Would you allow the white knight defense?

[matrix3]

Excerpted from this thread,

White Knight Defense

 

37 Armor (10 PD/10 ED), Hardened (+1/4) (37 Active Points)

60 Energy Damage Reduction, Resistant, 75%

60 Physical Damage Reduction, Resistant, 75%

27 Absorption 4d6 (standard effect: 12 points) (physical, BODY, STUN, END, Absorption Cap), [four powers] simultaneously (+1) (40 Active Points); Only Restores To Starting Values (-1/2)

27 Absorption 4d6 (standard effect: 12 points) (energy, BODY, STUN, END, Absorption Cap), [four powers] simultaneously (+1) (40 Active Points); Only Restores To Starting Values (-1/2)

 

Total: 201 Points

 

(Borrowed from one of Moody Loner's Posts)

 

My main question is about the two Absorption powers feeding into their own max Absorption caps. Would you allow (or, have you allowed) a recursive power like that? Are there other cases of recursive powers that you've seen?

 

EDIT: The examples from OddHat's post do indeed include "Only Restores to Starting Values". So let's remove those from the equation. Would you allow something like:

 

37   Armor (10 PD/10 ED), Hardened (+1/4) (37 Active Points)   
60   Energy Damage Reduction, Resistant, 75%  
60   Physical Damage Reduction, Resistant, 75%   
40   Absorption 4d6 (standard effect: 12 points) (physical, BODY, STUN, END, Absorption Cap), 
    [four powers] simultaneously (+1) (40 Active Points)
40   Absorption 4d6 (standard effect: 12 points) (energy, BODY, STUN, END, Absorption Cap), 
    [four powers] simultaneously (+1) (40 Active Points)

[jtelson]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

Excerpted from this thread,

 

 

My main question is about the two Absorption powers feeding into their own max Absorption caps. Would you allow (or, have you allowed) a recursive power like that? Are there other cases of recursive powers that you've seen?

 

Those have "Only Restores to Starting Value" on them so wouldn't they not so much increase the caps?

[Enforcer84]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

That was my thinking as well

[Trebuchet]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

I'd allow it in all probability. A PC who spends that much on defenses probably won't be much good on offense, and he'd be easy to restrain or defeat with unconventional attacks that the listed defenses won't stop. Functionally invulnerable does not equate to unbeatable.

 

It's a nice thought experiment but I doubt it'd be all that effective in actual play except perhaps for a megavillain.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

Functionally invulnerable does not equate to unbeatable.

 

I remember running a Heroes Unlimited game with a guy who rolled Invulnerability and Winged Flight as his powers. He wasn't particularly good on offense, so he figured he could simply go around smashing into stuff. Until he got stuck in a piece of abstract metal sculpture.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

I remember running a Heroes Unlimited game with a guy who rolled Invulnerability and Winged Flight as his powers. He wasn't particularly good on offense' date=' so he figured he could simply go around smashing into stuff. Until he got stuck in a piece of abstract metal sculpture. [/quote']I had more in mind immobilizing our white knight with a Martial Grab or Entangle, but there's no reason an abstract sculpture couldn't finally find purpose.

[Narratio]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

I'd allow it but I'd have to question the sanity of the player who wanted it. It's a lot of points for not much gaming ability.

[matrix3]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

I'd allow it but I'd have to question the sanity of the player who wanted it. It's a lot of points for not much gaming ability.

I think one draw is that it is a way to approximate invulnerability.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

I have a lot less issue with someone who wants to create an "invulnerable" type that a lot of GMs I run into.

 

I don't see why it's game breaking to have a Character that is effectively (if not absolutely) physically invulnerable. I feel to many GMs fall back on Hurting and/or Knocking Out Characters as the way to defeat them.

 

Damage is not the only tool in the box.

 

And this being a point based system, they are trading off using so many points in one area for having points in another. Typically offense, but it could just as easily be Movement, Non-Conventional Aspects or even Non-Combat capability. No matter how you slice it, they're reduced or missing abilities in another aspect.

 

I'd allow it.

[teh bunneh]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

I (briefly) played a character with almost this exact same build. She was pretty lacking in the offense and movement departments, but she was nearly impossible to hurt. It was a pretty fun character overall.

[secretID]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

I have no problem with it, DEF cap issues for the particular game aside.

 

I think the character would likely be far tougher defensively with the points put into STR, CON, DEF, etc.

For example, those same points would get

STR 83

CON 53

BOD 20

PD 17

ED 17

END 20 (same)

STUN 89

Armor, Hardened, 25/25

 

Even without the 16.5d6 punch, I'd take that guy.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

It's a little higher than my usual defensive caps ... but with so many points tied up in defense and so little offense or movement, most bad guys can just walk away from him/her.

[OddHat]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

I've allowed all sorts of things that other GMs assured me were game breakers, even in convention games. None of my games ever "broke".

 

Getting away from mechanics, the question seems to be "would you allow an invulnerable character". Remembering that in Hero it's very tough (and thus expensive) to be invulnerable to absolutely everything, with the right players and campaign, sure.

 

Invulnerable Guy gets his chance to shine by getting hit with massive attacks that would kill the other PCs. Skills Master Guy figures stuff out. Balanced Tank Guy and Balanced Zapper Guy do most of the meaningful fighting. Movement Guy zips around. Everyone gets his time in front of the camera.

 

I'm not trying to "win" against the players. I'm the GM. I'm participating in telling a story. If the story can't handle a character who can't be easily killed, I won't allow it; if it can, then there's no problem.

 

If I really want any character dead, I have unlimited points, or the ability as GM to just say "His head falls off, and all of his internal organs grow little arms and legs and scamper out of his torso and away into the fields" and let the Players try to figure it out. "Invulnerable" is really just a deal between the Player and GM not to kill off the character by conventional means.

 

Note: That build was cut and pasted from Moody Loner's post. It isn't one of mine.

[matrix3]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

I've allowed all sorts of things that other GMs assured me were game breakers, even in convention games. None of my games ever "broke".

 

Getting away from mechanics, the question seems to be "would you allow an invulnerable character". Remembering that in Hero it's very tough (and thus expensive) to be invulnerable to absolutely everything, with the right players and campaign, sure.

 

Invulnerable Guy gets his chance to shine by getting hit with massive attacks that would kill the other PCs. Skills Master Guy figures stuff out. Balanced Tank Guy and Balanced Zapper Guy do most of the meaningful fighting. Movement Guy zips around. Everyone gets his time in front of the camera.

 

I'm not trying to "win" against the players. I'm the GM. I'm participating in telling a story. If the story can't handle a character who can't be easily killed, I won't allow it; if it can, then there's no problem.

 

If I really want any character dead, I have unlimited points, or the ability as GM to just say "His head falls off, and all of his internal organs grow little arms and legs and scamper out of his torso and away into the fields" and let the Players try to figure it out. "Invulnerable" is really just a deal between the Player and GM not to kill off the character by conventional means.

 

Note: That build was cut and pasted from Moody Loner's post. It isn't one of mine.

That's my general view. If I think a build will "break" what I want to do in a campaign, I might disallow the build, or I might adapt my campaign. After all, I want my players to have fun, and if the build "breaks" my campaign, but seems like something that would add to the fun to be had by all my players, then the campaign will change. If one player's build decreases the fun for everybody else, then they might need to be reigned in.

 

BTW, is there a better/more recent "Invulnerable Guy" build out there?

 

And, I made sure to leave the "(Borrowed from one of Moody Loner's Posts)" at the end of the excerpt I quoted, but I probably should have made the attribution a little more obvious.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

Neat idea. Pretty sure it's technically illegal. And will it even work right in a game with more than 12 DC attacks?

 

Myself, I'd probably shy away from the Absorption and just tell them to dump more points into Armor or other conventional defenses

 

The Brick in our game has taken Stun damage all of TWICE in the last year and hasn't invested anywhere near that many points into being Invulnerable...

[matrix3]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

Here's another question:

 

Would you allow a powersuit hero to take Damage Reduction on the powersuit, and also an armored skinsuit/pilot suit? Any incoming damage would thereby be reduced by the powersuit's PD/ED, then by the DR, then hit the "light armor" of the skinsuit.

 

This is, of course, assuming you'd allow DR in the first place.

[OddHat]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

Here's another question:

 

Would you allow a powersuit hero to take Damage Reduction on the powersuit, and also an armored skinsuit/pilot suit? Any incoming damage would thereby be reduced by the powersuit's PD/ED, then by the DR, then hit the "light armor" of the skinsuit.

 

This is, of course, assuming you'd allow DR in the first place.

 

That's actually a rules violation. The DR always kicks in after defenses. To build that the way you want it to work, build the Suit as a vehicle, then let the character inside wear whatever armor he wants and can afford.

 

And, sure, I'd allow the Suit as Vehicle build in the right campaign. "Right campaign" being the key.

[OddHat]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

BTW, is there a better/more recent "Invulnerable Guy" build out there?

 

All sorts of ways to do it.

 

Personally I like to just pile on the DamRed, Armor, Con, Rec and Regen. Works fine.

 

24d6 Luck, Only to Avoid Harm, works incredibly well if the GM allows it.

 

A personal Force Wall paired with an indirect attack to get through it works pretty well up to the campaign's damage limits.

[matrix3]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

All sorts of ways to do it.

 

Personally I like to just pile on the DamRed, Armor, Con, Rec and Regen. Works fine.

 

24d6 Luck, Only to Avoid Harm, works incredibly well if the GM allows it.

 

A personal Force Wall paired with an indirect attack to get through it works pretty well up to the campaign's damage limits.

I've actually used the personal force wall for an NPC. One thing I saw around here that I haven't used, though, is a trigger to bring up the FW if it goes down. That seemed a little...off to me, to have an automatic trigger bring up the FW, with the trigger being the force wall being breached. Do you think it's kosher?

[OddHat]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

I've actually used the personal force wall for an NPC. One thing I saw around here that I haven't used' date=' though, is a trigger to bring up the FW if it goes down. That seemed a little...off to me, to have an automatic trigger bring up the FW, with the trigger being the force wall being breached. Do you think it's kosher?[/quote']

 

Is it legal, yes. Balanced, probably not. Ultimately a GM's call.

 

I remember in one of Dave Mattingly's convention games one year, someone came up with Healing on a Trigger when injured. Don't know the exact build. It was apparently very successful, and Dave banned the build after that.

[CourtFool]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

Mind Control followed by "Attack your team mates"

 

...

 

I'm sorry, what was the question again?

[Dronf]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

If I really want any character dead, I have unlimited points, or the ability as GM to just say "His head falls off, and all of his internal organs grow little arms and legs and scamper out of his torso and away into the fields" and let the Players try to figure it out.

 

I gotta remember that one.

[Dronf]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

If I really want any character dead' date=' I have unlimited points, or the ability as GM to just say "His head falls off, and all of his internal organs grow little arms and legs and scamper out of his torso and away into the fields" and let the Players try to figure it out.[/quote']

 

I gonna hafta remember that one.

[Lucius]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

I gotta remember that one.

I'm gonna hafta remember that one.

 

And remember: Repetition is the key to memorization.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary reminds us all that repetition is the key to memorization.

[Markdoc]

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense?

 

Is it legal, yes. Balanced, probably not. Ultimately a GM's call.

 

I remember in one of Dave Mattingly's convention games one year, someone came up with Healing on a Trigger when injured. Don't know the exact build. It was apparently very successful, and Dave banned the build after that.

 

I had a character with a build like that: a batman/wolverine mixture. Healing - even triggered Healing - is relatively inefficient, but if combined with Damage reduction, it becomes quite cost efficient.

 

The character I had (Kestrel) had low defences (his supersuit was the equivalent of a flak jacket) but the combination of Regeneration, triggered Healing and Damage Reduction meant that though he usually took body in a fight (often a lot!) and was often Stunned, he was very, very hard to actually put down for very long. On the other hand, he'd sunk quite a lot of points into his "healing factor" and as a result was not an overwhelming combatant. In general, he'd have been far better off with higher defences, but there were some cases where - wolverine like - he could take huge attacks and survive, plus he could stagger through special attacks (NNDs, AVLD, etc) that would have dropped the team brick.

 

As result, he was the guy who usually got worfed by the bad guy at the beginning to show how bad-ass the villain was. And he spent a lot of each fight lying down. But he was a heck of a lot of fun to play.

 

Edit: here's the build - it's GM's permission, since it included Damage reduction in the EC

30

Elemental Control: Healing Factor, 60-point powers

20 1) Healing BODY (Regeneration) 3d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +½), Persistent (+½) (60 Active Points); Self Only (-½)

30 2) Energy and physical Damage Reduction, Resistant, 50%, (+1) (60 Active Points)

17 3) Succor 3d6+1, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +½), Persistent (+½), Trigger (Activating the Trigger requires a Zero Phase Action, Trigger resets automatically, immediately after it activates; +¾), Continuous (+1) (64 Active Points); Self Only (-½), Only Restores to Starting Values (-½)

 

Basically the way we ran it (to simplify things) is that I used Standard effect - if he was injured, he recovered 1 BOD every other phase (he was SPD6) and 10 STUN each phase, until he was back to full health. Like I said, almost impossible to put down for long - but then, he's sunk almost 100 points into this!

 

cheers, Mark