Affliction... is afflicted.

[Murkglow]

Good point; they were learning (we have been on a break for a bit) and did try and delay. But the 25% higher chance of absolutely nothing happening with an affliction and no cumulative penalty to saves really made the afflictions not take hold often enough or have any lasting effect.

Depending on how you look at it, no matter what degree of effect you get on Damage it's doing "absolutely nothing" of immediate benefit. The -1s are nice for eventually winning but don't really hinder your enemy in any way right now. Even the stronger degrees only grant Daze which is one of the less useful conditions possible (many characters can pretty much ignore it either due to having a ranged attack or via charge).

Afflictions on the other hand do provide an immediate (potentially fight ending) benefit when used. Just landing a Vulnerable (that everyone on the team can use not like Feint's self only vulnerable) can easily lead to a string of power attacks that cripple the enemy drastically. As for penalties to saves, that's what Impaired/Disabled do, not only "mirroring" Damage's -1s (in a different way of course) but even better then hinder the target's offense (attacking while at -2/5 vs similarly strong targets is crippling) but also benefiting everyone else's attacks as well no matter what kind of attacks those might be (damage only helps other damage, Impaired/Disable helps Afflictions, damage, skills, and so on).

But the skills cost so much less than affliction...

Possibly though one asks how you're equating the two. Feint from deception requires you to have enough Deception skill to match their insight/deception. vs a target with none then yeah you don't need much deception. vs a target with alot then you need alot of deception. Max deception at PL10 is going to cost you 10 points, same as 10 ranks of affliction and unlike Affliction deception requires you to have another attack to actually attack with (since feint itself cannot KO on its own) which is a further cost. So in reality, no I really don't think Affliction costs more then Deception + Attack.

Just going on a brief tangent here, Feint is also a two turn process, Turn 1 Feint, Turn 2 attack and benefit from it. The only way for it not to be is to spend your move action to Feint but then you're at a -5 and anyone with decent Insight will not fail their check often vs that. Affliction is a one turn process, Turn 1 Affliction, Turn 1 (allies turn) attack, repeat. That drastically reduces the time from enemies have to be hurting you and your team which is a rather important factor in challenging fights (the quicker you turn that 2v2 into a 2v1 the better off you'll be).

We have looked at tweaking the cost of the superior status afflictions (like Compelled is better than just knocking someone out because you get another person on your team... so compelled and/or controlled is considered a "Powerful" affliction and gets a +1/Rank modifier).

So Afflictions for you were so bad no one wanted them but at the same time you gimped them further by adding a tax to the "powerful" ones? Uh, I'm not really following you here.Compelled is a strong condition sure (note I'm just talking Compelled here not Controlled) but is it so much better then Disabled/Defenseless/Stunned to be worth a +1 extra (yes it's strictly better then Stunned but the difference is of variable value depending on the target and the situation so...), I don't really think so but then that's just me.

[Cinder]

Not strictly true. The limit was PL+5.

Isn't it (PL+5 ranks) + (maximum modifier*)

*(PL + 5)

So for a PL 10 character it is 30 bonus

[Monolith]

Not strictly true. The limit was PL+5.

Isn't it (PL+5 ranks) + (maximum modifier*)

*(PL + 5)

So for a PL 10 character it is 30 bonus

I think you're thinking about skill limits: base from stat plus skill bonus purchased for a max of 30 at pl 10. For saves the maximum is pl +5 as per the chart on page 25.

[FuzzyBoots]

I think you're thinking about skill limits: base from stat plus skill bonus purchased for a max of 30 at pl 10. For saves the maximum is pl +5 as per the chart on page 25.

^_^ Actually, in 2E both ability bonuses and ranks of skills were also capped at PL+5. So your total skill bonus was indeed PL*2+10, but you couldn't buy, say, 20 ranks of a skill at PL 10.

[Cinder]

Yes I was speaking about skills. I thought the conversation had switched to skills. My mistake.

[Foreshadow]

I agree with Lord fell but that doesn't mean you need to change Afflication as much as raise the base DC that any power effect inflicts: base DC 15 + rank, and yes I feel that there is a tendency to need or want higher ranks for those powers, like dazzle or snare for them to have the intended effect and that lower ranks seems an annoyance. I also like the idea of a diminishing save penalty to the save vs future effect saves of that type. You'd need some way to 'heal' or recover from that penalty written up in the general rules. I know Healing as a power would cover that with the appropriate Extra.

