What should be DROPPED from HERO?

[Gauntlet]

On 12/21/2004 at 9:29 PM, paigeoliver said:

Multiple power attacks.

Blazing away.

Two weapon fighting

 

Why would you think that these things have to be completely dropped. 

 

Multiple Power Attacks: So you are saying that the frost based villain cannot have an attack that both damages you and entangles you in ice.

Two Weapon Fighting: Something that is great for the true sword fighter. And all it does is reduce the penalty of a second attack. And it is something that actually can be done in real life making rather hard for the defender to block you as you are attacking them from both sides. Have seen it with the SCA all the time.

 

Unfortunately I cannot find Blazing away anywhere. Where are you finding this?

[Doc Democracy]

33 minutes ago, Gauntlet said:

Unfortunately I cannot find Blazing away anywhere. Where are you finding this?

 

Well, it was 20 years nearly since @paigeoliver made the comment, and nearly 15 years since they last visited the site.  🙂 Not sure you are going to get an answer.

 

Blazing away is an optional manoeuver on page 384 of FReD.

 

[Hugh Neilson]

I remember Blazing Away! The description noted that, while it was not effective at hitting targets, it counted as an extremely violent action for, IIRC, +4d6 to a PRE attack.

I didn't remember this thread, though

[Gauntlet]

I definitely forgot about that one. Okay, I will definitely agree that one is pretty much worthless.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I would drop the categories of transformation and damage negation.

 

The multiple categories is an unnecessary complication merely intended to increase the cost of Transformation attacks when it should be a limitation to only partly transform a target.  Especially in the light of the justification for transform -- if you can kill them then you can change them -- it is needless and, I suspect, ignored by many if not most GMs.

 

EDIT: Grailknight brought to my attention that this is not clear: I mean the "categories" like Mental/Physical/Spiritual.

 

Damage Negation fills no missing niche and is just another way of defense that is at best questionably costed and redundant.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Christopher R Taylor

[Gauntlet]

9 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Damage Negation fills no missing niche and is just another way of defense that is at best questionably costed and redundant.

 

I very definitely have to agree with this one.

[Grailknight]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I would drop the categories of transformation and damage negation.

 

The multiple categories is an unnecessary complication merely intended to increase the cost of Transformation attacks when it should be a limitation to only partly transform a target.  Especially in the light of the justification for transform -- if you can kill them then you can change them -- it is needless and, I suspect, ignored by many if not most GMs.

 

So, it should cost the same to turn a targets' hair fluorescent purple as it does to turn them into a statue or a mushroom?  I can see reducing it to Minor and Severe because the spread of effects under Moderate is so great but there should be categories.

 

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Damage Negation fills no missing niche and is just another way of defense that is at best questionably costed and redundant.

 

Damage Negation is the easiest way to grant immunity to a specific level of DC's that exists in the game. Its utility was diminished somewhat because the STUN Multiplier was fixed. It might be a tad overpriced (I'd set it at 4 points per DC stopped.) but it has plenty of utility.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Grailknight

[LoneWolf]

I actually think damage negation is a decent power.  It gives a better way to get closer to absolute immunity than anything else except a GM declaring it.  In games that use critical hits this can and hit locations it is even better at it.  Don’t forget that damage negation works vs NND, AVLD and other advantages that normal resistant defense does not.   I use it as a replacement for old power force field.

 

I can buy -12 DC’s of damage negation only vs fire for 30 points.  If I am using resistant defense I will get 28 because I need to take hardened and impenetrable for it to work properly.   Let’s say there are two characters that bought immunity to fire as defined above and has an addition 20 points of defense.  The first character takes no damage from a 15d6 or less blast, and on the average can ignore an 18d6 blast. The second character will take no damage from an 8d6 blast and on the average can ignore a 13d6 blast.  The first character will also ignore a 6d6 NND even if he does not have the defense.     

 

By the way you realize this thread has been dead for almost 19 years.  The thread predates damage negation by quite a while.  So, the question I have is thread necromancy an evil act? Or should that be answered in a different thread?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

So, it should cost the same to turn a targets' hair fluorescent purple as it does to turn them into a statue or a mushroom?

 

I guess I wasn't clear.  I don't mean the different power levels of Transform, I mean the Body/Soul/Mind construct.  Those categories should be dropped.  You should just have "transform" and then if it only affects someone's mind, its a limitation.

 

Quote

Don’t forget that damage negation works vs NND, AVLD and other advantages that normal resistant defense does not. 

 

Hence its problems with cost For 5 points you're immune to 1 damage class of any kind of attack, killing or normal, AVAD or whatever.  That's too cheap.  With 60 active point cap you can buy 12d6 of Damage Negation vs PD and be immune to nearly anything in existence as long as its a physical attack, which covers 99% of the dangers out there.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Christopher R Taylor

[Gauntlet]

I am not sure as I do not have a copy available to me right now, but doesn't Damage Negation take of the highest dice after the entire attack is rolled? If that is so it makes the attack extremely valuable.

[Grailknight]

14 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I guess I wasn't clear.  I don't mean the different power levels of Transform, I mean the Body/Soul/Mind construct.  Those categories should be dropped.  You should just have "transform" and then if it only affects someone's mind, its a limitaton.

 

There are times when these come into play such as when you want to create a ravening monster or a loyal slave. I usually handle these by requiring both a Physical and Mental Transform.

 

14 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

 

Hence its problems with cost For 5 points you're immune to 1 damage class of any kind of attack, killing or normal, AVAD or whatever.  That's too cheap.  With 60 active point cap you can buy 12d6 of Damage Negation vs PD and be immune to nearly anything in existence as long as its a physical attack, which covers 99% of the dangers out there.

 

If you're using Damage Negation as your main defense, it's actually pretty expensive in a Supers game because you have to protect versus both physical and energy-based attacks. And Damage Negation can be pretty risky when that boss or mastermind shows up with attacks 4-6 DC's beyond what you're immune to especially against KA's.

 

12 minutes ago, Gauntlet said:

I am not sure as I do not have a copy available to me right now, but doesn't Damage Negation take of the highest dice after the entire attack is rolled? If that is so it makes the attack extremely valuable.

 

Damage Negation takes away dice before they are rolled. For example, a 12 DC Blast against 4 DC Damage Negation would only roll 8 dice.

[Gauntlet]

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

Damage Negation takes away dice before they are rolled. For example, a 12 DC Blast against 4 DC Damage Negation would only roll 8 dice.

 

Thanks, I couldn't remember.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

you have to protect versus both physical and energy-based attacks. And Damage Negation can be pretty risky when that boss or mastermind shows up with attacks 4-6 DC's beyond what you're immune to especially against KA's.

 

That is true about all defenses.  But the price is too low, because it allows you to be immune to nearly any attack of a certain type within the active point limits of the game.  It should cost more, a lot more, for what it gives.  And, again in my opinion it fills a need that does not exist

[Sketchpad]

3 hours ago, Grailknight said:

Damage Negation is the easiest way to grant immunity to a specific level of DC's that exists in the game. Its utility was diminished somewhat because the STUN Multiplier was fixed. It might be a tad overpriced (I'd set it at 4 points per DC stopped.) but it has plenty of utility.

 

I agree with Grailknight here. I mainly use Damage Negation for Immunity Effects, like being Immune to Fire and such. Maybe having to specialize might curb the cost issue a bit? 

[unclevlad]

53 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

That is true about all defenses.  But the price is too low, because it allows you to be immune to nearly any attack of a certain type within the active point limits of the game.  It should cost more, a lot more, for what it gives.  And, again in my opinion it fills a need that does not exist

 

And you spent 60 points for PD.  ANY reasonable organization of that many points will fundamentally bounce a 12 DC attack.  

 

A major issue in the game is that there's few ways to reduce STUN.  Standard defenses reduce BODY and STUN, which is excessive past a certain point.  There's Damage Reduction, but it's got a critical flaw:  it applies only AFTER defenses.  If your defensive concept is enough basic and resistant defense to bounce the BODY, then you get very little STUN reduction from even, say, 50% DR...and 75% is just too expensive.  25% is a waste of time.  There's a potential exception:  if you don't buy hardened defenses, then buying some DR can help against AP attacks.  That said, odds are...hardened would be cheaper.

 

I suspect that Negation is actually intended to be the granular form of Damage Resistance...plus, it's 2nd in the defense chain, rather than last.  (Absorption is 1st.)  

 

Also note that attack powers have an adder to counter Negation;  cancel 1 DC of negation for 2 points.  So you can do a 10d6 attack negating 5 DCs of negation, or a 9d6 attack negating 7.  So if that Negation is your only defense?  It can have problems.  

 

I used to feel Negation might be overpriced, but it does have less-than-obvious advantages, and I don't mean the completely incongruent AVAD, Drain STUN, or Drain BODY applications.  Specifically...even tho you have to adjust the DCs negated...it applies against Penetrating and AP, without needing Impenetrable or Hardened.  Neither one of those is expensive individually...but the ability to "switch" between them, reactively...and even several times in a phase, if necessary...that's not bad.

 

Also note that defenses should generally be LESS expensive than attacks.  DN is the same cost as Blast.

 

That said...I'd be happy to see some kind of advantage on defenses that helps negate more than the base STUN...much like the increased STUN multiplier on KAs...and just ditch Negation and Damage Reduction altogether.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Also note that defenses should generally be LESS expensive than attacks.  DN is the same cost as Blast.

