Attack that only affects evil. Suggestions?

[Nuke]

Originally posted by Galadorn

I'm not getting into a moral philosophy seminar here, but which neutrals are you talking about, the invincibly ignorant neutrals who don't know any better? Or the neutrals who know better, but just claim to be neutral? [/b]

 

It was a silly joke, that's all.

 

I won't argue the morality of it in real life terms, this is plainly a fantasy discussion. I would argue that the definitions of good/evil are deity dependent. So I could easily see one deity's "affect evil" spell hitting "neutral" characters where another's would not. Likewise for an evil deity's "affect good" spell.

 

I would say this is the job of the GM to determine at the campaign's deities views of "neutral" characters, or basically, those characters who have decided not to decide.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Nuke

It was a silly joke, that's all.

 

I won't argue the morality of it in real life terms, this is plainly a fantasy discussion. I would argue that the definitions of good/evil are deity dependent. So I could easily see one deity's "affect evil" spell hitting "neutral" characters where another's would not. Likewise for an evil deity's "affect good" spell.

 

I was just playing, being a little bit facitious. But seriously, I want that spell too.

 

I would say this is the job of the GM to determine at the campaign's deities views of "neutral" characters, or basically, those characters who have decided not to decide.

Yeah...

[Outsider]

A really intolerant Deity's "affect evil" spell might even hit everyone who isnt one of his worshippers...

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Outsider

A really intolerant Deity's "affect evil" spell might even hit everyone who isnt one of his worshippers...

 

Yeppers. But it depends on the deity, some evil ones would probably have a spell like this in their inventory.

[Rick]

Alright if I repeat anything anyones already said I apologize.

 

If you are going to have these type of effects in your game you should (or I believe could would be a better term) make good and evil part of the campaign paradigm.

 

So characters should take distinctive features for good and evil. Thus you can simple limit yopur AE: power that it only works against evil or good characters (-1/2).

[Outsider]

I think the debate is about how limiting only having one's AE effect one's enemies is.

 

I'm of the opinion that it actually represents an advantage because it is going to be used in a campaign that primarily feature good vs evil combat, as it allows the character to AE indiscriminately, without fear of hurting his friends.

 

Galadorn is of the opinion that it represents a limitation because it is going to be used in a campaign that has a broader mix of foes, and it will be unability to hurt neutrals or the inanimate.

 

Either of us could be right, depending on the foe-balance in the campaign. Only the GM who is going to run it knows the balance though.

[Rick]

It limits the usefulness of the power. An eb can effect everyone, so an eb that only effects evil characters limits the usefulness of the EB, thus making it a limitation. You can't use it against animals or nuetral characters, or for that matter what if you have to fight the good guys....

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Rick

It limits the usefulness of the power. An eb can effect everyone, so an eb that only effects evil characters limits the usefulness of the EB, thus making it a limitation. You can't use it against animals or nuetral characters, or for that matter what if you have to fight the good guys....

 

The point being that a non-selective area effect EB would normally hit friend and foe. Having one that only strikes the foe would be an advantage in that case. In a normal power, it might be a normal limitation, again, depending on the campaign.

[Rick]

In that case I'll shut the hell up...

[Nuke]

Originally posted by Outsider

Either of us could be right, depending on the foe-balance in the campaign. Only the GM who is going to run it knows the balance though.

 

Well spoken.

 

It's similar to having the disadvantage "Hatred of Orcs". Imagine your character comes across an orc once every 30 adventures compared to your character coming across an orc when they have a political presence in the society. Suddenly there are dangerous effects of hating those orcs, and thus the value of the disadvantage changes.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Rick

It limits the usefulness of the power. An eb can effect everyone, so an eb that only effects evil characters limits the usefulness of the EB, thus making it a limitation. You can't use it against animals or nuetral characters, or for that matter what if you have to fight the good guys....

 

That's my exact point Rick. There are five types of characters you can't effect - assuming the GM is using these types of creatures, and thinking in these terms:

 

• 1. Good creatures.
  2. Neutral characters.
  3. Non-sentient animals, and wild creatures.
  4. Inanimate objects.
  5. Automatons (no one thought of this before).
   
