Giving D&D 3.5 Classes Superpowers from Mutant and Masterminds/Hero d20

[ColorBlindNinja]

Pretty much what the title asks.

Could you give lower tier classes superpowers from Mutants and Masterminds to help make them more competent?

Maybe giving a certain number of points to purchase ranks based on their tier?

Which edition of M&M would be the best one to use for this?

I know that 3rd edition is free online. (https://www.d20herosrd.com/)

I would deeply appreciate any input given on this topic, thanks!

[Hackulator]

I mean, the amount of jury rigging you'd need to do to make it work would likely be prohibitive. Though similar, the systems are not the same and 3.5 characters don't have the proper chassis to execute M&M powers without a lot of work. Also you'd have to have all your players learn the M&M rank system because all the powers use that.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I mean, the amount of jury rigging you'd need to do to make it work would likely be prohibitive. Though similar, the systems are not the same and 3.5 characters don't have the proper chassis to execute M&M powers without a lot of work.

Can you go into more detail?


Also you'd have to have all your players learn the M&M rank system because all the powers use that.

Well, that's a given. :smallsmile:

[Hackulator]

Ok, well let me be very clear, I discovered M&M 3E yesterday and have been doing a deep dive into the book because I really like it, however I am by no means an expert. However, M&M characters have different attributes from 3.5 attributes, and those abilities are scaled differently as well, ie it is perfectly reasonable to have a 0 or even a negative number in an ability. So you'd have to spend the effort to map all the M&M attributes to corresponding 3.5 attributes, and you might discover in the middle of that that it just didn't map well, and then even you did figure out how to map it it might not work well because of scaling issues. So it seems like a lot of work that has a high chance of never panning out. Also a lot of the powers would really just be like a different mechanic for magic if you put them into 3.5

[ColorBlindNinja]

Ok, well let me be very clear, I discovered M&M 3E yesterday and have been doing a deep dive into the book because I really like it, however I am by no means an expert. However, M&M characters have different attributes from 3.5 attributes, and those abilities are scaled differently as well, ie it is perfectly reasonable to have a 0 or even a negative number in an ability. So you'd have to spend the effort to map all the M&M attributes to corresponding 3.5 attributes, and you might discover in the middle of that that it just didn't map well, and then even you did figure out how to map it it might not work well because of scaling issues. So it seems like a lot of work that has a high chance of never panning out. Also a lot of the powers would really just be like a different mechanic for magic if you put them into 3.5

True, but M&M 2e has the same stats as 3.5. That might suit my needs better.

[Hackulator]

True, but M&M 2e has the same stats as 3.5. That might suit my needs better.

I don't know anything about that system so I can't really help you with that.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I don't know anything about that system so I can't really help you with that.

Ah well. Thanks for your input anyway.

[Arbane]

The stats aren't a big deal, they're literally just taking the modifiers from D&D3 without the actual stats. (So, if you'd have a 16 strength in D&D3, that's a +3 in M&M3.)
The damage system might be a problem, as it's completely different. M&M characters don't have hitpoints, they have a Toughness Save - failing it gets you varying degrees of messed up.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The stats aren't a big deal, they're literally just taking the modifiers from D&D3 without the actual stats. (So, if you'd have a 16 strength in D&D3, that's a +3 in M&M3.)

Glad to know that's easy to convert.


The damage system might be a problem, as it's completely different. M&M characters don't have hitpoints, they have a Toughness Save - failing it gets you varying degrees of messed up.

Maybe something like 1d8*2 for every rank?

[Hackulator]

Honestly I think the real issue is the fact that doing more damage doesn't make you a higher tier most of the time. The main thing about high tier classes is their versatility, and anything that brings the lower tiers close to them in that regard, in D&D, mainly feels like just making them more like the higher tier classes. At the end of the day, the answer to how do you make a fighter as good as a wizard is to make the fighter more like the wizard. M&M powers which would make lower tier classes truly better would basically just be giving them magic spells with a different mechanic.

[liquidformat]

I actually played in a pbp game years ago where we did this, I was a paladin with super strength. It made him able to pretty much 1 hit ko everything until around level 10~ and after that it was just about the same as normal.

On a side note we had a bard who went psycho on the group in the first couple weeks because he was going full diplomancer and got pissed I one shot the orc who just pillaged a merchant wagon before he could pull his schtick. So he tried to get the town mayor to put me up on murder charges for killing the orc raider and told me OOC I should be allowed to play paladins since I killed the orc without evidence...

It was one of the most fun games I played in and very interesting due to us and npcs having super powers but also one of the strangest due to that crazy bard...

[Quertus]

So, Staff of Transmutation: anything into anything 10 (5) Full Round (-1) AC 10 (-1) -> 30*3/5 = 18 pts.

Give that to a Monk, he can at will DC 20 PaO (EDIT: as a full-round action, and he's AC 10 when he does so...)

[ColorBlindNinja]

Honestly I think the real issue is the fact that doing more damage doesn't make you a higher tier most of the time. The main thing about high tier classes is their versatility, and anything that brings the lower tiers close to them in that regard, in D&D, mainly feels like just making them more like the higher tier classes. At the end of the day, the answer to how do you make a fighter as good as a wizard is to make the fighter more like the wizard. M&M powers which would make lower tier classes truly better would basically just be giving them magic spells with a different mechanic.

I was envisioning mostly giving out the more flexible superpowers to the lower tier classes.

I mean, superstrength is nice, but you're correct it doesn't fix the core issue.


I actually played in a pbp game years ago where we did this, I was a paladin with super strength. It made him able to pretty much 1 hit ko everything until around level 10~ and after that it was just about the same as normal.

