How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

[Hawksmoor]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I stayed away from this thread awhile and I noticed it was still ongoing, so I peeked in for a looksee about the continued hullaboo.

 

I don't see the problem with damage sheild.

 

I use HtH KA or Hand to Hand Attack as the basis for the powers I put in to Damage Sheild and then apply a quite legal No STR added Lim if appropriate.

 

I get a quite good power that way. Of course if the powers are AP limited I get less, but I get to have a nice little surprise for the nasties out there. Well...I am one of the nasties, so it is a surprise for the goody goods!

 

Hawksmoor

[tesuji]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

 

There is something to that point of view. But DSs are rare enough in the comic source material that I have to question why it needs to be significantly cheaper?

Whwther the power comes up once in a while or all the time, if the game is built on the prmise of "points reflect effectiveness", the points need to reflect that.

I've seen player characters with DS basically seem to figure that should provide them with a "free" way to hit their opponent. Why bother with DEX or Combat Skill Levels if your DS will take out anyone who dares hit you?

Ok, for sake of argument, for those who you think believe that, isn't that an error they will pay for anyway? Ranged attackers are common enough that, for those who want their DS to be the offense, and who decide ocv and skill levels are not needed, will find out rather quickly the error of their ways.

 

Or simply put, do we really need to misprice DS for all those people who don't see it as free attacks, who see it as "handle the lighter meleers, just so we can 'get" the guys who want DS to be their offensive tool?

 

I don't think we do. hammering those who "see it the right way" is not a reasonable expense to pay to get those who are perhaps "misquided" by your criteria.

 

 

That's missing the point of DS; which is that even "overpriced" it protects pretty well against lightly defended HtH attackers like MAs and speedsters. And face it, that brick is doing to deck you even if the DS does 8d6. Our team's brick would totally ignore an 8d6 DS.

 

if you have no caps and allow the guy to spend enough to buy maybe an 8d6 DS at 100 pts, sure, it "does the job" but that still means he has been screwed. he has spent probably around 30-40 pts too much, he is effectively playing at 310 not 350.

 

Its a different problem than if we just told him NO, but its still a problem, at least, if we want our players, as they do all the HERo math, to believe us when we say "the points matter."

 

Is the guy with 8d6 DS for 100 ap going to get anything close to as much as the guy with 20 d6 Eb does? is that martial artists going to be tough to hit with a 14d6 Eb spread for +6 OCV which lays him out?

 

not in my experience.

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Is the guy with 8d6 DS for 100 ap going to get anything close to as much as the guy with 20 d6 Eb does? is that martial artists going to be tough to hit with a 14d6 Eb spread for +6 OCV which lays him out?

 

not in my experience.

This is as much a problem of character concept as of Power set. Characters are not supposed to be designed to be the ultimate in-game fighting machine but rather to reflect a metagamed concept which is represented within a set of rules.

 

A character with DS can attack on his off Phases as well as his regular Phases. That's why DS costs more than most other Advantages. It is an obvious advantage in combat. In it's own way DS is virtually an "automatic hit" Advantage. It is a low-powered but often-hitting Power, just as most MAs hit more often but for notably less damage than their brick counterparts. That's the tradeoff. It's a damage-causing defense; it is wrong to pretend it is an offensively oriented Power.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

The second case had her take half her STUN from hitting a lightning-based villainess

 

Trying to recall your character sheet you posted a while back, I'm thinking virtually any attack, even very minor, is enough to inflict significant STUN to that character. However, I also view that character as an extreme - very high Speed and DEX compensated for by very low defenses. A 43 DEX (IIRC) would not be allowed in a lot of campaigns. I would expect a very small attack to deal that specific character some fairly decent damage.

 

Even then that had to be 18 or 21 points - say 6d6, or 90 points. But the point-comparability needs to be considered. If instead of a 90 point damage shield, the character spent 90 points on DEX and Speed, I suspect that character wuld have CV's and SPD comparable with Zl'fs, and greater defenses and offensive powers. Spend it instead on defenses, and the character gets an extra 30/30 resistant defenses - can Zl'f even hurt that character with such an upgrade?

 

Better yet, buy another 12d6 of normal attack, 0 END - spread for +12 OCV and Zl'f becomes easily hittable with a full power attack. And easier targets get to take extra damage. Or just spread to fill enough hexes that you can hit several members of the team at once.

