Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

[Wolf]

I know there has been a lot of talk recently about Damage Negation, and I thought I'd give it a go with my take on the issue.

 

I personally tend to look at the SFX first, then build to fit. For me the use of DN is primarily of use to those who wanted the "brick who could bounce bullets" type of effect. This is something folks have wanted to have in the system for some time, how many times have I seen someone pipe in with, "I want to build my brick to be bullet proof, but this ends up with his defenses way to high." Now you can just take the DN: 9 DC's, and all the way up to a .50 BMG is Totally defended against, however there is still "some" attacks going through. Especially if you are building it with the, "only vs. firearms," example that's in the book.

 

I like that this is now an option.

 

My 2 copper.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Except what makes +N DN with Only vs. Firearms acceptable when +M ®PD with Only vs. Firearms apparently is not?

[Vulcan]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Except what makes +N DN with Only vs. Firearms acceptable when +M ®PD with Only vs. Firearms apparently is not?

 

Nothing. It's just that 9 DC's damage reduction is cheaper than 90 rPD (or 54 in 6E), which makes the effect more affordable.

 

Whether that is good or bad depends on your point of view.

[Wolf]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Except what makes +N DN with Only vs. Firearms acceptable when +M ®PD with Only vs. Firearms apparently is not?

 

Pretty much what he said, the great Brick with reasonable defenses also being impervious to firearms has been a source of some great debate, as I've seen on the boards. Especially countering it with the no "absolutes" in Hero.

 

I also see the point where this is the first real "meta-game" power, and the first "absolute" rule, as in it removes the whole die. But I think it fills in to a vital and needed place.

 

As a GM, personally, I'd feel a bit odd about allowing That much Raw rPD/ED, but I honestly can see letting a player with the right concept get away with some good ol' DN.

 

I like how the system has become even more "let the GM deal with what can or can't be allowed." The system should have ways to help deal with many constructs, even if some folk don't want them used.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Thinking about it, Negation may be preferable to defenses for some games. If the effect sought is "The hero bounces most damage, but when something can hurt, it often draws blood", Negation is a better simulation. Defenses sufficient to avoid STUN from an 8d6 attack don't allow BOD to get through from a 16d6 attack.

[Wolf]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Thinking about it' date=' Negation may be preferable to defenses for some games. If the effect sought is "The hero bounces most damage, but when something can hurt, it often draws blood", Negation is a better simulation. Defenses sufficient to avoid STUN from an 8d6 attack don't allow BOD to get through from a 16d6 attack.[/quote']

 

Very much THIS

 

 

 

Apparently I have given you rep recently Sir... so as I'm prone to forget... I have done it in spirit...

[Warp9]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Nothing. It's just that 9 DC's damage reduction is cheaper than 90 rPD (or 54 in 6E), which makes the effect more affordable.

 

Whether that is good or bad depends on your point of view.

It is about more than affordability.

 

A character with 90 defense has a lot more than simple immunity to a .50 BMG. IMO those kind of MEGA defenses represent the sort of characters who would take no BODY from world breaking attacks.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

It is about more than affordability.

 

A character with 90 defense has a lot more than simple immunity to a .50 BMG. IMO those kind of MEGA defenses represent the sort of characters who would take no BODY from world breaking attacks.

 

 

I've just built an 'air power' character called Myst who spends a lot of the time semi-solid and I've represented that with 6 levels of DN (Ph and En): small attacks just pass through (which also explains the no KB) whereas heftier attacks will interact with the stuff he is made of.

 

That is a lot of points on defence (although he also has desolid and so it goes in a MP).

[NestorDRod]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

90 Defense? OK, guys, I realize I'm not a rules-lawyer, but that doesn't sound right to me.

 

Are you saying you want your defense to completely and totally negate a specific attack? Buy rPD up to the max BODY of the attack and PD to cover the Stun. Heck, if you feel particularly munchkin-y, you can buy the extra PD as "Stun only".

 

So, if you want your character to block a 2d6 RKA, that would be... let's see... 12 rPD (or rED, whichever) and 24 PD/ED, Stun Only.

 

That would be, off the top of my head, 42 points. Expensive, yes, but, hey, you're making yourself invulnerable to anything up to a machine gun. That shouldn't come cheap.

