Nnd

[OddHat]

Re: Nnd

 

I might shoot you with a knockout dart

 

I did consider this one, to be honest, but, as has been discussed elsewhere, power defence is a bit of an odd one in itself and I can't think of a logical reason why it (or any other exotic defence) should protect from heat damage.

 

So make it a Double Penetrating RKA and only double hardened rED will stop it from getting through a trickle of BODY. Or make it an NND vs Hardened ED. If you think this still doesn't match the special effects, then you'll need to go with an SFX based defense.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Nnd

 

 

 

A niggle i have with this statement is that its not at all a trope of the superhero genre. There are characters aplenty in superhero comics and stories who don't have resistant defenses.

 

Its a staple of HERO system superheroes that everyone and his little dog too needs resistant defenses. Combat luck is now around so even those who "dont have resistant defenses" can still benefit from the mechanical advantages of having them.

 

Agreed, although some of the grittier comics do at least nod in the direction of kevlar and hardpoint costumes, stab proof fabrics and so on, the four colours often feature characters who do not have obvious resistant defences but who, nonetheless, even seem to need them.

 

Perhaps the answer is to remove killing attacks entirely from that sort of game.

 

 

I would resevre NND does body, an attack which completely bypasses all forms of energy defense, for something more exotic. You can still "scare" them with something like a "meson blast" and not have the obvious disconnect of things like "my force field stopps an IR laser and flames but doesn't do crap against "heat vision"?"

 

a rule of thmub is "make special cases special".

 

I do take the point on this one. Mind you just because he calls it 'Heat Vision' and just because it sets stuff afire, doesn't mean it isn't a meson beam (or possibly a quabnabita beam ). They guy is a supervillain but he ain't too bright.

 

 

 

Easy to answer from the GM's perspective.

 

Of your X number of PCs (and frequent NPC teammates if any), how many have "LS: heat"?

 

More than half = maybe a little weak as a power. too broad a defense

Less than half but more than a quarter = about right IMO

Less than a quarter = not good, too powerful.

 

After all, the "sample size" of targets you are dealing with is very small, your PCs. This assumes you are wanting a systemic approach, as opposed to an ad hoc basis and aren't comfortable allowing "heat vision nnd only stopped by LS heat" for 2d6 EB but not for 6d6 EB because "at 2d6 its manageable".

 

 

Do you know I have honestly never thought of it in those terms, and yet it is a very logical and proper approach. Of course it would mean having to amend the villains if you ever ran the same game with different characters....

 

...but it does lead to an interesting question: how subjective are advantages and limitations and so on and so forth? If a PC buys a limtiation of 'not v paisley' then I can logically see myself having inject paisley into the game, but sometimes (certainly int he slightly less obvious cases, like 'no v cold attacks, for instance) I just can't be bothered to go to the trouble of balancing the scales by sticking in an appropriate villain. Some characters get away with limtiations that have little practical limit in the game. Balancing, to me, is more of an art than a science.

 

Take the 'Heat Vision'. My 'balancing mechanism' works like this:

 

How much is it going to cost in relation to a 'standard attack' (which is about 60 points in the game) - in this case the scale balances perfectly.

 

Next, how effective is it: well it will put 3 BODY and 10/11 STUN through per hit on average, as opposed to a normal attach which will do about 17 stun and no BODY (25 being an average DEF level)

 

Assuming STUN totals of about 40-50, the 'normal attack' will KO an opponent in 3 hits (adjusted for REC and so on) whereas the Heat Vision will take probably 5 hits to KO (so REC is even more likely to have an effect) and the same number to reduce an average character to 0 BODY.

 

In terms, the normal attack is much more effective in any single combat BUT it will be much scarier for the players and the characters, unused to taking ANY Body damage and the effects will linger longer.

 

Also, and this is enormously important, he will be able to melt through the armour of a tank. Now that IS going to put the willies up them (where on earth did that phrase come from: a more innocent age, no doubt?).

 

Balance achieved, methinks.

[tesuji]

Re: Nnd

 

 

Perhaps the answer is to remove killing attacks entirely from that sort of game.

