Yet Another Damage Shield Criticism

[Talon]

Originally posted by 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.

 

If you use these numbers you are out of luck with any version of Damage Shield. The 4th Edition +1/2 gets you an 8d6 Damage Shield, which will do little to no damage against average defenses and nothing against max.

 

With that standard, any advantage -- AOE, Explosion, 0 END -- reduces the damage to the point where you're doing nothing. It's the best argument for lowering the average defense.

 

For those math inclined, 4th Ed DS = +1/2; Damage Shield DC = MaxDC * 2/3; Average Stun = Max DC * 2/3 * 3.5, or around Max DC * 2.3.

[Kristopher]

In a 12 DC campaing, it's 4 STUN through on an average roll against average defense. (8 x 3.5 = 28, 28 - 24 = 4)

 

8d6 AP averages 16 STUN through.*

8d6 Pen averages 8 STUN through.*

8d6 AoE or Explosion averages 4 STUN through, but is much easier to hit with.

 

Even if you lower the average defenses to 20 (following the 5thEd advice), a 4d6 DS (at +1.5) only does 4 through on a MAXIMUM roll, and averages absolutely no STUN through.

 

 

* Leaving aside Hardened for the moment.

 

[JmOz]

Did any of you notice this months digital hero?

[TaxiMan]

I liked the Digital Hero discussion of new Triggers instead of Damage Shield. But maybe I don't understand something - doesn't Damage Shield draw END every phase? I always hated that, it is a huge limitation. So huge, that I always had to add an advantage to offset it.

 

The Digital Hero article seems to ignore the fact that its Trigger won't draw END unless it's used. I REALLY like that.

 

Also, in the FAQ it says you can use HA for a damage shield. So quit talking about EB! With an HA Damage Shield, you get to add your STR and you get the mandatory -1/2 limitation! Why anyone would use EB is beyond me.

 

(But then, there is plenty that's beyond me, so feel free to enlighten.)

 

[Edit: OK, HA is restrainable, doesn't model most Damage Shields, etc. It mostly looks like an auto-counterattack power. But the point munchkin in me screams for it!]

[JmOz]

AND ON TOP OF THAT you can add: Str does not add, a -1/2...

 

Funny thought just occured to me about the HA:

 

MY WAY (+1/2 advantage on normal attacks)

 

8d6 EB DS 0 end, 80 Real/80 Active

 

Official rules munchkin way

 

8d6 HA, continous, DS, 0 end, HA limitation, No Str add:

 

120 Active, 60 Real...

[TaxiMan]

All right! Now were talkin!

 

Use the new Trigger rules (+1 1/2), and you don't have to add Continuous. Use HA with 0 end (+1/2), HA limitation (-1/2), No Str (-1/2). Here's what you get:

 

8d6 Trigger DS, 0 End, HA, No Str [80 AP, 40 CP]

 

Yeah, baby! We've got Damage Shield licked now!

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by 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.

Since we're discussing changes wrought by FREd to Damage Shield, using 4th Edition guidelines may be a mistake. It is quite clear from both the pre-designed characters in Champions and CKC and comments made by Steve Long that 5th edition made a deliberate attempt to lower average defenses. I'd say they are now looking more along the lines of 1 to 1½ times attack for low end characters, 2 to 2½ times for average, and 3 or more for bricks. So a martial artist with a 12-15 PD is not unreasonable in a game with 8-10 DC attacks. YMMV. My martial artist with 12 PD gets knocked out or Stunned almost every adventure, our last one was notable because she wasn't (although she finished the fight with only 3 Stun left.).

 

And raw defenses are only part of the equation. CON and Stun are equally important parts of total combat toughness. Our team's brick Silhouette can take much more damage than our powered armor guy Cyberknight even though their defenses are virtually identical because the brick has a 33 CON and 50 Stun whereas our PA has 20 CON and 35 Stun. That makes an enormous difference in combat.