On a side note we had a bard who went psycho on the group in the first couple weeks because he was going full diplomancer and got pissed I one shot the orc who just pillaged a merchant wagon before he could pull his schtick. So he tried to get the town mayor to put me up on murder charges for killing the orc raider and told me OOC I should be allowed to play paladins since I killed the orc without evidence...

It was one of the most fun games I played in and very interesting due to us and npcs having super powers but also one of the strangest due to that crazy bard...

How interesting. Thank you for relating your experience.


So, Staff of Transmutation: anything into anything 10 (5) Full Round (-1) AC 10 (-1) -> 30*3/5 = 18 pts.

Give that to a Monk, he can at will DC 20 PaO (EDIT: as a full-round action, and he's AC 10 when he does so...)

You mean the Staff of Transmutation in the DMG?

[Quertus]

You mean the Staff of Transmutation in the DMG?

No, just my first thought for "If I had M&M points to spend on a D&D character, what might I do?".

[ColorBlindNinja]

No, just my first thought for "If I had M&M points to spend on a D&D character, what might I do?".

Ah, I see. Thank for for elaborating.

[AvatarVecna]

Maybe something like 1d8*2 for every rank?

This isn't a good metric for those familiar with M&M. To make a long story short, there's a lot of support within the system that "Rank X+1" is twice as powerful as "Rank X", particularly in regards to Damage. But even then, consistency between the two is going to be a rough sell, because they have a very different approach to balance: in M&M, your power level puts limits on what you're capable of doing across the board - how good your saves and Save DCs can get, how tough and hard to hit you are, how accurate and deadly you are, and so on. In M&M, your level determines not your maximum skill rank, but your maximum skill bonus, and attacks are a kind of skill. More useful or esoteric abilities are more expensive, meaning that if you wanted to make things fair, you'd need to figure out how much better spellcasting is in M&M than straight-up attacking is in the same system, and give the characters a number of power points relative to the value of their existing capabilities...but at that point, you may as well just let them build M&M characters that mimic D&D characters, which only requires one system rather than mashing both together and will be much more balanced in the end.



Beyond just using different systems to handle damage, they also don't really advance at the same rates, which we can tell from the real-world things that also exist in both systems, like dynamite and falling damage.



Distance
M&M Toughness DC
D&D Damage Dice


6 ft
-
0


15 ft
DC 17
1d6


30 ft
DC 19
3d6


60 ft
DC 21
6d6


120 ft
DC 23
12d6


250 ft
DC 25
20d6


500 ft
DC 27
20d6


900 ft
DC 29
20d6


1800 ft
DC 31
20d6



Anybody falling more than 6 ft must make an Acrobatics check; divide the check result by 5, round down, and take that number as a penalty to the Damage Rank of the fall (so DC 5 reduces by 1, DC 10 reduces by 2, and so on). Let's look at an extreme example:

A normal human with Acrobatics +0 and Toughness +0 falls 1800 ft. First, they roll an Acrobatics check to try and reduce the damage, and then they roll Toughness against the final Toughness DC to see how injured they are following the fall. Failing this check gives you one degree of failure, with an additional degree for every 5 additional points by which you failed. These go approximately "bruised, dazed, staggered, unconscious, dying, dead" (well, the last two are extrapolation on my part to make this more realistic, but usually you can't be outright dead from failing a bad toughness save, just unconscious, and further injury can reduce you to dying or dead, but let's pretend dying and dead are the 5th and 6th degrees of failure). Oh, and the last important mechanic: a natural 20 isn't automatic success on either roll, but rather you calculate the normal degree of success/failure and make it one step more in your favor than it would otherwise be.

Based on analysis of the 400 possibilities for these 2 d20 rolls, here are the odds for the various degrees of failure for a regular human falling 1800 ft:

F0 (Fine): 2.75%
F1 (Bruised): 4.25%
F2 (Dazed): 21.75%
F3 (Staggered): 25%
F4 (Unconscious): 25%
F5 (Dying): 20.25%
F6 (Dead): 1%

Now, granted, for this same commoner they've got a ~85% chance of going from Dying to Dead (and a ~15% chance of going from Dying to Unconcious), so those death odds aren't quite as awful as they look right there, but even after Dying calculations, that's still a ~18.2% chance of death and a ~77.8% chance of being alive and stable at the end of the fall, for a regular person. And how do falls like that end in D&D for a regular Human Commoner 1? The 3d6 fall kills outright ~16% of the time and renders them dying ~82% of the time, the 6d6 fall kills outright ~96% of the time, and anything past that is basically guaranteed outright death. They reach terminal velocity at 200 ft instead of 1800 ft, they can only use Acrobatics/Tumble to reduce the fall by 10 ft once, and they're slightly less ****ed if they're dying instead of dead because the stabilizing rules are more generous in 3.5 than M&M.


Let's jump over to seeing how dynamite and guns compares between the systems: in D&D, a single stick of dynamite weighs 1lb and deals 2d6, dealing an additional d6 per extra stick to a maximum of 10d6 for 9 sticks put together (although the table says 3d6 for a single stick, I'm assuming text trumps table). in M&M, a single stick of dynamite has an unspecified weight and is a Damage 5 effect, with +1 to the damage rank for every doubling of the stack-of-dynamite's size. Additionally, each system has guns and frag grenades to provide some approximate comparison. Let's see how that works out by showing off the M&M damage rank and the equivalent D&D damage for each of these things (and throw in falling and a sword guy for ****s and giggles):



M&M DR
Falling
Dynamite
Frag
Heavy Pistol
Shotgun
2H Longsword


1








2
1d6







3





1d8


4
3d6


2d8

1d8+1


5

2d6
4d6

2d8
1d8+3


6
6d6
3d6



1d8+4


7

5d6



1d8+6


8
12d6
9d6



1d8+7


9





1d8+9


10
20d6




1d8+10


11





1d8+12


12
20d6




1d8+13


13





1d8+15


14
20d6




1d8+16


15





1d8+18


16
20d6




1d8+19



There isn't really a good rule for converting damage between these two systems because M&M wasn't created to follow the standards set by 3.5, but rather to be self-contained and internally consistent. Falling great distances and being fine is very comic-booky, and in D&D a dude with Str 30 and sword-and-board doesn't hurt you as bad as a 250 ft fall unless there's a lot more to his build than just those two things, but in M&M those would deal the same damage. They can't be compared in a consistent manner across various ways of hurting people.

