Are limited defenses to expensive?

[Ndreare]

Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

I was trying to make an Electricity Controller, and was thinking that limited defenses were expensive by the book. What level of limitation do you think of as fare for you games, I do not like the guide lines in the book. Only vs. Fire should to me be worth more than -1/2, after all you are loosing more than 1/3 its utility. Consider how many types of energy attacks a character will be subjected to and what percentage of those will be Fire, Electricity, Quantum Beam ect…

 

Personally I think the limitations should be more like…

-1: for limited effects (Only vs. Fire or Only vs. Electricity)

-2: for extremely limited effects. (Only vs. Magic Fire)

 

 

Just asking your oppinion. As I am the GM I decided to go with a few extra points but...

[MitchellS]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

I have no problem with the levels as they are. The real question is how often will you encounter someone with fire/electricity/cold/etc? Somethings are more common then others depending on the scenario. You might never fight a fire-using villain but you might save people from burning buildings all the time. It's really a judgement call. Fire seems to be a very common special effect though. Electricity less so.

[Intrope]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

I agree, mostly. But I think that the value of limited power should be game-dependent, too. If you have a fanatasy world that has numerous fire-breathing monters and cults of flame sorcerers 'only v. fire' should be worth a lot less than 'only v. lightning'. Whereas a superhero campaign they should probably be the same limitation value.

 

But -1/2 for 'only v. fire' in most campaigns is too small of a limitation.

 

To be honest, I've noticed before that virtually all limited power limitations in published products tend to be mapped into the -1 to -1/4 range, rather than into the -2 to -1/4 range. Maybe it's out of fear of appearing to point-greedy?

[Kristopher]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

I thought the Limited defenses (only vs fire, only vs electricity, etc) were typically -1. That's what I've always done.

[Narthon]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

I also would put them at a -1, unless for some reason in the campaign they are extreamly common. How often do you actually see fire using, cold using, electricity using? Probably not all that often, really.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

It depends on the campaign. If a GM is running a game where ALL magical (or superhuman) powers have connotations of elements -- for example, Chrono Trigger assigned an elemental category to everything -- "Only vs. Fire" and the like is a very relevant and sensible limitation to take; in a Waterworld campaign setting, it'd be kind of silly.

 

In my opinion, then, how much (or little) the limitation is worth is heavily dependant on the campaign setting. The value given in the rules is, for all intents and purposes, just a baseline suggestion.

 

EDIT: In a campaign where all powers are fire-based, the limitation "Only vs. Fire" is -0. In a campaign where it's common but not everpresent, use the given value. If the element in question is uncommon or very rare, it's worth more as a Limitation.

 

Think outside the box.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

It depends on the campaign. If a GM is running a game where ALL magical (or superhuman) powers have connotations of elements -- for example' date=' Chrono Trigger assigned an elemental category to everything -- "Only vs. Fire" and the like is a very relevant and sensible limitation to take; in a Waterworld campaign setting, it'd be kind of silly.[/quote']

 

While I agree the limitation must make sense within the campaign parameters, I also think the defaults provided are far too low. Energy defense that works only vs fire seems to me to be useless at least half the time when ED would otherwise be useful in a typical Supers campaign, and at best is useful half the time in a typical Fantasy campaign. Setting the limitation at only -1/2 therefore seems very restrictive to me. -1 as a base, with perhaps -2 for very uncommon SFX would seem more in line with the actual utility of the ability.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

I've looked through the suggested values (as presented in the Champions book) for how common such a thing is, and I agree with them. In my own campaigns, an actual fire wielding villain is kinda rare, and I've come to feel it's a bit cliche. A burning building is not, and heroes come across those quite often. Seems like every adventure, something is set on fire. That makes it pretty damn common.

 

As far as those other "common/very common" things, Electricity is definately very common in a modern or futuristic setting, as power lines are everywhere. I don't know how many VIPER agents have stopped aiming their blasters at the brick, and instead shot out some power lines nearby instead.

 

Of course, if you never make use of things like these in your games, such elements are probably not common at all, assuming they even exist at all in those games.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

I've looked through the suggested values (as presented in the Champions book) for how common such a thing is' date=' and I agree with them. In my own campaigns, an actual fire wielding villain is kinda rare, and I've come to feel it's a bit cliche. A burning building is not, and heroes come across those quite often. Seems like every adventure, [i']something[/i] is set on fire. That makes it pretty damn common.

 

If the attack which misses the hero and sets the building on fire is another form of evergy, then at bets fire is half the ED attacks the hero will need to contend with, isn't it

 

As far as those other "common/very common" things' date=' Electricity is definately very common in a modern or futuristic setting, as power lines are everywhere. I don't know how many VIPER agents have stopped aiming their blasters at the brick, and instead shot out some power lines nearby instead.[/quote']

 

So, again, if half the ED attacks are the blasters and half are the power lines, ED vs electricity only is at best half as useful as normal ED.

 

I'm not saying fire or electricty aren't common. I'm saying they are far less common than items against which ED is useful. I am also saying that +15 ED against fire only and +15 ED vs electricty only should not cost more than +15 ED!

 

By extrapolation, if "ED: Only vs Electricity" costs 2/3 the normal cost, ED Not vs Electricity should cost 1/3 (or maybe 1/2 - the whole need not match the sum of the parts), and I think ED not vs electricity is far more useful than ED vs Electricity only.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

Take into account what the most common SFX for a given defense are: For example, in a standard Supers game the most common energy based SFX are:

Fire

Electricity

Cold

Magnetism

Radiation

 

In general, the two most common are going to be Fire/Heat and Electricity, with Cold coming in a close third.

 

If you want a character who has extra defense vs Fire only, I'd say thats at least a -1 limitation. Why? Because it doesn't defend against those other common attack types, and none of the other uncommon and rare attack types as well.

Defense vs Magnetism or Radiation I would place at around -1 1/2, because they are more common than the other types of SFX encountered (Sonic, or Pure Magic energy etc)

More uncommon defense types, I would place at the -2 value.

 

Of course, if one particular tpe of SFX is extremely common, the typical -1/2 value would probably suffice. Say for example your characters constantly fight minions of a Super villains organization and they prefer laser weaponry, Defense vs Heat would only be -1/2 because they face these types of SFX nearly every game session...

[Dust Raven]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

If the attack which misses the hero and sets the building on fire is another form of evergy' date=' then at bets fire is half the ED attacks the hero will need to contend with, isn't it[/quote']

I have no idea what you just said.

 

 

 

So, again, if half the ED attacks are the blasters and half are the power lines, ED vs electricity only is at best half as useful as normal ED.

You are using "if" alot. Look at the entire picture here for a moment. What can expose a character to electrical damage (as an example)? Well, you can use a blaster, energy blast of any kind, chemical cannon, plasma ejector, vibro-sword, claws, brute strength, TK, and even a normal gun to knock powerlines into or near a character. You can also cause KB from any nearly any attack to cause a character to fly into a control panel or circuit breaker or something similar. So, just using the examples I have here, using your math, we have 1 part each of the above and 10 parts electrical. Looks like electrical damage is really, really extra very common.

 

Not quite as cut and dry as that though. It mostly depends on how the GM runs the game. As I said before, if the GM doesn't expose the characters to conditions of the environment like these, it becomes less common.

 

I'm not saying fire or electricty aren't common. I'm saying they are far less common than items against which ED is useful. I am also saying that +15 ED against fire only and +15 ED vs electricty only should not cost more than +15 ED!

 

By extrapolation, if "ED: Only vs Electricity" costs 2/3 the normal cost, ED Not vs Electricity should cost 1/3 (or maybe 1/2 - the whole need not match the sum of the parts), and I think ED not vs electricity is far more useful than ED vs Electricity only.

 

This makes more sense. I disagree with your math again though. A character that wants to buy +15 ED only versus electricity and +15 ED only versus fire doesn't buy to seperate powers. He buys one, with a single Limitation representing both at a lesser value. Ta-da, you've got your +15 ED only versus blah & blah and it costs less than normal +15 ED

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

Even though an enemy CAN shoot power lines and the like down onto someone, it's extremely uncommon for anyone to do that when they can just shoot you instead, and probably actually hit and do more damage. Unless electrical Powers are common in a campaign, I'm going to say that electricity is uncommon in the majority of campaigns.

[Vondy]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

If the defense is only versus a single FX I generally give -1.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

I have no idea what you just said.

 

Yur claim, as I undestand it, is that, since many attacks can cause a fire, fire is so common that -1/2 is the appropriate limitation for defenses that only work against fire. However, all these attacks that set things on fire are generally energy attacks themselves. I'd rather have ED that works against the actual attacks being levied against me than the incidental fires they may cause when they miss. ED that works against both the energy bolt targeting me and the incidental fire damage if it misses and starts a fire seems at least twice as useful as ED that protects me only from the incidental fire damage, which implies a much greater limit than -1/2 for "fire only".

 

You are using "if" alot. Look at the entire picture here for a moment. What can expose a character to electrical damage (as an example)? Well' date=' you can use a blaster, energy blast of any kind, chemical cannon, plasma ejector, vibro-sword, claws, brute strength, TK, and even a normal gun to knock powerlines into or near a character. You can also cause KB from any nearly any attack to cause a character to fly into a control panel or circuit breaker or something similar. So, just using the examples I have here, using your math, we have 1 part each of the above and 10 parts electrical. Looks like electrical damage is really, really extra very common.[/quote']

 

Many of which attacks are, themselves, defended by energy defense. In my opinion, a defense that protects you against those attacks AND the possibility of getting zapped with an electrical wire is far more valuable than defense which only protects you against the electricity itself. As well, as already pointed out, the likelihood of an opponent pulling a voltage line down on you (which likely suffers OCV penalties, and the attacker is unlikely to have levels with) seems far less likely than simply using his attack on you directly. And most Champs attacks [given the SFX you cite, and the omnipresence of power lines, I assume that's the genre your examples are pulled from - there aren't a lot of power lines in fantasy games] will do as much or more damage as the typical power line anyway.

 

It seems that the disconnect here is that you are saying "gee, fire and electricity are pretty common, so that limited ED can still be useful". I am saying "Gosh, look at what the character gives up by limiting his ED to NOT work against all those other types of energy". ED reduces damage from energy attacks. If the limitation means this ED works against half or less of energy attacks targetting the character, it seems to be the limitation has eliminated half or more of the ED's usefulness. ED that works 80% of the time (Act 14-) is a -1/2 limitation. ED that works 62.5% of the time (Act 11-) is a -1 limitation. Why should ED that works on half or less (likely significantly less) of energy attacks targetting the character generate only a -1/2 limitation?

 

Sure, there's some advantage knowing which attacks the ED will work on, but then opponents should gradually figure out which attacks it won't work against, and avoid those SFX if possible.

 

This makes more sense. I disagree with your math again though. A character that wants to buy +15 ED only versus electricity and +15 ED only versus fire doesn't buy to seperate powers. He buys one' date=' with a single Limitation representing both at a lesser value. Ta-da, you've got your +15 ED only versus blah & blah and it costs less than normal +15 ED[/quote']

 

By starting the limitat -1/2, you only have -1/4 left. So, ED - only vs fire and electricity must be worth -1/4, since it's clearly more useful than Only vs Fire, or Only vs Electricity. What's ED - not vs Sonics (or not vs cold, or not vs blasters, or not vs lasers, etc.) worth? It's far more useful than ED only vs fire and electricity, and we've established that can only be worth -1/4. Logically, anything less limited must generate no limitation. Yet, equally logically, ED that doesn't work against a reasonably common special effect is less useful than "universal" ED, so there should be a point break.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

