Heroes of Today

Game Master Ironperenti

Using the teleport profile and reading some other stuff I think you have to hit the target so 3d6+atk bonus vs their 3d6+parry bonus. Then they would get a resistance check 3d6+Will vs your 3d6+teleport ranks. Since teleport is an all or nothing, they will either get hit with the full distance or not at all.

Did I answer the question?

You did. Thanks. I figured that was the case (like it is for 3E). As I do not have the 4e playtest rules, I did not know if they had applied such a potential way to nerf the effective ranks of powers that did not use degrees of success in 3e.

GM/Freefall: With me failing Dodge but succeeding in Toughness am I right Ol' Billy Goat has grabbed Atlastic but its kick effectively bounces off his rubber skin? If so when Freefall teleports goatman will Atlastic be teleported too?? Will delay my reaction to Freefall pending what the situ is :)

You should not be taken along due to the following reasons:

1) With the Teleport Attack power (Tandem Skydive) of the power array active, Freefall does not have any ranks in the Increased Mass extra modifier (which means single creature of any size or (and/or?) an object (objects?) (that is not on his person) that weighs no more than 0 mass ranks (50 lbs).

and probably the following reason as well, but could be adjudicated otherwise by the GM

2) As Freefall is willing the goatman to be teleported (it uses its Will defense to resist being teleported against his will) and Freefall was not envisioning teleporting Atlastic with the goatman.

Now if I were using one of the other teleportation powers of the array to attempt to teleport the goatman away, the attack power for Freefall to get his hand on the goatman would be considerably less (+0 attack strength), but the ranks of Teleport would be higher (so if did succeed in touching target, harder to resist Freefall's will).

@GM/Atlastic: Atlastic's query made me think of the following situation:

If, while using one of his Teleportation powers of the power array that has sufficient ranks in the Increased Mass extra modifier; and Atlastic is currently grabbling/grappling a foe, if I touched Atlastic to bring him with Freefall when he teleports, since the foe is in physical contact with Atlastic, and the foe's extra weight is easily within the extra mass Freefall can teleport, would the foe automatically not get teleported OR would it get an defense roll (opposed Teleport ranks/Dodge or Will defense). In this case, Dodge could make sense as the defense if you view it as whether or not the foe is unable to get out of Atlastic's grip, or Will defense as normal for Freefall mentally willing where he is teleporting the group of them to.

@GM:

Regarding Freefall's active power of his teleportation array.

Default power active is Freefalling (the one with the reactive teleport).

On turns he swaps to Tandem Skydive (Turnabout Teleport Other Attack power), he of course needs to use a free action at the start of that turn to change the active power from Freefalling to Tandem Skydive so he can make the attack.

At the beginning or end of the following turn, he free actions to swap back to Freefalling (to regain use of the reactive teleport, with the only exception is when he free actions at the start of that turn to swap to a different power of the array instead (base power of the Messenger of the Gods power array, Divine Delivery I or Divine Delivery II).

So depending on the situation, when he first attempts to Turnabout Teleport Other attack, he has to 'drop' his reactive teleport, but on the next (or a later round) he can get back into 'reactive teleportation mode'.

He always uses a free action (when allowed) at the end of his turn to resume the Freefalling power of the power array.

The only times he will not have the reactive teleport are during turns (and until the start or end of his next turn, when he swaps back to Freefalling) whenever he uses a free action to swap to another power of the array, which is for doing one of following things: teleporting more than 1 mile; teleporting more than one person, teleporting more than 50 lbs; using Dimensional Travel or Space Travel.

Regarding Atlastic holding someone and then teleporting Atlastic. I think first it is your choice if you want to try and take said captive. Then, since it is a Will save to avoid, I think the situational target would get the Will save. Had we gone originally with a Dodge I think that would be neutralized by Atlastic's hold. The good and bad of choosing Will. It is typically a lower defense but applies a little differently.

Before I take my action: is it ok to spend a hero point to temporarily give my Affliction power an area effect quality? Want to blast a group of baddies with a cone. (Which honestly is probably how I should have built the power to begin with.)

I suggest taking the area modifier as an alternate effect (as it will be less ranks than it will be for only targeting a single target), so you have both the 'mini cyclone' and the 'concentrated targeted air blast'.

