Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

[Dr Divago]

Hi all

a mistake i did when creating player chars for my 5ed turakian age campaign is becoming a great unbalancing thing:

the "half mage half bard half warrior" of the group got an END Reserve to power up her spells. ok, this is not a bad thing, even 'cause she got the "personal end" limitation

btw, she got also a magical armor like the one in the grimoire

 

so for result, she got a 12 rPD/rED force field. Ok it's really END-expensive BUT she got also end reserve so... basically, if she cast no other spells (and she got really few spells and mostly not combat ones) she can use her FF indefinitely. and 12 PD/ED is almost overpowering it

also, very unbalancing considering other player got:

- max 6 rPD defense (with heavy armor, high encumbrance, and of course no rED)

- no more than 2d6+1 killing damage (at most)

- very few

 

i tried talking to the player but he says "hey it's in the rules, so i can use it!"

now, i know there is A LOT of way to overcome the FF: penetrating attack (there are one in fire elemental school inside grimoire at very low cost), NND attacks (magic armor protect like normal armor against nnd), very high DC attacks (stun damage are more efficacious), drain/suppress magic spells, flash or adjustment powers

and also i can give same defense to every mage they will face

BUT

i don't like the "every wizard got a magical armor and end reserve" solution, and also i don't like the "every wizard got a penetrating NND high damaging stunning attack" spell ;_;

 

so i'm thinking on talking to this guy, and honestly saying him "i can solve the situation but this means giving some enemies (and almost every mage) same spell you got and/or something to overcome your defense. OR you can rearrange points to solve unbalancing and get something useful and also gain some cool little spells/advantages"

of course i will give him some "special occasion" to change things (like the trip on irontooth i talked about in another post)

 

but the problem is: is this correct?

i mean, i should talk to him giving him a way to solve the situation without forcing me to do some unbalancing things, OR i should face them with situation/enemies who can easily penetrate the defense or get same defense?

 

so what doyou advice me?

i really don't whant to piss this guy off (honestly, he got some reasons!) but the unbalancing could piss off other players x_x

since the beginning they faced

- orcs shaman with fire penetrating attacks

- a troll mercenary who used "club weapon" for heavy stun damage against the mage-bard-warrior-girl's force field

- banewolves who "devoured" her END Reserve magic

- created-by-me magic sphere with magic suppression field (and explosion)

- underground smilodon with 3d6 killing damage

- grappling/entangling arachnoidic golems

and other special occasions

BUT

they always thinking "hey the GM put heavy powerful enemies just because she got this uberpowerful magic shield!"

;_;

 

thanks for your help

[rentauri]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

I would talk to him about it and see if he is willing to flip it out, if not maybe speak to them on how to they use it or when to use it so its not up all the time if you can get away with that.

 

Another idea is steal the artifact, I am assuming it is a focus because of how it is described. If this person flashes it off a lot something that makes the user basically indestructible has got to get someone in the world noticing it. Perhaps a [insert big baddie type here] has been planning the parties destruction and notices the item thinking it will improve his chances to live so he takes it. Now the characters are forced to go after it and reclaim it because I'm sure A) the player wants it back and nobody wants [insert big baddies's name here] to have it. Depending on how long it takes to recover the stolen item you could give the character equal points to purchase replacement items that are found along the quest but the kicker in this scenario is that the players and even the character with the item now are forced to come up with ways to defeat it. Ways that if creative enough you can steal and use once the character safety has it back.

 

Of course this could backfire and the 'force' the characters to seek out AP and NND spells in the belief that is what will be needed to overcome this.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

I'm with Rentauri. However, I am presuming it was not a found item but a created one, paid for with points on the character sheet.

 

I think I would go for a sit-down talk with the player pointing out some home truths. First about the mistake and how the character distorts the game for everyone else, Second about how such a useful thing is going to attract attention. Unwelcome attention. As such, you suggest that the character loses the item (though retains the best defence in the game - perhaps 7 or 8 DEF). How that happens is up to you and the player - I think that theft is a bad way unless the player is cool with that. I like donating it to a high level patron, giving the character some favours to draw on long term or something like that.

 

However, for the good of the game it has to go....

