Affliction and Damage Observations

[Paragon]

I'd also suggest that in some cases people are seeing Afflictions as useless because of Hero Point usage or its GM equivalent; Improve Roll is a strong use (strong enough we ended up houseruling it) and it tends to have more effect on 10+ rolls than 15+.

[Foreshadow]

Is Snare an Affliction? I think it is but if not correct me.

I am making a character and wrote it as Cumulative Affliction with a Limited degree (two degrees, hindered, impaired)

Then I am presented with a choice of Will or Fortitude (in Herolab) I think to myself "But it is a reflex save". I think "why doesn't it allow me to select Dodge as the save for it".

My reading informs me that you first must hit the Dodge, and then the person has to make a Fortitude save. But say the Affliction is Webbing (from a web-shooter) it is odd to then make a fortitude save.

Should I put it as 'no save'. Am I doing it right? Is there another option?

How would you do it?

[Kariggi]

For Snare I'd use a regular to hit roll (dodge if ranged), and then an alternate resistence of Dodge.

[Flying Cobra]

Hero Lab offers 2 options there- either use the preconstructed Snare power, or choose the "alternate save (dodge)" extra at the top of the options that appear for snare (and choose Fortitude in the drop down but explain it's strength damage in notes.

[Kariggi]

Yeah dodge to hit and a Strength resistence test would be good for something like webbing.

[Narmio]

It was a fairly consensus opinion for 2E on these boards that when the total of the three non-Toughness saves approached 3*PL amongst the players, the game got less fun. It was a widely held belief, at least among the notable Roll Call threads and in most discussions, that while the attack/effect and defence/toughness caps were expected to be hit by each character, the fort/ref/will caps of PL+5 were crazy-high. You occasionally saw a character hit one cap, but it was a very rare thing for a PL10 character's saves to average around 30. I think the suggested number was more like 22-25. This was especially true for playable PCs that are usually part of a team with their own individual niche with its strengths and weaknesses.

I think a fort/will tradeoff is an interesting idea, but putting it in the same class as the other combat caps has led to a situation where it is expected that that cap is reached. I think the simplest solution is to adjust the cap down to a PL-2 average, bringing things back to what worked very well in 2E. That does mean that anyone PL10 who has a Stamina of 12 would have a Will of about +4. That's pretty extreme as far as weaknesses go, so I'd suggest that - like in 2E - this be a suggestion rather than a cap. I would suggest 15-17 points on fort/will for a PL10 character, with anything higher being earmarked as a trait that might lead that character to be disproportionately powerful. That doesn't mean say no, it means assess it in context.

As for NPCs, I don't think it's particularly odious to note down (or make up on the spot) fort and will defences that aren't equal to PL. In fact I think it's very important that the majority of NPCs *don't* have fort and will both at PL. In any case, it's two extra numbers. I'm pretty slim with my NPC descriptions (I don't bother recording parry and dodge separately, for example), but listing tgh/def/fort/will is easy enough.

[Foreshadow]

I was messing around more with Herolab I see how it works now. I see you can set to Alternative Save.

But it still wants me to select Fortitude otherwise it remains red and won't list an alternate power but that is a glitch in the program.

[Paragon]

It was a fairly consensus opinion for 2E on these boards that when the total of the three non-Toughness saves approached 3*PL amongst the players, the game got less fun. It was a widely held belief, at least among the

Actually, a lot of people thought PLx3 was kind of the sweet spot; I preferred (PL -2) x3 but I didn't see other people's views on it as irrational.

You're correct of course that the old PL +5 on each was, when seen in play, annoying as hell (and I had a really bad case of this in one of my campaigns, so I got to see it up close and personal).

[Narmio]

It was a fairly consensus opinion for 2E on these boards that when the total of the three non-Toughness saves approached 3*PL amongst the players, the game got less fun. It was a widely held belief, at least among the

Actually, a lot of people thought PLx3 was kind of the sweet spot; I preferred (PL -2) x3 but I didn't see other people's views on it as irrational.

You're correct of course that the old PL +5 on each was, when seen in play, annoying as hell (and I had a really bad case of this in one of my campaigns, so I got to see it up close and personal).

