Jump to content

Zombie PCs


bigdamnhero

Recommended Posts

Looking for some thoughts on applying Automaton Powers to PCs.

 

I’m blowing the dust off an urban fantasy one-shot I wrote years back in 5er; the set up is the PCs were all killed attacking an evil necromancer, and he has now brought them back as zombies to do his bidding. It was a blast when I ran it years ago, and I’m looking to update it to 6ed. The way I built the PCs (in 5ed) was to build the live-human versions first, then add on a 100-point Zombie Package Deal:

  • Automaton: Takes No STUN 
  • Undead Toughness: +5 STR & +5 CON
  • Tireless: 0 Endurance for STR, Movement and Powers
  • Undead Physiology: Life Support, Does not eat, sleep, or breathe
  • Must Follow Professor Nightshade's Orders: Psychological Complication; Very Common; Strong
  • Cannot Heal Body Normally: Physical Complication; Frequently; Greatly Impairing
  • Odor Of Dead Flesh: Distinctive Features, Concealable; Only Obvious Up Close
  • Vulnerable to Life Magic:  1 ½ x STUN & BODY; Uncommon Attack

 

But because HD didn’t make Automaton Powers available for “normal” characters in 5ed, rather than convert all the characters to the Automaton Template I apparently just slapped on Takes No STUN as a 45-point Custom Power and called it a day. The problem hit when I applied the actual Takes No STUN Power in 6ed, because it triples all the Defense costs. This resulted in a huge disparity between PCs, some of which now cost 20-50 points more than the next PC even tho they started at the same level. Characters with Combat Luck got screwed compared to those wearing armor built as Equipment. And characters with Defensive Powers in a Framework got hosed, because now those powers exceed the Framework’s AP limit.

 

Now I love that 6ed treats Automaton Powers as just another set of Powers you can apply to any character. And I get why Automaton defense costs are tripled under RAW. But while that works well when building NPC automatons from the ground up, it broke everything when added to PCs as part of a package deal. So my question is, if this were your game, what would you do?

  1. Would you re-build all the PCs, lowering defenses and juggling other points so the total costs are equal after taking into account the tripled cost of defenses?
  2. Or would you just handwave it, ignore the increased cost of the defenses and leave each PC with their pre-zombie defenses, but with Takes No STUN layered on top?
  3. Or something in-between/else?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd either lower the defensive bar for everyone or have everyone rebuild at the higher point total to compensate.  After all, the automaton defensive powers are spendy for a reason -- so people not buying them should have the points to spend elsewhere ... either because the bar was lowered for everyone (freeing up points) or because additional points were provided to make up for the cost creep, resulting in those with automaton powers having nothing to spend ... and those without them having some points to throw aroud in other places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two approaches:

 

A) Since it's a one shot game, just take Stun off the Character Sheet and ignore it for the PCs. It's a CON game, and no one will see the math.

 

B) Points matter.... so, make the points work;

 

First thought; Are the PCs always going to have access to Equipment? If yes, you can balance out points a bit by making everyone buy their equipment (basically, make it closer to a Superheroic game in regards to buying everything, all the Defenses and Points will balance out, you'll probably need to go with higher point totals to accomplish this, but higher points + Heroic limits might make everything fall in line.

 

Second thought; PC point disparity isn't that much of an issue unless you make it, at least for a one-off game. Equipment based characters tend to get a lot of points 'for free' in these types of campaigns, and equipment-light characters may just have more abilities/spells available to them.

 

Third thought; will lowering the inherent defenses of Characters hurt them a great deal? Is enough damage going to be thrown at them where the lower defenses make a huge difference, or is it a wash on the possible damage they might take during fight scenes. Or - will lower defenses amp up the tension a little more, make them choose more interesting tactics than the good old two-step (Show Up, See What Happens)... It could very well add to the game knowing that they can't just soak everything thrown at them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem as far as I can see, is just the inconsistent application of the reduced defences to automatons. The sentence "Characters with Combat Luck got screwed compared to those wearing armor built as Equipment" suggests that the defences of equipment-provided defences were not reduced - but 'equipment" is just a special effect. The problem might just be in HD, because it's not applying th template to equipment, in which case the GM needs to adjust the defences manually.

