Elric's 2e Builds
I do have my generic Psionic (PL 10, 150 pp telekinetic/telepathic Psion) build, which could easily be converted to a purer TK build.Ezram wrote:How about a generic telekinesis user?
3e Builds, 2e Builds, Index of 2e Official Rules Answers & General Resources (includes character creation and fight examples)

 Fanatic
 Posts: 931
 Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:21 am
Pilot (Generic)
Power Level 5 (75 pp)
Abilities: STR: 18 (+4), DEX: 18 (+4), CON: 18 (+4), INT: 14 (+2), WIS: 12 (+1), CHA: 14 (+2)
Skills: Acrobatics 4 (+8), Bluff 4 (+6/+10), Diplomacy 4 (+6/+10), Gather Information 4 (+6), Knowledge [Physical Sciences] 4 (+6), Intimidate 4 (+6), Pilot 8 (+12), Notice 4 (+5), Sense Motive 4 (+5), Survival 4 (+5), Swim 4 (+8)
Feats: Attractive, Contacts, Dodge Focus 3, Endurance, Evasion, Improved Initiative, Luck, Power Attack
Combat: Attack +6 [Unarmed 4 dmg], Defense 16 (12 flatfooted), Initiative +8, Grapple +10, Knockback 2
Saves: Toughness +4, Fortitude +4, Reflex +4, Will +2
Abilities 34 + Skills 12 + Feats 10 + Combat 18 + Saves 1= 75
Notes: Here’s an unpowered pilot build at PL 5, 75 pp. You could use this character in an Agents of Freedomstyle game, or you could use this as a starting point for a higher PL and likely superpowered build.
The picture is of the late actor and bodybuilder Steve Reeves. Dedicated to my cousin, a pilot, who isn’t quite this buff, but he’s about threefourths of the way there
3e Builds, 2e Builds, Index of 2e Official Rules Answers & General Resources (includes character creation and fight examples)
Thanks. I'm still around, just busy and somewhat out of ideas. I'll keep those suggestions in mind when I get back to doing more conversions.Ecalsneerg wrote:Hey, Elric, you still around? A man of your caliber should not be on page 2.
If you're still looking for ideas, how about PCs of Booster Gold and Blue Beetle?
3e Builds, 2e Builds, Index of 2e Official Rules Answers & General Resources (includes character creation and fight examples)

 Cosmic Entity
 Posts: 7990
 Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 2:55 pm
 Location: R'lyeh
 Contact:
Shouldn't that be Language 1 (English; base Latverian)?Elric wrote:Doctor Doom
Skills: Languages 1 (German; base English)
Actually, it should be at least Language 4 (English, German, Latverian, Symkarian; base Romani). He would've learned both Romani (Gypsy) and Latverian growing up, English soon after, German for when he worked with the Nazis in WW II (though that may not have happened since most everyone's supercareer began "15 years ago"), and Symkarian for his yearly meetings with Silver Sable. Probably lots more.
(Depending on the writer, Latverian is either a derivative of Hungarian or Latvian.)
Come join us at http://www.freedomplaybypost.com/index.php ! (current status: site and chat stable, Wiki pending)
Character builder gets sloppy on base languages! News at 11!Dr Archeville wrote:Shouldn't that be Language 1 (English; base Latverian)?Elric wrote:Doctor Doom
Skills: Languages 1 (German; base English)
Actually, it should be at least Language 4 (English, German, Latverian, Symkarian; base Romani). He would've learned both Romani (Gypsy) and Latverian growing up, English soon after, German for when he worked with the Nazis in WW II (though that may not have happened since most everyone's supercareer began "15 years ago"), and Symkarian for his yearly meetings with Silver Sable. Probably lots more.
(Depending on the writer, Latverian is either a derivative of Hungarian or Latvian.)
I'm generally fairly loose about obscure languages on builds because I don't think it's necessary to charge characters for relatively obscure languages and because it can be cumbersome to keep track of so many languages in play. For example, I tend to give characters Language (Chinese) rather than Language (Mandarin) or Language (Mandarin, Cantonese, several other Chinese dialects).
Additionally, there are established characters who continually demonstrate knowledge of more and more languages. If you kept up faithfully Batman would probably speak 20 languages by now. So unless you want everyone to have to keep up with language inflation, you probably want a listed language to include similar but distinct languages. With that in mind, I added Latverian to Doom's languages, and you can make Romani fall under Latverian or German (to keep things simpler in play, characters who know one of Latverian, Hungarian, and Romani know the others for example), or just consider Romani too minor of a benefit to charge points for.
