Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Just to be clear: whilst bullets are made of lead, I do not consider them a chemical attack.

[Tasha]

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']

 

Damage Negation may be an interesting way to write up "Combat Luck" for those campaigns that don't have a ton of armor and such.

 

Beyond that, I am seeing DN as a power that can be used in cases where a small attack is going against a big item (ie Super vs Mechagodzilla). Damage negation may be the ideal power to simulate items that can be pierced by normal weapons, but really do minor damage due to the size of the target. This could be interesting for vehicles. With things like missles and emplaced guns having reduced negation to simulate their ability to take out such large things.

[dsatow]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

I was thinking the same thing about damage negation as combat luck as I dozed off to sleep last night. Its best use to me seems to be as immunity to a special effect or combat luck. I still think its too highly abusable and cheap, especially the higher power the campaign gets (say a 20d6 campaign with 55 def and 6d6 Negation).

 

As a defense for NNDs, AVAD against a uncommon defense, I think those advantages have their own defenses and its not really broken.

 

As a solution to the stun lottery, I think this doesn't really fix that. people will pile on advantage after advantage such that 1 DC (5 active) won't make too much a dent in the power. A better solution would be to remove the stun die and set a standard x3 stun multiple for the killing attack. I've run and played in games like this and it works well.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

By any attack' date=' do you mean [i']any[/i] 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.

 

My only exposure to the power is through the threads in these forums; I don't have a copy of 6E. So I ask in return, what sort of limitation does Damage Negation have in its base form?

 

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

 

AAMOF, I do have some issues with Damage Reduction, but that's not a can of worms I'm willing to open at this time.

 

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.

 

I'll take your word in terms of the math. As I said before, I don't have the rules to check against. I am confused, though.

 

On one hand, I'm told that the current power choices cannot provide an equivalent to what DN does. Yet you're showing me numbers that say it isn't that much different than other types of defense. So which is it?

 

Would a better (and more illuminating) example have been to apply those defense choices against a, say, 6 DC attack? Or perhaps, an attack with one of the Advantages we were discussing, such as NND/AVAD?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

I was thinking the same thing about damage negation as combat luck as I dozed off to sleep last night. Its best use to me seems to be as immunity to a special effect or combat luck. I still think its too highly abusable and cheap' date=' especially the higher power the campaign gets (say a 20d6 campaign with 55 def and 6d6 Negation).[/quote']

 

20d6 vs 6d6 Negation leaves 14d6; average roll of 49 STUN does nothing after 55 defenses. A 22d6 attack will average 1 STUN past those defenses.

 

Or I could buy 85 def and forego the damage negation. Now it takes 25d6 for an average attack to get past my defenses.

 

85 points on one side of the Defense Equation seems a lot in a 20 DC game.

 

As a defense for NNDs' date=' AVAD against a uncommon defense, I think those advantages have their own defenses and its not really broken.[/quote']

 

I don't think Negation breaks them, though.

 

As a solution to the stun lottery' date=' I think this doesn't really fix that. people will pile on advantage after advantage such that 1 DC (5 active) won't make too much a dent in the power. A better solution would be to remove the stun die and set a standard x3 stun multiple for the killing attack. I've run and played in games like this and it works well.[/quote']

 

6e changes the multiple to 1d3, which is less than your standard multiple.

 

My only exposure to the power is through the threads in these forums; I don't have a copy of 6E. So I ask in return' date=' what sort of limitation does Damage Negation have in its base form?[/quote']

 

In its base form, it protects against either physical or energy attacks. Alternatively, it can protect against a single SFX of attack ("all chemical attacks"; "all magical attacks").

 

I'll take your word in terms of the math. As I said before, I don't have the rules to check against. I am confused, though.

 

On one hand, I'm told that the current power choices cannot provide an equivalent to what DN does. Yet you're showing me numbers that say it isn't that much different than other types of defense. So which is it?

 

It isn't much different on average. A 6d6 attack that rolls all 6's still does nothing to the target with Damage Negation. If he has 20 rPD +2 PD base instead, he'll take 14 STUN. Damage Negation removes DC's, so what they roll becomes irrelevant.

 

Negation provides much less protection against BOD damage. A 10d6 attack rolls 10 BOD on average. A target with 20 rPD is immune to BOD damage. One with 6 levels of damage negation will be applying 4 BOD, on average, against his base 2 PD.