 

But having played in a session where the GM did not reduce defences on automatons (by oversight, not intention: he did not notice that he should have) I'd strongly recommend doing it. Automatons essentially have infinite defences vs STUN, so even moderate defences can make them exceedingly hard to take down.

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since equipment in Heroic games is "free", HD doesn't apply a cost to them, therefore is doesn't change anything on the Equipment tab in HD on purpose and by design. Which is why Equipment Based PCs in a Heroic Game aren't very affected by the cost increase of defenses due to Takes No Stun on a standard character sheet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd either lower the defensive bar for everyone or have everyone rebuild at the higher point total to compensate.

I'm thinking you're right; I may wind up splitting the difference.

 

A) Since it's a one shot game, just take Stun off the Character Sheet and ignore it for the PCs. It's a CON game, and no one will see the math.

Yeah, that's essentially what I did by applying Takes No Stun, but not increasing the defense costs. I'm just not sure how unbalancing it'll be.

 

First thought; Are the PCs always going to have access to Equipment? If yes, you can balance out points a bit by making everyone buy their equipment

Good idea. I often do this for con games, but didn't do it here. I could even throw on something similar to the old Independent Limitation to reflect the fact that equipment tends to get lost/stolen more often than regular Foci?

 

Second thought; PC point disparity isn't that much of an issue unless you make it, at least for a one-off game. Equipment based characters tend to get a lot of points 'for free' in these types of campaigns, and equipment-light characters may just have more abilities/spells available to them.

In this case it would be unbalancing, since a couple characters are very equipment-heavy where others aren't. (One character is a Luchadore, whose equipment reads, in its entirety: "Your fists and your mask are all you need!") That didn't seem to be a problem when I ran it before, but it'll be interesting to move all the Equipment to the Powers tab and see what that does to the costs.

 

Third thought; will lowering the inherent defenses of Characters hurt them a great deal? Is enough damage going to be thrown at them where the lower defenses make a huge difference, or is it a wash on the possible damage they might take during fight scenes. Or - will lower defenses amp up the tension a little more, make them choose more interesting tactics than the good old two-step (Show Up, See What Happens)... It could very well add to the game knowing that they can't just soak everything thrown at them.

As currently written, it could make a huge difference, especially because as zombies they can't heal normally (and I didn't give them access to any magical healing that would work on the undead). They do have several opportunities to avoid combat if they want; bit of a gamble tho, since you never know who's going to sit down at a con table and a lot of players think avoiding a fight defeats the purpose of the game...

 

The problem might just be in HD, because it's not applying th template to equipment, in which case the GM needs to adjust the defences manually.

You're correct that's the issue, tho as g-a points out, it's a side effect of how I designed them rather than a bug in HD.

 

The palindromedary says this may lead to unstoppable zombies

I get that, especially if this were a superheroic game. But this is a modern heroic game with a lot of guns, knives, etc. I think that's my central dilemma: high defenses make them effectively invulnerable to Normal Attacks, but I'm worried low defenses will make them too vulnerable to Killing Attacks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also just realized one PC's Barrier spell is now 120 AP, which doesn't quite fit in his 40-pt MP; and reducing it to 2 PD/2 ED and 3 BODY pretty much nerfs the concept.

If you absolutely positively have to cram a high Active Point Power into a low Active Point Multipower:

 

Try applying a Custom Adder with a negative value

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Cramming a high Active Point palindromedary into a low Active Point tagline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that, especially if this were a superheroic game. But this is a modern heroic game with a lot of guns, knives, etc. I think that's my central dilemma: high defenses make them effectively invulnerable to Normal Attacks, but I'm worried low defenses will make them too vulnerable to Killing Attacks?

