why is "Stun/Body Only" for Damage Reduction worth just -1/2?

[fwcain]

This is something that has bugged me for quite a while. According to the write-up for Damage Reduction, the limitations "Stun only" and "Body only" are officially worth -1/2. And yet, according to the underlying rules, this should not be (as illustrated below)...

Damage Reduction does two things:

1. It reduces the amount of STUN your character takes
2. It reduces the amount of BODY your character takes
3. (There is NO number three!)

Now, according to the standard explanation of "Limited Power", something which reduces the effectiveness of a Power by half is worth a -1 (not just a -1/2). If Damage Reduction does just two things, then it follows that eliminating one of those two things is reducing its power by half, yes? (2 minus 1 is 1; 1 is half of 2.)

So, why is it that these two "standard" limitations for Damage Reduction are officially worth only -1/2, when the underlying rules justify they're being worth a full -1?

I'm posting this in "Discussion" (instead of "Rules Questions") since I want to be able to reply to whatever responses I may receive.

Thanks,
Franklin

[Silbeg]

This is something that has bugged me for quite a while. According to the write-up for Damage Reduction, the limitations "Stun only" and "Body only" are officially worth -1/2. And yet, according to the underlying rules, this should not be (as illustrated below)...

Damage Reduction does two things:

1. It reduces the amount of STUN your character takes
2. It reduces the amount of BODY your character takes
3. (There is NO number three!)

Now, according to the standard explanation of "Limited Power", something which reduces the effectiveness of a Power by half is worth a -1 (not just a -1/2). If Damage Reduction does just two things, then it follows that eliminating one of those two things is reducing its power by half, yes? (2 minus 1 is 1; 1 is half of 2.)

So, why is it that these two "standard" limitations for Damage Reduction are officially worth only -1/2, when the underlying rules justify they're being worth a full -1?

I'm posting this in "Discussion" (instead of "Rules Questions") since I want to be able to reply to whatever responses I may receive.

Thanks,
Franklin

Probably for the same reason that [Specific SFX] Only is worth only -1/2. A lot has to do with play balance, in my eyes.

If you were to allow STUN only to be a -1, then you would be seeing a lot more characters buy DamRed that way!
50% DamRed (resistant) usually costs 30 points, right?

Now, if you have even moderate resistant defenses (say 15 PD), you should only very rarely be taking BODY damage from most attacks (in the 12-14 DC range, at least).

Thus, the BODY Reduction of the attacks will much more rarely come into play. In fact, I would say that it is much less likely than 1/3 of the time, meriting a -1/2 limitation.

Now, let's assume the character has no resistent defenses, save for the reduction. He will now be taking BODY damage more frequently. At this time, you would need to analyze the frequency of killing vs. normal damage. This is very genre specific, but I would say that it should probably be no more than 1/3, in any case, since there are so many ways to do non-killing damage (STR, KB, falling, etc).

So, even then, it probably only merits a -1/2 limitation.


As for BODY only, you may have a better argument there, but it is also a much less useful power.

[prestidigitator]

In this case Stun Only not only makes you last longer in terms of wearing down your Stun less quickly, but also greatly reduces the chance of being Stunned. I'd probably put Stun Only at -1/2 and Body Only at -2 (for roughly 2/3 and 1/3 the usefulness, respectively). That just feels a little too generous for Body Only, though, so for my intuition I'd probably, "reduce," ( ) its value to -1.

[caris]

Now, according to the standard explanation of "Limited Power", something which reduces the effectiveness of a Power by half is worth a -1 (not just a -1/2). If Damage Reduction does just two things, then it follows that eliminating one of those two things is reducing its power by half, yes? (2 minus 1 is 1; 1 is half of 2.)

So, why is it that these two "standard" limitations for Damage Reduction are officially worth only -1/2, when the underlying rules justify they're being worth a full -1?

I'm posting this in "Discussion" (instead of "Rules Questions") since I want to be able to reply to whatever responses I may receive.

Thanks,
Franklin

Actually, there is a good chance the response that you would get from Steve if you had posted to Rules Question is that this is more of a design question than a rules question.

Now, to the specifics of your question.

First, I would point out that those are just Guidelines listed under Limited Power, and using those Guidelines one could question the values of any number of the standard Limitations. For example, is an 8- Activation Roll really loosing almost all of its effectiveness?

But more to the point they are also talking about Effectiveness not necessarily about effects. Yes, Damage Reduction effectively have two components, but that does not mean that removing one of those two components effectively halves the efficiency of the ability.

Now, I know that it would seem that the Limitation for either Stun Only or Body Only, should be higher larger than the other in the case that I'm describing above. This would be true if the benefits were a straight sum of the two parts. Instead, I would say that there are some benefits that the two situations share in common, that do not double in the base version of Damage Reduction, and those benefits would remain even if one of the two components are removed.

Some of those components:
Ability to remain in the fight
Interaction with various damaging rules/optional damage rules

[Mike W]

I could easily see -1 for BODY only because most people don't take BODY anyway. But STUN only should be -1/2 maybe even -1/4 IMO for the same reason. How often do you actually NEED the BODY reduction?

[Brother Jim]

That would depend on the style of game being played.

[bigdamnhero]

That would depend on the style of game being played.

Yup. BODY Reduction is worth it's weight in gold in some heroic games, where defenses are generally lower and killing attacks more common. Pulp comes immediately to mind.

[Mike W]

Yup. BODY Reduction is worth it's weight in gold in some heroic games, where defenses are generally lower and killing attacks more common. Pulp comes immediately to mind.

True. I play Champs so much though that I tend to think in those terms. And that might be the answer to the question of why they are both officially
-1/2. Because in some games having Damage Reduction that is STUN only is worth more of a limit than others. So they split the difference and made it
-1/2 all the way around. After all, they can't put(-1/4 in Champions, -1 in Fantasy HERO, -3/4 in PULP Champions...) in the base book. It isn't practical for one thing. So they gave it a median value and assumed that GMs who were too worried about it the impact would adjust it up or down as they felt it necessary.

[pinecone]

I may be "Old schoolin" , but I've always figured it this way...Is limited enough to qualify...-1/4, Lose about half -1/2, lose most of it's utility -1, so limited its almost Never going to happen -2.
To an old cranky gamer like me DRx1/2 Limnly vs stun/body -1 would be almost insulting...thats barely worth -1/2, depending on the genera of course....in Fantasy, or even moreso grim hardboiled strret action (Guns) only body is Gold, but getting knocked out all the time from "a bullet that grazed your head" serves the story so well that all is forgiven...

[David Johnston]

Now, according to the standard explanation of "Limited Power", something which reduces the effectiveness of a Power by half is worth a -1 (not just a -1/2). If Damage Reduction does just two things, then it follows that eliminating one of those two things is reducing its power by half, yes? (2 minus 1 is 1; 1 is half of 2.)

I believe that's a misinterpretation. A power is supposed to get the -1 when it is entirely useless about half the time, but Damage Reduction is useful in every fight even if it's only for one kind of damage. What's more
someone who uses Damage Reduction will have other defenses to take up the slack, even if it's just PD and ED.

[Killer Shrike]

This is something that has bugged me for quite a while. According to the write-up for Damage Reduction, the limitations "Stun only" and "Body only" are officially worth -1/2. And yet, according to the underlying rules, this should not be (as illustrated below)...

Damage Reduction does two things:

1. It reduces the amount of STUN your character takes
2. It reduces the amount of BODY your character takes
3. (There is NO number three!)

Now, according to the standard explanation of "Limited Power", something which reduces the effectiveness of a Power by half is worth a -1 (not just a -1/2). If Damage Reduction does just two things, then it follows that eliminating one of those two things is reducing its power by half, yes? (2 minus 1 is 1; 1 is half of 2.)

So, why is it that these two "standard" limitations for Damage Reduction are officially worth only -1/2, when the underlying rules justify they're being worth a full -1?

I'm posting this in "Discussion" (instead of "Rules Questions") since I want to be able to reply to whatever responses I may receive.

Thanks,
Franklin

I agree in principle; limited defenses get shafted. Taking Armor Only vs X for -1/2 is mathematically dumb, and punishes a player for taking an effect that fits their character concept by charging too much for it.

However, there is a third thing Damage Reduction does -- it protects vs some Adjustment Powers that affect STUN or BODY. Whether you consider that to fall under function 1 or 2 respectively Ill leave to you, but arguably it is a third function.

There was a lengthy discussion about this at some point in the past on these boards.

[Hugh Neilson]

I agree that "specific sfx -1/2" is a crock. It should be set based on that SFX' likeliness to pop up.

Similarly, Dam Red only vs STUN/BOD should be set based on its utility in the campaign. However, I suggest Only Stun is generally more useful - characters get KO'd a lot more often than they get killed in pretty much every genre.

[prestidigitator]

Ah. I forgot the Bleeding and Disabling rules. If those are being used, then I'd say Stun Only and Body Only are probably about the same value (since those rules depend directly on the amount of Body done).

[ghost-angel]

I say adjust to the flavor of the campaign. Obviously the Limitations in the book are to denote a typical/average campaign with the "standardized" limits and effects set with the Base System.

Common Ground so to speak.

[Dust Raven]

A number of the suggested values for Limitations are just that: suggestions. I think the reasons those specific values are suggested for Damage Reduction are due mainly because the utility of the Power isn't being reduced by half. Sure, it's only reducing one of two things, but even just that one thing is of great utility versus taking damage (in those campaigns where's you mostly likely take those Limitations).