Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

[MistWing]

In our games, one thing we have allowed is what we call "Double Damage Reduction". Basically, you buy DR twice and you get to apply both DRs after defences. So, if I buy DDR at 75% each, one 1/16th of the damage getting through my defenses will affect me.

 

We have had no problems with this. However, I was wondering if anyone could think of any problems we might encounter. My GM would rather not be taken by surprise too often. So far there haven't been any with this power, but it would be nice to at least know of any we haven't thought of

 

Thank

MistWing SilverTail

[ghost-angel]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

The chances of a character every being Stunned drop to virtually 0. Knocking a character out is nigh on impossible as well. Expect Characters to rarely, if ever, get Stunned or Knocked Out. If villains take this as well then expect combat to go on for a very very long time - I'd imagine everyone would get bored and go home after a few hours of high powered smack down where the end result was a few minor bruises.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

It works surprisingly well to simulate really large vehicles or buildings, however.

 

Like G-A, I would be really hesitant to let it hang on a character---

 

That scene from 'They Live!' comes to mind.......

[Mister E]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

A Character with no defences, and 15/16ths Damage Reduction, would be pretty tough. If he had only 20 STUN points, it would take a 320 STUN Attack to knock him out with one punch. On average, we are taking about a 91.5 Damage Class attack: for example, a Haymakered punch from a 153 STR Character, using a Targeted Shot to the Head Location(-8 to hit)... or just a straight up punch from a 458 STR Character.

 

If he had a CON of 10, you would need a 46+ Damage Class attack to CON-Stun the Character, on average. This is truly awesome. If you were standing under the Space Shuttle as it was launching off, you would take a total of about 42 Damage Classes of damage per Segment (8d6 Killing from heat, and 18d6 Normal from concussion)... and not be CON-Stunned.

[Markdoc]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

A Character with no defences' date=' and 15/16ths Damage Reduction, would be pretty tough. .[/quote']

 

Well yeah, but that character's also spent a fair chunk o'points on Defences as well. Is this any worse than having 3/4 DR and the same spent on PD? It's better for resisting mega-attacks - but worse against small attacks.

 

Given that DR has never been a really popular option among our players (as a GM, I love it, but then, I have as many points as I want....) it's hard for me to see this as a problem.

 

cheers, Mark

[Black Rose]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

I think it could squeak by, provided:

• it was a major element of the character: "I'm nigh-invulnerable!"
  
• you didn't have any real Defences other than the doubled Damage Reduction
  

It's got a couple holes in it, though; any attacks that do not engage the DDR are going to shred the PC good. One NND, or AVLD, or even AP or Penetrating will do this guy up nice.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

I think it could squeak by, provided:

• it was a major element of the character: "I'm nigh-invulnerable!"
  
• you didn't have any real Defences other than the doubled Damage Reduction
  

It's got a couple holes in it, though; any attacks that do not engage the DDR are going to shred the PC good. One NND, or AVLD, or even AP or Penetrating will do this guy up nice.

Damage Reduction works normally against NND and AVLD; AP or Penetrating have absolutely no effect on it. DR is not defenses, it's a damage reduction system vs a particular type of attack. DR cannot reduce Damage to less than 1 point, so with no DEF and DR you're always taking at least a point per hit.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

Damage Reduction works normally against NND and AVLD; AP or Penetrating have absolutely no effect on it. DR is not defenses' date=' it's a damage reduction system vs a particular type of attack. DR cannot reduce Damage to less than 1 point, so with no DEF and DR you're always taking at least a point per hit.[/quote']

Well, Penetrating leak-through damage is actually not affected by DR, but that damage is usually pretty small anyway. Besides, all you have to do is buy Hardened for your 1 rPD/1 rED to counter that.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

Worded badly, I meant to say DR has no effect on AP or Penetrating, meaning they act normally.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

I think it could squeak by, provided:

• it was a major element of the character: "I'm nigh-invulnerable!"
  
• you didn't have any real Defences other than the doubled Damage Reduction
  

It's got a couple holes in it, though; any attacks that do not engage the DDR are going to shred the PC good. One NND, or AVLD, or even AP or Penetrating will do this guy up nice.

Um actually, if you check the book, Damage Reduction applies to all of those except the minimum damage of Penetrating. It also applies to Drains vs BODY or STUN.

 

Personally, I dont have any problem with it per se -- the cost is a sufficient deterrant for it.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

Um actually, if you check the book, Damage Reduction applies to all of those except the minimum damage of Penetrating. It also applies to Drains vs BODY or STUN.

 

Personally, I dont have any problem with it per se -- the cost is a sufficient deterrant for it.

Body and Stun Drains? You sure about that one? That surprises me. I'll have to go over that again. :sigh:

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

Body and Stun Drains? You sure about that one? That surprises me. I'll have to go over that again. :sigh:

If memory serves.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

Only Resistant Damage Reduction works against BOD and STUN Drains.

 

Personally, I would have to see the characters it was applied to and the number of points in the campign. At the 350 pt level, getting Double DR for Physical and Energy attacks is a considerable chunk of the characters points, unless you have a large number of lims on it. However, for high point campaigns with corespondingly higher DC limits, this will eventually be a cheaper purchase then more convential defenses.

 

For example, lets say you have 240 pts to spend on your standard defenses.

 

For that number of points you can have Armor 80/80. An average roll on a 40d6 attack does 140 Stun, which after defenses is still more then enough to stun any character with a CON of less the 60.

 

By contrast, spending the same number of points, the character with Double 75% Resistant DR will take 8.75 stun, which isn't enough to STUN anyone unles they actully sold back CON.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

Only Resistant Damage Reduction works against BOD and STUN Drains.

Thanks for looking that up. IME, characters that have points to spend on DR take Resistant DR

[Kirby]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

I personally wouldn't allow it. Case in point is in a game I'm running where Ripper has shown up. He already has 40 defenses (20 res) with 75% DR. If he were hit with an attack that did 52 STUN, 12 would get by defenses and 3 past the DR. With 75% DR again, only 1 would get by (and the guy has 80 STUN to begin with).

 

Now, for extremes, let's say PC teamwork does 140 STUN to Ripper. Well, 40 are stopped by defenses, leaving 100, of which, 75 are stopped by DR, so Ripper takes 25 STUN. If we reduce that by 75% again, only 7 will get through. So, by the first extreme example, it would take 4 coordinated hits to take him, while the second one it would take 12. That's a long, long combat time.

 

In the current campaign I'm running (on HeroCentral), Ripper has been hit three times (one a killing attack that his armor didn't protect him from) and is only down 13 STUN, though 5 BODY.

 

If it works for you and your GM, then more fun to you. But don't be plannin' ta join arr game, matey.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

Only Resistant Damage Reduction works against BOD and STUN Drains.

Wait a minute. I am having some difficulty swallowing that. So is it Physical Damage Reduction that works against Drains, Energy Damage Reduction, the minimum of the two bought for the character, the maximum, or what? Is it both (I doubt it), in which case I guess we may already have an example of, "Double DR?"

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

I personally wouldn't allow it. Case in point is in a game I'm running where Ripper has shown up. He already has 40 defenses (20 res) with 75% DR. If he were hit with an attack that did 52 STUN' date=' 12 would get by defenses and 3 past the DR. With 75% DR again, only 1 would get by (and the guy has 80 STUN to begin with).[/quote']

 

He would have been better off buying +60 PD with that extra 60 points and taking no damage whatsoever from that 52 STUN (or a 75 STUN, or 95 STUN) hit, wouldn't he? Your 140 point hit now does 140 - 100 = 40 /4 = 10, only 3 more than your alternative extreme example.

 

Damage reduction effectively makes your Defenses much less valuable. If Ripper had 20 PD, that 52 STUN hit would do 8 instead of 3, so he only gets 5 points worth of benefits. Buy +10 REC instead and get any lost STUN back that much faster. Sell off the same amount of ED and make it +20 REC.

[Kirby]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

Damage reduction effectively makes your Defenses much less valuable. If Ripper had 20 PD' date=' that 52 STUN hit would do 8 instead of 3, so he only gets 5 points worth of benefits.[/quote']

But Ripper has 40 defenses, so with his DR as-is, whether you do 41-44 STUN, he takes only 1 point. If you give him 75% DR twice, then whether you do 41-48, he still only takes 1 point.

 

Actually, let me see. If I use a calculator, 1/4 of 12 = 3, which is what 75% DR would be after 40 def. If I use 75% DR again, he'd only take 1. Hmm, that's a 12 point benefit. (How did I do my math wrong earlier?) So let's take a 56 pt damage attack. 40 is stopped by defenses leaving 16. After 75 DR, there's only 4. After an additional 75, that's only 1. So actually, it's a 15 point benefit. Hmm.

 

Buy +10 REC instead and get any lost STUN back that much faster. Sell off the same amount of ED and make it +20 REC.

Well, now you're looking at things other than methods of reducing damage. Besides, Ripper already has 25 REC. And with a 35 CON, he's not getting stunned any time soon.

 

Like I said earlier, if you and your GM like it, have at it; it's not something I would personally allow. Your GM May Vary.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

Wait a minute. I am having some difficulty swallowing that. So is it Physical Damage Reduction that works against Drains, Energy Damage Reduction, the minimum of the two bought for the character, the maximum, or what? Is it both (I doubt it), in which case I guess we may already have an example of, "Double DR?"

 

It's not both. Which one you use is based on SFX of the Drain/Supress.

[Black Rose]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

Damage Reduction works normally against NND and AVLD; AP or Penetrating have absolutely no effect on it. DR is not defenses' date=' it's a damage reduction system vs a particular type of attack. DR cannot reduce Damage to less than 1 point, so with no DEF and DR you're always taking at least a point per hit.[/quote']

IDHMBIFOM, but are you saying that, regardless of whether or not the PC has the appropriate defence, NND attacks are Reduced? I could see this for AVLD attacks if the Damage Reduction were tuned to a specific SFX, but it works across the board, no matter what?

 

That seems... somehow wrong. Especially the NND factor.

[Markdoc]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

Actually' date=' let me see. If I use a calculator, 1/4 of 12 = 3, which is what 75% DR would be after 40 def. If I use 75% DR again, he'd only take 1. Hmm, that's a 12 point benefit. (How did I do my math wrong earlier?) So let's take a 56 pt damage attack. 40 is stopped by defenses leaving 16. After 75 DR, there's only 4. After an additional 75, that's only 1. So actually, it's a 15 point benefit. Hmm.[/quote']

 

You're kind of making the opposition's point here - the benefit of buying DR twice is a tiny fraction of the cost of actually buying DR twice - until you get to megahumoungous attacks. By your own examples, on attacks of up to 44 STUN, he saves at most, a whole 2 points of STUN. If we're dealing with 56 points of stun he saves a whole 3. For this, he paid 40 points - 60 if it's resistant.

 

Frankly, Ripper would be far better off with 75% DR, and a few extra points on DEF - then spend the extra points he saved, on say another 4 of points of SPD.

 

cheers, Mark

[ghost-angel]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

IDHMBIFOM, but are you saying that, regardless of whether or not the PC has the appropriate defence, NND attacks are Reduced? I could see this for AVLD attacks if the Damage Reduction were tuned to a specific SFX, but it works across the board, no matter what?

 

That seems... somehow wrong. Especially the NND factor.

5ER, pg144. Last Line:

 

"A character may apply his Damage Reduction to the damage caused by an NND or AVLD even if he lacks the specified defenses for the attack"

 

That says to me: Yep, you can apply DR to any attack, whether or not you get DEF before the DR is dependant on whether or not you have the right DEF to begin with. I would state, if I were the GM, that which DR you need is dependant on the SFX of the attack being dealt, on a case by case basis.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

................DR cannot reduce Damage to less than 1 point' date=' so with no DEF and DR you're always taking at least a point per hit.[/quote']

 

I looked and could not see this rule. It does say that fractional damage rounds in favour of the character with DR (as usual), but I couldn't see a 1 point minimum. I do agree the damage from all attacks (except mimimum fro penetrating) is reduced including NND attacks.

 

Personally I think this construct gives too much utility for cost in any campaign where you had enough points to actually spend that many points on defence. The GM might want to use it for a vilain immune to energy attacks, say, but frankly the GM can do anything anyway so the construct is not really needed.

[Kirby]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

Frankly' date=' Ripper would be far better off with 75% DR, and a few extra points on DEF - then spend the extra points he saved, on say another 4 of points of SPD. [/quote']

Perhaps, but this is the same argument for anyone who buys DR: "Well, you'd be better off spending the points elsewhere."

 

But let's look at it differently. Suppose the campaign's max on defenses is 40, which Ripper has. Now, he buys 75% DR + 75% DR. He's in effect buying higher defenses. But what about NNDs? If he's hit with a 6d6 NND, and for fun's sake, the PC rolls a "3" and house rules say a "3" is critical and does max damage, so it does 36 points, which would be enough to Stun Ripper. However, he's got 75 DR, which drops the stun to 9. Ouch. That's 27 points of Power Defense he's 'purchased' with that same DR. Now; however, he has an additional 75 DR, so that 9 drops to 2 (or 3, depending on how the GM rounds it). So he's effectively turned 60 Active Points down to 5. And what happens if it was an NND that did body? In the same example, it would have done 12 Body, DR reduced to 3, DR2 reduced to 1. Now, 90 AP of attack has again been reduced, in effect to a 1 pip NND, Does Body (6 AP) or 1/2 d6 NND, Does Body (9 AP). That's kinda cruel and munchkiny, in my opinion.

 

And as a reminder, the title of the thread begins with "Opinion." If you like it use it, if you don't, don't. But could people please stop trying to debate my opinion? It's like telling me I shouldn't like Chinese food because Pizza is a better bargain. Screwy, ain't it?

[Markdoc]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

And as a reminder' date=' the title of the thread begins with "Opinion." If you like it use it, if you don't, don't. But could people please stop trying to debate my opinion? It's like telling me I shouldn't like Chinese food because Pizza is a better bargain. Screwy, ain't it?[/quote']

 

But pizza IS a better bargain!

 

Anyway, you are of course entitled to your opinion - I was merely pointing out that there's no real reason to fear this construct, since it's grossly points inefficient. When I first saw it, my reaction was "no way!" - then when I thought about it realised that actually it's an OK construct.

 

And amusingly, your demonstration of why you wouldn't allow it, was the clinching argument as to why I *would*.

 

Same facts, different conclusions.

 

Opinions are funny like that

 

cheers, Mark