Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

[schir1964]

Synergistic Advantages

There are certain advantages that when combined become more advantageous than their current cost would imply. Thus we have certain exceptions to the costs when two or more Advantages are synergistic.

 

I wish to compile a list of those advantages that are synergistic and what the resulting value should be to better represent the value. I don't have my book handy so please feel free to remind of the values or advantage combinations I may be missing.

 

This list is not limited to just "listed" Advantages, it could be a power may have a built in advantage and when another advantage is purchased it causes a synergistic effect.

 

Synergy: Advantage Combinations

Autofire (+1) + Area Effect (Any) = Autofire (+2) + Area Effect (Any)

Autofire (+1) + Attack Vs Limited Defense (Any) = Autofire (+2) + Attack Vs Limited Defense (Any)

Autofire (+1) + No Normal Defense (Any) = Autofire (+2) + No Normal Defense (Any)

 

Potential Synergy: Advantage Combinations

Autofire (+1) + Armor Piercing (+1/2) = Autofire (+2) + Armor Piercing (+1/2)

 

Potential Synergy: Power + Advantage Combinations

Zero Endurance (+1/2) + Uncontrolled (+1/2) = Zero Endurance (+1) + Uncontrolled (+1/2) [Reason: Uncontrolled includes Persistent]

Zero Endurance (+1/2) + Succor Power = Zero Endurance (+2) + Succor Power [Reason: Succor includes Cumulative and Infinite SFX With One Power]

Zero Endurance (+1/2) + Suppress Power = Zero Endurance (+2) + Suppress Power [Reason: Succor includes Cumulative and Infinite SFX With One Power]

Affects Physical World + Desolidfication =

Transdimensional Attack + Extra-Dimensional Movement =

Increased Maximum Range + Movment =

 

Potential Synergy: Power + Power Combinations

Mind Scan + Ego Attack =

 

Thoughts/Ideas/Others

 

- Christopher Mullins

[GAZZA]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

To some extent Autofire is synergistic with Penetrating, especially when you're talking about low DC attacks. Not sure if that's the sort of thing you're after.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

I've noticed that Autofire and Armor Piercing is very synergistic. Normally Autofire is nothing more than an alternate method of doing damage. It breaks even in most balanced campaigns. But combined with Autofire, you end up with a very powerful attack (assuming you're accurate with it of course).

[Doc Samson]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

I think I understand what you are looking for, but I "think" most of these situations have already been balanced and do not require further modification.

 

As above, Autofire incurs an increased cost (+1) when combined with other advantages such as AE, Explosion, AVLD, NND, ect.

 

Reduced Endurance incurs an increased cost (double value) when used with Autofire.

 

0 END when used in conjunction with Succor and Suppress requires a Reasonable Way to stop the effect to be defined.

 

Uncontrolled when used in conjunction with 0 END must have a set duration (in addition to the defined way to turn off the effect). Missile Deflection can be listed as example here (Uncontrolled Missile Deflection only lasts 1 Turn).

 

I'll add more synergies as I think of them. [additions below]

 

Continuing Fuel Charges might apply here due to their shifting cost

 

PD and ED Absorption together costs more than it should (+3/4 Advantage where effecting 2 stats usually costs +1/2)

[bwdemon]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

Penetrating definitely has synergy with Autofire. It acts as a cheaper version of NND (vs. hardened defenses). For 52pts you can have a 3d6 one hex accurate, 0 end, autofire (5), penetrating EB. That's 15 STUN on average against anyone without hardened defenses. Make it a 1d6 RKA and you'll cause 5 BODY on average - yikes!

 

Armor Piercing has some synergy with Autofire. Due to the lower base cost and quantity of advantages combined, it'll be better than its equivalent in normal damage against all but the lowest-defense targets. Regardless, it won't be as good as Penetrating. A 3d6 AP AF5 AE-1HA 0END EB causes 11 STUN with each hit on average before it faces 50% of the target's defenses. If 25 is the normal defense, then it does nothing at all. Drop it to 20 and you'll do 5 STUN on average. Make it an RKA and you can hope for the STUN Lotto effect and take advantage of (generally lower) resistant defenses, but Penetrating is still nastier.

 

The big thing you're looking out for in both examples is what I call "sneaky" or "back door" damage that avoids or mitigates normal defenses. These cause problems whether they hit in groups all at once (autofire attack) or over time (continuous attack). Both become most powerful when using 0 END or charges to ensure repeated/continuing use.

 

Likewise, as mentioned by the original poster, you want to be careful of any Cumulative+Infinite effects.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

Regardless' date=' it won't be as good as Penetrating. A 3d6 AP AF5 AE-1HA 0END EB causes 11 STUN with each hit on average before it faces 50% of the target's defenses. If 25 is the normal defense, then it does nothing at all. Drop it to 20 and you'll do 5 STUN on average.[/quote']

 

Not to pick nits here, but Penetrating is only more effective when you pile on bunches of other Advantages. All Armor Piercing needs is AF5. Penetrating with AF5 isn't as good.

[GAZZA]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

Not to pick nits here' date=' but Penetrating is only more effective when you pile on bunches of other Advantages. All Armor Piercing needs is AF5. Penetrating with AF5 isn't as good.[/quote']

Somewhat debatable. With a 2d6 RKA, Penetrating + AF can feasibly kill someone that didn't buy up their BODY; AP + AF will quite possibly do more STUN, but is still unlikely to do any BODY damage. (Of course assuming defences are not hardened in both cases).

[schir1964]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

Zero END when used in conjunction with Succor and Suppress requires a Reasonable Way to stop the effect to be defined.

This is true, however, the actual wording of the requirement is more nebulous as to how restrictive the method to stop the power must be. This might be fine for Suppress, but it is somewhat meaningless for Succor since the power may be used on oneself instead of someone else.

 

But if you haven't had a problem with it, I suspect you take a stricter interpretation of the restrictions than others. I think the wording could have been clearer. But then again, I only have 5th Edition and not 5th Edition Revised and the wording might be clearer in the Revised edition.

 

Of course, the issue may actually lay at the feet of the Adjustment Powers instead of the advantage combination to start with.

 

Uncontrolled when used in conjunction with 0 END must have a set duration (in addition to the defined way to turn off the effect). Missile Deflection can be listed as example here (Uncontrolled Missile Deflection only lasts 1 Turn).

Could you point me to the quote referring to the necessity of a "Set Duration". I don't recall ever reading that for Uncontrolled.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[bwdemon]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

Not to pick nits here' date=' but Penetrating is only more effective when you pile on bunches of other Advantages. All Armor Piercing needs is AF5. Penetrating with AF5 isn't as good.[/quote']

 

The only "piled on" advantages were AE-1HA and 0 END and both received them. If I remove the AE-1HA from both, I'd still take Penetrating (more damage on average against 17+ defenses). I remove 0 END and both are equally costly. Penetrating ends up the better choice.

 

Perhaps you meant that you wanted to spend the AE-1HA points on the base attack? That'd work out to a 5d6 attack, I think. Average damage comes out as 17.5, which won't get through your average superhero's 25+ defense. Penetrating will average 5 STUN per hit. Assuming a 25 defense, AP will average 5 STUN per hit. It's a wash.

 

Go above 25 defense and Penetrating is better. Raise the defense to 30 and AP causes 2.5 STUN/hit while Penetrating causes 5 STUN per hit.

 

Go below 25 defense and AP is better. Lower the defense to 20 and AP averages 7.5 STUN/hit, while Penetrating averages 5 STUN/hit. Well, to be fair, if the defense is 0 or 1, then both are equal again.

 

So that's the break-even point for 5d6 in the comparison: 25 defense. Anything above and Penetrating outperforms AP. Anything between 2 and 24 and AP outperforms Penetrating. At a defense of 0 or 1, they're both equal again. The break-even point shifts based on the dice you want, but the general characteristics of the comparison remain the same.

 

Due to the really low base damage used in my 3d6 example, Penetrating works best against almost everything. The break-even point is a lowly 15 defense (both cause 3 STUN), which most threats will have or exceed when you're throwing around attacks like this.

 

In case you were looking for a shortcut, the break-even point shifts 5 defense up or down with each increase or decrease in the base damage of the attack.

[Doc Samson]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

Could you point me to the quote referring to the necessity of a "Set Duration". I don't recall ever reading that for Uncontrolled.

 

No Problem . 5ER page 272, right column, second paragraph from the top, second to last sentence. "At the very least he should require the power to have a set duration in addition to reasonably common and obvious way to turn it off." You can see the limitation in action under the Missile Deflection power description in the Adders (Uncontrolled) section.

[schir1964]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

No Problem . 5ER page 272' date=' right column, second paragraph from the top, second to last sentence. "At the very least he should require the power to have a set duration in addition to reasonably common and obvious way to turn it off." You can see the limitation in action under the Missile Deflection power description in the Adders (Uncontrolled) section.[/quote']

Ah, you are referring to the:

"GM s should be wary of Uncontrolled attacks bought to 0 END, as these can be powerful. At the very least he should require the Power to have a set duration in addition to the reasonably common and obvious way to turn it off."

 

Note the words, "should require". This is a GM imposed restriction and the book is giving a recommendation to the GM for balance purposes.

 

However, this is not a requirement of Uncontrolled as a default rule, which is what I thought you were saying. It would make sense that it should be a default rule for Uncontrolled, but the verbiage of 5th Edition doesn't make it so.

 

So it is a Warning and a Recommendation, not a Requirement. If it were a requirement, then the verbiage would have been something like, "The Power must have a a set duration in addition to a reasonably common and obvious to turn it off when it is purchase with 0 END."

 

I'll look into your other items when I get time.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[bwdemon]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

Can't ignore the "at the very least" part before "(the GM) should require..."

 

This means that the lowest possible requirement is a set duration and a reasonably common and obvious way to turn the power off. However, by the structure of the sentence, the GM could impose more strict limits, perhaps through other means (though it isn't easy to figure out what those might be if not a set duration and off switch). The minimum example limit is a set duration and reasonably common/obvious "off switch."

[Dust Raven]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

The only "piled on" advantages were AE-1HA and 0 END and both received them. If I remove the AE-1HA from both, I'd still take Penetrating (more damage on average against 17+ defenses). I remove 0 END and both are equally costly. Penetrating ends up the better choice.

 

Perhaps you meant that you wanted to spend the AE-1HA points on the base attack? That'd work out to a 5d6 attack, I think. Average damage comes out as 17.5, which won't get through your average superhero's 25+ defense. Penetrating will average 5 STUN per hit. Assuming a 25 defense, AP will average 5 STUN per hit. It's a wash.

 

Go above 25 defense and Penetrating is better. Raise the defense to 30 and AP causes 2.5 STUN/hit while Penetrating causes 5 STUN per hit.

 

Go below 25 defense and AP is better. Lower the defense to 20 and AP averages 7.5 STUN/hit, while Penetrating averages 5 STUN/hit. Well, to be fair, if the defense is 0 or 1, then both are equal again.

 

So that's the break-even point for 5d6 in the comparison: 25 defense. Anything above and Penetrating outperforms AP. Anything between 2 and 24 and AP outperforms Penetrating. At a defense of 0 or 1, they're both equal again. The break-even point shifts based on the dice you want, but the general characteristics of the comparison remain the same.

 

Due to the really low base damage used in my 3d6 example, Penetrating works best against almost everything. The break-even point is a lowly 15 defense (both cause 3 STUN), which most threats will have or exceed when you're throwing around attacks like this.

 

In case you were looking for a shortcut, the break-even point shifts 5 defense up or down with each increase or decrease in the base damage of the attack.

 

It's the break points I'm concerned about. The fewer Advantages you have in addition to AF and AP/Pen, the higher that breakpoint gets. The higher the breakpoint, the more efficient AP is. Of course, whether or not this really matters depends a lot on the restrictions (if any) the GM has places on Active Points, DCs and Defenses.

[schir1964]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

Can't ignore the "at the very least" part before "(the GM) should require..."

Please note the bolding above.

 

It still resides in the GM's hands as the final arbiter of what the restrictions should be. Everything around it simply become "Recommendations" and "Warnings if you don't heed this advice".

 

So the sentence structure as far as the rest of the book is concerned makes this restriction a GM imposed restriction, not an Official Default Rule for the power Uncontrolled.

 

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that the "intent" wasn't to restrict it more via the GM. It is obvious that they saw the synergy and considered it to be more powerful than what 0 END would normally suggest. But the wording unfortunately doesn't convey an official default rule as I described above and will do so again below.

 

"If 0 END is purchased for Uncontrolled, the GM must set a specific duration for the power, or some other equivalent restriction, in addition to a reasonably common way to turn the power off."

 

I think you are interpreting a hard rule (you must take this with this power) from a recommendation (you should do it this way or handle it as you see fit).

 

Which there is nothing wrong with. And whether we agree or not on this issue is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

 

Addendum: [thread=51544]Game Philosophy[/thread] Our difference in viewpoint might be a result of this.

 

- Christopher Mulllins

[Doc Samson]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

Synergy is a hard thing to quantify. If you adjust a value for one circumstance, you may break it for another. Here is an example of extreme synergy (a 60 AP campaign is used for the example), though I think it's difficult to say exactly when it breaks or how much it should cost to fix it.

 

2d6 NND [vs. Force Fields] (+1), Autofire [10 shots] (+1), [Autofire Penalty] (+1), 0 END [Autofire] (+1), AE [One Hex] (+1/2), No Range Modifer (+1/2)

This attack will do an average of 10d6 NND (assuming an OCV of 11) for 60 APs (and will hit for 18d6 on a roll of 3).

 

My point of this build is that if you throw enough advanatges together something is gonna break. Sometimes the GM must step in for the sake of fun and balance no matter what value you assign to it.

[mattingly]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

The old joke is the the most abusive power ever is 2d6 EB. If you ever see that on a character sheet, you know it's going to be so twinked it'll break the campaign.

[GAZZA]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

2d6 NND [vs. Force Fields] (+1), Autofire [10 shots] (+1), [Autofire Penalty] (+1), 0 END [Autofire] (+1), AE [One Hex] (+1/2), No Range Modifier (+1/2)

This attack will do an average of 10d6 NND (assuming an OCV of 11) for 60 APs (and will hit for 18d6 on a roll of 3).

Nasty. Useless against Force Fields and Dive-For-Coverable, but still.

[schir1964]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

2d6 NND [vs. Force Fields] (+1)' date=' Autofire [10 shots'] (+1), [Autofire Penalty] (+1), 0 END [Autofire] (+1), AE [One Hex] (+1/2), No Range Modifer (+1/2)

Well, I'm not trying to "quantify" synergy. But I am compiling a list of things that experience has shown to be synergistic.

 

However, there is a general rule that has been mentioned on these boards for some time:

 

"Scrutinize any power that has more than +2 in Advantages stacked onto it for possible synergy."

 

I've paraphrased the concept for application of this thread.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[mattingly]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

I have a house rule capping Advantages at +5 and Lims at -5. Exceptions are allowed, of course, for specific constructs that can't be done any other way.

[Doc Samson]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

Though I don't think we currently have any banned builds, I like the "Scrutinize any power that has more than +2 in Advantages stacked onto it for possible synergy." guideline as it doesn't really prohibit much conceptually.

 

I think our biggest unwritten house rule (to prevent one of the most obvious abuses of synergy between powers and advantages) is that you must attend the combat. In other words, these combos are frowned upon under most circumnstances in our campaigns:

 

Desolidification and an Effects Physical World attack

EDM and an Indirect Transdimensional attack

Mind Scan and a Mental attack

(sometimes) Increased Maximum Range and alot of Movement

[schir1964]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

I think our biggest unwritten house rule (to prevent one of the most obvious abuses of synergy between powers and advantages) is that you must attend the combat. In other words, these combos are frowned upon under most circumnstances in our campaigns:

 

Desolidification and an Effects Physical World attack

EDM and an Indirect Transdimensional attack

Mind Scan and a Mental attack

(sometimes) Increased Maximum Range and alot of Movement

This is exactly the types of things that I'm looking for.

 

I'll add them in when I have more time.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Dust Raven]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

This is exactly the types of things that I'm looking for.

 

I'll add them in when I have more time.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

So like, Ego Attack with N-Ray Perception or Spatial Awareness? Or maybe Find Weakness with any Attack Power? Missile Reflection with a really high roll?

 

I was thinking things like HA with any combination of Advantages +1 or greater.

 

And why am I getting that deja vu feeling?

[mattingly]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

Ego Attack and N-Ray work great in conjunction with Tunneling. Sit safely beneath your enemies and pick them off.

[Doc Samson]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

Ego Attack and N-Ray work great in conjunction with Tunneling. Sit safely beneath your enemies and pick them off.

 

Oh yah, I forgot Tunneling and Indirect Attacks.

[archermoo]

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

 

Ego Attack and N-Ray work great in conjunction with Tunneling. Sit safely beneath your enemies and pick them off.

 

Or throw in some Megascaled targeting sense insteas of the tunneling and you never even have to leave the base...