Analysis: Deconstruction of NND/AVLD

[schir1964]

Deconstruction of NND/AVLD

This is thread to explore the mechanics of No Normal Defense and Attack Versus Limited Defense. The information gathered from this thread will probably be used to create an alternative approach to handling these concepts.

 

Step 1

Separate the components of NND/AVLD.

 

Both NND and AVLD incorporate Advantages with Limitations for a net effect. These need to be separated and handled as two mechanics each.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Analysis: Deconstruction of NND/AVLD

 

No Normal Defense

Standard Attack Components

• Reduces Ability Of Target (STUN/BODY/POWER/Etc)
  
• Attack Effect Reduced By Defense (But With Very Broad SFX)
  

NND Components

• Reduces Ability Of Target (STUN/BODY/POWER/Etc)
  
• Attack Effect Not Reduced: Advantage
  
• Does Stun Only: Limitation
  
• Only Against Non-Standard/Uncommon Defenses (Narrow SFX): Limitation
  

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Analysis: Deconstruction of NND/AVLD

 

Attack Versus Limited Defense

Standard Attack Components

 

• Reduces Ability Of Target (STUN/BODY/POWER/Etc)
  
• Attack Effect Reduced By Defense (Very Broad SFX)
  

 

AVLD Components

 

• Reduces Ability Of Target (STUN/BODY/POWER/Etc)
  
• Attack Effect Reduced By Defense
  
• Does Stun Only: Limitation
  
• Only Against Non-Standard/Uncommon Defense: Advantage
  

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Analysis: Deconstruction of NND/AVLD

 

Comparison

 

Best Circumstance For Attacker

No Normal Defense: Attack Has Full Stun Effect On Target

Attack Versus Limited Defense: Attack Has Full Stun Effect On Target

 

Worst Circumstance For Attacker

No Normal Defense: Attack Has Zero Stun Effect On Target

Attack Versus Limited Defense: Attack's Stun Effect Is Reduced By Defense

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Analysis: Deconstruction of NND/AVLD

 

Unified Mechanic

 

• Damage Effect
  
  • Stun Only (-1/4)
    

  [*]Commonality Of Defense

  • Multiple Defenses (Varies): Each additional defense added to a Very Common Defense is an additional -1/4 Limitation.
    
  • Very Common Defense (-1/2)
    
  • Common Defense (0)
    
  • Uncommon Defense (+1)
    
  • Very Uncommon Defense (+2)
    

  [*]Effect Of Target Defense (-1/2, +0): Defense Reduces Damage To Zero (-1/2), Defense Reduces Damage Normally (-0).

Thoughts?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Analysis: Deconstruction of NND/AVLD

 

Okay, I think I'm done.

 

Did I miss anything?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[mikesama]

Re: Analysis: Deconstruction of NND/AVLD

 

No Normal Defense

Standard Attack Components

• Reduces Ability Of Target (STUN/BODY/POWER/Etc)
  
• Attack Effect Reduced By Defense (But With Very Broad SFX)
  

NND Components

• Reduces Ability Of Target (STUN/BODY/POWER/Etc)
  
• Attack Effect Not Reduced: Advantage
  
• Does Stun Only: Limitation
  
• Only Against Non-Standard/Uncommon Defenses (Narrow SFX): Limitation
  

- Christopher Mullins

 

Why is the stopped by uncommon defense/certain special effects a limitation? Remember it's not that you only effect a limited special effect but actually only people with X power or special effect are immune to it. at the same time you can use it to make things that target say all machines by saying NND (defense is not being a machine).

[Kdansky]

Re: Analysis: Deconstruction of NND/AVLD

 

You could have used one post instead of five, this makes it very weird to read...

 

You are missing:

 

- Any amount of defense disables attack. (NND)

- Defense reduces attack relative to strength. (AVLD)

[schir1964]

Re: Analysis: Deconstruction of NND/AVLD

 

Why is the stopped by uncommon defense/certain special effects a limitation? Remember it's not that you only effect a limited special effect but actually only people with X power or special effect are immune to it. at the same time you can use it to make things that target say all machines by saying NND (defense is not being a machine).

Yeah, I know that the way I posted it, it is counter-intuitive.

 

Original Definition:

No Normal Defense requires that Defenses specified must be Common/Standard which are immune against the NND.

 

Corollary Definition:

No Normal Defense requires that Defenses must be Uncommon/Non-Standard which have no effect against the NND.

 

It isn't an exact match, but it is close enough to make the comparison between mechanics much easier to see and to measure.

 

Finally, using the Corollary Definition, it is clear why it is a Limitation when it is compared to the original attack.

these "built-in" limitations with advantages is one of the reasons for this thread. Advantages should not have "built-in" limitations. But that is just my opinion.

 

Does this help clarify things?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Analysis: Deconstruction of NND/AVLD

 

You could have used one post instead of five' date=' this makes it very weird to read...[/quote']

I was in the process of deconstructing it so I didn't want prevent others from posting on the original post while I was working on it.

