Yet Another Damage Shield Criticism

[Trebuchet]

The obvious compromise is to make DS a +1½ advantage, but require the No Range limitation for -½. There is adequate precedent; HtH Attack requires the No Figured Characteristics limitation.

[Snarf]

The obvious compromise is to make DS a +1½ advantage, but require the No Range limitation for -½. There is adequate precedent; HtH Attack requires the No Figured Characteristics limitation.

I like the sound of that. I'll try it out in my games.

 

Burnination Blast: EB 7d6 (AP 35) (RC 35)

 

Burnination Field: EB 4d6, Continuous (+1), Damage Shield (+1/2), (AP 50); No Range (-1/2), (RC 33)

[Kristopher]

What level of defense is average in the game that 4d6 is intended for?

[Snarf]

I forgot to use 0 END. The average defense is still a mystery since the game isn't fully ready yet...

 

Burnination Blast: EB 8d6 (AP 40) (RC 40)

 

Burnination Field: EB 4d6, Continuous (+1), Damage Shield (+1/2), 0 END (+1/2) (AP 60); No Range (-1/2), (RC 40)

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Snarf

This is a better comparison if you want to think about defenses, since my AP limit is a loose 60. The campaign isn't fully running yet, so the average is still a mystery...

 

Burnination Blast: EB 8d6 (AP 40) (RC 40)

 

Burnination Field: EB 5d6, Continuous (+1), Damage Shield (+1/2), (AP 62); No Range (-1/2), (RC 41)

 

If you follow the suggested formula, that makes average def about 24, doesn't it? 8d6 would do an average of 4 STUN through. 5d6 would do an average of NONE (zero, zilch, nada), and a maximum of 6 through. That's it. No more than 6 STUN through, and typically nothing at all.

 

A damage shield that doesn't do any damage isn't much of a shield, is it?

[Snarf]

Well, as previously mentioned, it's more of a specialty defense designed to take out people with lower than usual defense that defend themselves by not getting hit.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher

If you follow the suggested formula, that makes average def about 24, doesn't it? 8d6 would do an average of 4 STUN through. 5d6 would do an average of NONE (zero, zilch, nada), and a maximum of 6 through. That's it. No more than 6 STUN through, and typically nothing at all.

 

A damage shield that doesn't do any damage isn't much of a shield, is it?

That's true, but many martial artists and speedsters have DEF well below 20 so a 5d6 DS would leak Stun through to such characters. My own MA would take an average Stun of 11 Stun from a 5d6 Damage Shield (Combat Luck does not work vs. Damage Shields. 50% of her total PD/ED of 12 is Combat Luck.). If she did that 3 times she'd be out cold. If the DS was 1½d6 Killing she'd take 3 BODY and from 3-15 Stun. That is not an insignificant threat to a character without Resistant defenses. Who's going to use an Autofire punch against an opponent with a DS?

 

I think some people are misunderstanding the real purpose of DS. IMHO it's not supposed to be a fight-winning power, it's supposed to make it dangerous for lightly defended characters to attack the character. Leaking 5-8 Stun through per Phase or Segment will seriously hamper most martial artists and/or speedsters fairly quickly. DS is a character-concept power in most cases, not a primary means of attack. If it's a major portion of the character's attack, then the GM should allow it as long as it isn't too (read: unbalancingly) powerful. (That's why I don't like Active Point caps; they're too limiting towards interesting concepts. We have no limits in my campaign except character concept. We police ourselves.) Making a Damage Shield big enough to hurt a typical brick should reasonably be expected to use a substantial portion of a character's CPs, and might well be his only offensive power.

 

Or it might be Penetrating...

[Kristopher]

Hmmm.

 

I've never personally been in a campaign with a Champs PC with low enough PD/ED to -really- worry about a vanilla 5d6 EB. Or one with absolutely no resistant defenses, for that matter. Your total PD/ED would have to be under 18 to worry about 5d6.

 

* Of course, all of the campaigns I was in or ran were back in the 4th Ed days, so there wasn't any Combat "Luck" back then.

 

* For some reason, damage dice in Champs hate me. A lot. So I tend to count on getting no better than the average damage for a certain number of dice.

[tesuji]

the notion that 62 points of damage shield isn't supposed to be a fight winning effect or that its only supposed to be useful against low defense melee types is fine and dandy if a 12d6 EB was just as useful and not more, after all, it costs the same.

 

In HERo cost is supposed to be tied to effect.

 

If your Gm told you that EB would now only be useful at close range and would not hurt anyone but martial artists and speedsters with low defenses, would you still be happy to spend 60 ap for it?

 

If indeed DS is not supposed to be as serious a power as an equivalent amount of EB, then it should not cost the same. it should cost less because you get less out of it.

 

cost ~ effectiveness

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

The obvious compromise is to make DS a +1½ advantage, but require the No Range limitation for -½. There is adequate precedent; HtH Attack requires the No Figured Characteristics limitation.

 

There is also the precedent of the example HKA Damage Shield on FREd p. 163, which takes the "No STR Bonus" Limitation (-1/2). That would be the same Real Point cost as, and mechanically identical to a RKA DS of the same Base Points which took the No Range Lim. And the Real Point cost would be close to that of the 4E Damage Shield construct as a simple +1/2 Advantage. IMHO it's the most justifiable modification, makes the least change to how Damage Shields are built (which is logical), and is a reasonable compromise between those who thought the 4E way was too cheap, and those who think the 5E way is too expensive. Of course, being a compromise it probably won't wholly please anyone.

 

It really wouldn't be fair to put any further pressure on Steve Long over this issue, though; whatever we (or he) think of the ruling, it's in the rulebook and lots of published characters and other constructs, so he's really not in a position to change it even if he wanted to. We'll just have to house-rule it as we see fit... at least until 6th Edition.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by tesuji

the notion that 62 points of damage shield isn't supposed to be a fight winning effect or that its only supposed to be useful against low defense melee types is fine and dandy if a 12d6 EB was just as useful and not more, after all, it costs the same.

 

In HERo cost is supposed to be tied to effect.

 

If your Gm told you that EB would now only be useful at close range and would not hurt anyone but martial artists and speedsters with low defenses, would you still be happy to spend 60 ap for it?

 

If indeed DS is not supposed to be as serious a power as an equivalent amount of EB, then it should not cost the same. it should cost less because you get less out of it.

 

cost ~ effectiveness

I disagree that DS isn't useful, even with the +1½ advantage cost. We just disagree as to what's it's primary use is. I view it as an attrition power which is used to chip away at low-defense characters, and the ability to use DS to effect multiple opponents in one Phase who attack the character with DS is useful. Since it also provides a guaranteed hit, that makes it more useful. And the ability to "attack" characters who attack the DS user while he uses another attack or defensive power is also very useful. Attacks don't need to do damage in any case. How about a 5d6 Flash Damage Shield, or a 2" Teleport Usable as Attack Megascale Damage Shield? The possiblities are endless with a little imagination. You are thinking too linearly.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

I disagree that DS isn't useful, even with the +1½ advantage cost. We just disagree as to what's it's primary use is. I view it as an attrition power which is used to chip away at low-defense characters, and the ability to use DS to effect multiple opponents in one Phase who attack the character with DS is useful. Since it also provides a guaranteed hit, that makes it more useful. And the ability to "attack" characters who attack the DS user while he uses another attack or defensive power is also very useful. Attacks don't need to do damage in any case. How about a 5d6 Flash Damage Shield, or a 2" Teleport Usable as Attack Megascale Damage Shield? The possiblities are endless with a little imagination. You are thinking too linearly.

 

No, he'd not. He's dead spot on. Increasing the cost of a an attack power by 150% should not make it useless against characters with average defense. Even at +1, you reduce the attack to half the DCs of the maximum attack, which still leaves it more likely than that it will do nothing to a character with average defense. 12d6 max = 24 average defense; +1.5 for DS leaves 5d6 (-if- you allow a couple extra points for the DS) with an average damage of 17.5 (you'd have to average fives on the dice to do any damage); +1 for DS leaves 6d6 with an average damage of 21 (you'd have to average over four on the dice to do any damage).

 

Putting Damage Shield on an EB robs the EB of its range. Never mind that the character with DS has to pay the END to keep it going, on top of whatever other END he's using each Phase.

[Snarf]

Damage shield isn't entirely defensive, if you're capable of holding your opponent in a grab.

 

I don't think you should compare a 12d6 energy blast to a 4d6 damage shield. They are supposed to be balanced based on real cost, not active points. Compare a 4d6 (or 3d6 if you don't agree with the proposed house rule) damage shield to an 8d6 energy blast.

 

If the only problem is a campaign with consistently strong defenses, then ask the GM to relax the AP limit enough to allow something like this:

 

Burnination Field: EB 8d6, Continuous (+1), Damage Shield (+1/2), (AP 100); No Range (-1/2), (RC 67)

 

In a game like that, I don't think it would be unbalanced. As for all these evil combinations with other powers, maybe increase the cost of damage shield from +1/2 to +1 or more if something weird is going on.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher

I've never personally been in a campaign with a Champs PC with low enough PD/ED to -really- worry about a vanilla 5d6 EB. Or one with absolutely no resistant defenses, for that matter. Your total PD/ED would have to be under 18 to worry about 5d6.

All 3 of the martial artists in my campaign would potentially take damage from a mere 5d6 DS. Catseye has 16 PD/ED, 6 of that from Combat Luck. Eagle Eye has 18 PD/14 ED, 3 of that from Combat Luck. And my own Zl'f has 12 PD/ED, 6 of that from Combat Luck. While these defensive values are on the low side, only Zl'f's are really low. If the average DEF in Champions is actually 24 (and of course that is average between martial artists and bricks. I notice Green Dragon from Champions has only a 10 PD and ED and Ironclad's are 25, so I am not certain "average" defenses in Champions and CKC are as high as 24. Even Mechanon's PD and ED are only 30.), then clearly your average brick isn't likely to be affected much even if the DS is 8d6 rather than 5d6. Both of our team bricks would barely even notice an average 8d6 DS. I think our game is probably atypical in our unusually wide spread of characteristics. We have DEX ranging from 20 to 43, SPD from 4 to 9, PD from 12 to 35, damage spreads from 8d6 to 14d6. Most games I've seen are more centered numbers-wise, but we like our variety.

 

Of course, when you get right down to it only bricks and martial artists/speeedsters are likely to possibly be effected by any Damage Shield no matter how large. Energy projectors and mentalists typically attack from range anyway. So right off the bat DS is pretty much useless against any ranged attackers. That may increase the incentive to reduce DS to a +1 advantage, which is where I personally think it belongs. But that's easy enough to do with a house rule.

[Osprey]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

I disagree that DS isn't useful, even with the +1½ advantage cost. We just disagree as to what's it's primary use is. I view it as an attrition power which is used to chip away at low-defense characters, and the ability to use DS to effect multiple opponents in one Phase who attack the character with DS is useful. Since it also provides a guaranteed hit, that makes it more useful. And the ability to "attack" characters who attack the DS user while he uses another attack or defensive power is also very useful. Attacks don't need to do damage in any case. How about a 5d6 Flash Damage Shield, or a 2" Teleport Usable as Attack Megascale Damage Shield?

(Underlines added)

You've Met Dayglow!!

(A quintessential DS using heroine in my campaigns)

 

I have to agree with DS being best used as an attrition style attack. Dayglow is just an example of what I create on my crazy days.

 

I know a clarification when I see one. I mentioned a clarification made on ECs in 3rd Edition earlier.

DS has always included No Range as part of its structure, the other half was Continuous.

If I take Steve's word that his ruling is a Clarification, then a No Range EB is the same as a DS to him. Or would he say that No Range EBs require a to-hit roll to work on the guy giving you a bear hug??

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Trebuchet

I disagree that DS isn't useful, even with the +1½ advantage cost. We just disagree as to what's it's primary use is.

Actually i dont care what its "primary use" is, i just care that it gives you enough benefit by comparison with its cost.

Originally posted by Trebuchet

I view it as an attrition power which is used to chip away at low-defense characters, and the ability to use DS to effect multiple opponents in one Phase who attack the character with DS is useful.

Thats cool but in my experience thhat describes a very limited use power thats nowehre near as effective at 5d6 as a 12d6 EB is.

 

If your campaign features lots of low defense martial artists with psych lims that drew them to attack the character with the DS flaming away, then it might rise to make a 5d6 DS close to on par with the 12d6 EB, maybe.

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Since it also provides a guaranteed hit, that makes it more useful.

Use of a 12d6 Eb to damage foes... step by step...

1) EB guy decides he wants to attack anyone in range.

2) Eb guy rolls to hit

3) EB guy rolls damage 12d6 if he hit.

 

Use of 5d6 DS to damage foes...step by step...

1) Enemy decides to attack obvious damage shield guy with a melee attack, possibly needing to move to range.

2) Enemy makea a to-hit roll.

30 if successful, the DS guy rolls 5d6 for damage.

 

So, as far as i can tell, there is a necessary to-hit roll for either power to have effect. If you are willing to assume the to-hit roll was usuccessful for the latter, why not for the former?

Originally posted by Trebuchet

And the ability to "attack" characters who attack the DS user while he uses another attack or defensive power is also very useful.

You are not attacking them, they are attacking you. The advantage of having the possibility of multiple targets is offset by the fact that the choice is THEIRS. Its like buying autofire with the limitation of "willing targets only".

 

In the games i have run and been in, the DS guy is not the first choice for meleers. he is the primary target for ranged guys.

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Attacks don't need to do damage in any case. How about a 5d6 Flash Damage Shield, or a 2" Teleport Usable as Attack Megascale Damage Shield? The possiblities are endless with a little imagination. You are thinking too linearly.

Thanks for the obvious parting shot.

 

Had you read my post and comprehended it, you would have seen that my suggestion included an adjustment ala autofire for non-standard defense attacks.

 

I stated that it looks like the new DS was balanced for the oddball attacks such as clinging and nnd and such, flash included, and that it now fails for the more traditional comic versions like human torch.

 

Hence my suggestion is, like autofire, to recognize the imbalance here and scale the advantage cost.

 

For a normal EB or HKA going against normal defenses, make it +1/2. For anything that bypassed normal defenses, as was done for AF, add a +1 penalty.

 

So 8d6 Eb DS would be 60 ap as would 5d6 flash vs sight DS (62 actually) and 3d6 AVLD DS (60 ap.) For a game with 20 point defenses and flash defense averaging 2 or less, these seem about right.

I don't think you should compare a 12d6 energy blast to a 4d6 damage shield. They are supposed to be balanced based on real cost, not active points.

Actually, active points are more often within the system used as a measure of balance. besides, if you assume the same lims and frameworks, that works out the same.

Compare a 4d6 (or 3d6 if you don't agree with the proposed house rule) damage shield to an 8d6 energy blast.

I assume you are talking about the free range thingy. While i understand that approach from the math modelists, it still misses the point that DS is woefully different in effectiveness depending on whether it is against normal defenses or not.

If the only problem is a campaign with consistently strong defenses, then ask the GM to relax the AP limit enough to allow something like this:

It doesn't matter whether he cuts me off at 5d6 or allows me 8d6. The idea is to get the cost to mathc the effectiveness.

Burnination Field: EB 8d6, Continuous (+1), Damage Shield (+1/2), (AP 100); No Range (-1/2), (RC 67)

I am proposing the solution and making the comparison based on the real rules, not within the concept of other house rules.

 

Range is not the problem. Consider that while you are cheapening the EB DS with the range thing you are also cheapening the TK one, the flash one and so forth. They work just fine at +1.5 because they bypass standard defenses.

 

the no range lim "fix" is just an attempt to hide the problem under a lower rp cost.

 

In a game like that, I don't think it would be unbalanced. As for all these evil combinations with other powers, maybe increase the cost of damage shield from +1/2 to +1 or more if something weird is going on.

As i suggested earlier... make DS (with continuous included) +1/2 for normal defense attacks and +1.5 for other attacks and it seems to start working out right. This is more or less identical to the approach taken with autofire. (I would strongly consider adding the same change to AOE myself, but thats another story.)

 

Finally on the ongoing subject of auto hits and the like...

 

With a regular 12d6 EB...

1) I choose target within 600"

2) i attack and make a to hit roll.

 

With a Damage shield i have two options...

1) i chose a target within melee range

2) I attack him with a grab, taking penalties to hit and dcv.

 

OR

 

With a damage shield...

1) an enemy choses me to attack with a melee attack after seeing my DS

2) the enemy makes a to-hit roll

 

Now, i think you have two options for DS, but each of those options is worse that the EBs, significantly so, and add up to being at best ON PAR with the choises i get with the EB.

 

(personally, i would and have in the past making DS a +0 option for normal attacks and a +1 option for special ones... but i know that too radical for round here.)

[Kristopher]

The numbers I was using are based on the formula for balancing attacks and defenses that was printed on page S-22 of 4th Ed Champions.

 

According to that, average defense should 2x DCs of max attack, and max defense should be 2.5x (12 DCs = 24 average and 30 max). That would give a low-def super no less than 18/18 defenses. (And any super who has nothing in the way of resistant def -deserves- to be taken out from behind by a normal with a 9mm.)

 

10 DC = 20 average, 25 max, about 15 low-end.

8 DC = 16 average, 20 maz, 12 low-end.

[Talon]

Perhaps a useful exercise would be to see how many characters from CU and CKC would be affected by a 60 point DS (5d6 EB) and a 75 point DS (6d6 EB).

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

Perhaps a useful exercise would be to see how many characters from CU and CKC would be affected by a 60 point DS (5d6 EB) and a 75 point DS (6d6 EB).

 

Haven't seen them yet, but if they're anything like the characters from 4th Ed material, too many will have sub-par defenses for the power level in question.

 

Maybe you can count on NPCs to be go under-defended, but most PCs aren't that stupid.

[tesuji]

iirc, book not infront of me, the HERO5 BBB lists 20/10r defenses as standard and thats for 40-80 ap attacks I think.

 

So while they did lower the expected defenses by about 5, thats still not enough to make a 5d6 DS worthwhile against standard defenses... actually skip worthwhile, make that a noticeable threat.

 

 

[MisterD]

Will these work the same?

I have used Hero Designer to try to create a damage shield for a flaming character.

 

Keeping it at 60 active points, the most I could do was 4D6 (A Villian can put my character in a choke hold and not have to worry much)

 

This is what I gave my Brick character

 

Brace for Impact : Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6 (vs. PD), Damage Shield (+1/2), Reduced Endurance 0 END (+1/2), Continuous (+1) (45 Active Points); No STR Bonus (-1/2), Not vs. Targets that grab or are grabbed (-1/2), Not vs surprise attacks (-1/4)

 

IT helps but when I tried to make an offensice DS. It was not worth it.

[MisterD]

Sorry But another thought I had was the flame character was shrouded in flame.

 

He can lash out with a gold of flame doing 12D6

BUT

Someone touches him (with same flame shroud and they only take 4D6.

 

That I do not understand.

[tesuji]

This can be rationalized to say that when he throws the firebolt he is concentrating the flame into a surge, like a blowtorch vs a bonfire.

 

The part i cannot understand is that the 5d6 sheathe and the 12 d6 firebolt are defended as being equally effective and thus worth the same. In a game where cost is supposed to reflect effectiveness, that seems so radical a disconnect.

 

 

Originally posted by MisterD

Sorry But another thought I had was the flame character was shrouded in flame.

 

He can lash out with a gold of flame doing 12D6

BUT

Someone touches him (with same flame shroud and they only take 4D6.

 

That I do not understand.

[Snarf]

As i suggested earlier... make DS (with continuous included) +1/2 for normal defense attacks and +1.5 for other attacks and it seems to start working out right. This is more or less identical to the approach taken with autofire. (I would strongly consider adding the same change to AOE myself, but thats another story.

The thing with no range was sort of a one size fits all compromise solution, intended to solve Agent X's problem of players feeling better about the cost. Is damage shield really twice as effective as the plain old energy blast? Depends on the game I guess. If a PC bought the ability, I feel the GM should make an effort to create enough diversity in villians where it will have some effect most of the time.

 

The +1/2 to +1 1/2 method sounds good to me. It's more precise, gets rid of questionable required limitations, and should work better for an experienced GM.

 

Burnination Blast: EB 12d6 (AP 60) (RC 60)

 

Burnination Field: EB 6d6, Damage Shield (+1/2), 0 END (+1/2) (AP 60) (RC 60)

 

Blindination Field: Sight Group Flash 4d6, Damage Shield (+1 1/2), 0 END (+1/2), (AP 60) (RC 60)

 

To me, this looks like the best idea so far. If you're really having a problem with defenses, you can get the EB shield up to 8d6 by dropping the 0 END, and still be under the AP cap.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

Perhaps a useful exercise would be to see how many characters from CU and CKC would be affected by a 60 point DS (5d6 EB) and a 75 point DS (6d6 EB).

 

An interesting idea, with a glaring flaw however. Given the way DEF scores in general have been neutered in 5th Edition writeups it may not be an accurate test for a running campaign...

 

Must... resist... urge... to do it... anyway...