3e Builds, 2e Builds, Index of 2e Official Rules Answers & General Resources (includes character creation and fight examples)
Here’s something different. This is a graph that’s the result of a simulation I did to get an answer to the question “how many attacks does it takes to knock an M&M character unconscious.”
This is a cumulative distribution function—that is, the xaxis is the number of attacks and the yaxis is the chance you’ve KOd the defender after this many attacks or fewer. To give you a sense of how to read the graph: The attacker has a 50% chance to KO the defender in 8 attacks or fewer, a 90% chance to KO the defender in 16 attacks or fewer, and a 99.9% chance to KO the defender in 30 attacks or fewer.
To figure out the chance to KO the defender in a specific round: If you subtract the chance to KO the defender in 5 rounds or fewer by the chance to KO the defender in 4 rounds or fewer, you'll get the chance to KO the defender on the 5th round exactly. So looking at the graph, rounds 410 are the most likely rounds to KO the defender on, since this is where the slope is steepest.
The relevant assumptions: The attacker and defender are any two characters at the same PL, neither of whom has any tradeoffs. The attacker is using a typical ability that forces a Toughness save, like Blast. There’s only one attacker, so the attacker can’t benefit from his own stunned conditions because it wears off before his turn the next round (I’m not including knockback). The defender has 0 HP.
Note that the linear nature of M&M plus the lack of stuns is why this is accurate at any PL (if the attacker can benefit from stunned conditions, then at higher PLs the defender has more dodge bonus to lose, so the results should be slightly faster than at lower PLs). The attacker isn’t using Extra Effort, spending hero points, or doing anything besides attacking like attempting feints. I ran 100,000 trials, so the numbers should be very accurate.
Some relevant statistics: the attacker takes an average of 9.35 attacks to KO the defender. The standard deviation of the number of attacks is 5.2; M&M combat has a lot of variance, particularly when no one has any hero points.
The chance to KO the defender on the first attack in the simulation is 1.27%. It's easy to calculate that the true probability here should be 1.25% (the attacker has to roll a natural 20 and the defender has to roll a 15 on his Toughness save, which occurs with probability 1/80). That I find something very similar is a good check that I've got at least the basics of M&M combat correct in the simulation. For example, if I forgot to include bonus damage from critical hits in the simulation I'd see 0% firstattack knockouts in the data, which would tell me I've done something wrong.
Thoughts? Do people like seeing the graph? Should I do some more graphs based on other assumptions? Are my explanations clear as water, or clear as mud?
3e Builds, 2e Builds, Index of 2e Official Rules Answers & General Resources (includes character creation and fight examples)
If characters didn't suffer Bruises, the stunned condition didn't exist (or attackers couldn't take advantage of it), and defenders never spent hero points, this wouldn't be bad.Taliesin wrote:Pretty cool. I suppose having an Excel file where the four relevant values (attack, damage, defense, and toughness) can be adjusted and the actual probabilities spat out would be too much to ask for.
In fact, I can do this one by pen, paper, and some algebra:
Let K= the chance you get a result of 'Unconscious" on an attack
Let S= the chance you get a result of 'Staggered + Stunned" on an attack.
Let n be the number of attacks.
Then the cumulative chance to KO the defender in n attacks or fewer equals 1  (1KS+nS)*[(1KS)^(n1)]
As you can figure out with a bit of algebra, for n=1, this becomes K, which makes sense after one attack, the chance you knock them out is only based on your chance to KO them in a single hit, because you can't yet accumulate two Staggered conditions.
As n gets larger, the second term gets bigger, but the third term gets smaller more quickly, since the second term goes up linearly and the third term keeps being multiplied by (1KS), which is less than 1. So the product of the second and third terms heads towards 0, and the expression heads towards 1. That is, the chance you KO the defender in some very large number of attacks, or fewer, is close to 1, which also makes sense.
You can figure out K and S with some simple algebra; for a nontradeoff'd attacker vs. a defender at the same PL, the chance to hit is 55% and on any hit, the defender will suffer a Staggered + Stunned result 25% of the time (a roll of 15 on a noncritical hit, or a roll of 610 on a critical hit), so S=0.55*0.25= 0.1375. K=0.05*0.25= 0.0125 since you need a critical (1/20) and the defender to roll 15 on his Toughness save (1/4) to achieve this result.