 

One problem I have seen from reading these boards is that many campaigns increased from 250 to 350 CP with the release of 5th Edition without a corresponding increase in damage caps. Since characters have an extra 100 points to spend but can't spend it on more damage they often pump it into defenses instead. The unfortunate results are cheesy martial artists with 23 PD who don't even bother to dodge a thug's bullet because it can't possibly hurt them. IMHO if your martial artist doesn't need to dodge bullets then you're doing something wrong. The obvious solution is to either raise damage caps or eliminate them altogether. If that is done 75-80 active point Damage Shields versus average defenses of 20-24 suddenly look a lot more reasonable.

 

I am not claiming a 5d6 DS is equal to a 12d6 EB in power, I'm saying it may be it's equivalent in usefulness. Damage Shield help keep characters with one from being pounded on by low DEF/high CV/high SPD characters. They are as much defense as offense. While the attacking character does have the choice of whether or not to attack the character with DS, if he opts not to attack because of potential damage then I'd say DS just acted as 100% Damage Reduction.

 

(And any super with no resistant defenses who lets himself get hit by a normal with a 9mm deserves what he gets. But when was the last time you saw a normal with a CV of 4 hit a superhero with an 12 CV? )

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by tesuji

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.

If a Damage Shield prevents a character from being attacked by a low defense character (whose attack might well be on par with the brick's attack.) then I'd say it's paid for itself just fine. If your campaign has characters which can't be hurt by a 5d6 DS because of a 60 active point cap, then why not raise that cap or reduce the advantage to +1 or +¾ instead of griping about how your favorite screw-over for hand to hand types isn't cost effective anymore. Aren't you the GM in your campaign? If you aren't and you think your case for lower advantages for Damage Shields is so solid and logical then present it to your GM and ask him to change the house rules or the ap cap. Why do you feel the need for "official sanction" in the most flexible game system in history?

 

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?

You are deliberately missing the most salient point about Damage Shields, which is that they generally require the character with one to be attacked in order to work. That applies equally whether the DS is 5d6 or 15d6. Of course, if the character is not attacked because of his "obvious damage shield" then he's got his points' worth out of the DS, hasn't he? Damage Shields are as much defense as offense, in spite of what you happen to think.

 

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.

Maybe that's because not everyone is stupid enough to want to attack someone with a Damage Shield, in spite of how ineffective you personally happen to think they are. Do you really think if you increase the DS to 8d6 he'll be less of a target for the ranged guys? I'd say that'll probably just put him higher on the priority list.

 

I comprehended your comments just fine, thank you.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Since we're discussing changes wrought by FREd to Damage Shield, using 4th Edition guidelines may be a mistake. It is quite clear from both the pre-designed characters in Champions and CKC and comments made by Steve Long that 5th edition made a deliberate attempt to lower average defenses. I'd say they are now looking more along the lines of 1 to 1½ times attack for low end characters, 2 to 2½ times for average, and 3 or more for bricks. So a martial artist with a 12-15 PD is not unreasonable in a game with 8-10 DC attacks. YMMV. My martial artist with 12 PD gets knocked out or Stunned almost every adventure, our last one was notable because she wasn't (although she finished the fight with only 3 Stun left.).

 

Recommended max used to be 2.5x, so if bricks are at about 3 times DC, then the defenses haven't been lowered, they've been spread out more.

 

As for published characters, I haven't seen most of them yet, but if they're at all like the 4thEd characters, they'll be all over the place in terms of quality of construction, balance, appropriate attack and defense levels, etc. There were plenty of official published Champs characters in 4thEd that wouldn't have lasted 1 round against most groups I've played with, because they were jokes -- 200 pt characters built on about 300 pts, characters without the defenses to withstand anyone with attacks comparable to their own, characters with everything in one "underfunded" Multipower, so that they couldn't put up serious offense and defense at the same time, etc, etc, etc. While some of that might have been valid concept-driven character creation, that doesn't explain the fact that the shortcomings were so pandemic.

