[Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

The Normal Damage version does, on average, 1.75 extra stun, but the Killing version does an extra .5 body. Seems pretty fair to me.

 

Except the killing version works on every character ever published/posted, and the Normal doesn’t. So who’s getting screwed?

 

Or put another way: Is it acceptable to claim ‘special defense with a specific advantage’ as the defense against an AVLD?

 

Scratch all that, hang on.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

Look, it only matters for these reasons.

 

-- AVLD attack Powers may do either Normal Damage or Killing Damage.

-- Limited Defenses (Power, Mental, etc.) can be purchased as Resistant.

-- Killing Damage AVLD attacks bypass non-resistant Limited Defenses, just like any other Power.

-- Normal Damage AVLD attacks are subject to both non-Resistant Defenses and Resistant Defenses, just like any other Power.

 

So basically, it's business as usual. The only thing about non-Resistant Limited Defenses is that they won't block Killing Damage AVLD attack Powers.

 

And about the Limited Defense (Power, Mental, etc,) being useless if AVLD Killing Attacks can bypass it: nah. And if so, the person with the Killing Damage AVLD Power would be getting screwed because the Killing Damage aspect he bought for his Power would ALSO be useless. (Note: People say Killing and Normal attacks do about the same damage. Even so, Killing costs a lot more than Normal.)

 

Conclusion: To defend against Killing Damage AVLD attacks, you need Resistant Limited Defense of the appropriate type. Simple. logical. Sexxxxy.

 

My supreme logic is invincible. If you disagree, you are wrong.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

i agree, i've always found resistant Power Defense to be Sexxxxy

[caris]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

(Note: People say Killing and Normal attacks do about the same damage. Even so' date=' Killing costs a lot more than Normal.)[/quote']

 

I still say that Killing and Normal do about the same amount of damage for the same cost. Killing will average more Body but less Stun than Normal over time, but they roughly balance out. On the other hand, Killing still tends to have a somewhat higher efficiency on human targets due to the non-resistant Def not applying to the Body/humans not having any inherent Resistant Def factor.

 

I remember back when a PC tried to do the RKA based on ECV, before the 4th Ed Ultimate Mentalist came out. I ruled that if he wanted it applied to MD instead of ED/PD, than MD was effectively resistant to it. I felt that to open the rMD/rPD/rFD can of worms was to big of a hassle for most campaigns I would run, and I have not seen anything that has changed my mind since.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

Wouldn't an NND (vs. Power Defense) KA with the Does BODY advantage also require resistant Power Defense to resist?

 

I would rule if the defense is Power Defense, it can be any power defense, resistant or not. NND means the usual defense is removed, and this new defense blocks it entirely.

 

I would also rule resistant power defense is not a "reasonably common power".

[Tech]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

I would rule if the defense is Power Defense, it can be any power defense, resistant or not. NND means the usual defense is removed, and this new defense blocks it entirely.

 

I would also rule resistant power defense is not a "reasonably common power".

 

To which I agree. Although I think this thread answers a question I've somewhat had for awhile in this matter, it won't matter because it won't happen in my campaign since to me it seems too munchkinist for bloodthirsty players. My opinion, my rules, my campaign.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

To which I agree. Although I think this thread answers a question I've somewhat had for awhile in this matter' date=' it won't matter because it won't happen in my campaign since to me it seems too munchkinist for bloodthirsty players. My opinion, my rules, my campaign.[/quote']

 

Players in my game don't try to build unbalanced constructs first because they are good players, and second because they know if they can have it, so can the NPC's (and they can get xp whenever required to pay for it...)

[Kristopher]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

For those who might have been wondering, I actually have posted at least one character with Resistant Mental Def and Power Def, specifically to counter the possibility of someone using a VPP to build a "Does BODY" Ego Blast or a "Does BODY" AVLD(Power Def) Attack.

[Onyxclaw]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

I certainly don't have a problem with allowing resistant defenses like mental defense. Infact honestly it makes sense. Some mental powers are supposed to kill those they are used on by overloading thier brains, or even ripping them apart metaphisically. Normal training to avoid control wont do that, just like normal physical physique doesn't defend against a knife.

 

If you want resistant to those kinds of mental powers, then I think it's reasonable to make you buy resistant mental defense, just as a person mut by armor or resistant PD to avoid damage from claws or teeth.

 

Besides, if you are buying mental defense, you should think about resistance if necesarry. If you don't buy it, then you don't have it.

