Nnd

[Sean Waters]

OK. NND. I’m a bit concerned, to be frank, about this one. I don’t think it covers all the bases.

For example it has to be an all or nothing defence (no ‘5 or more resistant PD’) secondly, well, some of the defences seem practically ubiquitous (resistant defences) and some much less common (LS: extended breathing).

In addition I’m frankly confused by this ‘switching from one exotic defence to another’ thing.

Finally it seems that this could usefully be combined with AVLD.

With the caveat that there is a superheroic bias (some bias is inevitable in determining what is common, uncommon and so on), here’s what I’d like to see:

MODIFIED PROTECTION ATTACK (because we have not got enough phrases with the acronym MPA)

For + ¼

You can change an attack with a ‘physical’ sfx to work against ED, or vice versa

For + ½

For an attack that works against an exotic defence you can specify that damage is reduced by an equally common exotic defence OR

You can specify that damage is reduced only by resistant defence OR

A very common defence or circumstance stops all damage (resistant defence, holding your breath*)

For +1

You can specify that damage is reduced by a common exotic defence rather than pd or ed

A common defence or circumstance stops all damage (common exotic defence, having a common power active, being dressed in blue**)

For +2

An uncommon defence or circumstance stops all damage (uncommon exotic defence, having an uncommon power active, carrying a specific item***) OR

You can specify that all damage is stopped by having LESS than a specified amount of defence OR

You can specify that all damage is stopped by NOT having a particular defence being active OR

For +3

You can specify that all damage is stopped by being a specific but not unique thing****

For +5

You can specify that there is no defence to the attack, or the defence is incredibly rare or unusual.

Common exotic defences include Power Defence, Mental Defence and Flash Defence (sight)

Uncommon exotic defences include Lack of Weakness and Flash Defence (any but sight)

If a defence stops all damage then, if that defence is not present, no damage is stopped. Such attacks can not do BODY damage unless they have the Does Body +1 advantage (of course they have to be capable of doing Body damage).

Active defence is mentioned several times. By default any defensive power can be turned off and is not considered active if it is.

What constitutes a common or uncommon power is a judgement call depending on the setting: in many games ALL powers might be uncommon.

An attack power is considered active if it has been used by the target in their last phase and they have not yet reached their next one.

*Holding your breath is an example of something anyone can do most of the time but usually would not be doing. Another example might be running, or shouting.

**Wearing blue is an example of something anyone can do but not usually without some luck or foresight. Another example might be presenting a holy symbol, like a cross or Star of David.

***Carrying a particular specified item is something anyone can do but it requires a lot of luck or foresight. Another example might be having undergone a lengthy and complicated ritual within the last day.

*** Being a specific thing is not something you can usually change: you either are an elf, or you are not.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Nnd

 

I very much like the idea of rolling NND and AVLD together; even now you can almost say that NND is a special case of AVLD in which the attack is completely stopped instead of just reduced. And the idea of some kind of sliding scale for the frequency of the defense is probably a good one (I have certainly had players argue over what constitutes a sufficiently common NND defense).

 

I think at the high end you have gone a bit overboard though; a +5 Advangtage? Not to be munchkiny, but is anything worth that? Consider that to buy a 4d6 EB with a +5 Advantage I would have 120 active points. For that I could get a 24d6 EB that will average 24 BDY and 84 STN, compared to the average of 14 STN (guarenteed!). Not much of a contest there. Even a +3 Advantage is probably not worth it; I can get a 16d6 EB for the 80 active points that my 4d6 "MPA" EB would cost.

[Beast]

Re: Nnd

 

I'm fine with it as is

things like gas and poison attacks should be all or nothing

swarms,radiation,acids and others

 

and as Ockham's spoon said pretty much after you get past +2 you are most likley better off with a raw power unless you have that special lingering type attack

 

Sean some times you over complicate things that scare some of us that have been playing this game for almost 25 yrs

[Sean Waters]

Re: Nnd

 

The +5 only LOOKS scary

 

4d6 at +2 = 20 x (1+2) = 60

 

2d6 at +5 = 10 x (1 +5) = 60

 

In fact +5 only gives you half the base power of +2. I do think these things through occasionally

 

I agree that you will not often want a 2d6 attack that can damage ANYTHING over a 4d6 attack that can damage ALMOST anything, but it is all about options and concept realisation.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Nnd

 

I'm fine with it as is

things like gas and poison attacks should be all or nothing

swarms,radiation,acids and others

 

and as Ockham's spoon said pretty much after you get past +2 you are most likley better off with a raw power unless you have that special lingering type attack

 

This allows you to model 'all or nothing' but it also accounts for the comparative rarity of what makes it 'nothing'.

 

Sean some times you over complicate things that scare some of us that have been playing this game for almost 25 yrs

 

Sometimes?

 

**note to self - must try harder**

[Beast]

Re: Nnd

 

I'm in the camp of no absolutes

 

this is what multipowers are for

 

pretty much 3 or 4 slots of different types of advantages should get 1 that does some damage through

 

in a 60 active game vs 25 pt defenses a 12d6 attack will get 17 points through on average

a 6d6 nnd will 21 points on average about 66% of the time

and 8d6 AP attack will get 15 points through so long as the target is not hardened then it will be 3 points

 

if what you want is a 1 trick pony

save the points and get it as a 1d6 attack and give it to a lot of agents

 

from what I have seen in comics,tv,movies and books

the hero has more than 1 way of dealing damage or he just has raw power

 

 

 

The +5 only LOOKS scary

 

4d6 at +2 = 20 x (1+2) = 60

 

2d6 at +5 = 10 x (1 +5) = 60

 

In fact +5 only gives you half the base power of +2. I do think these things through occasionally

 

I agree that you will not often want a 2d6 attack that can damage ANYTHING over a 4d6 attack that can damage ALMOST anything, but it is all about options and concept realisation.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Nnd

 

I'm in the camp of no absolutes

 

this is what multipowers are for

 

pretty much 3 or 4 slots of different types of advantages should get 1 that does some damage through

 

in a 60 active game vs 25 pt defenses a 12d6 attack will get 17 points through on average

a 6d6 nnd will 21 points on average about 66% of the time

and 8d6 AP attack will get 15 points through so long as the target is not hardened then it will be 3 points

 

if what you want is a 1 trick pony

save the points and get it as a 1d6 attack and give it to a lot of agents

 

from what I have seen in comics,tv,movies and books

the hero has more than 1 way of dealing damage or he just has raw power

 

There's no such thing as no absolutes . If you don't want the +5 to damage everything then it can have a very rare defence. Makes no real difference - you can't really buy enough defence to ignore damage from a 'generic' campaign standard attack anyway, so looked at that way all attacks are absolute in that they all overcome defences. Of course you COULD spend 60 points on pd and another 60 points on ed, and make it all reistant, but you'd never get away with it!

 

Thing is though, 'all damage stopped by any resistant PD' should cost less than 'all damage stopped by LS: Self Contained Breathing'. That's the central idea, even if you disagree with the specific implementation. Well, that and the idea that there's enough similarity between reduced defences and defences reduced to zero that they can work as a continuum.

 

Or something like that.

[SteveZilla]

Re: NND

 

For + ¼

You can change an attack with a ‘physical’ sfx to work against ED, or vice versa

 

This would duplicate part of what Variable Special Effects can do into this Advantage.

 

For + ½

For an attack that works against an exotic defense you can specify that damage is reduced by an equally common exotic defense OR

You can specify that damage is reduced only by resistant defense OR

A very common defense or circumstance stops all damage (resistant defense, holding your breath*)

 

 

This would effectively turn a regular attack into a "Killing" attack?

... OR

You can specify that all damage is stopped by having LESS than a specified amount of defense

 

"stopped by having LESS than a specific amount of defense"? So for an attack where I pick "15 rPD", having 1 rPD (or even none since that is still less) will stop the full attack but having 100 rPD lets it all though?

 

 

For +3

You can specify that all damage is stopped by being a specific but not unique thing****

 

So this would take care of the attacks that need the Limitation "Only Vs Undead", or some other "group"? Isn't that turning a Limitation into an Advantage?

 

For +5

You can specify that there is no defense to the attack, or the defense is incredibly rare or unusual.

 

 

 

Common exotic defenses include Power Defense, Mental Defense and Flash Defense (sight)

 

Uncommon exotic defenses include Lack of Weakness and Flash Defense (any but sight)

 

If a defense stops all damage then, if that defense is not present, no damage is stopped. Such attacks can not do BODY damage unless they have the Does Body +1 advantage (of course they have to be capable of doing Body damage).

