Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

[Kristopher]

Here's the concept:

A character was dead, but came back. She saw terrible things while she was "beyond". Things she subconsciously remembers. Whenever a mentalist makes contact with her, those terrible, horrific, inexpressible images and feelings come rushing down the mental contact like bile through a fire hose. She doesn't have any control over it, she can't make it happen or stop it from happening.

It's not safe for anyone to make contact with her mind, no matter how it's done...mutant mentalist, psychic, psionic, mage, whoever, however.


You wouldn't believe how expensive this is to build using Ego Attack or Mental Illusions with Damage Shield.

[Sociotard]

When mentalists try to access her mind, do they have a chance to back off? "Oh man, I was just there for a second! Good thing I have nice reflexes, or I'd be raving mad, or dead" If so, it's just a special effect for bunch of mental defense, saying no mentalist can stand to stay connected.

If not, yeah, damage shields are expensive. A 1 DC Tranform person into nutty person BOECV damage shield continuous for 35 points. I'd imagine it would be similar for ego attacks and mental illusions.

[Log-Man]

...You wouldn't believe how expensive this is to build using Ego Attack or Mental Illusions with Damage Shield.
Yes, yes I would. Still, limitations such as Always On or No Conscious Control or perhaps Side effect should make it more manageable.

How dangerous is it? Painful, crippling or deadly?

[austenandrews]

To capture the full effect, I'd go with some flavor of Mental Transform, Partial Effect. And it does sound like you could use an Ego Attack in there somehow, at least for the initial contact. Don't forget Persistent, of course.

I'd allow a package of effects as an EC. Pretty darn expensive for what almost amounts to a Disad (unless mental attacks are common in the game world).

[Kristopher]

Yes, yes I would. Still, limitations such as Always On or No Conscious Control or perhaps Side effect should make it more manageable.

How dangerous is it? Painful, crippling or deadly?

Crippling.

[Kristopher]

To capture the full effect, I'd go with some flavor of Mental Transform, Partial Effect. And it does sound like you could use an Ego Attack in there somehow, at least for the initial contact. Don't forget Persistent, of course.

I'd allow a package of effects as an EC. Pretty darn expensive for what almost amounts to a Disad (unless mental attacks are common in the game world).

That's what keeps getting me. It's so freaking expensive for something that might come up once every dozen gaming sessions, and can't be used offensively.

Of course, it might not be quite so expensive if I weren't scaling it against some of the mentalists in CKC. It takes a lot of make Menton back off.

[Killer Shrike]

Yeah, I gave my version of Wolverine a similar ability, though not crippling in strength. It does get expensive fast....


32 Mental Feedback: Ego Attack 1 1/2d6, Inherent (+1/4), Damage Shield (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Continuous (+1) (56 Active Points); Always On (-1/2), Does Not Provide Mental Awareness (-1/4)

[Lord Liaden]

Here's an inexpensive, borderline-munchkin approach: buy this as a Ranged Killing Attack, Based On Ego Combat Value. According to the rules this attack is only stopped by Resistant Mental Defense, which I have yet to see any published Champions character buy. So, any amount of RKA will pass right through the target's Mental Defense unimpeded.

You can make this even cheaper by making it a Hand Killing Attack, and applying the "No STR Bonus" Limitation (-1/2). Several published writeups use that Lim, so it's perfectly legal. :)

You could even add "Does Body" to the BOECV KA for a consequence that almost no one could ignore. :eg:

EDIT: In case it wasn't clear from my description, all of the above applies to Damage Shield constructs.

[Intrope]

Here's an inexpensive, borderline-munchkin approach: buy this as a Ranged Killing Attack, Based On Ego Combat Value. According to the rules this attack is only stopped by Resistant Mental Defense, which I have yet to see any published Champions character buy. So, any amount of RKA will pass right through the target's Mental Defense unimpeded.

You can make this even cheaper by making it a Hand Killing Attack, and applying the "No STR Bonus" Limitation (-1/2). Several published writeups use that Lim, so it's perfectly legal. :)

You could even add "Does Body" to the BOECV KA for a consequence that almost no one could ignore. :eg:
Why yes, I do believe that's Menton...and he appears to be bleeding from his eyes! :eek:

HKA BOECV was actually my first idea, but the resistant mental defense thing would be excessively nasty. Another thought: would it be legal to buy Continuous a second time for a damage sheild, making the damage continuous? If so, BOECV Transform (loss of SAN from disturbing images) would also be a really nasty one. I'd be really unlikely to allow either of these, of course (I might allow the transform, if the 'cure' for the continuous damage was really easy; even so, it pretty much prevent a mentalist from attacking you).

[austenandrews]

Another thought: would it be legal to buy Continuous a second time for a damage sheild, making the damage continuous? If so, BOECV Transform (loss of SAN from disturbing images) would also be a really nasty one. I'd be really unlikely to allow either of these, of course (I might allow the transform, if the 'cure' for the continuous damage was really easy; even so, it pretty much prevent a mentalist from attacking you).
That way lies madness! I ran Continuous Continuous up the flagpole awhile back and confused the heck out of Steve. ;)

If you want it to be truly nasty, add Sticky.

[Hugh Neilson]

Here's an inexpensive, borderline-munchkin approach: buy this as a Ranged Killing Attack, Based On Ego Combat Value. According to the rules this attack is only stopped by Resistant Mental Defense, which I have yet to see any published Champions character buy. So, any amount of RKA will pass right through the target's Mental Defense unimpeded.

My simplistic, and not book-legal, solution to the issue of Resistant and Exotic defenses is to rule that all exotic defenses are fully resistant. End of problem (except that it makes such defenses even less attractive in Force Walls and Force Fields).

[pinecone]

The other "gets past defenses" mod is PEN...its real cheap when its just a small part of a larger "chunk o" mods" that Dam sheild entails...and a continuing continuous penatrating attack is a way to say "No trespassing"...:) or neg skill levels as an attack...damage sheild!

[Kristopher]

That way lies madness! I ran Continuous Continuous up the flagpole awhile back and confused the heck out of Steve. ;)

If you want it to be truly nasty, add Sticky.

I'm not sure I understand "Continuous Continuous". Explain?

[austenandrews]

I'm not sure I understand "Continuous Continuous". Explain?
Damage Shield requires Continuous. Intrope mentioned buying Continuous a second time, so that if someone is affected by the damage shield, the damage will continue to affect them even after contact has stopped.

[Kristopher]

Damage Shield requires Continuous. Intrope mentioned buying Continuous a second time, so that if someone is affected by the damage shield, the damage will continue to affect them even after contact has stopped.

I thought that Advantage was called "Uncontrolled".

[Jfry]

You wouldn't believe how expensive this is to build using Ego Attack or Mental Illusions with Damage Shield.
Hmmm, this is a great flavorful idea for a power. I see how it's expensive to build, and in certain psionic-heavy campaigns I would say rightly so. (If most foes that would ever attack me would be crippled, and I don't need to take any action, this is probably unbalancingly powerful.)

On the other hand, if there's only one mentalist in the world and he's your ally, then in my opinion it ought to cost a lot less. I am not sure if the relative prevelance of mentalists in your campaign is a valid use of the Conditional Power limitation, but it sounds like a good solution to me. In the end, I'm in favor of letting GMs determine the 'worth' of a power within the campaign, and cost it accordingly.

