Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

[Vulcan]

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']

 

Let's say I'm playing Electric Guy. I have a 60 ED vs. Electricity. Why should a 1d6 NND 'tazer' attack hurt me under any circumstances, when I can take direct hits from lightning without any effect?

 

On the other hand, if I have a reasonable ED (say, 25-30ish) and 30 points of DN vs. Electricity, now that tazer bounces as it rightly should.

 

Edit: I see others have beaten me to this point...

[Vulcan]

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']

 

One would hope the two would have done this in the 'should I allow this character' discussion, held... well, before the character was allowed into the game.

 

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?

 

Okay. Then what is the correct defense vs. the NND attack of a tazer? I bet you can't find three people on this board who agree, which means that to cover them all, Electric Guy has to spend an exorbitant amount on exotic LS... which he would have to make up, since stuff like 'Grounded,' 'Ungrounded,' and 'not attached to the tazer' don't exist in the base rules.

 

There is also the little detail that even ED + absorption doesn't stop the KB from a large electrical attack, which then means that even though the lighning bolt does no damage to Electric Guy, he still goes flying into the brick wall and gets splattered...

 

But DN stops it. Stops all the NND's, the drains, etc. etc. etc. Stops them cold without any ridiculous debates ("He can take a lightning bolt from Zeus without flinching! How does that F******g tazer manage to stun him!")

 

So the arguments aren't stopped by not using DN... they just come up over unforseen circumstances.

 

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".

 

All right. If you don't like it, you don't have to use/allow it. There are whole blocks of 6E I'm not going to be using. But DN is one of the useful things that I like.

 

Obviously your opinion differs, and there's room here for both of us.

[Vulcan]

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."

 

I would say that should depend heavily upon the genre. In a silver-age superhero game, guns really shouldn't be a threat to bricks, and thus it should be pretty cheap. Otherwise bricks have to buy a ridiculous PD ('ridiculous' defined as 'so high the GM is likely to disallow it') to be bulletproof. (And besides, in silver age, who really expects normal guns to work against bricks?)

 

In Iron Age or Dark Champions where gunfire is pretty common, then yeah, it should be more expensive. But it should still cost less than 'vs. all physical damage' because it doesn't affect punches, swords, asteroids, telekenesis, force effects, etc. etc. etc.

 

Of course, that is just my opinion.

[Vulcan]

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.)

 

Actually, that is sorta the point, that it does affect all of those attacks without having to buy a bunch of separate defeneses... for some of which you would have to anticipate how the GM would buy every possible variation on all of the NPC's.

 

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.

 

Okay. I can see that. Not sure I agree, but I can see it.

 

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.

 

Fair enough.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

I know it will vary by campaign, but I'm looking for input. Would, "only against 'real weapons'" fit the required limitation that's inherent for DN?

[Vulcan]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

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']

 

Pssst! Just to let you know... in 6E they changed the STUN die to 1d3. So x3 is the maximum amount on the STUN lotto now...

[Vulcan]

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.

 

Fair enough.

 

My opinion is that the main use of DN should be for extra defense against specific special effects, and not a broadbased 'everything' defense, and I probably wouldn't allow it as such.

[Vulcan]

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's more the silver age standard that 'guns can't hurt supers, only supers can hurt supers.':D

[Vulcan]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

I know it will vary by campaign' date=' but I'm looking for input. Would, "only against 'real weapons'" fit the required limitation that's inherent for DN?[/quote']

 

As you say, it would depend heavily on the campaign. Street level vigilantes? Heck no, that's all the attacks there are. Fantasy HERO? Maybe a small limitation, because there is also magic to deal with, even though most fighting is done with weapons. Iron Age Superheros? Same, normal guns and swords are supposed to be dangerous in that setting, but there are also a bunch of superpowers to deal with as well.

 

Silver age? Heck yeah, that would be a limitation, because no one bothers using real weapons on supers anyway! That's why the default PRIMUS agent uses an 8d6 E-blast Plasma Rifle rather than an assault rifle which 'by the rules' would be much more effective.

