Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

[NestorDRod]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

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).

 

Well, it's not really fair to use 5th Edition rules to compare against a 6E power, don't you think?

 

Against a 3d6 killing attack, then, you'd need 18 rPD/rED to cover the Body and 36 PD/ED, Stun only to cover the Stun. Bringing up Hit Locations is, IMO, outside of scope of the discussion. That's... 51 points, if my math is correct.

 

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.

 

Point. Of course, I was looking at it from the POV or defending against a Killing Attack, but you're right.

 

After some thought, I've come to realize why this power concept rubs me wrong. I actually like the idea that you generally can't ignore attacks in Hero. For me, it's a feature, not a bug.

 

For example, my ideal view of Superman is the one from the Animated Series. He doesn't get hurt, but he does get knocked down, stunned, and even knocked out if hit hard enough.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Actually' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Yeah. That's why I said, "...if there aren't Advantages that make 1 DC less than one die Normal or one level of KA."

[prestidigitator]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

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. . . .

 

I'm still of the opinion that the BASIC defense does generally cost less than the attack damage. However, DN in effect offers quite a bit: basically the equivalent of the Advantages I threw on and the KBR. Also, DN stops any amount rolled for a particular DC, not an average, which is normally where we get the, "...costs less than..." (i.e. straight +6 PD costs more than +1 DC already, and has for some time, but +3.5 PD costs less, even if we add Resistant to one of those points of PD).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Against a 3d6 killing attack' date=' then, you'd need 18 rPD/rED to cover the Body and 36 PD/ED, Stun only to cover the Stun. Bringing up Hit Locations is, IMO, outside of scope of the discussion. That's... 51 points, if my math is correct.[/quote']

 

It's also enough to 27 for 18 rPD + 36 = 63. Are you putting a limitation on the PD for "Stun Only"? With 18 defenses already, "STUN only" doesn't seem limiting enough for -1/2.

 

And that level of defenses will serve to eliminate damage from a typical 14d6 attack, where 9 levels of damage negation allows 5d6 to slide through. I don't think there's an easy model to compare this against Negation because they do different things. And the fact that they have such different results suggests a separate power/mechanic is appropriate.

 

That leaves only the question "Is it appropriate for my game?", but I think it's a valid tool for the toolbox.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

It's also enough to 27 for 18 rPD + 36 = 63. Are you putting a limitation on the PD for "Stun Only"? With 18 defenses already, "STUN only" doesn't seem limiting enough for -1/2.

 

Why not? We're dealing with a hypothetical situation anyway. It's not that far-fetched that in a game where you want your characters to ignore machine guns large attacks would not be uncommon, so limiting the extra PD to be Stun only would actually be limiting.

 

And that level of defenses will serve to eliminate damage from a typical 14d6 attack, where 9 levels of damage negation allows 5d6 to slide through. I don't think there's an easy model to compare this against Negation because they do different things. And the fact that they have such different results suggests a separate power/mechanic is appropriate.

 

Well, there's the rub. For me, the mechanic itself is inappropriate, so I don't see the reason for the power to exist.

 

That leaves only the question "Is it appropriate for my game?", but I think it's a valid tool for the toolbox.

 

YMMV. Doesn't look at all appealing to me.

[Vulcan]

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.

 

The amount quoted (90 STUN) comes from a .50 BMG (as mentioned upthread), which is statted in Dark Champions (5E) as a 3d6 RKA. So it can inflcit up to 90 STUN, therefore 90 PD (18 resistant) to bounce - at least under 5E rules - which costs, 27 points for the PD armor alone, and another 72 for the PD, grand total 99 points. Which does, indeed, means one would not take body from a hit which would shatter the earth.

 

In 6E it's a little better - you still need 18 rPD (at 27 points), but you only need another 36 PD to bouce the bullet totally (54 total PD) - costing a total of 63 points. And also making you effectively immune to up to 14ish dice damage the rest of the time - they'd have to do better that 4 on the die to do any STUN at all.

 

For most games, that's a little much.

 

On the other hand, 45 points of Damage Negation allows the brick to bounce the .50 BMG all day, but damage starts coming in over it at 10 dice, which is a bit more manageable for most games.