 

What determines if the defense/attack interaction is a damage-minus-defense number, or an all-or-nothing thing?

 

 

An attack power is considered active if it has been used by the target in their last phase and they have not yet reached their next one.

 

Suppose the defense is "Energy Blast", and the target had used it on their last Phase (say 3), and you attack them with this on your Phase (say 4). They have the defense, so it wouldn't affect them. But the target decides to Aborts to Dodge/Dive For Cover, thus getting a "next phase". Does that end the "defense"?

 

**Wearing blue is an example of something anyone can do but not usually without some luck or foresight. Another example might be presenting a holy symbol' date=' like a cross or Star of David.[/font']

 

Would simply wearing a Star of David be sufficient, since wearing blue would be sufficient?

 

***Carrying a particular specified item is something anyone can do but it requires a lot of luck or foresight.

Carrying something how specific? Specific as in unique like carrying The Hope Diamond or The One Ring? Specific like carrying a 1953 Studebaker Commander Starliner?

... Another example might be having undergone a lengthy and complicated ritual within the last day.

 

Like bathing!

[SteveZilla]

Re: NND

 

Oh, and the Munchkin in me gets all giddy at the thought of a 1 pip RKA, No Defense(+5), Does Body(+1), Autofire(20 Shots; +1), No Range Modifier(+1/4), Reduced Endurance(Zero END; +1) attack...

[Sean Waters]

Re: NND

 

Oh' date=' and the Munchkin in me gets all giddy at the thought of a 1 pip RKA, No Defense(+5), Does Body(+1), Autofire(20 Shots; +1), No Range Modifier(+1/4), Reduced Endurance(Zero END; +1) attack...[/quote']

 

You can abuse anything if you allow autofire in your game (it is pretty hard to come up with a really abusive build without it), but that is a matter for the GM and the group - if they want that, fine. I'm more interested in enabling the character that wants a lightsabre that can cut through anything: sure - it just isn't going to be quick.

[Greywind]

Re: NND

 

You can abuse anything if you allow autofire in your game (it is pretty hard to come up with a really abusive build without it)' date=' but that is a matter for the GM and the group - if they want that, fine. I'm more interested in enabling the character that wants a lightsabre that can cut through anything: sure - it just isn't going to be quick.[/quote']And following source (Qui-Gon on the blast door) it wouldn't be quick.

[Sean Waters]

Re: NND

 

[/i]

 

This would duplicate part of what Variable Special Effects can do into this Advantage.

 

[/i]

 

Yes, but it makes more sense here.

 

 

This would effectively turn a regular attack into a "Killing" attack?

 

 

 

Shockingly it would....+1/2 is the same cost, in effect, it takes to change a normal defence into a resistant defence. That can't be a coincidence...

 

"stopped by having LESS than a specific amount of defense"? So for an attack where I pick "15 rPD"' date=' having 1 rPD (or even none since that is still less) will stop the full attack but having 100 rPD lets it all though?[/quote']

 

It is something you specifically can not do at present. Example: the fast neutrino rifle: fast neutrinos pass right through most stuff but sufficeint ED slows them enough to dump energy into what is directly behind them. Good for autofiring into crowds and only hitting the armoured agents

 

 

 

So this would take care of the attacks that need the Limitation "Only Vs Undead", or some other "group"? Isn't that turning a Limitation into an Advantage?

 

Shooting at someone who you do not know is a vampire or not and having no negative consequences if you are wrong is a limitation? Hmmm...

 

What determines if the defense/attack interaction is a damage-minus-defense number' date=' or an all-or-nothing thing?[/quote']

 

You have to pick one, and the description makes it clear, or should do if I wrote it right. If it says 'reduced' then it acts as a subtracting defence. If it says 'stops all damage' then it is all or nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

Suppose the defense is "Energy Blast"' date=' and the target had used it on their last Phase (say 3), and you attack them with this on your Phase (say 4). They have the defense, so it wouldn't affect them. But the target decides to Aborts to Dodge/Dive For Cover, thus getting a "next phase". Does that end the "defense"?[/quote']

 

I'd say so - they are in a new phase, albeit one they brought forward.

 

 

 

Would simply wearing a Star of David be sufficient, since wearing blue would be sufficient?

