[Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense [Archive] - HERO Games Discussion Boards

Ura-Maru

Jul 17th, '05, 05:23 PM

-shrug-

I suppose, if you applied everything literally. If you ignore the fact that no one HAS resistant Power Defense.

That's my point. AVLDs require you to take a defense for them, as you say. (and so did I, though not very well, it seems) I would consider 'a defense that no one in the history of the game has ever purchased' to be functionally equivalent to 'no defense.'

It's not like AVLD Killing Attacks are getting screwed doing it my way. 3d6N AVLD Does Body costs 52.5 points, and does 3 body and 10.5 Stun on average. 1d6K AVLD Does Body costs 52.5 points, and does 3.5 body and 8.75 Stun on average.

Roughly equivalent, no?

---
So if I take an AVLD drain, bought with its defense as Flash Defense, does that mean I have to buy Flash Power Defense to protect against it? :)

buzz

Jul 17th, '05, 05:34 PM

Steve pointed me to the FAQ:

Flash Defense
Q: Why would a character want Resistant Flash Defense?

A: To protect against HKA/RKA, AVLD (Flash Defense), Does BODY attacks, and the like.

I would consider 'a defense that no one in the history of the game has ever purchased' to be functionally equivalent to 'no defense.'
Apparently somebody has bought it before, even if it was only Steve.

Ura-Maru

Jul 17th, '05, 05:41 PM

I don't see where he says he bought it . . . :)

ghost-angel

Jul 17th, '05, 06:00 PM

I think we're missing a big part of Hero:

It's Possible.

Just because it's rarely, if ever, been done does not mean it can't be done. That's the POINT of the system: It Can Be Done.

If you were playing, say, Psychic Wars where attacks vs Mental D doing body were common then I could see Resistant Mental D being common.

Likewise if you're playing in some game where Power Def and attacks against it were common enough then I'd see Resistant Power Def starting to come into play as things escalated.

buzz asked "When would one need Power Defense that was Resistant?"

Other provided an answer as to when it would come into play.

The question was not "How often." just what circumstances.

So, who bloody cares how common it might be or how often it will come up or if anyone has ever purchased it.

IT'S POSSIBLE.

that's all you need to know.

Ura-Maru

Jul 17th, '05, 06:01 PM

ghost-angel

Jul 17th, '05, 06:23 PM

You don't even need 'does body'. Killing Attacks apply full Stun if you don't have resistant defenses . . .

A 1d6+1 AVLD KA with an extra stun multiple costs 55 points and does 15.75 stun per round. Not bad. If you can talk your GM into allowing 68 active points, that's 19.25 stun.

Wanna see me drop Destroyer in two turns? :)

---
And that's IF his Damage Reduction applies to something that's vs. Power Defense . . .

1) Non-Resistent Defenses apply Vs the STUN of a KA. So, they still get to defend against it if they have the appropriate Def.

2) Per the FAQ:

Flash Defense

Q: Why would a character want Resistant Flash Defense?

A: To protect against HKA/RKA, AVLD (Flash Defense), Does BODY attacks, and the like.

The original answer to the question is correct.

Black Lotus

Jul 17th, '05, 06:36 PM

You don't even need 'does body'. Killing Attacks apply full Stun if you don't have resistant defenses . . .

A 1d6+1 AVLD KA with an extra stun multiple costs 55 points and does 15.75 stun per round. Not bad. If you can talk your GM into allowing 68 active points, that's 19.25 stun.

Wanna see me drop Destroyer in two turns? :)

---
And that's IF his Damage Reduction applies to something that's vs. Power Defense . . .

The point is, it makes sense to do it that way. Part of the COST of ANY Killing Attack is the fact that you need Resistant Defense to defend against it. Therefore, NORMAL damage AVLD attacks would be getting an unfair advantage over KAs, and KAs would be getting the shaft.

That's why there's Resistant Power, Mental, and etc. DEF: because there are both Normal Damage and Killing Damage attacks VERSUS those Defenses.

Ura-Maru

Jul 17th, '05, 07:44 PM

Just because it's rarely, if ever, been done does not mean it can't be done. That's the POINT of the system: It Can Be Done.

I’m afraid I disagree. When dealing with odd rules interactions, particularly when looking at powers that bypass standard defenses, it’s vital to keep in mind how other characters in the campaign are built.

Now, if a campaign had very common attacks vs. rPowerDefense, sure it might be reasonable. A cyber campaign, designed a particular way, might need an extra ‘humanity’ stat. The standard game does not include the latter, because it has no meaning in ~98% of campaigns.

IT'S POSSIBLE.

that's all you need to know.

Not in my game, it ain’t. :)

And I need to know some other stuff, too. Like, ‘Why did they cancel Manimal?’

1) Non-Resistent Defenses apply Vs the STUN of a KA. So, they still get to defend against it if they have the appropriate Def.

Incorrect, I’m afraid. You can only apply non-resistant defenses against stun done with a killing attack if it has to pass through some resistant defense first.

2) Per the FAQ:

I’m not denying that the faq says that. Nor did I when buzz pointed it out. I’m explaining why I think it’s silly. You’re free to disagree, of course.

The point is, it makes sense to do it that way. Part of the COST of ANY Killing Attack is the fact that you need Resistant Defense to defend against it. Therefore, NORMAL damage AVLD attacks would be getting an unfair advantage over KAs, and KAs would be getting the shaft.

The Normal Damage version does, on average, 1.75 extra stun, but the Killing version does an extra .5 body. Seems pretty fair to me.

Except the killing version works on every character ever published/posted, and the Normal doesn’t. So who’s getting screwed?

Or put another way: Is it acceptable to claim ‘special defense with a specific advantage’ as the defense against an AVLD?

---
This is why psionics in D&D are so asinine . . .

Roy_The_Ruthles

Jul 17th, '05, 07:59 PM

I meant that there would be no defesnse _against_ them.

there would be resistant defense against them

Roy_The_Ruthles

Jul 17th, '05, 08:06 PM

It would be pretty assine, but it's a good way to model very small things, like fusion cutters or something. I'm sure there must be a good way to use this rulesplotation

Blackberry

Jul 17th, '05, 08:30 PM

Well, what do you know. I never noticed that. It's under Flash Defense, too.

I'd put it down as an oversight. My argument still stands. If you assume that thier default state is 'nonresistant', AVLD killing attacks have no defense at all. Unless I'm mistaken, no published characters, and no personal character I've ever seen, has 'resistant' power defense.

But on the other hand, buying such a cheap defense as Resistant is also really cheap, as is buying it Hardened. You'd need it Hardened against an Armor-Piercing AVLD:PowerD attack, right? You don't get Hardened for free just because not very many people buy Hardened Power Defense.

Black Lotus

Jul 17th, '05, 10:50 PM

The Normal Damage version does, on average, 1.75 extra stun, but the Killing version does an extra .5 body. Seems pretty fair to me.

Except the killing version works on every character ever published/posted, and the Normal doesn’t. So who’s getting screwed?

Or put another way: Is it acceptable to claim ‘special defense with a specific advantage’ as the defense against an AVLD?

Scratch all that, hang on.

Black Lotus

Jul 17th, '05, 10:59 PM

Look, it only matters for these reasons.

-- AVLD attack Powers may do either Normal Damage or Killing Damage.
-- Limited Defenses (Power, Mental, etc.) can be purchased as Resistant.
-- Killing Damage AVLD attacks bypass non-resistant Limited Defenses, just like any other Power.
-- Normal Damage AVLD attacks are subject to both non-Resistant Defenses and Resistant Defenses, just like any other Power.

So basically, it's business as usual. The only thing about non-Resistant Limited Defenses is that they won't block Killing Damage AVLD attack Powers.

And about the Limited Defense (Power, Mental, etc,) being useless if AVLD Killing Attacks can bypass it: nah. And if so, the person with the Killing Damage AVLD Power would be getting screwed because the Killing Damage aspect he bought for his Power would ALSO be useless. (Note: People say Killing and Normal attacks do about the same damage. Even so, Killing costs a lot more than Normal.)

Conclusion: To defend against Killing Damage AVLD attacks, you need Resistant Limited Defense of the appropriate type. Simple. logical. Sexxxxy.

My supreme logic is invincible. If you disagree, you are wrong. ;)

Roy_The_Ruthles

Jul 17th, '05, 11:01 PM

i agree, i've always found resistant Power Defense to be Sexxxxy

caris

Jul 18th, '05, 04:09 AM

(Note: People say Killing and Normal attacks do about the same damage. Even so, Killing costs a lot more than Normal.)

I still say that Killing and Normal do about the same amount of damage for the same cost. Killing will average more Body but less Stun than Normal over time, but they roughly balance out. On the other hand, Killing still tends to have a somewhat higher efficiency on human targets due to the non-resistant Def not applying to the Body/humans not having any inherent Resistant Def factor.

I remember back when a PC tried to do the RKA based on ECV, before the 4th Ed Ultimate Mentalist came out. I ruled that if he wanted it applied to MD instead of ED/PD, than MD was effectively resistant to it. I felt that to open the rMD/rPD/rFD can of worms was to big of a hassle for most campaigns I would run, and I have not seen anything that has changed my mind since.

Hugh Neilson

Jul 18th, '05, 06:33 AM

Wouldn't an NND (vs. Power Defense) KA with the Does BODY advantage also require resistant Power Defense to resist?

I would rule if the defense is Power Defense, it can be any power defense, resistant or not. NND means the usual defense is removed, and this new defense blocks it entirely.

I would also rule resistant power defense is not a "reasonably common power".

Tech

Jul 18th, '05, 06:47 AM

I would rule if the defense is Power Defense, it can be any power defense, resistant or not. NND means the usual defense is removed, and this new defense blocks it entirely.

I would also rule resistant power defense is not a "reasonably common power".

To which I agree. Although I think this thread answers a question I've somewhat had for awhile in this matter, it won't matter because it won't happen in my campaign since to me it seems too munchkinist for bloodthirsty players. My opinion, my rules, my campaign.

Hugh Neilson

Jul 18th, '05, 06:50 AM

To which I agree. Although I think this thread answers a question I've somewhat had for awhile in this matter, it won't matter because it won't happen in my campaign since to me it seems too munchkinist for bloodthirsty players. My opinion, my rules, my campaign.

Players in my game don't try to build unbalanced constructs first because they are good players, and second because they know if they can have it, so can the NPC's (and they can get xp whenever required to pay for it...)

Kristopher

Jul 18th, '05, 08:37 AM

For those who might have been wondering, I actually have posted at least one character with Resistant Mental Def and Power Def, specifically to counter the possibility of someone using a VPP to build a "Does BODY" Ego Blast or a "Does BODY" AVLD(Power Def) Attack.

