Sooo... Immunity to magic

[GAZZA]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

well... *lol* after reviwing all the MMs... you are right... but I' date=' HONESTLY disagree with that... Other sources do not state that... I am going to make it a flesh golem only thing... cause that makes golems all too powerful[/quote']

I'm curious: other than the MMs, what "other sources" are there for golem magic immunity?

 

In any case, the whole defining characteristic of golems is their magic immunity. Not all constructs have this feature, but all golems do.

 

It's your game, of course, but golems are severely underpowered without that sort of advantage (slow speed, few attacks, comparatively low defences).

[feralucce]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

fiction liturature... The quaballah (spelled wrong, most likely) D&D golems are immune to magic... but there are many stories in which they are not...

 

I actually have a fiction collection that has 27 short stories and only one of them features a golem that is immune to magic...

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

Wait' date=' I'm sorry, can you run that by me again?[/quote']

 

Sure. Normally if you're Desolidified you have to pay an additional Advantage, Affects Physical World (+2), for any Powers or Strength that you want to use on solid things while you're Desolid. According to the rulebook, if you've Limited your Desol to only protect you from a narrowly defined type of attack, the GM has the option of waiving the requirement for APW on the grounds that you're still "solid" to everything but that type of attack.

 

Given that you're allowed that exemption, and that there would be so many things that could affect someone using this form of "immunity" Desolidification besides what it's designed to protect you from, IMHO the precedent exists to declare that an attack of the type the character is immune to, that happens to have the Advantage Affects Desolidified, would not be any more effective against that character, and that this would not be unbalancing to the game as a whole.

 

If that still wasn't clear please tell me what's obscure and I'll try to rephrase.

[GAZZA]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

Actually, I'd place the whole idea of the "Affects Desolidified" advantage in the same boat as Power Defence, multiple levels of Hardening or Armour Piercing, and so forth: that is, they are mechanical constructs that can be difficult to justify in sfx terms.

[feralucce]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

sean.. no offense... but 18 points for that powerful of a defensive ability... is broken... plain and simple...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

This is the method I use as well. You don't have to worry about whether you need to buy Affects Solid World, and you're still immune to powers with Affects Desolid on them.

 

 

If the table extended that way, then 15 points would get you 0% Reduction. The above extention is "double the cost for each additional 25% reduction."

 

And while we're on the subject, I also like to allow

66.667% DR (2/3) for 45 points

83.333% DR (5/6) for 75 points

90% DR (9/10) for 90 points and

95% DR (19/20) for 105 points.

 

Although above the 75% level, it's reserved for NPCs, or must have a specific SFX limitation, or both.

 

I may be taking a simplistic approach here, but if you take the three points we know for certain: 25,50 and 75% reduction, and plot them against cost on a graph, you don't get a straight line, you get a curve that tends towards 100% but never gets there, no matter how much you increase the cost by.

 

Ultimately this is not a debate about cost, but a debate about the philosiophy of cost and the nature of absolutes in Hero. If you want them, cool, if you want hem cheap, cool.

 

At present though they are not there at any cost (well, not as such. Not much. OK, they are there, but not for damage. As such.), so anything we do is treading virgin territory.

 

Personally I doubt that absolute invulnerability to a sfx is necessary to run a game, even simulating one where that effect is available, but it IS a convenient shorthand. Given that very few creatures, and no PCs will ever get their hands on immunity to magic, this is pretty much a moot point anyway.

 

Perk/LS/NewPower: Immunity to (most)magic: 10 points, or 20, or whatever. Pick a number. Carry on.

[Rapier]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

A lot depends on how you define magic in your campaign.

 

Part of all spells/magic could be a limitation (-1/4 or -1/2), DEF stacks with PowerDef. Then just buy the PowerDef.

 

Flamer McMagic casts a 12d6 (47 STUN, 12 BODY) BurnBlast at SuunTwoBee Crispy. Suun has 5 ED and 15 PowerDef. Suun will take 27 (47 - 5 - 15) STUN and no BODY.

 

The only hitch would be, what if the attack is not a 12d6N but a 4d6k? Is PowerDef Resistant? Maybe it might need to be hardened?

 

One of the things I like about this construct is it handles a partial immunity to magic with a clear and common concept (DEF reducing the power of an attack).

 

Although the problem still exists that it is possible to exceed the PowerDef and still do damage. Since a golem is going to be an NPC, you don't need to worry about points. Just buy him 100 PowerDef and damn the cost!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

sean.. no offense... but 18 points for that powerful of a defensive ability... is broken... plain and simple...

 

Whether 18 points to be immune to a single special effect is broken depends on how many special effects there are. If there are, say, 10 SFX in the game, all equally common, and I can be immune to any one for 18 points, I pay 180 to be immune to all of them. For 180 points, I could buy 30 rPD, 30 rED, 25 Mental Defense, 25 Sight Flash defense, 15 Hearing Flash Defense and 25 Power Defense, which looks like pretty good immunity to me. If there are 20 SFX, I can spend 360 points elsewhere.

 

If there's only one SFX, suddenly 18 points looks like a much better deal.

[schir1964]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

I may be taking a simplistic approach here' date=' but if you take the three points we know for certain: 25,50 and 75% reduction, and plot them against cost on a graph, you don't get a straight line, you get a curve that tends towards 100% but never gets there, no matter how much you increase the cost by....[/quote']

 

Ultimately this is not a debate about cost, but a debate about the philosiophy of cost and the nature of absolutes in Hero. If you want them, cool, if you want hem cheap, cool.

 

At present though they are not there at any cost (well, not as such. Not much. OK, they are there, but not for damage. As such.), so anything we do is treading virgin territory.

 

Personally I doubt that absolute invulnerability to a sfx is necessary to run a game, even simulating one where that effect is available, but it IS a convenient shorthand. Given that very few creatures, and no PCs will ever get their hands on immunity to magic, this is pretty much a moot point anyway.

 

Perk/LS/NewPower: Immunity to (most)magic: 10 points, or 20, or whatever. Pick a number. Carry on.

Steve Long extended the Damage Reduction chart to 100% in a Heroglyph article. I don't remember the exact cost of 100% Reduction but it was around 300 points I think. That's as close as to being Official without being actually Official.

 

And his chart does work the way you suggest, the graph is a curve not a straight line.

 

Just An Aside

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

........

The only hitch would be, what if the attack is not a 12d6N but a 4d6k? Is PowerDef Resistant? Maybe it might need to be hardened?

 

One of the things I like about this construct is it handles a partial immunity to magic with a clear and common concept (DEF reducing the power of an attack).

 

........................

 

 

I can answer the 'is power defence resistant' question with some authority: it is not. I know this because you can make it resistant with damage resistance.

 

I do like the idea of Power Defence adding to magic resistance. It is neater than just (1pd + 1ed at -1 (only v magic) because you can use if for ANYTHING: flash, lack of weakness, mental defence, not just damage, all based on the same idea. The only problem is that it messes with adjustment powers from non magical sources, like snake venoms.

 

Perhaps a new Magic Defence power is called for, which adds to all defences against magic attacks?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

...........Steve Long extended the Damage Reduction chart to 100% in a Heroglyph article. I don't remember the exact cost of 100% Reduction but it was around 300 points I think. That's as close as to being Official without being actually Official.

 

...................................

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

 

He has a lot to answer for, that Mr Long

[sbarron]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

There's another solution - you come at it from the other direction.

 

That is, all magic in your world has the limitation "Does not affect golems". This can be a -0 limitation assuming golems are reasonably rare.

This is absolutely the approach to take. I never understand why it doesn't get more attention.

 

Since we're trying to model a system with absolutes, why not just all the way and create our own absolutes?

 

Hero Magic System X

 

Magically Immune Creatures

Magic in this setting can not directly effect the following:

 

[ ] Flesh Golems

[ ] Tarrasque

[ ] etc.

 

Magically Resistant Creatures

Magic in this setting only has 1/2 effect on the following:

 

[ ] Dark Elves

[ ] Demons

[ ] High Wizards

[ ] etc.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

I can answer the 'is power defence resistant' question with some authority: it is not. I know this because you can make it resistant with damage resistance.

 

I do like the idea of Power Defence adding to magic resistance. It is neater than just (1pd + 1ed at -1 (only v magic) because you can use if for ANYTHING: flash, lack of weakness, mental defence, not just damage, all based on the same idea. The only problem is that it messes with adjustment powers from non magical sources, like snake venoms.

 

Perhaps a new Magic Defence power is called for, which adds to all defences against magic attacks?

 

Your last question there gave me an idea for what might be another new tool for our toolkit

Howzabout, instead of Magic Defence, we consider this idea...

 

Meta-Defence: Meta Defences are Defences designed to apply against a specific Special Effects rather than a specific Mechanic. The Cost is based on the frequency of the SFX the Defence applies to, and MetaDefences act functionally as any appropriate 1 point/point Defence (PD, ED, MD, PD, or FD). They are persistant, may be hardened, and may have Damage Resistance applied to make them Resistant.

Cost:

1 AP per point: Uncommon or focused SFX (ex. Plasma,magnetisim)

2 AP per point: Common SFX (ex. Fire)

3 AP per point: Meta SFX (ex. Magic, Mutant Powers)

4 AP per point: Ubiquitous SFX (Ex. Super Powers, Mundane or "Real" attacks)

 

Something like this could be useful for modeling a whole lot of things, I'm thinking.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

Your last question there gave me an idea for what might be another new tool for our toolkit

Howzabout, instead of Magic Defence, we consider this idea...

 

Meta-Defence: Meta Defences are Defences designed to apply against a specific Special Effects rather than a specific Mechanic. The Cost is based on the frequency of the SFX the Defence applies to, and MetaDefences act functionally as any appropriate 1 point/point Defence (PD, ED, MD, PD, or FD). They are persistant, may be hardened, and may have Damage Resistance applied to make them Resistant.

Cost:

1 AP per point: Uncommon or focused SFX (ex. Plasma,magnetisim)

2 AP per point: Common SFX (ex. Fire)

3 AP per point: Meta SFX (ex. Magic, Mutant Powers)

4 AP per point: Ubiquitous SFX (Ex. Super Powers, Mundane or "Real" attacks)

 

Something like this could be useful for modeling a whole lot of things, I'm thinking.

 

 

I like this. I like it a lot. This seems like a good way to model all sorts of defences to things that can be modelled in Hero in a wide variety of ways making defending against them problematic, even if it should not logically be so. I can also see several ways to abuse this right off the bat, but that's not the point at all. It is a very useful tool to have indeed.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

According to the rules for Damage Reduction, you can define it to work against any group of attacks with the same Special Effects. You could pay for one category of Resistant DR that applies to all Magic, all Psionics, all Poisons, etc. whatever Powers they're built with.

 

Combine that with Steve Long's optional guidelines for total Damage Reduction (from Digital HERO #28), and you'd have as close to an "official" Magic Immunity as you're likely to get. Aside from Desolid, of course.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

I like this. I like it a lot. This seems like a good way to model all sorts of defences to things that can be modelled in Hero in a wide variety of ways making defending against them problematic' date=' even if it should not logically be so. I can also see several ways to abuse this right off the bat, but that's not the point at all. It is a very useful tool to have indeed.[/quote']

 

Yeah, it might be worth deconstructing in one of your infamous Sean's Rules threads

 

It just kinda popped into my head, but I think it's been brewing up in my subconcious for a while. It really would address a lot of issues we seem to hash over and over on the boards, and with the Big Book Of Energy SFX (aka UEP) coming soon, this might be the perfect time to ponder the nuts and bolts of such a construct.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

According to the rules for Damage Reduction, you can define it to work against any group of attacks with the same Special Effects. You could pay for one category of Resistant DR that applies to all Magic, all Psionics, all Poisons, etc. whatever Powers they're built with.

 

Combine that with Steve Long's optional guidelines for total Damage Reduction (from Digital HERO #28), and you'd have as close to an "official" Magic Immunity as you're likely to get.

 

The thing is that magic can have all sorts of effects that have nothing to do with damage, from mind control to illusions to change environment, to...well pretty much anything.

 

Modelling a way to be immune to illusions is really difficult. Even if you manage it, some clever sod will come up with a way to build the power a way you had not thought of, and so had not defended against.

 

I suppose the best way to do this is, as has been suggested, some sort of personal magic supression field.

 

Even then you get into arguments: is the flame blast magical itself, or does the magic just open a portal to a place wehre there is perfectly mundane fire, and it is that which is burning you?

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

According to the rules for Damage Reduction, you can define it to work against any group of attacks with the same Special Effects. You could pay for one category of Resistant DR that applies to all Magic, all Psionics, all Poisons, etc. whatever Powers they're built with.

 

*snaps fingers*

Ok, so know I know where the core idea I just had burbled up from. Verra good point there LL

[Rapier]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

I can answer the 'is power defence resistant' question with some authority: it is not. I know this because you can make it resistant with damage resistance.

 

I do like the idea of Power Defence adding to magic resistance. It is neater than just (1pd + 1ed at -1 (only v magic) because you can use if for ANYTHING: flash, lack of weakness, mental defence, not just damage, all based on the same idea. The only problem is that it messes with adjustment powers from non magical sources, like snake venoms.

 

Perhaps a new Magic Defence power is called for, which adds to all defences against magic attacks?

 

PowerDef (-1/2) Only vs Magic

 

What I like about the PowerDef design is that it's already in place. No new powers to construct or try to squeeze into HD.

[TaxiMan]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

Whether 18 points to be immune to a single special effect is broken depends on how many special effects there are. If there are, say, 10 SFX in the game, all equally common, and I can be immune to any one for 18 points, I pay 180 to be immune to all of them. For 180 points, I could buy 30 rPD, 30 rED, 25 Mental Defense, 25 Sight Flash defense, 15 Hearing Flash Defense and 25 Power Defense, which looks like pretty good immunity to me. If there are 20 SFX, I can spend 360 points elsewhere.

 

If there's only one SFX, suddenly 18 points looks like a much better deal.

 

Funny idea occurred to me - in order to get immunity, you have to accept an x2 damage Disadvantage from another sfx. Might make for an interesting game, similar to Rock-Paper-Scissors.

 

Vulcan - "Ha Electro-Man! I'm immune to your puny electrical blasts!"

 

Electro-Man - "Yes, I know. That's why I invited my friend, The Flaming Inferno. Inferno, meet Vulcan. Through a freak accident, his body was converted to rubber."

 

Vulcan - "oh shi

 

blub, blub.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

fiction liturature... The quaballah (spelled wrong, most likely) D&D golems are immune to magic... but there are many stories in which they are not...

 

I actually have a fiction collection that has 27 short stories and only one of them features a golem that is immune to magic...

I'd be interested to know what that is, who the author is. In the original stories of the golem, from Eastern European Jewish folklore, there is no mention of "immunity to magic" - magic used against the golem doesn't come into the story at all. There have been many other stories based on the golem, such as Frankenstein, which also don't mention immunity to magic or lack of it.

 

Some other characters based partially on the golem, and all created by Jews, do not have immunity to magic: The Hulk, The Thing, Superman.

 

I may be taking a simplistic approach here' date=' but if you take the three points we know for certain: 25,50 and 75% reduction, and plot them against cost on a graph, you don't get a straight line, you get a curve that tends towards 100% but never gets there, no matter how much you increase the cost by.[/quote']

25, 50, 75, 100 - looks like a straight line to me. Sure, the costs double at each step: 15, 30, 60, and the proposed 120.

 

The progression you proposed would look like this:

0, 50, 75, 87.5, 93.75, 96.875, etc., which doesn't follow the structure in the rules, because the first term is 0, not 25. And I would argue it wouldn't be appropriate to double the cost at each step. Is 96.875% reduction really worth 240 points more than 93.75% reduction? How big are the attacks being thrown around? If a typical attack does 100 pips of damage, the additional 240 points to take you from 93.75 to 96.875 is only getting you 3 points of defense, effectively. Is 3 points of defense worth 240 character points?

 

And yes, how we define "immunity" is completely arbitrary. The most straitforwad, and completely book legal method, is for the GM to say, "This is a 75+75 point campaign, there aren't ever going to be any attacks of more than, say, 20d6. And those attacks will never have more than, say, four levels of Armor Piercing or Penetrating. etc. So if you buy 120 points of resistant defense, Hardened four times, you'll have immunity."

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

I like AmadanNaBriona's meta-defense concept where the defense is based on SFX. I have already used such things on a smaller scale with Flash Def, where a character bought 5 points of Flash Def from anything in the EM spectrum which covered both vision and Radar sense. But it only covered Flashes built around the EM spectrum; it didn't work against pepper spray because the SFX was different.

 

As to magic immunity, I think you just need to buy a pile of defense that makes the golem effectively immune if not absolutely so to most attacks. The reason is two-fold. First, it is easier to build in the Hero system. But more importantly it opens up some fun roleplaying. Consider:

 

The PC wizard who hits the golem with his 3d6 RKA thunderbolt spell and the golem doesn't even react because his 20 PD/ED Armor vs magic (or Power Def or whatever you decide) blocks all the BDY (the golem doesn't take STN as an automaton). The PC's realize that golems are effectively immune to magic.

 

Now the PC's encounter another wizard battling a golem (maybe just as a display of power, maybe even a golem summoned by the PCs) who blows the golem to pieces with a thunderbolt spell. The PC's know that this guy is one dangerous hombre. Of course the NPC wizard might just have a 9d6 RKA, but he might have figured out how to affect otherwise magic immune creatures (NND Does BDY comes to mind but AP or Penetrating might work nicely too) which could be info the PC's need. Maybe he has figured out a way to shut down magic immunity. Maybe he is from another dimension and is using a nonmagical plasma rifle. Or maybe this guy is just a sham, and the golem was rigged. No matter your take on it, the "holy crap" moment from the PC's is too good to pass up, and it will make the PCs think before taking this guy on.

 

__________________________________________________________

Those who are too big for their britches will be exposed in the end.

[archermoo]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

This is absolutely the approach to take. I never understand why it doesn't get more attention.

 

Because it isn't as much fun to argue about.

 

My personal take is that absolutes aren't something that is system dependant, but campaign dependant. Absolutes are by nature "hand-waving", so I have no problems not stating them out within the rules.

 

If I want an NPC/Critter/Whatever that is immune to magic, I write them up with the note that they are immune to magic.

 

Optionally I would just note in the campaign rules that all magic has the -0 limitation "Doesn't Work When The Ref Says So".

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

.........

25, 50, 75, 100 - looks like a straight line to me. Sure, the costs double at each step: 15, 30, 60, and the proposed 120.

 

The progression you proposed would look like this:

0, 50, 75, 87.5, 93.75, 96.875, etc., which doesn't follow the structure in the rules, because the first term is 0, not 25. And I would argue it wouldn't be appropriate to double the cost at each step. Is 96.875% reduction really worth 240 points more than 93.75% reduction? How big are the attacks being thrown around? If a typical attack does 100 pips of damage, the additional 240 points to take you from 93.75 to 96.875 is only getting you 3 points of defense, effectively. Is 3 points of defense worth 240 character points?

 

And yes, how we define "immunity" is completely arbitrary. The most straitforwad, and completely book legal method, is for the GM to say, "This is a 75+75 point campaign, there aren't ever going to be any attacks of more than, say, 20d6. And those attacks will never have more than, say, four levels of Armor Piercing or Penetrating. etc. So if you buy 120 points of resistant defense, Hardened four times, you'll have immunity."

 

25, 50, 75, 100 is a straight line but is not helpful - we are trying to get at the relationship between damage reduction amount and cost, and if you plot that it most certainly is not a straight line. The 87.5 thing was just a guess, to be honest. I did not sit down and work out the function for the curve of the graph, as I'd have to resurrect some very rusty knowledge and do it all from first priinciples. It could take weeks. A graph I can manage though - that takes a couple of seconds

 

Mind you, that does not really matter. What it comes down to is this: do you want immunity to damage in your game, and if you do, what should it cost?

 

If it weighs in at 120 points for resistant 100% damage reduction then you can buy physical and energy resistant damage immunity for 240 points, which is within the starting budget of a starting character, if you waive the AP limits. Tack on 50 points of strength, 10 of DEX and CON and a couple of token skills and you have a shallow but almost unbeatable opponent. Assuming you don't just walk away from him.

 

Personally I would not want 100% damage immunity with so much general applicability and I certainly wouldn't want it that cheap. Immunity to certain sfx I could probably live with, if I had to, but, by and large I can see neither the need for nor the sense in having damage immunity, especially in a game like Hero where utility and cost are supposed to go hand in hand.

 

Now if you want damage immunity and you are happy with the cost and that it is not going to be a game wrecker (and it need not be, with the right players and GM) then GFI.

 

Look at it this way, not in terms of damage stopped, but damage getting through.

 

In a 12DC game you do an average of 42 stun, and even if you have NO other defences (unlikely), you only take 10 stun per hit. Assuming you are a brick with (say) 15 REC and 50 STUN (not high for a brick), and you get hit on average 4 times a turn (not, i;d suggest, unreasonable), you will last one and a half turns before getting KO'd.

 

Now if the next hike was to 87.5%, or 1 damage taken per 8 delivered, you take 5 per hit, or 20 per turn, which is a net loss of 5 after figuring REC, so you will last about 10 turns, and I've rarely seen a hero combat last that long. Most observers would note that the character can take immense damage and keep coming, and might well describe them as 'invulnerable'.

 

Now say we make the next hike a 90% damage reduction, same scenario.

 

That means you take 1 point for every 10 damage delivered, or 4 per hit, and you are now averaging 1 stun per turn. 50 turns before you are KO'd. I've never seen a combat go on that long. You have functional invulnerability right there without having to go to 100%.

 

If we go to 91.667% DR, we are taking 1 per 12, or, in the posited scenario, you would never ever take enough damage to exceed your REC in a turn. Invulnerability acheived.

 

Yes, there will still be the Doctor Destroyers out there who can take you down with their 30d6 EBs, but even then you'd be lasting a couple of turns, which is pretty darned impressive, and it would be pretty silly if a world challenging villain like Dr D COULDN'T take down a 400 point Hero given a free hand and a couple of turns to do it.

 

I sincerely doubt there are many, if any, examples of 'invulnerability' in the literature/media that cannot be explained by decently high defences. Moreover, I can't imagine why you'd really want broad invulnerability: where is the fun in that?

 

Anyway, that's what I think about it and I think I've said quite enough.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

Because it isn't as much fun to argue about.

 

............

 

Word of wisdom