The official Mutants & Masterminds boards
Foreshadow wrote:If you were doing up DC comic characters, how would you alter or change a particular aspect.
CaptainFistula wrote:Foreshadow wrote:If you were doing up DC comic characters, how would you alter or change a particular aspect.
I'd make their PP totals equal to their base PL allocation. It struck me that for a lot of characters the build idea was "Let's limit their damage with PL, but give them loads and loads and loads of goodies with free Power Points for all!". - Or, better yet, I'd include "to play" versions as alternate builds so that player-controlled characters obey the PP totals better.
It kinda sucks when a group of players want to use pregenned heroes and the one guy who rolls his own goes "uh, so why can't I do all of that stuff?" when he sees everyone else has enough PP to do everything he can and more.
Yes, I understand the justifications for it (Batman has a lot of experience, and thus has 'levelled up' PP without advancing the PL of his series); but it complicates matters.
Also, I'd make them respect the Ability Benchmarks tables of page 47 better, using investment in skill points / advantages to "make up" for the inherent limitations "true" humans have. Seriously, 8 ranks is *better than the peak of human achievement*; and Batman has *14* ranks in Fighting? Would've made more sense to give him 7 or 8 ranks of fighting and buy up Dodge and Unarmed directly, TBH.
Monolith wrote:Just in case you're not aware, pp are not linked to pl limits. The 15 points per pl is only a suggestion, not a hard rule. The book just calls it a guideline the gm can vary as desired.
I think you're putting too much emphasis on the benchmark table. Just looking at the archetype examples in the book shows normal human characters with 12 fighting. The benchmark table was just copied over from 2e and not really given much real thought in comparison to the actual characters or their abilities. I wouldn't put too much importance onto that table.
CaptainFistula wrote:Yes, but as the two are the only functional guidelines we have to how "powerful" a character is, and as the books use this as the only framework for balancing out power, it would be prudent to actually follow it.
As I pointed out, ignoring one half of this "power measuring" means that character generation becomes excessively arbitrary.
It's the only table we have to gauge what the numbers mean comparatively and the significance they give. It's a table that informs our rationale of what these abstract numbers actually mean in terms of the game-world. And, I think that if the characters adhered to the table a little more consistently, a lot of them would have significantly lower PP costs, and thus fit the recommended PL totals a lot more closely without the need of major character redesigns.
Let us not forget the entire purpose of the scaling system is to have super-duper-hyper-powerfully strong characters fit into the same world as comparably weak ones; and as far as I can tell the table sets out both fairly, coherently, and sensibly the scaling for this. I can't really see a justification for ignoring it apart from being an apologist for the pre-genned builds in the books - which is the antithesis of the purpose of this thread, AFAIK.
CaptainFistula wrote:I do not think "Everyone gets given PP like candy so they can do everything just so Batman isn't OP" is an acceptable solution to the problem;
I do not think "Anyone who wants to make their own hero is a fool to themselves" is an acceptable solution to the problem;
I do not think "No-one gets to play Batman (or any other OP pre-genned character)" is an acceptable solution to the problem;
I do think that stricter adherence to the recommended Guidelines (both in terms of PP/l and base attributes) is a prudent solution to the problem.
But, I also do not think the books should be suggesting guidelines that are totally inappropriate for the vast majority of pre-genned characters that players are going to want to either pick, or else play with, or presenting an explanatory table which is simply "wrong".
I've made the case for giving the table greater heed - and while I might well be completely wrong about this - on the face of it the maths seem to suggest that design decisions in favour of the table would actually resolve a lot of issues (for example Batman being able to pitch the Batcycle like it's a baseball, as mentioned by one annoyed poster in another thread) without significantly harming the ability to create fair representations of the heroes the system is trying to model.
As per the topic title - this is what I'd change with the DCA builds, it's not like I'm forcing you to go along with it at gun point.
Monolith wrote:It's not, but no one gave you that solution suggestion.
And what about the characters who are built under 15pp/rank, like Green Arrow? Should you just be forced to give those character more things then you want them to have just to adhere to this 15pp guideline?
The point is that each gm gives their players what they think is appropriate.
As for your table issues, I'd only point out that in DCA alone there are 12 character examples that don't adhere to the 7 human maximum:
These issues are entirely separate from benchmarks and deal with game mechanics: lifting/throwing is simplified in 3e rather then more specific in 2e.
You are perfectly capable of having your own opinion; and we are perfectly capable of having ours as well. There's no right or wrong when it comes to personal choice.
CaptainFistula wrote:That is my stance; your tone seemed to indicate otherwise.
Monolith wrote:I think you're taking this all too personally:
The game might be better if it adhered to a strict benchmark table; but then we're talking about a genre when comic book characters are given benchmarks and then the comic book writers intentionally break those benchmarks to prove they shouldn't be limited by them. It's all subjective.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests