Attack Advantage vs. Damage Reduction

[Mister E]

I'm thinking of implementing a new +1/2 advantage for attack powers (call it, "Damage Reduction Penetration") to mitigate Damage Reduction by 25% per +1/2.

 

Likewise, I'd like to be able to add a special form of "Hardened" (+1/4...) to Damage Reduction to resist this new advantage.

 

 

 

Thoughts?

 

I want to use it to simulate the +enchantment requirement to damage most extraplanar monsters in D&D (specifically in the Planescape setting). The idea is to add a level of graduation to this form of 'invulnerability' that is a little more forgiving than what has come before.

 

Example:

 

I am a monster that can only be hit by "+1" magic weapons. If a +1 sword is used on me, it works normaly. If a "normal" (non-magical) weapon is used on me, I want to get 25% damage reduction.

 

 

~ Mister E

[Psylint]

Re: Attack Advantage vs. Damage Reduction

 

Sounds like a limitation instead.

 

e.g.

 

I monster have 25% Physical Damage Reduction Lim. Power. not against +1 or better enchanted weapons -1/2? -1?

 

Peace

[Sean Waters]

Re: Attack Advantage vs. Damage Reduction

 

That does seems like the more straightforward solution, and makes DR relatively cheap for FH:

 

25% DR: not v +1 or better magic weapons 15 -2 = 5 points

The next 25% DR not v +2 or better magic weapons +15 points -1 = 7 points

The next 25% DR not v +3 or better magic weapons 30 points -1/2 = 20 points

 

Full DR 32 points and works against non magic weapons

50% DR v +1 or better

25% DR against +2 or better

0% DR against +3 or better.

 

My limitation values might seem generous, but IME magic weapons get pretty ubiquitous pretty quickly, even if that is not so for the majority of the population it tends to eb so for a large proportion of those that magic creatures encounter.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attack Advantage vs. Damage Reduction

 

I'm thinking of implementing a new +1/2 advantage for attack powers (call it' date=' "Damage Reduction Penetration") to mitigate Damage Reduction by 25% per +1/2.[/quote']

 

First off, I agree with the comments to date that this is better modeled as a limitation on Damage Reduction than an advantage to the attack.

 

Second, why would I buy, say, a 6d6 Energy Blast, reduce Damage Reduction by 25%, rather than buy a 9d6 EB. Against targets lacking Damage Reduction, I do 50% more damage. Against a target with 25% damage reduction, I can either average 6d6 x 3.5 = 21 STUN, minus defenses, or 9d6 x 3.5 = 31.5 STUN, minus defenses, x 75%. If the target has no defenses, 6d6 averages 21 STUN and 9d6 will average 23.625. Adding defenses increases the spread. The "mitigates damage reduction" attack is always worse off.

 

Likewise' date=' I'd like to be able to add a special form of "Hardened" (+1/4...) to Damage Reduction to resist this new advantage.[/quote']

 

So I can pay an extra 7 points to Harden my 50% Resistant Energy Dam Red, or I could buy +7 ED or +5 rED. That 21 STUN against my 10 defenses gets 11 through, and I take off 25%, leaving 8. Or that 21 STUN goes against my new 15 (17) ED and I take 6 (4) STUN. And the extra defenses also reduce my damage from that 9d6 non-advantaged attack.

 

I'll just buy the defenses, thanks (as armor if need be to avoid NCM).

[Mister E]

Re: Attack Advantage vs. Damage Reduction

 

Sounds like a limitation instead.

 

That does seems like the more straightforward solution' date=' and makes DR relatively cheap for FH:[/quote']

 

First off' date=' I agree with the comments to date that this is better modeled as a limitation on Damage Reduction than an advantage to the attack.[/quote']

 

It looks to me like the game play would be exactly the same. Good suggestion. Way...way... cheaper.

 

Limiting DR doesn't make the mechanic an Advantage Cold War, either (like "Hardened" vs. "AP").

 

My limitation values might seem generous' date=' but IME magic weapons get pretty ubiquitous pretty quickly, even if that is not so for the majority of the population it tends to eb so for a large proportion of those that magic creatures encounter. [/quote']

 

For sure.

 

Second' date=' why would I buy, say, a 6d6 Energy Blast, reduce Damage Reduction by 25%, rather than buy a 9d6 EB. Against targets lacking Damage Reduction, I do 50% more damage. Against a target with 25% damage reduction, I can either average 6d6 x 3.5 = 21 STUN, minus defenses, or 9d6 x 3.5 = 31.5 STUN, minus defenses, x 75%. If the target has no defenses, 6d6 averages 21 STUN and 9d6 will average 23.625. Adding defenses increases the spread. The "mitigates damage reduction" attack is always worse off.[/quote']

 

... and there you go. "Cost vs. Effectiveness" was the major reason I posted this. Mind you, I was thinking of implementing this advantage on Independent OAF's... but the ultimate usefulness of the advantage is in question.