 

And raw defenses are only part of the equation. CON and Stun are equally important parts of total combat toughness. Our team's brick Silhouette can take much more damage than our powered armor guy Cyberknight even though their defenses are virtually identical because the brick has a 33 CON and 50 Stun whereas our PA has 20 CON and 35 Stun. That makes an enormous difference in combat.

 

I realise that. Never said otherwise.

 

The 4d6 EB Damage Shield isn't going to do anything to either one of them, though, is it?

 

One problem I have seen from reading these boards is that many campaigns increased from 250 to 350 CP with the release of 5th Edition without a corresponding increase in damage caps. Since characters have an extra 100 points to spend but can't spend it on more damage they often pump it into defenses instead. The unfortunate results are cheesy martial artists with 23 PD who don't even bother to dodge a thug's bullet because it can't possibly hurt them. IMHO if your martial artist doesn't need to dodge bullets then you're doing something wrong. The obvious solution is to either raise damage caps or eliminate them altogether. If that is done 75-80 active point Damage Shields versus average defenses of 20-24 suddenly look a lot more reasonable.

 

Heh. Once built a martial artist with power armor...bad things, man...bad things...

 

In my experience, a lot of that 100 points is eaten up by things that have gotten more expensive.

 

I am not claiming a 5d6 DS is equal to a 12d6 EB in power, I'm saying it may be it's equivalent in usefulness. Damage Shield help keep characters with one from being pounded on by low DEF/high CV/high SPD characters. They are as much defense as offense. While the attacking character does have the choice of whether or not to attack the character with DS, if he opts not to attack because of potential damage then I'd say DS just acted as 100% Damage Reduction.

 

A) It's not the equivalent in usefulness.

We disagree on the purpose of Damage Shield.

 

A 60-point damaging power should be capable of damaging most characters on a reasonable roll (average to somewhat above). By the FRED book, a 60-point DS needs to max out on the roll just to _scratch_ most characters.

 

(And any super with no resistant defenses who lets himself get hit by a normal with a 9mm deserves what he gets. But when was the last time you saw a normal with a CV of 4 hit a superhero with an 12 CV? )

 

Shot from behind...

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher

Recommended max used to be 2.5x, so if bricks are at about 3 times DC, then the defenses haven't been lowered, they've been spread out more.

 

Agreed. But I think spreading out defenses and damage is a good thing, which is one reason I don't like point caps. Point caps always seem to lead to maxed out characters. I've alway thought it silly that martial artists were doing 10d6 but bricks were doing only 12d6. Once I relaxed the point caps in my campaign the field spread out considerably.

 

As for published characters, I haven't seen most of them yet, but if they're at all like the 4thEd characters, they'll be all over the place in terms of quality of construction, balance, appropriate attack and defense levels, etc. There were plenty of official published Champs characters in 4thEd that wouldn't have lasted 1 round against most groups I've played with, because they were jokes -- 200 pt characters built on about 300 pts, characters without the defenses to withstand anyone with attacks comparable to their own, characters with everything in one "underfunded" Multipower, so that they couldn't put up serious offense and defense at the same time, etc, etc, etc. While some of that might have been valid concept-driven character creation, that doesn't explain the fact that the shortcomings were so pandemic.

I totally share your evaluation of the old Hero characters, but I think you'll find the 5th Edition characters are considerably superior to their 4th edition predecessors. While I don't use them (as is, anyway) in my campaign, that's more because I have my own campaign universe. With minor alterations and costume changes many if not most of the supervillains from 5th Edition are quite serviceable as good opponents for my players. Dr. Destroyer is absolutely horrifying.

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Trebuchet

If a Damage Shield prevents a character from being attacked by a low defense character (whose attack might well be on par with the brick's attack.) then I'd say it's paid for itself just fine.