 

 

Depends on the game and on the GM, but it might well be. i suggested 'presenting' because whilst 'wearing blue' implies to me that the predominant colour you are wearing is blue 9so you only get one colour to 'wear' you could potentially have dozens of charms ond religious symbols.

 

Anyway, judgement call.

 

Carrying something how specific? Specific as in unique like carrying The Hope Diamond or The One Ring? Specific like carrying a 1953 Studebaker Commander Starliner?

 

Again, judgement call, but it would be a pretty damn rare or possibly damn inconvenient thing either way. It would not necessarily have to be unique.

 

 

 

Like bathing!

 

Surely you can not smell me from there?

[SteveZilla]

Re: NND

 

Yes' date=' but it makes more sense here.[/quote']

 

I dunno, I can see reasons for it to be in both places.

 

Shockingly it would....+1/2 is the same cost' date=' in effect, it takes to change a normal defense into a resistant defense. That can't be a coincidence...[/quote']

 

I doubt that it is. IIRC, you are a proponent of making Lethal Damage an Advantage.

 

It is something you specifically can not do at present. Example: the fast neutrino rifle: fast neutrinos pass right through most stuff but sufficient ED slows them enough to dump energy into what is directly behind them. Good for autofiring into crowds and only hitting the armoured agents

 

Like the bank employees huddled against the interior of the vault.

 

If "sufficient" ED slows them down, some (regardless of making them *more* damaging), then it stands to reason that a whole lot of ED would stop them cold. So there would be a "window range" of ED that the attack would be effective against.

 

But +2 might be in the ballpark for this advantageous ability.

 

Shooting at someone who you do not know is a vampire or not and having no negative consequences if you are wrong is a limitation? Hmmm...

 

So because the player might use a Limited* power in a creative way they have to pay more for it despite being of less use than a power that is not Limited*?

 

*effective part of the time.

 

A cunning Vampire, knowing there were attacks that would harm it and not normal people, would take measures to give himself a defense that would further his ability to "appear normal". The vampire might not cast a reflection but the powered minerals, false eyelashes, wig, and full contact lenses he wears would, right?

 

You have to pick one' date=' and the description makes it clear, or should do if I wrote it right. If it says 'reduced' then it acts as a subtracting defense. If it says 'stops all damage' then it is all or nothing.[/quote']

 

Are both options (regardless of any "Does Body" addition), of equal value?

 

 

 

I'd say so - they are in a new phase' date=' albeit one they brought forward.[/quote']

 

The target would have been safe if he had not tried to avoid, but in attempting to avoid could take serious damage? That just doesn't feel right to me.

 

 

Depends on the game and on the GM' date=' but it might well be. i suggested 'presenting' because whilst 'wearing blue' implies to me that the predominant colour you are wearing is blue so you only get one colour to 'wear' you could potentially have dozens of charms and religious symbols.[/quote']

 

Well, you can still get into "what is blue", even if it most be more than 50% coverage. And multiple charms like Beni Gabor in The Mummy?

 

Anyway' date=' judgement call.[/quote']

 

Do you have change, or will it be collect?

[Sean Waters]

Re: NND

 

Just like to say it is very useful - and interesting - to test these ideas against an inquiring mind

 

I dunno' date=' I can see reasons for it to be in both places.[/quote']

 

We could always put it in both places

 

 

 

I doubt that it is. IIRC' date=' you are a proponent of making Lethal Damage an Advantage. [/quote']

 

I'm certainly a proponent of doing killing attacks differently, and that is one option

 

 

 

Like the bank employees huddled against the interior of the vault.

 

Could be...although hero differentiates between personal defences and barriers, it could be appropriate to reign in a character whose approach is to spray everything and hope.

 

Of course it also means, potentially, that the odd opponent without resistant defences might be a serious threat in a high level campaign.

 

Part of the problem here, of course, is that 'resistant defence' doesn't have just the one sfx: you could define it as a form of dodge, or somesuch, or partial dematerialisation - then that sort of thing would not make sense - however that is a problem for the character designer - at least this gives the option.

 

If "sufficient" ED slows them down, some (regardless of making them *more* damaging), then it stands to reason that a whole lot of ED would stop them cold. So there would be a "window range" of ED that the attack would be effective against.

 

But +2 might be in the ballpark for this advantageous ability.

 

That makes perfect sense - there's nothing to stop you defining a window using these rules - and that is a good example of character concept realisation.

