commonality of unusual defenses

[OddHat]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

How wonderful for you.

 

For myself, I have been playing Champions a long, long time, and I confess after a while certain things have just become routine. You (well, maybe not you, but he general "you") stop paying close attention to certain details, out of habit.

 

Maybe this won't ever be a concern for you. It is for me.

 

I've been playing Champions for 20 years or so, almost since it first came out. Does that count as a long, long time?

 

Nice to hear that you're finally getting your bad habits under control though.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Nice to hear that you're finally gettin your bad habits under control though.

 

I am a deeply flawed creature (but I make the best banana pudding in the universe).

[OddHat]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

I am a deeply flawed creature (but I make the best banana pudding in the universe).

 

Always good to have a skill to fall back on.

[Kirby]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Consider that motion seconded.

And carried.

I agree.

[Kirby]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

I can't imagine NOT thinking carefully before giving out exotic defenses or enhanced senses. My own games are concept and story oriented' date=' with combat used to move the plot along and keep things interesting. Exotic defenses (and senses) on characters that should not have those abilities as part of their concept is just war-gaming, something that doesn't work all that well when it's GM vs Players.[/quote']

I prefer going into campaigns where the GM has given a write-up or feel for how he generally wants the game to go. Thinking about this post, I've realized that when I *don't* have a feel for the campaign, I've made flying bricks with something else special about them (N-Ray vision, Regeneration, Desolid). When I *do* have a feel, I've only made one brick, and that was in a Legion clone game where I made a Valor clone character.

 

Hmm, I'm going to see if I can find my old characters and see if memory serves me as acurate as what I've posted here. I've got about twenty characters to go through, I think, if I can find them.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Pantera was the worst. She would generally FW twice on each PC before she came in from over 30 hexes away. A 4d6 HKA when your skilled normal is at 1/4 defenses is NOT fun. Even our bricks took Body.

 

Doesn't Find Weakness have Range Modifiers?

[Tamashii2000]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Doesn't Find Weakness have Range Modifiers?

 

Yes, as Far as I know Find Weakness takes Range Modifiers.

 

 

Interesting topic, I have to admit I have always given flash attacks (gernades) and flash goggles, althrough most of the supervillians (I Gamemaster, rarely get the chance to actualy play) rarely have any. I can't think of a time I have used Power defence or Lack Of Weakness

[Kirby]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Doesn't Find Weakness have Range Modifiers?

Yep. Pantera also had the appropriate range modifying skills to go with it.

[zornwil]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Another of several great topics lately, thx bblackmoor.

 

To speak to my group, it's a real mix. Not so much specific Flash defense, but some interesting enhanced senses wandering about. Although fairly recently we've powered up a bit and that makes a difference - before that it was a bit rarer, and at the higher power levels I think to some degree more resistance and/or flexibility is expected.

 

I replaced Power Defense with Supernatural Defense (this was pre-5th and long before I was aware of "Arcane Defense" as Fantasy HERO calls it), which is based on INT/5. There was more of a mix on that, and it seems pretty reasonable, some vulnerability there for half the team, half not so much. now it's a bit less that way due to powering up over time.

 

Mental Defense always seems to get overstated in games, I think players just plain really worry about being mind controlled and such. And at higher gaming levels, this is way more common as a threat, and in comics we TEND to see at higher levels all sorts of characters also have various weird ways of avoiding mental attacks. Anyway, this has followed the same pattern as SD above, with it raising up as the game has powered up over time.

 

But generally, at least at some level (I don't think I've seen it quite to the level he expressed in the earlier phases of campaigns I've run), I'd agree with bblackmoor's original contention that supers tend to have more diverse defenses than might be "fun" or as in many of the classic or archetypical comic books. But I see the other side of that picture; without being reasonably diverse, it just gets so easy to get one-shotted. I saw this way more vividly in Mutants and Masterminds, to some degree due to our inexperience with the game but to some degree as they designed it that way. And getting one-shotted, at least on any regular basis, just isn't fun at all, for players or GMs.

 

I'm reasonably satisfied that all the PCs still have reasonable weaknesses, and that's mostly what I'm concerned with from a playability standpoint. The mentalist shies away from heavy-punching characters; the energy projector/shape shifter is gaining some mental defenses through training and finer self-manipulation but still won't be heavy class and, besides, retains a healthy weakness against the supernatural; the form changing sleuth has forms that are nigh-invulnerable - except to the supernatural, and even then the interesting things is many of his forms are purely combat support and he balances out; the robot is definitely susceptible to the supernatural and mental stuff (he has a brain), though he's lower-powered in general; and the mage is the closest to being overly-defended as I think about it but does tend to be weaker against direct physical attacks but moreover is the type that is well-rounded but master of no defense save supernatural, so he sustains well but can isn't as bulked against anything as the others are. Everyone has some vulnerability to Flash or other such other esoteric things, unless they specifically prepare for such, and they're good about not unrealistically preparing.

 

But not to pretend it's a perfect balance or anything, sometimes I certainly realize I need to tweak villains to overcome some PC fine-tuning. On the whole I'm reasonably satisfied, though.

 

One thing I'm a stickler for is that re NNDs, I use the standard that the way to defeat it must be something that someone with a little (not a lot) of ingenuity and a trip to Home Depot or some other such place could constuct a defense for, given a little time. I do not allow NNDs such as "not against Force Fields," or if I do, I make it clear that someone could generate the same effect of a Force Field, depending of course precisely on SFX, if they understood the attack.

 

Recently I extended this to say that unless people buy suitable advantages, the same can be done in countering ECs and to a slightly lesser degree VPPs. Bear in mind my ECs are more liberal than the book's, I won't go through the whole thing as that just opens up the EC debate, but basically as a trade-off, if someone wants to combat your EC, unless you buy an advantage on the control cost, they could do so with some ingenuity. VPPs are sort of the same, except one magnitude harder, in that a savvy individual on their own couldn't undo it, but an organization or super could. As stated, you can buy an Advantage to decrease the vulnerability of either. I mention this as I find this to be a linked issue, not just character vulnerability as such, but the vulnerability (or not) of their abilities, particularly frameworked/discounted ones. You'll note I didn't include MPs, but that's because I just don't think MPs need or warrant this treatment given their nature.

 

The sad part is I just haven't spent the time to create counters to ECs and VPPs in the manner I had intended! Ah well...experiments take time.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Yep. Pantera also had the appropriate range modifying skills to go with it.

 

Since when did skill levels and find weakness work together?

[Trebuchet]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

One thing I'm a stickler for is that re NNDs' date=' I use the standard that the way to defeat it must be something that someone with a little (not a lot) of ingenuity and a trip to Home Depot or some other such place could constuct a defense for, given a little time. I do not allow NNDs such as "not against Force Fields," or if I do, I make it clear that someone could generate the same effect of a Force Field, depending of course precisely on SFX, if they understood the attack.[/quote']That's a great rule of thumb, Zorn. I wouldn't allow a defense against an NND to be only "Not vs. Force Fields," although I'd generally permit "Not vs. Force Fields or __________". And one of the defenses might also be an action, such as grounding oneself to defend against an electrical or sonic-based NND.

 

NNDs have to date been pretty rare in our campaign, both by PCs and villains. That may change as we gradually get more "Justice League-like." (Most of our team has passed or is fast approaching 400 CP.)

[Cardinal]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Recently I extended this to say that unless people buy suitable advantages, the same can be done in countering ECs and to a slightly lesser degree VPPs. Bear in mind my ECs are more liberal than the book's, I won't go through the whole thing as that just opens up the EC debate, but basically as a trade-off, if someone wants to combat your EC, unless you buy an advantage on the control cost, they could do so with some ingenuity. VPPs are sort of the same, except one magnitude harder, in that a savvy individual on their own couldn't undo it, but an organization or super could. As stated, you can buy an Advantage to decrease the vulnerability of either. I mention this as I find this to be a linked issue, not just character vulnerability as such, but the vulnerability (or not) of their abilities, particularly frameworked/discounted ones. You'll note I didn't include MPs, but that's because I just don't think MPs need or warrant this treatment given their nature.

 

The sad part is I just haven't spent the time to create counters to ECs and VPPs in the manner I had intended! Ah well...experiments take time.

 

This is an interesting idea. Please explain a little more of what you mean by countering an EC.

 

I assume that what you are trying to get at is that if you see Flame Lord coming down the street with his flame blast, flame flight, etc., your natural reaction is to grab a fire extinguisher or fire hose to bring Flame Lord down a peg. How do you mechanically treating this counter strategy? As a drain/suppress against the EC?

[Rapier]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

This is an interesting idea. Please explain a little more of what you mean by countering an EC.

 

I assume that what you are trying to get at is that if you see Flame Lord coming down the street with his flame blast, flame flight, etc., your natural reaction is to grab a fire extinguisher or fire hose to bring Flame Lord down a peg. How do you mechanically treating this counter strategy? As a drain/suppress against the EC?

I'm just guessing but I'm assuming he is a little more liberal in the use of SFX to counter a 'single unifying power.' Perhaps using ice, fire extinguishers, lack of oxygen to combat a fire EC?

[Lupus]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Getting into the discussion late.

 

Unusual defences are pretty rare in my games, usually. But then, drains/mind controls/etc big enough to one-shot a character are also pretty rare.

 

What tends to be a little more common are limited defences. Power defence, only applies against [sFX] drains. Say, the power-armour guy who has his suit armoured against EMP. Will help against EMP-based drains/suppresses/dispels, but won't help against poisons or anti-technology spells. Similarly, the healing-factor guy who has power defence, only against poisons (won't help against neural stunners that drain DEX, or magical 'slow' spells). Or the mage who has power defence that protects his magical powers against magical drains, but is vulnerable against other forms of suppression.

 

The list goes on. I'm much more of a fan of these limited SFX protections, particularly in regards to Power Defence. (I think there was a thread a short while ago, about whether power defence was too broad to begin with. Related topic here.)

 

Other defences are difficult to limit, mental defence being the main one. I guess there, you can have 'strong will' - defence against mind control, perhaps also against telepathy, but not against mental illusions.

 

Flash defence: goggles might be 'only against bursts of light', so that magic flashes which simply flood the eyes with light (without having actual light rays coming from a source) won't be protected against. That's a kinda minor limitation, however... I think I'd call that -0, but require it to be taken for goggles that people simply wear, as opposed to flash defence that's genuinely part of a powerset. (But that's part of my own bias against gadgets in superhero games. I freely admit that.)

 

Lack of weakness can also apply here. It's limited to begin with, as it has to be bought per defence. But it could be SFX based, too. 'Perfect style' for a martial artist - LoW only against other martial artists. But a technological structural weakness scanner (or a magical effect) will bypass it entirely.

 

I think adding limitations like this adds a lot of flavour to the defences, too. I try to encourage nuanced powers as much as possible, as opposed to simple out-of-the-book ones. Unless simple out-of-the-book powers are most appropriate.

[zornwil]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

That's a great rule of thumb, Zorn. I wouldn't allow a defense against an NND to be only "Not vs. Force Fields," although I'd generally permit "Not vs. Force Fields or __________". And one of the defenses might also be an action, such as grounding oneself to defend against an electrical or sonic-based NND.

 

NNDs have to date been pretty rare in our campaign, both by PCs and villains. That may change as we gradually get more "Justice League-like." (Most of our team has passed or is fast approaching 400 CP.)

Thanks. We haven't had many NNDs at all, either, I think our slime shape-shifter is the only one, though I might be forgetting something, he has an acidic sort of attack that can easily be dissipated if you cover yourself in water or such.

[zornwil]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

This is an interesting idea. Please explain a little more of what you mean by countering an EC.

 

I assume that what you are trying to get at is that if you see Flame Lord coming down the street with his flame blast, flame flight, etc., your natural reaction is to grab a fire extinguisher or fire hose to bring Flame Lord down a peg. How do you mechanically treating this counter strategy? As a drain/suppress against the EC?

You have the right idea, though I probably wouldn't want a PC to be QUITE so obviously handicapped re the fire extinguiser, maybe someone would need a "few" fire extinguishers/concentrated fire. Regardless, mechanically it would render the EC unable to be used, much like an NND attack against someone with the appropriate defense is useless. I don't do it as a Drain/Suppress or anything technical, it's an all-or-nothing thing, although by all means I'd grant it by degree if it seemed reasonable (as in your example, if the normal counter to Flame Lord's power were fire suppression abilities, I'd probably say his EC is halved or such against just a regular fire extinguisher). The fire hose makes sense, concentrated massive water.

 

If you don't want your EC to be so countered, the advantage to make it harder to dispel, as in something only an organization or super could come up with and out of the hands of regular people entirely, or even more rare, the rules are (quoting from the house rules): "The ability to counter the EC may be more limited, restricted in the same fashion as above to only agencies, government or similar organizations; to do so, for each EC slot the amount saved by the EC control cost is reduced by 1/4. For example, if an EC slot would normally have received 40 points' discount, instead it receives only a 30 point discount. To restrict the countering of an EC even further to only super-villains or masterminds reduces the EC slot savings by 1/2; following the example, the discount would be 20 points. This reduction will need to be reflected with a customer adder in HeroDesigner."

 

This grew out of a thread on the boards, actually, and is based on a general suggestion by Hugh Nielson that ECs should be considered in a similar manner to NNDs given the advantage in cost they give. The rule isn't at all his suggestion, but I should give credit for the inspiration of the bar.

 

I think it's important to point out that I don't restrict 0 END powers from being in an EC, and, importantly, adjustment powers used against a power in an EC do not necessarily work against all powers in an EC. I hate the notion that my "Drain Energy Blast" should suddenly drain everything else in an EC despite the fact my drain might be built on (just for example) "Magical Drain of Attacking Energy" - then why should it drain the character's Flight, even if it's based on the same energy, as that Flight is not "Attacking Energy" in terms of how the SFX of the "Magical Drain" works?

 

The idea here essentially is that ECs are based on a unifying theme and that unifying theme has an identifiable weakness. ECs should not be restricted by rules which make no SFX sense (and I think many of the restrictions in HERO do not make SFX or conceptual sense - why no 0 END power? why should a single drain against a power drain all?). I think this take on it conforms to heroic fiction and eliminates rules which are understandable for balance purposes but themselves otherwise run counter to, as far as I can see, the way SFX are normally handled against game mechanics, the meaning of Adjustment Powers, and building to concept. I've tried to provide the ability to do all these things. It's not at all perfect, I think it's a bit kludgy. But I think it works reasonably well, for the moment, though as stated I haven't tested it enough.

 

I think a Unified Framework would be the best solution and we've come up with one as I may have aforementioned, but it's a radical solution and I won't even introduce it into my game until I've done more analysis, and that analysis means significant character building testing, just haven't taken that kind of time, plus it's a bit tedious.

[zornwil]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

I'm just guessing but I'm assuming he is a little more liberal in the use of SFX to counter a 'single unifying power.' Perhaps using ice' date=' fire extinguishers, lack of oxygen to combat a fire EC?[/quote']

Just to address your point specifically, normally I'd want the PC to define the circumstance, and I would for a villain, I probably wouldn't want it to be quite so broad as you state. However, I could imagine it being (following the fire example) expressed as any combo of those with sufficient amount of force (e.g., throwing just some ice wouldn't be sufficient, but throwing just some of all 3 at the same time, or throwing a ton of ice (as with the fire hose example) would work). It shouldn't be dead easy for a normal person to counter, but it should be possible with enough craftiness and preparation. A fire hose of course would be a bit of (reasonable) providence.

 

To use the Incredibles as an example, while by orthodox HERO I will give him a -1/4 Limitation on his EC/EC powers for "Can't be used when dehydrated/no liquid in air", in my game this would not be a limitation at all, it would just be what the character would accept for having an ice-based EC. OR he would have to buy it up to get rid of that weakness.

 

By the way, this REALLY helps differentiate why one party gets such an EC cost break why another doesn't, while maintaining as stated in my above post the appropriate SFX and game balance at the same time.

[Bradd]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

I think high exotic defenses may be a symptom of a deeper problem. Exotic attacks remind me of the Artful Dodger problem.

 

For example, consider a Mind Control command to do something reasonable but unproductive, like protecting civilians or attacking a City-of-Heroes-style tanker. You need to win the attack roll, effect roll, and the first breakout roll to have any effect, which is uncommon in my experience. However, if you succeed, you neutralize the foe for a Turn.

 

A big normal attack can force a couple of lost phases, while the opponent recovers from stunning, takes an extra REC, or moves back into position after knockback. While that's a huge advantage, an opponent can recover and (more importantly) still make significant choices while he's recovering. In contrast, the Mind Control victim is mostly useless for a whole Turn, long enough that the fight is practically over when he finally recovers.

 

Mind Control isn't too bad if you have a mentalist on your side, because he can spend a phase to cancel the effect. That makes it comparable to spending an extra REC to shrug off a big normal attack. Unfortunately, you're still screwed if the enemy takes out your mentalist first.

 

Flashes are even nastier. There's no "breakout roll," so it's easier to neutralize a foe, and the main "recovery" action (a non-targeting PER roll) only removes some of the penalties. While you could create a Flash counter similar to the mentalist's override, it's easier to just buy up Flash Defense or buy a redundant targeting sense. This makes Flash a rock-paper-scissors attack, too effective against some foes and useless against others.

 

Adjustment Powers have similar problems. They can easily adjust you into uselessness, and "recovery" abilities are fairly rare. Negative CSLs are especially bad, roughly equivalent to sight-group Flashes.

 

In my experience, players feel that exotic attacks are too unreliable, too effective, or both (depending on how often they win the rock-paper-scissors matchups). In my new Champions game, the heroes' powers include Flash, Mind Control, and super Presence. The first two can easily neutralize a foe, but they're unreliable (in different ways: the Flash is rock-paper-scissors, and the Mind Control is like attacking an Artful Dodger). In contrast, the Presence attack (which has no DEF!) seems well-balanced against normal attacks. It's reliable but it only offers a limited combat advantage. So far, the Presence hero seems much happier with her power than the exotic-attacks guy is.

 

Even though the Flash, the Mind Control, and the Presence attack cost the same amount, the powers are not balanced against each other, for the same reason an Artful Dodger is not balanced against a Brick. I think exotic attacks would be much better-balanced if they had a "recovery" action that cost a phase or two, like normal attacks and Presence attacks do.

 

For example: In combat, allow a breakout roll vs Mind Control once per phase, as a half-phase action. This means that a successful attack will always have some useful effect; at the very least, it will waste the opponent's time, like a Presence attack. It makes Mind Control more useful for superheroes, and it makes universal Mental Defense much less necessary.

[Kristopher]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

There seems to be an assumption out there that Mind Control is a combat power. Every once in a while, I have to openly question that assumption.

 

IMO, Mind Control is something done outside of combat, for the most part. 4d6 Mind Control with Cumulative, combined with a little study of the victim, is the way to go.

 

EGO Attack is for combat. Telekinesis is for combat. Save the Mind Control for other things, unless your opposition includes someone with a low EGO and no Mental Defense, like agents or Ogre. Mind Controlling one agent can neutralize his entire team for the Turn.

 

"I Mind Control the villain team's mage!"

[Bradd]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

There seems to be an assumption out there that Mind Control is a combat power.... Save the Mind Control for other things' date=' unless your opposition includes someone with a low EGO and no Mental Defense, like agents or Ogre.[/quote']

The breakout roll, which makes it weak as a combat power, is even more troublesome for non-combat uses. Even against normal humans, it's extremely unlikely to work for longer than a minute, because breakout rolls are so easy. Mind Control really should have more staying power than that.

 

Also, Mind Control should be an effective combat power. Forcing allies to fight each other is a classic use of mind control, but it just doesn't work in HERO, again because breakout rolls are so easy. Give characters plenty of opportunities to resist in combat, but have it waste time as the character struggles against it.

 

As written, Mind Control is too unreliable for combat or non-combat use.

[Kristopher]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

The breakout roll, which makes it weak as a combat power, is even more troublesome for non-combat uses. Even against normal humans, it's extremely unlikely to work for longer than a minute, because breakout rolls are so easy. Mind Control really should have more staying power than that.

 

Also, Mind Control should be an effective combat power. Forcing allies to fight each other is a classic use of mind control, but it just doesn't work in HERO, again because breakout rolls are so easy. Give characters plenty of opportunities to resist in combat, but have it waste time as the character struggles against it.

 

As written, Mind Control is too unreliable for combat or non-combat use.

 

I don't recall that many instances of comic-book mentalists forcing teammates to fight by simply mind-controlling one of them on the spot. Especially when it's a hero being mind-controlled, it's something that takes place over a longer period of time, and might even be the focus of an entire issue/episode, or even an entire story arc.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

IMO' date=' Mind Control is something done outside of combat, for the most part.[/quote']

 

If that were so, it should be much cheaper that it is.

[Kristopher]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

If that were so, it should be much cheaper that it is.

 

Mind Control 4d6, Cumulative (96 points; +1) (40 Active Points)

 

That's a lot of utility for 40 points.

 

IMO, combat use isn't the only measure of how expensive a power should be.

[Kristopher]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

Something else to add about the actual topic of the thread...

 

People who've been paying attention to the high-powered characters I've been posting lately may have noticed a lot of things like "Power Defense, Resistant, Hardened" on the character sheets.

 

I guess I'm in a bit of an arms race with the published villains. I read through CKC, and Mystic World, and I see esoteric attack powers and open-ended VPPs often enough that AVLD Does Body Killing Attacks and the like are a legitimate concern. If I'm creating characters for a wider audience (IE, these boards), and I'm going to describe them as being increadibly tough, then they need to be able to survive a few hits from those esoteric attack powers.

[incrdbil]

Re: commonality of unusual defenses

 

It's all a juggling act; you want to respect players wishes, and reward good concepts, but you always realize what players may want may not be in their best long term interests (ie--covering all bases means that many unusual attacks are useless, and they get tired of the same old same old)--they might have initially made the character they just -had- to have, but it makes it harder for the GM to throw on the best game possible. It's not always a case of denying them the defense, but making them earn it, or put some initial limits.

 

For the ever present polarized contacts, a useful limitation is that the lenses polarization change and return to nromal stull effectively blinds them for a segment or two. Later on, they can perhaps work around this intial design flaw.

 

What I try to discourtage is players researching the most common NND's of the campaign villains, then picking up minimal amounts of every defense. I'm not saying I would never let someone has LS, flash defense, power defense, mental defense, and lack of weakness, but there is going to be some counterbalance. (Crappy DCV, or below average PD, ED, or both, or very significant, common vulnerabilities)--I prefer not to have the all offense/all defense characters; just in my personal experience I've had seen it really work well (as a temmate or GM), but I won't mind giving it a try; like anything, if it starts to go south and is discovered in game play not to be working well in terms of game balance, its up to the GM to fix the situation--and the player not to be selfish, but realize for the GM, and his teammates benefit, that changes might have to be made.

 

In campaigns where I've beena player, most of us were aware of the nature to keep things in reason, and expected GM editing of initial character submissions. There were those with munchkin tendencies, but one way or another, a solution was made. If you were a mentalist, sure you could expect some mental defense, but anyone else? Not very likely unles their background and powers reflected that it was likely you had some mental defenses (usually the minimal amount). Power defense was relatively rrare--only thse with drains/transfers/transform, mystic characters usually started out with it. Occasionally after fighting a drainer/transfer, a defense might be built by the gadgeteer, or a shielding spell/amulet by the group mystic.

 

The danger sign on when you might need to limit the total number of special defenses, or their amounts, comes with the situation that started this thread--when it gets in the way of interesting possibilities and variety.