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.
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 » Sat Jan 12, 2013 7:28 pm

I also think "Immunity (Fortitude)" needs to be reworked. I'm of the opinion that Fortitude should represent more than biological systems: it's way too appropriate for structural and system integrity.

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 » Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:35 pm

Then on any construct you think it's appropriate for them to have a Fortitude score to represent structural and system integrity, DON'T BUY THE IMMUNITY! Keep the Fortitude score for that character. Purchase the immunities that may still be appropriate.

If your Construct can still be affected by gas because the gas shorts out the circuitry, don't buy Immunity (Gas).
If your Construct starts to break down when exposed to lots of radiation, don't buy Immunity (Radiation).
If your Construct is still good in extreme heat, then buy Immunity (Heat [environment]). If it isn't, don't.

However, if the person who built the Construct, in story, is just that damned good at what they do, yeah, give them the full blown Immunity(Fortitude Effects).

Immunity to Fortitude Effects isn't a requirement for anyone. Why assume the mechanic is broken? The game effect does what the game effect does. Use it when it's appropriate; don't use it when it's not.

Pick and choose what you need. If you don't need the blanket, don't use the blanket. Don't assume the blanket is wrong just because YOU don't need all of it.
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 » Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:53 am

I also think there is some confusion between Immunity Fortitude and being a Construct. You can buy Immunity Fortitude and still have a CON/STA score.

Also, I am pretty sure SC is talking about the other side of it - attacking a Construct. SC feels that certain powers should affect the Construct's physical integrity without directly affecting Toughness. Here I would argue, add Affects Objects to the mix. That would affect everyone with Immunity to Fortitude and no STA/CON at full power.

Also, I am a big proponent of Limited Immunity to Fortitude effects for many types of creatures that are more alive than not. I end up charging 20 points for this, and it gives them full Life Support as well. Here is the breakdown.

Immunity 10 (Life Support; F: Limited- Half Effect) (5pp)
Immunity 30 (Fortitude;' F: Limited- Half Effect) (15pp)

In this case the 1/2 effect from the first power ADDS (not multiplies) with the 1/2 effect from the second granting full Life Support and Half effect on all other Fortitude effects. Add a decent Fortitude save to the mix and you have darn near Immunity to Fortitude without all the nasty side effects of being a construct, like no Healing and full effect from Affects Objects powers.
-----------------------------
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 » Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:53 pm

Earth-Two_Kenn wrote:Pick and choose what you need. If you don't need the blanket, don't use the blanket. Don't assume the blanket is wrong just because YOU don't need all of it.

But what I need is for the system to work my way. That's the whole point of this thread.

Also please reread my post: you will find that I in no way suggested that Immunity (Fortitude) had to be taken out. I wrote "reworked".
kenseido wrote:Here I would argue, add Affects Objects to the mix. That would affect everyone with Immunity to Fortitude and no STA/CON at full power.

Too much binary: this is not an "either/or" situation.

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 » Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:39 pm

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Earth-Two_Kenn wrote:Pick and choose what you need. If you don't need the blanket, don't use the blanket. Don't assume the blanket is wrong just because YOU don't need all of it.

But what I need is for the system to work my way. That's the whole point of this thread.

Also please reread my post: you will find that I in no way suggested that Immunity (Fortitude) had to be taken out. I wrote "reworked".


"Reworked", "fixed", whatever. It still implies it's broken. It's as if you've decided that Immunity (Fortitude Effects) is the power you are going to use, and are frustrated by the fact that it isn't doing what you want. You don't want to find the power you need; you want the power you want to use to be the power you need.

Suggesting that a game system be reworked by the publisher to fit the needs of just one person is impossibly arrogant.

If a game system is too far from what you need, don't use it.
If a game system is close to what you need, use it, and house rule the changes you need.
If you think you have a way of doing things that will be better for every gamer out there, get investors and produce your own game.

And if it bothers you that you aren't the center of Green Ronin's universe, suck it up. There's no reason you should be.
Over eleven hundred DCA/M&M Character builds at http://www.rcuhero.net

User avatar
saint_matthew
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4381
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Perth, AUSTRALIA

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

Postby saint_matthew » Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:34 am

Earth-Two_Kenn wrote:"Reworked", "fixed", whatever. It still implies it's broken. It's as if you've decided that Immunity (Fortitude Effects) is the power you are going to use, and are frustrated by the fact that it isn't doing what you want. You don't want to find the power you need; you want the power you want to use to be the power you need.


I concur. If one uses a rule consistently incorrectly, then the problem is with the person misusing it, not the rule itself.

In fact thats a strange trend in this thread. 3E is less then 3 years old, yet there are a select group of people that are seemingly trying to break bits of the system as evidence that the system is already broken. If you have to go out of your way to misuse bits of the system to prove the system is broken, isn't that kind of a sign that the system is not broken? :?:
“Anti-Intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”
-Isaac Asimov

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 Jan 14, 2013 6:23 am

Earth-Two_Kenn wrote:"Reworked", "fixed", whatever. It still implies it's broken. It's as if you've decided that Immunity (Fortitude Effects) is the power you are going to use, and are frustrated by the fact that it isn't doing what you want. You don't want to find the power you need; you want the power you want to use to be the power you need.

Suggesting that a game system be reworked by the publisher to fit the needs of just one person is impossibly arrogant.

Except that is not what I meant to suggest. You're right it is what I wrote, sorry for doing that, but I didn't want to mean it that way.

I am only bringing it up in the same way anyone with an issue should bring it up on a thread like this so that it can be seen, discussed, agreed with, and the publisher can see if enough of their customers want a change. If no one else agrees then nothing will be done about it.