This would be easy to stick in Excel. The key here is that without bruises, stuns, or hero points, S and K are constants that don't depend on what else has already happened. This would represent a combat where the defender had Regeneration (Bruised 1/round with no rest) but didn't have any hero points, and there was one attacker who only attacked with nonlethal damage. Aren't assumptions great?
Now the bad part: Adding in bruises alone would make this very difficult. Adding in anything else on top of that would make it more difficult still. Essentially, the reason why is that S and K stop being constants and vary a lot based on what has already occurred. So simulations seem much more useful than trying to get exact results for the easiest cases, when I can already get nearly exact results by running a ton of trials.
3e Builds, 2e Builds, Index of 2e Official Rules Answers & General Resources (includes character creation and fight examples)

 Overlord
 Posts: 4644
 Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:44 pm
When the DoombotSolution is expected to come into play, does Doom really deserve the discount for making his Battlesuit a Device ? It's been a while since I've read mainstream Marvel, but I've never seen Doom outside the suit, so I was wondering if this was a case of something for nothing.Elric wrote:For his Doombots, borrowing from Taliesin yet again:Taliesin wrote:Nor have I bothered statting Doombot duplicates of Doom, since Doom is just assumed to be a Doombot if he’s defeated and it suits the GM. Obviously, this is the epitome of using GM Fiat, unless Doom hasn’t yet used his extra Hero Point for his Luck feat, in which case, this isn’t even treated as a complication; it’s just a fact of life when facing Doom!
EDIT:
On further thinking, it doesn't matter.
Player characters wouldn't get the Doombot option and NPCs are built on however much power points needed, so the point is moot.
I tried doing exact calculations including bruises (but not stuns or hero points), and it wasn't that bad. So this post is going to show exact calculations, not simulations. Still, I did these calculations in Matlab and I couldn’t easily translate them to Excel. Even in Matlab, adding hero points and/or stuns would be real tough.Elric wrote:Adding in bruises alone would make this very difficult. Adding in anything else on top of that would make it more difficult still. So simulations seem much more useful than trying to get exact results for the easiest cases, when I can already get nearly exact results by running a ton of trials.Taliesin wrote:Pretty cool. I suppose having an Excel file where the four relevant values (attack, damage, defense, and toughness) can be adjusted and the actual probabilities spat out would be too much to ask for.
Ever since I did the basic calculations that went into this thread, it’s seemed likely that being somewhat damageshifted relative to the defender would produce quicker KOs than having the same shift as the defender, and that being attackshifted relative to the defender would produce slower KOs than having the same shift as the defender. I investigate different attacker tradeoffs here and this turns out to be the case. This graph corresponds to the same situation as the one above, but with calculations instead of simulations (it’s the same +10 Defense/+10 Toughness defender).
I’ve shown three tradeoffs here; the attacker with +12 attack/8 damage; +10 attack/10 damage; and +8 attack/12 damage. As above, since I’m not including stuns, the +12 attack/8 damage graph represents that of any attacker at the same PL as the defender who is 2 points more attackshifted than the defender is toughnessshifted.
As a reminder, the xaxis is the number of attacks and the yaxis is the chance you’ve KOd the defender after this many attacks or fewer (see above for more details). It’s clear looking at this graph that the +8 attack/+12 damage attacker is the best, and the +12/+8 attacker is the worst. After any number of rounds, the chance that the +8/+12 attacker has KOd the defender is greater than that of the +10/+10 attacker, which in turn is greater than that of the +12/+8 attacker.
Specifically, the average number of rounds to KO the defender is:
10.93 for the +12 attack/8 damage attacker
9.35 for the +10 attack/10 damage attacker
8.16 for the +8 attack/12 damage attacker
You can see the problem for Defenseshifted characters; against the same +10 attack/+10 damage attacker, a character with +12 Defense/+8 Toughness is worse off than if he had stayed at +10 Defense/+10 Toughness, while the +8 Defense/+12 Toughness defender is better off.
Note that for the +10 attack/+10 damage attacker, the average number of attacks in the exact calculation here is the same to two decimal places, 9.35, as it is in the simulations above, a further crosscheck that I’m doing things correctly.
If people are interested, I’ll put up some graphs taking hero points and/or stuns into account next.
3e Builds, 2e Builds, Index of 2e Official Rules Answers & General Resources (includes character creation and fight examples)

 Bystander
 Posts: 38
 Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 2:12 am
Ug, math make j nin head hurt
I could use some comments on my Amethyst Knight >.>
I could use some comments on my Amethyst Knight >.>
Define 'innocent' bystander
http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?t=31318
Dark World A postapocolyptic world with some dnd inspiration. Any who would like to help flesh it out is welcome!
http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?t=31318
Dark World A postapocolyptic world with some dnd inspiration. Any who would like to help flesh it out is welcome!
Another math heavy post. The Mastermind's Manual's Players make the rolls option (page 11) and its damage roll option (page 107) are both wrong and in need of errata. Since there's no published errata for the MaMa, there's no one place you can see a corrected version of these abilities. So that's what I'm doing here. See this thread for some more discussion of the effects of using this type of option.
Page 11, Players make all the rolls
This is wrong in one place. In particular, it says that a Fortitude check under these rule is supposed to be (1d20 + Fortitude rank) vs. (DC 10 + NPC Fortitude). Instead of making an NPC's Toughness save roll, the player is supposed to make a damage roll at (1d20 + damage) vs. (DC 15+ NPC Toughness).
However, normally saves against damage are more difficult for the defender than a Fortitude save against a nondamage power (since the DC is 15+damage, vs. 10+rank for Fort), so the DC should be easier for the attacker on damaging attacks.
So instead of being DC 15+NPC Toughness, this should be DC 5+NPC Toughness. The entry here says it uses the “damage roll” option from the book. This isn’t quite what a precisely corrected damage roll would look like (the DCs would be 7+Toughness for damage and 12+Fortitude for, say, a Stun power; see below), but it’s close.
Page 107, Damage Roll:
The damage roll rules are wrong in that it gives a probability distribution of attack results that looks nothing like the current distribution. It’s also horribly inelegant in that the save DC is to KO someone (with “failure to hit the DC by” yielding lesser effects). The correct way to do this to create a mechanic with a probability distribution exactly analogous to the current system, where exact success inflicts a bruise and it goes up from there.
In particular, the way to do this is as follows:
Use 7+Toughness as the DC for a Damage roll (1d20 + damage dealt). On the damage roll, success by 03: Bruise; Success by 48: Bruise + Stun; Success by 913: Staggered + Stunned; Success by 14+: Unconscious.
Behind the curtain: 7+Toughness DC is what you should use if you simply want to get a "players roll for damage" option with the exact same probabilities as the current setup.
These numbers are chosen so that if you were still using 1d20, the fact of the attacker rolling for damage instead of the defender rolling for a Toughness save wouldn’t change the underlying probabilities. In the rules as written an attack that hits and has the save failed by 14 inflicts a Bruise—so on a typical attack 4 die rolls get you a Bruise. Then fail by 59 gives Stun + Bruise, so on a typical attack 5 die rolls get you a Bruise + Stun., All of the save categories have a “range” of 5, besides the lowest category (which only has a “range” of 4).
That’s how I get the “categories of success” numbers above. When someone is rolling and they hit the required DC, they succeed, so a bruise has to start at hitting the DC exactly and there have to be four rolls that could get you a bruise. That means a bruise is success by 03. Then Stun + Bruise has to be success by 48 and so on.
Now, why is the DC 7+Toughness? If you look at the previous paragraph, you can see that merely changing who is rolling changes how ties work—all of a sudden, hitting the DC means the defender takes a bruise, instead of taking no damage. You can think of a d20 “damage roll” by the attacker as the exact same thing as the attacker rolling the defender’s toughness save, but the defender gets 21 – (the result on the attacker’s d20) as his save. This tells us that instead of the DC for a Toughness save being 15+Damage, the DC for a damage roll should be 21 15 + Toughness= 6 + Toughness. But as I just mentioned, changing who rolls changes who wins ties in favor of the attacker. So to compensate for this you need to add 1 to the DC, giving you a damage roll DC of 7 + Toughness.
You can see that this is correct as follows: suppose an attack is run in the normal M&M system that hits for 10 damage against a +10 Toughness defender. The attack does nothing on a 15+ Toughness save (30%), Bruises on a 1114 (20%), Stuns + Bruises on a 610 (25%), and Staggers + Stuns on a 15 (25%). Now consider a damage roll at +10 damage against a DC of 7+Toughness for a 10 Toughness defender. The attack does nothing on a 16 (30%), Bruises on a 710 (20%), Bruises + Stuns on a 1115 (25%) and Staggers + Stuns on a 1620 (25%). As these numbers are identical to the normal rules, you know I’ve done this correctly.
