If AVLD, why not DVLA?

[Metaphysician]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Hmm, tough one. My gut response is to do it this way: take 100% Damage Reduction, and define it as "Weather Damage Reduction," much like you can take Poison Damage Reduction or Magic Damage Reduction. Only one purchase, but *no* discount for limited effect. Thus, it would protect against weather based lightning and wind, but not an electrical cannon, or the air wave generated by an explosion.

[Just Joe]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

OK, I couldn't stay away for long. At least I'm not beating my head against the exact same wall -- just a similar one nearby.

 

 

Hero is a hard math system. There is no such thing as an absolute. As such' date=' [b']I[/b]mmunity has no place in hero.

 

Anyone extrapolating damage reduction to 100% needs work on their maths skills.

I just plain don't know what you guys are talking about.

 

Rapier, the product of zero and any real number is zero. That's an absolute. And though that math is not "hard" in the sense of being difficult, it is hard in the sense of not being soft or imprecise. So how is 100% damage reduction incompatible with HERO system's status as a "hard math system"?

 

RealLemming, I think NuSoardGraphite has given one satisfactory response to your comment. I would add that one need not be able to give the equation for a curve containing all of the relevent data points in order to make a reasonable judgment call on the cost of 100% damage reduction.

 

 

If you allow invulnerability to one thing' date=' you are, with enough points, allowing invulnerabilty to everything. Don't go there, pilgrim, they'll eat you alive.[/quote']

If, by "allowing" you mean something like "making possible within the system", then you are "allowing invulnerability to everything", but I see no problem with doing so. If, on the other hand, by "allowing" you mean something more like "giving GM permission for PC's to purchase", then what's to stop you from allowing invulnerability to one thing but not others?

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

I do have a question about the 100% Damage Reduction method. How many times does some one need to buy this power to be immune to all possible permutations of a SFX. For example' date=' Drizzle, my African weather goddess, is "immune to all weather", she takes no harmful effects from any weather SFX, so she needs Resitant vs. energy for lightning. Normal vs. physical for high winds and hail. What about Flashes? Hostile change environments? Suppress vs. END as raising ambient temp and humidity?[/quote']

 

Well, for Weather powers, it'd have to be purchased twice. Once for Physical and once for Energy. One could also have Damage Reduction vs Adjustment powers (including Transform) though its not specifically stated in the book (can it be found in FREd Jr, er I mean 5ER?) the mechanics are quite sound. So that would make 3 different 100% damage reduction powers you would need to be totally immune to weather powers.

 

Expensive, to be sure.

[nexus]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Hmm' date=' tough one. My gut response is to do it this way: take 100% Damage Reduction, and define it as "Weather Damage Reduction," much like you can take Poison Damage Reduction or Magic Damage Reduction. Only one purchase, but *no* discount for limited effect. Thus, it would protect against weather based lightning and wind, but not an electrical cannon, or the air wave generated by an explosion.[/quote']

 

Very nice, elegant solution.

[caris]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Hmm' date=' tough one. My gut response is to do it this way: take 100% Damage Reduction, and define it as "Weather Damage Reduction," much like you can take Poison Damage Reduction or Magic Damage Reduction. Only one purchase, but *no* discount for limited effect. Thus, it would protect against weather based lightning and wind, but not an electrical cannon, or the air wave generated by an explosion.[/quote']

I forgot about that part of Damage Reduction. Went back to Fred to reveiw it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Well, for Weather powers, it'd have to be purchased twice. Once for Physical and once for Energy. One could also have Damage Reduction vs Adjustment powers (including Transform) though its not specifically stated in the book (can it be found in FREd Jr, er I mean 5ER?) the mechanics are quite sound. So that would make 3 different 100% damage reduction powers you would need to be totally immune to weather powers.

 

Expensive, to be sure.

 

No, you buy it against sfx: like the example in the book, then it works against that sfx whether the damage comes from a physical, energy or mental source: there is no need to buy the DR multiple times.

 

You can't be 'immune to weather' this way, anyway, just damage to stun and body from weather. To be immune to weather you need to buy a personal supression field against weather sfx. That'll catch lightning flash attacks and TK winds too, as well as any other power that effects a target whether it causes damage or not. You can't buy it up to 100%, but you can buy it high enough (like any other defence) that you are rarely going to be troubled by that sfx.

 

Supression field all powers of one sfx simultaneously (+2) AE one hex (+1/2), no range (-1/2), or 23 RP for 2d6 immunity to one sfx. For 116 points you could reduce every power of a certain sfx hurled at you by (on average) 35 points, which is pretty good. Cost a lot of END though...

[Sean Waters]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

RealLemming, I think NuSoardGraphite has given one satisfactory response to your comment. I would add that one need not be able to give the equation for a curve containing all of the relevent data points in order to make a reasonable judgment call on the cost of 100% damage reduction.

 

I must disagree with your analysis of how Damage Reduction works, although I acknowledge both you and NSG follow the 'pattern' through logically, I think you are starting on a false premise.

 

DamRed is not, to my mind, a defence in the true Champions sense: it does not stop damage. What it is, in effect, is a divider for STUN and BODY damage: if you have 40 STUN and 15 BODY and 1/2 Physical damage reduction, you can take 80 STUN and 30 BODY from physical attacks. That is where I believe the cost pattern breaks down: if you could get to a point where you were taking no damage, you would, in effect, have applied an infinite divider.

 

The pattern is this:

 

Ratio of damage.......% damage reduced............Cost

to STUN/BODY

against damage

received

 

3:4.................(25% damage reduction)...................15

3:6.................(50% damage reduction)...................30

3:12................(75% damage reduction)...................60

3:30?...............(90% damage reduction)..................120

3:84?...............(96% damage reduction)..................240

 

Obviously it depends if I have the pattern right, but even if I haven't the principle is right - paying more allows you to approach the point where you take no damage, but it would take an infinite number of points to actually get there...

 

You can't just get to 100%DR by spending 120 points. If you could, you'd only need 360 points to be immune to physical, energy and mental attacks. Hell, make it 480 and be immune to adjustment attacks too. Your analysis makes it far too cheap. Anyone with 530 points (the other fifty on full life support) would be completely immune to damage except penetrating attacks, which would make 600+point games pretty boring.

[nexus]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

I must disagree with your analysis of how Damage Reduction works, although I acknowledge both you and NSG follow the 'pattern' through logically, I think you are starting in the wrong place.

 

DamRed is not, to my mind, a defence in the true Champions sense: it does not stop damage. What it is, in effect, is a divider for STUN and BODY damage: if you have 40 STUN and 15 BODY and 1/2 Physical damage reduction, you can take 80 STUN and 30 BODY from physical attacks. That is where I believe the cost pattern breaks down: if you could get to a point where you were taking no damage, you would, in effect, have applied an infinite divider.

 

The pattern is this:

 

Ratio of damage.......% damage reduced............Cost

to STUN/BODY

against damage

received

 

3:4.................(25% damage reduction)...................15

3:6.................(50% damage reduction)...................30

3:12................(75% damage reduction)...................60

3:30?...............(90% damage reduction)..................120

3:84?...............(96% damage reduction)..................240

 

Obviously it depends if I have the pattern right, but even if I haven't the principle is right - paying more allows you to approach the point where you take no damage, but it would take an infinite number of points to actually get there...

 

You can't just get to 100%DR by spending 120 points. If you could, you'd only need 360 points to be immune to physical, energy and mental attacks. Hell, make it 480 and be immune to adjustment attacks too. Your analysis makes it far too cheap. Anyone with 530 points (the other fifty on full life support) would be completely immune to damage except penetrating attacks, which would make 600+point games pretty boring.

 

Well, yeah it would if everyone got Absolute Immunity to everything since no one would be anymore capable than a normal human (and have no skills) except being immune.

 

No attacks, no movement, no senses, no skills. All it would take about a decent entangle, someone with enough strength, etc to remove them from any fight. They wouldn't actually be able stop anyone since they'd have no viable attack options aside from their 10 strength and 3 cv. So it would be a very dull game for them.

 

And why would everyone have a concept that required them to be Immune to everything? And why the heck would any sane GM even allow all the players to do that?

 

Just because players CAN do something doesn't mean they will or should do something.

[Sean Waters]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

...having said all that if you can find some GM damn fool enough to let you get away with immunity to physical/energy/mental/sfx damage for 120 points, go hog-wild. Try not to be upset when all the villains start turning up with it, and the only effective weapon you have left is sarcasm.

[nexus]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

...having said all that if you can find some GM damn fool enough to let you get away with immunity to physical/energy/mental/sfx damage for 120 points' date=' go hog-wild. Try not to be upset when all the villains start turning up with it, and the only effective weapon you have left is sarcasm.[/quote']

 

If the villain is immune to physical damage, have lightening boy blast him. If he's immune to Energy have Captain Brick punch him or Karate Girl kick in him in groin. If he's immune to Nuclear Special Effects, have Nuclo zap the ceiling over his head and drop debris on him.

 

If he's immune to all three use entangles or drop him into drying cement, have the brick grab him and cart him away.

 

If he has some means to escape all these things, find a new gm.

[Sean Waters]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Well, yeah it would if everyone got Absolute Immunity to everything since no one would be anymore capable than a normal human (and have no skills) except being immune.

 

No attacks, no movement, no senses, no skills. All it would take about a decent entangle, someone with enough strength, etc to remove them from any fight. They wouldn't actually be able stop anyone since they'd have no viable attack options aside from their 10 strength and 3 cv. So it would be a very dull game for them.

 

Yes it would. Please note, I'm not the one arguing that 100% damage reduction should be allowed in, you are.

 

And why would everyone have a concept that required them to be Immune to everything? And why the heck would any sane GM even allow all the players to do that?

 

Just because players CAN do something doesn't mean they will or should do something.

 

What, so all the characters can't be immune to damage, just yours?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

...having said all that if you can find some GM damn fool enough to let you get away with immunity to physical/energy/mental/sfx damage for 120 points' date=' go hog-wild.[/quote']

 

In the vast majority of games I have played, the difference between 100% Damage Reduction and 120+ Mental Defense, et al, is mainly philosophical.

[Sean Waters]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

If the villain is immune to physical damage, have lightening boy blast him. If he's immune to Energy have Captain Brick punch him or Karate Girl kick in him in groin. If he's immune to Nuclear Special Effects, have Nuclo zap the ceiling over his head and drop debris on him.

 

If he's immune to all three use entangles or drop him into drying cement, have the brick grab him and cart him away.

 

If he has some means to escape all these things, find a new gm.

 

Frankly my concern is less with allowing villains to be immune to damage than allowing it in the system at all. If Dr Indestructible is indestructible and a GM villain, you can't hurt him, I don't need points. There'll be some way to defeat him, even if it isn't one you like or one that is obvious to you, but it'll be there.

 

If you allow the construct in the system though, it will be used. You might be able to control the use in your game, but you can't control how it is used elsewhere. Don't care about elsewhere? Well, that is fine, but why argue about it on a discussion board then? You may have the will and wisdom to kep the genie in the bottle, but don't be surprised if some other muggins lets the damn thing out.

 

No matter how full a reservoir of maxims one may possess, and no matter how good one's sentiments may be, if one has not taken advantage of every concrete opportunity to act, one's character may retain entirely unaffected for the better. With mere good intentions, hell is proverbially paved.

 

William James (1842 - 1910)

[nexus]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Yes it would. Please note, I'm not the one arguing that 100% damage reduction should be allowed in, you are.

 

 

 

What, so all the characters can't be immune to damage, just yours?

 

You've missed my point. Spending all your points to be completely Invulnerable to Everything would be a pretty unwise character choice. You'd be otherwise useless

 

And

 

And why would all the players have concepts that justified Total Invulnerability just because the game system allowed it? That's assuming all players are munchkins and only interested in a "beating" the gm (which is silly because in this case they haven't). My players usually make up characters according to concept. I've yet to have concept submitted that is 100 percent invulerable to everything. Invulerable to a certain effect, yes, but everything no.

 

If you're running some sort of no holds barred combat tournament where the only goal is be the last man standing at the end, then yeah, it would be wise purchase and everyone would get it. Othewise I don't think it would be that much of a problem.

[Sean Waters]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

In the vast majority of games I have played' date=' the difference between 100% Damage Reduction and 120+ Mental Defense, et al, is mainly philosophical.[/quote']

 

 

So, what you're saying is that existing game mechanics work just fine to model invulnerability? Cool.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

 

If you're running some sort of no holds barred combat tournament where the only goal is be the last man standing at the end, then yeah, it would be wise purchase and everyone would get it. Othewise I don't think it would be that much of a problem.

 

Hey, I've done this.

 

It was pretty fun. (500 pt characters too)

[nexus]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Frankly my concern is less with allowing villains to be immune to damage than allowing it in the system at all. If Dr Indestructible is indestructible and a GM villain, you can't hurt him, I don't need points. There'll be some way to defeat him, even if it isn't one you like or one that is obvious to you, but it'll be there.

 

If you allow the construct in the system though, it will be used. You might be able to control the use in your game, but you can't control how it is used elsewhere. Don't care about elsewhere? Well, that is fine, but why argue about it on a discussion board then? You may have the will and wisdom to kep the genie in the bottle, but don't be surprised if some other muggins lets the damn thing out.

[/font]

 

There are already alot of things in the system that can be abused. I don't think excluding something that could be useful construct because it COULD be abused or mishandled by an inexperienced gm is a sound reason for excluding it considering that. Of course it will be used. That is what its there for. Will it be used poor by some? Sure. But so are Transforms, VPPs, etc. There still in the system and many other system are quite playable with an Invulnerability mechanic.

 

If its in the system and you don't want to use it. Don't use it. What goes on in someone else's game is none of buiness but I do think it would be useful mechanic to have. If not so many people would be thinking of kludges to come close to it.

[nexus]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Hey, I've done this.

 

It was pretty fun. (500 pt characters too)

 

Yeah, I ran one too. It was pretty cool. Can't recall what the point totals where but it something obscene.

[Sean Waters]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Answer me this: why do you want total invulnerabilty? Please don't tell me it is because it is 'in character concept', because all you require then is a better concept.

 

You've missed my point. Spending all your points to be completely Invulnerable to Everything would be a pretty unwise character choice. You'd be otherwise useless

 

And

 

And why would all the players have concepts that justified Total Invulnerability just because the game system allowed it? That's assuming all players are munchkins and only interested in a "beating" the gm (which is silly because in this case they haven't). My players usually make up characters according to concept. I've yet to have concept submitted that is 100 percent invulerable to everything. Invulerable to a certain effect, yes, but everything no.

 

 

Physical damage is just an effect. You are playing with the lid of Pandora's box, and it is never going to be officially opened for good reason: you let it out and it will get abused horribly AND it is unnecessary as existing game mechanics work fine. Take a look at the supression field idea, which is true immunity to sfx up to a certain value, not just to damaging ones. If you just want immunity to damaging effects we already have defences. Use 'em.

[Sean Waters]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Hey, I've done this.

 

It was pretty fun. (500 pt characters too)

 

 

I guess we all have at one time or another...but I didn't inhale!

[Sean Waters]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

I'm off to bed: it is nearly 1am over here and I'm working tomorrow. Have a good Christmas if we don't chat before!

 

Oh and congratulations on reaching 2k posts Nexus!

[nexus]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Answer me this: why do you want total invulnerabilty? Please don't tell me it is because it is 'in character concept', because all you require then is a better concept.

 

What other reason IS there to want to a certain ability? What's a "better" character concept in your opinion?

 

My Fire Elemental cannot be harmed by Fire. What would be a "better character" concept?

 

I getting a feeling your trying to accuse me of something.

 

 

Physical damage is just an effect. You are playing with the lid of Pandora's box, and it is never going to be officially opened for good reason: you let it out and it will get abused horribly AND it is unnecessary as existing game mechanics work fine. Take a look at the supression field idea, which is true immunity to sfx up to a certain value, not just to damaging ones. If you just want immunity to damaging effects we already have defences. Use 'em.

 

Why are you seemingly terrified of the idea of an Immunity power? I've had character that totally immune to something is dozens of games that I have both played in and run. It works fine. Its not some monster that dooms a game to an endless spiral of munchkinism. Its like any other tool it can be misued sure. What Can't?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

So' date=' what you're saying is that existing game mechanics work just fine to model invulnerability?[/quote']

 

I am saying that you are arguing for no apparent purpose.

[nexus]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

I'm off to bed: it is nearly 1am over here and I'm working tomorrow. Have a good Christmas if we don't chat before!

 

Oh and congratulations on reaching 2k posts Nexus!

 

Thank you.

 

And I wanted to say I'm willing to just say we disagree on this and leave it at that. You've been very reasonable in discussing and its helped me clarify my opinion. Its actually been pretty enjoyable.

 

And Happy Holidays.

[Sean Waters]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

What other reason IS there to want to a certain ability? What's a "better" character concept in your opinion?

 

My Fire Elemental cannot be harmed by Fire. What would be a "better character" concept?

 

I getting a feeling your trying to accuse me of something.

 

...and I was going to bed...

 

No accusations. Your fire elemental can probably be harmed by a stronger fire elemental, so it has high defences, not invulnerability. Even in the comics, 'invulnerabilty' doesn't mean anything more than high defences - how many times have you seen the line 'That actually hurt, despite my invulnerabilty!' or somesuch

 

 

Why are you seemingly terrified of the idea of an Immunity power? I've had character that totally immune to something is dozens of games that I have both played in and run. It works fine. Its not some monster that dooms a game to an endless spiral of munchkinism. Its like any other tool it can be misued sure. What Can't?

 

I'm not terrified of immunity, it is just that I have walked this path and been convinved by those older and wiser that it leads nowhere. My own take on it was an 'Invulnerabilty' power: for 5 points you reduced the DC of any attack with a specific sfx that hit you by 1, so, for example 50 points got you invulnerabilty to 10d6 energy blasts. Worked fine, but really not necessary if you think on it.

 

I'm not worried about 'invulnerabilty' in other games, because they don't work like Hero does, and the abuse opportunities are far greater here than in games where invulnerability exists as discrete exceptions, and is rarely, if ever, going to be available to PCs.

 

Really am going now...g'night and Merry Christmas! It's been fun!