champions 6th Armor Piercing vs Penetrating

[Opal]

On 10/2/2023 at 3:29 PM, unclevlad said:

AP has a massively horrible design feature:  the better defenses the target has, the MORE effective AP becomes at removing them

That's not the whole point?

 

Ok, no, wait I phrased that incorrectly. 

 

That's the whole point of AP.  An attack that gives up some damage to unprotected targets to do some game to heavily protected targets. 

Edited October 7, 2023 by Opal
too subbie

[Cloppy Clip]

I think the problem with AP stems from HERO measuring advantages in stages of +1/4. As unclevlad points out, AP is a bit stronger than an unmodified attack at +1/4, but as prior editions bore out it's a bit weaker at +1/2. We don't have anything in between these two stages, though, so you just have to pick whichever option feels more right to you.

 

As for Penetrating, I could get behind pricing it differently for KAs, on the grounds that 1 BODY and 1 STUN aren't worth the same in terms of dice, but I'm not sure if that overcomplicates thing a bit. Of course, once you're at the point of 6th Edition's core books, trying to keep things from being overcomplicated might be wishful thinking.

[unclevlad]

9 hours ago, Opal said:

That's not the whole point?

 

Ok, no, wait I phrased that incorrectly. 

 

That's the whole point of AP.  An attack that gives up some damage to unprotected targets to do some game to heavily protected targets. 

 

But it's uncapped.

 

If you have 20 defense, it takes off 10.  If you have 70 defense, it takes off 35.  There should come a point where it maxes out, based on the power of the underlying attack.  An attack's effectiveness should be unrelated to the strength of the defense, and that's not the case here....at least without Harden.  

 

We've noted in this thread that Impenetrable shouldn't be binary...1 point of impenetrable shouldn't block a 16d6 penetrating.  Each point of Impen can remove the penetrating from 1 DC of the damage, would be reasonably clean.  AP needs some form of cap as well...but it's a bit harder to say how, because the scale for BODY and STUN per die is different.  

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

 

But it's uncapped.

 

If you have 20 defense, it takes off 10.  If you have 70 defense, it takes off 35.  There should come a point where it maxes out, based on the power of the underlying attack.  An attack's effectiveness should be unrelated to the strength of the defense, and that's not the case here....at least without Harden.  

 

We've noted in this thread that Impenetrable shouldn't be binary...1 point of impenetrable shouldn't block a 16d6 penetrating.  Each point of Impen can remove the penetrating from 1 DC of the damage, would be reasonably clean.  AP needs some form of cap as well...but it's a bit harder to say how, because the scale for BODY and STUN per die is different.  

 

I'm not sold on the universality this would require. It suggests that Damage Reduction should have a cap on the damage reduced, or even that Desolidification should cap just how Desolid you really are.

 

The cost of AP scales with the size of the attack.  If you have 70 defenses, an 8d6 AP attack is just as worthless as a 10d6 attack.  That, to me, is adequate scaling.  If you did not make those defenses Resistant, KAs can cut through them.  There is no limit to how many points of nonresistant defenses a KA can ignore either.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I think the problem with AP stems from HERO measuring advantages in stages of +1/4.

 

Yeah, if I were building Hero from scratch I'd use percentages rather than fractions because of how they are limited.  I mean, technically you could have a 3/5ths limitation but that gets into headache territory -- how many people here remember how to multiply and divide using fractions?

 

But the system is a pretty good balance of utility and ease of use at this point, so its not worth monkeying with in that manner.

 

Quote

AP needs some form of cap as well...but it's a bit harder to say how, because the scale for BODY and STUN per die is different. 

 

I disagree, but as you say either way its not something that is particularly feasible.

[unclevlad]

Yeah, that's the thing.  If you use percentages, 

a)  the math gets messier...and more intimidating.  It's much harder to learn the patterns, because they're much fewer.  As such, it'll be even harder for newbies.

b)  LOTS of arguments about what anything should be worth...why is this worth 2/10s, whereas this is 3/10s?  

 

I'd stay with 10ths, BTW;  it's enough granularity and it's simpler than mixing denominated fraction equivalents.  The math is the easiest you'll get in this approach.  Or alternately, 8ths;  it's messier but one can start the conversion trivially, then figure out things like ok, AP is +3/8.

 

If I was gonna do this, as you note, it'd only be in the context of a complete system revision and refocus.

[Cloppy Clip]

Absolutely agreed on that point, and especially that adding more stages for Advantages means creating more debates about exactly which stage something belongs at. I think, even if I were rebuilding the system from scratch, there's still a lot to be said for the current set-up, but if accurately pricing Armour-Piercing is winding somebody up enough that they'll put their game on hold and rewrite all of the rules then I wouldn't want to get in their way.

