Had an idea about NND

[JmOz]

What would you all think of an advantage that would be attached to NND that does the following

 

May use base damage (+1/2)

 

Basicaly if the NND condition is met (Character has Life Support: Immunity to bubounic Plague) the attack still does the base damage (so an 8d6 NND would do 8d6). The attack would still do 0 body unless it had the does body modifier on it. A toned down does body would be allowed that was affected by the normal defences...

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Had an idea about NND

 

It's an interesting concept, but it can be done cheaper and more effectively with a multipower construct, I'd think.

 

New method: 6d6 NND (+1), Does Base Damage (+1/2) Cost: 75

 

vs.

 

MP: Blastingness 60 pt reserve

6u 6d6 NND (+1)

6u 12d6 EB

 

Now, it may be useful in terms of not wasting an attack completely if the target has the NND defense. However, most NND attack dice have relatively low values, so you're not gaining much except against weaker targets.

 

Given how situational it is, it seems like it wouldn't present any balance problems.

[tesuji]

Re: Had an idea about NND

 

well, i think its practically useless for most PC cosiderations, at least for standard Eb/rka type attacks. If an attack at Xd6 NND is viable in a campaign, then an attack at 1/2X regular pretty much will bounce off defenses for all intents and purposes.

 

Consider for a campaign allowing up to 14 DC attacks. you are talking NNDs of 7d6. 7d6 attacks when 14dc is acceptable usually amount to "pulling your punch so yo don't kill the normal." That would be if a normal nnd gave normal damage when condition was met.

 

At +1 1/2, now the 14dc boils down to maybe 6d6... not really worth bothering with.

 

honestly, it wouldn't be necessarily imbalancing to let NNDs do that for free. All it does is give you some waste-of-time dice to roll for a bounce.

 

Now perhaps it would matter for some exotic defense attacks bought as NNDs especially if the GM allows that NND for reduced cost. Heck, it might getb abusive there, especially for super-baby powers. but then, they are usually problems.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Had an idea about NND

 

It's mixing the NND and AVLD concepts a little too much for me.

[CraterMaker]

Re: Had an idea about NND

 

Works for me.. It's one more tool to fine tune a model with. It's different enough from AVLD to warrant consideration. Nice Idea..

 

-CraterMaker

 

Thought I'd edit and expound a bit further - You guys are right that it's not too useful in a high power game... But what about a lower power game, where people have defenses of 5-8? A 3d6 energy blast becomes a viable attack.

 

But I like it because it's something we don't allready have, and new advantages help us fine tune builds to match what we see.

 

A perfect low powered use for this- a sap.

 

-CraterMaker

[JmOz]

Re: Had an idea about NND

 

the relation to avld was not thought of, maybe it could be somehow folded into that advantage (note it would be the same cost)...

 

regarding MP's, sorry not as effective, or at least significantly different. You only have one MP attack primed at a time, thus if you use your NND you get no dice if the character is immune

 

Background of where the idea came from, a sword that does NND not vs samurai, vs a true samurai it would still do the normal damage

[gojira]

Re: Had an idea about NND

 

GA has a point. How does "still does base damage" work? Does it by-pass all defenses?

 

If the half-damage is just damage vs regular PD or ED, it's probably ok.

 

If you are talking about "NND, does at least half damage regardless of defense" then it's way, way too powerful.

 

I assumed the former (half-damage vs regular defense) when I first read your post, but now I see another way of interpreting it. Clarification please.

[JmOz]

Re: Had an idea about NND

 

Arrowboy has magic Bow, does not work against people with magic powers

 

1d6 RKA, NND, Does Body, still does based damage

 

Fighting against a character with no magical powers it does 1d6 RKA, NND, Does Body

 

Fighting against a wizard it would do 1d6 Rka, does body (only does body because of the advantage), the damage would be as if there is no NND on the power, so it would go against rPD/PD

[gojira]

Re: Had an idea about NND

 

vs a true samurai it would still do the normal damage

 

Ok, assuming it really is normal damage, you've got something like:

 

Mystic Kantana, 6d6 NND (defense is following a True Bushido Code) +1 (60AP), plus 2d6 HKA, Only vs. True Samarai, -1, 30AP, 15 real points.

 

Grand total about 75 points, depending on the value of the limitation "Only vs. True Samarai." In a real medieval Japan genre, it might only be -1/2 or maybe even less.

 

All just my own opinions, of course.

[JmOz]

Re: Had an idea about NND

 

Ok, assuming it really is normal damage, you've got something like:

 

Mystic Kantana, 6d6 NND (defense is following a True Bushido Code) +1 (60AP), plus 2d6 HKA, Only vs. True Samarai, -1, 30AP, 15 real points.

 

Grand total about 75 points, depending on the value of the limitation "Only vs. True Samarai." In a real medieval Japan genre, it might only be -1/2 or maybe even less.

 

All just my own opinions, of course.

 

That would be how you would have to build it under the current rules, and I think -1 would be about right for the lim, there is a small bit that is not covered but that is a lim of the english language =). I should have said normal killing damage (Opposed to NND Killing), and it would need does Body for the NND, but you got the right idea

[tesuji]

Re: Had an idea about NND

 

Thought I'd edit and expound a bit further - You guys are right that it's not too useful in a high power game... But what about a lower power game, where people have defenses of 5-8? A 3d6 energy blast becomes a viable attack.

-CraterMaker

 

it comes down to actually doing the math...

 

for around 37 pts vs DEf 5 you can choose:

7d6 EB doing 19 damage after 5 defense

4d6 NND doing 14 damage ignoring defense (costs 40)

3d6 NND + Special doing either 10 damage ignoring defense OR59 damage after 5 defense.

 

If the defenses are as low as you suggest against the number of DCs needed, then NND itself isn't worthwhile to begin with. If you even go so far as to assume the +1/2 doesn't count vs DCs and only figure it vs the +1 NND it still fails.

 

30 pts for 6d6 EB vs Def 5 = 16 stun after defense

30 pts for 3d6 NND vs 5 defense = 10 stun ignoring defense or 0 stun if the out is hit.

45 pts for 3d6 NND +Special = 10 stun ignoring defense or 5 stun after 5 defense.

 

Its a catch 22, assuming this is something you want to "point out" and not just handwave...

 

if the defenses are low enough to make the "does normal damage" matter beans, then the defenses are too low for the NND to be worth a darn.

 

barring extremely odd campaign standards, i wouldn't charge this at +1/2 at all. I think its darn close to +0 (as in yeah a difference but not enough to matter) and +1/4 if you just really feel "i have to charge something".

 

Again a caveat, for exotic defense attacks, this may require a spearate value. Likely will, particluarly if the NND is at discount.

 

EDIT for exceptions: If your campaign doesn't use points, then clearly the notion of damage vs cost is a non-issue. Also if your campaign doesn't count NND against the campaign attack standards, so that both 6d6 NND and 6d6 normal damage are acceptable but 7d6 normal isn't (for example) then again the comparison becomes moot.

[gojira]

Re: Had an idea about NND

 

Just to clarify a little, both of our posts crossed, so I was replying to the posts above your above mine. Which is why the conversation was a little disjoint.

 

The only thing I wouldn't allow is something like:

 

Pure Munchkin, 6d6 NND (defense LS), plus 6d6 NND (defense is not having LS)

 

...and I hope everyone sees why. Your build (or the one I gave anyway) is the same as:

 

A Different Mystic Kantana, 2d6 HKA, plus 6d6 NND (defense is being a True Samarai).

 

The difference being that the build in my post above just tosses a lim on the killing damage part, which isn't a problem in my view.

 

So I guess the summary is that two NNDs linked don't work for me, but a NND and a regular damage power are probably ok, depending on AP levels, SFX, genre, etc. Oh, and normally I don't allow PCs to have NND Does Body, but that's kinda a personal thing. I just don't like the concept it represents, and I don't run genres where it would be appropriate.

[JmOz]

Re: Had an idea about NND

 

no problem, and of course two NND's that council each other out is not a good idea. The idea is that it would be a normal version (RKA or EB or what have you)

 

I see the point about the advantage may be to high, a +1/4 might be better...

[tesuji]

Re: Had an idea about NND

 

I see the point about the advantage may be to high, a +1/4 might be better...

 

vs 5 defense +1/4

3d6 NND +1/4 OZ costs 34 and does 10 or 5 damage on average.

 

6d6 EB costs 30 and does 16 damage after defenses on average.

 

*****

 

if some one looked at you as Gm and asked" hey i have this attack power which normally does 16 damage after defenses and i want it to drop to 10 or 5, what modifier should i use" you would say "well a limitation", wouldn't you? (barring some other added benefits.)

 

the correct value IMX foir "drop my average damage from 16 to 10 or maybe 5" is somewhere between -1/2 and -1.

 

*****

 

If the campaign defenses are so low as to make the "can do normal" matter at all, the you are already at the point where NND is WAY WAY overpriced. In that campaign charging +1 for NND is already so far out of whack as to make the value and impact of the "does normal" irrelevent. you are already so far off the "cost related to effectiveness" wagon as to make fussing with the points... amusing at best.

 

If the campaign defenses are high enough that +1 for NND is worthwhile, then the "does normal damage otherwise" is mostly a waste of time as that attack simply bounces.

 

the only time i could see this as viable would be if the campaign featured a lot of adversaries who were divided between "almost no defense guys" and "extremely high defense guys" as adversaries who were indistinguishable from each other.

[CraterMaker]

Re: Had an idea about NND

 

Hmm... The way you put it, Tesuji, sounds reasonable, looks well thought out, the math all works out - It just feels so wrong to me! I don't know what it is, I mean, I'm SURE you're right about the effects vrs. points and all..

 

-going to have to do some introspection and figure out where I'm hanging up with this stuff.

 

-CraterMaker

[Sean Waters]

Re: Had an idea about NND

 

Hmm... The way you put it, Tesuji, sounds reasonable, looks well thought out, the math all works out - It just feels so wrong to me! I don't know what it is, I mean, I'm SURE you're right about the effects vrs. points and all..

 

-going to have to do some introspection and figure out where I'm hanging up with this stuff.

 

-CraterMaker

 

The number crunching is right but 5 DEF is a low figure to model a general advantage on. On a 5d6 attack a +1 1/4 advantage works out at 56 points, and a +1 1/2 works out at 62: a mere 6 points of difference for an attack roughly point equivalent to a 12d6 EB.

 

In a 12DC game a 5d6 attack (average 17-18 stun) is unlikley to get through average defences anyway. Of course a 1 1/2d6 KA might....

 

When applied to killing attacks in a heroic game the ability to still do killing attack stun damage even if your NND does not work is of significant value, as many characters may lack the relevant defence entirely, and I would say that an addiitonal +1/2 was justified.

 

Of course you could just build it as a linked attack:

 

1d6 RKA 15 points (10 with linked)

and 1d6 RKA NND (30 points)

 

The effect would be to increase the cost from 30 to 40 points (which falls between a +1/4 and +1/2 attack in effect) and this would be my preferred method.

[tesuji]

Re: Had an idea about NND

 

 

 

The number crunching is right but 5 DEF is a low figure to model a general advantage on. On a 5d6 attack a +1 1/4 advantage works out at 56 points, and a +1 1/2 works out at 62: a mere 6 points of difference for an attack roughly point equivalent to a 12d6 EB.

well, when i made the initial point about how useless the advantage was against common defebses, the specific counter argument was what if the defenses were lower... specifically 5-8 def.

 

so 5 def, the lowest mentioned, waqs used to refute that "didn't bother with the math" position.

 

the underlying problem with the mechanics being discussed is that the two advantages are at cross purposes.

 

For NND to be close to +1, defenses need to be competitive with the attack.

for "does normal anyway" to be of value, the defenses have to be much lower.

both cannot be worth positive points at the same time.

 

In a 12DC game a 5d6 attack (average 17-18 stun) is unlikley to get through average defences anyway. Of course a 1 1/2d6 KA might....

 

When applied to killing attacks in a heroic game the ability to still do killing attack stun damage even if your NND does not work is of significant value, as many characters may lack the relevant defence entirely, and I would say that an addiitonal +1/2 was justified.

again... do the math.

 

if the targets defense is 0, (due to lacl of resistant defense) the nnd was a bad choice and does less than a straight up attack would. its even worse than the 5 def example.

 

folks, this isn't rocket science.

 

NND is +1, thus except for many advantaged powers, it cuts you damage in HALF but you get to ignore defenses. if defenses are lower than half your damage, then the nnd was BAD and not worth the points. you "traded off" more damage than you ignored defense.

 

If the defenses are higher than half your damage, then the "does regular damage" is basically meaningless cuz it will typically bounce.

 

thats all with just +1 for nnd. if you start adding in +1/4 or more for "doees regular damage" it gets even sillier.

 

the only setting in nwhich this is an advantage is one where you have a lot of invisible defenses, so you never know whether an nnd is a good shot or not and the defenses range from very high to very low for common adversaries.

 

the heroic samurai example doesn't seem to be such a case.

 

Of course you could just build it as a linked attack:

 

1d6 RKA 15 points (10 with linked)

and 1d6 RKA NND (30 points)

 

The effect would be to increase the cost from 30 to 40 points (which falls between a +1/4 and +1/2 attack in effect) and this would be my preferred method.

 

if the campaign is low def, build it as a straight aaqttack lwith half limited to "only vs samurai" since you dont benefit from nnd.

 

if the campaign features competitive defenses, build it as a straight nnd and let the gm lump "does normal damage which mostly is a waste of time" as sfx. the few times it ever matters, likely will be easily dropped anyway.

[Guest TheUnknown]

Re: Had an idea about NND

 

It's mixing the NND and AVLD concepts a little too much for me.

 

Plus AVLD comes out way more effective at the same cost of +1 1/2, link a Normal attack to the NND to produce desired effect.