Damage Shield House Rules Exchange

[JmOz]

Hi All,

 

Reading the 6th edition thread and desided to start a new thread:

 

It seems that everyone hates the new DS rules from 5th, and I am sure most have a house rule for it, so I perpose a sharing of house rules to see what everyone else is doing

 

My Rules for DS:

 

A +1/2 Modifier, subject to attack powers, if the attack power is ranged it looses it's range component, If Str adds you loose as well

 

If applied to a mental power and is only suppose to activate when a mental power is used against the character then costing stays the same

 

It uses the AF method of an additional +1 on any abusive powers, INCLUDING mental powers that will be activated on touch (but not mental Powers used vs other Mentalists attacking)

 

The power becomes a constant power for free

[Monolith]

My rule is fairly simple: I use the power as described in 5th Edition, but I allow the No Ranged Limitation on powers which have Range and the No STR Bonus on HKAs (as is used by Steve). That is really all there is to it.

 

8d6 Damage Shield, Continuous, No Range: 67 points. The cost is fairly close to the original version. The downside is the END usage.

[TheEmerged]

I'm allowing 2 options for players right now.

 

1> A new power which costs 10 points per d6 and functions as a damaging Damage Shield. Can be declared Killing as a +2 advantage.

Example: Flama has a 6d6 Damage Shield with the special effect of Fire, which cost her 60 active points. For 6 END per phase, she's surrounded by a 6d6 Damage Shield.

 

2> Allowing the Continuous advantage to be purchased at +1/2 for appropriate Damage Shield powers. Suppress and Telekinesis wouldn't need it (already at least somewhat continuous), while Energy Blast or Transfer would. (For the record, I don't allow Clinging to be used with Damage Shield despite the text in FREd).

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Monolith

My rule is fairly simple: I use the power as described in 5th Edition, but I allow the No Ranged Limitation on powers which have Range and the No STR Bonus on HKAs (as is used by Steve). That is really all there is to it.

 

8d6 Damage Shield, Continuous, No Range: 67 points. The cost is fairly close to the original version. The downside is the END usage.

 

This is the basis for my own house rulings as well - it makes the fewest changes to the existing structure (which is logical conceptually), and as Monolith points out, has the most precedent behind it. I have included further modifications and exceptions:

 

For purposes of Active Point caps, I use the Real Points of the Damage Shield after applying the No Range or No Strength Adds Limitations;

 

Mental Power DS do not get the No Range Lim. Since the DS affects opponents attacking with Mental Powers, who would normally strike from a distance, the shield is essentially damaging opponents at range (I might allow No Range if the possessor of the Shield must actually Grab or otherwise physically contact someone to affect them);

 

Damage Shields may waive the No Range Lim for certain applications: if the DS is Usable on Others to give another person the Shield Power at a distance (the Shield functions normally for that other person); if the DS is Linked to another power which works at range, e.g. an electrified force field which shocks anyone who touches it (Force Wall with Linked DS); if the effects of the DS would continue to affect a person who touches the Shield and then breaks contact and moves away, e.g. a Damage Shield made up of stinging insects who swarm in pursuit of an attacker.

[Uncle Shecky]

I'm not in an active game currently, but I'm planning to keep the 4th edition version of Damage Shield, +1/2 advantage. So, this isn't a house rule, but I thought I'd share my reasoning on it.

 

I see damage shield as 2 powers: a no range attack that only damages when you grab the target, and a defensive no range attack that only hits targets who hit you HTH.

 

If I were to buy these attacks separately, I'd buy them like this:

1. Grab Attack: 8D6 EB, no range (-1/2), must grab (-1/4). Cost: 40 active, 23 real points.

 

The Grab attack doesn't need to be continuous, since it only damages the target on my action phases (with a normal no range EB, I've always ruled that you automatically hit if you are grabbing the target; it just makes sense), and the target can end the attack if he breaks out of my grab.

 

2. Defensive Attack: 8D6 EB, continuous (+1), no range (-1/2), must grab (-1/4), target can end "continuous" by not HTH attacking/touching me (-1/4). Cost: 80 active, 40 real points.

 

Together, these would cost 63 points, very close to +1/2 for a 40 point power with DS.

 

Also, the cheaper Grab attack would be linked to the Defensive attack; and that is a limitation, since you can't grab anything while using your Damage Shield without causing damage. With Linked (-1/2), the Grab attack costs 16 points, and the whole power is only 56 points.

