Damage Reduction Question

[Fox1]

So Damage Reduction is a individual power for Physical, Energy, and Mental...

 

Given that, should a EC with Damage Reduction in it appear like:

 

A)

 

30 Vague Power Form EC

30 1. 75% Damage Reduction Resistant Physical

30 2. 75% Damage Reduction Resistant Energy

30 3. Other 60 point power.

30 4. Other 60 point power.

 

 

Or

 

30 Vague Power Form EC

90 1. 75% Damage Reduction Resistant Physical

30 2. Other 60 point power.

30 3. Other 60 point power.

 

 

I say A, what say you?

[devlin1]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

I say neither, because powers that cost 0 END by default aren't allowed in ECs. If you're going by the book, anyway.

 

However, if it costs END, I'd go with A too-- but instead of two Physical Damage Reduction slots, I'd only have one. Why do you have two, anyway? Was one supposed to be Energy?

[Fox1]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

I say neither, because powers that cost 0 END by default aren't allowed in ECs. If you're going by the book, anyway.

 

However, if it costs END, I'd go with A too-- but instead of two Physical Damage Reduction slots, I'd only have one. Why do you have two, anyway? Was one supposed to be Energy?

 

Yes, one was supposed to be Energy. Went and corrected it.

 

The END restriction is a GM limit thing that's so common in HERO, consider them brought with 'Costs End' for the purpose of this question.

[CDad]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

I wouldn't have a problem with A, as long as they have an acceptable EC proposal, have low PD & ED, and understand it's(the EC) shortcomings.

 

Imagine their surprise to face a supress or drain that strips them of their major defenses!

[Fox1]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

I wouldn't have a problem with A' date=' as long as they have an acceptable [b']EC[/b] proposal, have low PD & ED, and understand it's(the EC) shortcomings.

 

Imagine their surprise to face a supress or drain that strips them of their major defenses!

 

That is sort of the whole idea actually. To make sure that removing one element of the power removes the other.

 

Sadly the construction I was working didn't work out for other reasons.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

Out of curiosity, what was the construct?

[MitchellS]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

I believe Steve Long has already said they need to be grouped together in power frameworks slot in the same way that you cannot buy a slot with 20 pd armor and a slot with 20 ed armor.

[Fox1]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

Out of curiosity' date=' what was the construct?[/quote']

 

Wolverine's Adamantium Skeleton and Claws.

 

It would have looked something like this:

 

1. Claw Slot... bah bah bah.

2. Damage Reduction 75% physical, only vs. body (-1)

Not vs. whole body damage effects (-1/4), Acts 14- (-1/4)

3. Second DR slot vs. Energy.

 

 

The idea being that something that whacked one of the slots should by nature whack all of them.

 

But there were other problems besides just the double slots for DR and I gave up on it. Besides if I ever do build such an effect to whump up on Wolvie, I'll just build it so that it does (or not even point it out).

 

I was likely being too complex for my own good. Something that I'm always warning against.

[Fox1]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

I believe Steve Long has already said they need to be grouped together in power frameworks slot in the same way that you cannot buy a slot with 20 pd armor and a slot with 20 ed armor.

 

My respect for Steve Long rulings has no measure.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

Actually I disagree with that particular ruling on Steves part, or at least that narrow interpretation of it.

 

DR-PD adn DR-ED are two separate powers, not an adder for one or the other. That means that if you allowed non- END costing powers to go in ECs that unless it (DR power) is built as a compound power construct they go in separate slots.

 

Hawksmoor

[Fox1]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

Actually I disagree with that particular ruling on Steves part' date=' or at least that narrow interpretation of it. [/quote']

 

I tend to disagree with most of his rulings.

 

In this case I see what he's trying to avoid building off the example of PD and ED (they too are two different powers), a straight up cost break for cheap defenses. DR is another type of defense and so the logic goes.

 

Long's ruling tend to be for the general case, not the specific. So he's going to side with whatever has the lower chance of causing problems. That's fine, but may be completely unrelated to what's actually going on.

 

 

The point missed is that it not just a cost break, there's a real limit upon these slots as a dispell or suppress against one affects them all due to the EC.

 

Now a good question is if that limit justifies the cost break an EC gives. That can only be judged on the specific campaign. If the limit shows it face I'd say yes. If an attack on a single power bringing down the rest doesn't- then no.

[MitchellS]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

Actually I disagree with that particular ruling on Steves part, or at least that narrow interpretation of it.

