Power Defense

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Power Defense

 

To the ED question:

 

Well, two reasons mainly...

 

One, while ED does cover a wide variety of SFX they remain not all that dissimilar and many can be conceived as "resisted by a rock" kind of stuff, so the concept of "ED: something that blocks energy" is pretty easy to conceptualize. Pow DEf and the scope which adjustment powers cover not just in SFX but in effect seems to me to be broader. I have more trouble conceptualizing what it is that resists, but that has been stated.

 

Others have covered this off. I think, however, that our discussion blends two issues. The first is whether universal power defense, or specific SFX power defense, should be the norm. To me, this is the conceptual issue. It's a matter of taste more than substance. A general requirement that power defense be limited, a closer scrutinization of SFX of universal power defense, etc. can address this independent of the costing issue.

 

The second is what the appropriate cost for the defense should be. I think this is where our views diverge radically. Regardless of how it's spelled out, your approach implies all SFX are more or less the same frequency (same cost for defense against any SFX), and that the cost of "universal power defense" is appropriately tripled. Again, this can be segregated from the conceptual issue.

 

A possibly more pragmatic answer is that normal attacks and adjustment powers have a much different SFX mechanic involved.

 

My Eb lightning bolt, fire bolt and so forth will pretty much affect anything. The vast majority of say ED-affecting attacks" will affect anything, be it robots, vehicles, mutants, walls, webbing, aliens and so forth. ED works just like the attacks which usually affect it in this regard... most are not limited by SFX. The EXCEPTIOn for these are the "special resistance ED only vs X" and the attacks which are likewise restricted. They make up the rarer cases, not the majority.

 

Contrast this with, in my games, most adjustment powers being bought limited to a one or couple SFX. The drain fire powers attack does nothing against a challenge when no fire powers are present. My undead life drain does me no good at getting thru a wall, busting out of an entangle etc. By making power defense follow the same SFX based scheme that adjustment powers do, you bring powdef in sync with "most common way adjustment powers work with SFX."

 

Synching the conceptual mechanism you use for adjustment powers with the conceptual mechanism you use for power defense certainly makes sense. However, this is again a conceptual mechanism, rather than a pricing strategy. Your Drain Fire power is useful only when fire attacks are present but can (I'm assuming) Drain multiple Fire Powers (one at a time or all at once), where a Drain: EB does nothing to prevent FireGuy using his Flash, RKA or other non-EB attack powers. Thus, it is more limited and less limited than the normal adjustment Drain. If a character in my game wanted a Drain: Fire Based Energy Blasts, that would be a limitation - a normal Drain EB affects all EB's and this one does not. Similarly, a character who could drain Any One Fire-Based Attack Power should also get a limitation - a character who can drain Any One Fire-Based Power is more versatile.

 

Your change to power defense provides a limitation with no offsetting advantage.

 

ASIDE: This highlights an issue with adjustment powers in general. Most adjustment powers I see either target characteristics (which everyone has) or a reasonably common power SFX. The ability to Adjust something few people have (Jelly Doughnut or Flesh Melting powers, for example, or perhaps Find Weakness or Clinging) is not commonly purchased, unless the character in question is targetting a specific opponent (or, perhaps, has a VPP or a flavour power in a framework).

 

Are there exceptions? Sure. Some characteristic drains are bought non-SFX dependent but even then' date=' in my games, maybe not your, there are some obvious implied limits. The mage's cure light wounds spell (Heal body) wont normally be allowed by me to repair the wagon's damage or mend his armor even though technically its not limited to body on humans. The mage's strength drain spell wont be allowed to be thrown at a boat to reduce its carrying capacity, even though noats have a strength score.[/quote']

 

Again, if those implied limitations are sufficiently limiting, the power should have a Limitation. [i'm not sure the boat's STR can be drained by default to begin with, but that's neither here nor there.]

 

So how does non-universal power defense interact with universal (non-SFX dependent) adjustment powers? A STR drain defined, quite simply, as draining the target's strength, for example? I would assume that this would depend on the SFX of both attack and defense (the attack still has an SFX, presumably, even if it's "purple weakening rays"). However, it may be more equitable to allow any version of power defense to affect non-SFX limited adjustment powers, since such powers already have an advantage in wider target selection.

 

Finally, just as that biologically-based BOD Drain likely doesn't erode a wall or break an entangle based on its SFX, an electrical bolt probably doesn't destroy a grounded lightning rod, and a blast of intense cold probably doesn't shatter an iceberg. Minor variances in power effectiveness based on SFX apply to energy blasts and adjustment powers both.