 

Perhaps a better example - a completely separate offensive power - is a one hex area effect attack. That will hit Z'lf regardless of DCV (absent extraordinary measures to avoid the attack), can srike at range and costs +1/2. A damage shield will hit Zl'f - barring a decision not to attack the shielded target, so an "extraordinary measure". Why should the damage aura be so much more expensive when it is not all that much more effective?

 

I'm not arguing that a damage shield should one punch a typical character, but it should be capable of inflicting enough damage to make a typical character think twice about their choice of targets - not just a very low DEF character. Under the present cost, that can only be accomplished with a disproportionate expenditure of points.

 

Any power that's so expensive that several other alternatives automatically seem preferable is, in my opinion, overpriced. Why should the concept of a "damage shield" be punished by such incredible point-ineffectiveness. No one would suggest raising the price of EB to 10 points per die, because that would make it hugely overpriced compared to other alternatives, and thus an ineffective choice. Overpricing is just as unbalancing as underpricing, in my opinion. Damage shield should carry a cost which is reasonable in respect of its effectiveness. The present cost is excessive. The sole advantage of a damage shield over a 1 hex area is that it does damage without an attack by the shielded character. This is offset by the fact the shielded character has no way to actually make it do damage - if the opponent refuses to hit you, your damage shield is effectively nullified. Sure, you can grab - but the OCV penalty and DCV penalty alone should indicate that any other attack power would be a better choice.

[tesuji]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

 

This is as much a problem of character concept as of Power set. Characters are not supposed to be designed to be the ultimate in-game fighting machine but rather to reflect a metagamed concept which is represented within a set of rules.

The "mindset" of the player, or the concept he is trying to achieve, is not relevent to the points value assigned. The points value assigned, by the Gm or the system, according to the system, is supposed to reflect effectiveness.

 

when the costs no longer reflect "effectiveness", there is a problem with the points.

 

that really does not change whether the player has the right midset or not.

A character with DS can attack on his off Phases as well as his regular Phases. That's why DS costs more than most other Advantages. It is an obvious advantage in combat. In it's own way DS is virtually an "automatic hit" Advantage. It is a low-powered but often-hitting Power, just as most MAs hit more often but for notably less damage than their brick counterparts. That's the tradeoff. It's a damage-causing defense; it is wrong to pretend it is an offensively oriented Power.

 

Actually, lets be a bit more precise.

 

he does not attack on his off phases.

 

he MIGHT cause damage on his off phases.

 

Attack kind of makes it seem like he is making te event happen.

 

that control is not his.

 

its his enemy's.

 

his enemy may decide/choose/prefer to give the DS player some extra damage attempts.

 

his enemy may decide not to.

 

regardless, there is no AUTOMATIC to hit attack going on. The enemy must make a successful attack roll (or you must) before the DS does any damage.

 

as for the whole "its for discouraging low def guys who need to melee", yeah, we all agree... its jusy way overpriced for that rather limited role and iun a game where price is supposed to parallel effectiveness, that becomes a problem.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

as for the whole "its for discouraging low def guys who need to melee"' date=' yeah, we all agree... its jusy way overpriced for that rather limited role and iun a game where price is supposed to parallel effectiveness, that becomes a problem.[/quote']

 

Sorry, Treb, but I'm really starting to see this as a bias caused by damage shields being especially efective against your character's archetype. I do give you credit for acknowledging that as a possibility, though.

[tesuji]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Sorry' date=' Treb, but I'm really starting to see this as a bias caused by damage shields being especially efective against your character's archetype. I do give you credit for acknowledging that as a possibility, though.[/quote']

 

Against my character's archtype?

 

Which character of mine would that be, precisely? :-)

 

to clarify... we all agree DS is too overpriced for that role... not that we all agree with what DS is supposed to do.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Hugh was shortening Trebuchet to Treb not Tesuji to treb.

 

Hawksmoor

[Agent X]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

None of that counters my basic premise: DS is primarily a defensive Power and is not intended as a fight winner. It does exactly what it is intended to do, which is to make more lightly defended character reluctant to egage the DS character in HtH combat. I didn't imply the extra END and cost made it either unfair or unfair at all. The MA in the example combat paid character points for that higher SPD and CV too. (Every DS I can recall seeing was bought as 0 END anyway.)

 

DS is in fact particularly effective against those MAs who use Combat Luck as a defense since Combat Luck does not protect from damage caused by a Damage Shield. Considering probably a full third to half of 5th edition MAs now use Combat Luck as at least part of their defenses that is a significant protection for the possessor of a DS.

