Balancing damage and defenses

[Grailknight]

I wouldn't allow "STUN only" to be applied to Damage Negation for an entirely different reason. 

 

Such a limitation would completely change the mechanic of the power. For such a Limitation to have meaning, you'd have to somehow know the BODY pips of the number of DC's negated. But there's no way to know that because those dice are never rolled. 

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

If you value this, tho...recognize that STUN only negation does NOT help against the BODY from AVAD, Does BODY, or the damage from Drain STUN or Drain BODY.  So there's a real loss of functionality for you.

 

This is already covered under the Non-Resistant Limitation for DN that is already in RAW. There's no need to duplicate that and even if you made STUN only a thing, the Drain STUN should still have effect. Plus, that 3 real points of limited DN is still equivalent to 6 PD or ED. It doesn't stop an average of the DC's, it stops them completely even if you would have rolled maximum damage every time.

[Steve]

As I mentioned earlier, the dice can be rolled with a different color to see if any ones or sixes show up. It’s possible to pick up a fair amount of BODY on a good roll.

 

While i could see just buying extra PD/ED that only affects STUN, seven active points of PD (Resistant, STUN only) is five real points, so is a very poor buy compared to Damage Negation dice as the latter also affects Killing Attacks and Drains versus STUN. It’s also a simpler build than buying PD/ED, applying advantages and limitations, then also buying Power Defense.

 

Everything I’ve suggested doing with it is RAW, so it is really just a matter of finding the right base level of defenses to go with it.

 

In a 12DC campaign, buying 14 PD/ED and then adding six dice of DN gives a decent amount of damage soaking and a chance of stunning if CON is kept under control.

Edited April 12 by Steve

[unclevlad]

So roll them and just count the BODY, for the dice where the STUN is negated.  That's not a rules issue, it's simply a procedural one.  Or just say they do average BODY.  That isn't grounds to throw the limitation out.

 

STUN only is already in RAW, too.  6E1 184, STUN (or BODY) only.  You have a point, that Nonresistant also removes even MORE defenses, and it's worth less.  That's a clear problem in RAW that, I think, has never been clearly exposed.  At least not that I can recall.  My interpretation of STUN Only isn't explicitly in the rules;  I'm reasoning from effect.  It can only eliminate STUN...that's what it flat out says.  OK, so it can't counter the BODY of AVAD Does BODY, and there are no stun pips to address for a Drain BODY or Drain STUN.  

 

Something is definitely messed up, that's glaringly self-evident.  I'd start with Nonresistant, tho.  Nonresistant for DR is effectively -1/2...but actually slightly better, because further limitations from 2/3 the base reduce costs as well or better than starting from the full base with a -1/2 limit.  (60 points with -1 is 30;  40 points with -1/2 is 27.)  The rules for applying DN and DR, in resistant and nonresistant cases, are identical...so why is NR only -1/4 on DN, but -1/2 on DR?

 

41 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

Plus, that 3 real points of limited DN is still equivalent to 6 PD or ED. It doesn't stop an average of the DC's, it stops them completely even if you would have rolled maximum damage every time.

 

And it would only stop 1 STUN if you roll a 1.  You cannot assume a 6.  You assume the mathematical expectation...which is 3.5.  Your argument is saying that, say, 4 DCs Negation is worth 24...when it's less than 1000 to 1 that you'll roll 24 on 4d6.  Not valid.

Quote

While i could see just buying extra PD/ED that only affects STUN, seven active points of PD (Resistant, STUN only) i

 

You can't buy Armor, PD, or ED (or in 5E, Force Field) as STUN only.  DN (for 6E) and DR only.  

Also, Normal PD counts against the STUN of a killing attack, so there's no reason to make it resistant.

 

And I'll go back...if you aren't gonna allow STUN only DR or DN, then how is a player expected to address the massive leftover STUN?  DR is horribly inefficient, and you're still getting hammered for considerable STUN, which is still a big problem.  OK, the secondary aspect that it heavily negates AVADs helps in the efficiency angle, but man, it means those Mental Attacks are pretty much gutted...net 1d6 damage for 20 points?  YUCK.  

[Grailknight]

But you equated it 10 points of either PD or ED and it is much better than that. Those 10 points allow STUN damage on 50% of rolls of 3d6 if spent on PD/ED but are 100% effective if spent on STUN only DN. And there is no situation where the PD/ED would apply where the DN does not.

 

One of these is clearly not getting what you pay for.

Edited April 12 by Grailknight

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Grailknight said:

But you equated it 10 points of either PD or ED and it is much better than that. Those 10 points allow STUN damage on 50% of rolls of 3d6 if spent on PD/ED but are 100% effective if spent on STUN only DN. And there is no situation where the PD/ED would apply where the DN does not. One of these is clearly not getting what you pay for.

 

Yes and no.  You're not considering the overall defensive structure.  Let's say 12 DCs.  Let's go with 14 rDEF, then either 10 nrDEF or 3 dice STUN only.  The 10 nrDEF helps cancel more than the 5 STUN you roll on those 3 dice, when that happens...and 5 is just as likely as 16.  it largely balances out.  EDIT per Grail:  OOPS.  No, 4 DCs, 14 DEF.  Because 3 DCs does not have an integer expectation.

 

The sense where the DN is somewhat better is because the distribution of damage changes.   

 

8d6 (total and % chance)		8d6-14	12d6 (total and %)		12d6-28	Expect 8	Expect 12	P8	S8	P12	S12
16	0.37	2	30	0.88	2	0.0074	0.0176	0.37	0.0074	0.88	0.0176
17	0.62	3	31	1.23	3	0.0186	0.0369	0.99	0.026	2.11	0.0545
18	1	4	32	1.66	4	0.04	0.0664	1.99	0.066	3.77	0.1209
19	1.52	5	33	2.17	5	0.076	0.1085	3.51	0.142	5.94	0.2294
20	2.18	6	34	2.76	6	0.1308	0.1656	5.69	0.2728	8.7	0.395
21	2.99	7	35	3.4	7	0.2093	0.238	8.68	0.4821	12.1	0.633
22	3.92	8	36	4.07	8	0.3136	0.3256	12.6	0.7957	16.17	0.9586
23	4.9	9	37	4.73	9	0.441	0.4257	17.5	1.2367	20.9	1.3843
24	5.88	10	38	5.35	10	0.588	0.535	23.38	1.8247	26.25	1.9193
25	6.77	11	39	5.89	11	0.7447	0.6479	30.15	2.5694	32.14	2.5672
26	7.48	12	40	6.3	12	0.8976	0.756	37.63	3.467	38.44	3.3232
27	7.94	13	41	6.56	13	1.0322	0.8528	45.57	4.4992	45	4.176
28	8.09	14	42	6.65	14	1.1326	0.931	53.66	5.6318	51.65	5.107
29	7.94	15	43	6.56	15	1.191	0.984	61.6	6.8228	58.21	6.091
30	7.48	16	44	6.3	16	1.1968	1.008	69.08	8.0196	64.51	7.099
31	6.77	17	45	5.89	17	1.1509	1.0013	75.85	9.1705	70.4	8.1003
32	5.88	18	46	5.35	18	1.0584	0.963	81.73	10.2289	75.75	9.0633
33	4.9	19	47	4.73	19	0.931	0.8987	86.63	11.1599	80.48	9.962
34	3.92	20	48	4.07	20	0.784	0.814	90.55	11.9439	84.55	10.776
35	2.99	21	49	3.4	21	0.6279	0.714	93.54	12.5718	87.95	11.49
36	2.18	22	50	2.76	22	0.4796	0.6072	95.72	13.0514	90.71	12.0972
37	1.52	23	51	2.17	23	0.3496	0.4991	97.24	13.401	92.88	12.5963
38	1	24	52	1.66	24	0.24	0.3984	98.24	13.641	94.54	12.9947
39	0.62	25	53	1.23	25	0.155	0.3075	98.86	13.796	95.77	13.3022
40	0.37	26	54	0.88	26	0.0962	0.2288	99.23	13.8922	96.65	13.531
41	0.2	27	55	0.61	27	0.054	0.1647	99.43	13.9462	97.26	13.6957
42	0.1	28	56	0.41	28	0.028	0.1148	99.53	13.9742	97.67	13.8105
43	0.05	29	57	0.26	29	0.0145	0.0754	99.58	13.9887	97.93	13.8859
44	0.02	30	58	0.16	30	0.006	0.048	99.6	13.9947	98.09	13.9339
45	0.01	31	59	0.1	31	0.0031	0.031	99.61	13.9978	98.19	13.9649
46	0	32	60	0.06	32	0	0.0192	99.61	13.9978	98.25	13.9841
47	0	33	61	0.03	33	0	0.0099	99.61	13.9978	98.28	13.994
48	0	34	62	0.02	34	0	0.0068	99.61	13.9978	98.3	14.0008

