Are PD and ED far too cheap?

[ajackson]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Comments?

Being up after 8 full-power attacks is pretty much not going to happen. Halve the number of all attacks received.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Yes - it is a simple analysis. However' date=' in my experience, the majority of powers don't have too many advantages. Let us say that a 30 point base power with [i']Reduced END[/i] 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

 

I would recover the same amount of END whether I have reduced END or not. As long as I've used enough END to reduce it by my REC or more, in both cases, having a recovery in the middle does not change the results.

 

More complexly' date=' 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 [i']all [/i]powers. Is this worth the extra cost? Hard to say.

 

It depends. It's not worth it if you have just recovered from a KO and now have 3 END and 3 STUN. (note that and you wake up from unconsciousness with END equal to your STUN, not equal to your REC). That extra REC is limited, so you didn't get any more STUN back, and having higher maximum END does you no good until you recover it. But reduced END means I can act and take less STUN damage in the process. In my experience, many battles include characters knocked out at 0 to -9 and recovering, and some include characters knocked out at -10 to -19 and recovering, so the ability to operate with minimal END becomes quite valuable.

 

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' date=' just 1 more than the cost of [i']Reduced END[/i] - and once again, having a lot of END is much more flexible.

 

In my experience, Heroic characters often have no END issues anyway, and Superheroic characters tend to have SPD higher than 4.

 

What this shows more than anything else is that the relative value depends a lot on other aspects of the specific game.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Throwing in Speed, CVs and "did you or did you not get hit?" into the mix now produces enough variables, and enough game dependant variables, that I don't believe a useful cost comparison can be made.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Throwing in Speed' date=' CVs and "did you or did you not get hit?" into the mix now produces enough variables, and enough game dependant variables, that I don't believe a useful cost comparison can be made.[/quote']

 

Very true. If you raise the price of defenses, you motivate higher DCV's so you get hit less often, making the points paid on defenses less relevant. Rather than buy +5 rPD and +5rED, I could buy 3 DCV levels. Double the cost of PD and ED and I can buy 6 DCV levels instead. Taking an extra 5 STUN from each hit while reducing the likelihood of being hit that markedly may be very worthwhile.

[prestidigitator]

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.

 

That's a good point. I liked the statistical treatment that first went into this debate (in another thread), but something about it bothered me. Just because exotic attacks are rare doesn't mean they aren't going to unbalance a fight. Surviving only one or two exotic attacks per fight is easy. Running into the rare mentalist or whatever and surviving a bunch of attacks in a row is a little different.

 

Not saying the approach doesn't have merit. It just can't be the only leg you're standing on for such an argument. I suppose such comparisons are always going to be difficult or impossible when people are using tactics and strategy. That's probably why we use experimental statistics (play testing) to compare things rather than theoretical analysis. Bugs me too. The big picture is hard to judge.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

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

 

That would be my inclination as well. Defenses last indefinitely. Give people more Stun so the finite battle will last a little longer and we can enjoy more potato chips.

[Vondy]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

That's a good point. I liked the statistical treatment that first went into this debate (in another thread)' date=' but something about it bothered me. Just because exotic attacks are rare doesn't mean they aren't going to unbalance a fight. Surviving only one or two exotic attacks per fight is easy. Running into the rare mentalist or whatever and surviving a bunch of attacks in a row is a little different.[/quote']

 

In my Freedom Patrol game it was accepted tactical doctrine to make opposing mentalists (when there was one) "target one" while protecting your own headcase. And there was a tendency to use every possible advantage mental powers conveyed. They were treated like Queens on a chessboard. One shrewdly played, tactically astute mentalist had the potential of wreaking havoc. In cases where there were notable mentalists on both sides entire battles often hinged on which team took the other teams mentalist down first. Extreme prejudice.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Throwing in Speed' date=' CVs and "did you or did you not get hit?" into the mix now produces enough variables, and enough game dependant variables, that I don't believe a useful cost comparison can be made.[/quote']

Does this mean that we can set any arbitrary values, and it's alright, because we can't make any comparisons? Let's cost PD and ED at .25, and STUN at 5, because that's just as good as anything else, since we can't do any useful comparisons?