[RasmusM]

Hi there Foreshadow.

If you change the base DC for afflictions to 15 (like damage), you get the following average turns for an Incapacitate:



And on top of much faster way to an Incapacitate, they would also inflict Vulnerable, Defenseless, Compelled, Stunned conditions on the turns to an Incapacitate, shortening the fight even more due to your allies attacks.

As you can see, there really would be no reason to ever use damage effects. Afflictions would just be so much more powerful across the board in every situation.

[rstehwien]

As you can see, there really would be no reason to ever use damage effects. Afflictions would just be so much more powerful across the board in every situation.

Changing the affliction to be damage based is a modifier in my house rules, and I wouldn't allow it to be combined with progressive and cumulative.

I notice on this graph and your thread with the others, you are using affliction+cumulative+progressive and showing it is close to the behavior of damage (in that it takes about 10 rounds for incapacitation... actually just progressive seems good enough). Our group prior to making the house rule (as did I in some comments in this thread) that affliction becomes useful for a KO when paired with cumulative+progressive.... but what bugged us was that those were nearly required for it to be useful for KO and it takes the price to 4 times the cost of damage. We just didn't like the necessity of adding the modifiers.

Anyway I wrote some combat sim code too and have made it available on github. Got basic combats in and working on having status effects modify things so I can play with the value of some afflictions.
https://github.com/rstehwien/MnM3ECombatSimulator

My results are different from yours. The following is for even up attack/defense damage/saves after 10,000 combats:
==========
BASIC DAMAGE
:rounds_min: 1
:rounds_max: 40
:rounds_median: 9.0
:rounds_mean: 10.1257
:rounds_variance: 28.4149410041
:rounds_standard_deviation: 5.33056666819767
==========
BASIC AFFLICTION
:rounds_min: 1
:rounds_max: 981
:rounds_median: 71.0
:rounds_mean: 101.0204
:rounds_variance: 9667.21390523047
:rounds_standard_deviation: 98.3219909543662
==========
CUMULATIVE AFFLICTION
:rounds_min: 1
:rounds_max: 246
:rounds_median: 22.0
:rounds_mean: 30.5193
:rounds_variance: 818.921719681967
:rounds_standard_deviation: 28.6168083419861
==========
PROGRESSIVE AFFLICTION
:rounds_min: 1
:rounds_max: 83
:rounds_median: 8.0
:rounds_mean: 10.8168
:rounds_variance: 90.2838661466152
:rounds_standard_deviation: 9.50178226158731
==========
CUMULATIVE+PROGRESSIVE AFFLICTION
:rounds_min: 1
:rounds_max: 79
:rounds_median: 7.0
:rounds_mean: 9.4123
:rounds_variance: 61.5944681568152
:rounds_standard_deviation: 7.84821432918439
==========

[rstehwien]

[Depending on how you look at it, no matter what degree of effect you get on Damage it's doing "absolutely nothing" of immediate benefit. The -1s are nice for eventually winning but don't really hinder your enemy in any way right now. Even the stronger degrees only grant Daze which is one of the less useful conditions possible (many characters can pretty much ignore it either due to having a ranged attack or via charge).

Afflictions on the other hand do provide an immediate (potentially fight ending) benefit when used. Just landing a Vulnerable (that everyone on the team can use not like Feint's self only vulnerable) can easily lead to a string of power attacks that cripple the enemy drastically. As for penalties to saves, that's what Impaired/Disabled do, not only "mirroring" Damage's -1s (in a different way of course) but even better then hinder the target's offense (attacking while at -2/5 vs similarly strong targets is crippling) but also benefiting everyone else's attacks as well no matter what kind of attacks those might be (damage only helps other damage, Impaired/Disable helps Afflictions, damage, skills, and so on).

I think you might underestimate the value of damage's cumulative -1 allowing everyone to contribute to taking people down. I probably underestimate some of the cool afflictions. This is possibly because my players didn't tend to delay their actions to all act immediately affter the afflictor and dog pile on the afflicted. But the villians and heroes try pretty hard to keep from bunching up and allowing themselves to be dogpiled. Typically you might get one or two extra attackers in there to take advantage of the afflictions.

Also when such an affliction is applied and they are surrounded by people just waiting to whoop their butt, it is the perfect time for a villian/hero point. The save is then guaranteed if rank/save are within 5. I try to keep my use of villian points down because I dislike the infinite pool (giving to plaer) the base rules gives you (actually I give myself a fixed pool of villian points because I don't like the "continue till I let you win" feel of the base rules).

My combat simulator is mostly done, I'll be exploring some of the varying status effects. Of course it isn't simulating a group, just one on one so isn't entirely accurate.

But the skills cost so much less than affliction...

Possibly though one asks how you're equating the two. Feint from deception requires you to have enough Deception skill to match their insight/deception. vs a target with none then yeah you don't need much deception. vs a target with alot then you need alot of deception. Max deception at PL10 is going to cost you 10 points, same as 10 ranks of affliction and unlike Affliction deception requires you to have another attack to actually attack with (since feint itself cannot KO on its own) which is a further cost. So in reality, no I really don't think Affliction costs more then Deception + Attack.

Just going on a brief tangent here, Feint is also a two turn process, Turn 1 Feint, Turn 2 attack and benefit from it. The only way for it not to be is to spend your move action to Feint but then you're at a -5 and anyone with decent Insight will not fail their check often vs that. Affliction is a one turn process, Turn 1 Affliction, Turn 1 (allies turn) attack, repeat. That drastically reduces the time from enemies have to be hurting you and your team which is a rather important factor in challenging fights (the quicker you turn that 2v2 into a 2v1 the better off you'll be).

Few things on this:

We equated skill based status effects and afflictions because we typically only saw degree 1 afflictions and degree 2 only for brief periods of time. Plus buying the skill costs half that of affliction and you don't need to buy range (you could bluff someone across the room).

Sure not everyone gets access to your skill status effect, but you can pass it off if you have the 1 point advantage. Also I have a tendency as a GM (and my players do as well) to not bunch up too much so everyone can dog pile the first person that becomes vulnerable.

My players did quicly find that Insight was a necessary skill to have, it does become a bit odd when every hero becomes more insightful than the most highly trained psychologist in the world. For some reason hitting PL limits/tradeoffs on the saves doesn't seem as strange as everyone having Insight maxed out.

Its only a -5 to feint as a move action... so our hand to hand fights were a bunch of feint/attacks. If you max out the skill the DC is still PL+15 (skills maxing out at PL+10). So yes it can be countered by a skill that could be 5 higher it still looks on paper like the DC is as good as Damage.

We have looked at tweaking the cost of the superior status afflictions (like Compelled is better than just knocking someone out because you get another person on your team... so compelled and/or controlled is considered a "Powerful" affliction and gets a +1/Rank modifier).

So Afflictions for you were so bad no one wanted them but at the same time you gimped them further by adding a tax to the "powerful" ones? Uh, I'm not really following you here.Compelled is a strong condition sure (note I'm just talking Compelled here not Controlled) but is it so much better then Disabled/Defenseless/Stunned to be worth a +1 extra (yes it's strictly better then Stunned but the difference is of variable value depending on the target and the situation so...), I don't really think so but then that's just me.

Compelled is quite powerful. The target gets no action of their own and the compeller gets free and one standard of their choice. That choice can be to attack their friends, heal the compeller, punch themselves in the head, etc. Nothing says you get a bonus resistance check if told to do something you are really opposed to do (which I think it should). Even if it did, you are taken out of the battle while compelled at best and at worst help out the other side like anyone who is dazed.

Most people recognize that not all affliction statuses are created equally at the same degree (in fact I moved some of them around), so charging extra for the clearly more powerful ones seems reasonable. I also wanted to make some price difference in disabled/imparing really broad items.... the rules are a bit unclear on what you can choose.

[Murkglow]

If you max out the skill the DC is still PL+15 (skills maxing out at PL+10).

This isn't quite how it works as I read it. Feint is an opposed check between your Deception and your target's Deception/Insight. Opposed checks are simply d20+Modifier (PL+5 in this case using it as a move action) vs d20+Modifier (PL+10 in this case, assuming maxed deception/insight). Opposed checks do not use a base +10/15 or anything they are simply a roll off. Again that's how I'm reading it, I might be wrong.

Most people recognize that not all affliction statuses are created equally at the same degree (in fact I moved some of them around), so charging extra for the clearly more powerful ones seems reasonable.

