Question: Compound NND

[MistWing]

I asked the following question in the 'Rules' board and was told that it was illegal. Question: Can an NND be a 'compound NND'? I have an idea for a power that would require the target to have Life Support AND make an Ego roll.

 

I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on how to accomplish the same thing?

 

Thanks

MistWing SilverTail

[schir1964]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

I asked the following question in the 'Rules' board and was told that it was illegal. Question: Can an NND be a 'compound NND'? I have an idea for a power that would require the target to have Life Support AND make an Ego roll.

 

I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on how to accomplish the same thing?

 

Thanks

MistWing SilverTail

 

Could you give an in game example of how you envision this to work?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Mike W]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

Two NNDs, each with separate defenses, linked, additional limit that BOTH powers must do damage for either to do damage(i.e. - all or nothing limit).

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

So if someone had the defense to stop one or the other, they'd both fail?

 

 

Sounds more limited than just a "standard" NND to me, so I think as a GM I'd allow it. The final decision, though, would of course depend on the exact size of the NND attacks and the defenses to them (and how common those would be in my campaign). But on general principles, I don't see anything wrong with it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

Two NNDs' date=' each with separate defenses, linked, additional limit that BOTH powers must do damage for either to do damage(i.e. - all or nothing limit).[/quote']

 

I don't think that's what he's looking for. That power fails if the target has life support OR makes the Ego roll. It sounds like he wants a power that does damage to all targets who do not have Life Support AND to targets with Life Support who fail an ego roll.

 

I don't believe there are any official rules for this. At a minimum, I would call it a +2 advantage (effectively NND twice), and I would likely not allow it at all unless both defenses were reasonably common (eg. I might allow "any life support + a base ego roll". I likely would not allow "immune to radiation + Ego roll -5").

[Just Joe]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

Two NNDs' date=' each with separate defenses, linked, additional limit that BOTH powers must do damage for either to do damage(i.e. - all or nothing limit).[/quote']Good idea, but I think in order to capture what MistWing wants, it has to be: two equal-dice NNDs, each with separate defenses, linked, additional limit that if one does damage then the other won't.

 

I'm not sure whether that's legal or not, but I think it's a construct that captures the idea.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

Good idea, but I think in order to capture what MistWing wants, it has to be: two equal-dice NNDs, each with separate defenses, linked, additional limit that if one does damage then the other won't.

 

I'm not sure whether that's legal or not, but I think it's a construct that captures the idea.

 

I'd say it's legal but cautioned against (in that the character effectively has 2 NND's). I'd likely allow it if the defenses were reaosnably common, disallow it if they're both fairly esoteric and make a judgement cal in between.

 

Let's look at the options. 4d6 NND (two DEF) as a +2 advantage would cost 20 x 3 = 60.

 

4d6 NND (DEf 1) would cost 20 x 2 = 40 Linked to NND (DEF 2) for -1/4 = 32.

4d6 NND (DEF 2) is 20 x 2 = 40 Linked to NND DEF 1 (-1/4), no effect if NND 1 does damage (-1/2) = 23. Total cost 55

 

Pretty close. I think your model works better unde rthe existing rules, and also provides more flexibility (one could be more damaging than the other, for example), so I'd go that route.

[McCoy]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

I'd say a lot depends on the Special Effect. MistWing, can you give us an example?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

I don't think that's what he's looking for. That power fails if the target has life support OR makes the Ego roll.

 

Actually, he said AND. I think he wants somes something that will do damage automatically if the target doesn't have the appropriate LS, but if he does, he gets an EGO Roll. If that roll is failed, he takes the damage anyway.

 

Personally, I think that this construct is too powerful, but it's not undoable. Technically the NND can be labled "Must have LS [whatever] and make an EGO Roll" and you're done. The question is can that defense be called "reasonably common"?

[lemming]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

I have no problem with it as long as the two items are reasonably common.

[Just Joe]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

I'd say it's legal but cautioned against (in that the character effectively has 2 NND's). I'd likely allow it if the defenses were reaosnably common' date=' disallow it if they're both fairly esoteric and make a judgement cal in between.[/quote']That all sounds right to me.

 

Let's look at the options. 4d6 NND (two DEF) as a +2 advantage would cost 20 x 3 = 60.

 

4d6 NND (DEf 1) would cost 20 x 2 = 40 Linked to NND (DEF 2) for -1/4 = 32.

4d6 NND (DEF 2) is 20 x 2 = 40 Linked to NND DEF 1 (-1/4), no effect if NND 1 does damage (-1/2) = 23. Total cost 55

A few of additional thoughts:

 

1. Arguably, both NND's should have the additional limitation, since it is true of both that if the other does damage, then it does not.

2. Arguably, the limitation should be greater (-3/4 or even -1).

3. If I were GM, I think I would probably accept (my own) argument 1 or 2, but not both.

4. Depending on special effect, it might be appropriate to buy both NND's as 1/2 END (if they cost the same) or the 2nd (cheaper one) as 0 END, so that the total END cost is the same as one 4d6 NND.

 

One permutation of these thoughts would yield:

4d6 NND (DEf 1) would cost 20 x 2 = 40 Linked to NND (DEF 2) for -1/4 = 32.

4d6 NND (DEF 2) is 20 x 2 = 40, 0 END (+1/2) = 60 Linked to NND DEF 1 (-1/4), no effect if NND 1 does damage (-3/4) = 30. Total cost 62

 

That's 2 points more than your +2 advantage suggestion, but 4 END rather than 6.

 

The other permutations are left as exercises.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

1. Arguably' date=' both NND's should have the additional limitation, since it is true of both that if the other does damage, then it does not.[/quote']

 

A case could be made. I liken it to Linked - I would give each a -1/4, or one a -1/2. My thinking was that, until Attack #1 inflicts damage, I have no need to check whether Attack 2 does.

 

2. Arguably' date=' the limitation should be greater (-3/4 or even -1).[/quote']

 

IME, most NND's affect about 2/3 or so of relevant characters. But I culd see a case depending on how common each defense is. It's important to remember that NND already requires (at no limitation) a circumstance under which it does no damage. One could call "makes and ego roll or the other NND does damage" the defense for one NND, and allow no limitation, but that seems overcosted to me. One could also call the defense "other NND does damage", and allow a limitation for "not if target makes EGO roll", but I doubt I'd ever alow a character to have two NND's, linked or otherwise, one of which always works.

 

3. If I were GM' date=' I think I would probably accept (my own) argument 1 or 2, but not both.[/quote']

 

Agreed that applying both would be excessive. To assess whether either should be applied would require a better definition of the powers, especially the defenses.

 

4. Depending on special effect' date=' it might be appropriate to buy both NND's as 1/2 END (if they cost the same) or the 2nd (cheaper one) as 0 END, so that the total END cost is the same as one 4d6 NND.[/quote']

 

Adding other advantages based on sfx is viable, but it just muddies the water when evaluating cost effectiveness of the "base power", IMO. I would have no problem with reducing END on one or both NND's.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

It's a little bit of a different case (sorry for the aside), but this topic reminds me of something I find a tiny bit lacking in Hero. In the basic rules, there is no way to make a Power fail if the target makes a successful roll. You can make a Power fail with a straight probability (Activation Roll), or if you fail a roll (Requires Skill Roll), but there is nothing equivalent to D&D's Saving Throw concept, for example.

 

So I actually created another Limitation called "Saving Throw," for lack of imagination. I can't remember the specifics, but it basically worked like RSR. It was a -1 Limitation, because in a game that uses it I figured this Limitation would play a relatively major roll, and I made it easy for characters to increase their, "Saving Throws." The Limitation allowed any and all targets that might be affected to make a skill roll, with the skill normally chosen from the following when the power is bought: every character automatically has a skill roll based on each Characteristic that normally has a useful roll (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Ego, Pre). Overall Skill Levels can apply, as can skill levels that apply to Characteristic rolls for the applicable skill. Additionally, you can increase each "Saving Throw" skill individually for 2 points, two "related" ones for 3 points (I had categories), and all for 6 points (not sure if those are quite right, but you get the idea).

 

I had modifiers to the "Saving Throw" Limitation that looked almost exactly like those to Requires a Skill Roll. There were a few others, too, like making the Active Points in the power make the target's roll more difficult rather than less, etc., and there was one special mechanic. This mechanic said that, if the Limitation is taken for part of the Power, but not all, the final rolled damage of the Power is multiplied accordingly, rather than fewer dice rolled (for example, if a 4d6 RKA took Saving Throw on 1d6 of it, you would roll 4d6 no matter what, and if the target make their saving throws, they take only three quarters or the Body, Stun, and Knockback).

[prestidigitator]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

As for the original question, I would simply call, "Has the applicable Life Support and makes a successful Ego roll," the one condition for the NND, and either allow it or not based on my idea of how "common," that should be considered.

