Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

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.

 

Bully for you. You have illustrated that:

 

(a) a character with more points dedicated to combat options will have a significant advantage - in both your examples, the character with the advantage has something the other lacks.

 

( point for point, defenses are more advantageous than attacks - which we knew, since we know that defenses are cheaper than attacks.

 

It has not, however, in any way, illustrated that the ability to select how the points in defenses are allocated, by having a defensive multipower, is any more advantageous than the ability to select how points in attacks are allocated, by having an attacks multipower. About the only significant difference I perceive is that splitting points between multiple defenses (either with flexible slots or with some balanced slots) is superior to splitting points between separate attacks in an MP, and even that distinction arises in large part due to the arbitrary and (IMO) unnecessary, even irrational, rule that two powers in the same framework cannot be used in a Multiple Power Attack, while there are no restrictions on Multiple Power Defenses.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Bully for you. You have illustrated that:

 

(a) a character with more points dedicated to combat options will have a significant advantage - in both your examples, the character with the advantage has something the other lacks.

 

( point for point, defenses are more advantageous than attacks - which we knew, since we know that defenses are cheaper than attacks.

 

It has not, however, in any way, illustrated that the ability to select how the points in defenses are allocated, by having a defensive multipower, is any more advantageous than the ability to select how points in attacks are allocated, by having an attacks multipower. About the only significant difference I perceive is that splitting points between multiple defenses (either with flexible slots or with some balanced slots) is superior to splitting points between separate attacks in an MP, and even that distinction arises in large part due to the arbitrary and (IMO) unnecessary, even irrational, rule that two powers in the same framework cannot be used in a Multiple Power Attack, while there are no restrictions on Multiple Power Defenses.

 

 

Combat in Hero basically boils down to how many phases it takes on average to take out the other guy which is a character's stun/ (average net damage through defenses times probability of hitting).

 

This is a vast oversimplification of Champions combat, but it should be sufficient to illustrate the point. It's an A/B equation. Now Hugh, you're an accountant and a very experienced one if I remember correctly. Beyond the fact that 10 pts of defenses produces 10 pts of effect while 10 pts of attack produces 7 pts of effect, there is another subtler factor that you should recognize as an accountant. Increasing defenses or DCV reduces the denominator of the above equation and increasing attacks or OCV increases the denominator. If you know anything about math at all, you would recognize that decreasing a denominator has a greater effect than increasing the same denominator!

 

Do you understand now?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Combat in Hero basically boils down to how many phases it takes on average to take out the other guy which is a character's stun/ (average net damage through defenses times probability of hitting).

 

This is a vast oversimplification of Champions combat, but it should be sufficient to illustrate the point. It's an A/B equation. Now Hugh, you're an accountant and a very experienced one if I remember correctly. Beyond the fact that 10 pts of defenses produces 10 pts of effect while 10 pts of attack produces 7 pts of effect, there is another subtler factor that you should recognize as an accountant. Increasing defenses or DCV reduces the denominator of the above equation and increasing attacks or OCV increases the denominator. If you know anything about math at all, you would recognize that decreasing a denominator has a greater effect than increasing the same denominator!

 

Do you understand now?

 

I understand that you continue to argue the relative values of attacks and defenses, which is not the issue. The ability to have +10 PD is not dissimilar from the ability to have +10 ED. Both offset roughly +15 points in an attack power, but different attack powers.

[Mr_Yuck]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

There's a "no 0 END powers in an EC" rule. There's no similar rule I'm aware of for other frameworks. The general rule is "no special powers in a framework".

 

 

Sorry to dredge up this old quote... But I read this and am at a loss where to see it in the rules. In fact, FREd pg 312 gives an Example of Firewing buying an EC and 30" of Flight at 0 END.

 

So where does it say you cannot have 0 END powers in an EC?

 

Anyone?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Sorry to dredge up this old quote... But I read this and am at a loss where to see it in the rules. In fact, FREd pg 312 gives an Example of Firewing buying an EC and 30" of Flight at 0 END.

 

So where does it say you cannot have 0 END powers in an EC?

 

Anyone?

 

5ER page 314 second column, second paragraph.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

I understand that you continue to argue the relative values of attacks and defenses' date=' which is not the issue. The ability to have +10 PD is not dissimilar from the ability to have +10 ED. Both offset roughly +15 points in an attack power, but different attack powers.[/quote']

 

No, increasing defense has implications beyond just the raw numbers. A 40 stun person is taken out in 4 hits by someone averaging 10 stun through defenses. 40/10. Changing the denominator upward by 5 means 40/15 or 3 hits. Changing the denominator downward by 5 means 40/5 or 8 hits. It's the exact same number that is changing, but the difference in the first case is 1.3 hits while the difference in the second case is 4 hits.

 

For defenses vs attacks, it's even worse than the above scenario because the denominator adjustment upward is less than the denominator adjustment downwards.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Sorry to dredge up this old quote... But I read this and am at a loss where to see it in the rules. In fact, FREd pg 312 gives an Example of Firewing buying an EC and 30" of Flight at 0 END.

 

So where does it say you cannot have 0 END powers in an EC?

 

Anyone?

 

5ER page 314 second column' date=' second paragraph.[/quote']

 

The technical rule is that a power that costs END by default can be bought to 0 END, but a power that does not cost END must take the "Costs END" limitation.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

No, increasing defense has implications beyond just the raw numbers. A 40 stun person is taken out in 4 hits by someone averaging 10 stun through defenses. 40/10. Changing the denominator upward by 5 means 40/15 or 3 hits. Changing the denominator downward by 5 means 40/5 or 8 hits. It's the exact same number that is changing, but the difference in the first case is 1.3 hits while the difference in the second case is 4 hits.

 

For defenses vs attacks, it's even worse than the above scenario because the denominator adjustment upward is less than the denominator adjustment downwards.

 

Character (a) has 25/25 PD/ED, to select a baseline. Let's use your 40 STUN and 10 DC attacks. It takes 4 hits to KO him.

 

Character ( instead has 15/15 PD/ED and a Multipower which provides +20 PD or +20 ED. Let's even make them flexibile slots so he can have anything from 35/15 to 15/35. At the extremes, he takes nothing on average from one type of attack and 20 from the other, so 2 hits from an appropriate attack takes him down. He's more likely to be able to win any match up against an opponent with limited attack choices, which we already knew.

 

Now, if you let Character ( have 15/15 PD/ED and a multipower which provides +28/+28 PD/ED, so he can have 43/15, 15/43 or 29/29, you're going to have a problem. But there, the problem isn't any different from any other character permitted to achieve higher levels of anything than the rest of the game.

 

I'd be leery about allowing the MP character to have average defenses equal to the guy with fixed defenses. Letting him beat the fixed defenses would be pretty much out of the question. This assumes no compensating issues comparing the rest of the two characters' abilities.

