New Power: Scalable Immunity

[schir1964]

Scalable Immunity
This power grants a direct reduction of attack dice based on SFX. The player purchases Active Points of Scalable Immunity and must specify the SFX it works against. When the character is attacked with an attack that has the matching SFX, but before damage dice are rolled, the Active Points Per Die of Attack is compared to the Active Points of Scalable Immunity to determine how many dice are negated. The attacking character then rolls only the dice that haven't been negated. This immunity only applies to any type of Normal Attack regardless of advantages as long as the SFX matches.

Examples:
15 Active Points Scalable Immunity (vs Fire) is attacked with a 10d6 EB (Fire Blast). The attack is 5 AP Per Die so 3 Dice are negated. The attacker only rolls 7d6 EB (Fire Blast) of damage which is then applied against defenses normally.

15 Active Points Scalable Immunity, Full Immunity (vs Physical) is immune to all non-advantaged 3d6 Normal/1d6 Killing Attacks, immune to all 1d6 Normal Attacks with +2 Advantages or below, and so forth.

Cost: 1 Point Per 1 Active Point of Scalable Immunity

Modifiers
Killing Attack Immunity (+1/2): Changes the immunity to work against Killing Attacks only.
Full Immunity (+1): Changes the immunity to work against Normal Attacks and Killing Attacks.

For Sean

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Updated.

[Scott Baker]

Examples:
15 Active Points Scalable Immunity (vs Fire) is attacked with a 10d6 EB (Fire Blast). The attack is 5 AP Per Die so 3 Dice are negated. The attacker only rolls 8d6 EB (Fire Blast) of damage which is then applied against defenses normally.

I'd guess that's a typo and should read, "The attacker only rolls 7d6 EB...."

Scott Baker

[schir1964]

Corrected. Thanks.

- Christopher Mullins

[Heroman]

Isn't this basically PD/ED/Armor built with a "Only Works Against: Limited Type Of Attack"?

[schir1964]

Isn't this basically PD/ED/Armor built with a "Only Works Against: Limited Type Of Attack"?

It depends on what the scope of the SFX specified is. I left the scope of SFX open for the GM to control.

ED = Energy SFX
PD = Physical SFX

So if the GM allowed one to define his SFX as affecting Energy (equivalent of ED), then this would be slightly better (at least I think so), since every 5 Points removes 6 Points of possible damage.

Does this make sense?

- Christopher Mullins

[GAZZA]

So if the GM allowed one to define his SFX as affecting Energy (equivalent of ED), then this would be slightly better (at least I think so), since every 5 Points removes 6 Points of possible damage.

Or alternatively it is slightly worse since you're paying 5 points to remove (on average) only 3.5 points of damage.

[schir1964]

Or alternatively it is slightly worse since you're paying 5 points to remove (on average) only 3.5 points of damage.

Or it could be even better since the SFX defined can cross the normal boundaries of Defenses. An attack that has the SFX of Mental is still affected by Scalable Immunity (vs Mental SFX) regardless of whether it mechanically against PD/ED/FD/PwrD/AVLD and so forth. As long as the SFX matches, the attack is reduced.

So in this case, for 5 Points you would have to spend close to 15-30 Points for even averaage defenses.

So as I said, it depends. (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[GAZZA]

Or it could be even better since the SFX defined can cross the normal boundaries of Defenses.

Which really begs the question as to why you want to invent a new "knock off DCs" mechanic rather than just make a defence that applies to all powers of a given special effect (whether it be mechanically against PD/ED/FD/etc). That way, IMHO, you get the (good idea) of a defence against a given special effect regardless of attack, but it's still mechanically the same as other defences.

I just think it's too fiddly. If you ignore advantages (as you seem to imply), then an 8d6 AP EB is unfairly discriminated against compared to a straight 12d6; if you don't ignore them, an 8d6 AP Energy Blast would lose 2 dice for every 15 points of your immunity, but how many does it lose for 5 points?

However, YMMV.

[schir1964]

Which really begs the question as to why you want to invent a new "knock off DCs" mechanic rather than just make a defence that applies to all powers of a given special effect (whether it be mechanically against PD/ED/FD/etc).

I just think this method is too fiddly, especially once you factor in the number of SFX that you can have in a single game. (8^D)

More seriously, the current defense mechanics try to not be directly tied to SFX even though PD/ED obviously are. PwrD is closer to a pure mechanic that has no SFX tied to it and the rules provide no requirement to enforce one.