Onyxclaw

Jul 18th, '05, 09:10 AM

I certainly don't have a problem with allowing resistant defenses like mental defense. Infact honestly it makes sense. Some mental powers are supposed to kill those they are used on by overloading thier brains, or even ripping them apart metaphisically. Normal training to avoid control wont do that, just like normal physical physique doesn't defend against a knife.

If you want resistant to those kinds of mental powers, then I think it's reasonable to make you buy resistant mental defense, just as a person mut by armor or resistant PD to avoid damage from claws or teeth.

Besides, if you are buying mental defense, you should think about resistance if necesarry. If you don't buy it, then you don't have it.

If you haven't bought any mental defense (because it's not in character or makes no sense) then you're SOL. I really don't see how it's any different from buying normal resistand PD/ED or armour for that matter. Other than the fact most people don't bother to buy it.

I have built a coupel characters with resistant flash defense for sight and hearing due to a few other characters with piercing flash attacks (i.e. bright enough to get you even through your sunglasses) because they have ways to counteract such things through biological means. It's not unreasonable.

I have also built AVLD mindtearing attacks for my NPCs

but shhhh don't tell them ;) else they may get wise and buy defenses they can't justify having...or worse make a character who can justif having them and spoi my fun! (j/k)

Black Lotus

Jul 18th, '05, 09:15 AM

For those of you arguing that the rules for Powers magically (i.e., for no discernable technical reason) change when you select NND or AVLD for your Power: that's fine. But that's your own rationalization. The pure rules, taken as they are, the F.A.Q., Steve himself, and even my own pithy explanation still stand strong. They are the default way to address the situation. Just because it makes you uncomfortable to do it the way the rules and the FAQ suggest, or the fact that you want to do it differently in your game, does not mean the Normal Damage/ Killing Damage, Resistant Limited Defense/ Normal Limited Defense dynamic isn't valid.

Sunshine and kittens!

Zed-F

Jul 18th, '05, 10:00 AM

The FAQ way may be the default way according to the rules. That does not make it the well-balanced way for most campaigns. Most campaigns don't anticipate deadly attacks which can only be defended against by very obscure defenses, and thus shouldn't allow them.

Or, as Hugh mentioned -- as ye sow, so shall ye reap. If you want to build a character with a RKA BOECV Does Body to require resistant MD to defend against it, then (a) is this really in genre for the game setting and (b) if so, expect to see enemies with RKA NND Does Body vs. Immortality and the like. And there are probably more of them than there are of you.

Kristopher

Jul 18th, '05, 10:05 AM

As I said a while ago on this forum, just because you can build an BoECV Does BODY RKA doesn't mean you should build a character that has one.

Fox1

Jul 18th, '05, 10:08 AM

The FAQ way may be the default way according to the rules. That does not make it the well-balanced way for most campaigns. Most campaigns don't anticipate deadly attacks which can only be defended against by very obscure defenses, and thus shouldn't allow them.

I'll have to agree here.

The rush of "now I should buy resistance for defenses..." was one of the first pointless point soaks I noticed in 5th edition. It's an outgrowth of Long's love affair with 'cute' power builds.

For myself, I have no need for it. So I don't use it.

I'd suggest the same course for anyone troubled by it.

ghost-angel

Jul 18th, '05, 10:32 AM

As I said a while ago on this forum, just because you can build an BoECV Does BODY RKA doesn't mean you should build a character that has one.

Spot on.

Just because it's possible with the rules doesn't mean it has to come into play in any way shape or form.

Sure, some campaigns may go down the "Need resistance everything defences" and those are rare rare games - but it's nice to know that the system I'm playing takes that into account from the outset.

ghost-angel

Jul 18th, '05, 10:34 AM

I’m afraid I disagree. When dealing with odd rules interactions, particularly when looking at powers that bypass standard defenses, it’s vital to keep in mind how other characters in the campaign are built.

That's nice that you disagree and then illsutrate my point.

Yes - it's obscure. Rare to the point of non-existance. But it's POSSIBLE. So when you do come across the one campaign in existance that uses it there's already something in place ... gee how nice to not have to come up with a House Rule.

If you want a system that only ever outlines what you should be doing go play D20 ... those rules seem to lead one by the nose enough for you.

Black Lotus

Jul 18th, '05, 11:23 AM

As I said a while ago on this forum, just because you can build an BoECV Does BODY RKA doesn't mean you should build a character that has one.

THAT's the kicker. Treat this combo the same way as you would for any other extremely unbalanced, "unbeatable" Power: it's not allowed.

But paying to make an AVLD attack do Killing Damage, then pretending non-Resistant Defenses protect against it, is silly. SImply don't allow AVLD attacks to do Killing BODY damage, because it's unbalancing.

Fox1

Jul 18th, '05, 11:48 AM

But paying to make an AVLD attack do Killing Damage, then pretending non-Resistant Defenses protect against it, is silly.

By no means is this the case.

Before 5th edition one could have selected this build (RKA AVLD, does body) not because the intent was to bypass non-resistant defense, but because the intent was to use the hit location chart for stun multiples or to increase the deviation of damage results.

Those holding to the same reasoning would do well to ignore 5th edition's ruling on the matter.

Black Lotus

Jul 18th, '05, 12:02 PM

By no means is this the case.

Before 5th edition one could have selected this build (RKA AVLD, does body) not because the intent was to bypass non-resistant defense, but because the intent was to use the hit location chart for stun multiples or to increase the deviation of damage results.

Those holding to the same reasoning would do well to ignore 5th edition's ruling on the matter.

Then the KA should cost less, since part of its cost is its ability to bypass non-Resistant Defenses. I'd rather buy an extra die or two of Normal Damage than Killing Damage if that's the way it works.

And yes, by many means is this the case. By the FREd rules, the FAQ, Steve Long, and pure logic, it's the case. It's also logical to alter it because it's unbalanced, but it's NOT logical to claim that that's the default way to do things. It's not the default. Not in FREd, anyway.

Hugh Neilson

Jul 18th, '05, 12:08 PM

Then the KA should cost less, since part of its cost is its ability to bypass non-Resistant Defenses. I'd rather buy an extra die or two of Normal Damage than Killing Damage if that's the way it works.

And yes, by many means is this the case. By the FREd rules, the FAQ, Steve Long, and pure logic, it's the case. It's also logical to alter it because it's unbalanced, but it's NOT logical to claim that that's the default way to do things. It's not the default. Not in FREd, anyway.

What if the GM simply set the default to be "the first point of Mental Defense, Power Defense and/or Flash Defense a character purchases automatically gets to be Resistant, but does not defend against BOD from a killing attack"?

Now, all characters get to apply their full non-resistant defenses against Stun, but if you want to buy an AVLD Killing Attack that does BOD, it will do BOD unless the character has paid for resistant defenses.

[Alternatively, we could all buy the first point of any exotic defense Resistant - it's only one point!]

Fox1

Jul 18th, '05, 12:14 PM

Then the KA should cost less, since part of its cost is its ability to bypass non-Resistant Defenses. .

By that logic, KA should cost more than EB. They don't because there is give and take between highly lethal and semi-lethal attacks- i.e. a 0 Limit.

...it's NOT logical to claim that that's the default way to do things. It's not the default. Not in FREd, anyway.

This I would agree with. A house rule is required whenever overriding poorly reasoned but official rules.

Black Lotus

Jul 18th, '05, 01:25 PM

By that logic, KA should cost more than EB. They don't because there is give and take between highly lethal and semi-lethal attacks- i.e. a 0 Limit.

But... yes, since KA is losing one of its features in your way of doing things, it's still losing out. They may cost the same (KA and EB), but PART of that cost for KA is the fact that it bypasses non-resistant defenses. No question about it. KAs are weaker if they lose their ability to bypass non-resistant Defenses -- period. Would you build a power: RKA 2d6, 0 (Is Affected By Non-Resistant Defenses)? No. You wouldn't.

This I would agree with. A house rule is required whenever overriding poorly reasoned but official rules.

It's not poorly designed. There are countless Power combinations that are unbalanced and crazy. This AVLD KA thing is the LEAST of them, and it works in the terms of the game mechanics. Only when you look at game balance issues does it become unreasonable, AND EVEN THEN, in a sci-fi campaign, I might have a special AVLD KA weapon, and a special Resistant Power Defense armor, where, for example, only the special armor protects against the superweapon.

Meh.

buzz

Jul 18th, '05, 01:34 PM

I’m explaining why I think it’s silly.
To ring things back on track, I didn't ask whether anyone felt that such a construct was "silly." I just wanted to know what it was for. Now I know.

I don't really understand why such an obscure issue should inspire such vitriol. So it's a very rare occurence; who cares?

Fox1

Jul 18th, '05, 01:36 PM

I don't really understand why such an obscure issue should inspire such vitriol. So it's a very rare occurence; who cares?

A number of people took the new 'point sinks' in 5th edition with less than high spirits. You're seeing a little of that in this thread.

Fox1

Jul 18th, '05, 01:37 PM

But... yes, since KA is losing one of its features in your way of doing things, it's still losing out.

And it's gaining as well. If it's a 0 limit between RKA and EB, it's a 0 limit elsewhere and for the same reasons.

It's not poorly designed. There are countless Power combinations that are unbalanced and crazy.

From an ideal PoV, if it's unbalanced and crazy- its poorly designed.

The question then becomes, 1) does it matter, 2) can it be fixed.

Black Lotus

Jul 18th, '05, 01:41 PM

And it's gaining as well. If it's a 0 limit between RKA and EB, it's a 0 limit elsewhere and for the same reasons.

Not really. All I see happening is KA losing their ability to bypass non-Resistant Defenses. All this zero-limit double-talk doesn't change that fact. Did you even read my post?

Would you build a power like this: RKA 2d6, 0 (Affected By Non-Resistant Defenses)? No. You wouldn't.

It's a significant disadvantage, i.e.: KAs do less damage.

Fox1

Jul 18th, '05, 01:46 PM

Not really. All I see happening is KA losing their ability to bypass non-Resistant Defenses. All this zero-limit double-talk doesn't change that fact. Did you even read my post?.

Of course, it was the one that attempted to completely side-step my original point.

It's a significant disadvantage, i.e.: KAs do less damage.

Then RKA should cost more than EB because, i.e. EB do less damage.

Black Lotus

Jul 18th, '05, 02:16 PM

Of course, it was the one that attempted to completely side-step my original point.

It didn't side-step ANYTHING. It's a write-up for a Power with an imaginary 0-point Disad -- an imaginary 0-point Disad necessary for your theory to work.

RKA 2d6, -0 (Does Not Bypass Non-Resistant Defenses)

Now, let's try it with Energy Blast:

Energy Blast 5d6, -0 (Does Not Bypass Non-Resistant Defenses)

Except, guess what? Energy blasts ALREADY don't bypass non-resistant Defenses! They don't NEED that Disad -- they're already blocked by non-Resistant Defenses. So basically, it boils down to this:

RKA 2d6, -0 (Affected By Non-Resistant Defenses)
Energy Blast 5d6, -0 (Affected By Non-Resistant Defenses)

Then RKA should cost more than EB because, i.e. EB do less damage.

That's a rules grievance. Take it up with Steve. You can't say, "Well, even though KA just lost one of its deadliest attributes, EB was getting the shaft already, so why count it as a disadvantage?" You can, but it's your decision to alter the pre-existing rules, and when discussing things on the boards, we go by the rules as they are, not anyone's house rules.

Black Lotus

Jul 18th, '05, 02:25 PM

I have to hand it to Fox1.

He can maintain grace under fire, even when facing the judgement of Steve Long, the FAQ, several other Rules-fu enthusiasts, and least of all, myself. Even if he is bluffing about the fact that AVLD KAs and Resistant Limited Defenses are broken as they are written right now -- which I strongly suspect; motive: doesn't want to concede the argument -- it really seems as though he knows what he's talking about.

Perhaps he does.

Technically though, I win. So far the only argument I've had to face is that I am "side-stepping the zero-point argument". Once I figure out exactly what that means -- sounds like double-talk -- I may find I have been outwitted.

At this point, I don't think anyone will disagree that "This KA is Subject to Non-Resistant Defenses" is worth a CP rebate as a Disadvantage to any Power built with a HKA or RKA.

buzz

Jul 18th, '05, 02:36 PM

I'm no mod, but could we ease up, people? :(

buzz

Jul 18th, '05, 02:37 PM

A number of people took the new 'point sinks' in 5th edition with less than high spirits. You're seeing a little of that in this thread.
Then a number of people need to lighten up. Sheesh.

Black Lotus

Jul 18th, '05, 02:40 PM

I'm no mod, but could we ease up, people? :(

Did I come off as an ass in that post about my discussion with Fox1?

I was really trying to give him credit where credit was due, and be as polite as possible. If I failed, I apologize.

Blackberry

Jul 18th, '05, 02:45 PM

Did I come off as an ass in that post about my discussion with Fox1?

I was really trying to give him credit where credit was due, and be as polite as possible. If I failed, I apologize.

Well, you did say "he's BSing" and "Technically... I win". Not exactly the most apologetic tones I've ever seen on a web forum.

Black Lotus

Jul 18th, '05, 02:53 PM

Well, you did say "he's BSing" and "Technically... I win". Not exactly the most apologetic tones I've ever seen on a web forum.

I said I THINK he's BSing... and I DO technically win, if only because the rules and FAQ and Steve back me up.

Plus, if you've seen how I was before I "turned over a new leaf"... you'd know that that was mega-polite. ;)

Anyway, I'll change BSing to "Bluffing".

Fox1

Jul 18th, '05, 03:01 PM

RKA 2d6, -0 (Does Not Bypass Non-Resistant Defenses)

Now, let's try it with Energy Blast:

Energy Blast 5d6, -0 (Does Not Bypass Non-Resistant Defenses)
[/b].

That's not how it works. The cost for 15 points of RKA = 15 points of EB.

So, assuming EB as the reference power and 30 Active Points:

RKA 2d6: -0 (Bypasses Non-Resistant Defenses) = EB 6d6

Or if you like assuming RKA as the reference power:

RKA 2d6 = EB 6d6: -0 (Does not Bypass Non-Resistant Defenses)

It seems clear, that one of the most core relationships in HERO considers the ability to bypass non-resistent defenses to be a 0 level advantage.

Now, one may take exception to that reasoning. That's fine.

But if one does not take exception to that reasoning, one certainly can't complain about me ruling that AVLD RKAs does not bypass non-resistant defenses because the limit you'd apply would be 0.

If anything, I'm more consistent on this matter than 5th edition which tries to have it both ways.

Fox1

Jul 18th, '05, 03:02 PM

Then a number of people need to lighten up. Sheesh.

A lot of people on these boards need to lighten up.

But I don't see it happening, so I'll note what I don't like when I see what I don't like.

Fox1

Jul 18th, '05, 03:03 PM

I said I THINK he's BSing... and I DO technically win, if only because the rules and FAQ and Steve back me up.

I don't believe that I ever stated that the current FAQ or Steve said anything differently.

I'm saying that their way of looking at it is flawed given the core asssumptions built into HERO, i.e. they screwed up.

Black Lotus

Jul 18th, '05, 03:10 PM

That's not how it works. The cost for 15 points of RKA = 15 points of EB.

So, assuming EB as the reference power and 30 Active Points:

RKA 2d6: -0 (Bypasses Non-Resistant Defenses) = EB 6d6

Or if you like assuming RKA as the reference power:

RKA 2d6 = EB 6d6: -0 (Does not Bypass Non-Resistant Defenses)

It seems clear, that one of the most core relationships in HERO considers the ability to bypass non-resistent defenses to be a 0 level advantage.

Now, one may take exception to that reasoning. That's fine.

But if one does not take exception to that reasoning, one certainly can't complain about me ruling that AVLD RKAs does not bypass non-resistant defenses because the limit you'd apply would be 0.

If anything, I'm more consistent on this matter than 5th edition which tries to have it both ways.

Hmmm...

-- 1d6 RKA = 15 Character Points. 2d6 RKA, therefore, costs 30 Character Points.
-- 1d6 Energy Blast = 5 Character Points. 6d6 Energy Blast, therefore, costs 30 Character Points.

************

-- 2d6 RKA = Average of 3 BODY per die = 6 BODY per hit, plus STUN lottery.
-- 6d6 Energy Blast = Average of 1 BODY per die = 6 BODY per hit, with no STUN lottery OR ability to bypass Normal Defenses.

