Balancing Attacks and Defences Power Levels

[Hierax]

Maybe it's just a pet peeve, but one thing that's really annoying me with using HERO for Fantasy is the lingering Super Hero Champions bias in the rules, specifically Meta Rule #2:

"Every Attack Power ... should have some defense ... and the defense should be considerably cheaper"

This makes balancing the Power Levels of Attacks and Defences, particularly in Power Frameworks, harder than if Attack and Defence Powers were more equally costed, i.e., Attack Spells are 1 DC for 5 Points, so Defence Spells should defend against 1 DC for 5 Points!

Here's some basic numbers to illustrate:

<font size=+1><b></b></font>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0"><tr><td align="right"><b>Cost </b></td><td><b>Power</b></td><td align="right"><b>END</b></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">5 </td><td>Force Wall (1 PD/1 ED) </td><td valign="top" align="right">1</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">3 </td><td>Armor (1 PD/1 ED) </td><td valign="top" align="right">0</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">2 </td><td>Force Field (1 PD/1 ED) </td><td valign="top" align="right">1</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">1 </td><td>Damage Resistance (1 PD/1 ED) </td><td valign="top" align="right">0</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top"> </td><td> </td><td valign="top" align="right"></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">5 </td><td>Energy Blast 1d6 </td><td valign="top" align="right">1</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">3 </td><td>Drain BODY 1 point </td><td valign="top" align="right">1</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">5 </td><td>Killing Attack - Ranged 1 point </td><td valign="top" align="right">1</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top"> </td><td> </td><td valign="top" align="right"></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">60</td>

<td>Multipower, 60-point reserve </td><td valign="top" align="right"></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">6u </td><td>1) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points) </td><td valign="top" align="right">6</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">6u </td><td>2) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points) </td><td valign="top" align="right">6</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">6u </td><td>3) Drain BODY 6d6 (60 Active Points) </td><td valign="top" align="right">6</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">6u </td><td>4) Force Wall (12 PD/12 ED) (60 Active Points) </td><td valign="top" align="right">6</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">6u </td><td>5) Force Wall (12 PD), Defensive Power Adjustment (+1) (60 Active Points) </td><td valign="top" align="right">6</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">6u </td><td>6) Force Field (30 PD/30 ED) (60 Active Points) </td><td valign="top" align="right">6</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">6u </td><td>7) Force Field (12 PD), Defensive Power Adjustment (+4) (60 Active Points) </td><td valign="top" align="right">6</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">6u </td><td>8) Armor (20 PD/20 ED) (60 Active Points) </td><td valign="top" align="right">0</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">6u </td><td>9) Armor (12 PD/0 ED), Defensive Power Adjustment (+2 1/4) (58 Active Points) </td><td valign="top" align="right">0</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">6u </td><td>10) Damage Resistance (60 PD/60 ED) (60 Active Points) </td><td valign="top" align="right">0</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">6u </td><td>11) Damage Resistance (12 PD), Defensive Power Adjustment (+9) (60 Active Points) </td><td valign="top" align="right">0</td></tr></table>

The problem, in essence, is that with the same number of Active Points the Defence powers are way more powerful than the Attack powers; the question is what to do about it? Just let the Defensive Spells be cheaper and thus encourage them but given them lower AP limits than the rest of the spells? Or find some way to adjust it? Any ideas on how to balance them more fairly. The Fantasy Hero book (p.248) acknowledges the problem but doesn't really offer much help in fixing it.

How would you, for instance, balance both Attack and Defensive powers in a 60-point Spell Multi-Power?

Thanks for any insight and advice anyone can offer on helping me overcome this pet peeve about all things not being equal

[i3ullseye]

I don't know that I agree completely. Sure, some powers can be way more powerful defensively, but at the same time you have to consider that in fantasy your defenses are usually items, and not inherent. So the item itself tends to dictate its terms. Using magic then sure, you can create a pretty good defensive magical spell, but again this is more limited than an inherent defense.

Plus at the basic levels, the defense of the same costs will stop most (or all ) body from attacks, thus saving a characters life... but the stun can often get through.

5 = 1d6 blast

5 = 5 basic defense

If you roll that 6, stun gets through for each increment, where the body does not. It is slim, but there is still a chance. Now with killing attacks this is certainly going to favor the defense, and I think that is the point. Defenses are costed more effectively against KILLING damages, but against standard damage they are on par, with the atatck having a slight chance to be effective.

Plus a defense has to spend DOUBLE do be effective versus both Physical and Energy equally. So that basic 5 defense listed above is only going to be 2 def for one, and 3 def for the other... so the attack has at least a 50/50 chance of geting stun through, but it still blocks all the body from either one.

[ghost-angel]

I'm not sure I see the problem...

look at the attacks and defenses again:

Force Fields:
-Normal Attack
12D6 = 36 points of damage on average, 12 Body (but normally you don't expect to do Body w. an EB).
vs
30 Defense
means that on average you'll get 6 points through. A bad roll and nothing happens, a good roll and you do some good damage.

-Killing attack
4D6 = 12 Body on average, but the Stun Lotto could potentially knock them into oblivion on one good hit.
vs
30 rDef
You aren't do Body with this attack, but you may knock them unconcious in one good hit, if the Stun Multiple is a 5 with an average roll you're doing 60 STUN to them.
Also, the Force Field costs END to maintain - which means to block those attacks you're spending END every phase on top of any other actions you're taking - chances are you tire out first maintain those Def.

Force Wall:
-Normal Attack
12D6 = 36 Tun, 12 Body on average
vs
12rPD
nothing gets through on that at all, but a slightly higher roll on the Body and you do some damage.

-Killing Attack
4D6 = 12 Body + Stun Lottery
vs
12rPD
again, nothing gets through but one above average roll and a good Stun Multiplier and you could send the defender into oblivion in one shot.

Counter points on the Force Wall, it also requires END to maintain so like the FF chances are the Def will run out of energy first giving the attacker an open shot. An extra downside is that normally when a FW is pentrated it drops and you have to activate it again next available phase AND you can't attack through it since it blocks the defenders attacks as well.

Now, let's look at the idea of them in a Multipower .. I noticed all those are Ultra Slots, and even if they weren't, you can't use more than one of them at a time, can't use any other power at a time either. The holder of that Multipower is "stuck" defending until he drops his defenses to attack, leaving him wide open for an opposing attack at that point in time.

All in all defenses are cheaper point for point but mostly pros and cons even out in the end. And I don't know what "Defensive Power Adjustment" is, assuming it's something out of FH? I don't own that genre book yet.

[ghost-angel]

While I'm at it...

1DC Normal Attack = 1D6, can do up to 6 points of damage = 5pts
Completely Defend Against 1DC Normal Attack = 6 pts Defense = 6pts
Defend Against Average Roll from 1DC Normal Attack = 3 Def = 3pts

Looks like to completely defend against an attack you're spending more points and to defend against an average roll it's 1pt Def :: 1.5pg Att

at a 1:1.5 you're spending point to block about half of an attacks possible maximum output.

I'd call those ratios acceptable. the defender is paying to defend against most attacks, the attacker is paying for the chance that the defender didnt buy enough.

Now Killing Attacks:
1D6 KA = 3 DC = 15pts
To defend Completely Agsinst 3DC killing = 6 rDef = (by def power)
-Dam Resistance: 6 Def + 3 Damage Resistance to Def = 9pts
-Armor: 6 Def = 9 pts
-Force Field: 6 Def = 6pts + 1 END/phase to maintain
-Force Wall: 6 Def = 15pts + 1 END/phase to maintain

Ratios:
Damage Resistance: 1 to 1.6..
Armor: 1 to 1.6..
FF: 1 to 2.5
FW: 1 to 1

seems like Force Field is the cheaper option, if you've got the END to maintain it then go that route... other defense options are at a good ratio, but not to bad.

Of course you also have to keep in mind that a defender is paying to defend against One type of attack in the above scenario, assuming you could face different kinds of attacks you usually want to buy PD, ED maybe Power Def and Mental Def, Flash Defense ... from a single character point of view to be ready for any kind of opponent even at cheap defense costs they're putting a lot of points into Defenses.

[Hierax]

Sorry, "Defensive Power Adjustment" was just me playing around with Advantages to try to get the powers to balance.

And I should have specified that I'm mainly concerned about Killing Attacks and BODY Damage. Also, I'm not going the STUN Lotto Route and am giving non-variable STUN Damage relative to the BODY; for compraing the powers using the Standard Effect Rule is often useful.