When you're talking Immobilized perhaps, but a full +1 extra for the change between Stunned/Compelled? I don't see it as being worth that much. A +1 extra is a pretty major extra, like getting ranged on your attack, is Compelled over Stunned that level of an improvement? Still that's just me, I know I'm bias against house rules so I'm not going to take that well no matter how reasonable it might/might not be.

I also wanted to make some price difference in disabled/imparing really broad items.... the rules are a bit unclear on what you can choose.

The price difference is that narrow Impaired/Disabled is a flaw (so they would get -1 per rank or a flat -1 if its just a quirk). Impaired/Disabled [All] is the standard. I'm not sure how it's all that unclear, they say the penalties are to checks (not some checks or select checks, just checks) and then afterwards they go on to talk about how they a written "If" they are narrowed down to select attributes, further reinforcing the idea that the default is not narrowed.

[rstehwien]

If you max out the skill the DC is still PL+15 (skills maxing out at PL+10).

This isn't quite how it works as I read it. Feint is an opposed check between your Deception and your target's Deception/Insight. Opposed checks are simply d20+Modifier (PL+5 in this case using it as a move action) vs d20+Modifier (PL+10 in this case, assuming maxed deception/insight). Opposed checks do not use a base +10/15 or anything they are simply a roll off. Again that's how I'm reading it, I might be wrong.

No you read it right, I just averaged out the defender's roll so there is pretty much a 50% change of success with even up skills. It is close to Skill+10 DC but actually much more variant because both sides roll.

Mostly we didn't worry too much about the skills status effects because they were limited to the low level status effect. The timing of Mr Acrobatic Feint as a villain to fight the group just sealed the general feeling that affliction kinda blew. Didn't help that the previous combat had someone with Create encasing someone in a giant skull (necromancer, bone powers) and it being far more effective than Snare... by a huge margin.

When you're talking Immobilized perhaps, but a full +1 extra for the change between Stunned/Compelled? I don't see it as being worth that much. A +1 extra is a pretty major extra, like getting ranged on your attack, is Compelled over Stunned that level of an improvement? Still that's just me, I know I'm bias against house rules so I'm not going to take that well no matter how reasonable it might/might not be.

I think that the track of Compelled/Controlled is worth a +1 extra (who is going to take Compelled then something else as the 3rd degree... suppose they might). Look at the changes made to Summoning from 2E to 3E... clearly the value of having another person on your team is pretty high.

Of all the affliction effects Compelled/Controlled is, to me, the most valuable because the target is taken off their team's side and put on yours for the duration of the affliction from second degree up. Tastes may vary.

I also wanted to make some price difference in disabled/imparing really broad items.... the rules are a bit unclear on what you can choose.

The price difference is that narrow Impaired/Disabled is a flaw (so they would get -1 per rank or a flat -1 if its just a quirk). Impaired/Disabled [All] is the standard. I'm not sure how it's all that unclear, they say the penalties are to checks (not some checks or select checks, just checks) and then afterwards they go on to talk about how they a written "If" they are narrowed down to select attributes, further reinforcing the idea that the default is not narrowed.

Hmm, Impaired/Disabled All being the default. That wasn't clear to me. The writeup of affliction just lists Impaired/Disabled and those status effects say it could be all or could be a specific thing. Looking at Dazzle it is limited to sight only and gets a limiter. So there was a big enough gap between Everything and Sight that it was unclear to us. But I totally see how it could default to a general -2/-5 and be balanced with the other afflictions in the group.

Hell Vulnerable/Defenseless are in the same general ball park. Although I personally don't like Vulnerable... "half" varies in value dramatically across PL levels we changed anything that said "half" to -5 and "none' to -10. Given the dice probabilities and assumed default PL of 10; -5 is pretty much "half" and -10 is pretty much a guaranteed hit as to be the same as "half" and "none" and is uniformly the same from PL 1 to PL 100.

[Murkglow]

Didn't help that the previous combat had someone with Create encasing someone in a giant skull (necromancer, bone powers) and it being far more effective than Snare... by a huge margin.

That's because Create is broken as heck.

I don't disagree that Affliction is worse then Create but then I consider Create to be one of the best powers possible (It's just crazy for its cost, like Concealment is). I certainly think it's better than Damage too but then I'm sure you could guess that would be my opinion.