[pinecone]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Thinking about it' date=' Negation may be preferable to defenses for some games. If the effect sought is "The hero bounces most damage, but when something can hurt, it often draws blood", Negation is a better simulation. Defenses sufficient to avoid STUN from an 8d6 attack don't allow BOD to get through from a 16d6 attack.[/quote']

 

Hmmm...does that mean that DN would be a better build for Combat Luck type effects?

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Hmmm...does that mean that DN would be a better build for Combat Luck type effects?

 

Depends on the sfx you are going for. Do you want an artful dodger or someone who rolls with the punch? I wouldn't get rid of Combat Luck, but Damage Negation could be a good alternative in some cases.

 

The three defense sfx I am particularly happy to represent with DN are:

1. Mentalist with a "mind control field" that makes attackers pull their punch or throw their aim.

2. Energy draining character that literally sucks the power out of an attack before it hits.

3. Godzilla (or other giant monster) that is immensely difficult to hurt simply because it is so big. The armor plating may not be the toughest, but it simply isn't going to notice something as small as a bullet. (okay, a high PD/ED could work on this one, but I think DN does a better job).

 

I have used just PD/ED for the above effects because building a Suppression field vs. incoming attacks was just too clunky. But DN works like a charm here. I won't give it to everybody, but it is definintely a nice tool to have in the toolkit.

[pinecone]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Depends on the sfx you are going for. Do you want an artful dodger or someone who rolls with the punch? I wouldn't get rid of Combat Luck, but Damage Negation could be a good alternative in some cases.

 

The three defense sfx I am particularly happy to represent with DN are:

1. Mentalist with a "mind control field" that makes attackers pull their punch or throw their aim.

2. Energy draining character that literally sucks the power out of an attack before it hits.

3. Godzilla (or other giant monster) that is immensely difficult to hurt simply because it is so big. The armor plating may not be the toughest, but it simply isn't going to notice something as small as a bullet. (okay, a high PD/ED could work on this one, but I think DN does a better job).

 

I have used just PD/ED for the above effects because building a Suppression field vs. incoming attacks was just too clunky. But DN works like a charm here. I won't give it to everybody, but it is definintely a nice tool to have in the toolkit.

 

Well, I was thinking instead of Armor: Only Lucky effects, take DN: Luck effects....so I hadn't thought about SFX affecting which was a better build....

[Wolf]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

90 Defense? OK, guys, I realize I'm not a rules-lawyer, but that doesn't sound right to me.

 

Are you saying you want your defense to completely and totally negate a specific attack? Buy rPD up to the max BODY of the attack and PD to cover the Stun. Heck, if you feel particularly munchkin-y, you can buy the extra PD as "Stun only".

 

So, if you want your character to block a 2d6 RKA, that would be... let's see... 12 rPD (or rED, whichever) and 24 PD/ED, Stun Only.

 

That would be, off the top of my head, 42 points. Expensive, yes, but, hey, you're making yourself invulnerable to anything up to a machine gun. That shouldn't come cheap.

 

See, though, I'm talking about making even a reasonable "hulk" construct. And even a conversation or two about Grond's weakness... The problem for most of the arguments is that you still get stun that can exceed the pd/ed at 24, even on a d3 (IE 6e), and most especially when you might add in the location table. On the other hand if you have something like DN, you don't have any of those dice rolled, so you don't have issues with an exploding dice, or multipliers... the damage just doesn't happen.

 

To me that models the effect anyway. Would I allow a pc to take that? well, that depends on the game, but maybe. I can see the alure to that thought.

 

As a side note, I'm thinking of NPC's I'd create as well as "what I'd allow to the PC's."

 

Oh, here's another one, what about capital sized ships... there is another way to deal with damage... just make some of it (under a certain level of weapon, just doesn't do enough damage). EX: a .45 apc vs. a battleship.

 

it models a situation where X just isn't affected by Y. I think that's good. It's both absolute and granular.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

See' date=' though, I'm talking about making even a reasonable "hulk" construct. And even a conversation or two about Grond's weakness... The problem for most of the arguments is that you still get stun that can exceed the pd/ed at 24, even on a d3 (IE 6e)[/quote']

That would be true if the 12 rPD didn't also count against stun, which it does...

and most especially when you might add in the location table.

I consider hit locations rather a seperate issue, myself. I would be less likely to be using DN and Hit Locations in the same game.

 

On the other hand if you have something like DN' date=' you don't have any of those dice rolled, so you don't have issues with an exploding dice, or multipliers... the damage just doesn't happen.[/quote']

I understand your point about multipliers, but what dice are exploding?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

So, if you want your character to block a 2d6 RKA, that would be... let's see... 12 rPD (or rED, whichever) and 24 PD/ED, Stun Only.

 

That would be, off the top of my head, 42 points. Expensive, yes, but, hey, you're making yourself invulnerable to anything up to a machine gun. That shouldn't come cheap.

 

The impact of this, however, is far broader. This character is virtually invulnerable to a 3d6 RKA, which will roll 12 or less BOD on average, making any damage impossible, except on an above average roll.

 

He is fairly well protected against a 4d6 RKA, which will average 2 BOD past his defenses. An average attack will only get 6 STUN through on a 3 multiple.

 

Having 6 DC's of Damage Negation eliminates the machine gun, but the 3d6 KA gets 1d6 BOD and the relevant STUN through, and the 4d6 KA averages 7 BOD inflicted. Seems to me that Damage Negation is less expensive because it is less effective.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

See, though, I'm talking about making even a reasonable "hulk" construct. And even a conversation or two about Grond's weakness... The problem for most of the arguments is that you still get stun that can exceed the pd/ed at 24, even on a d3 (IE 6e), and most especially when you might add in the location table. On the other hand if you have something like DN, you don't have any of those dice rolled, so you don't have issues with an exploding dice, or multipliers... the damage just doesn't happen.

 

To me that models the effect anyway. Would I allow a pc to take that? well, that depends on the game, but maybe. I can see the alure to that thought.

 

As a side note, I'm thinking of NPC's I'd create as well as "what I'd allow to the PC's."

 

Oh, here's another one, what about capital sized ships... there is another way to deal with damage... just make some of it (under a certain level of weapon, just doesn't do enough damage). EX: a .45 apc vs. a battleship.

 

it models a situation where X just isn't affected by Y. I think that's good. It's both absolute and granular.

 

Sorry. We're obviously not getting across to each other. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

I can see that. if you want "nothing less than a bursting shell can penetrate his skin " set the DN just below your bursting shell. i still prefer the straight defenses myself in most cases but somethings like tank armor might model quite well with it.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

The impact of this, however, is far broader. This character is virtually invulnerable to a 3d6 RKA, which will roll 12 or less BOD on average, making any damage impossible, except on an above average roll.

 

He is fairly well protected against a 4d6 RKA, which will average 2 BOD past his defenses. An average attack will only get 6 STUN through on a 3 multiple.

 

Having 6 DC's of Damage Negation eliminates the machine gun, but the 3d6 KA gets 1d6 BOD and the relevant STUN through, and the 4d6 KA averages 7 BOD inflicted. Seems to me that Damage Negation is less expensive because it is less effective.

 

And, from what I've read about it so far, more complicated to implement.

 

The last thing Hero combat needs is to make it more time-consuming to resolve. Whatever alleged benefit using DN provides, it doesn't seem worth the cost to me.

 

But that, like so many other things, comes down to personal preference. I don't see what's wrong with using regular Defenses, but you obviously do.

 

Life goes on...

[Wolf]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

That would be true if the 12 rPD didn't also count against stun' date=' which it does...[/quote']

LOL, ha, forgot about that... oops

I consider hit locations rather a seperate issue' date=' myself. I would be less likely to be using DN and Hit Locations in the same game.[/quote']

With my players, I kinda gotta use hit locations in any genre, even supers. My PC's flip when they can't call a shot.

I understand your point about multipliers' date=' but what dice are exploding?[/quote']

Exploding dice are more a case of system where a "6" on a d6 get's you another roll to add on to it, but I was referring to the stunx dice, as it "explodes" the result as you roll higher.

 

Sorry. We're obviously not getting across to each other. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

That's cool, as a side, I love that people on these boards can do this, and I love about the system that there are different ways to model things. YMMV and whatnot.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Exploding dice are more a case of system where a "6" on a d6 get's you another roll to add on to it' date=' but I was referring to the stunx dice, as it "explodes" the result as you roll higher.[/quote']

I know what exploding dice are, I was wondering what you were refering to as "exploding".

[prestidigitator]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

The impact of this, however, is far broader. This character is virtually invulnerable to a 3d6 RKA, which will roll 12 or less BOD on average, making any damage impossible, except on an above average roll.

 

He is fairly well protected against a 4d6 RKA, which will average 2 BOD past his defenses. An average attack will only get 6 STUN through on a 3 multiple.