I liked some of the other thoughts about how this could be made cheaper. Side effects seem particularly interesting. Does having these memories dredged up exhaust her (END Drain)? Does it frazzle her nerves (Negative Skill Levels, or DEX Drain)? But in the end I am less in favor of doing acrobatics to try to get the cost lower. If both player and GM agree, I as GM would just lower the cost by decree.

Jeff

[Adventus]

Don't forget Cumulative +1/2. This way if they make contact again it adds to the previous damage. Driving them even closer to that line between sanity and the loony bin. :sneaky:

[austenandrews]

I thought that Advantage was called "Uncontrolled".
If I'm not mistaken, you would have to buy the second Continuous before you could add Uncontrolled.

See, I told you this way lies madness. ;)

[Vondy]

Yup, its expensive. A lot of simple things are expensive in Hero. Its why my games are pointless.:D

Well, no actual point cap, anyways.

Mental Illusions 4d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Damage Shield (+1/2), Cumulative (96 points; +1) (70 Active Points); No Conscious Control (Only Effects cannot be controlled; -1), Always On (-1/2), Does Not Provide Mental Awareness (-1/4). Real Cost: 25.

I didn't give -2 for no conscious control because they already have "always on." It seemed like double dipping. However, if the welling up of the psychic resonance of the netherealms has the potential to overwhelm the character as well (i.e., normally their experience of it is at a low ebb but the contact creates a surge;ego roll to avoid), then you might add:

Side Effects, Affects Character and Target, Major (-1/2). Real Cost Now: 21.

Personally, I've always ignored the Damage Shield requires Continuous rule. Its prohibitive and conceptually out of left field. If they want it to stop they can break contact. Its not as though you can keep using the power on them if they let go or stop their attack. They, not you, are initiating the contact (and power).

[Sean Waters]

OK, alternative time:

20 points of mental defence, hardened and resistant for 37 points

SFX: mental contact is painful for the attacker due to <whatever>, and this reduces their ability to affect the character. I mean the point is usually to stop mentalists getting in there, rather than make their heads explode. Anyway, most mentalists have strong minds: attacking them on home ground will often be ineffective.

I do like Von_D Man's idea though. Nice build.

[PhilFleischmann]

Personally, I've always ignored the Damage Shield requires Continuous rule. Its prohibitive and conceptually out of left field. If they want it to stop they can break contact. Its not as though you can keep using the power on them if they let go or stop their attack. They, not you, are initiating the contact (and power).
Exactly! This is one of those rules that I always ignore. The advantage Continuous is supposed to cause continuous damage to the target, not to simply make the power "smooth". What exactly are you getting when you buy Damage Shield on a power that you had to buy Continuous for? You lose Range, you lose control over when your opponent is "hit", you pay END even when you aren't "attacking". It seems that Damage Shield should actually be a Limitation under these circumstances.

In conclusion: Ignore the rule that requires Continuous for Damage Shield, and just do it the way that makes sense.

[caris]

Exactly! This is one of those rules that I always ignore. The advantage Continuous is supposed to cause continuous damage to the target, not to simply make the power "smooth". What exactly are you getting when you buy Damage Shield on a power that you had to buy Continuous for? You lose Range, you lose control over when your opponent is "hit", you pay END even when you aren't "attacking". It seems that Damage Shield should actually be a Limitation under these circumstances.

In conclusion: Ignore the rule that requires Continuous for Damage Shield, and just do it the way that makes sense.

To my mind there are a couple of offsetting benefits.

A. You can do damage to multiple targets within the same phase without Sweeping, Spreading, etc.

B. You do damage to the targets you are in contact with as an action that takes no time.

[prestidigitator]

To my mind there are a couple of offsetting benefits.

A. You can do damage to multiple targets within the same phase without Sweeping, Spreading, etc.

B. You do damage to the targets you are in contact with as an action that takes no time.
How about:

C. You can do damage to targets without an attack roll? :)

[austenandrews]

Exactly! This is one of those rules that I always ignore. The advantage Continuous is supposed to cause continuous damage to the target, not to simply make the power "smooth". What exactly are you getting when you buy Damage Shield on a power that you had to buy Continuous for? You lose Range, you lose control over when your opponent is "hit", you pay END even when you aren't "attacking". It seems that Damage Shield should actually be a Limitation under these circumstances.

In conclusion: Ignore the rule that requires Continuous for Damage Shield, and just do it the way that makes sense.
That's pretty much what I do. 5E basically nerfed Damage Shield.

[caris]

I reviewed Damage Shield and Continous, and I still think that requiring a Damage Shield to in some way become a Constant Power is a good thing. I have to pay for a Force Field that I want to have up, even if I am not "defending" that Phase.

The problem I think comes from the value of the two Advantages. A +1 Advantage for Continous is fine when you are putting it on an Attack Power that targets specific things (i.e. does not have standard AOE or Damage Shield), because the ability to continue to damage a target without the Attack Roll and as an action that takes no time is a potent ability. I'm just not so sure that it is as potent for something like a wall of fire (RKA, AOE: Line, Continous), where people can stop taking the damage by stepping out of the AOE. Damage Shield has never been a big part of any of my games, but I may house rule that Continous is only a +1/2 Advantage when combined with AOE (other than the Accurate option) or Damage Shield.

[Sean Waters]

One real problem with DS is that it is ineffective as a 'straight' attack in most games becasue the cost of building it puts the damage potential well below campaign normal defences.

Therefore you either need to build it well over campaign AP limits (which will be real expensive) or build it with NND/AVLD/AP type advantages to get some damage through despite the low DC total, which seems silly. Or you could go with a KA and cross your fingers on the stun lotto.

I've always thought that this kind of build:

3DC attack (15 points) personal immunity one hex AoE (doubled = 2 hex radius) continuous 0 END (+1.5) = 37 points
0 range (-1/2) for 25 points

Means you can get a far more effective power for an only slightly higher active cost but a considerably lower real cost (as you can take 'no range). The power effects anyone coming near you or near you on one of your phases, and does not require a grab or other manouvre to accomplish.

Or you can do it slightly differently (and slightly cheaper)

3DC attack (15 points) personal immunity one hex AoE* continuous 0 END (+1.5) = 34 points
0 range (-1/2) for 23 points

*only when in contact

There are potential limits over damage shield: a character grappling you will only take damage on your phases, not every time he hits - that may be an advantage or not.

Also if you do not add in the 'no range' you can throw your damage shield as an attack. Cool.

I do agree that DS is too expensive to be used as anything but a bit of a gimick or for a really esoteric build.

In fact you should probably only ever buy DS with drain (if you want to go and be efficient): it has no range anyway and works against an uncommon defence.

In fact that encompasses my bigegst single gripe with DS: that the 'no range' bit is assumed rather than something you take as a limitation.

Also never understood why you could not buy ego attack as the defensive power against physical attacks: so long as you define what it works against (mental OR physical attacks) what is the problem?

[prestidigitator]

I allow Area of Effect Powers to optionally take Continuous twice: once to continue to affect the area on an ongoing basis and once to continue to affect any targets that have been touched. I regard Damage Shield in the same light. The Power does become Continuous in a sense; further application of the Continous Advantage could still make sense.

