What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Join the never-ending battle for truth and justice in the world's greatest super-hero universe, using the world's greatest super-hero roleplaying game! This forum is for discussion of DC ADVENTURES.
User avatar
Lord Fell
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4358
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:38 pm

What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby Lord Fell » Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:08 pm

I like to think that I'm fairly open minded to new editions. When you look at D&D, I felt that Advanced was better than Basic, and then I felt that 3e was a massive upgrade on 2e, 3.5 had some upgrades on 3.0, but a few steps back... and I'm in the camp that refuses to play 4e. At the moment, I'm kind of feeling like M&M3e made improvements on 2e... but also made some steps back.

When I posted my affliction is afflicted thread, it was actually one of several issues I'm having with DCA/M&M3e. I like a lot of the improvements from 2e to 3e... but I think there are absolutely some issues that just didn't get ironed out before 3e went to print. Obviously, one of those things was Affliction. I'm still not sure if my issue with, or perception of an issue with, Affliction is resolved. So... I still think Affliction needs some attention.

Dexterity
No two ways about it, Dexterity is a wasted stat. There is nothing you can do with Dexterity that wouldn't be done more efficiently by buying straight Feats or Skills.

I think Dex should be an integral stat, as the basis for Ranged combat... but it just isn't. Something that I tried House-Ruling to improve it's value, was basing Initiative on Dexterity. Also, I felt that if there were more Dex based skills, Dex would be more useful. Truth is, Sleight of Hand is not at all useful... and since most Super Heroes have some sort of Movement Power, Vehicles is almost worse. I felt that a Security skill should be separated from Technology, and made a Dex based skill... but it would be about the only useful Dex skill.

3e Skill system hurts "street level" games.
This is a super common complaint. The lower your PL, such as a Street Level game, the more important skills become. You're not dealing with Bad Guys by using your Mach 3 Flight and your Freezing Breath, it's all about your Stealth, your Intimidate, and your animal-themed custom throwing weapon. When your character is built on PL6 & 90pp, dropping 15pp for 30 skill ranks hurts real bad, and that's hardly even a skill monkey. The justification for lowering Skills to 2 ranks per PP is the rise of Combat Skills. If 1pp of Accurate Feat (oh yeah, that reminds me of something) gives +2 accuracy, then .5pp of Combat Skill needs to give +1 accuracy. That is simple math. I think the simplest way to fix this is to divorce Combat Skills from normal Skills. Still looking at Game Balance, if two characters are contesting Stealth vs. Perception, their base Stat has the same cost, and the base Skill has the same cost (which would be better at 4ranks/PP) then that is still balanced.

Power Structures
One thing 3e completely butchered, is the way Powers are laid out and purchased. Here's How It Should Be (and gratuitous use of capital letters indicates that failure to agree with this point casts serious aspersions on your credibility)... If an increase to a Power's effect has a cost of +1 per Rank of Power, it should be called an Extra. If an increase to a Power's effect costs a flat +1 (or even a rankable +1) it should be called a Feat. Conversely, a detriment to a power that decreases cost -1 per Rank should be called a Flaw, and a detriment that decreases cost a flat -1 should be called a Quirk. Why?

Damage 10 (Extra: Ranged, Feat: Homing, Flaw: Concentration, Quirk: Noticeable)
is a bazillion times more elegant than:
Damage 10 (Extras: Ranged +1/r, Homing +1f, Flaws: Concentration -1/r, Noticeable -1f)
Ok... maybe more like "3 times" more elegant. It looks and feels cleaner and the Mechanics themselves lend additional feel to the potence (or lack) of a power.

Anyways...
There are some other things... like, I am sorely missing Obscure as a Power. I also think in Senses a better separation needs to be made between Penetrates Concealment (which is really X-Ray Vision, or other equivalent sense) and Counters Concealment... I preferred the way Penetrating (sense) was built in 2e.

