Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

[GAZZA]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Not in precisely the same fashion. The person without multipower who has 40 def either spent gobs more points to have 40/40 or he's permanently going to be at a huge disad if he's at 40/15 and gets attacked by the wrong attack.

"Gobs" more? Hardly.

 

40 PD/40 ED costs 80 points.

 

Multipower "Force Field" 80 pt reserve [80]

40 PD FF [4-u]

40 ED FF [4-u]

...

 

costs 88 points. Granted, he can then proceed to fill it with the rest of the exotic defences at 4 more points per slot, but this is the same as an attack multipower buying extra attacks at a similarly cheap rate.

 

The multipower dude has the best of all worlds, a PD slot, ED slot, and balanced slot. He'll crush both Brickman and Laserman whereas your 40 def person crushes Brickman but gets annihilated by Laserman.

If multipower dude is allowed to spend 88+ points on defences I'm not clear why non-multipower dude isn't allowed to spend 80 points on defences and thereby stand up to Brickman and Laserman. You need to have at least three example opponents before multipower dude has any sort of advantage - and even then, he still has to pick and choose.

 

You don't have to abort if you're expecting the attack. Do your characters ALWAYS get the drop on the PCs? And if the multipower dude catches Egoman or Powerman by himself, he crushes them for a grand total of 2 pts.

If you have a multipower of exotic defences and I have a multipower of exotic attacks, then yes, you must abort every time I attack. The fact that you're expecting it is irrelevant, since I'm switching slots as often as you are (indeed, you're switching because I am).

 

Evidently you feel flexible defence powers are problematic because the possessor can defend himself against a wide variety of opponents. I'm not clear why you don't seem to see that flexible attack powers have a comparable advantage - and yet I haven't noticed blaster types dominating games.

 

 

1 pt in the defense multipower gives you +10 mental defense. That counters +29 pts of Ego Attack on average or +14 pts of Mind Control. That same point spent on an attack multipower gets you either +1d6 Ego Attack or +2d6 mind control which counters only 3.5 or 7 pts spent on defense.

 

If you can't see the massive discrepancy in this, there's no point in further discussing the issue.

 

Or alternatively: 1 point in a defence multipower buys 10 points of defences (a savings of 10 to 1 over the normal cost). 1 point in an attack multipower buys 10 points of attacks (a savings of 10 to 1 over the normal cost).

 

And attack multipowers do not suffer from any of the problems defence multipowers suffer from:

• Got blindsided? Who cares, your attacks aren't persistent anyway.
  
• Opponent seems to be immune to one of your attacks? Switch to another one when it's your next go. No time wasted there; by definition you never want to attack when it isn't your phase.
  
• And since you can only attack one person at a time it doesn't matter if the attack you choose is useful against person A but not against person B.

If attack multipowers, which have been widely used for years, have not brought the system to its knees despite lacking the inherent limitations of defence multipowers, I don't see that it's at all intuitively obvious that the latter will prove to be destructive.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

"Gobs" more? Hardly.

 

40 PD/40 ED costs 80 points.

 

Multipower "Force Field" 80 pt reserve [80]

40 PD FF [4-u]

40 ED FF [4-u]

...

 

costs 88 points. Granted, he can then proceed to fill it with the rest of the exotic defences at 4 more points per slot, but this is the same as an attack multipower buying extra attacks at a similarly cheap rate.

 

Reserve cost should be 40 pts. So yeah, 80 pts is "gobs" more than 48 pts plus the added benefit of cheap slots.

 

If multipower dude is allowed to spend 88+ points on defences I'm not clear why non-multipower dude isn't allowed to spend 80 points on defences and thereby stand up to Brickman and Laserman. You need to have at least three example opponents before multipower dude has any sort of advantage - and even then, he still has to pick and choose.

 

See above.

 

If you have a multipower of exotic defences and I have a multipower of exotic attacks, then yes, you must abort every time I attack. The fact that you're expecting it is irrelevant, since I'm switching slots as often as you are (indeed, you're switching because I am).

 

Evidently you feel flexible defence powers are problematic because the possessor can defend himself against a wide variety of opponents. I'm not clear why you don't seem to see that flexible attack powers have a comparable advantage - and yet I haven't noticed blaster types dominating games.

 

Wrong matchup. I specifically stated throughout this thread that flexible multipower dude crushes opponents with 1 attack form, such as a mentallist or brick. Against an attacker with multiple forms of attack, the defender simply switches to a balanced slot and is no worse off.

 

 

Or alternatively: 1 point in a defence multipower buys 10 points of defences (a savings of 10 to 1 over the normal cost). 1 point in an attack multipower buys 10 points of attacks (a savings of 10 to 1 over the normal cost).

 

You really don't see that 1 pt in a spot defense is more powerful than 1 pt in a spot attack even after that example??????

 

And attack multipowers do not suffer from any of the problems defence multipowers suffer from:

• Got blindsided? Who cares, your attacks aren't persistent anyway.
  
• Opponent seems to be immune to one of your attacks? Switch to another one when it's your next go. No time wasted there; by definition you never want to attack when it isn't your phase.
  
• And since you can only attack one person at a time it doesn't matter if the attack you choose is useful against person A but not against person B.

If attack multipowers, which have been widely used for years, have not brought the system to its knees despite lacking the inherent limitations of defence multipowers, I don't see that it's at all intuitively obvious that the latter will prove to be destructive.

 

Attack multipowers generally need lots of points to be effective, and the ability to be flexible generally isn't too devastating since usually the base attack will do some damage anyway. For example, someone with a 60 pt multipower may have a 12d6 attack and a 6d6 nnd. Vs a 30 def target, the 12d6 does 12 net stun and the 6d6 NND does 21, gaining 9 stun on average. Whereas with the spot defense, you don't need a lot of it compared to an attack multipower (1 pt is 8 times as effective in defense vs drains and ego blasts or 2 times as effective vs standard 5 pt/die attacks) and generally ALL of it will be effective in reducing damage. Just take a look at what a 25 pt defense multipower with 2 pt slots will add to a typical character.

[GAZZA]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

You really don't see that 1 pt in a spot defense is more powerful than 1 pt in a spot attack even after that example??????

Defences cost 1/10 as much; attacks cost 1/10 as much. 1 point in a defence is more powerful than 1 point in an attack in or out of a multipower. Multipowers lower the cost of defences by the same amount as they lower attacks.

 

Attack multipowers generally need lots of points to be effective, and the ability to be flexible generally isn't too devastating since usually the base attack will do some damage anyway.

Here again, attacks in general require lots of points to be effective, defences don't, in or out of a multipower.

 

For example, someone with a 60 pt multipower may have a 12d6 attack and a 6d6 nnd. Vs a 30 def target, the 12d6 does 12 net stun and the 6d6 NND does 21, gaining 9 stun on average. Whereas with the spot defense, you don't need a lot of it compared to an attack multipower (1 pt is 8 times as effective in defense vs drains and ego blasts or 2 times as effective vs standard 5 pt/die attacks) and generally ALL of it will be effective in reducing damage.

8 times as effective as what, exactly? Not 8 times as effective as attacks (unless you're suggesting that +10 Mental Defence is as good as +8d6 Ego Attack). 2 times as effective? +10 PD is not as good as +4d6 EB Physical.

 

8 times as effective as buying them outside the multipower, you mean? I would have thought "10 times as effective" was a more natural number (ignoring the cost of the reserve, which becomes a diminishingly smaller proportion of the cost as you add more slots). But attacks get the same benefit in a multipower.

 

Just take a look at what a 25 pt defense multipower with 2 pt slots will add to a typical character.

The ability to never act because he's too busy aborting his actions to activate his highly volatile defences?

 

There are two basic arguments here.

 

Firstly, there is the argument that against an attacker with a single form of a attack, a flexible defender will have the means to shut down this attacker. Most "single form attackers" are either brick/martial artists, or mentalists. Assuming the flexible defender is not able to achieve a significantly higher PD than most characters could, the brick or the martial artist is not going to be ineffective (and if they are able to get a much higher PD, then all bets are always going to be off - it is not unreasonable to assume that if a multipower defender is allowed to get a PD of 40, then a non-multipower defender is allowed to get at least that high as well, and "maximum DEF" has a habit of becoming "average" and eventually "minimum" DEF over time). Mentalists are always screwed against someone who has even moderate mental defence - it's an unfortunate consequence of the "all or nothing" nature of their powers, and the reason that most long-term mentalists branch out into at least things like Ego Drains if not exploring the TK route.

 

Secondly, there is the argument that it is allowing a defender to purchase exotic defences much cheaper than normal. Even if you ignore the inherent limitations and contradictions in this (exotic attacks are cheaper by the exact same ratio; exotic defences that need to be switched on and off require you to either guess or abort, and to leave yourself open to others until your next phase, which arguably justifies the cost reduction in the same fashion as not being able to combine a flash, NND, and energy blast justifies the same thing with attacks)... even if one ignores that, how far does one take this argument? It boils down to "it should be hard to make exotic defences cheap", which calls into question whether or not sticking them in a Force Field Elemental Control is OK, or whether sticking limitations on them is acceptable, and so forth. To say that it's wrong to put them in a multipower but OK to put them in an EC is somewhat arbitrary, and is in any case a difference of degree rather than kind.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Defences cost 1/10 as much; attacks cost 1/10 as much. 1 point in a defence is more powerful than 1 point in an attack in or out of a multipower. Multipowers lower the cost of defences by the same amount as they lower attacks.