*Gust* wrote:

Before I take my action: is it ok to spend a hero point to temporarily give my Affliction power an area effect quality? Want to blast a group of baddies with a cone. (Which honestly is probably how I should have built the power to begin with.)

I suggest taking the area modifier as an alternate effect (as it will be less ranks than it will be for only targeting a single target), so you have both the 'mini cyclone' and the 'concentrated targeted air blast'.

Good advice for level up.

Still waiting on GM for comment.

In other news: starting Monday I will be involved in Christmas stuff for the week and will be slow, if I post at all. Happy holidays everyone!

Yes, you can use extra effort to use it that way and then the Hero Point to recover the fatigue.

Here's hoping Santa visits you all and Krampus does not.

Did the map get moved? I though Gust and Sigil were on the western edge of the map. Now, they are on the southern edge.

Also, who's turn is it?

Wish you and your family happy holidays and the best health and happiness!

My apologies for the map shifting. I originally had the large map up and then shifted to a tactical map. I mentioned or intended to mention in there somewhere that the locations and distance were not true but it was merely a zoom in of your individual actions. With the high speed movement of everyone I opted to pull back onto the large map. Also, since you do not get AOO and such I think the large map may work better for your long ranges and high speeds.

Still waiting on Atlastic's standard action and Voltage's full round.

I know you guys probably understand my combat tracker but I'll break it down anyway.

Round 3 Current round
31 Oct 2018; 75 degrees, moderate humidity, cool breeze from the SE Date, time, and environmental conditions
Group effects: none More a pathfinder holdover for group affecting spells but still a way to track powers or conditions that are affecting all of the players.
Atlastic 11/12; (standard action remaining)<<< The three arrows signify I am waiting for an action from you. In this case I'm tracking Atlastic still has a standard action remaining
Freefall 7/7; Here I will keep track of your remaining hits, any timed modifiers, and any conditions.
Gust 8/8;
Sigil 7/7;
Voltage 8/8;<<<
Goatman (A) -1; teleported 1 mile above park
Goatman (V) -1 dazed
Imp group (S)
Imp group (G)

Gust had the right idea of it, everyone has 1 Hero Point and if I work in some complications then I'll throw in another one. Other crazy heroics may get you an additional point as well.

Voltage does not have a circle around him (for easy spotting) and players cannot move his token.

Are both people in the same cage?

How big is/are the cage/s?

Where is/are the cage/s on the map?

If only one person in each cage, how many people can each cage hold?

>voltage had a light yellow circle around him so I changed it to purple.

>that toke of voltage has been given to the players.

>the people are each in a small cage much like a shark cage about 10' across. They are near the large Diablo monster. they have been added to the map.

I know you guys probably understand my combat tracker but I'll break it down anyway.

Atlastic 11/12; (standard action remaining)<<< The three arrows signify I am waiting for an action from you. In this case I'm tracking Atlastic still has a standard action remaining
Freefall 7/7; Here I will keep track of your remaining hits, any timed modifiers, and any conditions.

Just for future reference, does the <<< indicate I should go?

Yes, the three arrows indicate that.

Will post by tomorrow but you are welcome to bot me if you need a faster response!

Am tied up with festives gang so please bot Atlastic as needed.

Will try and get something up as/when/if time allows.

rolling all resistance rolls may work at a live table but it is getting a bit tedious on pbp. How about we use 10 as the base defense like the standard game but use 11 as the base resistance for saves and damage. This gives a slight advantage to the attacker regarding damage and effects? Thoughts?

One advantage of using passive DCs, is once we (the players) know a baddie's resistance against the attack strength of our actions and the baddies' resistance against the effect strength of our actions, we can edit our posts to account for our successful and unsuccessful actions.

I suggest using a base of 10 for both defenses. If you want to give the heroes a slight advantage, you could make it that baddies use base of 10 to determine their defense DCs and you use a base of 11 to determine our heroes' defenses against the actions of the baddies.

Using passive defense DCs for both the heroes and baddies will speed up game play (less random dice scripts for everyone to type).

You do not have to wait for us to post defense rolls and we (the players) do not have to wait for you to post defense rolls.