 

 

 

So because the player might use a Limited* power in a creative way they have to pay more for it despite being of less use than a power that is not Limited*?

 

*effective part of the time.

 

A cunning Vampire, knowing there were attacks that would harm it and not normal people, would take measures to give himself a defense that would further his ability to "appear normal". The vampire might not cast a reflection but the powered minerals, false eyelashes, wig, and full contact lenses he wears would, right?

 

This is one of those difficult situations where the same way of defining a power can be advantageous or disadvantageous depending on the situation. In campaigns where vampires were relatively common and usually hostile, I'd make it an advantage as it has a built in 'detect vampire' and limits collateral damage. In a campaign where vampires are rare it would be a limitation.

 

There is room for both, of course: if you ARE a vampire and hit with the advantaged attack, you get no defence - you take full damage. If you are hit with the limited attack you get your full defence - which might stop all the damage anyway.

 

 

 

Are both options (regardless of any "Does Body" addition)' date=' of equal value?[/quote']

 

Yess....wellll.....I might need to re-jig the table a bit: at present an attack reduced by mental defence is a lesser advantage than an attack stopped by it completely, wehreas it should be the other way round - that needs fixing.

 

Good point.

 

 

 

 

 

The target would have been safe if he had not tried to avoid' date=' but in attempting to avoid could take serious damage? That just doesn't feel right to me.[/quote']

 

All of this is in very early development and I do see your point, I'd considered allowing the protection of an instant attack only in the segement it is used - that is obviously more of an advantage - but as it looks like I might have to do a re-write anyway, I'll include it. That should solve the problem.

 

 

 

 

Well' date=' you can still get into "what is blue", even if it most be more than 50% coverage. And multiple charms like Beni Gabor in The Mummy? [/quote']

 

Beni was exactly who I was thinking of!

 

 

 

Do you have change' date=' or will it be collect? [/quote']

 

I'm going to go with Skype

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Nnd

 

You know you could ditch EGO attacks and BOECV under this system. Give them "Reduced by common exotic defense (+1)" and "No Range Modifier (+½)" to represent the LOS aspect. Yes that would make them more expensive, but I have always thought EGO attacks weren't really on par with a standard EB anyway.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Nnd

 

60 AP = 6d6 EA ~ 21 STUN

62 AP = 5d6 EB + Reduced by common exotic defense (+1), Line Of Sight(+½) ~ 17 STUN

 

Eh. It really doesn't cause that much of a change, and it makes it more complicated.

 

60 AP = 12d6 EB ~ 42 STUN - 21 DEF ~ 21 STUN

 

And I think that it might make it slightly under perform as compared to regular attacks.

[ideasmith]

Re: Nnd

 

You know you could ditch EGO attacks and BOECV under this system. Give them "Reduced by common exotic defense (+1)" and "No Range Modifier (+½)" to represent the LOS aspect. Yes that would make them more expensive' date=' but I have always thought EGO attacks weren't really on par with a standard EB anyway.[/quote']

 

A power with "reduced by common exotic defense" and "No Range Modifier" would have DEX based OCV/DCV. I'm sure than most want mental attacks to have EGO based OCV/DCV.

[Fearghus]

Re: Nnd

 

I have thought about this too. bear in mind NND does have an exclamation point by it for that reason.

 

I would not allow a character to combine NND and AVLD though. The idea is that NND is supposed to be something that effects EVERYBODY unless they are prepared for it in which case it's harmless. Like knockout gas... If you breath it... you pass out. If you have a respirator... It's a fancy smoke machine.

 

AVLD it seems to me is for making it so that a more obscure or specific type of defense is what protects you from the attack. Like a laser that can only be stopped by force fields. It cuts strait through your armor, but force fields offer their normal protection.

 

If you apply both you are just spending more points for no good reason. Laser NND: Force Fields Block it AVLD: only force fields defend against it comes out to +2 1/2 advantage but in if you just stuck with the NND you get the same results by taking just NND for a +1 advantage. So why would you stack them?

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Nnd

 

A power with "reduced by common exotic defense" and "No Range Modifier" would have DEX based OCV/DCV. I'm sure than most want mental attacks to have EGO based OCV/DCV.

 

Good point. But I think you could probably just define it as working with ECV instead of regular CV. I suppose that would give mentalists a slight edge since EGO is less expensive than DEX to buy up, but since they have to pay more for the attack now we will cut them some slack.