Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

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.

 

 

The knockback tricks work much better at 16+ DCs. At 10-12 DCs, the knockback damage is usually negligible, especially since it's halved a large chunk of the time if you don't hit a hard object.

 

Someone who's basically invulnerable to the other guy or who takes vastly reduced damage, should win these fights since presumably there's nothing preventing Invulnerable guy from fighting intelligently as well.

 

 

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.

 

Actually, yes I would consider an 80 pt attack to be hideously unbalancing compared to a 60 pt attack. Just like I would consider spot adjusting a defense to 35 to be hideously unbalancing vs a 25 defense.

 

 

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.

 

It's a matter of degree. A person with 30 MD can run roughshod over one relatively narrow class of opponent. A person with 35 fixed PD can run roughshod over a larger but still fairly limited set of opponents. A person with the defensive multipower can run roughshod over a large set of opponents (anyone who depends on 1 class of attacks).

 

 

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...

 

A matter of degree. Just compare the number of characters with 1 class of attack vs the number of pure mentalists.

 

 

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.

 

I would be ok if you had a 60 pt multipower with this structure.

 

I would not be ok with a 25 pt defensive multipower with this structure because increasing defenses is way more overpowering than adjusting an attack. As shown by many examples throughout this thread.

 

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???

 

 

What's happening with a multipower with both defenses and movements is that points that were suboptimal in certain situations (movements when you need defense) can be shifted optimally on the fly. You seem to recognize that this is unbalancing.

 

The balancing point for the fact that defenses are cheaper than attacks is that you have to purchase more than one of them. Somone who purchases 20/20 defenses for 40 pts has 20 pts of "dead weight" on his character sheet when attacked by 1 class of attack. However, that same person with 20 pts of flexible defenses has considerably less "dead weight" because he's drawing from the defense that happens to not be in use. He's basically shifting PD to ED or vice versa.

 

This situation is basically the same as the first situation. Points are shifting from a suboptimal setting to an optimal setting. Yet you think only the first situation is unbalanced.

 

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?

 

VPPs are kinda unique in that you can stash virtually any power in it for free once the control cost is paid. Multipowers have to have each slot paid separately.

 

What I would probably do would be to double the cost of the slots for defenses in a multipower. So it would cost 2 pts for a +10 PD ultra slot in a multipower.

 

 

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.

 

Relative cost of defenses vs attacks, and the fact that defense trumps attacks as shown previously.

 

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

 

No it's not rebalanced. You went through the whole example of the 6 pt NND slot adding 9 pts of stun damage vs a 30 Def target. That's had a lesser effect than a 1 pt defensive slot would be vs a standard attacker because the 1 pt defensive slot is adding on to an existing defense whereas the attack is built from scratch.

 

 

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?

 

A standard VPP is as ridiculous as a power with about +6 worth of advantages?

 

We have different definitions of "ridiculous"...

 

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.

 

 

Perhaps the designers simply missed it. Or perhaps they didn't think anyone would actually do it since it's abusive. I don't see a single character in CKC or Champions Universe with a defensive multipower that can be altered in this fashion. Just like I don't see any with a multipower of just movements.

 

 

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.

 

What official 5th edition character has a multipower with defenses like this?

 

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.

 

It's pretty easy to abuse.

 

 

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.

 

Happens all the time. Bricks tend to use those 30 extra points on higher defenses, more damage resistance, and hardening of defenses. Martial artists use thos extra 30 pts on combat luck, Dex, martial maneuvers, and DCV (another form of defense).

 

 

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.

 

Recognizing imbalances might someday rectify them. At one time, it was perfectly legal to stack Autofire and NND and Reduced End together with no difficulty. It sounds like you would have no problems with that combination costing +2 and depending on player restraint and GM oversight to control it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Actually' date=' yes I would consider an 80 pt attack to be hideously unbalancing compared to a 60 pt attack. Just like I would consider spot adjusting a defense to 35 to be hideously unbalancing vs a 25 defense.[/quote']

 

Whereas I'm inclined to look at the character as a whole. Perhaps an 80 point attack is not so unbalanced when comparing a character with only one attack option with one who has several 60 point attack options. Maybe having higher attacks is OK if the character is restricted in other ways (lower OCV; lower SPD; less defenses than the norm; less movement than the norm).

 

It's a matter of degree. A person with 30 MD can run roughshod over one relatively narrow class of opponent.

 

A person with a multipower suite of mental and adjustment powers does pretty good against chartacters lacking either power defense or mental defense. There's that Attacks Multipower again...

 

A person with 35 fixed PD can run roughshod over a larger but still fairly limited set of opponents. A person with the defensive multipower can run roughshod over a large set of opponents (anyone who depends on 1 class of attacks).

 

And, just like the attack multipower versus the character with only one attack option, I suggest one should look at the whole character. 35 PD may or may not be unbalancing. Does the character also have a 35 ED and a suite of exotic defenses at 15 each, or is he more vulnerable to most other attack forms? If the former is allowed, and is not unbalancing, then a character with a Multipower enabling him to have the same level of defenses in one or two categories (rather than all at once) seems much less unbalancing.

 

However, if I would only allow a 35 PD to a guy with 20 ED and minimal or no exotic defenses, then allowing another character to have a base 20/20 PD/ED and then select between +15 PD, +15 ED or 15 in any one exotic defense is unbalanced by comparison. But it's all in the comparisons.

 

A matter of degree. Just compare the number of characters with 1 class of attack vs the number of pure mentalists.

 

On what basis? Am I comparing every official 5e writeup ever published, which seems to be your approach? That approach seems most appropriate if my intent is to use the official CU setting and have more or less randomly selected opponents for the heros, since they will then encounter "1 class of attack" characters in the same proportions as they are published, at least on average. Based on your insistence, I assume I would find a defensive MP overpowered in such cases, but I haven't done the homework myself, nor do I intend to.

 

Do I compare with the characters in regular use in my own campaign? That seems more relevant - that's where the character will be used. This seems most appropriate if I've already decided who the regulars will be, and I'm not going to vary it based on the characters designed by my players. In this case, I may or may not find a defensive MP overpowered.

 

Or do I compare to the characters I will use in my own campaign if this character is a part of it? That seems the most relevant if my intent is to customize the campaign to provide challenges for the specific characters my players have created. I'd love to say my games are always fully customized in this regard but that would imply a lot more available time than I have. However, I like to think I look at the opposition, assess how they will stack up against my group, and make a few adjustments to ensure a good fight (where the scene's objective was a good fight, of course). In this last case, defensive MP's won't be overpowered, because the opposition will be able to compensate - just like they will be able to compensate for the mentalist, the guy with the adjustment powers and/or the guy who likes to lead off with his AoE Flash Attack or Entangle.

 

I would not be ok with a 25 pt defensive multipower with this structure because increasing defenses is way more overpowering than adjusting an attack. As shown by many examples throughout this thread.

 

What about the 20 point attacks multipower to MPA with your existing attacks? Assuming a 60 AP norm, would you allow a character with a 60 point base attack to add a 20 point secondary attack? Would you allow a character to have a 40 point base attack and add a 20 point secondary attack? Could he also have augmented movement powers in that Multipower to use when he wasn't attacking?

 

You consider defenses to somehow be overpowering, but don't seem to consider that other abilities can also enjoy synergies in a Multipower.

 

What's happening with a multipower with both defenses and movements is that points that were suboptimal in certain situations (movements when you need defense) can be shifted optimally on the fly. You seem to recognize that this is unbalancing.

 

I recognize that the ability to shift points is a significant advantage. Whether it is overpowering depends on the context and the game. Even that character who would inflict 12 points with an EB or 21 with an NND ("only 9 Stun") will KO a 40 STUN opponent in 2 shots rather than 4. Change defenses from 20 to 25, and he now does 14 Stun more and moves from 6 hits to 2 in order to KO. It's a moving target, and differs for every opponent. Being able to select the best attack for any given opponent is a powerful ability. So is being able to select the best defense for any given opponent.

 

In either case, I run the risk of choosing wrong (I picked PD and my opponent uses a STUN drain, or his flame projector teammate smacks me from behind; I picked my NND and my target has the defense). In either case, I get a significant advantage if I either guess right or am in a situation to know the best choice.

 

It's a question of how much I'm prepared to allow the balance to be shifted.

 

The balancing point for the fact that defenses are cheaper than attacks is that you have to purchase more than one of them. Somone who purchases 20/20 defenses for 40 pts has 20 pts of "dead weight" on his character sheet when attacked by 1 class of attack. However' date=' that same person with 20 pts of flexible defenses has considerably less "dead weight" because he's drawing from the defense that happens to not be in use. He's basically shifting PD to ED or vice versa.[/quote']

 

The fixed defense character has a significant advantage when multiple attackers are present. He has 20/20. For balance purposes, I suggest it would be inappropriate for the defensive MP to allow the character to have the same average defenses as a character with an equal focus on defense, and fixed defenses. This is the same logic that suggests that the character with only one attack option might be permitted a higher DC than one with multiple choices. Flexibility is also an advantage.

 

This situation is basically the same as the first situation. Points are shifting from a suboptimal setting to an optimal setting. Yet you think only the first situation is unbalanced.

 

The character with an EB and an NND, when faced with a 35 ED opponent, also has the ability to shift points from a suboptimal setting (12d6 EB averaging 7 Stun per hit) to an optimal setting (6d6 NND averaging 21 STUN oer hit). You don't seem to feel this is unbalanced. Note that there is a significant difference to the term "advantageous", which any ability to shift points clearly is, and "unbalanced", which depends greatly on the campaign itself.

 

Is having a 24d6 attack in a 12DC game "unbalanced"? Of course it is, right? But how powerful will the character be if he paid for those extra dice by dropping his OCV and DCV to 3 in a game where the norm is 8 - 11, and dropped his defenses to 10/10? Would I prohibit the character? Almost certainly - but not because he will be overpowered!

 

I believe you need to look at the "total character". An example frequently showing up on the Boards is Trebuchet's character, Z'lf, with a 43 DEX and 9 SPD. Given just those two stats, I'm inclined to choke. Seeing the overall writeup, I see a character that has huge advantages in some areas, balanced by drawbacks in others, that may fit OK in my game. Clearly, she fits just fine in HIS game, not only from the comments of his player but from others in his game.

 

VPPs are kinda unique in that you can stash virtually any power in it for free once the control cost is paid. Multipowers have to have each slot paid separately.

 

This is simply another layer of flexibility.

 

What I would probably do would be to double the cost of the slots for defenses in a multipower. So it would cost 2 pts for a +10 PD ultra slot in a multipower.

 

So a character who pays 19 points for a MP that can add +15 PD or +15 ED is unbalanced, but a character who pays 18 points for a character who can add +14 PD or +14 ED isnt?

 

If I agreed with you that the "flexible defense" issue needs to be solved, I would have to suggest the answer is halving the defenses obtained, not soubling the cost of the slots, in both a VPP and a MP.

 

Relative cost of defenses vs attacks' date=' and the fact that defense trumps attacks as shown previously. [/quote']

 

Both of which are just as relevant whether the defenses are in an MP or outside of one.

 

No it's not rebalanced. You went through the whole example of the 6 pt NND slot adding 9 pts of stun damage vs a 30 Def target. That's had a lesser effect than a 1 pt defensive slot would be vs a standard attacker because the 1 pt defensive slot is adding on to an existing defense whereas the attack is built from scratch.

 

What if the character in question bought his STR with no figured characteristics, sold back the ED generated from his COn and then bought a MP with flexible PD and ED slots, and either fixed or flexible exotic defense slots, or a VPP for defenses only? At that point, his defenses are also built from scratch, just like those attacks. he can't shift points from non-defense powers to boost his defenses. I submit that, if the problem exists, it is not solved by the "build it from scratch" approach.

 

A standard VPP is as ridiculous as a power with about +6 worth of advantages?

 

A standard VPP does not allow switching of defenses at will. It requires a full phase to shift those defenses, and then only when a skill roll is made. To remove both the fill phase requirement and the skill roll requirement requires a +2 advantage on the control cost, making it a Cosmic VPP. I believe these are already flagged as potential gamebreakers.

 

Perhaps the designers simply missed it. Or perhaps they didn't think anyone would actually do it since it's abusive. I don't see a single character in CKC or Champions Universe with a defensive multipower that can be altered in this fashion. Just like I don't see any with a multipower of just movements.

 

I thought someone had posted a few examples of characters with defensive MP's above. I'm not going to dredge the books looking for examples - someone more familiar with the official writeups (if there are any who have read this far - we appear to have taken over another thread, Gary) can post any relevant examples. I would suggest that, if spot defenses were truly as potent as you consider them, we'd have heard the occasional concern raised before now.

 

It's pretty easy to abuse.

 

So is "usable as an attack", a cosmic VPP and dozens of other constructs.

 

Happens all the time. Bricks tend to use those 30 extra points on higher defenses' date=' more damage resistance, and hardening of defenses. Martial artists use thos extra 30 pts on combat luck, Dex, martial maneuvers, and DCV (another form of defense).[/quote']

 

So it's OK to have more defenses in some cases, but not in other cases. Are those Bricks and MA's vastly overpowered compared to EP's with a suite of attack powers, Gary? They have spent 30 points more on defenses than attacks, and defenses are cheaper than attacks, after all.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Whereas I'm inclined to look at the character as a whole. Perhaps an 80 point attack is not so unbalanced when comparing a character with only one attack option with one who has several 60 point attack options. Maybe having higher attacks is OK if the character is restricted in other ways (lower OCV; lower SPD; less defenses than the norm; less movement than the norm).

 

If the character was exactly the same except that he has 80 pt attacks vs 60 pt attacks, then it is grossly unbalancing. That's the situation we have since you basically took the same character and traded a 60 pt multipower with 5 slots for 60 Str and a 20 pt multipower with slots that can add to the attack.

 

 

A person with a multipower suite of mental and adjustment powers does pretty good against chartacters lacking either power defense or mental defense. There's that Attacks Multipower again...

 

He also needs to have a high Ego and Dex to be able to attack both. But there aren't really a lot of characters with both sets of attacks, and he can be fought back effectively by his target unless he's being a sniper mentalist who everyone agrees would be unbalancing anyway.

 

That's a major difference. Attacking a weak point is fine, but the target can still fight back and can still potentially win. Being nigh invulnerable means that the fight is pretty much a foregone conclusion.

 

 

And, just like the attack multipower versus the character with only one attack option, I suggest one should look at the whole character. 35 PD may or may not be unbalancing. Does the character also have a 35 ED and a suite of exotic defenses at 15 each, or is he more vulnerable to most other attack forms? If the former is allowed, and is not unbalancing, then a character with a Multipower enabling him to have the same level of defenses in one or two categories (rather than all at once) seems much less unbalancing.

 

However, if I would only allow a 35 PD to a guy with 20 ED and minimal or no exotic defenses, then allowing another character to have a base 20/20 PD/ED and then select between +15 PD, +15 ED or 15 in any one exotic defense is unbalanced by comparison. But it's all in the comparisons.

 

That's a major problem Someone with a 35/20 fixed defense is far more vulnerable than someone with 20/20 and +15 flexible defense.

 

On what basis? Am I comparing every official 5e writeup ever published, which seems to be your approach? That approach seems most appropriate if my intent is to use the official CU setting and have more or less randomly selected opponents for the heros, since they will then encounter "1 class of attack" characters in the same proportions as they are published, at least on average. Based on your insistence, I assume I would find a defensive MP overpowered in such cases, but I haven't done the homework myself, nor do I intend to.

 

Do I compare with the characters in regular use in my own campaign? That seems more relevant - that's where the character will be used. This seems most appropriate if I've already decided who the regulars will be, and I'm not going to vary it based on the characters designed by my players. In this case, I may or may not find a defensive MP overpowered.