NO! Fox cannot be right! I AM INVINCIBLE!

::explodes::

He's right...

Blackberry

Jul 18th, '05, 04:52 PM

RKA 2d6 = EB 6d6: -0 (Does not Bypass Non-Resistant Defenses)

It seems clear, that one of the most core relationships in HERO considers the ability to bypass non-resistent defenses to be a 0 level advantage.

You forgot "Must use STUN Lottery system or hit location system to compute STUN damage" on the RKA.

And there are a lot of things that HERO considers a +0 advantage/-0 limitation -- Standard Effect, for instance, which can be very advantageous for Adjustment Powers.

schir1964

Jul 18th, '05, 08:20 PM

Howdy Blackberry!

It's been a long time. Glad to see you around here again. (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

Lord Mhoram

Jul 18th, '05, 10:00 PM

I remember reverse engeneering KA from EB back in third (when there were some funky advantages to do damage with a Transform) it looked something like this.

EB
+1 Counts pips as body.
+1/2 has a d6-1 stun mult of the body rolled (these are the two I vaugely remember and I may have the numbers wrong, but I do remember that these advantages were printed in Champs 3 for Transform and the total was a +1 1/2)
+1/2 to go against resistant defenses (my big of reverse engeneering)

For 15 points.

And as damage resistance is effictirly a +1/2 advantage.

So in an old game I allowed an EB to go against resistant D as a +1/2 advantage*, and KA's to go against non resistant D as a -1/2 limitation.

So I am sure you can see where I stand on this issue.

* that meant a 10d6 EB vs Reistant D was 75 active - the equivelent of a 5d6 KA. Seemed balanced. Bloody, but balanced.

Fox1

Jul 19th, '05, 06:48 AM

+1 Counts pips as body.

Should be +2

+1/2 has a d6-1 stun mult of the body rolled

Is not an advantage (except when added to a power that doesn't normally do stun at all).

This method in fact produces less average stun per point of body than the normal EB after accounting for the first advantage.

+1/2 to go against resistant defenses (my big of reverse engeneering)

Not considered an advantage in HERO at all.

The following are considered to be exactly equal pointed powers in offical HERO.

2d6 RKA
6d6 EB
6d6 EB, only does stun.

There is no doubt that in pure damage terms, the powers greatly decend in effectiveness.

But like a number of things in HERO, that isn't the measure of the point cost. Here they consider lethal -> semi-lethal -> non-lethal to hold advantages in the reverse order of damage effectiveness.

That is, it's better to be non-lethal in practical play than it is to be lethal. This advantage offsets the difference in effective damage.

This assumption (core to the HERO system) is what one must either agree with or disagree with.

And if you disagree with it, you need to modify point costs to bring the system into agreement with you.

For myself, I don't care. The points don't matter.

Roy_The_Ruthles

Jul 19th, '05, 08:00 AM

For myself, I don't care. The points don't matter.

is this "Whose Line is it anyway?"

Black Lotus

Jul 19th, '05, 02:14 PM

That is, it's better to be non-lethal in practical play than it is to be lethal. This advantage offsets the difference in effective damage.

Yeah, I agree that that seems to be the case.

Onyxclaw

Jul 19th, '05, 02:17 PM

Yeah, I agree that that seems to be the case.

I will also. There have been times where a character I've had has needed to just knock someone out and has had a very hard time not severley hurting them. It got so bad on a trial basis that I had to give them a nonlethal attack (electrical shock for stun only) just to make it posible.

When you do 3d6 killing with one hand you have to be careful what you do when you don't want to hurt people. Beign enormous and having huge claws aint going to help you take someone down in one piece.

Roy_The_Ruthles

Jul 19th, '05, 03:27 PM

that's what the neutrino shotgun is for. A nice non-lethal blast of high raidation will be safe (as long as they have 3rPD)

But yeah, i'd really enjoy having a EB that does no body, it'd be very helpful

Ura-Maru

Jul 19th, '05, 05:35 PM

Seems I missed all the fun. Typical.

But on the other hand, buying such a cheap defense as Resistant is also really cheap, as is buying it Hardened. You'd need it Hardened against an Armor-Piercing AVLD:PowerD attack, right? You don't get Hardened for free just because not very many people buy Hardened Power Defense.

I don’t think this analogy is valid. An AP AVLD will do significantly less damage than the non AP version, because you have to pay for the advantage. The Killing and Normal versions do almost exactly the same. Hardened power defense has actually purchased by some existing characters. Hardened is also useful against AP Drains and the like. Resistant Power Defense is useful for nothing at all except stopping AVLD KAs.

And finally, Hardening the Power Defense costs half as much as making it resistant.

Black Lotus, I’m not disagreeing with your logic, I’m disagreeing with your axioms.

Short Version

Black Lotus:
a) Resistant Special Defenses Exist
b) Killing Attacks are only stopped by Resistant Defenses
Therefore,
c) Resistant Special Defenses are there to stop Killing AVLDs

As I already said, twice, yes, it does appear the rules work that way. And Steve is a valid authority to appeal to, as long as we’re arguing rules. So yes, you ‘win’ as long as you limit the argument to pure rules.

