Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

[Sean Waters]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

One real problem with DS is that it is ineffective as a 'straight' attack in most games becasue the cost of building it puts the damage potential well below campaign normal defences.

 

Therefore you either need to build it well over campaign AP limits (which will be real expensive) or build it with NND/AVLD/AP type advantages to get some damage through despite the low DC total, which seems silly. Or you could go with a KA and cross your fingers on the stun lotto.

 

I've always thought that this kind of build:

 

3DC attack (15 points) personal immunity one hex AoE (doubled = 2 hex radius) continuous 0 END (+1.5) = 37 points

0 range (-1/2) for 25 points

 

Means you can get a far more effective power for an only slightly higher active cost but a considerably lower real cost (as you can take 'no range). The power effects anyone coming near you or near you on one of your phases, and does not require a grab or other manouvre to accomplish.

 

Or you can do it slightly differently (and slightly cheaper)

 

3DC attack (15 points) personal immunity one hex AoE* continuous 0 END (+1.5) = 34 points

0 range (-1/2) for 23 points

 

*only when in contact

 

There are potential limits over damage shield: a character grappling you will only take damage on your phases, not every time he hits - that may be an advantage or not.

 

Also if you do not add in the 'no range' you can throw your damage shield as an attack. Cool.

 

I do agree that DS is too expensive to be used as anything but a bit of a gimick or for a really esoteric build.

 

In fact you should probably only ever buy DS with drain (if you want to go and be efficient): it has no range anyway and works against an uncommon defence.

 

In fact that encompasses my bigegst single gripe with DS: that the 'no range' bit is assumed rather than something you take as a limitation.

 

Also never understood why you could not buy ego attack as the defensive power against physical attacks: so long as you define what it works against (mental OR physical attacks) what is the problem?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

I allow Area of Effect Powers to optionally take Continuous twice: once to continue to affect the area on an ongoing basis and once to continue to affect any targets that have been touched. I regard Damage Shield in the same light. The Power does become Continuous in a sense; further application of the Continous Advantage could still make sense.

 

I am personally also inclined to have the Damage Shield Advantage automatically cause the first Constant aspect of the Power (that the, "area"--being anything touching the character--is affected on an ongoing basis and any End/Charges must be spent each Phase it is active). The reason is that just about every Power I can think of sticking Damage Shield on--at least for a defensive purpose--is not Constant by default, so it makes sense that the two should be tied together instead of one being a prerequisite. I also think the value of the Damage Shield Advantage is already steep enough for its effect.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

I allow Area of Effect Powers to optionally take Continuous twice: once to continue to affect the area on an ongoing basis and once to continue to affect any targets that have been touched.

 

Isn't that what Sticky is for?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

Isn't that what Sticky is for?

We've had this discussion before. My opinion is still: no; Sticky has somewhat different semantics.

 

EDIT: It might be easier to see if I state instead that I allow either (or possibly both) form of Continuous on an area of effect attack. Thus you might have something that instantaneously affects all targets in an area and continues to affect them on an ongoing basis, but does not affect things touched by them or anything subsequently entering the area.

 

P.S. - Sticky to me has more the ramification that any actual targets affected can pass on the symptoms.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

To my mind there are a couple of offsetting benefits.

A. You can do damage to multiple targets within the same phase without Sweeping, Spreading, etc.

Only if multiple targets choose to touch you. And you don't get to choose how many, or which ones touch you.

 

B. You do damage to the targets you are in contact with as an action that takes no time.

But coming in contect with them does take an attack action, usually a Grab. (Unless of course, the target is just standing there motionless and doesn't react at all to a flaming man trying to grab him. But that isn't why you buy a DS. If your opponent is making no effort to defend himself, any attack power will do.)

 

How about:

C. You can do damage to targets without an attack roll?

Well, someone has to make an attack roll. Either you have to make a Grab, or they have to make a HTH attack. And again, you don't get to choose who when and how your opponent attacks you. That's to main drawback.

 

austenandrews is correct that 5e "nerfed" Damage Shield. The bottom line: 50 active points gets you:

 

10d6 EB

 

or

 

4d6 EB, Continuous, Damage Shield

 

Do those seem equal to anyone? If you've got enough defenses to deal with 10d6 EB, 4d6 is going to do almost nothing.

 

(I would have used 60 points, but the numbers don't come out even.)