 

But then, I wouldn't let Character (a) have a Multipower with a 16d6 EB and a 16d6 Flash for 96 points when Character ( has a 10d6 EB and a 10d6 Flash purchased individually for 100. I would let (a) have a Multipower with a 10d6 EB and a 10d6 Flash, and I suspect few of us would blink about allowing that MP into our games. Yet we get hung up if the MP is for variable defenses, rather than variable attacks - just like you're getting hung up.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Character (a) has 25/25 PD/ED, to select a baseline. Let's use your 40 STUN and 10 DC attacks. It takes 4 hits to KO him.

 

Character ( instead has 15/15 PD/ED and a Multipower which provides +20 PD or +20 ED. Let's even make them flexibile slots so he can have anything from 35/15 to 15/35. At the extremes, he takes nothing on average from one type of attack and 20 from the other, so 2 hits from an appropriate attack takes him down. He's more likely to be able to win any match up against an opponent with limited attack choices, which we already knew.

 

Now, if you let Character ( have 15/15 PD/ED and a multipower which provides +28/+28 PD/ED, so he can have 43/15, 15/43 or 29/29, you're going to have a problem. But there, the problem isn't any different from any other character permitted to achieve higher levels of anything than the rest of the game.

 

I'd be leery about allowing the MP character to have average defenses equal to the guy with fixed defenses. Letting him beat the fixed defenses would be pretty much out of the question. This assumes no compensating issues comparing the rest of the two characters' abilities.

 

But then, I wouldn't let Character (a) have a Multipower with a 16d6 EB and a 16d6 Flash for 96 points when Character ( has a 10d6 EB and a 10d6 Flash purchased individually for 100. I would let (a) have a Multipower with a 10d6 EB and a 10d6 Flash, and I suspect few of us would blink about allowing that MP into our games. Yet we get hung up if the MP is for variable defenses, rather than variable attacks - just like you're getting hung up.

 

Ok, let's be a little less extreme and allow the character to vary his defenses from 20 to 30 each with a default of 25. The 10DC attack needs to hit 4 times to take him out at default defenses. If someone surprises him and attacks his weak defense, it'll take 2.67 hits to take him out on average. He loses only 1.33 hits on average. If they strike his tough defense, it'll take 8 hits to take him out. He gains 4 hits. The gain outweighs the loss significantly.

 

Now when you factor in that it takes a surprise shot to hit his weak defense to begin with, and that there are significantly more opponents who are going to be hitting his strong defense, it shows that spot defenses are significantly more valuable than spot attacks. The designers recognized this and doubled the cost of adjusting defenses.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Ok, let's be a little less extreme and allow the character to vary his defenses from 20 to 30 each with a default of 25. The 10DC attack needs to hit 4 times to take him out at default defenses. If someone surprises him and attacks his weak defense, it'll take 2.67 hits to take him out on average. He loses only 1.33 hits on average. If they strike his tough defense, it'll take 8 hits to take him out. He gains 4 hits. The gain outweighs the loss significantly.

 

Now when you factor in that it takes a surprise shot to hit his weak defense to begin with, and that there are significantly more opponents who are going to be hitting his strong defense, it shows that spot defenses are significantly more valuable than spot attacks. The designers recognized this and doubled the cost of adjusting defenses.

 

Now, where you use "factor in", I would use "assume". To me, a shot from surprise would hit the "weak defense" every time since the multipower would not generally be in use at all unless the character was expecting trouble.

 

We also disagree on how often the character will be able to arrange combat (including the character design of his adversaries) to his liking, such that "significantly more opponents" will be forced into attacking his superior defense.

 

I would also note that by allowing 20 - 30 instead of 15 - 35, you reduce the character's vulnerability as well - having a 15 defense makes for a much greater chance of being Stunned. This is another factor which supports my view that you must look at all the facts to assess "balance", and the implications of the ability to shift defenses.

 

There's also an implicit assumption that the characters just stand around and trade hits until one of them falls over. I find combat is generally more dynamic. The players in my game, when familiar with an opponent team, commonly plan their attacks to maximize the benefit of each attack. Generally, they consider how dangerous the attacker is to them (no one has mental defense? everyone attack the mentalist), and how tough the terget is (leave the Brick alone and focus on one or two targets who will fall faster). A character whose schtick is being tough to take down will commonly find himself alone against most or all of the team. It will take a few extra hits to take him down? That's OK - anyone on our side who takes a serious hit can fall back and take a couple of recoveries.

 

Of course, the other team will also use tactics on occasion, so combat tends to be a bit more dynamic, at least in my games, then "I'll just keep pounding on the same target until he falls down". In the one on one fight you want to reduce the comparison to, a character finding himself outmatched needs to consider his options. What is he trying to accomplish? What is the opponent trying to accomplish? Is there a down side if I break off combat and flee? If he knows Variable Defense Man can clean his clock when he's alone, only the stupidest of villains will stick around to trade shots with VDM. Those with a positive number for an INT score will look to escape.

 

Your reduction of combat to a series of precise mathematical equations doesn't hold up in most games I've played in.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Now' date=' where you use "factor in", I would use "assume". To me, a shot from surprise would hit the "weak defense" every time since the multipower would not generally be in use at all unless the character was expecting trouble.[/quote']

 

If that's your definition of "surprise", then someone with a standard FF will get whacked just as often.

 

We also disagree on how often the character will be able to arrange combat (including the character design of his adversaries) to his liking, such that "significantly more opponents" will be forced into attacking his superior defense.

 

I would also note that by allowing 20 - 30 instead of 15 - 35, you reduce the character's vulnerability as well - having a 15 defense makes for a much greater chance of being Stunned. This is another factor which supports my view that you must look at all the facts to assess "balance", and the implications of the ability to shift defenses.

 

You see, in every campaign that I've been a part of, we have smart players. Smart players would shift their 10 pt defensive slot to the appropriate defense instead of a 5/5 slot only when they perceive that it's advantageous to do so. That implies that attacks are hitting the strong defense significantly more often than the weak defense.

 

Maybe in a campaign without smart players the weak defense will be more often, but certainly not in any campaign that I've been part of.

 

 

There's also an implicit assumption that the characters just stand around and trade hits until one of them falls over. I find combat is generally more dynamic. The players in my game, when familiar with an opponent team, commonly plan their attacks to maximize the benefit of each attack. Generally, they consider how dangerous the attacker is to them (no one has mental defense? everyone attack the mentalist), and how tough the terget is (leave the Brick alone and focus on one or two targets who will fall faster). A character whose schtick is being tough to take down will commonly find himself alone against most or all of the team. It will take a few extra hits to take him down? That's OK - anyone on our side who takes a serious hit can fall back and take a couple of recoveries.

 

Of course, the other team will also use tactics on occasion, so combat tends to be a bit more dynamic, at least in my games, then "I'll just keep pounding on the same target until he falls down". In the one on one fight you want to reduce the comparison to, a character finding himself outmatched needs to consider his options. What is he trying to accomplish? What is the opponent trying to accomplish? Is there a down side if I break off combat and flee? If he knows Variable Defense Man can clean his clock when he's alone, only the stupidest of villains will stick around to trade shots with VDM. Those with a positive number for an INT score will look to escape.

 

Your reduction of combat to a series of precise mathematical equations doesn't hold up in most games I've played in.

 

I said it SPECIFICALLY 2 posts ago that it was a vast oversimplification of combat to illustrate my point. Yet you don't address the point at all that spot defenses are VASTLY more effective than spot attacks. The 20 to 30 defense person gains 4 additional hits by utilizing the right defense and loses only 1.3 hits by utilizing the wrong defense.

[Mr_Yuck]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

The technical rule is that a power that costs END by default can be bought to 0 END' date=' but a power that does not cost END must take the "Costs END" limitation.[/quote']

 

Thanks friends...

This all makes MUCH more sense now!

 

I was thinking something was really goofy the way it was initially presented. lol

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

If that's your definition of "surprise"' date=' then someone with a standard FF will get whacked just as often.[/quote']

 

Getting attacked when your defenses aren't up is a consequence of Surprise, yes.

 

You see' date=' in every campaign that I've been a part of, we have smart players. Smart players would shift their 10 pt defensive slot to the appropriate defense instead of a 5/5 slot only [b']when they perceive that it's advantageous to do so[/b]. That implies that attacks are hitting the strong defense significantly more often than the weak defense.

 

Emphasis mine. Your comments imply they will normally know what the next attack (or all attacks until their next phase) will be. Against a mixed bag of attackers, they have no way of knowing. They'll certainly know Grond is strong, and bump up PD. However, not every opponent will be that obvious, have options that limited or show up alone.

 

I said it SPECIFICALLY 2 posts ago that it was a vast oversimplification of combat to illustrate my point. Yet you don't address the point at all that spot defenses are VASTLY more effective than spot attacks. The 20 to 30 defense person gains 4 additional hits by utilizing the right defense and loses only 1.3 hits by utilizing the wrong defense.

 

The attacker with a Physical and Energy EB at 10d6 against our 20 - 30 defense character reduces the target from 8 hits to 2.7 hits by utilizing the right attack. That's a 5.3 attack shift for the cost of moving from a single attack to a multipower with two. Your comparison assumes a fixed attack against either fixed or variable defenses.

 

A character with an attacks MP battling a character with 30 PD and 20 ED has an advantage over a brick with only physical attacks - does that mean attack multipowers are overly efficient? If a character has spot defenses, an energy blaster has a significant advantage over a physical attacker in that either the blast or the knockback will always target the weaker defense. Should "Energy" be an advantage for this reason?

 

Using a vastly oversimplified example means the conclusions break down outside of the model. This is the same problem suffered by economic theory - the real world is too often a special case.

[jtelson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

The relative utility of varying defenses is going to differ considerably from campaign to campaign. I tend to use agents and thugs reasonably often. Since this means that once the group is id'd the character with a 2 slot force field multipower will have a considerable advantage vs someone who has purchased FF straight (142.9% of a straight FF buy this is vs. the 71.4% of the straight buy they have under neutral circumstances). Fights in my campaigns only rarely are large brawls between groups of supers where having larger less versitile defenses has a greater utility and so I would tend to disallow the split FF multipower were I running something more 'standard', however, I don't think there would be any problem with a player taking the more versitile option (within the Def parameters of the campaign).

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Getting attacked when your defenses aren't up is a consequence of Surprise' date=' yes.[/quote']

 

Which means this point is completely irrelevant to the defensive multipower since it affects everyone with non-persistent defenses.

 

 

Emphasis mine. Your comments imply they will normally know what the next attack (or all attacks until their next phase) will be. Against a mixed bag of attackers, they have no way of knowing. They'll certainly know Grond is strong, and bump up PD. However, not every opponent will be that obvious, have options that limited or show up alone.

 

No, a smart player will pick when and where to setup the strong defense. If the player doesn't perceive it to be his advantage do do so, he will not have it up. Therefore far more attacks will hit the strong defense than a weak defense.

 

 

The attacker with a Physical and Energy EB at 10d6 against our 20 - 30 defense character reduces the target from 8 hits to 2.7 hits by utilizing the right attack. That's a 5.3 attack shift for the cost of moving from a single attack to a multipower with two. Your comparison assumes a fixed attack against either fixed or variable defenses.

 

A character with an attacks MP battling a character with 30 PD and 20 ED has an advantage over a brick with only physical attacks - does that mean attack multipowers are overly efficient? If a character has spot defenses, an energy blaster has a significant advantage over a physical attacker in that either the blast or the knockback will always target the weaker defense. Should "Energy" be an advantage for this reason?

 

Using a vastly oversimplified example means the conclusions break down outside of the model. This is the same problem suffered by economic theory - the real world is too often a special case.

 

If there were a lot of characters with fixed 30/20 defenses, then the attack multipower would reduct 5.3 hits. I find that to be a very rare case in actual play. Since the VAST majority of characters have defenses within a few of each other, your conclusion simply doesn't match reality. However, attackers with attacks of 1 form are vastly more common than ones with equal physical and energy attacks. At least a magnitude more common.

 

Also, the simplified situation is for illustration. I don't have the time or desire to map out every single possible combination of attacks, defenses, OCV, DCV, combinations of attackers, defenders, terrain, etc mathematically. The point (and you've never addressed it), is that choosing the right defense burns off more attacker actions than choosing the wrong defense hurts.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

If there were a lot of characters with fixed 30/20 defenses' date=' then the attack multipower would reduct 5.3 hits. I find that to be a very rare case in actual play. Since the VAST majority of characters have defenses within a few of each other, your conclusion simply doesn't match reality. However, attackers with attacks of 1 form are vastly more common than ones with equal physical and energy attacks. At least a magnitude more common. [/quote']

 

Like your examples, mine is simplified. While having an equal EB for physical and energy is uncommon, having options within an attack multipower is not. Choosing a 6d6 NND rather than a 12d6 EB against an opponent with 30defenses changes average damage from 12 to 21, so instead of four hits to reach 40 (target at -8, so recovery starts next phase), it takes two hits to reach 42 (target at -2, so rec starts next phase).

 

Choosing 8d6 AP instead of 12d6 normal against the same opponent means an average of 13 rather than 12, so we're right on the breakpoint. Bump those defenses to 40, and it switches from 2 up to 8, reducing 20 hits required to get the target to 0 STUN down to 5 hits. A KA would similarly enhance average STUN damage through, shortening the timeframe.

 

That's without assuming any exotic attacks. If the character can choose a Flash or a Drain against a target with no exotic defenses, that's also a substantial advantage.

 

Like you,

I don't have the time or desire to map out every single possible combination of attacks' date=' defenses, OCV, DCV, combinations of attackers, defenders, terrain, etc mathematically. The point (and you've never addressed it), is that choosing the right defense burns off more attacker actions than choosing the wrong defense hurts.[/quote']

 

My point is that, in oversimplifying, the results of the "test" are not necessarily indicative of actual game results. An attacks multipower also looks devestating on paper, and can be in practice. The assumption that the defender will normally know which defense is superior is no better than the assumption that the attacker will know the defensive weak point. Yet we don't bat an eye against multipowers containing a variety of attack types, while some, such as yourself, are reluctant to allow a similar multipower of defense types.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Like your examples, mine is simplified. While having an equal EB for physical and energy is uncommon, having options within an attack multipower is not. Choosing a 6d6 NND rather than a 12d6 EB against an opponent with 30defenses changes average damage from 12 to 21, so instead of four hits to reach 40 (target at -8, so recovery starts next phase), it takes two hits to reach 42 (target at -2, so rec starts next phase).

 

Choosing 8d6 AP instead of 12d6 normal against the same opponent means an average of 13 rather than 12, so we're right on the breakpoint. Bump those defenses to 40, and it switches from 2 up to 8, reducing 20 hits required to get the target to 0 STUN down to 5 hits. A KA would similarly enhance average STUN damage through, shortening the timeframe.

 

That's without assuming any exotic attacks. If the character can choose a Flash or a Drain against a target with no exotic defenses, that's also a substantial advantage.

 

6 pts for the NND slot adds 9 stun for a 30 def target, or 1.4 hits reduced on average. 1 pt adds 10 def, so if base def was 25, then it would increase the number of hits needed from 2.3 to 5.7. 2 hits more effective at 1/6 the cost.

 

I think part of the disconnect between attacks and defenses is the fact that each slot of an attack multipower is building the attack from "scratch". For defenses, you're adding onto an existing base so there's no or very little "waste" involved. An analogous example would be a +60 Str slot in the multipower for a character with 20 existing Str which many GMs feel would be unbalancing. This factor strongly favors defensive multipowers over attack multipowers.

 

Like you,

 

 

My point is that, in oversimplifying, the results of the "test" are not necessarily indicative of actual game results. An attacks multipower also looks devestating on paper, and can be in practice. The assumption that the defender will normally know which defense is superior is no better than the assumption that the attacker will know the defensive weak point. Yet we don't bat an eye against multipowers containing a variety of attack types, while some, such as yourself, are reluctant to allow a similar multipower of defense types.

 

Actual game results shows it to be highly unbalancing. I refer you to VPP Boy for results in actual play.

[pinecone]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

I have to agree that my own experiance is that flex defence is way scarey...I'm not totally opposed, but I would be very leery of leting such a thing loose. It can change the whole dynamic of the game.....even simple things like "Grond is on a rampage!" lose a lot when you can boost up your PD by a bushel at will, even if all you do is taunt Grond, while the rest of your team hits him, the dynamic is changed.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

6 pts for the NND slot adds 9 stun for a 30 def target' date=' or 1.4 hits reduced on average.[/quote']

 

Moving to 50 AP, 5 pts for the NND slot adds 12.5 stun for a 30 def target, or 5.73 hits reduced on average. It depends where we start the benchmarks.

 

1 pt adds 10 def, so if base def was 25, then it would increase the number of hits needed from 2.3 to 5.7. 2 hits more effective at 1/6 the cost.

 

I think part of the disconnect between attacks and defenses is the fact that each slot of an attack multipower is building the attack from "scratch".

 

Let's assume the attack Multipower is full of Drains and other no range attacks, and is possessed by a character with 60 STR. He's also adding on to his 60 STR attack. Similarly, a standard attacks multipower will become much more effective if the character also has an attack purchased outside the Multipower with which he can MPA. I would agree this is much less common, but it's likely more comparable.

 

An analogous example would be a +60 Str slot in the multipower for a character with 20 existing Str which many GMs feel would be unbalancing.

 

Generally, because the result exceeds campaign norms/maxima. I have not suggested that the defense multipower be permitted to exceed the campaign maxima. Quite the reverse, I would suggest it would be appropriate for a character with variable defenses to be unable to achieve the usual campaign max in several defenses at once.

 

This factor strongly favors defensive multipowers over attack multipowers.

 

Actual game results shows it to be highly unbalancing. I refer you to VPP Boy for results in actual play.

 

Was VPP Boy using his VPP solely for defense, or was he able to divert attack, miscellaneous and movement powers to augment his defenses? Is it your position that a VPP should never be able to hold defenses in order to rectify this? Mine is that the VPP should be restricted in some fashion (perhaps something as simple as "the VPP cannot be used to exceed campaign max defenses ") to prevent abuses, not that the entire concept should be thrown out because there is a potential for abuse.

 

Although, if we removed every mechanic which could be abused, the rule book would be a lot slimmer.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Moving to 50 AP' date=' 5 pts for the NND slot adds 12.5 stun for a 30 def target, or 5.73 hits reduced on average. It depends where we start the benchmarks. [/quote']

 

If we do that, then +10 Def would add infinite to the 25 def character.

 

 

Let's assume the attack Multipower is full of Drains and other no range attacks, and is possessed by a character with 60 STR. He's also adding on to his 60 STR attack. Similarly, a standard attacks multipower will become much more effective if the character also has an attack purchased outside the Multipower with which he can MPA. I would agree this is much less common, but it's likely more comparable.

 

Not too many of those characters. And they're already paying double points essentially for this kind of attack. A defender paying double points for double defenses would be immune to standard attacks.

 

Generally, because the result exceeds campaign norms/maxima. I have not suggested that the defense multipower be permitted to exceed the campaign maxima. Quite the reverse, I would suggest it would be appropriate for a character with variable defenses to be unable to achieve the usual campaign max in several defenses at once.

 

It doesn't need to be in several defenses at once. Just 1 defense at a time.

 

 

Was VPP Boy using his VPP solely for defense, or was he able to divert attack, miscellaneous and movement powers to augment his defenses? Is it your position that a VPP should never be able to hold defenses in order to rectify this? Mine is that the VPP should be restricted in some fashion (perhaps something as simple as "the VPP cannot be used to exceed campaign max defenses ") to prevent abuses, not that the entire concept should be thrown out because there is a potential for abuse.

 

Although, if we removed every mechanic which could be abused, the rule book would be a lot slimmer.

 

Defenses, movements, and misc powers.

 

My "fix" for something like a VPP that can be adjusted in combat would be to require double cost for defenses. So allocating 20 pts of a VPP would add 10 pts of defenses to the character.

 

It sounds like you have no experience at all with a capable player with a flex defense and you're only theorizing at the moment. If you have a capable player who can vary his defense at will, I'm sure you'll run into the exact same situation as what forced adjustment powers to have half effect on defenses.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

If we do that' date=' then +10 Def would add infinite to the 25 def character.[/quote']

 

Which means that such defense levels would appropriately be regulated. Either I, as GM, deny the ability to have a level of defense which brings a character to equal an average attack roll at campaign normal attacks, or I, as GM, make the decision that the character will face sufficient challenges, even when he can be invulnerable to one attack type at a time, that the ability will not unbalance the game. And I then make that happen by judicious selection of opponents for the character in question.