 

As I see it, the comparisons we can make, imperfect or not, must be the basis for setting the costs - or else they can be set to whatever.

 

IOW: Imperfect comparisons are better than no comparisons. If you can't provide better guidelines, they are all we have to go from. Critizise all you want, but unless you come up with something better, your criticism will be rather empty.

 

You keep saying: "You should do so and so instead". Well, all right, why don't you do that? At least, I'm trying to make useful analyses, which is a lot harder than just shouting: "No good - out with him!"

 

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

That would be my inclination as well. Defenses last indefinitely. Give people more Stun so the finite battle will last a little longer and we can enjoy more potato chips.

And this is exactly the point I'm trying to make: Because defenses now are much better deals than STUN, we get boring combat where you can't deal any damage unless you've got that extra 1d6. I'd rather see combat where decent attacks count for something, even if they aren't top of the line.

 

- Klaus

[ghost-angel]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

I don't think the costs are as off as you think. So I've never felt the need for that level of depth. But alright.

 

First, CON needs to be set at a Set Level. I will use 15.

 

Second, the comparison is Defenses vs Stun - remove all notions of "being hit" for the comparison we're going to simply use a Number Of Hits to reduce to 0 Stun. CVs, Dex and Speed are irrelevant.

 

Third, because Tactical Situations vary too much, we can only be assured of a Post-12 Recovery. We will simply measure Number Of Recoveries Needed to regain Lost Stun due to an Attack

 

Fourth, Damage Classes are 5 Points/ Damage Class. 1DC = 1D6 Normal Attack, 1 Pip Killing Attack, 1/2D6 Ego Attack and Drain. Follow the progression normally.

 

We assume that the Defender has purchase ALL Defeneses, CON+REC will be purchased at a 60/40 Rate (if a Defender bought 10points of Defenses total they will have +6 CON +4 REC). Just because. They get 2 PD, 2ED, 0 MD, 0 PwD, 20 Stun, 4 Rec (calculated as if you had Figured at Starting Levels). Stun = 1:1 REC = 2:1. Then we'll make up some adjustments in numbers based on some results.

 

Also, I will note Defenses are priced compared to Attacks. Not Stun and I believe you're starting from a false presumption to begin with.

 

I'll be back later tonight with a work-up from 1 Damage Class to 20 Damage Classes with some results. It takes a bit of time to get the spreadsheet working correctly.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Being up after 8 full-power attacks is pretty much not going to happen. Halve the number of all attacks received.

Okay, will do! That's:

 

2 agent attacks vs. PD, 1 of which did STUN

1 agent attack vs. ED, which didn't do STUN

1 powerful energy attacks, which did STUN and BODY

2 powerful physical attacks, both of which did STUN, and one of which stunned him

1 EGO Attack, which did STUN

 

+1 PD would have saved him 3 STUN

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

+1 Mental Defense would have saved him 1 STUN

 

That's 3 points to save 5 STUN and 1 BODY, and get the anti-stunning benefit of +1 CON - all in all 7 points worth (given a 6e CON cost of 1).

Edit: Or you could just buy +1 PD, +1 ED at 2 points and save 4 STUN and 1 BODY, and get the anti-stunning benefit of +1 CON - all in all 6 points worth for two points.

 

Given the fewer attacks, we must assume that our hero only gets one PS12 recovery. This means that having +1 STUN is just as good as having +1 REC (or better, since +1 STUN reduces the chance of going out in the first turn).

 

We still get a better than two-to-one cost benefit from defenses over STUN/REC/CON.

 

Satisfied?

 

- Klaus

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

I don't think the costs are as off as you think. So I've never felt the need for that level of depth. But alright.

 

First, CON needs to be set at a Set Level. I will use 15.

 

Second, the comparison is Defenses vs Stun - remove all notions of "being hit" for the comparison we're going to simply use a Number Of Hits to reduce to 0 Stun. CVs, Dex and Speed are irrelevant.

 

Third, because Tactical Situations vary too much, we can only be assured of a Post-12 Recovery. We will simply measure Number Of Recoveries Needed to regain Lost Stun due to an Attack

 

Fourth, Damage Classes are 5 Points/ Damage Class. 1DC = 1D6 Normal Attack, 1 Pip Killing Attack, 1/2D6 Ego Attack and Drain. Follow the progression normally.

 

We assume that the Defender has purchase ALL Defeneses, CON+REC will be purchased at a 60/40 Rate (if a Defender bought 10points of Defenses total they will have +6 CON +4 REC). Just because. They get 2 PD, 2ED, 0 MD, 0 PwD, 20 Stun, 4 Rec (calculated as if you had Figured at Starting Levels). Stun = 1:1 REC = 2:1. Then we'll make up some adjustments in numbers based on some results.

 

Also, I will note Defenses are priced compared to Attacks. Not Stun and I believe you're starting from a false presumption to begin with.

 

I'll be back later tonight with a work-up from 1 Damage Class to 20 Damage Classes with some results. It takes a bit of time to get the spreadsheet working correctly.

I will look forward to it!

 

- Klaus

[ghost-angel]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

OK, I have some info. I got kind of bored with the exercise. There's one flaw, and I'll explain that before I continue on.

 

You state that buying STUN should be an equivalent build to buying Defenses. This, by itself, is the flaw.

 

Mitigating Damage will always be preferable to taking Damage. Even if the Damage Taken is Less Than your Recovery you must spend all Actions Recovering from Damage to equate Defending Against said Damage to equalize the two.

 

Even a series of small undefended, unrecovered attacks will KO a Character eventually. A small amount of Defense prolongs this, a larger amount negates it.

 

For large attacks, all removing Defenses does is quicken the Stun/KO rate, but it is even more inevitable, especially if your REC is less than Damage Taken.

 

Recovery is the key to this point, the higher your Recovery the better off you are at any case. But it's also where the greatest variance comes in. If the Defenders Speed is twice or more the Attackers Speed they can spend the Phases taking Recoveries, negating Damage quickly without losing the ability to retaliate. If the Defenders Speed is less than or equal to the Attackers Speed the Defender will always lose eventually without Damage Mitigation.

 

It's an inherent aspect of the two concepts. You cannot hold out forever. Only "long enough."

 

On to the dog and pony show.

 

Bases: PD/ED: 2 MD/PwD: 0 Stun: 20 REC: 4 CON: 15

-All Damages used were Averages

-Body Damage was Ignored, assume Stun Only Attacks.

 

Points Spent: 20

PD/ED 8 MD/PwD: 4 Stun: 20 REC: 4

-Normal Attacks, Ego Attacks, and Drain Stun start doing Damage at 3 Damage Classes

-Killing Attacks start doing Damage at 4 DCs.

-Normal Damage exceeds Recovery Rate at 4 DCs (it takes 2+ Recoveries to undo the Damage Taken)

-Killing, Ego, and Drain Damage exceeds REC Rate @ 6 DCs

-Target is Instantly Knocked Out at 12 DCs for Normal and Killing Attacks (14 DCs for Ego and Drains)

 

Points Spent: 20

PD/ED: 2 MD/PwD: 0 Stun: 32 REC: 8

-Normal, Ego and Drains start doing Damage at 1 Damage Class

-Killing at 2 DCs

-Normal Damage exceeds REC Rate at 3 DCs

-Killing, Ego, Drain exceeds REC Rate at 5 DCs

-Instant KO at 10 DCs for Normal Attacks (@ 15 DCs for Killing) (@ 19 DCs for Ego, Drains)

 

At low point levels Defenses are definitely better at current costs.

If we Double the cost of all Defenses we get:

PD/ED 5 MD/PwD: 2 Stun: 20 REC: 4

-Normal, Ego, Drains start doing Damage at 2 DCs

-Killing at 3 DCs

-Normal Damage exceeds REC Rate @ 3 DCs

-Killing, Ego, Drains exceeds REC Rate @ 4 DCs

-Instant KO at 8 DCs for Normal Attacks (@ 11 DCs for Killing) (@ 13 DCs for Ego, Drains)

 

I don't know what results you wanted to get. But that's what it looks like if you spend 20 Points on Defenses, 20 on Stun/REC and 20 on Defenses doubling their cost.