Also, I've actually did a thread suggesting exactly that, a generic defense that could then model whatever you needed with modifiers, but no one seemed interested in that. However, numerous people have expressed an interest in Damage Class Defense based mechanic. Even Hugh was interested in such a mechanic and he was the one that wanted me to approach it from the Damage Class side of things. Not to say this is the exact solution he was looking for.

I just think it's too fiddly, especially once you factor in advantages: an 8d6 AP Energy Blast, for example, would lose 2 dice for every 15 points of your immunity, but how many does it lose for 5 points?

Simple, given the information that you supplied above, a single die 7.5 Points. Therefore it takes 7 Points of Scalable Immunity to remove a die of damage. Done.

If you don't like doing those calculations, then this mechanic is obviously not for you, and I would expect that any "on the fly" VPP wouldn't be for you either. And that is as it should be.

This mechanic is for those who have wanted this kind of mechanic to get a certain flavor from the game. It not going to be a flavor everyone likes which is fair enough, even for the existing mechanics.

- Christopher Mullins

[GAZZA]

I just think this method is too fiddly, especially once you factor in the number of SFX that you can have in a single game. (8^D)

Surely a bit of a non-sequitur; your suggestion requires everything a "defence tied to sfx" mechanic requires plus a new "DC based defence".

More seriously, the current defense mechanics try to not be directly tied to SFX even though PD/ED obviously are.

Given that most characters tend to have PD and ED fairly close or equal to each other, and that bases and vehicles do just fine with a single characteristic for both, I'd go as far as to say that even PD and ED are not that tied to sfx. A 6th edition that merged the two into DEF (base value [STR + CON] / 10) wouldn't exactly shock me; if you really want someone who is more resistant to energy than physical, you can obviously get it with limitations the same way ED "only vs fire" (eg) is done now.

PwrD is closer to a pure mechanic that has no SFX tied to it and the rules provide no requirement to enforce one.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Your suggestion is basically to have an immunity that applies on a sfx basis (correct me if I'm wrong). Since the suggestion is that X points of defence removes X dice, we're clearly talking about an attack power. I'm not really seeing why you wouldn't just use the standard defence mechanic to implement this idea.

Now, you could argue that all defences should be changed to this sort of mechanic - so instead of 5 points of PD blocking 5 points of STUN/BODY from a physical attack, it instead reduced any physical attack by 1 die. There's nothing clearly wrong with that approach, and it is the logical extension of your idea. I'm merely arguing that defences should protect in a uniform fashion - whether the current "reduce the result of the attack total" or your suggested "reduce the dice in the attack", it should be consistent unless there's something that each can do that the other clearly cannot. And in the interest of "backwards compatibility", I obviously favour the current method, but YMMV.

Also, I've actually did a thread suggesting exactly that, a generic defense that could then model whatever you needed with modifiers, but no one seemed interested in that.

That wasn't my impression. Indeed, someone specifically asked if they could copy that suggestion to the Ultimate Energy Projector, IIRC.

However, numerous people have expressed an interest in Damage Class Defense based mechanic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to silence you. I just personally don't see the need for a new mechanic here - your idea can be expressed within the limits of the existing mechanics.

Simple, given the information that you supplied above, a single die 7.5 Points. Therefore it takes 7 Points of Scalable Immunity to remove a die of damage. Done.

My bad, I see above when you say "regardless of advantages" you intend only to suggest that advantages do not affect whether or not the defence applies, not that they do not reduce the effect of the defence appropriately.

You do have a slight issue here in that it's not clear that all advantages should "count". Many GMs would argue that applying 0 END to a power does not increase the DC of the attack even though it does increase the Active Points. Most would say that Autofire, Armour Piercing, and Penetrating always increase the DC. The more controversial ones are things like Indirect, No Range Penalty, and so on.

It's certainly simpler to use a "one size fits all" approach (whether that be ignoring advantages or counting all advantages), but it's questionable whether that's actually appropriate. The more complicated approach is to list some examples of which count and which don't.

Like I say, fiddly. No dramas, if that's your thing.

If you don't like doing those calculations, then this mechanic is obviously not for you, and I would expect that any "on the fly" VPP wouldn't be for you either. And that is as it should be.

It's not that I don't like doing those calculations (and I've played many VPP characters over the years as both player and GM). I don't mind doing any calculations; I have on my machine as I type this several quick scripts I've written to calculate various probabilities for (mostly) Champions related questions (eg "How much average damage does an xd6 attack do against defences of Y? What about if it were a killing attack?" and so on).

That said, I'm not a fan of complexity when there is a simpler solution. For example, I observe that most people can more swiftly do addition than subtraction. For that reason, the following house rules exist IMC:

• Skills are altered to be "high is good". In general you subtract your HERO calculated roll from 21, and now you want to roll that or higher. (EG a familiarity becomes a 13+ roll instead of 8-). Activation rolls and so forth are adjusted the same way. Instead of situational bonuses adding to the number you need to roll less than, you just add them directly to the roll (thus if you have a +2 modifier, you just roll 3d6+2).
• I add 10 to everyone's DCV. Then when you roll to hit you roll 3d6 and add your OCV, trying to equal or beat the (adjusted) DCV to hit.

The probabilities are identical, but it's easier to teach a novice (especially a d20 convert) that "high is always good" (whereas in standard HERO you want to roll high for damage and low for everything else). Having said that I'd never suggest that these should be the standard rules - the way HERO has always done it works fine, and I wouldn't want to alienate everyone that loves the current system.

I guess the only reason I'm "moaning" is because I think the idea of sfx based defences is a really good one, and I'd hate to see it drown under the weight of (what appears to me) an unnecessary and complicated mechanic when a perfectly good one already exists.

[schir1964]

Surely a bit of a non-sequitur; your suggestion requires everything a "defence tied to sfx" mechanic requires plus a new "DC based defence".

It was a joke, since it was your words I was using. Oh well. (8^D)

Given that most characters tend to have PD and ED fairly close or equal to each other, and that bases and vehicles do just fine with a single characteristic for both, I'd go as far as to say that even PD and ED are not that tied to sfx. A 6th edition that merged the two into DEF (base value [STR + CON] / 10) wouldn't exactly shock me; if you really want someone who is more resistant to energy than physical, you can obviously get it with limitations the same way ED "only vs fire" (eg) is done now.

What this paragraph basically boils down to is -- yes you agree with me that PD and ED are tied to SFX. Just because they may be considered SFX limitations of DEF doesn't change the fact that they are tied to SFX. So I'm not sure what you are getting at.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Your suggestion is basically to have an immunity that applies on a sfx basis (correct me if I'm wrong). Since the suggestion is that X points of defence removes X dice, we're clearly talking about an attack power. I'm not really seeing why you wouldn't just use the standard defence mechanic to implement this idea.

Oh! Your not seeing the difference in application, gotcha.

The difference is that the current defenses have a SFX tied themself as a mechanic as opposed to having the SFX defined vs Attacks. So the current defenses have no way to affect attacks across the board based solely on SFX.

Suppose I want ED that will affect all Fire Based Powers, sure you can put a limitation on ED to restrict it to affecting just Fire Based Powers, but it still has no effect on any Adjustment Power or Mental Power or Flash Attack (all of whom have been defined with a Visual SFX of Fire, no mechanical change).

The mechanic I propose is purely based on affecting the attack SFX, regardless of the mechanical build.

See the difference now.

Now, you could argue that all defences should be changed to this sort of mechanic...

Actually, it would be a purer way of doing it as toolkit approach but would be impractical with the current design of the system as whole.

That wasn't my impression. Indeed, someone specifically asked if they could copy that suggestion to the Ultimate Energy Projector, IIRC.

Well, I've been around here for a long time. I can't expect you to have read all those old threads.

As an example, here's a thread that you obviously weren't around for and missed (Power Defense). I didn't feel like delving into it since I was enjoying the current discussion going on and only supplied a summary to the viewpoints involved.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to silence you. I just personally don't see the need for a new mechanic here - your idea can be expressed within the limits of the existing mechanics.

As I described above, the idea can't be expressed within the limits of the existing mechanics. And I didn't realize until now that you weren't seeing it.

Also, don't worry about not seen the need. Perfectly valid opinion as far as the system goes, but realize that I've done many of these type of threads and 99% of the time I get a response exactly like yours, "I don't see a need for this...", so forgive me if my tone comes across a bit short. I'm just thinking, 'Here we go again...'. (8^D)

My bad, I see above when you say "regardless of advantages" you intend only to suggest that advantages do not affect whether or not the defence applies, not that they do not reduce the effect of the defence appropriately.

Correct.

You do have a slight issue here in that it's not clear that all advantages should "count". Many GMs would argue that applying 0 END to a power does not increase the DC of the attack even though it does increase the Active Points. Most would say that Autofire, Armour Piercing, and Penetrating always increase the DC. The more controversial ones are things like Indirect, No Range Penalty, and so on.

This is a good point, but these problems already exist even without my mechanic. There are special rules for Area Effect that try to work around these problems, the same method could be applied with this mechanic. Problem worked around.

It's certainly simpler to use a "one size fits all" approach (whether that be ignoring advantages or counting all advantages), but it's questionable whether that's actually appropriate. The more complicated approach is to list some examples of which count and which don't.

Which is why I resisted using Damage Classes the first time I tried to tackle this, I didn't like the complication. Again, the idea to try this approach was initially Hugh's, but I don't know of a cleaner less convoluted way to get the idea to work. Any suggestions? (8^D)

Like I say, fiddly. No dramas, if that's your thing.

Well, since there is nothing in the current mechanics that does this without a lot of convoluted multiple mechanics...

It's not that I don't like doing those calculations (and I've played many VPP characters over the years as both player and GM). I don't mind doing any calculations; I have on my machine as I type this several quick scripts I've written to calculate various probabilities for (mostly) Champions related questions (eg "How much average damage does an xd6 attack do against defences of Y? What about if it were a killing attack?" and so on).

Which is why I said this may not be for you. I personally will never use the Hit Location table. Too much work for too little gain, but there are numerous people who find those rules invaluable. Who am I to say those rules shouldn't be in the book or that there isn't a need for them. (8^D)

That said, I'm not a fan of complexity when there is a simpler solution...

Nothng wrong with that. You obviously are not a simulationist, which is what most of those optional and detail ridden rules cater to. To get a build that is exactly what you want and plays exactly how you want in the game experience. Having less options and rules works against that.

Also, there have been many threads on how to streamline and reduce the overhead of the current rules. You might find these threads right up your alley.

I guess the only reason I'm "moaning" is because I think the idea of sfx based defences is a really good one, and I'd hate to see it drown under the weight of (what appears to me) an unnecessary and complicated mechanic when a perfectly good one already exists.

Unfortunately, a straight SFX Defense that crosses Power boundaries would be more useful and therefore should be more expensive which in my experience most people immediately balk at. Sad really.

To expound on. You could take the current Defenses and put an advantage on them where they were against the attacks SFX so that it wouldn't matter if the attack were a Drain, Flash, or even a Mental Illusion, the damage would be reduced just like normal damage, but most people will reject this idea because it might be too abusive or "can be done with multiple defenses" or it is too expensive and so forth.

You are not raining on my parade or anything, it's just I've had to go through this same discussion so many times. (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Which really begs the question as to why you want to invent a new "knock off DCs" mechanic rather than just make a defence that applies to all powers of a given special effect (whether it be mechanically against PD/ED/FD/etc). That way, IMHO, you get the (good idea) of a defence against a given special effect regardless of attack, but it's still mechanically the same as other defences.

I wanted to go back and respond to this again.

Try creating a new thread with this new idea and see how people react to it. Maybe you'll have better luck than I do. Also note, that you'll run into costing issues due to how Killing Attacks and Resistent Defenses are handled differently than other attacks and defenses.

Addendum: I just wanted you to know that I also think this is a superb idea. You should post it and I'll do what I can to help.

- Christopher Mullins

[GAZZA]

Mm. It looks like we've been talking at cross purposes here.

Basically, my position is this: I think the idea of a "sfx based defence" is an excellent one. I think it would be cool to buy (say) "electromagnetic defence" and have it apply as ED, Flash Defence, Power Defence, or even Mental Defence (if appropriate) against any electromagnetic attack. The cost would obviously be based on how common the attack was.

What I don't see is the need to make such a defence apply against the dice of an attack, when it could just reduce the result. I'm not saying that I don't see a use for the idea - just that I think the proposed implementation of that idea is (only IMHO) inferior to just borrowing the current mechanic for how defences apply against damage. So yes, we could certainly use a "defend against all attacks of a given special effect" defence power; but no, I don't think it needs to work in the fashion you describe.

I see now that it seemed as if I was saying that it's "easier" just to buy the appropriate PD, ED, Flash Def, Power Def, and/or Mental Def with an appropriate limitation; that wasn't my intention. (Of course you can do it that way, but it seems like a useful enough idea to warrant a new power).