The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

[Hierax]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

I don't pro-rate DC's for Advantages, I like Base Points and just control uber-Advantages stacking as a GM thing, makes Adding Damage so much simpler and can do things like this a lot more easily. I don't know why it is still so complicated.

 

Damage Negation as a Defence/Anti-Damage is the first thing that occurred to me when I saw it as it just seems so intuitive.

 

You could also apply Standard Effect to it and have it run like regular defences getting 3/die, if you wanted.

 

Point is that there's lots of cool possibilities opened up by this great new power!

[The Main Man]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

Defense, Damage Negation, and Damage Reduction sound generally balanced to me.

 

It sounds like the order goes DN, Defense, DR - DN holds the line, Defenses dam the river, and DR is damage control.

 

Damage Negation is good until something surpasses it.

 

Damage Reduction is good unless nothing gets past your Defenses.

 

When said that way, it sounds to me like DN falls back onto Defenses while DR depends on Defenses failing.

 

That sounds to me like Defenses are still bread and butter.

 

Besides, I'm willing to bet that most GMs will treat DN in that same nature of grouping Physical and Energy defenses into the same Active Point totals, which would make DN progressive.

 

I believe that there is a "Reduced Negation" adder for attacks to boot, which makes a lot of this largely irrelevant, as I'm guessing that it is half the price of DN.

 

Oh, also, does DN work against Penetrating?

[mmshah]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

Opps I didnt notice the change in 6th ED to stun multipliers of Killing Attacks will go back and correct it.

[Beast]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

in that 12DC game you would have defenses of around 25(10 resistant) pts

now you have 2def vs a 6DC attack

which will average 21 stun and 6 body vs 42 stun and 12 body for a 12 DC attack

so with 2 def after the DN you take 19 stun and 4 body vs 17 stun and 0 body

 

vs a killing attack 4d6ka averaging 14 body and 28 stun

does 4 body and 3 stun to the guy with regular def

vs the guy with DN it becomes a 2d6ka averaging 7 body and 14 stun

the DN guy takes 7 body and 12 stun

 

just because you have damage negation your defenses should not be at the same level as a character who does not have them

if you spend 30 pt over 30 def (28 pts 4pts as resistant for a full 30 pts)

 

 

Now for a comparison that's more meaningful:

 

30 points damage reduction: halves damage after defenses.

30 points damage negation: subtracts 6 DCs. In a 12 DC game, that halves damage before defenses.

 

This may say something about damage reduction, though. 50% damage reduction is effectively 2x CON, Bod, Stun, and getting it vs all major categories is 90 points, so if you're below something like 30con/30bod/60stun damage reduction is a poor choice (or maybe 30con/20bod/80stun).

[prestidigitator]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

Oh' date=' also, does DN work against Penetrating?[/quote']

Basically, yes.

Damage Negation doesn’t reduce the effect of Penetrating per se' date=' but the reduction in DCs will of course affect the minimum damage made possible by Penetrating.[/quote']

[ghost-angel]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

I don't pro-rate DC's for Advantages' date=' I like Base Points and just control uber-Advantages stacking as a GM thing, makes Adding Damage so much simpler and can do things like this a lot more easily. I don't know why it is still so complicated.p[/quote']

 

It's not particularly complicated.

[megaplayboy]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

I like things like this:

 

-6 DCs vs Guns/Firearms.

 

Now actually bulletproof vs a Called Head Shot.

(6 DCs is just a number, use the actual intended maximum DCs of guns in your campaign)

 

or "-6 DC vs. Non-magical weapons, physical" (Enchanted Hide, or Magic Shield spell) to simulate creatures that can only be harmed by magic weapons--it has the advantage of not requiring FH characters to wield weapons doing 3-6 dice of killing damage in order to have a chance to kill dragons, demons, etc.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

Now for a comparison that's more meaningful:

 

30 points damage reduction: halves damage after defenses.

30 points damage negation: subtracts 6 DCs. In a 12 DC game, that halves damage before defenses.

 

That 30 points can also buy, say, +10 rDEF and +15 DEF. How do those compare in a 12 DC game where we will spend 30 points on defensive powers against physical attacks, adding to a base of 2 PD? Let's take a look, using a 12 DC, 42 STUN, 12 BOD normal attack and a 4d6, 14 BOD, 28 STUN killing attack:

 

PD: 42 - 27 = 15 STUN; 12 - 27 = 0 BOD/28 - 27 = 1 STUN; 14 - 10 = 4 BOD

 

Reduction: 42 - 2 = 40/2 = 20 STUN; 12 - 2 = 10/2 = 5 BOD/28 - 2 = 26/2 = 13 STUN; 14 - 0 = 14/2 = 12 BOD

 

Negation: 21 - 2 = 19 STUN; 6 - 2 = 4 BOD; 14 - 2 = 12 STUN; 7 - 0 = 7 BOD

 

Where were your points better spent?