 

Or do I compare to the characters I will use in my own campaign if this character is a part of it? That seems the most relevant if my intent is to customize the campaign to provide challenges for the specific characters my players have created. I'd love to say my games are always fully customized in this regard but that would imply a lot more available time than I have. However, I like to think I look at the opposition, assess how they will stack up against my group, and make a few adjustments to ensure a good fight (where the scene's objective was a good fight, of course). In this last case, defensive MP's won't be overpowered, because the opposition will be able to compensate - just like they will be able to compensate for the mentalist, the guy with the adjustment powers and/or the guy who likes to lead off with his AoE Flash Attack or Entangle.

 

Since I don't know your campaign and you don't know mine, the CU seems to be a reasonably representative campaign setting that we can use as a common basis for discussion.

 

What about the 20 point attacks multipower to MPA with your existing attacks? Assuming a 60 AP norm, would you allow a character with a 60 point base attack to add a 20 point secondary attack? Would you allow a character to have a 40 point base attack and add a 20 point secondary attack? Could he also have augmented movement powers in that Multipower to use when he wasn't attacking?

 

You consider defenses to somehow be overpowering, but don't seem to consider that other abilities can also enjoy synergies in a Multipower.

 

40 + 20 for attacks would be ok. 60 + 20 would be too powerful. And defenses are overpowering as shown by previous examples.

 

I recognize that the ability to shift points is a significant advantage. Whether it is overpowering depends on the context and the game. Even that character who would inflict 12 points with an EB or 21 with an NND ("only 9 Stun") will KO a 40 STUN opponent in 2 shots rather than 4. Change defenses from 20 to 25, and he now does 14 Stun more and moves from 6 hits to 2 in order to KO. It's a moving target, and differs for every opponent. Being able to select the best attack for any given opponent is a powerful ability. So is being able to select the best defense for any given opponent.

 

In either case, I run the risk of choosing wrong (I picked PD and my opponent uses a STUN drain, or his flame projector teammate smacks me from behind; I picked my NND and my target has the defense). In either case, I get a significant advantage if I either guess right or am in a situation to know the best choice.

 

It's a question of how much I'm prepared to allow the balance to be shifted.

 

Let's take the ridiculous power construct to highlight this issue. Suppose Turtle Man purchases a multipower with 2 slots. +10 Pre and +5/5 defense for 12 pts. He defaults to +10 Pre and is pretty impressive, but in battle he just hides in his shell and looks rather pedestrian. I think everyone would agree that this is an abusive construct even though he can be zapped by a high level presence attack if he's not expecting it.

 

Example 2 would be Mind Man. He buys a multipower with 2 slots, +10 Ego and +10/10 Def. He's normally very strong willed and uses the +10 Ego as his default, but when trying to protect himself, he becomes distracted. Yes, he can be blindsided in battle if he faces a mentalist that he's not expecting, but I think you would agree that this construct is abusive.

 

These 2 examples are admittedly ridiculous, but they are legal and they do highlight what happens when you can shift points from dead weight to something useful even if there happens to be a drawback associated with it.

 

The fixed defense character has a significant advantage when multiple attackers are present. He has 20/20. For balance purposes, I suggest it would be inappropriate for the defensive MP to allow the character to have the same average defenses as a character with an equal focus on defense, and fixed defenses. This is the same logic that suggests that the character with only one attack option might be permitted a higher DC than one with multiple choices. Flexibility is also an advantage.

 

Depends on where you set those defense levels.

 

The character with an EB and an NND, when faced with a 35 ED opponent, also has the ability to shift points from a suboptimal setting (12d6 EB averaging 7 Stun per hit) to an optimal setting (6d6 NND averaging 21 STUN oer hit). You don't seem to feel this is unbalanced. Note that there is a significant difference to the term "advantageous", which any ability to shift points clearly is, and "unbalanced", which depends greatly on the campaign itself.

 

It costs 6 pts and the defender can still fight back effectively. A 1-2 pt defensive slot can make it so that the defender can't fight back effectively.

 

Is having a 24d6 attack in a 12DC game "unbalanced"? Of course it is, right? But how powerful will the character be if he paid for those extra dice by dropping his OCV and DCV to 3 in a game where the norm is 8 - 11, and dropped his defenses to 10/10? Would I prohibit the character? Almost certainly - but not because he will be overpowered!

 

I believe you need to look at the "total character". An example frequently showing up on the Boards is Trebuchet's character, Z'lf, with a 43 DEX and 9 SPD. Given just those two stats, I'm inclined to choke. Seeing the overall writeup, I see a character that has huge advantages in some areas, balanced by drawbacks in others, that may fit OK in my game. Clearly, she fits just fine in HIS game, not only from the comments of his player but from others in his game.

 

She also doesn't have a defensive multipower because it would be unbalancing.

 

This is simply another layer of flexibility.

 

So a character who pays 19 points for a MP that can add +15 PD or +15 ED is unbalanced, but a character who pays 18 points for a character who can add +14 PD or +14 ED isnt?

 

If I agreed with you that the "flexible defense" issue needs to be solved, I would have to suggest the answer is halving the defenses obtained, not soubling the cost of the slots, in both a VPP and a MP.

 

Another solution would be to require balanced defenses in a vpp or multipower. So someone can't have a 20 PD slot, a 20 ED slot, and a 10/10 slot. He must have just the 10/10 slot. That seems to be the solution that published characters use.

 

 

Both of which are just as relevant whether the defenses are in an MP or outside of one.

 

No it isn't. Someone with fixed defenses must pay 2 pts for +1PD/+1ED. It takes him 7 pts to cancel 5 pts of attack since he has to cover both. The flex dude needs only a little more than half of that amount.

 

What if the character in question bought his STR with no figured characteristics, sold back the ED generated from his COn and then bought a MP with flexible PD and ED slots, and either fixed or flexible exotic defense slots, or a VPP for defenses only? At that point, his defenses are also built from scratch, just like those attacks. he can't shift points from non-defense powers to boost his defenses. I submit that, if the problem exists, it is not solved by the "build it from scratch" approach.

 

If he has 0 base PD and ED, he's probably not unbalanced and he's not terribly efficient.

 

A standard VPP does not allow switching of defenses at will. It requires a full phase to shift those defenses, and then only when a skill roll is made. To remove both the fill phase requirement and the skill roll requirement requires a +2 advantage on the control cost, making it a Cosmic VPP. I believe these are already flagged as potential gamebreakers.

 

+1 advantage. It's cheap to have the skill roll for a relatively low level vpp.

 

I thought someone had posted a few examples of characters with defensive MP's above. I'm not going to dredge the books looking for examples - someone more familiar with the official writeups (if there are any who have read this far - we appear to have taken over another thread, Gary) can post any relevant examples. I would suggest that, if spot defenses were truly as potent as you consider them, we'd have heard the occasional concern raised before now.

 

Considering there are no published characters who have this structure (and I looked through over 100), it's probably just that it didn't even occur to the designers that anyone would do this. The closest example I found was a mage with a 10PD/10ED/6 Power slot and a 10PD/10ED/6 Mental slot in a multipower with many powers.

 

So is "usable as an attack", a cosmic VPP and dozens of other constructs.

 

Most of these aren't practical in actual play either.

 

So it's OK to have more defenses in some cases, but not in other cases. Are those Bricks and MA's vastly overpowered compared to EP's with a suite of attack powers, Gary? They have spent 30 points more on defenses than attacks, and defenses are cheaper than attacks, after all.

 

Defenses aren't cheaper than attacks when you consider that you have to purchase multiple varieties and most of them are dead weight at any given moment.

 

Since you seem categorically opposed to changing any costs, would you be ok to pay +2 for an autofire NND 0 end attack since the original version of champions allowed it?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

If the character was exactly the same except that he has 80 pt attacks vs 60 pt attacks' date=' then it is grossly unbalancing. That's the situation we have since you basically took the same character and traded a 60 pt multipower with 5 slots for 60 Str and a 20 pt multipower with slots that can add to the attack.[/quote']

 

So you concur, then, that an attacks MP may be unbalancing, or it may not be, depending on the manner in which it is utilized, but you believe a defensive Multipower is always unbalancing. I lean to the view that neither is inherently unbalancing, and both have the potential to be unbalancing.

 

He also needs to have a high Ego and Dex to be able to attack both.

 

Change "mental powers" to "flash-based powers", then. A light-based character with a vertigo beam (Ranged DEX drain), a Flash, and an Energy Blast hardly seems unreasonable. There's three different defense types already.

 

That's a major difference. Attacking a weak point is fine' date=' but the target can still fight back and can still potentially win. Being nigh invulnerable means that the fight is pretty much a foregone conclusion.[/quote']

 

So does that mean you are no longer OK with "nigh invulnerable" so long as it's restricted to a fixed defense type, or is it OK to be "nigh invulnerable" to a single attack form. Remember, I', not saying that "take base campaign defenses, then an MP to add to them" is not unbalanced, any more than the "60 AP attack + 20 more from Multipowers" is not unbalanced.

 

That's a major problem Someone with a 35/20 fixed defense is far more vulnerable than someone with 20/20 and +15 flexible defense.

 

He's also far less vulnerable than someone with 35/35 fixed defenses. If I established, in my game, that 35/20 fixed was a maximum, that would mean I would not allow the character with 35/35, or the character with 20/20 + 15 flexible. Both are more powerful than the character with 35/20, which I had previousy established as a max. But perhaps 25/25, or even 30/30, might be acceptable, and it's possible that 20/20 with 10 flexible might be acceptable if 30/30, or 28/27 (55 total fixed defense) is acceptable.

 

Since I don't know your campaign and you don't know mine' date=' the CU seems to be a reasonably representative campaign setting that we can use as a common basis for discussion. [/quote']

 

I've seen very few posters who claim to use CU, unmodified, for their games, so I have to wonder how representative it really is.

 

40 + 20 for attacks would be ok. 60 + 20 would be too powerful. And defenses are overpowering as shown by previous examples.

 

If 60 with no additions for a single attack is the maximum (and I'm unclear you consider it to be in the above example), why is a variety of 60 AP attacks allowed? Doesn't the flexible attacker have an advantage over the "one attack type" character, such that the latter should be allowed more "oomph" for his single attack power than the former should be allowed with his flexible choices?

 

Let's take the ridiculous power construct to highlight this issue. Suppose Turtle Man purchases a multipower with 2 slots. +10 Pre and +5/5 defense for 12 pts. He defaults to +10 Pre and is pretty impressive, but in battle he just hides in his shell and looks rather pedestrian. I think everyone would agree that this is an abusive construct even though he can be zapped by a high level presence attack if he's not expecting it.

 

Example 2 would be Mind Man. He buys a multipower with 2 slots, +10 Ego and +10/10 Def. He's normally very strong willed and uses the +10 Ego as his default, but when trying to protect himself, he becomes distracted. Yes, he can be blindsided in battle if he faces a mentalist that he's not expecting, but I think you would agree that this construct is abusive.

 

Would that be any more acceptable if Turtle Man has +10 PRE and 2d6 STUN Drain(to MPA with his Turtle Power Punch) in his Multipower? Would it be OK for Mind Man to have +20" Running instead of that extra DEF, because he gets distracted when he's rushing around in a hurry? Maybe an Ego Attack he can MPA with his mental attacks and get a bit of STUN in when MPA'd with his Mental Attacks Multipower (a bit more stun if MPA'd with his Mental Powers MP Ego Attack)?

 

These 2 examples are admittedly ridiculous' date=' but they are legal and they do highlight what happens when you can shift points from dead weight to something useful even if there happens to be a drawback associated with it.[/quote']

 

And they highlight the fact that this is hardly restricted to defenses, and that GM oversight is needed to monitor such abuses. Realistically, the Swiss Army Attacks Multipower is a classic example of multiple powers with no drawbacks if you don't allow MPA's. Even if you do, would you allow a -9 limitation for "Cannot MPA with other attacks" provided the first one had no such limitation?

 

Depends on where you set those defense levels.

 

Does this mean you are coming around to the possibility that a defensive MP, despite having potential for abuse, could possibly exist without being abusive?

 

She also doesn't have a defensive multipower because it would be unbalancing.

 

Or maybe because she hasn't got much in the way of defenses The point, however, is that I suspect most of us would blanche at a 43 DEX, 9 SPD, as I did before seeing the character as a whole, but it is possible that such a construct can exist and not be unbalancing.

 

Another solution would be to require balanced defenses in a vpp or multipower. So someone can't have a 20 PD slot' date=' a 20 ED slot, and a 10/10 slot. He must have just the 10/10 slot. That seems to be the solution that published characters use.[/quote']

 

Those published characters with VPP's can always select other powers for their VPP. Besides, didn't you dismiss my theory that a VPP could simply be restricted to not exceed reasonable campaign limits? How is this any less arbitrary/more appropriate?

 

No it isn't. Someone with fixed defenses must pay 2 pts for +1PD/+1ED. It takes him 7 pts to cancel 5 pts of attack since he has to cover both. The flex dude needs only a little more than half of that amount.

 

Flex Dude can't cancel both attacks at the same time, so he is more restricted than the guy who spent 7 points. And someone with five 60 AP attacks outside a Multipower must pay what, 48 points for each after putting Lockout (-1/4) on each of them? That's 240 points compared to 90 for the multipower. What can Lockout Lass do with those attacks that Multipower Maid can't?

 

If he has 0 base PD and ED' date=' he's probably not unbalanced and he's not terribly efficient.[/quote']

 

hmmm...so 15 PD/15 ED and an MP with +20 PD or +20 ED (cost: 24 for MP + notionally 30 for PD and ED = 54) is overly efficient, 35/15 (notional cost 60) is not overly efficient, and 0 PD/0 ED and, say, a MP with +40 PD/+40 ED as flex slots (cost 56 points) is not overly efficient.

 

Seems to me that the flexibility (ie the Multipower) is where your real grievance lies.

 

+1 advantage. It's cheap to have the skill roll for a relatively low level vpp.

 

20 points, so -2. Assume a base roll of 13 from an 18 stat and I need a 15- skill costing 7 points. That's only 3 points less than the +1 advantage. Taking the +1 advantage with "act 15-" would have cost 8, so it's only one point saved.

 

Most of these aren't practical in actual play either.

 

EDM: Hell - Usable as an Attack, ranged.

Teleport 10" (only straight down), Usable as an attack, ranged

Tunnelling (3" through DEF 12), tunnel fills in, Usable as an attack, Ranged

 

seems pretty practical

 

40 points for a 20 point Cosmic pool, only for attacks to MPA with main attack (-1/2)

 

Seems pretty practical

 

Defenses aren't cheaper than attacks when you consider that you have to purchase multiple varieties and most of them are dead weight at any given moment.

 

They're only dead weight if no one is going to attack against them. How common that is depends a lot on the game. Especially if word gets round that Flex Dude can only be invulnerable to one thing at a time - which, eventually, it likely will.

 

Since you seem categorically opposed to changing any costs' date=' would you be ok to pay +2 for an autofire NND 0 end attack since the original version of champions allowed it?[/quote']

 

Actually, the original Champions didn't allow it. Originally, you had to keep buying 1/2 END for +1/4 until you got down to nil. And END was 1 per 5 AP. So a 4d6 EB NND (+1) autofire (+1/2 - there were no gradations) had a AP of 50, or 10 END. +1/4 makes it 5, +1/4 makes it 2, +1/4 makes it 1 and +1/4 makes it 0 END. That's a further +1 advantage, so 70 AP. I could get 3d6 for 52 AP (still need +1 of reduced END).

 

A +2 advantage for Autofire NND was never legal, since the doubling rule came in with 4th ED, the same time 0 END started costing +1/2. That means I never had to consider the issue.

 

For the same 52 AP, I could have had a 5d6 NND that costs END, so I'd say it's always going to be unbalanced and is not appropriate, since autofire in those days also boosted your OCV by 4, so anything that would hit with 5d6 would inflict 3 hits with the Autofire burst, doing 9d6.

 

As this is mathematically always vastly superior, changing the price is appropriate.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

So you concur' date=' then, that an attacks MP may be unbalancing, or it may not be, depending on the manner in which it is utilized, but you believe a defensive Multipower is always unbalancing. I lean to the view that neither is inherently unbalancing, and both have the potential to be unbalancing.[/quote']

 

The 80 pt attack is unbalanced relative to the 60 pt attack. But the defensive multipower is unbalanced compared to ANY fixed defensive configuration.

