Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

[Stone]

An armor piercing EB w/a 2d6 ED drain linked to it. The idea is the drain simulates the EB chipping away at a target's defenses. I can see this quickly whittling down even the toughest defenses (those lacking power defense anyway). I thought about a transform (turning target's defenses into ablative defenses), but I did not want to make the effect permanent or require a special circumstance to repair the target's defenses. If you would allow it, would you limit it to Force Fields and Force Walls only or to all ED defenses?

 

I realize the very nature of AP simulates this effect to a certain extend, but not to the level I am looking for. I am trying to stay away from RKA w/penetration if possible (I hate the stun lotto).

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

Seems fine to me.

 

Myself, I like hard-hitting Powers with subsequent damage (or other) effects. It adds more flavor than simply increasing the damage done by the EB, and I have used similar builds to simulate exploding bullets, sticky Halo-style granades, and the like on many occasions.

 

EDIT: Sounds like this Power hits and then goes to work undermining the target's ED... interesting!

[Jhamin]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

On the surface, I'd allow it.

 

But keep a few things in mind.

 

-What exactly are you draining? Sure, your ED goes down buy why? Is your force field weakend? Did your armor short out? Do you have a really bad burn? Special effects are king in the Hero System. What exactly is this ray that makes everything more vulnerable to energy?

 

-A target hit with a drain and a damaging attack at the same time still enjoys the benifits of the drained stat until after the attack is resolved. In this case you will drain their ED, but they still get the full value to resist the current attack.

 

-Also, if the character is hitting someone with several powers at once on a frequent basis, make sure he isnt' violating campaign standards. Just because you have serveral aspects to this attack isn't a reason it should be more effective than a single attack that another character might have.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

Sounds fine to me.

 

2D6 Drain isn't very effective though, consindering that the effects of Adjustment powers on Defenses is cut in half. Thus you could only drain 6pts of normal ED or 4pts of Resistant ED....

 

You may want to go with 3D6 (-9 normal ED, or -6 Res ED)

[Stone]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

"What exactly are you draining? Sure, your ED goes down buy why? Is your force field weakend? Did your armor short out? Do you have a really bad burn? Special effects are king in the Hero System. What exactly is this ray that makes everything more vulnerable to energy?"

 

Well the character's attack is a paticle beam (cannot spread or bounce). The beam is battering a target's defenses wearing them down (kinda like sand blasting, but w/energy particles). The effect is going to be similar to Star Trek (shields down to 80% sir...) since the target's defense will be able to "recharge" back to its normal value. Thats why I was considering limiting to force fields and force walls only, but I can also seeing beating down physical ED as well.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

"What exactly are you draining? Sure, your ED goes down buy why? Is your force field weakend? Did your armor short out? Do you have a really bad burn? Special effects are king in the Hero System. What exactly is this ray that makes everything more vulnerable to energy?"

 

Well the character's attack is a paticle beam (cannot spread or bounce). The beam is battering a target's defenses wearing them down (kinda like sand blasting, but w/energy particles). The effect is going to be similar to Star Trek (shields down to 80% sir...) since the target's defense will be able to "recharge" back to its normal value. Thats why I was considering limiting to force fields and force walls only, but I can also seeing beating down physical ED as well.

 

I suggest taking a Limitation of "Only vs [Force Field/ Energy Field]" EDIT: (For the Drain part only, and yes, that's a Defense Limitation, oops... but you know what I mean), just to make it consistent with the SFX. That's a very interesting weapon!

 

I just think it would fit more smoothly into a game and be less "Rubber Science-y" that way. If you want the attack to wear down tangible defenses, perhaps a sophisticated "Acid" or "Solvent" SFX is in order.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

Do you envision the blast lowering the target's resistance to ALL energy attacks, or just to this type of attack?

 

 

If the first, keep in mind that there will be combo effects. "You lowered his ED by 10? Great, I'll hit him with my 15d6 EB!"

 

If the second, then consider extra EB dice with a limitation, based on how many times target has been hit with the attack already. Something like: "Matter Erroder: 6d6 EB, AP. +2d6 EB AP if target has been hit by ME in last minute. +2d6 EB AP if target has been hit by ME twice in last minute. +2d6 EB AP if target has been hit by ME three times in last minute." etc.

[Tech]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

Do you envision the blast lowering the target's resistance to ALL energy attacks, or just to this type of attack?

 

 

If the first, keep in mind that there will be combo effects. "You lowered his ED by 10? Great, I'll hit him with my 15d6 EB!"

 

If the second, then consider extra EB dice with a limitation, based on how many times target has been hit with the attack already. Something like: "Matter Erroder: 6d6 EB, AP. +2d6 EB AP if target has been hit by ME in last minute. +2d6 EB AP if target has been hit by ME twice in last minute. +2d6 EB AP if target has been hit by ME three times in last minute." etc.

 

No, No, I could never allow this, I could never.. um, what was the question again?

 

Seriously though, as interesting as the above idea is, I don't think it quite matches what Stone has suggested. If the idea Stone has is that the attack reduces a target's regular ED (not Forcefield or Armor, etc), then any other attack would going against the subject's ED would have greater effects, not just the Matter Erroder attack. I would go with the ED drain.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

No, No, I could never allow this, I could never.. um, what was the question again?

 

Seriously though, as interesting as the above idea is, I don't think it quite matches what Stone has suggested. If the idea Stone has is that the attack reduces a target's regular ED (not Forcefield or Armor, etc), then any other attack would going against the subject's ED would have greater effects, not just the Matter Erroder attack. I would go with the ED drain.

 

That's why I asked which they wanted. If Stone wants the "particle beam" to seriously weaken the targets defenses, allowing the character or someone else to use other energy attacks to punch through easier, then by all means the Drain is the way to go.

 

However, in my experience, many people who want to build "it's harder and harder to resist my attack" attacks naturally turn to drains first, often not realizing the drains make it easier for *everybody* to affect them, which can lead to unintended effects. The situational extra effect/dice often ends up being closer to the original intention.

 

"My homing missiles find it easier and easier to aquire the target, so I want them to have a DEX drain." Well, that makes it easier for the brick to hit them too - howabout extra levels with a limitation instead? If the attack is something that slows the target down, then a drain would be fine.

 

"I'm scary, and the longer I'm around, the more creeped out people get. I want to have a PRE/EGO drain so I can scare them more easily." You know, that also makes it easier for an egoist to mind control them into attacking you, or for Captain America to PRE attack them into being inspired and unafraid. Howabout extra PRE for you with situational limits? If instead you create some sort of 'will suppression' field, then a drain sounds about right.

 

etc.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

I don't consider it too cheesy. Whether I would allow it would depend on the specifics of the attacxk, the character as a whole and the game as a whole.

 

For example, if the maximum DC in my game is 15, I wouldn't let you have a 15d6 EB with 2d6 Drain added on. I may not restrict the sum of the two attacks to 15 DC, but I wouldn't allow your character to have "the campaign max damage, plus an extra".

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

i don't think it's too cheesy, especially because the 2d6 drain is really really low, you'll have to hit them multiple times to drain all their attacks (just don't give it autofire!)

[SaintHax]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

Not at all a problem if the combo power's active points are equal to your campaign limits. Just look at how it would compare to a straight attack. Let's assume you have a 60 active point attack power standard in your campaign. The 2d6 drain is taking 20 points of that, leaving 40 for the EB, or a 5d6 EB w/ AP vs. a 12d6 EB.

 

Againt sample villian (I'll go for the 350 pointers in CKC)...

 

Against Black Diamond, she has 25 ED hardened:

Power w/ Drain averages 17.5 points of damage does no damage on the first shot, then drains an average of 7 active points, where the ED drains 1 pt. for every 3 active points (it may be less, I'm unsure b/c of the resistant defenses, ED, being bought seperately). The hero won't be a threat for a while, but will be increasing the energy damage of the rest of the team by 2 points every phase.

 

The straight power will average 42 points of damage, doing an average of 17 stun per hit. This situation favors the straight attack though b/c of the hardened defense.

 

Against Bluejay, she has ED 5 + Armor 14r:

The combo power hit for it's 17.5, halves the 19 and does about 10 points of damage. It then attacks the focus armor w/ drain and reduces it by 2 pt (average 7 active point drain, divided by 2 for drain vs. defense power, and armor cost 3 / 2 pts.)

 

The straight power will average 23 points of damage, and probably CON stun Bluejay.

 

 

Yeah, I wouldn't have a problem w/ it.

[stan da ork]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

Just to point something out, you do realize that for Adjustment power purposes, each Defensive power is considered a separate source of ED. This means that Drain ED only drains the target's natural ED (ie. the actual ED Characteristic). Drain ED Force Field only drains the target's ED gained from Force Fields. Drain ED Armor only drains the target's ED gained from Armor. To affect all forms of ED at once, you have to buy an Advantage on the Drain (most likely +1, ED Characteristic, ED FF, ED Armor, and ED FW at the same time). This makes Drains against Defenses even less useful, because you have to either hope the target has the particular Defensive power you bought the Drain against, or you have to buy a hefty advantage on the Drain to affect all possible sources of the Defense.

[Stone]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

"Do you envision the blast lowering the target's resistance to ALL energy attacks, or just to this type of attack?"

 

I am still not sure if I want the effect to lower the target's defenses to everyone else's attacks or not. Going back to the Star Trek example, the effect would lower the target's defenses to all other incoming ED attacks. While I am sure the rest of the team would love this, I am leaning towards just lowering the target's defenses to this character's attacks.

 

"Matter Erroder: 6d6 EB, AP. +2d6 EB AP if target has been hit by ME in last minute. +2d6 EB AP if target has been hit by ME twice in last minute. +2d6 EB AP if target has been hit by ME three times in last minute." etc.

 

Interesting idea. How would you set this up point wise? Would it be a series of smaller attacks or a another EB w/a limitation of incremental steps? Also what is the maximum cap you would put on it?

 

"For example, if the maximum DC in my game is 15, I wouldn't let you have a 15d6 EB with 2d6 Drain added on. I may not restrict the sum of the two attacks to 15 DC, but I wouldn't allow your character to have "the campaign max damage, plus an extra"."

 

Well, my group has faced off w/a martial brick w/6d6 HKA several times. I am trying to stay away from RKA's, but would like to be able to level the playing field without buying a massive force field.

 

"Just to point something out, you do realize that for Adjustment power purposes, each Defensive power is considered a separate source of ED. This means that Drain ED only drains the target's natural ED (ie. the actual ED Characteristic). Drain ED Force Field only drains the target's ED gained from Force Fields. etc"

 

Ugh! I usually stay away from adjustment powers and was not aware of that. That definate changes the situation. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

[Stone]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

Ok...maybe I am going about this in the wrong way. What if I used find weakness, but w/a limitation can only be used after "x" number of hits.

 

ex. the character would have to hit the target twice in order to be able to make a find weakness roll. After two more successfull attacks with the same attack, the character could roll find weakness again.

 

This would allow for the character to "chip" away defenses, but only to his attack and only after a number of successfull hits. The down side is the find weakness roll. I want the effect to chip away at the defenses, but I think making the roll high (16 or less) would be cheesy.

 

After reviewing the Drain with all the extra costs (effecting all types of ED +1, ranged, delayed return rate, half effect vs defenses), I am not sure it would be worth the effort to build the power that way.

 

Quick follow question...using the standard effect means 1d6 = 3 pts. Does this mean that for defenses 1d6 = 1.5 pts?

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

There is some discussion on this same topic on my "New Advantage: Scour" thread. It might be worth looking at to get a few ideas.

For my part, I'd say that the efect you're looking for would work fairly well with only the addition of a +1/4 effects one power of a group at a time advantage... the group being ED defences. When one goes bye bye, shift it to the next, as an automatic no advantage or limitation effect. So if you're attacking a character with a FF, Armor and natural ED, it peels away the FF till it goes away, then moves inward to the armor till THAT goes away, then finally to the natural defence. It's not reasonably, by your description, going to be effecting them all at once anyway.

[Stone]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

Interesting idea. Would you allow a limitation that the drain was only for the character's attack? If so, how much of a limitation (1/2?).