That true only if the low defense guy is a significant enough threat often enough to make this worth the points paid. In fact, it may only be helping make that LDMA's target selection easier, guiding him to attack someone else while drawing ranged attackers to the DS guy. Influencing the LDMA guys to attack some other member of your party is not necessarily worth anything.

 

Originally posted by Trebuchet

If your campaign has characters which can't be hurt by a 5d6 DS because of a 60 active point cap, then why not raise that cap or reduce the advantage to +1 or +¾ instead of griping about how your favorite screw-over for hand to hand types isn't cost effective anymore.

You seem to be saying that DS is if not at +1/5 some sort of a screw for HTH types? I certainly didn't say that, nor do the rules i propose i think promote that.

 

Anyway, to dispel a misconception you have, i dont care about the point cap. I care about the cost-for-effective part. Allowing someone to spend 120 points on a damage shield to make it as useful as a 60 point eb is not an answer. things of the same usefulness, same effectiveness should cost the same. If that is true then you do not need to raise the damage cap for one specific power...

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Why do you feel the need for "official sanction" in the most flexible game system in history?

Why do you feel the need to oppose one?

 

Originally posted by Trebuchet

You are deliberately missing the most salient point about Damage Shields, which is that they generally require the character with one to be attacked in order to work.

[/b]

Actually i did not miss it at all. I highlighted it. The people who keep mistakenly going back to the mythical automatic hit were the ones who were missing it. Both EB and DS require a successful to hit roll to be effective... the only thing that is different is who makes the roll.

Originally posted by Trebuchet

That applies equally whether the DS is 5d6 or 15d6.

Yes indeed but are you mistaken in thinking this is a discussion about whether 15d6 DS or 5d6 DS is more powerful? It isn't. its a comparison of 5d6 DS and 8d6 DS or even 12d6 DS against say 12d6 EB to see if they are balanced right.

 

hence the to hit not being automatic is an important part.

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Of course, if the character is not attacked because of his "obvious damage shield" then he's got his points' worth out of the DS, hasn't he?

If DS worked like deflection so that it actually blokced an attack then you would have a point. DS doesn't do that. DS may influence the weaker defended guys to attack your teammates while encouraging the ranged attack guys to shoot you because they dont have to worry about it.

 

Thats not like stopping an attack, merely helping the other side make targetting choices.

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Damage Shields are as much defense as offense, in spite of what you happen to think.

Damage shield never stops a single point of damage, never causes a single attack to miss. hence its not a defense. Having claws and no ray guns may convince the enemy to send ranged guys at you and meleers at others too, that doesn't make them defenses.

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Maybe that's because not everyone is stupid enough to want to attack someone with a Damage Shield, in spite of how ineffective you personally happen to think they are. Do you really think if you increase the DS to 8d6 he'll be less of a target for the ranged guys? I'd say that'll probably just put him higher on the priority list.

Well if that difference means he is a bigger threat because he got his points woirth, he certainly is a bigger threat. That however doesn't mean he is getting his powers worth.

 

I mean would you think that a character who 60 ap for a 6d6 EB would be better off because the enemies wouldn't take him seriously?

Originally posted by Trebuchet

 

I comprehended your comments just fine, thank you.

 

perhaps.

 

Like i said, if your campaign features enough cases of the LDMA types so that you do indeed get out of a 5d6 DS taking 6 end per phase whether attacked or not as you could out of a 12d6 EB, then the +1.5 seems appropriate for you.

 

If your campaign however features defenses in line with the 20 defense standard established in the book, i think its fairly easy to see that the 5d6 DS for 62 ap isn;t cutting it.

 

i certainly do think that in each campaign the GM needs to evaluate the values of both base powers and advantages and lims, so if the official rule was +1/2 (+1/5 for special) and because of your campaign's defenses you went with +1/5 for all... that would make sense.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher

A 60-point damaging power should be capable of damaging most characters on a reasonable roll (average to somewhat above). By the FRED book, a 60-point DS needs to max out on the roll just to _scratch_ most characters.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I'm basing my comments based on my own experience as a player and a GM in my campaign. In 21 years of playing HERO I have simply not found Damage Shields to be ineffective (even the 5th Edition ones); rather I've found them to be half defense and half offense. Of course that's not as good as either a pure offense or pure defense of the same active points; compromises seldom are. I've built villains with DS and I've fought villains with DS. It is not useless in my experience. Obviously your experience differs.

 

As for being overpriced for the effect, perhaps you think that also applies to NND attacks as well? After all, if the player has even 1 point of the appropriate defense then the NND does zero damage. So is NND overpriced at +1? What about AVLD?

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

As for being overpriced for the effect, perhaps you think that also applies to NND attacks as well? After all, if the player has even 1 point of the appropriate defense then the NND does zero damage. So is NND overpriced at +1? What about AVLD?

 

The trick is, an NND is also likely to do ever single point of damage rolled.

 

AVLD on the other hand is a little overpriced in my opinion. I have a long-standing house rule by which the cost is increased to +2 but they do BODY, seems to fit the nitch I wanted it to (I never allow NND's to do BODY after some bad experiences there).

[Snarf]

Geez, what a controversial power. It sounds like the problem is that the effectiveness of damage shield varies widely for different campaigns and different players.

 

If that's the trouble, then everyone should set their own price for it based on their own playtesting. If a player buys it and it turns out less or more effective than it should, you could adjust the price and allow the player to remake the character partially between games.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by tesuji

Damage shield never stops a single point of damage, never causes a single attack to miss. hence its not a defense. Having claws and no ray guns may convince the enemy to send ranged guys at you and meleers at others too, that doesn't make them defenses.

No, it causes some attacks not to be made in the first place. In my book that's just as good as extra PD or ED.

 

When I was in the Army 22+ years ago, I was in air defense. To air defense personnel it really doesn't matter whether they shoot down the enemy plane or just make it go home to avoid being shot down. If he doesn't attack he can't succeeed in his mission. Damage Shields can accomplish much the same thing. They are an active defense, not a passive one. If even one character declines to attack a character with DS then it has worked defensively.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I'm basing my comments based on my own experience as a player and a GM in my campaign. In 21 years of playing HERO I have simply not found Damage Shields to be ineffective (even the 5th Edition ones); rather I've found them to be half defense and half offense. Of course that's not as good as either a pure offense or pure defense of the same active points; compromises seldom are. I've built villains with DS and I've fought villains with DS. It is not useless in my experience. Obviously your experience differs.

 

As for being overpriced for the effect, perhaps you think that also applies to NND attacks as well? After all, if the player has even 1 point of the appropriate defense then the NND does zero damage. So is NND overpriced at +1? What about AVLD?

 

NND is all or nothing. Against most characters, an NND is brutal. Sometimes, it's useless. That's why you don't rely on an NND as your only offensive option.

 

AVLD is about right...4d6 vs Power Defense, for example...

Most characters have 0 to 5 levels of Power Defense, which gives results in 14 to 9 points of STUN through. Even the guy with _10_ levels of Power Defense takes an average of 4 STUN through, and few characters have that much Power Defense.

 

Damage Shield for EB and KA is overpriced at +1.5, because at that point it has no effect on most characters unless:

A) there are plenty of low-def supers running around

you allow it to significantly exceed the active point cap for the campaign.

[JmOz]

So who would a DS work against in a normal Champs game?

 

Some speedsters (Those with out some form of friction force field)

 

Some MA (Those that don't use weapons)

 

Some Grunts (those that don't use guns)

 

My experience says the normal (NON STREET LEVEL) character does not run into many of those

[Snarf]

Some MA (Those that don't use weapons)

A DS could potentially destroy a weapon, if the GM uses DSs can destroy foci rules. A 2d6 HKA great sword would have a DEF of 6 and could be destroyed on a good roll. Other weapons might be easier to break.

 

Not that any of this changes the point you're making at all

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher

NND is all or nothing. Against most characters, an NND is brutal. Sometimes, it's useless. That's why you don't rely on an NND as your only offensive option.

 

Damage Shield for EB and KA is overpriced at +1.5, because at that point it has no effect on most characters unless:

A) there are plenty of low-def supers running around

you allow it to significantly exceed the active point cap for the campaign.

I don't think many characters with DS rely on it as their only offensive option either. If you consider the comic book source material, there are lots of low defense heroes running around. Spider-Man, most of the X-Men, Daredevil, the Flash, etc, all depend on not getting hit more than on defenses. So it largely depends on whether you are playing a comic book game or looking for character "optimization". In our campaign we stress character concept over combat efficiency. For us it just works out better.

 

I basicly agree that DS is a bit overpriced at +1½, but that's easily solved with a house rule. I discussed this topic yesterday at our weekly lunch with both of my fellow GMs, Mentor and Blackjack. While we all saw valid reason to consider DS a bit overpriced, none of us saw compelling reason to change it in our campaign. Considering we've all recently fought villains with DS, none of us felt it was ineffective as is, at least not in our campaign. Of course, since we have no point cap in our game we don't run into the problem of a +1½ advantage making a power too expensive or large to fit into a Multipower; we just ramp up the size of the MP. Our campaign is unabashedly 4-color (You know, where wearing glasses provides an inpenetrable disguise in your secret identity.), so we have lots of PCs and NPCs with low defenses. If you find DS too ineffective, you can approach the problem from two directions:

 

1) Decrease it's cost or raise the point cap to allow larger ones.

 

2) Keep average defenses in the campaign low enough that it is effective against more PCs.

 

We chose option #2. YMMV.

[tesuji]

Snipping errant post... i responded to trbuchets earlier post before reading his latest.

 

About the only thing to reiterate is the notion that to me at least points cap is not an issue. As i said allowing someone to spend 50 extra points to get a power "as effective" as one that costs that much less is not an answer.

 

IMO when i tell a player that DS is worth 62 and EB is worth 60 i am telling them they are going to see as much benefit out of either. Simply permitting the DS guy to spend 100 points to get an 8d6 DS which in play turns out to be worth as much as a 12d6 EB is not an answer... if i charge him 100 points he should see value proportionate from those points. The difference and impact IN PLAY should be as dramatic as the difference between a 20d6 EB and a 12d6 EB.

 

A 20 d6 Eb spread for +3 to hit still will likely con-stun anyone built to work in a 20 defense game vs 12 dcs. A decent number it may KO in one shot. Its averaging over double the stun-thru of the 12d6.

 

I do not see an 8d6 DS showing that dramatic a difference when compared to a 12d6 Eb in the same game.

 

I definitely do see the new DS as a rule in need of a fix. Its cost is disproportionate to its gain against the benchmarks defenses.

 

Thats why I think the +1/2 for regular DS and +1.5 for non-standard DS (similar in thought to the way autofire works) is the better rule.

 

YMMV

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by tesuji

Snipping errant post... i responded to trbuchets earlier post before reading his latest.

 

About the only thing to reiterate is the notion that to me at least points cap is not an issue. As i said allowing someone to spend 50 extra points to get a power "as effective" as one that costs that much less is not an answer.

 

IMO when i tell a player that DS is worth 62 and EB is worth 60 i am telling them they are going to see as much benefit out of either. Simply permitting the DS guy to spend 100 points to get an 8d6 DS which in play turns out to be worth as much as a 12d6 EB is not an answer... if i charge him 100 points he should see value proportionate from those points. The difference and impact IN PLAY should be as dramatic as the difference between a 20d6 EB and a 12d6 EB.

 

A 20 d6 Eb spread for +3 to hit still will likely con-stun anyone built to work in a 20 defense game vs 12 dcs. A decent number it may KO in one shot. Its averaging over double the stun-thru of the 12d6.

 

I do not see an 8d6 DS showing that dramatic a difference when compared to a 12d6 Eb in the same game.

 

I definitely do see the new DS as a rule in need of a fix. Its cost is disproportionate to its gain against the benchmarks defenses.

 

Thats why I think the +1/2 for regular DS and +1.5 for non-standard DS (similar in thought to the way autofire works) is the better rule.

 

YMMV

I don't see any real problem with your method, although I think +½ may be a bit low. DS was IMO underpriced in 4th edition, I think they swung too far and made it overpriced in 5th. On the whole, however, I'd rather a power be too expensive than too cheap. Perhaps Steve Long will consider such a change for 6th Edition around 2011 AD.

[Kristopher]

Here's how it goes for me:

 

1) I'm not going to convince players to take a very wide range of defenses. I can justify a span of about 10, and that's if I get good players. 15 to 25 with a 20 average will work. Most of my players would take one look at the low-def characters in comics and ask "Why doesn't he put some armor in that costume? What if he gets shot?"

 

2) As it is, a 15 def, which is as low as I've ever seen in a Champs game, is going to more often than not IGNORE 4d6 of normal damage. If half of that is resistant, then the 1d6+1 of killing attack at the same level is almost pointless.

 

3) I'm not going to ask my players to spend 62 points in order to have a less than 50% chance that their DS will do anything through to the average defense.

[J4y]

I don't think many characters with DS rely on it as their only offensive option either. If you consider the comic book source material, there are lots of low defense heroes running around. Spider-Man, most of the X-Men, Daredevil, the Flash, etc, all depend on not getting hit more than on defenses.

 

I think the majority of the X-Men probably have ranged attacks anyways and a DS would be ineffective against them regardless of their defenses.

 

Of course, since we have no point cap in our game we don't run into the problem of a +1½ advantage making a power too expensive or large to fit into a Multipower; we just ramp up the size of the MP.

 

Multi-powers are free points, and effectivly lower the cost of the DS. If, at the same time, you don't have AP caps then yeah, you've house-ruled/GMed the problem completely away.

[Kristopher]

Of course, since we have no point cap in our game we don't run into the problem of a +1½ advantage making a power too expensive or large to fit into a Multipower; we just ramp up the size of the MP.

 

Multi-powers are free points, and effectivly lower the cost of the DS. If, at the same time, you don't have AP caps then yeah, you've house-ruled/GMed the problem completely away.

 

I don't think it's fair for to ask a player to spend 1/4 to 1/3 of the points in a character just to have an effective damage shield.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Kristopher

1) I'm not going to convince players to take a very wide range of defenses. I can justify a span of about 10, and that's if I get good players. 15 to 25 with a 20 average will work. Most of my players would take one look at the low-def characters in comics and ask "Why doesn't he put some armor in that costume? What if he gets shot?"

Why not? Doesn't that tend to create a rather cookie-cutter sameness to characters if their defenses are all within 10 points of each other? If the martial artist has 20+ PD, what makes the brick's 30 PD special? Our spread is 21 points (12 - 33 PD) and I'd be happy if it were higher. Now admittedly I play in (and GM) a 4-color game; I'd never attempt to use such low defenses in a Dark Champions or "graphic novel" style game. In 4-color games superheroes don't get shot by goons; it just isn't done unless it's relevant to the story. When was the last time you saw Spider-Man get shot by some thug robbing a liquor store? Goons are to get everybody warmed up before the battle with the boss.

 

3) I'm not going to ask my players to spend 62 points in order to have a less than 50% chance that their DS will do anything through to the average defense.

If you have such a low spread between defenses, then I don't blame you. I wouldn't either. If average defenses in your campaign, including between villains, were lower then such attacks would not be ineffective.