True. There was more discussion on the issue than I may have implied. I think it's not a stretch to say that the clear majority preferred things to be *under* PLx3, with some variation as to how much. So there's still been a significant shift in how DCA expects saves to look as opposed to how at least this community expected 2E saves to look.

[Paragon]

It was a fairly consensus opinion for 2E on these boards that when the total of the three non-Toughness saves approached 3*PL amongst the players, the game got less fun. It was a widely held belief, at least among the

Actually, a lot of people thought PLx3 was kind of the sweet spot; I preferred (PL -2) x3 but I didn't see other people's views on it as irrational.

You're correct of course that the old PL +5 on each was, when seen in play, annoying as hell (and I had a really bad case of this in one of my campaigns, so I got to see it up close and personal).

True. There was more discussion on the issue than I may have implied. I think it's not a stretch to say that the clear majority preferred things to be *under* PLx3, with some variation as to how much. So there's still been a significant shift in how DCA expects saves to look as opposed to how at least this community expected 2E saves to look.

I'm really not sure, honestly; my memory of the discussions is that it was pretty much a 50-50 split between those who wanted it in the range I suggested, and those who thought the 10 average was about right (I don't recall anyone like the compromise position of 9...)

[charlieluce]

In 2e, even with a guideline of PL * 3 or (PL-2) * 3, I saw a lot of builds that bought up Will and Fortitude, used Reflex as a dump save and took Evasion to make up the difference. From what I have seen so far I'm a fan of 3e's dropping Reflex and making Will and Fortitude a trade-off.

I've only run three sessions of 3e so far, but what I have seen has been that while Affliction has been less effective than Damage against opponents near the PL of the attacker, it has been overall more effective than Damage against opponents of lower PL but still not Minions. On the other hand, that may be because such opposition is common in my game so I've gotten to see it more often.

[Narmio]

my memory of the discussions is that it was pretty much a 50-50 split between those who wanted it in the range I suggested, and those who thought the 10 average was about right (I don't recall anyone like the compromise position of 9...)

It's an interesting discussion, actually. I can see the point of both sides. From a purely mechanical standpoint, a 10 average gives the same effectiveness as Damage, once you ignore bruises. However, that necessitates you spam afflictions over and over the same way you spam damaging attacks. That doesn't seem to jive with the way these things are (usually - there are plenty of exceptions) used in comics. Typically an affliction attack is used once, imparts some kind of penalty on the target, then we get to see them fight at a disadvantage and still prevail, or try their hardest and still pass out.

That approach doesn't quite work in a game, however. So it's a tricky issue.

[Narmio]

In 2e, even with a guideline of PL * 3 or (PL-2) * 3, I saw a lot of builds that bought up Will and Fortitude, used Reflex as a dump save and took Evasion to make up the difference.

That should probably have been discouraged by the GM. What conceptual reason could there be for a character to work like that? Not very good at dodging things, but so good at dodging things they never take more than half damage!

It's good that Evasion/Improved Evasion got fixed in 3E, that was a good change to something that was a holdover from a completely different ruleset with a completely different purpose. Improved Evasion should probably never have been a feat in the first place, it was a game mechanic very heavily dependent on its extremely strict prerequisites and it didn't seem at home in a point-buy system.

[Avaron]

if you want to use a power again and again and again to take down a opponent you could just take a AP damage effect that is thematicly similar to your main attack power. you have mind control but are sick of it not working take a shot with it then swap over to a AP of damage that is described as mental assualts that pain and cripple your opponent.

[Narmio]

if you want to use a power again and again and again to take down a opponent you could just take a AP damage effect that is thematicly similar to your main attack power. you have mind control but are sick of it not working take a shot with it then swap over to a AP of damage that is described as mental assualts that pain and cripple your opponent.

This, I think, ties into the assumptions gamers have about debuff powers. They're not typically something you use again and again to get an effect. Usually that can't even be done. Players feel that, as big debuff attacks are typically a limited resource, they should have more impact on the outcome of a fight than a punch or whatever. And in other games, they usually will.

It's an interesting piece of psychology, expressed quite succinctly in the quoted post: Why not hammer over and over with the Mind Control rather than switch to a Mental Blast? Because that would be weird, right? But just attacking again and again with damage is expected!