 

Would a better (and more illuminating) example have been to apply those defense choices against a' date=' say, 6 DC attack? Or perhaps, an attack with one of the Advantages we were discussing, such as NND/AVAD?[/quote']

 

If we assume a 6d6 NND against which the target lacks the defense, Damage Reduction will result in 10 STUN being taken (21 average roll x 50% = 10). Negation will result in 10.5 STUN on average, as it will eliminate 3d6 (6 DC's), leaving 3d6 that get through.

 

If we bump that up to an 8d6 NND, Damage Reduction cuts it down to 14 STUN (28 x 50%, and Negation leaves 17.5 Stun (10 DC's or 5d6 remaining).

 

Drop it down to 4d6 NND, and Reduction leaves 7 STUN (14 x 50%), while Negation leaves only 3.5 STUN (1d6 left after removal of 3d6/6 DC).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

I was thinking the same thing about damage negation as combat luck as I dozed off to sleep last night. Its best use to me seems to be as immunity to a special effect or combat luck. I still think its too highly abusable and cheap' date=' especially the higher power the campaign gets (say a 20d6 campaign with 55 def and 6d6 Negation).[/quote']

 

I'm highly abusable and cheap - does that make me a bad person?*

 

As a defense for NNDs' date=' AVAD against a uncommon defense, I think those advantages have their own defenses and its not really broken. [/quote']

 

This assumes everyone is singing off the same hymn sheet and that the person designing the attack has REALLY thought through all the ways in which someone can avoid the full impact of their attack, based on their stated sfx. They may not be the best person to decide that

 

A

s a solution to the stun lottery' date=' I think this doesn't really fix that. people will pile on advantage after advantage such that 1 DC (5 active) won't make too much a dent in the power. A better solution would be to remove the stun die and set a standard x3 stun multiple for the killing attack. I've run and played in games like this and it works well.[/quote']

 

The stun lottery is now knobbled, hence my comment about DN being an edition or two too late

 

 

 

 

 

*OK, so it does - bad example

[Sean Waters]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Here's the thing: you'll never take Body damage from a normal attack with normal defences.

 

The same points in DN and you might. Er...will.

 

I use this 'sort-of' formula: defences should be about DCx2. So in a 12 DC game defences should be about 24. That lets 1.5 stun per DC through, or about 18 stun per hit, and means most characters can withstand 3 hits, at least, before falling over.

 

24 points (well, 25) spent on damage negation would mean 5DC of DN. Against a 12 DC attack you take 7d6: 24 stun and 7 - count them - Body. Normal defences clearly have the (huge) advantage.

 

I also assume resistant defence to be about DC x 1: this means that killing attacks will do a little Body to an average character. For normal attacks that makes no difference to the above calculation.

 

Let us look at killing attacks:

 

12DC KA does 14 BODY and 28 stun on average: 12/24 defences let 2/4 through.

 

5DC of DN let 7DC through: 2d6+1, or 8/16.

 

Sheesh: have I got this wrong? Possibly not.

 

DN has other advantages - it has to - but is not and never will be a rival for 'normal and resistant' defences in terms of point efficiency. For that reason people are only ever going to use it when they see it as realising a concept.

 

I think we are pretty safe.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

I use this 'sort-of' formula: defences should be about DCx2. So in a 12 DC game defences should be about 24. That lets 1.5 stun per DC through, or about 18 stun per hit, and means most characters can withstand 3 hits, at least, before falling over.

 

24 points (well, 25) spent on damage negation would mean 5DC of DN. Against a 12 DC attack you take 7d6: 24 stun and 7 - count them - Body. Normal defences clearly have the (huge) advantage.

 

Yet I doubt many characters are going to buy all Damage Negation and leave themselves with zero normal defense. If that same character bought 3d6 DN and 10 PD, they'd take 21.5 Stun and 0 Body from that "average attack". That's awfully on-par with a character who bought 25 PD, and yet the DN character is going to gain a lot more benefit against atypical attacks, including those with Armor Piercing, Penetrating, and AVAD, not to mention getting essentially 6m of Knockback Resistance.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Yet I doubt many characters are going to buy all Damage Negation and leave themselves with zero normal defense. If that same character bought 3d6 DN and 10 PD' date=' they'd take 21.5 Stun and 0 Body from that "average attack". That's awfully on-par with a character who bought 25 PD, and yet the DN character is going to gain a lot more benefit against atypical attacks, including those with [i']Armor Piercing[/i], Penetrating, and AVAD, not to mention getting essentially 6m of Knockback Resistance.