I'm sure there are other things other people have noticed... especially the 2e purists. It's awfully soon to be talking about a new edition... but better to start early, so that all the issues get ironed out.

User avatar
kenseido
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 21184
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:57 am
Location: Kyle, Texas
Contact:

Re: What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby kenseido » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:33 am

Lord Fell wrote:Dexterity
No two ways about it, Dexterity is a wasted stat. There is nothing you can do with Dexterity that wouldn't be done more efficiently by buying straight Feats or Skills.

I totally disagree with that statement. From a 2E to 3E balance position, you replace three stats (Dexterity, Attack, and Defense) with three stats (Dexterity, Agility, and Fighting). I'm sorry that Dexterity doesn't affect 20 different skills and it isn't the super-efficient stat everyone would like it to be. But there is a difference bewteen agility (balance/grace/speed) and dexterity (hand-eye coordintation). Gymansts are good at the former, pianists (or pick pockets if you will) are good at the latter.
Building characters shouldn't always be about efficiency. It should be about a concept. Sometimes points get "wasted" (spent) on things that don't come up every adventure, but they get spent (or should) because of character concept. So when the situation comes up, the character has the ability they should. Thats called being well rounded.
Most things can be done more effeciently with buying skills and advantages - or even powers, then buying abilities. Those characters are boring and often get ignored as submissions in my games.

Now that being said, I could see an argument for allowing Dex to be used for Disable Device portion of Technology, and I can definitely see various Dex based Expertise skills (e.g. Expertise: Video Games is definitely a DEX based skill). So expanding uses of Dex is definitely not out of the question.
-----------------------------
Kenseido's Menagerie of Characters

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

Re: What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby SilvercatMoonpaw » Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:12 am

Dexterity at least has enough stuff in it that it could be point-balanced. Compared to Presence, which is one skill short of being worth anything.

My though on skills is that in 4e they should get rid of the idea that you're absolutely not allowed to try certain checks without spending skill ranks or advantages. Instead the speed bump should be a penalty to the check, say -5. That way if you buy an ability high enough your natural skill allows you to compete with people who have low natural skill and little training.


Here are some of my own thoughts:
* Give Presence more to do.
* Give Defensive Roll more to do: it should be balanced as if designing a power. Alternatively give it more unique features: one idea I had was to allow Defensive Roll (and only Defensive Roll) to be traded off for more Dodge or Parry so an "agile defense" character ended up with more options against non-Toughness attacks.
* Bring back Obscure somehow.
* Flight should start out at much lower rank so other effects are more competitive.
* Impervious needs to be something other than "all or nothing". My proposal:
Impervious: The minimum result you may get on a Toughness save is “10 + ranks in the Impervious extra”. This minimum save is not reduced by -1s. Impervious is limited to the campaign PL or the resistance’s bonus, whichever is lower.

* Check Required needs a complete redesign. One thought was to make it like a quirky Unreliable:
Check Required: Works as before, but if you both succeed on the check and roll a 10 or less you suffer an effect worth a -2pp/rank Flaw.

* Unaware (non-visual) should either be considered not worth a 3rd degree or made better so it is.
* Hindered should be adjusted so that it's still a penalty even with high ranks of a movement power. I say make it "half movement ranks, minimum -1", it's not like in most cases that's going to be a conflict-breaker. Fatigue could stay at a simple -1 rank.
* Stop trying to be so strict about languages. Make it a skill again, except in addition to your rank being how many languages you know you also roll it (plus relevant ability) to try an "figure out" a language you don't know for one scene. Or get rid of needing to pay for languages altogether: is a language barrier really that interesting a puzzle?

User avatar
Earth-Two_Kenn
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:13 pm
Location: Outer Chicagoland, Earth-Two
Contact:

Re: What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby Earth-Two_Kenn » Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:55 am

Lord Fell wrote: If 1pp of Accurate Feat (oh yeah, that reminds me of something) gives +2 accuracy, then .5pp of Combat Skill needs to give +1 accuracy.


