Power Defence... Ugg

[Rick]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

Buffeting WInds, Mud patches, Ice slicks, ect ect ect: these all sound a lot like Change enviroment (or MAYBE entangle) to me, not suppresses or drains.

 

Just because there are a number of ways to right a power doesn't mean every way is going to be a good fit to the system by in large.

[Katherine]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

Just because there are a number of ways to right a power doesn't mean every way is going to be a good fit to the system by in large.

 

Because it needed to repeated. In Bold.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

It seems to me that the major [oint of difference between those who feel "universal power defense" is the problem (such as tesuji) and those who feel it is not (such as Katherine) stems to one simple issue - whether the determination of whether an attack is reduced by power defense should be inherent in the attack power (Katherine) or the defense power (tesuji).

 

I fall into the former camp.

 

right and what exactly is this sfx that stops everything from buffesting winds (suppress vs flight)' date=' itching powder (dex drain), life sucking undead (body drain, str drain etc), diseases (con crain), protects their ray guns or magic rings from dispels and drains as well and blocks cowing fear (pre drains)?[/quote]

 

Perhaps the problem here is that these powers should be purchased as something not affected by power defense, rather than as a standard adjustment power. Change Environment has been mentioned. Telekinesis with limitations also works for a lot of slow/stop movement powers.

 

Why does my lost running from being stuck in the mud recover 2.5" per turn when my friend's running, at 0 END, recovers at 1.67" per turn? Why do the buffetting winds not affect anyone entering the area after I've made my initial attack? These are all issues which can be addressed by proper power design. So is whether the attack is affected by power defense.

 

tesuji, to throw the question back at you, what is the common defense that stops each of your sample attack powers cold? Show me that the NND by default approach is superior to the current model of Power Defense.

 

I can name dozens of sfx that fit "causes pain (stun)' date=' physical trauma (body) and knockback" to explain what an Eb does when its bought as is.[/quote']

 

And all are defended against by PD or ED. Why aren't these limited to specific special effects. Why would being fire resistant make me resistant to cold, acid and sonics as a default? I've seem vibration blasts bought as both physical and energy - why is the defense different for some over others?

 

I can do the same for desolid which several people have mentioned.

 

And affects desolid (+1/2) can target them all. Why?

 

I cannot say the same for power attack. The reason i cannot is that adjustment powers are used as a catch all for anything that affects the "other traits" that damage does not. As such their sfx varies so broadly that the notion of a single defense that counters all the different fx starts failing.

 

I don't buy that all of the ED SFX are more closely related than all the adjustment power SFX. Most or all the SFX you list above for adjustment powers could readily be cnverted to EB's which all act against PD or ED. The range of special effects is broad for these categories as well. Look just at the USPD categories that have energy blasts and tell me why ED should affect all the ones it does, or PD for that matter. Power defense is no different.

[tesuji]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

 

 

Are you trying to imply Master Order's player was "Min Maxing" somehow? Please.

OK to be perfectly clear, when i referenced him and wondered as possibly that he did not take the limitation which would have lessened his point cost, i was not implying he was minmaxing. had i wanted to imply minmaxing, i would have been implying he chose the lesser cost, not the more expensive one, as usually, getting things for less is involved in minmaxing, not getting things for more.

 

The implication i trtied to get across was that perhaps, please correct me if i am wrong, that while "take a limitations" is being passed around like its the panacea for what ails ya', in fact, in the case you brought up as an example, the most common and easiest and quickest buy is to just slap down power defense and not bother with limitations reflecting that a number of adjustment power sfx wont be reasonably stopped.

 

Its not a case of minmaxing but a case of quick and easy, of following the sample characters, and of it frankly not being worth the hassle to go thru that work for what is in effect a very small percentage of points.

Those Powers your listing again should be purchased in some means that do not interact with Power Defense.

and, i remind you that i suggested that adjustment powers should be NND-like as opposed to universally defaulting to the wall defense type.

