Damage Negation Doesn't Seem Very Good

[Nermbley]

Damage Negations seems ineffective compared to other defenses for the same cost. For example, consider two possible characters, who each spend 30 character points on defenses:

The first buys 8 levels each of Resistant PD and Resistant ED, for 24 points, and 6 levels of Knockback Resistance

The second buys 3 Damage Classes each of Physical Damage Negation and Energy Damage Negation

When faced with a normal damage attack, either physical or energy, the first character's defences reduce the damage by 8 Body, 8 Stun, and 6m knockback. The second character reduces the damage by 3 dice, and thus-if I did the math right-by an average of 3 Body, 10.5 Stun, and 6m knockback.

When faced with a killing damage attack, either physical or energy, the first character's defences still reduce the damage by 8 Body, 8 Stun, and 6m knockback. The second character reduces by 1 die, and thus-again, assuming I did the math right, feel free to correct me-by an average of 3.5 Body, 7 Stun, and 3.5m knockback.

The first character seems like it does significantly better, exceeding or matching the damage-negation based character in everything except marginally in stun against a normal damage attack and knockback against a killing damage attack.

Did I get something wrong? Is there some other benefit of damage negation that I'm missing? It seems strange that it would be so much inferior.

[Killer Shrike]

I wrote up my thoughts on Damage Negation back when 6e dropped; you can read them here:
 

https://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/GeneralThoughtsOnDamageNegation.aspx

 

There are uses for it; I made particularly successful use of it in an urban fantasy campaign. Some (not all) types of supernaturals included some Damage Negation which made them very resistant to mundane weapons but not so much vs "blessed", "consecrated", "enchanted" items or the claws and fangs of some other supernaturals which included some amount of Reduced Negation. YMMV.

[LoneWolf]

There are a couple of things you are overlooking.  First is that damage negation reduces all damage including AVLD and NND.  Second is that damage negation is better at stopping attacks that roll higher than average.  The last thing to consider about damage negation is how your campaign deals with stun multiplier. If you are using the old rules (or hit location) rules for stun multiplier damage negation becomes very effective.   As Killer Shrike pointed out a hybrid defense is actually very effective.

 

So, depending on the nature of your campaign damage negation can be something that is more useful for specialized characters to flat out better than traditional resistant defense.  In your standard Champions game, it will probably be the former.  In a heroic campaign using both hit locations and critical hits it will be the latter.   For the Champions character who wants to be immune to fire it works well.   In a Fantasy Hero game where the character has some resistant DEF form other sources it can make them nearly invulnerable to attacks from less powerful sources.    
 

[unclevlad]

19 hours ago, Nermbley said:

Damage Negations seems ineffective compared to other defenses for the same cost. For example, consider two possible characters, who each spend 30 character points on defenses:

The first buys 8 levels each of Resistant PD and Resistant ED, for 24 points, and 6 levels of Knockback Resistance

The second buys 3 Damage Classes each of Physical Damage Negation and Energy Damage Negation

When faced with a normal damage attack, either physical or energy, the first character's defences reduce the damage by 8 Body, 8 Stun, and 6m knockback. The second character reduces the damage by 3 dice, and thus-if I did the math right-by an average of 3 Body, 10.5 Stun, and 6m knockback.

When faced with a killing damage attack, either physical or energy, the first character's defences still reduce the damage by 8 Body, 8 Stun, and 6m knockback. The second character reduces by 1 die, and thus-again, assuming I did the math right, feel free to correct me-by an average of 3.5 Body, 7 Stun, and 3.5m knockback.

The first character seems like it does significantly better, exceeding or matching the damage-negation based character in everything except marginally in stun against a normal damage attack and knockback against a killing damage attack.

Did I get something wrong? Is there some other benefit of damage negation that I'm missing? It seems strange that it would be so much inferior.

 

So work out the cost of 3 DC negation.  First principle...the cost is based on the *better* of the BODY and STUN.

So 3 DCs killing --> 3.5 BODY.  OK, 3.5 resistant is 5.25 points.