 

DS does exactly what it is intended to do. Whether it is more expensive than it ought to be is at least debatable and would be worthy of further discussion. But it's effectiveness as a defense IMO is not debatable. It works just fine as is.

Your basic premise is built around a narrow notion of what a damage shield is for and who it is intended to be used against. You are building a heck of a straw man although I don't think that's your intent.

 

This is especially troubling because Hero isn't about forcing (through cost effectiveness) a power to be used in such a limited away.

[Gary]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Treb, you're a poo poo head.

 

Hey, everyone else is bashing you, why should I get left out of the action...

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Your basic premise is built around a narrow notion of what a damage shield is for and who it is intended to be used against. You are building a heck of a straw man although I don't think that's your intent.

 

This is especially troubling because Hero isn't about forcing (through cost effectiveness) a power to be used in such a limited away.

The only straw man here is the assumption that DS is simply ineffective as currently priced. Even if it is lowered to a mere +½ Advantage instead of +1 it is still going to be as expensive as an NND of comparable dice since it must be purchased as a Constant Power as well. I submit that a 6d6 EB DS is not all that much better than a 4d6 one against a character with even moderate defenses. Even Zl'f can take a 6d6 hit.

 

Damage Shield as written is clearly designed to effect low defense characters or to create unusual attacks by using such as Powers as Drains or with other stacked Advantages such as Penetrating. It will be just as useless against a brick, even at 8d8/100 AP level, as Mental Defense or Flash Defense. It's a specialty defense which generally does damage only to low defense (But typically high CV) opponents. That makes it perfectly effective in my book against MAs and most speedsters. (And for those who consider Zl'f's defenses low, keep in mind that those of the premier CU martial artist villain, Green Dragon, aren't much better.) It's occupation of the No Man's Land between attack and defense is why the cost seems so out of line.

[zornwil]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

 

The "mindset" of the player, or the concept he is trying to achieve, is not relevent to the points value assigned. The points value assigned, by the Gm or the system, according to the system, is supposed to reflect effectiveness.

 

when the costs no longer reflect "effectiveness", there is a problem with the points.

 

that really does not change whether the player has the right midset or not.

(snip)

 

Not to enter into the Damage Shield discussion proper, but I think that the points are not merely an effectiveness measure but also influencers of what constitutes reasonable attacks in the most broadly conceived "heroic fiction" genre (or collection of genres). While effectiveness may be the primary measure, another I think is that which encourages heroic fictional play. So we see ECs get a nudge (rightly or wrongly) and frameworks in general get undercosted (compared to effectiveness, in my view) so as to encourage them. Similarly, I think a lot of the more esoteric stuff gets costed highly less because it is effective and more because it is less "schtick" in the final analysis, and I say that because bear in mind that the COMMONALITY of a defense or off-setting attack is a big part of the measure of "effectiveness". And commonality can ONLY be determined through the genre lens. And that is where we see HERO rules often changed/broken down a bit for some genres, particularly where we see things like people suggesting STR should be double cost for lower-level games.

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Treb, you're a poo poo head.

 

Hey, everyone else is bashing you, why should I get left out of the action...

Believe me, I've been called much worse.

[Agent X]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

If you consider DS as being more akin to a Continuous Uncontrolled attack than as an Instant one then the cost doesn't seem so out of line. It is expensive (And again, I'm open to honest discussion of whether it's overpriced in FREd), but as a Power that is quite uncommon in the comics it probably should not be particularly cheap. But if you consider it an active defense rather than a fight-winning Power it seems more reasonable.

I don't consider DS akin to a Continuous Uncontrolled attack. The idea that the game should make powers that are quite uncommon in comics... I just can't go with that. This is supposed to be the game that doesn't steer everyone into running 3-5 types of characters. And I don't consider damage shield to be simply an active defense or a fight-winning power. I consider it a tool for a player to build a character who might use it for either.

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I consider it a tool for a player to build a character who might use it for either.

The point is that it does both.

 

Within anything resembling typical AP caps it will not harm any good Brick and will be pointless against almost any Energy Projector or Mentalist. It's sole forte is simultaneously attacking and defending against lightly defended characters. Now if you trick it out (Say a 1d6 RKA Penetrating Penetrating Damage Shield), it will hurt almost anyone and is still only a 52 point AP Power which will cost an opponent 1 BODY and 1 STUN every time it's hit.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

"If you consider DS as being more akin to a Continuous Uncontrolled attack than as an Instant one then the cost doesn't seem so out of line. It is expensive (And again, I'm open to honest discussion of whether it's overpriced in FREd), but as a Power that is quite uncommon in the comics it probably should not be particularly cheap. But if you consider it an active defense rather than a fight-winning Power it seems more reasonable."

