Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

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.

 

The issue that comes up in our games is what SFX the NND has, even applied to defense mechanics. Gas, for example, seems neither a "PD" nor an "ED" attack, so logically, DR won't reduce the damage. A taser, OTOH, looks like energy to me.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

The issue that comes up in our games is what SFX the NND has' date=' even applied to defense mechanics. Gas, for example, seems neither a "PD" nor an "ED" attack, so logically, DR won't reduce the damage. A taser, OTOH, looks like energy to me.[/quote']

Seems like a perfetly reasonable way to go to me. The book doesn't mention which DR affects which NND attacks - apparently leaving them up to the GM - but it does state it will work against them. My test would be if you were to build this w/o NND what kind of damage would you be doing?

 

With a gas attack you're physically attacking the lungs, in which case the SFX of DR become more important: is it DR due to Size? then no, DR does nothing for you. Is it DR due to I Heal So Fast Wounds Don't Even Appear? then I might let that affect the gass attack. Everyone will have a different thought on this though.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

Seems like a perfetly reasonable way to go to me. The book doesn't mention which DR affects which NND attacks - apparently leaving them up to the GM - but it does state it will work against them. My test would be if you were to build this w/o NND what kind of damage would you be doing?

 

With a gas attack you're physically attacking the lungs, in which case the SFX of DR become more important: is it DR due to Size? then no, DR does nothing for you. Is it DR due to I Heal So Fast Wounds Don't Even Appear? then I might let that affect the gass attack. Everyone will have a different thought on this though.

But NND attacks that affect Stun and Body are typically HAs, EBs, HKAs, or RKAs that should probably be defined as physical or energy damage anyway. NND and AVLD are just an Advantages that apply to already defeined Attack Powers.

 

Drains and Suppresses, on the other hand, don't have the physical vs. energy distinction to begin with. That's where I am stuck. I see no way of easily distinguising a Drain that should work against Physical Damage Reduction vs. one that should work against Energy Damage Reduction. There are lots of cases which really are going to be tough to decide, and I don't think it is reasonable to require the purchaser of a Drain to define whether it is physical or energy drain just for the contingency that it gets applied to Damage Reduction. It's Drain, for gosh sakes!

[Kirby]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

It depends on SFX. If it's an injection, then it's physical. If it's mystical in nature, then it's energy. Other cases would depend on the N/PC's power descriptions/sfx. However, that's more of a "Damage Reduction" in general than Double Dmg Red.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

What Kirby said, this is firmly in the region of "GMs dramatic sense"

 

I never said it was easy to apply, just that the rules allowed for it.

[zornwil]

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' date=' 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?"[/quote']

I think this is a mistaken rule and I don't allow it - unless the Drain were versus PD or ED of course and the DR was based respectively on PD or ED.

[zornwil]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

The issue that comes up in our games is what SFX the NND has' date=' even applied to defense mechanics. Gas, for example, seems neither a "PD" nor an "ED" attack, so logically, DR won't reduce the damage. A taser, OTOH, looks like energy to me.[/quote']

I think of NND gas as ED-based, typically, since I see it as versus CON essentially (even if NND) and CON is the basis of ED. Just my opinion.

[Kirby]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

Thinking back (and thanks to the big Z for reviving this thread; I didn't want to have to actually search for it), a bigger problem with Double Damage Reduction would not be solely so much those with high end defenses (making long fights last nigh-eternity), but with lower defenses as well.

 

If Johnny has 10/10 Def/rDef and has 75% Dmg Red Res twice, let's look at an attack that does 4d6 RKA. Say the attacker rolls a 3 and house rule says it does max damage (or by rolling, the eventual "all 6's!" shows up) and the PC has been dealt 24 Body and 120 Stun. After Defenses, this is 14 Body, 110 Stun. After the first round of DRR, this is dropped to 4 Body and 28 Stun. But wait, that's not all: After the second round of DRR, the PC only takes 1 Body and 7 Stun. Even a 10 CON wouldn't be stunned by that.

 

Now, let's see if Dr. Destroyer's "Destroyer Beam" of 10d6 RKA, if it averaged and if it maxed out as well, what it would do.

 

The Attack:

Standard: 30 Body, 60 Stun

About Average: 35 Body, 105 Stun

Max: 60 Body, 300 Stun

 

After Defenses:

Standard: 20 Body, 50 Stun

About Average: 25 Body, 95 Stun

Max: 50 Body, 290 Stun

 

DDR Round 1:

Standard: 5 Body, 13 Stun

About Average: 7 Body, 24 Stun

Max: 13 Body, 73 Stun

 

DDR Round 2:

Standard: 2 Body, 4 Stun

About Average: 2 Body, 6 Stun

Max: 4 Body, 19 Stun

 

So, unless the attack does above average, it's nothing a little Regeneration can't fix and chances of being CON Stunned are next to none. You've just reduced Dr. Destroyer's most threatening attack to being unimpressive. Granted, the cost of 2 DDR is high, but the benefits are enormous, when you start including costs for NNDs, AVLDs that are being reduced, along with Body & Stun Drains and the fact that Armor Piercing attacks that get by your minimal defenses are reduced, making the points the attacker spent mostly wasted against this character.

 

Okay, now that I've rambled on, I'll probably stop fussing about this since it isn't in my game.

[massey]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

Yeah, but he's spent 120 points in addition to his 10/10 Defense, and he can be whittled to death by a team of Viper agents.

[CBikle]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

When Damage Reduction was introduced waaay back in Champions III, it was really just intended as a means of keeping super-nasty NPCs from getting one-punched in the first act, which is why I think NNDs (and later AVLDs) were included in the first place.

[Lemurion]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

When Damage Reduction was introduced waaay back in Champions III' date=' it was really just intended as a means of keeping super-nasty NPCs from getting one-punched in the first act, which is why I think NNDs (and later AVLDs) were included in the first place.[/quote']

 

That's how I remember it, though I didn't play "Hero" much before Champions III came out. To me the DDR only really makes sense for a plot device, and even then I would only use it as a way to indicate to the PCs that they need to try something else because conventional attacks don't work. I certainly wouldn't allow it on a PC or use it on a normal villain.

[CBikle]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

That's how I remember it' date=' though I didn't play "Hero" much before Champions III came out. To me the DDR only really makes sense for a plot device, and even then I would only use it as a way to indicate to the PCs that they need to try something else because conventional attacks don't work. I certainly wouldn't allow it on a PC or use it on a normal villain.[/quote']

 

Actually, I think the idea of stacked-levels of Damage Reduction is insane.

 

Really, the only ones who could afford it anyway would be GM-inspired NPCs.

 

As a player, I'm not a big fan of plot-devices camoflauged as "new rules".

 

Probably cheaper to buy lots of dice of luck to represent the villains trickiness, durability or whatever. That's the "legal" way for GMs to

have the villain survive nasty punch and/or get away. Don't overdo it though.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

What I don't like is the idea of a Physical or Energy based Damage Reduction reducing the damage from Drains and Suppress and other Adjustment powers. In my games I allow the purchase of a specific kind of Damage Reduction that works against most forms of Adjustment Powers and the various SFX that go with them. Damage Reduction breaks down in this fashion:

 

Physical

Energy

Mental

Power

 

The "Power" type covers most abilities that are meant to affect a character spiritually or mystically.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

If Johnny has 10/10 Def/rDef and has 75% Dmg Red Res twice' date=' let's look at an attack that does 4d6 RKA.[/quote']

 

Consider that Johnny could instead have had 50/50 rDef and 75% damage reduction, or 90/90 rDef (or greater defenses, not all resistant) for the same point cost. Now let's have a look at how those attacks stack up.

 

the PC has been dealt 24 Body and 120 Stun. After Defenses' date=' this is 14 Body, 110 Stun. After the first round of DRR, this is dropped to 4 Body and 28 Stun. But wait, that's not all: After the second round of DRR, the PC only takes 1 Body and 7 Stun. Even a 10 CON wouldn't be stunned by that. [/quote']

 

With 50 def and 75%, he gets no BOD and 70 STUN/4 = 17 Stun. More Stun, but he still won't be Stunned. And the 4d6 KA needs a 5x Stun Multiple to get more than 1 STUN through on an average BOD hit.

 

With 90 DEF, he takes 30 Stun - could even be Stunned. Of course, now it's unlikely that the 4d6 KA ever rolls enough to inflict any Stun. Only a 5x Multiple stands any real chance of inflicting STUN at all, and even then a high BOD roll is required.

 

Now' date=' let's see if Dr. Destroyer's "Destroyer Beam" of 10d6 RKA, if it averaged and if it maxed out as well, what it would do.[/quote']

 

Let's also remember a MAXed 10d6 KA is only a bit less likely than a MAXed 12d6 normal attack - ever seen that rolled?

 

The Attack:

Standard: 30 Body, 60 Stun

About Average: 35 Body, 105 Stun

Max: 60 Body, 300 Stun

 

After Defenses:

Standard: 20 Body, 50 Stun

About Average: 25 Body, 95 Stun

Max: 50 Body, 290 Stun

 

DDR Round 1:

Standard: 5 Body, 13 Stun

About Average: 7 Body, 24 Stun

Max: 13 Body, 73 Stun

 

DDR Round 2:

Standard: 2 Body, 4 Stun

About Average: 2 Body, 6 Stun

Max: 4 Body, 19 Stun

 

50 DEF and 3/4 Red'n:

Standard: 0 Body, 2 Stun

About Average: 0 Body, 14 Stun

Max: 10 Body, 62 Stun

 

90 DEF and no Red'n:

Standard: 0 Body, 0 Stun

About Average: 0 Body, 15 Stun

Max: 0 Body, 210 Stun

 

So' date=' unless the attack does above average, it's nothing a little Regeneration can't fix and chances of being CON Stunned are next to none. You've just reduced Dr. Destroyer's most threatening attack to being unimpressive.[/quote']

 

As noted above, the attack's pretty futile if the character spent the same points on normal defenses, rather than damage reduction. In fact, there's no point having more than 60 rDEF - who will have a bigger KA than Dr D? The character may as well start with 10 rDEF, buy another 50 resistant (75 points) and 45 normal, for a total of 105 Defense, 60 Resistant. He now ignores virtually all 60 AP attacks (at least DDR was nickled and dimed) and ignored Destroyer's average 10d6 KA as well.

 

The problem isn't double damage reduction. It's the points spent on defenses. Assuming the character has equal physical and energy defenses, he has spent somewhere around 250 points just buffing up PD and ED. That leaves 100 for stats, attacks and movement (and any esoteric defenses). That's just not a balanced character.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

When Damage Reduction was introduced waaay back in Champions III' date=' it was really just intended as a means of keeping super-nasty NPCs from getting one-punched in the first act, which is why I think NNDs (and later AVLDs) were included in the first place.[/quote']

 

To me, it was an option for characters who were quite hard to hurt, but not remotely bulletproof - an option to ordinary defenses.

 

Damage reduction is really only cost-effective if the character is struck by a very heavy attack. Consider the option of having either 10/10 rDEF and 50% Res Reduction (45 points invested in each defense) or 30rDEF (also 45 points). Call them A and B.

 

A typical 12d6 EB will do 42 Stun. A takes [42-10=32/2=] 16 Stun. B takes 42-30 = 12 Stun.

 

A typical 16d6 EB will inflict 56 Stun. A takes [56 -10 = 46/2 =] 23. B takes 56 - 30 = 26. At 15d6, A takes 21.25 and B takes 22.5, so the breakpoint is between 15 and 16 DC.