[Vulcan]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

And this is what happens when I don't keep up on a thread. Sorry guys!

[Trebuchet]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Has anyone found a good way to use DN without the opposing character/players knowing precisely how much DN the character has? When I build villains, I try to avoid the players knowing how tough the villain's defenses are; and I can't see a good way to do that which doesn't involve a lot more die rolling.

[torchwolf]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Has anyone found a good way to use DN without the opposing character/players knowing precisely how much DN the character has? When I build villains' date=' I try to avoid the players knowing how tough the villain's defenses are; and I can't see a good way to do that which doesn't involve a lot more die rolling.[/quote']

 

It has been suggested upthread to surreptitiously not count damage dice coming up average (alternately 3 or 4, and upward, failing any of those). That would avoid the die rolling but institute a pokerface need... joking. You've been GMing long enough to pull that off.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

I know it will vary by campaign' date=' but I'm looking for input. Would, "only against 'real weapons'" fit the required limitation that's inherent for DN?[/quote']

 

I would say so.

 

And it's not inherent to DN. There are several ways to purchase the Power:

 

Vs Physical

Vs Energy

OPTIONAL: Vs Special Effect

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

I would say so.

 

And it's not inherent to DN. There are several ways to purchase the Power:

 

Vs Physical

Vs Energy

OPTIONAL: Vs Special Effect

Thanks, and sorry I mis-remembered from earlier. I really need to get 6E:o

[TSandman]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

whew... just got through the whole discussion...

 

I just have to say that DN is a quite elegant way to model low level resistance to something...

 

In a Fantasy game where you have a race that is more resistant to poisons/fire/cold/whatever that the norm, throwing a DC or two of DN is a nice way to let it ignore *some* of the damage unless it goes over a certain threashold. Say, someone playing an Ice Troll that could be hurt by INTENSE/Magical cold, but would be quite at home at -15C, while the rest of the group has to wrap up or suffer from the elements.

 

IMHO, It's just setting the threashold of "damage" a higher than normal.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Has anyone found a good way to use DN without the opposing character/players knowing precisely how much DN the character has? When I build villains' date=' I try to avoid the players knowing how tough the villain's defenses are; and I can't see a good way to do that which doesn't involve a lot more die rolling.[/quote']

 

 

Not tried it but you could treat DN as variable defences - so if you have 4DN you roll 4d6 and subtract the result (Body, stun and KB) from the damage result - so full damage is still rolled.

 

Another, somewhat more conventional approach, would be to take some of the DN dice on an activation roll: say 3 dice plus another on 14-, another on 11- and another on 8-.

 

That way, whilst the player will know roughly what the total is they can never be entirely sure.

 

Finally you could try 'unrolled' damage. I got an excel speadsheet to generate results for 1d6, 2d6, 4d6 and 8d6. As you use an entry you cross it off.

 

I kept them behind the GM screen and totaled them up when a hit occurred - so an 11d6 would be 8+2+1. Much quicker than actual rolling and adding. DN works very well with that as you do not need to announce how many dice need to be rolled.

[Kristopher]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

It's more the silver age standard that 'guns can't hurt supers' date=' only supers can hurt supers.':D[/quote']

 

I've never been a big fan of trying to import the goofier genre quirks into the game.

[Shinobi Killfis]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

I've never been a big fan of trying to import the goofier genre quirks into the game.

 

I'm not sure how goofy it is. Supers frequently survive and shrug off large supers attacks. For example cyclops might blast away with optic beams that blow through buildings and only bruise a super. Even antivehicle weapons of today aren't as destructive as the attacks of a super as depicted, yet frequently in Champions a heavy machine gun would mop the floor with supers. If you are bouncing energy attacks which would take out tanks, it seems wierd when a rifle drops you.

 

 

For this power I'd like a all or nothing version. I like the way normal defenses work vs most super attacks, but I'd like the ability to ignore the attacks from small arms.

[dsatow]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

I'm not sure how goofy it is. Supers frequently survive and shrug off large supers attacks. For example cyclops might blast away with optic beams that blow through buildings and only bruise a super. Even antivehicle weapons of today aren't as destructive as the attacks of a super as depicted, yet frequently in Champions a heavy machine gun would mop the floor with supers. If you are bouncing energy attacks which would take out tanks, it seems wierd when a rifle drops you.