 

 

Change "mental powers" to "flash-based powers", then. A light-based character with a vertigo beam (Ranged DEX drain), a Flash, and an Energy Blast hardly seems unreasonable. There's three different defense types already.

 

The defender can still fight back effectively since usually none of these are one shot knockouts.

 

 

So does that mean you are no longer OK with "nigh invulnerable" so long as it's restricted to a fixed defense type, or is it OK to be "nigh invulnerable" to a single attack form. Remember, I', not saying that "take base campaign defenses, then an MP to add to them" is not unbalanced, any more than the "60 AP attack + 20 more from Multipowers" is not unbalanced.

 

Having a fixed "nigh invulnerable" is vastly different than being able to switch around your "nigh invulnerable" at will.

 

He's also far less vulnerable than someone with 35/35 fixed defenses. If I established, in my game, that 35/20 fixed was a maximum, that would mean I would not allow the character with 35/35, or the character with 20/20 + 15 flexible. Both are more powerful than the character with 35/20, which I had previousy established as a max. But perhaps 25/25, or even 30/30, might be acceptable, and it's possible that 20/20 with 10 flexible might be acceptable if 30/30, or 28/27 (55 total fixed defense) is acceptable.

 

It looks like you've decided that flex defensive guy should have overall lower defenses than fixed guy as a requirement. Does that mean that you believe that an attacker with a multipower with many slots should have a lower attack level than someone with a straight attack or with few slots?

 

 

I've seen very few posters who claim to use CU, unmodified, for their games, so I have to wonder how representative it really is.

 

It's the only basis we have, and it is the official setting after all.

 

 

If 60 with no additions for a single attack is the maximum (and I'm unclear you consider it to be in the above example), why is a variety of 60 AP attacks allowed? Doesn't the flexible attacker have an advantage over the "one attack type" character, such that the latter should be allowed more "oomph" for his single attack power than the former should be allowed with his flexible choices?

 

How much more power? 80 pts is a lot greater than 60 pts no matter how you slice it.

 

Would that be any more acceptable if Turtle Man has +10 PRE and 2d6 STUN Drain(to MPA with his Turtle Power Punch) in his Multipower? Would it be OK for Mind Man to have +20" Running instead of that extra DEF, because he gets distracted when he's rushing around in a hurry? Maybe an Ego Attack he can MPA with his mental attacks and get a bit of STUN in when MPA'd with his Mental Attacks Multipower (a bit more stun if MPA'd with his Mental Powers MP Ego Attack)?

 

Frankly, a 1d6 stun drain IS more acceptable than +5/5 defense. Both are completely unacceptable, but the extra defenses are worse due to the nature of defenses.

 

And they highlight the fact that this is hardly restricted to defenses, and that GM oversight is needed to monitor such abuses. Realistically, the Swiss Army Attacks Multipower is a classic example of multiple powers with no drawbacks if you don't allow MPA's. Even if you do, would you allow a -9 limitation for "Cannot MPA with other attacks" provided the first one had no such limitation?

 

And yet you're completely ok with allowing PD to switch to ED and vice versa through a defensive multipower when not in use...

 

Does this mean you are coming around to the possibility that a defensive MP, despite having potential for abuse, could possibly exist without being abusive?

 

Not in the form that we've been discussing.

 

 

Or maybe because she hasn't got much in the way of defenses The point, however, is that I suspect most of us would blanche at a 43 DEX, 9 SPD, as I did before seeing the character as a whole, but it is possible that such a construct can exist and not be unbalancing.

 

It's also possible that it's not.

 

Those published characters with VPP's can always select other powers for their VPP. Besides, didn't you dismiss my theory that a VPP could simply be restricted to not exceed reasonable campaign limits? How is this any less arbitrary/more appropriate?

 

 

Requiring balanced slots is no less arbitrary, but has the advantage that it meshes with virtually all published characters, and there's basically no judgement calls necessary.

 

 

Flex Dude can't cancel both attacks at the same time, so he is more restricted than the guy who spent 7 points. And someone with five 60 AP attacks outside a Multipower must pay what, 48 points for each after putting Lockout (-1/4) on each of them? That's 240 points compared to 90 for the multipower. What can Lockout Lass do with those attacks that Multipower Maid can't?

 

Flex dude is not twice as restricted as fixed dude, but he's paying only slightly more than half the cost.

 

I'm not sure why you're bringing in an example of someone purchasing 5 60 pt attack powers straight. I'm aware of no characters, published or otherwise who have done so. Are you questioning multipowers in general?

 

hmmm...so 15 PD/15 ED and an MP with +20 PD or +20 ED (cost: 24 for MP + notionally 30 for PD and ED = 54) is overly efficient, 35/15 (notional cost 60) is not overly efficient, and 0 PD/0 ED and, say, a MP with +40 PD/+40 ED as flex slots (cost 56 points) is not overly efficient.

 

Seems to me that the flexibility (ie the Multipower) is where your real grievance lies.

 

Taking no figured characteristics is inefficient. Plus, having a base defense of 0 is inefficient because now you start taking BODY if hit at your weak point. Purchasing a 15 pt multipower with 3 slots, +15 PD, +15 ED, and +8/+7 IS overly efficient.

 

20 points, so -2. Assume a base roll of 13 from an 18 stat and I need a 15- skill costing 7 points. That's only 3 points less than the +1 advantage. Taking the +1 advantage with "act 15-" would have cost 8, so it's only one point saved.

 

Most people with a VPP have a higher than 18 stat. Usually, they have 23-33 in the relevant stat, at least in the Superheroic genre.

 

EDM: Hell - Usable as an Attack, ranged.

Teleport 10" (only straight down), Usable as an attack, ranged

Tunnelling (3" through DEF 12), tunnel fills in, Usable as an attack, Ranged

 

seems pretty practical

 

 

Not practical in the sense that the GM would never allow it. Yeah if it were strictly legality at work, then someone could buy +1" leap usable as attack megascale to whatever degree necessary and blast his foe into the sun. But if you can't get it by the GM, it's not practical.

 

 

40 points for a 20 point Cosmic pool, only for attacks to MPA with main attack (-1/2)

 

Seems pretty practical

 

Most GMs I know won't allow cosmic pools because they can wreck most campaigns in the hands of a clever player.

 

They're only dead weight if no one is going to attack against them. How common that is depends a lot on the game. Especially if word gets round that Flex Dude can only be invulnerable to one thing at a time - which, eventually, it likely will.

 

You either have to have multiple attackers with a variety of different attacks concentrating on flex dude and ignoring his buddies, or have to have 1 single attacker who has the capabilities of multiple forms of attacks guessing right on which attack to select. Also, you could claim that people would notice that Turtle Man becomes rather timid when in his shell or Mental Man becomes scatterbrained in combat. That doesn't lessen the abusiveness of these structures.

 

Actually, the original Champions didn't allow it. Originally, you had to keep buying 1/2 END for +1/4 until you got down to nil. And END was 1 per 5 AP. So a 4d6 EB NND (+1) autofire (+1/2 - there were no gradations) had a AP of 50, or 10 END. +1/4 makes it 5, +1/4 makes it 2, +1/4 makes it 1 and +1/4 makes it 0 END. That's a further +1 advantage, so 70 AP. I could get 3d6 for 52 AP (still need +1 of reduced END).

 

A +2 advantage for Autofire NND was never legal, since the doubling rule came in with 4th ED, the same time 0 END started costing +1/2. That means I never had to consider the issue.

 

For the same 52 AP, I could have had a 5d6 NND that costs END, so I'd say it's always going to be unbalanced and is not appropriate, since autofire in those days also boosted your OCV by 4, so anything that would hit with 5d6 would inflict 3 hits with the Autofire burst, doing 9d6.

 

As this is mathematically always vastly superior, changing the price is appropriate.

 

It is not ALWAYS mathematically superior since someone with a 18 Con could be stunned by a single 5d6 attack, but never by 3 separate 3d6 attacks.

 

The fact remains that sometimes cost changes or rule changes are necessary. The fact that not a single published 5th edition character has a defensive multipower like the one we've been discussing speaks volumes.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

The 80 pt attack is unbalanced relative to the 60 pt attack. But the defensive multipower is unbalanced compared to ANY fixed defensive configuration.

 

Your universal statement includes asserting that a character with 10 PD and 10ED, and a Multipower which can add 10 PD, 10 ED or 5 PD and 5 ED is unbalanced when compared to a character with 25 PD and 25 ED. I disagree. There is a balance which can be struck. You simply don't wish to believe that.

 

The defender can still fight back effectively since usually none of these are one shot knockouts.

 

Let's see...the hypothetical Multipower held a 12d6 Energy Blast, a 12d6 Flash and a 4d6 Ranged DEX drain. Assuming you have no flash defense, the opponent need only use every third or fourth attack to re-Flash you and you are blind throughout the compat. I'd say that makes fighting back effectively unlikely.

 

Assuming you have no Power Defense, that DEX drain erodes your OCV and DCV and, eventually, renders you unable to move (as good as KO'd in my view). That one will at least allow you to fight back, albeit with less and less effectiveness, since it only drains 4 or 5 DEX per hit.

 

Having a fixed "nigh invulnerable" is vastly different than being able to switch around your "nigh invulnerable" at will.

 

Hence my statement that there is a balance to be sought. The character with a fixed invulnerability is less versatile than the one with variable invulnerability. Thus, the one with variable invulnerability should either be "less invulnerable" to that one effect, or more vulnerable to other effects, in order to balance the scales.

 

It looks like you've decided that flex defensive guy should have overall lower defenses than fixed guy as a requirement. Does that mean that you believe that an attacker with a multipower with many slots should have a lower attack level than someone with a straight attack or with few slots?

 

How much more power? 80 pts is a lot greater than 60 pts no matter how you slice it.

 

Realistically, yes. 20 points is probably (not definitely) too much. Flexibility is also advantageous, and there should be a tradeoff for that flexibility. You've touched upon it prebiously - the stereotypical Brick loses flexibility in attacks (STR is it), but is more powerful in defenses. If the Brick is prepared to match the Energy Projector in defense and movement, and fall short of the EP in flexibility, it seems reasonable that he could access more raw damage as a tradeoff. Perhaps a 70 SR compared to a suite of variable 60 AP attacks is a reasonable tradeoff in this regard.

 

Frankly' date=' a 1d6 stun drain IS more acceptable than +5/5 defense. Both are completely unacceptable, but the extra defenses are worse due to the nature of defenses.[/quote']

 

Defenses are cheaper. Is +2d6 EB more acceptable than +5/+5 defenses? Is it more acceptable than +3/+3 Resistant Defenses? Where do we draw the line? I don't know. But I'm not prepared to say that the line should be drawn at "defense is never acceptable".

 

And yet you're completely ok with allowing PD to switch to ED and vice versa through a defensive multipower when not in use...

 

I decide when my attack will be useful. My opponents decide (sometimes by surprise) when my defenses will be useful. I do, however, wish you would stop treating this as a binary choice, using terms like "completely OK". You keep trying to make this a choice between "You can do anything you want with defenses in a multipower; run wild and rape the system" or "You can never have flexible defenses. Never. Even the ability to shift 1 point of defenses will cause the game world to spin off its axis and crash into the sun, resulting in the universe collapsing into a point singularity".

 

My point is not that it is impossible, or even difficult, to abuse the system using flexible defenses. It is that it IS possible to use flexible defenses in a maner which is not unbalancing or abusive.

 

It's also possible that it's not.

 

Sorry, Trebuchet, you and your fellow gamers have been wrong for all these years - Z'lf really is unbalanced. Please stop deulding yourselves into believing that you are experiencing an enjoyable campaign and adopt Gary's restrictions immediately.

 

Requiring balanced slots is no less arbitrary' date=' but has the advantage that it meshes with virtually all published characters, and there's basically no judgement calls necessary.[/quote']

 

Are you seriously suggesting that:

 

- in your game, no one ever is permitted an ability that cannot be found in a wide array of published characters, OR

 

- that possession of an ability by some number of published characters indicates it is balanced?

 

Flex dude is not twice as restricted as fixed dude' date=' but he's paying only slightly more than half the cost.[/quote']

 

This applies whether Flex Dude has a multipower of defenses or a multipower of attacks. Multipowers save a lot of points, whatever they are used to purchase.

 

I'm not sure why you're bringing in an example of someone purchasing 5 60 pt attack powers straight. I'm aware of no characters' date=' published or otherwise who have done so. Are you questioning multipowers in general?[/quote']

 

I am suggesting the extra flexibility a

 

Defensive

 

Multipower

 

generates is caused as much or more by the "Multipower" as the "Defensive", and questioning why only the former alarms you.

 

Taking no figured characteristics is inefficient.

 

Yes it is. But I needed that kludge since I can't sell back 2 figuired stats.

 

Plus' date=' having a base defense of 0 is inefficient because now you start taking BODY if hit at your weak point.[/quote']

 

Many characters reliant on force fields have a base rDEF of 0, and take a lot of BOD if hit by a KA while their force fields are down.

 

Purchasing a 15 pt multipower with 3 slots' date=' +15 PD, +15 ED, and +8/+7 IS overly efficient.[/quote']

 

So at one extreme, it's inefficient and at another it's overly efficient. There's a shocker. Doesn't that imply that there is some middle ground where it is reasonably efficient, rather than overly efficient? Frankly, I don't see that single construct as being unbalanced, because I don't know the character's base defenses. if he's in the CU, and has 5/5 base defenses, I think he's likely underdefended if anything absent some other defensive abilities (desolid, high DCV or such).

 

And a choice of 5 60 point attacks for 90 points also seems very efficient, especially when the next best option for purchasing these would be an EC, costing 180 points - twice as much.

 

Most people with a VPP have a higher than 18 stat. Usually' date=' they have 23-33 in the relevant stat, at least in the Superheroic genre.[/quote']

 

Should we increase the price of the stat, 6the skill or the VPP, Gary? Clearly we have a synergy going on here, and you've made it clear that synergies need to be repriced.

 

Not practical in the sense that the GM would never allow it. Yeah if it were strictly legality at work' date=' then someone could buy +1" leap usable as attack megascale to whatever degree necessary and blast his foe into the sun. But if you can't get it by the GM, it's not practical.[/quote']

 

So now it's GM judgement that weeds out abuses...which is what I have said all along. BTW, isn't there a puibliched CU character who has EDM Usable as an Attack? if published characters are our guide, and you have certainly held them up as such, then the power must be OK.

 

Most GMs I know won't allow cosmic pools because they can wreck most campaigns in the hands of a clever player.

 

Again, I do not equate "Can be abused" with "must be denied". Maybe my players are the odd men out, but their goal is to create interesting characters who can be challenged, not take advantage of every possibility in the rules for creating an Ubercharacter. If you, and others, have only experienced powergamers who will rape every rule to the maximum extent possible, then I am sorry for your unpleasant gaming experience. It doesn't mean that we need to change the rules to prohibit eveything that might possibly be abused. It means you need different players.

 

You either have to have multiple attackers with a variety of different attacks concentrating on flex dude and ignoring his buddies' date=' or have to have 1 single attacker who has the capabilities of multiple forms of attacks guessing right on which attack to select.[/quote']

 

Or I need to have multiple attackers who switch opponents tactically. I have a character often flits from opponent to opponent, rarely attacking the same one twice, in team battles. Frankly, if "team vs team" battles just become "Everyone pick a partner and keep rolling to hit and damage until one of you fals down", that's a poor reflection of the dynamic nature of combat and the possibilities inherent in teamwork.

 

Also' date=' you could claim that people would notice that Turtle Man becomes rather timid when in his shell or Mental Man becomes scatterbrained in combat. That doesn't lessen the abusiveness of these structures.[/quote']

 

Actually, I'd say anything that lessens their effectiveness in abusing the rules is a de facto reduction in their abusiveness.

 

 

 

It is not ALWAYS mathematically superior since someone with a 18 Con could be stunned by a single 5d6 attack, but never by 3 separate 3d6 attacks.

 

The fact remains that sometimes cost changes or rule changes are necessary. The fact that not a single published 5th edition character has a defensive multipower like the one we've been discussing speaks volumes.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Your universal statement includes asserting that a character with 10 PD and 10ED' date=' and a Multipower which can add 10 PD, 10 ED or 5 PD and 5 ED is unbalanced when compared to a character with 25 PD and 25 ED. I disagree. There is a balance which can be struck. You simply don't wish to believe that.[/quote']

 

 

Implicit in my statement was that the flex guy can have higher defenses in 1 defense at any single time than fixed guy. Which should've been obvious in context, but whatever.

 

 

Let's see...the hypothetical Multipower held a 12d6 Energy Blast, a 12d6 Flash and a 4d6 Ranged DEX drain. Assuming you have no flash defense, the opponent need only use every third or fourth attack to re-Flash you and you are blind throughout the compat. I'd say that makes fighting back effectively unlikely.

 

Assuming you have no Power Defense, that DEX drain erodes your OCV and DCV and, eventually, renders you unable to move (as good as KO'd in my view). That one will at least allow you to fight back, albeit with less and less effectiveness, since it only drains 4 or 5 DEX per hit.

 

 

It sounds like you're arguing that flash attacks are too effective. Which is a completely separate argument than what we're discussing. And yes, the dex drain allows you to fight back. Being nigh invulnerable does not.

 

Hence my statement that there is a balance to be sought. The character with a fixed invulnerability is less versatile than the one with variable invulnerability. Thus, the one with variable invulnerability should either be "less invulnerable" to that one effect, or more vulnerable to other effects, in order to balance the scales.

 

 

You can balance everything you want since you're the GM and you can set whatever limits you want. But costs should reflect utility and the cost of a power should reflect how useful it is. If PD cost only 1/2 of a point per point, you can say that a balance can be reached by limiting PD. But the underlying problem is that the cost would be too little for what you get from it.

 

 

Defenses are cheaper. Is +2d6 EB more acceptable than +5/+5 defenses? Is it more acceptable than +3/+3 Resistant Defenses? Where do we draw the line? I don't know. But I'm not prepared to say that the line should be drawn at "defense is never acceptable".

 

Flexible defenses are cheaper. Fixed defenses are more expensive since you have to cover double. That's the whole reason why adjustment powers have half effect on defenses.

 

 

I decide when my attack will be useful. My opponents decide (sometimes by surprise) when my defenses will be useful. I do, however, wish you would stop treating this as a binary choice, using terms like "completely OK". You keep trying to make this a choice between "You can do anything you want with defenses in a multipower; run wild and rape the system" or "You can never have flexible defenses. Never. Even the ability to shift 1 point of defenses will cause the game world to spin off its axis and crash into the sun, resulting in the universe collapsing into a point singularity".

 

My point is not that it is impossible, or even difficult, to abuse the system using flexible defenses. It is that it IS possible to use flexible defenses in a maner which is not unbalancing or abusive.

 

You like to speak in hyperbole don't you?

 

It's a manner of degree as always. A 1 pt shift obviously won't affect things much. A 10-15 pt shift in defenses WILL have a drastic effect as shown by numerous examples througout this thread.

 

Sorry, Trebuchet, you and your fellow gamers have been wrong for all these years - Z'lf really is unbalanced. Please stop deulding yourselves into believing that you are experiencing an enjoyable campaign and adopt Gary's restrictions immediately.

 

 

Did you even read the context of my statement? I was specifically referring to the defensive multipower, not Zl'f.

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that:

 

- in your game, no one ever is permitted an ability that cannot be found in a wide array of published characters, OR

 

- that possession of an ability by some number of published characters indicates it is balanced?

 

I seem to recall that it was YOU who first questioned why a defensive multipower wasn't banned if it was unbalancing. And I'm merely pointing out that there IS a de facto ban on it since it's nonexistent in the published characters.

 

And yes, if no published character has anything like a proposed player build, you can bet I'll look very closely at it.

 

 

This applies whether Flex Dude has a multipower of defenses or a multipower of attacks. Multipowers save a lot of points, whatever they are used to purchase.

 

 

But attack multipowers have a lot of wastage compared to defensive multipowers. Let's go back to the 6d6 NND and 12d6 EB vs 30 defenses. The 6d6 NND gains only 9 Stun or 25 active pts advantage by switching slots, and he's paid 6 pts for that priviledge. A 10 pt defensive multipower in contrast will most likely save 10 stun for 10 active points and he's spent exactly 1 pt for this ability.

 

 

I am suggesting the extra flexibility a

 

Defensive

 

Multipower

 

generates is caused as much or more by the "Multipower" as the "Defensive", and questioning why only the former alarms you.

 

 

Please go back to my example of what happens when you add 5 net stun to an average attack and when you subtract 5 net stun from an average attack.

 

 

 

Many characters reliant on force fields have a base rDEF of 0, and take a lot of BOD if hit by a KA while their force fields are down.

 

Somone with 0 base PD/ED will take body from virtually every hit, not just KAs. That's a huge difference.

 

So at one extreme, it's inefficient and at another it's overly efficient. There's a shocker. Doesn't that imply that there is some middle ground where it is reasonably efficient, rather than overly efficient? Frankly, I don't see that single construct as being unbalanced, because I don't know the character's base defenses. if he's in the CU, and has 5/5 base defenses, I think he's likely underdefended if anything absent some other defensive abilities (desolid, high DCV or such).

 

And a choice of 5 60 point attacks for 90 points also seems very efficient, especially when the next best option for purchasing these would be an EC, costing 180 points - twice as much.

 

Just compare someone who has a choice of 5 60 pt attacks. Do you honestly think that ability is worth 180 pts?????

 

Would you consider someone who can pay 1/2 pt per PD (no limitations) to be overly efficient? Or would you claim that you would have to look at the whole character? And yes if someone paid 5 pts for 10 PD but doesn't have anything else for defenses it won't unbalance the game. But it doesn't change the fact that the underlying cost structure is too cheap.

 

 

Should we increase the price of the stat, 6the skill or the VPP, Gary? Clearly we have a synergy going on here, and you've made it clear that synergies need to be repriced.

 

Depends on the synergy. This is minor stuff compared to the defensive multipower or the autofire nnd.

 

 

So now it's GM judgement that weeds out abuses...which is what I have said all along. BTW, isn't there a puibliched CU character who has EDM Usable as an Attack? if published characters are our guide, and you have certainly held them up as such, then the power must be OK.

 

Nebula's description strongly implies that it only works after the subject is subdued and that it requires a phase of solemn pronouncements.

 

It's pretty telling that XDM usable as attack is more common than a defensive multipower...

 

 

Again, I do not equate "Can be abused" with "must be denied". Maybe my players are the odd men out, but their goal is to create interesting characters who can be challenged, not take advantage of every possibility in the rules for creating an Ubercharacter. If you, and others, have only experienced powergamers who will rape every rule to the maximum extent possible, then I am sorry for your unpleasant gaming experience. It doesn't mean that we need to change the rules to prohibit eveything that might possibly be abused. It means you need different players.

 

Hugh, do your players try and use the 6d6 NND instead of a 12d6 EB vs a 30 def target? Would you call that "rules rape" or a smart tactic by the player? Yet you seem to feel that someone optimizing a VPP is a "rules rapist".

 

 

Or I need to have multiple attackers who switch opponents tactically. I have a character often flits from opponent to opponent, rarely attacking the same one twice, in team battles. Frankly, if "team vs team" battles just become "Everyone pick a partner and keep rolling to hit and damage until one of you fals down", that's a poor reflection of the dynamic nature of combat and the possibilities inherent in teamwork.

 

You're also assuming that the attackers know exactly how the defender has his defenses aligned. Since they have to guess, they'll have to peel off 2 attackers to be sure, which leaves one of flex boy's buddies completely free from attack.

 

Incidentally if you wanted to fight most optimally in Champions, you would concentrate 3-4 team members on 1 defender per phase since 1 target down is a lot better than 3 targets hurt. If both sides consistently used that tactic, it would be effective but would suck the fun out of Champions completely for both sides.

 

And you're also assuming that every fight will be a team on team situation. I don't know about you, but there is a significant amount of 1 on 1 combat in most games.

 

Actually, I'd say anything that lessens their effectiveness in abusing the rules is a de facto reduction in their abusiveness.

 

Still highly abusive since for a trivial cost, it's allowing Pre or Ego to convert to defense when not needed.

 

10 MP

1 u +10 Pre

1 u +5/5 Def

 

12 MP

1 u +6 Ego

1 u +6/6 Def

 

12 MP

1 u +12 PD

1 u +12 ED

1 u +6/6 Def

 

Amazing that you think the first 2 multipowers are highly abusive, but number 3 is just fine.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Implicit in my statement was that the flex guy can have higher defenses in 1 defense at any single time than fixed guy. Which should've been obvious in context' date=' but whatever. [/quote']

 

So is a defensive multipower OK if the flex defense character cannot exceed the fixed defense character's 1 defense? Is it abusive if he can exceed the average fixed defense, but not the campaign maximum fixed defense? Perhaps it's not abusive even if he can exceed the maximum fixed defense at the cost of considerably lower defenses in other areas? For that mater, if the game's max is 30 PD and 30 ED, is it abusive to have a 35 PD and a 20 ED?

 

Again, I come back to the "whole character" approach. This only compares two defenses. I haven't yet looked at relative DCV's or exotic defenses to assess how those stack up, nor have I looked at whether one character is more offensively powerful, has more tactical options (movement, etc) or any other variances between the characters.

 

The bottom line is that you feel flex defenses can be unbalancing, and therefore should never be permitted. I feel that flex defenses are not always unbalancing, and should be scrutinized. We're just reiterating out respective viewpoints in this regard.

 

It sounds like you're arguing that flash attacks are too effective. Which is a completely separate argument than what we're discussing.

 

I'm arguing that the ability to place a Flash attack in a MP allows more flexibility which can completely neutralize some opponents. Just like the ability to shift defenses around in a multipower can completely neutralize some opponents. I'm not arguing that either one is too effective. You seem to be arguing that the ability to neutralize a large number of opponents with a defensive multipower is unbalancing, but the ability to neutralize a large number of opponents with an atack multipower is not. I wonder what percentage of CU characters have enough sight flash defense to really impede a 12d6 Flash attack (that's more than 5 defense, to be sure), and how that percentage compares to the percentage that have attacks that can go against two or more defense types.

 

You can balance everything you want since you're the GM and you can set whatever limits you want. But costs should reflect utility and the cost of a power should reflect how useful it is. If PD cost only 1/2 of a point per point' date=' you can say that a balance can be reached by limiting PD. But the underlying problem is that the cost would be too little for what you get from it.[/quote']

 

Are you suggesting changing the price of defenses overall, changing the price of multipowers overall, changing the price of defenses in multipowers, banning flexible defenses in multipowers, or some fifth alternative? If defensive multipowers were, in fact, the be all and end all of character power that you make them out to be, why have I not seen characters try to abuse them over the last 20+ years?

 

Flexible defenses are cheaper. Fixed defenses are more expensive since you have to cover double. That's the whole reason why adjustment powers have half effect on defenses.

 

Adjustment powers don't create flexible defenses. Flexible attacks are less expensive than fixed attacks. Flexible defenses are less expensive than fixed defenses. Defenses in general are less expensive than attacks in general. There are cost differences. If you think they are presently unbalanced, I would suggest the answer is to change the overall pricing structure of both defenses and multipowers.

 

Attack multipowers enjoy the advantage that fixed slots are quite effective - there's no benefit having a flex slot in an MP of 60 point attacks. Defense multipowers should probably be based around flexible slots, since zeroing out one defense in favour of another is often a tactically poor choice. That doubles the cost of slots for flexible defense multipowers as compared to flexible attack multipowers. Hmmm...wasn't it your previous contention that doubling the cost of the slots would solve the problem?

 

It's a manner of degree as always. A 1 pt shift obviously won't affect things much. A 10-15 pt shift in defenses WILL have a drastic effect as shown by numerous examples througout this thread.

 

So you agree that this is relative,not absolute. I guess that's a start.

 

I seem to recall that it was YOU who first questioned why a defensive multipower wasn't banned if it was unbalancing. And I'm merely pointing out that there IS a de facto ban on it since it's nonexistent in the published characters.

 

Gary, if this is as clearly abusive as you claim, and the lack of published characters using this construct arises from a recognition of that abusiveness, then why is it not explicitly mentioned in the rules? Did it need to be cut in order to hold 5er to 592 page3s because there wasn't a single other paragraph that was less important and could be cut?

 

And yes' date=' if no published character has anything like a proposed player build, you can bet I'll look very closely at it.[/quote']

 

That's half my answer. Now I'm waiting for you to tell me whether the fact that there is a precedent in a published character means that you will accept the proposed player build.

 

But attack multipowers have a lot of wastage compared to defensive multipowers. Let's go back to the 6d6 NND and 12d6 EB vs 30 defenses. The 6d6 NND gains only 9 Stun or 25 active pts advantage by switching slots' date=' and he's paid 6 pts for that priviledge. A 10 pt defensive multipower in contrast will most likely save 10 stun for 10 active points and he's spent exactly 1 pt for this ability.[/quote']

 

Flipping that around, adding a 12d6 EB to a 6d6 NND allows me to go from 0 STUN to 22 STUN against a characetr with 20 defenses and the defense against my NND attack. Picking the comparison changes the results markedly.

 

Somone with 0 base PD/ED will take body from virtually every hit' date=' not just KAs. That's a huge difference.[/quote']

 

He only takes BOD from attacks launched when he has allocated 0 to that defense. In any case, 0 is an extreme. If 0 is OK, is 1 OK? Maybe 3 is OK then. What about 5? The point is that not EVERY POSSIBLE example of flexible defense will demolish game balance. Some will. Some uses of many other constructs also will.

 

Just compare someone who has a choice of 5 60 pt attacks. Do you honestly think that ability is worth 180 pts?????

 

Hmmm...typical 60 AP game. Pick 5 attacks, let's say a 12d6 EB (energy), a 6d6 NND NND, a 12d6 Sight Flash, a 4d6 ranged Str drain and a 4d6 Physical RKA. Launch them all at once as an MPA. How much more harm will this do to a typical target than firing them one at a time?

 

Is it worth raising the cost from 90 points to 300 points to add that flexibility? If it ends most fights instantly, I'd say it's probably underpriced at any cost, but I agree that's a huge price. Does that indicate that 300 points for the non-MP attacks is excessive, or that 90 points for the MP is undercosted? You're quite insistent an equivalent savings (or less, since flex slots are needed for efficiency and some base defenses are needed for survivability) for defenses is excessive. I don't agree that it is excessive, first off, but even if I did agree, I would probably consider it escessive for all abilities, not just some.

 

Would you consider someone who can pay 1/2 pt per PD (no limitations) to be overly efficient? Or would you claim that you would have to look at the whole character? And yes if someone paid 5 pts for 10 PD but doesn't have anything else for defenses it won't unbalance the game. But it doesn't change the fact that the underlying cost structure is too cheap.

 

Again, we disagree whether this is due to the cost of defenses, the cost of multipowers or (your assertion) ionly to the cost of placing defenses in a multipower.

 

Hugh' date=' do your players try and use the 6d6 NND instead of a 12d6 EB vs a 30 def target? Would you call that "rules rape" or a smart tactic by the player? Yet you seem to feel that someone optimizing a VPP is a "rules rapist".[/quote']

 

No, I feel someone who designs their character to be capable of an optimal sructure which makes them overpowered in the context of the game is a "rules rapist". To me, banning constructs (like your comment on banning cosmic VPP's) is a defense against rules rapists, as abusive constructs would not be intentionally chosen by reasonable players.