 

I'm assuming that Continuous is +1/2, since that's implied in some other posts (why do I think it's really +1? I'll use both to be safe)

 

What if we do look at it as a continuous uncontrolled attack? That would be a total of +1 1/2, the exact same advantage applied to Damage Aura. It would still be usable at range. Once it hits, it would keep on hitting, every phase, without fail, until the END placed in it runs out. It would keep working even if the person who fired the power is knocked out.

 

A Constant (but not Uncontrolled) power would seem comparable. A Continuous EB would cost +1/2 (+1?). It would have range, and once it hits, it would remain "up" and keep damaging the target on each of the attacker's phases, so long as he spends END.

 

Contrast with Damage Shield, at +1 1/2. No range. I have to spend END whether I hit anyone or not, or even get a chance to hit anyone. It does not keep damaging them unless they keep hitting me. I don't control who, or when, it attacks. The only advantage is that, if someone hits me, they are automatically hit by the damage shield.

 

Instead of a Damage Shield, I should just buy a 1 hex (+1/2) Continuous (+1/2) EB with Personal Immunity. I can put No Range on it, and further limit it for the fact it has to be in my hex (not an adjacent one, which would normally be the case for HTH), and only affects people who hit me, or who I grab. That should be at least -1 in limitations, probably -1 1/2. Now my 8d6 "Damage Shield" costs 40 x 2/2.5 = 32 points.

 

Assume Continuous is +1, and only allow -1 for all the limitations, and it's 40 x 2.5/2 = 50 points.

 

So somewhere between 32 and 50 points. The 8d6 damage shield purchased under the current rules costs 40 x 2.5 = 100. Should it be possible to duplicate the effect for 1/3 to 1/2 the cost by building it another way?

 

I could buy an 8d6 1 hex area continuous attack for 100 points (if continuous is +1 - wish I had my book). Why should I lose all control over the power for no point break?

 

PS: Sorry for the confusion Tesuji - "Treb" was short for Trebuchet as someone pointed out.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Opps forgot i never chimed in on the cost construct of the Damage Sheild.

 

It does cost too much.

 

It should cost:

 

+1/2 for DS

+1/4 for Offensive

+1/2 for 0 End

 

That works!

 

hawksmoor

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Sorry for the confusion Tesuji - "Treb" was short for Trebuchet as someone pointed out.

"Treb" is a lot better than some of the things I get called on the NGD boards; which usually start with @#&$!!.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Treb you are my favorite conservative.

 

Hawksmoor

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

It should cost:

 

+1/2 for DS

+1/4 for Offensive

+1/2 for 0 End

 

That works!

That still makes an 8d6 DS cost 90 points (40 X 2.25 = 90). What do you mean by "Offensive"? Wouldn't any attack Power used in a DS also need to be Constant; which I believe is +½? And I don't think 0 END is technically required, although most DS's I've seen are indeed built that way.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Hrmph... FRED is full of surprises isn't it? Yes, you do need +1 Continuous for the Damage Sheild.

 

Offensive lets you hurt someone with a punch or other HtH manuver with out resorting to a grab. Both versions hurt attackers though.

 

And thus since I was going on bad information I side with those that say this power is overpriced for its utility.

 

If constant was a freebie for damage sheild it would work out fine.

 

Hawksmoor

[TheEmerged]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

RE: Damage Shield TANGENT. First, I apologize again for starting that.

 

Speaking as a GM that had a fair number of them under 4th Edition? +1/2 is a little cheap. +1 1/2 (effective) is too expensive, especially since the new rule does not affect the WCS (Suppress, which qualifies for +1/2).

 

They were also a way to bypass the most common interpretation of 4th Edition's linked debate, since more than one could be kept up at a time. Ask me about "The SleepyTime EC" sometime

 

I house ruled it to +1 for "appropriate non-continuous powers" and +1/2 for "appropriate continuous powers" myself, and it's worked quite well.

 

I think part of the problem is the way multiple advantages don't "stack" well (insert argument about Ego Blast vs BoECV here). I haven't found a good way around it though...

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Hrmph... FRED is full of surprises isn't it? Yes, you do need +1 Continuous for the Damage Sheild.

 

Offensive lets you hurt someone with a punch or other HtH manuver with out resorting to a grab. Both versions hurt attackers though.