 

People tend to think that killing attacks are good at killing things, because that's what the name implies, but they are also really good at stunning things (in most games with moderate or higher defences, they are significantly better at stunning victims than normal attacks, due to the volatility of the base mechanism, even with the reduction n the STUN multiplier that was introduced in 6E). I know that every experienced Hero GM already knows this, I'm just posting it to make my point clear. 

 

That point is that killing attacks, when there are moderate defences around are far more likely to drop a victim by KO'ing them than killing them. But if the targets take no STUN, that's not going to happen. It makes ordinary weapons far less effective than you might estimate. Lets say that one of your zombies has defences equivalent to an ordinary ol' bulletproof vest (6 rDEF). That's going to make him extremely resistant to small arms fire. Not immune, no, but for all practical purposes, he can ignore anything smaller than a .45, and a guy with an M16 is going  - on average - to have to empty 2-3 mags at burst fire to actually finally stop such a zombie (assuming shooter and target have similar CV's). Fewer bullets if he gets lucky - more if he gets unlucky. A zombie sporting a 6PD barrier with 3 BOD should easily be able to take down most shooters.

 

If you  boost the rDEF to say 10, you are looking at a whole squad with support weapon to stand any chance of stopping that zombie.

 

If that's the level of survivability you want, cool. After all, as I understand it, these are PC zombies and as such, you might not want mundanes to pose a high level threat. But that's what the numbers suggest.

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

killing attacks ...are significantly better at stunning victims than normal attacks, due to the volatility of the base mechanism

True, tho I use a flat STUN multiplier rather than the STUN Lotto, which reduces/eliminates that advantage.

 

Lets say that one of your zombies has defences equivalent to an ordinary ol' bulletproof vest (6 rDEF). That's going to make him extremely resistant to small arms fire. Not immune, no, but for all practical purposes, he can ignore anything smaller than a .45, and a guy with an M16 is going  - on average - to have to empty 2-3 mags at burst fire to actually finally stop such a zombie (assuming shooter and target have similar CV's). Fewer bullets if he gets lucky - more if he gets unlucky.

Hmm, fair enough. Most of the PCs' rDefs were (originally) in the 3-6 range. But - critical caveat - most of that was "Cinematic" Combat Luck built with the Limitation: Always Lets 1st Body Through. So even a .22 is likely to do at least a scratch, and in a game with no Healing that can add up fast. (Technically the villain had necromantic Healing, but it wasn't really available to the PCs.)

 

A zombie sporting a 6PD barrier with 3 BOD should easily be able to take down most shooters.

Well, if it blocks the PC's attacks as well as the bad guys' that's less of an advantage. I think it depends on whether you're using the Barrier as more like a wall, or more like a force field. If the latter, then it makes sense to treat it as part of the PC's Defenses and triple the cost accordingly. But if you're treating it like a wall, then the length of time it should take a bad guy to destroy it should not be changed by the fact that the guy who cast it Takes No Stun. The catch of course is that it can be used both ways depending on the player and the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Finally making time to go back and finish this. Mainly because I committed to running the game at Conclave of Gamers (Denver) at the end of the month - nothing motivates like a deadline!

 

I changed all Equipment to Powers, so that characters have to pay points for them; sure enough, that did a lot to fix the discrepancies between PCs. I also toned down Defenses to the 3-4 rDef range.

 

What I'm pondering now - and curious to hear y'all's thoughts on - is how much sense it makes to triple the costs of nonstandard defenses like:

  • Flash Def: I don't see how Takes No Stun affects the mechanics of getting Flashed?
  • Power Def: Unless you have a lot of Drain STUNs in the game, I don't see why zombies should pay 3x to defend against other Drains?
  • Mental Def: Unless Mental Blasts with Does BODY are a common thing, you're already immune to Mental Blasts - why should you have to pay more to defend against Telepathy, Mind Control, etc?
  • Knockback Resistance? Again, the mechanics of this aren't affected by not taking STUN?