 

 

Doc

[Old Man]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

IIRC Force Field (or any other resistant defenses) do not stop all STUN from killing attacks. So that character will eventually drop if hit hard and often enough, even if no BODY gets through. Also, as far as I'm concerned, that character just volunteered to lead the way into every melee, dark alley, and trap filled corridor.

 

You have encountered the fundamental HERO problem that powers are all costed for supers. Force Field is awfully cheap for a heroic level fantasy campaign. But then again, Suppress and Flash are cheap too.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

..... Suppress and Flash are cheap too.

 

Yep. You could have the characters encounter an area of 'anti-magic' and suddenly the force field stops working or at least a greatly reduced effectiveness. Even if another player had 'magic armor' it would still be regular armor in such a situation.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

Am I correct in assuming the 12rPD/rED is coming from a combination of the magic force field and normal armor? If so, simply state that due to balance issues Magic Defenses and Non-Magic Defenses do not stack, you get one or the other. Both are capped at the same level.

[Markdoc]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

Am I correct in assuming the 12rPD/rED is coming from a combination of the magic force field and normal armor? If so' date=' simply state that due to balance issues Magic Defenses and Non-Magic Defenses do not stack, you get one or the other. Both are capped at the same level.[/quote']

 

This.

 

When we started playing fantasy hero, we always ended up with the problem of uber-armour (and its karmic twin, the uber-sword) caused by stacking magic on top of free gear. It's relatively cheap to make a sword that will cut through 12 rPD, if you start with a greatsword and add a couple of d6 of magic HKA. Of course that means anyone without magic armour might as well be running around in their undies.

 

So ... free gear does not add to powers purchased with points.

 

It's a simple rule and I cannot recommend it enough: I just rule that part of the "real armour/real sword" limitation is that it does not stack with powers purchased with points. If you have a 2d6 greatsword and you buy 2d6 HKA, you have two 2d6 HKAs, not a 4d6 HKA. If you want a 4d6 HKA, you can get there with levels, martial arts and grunt strength, or even just buying 4d6 HKA, so it's not the total effect that's the problem: it's the balance problem caused by getting a free adder to a purchased power, which makes it far cheaper. The other ways of getting a 4d6 HKA are all much, much more expensive, which is a warning sign all by itself.

 

Likewise, if you have a 4rDEF forcefield and 8 rDEF real armour, you can use either one - but not both. However, if you buy the forcefield and armour with points, they add as normal. Again the problem is not that 12 rPD is overbalancing by itself: it's that getting to 12 rPD by spending 1 or 2 real points is unbalancing. If the character has to pay for the whole 12 rPD/ED, he's in for a much bigger points investment, which means in turn, that the character has to downgrade other areas.

 

That keeps PCs somewhat more balanced - although even so, the magically enhanced fighter is almost always a pretty attractive archetype.

 

cheers, Mark

[Dr Divago]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

maybe i found a way to multi-quote

I'm with Rentauri. However' date=' I am presuming it was not a found item but a created one, paid for with points on the character sheet.[/quote']

Yes he paid for, and in their background she made it by herself

so he know that if he ever lose the item (destroyed or like) he can buy it again "at no cost" and she can build another one (not instantly but in a given time)

this could be a nice plot device, but just for one time :\

 

btw, i already know how she can change the thing: she will be tempted by a demon prince of power (and i'm pretty sure he will accept ) and also she will go in irontooth and wake up two months later without remembering what appened

 

the problem is: i can't change it without player's agreement

However, for the good of the game it has to go....

Doc

i see he got also other spells i could use: one of it it's a 6d6 HA (that will be 9d6 with str), sure enough to pierce armor

and all of this is just for 2-3 poiunts

 

the problem is not the spell per se: it's in the grimoire book so everyone can get something similar

is the combo spell+end reserve (80 end point, 7 rec) that's being high unbalancing for other players

 

I would talk to him about it and see if he is willing to flip it out' date=' if not maybe speak to them on how to they use it or when to use it so its not up all the time if you can get away with that.[/quote']

mmmmhhh

i tried talking him some time ago, and he told me "it's in the rules, so i can use. if everyone whant it, they can buy it. btw i spent a lot just for it"

(to be honest: 2 point the spells, ok, but she spent also 9 point for the reserve, 9 point for magic skill and 2 point for a mandatory talent i imposed for the magic user... 4 point, considering he got 1 more talent as a prerequisite for this one... that is 24 point...)

 

Likewise, if you have a 4rDEF forcefield and 8 rDEF real armour, you can use either one - but not both. However, if you buy the forcefield and armour with points, they add as normal. Again the problem is not that 12 rPD is overbalancing by itself: it's that getting to 12 rPD by spending 1 or 2 real points is unbalancing. If the character has to pay for the whole 12 rPD/ED, he's in for a much bigger points investment, which means in turn, that the character has to downgrade other areas.

well does'nt use armor, 'cause "why using armor when i got this uber magical shield"?

as far as i remember, she GOT armor (rPD 4) but either does'nt use or i stated it does not stack... maybe the latter, to be honest

 

the problem, as i pointed before, is not the balancing vs the world: i can use a lot of weapon, magical attacks, magical items, etc to damage her (even a "club weaponed" greatsword, that make 6d6 stun for average 18 point; if i got a little lucky and do her more stun than CON she got stunned and "pouf" magical shield drop down )

the problem is balancing her respect the other players... x.x

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

Practically, it seems like the player is playing "arm's race". The options are to either shut this character down and impose a reduced maximum on the magical force field, or provide an approach by which all the other characters can upgrade to similar levels of defense.

 

To the rebuttal that "it's in the rules", I'd locate the metarule that the GM can and should change the rules where this is needed to maintain or enhance the enjoyment of the game.

 

However, it's tough to evaluate without knowing how the other characters spent their points. It looks like this character has a 9 DC attack and 12 rDEF, both of which can be maintained pretty much indefinitely. How does that compare to the other characters, and the opposition? If the rest of the group sits at about 6 rDEF and 6 DC's, then this character outclasses the others. Either the one character should be toned down, or the others beefed up. However, if the Armored Tank has 8 rPD Plate Armor and a DCV that's 3 places better thanks to a shield, and can also get his sword up to a 3d6 HKA (or 9d6 Club Weapon) between STR, levels and martial maneuvers, I don't think the spellcaster is so overwhelming any more.

 

This is why most games cap or restrict CV's, defenses and damage classes. If the characters each get 150 points to spend as they like, the odds of getting 4 or 5 characters that are balanced against each other becomes pretty remote. Maybe you need to have a group discussion - at what levels do the players want to see defenses and damage in this game? I don't care what "the rules" or "the grimoire" say. This is not the Hero System Publications' game, it belongs to YOU and YOUR PLAYERS - that's who should be setting the rules and the limits. It's also easier for you if the limits are agreed to by yourself and most of the players - you're then not the "big meanie" who's denying one player the opportunity to use (exploit) "the rules".

[rentauri]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

btw, i already know how she can change the thing: she will be tempted by a demon prince of power (and i'm pretty sure he will accept ) and also she will go in irontooth and wake up two months later without remembering what appened

 

the problem is: i can't change it without player's agreement

 

While it won't win you any GM or the Year awards technically a high enough Transform power could do and be "in the rules." Like others have said if the player's power is sucking the enjoyment from the game and the other players then the item should go.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

The other thing to consider is that if this _is_ a grimoire spell that many people have access to, then there will either be a lot of people who do use it and benefit from the protections so granted, or there will be a magical countermeasure that people can use, either to allow weapons to bypass the protection or to remove the protection.

 

A protection spell that is dispelled leaves the user pretty well vulnerable....

 

I see a booming trade in potions that suppress such magical shields while friends ready ranged weapons...available of course to the players as well as others.

 

My take on such things (as with poison) is that if the players want to use it, then so will the opposition. It made poison use by PCs in my game almost non-existent.

 

 

Doc

[Old Man]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

It's a simple rule and I cannot recommend it enough: I just rule that part of the "real armour/real sword" limitation is that it does not stack with powers purchased with points.

 

Isn't this in the rules already? I could have sworn that it was. Or am I confusing my editions again?

[Sketchpad]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

I'm for looking at the caps for your game ... really, if you're finding 12 PD/12 ED to be too high, maybe you need to set a standard that characters can only have X PD/X ED and nothing above it? I also agree that magic may not work with armor, depending on the rule and such.

 

In the end, if you're looking at a way to stop the Force Field, might I suggest a Mana-Eater that drains END? Or perhaps a magical item that destroys Mana Permanently ... which could lead to some fun adventures when the character goes to recharge it.

[Markdoc]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

Isn't this in the rules already? I could have sworn that it was. Or am I confusing my editions again?

 

Nope. It's never been in the rules, as far as I know, but it has been recommended by many fantasy GMs

 

cheers, Mark

[rentauri]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

Nope. It's never been in the rules, as far as I know, but it has been recommended by many fantasy GMs

 

cheers, Mark

 

Really? I was planning on green lighting some various spells that were designed to grant naked advantages to weapons (so power in question had to cost END) you would suggest no to that?

[Markdoc]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

Really? I was planning on green lighting some various spells that were designed to grant naked advantages to weapons (so power in question had to cost END) you would suggest no to that?

 

Depends how you do it. It's entirely rules legal, but does offer some potential for abuse - particularly when combined with things like power frameworks. I don't allow that in my game (I build talents or spells as complete powers, instead) but I know other GM's do allow it.

 

So for example, instead of granting (let's just say) area effect to a bow letting it fire a "rain of arrows" from a single arrow (naked advantage: Area affect for up to 2d6 RKA, usable by 1 other, 38 active points) I'd build the spell as 2d6 RKA, area affect usable by 1 other, for 75 active points.

 

If you use frameworks for spells, the real cost of the two spells is only likely to differ by 1 or 2 points, but the mage will have to devote more points to his framework to accomodate the second version, decreasing his flexibility somewhat, and if you use skill rolls, making it a bit more difficult.

 

Even if you don't use frameworks, pile on a few limitations (let's say Bow:OAF, concentration: 1/2 DCV, incantations) and the naked advantage costs you 13 points (or 10, if it's for personal use only). An archer who knows that spell can potentially hit multiple targets with one arrow and they are all essentially at DCV3, since you target the area - so an archer with with that spell could potentially devastate a warband of 30 or 40 warriors in 1 or 2 phases. A small squad of archers with the 10 point version of the spell or including one mage who bought increased levels of usable by others, could lay down machine gun levels of fire, for about 15 real points, (1 point in a multipower) so for my taste it's a bit cheap.

 

Tastes differ though: in a high fantasy campaign, that might be entirely appropriate.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

Depends how you do it. It's entirely rules legal' date=' but does offer some potential for abuse - particularly when combined with things like power frameworks. I don't allow that in my game (I build talents or spells as complete powers, instead) but I know other GM's do allow it.[/quote']

 

I think this is key to most of these discussions. Whether the naked advantage is a problematic build depends on what else you allow in your game. It's not just how much it costs to build the specific spell, but how that compares to the other things the character, or other characters, could have purchased with the same points.

 

So for example' date=' instead of granting (let's just say) area effect to a bow letting it fire a "rain of arrows" from a single arrow (naked advantage: Area affect for up to 2d6 RKA, usable by 1 other, 38 active points) I'd build the spell as 2d6 RKA, area affect usable by 1 other, for 75 active points. [/quote']

 

A really good example, so let's flow it through.

 

If you use frameworks for spells' date=' the real cost of the two spells is only likely to differ by 1 or 2 points, but the mage will have to devote more points to his framework to accomodate the second version, decreasing his flexibility somewhat, and if you use skill rolls, making it a bit more difficult.[/quote']

 

Forcing the higher AP makes a lot more difference if you use frameworks, especially if the spell will have limitations not applicable to every other spell in the framework, than if every spell is required to be purchased independent of a framework. If your game makes use of frameworks for spellcasters, the issue is different than if your game disallows frameworks. There's also a ripple effect. If I have to have a 75 point base Multipower to hold my "Rain of Arrows" spell, then I'm very tempted to bump the AP of my other spells to 75 points as well - after all, making that 3d6 KA a 5d6 KA is pretty inexpensive if all I need to do is bump up the slot cost. If I have to pay 2/3 the cost of the entire 3d6 KA spell, that's a bigger investment to bump up to 5d6.

 

Even if you don't use frameworks' date=' pile on a few limitations (let's say Bow:OAF, concentration: 1/2 DCV, incantations) and the naked advantage costs you 13 points (or 10, if it's for personal use only).[/quote']

 

You probably also have a Requires a Roll limitation if your magic uses skill rolls, plus a limitation that the damage can't be greater than that of the bow you're using.

 

 

An archer who knows that spell can potentially hit multiple targets with one arrow and they are all essentially at DCV3' date=' since you target the area - so an archer with with that spell could potentially devastate a warband of 30 or 40 warriors in 1 or 2 phases. A small squad of archers with the 10 point version of the spell or including one mage who bought increased levels of usable by others, could lay down machine gun levels of fire, for about 15 real points, (1 point in a multipower) so for my taste it's a bit cheap.[/quote']

 

Here again, knowledge of the game is crucial. In Markdoc's game, this is obviously a valuable ability. If your game is a dungeon crawl, generally with limited space and a few tough opponents rather than a large number of warriors spread out over a large area, the spell becomes less useful. Maybe 15 points is about right (assuming you don't use multipowers for spells).

 

It also highlights the "GM Permission" clause. Generally, you can't put naked advantages in a Multipower, so maybe allowing the wizard to combine the benefits of a Multipower and the benefits of leveraging free gear with naked advantages is too potent a combination. Markdoc has clearly found it is in his games. Other GM's allow this, so clearly they have not found it as unbalancing in their own games. Whether it will be unbalancing in Rentauri's game depends on a lot of variables that we don't know - you need to assess the impact on your own game.

 

Sometimes, the best answer is to allow it as a test, being clear that it will need to be changed if it proves unbalancing. Maybe the deal is that Rain of Arrows is purchased as a naked advantage, with the agreement that, should this prove unbalancing, it will have to be re-costed as the full power. Maybe the player gets to choose between keeping the spell, but devoting all xp to paying off the difference until it's cleared, or downgrading it to fit the new point constraint, since he agreed to be the test case. Being clear up front that there are concerns, and that the ground rules may have to change, prevents the change feeling arbitrary or unfair to the player or the group as a whole.

 

Of course, I would also expect the GM to scale back the use of similar spells by opponents, not just give them the bonus xp needed to keep the same spell at a higher cost. If it's unbalancing for the PC's, it's also unbalancing for the NPC's.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

i tried talking to the player but he says "hey it's in the rules, so i can use it!"

 

Beat your player about the head and shoulders with the rule book, and say "Hey, it's in the laws of physics, so I can do it!"

 

Then point him to the intro of the HERO Philosophy, the paragraphs discussing "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something."

 

Then explain you made a mistake by approving this power because now, you have to up the ante of the bad guys, and the less power-mad members of the party won't be able to keep up. Explain to him that "balance" is an issue that needs to be addressed, and the power needs to be changed. Maybe the force field only affects attacks the player can see, or is a disc that only covers his forward facing, or it is ablative, etc.

 

Very few HERO GM's are the type who want to kill their players, but they do want to present their players with a challenge, and they want those challenges to both be fair to, and survivable by, but still challenging to, all the players.

 

If all that doesn't work, hit him with a cumulative, NND, constant, uncontrolled, difficult to dispel, invisible major transform, and turn him into a Newt. Albeit one with a 12/12 force field. And say "Hey, it's in the rules, so I can do it."

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

If all that doesn't work' date=' hit him with a cumulative, NND, constant, uncontrolled, difficult to dispel, invisible major transform, and turn him into a Newt. Albeit one with a 12/12 force field. And say "Hey, it's in the rules, so I can do it."[/quote']

 

Transform is in the rules.

 

Transform him into a character who has no 12/12 force field. Then tell him you were wrong when you initially offered to let him reduce the force field and use the points for something else, since that's not in the rules, so he's just out the points instead.

 

Transform him into a character that has a 1d6 to 3d6 Susceptibility, per phase exposed to a 12/12 force field (and remember he doesn't get defenses against susceptibility damage). He can keep the force field, but he'll take STUN and BOD damage every phase he uses it.

