Sooo... Immunity to magic

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

25' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

As Phil says, each additional 25% doubles the cost. Therefore, 100% reduction for 120 points.

 

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.

 

Part of the problem is that the value of 100% damage reduction varies with the likely attacks the character will face.

 

Let's review your sample character, assume he is competetive in game (ie 12 DC is about right) but instead of Physical and Energy damage reduction, we'll instead buy +100 PD, 40 of which is resistant and +100 ED, 40 of which is resistant. These characters won't play out a lot different in practice - a 12d6 EB or a 4d6 KA will still pretty much bounce off. A lucky 4d6 KA, or higher, will get some damage through, but not consistently, and that 16 REC will bring any lost STUN back over time fairly quickly. Looks like 100% immunity is priced reasonably at 120.

 

In a 12DC game you do an average of 42 stun' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Why doesn't he have any defenses?

 

Now if the next hike was to 87.5%' date=' 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'.[/quote']

 

Or he could spend that extra 60 points on 40 resistant defense instead. Now that 42 point hit does 2, less 75% is one. He can't be KO'd - his REC takes care of it. Weren't cost and utility going to align?

 

Now say we make the next hike a 90% damage reduction' date=' same scenario.[/quote']

 

Now he could have bought +60 PD (40 resistant is enough) and have 100 PD, 40 resistant, and 75% damage reduction.

 

Yes' date=' 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.[/quote'] Dr. D has attacks that bypass both PD and ED, doesn't he?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

25' date=' 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,[/quote']

Correct. It's a simple exponential function. We start with 15 points for 25% Resistant Damage Reduction, and then double the cost for each additional 25%. Thus, 100% comes to 120 points.

 

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,

Well, I did. Does that make me a math geek?

 

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,

It is? I assumed we were talking about a heroic-level fantasy campaign, what with the deendee golems and magic.

 

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.

This is really two separate issues:

1) How much is it really worth?

2) Does it belong in a particular game?

I maintain that the 120 figure is the correct answer for part 1. I don't make any claim about part 2 for anyone's game but my own. And as I've already said, I would never allow PCs to take more than 75% DR without a specific SFX limitation, or some other seriously limiting condition. Say 100% Physical & Energy, Resistant (240 Active), 1 continuing charge for 1 turn (-1.75), Charge never recovers (-2), OIF (-1/2), Independant (-2), Gestures and Incantations to Activate (-1/2), etc. just the thing for the climactic scene where you have to swim across a pool of lava to rescue the MacGuffin in distress.

 

In a 12DC game you do an average of 42 stun, and ... you only take 10 stun per hit. ...you will last one and a half turns before getting KO'd.

 

Now if the next hike was to 87.5%, ... 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,

 

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

.... 50 turns before you are KO'd.

 

If we go to 91.667% DR, ... you would never ever take enough damage to exceed your REC in a turn. Invulnerability acheived.

Only if your opponent is Idiot Man. Anyone else would switch to some other form of attack: Flash, Drain, Mental, etc.

[Lucius]

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.

 

Would you mind if I crosspost this to the Ultimate Energy Projector discussion as a suggestion for inclusion?

 

LA

p

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

Would you mind if I crosspost this to the Ultimate Energy Projector discussion as a suggestion for inclusion?

 

LA

p

 

Not in the least.

 

Go for it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

Well I don't think that 120 points is the right cost mathematically (but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one) or practically; however you work it out it is not expensive enough and it is not a power that scales. You'd spend your whole time trying to balance it with limtiations and caveats.

 

It is also not necessary.

 

The Maguffin rescuing power can be done with desolid to energy or LS Heat, or, better yet, an energy force field, and the immunity to magic for DnDsim doesn't need a cost because the whole point about cost is that it is a balancing tool and when you are simulating another game, balance (and therefore cost) is irrelevant because it was irrelevant (or calculated by some other standard) in the game you are simulating.

 

Does 100% damage reduction have or need a place in Hero? That is the question, and my view is that we don't need it. I can understand that some people WANT it, but that does not change my view at all that it should not be there. I'm quite sure that nothing that people want it for cannot be done some other way.

 

As to writing off my argument about less than 100% damage reduction with:

 

Only if your opponent is Idiot Man. Anyone else would switch to some other form of attack: Flash' date=' Drain, Mental, etc.[/quote']

 

Your response is spurious, we are talking about damage reduction. 100% damage reduction, if it were available, would not help against any attacks that did not cause stun or body.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

As Phil says' date=' each additional 25% doubles the cost. Therefore, 100% reduction for 120 points.[/quote']

 

In your opinion.

 

Frankly, even if you are both right, it does not matter. 100% damage reduction was not included in the system for good and sufficient reason, so it does nto cost anything - it does not exist.

 

 

 

Part of the problem is that the value of 100% damage reduction varies with the likely attacks the character will face.

 

Let's review your sample character, assume he is competetive in game (ie 12 DC is about right) but instead of Physical and Energy damage reduction, we'll instead buy +100 PD, 40 of which is resistant and +100 ED, 40 of which is resistant. These characters won't play out a lot different in practice - a 12d6 EB or a 4d6 KA will still pretty much bounce off. A lucky 4d6 KA, or higher, will get some damage through, but not consistently, and that 16 REC will bring any lost STUN back over time fairly quickly. Looks like 100% immunity is priced reasonably at 120.

 

You are quite right that in a game of this sort of level, the cost of the proposed addition of 100% damage reduction makes normal defences almost as effective against normal attacks and killing attacks without any advantages. Mind you, that assumes you are not facing NNDs, AVLDs, stun drains etc etc. Build in plenty of other defences if you want to work you the cost properly, and even then it won't help against most NNDs.

 

So, the cost issue comes back to favouring the 100% DR again, AND this is balancing for a game at that level, not generally. Most superhero games start at a 12DC attack level and move on up. It is going to be very expensive in a FH game, of course, where atatcks probably don;t get much highere than 8DC. That is the problem with any fixed priced power, of course, and a good reason not to include any more unless they are necessary, and 100%DR is not. IMO, obviously.

 

 

Why doesn't he have any defenses?

 

Because he does not need them for the example.

 

 

 

Or he could spend that extra 60 points on 40 resistant defense instead. Now that 42 point hit does 2' date=' less 75% is one. He can't be KO'd - his REC takes care of it. Weren't cost and utility going to align?[/quote']

 

Presumably the player would only spend that much on defences if he needed to, for whatever reason. Normal defences may well be a better bet in many circumstances, that is not my point. My point is, as you demonstrate, that even at that cost, some damage would be getting through building as you suggest, so shuold not a power that stops all damage cost more?

 

 

 

Now he could have bought +60 PD (40 resistant is enough) and have 100 PD' date=' 40 resistant, and 75% damage reduction.[/quote']

 

Yes he could, but again that will only help against conventional atatcks and we are arguing , after all about things that do not exist. 100% DR is not there and neither is 90%DR. I'm just saying that 100%DR is not desireable, and if we wanted to extend the table, doing so to higher percentages that do not get to 100, at least not in this lifetime, would be a better way to go. That is my belief.

 

Dr. D has attacks that bypass both PD and ED' date=' doesn't he?[/quote']

 

Yes. Mind you he does not have any attacks that can bypass DR, which is one reason why 100%DR is a bad thing. Seriously.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

In your opinion.

 

Frankly, even if you are both right, it does not matter. 100% damage reduction was not included in the system for good and sufficient reason, so it does nto cost anything - it does not exist.

 

There are many abilities in the system that were not in the 1st Edition. Was it wrong to add these? For a few examples:

 

- Aid, Suppress, Dispel and Heal (or even Drains or Transfers that work on anything but characteristics)

- Absorbtion

- Summon, Duplication and Multiform

- Hand Attacks

- single target Flash attacks

- Flash attacks affecting any sense but sight

- AVLD's

- Transform

- Choke Holds, Nerve Strikes, Martial Escapes, Martial Arts for anything but bare handed HTH combat

 

The list would be much longer if completed. The prior edictions didn't have these - was it wrong to add them in later editions?

 

By the same logic that the system doesn't have something because it doesn't need them, would you blindly accept 100% damage reduction for 120 points if this were included in 6e?

 

You are quite right that in a game of this sort of level' date=' the cost of the proposed addition of 100% damage reduction makes normal defences almost as effective against normal attacks and killing attacks without any advantages. Mind you, that assumes you are not facing NNDs, AVLDs, stun drains etc etc. Build in plenty of other defences if you want to work you the cost properly, and even then it won't help against most NNDs.[/quote']

 

To be effective against an AVLD, an NND, a stun drain, etc., Damage Reduction must be purchased for the correct defense type. In my little world, that means (absent a specific SFX) that an AVLD Blinding Flash is stopped by Flash damage reduction, not by Energy damage reduction. Stun Drains are blocked by Power Defense, or Power Damage reduction. Ego attack? Mental Damage reduction. NND? SFX.

 

If Invulnerable Man has 100% Physical, Energy, Mental, Power and Flash Damage reduction (assuming the existence of 100% damage reduction), but still needs to breathe, then he still takes damage from drowning, and from NND's whose defense is not needing to breathe.

 

So' date=' the cost issue comes back to favouring the 100% DR again, AND this is balancing for a game at that level, not generally. Most superhero games start at a 12DC attack level and move on up. It is going to be very expensive in a FH game, of course, where atatcks probably don;t get much highere than 8DC. That is the problem with any fixed priced power, of course, and a good reason not to include any more unless they are necessary, and 100%DR is not. IMO, obviously.[/quote']

 

The variability of the value of DamRed applies whether it's 100% or 25%. If I'm playing in a low power game where the maximum attack is 6DC, I'd have to be pretty stupid to shell out 30 points for 25% resistant Physical Dam Red. I could have had +20 PD, resistant for that price. Even if NCM applied, I could have bought +12 PD (24 points) and made it resistant (6 points), if I couldn't buy Armor.

 

6 DC = 36 max damage normal attack = 27 through if I had 0 PD to begin with. 36 - 12 = 24, and I take no BOD. On a KA, 12 BOD and 60 Stun does 9 BOD and 45 STUN, or 0 BOD and 48 STUN. I'd rather take the extra 3 STUN in such case.

 

This supports the elimination of Damage Reduction as a whole. It's as much an absolute to halve all damage than to eliminate all damage.

 

Do we need them? Debateable. Some think we do. If my character is made of pure energy, and feeds off all forms of energy, should it be possible conceptually for a large enough energy attack to harm him?

 

Presumably the player would only spend that much on defences if he needed to' date=' for whatever reason. Normal defences may well be a better bet in many circumstances, that is not my point. My point is, as you demonstrate, that even at that cost, some damage would be getting through building as you suggest, so shuold not a power that stops all damage cost more?[/quote']

 

At what point do we stop charging for the power? The Fantasy Hero "desolid for invulnerability" structure is commonly noted. However, another suggestion is to buy sufficient defenses to block anything the campaign would reasonably throw out. If a 4d6 KA is the max, that's 24 rPD and 120 normal PD. The GM then handwaves that this constitutes not 120 defense, 24 resistant, but absolute immunity to physical attacks. Handwave? Sure. But so is "well, you don't have to buy Affects Solid World in this case.

 

Yes he could' date=' but again that will only help against conventional atatcks and we are arguing , after all about things that do not exist. 100% DR is not there and neither is 90%DR. I'm just saying that 100%DR is not desireable, and if we wanted to extend the table, doing so to higher percentages that do not get to 100, at least not in this lifetime, would be a better way to go. That is my belief.[/quote']

 

Yes. Mind you he does not have any attacks that can bypass DR' date=' which is one reason why 100%DR is a bad thing. Seriously.[/quote']

 

No attacks specifically bypass DR. They either work against the defense(s) in respect of which DR applies, or they don't. If Dr. D has no attacks that bypass Physical and Energy Defenses, and this Physical and Energy Damage reduction, he needs to have a little talk with the designer of the character

[feralucce]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

I agree that 100% DR seems broken and was left out for that very reason...

 

Saying that other pwoers were not in the previous editionsd is a little bit different... the powers were not in it... but this power -DR is... and it is limited...

 

Besides... DR wouldn't cover it, I don't think... because it is immune to ALL magic... Aid, Succcor, healing... none of them can effect it... or, as usual... is that an issue that I have not gotten to? Does DR subtract from those too?

[jelloflechette]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

Hi,

 

I'm very new to these boards, so please pardon my butting in. I was quite interested in the various cost sequences people have been tossing around. Suppose we have a sequence i, starting at 0 and incrementing by 1. Let cost(0) = 15 and DR(0) = 25. These are agreed starting values.

 

Correct. It's a simple exponential function. We start with 15 points for 25% Resistant Damage Reduction, and then double the cost for each additional 25%. Thus, 100% comes to 120 points.

 

This is true if the cost and Damage Reduction functions are defined as follows:

cost(i) = 2*cost(i-1)

DR(i) = 25*(i+1)

 

From these functions we get:

[i, cost, DR]

0, 15, 25

1, 30, 50

2, 60, 75

3, 120, 100

 

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.

 

This is also true for the following functions:

Z(0) = 1

Z(i) = Z(i-1)^2 + i + 1

W(i) = 5/Z(i)

cost(i) = 2*cost(i-1)

DR(i) = 100 - w(i)*cost(i)

 

From these functions we get:

(i, W, cost, DR)

0, 5/1, 15, 25

1, 5/3, 30, 50

2, 5/12, 60, 75

3, 5/148, 120, 95.95

4, 5/21909, 240, 99.94

5, 5/480004287, 480, 99.99995

 

Since the exponential in the denominator of W grows faster than the doubling of the cost, the function is guaranteed to not diverge. It approaches 100 as Sean mentioned. Of course, it's not exactly a "simplistic" approach as can be seen from the functions; quite the opposite.

 

This is the problem of curve fitting when given very few sample points. Of course, one could invoke Occam's razor to claim that the first set of formulations should be used. Then again, one could also claim that the "true" sequence is as follows: 15, 30, 60, f(amount of $ paid to GM) where f is inversely proportional of course.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

Hi,

 

I'm very new to these boards, so please pardon my butting in. I was quite interested in the various cost sequences people have been tossing around. Suppose we have a sequence i, starting at 0 and incrementing by 1. Let cost(0) = 15 and DR(0) = 25. These are agreed starting values.

 

 

 

This is true if the cost and Damage Reduction functions are defined as follows:

cost(i) = 2*cost(i-1)

DR(i) = 25*(i+1)

 

From these functions we get:

[i, cost, DR]

0, 15, 25

1, 30, 50

2, 60, 75

3, 120, 100

 

 

 

This is also true for the following functions:

Z(0) = 1

Z(i) = Z(i-1)^2 + i + 1

W(i) = 5/Z(i)

cost(i) = 2*cost(i-1)

DR(i) = 100 - w(i)*cost(i)

 

From these functions we get:

(i, W, cost, DR)

0, 5/1, 15, 25

1, 5/3, 30, 50

2, 5/12, 60, 75

3, 5/148, 120, 95.95

4, 5/21909, 240, 99.94

5, 5/480004287, 480, 99.99995

 

Since the exponential in the denominator of W grows faster than the doubling of the cost, the function is guaranteed to not diverge. It approaches 100 as Sean mentioned. Of course, it's not exactly a "simplistic" approach as can be seen from the functions; quite the opposite.

 

This is the problem of curve fitting when given very few sample points. Of course, one could invoke Occam's razor to claim that the first set of formulations should be used. Then again, one could also claim that the "true" sequence is as follows: 15, 30, 60, f(amount of $ paid to GM) where f is inversely proportional of course.

 

You are most welcome to butt in as and whenever you like. It is how we all started

 

One wrinkle to the cost argument, I suppose, is this:

 

Damage reduction is NOT a defence.

 

Defences in hero reduce the damage you take, and DR does this, it is true, but only apparently. What it is in fact doing is acting asa multilpier for your stun and body totals and your REC and regeneration and some aspects of CON, so if you had DR against EVERYTHING at 50% it would be the same thing as doubling your stun and Body, and your REC etc....

 

It would CERTAINLY mean that you would no longer NEED stun, body, rec, regeneration etc, so 100% DR, if you COULD apply it across the board to all damage types, would come with considerable savings...

 

Now the cost of THAT would vary from character to character , of course, but the point is that the final extrapolation to 100% makes the character 100% immune to damage (and, certainly if it is built as a power, and assuming my 'multiplier' argument is correct, that would include damage from any source, including suffocation.

 

Hugh mentioned above about ADVL(flash) damage. That is covered by DR (energy). Hero ONLY does damage as energy, physical or mental. We neither have nor need DR Flash nor power (although technically DR only protects from DAMAGE, so I could see a use for DR (power) to reduce non damage reductions to characteristics and powers).

 

Also 100%DR (mental) would make you completely immune to mental powers.

 

Anyway, what I am saying is that even if we employ Occam's Razor and follow the simplest progression to 120 points for full DR, it is not a good idea.

[GAZZA]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

You know, I'm about convinced that DR as a whole doesn't really need to be there at all - 25%, 50%, 75%, or whatever. In most campaigns it's not cost efficient for PCs to buy (you're better off with just spending the appropriate points on defences directly), which leaves the "master villain" angle (you want PCs to be able to hurt them, but not quickly put him down) - and for master villains (for whom the point total is irrelevant, as an NPC) as Sean points out you can just give them a large STUN total for the same effect.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

Hugh mentioned above about ADVL(flash) damage. That is covered by DR (energy). Hero ONLY does damage as energy' date=' physical or mental. We neither have nor need DR Flash nor power (although technically DR only protects from DAMAGE, so I could see a use for DR (power) to reduce non damage reductions to characteristics and powers).[/quote']

 

Stun "damage" arises from a STUN drain or AVLD Flash quite readily. A typical energy blast can be energy or ohysical. There is no reason an AVLD - Flash should have its damage classed as either - it overwhelms the senses. That's flash damage.

 

Also 100%DR (mental) would make you completely immune to mental powers.

 

With the exception of Ego attacks, a lower level of Damage Reduction can provide functional invuilnerability. With 75% Reduction, and no mental defense, an opponent must roll 40 to match Ego, and 80 to get Ego +10. That's pretty tough to do with 12 DC's! Mind you, it's not a lot easier if you invest 40 points in Mental Defense instead, and then you are functionally immune to ego attacks.

 

Anyway' date=' what I am saying is that even if we employ Occam's Razor and follow the simplest progression to 120 points for full DR, it is not a good idea.[/quote']

 

Whether it's a good idea depends on concept and campaign, as with a wide array of abilities in Hero. But it should be possible. In a game where this is a reasonable structure, I think 120 is a reasonable cost as compared to the other levels of Damage Reduction, as well as a logical progression. In a game where this is not a good idea, GM's must exercise soome judgement.

[Vondy]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

The problem with that method is that the flesh golem then has to buy all of his other powers "effects solid world" (+2)

 

No, you don't. Invulnerability to an FX purchased this way doesn't require Affects Solid World (+2). Its an official ruling, and is probably listed in the FAQ.

[Vondy]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

I figure that if you can exempt your powers from buying Affects Physical World when using this type of Desolidification' date=' it would also be reasonable to exempt your Desolid character from being affected by Powers bought with [i']Affects Desolidified[/i]. After all, there would still be plenty of attack forms that can hurt the character.

 

Its a clunk, but then, a lot of things in hero are clunks - and I agree with you. Personally, ff there is an official method then its usually better to go with it unless you get your whole group to sign off on another mechanic, which is also fine if you're into that... its not like I don't have a few house rules.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

No' date=' you don't. Invulnerability to an FX purchased this way doesn't require Affects Solid World (+2). Its an official ruling, and is probably listed in the FAQ.[/quote']

 

I don't think this is in the FAQ. It was in Fantasy Hero as one of several options for a GM who wished to allow absolute immunity to an effect.

[casualplayer]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

feralucce, when you're converting, why not improve?

 

In the aforementioned Dirtdwellings & Drakes, there are a ridiculous amount of absolute tiers. Can't be affected by blah, blah can effect things that can't be affected by blah and so on. It's like playing Cops & Robbers as a child and someone declares they have a bulletproof vest and someone else announces armor-piercing bullets then the original person says it's a "special" bulletproof vest, and then everyone gets frustrated and goes inside to play a different game.

 

Unless you want to get carpal tunnel from handwaiving, you may want to just adjust golem's magical defenses against the mean spell power of your campaign. Otherwise you end up with silliness like Gods not being able to hurt flesh golems with magic, and then someone gets the bright idea of storming Olympus with an army of the things.

[feralucce]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

well... Honestly... I did change it completely... but.. it was still a question that I was curious about...

 

I wanted to figure out how to do it... because...

 

well... the paradigm has, similar to the cthulu mythos, entities that predate the universe... they... are immune to magic... they're not terribly powerful outside of that...

[Scott Baker]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

Otherwise you end up with silliness like Gods not being able to hurt flesh golems with magic' date=' and then someone gets the bright idea of storming Olympus with an army of the things. [/quote']

 

 

Scott Baker

[SteveZilla]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

Immunity or absolute defense in HERO only exists when a GM houserules it.

 

The typical method for costing the ability is to add cost of 3/4 Damage Reduction to 1/4 DR to get 100 % DR vs. a particular sfx.

 

I've never heard of that method. Is there a reason why it wouldn't follow the doubling of cost per level established by the first 3 levels of DR?

[GAZZA]

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic

 

I've never heard of that method. Is there a reason why it wouldn't follow the doubling of cost per level established by the first 3 levels of DR?

Not that I'm weighing in with support for 100% DR, by any means, but every successive level of DR gives you the exact same benefit: it knocks of 25% of the damage you would otherwise take. For example: you are attacked with something that does 40 STUN after defences.

• 0% DR, you take 40 STUN
  
• 25% DR, you take 30 STUN (10 less than 0%)
  
• 50% DR, you take 20 STUN (10 less than 25%)
  
• 75% DR, you take 10 STUN (10 less than 50%)

Whether that goes from 0% to 25% or 75% to 100% is exactly the same relative result - you take 10 less STUN - so there is a fairly compelling argument that the difference in cost between 25% and 0% should be the same as that between 100% and 75%. After all, the difference in cost between 50 DEF and 40 DEF is the same as that between 10 DEF and 0 DEF.

[SteveZilla]

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 posted links to this thread, and your post specifically, to the Thread Linkage: New Mechanic Ideas thread. I thought it worth cross-posting.