 

Would you consider it being a +1/4 (or +zero?) advantage, instead?

 

Ballancing DR is wild...

 

So I can pay an extra 7 points to Harden my 50% Resistant Energy Dam Red, or I could buy +7 ED or +5 rED. That 21 STUN against my 10 defenses gets 11 through, and I take off 25%, leaving 8. Or that 21 STUN goes against my new 15 (17) ED and I take 6 (4) STUN. And the extra defenses also reduce my damage from that 9d6 non-advantaged attack.

 

I'll just buy the defenses, thanks (as armor if need be to avoid NCM).

 

/points to his nose

 

This is how I originally envisioned it going down:

 

+1 to effect = rDR 25% ... 15 char pts

+2 to effect = rDR 50% ... 30 char pts

+3 to effect = rDR 75% ... 60 char pts

+4 to effect = rDR 100% ... 120 char pts

+5 to effect = rDR 100% "Hardened" ... 150 char pts

[Psylint]

Re: Attack Advantage vs. Damage Reduction

 

Confused.

 

You want to have Independent OAF's with attacks that limit Damage Reduction?

 

It still seems to work better as a limitation. I mean any Independent OAF you wanted to avoid Damage Reduction could just have as sfx or whatever "treated as a +6 weapon" or what have you.

 

I simply don't understand your chart at the end. Is it to imply, "things that are "immune" to weapons less than +1 have 25% resistant damage reduction" or that you're creating a new power called "+1-ness" which is a free floating adder to an attack power the effect of which is to do an instantaneous suppress of the particular target's damage resistance power to the 25% resistant damage reduction level?"

 

 

Honestly, it seems a confusing way to go about things. In most campaigns I've been in Damage Reduction is rare, perhaps because it yields such funky results. In fantasy or dark champions campaigns it's limited to important antagonists that need to both bleed and last a long time.

 

I suppose you could have something like "Armor Piercing Lim. Power only versus targets with the appropriate Damage reduction."

 

or have xd6 of the attack power of the Independent OAF with the Limitation only versus targets with the appropriate Damage reduction.

 

Cheers

[Mister E]

Re: Attack Advantage vs. Damage Reduction

 

Confused.

 

You want to have Independent OAF's with attacks that limit Damage Reduction?

 

It still seems to work better as a limitation. I mean any Independent OAF you wanted to avoid Damage Reduction could just have as sfx or whatever "treated as a +6 weapon" or what have you.

 

Essentialy, this is part of my hammering out package deals for the escalating levels of enchantment in my game. Initially, I was just going to tack on multiple levels of the DR-Penetration advantage (which is a non-canonical mechanic)...

 

... but, yeah, going with the limitation seems easier (and the cost-effectiveness factor is messed up, otherwise).

 

I simply don't understand your chart at the end. Is it to imply' date=' "things that are "immune" to weapons less than +1 have 25% resistant damage reduction"...? "[/quote']

 

That's the one.

 

Honestly, it seems a confusing way to go about things.

Cheers

 

I aim to please.

[Psylint]

Re: Attack Advantage vs. Damage Reduction

 

Still confused,

 

It seems that you're convinced that limitation is the route to go, well then there's no need for a special "Suppresses Damage Resistance" power for Independent OAF (presumably one of a kind "gawd" weapons).

 

If Big Monster A is immune to weapons +3 and below, by your chart it has 75% resistant damage reduction lim. power not against attacks from weapons +4 or greater.

 

Then to "pierce" the damage reduction, you just have to qualify the Independent OAF gawd weapon as a "+4 or greater weapon"

 

This is kinda Ultimate Energy Projector territory where they talk about adders or even advantages for certain sfx because they "win" more often against other sfx. I dinnah have it, but you might look at that for a guide. If damage reduction is at all common, and it seems like its essentially everywhere in your campaign, then it seems that the different levels of "+ness" could reasonably be give advantage or adder values.

 

Think of it this way, if Armor Piercing, in the main, negates half of a target's defense and is worth +1/2; and damage resistance according to this level structure is essentially everywhere, then the "+ness" that results in negating approximately half a target's defenses should be valued at +1/2.

 

So going by that, I do something like this, assuming a 350pt campaign:

 

New Power Adder/advantage "+ness"

 

+1 ness; The lesser of 1/4 or 10 pt. adder to any attack power.

