Trebuchet Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes It's a possible fix. Resistand Defenses + Damage Reduction is the most straightforward way to build practical invulnerability as things stand. I would be concerned about flipping Dam Red from applying before defenses to after; effectively it would go from being a BOD/STUN modifier to a DEF modifier. Pricing would be tough. I've been in a few campaigns where the Stun Multiple was applied only after resistant defenses. It does give a feeling of comic book invulnerabiity, but it also makes killing attacks generally far less cost effective in a Standard game. After discussing both Sovereign Defense and Killing attacks in general with my co-GM Blackjack this evening, I've come to realize my enthusiasm for SD is driven primarily by my visceral dislike of the Stun Lotto. Were the SM to be eliminated or dialed back a bit, I really wouldn't care about SD since I don't believe in absolute invulnerability anyway, and without worrying about the Stun Multiple the desired effects of SD can be easily achieved with existing defenses, DR, and Characteristics. 50+ rPD Hardened, 75% rDR, and 50+ CON is close enough to invulnerable for government work IMO. A character like that could take an average 10d6 RKA and hardly blink; and probably wouldn't be Stunned even with a "5" SM. We'll just have to accept that we're probably not going to get "invulnerable" characters in games with defense caps or only 350 CP. Since we're not going to change Killing Attacks; I'm kind of at a loss as to what to do about SD. I guess if it becomes an official Power I'll be happy; but I can live without it until it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OddHat Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes I think my own prefered solution, if there were a 6thEd revision, would be to drop Killing Attack as a separate mechanic. Make "Killing" an advantage you can apply to any attack, priced at something like +1/2. Damage would be calculated as with any other attack, but applied against resistant defenses. It might nerf real weapons a bit, but that's part of the reason for the suggestion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristopher Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes Depends on which version of him you're talking about' date=' of course. By "classic" are you refering to the Golden Age "nothing less than a bursting shell can penetrate his skin", the Silver Age "I fly through the cores of stars", the Bronze Age "a nuke might kill me", or what? Just curious. [/quote'] I didn't mean that any version might be the classic, I meant that when being bulletproof is discussed, Ole Supes seems to be the guy who comes up inevitably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes Knockback/knockdown from the force of the bullets? At least that's how I'd interpret it in game if we implemented SD and wanted to simulate this effect. TB That's why I don't propose SD prevent knockback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes close enough to invulnerable for government work IMO. Given the quality I assocuiate with government work (and I spent much of the work day today dealing with "quality" government work), I'm in favour of setting the bar somewhat higher than the Snivel Service might. That said, I like the concept of a defense which is to Force Wall what Armor is to Force Field. Not sure Sovereign defense is it, but it would be a step in the right direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes I'm sorry you see our relationship as being solely adversarial. I happen to disagree with you on your specific approach to invulnerability, especially with regard to Desolidification. That does not mean I haven't agreed with you often in the past, that your opinions have no value, or that you won't make many useful contributions in the future. I'm pretty sure I've even repped you for gaming stuff. I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time on any issue. Not OddHat, Lemming, Dr. Anomaly, or Zornwil, whose gaming philosophies are probably 98% similar to my own. Not even Mentor, who I co-GM a long-running Champions campaign with. He likes Killing Attacks as they are. I hate them. Despite that disagreement and many others we've managed to run a successful campaign together for over thirteen years. It's the fact that we've been disagreeing so intensely and so publicly recently that prompted my comment; please don't read too much into it. I hope no one thinks we have any personal animosity, and I wasn't trying to imply that we do. Lucius Alexander The palindromedary is invulnerable, until the classical musicians bring the dreaded crab cannon to bear....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes Gods above...I spent an hour just getting caught up on this one thread.... Vision/Flash - look, read the description of it in the book. If you think that is invulnerability fine, but I define it as being able to be HIT with an attack but not take damage - none of your examples allow the character to be hit. All of my examples allow the character to be hit. Desolid allows the character to be hit. The attack HITS, it just passes through the dematerialized body and DOES NO DAMAGE. If you define invulnerability as "being able to be HIT with an attack but not take damage" then Desolidification matches your definition - yet you have repeatedly stated that there is no invulnerability in Hero, as if Desolidification isn't there. This is what confuses me, coming from you and from Trebuchet. At least Trebuchet has admitted that what HE means by invulnerability is something that doesn't exist even in fiction - "nothing whatsoever can ever hurt me, no matter how powerful, no matter what kind of damage it is, I have no weakness or vulnerability whatsoever." By that definition, yes, Desolid isn't invulnerability, but then, NOTHING is. As for Grendel - someone, I don't think it was you, said something about his invulnerability being overcome by magick. It wasn't, it was overcome with strength and wrestling prowess. Personally, I don't consider ripping someone's limb off a "Killing Attack" in the sense of using that mechanic in the game. In any case, I should have said that what Grendel had an invulnerability to was "weapons." Beowulf defeated him by attacking WITHOUT weapons. Grendel didn't have invulnerability to Viking Martial Arts. If Beowulf had used his sword, he could have rolled even higher damage; but it wouldn't have done any good. No amount of weapon damage would hurt Grendel. What about an area mental attack? How do we know campaign maxima' date=' again? I think you're moving the goalpost, to be frank. Sounds like no example is good enough. Now, that being said, I think we all acknowledge that absolute is a relative term, as little sense as that makes. But it doesn't mean it's threshold-based - it can be and often is based more on specific vulnerabiltiies/holes.[/quote'] Thank you, Zornwil. D A M A G E R E D U C T I O N I S N O T A D E F E N C E For the love of mike, it is a multiplier to stun and body*. You don't simulate it with limited defences you simulate it with limited stun and body. Personally I don't think damage reduction really fits into the system or scales properly, but it is here and it is staying, so there's not a lot I can do about that one. *sorry, Hugh, this one just pushes my button. Deep breaths now, Sean.... Now you know how I feel when someone says there is no invulnerability in Hero, or says that Desolidification isn't invulnerability. Erm..THIS is what damage reduction does: Extra characteristics only effective against physical attacks (-1) +60 STUN +20 BODY +20 CON (only to prevent stunning -1/2) 66 points Even works against NNDs and the like (unlike limited defences). Note the cost. You'd get the same benefit for 30 points from damage reduction, assuming you had 20 CON, 20 BODY and 60 STUN to start off with. this way it is accurately costed, and it costs a lot more, hence my contention that damage reduction is not priced right and does not scale (in fact it anti-scales). OK, without DR no one would do this: it is much more efficient to buy defences. What damage reduction is really is a cheap way to buy up certain characteristics for certain purposes. But, like I said, it is here... Which brings up an idea I wanted to mention....see next post. Thank you, I never looked at it this way. I will note however, you are making several assumptions about what the characters characteristics are. You do realize that by this reasoning, Damage Reduction is more reasonable for lower value heroice rather than superheroic games? I think it is unrealistic to expect players, or for that matter characters who are aware of their own limitations, not to act in a way that minimises them. It is intelligent use of what you are given, not immaturity. Achilles, of course, was unaware of the nature of his limitation: if told how he would die he would probably have bought the boots himself. Superman has no such excuse. Actually, Achilles was told he would die; he got the message straight from the horse's mouth (his horses were gifts from one of the Olympians, I forget which one; anyway, they were only the last, not the first, to warn him he would die at Troy.) Achilles WANTED to die in battle, heroically; he had been told he had the option to go sail home and live to a comfortable old age, and he turned it down. He was so hard headed, arrogant, overconfident, and such an all around jerk, he probably WOULDN'T have bothered to buy the boots. Maybe this thread has Invulnerability to Flamewars? Does that mean it can't be hit by flames, or that they hit and do no damage? Lucius Alexander Gods below' date=' he spent half an hour just composing this post..... [/quote'] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Taming Absolutes Okay, just tossing out a half baked idea.... Several have complained about how certain powers don't "scale" well - like Desolid. They have a fixed cost for a certain effect, making them expensive at the heroic level and nearly irresistably cheap at high super levels of points. Duplication gives us a precedent for a power that has a cost directly linked to the character's point totals. The more powerful your character, the more it costs to duplicate. How about applying a similar costing rule to things like Desolid and Damage Reduction? Would such a scheme be practical, or am I just way out in left field? What do you all think about it? Lucius Alexander The point cost of a palindromedary is an imaginary number... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zornwil Posted February 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes Part of the weirdness that is HERO. 6 DC Killing Attack = Max 12 BODY and 60 STUN = 120 STUN if a surprise attack is made. 12 DC Normal Attack = 42 Stun in an average attack. You can't be immune to the worst case scenario of a 6 DC Killing Attack without also being immune to the average damage of a 12 DC Normal Attack, unless you take limits on your defenses, and in any case it will be fairly expensive on a 350 point budget. Drop the Stun Lotto and Surprise Attack Doubling, and the problem becomes far less of an issue. I just meant most people I've seen have wanted to defend against both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zornwil Posted February 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes I think it is unrealistic to expect players, or for that matter characters who are aware of their own limitations, not to act in a way that minimises them. It is intelligent use of what you are given, not immaturity. Achilles, of course, was unaware of the nature of his limitation: if told how he would die he would probably have bought the boots himself. Superman has no such excuse. They are only limitations in the source material to the extent that they are because of editorial control of the characters and environment by the writer, and some of the Superman stuff is highly contrived and frankly ridiculous: as I think we agree, games are a very differnt beast fro the 'source' material I meant that if one wants to play such a character, one needs to buy into a reasonable vulnerability and not wonk around it. I don't disagree with reacting to those examples but that's why players sometimes think through such things that much more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teflon Billy Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes Okay, just tossing out a half baked idea.... Several have complained about how certain powers don't "scale" well - like Desolid. They have a fixed cost for a certain effect, making them expensive at the heroic level and nearly irresistably cheap at high super levels of points. Duplication gives us a precedent for a power that has a cost directly linked to the character's point totals. The more powerful your character, the more it costs to duplicate. How about applying a similar costing rule to things like Desolid and Damage Reduction? Would such a scheme be practical, or am I just way out in left field? What do you all think about it? No, because whereas with Duplicate the benefit the character receives directly increases as they get more powerful, the benefit of Desolid and DR doesn't change directly with increasing point totals (only indirectly with specific buy ups, more BODY or PD/ED for example). It is just something that will have to be regulated by the maturity of the player in designing their character so that they aren't picking up DR or Desolid for just munchkiny reasons. TB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zornwil Posted February 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes Okay, just tossing out a half baked idea.... Several have complained about how certain powers don't "scale" well - like Desolid. They have a fixed cost for a certain effect, making them expensive at the heroic level and nearly irresistably cheap at high super levels of points. Duplication gives us a precedent for a power that has a cost directly linked to the character's point totals. The more powerful your character, the more it costs to duplicate. How about applying a similar costing rule to things like Desolid and Damage Reduction? Would such a scheme be practical, or am I just way out in left field? What do you all think about it? Lucius Alexander The point cost of a palindromedary is an imaginary number... I hadn't thought about the Duplication pecedent. I would thnk it would start to get complicated, especially as then you'd also have to figure out how you relate any given total-points-derived variables relative to each other, i.e, if you have Duplication, Desol, and DR and each derives from total points, how do you stack those/ But as you point out there is a precedent, it coulid be done that way. It might work, would have to think about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Democracy Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes Erm..THIS is what damage reduction does: Extra characteristics only effective against physical attacks (-1) +60 STUN +20 BODY +20 CON (only to prevent stunning -1/2) 66 points You forgot the REC factor Sean. Because you're STUN is being multiplied your REC is more efficient in replenishing all of that extra STUN you just bought.... Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes You forgot the REC factor Sean. Because you're STUN is being multiplied your REC is more efficient in replenishing all of that extra STUN you just bought.... Doc You are right - once ran a game in which we had a wereleopard, and he had ultra fast healing/regeneration - simulated by damage reduction: sfx being if he took 40 stun and 8 body through defences it was only (really) 10/2, but LOOKED like the full amount so his REC and regen seemed to be working 4 times quicker. Lucius: this thread IS becoming a burden, isn't it I think we'll have to agree to disagree on desol. It provides invulnerability becasue the attack and target are not interacting, which I conceed can be considered to be invulnerability IF and only if the sfx are right. I would not allow (say) InvulDesol Boy to have as sfx 'I remain solid but it just does not hurt me' - otherwise he is interacting with the physical world and circumventing the power. As to scaling invulnerability to power level, the difference is that you retain choice as to whether to increase your XP expenditure on duplication, but you would HAVE to increase it on invulnerability. I'll think on that more: it could be just the right fix... Quick thought: Assuming at any level you spend about 1/4 of your points on offensive powers, 1/4 on defensive. and the rest on characteristics, movement and twiddly bits (and of course characteristics can include attack and defence) I reckon about up to 1/3 of points overall get spent on defensive stuff, and that provides broad spectrum limited resistance to damage (BSLRTD). Personally if you spent 2/3 on defence I think it would be reasonable to have invulnerability to a limited group of attacks (ITALGOA) (physical/energy, for example) and BSLRTD, or if you spend all your points on defence then I'd let you be invulnerable to everything - you just don't take damage. So ITALGOA would cost 1/3 of current character points, Full invulnerability would cost the lot. Something like that. As a starting point.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OddHat Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes I just meant most people I've seen have wanted to defend against both. Well. defending against both 12dc Normal and 6dc Killing is easy. You just end up spending a lot of points to be completely immune to both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebuchet Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes I think my own prefered solution' date=' if there were a 6thEd revision, would be to drop Killing Attack as a separate mechanic. Make "Killing" an advantage you can apply to any attack, priced at something like +1/2. Damage would be calculated as with any other attack, but applied against resistant defenses.[/quote'] Let's look at the numbers. If Killing Attacks were a +½ Advantage for ordinary attacks, then a 60 Active Point Killing Attack would be 8d6. On an average roll that would be 8 BODY and 28 Stun, applied only against Resistant Defenses. Against a fairly typical character with 12 rPD, that's not insignificant. By comparison, a 4d6 KA as currently built would average 14 BODY and 36 Stun with Resistant defenses applied against the BODY and (assuming any Resistant defenses at all) all defenses applied against the Stun. It would eliminate the Stun Lotto completely. I think one likely effect of a change like this would be a general lowering of defenses because tough characters would no longer need ridiculously high numbers to protect against the highly variable Stun Lotto. This would make the creation of "well nigh invulnerable" characters a lot less problematical even without some sort of Sovereign Defense or other Invulnerability power. Face it, a major part of the headaches associated with building functional invulnerability is the necessity of accomodating Killing Attack's wildly variable Stun results. It might nerf real weapons a bit, but that's part of the reason for the suggestion.I totally agree. It would actually make "real" weapons more like they are in the movies and comics. One could creditably make the the assertion that most heavy military projectile weapons are also AP by default if we're really interested in blowing holes in things. Who says the effect of a real world device must be constructible with only one Advantage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes You forgot the REC factor Sean. Because you're STUN is being multiplied your REC is more efficient in replenishing all of that extra STUN you just bought.... Actually, it's more than just REC, Stun, BOD and CON, Sean. It also multiples the effects of positive adjustment powers, for example. 75% Reduction + Absorb. "He hits you for 42 STUN and 12 BOD". "OK, that's 42 - 10 PD = 32/4 = 8 STUN and 1/2 = 0 BOD. I absorb 12 BOD and add it to Stun, so now I have 4 more Stun than I started with." It may not be the better theoretical view, but envisioning DR as defenses limited to the % of damage they can block is a lot easier to model, especially if your game has fixed damage maxima so you can tell how many extra defenses are needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes Let's look at the numbers. If Killing Attacks were a +½ Advantage for ordinary attacks, then a 60 Active Point Killing Attack would be 8d6. On an average roll that would be 8 BODY and 28 Stun, applied only against Resistant Defenses. Against a fairly typical character with 12 rPD, that's not insignificant. By comparison, a 4d6 KA as currently built would average 14 BODY and 36 Stun with Resistant defenses applied against the BODY and (assuming any Resistant defenses at all) all defenses applied against the Stun. It would eliminate the Stun Lotto completely. I think one likely effect of a change like this would be a general lowering of defenses because tough characters would no longer need ridiculously high numbers to protect against the highly variable Stun Lotto. This would make the creation of "well nigh invulnerable" characters a lot less problematical even without some sort of Sovereign Defense or other Invulnerability power. Face it, a major part of the headaches associated with building functional invulnerability is the necessity of accomodating Killing Attack's wildly variable Stun results. Another change would likely be a substantial reduction in KA's, since one of their main benefits, breaking walls, entangles, force walls and automatons by virtue of higher average BOD per DC, is reversed severely. And a typical human now takes more BOD from a 12 DC normal attack than a 12 DC killing attack. That 8d6 KA gets 16 STUN through against your example character. Assuming he has 25 PD, a 12d6 EB averages 17 Stun through. It doesn't do more BOD against targets where BOD matters, ands it doesn't do more STUN against targets where STUN matters. Why would anyone buy it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes Stolen from another thread: Re Counting pips: Well, I always like standard effects. Instead of rolling and counting your 12d6 attack instead figure 2d6 +30 stun and +10 Body... Or if they feel that they are being shorted; 2d6 + 35 stun +10 Body. Yada yada... Enough randomness to please the rollers, standardized for speed. This would also be a useful tool if one wishes to standardize damage and make invulnberability to a certain level of effect more attainable without becoming effectively immune to damage several DC higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CandidGamera Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes I came across this "Stun Lotto" while running my first HERO campaign.. though I didn't have the catchy and clever name for it. One of the solutions I came up with, but never implemented, was the notion of changing the stun multiplier roll from 1d6-1 (Minimum 1, Avg 2.667, Max 5) to 1d3+1. (Minimum 2, Avg 3, Max 4.) It's actually a slight effective "buff" to the average, but it substantially reduces variability and would make it a tiny bit easier to buy invulnerability against a certain DC of KA. Bad idea? Good idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes This does not necessarily mean I have changed my mind on invulnerability or damage resistance BUT I thought I'd put in this scaled new (or scaled modified old) power that might fit the bill both in terms of how it works and what it costs: Effect Reduction (invulnerability) Body power STOP power – not to be used unless concept appropriate and the overall build is not unbalanced SPECIAL power – cannot be used in frameworks without special permission Effect Reduction does not cost END, and is persistent This power reduced the effect of an attack partially or wholly. Full effect reduction for physical and energy attacks is often called invulnerability. The only effect it does not reduce is knockback, if the power causes it, unless it is specifically bought to do so. This power, when used, replaces damage reduction. The power is costed as a proportion of total character costs and so needs to be re-costed whenever XP is actually added. First decide the frequency of the mechanic or sfx that you want to reduce the effect of then decide how much of the effect is reduced: 25% (cheapest) to 100%. (Note that the cost of specific sfx effect reduction may well vary from campaign to campaign. Below is a suggestion for a ‘typical’ superhero campaign) Very Common Physical, Energy, Mutant powers Common Mental, Adjustment, Entangle, Magic powers Uncommon Flash, Telekinesis, Images, Darkness, Sonic powers, Electricity powers Rare UBO movement powers, Gravity powers Next decide the level of effect reduction and cross reference. The figures in brackets are typical costs in a 350 point campaign. For example for a 50% reduction of all adjustment powers, pay 3 x 40ths of your total character points (or 26 points in a 350 point campaign) 25% 50% 75% 100% VC 4/80 (17) 4/40 (35) 4/20 (70) 4/10 (140) C 3/80 (13) 3/40 (26) 3/20 (52) 3/10 (105) U 2/80 (9) 2/40 (17) 2/20 (35) 2/10 (70) R 1/80 (4) 1/40 (9) 1/40 (17) 1/10 (35) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Democracy Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes Sean did you say lawyer or actuary - that looks more complicated than my last pensions seminar! Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes Doc, buddy, you want compicated.... Seriously it just takes damage reduction a little further and scales it to character points, then discourages limitations in favour of a structured cost based on how common the attack is. For a 300 point camapign, physical resistant damage reduction would cost 20/30/60/120 for 25/50/75/100% damage reduction - very close tothe current price structure. In fact I'm going to change the 25% denominator to 80 to make it work just the same.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes OK - amended it - it now costs exactly the same as damage reduction for a 300 point character: 25% - 15 points 50% - 30 points 75% - 60 points Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Re: Taming Absolutes OK - amended it - it now costs exactly the same as damage reduction for a 300 point character: 25% - 15 points 50% - 30 points 75% - 60 points Hmmm...you can't be invulnerable to everything. Invulnerability to PD and ED costs 80% of your total points, or 280 for a 350 point character, which does not seem wholly unreasonable for immunity to most standard attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.