 

Sure, but it also gives you protection against killing attacks.  And drains.  And all AVAD.  How much is all that worth?

[LoneWolf]

For comparison 60 points allows you to buy 40 points of resistant defense.   That would actually total stop all the BODY from a 6d6 KA or the average stun from an 11d6 blast, that is also assuming the character has no other defenses.   If you factor in hardened and impenetrable you would end up with about 26 points of resistant defense.  That will stop all the BODY of 4d6 KA and roughly the average of a 7 1/2d6 Blast.  In either case most GMs are going to have a problem with this much defense that does not have severe limitation on it.   I can see allowing this much points to be used for a character that is supposed to be immune to a specific attack but would not allow either of these powers to be used vs all damage. 

 

Personally, I usually mix damage negation with more traditional defenses instead of relying solely on damage negation.   I often use damage negation for force field effects instead of resistant defense.  To me it makes sense that a force field stops all of the attack or none of it instead of it varying depending on how well the attacker rolls.  

 

It also works better vs continuing attacks up to the amount a certain amount of damage.  This allows you to create a power that can protect you from ongoing environmental damage.  Doing it this way can mean you don’t need to buy immunities or safe environments using LS.  The problem with LS immunities is that it is all or nothing and does not actually reduce the damage you take from attacks.  If I buy LS immune to heat for 2 points it does not reduce the amount of damage I take, unless the attack is an NND or has some strange limitation.  I can also theoretically withstand any heat-based attack no matter how powerful, but still take damage from a campfire.   If I take -4 DC of energy damage with the limitation fire only, I completely ignore any heat-based attack under 20 points, and it reduces the damage from anything higher.    

 

I think damage negation does have uses, but probably should not be used as the only defense.  
 

 

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Sure, but it also gives you protection against killing attacks.  And drains.  And all AVAD.  How much is all that worth?

 

The KAs...so do resistant defenses.  That's already priced in.

 

The drains...note that it's specifically only STUN and BODY drains.  The AVAD...yeah, that one's horrible.  What Negation do I use, if I've got different levels of Phys or Energy???  

 

Note, too, that Damage Resistance has these.  If you believe my prior comment...Negation is a more-granular form of Reduction...then the carryover makes a lot more sense.  And the AVAD makes no sense, from any perspective.

 

What's it worth?  Good question...but yeah, if it's any AVAD of ANY type, that is tremendously broad.  But, here's a counter-question:  what is the value of 2.5 points of STUN cancellation per die, effectively?  STUN only is a -1/2 on both Reduction and Negation...if we take that as reasonable, then 2 DCs of negation would be about

 

2 rDEF == 3 points

6 STUN def...doesn't have to be resistant.  Normal defense applies.  So that's 4 points.

 

So we're only at 7 points...leaving 3 for the extensions.  And, there's the hole aspect...that Negation can be reduced, cheap.  This is particularly true on those Drains, but not necessarily on AVADs...the problems with how adders and advantages interact kick in.  For the Drains, I can take 1d6 off...and strip 5 DCs of your negation instead.

 

The root problem is that Damage Negation is rolling in something that doesn't belong, which also makes an accurate price assessment impractical, if not impossible.  For Damage Reduction?  Reducing an AVAD, or the effects of a Drain BODY or STUN...those are actually priced in, because Reduction is *seriously* expensive, AND because of its placement in the defense order.  There's still the issue of *which* Reduction to apply, if your levels are different, but Damage Reduction has always had only 1 major value,  IMO:  reducing the wipeout STUN from the KA STUN Lottery prior to 6E.  That doesn't make it a sensible implementation, tho, because Damage Reduction lowers the damage of a certain type...and Drains and AVADs are not of that type.  That becomes, as you note, even MORE of an issue with Damage Negation.

 

 

[dmjalund]

I don't see why Damage Negation (or Reduction) affects AVLDs or NNDs because once it is no longer being defended by PD or ED how is it Physical or Energy? there could be versions  of the defenses that basically cover all damage, but not the ones i see in the book.

[Hugh Neilson]

23 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

I definitely forgot about that one. Okay, I will definitely agree that one is pretty much worthless.

 

It's really the action movie trope of massive firepower stunning the room.  It should not need to be a maneuver.

 

21 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I would drop the categories of transformation and damage negation.

 

 

I'd at least relegate body/soul/mind and mental power classes of mind to "optional", with mental powers that affect machines also relegated to optional.

 

18 hours ago, Grailknight said:

Damage Negation is the easiest way to grant immunity to a specific level of DC's that exists in the game. Its utility was diminished somewhat because the STUN Multiplier was fixed. It might be a tad overpriced (I'd set it at 4 points per DC stopped.) but it has plenty of utility.

 

Damage Negation also allows a game where characters have high resistance to damage, but get bloody if faced wih credible opponents.  An Iron Age supers game with a standard of, say, 12 DC attacks, 8 DC Negation and 4 defenses would see an average of 10 STUN past defenses, but an above-average roll would draw blood.

Actually, it might make more sense to ditch Damage Reduction, which basically just multiplies the character's STUN and CON to resist being Stunned.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I don't see why Damage Negation (or Reduction) affects AVLDs or NNDs because once it is no longer being defended by PD or ED how is it Physical or Energy?

 

If we were to keep Damage Negation in this exercise then I would want to drop the protection against drains and AVLD.  Do that, and the price makes sense.

[unclevlad]

12 hours ago, dmjalund said:

I don't see why Damage Negation (or Reduction) affects AVLDs or NNDs because once it is no longer being defended by PD or ED how is it Physical or Energy? there could be versions  of the defenses that basically cover all damage, but not the ones i see in the book.

 

Damage Negation does it, I believe, because Damage Reduction did it.

 

Damage Reduction applied to Drain BODY and Drain STUN, I think, because, well, it's what the power does...reduce the STUN and BODY you take.  Yeah, it's patently ignoring the second half of the base power statement.  BUT, as I said, I think the reasoning was because Damage Reduction happens AFTER defenses are applied, which is a tremendously limiting aspect against standard attacks...it's valuable only against the oddballs, like AP, Penetrating, and AVAD/AVLD/NND.  And, of course, the 5E STUN Lottery.  It's 30 points to remove half the damage...AFTER your defenses?  If we go with CRT's 60 defense points and 12d6 attack...30 points in DR leaves 30 points.  12 resistant, 12 standard?  I'm still taking BODY from average damage rolls from 4d killing.  16 resistant, 6 standard?  22 total.  I take 10 STUN after an average damage roll on 12d6.

 

Hugh's mostly correct:  the big value of DR in 6E is, you're VERY hard to stun, regardless of the roll.  It also reduces Penetrating and AP because those are armor-bypassing effects. 

 

However, none of that applies to Negation.  I strongly believe Negation was intended to be a Reduction alternative, so it was carried over without regard for the MAJOR change to put it BEFORE standard defenses, rather than after.  

[LoneWolf]

When you buy damage negation you buy it for physical damage, energy damage or mental damage.  If you bought it for physical, it does not affect the other two unless you also bought it for that.  That applies no matter what the advantage or limitation on the power is.  Damage negation only affects AVLD and NND attacks with appropriate special effects.  So, if your NND is a nerve strike damage negation physical would apply, if it is a microwave gun that heats up the target form the inside damage negation energy applies.  If the special effect is not physical, energy or mental damage negation does not apply.  So, the NND that has a disease as its special effect is not affected by any damage negation.  For many attacks the type of attack is going to be obvious, but if not, it is up to the GM to decide which if any category the attack fits in.

 

 

The other thing to keep in mind is that while it affects AVLD and NND it does not stop them completely.  Someone with 4 DCs of damage negation being hit by a 6d6 NND still takes 4d6 damage.   With an NND you can often buy the defense for a couple of points.  The defense of an NND of being immune to heat only cost 2 points.  That 2 points will protect you from any amount of damage.  Why is it ok to ignore someone’s 60-point power for 2 points, but to paying 20 points for 4 DCs of damage negation reducing the damage by 2d6 is not?    
 

[dmjalund]

is Drain Physical or Energy?

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

Damage negation only affects AVLD and NND attacks with appropriate special effects.

 

That might seem sensible, but it's completely insupportable by reading the rules.  It's imputing something that doesn't apply;  when something attacks Power Def, any physical or energy SFX is irrelevant...or it would have those as a defense.  

 

2 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

The other thing to keep in mind is that while it affects AVLD and NND it does not stop them completely.  Someone with 4 DCs of damage negation being hit by a 6d6 NND still takes 4d6 damage.   With an NND you can often buy the defense for a couple of points.  The defense of an NND of being immune to heat only cost 2 points.  That 2 points will protect you from any amount of damage.  Why is it ok to ignore someone’s 60-point power for 2 points, but to paying 20 points for 4 DCs of damage negation reducing the damage by 2d6 is not?   
 

 

Because, as CRT points out, it affords a defense against EVERY!!! NND or AVAD with that interpretation.  Even in yours, where "SFX have to match"...it may still apply.  It's the generality of it, particularly since nothing in the rules WRT Reduction or Negation supports your position.  And, IMO, all you do is create arguments whether any AVAD/NND SFX would allow any form of Negation/Reduction to apply...which is just completely undesirable.  Plus, it has its base effect of negating standard attacks.

 

I do get that you're probably trying to assign a halfway decent rationale so the AVAD/NND and Drain gain *some* limited scope...I'm saying this is the wrong approach.  Cut the statements completely, at least from Negation.  They're insupportable.