 

You're also assuming that the attackers know exactly how the defender has his defenses aligned. Since they have to guess' date=' they'll have to peel off 2 attackers to be sure, which leaves one of flex boy's buddies completely free from attack.[/quote']

 

You're assuming the defender knows how the attacker's attacks are aligned. Why is one true, but not the other? From a metagaming standpoint, I suppose because we generally say "ithat's 35 Stun versus your ED", but I could just as easily say "the searing bolt of hellfire buirns you to your core - you take 15 Stun after defenses". Was that an EB that rolled 42 against your 27 Energy Defense, an AVLD-Mental Defense that rolled 20 when you have 5 mental defense, or a 15 rolled on an NND for which you lack the defense? And that's after being hit with the attack the first time!

 

Incidentally if you wanted to fight most optimally in Champions' date=' you would concentrate 3-4 team members on 1 defender per phase since 1 target down is a lot better than 3 targets hurt. If both sides consistently used that tactic, it would be effective but would suck the fun out of Champions completely for both sides.[/quote']

 

Ahhh...good tactics are no fun, but rules-raping character optimization is fun. Got it!

 

And you're also assuming that every fight will be a team on team situation. I don't know about you' date=' but there is a significant amount of 1 on 1 combat in most games.[/quote']

 

Generally between foes who are reasonably balanced to create a challenging encounter.

 

 

 

Still highly abusive since for a trivial cost, it's allowing Pre or Ego to convert to defense when not needed.

 

10 MP

1 u +10 Pre

1 u +5/5 Def

 

12 MP

1 u +6 Ego

1 u +6/6 Def

 

12 MP

1 u +12 PD

1 u +12 ED

1 u +6/6 Def

 

Amazing that you think the first 2 multipowers are highly abusive, but number 3 is just fine.

 

I don't think any of the three are highly abusive or just fine in isolation. Show me the specific characters and the campaign parameters. The simple fact is that a multipower - any multipower - offers a substantial cost savings for making powers available only one at atime instead of all together. Again, I question whether you should be attacking the defenses, or the multipower, as being overly efficient.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

So is a defensive multipower OK if the flex defense character cannot exceed the fixed defense character's 1 defense? Is it abusive if he can exceed the average fixed defense, but not the campaign maximum fixed defense? Perhaps it's not abusive even if he can exceed the maximum fixed defense at the cost of considerably lower defenses in other areas? For that mater, if the game's max is 30 PD and 30 ED, is it abusive to have a 35 PD and a 20 ED?

 

Again, I come back to the "whole character" approach. This only compares two defenses. I haven't yet looked at relative DCV's or exotic defenses to assess how those stack up, nor have I looked at whether one character is more offensively powerful, has more tactical options (movement, etc) or any other variances between the characters.

 

The bottom line is that you feel flex defenses can be unbalancing, and therefore should never be permitted. I feel that flex defenses are not always unbalancing, and should be scrutinized. We're just reiterating out respective viewpoints in this regard.

 

 

It's abusive as discussed in this thread. If you change the parameters so that flex dude has less in both defenses than fixed dude, then that's not the situation we've been discussing.

 

 

I'm arguing that the ability to place a Flash attack in a MP allows more flexibility which can completely neutralize some opponents. Just like the ability to shift defenses around in a multipower can completely neutralize some opponents. I'm not arguing that either one is too effective. You seem to be arguing that the ability to neutralize a large number of opponents with a defensive multipower is unbalancing, but the ability to neutralize a large number of opponents with an atack multipower is not. I wonder what percentage of CU characters have enough sight flash defense to really impede a 12d6 Flash attack (that's more than 5 defense, to be sure), and how that percentage compares to the percentage that have attacks that can go against two or more defense types.

 

Again, you seem to be arguing that flash is too effective.

 

 

Are you suggesting changing the price of defenses overall, changing the price of multipowers overall, changing the price of defenses in multipowers, banning flexible defenses in multipowers, or some fifth alternative? If defensive multipowers were, in fact, the be all and end all of character power that you make them out to be, why have I not seen characters try to abuse them over the last 20+ years?

 

Why haven't you seen them at all? I personally think it was something that nobody seriously considered because it was so obviously broken. Just like if someone converted every non-combat characteristic or power into a 2 slot multipower with defenses as the other slot.

 

 

Adjustment powers don't create flexible defenses. Flexible attacks are less expensive than fixed attacks. Flexible defenses are less expensive than fixed defenses. Defenses in general are less expensive than attacks in general. There are cost differences. If you think they are presently unbalanced, I would suggest the answer is to change the overall pricing structure of both defenses and multipowers.

 

Adjustment powers do create flexible defenses. How the heck are you arguing that point???

 

And defenses are only cheaper if they're flexible. If they're fixed, they're actually MORE expensive since you have to purchase both PD and ED, not to mention resistance.

 

Attack multipowers enjoy the advantage that fixed slots are quite effective - there's no benefit having a flex slot in an MP of 60 point attacks. Defense multipowers should probably be based around flexible slots, since zeroing out one defense in favour of another is often a tactically poor choice. That doubles the cost of slots for flexible defense multipowers as compared to flexible attack multipowers. Hmmm...wasn't it your previous contention that doubling the cost of the slots would solve the problem?

 

Why would anyone buy flex slots for a defensive multipower when its cheaper to have a PD slot, ED slot, and balanced slot???

 

 

So you agree that this is relative,not absolute. I guess that's a start.

 

Yeah 1 pt of just about anything is trivial, especially since a 1 pt multipower with 2 slots would cost 3 pts.

 

Gary, if this is as clearly abusive as you claim, and the lack of published characters using this construct arises from a recognition of that abusiveness, then why is it not explicitly mentioned in the rules? Did it need to be cut in order to hold 5er to 592 page3s because there wasn't a single other paragraph that was less important and could be cut?

 

The book doesn't list every single combination of powers/advantages/frameworks that are abusive. It doesn't explicitly state that charges of end reserve is abusive for example, and that's probably the most broken construct in the game.

 

That's half my answer. Now I'm waiting for you to tell me whether the fact that there is a precedent in a published character means that you will accept the proposed player build.

 

 

I'll eyeball it and see if it's acceptable in my campaign.

 

Flipping that around, adding a 12d6 EB to a 6d6 NND allows me to go from 0 STUN to 22 STUN against a characetr with 20 defenses and the defense against my NND attack. Picking the comparison changes the results markedly.

 

We're using the straight normal attack as our baseline since that's by far the most common attack form for someone without a multipower. If you want to argue that most characters with 1 attack only have a NND, be my guest.

 

He only takes BOD from attacks launched when he has allocated 0 to that defense. In any case, 0 is an extreme. If 0 is OK, is 1 OK? Maybe 3 is OK then. What about 5? The point is that not EVERY POSSIBLE example of flexible defense will demolish game balance. Some will. Some uses of many other constructs also will.

 

Yeah, your trivial 1 pt multipower won't wreck a game.

 

Hmmm...typical 60 AP game. Pick 5 attacks, let's say a 12d6 EB (energy), a 6d6 NND NND, a 12d6 Sight Flash, a 4d6 ranged Str drain and a 4d6 Physical RKA. Launch them all at once as an MPA. How much more harm will this do to a typical target than firing them one at a time?

 

Is it worth raising the cost from 90 points to 300 points to add that flexibility? If it ends most fights instantly, I'd say it's probably underpriced at any cost, but I agree that's a huge price. Does that indicate that 300 points for the non-MP attacks is excessive, or that 90 points for the MP is undercosted? You're quite insistent an equivalent savings (or less, since flex slots are needed for efficiency and some base defenses are needed for survivability) for defenses is excessive. I don't agree that it is excessive, first off, but even if I did agree, I would probably consider it escessive for all abilities, not just some.

 

 

Wait a minute, you were the one who used attacks with lockout as your example. In fact, you specifically used a EC with a total cost of 180 as your example. Now you're changing it and using attacks that can be MPA'd??? Can you remain consistent with your examples???

 

 

Again, we disagree whether this is due to the cost of defenses, the cost of multipowers or (your assertion) ionly to the cost of placing defenses in a multipower.

 

Would you consider PD undercosted at 1/2 pt per point? What if a player only purchased a few points of it?

 

 

No, I feel someone who designs their character to be capable of an optimal sructure which makes them overpowered in the context of the game is a "rules rapist". To me, banning constructs (like your comment on banning cosmic VPP's) is a defense against rules rapists, as abusive constructs would not be intentionally chosen by reasonable players.

 

Gotcha, you consider the 5 slot multipower dude overpowered because he can always be optimized against his opposition compared to someone with a straight attack.

 

You're assuming the defender knows how the attacker's attacks are aligned. Why is one true, but not the other? From a metagaming standpoint, I suppose because we generally say "ithat's 35 Stun versus your ED", but I could just as easily say "the searing bolt of hellfire buirns you to your core - you take 15 Stun after defenses". Was that an EB that rolled 42 against your 27 Energy Defense, an AVLD-Mental Defense that rolled 20 when you have 5 mental defense, or a 15 rolled on an NND for which you lack the defense? And that's after being hit with the attack the first time!

 

Most people have a pretty good idea about the attacks of their opponents after a couple of encounters. Flex boy would know that Grond isn't throwing plasma bursts at him and that Sapphire isn't going to be slugging him. OTOH, a flex defensive slot is completely unpredictable. It could be at any of 3 separate settings at any time.

 

Ahhh...good tactics are no fun, but rules-raping character optimization is fun. Got it!

 

It must suck for your player who gets picked by the lottery as the designated target at the beginning of a fight by the villains. I'm sure your players love being knocked into GM option land at phase 12 of every fight because 4 villains all concentrate on him. That doesn't sound fun to me.

 

 

 

I don't think any of the three are highly abusive or just fine in isolation. Show me the specific characters and the campaign parameters. The simple fact is that a multipower - any multipower - offers a substantial cost savings for making powers available only one at atime instead of all together. Again, I question whether you should be attacking the defenses, or the multipower, as being overly efficient.

 

 

What would be an acceptible circumstance for someone to take:

 

10 MP

1 u +10 Pre

1 u +5/5 Def

 

12 MP

1 u +6 Ego

1 u +6/6 Def

 

Is there any player who you would allow these constructs, and similar ones for Int, Com, or Running?

[Willpower]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

In my opinion it is fine to do this sort of thing, as long as it is not abused. Allowing Defenses in a multipower for this sort of purpose is much easier and more prone to abuse than attacks. For instance, all of the attacks you mention have the same AP's and so they work at roughly the same level, though they can be finely tuned so they can be used more effectively based on the opponent. However, with Defenses, this becomes much more complex simply based on the dual nature of the defenses. Say for instance a person had 5 PD and 5 ED, In his multipower he has a 20/20 defensive slot. (left vague, what the defensive power is, as the point is the numbers, and I didn't want people arguing over a particuar power not being allowed in a MP) This may be considerred fine, however if the character also has a 40/0 Defensive slot, and a 0/40 Defensive slot, then this character can become next to impossible to fight for particular villains.

 

(IE he has his 20/20 slot going, and BAM he is attacked by Bulldozer. He says, "OW that hurt... I know Bulldozer only has physical powers, so I switch to my 40/0 slot." Now Bulldozer doesn't have much chance of hurting the character.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

It's abusive as discussed in this thread. If you change the parameters so that flex dude has less in both defenses than fixed dude' date=' then that's not the situation we've been discussing.[/quote']

 

From the thread starter post:

 

It's pretty common to see a bunch of attacks in a Multipower to pick the most effective one for any given circumstances, and I don't often see any stigma attached to these.. But similar MP's for defense powers are quite rare, and often viewed negatively.

 

If we're OK with characters commonly having several attack powers in a multipower so they can select the best one for any given situation, why aren't we equally OK with a character having multiple defensive powers, maybe one normal and with higher defenses and one slightly lower with hardened defenses, so he too can select whichever is preferable at any given point in time?

 

As an example, why is it generally OK conceptually to have a Fire Blast that's a normal attack, a Concentrated Fire Blast that's a KA, and a Very Concentrated Fire Blast that's an AP KA, but it's rarely or never OK conceptually to have a Force Screen (+20/+20 Force Field) and a Copncentrated Force Screen (+16/16 Hardened Force Field)?

 

Both are metagaming to some effect, using basically the same conceptual SFX for various different mechanics. But, for some reason, we're generally OK with players choosing between various attacks to get the best one for a specific opponent, but much less open to allowing them to customize their defensive powers on the fly.

 

Emphasis added. We're discussing flex defenses as a concept. You ar ethe one who converted that from "the ability to fine-tune defenses to some degree" to "the ability to have enough PD, ED or exotic defenses to be invulnerable to most attacks agains that defense", which is an extreme of a defensive multipower.

 

Again' date=' you seem to be arguing that flash is too effective.[/quote']

 

You seem to be incapable of comprehending that it is an example of an ability which, like flexible defenses, can be very effective in some circumstances but is not necessarily overpowered in some games when purchased in some configurations. There are lots of examples - Flash is just a very easy, basic one.

 

Why haven't you seen them at all? I personally think it was something that nobody seriously considered because it was so obviously broken.

 

Then why do we get so many other examples of obviously broken constructs that players pitch to their GMs?

 

Adjustment powers do create flexible defenses. How the heck are you arguing that point???

 

3d6 PD Aid does not create flexible defenses. It creates extra PD. 3d6 Aid, any one defense at a time (+1/4) creates marginally flexible defenses, I suppose, sinc eyou can pick which one you want to boost, but you can boost all of them (to fixed amounts) given enough time. The comparable, I suppose, would be "3d6 Aid, any one defense, Side Effect: Target is drained an equal amount of points from his other defenses". The character being Aided presumably starts out with a decent suite of defenses.

 

Why would anyone buy flex slots for a defensive multipower when its cheaper to have a PD slot' date=' ED slot, and balanced slot???[/quote']

 

Because he wants exotic defenses, resistant defenses, hardened defenses and some other choices not yet considered? Because he started with 5 PD/5ED and no exotic defenses, and will generally want to boost several by some amount, but may want to focus on one or two to some variable extent?

 

The book doesn't list every single combination of powers/advantages/frameworks that are abusive. It doesn't explicitly state that charges of end reserve is abusive for example' date=' and that's probably the most broken construct in the game.[/quote']

 

It does seek to identify the ones that cause real problems historicaly. I'm not going to argue the charges of END reserve issue as it's unrelated to this discussion, and the thread (and our posts) are long enough already.

 

I'll eyeball it and see if it's acceptable in my campaign.

 

Which is also what I do with constructs that have no published precedent. Actually, it's what I do with all constructs, since I don't really care whether they have a published precedent. It's a game, not a court case, so precedential value is pretty low.

 

Wait a minute' date=' you were the one who used attacks with lockout as your example. In fact, you specifically used a EC with a total cost of 180 as your example. Now you're changing it and using attacks that can be MPA'd??? Can you remain consistent with your examples???[/quote']

 

There are three tiers by which I can buy 5 attacks. At one extreme, I can buy them flat out for 300 points. Now I can MPA them. I can also buy them with lockout in three ways, a Multipower (the least expensive), an EC or the Lockoput limitation. The latter two are much more expensive for no benefit. The multipower is a point saving device, and a significant one, whether you are buying attacks or defenses. Would a series of defenses purchased with the Lockout limitation be more acceptable to you than a defensive Multipower? If so, I suggest your problem is as much or more with the significant cost savings a Multipower of any abilities permits than with defenses in general.

 

Would you consider PD undercosted at 1/2 pt per point? What if a player only purchased a few points of it?

 

I would consider PD undercosted at 1/2 point unless all other defensive powers were re-priced for consistency. I would likely then consider that defenses, on the whole, were very much underpriced, but since I consider guidelines on defense levels and attack levels in reviewing characters, I suppose it would not make a huge difference in actual game play. I don't see it leading to every character being identical to current form, except with doubled defenses.

 

At present, I think relative costs are reasonable. But that means I consider the relative costs reasonable whether or not the abilities are placed in a framework.

 

Gotcha' date=' you consider the 5 slot multipower dude overpowered because he can always be optimized against his opposition compared to someone with a straight attack.[/quote']

 

I consider the 5 slot MP character to have an advantage, objectively, over the character who lacks that level of flexibility. Whether he is overpowered is subjective in the actual campaign. Perhaps, at an extreme, every character in the game has defenses against every attack type, so they're all of more or less equal effectiveness. At the other extreme, perhaps no character is permitted more than one exotic defense, so having two exotic atacks is very advantageous - if you can figure out your opponent's one exotic defense.

 

Similarly, a character with flexible defenses has an advantage, but is not necessarily overpowered. Gary, the crux of our argument seems to be the unwillingness or inability to perceive that an advantage is not necessarily overpowering.

 

Most people have a pretty good idea about the attacks of their opponents after a couple of encounters. Flex boy would know that Grond isn't throwing plasma bursts at him and that Sapphire isn't going to be slugging him. OTOH' date=' a flex defensive slot is completely unpredictable. It could be at any of 3 separate settings at any time.[/quote']

 

Gron has an 18d6 attack. In a typical 12 DC game, I'd say that makes up for his lack of flexibility. Even if his target is able to achieve 75 defenses, Grond can still render him ineffectual with a Grab, so he's not completely lacking in options. Once he's Grabbed flex boy, and used him as a club to beat his teammates into submission, he can hold Flex Boy with two arms and Haymaker him with the other two. 22d6 will get a little Stun in every time.

 

Without pulling the book to scan Sapphire (and I'm too lazy to walk down two flights of stairs and back up again since I twisted my ankle yesterday), I suspect her MP contains an array of atack powers which can be optimized against a high EDtarget, whether that ED is obtained through fixed or flexible defenses.

 

In any case, I come back to GM judgement. If I look at the character and his defense levels will give him an advantage which will be overpowering in my game, the onus is on me to reject the character and advise the player on how he might build the concept in a manner more acceptable in my game. If I accept the character, the onus is on my to ensure that he faces challenges when do not render his advantage an overpowering one which renders the game "unfun" for the him, me and/or the other players, while still allowing the character's unique flexibility to shine in some cases, and not alowing that character to be underpowered by my choice of opposition, similarly making the game "unfun".

 

It must suck for your player who gets picked by the lottery as the designated target at the beginning of a fight by the villains. I'm sure your players love being knocked into GM option land at phase 12 of every fight because 4 villains all concentrate on him. That doesn't sound fun to me.

 

The "sauce for the goose" approach functions quite nicely here. The players don't abuse this tactic, and neither does the GM. However, Gary, I'm surprised that your same players who are ready and willing to use a VPP to render themselves unbeatable due to flexible defenses are unwilling to apply this rather elementary tactic. Are their tactics only selectively sound?

 

What would be an acceptible circumstance for someone to take:

 

10 MP

1 u +10 Pre

1 u +5/5 Def

 

12 MP

1 u +6 Ego

1 u +6/6 Def

 

Is there any player who you would allow these constructs, and similar ones for Int, Com, or Running?

 

A situation where you have shown me the entire character and I have determined that this will be an acceptable character in my game. As these look like very "metagaming" structures in isolation, an example seems hard to come by. OTOH, I wouldn't have thought Entangle, SPD, STR, Leaping, Clinging, Swinging and Danger Sense, some with foci and others without, made for a very cohesive concept. Yet that character's been pretty successful over his almost 45 year publishing history. Sometimes, players also put together a good concept with what I would consider odd or unusual power constructs, so I dislike dismissing anything out of hand.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

In my opinion it is fine to do this sort of thing' date=' as long as it is not abused. Allowing Defenses in a multipower for this sort of purpose is much easier and more prone to abuse than attacks. For instance, all of the attacks you mention have the same AP's and so they work at roughly the same level, though they can be finely tuned so they can be used more effectively based on the opponent. However, with Defenses, this becomes much more complex simply based on the dual nature of the defenses. Say for instance a person had 5 PD and 5 ED, In his multipower he has a 20/20 defensive slot. (left vague, what the defensive power is, as the point is the numbers, and I didn't want people arguing over a particuar power not being allowed in a MP) This may be considerred fine, however if the character also has a 40/0 Defensive slot, and a 0/40 Defensive slot, then this character can become next to impossible to fight for particular villains. [/quote']

 

Sure. Now I need to assess whethe rmy game can work with a character who can become next to impossible to fight for those villains.

 

(IE he has his 20/20 slot going' date=' and BAM he is attacked by Bulldozer. He says, "OW that hurt... I know Bulldozer only has physical powers, so I switch to my 40/0 slot." Now Bulldozer doesn't have much chance of hurting the character.)[/quote']

 

If I was reliant on Bulldozer hurting the character, I have a problem. As such, I would suggest that, since I knew the abilities of the character, and I knew the abilities of Bulldozer, and I chose to set Bulldozer against the character (presumably in a one on one fight), I must have known Bulldozer had no hope. Perhaps I have chosen this matchup:

 

- to demonstrate the new and improved, tactically prudent Bulldozer who cleverly uproots a power cable [i can't continue discussing tactically prudent Bulldozer with a straight face]

 

- to allow the PC to knock off Bulldozer easily, allowing him to shine in the spotlight and demonstrate the vast power of his flexible defenses, showing off the strengths of the schtick his character has chosen

 

- to start off an arc dealing with consequences of superheroic battles when the property damage from the Superfight injures an innocent bystander and Our Hero must deal with the fact that HIS invulnerability doesn't protect OTHERS

 

- to highlight a DNPC or Psych limitation when Bulldozer grabs a hostage

 

- to further an arc where a master planner villain is using Bulldozer as a distraction so FlexibleMan won't interfere with his own, less public, action until it is too late

 

- because Bulldozer has been set up for a fall by someone he has annoyed, and this will further another ongoing plotline

 

- because Utility, who hired Bulldozer, is on a rooftop just waiting for a good shot with his ElectroRifle so he can take down FlexMan and collect the bounty offered by a local crimelord who has lost just a little too much revenue from FlexMan's actions

 

Hmmm...it doesn't seem that FlexMan's flexible defenses are ruining MY game. But you need to assess whether YOUR game will be impacted differently. Gary's game certainly seems like it woud be impacted differently, and he has done an excellent job of highlighting the impact this could have.

 

[Nasty example: FlexMan has a teammate with a huge Force Wall power which can be used to isolate FlexMan and a villain or two, ensuring FlexMan need not worry about being hit with energy while maxing out his PD]

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

From the thread starter post:

 

 

 

Emphasis added. We're discussing flex defenses as a concept. You ar ethe one who converted that from "the ability to fine-tune defenses to some degree" to "the ability to have enough PD, ED or exotic defenses to be invulnerable to most attacks agains that defense", which is an extreme of a defensive multipower.

 

And you've been arguing this whole thread that there was nothing wrong with such a structure.

 

 

You seem to be incapable of comprehending that it is an example of an ability which, like flexible defenses, can be very effective in some circumstances but is not necessarily overpowered in some games when purchased in some configurations. There are lots of examples - Flash is just a very easy, basic one.

 

And you used this example specifically because it has the potential for a 1 shot knock out for unprotected characters. For damaging attacks, there is no corrrespondence to nigh invulnerability unless there is the potential for a one shot knockout.

 

Then why do we get so many other examples of obviously broken constructs that players pitch to their GMs?

 

Some constructs are broken simply by eyeballing them. Such as multipowering every single non-combat stat/power with defenses. It's pretty obvious that these structures are broken so no one even tries to slip them past the GM.

 

 

3d6 PD Aid does not create flexible defenses. It creates extra PD. 3d6 Aid, any one defense at a time (+1/4) creates marginally flexible defenses, I suppose, sinc eyou can pick which one you want to boost, but you can boost all of them (to fixed amounts) given enough time. The comparable, I suppose, would be "3d6 Aid, any one defense, Side Effect: Target is drained an equal amount of points from his other defenses". The character being Aided presumably starts out with a decent suite of defenses.

 

The 1 defense at a time succor does create flexible defenses. It's just the same as a 2 slot multipower with PD and ED, except that it's not as efficient. And why would you presume the character with Aid starts with a decent suite of defenses?

 

Because he wants exotic defenses, resistant defenses, hardened defenses and some other choices not yet considered? Because he started with 5 PD/5ED and no exotic defenses, and will generally want to boost several by some amount, but may want to focus on one or two to some variable extent?

 

Not worth the points paid for the marginal flexibility.

 

 

It does seek to identify the ones that cause real problems historicaly. I'm not going to argue the charges of END reserve issue as it's unrelated to this discussion, and the thread (and our posts) are long enough already.

 

If this was historically no problem like youi're asserting, then why don't any actual published characters have a multipower like this? Surely if it were balanced someone would have one!

 

There are three tiers by which I can buy 5 attacks. At one extreme, I can buy them flat out for 300 points. Now I can MPA them. I can also buy them with lockout in three ways, a Multipower (the least expensive), an EC or the Lockoput limitation. The latter two are much more expensive for no benefit. The multipower is a point saving device, and a significant one, whether you are buying attacks or defenses. Would a series of defenses purchased with the Lockout limitation be more acceptable to you than a defensive Multipower? If so, I suggest your problem is as much or more with the significant cost savings a Multipower of any abilities permits than with defenses in general.

 

Again, would you consider 180 pts for 5 attacks that can be used 1 at a time to be fairly priced? I would certainly think that 90 is its true value based on decades of experience with the game.

 

Now for defenses, a 15 pt multipower with a PD slot, ED slot, and balanced slot is too cheap at 18 pts.

 

 

I would consider PD undercosted at 1/2 point unless all other defensive powers were re-priced for consistency. I would likely then consider that defenses, on the whole, were very much underpriced, but since I consider guidelines on defense levels and attack levels in reviewing characters, I suppose it would not make a huge difference in actual game play. I don't see it leading to every character being identical to current form, except with doubled defenses.

 

At present, I think relative costs are reasonable. But that means I consider the relative costs reasonable whether or not the abilities are placed in a framework.

 

I view the defensive multipower the same way as undercosted PD. Even if you limit the overall PD of a player who pays 1/2 while everyone else pays full, the cost structure itself would be unbalanced. Same with flex boy if everyone else is paying full for their defenses.

 

I consider the 5 slot MP character to have an advantage, objectively, over the character who lacks that level of flexibility. Whether he is overpowered is subjective in the actual campaign. Perhaps, at an extreme, every character in the game has defenses against every attack type, so they're all of more or less equal effectiveness. At the other extreme, perhaps no character is permitted more than one exotic defense, so having two exotic atacks is very advantageous - if you can figure out your opponent's one exotic defense.

 

Similarly, a character with flexible defenses has an advantage, but is not necessarily overpowered. Gary, the crux of our argument seems to be the unwillingness or inability to perceive that an advantage is not necessarily overpowering.

 

You were declaring that optimizing a character was being a rules rapist. Shrug.

 

 

Gron has an 18d6 attack. In a typical 12 DC game, I'd say that makes up for his lack of flexibility. Even if his target is able to achieve 75 defenses, Grond can still render him ineffectual with a Grab, so he's not completely lacking in options. Once he's Grabbed flex boy, and used him as a club to beat his teammates into submission, he can hold Flex Boy with two arms and Haymaker him with the other two. 22d6 will get a little Stun in every time.

 

Without pulling the book to scan Sapphire (and I'm too lazy to walk down two flights of stairs and back up again since I twisted my ankle yesterday), I suspect her MP contains an array of atack powers which can be optimized against a high EDtarget, whether that ED is obtained through fixed or flexible defenses.

 

In any case, I come back to GM judgement. If I look at the character and his defense levels will give him an advantage which will be overpowering in my game, the onus is on me to reject the character and advise the player on how he might build the concept in a manner more acceptable in my game. If I accept the character, the onus is on my to ensure that he faces challenges when do not render his advantage an overpowering one which renders the game "unfun" for the him, me and/or the other players, while still allowing the character's unique flexibility to shine in some cases, and not alowing that character to be underpowered by my choice of opposition, similarly making the game "unfun".

 

Grond still can't hurt flex boy if he has 75 defenses. If you take Ogre, he'll lose pretty much everytime because flex boy is presumably hurting him with every attack. Grabs do not make the grabbee ineffectual. He can still fight back unless he has an accessible focus or a restrainable limitation.

 

I guess you'd be ok if 1 pleyer pays 1/2 for PD and everyone else pays full since you'll limit his overall PD and come up with foes that'll challenge him...

 

 

 

The "sauce for the goose" approach functions quite nicely here. The players don't abuse this tactic, and neither does the GM. However, Gary, I'm surprised that your same players who are ready and willing to use a VPP to render themselves unbeatable due to flexible defenses are unwilling to apply this rather elementary tactic. Are their tactics only selectively sound?

 

 

You were the one who was saying that this was just good tactics. I guess you really do agree with my statement that these tactics suck the fun from the game, but it looks like you were just being argumentative.

 

And the VPP was limited after it was shown to be a problem.

 

 

A situation where you have shown me the entire character and I have determined that this will be an acceptable character in my game. As these look like very "metagaming" structures in isolation, an example seems hard to come by. OTOH, I wouldn't have thought Entangle, SPD, STR, Leaping, Clinging, Swinging and Danger Sense, some with foci and others without, made for a very cohesive concept. Yet that character's been pretty successful over his almost 45 year publishing history. Sometimes, players also put together a good concept with what I would consider odd or unusual power constructs, so I dislike dismissing anything out of hand.

 

 

IOW, your answer is no.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

And you've been arguing this whole thread that there was nothing wrong with such a structure.

 

I have been arguing that, while the structure may be one which can be abused, it is not one which is automatically abusive in every permutation, and thus is not appropriately banned at the outset.

 

And you used this example specifically because it has the potential for a 1 shot knock out for unprotected characters. For damaging attacks' date=' there is no corrrespondence to nigh invulnerability unless there is the potential for a one shot knockout.[/quote']

 

Having sufficiently low defenses in other areas while focused on one specific area will create the potential for a one shot knockout (or at least much greater potential to be Stunned, which will equate quickly to KO if one's opponent is smart enough to take advantage of it).

 

The 1 defense at a time succor does create flexible defenses. It's just the same as a 2 slot multipower with PD and ED' date=' except that it's not as efficient. And why would you presume the character with Aid starts with a decent suite of defenses?[/quote']

 

I presume the charracter being aided (not necessarily the one with Aid) has a decent suite of defenses for the same reason you presume the character with flexible defenses will have a reasonable level of base defenses - the risk of being attacked, possibly fatally, when your defenses are not being enhanced.

 

If this was historically no problem like youi're asserting' date=' then why don't any actual published characters have a multipower like this? Surely if it were balanced someone would have one![/quote']

 

I've never seen a published character with an EC holding 5 attacks. Does that mean such a character would be unbalanced? No one has used the concept, so it's unpublished.

 

I've seen the occasional character with a VPP. Do all published characters with VPP's include a note that they can't use their VPP to hold defenses? if they don't, then presumably the VPP can be used for flexible defenses, so those are your published examples.

 

Again, would you consider 180 pts for 5 attacks that can be used 1 at a time to be fairly priced? I would certainly think that 90 is its true value based on decades of experience with the game.

 

Now for defenses, a 15 pt multipower with a PD slot, ED slot, and balanced slot is too cheap at 18 pts.

 

Are the attacks fairly priced? No. Do you believe the defenses are fairly priced if they can only be used one at a time? The appropriate cost must be somewhere between 18 (which you say is too cheap) and 30 (the cost of having +15 in both defenses). What level of pricing would you say is fair?

Since we're working in whole points, you have 11 possible choices.

 

I view the defensive multipower the same way as undercosted PD. Even if you limit the overall PD of a player who pays 1/2 while everyone else pays full' date=' the cost structure itself would be unbalanced. Same with flex boy if everyone else is paying full for their defenses.[/quote']

 

Then why don't you view a suite of attacks as under costed attacks? Every character can have a multipower of attacks, but not every character does.

