By that same argument, wouldn't that render it quite difficult to lend an accurate grade to Sabotage from the Shadow Archetype? Certainly, at it's base it functions as a Attack Mid+Hinder Min. However, it has two other modes that can complicate the variables in assessing it. Yet, it recieves no mention in favor of pointing out that Untouchable and Smoke Bombs are mutually exclusive.
Sure. I didn't call it bad, just mediocre. I'll agree that "situational" is probably a better word.
I think I've nailed down what parts of the guide principally strike me as flawed. I often design characters from their role in a team first, and then individually second. That leads me to place a greater value on effects that are more situational, as well as for effects that can maximize a build up over time. So I'm likely not the best to give constructive criticism, as much as an alternate view.
in the writ up for Flier archetype.
My best character is a mystic/flier so those sections stuck with me
That's not "Defend with your Min die," it's "Defend against all Attacks against you using your Min die until your next turn." That's a much more powerful effect than a single-use Defend (albeit one that can target someone other than yourself).
I didn't address team dynamics, true. Optimizing team composition would be a whole other document that takes a lot of other considerations. Also it can get truly bonkers if you lean hard into synergies (e.g. mass boosts and mass summons, or abilities that damage allies and allies that absorb the damage).
ahh… Gotcha. since that’s the one on my sheet I forgot others are not so good
Here’s an idea MindWanderer how about I make a new thread reposting Salamander and you (and others) rank and grade my build?
Then others can post to have their builds checked out.
I will wait for a positive reply before I post of course
I'd certainly respond to a "rate my build" thread, but maybe wait a bit longer. The final PDF's are just over the horizon and I'm hoping there will be changes or clarifications that will affect some of this stuff.
Even if the final PDFs don't contain changes, it's better to wait and make sure that they don't rather than giving well-intentioned but possibly misinformed critique.
Hey Sea-Envy, do you still want to make that thread?
Soon-ish
You can take lead if you want catDreaming
I got the thread started.
i will post my build after a day or two so we can talk about one build at a time
MindWanderer, now with a few months' actual play experience under my belt, I'd love to hear your thoughts on Villain Approaches and Archetypes. I've learned somewhat the hard way that all combos are not equal and you can design a villain to be what you want them to be and find out in play that they are just killing machines instead of the mid-level "average" villain you intended. I find this especially to be the case when converting villains from other systems.
You know, just in case you needed a new project. ;)
Honestly, the "balance" in the villain rules is so disappointing that I'm not inclined to try. It's trivially easy to create a villain that's stupidly broken or one that goes down in a stiff breeze. I suppose it might be worthwhile to point out villain abilities that singlehandedly make a fight unexpectedly difficult, but that's a very different sort of task than "optimization." Plus it's always easy to nerf a villain on the fly and simply take an ability away or reduce its effectiveness, if the players are getting wrecked. GM's never have to follow the rules if they don't want to.
I agree with MindWanderer here.
As an example, giving a villain with the Titan archetype the inherent for damage reduction based on it’s challenge and the reaction to uncheck a box on it’s challenge when attacked with doubles can result in something that the heroes are simply incapable of meaningfully damaging for large portions of the fight.
It’s also very hard to gauge the effectiveness of a villain without playing them. As a more humorous example, I made a villain with no action abilities. The players are terrified of them, because despite the heroes having dealt reasonable damage to it it hasn’t taken the attack action against them.
The villain rules are not intended for balance. They’re intended to make something to fight the heroes on a footing of your choice, with other scene elements interefering in the fight.
As a guy who is used to running more "traditional" supers RPG, that lack of balance or even real transparency before you put the villain on the table is frustrating.
My heroes fighting a team of villains is a common occurrence. Not having any idea whether it's going to be a blow-through or a 3-hour grind is becoming a pain. It can't be a scene element "on a footing of my choice" if I can't know how good a villain is beforehand.
I wasn't worried about "optimization." I just wondered if the more mechanically-minded could even point out "these are the easy approaches/archetypes" and "these are the nightmare approaches/archetypes."
Not really. In general though, if an Approach/Archetype is a suggested pairing, it's likely to be pretty potent.
How do you weigh abilities that are weak on their own but get substantially better when used in combination with other abiltiies?
For a more direct answer to your question, I refer you to Tech Upgrades and Powered Suit power sources. There are two examples there of how MindWanderer rated abilities of the type you are talking about.
If you want my personal answer, which is likely on a 90 degree tangent to MindWanderers reasoning:
You might have read my comments on the Shadow archetype, where in a previous version it's various utility abilities had it rated lower than others because it wasn't good in every situation. What you're describing falls into a similar category, where there are definitely combos. Flexible Stance (exclusively from Close Quarters Combatant) really shines when used in combination with Endurance Fighting, which then chains into Inspiring Totem for a total of 3 Attacks and 3 Hinders. Which is neat. Combo based builds however tend to not be as viable, because you often just do the same thing over and over mechanically.
There's nothing explictly wrong with that, but it has a major weakness. Twists can lay down pretty substantial hinders, lock abilities, or even lock powers and qualities. Losing a Power or Quality in question can lock out one or several abilities on your sheet if you're based on using that one power to it's most, whereas losing a single Inherent ability can be devastating to making a combo work. Hinders can force you to delay entire turns before pulling off a combo.
So when building are Twists something to avoid at all costs or should I be leaning into the system? For example, if there are Yellow abilities producing persistant bonuses that just better than their Green counterparts is it inadvisaable to plan to dip down into that while still in the green as part of the build design?
Same with the Red abilties you mention, is it worth the minor twist to get those six attacks?