I am personally also inclined to have the Damage Shield Advantage automatically cause the first Constant aspect of the Power (that the, "area"--being anything touching the character--is affected on an ongoing basis and any End/Charges must be spent each Phase it is active). The reason is that just about every Power I can think of sticking Damage Shield on--at least for a defensive purpose--is not Constant by default, so it makes sense that the two should be tied together instead of one being a prerequisite. I also think the value of the Damage Shield Advantage is already steep enough for its effect.

[Hugh Neilson]

I allow Area of Effect Powers to optionally take Continuous twice: once to continue to affect the area on an ongoing basis and once to continue to affect any targets that have been touched.

Isn't that what Sticky is for?

[prestidigitator]

Isn't that what Sticky is for?
We've had this discussion before. :) My opinion is still: no; Sticky has somewhat different semantics.

EDIT: It might be easier to see if I state instead that I allow either (or possibly both) form of Continuous on an area of effect attack. Thus you might have something that instantaneously affects all targets in an area and continues to affect them on an ongoing basis, but does not affect things touched by them or anything subsequently entering the area.

P.S. - Sticky to me has more the ramification that any actual targets affected can pass on the symptoms.

[PhilFleischmann]

To my mind there are a couple of offsetting benefits.
A. You can do damage to multiple targets within the same phase without Sweeping, Spreading, etc.
Only if multiple targets choose to touch you. And you don't get to choose how many, or which ones touch you.


B. You do damage to the targets you are in contact with as an action that takes no time.
But coming in contect with them does take an attack action, usually a Grab. (Unless of course, the target is just standing there motionless and doesn't react at all to a flaming man trying to grab him. But that isn't why you buy a DS. If your opponent is making no effort to defend himself, any attack power will do.)


How about:
C. You can do damage to targets without an attack roll?
Well, someone has to make an attack roll. Either you have to make a Grab, or they have to make a HTH attack. And again, you don't get to choose who when and how your opponent attacks you. That's to main drawback.

austenandrews is correct that 5e "nerfed" Damage Shield. The bottom line: 50 active points gets you:

10d6 EB

or

4d6 EB, Continuous, Damage Shield

Do those seem equal to anyone? If you've got enough defenses to deal with 10d6 EB, 4d6 is going to do almost nothing.

(I would have used 60 points, but the numbers don't come out even.)

[prestidigitator]

austenandrews is correct that 5e "nerfed" Damage Shield. The bottom line: 50 active points gets you:

10d6 EB

or

4d6 EB, Continuous, Damage Shield

Do those seem equal to anyone? If you've got enough defenses to deal with 10d6 EB, 4d6 is going to do almost nothing.

(I would have used 60 points, but the numbers don't come out even.)
Oh, I know. While Damage Shields are a pretty amazing and powerful ability, they have been rendered somewhat ineffective (at least in a game where there are AP/DC limits and they don't significantly outstrip Defense limits). Of course, certain other Damage Shields (NND, Penetrating, etc.) can be pretty powerful even with the cost. I'm not sure how to go with it.

EDIT: Actually I think I do know where I'd go with it. Instead of requiring Constant on the Power, do something like what the Autofire Advantage does: if the attack acts against unusual defenses, increase the cost. Better still would be to drop the exceptions (for this and Autofire both) and go with a multiplicative system for Modifiers (or at least Advantages) rather than an additive one. But I've said this several times before.... ;)

[caris]

Only if multiple targets choose to touch you. And you don't get to choose how many, or which ones touch you.

Force Field and Armor only defend you from multiple opponents if multiple opponents decide to attack you.


But coming in contect with them does take an attack action, usually a Grab. (Unless of course, the target is just standing there motionless and doesn't react at all to a flaming man trying to grab him. But that isn't why you buy a DS. If your opponent is making no effort to defend himself, any attack power will do.)

I don't buy Damage Shields to use to grab people to do damage to them. I generally buy it to discourage people from grabbing me/do damage to people that grab/hit me with their own hands.


Well, someone has to make an attack roll. Either you have to make a Grab, or they have to make a HTH attack. And again, you don't get to choose who when and how your opponent attacks you. That's to main drawback.

austenandrews is correct that 5e "nerfed" Damage Shield. The bottom line: 50 active points gets you:

10d6 EB

or

4d6 EB, Continuous, Damage Shield

Do those seem equal to anyone? If you've got enough defenses to deal with 10d6 EB, 4d6 is going to do almost nothing.

(I would have used 60 points, but the numbers don't come out even.)


Yes, if you look at DS as your a means to creating an attack than DS is going to be a bad option always, unless you remove make it a 0 Modifier. DS is always going to mean that your doing less damage, but if all you want is a means to damage a target at no range by Strength or a H-H attack. DS is meant to be used as an attack power. It is meant to be a very specific kind of defense power/a strange Disadvantage that can give some benfits. As much as you dismiss the advantages that I pointed out it is those advantages that make it a defense.

I repeat the fact that it acts independent of your actions mean that it should be made continuous some how, either as an inherent part of Damage Shield or as a part of the Damage Shield modifier. The power is no longer an instant power. Otherwise it would have to obey the same kind of rules that Block or Missile Deflection obey.

[PhilFleischmann]

Force Field and Armor only defend you from multiple opponents if multiple opponents decide to attack you.
So what? Those are defense powers. That's how they work. Damage Shield does not provide any defense against attacks. If you're in combat, someone is going to try to hit you HtH or at Range, every phase, and FF/Armor will protect you from all of them. DS only hurts the HtH attackers.


I don't buy Damage Shields to use to grab people to do damage to them. I generally buy it to discourage people from grabbing me/do damage to people that grab/hit me with their own hands.
Neither do I. My point exactly. I was merely responding to your objection: "You do damage to the targets you are in contact with as an action that takes no time." Your words, not mine. 4d6 is not much of a deterrent when the average person how might want to hit you HTH has 20+ defense. If you make an extremely lucky roll, he takes a few pips of STUN. Ooooh, scary! :rolleyes:


Yes, if you look at DS as your a means to creating an attack than DS is going to be a bad option always, unless you remove make it a 0 Modifier. DS is always going to mean that your doing less damage, but if all you want is a means to damage a target at no range by Strength or a H-H attack. DS is meant to be used as an attack power. It is meant to be a very specific kind of defense power/a strange Disadvantage that can give some benfits. As much as you dismiss the advantages that I pointed out it is those advantages that make it a defense.
I don't look at it as an attack at all. I look at it as a deterrent against HtH attacks of others. Which is exactly what it's supposed to be. I fully recognize that DS is an advantage, and will therefore do fewer dice for the same points. I don't dismiss the advantages. I think you are dismissing the drawbacks. I only reject the idea that it should cost +1.5, IOW, that 10d6 EB is equal in utility to 4d6 DS.

In 4th edition, the Damage Shield Advantage included the Constant aspect, and thus 60 points could buy 8d6 DS - which is still useful in a game with 60-point attacks. It's still a viable deterrent. 4-5d6 is not. This is the way I handle DSs. Yes, it's an advantage, but it isn't so powerful that it's worth +1.5.


I repeat the fact that it acts independent of your actions mean that it should be made continuous some how, either as an inherent part of Damage Shield or as a part of the Damage Shield modifier. The power is no longer an instant power. Otherwise it would have to obey the same kind of rules that Block or Missile Deflection obey.
Fine. That's exactly what I do.

[caris]

In 4th edition, the Damage Shield Advantage included the Constant aspect, and thus 60 points could buy 8d6 DS - which is still useful in a game with 60-point attacks. It's still a viable deterrent. 4-5d6 is not. This is the way I handle DSs. Yes, it's an advantage, but it isn't so powerful that it's worth +1.5.

Forgive me, but now it is my turn. :rolleyes: If you had bothered to read my second post, and in any way acknowledge it, you could have avoided these last two posts. I agree with you that +1.5 is too much. I do not agree that DS should be considered an a limitation on Continous, i.e. that the net result should by less than +1. For whatever drawbacks it gives you, it is giving you advantages, and that those advantages at a minimum offset the disadvantages.

[Sean Waters]

One real problem with DS is that it is ineffective as a 'straight' attack in most games becasue the cost of building it puts the damage potential well below campaign normal defences.

Therefore you either need to build it well over campaign AP limits (which will be real expensive) or build it with NND/AVLD/AP type advantages to get some damage through despite the low DC total, which seems silly. Or you could go with a KA and cross your fingers on the stun lotto.

I've always thought that this kind of build:

3DC attack (15 points) personal immunity one hex AoE (doubled = 2 hex radius) continuous 0 END (+1.5) = 37 points
0 range (-1/2) for 25 points

Means you can get a far more effective power for an only slightly higher active cost but a considerably lower real cost (as you can take 'no range). The power effects anyone coming near you or near you on one of your phases, and does not require a grab or other manouvre to accomplish.

Or you can do it slightly differently (and slightly cheaper)

3DC attack (15 points) personal immunity one hex AoE* continuous 0 END (+1.5) = 34 points
0 range (-1/2) for 23 points

*only when in contact

There are potential limits over damage shield: a character grappling you will only take damage on your phases, not every time he hits - that may be an advantage or not.

Also if you do not add in the 'no range' you can throw your damage shield as an attack. Cool.

I do agree that DS is too expensive to be used as anything but a bit of a gimick or for a really esoteric build.

In fact you should probably only ever buy DS with drain (if you want to go and be efficient): it has no range anyway and works against an uncommon defence.

In fact that encompasses my bigegst single gripe with DS: that the 'no range' bit is assumed rather than something you take as a limitation.

Also never understood why you could not buy ego attack as the defensive power against physical attacks: so long as you define what it works against (mental OR physical attacks) what is the problem?


I know it is a bit naff to quote yourself, but Caris kindly pointed out in a discreet PM that my maths skills are lacking: quite right too. Please ignore this post. :D

[Kristopher]

In other news...Hero Designer is allowing me to build these with Persistant rather than Continuous -- which makes more sense for these powers anyway.

[Sean Waters]

In other news...Hero Designer is allowing me to build these with Persistant rather than Continuous -- which makes more sense for these powers anyway.


But makes no sense in terms of use - the advantage of continuous is that you don't have to keep using attack actions - and thus phases.

Minimum advnatage for DS is +1.5 (damage shield+continuous)

You can do the same thing with a +1 auto-resetting 0 phase trigger (physical contact) and still get the 'no range' limitation.

That sounds like a bargain.

[Blue Jogger]

Hmmm.

What man was never meant to know. Change Environment, Does 1 point of Sanity Loss (Defense is "already being completely insane" or "having weird things in my breakfast cereal"), 0 END, Persistent

When you gain an additional 5 points of Sanity Loss, you develop 5 point Disadvantage based on the FX.

Under stressful conditions, you need to make an EGO roll with a -1 for every 5 points of Sanity Loss to remain rational, with additional minuses if under extreme duress or specific to the cause of the sanity loss. A failed roll means the character starts to behave irrationally.

People who have "weird things in my breakfast cereal" are completely immune to Sanity Loss, however. they usually have to deal with BIGGER problems.

[prestidigitator]

I'll just share that in the fantasy adventure I ran a short while ago, the Damage Shields of imps and demonlings (straight out of the Fantasy Hero Bestiary) did some nasty things to the PCs. I actually had misgivings half-way through; next time I might have the Damage Shields work against weapons instead of the characters wielding them, because they were so devastating. While Damage Shields don't act directly as defenses, they can certainly substitute well for them by acting as a deterrant against direct attacks.

[Kristopher]

I'll just share that in the fantasy adventure I ran a short while ago, the Damage Shields of imps and demonlings (straight out of the Fantasy Hero Bestiary) did some nasty things to the PCs. I actually had misgivings half-way through; next time I might have the Damage Shields work against weapons instead of the characters wielding them, because they were so devastating. While Damage Shields don't act directly as defenses, they can certainly substitute well for them by acting as a deterrant against direct attacks.


They were still expensive, and Heroic-level characters don't have the defenses that Superheroic characters do (obviously).

[Kristopher]

But makes no sense in terms of use - the advantage of continuous is that you don't have to keep using attack actions - and thus phases.

Minimum advnatage for DS is +1.5 (damage shield+continuous)

You can do the same thing with a +1 auto-resetting 0 phase trigger (physical contact) and still get the 'no range' limitation.

That sounds like a bargain.

I see no problem with a Persistent Power being used as a Damage Shield -- remember that an attack Power has to be bought down to 0 END to be made Persistent, so it's +1.5 in the end anyway.

[PhilFleischmann]

Forgive me, but now it is my turn. :rolleyes: If you had bothered to read my second post, and in any way acknowledge it, you could have avoided these last two posts. I agree with you that +1.5 is too much. I do not agree that DS should be considered an a limitation on Continous, i.e. that the net result should by less than +1. For whatever drawbacks it gives you, it is giving you advantages, and that those advantages at a minimum offset the disadvantages.
I did read your second post. I just didn't agree with it. If I understand you correctly, you think DS should be a +1 advantage because it should be at least as big an advantage as Continuous. I never said that DS should be a limitation on Continuous. I did agree that DS is an advantage on the Power. Continuous has nothing to do with it, IMO. Continuous allows you to continue to do damage to the target for as long as you want (or until someone sprays him with the fire extinguisher, or whatever). Damage Shield does not do that. It only does damage for as long as the target decides to keep touching you (or actually succeeds in maintaining contact despite whatever movements you may make). Constant in not the same as Continuous. Damage Shield was an advantage in 4th Ed. - at +1/2 - which seems the most appropriate value to me, for the reasons I've stated. Yes, it has drawbacks which are out weighed by the advantages. But it isn't worth as much of an advantage as Continuous.

[pinecone]

Maybe the "answer" for D/S is to treat it much like Autofire is....some versions are much more powerfull than others so D/S goes back to being +1/2 or maybe +3/4 and attacks that effect non standard defenses are +1 additional, in the intrest of play ballence....I'm not sure where Killing fits in here is it "standard" or "special" or should it be a differant penalty for use?

[Sean Waters]

I see no problem with a Persistent Power being used as a Damage Shield -- remember that an attack Power has to be bought down to 0 END to be made Persistent, so it's +1.5 in the end anyway.

I do get that, and from a cost/utility POV I agree, but persistent and continuous do fundamentally different things. The fact that an ATTACK power is persistent is meaningless. Persistent does not make it 'on until switched off'. Continuous does.

I'd have no real problems with the DS price structure IF taking it did not automatically prevent you applying the 'no range' limitation.

[prestidigitator]

Maybe the "answer" for D?S is to treat it much like Autofire is....some versions are much more powerfull than others so D?S goes back to being +1/2 or maybe +3/4 and attacks that effect non standard defenses are +1 additional, in the intrest of play ballence....I'm not sure where Killing fits in here is it "standard" or "special" or should it be a differant penalty for use?
See post #31. ;)

[prestidigitator]

I'd have no real problems with the DS price structure IF taking it did not automatically prevent you applying the 'no range' limitation.
I think that part is pretty funny. It makes taking an HKA/HA and appling a No Str Bonus Limitation better than taking an RKA/EB, because you can't apply an identically costed No Range Limitation? Silly. Silly just like you cannot apply the Ranged Advantage to HA for blunt thrown weapons. :rolleyes:

[caris]

I did read your second post. I just didn't agree with it. If I understand you correctly, you think DS should be a +1 advantage because it should be at least as big an advantage as Continuous. I never said that DS should be a limitation on Continuous. I did agree that DS is an advantage on the Power. Continuous has nothing to do with it, IMO. Continuous allows you to continue to do damage to the target for as long as you want (or until someone sprays him with the fire extinguisher, or whatever). Damage Shield does not do that. It only does damage for as long as the target decides to keep touching you (or actually succeeds in maintaining contact despite whatever movements you may make). Constant in not the same as Continuous. Damage Shield was an advantage in 4th Ed. - at +1/2 - which seems the most appropriate value to me, for the reasons I've stated. Yes, it has drawbacks which are out weighed by the advantages. But it isn't worth as much of an advantage as Continuous.


What exactly are you getting when you buy Damage Shield on a power that you had to buy Continuous for? You lose Range, you lose control over when your opponent is "hit", you pay END even when you aren't "attacking". It seems that Damage Shield should actually be a Limitation under these circumstances.

The heart of our disagreement seems to be what the advantage Continuous is "supposed" to do. I do not believe that the purpose of Continuous is to "allow you to continue doing damage to a target as long as you want." (Your comment about the fire extinguisher really doesn't make sense, because it is Unctrolled not Continuous that requires you to have a "turn off" condition.) The purpose of Continuous is to "convert an Instant Power into a Constant Power." To my mind Damage Shield must be some sort of Constant Power, and the only way to make an Instant Power into a Constant Power is with the Advantage Continuous. If you are going to build Continuous into the nature of Damage Shield than you have to decide if the net of the other elements that it gives in addition to being Contious enhance it, limit it or leave it about the same. I believe that it is left about the same. By your own words you feel that the net effect is limiting.

[prestidigitator]

The heart of our disagreement seems to be what the advantage Continuous is "supposed" to do. I do not believe that the purpose of Continuous is to "allow you to continue doing damage to a target as long as you want." (Your comment about the fire extinguisher really doesn't make sense, because it is Unctrolled not Continuous that requires you to have a "turn off" condition.) The purpose of Continuous is to "convert an Instant Power into a Constant Power." To my mind Damage Shield must be some sort of Constant Power, and the only way to make an Instant Power into a Constant Power is with the Advantage Continuous. If you are going to build Continuous into the nature of Damage Shield than you have to decide if the net of the other elements that it gives in addition to being Contious enhance it, limit it or leave it about the same. I believe that it is left about the same. By your own words you feel that the net effect is limiting.
IIRC the Uncontrolled Advantage requires you to have a turn-off condition if the Power doesn't cost End or Charges. Otherwise it just allows you to pay the End/Charges up front and then the Power continues to act without you.

BTW, the Continuous Advantage isn't quite the only way to convert an Instant Power into a Constant Power; Continuing Charges also do that. :)

[Kristopher]

For building a Damage Shield that's not an attack under the strictest meaning of the word, but rather a side-effect of the character's own nature that cannot be turned off, applying 0 END, Persistent, and Always On should be considered an entirely legitimate build.

[caris]

IIRC the Uncontrolled Advantage requires you to have a turn-off condition if the Power doesn't cost End or Charges. Otherwise it just allows you to pay the End/Charges up front and then the Power continues to act without you.

BTW, the Continuous Advantage isn't quite the only way to convert an Instant Power into a Constant Power; Continuing Charges also do that. :)

I tend to forget about Continuing Charges, my mistake.

No, Uncontrolled always requires a turn off conditions. They recommend that a 0 End Uncontrolled attack also have a set durations as well as the turn off condition.

[PhilFleischmann]

Maybe the "answer" for D?S is to treat it much like Autofire is....some versions are much more powerfull than others so D?S goes back to being +1/2 or maybe +3/4 and attacks that effect non standard defenses are +1 additional, in the intrest of play ballence....I'm not sure where Killing fits in here is it "standard" or "special" or should it be a differant penalty for use?
That's an interesting idea, but to decide if it's a good idea, and what the actual adjustment should be, you should first look at the numbers:

IMO, a 12d6 EB, is about equal to an 8d6 EB DS. And if you use the 4th Edition rule that DS is a +1/2 advantage that doesn't require Continuous to be bought separately, then they cost the same.

Now, how much NND DS is a 6d6 NND EB worth? If you think it's worth about 5d6 NND DS (a little less actually), then there is no adjustment. If you think it's worth about 4d6, then the DS becomes +1. That seems about right to me. I'd probably call it an additional +1/2 if the attack doesn't go against common defenses. That would be NNDs and AVLDs, and I guess Mental Powers, BOECVs and Flashes, and Adjustment Powers, too. Hmmm... that seems like to much to me for most of those other types, since there is no "Advantage Stacking" if you buy a Drain DS. Therefore, I'd say the additional +1/2 for Damage Shield, should only apply to NNDs, AVLDs, and BOECVs. (Not to Mental Powers or Flashes or Adjustment Powers.)


The heart of our disagreement seems to be what the advantage Continuous is "supposed" to do.
I guess that's a fair summary. I see Constant as simply being a "smooth" power that is *on* continuously, as opposed to Continuous being a power whose *effects* are continuous. For example, a Force Field is on continuously, but it only has an effect at the instant that an attack occurs. The same is true for a Damage Shield; you keep it going continuously, but it's effect on the opponent only happen during the instant that he touches you. Having the effects keep happening continuously is a significant advantage, that's why Continuous is a +1. Simply allowing the power to be on "smoothly" as opposed to in discreet instants of time, is not a big deal. Oh, goody, I get to keep paying END.

[prestidigitator]

I guess that's a fair summary. I see Constant as simply being a "smooth" power that is *on* continuously, as opposed to Continuous being a power whose *effects* are continuous. For example, a Force Field is on continuously, but it only has an effect at the instant that an attack occurs. The same is true for a Damage Shield; you keep it going continuously, but it's effect on the opponent only happen during the instant that he touches you. Having the effects keep happening continuously is a significant advantage, that's why Continuous is a +1. Simply allowing the power to be on "smoothly" as opposed to in discreet instants of time, is not a big deal. Oh, goody, I get to keep paying END.
Well, you can activate Instant Powers each Phase, but if they are offensive (basically) they require an Attack Action. You also must make an new attack roll (if applicable) to affect the target again. The Continuous Advantage allows you to keep affecting the same target, both without further Attack Actions and without further attack rolls. If the power covers an area, Continuous has some other benefits too, but that can probably be considered a special case.

[prestidigitator]

If the power covers an area, Continuous has some other benefits too, but that can probably be considered a special case.
...or not on second thought, considering the Damage Shield application we are discussing. Damage Shields are similar in that the target is affected while touching you rather than while touching an area/volume. That probably has little to do with whether you wrap that aspect of a Damage Shield up in the Damage Shield Advantage or also require it to take Continuous, though.

[caris]

I guess that's a fair summary. I see Constant as simply being a "smooth" power that is *on* continuously, as opposed to Continuous being a power whose *effects* are continuous. For example, a Force Field is on continuously, but it only has an effect at the instant that an attack occurs. The same is true for a Damage Shield; you keep it going continuously, but it's effect on the opponent only happen during the instant that he touches you. Having the effects keep happening continuously is a significant advantage, that's why Continuous is a +1. Simply allowing the power to be on "smoothly" as opposed to in discreet instants of time, is not a big deal. Oh, goody, I get to keep paying END.

Phil, I understand what you are saying, but I do not see where there is a basis for it in the rules. The description of the advantage Continuous states explicitly that it makes an Instant Power into a Constant Power. The continuing to effect the target is an aspect of it being used with a Ranged Power that has a specific target.

If you apply AoE and Continuous to an Attack Power like Energy Blast, you do not keep getting to do damage to targets within that were in the AoE, when you hit, as long as you pay END. You get to continue to do damage to anything that is inside the AoE as long as you pay END. If CON/STUN Boy can move outside the AoE without going unconscious he is safe. You can not hurt him any more.

If you apply Constant to a Non-Ranged Power like Drain or Aid, it only works as long as you are in contact with the target. It does not get to work automatically on a target that touches you when the power is activiated. To use it with a Grab you would need to make a Multiple Power Attack, I would assume. You would have to maintain the Grab to keep using the power. (Assuming it isn't something positive like an Aid or Healing, in which case the target maybe the one maintianing the Grab.)

Given that most foci for HtH Attacks do not protect you from Damage Shield. That you do not have to use an Attack action to have the power work even the first time. Add in how potent it can be combined with Killing Attacks against Entangles and in Heroic Level Games, I'm kind of loathe to say that Damage Shield should be less of an Advantage than Continuous on a HtH Attack Power.

[pinecone]

See post #31. ;)
I guess that just goes to show great minds think alike...:)

[pinecone]

That's an interesting idea, but to decide if it's a good idea, and what the actual adjustment should be, you should first look at the numbers:

IMO, a 12d6 EB, is about equal to an 8d6 EB DS. And if you use the 4th Edition rule that DS is a +1/2 advantage that doesn't require Continuous to be bought separately, then they cost the same.

Now, how much NND DS is a 6d6 NND EB worth? If you think it's worth about 5d6 NND DS (a little less actually), then there is no adjustment. If you think it's worth about 4d6, then the DS becomes +1. That seems about right to me. I'd probably call it an additional +1/2 if the attack doesn't go against common defenses. That would be NNDs and AVLDs, and I guess Mental Powers, BOECVs and Flashes, and Adjustment Powers, too. Hmmm... that seems like to much to me for most of those other types, since there is no "Advantage Stacking" if you buy a Drain DS. Therefore, I'd say the additional +1/2 for Damage Shield, should only apply to NNDs, AVLDs, and BOECVs. (Not to Mental Powers or Flashes or Adjustment Powers.)


I guess that's a fair summary. I see Constant as simply being a "smooth" power that is *on* continuously, as opposed to Continuous being a power whose *effects* are continuous. For example, a Force Field is on continuously, but it only has an effect at the instant that an attack occurs. The same is true for a Damage Shield; you keep it going continuously, but it's effect on the opponent only happen during the instant that he touches you. Having the effects keep happening continuously is a significant advantage, that's why Continuous is a +1. Simply allowing the power to be on "smoothly" as opposed to in discreet instants of time, is not a big deal. Oh, goody, I get to keep paying END.
I just like easy answers so making non standard D/S's cost at the "nerf level" seems easy to use and remember...as to Drain D/S's I've seen this be Brutally effective...I also fear Penitrating Killing D/s's for simular reasons....

[Kristopher]

The problem is that the 5th edition rules for DS nerf it so hard that only strange and/or lethal builds are at all effective. People make Penetrating Does BODY HKA Damage Shields because anything less isn't really effective.

[pinecone]

The problem is that the 5th edition rules for DS nerf it so hard that only strange and/or lethal builds are at all effective. People make Penetrating Does BODY HKA Damage Shields because anything less isn't really effective.
Exactly so for those weird bent versions lets keep the muzzles on...but for a vanilla e-attack lets show some love...

[Lord Liaden]

BTW, the Continuous Advantage isn't quite the only way to convert an Instant Power into a Constant Power; Continuing Charges also do that. :)

'Fraid not, presti. :no: Continuing Charges can only be used with Powers that are Constant or Persistent. (FREd p. 182/ 5ER p. 284) You'd have to make an Instant Power Constant before you could slap Continuing Charges on it, and that still requires Continuous.

[prestidigitator]

'Fraid not, presti. :no: Continuing Charges can only be used with Powers that are Constant or Persistent. (FREd p. 182/ 5ER p. 284) You'd have to make an Instant Power Constant before you could slap Continuing Charges on it, and that still requires Continuous.
Ah. Huh. I must have been thinking about the Uncontrolled aspect of Continuous Charges. Sorry about that. It's what I get for posting without my book most of the time. :stupid:

Anyway, I agree that perhaps Damage Shield shouldn't be less expensive than Continuous, but I'm not sure either that it should be as expensive as itself plus the value of Continuous as it (typically) is now either, or that the speicific aspects of Continuous needed for the DS shouldn't be bundled with the Damage Shield Advantage itself.

I guess part of the problem is that it would be possible to create a Damage Shield from an already Constant Power. I can't think of any that would be useful ATM, but in that case the Damage Shield would be significantly less expensive because you wouldn't need to pile on Continuous. Can anyone else think of a Constant Power you might want to use with DS, so my poor weary brain doesn't have to be creative right now? :doi:

[caris]

I guess part of the problem is that it would be possible to create a Damage Shield from an already Constant Power. I can't think of any that would be useful ATM, but in that case the Damage Shield would be significantly less expensive because you wouldn't need to pile on Continuous. Can anyone else think of a Constant Power you might want to use with DS, so my poor weary brain doesn't have to be creative right now? :doi:

Suppress and Telekinesis come to mind off the bat. A STR Suppress DS could be ugly with a Brick or a Grappling MA.

[prestidigitator]

Suppress and Telekinesis come to mind off the bat. A STR Suppress DS could be ugly with a Brick or a Grappling MA.
Okay. Now Suppress is an interesting one. You are going to have to pay End for the Damage Shield each Phase, and it will start affecting a target when they hit you. Now, how long will it affect the target? Should it be considered an Instant in that regard? Should it affect the target until you deactivate the Damage Shield (ouch! Watch out for 0 End/Persistent DSs in that case!), or should the inherently Constant part of the Suppress be in how it affects the target rather than how it stays active for the Damage Shield (in which case the character should really have to pay End for each attacker and each Phase past the first that attacker will be affected, and the Reduced End Cost Advantage should really have to be applied twice if you never want to pay any End).

If the latter, we should really still require the Continuous Advantage to applied to even Suppress in order for the Damage Shield to be maintained. Or, of course, if we decide to wrap that into the Damage Shield Advantage somehow, then Damage Shield should still be applied to Suppress identically to how it would be applied to HA, EB, or any other Power.

I'm thinking more and more that the base value of Damage Shield should be increased to +1 or somesuch, and it should never require Continuous to be applied to the base Power just to turn it into a Damage Shield; that part should be built in to the Damage Shield Advantage. That's basically what I felt before, but this thread is doing nothing but reinforcing that opinion.

[caris]

Okay. Now Suppress is an interesting one. You are going to have to pay End for the Damage Shield each Phase, and it will start affecting a target when they hit you. Now, how long will it affect the target? Should it be considered an Instant in that regard? Should it affect the target until you deactivate the Damage Shield (ouch! Watch out for 0 End/Persistent DSs in that case!), or should the inherently Constant part of the Suppress be in how it affects the target rather than how it stays active for the Damage Shield (in which case the character should really have to pay End for each attacker and each Phase past the first that attacker will be affected, and the Reduced End Cost Advantage should really have to be applied twice if you never want to pay any End).

If the latter, we should really still require the Continuous Advantage to applied to even Suppress in order for the Damage Shield to be maintained. Or, of course, if we decide to wrap that into the Damage Shield Advantage somehow, then Damage Shield should still be applied to Suppress identically to how it would be applied to HA, EB, or any other Power.

Well, we are back to the fact that Damage Shield is inherently No Range. A Suppress that is bought as No Range probably, does not continue to work once the target is no longer in contact with the person with the no range Suppress. The same would be true of of a Damage Shield, I would suppose. I think that once again the primary advantage comes from not having to make a separate attack for the Suppress. Though the idea a Supress vs. Def would once again be very useful against an Entangle. (I'm starting to wonder if DS and Desolid are the natural defenses against Entangle.)

An interesting idea could be to apply the Suppression Field concept to Damage Shield. Any Power that the Suppress Damage Shield would affect, would apply to the character with the Suppress DS at a Reduced level.

[prestidigitator]

An interesting idea could be to apply the Suppression Field concept to Damage Shield. Any Power that the Suppress Damage Shield would affect, would apply to the character with the Suppress DS at a Reduced level.
I don't think DS should be necessary for that. I think Suppress should simply be usable defensively in the same manner as Dispel. That takes a lot less complication. DS should be used when you really want to affect the attacker in some way (or really want a Trigger-like affect when you are hit; even then Trigger might be the better choice since Damage Shields technically have no affect when a ranged attack is made).

[PhilFleischmann]

Phil, I understand what you are saying, but I do not see where there is a basis for it in the rules.
Well, I do. It's the concept of fairness: You get what you pay for and you pay for what you get. To state it as simply as possible, a 6d6 EB Damage Shield is significantly less useful than a 12d6 EB. Do you think those two constructs are equal in value?


The description of the advantage Continuous states explicitly that it makes an Instant Power into a Constant Power.
Yes, but it doesn't say that that's the only way to make an Instant Power Constant, or that there is no other effect beyond that.


If you apply AoE and Continuous to an Attack Power like Energy Blast, you do not keep getting to do damage to targets within that were in the AoE, when you hit, as long as you pay END. You get to continue to do damage to anything that is inside the AoE as long as you pay END. If CON/STUN Boy can move outside the AoE without going unconscious he is safe. You can not hurt him any more.
...until you move the AoE. Does it say somewhere that a Continuous AoE power can't be moved? IDHMBIFOM. If so, that's another issue I would have with unfairness in the rules.


If you apply Constant to a Non-Ranged Power like Drain or Aid, it only works as long as you are in contact with the target.
(You mean "Continuous" of course.) I'm going to have to look that one up. It doesn't seem right to me. At the very least, you shouldn't really have to maintian contact, merely be at HtH range (i.e., within one hex).

And while we're talking about Drains, do you think a 3d6 Drain DS is worth the same as a 6d6 Drain? How about a 4d6 Drain at Range?
And is a 6d6 Drain equal in value to a 3d6 Drain, Continuous? Assuming you have to maintain contact, or stay within one hex?


...I'm kind of loathe to say that Damage Shield should be less of an Advantage than Continuous on a HtH Attack Power.
I might be OK with a +1 for DS if you also get to apply No Range to powers that normally have range, so that you don't get a price break on Drains, et al.


Continuing Charges can only be used with Powers that are Constant or Persistent. (FREd p. 182/ 5ER p. 284) You'd have to make an Instant Power Constant before you could slap Continuing Charges on it, and that still requires Continuous.
And this is another unfairness, IMO. Having to pay extra for Continuing Charges, and then having to pay again for the Continuous advantage is paying twice for the same benefit. But now I'm getting even farther off the topic. But it seems there are all kinds of problems with the rules for the Continuous advantage.

[Hugh Neilson]

Movement powers are continous by default, aren't they? Megascale Movement UAA Damage Aura, anyone?

[caris]

Well, I do. It's the concept of fairness: You get what you pay for and you pay for what you get. To state it as simply as possible, a 6d6 EB Damage Shield is significantly less useful than a 12d6 EB. Do you think those two constructs are equal in value?

In general, across a variety of settings, yes. In certain campaigns I've played in, I actually see the 6D6 EB DS being superior to the 12D6 EB, and yes, in a some campaigns the 12D6 EB is going to be superior.


Yes, but it doesn't say that that's the only way to make an Instant Power Constant, or that there is no other effect beyond that.

Yet, we have not found another way within the current rules that allow you to make an Instant Power a Constant Power.


...until you move the AoE. Does it say somewhere that a Continuous AoE power can't be moved? IDHMBIFOM. If so, that's another issue I would have with unfairness in the rules.

Constant AoE powers like Darkness or Change Environment can not be moved. Fantasy Hero has a an Advantage called Mobile, IIRC. UAA allows you to target a person and/or object and it will stick to the person. I think No Range also allows it to move with the Character creating the Power, but I'd need to double check that.


(You mean "Continuous" of course.) I'm going to have to look that one up. It doesn't seem right to me. At the very least, you shouldn't really have to maintian contact, merely be at HtH range (i.e., within one hex).

It is in the old rules FAQ. Since it isn't in the new, I assume that it is covered in 5Er.


And while we're talking about Drains, do you think a 3d6 Drain DS is worth the same as a 6d6 Drain? How about a 4d6 Drain at Range?
And is a 6d6 Drain equal in value to a 3d6 Drain, Continuous? Assuming you have to maintain contact, or stay within one hex?

Except in campaigns where Power Defense in amounts greater than 10 are common, yes, I would find them equal. (Actually, in a game where Power Defense wasn't common at all I would say that they are both more powerful than a 6D6 Drain.) Of course, I've never played in a game that had a PC with more than 10 pts of Power Defense.


I might be OK with a +1 for DS if you also get to apply No Range to powers that normally have range, so that you don't get a price break on Drains, et al.

Really, the only place where I see them giving an additional price break on Powers bought as a DS is HKA. I guess that you could add the "STR does not Add" Limitation to a HHA, but I haven't seen an example of it.

[caris]

I don't think DS should be necessary for that. I think Suppress should simply be usable defensively in the same manner as Dispel. That takes a lot less complication. DS should be used when you really want to affect the attacker in some way (or really want a Trigger-like affect when you are hit; even then Trigger might be the better choice since Damage Shields technically have no affect when a ranged attack is made).

My assumption would be in the case of a DS Suppress that the "defending" character would not need to have a held action. The power would go off, whenever the Damage Shield was active.

[prestidigitator]

My assumption would be in the case of a DS Suppress that the "defending" character would not need to have a held action. The power would go off, whenever the Damage Shield was active.
I'd personally allow that to be covered by the Constant nature of Suppress, just like I let Continuous, Self Only Dispels bought specifically for the purpose of defense go off without a held action. An additional Persistent makes the build even sweeter, of course. :)

[PhilFleischmann]

Constant AoE powers like Darkness or Change Environment can not be moved.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I was responding to the example that you gave: "If you apply AoE and Continuous to an Attack Power like Energy Blast,..."


In general, across a variety of settings, yes. In certain campaigns I've played in, I actually see the 6D6 EB DS being superior to the 12D6 EB, and yes, in a some campaigns the 12D6 EB is going to be superior.

Except in campaigns where Power Defense in amounts greater than 10 are common, yes, I would find them equal. (Actually, in a game where Power Defense wasn't common at all I would say that they are both more powerful than a 6D6 Drain.) Of course, I've never played in a game that had a PC with more than 10 pts of Power Defense.
IME, the real factor is not the target's defenses, but whether the target has Ranged attacks. Damage Shield does absolutely nothing to deter someone attacking you at range. And in just about every game/setting/genre, Ranged attacks are as common as salt. Even Bricks can throw rocks at you (and they might not even need to because their defenses are often quite high). Even in heroic settings: Pulp HERO has guns and whips, Star HERO has energy weapons, Fantasy HERO has bows and thrown weapons. And in just about every genre, there are hoards of mooks armed with ranged weapons.

EB is a good, all-purpose attack, useful against most opponents. DS (at +1, and especially at +1.5 per the book) is useful only against a limited selection of opponents: HtH attackers with low defenses.

Yes, the Drain example might be fair (or at least closer to it), which is why I agreed with the suggestion that an additional +1/2 (or double the DS) be applied if it works against an exotic defense. (I could even see reasons to double the cost of Reduced END on a DS.)

But I can't see it being worth +1 for the privelege of paying END continuously for no defense and a little bit of damage only against those who attack HtH and nothing against those who attack at range.

[caris]

Yes, I'm aware of that. I was responding to the example that you gave: "If you apply AoE and Continuous to an Attack Power like Energy Blast,..."

The FAQ spelled it out more clearly for 5E, and I would take the phrase "all rules governing Constant Powers apply to [a power bought with Continuous]" would have been enough to cover it. The description of the Mobile Modifier in Fantasy Hero is also explicit on the combination of the AoE and Constant Advantages not being movable.


IME, the real factor is not the target's defenses, but whether the target has Ranged attacks. Damage Shield does absolutely nothing to deter someone attacking you at range. And in just about every game/setting/genre, Ranged attacks are as common as salt. Even Bricks can throw rocks at you (and they might not even need to because their defenses are often quite high). Even in heroic settings: Pulp HERO has guns and whips, Star HERO has energy weapons, Fantasy HERO has bows and thrown weapons. And in just about every genre, there are hoards of mooks armed with ranged weapons.

EB is a good, all-purpose attack, useful against most opponents. DS (at +1, and especially at +1.5 per the book) is useful only against a limited selection of opponents: HtH attackers with low defenses.

Yes, the Drain example might be fair (or at least closer to it), which is why I agreed with the suggestion that an additional +1/2 (or double the DS) be applied if it works against an exotic defense. (I could even see reasons to double the cost of Reduced END on a DS.)

But I can't see it being worth +1 for the privelege of paying END continuously for no defense and a little bit of damage only against those who attack HtH and nothing against those who attack at range.

You will forgive me, but here:



austenandrews is correct that 5e "nerfed" Damage Shield. The bottom line: 50 active points gets you:

10d6 EB

or

4d6 EB, Continuous, Damage Shield

Do those seem equal to anyone? If you've got enough defenses to deal with 10d6 EB, 4d6 is going to do almost nothing.

(I would have used 60 points, but the numbers don't come out even.)

You did very much seem very much concerned about the defenses in the game here, which is why I focused on it.

When I made my statement concerning across genres and in general, I was factoring multiple things:

The frequency and nature of ranged attacks: bows have limitations that make it likely to be able to close with them and a bad idea to use them against an opponent within H to H range, thrown weapons have some of the same limitations and a much reduced ammo supply compared to bows, early firearms are often highly limited in the number of effective shots that can be made. Then you have to move from the nature of ranged attacks in the world to the genre conventions, while yes you could have 20 members of the Cardnial's Guard surrond the three PC Muskateers and fire their pistols at the Muskateers, it isn't really genre appropriate (unless they are all really bad shots, in which case after firing their one shot pistols they'll draw their swords and charge), but allowing one of those Muskateers to have a DS as "Perfect Riposte" could very easily be genre appropriate.

The relation of Defenses to Damage Classes and/or Active Points: My experiences are that Super Heroes tend to have a better ratio of Defense to Attack, than most other genres, so this means that a Power with Advantages that do not impact DC tend to be less effective for the same Active Cost. Of course, if there are separate caps for DC and Active Cost, than that can be compensated for. (Granted the costs are going to be different still, but their are ways to gain cost savings.) I've played in a games where the GMs were going for a specific feel, and he wanted players relying on DCV not Def, the side effect of this was that any attack that by passed the normal Attack Roll process (AoE, DS, BECV) were significantly more potent than a power with the same Active Cost that used straight Damage to achieve that level.

The range of different Movement Powers available and range in number of inches in movement: this is also tied into the ranged attack discussion above, but how well a character can keep the range open makes DS less attractive.

Now, because, I hadn't until now consider it that relevant to the discussion, I hadn't mentioned that I am a lot more willing to alter the costs of things based on a specific campaign/genre than DOJ has generally been willing to do in its paper products (I can not comment on Digital Hero), so for some genres I may go for a smaller Modifier. Though, I suspect most of the time I would be going with other factors. In most SF games I run, it is probably going to be some piece of equipment (I tend to run human centric SF without aliens, yes I know how boring), so the active cost isn't going to be a factor. In a game where I'm allowing funky martial arts manuevers like "perfect counter strike" (Pulp, Ninja Hero, some Fantasy) the ratio of defense to active cost is going to be very low to begin with, and any Powers purchased are going to have tons of Limitations on them. In Champions, I generally go with the Active Point Cap is Higher than the Damage Class Cap, and look unsurprised when the DS shows up as part of a Power Framework (mind you, I do not necessarily allow it in the Framework, but most of my players usually build their Frameworks in ways I approve).

[Ockham's Spoon]

Not that the Damage Shield discussion isn't interesting, but to return to the original question:

How about +50 PRE, only for attacks (-½), no conscious control (-1), only vs. people making mental contact (-1), Side Effect: character takes same PRE attack at half strength (-½). Real Cost:12

The total extra PRE might depend on the power level of the campaign, but you could buy a pretty impressive PRE attack this way for a handful of points. If you allow characters to be driven mad by PRE attacks achieving PRE+40 or more this becomes even more effective.

I only give a -1 for NNC because even though the character has no control over it, it always goes off in a predictable fashion. The side effect could be at full strength at the players option. You could argue that this build would require BOECV and a Trigger, but the point is to make a reasonable cost power out of this and I don't see that either of these advantages is absolutely necessary given the nature of the power and the way the limitations are written.

_________________________________________________
How would you rate your service today?
[ ] Orgasmic
[ ] Effervescent
[ ] Bland
[ ] Repugnant
[ ] My own personal hell