 

And thus since I was going on bad information I side with those that say this power is overpriced for its utility.

 

If constant was a freebie for damage sheild it would work out fine.

Now that I'm home and can actually read what FREd has to say, I think we've been focusing our ire on the wrong Advantage. Damage Shield itself is only +½. I don't think it would be reasonable to lower it any further.

 

The part that kills large DS is the requirement for the Continuous Advantage at +1 stacked on top of the DS. So even a +¼ cost for DS would still make the DS require a +1¼ Advantage. It certainly isn't realistic to allow a +½ Advantage like DS to subsume a +1 for free. That would lead to absurdities like Flight "Damage Shields" and the like.

 

A more reasonable approach would be to lower the cost of Continuous to +½ only when used in conjunction with Damage Shield. Lots of Advantages already have +/- adders only under certain circumstances, so there is plenty of precedent. In other words, DS would be a -½ reduction for Continuous. This would make the cost for an attack-oriented DS a +1 instead of a +1½, or +1¼ if you want the Offensive Adder as well.

 

So let's crunch it that way:

 

40 X (1+1) = 80 AP for an 8d6 Energy Blast-based Damage Shield. A 6d6 version would fit within most typical campaign damage caps. Even a 6d6 Offensive DS would cost only 82 AP.

 

This is less expensive than doing the EB 1 Hex Area Continuous Personal Immunity version of this Power idea. The Emerged has another way to fudge it that seems reasonable.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I would agree now that I have looked it over: Damage Sheild as a +1 advantage that makes an instant power constant and allows an undodgable retaliatory hit.

 

Hawksmoor

[zornwil]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Now that I'm home and can actually read what FREd has to say, I think we've been focusing our ire on the wrong Advantage. Damage Shield itself is only +½. I don't think it would be reasonable to lower it any further.

 

The part that kills large DS is the requirement for the Continuous Advantage at +1 stacked on top of the DS. So even a +¼ cost for DS would still make the DS require a +1¼ Advantage. It certainly isn't realistic to allow a +½ Advantage like DS to subsume a +1 for free. That would lead to absurdities like Flight "Damage Shields" and the like.

 

A more reasonable approach would be to lower the cost of Continuous to +½ only when used in conjunction with Damage Shield. Lots of Advantages already have +/- adders only under certain circumstances, so there is plenty of precedent. In other words, DS would be a -½ reduction for Continuous. This would make the cost for an attack-oriented DS a +1 instead of a +1½, or +1¾ if you want the Offensive Adder.

 

So let's crunch it that way:

 

40 X (1+1) = 80 AP for an 8d6 Energy Blast-based Damage Shield. A 6d6 version would fit within most typical camapaign damage caps. Even a 6d6 Offensive DS would cost only 82 AP.

 

This is less expensive than doing the EB 1 Hex Area Continuous Personal Immunity version of this Power idea. The Emerged has another way to fudge it that seems reasonable.

First, as an aside, let me state that back in 4th I did it simply as +1/2 and it was on whenever the character was struck/heavily-touched although the idea was it wasn't always on since it would make other issues plus usual SFX considerations. I found it to be fine and I am not recosting it still - and still few use it.

 

Second, as to what the rules "should" be, I fully understand that from an orthodox perspective a blanket +1/2 granting this "always on" in effect power is a departure in that it includes those other continuous sorts of effects. But, boy, Treb, in light of other such considerations (such as when you couple NND and Autofire and such), we are going to get in SUCH a mess if we start creating all these qualifiers for interlocking advantages (and presumably at some point then limitations). I think it is a slippery slope to a complexity that is unjustified even if it is primarily only an issue for serious PC creation (though I argue it complicates in general even for those who care to write out NPCs "accurately").

 

Perhaps there is a thread to Continuous we ought to think about? Perhaps in general these "only if" modifiers need to be rethought out with either:

- more usable "general" modifiers for "Decreased" or "Increased" effectiveness and then list these types of combos as "examples"; this is fudgy but better for consistency in my mind and puts the ball in the court of GMs reasonably enough while still having a "rule" to assist

- or perhaps more elegantly, should we just not admit that we should rethink the stacking effect of advs and lims, and perhaps the value always should be decreased marginally for each successive adv or lim after the first??? This is more complex, yes, but at least VERY consistent and I bet fixes most issues with stackers for most situations.

 

EDIT/PS - admittedly, this is just food for thought, not well-thought solutions, but do people share my philosophical rules concern here?