If you are willing to give us the baddies' defenses DCs or modifiers, we could use either the passive defense DCs of the baddies or script the baddies' random defense rolls (slightly longer to type per post, but gives you the playtest you wanted for rolling both the attack side and the defense side of actions) while speeding up gameplay.

rolling all resistance rolls may work at a live table but it is getting a bit tedious on pbp. How about we use 10 as the base defense like the standard game but use 11 as the base resistance for saves and damage. This gives a slight advantage to the attacker regarding damage and effects? Thoughts?

I agree it would help speed play. For ease of remembering, I'd prefer base 10 or base 11 for both. I'd be inclined toward base 11 since we're already favored by the bell curve using 3d6 (which by the way I really like, as I think it is better for a superhero game--superheros usually succeed, but can occasionally fail spectacularly or go above and beyond).

As GM Drake says the alternative is sharing the bad guy's defenses so people know whether they succeeded or not right away and allow them to roll any resistance checks if needed. I do this in Pathfinder PBP: post the HP, AC, and saves, etc. so the PCs know they hit and roll the saving throws so they know the result of an action. I have not felt it "spoils anything" and helps keep things moving.

But in this system probably just a static defense works best.

One important thing to take into consideration if we use passive defenses, is that we are rolling 3d6 (not 1d20) for our attack and effect rolls (which maxes out at a potential DC of overcoming a targets defenses by using a base of 8 (NOT 10) for the passive defense DCs as is the case in 3rd edition.

typical 3rd edition:

A PL 10 hero with a +10/+10 power against a target that has a 29 (or 30) defense in one or both relevant defenses.

The hero meets or beats the resistance DC if they roll a 19 (or 20) on the d20.

Using 3d6 instead of 1d20, the same hero is incapable of landing an effective action on a taget with a 29 or 30 defense.

So, if we swap to using passive DCs, we should use 8 as the base, and not 10 or 11. With heroes (if you want to give a slight advantage to the heroes over the foes), using a base of 9 instead of 8.

@Freefall With respect, the 3d6 is not about the top end but the average. It's about rolling 10.5 +PL more consistently, and make fighting above or below PL much more extreme.

Assuming an 18 is critical, it makes rolling it much more improbable.

Letting PCs use 11. And bad guys use 10 provides a marginal benefit to the PCs.

I think the hard part will be hitting Toughness DCs which are base 15. That extra 4 (14 -11) on attack rolls will make hurting anyone more difficult, because the probability debit is much higher than 25%, which is 5 on d20.

@Jubal (Sigil): With respect, please keep this in mind for future posts:

If I post something that could affect the way we decide to handle the dice generating number method for how we play, there is a good and valid reason that I did so. It will prevent headaches for both of us if you keep this in mind. This applies to any such posts I make, be it for this campaign or other campaigns, as well as for other ttrpg rules sets.

I mentioned the consideration for using 8 for the base (instead of 10 or 11) for passive resistances in case our GM is pulling stats from 3E (or earlier) editions (which were designed with the 1d20 method as the core mechanic, not the 3d6 mechanic of the 4e beta test). As most source material is 3E (or earlier editions), that oversight (if no one caught it) could have had an unexpected negative impact on our gameplay dice rolls while fighting foes with high defense ratings.

There is a significant difference between "You need to roll the highest, or close to highest number(s) possible on the die/dice pool roll to hit the Big Bad", as opposed to "Even if you roll the maximim number result on your attack die/dice pool roll, you can never hit the Big Bad".

There was a very good reason I brought up the observation in the first place.

'marginal benefit' can also be worded as 'slight advantage'. Thanks for echoing my point. :)

You taught me nothing new about the fact that using 3d6 instead of 1d20 weights rolls towards the middle of the bell curve of the number totals generated. As I mentioned, the highest-possible number achieved using 3d6 is 2 less than what is generated on 1d20, which the designers have used for 3e and 2 e (I do not know if 1e was a d20 based game as well).

Using my observation and advice from my earlier post, if our GM decides to go with passive DCs using 10 or 11, he is now aware that if he is using pre 4E resources that he might want to reduce their resistance DCs by 2 to compensate.

Actually, he might want to lower their passive resistance DCs by more than two, considering the bell curve of using 3d6 to generate our attack and effect of our actions.

As can be seen by the numbers generated at the ends of bell curve, rolling a total of 5 or lower on the 3d6 is the closest equivalent of rolling a natural 1 on 1d20; and rolling a 16 or higher on 3d6 is the closest equivalent of rolling a natural 20 on 1d20.

So if we do move to passive resistance DCs, our GM might want to lower the resistance DCs of NPCs (including super villains) from 3E (or earlier editions) stat blocks by 4, so our characters have the (closest to) same chances of rolling a 'natural 20' (highest possible effect against baddies' defenses that can be attained in 3E & 2E) with our attack and effect rolls against such NPC stat blocks.

No, part of my desire to use 3d6 is to remove the ability to fight way above your power level. It’s not about trying to keep the original range but to rein it in a bit. I’ll go with a base 11, every 3 still marks a success or failure. Damage success and failures are per rules in campaign tab.

I was pondering. What about putting all rolls in the hands of the player. So when attacking NPC you would roll both and attack and damage roll. The damage roll would just reverse the successes and failures.

Current Damage effects:
Damage resistance rolls effects: 2 successes No damage, 1 success -1 Toughness, 1 failure -1 Toughness Dazed, 2 failure -2 Toughness Staggered, 3 failures -3 Toughness Incapacitated

Player Damage effects:
Damage inflicting roll effects: 2 failures No damage, 1 failure -1 Toughness, 1 success -1 Toughness Dazed, 2 successes -2 Toughness Staggered, 3 successes -3 Toughness Incapacitated

Remember in the case of damage conditions you get a follow on FOR save to resist.

What do you think?

Creatures engaged so far:
Goatmen Dodge 6 Parry 6 Toughness 10
Imp Dodge 5 Parry 5 Toughness 3

I'm not sure I am following on what you mean by reversing successes and failures. Can you provide an example with what the die rolls look like?

Meant to do that.

Typically: If you, a hero, hits something it makes a resistance save against the strength of your attack.

For example: Voltage blasts a goatman. He hits. Then the goatman would roll a resistance check against the strength of the attack (10) plus 11 for a total of 21.

goatman Tough: 3d6 + 10 ⇒ (1, 1, 4) + 10 = 16

using my damage categories we see the beast has 1 failure which is -1 Toughness and it must make a Dazed check.
Damage resistance rolls effects: 2 successes No damage, 1 success -1 Toughness, 1 failure -1 Toughness Dazed, 2 failure -2 Toughness Staggered, 3 failures -3 Toughness Incapacitated

If we flip it:

After Voltage hits, he then rolls to damage the goatman who gets a Toughness resistance of his Toughness (10) plus the base of 11.

Voltage blast: 3d6 + 10 ⇒ (3, 6, 2) + 10 = 21

Comparing to the flipped categories, Voltage gets 1 success which is -1 Toughness and forces a Dazed Saving Throw.
Damage inflicting roll effects: 2 failures No damage, 1 failure -1 Toughness, 1 success -1 Toughness Dazed, 2 successes -2 Toughness Staggered, 3 successes -3 Toughness Incapacitated

The advantage for pbp gameplay is the player rolls both so you know if you injured the beast.

edit: When I previewed this post, I saw that our GM had posted while I was typing this up.

I need the baddies' Will Defense scores for Freefall's Teleport Attack.

Are the following examples correct?

Example 1:

Gust uses Kaikias the Blasting Wind (+10/+10) against one of the imps.

DQ (Gust) does the following:

Kaikias the Blasting Wind attack: 3d6 + 10 ⇒ (5, 4, 1) + 10 = 20 vs DC 16 (base 5 + 11)

He previews post to see if his attack roll was successful, if it was not, he adds the flavor of the missed attack. If it was successful, he then scripts for the effect roll. In this example, the 20 succeeds by the DC by 4. Question: Does getting extra successes on the attack roll affect the successes of the effect roll?

Kaikias the Blasting Wind effect: 3d6 + 10 ⇒ (4, 3, 3) + 10 = 20 vs DC 14 (base 3 + 11)

In this example, the effect roll exceeded the DC by 6, netting 3 successes. The imp loses all 3 of its 3 Toughness Hits (hit points) and becomes incapacitiated (unconscious).

Example 2:

BD (Atlastic) does the following:

Atlastic does his Big Finish against a goatman.

Big Finish attack: 3d6 + 10 ⇒ (4, 6, 5) + 10 = 25 vs DC 17 (base 6 + 11)

He previews to see if his attack was successful. If it was not successful, he then adds flavor of the missed attack. If it was successful, he then scripts for the effect roll. In this example, the 25 exceeds the DC by 8 (with 3 successes). See question in example 1 regarding if extra successes on attack roll affects successes of the effect roll.

He succeeds, and his total of 12 on the 3d6 dice pool roll does not trigger the Improved Critical of his Big Finish (which would have had a +5 bonus on the effect roll in Atlastic's favor).

Big Finish effect: 3d6 + 10 ⇒ (5, 3, 4) + 10 = 22 vs DC 21 (base 10 + 11)

He scores 1 success on the effect roll, so the goatman loses 1 of its Toughness Hits (hit points) and gains the dazed condtion.

The above was using passive defenses (using 11 as base).

See spoiler below regarding how ranks of Improved Critical convert to 3d6 dice method (keeping the closest equivalent odds the advantage has in d20 dice method).

@GM Drake: Yes.

Thank you. So successes and failures are short for what the game calls degrees of success, e.g. 1 degree for every factor of 5 beyond the DC.

And damage effect DCs will also be 11+rank, not 15+rank?

I'll stay out of the odds discussions. My English major ass can understand things enough to edit scientific peer reviews talking about p values, but somehow the dice mechanic talk quickly goes over my head. Probably because I distrust dice to actually follow probability anyway... ;)

@Ironperenti In the M&M 3e Toughness resistance is base 15 vs Fort and Will which are DC 10. This differential essentially provides one degree of extra success for the Fort & Will attacks compared to an equivalent Toughness attack, with equivalent power effects.

Will you maintain the Toughness differential? If you do, the DC of the Toughness resistances should be 3 higher than Fort and Will.

Will you make Critical hit rolls of 16 or higher, as Drake has outlined above?

It would be good to update your Campaign tab to remind us of the house rules.

Thanks

I Have them updated with the 11 base.

I plan to stick with the 11 base because if you notice, a single degree of success or if we flip it a single degree of failure to injure your target will still cause 1 toughness damage.

Criticals right now will be on an 18 unless you purchase improved critical. I have more of a Champions background with supers and I feel the d20 gives lower powered supers too much ability to injure those I do not think they should be able to and/or to hit those relatively easily I do not think they should be able to. I think the 3d6 will greatly minimize that. I have also thought about using an exploding d10 or even a d12 but we'll play with that later if you guys can stick with crazy me long enough.

So, if no one has an issue with it, I'll put damage in the hands of the players. Flipping the damage chart now.

> roll 3d6 not 1d20

> All opposed rolls use a base of 11.
> Levels of failure/success calculated every 3 not 5
> Toughness is decremented as remaining hits of consciousness but is not reduced for resistance checks.
> Damage resistance rolls effects: 2 successes No damage, 1 success -1 Toughness, 1 failure -1 Toughness Dazed, 2 failure -2 Toughness Staggered, 3 failures -3 Toughness Incapacitated
> Damage effects get a FOR save to avoid
>Skill rank limit is power level + 3 ranks. No limit on over all skill roll. For instance: a PL 10 character could have 13 ranks of acrobatics with a 7 Agility for a total of 20 on Acrobatics.
>Recover can be taken multiple times in a combat but you are at -5 to your active defenses and if hit or forced to move more than 5' you lose the recovery.

Test rules now reflect:

Damage inflicting roll effects: 2 failures No damage, 1 failure -1 Toughness, 1 success -1 Toughness Dazed, 2 successes -2 Toughness Staggered, 3 successes -3 Toughness Incapacitated

edit: Our GM posted while I was typing this up.

@GM: You will see if using 16 or higher for critical threats, and needing to roll the DC required to inflict 1 Toughness hit point to confirm the critical hit, means that an attacker with an effect modifier that is equal to the target's toughness modifier (using base of 14 DC to inflict damage, as DC 14 is 1 degree of success higher than baseline of 11 for resistance DCs against attack rolls), that an attacker that has an effect modifier that is equal to the Toughness 'modiifer' of the target, only nets a critical hit 1.736111111 % of time (and is the ONLY way for such evenly matched offensive ranks (attacker) and defensive ranks (target) for the target to gain the Incapacitiated condition (working with them having enough Toughness hit points remaining before the critical hit that the loss of Toughness hit points from a non-critical hit would not incapaciate them).

Using only natural 18 on the 3d6 dice roll to be critical hits (with no confirmation rolls required) would result in it taking an average of 10.8 attacks to gain the same probabilty of rolling a natural 20 on a single 1d20 roll.

Adding in (after seeing GM's post) to account for only 18 on the 3d6 dice roll to be a critical threat (with confirmation roll needed, using DC to cause 1 Toughness hit point to the target): 0.1736111111 % (111 repeating) chance of such evenly matched opponents for the attacker to score a critical hit and the target gaining the Incapacitated condition. That is 1 in 576 odds of such evenly matched opponents actually getting a critical hit on each other.

@DQ: In 4E beta rules, every 3 points in difference from the DC is an extra degree of success/failure, not 5 point as it is in 3E.

With using 11 as the base to figure out resistance save DCs, it will simulate using 10 as the base with defenders winning ties. With DC baseline of 11, it makes the attack/effect roll a 'exceed the DC' instead of a 'meet or beat' the DC to gain 1 degree of success.

I like using 11 as a the base, as when the 'active'/'attack' ranks being the same as the resistance ranks, the one taking the action needs to roll 11 or higher (the top 50%) with the 3d6 rolls.

Since using 16 or higher on the 3d6 dice roll being a critical threat, even using the lowest DC (enough to inflict 1 Toughness hit point) to confirm a critical hit, means that two evenly matched effective modifier of attacker and Toughness modifier of defender, only scores a critical hit 1.736111111 % of the time.

With that in mind, unless the GM wants critical hits (without the Improved Critical advantage) only happening 2% (rounded off) of the time between two evenly between a stong guy with effect ranks against tough guy with toughness that are equal to each other), I suggest making rolling 16 or higher on the 3d6 dice roll an automatic critical hit without any confirmation rolls needed.

Note: By keeping confirmation roll needed (with DC 12 baseline confirmation roll), it effectively makes needing effect modifiers to be at least be equal to the toughness modifier of the target for an an attack between to evenly matched opponents to land an incapicating 'punch'.

Jimmy Olsen will never be able to score a critical punch on Superman, if critical confirmation rolls are needed. If they are not needed, then Jimmy (punch effect modifier +0, Luck advantage) still could not score a critical hit (working with Clark being Clark or not moving out of the way as Jimmy punches at Superman to let out stress, knowing he will never hurt his super pal), as Superman has (Protection 4, Impervious Toughness 18).

I have also thought about using an exploding d10 or even a d12 but we'll play with that later if you guys can stick with crazy me long enough.

Sounds fun. I plan on sticking around with 'crazy' you long enough to see how that works out for our gameplay.

One of my pet peeves as a GM of many years are players who rush to make use of content from brand new source books but think that GMs should not also be able to change the rules being used for the campaign to incorporate new rules introduced in the very same new sourcebooks. In my experience, those players are also the ones mostly like to habitually 'fudge' their dice rolls (attempting to use their hand to block other players and the GM from seeing the die roll and quickly picking the die up, thinking no one saw their blatant cheating) and lying about the number they rolled.

two evenly matched individuals at a 10atk/10effect will hit each other every other round with damage occurring every hit. This means with a 10 toughness they will go down in 20 rounds or less. Very seldom, unless it is a plot device, do you see a hero go down from one incapacitating blow. I would like to get it down to 5 hits or 10 rounds on average but I am loathe to make the 1st degree of failure a -2 toughness blow. I have considered making the damage per failure based on the Str of the attack so that you cause 1 per 5 of effect rank. This means regular people will take each other out in 5 or fewer hits and superman would take himself out in 5 or fewer hits.

In an evenly matched fight there would be no need for a Crit confirmation as a roll of 18 (2.16% chance) would easily hit an equal opponent. So, I'm good with a 2% chance of a critical. I'd prefer damage be more planned so that you are forced to go power attack (-1/+1 untrained -3/+3 with feat).

We'll try this particular layout through this battle and have a discussion about tweaks then.

In an evenly matched fight there would be no need for a Crit confirmation as a roll of 18 (2.16% chance) would easily hit an equal opponent. So, I'm good with a 2% chance of a critical. I'd prefer damage be more planned so that you are forced to go power attack (-1/+1 untrained -3/+3 with feat).

OCD observation: 18 on 3d6 is not a 2.16% chance. It is a 1 in 216 chance, which is a 0.4629629 % (with the 629 repeating).

One of my personality quirks/perks/flaws is correcting friends and family members when they state something that is factually (not opinion-based) incorrect, so to prevent the probability of them coming off later in life as not being very bright to observers who know that such 'facts' they are uttering are flat-out incorrect when repeating the same incorrect info as 'facts'.

That is if they listen to me and choose to learn from me regarding the subject manner.

Some do, and appreciate my counsel. Some simply become annoyed at me for informing them the 'fact' they thought was a legitimate fact actually is not. I think part of why they might become annoyed is that my words make them realize what they stated as a 'fact' is something an uneducated/not very bright person would deduce as 'fact' (and instead of allowing themselves to be humbled when it makes them realize they just made themselves look like a fool, direct resentment towards me for voicing my observation that pointed out what they just said is incorrect).

My intent is not to make them feel stupid, it is to educate them with the correct fact.

My intent is so that they do not make themselves come off as being stupid in front of strangers (such as when someone on a city bus says an incorrect 'fact' as a fact and the majority of the people on the bus know that the person is blatantly incorrect about what he thinks is factually correct when it is not, and thus the other passengers on the bus view the person as not being very bright.

I hope no offense was taken, Ironperenti.

If you want close to 2% chance of scoring a critical hit between two evenly-matched combatants, without needing a confirmation roll, then I suggest rolling a 17 or 18 on the 3d6 roll being a critical hit, which is a 4 in 216 chance, which in percentage format is a 1.851851 % (with the 851 repeating) chance to score a critical hit against someone whose defense stat is evenly matched against the attack strength of the attack.

I made a mathematical error in my previous post regarding calculating the DCs for damage effect rolls against the defender's Toughness, as I increased the DC for the attacker to damage the target, but that should have been lowering the DC by one degree for the attacker (which is the equivalent of increasing the DC for the Toughness save if the defender made the roll).

@Ironperenti, if you would like me to, I can figure out the correct probabilities for using DC 11 as the baseline for Toughness saves (from the attacker's perspective probability) and/or using the baseline Toughness saves which uses a Toughness DC that is one degree higher for the defender (DC 14), which from the attacker's perspective would be one degree lower (DC 8).

The reason I increased (instead of decreasing like I should have, as noted above in this post) the DC for Damage effect rolls to a baseline of 14 (instead of 11) is because in 3E the DC for Toughness saves has DC that is one degree of success (5 points in 3E, which is 3 points in the 4E beta test) higher than the DC for other defenses.

no, i knew it was 1 in 216, i just jacked it up when I wrote it down.

I don't think the DC14 idea needs to be used because I essentially include that when a single level of failure still causes damage. It takes 2 failures to cause 0 damage.

Happy New Year everyone!

Just catching up - not going to lie all the maths & ramifications is making my head hurt lol - will just try and roll with it, but correct me as/when/if I go into standard M&M autopilot.

Sure there are some great working examples being showcased but big walls of numbers and data just shut some part of me down, as I said I'll try and snag the jist of it all.

Happy New Year to you (and everyone) as well.

While looking at Atlastic's profile to see if he got the numbers of his rolls right, (still waking up, so might find the answer after I make a coffee and it starts to take effect).

Atlastic's Rubbery Punch used a +10 attack modifier, with a +10 effect modifier (DC 21 for goatman's Tougness save).

Atlastic's baseline attack/effect for punches is:

attack +10 (Close Combat (malleables) +10
effect +8 (Strength score)

Unarmed Attack (Close): +10 to hit, Damage 8 (STR), Reach 120ft.

What am I missing that makes the rubbery punch effect become 10 (without lowering the attack modifier)?

Are his rubbery punches applying the power attack? Lowering the attack modifier to +8 would make the damage strength 10.

edit: Was his rubbery punch Big Finish?

Big Finish (Close): +10 to hit, Damage 10 (STR-based), Crit 17-20

Big Finish: Damage 2 (Strength-based), Improved Critical 3, Limited to 1/encounter

Nah was just normal damage my bad - normal punch - STR 8. So DC 19 vs Toughness.

Can't even read my own Character's Profile lol!

Have to say the degrees of success on an attack roll are baffling me - are the degrees not just applied to damage/effect rather than on the delivery/attack?

Eg - attack - hit or miss, damage (on a hit - vs opponents toughness)

Some powers I think might look at degrees of success on the attack roll (not sure), but for baseline damaging powers, I think it is all or nothing result for the attack roll (by 3E default rules (I think) and I do not have a copy of the 4e beta test rules).

Unless Ironperenti wants us to treat extra degrees on an attack rolls (for damaging effects) (that do not already have different effects for different degrees of success for the attack roll) as adding extra levels of success/failures to the effect/resistance rolls.

If so, there should be results for scoring more than the same number of degrees of failure on the attack rolls (that have effects that are not all or nothing, such as baseline 'punch and damage, as opposed to effects that are 'all or nothing', such as Teleport Attack.

A potential group rule could be:

For attacks that result in Toughness saves to determine the number of Toughness hit points a target loses (and which conditions they gain).

In summary, if treating every 3 levels of success on the attack roll (of a damaging effect), the number of degrees of success of the target's Toughness save is reduced by 1 degree. Failing the attack check by 3 degrees of success would cause the attacker to gain the Dazed condition. Failing the attack check by 6 degrees of failure would cause the attacker to gain the Staggered condition.

Atlastic could never daze (or stagger) himself simply trading punches with a goatman.

Freefall (attack +0 with basic punch) would need to roll a 17 on the dice pool to hit the goatman (in a way that might hurt it), and if Freefall rolls a 8 or less on the attack roll, he causes himself to become Dazed (he tried to hit a 'brick wall' with his bare hand - trust me, that can daze a person.) Freefall could never cause himself to become staggered trying to hit a goatman (as that would require him rolling a 0 on the 3d6 dice pool). But someone with a Fighting rank of -3 and no ranks in Close Combat could stagger themselves trying to hit a goatman (if they roll a 3 on the dice pool).

Now, for the thematics, average (or lacking) fighting skill baddies could wind up dazing themselves by trying to hit Atlastic. :) if we make it so extra degrees of success/failure on attack checks (of damaging effects) can affect how effective the successful hit is (or how off-kilter the attack made the attacker if failed with 3 or more degrees of failure).

Apologies for the repetitiveness. Only got about half a night's sleep.

For every 3 degrees of success an attack gains on an attack roll (of damaging effect): Target reduces degrees of success of Toughness check by 1 degree.

For every 3 degrees of failure that an attacker gains on an attack roll (of a damaging effect) he gains a condition depending on how many degrees of failure he gaines on the attack roll: 3 degrees of failiure (Dazed), 6 degrees of failure (Staggered).

The Dazed/Staggered condition the attacker gains works for close combat. For ranged attacks, not so much.

I don't think the to hit should have an effect on the damage unless you get a critical. The game takes into account the ability for an accurate character to inflict more damage than normal using the power attack option.

I've played a couple systems that gave damage bonuses based on how well you hit such as the old Mayfair DC game, Basic D&D, and the Witcher. I wasn't planning to go there for this one though.

Folks, I'm gonna be bowing out of this. Gust will stick around to the end of this fight, but I'll leave the game after this. I'm struggling a bit with the format and the degree of mechanics analysis; it's just not quite my speed (which, to be clear, is slower than y'all). Awesome to play with you all for the time I have.

And happy new year by the way!

Happy New Year to everyone as well.

Hoping you change your mind and stick around. The mechanics analysis is done.

oops, I speeded up the departure, didn't read this first. I think it will work fine though unless you want to finish out the fight.

@Freefall: would you add a pic of some sort to your profile? It will make it easier to differentiate when I'm going through character actions. Thanks.

Okay.

awesome

oops, I speeded up the departure, didn't read this first. I think it will work fine though unless you want to finish out the fight.

No worries, I mainly wanted to stay through the fight so it wasn't messing up your own plans, so if this works for you, this works for me.

@Freefall, thanks, but the other issue is having to use Roll20 is slowing down my ability to post. I also presume that as Ironperenti wants to test various rules, things may change as the game progresses. I'd rather focus on my other games that I find a little easier to play. And truth be told I'm also planning to run a PBP and it won't hurt to have fewer games I'm a player in to allow me to focus on that.

I'll circle back if I change my mind--giving fair warning of course.

Take care all and I'm sure I'll see you around the boards!