 

You are missing:

 

- Any amount of defense disables attack. (NND)

- Defense reduces attack relative to strength. (AVLD)

Actually, the first one is covered. See above post. It is counter-intuitive due to the way I posted it. It is the flip side of how to view it. If an attack is restricted to only affecting those with a certain SFX/Defense, then by default, all other Defenses are completely unaffected by it. This is why it is a limitation in this respect.

 

As for the second point. I'm not familiar specific rule. Is it actually part of the rules, or is it an example of how AVLD can be used beyond the intended Defenses mechanics?

 

Anyway, I think this is also covered in the wording of the Unified Mechanic post, since anything can be listed as a "defense".

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Analysis: Deconstruction of NND/AVLD

 

Any suggestions for what the Stun Only Limitation should be worth in this context?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[CTaylor]

Re: Analysis: Deconstruction of NND/AVLD

 

I think stun only is a -1/4 limitation flat out all the time, but some think it's not worth anything.

[schir1964]

Re: Analysis: Deconstruction of NND/AVLD

 

Oh, wait, I think I see where there is a conflict in definitions with the Commonality Of Defense.

 

I may need to update things to make it consistent. Thanks.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Analysis: Deconstruction of NND/AVLD

 

Unified Mechanic

 

 

• Damage Effect
   
  
  • Stun Only (-1/4)
    

   

  [*]Commonality Of Defense

   

  • Multiple Defenses (Varies): Each additional defense added to a Very Common Defense is an additional -1/4 Limitation. Highest defense reduces damage.
    
  • Very Common Defense (-1/2)
    
  • Common Defense (0)
    
  • Uncommon Defense (+1)
    
  • Very Uncommon Defense (+2)
    

   

  [*]Effect Of Target Defense (-1/2, -0): Defense Reduces Damage To Zero (-1/2), Defense Reduces Damage Normally (-0).

 

To understand this, one needs to start from the baseline of a normal attack. Then the modifiers make sense.

 

Sample Builds

• Poison Dart: NND [stun Only, Uncommon Defense (Resistant), Effect (Zero Damage)]: +1/4 Advantage
  
• EMP Weapon: NND [Vs Electronic Equipment Only -1/2, Very Uncommon Defense (Shielded/Turned Off), Effect (Zero Damage)]: +1 Advantage
  
• Acid Splash Attack: AVLD [Very Uncommon Defense (Chemical Neutralizer), Effect (Normal Reduction)]: +2 Advantage
  
• Cold Attack: AVLD [stun Only, Multiple Defenses (Physical, Energy), Effect (Normal Reduction)]: -1 Limitation
  

 

Updated Post To Be Consistent

Reposted Here For Easy Reference

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: Analysis: Deconstruction of NND/AVLD

 

There are two ways to engineer these things, either from the point of view of what SHOULD make something more or less expensive OR from the point of view of what the effect it.

 

I was looking at the Cold Attack, and it runs at a limitation, most of which is because it is an attack that is stopped by both pd or ed, whichever is higher. The trouble is that pd and ed are usually roughly similar; although I personally like building characters with a substantial difference in their common defences I often appear to be in a minority. That means that there is not that much limitation in practice in an attack being stopped by either pd or ed, so the limitation should probably not be that great.

 

Presumably pd or ed is a 'very common defence' if that is the case then the limitaiton/advantage for that should be -0, so that an attack that is reduced normally by a very common defence and does not do stun only (i.e. a normal attack) balances out at a 0 power modifier.

 

Also I want to change the termoinology to talk about effectiveness because when comparing (say) ed and flash defence it is not just that flash defence is rarer, it is also almost always bought at a lower level.

 

SO:

 

Attack against defences (attacks do Body and KB as normal)

+0 Very effective defence (pd or ed)

+1/2 Effective defence (rpd or red or half pd or half ed* )

+2** Somewhat effective defence (Pow Def, Flash Defence or Mental defence)

 

 

All or nothing/reducies normally is also problematic: against a very effective (and common) defence it is clearly worth a LOT less than against an uncommon defence. SO, we make it a -1 limitation, and it looks like this:

 

NND (does Body and KB)

-1 ineffective if target has any pd or ed or is stopped by a practicually ubiquitous circumstance

-1/2 ineffective if target has rpd or red, or stopped by a common circumstance

-1 ineffective against unusual defences or an uncommon (but obtainable or predictable) circumstance

-2 Not stopped by anything (except a specific, unusual, hard to obtain or predict circumstance)

 

 

 

*did you see what happened there? I incorporated armour piercing intot eh scheme )

 

** Why the jump? Because there are uncommon defences which are often so low that, even if present, you could well get Body damage through. If you want it to be stun only you get -1/4 back. Actually, while I'm at it, I'm making 'Stun Only' still do KB unless you take the 'No KB' limitation - use the notional Body to calculate.