 

You were declaring that optimizing a character was being a rules rapist. Shrug.

 

You were declaring that the only players who don't optimize their characters to the point of raping the rules are "not smart" players, since the fact I'm not worried about rules rape meant I've never gamed with a smart player.

 

Grond still can't hurt flex boy if he has 75 defenses. If you take Ogre' date=' he'll lose pretty much everytime because flex boy is presumably hurting him with every attack. Grabs do not make the grabbee ineffectual. He can still fight back unless he has an accessible focus or a restrainable limitation.[/quote']

 

Grab and Throw works wonders. And I've acknowledged that this character has a huge advantage against characters with only one attack option. Just like the guy with a Flash attack has a huge advantage over an opponent with no flash defense. "Having an advantage" does not equal "unbalanced". "Having an advantage that demolishes one type of character" may not even equal "unbalanced" - the guy with the 12d6 Flash is pretty much unbeatable by a significant cross section of published characters (and you still haven't told me how the % of characters with only one attack type compares to the % of characters that will be blinded forever against an opponent with a 12d6 Flash).

 

I guess you'd be ok if 1 pleyer pays 1/2 for PD and everyone else pays full since you'll limit his overall PD and come up with foes that'll challenge him...

 

I'm not suggesting we change pricing for only one player. I'm suggesting we follow the rules as written and use the efficient framework provided by those rules for powers that can only be used one at a time.

 

But yes, I could certainly work around the PD issue. If it's creating a problem, it's not because the costs are wrong, it's because the level of PD is creating problems.

 

You were the one who was saying that this was just good tactics. I guess you really do agree with my statement that these tactics suck the fun from the game' date=' but it looks like you were just being argumentative.[/quote']

 

You were the one that said the fact I haven't had problems with the rules being abused was because I'd never played with anyone smart. If he's smart, wouldn't the merits of ganging up have occured to him?

 

And the VPP was limited after it was shown to be a problem.

 

Didn't you tell me this problem was so obvious it didn't even need to be mentioned anywhere for people to intuit thaty no character should ever have flexible defenses?

 

IOW' date=' your answer is no[/quote']

 

Jaguar. Published character in 4e. He has a Multiform with one combat-heavy form and one skill-heavy form. When he doesn't need his combat abilities, he shifts to human form and uses his noncombat skills. When he doesn't need his noncombat skills, he shifts to Jaguar form.

 

I suspect there may be other characters published with similar multiple forms. No, it's not a multipower, but it's the same premise of freely shifting points around.

[Maccabe]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

From a purely intellectual point of view try this;

 

Multipower (25 points)

u Force Field [Flash Defense 20 points] Hardened

u Force Field [Mental Defense 20 points] Reduced endurance

u Force Field [Power Defense 20 points] Difficult to dispel

 

Whallah !

[Force]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

From a purely intellectual point of view try this;

 

Multipower (25 points)

u Force Field [Flash Defense 20 points] Hardened

u Force Field [Mental Defense 20 points] Reduced endurance

u Force Field [Power Defense 20 points] Difficult to dispel

 

Whallah !

 

I liked mine better.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

I have been arguing that' date=' while the structure may be one which can be abused, it is not one which is automatically abusive in every permutation, and thus is not appropriately banned at the outset.[/quote']

 

Yeah, the 1 pt multipower won't be abusive.

 

 

 

Having sufficiently low defenses in other areas while focused on one specific area will create the potential for a one shot knockout (or at least much greater potential to be Stunned, which will equate quickly to KO if one's opponent is smart enough to take advantage of it).

 

Potential. Vs the near certainty of victory if a defensive multipower is optimized against a single form attacker.

 

I presume the charracter being aided (not necessarily the one with Aid) has a decent suite of defenses for the same reason you presume the character with flexible defenses will have a reasonable level of base defenses - the risk of being attacked, possibly fatally, when your defenses are not being enhanced.

 

And yet the Aid or Succor was deemed abusive at full effect on defenses.

 

 

I've never seen a published character with an EC holding 5 attacks. Does that mean such a character would be unbalanced? No one has used the concept, so it's unpublished.

 

I've seen the occasional character with a VPP. Do all published characters with VPP's include a note that they can't use their VPP to hold defenses? if they don't, then presumably the VPP can be used for flexible defenses, so those are your published examples.

 

Phoenix in CKC has 5 attacks in ECs, 6 if you count his damage shield. Other characters with 4-6 attacks in a EC are Cybermind, Howler, and Stormfront.

 

Show me a single published character with a VPP changeable in combat that has flexible defenses of this nature. Surely at least one sample power would have this configuration if it were ok.

 

That's all beside the point anyway. This thread was about defensive multipowers. Please show me an example with a published character.

 

 

Are the attacks fairly priced? No. Do you believe the defenses are fairly priced if they can only be used one at a time? The appropriate cost must be somewhere between 18 (which you say is too cheap) and 30 (the cost of having +15 in both defenses). What level of pricing would you say is fair?

Since we're working in whole points, you have 11 possible choices.

 

Fairly priced would probably be 15 pts for the first defense and 15 pts with a -1/2 or -1 limitation on the other defense for a total of 22 or 25 pts.

 

Now the question goes back to you. Do you think 18 pts is a fair price for that multipower?

 

Then why don't you view a suite of attacks as under costed attacks? Every character can have a multipower of attacks, but not every character does.

 

I've given lots of reasons throughout this thread such as the fact that defenses trump attacks with numerous examples. Please read through the thread if you want more details.

 

You were declaring that the only players who don't optimize their characters to the point of raping the rules are "not smart" players, since the fact I'm not worried about rules rape meant I've never gamed with a smart player.

 

Where did I declare that? I distinctly remember that it was YOU who used the term "rules rapist" first in this thread. Please cite the post where I made this declaration.

 

Grab and Throw works wonders. And I've acknowledged that this character has a huge advantage against characters with only one attack option. Just like the guy with a Flash attack has a huge advantage over an opponent with no flash defense. "Having an advantage" does not equal "unbalanced". "Having an advantage that demolishes one type of character" may not even equal "unbalanced" - the guy with the 12d6 Flash is pretty much unbeatable by a significant cross section of published characters (and you still haven't told me how the % of characters with only one attack type compares to the % of characters that will be blinded forever against an opponent with a 12d6 Flash).

 

Grab and throw won't do much if the other guy laughs it off and just blasts you until you fall.

 

You really seem hung up on flash don't you?

 

 

I'm not suggesting we change pricing for only one player. I'm suggesting we follow the rules as written and use the efficient framework provided by those rules for powers that can only be used one at a time.

 

But yes, I could certainly work around the PD issue. If it's creating a problem, it's not because the costs are wrong, it's because the level of PD is creating problems.

 

This is rich. I'll point to a post that may seem familiar to you.

 

The theory that "the GM will balance it out" is commonly raised as a defense to issues of point imbalance. The GM can certainly do so. However, if the GM will juggle the books in this fashion, such that the point imbalance is unimportant, why do we need points at all?

 

 

You were the one that said the fact I haven't had problems with the rules being abused was because I'd never played with anyone smart. If he's smart, wouldn't the merits of ganging up have occured to him?

 

Please cite where I said that.

 

Didn't you tell me this problem was so obvious it didn't even need to be mentioned anywhere for people to intuit thaty no character should ever have flexible defenses?

 

I at least have practical experience with this construct. You admitted that you have no experience and you're just theorizing.

 

 

Jaguar. Published character in 4e. He has a Multiform with one combat-heavy form and one skill-heavy form. When he doesn't need his combat abilities, he shifts to human form and uses his noncombat skills. When he doesn't need his noncombat skills, he shifts to Jaguar form.

 

I suspect there may be other characters published with similar multiple forms. No, it's not a multipower, but it's the same premise of freely shifting points around.

 

No, I don't want you to dodge the point. Show me a character who you would allow to have a Pre or Ego multipower like the ones I listed as an example.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

I see 2 characters with defensive multipowers in CKC. Black Paladin and Mechassassin. Both have Armor, DCV, and Missile Deflection in a shield multipower. Nothing resembling adjustable defenses, but it should be mentioned for the sake of completeness.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Yeah' date=' the 1 pt multipower won't be abusive.[/quote']

 

Well, at least we've established your initial premise that this could never be done without being abusive was inaccurate. It's a start.

 

Potential. Vs the near certainty of victory if a defensive multipower is optimized against a single form attacker.

 

Like the near certainty of victory if a 12d6 Flash is available for use against a defender lacking flash defense or compensatrory enhanced senses. Still waiting for the comparative number of published characters lacking that flash def/enhanced senses vs the number who have only one attack type.

 

And yet the Aid or Succor was deemed abusive at full effect on defenses.

 

As were drain and transfer, which do not provide flexible defenses. And having seen characters with defense transfers, and defense drains, in action, I support the halving of adjustment powers (all of them - not just the beneficial ones) applied to defenses. Because that defense only cost half as much as the attack it defends against, so that one attack type character can easily optimize his choice of defense removed.

 

Phoenix in CKC has 5 attacks in ECs' date=' 6 if you count his damage shield. Other characters with 4-6 attacks in a EC are Cybermind, Howler, and Stormfront.[/quote']

 

In a single EC. Sounds like inefficient character design, but if you say so, I'll believe it. How much XP bonus did they need to make them competetive?

 

Show me a single published character with a VPP changeable in combat that has flexible defenses of this nature.

 

All of them. A VPP changeable in combat can be changed to any type of defense within the VPP's SFX.

 

Surely at least one sample power would have this configuration if it were ok.

 

Or perhaps the writers figured that buying "+X PD Armor", or +Y Power Defense Force Field" was a sufficiently obvious use of VPP points that it didn't merit wasting column inches on, so they stuck to more interesting sample powers. That's easily as possible as "it's so obviously abusive they don't need to discuss the issue anywhere, but it's still illegal".

 

That's all beside the point anyway. This thread was about defensive multipowers. Please show me an example with a published character.

 

I've already stated that I have no intention of combing the books, and that I don't consider "no one published has one" to indicate illegality. And I refer you to Jaguar above. I suspect there are Multiform characters published in 5e as well.

 

Fairly priced would probably be 15 pts for the first defense and 15 pts with a -1/2 or -1 limitation on the other defense for a total of 22 or 25 pts.

 

So we're discussing a 20% difference. I'd say 20% is within the realms of tolerable, so rather than reinvent the wheel, I'm OK using that Multipower. However, if presented with the example +15 PD, +15 ED and +7/+8 PD/ED, I'm inclined to hand it back saying "make the first two Standards and ditch the third, or give me a reason he can only select between those three configurations". That would be 21 points - within one point of your 22 point low end.

 

Now the question goes back to you. Do you think 18 pts is a fair price for that multipower?

 

Adding to the above, you have picked (accidentally, I believe) a construct which maximizes the advantage of the rounding rules. Change this to 20/20, and we get a cost of 26 (multipower w/ 3 Ultras), 28 (MP) with two flex slots) or 30 (one at fill price, second with a -1 limitation).

 

Where did I declare that? I distinctly remember that it was YOU who used the term "rules rapist" first in this thread. Please cite the post where I made this declaration.

 

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 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.[/quote']

 

Wouldn't smart players also know that several hits on one target is more effective than one hit each on many targets? The fact that a player is smart does not mean they must abuse any given power construct (for example, always shifting the VPP to spot defenses).

 

I wonder whether your players would be as good at picking the right defense if they had to go from descriptions, rather than familiarity with the target's published writeup.

 

Grab and throw won't do much if the other guy laughs it off and just blasts you until you fall.

 

First, you need to get up. Then you need to move back the 32" (64" running throw) that Grond tosses a human being (20"/40" for a 60 STR, but I'm OK with one trick ponies at campaign norms getting trounced by those geared to take advantage of their lack of flexibility). In the meantime, Grond trashes more of the city, or takes what he came for and leaves. "Win" and "knockout" are not necessarily the same thing.

 

You really seem hung up on flash don't you?

 

It's a convenient example of how an extra 6 points spent on a MP slot for another attack can easily win a fight against several opponents. I note you conveniently sidestep the question of whether the % of published characters this would take out one on one is similar to the % easily neutrealized by flexible defenses suficient to achieve invulnerability.

 

This is rich. I'll point to a post that may seem familiar to you.

 

As noted above, I don't find the point imbalance to be at the levels you seek to imply.

 

Nor do I think the context of the quoted post would be within 10% to 20%. I suspect it falls well outside my context of the GM selecting appropriate opposition for his PC's. I would not expect a (published) character with a 2x Vulnerability to Fire to be a good challenge for The Human Torch, nor wold I expect a character with only one choice of attack type, especially an obvious one, to be a serious challenge for someone with flexible defenses.

 

Please cite where I said that.

 

Please see above, and your numerous comments on VPP abuse.

 

I at least have practical experience with this construct. You admitted that you have no experience and you're just theorizing.

 

I'm fairly certain I've seen it in play, but not recently. Obviously, it didn't stick out as an "end of the world" disaster like it does for you. How can you have practical exp4erience with the construct when it lacks a published precedent and you require one to allow the construct?

 

No' date=' I don't want you to dodge the point. Show me a character who you would allow to have a Pre or Ego multipower like the ones I listed as an example.[/quote']

 

"Walter becomes better defended at the cost of becoming stupider". MP of INT/EGO and Defenses. If I bought into the concept, I would probably allow the MP.

 

By your logic, Desolid should be allowed in a VPP or MP only if the character has abilities that affect the solid world. Otherwise, he isn't sacrificing anything by giving up all his other powers (except defenses, I suppose) when he goes desolid. I take it, then, you wouild reject a density controller with an MP holding Desolid and Density Increase, since there's no real drawback to having the DI come down when the Desolid goes up.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Well' date=' at least we've established your initial premise that this could never be done without being abusive was inaccurate. It's a start.[/quote']

 

Yeah, a 1 pt multipower of Pre and defenses wouldn't be either. Consider it a victory if you must. Shrug.

 

 

Like the near certainty of victory if a 12d6 Flash is available for use against a defender lacking flash defense or compensatrory enhanced senses. Still waiting for the comparative number of published characters lacking that flash def/enhanced senses vs the number who have only one attack type.

 

 

Again, it sounds like you have a problem with flash specifically.

 

As were drain and transfer, which do not provide flexible defenses. And having seen characters with defense transfers, and defense drains, in action, I support the halving of adjustment powers (all of them - not just the beneficial ones) applied to defenses. Because that defense only cost half as much as the attack it defends against, so that one attack type character can easily optimize his choice of defense removed.

 

Finally! You agree that changing a defense on the fly is overpowered!!!!! We could've saved pages if you agreed to this from the beginning.

 

 

In a single EC. Sounds like inefficient character design, but if you say so, I'll believe it. How much XP bonus did they need to make them competetive?

 

If you have CKC, you can look at the characters yourself.

 

 

All of them. A VPP changeable in combat can be changed to any type of defense within the VPP's SFX.

 

If that were the case, then surely the sample powers for any VPP user would've had a single example of an unbalanced PD/ED configuration. Show me.

 

 

Or perhaps the writers figured that buying "+X PD Armor", or +Y Power Defense Force Field" was a sufficiently obvious use of VPP points that it didn't merit wasting column inches on, so they stuck to more interesting sample powers. That's easily as possible as "it's so obviously abusive they don't need to discuss the issue anywhere, but it's still illegal".

 

Then show me the multipower example if that's so trivial.

 

I've already stated that I have no intention of combing the books, and that I don't consider "no one published has one" to indicate illegality. And I refer you to Jaguar above. I suspect there are Multiform characters published in 5e as well.

 

Then I guess you're conceding the point. BTW, you're the one who was saying that just because the book didn't explicitly ban it, that it had to be ok because otherwise the designers would've put in a note on it.

 

 

So we're discussing a 20% difference. I'd say 20% is within the realms of tolerable, so rather than reinvent the wheel, I'm OK using that Multipower. However, if presented with the example +15 PD, +15 ED and +7/+8 PD/ED, I'm inclined to hand it back saying "make the first two Standards and ditch the third, or give me a reason he can only select between those three configurations". That would be 21 points - within one point of your 22 point low end.

