Damage Reduction charts

[Zaratustra]

I'm sure this appeared in some supplement or other, but I'll submit it for feedback anyway.

 

Annexed are two charts extending Damage Reduction's effect-cost rate - One assumes DRed adds 25% protection for every doubling in cost, the other assumes DRed halves damage taken for every 20 points in it.

 

Feedback appreciated thx bye.

[Tetsuyama]

Cool. I guess that I had kind of always thought of it as progressing according to the first (100% = 80 points), but never allowed anyone to buy it that way. But now having seen the 20 points per halving method, I think I like that better, and would probably let someone buy according to that chart.

[Tech]

Interesting that the document's been dl'ed so much, bringing me to my point:

It's difficult to read the file you mentioned.

 

I'm interested in reading it also but I want to be able to read it a bit easier. I know it's a .txt format but can you change the format a little? Look forward to seeing it.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Chart 1 (25% less damage for x2 points)
Red%	Frac	Cost	Res
25%	3/4	10	15
33%	2/3	15	22
50%	1/2	20	30
66%	1/3	30	54
75%	1/4	40	60
83%	1/6	50	75
90%	1/10	60	90
95%	1/20	70	105
100%	0	80	120

Chart 2 (Halves damage for +20 points)
Red%	Frac	Cost	Res
25%	3/4	10	15
33%	2/3	15	22
50%	1/2	20	30
66%	1/3	30	54
75%	1/4	40	60
87%	1/8	60	90
91%	1/12	70	105
94%	1/16	80	120
96%	1/24	90	135
97%	1/32	100	150
etc.

[Tech]

Derek, thanks for showing the chart. Zaratustra, you've have there, without a doubt, a serious chart for consideration. Excellent work.

[Klytus]

The topic of being totaly invulnerable to a limited tpe of damage (fire, cold, etc.) has come up repeatedly on these boards. Once you get past the nay-sayers who argue that there isn't supposed to be any "total invulnerability" in hero, the two ways I've seen it simulated has been:

 

1) The extrapolated cost of 100% Resistant Damage Reduction with a Limitation for how rare/common the attack in question is. Your first chart nicely shows that 100% rDR is120 points. As most GM's agree that a Limitation of -1 is in line for Fire Only (for example) this makes the real cost 60 points.

 

2) Desolidification as an Invulnerability. This is even detailed in FREd - though to make this technically work, you'd need to buy Affects Real World with your STR and other attck powers unless you have GM permission. Still, its a clumsy mechanic.

 

Point being, I like chart #1. I've been charging a flat 60 points for Damge Immunity: (Insert power tpe here) for years. Though in reality, it should probably cost 120 Active Points with a required -1 Limitation.

[Zaratustra]

Thanks for the feedback. (Praise me! Praise me!) Seems like some people like one chart and some people like the other. The 50-point line was missing on the second chart, so it was updated in the uploaded version.

 

Chart 2 (Halves damage for +20 points)
Red%    Frac    Cost    Res
25%     3/4     10      15
33%     2/3     15      22
50%     1/2     20      30
66%     1/3     30      54
75%     1/4     40      60
83%     1/6     50      75
87%     1/8     60      90
91%     1/12    70      105
94%     1/16    80      120
96%     1/24    90      135
97%     1/32    100     150
etc.

[Ellis]

As usual, I can't understand the chart, even when it's readable.

[Black Rose]

I like Chart 1 myself; while I think that increasing immunity to damage should cost, I think Chart 2 is too pricy for the value. Though I would add that 100% Reduction should have at least three Stop Signs (like anyone needed to be reminded of that).

[nblade]

Originally posted by Black Rose

I like Chart 1 myself; while I think that increasing immunity to damage should cost, I think Chart 2 is too pricy for the value. Though I would add that 100% Reduction should have at least three Stop Signs (like anyone needed to be reminded of that).

 

You would be surprised what people need to be reminded of. Neither chart actually excites me nor does neither chart upset me. Guess for me it really doesn't matter.