  And of course the spell can effect:
  6. Evil creatures.
  

 

Sounds like a limitation to me. There are generally six groups of creatures - and you can only effect one. What does this say to you?

 

If you want look through your adventure records (if you have any) and count the moral disposition of the creatures the party fought. See what you came up with and tell me what you think.

 

If you don't keep adventure records, count the morality of your monsters, in the next five adventures.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by badger3k

The point being that a non-selective area effect EB would normally hit friend and foe. Having one that only strikes the foe would be an advantage in that case. In a normal power, it might be a normal limitation, again, depending on the campaign.

 

There are more creatures in a typical campaign then just evil foes. There are also: doors to get through, locks to break, wagon wheels to disable, manacles to escape, etc. This effects only evil spell is useless against these obstacles, unless those objects are sentient and evil, or enchanted with evil magic, through and through.

 

And whens the last time you targeted an area of effect spell on your party members? I did it once, because I knew the npc would survive the attack (though be knocked unconscious) - and the agents surrounding her would be defeated.

 

That's once in twenty-four years of playing hero games...

[Galadorn]

I had one last thought, what happens when your evil villians figure out that the pc's spell effects only evil, and starts sending legions of grizzly bears at them? Sounds like a weakness the villain can take advantage of...

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Galadorn

There are more creatures in a typical campaign then just evil foes. There are also: doors to get through, locks to break, wagon wheels to disable, manacles to escape, etc. This effects only evil spell is useless against these obstacles, unless those objects are sentient and evil, or enchanted with evil magic, through and through.

 

And whens the last time you targeted an area of effect spell on your party members? I did it once, because I knew the npc would survive the attack (though be knocked unconscious) - and the agents surrounding her would be defeated.

 

That's once in twenty-four years of playing hero games...

 

Actually, with my group, the "fireball at the feet" ploy has been used at least 4 or 5 times this past year (various reasons, but their defenses stopped it mostly (or they just sucked up the damage) - now, the parties horses turned out to be another matter.... My restatement was, well, just that, a restatement of the ongoing argument.

 

As for things like doors and manacles. Anyone using an area effect attack to take out a door is probably missing the point of the ability. Unless you're in a room full of doors, all within the radius, and you want them all destroyed at once, then that power is not the one you want used.

 

I'll still stick with my original NND option, since that seems to fit the purpose/comcept of the spell as originally described.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by badger3k

Actually, with my group, the "fireball at the feet" ploy has been used at least 4 or 5 times this past year (various reasons, but their defenses stopped it mostly (or they just sucked up the damage) - now, the parties horses turned out to be another matter.... My restatement was, well, just that, a restatement of the ongoing argument.

 

O.k.

 

As for things like doors and manacles. Anyone using an area effect attack to take out a door is probably missing the point of the ability. Unless you're in a room full of doors, all within the radius, and you want them all destroyed at once, then that power is not the one you want used.

 

Yes, true to an extent. But you can also target the area of effect so one hex includes the door and the doors framework. Also, sometimes you don't care about the walls.

 

Secondly, sometimes a pc might have the defense against the pc casters spell: Like 10rED versus fire.

 

I'll still stick with my original NND option, since that seems to fit the purpose/comcept of the spell as originally described.

 

Well the defense being "not being evil," is not an uncommon defense - it's a common defense.

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Galadorn

Yes, true to an extent. But you can also target the area of effect so one hex includes the door and the doors framework. Also, sometimes you don't care about the walls.

 

Secondly, sometimes a pc might have the defense against the pc casters spell: Like 10rED versus fire.

 

True, but that adds in another angle. If all the pcs have the same defenses or immunities, then is it a limitation still? I think the books give situations/advice on limitations that aren't going to be used as such. The NND is still an advantage, and it would target the enemies who are evil, which to my mind fits the "uber-power"/deity-strike concept of the spell he's designing. The spell is designed specifically to be used in that situation. If it were a general, multi-use power, then I probably wouldn't use the NND, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I'm still just looking at the original post. The rest of the argument is all subjective depending on the campaign, so I have no different opinion than most - it could be either advantage or limitation.

 

 

Well the defense being "not being evil," is not an uncommon defense - it's a common defense. [/b]

 

"When a character purchases an NND, he must define a reasonably common Power or circumstance, or a set of uncommon Powers or circumstances, as the defense." p 171. - The first part applies.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by badger3k

"When a character purchases an NND, he must define a reasonably common Power or circumstance, or a set of uncommon Powers or circumstances, as the defense." p 171. - The first part applies.

 

Well, that makes NND a useless power. It won't be in my arsenals anymore. And now, I remember why I skip this modifier, all together.

 

Secondly, you are dodging the fact that an "attack vs. evil only," is limited - based on the prevelance of evil opponents most campaigns. Maybe not your campaign, but most campaigns.

 

Is it that GMs hate it when players are smarter then they are? I, as a GM, don't. Some players are smarter then me in some things, and far dumber in others.

 

From now on when I want a mega-attack that effects most characters, I will buy it based on limited defense - ego or power defense - NND is useless. Ego attack is a better bet for the points; as ego defense is not a common defense, and the point cost of NND and Ego Attack is the same.

[Rick]

What agian makes NND a useless power advantage?

[badger3k]

The fact that defenses have to be common, or a set of resonably uncommon powers or circumstances. It's the "common" bit thats the key - it turns the power from being a game winner (potentially) into being more of a specialized power - good in certain circumstances, useless in others.

 

You can't take a NND that has as its defense "must possess the artifact Destroyer of Worlds", but could take it as "has fire defense spell". I think most published characters push it a little too far into the uncommon, but its really campaign specific. If there is a 50/50 mix of good/evil, or even a 33/33/33 good/neutral/evil, then odds are good that someone will have a defense against it (if the NND is "be good or neutral", as in this case - written as a positive instead of a lack). Its an advantage because if the enemy is evil, he will have no defenses against it. The fact that it is limited in target is made up for the no-defense bit, at least in theory - YMMV as usual.

 

Having a NND (defense is being dead) in a campaign which has no undead, is not a valid construct (unless there are a lot of corpses around, perhaps as walls, weapons, or armor). I couldn't do a NND sonic blast with defenses "must be deaf" unless being deaf is common - add in "protected/hardened hearing", "protective spells", "force field" etc and that power is better - all those may be uncommon, but added together makes a set of uncommon defenses.

 

Hope that might help.

[Rick]

Well it, as you said depends on the game. Is every henchman evil, is every monster evil or every fantasic creature of the wilderness? If the only thing you ever fight in the game is evil than yes that is not an appropriate defence. I think though that most people will realize that the fight a lot more than just what is considered evil in their world.

 

I've a hard time believing that anyone plays in such a world, where you only fight "EVIL" enemies. Even in D&D most people are supposed to fall into the nuetral alignment (Though this has failed some what in practice in their materials), with only the truly virtuos or vile falling into either extreme.

 

That is why whenever you set these types of lims or advantages you need to look at your world.

 

I've always seent he term common defence or set of uncommon circumstances to mean "Reasonable". Obviously this is just my interpitation. So for NND Gas attacks, if someone has a rebreather or a gas mask or doesn't breath than they aren't effected. Where as if someone writes up a power that is say an NND Kryponite blast defense of not being kryptonian, you should realize they are telling superman that the defense is actually, "not being you" (he is the only kryptonian) and that this power write up may be inappropriate.

[Nuke]

Originally posted by badger3k

The fact that defenses have to be common, or a set of resonably uncommon powers or circumstances. It's the "common" bit thats the key - it turns the power from being a game winner (potentially) into being more of a specialized power - good in certain circumstances, useless in others.

 

You're comparing apples to oranges here I think. If you buy

 

8d6 EB, limitation only against evil

vs.

8d6 NND EB, defense is "don't be evil"

 

The latter is HUGELY more powerful against evil creatures. Don't forget they get no defenses!! That is a tremendous advantage. It's something I neglected to mention earlier in this discussion that everyone here needs to keep track of. The first example, those evil struck by the attack still apply all their defense, and might very well laugh the attack off. The second deals MAJOR damage to the evil foes and should be monitored very closely by the GM.

 

Make sense? Just make sure you keep track of this. I see the "NND vs. Evil" being used in campaigns where there is a good balance of good/neutral/evil, and where the lines of morality are clear cut.

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Nuke

You're comparing apples to oranges here I think. If you buy

 

8d6 EB, limitation only against evil

vs.

8d6 NND EB, defense is "don't be evil"

 

The latter is HUGELY more powerful against evil creatures. Don't forget they get no defenses!! That is a tremendous advantage. It's something I neglected to mention earlier in this discussion that everyone here needs to keep track of. The first example, those evil struck by the attack still apply all their defense, and might very well laugh the attack off. The second deals MAJOR damage to the evil foes and should be monitored very closely by the GM.

 

Make sense? Just make sure you keep track of this. I see the "NND vs. Evil" being used in campaigns where there is a good balance of good/neutral/evil, and where the lines of morality are clear cut.

 

I agree that they are two separate issues. They both are campaign specific in how they are accepted and applied. To go back to the original question, though, it seems to be an advantage and would best fit into the NND power.

 

The NND also (if it does body too) has a base (+2). So a 1d6 RKA would be 45 points. Those same points could be a base 3d6 RKA (only vs evil -?). Say only vs evil is -1/2, then for those same points you can get 4d6 RKA (40 real) and have 5 extra points. The extra 3d6 can make a big difference, depending on defenses. They will both be useless against neutral or good beings, and all object (unless they are evil objects), so which is better really has to be based on defenses and how expensive the power should be. For a godlike power to smite all evil in an area, I'd go with the NND, because such an ability should be powerful and expensive. The other way may actuall be more powerful, but it depends on the defenses of the enemy that it will be used on (a 25 defense Demon might not feel the limited attack, but will feel the NND).

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Nuke

You're comparing apples to oranges here I think. If you buy

 

8d6 EB, limitation only against evil

vs.

8d6 NND EB, defense is "don't be evil"

 

The latter is HUGELY more powerful against evil creatures. Don't forget they get no defenses!! That is a tremendous advantage. It's something I neglected to mention earlier in this discussion that everyone here needs to keep track of. The first example, those evil struck by the attack still apply all their defense, and might very well laugh the attack off. The second deals MAJOR damage to the evil foes and should be monitored very closely by the GM.

 

Yes the second attack is more powerful, there is no question about that. But it is also true that, that attack is more expensive - making it prohibitive to a standard heroic campaign.

 

Make sense? Just make sure you keep track of this. I see the "NND vs. Evil" being used in campaigns where there is a good balance of good/neutral/evil, and where the lines of morality are clear cut.

 

First, I agree on this point.

 

Second, I can't discuss much past this point, because I allow Multipower Frameworks and VPPs in my campaign - and we would be getting into apples of oranges.

 

Thirdly, NND in an fantasy hero campaign I find unrealistic, that is a Medieval Fantasy Hero campaign. Medieval campaigns that use NNDs instead of killing attacks, I find too comic booky. A hallmark of fantasy, is that your opponents DIE when defeated, not get knocked unconscious so you can arrest them.

 

NNDs are mostly a comic book, or twenty-first century, phenomena. Just as police weaponry has a trend of being non-lethal (rubber bullets, projectile nets, tazers, etc,), so NNDs have come to the fore.

[Rick]

I've been imagining that most of these NND attacks have been of the Does Body (+1) variety. Which is very fantasy hero like.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Rick

I've been imagining that most of these NND attacks have been of the Does Body (+1) variety. Which is very fantasy hero like.

 

True, but very expensive as well. My comments are all relative to my campaign, btw, so I am accepting or discounting based on that criteria.

 

The power levels for magic spells in my campaign are:

• 
  Wizards/Priests: 30 pt.s
  Bards/Divine Magic Layperson: 15-20 pt.s
  Ranger/Paladin: 10-15 pt.s

 

As you can see, every PC has magic available to them - but they don't have to take it.

 

Typical prime spellcaster (bard/cleric/wizard) has:

• 
  Multipower
  VPP (5 pt.s)
  Defenses: Outside the Multipower, plus sometimes defenses in the multipower that stack.

 

So I'm dealing with a limited power level here, and limited points.

 

Most characters have skill levels, perks or talents, that couple with multipower slots. It's like Legos for HERO, modularity personified.