Possible Solution to the Accuracy/Damage Issue?

[Brainstem]

Reading the Phase Shift thread got me thinking about a new mechanic to run with the game that factors in accuracy as well as damage output.

Certain things need to be taken into consideration with this. For example, if you used the Close Combat score as pure accuracy, then the Hulk would never be able to damage anybody, but if you used the raw stone output, then the Hulk would be able to hit characters as nimble as Spider-Man (which, I know, is a terribly overdone example). What I propose is that the number of stones put into the combat action plus 1/2 of any modifier or ability bonus added factors into the accuracy. If the accuracy exceeds defense, then the reset of the energy put into the attack goes into damage as well. If not, the rest of the energy is still lost.

Example A:

StrongGuy and Quickie are having a battle of epic proportions. In the first page, Strong Guy put a total of 13 into Close Combat (5 Close Combat and 8 Strength) and Quickie put 8 into Defense (5 Speed and 3 Reflexive Dodge). This means that StrongGuy's total Accuracy must exceed 8 stones in order to damage Quickie. Looking at the stone output, StrongGuy's Accuracy is 9 (full Close Combat and 1/2 Strength, or 5+9). Because this exceeds the amount of Defense Quickie used, he will take the full 5r damage, or 2w.

Example B:

SwordDude and LitheMan are having another epic battle, but not quite as epic as the one in Example A. SwordDude charges LitheMan and swings with his sword for a total input of 9 stones (5 CC, 4 Sword) as LitheMan hopes to avoid the damage by putting 8 into Defense (5 Agility, 4 Reflexive Dodge). This means that SwordDude's accuracy must exceed 8 in order to damage LitheMan. Calculating his accuracy, it comes to 7 (5CC + 2 Sword). Because this is less than LitheMan's Defense, the attack narrowly misses.

All of this, however, brings other things into consideration. The one that strikes me the most is that certain modifiers may be treated differently. For example, Targeting and Reflexive Dodge would impact Accuracy whereas Claws and Toughness would only impact total damage.

Thoughts?

[Scriptus]

Brainstem i think i love you... or just really think that this rule is a good idea. i realize that it's not perfect but as far as the murpg system goes i think that it helps out a lot if you want to go that way.

I think claws could add to accuracy depending on the nature of the claws (extended reach and what not).

this is definitely a good starting point. my next question though is how you would deal with powers like force blast? Is that # just all accuracy? I would really like to see this discussion take off.

[Brainstem]

I was thinking about powers like Force Blast, and I'm not totally sure how they would be handled just yet. I would consider going for all into accuracy, but that wouldn't account for one like Cyclops, who has always had the same AN and has simply become more efficient with his very powerful blast. Actions like Close Combat and Ranged Combat are definitely reflections of your skill, so it's easier to place those. Maybe either...

A) An Advantage called Accurate (+2?) that causes all stones placed in the Action (not from Equipment or Modifiers) to count toward accuracy. This would also imply that all combat Actions are Inaccurate until this Advantage is purchased.

B) A Disadvantage called Inaccurate (-2?) that causes all stones placed in the Action (not from Equipment or Modifiers) to be halved for accuracy. This would also imply that all combat Actions are Accurate unless this Disadvantage is purchased.

I lean toward the Disadvantage over the Advantage, personally, as it would start making characters more pricey to make them pay to have full accuracy.

Regarding your Claws question. Maybe any Combat Modifiers go toward Accuracy, with Abilities and Equipment going toward damage? This would still keep a differentiation between Reflexive Dodge and Toughness, but will also be able to explain why Wolverine really is the best at what he does.

[Pope Mega Force]

It seems a little more broken than even MURPG should allow. I think it's a good idea overall but then someone can easily put a bunch of stones into defense effortlessly and then no one can get past their defenses because while their defense is only something like 11, someone has an AN of 4 or 5 with a pretty big ability bonus. Of course, I'm pretty sure you thought of something like this and that's why you said that it's no where near perfect. I guess I'm just saying that I don't think that these rules are really applicable.

[Brainstem]

Well, I would say having 11 stones in Defense is in no way something minor. Then take into consideration that you would have to consider where the Defense comes from. If you shift from Durability, then it wouldn't impact evasion (as Durability would represent soaking up the damage). Play like this really wouldn't work in person, though, but it might be good for PbP.

[thanos]

Brainstem is going with the idea that Toughness does not provide defense, but provides damage reduction after being hit. The real problem comes in with Forcefield...does it reduce accuracy or damage?

[Scriptus]

If I had to go with one I would say damage. I can see how an argument can be made for both though. This is another one of those things that the GM should talk about with the player.

[Brainstem]

Agreed. Force Fields don't help you avoid taking a hit as much as they help you soak up the damage.

[Kaimontfendo]

I would also agree that Force Fields count against damage. A decent Force Field can stop the bullet from a sniper's rifle, and a good one can hold off anything short of a nuke (and maybe even that). It basically gives toughness to everything in its area of effect. However, it also prevents actual contact, so things like Corrosive Touch and Steal Superpower don't completely ignore it either.

In the end, I'm afraid Force Field may have to be both accuracy and damage, or damage with a special bonus of "any attempt to touch a shielded character must also overcome the defense of the force field." ...Or something like that.