1pp of the Accurate Extra gives +2 accuracy with that single attack power.
0.5 pp of Combat skill gives +1 accuracy with whichever attack power(s) the Combat skill is for.

I fail to see the problem. In fact, since you can buy Ranged Combat (Firearms) at 0.5 pp per +1 of accuracy with ANY firearm, seems to me that would be cheaper than paying for the Accuracy Extra on every gun in one's arsenal.

A Street Level game is where I'd most expect where high Dexterity to flourish. The cost of one rank of Dexterity is exactly the same as the cost of +1 Sleight of Hand, +1 Driving, and +1 of the Ranged Attack advantage. And a Street Level game is where I'd expect vehicles, not movement powers, and where Sleight of Hand would more likely to be useful.

Is Stamina a useless Ability? Since one can buy +1 Fortitude and either +1 Toughness or +1 Protection for the same 2 pp that +1 Stamina (which gives the same effects....) What about Fighting? +1 Parry and +1 Close
Attack advantage. Most of the Abilities are balanced cost-wise against what they provide. The only exceptions are Intellect (which is always cost efficient to buy up if you have several Expertises, and always cost efficient to keep low if you don't) and Presence (which is always more expensive than the +1 Deception, +1 Intimidation, and +1 Persuasion it provides - unless of course your GM makes you use straight Presence checks, or you have Presence based Expertises like Expertise: Performer or Expertise: Rock Star).

I'm sorry the game wasn't designed expressly for you and your group of players, and your particular quirks. My group and I have all our games set at 16 pp / Power Level, because it better suits our needs; this is not an indictment of the game, just an admission that we deviate from the baseline that Green Ronin assumed (and any game company has to make assumptions about their target groups.)

If you want to play 3 skill points / 1 PP or 5 skill points / 1 pp or whatever, that's your prerogative. But realise that in so doing any of the abilities that are skill bases will become "Useless" because it will always be cheaper to buy the skills up then to have high ability scores. Personally I'm impressed that the game is so well balanced between the cost of Abilities and the costs of what they affect.
Over eleven hundred DCA/M&M Character builds at http://www.rcuhero.net

User avatar
kenseido
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 21184
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:57 am
Location: Kyle, Texas
Contact:

Re: What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby kenseido » Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:23 am

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:Here are some of my own thoughts:
* Give Presence more to do.

No argument from me. Deception and Persuasion are pretty much it. Of course, throw in all those Perform skills under Expertise and make them PRE based at least helps. Still limited, though using Distract and Fascinate can be useful.
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:* Give Defensive Roll more to do: it should be balanced as if designing a power. Alternatively give it more unique features: one idea I had was to allow Defensive Roll (and only Defensive Roll) to be traded off for more Dodge or Parry so an "agile defense" character ended up with more options against non-Toughness attacks.

Okay, I see this differently. In 3E, Defensive Roll costs 1 point, but the equivalent "Dodge" bonus costs 2, 1 for Dodge and 1 for Parry. So it does kind of balance that way. Protection is still better, but for non-powered individuals, Protection is equipment or a device and can be taken away.
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:* Bring back Obscure somehow.

Yeah, the Area Burst, Attack Concealment is clunky.
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:* Flight should start out at much lower rank so other effects are more competitive.

That was a problem in 2E as well. Why buy AirWalking 2 for 4pp I can move at normal ground speed when I can spend 4pp on Flight and go 8xthat speed.
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:* Impervious needs to be something other than "all or nothing". My proposal:
Impervious: The minimum result you may get on a Toughness save is “10 + ranks in the Impervious extra”. This minimum save is not reduced by -1s. Impervious is limited to the campaign PL or the resistance’s bonus, whichever is lower.

Badpenny pointed out that the Impervious options in one of the Power Profiles cause 3E Penetrating to suck. So if you overhaul one, you need to do them both.
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:* Check Required needs a complete redesign. One thought was to make it like a quirky Unreliable:
Check Required: Works as before, but if you both succeed on the check and roll a 10 or less you suffer an effect worth a -2pp/rank Flaw.

