If AVLD, why not DVLA?

[Fitz]

I've been doing some monster conversions from AD&D/D&D3e, and one of the clunkiest power constructions I'm forced into revolve around those critters that are immune to something - whether it be fire, swords, magic, or whatever. My options seem to be either to go with Desolid (only vs. blah) which I don't like conceptually and because you then have to fudge things like knockback and pay a lot more for all the critter's own attack powers, or to buy masses of Armour (only vs. blah) plus masses of Resistant Damage reduction (also only vs. blah) separately vs PD and ED.

 

The attack power modifiers NND and AVLD are perfectly good for building attacks that are irresistable except in certain circumstances, but there's no equivalent modifier for defences. I find this odd, since before the dawn of time (Hero System-wise) there's been a principle stated that for any attack there is a (cheaper) defence. Why not turn the attack modifiers around and have similiar mods that can be applied to defences?

[nexus]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Wouldn't that be a Defense with a Limitation?

 

Arrow Resistance: Armor (Or Damage Reduction) PD Only vs Arrows -1/2?

[Mark Taylor]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

If these defenses are supposed to be irresistable to certain types of attacks (i.e. no amount of damage can penetrate them), on what basis do you define how much defense you have to buy to apply the modifier to?

 

With attacks, the attack does as much damage as you buy. By contrast, we are talking about a kind of infinite amount of defense. I don't see how it's directly comparable.

[Kristopher]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

The classic method of doing limited defenses is 75% Damage Reduction, only vs ________________.

[Metaphysician]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Or, if you wan't to stretch things, 100% Damage Reduction ( 120 points ), Only vs X.

[nexus]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

If these defenses are supposed to be irresistable to certain types of attacks (i.e. no amount of damage can penetrate them), on what basis do you define how much defense you have to buy to apply the modifier to?

 

With attacks, the attack does as much damage as you buy. By contrast, we are talking about a kind of infinite amount of defense. I don't see how it's directly comparable.

 

The suggested method is Fantasy Hero, IIRC, is too buy as much Defense as is required so that the maximum damage you'll encounter in the campaign can't get threw. Or the gm defines some level of Defense as "Invulnerable" for this campaign at whatever level he feels comfortable with. Its not perfect but its feasible.

 

The problem with using Invulnerability in Hero is that it doesn't quite fit into the metarules. Infinite defenses should, by the game's logic, cost infinite points more or less.

 

I've never been able to come up with a point cost for something like 100 Percent Damage Reduction that really felt right and I've thought about it alot since the difficulty of doing absolutes is on thing about Hero that troubles me.

[caris]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

It is the return of the "Invulnerability" arguement.

 

I still look at this being a campaign design issue. If you want to allow immune to "x" in your campaign than you have to set up your campaign to allow it. Personally, I like to adapt the poison/disease option, and use LS with a price (which can be higher than 10pts) based on how common the item occurs as an attack, and than it i understood that all attacks that are of that SFX are assumed to have a -0 modifier that they do not affect characters with that form of LS.

 

That -0 modifier can work just as well, if you go with the Desolid route.

 

Either way, I would say that the best thing to do, is include a note in your campaign rules/house rules that you allow "immunity" to certain types of attacks.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

I allow characters in my campaigns (certain one's of course) to purchase 100% Damage Reduction (80 for non resistant, 120 for resistant) vs a specific SFX (-1/2 to -1). Of course, this has to be bought vs Physical and Energy for true invulnerability.

 

I am wary of those who want to be completely invulnerable to a specific category of attack (Physical, Energy, Mental or Power) but I might allow it depending on the campaign and character concept (such as the character takes extra damage from other attack types)

 

Remember, just because its not in the book doesn't mean you can't do it....

[Mark Taylor]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

The suggested method is Fantasy Hero' date=' IIRC, is too buy as much Defense as is required so that the maximum damage you'll encounter in the campaign can't get threw. Or the gm defines some level of Defense as "Invulnerable" for this campaign at whatever level he feels comfortable with. Its not perfect but its feasible.[/quote']

 

I remember reading that in Fantasy HERO. My main problem with it is that I have absolutely no intention of ever letting my players know in advance what the maximum amount of damage they are likely to encounter in my campaign is.

 

When I have needed an insurmountable defence against a limited type of attack in the past I have built it this way: Desolidification , Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Invisible Power Effects (Fully Invisible; +1) (120 Active Points); Only To Protect Against Limited Type of Attack (-1). Total Cost: 60 Points.

 

As it says on page 149 of 5ER (yes, all my page references will be 5ER from now on) "However, at the GM's option, a character with a limited form of Desolidification doesn't have to buy Affects Physical World; he can touch and affect the solid world automatically". As a GM I'm usually willing to take that option assuming the power is appropriate for the character and the type of attack it protects against is reasonably limited, because I don't think 60 points for total protection against a limited type of attack is unbalanced.

[nexus]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

As it says on page 149 of 5ER (yes, all my page references will be 5ER from now on) "However, at the GM's option, a character with a limited form of Desolidification doesn't have to buy Affects Physical World; he can touch and affect the solid world automatically". As a GM I'm usually willing to take that option assuming the power is appropriate for the character and the type of attack it protects against is reasonably limited, because I don't think 60 points for total protection against a limited type of attack is unbalanced.

 

They made that offical? Great! Another reason to pick up Revised!

[caris]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

They made that offical? Great! Another reason to pick up Revised!

Actually, it was official in regular 5th Ed. page 99.

[Fitz]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

If these defenses are supposed to be irresistable to certain types of attacks (i.e. no amount of damage can penetrate them), on what basis do you define how much defense you have to buy to apply the modifier to?

 

With attacks, the attack does as much damage as you buy. By contrast, we are talking about a kind of infinite amount of defense. I don't see how it's directly comparable.

 

That's a good point, though it falls down with reference to Damage Reduction, since in that case you're paying a fixed price for a relative decrease in the damage you take.

[Fitz]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

As it says on page 149 of 5ER (yes' date=' all my page references will be 5ER from now on) "However, at the GM's option, a character with a limited form of Desolidification doesn't have to buy Affects Physical World; he can touch and affect the solid world automatically".[/quote']

 

Aha! I must have skipped over that paragraph. That makes the Desolidification (vs. Magic SFX) route more feasible.

[nexus]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Aha! I must have skipped over that paragraph. That makes the Desolidification (vs. Magic SFX) route more feasible.

 

I missed in the original myself. Definitely got egg on my face.

[Mark Taylor]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Actually' date=' it was official in regular 5th Ed. page 99.[/quote']

 

Beat me to it.

[Mark Taylor]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

That's a good point' date=' though it falls down with reference to Damage Reduction, since in that case you're paying a fixed price for a relative decrease in the damage you take.[/quote']

 

Sure, but damage reduction is not an absolute defence. Officially there is no 100% category.

[Mark Taylor]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

I just though of another reason why we shouldn't have DVLA. In the UK it stands for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Every time I saw it I'd be reminded of the runaround they put me through to renew my license when I lost it earlier this year.

[Just Joe]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Or' date=' if you wan't to stretch things, 100% Damage Reduction ( 120 points ), Only vs X.[/quote']

 

Though there are other ways to solve the problem that might better fit particular campaigns or GM preferences, this seems to me to be the best all-around solution. Of course it can be abused. Just consider it to have a stop sign in front of it and use GM discretion.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

...this [100% Damage Reduction' date= 120 pts.] seems to me to be the best all-around solution.

 

That is what I would use, if the need arose. I can only think of a couple of times when I have ever gone to such lengths.

[Metaphysician]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

I remember reading that in Fantasy HERO. My main problem with it is that I have absolutely no intention of ever letting my players know in advance what the maximum amount of damage they are likely to encounter in my campaign is.

 

When I have needed an insurmountable defence against a limited type of attack in the past I have built it this way: Desolidification , Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Invisible Power Effects (Fully Invisible; +1) (120 Active Points); Only To Protect Against Limited Type of Attack (-1). Total Cost: 60 Points.

 

As it says on page 149 of 5ER (yes, all my page references will be 5ER from now on) "However, at the GM's option, a character with a limited form of Desolidification doesn't have to buy Affects Physical World; he can touch and affect the solid world automatically". As a GM I'm usually willing to take that option assuming the power is appropriate for the character and the type of attack it protects against is reasonably limited, because I don't think 60 points for total protection against a limited type of attack is unbalanced.

 

Interestingly enough, that has the same cost, give or take the commonality of the attack, as a build based off 100% Damage Reduction.

[Mark Taylor]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Interestingly enough' date=' that has the same cost, give or take the commonality of the attack, as a build based off 100% Damage Reduction.[/quote']

 

Yup. Although the official rules fix the value of the Only To Protect Against Limited Type of Attack Limitation for Desolidification at -1, I don't see any problem with varying it according to the commonality of the attack.

[paigeoliver]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

I've been doing some monster conversions from AD&D/D&D3e, and one of the clunkiest power constructions I'm forced into revolve around those critters that are immune to something - whether it be fire, swords, magic, or whatever. My options seem to be either to go with Desolid (only vs. blah) which I don't like conceptually and because you then have to fudge things like knockback and pay a lot more for all the critter's own attack powers, or to buy masses of Armour (only vs. blah) plus masses of Resistant Damage reduction (also only vs. blah) separately vs PD and ED.

 

The attack power modifiers NND and AVLD are perfectly good for building attacks that are irresistable except in certain circumstances, but there's no equivalent modifier for defences. I find this odd, since before the dawn of time (Hero System-wise) there's been a principle stated that for any attack there is a (cheaper) defence. Why not turn the attack modifiers around and have similiar mods that can be applied to defences?

 

 

Ok, once again when converting from other systems look at the effect, not the system's way of handling the effect.

 

For example, lets say red dragon's can't be hurt by fire. D&D method says they are immune. There is no way to buy immunity to fire. BUT you can still get the same effect. Buy your Dragon 75% damage reduction only for fire attacks, and he will be immune to fire for all practical purposes. Don't worry about STUN, D&D didn't have stun. You won't be getting any BODY damage through with a fire attack on a dragon, that much is for sure.

 

What about beasties that can only be hurt by magical weapons. Also recall D&D's rule about creatures of a certain hit dice counting as a magical weapon. This one is also easy to deal with. Whatever the beast is buy up it's resistant physical defense high enough that no non-magical weapon in the campaign can cause body damage. Then give the creature a limitation 1.5xbody from magical weapons.

 

Also, regeneration (from death, not vs X) is also very good for these effects, since classically these effects often show wounds that close right back up and such (when shown in a movie).

 

You don't need to expand the system to fix bad D&D rules and concepts. Most of the D&D immunities were completely rediculous. Like immunity to fire. Sure, I can see not being hurt by normal fire, or even fireball spells (which 75 percent damage reduction would fix), but I doubt few GM's would rule that a flesh and blood creature that was immune to fire and temperature could dive into the heart of a star. Matter of fact, over the years I seem to recall many instances in D&D and fantasy fiction where MASSIVE effects overrode immunities anyway. I'm immune to ingested catsup, but I will bet I would take some damage if I somehow got several gallons of the stuff in my stomache.

 

Like I have said in other threads, you don't need to, and probably should not try for exact conversions of D&D stuff. Convert the FEEL and the idea, not the rule. The feel says that you can't hurt fire giants with fireballs, the feel says that you need a magic sword to strike a wraith. It doesn't matter at all if said attack might do 1 stun, or if somewhere out there the mightiest effect ever (outside of the player's hands) is capable of burning up a fire giant, or crushing a wight with a massive buolder.

 

There was another thread about level draining. D&D tended to have characters with lots of levels, but lower stats. While hero characters don't have ANY levels, but man do they ever have some stats. Thus (essentially) permanent drains to CON, DEX, BODY, INT, EGO, or any stat makes a wonderful replacement for a "level drain".

 

If you want everything to be just like D&D then I suggest playing D&D. My group pulls out the old Rules Cyclopedia D&D from time to time. It is good at what it does, and hero is good at what it does.

[paigeoliver]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Also, I see A LOT of people doing assorted D&D conversions. How far have some of you come with these, and where are your files kept at, and can I have them?

[Mark Taylor]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Also' date=' I see A LOT of people doing assorted D&D conversions. How far have some of you come with these, and where are your files kept at, and can I have them?[/quote']

 

Have you seen Killler Shrike's site yet? It has a bunch of D&D conversion material in the High Fantasy HERO section. http://www.killershrike.com

[paigeoliver]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

I have seen that stuff. I guess what I would REALLY be interested are total conversion docs for assorted stuff.

 

Like a file that goes along with the old TSR complete Fighter's handbook that lists all the hero stats/packages.

 

Although, I do have enough of those in electronic form myself where I could just edit and print the suckers myself, and have the ONLY Hero system copy of the complete book of gnomes and halflings.