+2 ness; The lesser of 1/4 or 15 pt. adder

+3 ness; +1/2

+4 ness; +1

+5 ness; +1 1/2 or +2

 

Why the escalation? Because a target with 75% damage reduction is almost impossible to kill, and the damage reduction is likely to be essentially all of their defensive power.

 

For +1ness and +2ness I might even go lower on the adder cost, depending on the campaign. From memory, those things that are only "immune" to +1 and +2 weapons tend to be mown over anyway so avoiding the Damage reduction on such mooks isn't that big a deal. Being able to cut down demons and dragons with immunity to +4 and +5, however is a big advantage.

 

Peace

[JmOz]

Re: Attack Advantage vs. Damage Reduction

 

here is a suggestion, try a limitation on a partialy limited attack (Only vs creatures w/Damage reduction, 1-/2, -1, -2, depending on min level of DR needed to use the extra damage)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Attack Advantage vs. Damage Reduction

 

First off' date=' I [b']still[/b] agree with the comments to date that this is better modeled as a limitation on Damage Reduction than an advantage to the attack.

 

Second, why would I buy, say, a 6d6 Energy Blast, reduce Damage Reduction by 25%, rather than buy a 9d6 EB. Against targets lacking Damage Reduction, I do 50% more damage. Against a target with 25% damage reduction, I can either average 6d6 x 3.5 = 21 STUN, minus defenses, or 9d6 x 3.5 = 31.5 STUN, minus defenses, x 75%. If the target has no defenses, 6d6 averages 21 STUN and 9d6 will average 23.625. Adding defenses increases the spread. The "mitigates damage reduction" attack is always worse off.

 

... and there you go. "Cost vs. Effectiveness" was the major reason I posted this. Mind you, I was thinking of implementing this advantage on Independent OAF's... but the ultimate usefulness of the advantage is in question.

 

Would you consider it being a +1/4 (or +zero?) advantage, instead?

 

So now we have a 6d6 "mitigates 25% Dam Red" attack costing the same as a 7.5d6 attack. Against targets lacking Damage Reduction, I do 25% more damage. Against a target with 25% damage reduction, I can either average 6d6 x 3.5 = 21 STUN, minus defenses, or 7d6 x 3.5 + 2 = 26.5 STUN, minus defenses, x 75%. If the target has no defenses, 6d6 averages 21 STUN and 7 1/2d6 will average 19.875. he "mitigates damage reduction" attack is sometimes better off. However, against a target with 3 defenses, the "Mitigates" attack averages 17.625 STUN and the normal attack averages 18. How many creatures with Dam Red will have defenses of 0 to 2?

 

It's likely still not worth hardening my DR rather than buying more defenses.

 

Balancing DR is wild...

 

Unless the attacks are quite powerful, Damage Reduction tends to be a poor use of points compared to buying more defenses. If your game features, say, 9d6 attacks and 6 Defenses as a typical level, a typical attach does 25.5 Stun and 3 BOD after defenses. Should you invest 15 points in Damage Reduction, or +10 rDEF?

 

With +10 rDEF, that attack drops to 19.125 STUN, 0.75 BOD on average.

 

The attack needs to rise to 13d6 to make DR better, and then it's only 0.625 STUN. A 20d6 attack gets 50.25 points through against DR and 57 against normal defenses, so the advantage is still pretty minor, and I'm betting 20d6 attacks are pretty uncommon. [As are characters who are still going after taking either 50 or 57 Stun after defenses.]

 

Not knowing your game norms, but I suspect DR itself may not be such a great buy, point for point, even without adding the ability to pierce it.

[Psylint]

Re: Attack Advantage vs. Damage Reduction

 

Hugh's analysis is pretty spot on. Damage Reduction almost never pays for itself, unless there are a lot of attacks that really break the damage norms by a whole lot, or there is a low and hard cap on resistant defenses.

 

But that may very well be the case. If the campaign is designed such that even non hardcore melee types can still whack something with a worm-eaten chair leg and do something, then the rDef of targets might very well be a lot lower than what one would expect based on point costs. Even a squishy energy projector in a 350 supers game is likely to have at least 10 rpd, but if whimps with chair legs can hurt 350 pt dragons, it probably has only 3 or 4 rpd. Heck it might only have 4 pd, if you want the extremely dedicated chair leg wielder to eventually club the dragon to death (provided of course that said whimp can hit, stays alive etc.).

 

If normal defenses are capped at 4 pd, then Damage Reduction becomes a lot more valuable (admitted only because of the artificial restriction of more cost efficient alternatives). I suspect that this is the case, that there is a hard cap on defense and resistant defense and it is very low.