[Derek Hiemforth]

I wouldn't mind seeing the available options for Damage Reduction expanded a bit, although I'd probably go with something like this...

[b]Fraction[/b] [b]Percentage[/b] [b]Normal[/b] [b]Resistant[/b]
 1/4       25%       10      15
 1/3       33%       15      20
 1/2       50%       20      30
 2/3       67%       35      50
 3/4       75%       40      60
  1       100%*      40*     60*

Going strictly by the logical mathematical progression from the existing Damage Reduction values, the 1/3 and 2/3 Normal Damage Reductions would actually come out to 13 points and 34 points respectively, but I've rounded them up to the nearest 5-point-level to keep it clean.

 

* For 100% Damage Reduction, I would allow it at the same cost as 75% Damage Reduction, but with the stipulation that it can only work vs. one SFX, and it gets no Limitation for that. So for 60 points, you could get 75% Damage Reduction against all Energy attacks, or you could get 100% Damage Reduction against, say, Fire Attacks.

[Zaratustra]

The actual equation used for the first chart is:

 

(cost) = 5 * (16 ^ fraction of damage protected)

 

where ^ is the 'x to the power of y' sign. So, for example, reducing damage to 1/3 (66% protection) would give a cost of:

 

5 * (16 ^ 0.66) = 5 * 6.26 = 31.3 (rounded to 30).

 

The second is calculated from cost instead:

 

(fraction of damage taken) = 2 ^ -(cost / 20)

 

So 30 points give:

 

2 ^ - (30/20) = 2 ^ -1.5 = 0.353 (rounded to 0.333)

 

I dislike the Only Against Special Effect set on stone in the power, since some SFXs are more rare than the others: Would you set Only Against Fire and Only Against Cheese at the same level? Personally, I'd use my chart (-of course- I would use my chart, why would I spit on my own work) but only allow large DReds on PCs if they took Limited SFX limitations on it. It would reduce the effect of other limitations on the power, too.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by Zaratustra

I dislike the Only Against Special Effect set on stone in the power, since some SFXs are more rare than the others: Would you set Only Against Fire and Only Against Cheese at the same level?

No. I should have elaborated more. I'd say that if you take 100% Damage Reduction, then you have to define a single, reasonably common, SFX that it works against. Examples might be Physical Damage Reduction that works against bludgeoning weapons or against slashing weapons, or Energy Damage Reduction that works against fire or electricity. If the SFX it works against is less common than this (for example, PD DR vs. one particular weapon, or against a Martial Arts style, or ED DR vs. Gamma Radiation or unholy magical fire), then it can apply a Limitation based on how much less common it is (in the judgement of the GM).

[zornwil]

Regarding invulnerabilties against SFX, I just created Invulnerability as its own power with points per commonality of SFX< purchasable multiple times.

 

Basically, it works as 10 points for invulnerability to an uncommon or very specific attack (eg, earthquake or acid rain attacks), 15 points to a common or specific attack (eg, water or laser attacks), and 20 poitns to a very common or general attack (eg, heat or blades). More info is available at http://www.asterick.com/realschluss/x-champions/house_rules/ch_powers_invulnerability.htm

 

The values are debatable. I used to price it double and found it too limiting. Some would argue it's too low now, and I'm not sure they're wrong, but so far I'm okay with the results in MY game.

[zornwil]

Whoops, forgot to mention, but in my own games I don't allow > 75% damage reduction but I DO allow a much more powerful +1 for DR applies BEFORE defenses. This as you might imagine is with a big STOP sign. I've used it for a couple NPC villains (mainly though for convenience, I didn't want to fiddle with a lot of numbers and left their regular defenses on the mediocre side while making the DR a bigger factor this way) and have yet to be asked for it by a PC.