I have to say I like the 3E version better than the all or nothing 2E version. You can only use as many ranks as you beat the check by.
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:* Unaware (non-visual) should either be considered not worth a 3rd degree or made better so it is.
* Hindered should be adjusted so that it's still a penalty even with high ranks of a movement power. I say make it "half movement ranks, minimum -1", it's not like in most cases that's going to be a conflict-breaker. Fatigue could stay at a simple -1 rank.

My complaint is about Dazed as a condition. At least in 2E, Dazed meant something. Now its a little inconveniencing at best.
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:* Stop trying to be so strict about languages. Make it a skill again, except in addition to your rank being how many languages you know you also roll it (plus relevant ability) to try an "figure out" a language you don't know for one scene. Or get rid of needing to pay for languages altogether: is a language barrier really that interesting a puzzle?

Yeah, I am not sure they are ever going to get Languages right. When you can spend 6pp and have them all with literacy, there really isn't going to be an in between.
-----------------------------
Kenseido's Menagerie of Characters

Shock
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 12051
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby Shock » Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:36 am

My biggest problem with 3E was the conglomeration of skills. I realize it was done with the idea that some concessions had to be made to offset the increase in the cost of skills but I think something's gone wrong when you can't do search a room without being a detective (Search rolled into Investigate) and you can't pick a lock without a master's degree (Disable device rolled into Technology). And don't get me started on Expertise(Science).

But overall, I'd be disappointed if we see any talk about a new edition inside of 5 years from now. There just isn't enough that needs fixing to warrant it. The system works for me as it is.

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

Re: What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby SilvercatMoonpaw » Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:03 am

kenseido wrote:No argument from me. Deception and Persuasion are pretty much it. Of course, throw in all those Perform skills under Expertise and make them PRE based at least helps. Still limited, though using Distract and Fascinate can be useful.

Honestly I can't figure out how to make performing useful-enough that it stacks up against other 3e skills.

Especially since I think most of the time it falls under either Deception (acting) or Persuasion (making people like you).

The one good suggestion I've heard is to make Leadership a skill rather than advantage.

I also cribbed a suggestion off the boards that you could make a raw Presence check to emulate the function of a Hero Point. I adjusted it so that it only worked on Hero Point functions that could be justified as "psyching yourself out", the reasoning being that if you can convince other people to do stuff you can probably get yourself to do stuff.
kenseido wrote:In 3E, Defensive Roll costs 1 point, but the equivalent "Dodge" bonus costs 2, 1 for Dodge and 1 for Parry. So it does kind of balance that way.

Dodge or Parry. So you can trade off your +4 Defensive Roll for +2 Dodge/+2 Parry, or +4 Parry, or whatever combination of Dodge/Parry adds up to +4.
kenseido wrote:Protection is still better, but for non-powered individuals, Protection is equipment or a device and can be taken away.

It shouldn't be.

The game should not draw a hard line between "powers" and "normal". It's "effects-based". That means the effects should not be restricted by concept. Descriptors should be handling whether something is "normal" or "powered".

Also notice you can buy unrealistically high Fortitude without powers.
kenseido wrote:Badpenny pointed out that the Impervious options in one of the Power Profiles cause 3E Penetrating to suck. So if you overhaul one, you need to do them both.

Still sort of confused here. Maybe I was expecting everyone to decide "Penetrating forces a save irregardless of what Impervious does" meant that the "minimum save" doesn't apply to the "you must make a save vs. 15+Penetrating rank" effect.

I still can't figure out a way to make Penetrating useful without an Impervious to use it against, though.

(To be honest I don't really care about Impervious: I like the idea that with a sufficiently bad roll you can be taken out by some low-level nobody because it appeals to the scrappy determinator in me.)
kenseido wrote:I have to say I like the 3E version better than the all or nothing 2E version. You can only use as many ranks as you beat the check by.

