Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

[schir1964]

Energy Blast (AVLD vs rPD, Does Body)

 

Obviously, this makes Energy Blast do full effect of Stun/Body against any target that has no Resistant Physical Defense.

 

Question:

Does the Advantage Level Required for this effect reflect the actual utility of the power?

 

Just Curious

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

Energy Blast (AVLD vs rPD, Does Body)

 

Obviously, this makes Energy Blast do full effect of Body against any target that has no Resistant Physical Defense.

 

However, they technically still get to apply Normal Physical Defense against the Stun of the attack (perhaps it should not).

 

Question:

Does the Advantage Level Required for this effect reflect the actual utility of the power?

 

Just Curious

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

The purpose and value of AVLD is vs. Power Defense, Mental Defense, and Flash Defense. It also usually needs Does BODY to be of any use for a net +2 1/2 advantage. Even with such a heavy modifier cost, it can be a very useful ability. The problem is in games with AP caps, it's an impractical modifier approach because the total effect will probably be too weak to make much impact. In games w/ no AP cap it becomes much more approachable since it's usually easy to have enough dice and still be able to drop at least one Lim on the construct to cut the RC down for a very tidy and potent effect.

[archermoo]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

However, they technically still get to apply Normal Physical Defense against the Stun of the attack (perhaps it should not).

 

Why would they get to apply Normal PD against the Stun of the attack? It is an AVLD. Just because it also does Body damage doesn't mean that the Stun damage is not covered by the AVLD Advantage.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

Since it's not intended for AVLD to be used against Resistant PD or Resistant ED I would say let this into your campaign at your own risk - and keep in mind it will be less useful and more expensive in the average game since almost all games have some kind of Resistant PD/ED available.

 

Also - Archermoo is correct, the STUN of the Attack would not work against Normal PD; otherwise it would do nothing without the Does Body Advantage.

 

In fact, unlike a Killing Attack - even if you have Resistant PD/ED you could not use your Normal PD/ED against the Stun of this Attack specifically because AVLD is not defined that way. It works ONLY against the defined Defense.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

Agreed, I think that if you had no rPD you have no defence against either the STUN or BODY damage.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

For 70 points you can get a 4d6 AVLD (Does Body), a 5d6-1 NND (does Body) or a 14d6 normal attack, averaging 14/4, 17/5 and 49/14 damage respectively.

 

If the AVLD is agaisnt rPD, and the NND is stopped by rPD then you are far better off with the normal attack, although it is unlikely any will do Body damage in a game where those power levels are the norm.

 

Where AVLD and NND come into their own is where the required defence is either not present or not high enough to stop them (for AVLD).

 

Generally AVLD, certainly if you are going to bother with Does BODY is not worth it because you are still dealing with a small number of defences and, as power levels increase, it is increasingly likely that even relatively esoteric defences will be present, but NND has a much broader field to choose from: sfx, which can be almost anything and it is highly likely that, when facing a group of opponents who are not identical, an NND will be able to affect several of them (depends on build, but generally that is true).

 

Personally I think AVLD is overpriced.

[schir1964]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

Now that everyone has stated the obvious (Normal Defense Doesn't Count), it makes perfectly logical sense that it shouldn't. (8^D)

 

Now how does this build compare to a Ranged Killing Attack in cost and utility?

 

1d6 EB (AVLD vs rPD, Does Body: +2 1/2): 17 Points

- Stun: 1 Minimum, 6 Maximum, Average: 3.5 Stun

- Body: 0 Minimum, 2 Maximum, Average: 1 Body

 

1d6 RKA: 15 Points

- Stun: 1 Minimum, 30 Maximum, Average: 12 Stun

- Body: 1 Minimum, 6 Maximum, Average: 3.5 Body

 

Hmmm...

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

Generally AVLD, certainly if you are going to bother with Does BODY is not worth it because you are still dealing with a small number of defences and, as power levels increase, it is increasingly likely that even relatively esoteric defences will be present, but NND has a much broader field to choose from: sfx, which can be almost anything and it is highly likely that, when facing a group of opponents who are not identical, an NND will be able to affect several of them (depends on build, but generally that is true).

 

Personally I think AVLD is overpriced.

 

I'd like to fold AVLD into NND. For +1, the attack works against an exotic defense. If that's a defense measured in points (like Power Defense), it subtracts the defense. If it's a special effect, life support, etc. then it's all or nothing.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

I'd like to fold AVLD into NND. For +1' date=' the attack works against an exotic defense. If that's a defense measured in points (like Power Defense), it subtracts the defense. If it's a special effect, life support, etc. then it's all or nothing.[/quote']

 

What if you're building an effect that would be stopped completely (all or nothing) by a point-style defense...for example, a sonic blast that is stopped dead by Hearing Flash Defense?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

What if you're building an effect that would be stopped completely (all or nothing) by a point-style defense...for example' date=' a sonic blast that is stopped dead by Hearing Flash Defense?[/quote']

 

My simplistic question would be "why is it stopped dead by a single point of Hearing Flash defense instead of being blunted to the extent of such defense"?

 

How many attacks are stopped dead by PD or ED?

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

My simplistic question would be "why is it stopped dead by a single point of Hearing Flash defense instead of being blunted to the extent of such defense"?

 

How many attacks are stopped dead by PD or ED?

 

Not many, but that doesn't mean there can't be any. You could build a poison dart as an RKA that's stopped by rPD...it's too lightweight to penetrate even heavy clothing, but if it hits skin, you're done.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

The Poison Dart was going to be my example as well.

 

Insta-Kill Poison Dart: 4D6 RKA, NDD (rPD), Does Body.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

What if I want to build, say, a lightsaber, and I want it to ignore material ED, but interact with force field SFX ED normally? Or, for another example, a "depleted necronium" bullet from the GURPS magic/technology setting, which ignores all magical defenses but interacts with physical objects normally? It flies right through the most powerful magical shield, but a good bulletproof vest will stop it.

 

I'd kind of like to see a mechanic for this sort of thing, and AVLD seems like the logical place for it to be. Does it already cover this and I just missed it?

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

What if I want to build, say, a lightsaber, and I want it to ignore material ED, but interact with force field SFX ED normally? Or, for another example, a "depleted necronium" bullet from the GURPS magic/technology setting, which ignores all magical defenses but interacts with physical objects normally? It flies right through the most powerful magical shield, but a good bulletproof vest will stop it.

 

I'd kind of like to see a mechanic for this sort of thing, and AVLD seems like the logical place for it to be. Does it already cover this and I just missed it?

 

I would most likely do this with a tweak to NND, giving it a limitation that (insert whatever kind of defense) still applies.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

Energy Blast (AVLD vs rPD, Does Body)

 

Obviously, this makes Energy Blast do full effect of Stun/Body against any target that has no Resistant Physical Defense.

 

Question:

Does the Advantage Level Required for this effect reflect the actual utility of the power?

 

Just Curious

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

I think a good case could be made that an Energy Blast, AVLD vs rPD, would fall under the category of "a limited form of the Power's standard defense," as in the rulebook description of the AVLD Advantage, and hence should cost +3/4 rather than +1 1/2.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

What if I want to build, say, a lightsaber, and I want it to ignore material ED, but interact with force field SFX ED normally? Or, for another example, a "depleted necronium" bullet from the GURPS magic/technology setting, which ignores all magical defenses but interacts with physical objects normally? It flies right through the most powerful magical shield, but a good bulletproof vest will stop it.

 

I'd kind of like to see a mechanic for this sort of thing, and AVLD seems like the logical place for it to be. Does it already cover this and I just missed it?

 

I agree that it certainly could be built this way. As with the example I refer to previously, a case could be made for AVLD at +3/4 in both cases, perhaps depending on the frequency of the relevant category of Defences in a given campaign.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

Now that everyone has stated the obvious (Normal Defense Doesn't Count), it makes perfectly logical sense that it shouldn't. (8^D)

 

Now how does this build compare to a Ranged Killing Attack in cost and utility?