 

Don't forget to make a really obscure shut-down condition - ideally, something he could easily do, but would never think of doing, or stumble on randomly. He has now way of knowing what the condition is, so he has no idea how to get "untransformed". Hey, it's in the rules...

 

However, I'd clearly start with talking to the player, either one on one or in a group context, before breaking out the big guns. After all, since it's in the rules and you can do it, he can buy the same spell, right?

[Outsider]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

Bartleby's Thaumaturgical Backlash (45 Active Points)

3D6 Energy Blast, Continuous, NND (defense is having no magic items on your person and/or magical effects in operation)

 

Anyone under the effects of this spell will experience an extremely painful burning sensation any time they cast a spell, are in close proximity (have on their person) a magical item, or have a spell effect running on them. It was developed by the famed duelist and warrior-mage Bartleby, as a means of gaining an advantage over his more specialized magic using foes. If they relied on magic to defend themselves, they would be rapidly overcome by the backlash. If they dropped their magical defenses to avoid it, well, they they're defenseless, and thus easily overcome.

 

 

 

If you want to be nasty to the non magic users, use the mirror spell, a 3D6 continuous NND where the only defense is magical defenses...

 

Or if you want to me especially cheesy, lower the END cost on both spells (or up the casters available END) and have him cast both spells on someone.

[Dr Divago]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

(sorry for bad quoting... seems like chromium does'nt like something about this forum x_x )

Bartleby's Thaumaturgical Backlash (45 Active Points)

3D6 Energy Blast, Continuous, NND (defense is having no magic items on your person and/or magical effects in operation)

 

Anyone under the effects of this spell will experience an extremely painful burning sensation any time they cast a spell, are in close proximity (have on their person) a magical item, or have a spell effect running on them. It was developed by the famed duelist and warrior-mage Bartleby, as a means of gaining an advantage over his more specialized magic using foes. If they relied on magic to defend themselves, they would be rapidly overcome by the backlash. If they dropped their magical defenses to avoid it, well, they they're defenseless, and thus easily overcome.

cool spell

 

btw, i found a way. a better way

just because "it's in the rule" this means every magicuser can get it. and if every magicuser can get it, there are also some easy way to overcome it; this is why fighter use net against wizards (net -> entangle) or high-str fighter develop psl just to "hit in the head with stunning attack" or other super-stunning attacks

 

i found another think they are abusing: Deadly Blow. on 4 char, 3 got deadly blow at the higher value (10 point, that means +1d6 vs everyone with every melee weapon). now a 5th guy are starting game, probably will get the deadly blow too, so this means 80% of char got deadly blow (the other one is a priest so a "magic user")

i'm asking to the player if they whant change something and

a) change the deadly blow in the way it is supposed to work: to create paladin smite evil, or hunter's deadly blow against special monsters, etc.

remove the perk so only one (or noone) in the group got it

c) leave as it is, and this will means every mercenary, adventurer, thug, soldier, etc. got deadly blow

 

i really don't like the way "everyone got this item/power, and everyone got something to block it" but if this is what the player whant, i did'nt even need to "bring the big gun"

btw...

«what about the escalation?»

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwlyZi0tWaY

[Outsider]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

JUst to give credit where credit is due, the basic idea for the Bartleby's spell was thrown at us by my gm last month. His bigger and had a few more advantages (AoE among them), but then, it was being used by an opponent meant to challenge the whole party as well.

[rentauri]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

I don't have my book by me but 10 points for a rank one Deadly Blow/Weaponmaster that is used against all HTH opponents seems really cheap. I thought something that broad was around 20 points a level but I could be mistaken.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

Deadly Blow is 2 skill levels to add 1 damage class. For 20 points (IIRC), you could buy 2 "all combat" skill levels, and be able to add 1 DC, 2 OCV, 2 DCV or 1 OCV and 1 DCV for any combat maneuver, so 20 points to add a DC in HTH combat is vastly overpriced.

 

But remember that's a DC, not 1d6 - it takes a 2d6 Greatsword to 2d6+1, not 3d6.

[Matt Holck]

Re: Advice Required: Indistructible Force Field

 

enforce normal characteristic maxima

defenses higher than 9 are halved