 

there are plenty who would argue that you DONT need points at all and many games which play without such. i am not adverse to that approach at all, and games like Sorceror and Over the Edge and others seem to do quite well without extensive point accounting systems for balance and indeed rely almost totally on Gm discretion and Gm scripting for "play balance".

 

indeed, i think i have even seen posters on these forums, perhaps digital hero articles, on running "pointless" HERO.

 

So, its not really that far out to suggest you don't need points, even here.

 

This was, in fact, my point - if you balance the value of various abilities in play, so you're not woprried about the relative costs (which was the sense I got from your comments on the relative costing of power defense), why bother using points at all?

 

heck' date=' one might even decide to divide all the point costs by 5 to streamline the system math. Wonder if thats ever been tried? :-)[/quote']

 

ACK! The F-word! But again, that's applying points in a different fashion, not eliminating them, so I'm unclear how it relates to the discussion.

 

Ok now you are being silly' date=' right? :-)[/quote']

 

Well, extreme at least. The crux of your point on tripled power defense costs not being problematic seemed, to me, that you would balance it out in play. If that's the case, why does the relative point value of any two abilities matter - just balance it out in play. If Character A spends 1 point on LS: Water breathing, have him almost never encounter water in quantities larger than a teacup. If Character B decides his LS: Water breathing is worth 50 points, he should pretty much always find himself in an aquatic environment. Now put them on the same team and script away.

 

[ASIDE: I can't help but recall the early JLA storylines where there was ALWAYS an encounter in or near the water so Aquaman could be useful. Scripted to the character, to be sure. Quickly comes off as very contrived - definitely.]

 

then i completely understand your difference of opinion on this. In my games' date=' the vast majority of adjustment powers do have the limited by sfx issue.[/quote']

 

Thinking on it, the vast majority of adjustment powers I've seen in my games affect characteristics, not powers. Those that do affect powers tend to be SFX focused. But the vast majority of characters have no adjustment powers, which makes drawing trends a bit dicy.

 

Again this is not a matter of "cost" as much as of concept. its just hard to justify a "drain RKA" power when RKA can represent so maky things across SFX but its easy to justify a "blunt weapons" or a "reduce mutant power." which gets you into the "of given sfx"

 

If the vast majority of adjustment powers in my games were "universal in SFX" then i would likely not be looking at this the same way either.

 

Again, to me, this addresses the conceptual issue, but not the costing issue.

 

the price break for frameworks and multipower slots applies across the attack powers gamut, so it really isn't an issue separating adjustment powers from other attacks/powers.

 

again, the impact of frameworks on relative costs of attack and defense is an across the board thing, not a special issue for adjustment powers.

 

The game needs to be viewed holistically, IMO. Again in my experience, characters with SFX based adjustment powers tend to have such powers in frameworks with their other powers based on the same SFX. The exception would be Heroic wizards, but their SFX tends to be "Magic", which is almost as common as PD in most fantasy games. Thus, those SFX-based adjustment powers benefit from a near-universal price break. Power defense does not benefit from a similar price break, although perhaps you would allow your more SFX driven power defense greater latitude for inclusion in frameworks, most specifically elemental controls as the power will be SFX driven. That might balance out the costing issue somewhat.

 

While I agree this can be an issue for frameworks in general, the thrust of my point here is the ripple effect of your specific change to the cost of power defense.

[CBikle]

Re: Power Defense

 

Tesuji' date=' I can understand where you are coming from. When I ran Hero System recently, Power Defense did strike me as rather odd. It seemed like the catch all defense that covered everything left over after Physical Defense, Energy Defense, Flash Defense, and Mental Defense.[/quote']

 

Initially, Power Defense only stopped Drain (then called "Power Drain") and Transfer ("Power Transfer") and the occasional NND.

 

When Champions III came out, it became a little more useful when new attacks like Transform and "Power Destruction" (basically a drain with a heavily reduced recovery rate) and maybe one or two others I'm forgetting.

[tesuji]

Re: Power Defense

 

Has it occured to you that the distinction between EBs that attack ED and EBs that attack PD is in fact special effect based?

 

More importantly of course, it seems difficult to imagine any game world in which adjustment attacks are more common than attacks versus PD or even ED.

 

Snipped for vrevity...

 

first, Ok so there are two categories for Eb, RKA, HKA, hand attack and so forth by SFX division. thats still a lot less restrictive than we see or at least i have experienced for the SFX restrictions.

 

Secondly, as mentioned oft before, value is not solely determined by frequency. looking soley at frequency is an oversimplification.

 

All IMO YMMV etc.

 

Finally, with all the range of things adjustment powers and transforms serve for, including representing fighting styles and such, IMX a game in which they are not common might well deserve the derogatory term you decided to throw my way... whacky bizzarro or maybe just vanilla and bland.

[tesuji]

Re: Power Defense

 

 

Well, I would have built the FF with just AOE Selective and UAA; it just blankets the area and whatever the characters wants protected in that area is protected. About the same cost though.

i reread the sections on UAA before posting the example, its instructions to affect more than one target is to require the buyup of how many people. then if you dont want to touch them, buy range.

And what's wrong with the cost?

Easy its a little more expensive than a bigger effect purchased more simply.

 

Suppress 3d6 +2 all powers of given SFX +2 All SFX +1/2 NND = 52 ap.

this will reduce not only all his attacks but all his other powers as well and regardless of sfx.

 

thats better than just lowering his attacks by ~ 10 pts. It affects his frce field too, his running, his superhearing, etc... all reduced and against all targets, not just the 16 i chose.

 

it doesn't make sense for that to be 52 ap while the ff is higher and harder to maintain.

 

For some reason you think that any ability that shaves off 10 points of STUN from any attack to EVERYONE (16 people! in your example) should be cheap! Or cheaper than providing 30 PD/30 ED to a single character at no range at least. How can you say the cost is too high? "Only" 16 people... damn.

when comparing to reducing ALL the targets powers, not just his attack powers, it comes out higher. that seems pretty clear to me.

 

If i were to say to you, do you wanna knock 10 pts off only the targets PD/ED attacks or reduce all his powers by 3d6, which would you choose?

 

This does sound more like you want it to all only affect the attacks from a single target though, which is the first I've heard of it.

 

Dust on page 12 you quoted the following text from me in your own post.

 

Consider the sister to that spell called "the harrying swarm" where the effect is that hoardes of animlas do that very thing against attacks coming from a given guy. So flame boy throws his firebolt and a bird and a possum jump into the path, blunting the effect before it hits whoever it is targetted at. No mater who he throws his fire bolts at, some pesky rabbit will leap into the way, taking a few dice off the attack.

 

bold added for emphasis.

 

Again, i did not add this just now. its quoted in your post from the get-go

[tesuji]

Re: Power Defense

 

I do have to ask' date=' why does your trouble conceptualizing the defense warrent an increase in cost?[/quote']

 

it doesn't. there are multiple discussions going on and multiple topics. one thing does not always lead to another thing directly.

 

the issue of conceptualization lacks on my part, some would say being unimaginative others would say just out to spoil others fun and so forth, leads to there being more adjustment powers and more power defense bought only affecting a given SFX instead of being universal. those become the "norm" as opposed to the vanilla universal versions of either.

 

this is certainly not true in some other games. hugh notes that adjustment powers are most common without "of given SFX" apparently due to cost of advantage vs restrictive SFX efficiency issues. other note they are less willing to restrict player creativity and so forth.

 

but it is true in mine.

 

As i told hugh already, if the majority of adjustment powers were SFX independent, I would likely not see the need to make their defense also SFX dependent and could stick with the basic pow def.

 

What I am doing is applying the same standards to both the ttack and defense side, and keeping the costing similarly constructed.

 

Some wont like it, but then, campaigns vary.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Power Defense

 

Initially, Power Defense only stopped Drain (then called "Power Drain") and Transfer ("Power Transfer") and the occasional NND.

 

When Champions III came out, it became a little more useful when new attacks like Transform and "Power Destruction" (basically a drain with a heavily reduced recovery rate) and maybe one or two others I'm forgetting.

 

[NITPICK]This covers 2e onwards. In 1e, we had Characteristic Defense, Characteristic Transfer and Characteristic Defense. 2e expanded it to cover other things than characteristics.[/NITPICK]

 

I remember Power Destruction - at the time, likened to a KA Drain. We didn't get Aid or Dispel (or Summon and some other powers) in Hero until Fantasy Hero, IIRC. They were never added to Champions, but 4e brought them into the mix and (again IIRC) added Suppress.

 

Really, it should be Adjustment Defense now, shouldn't it? That would facilitate abbreviations, as well as bring the Defense up to the current nomenclature.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Power Defense

 

Really' date=' it should be Adjustment Defense now, shouldn't it? That would facilitate abbreviations, as well as bring the Defense up to the current nomenclature.[/quote']

It also applies against Transforms and Negative Skill Levels. I'm fine with calling it Power Defense. Whatever.

[David Johnston]

Re: Power Defense

 

Finally, with all the range of things adjustment powers and transforms serve for, including representing fighting styles and such, IMX a game in which they are not common might well deserve the derogatory term you decided to throw my way... whacky bizzarro or maybe just vanilla and bland.

 

Oh come on. Have you ever actually ran a game in which adjustments are more common than punches?

[tesuji]

Re: Power Defense

 

 

Well, extreme at least. The crux of your point on tripled power defense costs not being problematic seemed, to me, that you would balance it out in play. If that's the case, why does the relative point value of any two abilities matter - just balance it out in play. If Character A spends 1 point on LS: Water breathing, have him almost never encounter water in quantities larger than a teacup. If Character B decides his LS: Water breathing is worth 50 points, he should pretty much always find himself in an aquatic environment. Now put them on the same team and script away.

in the game right now, two guys buy ray gun with 12d6 Eb.

 

One describes his as his signature weapon which never seems to get stolen or broken at key moments.. so he takes no focus lim at all. he pays 60 cp in some fashion.

 

Guy 2 describes his as an alien item he took off a drunken alien in a corn field which he cannot really fix or replace. he takes focus and independent and pays 15 cp in some fashion.

 

thats a by-the-book 4-1 ratio.

 

now, the book expects the Gm to by DESIGN throw a lot more gun woes at mr 15 than mr 50. his gun should get broken, lost and eventually permanently gone (need to spend new points to replace if he can replace it at all.)

 

thats all script balancing. there is not necessarily any reason the alien ray gun gets shot out of his hand more than the other guys, or gets lost more, and so forth in terms of "what the badguys would think" but it might well be that a major big bad of the campaign is actually AFTER that alien tech ray gun and so suddenly BY SCRIPT the "man why are they always going for my gun" makes some sense.

 

The book expects script balancing already. A Gm doesn't "know" whether fire powers and lightning powers will play an equal role when he assigns his common value to the players, assuming he keep that as his power control thingy. he might suspect but its only in play when he pays a little attention to "well we have thrown fire powers three encounters out of four and no electro-guy... so..." that he keeps it in play balancing.

 

But it all comes down to geting the costs to where you think you can play it balanced without breaking sense of disbelief too much. 3-1 might be too much depending on a given trait and a given genre, the book provides for at least the 4-1 I exampled above.

 

10-1 is likely way out of whack and too far apart to keep balanced by script. But again, that depends on the Gm, the nature of the campaign and the specifics.

 

So the more you use the extremes to try and make the point, the more you move out of the actual reasonable scope where it can be used.

 

its like if i said "i like to drie to the mall" but you responded with "yeah but your car wont drive across the ocean so that sounds really bad"

 

Most games are played not in the extremes, IMX.

 

While I agree this can be an issue for frameworks in general, the thrust of my point here is the ripple effect of your specific change to the cost of power defense.

 

Again, I don't see this as any different for adjustment powers than for defenses or for energy blasts or anything else. framworks alter the prices very significatly. Some attacks wont be bought in frameworks (not i include strength/characteristics as a framework conceptually) but most will. Defenses tend to be that way too (noting that power def and mental def can be made a part of force field and thus put into frameworks) this is not made worse by changing power defenses cost. there is no ripple I see. Whenever you buy pow def, it defaults to sa single SFX and you move along.

 

now there are those who like to try and portray any change to the system under the "well its a complex system and smarter guys than us have good reasons and everything interrelates so you might have unforseen rillples popping up everywhere and what about this and what about that..." ad nauseum until the idea dies under endless "what-if-non-problems."

 

me? i long ago gave up the notion that published meant "smarter" or "better informed about my campaign." So the "what about mystery ripple/domino/invisible-synergy-monster" frets don't really concern me at all.

[tesuji]

Re: Power Defense

 

Oh come on. Have you ever actually ran a game in which adjustments are more common than punches?

 

lets see.. about three campaigns ago, one PC was a powered armor energy guy, who recharged his batts in combat using transfers, one pc was a necromancer type mage who often used strength, stun and con body transfers to feed his mana pool, and i think that was the same game where the hand to hand guy was a alien guy who ooozed a strength drain toxin or maybe it was a dex drain paralytic.

 

given the lack of a true brick for that group... that one was at least very close to being "more adjustment powers used than punches." This is especially true if you add in th aids and healing going on.

 

A brick i built recently called professor Stone is a genius/inventor and he carries around his tesla gauntlet which zaps you with a speed & dex suppress (taser like shocks disorient and spasm you.)

 

But, cost does not only derive from frequency. to think so is an oversimplification.

[CBikle]

Re: Power Defense

 

[NITPICK]This covers 2e onwards. In 1e' date=' we had Characteristic Defense, Characteristic Transfer and Characteristic Defense. 2e expanded it to cover other things than characteristics.[/NITPICK']

 

You're right ! I'd forgotten that.

[David Johnston]

Re: Power Defense

 

lets see.. about three campaigns ago, one PC was a powered armor energy guy, who recharged his batts in combat using transfers, one pc was a necromancer type mage who often used strength, stun and con body transfers to feed his mana pool, and i think that was the same game where the hand to hand guy was a alien guy who ooozed a strength drain toxin or maybe it was a dex drain paralytic.

 

 

But, cost does not only derive from frequency. to think so is an oversimplification.

 

That's nice. Now...how many of them were also capable of doing physical damage? How many of their opponents, thugs, if any included? And the cops? And the bystanders and any NPC heroes you may have had? If you happened to walk into an avalanche, did it Drain you or do physical damage?

 

It is true of of course that cost does not only derive from the frequency with which something is useful. It also derives from how useful it is when you get a chance to use it (but Power Defense isn't more useful than PD and ED when you get a chance to use it). Lastly of course it simply derives from how much you want to discourage people from getting it. That last one seems to be the relevant one. So, like I said, I'd bow to the GM's wishes and get more Body instead.

[tesuji]

Re: Power Defense

 

 

That's nice. Now...how many of them were also capable of doing physical damage? How many of their opponents, thugs, if any included? And the cops? And the bystanders and any NPC heroes you may have had? If you happened to walk into an avalanche, did it Drain you or do physical damage?

again you focus only on frequency.

it doesn't matter how many enemies have 2d6 normal punches, since those wont threaten the PCs in any meaningful ways.

it doesn't matter how much damage an abalanche might do if it never shows up.

It doesn't matter if only 1 supervillain in 10 have adjustment powers, if a major hunted or two plus the bad guy of the campaign have more than that.

etc...

 

It is true of of course that cost does not only derive from the frequency with which something is useful. It also derives from how useful it is when you get a chance to use it (but Power Defense isn't more useful than PD and ED when you get a chance to use it).

it isn't? IMX the attack dice of most, not all, adjustment powers tend to be less than those of the Ebs and such. A little power defense goes a lot further than a little EB or PD. Thats part of the reason most characters who have PD ED and Pow Def have a significant amount less of pow Def than the other two.

 

IMX at least.. and IIRC also seems to match most of the published HERO characters.

 

Lastly of course it simply derives from how much you want to discourage people from getting it. That last one seems to be the relevant one. So, like I said, I'd bow to the GM's wishes and get more Body instead.

 

frankly, you seem tense. Could just be vagaries of internet tho.

 

sure, if your concept supports it, you can buy body instead.

 

which would not help you one bit against most of the adjustment powers, only the transforms. It will help you in other ways.

 

I am certainly not going to argue that against transformations body is not a better buy over power def, tho if the campaign features transforms that take two or more shots to turn you, it becomes debatable. The fig stun you get from body does a lot of good.

 

but when you begin to look at pow def affecting adjustment powers as well, and then you take their role, its certainly more of a trade off.

 

I mean, hey, when prof-stone hits you with a speed-dex suppress that lowers your heroes speed by 2 and your Cv by 2-3, that extra body might not be enough to keep you up as people wail on your guy.

 

But finally we come to the big question, at least in my game...

 

does your character concept call for more body or for special defenses. Not everyone purchases traits solely based on best minmax cost effectiveness. Some games encourage that by running say a more or less "whatever happens happens" kind of storyline.

 

But in other games it doesn't follow that whats purchased is determined by whats most cost effective. Some even buy things that don't help in combat at al, or have limited application, due to concept, in those games.

Fortunately for them, there are some GMs who will script encounters, so taking "power defense "physical tough hard to maim" won't just be a point sink for concept but something that shows up as "worth what the GM told me to pay" in actual play.

 

After all, if i as Gm say "pay X for y" and that "cost relates to effectiveness" then i am being disengenuous to my players if i then run encounters/campaigns which show them those points weren't worth what i charged them, right.

 

I try not to be disengenuous with my players.

 

but then, no one GMing style is universal.

[tesuji]

Re: Power Defense

 

Lastly of course it simply derives from how much you want to discourage people from getting it. That last one seems to be the relevant one. So, like I said, I'd bow to the GM's wishes and get more Body instead.

 

Ok lets try this as an approach to maybe get the direction of thought going a bit.

 

A Gm for her comes up and asks youn in your sage role as HERO guru the following question...

 

"In my game, for various reasons, i have DOUBLED the price of EB, RKA, HKA, strength, and basically any attack power that goes vs PD/ED. " you of cours protest the folly of his not using the published rules but he seems serious and asks you to advise him on one thing...

 

"What should i do given the change in the attacks vs PD/ED to the cost of PD/ED and related defenses."

 

What would your answer, your considered opinion, your sage advice, be?

 

Lets suggest he thinks one of the following is the right move now...

1. leave it as is 1-1.

2. double all the PD/ED and related defense powers costs. So force field is 2 ap for +1 defense. Armor is 3 per pt.

3. lower the cost by some amount.

 

always, other please specify is available cuz you might have thunk of another better answer than these.

 

what would you say, David?

Why would you advise it?

 

EDIT to clarify: this is not for a heroic game. Most all meaningful attacks WILL be bought with CP.

[David Johnston]

Re: Power Defense

 

Ok lets try this as an approach to maybe get the direction of thought going a bit.

 

A Gm for her comes up and asks youn in your sage role as HERO guru the following question...

 

"In my game, for various reasons, i have DOUBLED the price of EB, RKA, HKA, strength, and basically any attack power that goes vs PD/ED. " you of cours protest the folly of his not using the published rules but he seems serious and asks you to advise him on one thing...

 

"What should i do given the change in the attacks vs PD/ED to the cost of PD/ED and related defenses."

 

What would your answer, your considered opinion, your sage advice, be?

 

Lets suggest he thinks one of the following is the right move now...

1. leave it as is 1-1.

2. double all the PD/ED and related defense powers costs. So force field is 2 ap for +1 defense. Armor is 3 per pt.

3. lower the cost by some amount.

 

 

Pfeh. I'd say to hell with worrying about the price of the defense. What you need to worry about is the price of the other attacks. Those are what you need to be comparing your change in attack price to. Since you've doubled the price of an EB, a Mind Blast, an entangle, or a Drain just suddenly got way more cost effective. Defenses need to be compared to other defenses and attacks need to be compared to other attacks.

[David Johnston]

Re: Power Defense

 

I mean, hey, when prof-stone hits you with a speed-dex suppress that lowers your heroes speed by 2 and your Cv by 2-3, that extra body might not be enough to keep you up as people wail on your guy.

 

If the GM wants to screw me up, he'll screw me up. There's nothing to be done about it. Odds are that a single special effect power defense won't be against the right special effect anyway.

 

does your character concept call for more body or for special defenses.

Am I going to nerf my character to suit the concept? No. I have hundreds of character concepts. If Power Defense is not cost effective, then I'll pick one of my concepts that isn't centered on Power Defense. And more often than not even when a character concept accomodates Power Defense it does not _call_ for Power Defense. I have several characters who could have Power Defense but don't need it to be true to what I consider important about the character.

 

After all, if i as Gm say "pay X for y" and that "cost relates to effectiveness" then i am being disengenuous to my players if i then run encounters/campaigns which show them those points weren't worth what i charged them, right.

 

All that would reflect though is your opinion about the effectiveness. Unless you actually explained to me just why Power Defense is so much more effective than PD, I'd have to go with my own judgement.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Power Defense

 

For those following along at home, the bold text originates with tesuji.

 

I mean, hey, when prof-stone hits you with a speed-dex suppress that lowers your heroes speed by 2 and your Cv by 2-3, that extra body might not be enough to keep you up as people wail on your guy.

 

If the GM wants to screw me up, he'll screw me up. There's nothing to be done about it. Odds are that a single special effect power defense won't be against the right special effect anyway.

 

Hmmm...my concept calls for resistance to Drains, etc. Pardon me whilst I tweak my concept. My character recovers rapidly when his abilities are reduced by Adjustment powers. Thus, he buys Regeneration for all stats and/or powers reduced by Adjustment powers. Or a Triggered Heal when negatively affected by adjustment powers. He still takes the damage - he just recovers it very quickly. The cost of Healing wasn't tripled, was it?

 

does your character concept call for more body or for special defenses.

Am I going to nerf my character to suit the concept? No. I have hundreds of character concepts. If Power Defense is not cost effective, then I'll pick one of my concepts that isn't centered on Power Defense. And more often than not even when a character concept accomodates Power Defense it does not _call_ for Power Defense. I have several characters who could have Power Defense but don't need it to be true to what I consider important about the character.

 

What David said. If, in your game, everyone has Mental Defense and the PsiPolice descend on anyone who uses mental powers in a manner you dislike, I'll sabve my Mentalist for another game. If you double the price of STR, my Brick can go back on the shelf for this game. If you have doubled the price of attacks that affect PD and ED, perhaps my concept will be based around adjustment powers, flash and/or mental powers. And if you triple the cost of power defense, I'll probably pick a concept that doesn't depend heavily on power defense if I believe that's going to render my character less than effective.

 

After all, if i as Gm say "pay X for y" and that "cost relates to effectiveness" then i am being disengenuous to my players if i then run encounters/campaigns which show them those points weren't worth what i charged them, right.

 

All that would reflect though is your opinion about the effectiveness. Unless you actually explained to me just why Power Defense is so much more effective than PD, I'd have to go with my own judgement.

 

David and I won't be buying power defense in that campaign, I suspect - if we're not convinced already, I doubt we will be. Of course, that's an academic choice for us anyway - if we were playing in your game, chances are we'd have a better feel for whether we believe your claims that this will all balance out in play.

 

Some GM's believe mental powers are excessively powerful, and others think they're about right, or even under powered. If GM #1 renders Mentalists impotent because he thinks they're currently overpowered, I suspect most players will simply not play mentalists, not decide that that's their concept and accept their character being less useful, whether because of restrictions imposed on mentalists (PsiCops; 175 different "classes of mind"; everyone gets 15 Mental Defense for free; whatever) or because of increases to the cost of mental powers. If you provide a disincentive to any given concept, you'll find the concept doesn't see as much play. Enough disincentive and the concept will vanish.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Power Defense

 

Sheesh! It's just Power Defense guys!

[tesuji]

Re: Power Defense

 

Pfeh. I'd say to hell with worrying about the price of the defense. What you need to worry about is the price of the other attacks. Those are what you need to be comparing your change in attack price to. Since you've doubled the price of an EB' date=' a Mind Blast, an entangle, or a Drain just suddenly got way more cost effective. Defenses need to be compared to other defenses and attacks need to be compared to other attacks.[/quote']

 

oh well, i didn't think it would go anywhere.

 

thanks anyway.

[tesuji]

Re: Power Defense

 

 

If the GM wants to screw me up, he'll screw me up. There's nothing to be done about it. Odds are that a single special effect power defense won't be against the right special effect anyway.

Ok, David, a chance of a breakthru moment here.

 

you acknowledge that if the Gm wants to screw you up (example given in this case is actually using an adjustment power after you decided to take no defense) if he wants to. I believe the implication is "no matter what i spend on". Right? You buy the IYO "smarter buy" and the Gm throws the thing you avoided.

 

This brings up two items which might clue you into how i see/run things.

 

1. if the Gm can screw you if he wants, etc, then there isn't a "most efficient" spend. There isn't a "smart" or "best". So using "best" or "most efficient" to decide on your characters traits isn't really getting any real gain, barring GM deciding "to not screw you." There is no real competition here. if you "win" the chargen game, its cuz he let you.

 

2. By the exact same token, a Gm can "not screw you" if he wants. If you spend for the heck of it, instead of the best math, on say "power defense: tough to maim my tough SOB" the Gm CAN if he wants "not screw you" and throw enemies and situations where that particular SFX comes into play enough to make the points worth it. (This describes a gaming situation where its really not "you vs the GM".) There is no competition here either.

 

Summary: if the Gm can "screw you" when he wants, no matter what you buy, AND the Gm can "not screw you" whenever he wants, also no matter what you buy, then basing chargen decisions on "most efficient" or in other words "most powerful for a given set of points" is chasing a figment of your imagination.

 

Am I going to nerf my character to suit the concept? No. I have hundreds of character concepts.

amazing how i talk about not spending solely based on most efficient and you swing all the way to nerfing the character.

 

to me, there is a huge span between those two and thats where many games, almost all of mine, are played.

 

All that would reflect though is your opinion about the effectiveness. Unless you actually explained to me just why Power Defense is so much more effective than PD, I'd have to go with my own judgement.

 

My explanation would be simple... and its part of the usual discussion when i run point buy games...

 

its my job as Gm to highlight your character's traits in this campaign and to make sure what you pay (the cost i assign) is worth what you get out of it, and i am fairly good at that job. So, if you want to try and find the "most efficient" or avoid the "not efficient" you are limiting yourself for what will in effect be "no real gain". If you spend +10 points on body and Hugh spends +10 pts on power defense "hard to maim", and you think "hey, i got the better deal", you will likely be surprised (maybe dismayed) when you see how much benefit he gets out of his "hard to maim" and realize "hmmm... it was worth it after all."

 

When that happens remember what i said about my job here and now up front.

 

So, why deny yourself the ability for your character to have some or more unique, flavorful traits instead of chasing the illusory "most efficient?" The player who made all his decisions on most efficient and the player who spent all his points on "for fun cool stuff" will both find themselves playing relatively equal characters, in terms of their ability to answer the challenges presented.

 

Some agree, others don't... but thats cool cuz not any one Gming or gaming style is universal. i sure know Gms for whom the above is in direct opposition to how they run HERo, and DND, and so forth and have had my share of "i got a backpack full of characters" players too.

[schir1964]

Re: Power Defense

 

tesuji,

 

There is an element that you left out that has a great influence on the cost of of things. You neglected to mention if you enforce the "Point Allotment" for creating characters. For superheroes the book suggests 350 Points with 150 in Disadvantages.

 

Now if you enforce this rule for creating characters then the cost of each item will influence what they purchase, since if they are trying to create a certain type of character and it costs more to create that character with the alloted points, they may decide that can't created it properly and choose a different character concept.

 

Now if you don't enforce this rule, which is most likely concidering your viewpoint, then as long as the things purchased are to concept and are relatively "balanced" for your campaign, then it won't matter as much if the cost of things are changed.

 

So, do you use the Point Allotment for creating character in your games?

 

Just Curious

 

- Christopher Mullins

[tesuji]

Re: Power Defense

 

So, do you use the Point Allotment for creating character in your games?

 

yes i do, but to me in my experience, the word is "might" not "will".

 

i choose the point totals (and the other limits) based on xpected to fit the campaign. it should not be a case of "can i do the concept for the points" unless something is horrendously overpirced, in which case, i will look at the cost.

 

So then its not "do i have points for the concept" but more"is the concept ok" and "what do i want".

 

When it comes to "what do i want?" the ones who pay attention rapidly figure out "i don't have to limit myself to the most efficient point things" because as Gm i will tend to make what they bought worth what i charged them for it. As i tell them, if i am not going to kake things worth their cost, why would i make you do points at all?

[zornwil]

Re: Power Defense

 

Does anyone else have kind of an "issue" with this power? I Know why its there. Every type of attack should have a defense and Adjustment powers are a seperate type of attack. Its simple and effective but it seems to cover such a wide variety of special effects its hard to come up with reason for universal power defense. For example, in a campaign I was playing in a Power Suit type character was subjected to an Ego Drain power from a villian. So he spent some expeirence points on Power Defense (apparently enough to make him completly immune to villian's attack). Understandable, but it seems odd that his character is not only immune to her largely mental effect but he's just as resistant to a matter manipulator destroying his suits structural intergrity, a life leeching alien slowly killing him and not even effecting the suit, a sorcere's spell of soul destruction (ego drain) or an Electrokinetic draining the suits power calls all from effectively one system. I'm sure there are example of this sort of thing in the "source material" but it seems a bit, I guess, too much for me personally.

 

Has anyone run into the mental hurdle? I avoid it when I gm by trying to avoid ajustment powers as much as possible and ususally asking those who get Power Defense to purchase a limitation on it, even its -0.

(Quoted just to bring the original question into focus)

 

First, I haven't yet read through the several pages, but here's my own personal take on it and how I use/deal with it.

 

I eliminated PowDef and replaced it with Supernatural Defense, which became the default assumption for the abilities which currently target PowDef. Of course, this doesn't mean you HAVE to target SD, if you prefer to target ED or PD you change just as normal. Bear in mind this also went in tandem with the fact that I also have SD/Supernatural Attacks as a class of their own, anyway, for attack/defense. I assume supernatural abilities sum up all metaphysical sorts of things that break the rules of our physics and therefore don't belong in ED or PD.

 

That being said, I'm not suggesting Supernatural as a system replacement for PowDef, it's specific to a style of campaigning and by itself isn't a solution, anyway, for the lack of SFX definition of PowDef.

 

Now, bear in mind that PD and ED are actually examples of SFX embedded into mechanics. From that perspective, PowDef is unlike those and is more HERO-orthodox (despite being a far later invention) in its true separation of SFX and mechanics. I'm sure this has been stated elsewhere, and it's not novel of me to point out that therein lies the rub, too, as that divorce makes it harder to, as you say, wrap yuor head around it.

 

I think it's acceptable to eliminate it and simply requires the other defenses to be employed, but that does diminish a little bit the game options/choices that can be made. I think you don't have to overthink it, though, and can retain it mechanically as being what it is, the default Defense of all powers and characteristics, which otherwise have no Def. It represents basically how hard they are to take away, really, and if we think more in terms of stories and mechanics supporting stories, this makes more sense. Characters who have abilities that are never drained when others' are can thusly be represented. Yes, in that respect it is a bit of a merge of metagame and game in an interesting way, not dissimilar to many indie game mechanics which promote a similarly pure divorce of SFX and mechanics. So, in the end, I feel this is not a system or even game layer problem.