Except it's still way too easy to beat that penalty. Plus unless you tie it to a very narrow Expertise you can not only buy back the penalty to nothing but broaden what your character can do.
kenseido wrote:My complaint is about Dazed as a condition. At least in 2E, Dazed meant something. Now its a little inconveniencing at best.

I agree. But how would you change it, and what about Stunned?
kenseido wrote:Yeah, I am not sure they are ever going to get Languages right. When you can spend 6pp and have them all with literacy, there really isn't going to be an in between.

I really just think they should get rid of everything except Comprehend (which should be reduced to 1 rank for understand, speak, and read sapient languages). How often do languages really matter in the average game?

User avatar
Kevin_MacTaggert
Mastermind
Mastermind
Posts: 2499
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:55 am

Re: What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby Kevin_MacTaggert » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:53 am

Someone probably already mentioned it, so this is a "second" if I'm late :)

Normal Inventing & Ritual Magic vs. Jury-Rigging;

50 minutes to cast a five-point spell & 20 hours to build a five-point device ...

that's a long time, imo, especially when you take the "Design Time" into consideration.

PCs usually end up "Jury-Rigging" (Spells & Inventions), because there's only so much time in the space of an adventure. It makes sense - so why not make the "Jury-Rigging" mechanic the Rule (eliminating the normal, lengthy first option).

Just a suggestion.

Oh yeah - if you could maybe drop Dexterity & Fighting (these are more like Skills, than Abilities).

That & make Will an Ability, rather than a Defense.

Okay & condense all the Presence-related Skills into one Skill ("Influence" or "Charisma").

With that, maybe merge Acrobatics into Athletics. Melding Insight into Perception wouldn't be a horrible stretch, either. Just brainstorming here, so excuse me.

Here's an easy one: Wealth - give it some teeth. The option mentioned in The Gamemaster's Guide is excellent, imo & maybe Wealth can have a more "playable" impact on Equipment & Persuasion.

Grab action: right now it's vs. the target's Strength or Dodge, but shouldn't it be vs. Strength or Parry?

Thanks, Lord Fell, for the space! :D

Edit: ONE more :shock: - the Toughness check Failure Table.

Extra Effort, Hero Points, Recover, Luck points - there's an arsenal of ways for PCs to overcome Damaged Conditions. So, why not make the Conditions more impactful?
First Degree Fail = Staggered
Second Degree Fail = Stunned
Third Degree Fail = Incapacitated
& they'd be Progressive: Successive fails automatically worsen the Condition. This way it doesn't take, on average, nearly ten blows to down a foe.

Just my take & thanks again :wink:
Last edited by Kevin_MacTaggert on Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby SilvercatMoonpaw » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:59 am

Kevin_MacTaggert wrote:Normal Inventing & Ritual Magic vs. Jury-Rigging;

50 minutes to cast a five-point spell & 20 hours to build a five-point device ...

that's a long time, imo, especially when you take the "Design Time" into consideration.

PCs usually end up "Jury-Rigging" (Spells & Inventions), because there's only so much time in the space of an adventure. It makes sense - so why not make the "Jury-Rigging" mechanic the Rule (eliminating the normal, lengthy first option).

I basically houseruled away the advantages. Now anyone with the proper skills can try either.

User avatar
Kevin_MacTaggert
Mastermind
Mastermind
Posts: 2499
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:55 am

Re: What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby Kevin_MacTaggert » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:21 pm

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Kevin_MacTaggert wrote:Normal Inventing & Ritual Magic vs. Jury-Rigging;

50 minutes to cast a five-point spell & 20 hours to build a five-point device ...

that's a long time, imo, especially when you take the "Design Time" into consideration.

PCs usually end up "Jury-Rigging" (Spells & Inventions), because there's only so much time in the space of an adventure. It makes sense - so why not make the "Jury-Rigging" mechanic the Rule (eliminating the normal, lengthy first option).

I basically houseruled away the advantages. Now anyone with the proper skills can try either.