 

This is magnified when dealing with multipowers.

 

Here again, attacks in general require lots of points to be effective, defences don't, in or out of a multipower.

 

Yep, a relatively low amount of defense points neutralizes a much larger amount of attack points.

 

8 times as effective as what, exactly? Not 8 times as effective as attacks (unless you're suggesting that +10 Mental Defence is as good as +8d6 Ego Attack). 2 times as effective? +10 PD is not as good as +4d6 EB Physical.

 

8 times as effective as buying them outside the multipower, you mean? I would have thought "10 times as effective" was a more natural number (ignoring the cost of the reserve, which becomes a diminishingly smaller proportion of the cost as you add more slots). But attacks get the same benefit in a multipower.

 

Just do the math (I'm not sure WHAT the heck you're doing with your numbers). 1 pt in a MP buys +10 mental defense which neutralizes 29 pts of ego attack. 1 pt in a MP buys 1d6 ego attack which neutralizes 3.5 pts of mental defense. 29/3.5 = 8 times as effective.

 

The ability to never act because he's too busy aborting his actions to activate his highly volatile defences?

 

Maybe in your world where the villains get the drop on the PCs every single time.

 

There are two basic arguments here.

 

Firstly, there is the argument that against an attacker with a single form of a attack, a flexible defender will have the means to shut down this attacker. Most "single form attackers" are either brick/martial artists, or mentalists. Assuming the flexible defender is not able to achieve a significantly higher PD than most characters could, the brick or the martial artist is not going to be ineffective (and if they are able to get a much higher PD, then all bets are always going to be off - it is not unreasonable to assume that if a multipower defender is allowed to get a PD of 40, then a non-multipower defender is allowed to get at least that high as well, and "maximum DEF" has a habit of becoming "average" and eventually "minimum" DEF over time). Mentalists are always screwed against someone who has even moderate mental defence - it's an unfortunate consequence of the "all or nothing" nature of their powers, and the reason that most long-term mentalists branch out into at least things like Ego Drains if not exploring the TK route.

 

Secondly, there is the argument that it is allowing a defender to purchase exotic defences much cheaper than normal. Even if you ignore the inherent limitations and contradictions in this (exotic attacks are cheaper by the exact same ratio; exotic defences that need to be switched on and off require you to either guess or abort, and to leave yourself open to others until your next phase, which arguably justifies the cost reduction in the same fashion as not being able to combine a flash, NND, and energy blast justifies the same thing with attacks)... even if one ignores that, how far does one take this argument? It boils down to "it should be hard to make exotic defences cheap", which calls into question whether or not sticking them in a Force Field Elemental Control is OK, or whether sticking limitations on them is acceptable, and so forth. To say that it's wrong to put them in a multipower but OK to put them in an EC is somewhat arbitrary, and is in any case a difference of degree rather than kind.

 

Actually, the rulebook supports my position. Adjustment powers affecting defenses have 1/2 effect. If you go all the way back to Champions 2 or 3, the philosophy behind this was that adjusting defenses positively or negatively had a much too big of an impact on gameplay. So even the designers think spot defenses are far more powerful than spot attacks when they were designing the game.

[GAZZA]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Just do the math (I'm not sure WHAT the heck you're doing with your numbers).

1 point of a MP ultra slot activates 10 active points of power.

 

Claim: defences are 8 times as effective as attacks => 1 point of an MP ultra slot for a defence is 8 times as effective as it would be for an attack => 10 active points of defence are as good as 80 active points of an attack.

 

Since this claim is quite clearly wrong, that's obviously not the claim you're making. Let's try:

 

Claim: defences are 8 times as effective bought in a multipower than they are outside of it.

 

The obvious number to use here is "10 times" not "8 times" since 1 point in an ultra activates 10 active points. However, if you're factoring in the cost of the reserve, it's possible to jig the numbers such that "8 times" is correct - but it seems irrelevant to do so, since defences are get no more or less benefit than attacks (or for that matter movement powers) in a multipower.

 

Now, as you explain below, this wasn't what you were getting at - fair enough (see below) - but where I got my numbers is not difficult to see (if not necessarily germane to your point).

 

1 pt in a MP buys +10 mental defense which neutralizes 29 pts of ego attack. 1 pt in a MP buys 1d6 ego attack which neutralizes 3.5 pts of mental defense. 29/3.5 = 8 times as effective.

10 points of mental defence outside a multipower neutralizes 29 pts of ego attack. 10 points of ego attack outside a multipower buys 1d6 ego attack which neutralizes 3.5 pts of mental defence. 29/3.5 = 8 times as effective.

 

This is true whether you're in a multipower or not. The defence did not magically become more effective because it was placed in a multipower.

 

Maybe in your world where the villains get the drop on the PCs every single time.

Who said anything about getting the drop on them?

 

PC A is SPD 6, and has a defensive multipower.

Villain B is SPD 6 and has an attack multipower. I'll even spot PC A extra DEX so he gets to go first. So in phase 2, PC A attacks Villain B, does some STUN but fails to Stun him or knock him out. PC A guesses that Villain B will use his energy attack and sets his multipower to ED. But villain B decides to use his physical attack slot instead. PC A gets creamed.

 

Oops.

 

In the rematch, PC A holds his action to see what attack villain B uses. I'll ignore for the moment that if PC A can tell what attack is being used it is only fair that villain B would be able to tell what defence PC A was using rather than have to guess. Anyway, PC A sees a physical attack coming, and tries to win a DEX roll to get his held action and interrupt so he can get his defence up. He fails.

 

Oops again.

 

Let's pop villain B down to SPD 5. PC A gets an attack in on SPD 2, and sets his slot to physical defence. Then villain A launches a Drain at PC A, who has to either suck it up or else abort his phase 4 to switch the slot. On phase 5 villain A uses the physical attack that PC A is no longer defended against; PC A aborts his phase 6 to switch the slot again.

 

There's no surprise involved. Someone with a defensive multipower is involved in the same guessing game as someone with an attack multipower, but the stakes are much higher. If the attacker guesses wrong ("hmm, I thought that guy was a brick, but my Ego attack just bounced...") he wastes an attack. If the defender guesses wrong, he gets pasted.

 

Actually, the rulebook supports my position. Adjustment powers affecting defenses have 1/2 effect. If you go all the way back to Champions 2 or 3, the philosophy behind this was that adjusting defenses positively or negatively had a much too big of an impact on gameplay. So even the designers think spot defenses are far more powerful than spot attacks when they were designing the game.

Well, they think adjustment powers have too great an effect on defences. That philosophy is not borne out anywhere else in the rulebook. It may be that you believe this is inconsistent, or that it is an oversight - both are reasonable positions to hold - but to say that your position is supported by the rulebook is not precisely true.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

1 point of a MP ultra slot activates 10 active points of power.

 

Claim: defences are 8 times as effective as attacks => 1 point of an MP ultra slot for a defence is 8 times as effective as it would be for an attack => 10 active points of defence are as good as 80 active points of an attack.

 

Since this claim is quite clearly wrong, that's obviously not the claim you're making. Let's try:

 

Claim: defences are 8 times as effective bought in a multipower than they are outside of it.

 

The obvious number to use here is "10 times" not "8 times" since 1 point in an ultra activates 10 active points. However, if you're factoring in the cost of the reserve, it's possible to jig the numbers such that "8 times" is correct - but it seems irrelevant to do so, since defences are get no more or less benefit than attacks (or for that matter movement powers) in a multipower.

 

Now, as you explain below, this wasn't what you were getting at - fair enough (see below) - but where I got my numbers is not difficult to see (if not necessarily germane to your point).

 

No, the claim was that 1 pt spent on defense is 8 times as effective as 1 pt spent on attack for ego attack or drain.

 

10 points of mental defence outside a multipower neutralizes 29 pts of ego attack. 10 points of ego attack outside a multipower buys 1d6 ego attack which neutralizes 3.5 pts of mental defence. 29/3.5 = 8 times as effective.

 

This is true whether you're in a multipower or not. The defence did not magically become more effective because it was placed in a multipower.

 

It's magnified greatly in a multipower.

 

Who said anything about getting the drop on them?

 

PC A is SPD 6, and has a defensive multipower.

Villain B is SPD 6 and has an attack multipower. I'll even spot PC A extra DEX so he gets to go first. So in phase 2, PC A attacks Villain B, does some STUN but fails to Stun him or knock him out. PC A guesses that Villain B will use his energy attack and sets his multipower to ED. But villain B decides to use his physical attack slot instead. PC A gets creamed.

 

Oops.

 

In the rematch, PC A holds his action to see what attack villain B uses. I'll ignore for the moment that if PC A can tell what attack is being used it is only fair that villain B would be able to tell what defence PC A was using rather than have to guess. Anyway, PC A sees a physical attack coming, and tries to win a DEX roll to get his held action and interrupt so he can get his defence up. He fails.

 

Oops again.

 

Let's pop villain B down to SPD 5. PC A gets an attack in on SPD 2, and sets his slot to physical defence. Then villain A launches a Drain at PC A, who has to either suck it up or else abort his phase 4 to switch the slot. On phase 5 villain A uses the physical attack that PC A is no longer defended against; PC A aborts his phase 6 to switch the slot again.

 

There's no surprise involved. Someone with a defensive multipower is involved in the same guessing game as someone with an attack multipower, but the stakes are much higher. If the attacker guesses wrong ("hmm, I thought that guy was a brick, but my Ego attack just bounced...") he wastes an attack. If the defender guesses wrong, he gets pasted.

 

You're going with the strawman again. I clearly stated again and again in this thread that people with 1 type of attack get creamed. And for someone like the mentallist or brick, unless he gets the drop on the character before he allocates his defensive points, he gets creamed. If the attacker has multiple types of attacks, then the defender simply switches to a balanced slot and is no worse off.

 

 

Well, they think adjustment powers have too great an effect on defences. That philosophy is not borne out anywhere else in the rulebook. It may be that you believe this is inconsistent, or that it is an oversight - both are reasonable positions to hold - but to say that your position is supported by the rulebook is not precisely true.

 

Shrug. If changing defenses on the fly wasn't devastating, there wouldn't be a 1/2 rule for adjusting defenses. If you don't agree with the designers, that's your perogative, but since the designers explicitly stated that there were game balance problems with adjusting defenses at full effect, I'd say they were on my side.

[GAZZA]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

It's magnified greatly in a multipower.

It's multiplied by 10, in fact. But so is anything else.

 

You're going with the strawman again. I clearly stated again and again in this thread that people with 1 type of attack get creamed.

Well, I pointed out last post that bricks and martial artists weren't going to get creamed; with no rebuttal, I assumed you either had abandoned that position or else despaired of thumping it into my thick skull. Looking at this post it seems the rebuttal was merely delayed; my apologies.

 

The title of the thread invites comparisons between defence and attack multipowers; that's all I was doing.

 

And for someone like the mentallist or brick, unless he gets the drop on the character before he allocates his defensive points, he gets creamed.

The brick doesn't get creamed unless the defender has more PD than he can hurt. And if a flexible guy is allowed to have more PD than the brick can hurt, so can other characters - the brick has just happened to find himself in a campaign where he can't reliably hurt people.

 

In any case even Ogre has an NND now, so I don't think it's necessarily true that "one attack characters" are all that common.

 

Mentallists are indeed shut down by a moderate amount of mental defence (again, in or out of a multipower) as an unfortunate side effect of the generally "all or nothing" nature of their powers. Against a normal guy with 15 MD he's just a cheerleader. Against a flexible multipower guy who has a 15 MD slot active, he's at least opening up a hole for one of his buddies to exploit.

 

If the attacker has multiple types of attacks, then the defender simply switches to a balanced slot and is no worse off.

Err, I would have though that he is indeed worse off.

 

Assume a 40 point multipower with a bunch of 20 DEF slots (one for PD, one for ED, one for MD, one for PD, and one for FD); total cost 50 points. Compare to someone with just a straight 20 PD/20 ED Force Field.

 

If the defender says, "Hmm, that attacker has a multitude of attacks; to be on the safe side, I'll just go with the PD/ED slots" then he's paid 10 points for flexibility that he is now deciding to not use. For 10 points he could instead have bought (say) 1/2 END for his Force Field. So in such a situation he's 2 END per phase worse off.

 

Shrug. If changing defenses on the fly wasn't devastating, there wouldn't be a 1/2 rule for adjusting defenses.

Or, alternatively, if changing defences on the fly was devastating, then there would be equivalent doubling rules for sticking them in power frameworks.

 

If you don't agree with the designers, that's your perogative, but since the designers explicitly stated that there were game balance problems with adjusting defenses at full effect, I'd say they were on my side.

A couple of side notes under adjustment powers that mentioned this thing about defences should be applied elsewhere would support your argument, but in its absence it is difficult to support the position that the rules are on your side (especially given Steve Long's response to Hyperman on page 3).

 

But really, who cares what the rules say? The rules support infinite 0 END Succor and Suppress, and on the day someone pulls that stunt in my campaign, Satan will be ice skating to work...

 

For what it's worth, I am at least somewhat skeptical now that Force Fields with exotic defences are necessarily a good idea.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

You don't have to abort if you're expecting the attack. Do your characters ALWAYS get the drop on the PCs? And if the multipower dude catches Egoman or Powerman by himself' date=' he crushes them for a grand total of 2 pts.[/quote']

 

You dohave to abort if EgoMan attacks when you were prepared for Powerman. In my games (maybe not in yours?), if one team member is having a difficult time against an opponent, it is common for another team member to assist him, or for them to switch opponents. This is the case whether the team in question is the PC's or their adversaries.

 

If you have a multipower of exotic defences and I have a multipower of exotic attacks' date=' then yes, you must abort every time I attack. The fact that you're expecting it is irrelevant, since I'm switching slots as often as you are (indeed, you're switching [b']because[/b] I am).

 

Evidently you feel flexible defence powers are problematic because the possessor can defend himself against a wide variety of opponents. I'm not clear why you don't seem to see that flexible attack powers have a comparable advantage - and yet I haven't noticed blaster types dominating games.

 

I think these are key points. In particular, Gary, I would ask whether your concerns are grounded in actual game play experience, where Defense Multipower Man dominated the game, or a hypothetical concern.

 

Reserve cost should be 40 pts. So yeah' date=' 80 pts is "gobs" more than 48 pts plus the added benefit of cheap slots.[/quote']

 

While I agree the reserve cost should be 40 points, the total should be increased since the character described lacks the ability you discuss to balance his defenses. I would suggest the cost should be 40 reserve + 8 for 40 PD as a standard slot, +8 for 40 ED as a standard slot, + 6 for +20 of each of Mental, Flash and Power Defense as Ultra slots, for a total of 74 points, to create a reasonable facsimile of "invulnerable to anyone dude".

 

Wrong matchup. I specifically stated throughout this thread that flexible multipower dude crushes opponents with 1 attack form' date=' such as a mentallist or brick. Against an attacker with multiple forms of attack, the defender simply switches to a balanced slot and is no worse off.[/quote']

 

Even under my example MP above, if that attacker has a physical attack, a mental attack and an adjustment power in his MP, the defender is back to aborting.

 

Attack multipowers generally need lots of points to be effective' date=' and the ability to be flexible generally isn't too devastating since usually the base attack will do some damage anyway. For example, someone with a 60 pt multipower may have a 12d6 attack and a 6d6 nnd. Vs a 30 def target, the 12d6 does 12 net stun and the 6d6 NND does 21, gaining 9 stun on average.[/quote']

 

Having the EB option when the opponent has the NND defense adds 12 STUN for 6 points. Adding 9 Stun or 12 Stun for 6 points seems a good deal to me.

 

You're going with the strawman again. I clearly stated again and again in this thread that people with 1 type of attack get creamed.

 

And attack multipowers serve to minimize the number of characters who have only one type of attack. Doesn't a character with only one type of defense get creamed by someone with an attack multipower?

 

And for someone like the mentallist or brick' date=' unless he gets the drop on the character before he allocates his defensive points, he gets creamed. If the attacker has multiple types of attacks, then the defender simply switches to a balanced slot and is no worse off.[/quote']

 

Considering that the "all defenses M" character paid 76 points for a balanced slot of +20 PD/+20 ED, I think the guy who buys a +25 PD/+25 ED/+10 Mental Def/+10 Power Defense/+6 Sight flash Defense Force Field is quite a bit better off against an opponent with multiple attack types.

 

Shrug. If changing defenses on the fly wasn't devastating' date=' there wouldn't be a 1/2 rule for adjusting defenses. If you don't agree with the designers, that's your perogative, but since the designers explicitly stated that there were game balance problems with adjusting defenses at full effect, I'd say they were on my side.[/quote']

 

They indicate this is the case because defenses in general costs less than attacks in general. This argument is at least as tangential as my statement that virtually evety character, not just those with a single attack type, have an "Achilles' heel" opponent.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

It's multiplied by 10' date=' in fact. But so is anything else.[/quote']

 

Yep. Which means you get the exotic defenses for a pittance.

 

Well, I pointed out last post that bricks and martial artists weren't going to get creamed; with no rebuttal, I assumed you either had abandoned that position or else despaired of thumping it into my thick skull. Looking at this post it seems the rebuttal was merely delayed; my apologies.

 

The title of the thread invites comparisons between defence and attack multipowers; that's all I was doing.

 

Unless the brick or MA has energy attacks or non-physical attacks, they will get creamed.

 

The brick doesn't get creamed unless the defender has more PD than he can hurt. And if a flexible guy is allowed to have more PD than the brick can hurt, so can other characters - the brick has just happened to find himself in a campaign where he can't reliably hurt people.

 

Other characters are paying lots more for that level of PD/ED than flex guy. And again, even if flex guy isn't at 40 PD, he's still doing significantly more damage to the other guy than he's taking.

 

In any case even Ogre has an NND now, so I don't think it's necessarily true that "one attack characters" are all that common.

 

Just look at CKC. There are plenty.

 

Mentallists are indeed shut down by a moderate amount of mental defence (again, in or out of a multipower) as an unfortunate side effect of the generally "all or nothing" nature of their powers. Against a normal guy with 15 MD he's just a cheerleader. Against a flexible multipower guy who has a 15 MD slot active, he's at least opening up a hole for one of his buddies to exploit.

 

Normal guy with 15 MD spent 15 pts. Flex boy spent 1 pt, so it's not much dead weight when he's not facing mental boy. And he's certainly far better off vs someone who spent 0 pts!

 

Err, I would have though that he is indeed worse off.