 

Personally I would split the difference - take Damage Negation for 30 points, enough to bounce small arms, and then 15ish rPD. .50 BMG will do up to 3 Stun per shot at most, which is effectively a bounce, and I don't take STUN on the average until 10 dice (same as pure DN), or BODY until 20ish dice (about twice that for pure DN).

[Warp9]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Well, it's not really fair to use 5th Edition rules to compare against a 6E power, don't you think?

I still don't have 6th edition yet, so it is easier for me to think in 5th ed terms. However, since some relevant rules have changed, I agree with you.

 

 

 

After some thought, I've come to realize why this power concept rubs me wrong. I actually like the idea that you generally can't ignore attacks in Hero. For me, it's a feature, not a bug.

 

For example, my ideal view of Superman is the one from the Animated Series. He doesn't get hurt, but he does get knocked down, stunned, and even knocked out if hit hard enough.

That is the basic model incorporated into Champions, and it makes sense for a comic book based game. But Hero, being a universal system, needs tools that allow for the simulation of other types of combat.

 

And personally, I don't run traditional comic book style games, that is why this DN option is very important to me.

[Warp9]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

I'm still of the opinion that the BASIC defense does generally cost less than the attack damage. However, DN in effect offers quite a bit: basically the equivalent of the Advantages I threw on and the KBR.

But how much do you pay for the knb on each DC?

 

That is included in the five points you pay for each DC of your attack. And if we are talking about defense being cheaper, then that should refer to the whole of the attack, including knb.

 

 

 

Also, DN stops any amount rolled for a particular DC, not an average, which is normally where we get the, "...costs less than..." (i.e. straight +6 PD costs more than +1 DC already, and has for some time, but +3.5 PD costs less, even if we add Resistant to one of those points of PD).

For me, that random variation is actually the issue.

 

For what we are doing here, you could almost look at this process as the reverse of putting standard effect on your own power. Instead you are putting standard effect on your opponent's power.

 

When you put standard effect on your own power, you get the trade off of not worrying about low rolls vs the price of not being able to get the high rolls.

 

Here you are getting the reverse, you may not get the benefit of having your opponent roll low, but you don't have to worry about those high rolls either.

 

To defend against each standard effect DC you'd want:

 

3 PD 3 points

1 PD resistant 1/2 points

2 meters kbr 2 points

 

Here you'd get the full negation of a DC of a normal attack for 5 points, and for 5.5 you could cover 1 DC of killing attack. And, if you wanted to dump the knb defense (which doesn't really fit most of the uses I'd have anyway), you could go for 3 and 3.5 pts per DC.

 

Armor Piercing would cut this type of negation in half; although, I don't really have a problem with that either, for many of the uses I have for DN, that result makes sense too.

[dsatow]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Just glancing over the arguments and thought I'd put in my $0.02.

 

I'll play out the version of damage negation before I end up going one way or another but I am leaning towards banning it.

 

A lot of the arguments state "in order to make a brick immune to bullets". As has been pointed out earlier, to make a person immune to bullets you would pay for say 9 levels of damage negation and attach a immune to bullets limitation -1/4 for 36 points. In the same vein though, you could use the same amount of points with Stun Only limitation (-1/2) and get 63 points of PD. A brick with 27 or more points of PD, not uncommon in a 12d6 game would be immune in either case.

 

The problem is its too effective without the limitation on what its used against. Just a little damage negation can upset the balance of the game.

 

Say you have someone who has standard PD/ED for your game and then tosses on 6 dice of damage negation which costs no end, is persistent and takes off dice before they roll. I know in my games, the range in damages is about 6 dice. Just 30 points in damage negation would make any single character just about immune to the damage level of the game. A 12d6 normal attack against PD would average about 42 stun while a 6d6 normal attack would do 21 stun. In most cases, that 30 points can easily be reduced with things like costs end, non-persistant, and linked to a force field.

 

I would have been happier if it only applied to a single special effect by default and increased in cost the more effects it applied to, much like the way aid works.

 

Again, this is just my $0.02.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

To be honest I think Damage Negation probably arrived an edition too late. It is great for getting rid of the insanity that is the Killing Attack Stun Lotto, but then they went and lopped the legs off that one.

