Yet Another Damage Shield Criticism

[Agent X]

With the group I play with, it has been fairly common for about one of the players on average to have a damage shield. Since we switched to 5th, there hasn't been a single damage shield character built by a player.

I think this is a damning comment about the 5E take on damage shields. Apparently, none of the players feel that the cost is worth the benefit.

Why oh why, did they hold on to this complicated, pointless way to construct damage shields? What was the great damage shield disaster that scarred them so?

[Snarf]

How much did damage shield cost in 4'th Edition?

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Snarf
How much did damage shield cost in 4'th Edition? It was a +1/2 advantage. I never saw it used in a way that threatened game balance. The general area we had problems with was with non-limiting limitations and evil combinations with autofire and other advantages.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Originally posted by Agent X
With the group I play with, it has been fairly common for about one of the players on average to have a damage shield. Since we switched to 5th, there hasn't been a single damage shield character built by a player.

I think this is a damning comment about the 5E take on damage shields. Apparently, none of the players feel that the cost is worth the benefit.

Why oh why, did they hold on to this complicated, pointless way to construct damage shields? What was the great damage shield disaster that scarred them so?

You know, my group solved this delima really quickly when the FREd was first released:

player-1: "Umm, dude. It says here that in order to use Damage Shield on an attack power, that attack power has to be made constant. Whats up with that?"

player-2: "What!?! That totally sucks!"

GM(me): "Ignore that."

Group (collectively): "Woo-Hoo!"

It was that simple. :)

[Agent X]

Originally posted by NuSoardGraphite
You know, my group solved this delima really quickly when the FREd was first released:

player-1: "Umm, dude. It says here that in order to use Damage Shield on an attack power, that attack power has to be made constant. Whats up with that?"

player-2: "What!?! That totally sucks!"

GM(me): "Ignore that."

Group (collectively): "Woo-Hoo!"

It was that simple. :) We've all agreed to do that but I think we feel "rules guilt" or something. The rules on powers we don't agree with seems to have created a chilling effect about using those powers. Wierd huh?:eek:

[Yamo]

Maybe it's just me, but +1/2 seems WAY too cheap for an ability that powerful...

[Snarf]

+1 1/2 is is steep, but you do get a lot. It's basically a free attack without even having to roll to hit. You can even actively use it, if you're capable of holding your enemy in a grab or pay the additional +1/4 to have it add to your HTH attacks.

Still, I would probably never buy it, so I think you're certainly on to something. Maybe comprising with a +1 cost for damage shield and no requirement of continuous would ease the burning guilt.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Actually, I built the lightsaber using Damage Shield rules; made more sense to me to do it that way and add 'can be used with other attacks' than to buy an HKA/RKA AND an RKA damage shield...

[Trebuchet]

I don't really think it's overpriced, my only real objection is that you can't use the "No Range" Limitation on a power that would usually be able to take it such as EB or RKA. That seems a bit wierd to me. But it's extremely effective against lightly defended HtH types like martial artists and speedsters who depend on being hard to hit to survive. Damage Shield essentially guarantees a hit against these types of characters. As a player who runs a PC with only 6 PD/6 ED (The other half of her defenses are Combat Luck, which doesn't work against Damage Shield) I can tell you first hand how dangerous an opponent with Damage Shield is. I've had to fight two of them in the recent past.

Ultimately, a well balanced character built to concept rather than munchkined who would have a Damage Shield should buy it even if it's expensive because it's concept. Magmaboy should have a Damage Shield.

[Fireg0lem]

The thing with Damage Shield is that it depends on how it is used. A RKA damage shield on a speedster is fairly worthless; (assuming it isn't just free points but ones that could have been spent on even more dex/spd/running, or on HA). However, consider a low DEX, average SPD brick with a mid-size entangle damage shield. Anyone without super-strength will have to spend time breaking out-time when they are at 0 DCV and can get splattered.

[JmOz]

FOr me it seems WAY over priced now.

Most of the complaints I have heard revolve arond munchkin powers, not the basic 8d6 EB DS, so I make people who take DS also take a +1 IF the power is a munchkin (Think AF here)

[Lord Liaden]

Where people seem to have the most complaint with the new construct is in campaigns with active point caps; you don't really get a damaging effect comparable to other powers with the same AP. In this case Damage Shield is relegated to a speciality attack vs. low-defense opponents unless it's heavily Advantaged, which isn't a bad use in and of itself but doesn't always reflect the power concept.

Take the recent Hero/SAS showdown match between Firewing and General Winter for example. Firewing's self-immolation was obviously his DS from his writeup, but as written I don't think it's powerful enough to have affected Winter so severely.

I do find it interesting, though, that most of the complaints about the new DS cost are coming from 4th Edition veterans; those who have come to HERO since 5E keep asking, "What's the big deal?" Makes you wonder how much of the dissatisfaction is with the effectiveness of the construct and how much is just because it costs more than it used to. ;)

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
I don't really think it's overpriced, my only real objection is that you can't use the "No Range" Limitation on a power that would usually be able to take it such as EB or RKA. That seems a bit wierd to me. But it's extremely effective against lightly defended HtH types like martial artists and speedsters who depend on being hard to hit to survive. Damage Shield essentially guarantees a hit against these types of characters. As a player who runs a PC with only 6 PD/6 ED (The other half of her defenses are Combat Luck, which doesn't work against Damage Shield) I can tell you first hand how dangerous an opponent with Damage Shield is. I've had to fight two of them in the recent past.

Ultimately, a well balanced character built to concept rather than munchkined who would have a Damage Shield should buy it even if it's expensive because it's concept. Magmaboy should have a Damage Shield.

I house ruled it and said: damage shield is a +1 advantage and implies "no range" for ranged attack powers.

[NuSoardGraphite]

I feel that the original +1/2 cost was very balanced.

It was like it had the +1 cost of the Continuous advantage with the -1/2 limitation of No Range removed from that, for a total of +1/2.

Considering that Damage Sheild is mostly a defensive power (though this does depend on character concept and who's running the character), I think +1 1/2 it way too much. I wouldn't be too offended by a compromise of +1, but as long as I'm running the game, DS will always be +1/2.

[tesuji]

Well my take on it is close to the others.

At +1/2 dmage shield puts itself in the same league DC wise as AP and Autofire, both of whom provide a significant benefit. At +1.5 it puts itself in the league with AVLD or a rather potent variable advantage, and it seems no where near that level of gain.

Like may other advantages in HERo, including AOE as a big case in point, combining it along with attacks that dont go off normal defenses makes it very effective, much more than when applied to regular attacks.

By raising it to +1.5 so that the clinging, entangles, body brains and the like all come more or less into balance, HERO5 seems to have eliminated the most often seen in comics version of DS... the fire guy or the electirc guy as a reasonable commodity.

Damage shield in HERO5 is now only good for HEROisms characters (ones built for the mehcanics) such as NND shielders or drain shielders or the new fave... the spiney brick which has a DS to tag on some more dice to his HTH attack that we can work into an EC to save on... and it has become less useful for the human torch we see in the actual comics.

There needs to be a styep after "is it buiult right" to see if the results make sense. In the case of DS for HERO5, it did not seem to have been done.
******************

My recommendation would be to use the AF hint... make DS +1/2 for regular defense attacks and add another +1 on top of it for attacks that do not go against normal defenses so that the clinging shields, the entange shields, the nnd shields and so forth are much more in line.
***********************

Consider... against the standard 20 defense and assuming about 60 points...

DS Fire shield 8d6 +1/2 damage shield will do an average of 8 stun thru each time you get hit for 60 active points.

D6 Aether shield 3d6 +1.5 AVLD +1.5 damage shield will do about 10 except when the AVLD kicks in so unless the AVLD is common you are not too far off from the 7-8 range..

Those two seem a lot closer in cost for effect than if you use...

Fire Shield 5d6 eb +1.5 damage shield for 62 ap as your normal fire shield which means the typical super takes nothing, or close to it.

BTW look at AOE the same way and it looks a lot better too.

[J4y]

I don't have a 5E book in front of me, so I'll probably make some mistakes here but as I see it if you compare it to just a straight EB... The main advantage is no to-hit roll, which should be a big advantage, however, using Tesuji's example of a 62pt shield giving 5d6, if you took that as a straight energy blast you'd have 12d6, you could spread that for +7OCV and still get the same 5d6 damage. +7OCV is pretty likely to hit, which makes the no-roll needed advantage seem fairly small (although I'm more inclined to think maybe spreading is too powerful or I've misread it.)

The next big advantage is the fact that it can hit lots and lots of enemies. A 5d6 shield could get triggered dozens of times in a turn while a straight 12d6 EB is fairly limited in how much it can be used, however, again, spreading lets you turn a 12d6 into 6 hexes worth of 5d6, so I think very very rarely will a DS hit more targets than an EB can in a turn, making this advantage again somewhat questionable in making a DS worth it's points.

So I think either the DS is overpriced or spreading is too cheap, or both. I'd be inclined to say that DS is probably a bit overpriced but at the same time +1/2 is too cheap.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by J4y
So I think either the DS is overpriced or spreading is too cheap, or both. I'd be inclined to say that DS is probably a bit overpriced but at the same time +1/2 is too cheap.

Which is why many of us have adopted the straight +1 :D

[Kristopher]

The problem with making DS so expensive is that an affordable number of normal (5d6) or killing dice (1.5d6) won't, on average, do -anything- to most opponents in a superheroic compaign. Unless the super is fighting agents, it's not worth the END.

I can see making DS +1/2 for normal and killing attacks, and +1 for all the special cases.

[Yamo]

The problem with making DS so expensive is that an affordable number of normal (5d6) or killing dice (1.5d6) won't, on average, do -anything- to most opponents in a superheroic compaign. Unless the super is fighting agents, it's not worth the END.

I dunno. You can fit a HKA 1d6 DS with Penetrating under most AP limits fairly easily.

[JmOz]

Originally posted by J4y
I don't have a 5E book in front of me, so I'll probably make some mistakes here but as I see it if you compare it to just a straight EB... The main advantage is no to-hit roll, which should be a big advantage, however, using Tesuji's example of a 62pt shield giving 5d6, if you took that as a straight energy blast you'd have 12d6, you could spread that for +7OCV and still get the same 5d6 damage. +7OCV is pretty likely to hit, which makes the no-roll needed advantage seem fairly small (although I'm more inclined to think maybe spreading is too powerful or I've misread it.)

The next big advantage is the fact that it can hit lots and lots of enemies. A 5d6 shield could get triggered dozens of times in a turn while a straight 12d6 EB is fairly limited in how much it can be used, however, again, spreading lets you turn a 12d6 into 6 hexes worth of 5d6, so I think very very rarely will a DS hit more targets than an EB can in a turn, making this advantage again somewhat questionable in making a DS worth it's points.

So I think either the DS is overpriced or spreading is too cheap, or both. I'd be inclined to say that DS is probably a bit overpriced but at the same time +1/2 is too cheap.

One problem with your analysist:

Ragamufion the Martial Artist is fighting Fire Boy the flaming hero:

If Fireboy uses his Fireblast and spreads there is not much that Ragamufion can do about it, but at the same time if Fireboy is using his Flame Shield Ragamufion can SEE that it is up, and then avoid it by figuring out another way (Start throwing stuff at him?)

So while the damage potential is there, the odds of the damage happening is much less with the DS

[Osprey]

[/B]Originally posted by tesuji
I do find it interesting, though, that most of the complaints about the new DS cost are coming from 4th Edition veterans; those who have come to HERO since 5E keep asking, "What's the big deal?" Makes you wonder how much of the dissatisfaction is with the effectiveness of the construct and how much is just because it costs more than it used to.


I'm a 2nd Edition Geezer
My friends griped when the 3rd came out that the EC was changed and now they had to rework the heroes or convince a GM to "Grandfather" 'em.
I saw it as a Clarification. I liked it.

when 4th Ed came, I was perplexed that "Flash" was a single target attack (instead of an AE). But I saw the reasoning.
and I was overjoyed that the advantage "Affects Real World from Desolid" was now legal and a +2 advantage because
My House Rule (That no other GM in my state{!!} agreed with) had it as a +4 Ad.

Then 5th Ed does this to DS??? :confused: Huh?


Originally posted by tesuji
There needs to be a styep after "is it buiult right" to see if the results make sense. In the case of DS for HERO5, it did not seem to have been done.
******************

My recommendation would be to use the AF hint... make DS +1/2 for regular defense attacks and add another +1 on top of it for attacks that do not go against normal defenses so that the clinging shields, the entange shields, the nnd shields and so forth are much more in line.
***********************

I'm with you Tesuji!
If you can make an NND do Body for +1 more, then a DS makes sense this way!!!!

[The_Hero]

I notice Steve has never clarified the whys and wherefores of the new cost, tried asking him at Last year's Origins and he got defensive...

It caused a group of ours to eventually disband, it was one of the reasons anyway. We had point caps the GM wasn't willing to work with, and I had a megahard brick who should have hurt hands that punched her, but doing the Thing's hide always on is too expensive for what little good it does...

[JmOz]

According to Steve it was a clarification not a change...

Of course DC:HOV and the original TUM (Both written by him) would say differently...

[Kristopher]

According to Steve it was a clarification not a change...

Game designers say that kind of thing quite often. When Justin Achilli took over one of the product lines at White Wolf and CHANGED the way XP was spent to increase various stats, he insisted on and on that it was a clarification.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Yamo
I dunno. You can fit a HKA 1d6 DS with Penetrating under most AP limits fairly easily.

Shouldn't have to slap a second Advantage (Pen) on to make the first Advantage (DS) effective. DS should be effective in its own right, and at a total of +1.5, it's not.

[Trebuchet]

The obvious compromise is to make DS a +1½ advantage, but require the No Range limitation for -½. There is adequate precedent; HtH Attack requires the No Figured Characteristics limitation.

[Snarf]

The obvious compromise is to make DS a +1½ advantage, but require the No Range limitation for -½. There is adequate precedent; HtH Attack requires the No Figured Characteristics limitation.
I like the sound of that. I'll try it out in my games.

Burnination Blast: EB 7d6 (AP 35) (RC 35)

Burnination Field: EB 4d6, Continuous (+1), Damage Shield (+1/2), (AP 50); No Range (-1/2), (RC 33)

[Kristopher]

What level of defense is average in the game that 4d6 is intended for?

[Snarf]

I forgot to use 0 END. The average defense is still a mystery since the game isn't fully ready yet...

Burnination Blast: EB 8d6 (AP 40) (RC 40)

Burnination Field: EB 4d6, Continuous (+1), Damage Shield (+1/2), 0 END (+1/2) (AP 60); No Range (-1/2), (RC 40)

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Snarf
This is a better comparison if you want to think about defenses, since my AP limit is a loose 60. The campaign isn't fully running yet, so the average is still a mystery...

Burnination Blast: EB 8d6 (AP 40) (RC 40)

Burnination Field: EB 5d6, Continuous (+1), Damage Shield (+1/2), (AP 62); No Range (-1/2), (RC 41)

If you follow the suggested formula, that makes average def about 24, doesn't it? 8d6 would do an average of 4 STUN through. 5d6 would do an average of NONE (zero, zilch, nada), and a maximum of 6 through. That's it. No more than 6 STUN through, and typically nothing at all.

A damage shield that doesn't do any damage isn't much of a shield, is it?

[Snarf]

Well, as previously mentioned, it's more of a specialty defense designed to take out people with lower than usual defense that defend themselves by not getting hit.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher
If you follow the suggested formula, that makes average def about 24, doesn't it? 8d6 would do an average of 4 STUN through. 5d6 would do an average of NONE (zero, zilch, nada), and a maximum of 6 through. That's it. No more than 6 STUN through, and typically nothing at all.

A damage shield that doesn't do any damage isn't much of a shield, is it? That's true, but many martial artists and speedsters have DEF well below 20 so a 5d6 DS would leak Stun through to such characters. My own MA would take an average Stun of 11 Stun from a 5d6 Damage Shield (Combat Luck does not work vs. Damage Shields. 50% of her total PD/ED of 12 is Combat Luck.). If she did that 3 times she'd be out cold. If the DS was 1½d6 Killing she'd take 3 BODY and from 3-15 Stun. That is not an insignificant threat to a character without Resistant defenses. Who's going to use an Autofire punch against an opponent with a DS?

I think some people are misunderstanding the real purpose of DS. IMHO it's not supposed to be a fight-winning power, it's supposed to make it dangerous for lightly defended characters to attack the character. Leaking 5-8 Stun through per Phase or Segment will seriously hamper most martial artists and/or speedsters fairly quickly. DS is a character-concept power in most cases, not a primary means of attack. If it's a major portion of the character's attack, then the GM should allow it as long as it isn't too (read: unbalancingly) powerful. (That's why I don't like Active Point caps; they're too limiting towards interesting concepts. We have no limits in my campaign except character concept. We police ourselves.) Making a Damage Shield big enough to hurt a typical brick should reasonably be expected to use a substantial portion of a character's CPs, and might well be his only offensive power.

Or it might be Penetrating... :cool:

[Kristopher]

Hmmm.

I've never personally been in a campaign with a Champs PC with low enough PD/ED to -really- worry about a vanilla 5d6 EB. Or one with absolutely no resistant defenses, for that matter. Your total PD/ED would have to be under 18 to worry about 5d6.

* Of course, all of the campaigns I was in or ran were back in the 4th Ed days, so there wasn't any Combat "Luck" back then.

* For some reason, damage dice in Champs hate me. A lot. So I tend to count on getting no better than the average damage for a certain number of dice.

[tesuji]

the notion that 62 points of damage shield isn't supposed to be a fight winning effect or that its only supposed to be useful against low defense melee types is fine and dandy if a 12d6 EB was just as useful and not more, after all, it costs the same.

In HERo cost is supposed to be tied to effect.

If your Gm told you that EB would now only be useful at close range and would not hurt anyone but martial artists and speedsters with low defenses, would you still be happy to spend 60 ap for it?

If indeed DS is not supposed to be as serious a power as an equivalent amount of EB, then it should not cost the same. it should cost less because you get less out of it.

cost ~ effectiveness

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
The obvious compromise is to make DS a +1½ advantage, but require the No Range limitation for -½. There is adequate precedent; HtH Attack requires the No Figured Characteristics limitation.

There is also the precedent of the example HKA Damage Shield on FREd p. 163, which takes the "No STR Bonus" Limitation (-1/2). That would be the same Real Point cost as, and mechanically identical to a RKA DS of the same Base Points which took the No Range Lim. And the Real Point cost would be close to that of the 4E Damage Shield construct as a simple +1/2 Advantage. IMHO it's the most justifiable modification, makes the least change to how Damage Shields are built (which is logical), and is a reasonable compromise between those who thought the 4E way was too cheap, and those who think the 5E way is too expensive. Of course, being a compromise it probably won't wholly please anyone. ;)

It really wouldn't be fair to put any further pressure on Steve Long over this issue, though; whatever we (or he) think of the ruling, it's in the rulebook and lots of published characters and other constructs, so he's really not in a position to change it even if he wanted to. We'll just have to house-rule it as we see fit... at least until 6th Edition. :)

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by tesuji
the notion that 62 points of damage shield isn't supposed to be a fight winning effect or that its only supposed to be useful against low defense melee types is fine and dandy if a 12d6 EB was just as useful and not more, after all, it costs the same.

In HERo cost is supposed to be tied to effect.

If your Gm told you that EB would now only be useful at close range and would not hurt anyone but martial artists and speedsters with low defenses, would you still be happy to spend 60 ap for it?

If indeed DS is not supposed to be as serious a power as an equivalent amount of EB, then it should not cost the same. it should cost less because you get less out of it.

cost ~ effectiveness I disagree that DS isn't useful, even with the +1½ advantage cost. We just disagree as to what's it's primary use is. I view it as an attrition power which is used to chip away at low-defense characters, and the ability to use DS to effect multiple opponents in one Phase who attack the character with DS is useful. Since it also provides a guaranteed hit, that makes it more useful. And the ability to "attack" characters who attack the DS user while he uses another attack or defensive power is also very useful. Attacks don't need to do damage in any case. How about a 5d6 Flash Damage Shield, or a 2" Teleport Usable as Attack Megascale Damage Shield? The possiblities are endless with a little imagination. You are thinking too linearly.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
I disagree that DS isn't useful, even with the +1½ advantage cost. We just disagree as to what's it's primary use is. I view it as an attrition power which is used to chip away at low-defense characters, and the ability to use DS to effect multiple opponents in one Phase who attack the character with DS is useful. Since it also provides a guaranteed hit, that makes it more useful. And the ability to "attack" characters who attack the DS user while he uses another attack or defensive power is also very useful. Attacks don't need to do damage in any case. How about a 5d6 Flash Damage Shield, or a 2" Teleport Usable as Attack Megascale Damage Shield? The possiblities are endless with a little imagination. You are thinking too linearly.

No, he'd not. He's dead spot on. Increasing the cost of a an attack power by 150% should not make it useless against characters with average defense. Even at +1, you reduce the attack to half the DCs of the maximum attack, which still leaves it more likely than that it will do nothing to a character with average defense. 12d6 max = 24 average defense; +1.5 for DS leaves 5d6 (-if- you allow a couple extra points for the DS) with an average damage of 17.5 (you'd have to average fives on the dice to do any damage); +1 for DS leaves 6d6 with an average damage of 21 (you'd have to average over four on the dice to do any damage).

Putting Damage Shield on an EB robs the EB of its range. Never mind that the character with DS has to pay the END to keep it going, on top of whatever other END he's using each Phase.

[Snarf]

Damage shield isn't entirely defensive, if you're capable of holding your opponent in a grab.

I don't think you should compare a 12d6 energy blast to a 4d6 damage shield. They are supposed to be balanced based on real cost, not active points. Compare a 4d6 (or 3d6 if you don't agree with the proposed house rule) damage shield to an 8d6 energy blast.

If the only problem is a campaign with consistently strong defenses, then ask the GM to relax the AP limit enough to allow something like this:

Burnination Field: EB 8d6, Continuous (+1), Damage Shield (+1/2), (AP 100); No Range (-1/2), (RC 67)

In a game like that, I don't think it would be unbalanced. As for all these evil combinations with other powers, maybe increase the cost of damage shield from +1/2 to +1 or more if something weird is going on.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher
I've never personally been in a campaign with a Champs PC with low enough PD/ED to -really- worry about a vanilla 5d6 EB. Or one with absolutely no resistant defenses, for that matter. Your total PD/ED would have to be under 18 to worry about 5d6. All 3 of the martial artists in my campaign would potentially take damage from a mere 5d6 DS. Catseye has 16 PD/ED, 6 of that from Combat Luck. Eagle Eye has 18 PD/14 ED, 3 of that from Combat Luck. And my own Zl'f has 12 PD/ED, 6 of that from Combat Luck. While these defensive values are on the low side, only Zl'f's are really low. If the average DEF in Champions is actually 24 (and of course that is average between martial artists and bricks. I notice Green Dragon from Champions has only a 10 PD and ED and Ironclad's are 25, so I am not certain "average" defenses in Champions and CKC are as high as 24. Even Mechanon's PD and ED are only 30.), then clearly your average brick isn't likely to be affected much even if the DS is 8d6 rather than 5d6. Both of our team bricks would barely even notice an average 8d6 DS. I think our game is probably atypical in our unusually wide spread of characteristics. We have DEX ranging from 20 to 43, SPD from 4 to 9, PD from 12 to 35, damage spreads from 8d6 to 14d6. Most games I've seen are more centered numbers-wise, but we like our variety.

Of course, when you get right down to it only bricks and martial artists/speeedsters are likely to possibly be effected by any Damage Shield no matter how large. Energy projectors and mentalists typically attack from range anyway. So right off the bat DS is pretty much useless against any ranged attackers. That may increase the incentive to reduce DS to a +1 advantage, which is where I personally think it belongs. But that's easy enough to do with a house rule.

[Osprey]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
I disagree that DS isn't useful, even with the +1½ advantage cost. We just disagree as to what's it's primary use is. I view it as an attrition power which is used to chip away at low-defense characters, and the ability to use DS to effect multiple opponents in one Phase who attack the character with DS is useful. Since it also provides a guaranteed hit, that makes it more useful. And the ability to "attack" characters who attack the DS user while he uses another attack or defensive power is also very useful. Attacks don't need to do damage in any case. How about a 5d6 Flash Damage Shield, or a 2" Teleport Usable as Attack Megascale Damage Shield? (Underlines added)
You've Met Dayglow!! :D
(A quintessential DS using heroine in my campaigns)

I have to agree with DS being best used as an attrition style attack. Dayglow is just an example of what I create on my crazy days.

I know a clarification when I see one. I mentioned a clarification made on ECs in 3rd Edition earlier.
DS has always included No Range as part of its structure, the other half was Continuous.
If I take Steve's word that his ruling is a Clarification, then a No Range EB is the same as a DS to him. Or would he say that No Range EBs require a to-hit roll to work on the guy giving you a bear hug??

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Trebuchet

I disagree that DS isn't useful, even with the +1½ advantage cost. We just disagree as to what's it's primary use is.

Actually i dont care what its "primary use" is, i just care that it gives you enough benefit by comparison with its cost.

Originally posted by Trebuchet

I view it as an attrition power which is used to chip away at low-defense characters, and the ability to use DS to effect multiple opponents in one Phase who attack the character with DS is useful.

Thats cool but in my experience thhat describes a very limited use power thats nowehre near as effective at 5d6 as a 12d6 EB is.

If your campaign features lots of low defense martial artists with psych lims that drew them to attack the character with the DS flaming away, then it might rise to make a 5d6 DS close to on par with the 12d6 EB, maybe.

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Since it also provides a guaranteed hit, that makes it more useful.

Use of a 12d6 Eb to damage foes... step by step...
1) EB guy decides he wants to attack anyone in range.
2) Eb guy rolls to hit
3) EB guy rolls damage 12d6 if he hit.

Use of 5d6 DS to damage foes...step by step...
1) Enemy decides to attack obvious damage shield guy with a melee attack, possibly needing to move to range.
2) Enemy makea a to-hit roll.
30 if successful, the DS guy rolls 5d6 for damage.

So, as far as i can tell, there is a necessary to-hit roll for either power to have effect. If you are willing to assume the to-hit roll was usuccessful for the latter, why not for the former?

Originally posted by Trebuchet

And the ability to "attack" characters who attack the DS user while he uses another attack or defensive power is also very useful.

You are not attacking them, they are attacking you. The advantage of having the possibility of multiple targets is offset by the fact that the choice is THEIRS. Its like buying autofire with the limitation of "willing targets only".

In the games i have run and been in, the DS guy is not the first choice for meleers. he is the primary target for ranged guys.

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Attacks don't need to do damage in any case. How about a 5d6 Flash Damage Shield, or a 2" Teleport Usable as Attack Megascale Damage Shield? The possiblities are endless with a little imagination. You are thinking too linearly.

Thanks for the obvious parting shot.

Had you read my post and comprehended it, you would have seen that my suggestion included an adjustment ala autofire for non-standard defense attacks.

I stated that it looks like the new DS was balanced for the oddball attacks such as clinging and nnd and such, flash included, and that it now fails for the more traditional comic versions like human torch.

Hence my suggestion is, like autofire, to recognize the imbalance here and scale the advantage cost.

For a normal EB or HKA going against normal defenses, make it +1/2. For anything that bypassed normal defenses, as was done for AF, add a +1 penalty.

So 8d6 Eb DS would be 60 ap as would 5d6 flash vs sight DS (62 actually) and 3d6 AVLD DS (60 ap.) For a game with 20 point defenses and flash defense averaging 2 or less, these seem about right.



I don't think you should compare a 12d6 energy blast to a 4d6 damage shield. They are supposed to be balanced based on real cost, not active points.

Actually, active points are more often within the system used as a measure of balance. besides, if you assume the same lims and frameworks, that works out the same.



Compare a 4d6 (or 3d6 if you don't agree with the proposed house rule) damage shield to an 8d6 energy blast.

I assume you are talking about the free range thingy. While i understand that approach from the math modelists, it still misses the point that DS is woefully different in effectiveness depending on whether it is against normal defenses or not.



If the only problem is a campaign with consistently strong defenses, then ask the GM to relax the AP limit enough to allow something like this:

It doesn't matter whether he cuts me off at 5d6 or allows me 8d6. The idea is to get the cost to mathc the effectiveness.



Burnination Field: EB 8d6, Continuous (+1), Damage Shield (+1/2), (AP 100); No Range (-1/2), (RC 67)

I am proposing the solution and making the comparison based on the real rules, not within the concept of other house rules.

Range is not the problem. Consider that while you are cheapening the EB DS with the range thing you are also cheapening the TK one, the flash one and so forth. They work just fine at +1.5 because they bypass standard defenses.

the no range lim "fix" is just an attempt to hide the problem under a lower rp cost.




In a game like that, I don't think it would be unbalanced. As for all these evil combinations with other powers, maybe increase the cost of damage shield from +1/2 to +1 or more if something weird is going on.

As i suggested earlier... make DS (with continuous included) +1/2 for normal defense attacks and +1.5 for other attacks and it seems to start working out right. This is more or less identical to the approach taken with autofire. (I would strongly consider adding the same change to AOE myself, but thats another story.)

Finally on the ongoing subject of auto hits and the like...

With a regular 12d6 EB...
1) I choose target within 600"
2) i attack and make a to hit roll.

With a Damage shield i have two options...
1) i chose a target within melee range
2) I attack him with a grab, taking penalties to hit and dcv.

OR

With a damage shield...
1) an enemy choses me to attack with a melee attack after seeing my DS
2) the enemy makes a to-hit roll

Now, i think you have two options for DS, but each of those options is worse that the EBs, significantly so, and add up to being at best ON PAR with the choises i get with the EB.

(personally, i would and have in the past making DS a +0 option for normal attacks and a +1 option for special ones... but i know that too radical for round here.)

[Kristopher]

The numbers I was using are based on the formula for balancing attacks and defenses that was printed on page S-22 of 4th Ed Champions.

According to that, average defense should 2x DCs of max attack, and max defense should be 2.5x (12 DCs = 24 average and 30 max). That would give a low-def super no less than 18/18 defenses. (And any super who has nothing in the way of resistant def -deserves- to be taken out from behind by a normal with a 9mm.)

10 DC = 20 average, 25 max, about 15 low-end.
8 DC = 16 average, 20 maz, 12 low-end.

[Talon]

Perhaps a useful exercise would be to see how many characters from CU and CKC would be affected by a 60 point DS (5d6 EB) and a 75 point DS (6d6 EB).

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare
Perhaps a useful exercise would be to see how many characters from CU and CKC would be affected by a 60 point DS (5d6 EB) and a 75 point DS (6d6 EB).

Haven't seen them yet, but if they're anything like the characters from 4th Ed material, too many will have sub-par defenses for the power level in question.

Maybe you can count on NPCs to be go under-defended, but most PCs aren't that stupid.

[tesuji]

iirc, book not infront of me, the HERO5 BBB lists 20/10r defenses as standard and thats for 40-80 ap attacks I think.

So while they did lower the expected defenses by about 5, thats still not enough to make a 5d6 DS worthwhile against standard defenses... actually skip worthwhile, make that a noticeable threat.

[MisterD]

Will these work the same?
I have used Hero Designer to try to create a damage shield for a flaming character.

Keeping it at 60 active points, the most I could do was 4D6 (A Villian can put my character in a choke hold and not have to worry much)

This is what I gave my Brick character

Brace for Impact : Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6 (vs. PD), Damage Shield (+1/2), Reduced Endurance 0 END (+1/2), Continuous (+1) (45 Active Points); No STR Bonus (-1/2), Not vs. Targets that grab or are grabbed (-1/2), Not vs surprise attacks (-1/4)

IT helps but when I tried to make an offensice DS. It was not worth it.

[MisterD]

Sorry But another thought I had was the flame character was shrouded in flame.

He can lash out with a gold of flame doing 12D6
BUT
Someone touches him (with same flame shroud and they only take 4D6.

That I do not understand.

[tesuji]

This can be rationalized to say that when he throws the firebolt he is concentrating the flame into a surge, like a blowtorch vs a bonfire.

The part i cannot understand is that the 5d6 sheathe and the 12 d6 firebolt are defended as being equally effective and thus worth the same. In a game where cost is supposed to reflect effectiveness, that seems so radical a disconnect.



Originally posted by MisterD
Sorry But another thought I had was the flame character was shrouded in flame.

He can lash out with a gold of flame doing 12D6
BUT
Someone touches him (with same flame shroud and they only take 4D6.

That I do not understand.

[Snarf]

As i suggested earlier... make DS (with continuous included) +1/2 for normal defense attacks and +1.5 for other attacks and it seems to start working out right. This is more or less identical to the approach taken with autofire. (I would strongly consider adding the same change to AOE myself, but thats another story.
The thing with no range was sort of a one size fits all compromise solution, intended to solve Agent X's problem of players feeling better about the cost. Is damage shield really twice as effective as the plain old energy blast? Depends on the game I guess. If a PC bought the ability, I feel the GM should make an effort to create enough diversity in villians where it will have some effect most of the time.

The +1/2 to +1 1/2 method sounds good to me. It's more precise, gets rid of questionable required limitations, and should work better for an experienced GM.

Burnination Blast: EB 12d6 (AP 60) (RC 60)

Burnination Field: EB 6d6, Damage Shield (+1/2), 0 END (+1/2) (AP 60) (RC 60)

Blindination Field: Sight Group Flash 4d6, Damage Shield (+1 1/2), 0 END (+1/2), (AP 60) (RC 60)

To me, this looks like the best idea so far. If you're really having a problem with defenses, you can get the EB shield up to 8d6 by dropping the 0 END, and still be under the AP cap.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare
Perhaps a useful exercise would be to see how many characters from CU and CKC would be affected by a 60 point DS (5d6 EB) and a 75 point DS (6d6 EB).

An interesting idea, with a glaring flaw however. Given the way DEF scores in general have been neutered in 5th Edition writeups it may not be an accurate test for a running campaign...

Must... resist... urge... to do it... anyway...

[Talon]

Originally posted by Kristopher
The numbers I was using are based on the formula for balancing attacks and defenses that was printed on page S-22 of 4th Ed Champions.

According to that, average defense should 2x DCs of max attack, and max defense should be 2.5x (12 DCs = 24 average and 30 max). That would give a low-def super no less than 18/18 defenses. (And any super who has nothing in the way of resistant def -deserves- to be taken out from behind by a normal with a 9mm.)

10 DC = 20 average, 25 max, about 15 low-end.
8 DC = 16 average, 20 maz, 12 low-end.

If you use these numbers you are out of luck with any version of Damage Shield. The 4th Edition +1/2 gets you an 8d6 Damage Shield, which will do little to no damage against average defenses and nothing against max.

With that standard, any advantage -- AOE, Explosion, 0 END -- reduces the damage to the point where you're doing nothing. It's the best argument for lowering the average defense.

For those math inclined, 4th Ed DS = +1/2; Damage Shield DC = MaxDC * 2/3; Average Stun = Max DC * 2/3 * 3.5, or around Max DC * 2.3.

[Kristopher]

In a 12 DC campaing, it's 4 STUN through on an average roll against average defense. (8 x 3.5 = 28, 28 - 24 = 4)

8d6 AP averages 16 STUN through.*
8d6 Pen averages 8 STUN through.*
8d6 AoE or Explosion averages 4 STUN through, but is much easier to hit with.

Even if you lower the average defenses to 20 (following the 5thEd advice), a 4d6 DS (at +1.5) only does 4 through on a MAXIMUM roll, and averages absolutely no STUN through.


* Leaving aside Hardened for the moment.

[JmOz]

Did any of you notice this months digital hero?

[TaxiMan]

I liked the Digital Hero discussion of new Triggers instead of Damage Shield. But maybe I don't understand something - doesn't Damage Shield draw END every phase? I always hated that, it is a huge limitation. So huge, that I always had to add an advantage to offset it.

The Digital Hero article seems to ignore the fact that its Trigger won't draw END unless it's used. I REALLY like that.

Also, in the FAQ it says you can use HA for a damage shield. So quit talking about EB! With an HA Damage Shield, you get to add your STR and you get the mandatory -1/2 limitation! Why anyone would use EB is beyond me.

(But then, there is plenty that's beyond me, so feel free to enlighten.)

[Edit: OK, HA is restrainable, doesn't model most Damage Shields, etc. It mostly looks like an auto-counterattack power. But the point munchkin in me screams for it!]

[JmOz]

AND ON TOP OF THAT you can add: Str does not add, a -1/2...

Funny thought just occured to me about the HA:

MY WAY (+1/2 advantage on normal attacks)

8d6 EB DS 0 end, 80 Real/80 Active

Official rules munchkin way

8d6 HA, continous, DS, 0 end, HA limitation, No Str add:

120 Active, 60 Real...

[TaxiMan]

All right! Now were talkin!

Use the new Trigger rules (+1 1/2), and you don't have to add Continuous. Use HA with 0 end (+1/2), HA limitation (-1/2), No Str (-1/2). Here's what you get:

8d6 Trigger DS, 0 End, HA, No Str [80 AP, 40 CP]

Yeah, baby! We've got Damage Shield licked now!

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher
The numbers I was using are based on the formula for balancing attacks and defenses that was printed on page S-22 of 4th Ed Champions.

According to that, average defense should 2x DCs of max attack, and max defense should be 2.5x (12 DCs = 24 average and 30 max). That would give a low-def super no less than 18/18 defenses. (And any super who has nothing in the way of resistant def -deserves- to be taken out from behind by a normal with a 9mm.)

10 DC = 20 average, 25 max, about 15 low-end.
8 DC = 16 average, 20 maz, 12 low-end. Since we're discussing changes wrought by FREd to Damage Shield, using 4th Edition guidelines may be a mistake. It is quite clear from both the pre-designed characters in Champions and CKC and comments made by Steve Long that 5th edition made a deliberate attempt to lower average defenses. I'd say they are now looking more along the lines of 1 to 1½ times attack for low end characters, 2 to 2½ times for average, and 3 or more for bricks. So a martial artist with a 12-15 PD is not unreasonable in a game with 8-10 DC attacks. YMMV. My martial artist with 12 PD gets knocked out or Stunned almost every adventure, our last one was notable because she wasn't (although she finished the fight with only 3 Stun left.).

And raw defenses are only part of the equation. CON and Stun are equally important parts of total combat toughness. Our team's brick Silhouette can take much more damage than our powered armor guy Cyberknight even though their defenses are virtually identical because the brick has a 33 CON and 50 Stun whereas our PA has 20 CON and 35 Stun. That makes an enormous difference in combat.

One problem I have seen from reading these boards is that many campaigns increased from 250 to 350 CP with the release of 5th Edition without a corresponding increase in damage caps. Since characters have an extra 100 points to spend but can't spend it on more damage they often pump it into defenses instead. The unfortunate results are cheesy martial artists with 23 PD who don't even bother to dodge a thug's bullet because it can't possibly hurt them. IMHO if your martial artist doesn't need to dodge bullets then you're doing something wrong. The obvious solution is to either raise damage caps or eliminate them altogether. If that is done 75-80 active point Damage Shields versus average defenses of 20-24 suddenly look a lot more reasonable.

I am not claiming a 5d6 DS is equal to a 12d6 EB in power, I'm saying it may be it's equivalent in usefulness. Damage Shield help keep characters with one from being pounded on by low DEF/high CV/high SPD characters. They are as much defense as offense. While the attacking character does have the choice of whether or not to attack the character with DS, if he opts not to attack because of potential damage then I'd say DS just acted as 100% Damage Reduction.

(And any super with no resistant defenses who lets himself get hit by a normal with a 9mm deserves what he gets. But when was the last time you saw a normal with a CV of 4 hit a superhero with an 12 CV? ) :D

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by tesuji
If your campaign features lots of low defense martial artists with psych lims that drew them to attack the character with the DS flaming away, then it might rise to make a 5d6 DS close to on par with the 12d6 EB, maybe.If a Damage Shield prevents a character from being attacked by a low defense character (whose attack might well be on par with the brick's attack.) then I'd say it's paid for itself just fine. If your campaign has characters which can't be hurt by a 5d6 DS because of a 60 active point cap, then why not raise that cap or reduce the advantage to +1 or +¾ instead of griping about how your favorite screw-over for hand to hand types isn't cost effective anymore. Aren't you the GM in your campaign? If you aren't and you think your case for lower advantages for Damage Shields is so solid and logical then present it to your GM and ask him to change the house rules or the ap cap. Why do you feel the need for "official sanction" in the most flexible game system in history?



Use of a 12d6 Eb to damage foes... step by step...
1) EB guy decides he wants to attack anyone in range.
2) Eb guy rolls to hit
3) EB guy rolls damage 12d6 if he hit.

Use of 5d6 DS to damage foes...step by step...
1) Enemy decides to attack obvious damage shield guy with a melee attack, possibly needing to move to range.
2) Enemy makea a to-hit roll.
30 if successful, the DS guy rolls 5d6 for damage.

So, as far as i can tell, there is a necessary to-hit roll for either power to have effect. If you are willing to assume the to-hit roll was usuccessful for the latter, why not for the former?You are deliberately missing the most salient point about Damage Shields, which is that they generally require the character with one to be attacked in order to work. That applies equally whether the DS is 5d6 or 15d6. Of course, if the character is not attacked because of his "obvious damage shield" then he's got his points' worth out of the DS, hasn't he? Damage Shields are as much defense as offense, in spite of what you happen to think.


In the games i have run and been in, the DS guy is not the first choice for meleers. he is the primary target for ranged guys. Maybe that's because not everyone is stupid enough to want to attack someone with a Damage Shield, in spite of how ineffective you personally happen to think they are. Do you really think if you increase the DS to 8d6 he'll be less of a target for the ranged guys? I'd say that'll probably just put him higher on the priority list.

I comprehended your comments just fine, thank you. :rolleyes:

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
Since we're discussing changes wrought by FREd to Damage Shield, using 4th Edition guidelines may be a mistake. It is quite clear from both the pre-designed characters in Champions and CKC and comments made by Steve Long that 5th edition made a deliberate attempt to lower average defenses. I'd say they are now looking more along the lines of 1 to 1½ times attack for low end characters, 2 to 2½ times for average, and 3 or more for bricks. So a martial artist with a 12-15 PD is not unreasonable in a game with 8-10 DC attacks. YMMV. My martial artist with 12 PD gets knocked out or Stunned almost every adventure, our last one was notable because she wasn't (although she finished the fight with only 3 Stun left.).


Recommended max used to be 2.5x, so if bricks are at about 3 times DC, then the defenses haven't been lowered, they've been spread out more.

As for published characters, I haven't seen most of them yet, but if they're at all like the 4thEd characters, they'll be all over the place in terms of quality of construction, balance, appropriate attack and defense levels, etc. There were plenty of official published Champs characters in 4thEd that wouldn't have lasted 1 round against most groups I've played with, because they were jokes -- 200 pt characters built on about 300 pts, characters without the defenses to withstand anyone with attacks comparable to their own, characters with everything in one "underfunded" Multipower, so that they couldn't put up serious offense and defense at the same time, etc, etc, etc. While some of that might have been valid concept-driven character creation, that doesn't explain the fact that the shortcomings were so pandemic.



And raw defenses are only part of the equation. CON and Stun are equally important parts of total combat toughness. Our team's brick Silhouette can take much more damage than our powered armor guy Cyberknight even though their defenses are virtually identical because the brick has a 33 CON and 50 Stun whereas our PA has 20 CON and 35 Stun. That makes an enormous difference in combat.


I realise that. Never said otherwise.

The 4d6 EB Damage Shield isn't going to do anything to either one of them, though, is it?



One problem I have seen from reading these boards is that many campaigns increased from 250 to 350 CP with the release of 5th Edition without a corresponding increase in damage caps. Since characters have an extra 100 points to spend but can't spend it on more damage they often pump it into defenses instead. The unfortunate results are cheesy martial artists with 23 PD who don't even bother to dodge a thug's bullet because it can't possibly hurt them. IMHO if your martial artist doesn't need to dodge bullets then you're doing something wrong. The obvious solution is to either raise damage caps or eliminate them altogether. If that is done 75-80 active point Damage Shields versus average defenses of 20-24 suddenly look a lot more reasonable.


Heh. Once built a martial artist with power armor...bad things, man...bad things...

In my experience, a lot of that 100 points is eaten up by things that have gotten more expensive.



I am not claiming a 5d6 DS is equal to a 12d6 EB in power, I'm saying it may be it's equivalent in usefulness. Damage Shield help keep characters with one from being pounded on by low DEF/high CV/high SPD characters. They are as much defense as offense. While the attacking character does have the choice of whether or not to attack the character with DS, if he opts not to attack because of potential damage then I'd say DS just acted as 100% Damage Reduction.


A) It's not the equivalent in usefulness.
B) We disagree on the purpose of Damage Shield.

A 60-point damaging power should be capable of damaging most characters on a reasonable roll (average to somewhat above). By the FRED book, a 60-point DS needs to max out on the roll just to _scratch_ most characters.



(And any super with no resistant defenses who lets himself get hit by a normal with a 9mm deserves what he gets. But when was the last time you saw a normal with a CV of 4 hit a superhero with an 12 CV? ) :D

Shot from behind...

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher
Recommended max used to be 2.5x, so if bricks are at about 3 times DC, then the defenses haven't been lowered, they've been spread out more.

Agreed. But I think spreading out defenses and damage is a good thing, which is one reason I don't like point caps. Point caps always seem to lead to maxed out characters. I've alway thought it silly that martial artists were doing 10d6 but bricks were doing only 12d6. Once I relaxed the point caps in my campaign the field spread out considerably.



As for published characters, I haven't seen most of them yet, but if they're at all like the 4thEd characters, they'll be all over the place in terms of quality of construction, balance, appropriate attack and defense levels, etc. There were plenty of official published Champs characters in 4thEd that wouldn't have lasted 1 round against most groups I've played with, because they were jokes -- 200 pt characters built on about 300 pts, characters without the defenses to withstand anyone with attacks comparable to their own, characters with everything in one "underfunded" Multipower, so that they couldn't put up serious offense and defense at the same time, etc, etc, etc. While some of that might have been valid concept-driven character creation, that doesn't explain the fact that the shortcomings were so pandemic.I totally share your evaluation of the old Hero characters, but I think you'll find the 5th Edition characters are considerably superior to their 4th edition predecessors. While I don't use them (as is, anyway) in my campaign, that's more because I have my own campaign universe. With minor alterations and costume changes many if not most of the supervillains from 5th Edition are quite serviceable as good opponents for my players. Dr. Destroyer is absolutely horrifying.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Trebuchet

If a Damage Shield prevents a character from being attacked by a low defense character (whose attack might well be on par with the brick's attack.) then I'd say it's paid for itself just fine.

That true only if the low defense guy is a significant enough threat often enough to make this worth the points paid. In fact, it may only be helping make that LDMA's target selection easier, guiding him to attack someone else while drawing ranged attackers to the DS guy. Influencing the LDMA guys to attack some other member of your party is not necessarily worth anything.


Originally posted by Trebuchet

If your campaign has characters which can't be hurt by a 5d6 DS because of a 60 active point cap, then why not raise that cap or reduce the advantage to +1 or +¾ instead of griping about how your favorite screw-over for hand to hand types isn't cost effective anymore.

You seem to be saying that DS is if not at +1/5 some sort of a screw for HTH types? I certainly didn't say that, nor do the rules i propose i think promote that.

Anyway, to dispel a misconception you have, i dont care about the point cap. I care about the cost-for-effective part. Allowing someone to spend 120 points on a damage shield to make it as useful as a 60 point eb is not an answer. things of the same usefulness, same effectiveness should cost the same. If that is true then you do not need to raise the damage cap for one specific power...

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Why do you feel the need for "official sanction" in the most flexible game system in history?

Why do you feel the need to oppose one?


Originally posted by Trebuchet


You are deliberately missing the most salient point about Damage Shields, which is that they generally require the character with one to be attacked in order to work.
[/B]
Actually i did not miss it at all. I highlighted it. The people who keep mistakenly going back to the mythical automatic hit were the ones who were missing it. Both EB and DS require a successful to hit roll to be effective... the only thing that is different is who makes the roll.

Originally posted by Trebuchet

That applies equally whether the DS is 5d6 or 15d6.

Yes indeed but are you mistaken in thinking this is a discussion about whether 15d6 DS or 5d6 DS is more powerful? It isn't. its a comparison of 5d6 DS and 8d6 DS or even 12d6 DS against say 12d6 EB to see if they are balanced right.

hence the to hit not being automatic is an important part.

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Of course, if the character is not attacked because of his "obvious damage shield" then he's got his points' worth out of the DS, hasn't he?

If DS worked like deflection so that it actually blokced an attack then you would have a point. DS doesn't do that. DS may influence the weaker defended guys to attack your teammates while encouraging the ranged attack guys to shoot you because they dont have to worry about it.

Thats not like stopping an attack, merely helping the other side make targetting choices.

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Damage Shields are as much defense as offense, in spite of what you happen to think.

Damage shield never stops a single point of damage, never causes a single attack to miss. hence its not a defense. Having claws and no ray guns may convince the enemy to send ranged guys at you and meleers at others too, that doesn't make them defenses.

Originally posted by Trebuchet

[b] Maybe that's because not everyone is stupid enough to want to attack someone with a Damage Shield, in spite of how ineffective you personally happen to think they are. Do you really think if you increase the DS to 8d6 he'll be less of a target for the ranged guys? I'd say that'll probably just put him higher on the priority list.

Well if that difference means he is a bigger threat because he got his points woirth, he certainly is a bigger threat. That however doesn't mean he is getting his powers worth.

I mean would you think that a character who 60 ap for a 6d6 EB would be better off because the enemies wouldn't take him seriously?

Originally posted by Trebuchet


I comprehended your comments just fine, thank you. :rolleyes:


perhaps.

Like i said, if your campaign features enough cases of the LDMA types so that you do indeed get out of a 5d6 DS taking 6 end per phase whether attacked or not as you could out of a 12d6 EB, then the +1.5 seems appropriate for you.

If your campaign however features defenses in line with the 20 defense standard established in the book, i think its fairly easy to see that the 5d6 DS for 62 ap isn;t cutting it.

i certainly do think that in each campaign the GM needs to evaluate the values of both base powers and advantages and lims, so if the official rule was +1/2 (+1/5 for special) and because of your campaign's defenses you went with +1/5 for all... that would make sense.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher
A 60-point damaging power should be capable of damaging most characters on a reasonable roll (average to somewhat above). By the FRED book, a 60-point DS needs to max out on the roll just to _scratch_ most characters. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I'm basing my comments based on my own experience as a player and a GM in my campaign. In 21 years of playing HERO I have simply not found Damage Shields to be ineffective (even the 5th Edition ones); rather I've found them to be half defense and half offense. Of course that's not as good as either a pure offense or pure defense of the same active points; compromises seldom are. I've built villains with DS and I've fought villains with DS. It is not useless in my experience. Obviously your experience differs.

As for being overpriced for the effect, perhaps you think that also applies to NND attacks as well? After all, if the player has even 1 point of the appropriate defense then the NND does zero damage. So is NND overpriced at +1? What about AVLD?

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
As for being overpriced for the effect, perhaps you think that also applies to NND attacks as well? After all, if the player has even 1 point of the appropriate defense then the NND does zero damage. So is NND overpriced at +1? What about AVLD?

The trick is, an NND is also likely to do ever single point of damage rolled.

AVLD on the other hand is a little overpriced in my opinion. I have a long-standing house rule by which the cost is increased to +2 but they do BODY, seems to fit the nitch I wanted it to (I never allow NND's to do BODY after some bad experiences there).

[Snarf]

Geez, what a controversial power. It sounds like the problem is that the effectiveness of damage shield varies widely for different campaigns and different players.

If that's the trouble, then everyone should set their own price for it based on their own playtesting. If a player buys it and it turns out less or more effective than it should, you could adjust the price and allow the player to remake the character partially between games.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by tesuji
Damage shield never stops a single point of damage, never causes a single attack to miss. hence its not a defense. Having claws and no ray guns may convince the enemy to send ranged guys at you and meleers at others too, that doesn't make them defenses.No, it causes some attacks not to be made in the first place. In my book that's just as good as extra PD or ED.

When I was in the Army 22+ years ago, I was in air defense. To air defense personnel it really doesn't matter whether they shoot down the enemy plane or just make it go home to avoid being shot down. If he doesn't attack he can't succeeed in his mission. Damage Shields can accomplish much the same thing. They are an active defense, not a passive one. If even one character declines to attack a character with DS then it has worked defensively.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I'm basing my comments based on my own experience as a player and a GM in my campaign. In 21 years of playing HERO I have simply not found Damage Shields to be ineffective (even the 5th Edition ones); rather I've found them to be half defense and half offense. Of course that's not as good as either a pure offense or pure defense of the same active points; compromises seldom are. I've built villains with DS and I've fought villains with DS. It is not useless in my experience. Obviously your experience differs.

As for being overpriced for the effect, perhaps you think that also applies to NND attacks as well? After all, if the player has even 1 point of the appropriate defense then the NND does zero damage. So is NND overpriced at +1? What about AVLD?

NND is all or nothing. Against most characters, an NND is brutal. Sometimes, it's useless. That's why you don't rely on an NND as your only offensive option.

AVLD is about right...4d6 vs Power Defense, for example...
Most characters have 0 to 5 levels of Power Defense, which gives results in 14 to 9 points of STUN through. Even the guy with _10_ levels of Power Defense takes an average of 4 STUN through, and few characters have that much Power Defense.

Damage Shield for EB and KA is overpriced at +1.5, because at that point it has no effect on most characters unless:
A) there are plenty of low-def supers running around
B) you allow it to significantly exceed the active point cap for the campaign.

[JmOz]

So who would a DS work against in a normal Champs game?

Some speedsters (Those with out some form of friction force field)

Some MA (Those that don't use weapons)

Some Grunts (those that don't use guns)

My experience says the normal (NON STREET LEVEL) character does not run into many of those

[Snarf]

Some MA (Those that don't use weapons)
A DS could potentially destroy a weapon, if the GM uses DSs can destroy foci rules. A 2d6 HKA great sword would have a DEF of 6 and could be destroyed on a good roll. Other weapons might be easier to break.

Not that any of this changes the point you're making at all :P

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher
NND is all or nothing. Against most characters, an NND is brutal. Sometimes, it's useless. That's why you don't rely on an NND as your only offensive option.

Damage Shield for EB and KA is overpriced at +1.5, because at that point it has no effect on most characters unless:
A) there are plenty of low-def supers running around
B) you allow it to significantly exceed the active point cap for the campaign. I don't think many characters with DS rely on it as their only offensive option either. If you consider the comic book source material, there are lots of low defense heroes running around. Spider-Man, most of the X-Men, Daredevil, the Flash, etc, all depend on not getting hit more than on defenses. So it largely depends on whether you are playing a comic book game or looking for character "optimization". In our campaign we stress character concept over combat efficiency. For us it just works out better.

I basicly agree that DS is a bit overpriced at +1½, but that's easily solved with a house rule. I discussed this topic yesterday at our weekly lunch with both of my fellow GMs, Mentor and Blackjack. While we all saw valid reason to consider DS a bit overpriced, none of us saw compelling reason to change it in our campaign. Considering we've all recently fought villains with DS, none of us felt it was ineffective as is, at least not in our campaign. Of course, since we have no point cap in our game we don't run into the problem of a +1½ advantage making a power too expensive or large to fit into a Multipower; we just ramp up the size of the MP. Our campaign is unabashedly 4-color (You know, where wearing glasses provides an inpenetrable disguise in your secret identity.), so we have lots of PCs and NPCs with low defenses. If you find DS too ineffective, you can approach the problem from two directions:

1) Decrease it's cost or raise the point cap to allow larger ones.

2) Keep average defenses in the campaign low enough that it is effective against more PCs.

We chose option #2. YMMV. :)

[tesuji]

Snipping errant post... i responded to trbuchets earlier post before reading his latest.

About the only thing to reiterate is the notion that to me at least points cap is not an issue. As i said allowing someone to spend 50 extra points to get a power "as effective" as one that costs that much less is not an answer.

IMO when i tell a player that DS is worth 62 and EB is worth 60 i am telling them they are going to see as much benefit out of either. Simply permitting the DS guy to spend 100 points to get an 8d6 DS which in play turns out to be worth as much as a 12d6 EB is not an answer... if i charge him 100 points he should see value proportionate from those points. The difference and impact IN PLAY should be as dramatic as the difference between a 20d6 EB and a 12d6 EB.

A 20 d6 Eb spread for +3 to hit still will likely con-stun anyone built to work in a 20 defense game vs 12 dcs. A decent number it may KO in one shot. Its averaging over double the stun-thru of the 12d6.

I do not see an 8d6 DS showing that dramatic a difference when compared to a 12d6 Eb in the same game.

I definitely do see the new DS as a rule in need of a fix. Its cost is disproportionate to its gain against the benchmarks defenses.

Thats why I think the +1/2 for regular DS and +1.5 for non-standard DS (similar in thought to the way autofire works) is the better rule.

YMMV

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by tesuji
Snipping errant post... i responded to trbuchets earlier post before reading his latest.

About the only thing to reiterate is the notion that to me at least points cap is not an issue. As i said allowing someone to spend 50 extra points to get a power "as effective" as one that costs that much less is not an answer.

IMO when i tell a player that DS is worth 62 and EB is worth 60 i am telling them they are going to see as much benefit out of either. Simply permitting the DS guy to spend 100 points to get an 8d6 DS which in play turns out to be worth as much as a 12d6 EB is not an answer... if i charge him 100 points he should see value proportionate from those points. The difference and impact IN PLAY should be as dramatic as the difference between a 20d6 EB and a 12d6 EB.

A 20 d6 Eb spread for +3 to hit still will likely con-stun anyone built to work in a 20 defense game vs 12 dcs. A decent number it may KO in one shot. Its averaging over double the stun-thru of the 12d6.

I do not see an 8d6 DS showing that dramatic a difference when compared to a 12d6 Eb in the same game.

I definitely do see the new DS as a rule in need of a fix. Its cost is disproportionate to its gain against the benchmarks defenses.

Thats why I think the +1/2 for regular DS and +1.5 for non-standard DS (similar in thought to the way autofire works) is the better rule.

YMMV I don't see any real problem with your method, although I think +½ may be a bit low. DS was IMO underpriced in 4th edition, I think they swung too far and made it overpriced in 5th. On the whole, however, I'd rather a power be too expensive than too cheap. Perhaps Steve Long will consider such a change for 6th Edition around 2011 AD.
:D

[Kristopher]

Here's how it goes for me:

1) I'm not going to convince players to take a very wide range of defenses. I can justify a span of about 10, and that's if I get good players. 15 to 25 with a 20 average will work. Most of my players would take one look at the low-def characters in comics and ask "Why doesn't he put some armor in that costume? What if he gets shot?"

2) As it is, a 15 def, which is as low as I've ever seen in a Champs game, is going to more often than not IGNORE 4d6 of normal damage. If half of that is resistant, then the 1d6+1 of killing attack at the same level is almost pointless.

3) I'm not going to ask my players to spend 62 points in order to have a less than 50% chance that their DS will do anything through to the average defense.

[J4y]

I don't think many characters with DS rely on it as their only offensive option either. If you consider the comic book source material, there are lots of low defense heroes running around. Spider-Man, most of the X-Men, Daredevil, the Flash, etc, all depend on not getting hit more than on defenses.

I think the majority of the X-Men probably have ranged attacks anyways and a DS would be ineffective against them regardless of their defenses.

Of course, since we have no point cap in our game we don't run into the problem of a +1½ advantage making a power too expensive or large to fit into a Multipower; we just ramp up the size of the MP.

Multi-powers are free points, and effectivly lower the cost of the DS. If, at the same time, you don't have AP caps then yeah, you've house-ruled/GMed the problem completely away.

[Kristopher]

Of course, since we have no point cap in our game we don't run into the problem of a +1½ advantage making a power too expensive or large to fit into a Multipower; we just ramp up the size of the MP.

Multi-powers are free points, and effectivly lower the cost of the DS. If, at the same time, you don't have AP caps then yeah, you've house-ruled/GMed the problem completely away.

I don't think it's fair for to ask a player to spend 1/4 to 1/3 of the points in a character just to have an effective damage shield.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher
1) I'm not going to convince players to take a very wide range of defenses. I can justify a span of about 10, and that's if I get good players. 15 to 25 with a 20 average will work. Most of my players would take one look at the low-def characters in comics and ask "Why doesn't he put some armor in that costume? What if he gets shot?" Why not? Doesn't that tend to create a rather cookie-cutter sameness to characters if their defenses are all within 10 points of each other? If the martial artist has 20+ PD, what makes the brick's 30 PD special? Our spread is 21 points (12 - 33 PD) and I'd be happy if it were higher. Now admittedly I play in (and GM) a 4-color game; I'd never attempt to use such low defenses in a Dark Champions or "graphic novel" style game. In 4-color games superheroes don't get shot by goons; it just isn't done unless it's relevant to the story. When was the last time you saw Spider-Man get shot by some thug robbing a liquor store? Goons are to get everybody warmed up before the battle with the boss. :)


3) I'm not going to ask my players to spend 62 points in order to have a less than 50% chance that their DS will do anything through to the average defense. If you have such a low spread between defenses, then I don't blame you. I wouldn't either. If average defenses in your campaign, including between villains, were lower then such attacks would not be ineffective.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by J4y
If, at the same time, you don't have AP caps then yeah, you've house-ruled/GMed the problem completely away. There are no official rules in HERO regarding point caps, so we are not really "house ruling" the problem away. Active point caps are in themselves house rules.

I will confess that for the first 11 years of my campaign we used active point caps as well as caps on total defenses. But since releasing the caps last year with the release of FREd I've seen nothing but benefits to the game. Character design has become much less stilted, and our defenses and attacks have considerably more variation. Players are no longer afraid to experiment. When I had a 60 AP cap everyone's character did 11d6 or 12d6 damage, now the spread is from 8d6 to 14d6 and our team mentalist has a 90 point VPP. And no, he's not unbalanced in the least with the other characters.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
Why not? Doesn't that tend to create a rather cookie-cutter sameness to characters if their defenses are all within 10 points of each other? If the martial artist has 20+ PD, what makes the brick's 30 PD special? Our spread is 21 points (12 - 33 PD) and I'd be happy if it were higher. Now admittedly I play in (and GM) a 4-color game; I'd never attempt to use such low defenses in a Dark Champions or "graphic novel" style game. In 4-color games superheroes don't get shot by goons; it just isn't done unless it's relevant to the story. When was the last time you saw Spider-Man get shot by some thug robbing a liquor store? Goons are to get everybody warmed up before the battle with the boss. :)

I've never really cared for the four-color atmosphere. A world like that is harder on my suspension of disbelief than the powers themselves are. I'm not doing Dark, either, though. My Champs games fall in middle ground / "graphic novel" area.

As much as certain comics characters rely on not getting hit, that's not a viable defense in a game. In a game, with dice and without absolute authorial fiat, someone is going to connect with that "can't hit me!" character, and paste him. (see pg 138 of Champions under "The Artful Dodger" for a passage that basically says the same thing.)


If you have such a low spread between defenses, then I don't blame you. I wouldn't either. If average defenses in your campaign, including between villains, were lower then such attacks would not be ineffective.

The defenses don't go that *high*, either.

On the other hand, the "average damage through" range of the attacks is probably more compressed than in your game as well.

I don't like extreme randomness. It makes game balance harder to maintain, and contingencies harder to account for.

It really hasn't led to sameness in the past. There are plenty of ways that characters can differ that have nothing to do with the DCs of their main attack or the toughness of their defenses. Besides, a range of 10 def is a *lot*. The character at the low end is taking about 20 more STUN per turn, is CON-Stunned by the average hit from an attack that is 3 DCs lower, etc. Then there's the variations in STUN and REC. As someone else pointed out, a 25 PD/ED - 50 STUN - 15 REC character is far harder to take down than the 25 PD/ED - 35 STUN - 10 REC character.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher
I've never really cared for the four-color atmosphere. A world like that is harder on my suspension of disbelief than the powers themselves are. I'm not doing Dark, either, though. My Champs games fall in middle ground / "graphic novel" area.When I say "4-color" I don't mean there is no ugliness in the world and we all live in Disneyland. We're simply running in a less morally ambiguous game world. Bad guys are evil, superheroes are good, normals need rescuing, etc. It's really more reminiscent of the comics of the 50's and early 60's even though our campaign is contemporary. But we've still got the usual shenanigans by government agencies, criminal conspiracies, terrorists, rogue nations, supervillains of various stripes, etc. In our game universe paranormal powers first manifested themselves in the late 90's and didn't go public untl 2000, so we have a much less crowded field of supers to compete with for attention. There are only a few hundred paranormals on Earth instead of the thousands in Marvel, DC, or the Champions universe.

It's our characters who are different from the modern comics. No brooding loners, no sociopaths with claws, no alcoholics or drug addicts, no angst-filled teenagers or any of the other staples of modern comics. There isn't any leather in the costume of a single one of our characters. It may be "Ozzie and Harriet with superpowers" in the eyes of some, but we play to escape reality, not to immerse ourselves deeper in it. We have a great campaign, with excellent players and several talented GMs, that has been running since 1992. We have interesting characters, and our team MidGuard is the Justice League/Avengers of our world. What could be better? :D

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher
I don't like extreme randomness. It makes game balance harder to maintain, and contingencies harder to account for.

It really hasn't led to sameness in the past. There are plenty of ways that characters can differ that have nothing to do with the DCs of their main attack or the toughness of their defenses. Besides, a range of 10 def is a *lot*. The character at the low end is taking about 20 more STUN per turn, is CON-Stunned by the average hit from an attack that is 3 DCs lower, etc. Then there's the variations in STUN and REC. As someone else pointed out, a 25 PD/ED - 50 STUN - 15 REC character is far harder to take down than the 25 PD/ED - 35 STUN - 10 REC character. I like randomness, it adds a, well, random element to the games which I find adds a dash of interest. YMMV.

In my campaign my martial artist Zl'f would be Con-Stunned by an average 9d6 attack that wouldn't even leak Stun through her chum Silhouette's defenses. (Zl'f: 12 PD, 18 CON; Silhouette: 33 PD, 33 CON) Do I feel my character suffers in combat compared to her comrade? Nope. Zl'f acts more than twice as often per turn (9 SPD vs 4 SPD), is more mobile (30" Running), and in many ways is the "heart" of our team just as Captain America is the core of the Avengers. (She's the only character who has been continually played since our campaign started in 1992.) Zl'f may spend more time unconscious than Silhouette (There's an understatement!), but she's still tremendous fun to play, and I think to play with as well. Both characters are very effective, just in different ways. We base our effectiveness on our abilities as a team. Who would win in a fight between the two? Who knows? We don't do "arena" battles.

[Osprey]

Thats why I think the +1/2 for regular DS and +1.5 for non-standard DS (similar in thought to the way autofire works) is the better rule.

I think that this may be the best way to settle the whole issue.
I hope Steve isn't letting his pride keep him from reading this thread, because he really should think about the above advice.

If he rules either way on the above idea, I'll drop the subject!

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
I like randomness, it adds a, well, random element to the games which I find adds a dash of interest. YMMV.

In my campaign my martial artist Zl'f would be Con-Stunned by an average 9d6 attack that wouldn't even leak Stun through her chum Silhouette's defenses. (Zl'f: 12 PD, 18 CON; Silhouette: 33 PD, 33 CON) Do I feel my character suffers in combat compared to her comrade? Nope. Zl'f acts more than twice as often per turn (9 SPD vs 4 SPD), is more mobile (30" Running), and in many ways is the "heart" of our team just as Captain America is the core of the Avengers. (She's the only character who has been continually played since our campaign started in 1992.) Zl'f may spend more time unconscious than Silhouette (There's an understatement!), but she's still tremendous fun to play, and I think to play with as well. Both characters are very effective, just in different ways. We base our effectiveness on our abilities as a team. Who would win in a fight between the two? Who knows? We don't do "arena" battles.

Wow, much greater SPD range as well, which does help offset the other ranges being greater (more chances to do damage, more chances to take RECs).

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Osprey

I hope Steve isn't letting his pride keep him from reading this thread, because he really should think about the above advice.
[/SIZE] [/B]

I would not expect, from various posts i have seen from him, that Steve Long would allow pride or ego to get in the way of what he believes is good for the game, based on his own understanding of both the game and the people he is marketting the game towards.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher
Wow, much greater SPD range as well, which does help offset the other ranges being greater (more chances to do damage, more chances to take RECs). I'll take that as a compliment. :D

One thing I should have made clear: The wide range of DEF, attacks, etc., in our campaign did not come about by accident. It was a deliberate attempt by the two (now 3) GMs to steer the game in that direction. We explained to our players that we wanted some lightly defended characters, and if they played them they would not be penalized in play for those low defenses. This required a certain level of trust by both sides; from the players that the GMs would not attempt to screw them over, and from the GMs that the players would not try to build cheesy character designs. Batman can work with Superman if your campaign is properly tailored. (While my martial artist is tremendously fast (43 DEX, 9 SPD) and would be an absolute terror if her fighting style included blades, I have so far resisted the impulse to make her The Amazing Buzzsaw.)

So far it has worked beautifully, and has given us characters with tremendous variations in skills, defenses and attacks. Nobody feels useless, and as long as everyone plays to concept it just keeps getting better. I don't rate combat effectiveness as being solely based on DCs and hit probabilities, but on the ability of the character to change the course of the battle. As an example, in a recent fight we had to fight against an incipient demi-god whom my character was essentially unable to harm with her max 10d6 attack due to his high defenses (30 PD, 50% Damage Reduction, 150 Stun). Since he had no minions to fight, she didn't have anything to do, right? Wrong! He was very quick and had a high CV, but my character was faster still and spent virtually the entire fight Leg Sweeping or Shoving him across the room to keep him off balance. He spent almost the entire fight at half DCV due to being prone, which allowed our lower OCV/higher DC characters to pound on him. We brought him down with teamwork.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
I'll take that as a compliment. :D

One thing I should have made clear: The wide range of DEF, attacks, etc., in our campaign did not come about by accident. It was a deliberate attempt by the two (now 3) GMs to steer the game in that direction. We explained to our players that we wanted some lightly defended characters, and if they played them they would not be penalized in play for those low defenses. This required a certain level of trust by both sides; from the players that the GMs would not attempt to screw them over, and from the GMs that the players would not try to build cheesy character designs. Batman can work with Superman if your campaign is properly tailored. (While my martial artist is tremendously fast (43 DEX, 9 SPD) and would be an absolute terror if her fighting style included blades, I have so far resisted the impulse to make her The Amazing Buzzsaw.)

So far it has worked beautifully, and has given us characters with tremendous variations in skills, defenses and attacks. Nobody feels useless, and as long as everyone plays to concept it just keeps getting better. I don't rate combat effectiveness as being solely based on DCs and hit probabilities, but on the ability of the character to change the course of the battle. As an example, in a recent fight we had to fight against an incipient demi-god whom my character was essentially unable to harm with her max 10d6 attack due to his high defenses (30 PD, 50% Damage Reduction, 150 Stun). Since he had no minions to fight, she didn't have anything to do, right? Wrong! He was very quick and had a high CV, but my character was faster still and spent virtually the entire fight Leg Sweeping or Shoving him across the room to keep him off balance. He spent almost the entire fight at half DCV due to being prone, which allowed our lower OCV/higher DC characters to pound on him. We brought him down with teamwork.

Absolutely. You'll get no disagreement from me on the basic concept there. I've been in those fights playing the character who couldn't do much direct damage, and still did more to control the fight than any other PC.

But...smaller groups, different atmosphere, etc, change the equation.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher
Absolutely. You'll get no disagreement from me on the basic concept there. I've been in those fights playing the character who couldn't do much direct damage, and still did more to control the fight than any other PC.

But...smaller groups, different atmosphere, etc, change the equation. Now let's turn this back to the original topic; Damage Shields. In the incident I just related above, if the villain had bought even a small (5 or 6d6) Damage Shield my character would not have been able to engage him with impunity. Three average 5d6 attack rolls from a DS would have rendered my character unconscious, with serious consequences for our entire team. In fact, if he'd had a DS I seriously doubt our team would have prevailed. Our second MA had been hit for 70 points of Stun, so he was out cold till the cows came home (We carried him out as the temple, in classic form, collapsed.). Without my character constantly halving his DCV by Leg Sweeping him and knocking him prone, he would have only been hit half as often (or less, IIRC he had an 11 DCV) by the remaining characters. Damage Shield would have been tremendously useful for this particular megavillain, but without it MidGuard ground him up and spit out the bones.

Had he but purchased the "overpriced" DS, the villain would probably have beaten Earth's premier superhero team, MidGuard, and been well on his way to godhood. To paraphrase William Shakespeare in Richard III: "A Damage Shield! a Damage Shield! my kingdom for a Damage Shield!" :D

[J4y]

Now let's turn this back to the original topic; Damage Shields. In the incident I just related above, if the villain had bought even a small (5 or 6d6) Damage Shield my character would not have been able to engage him with impunity. Three average 5d6 attack rolls from a DS would have rendered my character unconscious, with serious consequences for our entire team. In fact, if he'd had a DS I seriously doubt our team would have prevailed.

With 9 actions you could have swept and recced and still kept him down much of the time, the damage shield would have only slowed you down. You said previously "In my campaign my martial artist Zl'f would be Con-Stunned by an average 9d6 attack." For the same cost as the damage shield he could have had a 12d6 EB and taken your character out of the battle in 2 rounds, maybe killed her outright.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by J4y
With 9 actions you could have swept and recced and still kept him down much of the time, the damage shield would have only slowed you down. You said previously [b]"In my campaign my martial artist Zl'f would be Con-Stunned by an average 9d6 attack." For the same cost as the damage shield he could have had a 12d6 EB and taken your character out of the battle in 2 rounds, maybe killed her outright. True, but he would still have had to hit her with his attack. He did in fact have a rather substantial EB, I believe it was 14d6. Even spreading his EB for a +5 to hit would not have guaranteed a hit on Zl'f, her DCV with a Martial Dodge and levels is 20. The bad guy (His actual name was one of those mile long and totally unpronouncable Aztec god names.) would have needed a 7 or less to hit; that's only a 16.2% chance of hitting. Even if he hit her she would have quite possibly Recovered before he got off his second shot anyway, since he had a 6 SPD compared to her 9. He was focusing his attacks on the characters that were actually hurting him; she was "merely an annoyance." He was also fighting a team of five; if she had gone down one of her teammates would have covered her until she recovered, just as she has done many a time for them.