I have seen that suggestion. other possibilities are to use them very sparingly fora few "killer" types and not for normal guns and knives. For instance, you might mak e wolvie's claws KA but not a street thug's bowie knife.

 

Giving thought to "how much KA does this campaign need" is a ood practice, as opposed to just going with a default "well every gun is really dangerous unless you have resistant def.

 

I do take the point on this one. Mind you just because he calls it 'Heat Vision' and just because it sets stuff afire, doesn't mean it isn't a meson beam (or possibly a quabnabita beam ). They guy is a supervillain but he ain't too bright.

I was assuming "heat vision" was the SFX not "what the villain calls it". :-)

 

Do you know I have honestly never thought of it in those terms, and yet it is a very logical and proper approach. Of course it would mean having to amend the villains if you ever ran the same game with different characters....

Absolutely but since i always tailor my challenges to my PCs, tailor my game to "tell their story" as opposed to "the story of six heroes yet-to-be-named" thats an automatic thing for me.

...but it does lead to an interesting question: how subjective are advantages and limitations and so on and so forth? If a PC buys a limtiation of 'not v paisley' then I can logically see myself having inject paisley into the game, but sometimes (certainly int he slightly less obvious cases, like 'no v cold attacks, for instance) I just can't be bothered to go to the trouble of balancing the scales by sticking in an appropriate villain. Some characters get away with limtiations that have little practical limit in the game.

At the same time, without Gm policing, you might also wind up with other heroes getting overly hammered as their disads and lims show up a lot, or their advantages are not worth what you charged them for it.

 

IMo the need for Gm awareness in this regard is inherent throughout the system. Even something as simple as +1/2 armor piercing will vary in effectiveness depending on the levels of defense normally used. if a main storyline tends to favor low def characters, the Ap wont matter much and wont be worth the +1/2, as an example, while the guy who took +1/2 as autofire is making out like a bandit.

 

Balancing, to me, is more of an art than a science.

Agreed.

 

Take the 'Heat Vision'. My 'balancing mechanism' works like this:

 

How much is it going to cost in relation to a 'standard attack' (which is about 60 points in the game) - in this case the scale balances perfectly.

my statement would be that its cost is on par. I wouldn't say it balances until both cost and effectiveness are both in line.

 

Next, how effective is it: well it will put 3 BODY and 10/11 STUN through per hit on average, as opposed to a normal attach which will do about 17 stun and no BODY (25 being an average DEF level)

 

Assuming STUN totals of about 40-50, the 'normal attack' will KO an opponent in 3 hits (adjusted for REC and so on) whereas the Heat Vision will take probably 5 hits to KO (so REC is even more likely to have an effect) and the same number to reduce an average character to 0 BODY.

 

In terms, the normal attack is much more effective in any single combat BUT it will be much scarier for the players and the characters, unused to taking ANY Body damage and the effects will linger longer.

having the attack be LESS effective ate the same cost is not a sign of balance. of course, being "weaker" is usually not as much of a problem for MPCs as for PCs and less of a problem than being "too powerful" so its likely something you can live with.

 

However, this gets back to the notion of "systemic" approaches vs "ad hoc" .

 

if you decide "+1 for "heat resistant NND" is Ok only because at 3d6 it doesn't exceed the average stun damage, then you have an ad hoc decision. You would not be able to say 6d6 +1 NND heat vision (the visible counterpart) is also "balanced" as it does more stun taking foes down quicker. Whether "drops him in two" is worse of a problem when compared to "drops him in three" than "drops him in five" is... back to subjective calls.

 

But the point is, i can call "+1/2 for hits everyone I want within a quarter mile automatically and does damage ignoring defenses" as "balanced" if my decision is based on "when applied to a 1d6 EB is it going to drop the PCs more quickly than the usual attacks".

 

As for effects lingering longer... non-issue unless heat vision is fairly common as "i am still down 4 body from yesterday" wont have any meaningful impact on all those subsequent combats where "i take no body" is common.

 

Also, and this is enormously important, he will be able to melt through the armour of a tank. Now that IS going to put the willies up them (where on earth did that phrase come from: a more innocent age, no doubt?).

 

Balance achieved, methinks.

 

goal oif "scaring them without overpowering them" is achieved, but thats not what I would normally call balance. Its a perfectly fine GMing goal and likely to produce a fine game, but its not balance.

 

Balance would be "worth its points" as in "as effective" not "less effective but more scary".

Systemic balance would be "i can use this for any scale of this power" and not "only if i keep it low".

 

Again, game can run fine without balance or systemic balance.

[zornwil]

Re: Nnd

 

Just wondering where people stand on the 'defences to NND' thing.

 

It seems to me it is a bit genre dependent anyway - in superheroic games something like the knockout dart - NND defence being ANY resistant PD - is going to be practically useless - everyone and his (super)dog has some resistant defences. I know that you use the lower advantage level, but even so - it is pretty useless.

 

The reason I'm thinking about this is that I'm building a villain and I wanted to give him 'heat vision':

 

3d6 EB NND Does BODY Fully invisible effects: 60 points

 

Basically he stares at something and it bursts into flame. I want to be able to scare the PCs a bit with the prospect of taking BODY damage, although he's never going to manage enough hits to actually kill one of them. I was considering using a RKA instead but this is a little tamer - and will mean that I am unlikely to have to fudge the dice

 

Thing that concerned me was the defence for the NND - I was going to make it LS:Heat, but that seems a bit thin, looking at the examples, but 'resistant ED' would make everyone invulnerable to him, so that goes too far the other way. Now I know as the GM I can do what I please, but it would be nice to get people's feedback ont he right place to pitch this one to do it 'properly'.

Personally, I hate thinking in mechanical terms about NND defenses. I thnk the point is "how would someone prevent being hurt?" and from there whether the target has a mechanical ability or a natural ability based on the character or contrives a defense once they understand the attack becomes easy to manage.

 

Then again, I also have a truly fundamental difference with the examples the rules have traditionally given for NND defenses on character sheets versus the examples the rules give in the NND section versus what the rules state as to what constitutes an NND defense. The rules state of course that the defense must be a "reasonably common power or circumstance." The examples in the NND section in the rules state "Any form of resistant defense", "Life Support (Self-Contained Breathing); target holds his breath", "Any type of Force Field," "Soild ear coverings, Hearing Group Flash Defense; target covers his ears; target is deaf", and "Any form of Resistant ED; target is completely insulated". Character examples often include things as simply "requires Life Support (X)" and other VERY specific powers that I do not find at all "reasonably common." The part of this I agree with and think holds best to the use of NND in a game is the set of examples given in the NND section and as quoted a sentence prior. The reason is that it essentially allows characters to find ways around NNDs given experience, time, and resources, and does not require brute force simple power purchases.

 

Based on what you want, I would just base it on having "Fire Retardant" or "Fire Resistant" protection. LS:Fire would certainly apply to either, I would tend to think of "Retardant" as more along the lines of LS:Heat, though we start to get into that always-uncomfortable territory as to whether the NND is too broad or restrictive.

[zornwil]

Re: Nnd

 

You could have the sfx of spontaneous combustion work in any number of ways. In 'reality' you can transmit energy by radiation, convection or conduction. You are not so limited in Hero, of course. You could open a microgate to the Plane Of Fire inside your target. This would almost certainly be a NND, but what could you possibly consider as the 'defence'? EDM powers? LS (Heat) - obviously - even then it would depend - you might wear a suit that makes you heat resistant but you are still cookable flesh inside. Even teh EDM powers appraoch is not particularly logical - being able to travel to somewhere else does not necessarily give you the ability to interfere with someone else's ability to do so. If you see what i mean

 

The problem with a purely sfx-sfx approach as OddHat advocates is that you can think of attacks that 'logically' would be almost impossible to defend against, and that being the case, you are getting a lot of utility out of the advantage that someone else wouldn't be.

 

I'm not criticising the sfx-sfx approach - but it is going to reward the sneaky-minded who pick a very unusual method of damage delivery. The thing is if you just disallow that, you are cutting off what could be a very creative player, as opposed to a munchkin. Perhaps we need another level of NND: +1 1/2 or even +2 - Very Rare Defence.