[ColorBlindNinja]

This isn't a good metric for those familiar with M&M. To make a long story short, there's a lot of support within the system that "Rank X+1" is twice as powerful as "Rank X", particularly in regards to Damage. But even then, consistency between the two is going to be a rough sell, because they have a very different approach to balance: in M&M, your power level puts limits on what you're capable of doing across the board - how good your saves and Save DCs can get, how tough and hard to hit you are, how accurate and deadly you are, and so on. In M&M, your level determines not your maximum skill rank, but your maximum skill bonus, and attacks are a kind of skill. More useful or esoteric abilities are more expensive, meaning that if you wanted to make things fair, you'd need to figure out how much better spellcasting is in M&M than straight-up attacking is in the same system, and give the characters a number of power points relative to the value of their existing capabilities...but at that point, you may as well just let them build M&M characters that mimic D&D characters, which only requires one system rather than mashing both together and will be much more balanced in the end.



Beyond just using different systems to handle damage, they also don't really advance at the same rates, which we can tell from the real-world things that also exist in both systems, like dynamite and falling damage.



Distance
M&M Toughness DC
D&D Damage Dice


6 ft
-
0


15 ft
DC 17
1d6


30 ft
DC 19
3d6


60 ft
DC 21
6d6


120 ft
DC 23
12d6


250 ft
DC 25
20d6


500 ft
DC 27
20d6


900 ft
DC 29
20d6


1800 ft
DC 31
20d6



Anybody falling more than 6 ft must make an Acrobatics check; divide the check result by 5, round down, and take that number as a penalty to the Damage Rank of the fall (so DC 5 reduces by 1, DC 10 reduces by 2, and so on). Let's look at an extreme example:

A normal human with Acrobatics +0 and Toughness +0 falls 1800 ft. First, they roll an Acrobatics check to try and reduce the damage, and then they roll Toughness against the final Toughness DC to see how injured they are following the fall. Failing this check gives you one degree of failure, with an additional degree for every 5 additional points by which you failed. These go approximately "bruised, dazed, staggered, unconscious, dying, dead" (well, the last two are extrapolation on my part to make this more realistic, but usually you can't be outright dead from failing a bad toughness save, just unconscious, and further injury can reduce you to dying or dead, but let's pretend dying and dead are the 5th and 6th degrees of failure). Oh, and the last important mechanic: a natural 20 isn't automatic success on either roll, but rather you calculate the normal degree of success/failure and make it one step more in your favor than it would otherwise be.

Based on analysis of the 400 possibilities for these 2 d20 rolls, here are the odds for the various degrees of failure for a regular human falling 1800 ft:

F0 (Fine): 2.75%
F1 (Bruised): 4.25%
F2 (Dazed): 21.75%
F3 (Staggered): 25%
F4 (Unconscious): 25%
F5 (Dying): 20.25%
F6 (Dead): 1%

Now, granted, for this same commoner they've got a ~85% chance of going from Dying to Dead (and a ~15% chance of going from Dying to Unconcious), so those death odds aren't quite as awful as they look right there, but even after Dying calculations, that's still a ~18.2% chance of death and a ~77.8% chance of being alive and stable at the end of the fall, for a regular person. And how do falls like that end in D&D for a regular Human Commoner 1? The 3d6 fall kills outright ~16% of the time and renders them dying ~82% of the time, the 6d6 fall kills outright ~96% of the time, and anything past that is basically guaranteed outright death. They reach terminal velocity at 200 ft instead of 1800 ft, they can only use Acrobatics/Tumble to reduce the fall by 10 ft once, and they're slightly less ****ed if they're dying instead of dead because the stabilizing rules are more generous in 3.5 than M&M.


Let's jump over to seeing how dynamite and guns compares between the systems: in D&D, a single stick of dynamite weighs 1lb and deals 2d6, dealing an additional d6 per extra stick to a maximum of 10d6 for 9 sticks put together (although the table says 3d6 for a single stick, I'm assuming text trumps table). in M&M, a single stick of dynamite has an unspecified weight and is a Damage 5 effect, with +1 to the damage rank for every doubling of the stack-of-dynamite's size. Additionally, each system has guns and frag grenades to provide some approximate comparison. Let's see how that works out by showing off the M&M damage rank and the equivalent D&D damage for each of these things (and throw in falling and a sword guy for ****s and giggles):



M&M DR
Falling
Dynamite
Frag
Heavy Pistol
Shotgun
2H Longsword


1








2
1d6







3





1d8


4
3d6


2d8

1d8+1


5

2d6
4d6

2d8
1d8+3


6
6d6
3d6



1d8+4


7

5d6



1d8+6


8
12d6
9d6



1d8+7


9





1d8+9


10
20d6




1d8+10


11





1d8+12


12
20d6




1d8+13


13





1d8+15


14
20d6




1d8+16


15





1d8+18


16
20d6




1d8+19



There isn't really a good rule for converting damage between these two systems because M&M wasn't created to follow the standards set by 3.5, but rather to be self-contained and internally consistent. Falling great distances and being fine is very comic-booky, and in D&D a dude with Str 30 and sword-and-board doesn't hurt you as bad as a 250 ft fall unless there's a lot more to his build than just those two things, but in M&M those would deal the same damage. They can't be compared in a consistent manner across various ways of hurting people.