 

Ignoring the 'only bullets' thing (which makes no real sense - what people were miffed about was Iron Man getting taken out by a normal human with a gun...or a knife (although it might well work OK for someone immune to (say) fire and heat).

 

Looking at the numbers, 15 points of DN do for 3DC of damage....actually, let's not.

 

Here's why we need DN: it is the only universal defence against AVAD (NND as was). Nothing else will do that for you. That makes it worthwhile, even if it is a tad expensive as a way of actually defending yourself against the most common attacks.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Here's why we need DN: it is the only universal defence against AVAD (NND as was). Nothing else will do that for you. That makes it worthwhile, even if it is a tad expensive as a way of actually defending yourself against the most common attacks.

 

So the question then becomes, why do we need that? Why provide a universal defense for an Advantage whose only purpose is to create an attack that isn't universally defensible?

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

The problem is its too effective without the limitation on what its used against. Just a little damage negation can upset the balance of the game.

 

Say you have someone who has standard PD/ED for your game and then tosses on 6 dice of damage negation which costs no end, is persistent and takes off dice before they roll. I know in my games, the range in damages is about 6 dice. Just 30 points in damage negation would make any single character just about immune to the damage level of the game. A 12d6 normal attack against PD would average about 42 stun while a 6d6 normal attack would do 21 stun. In most cases, that 30 points can easily be reduced with things like costs end, non-persistant, and linked to a force field.

 

I would have been happier if it only applied to a single special effect by default and increased in cost the more effects it applied to, much like the way aid works.

 

Again, this is just my $0.02.

I think the problem with your scenario is less a problem with DN than a problem with how you are applying it. Why isn't it included in the ammount of Defense you allow in your games? Damage Negation is a type of Defense. Even if you don't use caps of some kind on power levels, would you, as GM, allow a player to take 30 points of Defense above the campaign average and if so, why?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

So the question then becomes' date=' why do we need that? Why provide a universal defense for an Advantage whose only purpose is to create an attack that isn't universally defensible? [/quote']

 

I'd say we need it because, when someone builds a NND attack, the defences they think of might not be the defences that someone else might think of.

 

For instance someone might buy a poison gas NND and decide that the defences are LS: Poison and LS: Self Contained Breathing, but Elemento has neither. His concept is, however, that he is highly resistant to chemical attacks, so has DN 6 (chemical attacks only). Whilst his PD and ED are not going to help against the poison gas, and whilst he still has to breathe and isn't actually immune to it, it is still logical that a poison is a chemical and so he should not take full effect from it. DN allows (in this case) decent resistance against ANY chemical attack, no matter how it is built.

 

To use a different example - it isn't ONLY useful for NND - if you build 'Heatstroke' as a Stun and INT drain with the sfx 'overheats the target' it is logical that someone with 'heat resisrant' against heat should have less effect. Unfortunately if the target doesn't have PowDef, they are scuppered, even if they are supposed to be largely immune to heat - DN steps in again.

 

The point is having DN (which works in that respect in a similar way to Damage Reduction) means you do not have to think of every possible defence and circumstance - you can just say 'this sfx affects me less than others' and you know you are good.

 

The way I think on it is this: 'normal' defences provide 'external' defences - something to stop damage getting to you. DN (and DR) provide (or can model) 'internal defences'. It is the difference between a superhero growing a rocky skin - which will stop damage getting through but won't stop (say) microwaves heating up the meaty middle, and a superhero who can turn completely to stone - there is no meaty middle so he's actually much harder to hurt with that kind of attack.

 

That is not the only use, of course, but I think it is enough in itself to justify the existence of the power.

 

There is also the additional complication: you can buy 'Damage Negation Negation. Not sure how I feel about that to be honest. I can see some potential uses (an oxyaceteline cutting torch, perhaps - not much damage but it damages anything). The enemy of concept is different concept - I'm immune to radiation v my radiation attack is so powerful it can ahrm anyone. At least Hero has an answer to the question - what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immoveable object?

 

The answer is - it depends on build and who has spent the most points

[Sean Waters]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

...having said that, DN could also model a hard shell over a soft centre: if anything does get through it can do serious damage to the creamy filling (ie the character).

 

Whenever we assess the worth of a power we need to look at 2 things:

 

1. Is there a need or use for that power that is not adequately covered by other powers?

 

2. Insomuch as it is possible to compare costs, is the price tag right i.e. it is not much more or less useful than an equivalent priced power over a range of circumstances.

 

6DC of DN (physical) = 30 points

 

30 points gets you 20 rPD of Resistant Protection

 

On attacks up to 5DC both will probably work equally well for protection* At 6DC, DN has the edge: 20 rPD lets 1 stun through on average. Above 6DC, the rPD wins: there is similar stun through defences, but the guy just protected by DN starts taking Body.

 

So, I'd say the cost is about right and it does things no other power can quite match (see previous post), so it is a useful addition.

 

 

 

 

*DN also incorporates KBR, of course

[NestorDRod]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

I'd say we need it because, when someone builds a NND attack, the defences they think of might not be the defences that someone else might think of.

 

For instance someone might buy a poison gas NND and decide that the defences are LS: Poison and LS: Self Contained Breathing, but Elemento has neither. His concept is, however, that he is highly resistant to chemical attacks, so has DN 6 (chemical attacks only). Whilst his PD and ED are not going to help against the poison gas, and whilst he still has to breathe and isn't actually immune to it, it is still logical that a poison is a chemical and so he should not take full effect from it. DN allows (in this case) decent resistance against ANY chemical attack, no matter how it is built.

 

To use a different example - it isn't ONLY useful for NND - if you build 'Heatstroke' as a Stun and INT drain with the sfx 'overheats the target' it is logical that someone with 'heat resisrant' against heat should have less effect. Unfortunately if the target doesn't have PowDef, they are scuppered, even if they are supposed to be largely immune to heat - DN steps in again.

 

The point is having DN (which works in that respect in a similar way to Damage Reduction) means you do not have to think of every possible defence and circumstance - you can just say 'this sfx affects me less than others' and you know you are good.

 

The way I think on it is this: 'normal' defences provide 'external' defences - something to stop damage getting to you. DN (and DR) provide (or can model) 'internal defences'. It is the difference between a superhero growing a rocky skin - which will stop damage getting through but won't stop (say) microwaves heating up the meaty middle, and a superhero who can turn completely to stone - there is no meaty middle so he's actually much harder to hurt with that kind of attack.

 

That is not the only use, of course, but I think it is enough in itself to justify the existence of the power.

 

There is also the additional complication: you can buy 'Damage Negation Negation. Not sure how I feel about that to be honest. I can see some potential uses (an oxyaceteline cutting torch, perhaps - not much damage but it damages anything). The enemy of concept is different concept - I'm immune to radiation v my radiation attack is so powerful it can ahrm anyone. At least Hero has an answer to the question - what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immoveable object?

 

The answer is - it depends on build and who has spent the most points

 

Sorry, Sean, but your argument only serves to cement my opinion that allowing DN in the game would risk having the game devolve into rules-lawyer discussions, as, using your example, the player and GM argue over what constitutes a "chemical attack."

 

Besides, if the concept of the character is that he is resistant to chemical attacks, that is much better modeled by buying the appropriate LS: Immunity. For any AVAD, buying the appropriate defense (whether it be Mental, Power or LS) is already available to provide defense. How is buying DN a better choice than that?

 

It comes back to the fact that the system already has the tools to model the effects. Damage Negation looks like the kind of power that shouldn't have a magnifying glass or stop sign next to it, but a big radiation hazard sign that indicates "Use only at great risk".

[teh bunneh]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Damage Negation looks like the kind of power that shouldn't have a magnifying glass or stop sign next to it' date=' but a big radiation hazard sign that indicates "Use only at great risk". [/quote']

 

For your game. For other people, it looks like it's going to be a very useful tool. I, for one, am happy to have the option. And just like all the other powers, I can elect to use it or discard it, depending on the needs of my game. In some of my games, it will be useful and I'll use it. In others, it won't and I won't (just like a lot of powers -- I've seen GMs forbid all sorts of things in their games, even some that aren't Stop Sign powers). Your game, your rules. My game, my rules.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Just glancing over the arguments and thought I'd put in my $0.02.

