If AVLD, why not DVLA?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

... I could just edit and print the suckers myself' date=' and have the ONLY Hero system copy of the complete book of gnomes and halflings.[/quote']

 

Do you really need both gnomes and halflings?

[Kristopher]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

and Dwarves, oh my...

[DrFurious]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

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' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

There are times where a complete immunity effect is perfectly acceptable to the genre. You could have an Elemental Spirit of Fire - a creature of the very essence of fire. In such instances, even the heat of a star has not effect (ancillary effects not withstanding). That said, some of the immunities ascribed to creatures in D&D are a bit tenious at best. In those cases, I mentally replace the words "immune to" with "highly resistant to"

[Rapier]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

For example' date=' 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. [/quote']

That's a good point.

 

75% Redux plus the dragon's normal 28 DEF is quite a bit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the attack have to do over 100 pts to get through this combo? Sounds like invulnerable to me.

 

This invulnerability argument comes up all the time (it's like freakin herpes!). It always comes down to sufficient DEF. SuperMan is invulnerable to bullets. Fine, +50 rPD. Now he's resistant to bullets.

[Kristopher]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

100 STUN damage against that combo would get 18 pts of STUN through.

 

(100-28=72, 72*.25=18)

[JMcL63]

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?

I think that this is a very interesting idea. It is a logical extension of the existing structure of power modifiers, which is good. And it points towards a workable solution of a significant unresolved design issue in HERO, which is better. I'm not saying that I already believe it to be a final answer, but I think that it is a really interesting idea, and well worth pursuing even if its final form isn't quite was Fitz has in mind (but for the reasons Fitz puts forward all the same). I hope to have more to say when I've had more time to reflect. Rep to Fitz in the meantime!

[paigeoliver]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

100 STUN damage against that combo would get 18 pts of STUN through.

 

(100-28=72, 72*.25=18)

 

STUN doesn't matter. D&D had no stun, stun just means it hurts. An attack of THAT magnitude (30d6) might do some STUN against an "immune" sheerly from the force of the blast, if not from the heat or fire itself.

 

As for fire elementals. Same deal, just go even further with it.Buy the damage reduction twice, and add +100rED vs. heat and fire, along with the safe environment for the same.

 

But, if the PLAYERs are incapable of causing body damage with the chosen effect, then the monster IS immune for all practical purposes. Or do you have the kind of players who somehow have access to a 30d6 fire blast in a fantasy campaign, and if so, then would said player's really want to suicidally try to defeat a fire creature with it?

[nexus]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

STUN doesn't matter. D&D had no stun, stun just means it hurts. An attack of THAT magnitude (30d6) might do some STUN against an "immune" sheerly from the force of the blast, if not from the heat or fire itself.

 

As for fire elementals. Same deal, just go even further with it.Buy the damage reduction twice, and add +100rED vs. heat and fire, along with the safe environment for the same.

 

But, if the PLAYERs are incapable of causing body damage with the chosen effect, then the monster IS immune for all practical purposes. Or do you have the kind of players who somehow have access to a 30d6 fire blast in a fantasy campaign, and if so, then would said player's really want to suicidally try to defeat a fire creature with it?

 

IIRC, buying Damage Reduction twice doesn't do anything. And the 30d6 would still do some Body damage. DR doesn't reduce Damage to nothing. So the Dragon would take one point.

 

Also, Stun, in Hero is important. It means you can be knocked unconcious. A Red Dragon was immune to Flame. Period. It did nothing to it. A sufficently powerful Fireball wouldn't knock it out or slightly injure it.

 

I think thats what people are trying to represent.

[Kristopher]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

STUN doesn't matter. D&D had no stun, stun just means it hurts.

 

I was addressing a purely mechanical point regarding the order of operations for applying Defenses and Damage Reduction.

 

That D&D has no STUN-like mechanic is one of its many serious flaws.

[Just Joe]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

A few thoughts:

 

(1) I don't care at all about converting D&D write-ups to HERO, and on the rare occassions I've wanted to convert a creature, my conversion has been loose. A cool creature is much more important to me than a faithful conversion.

 

(2) Immunity is NOT specifically a D&D concept. It is a MUCH older concept and is perfectly appropriate to many types of RPG campaigns.

 

(3) To represent immunity by 75% damage reduction and resistant defenses, the level of defense has to be sufficient to stop body damage and nontrivial stun damage not only from the PC's, but from anything in the campaign that might attack the target with an attack to which it is immune.

 

(4) If you want to, as GM you give an NPC ten-trillion points of resistant defense -- only vs. a certain kind of attack. But if the NPC is immune to that type of attack, why play around with numbers like that when you can just make the NPC immune?

 

(5) I rarely pay much attention to point costs when it comes to NPC's. The points rarely matter unless you're dealing with a spell that can be dispelled or something like that. But if you're talking about PC's, the points tend to matter a lot more. And again, the 120 point 100% damage reduction seems like the best general solution for this, at least for relatively high powered games and relatively common attacks.

 

(6) Again, my last point was meant to be a general one. There will certainly be individual cases that can be handled better in other ways (e.g., the LS poison-immunity mentioned by someone earlier)

[paigeoliver]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Yes, but many "immunities" in fiction have proven that they are immune until an effect comes along that is so big they can't resist it.

 

ALso, I am not sure I agree with the "must be immune to everything in the campaign world" arguement. That implies that as gamemaster you will somehow lose control of what happens in your campaign world, and it equally implies that the NPC characters and monsters of massive power are stupid enough to try and leverage that power against a creature who can almost completely ignore it.

 

Ooooh, a Fire Elemental, what should we do? I know, lets start shooting fireballs at it!

[SSJ Archon]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

With that whole Fire Elemental thing, why not buy absorption? As a player that would be far scarier to see and deal with.

[Metaphysician]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Because you'd still need the massive defense vs fire, or else you end up with a very big, very strong, and now very dead fire elemental after a couple fireballs.

[Agent X]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

D&D Immunities can be mechanically represented as a Dispel Damage Shield with an activation roll and whatever advantages and limitations needed to make it mimic the specific immunity. (If there is something Steve Long has said saying you couldn't do this - I would ignore it.)

 

Magic Resistance 50% = Dispel Magic, Only Spells and Spell-Like Effects (ex. Not Magic Weapons), Damage Shield, Activation Roll 10 or less, Only spells that directly target the Damage Shield are fully dispelled, Area Affect or multiple target attacks are only dispelled in the context of the character with the Damage Shield.

 

Then all you have to do is figure how many points you think you need to make this Magic Resistance work.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

For a long time, I have used an expanded chart for Damage Reduction:

 

Points Reduction
10    25% - as usual
20    50% - as usual
30    66.7% (2/3, that is.  The character takes 1/3 damage.)
40    75% - as usual
50    83.3% (5/6 - character takes 1/6 damage)
60    90% - character takes 1/10
70    95% - character takes 1/20
80    100% - total immunity (as suggested earlier on this thread, and many previous threads)

And of course, Resistant versions cost 50% more, as usual (15, 30, 45, etc.)

 

And then you can apply the appropriate limitation "Only vs. Fire" or whatever, -X depending on how common the attack form is.

 

Standard disclaimer: blah blah blah, GM approval, blah blah blah, campaign limits, blah blah blah, potential for abuse, blah blah blah, "stop sign," blah blah blah

 

Also: The Desolid construct does not provide complete immunity, because any power with "Affects Desolid" (+1/2) will still work on the otherwise "immune" target.

[Enforcer84]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Steve's work around in FH is using forcewall, since FW mechanics say if you don't do body you don't do stun, the GM simply determines what would be the most fire damage (body wise) his campaign would allow. Then, use that arbitrary number as the def of the FW. Pile on the limitations to make it affect only the one sfx and limit its ability to shield others...and voila! A 50 ED FW only verses fire, self only, oEND, persistant, always on. Fire will not hurt you as the world has a 49 body cap on fire damage....

[Misery Lad]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

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

 

But are you saying then that you would allow a player to purchase Desolidification with the condition of being immune to ALL magical attacks? In one 60-pt. cost? That seems way out of whack to me. If the special effect were narrowed, maybe... In my campaign, I designated two basic styles of magical attack - Spritiforce and the Force Elemental. The Force Elemental is a kind of generic Silver Surfer-like manifestation of mystical energy which can be gathered by a sorcerous type and used as a weapon of empirical destruction. Think of it as the opening of an interdimensional conduit that relays energy from outside the standard parameters of our universe. It is, by definition, impersonal to mystical casters. Spiritforce, on the other hand, is a direct amplification of the personal spiritual energy of the caster. As he emits Spiritforce, his own personal reserves are dangerously stripped. This usually comes about in the form of using STUN instead of END to power the attack/effect. Said effects are of a more personal nature, concentrate more on altering the intrinsic makeup of a living target.

 

Because of this, using the Desolidification approach you've mentioned could possibly work in a more fair-handed fashion. Just because the defense stands against one major form of magic doesn't mean that it stands against it all.

 

I say all this in the hope that I haven't just misunderstood you. Apologies in advance if I have.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

I'm telling you guys. Simply adopt the 100% Damage Reduction model that I or Phill posted earlier. Do that and you won't have to agonize over this relatively insignificant debate any longer...

 

The costing is there and its simple to figure out;

 

Damage Reduction/Normal/Resistant

25%/10/15

50%/20/30

75%/40/60

100%/80/120

 

Pretty simple, no?

 

I think so.

 

It fits in with the pricing scheme of Damage Reduction.

 

Requires no clunky power constructs.

 

GM's can require that it be bought with a specific limitation (only vs Fire etc). I mean, if you are going to come up with a House Rule, why not make one that fits into the scheme of the system as it is already laid out and solves the debate as simply as possible?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Simply adopt the 100% Damage Reduction model that I or Phill posted earlier.

 

On the one hand, this is how I would build an "immunity" (and has been since Damage Reduction first appeared as a power), if I felt the need.

 

However, the drawback to this approach is that it does not scale (this is true of Damage Reduction in general, but this use of it makes the problem most apparent). An underlying premise of Hero System is that for every offense, there is a commensurate defense, and vice-versa. A greater amount of one will overcome a greater amount of the other, and at a given point level, the costs for these are more or less balanced. This is not true of Damage Reduction. Damage Reduction costs the same in a 150 active point game as it does in a 1500 active point game. It violates a fundamental premise of the game system.

 

Ordinarily, of course, this really isn't an issue. At the point levels of most superhero games, Damage Reduction is priced appropriately, and so would be the 100% Damage Reduction house rule. But it is something to consider if you want an "immunty" style effect in a game with much higher or much lower point values than the typical superhero game. You may want to alter the cost appropriately.

[Just Joe]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Yes' date=' but many "immunities" in fiction have proven that they are immune until an effect comes along that is so big they can't resist it.[/quote']

 

That may be. I took it for granted that when we used the word "immunity", we were talking about immunity, but if one wants to model great resistance mistakenly called "immunity", then one certainly should not use 100% damage reduction.

 

 

ALso' date=' I am not sure I agree with the "must be immune to everything in the campaign world" arguement. That implies that as gamemaster you will somehow lose control of what happens in your campaign world, and it equally implies that the NPC characters and monsters of massive power are stupid enough to try and leverage that power against a creature who can almost completely ignore it.[/quote']

 

Well, I suppose it depends on your design philosophy. I generally prefer that write-ups accurately model any feasible eventuality that could occur in the campaign world. That doesn't mean I go to the trouble of worrying about improbable possibilities, but where general solutions obviously present themselves to me, I'll use them. Other GM's might be happy to have their designs cover the most likely possibilities, which is fine if that's what they want and they can deal effectively with unexpected events.

 

As for "[losing] control of what happens in your campaign world", I'm not quite sure what you mean. As a player and as a GM, I prefer games where the GM deliberately cedes some control to the PC's. PC decisions and the logic of NPC motivations may lead to NPC's fighting each other. I wouldn't call this possibility "losing control." As for the alleged stupidity of fighting fire with fire (so to speak), it all depends on the relative strengths of the relevent attacks and defenses. A dragon which is "immune" to fire in the sense that no PC could conceivably harm it with a fire attack might still be incinerrated by a powerful fire elemental or fire god. So if the dragon is not REALLY immune to fire, it might not be stupid at all to seek to bargain for the elemental's aid or to try to trick the dragon into blaspheming against the god and thereby incurring his wrath.

[Just Joe]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

. . . the drawback to this approach is that it does not scale (this is true of Damage Reduction in general' date=' but this use of it makes the problem most apparent). An underlying premise of Hero System is that for every offense, there is a commensurate defense, and vice-versa. A greater amount of one will overcome a greater amount of the other, and at a given point level, the costs for these are more or less balanced. This is not true of Damage Reduction. Damage Reduction costs the same in a 150 active point game as it does in a 1500 active point game. It violates a fundamental premise of the game system.[/quote']

 

I think you make a good point, but I also think you overstate it. 5 pts of flash defense can stop a 500 pt NND attack, for example. So there's at least one other exception to what you call a fundamental principle and what I'd regard as closer to a general rule (i.e., with exceptions). I'd say that the design flexibility of 100% damage reduction outweighs the principle you cite.

 

That being said, you are certainly right that damage reduction (at any level) is more powerful in games that dish out more damage (usually, higher power games). I think your suggestion that GM's consider adjusting its cost to the particulars of the campaign is perfectly reasonable.

[paigeoliver]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Yes, but it still wouldn't make any SENSE to try to overcome a foes near immunity.

 

 

Hmmm, a fire elemental, maybe, just maybe we could take a chance and try and conjure up the biggest fire attack ever, it might have minimal effect.

 

Hmmm, a werewolf, supposed to be immune to normal weapons, but maybe if we had a really big axe and kept at it. It will surely eat most of us, but we MIGHT still succeed in the end.

 

Hmmm, a White Dragon. What better way to attack a cold and ice dragon that with cold. Since none of US have a cold spell powerful enough to harm it then we will have to convince the high mage of the ice wizard academy to come with us to attack it. After all, that would make much more sense then using fire magic, or simply shooting arrow at it.

 

 

I feel like I am the only one capable of doing the math, and seeing how things really work. 75 percent damage reduction to something is all that is needed.

 

Lets look at say a medium sized frost dragon. Lets give it the following stats.

 

Def 12PD 22ED (resistant)

Body 30

Stun 100

Rec 20

Lets also give it 75 percent damage reduction for cold and ice based powers.

 

 

Ok, Jimbob the ice mage (4 spd) has a massive 12d6 cold spell. He apparently thinks like most of the people responding in this thread, and he uses his cold spell. He is incapable of doing body damage with it, PERIOD. His average damage roll will end up doing 4 stun. The dragon will recover the entire effects of Jimbob's attacks each turn. Jimbob can't defeat him, and will be eaten in short order.

 

Or, jimbob can draw his longsword, which does 2d6 HKA. He still won't ever get any body damage, but he is at least capable of doing actual stun damage to the dragon.

 

Perhaps Jimbob has found a high ice mage who is as stupid as him, and they attack the frost dragon together. It has already been established that jimbob cannot truly effect the dragon, he will run out of END or charges before the dragon ever runs out of stun (not to mention the fact that he will be eaten about the 2nd phase in). But the HIGH ICE MAGE has a truly massive attack, a 6d6 RKA ice bolt. This ice bolt on average does NO BODY. A good roll will do one body, and the HIGH ICE MAGE is quickly eaten.

 

Or, JIMMY THE NOT AS STUPID AS THE ICE MAGES, might be a Barbarian, but he is smart enough to realize the absolute stupidity at trying to overcome a frost dragon with ICE. Jimmy uses his mighty 2 handed sword which is a 3D6 HKA, Jimmy's average blow will do no body, but many of will do body, and Jimmy has a fair chance at overcoming the Dragon.

 

Basically, you don't HAVE to make your creatures 100 percent immune to get the same effect. Any characters stupid enough to try overcoming that route will be eaten, assimiliated, drained, killed, or vaporized long before they can ever win.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

So there's at least one other exception to what you call a fundamental principle...

 

Oh there are lots of exceptions: Enhanced Senses, Life Support, pretty much anything that serves as a defense for NND, and so on. I did not mean to imply that there weren't. Playability trumps mechanical purity.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Ok' date=' Jimbob the ice mage (4 spd) has a massive 12d6 cold spell. He apparently thinks like most of the people responding in this thread, and he uses his cold spell.[/quote']

 

It's possible that I have missed a few, but I only recall seeing one person suggest anything like that. Several people (myself included) have recognized that Damage Reduction is one possible way to mechanically approximate an "immunity" to a specific kind of damage. You are not as alone as you seem to feel.

[paigeoliver]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

I know, I know. Sometimes it just FEELS like everyone is against you, even when most people aren't.