What kind of House Rule? I could use advice.

User avatar
kenseido
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 21184
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:57 am
Location: Kyle, Texas
Contact:

Re: What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby kenseido » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:23 pm

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:Still sort of confused here. Maybe I was expecting everyone to decide "Penetrating forces a save irregardless of what Impervious does" meant that the "minimum save" doesn't apply to the "you must make a save vs. 15+Penetrating rank" effect.

There are actually cases where Penetrating will hurt you vs not having Penetrating on the same attack if using some of the modified rules for Impervious.
-----------------------------
Kenseido's Menagerie of Characters

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

Re: What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby SilvercatMoonpaw » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:40 pm

kenseido wrote:There are actually cases where Penetrating will hurt you vs not having Penetrating on the same attack if using some of the modified rules for Impervious.

Care to explain what's wrong with mine? I'm always looking to improve.
Kevin_MacTaggert wrote:What kind of House Rule? I could use advice.

That's it: "You no longer need advantages to make devices/rituals."

I mean taking a long time or a Hero Point seems like cost enough.

User avatar
Lord Fell
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4358
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:38 pm

Re: What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby Lord Fell » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:07 pm

@Kenseido, re: Dexterity
I prefer to build to character than to mechanical efficiency. My characters usually have Presence (you're a hero, but you have no force of personality? doesn't fly for me). But, when it comes to Dexterity... if I think my character "should be nimble" I'm gonna flub it and have Agility... because Agility is useful and Dex is not. If Dex were more useful, I'd be more likely to buy it... but it's at best break even.

What did you think of the notion of tying Dex to initiative? I think Picking Pockets and Piano are good examples of why this is a good idea; both of those skills are massively dependent on being able to time things perfectly, and react to a sudden shift in your situation.

@Silvercat Moonpaw
Reintroducing Obscure was 100% on my list.

I disagree with the removal of Trained Only skills. I think there are absolutely things that you have to have a certain understanding of basic rules that you could not intuitively know. Law for example; it really doesn't matter how smart you are, you have to have read a bit of law to base your arguments on.

An issue I have with making Defensive Roll better than it already is, is that it's already cheaper to make Toughness shifted Characters than Defense shifted characters (oh yeah. That's an issue that needs addressing). Defensive Roll is just Toughness... and since 1pp of Toughness is already as good as 1pp of Parry and 1pp of Dodge combined, this does not need an upgrade.

I'm not sure how I feel about Languages. I think I prefer it as a Feat. To me, you either speak a language or you don't. I do think that the cost should be measured against the Comprehend power though.

@Earth Two Kenn
Don't argue semantics with me. Review the OP if you don't understand why you're doing that.

hmm.

I don't have anything else I wish to address with you.

@Kenseido & Silvercat Moonpaw, re: Presence
I like Presence because it's thematically appropriate to the game, and for most characters, Hero or Villain.
"Do you want to know how I got these scars?" Yeah, that's Presence in action there.

I am often leery of buying the Leadership Feats in M&M, because I don't necessarily know if my GM is going to hand out a lot of HP or not, if you get a GM who's stingy with HP, you've just wasted a pile of points on Feats you aren't going to use. Tying the Feats to Presence in some way is definitely attractive to me, and a Leadership skill makes a lot of sense too.

@Shock
Sorry to disappoint by bringing up a new Edition... For me though, there is enough wrong with 3e to warrant talking new edition already. As for the skills you mentioned, I think that's kind of covered in broadening the Skills again, and separating Combat Skills from normal Skills.

@Kevin MacTaggart
No, this party just got started. No one has mentioned Ritual, Inventor & Jury Rigging, etc. yet... and that could probably use an overhaul too.

I think Skills would be better Expanded, rather than Condensed. I mean... pairing Insight with Perception makes no sense to me. There are absolutely people who are extremely perceptive, but have no particular empathy. Conversely, consider a kindly old grandma type; she can't hear someone chucking a bucket of rocks down the stairs, but she instantly knows when her great-grand daughter is feeling down.

