[RULE] Rule of 16

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Culture20

The rule of 16 seems to make a mere mortal SHIELD agent with slightly higher will, trained in one or two levels of Mental Strength able to easily resist Xavier and Doctor Strange. I do not use it. One of my PCs has run rampant with a seriously beefed up mind control power, and it feels right according to comics; there are occasional immune or highly resistant NPCs (usually robots) who throw a spanner into the works.

I find easier to give "ultimate" like Dr. Strange and Pr. Xavier rules exemption than to allow any middle range telepath free reign over almost everyone.

But I agree that it is a setting switch and that, in the marvel universe, the rules of 16 may goes against the setting expectation.

In my own super game, however, it was not a problem, as it gave strong willed players and major npc a defense against non-cosmic-level powers.

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

...it gave strong willed players and major npc a defense against non-cosmic-level powers.

I like this part of the Rule of 16, which is why I haven't abandoned it!

What I don't like is when "a defense" becomes "a defense that's very difficult to penetrate no matter how skilled the attacker." This is the effect I've experienced in many sessions of play, in high point games where everyone in the party has Will 16+, HT 16+, and some form of Luck.

Now I realize that I'm asking for a lot if I want the system to work the same way at 400+ points as it does at 125. We haven't played around a lot with the Rule of 17 perk, and we've never tried higher levels of it, so that could potentially solve or mitigate this problem.

Another solution some have mentioned that I thought was interesting was limiting the difference between attack and defense to some maximum. Has anyone tried this in play? What feels like the "right" maximum to you? 2? 4? 6?

[Mavelic]

Originally Posted by Gnome

What I don't like is when "a defense" becomes "a defense that's very difficult to penetrate no matter how skilled the attacker." This is the effect I've experienced in many sessions of play, in high point games where everyone in the party has Will 16+, HT 16+, and some form of Luck.

I think you've put the finger on the main problem...
I don't like the Rule of 17 Perk either, because if players can pay for it, other pc/npc can pay for same resistance, and so on.
Another solution that i think would be to use "rule of 16" for skill of 20 and less, rule of 17 for skill 25 less, rule of 18 for 30 less, etc. This is a kind of reward for high skills. Maybe i'm wrong but i think it's better than the flat "rule of 16".

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Mavelic

Another solution that i think would be to use "rule of 16" for skill of 20 and less, rule of 17 for skill 25 less, rule of 18 for 30 less, etc. This is a kind of reward for high skills. Maybe i'm wrong but i think it's better than the flat "rule of 16".

I like this idea.
I was thinking about suggesting a -5 penalty for each +1 to the "rule of 16", but it would be counterproductive against ennemies with above 16 resist, so ... bad idea.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

I like this idea.
I was thinking about suggesting a -5 penalty for each +1 to the "rule of 16", but it would be counterproductive against ennemies with above 16 resist, so ... bad idea.

If I was going to do such a thing, I'd look at the combat system for inspiration; specifically Deceptive Attack.

If it is balanced for me to take a penalty to my attack in order to penalize your defense in a situation of "fail & die", it should likewise be balanced for me to take a penalty to my attack in order to penalize your resistance. Likely retaining the same penalty values regarding the attack and resistance.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

If it is balanced for me to take a penalty to my attack in order to penalize your defense in a situation of "fail & die", it should likewise be balanced for me to take a penalty to my attack in order to penalize your resistance. Likely retaining the same penalty values regarding the attack and resistance.

This is the same thing as the standard rule for re-centering Contests (B349*). Reduce the lower value to 10, and reduce the higher by that same amount. Or, when both scores are over 20, scale them down proportionately.

Some of the above suggestions also boil down to this method, perhaps with some tweaks to the ratios. Deceptive Attack has a 2:1 ratio because of the way Active Defenses are calculated. Resistance and attacks allowing resistance rolls are closer to being on the same footing -- at least, resistances aren't divided by 2.

--
* Technically, according to the heading nesting, that only applies to Regular Contexts, while resistance rolls are Quick Contests.

[Kax]

Originally Posted by Culture20

Just imagine a hypothetical rule of 16 for Zorro and his Sword! skill: “defenders may resist special effects with their parry skill, but the attacker’s effective skill may never exceed 16” He could never casually carve his Z on a shirt. he’d be batted away quite often.

You said it yourself; 'effective skill'.

Skill 25 or so, with the penalties for doing the 'Z' and also doing a big deceptive attack to get through defenses brings you down to about 16 /anyway/, which will succeed almost all the time. Not that it matters, as there's a defense roll not a resist roll so Rule Of 16 doesn't apply here.

And, with Luck that this sort of character has, he's not going to fail.

Rule of 16 isn't the problem you imply.

[Kax]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

If I was going to do such a thing, I'd look at the combat system for inspiration; specifically Deceptive Attack.

If it is balanced for me to take a penalty to my attack in order to penalize your defense in a situation of "fail & die", it should likewise be balanced for me to take a penalty to my attack in order to penalize your resistance. Likely retaining the same penalty values regarding the attack and resistance.

Now /that'd/ be a mage Perk: "Deceptive Casting: allows the use of the Deceptive Attack rule in regard to casting resisted spells."

[Lord Azagthoth]

I don't use the Rule of 16 but the casters are allowed to spend extra energy to lower the Resistance of their victim.