 

And I'd make them buy up both defenses. It's just as easy and less prone to abuse. And it's 39% difference if the real cost should be 25 pts.

 

If you're saying that you would allow it if the player gave a sufficiently good reason, then that means you're ok with the 18 pt cost.

 

 

Adding to the above, you have picked (accidentally, I believe) a construct which maximizes the advantage of the rounding rules. Change this to 20/20, and we get a cost of 26 (multipower w/ 3 Ultras), 28 (MP) with two flex slots) or 30 (one at fill price, second with a -1 limitation).

 

Expecting players to not take advantage of the rounding rules would be like expecting them to purchase 22 Con or Dex. It just doesn't happen with the way the rules are written. Breakpoints always can be taken of.

 

 

Wouldn't smart players also know that several hits on one target is more effective than one hit each on many targets? The fact that a player is smart does not mean they must abuse any given power construct (for example, always shifting the VPP to spot defenses).

 

I wonder whether your players would be as good at picking the right defense if they had to go from descriptions, rather than familiarity with the target's published writeup.

 

Certainly after the 2nd fight. And possibly the first fight if they do research or if the villain has a reputation.

 

First, you need to get up. Then you need to move back the 32" (64" running throw) that Grond tosses a human being (20"/40" for a 60 STR, but I'm OK with one trick ponies at campaign norms getting trounced by those geared to take advantage of their lack of flexibility). In the meantime, Grond trashes more of the city, or takes what he came for and leaves. "Win" and "knockout" are not necessarily the same thing.

 

You'll still eventually beat Grond with the flex defenses. If you had fixed ones, not only does Grond trash the ciity, you're knocked out as well. It's a massive improvement either way.

 

 

It's a convenient example of how an extra 6 points spent on a MP slot for another attack can easily win a fight against several opponents. I note you conveniently sidestep the question of whether the % of published characters this would take out one on one is similar to the % easily neutrealized by flexible defenses suficient to achieve invulnerability.

 

It's the nature of the flash attack. Which is why you keep harping on it. You can't give a single example of a damaging attack that can reliably achieve the 1 shot knockout by switching slots.

 

As noted above, I don't find the point imbalance to be at the levels you seek to imply.

 

Nor do I think the context of the quoted post would be within 10% to 20%. I suspect it falls well outside my context of the GM selecting appropriate opposition for his PC's. I would not expect a (published) character with a 2x Vulnerability to Fire to be a good challenge for The Human Torch, nor wold I expect a character with only one choice of attack type, especially an obvious one, to be a serious challenge for someone with flexible defenses.

 

Ok, 1 player is allowed to pay .8 pts for PD but everyone else has to pay 1 pt for PD. I guess you're ok with allowing that.

 

Please see above, and your numerous comments on VPP abuse.

 

I'm still waiting for an actual cite.

 

I'm fairly certain I've seen it in play, but not recently. Obviously, it didn't stick out as an "end of the world" disaster like it does for you. How can you have practical exp4erience with the construct when it lacks a published precedent and you require one to allow the construct?

 

 

IOW, you haven't actually played with a character of this type and you're theorizing.

 

 

"Walter becomes better defended at the cost of becoming stupider". MP of INT/EGO and Defenses. If I bought into the concept, I would probably allow the MP.

 

By your logic, Desolid should be allowed in a VPP or MP only if the character has abilities that affect the solid world. Otherwise, he isn't sacrificing anything by giving up all his other powers (except defenses, I suppose) when he goes desolid. I take it, then, you wouild reject a density controller with an MP holding Desolid and Density Increase, since there's no real drawback to having the DI come down when the Desolid goes up.

 

"Turtle Man who looks dashing normally but looks and feels hum drum when in his shell." Would you allow his Pre in a multipower with defenses?

 

Being desolid means that you are giving up something in combat. The ability to attack effectively. That's a pretty big drawback for any character. Also, desolid isn't meant to be up all the time by default unlike Int/Ego/Pre.

 

Are you actually trying to defend a multipower with Int, Ego, Pre, or Running and defenses? I can tell you this. If a player tried to pull this on me during character creation, I would patiently explain why I wouldn't allow it. If he persisted, I'd just tear up his character sheet and move on.

[Mentor]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Not all campaigns have hard caps. You haven't really responded to my point that attackers reliant on 1 attack form such as bricks, martial artists, most weapon masters, and many blasters are screwed vs this type of multipower. In fact, it looks like you're agreeing.

 

 

Them's the breaks. Not all PCs are effective against all enemies in all encounters. Often that is how teams(!) learn to cooperate in attacks, switch opponents with one another, drag fallen comrades to safety instead of shining in combat or rescue innocents from certain death. Super heroing is a lot more than just being the one who hits the hardest or takes the hit best.

 

(I know you are not suggesting that to be the case, Gary. I am just clarifying a position for everyone. )

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Yeah' date=' a 1 pt multipower of Pre and defenses wouldn't be either. Consider it a victory if you must. Shrug.[/quote']

 

Your initial premise was that, regardless of magnitude, the flexible defenses were unbalanced. We've now established that we only disagree as to the magnitude of flexible defenses that are unbalanced.

 

Again' date=' it sounds like you have a problem with flash specifically.[/quote']

 

Just like it sounds like you have a problem with multipowers specifically. Other 60 AP attacks that are pretty safe wins against the right opponent:

 

(a) 6d6 STR drain against no Power defense brick. You note in a prior post that allowing a 16DC attack in a 12DC game is hugely overpowered. A 6d6 SR drain sucks 4 DC per hit out of the Brick, making him underpowered. If 12d6 would have been a fair fight, good luck winning with 8d6 or less.

 

( 4d6 STR drain at range - a bit less useful against Brocks (only sucks out about 3 DC per hit), but great against those 10 STR mentalists and other characters who failed to buy STR up because they use other attacks from range. Again, characters with no Power defense are pretty much guaranteed to lose.

 

© Substitute END for STR in the above examples - how long can you keep going losing 28 or 42 END per phase? END using characters lacking power defense are done.

 

(d) 12d6 Mental Illusions are pretty effective if you have no mental defense or boosted Ego. Ego +20 makes friends seem like enemies and enemies like friends. You might make the breakout roll, but the next one comes after a turn - making you my ally for a turn seems like a pretty good variant on "instant KO" - thanks, Grond.

 

(e) A PD attack in my normally Energy MP (an ice bolt instead of a cold attack, for example) when you have 15/15 and a MP of +25/+25 flexible defenses will hit you for 42 on your weak defense when you believed all I had was energy. 42 - 15 = 27, which stuns you with your 23 CON. Once you're stunned, it should be all but over in those one on one fights you thought you had the advantage in.

 

Finally! You agree that changing a defense on the fly is overpowered!!!!! We could've saved pages if you agreed to this from the beginning.

 

I agree that, because defense powers cost less than attack powers, the ability to adjust them at the same rate based on points is excessively effective. I therefore concur with the decision to halve the effect on defensive powers so that they are drained at a similar rate of benefit, rather than the same rate of points.

 

Similarly, I would think nothing of a player with his Brick spending 50 points on STR, but would be pretty taken aback by any player proposing to spend 50points on PD. A Multipower? Well, let's look at its impact - whether it holds defenses, attacks or what have you.

 

If you have CKC' date=' you can look at the characters yourself.[/quote']

 

If I thought published precedents were more than remotely relevant, I might wait until I was at home and look it up. Your dodge of the question suggests to me that I am correct, and the bonus points allocated to these characters to offset their inefficient design are substantial.

 

BTW, are all those attack powers instant, or do they have the potential to be used together (as addressed in your recent rules question?). The MP means they can never be used together, you'll recall.

 

If that were the case' date=' then surely the sample powers for any VPP user would've had a single example of an unbalanced PD/ED configuration. Show me.[/quote']

 

Why would it need to be? You've said any smart player would optimize in this fashion. Are GM's not smart players?

 

Then I guess you're conceding the point. BTW' date=' you're the one who was saying that just because the book didn't explicitly ban it, that it had to be ok because otherwise the designers would've put in a note on it.[/quote']

 

If "the point" is that it hasn't been published, I'll happily concede. If the point is that what has a published precedent is in any way relevant, then I don't concede that point.

 

And given the number of stop signs, caution signs, "at the GM's option", "GM's should be wary" and similar comments in the book, I think any ability so obvious and so overpowered as you assert flexible defenses are would have gotten a mention somewhere.

 

And I'd make them buy up both defenses. It's just as easy and less prone to abuse. And it's 39% difference if the real cost should be 25 pts.

 

Should it be? Is that a reasonable cost for only having one available at a time? The book standard for "can only use one at a time" is, after all, a Multipower.

 

Your "solution" fails miserably if the concept of being able to fine-tune defenses was valid. Unlike you, I consider that it is posssible such a concept, where a limited pool is available for defenses and the character has to choose whether to bolster his ability to deflect physical force or radiant energy, could be valid and should be posssible to construct mechanically. "Just buy them both up" fails to reflect the concept.

 

BTW, one could just as easily tell the player with three attacks in his Multipower to "buy them all up". Why can't Light Lad fire his laser KA, his lightburst EB and his blinding Flash all at the same time? Provide me with the justification.

 

If you're saying that you would allow it if the player gave a sufficiently good reason' date=' then that means you're ok with the 18 pt cost.[/quote']

 

Yup. Now find me that good reason that the ability can be fine tuned, but only somewhat. I suppose he might have three very discrete SFX, one of which logically defends only against physical, one against energy and one against both.

 

Expecting players to not take advantage of the rounding rules would be like expecting them to purchase 22 Con or Dex. It just doesn't happen with the way the rules are written. Breakpoints always can be taken of.

 

Why aren't all attack multipowers based on 55 or 65 points to take advantage of the same rounding rules?

 

Certainly after the 2nd fight. And possibly the first fight if they do research or if the villain has a reputation.

 

Research should provide narrative information, not game mechanical effects (unless, by "research", you mean "go home and look up the villain in CKC ). After the second fight, the Gadgeteer can likely whip up something specific to target the character - or are gadgeteers also banned in your games?

 

You'll still eventually beat Grond with the flex defenses. If you had fixed ones' date=' not only does Grond trash the ciity, you're knocked out as well. It's a massive improvement either way.[/quote']

 

As I said, we need to look at the entire character. To "eventually beat Grond", he has to stick around long enough for me to whittle away at his Stun (assuming I have an attack that can do enough damage per turn that he doesn't just recover it all...) until he's finally KO'd. And the city's still trashed, so I find it hard to consider that a "win".

 

It's a massive improvement to remain conscious while the villains achieve their goals. Got it.

 

Ok' date=' 1 player is allowed to pay .8 pts for PD but everyone else has to pay 1 pt for PD. I guess you're ok with allowing that.[/quote']

 

OK, 1 player is allowed to pay 1.5 pts per DC for attacks but everyone else has to pay 5 pt per DC. I guess you're ok with allowing that.

 

That's a 5 attack Multipower vs 5 attacks purchased with no frameworks. Many characters boost their resistant PD and ED for 1/2 point per defense point in an elemental control, by the way.

 

And 0.8 points for PD is the cost if we apply a -1/4 limitation - you've suggested a -1/2 or -1 limitation when the character must choose between the PD or the ED.

 

I'm still waiting for an actual cite.

 

I'm still waiting for a cite that says "unless you see it in a published character, it's not legal". I guess we'll both be waiting for a while. [Maybe someone can run a game while we're waiting ]

 

"Turtle Man who looks dashing normally but looks and feels hum drum when in his shell." Would you allow his Pre in a multipower with defenses?

 

This whole concept of "I need to see the character as a whole and judge him by comparison to the campaign" escapes you, doesn't it?

 

I'd need some basis for the tradeoff to justify the mechanical build. Assuming I did expect it, Turtle Man can expect that he will face PRE attacks while he is in his shell - that's a signiifcant and exploitable weakness as easily discovered with experience and/or research as the correct allocation of my defensive multipower in any given situation.

 

"Turtle Man puts up his shell."

 

"LionMane roars and slashes at the ground, threatenting to peel Turtle Man's shell off him and use it as a salad bowl at fancy dinner parties - 42 point PRE attack"

 

Being desolid means that you are giving up something in combat. The ability to attack effectively. That's a pretty big drawback for any character. Also' date=' desolid isn't meant to be up all the time by default unlike Int/Ego/Pre.[/quote']

 

So you would agree that a multipower with 60 AP attacks (or 60 points of Density Increase) and Desolid, 0 END, gives up nothing when the character is desolid, correct? His other powers were only useful for attacking, and being desolid means losing the ability to attack.

 

Are you actually trying to defend a multipower with Int' date=' Ego, Pre, or Running and defenses? I can tell you this. If a player tried to pull this on me during character creation, I would patiently explain why I wouldn't allow it. If he persisted, I'd just tear up his character sheet and move on.[/quote']

 

My desire to defend it depends on the character concept that supports this being the appropriate mechanical build. My willingness to allow it starts there, and proceeds through my own analysis of "will this be unbalanced in my game?". I don't see a concept that would make me comfortable with the above, but I'm reluctant to classify anything as "impossible".

[Mentor]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

Multipower dude doesn't have an Achilles Heel. That's the whole point of the defensive multipower.

 

 

 

There are lots more foes where defensive multipower dude is nigh invulnerable than your typical unbalanced defense dude.

 

 

 

This statement has nothing to do with defensive multipower dude.

 

I tend to agree that the ability to be "everything proof" poses significant balance issues and I would be very,very loathe to allow a multipower in which it existed unless the concept was rock solid. I usually am willing to give any PC or build a shot and if I did allow the construct, it would be with the proviso that the player have a back up plan in case the build proved too unbalanced and must be redone. Communication and good will on the part of the GMs and players usually solves any difficulty of this sort.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

I see 2 characters with defensive multipowers in CKC. Black Paladin and Mechassassin. Both have Armor' date=' DCV, and Missile Deflection in a shield multipower. Nothing resembling adjustable defenses, but it should be mentioned for the sake of completeness.[/quote']

 

Gary, first off I appreciate your sense of fairness in pointing these out. Maybe not directly on point, but you know the odds I would have picked them up since I'm not looking at the published characters.

 

I would note, however, that the ability to trade off between armor and DCV seems extremely powerful to me, likely on a par with trading between PD and ED. Consider:

 

- opponent is competetive and lacks any AoE attacks. Let's say he needs a 12- to hit. Set Shield to +6 DCV (to pick a number) and go to a 6- to hit. That's pretty close to "nigh invulnerable".

 

- If the opponent has attacks that can hit me with the shield used for DCV, set it to +10/+10 Armor. I've lost nothing.

 

Ignoring any other slots, I've paid an extra 6 points (from 30 for Armor to 36 for the MP) to have the option of sacrificing 10/10 defenses to enhance my DCV by 6. That's a lot better than a Martial Dodge, in my books!

 

Them's the breaks. Not all PCs are effective against all enemies in all encounters. Often that is how teams(!) learn to cooperate in attacks' date=' switch opponents with one another, drag fallen comrades to safety instead of shining in combat or rescue innocents from certain death. Super heroing is a lot more than just being the one who hits the hardest or takes the hit best.[/quote']

 

This is my position precisely - yes, the character with flex defenses will have a huge advantage over some opponents. Pretty much every character has a huge advantage over some opponents.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

 

I tend to agree that the ability to be "everything proof" poses significant balance issues and I would be very' date='very loathe to allow a multipower in which it existed unless the concept was rock solid. I usually am willing to give any PC or build a shot and if I did allow the construct, it would be with the proviso that the player have a back up plan in case the build proved too unbalanced and must be redone. Communication and good will on the part of the GMs and players usually solves any difficulty of this sort.[/quote']

 

I agree being "everythingproof" is a game breaker. At best, I'd expect the character to be "anythingproof" - ie one type of attack cannot affect him, but he lowers his resistance to all other types to achieve that result.