 

Remember Hugh, that Mister E may be trying to replicate some of the hack and slash games with which most of us are familiar. In those games the +5 sword of striking does the same amount of damage to "+1 creatures" as "+4 creatures." It might make things really cludgy, the + 5 sword of striking now looks like

 

xd6 HKA, +.5xd6 HKA vrs. targets with 25% damage reduction only, + xd6 HKA vrs. targets with 50% damage reduction only, +1.5xd6 HKA targets with 75% damage reduction only.

 

as opposed to:

 

xd6 HKA, +5 weapon.

 

It seems clear to me that if Damage Reduction is as wide spread as I think it is, then characters should pay for "+ness"

 

 

Peace

 

On the other hand: it also seems that in that genre that shall not be named, the effect of the +3 resistant-ness is that weapons of lesser value that +4 cannot hit. So what you'd be looking at may be DCV levels instead.

 

Resistant to +1 or less weapons == +2 DCV

Resistant to +2 or less === +3 DCV

 

etc.

 

Then the +5 sword of striking looks like:

 

xd6 HKA, linked with +5 OCV with sword attacks

 

Which would make "+ness" a lot easier and less expensive to model. You could still have the Damage Reduction limited by "+ness" if you wanted. Alternatively, you could provide each of the creatures with 100% Damage Reduction, doesn't work against "x +ness" and just have a convention that "+ness" is bought as OCV levels to the focus, +1 "+ness" per +1 OCV.

 

That's probably the best construction to model the genre that shall not be named.

[Mister E]

Re: Attack Advantage vs. Damage Reduction

 

Not knowing your game norms' date=' but I suspect DR itself may not be such a great buy, point for point, even without adding the ability to pierce it.[/quote']

 

One of the reasons I'm using graduated DR is because I'm trying to minimize the effectiveness of extraplanar beings that jack up the game.

[Mister E]

Re: Attack Advantage vs. Damage Reduction

 

Okay, so I'm going with the SFX Limitation on rDR... I'm adding a "SFX signature" that designates the level of enchantment on magic weapons... and I'm using a (-2) Limitation across the board.

 

Example:

 

"+5 or better weapons to hit":

 

rDR 25% (15 apts); SFX Limitation (Only works on attacks w/ the +4 SFX signature; -2). Total Cost: 5 cpts.

 

rDR 50% (30 apts); SFX Limitation (Only works on attacks w/ the +3 SFX signature; -2): 10 cpts.

 

rDR 75% (60 apts); SFX Limitation (Only works on attacks w/ the +2 SFX signature; -2): 20 cpts.

 

rDR 100% (120 apts); SFX Limitation (Only works on attacks w/ the +1 SFX signature; -2): 40 cpts.

 

rDR 100% (120 apts); SFX Limitation (Only works on "non-magical" attacks; -2): 40 cpts.

 

Total Cost: 115 cpts.

 

 

"+4 or better weapons to hit":

 

rDR 25% (15 apts); SFX Limitation (Only works on attacks w/ the +3 SFX signature; -2). Total Cost: 5 cpts.

 

rDR 50% (30 apts); SFX Limitation (Only works on attacks w/ the +2 SFX signature; -2): 10 cpts.

 

rDR 75% (60 apts); SFX Limitation (Only works on attacks w/ the +1 SFX signature; -2): 20 cpts.

 

rDR 100% (120 apts); SFX Limitation (Only works on "non-magical" attacks; -2): 40 cpts.

 

Total Cost: 75 cpts.

 

 

"+3 or better weapons to hit":

 

rDR 25% (15 apts); SFX Limitation (Only works on attacks w/ the +2 SFX signature; -2). Total Cost: 5 cpts.

 

rDR 50% (30 apts); SFX Limitation (Only works on attacks w/ the +1 SFX signature; -2): 10 cpts.

 

rDR 75% (60 apts); SFX Limitation (Only works on "non-magical" attacks; -2): 20 cpts.

 

Total Cost: 35 cpts.

 

 

"+2 or better weapons to hit":

 

rDR 25% (15 apts); SFX Limitation (Only works on attacks w/ the +1 SFX signature; -2). Total Cost: 5 cpts.

 

rDR 50% (30 apts); SFX Limitation (Only works on "non-magical" attacks; -2): 10 cpts.

 

Total Cost: 15 cpts.

 

 

"+1 or better weapons to hit":

 

rDR 25% (15 apts); SFX Limitation (Only works on "non-magical" attacks; -2): 5 cpts.

 

Total Cost: 5 cpts.