 

If you haven't bought any mental defense (because it's not in character or makes no sense) then you're SOL. I really don't see how it's any different from buying normal resistand PD/ED or armour for that matter. Other than the fact most people don't bother to buy it.

 

I have built a coupel characters with resistant flash defense for sight and hearing due to a few other characters with piercing flash attacks (i.e. bright enough to get you even through your sunglasses) because they have ways to counteract such things through biological means. It's not unreasonable.

 

I have also built AVLD mindtearing attacks for my NPCs

 

but shhhh don't tell them else they may get wise and buy defenses they can't justify having...or worse make a character who can justif having them and spoi my fun! (j/k)

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

For those of you arguing that the rules for Powers magically (i.e., for no discernable technical reason) change when you select NND or AVLD for your Power: that's fine. But that's your own rationalization. The pure rules, taken as they are, the F.A.Q., Steve himself, and even my own pithy explanation still stand strong. They are the default way to address the situation. Just because it makes you uncomfortable to do it the way the rules and the FAQ suggest, or the fact that you want to do it differently in your game, does not mean the Normal Damage/ Killing Damage, Resistant Limited Defense/ Normal Limited Defense dynamic isn't valid.

 

Sunshine and kittens!

[Zed-F]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

The FAQ way may be the default way according to the rules. That does not make it the well-balanced way for most campaigns. Most campaigns don't anticipate deadly attacks which can only be defended against by very obscure defenses, and thus shouldn't allow them.

 

Or, as Hugh mentioned -- as ye sow, so shall ye reap. If you want to build a character with a RKA BOECV Does Body to require resistant MD to defend against it, then (a) is this really in genre for the game setting and ( if so, expect to see enemies with RKA NND Does Body vs. Immortality and the like. And there are probably more of them than there are of you.

[Kristopher]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

As I said a while ago on this forum, just because you can build an BoECV Does BODY RKA doesn't mean you should build a character that has one.

[Fox1]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

The FAQ way may be the default way according to the rules. That does not make it the well-balanced way for most campaigns. Most campaigns don't anticipate deadly attacks which can only be defended against by very obscure defenses, and thus shouldn't allow them.

 

I'll have to agree here.

 

The rush of "now I should buy resistance for defenses..." was one of the first pointless point soaks I noticed in 5th edition. It's an outgrowth of Long's love affair with 'cute' power builds.

 

For myself, I have no need for it. So I don't use it.

 

I'd suggest the same course for anyone troubled by it.

[ghost-angel]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

As I said a while ago on this forum' date=' just because you [i']can[/i] build an BoECV Does BODY RKA doesn't mean you should build a character that has one.

 

Spot on.

 

Just because it's possible with the rules doesn't mean it has to come into play in any way shape or form.

 

Sure, some campaigns may go down the "Need resistance everything defences" and those are rare rare games - but it's nice to know that the system I'm playing takes that into account from the outset.

[ghost-angel]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

I’m afraid I disagree. When dealing with odd rules interactions' date=' particularly when looking at powers that bypass standard defenses, it’s vital to keep in mind how other characters in the campaign are built.[/quote']

 

That's nice that you disagree and then illsutrate my point.

 

Yes - it's obscure. Rare to the point of non-existance. But it's POSSIBLE. So when you do come across the one campaign in existance that uses it there's already something in place ... gee how nice to not have to come up with a House Rule.

 

If you want a system that only ever outlines what you should be doing go play D20 ... those rules seem to lead one by the nose enough for you.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

As I said a while ago on this forum' date=' just because you [i']can[/i] build an BoECV Does BODY RKA doesn't mean you should build a character that has one.

 

THAT's the kicker. Treat this combo the same way as you would for any other extremely unbalanced, "unbeatable" Power: it's not allowed.

 

But paying to make an AVLD attack do Killing Damage, then pretending non-Resistant Defenses protect against it, is silly. SImply don't allow AVLD attacks to do Killing BODY damage, because it's unbalancing.

[Fox1]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

But paying to make an AVLD attack do Killing Damage' date=' then pretending non-Resistant Defenses protect against it, is silly. [/quote']

 

By no means is this the case.

 

Before 5th edition one could have selected this build (RKA AVLD, does body) not because the intent was to bypass non-resistant defense, but because the intent was to use the hit location chart for stun multiples or to increase the deviation of damage results.

 

Those holding to the same reasoning would do well to ignore 5th edition's ruling on the matter.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

By no means is this the case.

 

Before 5th edition one could have selected this build (RKA AVLD, does body) not because the intent was to bypass non-resistant defense, but because the intent was to use the hit location chart for stun multiples or to increase the deviation of damage results.

 

Those holding to the same reasoning would do well to ignore 5th edition's ruling on the matter.

 

Then the KA should cost less, since part of its cost is its ability to bypass non-Resistant Defenses. I'd rather buy an extra die or two of Normal Damage than Killing Damage if that's the way it works.

 

And yes, by many means is this the case. By the FREd rules, the FAQ, Steve Long, and pure logic, it's the case. It's also logical to alter it because it's unbalanced, but it's NOT logical to claim that that's the default way to do things. It's not the default. Not in FREd, anyway.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

Then the KA should cost less, since part of its cost is its ability to bypass non-Resistant Defenses. I'd rather buy an extra die or two of Normal Damage than Killing Damage if that's the way it works.

 

And yes, by many means is this the case. By the FREd rules, the FAQ, Steve Long, and pure logic, it's the case. It's also logical to alter it because it's unbalanced, but it's NOT logical to claim that that's the default way to do things. It's not the default. Not in FREd, anyway.

 

What if the GM simply set the default to be "the first point of Mental Defense, Power Defense and/or Flash Defense a character purchases automatically gets to be Resistant, but does not defend against BOD from a killing attack"?

 

Now, all characters get to apply their full non-resistant defenses against Stun, but if you want to buy an AVLD Killing Attack that does BOD, it will do BOD unless the character has paid for resistant defenses.

 

[Alternatively, we could all buy the first point of any exotic defense Resistant - it's only one point!]

[Fox1]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

Then the KA should cost less' date=' since part of its cost is its ability to bypass non-Resistant Defenses. .[/quote']

 

By that logic, KA should cost more than EB. They don't because there is give and take between highly lethal and semi-lethal attacks- i.e. a 0 Limit.

 

...it's NOT logical to claim that that's the default way to do things. It's not the default. Not in FREd, anyway.

 

This I would agree with. A house rule is required whenever overriding poorly reasoned but official rules.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

By that logic' date=' KA should cost more than EB. They don't because there is give and take between highly lethal and semi-lethal attacks- i.e. a 0 Limit.[/quote']

 

But... yes, since KA is losing one of its features in your way of doing things, it's still losing out. They may cost the same (KA and EB), but PART of that cost for KA is the fact that it bypasses non-resistant defenses. No question about it. KAs are weaker if they lose their ability to bypass non-resistant Defenses -- period. Would you build a power: RKA 2d6, 0 (Is Affected By Non-Resistant Defenses)? No. You wouldn't.

 

This I would agree with. A house rule is required whenever overriding poorly reasoned but official rules.

 

It's not poorly designed. There are countless Power combinations that are unbalanced and crazy. This AVLD KA thing is the LEAST of them, and it works in the terms of the game mechanics. Only when you look at game balance issues does it become unreasonable, AND EVEN THEN, in a sci-fi campaign, I might have a special AVLD KA weapon, and a special Resistant Power Defense armor, where, for example, only the special armor protects against the superweapon.

 

Meh.

[buzz]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

I’m explaining why I think it’s silly.

To ring things back on track, I didn't ask whether anyone felt that such a construct was "silly." I just wanted to know what it was for. Now I know.

 

I don't really understand why such an obscure issue should inspire such vitriol. So it's a very rare occurence; who cares?

[Fox1]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

I don't really understand why such an obscure issue should inspire such vitriol. So it's a very rare occurence; who cares?

 

A number of people took the new 'point sinks' in 5th edition with less than high spirits. You're seeing a little of that in this thread.

[Fox1]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

But... yes' date=' since KA is losing one of its features in your way of doing things, it's still losing out.[/quote']

 

And it's gaining as well. If it's a 0 limit between RKA and EB, it's a 0 limit elsewhere and for the same reasons.

 

It's not poorly designed. There are countless Power combinations that are unbalanced and crazy.

 

From an ideal PoV, if it's unbalanced and crazy- its poorly designed.

 

The question then becomes, 1) does it matter, 2) can it be fixed.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: [Rules-fu] Resistant Power Defense

 

And it's gaining as well. If it's a 0 limit between RKA and EB' date=' it's a 0 limit elsewhere and for the same reasons.[/quote']

 

Not really. All I see happening is KA losing their ability to bypass non-Resistant Defenses. All this zero-limit double-talk doesn't change that fact. Did you even read my post?

 

Would you build a power like this: RKA 2d6' date=' 0 (Affected By Non-Resistant Defenses)? No. You wouldn't.[/quote']

 

It's a significant disadvantage, i.e.: KAs do less damage.