 

DR-PD adn DR-ED are two separate powers, not an adder for one or the other. That means that if you allowed non- END costing powers to go in ECs that unless it (DR power) is built as a compound power construct they go in separate slots.

 

Hawksmoor

First, you cannot have two of the same powers in an EC with only slight variations. Damage reduction, pd or ed, is the same power just as 12d6 eb cold and 12d6 eb ice are. The special effects are unimportant.

 

Second, as in the armor example, it's bad to allow defensive powers to be put into separate slots in an EC for no reason other than point breaks. If you wouldn't allow a player to buy and EC with slot A 20 pd armor and slot B 20 ed armor then you shouldn't allow them to purchase damage reduction that way as well [or force field, etc]. There are game balance issues which need to be accounted for. If you're willing to forego those balance issues then it's fine but there rules are put into place to help maintain the balance.

[Silbeg]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

First, you cannot have two of the same powers in an EC with only slight variations. Damage reduction, pd or ed, is the same power just as 12d6 eb cold and 12d6 eb ice are. The special effects are unimportant.

 

Second, as in the armor example, it's bad to allow defensive powers to be put into separate slots in an EC for no reason other than point breaks. If you wouldn't allow a player to buy and EC with slot A 20 pd armor and slot B 20 ed armor then you shouldn't allow them to purchase damage reduction that way as well [or force field, etc]. There are game balance issues which need to be accounted for. If you're willing to forego those balance issues then it's fine but there rules are put into place to help maintain the balance.

 

Agreed, Mitchell.

 

They are the same power, or aspects of the same power, even more so than the issue of the EBs.

 

There is another issue here, that Fox1 (and all) are probably missing (or I am misunderstanding, also possible)...

 

It is my understanding that you cannot have two of the same power active in an EC (not sure if this is because they cannot both be IN the EC, or whatever)... so, if you had the construct with Physical DR and Energy DR in two different slots, only one could be active, assuming they are even allowed to be in different slots.

 

While I don't always agree 100% with Steve Long's rulings (Flying Dodge <ahen>), I tend to go with them, if only for portability and consistency. However, in this case, I agree 100%. Damage Reduction - Physical and Damage Reduction - Energy are the same power. The only valid argument for separating them would be different SFX, but I also wouldn't allow differerring SFX in the same EC.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

Yes, one was supposed to be Energy. Went and corrected it.

 

The END restriction is a GM limit thing that's so common in HERO, consider them brought with 'Costs End' for the purpose of this question.

 

This raises a question... does buying "Costs END" on a normally non-END power allow it to be put in a Framework? I didn't think that was the case, but I could have missed it.

 

But powers that normal cost END bought to Zero can STILL be in Frameworks (a Zero END Energy Blast, as example).

 

In that case, you could put "Cost END" on it, the buy "Reduced END Zero" bringing it back to the same real cost, but now it fits into a MP when it shouldn't.

 

Is this the case "by the rules?"

 

Just wondering.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

You can't buy reduced END on any power limited by the Increased END or Costs END Limitations.

 

Hawksmoor

[Silbeg]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

In that case, you could put "Cost END" on it, the buy "Reduced END Zero" bringing it back to the same real cost, but now it fits into a MP when it shouldn't.

 

Um, no.

 

"Costs END" and "Reduced END" are by defination mutually exclusive, at least per the Rules FAQ, etc. I haven't got 5ER to confirm this, yet.

 

I think I have asked the same sort of question on the rules forum.

[Fox1]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

This raises a question... does buying "Costs END" on a normally non-END power allow it to be put in a Framework? I didn't think that was the case' date=' but I could have missed it.[/quote']

 

It's the case. Just checked it last night.

 

In that case, you could put "Cost END" on it, the buy "Reduced END Zero" bringing it back to the same real cost, but now it fits into a MP when it shouldn't.

 

Is this the case "by the rules?"

 

Just wondering.

 

That isn't by the EC rules specifically. It may not be allowed otherwise but I haven't checked.

 

In my own game I let people buy 1/2 End Cost (+1/4) on an power that was brought to Costs End (-1/2). Only makes sense.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

Um, no.

 

"Costs END" and "Reduced END" are by defination mutually exclusive, at least per the Rules FAQ, etc. I haven't got 5ER to confirm this, yet.

 

I think I have asked the same sort of question on the rules forum.

 

 

 

Since "Reduced END" would still technically increase the active points of a power a better approach might be to just create a new limitation for 0-END powers:

"Costs Reduced END" (-1/4)

 

 

Just apply it as though the power had "Costs END" and one level of "Reduced END". There is somewhat of a mathimatical precedent for this since "Costs END Only To Activate" is about as limiting and is also a (-1/4) Limitation (or (+1/4) Advantage) as well.

 

HM

[incrdbil]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

In that case, you could put "Cost END" on it, the buy "Reduced END Zero" bringing it back to the same real cost, but now it fits into a MP when it shouldn't.

 

 

There has been a time I wanted to buy a normally non end using power as 'costs 1/2 end', so I just made that a custom limit of -1/4.

 

But back to the original, a hearty thumbs down to DR in an EC, even if bought costs end; and a definite thumbs down to multi slots of armor or forcefield in a framework.

 

(Yes, I wandered the dark paths decades ago).

 

The old standby

 

EC

20/pd/20 ED force field (4 end)

20" flight

 

for 60 points

 

becomes

+32 PD 1/2 end 1 end

+32 ED 1/2 end 1 end

20" flight

 

for a mere 80 points.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

There has been a time I wanted to buy a normally non end using power as 'costs 1/2 end', so I just made that a custom limit of -1/4.

Cool

But back to the original, a hearty thumbs down to DR in an EC, even if bought costs end;

Even if all aspects are considered 1 power? If that's the case I am curious to know why?

 

and a definite thumbs down to multi slots of armor or forcefield in a framework.

Totally agree with you here.

 

HM

[RDU Neil]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

Um, no.

 

"Costs END" and "Reduced END" are by defination mutually exclusive, at least per the Rules FAQ, etc. I haven't got 5ER to confirm this, yet.

 

I think I have asked the same sort of question on the rules forum.

 

Thanks. I figured there was fine print to prevent this.

[Fox1]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

Since "Reduced END" would still technically increase the active points of a power a better approach might be to just create a new limitation for 0-END powers:

"Costs Reduced END" (-1/4)

 

Would be easier mechanically and the math is nicer as well.

 

As far as game design however it just a GM overule of the "can't buy 1/2 End Cost" on "Costs End".

[incrdbil]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

Cool

Even if all aspects are considered 1 power? If that's the case I am curious to know why?

 

HM

 

Honestly, iIview the only reason to buy the Dr as costs end is to make it Framework eligible--ie, its a twist to get around rules to give you Dr goodness at half cost.

 

not to mention the big red flag that goes up when you start dealing with DR covering more than one defense.

 

I woudn't let someone get away with a Life Support EC framework (ie variosu elements of Ls in seperate slots) or a DR framework--well, unless it was some type of campaign were DR was a very common defense (hard to imagine that one being easy to run).

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

Honestly, iIview the only reason to buy the Dr as costs end is to make it Framework eligible--ie, its a twist to get around rules to give you Dr goodness at half cost.

 

not to mention the big red flag that goes up when you start dealing with DR covering more than one defense.

 

I woudn't let someone get away with a Life Support EC framework (ie variosu elements of Ls in seperate slots) or a DR framework--well, unless it was some type of campaign were DR was a very common defense (hard to imagine that one being easy to run).

 

I understand Life Support. But if you allow FF in a framework of any kind I don't understand how an equivalent amount of points of DR should somehow be judged differently. Say a character has 20/10r base defenses. I don't see the big difference between letting them buy a 15/15 FF vs. 1/4 Reduction on PD+ED. I certainly wouldn't OK a build that could do both at the same time but one or the other seems essentially equivalent to me. This is why I'm asking.

 

HM

[incrdbil]

Re: Damage Reduction Question

 

I understand Life Support. But if you allow FF in a framework of any kind I don't understand how an equivalent amount of points of DR should somehow be judged differently. Say a character has 20/10r base defenses. I don't see the big difference between letting them buy a 15/15 FF vs. 1/4 Reduction on PD+ED. I certainly wouldn't OK a build that could do both at the same time but one or the other seems essentially equivalent to me. This is why I'm asking.

 

HM

 

Well, it's also because of the quantifiable aspect of FF--you know that x points of force field will only stop x points of damage.

 

DD is a different animal. Put it in a framework, you get a great break on a power that can potentially eliminate damage far in excess of its AP value than most other defenses--and thats why I favor keeping them out of frameworks.