Special Efx versus Limitations (re: Life Drains)

[Tywyll]

Ok, I was thinking about Drains in a FH context, namely Undead based draining attacks. Looking at the Wraith stats in the MMM book, they have a power called Wraithtouch. this is a simple Body Drain. As written, it can apply to characters and physical objects equally, so the Wraith can zap a living creature and then burn a hole in a wall (not that it needs to, but you get the idea).

Now, if a PC were defining a power with the SFX of a Negative energy drain, is this something where one should assume that the SFX won't allow it to work against inanimate objects (like one assumes poison based drains don't effect things without a metabolism, even though they aren't built with a limitation, at least in FRED...or is that an oversight?), or is this a situation where they could take a limitation on their drain to "only work versus living targets" -1/4 (or something similar)?

[Dust Raven]

It depends on the actual power. Most poisons and such are typically built with NND, and not having a biological makeup is part of that, so no poisons against brick walls.

Depending on how the actual Power is built would determe if it needs (or gets) a Limitation to not affect objects (or only affect living things). In general, if it's NND, what it doesn't affect is part of the NND (in most cases), but if it works versus Power Defense (or any other kind of Defense) it should probably have a Limitation if it only affects living things.

[Tywyll]

The poisons built in the book were just straight Drains, since that is only stopped by Power Defense, NND is kind of overkill. I was wondering if this build was something unique to Drain, or just an oversight on their part.

[Sean Waters]

Power Defence has long been something that doesn't seem to accurately fit into most definitions of a power as it is a defence against an attack type that has a huge range of sfx - it makes no sense that one generic defence should work against both poison and negative energy, for example.

There are two approached to dealing with this. First you could ALWAYS buy Power Defence in a limited form (only v poisons and chemicals/only v mutant powers/only v negative energy drains) OR, as has been suggested by cooler and wiser heads that you scrap Power Defence altogether and always define Drain and the like as working against a particular sfx with specific defences - sort of like making every drain an NND or AVLD attack. IMO either of these approached would be preferable to the current approach of allowing genericism to the point of illogic (to make up a couple of words at random ).

To prevent abuse of the 'define a defence' approach the follwing has been suggested: you can make the defence normal PD or ED for a -1 limitation
You can replace it with flash defence or mental defence for a -0
You can make it NND or AVLD for the usual advantages.

To turn these gereral comments to the specific...I think even the authors are victims of the engendered confusion. I believe it is probably an oversight - just not thinking through all the consequences and uses of a power, something we can all be guilty of. It makes no sense for a wraith to be able to disintegrate a wall. The power should always be built in a limited form or with specific defined defences. This is a good example of why.

[Dust Raven]

The poisons built in the book were just straight Drains, since that is only stopped by Power Defense, NND is kind of overkill. I was wondering if this build was something unique to Drain, or just an oversight on their part.

Well, I really can't say what's in the minds of the authors, but I suppose the write the Drains up as NNDs because the poison either affects the target, or it doesn't. At least most of the time. Such an effect is easily achieved by using NND.

You could just leave it as a normal Drain, working against Power Defense, and it should work just fine against most targets (since most don't have Power Defense), and put a Limitation defining an absolute defense (such as an Immunity). The recent tetrodotoxin attack I've work up in the thread of that name works this way.

[Dust Raven]

Power Defence has long been something that doesn't seem to accurately fit into most definitions of a power as it is a defence against an attack type that has a huge range of sfx - it makes no sense that one generic defence should work against both poison and negative energy, for example.

I don't want to start an old argument, but Power Defense isn't any different than PD or ED. Both of those protect against broad SFX. There is no logical explination for why the same level of ED protects equally against a radiation attack, a fire attack, and a mystic energy bolt. It just does. Same goes with Power Defense defending against a poison, a gravity ray and a transmutation spell. No logical reason why it should, but it does.

There are two approached to dealing with this. First you could ALWAYS buy Power Defence in a limited form (only v poisons and chemicals/only v mutant powers/only v negative energy drains) OR, as has been suggested by cooler and wiser heads that you scrap Power Defence altogether and always define Drain and the like as working against a particular sfx with specific defences - sort of like making every drain an NND or AVLD attack. IMO either of these approached would be preferable to the current approach of allowing genericism to the point of illogic (to make up a couple of words at random ).

To prevent abuse of the 'define a defence' approach the follwing has been suggested: you can make the defence normal PD or ED for a -1 limitation
You can replace it with flash defence or mental defence for a -0
You can make it NND or AVLD for the usual advantages.

I do like the Limited Power Defense (or any Defense Power) option. I use it alot for character with a specific type of defense that logically should only work against a specific SFX or group of SFX (like magic resistance, or a radiation suit).

To turn these gereral comments to the specific...I think even the authors are victims of the engendered confusion. I believe it is probably an oversight - just not thinking through all the consequences and uses of a power, something we can all be guilty of. It makes no sense for a wraith to be able to disintegrate a wall. The power should always be built in a limited form or with specific defined defences. This is a good example of why.

Whether or not a wraith can break a wall is just a matter of SFX. If it's an actual life drain, it should't be able to affect anything that's not alive. That's either represented by a Limitation or part of the NND if that's used. It could just be one of those quasi-DnD concepts of "negative energy" which doesn't just cancel "positive energy" (life) but is a naturally destructive force, so it destroys anything.

[Sean Waters]

I don't want to start an old argument, but Power Defense isn't any different than PD or ED. Both of those protect against broad SFX. There is no logical explination for why the same level of ED protects equally against a radiation attack, a fire attack, and a mystic energy bolt. It just does. Same goes with Power Defense defending against a poison, a gravity ray and a transmutation spell. No logical reason why it should, but it does.

The difference to my mind (without opening up an old argument ) is that there IS a logical reason why a steel plate could stop a physical energy blast, no matter what the sfx, and a decent insulator could stop an enrgy EB no matter what the sfx: as you say there is no logical reason any one defence could stop all the possible permutations of sfx for drains...

I do like the Limited Power Defense (or any Defense Power) option. I use it alot for character with a specific type of defense that logically should only work against a specific SFX or group of SFX (like magic resistance, or a radiation suit).

..I wish I could remember who sugegsted it (or at least who suggested it when I first saw it!)

Whether or not a wraith can break a wall is just a matter of SFX. If it's an actual life drain, it should't be able to affect anything that's not alive. That's either represented by a Limitation or part of the NND if that's used. It could just be one of those quasi-DnD concepts of "negative energy" which doesn't just cancel "positive energy" (life) but is a naturally destructive force, so it destroys anything.

...agreed BUT if there are limits on a power they should be expressed by limitations (even if they are -0 limitations): otherwise different readers will have substantially different interpretations, and I'm all for clarity, at least in others

[WhammeWhamme]

The difference to my mind (without opening up an old argument ) is that there IS a logical reason why a steel plate could stop a physical energy blast, no matter what the sfx, and a decent insulator could stop an enrgy EB no matter what the sfx: as you say there is no logical reason any one defence could stop all the possible permutations of sfx for drains...

Try this: It's the "exotic immunities" power. It's "I am so tough, that didn't affect anywhere near as much as it should have". It's 'I am the big brawny hero. Necromancy, Poison, Slow Spells... nothing works!'.

[Sean Waters]

Try this: It's the "exotic immunities" power. It's "I am so tough, that didn't affect anywhere near as much as it should have". It's 'I am the big brawny hero. Necromancy, Poison, Slow Spells... nothing works!'.

...a good way of thinking about it! (even if it only fits a very limited group of characters)

In practice I passively discourage drain based powers, certainly as a main attack and so both drains and PowDef are rare in my games.

I sometimes wonder whether Hero should be even MORE generic: with just one, quite expensive, defence that applies to eveything that causes 'damage' or effect level, that you would then apply limitations to to build a character who is good against physical attacks but not energy, for example.

Probably not the place to discuss it....

[Dust Raven]

...agreed BUT if there are limits on a power they should be expressed by limitations (even if they are -0 limitations): otherwise different readers will have substantially different interpretations, and I'm all for clarity, at least in others

Oh absolutely! If it's supposed to be limited in some way, it needs that Limitation. The only exception is with an NND, where "can't affect X" is already part of the Power.

[Dust Raven]

Try this: It's the "exotic immunities" power. It's "I am so tough, that didn't affect anywhere near as much as it should have". It's 'I am the big brawny hero. Necromancy, Poison, Slow Spells... nothing works!'.

Great examples. Other's I have used include: I'm not all "here" so some of all your attacks have no effect, I am a robot with redundant systems that take over should some become hampered, I am a lessor deity but a deity nontheless and your puny attempts to slow me down are useless.