 

1d6 EB (AVLD vs rPD, Does Body: +2 1/2): 17 Points

- Stun: 1 Minimum, 6 Maximum, Average: 3.5 Stun

- Body: 0 Minimum, 2 Maximum, Average: 1 Body

 

1d6 RKA: 15 Points

- Stun: 1 Minimum, 30 Maximum, Average: 12 Stun

- Body: 1 Minimum, 6 Maximum, Average: 3.5 Body

 

Hmmm...

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Even if this example continues to pay for AVLD at +1 1/2 (see my posts above), I think it's worth keeping in mind how any Advantaged Power interacts with subsequent Advantages. Things like Reduced Endurance and Area Of Effect are going to come out a lot cheaper when tacked on to an AVLD attack with the same Active Points as an unAdvantaged Power.

[CUnknown]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

AVLD should probably have 'Does Body' for free, unlike NND. I think that would solve the problem. So, the total advantage would just be +1.5.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

An NND Poison Dart has two forms of NND, in effect: it cannot affect you unless it can penetrate your skin but it also cannot affect you if you are immune to poison.

 

The way around this is EITHER to build NND Poison Dart as:

 

6d6 NND EB (LS: Poison) AND a limtiation (cannot inject poison through resistant defences)

 

OR we re-jig NND.

 

NND (No NORMAL Defence)

 

+1 Abnormal defence (eg PowDef, FD, MD, LoW)

+3/4 Abnormal common defence (rDEF)

+1/2 Very common condition prevents (including having ANY abnormal defence)

+1 Common or predictable but uncommon condition prevents

+1 1/2 Uncommon defence prevents

 

NB if two or more seperate things can prevent damage, and they are of a similar level of 'commonness' then apply th eadvantage -1/4.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

Come to think about it I might grade the advantage on whether a condition, even if it is not that common, nor necessarily 'predictable' is attainable - for instance, if all you need to do to prevent Tagrathath's Alien Mind Ray is swathe your head in tin foil - anything anyone could do, although they may not think to - that should be worth less of an advantage than something that you cannot attain without spending character points - like having mental defence.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

An NND Poison Dart has two forms of NND, in effect: it cannot affect you unless it can penetrate your skin but it also cannot affect you if you are immune to poison.

 

The way around this is EITHER to build NND Poison Dart as:

 

6d6 NND EB (LS: Poison) AND a limtiation (cannot inject poison through resistant defences)

 

OR we re-jig NND.

 

NND (No NORMAL Defence)

 

+1 Abnormal defence (eg PowDef, FD, MD, LoW)

+3/4 Abnormal common defence (rDEF)

+1/2 Very common condition prevents

+1 Common or predictable but uncommon condition prevents

+1 1/2 Uncommon defence prevents

 

NB if two or more seperate things can prevent damage, and they are of a similar level of 'commonness' then apply th eadvantage -1/4.

 

Or link the NND to an attack with the limitation that it doesn't work if the linked attack does no Body.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

An NND Poison Dart has two forms of NND, in effect: it cannot affect you unless it can penetrate your skin but it also cannot affect you if you are immune to poison.

 

The way around this is EITHER to build NND Poison Dart as:

 

6d6 NND EB (LS: Poison) AND a limtiation (cannot inject poison through resistant defences)

 

A number of "poison dart" attacks and similar concepts appear in published Fifth Edition books as NND (Immunity), Linked to a Killing Attack, with a further Limitation that the Killing Attack must do BODY Damage past the target's Defenses. OTOH I've seen other official write-ups in which Defenses too large for Xd6 Killing Attack to penetrate are just one of the conditions blocking a particular NND. "No Normal Defense" needn't be singular, after all. By the rules and examples there can be more than one condition or ability that stops any given one.

 

OR we re-jig NND.

 

NND (No NORMAL Defence)

 

+1 Abnormal defence (eg PowDef, FD, MD, LoW)

+3/4 Abnormal common defence (rDEF)

+1/2 Very common condition prevents (including having ANY abnormal defence)

+1 Common or predictable but uncommon condition prevents

+1 1/2 Uncommon defence prevents

 

NB if two or more seperate things can prevent damage, and they are of a similar level of 'commonness' then apply th eadvantage -1/4.