 

Now, if the MetaRule that Defenses should be cheaper than their Attacks you run into the problem that PD/ED cost 12 Points to mitigate 1 Damage Class of Normal Attack. Assuming you buy both a PD and ED Attack, you're spending 10 Points.

 

Defenses are now more expensive than Attacks in regards to making sure you're covered. But then, you're spending lots of points on REC, Stun and hopefully Speed in order to take these REC with, otherwise those are meaningless points.

 

Since I hold the hypothesis is flawed, I won't comment further. You should be spending points in all locations. Stun is not, and will not ever be, a replacement for Defenses.

 

Damage Mitigation will always be favorable to Damage Soaking unless your Recovery Rate and Ability To Recovery exceeds their ability to Damage.

 

Maybe I should have skewed to 40/60 Stun/REC - but then you're spending most of your time standing back up from being Stunned or KO'd.

 

Since raising the cost of Defenses makes them more expensive than Attacks (thus skewing the whole curve in the OTHER direction) that's not a viable solution. The alternative is to lower the cost of Stun and Recovery - and then buy all three: Stun, Recovery, and Defenses.

 

 

EDIT: I'm not posting my spreadsheet because I used a number of formula, and parts of other spreadsheets I used as a part of SETAC to get an idea of what doubling Defense Costs does, and I'm in no mood to strip that info out.

[secretID]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

You keep saying: "You should do so and so instead". Well' date=' all right, why don't you do that? At least, I'm trying to make useful analyses, which is a lot harder than just shouting: "No good - out with him!"[/quote']

I think you're on to something. However, I don't like your method of analysis at all - all those assumptions about how many times hit, how many recoveries, etc. I think it would be more interesting to take it from the other angle (which is where g-a may have been going - I'll have to re-read): take the same amount of points, and distribute them to defenses vs. STUN. The calculate how many hits it would take to break even. Try it at several different point levels. If they're unbalanced, then the number of hits will seem unrealistic.

 

As I said before, I think you should count Rec at full price, since you often don't need it.

 

Also, you haven't responded to my early point about the marginal return of a point spent in STUN vs. a point spent on DEF at high levels - DEF becomes pointless at high levels (relative to DCs in the game), but STUN doesn't.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Oh, I did run all the numbers again using the 6E Costs. I can't reveal anything per request of Steve though, so it may not be worth anything to say that I'm happy with the results I got.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

You state that buying STUN should be an equivalent build to buying Defenses. This' date=' by itself, is the flaw.[/quote']

Actually, I'm not stating that. I'm looking at whether increasing defenses or increasing STUN/REC/CON would be the better strategy from a starting point of adequate levels of defense, STUN, etc.

 

Recovery is the key to this point, the higher your Recovery the better off you are at any case. But it's also where the greatest variance comes in. If the Defenders Speed is twice or more the Attackers Speed they can spend the Phases taking Recoveries, negating Damage quickly without losing the ability to retaliate. If the Defenders Speed is less than or equal to the Attackers Speed the Defender will always lose eventually without Damage Mitigation.

I have only looked at PS12 recoveries. Taking recovery actions in combat is usually a very bad idea.

 

Bases: PD/ED: 2 MD/PwD: 0 Stun: 20 REC: 4 CON: 15

-All Damages used were Averages

-Body Damage was Ignored, assume Stun Only Attacks.

Here is a grievious flaw: At the 2 PD/ED you use for the STUN-based character, BODY damage will be very significant.

 

Points Spent: 20

PD/ED 8 MD/PwD: 4 Stun: 20 REC: 4

-Normal Attacks, Ego Attacks, and Drain Stun start doing Damage at 3 Damage Classes

-Killing Attacks start doing Damage at 4 DCs.

-Normal Damage exceeds Recovery Rate at 4 DCs (it takes 2+ Recoveries to undo the Damage Taken)

-Killing, Ego, and Drain Damage exceeds REC Rate @ 6 DCs

-Target is Instantly Knocked Out at 12 DCs for Normal and Killing Attacks (14 DCs for Ego and Drains)

 

Points Spent: 20

PD/ED: 2 MD/PwD: 0 Stun: 32 REC: 8

-Normal, Ego and Drains start doing Damage at 1 Damage Class

-Killing at 2 DCs

-Normal Damage exceeds REC Rate at 3 DCs

-Killing, Ego, Drain exceeds REC Rate at 5 DCs

-Instant KO at 10 DCs for Normal Attacks (@ 15 DCs for Killing) (@ 19 DCs for Ego, Drains)

 

At low point levels Defenses are definitely better at current costs.

