Sean Waters Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 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. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagged Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) Sorry. Any time anyone mentions small arms over the weekend I shall shout "T-Rex!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) Any time anyone mentions small arms over the weekend I shall shout "T-Rex!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) Superheroes might need protection from guns if they visit this school: Tucked in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulcan Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 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'] None by the book. However, Dark Champions also has rules for specialty ammo to make guns even nastier. "Reverse Ogive" comes to mind. It is supposed to have specifically engineered curved edges to cut through armor and mushroom inside. The game effect? +2 Damage classes, AP, and +1 ISM. Takes a 7.62 NATO up to .50 BMG level damage... plus AP to boot. Gruesome, isn't it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinobi Killfis Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) None by the book. However, Dark Champions also has rules for specialty ammo to make guns even nastier. "Reverse Ogive" comes to mind. It is supposed to have specifically engineered curved edges to cut through armor and mushroom inside. The game effect? +2 Damage classes, AP, and +1 ISM. Takes a 7.62 NATO up to .50 BMG level damage... plus AP to boot. Gruesome, isn't it Heck I'm pretty sure even 5eR has some nasty guns in it that cost well over a 100AP. Now a lot of that might come from non damage increasing parts, but they still can jack up armored supers plenty more than the source material would imply. I remember coming across this when I had an idea for a multipower that was a weapon pool. And I found out a lot of normal guns out gunned my super guns by a large margin. And since my idea was enchanted normal arms it looked weird that my enchanted weapons were frequently weaker than the original non-enchanted piece. It did not matter much since we weren't really fighting people with assault rifles and macnine guns in order to compare them, but it was odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archermoo Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) 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. Which walks the line between rules and setting. From my understanding military weapons are challenging to supers in the CU because Darren and Steve like those kind of settings. People that prefer military weapons to be useless (or at least less useful) against supers should either tone them down, or tone up the supers. Or maybe give people a few levels of DN against normal firearms... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) I have never viewed the weapons tables in the main rule books to be Rules - just example builds. So to use them in a Rules Discussion is like complaining that the guns are too tough for Turakian Age.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorDRod Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) I have never viewed the weapons tables in the main rule books to be Rules - just example builds. So to use them in a Rules Discussion is like complaining that the guns are too tough for Turakian Age.... Hey, if Vikings had had machine guns, they would've used them! What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninja-Bear Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) 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 Unless dramatic sense, cinematic sense, or common sense dictates otherwise. But, seriously I have been thinking of a way to do this pre-6th for martial artists. This is one archetype which traditionally have a lower pd, yet can generate high amount of damage. I could see this as a way to keep their stats inline but to take the edge off some off the damage. Note, I don't have 6th so I'm entertaining the notion based on hearsay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) 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 far as I know, the first "absolute" effect in the game was Desolidification. 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... But isn't it still possible to buy up the STUN multiple? 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'] In some games, that would be too broad. In most, it would not be broad enough - I'd say it should count for an extra Limitation value. Lucius Alexander Return of the Man on a Palindromedary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) But isn't it still possible to buy up the STUN multiple? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninja-Bear Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) Question about stun multiples. Can you RAW buy negative stun multiplies UAO ? That would reduce the STUN effect nicely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) Decreased Stun Multiple can go down to x1 by RAW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Main Man Posted October 27, 2009 Report Share Posted October 27, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) Question about stun multiples. Can you RAW buy negative stun multiplies UAO ? That would reduce the STUN effect nicely. You could buy 2 levels of that, which would mean no rolling for STUN at all. Beyond that though and you would be getting free points (you must take a minimum amount of STUN=BODY). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualplayer Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) I see Negation as a meta-tandem. You are effectively mandating the incoming damage roll at Standard Effect levels (1 BODY & 3.5 STUN/die) and buying dedicated defense enough to soak it up. If you want to keep the Negation levels secret from your players, "strip 7's" from the damage rolls. Mentally subtract 1-6, 2-5, 3-4 pairs per 2 -DCs of Negation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prestidigitator Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) I see Negation as a meta-tandem. You are effectively mandating the incoming damage roll at Standard Effect levels (1 BODY & 3.5 STUN/die) and buying dedicated defense enough to soak it up. If you want to keep the Negation levels secret from your players' date=' "strip 7's" from the damage rolls. Mentally subtract 1-6, 2-5, 3-4 pairs per 2 -DCs of Negation.[/quote'] Huh! That's an interesting take. I'd rep, but can't quite yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninja-Bear Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) I just saw the limitation does no stun -3/4. So Im going to allow my buddy to by it UAO only vs bullets! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archermoo Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) I see Negation as a meta-tandem. You are effectively mandating the incoming damage roll at Standard Effect levels (1 BODY & 3.5 STUN/die) and buying dedicated defense enough to soak it up. If you want to keep the Negation levels secret from your players' date=' "strip 7's" from the damage rolls. Mentally subtract 1-6, 2-5, 3-4 pairs per 2 -DCs of Negation.[/quote'] A better, though slightly more difficult, way to figure it would be to figure out what the amount of Stun per die was rolled and just subtract that times the number of levels of Damage Negation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) A better' date=' though slightly more difficult, way to figure it would be to figure out what the amount of Stun per die was rolled and just subtract that times the number of levels of Damage Negation.[/quote'] You could also alternate between the lowest and highest dice rolled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodkins Odds Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) You could also alternate between the lowest and highest dice rolled. Darn, I can't rep you again. This is really the best way to handle it if you don't want to reveal the amount of DCs involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyper-Man Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) You could also alternate between the lowest and highest dice rolled. yep. Another option would be to just alternate between removing the highest then lowest dice for DN. No meta disclosure to players necessary. It would just require that players make and leave ALL damage dice rolls in view of the GM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archermoo Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) You could also alternate between the lowest and highest dice rolled. True, though just multiplying the per die amount by the number of DCs that are left would be more accurate. And has the advantage that you don't need to have the player leave the dice in view until you are done calculating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warp9 Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) ...having said that' date=' 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).[/quote'] It can model the exponential nature of damage too. According to the exponential concept of damage, a 20d6 EB is 1000 times as powerful as a 10d6 EB. I want to see characters who laugh at the 10d6 attack, but who can be quickly killed with the 20d6 attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) It can model the exponential nature of damage too. According to the exponential concept of damage, a 20d6 EB is 1000 times as powerful as a 10d6 EB. I want to see characters who laugh at the 10d6 attack, but who can be quickly killed with the 20d6 attack. Absolutely: that works well for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.