NND Defenses

[Legendsmiths]

Thinking of some specific NND type powers. For example, an RKA that is NND (Defense is being not made of metal). Or a undead killing power that is NND (Defense is not being undead).

 

These defenses are common enough to provide the requisite defense for NND without providing 2 others, no? However, the "targets" of the defense have no way of defending against it so that doesn't seem right.

 

Would it then make sense to provide an additional, conditional defense such as NND (Defese is not being undead, or being undead with hardened defenses).

 

Thoughts?

[Edsel]

Re: NND Defenses

 

I don't really like the idea of an NND which is impossible for a specific target to defend against. The NND (defense is not being undead) does just seem wrong. I think that there should be some way for an undead creature to defend against it. Yes most should be defenseless against it but there should be some method by which an undead creature could be shielded (hardened power defense, or whatever). Perhaps this particular NND is not so bad but the real problem is that it opens the door for someone to make a really cheesy NND. For example, I just invented the anti-Hulk cannon, 10d6 NND (defense is not being green).

 

In the old Star Hero book (pre 5th Edition) there was a meson gun that was NND (defense was having less than 8 points of resistant defense). I always thought of that as being a little cheesy. I have noted that such a weapon did not reappear in the new Star Hero so I guess Steve and James (the authors) thought it was cheesy as well.

[Kristopher]

Re: NND Defenses

 

I'm leery of that kind of NND as well. Don't open that particular box, you don't want what's inside getting out.

[Rapier]

Re: NND Defenses

 

Thinking of some specific NND type powers. For example, an RKA that is NND (Defense is being not made of metal). Or a undead killing power that is NND (Defense is not being undead).

 

These defenses are common enough to provide the requisite defense for NND without providing 2 others, no? However, the "targets" of the defense have no way of defending against it so that doesn't seem right.

 

Would it then make sense to provide an additional, conditional defense such as NND (Defese is not being undead, or being undead with hardened defenses).

 

Thoughts?

Well, if you don't have the defence you ARE supposed to take all the damage. That's why NND is so freakin expensive. However, there have been times when I've given NNDs multiple defences. Just because the special effects warranted it. If its a knockout gas NND the defense could be self contained breathing or non-mamallian physiology. Let me ask this, what is the SFX of the power that the defence is !Undead or Undead w/ Hardened DEF? That's the important question, push off all the rest of that rot to the side.

[Edsel]

Re: NND Defenses

 

As with most things this seems to come down to a balance problem. Will the attack, if allowed, cause a balance problem in your game?

 

If you are running a game in which the primary enemy are zombies, then it'd be a really bad idea to allow the players to have an attack that automatically made the zombies defenseless.

 

Just remember whatever you throw at the characters they may want to be able to pulloff simular feats. Likewise if you let a player get away with an attack that is very powerful they should not be surprised when their opponents respond in kind.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: NND Defenses

 

Thanks guys. I agree with everything you have going here. I think I will go with the two-pronged option of NND and consider it a "bane" type attack. Undead Bane would be NND, with the defense being either not being the target of the bane, or some special defense & being a baned creature.

 

The core of the idea is to create an attack that is devastating to the target, but either a reduced effect or no effect to other targets, and then to fit it in as a multipower slot. The multipower is what makes it kinda screwy. Example:

 

40-pt Reserve with -2 limitations. All slots are ultra. Therefore, each slot will cost 1 point pretty much regardless of what additional limitations are applied to it. So, applying Undead Only -1/2 really doesn't help. The campaign level is such that attacks of more than 40 pts are uncommon, so having a reserve much higher than 40 pts doesn't make sense. In that case, why have a limited (Undead Only) slot, when you can have a regular slot that is just as effective.

 

Enter NND. NND does cost more, to be sure, but it comes with a built in balance of advantage and limitation, making it ideally suited to this. So, making an NND slot (defense is being "alive") does add value to the power selection. Since the defense is so common, that qualifies NND as only +1/2. Assuming the character has just a basic EB slot and a "Bane" slot, he could do 8d6N or 5d6NND (Undead Only). The 8d6 may not be enough to harm a particular undead, but the NND would. Even at +1 the slot would still have value.

 

An alternative might be to say NND (Hardened Defenses) and Undead Only -1/2. But this goes back to the reality of the slot cost in that the -1/2 doesn't do anything positive (i.e. save even 1 point), so there is no incentive beyond story to do it. I'm all for story, but I like to at least get marginally rewarded for doing so.

 

So, how best to build this and give value in the MP context? The special effect of the attacks is chemical, so power defense doesn't really cut it. Hardened defenses? It doesn't affect people at all.

[Metaphysician]

Re: NND Defenses

 

One option: make an attack NND with a "Not a ____" defense condition, and then tag on a limitation like "Reduced by Power Defense" or such. In essence, stacking the limits of NND and AVLD.

[Mentor]

Re: NND Defenses

 

I'm leery of that kind of NND as well. Don't open that particular box' date=' you don't want what's inside getting out.[/quote']

I generally agree with Kristopher and Edsel about not allowing such NNDs.

 

I have, however, once threatened to use something similar on a PC who was supposed to be a Vampire, but was not susceptible to any of the typical banes of said Undead. Thus the Sun was defined as a 6D6NNd, does BODY. Defense was not being an Undead or being protected its direct rays. Holy water, holy ground, and woooden stakes were to be likewise defined.

 

The PC predated my running as a GM in that campaign, thus negating the proper method of disallowing such a construction for a PC who wanted to be defined as a Vampire.

[paigeoliver]

Re: NND Defenses

 

Your building the power wrong cowboy.

 

6d6 NND (defense is any protective magic spell) -1 only vs. undead

 

Problem solved. It blasts normal undead, ones that have been magically protected are MAGICALLY PROTECTED and it only effects undead.

[pinecone]

Re: NND Defenses

 

I beleive that NND specificly says that "Don't be x" style attacks are not OK...though of course anybody who wants to can do it anyway...I personally don't like NND's where they always work ie a NND "don't be made of metal" always works because whos goofy to use it on some one Not made of metal...so only if its not easy to tell would I even be tempted and even then whats the counter? A NND not vs FF can be countered by whiping up a FF by spell,gizmo or usable by other....how do I whip up a Not a zombie anymore?....YMMV

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: NND Defenses

 

Your building the power wrong cowboy.

 

6d6 NND (defense is any protective magic spell) -1 only vs. undead

 

Problem solved. It blasts normal undead, ones that have been magically protected are MAGICALLY PROTECTED and it only effects undead.

I think this is the best solution offered so far. The defense of an NND should be some type of "defense," rather than a permanent condition or quality of the target. If you want an attack that affects only "type X" targets (undead, metal creatures, etc.), then let that be a limit on the power: "Only Affects Type-X Targets". Then it doesn't even have to be an NND, and the target can still use its appropriate defense!

 

One warning: This can be a very powerful construct because to can fire it indiscriminately into a crowd and not have to worry about non-undead being hurt (though it might look kind of scary from their perspective).

 

Another thing to remember: Damage Reduction can reduce damage from an NND.

 

And another wierd possibility that occurs to me (I wasn't going to post it originally, but what the heck, 0.0001% of you might like it.) - and it's totally outside the standard rules: Allow some type of "NND Defense" power - buy it like a normal defense, PD, ED, PowerD, MentalD, FlashD, but then add a +2 Advantage, "Only works vs. NNDs meant to target 'My Kind'." Or perhaps the advantage should be even larger than +2, after all you'd be defending against what's supposed to be an undefendable power. Perhaps require that the defense be bought Resistant (and maybe Hardened as well), just to make sure it's appropriately expensive. This way 1 pt of NND-DEF would cost 4.5 points (+0.75 for each level of hardened). This way, the zombie and ghoul minions would fall easily to the Undead

Destroyer, but the Master Vampire and Archlich, with their extra points to spend, could have some defense against it. This would definitely be a ! power, and possibly available to NPCs only.

 

But forget that last paragraph and go with what PaigeOliver said.

[Edsel]

Re: NND Defenses

 

Yeah I think that paigeoliver has offered the best solution to the situation. Its elegant and simple. I often have a tendency to overthink these things and miss the easy answers.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: NND Defenses

 

I beleive that NND specificly says that "Don't be x" style attacks are not OK...though of course anybody who wants to can do it anyway...

 

Sounds like my 6d6 NND - defense is "not being a supervillain" is going to face some stiff resistance

[Rapier]

Re: NND Defenses

 

Your building the power wrong cowboy.

 

6d6 NND (defense is any protective magic spell) -1 only vs. undead

 

Problem solved. It blasts normal undead, ones that have been magically protected are MAGICALLY PROTECTED and it only effects undead.