So the conclusion I should take away from this is that the two systems just aren't compatible enough for this idea to work. :smallfrown:

[liquidformat]

So, Staff of Transmutation: anything into anything 10 (5) Full Round (-1) AC 10 (-1) -> 30*3/5 = 18 pts.

Give that to a Monk, he can at will DC 20 PaO (EDIT: as a full-round action, and he's AC 10 when he does so...)

I think the important part will be evaluating how the powers scale, PaO is pretty much insane to hand out to a level 1 character with no restrictions, while super strength is pretty amazing at low levels but not particularly powerful at higher levels.

[AvatarVecna]

So the conclusion I should take away from this is that the two systems just aren't compatible enough for this idea to work. :smallfrown:

Well, there's quite a few similarities between the systems, but there's two big issues: one, Power Level puts hard caps on basically everything, in a way that D&D stuff could maybe bypass but would mean that tacking on M&M stuff might not be allowed to improve certain things beyond what they already are; two, the way they handle damage is so utterly different and weird that it's basically impossible for anything interacting with the damage system to be converted to the other side in a consistent manner. Your best bet is doing what Grod did and converting D&D stuff into M&M equivalent for a more balanced game, while still letting your players play around with M&M stuff. But that doesn't mean some stuff can't be converted over...

Here's a bunch of cheap dumb upgrades a D&D character could really benefit from. I'll be assuming Power Level 10 regardless of D&D level, but that power level limits don't apply to stuff that's not in M&M.

"Artificer" Advantage

20 ranks in Expertise (Magic)

Quickness
Extremely Limited: Only for Expertise (Magic) checks



Combine this power with a D&D magic item giving +30 to the skill (bypassing the normal PL limit cuz D&D item), and you've got a +50 bonus to Expertise (Magic), for a total check result of 70 when taking 20. That check combined with this power allows you to design and construct a 60-pp Magic Item in less than 1 round of total time (Quickness + the invention advantages is such a broken mechanic). It's only good for one scene, but still...heck, even if you don't take the Quickness, you can still invent new "spells" or "magic items" on the fly.

Speed 13 (Alternate Power 1)

AP1: Flight 12 (Aquatic)
Platform

...

Movement 7 (Alternate Power 2)
Permeate 3
Wall-Crawling 2
Water-Walking 2

AP1: Movement 3 (Increased Mass 8)
Dimension Travel 3

AP2: Movement 3 (Increased Mass 8)
Time Travel 3



As a move action, you can travel 8 miles by foot, 4 miles flying, or 1 mile underwater. Your move at full land speed while climbing, walking on water, or walking through objects (you're not fully insubstantial though). Additionally, you can travel to anywhere in any dimension, and anywhen in any timeline, as a move action, taking 6 tons of gear with you.

Improved Critical 18

Improved Initiative 11

Seize Initiative



Nothing fancy, just +44 to initiative, one attack of your choice crits on a 2-20, and you can spend a Victory point to just go first, full stop.

EDIT: Forget anything else going on in all of these powers: 12 points is enough for Time Travel 3/Dimension Travel 3, which gets you and 50 lbs of stuff anywhere/anywhen in the multiverse you want to be with a full round action.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Well, there's quite a few similarities between the systems, but there's two big issues: one, Power Level puts hard caps on basically everything, in a way that D&D stuff could maybe bypass but would mean that tacking on M&M stuff might not be allowed to improve certain things beyond what they already are; two, the way they handle damage is so utterly different and weird that it's basically impossible for anything interacting with the damage system to be converted to the other side in a consistent manner. Your best bet is doing what Grod did and converting D&D stuff into M&M equivalent for a more balanced game, while still letting your players play around with M&M stuff. But that doesn't mean some stuff can't be converted over...

I see, which edition of M&M are we talking about here?


Here's a bunch of cheap dumb upgrades a D&D character could really benefit from. I'll be assuming Power Level 10 regardless of D&D level, but that power level limits don't apply to stuff that's not in M&M.

"Artificer" Advantage

20 ranks in Expertise (Magic)

Quickness
Extremely Limited: Only for Expertise (Magic) checks



Combine this power with a D&D magic item giving +30 to the skill (bypassing the normal PL limit cuz D&D item), and you've got a +50 bonus to Expertise (Magic), for a total check result of 70 when taking 20. That check combined with this power allows you to design and construct a 60-pp Magic Item in less than 1 round of total time (Quickness + the invention advantages is such a broken mechanic). It's only good for one scene, but still...heck, even if you don't take the Quickness, you can still invent new "spells" or "magic items" on the fly.

Speed 13 (Alternate Power 1)

AP1: Flight 12 (Aquatic)
Platform

...

Movement 7 (Alternate Power 2)
Permeate 3
Wall-Crawling 2
Water-Walking 2

AP1: Movement 3 (Increased Mass 8)
Dimension Travel 3

AP2: Movement 3 (Increased Mass 8)
Time Travel 3



As a move action, you can travel 8 miles by foot, 4 miles flying, or 1 mile underwater. Your move at full land speed while climbing, walking on water, or walking through objects (you're not fully insubstantial though). Additionally, you can travel to anywhere in any dimension, and anywhen in any timeline, as a move action, taking 6 tons of gear with you.

Improved Critical 18

Improved Initiative 11

Seize Initiative



Nothing fancy, just +44 to initiative, one attack of your choice crits on a 2-20, and you can spend a Victory point to just go first, full stop.