 

One could argue that -1/4 is too high a limitation for "must grab." But even if you take it out, the Defensive Attack costs 46 real points, and the linked Grab Attack costs 18 points = 64 points. (And anyway, -1/4 might be too low a value for the "target can end continuous by not HTH attacking/touching me" limitation, so I think these balance out.)

 

Of course, this reasoning breaks down with no range powers, like HKA, but an HKA would get the "can't add STR" limitation instead.

 

It seems to me, if you build the power, it's equivalent to a +1/2 advantage, so that's what it should cost. Maybe I'm overlooking something...

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Uncle Shecky

It seems to me, if you build the power, it's equivalent to a +1/2 advantage, so that's what it should cost. Maybe I'm overlooking something...

 

In terms of how a DS affects targets, I think that's a very rational breakdown; however, since the AP of the Power as you designed it would be 120, it would require 12 END per Phase without the Reduced END Advantage. An 8D6 EB built with a simple +1/2 DS Adv. would require only half of that.

 

This is something that's always bothered me about attempts to design a Damage Shield effect with other Advantages and Limitations, then equate the Real Points to the Active Points - the AP and thus END cost come out much higher.

 

Interestingly, Uncle Shecky, if we build an 8D6 EB as under the 5E rules (comes out to 100 AP and 10 END), then take a No Range Lim, we get 67 Real Points, which is quite close to your construct with 63 RP and 12 END.

[Uncle Shecky]

DOH! 12 END, yeah, that would be pretty costly. Guess I did overlook something.

 

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

...This is something that's always bothered me about attempts to design a Damage Shield effect with other Advantages and Limitations, then equate the Real Points to the Active Points - the AP and thus END cost come out much higher.

 

There is another, extremely munckiny way of building this that avoids the END problem:

 

25 pt. EC reserve, No range for all slots (-1/2)

Cost: 17 real points

 

1. Grab Attack: 8D6 EB, Half END cost (+1/4), no range (-1/2), must grab (-1/4).

Cost: 50 active, 14 real. 2 END per phase.

 

2. Defensive Attack: 8D6 EB, continuous (+1), Half END cost (+1/4), no range (-1/2), must grab (-1/4), target can end "continuous" by not HTH attacking/touching me (-1/4).

Cost: 90 active, 32 real points. 4 END per phase.

 

63 points, 6 END per phase. Huzzah!

 

I hate myself for building the power that way though, and it is still a few points over the cost of applying the +1/2 adavantage to a 40 point EB, so maybe I do need to consider a house rule.

[Starcorp Man]

I just use the 4th Edition rules for it, I found the whole Continious Advantage requirement to make Damage Shields worthless unless they are End Drains or something.

[JohnTaber]

Darn...I know Derek has a good idea for this...I THINK his ideas is that a Continuous Persistent power bought at no range is a damage shield. In other words, you just buy these two and define it as a damage shield. Drat...hopefully Derek will read this and reply...

[Derek Hiemforth]

Your wish is my command...

 

I just opined one time that you could buy any power with Uncontrolled, Continuous, and No Range (if applicable), and define the effect as a "Damage Shield." You wouldn't even need a separate Advantage.

 

Another possibility that others have also mentioned is to keep the idea that a Damage Shield also has to be Continuous, but allow the No Range Limitation to have its normal value, and don't count the Continuous part of the Active Cost when determining if the power fits into campaign caps on such things.

 

I think this latter method has a lot going for it. Damage Shields would still be pricey, not but as pricey. And the higher Active Point cost would make sticking a damage shield in every Multipower a bit harder to do effectively. (I've seen that tactic abused in character building.)

 

I understand why it was made more expensive. though. It could be very nasty when it was only +1/2. If I'd been in Steve's place, I probably would have just made Damage Shield a +1 Advantage, and said that it was automatically No Range and behaved like a Constant power.

[Yamo]

I don't get it. What's wrong with the Damage Shield rules? It's a powerful ability with an approiately high cost. Any cheaper would be too cheap for the benefit.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by Yamo

I don't get it. What's wrong with the Damage Shield rules? It's a powerful ability with an approiately high cost. Any cheaper would be too cheap for the benefit.

