can do something non-damaging. Use his brain. Like when he melted steel to trap Juggernaut. (Stunted into a snare.)
Which is equally useless as Juggernaut has a huge str value and can easily make the check. Juggernaut would have a high str, high toughness, and high fort. The only thing he can be attacked against is his will; and that's why everyone always tries to get his helm off. Unless Cyclops can power stunt to will anything he does would be easily overcome. And that's basically true of most of the classes. The baster can blast-off a snare, the powerhouses can rip them off, and so on.
Never saw a legitimate claim against impervious that wasn't a baseless whine to be honest.
I get it. You really, really, really, really liked 2e's impervious. I'm not certain calling the multitude on the forum who didn't over the years whiners is the best way to address those differences. You don't happen to work for the US Congress do you? :)

And I will point out that there's nothing stopping you from using 2e's impervious in your 3e game.

hypervirtue
Zealot
Zealot
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:12 pm

Re: Would this power be legal?

Post by hypervirtue » Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:31 am

Monolith wrote:
hypervirtue wrote:Never saw a legitimate claim against impervious that wasn't a baseless whine to be honest.
I get it. You really, really, really, really liked 2e's impervious. I'm not certain calling the multitude on the forum who didn't over the years whiners is the best way to address those differences. You don't happen to work for the US Congress do you? :)

And I will point out that there's nothing stopping you from using 2e's impervious in your 3e game.
Monolith the sad part is, I can't think of it as anything other than true.

2E Impervious wasn't all that great as it was. The only way to get any real mileage out of it (that warranted the point expenditure) was to toughness shift by 2 or more and go full impervious.

Then it was still completely vulnerable to power attack (which, since shifting took away defense, made it so that it more or less negated almost any application of impervious) and for the "super shifts" make sure an attack had penetrating.

There was nothing overpowered about it in 2E.

The complaints I saw about it were things like:

"If a player toughness shifts, then it makes perception range attacks useless!"

This isn't a fair complaint. They added a +1 per rank extra onto a power while at the same time taking a weakness (lower defense, which makes them more vulnerable to all targeted attacks, even those that don't cause a toughness save) that stops your attack that you took a +1 per rank extra on that completely negates all defense and thus frags over all defense shifters.

That is why I say it is baseless as a claim. They are complaining that they took an extra that stops the purchases of others, but if someone else takes an extra that, in certain situations only, that stops their purchase then everyone loses their mind.

They make the same complaint about area effects.

In both of these situations having an alternate power, you know, one that makes them roll a to-hit and either the power attack feat *or* (in the case of a perception attack) an alt that drops perception in lieu of penetrating fixes the problem.

I played 2E since the day it was released well into the days of 3E. I never once, in many groups, actually saw impervious ever be a real problem in any situation that couldn't be solved instantly and easily by every group with ease. Note: I have also played a "full shift" impervious before, and yes, damage didn't work on me (unless they just did a full power attack, which they usually did which rendered my impervious points useless 99% of the time) in theory but in practice I was hurt just as often as everyone else.

In 3E... No.

I have to get to a 20 toughness, and 20 impervious, in order to stop cold an 8 damage standard attack. (Everyone has built in power attack after all.) 20 points and taking a massive penalty to defense for something that won't work against any real threat in the game.

Just not worth the cost. Especially since if I did have a 20 toughness I probably wouldn't need to have 20 impervious to shrug off a max-of-10 damage attack.

(10 damage = DC 25, meaning I only need to roll a 5 as it is.)

The problem Monolith is that 3E impervious is a useless extra that should only ever be taken if, for some reason, you have a massive backlog of points to spend.
One can lift a rock with pure power, but a pure heart can move mountains.

Monolith
Superhero
Superhero
Posts: 2087
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:07 pm

Re: Would this power be legal?

Post by Monolith » Sun Feb 09, 2014 9:11 am

I see 3e impervious as a defense against normals, not other supers. The powerhouse with the 14 impervious is immune to small arms, swords, knives, etc. Minions aren't generally able to use weapons that can do more then 3-6 damage.