 

 

For this power I'd like a all or nothing version. I like the way normal defenses work vs most super attacks, but I'd like the ability to ignore the attacks from small arms.

 

The problem here was what was called the stun lottery. The d6-1 stun mod instead of the new d3 stun mod. The stun lottery allowed a character to do more stun than an EB of equal point cost. Now a 3d6K with +1 stun autofire should do for each shot between 3B6S to 18B72S with an average of 11B33S. A 10d6 EB autofire should do for each shot between 0B10S to 20B60S with an average of 10B35S.

 

In fact, most of the reasons I've heard about to use negation has been the stun lottery. If the lottery was never there, I wonder if we would have had negation in the first place.

[Vulcan]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

I've never been a big fan of trying to import the goofier genre quirks into the game.

 

To each their own.

 

My one and only problem with Dark Champions is that it establishes a fairly high leve of damage for firearms, if it is used in conjunction with a Supers game. It makes groups of soldiers very dangerous for supers to take on, which is not the case in most of the source material.

 

Given that, well, some of us make adjustments.

[Shinobi Killfis]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

The problem here was what was called the stun lottery. The d6-1 stun mod instead of the new d3 stun mod. The stun lottery allowed a character to do more stun than an EB of equal point cost. Now a 3d6K with +1 stun autofire should do for each shot between 3B6S to 18B72S with an average of 11B33S. A 10d6 EB autofire should do for each shot between 0B10S to 20B60S with an average of 10B35S.

 

In fact, most of the reasons I've heard about to use negation has been the stun lottery. If the lottery was never there, I wonder if we would have had negation in the first place.

 

That is part of the problem, but look at some of the guns in 5e(6e may have toned down the stats on to of the stun lotto change). Some of these guns our AP attacks from Menton level villains. A 3d6 autofire, armor piecing attack even with average stun devastates supers.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

Maybe guns need to be limited to Body Only (-1), or perhaps Half Normal Stun (-1/2), or something like that. It's not like they tend to knock people out much.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

That is part of the problem' date=' but look at some of the guns in 5e(6e may have toned down the stats on to of the stun lotto change). Some of these guns our AP attacks from Menton level villains. A 3d6 autofire, armor piecing attack even with average stun devastates supers.[/quote']

What gun in 5E is 3d6, auto fire, AP? Just curious. I'm doubting it's something many would have...

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

What gun in 5E is 3d6' date=' auto fire, AP? Just curious. I'm doubting it's something many would have...[/quote']

 

Ma Deuce (M2HB), loaded with AP ammo. It's not something your average street thug or even Mafia assassin would have, but the military has thousands.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

 

The problem here was what was called the stun lottery. The d6-1 stun mod instead of the new d3 stun mod. The stun lottery allowed a character to do more stun than an EB of equal point cost. Now a 3d6K with +1 stun autofire should do for each shot between 3B6S to 18B72S with an average of 11B33S. A 10d6 EB autofire should do for each shot between 0B10S to 20B60S with an average of 10B35S.

 

In fact, most of the reasons I've heard about to use negation has been the stun lottery. If the lottery was never there, I wonder if we would have had negation in the first place.

 

 

Hence my comment that it arrived an edition too late

 

Having said that it is a potentially useful tool to have in the box, even if only from a metagame perspective. Moreover it makes sense from an in-game perspective.

 

I KEEP on banging on about the Body lottery of killing attacks too: the only way that makes sense is if you think (for a bullet) about it going in and hitting a vital organ - that is where big Body can happen. For a character who does not have differentiated internal organs (No, I'm just homogenous stone all the way through), the randomness of KA Body makes no sense, and it is fiddly as hell to smooth it out with normal defences.

 

Basalt, who is made of rock, has 6 DN (physical) and 8 DN (energy) - unless you are striking with the force of a sledge hammer, or using energy hugely outside normal flesh tolerances, he just doesn't feel it.