 

Assume a 40 point multipower with a bunch of 20 DEF slots (one for PD, one for ED, one for MD, one for PD, and one for FD); total cost 50 points. Compare to someone with just a straight 20 PD/20 ED Force Field.

 

If the defender says, "Hmm, that attacker has a multitude of attacks; to be on the safe side, I'll just go with the PD/ED slots" then he's paid 10 points for flexibility that he is now deciding to not use. For 10 points he could instead have bought (say) 1/2 END for his Force Field. So in such a situation he's 2 END per phase worse off.

 

You mean 20 pt multipower with 5 2 pt slots for 30 pts. 10 pts cheaper than the 20/20 FF. In fact, the 20 pt multipower can purchase 1/2 End and still save 5 pts and 1 End per phase!

 

Or, alternatively, if changing defences on the fly was devastating, then there would be equivalent doubling rules for sticking them in power frameworks.

 

Not much difference between adjusting PD upward and having a slot add directly to PD except that it's more efficient the second way.

 

A couple of side notes under adjustment powers that mentioned this thing about defences should be applied elsewhere would support your argument, but in its absence it is difficult to support the position that the rules are on your side (especially given Steve Long's response to Hyperman on page 3).

 

But really, who cares what the rules say? The rules support infinite 0 END Succor and Suppress, and on the day someone pulls that stunt in my campaign, Satan will be ice skating to work...

 

For what it's worth, I am at least somewhat skeptical now that Force Fields with exotic defences are necessarily a good idea.

 

If you don't care about what the rules say, then why are we even having this discussion?

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

You dohave to abort if EgoMan attacks when you were prepared for Powerman. In my games (maybe not in yours?)' date=' if one team member is having a difficult time against an opponent, it is common for another team member to assist him, or for them to switch opponents. This is the case whether the team in question is the PC's or their adversaries.[/quote']

 

You never ever have one on one matchups in your game? That would make your game virtually unique.

 

 

I think these are key points. In particular, Gary, I would ask whether your concerns are grounded in actual game play experience, where Defense Multipower Man dominated the game, or a hypothetical concern.

 

Actually, VPP man dominated until we shut down that nonsense.

 

While I agree the reserve cost should be 40 points, the total should be increased since the character described lacks the ability you discuss to balance his defenses. I would suggest the cost should be 40 reserve + 8 for 40 PD as a standard slot, +8 for 40 ED as a standard slot, + 6 for +20 of each of Mental, Flash and Power Defense as Ultra slots, for a total of 74 points, to create a reasonable facsimile of "invulnerable to anyone dude".

 

You may want to check your math...

 

 

Even under my example MP above, if that attacker has a physical attack, a mental attack and an adjustment power in his MP, the defender is back to aborting.

 

If the attacker has 3 separate attacks, then he's not the person I've been describing throughout this thread.

 

 

Having the EB option when the opponent has the NND defense adds 12 STUN for 6 points. Adding 9 Stun or 12 Stun for 6 points seems a good deal to me.

 

Stopping 10 pts of attack for 1 pt sounds like a better deal to me.

 

And attack multipowers serve to minimize the number of characters who have only one type of attack. Doesn't a character with only one type of defense get creamed by someone with an attack multipower?

 

Far fewer of those. Just look at CKC and see how many attackers have 1 type of attack vs defenders with a spread of say 15 or more pts between PD and ED.

 

Considering that the "all defenses M" character paid 76 points for a balanced slot of +20 PD/+20 ED, I think the guy who buys a +25 PD/+25 ED/+10 Mental Def/+10 Power Defense/+6 Sight flash Defense Force Field is quite a bit better off against an opponent with multiple attack types.

 

Check the math...

 

They indicate this is the case because defenses in general costs less than attacks in general. This argument is at least as tangential as my statement that virtually evety character, not just those with a single attack type, have an "Achilles' heel" opponent.

 

Yep, so flexible defense is more devastating than flexible attack.

[GAZZA]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Unless the brick or MA has energy attacks or non-physical attacks' date=' they will get creamed.[/quote']

To the attacker, someone with flexible defence is, at best, someone who is defended against them "perfectly" - in other words, the defender has brick level defences. Since bricks and MA don't get creamed against other bricks, they wouldn't get creamed against someone able to mimic other bricks.

 

Other characters are paying lots more for that level of PD/ED than flex guy.

Yes, the same way that other characters with multiple attacks are paying more than someone who has them in a multipower is paying.

 

And again, even if flex guy isn't at 40 PD, he's still doing significantly more damage to the other guy than he's taking.

How's that then? Does he have an attack multipower as well?

 

Normal guy with 15 MD spent 15 pts. Flex boy spent 1 pt, so it's not much dead weight when he's not facing mental boy. And he's certainly far better off vs someone who spent 0 pts!

Normal guy with 10d6 Energy Blast spent 50 points; Flex Attack Boy spent 5 points...

 

You mean 20 pt multipower with 5 2 pt slots for 30 pts. 10 pts cheaper than the 20/20 FF. In fact, the 20 pt multipower can purchase 1/2 End and still save 5 pts and 1 End per phase!

You said that against someone with multiple attacks flex guy would adopt a balanced slot and be no worse off. If you're saying that flex guy has only spent 30 points for a 20 pt reserve multipower, then he's a lot worse off; his balanced slot, if he has one, is only 10/10. Granted, he's spend 10 points less than someone with a 20/20 "normal" force field, so maybe he could spend that on a more standard 5/5 Force Field that his 10/10 adds to: but that's still defences of 15/15. So he's going to be taking 5 more STUN from either energy or physical attacks from a guy with the appropriate attack multipower; I call that worse off.

 

Of course he gets flexibility, but for that to count he has to be willing to use it. Attack multipowers trump defence multipowers, which was the original point of the thread, was it not?

 

Not much difference between adjusting PD upward and having a slot add directly to PD except that it's more efficient the second way.

Are you able to find me an example of a published character that paid double for defences because they were in a power framework? I'm certain I can find examples where they didn't. And yet you insist the rules are on your side?

 

If you don't care about what the rules say, then why are we even having this discussion?

Eh? From a rules perspective, there's no discussion to have. Defence multipowers are legal:

• There's nothing at all in the rules that forbids them. Granted, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but...
  
• Steve Long OKed HyperMan's question, and
  
• As far back as 4th edition (Mystic Masters, The Shields Of Dimitrious) there are published characters that possess such things.

The point of the discussion is not whether such things are legal, but whether they are abusive. Which is a perfectly fine discussion to have, but if your point is to discuss what the rules say then you really need to be lobbying Steve Long, because they'd need to be changed in order to support your position in that case.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

You never ever have one on one matchups in your game? That would make your game virtually unique.

 

Gary, you have been arguing that the character with the ability to switch his defenses around is virtually omnipotent. My games have one on one matchups on occasion. But they are not the norm, so a character who is powerful one on one is not unbalancing. Further, if I am designing for a one on one matchup, and I want the matchup to be challenging, I'm not likely to pit the character with a defensive multipower against an opponent he can simply become invulnerable to. Do your one on one matchups match characters by design, or do you just roll randomly for a selected villain from CKC to appear and battle the PC?

 

You may want to check your math...

 

Teach me to respond in a hurry, I guess.

 

40 + 8 + 8 was accurate. That's 56. Fixing the three other slots to 2 each is 62 in total. Making them Standard slots (which they should be, since you indicate the character will switch to a more balanced choice if faced with multiple opponents) makes it 68. A far cry from the 48 you have based your argument on.

 

That's still enough for a "bought straight" character to have a 25/25 force field, and 6 each of power defense, mental defense and sight flash defense that doesn't cost any END and is always up and running.

 

If the attacker has 3 separate attacks' date=' then he's not the person I've been describing throughout this thread.[/quote']

 

He's also a lousy opponent for defensive Multipower Man, isn't he? Perhaps, in your games, the opposition is not tailored to the PC's. In most games I play in, the GM doesn't just select random characters out of published source material and run them, unchanged in any way, against the PC's. I suspect that your game doesn't do so either.

 

Yep' date=' so flexible defense is more devastating than flexible attack.[/quote']

 

How you get that from my statement that every character has an Achilles' heel is beyond me. A player could buy +40 PD, +40 ED, +25 Mental Defense, +25 Power Defense and 15 each of Sight and Hearing flash defense for 160 points, leaving 190 for a 350 point character to spend on other abilities. That would make him elll nigh invulnerable to everyone, with lots of points left to buy an attack multipower. Would you allow that character? I suspect not. With that in mind, why would you be unable to exercise similar judgement when presented with an inappropriate defensive multipower? Assuming you would not be so incapable, does it make sense to issue a blanket denial, or exercise the same judgement that needs to be exercised over every other facet of character creation?

[Force]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Yep' date=' so flexible defense is more devastating than flexible attack.[/quote']

 

Taken as a modest 'defensive boost' your multipower defensive scheme is very good and flexible, say in a 30pt pool.

 

Considering a character that has moderate defenses (20/10 each) a 30pt mp ff like...

 

30pt MP

1u +15 pd FF

1u +15 ed FF

1u +15 power def FF

1u +15 mental def FF

 

...would be a very flexible defensive character.

 

However, as with all things hero, anything allowed to min/max any build is always dangerous.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

To the attacker' date=' someone with flexible defence is, at best, someone who is defended against them "perfectly" - in other words, the defender has brick level defences. Since bricks and MA don't get creamed against other bricks, they wouldn't get creamed against someone able to mimic other bricks.[/quote']

 

So your going back to a hard cap on defenses. Gotcha.

 

Yes, the same way that other characters with multiple attacks are paying more than someone who has them in a multipower is paying.

 

At a MUCH reduced level of effectiveness as shown previously.

 

How's that then? Does he have an attack multipower as well?

 

He doeesn't need one since the attacker presumably has a lower defense total if he's spending the same number of points on defense as flex boy.

 

Normal guy with 10d6 Energy Blast spent 50 points; Flex Attack Boy spent 5 points...

 

You yourself admitted that spending 1 or 2 pts in the defensive multipower would make a mentallist or Power Defense attacker useless. Show me how spending 1-2 pts in an attack multipower would make an entire class of defender useless.

 

You said that against someone with multiple attacks flex guy would adopt a balanced slot and be no worse off. If you're saying that flex guy has only spent 30 points for a 20 pt reserve multipower, then he's a lot worse off; his balanced slot, if he has one, is only 10/10. Granted, he's spend 10 points less than someone with a 20/20 "normal" force field, so maybe he could spend that on a more standard 5/5 Force Field that his 10/10 adds to: but that's still defences of 15/15. So he's going to be taking 5 more STUN from either energy or physical attacks from a guy with the appropriate attack multipower; I call that worse off.

 

Your post that I quoted, mentioned a 40 pt multipower with 20 pt slots including PD and ED. It seemed completely pointless and bizarre for a 40 pt reserve and no slots above 20.

 

However, if I were to build the multipower, it would go something like this:

 

35 Multipower reserve

3 u +35 PD

3 u +35 ED

3 u +17/+18 or +18/+17

1 u +15 mental defense

1 u +15 power defense

1 u +15 flash defense

 

That way, I would have either mega physical, energy, or 2 exotic defenses up at the same time. Total cost 47 pts. 7 pts more expensive than your 20/20 FF, but spends 1 end less and has lots more flexibility including the ability to be virtually immune to certain attack types.

 

Of course he gets flexibility, but for that to count he has to be willing to use it. Attack multipowers trump defence multipowers, which was the original point of the thread, was it not?

 

Nope. Even if there's an attack and a defense multipower, the attacker still has to guess how the defender has his defenses allocated. If the attacker has both physical and energy attacks for example, there's still a 50% chance he'll guess wrong unless the defender has a balanced slot up.

 

Are you able to find me an example of a published character that paid double for defences because they were in a power framework? I'm certain I can find examples where they didn't. And yet you insist the rules are on your side?

 

The designers specifically mention that adjusting defenses at full effect was unbalancing. Adding directly to a defense is even more efficient than adjusting it.

 

 

Eh? From a rules perspective, there's no discussion to have. Defence multipowers are legal:

• There's nothing at all in the rules that forbids them. Granted, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but...
  
• Steve Long OKed HyperMan's question, and
  
• As far back as 4th edition (Mystic Masters, The Shields Of Dimitrious) there are published characters that possess such things.

The point of the discussion is not whether such things are legal, but whether they are abusive. Which is a perfectly fine discussion to have, but if your point is to discuss what the rules say then you really need to be lobbying Steve Long, because they'd need to be changed in order to support your position in that case.

 

I can point to what the game designers say about adjusting defenses.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Gary' date=' you have been arguing that the character with the ability to switch his defenses around is virtually omnipotent. My games have one on one matchups on occasion. But they are not the norm, so a character who is powerful one on one is not unbalancing. Further, if I am designing for a one on one matchup, and I want the matchup to be challenging, I'm not likely to pit the character with a defensive multipower against an opponent he can simply become invulnerable to. Do your one on one matchups match characters by design, or do you just roll randomly for a selected villain from CKC to appear and battle the PC?[/quote']

 

Sigh. Hugh, I've said at least half a dozen times in this thread that flex boy is killer against foes with one type of attack. Not one place in this thread did I say that he's virtually omnipotent as a general case.

 

I guess players in your game never investigate on their own or catch a villain alone or face an army of agents or deliberately seek out a one on one matchup or anything like that. I guess you have the perfect ability to always control every single matchup that ever occurs and that your players never do the unexpected.

 

 

Teach me to respond in a hurry, I guess.

 

40 + 8 + 8 was accurate. That's 56. Fixing the three other slots to 2 each is 62 in total. Making them Standard slots (which they should be, since you indicate the character will switch to a more balanced choice if faced with multiple opponents) makes it 68. A far cry from the 48 you have based your argument on.

 

That's still enough for a "bought straight" character to have a 25/25 force field, and 6 each of power defense, mental defense and sight flash defense that doesn't cost any END and is always up and running.

 

 

Or I can build the multipower as:

 

35 Multipower reserve

3 u +35 PD

3 u +35 ED

3 u +17/+18 or +18/+17

1 u +15 mental defense

1 u +15 power defense

1 u +15 flash defense

 

47 pts. Your boy can now have 20/20 FF (at 1 end more per phase) and 2/2/3 power/mental/flash. Frankly, I can't see how that stacks up at all.

 

 

He's also a lousy opponent for defensive Multipower Man, isn't he? Perhaps, in your games, the opposition is not tailored to the PC's. In most games I play in, the GM doesn't just select random characters out of published source material and run them, unchanged in any way, against the PC's. I suspect that your game doesn't do so either.

 

There are plenty of Martial Artists, Bricks, Energy Blaster, Weapon Masters, Mentallists, agents, etc in any campaign. It would be an odd and unbelievable campaign where everyone has an attack multipower with Physical/Energy/Mental/Power/Flash slots.

 

How you get that from my statement that every character has an Achilles' heel is beyond me. A player could buy +40 PD, +40 ED, +25 Mental Defense, +25 Power Defense and 15 each of Sight and Hearing flash defense for 160 points, leaving 190 for a 350 point character to spend on other abilities. That would make him elll nigh invulnerable to everyone, with lots of points left to buy an attack multipower. Would you allow that character? I suspect not. With that in mind, why would you be unable to exercise similar judgement when presented with an inappropriate defensive multipower? Assuming you would not be so incapable, does it make sense to issue a blanket denial, or exercise the same judgement that needs to be exercised over every other facet of character creation?

 

After damage resistance, he has 150 pts left. He's going to have sucky stats and/or skills and/or attacks and/or movements. If he spends 90 pts on a 60 pt multipower with 5 slots, he now has 60 pts to spend on stats, movements, and skills. Somehow this character doesn't seem terribly unbalancing to me...

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Taken as a modest 'defensive boost' your multipower defensive scheme is very good and flexible, say in a 30pt pool.

 

Considering a character that has moderate defenses (20/10 each) a 30pt mp ff like...

 

30pt MP

1u +15 pd FF

1u +15 ed FF

1u +15 power def FF

1u +15 mental def FF

 

...would be a very flexible defensive character.

 

However, as with all things hero, anything allowed to min/max any build is always dangerous.

 

That's also a pretty good multipower design.

[GAZZA]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

You yourself admitted that spending 1 or 2 pts in the defensive multipower would make a mentallist or Power Defense attacker useless. Show me how spending 1-2 pts in an attack multipower would make an entire class of defender useless.

Attacks cost more than defenses; spending 6 points on a 6d6 Ego Attack makes virtually any character without mental defences virtually useless.

 

Your post that I quoted, mentioned a 40 pt multipower with 20 pt slots including PD and ED. It seemed completely pointless and bizarre for a 40 pt reserve and no slots above 20.

It allows two slots to be active at once. Not bizarre. Not even particularly uncommon.

 

However, if I were to build the multipower, it would go something like this:

 

35 Multipower reserve

3 u +35 PD

3 u +35 ED

3 u +17/+18 or +18/+17

1 u +15 mental defense

1 u +15 power defense

1 u +15 flash defense

 

That way, I would have either mega physical, energy, or 2 exotic defenses up at the same time. Total cost 47 pts. 7 pts more expensive than your 20/20 FF, but spends 1 end less and has lots more flexibility including the ability to be virtually immune to certain attack types.

That is not substantially different from the 40 point version I posted before - you've simply gone from an "all or nothing" approach with regard to primary defences.

 

In play, this character would be using the 3rd slot most of the time. Against specific opponents he'd switch to something else. I assume that's your point, yes?

 

Alternatively:

 

70 Multipower reserve

7-u 14d6 Energy Blast, Physical

7-u 14d6 Energy Blast, Energy

7-u 7d6 Drain

7-u 14d6 Flash

 

Best case scenario: 14 STUN on average through your defences if you have the right slot up against an energy or physical attack. Drain is still effective against your full Power Defence. Flash is probably not, but it doesn't need a particularly unusual roll for that to change.

 

And that's all if you guess right; guess wrong, and you're not going to get a second guess.

 

Counterargument: why am I using 70 active points here instead of 60? Answer: you're using 35 DEF, and I'm being guided by that as to the appropriate power level of your opposition. NOT a hard guideline - just a guideline (if you can exceed 30 DEF because the cap is not hard, then attackers must be afforded the same privilege).

 

Nope. Even if there's an attack and a defense multipower, the attacker still has to guess how the defender has his defenses allocated. If the attacker has both physical and energy attacks for example, there's still a 50% chance he'll guess wrong unless the defender has a balanced slot up.

Yes, he might. In which case he wastes an attack.

 

If he guesses right, though... then the defender wastes all subsequent attacks.