Yur claim, as I undestand it, is that, since many attacks can cause a fire, fire is so common that -1/2 is the appropriate limitation for defenses that only work against fire. However, all these attacks that set things on fire are generally energy attacks themselves. I'd rather have ED that works against the actual attacks being levied against me than the incidental fires they may cause when they miss. ED that works against both the energy bolt targeting me and the incidental fire damage if it misses and starts a fire seems at least twice as useful as ED that protects me only from the incidental fire damage, which implies a much greater limit than -1/2 for "fire only".

 

 

 

Many of which attacks are, themselves, defended by energy defense. In my opinion, a defense that protects you against those attacks AND the possibility of getting zapped with an electrical wire is far more valuable than defense which only protects you against the electricity itself. As well, as already pointed out, the likelihood of an opponent pulling a voltage line down on you (which likely suffers OCV penalties, and the attacker is unlikely to have levels with) seems far less likely than simply using his attack on you directly. And most Champs attacks [given the SFX you cite, and the omnipresence of power lines, I assume that's the genre your examples are pulled from - there aren't a lot of power lines in fantasy games] will do as much or more damage as the typical power line anyway.

 

It seems that the disconnect here is that you are saying "gee, fire and electricity are pretty common, so that limited ED can still be useful". I am saying "Gosh, look at what the character gives up by limiting his ED to NOT work against all those other types of energy". ED reduces damage from energy attacks. If the limitation means this ED works against half or less of energy attacks targetting the character, it seems to be the limitation has eliminated half or more of the ED's usefulness. ED that works 80% of the time (Act 14-) is a -1/2 limitation. ED that works 62.5% of the time (Act 11-) is a -1 limitation. Why should ED that works on half or less (likely significantly less) of energy attacks targetting the character generate only a -1/2 limitation?

 

Sure, there's some advantage knowing which attacks the ED will work on, but then opponents should gradually figure out which attacks it won't work against, and avoid those SFX if possible.

You obviously have a very different style of game than I typically run. Such things are a danger to characters in my game, and I charge them a fair price for such a defense. The value of the Limitation would go up greatly should the character already have a 30+ ED for example. There just aren't that many characters with defenses that high in the games I run (typically Defenses of 14-22, with resistant Def being fromm 0-16 with an average of 8) so damage from such attack are a danger. As far as aiming, I reward surprise maneuvers, and fire is frequently AE and anyone can be tossed in without any additional difficlty. Once powerlines are down, they could also be considerd AE (though possibly Non-Selective, gets kinda tricky).

 

My point is that I'm not overcharging my players and NPCs for defenses like these. Apparently you aren't either, because you don't feel the enviornment is that much of a danger to your characters.

 

 

 

By starting the limitat -1/2, you only have -1/4 left. So, ED - only vs fire and electricity must be worth -1/4, since it's clearly more useful than Only vs Fire, or Only vs Electricity. What's ED - not vs Sonics (or not vs cold, or not vs blasters, or not vs lasers, etc.) worth? It's far more useful than ED only vs fire and electricity, and we've established that can only be worth -1/4. Logically, anything less limited must generate no limitation. Yet, equally logically, ED that doesn't work against a reasonably common special effect is less useful than "universal" ED, so there should be a point break.

 

If it bothers you so much, introduce a Modifier system that breaks down into 1/10s instead of 1/4s. If my pistol doesn't work in space, but still works in a vaccum, or in zero-gravity, what value if the limitation? Just because it should be less than a comparable -1/4 doesn't mean that the -1/4 must logically really be worth more than -1/4 just because there is something less limiting that it that is still worth points.

[pinecone]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

I've got two answers 1) I'd likely treat any "only vs" as -1 and modify if nessisary...

2) if you take defenses "only vs" I as a GM feel obligated to make sure that sort of attack comes up regular so the points were not wasted, and fire elemental are a common blaster template so -1/2 is just fine, take it at -1 and I'll put less effort into burnin stuff so you can shine....your choice...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

You obviously have a very different style of game than I typically run. Such things are a danger to characters in my game, and I charge them a fair price for such a defense. The value of the Limitation would go up greatly should the character already have a 30+ ED for example. There just aren't that many characters with defenses that high in the games I run (typically Defenses of 14-22, with resistant Def being fromm 0-16 with an average of 8) so damage from such attack are a danger. As far as aiming, I reward surprise maneuvers, and fire is frequently AE and anyone can be tossed in without any additional difficlty. Once powerlines are down, they could also be considerd AE (though possibly Non-Selective, gets kinda tricky).

 

My point is that I'm not overcharging my players and NPCs for defenses like these. Apparently you aren't either, because you don't feel the enviornment is that much of a danger to your characters.

 

I'm not arguing that the environment cannotb be a danger to the PC, or even that these types of at6tacks are not reasonably common. I am, however, arguing that I don't think 2/3 of energy attacks a character will face are electrical in nature, or that 2/3 of such attacks are fire in nature, such that it is reasonable to cost out defenses that only protect against electricity (or only against fire) should cost 2/3 what the charactre would have paid to be protected to a similar level against all forms of energy damage. [i don't think fire or electricity reflect half the energy attacks a character faces, but -1 seems a reasonable saw-off point.]

 

Put another way, I don't see +15 ED only vs fire (or electricity, or PD vs bullets) has the same value as +10 ED overall. Of course, the test of "fair value" limitations is always in their utilization. If no one ever buys such abilities, feeling they are always overpriced ("I'll find another concept" "Human Fireball need not be immune to flames"), the limitation is probably too light. If fire is common enough that most players buy asbestos costumes for their characters ("Extra defense against fire is just too cheap to pass up"), the limitation is too high.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

I'm not arguing that the environment cannotb be a danger to the PC' date=' or even that these types of at6tacks are not reasonably common. I am, however, arguing that I don't think 2/3 of energy attacks a character will face are electrical in nature, or that 2/3 of such attacks are fire in nature, such that it is reasonable to cost out defenses that only protect against electricity (or only against fire) should cost 2/3 what the charactre would have paid to be protected to a similar level against all forms of energy damage. [i don't think fire or electricity reflect half the energy attacks a character faces, but -1 seems a reasonable saw-off point.']

 

Put another way, I don't see +15 ED only vs fire (or electricity, or PD vs bullets) has the same value as +10 ED overall.

Its not a matter of what percentage of energy attacks are of what SFX, its a matter of how limiting the Limitation is. You might think those are the same thing, but they're not. Other things factors go into it, like that the character's unlimited defenses are, how much damage is usually done by the SFX it only works against and how often the character is exposed, or potentially exposed to it and other types of energy damage. You are concentrating too much on just one factor.

 

 

Of course, the test of "fair value" limitations is always in their utilization. If no one ever buys such abilities, feeling they are always overpriced ("I'll find another concept" "Human Fireball need not be immune to flames"), the limitation is probably too light. If fire is common enough that most players buy asbestos costumes for their characters ("Extra defense against fire is just too cheap to pass up"), the limitation is too high.

This I agree with completely. So far there hasn't been any conplaints in my group about it (save for one from a rules rapist min-maxer that also complained about a lot of other rule judgements).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

Its not a matter of what percentage of energy attacks are of what SFX' date=' its a matter of how limiting the Limitation is. You might think those are the same thing, but they're not. Other things factors go into it, like that the character's unlimited defenses are, how much damage is usually done by the SFX it only works against and how often the character is exposed, or potentially exposed to it and other types of energy damage. [/quote']

 

Agreed. I would suggest one needs to look at how frequently the character's limited defenses will be effective (ie they are applied against the right SFX against an attack which had meaning - 4d6 EB from standard household current won't bother a typical Champs character anyway, so it gets ignored), and how often they are ineffective in a situation when unlimited defenses would have been effective (ir how often will he get hit with a meaningful attack of other SFX).

 

With this in mind, I don't think -1/2 is enough of a limitation. My leaning to -1 for common SFX seems to be shared by a lot of other posters to this thread (though I suppose many who think -1/2 is overvalued if anything probably avoid the thread based on title alone). I'm not seeing a lot of support for -1/2. Hmmm...maybe a poll?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

Quick question for you, do you consider such Limited defenses as an automtic defense against an appropiate NND attack? For example. If you buy +10 ED (or whatever) Only Versus Electricity, and some schmuck tags you with a stun gun (EB 4d6 NND vs electrical insulation or FF), would such attacks automatically do no damage?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

Quick question for you' date=' do you consider such Limited defenses as an automtic defense against an appropiate NND attack? For example. If you buy +10 ED (or whatever) Only Versus Electricity, and some schmuck tags you with a stun gun (EB 4d6 NND vs electrical insulation or FF), would such attacks automatically do no damage?[/quote']

 

It would depend on the attack's SFX and the defense's SFX, but it would seem to make sense more often than not. A character who is resistant to electricity would logically not be affected by NND's whose defenses involve resistance to electricity.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

It would depend on the attack's SFX and the defense's SFX' date=' but it would seem to make sense more often than not. A character who is resistant to electricity would logically not be affected by NND's whose defenses involve resistance to electricity.[/quote']

 

Agreed.

 

Personally though, I would consider this to make the defense more effective, rather than less effective. While it's not a key element in my arguement, it just occured to me and thought I'd toss it in.

 

P.S.: I've kinda given up on trying to convince you you are giving too much of a bonus. I'm just kinda running on automatic "but, uh-hu" at this point.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

Agreed.

 

Personally though, I would consider this to make the defense more effective, rather than less effective. While it's not a key element in my arguement, it just occured to me and thought I'd toss it in.

]]

 

It's an interesting question, one I had not considered. It becomes an issue of SFX, and maybe justifies -1, rather than something greater (half of all energy attacks aren't electrical, but I want rarer SFX to have a greater bonus, and I don't like limitations over -2) a bit better.

 

P.S.: I've kinda given up on trying to convince you you are giving too much of a bonus. I'm just kinda running on automatic "but' date=' uh-hu" at this point.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I think we've exhausted the possible discussion here. I wouldn't change from something that works in my game, and it sounds like your approach is working in yours.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

]]

 

It's an interesting question, one I had not considered. It becomes an issue of SFX, and maybe justifies -1, rather than something greater (half of all energy attacks aren't electrical, but I want rarer SFX to have a greater bonus, and I don't like limitations over -2) a bit better.

 

 

 

Yeah, I think we've exhausted the possible discussion here. I wouldn't change from something that works in my game, and it sounds like your approach is working in yours.

 

Sounds like it. But I still think that each SFX should be looked at in how often it's encountered, rather than how often it affects the character compared to EVERYTHING ELSE. The limitation for OAF isn't based on the fact that there are over 101 methods of attack other than Disarm after all.

[KA.]

Re: Are limited defenses to expensive?

 

I don't have a really strong opinion, but I would like to bring one fact to the table.

Generally speaking, Defense Powers cost around 1/2 of what the corresponding Attack Powers cost.

With that in mind, granting large discounts on Defense Powers, even those that do not come up very often, seems like it might cause those defenses to quickly outstrip certain characters ability to do damage.

A cohesive set of powers is generally something that I like to see, and a common SFX is one way to do that (although it is hardly the only way).

But if you were creating The Human Torch as a Player, would you be happy to find out that the Villain's could basically nullify all your main attacks by adding on a Defense that was quite cheap to buy?

 

KA.