Other thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flash Def: trippling this cost is nonsense... I'd leave it as normal

 

Power Def: with an absence of Stun Drains it's probably safe to leave at standard cost

 

Mental Def: not even needed... just buy Ego - not only is the cost not tripled but if you want to ward against specific types of intrusions (i.e. Mind Cotrolling a zombie isn't hard, but it has little thoughts and damaged memories, Telepathy might be difficult, EGO vs Telepathy Only is dirt cheap).

 

Knockback Resistance: ... I hadn't even realized this was tripled in cost. Because that's even more stupid than Flash Defense, which is at least an actual defense. Since KR is also a Special Power, I would say that category over rides and it's cost is not tripled by the Automaton Issues. RAW can stuff it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Power Def: Even if you have a lot of STUN Drains, a character that Takes No Stun is immune to them anyway. So there's either no point in buying Power Def, or no point in tripling the cost.

 

Mental Def: Good point that you can just buy EGO. That doesn't quite fit here since I'm converting existing PC stats to automatons; I think it's probably going to be cleaner to just call it MD but not triple the cost. (Custom Power in HD.)

 

KBR: Agreed. Sure you can take damage from getting KB'd into things, but that's already covered by the increased cost of rDEFs. 

 

Looking at the other Defensive Powers:

  • Damage Negation & Damage Reduction? Sure, I can see tripling the cost of those.
  • Deflection? I don't see the point of that one either, especially in 6ed where all characters can Block ranged attacks for free and Deflection just lets you do it at range.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the general rule you could safely go buy, if the Defense defends against against attacks that normally cause Stun and/or Body, it's tripled.

 

Damage Negation & Reduction also remove potential Body damage, tripling those should be in effect, as that's the damage you're going to actually be worried about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, some of the defenses tripling make little sense.  Flash defense and knockback resistance are very difficult to defend.  DCV is even difficult to defend.  I can see Flash Defense possibly being the defense against some AVAD attack but that's not just rare, its an extreme exception.

 

Further, if you compare the relative cost of two characters built, one with and one without automaton powers like that, the cost totals are far larger on the automaton than their relative power level.

 

In other words: character A is a normal character, Character B is an automaton.  Character B will cost 100+ points more than Character A, and will even have lower defenses (since they don't buy any vs stun).  But they aren't, objectively and in practice, 100+ points more powerful.  They don't hit harder, they don't move better, they don't have more skills.  They just can't be knocked out or bled.

 

Which strongly suggests to me that the tripling cost of defenses may be too great, even assuming you buy none of the questionable powers such as Knockback Resistance.  It would be worth a close cost analysis to see if perhaps lowering that to double would be more reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the tripling of Defenses price is a holdover from Con costing 2/1 and the relative ability to buy your Con high enough to effectively ignore being Stunned was not dissimilar to Takes No Stun + DEFx3.

 

Perhaps it's time some more intense math was done... well, not today, perhaps later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the general rule you could safely go buy, if the Defense defends against against attacks that normally cause Stun and/or Body, it's tripled.

 

Damage Negation & Reduction also remove potential Body damage, tripling those should be in effect, as that's the damage you're going to actually be worried about.

 

 

I wonder if the tripling of Defenses price is a holdover from Con costing 2/1 and the relative ability to buy your Con high enough to effectively ignore being Stunned was not dissimilar to Takes No Stun + DEFx3.

 

Perhaps it's time some more intense math was done... well, not today, perhaps later.

To me, tripling made sense solely because 1 point of PD will offset the BOD from an average roll on 1d6 normal damage,and 3 points of PD will offset most of the STUN from 1d6 normal damage. As well, spending 6 points on PD meant either character can offset a maximum roll from 1d6 of normal damage.

 

If my automaton can spend 180 points to get either 50% physical and energy damage reduction, or +20 PD and +20 ED, both resistant, why would he keep 2 base PD and ED, and buy 50% Damage Reduction? The break even point on an average hit is a 42d6 normal attack, or a 12d6 killing attack (assuming that first 2 PD/ED is resistant in either case). Do you see a lot of 36 - 42 DC attacks in many games? In a 12 DC game, that 22 defense would be OK for a non-automaton, and invulnerability for the automaton. Not so, the 50% damage reduction.

 

Similarly, 1 DC negation will reduce BOD damage by 1 point, on average, for the automaton, so it would be foolish to spend more on that than the 9 point cost of +2 rDef, which will eliminate the most damage that 1DC can do, and twice its average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Negation or Reduction? Removing a DC is no more effective for the automaton, is it? Similarly, dividing damage past defenses has the same impact, so tripling that makes no sense.

Yes, but then the same argument is true for Resistant Def. In other game systems where killing people is as easy or easier than knocking them out, it wouldn't be an issue; but since in most Hero games people tend to drop from STUN before they drop from BODY it means anything that doesn't take STUN is harder to stop. So I think the basic logic of increasing the cost is sound; I'm just dubious about the math.

 

I think the general rule you could safely go buy, if the Defense defends against against attacks that normally cause Stun and/or Body, it's tripled.

Yeah, that seems like a good guideline.

 

DCV is even difficult to defend.

That actually raises another interesting question. 6e1 p146 says the only Characteristics considered Defense Powers are PD & ED. But the list of Defense Powers under Adjustment Powers (6e1 p141) includes not only DCV, but also CON, REC, END, BODY & STUN. I've always assumed the list on p146 was the one that mattered for purposes of increasing Automaton costs, and [quick check] that's the way it works in Hero Designer...

 

You would think BODY would be x3 for automatons if anything would be?

 

Further, if you compare the relative cost of two characters built, one with and one without automaton powers like that, the cost totals are far larger on the automaton than their relative power level.

Yeah, when I've made Automaton NPCs they don't seem to be nearly as combat effective as their point totals would lead one to believe. It's never really mattered that much, since as GM I have unlimited points to throw around anyway and I know how to balance fights beyond just looking at point totals. So it really only hit home when I started converting PCs to Automatons.

 

As a test, I took the 400-point versions of the Champions from C6, and gave them Takes No STUN, keeping the existing level of defenses. The cost of each goes up an average of 150 points! Is a Defender who can't get Knocked Out tougher than one who can? Sure...but I'm not sure he's 550 points tough.

 

If my automaton can spend 180 points to get either 50% physical and energy damage reduction, or +20 PD and +20 ED, both resistant, why would he keep 2 base PD and ED, and buy 50% Damage Reduction?

Well of course a GM might buy it that way because they don't want the automaton to be invulnerable, just take a lot of hits. But your point is well taken that it's not a remotely cost-effective strategy. Hmm...if we charged x2 for DR instead of x3 then that's 120 points, roughly the cost of +13 rPD & +13 rED. That feels like a closer match to me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a test, I took the 400-point versions of the Champions from C6, and gave them Takes No STUN, keeping the existing level of defenses. The cost of each goes up an average of 150 points! Is a Defender who can't get Knocked Out tougher than one who can? Sure...but I'm not sure he's 550 points tough.

Exactly.  he's definitely not.

 

There's no question that it would be easy to build an invulnerable character with automaton powers, but the question is, what's the mathematical breakdown?  To me, x2 makes more sense and fits better when I run the numbers.  I know that "if the Defense defends against against attacks that normally cause Stun and/or Body, it's tripled" makes a sort of sense, but that includes the fact that resistant defenses also protect against stun.  So you're doubling up on value, which reduces the effective cost for a character that takes no stun.  

 

In the end, the point value of a character is a raw rating of power.  If the points don't equal the power, there's a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but then the same argument is true for Resistant Def.

Tripling the cost of rDEF makes sense to me from the "good old days". I think it still makes sense, as rDEF will reduce BOD taken. If you were buying 30 points' worth, I might agree the tripling is now less relevant, but I'd say the same of normal defenses in a 12 DC game if you only have to worry about BOD damage. The issue is not that the utility of reducing STUN damage is removed, so defenses and Damage Negation and Reduction are all less useful. The issue is that, with only BOD to worry about, PD, ED and rDEF at much lower levels are "invulnerable", where the path to invulnerability through DR or DN is just as long as it is for a non-automaton.

That actually raises another interesting question. 6e1 p146 says the only Characteristics considered Defense Powers are PD & ED. But the list of Defense Powers under Adjustment Powers (6e1 p141) includes not only DCV, but also CON, REC, END, BODY & STUN. I've always assumed the list on p146 was the one that mattered for purposes of increasing Automaton costs, and [quick check] that's the way it works in Hero Designer...

The "adjustment powers modifier" is broader, and is aimed at stats that have a "defense costs less than offense" style reduced cost, in my view. DCV, I am shaky on including in the adjustment power rules as it costs the same as OCV. CON, REC, END, BOD and STUN drains would be inordinately effective without the "adjustment power" rule, but are not inordinately valuable to automatons. Two of those stats are irrelevant to "taxes no STUN" automatons.

 

You would think BODY would be x3 for automatons if anything would be?

I've never found this to be the case. Flash back to the first Automaton rules and BOD costs doubled every 2 BOD (what a hassle that was). Let's assume we start with 2 PD/ED, and it's resistant, plus 10 BOD. We have 72 points to invest in our automaton's defenses and BOD. Which will be more effective?

 

10 PD and ED, resistant ; keep 10 BOD [either model, cost 72 points).

 

2 PD and ED, Resistant, and buy +72 BOD (current rules) or +24 BOD (triple cost) - that extra BOD will last for 9 attacks or 3.

 

Sell BOD back to 1 and put the savings in defenses - current rules, I get 9 points so now I get 11 PD and ED, resistant. One hit, out goes the automaton. Triple BOD cost, and I get 27 points, so 13 PD and ED, resistant - it will take a while for a 12 DC normal attack to get that 1 BOD through now.

 

Now let's assume I have an extra 45 points. I can buy Defenses (+5 to be 15/15 from my baseline) or BOD. Is it more reasonable to get +15 BOD, or +45? Triple the cost of BOD, and my choice is to weather 3 or so extra hits, or be well nigh invulnerable. Without tripling, at least the 'Bot will last a lot longer, not just a little.

 

Yeah, when I've made Automaton NPCs they don't seem to be nearly as combat effective as their point totals would lead one to believe. It's never really mattered that much, since as GM I have unlimited points to throw around anyway and I know how to balance fights beyond just looking at point totals.

First off, "I can balance it using inefficient builds or giving out extra points" doesn't sell me that the system is balanced. Second, automaton abilities were not really designed with PC's in mind. PC's engage in multiple combats over the course of limited game time. Opposition tends to fight once and that's that. PC Stun recovers between combats, but BOD typically does not, so if my PC Automaton takes, say, 5 BOD per battle, he can't engage in a series of a dozen combats over a week without some seriously enhanced BOD healing.

 

As a test, I took the 400-point versions of the Champions from C6, and gave them Takes No STUN, keeping the existing level of defenses. The cost of each goes up an average of 150 points! Is a Defender who can't get Knocked Out tougher than one who can? Sure...but I'm not sure he's 550 points tough.

How far did you carry that test out? With 20+ PD/ED, resistant, how will this Defender ever be taken out against conventional, non-Automaton foes?

 

Well of course a GM might buy it that way because they don't want the automaton to be invulnerable, just take a lot of hits. But your point is well taken that it's not a remotely cost-effective strategy. Hmm...if we charged x2 for DR instead of x3 then that's 120 points, roughly the cost of +13 rPD & +13 rED. That feels like a closer match to me?

OK, back to my starting point - I can buy +13 PD and +13 ED, so now I have 15. My 10 BOD will last a long time against 12 DC attacks, don't you think? But if I get 50% reduction instead, a typical 12 DC attack will punch 10 BOD (12 if it's a KA) past my 2 defenses, halved to 5 or 6, and I can take all of two hits. Nope, not seeing that multiplied cost as overly reasonable.

 

Of course, Reduction isn't all that effective in general, absent decent starting defenses. If we price it out at 60 points, let's call that +6 defenses. So let's start our Automaton at 10 PD/ED and 15 BOD. I expect it to weather a few hits - 2 BOD from an average 12 DC normal attack, or 4 from a KA. So it can take about 5 hits or so.

 

If Dam Red costs 60, I drop my defenses to 4. Average hit does 8 - 12 BOD, halved is 4 - 6, so my Automaton lasts 3 or 4 hits, but he's protected a bit better from a lucky shot (or a Push, etc.). If it costs 120, I can't even pay for that if I sell back all his defenses (90 points for 10/10 Resistant) and BOD (another 15).

 

Well, let's assume it could have 13/13 Defenses and 5 BOD. It sure lasts a long time in a 12 DC game. Sell defenses down to 7/7, and it will take 2 or 3 BOD from a typical hit, and weather 3 - 5 hits. OK. But under a triple cost for DamRed, I have to drop to maybe 1 PD/ED (only 12 down - 108 points) and now I take 5 - 6 points per hit.

 

A lot of math to tell me doubling the cost of DamRed is not generating appropriate results.

 

Now, for a standard character, 30 PD and 30 ED, all Resistant, is a bit of overkill, but let's assume we have a combination of Resistant, Hardened, etc. We sell back 60 points' worth and drop to 10/10 with 50% resistant reduction. All defenses, a 12d6 Blast punched 12 STUN past defenses. Trade off for Reduction and the same Blast gets 42 - 10 = 32/2 = 16, a bit more but not a lot more. That seems pretty consistent with not changing the price of Damage Reduction for an automaton.

 

 

Exactly.  he's definitely not.

 

There's no question that it would be easy to build an invulnerable character with automaton powers, but the question is, what's the mathematical breakdown?  To me, x2 makes more sense and fits better when I run the numbers.  I know that "if the Defense defends against against attacks that normally cause Stun and/or Body, it's tripled" makes a sort of sense, but that includes the fact that resistant defenses also protect against stun.  So you're doubling up on value, which reduces the effective cost for a character that takes no stun.  

 

In the end, the point value of a character is a raw rating of power.  If the points don't equal the power, there's a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How far did you carry that test out? With 20+ PD/ED, resistant, how will this Defender ever be taken out against conventional, non-Automaton foes?

You have to keep in mind campaign limits for PCs as well.  Even at x2 cost, if you're fine with a PC spending 80 points on defenses (plus flash defense and whatever else like life support), I guess you get what you're asking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to keep in mind campaign limits for PCs as well.  Even at x2 cost, if you're fine with a PC spending 80 points on defenses (plus flash defense and whatever else like life support), I guess you get what you're asking for.

If we aren't fine with spending 80 points on defenses, he can't spend 120 points on Damage Reduction anyway, can he? Now we're just getting to "it's OK if the value of different abilities isn't consistent with their point costs - I just won't allow point-efficient builds". We have to vet characters to some extent regardless, but if I'm willing to let you spend 120 points on damage reduction, but I won't let you spend 63 (+7 rPD, +7rED) on defenses, I don't think the costing makes a scrap of sense any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we aren't fine with spending 80 points on defenses, he can't spend 120 points on Damage Reduction anyway, can he?

 

You are correct, I suppose, but I wouldn't want to do that or allow a character to do that, anyway.

 

Here's the thing, though.  a 60 active point Killing Attack is 4d6, that's an average of 14 body.  Your PD won't do jack against that.  So now that you've spent your 120 points to be protected from normal attacks, you have to spend another 252 points to ignore killing damage as well.

 

Now, I guess if your campaign is fine with that kind of spending okay but even at 2x cost, its still a huge number.  You're not really convincing me the price is right here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...