3DCs normal --> 10.5 STUN, meaning there's another 7 STUN blocked.  That's 7 def...with Stun Only, which in other areas is given a -1/2 value.  So that's 4.667 points.  

Total so far is 9.9+...call it 10.

 

The effective KB resistance is 3 points, so that's 13.  Now, tho...as LoneWolf points out, negation applies to AVLDs and NNDs.  That's pretty much making up the difference.  

 

So yeah, against nothing but standard attacks, it's not as effective.  But it is more versatile.

 

1 hour ago, LoneWolf said:

There are a couple of things you are overlooking.  First is that damage negation reduces all damage including AVLD and NND.  Second is that damage negation is better at stopping attacks that roll higher than average.  The last thing to consider about damage negation is how your campaign deals with stun multiplier. If you are using the old rules (or hit location) rules for stun multiplier damage negation becomes very effective.   As Killer Shrike pointed out a hybrid defense is actually very effective.

 

So, depending on the nature of your campaign damage negation can be something that is more useful for specialized characters to flat out better than traditional resistant defense.  In your standard Champions game, it will probably be the former.  In a heroic campaign using both hit locations and critical hits it will be the latter.   For the Champions character who wants to be immune to fire it works well.   In a Fantasy Hero game where the character has some resistant DEF form other sources it can make them nearly invulnerable to attacks from less powerful sources.    
 

 

On the second:  not relevant.  You never roll those dice.  It's not like you get to pick the highest.  Which one protects you from being stunned better?  That's a complex question.  It depends on the overall defenses, and the CON in question.  Take 12d6 attacks;  target 1 has 4 dice negation, target 2 has an extra 14 defense.  

Case 1:  target 1 is stunned on 33+ rolled;  target 2 on 47.  Target 1 is stunned 17.9% of the time;  target 2, 22.6%.

Case 2:  target 1 is stunned on 30+ rolled;  target 2 on 44.  Target 1 is stunned 38% of the time;  target 2, 40.1%.

 

Note that case 2 can be nothing more than 1 less defense, and dropping CON from 20 to 18.  So damage negation is more sensitive to the overall defensive configuration.  Also note that this is versus normal damage.

 

The stun multiplier issue...that might be worth doing some numbers.  Note that damage negation doesn't even exist in 5E, tho, and it's NOT recommended to use the hit locations chart in a supers game...or possibly the increased STUN mult advantage, but that's increasing DCs.  But basically, it's not a good idea to analyze against the 5E 1d6-1 STUN multiplier;  negation wasn't defined around that. 

 

What I've been contemplating is damage negation versus damage reduction...and more specifically, whether reduction needs to be adjusted.  Reduction does go back to 5E, where negation didn't exist, and where d6-1 STUN mults did.  So that 4d6 K could readily do 18 BODY and 72 or even 90 STUN.  Even 30 defenses...seemingly a lot for a 12 DC campaign...leaves you stunned for sure, and if you've taken a couple more normal shots, quite possibly knocked out.  Damage Reduction was necessary to help constrain that massive high-end damage potential.  That doesn't exist any more...but the cost hasn't changed.  

[LoneWolf]

Since this post is in the Hero System Discussion, not the Champions you should factor in all genres.  While it is not recommended to use critical hits and hit locations in Champions, it is fairly common in other types of campaigns like Fantasy Hero, or Star Hero.  In a campaign using those rules attacks that do max damage are a lot more common.  When I talked about attacks doing more than average damage that was what I had in mind.   On the average 3 levels of damage negation will mean you take 3.5 less BODY and 10.5 less STUN.  But roll that does max damage (like a critical hit) it negates 6 Body and 18 STUN.  If the campaign is also using hit Locations on the average, it reduces a killing attack by 3.5 BODY and 8.75 STUN.  For a killing attack it reduces the body by 6 or more and negates 30 points of STUN.  Don’t forget that when using hit locations any BODY that gets through the defenses is doubled.

 

In a heroic campaign using hit locations and critical hits damage negation works better at keeping a character alive.  Since most weapons in a heroic game do killing damage rolling less dice is more beneficial.  Killing damage involves fewer dice which means the chance of a good roll is higher.  The chance of you rolling maximum damage on 2d6 is about 3%, when you are rolling 6d6 it drops to .0002%.   

[unclevlad]

IMO the rules were devised for supers.  Trying to adapt so many potential alterations for different genres/levels makes general analysis impossible;  there's no such thing because the rules vary so much that they might as well be completely different systems.  

 

So yes, my answers will always be driven, effectively, by the superhero-based suggestions and interpretations.  I can't address every rules variant, so I'll take the one that's clearly addressed.  If OP states conditions?  Then I'll address those.  Just to make a point:  if KAs and hit locations and any kind of damage doubling is in use, the entire cost basis for normal vs. resistant is tossed out the window...I'd much rather be stunned than dead.

[SCUBA Hero]

One thing about Damage Negation that I haven't seen discussed here is modeling of armored vehicles and body armor.

 

Many light armored vehicles have armor designed to stop a 7.62x51mm NATO round or .50 cal MG.  That's 7 or 9 DCs of DN.  Or you could model it with a combo of DN and rDEF - say 6 DCs of DN and 6 rDEF for the .50 cal armor.

 

Level IIA body armor stops 9mm; that's 4 DCs of DN.  Level II stops .357 Magnum; 5 DCs.

 

The concept does apply to superhero games as well; the brick who can bounce .50 cal MG bullets off his chest with impunity could be modeled with 6 DCs of DN + 6 rPD.

[dmjalund]

I think DN is a good way to model how damage affects really large creatures

[Ndreare]

I found while powerful in conjunction with other defense types. The slow down in play time is not worth it.

 

As soon as you start using it the players go from using the tools they are used to, to suddenly having to figure out how much of that 8d6 heavily modified attack is negated by 6dc. Then rounding is 3.5 dice treated as 3 dice or 4 dice less...

 

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, Ndreare said:

I found while powerful in conjunction with other defense types. The slow down in play time is not worth it.

 

As soon as you start using it the players go from using the tools they are used to, to suddenly having to figure out how much of that 8d6 heavily modified attack is negated by 6dc. Then rounding is 3.5 dice treated as 3 dice or 4 dice less...

 

 

Definitely an issue.  If the PC has Negation, extra pre-game planning by the GM to determine the opponents' dice against the Negator is needed.  The GM can also work out the remaining dice to be rolled by the PCs against the Negator.  It's tougher if you want to keep the negation a secret - then you need some means of deciding which dice were Negated, since the player does not know he needs to roll fewer dice.

 

One use for Damage Negation is a more iron-age Supers game where BOD damage is more frequent.  If Supers have Damage Negation forming the core of their defenses, attacks big enough to get through could pass some BOD through.  25 PD/ED will stop all BOD from a 12d6 Normal attack, while allowing 17 STUN through on an average attack.  A 15d6 attack would get 27.5 STUN through on average.

 

What if we change 25 PD/ED to 6 levels of Negation and PD/ED of 6? That 12d6 attack is reduced to 6d6, rolls an average of 21 STUN so 15 get through.  But an above-average roll will to BOD.  25.5 STUN on average  from that 15d6 attack, but it will do BOD on even a below average roll.

 

As I think on it, what if we made it the campaign standard that all Supers have 6 levels of Physical and Energy Damage Negation?  Now they can build attacks with rolls against Normals and against Supers.  We could even put a mid-level of 3 levels of Negation for Agents and have three damage rolls on the attack builds.

[Ndreare]

12 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

As I think on it, what if we made it the campaign standard that all Supers have 6 levels of Physical and Energy Damage Negation?  Now they can build attacks with rolls against Normals and against Supers.  We could even put a mid-level of 3 levels of Negation for Agents and have three damage rolls on the attack builds.

 

I am not sure I follow the logic that begins with my comment and ends at your conclusion...

 

 

 

On another note,  I see two workable options for reactive adjustment that could speed things up. 

1)  Take the approach of ignoring the highest dice then the lowest dice alternating back-and-forth until you remove the appropriate damage classes.

2) Remove the standard effect from damage.

[Nermbley]

Several people seem to be saying that one advantage of Damage Negation is that it still applies to NND attacks. This disagrees with my previous Intuition, which is that using AVAD to create attacks based on neither ED nor PD causes them to cease to be considered Physical or Energy damage, and thus Damage Negation, which has to be specified as being either vs. Physical or Energy damage would not apply. Is there a developer statement or player consensus to the effect that AVAD attacks still retain their designation as either physical or energy for purposes of Damage Negation and similar effects? If so, that seems like it would require you to choose one for attacks that are properly neither, such as an NND vs. Life Support based poison, which seems like a strange and arbitrary distinction.

[Steve]

1 hour ago, Nermbley said:

Several people seem to be saying that one advantage of Damage Negation is that it still applies to NND attacks. This disagrees with my previous Intuition, which is that using AVAD to create attacks based on neither ED nor PD causes them to cease to be considered Physical or Energy damage, and thus Damage Negation, which has to be specified as being either vs. Physical or Energy damage would not apply. Is there a developer statement or player consensus to the effect that AVAD attacks still retain their designation as either physical or energy for purposes of Damage Negation and similar effects? If so, that seems like it would require you to choose one for attacks that are properly neither, such as an NND vs. Life Support based poison, which seems like a strange and arbitrary distinction.

Mental-based attacks would also seem to fall into this category of ignoring Physical or Energy Damage Negation.

[Grailknight]

1 hour ago, Nermbley said:

Several people seem to be saying that one advantage of Damage Negation is that it still applies to NND attacks. This disagrees with my previous Intuition, which is that using AVAD to create attacks based on neither ED nor PD causes them to cease to be considered Physical or Energy damage, and thus Damage Negation, which has to be specified as being either vs. Physical or Energy damage would not apply. Is there a developer statement or player consensus to the effect that AVAD attacks still retain their designation as either physical or energy for purposes of Damage Negation and similar effects? If so, that seems like it would require you to choose one for attacks that are properly neither, such as an NND vs. Life Support based poison, which seems like a strange and arbitrary distinction.

 

While I have never seen an official ruling, it does follow that AVAD's are still either based off PD or ED. Damaging effects in HERO fall into three categories: physical, energy or mental. You assign an SFX to your Power(s) and then place it in one of these. You can make the argument that Captain Flamethrower's AVAD is not fire like the rest of his Powers but then you have to decide which category it does fall under( Heat Exhaustion-Energy, Suffocation-Physical just for examples). Still PD or ED and most likely but not always the same as the base Power.

 

13 minutes ago, Steve said:

Mental-based attacks would also seem to fall into this category of ignoring Physical or Energy Damage Negation.

 

Which is why you can buy Mental Damage reduction.

[LoneWolf]

The fact that damage negation works vs AVLD & NND is clearly stated on page 183 of book 1.  It also works vs Drain STUN, or Drain BODY, but not other types of drains. So, even a NND with the defense of flash defense or power defense would be reduced by damage negation.  Damage negation only works on attacks that actually do stun and/or body.  Which of the 3 types of damage negation work on a particular attack; will depend on the special effect.  In the case of something that is not obvious that will of course be up to the GM to decide.  

[dmjalund]

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

Damaging effects in HERO fall into three categories: physical, energy or mental.

once it passes the defenses, why is there a difference?

[Grailknight]

2 hours ago, dmjalund said:

once it passes the defenses, why is there a difference?

 

My post was in reference to the SFX and definition of the Power at creation not the mechanics of applying it after damage is rolled. But note that you have to determine what Defense applies to know the damage past defenses. As LoneWolf says, that's either clearly defined at creation or determined by the GM's judgement call.

[Hugh Neilson]

 

23 hours ago, Ndreare said:

I found while powerful in conjunction with other defense types. The slow down in play time is not worth it..

 

20 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Definitely an issue.

********************************

As I think on it, what if we made it the campaign standard that all Supers have 6 levels of Physical and Energy Damage Negation?  Now they can build attacks with rolls against Normals and against Supers.  We could even put a mid-level of 3 levels of Negation for Agents and have three damage rolls on the attack builds.

 

8 hours ago, Ndreare said:

 

I am not sure I follow the logic that begins with my comment and ends at your conclusion...

 

Your concern was that play is slowed down.  If we have standardized that all Supers have 6 DCs of negation and mid-tier opponents have 3 DCs, then we avoid the slowdown.  The players know that a 13d6 Blast drops to 7d6 against Supers.

 

The middle discussion relates to a use for negation, rather than specifically linking to your comments.

 

8 hours ago, Ndreare said:

On another note,  I see two workable options for reactive adjustment that could speed things up. 

1)  Take the approach of ignoring the highest dice then the lowest dice alternating back-and-forth until you remove the appropriate damage classes.

2) Remove the standard effect from damage.

 

We could also reduce damage proportionately (12d6 rolls 37 STUN; the target has 4 DCs of negation, damage is reduced by 1/3, so 12 STUN).

 

I dislike the mechanics interfering more than the slowdown.  The latter can be addressed with some advance preparation.  Pro rating DCs is no different than adjusting damage for a Haymaker, velocity, or an Aid/Drain.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think its worth doing some kind of overview of Damage Negation for price and structure as well as use.  Many of the problems have been brought up here.

[unclevlad]

20 hours ago, Nermbley said:

Several people seem to be saying that one advantage of Damage Negation is that it still applies to NND attacks. This disagrees with my previous Intuition, which is that using AVAD to create attacks based on neither ED nor PD causes them to cease to be considered Physical or Energy damage, and thus Damage Negation, which has to be specified as being either vs. Physical or Energy damage would not apply. Is there a developer statement or player consensus to the effect that AVAD attacks still retain their designation as either physical or energy for purposes of Damage Negation and similar effects? If so, that seems like it would require you to choose one for attacks that are properly neither, such as an NND vs. Life Support based poison, which seems like a strange and arbitrary distinction.

 

Ahh..yeah, there's probably been some misstatements here.  It doesn't reduce damage from an NND, just an AVAD.  The statement that it applies to AVADs is made explicitly in the rules, but your point is still valid:  fine, WHICH negation applies, if the target has different amounts of physical and energy negation?  Does this create a bias?  Physical attacks feel fundamentally narrowly defined because they're tied to physical, tangible objects.  Energy attacks feel like they're...well...anything that has no clear, macroscopic, physical expression.  Poison...ok, it has a physical expression, but its impact is based on exposure.  It's a lot closer to, say, a radiation field than a baseball bat.

 

But if you go that way, then physical negation is notably less effective, as the "works against AVADs" becomes much less applicable.  What's an example of something we'd call a PD-based AVAD?  Note, too, that it must be an AVAD, not an NND, so choke holds and Nerve Strike don't count.

 

Hmm.  Perhaps the language on 6E1 183 is simply imprecise?  Resistant damage negation should apply when the attack is AVAD vs. resistant defense.  Wellll...ok, no, it's not imprecision because it's defined to work against Drain STUN and Drain BODY...but as OP points out...which????  So yeah, there's a strong argument that the power as written, is broken.

 

I actually REALLY like damage negation in concept, because it gives a better balance between STUN and BODY reduction, for a supers game.  Pure defenses are probably better for agents and such, but when you're getting into, say, 10 DCs, using just standard defense powers means normal-damage attacks will never do BODY...even if they're AP, it's very unlikely.  For a 10 DC campaign, if 20 defense is the rule...then the AP is 8d6.  MAYBE get 1 or 2 through.  Go up more?  12 DCs?  It gets worse, as you need to address around 50 STUN as the threat level.  Killing attacks?  The high risk for extreme BODY (for the nominal DCs involved) does suggest Hugh's notion of some pretty notable, additional resistant defense.  My defenses strategy has been to do this...or to go with the semi-abusive:  increase the resistant defense, then take the negation (or sometimes damage reduction) as STUN-only.  On 6 DCs of negation, that saves 10 points when it's the only limitation.  So that's +6 resistant for 9...and you net out with 6 more defense against the STUN.    

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well the challenge for designing Damage Negation is that its a new mechanic for the game.  Without extremely extensive playtesting, its always going to have some problems, which we see here.

 

But I mean Damage Reduction has the same "is it PD or ED" question with AVAD.  OK does this AVAD get reduced 50% or not?  Or does AVAD ignore Damage Reduction?  You can guesstimate based on special effect, but its kind of an unexamined area in the rules.

[steriaca]

Simple Damage Negation.

1 level negates 1d6 of a normal attack or 1/2 d6 of a killing attack.

3 levels negates 1d6 of a killing attack.

And that is it. Hench, "simple". Advantages do not call into the equation. 

 

It's simple to remember and relatively quick. And not official, of course. 

[unclevlad]

3 hours ago, steriaca said:

Simple Damage Negation.

1 level negates 1d6 of a normal attack or 1/2 d6 of a killing attack.

3 levels negates 1d6 of a killing attack.

And that is it. Hench, "simple". Advantages do not call into the equation. 

 

It's simple to remember and relatively quick. And not official, of course. 

 

Doesn't work.  On a killing attack, if I have 2 levels, what do I subtract?

 

And you seem to be saying that 1 level negates 1d6 of normal damage...that's AP and penetrating.  I don't like that.

 

Changes I'd make would be to focus on its value as a standard defense...in part because of what you're saying.  Factoring in how negation is affected by AVADs is unpleasant.  I rather like doing healers and teleporters with AVAD vs. Power Def, with and without Does BODY;  and sometimes teleporters with NND (defense is teleport, x-d movement, OR desolid) the same.  Depending on the build, there's 4 different levels, altho each character generally has only 2.  +1 and +2...that's not too bad.  +1/2 and + 1 1/2 (e.g. NND vs. Power Def) is...messy.   Especially as these are HTH attacks quite often, and I use MA DCs a LOT.  

 

I like a pretty simple approach.  1 level negates 1 DC of standard damage...normal OR killing.  Period.  It does NOT count as a resistant defense for purposes of the defenses chart.  Cost?  I'd lean to 4 points per level.  Strip STUN Only altogether.  Nonresistant might get tossed as well, but even if it's kept...drop to -1/4.  The power's primarily there to reduce BODY damage a little, while particularly helping to knock the STUN down.

 

BTW:  I think damage reduction needs reconsideration too, but that needs its own thread.  

 

[steriaca]

It needs to either have a version which removes damage class from the equation OR it needs to be an optional power which needs to be placed in the Advance Player's Guide and not into the main book. Damage Classes are hard enough to deal with without trying to figure out what stuff equals what class.

 

This is the reason why newcomers hate Hero. The whole math beyond character creation thing. And Damage Negation is big pain in the but for the math impaired.

 

If YOU have a solution to make Damage Classes easier and make Damage Negation easier, then say your idea. While my method "doesn't work" (and I admit it doesn't work as the rules are on the book), it does make things easier on a math impaired GM.

 

One part solution is to have one level extra for each +1/4 advantage which would of been added to a Damage Class to negate each 1d6.

 

Normal 1DN= 1d6 normal, 1 pip killing.

2DN = 2d6 normal, 1/2d6 killing.

3DN = 3d6 normal, 1d6 killing.

For each additional advantage which would affect Damage Classes = +1DN.

 

I want something quick to use if I was a Game Master. I don't want to spend hours trying to perfect math a villain's Damage Negation to figure out if absolutely no damage can be done by Captain X's attack but Power Y is so loaded up with Damage Classes that PowermanY does not fear anyone. 

Of course, the ultimate solution is to don't use Damage Negation at all. Technically all powers are optional after all.

[Grailknight]

As a GM, Damage Negation doesn't present me with any problems with slowdown for calculations because I've done all that math beforehand. The only step I need to add is to tell my player how many dice their attack does. If they can't remember from phase to phase or have a large suite of powers, I write it down on a card for them. 

 

Keep a copy of your PC's character sheets. It'll help you with encounter balance , play speed and tinkerers( I have to approve any changes to a PC Before play. Hopefully this never comes up for you.).