 

Sorry to put this so bluntly, but why have a GM if he can't manage exceptions and value? I do agree that if an NND is even more hard to combat it should receive a higher Adv value - that's simply playing by standard rules.

[OddHat]

Re: Nnd

 

Personally, I hate thinking in mechanical terms about NND defenses. I thnk the point is "how would someone prevent being hurt?" and from there whether the target has a mechanical ability or a natural ability based on the character or contrives a defense once they understand the attack becomes easy to manage.

 

Agreed with the above.

 

I'd add that it's the "reasonably common defense or circumstances" that's most often ignored in write ups. I usually end up with a short list of things that will stop an NND, based on SFX.

[zornwil]

Re: Nnd

 

On a very few occasions' date=' I've used an advantage, AND - Absolutely No Defense +2. Only for NPCs where I want to say, "Whatever it is, none of the players have the defense for it, ever." And I've never added "Does BODY" to it. It may seem harsh, but it's a logical progression from NND to AVLD to AND. And it's very inefficient: Armor Piercing ignores half of your defenses for only +1/2, but to ignore the other half costs an additional +1 1/2.[/quote']

This is not a criticism of how you do it in your game, but I personally dislike NPCs having mechanics that PCs are not allowed to have, and avoided it in my games. That said, naturally enough given unlimited points (and, no, I don't stat out these abilities precisely since it isn't of relevance to do so) it's easy enough to have some similar effects. But when I think of a good mechanic for an NPC to have that simply doesn't exist, as far as I can remember I've always made it available to PCs. Bear in mind, though, that I DO allow VERY fast-and-loose constructions for PCs quite often so I also do so for NPCs, so to a significant degree that does overlap with your approach.

[zornwil]

Re: Nnd

 

Here's a funny idea...

 

Create a standard but hellaciously large attack, but give it Penetrating Advantage (however many levels you want, like 4 or 5 so only somebody heavily invested in the appropriate levels against it could resist - and if they have done that, they certainly deserve so!) BUT so that you don't actually have to worry about killing somebody, give it a weird Limitation of "Does No Damage Besides What Penetrates."

 

After all, you have limitless points.

 

I wonder how much such a Limitation would cost? Of course, for an NPC it's irrelevant, but if someone designed such a PC?

[OddHat]

Re: Nnd

 

Here's a funny idea...

 

Create a standard but hellaciously large attack, but give it Penetrating Advantage (however many levels you want, like 4 or 5 so only somebody heavily invested in the appropriate levels against it could resist - and if they have done that, they certainly deserve so!) BUT so that you don't actually have to worry about killing somebody, give it a weird Limitation of "Does No Damage Besides What Penetrates."

 

After all, you have limitless points.

 

I wonder how much such a Limitation would cost? Of course, for an NPC it's irrelevant, but if someone designed such a PC?

Something like this?

 

72 Zap-O-Vision: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6, Area Of Effect Accurate (One Hex; +1/2), No Range Modifier (+1/2), Indirect (Same origin, any direction; +1/2), Penetrating (x2; +1), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1), Continuous (+1), Invisible Power Effects (Fully Invisible; +1), Autofire (10 shots; +2) (127 Active Points); -2 Decreased STUN Multiplier (-1/2), No Knockback (-1/4)

 

You end up doing 4 or more body per phase, every phase, only about that many stun, almost guaranteed to hit, and potentially much more. Even cuts tank armor unless you've double hardened your tanks, in which case you just pile on more penetrating.

 

Fiddle to taste.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Nnd

 

Here's a funny idea...

 

Create a standard but hellaciously large attack, but give it Penetrating Advantage (however many levels you want, like 4 or 5 so only somebody heavily invested in the appropriate levels against it could resist - and if they have done that, they certainly deserve so!) BUT so that you don't actually have to worry about killing somebody, give it a weird Limitation of "Does No Damage Besides What Penetrates."

 

After all, you have limitless points.

 

I wonder how much such a Limitation would cost? Of course, for an NPC it's irrelevant, but if someone designed such a PC?

 

Why not just do a NND Does BODY vs multiple levels of Hardened rED?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Nnd

 

NNDs should be, whenever possible, modeled as SFX vs SFX. The Mechanics are there to model SFX after all anyway.

[OddHat]

Re: Nnd

 

NNDs should be' date=' whenever possible, modeled as SFX vs SFX. The Mechanics are there to model SFX after all anyway.[/quote']

 

When the mathematical model does not accurately represent the physical world, it is not the physical world that is at fault. True for the sciences, true for games.

[zornwil]

Re: Nnd

 

Something like this?

 

72 Zap-O-Vision: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6, Area Of Effect Accurate (One Hex; +1/2), No Range Modifier (+1/2), Indirect (Same origin, any direction; +1/2), Penetrating (x2; +1), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1), Continuous (+1), Invisible Power Effects (Fully Invisible; +1), Autofire (10 shots; +2) (127 Active Points); -2 Decreased STUN Multiplier (-1/2), No Knockback (-1/4)

 

You end up doing 4 or more body per phase, every phase, only about that many stun, almost guaranteed to hit, and potentially much more. Even cuts tank armor unless you've double hardened your tanks, in which case you just pile on more penetrating.

 

Fiddle to taste.

I wish I had Zap-O-Vision.

[zornwil]

Re: Nnd

 

Why not just do a NND Does BODY vs multiple levels of Hardened rED?

Because what I propose gets damage through almost regardless, you basically can't have a defense to it at all unless you have quintuple-Hardening. Also, if you keep the BOD dice low, you can guarantee (pretty much) you won't kill anybody outright (of course the latter can still be accomplished otherwise, but I'm just pointing out why I was assuming that once you've made this ridiculously bloody attack that you would keep it to a low value).

[zornwil]

Re: Nnd

 

When the mathematical model does not accurately represent the physical world' date=' it is not the physical world that is at fault. True for the sciences, true for games.[/quote']

You're obviously not a Hegelian.

[OddHat]

Re: Nnd

 

You're obviously not a Hegelian.

 

Never was a fan of philosophy, outside of the philosophers song.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Nnd

 

Why not just do a NND Does BODY vs multiple levels of Hardened rED?

 

The rules specifically disallow that construct.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Nnd

 

Sorry to put this so bluntly' date=' but why have a GM if he can't manage exceptions and value? I do agree that if an NND is even more hard to combat it should receive a higher Adv value - that's simply playing by standard rules.[/quote']

 

The problem comes here in managing balance, and, indeed, in what you mean by balance. I am willing to macro manage balance, but the approach that tetsuji advocates is much more focussed and micro managed: actually relate the limitation/advantage values to the incidence of the defence in the player character group as it is the story of them.

 

I think this is a very valid approach but I don't like it first off because it means you need to know the PCs you are building for in advance and second because I WANT some villains to be more effective than others. A given villain may be hard to hurt, but over 10 villains you will get a reasonable spread.

 

Now it is not a problem with PC powers so much - the GM can always find ways to exploit limitations and reward advantages in PCs, and the PCs just have to trust the GM that this unstoppable villain they are facing does have an achilles heel.

 

To me, if the players and GM have a good time, and the PCs defeat evil and get to quaff ale afterwards, then balance has been acheived. I'm sure everyone would agree witht eh sentiment if not with defining it as 'balance'

 

I often build villains I would not allow for PCs. IMO PCs should be reasonably rounded so that they can take on a variety of challenges, whereas villains should often be more specialist - very dangerous in some contexts but will exploitable weaknesses that would make then unsuitable for long term play (although there are always exceptions on both sides)

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Nnd

 

Hmm. All this talk has made me think about defences in general and the player experience. [Damn you Sean Waters!]

 

Now the player encounters a villain opponent throwing heat beams at him. His reaction should be based on the fact that they are heat beams but as far as the game is concerned their actions and the nature of their defences make no difference to the outcome (unless it is an NND and then it makes all the difference).

 

I think this is another place that the disparate mechanics of the system are on full display.

 

I would like to see the defences of players with heat based powers be that bit more effective against heat attacks and for the SFX of defences to vary the effectiveness of those defences. That would mean that players could make 'common sense' adjustments and have their actions mean something rather than just sitting behind their generic armour or force field until they believe they are facing an NND attack.

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Nnd

 

having the attack be LESS effective ate the same cost is not a sign of balance. of course, being "weaker" is usually not as much of a problem for MPCs as for PCs and less of a problem than being "too powerful" so its likely something you can live with.

 

However, this gets back to the notion of "systemic" approaches vs "ad hoc" .

 

if you decide "+1 for "heat resistant NND" is Ok only because at 3d6 it doesn't exceed the average stun damage, then you have an ad hoc decision. You would not be able to say 6d6 +1 NND heat vision (the visible counterpart) is also "balanced" as it does more stun taking foes down quicker. Whether "drops him in two" is worse of a problem when compared to "drops him in three" than "drops him in five" is... back to subjective calls.

 

But the point is, i can call "+1/2 for hits everyone I want within a quarter mile automatically and does damage ignoring defenses" as "balanced" if my decision is based on "when applied to a 1d6 EB is it going to drop the PCs more quickly than the usual attacks".

 

As for effects lingering longer... non-issue unless heat vision is fairly common as "i am still down 4 body from yesterday" wont have any meaningful impact on all those subsequent combats where "i take no body" is common.

 

 

 

goal oif "scaring them without overpowering them" is achieved, but thats not what I would normally call balance. Its a perfectly fine GMing goal and likely to produce a fine game, but its not balance.

 

Balance would be "worth its points" as in "as effective" not "less effective but more scary".

Systemic balance would be "i can use this for any scale of this power" and not "only if i keep it low".

 

Again, game can run fine without balance or systemic balance.

 

 

For 60 points you can get:

 

12d6 EB

6d6 NND

4d6 invisible NND

4d6 NND does BODY

3d6 NND does BODY invisible

 

In most games the most combat effective option with be the 6d6 NND, but they are all within what I would call an acceptable range, and any NND will be useless against certain targets. The system is somewhat self balancing but some powers will IN PRACTICE be more effectvie than others. To my mind balance is probably something you can only hope for ahead of the event, and see clearly afterwards - if the PCs triumphed, but only just, you managed balance nicely.

 

If you play an infinite number of games, then number and point balancing matter, but we don't (well I don't) so you will always have regional variation in the sample.

[zornwil]

Re: Nnd

 

The problem comes here in managing balance, and, indeed, in what you mean by balance. I am willing to macro manage balance, but the approach that tetsuji advocates is much more focussed and micro managed: actually relate the limitation/advantage values to the incidence of the defence in the player character group as it is the story of them.

 

I think this is a very valid approach but I don't like it first off because it means you need to know the PCs you are building for in advance and second because I WANT some villains to be more effective than others. A given villain may be hard to hurt, but over 10 villains you will get a reasonable spread.

 

Now it is not a problem with PC powers so much - the GM can always find ways to exploit limitations and reward advantages in PCs, and the PCs just have to trust the GM that this unstoppable villain they are facing does have an achilles heel.

 

To me, if the players and GM have a good time, and the PCs defeat evil and get to quaff ale afterwards, then balance has been acheived. I'm sure everyone would agree witht eh sentiment if not with defining it as 'balance'

 

I often build villains I would not allow for PCs. IMO PCs should be reasonably rounded so that they can take on a variety of challenges, whereas villains should often be more specialist - very dangerous in some contexts but will exploitable weaknesses that would make then unsuitable for long term play (although there are always exceptions on both sides)

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. My response was in response more specifically to the comment that the SFX approach allows one to "think of attacks that 'logically' would be almost impossible to defend against". The whole point of having a GM is to have an authority that understands the intent of the rules (which includes not allowing something that is "almost impossible to defend against). Otherwise, we could just use a rulebook without a GM - a nice idea, but in a system of HERO's style, depth, complexity, and "DIY balance" it's a pipe dream. And it is specifically the GM's job. If the GM can' t do this, then the game has deeper issues as a whole.

 

As to "Perhaps we need another level of NND: +1 1/2 or even +2 - Very Rare Defence," I am simply pointing out the rules do give guidelines, at least by example, and state that customized Advantages are fine. Our "need" here is already fulfilled, and you state the Advantage value as fits your game. That said, I'm not objecting to these as generalized values, although many wouldn't allow anything above the normal NND in their games. If I were to, I would look for a much more specific sort of concept and at least attempt to use other mechanics (Penetrating being a prime candidate for "I just want to do damage" And of course, for NPCs, these values are irrelevant, meaningless.

 

PS - HMMM, okay, not irrelevant if you are dealing with Active Points adjustments...

[zornwil]

Re: Nnd

 

Hmm. All this talk has made me think about defences in general and the player experience. [Damn you Sean Waters!]

 

Now the player encounters a villain opponent throwing heat beams at him. His reaction should be based on the fact that they are heat beams but as far as the game is concerned their actions and the nature of their defences make no difference to the outcome (unless it is an NND and then it makes all the difference).

 

I think this is another place that the disparate mechanics of the system are on full display.

 

I would like to see the defences of players with heat based powers be that bit more effective against heat attacks and for the SFX of defences to vary the effectiveness of those defences. That would mean that players could make 'common sense' adjustments and have their actions mean something rather than just sitting behind their generic armour or force field until they believe they are facing an NND attack.

 

 

Doc

Do you believe that can adequately be done case-by-case by the GM and play group?

 

As an aside, I look forward to discussing these things with you and Sean in person next year, the trip we didn't take to London this year I am pretty positive we will do next year. My wife is jonesing to go and now that she's at least reasonably established her business she can take off next year.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Nnd

 

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. My response was in response more specifically to the comment that the SFX approach allows one to "think of attacks that 'logically' would be almost impossible to defend against". The whole point of having a GM is to have an authority that understands the intent of the rules (which includes not allowing something that is "almost impossible to defend against). Otherwise, we could just use a rulebook without a GM - a nice idea, but in a system of HERO's style, depth, complexity, and "DIY balance" it's a pipe dream. And it is specifically the GM's job. If the GM can' t do this, then the game has deeper issues as a whole.

 

As to "Perhaps we need another level of NND: +1 1/2 or even +2 - Very Rare Defence," I am simply pointing out the rules do give guidelines, at least by example, and state that customized Advantages are fine. Our "need" here is already fulfilled, and you state the Advantage value as fits your game. That said, I'm not objecting to these as generalized values, although many wouldn't allow anything above the normal NND in their games. If I were to, I would look for a much more specific sort of concept and at least attempt to use other mechanics (Penetrating being a prime candidate for "I just want to do damage" And of course, for NPCs, these values are irrelevant, meaningless.

 

PS - HMMM, okay, not irrelevant if you are dealing with Active Points adjustments...

 

I think that my point might be that 'balance'imposed by a system or even by a GM is not necessarily desireable at some levels. Perhaps an attack that is almost impossible to defend against isn't the result of munckin mind but of a creative idea that it would be wrong to stifle.

 

I do try and build NPCs to a point level rather than simply create what I want and I've never really seen a point to penetrating as an advantage, certainly outside what I'd usually consider to be munchkin builds (I do appreciate the irony of saying this in a thread where I am building an NND that is almost impossible to defend against ): normal penetrating attacks are just not worth it (12d6 normal v 8d6 penetrating: unless you have a def average of 34+ in the game, it just is not worth it) and for killing attacks, being able to damage something (Body) without it hurting much (Stun) never, or very rarely, seems appropriate: certainly an attack that heated up the target would cause a proportional amount of stun in my estimation, so I do not think that penetrating fits the bill, except as a mechanical dodge to a problem, not as a logical build.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Nnd

 

Do you believe that can adequately be done case-by-case by the GM and play group?

 

I think to build an attack/defence matrix based on sfx is perfectly possible, for a given game or even for a system genre. It would be nice to see more sfx discussion and integration discussion, but I'm beginning to sound like a broken record on that one. Hopefully TUB will be what I'm looking for, just in time for....

 

As an aside' date=' I look forward to discussing these things with you and Sean in person next year, the trip we didn't take to London this year I am pretty positive we will do next year. My wife is jonesing to go and now that she's at least reasonably established her business she can take off next year. [/quote']

 

Hoorah!

[Dust Raven]

Re: Nnd

 

The rules specifically disallow that construct.

They do?