You seem awfully worried that one post will change the game.
saint_matthew wrote:I concur. If one uses a rule consistently incorrectly, then the problem is with the person misusing it, not the rule itself.

I'm not using the rule incorrectly. I don't like the rule used correctly.
saint_matthew wrote:In fact thats a strange trend in this thread. 3E is less then 3 years old, yet there are a select group of people that are seemingly trying to break bits of the system as evidence that the system is already broken. If you have to go out of your way to misuse bits of the system to prove the system is broken, isn't that kind of a sign that the system is not broken? :?:

Who's been trying to break anything? Who's even been suggesting the system is broken?

User avatar
saint_matthew
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4381
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Perth, AUSTRALIA

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

Postby saint_matthew » Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:01 am

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:Who's been trying to break anything? Who's even been suggesting the system is broken?


ahem

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:I also think "Immunity (Fortitude)" needs to be reworked.


Well this is awkward :roll:
“Anti-Intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”
-Isaac Asimov

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 Jan 14, 2013 7:08 am

saint_matthew wrote:ahem

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:I also think "Immunity (Fortitude)" needs to be reworked.

I'm not seeing it: the word "broken" does not appear anywhere in that quote.

"Reworked", to me, implies that the current system works but that there is another way it could work.

Was there a better way to word that statement that would have resulted in fewer people thinking I meant "broken"?

Stigger
Cohort
Cohort
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:03 am

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

Postby Stigger » Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:43 am

Well, you could have said that you wanted a different approach to Immunity (Fortitude), or at least an alternative to it. Though to be honest, it didn't sound like you said "Broken" to me. You've been pretty blunt about your opinion on brokeness up to this point.

That said, I do agree with the others that it certainly could be rebuilt within the current framework to work precisely the way you want it to simply by putting the term "Limited" into the mix somewhere and defining it through that with descriptors, without chucking the whole thing. I know I do that pretty frequently with Immunity (Life Support - limited - requires sustenance) for stuff like power armor or starship life support systems where it isn't going to do anything about hunger or thirst necessarily. They could have really done a much better job breaking down the costs and rationales of those blanket immunities. Certainly all of it's modularity is implied, but it's never really spelled out explicitly, which some have a really hard time with, especially if they're allowed to do so themselves. Gods know I've met plenty of GM's who are/were really retentive about stuff like that...

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 Jan 14, 2013 10:57 am

Stigger wrote:That said, I do agree with the others that it certainly could be rebuilt within the current framework to work precisely the way you want it to simply by putting the term "Limited" into the mix somewhere and defining it through that with descriptors, without chucking the whole thing.

To be honest what I don't like is you either end up bypassing it entirely with "Affects Objects" thus rendering the Immunity kind of weak, or you end up going to Toughness as if that's always homogenous. (For the latter what I mean is that what do you do when an exterior armor plate shouldn't protect delicate interior systems? I don't see why it should be assumed that any robot that has a tough shell also has tough gears and electronics.)

Immunity (Fotitude) as a power, no, that's not really my target.

Stigger
Cohort
Cohort
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:03 am

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

Postby Stigger » Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:10 am

Well, it wouldn't make much sense to make a heavily armored robot without putting in shock-resistant systems hardware beneath it, but I do get what you're saying there. I think that would probably be better handled as a complication maybe, unless it's a GM-related thing, in which case perhaps the problem isn't so much the rules as the way the GM interprets them being vastly different from your own, which I know I've certainly had my share of when it comes to how my players interpret something.

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 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:35 am

Stigger wrote:I think that would probably be better handled as a complication maybe.....

That still feels like a binary mechanic, as opposed to having the save which gives a more random chance.

And it's not a GM issue, it's a game issue:
There's a window of descriptors that are not specifically biologic-affecting but are effects that target internal workings rather than try to simply bash things. What save are these? Toughness? Problem is Toughness can also be gained from armor, and armor shouldn't add to saves to determine if internal workings fail. But if we decide that Toughness should determine how effective non-biologic-affecting effects that target internal workings are then we need to keep careful track of homogenous Toughness vs non-homogenous Toughness. Frankly it's just simpler to have Fortitude take over some of that job.

pawsplay
Zealot
Zealot
Posts: 1241
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 3:10 pm

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

Postby pawsplay » Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:07 pm

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:I also think "Immunity (Fortitude)" needs to be reworked. I'm of the opinion that Fortitude should represent more than biological systems: it's way too appropriate for structural and system integrity.


Agreed. Withouth an Immunity, any being lacking a STA score becomes incredibly vulnerable to Fortitude effects. For example, a construct that is not immmune to radiation and has no STA would be ridiculously vulnerable. I think that, in general, automatons probably should have STA scores. Immunity (Fortitude) should represent something that actually has no internal workings or that is overwhelmingly durable. It's questionable in my mind whether a taser or a qi punch should really be Fortitude effects, but as long as they are defined as such, that should definitely be divorced from the idea of whether something is biological.
Kickstarter: Tripod Machine presents Do Not Approach (Super-powered by M&M)
http://writeups.org - a big and growing collection of dual-statted character writeups!

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

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

Postby FuzzyBoots » Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:59 pm

Personally, I've always verged toward using the lower of Reflex or Toughness in place of Fortitude when it comes to Affects Objects (and something similar for constructs who lack stats to get hit by Mental effects), and I could see that as a 15 pp Immunity (Fortitude). Then again, I also think an Immunity (Biological effects) for 10 pp is reasonable too.


Return to “DC Adventures”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest