Elric's 3e Builds: D&D-inspired Angel, Huitzilopochtli

Please, tell us about your character! This section is custom-made just for your heroes (or villains) to hang out in and strut their stuff.
User avatar
Elric
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4774
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 11:32 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Elric's 3e Builds: D&D-inspired Angel, Huitzilopochtli

Postby Elric » Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:32 pm

Hi everyone,
Here's my thread for 3e builds (my 2e thread). Most builds are built on the recommended 15 pp/PL and would be balanced PCs (if a build wouldn't be a balanced PC, I will mention it).

If you want to use any of these builds (or modified versions thereof) as PCs or NPCs, go right ahead! No need to ask, my builds are there to be used. Comments welcome and appreciated.

DC Conversions
Batman (PL 12, 210 pp)
John Constantine (PL 8, 120 pp)
Martian Manhunter (PL 14, 210 pp)
Wonder Woman (PL 14, 210 pp)

Marvel Conversions
Beast (PL 10, 150 pp)
Black Panther (PL 12, 180 pp)
Captain America (PL 12, 180 pp)
Daredevil (PL 10, 150 pp)
Deadpool (PL 10, 150 pp)
Gambit (PL 10, 150 pp)
Iron Fist (PL 10, 150 pp) (a good Generic Martial Artist build)
Iron Man (PL 12, 180 pp)
Juggernaut NPC (PL 12, 180 pp)
Luke Cage (PL 9, 135 pp)
Nick Fury (PL 10, 150 pp)
Nightcrawler (PL 10, 150 pp)
Spider-Man (PL 10, 150 pp)
Thing, the (PL 10, 150 pp)
Wolverine (PL 10, 150 pp)

Other Conversions
Jason Bourne (PL 8, 120 pp)

Original Builds
American Eagle (PL 10, 150 pp Bird Totem)
Angel (Generic) (PL 11, 165 pp D&D-inspired Angel)
Glory Hound (PL 10, 150 pp Demonic Pomeranian man-dog)
Huitzilopochtli (PL 10, 150 pp Aztec God of Sun and War- Thor analogue)
Johnny Nitro (PL 10, 150 pp Acrobatic Brick, inspired by the pro wrestler of the same name)
Pugilist, the (PL 8, 120 pp)
Pugilist, the (PL 10, 150 pp)
Terrific Terrapin, the (PL 10, 150 pp) anthropomorphic turtle super-heroine.

General Resources
What's an appropriate/challenging fight for your characters? This is a system along these lines originally meant for 2e, and a discussion of issues that can arise.
Paragon's update to his excellent 2e thread on balance issues in the PL system.
My explanation of the difference in Power Level as it applies to PCs and NPCs.
My suggested 3e house rules
A list of how much heavy things weigh.
How to do a damage roll option in 3e.
If you roll a dN (N-sided die) n times, and take the highest result what's the average?

Combat calculations/simulations (with graphs!)
Average attacks to incapacitate defender (no hero points)
Your chance to win fight (mainly characters of the same PL with different tradeoffs, plus a bit on characters at different PLs; no hero points).

Notes: For conversions, I'm trying to create builds that are fun to play, which involves getting the feel right and making sure that the character is appropriately powerful. I'll re-envision a character as necessary to end up at 15 pp/PL. I'm not aiming for the most accurate or up to date conversion.

I have an extensive index of thoughts on 3e, including potential problems (the high cost of skills and Impervious chief among them). This thread is going by rules as written, but see my suggested house rules. If a character seems to be missing a deserved skill, or only has a few ranks in it, it's probably a result of skills being expensive.

My builds note any elements that I have imported/invented. A list of all such elements.

When I list a character's slots in an array (a collection of Alternate Effects, each denoted with a •), I'll list the cost of that slot to the character (1 point if it's not dynamic), and then the cost of the powers in that slot in parenthesis.

Note that any character with +5 Athletics (this includes any character with 5 Strength or higher) can make the DC 15 Athletics check to run as a routine check, increasing their ground speed by 1 rank compared to that listed, while not under pressure. Using two actions to move twice only applies during action rounds, as explained by a designer; it's meant as a speed only sustainable for short periods.

Batman with 10 Will? You may notice that my DC builds have lower Fort/Will than their counterparts in the Hero’s Handbook. Though DCA’s hero archetypes, heroes, and villains all have high Will (averaging around their PL), I think that Will should typically be lower for two reasons: first, maxing Fort/Will to PL will likely make Damage forcing Toughness checks more effective relative to Affliction causing Fort/Will checks than it ought to be. Second, Mind Control and related mental powers have been scaled back in 3e compared to 2e M&M, but in the source material heroes tend to be vulnerable to them in a way that belies their current high Will scores.
Last edited by Elric on Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:32 pm, edited 74 times in total.
3e Builds, 2e Builds, Index of 2e Official Rules Answers & General Resources (includes character creation and fight examples)

User avatar
Elric
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4774
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 11:32 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Elric's 3e Builds

Postby Elric » Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:32 pm

Things I've imported/invented that are used in these builds, in alphabetical order:

Directed: an invented +1 extra, not used yet but meant to simulate something like a Rocket Launcher. Applied to an Area attack: you get an attack roll against each target in the area of effect (the total of your attack roll/Effect rank for the area effect is limited to twice your PL, in addition to the PL limit on the Area attack Effect rank). If the attack roll hits, the target does not get a Dodge resistance check for half effect.

You can flaw the Directed extra with Limited [only to one target in the area], in which case it costs 1 point per 2 ranks in the extra by the Fractional cost rules. This is how Steve says to flaw an extra in 2e: by applying the fractional cost rules to it (for example, have Impervious Protection where the Impervious only applies against energy damage)?

I grant that this construction makes the most sense for something like a Rocket Launcher where would be reasonable to have that one target be at the center of the Area effect, but not all area effects would have a similarly intuitive center, so I haven't added that as a restriction. You will not see me use Partial Area extras (pg 124, DCA) because I find the construction imbalanced and poorly designed.

Restricted:
There is no Restricted modifier for Devices analogous to that in 2e, so I'm importing it (Iron Man's Armor is an example). Just like Indestructible, it subtracts 1 from the point reduction you get from Removable and means that your device is Restricted in who can use it (but not completely restricted to you).

For 1 point it might be that either anyone besides you is limited in what the Device does for them, or that there's a requirement to be able to use the device at all.
For 2 points, the device is restricted to only being used by you.

If you have either one of the restricted in who can use it versions of Restricted above, for 1 additional point (i.e., 1 fewer point reduction in the discount from Removable) your device can't even be picked up unless the person picking it up meets the requirements to use it.

Signal Flares
are a 1 point equipment item imported from 2e’s Agents of Freedom book. Signal Flare Gun: This gun can fire a brightly glowing flare into the air. Anyone within a mile can spot the flare with a DC 10 Perception check.

Targeted Area is imported from 2e book Ultimate Power. One example is Captain America's Area Shield Throw. It's the same +1 extra as a "General Area."

Targeted Area: The attacker makes a single attack roll for the effect, comparing the result to the Dodge defense if Ranged (Parry defense if Close) of each potential target in the area, meaning the effect may hit some and miss others. The targets hit by the attack receive the normal resistance check against it, but do not get a Dodge resistance check to halve the effect, unlike general area effects. The Evasion feat does not apply to targeted area effects, since they do not allow a Dodge resistance check. Attack and Save DC "trade-offs" (and Power Attack and related feats/maneuvers) apply to targeted area effects, since they require an attack roll. You cannot critical hit with a targeted area.

Ultimate Defense is a fortune Advantage I invented, but it’s really just Luck Control 1 (Force Rerolls; Limited 2 [only attack rolls, only rolls against you]) (1 point). One character who has it is Spider Man.
Ultimate Defense: After an opponent rolls an attack roll against you and hits (but before you resolve the effects of the attack), you may spend a hero point to force that opponent to reroll the attack roll, taking the worse of the two rolls.
Last edited by Elric on Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:14 pm, edited 21 times in total.
3e Builds, 2e Builds, Index of 2e Official Rules Answers & General Resources (includes character creation and fight examples)

User avatar
Elric
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4774
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 11:32 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Elric's 3e Builds: Spiderman PC!

Postby Elric » Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:22 pm

M&M 3e House Rules I recommend using :

Impervious
1. Impervious is run as in 2e. Specifically, Impervious k makes a character immune to all effects of rank below k, rather than all effects less than or equal to rank k/2, round up (as the rule works as written in 3e).

A GM should be wary about allowing Impervious more than PL+2 (for a more conservative approach, simply limit Impervious to being <=PL, as Taliesin recommends in combination with the above change).

Relevant justification:
3e's change to Impervious seems quite bad; it wasn't a serious problem in 2e M&M. If characters with Impervious above PL were a problem in 2e, the easiest solution would be to either hard-limit (or warn GMs about accepting) Impervious that exceeds a character's PL. 3e Impervious works particularly badly at higher PLs.

Note that extreme Toughness shifts are a problem even without Impervious. There was an incorrect perception of 2e Impervious Toughness near or slightly above PL as a serious issue; it was the rules issue that people new to the game commonly had, but wasn't really a problem in practice. The built in +-2 Power Attack alone should make Impervious less powerful in 3e.