[Dust Raven]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth

No. I should have elaborated more. I'd say that if you take 100% Damage Reduction, then you have to define a single, reasonably common, SFX that it works against. Examples might be Physical Damage Reduction that works against bludgeoning weapons or against slashing weapons, or Energy Damage Reduction that works against fire or electricity. If the SFX it works against is less common than this (for example, PD DR vs. one particular weapon, or against a Martial Arts style, or ED DR vs. Gamma Radiation or unholy magical fire), then it can apply a Limitation based on how much less common it is (in the judgement of the GM).

 

I like this idea. It's cleaner and less costly than uber limited defense (Armor +50 ED, Only Vs Fire) and Desolidification methods (which are really only cost effective if you are playing a brick).

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by zornwil

Regarding invulnerabilties against SFX, I just created Invulnerability as its own power with points per commonality of SFX< purchasable multiple times.

 

Basically, it works as 10 points for invulnerability to an uncommon or very specific attack (eg, earthquake or acid rain attacks), 15 points to a common or specific attack (eg, water or laser attacks), and 20 poitns to a very common or general attack (eg, heat or blades).

 

The values are debatable. I used to price it double and found it too limiting. Some would argue it's too low now, and I'm not sure they're wrong, but so far I'm okay with the results in MY game.

 

I do like that idea a lot, although I agree that the costs need to be carefully examined. One idea might be to double the cost for each additional type of Invulnerability. But a limited Invulnerability is very in genre for comic books. (Superman obviuosly has several broad Invulnerabilities.)

 

My only concern would be the "I take Invulnerability to all Physical and Energy attacks for 40 points, so I can't be hurt by anything." So it would be very important to limit how broad the categories are, and this Power would require the GM's specific approval.. (I suppose if a player so wished, he could spend all of his character points on several different Invulnerabiities, and be truly invulnerable. Of course, a six year old could hold him in place, but he can't be hurt.)

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

I do like that idea a lot, although I agree that the costs need to be carefully examined. One idea might be to double the cost for each additional type of Invulnerability. But a limited Invulnerability is very in genre for comic books. (Superman obviuosly has several broad Invulnerabilities.)

 

My only concern would be the "I take Invulnerability to all Physical and Energy attacks for 40 points, so I can't be hurt by anything." So it would be very important to limit how broad the categories are, and this Power would require the GM's specific approval.. (I suppose if a player so wished, he could spend all of his character points on several different Invulnerabiities, and be truly invulnerable. Of course, a six year old could hold him in place, but he can't be hurt.)

 

Thanks, yeah, the broad categories MUST be SFX-based and not as broad as physical or energy, you're absolutely right. Players have constructed enough broad categories out of 5 or 6 to cover an awful lot of areas so still watching it, but there are some significant holes left, so far so good but bears watching.

 

I like your idea of additional areas adding some additional cost, thanks much. I'll think about that. Ultimately the concept needs to be "HERO-ized" really, so some sort of base power (perhaps even DR) with adders and lims/advs but for now I'm taking the simple singular house rules perspective and not thinking broader. Your idea would bear well on that reconstruction.

[Xandarr]

Originally posted by Zaratustra

The actual equation used for the first chart is:

 

(cost) = 5 * (16 ^ fraction of damage protected)

 

where ^ is the 'x to the power of y' sign. So, for example, reducing damage to 1/3 (66% protection) would give a cost of:

 

5 * (16 ^ 0.66) = 5 * 6.26 = 31.3 (rounded to 30).

 

The second is calculated from cost instead:

 

(fraction of damage taken) = 2 ^ -(cost / 20)

 

So 30 points give:

 

2 ^ - (30/20) = 2 ^ -1.5 = 0.353 (rounded to 0.333)

 

I have to say that I prefer the first method better. I feel that it emulates the intent of the original power better. Though I have no way of knowing what the designers were thinking when they made Damage Reduction, I think if they had extrapolated on it, they would have used method one. Call it a hunch.

 

Also, mathematically speaking, if you use method 2, it technically costs Zero points for 100% immunity. 2^-(0/20) = 1.00

 

Did I mention that math puzzles are my hobby?