 

(In response to my question about whether you could find an example of a character that bore out the apparent rule that adjusting defences was unbalancing...)

The designers specifically mention that adjusting defenses at full effect was unbalancing. Adding directly to a defense is even more efficient than adjusting it.

So that's a "no" then?

 

I can point to what the game designers say about adjusting defenses.

Point all you like, but that doesn't change a thing. Defensive multipowers are 100% legal by any reading of the RAW. If your motivation for having this discussion was based on what the rules allow, then you're starting from an extremely poor position, because it is abundantly clear that the rules do allow it - and even the "holier than thou" game designers support this (again, cf HyperMan's Steve Long post on page 3).

 

Are we arguing about rules here or possible abuse? Because if it's the former, this isn't even the right forum.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Attacks cost more than defenses; spending 6 points on a 6d6 Ego Attack makes virtually any character without mental defences virtually useless.

 

Not a chance. Plenty of characters can survive 1 or 2 ego blasts. Not many characters can survive if they can't affect their opponents at all. And while he's being zapped, he can fight back effectively (he's not useless). The mentallist cannot fight back effectively for the expenditure of 2 pts.

 

Now show me where the attack multipower at a cost of 1-2 pts can make whole classes of defenders useless.

 

 

It allows two slots to be active at once. Not bizarre. Not even particularly uncommon.

 

Yes, it's actually very uncommon to have a multipower where not a single power uses up the reserve or close.

 

 

That is not substantially different from the 40 point version I posted before - you've simply gone from an "all or nothing" approach with regard to primary defences.

 

In play, this character would be using the 3rd slot most of the time. Against specific opponents he'd switch to something else. I assume that's your point, yes?

 

Alternatively:

 

70 Multipower reserve

7-u 14d6 Energy Blast, Physical

7-u 14d6 Energy Blast, Energy

7-u 7d6 Drain

7-u 14d6 Flash

 

Best case scenario: 14 STUN on average through your defences if you have the right slot up against an energy or physical attack. Drain is still effective against your full Power Defence. Flash is probably not, but it doesn't need a particularly unusual roll for that to change.

 

And that's all if you guess right; guess wrong, and you're not going to get a second guess.

 

Counterargument: why am I using 70 active points here instead of 60? Answer: you're using 35 DEF, and I'm being guided by that as to the appropriate power level of your opposition. NOT a hard guideline - just a guideline (if you can exceed 30 DEF because the cap is not hard, then attackers must be afforded the same privilege).

 

 

2 14d6 energy blasts in the same multipower? Who the heck has that?

 

Also I'll point out that this 14d6 attack will do 29 stun to the generic 20/20 FF. Drain and Flash will have FULL effect vs that defender. So part of the time, the flex defender is no worse off than generic defender. Part of the time he's in much better shape.

 

BUT again as I've been pointing out ad nauseum, I've stated again and again in this thread and apparently nobody is listening that flex defender shines vs an attacker with 1 form of attack. Throw the mentallist at generic dude and he's toast. Throw him at flex boy and mentalist is toast.

 

 

Yes, he might. In which case he wastes an attack.

 

If he guesses right, though... then the defender wastes all subsequent attacks.

 

With generic defense dude, the 70 pt multipower just crushes anyway 100% of the time, rather than 50% of the time.

 

(In response to my question about whether you could find an example of a character that bore out the apparent rule that adjusting defences was unbalancing...)

 

So that's a "no" then?

 

 

Point all you like, but that doesn't change a thing. Defensive multipowers are 100% legal by any reading of the RAW. If your motivation for having this discussion was based on what the rules allow, then you're starting from an extremely poor position, because it is abundantly clear that the rules do allow it - and even the "holier than thou" game designers support this (again, cf HyperMan's Steve Long post on page 3).

 

Are we arguing about rules here or possible abuse? Because if it's the former, this isn't even the right forum.

 

OK, why do you think there is a rule about halving adjustment effects vs defenses?

[Force]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Are we arguing about rules here or possible abuse? Because if it's the former' date=' this isn't even the right forum.[/quote']

 

I think the argument is more about min/maxing than anything else.

 

A character with moderate 'permanent' defenses that uses a 'flexible defensive' multipower can have optimal (possibly verging on impregnable depending on campaign limits and points spent) defenses vs almost any opponent(s) or situation(s) for a very moderate (in comparison) cost to 'fixed static' defenses.

 

20/10 defenses.

 

• 30pt mp - variable defenses
  
  • 1u +15pd FF - 1end

• 1u +15ed FF - 1end

• 1u +15 power def FF - 1end

• 1u +15 mental def FF - 1end

 

A character like this would have the best set of defenses for almost any situation or opponent. To give this same 'flexibility' in 'static/permanent' defenses would be more costly.

 

However this build could be considered in the same light for a 'flexible' attack mp as well. Most of the debate going on here is which one is worse?

 

And to reiterate, in hero at least, anything that min/maxes abilities/powers is always dangerous.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

So your going back to a hard cap on defenses. Gotcha.

 

There can be a middle ground between "anything goes" and a hard cap. To me, a hard cap is "PD 35, 20 rPD is the absolute maximum. In my games, I look at the total balance. The norm might be 25/25 PD/ED, 15 resistant, and one exotic defense, with a DSCV in the 8-9 range. I would expect a character with a higher DCV to have lower defenses. A character with 35/35 defenses might have a lower DCV and/or no exotic defenses. A character might have a 45 PD, but a 20 ED. And a character with variable defenses would have the ability to have one or two defenses much higher than the norm, at the expense of having minimal defenses in other areas in order to do so.

 

Broadening beyond defenses, a character might exceed the usual norms for defense, but have lower offensive potential than is normal. I don't like "Max DC 12;

 

At a MUCH reduced level of effectiveness as shown previously.

 

So having multiple attacks in a Multipower is MUCH more effective - should this also be illegal? The point of the discussion was not intended to be "are multipowers in general abusive" but "wehy is it we consider attack multipowers to be OK - they're commonplace and never get a second look - but we almost never accept a defensive multipower".

 

He doeesn't need one since the attacker presumably has a lower defense total if he's spending the same number of points on defense as flex boy.

 

He likely has defenses against a variety of power types that are up at all times, unlike Flex Boy.

 

You yourself admitted that spending 1 or 2 pts in the defensive multipower would make a mentallist or Power Defense attacker useless. Show me how spending 1-2 pts in an attack multipower would make an entire class of defender useless.

 

We've already established (or so I thought) that defenses are cheaper than attacks overall (not just in Multipowers). As such, expecting a single attack slot to cost the same as a single defense slot is unreasonable.

 

In standard Supers, the norm is 20 PD/ED and 12DC atacks, so +20/+20 is a bit higher powered than a 60 AP multipower, making a 6 point slot the appropriate level. We'll set the MP at 63 points, a little higher than 60 since the defenses are up a bit. So let's add to the Mentalist's Multipower a power called "Strip mental defenses" - 2 1/2d6 Drain Mental Defense, Ranged, Based on ECV (+1; Power Defense still applies). The mentalist Drains 4.5 mental defense per hit on average.

 

"But wait", you say, "That will take a long time to drain 20 Mental Defense".

 

True. But the mentalist will be just barely within Line of Sight when he starts. Any defender without mental defense is hosed from the start, since the mentalist's other mental powers work perfectly. Any character without Power defense will quickly become a character without mental defense. And, unless the character has huge movement or ranged OCV, he wonb't be able to close the distance fast enough to effectively hit the mentalist before it's too late.

 

Alternatively, if the target has no Flash Defense or enhanced senses, a simple 5d6 Sight Flash (2 point Multipower slot) will do the job quite nicely.

 

35 Multipower reserve

3 u +35 PD

3 u +35 ED

3 u +17/+18 or +18/+17

1 u +15 mental defense

1 u +15 power defense

1 u +15 flash defense

 

That way, I would have either mega physical, energy, or 2 exotic defenses up at the same time. Total cost 47 pts. 7 pts more expensive than your 20/20 FF, but spends 1 end less and has lots more flexibility including the ability to be virtually immune to certain attack types.

 

So assuming we're dealing with a game where the defense standard is 25/25 (already higher than standard for a 60 AP game), I'd restrict this character to about 10/10 normal defenses. With the MP, he can have 45 PD or ED, which is huge, 27/28 (above campaign average) or two exotic defenses. Since he has either good PD/ED or exotic defenses, I think I'd be OK with him exceeding the "norm" averages when he has no exotic defenses, but I would consider this a character of good defensive abilities.

 

So what does he do against Marvin the Mentalist? "Well", you say, "He puts up his +15 Mental Defense Screen". OK - he now has no extra PD or ED. After a couple of failed Ego Blasts, Marvin uses his Telekinetic Burst (12d6 EB vs PD). You just took 32 Stun.

 

Yes, you can be invulnerable to one attack type at a time. You are at a major advantage against opponents with only one choice. So I won't use such opponents to challenge you, any more than I would likely use a typical Brick with no mental defenses to challenge a flying mentalist.

 

Nope. Even if there's an attack and a defense multipower' date=' the attacker still has to guess how the defender has his defenses allocated. If the attacker has both physical and energy attacks for example, there's still a 50% chance he'll guess wrong unless the defender has a balanced slot up.[/quote']

 

There's a 50% chance he'll guess right. One hit that does 32 STUN is really all I should need to take out Defense Man, posted above. A character with an NND also has a good chance of wasting the occasional attack.

 

The designers specifically mention that adjusting defenses at full effect was unbalancing. Adding directly to a defense is even more efficient than adjusting it.

 

And the designers mention suggested ranges for defenses at various levels of attacks, because 60 points spent on a defense is much more potent than 60 points spent on an attack. Where do the designers, who clearly understand this balancing issue, mention that defense powers cannot be placed in Multipowers? Oh, they don't! Nor do they even suggest these require additional scrutiny. Interesting.

 

I can point to what the game designers say about adjusting defenses.

 

I can point to what they say about Elemental Controls being suggested to only have one defense power. It doesn't show the designers had any concern with defensive multipowers.

 

Sigh. Hugh, I've said at least half a dozen times in this thread that flex boy is killer against foes with one type of attack. Not one place in this thread did I say that he's virtually omnipotent as a general case.

 

I guess players in your game never investigate on their own or catch a villain alone or face an army of agents or deliberately seek out a one on one matchup or anything like that. I guess you have the perfect ability to always control every single matchup that ever occurs and that your players never do the unexpected.

 

I don't need to control every single matchup. Not every single matchup has to be a nail-biting, edge of the seat, down to your last 3 STUN sudden death overtime battle. Sometimes, the battle can be easy (for either side). If the PC's can, by good planning and role playing, obtain a tactical advantage, good for them. The focus of that adventure, perhaps, was not the combat scene, but using their investigative skills to catch the opposition in a situation where the heroes enjoy a aubstantial tactical advantage. I guess players in your game only solve problems through combat, and won't feel it was a real game if they don't have a tough fight every hour or so.

 

There are plenty of Martial Artists' date=' Bricks, Energy Blaster, Weapon Masters, Mentallists, agents, etc in any campaign. It would be an odd and unbelievable campaign where everyone has an attack multipower with Physical/Energy/Mental/Power/Flash slots.[/quote']

 

It would alos be an odd and unbelievable campaign where most combats see only a single attack type available. Most of those Martial Artists, Bricks, Energy Blaster, Weapon Masters, Mentallists, agents, etc. have teammates to cover off their shortfalls. MultiDefense Man is just as vulnerable against a team of one Martial Artist, one Brick, one Energy Blaster, one Weapon Master, and one Mentallist as he is against a single opponent with a multipower combining their atack types.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

So having multiple attacks in a Multipower is MUCH more effective - should this also be illegal? The point of the discussion was not intended to be "are multipowers in general abusive" but "wehy is it we consider attack multipowers to be OK - they're commonplace and never get a second look - but we almost never accept a defensive multipower".

 

 

The 6d6 NND vs 12d6 EB causes 9 marginal stun vs a 30 def target for a cost of 6 pts. Adding a slot that gives +15 extra defense over your normal defense stops 15 marginal stun at a probable cost of 1-3 pts.

 

 

He likely has defenses against a variety of power types that are up at all times, unlike Flex Boy.

 

At extremely weak levels if at all.

 

We've already established (or so I thought) that defenses are cheaper than attacks overall (not just in Multipowers). As such, expecting a single attack slot to cost the same as a single defense slot is unreasonable.

 

In standard Supers, the norm is 20 PD/ED and 12DC atacks, so +20/+20 is a bit higher powered than a 60 AP multipower, making a 6 point slot the appropriate level. We'll set the MP at 63 points, a little higher than 60 since the defenses are up a bit. So let's add to the Mentalist's Multipower a power called "Strip mental defenses" - 2 1/2d6 Drain Mental Defense, Ranged, Based on ECV (+1; Power Defense still applies). The mentalist Drains 4.5 mental defense per hit on average.

 

"But wait", you say, "That will take a long time to drain 20 Mental Defense".

 

True. But the mentalist will be just barely within Line of Sight when he starts. Any defender without mental defense is hosed from the start, since the mentalist's other mental powers work perfectly. Any character without Power defense will quickly become a character without mental defense. And, unless the character has huge movement or ranged OCV, he wonb't be able to close the distance fast enough to effectively hit the mentalist before it's too late.

 

Alternatively, if the target has no Flash Defense or enhanced senses, a simple 5d6 Sight Flash (2 point Multipower slot) will do the job quite nicely.

 

Gotcha. You're suggesting the equivalent of the tunnelling N-Ray vision mentalist to keep flex defender in check.

 

 

So assuming we're dealing with a game where the defense standard is 25/25 (already higher than standard for a 60 AP game), I'd restrict this character to about 10/10 normal defenses. With the MP, he can have 45 PD or ED, which is huge, 27/28 (above campaign average) or two exotic defenses. Since he has either good PD/ED or exotic defenses, I think I'd be OK with him exceeding the "norm" averages when he has no exotic defenses, but I would consider this a character of good defensive abilities.

 

So what does he do against Marvin the Mentalist? "Well", you say, "He puts up his +15 Mental Defense Screen". OK - he now has no extra PD or ED. After a couple of failed Ego Blasts, Marvin uses his Telekinetic Burst (12d6 EB vs PD). You just took 32 Stun.

 

Yes, you can be invulnerable to one attack type at a time. You are at a major advantage against opponents with only one choice. So I won't use such opponents to challenge you, any more than I would likely use a typical Brick with no mental defenses to challenge a flying mentalist.

 

Gotcha. You'll never send a brick, martial artist, weapons master, blaster who only has energy attacks, pure mentalists, etc after flex boy.

 

There's a 50% chance he'll guess right. One hit that does 32 STUN is really all I should need to take out Defense Man, posted above. A character with an NND also has a good chance of wasting the occasional attack.

 

And flex boy is no worse off than generic defense boy 1/2 the time, but far better off 1/2 the time. Sounds good to me.

 

And the designers mention suggested ranges for defenses at various levels of attacks, because 60 points spent on a defense is much more potent than 60 points spent on an attack. Where do the designers, who clearly understand this balancing issue, mention that defense powers cannot be placed in Multipowers? Oh, they don't! Nor do they even suggest these require additional scrutiny. Interesting.

 

I can point to what they say about Elemental Controls being suggested to only have one defense power. It doesn't show the designers had any concern with defensive multipowers.

 

Why do you think there is a halving rule for adjusting defenses?

 

 

I don't need to control every single matchup. Not every single matchup has to be a nail-biting, edge of the seat, down to your last 3 STUN sudden death overtime battle. Sometimes, the battle can be easy (for either side). If the PC's can, by good planning and role playing, obtain a tactical advantage, good for them. The focus of that adventure, perhaps, was not the combat scene, but using their investigative skills to catch the opposition in a situation where the heroes enjoy a aubstantial tactical advantage. I guess players in your game only solve problems through combat, and won't feel it was a real game if they don't have a tough fight every hour or so.

 

Gotcha. You're ok with bricks, martial artists, weapons masters, blasters who only has energy attacks, pure mentalists, etc all becoming cannon fodder.

 

It would alos be an odd and unbelievable campaign where most combats see only a single attack type available. Most of those Martial Artists, Bricks, Energy Blaster, Weapon Masters, Mentallists, agents, etc. have teammates to cover off their shortfalls. MultiDefense Man is just as vulnerable against a team of one Martial Artist, one Brick, one Energy Blaster, one Weapon Master, and one Mentallist as he is against a single opponent with a multipower combining their atack types.

 

In a team setting yes, but the typical HERO campaign has far more combats than many on many.

 

Hugh, have you actually run a flex boy type defender in an actual campaign, or is this all hypothetical to you?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

At extremely weak levels if at all.

 

At no END cost. How weak his defenses are depends on what he chooses to purchase.

 

Gotcha. You're suggesting the equivalent of the tunnelling N-Ray vision mentalist to keep flex defender in check.

 

No, I'sm suggesting that it is possible to build a character that neutralizes any other specific character, commonly by adding a single MP slot.

 

Gotcha. You'll never send a brick' date=' martial artist, weapons master, blaster who only has energy attacks, pure mentalists, etc after flex boy.[/quote']

 

Al alonre, if I want a tough matchup? Probably not. I won't send a mixed attacks villain with no mental defense up against the Mentalist alone either. I doubt I'd send a non-flying Brick or MA up against the flying energy projector, come to think of it. A low OCV character against the Martial Artist won't work very well either, if he has no mental or area effect attacks. A low damage Martial Artist won't get very far against the Brick without some exotic attacks.

 

Oh look - there are character archetypes I can't send against pretty much every character type. Amazing, isn't it?

 

And flex boy is no worse off than generic defense boy 1/2 the time' date=' but far better off 1/2 the time. Sounds good to me.[/quote']

 

Generic Defense Boy isn't going to take that 32 STUN hit any time soon.

 

Why do you think there is a halving rule for adjusting defenses?

 

Because defenses cost less than attacks. As such, if there were no halving rule, draining defenses would be more efective than ddraining attacks, because they were cheaper to buy in the first place. But they are cheaper regardless of whether they are in a framework or outside of a framework.

 

An alternative approach would have been similar to the autofire rules' impact on reduced END and nonstandard defenses, requiring a +1 advantage to affect a defense instead of an attack.

 

Gotcha. You're ok with bricks' date=' martial artists, weapons masters, blasters who only has energy attacks, pure mentalists, etc all becoming cannon fodder.[/quote']

 

Do you allow menatlists? Are you OK with every character who lacks mental defense "becoming cannon fodder"?

 

Hugh' date=' have you actually run a flex boy type defender in an actual campaign, or is this all hypothetical to you?[/quote']

 

After a fashion. I've run a character whose primary defense is a Force Wall in a Multipower of a tranparent Energy and transparent Physical wall, in flexible slots.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

At no END cost. How weak his defenses are depends on what he chooses to purchase.

 

Well, based on our previous example, 2/2/3 vs 15/15. Somehow I'm seeing a difference here...

 

 

No, I'sm suggesting that it is possible to build a character that neutralizes any other specific character, commonly by adding a single MP slot.

 

Not neutralize. Fight effectively you mean. Neutralization is being immune to the other's attacks. Adding a slot to the MP that bypasses the defender's highest defenses still allows the defender to fight back effectively unless it's a one shot KO, and generally a single MP attack slot won't allow that.

 

 

Al alonre, if I want a tough matchup? Probably not. I won't send a mixed attacks villain with no mental defense up against the Mentalist alone either. I doubt I'd send a non-flying Brick or MA up against the flying energy projector, come to think of it. A low OCV character against the Martial Artist won't work very well either, if he has no mental or area effect attacks. A low damage Martial Artist won't get very far against the Brick without some exotic attacks.

 

Oh look - there are character archetypes I can't send against pretty much every character type. Amazing, isn't it?

 

Yep, but flex boy has a lot more foes that are restricted, including very basic archetypes such as brick, MA, or pure mentalist. The other ones you mention have 1 specific foe, not whole classes of foes.

 

 

Because defenses cost less than attacks. As such, if there were no halving rule, draining defenses would be more efective than ddraining attacks, because they were cheaper to buy in the first place. But they are cheaper regardless of whether they are in a framework or outside of a framework.

 

An alternative approach would have been similar to the autofire rules' impact on reduced END and nonstandard defenses, requiring a +1 advantage to affect a defense instead of an attack.

 

Yep, draining defenses is more effective than draining attacks. Conversely adding to defenses is more effective than adding to attacks. Do you see where this is going?

 

 

Do you allow menatlists? Are you OK with every character who lacks mental defense "becoming cannon fodder"?

 

Unless the mentalist can 1 shot KO the defender, then the defender can fight back effectively. Plus breakout rolls are the great equalizer.

 

After a fashion. I've run a character whose primary defense is a Force Wall in a Multipower of a tranparent Energy and transparent Physical wall, in flexible slots.

 

Then you've never really experienced the effect. Trust me, the VPP boy with spot defenses was highly unbalancing.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Yep' date=' but flex boy has a lot more foes that are restricted, including very basic archetypes such as brick, MA, or pure mentalist. The other ones you mention have 1 specific foe, not whole classes of foes.[/quote']

 

Flex Boy is much more effective against many SOLO OPPONENTS, but is much more disadvantaged vs a BALANCE GROUP of opponents. You said earlier that there are many different combat situations in the typical campaign, which is true, but you are evaluating this type of character's effectiveness solely in one on one "cage match" combat. Of course he has an advantage in this situation - it's his area of strength.

 

Yep' date=' draining defenses is more effective than draining attacks. Conversely adding to defenses is more effective than adding to attacks. Do you see where this is going?[/quote']

 

In circles. Defenses cost less than attacks. The ratio between the cost of defenses and the cost of attacks creates a problem for adjustment powers. It should cost the same amount to adjust an attack or a defense by an equally meaningful amount. Therefore, the cost of adjusting a character point of a defense power must be increased over the cost of adjusting a character point of an attack power. This is because the cost ratios differ, but the cost of 1d6 of an adjustment power (without this rule) would not.

 

The cost ratio between attack and defense is not modified by frameworks - they reduce the costs of attacks and defenses by the same proportions, on the same basis. Therefore, the same fix needed for adjustment powers - to have them reduce effectiveness of both attack and defense powers at an equivalent ratio - isn't needed for adjustment powers.

 

Unless the mentalist can 1 shot KO the defender' date=' then the defender can fight back effectively. Plus breakout rolls are the great equalizer.[/quote']

 

Mental Illusions can quite effectively one shot a typical defender. Ego +20 can make you see friends as enemies and enemies as friends. That's a roll of 30 for that no mental defense 10 Ego Brick, who will need a 9 to break out on average. Now, he will eventually break out, but in the meantime, he's worse than KO'd - he's become another adversary for his own team.

 

Then you've never really experienced the effect. Trust me' date=' the VPP boy with spot defenses was highly unbalancing.[/quote']

 

So one single experience taints your entire viewpoint. This is one character, whose VPP presumably is unlimited in what it can accomplish and changes immediately, without fail. I would agree that the ability to customize defenses to an unlimited extent stands a great potential to be unbalancing. I would also suggest the ability to customize attacks to an unlimited extent stands a similar potential to be equally unbalancing. "Oh, here comes FlameMan. We know he's vulnerable to cold and has no Power Defense. I'll switch my Attacks VPP to a cold-based Drain."

 

Yet multipowers that provide considerable, but less than unlimited, ability to customize attacks have not collapsed the game. What experience gives you the ability to conclude that having considerable, but less than unlimited, ability to customize defenses would collapse the game, based on experience with an unlimited ability to customize defenses including (I suspect) the ability to draw from other areas (movement powers, for example) to increase the points allocated to defenses? This last assumes the typical "most'all powers come from my VPP" character, rather than a "defenses only" VPP.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Flex Boy is much more effective against many SOLO OPPONENTS, but is much more disadvantaged vs a BALANCE GROUP of opponents. You said earlier that there are many different combat situations in the typical campaign, which is true, but you are evaluating this type of character's effectiveness solely in one on one "cage match" combat. Of course he has an advantage in this situation - it's his area of strength.

 

 

 

In circles. Defenses cost less than attacks. The ratio between the cost of defenses and the cost of attacks creates a problem for adjustment powers. It should cost the same amount to adjust an attack or a defense by an equally meaningful amount. Therefore, the cost of adjusting a character point of a defense power must be increased over the cost of adjusting a character point of an attack power. This is because the cost ratios differ, but the cost of 1d6 of an adjustment power (without this rule) would not.

 

The cost ratio between attack and defense is not modified by frameworks - they reduce the costs of attacks and defenses by the same proportions, on the same basis. Therefore, the same fix needed for adjustment powers - to have them reduce effectiveness of both attack and defense powers at an equivalent ratio - isn't needed for adjustment powers.

 

 

 

Mental Illusions can quite effectively one shot a typical defender. Ego +20 can make you see friends as enemies and enemies as friends. That's a roll of 30 for that no mental defense 10 Ego Brick, who will need a 9 to break out on average. Now, he will eventually break out, but in the meantime, he's worse than KO'd - he's become another adversary for his own team.

 

 

 

So one single experience taints your entire viewpoint. This is one character, whose VPP presumably is unlimited in what it can accomplish and changes immediately, without fail. I would agree that the ability to customize defenses to an unlimited extent stands a great potential to be unbalancing. I would also suggest the ability to customize attacks to an unlimited extent stands a similar potential to be equally unbalancing. "Oh, here comes FlameMan. We know he's vulnerable to cold and has no Power Defense. I'll switch my Attacks VPP to a cold-based Drain."

 

Yet multipowers that provide considerable, but less than unlimited, ability to customize attacks have not collapsed the game. What experience gives you the ability to conclude that having considerable, but less than unlimited, ability to customize defenses would collapse the game, based on experience with an unlimited ability to customize defenses including (I suspect) the ability to draw from other areas (movement powers, for example) to increase the points allocated to defenses? This last assumes the typical "most'all powers come from my VPP" character, rather than a "defenses only" VPP.

 

Hugh, we're going around in circles. I'm very surprised that an experienced player such as yourself has such trouble recognizing the balance and dynamics between offense and defense. Here are 2 examples, 1 with DCV and 1 with defenses that should illustrate the point.

 

Example 1

 

A and B both have the same CV but A has 6 levels while B has none. Let's assume both do 15 Stun through defenses on average and both have 40 Stun.

 

If A puts all his CSLs in OCV, he hits on a 17- and is hit on 11-. He hits 99+% of the time and is hit 62.5% of the time. In this case, B can fight back effectively and it is possible he'd win by getting 2-3 hits and rolling high for damage while A rolls low for damage. A is favored, but B is somewhat competitive.

 

If A puts all his levels in DCV, he hits on 11- and is hit on 5-. There is basically no chance at all for B to compete. He'll never hit 2-3 times before A hits 2-3 times. In this case, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion on how the battle ends.

 

Example 2

 

A and B both do about 15 stun through defenses on average and both have 40 Stun. A can either increase his attack or his defenses (through changing a multipower slot or using an adjustment power. It doesn't matter how he does so). Both have the same CV.

 

If A increases his attack by 10 pts, he adds 2d6 or 7 Stun to his net damage on average and now does 22 on average. He now only needs 2 hits on average instead of 3 to take out B, while B still needs 3 hits on average. But a combination of A missing or rolling low on damage and B hitting or rolling high on damage could still allow B to win the fight. B is still competitive.

 

If A increases his defense by 10 pts, now B only does 5 net Stun through defenses on average. Now it takes B a whopping 8 hits on average to beat A. Now there's virtually no chance that A can lose this fight.

 

True that increasing the attack increases the chance of stunning the target, but that doesn't change the relative odds between the 2 scenarios by that much.

 

If these 2 examples don't illustrate the difference between attacks and defenses, I don't know what will.