Likewise, to do an "effect roll" by the attacker for nondamaging powers (Stun, Snare, etc.) that would have a DC of 10+ rank in "normal M&M" you should have a base DC of 12+ [relevant save bonus], and you roll at d20+power rank, with the same categories of success being “success by 03”, “success by 48”, “success by 913”, and so on.
Page 11, Players make all the rolls
This is wrong in one place. In particular, it says that a Fortitude check under these rule is supposed to be (1d20 + Fortitude rank) vs. (DC 10 + NPC Fortitude). Instead of making an NPC's Toughness save roll, the player is supposed to make a damage roll at (1d20 + damage) vs. (DC 15+ NPC Toughness).
However, normally saves against damage are more difficult for the defender than a Fortitude save against a nondamage power (since the DC is 15+damage, vs. 10+rank for Fort), so the DC should be easier for the attacker on damaging attacks.
So instead of being DC 15+NPC Toughness, this should be DC 5+NPC Toughness. The entry here says it uses the “damage roll” option from the book. This isn’t quite what a precisely corrected damage roll would look like (the DCs would be 7+Toughness for damage and 12+Fortitude for, say, a Stun power; see below), but it’s close.
Page 107, Damage Roll:
The damage roll rules are wrong in that it gives a probability distribution of attack results that looks nothing like the current distribution. It’s also horribly inelegant in that the save DC is to KO someone (with “failure to hit the DC by” yielding lesser effects). The correct way to do this to create a mechanic with a probability distribution exactly analogous to the current system, where exact success inflicts a bruise and it goes up from there.
In particular, the way to do this is as follows:
Use 7+Toughness as the DC for a Damage roll (1d20 + damage dealt). On the damage roll, success by 03: Bruise; Success by 48: Bruise + Stun; Success by 913: Staggered + Stunned; Success by 14+: Unconscious.
Behind the curtain: 7+Toughness DC is what you should use if you simply want to get a "players roll for damage" option with the exact same probabilities as the current setup.
These numbers are chosen so that if you were still using 1d20, the fact of the attacker rolling for damage instead of the defender rolling for a Toughness save wouldn’t change the underlying probabilities. In the rules as written an attack that hits and has the save failed by 14 inflicts a Bruise—so on a typical attack 4 die rolls get you a Bruise. Then fail by 59 gives Stun + Bruise, so on a typical attack 5 die rolls get you a Bruise + Stun., All of the save categories have a “range” of 5, besides the lowest category (which only has a “range” of 4).
That’s how I get the “categories of success” numbers above. When someone is rolling and they hit the required DC, they succeed, so a bruise has to start at hitting the DC exactly and there have to be four rolls that could get you a bruise. That means a bruise is success by 03. Then Stun + Bruise has to be success by 48 and so on.
Now, why is the DC 7+Toughness? If you look at the previous paragraph, you can see that merely changing who is rolling changes how ties work—all of a sudden, hitting the DC means the defender takes a bruise, instead of taking no damage. You can think of a d20 “damage roll” by the attacker as the exact same thing as the attacker rolling the defender’s toughness save, but the defender gets 21 – (the result on the attacker’s d20) as his save. This tells us that instead of the DC for a Toughness save being 15+Damage, the DC for a damage roll should be 21 15 + Toughness= 6 + Toughness. But as I just mentioned, changing who rolls changes who wins ties in favor of the attacker. So to compensate for this you need to add 1 to the DC, giving you a damage roll DC of 7 + Toughness.
You can see that this is correct as follows: suppose an attack is run in the normal M&M system that hits for 10 damage against a +10 Toughness defender. The attack does nothing on a 15+ Toughness save (30%), Bruises on a 1114 (20%), Stuns + Bruises on a 610 (25%), and Staggers + Stuns on a 15 (25%). Now consider a damage roll at +10 damage against a DC of 7+Toughness for a 10 Toughness defender. The attack does nothing on a 16 (30%), Bruises on a 710 (20%), Bruises + Stuns on a 1115 (25%) and Staggers + Stuns on a 1620 (25%). As these numbers are identical to the normal rules, you know I’ve done this correctly.
Likewise, to do an "effect roll" by the attacker for nondamaging powers (Stun, Snare, etc.) that would have a DC of 10+ rank in "normal M&M" you should have a base DC of 12+ [relevant save bonus], and you roll at d20+power rank, with the same categories of success being “success by 03”, “success by 48”, “success by 913”, and so on.
Last edited by Elric on Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
3e Builds, 2e Builds, Index of 2e Official Rules Answers & General Resources (includes character creation and fight examples)