[Stone]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

Ok..I went back and looked at transform. What about this. Transform target's ED into ablative ED, but only for this character's attack?

 

Would you consider this a minor or a major transform? Like I said it would only apply for this characters's attack and not anyone elses. Also the target's defenses would heal back at an accelerated rate. Would you consider the limitation "only for this character's EB" a 1/2 limitation?

[SaintHax]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

I think drain +1/4 advantage would work (trusting the other poster, I thought it was a +1/2 from memory). As for your question on how much of a limitation it would be for your attack only, I'd go w/ -1/2 based on the "self only" limitation for Aid and such.

 

Transformation would be minor, IMO, b/c a major transformation basically takes a person out of combat completely (turning into a frog, etc.).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

"Matter Erroder: 6d6 EB' date=' AP. +2d6 EB AP if target has been hit by ME in last minute. +2d6 EB AP if target has been hit by ME twice in last minute. +2d6 EB AP if target has been hit by ME three times in last minute." etc.[/i']

 

Interesting idea. How would you set this up point wise? Would it be a series of smaller attacks or a another EB w/a limitation of incremental steps? Also what is the maximum cap you would put on it?

 

I think there's an example of a partially limited power in the books where increased dice cost incrementally greater Increased END. This would be similar.

 

The cap is a matter of judgement. I would allow the maximum to exceed the usual damage cap in my game if this required several hits, and the base damage was well under normal damage. As an example, in a game of 12d6 standard max for EB attacks, if your EB was, say, 9d6, +1d6 for each hit after the first you've achieved on the target, I'd probably allow the maximum to go as high as 15d6, maybe even 18d6 (a lot depends on the spread I've allowed the opposition). How high you want to go is a matter of judgement, however, In my example, 15d6 is the seventh shot on the same target, and 18d6 is the tenth, so you wouldn't be using those very often.

 

"For example' date=' if the maximum DC in my game is 15, I wouldn't let you have a 15d6 EB with 2d6 Drain added on. I may not restrict the sum of the two attacks to 15 DC, but I wouldn't allow your character to have "the campaign max damage, plus an extra"."[/i']

 

Well, my group has faced off w/a martial brick w/6d6 HKA several times. I am trying to stay away from RKA's, but would like to be able to level the playing field without buying a massive force field.

 

If your game's DC maxima are higher, of course, your limits would be higher as well. If 18 DC attacks (like a 6k6 HKA) are the norm, then I'd probably allow a 15d6 EB + 2d6 Ranged EB drain. That's 1 DC and 15 AP higher than the 6d6 HKA.

 

By the way (reminded by the "one power, one mechanic" comments), don't forget that drains, by default, have no range. To attach it to your EB, you'll have to pay for Ranged. 2d6 EB drain, all ED enhancing powers at once, Ranged will set you back 50 points. 1d6 would be 25, and will chip away about 1 ED per hit. Note that this will be more effective against targets with ED from multiple sources. Grond, who has only ED (and Damage Resistance on his ED) will average a loss of about 1.75 ED (3.5/2) and about 3.5 Resistant on his ED. DefenseMan, who has Armor, ED and an ED force field, will lose points fron all three powers at once, so his ED will fall faster.

 

To stabilize that, you could have "affects one ED power at a time (+1/4), but you'd then have to consciously swap ED powers. I'd be inclined to allow this power to drain any one ED power, always selecting the one on the "outside" of the attack (so first force field, then the armored suit underneath, and finally personal ED) at no extra cost, since another +1/4 would allow two powers at once. The tradeoff? The defense must be active or you can't drain it (so you can't Drain ForceWoman's ED Force Field unless she has it activated at the time).

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

I'd say it should be only vs. Force Fields or Force Walls

[Stone]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

ok. I think I have finally figured this out. Here goes:

 

1d6 Drain ED - 10pts

ranged +1/2

delayed return rate (5 pts/min) +1/4

switchable ED +1/4

reduced END (0 END) +1/2

linked (lesser power only when greater power used at full value) -3/4

ED drained is only calculated against this characters attacks -1/2

 

total 11 pts standard effect

1d6 - 11 pts 3 pts

2d6 - 22 pts 6 pts

3d6 - 33 pts 9 pts

4d6 - 50 pts 12 pts

 

Now my question is concerning standard effect and defenses. Since it is a defense, does that mean it is only 1.5/d6? That hardly seems it's worth the effort. I might as well just buy Find Weakness and move on. Why would you half the effect it for defenses?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

There is nothing wrong with the power you have created, nothing at all. It is not unbalancing, and it doesn't matter if you could do it another way.

 

Can I suggest a sfx? Ionising radiation beam. BS pseudo scientific explanation - the beam burns, but also ionises whatever it touches, making it more conductive to energy, hence the (temporary) reduction of its ability to insulate against energy.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

ok. I think I have finally figured this out. Here goes:

 

1d6 Drain ED - 10pts

ranged +1/2

delayed return rate (5 pts/min) +1/4

switchable ED +1/4

reduced END (0 END) +1/2

linked (lesser power only when greater power used at full value) -3/4

ED drained is only calculated against this characters attacks -1/2

 

total 11 pts standard effect

1d6 - 11 pts 3 pts

2d6 - 22 pts 6 pts

3d6 - 33 pts 9 pts

4d6 - 50 pts 12 pts

 

Now my question is concerning standard effect and defenses. Since it is a defense, does that mean it is only 1.5/d6? That hardly seems it's worth the effort. I might as well just buy Find Weakness and move on. Why would you half the effect it for defenses?

 

OK. First I wouldn't bother delaying the return rate unless you are using the new improved Longian adjustment recovery rules. I don't.

 

Second, for a PC this is probably not the most effective attack, unless there are other PCs in the group with energy attacks, in which case it is also increasing the damage they do.

 

Third this IS a devastating 'agent' weapon - if you are going to get hit 10 times in a turn, by the end your ED is down 15 points. Nasty.

 

There may well be (potentially) more effective ways to ablate defenses, but I do not see that as any good reason not to use this construct. It is straightforward and quite a good way to increase damage. I probably wouldn't use standard effect either, as that automatically makes the power less effective over time.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Would you allow this or is this too cheesy?

 

1d6 Drain ED - 10pts

ranged +1/2

delayed return rate (5 pts/min) +1/4

switchable ED +1/4

reduced END (0 END) +1/2

linked (lesser power only when greater power used at full value) -3/4

ED drained is only calculated against this characters attacks -1/2

 

I don't recall the nature of the weapon. I would go with the above unless the base power it's Linked to has a limitation requiring it be used full power (which I believe Beam Effect has). If it does, "only when linked power used at full power" is meaningless, since it can only be used at full power. If you can modulate the main power, no issue.

 

Now my question is concerning standard effect and defenses. Since it is a defense' date=' does that mean it is only 1.5/d6? That hardly seems it's worth the effort. I might as well just buy Find Weakness and move on. Why would you half the effect it for defenses?[/quote']

 

Since it is a defense, the effects are halved. It's not necessarily -1 ED per one CP (you would only get 1 point or Armor, since Drain targets active points, and 1.5 CP of Force Wall is going to drain it very slowly).

 

Mind you, it's also a bit of a kludgy build given the need to drain only for purposes of your own power. You might want to take Standard Effect extra dice of your own power instead, limited by (say) only 1/2 d6 usable for each hit on the target in the past 5 minutes. This would probably be cheaper for a few extra dice damage. However, the drain has unlimited potential, and will be more useful in the long run.

 

For example, assume your Blaster does 10d6. You will either add a 1d6 Drain (11 points) or +4d6 available on a sliding scale (which we'll assume costs the same 11 points, for the sake of illustration). If your opponent is a typical Super (say 25 ED and 40 Stun), the ED drain will have limited application since, after 4 or 5 hits, the target will be knocked out anyway. Extra dice would have added damage a touch faster, so would have been superior.

 

Now, let's instead assume your character is locked out of the key area by a 30 ED Force Wall. With extra dice, he can fire forever, but he'll max out at 14d6. Even Haymakered, his odds are very poor. With the ED drain, the wal's defenses will gradually decline until (albeit after quite a while), he will get through.