 

One example given is "Grond on a rampage" becomes less useful. Either I don't use that scenario, or I build in the PC's abilities. "You just don't get it, Big Guy - you can't hurt me!" either becomes an opportunity for the character to shine, and the player to enjoy a moment in the spotlight, or "Hitting puny man not hurt him?? Puny man want to fly?" Grab and Throw. Goodbye, Mr. Invulnerable. Grond will rampage without you. Or maybe he just grabs you and uses you as a club to beat up others and break things. Just because I can't KO you doesn't mean you can't be beaten.

 

Not too many of those characters. And they're already paying double points essentially for this kind of attack. A defender paying double points for double defenses would be immune to standard attacks.

 

I think there aren't that many characters because the MPA rules are relatively new. And you don't have to pay double. A 60 STR will damage most campaign-normal villains, right? Slap on a Multipower with a 2d6 Stun Drain, a 2d6 END drain, a 2d6 DEX drain, a 2d6 STR drain and a 4d6 Flash, No Range. Limit all to "only when MPA'd with a STR attack" (say -1/4, which is less than Linked), and we pay 25 points. A typical Energy Projector would have paid 24 - 30 points to have his attacks in a 4 - 5 slot Multipower.

 

In addition to normal STR damage, most targets can either be blinded or have some stats shaved off with every hit. Ignoring the other four, that 2d6 STUN drain adds another 7 points to every hit. Against a 40 STUN target with 35 defenses, who was taking 7 STUN per hit (6 hits needed), I only need 3 hits. If he had 25 defenses, I go from needing 3 hits to needing 2 hits. So, do you want to set your earlier MP to PD, or Flash and Power defense?

 

It doesn't need to be in several defenses at once. Just 1 defense at a time.

 

Only if the GM facilitates it for you by poor selection of opponents and challenges.

 

Gary, assume you're planning a mutant campaign, where you will heavily feature mutant-hunting robots. You pull out the old Minuteman writeup. One of your players designs a character based around Storm of the X-Men. The robots have 2x STUn and BOD from Electricity. Do you:

 

(a) Totally revamp your campaign plans?

( Allow the player to run roughshod over the Minutemen, so most combats become "delay and dodge while Lightning Woman takes out the opposition"?

© Prohibit electrical attacks?

(d) Make a simple change to account for the character (eg. change or remove the vulnerability, either up front or in a redesign of the robots early in the campaign)?

 

Defenses' date=' movements, and misc powers.[/quote']

 

So, once in close combat, the player can redirect all points spent on investigation-type powers and noncombat movement into defenses. I don't find that overly comparable to a multipower which holds only defense alternatives.

 

My "fix" for something like a VPP that can be adjusted in combat would be to require double cost for defenses. So allocating 20 pts of a VPP would add 10 pts of defenses to the character.

 

Mine would be to discuss how the character would be used with the player and ensure I am comfortable that campaign norms will not be violated.

 

It sounds like you have no experience at all with a capable player with a flex defense and you're only theorizing at the moment. If you have a capable player who can vary his defense at will' date=' I'm sure you'll run into the exact same situation as what forced adjustment powers to have half effect on defenses.[/quote']

 

Gary, you keep steering the comparison back to a character who has unlimited control over his defenses (a VPP which, presumably, is changed at will with no chance of failure, and can redirect points out of whole categories of abilities not necessary at the moment to defenses), rather than the original discussion point of a multipower of fixed defense alternatives.

 

The character you describe is, in my view, the ultimate extension - the most abusive possible combination if we allow any flexibility in defenses. I will suggest that, perhaps, the issue is not whether the player is CAPABLE, but whether the player is REASONABLE and willing to impose appropriate limits on the character to maintain play balance. There are lots of rules in the book which CAN be abused. The possibility does not, in my mind, justify their complete elimination.

 

How far does one carry this logic that anything with any potential for abuse must be eliminated? Apply the same logic to the real world. Alcohol can be abused. Ban it. Automobiles are sometimes used as weapons. Ban them. The printed word can be used to commit hate crimes. Burn all the books. ad infinitum

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Which means that such defense levels would appropriately be regulated. Either I, as GM, deny the ability to have a level of defense which brings a character to equal an average attack roll at campaign normal attacks, or I, as GM, make the decision that the character will face sufficient challenges, even when he can be invulnerable to one attack type at a time, that the ability will not unbalance the game. And I then make that happen by judicious selection of opponents for the character in question.

 

One example given is "Grond on a rampage" becomes less useful. Either I don't use that scenario, or I build in the PC's abilities. "You just don't get it, Big Guy - you can't hurt me!" either becomes an opportunity for the character to shine, and the player to enjoy a moment in the spotlight, or "Hitting puny man not hurt him?? Puny man want to fly?" Grab and Throw. Goodbye, Mr. Invulnerable. Grond will rampage without you. Or maybe he just grabs you and uses you as a club to beat up others and break things. Just because I can't KO you doesn't mean you can't be beaten.

 

A lot harder to beat an opponent if you can't stun him...

 

 

I think there aren't that many characters because the MPA rules are relatively new. And you don't have to pay double. A 60 STR will damage most campaign-normal villains, right? Slap on a Multipower with a 2d6 Stun Drain, a 2d6 END drain, a 2d6 DEX drain, a 2d6 STR drain and a 4d6 Flash, No Range. Limit all to "only when MPA'd with a STR attack" (say -1/4, which is less than Linked), and we pay 25 points. A typical Energy Projector would have paid 24 - 30 points to have his attacks in a 4 - 5 slot Multipower.

 

In addition to normal STR damage, most targets can either be blinded or have some stats shaved off with every hit. Ignoring the other four, that 2d6 STUN drain adds another 7 points to every hit. Against a 40 STUN target with 35 defenses, who was taking 7 STUN per hit (6 hits needed), I only need 3 hits. If he had 25 defenses, I go from needing 3 hits to needing 2 hits. So, do you want to set your earlier MP to PD, or Flash and Power defense?

 

You're adding 25 pts to the 60 Str. If I have another 25 pts to add to my defenses, it's pretty trivial to make that multipower completely worthless.

 

 

Only if the GM facilitates it for you by poor selection of opponents and challenges.

 

No, if the GM facilitates it by a reasonable selection of opponents and challenges. It's a poor GM who plans EVERY encounter to specifically target a player's weaknesses and avoid their strengths. If there's a reasonable cross section of encounters, the player will be overpowering in a number of them.

 

Gary, assume you're planning a mutant campaign, where you will heavily feature mutant-hunting robots. You pull out the old Minuteman writeup. One of your players designs a character based around Storm of the X-Men. The robots have 2x STUn and BOD from Electricity. Do you:

 

(a) Totally revamp your campaign plans?

( Allow the player to run roughshod over the Minutemen, so most combats become "delay and dodge while Lightning Woman takes out the opposition"?

© Prohibit electrical attacks?

(d) Make a simple change to account for the character (eg. change or remove the vulnerability, either up front or in a redesign of the robots early in the campaign)?

 

I'd throw the Minutemen into the campaign because they reasonably would be in the campaign and this would be a reasonable limitation on them. I would just make sure that not EVERY encounter was vs Minutemen.

 

So, once in close combat, the player can redirect all points spent on investigation-type powers and noncombat movement into defenses. I don't find that overly comparable to a multipower which holds only defense alternatives.

 

The thing is that it's dirt cheap to add movements to the defensive multipower since the reserve is already paid. So it's directly comparable.

 

 

Mine would be to discuss how the character would be used with the player and ensure I am comfortable that campaign norms will not be violated.

 

In other words, you'll artificially limit his VPP. Not really different than charging double for defenses that can be adjusted on the fly.

 

Gary, you keep steering the comparison back to a character who has unlimited control over his defenses (a VPP which, presumably, is changed at will with no chance of failure, and can redirect points out of whole categories of abilities not necessary at the moment to defenses), rather than the original discussion point of a multipower of fixed defense alternatives.

 

The character you describe is, in my view, the ultimate extension - the most abusive possible combination if we allow any flexibility in defenses. I will suggest that, perhaps, the issue is not whether the player is CAPABLE, but whether the player is REASONABLE and willing to impose appropriate limits on the character to maintain play balance. There are lots of rules in the book which CAN be abused. The possibility does not, in my mind, justify their complete elimination.

 

How far does one carry this logic that anything with any potential for abuse must be eliminated? Apply the same logic to the real world. Alcohol can be abused. Ban it. Automobiles are sometimes used as weapons. Ban them. The printed word can be used to commit hate crimes. Burn all the books. ad infinitum

 

 

You can carry this "logic" to adjusting defensive powers. Since it can be abused, your solution would be to allow them to be adjusted at full effect but have the GM artificially cap the final defense level or discuss with the player how to limit the effects. Yet the playtesters clearly thought that wasn't a solution and slapped a 1/2 effect penalty on adjusting defenses. They didn't ban it, they simply modified the structure until it was balanced in their opinion.

 

Why can't you recognize that in Hero, there are synergistic effects and certain combinations of powers/frameworks/advantages are worth more than their raw points suggest?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

A lot harder to beat an opponent if you can't stun him...

 

I prefer my games (as player or GM) to have solutions other than "hit him until he falls down", and to have conflicts that can't be solved by that approach. YMMV.

 

You're adding 25 pts to the 60 Str. If I have another 25 pts to add to my defenses' date=' it's pretty trivial to make that multipower completely worthless.[/quote']

 

I'm adding the same 25 points the Energy Projector used on his attacks multipower, so neither character has 25 to spend on extra defenses.

 

No' date=' if the GM facilitates it by a reasonable selection of opponents and challenges. It's a poor GM who plans EVERY encounter to specifically target a player's weaknesses and avoid their strengths. If there's a reasonable cross section of encounters, the player will be overpowering in a number of them.[/quote']

 

It's not necessary to plan every encounter to circumvent this character's strrengths, any more than it is to plan every encounter to circumvent any other character's strengths. If one of your PC's has a Flash attack, do you routinely send in opposition that can be readily neutralized by the Flash? Would you send a Mentalist into one on one combat with an opponent who has 30 points of mental defense expecting a challenging battle to follow? If the character's defenses (or any ability of a character) will render the task easy to resolve, that doesn't mean I won't run it, but it does mean I won't count on it being a huge challenge to the character.

 

The thing is that it's dirt cheap to add movements to the defensive multipower since the reserve is already paid. So it's directly comparable.

 

Once again, you immediately jump to the assumption that players will leap on the most abusive construct possible, and that the GM will allow it. It's also dirt cheap to add a series of non-combat powers to an Attacks multipower, but I rarely see that done. Why not add Armor, using the full AP of your Attacks multipower, for those occasions when you don't wish to attack (perhaps because you are blinded, wish to hold out to get a recovery, or just want to distract the target). Yet we don't classify the typical Attacks multipower as "overpowered", do we?

 

In any case, a mixed bag multipower was not the topic of discussion. The question was why a Multi of attacks is not an issue, but a Multi of defenses (not defenses and a bunch of other abilities) is.

 

In other words' date=' you'll artificially limit his VPP. Not really different than charging double for defenses that can be adjusted on the fly.[/quote']

 

No, in other words I will hold this player to the same campaign standards every other player is held to. Let's assume you aren't willing to allow a character to have, say, 20 PD and 20 ED, plus a multipower with a +15 PD and a +15 ED force field, for balance reasons. Will you allow:

 

- a character with 20 PD/20 ED and a 15/15 force field? That's always there, and more effective, and cheaper than the MP at double cost.

 

- a character with 20 PD/20 ED and a 15 PD or ED force field? He's invulnerable to one attack type. Maybe this one's OK because he only neutralizes one type of attacker, but rest assured he'll do everything he can to minimize his exposure to the other attack type.

 

- a character who buys the 20 PD and ED, and the MP at double the price anyway?

 

- a character who adds a +15/+15 Force Field, with +10 each of Flash, Power and Mental defense to his existing 60 AP movement multipower so he can boost his defenses when he doesn't need augmented movement? [No double cost here - he's not able to switch between defenses, right? If he is, knock off the exotic defenses, or make them another slot so he can select between normal and exotic defenses.]

 

If it's unbalancing, it's unbalancing. You don't get to exceed the limits imposed simply because you pay extra points.

 

You can carry this "logic" to adjusting defensive powers. Since it can be abused' date=' your solution would be to allow them to be adjusted at full effect but have the GM artificially cap the final defense level or discuss with the player how to limit the effects. Yet the playtesters clearly thought that wasn't a solution and slapped a 1/2 effect penalty on adjusting defenses. They didn't ban it, they simply modified the structure until it was balanced in their opinion.[/quote']

 

To say it again, the doubling rule was because the cost of adjustment powers used to affect defenses was unbalanced against the cost of the same adjustment powers used to augment attacks, because defenses are cheaper. Another approach would have been to increase the cost of defenses themselves, across the board, and leave the cost of adjustment powers alone, but that has much further reaching implications.

 

Given this is now balanced, will you allow a PC to purchase 1d6 Aid, All Defenses at once (+2), +24 increase maximum, fade rate 1/day, Extra Time (1 minute), Costs 10x END, and use it to buff all his teammates by an extra 15 points in all defenses? He paid the doubled cost, didn't he? You tell me that this resulted in balance, so there should be no further problem. Do we need to increase the cost of this type of adjustment power? Increased Fade Rate and Increased Maximum only apply to adjustment powers, so their costs can't be the problem.

 

The remote possibility that something can be abused is very different from the clear and present abuse.

 

Why can't you recognize that in Hero' date=' there are synergistic effects and certain combinations of powers/frameworks/advantages are worth more than their raw points suggest?[/quote']

 

Why can't you recognize that these synergestic effects can't be costed away, but require judgement, not pricing changes, to address? If I double the cost of everything that could be abused, all I've done is double all the costs.

 

To my mind, anyone who has read our back and forth should, by now, have enough arguments regarding the pros and the cons to assess for themselves whether this would be devestating to their own games, or not. Beyond that, I don't think there's anything we can resolve here - we are simply of differing opinions, most likely due to gaming with players with different attitudes in campaigns with different styles.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

I prefer my games (as player or GM) to have solutions other than "hit him until he falls down"' date=' and to have conflicts that can't be solved by that approach. YMMV.[/quote']

 

 

Many encounters are "hit him until he falls down". If you don't have any of those encounters, then why buy EB or Str to begin with?

 

 

I'm adding the same 25 points the Energy Projector used on his attacks multipower, so neither character has 25 to spend on extra defenses.

 

It seems to me that this is proving my point. That an add-on multipower is far more powerful than one where every attack is built from scratch. Hence another big advantage to the defensive multipower.

 

 

It's not necessary to plan every encounter to circumvent this character's strrengths, any more than it is to plan every encounter to circumvent any other character's strengths. If one of your PC's has a Flash attack, do you routinely send in opposition that can be readily neutralized by the Flash? Would you send a Mentalist into one on one combat with an opponent who has 30 points of mental defense expecting a challenging battle to follow? If the character's defenses (or any ability of a character) will render the task easy to resolve, that doesn't mean I won't run it, but it does mean I won't count on it being a huge challenge to the character.

 

I will send a reasonable cross section of opponents. I do not have a "screw the player" attitude where I must send attackers that target their weaknesses. And yes, I will occasionally send a mentalist after a party member with 30 pts of mental defense bought straight. He paid the points for that ability and shouldn't be penalized for it by not allowing that ability to be effective occasionally. He is 30 pts worse vs most other types of opponents, so I don't see it as a problem if he gets an occasional easy win.

 

 

Once again, you immediately jump to the assumption that players will leap on the most abusive construct possible, and that the GM will allow it. It's also dirt cheap to add a series of non-combat powers to an Attacks multipower, but I rarely see that done. Why not add Armor, using the full AP of your Attacks multipower, for those occasions when you don't wish to attack (perhaps because you are blinded, wish to hold out to get a recovery, or just want to distract the target). Yet we don't classify the typical Attacks multipower as "overpowered", do we?

 

In any case, a mixed bag multipower was not the topic of discussion. The question was why a Multi of attacks is not an issue, but a Multi of defenses (not defenses and a bunch of other abilities) is.

 

Wait a moment. This entire thread was about whether a multipwer of defenses was appropriate or balanced and now your arguing that a multipower of defenses and movements isn't appropriate or balanced?????????

 

Why are we even going back and forth if you yourself concede that some types of multipowers are overpowered???

 

No, in other words I will hold this player to the same campaign standards every other player is held to. Let's assume you aren't willing to allow a character to have, say, 20 PD and 20 ED, plus a multipower with a +15 PD and a +15 ED force field, for balance reasons. Will you allow:

 

- a character with 20 PD/20 ED and a 15/15 force field? That's always there, and more effective, and cheaper than the MP at double cost.

 

- a character with 20 PD/20 ED and a 15 PD or ED force field? He's invulnerable to one attack type. Maybe this one's OK because he only neutralizes one type of attacker, but rest assured he'll do everything he can to minimize his exposure to the other attack type.

 

- a character who buys the 20 PD and ED, and the MP at double the price anyway?

 

- a character who adds a +15/+15 Force Field, with +10 each of Flash, Power and Mental defense to his existing 60 AP movement multipower so he can boost his defenses when he doesn't need augmented movement? [No double cost here - he's not able to switch between defenses, right? If he is, knock off the exotic defenses, or make them another slot so he can select between normal and exotic defenses.]

 

If it's unbalancing, it's unbalancing. You don't get to exceed the limits imposed simply because you pay extra points.

 

 

How the heck did you get from a VPP at double cost to a multipower at double cost?

 

 

To say it again, the doubling rule was because the cost of adjustment powers used to affect defenses was unbalanced against the cost of the same adjustment powers used to augment attacks, because defenses are cheaper. Another approach would have been to increase the cost of defenses themselves, across the board, and leave the cost of adjustment powers alone, but that has much further reaching implications.

 

 

Then adding directly to defenses is unbalanced because defenses are cheaper. After all, a 10 pt multipower slot in Aid will add 1.75 pts of defense on average and 3 pts max whereas if added directly to defenses, it adds +10.

 

Now why are defenses cheaper in general? The ONLY possible reason is because a defender must purchase multiple types of defenses to cover their bases. If PD and ED were replaced by DEF, then it would be too cheap at 1 for 1. But because a player has to buy both of them separately, it becomes balanced... unless he can adjust the defenses on the fly.

 

 

Given this is now balanced, will you allow a PC to purchase 1d6 Aid, All Defenses at once (+2), +24 increase maximum, fade rate 1/day, Extra Time (1 minute), Costs 10x END, and use it to buff all his teammates by an extra 15 points in all defenses? He paid the doubled cost, didn't he? You tell me that this resulted in balance, so there should be no further problem. Do we need to increase the cost of this type of adjustment power? Increased Fade Rate and Increased Maximum only apply to adjustment powers, so their costs can't be the problem.

 

The remote possibility that something can be abused is very different from the clear and present abuse.

 

Ah, the ridiculous power construct argument.

 

 

Why can't you recognize that these synergestic effects can't be costed away, but require judgement, not pricing changes, to address? If I double the cost of everything that could be abused, all I've done is double all the costs.

 

To my mind, anyone who has read our back and forth should, by now, have enough arguments regarding the pros and the cons to assess for themselves whether this would be devestating to their own games, or not. Beyond that, I don't think there's anything we can resolve here - we are simply of differing opinions, most likely due to gaming with players with different attitudes in campaigns with different styles.

 

Umm, the game has costed away these synergistic effects when recognized. Such as with halving adjustment powers on defenses and the additional +1 nonstandard autofire adjustment, and the doubling of cost for reduced end on autofires etc. That's because leaving the rules as is is abusive.

 

It sounds to me that you would be fine with an 5 shot Autofire NND 0 End costing only a +2 total Advantage...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Many encounters are "hit him until he falls down". If you don't have any of those encounters' date=' then why buy EB or Str to begin with?[/quote']

 

It is possible to use a 12d6 EB to take down a target with 60 Energy Defense (ridiculously high) assuming that target is light on PD (as he should be if he's immune to energy attacks). Knockback damage is physical. Targetting the roof over his head and landing it on him is physical. In an extreme case (very low PD) targetting him with your 15 STR punch may do the trick.

 

When I use the term "hit him until he falls down", I don't mean "battle until someone either runs out of STUN or flees because they're close to it", but the much smaller subset of "Take position and blast back and forth with no variation". Creative use of existing abilities to achieve the goal, whatever that goal be, makes for a far more entertaining scenario.

 

It seems to me that this is proving my point. That an add-on multipower is far more powerful than one where every attack is built from scratch. Hence another big advantage to the defensive multipower.

 

Are you saying would consider that Brick hideously unbalanced compared to an energy projector with a standard multipower of 60 AP attacks? Or, alternatively, an EP with a 12d6 EB, and a multipower of small add-on attacks such as a Flash, an AVLD and an NND? I think they will each shine in different areas, but I don't see one as completely overshadowing the other, as you seem to.

 

I will send a reasonable cross section of opponents. I do not have a "screw the player" attitude where I must send attackers that target their weaknesses.

 

If my character buys, for example, 30 PD and 30 ED, should he never be attacked by someone who has the ability to do damage to him? Are you screwing the player by facing him off against a mentalist? Are you screwing the player who bought Flash by having opponents that either have flash defense or senses that compensate for blindness?

 

In my view, there is very broad scope between "Screw the player" and "Let the PC's run roughshod over everything". That broad plain is called "Challenge the players, and give their characters opportunities to shine".

 

Your position seems to be that a defensive multipower eliminates that broad middle ground. This would appear to be the crux of our difference in opinion.

 

And yes' date=' I will occasionally send a mentalist after a party member with 30 pts of mental defense bought straight. He paid the points for that ability and shouldn't be penalized for it by not allowing that ability to be effective occasionally. He is 30 pts worse vs most other types of opponents, so I don't see it as a problem if he gets an occasional easy win. [/quote']

 

Similarly, I will occasionally send a character with only one attack type after a party member with variable defenses. He paid the points for that ability and shouldn't be penalized for it by not allowing that ability to be effective occasionally. He will have lower average defenses, and will thus be lower powered, vs most other types of opponents, so I don't see it as a problem if he gets an occasional easy win.

 

My that sounds familiar...

 

Wait a moment. This entire thread was about whether a multipwer of defenses was appropriate or balanced and now your arguing that a multipower of defenses and movements isn't appropriate or balanced?????????

 

You misquote me. I was comparing the Swiss Army Attack Multipower with a Swiss Army Defense Multipower. Form a baseline, I'm assuming you're OK with a character with a 60 point Multipower with 5 attacks, all Ultra slots (cost 90 points) and 30" Flight (cost 60 points). Let's assume that the game can handle this to set a benchmark.

 

Are you also OK with a character who has an 85 point multipower, with one standard slots, being 30" flight (12 points), 4 Ultra slots, being 85 AP attacks (cost 9 points each, 36 total) and one Standard Slot, an 85 AP attack (17 points) for the same 150 points? This is an Attacks Multipower which is comparable to a Defense Multipower which allows me to shift my movement points into attack points. If I don't need to fly, I get my choice of 5 85 AP attacks (the other guy has the same 5 attacks at 60 AP). If I do need to fly, I can use up to 12" flight and still use one slot at equal power to the baseline character.

 

Why are we even going back and forth if you yourself concede that some types of multipowers are overpowered???

 

Because we draw the line on which multipowers are overpowered at a different place. Why are we going back and forth over Multipowers of defensive and other abilities when the question related to a Multipower of defenses only???

 

How the heck did you get from a VPP at double cost to a multipower at double cost?

 

I'm extrapolating from your suggestion that spot defenses take double cost. Was your suggestion intended to apply to VPP's only, and not also apply to Multipowers?

 

Then adding directly to defenses is unbalanced because defenses are cheaper. After all' date=' a 10 pt multipower slot in Aid will add 1.75 pts of defense on average and 3 pts max whereas if added directly to defenses, it adds +10.[/quote']

 

And Aid has advantages that can allow it to enhance its maximum and enhance its duration, it uses attack actions, and it can enhance any number of individuals at the same time. Trying to compare the two carries a lot more complexity than "how many points can I get".

 

Spending +10 on defenses outside a Multipower will offset 10 points of damage, and adding 15 to a standard attack will add 10.5 to average damage. Placing either in a Multipower allows greater flexibility in the type of damage that will be inflicted or avoided. Your argument comes back to the relatiove cost of defenses vs attacks.

 

Now why are defenses cheaper in general? The ONLY possible reason is because a defender must purchase multiple types of defenses to cover their bases. If PD and ED were replaced by DEF' date=' then it would be too cheap at 1 for 1. But because a player has to buy both of them separately, it becomes balanced... unless he can adjust the defenses on the fly.[/quote']

 

Which is rebalanced when attackers can adjust attacks on the fly - which they can using typical Multipower constructs.

 

Ah' date=' the ridiculous power construct argument. [/quote']

 

Let me give you another ridiculous power construct. "If I allow a multipower of defenses, I will have to allow a character who can be invulnerable to anything by putting all his movement and miscellaneous powers in a VPP and swapping them out for spot defenses." Where have we heard that example?

 

Umm' date=' the game has costed away these synergistic effects when recognized. Such as with halving adjustment powers on defenses and the additional +1 nonstandard autofire adjustment, and the doubling of cost for reduced end on autofires etc. That's because leaving the rules as is is abusive.[/quote']

 

Yet, after experience with four previous editions (I won't count 5er separately, since a decision was made to impelment no major changes), there is no rule which addresses defenses in a multipower. Defense costs are basically unchanged since 1st edition. Multipowers are basically unchanged since 1st edition. Therefore, the synergies you perceive are basically unchanged since 1st edition. Yet there has been no recognition of this abuse, as evidenced by the lack of any cost changes to address it. By your own logic, the designers do not see the defensive multipower as abusive.

 

Aid has only been with us since around 2nd/3rd Edition, when it was introduced in Fantasy Hero, and this imbalance was recognized quickly enough to be corrected in 4th edition. How is it that this gross imbalance of defense in multipowers (which, as some have noted, appears in some official characters) would not have been identified and addressed by now? I submit the reason is that your view that it is universally unbalancing is not widely shared.

 

I would agree the option merits some form of caution in the rules - it can be easily abused, and your example shows that. It can be at least as easily abused as, say, having multiple NND's, and the rules do specifically caution about that (and many other things I would consider less easy to abuse). But it is not so easily abused that it should be banned or recosted, at least in my opinion.

 

Gary, what if our hypothetical 5 attack 60 AP multipower character instead took a single 60 AP attack and channeled his 30 points saved back into defenses? Would he also not be well nigh invulnerable, assuming he started with decent defenses? Why don't players do that? I suggest it is a combination of player restraint/reasonableness and GM oversight. This same combination should logically be effective in curtailing abuses related to defenses in multipowers or VPP's.

 

Overall, I think you place too little stock in player restraint and GM oversight, and too much in modifying rules mechanics wherever a perceived potential abusse is identified.