 

Having 6 DC's of Damage Negation eliminates the machine gun, but the 3d6 KA gets 1d6 BOD and the relevant STUN through, and the 4d6 KA averages 7 BOD inflicted. Seems to me that Damage Negation is less expensive because it is less effective.

 

So a level of DN is sorta like:

 

+6 PD; Hardened (+1/4); Impenetrable (+1/4) [9 Active]; Limited to Amount Rolled with One DC Worth of Dice (-1) [4 Real]

plus

Resistant

on 2 PD from above (+1/2 on 3 Active Points) [1 Active, 1 Real]

plus

+4m Knockback Resistance [4 Active]; Limited to Amount Rolled with One DC Worth of Dice (-1) [2 Real]

[7 Total]

 

I placed "Limited to Amount Rolled with One DC Worth of Dice" at -1 because on average about half the full amount of potential damage is rolled (if there aren't Advantages that make 1 DC less than one die Normal or one level of KA). It definitely shouldn't be any larger a Limitation than that, though I could probably imagine arguments for it being smaller.

 

If we averaged the amounts for a large number of levels (in other words, don't round), it should really be more like 4.5+1.5+2=8 points per level.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

So a level of DN is sorta like:

 

+6 PD; Hardened (+1/4); Impenetrable (+1/4) [9 Active]; Limited to Amount Rolled with One DC Worth of Dice (-1) [4 Real]

plus

Resistant

on 2 PD from above (+1/2 on 3 Active Points) [1 Active, 1 Real]

plus

+4m Knockback Resistance [4 Active]; Limited to Amount Rolled with One DC Worth of Dice (-1) [2 Real]

[7 Total]

 

I placed "Limited to Amount Rolled with One DC Worth of Dice" at -1 because on average about half the full amount of potential damage is rolled (if there aren't Advantages that make 1 DC less than one die Normal or one level of KA). It definitely shouldn't be any larger a Limitation than that, though I could probably imagine arguments for it being smaller.

 

If we averaged the amounts for a large number of levels (in other words, don't round), it should really be more like 4.5+1.5+2=8 points per level.

 

Actually, your comment on 1DC is not necessarily accurate. If DN is applied against an AP attack, it takes 5 levels of DN to remove 4d6, since AP is a +1/4 advantage (in 6e), so 5 DC's are only 4d6.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

I like having a new defense tool to play with.

This looks like it'll be good for modeling vehicles, and I'd probably add them to the Size Templates in some form.

We'll see when I actually start working my way around 6E

[Warp9]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

90 Defense? OK, guys, I realize I'm not a rules-lawyer, but that doesn't sound right to me.

That 90 defense level assumes 5th ed rules on a 3d6 RKA. I do agree that the new rules make things a bit better, in that it you can get total coverage with less insane levels of defense (although I still think that the necessary defense levels to cover all the STUN from an attack are too high).

 

 

Are you saying you want your defense to completely and totally negate a specific attack? Buy rPD up to the max BODY of the attack and PD to cover the Stun. Heck, if you feel particularly munchkin-y, you can buy the extra PD as "Stun only".

If you did not make it "Stun only" you'd end up with a character who'd generally take no BODY from a 36d6 EB.

[Warp9]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

So a level of DN is sorta like:

 

+6 PD; Hardened (+1/4); Impenetrable (+1/4) [9 Active]; Limited to Amount Rolled with One DC Worth of Dice (-1) [4 Real]

plus

Resistant

on 2 PD from above (+1/2 on 3 Active Points) [1 Active, 1 Real]

plus

+4m Knockback Resistance [4 Active]; Limited to Amount Rolled with One DC Worth of Dice (-1) [2 Real]

[7 Total]

 

I placed "Limited to Amount Rolled with One DC Worth of Dice" at -1 because on average about half the full amount of potential damage is rolled (if there aren't Advantages that make 1 DC less than one die Normal or one level of KA). It definitely shouldn't be any larger a Limitation than that, though I could probably imagine arguments for it being smaller.

 

If we averaged the amounts for a large number of levels (in other words, don't round), it should really be more like 4.5+1.5+2=8 points per level.

I notice that we are at a place where it costs 5 points per each DC, but according to your reasoning above, it should really cost 8 points to negate that DC.

 

That sounds like a decent advantage given to offense. Although we could fit this in with the philosophy that defenses should cost more than attacks. . . .