 

Reduction is superior at dealing with (much) higher than average DC's, since it reduces all damage. Negation is superior at dealing with above average rolls. Both have benefits dealing with attacks that modify the application of normal defenses. But normal defenses seem like a clear winner for dealing with typical attacks.

[Hierax]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

It's not particularly complicated.

 

Moreover, it's also not logical in most cases -- e.g., why Armor Piercing attacks should be any less affected by Strength than non- be they bullets or blades just plain doesn't make sense (in the same way it didn't make sense for AoE but that was fixed).

[ghost-angel]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

It comes down to Game Balance and needing to have a mechanism in place to deal with Advantages.

 

If I read your sentence correctly, because it makes very little sense to me.

[megaplayboy]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

That 30 points can also buy, say, +10 rDEF and +15 DEF. How do those compare in a 12 DC game where we will spend 30 points on defensive powers against physical attacks, adding to a base of 2 PD? Let's take a look, using a 12 DC, 42 STUN, 12 BOD normal attack and a 4d6, 14 BOD, 28 STUN killing attack:

 

PD: 42 - 27 = 15 STUN; 12 - 27 = 0 BOD/28 - 27 = 1 STUN; 14 - 10 = 4 BOD

 

Reduction: 42 - 2 = 40/2 = 20 STUN; 12 - 2 = 10/2 = 5 BOD/28 - 2 = 26/2 = 13 STUN; 14 - 0 = 14/2 = 12 BOD

 

Negation: 21 - 2 = 19 STUN; 6 - 2 = 4 BOD; 14 - 2 = 12 STUN; 7 - 0 = 7 BOD

 

Where were your points better spent?

 

Reduction is superior at dealing with (much) higher than average DC's, since it reduces all damage. Negation is superior at dealing with above average rolls. Both have benefits dealing with attacks that modify the application of normal defenses. But normal defenses seem like a clear winner for dealing with typical attacks.

 

Or you could spend 30 points on +6 DCV, which will mean that ~90% of typical attacks miss outright.

[prestidigitator]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

Moreover' date=' it's also not logical in most cases -- e.g., why Armor Piercing attacks should be any less affected by Strength than non- be they bullets or blades just plain doesn't make sense (in the same way it didn't make sense for AoE but that was fixed).[/quote']

 

How was that "fixed" for AoE? AoE is still on the suggested list of Advantages that count as affecting damage. See 6E2/C&A p. 98. Or do you just mean because the AoE Advantage is often smaller now?

[Hierax]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

Sorry, that wasn't very clear, I meant that the size of the AoE is no longer tied to the Active Points. The comparison that I was trying (poorly) to make is that Damage could also be divorced from Active Points/Advantages and just work off of Damage (DCs) pure and simple, like Area now works off of Area not Active Points/other Advantages. Hope that's clearer.

[ghost-angel]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

It basically does. But Advantages still must be accounted for. If your attack has +1 worth of Advantages it is effectively 10 Active Points per Damage Class instead of 5.

[prestidigitator]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

It basically does. But Advantages still must be accounted for. If your attack has +1 worth of Advantages it is effectively 10 Active Points per Damage Class instead of 5.

 

Which, if you think about it, somewhat furthers the case that Killing Attack could simply be made some kind of Advantage. See the Damage Class table on 6E2/C&A p. 97 for an example of how well KAs now fit in with all manner of other Powers' damage/effect rolls. It's a nice move toward consistency IMO, along with the general simplification of the rules for adding damage.

[ghost-angel]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

That aside...

 

For damage adding calculation you can essentially count every added DC as 5AP and go from there.

[Zephrosyne]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

Well, when I first looked at Damage Negation, my knee jerk reaction was "whoa." After seeing the math, you guys have definitely sold me on the power being a balanced addition to the game. Thanks.

[Lairian]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

At least in the case of Damage Negation, you pretty much have to prorate for advantages.

 

Consider a character, Alice, who bought a Penetrating Armor Piercing Indirect 6d6 attack.

 

Her teammate Bob bought a 12d6 attack. Same active cost.

 

Senior Sinister, Fashion Victimizer At Large, has 6 DC Damage Negation. Prorating this, it means Alice deals 3d6 Pen AP Ind (I believe Ind is on the list, not certain), and Bob deals 6d6. Seems good and fair.

 

If you skip the prorating part, Bob rolls 6d6 for damage, but Alice gets to roll ZERO dice on her attack which is clearly designed to get around defenses as much as possible.

 

tl;dr: Don't skip DN's prorating if you don't want REALLY cranky players.