Let's assume a Standard Superheroic campaign where most attacks are around 60 Active Points. For 60 Active Points, you can only get a 5d6 Energy Blast or 1.5d6 KA Damage Shield. Those attacks will be utterly worthless against the typical defenses in a Standard Superheroic campaign. (And this doesn't include Reduced END, which you'd almost have to add to any large Damage Shield because of the Active Cost.)

 

In a nutshell, if you buy enough dice to be useful, the Active Points exceed campaign guidelines and are unwieldy to fit in Power Frameworks, etc. If you keep the Active Points within norms, then the dice are too low to be useful. (Unless you rely solely on unusual forms of damage.)

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Yamo

I don't get it. What's wrong with the Damage Shield rules? It's a powerful ability with an approiately high cost. Any cheaper would be too cheap for the benefit.

 

I think what bothers people falls into two categories: one, that the addition of Continuous to the required Advantages for a DS makes it much more expensive than it used to be, which in and of itself upsets people who don't like change, who had characters who used Damage Shields as a major attack, and those with munchkin leanings.

 

The other, more serious and legitimate concern is that, at its basic level (i.e. adding the Continuous and DS Advantages alone) results in a power with very little ability to overcome defenses compared to an attack of comparable Active Points. For example, a 6D6 EB Damage Shield will cost 75 AP; against a 20 DEF that will barely do any STUN damage to the target, and the fact that you can roll damage continuously against said target still doesn't add up to much. OTOH, 75 AP will give you a 15D6 EB that will reliably do more than 30 STUN to the same target with a single hit. When you add in the fact that the DS Power automatically loses the ability to strike at range that the base Power originally had, I think that people's concern is understandable.

 

Certainly, you can make Damage Shield more effective by adding further Advantages, like Penetrating or NND, but to many HERO players that smacks of munchkining; the sentiment often expressed is that DS should not require that kind of tricking out to be more than marginally effective.

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by Yamo

I don't get it. What's wrong with the Damage Shield rules? It's a powerful ability with an approiately high cost. Any cheaper would be too cheap for the benefit.

I agree with Derek. 50 Active = 10d6 EB, or 4d6 DS in 5e rules. Can anyone honestly say that these to powers are equally useful? The central balancing idea of Hero System is that equal points should be roughly equally powerful.

 

60 Active = 12d6 EB or 8d6 DS in 4e rules. This is simply more equitable in price.

 

Don't forget the additional added drawback to DS's: that you have to pay END every phase, since you don't know whether or not you're going to be hit. A guy can take shots at you at range all day long and never have to worry about your DS.

 

IMHO, Continuous is for the *effect*. If I touch the human torch and then continue to burn until I can find a swimming pool to jump into, then it's Continuous, but if I stop taking damage as soon as I pull my fist back, it's not.

[JamesG]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

IMHO, Continuous is for the *effect*. If I touch the human torch and then continue to burn until I can find a swimming pool to jump into, then it's Continuous, but if I stop taking damage as soon as I pull my fist back, it's not.

That in a nutshell is my main problem with requiring DS to have Continuous, the fact that its not really continuous. (unless you grab someone or are grabbed and the grab is maintained).

 

So basically DS isn't as good as other powers with the Continuous advantage, but it costs more and you lose range to boot.

 

If DSs are required to have Continuous, then the Modifier "Damage Shield" should probably be a Limitation, not an Advantage.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by JamesG

That in a nutshell is my main problem with requiring DS to have Continuous, the fact that its not really continuous. (unless you grab someone or are grabbed and the grab is maintained).

 

So basically DS isn't as good as other powers with the Continuous advantage, but it costs more and you lose range to boot.

 

If DSs are required to have Continuous, then the Modifier "Damage Shield" should probably be a Limitation, not an Advantage.

 

I've seen this interpretation of Continuous before. Remember that besides Damage Shields, you can also apply Continuous to Adjustment Powers, which normally have no ranged capability. By the current rules (and you can check the FAQ for this) Constant No-Range attacks cease affecting the target after they lose contact with it. That is in a way less effective than Constant Ranged attacks, but does the difference lie with the way Continuous has been applied, or with the advantage Ranged attacks have over HTH attacks? Ranged is supposed to have an edge; that's why it's an Advantage. When you think about it, though, while a Constant HTH attack can be stopped by getting out of the Power's range, which doesn't usually apply to Ranged combat, Constant Ranged attacks can be stopped by cutting off Line of Sight, which doesn't usually apply to HTH combat. You've exchanged one cutoff condition for another.

[Xandarr]

Constant or Continuous?

 

Originally posted by JamesG

That in a nutshell is my main problem with requiring DS to have Continuous, the fact that its not really continuous. (unless you grab someone or are grabbed and the grab is maintained).

 

So basically DS isn't as good as other powers with the Continuous advantage, but it costs more and you lose range to boot.

 

If DSs are required to have Continuous, then the Modifier "Damage Shield" should probably be a Limitation, not an Advantage.

 

Originally posted by FREd

Pg 69 - Constant: If a Constant Power works against a target, the character must make an Attack Roll on the Phase he activates the Power. If he succeeds, the target takes the damage normally. Thereafter the character must maintain Line Of Sight to the location of the power and pay the END for the Power. From then on the target takes damage in every segment in which the attacker has a Phase (on the attacker's DEX) until the attacker turns off the Power or stops maintaning it.

 

Pg 163 - Damage Shield: Any attacker who makes a successful HTH attack against a character with a Damage Shield takes the damage (and possibly Knockback) from the Shield.

 

Based on the above, I have to say that as written, any damage shield power will continue to affect anyone who touches the shield, as long as the character with the shield maintains LOS. Now, I know that's not the intention here, as is evidenced by the Fiery Shield example on page 163 (which has an RKA Continuous linked to the Damage Shield). That power example contruction should not be necessary if my assumption is true.

 

However (and I'm NOT trying to be a rules lawyer here... just making an observation), nothing in the rule book specifically states that losing contact with the shield ends the damage. And it SHOULDN'T! Damage Shield is an advantage, and should not take anything away from the original power, including it's Continuous effect.

 

There is a problem with not requiring Continuous either: non-constant powers will not work properly without it. That is why I believe the Continuous advantage should actually be broken down into 2 separate advantages: Constant for +½, and Continuous for an additional +½ (total of +1). Constant powers could be used for power that only affect someone as long as they are "in contact" with the effect. Continuous powers would be required to be Constant first, of course, but would have the added advantage that anyone who comes in contact with the power will continue to be affected by it for as long as LOS and the END cost are maintained.

 

But that's just me and I'm opinionated.

 

Agreeably,

Steve

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth

I just opined one time that you could buy any power with Uncontrolled, Continuous, and No Range (if applicable), and define the effect as a "Damage Shield." You wouldn't even need a separate Advantage.

 

Similarly I have thought that the basic Damage Shield (no range, when attacking with it, it only damages with a grab) should simply be a +0 Advantage, based on breaking down its effect and balancing it against other effects in the system (namely EB or HA). (As a side note, I agree with the others than it doesn't work to the full extent of Continuous, thus isn't of that level of advantage.)

 

Let's break down the effects of DS, EB, & HA and compare:

 

Effect: Damages opponents - all 3

Effect: Requires hit roll - all 3* (DS on defense requires opponent hit roll)

Effect: Attack somehow limited - all 3 (DS - particular type of HtH attack; HA - HtH attack; EB - no STR added)

Effect: END cost - all 3 (DS - each phase if wanted to defend (thus some might be useless but for deterrence) and otherwise each phase like regular attack; EB/HA - each phase when want to attack)

There's probably more.

 

Given the effects, you get the following (assuming DS as a +0 Advantage, thus equivalent damage, and that the DS is a HA, thus gets STR added):

- HA can be used with more types of attacks than DS - this favors HA

- DS (HA) gets STR added vs. EB gets range - balanced

- DS (HA) costs END to maintain for defensive purposes, DS does not stop the attacker's damage, and DS does not work if the attacker misses - thus compared to HA/EB, you pay END regardless whether you hit, but for DS (defensively), you pay END regardless whether your opponent attacks, and whether he hits - favors EB/HA (i.e., an opponent can stay in your vicinity, "forcing" you to keep up your DS, but meanwhile pounds on your buds, costing you END for no effect, vs. an EB/HA you'd use and at least attack with)

- DS (defensively) can affect multiple attackers (without additional costs, like Sweep penalties for HA or Spread penalties for EB) - favors DS

 

Overall, it seems to me that the benefit of possibly damaging melee attackers is balanced by the continued END cost (i.e., must spend to deter, but that doesn't mean they have to attack you) and its limited offensive HtH use (e.g., HA can be used in Move-Bys, regular Strikes, etc.). Thus I don't see the need for the basic DS to be anything more than a +0 Advantage.