I completely understand that there are players who get-off on the idea that their character is untouchable. I've been gaming for nearly 30 years now. I've played with dozens over the years who want to be the best and look for every possible way to exploit a loophole to make them better then the other players and every foe they could fight. But I don't believe the intent of 2e impervious was to be that absolute defense.

When you look at how much immunities costs it seems ridiculous that you can spend 14 pts and be 'immune' to all damage 13 or less when it costs 5 pts just to be immune to bullets, or cold, or fire, or whatever. It's clear that 2e's impervious was giving too much bang for the buck. I'm not saying 3e's impervious is better. I'm simply saying that 2e's was too cost effective for what it offered compared to everything else in the game. It was too good against expensive powers with perception or area, and too good against players who attack-shifted due to character concept.

3e's impervious is representing a different style of play: a style where Superman does need to worry a little about tanks and missiles. This is generally the type of Superman you see in the various animated programs. I'm not saying it's a better style of play. I'm simply saying it not uncommon within the genre.

Plus gaming is supposed to be fun for everyone playing, not just the guy who decided to tadeoff to toughness and buy impervious. It's supposed to be just as fun for the Rook player as it is for the Rocky player; and 2e's impervious took a lot of that fun away from a lot of players. People of the same pl should be roughly equal. You shouldn't penalize characters due to concept of play. A guy like Rook doesn't have a 20-40 pt power to power stunt, and with 2e's impervious that made him useless in too many situations.

SilvercatMoonpaw
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 10068
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:57 am

Re: Would this power be legal?

Post by SilvercatMoonpaw » Sun Feb 09, 2014 10:07 am

I actually find Impervious boring. Mechanically. I just find the whole "immune to something till you're not" doesn't really fit my idea of someone who's "invulnerable": that protection should extend something across all levels. I prefer the Power Profiles variant where you add 10 to rolls of 1-10, or my own houserule that 10+Impervious ranks is the lowest you can roll on that kind of save.

Monolith
Superhero
Superhero
Posts: 2087
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:07 pm

Re: Would this power be legal?

Post by Monolith » Sun Feb 09, 2014 10:30 am

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:I actually find Impervious boring. Mechanically. I just find the whole "immune to something till you're not" doesn't really fit my idea of someone who's "invulnerable": that protection should extend something across all levels. I prefer the Power Profiles variant where you add 10 to rolls of 1-10, or my own houserule that 10+Impervious ranks is the lowest you can roll on that kind of save.
I tend to use the degree shift optional, myself.

SilvercatMoonpaw
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 10068
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:57 am

Re: Would this power be legal?

Post by SilvercatMoonpaw » Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:08 pm

Monolith wrote:I tend to use the degree shift optional, myself.
Except by RAW that only works on effect ranks lower than your Impervious.

Monolith
Superhero
Superhero
Posts: 2087
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:07 pm

Re: Would this power be legal?

Post by Monolith » Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:00 am

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Monolith wrote:I tend to use the degree shift optional, myself.
Except by RAW that only works on effect ranks lower than your Impervious.
Yeah, and I have no problem with that. I prefer it to only lessen damage at rank value or less. That way someone can't just buy minimal ranks of impervious and get a free hero point roll.

SilvercatMoonpaw
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 10068
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:57 am

Re: Would this power be legal?

Post by SilvercatMoonpaw » Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:31 am

Monolith wrote:Yeah, and I have no problem with that. I prefer it to only lessen damage at rank value or less.
My point is that it still cuts off and therefore doesn't seem like much of a point.
Monolith wrote:That way someone can't just buy minimal ranks of impervious and get a free hero point roll.
I inferred that sort of extra as requiring Impervious to be purchased at the full value of whatever save, but I'm not disagreeing with your point.

Monolith
Superhero
Superhero
Posts: 2087
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:07 pm

Re: Would this power be legal?

Post by Monolith » Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:36 am

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Monolith wrote:Yeah, and I have no problem with that. I prefer it to only lessen damage at rank value or less.
My point is that it still cuts off and therefore doesn't seem like much of a point.
The difference is that you get to use the whole impervious value rather then half. Someone with 10 imperious reduces attacks of 10 or less rather then using half the value impervious normally uses in 3e.

Locked