 

Post for comparison purposes only. No warranty as to actual utility is made by the poster and the postee is hereby forbidden from relying on any opinion stated herein in any actionable way. Acceptance of these, and any potential conditions yet to be written in retrospect is signalled by the postee taking any action against the poster and the postee irrevocably agrees to wear a sandwich board reading 'Sean Is Right Oh Why Did I Ever Argue With Him?' for the rest of eternity.

 

 

I agree, but it was for comparison purposes only

 

A mixed bag of defences is your best bet, but it does make comparison more complicated. Hoorah!

[prestidigitator]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Post for comparison purposes only. No warranty as to actual utility is made by the poster and the postee is hereby forbidden from relying on any opinion stated herein in any actionable way. Acceptance of these' date=' and any potential conditions yet to be written in retrospect is signalled by the postee taking any action against the poster and the postee irrevocably agrees to wear a sandwich board reading 'Sean Is Right Oh Why Did I Ever Argue With Him?' for the rest of eternity.[/size']

 

 

I agree, but it was for comparison purposes only

 

A mixed bag of defences is your best bet, but it does make comparison more complicated. Hoorah!

 

I'm usually half considering that sandwich board anyway. Darn it! Still can't rep you.

[torchwolf]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Besides these very good suggestions, DN is great for dinosaurs - immediately reducing the number of Jurassic writeups using Damage Reduction.

[Kristopher]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

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.

 

More importantly, how the heck do you justify a defense that "knows" the difference between projectiles from a firearm, and projectiles from something else?

[Wolf]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

More importantly' date=' how the heck do you justify a defense that "knows" the difference between projectiles from a firearm, and projectiles from something else? [/quote']

 

Maybe something like trying to model a "MDC" model like Palladium, but with no Overpowered sillyness.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

More importantly' date=' how the heck do you justify a defense that "knows" the difference between projectiles from a firearm, and projectiles from something else? [/quote']

 

It doesn't have to literally "know". The properties of a defense may simply make it more effective against some attacks than others. Antique metal armor would stop swords as well as or better than a bulletproof vest, but wasn't much use against even early firearms.

 

Or, we could very easily be talking about some kind of metaphysically influenced game world in which the defense does "know" on some level something about the attacks against which it is guarding. Fantasy magic comes to mind.

 

I don't think the concept is worth dismissing offhand as you seem to be implying.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Yet I doubt many characters are going to buy all Damage Negation and leave themselves with zero normal defense. If that same character bought 3d6 DN and 10 PD' date=' they'd take 21.5 Stun and 0 Body from that "average attack". That's awfully on-par with a character who bought 25 PD, and yet the DN character is going to gain a lot more benefit against atypical attacks, including those with [i']Armor Piercing[/i], Penetrating, and AVAD, not to mention getting essentially 6m of Knockback Resistance.

 

Now let's look at a higher than average attack of, say, 15d6. The DN + Defense character takes, on average, 32 STUN and 2 BOD. The fellow with 25 PD takes 27.5 STUN and no BOD. I'd rather have the PD.

 

Drop the attack to 8d6, and the 5d6 remaining averages 7.5 STUN, 0 BOD against damage negation character and 3 STUN, 0 BOD against the Defenses character. With such a low attack, it's probably Autofire or there's a lot of them. 4 hits do 30 to one target and 12 to the other - which one is in more trouble?

[The Main Man]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Besides these very good suggestions' date=' DN is great for dinosaurs - immediately reducing the number of Jurassic writeups using Damage Reduction. [/quote']

 

That was about the second thing that I thought of for using DN: larger characters.

 

A larger character has more surface area to penetrate, thusly a .45 bullet to a Human-size character means less to a Large character, if only a little.

 

This is also why you don't use conventional arms against, say... Godzilla, who could easily justify having several levels of DN.

[The Main Man]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Maybe something like trying to model a "MDC" model like Palladium' date=' but with no Overpowered sillyness.[/quote']

 

This would be the third thing* that I thought of using DN for, with RN being used for "MDC weapons."

 

That being said, I'm sticking with scaled up damage for Rifts, because MDC is by and large kinda silly.

 

 

 

*The first things that I thought of using DN for were "boss characters," particularly ones that you would rather not die so easily at the wrong time.

[Jagged]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Maybe something like trying to model a "MDC" model like Palladium' date=' but with no Overpowered sillyness.[/quote']

 

MDC? Murder, Death, Cuddle?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

MDC? Murder' date=' Death, Cuddle?[/quote']

 

"Mega-Damage C...something". Capacity I think is to defend against it. Capability? Whatever. Things that big structures are supposed to be able to endure, but that turn fleshy things into thin paste instantaneously.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

MDC? Murder' date=' Death, Cuddle?[/quote']

 

Definitely cuddle then.