[mmshah]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

Thinking about this some more I came up with the following: Instead of comparing DN to RD or a combination of RD and PD/ED, which seems to come out in RD/ED/PD's favor. Lets compare a Limited form of DN (Only works on Stun -1/2) combined with a little RD versus the combo of RD/ED/PD that we did before. The reason for doing this is simple the amount of Body dealt by any attack is generally alot less then the Stun, so we don't need alot of ED/PD for the Body of an attack in fact its overkill but its necessary since we need it cover the Stun of an attack. So here goes:

 

12d6 DN (Only versus Stun -1/2) 40 Points

12 rPD 18 Points

 

versus

 

12 rPD 18 Points

40 PD

 

Now versus a Normal Attack the DN combo stops on average 12 Body and 54 Stun

 

The RD/PD combo stops 52 Body and 52 Stun

 

So as I noted the 52 Body is way overkill and the DN stops slightly more Stun on average.

 

Now versus a Killing Attack:

The DN combo stops 12 Body and 40 Stun

 

The RD/PD combo stops 12 Body and 52 Stun

 

This is due to the fact that Killing Attacks per die don't deal much Stun, thus it is much cheaper to stop the Stun of Killing Attacks by buying PD/ED. DN has the advantage that it still works on NNDs and AVLDs. Yes there is the DN adder to bypass DN but theres also penerating and Armor Piercing to bypass PD/ED. Even so it seems even in this scenario the RD/PD/ED case generally works out better.

 

A Minor tweak I thought of, only buy enough levels of DN to round in your favor for example 1 level of DN with Only Stun Limitation costs 3 Points but 2 levels costs 7 Points, so instead buy 1 level of DN and 4 Points of normal defense (or some RD if you prefer) if you were going to only purchase 10 Points worth. Likewise if you want to buy more levels make sure it rounds in your favor or buy a level less and buy a few points of RD or PD to cover the difference.

 

If someone can suggest a way to improve upon this maybe we can a way to make DN decent.

[The Main Man]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

I am thinking that I will make the same regulation as I did for 5e: The active points of Physical and Energy Defense, Damage Negation, and Damage Reduction all count towards the same total active points.

 

So if a campaign were to have 60 Active Points, a player could have up to 60 active points of any combination of Physical and Energy Defense, Damage Negation, and Damage Reduction.

 

Example: Someone could buy, for example, Resistant Protection 9 PD/ 9 ED, Damage Negation (-3 Physical DC's, -3 Energy DC's), and Physical & Energy Damage Reduction, Resistant 25% for a relatively even division.

[Sean Waters]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

I love Damage Negation!

 

Damage Negation is the fairest Defensive Power of all. It is actually costed right 1 DC of Attack = 1 DC of Defence; heck, more of the Hero System should be like this, nicely balanced. I've never liked the Defensive powers being much cheaper than the attack powers but this fixes it.

 

...............

 

 

Sorry, bugbear, but this has never been true: to negate 1d6 of EB you need 6 ED, 4 of which have the limitation 'stun only -1/2', which costs 5 (4.666) points, then you needed 2 points of KBR at 4 (now 2) points, so it has always, in fact, been more expensive to defend than attack (killing DCs are even worse).

[megaplayboy]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

Sorry' date=' bugbear, but this has never been true: to negate 1d6 of EB you need 6 ED, 4 of which have the limitation 'stun only -1/2', which costs 5 (4.666) points, then you needed 2 points of KBR at 4 (now 2) points, so it has always, in fact, been more expensive to defend than attack (killing DCs are even worse).[/quote']

 

But, to negate 1d6 of Mental Blast, you need 6 points of Mental Defense, none of it resistant, and no knockback resistance. So it is cheaper to defend against the non-PD/ED type attacks.

[Sean Waters]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

But' date=' to negate 1d6 of Mental Blast, you need 6 points of Mental Defense, none of it resistant, and no knockback resistance. So it is cheaper to defend against the non-PD/ED type attacks.[/quote']

 

This is true.

 

Mind you you also have to bear in mind but that an attacker only needs to sink points into one attack, and they are good to go: if they want to really diversify they can have several different attacks for different situations in a MP, and still not spend that much more.

 

A defender, however, has a lot of bases to cover: sure, if they know what attack is coming they can have defences in a MP, but generally they won't, so that doesn't work well. If you want to actually have a bit of defence against everything it costs a LOT.

[prestidigitator]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

Yeah. Attacks go in MPs. Defenses go in VPPs.

[Sean Waters]

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

 

Yeah. Attacks go in MPs. Defenses go in VPPs.

 

Hmm - even then you need to know what is coming, or have enough limitations to run several defences at once.

 

The 'Allocatable' advantage for defenses actually removes a lot of the need for defensive frameworks.

 

One point while I'm on 'Allocatable': page 276 - you can buy Resistant Protection and, if it is Allocatable, you can reduce any of the defenses to 0 to increase any of the others, but "can’t put any points into Mental Defense, Power Defense, or any other defense not originally bought for it": why wouldn't you (except for that weird 'concept' thing) buy at least one point of each defence type: there is no downside to it, if you are buying 'Allocatable' anyway?