I had an idea for Wealth, that in addition to defining a basic standard of living, it could be used like a situational Hero Point. If you have a Wealth of 1, once per scene you can "throw money at a problem." Need to rent a car? Spend your "wealth point" and it's done. Bouncer tells you to take a hike? A fistful of twenties ought to change his mind.
This would allow you to grab gear (eg. I buy us all tuxedos so we can go to the fancy party), but not Equipment type gear (no kevlar, no grapple guns, no infrared goggles).

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

Re: What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby SilvercatMoonpaw » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:33 pm

Lord Fell wrote:I prefer to build to character than to mechanical efficiency.
........
I disagree with the removal of Trained Only skills.

Removing the "you cannot make checks with Trained Only skills" would help balance the game closer to mechanical efficiency.
Lord Fell wrote:I think there are absolutely things that you have to have a certain understanding of basic rules that you could not intuitively know. Law for example; it really doesn't matter how smart you are, you have to have read a bit of law to base your arguments on.

I'm confused as to why this distinction is important. I mean why not have a penalty instead and chalk any good rolls up to luck?

With the rule as it is now abilities charge you for skills you aren't allowed to get use out of without paying even more.
Lord Fell wrote:An issue I have with making Defensive Roll better than it already is, is that it's already cheaper to make Toughness shifted Characters than Defense shifted characters (oh yeah. That's an issue that needs addressing). Defensive Roll is just Toughness... and since 1pp of Toughness is already as good as 1pp of Parry and 1pp of Dodge combined, this does not need an upgrade.

But how to you make Defensive Roll as good as Protection?

I was mostly trying to come up with a way to modify it without removing it from the game and/or requiring recalculation for official builds.
Lord Fell wrote:To me, you either speak a language or you don't.

And then what? How do you make that part of a puzzle? It would be like changing Investigate so each rank allows you to find only certain clues, and if you don't have the requisite type of clue down on your sheet you have to spend a precious Hero Point. Rather than the current way where rolling meaning you have a chance on every clue that's not totally out of your skill range.
Lord Fell wrote:I like Presence because it's thematically appropriate to the game, and for most characters, Hero or Villain.

What I really want is Presence to be like other abilities, i.e. it still has a function even if there aren't other people around. Hence my "psych yourself up" suggestion: still within the thematics, but it means Presence can now be used by the guy living by himself on an island.

User avatar
kenseido
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 21184
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:57 am
Location: Kyle, Texas
Contact:

Re: What needs addressing in 3e to 4e update?

Postby kenseido » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:53 pm

Lord Fell wrote:@Kenseido, re: Dexterity
What did you think of the notion of tying Dex to initiative? I think Picking Pockets and Piano are good examples of why this is a good idea; both of those skills are massively dependent on being able to time things perfectly, and react to a sudden shift in your situation.

Frankly, I could see it go either way.

I agree with you about building to character and not to efficiency. Penny and I had this discussion when she put her swordsman character on Roll Call. High Agility, High Fighting and 0 Dexterity. My argument was that a swordsman absolutely would have good hand-eye coordination.

I get it from an efficiency point. If you don't have a Ranged Attack and don't use vehicles or sleight of hand, then Dex doesn't make sense pointwise. My argument is your characters should never be the most efficient. Everyone should have points "wasted" on things that rarely or never come up. My character Maven is dating Ultramarine. The game is 2E, so he spent some xp on Earth Science and Swim. These things will literally NEVER come up in the game, but I did it to reflect his desire to learn more about the things that interest her.

You want your character to start out with shortcomings. You should be saying "If I had a few more points, I would buy..." or "With my first XP, I am buying..." or my favorite "Oh crap, he kicked my tail because I don't have X..." Your characters need weaknesses so they can grow.
-----------------------------
Kenseido's Menagerie of Characters


Return to “DC Adventures”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest