Rolling Defenses

[Sketchpad]

I had a stray thought on my way into work today. Has anyone rolled for their Presence or Ego Defenses? Instead of rolling against the base stat, have you broken it down and rolled opposing checks to determine the result of something like a PRE Attack or Mind Control? If so, how did it work for you?

[LoneWolf]

All that is going to do is to slow down the game.  Both PRE attacks and Mind Control also have to factor in psychological complications.  This is going to end up rolling a bunch of opposing dice and make it take way longer to figure out the results.  

[unclevlad]

And what kind of opposed roll are you considering?

 

How are you accounting for, say, 10 dice of mind control vs. 15 dice, or on the defensive side 0 Mental Def vs. 20 Mental Def?

[Hugh Neilson]

If you have 10d6 Mind Control, your average roll would be 35.  That would be +25 versus a 10 EGO, or +5 versus 20 EGO and 10 Mental Defense.

 

That suggests that 1 EGO or mental defense should average 1 "defense".  3 is Standard Effect for 1d6, so you could just divide the total by 3 and roll that many d6.

 

Once we start rolling defenses, though, as LoneWolf notes, the game slows down.  That could be mitigated by providing that both attack and defense are (say) 3d6 + "stat minus 10" (or just 3d6 + Stat - everyone is getting an extra 10 points for free) so 15d6 Mind Control is 3d6 + 36 (standard effect on 12 dice) against 20 EGO and 10 Mental Defense is 3d6 + 20 (standard effect for the first 20 of 30 resistance).

 

Results also become more volatile as a high or low roll on defenses is as possible as a high or low roll for attack.  Limiting the dice would mitigate that as well.

 

What change in the mechanics or feel are you trying to achieve?  With no objective in mind, this feels like a solution in search of a problem.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[Sketchpad]

15 hours ago, unclevlad said:

And what kind of opposed roll are you considering?

 

How are you accounting for, say, 10 dice of mind control vs. 15 dice, or on the defensive side 0 Mental Def vs. 20 Mental Def?

 

Take, for example, a PRE Attack. 

 

Bill the Ghost Hunter is facing down the Ghost of Old Man Machen at Machen Manor. In the initial turn, Machen makes a PRE Attack of 8d6. Bill attempts to resist and has a PRE 15, plus "Fearless: +10 PRE (Defense Only)". This gives him a 25 PRE, or 5d6 PRE Defense. The two roll and compare as normal. 

 

Mental Defense would add to the EGO roll to resist. 

 

Mento the Brain Freshener attempts to take mental control of Captain Captain. He successfully makes an attack and rolls his 12d6 Mind Control. the good Captain resists with an EGO 20, plus 15 points of Mental Defense. This would give him 4d6+15 to resist.  

 

53 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

What change in the mechanics or feel are you trying to achieve?  With no objective in mind, this feels like a solution in search of a problem.

 

I would've thought that was a bit clear. Rather than having a static number as defense, I'm curious how a random number would interact with the checks. Having players make a "Defense Check" could also create an interesting variable, particularly in Heroic campaigns where stats are a bit limited. Making a Fear Check, for example, could benefit from a random check, as they may succeed against something, and fail against another depending on the check. 

[unclevlad]

25 minutes ago, Sketchpad said:

 

Take, for example, a PRE Attack. 

 

Bill the Ghost Hunter is facing down the Ghost of Old Man Machen at Machen Manor. In the initial turn, Machen makes a PRE Attack of 8d6. Bill attempts to resist and has a PRE 15, plus "Fearless: +10 PRE (Defense Only)". This gives him a 25 PRE, or 5d6 PRE Defense. The two roll and compare as normal. 

 

Mental Defense would add to the EGO roll to resist. 

 

Mento the Brain Freshener attempts to take mental control of Captain Captain. He successfully makes an attack and rolls his 12d6 Mind Control. the good Captain resists with an EGO 20, plus 15 points of Mental Defense. This would give him 4d6+15 to resist.  

 

 

I would've thought that was a bit clear. Rather than having a static number as defense, I'm curious how a random number would interact with the checks. Having players make a "Defense Check" could also create an interesting variable, particularly in Heroic campaigns where stats are a bit limited. Making a Fear Check, for example, could benefit from a random check, as they may succeed against something, and fail against another depending on the check. 

 

So instead of 25 net PRE, I have 5d6, or 17, to resist his 8d6 attack?  I'm hosed.

 

Same with the EGO.  Instead of 35, I've got 29 average.

 

For PRE, I buy the PRE I want for my social skill roll, probably, then buy Fearless.  (Unless you're a big fan of making PRE attacks.)

For EGO, I'd only buy it for the breakout roll (like against Mental Illusion) and then just buy Mental Def.  The Mental Def is 5 points of DEF for 5 points;  buying the EGO gives only 3.5 points, and there aren't that many other situations that call for it.  Under RAW, the fact that Mental Def is the same price as EGO, is a bit of a problem;  Mental Def is arguably MORE likely to matter, in that it's the defense versus Mental Attack, and AVADs versus MD.  I'd tend to think those are more common than lockdown mental illusions or mental entangles;  mental entangles are pretty seriously expensive, mental illusions have always looked to be tenuous, given that there's a breakout roll before anything happens, and even if the victim has only a 13 EGO, it's 12-.  That's almost 75% to succeed.  Oh, DOH.  If you're going with a Mentalist, AND you want your initiative based off EGO, you'll value spending on EGO more, but that's a pretty specific build pattern.

 

To a point, the rules already favor doing both of these, but you're making them even more advantageous because you're making the underlying characteristic only 70% effective in its defensive aspect.  

[Sketchpad]

10 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

So instead of 25 net PRE, I have 5d6, or 17, to resist his 8d6 attack?  I'm hosed.

 

Same with the EGO.  Instead of 35, I've got 29 average.

 

For PRE, I buy the PRE I want for my social skill roll, probably, then buy Fearless.  (Unless you're a big fan of making PRE attacks.)

For EGO, I'd only buy it for the breakout roll (like against Mental Illusion) and then just buy Mental Def.  The Mental Def is 5 points of DEF for 5 points;  buying the EGO gives only 3.5 points, and there aren't that many other situations that call for it.  Under RAW, the fact that Mental Def is the same price as EGO, is a bit of a problem;  Mental Def is arguably MORE likely to matter, in that it's the defense versus Mental Attack, and AVADs versus MD.  I'd tend to think those are more common than lockdown mental illusions or mental entangles;  mental entangles are pretty seriously expensive, mental illusions have always looked to be tenuous, given that there's a breakout roll before anything happens, and even if the victim has only a 13 EGO, it's 12-.  That's almost 75% to succeed.  Oh, DOH.  If you're going with a Mentalist, AND you want your initiative based off EGO, you'll value spending on EGO more, but that's a pretty specific build pattern.

 

To a point, the rules already favor doing both of these, but you're making them even more advantageous because you're making the underlying characteristic only 70% effective in its defensive aspect.  

 

Is Fearless extra PRE bought as "Defense Only"? 
On Mental Defense, if it's that much a breaker, then just add it to EGO before dividing. 

 

To refer back to my original post, I'm taking from the discussion that no one has actually done it, and that numbers are being thrown around to deter? I appreciate the speculation, but I'm looking for experience with it. 

[unclevlad]

Adding it BEFORE dividing is WORSE, in terms of protectiveness.

 

No one's done it because a cursory analysis of your proposal says it's significantly worse for the defender.  15 EGO --> 3d6, which averages 10...so the defender's immediately 5 points lower to resist the effect on average, than if the baseline number is straight EGO.  The higher your EGO, the worse this will be...because it takes 5 EGO to give you another d6, which'll only give you 3.5 defense, doing your opposed rolls. 

 

Quote

Once we start rolling defenses, though, as LoneWolf notes, the game slows down.  That could be mitigated by providing that both attack and defense are (say) 3d6 + "stat minus 10" (or just 3d6 + Stat - everyone is getting an extra 10 points for free) so 15d6 Mind Control is 3d6 + 36 (standard effect on 12 dice) against 20 EGO and 10 Mental Defense is 3d6 + 20 (standard effect for the first 20 of 30 resistance).

 

 

To comment on this quickly...whether it works out or not, it's clunky as heck, and is making for VERY complex rules that don't connect to the rest of the system.  Are you intending that attacker's EGO really does become part of the attack power?  If so, then what's the general form?  

 

[Sketchpad]

So if you're playing a game of Horror Hero, the players are dependent on what the GM rolls for PRE Attacks. That seems a bit bland, don't you think? I would imagine a more dynamic roll structure that the players make would be exciting and put some of the action in the player's hands.

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

So if you're playing a game of Horror Hero, the players are dependent on what the GM rolls for PRE Attacks. That seems a bit bland, don't you think? I would imagine a more dynamic roll structure that the players make would be exciting and put some of the action in the player's hands.

 

There's two questions here.  One is static versus variable defenses. You have reasons that you want variable defenses.

 

The other is whether it makes the defender weaker.  Using your examples:

 

9 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

Take, for example, a PRE Attack. 

 

Bill the Ghost Hunter is facing down the Ghost of Old Man Machen at Machen Manor. In the initial turn, Machen makes a PRE Attack of 8d6. Bill attempts to resist and has a PRE 15, plus "Fearless: +10 PRE (Defense Only)". This gives him a 25 PRE, or 5d6 PRE Defense. The two roll and compare as normal.

 

Under the static defense rules, Bill has 25 defenses.  Under your model, he has 5d6 which averages 17.5. He needs to roll an average of 5 to be at the defense level he has under the static model.  Your model makes defenses less potent.  Bill needs 7d6 to average 24.5, getting close to his old static 25 defenses.

 

9 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

Mental Defense would add to the EGO roll to resist. 

 

Mento the Brain Freshener attempts to take mental control of Captain Captain. He successfully makes an attack and rolls his 12d6 Mind Control. the good Captain resists with an EGO 20, plus 15 points of Mental Defense. This would give him 4d6+15 to resist. 

 

Cap now has an average of 29 points to defend.  He had 35 static defenses. He needs about 2d6 more to get back to where he was.

[unclevlad]

Yeah, it's not that we're implicitly against variable defenses per se...but that they won't work, OR, that to make them work, you'll need complex, unique mechanics, in a system that's already knocked for being too complex.  The area where it isn't complex is, the basic mechanics of rolls is consistent among the classes of rolls.  This by itself means that variable defenses starts with 2 strikes against it for me.

[Doc Democracy]

13 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

So if you're playing a game of Horror Hero, the players are dependent on what the GM rolls for PRE Attacks. That seems a bit bland, don't you think? I would imagine a more dynamic roll structure that the players make would be exciting and put some of the action in the player's hands.

 

There is always the option of making the PRE attacks of various horrors fixed.  You might vary the number of dice in the attack but use standard effect so that the heroes roll to attack and roll to defend. 

 

It takes the dice out the hands of the GM and always in the hands of players.

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

There is always the option of making the PRE attacks of various horrors fixed.  You might vary the number of dice in the attack but use standard effect so that the heroes roll to attack and roll to defend. 

 

It takes the dice out the hands of the GM and always in the hands of players.

 

I like this idea - the NPC's fixed amount can be set at appropriate levels to make a success or failure similarly likely to the current model (or varied to taste, depending on whether there is a desire to vary the odds of success), the same number of rolls are required so combat speed should not be changed, and some work shifts from the GM (already doing multiple things at a time) to the players (with the added bonus that it's tougher to tune out between their PC's actions).

[Cloppy Clip]

I've done a little playing around with the probabilities and I've noticed that, assuming 5 EGO gives you 1d6 for your roll, you'll be rolling fewer dice on average than the attacker would in a normal example. You can get around this easily enough by reducing the target number set by the attacker's power (so a 12d6 power might give a target number of 30 instead of 60, for example), but the reduced variance means you'll be much less likely to get greater effect results. I played around with making greater effects kick in at EGO+5, EGO+10 and so on, and that gave you much higher chances of the greater results. So there'll probably be an answer somewhere in the middle, but that's one thing to watch out for.

 

Of course, if you're happy either way, you can accept that it'll play differently to standard HERO and just treat this quirk as one of the features of the new system. I'm sure the original design of HERO wouldn't fall apart if EGO+10 results were more or less likely to occur.

[LoneWolf]

@Sketchpad the reason no one has experience with this is because it is a very bad idea.  Even without trying it you can analyze the results and see it makes the characters a lot weaker.  Under the normal rules the chance of a PRE attack affecting someone of equal PRE is extremely low.   You have a 2 in 6 chance to roll a 5 or higher on a six sided die.  So, there is about a 5% chance that someone with a 20 PRE can roll 20 or higher on a PRE attack.  That means without some bonus the chances with a 20 PRE affecting a target with 20 PRE without some sort of bonus is about 5%.  Under your proposal the odds of being affected by a PRE attack of someone with and equal PRE are about equal.   I don’t have to actually try it to see that the chances of affecting someone are far greater under your proposal than normal.

 

It also opens the possibility of a high PRE character rolling extremely badly and being affected by someone with a much lower PRE.  A character with a 25 PRE has a 30% chance to roll under 15.  It is not that hard to pick up a few dice on a PRE attack so it is not difficult to for a character with 15 PRE to get 5d6 or more for a PRE attack. At 5d6 the chances of affecting someone with a 20 PRE is about 23% under your proposal.  Under the normal rules the chances drop to about 3%. 

 

If this is applied to mental power they become the ultimate character type and nothing will stand against them. 

 

This might work if you are running a horror based campaign and want to make it easier to frighten the characters.  Using this will turn a campaign into something similar to Wimp World from Champions 3D. 

[Sketchpad]

14 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

There is always the option of making the PRE attacks of various horrors fixed.  You might vary the number of dice in the attack but use standard effect so that the heroes roll to attack and roll to defend. 

 

It takes the dice out the hands of the GM and always in the hands of players.

 

I considered that as well. The only issue that I've found is the static-ness of it, which is what I was looking to avoid. 

 

11 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

@Sketchpad the reason no one has experience with this is because it is a very bad idea. 

 

Wow. Thanks, Lone Wolf. I guess I'll just abandon my thoughts of playing a game based on my bad ideas. I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post based on that line. You know, folks, I get that we're not really running the same style of game here, but maybe everyone should take a moment and consider that. This is why I was looking for anyone who may have used the system in this manner. I've crunched the numbers and looked at the probability. I realize I don't live on these boards, but this is far from my first foray with Hero. 

 

My end goal is to see if there were other ways to push the Hero System beyond its normal confines. Partly because I'm always trying to get new players/GMs to look at the game (and hoping that I can find a common thread to bring them in through), and partly because I like seeing how I can use the systems in different ways. 

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by Sketchpad

[greypaladin_01]

On 5/24/2023 at 5:33 PM, Sketchpad said:

So if you're playing a game of Horror Hero, the players are dependent on what the GM rolls for PRE Attacks. That seems a bit bland, don't you think? I would imagine a more dynamic roll structure that the players make would be exciting and put some of the action in the player's hands.

 

I remember Horror HERO book existing, but it is not one that I ever managed to pick up.   I think I see what you are going with here, but I think we might be veering off into the more detailed world of Specific Genre Emulation and outside just straight PRE attacks as they are RAW.

 

To clarify:  Horror HERO could be many things and all of them will change how PCs interact with the world.   Cthullu, Bram Stoker, Freddy or Jason films, The Mummy (any film version)... and if you are being liberal enough with definiations, even something like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Scooby-Doo.    In all of these how the PCs interact with the world would be extremely different and you would need player buy-in even more than raw mechanics.  In my experience it is a rare group of players that doesn't rankle, at least a little, at dice telling them what their character believe.   Much like how using Bluff type skills on PCs when the players know the truth doesn't always go well.

 

Can you tell us a little more about the Style of Horror game you are trying to go for?  That might help with trying to figure out how to tailor the mechanics to try and support it?

 

For example.   Someone it trying to run a Cthullu type game and wants PRE attacks to be used to show how the unnatural horror and dread of magic and these alien creatures will break the minds of characters over time.   Instead of trying to create a Sanity-Saving Throw roll off defense mechanic, perhaps as part of the game all characters get 100 points of Sanity Stat.  Whenever a PRE attack happens, any amount of the roll over their PRE/EGO stats reduces Sanity and there is no fast means to recover it.   You could even say that once they get to half levels they start to get new Complications/Disadvantages based around the things that have been affecting them, let the players pick the new ones or GM could assign something.    (sure this is probably really close to just Call of Cthullu's system... but there is no reason that this cannot be grafted to HERO.  Basically as part of the Genre for the Campaign, the characters have a 3rd 'health' track to add to Body and Stun and it just is how the game operates.   You can then tailor things so that most "normal" Horrors have PRE attacks that should on average chip always at least 5-10 Sanity and work with your players to let them RP the effects of it.

If more mechanical effects are needed then perhaps at lower levels of Sanity say.. 33 or less, it causes a long term Drain on the PRE/EGO stats for characters to show that not only are they running out of Sanity... but also their hold on reality is starting to break.  Even just a few points reduction would have noticeable effect... I feel a little goes a long way on that.   Going from 20 to 18 or something like that would be more than enough.

 

--

 

All of that being said PRE attacks are very one sided by their nature, the danger of changing that element of the mechanic is it certainly will slow down gameplay which might be detrimental to the tension of the moment.  A static defense system (probably with some form of ablative limitation would be the smoothest way to keep the game flowing.   Each PRE attach chips away at the characters stoicism until they are down to just baseline PRE/EGO going forward.   The only other thing I could think of is just to allow Mental Defense to help protect against PRE attacks.... but then you run the risk of needing HUGE dice pools of PRE attacks to get any effects at all.   

 

Finally, how common are the PRE attacks against players going to happen in the game?   If it is just one or two per session then being at the mercy of what the DM rolls is not that different than getting hit with and NND or other exotic power type.  However if they are much more common, then I would expect players will buy more PRE/EGO naturally to help protect themselves more... and also keep in mind that each successive PRE attack against a target gets less and less dice each time.     That FIRST zombie that burst through the door really scares and shocks the players but the 2nd and 3rd following it?  Well... they are still scary for sure, but the adrenaline is already pumping at that point and Fight/Flight responses already are in swing.... so they get less and less dice against the PCs....   but that crashed Ghoul leading them is a fresh horror.. so would get full attack when it shows up.      (at least I think this is how the mechanics work still in 6e...  can't recall fully off hand.  Either way, in my experience PRE attacks were usually PCs vs NPCs/Enemies and often only done once at the start or end of encounters... not repeatedly)

[LoneWolf]

@Sketchpad I am sorry I offended you, but what you are suggesting alters the balance of the game in a detrimental way.  One of the basic premises of the Hero System is that the defense is cheaper than the offense.  Usually, the defense costs about 70% of the offense.  This means to have the same level of protection a character needs to buy their defenses up by 142%.  

 

Take a character with 20 EGO being hit with a 10d6 mind control.  Under the normal rules the average roll for Mind control will be 15 over the characters EGO.  That is enough to cause the character to do something he does not mind doing.  Under your system the result is 21 over the characters EGO.  That is enough to get him to perform actions he is normally against doing.  The character with 20 EGO has a 94.6% chance of rolling less than 20 on his defense; his chance of rolling more than 20 is 2.7%.   This system makes the characters substantially weaker.  

 

I tried to come up with a way to make rolling defense work, but it is everything I came up with significantly alters the balance of the game.  I can see using this for PRE attacks in a horror-based campaign, but for anything else I don’t think it is a good idea. 

 

Most contested skills are based on a 3d6 roll instead of damage.  Something like that might work, but I have no idea how to implement it and really have no interest in figuring it out.  
 

[Cloppy Clip]

@Sketchpad It looks like, to answer your original question, nobody's tried this method before, but that doesn't mean it's not worth testing out. If you do get a chance to try this in a game, I'd love to hear what the feedback is, as I can see the potential advantages and, like you say, it's interesting to see how far you can push the system. Even if you have to reprice defences, or change the mechancis more to balance things out, I think more tools in the toolbox can't be a bad thing. So please don't let the downsides dissuade you, since there's no harm in trying out new ideas like this.

[Duke Bushido]

On 5/25/2023 at 10:39 AM, LoneWolf said:

@Sketchpad the reason no one has experience with this is because it is a very bad idea. 

 

 

That isnt entirely true.

 

I do it- well, I do more what Doc Democracy mentioned: static attacks against variable defenses- in my Traveller on HERO wheels game.  I only do it in ship-to-ship combat, though.  I have considered doing it for personal combat, but  as I use hit locations (sort of) in that game, it never happened.

 

Here's the thing we don't talk about: everything considered the strengths of the HERO System results in near-perfect predictability without GM tweaking on the fly.  Attacks are bought in dice, and they will average 3.5 STUN and 1 Body per die.  Defenses subtract from damage.  We even talk _around_ this:  

 

"Set your campaign guidelines so that perhaps X percent of a given "standard attack" will make it through "standard defenses" and those Killing Attacks?  We have created a mathematic scale demonstrating that one killing die typically gives results like 3 normal dice.  Also, SPD scores shouldn't vary too much, maybe 2 or 3 points of variance for best results--"

 

And all totalled, one day you realize that you can look at a brick and a martial artist, check their damages and defenses and relative SPD and state "okay, roll a d8.  On a 1 or a 2, he drops you in 2 Turns; 3 through 7, and you drop him in 3 and a half Turns.  On an 8, something surprising happened with the dice- half of each team is out cold; we'll draw straws" then skip around the table just like that and say "okay, it is five Turns later-  Blaster, you're still out cold, but Speedster has cuffed all except the other speedster, who escaped after flattening you, Magician."

 

And once you see it, you really, _really_ can't unsee it (my appologies to all of you who haven't seen it before).

 

With starship combat-  well, guns of a size get through armor of a size, and guns of a lesser size never ever will.  So everyone gets the gigantic guns, vaporizing everything but the gigantic ships, which comes down to "roll a d12, etc, etc, then we'll roll percentiles to see how much of the surviving ship is destroyed."

 

It got depressing:  I couldn't have a merchantman persued by a military ship because the result was _always_ the same:  a party from the military ship examining the smouldering ruins of the merchantman while some,of the lower eschelons buffed the blemishes from their Hull cause nlby the merchantman attempting to return fire.

 

So we tried something:  we bought ships weapons in damage ratings, and we bought armor in dice.  And things got a lot more fun-  sure, the freighter's missiles might do 15 Body and the dreadnaught has 10 dice of armor, but the freighter suddenly has a chance that it absolutely did not have against 30 DEF.  Space combat became deadly again.

 

There was more I wanted to say, but I am at my daughter's graduation, and the music has finally started, so....

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

11 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

 This system makes the characters substantially weaker. 

 

As a point of order, it makes the defender substantially weaker.  Nothing prevents PCs being the attacker, and the opponents being easily cowed into submission by their PRE attacks/controlled by their mental attacks.

 

The only drawbacks I can foresee in rolling defenses if the balance can be set comparable to the current model (so attacks are neither more nor less likely to succeed) is more time due to more die rolls, so a slower game and increased volatility which may be a flaw or a feature depending on your preferences.

[LoneWolf]

The system makes all characters weaker, that includes PC and NPCs alike.  If adopted on all attacks, it makes the game into rocket tag.  The first person to land hit will usually end up winning the combat.  If it is only used for PRE attacks and mental powers those become the gold standard.   A character with a 50 PRE and a few points into striking appearance becomes almost unstoppable.  12d6 mind control  will be enough get almost anyone to do what you want.  

 

There is one way that rolling defenses could work without destroying the balance of the game.  If you were to have damage negation roll dice and subtract the damage instead of just eliminating damage that could work.   On the average it will have the same result, but it would add an element of chance.  Sometimes your damage negation may not protect as well as it does, but other times it may give you more protection.   The only problem is going to be killing attacks, those will become more deadly.   Killing attacks will do less stun but have a greater chance of doing body.   
 

[unclevlad]

It's the mind control, and by extension, mental powers generally, that would worry me.  Telepathy also becomes a lot more potent.

 

Yeah, rolling the damage negation gives the same average result, but as Hugh points out, another roll, more counting, slower game.  Damage negation is inefficient as a defense;  we know this.  2d6 negation averages 2 BODY resistant and 5 STUN.  That's no more than 8 points, but it costs 10.  Its advantage is, it IS convenient...it speeds the game up.  And as you noted...more volatility, which IMO is NOT a good thing.  ESPECIALLY on defense.  Getting Stunned is bad.  You're at 1/2 OCV and 1/2 DCV, so very vulnerable.  Your nonpersistent powers stop;  the key might be Flight, as you'll fall.  You may or may not hit before you recover from being stunned, but still.  And many power constructions justify a Nonpersistent.  So, what do you do?  To start with:  probably not take negation.  If I did elect to?  I'd try hard to buy a couple MORE dice than I'd need.  To wit...let's go with 12d6 attacks.  Average is 42.  48 or less is 86%; 50 or less is 92.4%;  52 or less is 96%.  Let's further state a 23 CON;  that seems reasonable for 12 DCs. 

 

My total DEF + CON gives me the number to avoid being Stunned.  I'd consider getting stunned from 1 strike in 7 to be too risky.  1 time in 12 or so...yeah, might be closer.  So my target DEF is 27.

 

If I have RAW Damage Negation, I simply count 3.5 per die.  Let's go with 4 DCs...that's 14 points of my 27.  I'll probably go with 3 nonresistant and 10 resistant.  Let's verify...13 DEF vs. 8d6.  37 STUN would Stun me.  36 or less is 96%.  So a small improvement.

 

If I roll my Negation, and the attacker's rolling his full attack...need a quick simulation.  OK, no problem.  Done.  My risk of stunning goes from 7.6% to about 10.8%.  That's pretty significant by my lights.  If I up my DEF to 14, it drops to about 8.3%;  if I go up to 15 DEF, it drops to about 6.3%.  

 

I'd buy at least 1 more point of DEF...and probably 2.

 

Note that the flip side?  I'm generally TAKING less, because I can roll high on my negation. This is rolling a 12d6 attack, rolling 4d6 negation + 14 DEF and 23 CON.  There were 100,000 trials run.

 

# times stunned:  8340
net stun 0 count 2390 <= 2390
net stun 1 count 987 <= 3377
net stun 2 count 1215 <= 4592
net stun 3 count 1682 <= 6274
net stun 4 count 2049 <= 8323
net stun 5 count 2576 <= 10899
net stun 6 count 3082 <= 13981
net stun 7 count 3438 <= 17419
net stun 8 count 4035 <= 21454
net stun 9 count 4349 <= 25803
net stun 10 count 4888 <= 30691
net stun 11 count 5265 <= 35956
net stun 12 count 5597 <= 41553
net stun 13 count 5650 <= 47203
net stun 14 count 5760 <= 52963
net stun 15 count 5714 <= 58677
net stun 16 count 5389 <= 64066
net stun 17 count 5331 <= 69397
net stun 18 count 4925 <= 74322
net stun 19 count 4431 <= 78753
net stun 20 count 4032 <= 82785
net stun 21 count 3487 <= 86272
net stun 22 count 2978 <= 89250
net stun 23 count 2410 <= 91660
net stun 24 count 2004 <= 93664
net stun 25 count 1635 <= 95299
net stun 26 count 1325 <= 96624
 

So 30% of the time, I can laugh off the attack, pretty much...and on the flip side, it's about 20% that I take 20+ stun, which is on the high side.  The variance is notably higher.

 

Now, OK, if that's what you want...fine.  The net result is that it's a LOT harder to figure out what a balanced level of defense is, and this is IMO a VERY Bad Thing.

[Doc Democracy]

6 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Now, OK, if that's what you want...fine.  The net result is that it's a LOT harder to figure out what a balanced level of defense is, and this is IMO a VERY Bad Thing.

 

I think the variation and the increased chances of nothing AND higher damage is EXACTLY what @Sketchpad was aiming at here.

 

HERO can be a bit staid and predictable, fights coming to long drawn-out affairs because everyone has done their math.

 

Injecting uncertainty is not that terrible when it comes to combat.  Slowing things down definitely is.

 

Doc

 

[Doc Democracy]

Question is, would a system that increases dice rolling and counting AND damage volatility, increase or decrease the length of combats?