 

I dislike the Only Against Special Effect set on stone in the power, since some SFXs are more rare than the others: Would you set Only Against Fire and Only Against Cheese at the same level? Personally, I'd use my chart (-of course- I would use my chart, why would I spit on my own work) but only allow large DReds on PCs if they took Limited SFX limitations on it. It would reduce the effect of other limitations on the power, too.

 

I have to agree with this. In response to Derek's answer however...

 

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth

No. I should have elaborated more. I'd say that if you take 100% Damage Reduction, then you have to define a single, reasonably common, SFX that it works against. Examples might be Physical Damage Reduction that works against bludgeoning weapons or against slashing weapons, or Energy Damage Reduction that works against fire or electricity. If the SFX it works against is less common than this (for example, PD DR vs. one particular weapon, or against a Martial Arts style, or ED DR vs. Gamma Radiation or unholy magical fire), then it can apply a Limitation based on how much less common it is (in the judgement of the GM).

 

I don't feel this is a good idea. If you use this method, now GM's have to come up with 2 separate and different limitations for each SFX in their game system. One for 100% Damage Reduction, and one for everything else. For example, using this idea means that "Only vs. Fire" is -0 for DRed, and -½ for other defenses. Extending the example: what would you use for "Only during the full moon"? It's usually a -2 if I recall correctly. Should it then be only -1½ for 100%% DRed, or maybe -1¾? Why not keep it at -2? Hard to say. But if you did, that would make 100% DRed cost the same as 75% DRed under the same full moon. I'm not saying that should be done, but some GM's might go that way just to save themselves some work.

 

Going with the chart instead and using the existing limitations as they stand ultimately means less work for the GM. Also, it means that 100% DRed is always going to cost more than 75%, no matter what the SFX, and no matter how beset the GM is for time. On a related note, it means that 100% DRed vs. Fire (120 pts. with a -½ disad = 80 pts.) is still going to cost a bit more than 75% DRed to all Energy attacks (60 pts). For me personally, I think that's a better way to go. I also think that the active cost of 100% should be higher than that of 75%, regardless of SFX. But of course, as always, these are just my humble opinions.

 

Such as they are,

Steve

[Zaratustra]

Also, mathematically speaking, if you use method 2, it technically costs Zero points for 100% immunity. 2^-(0/20) = 1.00

 

(fraction of damage taken) = 2 ^ -(cost / 20)

 

So damage taken would be 100%, not damage protected. Part of the math puzzles is paying attention to catches on the proposition.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Klytus

As most GM's agree that a Limitation of -1 is in line for Fire Only (for example)

 

Actually there was some extensive discussion on this before (perhaps on the previous boards). My position was that, for a typical campaign (i.e., fairly broad distribution of attack powers), there are attacks that include fire/heat, cold/ice, water, sonics, electricity, light, darkness, radiation, "force" (e.g., TK), etc., etc. Because of the #s of different attacks, the frequency of a particular attack form being encountered in a given encounter is fairly low, and so the limitations on defensive powers for use against particular powers should be valued accordingly. One method is to review the Activation Roll chart, for lim values based on % of occurrences, and use that value for the "Only vs. X attack form" limitation on defensive powers. Typically the result is that most attack forms are fairly rare, based on %s, meaning that most should get a -2 lim value, but some which may have some environmental frequency (e.g., heat/fire from volcanoes/lava, burning buildings, etc.) might be a bit more frequent and merit a -1 1/2 lim value. The lesser lim values, like -1/4 or -1/2 should be used for defensive power limitations for limitations that exclude a certain type of attack, to represent a defensive weakness (e.g., Ice Dude has some defenses bought as x ED, Lim "Not vs. Fire/Heat" (-1/2), given the greater frequency of those attacks, vs. say Crystal Dude with some defenses bought as x DEF, Lim "Not vs. Sonics" (-1/4), given their typical lesser frequency). Obviously it is up to the GM to determine the frequency of attacks in the campaign, and assign an appropriate value - or if the player selects a particular value, for the GM to provide an appropriate frequency of attacks against the character to merit the limitation.