 

To put it as simply as i can, hero has several different mechanics for "how powers work." The two in question are the "vs wall of defense" (Eb, RKA, adjustment powers) and the "full unless special circumstance" (NNDS, desolid defense). i CAN build all my adjustment powers as NNDs is i want. Thats certainly possible within the rules now. I know from experience that the vast majority of adjustment powers i did build for my last campaign were NNDs and this showed me two things...

 

1. the increase in cost was wrong. Power defense is so rare that switching from "reduced by power defense" to "zeroed by a relatively common counter" should NOT BE +1/2 increase in points. So the current +1/2 to switch to NND is inappropriate. A quick look at the published characters looking for "how many have NND-defeating powers vs "how many have any power defense" and then " how many have power defense enough to stop a normal sized adjustment power" should bear this inaccuracy out. Other people's comments in this thread about the rarity of power defense attacks also seem to point in that direction.

 

2. the base defined adjustment power mechanic is used by me, when i take the advice here and build the power to match my expectations, rarely. Almost always i do not use the adj attack as is but apply mods to change the very way it works vs the target. this tells me that basic building block is flawed. I would MUCH prefer having the power i buy be the one i use and having to modify it to get the less frequent "oddball" situation.

 

Hence, i would prefer for the adjustment power at the base cost to work like the LESS USEFUL version, the NND like version I use most of the time, and then be able to apply modifiers to swap it to go against a wall of defense as appropriate. if its a mental effect i could apply an advantage/limitation to make it go against mental defense/ego.

 

saves time if the power is closer to what you see the sfx doing in more cases right from th start and you do not end up PAYING to make it do less by making it zero out against a common circumstance instead of being recuced by a very rare defense.

If the player was just trying to save point and not get his "Buffeting winds" Suppress vs FLight as NND or limited TK, well that his choice. He saved points but for some reason "Power Def Mans" legal and paid for Power Defense protects him from it.

you seem to think this is a balance issue... he saved points so he has to deal with power defense." In one small part, it is. But the balance issue i see is that "reduced by power defense" should not be "saving points" vs "negated if a common counter is present" at all.

 

the other issue is being as reasonably friendly as possible by making the power bought the one more useful as is.

And, could you please cut back on the thinly veiled cracks just a -tad- please. It doesn't lead to a reasonable discussion and it just comes across as pissy and childish.

probably not. i cannot control in the least the things people want to take offense at when they try.

[tesuji]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

It seems to me that the major [oint of difference between those who feel "universal power defense" is the problem (such as tesuji) and those who feel it is not (such as Katherine) stems to one simple issue - whether the determination of whether an attack is reduced by power defense should be inherent in the attack power (Katherine) or the defense power (tesuji).

 

I say again... because it may not be printing out...

 

i think that adjustment powers should be mechaniced to be NND-like and not "vs power defense like" at their baseline effect.

 

Most of the adjustment attacks i built in my last game were NND-like, not the "vs power defense wall" type. That meant by the current system every one was +1/2 (IIRC.)

 

i do agree with the notions of, as a lesser change, making power attack work vs a specific sfx by default (like adjustment powers that affect more than one trait do) has merit, but simply put, my preference would be to do exactly this... put the onus on the attack power for defining the sfx it works under.

 

Look at the sample characters. In the champions genre book we are presented with the core hero team and villains including a master villain.

 

How many had power defense. I am pretty sure the answer was 0. if not, it was 1.

 

against those characters a magic fatigue spells with 4d6 END drain would...

if bought normally cost ~60 ap and give full affect against them all...

or

if bought NND style cost 80 ap and (if i chose say "magical defenses" as its counter) affect maybe 8-9 of them fully and not affect the others at all.

 

something about that bothers me, though i may not be able to express it adequately.

[Katherine]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

Ok, tesuji (You watch Yu Yu Hakusho?) I think what your saying is this:

 

"I think Adjustment Powers should be, by default, NND in nature with "Affected by Power Defense" possibly being a limitation or being done away with all together."