 

Remember the Bear? Khan was it? And that idiot who kept trying to get himself killed?

[Jagged]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

And that idiot who kept trying to get himself killed?

There were so many. Was it me?

[Utech]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Don't have the 6 yet. I'm looking forward to using Damage Negation for armor. Also curious about using it in combination with Barrier.

[Wolf]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

"Mega-Damage C...something". Capacity I think is to defend against it. Capability? Whatever. Things that big structures are supposed to be able to endure' date=' but that turn fleshy things into thin paste instantaneously.[/quote']

 

Mega Damage Capacity, yes. Originally (pre-Rifts) it was used to simulate the armor of the original era VF series Veratechs... (the Jetfire/Skyfire looking mech in Robotech), how since they are easily the size of a 2 or 3 story building, they and their weapons are on a different level of operation.

 

It made sense at the time, a Veratech had like 75 or so MDC on it's main body, and it's weapon did something like 6d6, or such. But those cannons had every right to paste a living person. And no "personal firearms" could penetrate a Veretech's armor.

 

It later got a bit silly when the Cyclones (see motorcycles that transform into powerarmor) had near comprable MDC to a Veretech... But it was Anime, so we dealt with the power creep, and most other MDC vehicles still made a bit of sense.

 

The first iteration of Rifts got even more silly, what with a vibro knife, and an jerk of a GM, I had a Vibro-knife stuck through one of my character's hands, and it did something like 3 MDC (1 MDC in both defense, and offense is equal to 100 SDC- HP really never went above 70 (even at high levels), and SDC phisical defense could creep with ninjas and superspies or Heroes Unlimited, but the normal characters mainly had something near 50 SDC), and the caracter was paste because of this... whatever. Still by then MDC had flown so far off course that it was ridiculous.

 

I'm saying that the original Idea for MDC is quite well served for DN. Though I can see how DR is also useful for more of what it turned into... what with stuff flying around with multiple upon multiple of hundreds of MDC, and most weapons doing a dice or 4 times ten damage... it's just silly. But percentages probably work best on that concept, and would keep a Vibro knife from pasting someone.

[The Main Man]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Mega Damage Capacity, yes. Originally (pre-Rifts) it was used to simulate the armor of the original era VF series Veratechs... (the Jetfire/Skyfire looking mech in Robotech), how since they are easily the size of a 2 or 3 story building, they and their weapons are on a different level of operation.

 

It made sense at the time, a Veratech had like 75 or so MDC on it's main body, and it's weapon did something like 6d6, or such. But those cannons had every right to paste a living person. And no "personal firearms" could penetrate a Veretech's armor.

 

It later got a bit silly when the Cyclones (see motorcycles that transform into powerarmor) had near comprable MDC to a Veretech... But it was Anime, so we dealt with the power creep, and most other MDC vehicles still made a bit of sense.

 

The first iteration of Rifts got even more silly, what with a vibro knife, and an jerk of a GM, I had a Vibro-knife stuck through one of my character's hands, and it did something like 3 MDC (1 MDC in both defense, and offense is equal to 100 SDC- HP really never went above 70 (even at high levels), and SDC phisical defense could creep with ninjas and superspies or Heroes Unlimited, but the normal characters mainly had something near 50 SDC), and the caracter was paste because of this... whatever. Still by then MDC had flown so far off course that it was ridiculous.

 

I'm saying that the original Idea for MDC is quite well served for DN. Though I can see how DR is also useful for more of what it turned into... what with stuff flying around with multiple upon multiple of hundreds of MDC, and most weapons doing a dice or 4 times ten damage... it's just silly. But percentages probably work best on that concept, and would keep a Vibro knife from pasting someone.

 

I agree that MDC made relative sense when it was first used in Robotech - it sets up a clear mechanical dichotomy between the bots and the people.

 

But yeah, in Rifts, there isn't a clear dichotomy because there's also magic, psionics, superpowers, the supernatural, and more that clouds things up.

 

MDC worked when things are black and white.

 

That being said, even if one wants to simulate MDC with DN, they can still scale it any which way they please instead of a flat number.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Yeah. By the time I had any exposure to Rifts, it was pretty much you had some kind of MDC armor/defense or you'd die in the first 5 minutes of combat (on the first attack roll, most likely). It was a big turn off.