Messing with perfection

[Sean Waters]

I'd always considered 'Armour Piercing' to be a nigh perfect advantage.

 

Start with a 60 point attack: you can do 12d6 EB (av 42 stun) or 8d6 AP EB (av 28 stun)

 

Against expected defences for that sort of attack (20-24 ED) the EB does 18-22 stun through defences, the AP EB does 16-18 stun through defences.

 

The 'straight' EB is better unless you are facing someone with high defences. AP attacks also do less KB because you are rolling less dice - not usually a problem - in this example there is still enough to KB an opponent on an average roll.

 

Now AP costs +1/4 AND the defence against it has, in effect TRIPLED in cost (Hardened is still +1/4 BUT you need separate advantages to deal with Penetrating and Indirect, which Hardened previously covered).

 

Same situation as above you can now do a 9 1/2d6 AP EB for the same cost, which does 19-21 damage through defences on average (same average as an unadvanatged atatck). Moreover, on a good Body roll you have a decent chance of doing a little Body damage too!

 

It seems to me that AP has been made substantially - and unncessarily - more attractive.

 

So, I'm very confused as to why this was messed with. Any theories?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

Using your example of a 12 DC attack, defenses of 28+ are necessary before the AP attack breaks even. How many opponents have 28+ defenses? Of that pool, how many have not hardened those defenses? In my view, the +1/2 level leaves AP as a useful ability only on rare occasions.

 

The +1/4 level is not perfect - AP is slightly superior at average levels of defenses. But it is still eliminated by hardened defenses. And, while not perfect, it is less imperfect than the +1/2 level.

 

I see a lot of AP attacks in swiss army multipowers. I don't believe I have ever seen a character with one main attack using an AP attack in that regard.

 

As to the splitting of Hardened, I would rather have seen Hardened continue to deal with Penetrating and AP both, but remove Indirect, which seems a different animal entirely. Maybe "Proof against Teleport" could have become "Proof against Teleport and Indirect", if we must have a means of preventing Indirect attacks (and we probably must).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

Using your example of a 12 DC attack, defenses of 28+ are necessary before the AP attack breaks even. How many opponents have 28+ defenses? Of that pool, how many have not hardened those defenses? In my view, the +1/2 level leaves AP as a useful ability only on rare occasions.

 

The +1/4 level is not perfect - AP is slightly superior at average levels of defenses. But it is still eliminated by hardened defenses. And, while not perfect, it is less imperfect than the +1/2 level.

 

I see a lot of AP attacks in swiss army multipowers. I don't believe I have ever seen a character with one main attack using an AP attack in that regard.

 

As to the splitting of Hardened, I would rather have seen Hardened continue to deal with Penetrating and AP both, but remove Indirect, which seems a different animal entirely. Maybe "Proof against Teleport" could have become "Proof against Teleport and Indirect", if we must have a means of preventing Indirect attacks (and we probably must).

 

I agree with your comments on Hardened.

 

As to AP, one thing I probably should have pointed out, although I was concentrating on Stun, an 8d6 AP can damage a 15 DEF object on an average roll, whereas as 12d6 attack can only damage an 11 DEF object on an average roll. A (new) 9 1/2d6 AP attack can damage a 17 DEF object on an average roll. Against opponents that rarely makes much difference as defences will normally be high enough to stop Body (although the new AP attack is getting frighteningly close).

 

The point of an AP attack though is that it IS a specialist attack. I've played a character whose (only) main attack was an AP EB, and she didn't feel badly disadvantaged, and was astonishingly good at property damage AP attacks are not really there to compete with Blast - but now they do. the new version gets the same average Stun through Defences as a 'straight' blast and does MUCH more Body to objects - it now seems as good as or superior to the 'basic' attack in almost all respects.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

The point of an AP attack though is that it IS a specialist attack. I've played a character whose (only) main attack was an AP EB' date=' and she didn't feel badly disadvantaged, and was astonishingly good at property damage AP attacks are not really there to compete with Blast - but now they do. the new version gets the same average Stun through Defences as a 'straight' blast and does MUCH more Body to objects - it now seems as good as or superior to the 'basic' attack in almost all respects.[/quote']

 

Perhaps more materials should be considered Hardened. In the past, I don't see where this has ever been considered.

 

To your examples, do you have some in-game examples of materials with 11, 15 and 17 defenses to compare with? ie is this a practical problem, or do I have to invent super-hard materials to make it a problem? If I'm making a super-hard material, I can always give it 12 defenses and make it Hardened

 

[blasphemy]Or make some of its defenses hardened so that the AP and normal blaster both need above average rolls to damage it.[/blasphemy]

 

Besides, for damaging objects, you want a Penetrating Killing Attack anyway.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

If I add an Advantage to a Power - I want it to be an Advantage.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

If I add an Advantage to a Power - I want it to be an Advantage.

 

Yes, granted, but there has to be a trade off: autofire gives you several chots - at lower damage, AoE lets you hit several targets - at lower damage. The new cost of AP lets you do as much Stun damage and more Body damage, the only trade off being 2 or 3 less points of KB. It is like an upgrade of the power now, rather than an advantage with a consequent reduction of efficacy in some other department.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

Well, I'd say more like doubled in price. You only really need Counteracts Indirect on Barrier (and maybe other Defense Powers that the GM considers non-personal for unusual reasons, like perhaps certain applications of Area of Effect to a personal defense Power?). But yeah, I'm not entirely giddy over that change, especially coupled with the reduction in price of AP.

 

EDIT: Oops. I meant "Counteracts Indirect", not "Impenetrable". Fixed.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

Perhaps more materials should be considered Hardened. In the past, I don't see where this has ever been considered.

 

To your examples, do you have some in-game examples of materials with 11, 15 and 17 defenses to compare with? ie is this a practical problem, or do I have to invent super-hard materials to make it a problem? If I'm making a super-hard material, I can always give it 12 defenses and make it Hardened

 

[blasphemy]Or make some of its defenses hardened so that the AP and normal blaster both need above average rolls to damage it.[/blasphemy]

 

Besides, for damaging objects, you want a Penetrating Killing Attack anyway.

 

I know we've talked about how to build the World before in terms of how objects should be created. I think certain materials should probably be hardened (although, arguably, the hardest materials will be the ones used for armour, and armour piercing projectiles are specifically designed to penetrate that...) and others be built with a combination fo reistant ond non-resistant defences, or even defences that only work against appropriate attacks: a rope, for example, probably has a pretty high PD against blunt trauma, but can be cut, or sawn through, with the smallest of blades.

 

'Penetrating' is, of course, the ultimate focus killer (1 pip killing, quad penetrating: 10 points), but I'm still not quite convinced that I can ever justify a penetrating attack: what always does some damage, no matter how thick the armour (unless it is hardened)? It doesn't even work for Wolverine Claws: they cut through almost anything but do not do noticably less damage to tough objects that they can still cut.

 

Personally I wouldn't mind if AP cost +1/2 per unit and COULD be applied multiple times: for +2 you could do 4d6 (or 1d6+1 killing) against 1/16 of the normal defences. Then I'd get rid of Penetrating completely.

 

Assuming 60 AP attacks and DEF of 20:

 

8d6 AP = 28/8 v 10 DEF (18/0)

6d6 2AP = 21/6 v 5 DEF (15/1)

4 1/2d6 3AP = 16/4 v 2DEF (14/2)

4d6 4AP = 14/4 v 1 DEF (13/3)

3d6 5AP = 10/3 v 0 DEF (10/3)

 

Hardened would reduce AP by 1 level.

 

Seems fine to me. OK, that's messing with perfection too. But in a good way

[ghost-angel]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

Yes' date=' granted, but there has to be a trade off: autofire gives you several chots - at lower damage, AoE lets you hit several targets - at lower damage. The new cost of AP lets you do as much Stun damage and more Body damage, the only trade off being 2 or 3 less points of KB. It is like an upgrade of the power now, rather than an advantage with a consequent reduction of efficacy in some other department.[/quote']

 

Armor Piercing is supposed to lower a targets defenses so I can do more damage to them... except that DC to DC at +1/2 it did less damage.

 

It didn't even do Equal damage to most targets.

 

yay! /sarcasm

[prestidigitator]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

Armor Piercing is supposed to lower a targets defenses so I can do more damage to them... except that DC to DC at +1/2 it did less damage.

 

It didn't even do Equal damage to most targets.

 

yay! /sarcasm

 

True. Honestly I have more of an issue with the change to Hardened than I do with the reduction in cost of AP. And considering the two changes together it's a real bummer. I think I would have been okay leaving Hardened as it was but dropping the cost of AP.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

Yeah, I think Hardened and Impenetrable should have been left as one advantage and just more clearly stated that you choose the order in which they apply.

 

The wording in 5th Ed for Hardened is wonk.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

Armor Piercing is supposed to lower a targets defenses so I can do more damage to them... except that DC to DC at +1/2 it did less damage.

 

It didn't even do Equal damage to most targets.

 

yay! /sarcasm

 

I'd assumed that it was there to make it easier to get damage through armour: that is what it did at +1/2 - high defences, more damage through, especially against non-living targets, which only have armour. You could do more damage with a +1/2 advantage 'Does More Damage', which doubles your damage but....damn, left the sarcasm switch on....

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

The new cost of AP lets you do as much Stun damage and more Body damage' date=' the only trade off being 2 or 3 less points of KB. It is like an upgrade of the power now, rather than an advantage with a consequent reduction of efficacy in some other department.[/quote']

 

The other tradeoff is that it does less damage against anyone with hardened defenses, and against targets with lower defenses. And the guys with high defenses seem to harden them a lot, so the character with AP: +1/2 does less damage against targets with standard defense levels (which they halve) and less damage against guys with higher defenses, because they harden theirs.

[Lucius]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

 

It seems to me that AP has been made substantially - and unncessarily - more attractive.

 

So, I'm very confused as to why this was messed with. Any theories?

 

It's the new Killing?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Perfecting a palindromedary

[Sean Waters]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

It's the new Killing?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Perfecting a palindromedary

 

:rofl

[Sean Waters]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

The other tradeoff is that it does less damage against anyone with hardened defenses' date=' and against targets with lower defenses. And the guys with high defenses seem to harden them a lot, so the character with AP: +1/2 does less damage against targets with standard defense levels (which they halve) and less damage against guys with higher defenses, because they harden theirs.[/quote']

 

That is a build issue: if lots of people buy very high defences, without hardened, AP becomes more valuable. People shouldn't be buying Hardened just because it is efficient.

 

You are quite right in what you say though - let us look at numbers (this assumes low-average defences):

 

12d6 attack: 42/12

9 1/2d6 AP attack: 33/9-10

20 pd/20 ed (not hardened)

16 pd/16 ed (hardened)

 

Basically the attacks cost the same and the defences cost the same (although attack and defence do not necessarily cost the same).

 

12d6 v 20/20 = 22/0

12d6 v 16/16 = 26/0

9 1/2d6 v 20/20 = 23/0

9 1/2d6 v 16/16 = 17/0

 

Of course hardening your defences makes you much more vulnerable to normal attacks - more stun will get through for the same investment - so

 

The 'break' point for a 60 AP attack was 28 DEF - which is pretty high these days (although IIRC the original Ogre had 28 PD, and the original (250 point) Mechanon had 30/30). Now it is obviously lower: 18, if I've worked it out right - which is quite a bit below ever these defences.

 

If everyone builds characters with 'hardened' then AP is obviously less useful (and a standard attack MORE useful) and it seems to me that, with AP now costing +1/4 we'll see a lot more of it and therefore a lot more need for hardened defences.

 

One other thought, an aside: if you have (say) 4 points of normal defence that are hardened, that prevents you from taking an additional 2 points of damage from an AP attack for 1 character point. The rest of your defences will be halved as normal.

 

If you have 4 points of normal defence that is impenetratable, that prevents penetrating attacks EVEN IF the rest of your defences are not so advantaged.

 

It seems that fact itself is going to informa lot fo build startegies: you only need a tiny defence to be impenetrable to get the full advantage, so even though it costs the same as hardened, much less will be spent on it in practice.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

That is a build issue: if lots of people buy very high defences' date=' without hardened, AP becomes more valuable. People shouldn't be buying Hardened just because it is efficient.[/quote']

 

By the same token, they shouldn't buy AP just because it is efficient. And characters should never have bought Legendary to Superhuman DEX or resistant defenses just because it is efficient either.

 

Efficiency has an impact on character design. We can talk all we want about building to concept, but no one wants to build a character whose context is "be a wimpy sidekick to the other players".

 

You are quite right in what you say though - let us look at numbers (this assumes low-average defences):

 

12d6 attack: 42/12

9 1/2d6 AP attack: 33/9-10

20 pd/20 ed (not hardened)

16 pd/16 ed (hardened)

 

Basically the attacks cost the same and the defences cost the same (although attack and defence do not necessarily cost the same).

 

12d6 v 20/20 = 22/0

12d6 v 16/16 = 26/0

9 1/2d6 v 20/20 = 23/0

9 1/2d6 v 16/16 = 17/0

 

So AP has a very small (1 STUN) advantage, or a significant (9 STUN) drawback depending on whether this target has hardened his defenses. Seems like a reasonable result. Let's bump the defenses to 25, or 20 hardened. Now we get:

 

12d6 v 25/25 = 17/0

12d6 v 20/20 = 22/0

9 1/2d6 v 25/25 = 21/0

9 1/2d6 v 20/20 = 13/0

 

Again, smaller benefit if the target isn't hardened (4 points now) versus a more substantial detriment (9 points) if the target is hardened.

 

Now let's look at the same two options if AP costs +1/2. An 8d6 attack averages 28 and 8.

 

12d6 v 20/20 = 22/0

12d6 v 16/16 = 26/0

8d6 v 20/20 = 18/0

8d6 v 16/16 = 20/0

 

12d6 v 25/25 = 17/0

12d6 v 20/20 = 22/0

8d6 v 25/25 = 15/0

8d6 v 20/20 = 8/0

 

At no point does AP get an advantage. Hey, let's take the defenses up to 30

 

12d6 v 30/30 = 12/0

12d6 v 24/24 = 18/0

9 1/2d6 v 30/30 = 18/0

91/2d6 v 24/24 = 9/0

 

Once again, advantage if the target is not hardened (6 points) and bigger drawback if he is (9 points), but the spread is starting to close.

 

or

 

12d6 v 30/30 = 12/0

12d6 v 24/24 = 18/0

8d6 v 30/30 = 13/0

8d6 v 24/24 = 4/0

 

FINALLY AP gets a slight benefit, but hugely worse off if the defenses are hardened.

 

In my experience, the higher the defenses get, the more likely the vision is "substantially invulnerable", so the greater the likelihood of hardening to ensure that vision is realized against AP attacks.

 

The 'break' point for a 60 AP attack was 28 DEF - which is pretty high these days (although IIRC the original Ogre had 28 PD' date=' and the original (250 point) Mechanon had 30/30). Now it is obviously lower: 18, if I've worked it out right - which is quite a bit below ever these defences.[/quote']

 

The typical defense level took a drop in 5e. I suspect this was to make combat shorter, and maybe make Stunning a possibility more often, but it also changes the math for AP.

 

If everyone builds characters with 'hardened' then AP is obviously less useful (and a standard attack MORE useful) and it seems to me that' date=' with AP now costing +1/4 we'll see a lot more of it and therefore a lot more need for hardened defences.[/quote']

 

The math above shows you are choosing between taking a bit more STUN from an AP attack, or quite a bit more STUN from a normal attack. This seems to be a tradeoff which will have to be considered.

 

One other thought, an aside: if you have (say) 4 points of normal defence that are hardened, that prevents you from taking an additional 2 points of damage from an AP attack for 1 character point. The rest of your defences will be halved as normal.

 

If you have 4 points of normal defence that is impenetratable, that prevents penetrating attacks EVEN IF the rest of your defences are not so advantaged.

 

It seems that fact itself is going to informa lot fo build startegies: you only need a tiny defence to be impenetrable to get the full advantage, so even though it costs the same as hardened, much less will be spent on it in practice.

 

This has been an issue for a while, leading to the "all or nothing" rules, which we easily avoid by purchasing a bit of Armor or Force Field to Harden. I'd rather see a rule that 1 point of Impenetrable defense stops one point of Penetrating damage. But then, I would rather have seen a single +1/4 advantage continue to provide both benefits.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

I don't have 6e yet, so I can't offer anything except as a spectator,

 

but I would reference post #16 (it's a lot to quote and have folks read through again) and the comments about the price of armor piercing being dropped would be bad, but it sort of works with the way hardened is handled.

 

Sean, my friend, I believe you have pretty much stumbled into the entire concept of the Super Hero genre:

 

One exists because the other one does. Without the one, there is no need for the other. If someone is unhappy with the new AP, then they can solve their problems by discarding the new Hardened as well.

 

Sound right?

 

(oh, and for the record, my group does the "multiple AP instead of Penetrating" thing. Thought that might amuse you )

[prestidigitator]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

One exists because the other one does. Without the one' date=' there is no need for the other. If someone is unhappy with the new AP, then they can solve their problems by discarding the new Hardened as well.[/quote']

 

Actually I think what a couple of us have been saying (it's certainly my viewpoint) is that the new AP would work okay with the old Hardened, but the combination change to both AP and Hardened kinda stinks.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Messing with perfection

 

I see. Thanks for the clarification

 

Reckon I'll just sit here and keep schtum till I can get my grubby mitts on a new book.