(M&M 3e) PL limit on defenses wrong?

[KakarisMaelstrom]

Problem: When using Power Level 10, set AWE to 12. The following error is displayed on WIL defense:

Trade-Off

This trait is too high for the current power level.

If possible, Hero Lab has automatically compensated by lowering the maximum value of its linked trait.

I believe this is a bug. This validation should only be displayed in circumstances where the WIL + FRT exceed PL*2. I do not believe there is any reason why AWE cannot be 12 in a PL 10 game.

If I'm wrong, please correct me

[Duggan]

Ah. That's a warning, not an error. ^_^ Tradeoffs get purple arrows. Errors get that big yellow bang on a red diamond. All it's doing is informing you that you are, de facto, making a tradeoff, so that you don't get confused when it raises an actual error if you raise your Fortitude save past 8.

We've had a number of people comment on this. The only things I can think of is to either allow people to turn off notifications of tradeoffs or to change the message, possibly remove the second sentence so that it looks less like an error and change that first sentence to say "Hero Lab has detected that you are performing a tradeoff".

[KakarisMaelstrom]

Being new to this problem, hopefully me explaining my confusion is helpful.

I understand it is a warning now.

So I create a new PL10 character. I push AWE to 11. It now pops up a warning saying I am making a tradeoff. Here's the problems with that:

This trait is too high for the current power level. -- It is not too high.

If possible, Hero Lab has automatically compensated by lowering the maximum value of its linked trait. -- 1, it doesn't tell me what the linked trait is. 2, it implies that it might be compensating for a problem. But if there isn't a problem, why would it say that? It seems like it's warning me about a non-issue.

I could see if maybe you were trying to make it easier for maybe a new user who was less familiar with M&M 3E to explain that the system does require tradeoffs. Personally I'd rather see that information in a clickable tool tip, or in a table down below that shows Dodge + Toughness, Parry + Toughness, etc. and shows where you are in relation to that, so you can easily see that you need a few more points in a particular pair. I do see that you've got the defense information (as well as power information) over on the power tab. The power information makes sense there. The defense information seems like it mislocated on this page.

So I guess in summary, my opinion is that you move the "advice" on the power page about defenses to near the defenses. Then just get rid of the trade-off warning since (at least as far as I understand), it's not actually warning you about something relevant.

I'm also unclear on why it only turns on when you're above 10. Is it trying to imply a trade-off might happen because your defenses aren't all 10? In any case, I don't think it makes any sense.

Happy to provide more information if it helps.

[Duggan]

Honestly, it's got a lot to do with Tradeoffs being a historical area of misunderstanding. For a long time, one of most common posts by a new person, either 2E or 3E, was to say that an archetype was broken because their Toughness exceeded PL. Therefore, one thing which was added to Hero Lab was explicitly pointing out that a character was performing a tradeoff, here between Fortitude and Will, whenever they exceeded PL in an area. Are you saying that you'd prefer not to get that information or just that the message accompanying the purple arrow needs to be more explicit?

[KakarisMaelstrom]

Really I feel that this definition of "trade-off" is incorrect. The rulebook states that FRT+WIL cannot together exceed PL*2. That trade-off is always in effect. The trade-off is not triggered by one defense being above PL. It seems like an assumption is being made that all defenses will be equal to PL which isn't accurate.

You also said "For a long time, one of most common posts by a new person, either 2E or 3E, was to say that an archetype was broken because their Toughness exceeded PL." The thing is, that's perfectly legal. There is no reason why a character's Toughness cannot exceed PL. What's important is that Dodge+Toughness does not exceed PL*2, and same for Parry+Toughness. I would think it'd be more clear to show the individual stats then have a "tradeoffs" section or something below showing the defenses added together and creating a warning when one was exceeded. It'd be very clear to the user when they violate the rule because it is right below where you're editing.

Then the warning could say something like "Error: Dodge+Toughness have exceeded requirements of PL (PL * 2). Reduce either Dodge or Toughness." You could go on to explain possible sources of Dodge and Toughness such as abilities, powers, etc. if you wanted to be very thorough.

I would be happier with either a solution that simply did not show the purple arrow or something like I've described above. To me, at least, it's unclear what that purple arrow is even trying to explain. I do understand what you're saying, I just think that what it's calling a "trade-off" isn't a trade-off at all.

[Duggan]

The Fortitude/Will bit is historical raisins in many ways. *shrug* What the purple arrow says is "There is a tradeoff". It might be handy to modify the text so that it indicates exactly what's being traded off ("Your Close Combat is at 12, which means that you have a maximum damage value of +8 for your close attacks unless they employ Inaccurate" although that starts getting clunky with all of the options, maybe just indicate what's being traded off against what). I think the purple arrow is useful, though to indicate that a particular stat is favored for the character for that PL whether it's Toughness, Fortitude, Will, or whatever.

And actually, I think that the error for exceeding PL does look a good bit like what you indicated. I don't have the program present at the moment, but it does indicate at the bottom when you've broken PL. I think things turn red too to indicate a problem.

^_^ And you're perfectly right that trading off on Toughness is legal. The problem was that this was indicated in a single paragraph in the book that a lot of people skipped over. Which, ultimately, is one of the reasons the purple arrow comes up, so that there's an indicator of a perfectly legal tradeoff. The only problem so far is that not everyone likes that helpful indication. Perhaps a way of turning off the purple arrow is the solution you need.

FWIW, there's also been a suggestion of making tradeoffs mechanical like PL where you set it and hard limits are put into place versus the current flexible system, but I personally don't agree with that approach. I like my program flexible.

[KakarisMaelstrom]

Well you've got my 2 cents on it anyway. I agree, I'd rather the program be flexible. You should be able to break the rules and design whatever you want. This is especially important because different GM's will rule differently on different issues.

Very cool, thanks for the conversation.