If you add that, with average damage, the Defense-based character won't take BODY until DC 9, while the STUN/REC-based character takes BODY already at DC 3, Defenses are much better!

 

Also, assuming average damage, the Defense-based character gets stunned at DC 7 normal attacks, DC 11 EGO Attacks, while the STUN-based character gets stunned at DC 5 normal, DC 9 EGO. To counter the anti-stunning advantage of higher defenses, the STUN-based character will have to buy +8 CON, leaving only 12 points for STUN/REC (assuming that CON in 6e will cost 1). Try to run your calculations for a character with PD/ED: 2 MD/PwD: 0 Stun: 28 REC: 6 CON: 23, which will be a fairer comparison with the Defense-based character - except that we still ignore the heavy BODY the STUN-based character will take.

 

If we Double the cost of all Defenses we get:

PD/ED 5 MD/PwD: 2 Stun: 20 REC: 4

-Normal, Ego, Drains start doing Damage at 2 DCs

-Killing at 3 DCs

-Normal Damage exceeds REC Rate @ 3 DCs

-Killing, Ego, Drains exceeds REC Rate @ 4 DCs

-Instant KO at 8 DCs for Normal Attacks (@ 11 DCs for Killing) (@ 13 DCs for Ego, Drains)

I never suggested doubling the costs of MD/PwD, so this isn't a useful comparison. I have also been persuaded that it is better to halve the costs of STUN and REC. Can you do the calculations for that? And please include the effects of BODY damage: Given (e.g.) BODY 15, how many attacks will it take to kill the two character types?

 

- Klaus

[ghost-angel]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Alright. Will be done a little later today.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Are we trying to include Resistant Defenses?

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Are we trying to include Resistant Defenses?

That may be a good idea if we are to include BODY in the calculations.

 

- Klaus

[ghost-angel]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Make all Defneses Resistant, Half, or something else?

 

This also alters the point calculations. Either increasing Points, or decreasing defensive level.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Just using Normal Attacks, since I'm unsure what level of rDEF you want to apply to the test, and halving the cost of Stun (since Body REC is done over such a long period I didn't include it here)...

 

 

Points in Defense PD/ED 8 Body 15

-you start to take Body @ 9 Damage Classes

-You are never instantly Killed, or Instantly brought to 0 Body

 

Point in Stun/Rec PD/ED 2 Body 15

-you start to take Body @ 3 Damage Classes

-You are instantly killed @ 18 Damage Classes, brought Instnatly to 0 Body @ 17 DCs

 

In this scenario, no matter how you look at it, you need Defenses. Stun is not a comparable Characteristic in any way, at any cost.

 

Also, if you are playing with Bleeding Rules you take Stun at an accelerated Rate due to Taking 1 Stun per Body Damage Through Defenses.

 

Since you want to know if increasing Stun/REC/CON is viable over increasing Defenses - Adequate is such an entirely subjective output I don't believe it will be useful.

 

Adequate for what? 60AP game? 12DC game? 16DC game? predominately KA Games (many modern genres)? What is "adequate"?

 

Halving the cost of Stun to 1:2 will let you last longer against Stun Only Attacks than buying the equivelant points in Defenses. You will be Stunned faster, but take longer to be KO'd.

 

A character with Defenses can both mitigate bad rolls completely and take Recoveries.

A character who spent points in Stun/REC can only take Recoveries, and simply prolong the inevitable with bad rolls.

 

I have other things to do besides play around with these numbers some more. Buying more Stun and Recovery will prolong you life in Combat at any level, no matter the pricing but pronoucedly so if you halve Stun.

 

Defenses are still the better choice IMO. But that's also because I believe Mitigation is better than Soaking in all circumstances.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

At the risk of making this even more math-intense, perhaps the defenses should start at rDEF = 1 per 1 DC of attacks. Everyone will buy some base level of defenses. From there, I suggest it is fair to ignore BOD damage. Characters who expect to routinely take BOD normally buy some ability for fast recovery or the game features a healing ability or down time between combat to recover from BOD loss.

 

If, from there, we assume the character will either buy more defenses (say, in increments of +2 PD, 1 resistant, +2 ED, 1 resistant, +1 PowDef, MentalDef and FlashDef), we probably get a reasonable progression. Most characters in my experience do not buy all of the exotic defenses, or have just a little bit of each. At 12 DC, this would result in a base 12 rPD and 12 rED, or ending up with, say, 22 PD, 17 resistant; 22 ED, 17 resistant and 5 of each exotic defense. An average 12 DC attack will do 20 STUN past normal PD or ED, 15 STUN from a KA (37 stun average roll) or 16 STUN from an exotic attack (assuming 6d6 STUN drain or Ego Attack).

 

From there, points spent on defenses or STUN/REC can be moved up or down for characters who would spend less or more on such defenses (and, likely, more on DCV so they would get at least the same recoveries).

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

At the risk of making this even more math-intense' date=' perhaps the defenses should start at rDEF = 1 per 1 DC of attacks. Everyone will buy some base level of defenses. From there, I suggest it is fair to ignore BOD damage.[/quote']

Okay, let's do that. Let's say we have a DC12 campaign, and use average damage. Average STUN from a Normal attack would then be 42, while average STUN from an EGO attack or STUN Drain would be 21. Given that KAs in 6e have a fixed x2 STUN multiplier, an average DC12 KA will do 28 STUN and 14 BODY. We should set base rDEF at 14 in order to be able to ignore BODY damage (from average attacks, anyway).

 

Let's give the base character the following stats:

STUN 30, CON 16, REC 5, rPD 14, rED 14, MD 0, PowD 0.

 

Character A spends 34 points on increasing defenses:

STUN 30, CON 16, REC 5, rPD 26, rED 26, MD 5, PowD 5

Note that CON+DEF is just enough not to be stunned by the average attacks

 

Character B spends 34 points on increasing STUN/CON/REC, assuming STUN and CON cost 1 and REC costs 2:

STUN 42, CON 28, REC 10, rPD 14, rED 14, MD 0, PowD 0

Again, CON+DEF is just enough not to be stunned by the average attacks

 

Character C spends 34 points on increasing STUN/CON/REC, assuming REC and CON cost 1 and STUN costs ½:

STUN 54, CON 28, REC 15, rPD 14, rED 14, MD 0, PowD 0

Again, CON+DEF is just enough not to be stunned by the average attacks

 

A normal DC12 attack will do 16 STUN through defenses to character A and 28 STUN through defenses to Characters B and C. Given that they get two PS12 recoveries during a fight, A would be knocked out after three hits, B would be knocked out after two hits, and C would be knocked out after three hits.

 

A DC12 EGO Attack or STUN Drain will do 16 STUN through defenses to character A and 21 STUN through defenses to Characters B and C. Given that they get two PS12 recoveries during a fight, A would be knocked out after three hits, B would also be knocked out after three hits, and C would be knocked out after four hits.

 

A DC 12 KA will do 2 STUN through defenses to character A and 14 STUN through defenses to Characters B and C. Given that they get two PS12 recoveries during a fight, A would be knocked out after 20 hits, B would be knocked out after four hits, and C would be knocked out after six hits.

 

B is clearly worse off than A or C versus normal and killing attacks, and no better off versus exotic attacks.

 

A and C seem more equal: They do equally well versus normal attacks, C is slightly better off versus exotic attacks, but much worse off versus killing attacks.

 

Not included in the calculations is that normal attacks that do slightly more than average BODY would do BODY damage to B and C, while even maxed out normal attacks would do no BODY damage to A. All would take equal BODY from above-average KAs.

 

I think this makes a good case for halving the costs of STUN and REC.

 

- Klaus

[Greywind]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Too many assumptions...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

 

Too many assumptions...

 

Most notably that the cost of the stats will remain unchanged in 6e. I don't believe Steve has commented on the costs of the various characteristics. I'm on record as believing STUN and REC should be reduced.