Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

[prestidigitator]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't have the 6E book and I'm simply curious.

 

What exactly is Damage Negation supposed to represent that wasn't already being done by other Defensive powers?

 

I honestly don't think it simulates anything new myself. Instead it was a mechanic created to satisfy itself and a few whims centered more around the system than what it is used to simulate. Not one of my favorite changes, personally.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

I honestly don't think it simulates anything new myself. Instead it was a mechanic created to satisfy itself and a few whims centered more around the system than what it is used to simulate. Not one of my favorite changes' date=' personally.[/quote']

 

To be honest, that's what it's sounding to me like too, but since I don't have the book, I was going for the benefit of the doubt.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

It is mechanically different, obviously, and is easier to apply than defences (the numbers are much smaller) but that is of limited value as you'll have at least some defences to apply if anything gets through.

 

It means that you don't have to roll every pistol shot against Tanker, because you know they do not do enough damage to hurt him at all, no matter what the roll.

 

I think that is really useful.

 

Mechanical and metagaming rules are not enough though, in and of themselves: there needs to be some other reason, in game.

 

I think there is one.

 

Think of a knight in armour. Generally blows bounce off the armour. the main potential problems are knockdown and finding a bit not covered by armour. However, a powerful enough blow WILL penetrate, and ANY blow that penetrates armour is likely to do not only Stun but also Body, which I find highly realistic, moreso than the traditional defence model.

 

I don't know if you've ever seen the comic strip 'Zenith' from 2000AD. Great stuff. There's one scene where Zenith is fighting this Nazi Ubermensche type, who has taken several blows (including being smashed with a double decker bus) without apparent injury but he is distracted and Zenith hits him, actually punching right through his body.

 

That is difficult to do with traditional defences: they have to be set high enough that Body will not normally get through, even on a somewhat above average roll. Then you have to be lucky: if you do throw that haymakered and pushed all-out blow, you have to roll well.

 

With DN, you set the level to the DC of the highest attack - no real damage through It is only when you push that haymaker...then you do significant Body damage, not just scads of stun (or maybe he used a differnt punch with DN negation?)

 

So, I think it is different and fits a different niche from more traditional defences. Time will tell how useful it is in practice.

[torchwolf]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

It is mechanically different, obviously, and is easier to apply than defences (the numbers are much smaller) but that is of limited value as you'll have at least some defences to apply if anything gets through.

 

It means that you don't have to roll every pistol shot against Tanker, because you know they do not do enough damage to hurt him at all, no matter what the roll.

 

I think that is really useful.

 

Mechanical and metagaming rules are not enough though, in and of themselves: there needs to be some other reason, in game.

 

I think there is one.

 

Think of a knight in armour. Generally blows bounce off the armour. the main potential problems are knockdown and finding a bit not covered by armour. However, a powerful enough blow WILL penetrate, and ANY blow that penetrates armour is likely to do not only Stun but also Body, which I find highly realistic, moreso than the traditional defence model.

 

That's a different aspect of DN to explore.

 

I don't know if you've ever seen the comic strip 'Zenith' from 2000AD. Great stuff. There's one scene where Zenith is fighting this Nazi Ubermensche type' date=' who has taken several blows (including being smashed with a double decker bus) without apparent injury but he is distracted and Zenith hits him, actually punching right through his body.[/quote']

 

Yep, great stuff, convinced me to run Horror World storylines. You could also let Volta have an unknown daughter named Samantha.

 

That is difficult to do with traditional defences: they have to be set high enough that Body will not normally get through, even on a somewhat above average roll. Then you have to be lucky: if you do throw that haymakered and pushed all-out blow, you have to roll well.

 

With DN, you set the level to the DC of the highest attack - no real damage through It is only when you push that haymaker...then you do significant Body damage, not just scads of stun (or maybe he used a differnt punch with DN negation?)

 

So, I think it is different and fits a different niche from more traditional defences. Time will tell how useful it is in practice.

 

I, for one, am quite enthusiastic about having a new kind of defensive Power option available.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Hmm. I wonder if a slightly different approach could have been taken for the "invulnerability to low-powered attacks" thing. What about an all or nothing defense? Something like N levels means you are immune to attacks with up to N DCs, but it offers zero defense to attacks that are over N DCs. At least it wouldn't suffer from the dice rolling headaches. Heh.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Hmm. I wonder if a slightly different approach could have been taken for the "invulnerability to low-powered attacks" thing. What about an all or nothing defense? Something like N levels means you are immune to attacks with up to N DCs' date=' but it offers zero defense to attacks that are over N DCs. At least it wouldn't suffer from the dice rolling headaches. Heh.[/quote']

You mean like +X PD, only versus guns/small arms/"real weapons" or some such?

[NestorDRod]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

It is mechanically different, obviously, and is easier to apply than defences (the numbers are much smaller) but that is of limited value as you'll have at least some defences to apply if anything gets through.

 

Shrug. From the discussion here and in another thread, I don't know if "easier to apply" is applicable to DN, but that's pretty much up to the indidividual.

 

It means that you don't have to roll every pistol shot against Tanker, because you know they do not do enough damage to hurt him at all, no matter what the roll.

 

I think that is really useful.

 

Mechanical and metagaming rules are not enough though, in and of themselves: there needs to be some other reason, in game.

 

I think there is one.

 

Think of a knight in armour. Generally blows bounce off the armour. the main potential problems are knockdown and finding a bit not covered by armour. However, a powerful enough blow WILL penetrate, and ANY blow that penetrates armour is likely to do not only Stun but also Body, which I find highly realistic, moreso than the traditional defence model.

 

I don't know if you've ever seen the comic strip 'Zenith' from 2000AD. Great stuff. There's one scene where Zenith is fighting this Nazi Ubermensche type, who has taken several blows (including being smashed with a double decker bus) without apparent injury but he is distracted and Zenith hits him, actually punching right through his body.

 

That is difficult to do with traditional defences: they have to be set high enough that Body will not normally get through, even on a somewhat above average roll. Then you have to be lucky: if you do throw that haymakered and pushed all-out blow, you have to roll well.

 

With DN, you set the level to the DC of the highest attack - no real damage through It is only when you push that haymaker...then you do significant Body damage, not just scads of stun (or maybe he used a differnt punch with DN negation?)

 

So, I think it is different and fits a different niche from more traditional defences. Time will tell how useful it is in practice.

 

Indeed.

 

I've got to say I'm still not convinced that it's a distinctive enough effect to validate its existence against the perceived difficulty of applying it in a game. I suppose that as long as it doesn't replace an existing defense framework it's not a big deal, since a GM can simply not allow it in his game.

 

I will mention that while some folks may consider the Champions paradigm that it's usually easier to knock out an opponent than kill them a bug, I actually consider it a feature. And one that attracted me to the system in the first place.

[torchwolf]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Hmm. I wonder if a slightly different approach could have been taken for the "invulnerability to low-powered attacks" thing. What about an all or nothing defense? Something like N levels means you are immune to attacks with up to N DCs' date=' but it offers zero defense to attacks that are over N DCs. At least it wouldn't suffer from the dice rolling headaches. Heh.[/quote']

 

Do you mean like the reverse of the Cumulative Advantage?

Hmm, interesting. As far as attacks go, Dispel works that way, and All Or Nothing can be applied to Transform or conceivably a similar Power. I wonder how it would work out in game play if All Or Nothing is applied to an attack Power.

If Defenses and defensive Powers can apply an All Or Nothing Limitation, from a game play POV they would seem to work vs weak attacks, suddenly not work against a stronger attack, then work again against a weaker attack. If I was playing it would seem pretty confusion trying to hurt such an opponent.

 

Re DN: Assuming the suggested method of rolling dice for how much DN protects is used, it could be built with the Cumulative Advantage to represent some defense that grows stronger after time. Now that's confusing, but similar to the old Absorption as Defense.

 

Just some random thoughts on the subject.

[GoldenAge]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

...Zenith is fighting this Nazi Ubermensche type' date=' who has taken several blows (including being smashed with a double decker bus) without apparent injury but he is distracted and Zenith hits him, actually punching right through his body.[/quote']

 

Sounds like the Nazi Ubermensche simply had concentration on his defenses.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

If Damage Negation is prevalent enough in a campaign setting a Nemesis Kid like character could be built using an attack built with the Reduced Negation Adder (especially effective if used with HKA or HA). He's not necessarily the toughest super around and doesn't overpower agents and/or objects but is especially effective vs. otherwise "Invulnerable" heroes.

[mattingly]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Nemesis Kid like character could be built using an attack built with the Reduced Negation Adder

Excellent point. It could become the new Find Weakness.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

To create that kind of a niche, a GM would have to be very restrictive about who they allowed to take the Reduced Negation Adder, which alludes back to my concerns about its easy availability contrasted with the difficulty of making it more restrictive without being completely arbitrary.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

In my mind one of the biggest advantages of Damage Negation is that you can counter-act the STN lotto from Killing Attacks without buying ridiculously high PD/ED. Of course that is the 5e point of view, maybe it isn't as big a deal in 6e (which I will get soon but haven't actually read yet).

 

But it also cuts down on the randomness of the BDY total on KA too (fewer dice mean less BDY range to be rolled), so that you don't get that fluky high BDY roll that you won't generally see with a Normal attack. So when the heroes face off against a dragon or some other big tough foe, the GM can set the defense level more easily so that heroes with both KA and NA have a decent chance of damaging the silly thing. That's a big plus in my book anyway.

[Ice9]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

for a 2d6 RKA, 12 rPD is all you need to completely block an attack. And if the higher attack rolls poorly, well it rolled poorly.

 

12 DEF will, to quote you, "always block the pistol, and never completely block stronger weapons." I really don't see the difference.

I should have said "20 PD, of which 12 is resistant" - being immune to pistols also means not getting knocked out by them, IMO.

 

The points spent on DN 6 could alternately get you 24 PD, 12 of which is resistant. As 2d6 RKA will usually not do much more than 24 stun, but it could do up to 36 (or 60 with hit locations). And that level of defense has a good chance to negate or almost negate even something like a rocket. Hence the DN provides a sharper line.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

I think it will be an easy mechanic to utilize in some specialized situations. I don't think it's a Broad Use Defense like straight PD/ED are.

 

Take something like Guns - per the rules you can define Damage Negation versus a SFX Only and it takes care of all versions of that - So a Superhero with normal campaign levels of PD/ED and rPD/rED could buy, say, 4 Leves of Damage Negation vs Guns, let their normal defenses take care of anything over that (most guns at that point are reduced to 2-3 DCs or a whopping 1D6KA). 20 Points let's your Superheroes be immune to guns.

 

Or in a Monster Hunter campaign, where the heroes are running against a Werewolf with 4-6 levels of Physical DN to simulate it getting shot a lot but not being very hurt - but not needing massive defenses either.

 

Personally I think I see more use in SFX Based DN than Damage Type Based. vs Guns, vs Electricity, vs Vampires, or whatever.

 

I want to see it in action before deciding though.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Ugh. The more I read about it, the more Damage Negation sounds like a twink power.

 

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Another character might use DN is a Wolverine type: set right the character will take damage, including Body, but not so much their regeneration can not cope with it. They can get hit and they can get hurt, but they get better.

[Warp9]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

I haven't got 6th Ed yet, but I definitely approve of this Damage Negation concept.

 

I will mention that while some folks may consider the Champions paradigm that it's usually easier to knock out an opponent than kill them a bug, I actually consider it a feature. And one that attracted me to the system in the first place.

In the comics, it seems that it is much easier to knock somebody out than kill them. However, a universal system shouldn't be forcing that kind of Stan Lee "paradigm" on my games.

 

And the beauty of it is that it doesn't have to, that is what this mechanic does for us. This mechanic allows for each character to be designed differently according to concept.

 

If you want a character who is easy to KO, but nigh impossible to kill, you can do that. But you can also build a character who bounces pistol bullets off like pop-corn, but who can be killed by heavy artillery.

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

I like it both for the 'bullets bounce off him' superhero Brick, and the improved consistency of damage to vehicles.

 

For instance, now I can make a vehicle immune up to, say, a .50 cal MG (3d6K) by buying nine levels of Damage Negation. Sure, I could also either (1) rule as GM that KAs vs vehicles always do SER damage, (2) buy 10 or 11 DEF plus 8 or 7 DEF Only Against 3d6 And Less KAs, or (3) just buy 18 DEF... but this seems more elegant (less clunky) to me.

 

I will note, however, that Damage Negation is an exception to the Hero System 'every attack should have a defense, and the defense should be considerably cheaper' rule.

[Ternaugh]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Another character might use DN is a Wolverine type: set right the character will take damage' date=' including Body, but not so much their regeneration can not cope with it. They can get hit and they can get hurt, but they get better.[/quote']

 

I tend to run FH, so I can see DN used in a writeup for a troll, for example. The DN becomes the "fast healing" by having the wounds partially close as a special effect, while a slower Regen mops up the BODY that got through over the long haul. I probably wouldn't expect any PCs to have DN, however.

 

JoeG

[Sean Waters]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

I tend to run FH, so I can see DN used in a writeup for a troll, for example. The DN becomes the "fast healing" by having the wounds partially close as a special effect, while a slower Regen mops up the BODY that got through over the long haul. I probably wouldn't expect any PCs to have DN, however.

 

JoeG

 

 

It might make a nice feature of some magical armour, perhaps a limited version v Fire for Red Dragon Armour? The troll build looks good

[prestidigitator]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Oh yeah. DN works as Knockback Resistance also. There's another few points of effectiveness, and one that tends to reduce its believability IMO.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Meh, Knockback is an Optional rule to begin with. Not sure what believability has to do with it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Oh yeah. DN works as Knockback Resistance also. There's another few points of effectiveness' date=' and one that tends to reduce its believability IMO.[/quote']

 

Dehydrated Believeablity: just add water -'Take KB normally' -1/4?