I rambled a bit too much above, here's a simple example:

&nbsp; Attack: 4d6 K
&nbsp; &nbsp; = 12 BODY Standard Effect for 60 AP.
&nbsp; &nbsp; = 24 BODY Maximum Effect for 60 AP.

&nbsp; Defence: 30 rPD / 30 rED (or 60 r?D) Force Field for 60 AP!

Slap a continuing charge on the defence and walk invulnerably through a magical crossfire without worry as the lightning bolts and fireballs of your supposed peers just bead off of you and their hordes of warrior henchmen's swords bounce off harmlessly too (or your defence spell allows you to laugh off the attack spell of a wizard of twice your power)!

[i3ullseye]

Basically, you are right. But again, the defenses are very cost effective against killing attacks, Against regular attacks it woudl be another matter entirely. Maybe the issue coudl be that you have designed most of your basic adversaries with only killing attacks in mind, and magic in general is a great reason to have normal damage massive attacks flying round. Lighting for example CAN kill you, but it can also just zap you and do almost no physical lasting damage whatsoever. I woudl say a lighting bolt should be normal damage. Why have that as killing?

[Hierax]

Thanks, guys, I guess it's not as bad as it looks afterall.

[Killer Shrike]

You can also always just put hard limits on how high defenses can be.

[i3ullseye]

Well, in my games I have a character building rule i enforce that solves a lot of this, but as it is not Fantasy specific I will post it in a more general forum. May or may not help some people.

[Markdoc]

In addition to the comments listed above, there's two others worth considering

1) Defence powers are constant - as noted, either you have to pay END or pay for the reduced END power (thus reducing the effectivness against an attack of the same magnitude). Attacks are instant. So in combat the defence power-using character is often paying END even on phases where he is not attacking or attacked. Attackers of course only pay when they attack. In addition, if the powers are in a multi, use of a defensive power greatly hampers your ability to attack.

2) If you use the standard power rule on attacks they become much weaker, since their maximum damage is lowered below that of an average rolled attack. That's how the guy in your example can walk through a storm of attacks - he doesn't have to contend with the people rolling high stun attacks : who would otherwise drop him in his tracks.

cheers, Mark

[Arthur]

I'm not sure I see the problem...

Force Fields:
-Normal Attack
12D6 = 36 points of damage on average, 12 Body (but normally you don't expect to do Body w. an EB).
vs
30 Defense


-Killing attack
4D6 = 12 Body on average, but the Stun Lotto could potentially knock them into oblivion on one good hit.
vs
30 rDef

[/b]

An average die roll is 3.5, not 3. 12d EB averages 42 STUN, not 36. You'll average 12 STUN after defenses. Likewise, a 4d Killing Attack averages 14 BODY. The average STUNx multiple is x2.5, averaging 35 STUN. An average roll of 14 with a maximum STUNx of x5 does 70 STUN.

You should refigure all your averages using the real average. You're off by a significant margin.

[Talon]

It is as bad as it looks -- if you want to run a fantasy-style game where defenses are low, rather than a Champions-style game where defenses are high and it takes a long time to drop a combatant.

Take a look at standard fantasy equipment: you have weapons that do up to 2d6 (30 active points) and armor that goes up to 10 DEF (20 active points). A 30 active point Force Field will hit 15 DEF -- 50% higher than standard equipment, for what is generally considered to be a starting power level for spellcasters. To create a spell equivalent to lesser armor is trivial: leather armor (DEF 3 or so) is a mere 6 active points, while chain (DEF 6) is 12. Thus, any spellcaster who cares to can easily achieve defenses equal to the best-clad warriors, without the crushing Encumbrance penalties. This is not typical for the genre.

As spellcasters become more powerful, the defense levels get even higher, while actual armor and weapons do not. Fantasy Hero attempts to address this with Deadly Blow and extensive martial maneuvers -- but what results is a Champions-like escalation, with characters doing insane amounts of damage to keep up. (4d6 -- enough to knock down castle walls with impunity -- is easily achieved.)

Can the GM control all this? Of course; GMs can control everything. It would be better if the system helped them do this, however.

The solution I'm thinking about is some sort of "Active Point Equivalent" for powers and/or effects which the GM wishes to limit. For example, the GM could say that powers providing DEF/PD/ED have an Active Point Equivalent of 3x their face value for purposes of END use and RSR. Thus, a 10/10 Force Field would cost 6 END and have a -6 to the Magic Skill Roll.

[Lezentauw]

The advantage "Difficult to Dispel" is one idea that I thought of when I was looking into a similiar problem. Forcing this advantage upon all defensive spells does have its problems though. Now the spells costing 25% more to purchase, which is what you want. But, they will also be twice as hard to dispel.

If you are wanting to have the defensive spells cost 50% more, then they could purchase DtD twice. Again this will make the denfensive spells that much harder to dispel.

You could explain this rule by saying that some time ago, that mages determined that it was more important for defensive spells to resist being dispelled. Perhaps at the time some infamous group, was running around killing off mages. They would have their mage dispel the opponents defensive magics, while the others would cut him to pieces.

Everything depends on what you want, and how it fits your vision of your world... so really the choice is yours. Just remember that the cheaper costs to defensive spells are also that much easier to suppress or dispel. So they do have a certain problem with them as well.

[ghost-angel]

It is
Can the GM control all this? Of course; GMs can control everything. It would be better if the system helped them do this, however.

The solution I'm thinking about is some sort of "Active Point Equivalent" for powers and/or effects which the GM wishes to limit. For example, the GM could say that powers providing DEF/PD/ED have an Active Point Equivalent of 3x their face value for purposes of END use and RSR. Thus, a 10/10 Force Field would cost 6 END and have a -6 to the Magic Skill Roll.

The System isn't supposed to help you balance because it's NOT a fantasy system - it's a universal. and does a damn good job of it I might add.

You need to balance it all out ... speaking of which, I like your solution - makes for good drama and much nicer than "sorry, doesn't stack" rule proposed in the other thread (which is just a d20 hack carry over IMO.) I might be inclined to only increase the END cost though, prevents mages from thinking they need 20+ skill rolls to pull off spells... though in some campaigns they might... so nevermind.

[Outsider]

First, ive never been much of a fan of contiunuing charges. That said...

I've not really had this problem so much in my games. Of course, I use hit locations, so a 30 active point killing attack can -potentially- do 24 Body and 60 stun with a max damage roll to the head. Even against 30 active points of defence that happen to be concentrated against the effect being done (physical or energy) lets 30 stun through, which will put a crimp in most people's style.

If the opponent is intellegent (even if not very) he will often realize that the mage is invulnerable to normal physical attacks and will try alternative methods of attack. If energy attacks arent available, then grappling is always an option. Sure, the foe cant directly hurt the mage by grappling him, but he -can- prevent him from casting if casting requires gestures, and wait for the mage to run out of END/wait for his continuing charge to run out. If the grappler is strong enough, and the mage just doesnt seem to be running out of END, he can also do unpleasant things like try to smother or drown the mage, or wrap him up in heavy chains toss him into a handy bonfire.

Intellegent foes (even not very intellegent ones) also tend to pig-pile the caster, thinkin that he can fry them all at once with a fireball, whereas the warriors can only kill one or two people at a time.

Some suggested rules that will help prevent your mages from becoming juggernauts :
1) Only one forcefield is allowed to be in use at a time. Thus the mages will have to decide on some balance between PD and ED.
2) Continuing Charges are considered "Reduced Endurance 0E" (ie a +1/2 advantage) for purposes of determining active points vis a vis caps but not points actually spent.*

*Example : A character wants to buy a continuing charge forcefield. The campaign has a 30 active point limit. There is a phantom +1/2 advantage on continuing charges for determining active point cap restriction compliance, and only for determining active point cap restriction compliance. The following force fields are allowable (exclusive of other lims):
13 (20) 20/0 Field, 4x 1 minute Cont Chg. (+1/2 phantom advantage makes the 20 base points = 30 active, but the cont chgs actually constitute a -1/2 real disad)
20 (20) 20/0 Field, 8x 1 minute Cont Chg. (Again a +1/2 phantom advantage makes the 20 base points = 30 active. overall real disad = 0)
22 (22) 15/0 Field, 16x 1 minute Cont Chg (Cont Charges make a +1/2 real advantage, plus another +1/2 phantom advantage makes the 15 base points = 30 active. for determining actual points spent, though, the 15 base only have the +1/2 real advantage from CC applied)