[Lord Fell]

re: 2e
Uhm... don't really care about the specifics. I'm just saying that from my experience all of my 2e characters had crappy saves. Don't believe me? Links are in my .sig -all the characters from start down to Titanothere are 2e. Conversely, all of my 3e characters meet their save caps. Again, all characters from Titanothere on are 3e. My point was, that since Saves were regularly neglected in 2e, that's one of the reasons Afflictions seem weaker in 3e.

@Murkglow
This is an argument that is entirely based on preference and perception. You mentioned about Delaying Actions. One of the things that I would absolutely not want M&M to become is a table top strategy game. To me, it's kind of the antithesis of what super powered hijinx ought to be. I personally feel that planning a character's combat round ought to be as simple as: "I can lift a bus, so I hit him with a bus." Not... "hold off on the Mind Control until Brain Breaker hits with the Weaken Will affect." I don't mind the idea that someone builds a character around a Taunt ability, with a specific plan to assist a group that way.
...not even sure what this has to do with Affliction really, just an idea about the feel of the game.
...with a side note that maybe, just maybe, house rule that if you want to Delay, you need to burn an HP.

Anyways...
A whole lot of wordy posts, a lot of math that I kinda skimmed over...
is there some sort of consensus here?

[Murkglow]

@Murkglow
This is an argument that is entirely based on preference and perception. You mentioned about Delaying Actions. One of the things that I would absolutely not want M&M to become is a table top strategy game. To me, it's kind of the antithesis of what super powered hijinx ought to be. I personally feel that planning a character's combat round ought to be as simple as: "I can lift a bus, so I hit him with a bus." Not... "hold off on the Mind Control until Brain Breaker hits with the Weaken Will affect." I don't mind the idea that someone builds a character around a Taunt ability, with a specific plan to assist a group that way.
...not even sure what this has to do with Affliction really, just an idea about the feel of the game.
...with a side note that maybe, just maybe, house rule that if you want to Delay, you need to burn an HP.

This seems like a pretty major overreaction. I mean something as basic as coordinating with your teammates is "the antithesis" of what super powered characters are supposed to be? Ummm do the X-Men, Avengers, JLA, ect... ring any bells? Teamwork is central to team fighting. Heck even just a duo like Batman/Superman do teamwork.

Some examples:
Superman throws Captain Marvel to Batman who shoots him in the back with a rocket while Marvel is still flying through midair and thus vulnerable. A perfect example of teamwork and an example of delaying as Batman "delayed" his attack until after Superman's action to get a better shot on Marvel.

Cyclops tells Jean to hold Magneto still while he lines up his optic blast. Then while Magneto is knocked down, he yells "Now Bobby!", and Iceman speeds up and encases him in a block of ice. (this one is a bit more generic because I just made it up, the Batman/Superman one is from an actual comic).

And this is light stuff, no one is talking about Attacks of Opportunity, Zones of Control, Character Facing, or any of that. Simply rearranging the turn order is too much to the point of requiring a Hero Point? That just seems way too extreme to me, even as just a "maybe". Frankly if the game was only "I can lift a bus, so I hit him with a bus." I would have zero interest in it. But yeah, I guess that is a matter of preference and perception, I just didn't know the range of preferences was quite that broad...

Anyways...
A whole lot of wordy posts, a lot of math that I kinda skimmed over...
is there some sort of consensus here?

Not likely. Aside from the math (of which, since I provided neither version and don't know exactly what was done on either end to arrive at their conclusions, I'm not going to comment on) most of the talking on this last page had little to do directly with the main topic and more to do with Feints, If Compelled is worth a +1 extra, and so on...

[Lord Fell]

Well... I'm not overreacting, at least not in the sense that I have powerful emotional feelings about your post.

My response is based on feeling, rather than rationality, so it's not really valid (I said it was a quibble rather than a valid point in my post). I also don't mean to judge you or your gaming group; I'm not going to condemn your play style (You're not having fun the right way!!). So, it's a point I made based on a feeling, but it's not a harsh feeling.

To try and reiterate what I meant, is... putting too much strategy into a game like M&M elevates it to Chess, where my personal level of enjoyment for this type of game would be ... well, actually my personal enjoyment is in the Roleplay of my characters... but in a combat sense, it would be more like Checkers.

I also have to concede you're absolutely right that there is room for strategy. Thinking back on some early fights between the Hellfire Club and the X-Men, I think the X-Men had more members and more raw power, but the HFC regularly made their lives rough, because they worked the strategy and fought dirty.

...and now we're really off topic.