[prestidigitator]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

austenandrews is correct that 5e "nerfed" Damage Shield. The bottom line: 50 active points gets you:

 

10d6 EB

 

or

 

4d6 EB, Continuous, Damage Shield

 

Do those seem equal to anyone? If you've got enough defenses to deal with 10d6 EB, 4d6 is going to do almost nothing.

 

(I would have used 60 points, but the numbers don't come out even.)

Oh, I know. While Damage Shields are a pretty amazing and powerful ability, they have been rendered somewhat ineffective (at least in a game where there are AP/DC limits and they don't significantly outstrip Defense limits). Of course, certain other Damage Shields (NND, Penetrating, etc.) can be pretty powerful even with the cost. I'm not sure how to go with it.

 

EDIT: Actually I think I do know where I'd go with it. Instead of requiring Constant on the Power, do something like what the Autofire Advantage does: if the attack acts against unusual defenses, increase the cost. Better still would be to drop the exceptions (for this and Autofire both) and go with a multiplicative system for Modifiers (or at least Advantages) rather than an additive one. But I've said this several times before....

[caris]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

Only if multiple targets choose to touch you. And you don't get to choose how many' date=' or which ones touch you.[/quote']

 

Force Field and Armor only defend you from multiple opponents if multiple opponents decide to attack you.

 

But coming in contect with them does take an attack action' date=' usually a Grab. (Unless of course, the target is just standing there motionless and doesn't react at all to a flaming man trying to grab him. But that isn't why you buy a DS. If your opponent is making no effort to defend himself, any attack power will do.)[/quote']

 

I don't buy Damage Shields to use to grab people to do damage to them. I generally buy it to discourage people from grabbing me/do damage to people that grab/hit me with their own hands.

 

Well, someone has to make an attack roll. Either you have to make a Grab, or they have to make a HTH attack. And again, you don't get to choose who when and how your opponent attacks you. That's to main drawback.

 

austenandrews is correct that 5e "nerfed" Damage Shield. The bottom line: 50 active points gets you:

 

10d6 EB

 

or

 

4d6 EB, Continuous, Damage Shield

 

Do those seem equal to anyone? If you've got enough defenses to deal with 10d6 EB, 4d6 is going to do almost nothing.

 

(I would have used 60 points, but the numbers don't come out even.)

 

 

Yes, if you look at DS as your a means to creating an attack than DS is going to be a bad option always, unless you remove make it a 0 Modifier. DS is always going to mean that your doing less damage, but if all you want is a means to damage a target at no range by Strength or a H-H attack. DS is meant to be used as an attack power. It is meant to be a very specific kind of defense power/a strange Disadvantage that can give some benfits. As much as you dismiss the advantages that I pointed out it is those advantages that make it a defense.

 

I repeat the fact that it acts independent of your actions mean that it should be made continuous some how, either as an inherent part of Damage Shield or as a part of the Damage Shield modifier. The power is no longer an instant power. Otherwise it would have to obey the same kind of rules that Block or Missile Deflection obey.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

Force Field and Armor only defend you from multiple opponents if multiple opponents decide to attack you.

So what? Those are defense powers. That's how they work. Damage Shield does not provide any defense against attacks. If you're in combat, someone is going to try to hit you HtH or at Range, every phase, and FF/Armor will protect you from all of them. DS only hurts the HtH attackers.

 

I don't buy Damage Shields to use to grab people to do damage to them. I generally buy it to discourage people from grabbing me/do damage to people that grab/hit me with their own hands.

Neither do I. My point exactly. I was merely responding to your objection: "You do damage to the targets you are in contact with as an action that takes no time." Your words, not mine. 4d6 is not much of a deterrent when the average person how might want to hit you HTH has 20+ defense. If you make an extremely lucky roll, he takes a few pips of STUN. Ooooh, scary!

 

Yes, if you look at DS as your a means to creating an attack than DS is going to be a bad option always, unless you remove make it a 0 Modifier. DS is always going to mean that your doing less damage, but if all you want is a means to damage a target at no range by Strength or a H-H attack. DS is meant to be used as an attack power. It is meant to be a very specific kind of defense power/a strange Disadvantage that can give some benfits. As much as you dismiss the advantages that I pointed out it is those advantages that make it a defense.