Actually I do like that. I can understand where people have problems with the open-ended NNDs (eg def is not being undead). However, sometimes it is the perfect construct. But I will go through and start being a little more particular on the NNDs from now on. They come up so infrequently though, that its never been enough of an issue for me to give it a great deal of thought.

[KA.]

Re: NND Defenses

 

mudpyr8,

I still don't think I understand exactly what you are trying to do here.

 

Are you trying to put an NND advantage on the attack powers so that they will be worthwhile in a Multipower slot, because they cost more?

 

 

As far as the defenses, I would absolutely not allow "Not vs. X" as a defense.

For one reason, what about vampires, or other undead that are able to pass as human?

Professor VonSomething: "I wonder if Count Plasma here is a vampire?"

Mondar the Mystic: "Let me check . . ." cuts loose with NND (Only vs. Undead)

Count Plasma: "Ouch!"

Mondar: "Yep, he's a vampire, all right."

 

KA.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: NND Defenses

 

I agree with all of you. I also recognise that NND (defense is X), Only vs. Undead -1 is the most elegant way to do it. 100%. That's how I built the power originally. But, when the power is in a power framework, like a multipower, that has a reasonable number of limitations on it already (e.g. a weapon), the Only vs. Undead as a limitation doesn't do anything to the cost. Therefore, if the cost is unaffected by that limitation, why not remove it and just have an NND attack (defense is magical defenses)? Accounting-wise, that make sense but story-wise it doesn't.

 

I'm trying to get the system to justify the limitation, and building it this way does not.

 

40-point reserve with -2 limitations (OAF + others). Real Cost: 13

Slot cost (ultra) = 40/3 = 13/10 = 1. If I add a -1 limitation to that slot it becomes 40/4 = 10/10 = 1. Why bother?

 

That's why I'm trying to roll it into the advantage. NND is normally +1, but if the defense is very common (e.g. Having a soul) it would only be +1/2. My thought is that I would blend it with AVLD and essentially say that for +1/2 the attack only affects the target of the Bane and that the Bane target gets an appropriate exotic defense (e.g. Mystic Defense, Power Defense, Flash Defense, Mental Defense, Hardened PD or ED, etc.) applied normally. In the undead case, a zombie probably wouldn't have the exotic defense, but a mummy or a wight would. Hardened ED might be appropriate for Undead.

[Rapier]

Re: NND Defenses

 

I agree with all of you. I also recognise that NND (defense is X)' date=' Only vs. Undead -1 is the most elegant way to do it. 100%. That's how I built the power originally. But, when the power is in a power framework, like a multipower, that has a reasonable number of limitations on it already (e.g. a weapon), the Only vs. Undead as a limitation doesn't do anything to the cost. Therefore, if the cost is unaffected by that limitation, why not remove it and just have an NND attack (defense is magical defenses)? Accounting-wise, that make sense but story-wise it doesn't. [/quote']

Stop right there. Just stop. Think about it. Simply because there is no point break does not invalidate the concept. In fact, the points should have very little to do when modelling an effect.

 

You want a reason to have NDD (Def is magical defense spells) Only vs Undead? How about because you want to be able to do damage to all undead that don't have magical defense spells? That's all the reasoning that is necessary.

 

Especially when you are talking about powers in an MP. It is so very easy to get the cost to a point where any further limitations won't matter. That shouldn't stop you, for a minute, from adding more limitations to get the effect you are after.

 

Move beyond the point-hound. You will be much happier with the result.

[Sean Waters]

Re: NND Defenses

 

Cod science 101:

 

There used to be a 'Fast Neutrino Gun' in one of the Champions supplements, an NND with defences: not having more than 9 resistant ED. Idea was if a fast neutrino hits matter it breezes through without stopping, but anything sufficiently energy dense slowed it down enough to ionise the surrounding matter and cause damage. Loved thatgun. Specifically against the rules now...

 

While we are on NND, I'm a bit confused. The +1/2 version sounds awfully like AVLD but is cheaper. What gives?

[JmOz]

Re: NND Defenses

 

Cod science 101:

 

There used to be a 'Fast Neutrino Gun' in one of the Champions supplements, an NND with defences: not having more than 9 resistant ED. Idea was if a fast neutrino hits matter it breezes through without stopping, but anything sufficiently energy dense slowed it down enough to ionise the surrounding matter and cause damage. Loved thatgun. Specifically against the rules now...

 

While we are on NND, I'm a bit confused. The +1/2 version sounds awfully like AVLD but is cheaper. What gives?

 

Both AVLD and NND have a 1/2 value version

 

With NND it stops completly, not with AVLD

[Frenchman]

Re: NND Defenses

 

One thing I noticed, Mudpyre, is that it seems you plan to build an NND attack vs. undead with only a +1/2 or +1 advantage. I don't know about your games, but in all the games I've played in, undead don't take STUN, so you would have to add the Does Body (+1) advantage to get any mileage out of this. Course, with 40 points you can still get a 1d6 KA NND Does Body, but I just thought you might have missed that.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: NND Defenses

 

While it may fly in the face of orthodoxy, and while I'm leery of applications of "the defense is not having X, or not being X, or lacking X, etc." I don't rule it out entirely. I think there is one basic situation in which it's fairly reasonable.

 

That situation is where you're making the defense vastly more common than it would have been without having paid a +1 Advantage. And I don't mean stupid things like taking "Not vs. Supervillains" and arguing that this okay, since most people aren't supervillains. I'm talking about the defense being vastly more common among your likely targets than it was before you bought the Advantage.

 

For example, a pulp-era super-archer with a Flash attack (SFX: Shattering eyewear so it obscures vision), defense is not wearing eyewear. True, this turns Flash and Flash Defense on their heads by having a common SFX of Flash Defense (eyewear) actually become a liability instead of a defense. But it's also true that most of this archer's foes (Nazis, mafiosos, mad scientists, etc.) do not wear protective eyewear.

 

So instead of his Flash affecting 90% of his adversaries, it now only affects 10% of his adversaries. Granted, they're the 10% he would have had more trouble affecting before. But he's still paying a large Advantage cost while decreasing the applicability among his foes.

 

Likewise, a sorceress with a spell designed to keep unconscious foes down without unheroically beating on them after they've fallen. She buys an NND, defense is Being Conscious (which of course, could be stated as "Not Being Unconscious).

 

This is terrifically effective at keeping fallen foes down without kicking them or whatever, but it's also essentially saying, "This attack, that you've paid a +1 Advantage on, can't help you beat your foes in most circumstances, because it generally only works on foes you've already beaten!" In terms of the frequency with which they appear in combat with you, "foes you haven't beaten yet" are certainly much more common than "foes you've already defeated," and the NND defense "Not Being Unconscious" makes the attack only apply to the much smaller subset of adversaries.

 

Anyway, that's my .02. These kind of weird "defenses" certainly need a long hairy eyeball from the GM, but I think there are some cases where they work.

[Sean Waters]

Re: NND Defenses

 

Both AVLD and NND have a 1/2 value version

 

With NND it stops completly, not with AVLD

 

No version of +1/2 AVLD in my copy of FRED, and the way that the +1/2 version of NND is described '...like an Ego attack that works against power defence not mental defence' sounds like a swap of defences not a normal NND 'all or nothing'

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: NND Defenses

 

While it may fly in the face of orthodoxy' date=' and while I'm leery of applications of "the defense is not having X, or not being X, or lacking X, etc." I don't rule it out entirely. I think there is one basic situation in which it's fairly reasonable.[/quote']

 

I snipped your example, which I think is a great "reasoning from effect" power. I see it as very different from what I consider a "not having" defense, such as "not having" a force field, or "not being" a werewolf.

 

The Neutrino Gun is, IMO, a nice borderline example. While I like the SFX, the "affects anyone with 9+ rDEF seems like just the thing to affect opponents with good defenses (the best targets for NND's to begin with).

 

But I hate to write off any construct which might give an interesting result, regardless of rules specifics. Just like there's ways to abuse most powers, there's ways to use things that seem abusive in non-abusive ways.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: NND Defenses

 

Stop right there. Just stop. Think about it. Simply because there is no point break does not invalidate the concept. In fact, the points should have very little to do when modelling an effect.

 

Move beyond the point-hound. You will be much happier with the result.

It's not about point-hounding, it's about the system modeling the "reality". This attack has less utility than other attacks in most cases. Classically, this would mean apply a limitation to it. However, the power framework makes that irrelevant. The reason that is an issue since the SFX are such that the GM can't say, "In order to take NND you have to take the limitation - all NNDs in this world must have a mandatory -1/2 limited power", which would actually be a cool guideline for a Heroic game, I can easily create the power without the limitation and have it fit the story just fine.

 

So, it's not an issue that creating the power without the limitation wouldn't fit - in fact it would fit very well - what I'm searching for is a reason to have a limited NND when there is no reason for me to do so. The only reason left would be a cost savings, but I also see this in larger terms that there are many powers that would work great like this but how do you address them.

 

As another example, poison. Poison costs an amazing number of points, so much as to make it impractical from an Alchemist's point of view. When your average poison is 180 active points, even if you say it takes 1 month to craft it he still can't fit it into a reasonable power framework or campaign guidline, even though poison is possibly the easiest thing for him to craft.

 

I suppose another way to address it is to simply eliminate the power framework altogether, but that removes the story element reward for good related power design (such as an archer's multipower). Maybe use a more reasonable cost multiplier (like .2 or .33).

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: NND Defenses

 

It is not point mongering or munchkinism to believe that a less applicable power should cost less than a more applicable power (e.g., one that works only on undead vs. one that works on any target) - even if the power is a slot in a framework. It's just consistancy with the central idea of the system: more costs more, less costs less.

 

So how do you deal with this particular situation? I summarize below:

 

40-AP Reserve for Multipower with -2 in standard limitations that apply to all slots. Real cost: 13

u Slot A - Some basic power, 40 AP with -2 lims = 1 real point

u Slot B - Some other power, 40 AP, standard lims, 1 real point

u Slot C - Kill Undead power, 40 AP, standard -2 lims, with an additional -1 lim "Only vs. Undead" Real cost 1 point

 

Slot C is more limited than A and B, but costs the same. What can you do?

 

My solution is (admittedly not strictly rules legal) to modify the AP vs. RP rules for Multipowers: Instead of each slot being a maximum of 40 *Active* Points, let each slot have a maximum 13 *Real* Points (before division by 5 or 10 for multi or ultra slots). Thus, slot C could be 52 Active, with -3 in limitations, which brings it down to the 13 real cost of the Reserve.

 

I've been using this method for years, and I find that it works very well for a variety of concepts and is well-balanced. It allows "specialty powers" as slots in Multipowers that go over the standard Active Points of the reserve. Examples include the one above, a power that works only against a particular type of target, which is frequently seen in many genres. If you've got a multipower that has at least one attack power in it, why would you pay extra for a specific-target attack power that isn't any more powerful? IOW, what would be the point of the following construct:

 

40 Active Point Reserve -2 Standard Lims, 13 Real Points

1u Slot A 8d6 EB, Standard Lims

1u Slot B 8d6 EB, Standard Lims and Only vs. Undead (-1)

 

What's the point of having Slot B? Slot A works just as well against undead. With my house rule, slot B could be raised to a 10d6 EB, which would make a more effective attack against undead.

 

Another application of my Real-Points-instead-of-Active-Points Rule is to make "emergency-" or "last resort-" type powers:

 

40 Active Reserve, -2 Standard Lims (OAF, Gestures, Incantations, RSR)

1u Slot A - standard power

1u Slot B - normal power

1u Slot C - typical power

1u Slot D - In case of emergencies only power, Standard Lims and Side Effects (-1), 10xEND (-2), Concentration- 0 DCV (-1/2)

 

Most of the time, the character with the above multipower will get along with just the 40 AP slots A, B, and C, but once in a great while, an extreme situation may arise where he'll want to use the dreaded Slot D - with it's -6.5 in limitations, it has 85 Active Points (still only 13 real points) which is hopefully enough to deal with the crisis. It better be, because he'll be left with little or no END, at 0 DCV, and will take whatever harmful Side Effect there is. This adds some good drama to the game, and it isn't abusive because he's certainly not going to be using this power very often. (OK, it is a rather extreme example, but you get the idea.)

 

I apologize for the length of this post, but there is one more thing to add about powers that only work vs. Type-X targets: If you want to prevent players from using these attacks as automatic undead-detectors, there are ways to fool them:

 

"Quick! Zap the zombie!" /ZAP/ "Uh-oh. It's not a zombie. It's a flesh golem. Run!"

 

"Let's see if Count Eripmav is undead." /ZAP/ "Aha! He is!" "Wait! No, I'm not! I just have the Undead's Curse (Susceptibility: 3d6 Normal from Attacks that only Affect Undead). All members of my family are so afflicted. It comes with the name."