Ura:
a) AVLDs must be stopped by a special defense, such as Power Defense, Flash Defense, or Mental Defense, or a reasonably common ‘special effect’ defense.
b) A Special Defense with a specific advantage is not an acceptable defense against an AVLD
c) Making Special Defenses ‘resistant’ is equivalent to buying a +1/2 advantage on it.
Therefore,
d) Resistant Special Defense is not an acceptable Defense against an AVLD
Which leads to
e) Killing Attack KAs should be either stopped by a regular Special Defense, or not be allowed at all.
And from there to
f) Resistant Special Defenses should not exist

e and f are inductive, not deductive, of course. I think they’re valid for the reasons I’ve already explained.

When dealing with non-AVLD attacks, Normal and Killing attacks are roughly balanced, because almost everyone has at least a little rDefense, and because the dice amounts are high enough that the small amount of extra stun you get on average makes a difference.

Since, because AVLD attacks are so small, the amount of stun difference between the two is trivial, but the KA blowing through regular PD is NOT trivial. (and, as the obvious use of this power is to chip away the body of heavily defended targets, the tiny amount of extra body the KA version does makes it better for that purpose.

And I don’t think you can just say, ‘Well, the problem is only with ‘Does Body’ AVLDs.’ Because the Killing AVLDs do on average only a pip or two of stun less for the same cost, but have a vastly rarer defense.

However, it seems we both agree that the build is unacceptable. You deal with it by not allowing it, me by altering it until it’s acceptable. Could we, perhaps, agree that the end result is roughly the same, and that we’re arguing over nothing, in the Piers Anthian tradition?

---

If you want a system that only ever outlines what you should be doing go play D20 ... those rules seem to lead one by the nose enough for you.

Your opinion on the matter has been noted. Thank you for your input.

Black Lotus

Jul 19th, '05, 06:20 PM

Seems I missed all the fun. Typical.

I already capitulated to Fox1 and recanted my ideas concerning this issue; if you check, you'll see what I mean. My axioms are flawed, if only because of this comparison:

-- 6d6 EB costs 30 CP; 2d6 RKA costs 30 CP.
-- 6d6 EB does 6 avg. damage; 2d6 RKA does 6 avg. damage.
-- Although they cost the same and do identical damage, RKA does Killing Damage, as well as getting to use the STUN lotto. It basically gets these advantages for free.

Hard to argue with that comparison.

Hugh Neilson

Jul 19th, '05, 08:04 PM

-- 6d6 EB costs 30 CP; 2d6 RKA costs 30 CP.
-- 6d6 EB does 6 avg. damage; 2d6 RKA does 6 avg. damage.

Actually, 6d6 EB averages 21 Stun and 6 BOD. 2d6 RKA averages 18 2/3 STUN and 7 BOD. The EB has a better shot at doing knockback, and the KA has much greater volatility of results rolled.

Ura-Maru

Jul 19th, '05, 08:49 PM

D’oh! My fault. I somehow failed to process the last page.

An F for reading comprehension for tonight, I guess.

Sorry, Black Lotus.

---
Too much Mike’s Hard Berry, and not enough sleep, looks like.

Black Lotus

Jul 19th, '05, 08:57 PM

Actually, 6d6 EB averages 21 Stun and 6 BOD. 2d6 RKA averages 18 2/3 STUN and 7 BOD. The EB has a better shot at doing knockback, and the KA has much greater volatility of results rolled.

Yeah, I was guesstimating. Generally, the precise number that a d6 generates is 3.5. So, when you are counting ALL the pips on a d6, you average 3.5, and (3.5 + 3.5) = 7. With the EB, any result of 2--5 counts as one "pip," so the average number of "pips" generated using Normal Damage is exactly 1. (1 + 1+ 1 + 1 + 1 +1) = 6. The difference in STUN averages between EB and and RKA mre-or-less make up for that one pip of damage, in my opinion -- now that I think about it -- since (3 x 6) = 18, and (3 x 7) = 21 -- The RKA does 116% more body, and the EB does 116% more STUN (averaged).

No question: "Does Killing Damage" is, indirectly, shown by the rules to be a 0-point Advantage -- and apparently, "Does NOT Do Killing Damage" is ALSO a 0-poiny Advantage; therefore, since all attacks do either one or the other, there's no value to either of them, since they're both valuable.

Neat. See? And you all thought I was a dunce.

Hugh Neilson

Jul 20th, '05, 06:15 AM

No question: "Does Killing Damage" is, indirectly, shown by the rules to be a 0-point Advantage -- and apparently, "Does NOT Do Killing Damage" is ALSO a 0-poiny Advantage; therefore, since all attacks do either one or the other, there's no value to either of them, since they're both valuable.

And the level of value depends on the game. In a 4 colour Champions game, KA's aren't a great idea because killing opponents is frowned uipon. In a hack & slash fantasy game, you'll just slit their throats if they're KO'd anyway. In a Robot Hunter game, more BOD is preferable to more Stun for all those automotons, and who's trying to get a KO anyway?

I've fund KA's and EB's fairlyu balanced, but my players tend not to use KA's against anything but inanimate objects and automotons, so "lottery abuse" isn't prevalent. There's certainly a case to be made (and it's in other threads) that getting huge damage past defenses on every third, or even sixth, shot is more than enough (ie too much) to make up for having half your shots be completely ineffectual.

Onyxclaw

Jul 20th, '05, 06:25 AM

all I have to say about lottery abuse is this...

2d6 RKA, piercing, autofure 10
+X CSLs only to counteract called shots to the head

ouch....

(yes roy...I'm looking at you...)

TaxiMan

Jul 20th, '05, 08:02 AM

First, I agree that KA and EB are roughly costed appropriately to each other, i.e. KA = 3* EB in cost per die. However, this statement (repeated several times) always confused me:

<snip> the ability to bypass non-resistent defenses [is] a 0 level advantage.