 

I'll play out the version of damage negation before I end up going one way or another but I am leaning towards banning it.

 

A lot of the arguments state "in order to make a brick immune to bullets". As has been pointed out earlier, to make a person immune to bullets you would pay for say 9 levels of damage negation and attach a immune to bullets limitation -1/4 for 36 points. In the same vein though, you could use the same amount of points with Stun Only limitation (-1/2) and get 63 points of PD. A brick with 27 or more points of PD, not uncommon in a 12d6 game would be immune in either case.

 

The problem is its too effective without the limitation on what its used against. Just a little damage negation can upset the balance of the game.

 

Say you have someone who has standard PD/ED for your game and then tosses on 6 dice of damage negation which costs no end, is persistent and takes off dice before they roll. I know in my games, the range in damages is about 6 dice. Just 30 points in damage negation would make any single character just about immune to the damage level of the game. A 12d6 normal attack against PD would average about 42 stun while a 6d6 normal attack would do 21 stun. In most cases, that 30 points can easily be reduced with things like costs end, non-persistant, and linked to a force field.

 

I would have been happier if it only applied to a single special effect by default and increased in cost the more effects it applied to, much like the way aid works.

 

Again, this is just my $0.02.

 

"Bullets" shouldn't be a -1/4 on Damage Negation. It should be a -0.

 

DN has an option to choose an SFX regardless of defenses it works against as a -0. I would enforce that. Especially if you choose a common enough SFX like "guns."

[The Main Man]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Just my $0.02, but what I do to balance out DN (at least in Supers games) is that I allow any combination of Damage Negation, Defenses (Resistant, Hardened, Impenetrable, etc or not), and Damage Reduction (Resistant or not) as long as the total Active Points between the three adds up to no more than the campaign maximum (I do allow a 3 point leeway in my games).

 

Example: Damage Negation (-2 Physical DC's, -2 Energy DC's; 20 Active Points) + 10 PD/ 10 ED (20 Active Points) + Physical and Energy Damage Reduction 25% (20 Active Points) --> 20 + 21 + 20 = 60 Active Points (assuming a Standard Superheroic game)

 

Let's attack them with a 12d6 Blast.

 

12 x 3.5 = 12 BODY, 42 STUN

 

Well, the Damage Negation chips off 2 DC's, so that becomes 10 BODY, 35 STUN.

 

10 - 10 = 0 BODY

35 - 10 = 25 STUN

 

0 x 0.75 = 0 BODY

25 x 0.75 = 18.75 ~ 19 STUN

 

So this combination comes to 0 BODY, 19 STUN.

 

Okay.

 

How about we just tank it all into defense?

 

Assuming an even split here, that would be 30 PD, 30 ED.

 

Let's use that 12d6 attack again.

 

12 BODY, 42 STUN

 

12 - 30 = 0 BODY

42 - 30 = 12 STUN

 

So tanking it in defense looks better already.

 

 

Now keep in mind that I have not even begun to explore the depths of this (actually, it's more that I do not want to type it out right now).

 

I did not take Killing Attacks into account, nor the Armor Piercing or Penetrating Power Advantages.

 

I did not show what happens when you tank into Damage Negation or Damage Reduction, nor what happens when things are uneven.

 

For now though, for my part, I find Damage Negation to be rather neatly balanced against the other two when this rule is utilized.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Sorry' date=' Sean, but your argument only serves to cement my opinion that allowing DN in the game would risk having the game devolve into rules-lawyer discussions, as, using your example, the player and GM argue over what constitutes a "chemical attack."[/quote']

 

How would that be any different if the character had extra defenses "only vs chemical attacks"?

 

Besides' date=' if the concept of the character is that he is resistant to chemical attacks, that is much better modeled by buying the appropriate LS: Immunity. For any AVAD, buying the appropriate defense (whether it be Mental, Power or LS) is already available to provide defense. How is buying DN a better choice than that? [/quote']

 

Now the argument shifts to whether the AVAD in question should be resisted by LS: Chemical Attacks when the character has defined it as AVAD: Need Not Breathe. But we still have the same argument.

 

Besides, Sean's vision for the character was not "immune to chemical attacks", but "resistant to chemical attacks". The LS is all or nothing.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

"Bullets" shouldn't be a -1/4 on Damage Negation. It should be a -0.

 

DN has an option to choose an SFX regardless of defenses it works against as a -0. I would enforce that. Especially if you choose a common enough SFX like "guns."

 

Unless bullets are always physical in a particular game. I'd say it warrants a Limitation in that case.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

How would that be any different if the character had extra defenses "only vs chemical attacks"?

 

Because in that case, one could compare the existing defense as it applies to the attack, as opposed to having this twink power that automagically nerfs any attack thrown at it, regardless of the type (normal, killing, AVAD, etc.)

 

Now the argument shifts to whether the AVAD in question should be resisted by LS: Chemical Attacks when the character has defined it as AVAD: Need Not Breathe. But we still have the same argument.

 

Besides, Sean's vision for the character was not "immune to chemical attacks", but "resistant to chemical attacks". The LS is all or nothing.

 

In the case of NND, yes. But that's a function of the NND; it's an all-or-nothing attack. In fact, that's the whole idea behind the Advantage. Suddenly introducing a defense that subverts the concept works against that in a detrimental way, IMO.

 

As teh_bunneh said, it's strictly a matter of personal preference. For me, I still have not seen any benefit to this power that outweighs the added complexity, risk of abuse, and unintended consequences of implementing it.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

If it boils down to opinion and it's neither good or bad then why are you using terms like "twink power"? That kind of implies those who use it or allow it are "twinks" then as well.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

If it boils down to opinion and it's neither good or bad then why are you using terms like "twink power"? That kind of implies those who use it or allow it are "twinks" then as well.

 

In my case, I mean that it is the kind of power that will appeal more to that sort of player.

 

In other words, buying the power doesn't mean the player is a twink, but if the player is one, he's more likely to choose that power to his own purposes.

 

Does that help?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Because in that case' date=' one could compare the existing defense as it applies to the attack, as opposed to having this twink power that automagically nerfs [i']any[/i] attack thrown at it, regardless of the type (normal, killing, AVAD, etc.)

 

By any attack, do you mean any physical attack (or energy), the power in its base form, or any chemical attack? Negation does not simply apply to every attack form by default.

 

In the case of NND' date=' yes. But that's a function of the NND; it's an all-or-nothing attack. In fact, that's the whole idea behind the Advantage. Suddenly introducing a defense that subverts the concept works against that in a detrimental way, IMO.[/quote']

 

Damage Reduction already reduces damage from certain NND's. Are you opposed to that power as well?

 

In my case' date=' I mean that it is the kind of power that will appeal more to that sort of player.[/quote']

 

Funny...if I had 30 points to spend on defenses from physical attacks, in a game where attacks from credible opponents average 12 DC, I'd be more inclined to take 20 rPD (or maybe 16 rPD and +6 PD) than 6 levels of physical Damage Negation.

 

Against that 12DC attack, Negation leaves me taking 19 STUN, 4 BOD (after my base 2 PD), while the PD leaves me taking 20 (or 18) and 0 BOD. 50% Damage Reduction would mean I take 20 STUN and 5 BOD.

 

All the choices are about equal in defending from a standard attack. The PD better protects against BOD, while the other two protect against some exotic attacks. The Reduction is more useful against higher powered attacks,and the Negation against lower powered attacks.

 

I don't see where one of the three is the automatic best choice for an abusive character.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

In my case, I mean that it is the kind of power that will appeal more to that sort of player.

 

In other words, buying the power doesn't mean the player is a twink, but if the player is one, he's more likely to choose that power to his own purposes.

 

Does that help?

 

TWINKle TWINKle Little Star

Am I going to survive your

Armour piercing

AVAD (Does Body)

Killing Attack?

Depends what the DC is

I've got 7 Damage Negation

So much more than that

And

I'm

Toast

TWINKle TWINKle Little Star

How I wonder

If I'm going to live through this

 

Ay Thenkyew