Forums of the Megaverse®

Okay, I've had really powerful characters in my campaigns, through a series of chances (martial arts, superpowers, R.C.C bonuses, and high attributes rolls), ends up with strike, parry or dodge (in some cases initiative) bonuses around 17, 18, 19, and in some cases even over 20. I know rules were made for skill advancements over 98%. Are there any similar rules for high attribute bonuses that still leaves some possibility for failure? Has this ever happened to anyone else?

twingle93 wrote:Okay, I've had really powerful characters in my campaigns, through a series of chances (martial arts, superpowers, R.C.C bonuses, and high attributes rolls), ends up with strike, parry or dodge (in some cases initiative) bonuses around 17, 18, 19, and in some cases even over 20. I know rules were made for skill advancements over 98%. Are there any similar rules for high attribute bonuses that still leaves some possibility for failure? Has this ever happened to anyone else?

Rolling a natural 1 is always a failure in combat regardless of bonus's. it's in Rifts Ultimate Edition.

I'll also point out that there is nothing preventing you from making NPC's with bonus's in the 20's. In another thread in the Rifts forum I already posted rules on how to make a 6th level juicer (really only about 3-4 years in) with a parry bonus of +20.

That's where the beauty of situational modifiers comes into play. Also, natural 20s always hit unless a natural 20 is rolled to avoid. There's also missile volleys at your disposal.

Ultimately, no matter how good the character is, there's always a chance of failure somewhere.

There's not really much more to add that hasn't been covered already. What's good for the PC's is good for the NPC's as well. This can lead to some interesting 'arms races' and 'arms agreements' between players and GM's. Pointing out to a player that not only can you use the same combinations that created the uber character, you can apply it to ten NPC's and have them attack, it really puts things into perspective for the player.

High bonuses may allow the players to blow pre-generated, published NPC's out of the water. Either focus on having the players oppose home brewed NPC's or else rewrite the NPC's so they represent the challenge level that the fluff indicates.

If you're uncomfortable for whatever reason running players with such high bonuses then you can always resort to the ban hammer. Or you can impose an upper limit to most bonuses, not unlike the 98% ceiling.

Cybermancer wrote:There's not really much more to add that hasn't been covered already. What's good for the PC's is good for the NPC's as well. This can lead to some interesting 'arms races' and 'arms agreements' between players and GM's. Pointing out to a player that not only can you use the same combinations that created the uber character, you can apply it to ten NPC's and have them attack, it really puts things into perspective for the player.

High bonuses may allow the players to blow pre-generated, published NPC's out of the water. Either focus on having the players oppose home brewed NPC's or else rewrite the NPC's so they represent the challenge level that the fluff indicates.

If you're uncomfortable for whatever reason running players with such high bonuses then you can always resort to the ban hammer. Or you can impose an upper limit to most bonuses, not unlike the 98% ceiling.

Champions had a similar option (the Rule of X, I think they called it) where you could say that a certain type of bonus can only go to X. The flaw, as Champions pointed out, was that often characters all tend to have a bunch of characters with exactly X.

What I do is make natural 1-4's failures, so even with a +20 to strike in H2H, parry or dodge they can still fail.

jedi078 wrote:What I do is make natural 1-4's failures, so even with a +20 to strike in H2H, parry or dodge they can still fail.

thats what we do and it works great. 1 being a critical failure and 2-4 being normal failures. Helps with those big bonuses, along with a natural 12 being needed for called shots. Also, seems a bit unfair but i will cap bonuses normally at 10 in favor of letting them have something that compensates for the hit to thier bonuses. ie power stunts, skill stunts, extra skills or bonuses to something else, etc...

I second that. Ambushes that manage to cripple players and lower some of those bonuses work pretty well - if you don't want to hurt the players but only slow them down, use things like nets, sonic grenades, messy goo that adheres to players and makes movement difficult, shifting ground, etc. Darkness (fighting blind) is also your friend; I also add negative modifiers for being distracted or in pain, and those tend to work really well to balance out the huge bonuses.

Ok, maybe a little clarification is in order.

My NPCs are coming up with really high bonuses duirng character creation. They are supposed to be very powerful, but I kind of want my PCs not to be instantly killed when they go up against them.

You are the GM - the bonuses are whatever you set them at. You have the power to exploit every skill-stack and bonus-stack a player can, but you also have the power to ignore those same things and simply fiat the NPC's bonuses to an acceptable level. Feel like the villain's bonus should be 6 instead of 16? Now it is. Feel like the skill should be 72% instead of 98%? Now it is. You are the GM. Don't worry about the hows and whys too much. If it improves the game for your players, do it without hesitation, and don't look back. It's not like you have to justify these things to the players (or anybody else) at any point - they don't get to check the sheets!

Back to the idea of stopping a party of people who have absurd bonuses, if that's the goal. The GM, as somebody above pointed out, can always provide a foil with equally absurd bonuses. Something along the lines of a 15th level undead hunter trained in HtH assassin, using Might of the Palladium and under a fleet feet spell. That particular opponent can attack over 180 times per melee. Give him ranged weapons, and it doesn't matter what your bonuses are. You ran out of dodges after the 5th or 6th attack, there are 170+ more headed your way before your can dodge again.

This happened a lot in my games (often where combat is a high focus), my biggest problem was that it stopped being about what you roll (Beyond natural miss or crit), and simply what your bonus was. In the end I altered things to put a greater focus on what you roll (I use a home brew that uses a multiplicative modifier, rather then addition).

For your problem, if it's NPC's that's easy, just scale down the NPC's attributes to a reasonable level. I don't remember the last time I rolled an NPC, I just slap on stats that are appropriate for the difficulty level and the NPC type I want, along with the correct level for both. If it's a PC problem, have opponents throw befuddles from supports or magic items, give them comparative combat rolls (within 1-3 pip is enough to make the players sweat, 3-6 if you wanna leave'em bloody or flee), or, give them really thick armor and have them counter attack instead of attempt to parry / dodge. As stated before, enough rocket saturation if you just want to beat them about the head. Ambushes help if they are sans-Sixth Sense can really tip the odds. Creative use of Magic from an enemy (walls to split up fighters, Energy Fields, Illusions and the like) can also create unexpected changes.

twingle93 wrote:Ok, maybe a little clarification is in order.

My NPCs are coming up with really high bonuses duirng character creation. They are supposed to be very powerful, but I kind of want my PCs not to be instantly killed when they go up against them.

then make weaker badguys. Or even better, make your players take a more critical roll than just attacking each-other.

Remember, flash-bang grenades and Nural Maces go a long way to crippling powerful enemies.

When constructing my high-level (17th) NPC demigods, I used Heroes Unlimited Abilities, including Natural Combat Ability and various Extraordinary attributes, and eventually when I added up all the bonuses they came out like this.

23 attacks per melee. +19 on initiative, +17 to pull punch, +15 to roll with punch, fall or impact, +10 to strike, +11 to dodge, +13 to automatic dodge, +12 to parry, +16 to disarm, +4 to body flip/throw, +3 to save vs mind control, +16 to save vs horror factor, +2 to save vs possession, +5 to entangle, +3 to automatic flip, and a critical strike on an unmodified roll of 19 or 20, +30 to damage, +3 to body flip. +8% to skills. +5 to save vs psionic attack/insanity, 97% to trust/intimidate, 92% to charm/impress. +34% to save vs coma/death. +8 to save vs magic.

twingle93 wrote:When constructing my high-level (17th) NPC demigods, I used Heroes Unlimited Abilities, including Natural Combat Ability and various Extraordinary attributes, and eventually when I added up all the bonuses they came out like this.

23 attacks per melee. +19 on initiative, +17 to pull punch, +15 to roll with punch, fall or impact, +10 to strike, +11 to dodge, +13 to automatic dodge, +12 to parry, +16 to disarm, +4 to body flip/throw, +3 to save vs mind control, +16 to save vs horror factor, +2 to save vs possession, +5 to entangle, +3 to automatic flip, and a critical strike on an unmodified roll of 19 or 20, +30 to damage, +3 to body flip. +8% to skills. +5 to save vs psionic attack/insanity, 97% to trust/intimidate, 92% to charm/impress. +34% to save vs coma/death. +8 to save vs magic.

What's funny is I could beat that with around a 5th level Mage and either a good borg, PA or source of high Supernatural PS. Carpet (even save results in a round or so of immobility (Thus avoiding the large dodge boost), then Entangle. Win.

What's funny is I could beat that with around a 5th level Mage and either a good borg, PA or source of high Supernatural PS. Carpet (even save results in a round or so of immobility (Thus avoiding the large dodge boost), then Entangle. Win.

Good thing borgs and Carpet of Adhesion don't exist in my campaign world, otherwise my villains would be in trouble.

I came up with a different magic systems and only allowed certain spells that aren't gross violations of physical laws or deal in abstracts. And it's a classic fantasy world, so no borgs.

The way I have configured my game allows the PCs, if they want, to have some sick bonuses. But I don't worry about it.
A) Goose/Gander,
B) Snipers,
C) Explosions,
D) Yes I know you can swallow a grenade and be fine, but can aunt mae?,
E) I use segmented attacks broken up into the 15 second melee. You dodge, you forfeit your next action. Someone simply waits for you to do so and hits you free and clear (kind of like an attack of opportunity)> you have 5 actions, you go on 3 6 9 12 and 15. Agent 124 waits his turn (holding) with his might two attacks and when you dodge (losing action 6) agent 124 hits you with a vehicle stopper, that is unless you dodge again losing attack number 9 as well and then a bunch of punks with 2 attacks take staggered actions pinning you down making you dance like a monkey
F) Ok put in a double agent. Someone who can get in close, poison their food, set pressure plate explosives under their bed, replace their aspirin with cyanide, replace toothpaste with glue so no one can hear them scream as you come up behind them and coup de gras their hiney. the rules do say that a point blank gun shot to the head or heart will kill someone despite how much SDC they have, even better if you are using the -10 rule.
G) not every challenge is about combat, can you disarm a bomb, protect the foreign minister, figure out who the mole is, translate an ancient text
You could design a whole game around a given skill scholastic, piloting or something else that they can barely do or can't do at all and they just have to deal, letting them know that the +30 to SPD is useless when in a paraglider, and they might want to broaden their skill base

twingle93 wrote:When constructing my high-level (17th)
23 attacks per melee. +19 on initiative, +10 to strike, +11 to dodge, +13 to automatic dodge, +12 to parry, critical strike on an unmodified roll of 19 or 20, +30 to damage

I think it's important to note that the fundamental issue in the entire Palladium system is that bonuses are not as high as people think they are. Most people (including the above poster) would think that +13 to automatic dodge is a large bonus.

The game is written as if that's a large bonus. The person who posted this thinks this is a large bonus. I thought for years that this was a large bonus. Then I buckled down and did the stats, no shorthand, I wrote out every combination of die-rolls (there are 400) and counted the dodges and non-dodges (I was waiting for some friends to show in a Chinese restaurant... and I am just aspbergers enough to enjoy this sort of thing).

Assuming the character has a +13 to dodge, and the shooter has a +3 to strike (WP Rifle, level 1), the odds of the character dodging a shot are...

Roughly 88%, not even 9/10. Level 1 shooter takes a shot at a level 17 demigod... and he hits him more than one time out of ten.

This is made worse when you realize that to a character with a +3 to dodge, he'll dodge the +3 to strike roughly 55% of the time (natural 20's shift the odds a bit, but not much).

Level 1, dodges the shot 55% of the time. Level 17 with Superpowers? Dodges the shot 88% of the time....

This is not a very large difference. The level 17 guy is not nearly as unhittable as one would think *despite* his superpowers and off the chart experience level.

In Palladium, 'big' bonuses really aren't that 'big', the last thing I would do is curtail a player's bonuses since in all likelihood even if he has a +13 (or higher) to dodge, he really is going to get tagged a lot. Meanwhile even if he does have a +10 or higher to strike, he's going to miss a lot.

There's a thread in the HU forum (Was HU Designed so Major Comic Book Characters Can't Be Made?) where Leon Kennedy showed that with max dice roll values, a character could be created with a PS of 128. That's a damage bonus of +112. The same character, when transformed into APS Metal would have a PS of 156, or a damage bonus of +140. Minimum damage this guy can do when not transformed is 113, when transformed it's 141.

I know that this character is way out of bounds, and while technically possible it isn't very probable. But if you want to talk about high bonuses, that one I think just threw all of the "smaller" bonuses of 17, 18, 19, 20 out of the window. With force.

Agreed that is high, but show me a 128 to strike parry dodge

If you don't want to put the players in check, or they have justification that satisfies you, just bump up the bad guys. A group that powerful will attract the attention of powerful beings, good or bad.

don't. The Slaver would have relied on what has always worked best for him

There are tools in combat that don't consider an opponents combat bonuses and get progressively nasty at higher levels, nastier still if the one wielding the power is immortal or very long lived.

A suitably ancient demon lord at level 30 with call lightning would do as much damage as a boom gun with no chance to dodge. Lot of good a +20 modifier is going to do anyone in that circumstance. Of course, I list the most extreme case I can think of only to illustrate my point.

I think it's important to note that the fundamental issue in the entire Palladium system is that bonuses are not as high as people think they are. Most people (including the above poster) would think that +13 to automatic dodge is a large bonus.

The game is written as if that's a large bonus. The person who posted this thinks this is a large bonus. I thought for years that this was a large bonus. Then I buckled down and did the stats, no shorthand, I wrote out every combination of die-rolls (there are 400) and counted the dodges and non-dodges (I was waiting for some friends to show in a Chinese restaurant... and I am just aspbergers enough to enjoy this sort of thing).

Assuming the character has a +13 to dodge, and the shooter has a +3 to strike (WP Rifle, level 1), the odds of the character dodging a shot are...

Roughly 88%, not even 9/10. Level 1 shooter takes a shot at a level 17 demigod... and he hits him more than one time out of ten.

This is made worse when you realize that to a character with a +3 to dodge, he'll dodge the +3 to strike roughly 55% of the time (natural 20's shift the odds a bit, but not much).

Level 1, dodges the shot 55% of the time. Level 17 with Superpowers? Dodges the shot 88% of the time....

This is not a very large difference. The level 17 guy is not nearly as unhittable as one would think *despite* his superpowers and off the chart experience level.

In Palladium, 'big' bonuses really aren't that 'big', the last thing I would do is curtail a player's bonuses since in all likelihood even if he has a +13 (or higher) to dodge, he really is going to get tagged a lot. Meanwhile even if he does have a +10 or higher to strike, he's going to miss a lot.

Thank you for this example, it clarifies much. My further problem would be that, unless the first level sniper killed the "demigod" instantly, the next turn the demigod is just going to use his turn, use his superspeed to run over there and his next 22 attacks per melee round, and even if the demigod just began slapping the sniper character and doing minimum damage each and every time then the sniper will probably be dead before half the attacks are over with.

lakota wrote:and remember if your pcs have stupid dodge bonuses after the second or third time he dodges have the Npc start simo attacking him no dodge or parry (unless one of them is duel wielding)

Yup. Simo-attack is the great equalizer.

Lucky wrote:I sent my level 2-3 party of 4 against a splugorth slave barge (complete with 4 blind women) and they all have ridiculous magic bonuses to save. They didn't (and still don't) know how badly they were trouncing this slaver, but the fact that most of the attacks against them were magical in nature completely offset my initial course of action...

... I know I should have accoutned for this earlier, but it got past me.

So.... how would I bump up the spell strength for TW weapons/staff of eylor/etc or somehow make magic more effective against them, without sending level 10+ spluggies at my party of noobs? Or should I just find them a different opponent?

Have the Slaver use Telepathy early on in combat (or before, if applicable). This will give him knowledge of the party's basic tactics, which will let him know how to counter them. If the party rushes thinking, "We're so resistant to magic that we should be okay" then the slaver will know to use attacks that don't allow saves, and he'll instruct his BWWs to use the appropriate weaponry against them.

The following do NOT allow saves vs. magic:
Fear
Call Lightning
Net Gun
Laser Wrist Blasters
Forearm Plasma Blaster
Head Laser
Any conventional weapons

The following DO allow a save vs. magic:
Mental Incapacitator (Wisps of Confusion)
Befuddle
Blinding Flash

So saves vs. magic should only affect a small part of the slaver crew's arsenal in the first place.

Also, why did your party of noobs have ridiculous bonuses to save in the first place?

Okay... Okay... Okay...

From my experience, having played under a few GMs and having creating ALL KINDS of really nasty PC's and NPC's. The trick really comes down to this. Look at what your characters give up in exchange for some of these "high" combat bonuses.

For example, I have a current PC who has ALL of his combat bonuses ranging anywhere from +12-20 on any given roll in any given situation. Yes, that's some serious combat power there, and he is definitely a monster in most combat situations. What did he have to give up for those bonuses? Lots. Lots of skills were given up for him to become a monster in unarmed and melee combat. Yet he possesses no modern skills, no modern WPs, knows almost nothing about the sciences, mechanical, electronic... (If someone asked him to fix a bike... he would look at it like it was some sort of alien piece of technology... really, it's a bicycle...).

Ya see? He possesses literally no modern skills at all. He gave them all up for the sake of skills that would assist him in defeating his opponents. If it weren't for his goody-two-shoes character style, he would be no better than a barbarian. What happens when his armor breaks or is destroyed? He has to rely on somebody else to fix it or get him something better... Cause he just doesn't KNOW!

Look at it that way. SURE, a PC is monsterously awesome in combat... find the things they don't know ANYTHING about, can't punch, shoot, dodge or parry their way out of it... and then what? Their seven different kinds of in trouble. Why? You successfully eliminated their great ability. It does them no good.

They have a high PE attrible (pluses to save vs. magic), hit them with psionics. They have a high ME (pluses to save vs. psionics), hit them with magic. If they have a high PE AND ME, Tactical Nuke. :3

twingle93 wrote:Thank you for this example, it clarifies much. My further problem would be that, unless the first level sniper killed the "demigod" instantly, the next turn the demigod is just going to use his turn, use his superspeed to run over there and his next 22 attacks per melee round, and even if the demigod just began slapping the sniper character and doing minimum damage each and every time then the sniper will probably be dead before half the attacks are over with.

Things that don't matter

1) Dodge bonus, as even a +13 doesn't get you very much.
2) initiative bonus, as they rarely are very high and even if you win initiative, it only gives you one attack before the opponent gets a turn.
3) Strike bonus don't matter beyond a certain point since you only need a 7 (RUE) or 5 (RMB) to hit

Things that *really* don't matter

1) Save vs coma/death (as the most common cause of death is independent of a save)
2) Save vs mind control/possession. These instances are rare and the available saves are not high enough to matter.

Things that *sort of* matter

1) Attacks per melee.. Since you take turns for the first couple attacks per melee, if you can kill someone in four hits, and they can kill you in four hits, if you have 22 attacks and they only have five attacks, it sort of helps to have all those extra *after* you and they ahev had your five attacks taking turns. However, if you don't have enough of what really matters (see next) these extra attacks wont help you.

2) Automatic dodge.. it helps a little bit, since it allows you to dodge without losing attacks per melee (which sort of matter). It however is negated by simultaneous attacks and the dodge bonus thing (see above) limits it also.

3) Automatic parry, see above, but only works in melee.

4) Roll with punch, as blunt force attacks and explosions do occurr, just these are useless against blades and most projectile/energy weapons. As most attacks *are* with bladed/projectile/energy weapons, the roll is not that useful.

Things that *do* matter.

1) MDC. How much damage you can take is incredibly important given how dodge only helps a bit and can be negated with simultaneous attacks.

2) Damage output. Seeing as how simultaneous attack negates autododge completely, AND additional attacks are used at the END of the round, being able to do a big damage attack on your *first* attack absolutely trumps any advantage of having 20 attacks per melee at the end of the round.

Neither of the things that do matter are bonuses, and bonuses only have marginal effect on them (in RMB, If you have a +4 to strike, you're good to go on your simultaneous attacks... additional bonuses wont help you.).

Without knowing the MDC or damage output of your character, I can't say if they're high powered or not. A 22 attack per melee +13 autododge guy with 10 MDC isn't that tough. While a 4 attack per melee 400 MDC guy with a 6d6+6 burstable forearm blaster (in RMB you could burst this thing too!), is a tough guy even if he only has +3 to strike and no dodge bonus at all.

Let them enjoy the high end bonuses, especially if they rolled the numbers while you watched. The truth of the matter is that high end bonuses tend to make things boring after a while, since the players will have a hard time finding anything challenging.

Coma Death: I use this in a different way (stop groaning). If you take more damage in a single hit than your PE, you make a check. Failure means you are stunned and must make a check vs KO. Failure means you are knocked out and must make a Coma check. Failure means you are comatose and must make a Death save. Now all of this is HIGHLY unlikely to happen but plausible if you have a PE of 10 and take 11 points of damage, you could die. I've seen it happen ONCE in all my years of doing this and it was with an NPC

Attacks: I divide them up by the 15 second segment. Winning Initiative isn't a big deal if you already have an action every other segment, but it does give you a freebie if you have only 3 attacks vs the guy with 7 or 8

Strike: you only need a 7 or a 5 if the target is standing still

Where is everyone getting 7 to hit from? In melee, you need a 5 to hit, even for most called shots IIRC (just w/o any bonus to strike), an 8 for ranged hits within 60', and a 12 for a ranged strike more than 61' or for any ranged called strike.

That being said, shouldn't the number to strike on a ranged called strike over 61' be higher? I mean, it really doesn't make any sense to me if it's just as hard to hit someone standing 61' away from you as it is to hit their head or legs or whatever from 11'.

Colt47 wrote:Let them enjoy the high end bonuses, especially if they rolled the numbers while you watched. The truth of the matter is that high end bonuses tend to make things boring after a while, since the players will have a hard time finding anything challenging.

This is so very true and I will agree with it 99%! The 1% that I don't agree with is having a hard time finding anything challenging. Speaking from experience, a character with high bonuses will find it VERY difficult to find challenges on the field of combat. However, that is not to say there aren't things outside of -just- combat that they WILL find challenging. Or perhaps they can file their experiences and knowledge (someone would say their "power") into different venues outside of killing the bad guys.

One of my characters has OBSCENE combat bonuses, but he is not a fighter. He CAN fight when he has to (and will mess up your average opponent in a HEART BEAT), but he's a scientist at heart. What does he do? He begins building inventions and creating things of great ability for the benefit of others.

Another character also has unusually high combat bonuses. Most opponents don't last 2-3 attacks by him. If they do, they are HURTING from it! He finds no true challenge on the battle field anymore. However, he has recently (attaining 8th level), decided that his skills could be used better elsewhere. He has begun plans to open up dojo's and training facilities in the city he lives in to become a teacher in the physical arts (Possesses all physical skills).

three words, invulnerable suicide bomber

two more words, transferral possession

four more words, romantic interest + double cross

Games like shadowrun, D&D, Rifts, are breeding grounds for munckinism.
I think there are few games that actually have RPing as its primary focus. not saying that munchkinisim doesn't happen, it's just not too commoon
VTM, CP2020, BTS to name a few

KillWatch wrote:Games like shadowrun, D&D, Rifts, are breeding grounds for munckinism.
I think there are few games that actually have RPing as its primary focus. not saying that munchkinisim doesn't happen, it's just not too commoon
VTM, CP2020, BTS to name a few

Uh... VtM is full of munchkins. A good part of most players' motivation seems to ride on them wanting to be able to smite puny humans at will.
And of all the games of CP2020 I've played, I think only one did not end in most or all of the party getting killed due to infighting. That's not exactly munchkin, but it ain't healthy.
And lately D&D is so freakin' balanced that it's kind of boring to play. You can still get munchkin with it, but you have to have the cooperation of the DM.

VTM: You start at the bottom rung. Yes killing humans is easy, but not really the point of the game. Lower generations are out there. You have a prince telling you what you can and cannot do. It's a game about relationships and intrigue. If you want to go out and just go mad kiling mortals, the prince will get pissed, and order your execution, probably having your sire correct his mistake. And yes you get some special abilities to begin with, but they are so low powered there is definitely room to grow. In fact I liked it so much I borrowed the incremental growth for many of my power revisions, instead of having everything all at once with APS Fire, you don't get to transform until level 5, and I usually throw in an armageddon type attack at level 13. And by what you said, its the players you play with not the game.

CP 2020: your group does suck. Both times your criticism has more to do with the people you play with than the games themselves

D&D: well since I have been playing pathfinder and pathfinder is 3.5.2, I can tell you that this game is balanced, but its all about getting next level. Where as some games make it a pleasant achievement, RPing such a back seat to points, treasure and feats that you can almost forget you are playing an RPG

I do have to say that I like the way level are handled in Rifts and PB's other book lines because it make HP(and SDC) less about levels and more about you class and or abilities. It is possible for a high level character to still get his rear end handed to him by a low level threat (especially in Rifts where hit points and SDC don't really matter against MD weapons). It is really refreshing that my characters have to continuously worry about getting wasted in a fire fight no matter what level they are currently or what level their opponents may be.

KillWatch wrote:VTM: You start at the bottom rung. Yes killing humans is easy, but not really the point of the game.

It doesn't have to be the point of the game for it to be munchkin. Being able to swat down mortals as an afterthought draws in plenty of people without it being the overall goal.

CP 2020: your group does suck. Both times your criticism has more to do with the people you play with than the games themselves

lol so's your criticism of the other games being "munchkin breeding grounds."
There are munchkins that play those games, but there are a lot of other people too.
Find some better ones.

D&D: well since I have been playing pathfinder and pathfinder is 3.5.2, I can tell you that this game is balanced, but its all about getting next level. Where as some games make it a pleasant achievement, RPing such a back seat to points, treasure and feats that you can almost forget you are playing an RPG

That's not munchkin, though.
Just kinda lame.

dragonfett wrote: It is really refreshing that my characters have to continuously worry about getting wasted in a fire fight no matter what level they are currently or what level their opponents may be.

More realistic too.
Take the real-world equivalent of a level 15 soldier.
He gets shot, he's just as likely to die as a raw recruit.

You can make any game into a munchkin game. Some games are geared towards it like mechwarrior where bigger is obviously betterI have played vampire and have either had very little contact with mortals or they were useful tools. Those who get off on bullying them, are a different kind of tool. It sounds like they want to play a supers game and just be obnoxious.

not sure what my quote has to do with your statement but, no My reason for pointing these things out like mechwarrior, like rifts, etc, is that it invites munchkinism versus role playing. Complaining that your fine wine came in a dixie cup is missing the point. Saying that any game CAN be munchkin because some jackholes did so, is a testament of the players and not the game.

and finally yes it is lame, but so is munckinism. Pathfinder is simply following in the D&D footsteps of kill stuff, loot, get a better sword. Palladium gives you a reason why you are getting better. And so what if that guy has a machine gun, he can't hit the broadside of a barn. You on the other hand are deadly with your throwing knives and in about 3 seconds he is going to have 2 less eyes.

Sorry I just really hate the feats system.

dragonfett wrote:I do have to say that I like the way level are handled in Rifts and PB's other book lines because it make HP(and SDC) less about levels and more about you class and or abilities. It is possible for a high level character to still get his rear end handed to him by a low level threat (especially in Rifts where hit points and SDC don't really matter against MD weapons). It is really refreshing that my characters have to continuously worry about getting wasted in a fire fight no matter what level they are currently or what level their opponents may be.

My greatest quibble about levels in PB is that it's not just that HP's only go up a negligible amount, it's that almost everything also goes up by a negligible amount.

Look at a character's stats at 1st level, then look at them at 5th, you don't see much of a difference. They have an additional attack per melee, a +2 to strike, a +3 to parry and dodge, maybe another +1 or +2 with their weapons and +10-20% on their skills and that's all. Palladium games seem well-suited for people who don't care about levels because the level increase is so marginal, which is ironic since it also has one of the slowest level advancement schemes in gaming. The lack of level improvements is one of the things that leads to a "Christmas tree" effect, where your character is defined not by their skills and abilities, but by their equipment.

I'll use the level 1 vs level 15 soldier analogy. Yes, a level 15 soldier is just as vulnerable to a direct machine gun round as a level 1 soldier, but the level 15 soldier should be able to do *something* that makes him orders of magnitude more potent than a level 1 soldier, but the palladium level system doesn't reflect that.

I'd buy a system where every level gave the soldier a +2 to strike with a rifle. Then your 15th level soldier has a +33 to strike with an aimed shot, and I've no trouble believing a 15th level soldier is that much of a better marksman than a guy who's fresh out of boot camp.

KillWatch wrote:You can make any game into a munchkin game.

My point.

Some games are geared towards it like mechwarrior where bigger is obviously betterI have played vampire and have either had very little contact with mortals or they were useful tools. Those who get off on bullying them, are a different kind of tool. It sounds like they want to play a supers game and just be obnoxious.

The difference is probably that I only played VtM back in the day, before later books and larping turned it into drama-porn.
They didn't want to play a supers game, they wanted to be vampires.
It's just that the kind of people who want to be vampires tend to be people who get bullied in life and wish they were powerful enough to strike back, but who would abuse any power they could get in the same ways that their bullies did.
In short, munchkins.

not sure what my quote has to do with your statement but, no My reason for pointing these things out like mechwarrior, like rifts, etc, is that it invites munchkinism versus role playing. Complaining that your fine wine came in a dixie cup is missing the point. Saying that any game CAN be munchkin because some jackholes did so, is a testament of the players and not the game.

Okay, but what I'm saying is that you are wrong.
You can find munchkins in every game. We agree on that.
There are games out there that are prone to munchkinism. We agree on that.
Where we disagree is on which games. I've never played mechwarrior, so I can't comment on that.
But I can, have, and will again comment on VtM and CP2020, because the first game was virtually invented for munchkins and the second was pretty prone to it.
That might not be your personal experience with those games, but guess what?
I've never gamed with munchkins in Rifts or D&D (well, not after 2nd edition back in early high school).
From 3.0 onward, D&D is designed to be balanced, and it IS. Unless you go against the system.
With Rifts, the game was anti-munchkin in the beginning. No matter what OCC you were from the early books, you could (and often would) die unexpectedly in combat. The only way it would be munchkin is if you were constantly fighting vagabonds or something. It was a high-powered game, but that doesn't mean that the mechanics supported or invited munchkins.
After CB1, things got worse, but the balancing factor of Rifts after that point was that the game became so unbalanced.
No matter what you were, there was always something bigger and badder than you were.
Hell, SB2 introduced the Mechanoids, and those things could kill virtually anything through sheer firepower and numbers.

I do not believe I have EVER run into a Rifts-playing munchkin who was playing by the official rules of the game.

Supergyro, were you ever in the military or even shot a rifle. I was in the military for six years, and due to my MOS in the Air Force (we called them something different, but it's the same as a MOS, essentially), I only needed to qualify on the M-16 once every year and a half until my last year when I also became a Security Forces Augmentee (aka, Air Force Rent-a-Cop), where I was required to qualify either every six months or every year (I can't remember at the moment). True, people who qualify on the M-16 more frequently (such as infantry) are going to be better marksmen overall, however they are not going to be that much better than someone just out of their MOS training. Perhaps they might be more battle hardened, but their accuracy will be fairly consistent to one another.

Something that I have always felt that was missing from was the ability to individualize characters through perks or bonuses (like feats or character traits or advantages and disadvantages). According to the way PB explains it, everyone who just learned how to shoot a gun will hit the target the same number of times, and those who hit it more than average are just lucky, even when they can do it several times in a row. A character trait or advantage could allow for a character to be a "natural" shot (i.e., a better shot). Unfortunately, traits/advantages/feats will just give a munchkin more fuel to their fires.

dragonfett wrote:Supergyro, were you ever in the military or even shot a rifle. I was in the military for six years, and due to my MOS in the Air Force (we called them something different, but it's the same as a MOS, essentially), I only needed to qualify on the M-16 once every year and a half until my last year when I also became a Security Forces Augmentee (aka, Air Force Rent-a-Cop), where I was required to qualify either every six months or every year (I can't remember at the moment). True, people who qualify on the M-16 more frequently (such as infantry) are going to be better marksmen overall, however they are not going to be that much better than someone just out of their MOS training.

Are you saying that you didn't any better at the M-16 because you didn't use it very much or are you saying that there is simply no way to get any better at an M-16 no matter how much it is used?

How much did you practice with the M-16? You had to qualify every six months, does that mean you practiced roughly one week every six months?

Supergyro wrote:

dragonfett wrote:Supergyro, were you ever in the military or even shot a rifle. I was in the military for six years, and due to my MOS in the Air Force (we called them something different, but it's the same as a MOS, essentially), I only needed to qualify on the M-16 once every year and a half until my last year when I also became a Security Forces Augmentee (aka, Air Force Rent-a-Cop), where I was required to qualify either every six months or every year (I can't remember at the moment). True, people who qualify on the M-16 more frequently (such as infantry) are going to be better marksmen overall, however they are not going to be that much better than someone just out of their MOS training.

Are you saying that you didn't any better at the M-16 because you didn't use it very much or are you saying that there is simply no way to get any better at an M-16 no matter how much it is used?

How much did you practice with the M-16? You had to qualify every six months, does that mean you practiced roughly one week every six months?

I think he's saying that practice can make you better, but that no matter how much you practice, you won't end up getting that much better than when you're initially trained.

Thank you Killer Cyborg. That is what I was trying to say (I just don't know how to say what I mean effectively). However, there is a huge disparity between the supply geek who only qualifies for one day every year and the infantryman who has to qualify who knows how much more often, and has a higher standard of hit rate as well. I think the current WP's are fine to simulate the bare bones training the supply geek, but something more is needed (besides the Sniper skill) for the infantryman who is a much better shot. And I don't know about the Army, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard, but the Air Force only takes one day to give you your initial training and one day each time you re-qualify. Different MOS's re-qualify so many months, the more combat orientated ones re-qualify every six months, those who aren't are not more combat orientated but deploy more often (like Civil Engineers, I believe) re-qualify every 18 months.

People who have no training on shooting a rifle (like many civilians) have no WP for rifles, people who have basic training in shooting a rifle (like almost all military members) have a basic WP in rifles, but there should be something more or extra for infantryman.

dragonfett wrote:Thank you Killer Cyborg. That is what I was trying to say (I just don't know how to say what I mean effectively).

Killer Cyborg wrote:I think he's saying that practice can make you better, but that no matter how much you practice, you won't end up getting that much better than when you're initially trained.

However,

dragonfett wrote:There is a huge disparity between the supply geek who only qualifies for one day every year and the infantryman who has to qualify who knows how much more often, and has a higher standard of hit rate as well.

Where does the "huge disparity" come from if "you won't end up getting that much better"?

Either

marksmanship is something that comes with training and practice, at which point it makes total sense to think that experienced combat veterans would be much better at it than non-combat personnel.

or

Marksmanship is something that you can learn quickly but beyond that no additional practice will do you much good, at which point there would be no "huge disparity" between the skills of someone who shoots regularly and someone who shoots rarely.

What I am trying to say that the infantryman will be kept in training until he is shooting at a certain proficiency level before he is allowed to leave training or he will be put in another MOS. Once the supply geek and the infantryman leave training and go out in to the real world, their ability to shoot will progress at a somewhat linear rate, with the infantryman hitting a plateau well before the supply geek. If I had a program that allowed me to make a graph in a picture format, I feel I would be able to better show you what I am trying to say. It is that initial training (and/or talent) that sets the infantryman apart from the supply geek. Have I made myself more clear as to what I am trying to say? Is there any confusion as to what I am trying to convey?

Cyborg: So if everyone who wants to play vampires is a geek who has been pushed around and want's to beat on people, then lets apply other stereotypes like you must be a virgin

blah