[Opal]

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

But it's uncapped.

 

If you have 20 defense, it takes off 10.  If you have 70 defense, it takes off 35.  There should come a point where it maxes out, based on the power of the underlying attack.

There is. The point where the defense is twice or more the damage you rolled.

 

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Opal said:

There is. The point where the defense is twice or more the damage you rolled.

 

 

Nope.  That's still based on the defense, not the attack.

[Hugh Neilson]

What if we added a note that the reduction in defenses can never exceed the amount rolled on the AP attack?

Alternatively, AP could subtract the amount rolled on the dice from the target's defenses, with the reduction limited to half of the target's defenses.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

What if we added a note that the reduction in defenses can never exceed the amount rolled on the AP attack?

 

Me am dumbing, please explain simply what you mean here

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

What if we added a note that the reduction in defenses can never exceed the amount rolled on the AP attack?

 

18 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Me am dumbing, please explain simply what you mean here

 

If the target has 60 defenses, and the roll on the AP attack is 28 STUN, instead of halving the defenses (unlimited AP) to 30, the attack can only reduce them by the 28 damage rolled.

 

Under the current rules, halving the defenses, 28 - 30 = 0 STUN.  Under the new rules, 28 - [60-28 = 32] = 0 stun, but now the size of the attack sets a cap on the reduction in the target's defenses.

 

I'll just stick to "AP halves defenses".  That works fine for me.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

If the target has 60 defenses, and the roll on the AP attack is 28 STUN, instead of halving the defenses (unlimited AP) to 30, the attack can only reduce them by the 28 damage rolled.

 

I cannot imagine a reason why an additional level of complication would need to be added to the rules like that.

[unclevlad]

The max reduction based on STUN is almost pointless.  28 STUN?  That's 8 dice AP, so 10 DCs.  What's a reasonable defense...not 60, that's for sure.

 

CRT:  the problem is that AP is too effective, OR is forcing players to buy a significant amount of Hardened...especially at increasing attack levels.  Halving the defenses, uncapped, is unbalanced.

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

CRT:  the problem is that AP is too effective, OR is forcing players to buy a significant amount of Hardened

 

I guess maybe in some campaigns?  I have never seen that to be the case in any game I played or ran, and the math doesn't support this idea.  That's why it got reduced to ¼ in 6th edition, because it wasn't as effective as people feared.  Its not broken, it doesn't need fixing.  Penetration, yes.  Armor Piercing, no.

[Gauntlet]

I kind of have to agree with many of you. Armor Piercing should not have been dropped to a 1/4 advantage and should stay as a 1/2.

[Hugh Neilson]

7 hours ago, unclevlad said:

The max reduction based on STUN is almost pointless.  28 STUN?  That's 8 dice AP, so 10 DCs.  What's a reasonable defense...not 60, that's for sure.

 

CRT:  the problem is that AP is too effective, OR is forcing players to buy a significant amount of Hardened...especially at increasing attack levels.  Halving the defenses, uncapped, is unbalanced.

 

 

 

I am interested in your solution, ideally with an illustration of the problem you perceive in actual game terms.

 

If we consider a typical 12 DC game (so let AP round up to 10d6), average rolls are 42 and 35.

 

Against target with only 10 defenses - very low - STUN past defenses will average 32 or 30 (25 if hardened).

 

If the target has defenses of 20, still on the low side for a Super, average damage past defenses are 22 or 25 (15 if hardened).

 

If the target has 25 defenses, about average, then average damage past defenses rises to 17 or 22 (10 if hardened). 

 

Crank defenses up to 35 and we see 7 or 17 past defenses (none if hardened).

 

So AP is an advantage, offset by the risk that the target has hardened defenses.  It could reasonably be a character's primary attack.

 

At +1/2, AP averages 28 rolled, so we get

 

Against target with only 10 defenses - very low - STUN past defenses will average 32 or 23 (18 if hardened).

 

If the target has defenses of 20, still on the low side for a Super, average damage past defenses are 22 or 18 (8 if hardened).

 

If the target has 25 defenses, about average, then average damage past defenses rises to 17 or 15 (5 if hardened). 

 

Crank defenses up to 35 and we see 7 or 10 past defenses (none if hardened).

 

So a very tiny benefit to AP against targets with very high defenses, unless they are hardened.  AP is rarely, if ever, useful.

[Hugh Neilson]

A further thought:  If the unlimited ability to halve a target's (non-hardened) defenses using AP is a concern, do you similarly want to cap the amount of defenses that an NND can avoid entirely?

 

hmmm...it did not merge them. I guess that's OK.

 

I am also a bit disappointed at the number of comments in the "well, capping it at the number rolled on the dice seems overly complicated/ is a pretty high cap/etc.".

 

To be clear, it's absolutely meaningless.  It will never have a different result than halving defenses since,, once we hit the cap, the target is immune anyway because the target's defenses at least double the roll.  Practically, it is identical to just halving the defenses, other than being a more complicated way of getting there that provides some bafflegab about tying the cap to the power of the attack.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[unclevlad]

Not entirely functioning yet, so a quick point about the NND.

NND defenses are binary...you have them, or you don't.  It's built into the definition of the attack.  It isn't that the defense is so good;  it's the loophole designed into the attack itself.  It's the flip side of Desolid...nothing can affect the Desolid, except for the very narrow SFX, or with Affects Desolid.  NND is the perfect attack...until it isn't.  Desolid is the perfect defense...until it isn't.

[Hugh Neilson]

31 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

Not entirely functioning yet, so a quick point about the NND.

NND defenses are binary...you have them, or you don't.  It's built into the definition of the attack.  It isn't that the defense is so good;  it's the loophole designed into the attack itself.  It's the flip side of Desolid...nothing can affect the Desolid, except for the very narrow SFX, or with Affects Desolid.  NND is the perfect attack...until it isn't.  Desolid is the perfect defense...until it isn't.

 

And the halving of non-hardened defenses is a function of the AP attack, not of the defenses themselves. It works better until it comes up against a target with Hardened Defenses, making it less effective than the same non-AP DCs.

[Doc Democracy]

I am wondering if we have been thinking about it all wrong and we should be retaining penetrating and getting rid of AP.

 

I have watched the arguments ebb and flow and, as often, come to a radically different place. I am looking at AP being more similar to penetrating but the defences working in a very different way.

 

What if armour piercing provided 1 BODY through defences and 1 STUN per dice in the attack.  Additional levels of AP increase the BODY through defences by 1 and STUN by 2.

 

First level of hardened removes the BODY and halves the STUN.  Each level of hardened after that removes 1 more BODY, if necessary, and halves the STUN again. 

 

I think this then delivers the small but guaranteed damage, possibly including BODY, without mangling anything else and it means the defender pays increasing costs to deal with ever smaller amounts of damage.

 

Doc

[unclevlad]

But AP/Hardened isn't binary.  NND vs. its defense is binary.  Penetrating vs. Impenetrable is binary...we're talking perhaps that should be changed, and it does make sense.  

 

To do any good, you need substantial hardened defenses.

 

Quote

Crank defenses up to 35 and we see 7 or 17 past defenses (none if hardened).

 

The 12d normal is 60 points.  The 10d AP is 62.  So, mostly negligible.

35 DEF...to get it to where you take even 7, you need 20 of that hardened.  You need to harden 2 DEF to eliminate 1 STUN or BODY taken.  Let's split it half and half, resistant and non.  Harden 10 resistant is 4, 10 non is 2.  So that's 6 points...to get back to even.  6 points is not negligible.  Further:  consider that the attacker pays for the AP once.  The defender has to pay for it twice...PD and ED...or leave a big hole.  So the defender has to pay 12 points...to stay even.

 

Just in case, let's go to 15 DCs, so we have no rounding.  We'll go up to 44 DEF, evenly split.  Normal attack averages 52.5, so 8 gets through.  AP is 12d, so 42 average versus 22 DEF, so 20 gets through.  To reduce that back to the level of normal, we need 24 hardened...call it 12 and 12 again.  So 18 and 12 points base, 4 and 3 points for hardened, so it's 7 more points.  The attack costs no more points but it increases the cost of defense to counter it significantly, particularly when you recognize it's forced onto multiple defenses, again.  

 

Back to the 12d / 10d for a bit...against the lesser defenses like the 20 listed...the AP is still doing more.  And even against your paper-thin 10 DEF...the STUN is pretty much even, but the AP is doing BODY.  (Which might be a bad thing, but then why are you cutting loose with a 12 DC attack against such a squishy-soft target?) 

 

Hardened is not free.  Scaling the number of dice back to keep the DCs even...AP is free.

 

So far, we've only talked about normal damage.  15 DCs, 5 dice killing.  Let's stay with the 22 rDef.  We take BODY about 10% of the time.  4 dice AP...the average damage roll gets 3 BODY through.  Rolling 17+ BODY damage will happen 1 in 4 times...getting 6 or more BODY through.  If we've hardened 12, as per above, we get to 17 Def vs. the AP, so rolling 18 still gets a BODY through...about 16%.  That's about even again.  The big thing to note is the high level of risk if you don't harden extensively.

 

The other angle here is that hardening becomes almost a 5th form of fundamental defense, as the DCs increase.  At lower levels...eh, you might get by with no Power Def or Mental Def.  You probably won't get hosed.  At higher levels, tho, you do risk being completely taken out.  The need to broaden your defenses...and thus spend those points...increases.  Well, that's also true with hardening your PD and ED.  Not only do you need to add more...you have to add that aspect as well, or else.  And you have to do it on both PD and ED, so while it's not all that expensive individually, if you consider "hardened" as an additional form of defense from a character building setup...it's not cheap.

 

Back to why limiting to the max rolled on the STUN doesn't help...because it doesn't.  Go back to our 12d/10d.  Our defense is equal to the average STUN of the AP attack.  This will be close to true even as the DCs increase.  Go with more defenses?  Again...that's not free.  And at what point do we start causing a breakdown against standard attacks?  So, max STUN is not a real cap.

[Hugh Neilson]

So what is your solution?  AP at +1/2 is utterly useless.  AP at +1/4 means more STUN at most levels if the defender chooses to have more defenses, instead of hardening existing defenses.  Do we eliminate AP (and watch the gun bunnies shriek at the loss of AP ammo)?

 

Let's look at this from another angle.  Our defender has a budget for spending on defenses. She can either buy higher defenses and take more damage from AP attacks, or Harden her defenses but have lower defenses against attacks overall.

 

So if the budget only allows 10/10 defenses or 8/8 Hardened. she takes either 32 STUN normal/30 STUN AP, or 34 STUN normal/27 AP.

 

If the budget allows 20/20 defenses or 16/16 Hardened. she takes either 22 STUN normal/25 STUN AP, or 26 STUN normal/19 AP.

 

If the budget allows 25/25 defenses or 20/20 Hardened. she takes either 17 STUN normal/22 STUN AP, or 22 STUN normal/15 AP.

 

If the budget allows 35/35 defenses or 28/28 Hardened. she takes either 7 STUN normal/17 STUN AP, or 14 STUN normal/7 AP.

 

We all approach this from experience.  With AP at +1/2, I never saw a situation where it was a worthwhile attack, never one's main attack and even a Multipower slot was rarely if ever used.  At +1/4, it at least has a shot at competitiveness.

 

And I REALLY laugh at pre-6e double AP.  I can have 6d6 Blast that halves even single-hardened defenses.  Or I can do 12d6 against full defenses, get twice as much damage through as the AP option, even more if they double-harden their defenses for some reason.

 

I'm not sold on carving Impenetrable out as a separate advantage, though.  Players who have several defense powers so they can have a tiny bit Impenetrable and a few more Hardened should be looked upon as min/maxers and dealt with accordingly.  But my group has typically operated on the basis that no one character can do everything, so being heavily defended  against all forms of attack would have to be accompanied by being well below average in some other area(s), such as below campaign standard offensive capabilities.  In a game where a moment's weakness (such as being Stunned) means "get out a new character sheet", rather than "an opportunity for other characters to shine this time", I might feel differently, but I prefer games where characters work together, and each has different strengths and weaknesses.

[Doc Democracy]

33 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

Further:  consider that the attacker pays for the AP once.  The defender has to pay for it twice...PD and ED...or leave a big hole.

 

Personally I think this is a positive.  It is a failure of point-buy systems that they encourage players to seek copper-bottomed defences when there should be differences and holes.  That is what creates drama, tension and drives tactical play.

[pawsplay]

I'd rather get rid of Penetrating and keep AP. AP allows attacks to rationalize enemy's defenses without creating huge kill numbers. It's indispensable for characters like Wolverine, who can harm very hard targets but isn't going to cut a tank in half with claws that short. Whereas I could live without Penetrating:

 

Bees! 1d6 RKA NND, defense is environmentally sealed armor or immune to bees

 

Penetrating is in many examples used as, okay, this really CAN cut through anything, and I think it's the wrong Advantage for that. Penetrating should really only be for attacks that can seep through incompletely sealed defenses; it does full damage against lesser defended foes but still always does something without Impenetrable defenses. It's a very specific behavior, which in most cases could be adequately modeled by combining an attack with a Linked NND attack for the splatter/leakage/swarming damage.