Making skills cheaper

2. Non-combat skills are cheaper! "Close combat" and "Ranged combat" are combat skills; all other skills are non-combat skills.

a) Skills cost 1 pp for 3 skill ranks for non-combat skills. It's still 1 pp for 2 skill ranks for combat skills. List them separately to make totaling costs easy.

b) Add 1.5 times your ability rank to (non-combat) skills, round down. Except Presence, add twice your Presence rank to skills. For example, a character with Awareness 3 and Presence 3 and no skill ranks would have Perception (+4) and Intimidation (+6).

Corner case: if ability bonuses to skills would put you above the PL+10 limit for skills, you can still take the ability, the skills just caps at PL+10.

Corollary: The Attractive feat gives a +3 (+6) circumstance bonus at 1 (2) ranks. This is to balance it against the cheaper cost of skills.

Pros: Makes non-combat skills cheaper. Requires small amounts of bookkeeping changes. Re-balances attributes to correspond to the change in the cost of skills. Further balances Presence against skill ranks. Book-keeping will be a little more difficult. Relevant justification:

Skills (my prior concerns on changing the cost to 2 skill points per pp instead of 4:1 as it was in 2e). Another Roll Call authority, Taliesin, agrees about skills being too expensive.

The number of skills taken by costumed adventurers, a comparison of 2e and 3e. This suggests that for costumed adventurers' in practice, the skill list hasn't narrowed much. At a glance, 3e archetypes spend more points on skills. The skill list has consolidated little for some of the most taken skills, and these skills were not appreciably too cheap in 2e (where it was 4 skill points for 1 pp). Thus, 3:1 for non-combat skills seems justified as a house rule.

The lower total PL limit for skills should not justify an increase in skill costs as few characters came close to the theoretical limit in 2e. Skills could get a little high relative to DCs in 2e in extreme, and uncommon, cases, but this is a justification for the lower cap, not for an increase in cost.

3. Language is a (non-combat) skill, not an Advantage. It costs 1 skill rank for proficiency in each language.

Languages (changed to an Advantage, but far too expensive for few languages). Another Roll Call authority, Taliesin, agrees that Languages are too expensive; I find my solution is simpler, though some extreme polyglots are handled better by his.

Minions
4. Minions without the appropriate feat cannot use the Accurate Attack, All-Out Attack, Defensive Attack, or Power Attack maneuvers. Minions with the appropriate feat can use the maneuvers in the same way as non-minions with that feat.

Reasoning is that minions would almost always want to All-Out Attack, and Power Attack can cause problems with Impervious.

5. Takedown advantage: Minions seem appreciably more fragile due to Takedown 2 advantage being so powerful in the hands of the right character.

Add to Takedown, "You cannot gain more additional attacks with Takedown than the (unmodified) attack bonus of your original attack."

That sentence makes Takedown, particularly Takedown 2, much more reasonable and actually gives Costumed Adventurer types an advantage owing to their attack tradeoff, which isn't usually the case. By "unmodified" I mean attack bonus only including permanent modifiers (e.g., All Out Attack or a bonus from Teamwork don't count).

6. Let character advance at Quarter or Half PLs. Advancing a character an entire PL at a time is often too much. Here's my recommendation for advancing more gradually (2e, but the port to 3e is clear).
Last edited by Elric on Mon Nov 04, 2013 9:13 pm, edited 21 times in total.
3e Builds, 2e Builds, Index of 2e Official Rules Answers & General Resources (includes character creation and fight examples)

User avatar
Elric
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4774
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 11:32 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Elric's 3e Builds: Spiderman PC!

Postby Elric » Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:22 pm

Image

Spider-Man

Power Level 10 (150 pp)

Abilities: Strength 8, Stamina 7, Agility 12, Dexterity 2, Fighting 2, Intellect 4, Awareness 1, Presence -1

Powers:
Spider-Movement: Movement 2 (Wall-Crawling 2); Speed 1 (60 feet per move action) • 5 points
Spider-Senses: Enhanced Advantages (Ultimate Defense, Uncanny Dodge), Senses 1 (Danger Sense [mental]) • 3 points
Web-Shooters: 30 points, Removable (–6 points) • 24 points total
    Web Ball: Snare 8, Split • 25 points
    • Web Throw: Move Object 8 • 1 point (24)
    Web Swing: Movement 1 (Swinging), Speed 4 [limited to Swinging] (total: 900 feet per move action) • 4 points
Equipment: Camera: Feature 1 • 1 point, Flashlight: Feature 1 (Illumination) • 1 point, Spider-Tracers: Feature 1 (Tracking) • 1 point

Advantages: Agile Feint, Defensive Attack, Equipment, Evasion 2, Move-by Action, Taunt, Ultimate Defense, Uncanny Dodge

Skills: Acrobatics 8 (+20), Close Combat: Unarmed 10 (+12), Deception 13 (+12), Expertise: Science 1 (+5), Investigation 1 (+5), Perception 4 (+5), Ranged Combat: Web-Shooters 10 (+12), Technology 1 (+5)

Offense: Initiative +12; Unarmed +12, Close, Damage 8; Web-Shooters +12, Ranged, Affliction 8 or Move Object 8

Defense: Dodge 13, Parry 13, Toughness 7, Fortitude 7, Will 6

Complications: Enemy: Extensive rogues gallery. Power Loss: Many storylines involve Spider-Man losing his powers. Peter Parker loses all powers and has Str and Sta 1, Agi 2, and Parry reduced to 2. Reputation: Smeared by J. Jonah Jameson. Responsibility: Comes with great power. Secret Identity: Peter Parker, photographer for the Daily Bugle.

Abilities 70 + Powers 32 + Advantages 7 + Skills 24 + Defenses 17 (1 Dodge, 11 Parry, 5 Will) = 150

Notes: My first 3e build, Spider-Man as a PL 10, 150 pp PC. This is primarily based on Taliesin’s build, modified to 150 pp. Think of this as starting out Spider-Man—thus the low Presence and lack of technical skill. With his web-shooters, he can swing 60 miles in an hour (note that outside of action rounds, he can't double-move to go faster than this). His Strength lets him lift 6 tons.

Ultimate Defense is a fortune Advantage I invented; just Luck Control 1 (Force Rerolls; Limited 2 [only attack rolls, only rolls against you]) (1 point).
Ultimate Defense: After an opponent rolls an attack roll against you and hits (but before you resolve the effects of the attack), you may spend a hero point to force that opponent to reroll the attack roll, taking the worse of the two rolls.
Last edited by Elric on Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:09 am, edited 7 times in total.
3e Builds, 2e Builds, Index of 2e Official Rules Answers & General Resources (includes character creation and fight examples)

User avatar
Elric
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4774
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 11:32 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Elric's 3e Builds: Spiderman PC!

Postby Elric » Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:26 pm

Image

Here's a graph about 3rd edition combat. The y-axis is calculation (500,000 simulations) of the average attacks to incapacitate a defender, as we vary both the attacker's relative attack tradeoff (the x-axis) and the attacker’s PL relative to the defender (the color of the points on the graph). Think of 0 on the x-axis as a "vanilla" (equal Atk/Dmg) attacker versus a "vanilla" (equal Dodge/Parry/Toughness) defender, then 1 on the x-axis changes the attacker by +1 Atk/-1 Dmg, and so on.

Attackers use just damage, and I haven’t included hero points. Throughout, I'll use "defense bonus" to mean Dodge/Parry bonus, which are assumed to be identical as both are limited to the same amount by Toughness. The linear nature of M&M means that I performed one calculation, which is accurate at any PL. I've assumed that the defender doesn't make use of the once a combat "Recover" action.

Note: relative attack tradeoff means that you take the attacker’s attack tradeoff (where a negative number denotes a damage tradeoff) and subtract the defender’s defense tradeoff (where a negative number denotes a Toughness tradeoff). The term tradeoff should be very familiar to those who played 2e.

Formally, an attack tradeoff is (Attack bonus-Effect rank)/2; a defense tradeoff is (defense bonus - Toughness)/2. So 4 relative attack tradeoff could be an attacker with +14 attack/6 damage and a defender with +10 defense/+10 Toughness, or it could be an attacker with +10 attack/10 damage and a defender with +6 defense/+14 Toughness, and so on. PL is (Attack bonus + Effect rank)/2 for the attacker and (Defense bonus + Toughness bonus)/2 for the defender.

The x-axis has damage-shifted attackers on the left, and attack-shifted attackers on the right. This is relative to the defender's Defense/Toughness tradeoff. For example, if the defender has +12 Defense, +8 Toughness then 0 on the x-axis represents a +12 Attack, 8 Damage attacker; -4 on the x-axis represents an +8 Attack, 12 Damage attacker, and so on.

The average attacks to KO the defender at the same PL with "0 relative attack tradeoffs" (e.g., no tradeoffs), is 10.1. Note that if you have two at-same PL, no tradeoff characters fighting, the combat ends when either one knocks the other out. That happens more quickly than 10 rounds on average. The average combat between these two characters would last about 7 rounds.

You can see with an even PL attacker and defender, the attacker being 3-4 points more damage-shifted than the defender is Toughness-shifted minimizes the average attacks to incapacitate the defender.

Note that had I given the defender 1-2 hero points to reroll (badly) failed Toughness saves with, this would make the optimal shift somewhat less skewed towards damage, as hero points are particularly valuable to avoid quick KOs from high damage attackers, but the shift that minimizes average attacks to KO would probably still be a 2-3 point relative damage shift (I base this intuition on my 2e results).

You can see how much being attack-shifted penalizes you relative to a change in PLs- an attacker with the 6 points relative attack shift at an even PL to the defender KOs that defender in more average attacks than an attacker 2 PLs below the defender, but with an even relative attack-shift. Here's the intuition for why relative attack shifts are bad, as you can see in these results (this is a 2e case, but the principles are analogous in 3e). Of course, defense also helps against some attacks that force Fortitude/Will resistance checks.

Unlike 2e, 3e damage doesn’t result in a character losing half their defenses bonus due to 2e Stunned. This makes Toughness tradeoffs comparatively weaker and Defense-tradeoffs comparatively stronger in fights with multiple combatants (there's no need for a separate multiple attackers case like I had in 2e where characters typically couldn't take advantage of lowered defenses from their own stunned conditions because the stun would wear off at the start of their next turn).

In a combat that's already 1-1, the relative balance of these tradeoffs should be similar, though slightly further shifted towards Toughness-shifted defenders and damage-shifted attackers being better than in 2e, due to the "fail by" increments going up (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16+ in 3e instead of 1-4, 5-9. 10-14, 15+ in 2e) and the third "fail by" increment being slightly worse (since it inflicts Staggered and a -1 to future Toughness saves in 3e, but just Staggered in 2e). That extra damage/Toughness is slightly more important. This impact should be outweighed in actual play by the previous one.
Last edited by Elric on Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:33 pm, edited 6 times in total.
3e Builds, 2e Builds, Index of 2e Official Rules Answers & General Resources (includes character creation and fight examples)

User avatar
Elric
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4774
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 11:32 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Elric's 3e Builds: Spiderman PC!

Postby Elric » Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:26 pm

Image

This graph is the chance for a character to win a 3e combat (the y-axis) against an opponent of the same PL, as I vary the relative attack tradeoff of the character whose chance to win the combat the graph shows (the x-axis) and the relative attack tradeoff of his opponent (the colors of the dots). E.g., if a defender has Dodge=Parry=Toughness, then a "relative attack tradeoff" of 2 means the attacker has Attack at PL +2 and Damage at PL -2. Attackers are just using damage, and no one has any hero points. I assume that dazed/hindered/staggered conditions don't impact a character's ability to fight.

Throughout, I'll use "defense bonus" to mean Dodge/Parry bonus, which are assumed to be identical as both are limited to the same amount by Toughness. The linear nature of M&M means that I performed one calculation, which is accurate at any PL. This is based on 500,000 simulations.

Note: relative attack tradeoff means that you take the attacker’s attack tradeoff (where a negative number denotes a damage tradeoff) and subtract the defender’s defense tradeoff (where a negative number denotes a Toughness tradeoff). The term tradeoff should be very familiar to those who played 2e.

Formally, an attack tradeoff is (Attack bonus-Effect rank)/2; a defense tradeoff is (defense bonus - Toughness)/2. So 4 relative attack tradeoff could be an attacker with +14 attack/6 damage and a defender with +10 defense/+10 Toughness, or it could be an attacker with +10 attack/10 damage and a defender with +6 defense/+14 Toughness, and so on. A -2 point attack shift is what we'd also call a 2 point damage shift; a -3 point defense shift we'd also call a 3 point Toughness shift, and so on.

A character wins more often when he has more of a relative damage-shift and his opponent has more of a relative attack shift, over the whole range I’ve shown. Having a 3 or 4 point damage shift relative to the opponent tends to work the best. A 3 point damage shift character wins against a 6-point attack shift opponent about 88% of the time. E.g., this could be a +7 attack/13 damage/+10 Defense/+10 Toughness character against a +16 attack/4 damage/+10 Defense/+10 Toughness opponent.

The intuition for why attack shifts are bad is that when you are substantially attack-shifted, it decreases the chance you hit with the attack and the defender fails the resistance check, and if the defender does fail the resistance check it tends to be by less, as you can see in these results (the link is for 2e, but the principles are analogous in 3e).

I haven't tested extensive results between characters at different PLs. The chance to win, between two characters with no relative tradeoffs (e.g., two "vanilla" characters), for the higher PL character, is as follows (500,000 simulations)

0 PLs up: 50% exactly (A good test case. See below for more)
1 PL up: 72.0%
2 PLs up: 87.3%
3 PLs up: 95.6%
4 PLs up: 99.1%

Math note: This wasn't actually 500,000 simulated combats between each of these combatants. I used a method that is easier to do computationally and intuitively should have a lower margin of error. 500,000 actual simulated combats would have a +-99% confidence interval margin of error of no higher than +-0.4%.

Since I assume that dazed/hindered/staggered conditions don't impact a character's ability to fight, I can simply calculate the cumulative distribution function (explanation of this term from a post on 2e) of the number of rounds it takes one character to incapacitate another. From there, each combatant essentially gets a draw from this distribution and you just have to calculate the chance that one is lower than the other, which means winning the fight by incapacitating the other character first (assign each to go first half of the time to resolve ties).

One way to see the advantage of this method in yielding a lower standard error is that it ensures that an identical attacker (the even PLs/no relative tradeoffs case) is predicted to win exactly 50% of the time. So no matter how many simulations I had run, the answer should come out to exactly 50% above (and it does). If you simulated some number of fights between two identical combatants, though, you'd expect to get something a little different from 50%, even with thousands of simulations.
Last edited by Elric on Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:16 pm, edited 11 times in total.
3e Builds, 2e Builds, Index of 2e Official Rules Answers & General Resources (includes character creation and fight examples)

User avatar
Elric
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4774
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 11:32 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Elric's 3e Builds: Spiderman PC!

Postby Elric » Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:52 am

Image

Wonder Woman

Power Level 14 (210 pp)

Abilities: Strength 14 [7], Stamina 14, Agility 4, Dexterity 4, Fighting 10, Intellect 2, Awareness 4, Presence 4

Powers:
Amazonian Heritage: Senses 6 (Extended Vision, Extended Accurate Hearing, Sight Counters Illusion), Immunity 1 (Aging), Feature 1 (change into Wonder Woman as a free action) • 8 points

Strength & Speed Array: 26 point Dynamic Array
Swiftness: Flight 13 (16,000 MPH total), Dynamic • 27 points
Might: Enhanced Strength 7 & Enhanced Strength 6 (Limited: Only Lifting), Dynamic •2 points (20)

Bracelets of Aegis: Enhanced Defenses 4 (Dodge 2, Parry 2), Enhanced Advantage (Defensive Attack), Removable (-1 point) • 4 points

Lasso of Truth: Snare 16, Limited 2 [One target at a time; Not Cumulative], Affects Insubstantial, Reversible, Diminished Range (total 160/400/800) (17 points) Linked to
Ranged Affliction 16 (Resisted by Will; Compelled), Limited 4 [no third degree effect; no first degree effect; only on Snared target; only command is speak the truth], Diminished Range (total 160/400/800)] (3 points), Easily Removable (–8 points) • 12 points

Advantages: Animal Empathy, Attractive, Benefit (Ambassador of Themyscira), Defensive Attack, Improved Initiative 2, Interpose, Language 4 (English, French, Greek, Hindi, Mandarin, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish; base: Themysciran), Power Attack, Second Chance 2 (Insight, Persuasion), Takedown, Teamwork

Skills: Acrobatics 1 (+5), Close Combat: Unarmed 4 (+14), Expertise: Mythology 8 (+10), Insight 8 (+12, Second Chance), Investigation 4 (+6), Perception 8 (+12), Persuasion 8 (+12, Second Chance), Ranged Combat: Lasso 8 (+12), Sleight of Hand 1 (+5), Treatment 1 (+3), Vehicles 1 (+5)

Offense: Initiative +12; Unarmed +14, Close, Damage 14. Lasso +12, Ranged, Dodge DC 26

Defense: Dodge 14, Parry 14, Toughness 14, Fortitude 14, Will 12

Abilities 98 + Powers 53 + Advantages 15 + Skills 26 + Defenses 18 (2 Parry, 8 Dodge, 8 Will) = 210

Notes: Here’s Wonder Woman as a PL 14, 210 pp PC. For Complications, see her writeup in DCA Hero's Handbook. The build came out nicely, though I'd have liked to include a higher general ranged attack bonus and ranks in Intimidation.

With her dynamic array putting the maximum 20 pp in the Enhanced Strength power, Wonder Woman has Strength for lifting 20 (25,000 tons; enough to pick up the Leaning Tower of Pisa) and Flight 3.

In combat, Wonder Woman should typically have Enhanced Strength 7 and Flight 6 (1,800 feet with a move action) from her dynamic array. Note that her Enhanced Strength array slot could be built on more points, but I felt this was an appropriate amount of lifting.