 

A typical 10d6 EB will inflict 35, of which A takes 12.5, and B takes 5.

 

In a typical Champions game, which character is getting more benefit, in a typical combat, from his points? And this is before fine tuning B to reduce resistant defenses and enhance normal defenses (he could have 35/20r for the same cost, moving the breakpoint even higher).

[Kirby]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

What I don't like is the idea of a Physical or Energy based Damage Reduction reducing the damage from Drains and Suppress and other Adjustment powers.

Well, to be clear, FREd (p. 95) states that Damage Reduction only applies to normal Stun and Body, while Damage Reduction Resistant applies to normal and resistant Stun and Body, along with AVLD, NND, Drain STUN and Drain Body, but specifically states "but not other types of Drain...." Thus, a Drain DEX or Drain EGO does not apply. Suppress isn't affected at all. (I do not know if 5ER added any other catagories.)

[Kirby]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

Let's also remember a MAXed 10d6 KA is only a bit less likely than a MAXed 12d6 normal attack - ever seen that rolled?

Actually, Maxing a 10d6 KA is more likely than a 12d6 EB, considering you have two less dice to roll standard damage (one less if it's not an automatic 5x Stun multiplier). As for seeing it? Yes, I have; however, it falls in under the "house rules" that I mentioned previously. I have seen max damage rolled on a 4d6 Killing Attack that targeted the head, making the Stun die roll unnecessary.

 

As noted above' date=' the attack's pretty futile if the character spent the same points on normal defenses, rather than damage reduction. In fact, there's no point having more than 60 rDEF - who will have a bigger KA than Dr D?[/quote']

But that depends on whether there's any campaign limit or not. If there is, this why the DDR would begin to be purchased. I already pointed out having 40 Def with Ripper (who ended up taking from the PCs 14 and 11 Stun once each, the rest of the attacks dealt single digit Stun), and his 80 Stun, the fight lasted quite a bit (into the third turn) even with 5 PCs attacking him. Ripper did more Stun to himself when he went into negative END and still attacked (it was phase 12, so he then received PS-12 Rec of 25).

 

As for who else would have that attack, Takofanes has it and could even produce a 7d6-1 KA with Armor Piercing, which reduced the effectiveness of non-hardened Armor, but doesn't reduce the effectiveness of DR, much less DDR.

 

Another benefit of the DDR that keeps getting avoided is versus NNDs and AVLDs, which doesn't apply to someone with Armor.

 

The problem isn't double damage reduction. It's the points spent on defenses.

Yes, but that's another issue. It's the same issue of Damage Reduction vs conventional defenses; however, for campaigns with limits (and most have them), if a brick maxes his defenses and then starts purchasing DR and DDR, it'll be a headache bringing him down. Also, some GMs put defensive limits by character type as well. For example, a Martial Artist may only be allowed 15PD/10rpd; if he is allowed the DDR; he's in effect gone past the campaign designation in a munchkiny way.

 

As has been stated before, the DR (and definitely DDR) seems to be for mega villains and giant monsters, which I think is appropriate; I do not believe this high level should be for PCs. But, that's my opinion; do what you will in your own campaign.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

Actually' date=' Maxing a 10d6 KA is [b']more[/b] likely than a 12d6 EB, considering you have two less dice to roll standard damage (one less if it's not an automatic 5x Stun multiplier). As for seeing it? Yes, I have; however, it falls in under the "house rules" that I mentioned previously. I have seen max damage rolled on a 4d6 Killing Attack that targeted the head, making the Stun die roll unnecessary.

 

I don't doubt the 4d6 KA. I've seen these max out with a STun miltiple die. As dice go higher, odds go way down. For interest, the odds of all dice coming up 6's (and time it takes to make that many rolls assuming you can roll once every 6 seconds):

 

1d6 1 in 6 Under a minute

2d6 1 in 36 3.6 minutes

3d6 1 in 216 21.6 minutes

4d6 1 in 1,296 2.2 hours

5d6 1 in 7,776 12.96 hours

6d6 1 in 46,656 3.24 days

7d6 1 in 279,936 19.44 days

8d6 1 in 1,679,616 116.64 days

9d6 1 in 10,077,696 Bit under 2 years

10d6 1 in 60,466,176 11.5 years

11d6 1 in 362,797,056 Just under 69 yrs

12d6 1 in 2,176,782,336 Over 400 years

 

I doubt you'll see Dr D max out (head shot or not) any time soon - once in a gaming lifetime seems optimistic.

 

But that depends on whether there's any campaign limit or not. If there is' date=' this why the DDR would begin to be purchased.[/quote']

 

This is a flaw in campaign limits. If you're going to let someone sink an extra 120 points into defense from physical attacks, why should it matter whether they are PD, Force Field or Damage Reduction?

 

As for who else would have that attack' date=' Takofanes has it and could even produce a 7d6-1 KA with Armor Piercing, which reduced the effectiveness of non-hardened Armor, but doesn't reduce the effectiveness of DR, much less DDR.[/quote']

 

Versus how many characters with attacks that will never get through that 90 rDEF the character could alternatively have purchased? That's every normal attack up to 15d6 (max out in under 90,000 years...)

 

Another benefit of the DDR that keeps getting avoided is versus NNDs and AVLDs' date=' which doesn't apply to someone with Armor.[/quote']

 

Given the comparative benefits of the points spent against most campaign-normal attacks, that kind of benefit seems only a fair addition to Damage Reduction. I'd like to think a character who spends 120+ points gets something from it.

 

Now, I wouldn't use DDR. I'd be more inclined to say, if you invest 120 points in Physical Damage Reduction that's it - Physical attacks do not ever do any damage to that character. The question of whether I would want to allow such a character is a good one (but it's certainly no less likely than one with +80 PD Armor being allowed).

 

Yes' date=' but that's another issue. It's the same issue of Damage Reduction vs conventional defenses; however, for campaigns with limits (and most have them), if a brick maxes his defenses and then starts purchasing DR and DDR, it'll be a headache bringing him down. Also, some GMs put defensive limits by character type as well. For example, a Martial Artist may only be allowed 15PD/10rpd; if he is allowed the DDR; he's in effect gone past the campaign designation in a munchkiny way.[/quote']

 

Again, this is a flaw with the campaign limits, not with damage reduction. If I restrict a martial artist to 15 PD, 10 Res (a 20 cp investment), then let him spend another 120 points on defenses against physical attacks, my limits mean nothing anyway.

 

As has been stated before, the DR (and definitely DDR) seems to be for mega villains and giant monsters, which I think is appropriate; I do not believe this high level should be for PCs. But, that's my opinion; do what you will in your own campaign.

 

I hate the "only for use by NPC's" approach. It basically says "This isn't balanced, so you can't use it, but I can freely apply it on your opponents".

 

With that approach, why use DR at all? Just buy the MV or GM extra CON, only to avoid being Stunned (3x his current CON), and quadruple his STUN. You get the same effect in a manner PC's could use (but won't due to the point constraints).

[CBikle]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

As has been stated before, the DR (and definitely DDR) seems to be for mega villains and giant monsters, which I think is appropriate; I do not believe this high level should be for PCs. But, that's my opinion; do what you will in your own campaign.

 

I hate the "only for use by NPC's" approach. It basically says "This isn't balanced, so you can't use it, but I can freely apply it on your opponents".

 

Me too, I think stuff like this makes the game more adversarial, but that's what the original designers had it in mind for. Again, this is why I think DR extends to NNDs and AVLDs, so that a PC with a SFX based NND (lets say a 7d6NND[magical defenses or being a magical being]) doesn't clobber the big villain that the GM, foolishly, introduced in the 1st act.

[Kirby]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

As a calrification/reminder for the DDR, I wouldn't want anyone using it.

 

As for "only the NPCs" aspect, do you think it's unfair for Dr. Destroyer to have a 10d6 RKA? If it is not unfair, would you allow a PC to have this as a power? I personally don't think it's unfair, nor would I allow a PC to have it.

 

The same applies for DR at 75% level. I can see certain villains having it (Ripper already does; perhaps Grond should? [or at least some]) so that it will take a while for the PCs to bring the baddy down; I wouldn't allow the same for a PC because they're part of a team and don't need the life saver of 75% DR, resistant. Ripper (and even Grond to a lesser extent) are designed to be able to combat a group of characters and either survive, or make it tough.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

Me too' date=' I think stuff like this makes the game more adversarial, but that's what the original designers had it in mind for. [/quote']

 

I don't have Champs III in front of me, but my recollection is the "tought but not bulletproof" character was the intended usage. That may be the way our group interpreted it, but I don't believe there was a clear "big baddie/giant monster" intention specified.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

As a calrification/reminder for the DDR, I wouldn't want anyone using it.

 

As for "only the NPCs" aspect, do you think it's unfair for Dr. Destroyer to have a 10d6 RKA? If it is not unfair, would you allow a PC to have this as a power? I personally don't think it's unfair, nor would I allow a PC to have it.

 

What about a PC whose experience placed him at the same point total as Dr. D? I would not allow a 350 point character to have a 150 AP attack, but if (for whatever reason) I had PC's at the Dr. D level of power, their attacks would reasonably be scaled up to that level as well.

 

Now, if Dr. D had an NND - Defense is "totaling 50 character points or less", that would, in my opinion, be a violation of the rules - something I would never allow a PC to possess, and therefore Dr. D would not be permitted that ability either. Regardless of the magnitude (15d6 or 3d6) such a construct is not acceptable in my game - whether you're a PC or an NPC.

[CBikle]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

As for "only the NPCs" aspect, do you think it's unfair for Dr. Destroyer to have a 10d6 RKA? If it is not unfair, would you allow a PC to have this as a power? I personally don't think it's unfair, nor would I allow a PC to have it.

 

Depends what the general power-level of the group is. If the average killing attack is 6 or 7 dice, Dr. D having a 10d6 RKA isn't toobad.

 

In my mind, Dr. Destroyer is a personification of what to avoid with the Hero System. If you're trying to encourage game-balance and discourage power-escalation, the last thing you want to do is introduce Dr. Destroyer into your game.

 

Over the years, on these boards, I've read about two dozen or so examples of how a GM threw Dr. D at his players. Sometimes it was a high-power level game, sometimes the GM just used Dr. D as punishment against the players, for whatever reason.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

In my mind' date=' Dr. Destroyer is a personification of what to avoid with the Hero System. If you're trying to encourage game-balance and discourage power-escalation, the last thing you want to do is introduce Dr. Destroyer into your game.[/quote']

 

This is very true. Throwing up the "unbeatable adversary" doesn't make for a fun game. To me, Dr. D has to be used in much the same way as similarly high powered characters in the comics. You don't win by beating the character in open combat, but by:

 

- defeating his plans (a worldbeater device demolished; a secret plot revealed)

 

- recovering the Mystery McGuffin to defeat him (even Galactus cannot stand against the Ultimate Nullifier)

 

- manipulation of the environment (he can defeat us, but the volcanic eruption should slow him down - good thing he needed those geothermal energies to power his worldbeater device)

 

- manipulation of similar powered plot devices (Takofanes should keep him busy for a while - and vice versa!)

 

Throwing Dr. D in against 350 point characters just to show how "tough" the GM is demonstrates a complete lack of GM skills, at least IMO.

[Kirby]

Re: Opinion: Double Damage Reduction

 

What about a PC whose experience placed him at the same point total as Dr. D?

My thought on that is "No" because a 10d6RKA is not very heroic. Having stated that, I've never been in a game where the PCs ever made it to 500 points, so I don't know what PCs built on 2,500 would be like, and I doubt one would make a campaign where they could last that long.