EDIT: Forget anything else going on in all of these powers: 12 points is enough for Time Travel 3/Dimension Travel 3, which gets you and 50 lbs of stuff anywhere/anywhen in the multiverse you want to be with a full round action.

Interesting.

That last one might not be as good as it sounds, sadly, since there are so many monsters that are immune to critical hits.

[AvatarVecna]

I see, which edition of M&M are we talking about here?



Interesting.

That last one might not be as good as it sounds, sadly, since there are so many monsters that are immune to critical hits.

M&M 2e or 3e both work pretty similarly, although I think 3e is more balanced overall. Also while Grod doesn't have it in his sig anymore, I've saved a link. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279503-D-amp-D-in-M-amp-M-a-new-approach-to-rebalancing-3-5-PF)

[ColorBlindNinja]

M&M 2e or 3e both work pretty similarly, although I think 3e is more balanced overall.

Got it.


Also while Grod doesn't have it in his sig anymore, I've saved a link. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279503-D-amp-D-in-M-amp-M-a-new-approach-to-rebalancing-3-5-PF)

Thanks for all your input. :smallsmile:

[Cosi]

M&M powers which would make lower tier classes truly better would basically just be giving them magic spells with a different mechanic.

What the hell kind of weak-sauce complaint is that? "It would be like spells, except it would be mechanically different, conceptually different, and have a different name." Does "spells" just mean "any ability that's relevant to a Wizard"?

In any case, superpowers are a pretty viable solution to the problem of high level mundanes. Thor is recognizably a high level Barbarian, and would be totally competitive with Wizards. As, indeed, he is in Avengers: Infinity War. If you object to Barbarians upgrading into Thor, what you're saying is that you think Barbarian is an inherently low level concept.

[ColorBlindNinja]

In any case, superpowers are a pretty viable solution to the problem of high level mundanes. Thor is recognizably a high level Barbarian, and would be totally competitive with Wizards. As, indeed, he is in Avengers: Infinity War. If you object to Barbarians upgrading into Thor, what you're saying is that you think Barbarian is an inherently low level concept.

Unfortunately, it sounds like M&M isn't compatible enough with D&D 3.5 for this idea to work.

EDIT: That is to say, stealing the power system from M&M for D&D 3.5, not the superpowers for mundanes idea in general.

[Hackulator]

What the hell kind of weak-sauce complaint is that? "It would be like spells, except it would be mechanically different, conceptually different, and have a different name." Does "spells" just mean "any ability that's relevant to a Wizard"?

In any case, superpowers are a pretty viable solution to the problem of high level mundanes. Thor is recognizably a high level Barbarian, and would be totally competitive with Wizards. As, indeed, he is in Avengers: Infinity War. If you object to Barbarians upgrading into Thor, what you're saying is that you think Barbarian is an inherently low level concept.

Thor is a barbarian who has Fly, various lightning and weather control powers, Haste, stats through the roof, and an Artifact weapon. These are all things that can be granted by spells, except the level of stats they have, and an artifact weapon which yes, can help any class compete. I don't have a problem with doing it, however I feel like most superpowers in M&M that would really raise a character up in tier (at the optimization levels people here tend to be talking about) are very similar to some spells in effect.

I actually made a thread here years ago about Superheroes in D&D and while I argued for them being very strong, most people here told me I was an idiot and wizards would just destroy them all.

[Quertus]

Unfortunately, it sounds like M&M isn't compatible enough with D&D 3.5 for this idea to work.

EDIT: That is to say, stealing the power system from M&M for D&D 3.5, not the superpowers for mundanes idea in general.

... Really? That wasn't my takeaway.

Let me rephrase that: the notions of stat boosts, items, DCs, and most of the abilities are perfectly compatible. Damage is a bit different (but, really, since when is *damage* what weaker characters need in order to be competitive?), as is wealth. But the biggest issue is, what M&M considers "20 points 'worth' of powers" can have dramatically different levels of power in a D&D context.

So, balance to the table. Give low-tier players M&M boosts until they are on par with their betters. Don't worry about the math of "x tier needs Y points", because the tiers are garbage, and player > build > class.

[Hackulator]

... Really? That wasn't my takeaway.

Let me rephrase that: the notions of stat boosts, items, DCs, and most of the abilities are perfectly compatible. Damage is a bit different (but, really, since when is *damage* what weaker characters need in order to be competitive?), as is wealth. But the biggest issue is, what M&M considers "20 points 'worth' of powers" can have dramatically different levels of power in a D&D context.

So, balance to the table. Give low-tier players M&M boosts until they are on par with their betters. Don't worry about the math of "x tier needs Y points", because the tiers are garbage, and player > build > class.

I'd worry that even at mature tables that approach could cause some hard feelings, if I'm understanding you correctly. It's one thing to say "These classes are underpowered and get these buffs". If what you want to do is watch people play and say "I'm going to give player A some extra cool powers but nothing for player B" even if you have good reasoning and you are correct that player B's character is way more powerful, I think that might cause some hard feelings.

[Cosi]

Thor is a barbarian who has Fly, various lightning and weather control powers, Haste, stats through the roof, and an Artifact weapon. These are all things that can be granted by spells

Sure, they can be granted by spells, but so can everything. divine power is a spell that grants BAB. heroics is a spell that grants a Fighter Bonus Feat. Thor is (excepting some comic book incarnations) clearly not casting spells, so it doesn't make sense to think of him as a caster, even if some of his abilities can come from spells, or even would be defined in terms of spells in D&D.

[Ken Murikumo]

Have you considered setting up some "powers" in the 3.5 system modeled after M&M stuff, giving it a point value and letting the players choose from your list. You could even give more "power points" to lower tiers to compensate.

For instance, tier 5 characters could get 10 points; +4 to an ability is 2 points; saves are 1; skill points come in packages; something like a limited short range teleport or "flash step" could be 3 points; and so on.

All you would have to do is build a respectable roster of powers rather than adapt 2 (IMHO) very different & incompatible systems.


Alternatively, you could just stick with M&M and that would make everything balanced. Hell, you could come up with a chassis for different classes using something like a modest 30 PP for each class, like giving paladins a bane type ability as well as a damage and heal burst, giving rangers favored terrain and a side kick (animal companion). After that the players can come up with their own abilities (given that it fits the concept).

I made a list of 30+ races using 20 PP each for a game i ran; a very D&D style game in the M&M system. I added some limits on how certain powers worked to keep a similar feel, but overall it was a lot of fun and the players enjoyed a nice "freeform" character building experience.

I can post those later if interested! (I am at work right now)

[Quertus]

I'd worry that even at mature tables that approach could cause some hard feelings, if I'm understanding you correctly. It's one thing to say "These classes are underpowered and get these buffs". If what you want to do is watch people play and say "I'm going to give player A some extra cool powers but nothing for player B" even if you have good reasoning and you are correct that player B's character is way more powerful, I think that might cause some hard feelings.

All I can say is, play with better people, who understand the concept of balance, and won't have hurt feelings when balance is enforced.

EDIT: no, seriously, if the table has bought into the concept of balance, then good players should want the strong characters nerfed, or the weak characters buffed. I really cannot see any way where "hurt feelings" and "problem player" are not synonyms in this scenario.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I actually made a thread here years ago about Superheroes in D&D and while I argued for them being very strong, most people here told me I was an idiot and wizards would just destroy them all.

That's because we were talking about very high OP spellcasters, nearing tier 0.


... Really? That wasn't my takeaway.

Let me rephrase that: the notions of stat boosts, items, DCs, and most of the abilities are perfectly compatible. Damage is a bit different (but, really, since when is *damage* what weaker characters need in order to be competitive?), as is wealth. But the biggest issue is, what M&M considers "20 points 'worth' of powers" can have dramatically different levels of power in a D&D context.

Glad to hear this might be able to work after all. :smallsmile:

For damage, I thought of something like power rank * 2d8.

Do you think that'd work?


Have you considered setting up some "powers" in the 3.5 system modeled after M&M stuff, giving it a point value and letting the players choose from your list. You could even give more "power points" to lower tiers to compensate.

For instance, tier 5 characters could get 10 points; +4 to an ability is 2 points; saves are 1; skill points come in packages; something like a limited short range teleport or "flash step" could be 3 points; and so on.

All you would have to do is build a respectable roster of powers rather than adapt 2 (IMHO) very different & incompatible systems.

That was more or less what I set out to accomplish.


Alternatively, you could just stick with M&M and that would make everything balanced. Hell, you could come up with a chassis for different classes using something like a modest 30 PP for each class, like giving paladins a bane type ability as well as a damage and heal burst, giving rangers favored terrain and a side kick (animal companion). After that the players can come up with their own abilities (given that it fits the concept).

I made a list of 30+ races using 20 PP each for a game i ran; a very D&D style game in the M&M system. I added some limits on how certain powers worked to keep a similar feel, but overall it was a lot of fun and the players enjoyed a nice "freeform" character building experience.

I think Grod the Giant came up with something similar. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279503-D-amp-D-in-M-amp-M-a-new-approach-to-rebalancing-3-5-PF)


I can post those later if interested! (I am at work right now)

Thank you, I'd appreciate that.

[liquidformat]

Have you considered setting up some "powers" in the 3.5 system modeled after M&M stuff, giving it a point value and letting the players choose from your list. You could even give more "power points" to lower tiers to compensate.

For instance, tier 5 characters could get 10 points; +4 to an ability is 2 points; saves are 1; skill points come in packages; something like a limited short range teleport or "flash step" could be 3 points; and so on.
)
Ya when I played in a super powered group that is more or less how powers were handled though we had to roll on tables of different number of point abilities to make the powers a bit more random...

[Hackulator]

All I can say is, play with better people, who understand the concept of balance, and won't have hurt feelings when balance is enforced.

EDIT: no, seriously, if the table has bought into the concept of balance, then good players should want the strong characters nerfed, or the weak characters buffed. I really cannot see any way where "hurt feelings" and "problem player" are not synonyms in this scenario.

While personally I have no issue with it, and have even suggested to DMs during game that my character was too powerful or another character needed a buff, if you on the fly nerf someone mid game, or on the fly give one person something cool with nothing for someone else, it is human nature to find that annoying. One of the fun parts of D&D is getting new cool stuff for your character, and when you purposely leave one person out of that while doing it for another, you are leaving one person out of some fun. Even though that person may have ALREADY had lots of cool stuff, it's the finding of new stuff that is really fun.

The thing is, in the kind of table you are talking about, you are unlikely to run into that problem at all, as players who have "bought into the concept of balance" aren't making high OP wizards at a table with tier 5 characters in the first place.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The thing is, in the kind of table you are talking about, you are unlikely to run into that problem at all, as players who have "bought into the concept of balance" aren't making high OP wizards at a table with tier 5 characters in the first place.

Until someone wants to be Druid...

[liquidformat]

The thing is, in the kind of table you are talking about, you are unlikely to run into that problem at all, as players who have "bought into the concept of balance" aren't making high OP wizards at a table with tier 5 characters in the first place.

The fact is DMM for clerics and nature spell for druids are a large part in making them as high a tier as they are and when being OP comes down to a single feat especially in the case of druids a single core feat your argument fall flat. Also typically even a poorly optimized wizard will still out perform an optimized fighter past level 9.

[Quertus]

Glad to hear this might be able to work after all. :smallsmile:

For damage, I thought of something like power rank * 2d8.

Do you think that'd work?

Well, as others have already pointed out, that doesn't match any attempt to convert damage between the systems. At all.

But, again, balance to the table. Take the things different people have said, and apply them to your table.

If one person took +40d8 damage, another took DC 20 PaO, and a third took "I'm a TARDIS", will that have the results that you want?


While personally I have no issue with it, and have even suggested to DMs during game that my character was too powerful or another character needed a buff, if you on the fly nerf someone mid game, or on the fly give one person something cool with nothing for someone else, it is human nature to find that annoying. One of the fun parts of D&D is getting new cool stuff for your character, and when you purposely leave one person out of that while doing it for another, you are leaving one person out of some fun. Even though that person may have ALREADY had lots of cool stuff, it's the finding of new stuff that is really fun.

The thing is, in the kind of table you are talking about, you are unlikely to run into that problem at all, as players who have "bought into the concept of balance" aren't making high OP wizards at a table with tier 5 characters in the first place.

Well, I agree that mid-game nerfs are pretty annoying (unless it's self-initiated). But happily, that's not what we're discussing. What we're discussing is buffing the weak to achieve balance, and the players buying into that.

Now, usually, I prefer to implement this by the party choosing to track down rumors of an artifact that will assist the weakest link: the cool McGuffin sword or armor for the noob Fighter, the Harry Potter Wand or Book of Infinite Spells for the noob Wizard, etc.

Now, one thing that may make this more palatable - especially since some of these are abilities you can't readily get in D&D - is to give at least a few points to everyone. So, the guy who's rocking house might only get 5 points, whereas the noob who can never meaningfully contribute might get 30 or 40 points. Yes, even if the noob is playing a Wizard, and the rocking character is... eh, a True Namer.

And, yes, you can absolutely have a party that bought into balance and have Wizards and Fighters in the same party - the union of these two sets is not the null set. For example:

* Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, prefers a party with a Fighter and a Monk, who fairly consistently outshine him.

* New players who have no concept of game balance, but accept the GMs say so that the game can be unbalanced, but that they will fix it.

* Me saying, "****, this sounds cool - but do I want to play a Wizard, or a storekeeper/superhero?"

[ColorBlindNinja]

Well, as others have already pointed out, that doesn't match any attempt to convert damage between the systems. At all.

Indeed, and damage seems to be the main issue here.


But, again, balance to the table. Take the things different people have said, and apply them to your table.

If one person took +40d8 damage, another took DC 20 PaO, and a third took "I'm a TARDIS", will that have the results that you want?

I guess it would depend on what level everyone is, party composition, ect.

Except maybe the last one. Time travel sounds like a headache. :smalleek:

[Hackulator]

And, yes, you can absolutely have a party that bought into balance and have Wizards and Fighters in the same party - the union of these two sets is not the null set. For example:

* Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, prefers a party with a Fighter and a Monk, who fairly consistently outshine him.

* New players who have no concept of game balance, but accept the GMs say so that the game can be unbalanced, but that they will fix it.

* Me saying, "****, this sounds cool - but do I want to play a Wizard, or a storekeeper/superhero?"

I said high OP wizard, if your wizard is regularly getting outshined by a fighter or monk he is not that. You certainly can have wizards and mundanes together as I have in many games, however once again not high OP wizards if balance is something you care about.

[Quertus]

I said high OP wizard, if your wizard is regularly getting outshined by a fighter or monk he is not that. You certainly can have wizards and mundanes together as I have in many games, however once again not high OP wizards if balance is something you care about.

If player > build > class, let alone my addition that character is more important than any of those, why could not a skilled player playing a good Fighter or Monk build succeed in outperforming a(n intentionally) poorly-played high-op Wizard?

And, if you believe that you have an answer, what, of that, could not be solved by the OP's idea of giving the muggles super powers?

[Hackulator]

If player > build > class, let alone my addition that character is more important than any of those, why could not a skilled player playing a good Fighter or Monk build succeed in outperforming a(n intentionally) poorly-played high-op Wizard?

And, if you believe that you have an answer, what, of that, could not be solved by the OP's idea of giving the muggles super powers?

I mean, I suppose you could intentionally play your high intelligence wizard like an idiot and not take advantage of any of the optimization you put into it, but in my opinion that's a pretty disingenuous argument.

As for the second part, it could certainly be solved by that, I just think in the end it would just make the muggles into wizards.

[AvatarVecna]

I mean, I suppose you could intentionally play your high intelligence wizard like an idiot and not take advantage of any of the optimization you put into it, but in my opinion that's a pretty disingenuous argument.

As for the second part, it could certainly be solved by that, I just think in the end it would just make the muggles into wizards.

Less disingenuous than you're making it out to be. I've been at the table with more than a couple wammabe optimizers who thought they knew what they were doing bwcause they copied cool builds online. There's a difference between knowing how how to play higher-op characters in theory with a guide open in front of you and actually knowing off-hand what you need to do to cpunter the unexpected tactic that just came up. Casters in particular care not just about having the right options, but using the right ones at the right times, and that's player skill, not build strength.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the table, you could have a player who knows Iaijutsu Focus isn't a trained-only skill and uses it to enhance his attacks whenever he's striking at objects to break them faster, knows that a single rank in Knowledge (Religion) means he can play around with the sacrifice rules at least a little bit, knows what buff spells to request of his mages as the circumstances shift in a fight, and has the imagination and experience necessary to really abuse a wand of Silent Image.l - and all of that almost entirely regardless of specific build.

[Quertus]

I mean, I suppose you could intentionally play your high intelligence wizard like an idiot and not take advantage of any of the optimization you put into it, but in my opinion that's a pretty disingenuous argument.

As for the second part, it could certainly be solved by that, I just think in the end it would just make the muggles into wizards.

You've never met highly intelligent fools, or seen otherwise smart people do really dumb things / not get certain concepts? I've met lots, seen such patterns plenty of times, and such are the impetus* for Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named.

So, relevant(ish?) to this thread, what would you add to not feel like a Wizard? 80 skill points to arbitrary skills? +40 initiative? A McGuffin of coolness? Fist of Doom attacks? Magic money?

* Some of them are part of the impetus?


Meanwhile, on the other side of the table, you could have a player who knows Iaijutsu Focus isn't a trained-only skill and uses it to enhance his attacks whenever he's striking at objects to break them faster, knows that a single rank in Knowledge (Religion) means he can play around with the sacrifice rules at least a little bit, knows what buff spells to request of his mages as the circumstances shift in a fight, and has the imagination and experience necessary to really abuse a wand of Silent Image.l - and all of that almost entirely regardless of specific build.

That sounds like the "Armus" build. :smallwink:

[Hackulator]

You've never met highly intelligent fools, or seen otherwise smart people do really dumb things / not get certain concepts? I've met lots, seen such patterns plenty of times, and such are the impetus* for Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named.

So, relevant(ish?) to this thread, what would you add to not feel like a Wizard? 80 skill points to arbitrary skills? +40 initiative? A McGuffin of coolness? Fist of Doom attacks? Magic money?

* Some of them are part of the impetus?

I got it Quertus, your account is named for your signature academia mage, Quertus.

There are always edge cases that end up being weird. Most people I know who have looked up a high optimization build online to bring to a game have done at least some research in how to drive it, but I'm sure there are people who do not.

I suppose the closest thing I would feel you could do that would meaningfully close the gap might be to give them access to skill effects that are in the epic handbook before they get to epic. However the reality is the while in combat a fighter (as the base class) can be optimized enough to be fine in most groups, at the end of the day a martial character is "guy who stabs/crushes/cuts things to death" and a caster is "guy who literally breaks the laws of reality with his mind" and that is a difficult gap to breach.

Now, please note, I am not saying that playing one of those less powerful classes can't be fun. I will admit that sometimes, when I am playing with a powergamer and I don't feel like the effort of coming up with a new optimized build, I will go the opposite direction and be as incompetent as I possibly can, constantly causing problems for the party in as humorous a manner as I can and forcing them to clean up after me. That is of course another extreme, but you can find fun anywhere between there and a TO character

[liquidformat]

I said high OP wizard, if your wizard is regularly getting outshined by a fighter or monk he is not that. You certainly can have wizards and mundanes together as I have in many games, however once again not high OP wizards if balance is something you care about.

GOD Wizards are high OP and often don't take the spotlight away from the mundanes even though they outshine the mundanes in every way.


I suppose the closest thing I would feel you could do that would meaningfully close the gap might be to give them access to skill effects that are in the epic handbook before they get to epic. However the reality is the while in combat a fighter (as the base class) can be optimized enough to be fine in most groups, at the end of the day a martial character is "guy who stabs/crushes/cuts things to death" and a caster is "guy who literally breaks the laws of reality with his mind" and that is a difficult gap to breach.

I disagree, there is plenty that could be done to dramatically help more mundane characters by not forcing them to jump through hoops just to make their abilities function correctly. Lets take switch hunter for example. The biggest issue with swift hunter is how do you move enough in a round to make sure you get your shtick to work. Traditionally you go melee with a dip in pouncing barbarian and charge all the things. Or else I dip cleric to pickup travel and knowledge devotion so I can teleport while adding a bit more damage. As this highlights a lot of the time you end up dipping a lot of classes and prcs to optimize your shtick as a mundane since you don't automatically have great power like a wizard, druid, or cleric do. Sure going into a prc is normally better for a cleric as it gives you more things but unlike most mundanes you aren't required to take those prcs and class dips just to get the character to function correctly.

Instead if you add in some powers so said swift hunter can now teleport and get a bit more damage without having to be some chaotic mess of 1 to 3 level dips of 15 classes just to have a functional character that can 'keep up' with a straight druid/cleric/wizard...

[Cosi]

Instead if you add in some powers so said swift hunter can now teleport and get a bit more damage without having to be some chaotic mess of 1 to 3 level dips of 15 classes just to have a functional character that can 'keep up' with a straight druid/cleric/wizard...

This is quite true. One of the big problems with 3e is the lack of simple but effective builds. Particularly for martial classes. Even the ToB classes require you to pick over a list of abilities that nothing else uses.

[Ken Murikumo]

Alright, CBNinja, here are the races i mentioned. These are built for M&M 3ed. I did have to do a small around of DM hand-waving to get them to work.

Also, the PDF has some small changes i used to make the campaign work; in addition to some extra races that were requested of my players. Bonus points to anyone who recognizes the 4 extra races from a certain french cartoon!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fE7J4ZaB8o3PB1WavrZT0tx0Qs-zxGwc

[ColorBlindNinja]

Alright, CBNinja, here are the races i mentioned. These are built for M&M 3ed. I did have to do a small around of DM hand-waving to get them to work.

Also, the PDF has some small changes i used to make the campaign work; in addition to some extra races that were requested of my players. Bonus points to anyone who recognizes the 4 extra races from a certain french cartoon!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fE7J4ZaB8o3PB1WavrZT0tx0Qs-zxGwc

Thanks, I'll take a look. :smallsmile: