Fantasy Gaming via Mutants and Masterminds

Xeviat · April 03, 2008, 12:22:03 AM

Hi all. I took on the name "Kap'n Krunch" last year, and I was awarded the "Krunchiest CBGer" award last year. In thanks for that award, I need to make an effort to earn it this year as well.

4E is coming in June. For the first third of this year, I was sitting back and watching, resisting the urge to continue messing with 3.5 since it would be all for naught. I fully intend on converting my games to 4E, and I will definitely be making new material (including my Ifrit, Triton, and Valkyrie races, as well as possible new classes).

But, truth be told, there is one thing that worries me about 4E, and it stems from my favorite part of 4E: per encounter and per day powers. More specifically, I'm worried about limited powers from the Martial power source. I'm worried that I will find it hard to believe that a warrior could have a maneuver so exerting that they can only do it once per day, yet they're still able to fight on normally. Or, that a fighter who has the energy to perform 3 different per encounter abilities seemingly doesn't have the ability to perform any combination of those three 3 different times (like 3 of one, or 2 of one and 1 of another). While I expect these sort of abilities from magic, it may be hard for me to swallow for Martial abilities.

Likewise, I know there are many who aren't looking forward to 4E for other reasons. It is for them, and my own restlessness, that I come here tonight to unveil my new project: I am going to seek to design a 3.X patch utilizing the Mutants and Masterminds rules for Fantasy Gaming.

I know, True20 already exists. But it has large imbalances, and even larger holes that would take more work to fix than just tweeking Mutants and Masterminds. Mutants and Masterminds is a simple system that manages to achieve great mechanical balance at the expense of everyone's numbers coming out rather similarly. Before I had the chance to play M&M, I was worried that the mechanical similarities between characters would become an issue, but in play characters feel different simply because their abilities are described differently. The more I play it, the more I see great potential for a nice, simple system that even lacks the complexities 4E is creating.

Will I play my work over 4E? Probably not. But, if what I suspect is true, the fruit of my project will be somewhat compatible with 4E, and at the very least will give me insight into its balance. I only have 2 months before 4E, so I'm going to attempt to put together this patch ASAP. If anyone is familiar with M&M (and I know a few of you are), please feel free to input whatever you can. For those of you unfamiliar with M&M, I'll seek to explain what I can in my next post.

The Kap'n is back!

Xeviat · April 03, 2008, 01:00:30 AM

Here's a quick rundown of Mutants and Masterminds:

Generally speaking, a GM chooses a power level (a number between 1 and 20, though it could technically extend infinitely if one wanted), and players get 15 power points per power level to build their characters. There are the 6 standard ability scores, costing 1 point for every point above 10, and 4 core abilities: Attack, Damage, Defense, Toughness. Last, there are the 3 standard saving throws.

The Core Abilities are of prime importance. Attack costs 2 power points Attack bonus, although one can choose to purchase only Melee Attack or only Ranged Attack for 1 power point per bonus. Likewise, Defense costs 2 power points per Defense bonus, although one can choose to purchase only Dodge Defense for 1 power point per bonus (when you purchase raw Defense, 1/2 your bonus is Dodge, while the other half is always retained). Damage cannot be purchased directly, it is tied to your individual attacks: Strength determines your unarmed damage and damage with most melee weapons, but most other attacks have their damage determined by the attacks' rank. Lastly, Toughness cannot technically be purchased directly; it is linked to Constitution (though there are powers, feats, and equipment to purchase up Toughness).

All of the Core Abilities have a cap on their bonus equal to the campaign's power level, although this can be changed. Attack and Damage are linked, while Defense and Toughness are linked. If you reduce your cap on one linked ability, you can increase it on the other linked ability; for instance, a power level 1 character can reduce their Attack cap to +0 and boost their Damage cap to +2.

Saving Throws have a cap equal to the campaign's Power Level +5, except for Toughness. These caps help determine ability scores: Ability scores are linked to Damage, Toughness, and the Saves, but not to Attack or Defense (I disagree with this to an extent, but I'll discuss that later). Thus, most ability scores are capped at a total bonus equal to 2PL+10, except for Str and Con which are limited to 2PL unless the Damage and Toughness caps are adjusted.

Skills cost 1 power point for every 4 skill points. Skills have a skill point cap equal to the campaign's Power Level +5 (notice that this is not a limit on the skill's total bonus, so it's total bonus is technically limited to 2PL+10, if one wants to get crazy). Feats cost 1 power point per feat, and some feats are ranked (Attack Focus, which can be taken for Melee or Ranged, is ranked; this is how you boost just melee or just ranged as I stated previously). Lastly, powers have varying costs, and most powers are ranked.

---------------

At its core, this is a great system. But it has a few problems. The first problem is that it is very possible to create a weak or defenseless character. The system encourages you to purchase your core abilities to max, then adjust to fit, and likewise it encourages you to purchase up your saves (since attacks can target saves instead of Defense, or instead of Toughness). This is my first proposed change: I propose to have the core abilities scale with level, like 4E does, and then similarly reduce the points granted per level. There are several ways to deal with this, which I will discuss in the next post.

Second, 4E and SAGA have caused me to take issue with there being a true separation between AC and Reflex. In D&D, this separation is apparent: Armor provides a bonus to AC. 4E treats them as one in the same, except armor doesn't provide a bonus to Reflex; in effect, Reflex Defense replaces Flat-Footed AC. Mutants and Masterminds uses a Toughness save system, where damage is equal to attack's rank +15, and that number is saved against with the Toughness save. Armor provides a bonus to Toughness save, as does Con. Thus, "Touch AC" is an irrelevant concept in Mutants and Masterminds. Dodging is Dodging in my opinion, and while this loses the distinction between Dodge Defense and raw Defense, I am comfortable with that: I intend on using "Combat Advantage", a raw -2 penalty to Defenses when your opponent has the advantage against you, and I have a hard time seeing how one could increase one's defenses to be harder to hit while you are paralyzed.

Third, I would like to condense a few more skills, both in a final attempt to ensure that "no skill is left behind", but also to balance the ability scores. M&M has a crucial flaw that Intelligence and Charisma are all but worthless to characters whose concept requires them. Some would say this isn't an issue, but I retort by saying that all characters are punished for having a low Dex, Con, and Wis (through making those characters spend more points on boosting their saving throws and toughness); worse still, purchasing points of Constitution is more efficient than purchasing its related abilities, unlike every other ability score (in which it is best to purchase the relevant abilities UNLESS a character requires a vast number of skills tied to that score or would like to break the PL+5 limit on skill bonuses). I have a proposal for this, which I will place in the next post.

Lastly, are the skills themselves. M&M follows the standard 3E model of having to purchase all of your skill points; there is no base ability based on your level as in SAGA or 4E. For some time, I believed that Saga and 4E stumbled upon the best solution to what I call the "assassin problem", which goes something like this: At high levels, a fighter has no way to defend themselves against an assassin, since the fighter's cross class ranks in spot and listen are vastly outstripped by the assassin's class ranks in hide and move silently; if the fighter purchases magic items to boost them, magic items to boost the assassin's abilities cost exactly the same. But I think I stumbled upon the solution to the problem, a solution that SAGA began but didn't finish: Skills should not oppose other skills. SAGA made it so "bluff" opposed Will Defense, meaning that a character would not be incredibly punished for not having Sense Motive as a class skill. Once the defensive aspects of Sense Motive are combined with Will Defense, the only real defensive skill left is "Notice" (the catch all for spot and listen, as well as all the other senses); One option would be to just stick it in Will Defense and search for a new name that makes more sense, or the other option would be to separate Will into Will Power and Perceptiveness (Wisdom would have the Perception Defense, while Charisma would gain Will Defense). This would go a long way to boosting Charisma as well. Will Defense would govern attempts to attack or sway the mind, while Perception Defense would govern attempts to deceive the mind. I'm not certain if Perception Defense would be large enough, but I do enjoy the idea of having 2 physical defenses and 2 mental defenses.

To make all of these changes work, all bonuses would need to be capped at Power Level, but that would feel weird. I hope to seek out a different way of doing things, having base bonuses not exceed Power Level, but allowing ability scores in the normal range (3-18), which would create bonuses and penalties which would not exceed the range of a d20. This would mean that all characters would be on the same paying field, but character's strengths and weaknesses would not put them into always win or always lose situations.

Xeviat · April 03, 2008, 01:03:26 AM

Here is a table of my changes to the ability scores. The cost are how many points of bonus are worth 1 power point, which I've arranged so that each ability score bonus is worth 2 points for those who desire the skills for that score to be high. I'll discuss the condenses after:

[th]Strength[/th][th]Cost[/th][th]New Strength[/th][th]Cost[/th][th]Dexterity[/th][th]Cost[/th][th]New Dexterity[/th][th]Cost[/th][th]Constitution[/th][th]Cost[/th][th]New Constitution[/th][th]Cost[/th][th]Intelligence[/th][th]Cost[/th][th]New Intelligence[/th][th]Cost[/th][th]Wisdom[/th][th]Cost[/th][th]New Wisdom[/th][th]Cost[/th][th]Charisma[/th][th]Cost[/th][th]New Charisma[/th][th]Cost[/th]

'¢Unarmed (or Mighty) damage.	1:1	'¢Unarmed Damage	1:1
'¢Jump Distance	?	'¢Carrying Capacity	2:1
'¢Carrying Capacity	2:1	'¢Athletics Checks	4:1
'¢Grapple Checks	2:1	'¢Force Checks	4:1
'¢Str Checks	4:1	-	-
'¢Climb Checks	4:1	-	-
'¢Swim Checks	4:1	-	-
'¢Reflex Saves	1:1	'¢Reflex Defense	1:1
'¢Initiative Checks	4:1	'¢Acrobatics Checks	4:1
'¢Dex Checks (Trip)	4:1*	'¢Initiative Checks	4:1
'¢Acrobatics Checks	4:1	'¢Pilot Checks*	4:1
'¢Drive Checks	4:1	'¢Stealth Checks	4:1
'¢Escape Artist Checks	4:1	-	-
'¢Pilot Checks	4:1	-	-
'¢Ride Checks	4:1	-	-
'¢Sleight of Hand Checks	4:1	-	-
'¢Stealth Checks	4:1	-	-
'¢Toughness Saves	1:1	'¢Toughness	1:1
'¢Fortitude Saves	1:1	'¢Fortitude Defense	1:1
'¢Recovery Checks	1:1	-	-
'¢Rounds for exertion	?	-	-
'¢Con checks for Endurance	4:1	-	-
'¢Computers Checks	4:1	'¢Bonus Skill Points (4/point)	1:1
'¢Craft Checks*	4:1	'¢Craft Checks*	4:1
'¢Disable Device Checks	4:1	'¢Knowledge Checks*	4:1
'¢Investigate Checks	4:1	-	-
'¢Knowledge Checks*	4:1	-	-
'¢Search Checks	4:1	-	-
'¢Will Saves	1:1	'¢Perception Defense	1:1
'¢Concentration Checks	4:1	'¢Concentration Checks	4:1
'¢Medicine Checks	4:1	'¢Medicine Checks	4:1
'¢Notice Checks	4:1	'¢Notice Checks	4:1
'¢Profession Checks*	4:1	'¢Survival Checks	4:1
'¢Sense Motive Checks	4:1	-	-
'¢Survival Checks	4:1	-	-
'¢Bluff Checks	4:1	'¢Will Defense	1:1
'¢Diplomacy Checks	4:1	'¢Bluff	4:1
'¢Disguise Checks	4:1	'¢Diplomacy	4:1
'¢Gather Information Checks	4:1	'¢Gather Information	4:1
'¢Handle Animal Checks	4:1	'¢Intimidate	4:1
'¢Intimidate Checks	4:1	-	-
'¢Perform Checks*	4:1	-	-

The core concept for skills is that "skills are nice but are not required". There will be times when a player will say "gee, I sure wish I had taken Knowledge (religion) right about now", but such events will not spell immediate doom for a character. All skills will target Defenses (although interaction skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate can be opposed with the same skill, because a skilled liar is typically good at knowing lies, and so on) or static DCs.

Here are what the changes represent:

Athletics: A combination of Climb, Jump, and Swim, as well as a skill used for some flight maneuvers.
Force: This is where old raw strength checks, like the checks used in Trip and Bull Rush come in. Grapple now utilizes this, and does not utilize attack bonus.
Initiative: Now treated as a skill; its cost has not changed, though, as a feat used to grant +4, which is the cost of skills.
Pilot: Ride, Drive, and Pilot are all melded into here. This is the first example of cleaning out "setting dependent" skills like Computers; if a skill would only show up in a particular setting, it should be a new function of an existing skill or a new specialty within a broad skill.
Fortitude Defense: Endurance checks now fall into Fortitude Defense, while environmental damage effects will utilize Toughness; generally, toughness is to avoid damage while Fortitude is to a representation of ones immune system and endurance.
Craft: Like Pilot, Craft is a broad skill with specialties. You may have noticed that disable device is missing; this is a craft in this system. Locks and Traps would be crafts, and both allow the construction, bypassing, and disabling of such items.
Knowledge: The last of the broad skills. Computers was placed here. In a fantasy world which needs "Spellcraft", that skill will be part of "knowledge (arcane)" or "Knowledge (occult)" or whatever it is defined by the setting.
Perception Defense: Largely a function of old Notice, Search, and Sense Motive's passive uses. Additionally, Illusion type effects target Perception Defense rather than Will Defense.
Notice: This skill now covers active uses of Spot/Listen, Search, and Sense Motive, such as gauging an opponent's relative strength, spotting weakpoints, or searching for hidden items (Perception Defense will cover noticing traps and other "hidden attacks").
Survival: Track will be an automatic function of Survival, although it is an usage that requires training.
Bluff: Covers the social sides of disguise; creating disguises is a craft.
Diplomacy: As odd as it might sound, Perform has been merged with Diplomacy; Diplomacy is a skill used to instill positive emotions into people, which is what Perform typically does. At least I think this is for the best.

Wisdom and Charisma have had their definitions altered. Wisdom is now purely Insight and Perception, while Charisma is Will Power. Charismatic people can still be gullible (an important archetype I think), because Perception Defense opposes Bluff.

SilvercatMoonpaw · April 03, 2008, 08:21:00 AM

I'm a big M&M fan, and reading over your proposed changes I'd say your changes are mostly okay, but I think you missed something:
Both the Bluff and Intimidate skills can be opposed by use of the same skill, the Sense Motive skill, OR a Will save. Meaning a given character has three different ways to oppose each of these skills. In your proposed system they would have only Will Defense to oppose them. Now if you incorporate Sense Motive into Will Defense that eliminates one, but I think you should leave an option that influence skills can be opposed by the same skill to have an option for low-Will concepts.

Also don't feel bad if you decide you want to use a level-scaling system, as this was proposed in a supplemental book. The thing is that in modeling superheroes M&M is comfortable with the concept of characters who seem tough in one way but really have a glaring weakness elsewhere.

Xeviat · April 03, 2008, 10:42:38 AM

I can keep the Intimidate vs. Intimidate or Will Defense, but there is a huge problem with that in the standard rules. Skill caps are 2PL+10, where save caps are PL+5. You might say that no one goes to this limit, but in the game I'm playing we have one character with max str (me), one character with max int, and another with max cha (who rocks the social skills). This would partially be fixed by having a smaller limitation on skills: I am currently considering having skills be limited to PL+5 at base, and then the standard 20 limit on ability scores would make for much more manageable skills.

And I understand the desire for weaknesses in super hero concepts (my own character has no reflex and often has no defense score, as he funnels it all into Rage and All Out Attack), but I think that can be handled with Flaws/Drawbacks.

SilvercatMoonpaw · April 03, 2008, 06:00:42 PM

I think it would be better not to expect a player to buy up an ability score just to reach a skill cap in case their concept doesn't require that score to be high. I think here of the brute who has no people skills but high Intimidate. The system really should just cap skill bonus itself rather than rely on capping both rank and ability bonus. That way a player could buy up their skill the way they see fit.

Xeviat · April 03, 2008, 07:13:40 PM

Right, I was saying to cap skill bonus, no matter where its source comes from.

There's a great balance in M&M, but I'm worried some traditional elements of fantasy adventuring will be lost. Finding and gaining magic items will be one issue; if a character has bought up their abilities without magic items, then their build technically can't "afford" new items.

SilvercatMoonpaw · April 03, 2008, 08:18:22 PM

By "traditional" do you really mean "D&D-style"? I get the impression in most non-gaming fantasy that magic items happen upon characters rarely and in a fashion that they'd already be accounted for.

But if you want to hand out magic items you're right, it's not good at that. It's also not going to be great at Vancian or skill-based magic. If you want some better advice I'd suggest heading over to the atomicthinktank.com, there are people there who've tried to do some of this before.

Xeviat · April 03, 2008, 08:42:10 PM

The people at Atomicthinktank aren't really great about listening to people wanting to change the rules.

You're right about magic items, though; they're generally more special. But general equipment is normal for the fantasy genre.

Skill based magic is perfectly fine in M&M; there is a power flaw that is "requires skill check", and would work just fine with a Knowledge (Arcana) check.

Xathan · April 03, 2008, 11:41:18 PM

QuoteAt its core, this is a great system. But it has a few problems. The first problem is that it is very possible to create a weak or defenseless character. The system encourages you to purchase your core abilities to max, then adjust to fit, and likewise it encourages you to purchase up your saves (since attacks can target saves instead of Defense, or instead of Toughness). This is my first proposed change: I propose to have the core abilities scale with level, like 4E does, and then similarly reduce the points granted per level. There are several ways to deal with this, which I will discuss in the next post

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one: I think this change takes out some of the inherent fun of the system. In my current MM game, I have two PCs, one of whom hits his caps (attack and defense and damage and tougness) wise after tradeoffs, and another who is way under his level caps in almost all areas. The latter is the one I have more fun playing, however: it encourages me to think on my feet more and use my primary power (Air Control) and power stunts creatively. If you mandante that character's attack and defense scale with level, then you're removing some character options that are possibly fun. (Example: a character with an alternate form that has a much higher defense when in that form, or a character with Enhanced Attack (ranged) that isn't very effective in melee, etc.) If you intend on using this option, I'd say you should at least allow a player to free up points by lowering his attack or defense or toughness or X, so they can modify the character as they see fit.

Just my 2cp.

Xeviat · April 04, 2008, 12:34:15 AM

Quote from: Xathan, Last of the FallenIf you intend on using this option, I'd say you should at least allow a player to free up points by lowering his attack or defense or toughness or X, so they can modify the character as they see fit.

Thanks for the input Xathan. I do intend to allow drawbacks to be taken which can lower ones Core Attributes below the cap, but they will be limited in number (so that a character doesn't reduce something to oblivion). Staying within a 10 point spread, with the base cap in the middle, creates a range which is neither too weak or too strong, and I feel that is the goal things should be aimed for.

One of the potential drawbacks is that each ability score needs to be created equally. If I do introduce a Perception Defense (based on Wisdom) and move Will to Charisma, I'm given the opportunity to leave Int alone (Int having no base abilities), and removing the ability score association with the Defenses. Strength then becomes a problem, as it still is tied to a base ability, although slightly limited (melee damage). Everyone can make melee attacks, but not everyone uses them.

If Core Abilities are taken away from the ability scores, the ability scores become mere descriptors and are only tied to Skills. I don't like this 100%, but it might need to be done in a scaling system (if Fort Defense scales with level, then part of Con's abilities are lost).

I realized that I haven't posted my proposed changes in an actual form. I'll go do that right now.

Ra-Tiel · April 04, 2008, 07:49:00 AM

Just my 2 coppers... ;)

#1: I don't think having limited usages of "martial" powers is too bad. After all, right now a barbarian or paladin are already restricted in that way, and everyone seems fine with that. Anyways, characters will have much more options available in 4e (at least that's what we're promised :D ) and therefore there should be enough for a player to do in combat but think "4e sucks because I can't repeatedly spam this 'ultimate maneuver of pwnage'".

By the way, did you know the site DnD4.com (http://www.dnd4.com)? Just recently stumbled upon it this week and I must say, so far I like what I see about 4e's mechanics (with the notable exception of the "save defenses" - I guess I'll just have to wait to see it at the table to make a final judgement :P ).

#2: Using skill based magic in a system not explicitly designed for such a thing (like e.g. Shadowrun) is imho a bad thing. Knowledge (magical stuff)/Spellcraft/Spellcasting (enter your class or school here)/whatyouvegot can just as easily be abused as Diplomacy. Between spell focus, synergies, spells like Improvisation, there is just too much garbage in the form of various stacking skill bonuses (insight, competence, enhancement, ...) as to make it balanced without tweaking the heck out of the system.

The Truenamer suffers from the exactly same problem. If you optimize your character for True Naming, the DCs are too low for all the feats/magic items/etc you can get. If you don't optimize, the DCs are too hard for you to get off the same effect more often than two or three times.

SilvercatMoonpaw · April 04, 2008, 09:11:46 AM

Quote from: Kap'n XeviatThe people at Atomicthinktank aren't really great about listening to people wanting to change the rules.

I've never noticed that.

Quote from: Kap'n XeviatSkill based magic is perfectly fine in M&M; there is a power flaw that is "requires skill check", and would work just fine with a Knowledge (Arcana) check.

I know, and general consensus is that it's not worth a flaw (a flaw being defined as something that takes away about 50% of a power's utility). Now if you change how much someone can pump up their skill for the check you might be able to use it, but unless the failure balances out a more than 50% success rate it basically becomes a way to shave points.

SilvercatMoonpaw · April 06, 2008, 07:51:22 AM

Okay, having looked over you ability score breakdown I have some questions:
*How do recovery checks work?
*Are you including the original Defense score in your new Reflex Defense? If so, wouldn't it be 1:3 (or at least 1:2)?

Xeviat · April 07, 2008, 11:59:04 AM

Recovery checks are folded into Fortitude Defense. It will be an "attack" against your Fortitude. I'm going to play with different attack bonuses, but the raw will be +10 (to mimic DC 10).

I'm assuming all Reflex Defense to be Dodge (even though I'm changing the notion of flat-footed to match "combat advantage"). There will be more attacks which target Reflex Defense, as it is AC.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

Fantasy Gaming via Mutants and Masterminds

Xeviat

Xeviat

Xeviat

SilvercatMoonpaw

Xeviat

SilvercatMoonpaw

Xeviat

SilvercatMoonpaw

Xeviat

Xathan

Xeviat

Ra-Tiel

SilvercatMoonpaw

SilvercatMoonpaw

Xeviat