 

IMHO some of the defenses for NND seem not to be very "common," especially for herioc campaigns. This is even in evidence in some of the examples given in Hero products (sorry, I don't have any specific examples at the moment). For me, that might be okay if it really fits the concept of the Power. The GM might just have to be a little wary of abuses.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

As for the original question' date=' I would simply call, "Has the applicable Life Support and makes a successful Ego roll," the one condition for the NND, and either allow it or not based on my idea of how "common," that should be considered.[/quote'] Precicely what I suggested.

 

IMHO some of the defenses for NND seem not to be very "common," especially for herioc campaigns. This is even in evidence in some of the examples given in Hero products (sorry, I don't have any specific examples at the moment). For me, that might be okay if it really fits the concept of the Power. The GM might just have to be a little wary of abuses.

To me, it only seems that way. What is "common" depends entirely on what the GM actually brings in. I'm sure that kryptonite is very rare and most people go their entire lives without every seeing it, and some don't even know it exists, but for some reason it's in nearly every single episode of Smallville...

 

It's a little bit of a different case (sorry for the aside), but this topic reminds me of something I find a tiny bit lacking in Hero. In the basic rules, there is no way to make a Power fail if the target makes a successful roll. You can make a Power fail with a straight probability (Activation Roll), or if you fail a roll (Requires Skill Roll), but there is nothing equivalent to D&D's Saving Throw concept, for example.

 

NND can do exactly this. I've often added something like CON Roll-3 to an NND poison that would otherwise only be stopped by Life Support.

 

Other Powers naturally allow for this effect, such as Mental Powers that grant the target an EGO Roll to shrug off the effect before it even takes hold, and addition EGO Rolls to break the effect as time goes on.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

It's a little bit of a different case (sorry for the aside)' date=' but this topic reminds me of something I find a tiny bit lacking in Hero. In the basic rules, there is no way to make a Power fail if the [i']target makes a successful roll[/i]. You can make a Power fail with a straight probability (Activation Roll), or if you fail a roll (Requires Skill Roll), but there is nothing equivalent to D&D's Saving Throw concept, for example.

 

So I actually created another Limitation called "Saving Throw," for lack of imagination. I can't remember the specifics, but it basically worked like RSR. It was a -1 Limitation, because in a game that uses it I figured this Limitation would play a relatively major roll, and I made it easy for characters to increase their, "Saving Throws." The Limitation allowed any and all targets that might be affected to make a skill roll, with the skill normally chosen from the following when the power is bought: every character automatically has a skill roll based on each Characteristic that normally has a useful roll (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Ego, Pre). Overall Skill Levels can apply, as can skill levels that apply to Characteristic rolls for the applicable skill. Additionally, you can increase each "Saving Throw" skill individually for 2 points, two "related" ones for 3 points (I had categories), and all for 6 points (not sure if those are quite right, but you get the idea).

 

I had modifiers to the "Saving Throw" Limitation that looked almost exactly like those to Requires a Skill Roll. There were a few others, too, like making the Active Points in the power make the target's roll more difficult rather than less, etc., and there was one special mechanic. This mechanic said that, if the Limitation is taken for part of the Power, but not all, the final rolled damage of the Power is multiplied accordingly, rather than fewer dice rolled (for example, if a 4d6 RKA took Saving Throw on 1d6 of it, you would roll 4d6 no matter what, and if the target make their saving throws, they take only three quarters or the Body, Stun, and Knockback).

 

I can see uses for a limitation like this... I'd probably call the limitation "Resistable"... good idea there... I might mess about with this

repped

[zornwil]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

IMHO some of the defenses for NND seem not to be very "common' date='" especially for herioc campaigns. This is even in evidence in some of the examples given in Hero products (sorry, I don't have any specific examples at the moment). For me, that might be okay if it really fits the concept of the Power. The GM might just have to be a little wary of abuses. [/quote']

 

 

To me' date=' it only seems that way. What is "common" depends entirely on what the GM actually brings in. I'm sure that kryptonite is very rare and most people go their entire lives without every seeing it, and some don't even know it exists, but for some reason it's in nearly every single episode of Smallville...[/quote']

 

I insist that NNDs be something that a reasonably smart human with resources from an Office Depot or Home Depot (basically) could defeat. That is what I rule as "reasonably common". If someone's NND is "force field", I try to narrow down what that would mean in terms of energy or such, and a person should be able to generate such a field. Otherwise it isn't worth the same limitation.

[Silbeg]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

The simple answer for my campaign would be "No". I don't think that this is a balanced power advantage, regardless of the cost.

 

Were I even to consider it, I would require, at minimum, a doubling of the NND advantage (to +2), but that still doesn't seem like enough... since it is significantly less likely that a target would be able to resist.

 

Don't know...

[zornwil]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

I think it depends, and I was waiting on MistWing to respond to the request for an example. To me, if it's just holding breath and making an unmodified EGO roll, I'd probably be okay with it, at least it's in the right ballpark. If it gets more difficult, then, yes, it seems unfair. Although if all that is involved is holding breath and an EGO roll, many supers will always be unaffected, basically, so it's a fairly generous NND.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

The simple answer for my campaign would be "No". I don't think that this is a balanced power advantage, regardless of the cost.

 

Were I even to consider it, I would require, at minimum, a doubling of the NND advantage (to +2), but that still doesn't seem like enough... since it is significantly less likely that a target would be able to resist.

 

Don't know...

Less likely?!?

 

Less?

 

The original poster said that in order for one Power to be able to affect the target, both must be able to affect the target.

 

He also said the NNDs had different defenses.

 

That means a target is more likely to be able to resist!

 

It's not "You must have A and B to resist these NNDs", it's "You must have A or B to resist these NNDs".

[zornwil]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

Less likely?!?

 

Less?

 

The original poster said that in order for one Power to be able to affect the target, both must be able to affect the target.

 

He also said the NNDs had different defenses.

 

That means a target is more likely to be able to resist!

 

It's not "You must have A and B to resist these NNDs", it's "You must have A or B to resist these NNDs".

I'm not sure if what he wrote is what he meant as might come out in an example, dunno. I think the way people use ands and ors, there's room for ambiguity, hence my above comments.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

I'm not sure if what he wrote is what he meant as might come out in an example' date=' dunno. I think the way people use ands and ors, there's room for ambiguity, hence my above comments.[/quote']

Going back and reading it again, you're right...there is certainly ambiguity. Mea culpa.

 

It'd be nice if he came back and gave us a few more details.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

I insist that NNDs be something that a reasonably smart human with resources from an Office Depot or Home Depot (basically) could defeat. That is what I rule as "reasonably common". If someone's NND is "force field"' date=' I try to narrow down what that would mean in terms of energy or such, and a person should be able to generate such a field. Otherwise it isn't worth the same limitation.[/quote']

 

The only problem I have with that is that you garden variety reasonable smart human is just a bystandard in most games. Even when you're playing in a Heroic Level game, the PC and their enemies are better than normals (even if not reasonably smart). How many reasonably smart humans with access to a Office or Home Depot can find a gas mask there? I'd say next to none. Yet a gas NND attack is one of the most common forms NND attack. Same thing with a rubber suit versus an electrical NND.

 

What the commonality for this referrs to is the campaign and characters, rather than the world at large. The world at large is just a setting. The people there are background. It's the people who actually have a speaking line in the "script" of the story who need to worry about a defense being reasonably common.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

How many reasonably smart humans with access to a Office or Home Depot can find a gas mask there? I'd say next to none. Yet a gas NND attack is one of the most common forms NND attack.

 

I would allow a character to hold his breath to avoid that Gas attack, if he knew it was coming. Seems to me that's reasonably common.

 

Same thing with a rubber suit versus an electrical NND.

 

Scuba gear. At Home Depot, maybe I can buy a lightning rod. Wouldn't the electrical arc logically go there, rather than hitting me, if I stand in close proximity?

 

What the commonality for this referrs to is the campaign and characters' date=' rather than the world at large. The world at large is just a setting. The people there are background. It's the people who actually have a speaking line in the "script" of the story who need to worry about a defense being reasonably common.[/quote']

 

Well, I certainly wouldn't alow "No stats above Normal Characteristic Maxima" as a defense, but most of the populace has it. However, I do agree it makes sense to look for common-sense means of blocking NND's, rather than saying "Only someone who has a Force Field can resist this attack. If you didn't buy one, to bad." I do agree with increasing the focus on effect, rather than a focus on game mechanics.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Question: Compound NND

 

I would allow a character to hold his breath to avoid that Gas attack' date=' if he knew it was coming. Seems to me that's reasonably common.[/quote']

Hmm. Gas masks often cover the eyes as well, but for that you'd have to hold your breath, squeeze your eyes shut, and hope you have another Targetting Sense, Combat Sense, or some kind of defense you can throw up to wait it out....