 

 

Come to think about it I might grade the advantage on whether a condition' date=' even if it is not that common, nor necessarily 'predictable' is attainable - for instance, if all you need to do to prevent Tagrathath's Alien Mind Ray is swathe your head in tin foil - anything anyone could do, although they may not think to - that should be worth less of an advantage than something that you cannot attain without spending character points - like having mental defence.[/quote']

 

Well, the rules for this Advantage already give us the option to make NND only +1/2 if the Defense is "extraordinarily common," or if you switch one Exotic Defense attack to another Exotic Defense; so a +3/4 gradation would certainly seem within the purview of the GM. Going in the other direction, under Fourth Edition if a Defense was extremely uncommon the NND Advantage went to +2. While that may be too steep, I've long felt that some of the NND conditions I've seen in books are so narrow that the Advantage should have cost more than +1.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

A number of "poison dart" attacks and similar concepts appear in published Fifth Edition books as NND (Immunity)' date=' Linked to a Killing Attack, with a further Limitation that the Killing Attack must do BODY Damage past the target's Defenses. OTOH I've seen other official write-ups in which Defenses too large for Xd6 Killing Attack to penetrate are just one of the conditions blocking a particular NND. "No Normal Defense" needn't be singular, after all. By the rules and examples there can be more than one condition or ability that stops any given one.[/quote']

 

To my mind taking an NND and a 1 pip KA and having the NND only work if the KA does Body is a serious limitation on the NND. It is a perfect example of building something as it is (i.e. a carrier attack and the carried attack) but getting the cost very wrong: the NND would be far better off WITHOUT the carrier attack. Certainly in a Champions game almost everyone has some rPD: the attack becomes almost useless, so a simple 'linked' limitation is no where near enough to make this build style attractive, or even really practicable.

 

There's no easy answer, of course, and, if you think about it, even NND is a slightly dodgy costing. Realistically no one takes NND as their only main attack, whereas a number of characters might have a 'straight' EB as their only main attack.

 

The reason, again, taking a Champions type example, is because if you assume a 12DC game with defences at around 2xDC, that gives you 42 points against around 24 points of defence for the EB, or about 18 through defences. You also do Body and KB (although the Body rarely bothers other sismilar characters it is useful for breaking stuff).

 

The NND averages 21 stun through defences IF you don't have th erelevant defence, or none at all if you do, and no KB or Body. Very few people will decide that an extra 3 points of stun on average through defences is worth the downside.

 

As a secondary in a MP, NND is a steal though - against the right opponent - one you know does not have the relevant defence and has average to high defences, it is the obvious choice. Consequently the pricing does not make NND attractive enough to be anything but a secondary choice.

 

Actually that is no criticism of the pricing of NND at all, but it is an observation on the hidden template for characters that Hero imposes on us all.

 

 

Well' date=' the rules for this Advantage already give us the option to make NND only +1/2 if the Defense is "extraordinarily common," or if you switch one Exotic Defense attack to another Exotic Defense; so a +3/4 gradation would certainly seem within the purview of the GM. Going in the other direction, under Fourth Edition if a Defense was extremely [b']un[/b]common the NND Advantage went to +2. While that may be too steep, I've long felt that some of the NND conditions I've seen in books are so narrow that the Advantage should have cost more than +1.

 

 

I think it would be a good plan to incorporate AVLD into NND and structure the whole thing a shade more broadly, incorporating the options more obviously.

[schir1964]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

Not quite the direction I thought this discussion would go.

 

Arrrgggghhh! Sean! I'm now going to have to create another thread to explore the whole Unified NND Advantage/Limitation and AVLD idea.

 

Curses! (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: Analysis: Attack Vs Limited Defense Energy Blast

 

Not quite the direction I thought this discussion would go.

 

Arrrgggghhh! Sean! I'm now going to have to create another thread to explore the whole Unified NND Advantage/Limitation and AVLD idea.

 

Curses! (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

You know you love me really