 

The columns are aligned on net STUN taken, comparing 8d6 with 14 DEF (4 dice negation) versus 12d6 with 28 DEF.  The last 4 columns show the cumulative distributions.  P8 is the probability for 8 dice that the stun will not EXCEED the stun total S8.  P12 and S12 are the same for 12 dice.  Since it's "will not exceed"...higher is better for the player.

 

 

 

 

That's the last 4 columns as a graph.  The DN is a bit better...but not enough better to matter overall.

 

Where it does matter is in determining the percent change to be stunned.  Say a 20 CON...so it's 8d6 > 35 or 12d6 > 48.  Here...the CON is pushing you much further out to the low-probability tail section of the 8d6...not so much with the 12d6, because the standard deviation of 12d6 is about a pip higher than for 8d6.  Still...we're talking SMALL differences.

[Grailknight]

Shouldn't that be 9d6-14 and 12d6-24?  I don't doubt your graphs, but the starting parameters seem off.

 

[unclevlad]

I was doing 4 DCs of negation on those, versus 14 DEF.  3 DCs negation...do you treat that as 10 or 11 DEF?  It actually makes a pretty clear difference on something I use a lot...the risk of getting stunned.  Look at the percent chance of rolling a specific number in the mid-40s range on 12d6...it's about 6% per, so even that 1 point of difference is notable.  And that's just based on "round up or round down."  Going with 4 DCs vs. 14 DEF...no such issue.

 

I see...ok, I'll fix the lead-in.  I re-wrote a LOT of the post and missed that I was using 3 DCs negation at the top.

[unclevlad]

ok, finally...it didn't want to paste this.  On this chart, the X axis is STUN.  The Y axis is the probability you'll take that much STUN, OR MORE.  Same parameters...8d6-14, 12d6-28.  The 4 dice of DN comes out slightly better in much of the crucial range...generally, for the same percent chance, the DN STUN is 1-2 points lower.  STUN, % Chance 8 dice, % chance 12 dice.  So, for example, 24% it'll be 17+ with DN, 18+ without.  What you do have is that the DN does damp the chance of a particularly high roll.  24 STUN on 8d6-14 is 38 rolled, so that's right at +2 standard deviations.  24 STUN on 12d6-28 is 52 rolled, or about +1.67 standard deviations. 

 

2	99.63	99.12
3	99.01	97.89
4	98.01	96.23
5	96.49	94.06
6	94.31	91.30
7	91.32	87.90
8	87.40	83.83
9	82.50	79.10
10	76.62	73.75
11	69.85	67.86
12	62.37	61.56
13	54.43	55.00
14	46.34	48.35
15	38.40	41.79
16	30.92	35.49
17	24.15	29.60
18	18.27	24.25
19	13.37	19.52
20	9.45	15.45
21	6.46	12.05
22	4.28	9.29
23	2.76	7.12
24	1.76	5.46
25	1.14	4.23
26	0.77	3.35
27	0.57	2.74
28	0.47	2.33
29	0.42	2.07
30	0.40	1.91
31	0.39	1.81
32	0.39	1.75
33	0.39	1.72
34	0.39	1.70

[Steve]

It looks like I made a misstatement on my comment earlier. If a character has any resistant defenses, then the added PD/ED versus STUN only doesn’t need to be made resistant. It would apply as-is if there were other resistant defenses. So 6 active points of STUN only PD/ED would be four points, plus two points for 6 active points of Power Defense versus STUN Drains only (if I did my math right). A total of six points.

 

Or I could buy a die of Damage Negation, limited to STUN only for three points.

 

Using Damage Negation is a simpler, cleaner build, and it has added benefits beyond just resisting regular or killing attacks. It would take a little math at the table to apply it to advantaged attacks, but that isn’t a deal killer.

[Grailknight]

5 hours ago, Steve said:

It looks like I made a misstatement on my comment earlier. If a character has any resistant defenses, then the added PD/ED versus STUN only doesn’t need to be made resistant. It would apply as-is if there were other resistant defenses. So 6 active points of STUN only PD/ED would be four points, plus two points for 6 active points of Power Defense versus STUN Drains only (if I did my math right). A total of six points.

 

Or I could buy a die of Damage Negation, limited to STUN only for three points.

 

Using Damage Negation is a simpler, cleaner build, and it has added benefits beyond just resisting regular or killing attacks. It would take a little math at the table to apply it to advantaged attacks, but that isn’t a deal killer.

 

I fail to see how a power with a Custom Limitation constitutes a simpler build than PD or ED. Also, the fact that it precisely duplicates an existing Power for less points sems to violate a metarule.

[unclevlad]

7 hours ago, Steve said:

It looks like I made a misstatement on my comment earlier. If a character has any resistant defenses, then the added PD/ED versus STUN only doesn’t need to be made resistant. It would apply as-is if there were other resistant defenses. So 6 active points of STUN only PD/ED would be four points, plus two points for 6 active points of Power Defense versus STUN Drains only (if I did my math right). A total of six points.

 

Or I could buy a die of Damage Negation, limited to STUN only for three points.

 

Using Damage Negation is a simpler, cleaner build, and it has added benefits beyond just resisting regular or killing attacks. It would take a little math at the table to apply it to advantaged attacks, but that isn’t a deal killer.

 

You can't apply STUN Only to PD or ED by RAW, and here I do agree with those saying I'd never allow it.  It becomes far too cheap.  And in this case, the clear evidence is, they chose not to include it....because it does exist in RAW for other powers.

 

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

 

I fail to see how a power with a Custom Limitation constitutes a simpler build than PD or ED. Also, the fact that it precisely duplicates an existing Power for less points sems to violate a metarule.

 

Since the last point you quoted was about DN...STUN Only is not a custom limitation on DN or DR.  It's RAW.  Nor does it duplicate...PD/ED applies to the BODY of an attack.  STUN Only DN doesn't.  The fact that you've got so much defense against the BODY doesn't change the nature of the power.

[Grailknight]

Deleted.

Edited April 13 by Grailknight
More research needed

[Hugh Neilson]

This falls into the same category as many other limitations - is it limiting in the context of the specific character in the specific campaign? 

 

The pricing question is an issue.  Typically, "resistant" has been a +1/2 advantage.  It doesn't seem like this has been re-evaluated with the evolution of killing attacks.  It was +1/2 when nonresistant defenses did not reduce Stun damage from killing attacks, which made nonresistant defenses considerably less valuable.

If anything, the loss of reducing Drains and STUN damage from KAs suggests that nonresistant is more limiting for DN and DR than for normal defenses (ie moving Resistant Protection to PD and ED). It seems like either nonresistant DN and DR should still reduce STUN from KAs (and perhaps all switches between Resistant and Nonresistant should be repriced at -1/4) or nonresistant DN and DR should be a greater limitation than nonresistant defenses.

 

The -1/2 for "only BOD" or "only STUN" presupposes that reducing each is of equal importance.  Where that supposition is not accurate for the specific campaign or character, I would take issue with the limitation.  In other words, as a GM, if you apply, and I allow, "No BOD" to your Negation or Reduction, then the onus is on me as GM to ensure that the limitation becomes relevant in actual gameplay.  For STUN Only, that means ensuring there are instances where you are at risk of BOD damage not reduced by these defenses. 

 

If I have two players, one who pays full price for Negation (or Reduction) and one who takes a discount for "STUN only", the first player deserves to see some value for the extra points spent.

[LoneWolf]

I have to agree with Hugh on this.  What he is saying is a fundamental concept of the Hero System.  A limitation that does not actually limit the power should not reduce the cost of the power.   This has been explicitly stated in every edition in one form or another.  

 

The one thing that should be brought up, is that you don’t have to actually take body for it to have an impact on the game.   Body also is also used to determine knockback.  If a character has stun only, they can still be knocked around by the attack without actually taking BODY.  If the campaign is using knockback than Stun only should be worth some limitation.  At that point the argument is not whether it is a limitation, but rather how much it is worth. 

Edited April 14 by LoneWolf

[Steve]

So as far as I can see, the only defense powers that can be limited to "STUN Only" are Damage Negation and Damage Reduction, which I didn't know before.

 

I thought PD and ED could be limited that way as well, since it seemed to make sense.

 

I would be inclined to change the "resistant" advantage to +1/4, which would bring it in line with the -1/4 limitation shown for being nonresistant in Damage Negation.

 

The use of Damage Negation would need to be limited by other allowable defenses to make them playable. In a 12d6 damage campaign, having a cap of 14/15 PD/ED and up to six dice of limited Damage Negation still allows some modest risk of BODY damage. Something like PD/ED capped at 125% of damage dice and Damage Negation capped at 50% of damage dice.

 

As Damage Negation also effectively limits Knockback effects, would Damage Negation that doesn't affect Knockback be worth something like -1/4?

 

 

Edited April 15 by Steve

[unclevlad]

On 4/15/2024 at 10:49 AM, Steve said:

So as far as I can see, the only defense powers that can be limited to "STUN Only" are Damage Negation and Damage Reduction, which I didn't know before.

 

I thought PD and ED could be limited that way as well, since it seemed to make sense.

 

I would be inclined to change the "resistant" advantage to +1/4, which would bring it in line with the -1/4 limitation shown for being nonresistant in Damage Negation.

 

The use of Damage Negation would need to be limited by other allowable defenses to make them playable. In a 12d6 damage campaign, having a cap of 14/15 PD/ED and up to six dice of limited Damage Negation still allows some modest risk of BODY damage. Something like PD/ED capped at 125% of damage dice and Damage Negation capped at 50% of damage dice.

 

As Damage Negation also effectively limits Knockback effects, would Damage Negation that doesn't affect Knockback be worth something like -1/4?

 

 

 

STUN-only PD/ED could make sense, but it's not in the rules.  As usual, the devil's in the details.

 

Change resistant to +1/4...where?  Nonresistant is effectively -1/2 for DR.  Resistant is +1/2 for PD and ED, and Resistant Protection is 3/2...effectively +1/2.  The only time it's 1/4 is the limitation on DN...so it's the aberration in my book.  

 

In terms of 'limits'...that's up to each campaign.  For 12d6?  14 DEF and 6 dice of negation would be high *in my book*.  I use much more of a 'real life' basis...that bad guys may be trying to KILL the good guys.  Get one of em down, they may not stop.  There's a risk of BODY, sure...but practically no STUN.  Note that my charts are on 4 dice of negation...not 6.  Remember, 2 dice of negation eliminates 7 STUN.

 

My baseline for total defense is...don't get stunned very often.  No more than 10% of the time, because you're a sitting duck until you recover from being stunned...and others *will* take advantage.  There's only so far you can take that, given finite resources.  That's why I look at the distribution curves.  My process:

 

1.  How much BODY do I want to stop?  This needs to be 100% resistant, because killing attacks are the threat, not normal attacks.  (Your campaign can be different, and if so, vary this.  Unless KAs are just not gonna be used, tho...even if they're toned down, where perhaps in a 12 DC game, KAs are capped at 3d6?  That's still 10 BODY on average, and 13 is still fairly frequent.)  

 

2. What's my CON?  One of the targets is that "no more than 10% risk of being stunned"...and that's tied to CON.  I'm stunned if RolledSTUN > (BODYDef + CON).  In the negation case, RolledSTUN is using the smaller dice pool.  For 12d6 attacks...14 BODYDef, 20 CON would be 34.  Is 3 dice negation enough?  Heck no...I know that at a glance.  9d6, mean is 31.5, so 35+ is barely above average.  I can use AnyDice to confirm...yeah, it's 28%.  FAR!!!! too high.  How about 4 dice negation?  8d6...mean's 28...maybe.  35+...9% of the time.  36+ drops down to 6%.  Perhaps I go with that 1 extra point of BODY defense...or a 21 CON.  One last check...5 dice?  7d6, mean is 24.5...max is 42.  Needs 35?  That's averaging 5 per die...that's WILDLY unlikely on 7 dice.  Let's crosscheck...AnyDice says?  1.2%.  Probably overkill.

 

3.  A secondary check is, how many strikes can you take before being knocked out...ignoring recoveries, at least initially.  Let's say we like the 15 BODYDef with our 20 CON, and 4 dice of negation...slightly on the cautious side.  15 DEF against 8d6 means 13 STUN getting through on average.  How many of those you can take depends on how high you buy up your STUN...which is cheap.  I like resilient characters...so...probably 4 shots, I'd still be standing.  OTOH, 5 dice negation with the 14 BODYDef?  On average, only 10's getting through, and I can probably take a 5th hit.  It might be OK.  But we probably need to examine how often our guy's gonna *get* hit.

 

4.  The # of strikes issue is why Damage Reduction is a bit worse.  Yeah, you won't get stunned, but you take 14 STUN from the average now, not 13.  The bigger hassle is the interfering nature between DEF and DR.  2 points of DEF only eliminates 1 point of STUN, after the DR.  (I assume 50%.)  It calls for a different build...a bit lower CON is clear.  I think of DR with characters who won't get hit as much...projector types who can use range to their advantage, mobile types that are simply harder to target en masse, high base DCV, that sort of thing.  

 

The bigger problem with DR is simply the very high base cost.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Resistant as an advantage has to end up costing the same amount that Resistant Protection costs.  If it costs 3 points for 2 rDef then it has to cost the same to buy 2 PD and make it resistant.  If you cut the cost of resistant for whatever reason, then Resistant Protection (and probably every other defense) has to be reduced.

[Steve]

Since Damage Negation is the outlier at -1/4 for Nonresistant, moving it up to -1/2 would seem to bring it in line. Spending five points per two dice would make it more tempting for martial artists and two-fisted adventurers, I suppose.

 

That said, I’d be okay with repricing the resistant effect at 1/4 due to the change in the damage multiplier die roll for killing attacks, as was mentioned earlier in the thread. This would require a lot of repricing in defense abilities so probably better to leave alone. That must have been looked at by the group involved in making 6th Edition though.

 

So, if I have an 18 CON, 14 PD and 6 dice of Damage Negation (STUN Only), a 12d6 attack would do 7 STUN and no BODY on average, but could cause 10 BODY and 22 STUN on maximum damage. A rare event I know. Changing that to 4 dice of DN increases the average damage taken up to 14 STUN and no BODY, so still workable.

 

By adding Damage Negation to reduce the STUN taken, CON can be lowered to more reasonable levels. A 16-18 CON would seem okay.

 

However, Hit Locations complicates this.

 

Maybe extra Damage Negation that is limited to certain hit locations? A tough chin as opposed to a glass jaw.

Edited April 16 by Steve

[unclevlad]

If we're talking a complete reconsideration, that opens up...well, everything related to damage.  For example...eliminate killing attacks altogether?  Make "killing" a +1/4 advantage on attacks, much like AP?  Should normal defense be applied to the STUN of a killing attack?  Should Resistant and AP be so sharply separate, since they overlap in function?  

 

33 minutes ago, Steve said:

So, if I have an 18 CON, 14 PD and 6 dice of Damage Negation (STUN Only), a 12d6 attack would do 7 STUN and no BODY on average, but could cause 10 BODY and 22 STUN on maximum damage. A rare event I know. Changing that to 4 dice of DN increases the average damage taken up to 14 STUN and no BODY, so still workable.

 

That's not rare, that's something you'd see once or twice in a gaming lifetime.  It's 1 in 46,656.  Anything that's about, oh...1% or less?  It's irrelevant to system design.  You're almost never getting stunned;  that has to be 19, ergo 33 on the 6d6.  That's about 0.2%...1 in 500.  And you're only taking 7 STUN, so HOW many strikes to STUN?  LOTS...which also means it becomes much more likely recoveries will kick in.  Plus, a 15 REC...nothing exceptional...is covering the damage from 2 strikes.  That's a lot. Note that this might well work for an elemental type...instead of using the Automaton "Takes no Stun" rules which are even MORE expensive, you build the defenses like this.  You mostly have to beat the thing until it falls apart.  

 

It can also be OK for a PC where, from time to time, larger threats have to be fought...even 1 on 1 sometimes.  So it's 14 dice.  The 'average serious villain' is 12...the 'serious threat villain' might be more.

 

But yeah, you're getting the basic idea.  It's very tunable.

 

Quote

By adding Damage Negation to reduce the STUN taken, CON can be lowered to more reasonable levels. A 16-18 CON would seem okay.

 

 

Because you aren't doing the math.  14 DEF, 4 DCs negation?  With an 18 CON, you're stunned when 8d6 > 32...33+.  That's 18% of the time.  That's FAR from OK in my book.  You're trying to eyeball it, but it's a bell curve...not a flat one.  It's the same thing as on the stock 3d6 rolls?  +1 taking you from 3 to 4...almost useless.  From a 15 to a 16?  Largely a waste.  From 9 to 10, 10 to 11, or 11 to 12...BIG difference, about 12% each.

 

So you're taking 14 DEF and 6 DCs?  Then your overall defenses are too high for many GMs because you're not taking any STUN very often.  

 

It's not enough to simply focus on one aspect of the defensive issue.

[Steve]

I’m honestly not looking to rebuild the whole damage and defense system, but the issues raised in this thread have been very interesting. I just want to tune damage and defenses into a setup I can present to my players without overloading them with math.

 

I get that damage is on a curve, but I’m trying to break it down into simpler chunks for build guidelines: damage classes, PD/ED, Damage Negation, STUN and BODY.

 

So a typical character is doing 12d6, has a 14 PD and ED and six Damage Negation dice (STUN only). If they want their character to take eight hits before falling over, then they need around 50 STUN and probably a recovery in the 8-12 range. Tougher characters would do more damage or maybe have a bit higher defenses or both.

 

 

[Grailknight]

If you're trying to figure out how long a combat will be, then you need to factor in at least 2 other parameters. You need the SPD's of the participants and also relative OCV and DCV. with the other numbers you just gave 4-5 average SPD will be a 3-4 turn slog at if you hit on 11 or less and 2- 3 turns at 6-7 SPD. Even at 8 SPD or higher, you're going in 2 turns. Turning up OCV slightly will shorten the combats slightly but shifting just to 10 or less will make these combats take forever. Some will be decided by who runs out of END.

 

You need to set all your variables and test them out. Only with a good baseline can you tweak.

 

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Steve said:

I’m honestly not looking to rebuild the whole damage and defense system, but the issues raised in this thread have been very interesting. I just want to tune damage and defenses into a setup I can present to my players without overloading them with math.

 

I get that damage is on a curve, but I’m trying to break it down into simpler chunks for build guidelines: damage classes, PD/ED, Damage Negation, STUN and BODY.

 

So a typical character is doing 12d6, has a 14 PD and ED and six Damage Negation dice (STUN only). If they want their character to take eight hits before falling over, then they need around 50 STUN and probably a recovery in the 8-12 range. Tougher characters would do more damage or maybe have a bit higher defenses or both.

 

 

 

YOU do the math...in advance, then present the final.

 

8 hits is a LOT.  And there is near-zero risk of ever getting stunned.  12d6 becomes No Real Threat with this much defense.  Better would be about 15 DEF and 4 dice negation.

 

Also, look at the points.  If this is 12 resistant and 2 normal...leave those baseline 2...that's 18 points.  20 points for the 6 dice of negation.  That's 38 points...each, for PD and ED.  That's a major fraction of the total. 

 

The 8-12 REC...is that enough to deal with their END costs?   

 

8 hits to take down is *too many* IMO.  As Grail notes, combat risks being a SLOG.  Remember, it's not 8 attacks...it's 8 hits.  If the bad guys have 11- to hit, that's 12-13 attacks.  2+ turns at a 6 SPD...3+ turns at a 4 SPD.  Oh, but that also means some post-12 RECs.  And a 6 SPD very likely means a higher REC...which means it'll take even more hits.

 

As a middle of the road baseline...14 or 15 DEF, mostly resistant, and 4 dice of negation, feels like average risk.  It's FAR!!! more than most book characters I've seen.  There's risk of some BODY...but not getting wiped out by a single high BODY KA roll.  The character can get stunned occasionally.  The character better pay attention to the situation...even a 2 on 1 against him can whittle him down.  This, to me, covers my goals as a GM...the PCs should win, but mostly, they should feel like they're being challenged.  TOUGH characters like Ben Grimm...you go higher.  The brick's there, in part, to DRAW attacks to him...so he has to last a longer time.  The martial artist and the energy projector focus more on not getting stunned, and a bit less on the number of hits they can take...because generally, they don't get hit very often.  OK...so, keep that base defense, 15 DEF, 4 negation, say...I'm a bit more worried about the high-damage side, and about the killing attacks.  Raise the CON a couple points, drop the total STUN by 10...can take 4 average hits barely, 3 that run a little over average...?  That should be pretty close.

 

Grail:  I agree with what you said, but it's making the problem even MORE compllicated...by a considerable amount.  Even thinking about it in the manner I'm advocating...is hard to grasp until you use it for a while, or have a degree in math and years of considering questions along these lines.  

[Hugh Neilson]

On 4/14/2024 at 12:21 PM, LoneWolf said:

I have to agree with Hugh on this.  What he is saying is a fundamental concept of the Hero System.  A limitation that does not actually limit the power should not reduce the cost of the power.   This has been explicitly stated in every edition in one form or another.  

 

The one thing that should be brought up, is that you don’t have to actually take body for it to have an impact on the game.   Body also is also used to determine knockback.  If a character has stun only, they can still be knocked around by the attack without actually taking BODY.  If the campaign is using knockback than Stun only should be worth some limitation.  At that point the argument is not whether it is a limitation, but rather how much it is worth. 

 

Defenses don't reduce BOD for knockback.  If they did, we would see no knockback in the genre it is a staple in, four-colour Supers.

 

On 4/16/2024 at 2:44 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Resistant as an advantage has to end up costing the same amount that Resistant Protection costs.  If it costs 3 points for 2 rDef then it has to cost the same to buy 2 PD and make it resistant.  If you cut the cost of resistant for whatever reason, then Resistant Protection (and probably every other defense) has to be reduced.

 

Agreed that this would require revisiting all defense costs.  However, Resistant was a +1/2 advantage when nonresistant defenses did not reduce the BOD or STUN damage from a KA.  For Damage Reduction and Negation, that is still the case. For PD/ED,it is not.  So is "resistant" still worth +1/2? Was it a bargain price before,or is it overpriced now? Perhaps it actually rose in value in 6e, when KAs were redesigned to focus on doing BOD rather than STUN.

[Gauntlet]

On 4/16/2024 at 1:44 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Resistant as an advantage has to end up costing the same amount that Resistant Protection costs.  If it costs 3 points for 2 rDef then it has to cost the same to buy 2 PD and make it resistant.  If you cut the cost of resistant for whatever reason, then Resistant Protection (and probably every other defense) has to be reduced.

 

Plus, if you want resistant defense that only works against a certain type of attack, then put the limitation on the resistant defense, not just the resistant advantage.

[LoneWolf]

I should have specified I was talking about damage negation in my comment on knockback.  While normal defenses do not reduce knockback damage negation does.  If I have -3 DC of damage negation the attacker rolls 3 less dice to determine damage on a normal attack.  That is going to reduce the knockback the attack does.     

Edited April 22 by LoneWolf