 

That's a perfectly valid choice for your game. Its easy enough implement and I can't see it destroying your game. I just don't see eye to eye with you on it being a "problem" with the system. Univeral Power Def has never been common the games I've played and constructing powers with sfx in mind eliminates the issue IMO, but if its a problem for you and players that making the game less fun by all means change it. Its nothing worth arguing over and certainly not worth trading insults. I hope it works out well for you and your group. It would make certain power constructs simpler which is a laudable goal, particularly for new comers to the system.

 

Interestingly enough this discussion has made think of a couple more of characters I could have justiftied Full Power Defense for, Menagerie and Stopwatch. I'll have to burn some Experience when I get the chance.

[Agent X]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

probably not. i cannot control in the least the things people want to take offense at when they try.

She's not the only one inferring what you are implying.

[Agent X]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

I say again... because it may not be printing out...

Case in point.

[Agent X]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

Because it needed to repeated. In Bold.

Yep.

[arcady]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

There are sidebar examples on 5'th edition page 138 which show how to make power defense versus one special effect. Magic Only and Chemicals Only were both worth -1/2.

Yes but that is just power defense. I'd want 'Defense against special effect' to stop all kinds of attacks that use that special effect.

 

Magic Defense would and should stop magic swords from doing physical damage just as much as would a spell that drains away EGO.

 

Radiation Defense would slow not just the CON drain, but the area killing attack as well (and would model a person hardy against radiation as opposed to just completely subject to or completely immune like life support...)

 

You might have 'Toon Defense', protecting you from the effects of Toons run amok...

 

Defenses make more sense when based on special effect.

 

It makes more sense to have Fire Defense and Electricity Defense be seperate rather than having ED. Perhaps some basic general bodily defense makes sense, but much of it should be seperate by special effect.

[Katherine]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

Yes but that is just power defense. I'd want 'Defense against special effect' to stop all kinds of attacks that use that special effect.

 

Magic Defense would and should stop magic swords from doing physical damage just as much as would a spell that drains away EGO.

 

Radiation Defense would slow not just the CON drain, but the area killing attack as well (and would model a person hardy against radiation as opposed to just completely subject to or completely immune like life support...)

 

You might have 'Toon Defense', protecting you from the effects of Toons run amok...

 

Defenses make more sense when based on special effect.

 

It makes more sense to have Fire Defense and Electricity Defense be seperate rather than having ED. Perhaps some basic general bodily defense makes sense, but much of it should be seperate by special effect.

 

That would be extremely complicated. You'd have a seperate defense for every conceivable special effect. If you specific defenses you can limited ED or limited Damage reduction.

[Magmarock]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

I agree with Katherine.

 

It would be easier to by a standard defense and then limit it vs. what it doesn't work against.

 

 

Mags

[Agent X]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

Yep. SFX defenses would be far too complicated.

 

It's not really that hard to do magic defense as it is though.

 

Compound Power: Magic Defense (60 active points/ 40 points real cost)

Armor +5PD/+5ED

Knockback Resistance +5"

Mental Defense +10

Power Defense 10

Flash Defense: Sight 5

Flash Defense: Hearing 5

Flash Defense: Taste/Smell 5

-1/2 only versus magic

 

Magic Defense 1:1 point sure would be cost effective, probably too cost effective. That means you would have to rate it differently and you would have to do that for every SFX defense and it just gets hairier and hairier.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

i think that adjustment powers should be mechaniced to be NND-like and not "vs power defense like" at their baseline effect.

 

Here we agree.

 

Most of the adjustment attacks i built in my last game were NND-like' date=' not the "vs power defense wall" type. That meant by the current system every one was +1/2 (IIRC.)[/quote']

 

And, as you post elsewhere, that's too expensive. Given you have chided others for not reviewing your prior posts, may I remind you that, somewhere up there, I suggested the costing for switching between esoteric defenses is excessive.

 

In my opinion, it is presently a -0 to switch between PD and ED. It is a -1 limit to change Mental Defense to PD/ED ("based on CON"), a +1 advantage to make a power NND (+1/2 if it otherwise goes against an esoteric defense) and a +1 1/2 to make a power that works against PD/ED work against an esoteric defense instead (AVLD).

 

Given this, I would suggest the following be corrected:

 

Esoteric defense switching should be free. If I want my EGO drain to work vs mental defense, there should be no difference in cost. An AVLD costs the same whether I choose power or mental defense. Why should a drain cost more to act against mental defense?

 

Switching from esoteric defense to an NND (reasonably common ability blocks entirely) should be -1/4 for powers acting against esoteric defenses (equating NND to AVLD for normal powers). Thus, a drain blocked entirely by any power defense costs less than one which is reduced by power defense (all your NND adjustment powers woud pay -1/4 instead of +1/2).

 

Switching from esoteric defense to PD/ED should be a -1 limitation.

 

Using the above makes for much more rational cost results, at least in my (nnot so) humble opinion.

 

Finally, I am still eagerly awaiting the common defense for each of the sample adjustment powers you offered to show me that "NND as a default" is more intuitive and a better fit than "power defense as a default". I repeat that here since, to use your phrase, it seems not to be printing.

[zornwil]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

Yep. SFX defenses would be far too complicated.

 

It's not really that hard to do magic defense as it is though.

 

Compound Power: Magic Defense (60 active points/ 40 points real cost)

Armor +5PD/+5ED

Knockback Resistance +5"

Mental Defense +10

Power Defense 10

Flash Defense: Sight 5

Flash Defense: Hearing 5

Flash Defense: Taste/Smell 5

-1/2 only versus magic

 

Magic Defense 1:1 point sure would be cost effective, probably too cost effective. That means you would have to rate it differently and you would have to do that for every SFX defense and it just gets hairier and hairier.

FWIW, I allow Supernatural Defense as INT/5, simple as that. I eliminated Power Defense. People need to choose PD, ED, MD, SD, or the SFX of an NND. Seems to work just fine for me.

[JmOz]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

Weirrd Idea #2

 

What if "power" Defence was increased in cost, was naturaly restricted to ONE f/x, but covered all occurences of that F/X?

 

So let us see a rough idea of cost:

 

Magic Defence (All slots -1/2 Only vs Magic)

30 15/15 Armor

10 15 Mental Defence

10 15 Power Defence

10 15 Flash Defence (Sight)

10 15 Flash Defence (Hearing)

10 15 Flash Defence (Smell/Taste)

10 15 Flash Defence (Touch)

---

90/15=6 points per point, I would however discount it to 5 points per point...

[Agent X]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

FWIW' date=' I allow Supernatural Defense as INT/5, simple as that. I eliminated Power Defense. People need to choose PD, ED, MD, SD, or the SFX of an NND. Seems to work just fine for me.[/quote'] Why not offer Cosmic Defense?

[Agent X]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

Weirrd Idea #2

 

What if "power" Defence was increased in cost, was naturaly restricted to ONE f/x, but covered all occurences of that F/X?

 

So let us see a rough idea of cost:

 

Magic Defence (All slots -1/2 Only vs Magic)

30 15/15 Armor

10 15 Mental Defence

10 15 Power Defence

10 15 Flash Defence (Sight)

10 15 Flash Defence (Hearing)

10 15 Flash Defence (Smell/Taste)

10 15 Flash Defence (Touch)

---

90/15=6 points per point, I would however discount it to 5 points per point...

And then you would have fire defense and electrical defense and extradimensional defense and telekinetic defense and electromagnetic defense and silver defense...

[JmOz]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

And then you would have fire defense and electrical defense and extradimensional defense and telekinetic defense and electromagnetic defense and silver defense...

 

In addition to normal ED, PD, etc... The only thing I am advicating is the removal of normal PowD

[schir1964]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

Wow! I post my opinion and no responds to it. Guess everyone agrees with me. (8^D)

 

Still not sure why it couldn't simply be handled like most other thiings.

 

Physical/Energy/Power/Flash Defenses default to one SFX.

Expand Scope Advantage (Two SFX): +1/4

Expand Scope Advantage (Four SFX): +1/2

Expand Scope Advantage (Eight SFX): +1

Expand Scope Advantage (All SFX): +2

 

All SFX Defenses cost 3 Point Per 1 Point.

 

Don't see how that's really going to hinder anybody, and it's more consistent with General Rule of Hero (See previous post for info).

 

If the cost is a bugaboo, then simply increase the total points for the character to allow normal values at the new cost to prevent any hindrance in purchasing.

 

Just An Idea

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

PS - Keep in mind I'm one of those that has no problem with using the official Hero System Rules for creating new powers, especially if there seems to be some gap that the current rules don't cover or require twisting them beyond recognition. At that point, just create a new game mechanic to cover it.

[zornwil]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

Why not offer Cosmic Defense?

Because based on how I play the genre that's too broad and meaningless. Though I'm aware of such a possibility.

 

Obviously, mileage varies here.

[tesuji]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

Finally, I am still eagerly awaiting the common defense for each of the sample adjustment powers you offered to show me that "NND as a default" is more intuitive and a better fit than "power defense as a default". I repeat that here since, to use your phrase, it seems not to be printing.

 

i assume you are referring to your request

 

Show me that the NND by default approach is superior to the current model of Power Defense.

 

we both know enough to know this cannot be done. "superior" in terms of game design is a conclusion based off preferences, not the answer to a mathematical formula. you could not show me that the current power defense model and nnd drains costing more than power defsne drains was superior and i cannot do that in reverse either.

 

I can comment on what the system as is resulted in in play and how the system could be different to make it mesh more closely with my expectations and produce what i feel to be a game that is better... whether that better means 'hey the costs seem more accurate since the power that does more to more people costs more!" or "hey i had to do less work to get the powers the way they should be" or "its more intuitiver" or whatever criteria we choose to judge.

 

As for the specific examples, i have to suspect that you might have an inkling that, as with NND, these would vary from game to game, GM preference to GM preference, and sfx to sfx as each player-gm decides what he know/feels is inappropriate and appropriate to be "common" for his specific game.

 

As such, i can only wonder why specific examples would be beneficial, but here goes for a few... and of course one should add "unless the specific nature of the campaign made the listed powers too rare." to each of these.

 

Air/wind suppress vs flight: barring a specific source determination like magic, i would go for desolidification or wind powers.

 

Undead "life drain": being sanctified such as using/enspelled by holy magic, being on holy ground, or carrying a holy artifact

 

rock to mud suppress vs run/leap: clinging or proper equipment for traversing such (note that terrain might provide alternatives of its own)

 

itching powder as dex drain: rPD from a defense that would keep it out, like sealed armor or force field (thats force field SFX not necessarily force field power)

 

I am certain these and any number of others would be insufficient to prove the "superiority" of this notion to you. So i will stop here.

 

As a postential saving of time effort, allow me to respond in advance to the "but this one is too common and that one isn't vommon enough and gods what a mish mash..." by saying that, in a game where the Gm and player are in agreement that "ABC" is "common enough and not too common" to be acceptable as an NND counter or in this case "adjustment power counter" then, unless the GM is messing up, it will be "just common enough" in play in that game.

 

it might not be from your perspective of "if i were running so-n-so" but when both agree that it is, you kinda got to assume they know more about their game and their characters and their situations than we do our hypothetical game.

 

however, if you would like to now prove to me and everyone else how superior the current system is, knock yourself out.

[tesuji]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

Wouldn't the power you are suggesting (Pre Drain based on Fear) be more accurately modelled as a Drain thatworks againt Mental Defense or even NND (No emotions' date=' ego at certain level, etc)? [/quote']

 

See "Spell of fear" in FRED pg 100.for the example provided to players and GMs by the designer of how to use drain for this effect.

[KA.]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

Wow! I post my opinion and no responds to it. Guess everyone agrees with me. (8^D)

- Major Snippage -

 

Wow, I was thinking the same thing.

Guess we can't both be right.

Actually I like your idea just fine as a way to make things more uniform.

But, even though it is part of the basic design philosophy, I find things a little too "generic" sometimes. Not enough that I want a bunch of different Power Defenses, but enough that I think things are about "uniform" enough.

 

I suppose that a case could be made for only three Powers:

Damage

Defense

Movement

All of which would have a base cost and modifiers that would turn them into approximations of all the current powers, but I think that would be a little too "distilled".

 

I can make a cake without a mix, but when it comes to grinding my own flour and growing my own sugar cane and having some chickens in the back yard for eggs, that is getting to be a little too much work.

I am not arguing that you wouldn't produce a superior product this way, but I think it would be too much for me to handle every time someone's birthday rolls around.

 

But that does not in any way reduce my admiration for the logical and well-thought out construct that you presented.

 

Bravo!

 

KA.

 

Oh, not responding to you, Chris, but just to avoid having another post for no reason.

 

Am I missing something here?

For some reason it looks like this is being argued as if Power Defense totally negates Transforms, Drains, etc.

Do people really feel this strongly over a character having 5 or 6 points of Defense against these Powers?

Is it being assumed that anyone who buys Power Defense is going to buy so much that these Powers will have no effect at all?

Since points are limited, and these attacks seem relatively rare, I just don't see players sinking a lot of points into Power Defense, especially since they are going to have to justify having it, and the more they want the better the justification.

Or is this just about, "the principle of the thing", meaning it doesn't really affect gameplay that much, but it bothers people anyway.

Just wondering.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

 

Physical/Energy/Power/Flash Defenses default to one SFX.

Expand Scope Advantage (Two SFX): +1/4

Expand Scope Advantage (Four SFX): +1/2

Expand Scope Advantage (Eight SFX): +1

Expand Scope Advantage (All SFX): +2

 

All SFX Defenses cost 3 Point Per 1 Point

 

Don't see how that's really going to hinder anybody, and it's more consistent with General Rule of Hero (See previous post for info).

 

Another General Rule of Hero is that every offense has a defense, and the defense is cheaper. At present, 3 defense, to block most of the average roll on 1d6, costs 3 points. 5 defense, enough for reasonable assurance 1d6 wil be nullified, costs 5 points. 1d6 of Energy Blast costs 5 points.

 

Under your proposal, sufficient ED to block most of that 5 point EB costs 9 points. Sufficient ED to provide reasonable assurance 1d6 will be nullified costs 15 points. This is a serious shift in the cost/benefit of attacks vs defenses.

 

If the cost is a bugaboo' date=' then simply increase the total points for the character to allow normal values at the new cost to prevent any hindrance in purchasing.

 

By how much do we increase points? Let's assume a campaign average of 20 def, 10 resistant, and on average, 10 points of special defenses. Thats 60 points paid for defenses, on average. Increase of 120 points allows Mr. Average to have the same defenses.

 

However, Mr. Martial Artist, who relies principally on DEX, only has 10/10 PD and ED, 5 resistant, so he only needs 50 of those 120 points to get back where he started. I guess he can spend 60 points upping his DEX by 20 (or buy +12 DCV to stay purely defensive), and another 10 to buy another Speed, for a total of +3 Speed (only 1 if he goes the pure DCV route, though he could buy +3 Speed and "only" +8 DCV).

 

Meanwhile, Indestructible Man (30 PD and ED, all resistant, 20 power defense, 10 sight flash defense, 10 mental defense) is short 140 points.

 

Presumably, the same costing would apply to dmage reduction. If not, that becomes a much more viable option as well.

 

EDIT: PS - limitations on defenses also skew the effect. The fact force fields and walls costs END now makes them virtually useless as no one can spemnd the END at that pace without radically boosting their END purchases.

 

IOW, this has huge ripple effects you have not considered.

 

However, I agree with you that this is as, or more, reasonable than simply singling out Power Defense for this special treatment.