Are PD and ED far too cheap?

[Klaus Mogensen]

This topic came up under the 6e Characteristics thread, but I think it is important enough to have its own thread.

 

Basically, I did an analysis that suggests that even if the costs of PD and ED were doubled, they would still be a very good deal compared to buying more Stun. I repeat the analysis below, and I would like to hear that I'm wrong - if not, I think it is vital to increase the costs of PD and ED in the new edition.

 

I'm not considering attacks not vs. DEF at all in my analysis. I'm saying: If you get hit by so-and-so many attacks versus DEF in a battle, how much Stun will each point of DEF save you? If you also get hit by exotic attacks, that's besides the point: You would need the same extra Stun whether you've based your character on high Stun or high DEF. We can assume that whether you base your hero on high DEF or high Stun, you will have enough Stun to withstand typical exotic attacks. We can also assume that both the Stun-based and the DEF-based hero have enough rDEF to avoid taking BODY from typical attacks, hence we only look at how good an idea it is to buy non-resistant PD and ED on top of that.

 

So let's make the analysis: In a typical turn of intense combat, I assume a hero will get hit by an average of either 2½ superpowered attacks vs. DEF (in a 1-on-1 battle) or by 1½ superpowered attacks vs. DEF plus 2 agent attacks vs. DEF.

 

We assume that superpowered attacks do enough Stun so that each extra DEF saves 1 Stun per attack, and that every second agent attack does Stun through defenses, meaning that each extra DEF saves 0.5 Stun per attack. In either of the above cases, each point of DEF will save an average of 2.5 Stun per turn.

 

To match the effect of +1 DEF, a hero will thus need +2.5 Stun and +2.5 REC (only to recover Stun; -1) for a total of 5 points. To resist becoming stunned, he will also need +1 CON (not for CON Rolls; -1/4), 0.8 extra points. The value of +1 PD, +1 PD is thus about 5.8 points, but costs only 2 points. It looks like an extremely good deal to buy high PD and ED!

 

Let's say that we put PD and ED at 2 points each, double the current cost. How many attacks vs. DEF would you have to be hit by per turn in order for DEF at 4 points to be a decent choice compared just buying more Stun?

 

The Stun-based hero will still have to buy +1 limited CON at 0.8 points; this leaves 3.2 points. Split evenly between Stun and limited REC, this gives +1.6 for each. So DEF breaks even if the hero is hit in an average turn of intense combat by 1.6 superpowered attacks vs. DEF or 3.2 agent attacks vs. DEF. This doesn't look like very intense combat to me, so even at 2 points each, PD and ED seem like a good deal compared to buying more Stun and (limited) REC and CON.

 

Also consider that in light combat, with fewer attacks per turn than outlined above, neither type of hero will be in serious trouble. However, in very intense combat, with more attacks per turn, the DEF-based hero will be much better off than the Stun-based hero. This means that the value of DEF may be even greater than outlined above!

 

- Klaus

[Alibear]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Not in my experiece, you might have a case for reducing the cost of Stun though.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

you might have a case for reducing the cost of Stun though.

Yes, halving the cost of Stun and Rec might be a better idea, or defenses may become too expensive compared to attacks.

 

This will reduce the value of +1 PD, +1 ED to 3.3 points (according to the analysis above), still more than half again the current cost, but not as bad as before.

 

- Klaus

[ghost-angel]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

The new edition is written. Moot point at best. You are also going under the premise that the cost of Characteristics isn't altered already in 6E.

 

You analysis also seems to leave Figured Characteristics in place, which we know is going away. So you also don't know the cost of that.

 

Your entire analysis would be useful if we were a) still under 5E and knew what 6E looked like.

 

Did you cost analysis take into account that Stun works against all incoming attacks, and PD/ED only against specific kinds of incoming attacks? Stun works vs Ego Attack as well, so you need to factor in Mental Defense to the cost analysis. Also Drain Stun, so you should add in the cost of Power Defense to properly measure Stun Hero vs Defense Hero.

 

So, to answer: No. Your math is currently incomplete.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Basically' date=' I did an analysis that suggests that even if the costs of PD and ED were doubled, they would still be a very good deal compared to buying more Stun. I repeat the analysis below, and I would like to hear that I'm wrong - if not, I think it is vital to increase the costs of PD and ED in the new edition.[/quote']

 

Not in my experience' date=' you might have a case for reducing the cost of Stun though.[/quote']

 

I think that buying more STUN and REC has never been a viable option to buying up defenses. However, like Alibear, I think the answer lies in STUN and REC (and END, for that matter - how many people buy up REC and END rather than buying reduced END) being overpriced. I hope, with the elimination of figured characteristics, the costs of these characteristics will decline in 6e.

 

This, in turn, has contributed to the Figured Characteristics illusion - CON and STR look like they get you more value than they do, because we measure them against the excessive price of STUN, REC and END.

 

Changing the cost of defenses has too many ripple effects. It impacts the Defense to Attack cost ratio, which is about more than just PD and ED. I have to buy both PD and ED to be defended from many incoming attacks, for example, and I need to make them Resistant for protection against killing attacks. This still leaves me open to AVLD's, NND's, Mental attacks, AP attacks and Penetrating attacks. STUN protects me against all of these. As such, your straight PD/ED vs STUN comparison overvalues PD and ED compared to STUN by assuming both are relevant to all attacks.

 

If PD and ED go up to 2 each, we need to reprice force field, armor and probably all the exotic defenses. Damage Reduction also needs to be revisited, but it's overpriced at most common DC levels anyway. Force Wall would also need to be looked at, as would the defenses afforded entangles. If we double the price of defenses, do the effects of adjustment powers on them still need to be halved?

 

Finally, I am opposed in principal to the theory that the solution to any perceived pricing imbalance is "raise the cost of something". We never think to suggest that something might be overpriced and its cost should be reduced. This is a classic case for reducing the cost of the overpriced ability. It seems very common advice to "not buy up defenses and buy up STUN instead", but that's not a cost-effective approach so this advice is commonly ignored. Make STUN cheaper, and the balance shifts to make higher STUN a valid option. Increase the cost of PD and ED, and I think the better option is to buy up my offensive power (higher DC's, more SPD, etc.) so I can put damage through to my opponent faster. Rather than 5 more PD and ED for 20 points. an extra SPD and 2 more DC's (which will more than override your extra 5 PD and ED, even ignoring resistant defenses and exotic defenses), or 4 more DC's (which will overwhelm your extra 5 defenses) seems like a superior approach.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

The new edition is written. Moot point at best. You are also going under the premise that the cost of Characteristics isn't altered already in 6E.

I'm hoping there's still a chance to correct some costs if necessary. This may not be the case, but hope is eternal.

 

You analysis also seems to leave Figured Characteristics in place, which we know is going away. So you also don't know the cost of that.

Where do you get that idea? I included CON in the calculation because if your DEF is lower, you need more CON to avoid getting stunned. I set the cost at 1, which seems the most likely for 6e.

 

Did you cost analysis take into account that Stun works against all incoming attacks, and PD/ED only against specific kinds of incoming attacks? Stun works vs Ego Attack as well, so you need to factor in Mental Defense to the cost analysis. Also Drain Stun, so you should add in the cost of Power Defense to properly measure Stun Hero vs Defense Hero.

Yes, I took all that into account, as you would know if you had read my post:

I'm not considering attacks not vs. DEF at all in my analysis. I'm saying: If you get hit by so-and-so many attacks versus DEF in a battle' date=' how much Stun will each point of DEF save you? If you also get hit by exotic attacks, that's besides the point: You would need the same extra Stun whether you've based your character on high Stun or high DEF. We can assume that whether you base your hero on high DEF or high Stun, you will have enough Stun to withstand typical exotic attacks.[/quote']

 

So, to answer: No. Your math is currently incomplete.

In what way?

 

- Klaus

[schir1964]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

...I have to buy both PD and ED to be defended from many incoming attacks' date=' for example, and I need to make them Resistant for protection against killing attacks....[/quote']

But in 6th Edition, Normal Defenses now count against the Stun of a Killing Attack. This changes the dynamics somewhat and needs to be assessed since it is major change from before. It is a side issue, but one worth pointing out since it does change some of the analysis.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

I think that buying more STUN and REC has never been a viable option to buying up defenses. However, like Alibear, I think the answer lies in STUN and REC (and END, for that matter - how many people buy up REC and END rather than buying reduced END) being overpriced. I hope, with the elimination of figured characteristics, the costs of these characteristics will decline in 6e.

[...]

Finally, I am opposed in principal to the theory that the solution to any perceived pricing imbalance is "raise the cost of something". We never think to suggest that something might be overpriced and its cost should be reduced. This is a classic case for reducing the cost of the overpriced ability.

I agree (see above) that lowering the cost of REC and STUN is better than increasing the cost of PD and ED - I was a little too quick there.

 

However, I don't agree that Reduced END is a better alternative than buying more END and REC:

 

The Reduced END and 0 END advantages reduce END cost at a price of 5 points per END saved. At the current cost, the same 5 points will buy you +10 END - enough for 10 uses of the power.

 

If we assume a power is used 4 times per turn, you need +4 END and +4 limited REC (END recovery only; -1), at a current cost of 6 points, to match the effect of Reduced/0 END. This is just one point more, and is much more flexible, since you can use the extra END and REC for all powers, not just the one. Also, if a power costs END, you can save END for other uses by using it at less than full strength - you get no similar savings by using a 0 END power at less than full strength.

 

If the cost of REC is reduced to 1 in 6e (which the STUN/REC vs. DEF discussion above suggests), the cost of +4 END and +4 limited REC will be just 4 points - cheaper than buying Reduced/0 END. You would have to use a power more than 5 times a turn before Reduced/0 END saves more END and REC than you can buy for the same points.

 

One solution would be to increase the cost of END; but as you say, we should look to reduce costs instead. We could make 0 END a +1/4 advantage, doing away with Reduced END. Or, more flexiibly, we could instead introduce a new adder, Reduced END Cost, at e.g. 3 points, which would reduce the END cost of a power by 1.

 

- Klaus

[ghost-angel]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Your math isn't very transparent.

I see no mention of Mental Attacks or Exotic Attacks

If CON is 1:1 and it provides Con Rolls; Stun Threshold and I believe the Stun Threshold is the primary function I give you a -0 Limitation. Not .8 Points.

 

I can buy 1 Stun to be used against all Stun Causing Attacks or:

1 PD, 1 ED, 1 Mental Def, 1 Power Defense to be used against all Stun Causing Attacks

 

1 Points (5E) vs 4 Points.

 

Have you done this cost analysis for Attacks over a range of Damage Classes with a series of set Defense Levels? I suggest an array starting from 1 DC (5 Active Points) to 20 DC (100 Active Points) for Defenses Values of 8/12/15/20/25 and Stun/REC Values of an equal Cost.

 

Is there a break point anywhere? Is it possible that versus low level attacks it's better to absorb the Stun Damage and Recovery quickly (thus some Heroic Campaigns it is more appropriate to purchase Stun instead), or is it always going to be better to purchase high Defenses across the board? How does this take into account Common vs Rare Defenses (I play in one game where ED is used very little and thus few Characters purchase more, I play in one game where Mental Def is as common as PD/ED is in an average Champions Game).

 

Also, you mentioned on Superpowered Attacks - but don't define them. You're being Genre Inclusive and trying to fix the system against only one level of Attack. That is ultimately useless.

 

I find your theory flawed, your math non-transparent and off, and your execution lacking.

 

And I agree with Hugh - Stun and Rec are over priced anyways.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

However' date=' I don't agree that [i']Reduced END[/i] is a better alternative than buying more END and REC:

 

The Reduced END and 0 END advantages reduce END cost at a price of 5 points per END saved. At the current cost, the same 5 points will buy you +10 END - enough for 10 uses of the power.

 

You are assuming that the power has no other advantages, and that rounding does not work in your favour.

 

If we assume a power is used 4 times per turn' date=' you need +4 END and +4 limited REC (END recovery only; -1), at a current cost of 6 points, to match the effect of [i']Reduced/0 END[/i]. This is just one point more, and is much more flexible, since you can use the extra END and REC for all powers, not just the one. Also, if a power costs END, you can save END for other uses by using it at less than full strength - you get no similar savings by using a 0 END power at less than full strength.

 

Assuming a 4 SPD isn't always accurate. It is interesting to note that reduced END is considerably more valuable in a Supers game, though. As well, I would normally need a pretty good explanation for that Limited REC, and whether I would consider recovering STUN equally valuable to recovering END is debatable.

 

Your analysis also ignores the impact of being able to stand up with a few STUN STUN after being KO'd, raise your Force Field and fire your full power attack without being KO'd again by the effort.

[secretID]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

I'm not considering attacks not vs. DEF at all in my analysis. I'm saying: If you get hit by so-and-so many attacks versus DEF in a battle' date=' how much Stun will each point of DEF save you? If you also get hit by exotic attacks, that's besides the point: You would need the same extra Stun whether you've based your character on high Stun or high DEF. We can assume that whether you base your hero on high DEF or high Stun, you will have enough Stun to withstand typical exotic attacks. We can also assume that both the Stun-based and the DEF-based hero have enough rDEF to avoid taking BODY from typical attacks, hence we only look at how good an idea it is to buy non-resistant PD and ED on top of that.[/quote']

I think it's wrong to write off exotic attacks that way. It's not like a typical character can't be taken down with all exotics. If you're STUN is only 35, that's less than two NNDs at 12 DCs.

 

We assume that superpowered attacks do enough Stun so that each extra DEF saves 1 Stun per attack' date=' and that every second agent attack does Stun through defenses, meaning that each extra DEF saves 0.5 Stun per attack.[/quote']

This may be addressing the following issue, but I'm not sure.

 

The three main "defensive abilities" - DCV, DEF, and STUN, each have different marginal values. The value of each point of DCV goes by a normal bell curve, the value of each point of STUN is linear, and the value of each point of DEF is...different (there's probably a term for it that I don't know).

 

If your average opponent has an OCV of 8, it's a great value to increase your DCV from 7 to 9, but not nearly as good to increase it from 9 to 11, because you're causing fewer misses on average with that increase. With STUN, the marginal return is almost completely linear - since someone has to reduce your STUN to KO you, every point is valuable, regardless of how many or how few you already have. (Arguably, this breaks down at the very edges, b/c there's no real difference between 1 STUN and 2, and at extremely high STUNs, opponents will be forced to restrain you or something.)

 

DEF is different. Its value works like STUN's, but only up to a point. Once you approach DEF necessary to cover the entirety of the average attack, more DEF becomes less valuable.

 

That difference doesn't account for all of what you found, but it is an issue.

 

To match the effect of +1 DEF' date=' a hero will thus need +2.5 Stun and +2.5 REC (only to recover Stun; -1)[/quote']

I don't think the Rec cost should go in there at full cost, even with the lim. If you don't have to take a recovery, it's never an issue.

 

The value of +1 PD' date=' +1 PD is thus about 5.8 points, but costs only 2 points.[/b'] It looks like an extremely good deal to buy high PD and ED!

Even with my points above, that is a big difference - interesting.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Without Mental Defense a 6D6 Ego Attack (60 AP) is going to bring down many Characters within a Turn or Less. You can't ignore them at all. It's a mistake to do so. Hence a glaring flaw that's sinking this particular Titanic.

[Vondy]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

No.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

straight to the point. I must spread rep before Repping Vondy again...

[Hierax]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

According to the Hero System MetaRule of Defences being considerably cheaper than Attacks, No.

 

But if you disagree with that Metarule, then Yes all Defences are too cheap.

 

Making Defences cost twice as much (slap on a custom +1 modifier) evens it out a fair bit but that's a definite system change.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Your math isn't very transparent.

I see no mention of Mental Attacks or Exotic Attacks

I clearly state that I'm only looking at how many non-exotic attacks a character is typically hit with in a turn. Additional exotic attacks may be defended with by having more Stun or by having exotic defenses; this isn't important for my analysis. Given that exotic attacks typically are much rarer than attacks vs. DEF (and may not exist at all in many campaign types), I chose to disregard them for this simple analysis.

 

If CON is 1:1 and it provides Con Rolls; Stun Threshold and I believe the Stun Threshold is the primary function I give you a -0 Limitation. Not .8 Points.

That actually strengthens my point - now +1 PD, +1 ED has a value of 6 points rather than 5.8.

 

Have you done this cost analysis for Attacks over a range of Damage Classes with a series of set Defense Levels? I suggest an array starting from 1 DC (5 Active Points) to 20 DC (100 Active Points) for Defenses Values of 8/12/15/20/25 and Stun/REC Values of an equal Cost.

That is a very complex analysis where you have to take into account the different distributions of different numbers of dice. Ideally, such an analysis should be done, but I don't have the week or so available to do it right now.

 

Also, you mentioned on Superpowered Attacks - but don't define them. You're being Genre Inclusive and trying to fix the system against only one level of Attack. That is ultimately useless.

The distinction between "superpowered" and "agent" attacks was introduced by ajackson in the 6e Characteristics thread.

 

The main point is: Some attacks are big enough to consistently let Stun through - call them "hero-level" attacks, if you prefer. Other attacks only let Stun through on about every other hit, since the average damage is about the same level as the hero's defenses - call these "mook-level" attacks. With this distinction (rather than superpowered/agent), we become genre inclusive without changing the results of my analysis.

 

- Klaus

[Sean Waters]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Some thoughts:

 

1. Certain genres have attacks that work almost exclusively against PD and ED, others don't: stun may be more useful in the latter genres.

 

2. Whilst I agree that, over time, you'll be far better off spending a point on 1PD than 1 STUN, there will be cases when you will wish you'd have that extra 1 STUN: even without exotic attacks, you can still drown.

 

3. I think REC will get cheaper, I doubt STUN will.

 

4. Most characters need both DEF and STUN at more than starting levels, certainly in higher powered games, so it is about balance.

 

5. In a point limited creation system, not spending point son DEF potentially allows more to be spent on STUN (which means you are better defended against exotic attacks.

 

6. DEF and STUN fulfil somewhat different roles.

 

7. Game balance is important in character design - you can't just spend all the points on DEF because that doesn't make for a fun game - combat takes forever.

 

8. Damage reduction acts as a multiplier for STUN, making it much more of a bargain if you can afford DR too.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

I clearly state that I'm only looking at how many non-exotic attacks a character is typically hit with in a turn. Additional exotic attacks may be defended with by having more Stun or by having exotic defenses; this isn't important for my analysis. Given that exotic attacks typically are much rarer than attacks vs. DEF (and may not exist at all in many campaign types)' date=' I chose to disregard them for this simple analysis.[/quote']

 

Since the System must take into account all elements - not the ones you think are more common - then the analysis fails to create a fair cost comparison and is over simplified.

 

Making it less than useful and less than fair and you will draw an incorrect conclusion.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

You are assuming that the power has no other advantages' date=' and that rounding does not work in your favour.[/quote']

Yes - it is a simple analysis. However, in my experience, the majority of powers don't have too many advantages. Let us say that a 30 point base power with Reduced END also has +½ in other advantages. The cost of Reduced END is thus 7, and the END cost is reduced by 2. If the 7 points were used instead to buy more END, the power must be used 7 times in a situation before Reduced END even begins to save points - assuming that no END is recovered in the meantime.

 

More complexly, we can try to assume that the power is used 4 times in a turn. Hence, 8 END is saved. Buying +8 END costs 4 points, while buying +8 limited REC* would cost 8 points. This is 12 points compared to 7, but the extra END and REC can be used for all powers. Is this worth the extra cost? Hard to say.

 

In my experience most battles last between one and three turns. Let's say two turns (8 power uses). Then the 7 points spent on Reduced END should be compared to spending 16 END at the cost of 8 points, just 1 more than the cost of Reduced END - and once again, having a lot of END is much more flexible.

 

This suggests that if you have other advantages on a power and roundings are in your favor and you use the power constantly for more than two turns, Reduced/0 END may be a valid alternative to buying more END/REC, but it in no way shows that it always is a better option. In fact, I would recommend buying more END (and REC) for greater flexibility, except perhaps for movement powers you plan to use for extended periods.

 

*: I don't suggest actually buying limited REC, I'm just trying to value the END-related parts of REC. Buying high REC is good for all sorts of other things. IIRC, you e.g. wake up from unconsciousness with END equal to your REC.

 

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

4. Most characters need both DEF and STUN at more than starting levels' date=' certainly in higher powered games, so it is about balance.[/quote']

Yes. My analysis is based on what's better once you have bought basic levels of DEF and STUN to prevent against common attacks. You need some (resistant) DEF to prevent taking BODY, and you need some STUN as protection from exotic attacks, STUN Drains, and such. Once you have that (which of course is campaign dependant), is it better to buy more PD/ED or buy more STUN/REC/CON? My analysis suggests the latter.

 

7. Game balance is important in character design - you can't just spend all the points on DEF because that doesn't make for a fun game - combat takes forever.

Which is exactly why I advocate making PD/ED a less powerful option than it is now.

 

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Since the System must take into account all elements - not the ones you think are more common - then the analysis fails to create a fair cost comparison and is over simplified.

 

Making it less than useful and less than fair and you will draw an incorrect conclusion.

Please make what you consider a fair cost comparison, then.

 

- Klaus

[secretID]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

I clearly state that I'm only looking at how many non-exotic attacks a character is typically hit with in a turn. Additional exotic attacks may be defended with by having more Stun or by having exotic defenses; this isn't important for my analysis.

Everyone else seems to agree that they are important for the analysis. The point is that STUN protects from energy, physical, AND everything else, so it doesn't make sense to say that you can just buy exotic defenses - if you have enough STUN, you don't have to.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Please make what you consider a fair cost comparison, then.

 

- Klaus

 

Compare the cost of taking all forms of Defense that prevent Stun Damage from any source (PD, ED, MD, PowerD) versus purchasing an equivelant amount of Stun or Stun+Recovery. Map the Defenses across multiple levels as well (I suggest, to keep it simple, 8/12/20 but you could get more detailed and go up to 25 or 30 on the high end) and weight Stun 60/40 when spending points on Stun+Recovery instead of Defenses.

 

Ignore Killing Body for now as that requires Resistant Defenses which are purchased differently - and under 6E Normal Defenses always apply against Killing Stun so they aren't needed to block Killing Stun anyways.

 

If you are going to set a "base level" to block incoming Killing Body, you have to 1) set that level explicitely and 2) account for that in the costing structure.

 

the math needs to be done across a wide range of possible Power Levels to account for any level that the System will be used at (not just Superheroic) I suggest from 1 Damage Class to 20 Damage Classes using Normal Attack, Killing Attack (with a 6E Stun Multiple of 1D3), Ego Attack and Drain Stun - I would use only Averages for this since we're starting to get a lot of data to compare.

 

Set a CON Level that determines Stun Threshold as a baseline, unchanging, and you'll find a Break Point where Defenses vs Stun becomes either viable or extraneous.

 

If you are unwilling to perform a full wide ranging cost analysis that takes into effect all the possible Mechanics Stun works against (for whatever reason, time, desire, etc) then your analysis will fall short in properly costing any, or all, defenses versus the utility of none, some, or all points spent on Stun.

 

But just comparing Stun to PD/ED for a small variance in possible incoming Attacks disregards a large part of the System, ignores scalability and ultimately you will find that balancing only at one point unbalances at others.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

People have suggested that my analysis fails because it fails to take exotic attacks into account. I will attempt to address that here, though such an analysis must include many more assumptions.

 

Let's take a basic superhero as an example, and see how he would be best off spending his experience points: On defenses, or on STUN/BODY/REC/CON. Let's say he starts with 20 rDEF and 10 each of Mental Defense and Power Defense, though these values aren't important for the analysis.

 

In his last epic battle, lasting two and a half turns, our hero was hit by:

• 4 agent attacks vs. PD, 2 of which did STUN
  
• 2 agent attack vs. ED, 1 of which did STUN
  
• 3 powerful energy attacks, all of which did STUN, and one of which did BODY and stunned him
  
• 3 powerful physical attacks, all of which did STUN, and one of which did BODY and stunned him
  
• 1 EGO Attack, which did STUN
  
• 1 attack vs. Power Defense, which did STUN
  

+1 PD would have saved him 5 STUN and 1 BODY

+1 ED would have saved him 4 STUN and 1 BODY

+1 Mental Defense would have saved him 1 STUN

+1 Power Defense would have saved him 1 STUN

Hence, +4 points worth of defenses would have saved him 11 STUN and 2 BODY and reduced his chances of becoming stunned, similar to having +1 CON.

If STUN, BODY and CON all cost 1 each in 6e, that's 14 points worth for 4 points.

 

Now, the hero also gets two PS12 recoveries. Having +4 REC would replace 8 of the lost STUN, so we could also compare the 4 points of defense with +3 STUN, +2 BODY, +1 CON, +4 REC, or 14 points. The value of REC also recovering END we can set at 4 points, so the net value is 10 points - still 2½ times the cost of defenses, including MD and PowD.

 

Comments?

 

- Klaus

[ajackson]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Okay, most attacks will be simple PD/ED attacks. Against those attacks, +1 Def has a value of 1(+1Con)+N(+N stun), where N is the number of hits the character can take before going unconscious. With base stun (20) in a 12d6 game, N is often pretty close to 1; however, what with agent attacks and incidental damage, we'll set N to 3. Total value vs attacks in that category is thus 4.

 

Some fraction of attacks will be AP attacks. Those halve the value of defense, changing value to 2. Some fraction of attacks will be against alternate defenses, where defense is entirely useless. Overall, assuming Stun has a cost of 1, Defense has a value that's probably in the 2.5-3 range, though that depends considerably on the mix of attacks encountered.