I don't look at it as an attack at all. I look at it as a deterrent against HtH attacks of others. Which is exactly what it's supposed to be. I fully recognize that DS is an advantage, and will therefore do fewer dice for the same points. I don't dismiss the advantages. I think you are dismissing the drawbacks. I only reject the idea that it should cost +1.5, IOW, that 10d6 EB is equal in utility to 4d6 DS.

 

In 4th edition, the Damage Shield Advantage included the Constant aspect, and thus 60 points could buy 8d6 DS - which is still useful in a game with 60-point attacks. It's still a viable deterrent. 4-5d6 is not. This is the way I handle DSs. Yes, it's an advantage, but it isn't so powerful that it's worth +1.5.

 

I repeat the fact that it acts independent of your actions mean that it should be made continuous some how, either as an inherent part of Damage Shield or as a part of the Damage Shield modifier. The power is no longer an instant power. Otherwise it would have to obey the same kind of rules that Block or Missile Deflection obey.

Fine. That's exactly what I do.

[caris]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

In 4th edition' date=' the Damage Shield Advantage included the Constant aspect, and thus 60 points could buy 8d6 DS - which is still useful in a game with 60-point attacks. It's still a viable deterrent. 4-5d6 is not. This is the way I handle DSs. Yes, it's an advantage, but it isn't so powerful that it's worth +1.5.[/quote']

 

Forgive me, but now it is my turn. If you had bothered to read my second post, and in any way acknowledge it, you could have avoided these last two posts. I agree with you that +1.5 is too much. I do not agree that DS should be considered an a limitation on Continous, i.e. that the net result should by less than +1. For whatever drawbacks it gives you, it is giving you advantages, and that those advantages at a minimum offset the disadvantages.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

One real problem with DS is that it is ineffective as a 'straight' attack in most games becasue the cost of building it puts the damage potential well below campaign normal defences.

 

Therefore you either need to build it well over campaign AP limits (which will be real expensive) or build it with NND/AVLD/AP type advantages to get some damage through despite the low DC total, which seems silly. Or you could go with a KA and cross your fingers on the stun lotto.

 

I've always thought that this kind of build:

 

3DC attack (15 points) personal immunity one hex AoE (doubled = 2 hex radius) continuous 0 END (+1.5) = 37 points

0 range (-1/2) for 25 points

 

Means you can get a far more effective power for an only slightly higher active cost but a considerably lower real cost (as you can take 'no range). The power effects anyone coming near you or near you on one of your phases, and does not require a grab or other manouvre to accomplish.

 

Or you can do it slightly differently (and slightly cheaper)

 

3DC attack (15 points) personal immunity one hex AoE* continuous 0 END (+1.5) = 34 points

0 range (-1/2) for 23 points

 

*only when in contact

 

There are potential limits over damage shield: a character grappling you will only take damage on your phases, not every time he hits - that may be an advantage or not.

 

Also if you do not add in the 'no range' you can throw your damage shield as an attack. Cool.

 

I do agree that DS is too expensive to be used as anything but a bit of a gimick or for a really esoteric build.

 

In fact you should probably only ever buy DS with drain (if you want to go and be efficient): it has no range anyway and works against an uncommon defence.

 

In fact that encompasses my bigegst single gripe with DS: that the 'no range' bit is assumed rather than something you take as a limitation.

 

Also never understood why you could not buy ego attack as the defensive power against physical attacks: so long as you define what it works against (mental OR physical attacks) what is the problem?

 

 

I know it is a bit naff to quote yourself, but Caris kindly pointed out in a discreet PM that my maths skills are lacking: quite right too. Please ignore this post.

[Kristopher]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

In other news...Hero Designer is allowing me to build these with Persistant rather than Continuous -- which makes more sense for these powers anyway.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

In other news...Hero Designer is allowing me to build these with Persistant rather than Continuous -- which makes more sense for these powers anyway.

 

 

But makes no sense in terms of use - the advantage of continuous is that you don't have to keep using attack actions - and thus phases.

 

Minimum advnatage for DS is +1.5 (damage shield+continuous)

 

You can do the same thing with a +1 auto-resetting 0 phase trigger (physical contact) and still get the 'no range' limitation.

 

That sounds like a bargain.

[Blue Jogger]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

Hmmm.

 

What man was never meant to know. Change Environment, Does 1 point of Sanity Loss (Defense is "already being completely insane" or "having weird things in my breakfast cereal"), 0 END, Persistent

 

When you gain an additional 5 points of Sanity Loss, you develop 5 point Disadvantage based on the FX.

 

Under stressful conditions, you need to make an EGO roll with a -1 for every 5 points of Sanity Loss to remain rational, with additional minuses if under extreme duress or specific to the cause of the sanity loss. A failed roll means the character starts to behave irrationally.

 

People who have "weird things in my breakfast cereal" are completely immune to Sanity Loss, however. they usually have to deal with BIGGER problems.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

I'll just share that in the fantasy adventure I ran a short while ago, the Damage Shields of imps and demonlings (straight out of the Fantasy Hero Bestiary) did some nasty things to the PCs. I actually had misgivings half-way through; next time I might have the Damage Shields work against weapons instead of the characters wielding them, because they were so devastating. While Damage Shields don't act directly as defenses, they can certainly substitute well for them by acting as a deterrant against direct attacks.

[Kristopher]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

I'll just share that in the fantasy adventure I ran a short while ago' date=' the Damage Shields of imps and demonlings (straight out of the Fantasy Hero Bestiary) did some [i']nasty[/i] things to the PCs. I actually had misgivings half-way through; next time I might have the Damage Shields work against weapons instead of the characters wielding them, because they were so devastating. While Damage Shields don't act directly as defenses, they can certainly substitute well for them by acting as a deterrant against direct attacks.

 

 

They were still expensive, and Heroic-level characters don't have the defenses that Superheroic characters do (obviously).

[Kristopher]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

But makes no sense in terms of use - the advantage of continuous is that you don't have to keep using attack actions - and thus phases.

 

Minimum advnatage for DS is +1.5 (damage shield+continuous)

 

You can do the same thing with a +1 auto-resetting 0 phase trigger (physical contact) and still get the 'no range' limitation.

 

That sounds like a bargain.

 

I see no problem with a Persistent Power being used as a Damage Shield -- remember that an attack Power has to be bought down to 0 END to be made Persistent, so it's +1.5 in the end anyway.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

Forgive me' date=' but now it is my turn. If you had bothered to read my second post, and in any way acknowledge it, you could have avoided these last two posts. I agree with you that +1.5 is too much. I do not agree that DS should be considered an a limitation on Continous, i.e. that the net result should by less than +1. For whatever drawbacks it gives you, it is giving you advantages, and that those advantages at a minimum offset the disadvantages.[/quote']

I did read your second post. I just didn't agree with it. If I understand you correctly, you think DS should be a +1 advantage because it should be at least as big an advantage as Continuous. I never said that DS should be a limitation on Continuous. I did agree that DS is an advantage on the Power. Continuous has nothing to do with it, IMO. Continuous allows you to continue to do damage to the target for as long as you want (or until someone sprays him with the fire extinguisher, or whatever). Damage Shield does not do that. It only does damage for as long as the target decides to keep touching you (or actually succeeds in maintaining contact despite whatever movements you may make). Constant in not the same as Continuous. Damage Shield was an advantage in 4th Ed. - at +1/2 - which seems the most appropriate value to me, for the reasons I've stated. Yes, it has drawbacks which are out weighed by the advantages. But it isn't worth as much of an advantage as Continuous.

[pinecone]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

Maybe the "answer" for D/S is to treat it much like Autofire is....some versions are much more powerfull than others so D/S goes back to being +1/2 or maybe +3/4 and attacks that effect non standard defenses are +1 additional, in the intrest of play ballence....I'm not sure where Killing fits in here is it "standard" or "special" or should it be a differant penalty for use?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

I see no problem with a Persistent Power being used as a Damage Shield -- remember that an attack Power has to be bought down to 0 END to be made Persistent' date=' so it's +1.5 in the end anyway.[/quote']

 

I do get that, and from a cost/utility POV I agree, but persistent and continuous do fundamentally different things. The fact that an ATTACK power is persistent is meaningless. Persistent does not make it 'on until switched off'. Continuous does.

 

I'd have no real problems with the DS price structure IF taking it did not automatically prevent you applying the 'no range' limitation.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

Maybe the "answer" for D?S is to treat it much like Autofire is....some versions are much more powerfull than others so D?S goes back to being +1/2 or maybe +3/4 and attacks that effect non standard defenses are +1 additional' date=' in the intrest of play ballence....I'm not sure where Killing fits in here is it "standard" or "special" or should it be a differant penalty for use?[/quote']

See post #31.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

I'd have no real problems with the DS price structure IF taking it did not automatically prevent you applying the 'no range' limitation.

I think that part is pretty funny. It makes taking an HKA/HA and appling a No Str Bonus Limitation better than taking an RKA/EB, because you can't apply an identically costed No Range Limitation? Silly. Silly just like you cannot apply the Ranged Advantage to HA for blunt thrown weapons.

[caris]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

I did read your second post. I just didn't agree with it. If I understand you correctly' date=' you think DS should be a +1 advantage because it should be at least as big an advantage as Continuous. I never said that DS should be a limitation on Continuous. I did agree that DS is an advantage on the Power. Continuous has nothing to do with it, IMO. Continuous allows you to continue to do damage to the target for as long as you want (or until someone sprays him with the fire extinguisher, or whatever). Damage Shield does not do that. It only does damage for as long as the target decides to keep touching you (or actually succeeds in maintaining contact despite whatever movements you may make). Constant in not the same as Continuous. Damage Shield was an advantage in 4th Ed. - at +1/2 - which seems the most appropriate value to me, for the reasons I've stated. Yes, it has drawbacks which are out weighed by the advantages. But it isn't worth as much of an advantage as Continuous.[/quote']

 

What exactly are you getting when you buy Damage Shield on a power that you had to buy Continuous for? You lose Range' date=' you lose control over when your opponent is "hit", you pay END even when you aren't "attacking". It seems that Damage Shield should actually be a Limitation under these circumstances.[/quote']

 

The heart of our disagreement seems to be what the advantage Continuous is "supposed" to do. I do not believe that the purpose of Continuous is to "allow you to continue doing damage to a target as long as you want." (Your comment about the fire extinguisher really doesn't make sense, because it is Unctrolled not Continuous that requires you to have a "turn off" condition.) The purpose of Continuous is to "convert an Instant Power into a Constant Power." To my mind Damage Shield must be some sort of Constant Power, and the only way to make an Instant Power into a Constant Power is with the Advantage Continuous. If you are going to build Continuous into the nature of Damage Shield than you have to decide if the net of the other elements that it gives in addition to being Contious enhance it, limit it or leave it about the same. I believe that it is left about the same. By your own words you feel that the net effect is limiting.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

The heart of our disagreement seems to be what the advantage Continuous is "supposed" to do. I do not believe that the purpose of Continuous is to "allow you to continue doing damage to a target as long as you want." (Your comment about the fire extinguisher really doesn't make sense' date=' because it is Unctrolled not Continuous that requires you to have a "turn off" condition.) The purpose of Continuous is to "convert an Instant Power into a Constant Power." To my mind Damage Shield must be some sort of Constant Power, and the only way to make an Instant Power into a Constant Power is with the Advantage Continuous. If you are going to build Continuous into the nature of Damage Shield than you have to decide if the net of the other elements that it gives in addition to being Contious enhance it, limit it or leave it about the same. I believe that it is left about the same. By your own words you feel that the net effect is limiting.[/quote']

IIRC the Uncontrolled Advantage requires you to have a turn-off condition if the Power doesn't cost End or Charges. Otherwise it just allows you to pay the End/Charges up front and then the Power continues to act without you.

 

BTW, the Continuous Advantage isn't quite the only way to convert an Instant Power into a Constant Power; Continuing Charges also do that.

[Kristopher]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

For building a Damage Shield that's not an attack under the strictest meaning of the word, but rather a side-effect of the character's own nature that cannot be turned off, applying 0 END, Persistent, and Always On should be considered an entirely legitimate build.

[caris]

Re: Terrible Thoughts -- Simple Concept, Expensive Build

 

IIRC the Uncontrolled Advantage requires you to have a turn-off condition if the Power doesn't cost End or Charges. Otherwise it just allows you to pay the End/Charges up front and then the Power continues to act without you.

 

BTW, the Continuous Advantage isn't quite the only way to convert an Instant Power into a Constant Power; Continuing Charges also do that.

 

I tend to forget about Continuing Charges, my mistake.

 

No, Uncontrolled always requires a turn off conditions. They recommend that a 0 End Uncontrolled attack also have a set durations as well as the turn off condition.