?? I'm sure you don't mean that I can buy a 12d6 EB with "-0: Bypasses Non-Resistent Defenses". That'd be an awesome power, requiring resistant defenses to reduce its impact.

I don't know how you can explain the "0 level advantage" thing to me, so feel free not to try (just consider me dense ahead of time!).

Fox1

Jul 20th, '05, 08:09 AM

?? I'm sure you don't mean that I can buy a 12d6 EB with "-0: Bypasses Non-Resistent Defenses".

While it would be in keeping with HERO's apparent view of the advantages and disadvantages of lethal force, I'm not sure that it is something that should be given serious consideration.

But if someone could provide a rational reason (not mechanically based, but setting/genre) I don't see a problem.

Didn't Fuzion have KA and EB roll the same dice with only this one element being different?

TaxiMan

Jul 20th, '05, 08:26 AM

Crud, so you really do think that's a reasonable advantage. We're miles apart here.

I think one of the reasons KA cost 3 times more per die than EB is that "bypassing non-resistant defenses" is an advantage significantly greater than zero.

No way I'll be convinced otherwise. With my current realization that you DO believe so, I'll disregard this entire discussion and simply move on.

Onyxclaw

Jul 20th, '05, 08:29 AM

Fox1

Jul 20th, '05, 08:30 AM

No way I'll be convinced otherwise. With my current realization that you DO believe so, I'll disregard this entire discussion and simply move on.

Math doesn't lie. But you can certainly ignore it if you wish.

Fox1

Jul 20th, '05, 08:32 AM

but then I could be mistaken.

You're correct, with a couple of minor points...

Any body over the resistent defense goes through, and a character must take at least 1 stun per point of body damage.

Onyxclaw

Jul 20th, '05, 08:59 AM

You're correct, with a couple of minor points...

Any body over the resistent defense goes through, and a character must take at least 1 stun per point of body damage.

that's what I thought, thnx.

it would still seem though that it is the defending player that pays the price but then....

ok 6d6 energy blast, I need a max of 12 PD or ED to block the body of so that would cost me at most, needing 12 PD or ED, 12 points.

a 2d6 RKA I also need 12 PD/ED resistant to block entirely, but this would cost me more than that (at work, not gonna post a number I can't check ;) )
(if I went the Damage resistant route it would cost me 24 points total (for 12 PD or ED))

It seems that it is a benifet to require the opponent to buy resistant defenses to defend themselves because it costs them more points to do so...

o_O it makes so much sense looking at the attacks from the perspective of an attacker...but it still seems unbalenced looking at the attack from the view of the defender. *falls over*

Dr. Anomaly

Jul 20th, '05, 09:00 AM

I think one of the reasons KA cost 3 times more per die than EB is that "bypassing non-resistant defenses" is an advantage significantly greater than zero.
But as it's been pointed out, an EB and a KA that cost the same amount of points do -- on average -- the same amount of BODY damage.

Therefore, the cost per point of BODY done, on average, works out to be the same.

KAs don't cost 3x as much per point of BODY damage (effect)...they cost the same per amount of effect as an EB.

Is there something I'm missing with this?

Seriously.

Sure...KAs cost 3x as much per die, but 1d6 of KA is about 3x as effective (amount of BODY done, on average) as 1d6 of EB. So you're paying 3x the cost for 3x the effectiveness.

:confused:

Fox1

Jul 20th, '05, 09:33 AM

o_O it makes so much sense looking at the attacks from the perspective of an attacker...but it still seems unbalenced looking at the attack from the view of the defender. *falls over*

Welcome to the world of game design :)

Let's return to the first Champions ruleset, and the throught processes behind it.

The core offensive pricing was driven by what was in effect a value decision- "it is better not to kill or injure".

By nature, that concept is of greater value to heroic characters (which Champions intended you to play) than to non-heroic characters. That is, the Masked Marvel may well wish to capture his foes, while the SS has no use for non-lethal ovens.

As power pricing is primarily for the players (GMs can have any number of points), and players are assumed to be running heroic characters (in the first version of Champions, even now we don't have Ultimate Villain- yet) it was only natural that the current cost structure was settled on. As with any pricing system- you were not paying for effectiveness, you were paying for value.

That's fine for offensive powers, what about defensive?

A heroic player may well see the the advantages of being non-lethal, however he can also certainly see that his non-heroic foes will not come to the same conculsion. Thus while he's on the high road, he will likely face lethal fire from the low road.

Being able to deal with such is under such conditions a pure advantage with no countering disadvantage (other than the point cost). Thus it is only reasonable to charge for the ability to handle the non-heroic attacks of his foes.

Any better?

Hugh Neilson

Jul 20th, '05, 09:56 AM

it seems to me that KA's don't bypass all defenses that are not resistant. If you have 1 point of resistant defense then all of your defense counts toward the attack.

So it costs effectively 1 point for damage resistance to negate the "bypasses non resistant defenses"

It becomes a bit of chicken and egg. Because everyone buys at least some resistant defenses, everyone gets their full defenses against the Stun damage of a KA. Therefore, there is no advantage to the KA's application to resistant defenses.

OR

Because taking full STUN from all KA's would be hugely disadvantageous, every character buys at least some resistant defenses. Therefore, there is an advantage to the KA's application to resistant defenses.

NB: Normals? A 12d6 EB or a 4d6 KA will hospitalize them, so there's no real differentiation there.