Yes, Wonder Woman’s Lasso only costs 12 pp. All of the flaws look legitimate, though it's a little complicated. The way to resolve the Lasso is: if Wonder Woman hits on her Ranged attack, the target gets a Dodge resistance check against DC 26 for Snare. If that fails, then there's an effective DC 21 Will resistance check (DC 26 but there's no first degree of failure) to avoid Compelled. After this video (unfortunately just promoting the DC Universe Online video game), I couldn’t give the Lasso Restricted.
Last edited by Elric on Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:05 am, edited 22 times in total.
3e Builds, 2e Builds, Index of 2e Official Rules Answers & General Resources (includes character creation and fight examples)

User avatar
Elric
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4774
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 11:32 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Elric's 3e Builds: Spiderman, Wonder Woman PCs

Postby Elric » Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:28 pm

Image

Martian Manhunter

Power Level 14 (210 pp)

Abilities: Strength 16 [3], Stamina 14, Agility 2, Dexterity 2, Fighting 8, Intellect 3, Awareness 4, Presence 0

Powers:
Martian Durability: Protection 2, Immunity 10 (Life Support) • 12 points
Martian Senses: Senses 6 (Extended Vision 2, Vision Penetrates Concealment) • 6 points
Martian Movement: Flight 7 (250 MPH), Movement 1 (Permeate) • 16 points

Density: Impervious Toughness 9, Enhanced Strength 3 [limited to lifting] • 12 points
Lightness: Flight 6 (total: 16,000 MPH) • 1 point (12)

Martian Abilities Array:
Martian Strength: Enhanced Strength 13, Impervious Toughness 6 • 32 points
Martian Vision: Ranged Damage 13 (force), Accurate 6 • 1 point (32)
Intangibility: Insubstantial 4, Visual Concealment 4, Enhanced Skills 2: Stealth 4 (+6) • 1 point (30)
Shapeshifting: Morph 4 (any form), Enhanced Skills 4: Deception 8 (+8) [Limited: to disguise] • 1 point (22)
Telepathy: Mental Communication 5 (Rapid, Subtle) linked to Comprehend 2 (Languages) • 1 point (26)
Mind Reading: Mind Reading 14 (Subtle) • 1 point (29)
Mental Blast: Mental Blast 14 (Flaws: Tiring, Unreliable—5 uses) • 1 point (28)

Advantages: Contacts, Eidetic Memory, Improved Initiative, Leadership, Power Attack, Teamwork

Skills: Close Combat: Unarmed 4 (+12), Insight 8 (+12), Investigation 9 (+12), Perception 8 (+12), Persuasion 10 (+10), Technology 8 (+11), Vehicles 3 (+5)

Offense: Initiative +6; Unarmed +12, Close, Damage 16. Martian Vision +14 Ranged, Damage 13.

Defense: Dodge 12, Parry 12, Toughness 16, Fortitude 14, Will 12

Abilities 72 + Powers 85 + Advantages 6 + Skills 25 + Defenses 22 (10 Dodge, 4 Parry, 8 Will) = 210

Notes: Here’s Martian Manhunter as a PC at PL 14, 210 pp. Ah, arrays. For Complications, see his writeup in DCA Hero's Handbook. His low Ranged attack (and so much of his Martian Vision attack bonus coming from Accurate) pains me. With both of his arrays set to Enhanced Strength slots, he has Strength 19 for lifting (12,500 tons), enough to pick up the Eiffel Tower.

J'onn's Martian Vision is just slightly below PL caps, which gives him an incentive to stay in melee (he also has higher Impervious in his “brick” form). If you are running Impervious as it worked in 2e (Impervious k makes you immune to attacks of rank less than k), I'd reduce his Impervious in the Density power and in his Strength array slot by 1 each.

Yes, having Unreliable—5 uses and Tiring on the same array slot (as I do for his Mental Blast) is a tad abusive. However, Tiring seems a little too severe for a -1 flaw. In general, Unreliable—5 uses on an array slot is a problematic flaw and I wouldn’t use it often. Restricting J'onn to 5 uses an adventure is appropriate as he should only use Mental Blast rarely.

Note that his listed Flight speeds in MPH are the number of miles he goes in an hour; outside of action rounds, he can't double-move to go faster than this. With Density active, J'onn flies half a mile with a move action.
Last edited by Elric on Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:05 am, edited 10 times in total.
3e Builds, 2e Builds, Index of 2e Official Rules Answers & General Resources (includes character creation and fight examples)

User avatar
UnkindMirror
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4644
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:44 pm

Re: Elric's 3e Builds: Spiderman, Wonder Woman PCs

Postby UnkindMirror » Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:44 pm

Elric wrote:Martian Vision: Ranged Damage 11 (force), Accurate 7, Precise • 1 point (30)

Heh, how things change... in 2e, this would have been considered highly questionable by many.

Personally, I kind of like that 3e moved to a "buy only what you use" mentality, demonstrated, among others, by the Paragon/Powerhouse's Ranged Combat (Throwing) +7. But I'm not entirely comfortable with folding that entire bonus into an array slot.
Last edited by UnkindMirror on Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Elric
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4774
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 11:32 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Elric's 3e Builds: Spiderman, Wonder Woman PCs

Postby Elric » Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:47 pm

UnkindMirror wrote:
Elric wrote:Martian Vision: Ranged Damage 11 (force), Accurate 7, Precise • 1 point (30)

Heh, how things change... in 2e, this would have been considered highly questionable by many.


Oh, I consider it questionable in 3e too. This construction is less questionable than Perception Ranged Damage 10, which would be a stronger power but not justified for Manhunter. As I said,

As usual, his low Ranged attack pains me.


It's just really hard to fit the DC heavy hitters at 15 PP/PL. So far, Ranged attack bonus has been what I've cut. With Wonder Woman I was able to avoid this dodgy construction by making the lasso melee range. For Manhunter, another technique to keep Martian Vision's cost down would have been putting his whole Enhanced Strength bonus in his Brick array slot, but that Manhunter couldn't carry anything remotely heavy while using Martian Vision seems implausible.
3e Builds, 2e Builds, Index of 2e Official Rules Answers & General Resources (includes character creation and fight examples)

User avatar
UnkindMirror
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4644
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:44 pm

Re: Elric's 3e Builds: Spiderman, Wonder Woman PCs

Postby UnkindMirror » Sun Aug 08, 2010 1:05 pm

Elric wrote:It's just really hard to fit the DC heavy hitters at 15 PP/PL.

It'll be interesting to see how many of the entries in the H&V books will actually fit into 15pp/PL. I'm guessing it won't be many, and suspect those that do will be under-capped in several areas.

I've been thinking about having pp be [(15/PL) + X], but I'm not yet sure what X should be. Somewhere between 10 and 20, perhaps.

User avatar
Taliesin
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 12165
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Between Twin Sala Trees

Re: Elric's 3e Builds: Spiderman, Wonder Woman PCs

Postby Taliesin » Sun Aug 08, 2010 1:31 pm

UnkindMirror wrote:
Elric wrote:It's just really hard to fit the DC heavy hitters at 15 PP/PL.

It'll be interesting to see how many of the entries in the H&V books will actually fit into 15pp/PL. I'm guessing it won't be many, and suspect those that do will be under-capped in several areas.

I've been thinking about having pp be [(15/PL) + X], but I'm not yet sure what X should be. Somewhere between 10 and 20, perhaps.


The more history a character has, the more likely he'll be over 15pp/PL. HH just happens to have the most iconic characters with the most history. A lot of the characters in HH would have been over pp in 2E, as well, just because they could do a lot of things at or close to PL. But I think you can make an educated guess about which characters are at or below pp in H&V.

User avatar
UnkindMirror
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4644
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:44 pm

Re: Elric's 3e Builds: Spiderman, Wonder Woman PCs

Postby UnkindMirror » Sun Aug 08, 2010 1:48 pm

Taliesin wrote:The more history a character has, the more likely he'll be over 15pp/PL. HH just happens to have the most iconic characters with the most history. A lot of the characters in HH would have been over pp in 2E, as well, just because they could do a lot of things at or close to PL. But I think you can make an educated guess about which characters are at or below pp in H&V.

I was a bit surprised that the HH didn't go into a little more detail about suggested starting pps. There's the sidebar about DC Power Levels, but that doesn't go into pps for established characters except for the very vague "A higher starting power point total allows for more diverse capabilities within the same limits", which I don't really find all that helpful.

User avatar
Unbeliever
Firebrand
Firebrand
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:56 am

Re: Elric's 3e Builds: Spiderman, Wonder Woman PCs

Postby Unbeliever » Sun Aug 08, 2010 2:53 pm

UnkindMirror wrote:
Taliesin wrote:The more history a character has, the more likely he'll be over 15pp/PL. HH just happens to have the most iconic characters with the most history. A lot of the characters in HH would have been over pp in 2E, as well, just because they could do a lot of things at or close to PL. But I think you can make an educated guess about which characters are at or below pp in H&V.

I was a bit surprised that the HH didn't go into a little more detail about suggested starting pps. There's the sidebar about DC Power Levels, but that doesn't go into pps for established characters except for the very vague "A higher starting power point total allows for more diverse capabilities within the same limits", which I don't really find all that helpful.

+1

A huge motivation behind playing M&M for me, and I suspect I'm not alone, is playing characters akin to your favorite comic book heroes. And, this is only exaggerated w/ an actual licensed game. It's kind of sad to see them so far out of reach of the suggested starting characters. Since I'm a D&Der at heart, I think of it as the Elminster problem: you can read all about this (supposedly) cool stuff NPC X does, but you'll never be able to do it.

I'm toying w/ making X 15 pp for PLs 10-11, and maybe 20-25 for PLs 12-13. I have yet to play a hero above PL 12, yet, although DCA has a different power scale, but I'd probably follow the pattern.

Raws
Henchman
Henchman
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:21 pm

Re: Elric's 3e Builds: Spiderman, Wonder Woman PCs

Postby Raws » Sun Aug 08, 2010 5:05 pm

Very nice builds!


Return to “Roll Call”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests