If AVLD, why not DVLA?

[OddHat]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

So why can't I just pass through small cracks in the SFX I bought Desol against? Or why can't I sensed by some Enh. Senses built on that substance, because Desol specifically "does not register on Sonar or Radar,"? Why can I still feel the substance? Why am I only Desolid against an ATTACK of that substance?

 

Sounds like the Limitation then must be -4 or something, because I sure lost almost all benefits of Desol... (in fact I lost ALL non-combat benefits of Desol)

 

I call that hand-waving, even if it's "official".

 

1) If you don't want the character passing through small cracks in the speific substance (and that will depend on the SFX: A fire elemental might be able to pass through a Fire Entangle) add the -1/4 limit "May not pass through small spaces. Or use a -0 limit if you think it's not limiting. No hand-waving, just using limits to simulate an effect.

 

#2 and #3 may be appropriate to the SFX of the invulnerability as well; lacking them would be at most -0 limits or +0 advantages. No reason to hand-wave how the rules work yet.

 

#4 Desolid only against an Attack is only a hand wave if the GM so chooses. If Super-Guy is using his Super Invulnerability (Desolid, only affected by magic, no pasing through solid objects) I'd require him to purchase Affects Physical World to touch anything at all. I'd also require APW for Desolid Verus Metal Guy to touch anything, though the GM's call built into the rule would permit actual hand-waving.

 

I guess my own take on this is that I can picture a fair number of Comic Book, Sci Fi and Fantasy situations that are very simply simulated by this power (Sun Diving comes to mind). I dislike the "Hand Waving" label because it seems to suggest that GM's who use this effect ignore the rules and game balance when they do so. I don't. It's a rules-legal construct that fits many genres; the objections just don't seem that convincing.

 

As always, I'd do it your way in your campaign.

[zornwil]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

(snip)

As always, I'd do it your way in your campaign.

 

Oh, sure, you say that now...I think you'd upset the natural order of things and try to stage a coup...

 

(below began as an attempt to summarize, which I realized became impossible, and instead became a somewhat meandering attempt at being more thorough on the matter from an examination of the appropriateness of powers to base Invulnerability upon and the extension of effectof doing so, beg pardon for the somewhat meandering nature but I think some good points are contained, at least I hope so)

 

I think Desol needs some work before it becomes an appropriate Invulnerability, as Desol dictates a total lack of interaction in a manner which has as much to do with Invulnerability as it does Damage Reduction. The problem with graduating DR to Invul has been and remains that the non-absolute powers don't scale as easily to absolute. The problem with degrading Desol to Invul is similarly the scaling of one of HERO's few absolute abilities. There's a decided lack of ease of use here as well as a logical inconsistency between Desol and DR; the entire discussion begs for some sort of better understanding of the notion of graduated Desolid as well as escalated DR and why, if Invul is a natural consequence of either (as would seem to be given various arguments), why they otherwise have nothing in common.

 

To your point about Invul being well-simulated by some types of Desol where the character may entirely ignore whatever he's Invul to (including the ability not to interact with it), I don't disagree at all, because then you are in fact talking about an SFX that lends itself towards immateriality of the substance vis-a-vis the character. But if we're talking about an SFX where the Invul is simply and solely the ability not to take damage, the only (for now) power which has such capability is DR, simply not to an absolute level. Desol is way too versatile to be mistaken for the clear and more limited abilities of DR, and any similiarity is coincidental; if we start to confuse coincidence in the HERO system for a reasoning from effect, we are introducing a dangerous path indeed.

 

In some ways, I think Desol had a greater system consistency and even playability (as it afforded a natural Density Decrease) in the old days when it was non-absolute and was 8 BOD/phase of pass-through. It also begged a much more incidental relationship with DR, as both graduated on vaguely similar scales.

 

However, if we realize why (in part) the change was made to Desol to turn it absolute, we see a parallel with why Invisibility remains a separate power from Images or any other sensory-based graduated PER reduction power: to properly model an absolute in the HERO system, new powers are created to eliminate the various oddities introduced when attempting to scale powers not intended for absolutes. I can see no coincidence that Desol was divorced from its graduated scale basis while Invisibility remains separate entirely from Images. As with Desol and Invisibility, rather than build Invulnerability as a graduated scale of a power which no shows gradation (Desol) or as a graduated scale of a power which is not absolute (DR), it is best and most easily built as its own power.

 

I think, upon analysis, the HERO system virtually must create a separate Invul power for the same reasons it has Desol and Invisibility. In order to recreate a fairly common absolute genre trope, HERO has consistently enacted specific absolute powers (save for one, "never misses", which doesn't even have an orthodox answer either way).

 

Thanks for the discussion OddHat et. al. as in part this discussion has elevated my concern in regard to Invulnerability. Whereas prior I would blankly accept what has traditionally been no established proper rule in place of the misuse of Desol, a possible conclusion is that an established proper specific power is essential rather than either route. Otherwise we have to start to cross this absolute versus graduated scale in other powers (though I suppose that could be done and in theory if we could come up with joining Desol to Density Decrease (and Increase therefore as a natural consequence) and Invisibility to Images then Invulnerability could be properly joined to Damage Reduction).

 

A major hole in my discussion, though, upon reflection (which also led to some editing of that paragraph above), is that the absolute powers are divided (at least generally) into tiers which are similar to DR, which strikingly has no absolute level. There's an interesting dichotomy between DR and (say) Shape Shift or Invisibility. (Of course there's an interesting further dichotomy in that Desol has no tier, only Limitations to create one)

 

I have an interesting thought on the matter that just occurred to me re Invulnerability in heroic fiction. IIRC, there are times when characters that traditionally ignore damage of a particular class witness such a tremendous level of it that it is even beyond their Invul. We can on one level simply ascribe that to writer's whim. But it is also a realistic response to god-like or otherwise awesome power beyond normal consideration: Superman and the atomic bomb represents such a situation (doesn't "atomic" sound cooler than "nuclear"?). Perhaps then indeed simply introducing DR as a further graduated tier of some sort, either leading to 100% or simply having it approach but never reach 100% is appropriate. Then you can simply allow Penetrating or similar (for the sake of this discussion not dwelling on however that bypassing construct would be built) as the natural counter to that to model attacks that are just plain overwhelming, as well as "assume" that fairly trivial damage of high attacks (say we have a 93% level of DR, for sake of argument, so Mr. Fire's attack still gets 3 STUN through on Asbestos Boy's Invulnerability to Fire) is "reasonably" consistent with heroic fiction.

 

To discuss it from another angle, which is only in some manner revisiting other discussion further above, the major misleading element of assigning Invulnerability to Desolidification is that it's a large leap to presume balance in the exercise, as Desolidification is so much more of a flexible power than Invulnerability and unlike an Invulnerability to a specific substance is geared towards totally ignoring, not even being able to interact, with anything (and even if Limited normally, still not even being able to interact with whatever limited SFX). I do steadfastly maintain that any such balance (and balance is a critical part of hERO) achieve by this method is merely coincidental and therefore not healthy to use as the basis for Invulnerability (particularly as we have enough problem in power constructs not properly balanced among Limitations and Advantages where they don't stack well or simply alter the base power too greatly). DR remains a truly better fit in this regard, as its sole purpose is to blunt an attack and because it already has a suggestion of points balance. Perhaps an easy way to achieve this is to allow for 100% DR and simply dictate (as with other absolute conditions, this is not a new consideration) there must be an achilles' heel at the top level. And then DR simply joins the other absolute powers that currently have graduated tiers (Invisibility and Shape Shift coming to mind).

 

My feeling on DR being used is that I think there's still a hesitancy around balance and very limited forms of Invulnerability, such as (for example) "Invulerable to Chemical Attacks". DR at 100% (again for sake of argument) let's presume tops out at 120 points. Chemical is a subset of Energy. But even at -2, that leads to a 40 point power just to be Invulnerable to a relatively rare subset of attacks (at least in my experience, chemical attacks are pretty rare, at least in the Champions or Star Hero genres, I suppose in other genres, such as Fantasy with poisons, that probably is less true). And if we want to go greater than -2 or +2, well, that might feel loathsome in that while some Limitations do go well beyond, they are usually based on a very large scale (Extra Time, Charges), and going beyond the traditional +/-2 boundary represents a break from common practice. And also there's some confusion once we introduce SFX that break across Physical, Energy, and Mental - for example, "Invulnerable to Magic" if we wanted to try to model that; while it might be tempting to lump Magic under Energy or Mental (depending on your view), what if you are punched by a magical fist that goes against PD?

 

Because of these issues, I tend to think there has simply been an intellectual laziness (presumably not deliberate, but because an easy way out was suggested in Desolid) in not being willing to take on seriously reviewing the relationship between DR and Invulnerability. If the relationship between Desol and Invul were so obviously balanced and clear as presumed, I wouldn't take umbrage. But it is not at all obvious, to me anyway. Upon review, the argument that I maintained earlier in regard to Desol being inelegantly handled given all its game effects and this rather severe limitation on it is a subset of that issue - not incorrect, but a natural effect of an unstated presumption in HERO that somehow Desol being applied in this manner is necessarily balanced and clear, and that presumption requires a lot more explanation to me than "it simply is" as the book implies by lack of discussion.

 

On a pure balance note, I've fiddled with Invulnerability for a while as a simple custom power, with 3 tiers per SFX (Uncommon/Very Specific, Common/Specific, and Very Common/General), requiring the power be bought each time for each SFX. Examples of Uncommon/Very Specific (which as in all tiers would vary by campaign but I'm providing typical Supers examples in my opinion) would be Earthquake, Gravitic, or Acid Rain Attacks. Examples of Common/Specific would be Bazooka, Nuclear/Radioactive, Water, Chemical, Lazer, and Sonic Attacks. Examples of Very Common/General would be Wand-based, Common Bullets, Heat, or Pointed/Bladed Attacks. Given this, at the tiers of 20 for Uncommon, 30 for Common, and 40 for Very Common it was in essence overcosted. At 10, 15, and 20 it was undercosted. At 15, 20, and 30, it seems to have hit the right level (now having tried all 3 of these costings). Obviously this is too personal a judgement. I think it's possible that for most others' purposes/general gaming perhaps they should be higher, but I also suspect that these are too granular a break-out of SFX for others' purposes as well, so that may be more the issue. Hard to say, the hazard of house rules is their peculiarity to a GM and style.

 

The "cheapness" of creating a very limited SFX-based Invul from Desol as well as my experience as related above suggests that perhaps a primary problem with using DR is that we have to use values below -2 as Limitations, ESPECIALLY if a given SFX crosses Physical/Energy/Mental boundaries (in fact, using DR as it is now becomes nigh-unworkable at that point, even if we do allow for a 100% DR tier - although the hand-waving of adding a rule that indicates that an SFX basis in DR automatically lumps that SFX under a single type of Defense for this purpose only is more straightforward than the way it's done with Desol now I would content). The fact that the costing of Desol Only to Protect Against Limited Type of Attack, assuming the GM gives permission for Affects Physical World, is reasonably similar to what I've used (it would be 40 points I believe for Desol for this purpose, including 0 END and Persistent) is merely a happy coincidence; it may as well be a happy coincidence that this 40 points reflects DR at 120 points at a -2 Limitation, Single SFX Only, with the rule, with GM permission, "SFX counts as a single defense type for this purpose" (though then again I suppose it could be reasonably allowed that delivering the SFX outside of its traditional mode would be clever enough to not do that).

 

I won't present a conclusion to this wandering examination; I don't think there is an appropriate one, and that alone is why Desol remains highly questionable- and so long as it is highly questionable, that means we have a mechanics issue that must be resolved - which I suppose is the only real solid conclusion I would make. I think that there is a suggestion here that Damage Reduction with a combo of scaling up to 100% and scaling down for SFX is where we ought to be looking, but given the constraints of the system as is, it's merely a suggestion. I think the second best suggestion is a new power for Invulnerability. I think Desolidification is left in third place as the most ill-fitting.

[OddHat]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Oh' date=' sure, you say that now...I think you'd upset the natural order of things and try to stage a coup... [/quote']

 

Never. Doctors make the worst patients, and long time GMs make the worst players, but I'd keep my grumbling down, mostly.

 

In order to recreate a fairly common absolute genre trope, HERO has consistently enacted specific absolute powers (save for one, "never misses", which doesn't even have an orthodox answer either way).

 

AOE:1 Hex, Megascale Area, Accurate. You're welcome.

[zornwil]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Never. Doctors make the worst patients, and long time GMs make the worst players, but I'd keep my grumbling down, mostly.

 

 

 

AOE:1 Hex, Megascale Area, Accurate. You're welcome.

Still has a DCV of 3! So there!

 

 

(PS - and now you know the secret to having 25K+ posts - Disad: Last Word, Very Common, Strong! ) (but most of the time, I'm working on it. )

[OddHat]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Still has a DCV of 3! So there!

 

 

(PS - and now you know the secret to having 25K+ posts - Disad: Last Word, Very Common, Strong! ) (but most of the time, I'm working on it. )

 

With Megascale on Area but not Range, you're targetting your own hex. DCV 0.

[caris]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

With Megascale on Area but not Range' date=' you're targetting your own hex. DCV 0. [/quote']

Which still means you miss on an 18.

[OddHat]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Which still means you miss on an 18.

 

Afraid that's as close as it gets to Always in Hero, unless the GM does some hand waving.

[zornwil]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

With Megascale on Area but not Range' date=' you're targetting your own hex. DCV 0. [/quote']

Now that is an interesting thought. For safety Personal Immunity would be a must (a good way to at least not hurt yourself with an 18)!

 

I was never aware you could target your own hex at DCV 0, I'll have to look that up just purely to educate myself on that section.

 

BTW, bear in mind, it's still not ideal for an "automatic hit" ability as an OCV of 5 (not uncommon, and I didn't even include OCV of 3 or 4, which also aren't unheard of of course) misses not only on an 18 but also a 17. Heck, for those few OCV 3 characters, that's missing on anything above 14.

 

I know, you can just add skill levels. And bear in mind, I'm nit-picking. And doubly bear in mind, I actually don't have a personal interest in "always hits", I just have never seen the precedent in heroic fiction aside from a few rare instances that seem reasonably addressed by using AoE 1-hex accurate, skil llevels, and all that. Or sometimes Triggers. It just seems usually there's more to "always hits" in the fiction than it being that simple. But of course others may have different expectations/experiences. (I'm aware some people feel the same about Invulnerability as I just expressed about someone always hitting with a power(s))

[Kristopher]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Don't AoE attacks scatter if they don't hit ther target hex?

 

If you have Megascale AoE, and you're targeting your own hex, it's not like a few hexes of scatter will really make any difference.

[caris]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

I was never aware you could target your own hex at DCV 0' date=' I'll have to look that up just purely to educate myself on that section.[/quote']

 

Actually, that is any Hex adjacent to your own is DCV 0, I believe that most GMs allow you to target the Hex your character is in as an automatic hit. At least, I've never had a GM have me make an attack role to center my Darkness with the no range limitation on my Hex, it was always assumed that it would be centered on my Hex and no roll was needed. Personally, I would consider this particular idea as more than a tad abusive, but I think it is supposed to all be tongue in cheek.

[OddHat]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Actually' date=' that is any Hex adjacent to your own is DCV 0, I believe that most GMs allow you to target the Hex your character is in as an automatic hit. At least, I've never had a GM have me make an attack role to center my Darkness with the no range limitation on my Hex, it was always assumed that it would be centered on my Hex and no roll was needed. Personally, I would consider this particular idea as more than a tad abusive, but I think it is supposed to all be tongue in cheek.[/quote']

 

I would probably not allow "Always Hits" in most campaigns, but if I allowed it at all I don't think a +3/4 advantage (AOE:1H Accurate, Megascale) would be all that abusive. I might require other advantages and limits as well, again depending on the campaign.

[caris]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

I would probably not allow "Always Hits" in most campaigns' date=' but if I allowed it at all I don't think a +3/4 advantage (AOE:1H Accurate, Megascale) would be all that abusive. I might require other advantages and limits as well, again depending on the campaign.[/quote']

 

It is the use of the -0 modifier to get around the affecting everyone else in your pretty huge hex that bothers me.

[OddHat]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

It is the use of the -0 modifier to get around the affecting everyone else in your pretty huge hex that bothers me.

 

Fair enough.

[rayoman]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

How many times does some one need to buy this power to be immune to all possible permutations of a SFX.

 

If you were going to house rule this then with the caveat that 100% Damage Reduction can only be used against very specific SFX then weather won't cut it.

 

Electricity

Fire

Air

Water

Acid

 

etc.

 

 

are more specific.

[zornwil]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Actually' date=' that is any Hex adjacent to your own is DCV 0, I believe that most GMs allow you to target the Hex your character is in as an automatic hit. At least, I've never had a GM have me make an attack role to center my Darkness with the no range limitation on my Hex, it was always assumed that it would be centered on my Hex and no roll was needed. Personally, I would consider this particular idea as more than a tad abusive, but I think it is supposed to all be tongue in cheek.[/quote']

Oh, I would still force someone to roll if it's anything that normally has an attack roll. After all, something could go wrong, like in real life. That's the fun part for me.

[zornwil]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Don't AoE attacks scatter if they don't hit ther target hex?

 

If you have Megascale AoE, and you're targeting your own hex, it's not like a few hexes of scatter will really make any difference.

The problem is the scatter is a Megascaled scatter. It will merrilly scatter off into Detroit from New York, or whatever.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

I agree with bblackmoor here. The hand-waving that goes into "OH' date=' just ignore everything ELSE about Desol and call it "Affects Solid" except for the limitation it represents Invulnerability to - oh by the way, you're not really Desolid to that Invulnerability, you're just sort of LIKE being Desolid, don't worry about it," seems too loose to me, too filled with the creation of all sorts of corollary questions which then turn into "So why are the points the same anyway?" If the answer is "Well, they balance out..." why don't we just call all sorts of powers the same thing, since, after all, they're costed the same and they're all attacks anyway... You get the picture.[/quote']

 

Actually, part of the problem here is that "Affects Solid World" modifies the effects of desolidification, but is paid on the attack power rather than the power actually being modified. As long as we're discussing changing the rules anyway, what about making "affects solid world" an adder to Desolid, rather than an advantage on attack powers?

 

If it's, say, an 80 point adder, then Desolid as a specific defense now costs out as Desolid (40), Affect Solid World (+80), 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Inherent (+1/4) for 270 AP, Only to avoid damage (-1) for 135 RP to be invulnerable to all attacks and still able to affect the solid world. Make it "Only vs Fire, for (say) -1 (look at all the attacks we've just allowed to affect us - probably should be -2) and it's 90 (or 67) RP.

 

I like your aproach, Zorn, except that 30 points for invulnerability to all impact-based attacks (or all physical attacks?) seems very inexpensive when it would otherwise buy half damage reduction vs physical attacks. How much does the example vampire pay for invulnerability to all physical attacks?

 

I think I'm more and more liking 120 points for invulnerability to one attack type (physical, energy, mental, adjustment, flash), based on "100% damage reduction" and take limitations ofr "only vs specific attacks types". This comes with my caveat that less than 1/3 of energy attacks are electical, so "only vs electric attacks" becomes a -2 limitation.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

The problem is the scatter is a Megascaled scatter. It will merrilly scatter off into Detroit from New York' date=' or whatever.[/quote']

 

Now that's a "whoops" moment.

[incrdbil]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Actually, part of the problem here is that "Affects Solid World" modifies the effects of desolidification, but is paid on the attack power rather than the power actually being modified. As long as we're discussing changing the rules anyway, what about making "affects solid world" an adder to Desolid, rather than an advantage on attack powers?

.

 

Making it an adder to Desolid doesn't quite seem to work--the adder has the same cost for a character with no attacks, or ton of them; the adder is changing the performance of those attacks; they once worked like this, now they work like that.

 

After re-reading the section on creating new powers, i think we're all worrying too much about the base power; define the new power and its effect, try to get a points cost that seems fair based of an example power, then tweak it. Decide if their are various levels of immunity that can be trumped by an advantage, or by certain points of attack, if the power is inherent, and how much more should you pay for an absolute immunity if you decide their should be a standard immunity, then levels of immunity more durable than others. If you use Desol (bought to 0 end, always on, and all that jazz) as a point base, thats fine, just stop worrying about the 'affects solid world' component; if you use damage reduction as base that works as well.

 

There's not going to be any consensus on what it should be anyway; we cant even all agree that immunity should be present, and for those who want it, they are going to have to decide the points cost for their campaign, and availability. So if they have to decide that as well, the method they use is going to be their own.

 

So we'vve got three schools of invulnerability. The "set amount of defenses= effectively invulnerable' school, the desol school, and the damage reduction school. Method one has a point cost unique to each GM's campaign, while the other two have a base cost thats been at l;easy partly established on the thread, which the GM then has to decide is too costly/not costly enough for his campaign, and how exactly he wants invulnerability to work. The desol school has the strength that its mention as a possibility in the rules, the DR school has a certain ease and elegance to it.

 

I think thats as close as were going to git on this very finicky issue, though its been a wonderful exploration of tinkering and power creation.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Making it an adder to Desolid doesn't quite seem to work -- the adder has the same cost for a character with no attacks' date=' or ton of them; [/quote']

 

Then someone who is "invulnerable to fire" has to buy "affects Desolid" on every attack they buy, if using Desolid as the basis for invulnerability, in addition to loading up the Desolid itself with a bunch of Advantages and Limitations.

 

I am sure that there is a case where this would be the most straightforward way to represent an immunity to a specific kind of damage, but right now I can't think of one. The Damage Reduction and "more defenses than you need" routes are a whole heck of a lot more straightforward, and do not require redefining a Power into something it's not.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Making it an adder to Desolid doesn't quite seem to work--the adder has the same cost for a character with no attacks' date=' or ton of them; the adder is changing the performance of those attacks; they once worked like this, now they work like that. [/quote']

 

By the same logic, absolute immunity should be less expensive if you have more defenses - after all, you were closer to taking no damage from fire if you had 40 rED than if you had 3 ED.

 

I see your logic - a case can be made that the attack is altered. However, I see it differently. A 12d6 EB normally afects solid people, and not desolid people. If I also have Desolidification, that changes the nature of my attacks. Thus, an adder to Desolidification is a rational basis for removing the change Desolidification otherwise makes to my attacks.

[incrdbil]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Thus, an adder to Desolidification is a rational basis for removing the change Desolidification otherwise makes to my attacks.

 

Thats fine too. The discussion is about making a new power, but it seems bogged down in debates about the base power. If the points model of Desol is what you are looking at, go for it. If you use Dr to derive your base cost, thats fine as well.

 

Whats the base power trying to be made? Invulnerability. The job isnt just tied up in what its based off, but to decide if you have selected a base value that reflects its worth, and the mechanics of the new power.

 

Affect--a character with invulnerability takes no damage from attacks of a certain FX.

 

Regardles if the basic point base you decide to use is modeled from Desol or DR, you come up with base point total X. At this point, you can forget about rules compications for those powers, be how it affects the normal world, killing vs normal damage, AP, penetrating and levels of hardened defenses if you used the certain amount of defense basis.

 

Make the dicision if Invulnerability is automatically Inherent or not, it at default mode it costs end, doesn't cost end, is persistant if its not inherent. My preference would be to make it inherent, (persistant only if you want curses, spells, or effects that can make a subject no longer invulnerable).

 

Now, how do we modify X, the base cost of INV?

 

INV is vs a very rare FX --reduce X by a certain limitation/adder.

INV is vs a uncommon FX --base cost

INV is against a common FX increase X by an advantage/adder (after adding a million stop/warning/not for PC signs to the description)

 

Decide if you can buy more than one INV. Decide if having more than one INV is buying the power again, or an advantage/adder.

 

If you decided that INV is normally inherent, whats the modification if you make it not inherent.?

 

Now decide if you want adders, or advantages/limitations to cover the rest..work up your values.

 

Invulnerability is overcome by attacks of DC Y

Invulnerability isn't against/only against Killing attacks

Invulnerability affects Mental Powers

Invulnerability affects Adjustment powers

Invulnerability affects Entangles or other special powers. (being able to walk through a fire based force wall, for example)

(If you think Invulnerability should already include the above, then figure up something for Invulnerability bought that doesn't affect them).

 

Add normal modifiers as appropriate--Focus. Charges, whatever.

 

To me, the more that its been discussed it doesn't matter what anyone uses. I've at least figured out for myself what I would want Invulnerability to do if I ever used it, and the origin of its base cost isn't as important anymore.

 

Hmm, had an amusing thought--could you use a triggered AID or transformation that, upon taking damage from a certain FX either heals you to start or transforms you to an undamaged state? Might have to toss in the automaton "Cannot be stunned". Not to serious here--just pointing out that there's multiple ways to figure out a starting point--or you could forget looking at any other power and do it from scratch.

 

but I will admit, you miss out the fun of squabbling this way.

[zornwil]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Actually, part of the problem here is that "Affects Solid World" modifies the effects of desolidification, but is paid on the attack power rather than the power actually being modified. As long as we're discussing changing the rules anyway, what about making "affects solid world" an adder to Desolid, rather than an advantage on attack powers?

 

If it's, say, an 80 point adder, then Desolid as a specific defense now costs out as Desolid (40), Affect Solid World (+80), 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Inherent (+1/4) for 270 AP, Only to avoid damage (-1) for 135 RP to be invulnerable to all attacks and still able to affect the solid world. Make it "Only vs Fire, for (say) -1 (look at all the attacks we've just allowed to affect us - probably should be -2) and it's 90 (or 67) RP.

 

I like your aproach, Zorn, except that 30 points for invulnerability to all impact-based attacks (or all physical attacks?) seems very inexpensive when it would otherwise buy half damage reduction vs physical attacks. How much does the example vampire pay for invulnerability to all physical attacks?

 

I think I'm more and more liking 120 points for invulnerability to one attack type (physical, energy, mental, adjustment, flash), based on "100% damage reduction" and take limitations ofr "only vs specific attacks types". This comes with my caveat that less than 1/3 of energy attacks are electical, so "only vs electric attacks" becomes a -2 limitation.

I wouldn't allow 30 points for "all impact", but would "blunt instruments", meaning the kind that people hit you with that aren't bladed, the difference being that "impact" could include bullets and many other things, I fully admit it's fudgey.

 

I haven't worked out "All Physical", but I'm really thinking more and more now as you that just going to 120 point DR, requires SFX only basis but transcends any two defenses (PD and ED or MD and SD or ED and MD, more on that below) and (naturally) insisting on a weakness just makes sense though probably allowing a -1/4 Limitation unless it's esoteric/hard to figure out, in which case I'd probably just disallow it anyway for an actual PC. I'm thinking I might restructure my Invulnerability power to actually be Full DR with defined Limitations for how strict the SFX are (so if you take my power at face value that's -3 for the more general, -5 for the common/specific, and -7 for the uncommon/very specific. For other people's campaigns I'd suspect they'd prefer -2, -3 or -4, and GM discretion less than that. I'm probably more liberal than the norm. Anyway, then I would probably restructure as well the various types, for a chart such as (I'm thinking off the top of my head, don't quote me):

 

-1 Sweeping single SFX such as "Anything including heat, even if the hot part is not the attack" - e.g., a bullet is hot! But Mr. Freeze's cold ray sure isn't

-2 Very common and broadly interpreted SFX such as "Heat-based"

-3 Strictly interpreted very common, such as "Fire-based" (but not general heat)

and so on.

 

As to the above comment on crossing Defense Types, I think that if you say "heat-based" and you cross PD, ED, and MD, then it becomes too liberal as it becomes hard to really construct tricky ways to get around the Defense, and I think that in the source material we usually see very interesting ways to get around these things - such as "The magical fires of Thoth ignore your puny mortal ways to ignore fire, bwa-ha-ha!"

 

But I'm thinking aloud here.

 

PS - thanks for saying "Actually, part of the problem here is that "Affects Solid World" modifies the effects of desolidification, but is paid on the attack power rather than the power actually being modified. " that was part of what I was so inelegantly trying to get at.

[zornwil]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

Now that's a "whoops" moment.

And imagine the PC's face as they miss and say, "I wonder where that went to?"

 

And then they walk by a TV a few moments after the combat...

[zornwil]

Re: If AVLD, why not DVLA?

 

(snip) Hmm, had an amusing thought--could you use a triggered AID or transformation that, upon taking damage from a certain FX either heals you to start or transforms you to an undamaged state? Might have to toss in the automaton "Cannot be stunned". Not to serious here--just pointing out that there's multiple ways to figure out a starting point--or you could forget looking at any other power and do it from scratch.

 

but I will admit, you miss out the fun of squabbling this way.

 

Along these lines, Energy Absorption with "as a defense", "cannot be stunned" versus specific SFX, something like that?

 

Yup, there are many ways to model in HERO, another cool thought incrdbil.

 

Though the more I think about it, I think DR does share Shape Shift's and Invisibility's tiered-to-absolute constructs if we add 100% DR, and the HERO community has long accepted (as much as it accepts anything! ) DR's cost structure. So I tend to think we could quickly create an official and acceptable power from that, in the light of a new day.

 

On vacation - my new days begin as the sun goes down, I feel like a vampire, now that we've mentioned it - in bed around 6:30 AM or so, wake up a few times during the day, but getting up around 4 PM. Here in the NW this time of year, that timeframe is our ENTIRE daytime.