Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

[Ice9]

So I've got the books now, and they're looking great - already got some cool ideas for Barrier, and having a Transform level between "minor penalties" and "you are a frog" is excellent. But looking through the APG reminded me of an irritation that doesn't seem to have been fixed - limited defenses are significantly overpriced, by any logic I can think of.

 

For instance, limited Deflection, in the APG - not the only example, just the one I was reading today. There are a number of modifiers which are questionable, but the ones which really stuck out are this:

* Only vs Physical Projectiles: -1/4

* Only vs Energy Beams: -1/2

 

Does Not Compute! Those modifiers do not fit in the same campaign as each-other, because you can't have 80% projectiles and 66% energy beams at the same time! And it's not just that power - pretty much every example I've seen of a defense "Only vs Fire" or "Only vs Bullets" has been significantly underlimited.

 

 

Now I can see the logic that - for attack powers, something that works against half your foes is still better than half as strong. Most characters will have more than one attack option, so it's not like you'll be trying and failing to blast them with it more than once. But for defenses, that doesn't apply - you don't get to pick what attacks your foes have, and well-informed foes will be specifically targetting any weak spots.

 

There's also the factor that the same modifiers seem to be used for overall defenses and physical/energy specific defenses, but that really doesn't work. For instance, in a Champions campaign, -1 might be a good modifier for "Only vs Bullets" on PD. But on a general defense like Deflection, it should be -3 for the same frequency.

 

 

With that in mind, here are some values for a typical Champions setting.

* Fire (Heat): Including heat effects like microwaves and laser beams, probably includes half of energy attacks. So -1 for energy-specific, -3 for general.

* Fire (Just Flames): Much more limited, this is probably a quarter or energy attacks at most. So -3 for energy-specific, -7 for general, and maybe lower.

* Bullets: Important distinction here - for ranged-specific defenses like Deflection, they're easily 2/3 of physical attacks (-1/2 phy, -2 general). Counting melee attacks, they're more like 1/3 of physical attacks (-2 phys, -5 general). NOTE: Would be more common in a realistic setting like Dark Champions.

 

So - does anyone agree? Disagree? Have a good explanation? Have their own limitation values they've been using?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

Agree completely: it is something I've mentioned in the past, and have given up doing (well, largely) because no good answer has been suggested.

[archermoo]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

Well, if you think a particular Limitation should be worth more (or less for that matter) you can simply use a value different than the suggested one.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

Like Sean, I agree. Limitations should reduce the cost commensurate with the reduction in utility. I'm also a believer in examining the reciprocal. If +15 ED, only vs Fire, costs 10 points, this implies the cost of +15 ED, not vs Fire, should cost about 5 points, totaling 15 for +15 ED vs Fire and Not Fire.

 

I wouldn't allow a -2 limitation for not vs fire - not even close - so -1/2 for only vs fire seems inapppropriate.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

The GM should examine all Limitations used in his campaign. It’s up to him to decide if certain Limitations are worth more or less in his campaign, and change their value accordingly. The GM has the final say over whether a Limitation is allowed in his campaign, and how much it’s worth.

 

I fail to see any problems.

 

A value had to be chosen for the books. Consider it mostly arbitrary.

[Vondy]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

Agree completely: it is something I've mentioned in the past' date=' and have given up doing (well, largely) because no good answer has been suggested.[/quote']

 

Suggestion: apply the limitations you feel are correct for the genre/game you are running.

 

I know it sounds silly, but since Hero is a toolkit for running any game, it cannot apply a standard frequency limitation that works across the board. If it fits one it won't fit another. As a result, the GM has to become accustomed to making use of his Real Ultimate Power and wave his hand in regnant fiat.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

First off I LIKE to run hero as it is written, which is probably why I get so shirty about certain things.

 

Second, yes, I can certainly re-write the game, but then I wonder why I've bought the game int eh first place if I'm writing it.

 

Third, and WAY most importantly, one of the fundamental principles of the power modifier system is you pay for what you get (p4wug). Generally suggested limitations seem about commensurate with the actual limitation in utility. There seems to be a massive blind spot on limitation values for defences.

 

Now can anyone actually suggest a good reason why, in a normal campaign, 'Only v Fire' on your defences is worth only -1/2? At least that is a limitation on ENERGY defence. Go look at Reflection (6e1.273): Only v light based attacks is only -1/2, and reflection applies to both physical and energy attacks. That's crazy talk. Can anyone defend that as an appropriate value?

 

With respect 'it is arbitrary' doesn't cut it: I buy this stuff for sensible guidelines as to how to build characters, and, by and large, that is what I get. Why should things veer so far off target in this one area?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

Persoally, I don't think they veer that far off target in that area. We use them stock in one campaign, have been for years, and it's not been a problem.

 

These valuesa re all suggestions from the Limited Power Limitation - which states Really Clearly that the list is an example list, not a hard coded one.

 

It also provides a generalized "Lose About X% Of Usefulness" or "X Condition Type makes it useless" for the group to have a guideline to set the values properly.

 

In a game where the PCs are squaring off against the Firelords Of Brimstone Keep then "Only Vs Fire" is probably a -0 Limitation. Maybe a -1/4.

 

In a game where the PCs are in Sunken Atlantis where there is almost no fire to be heard of then "Only Vs Fire" is probably a -2 Limitation.

 

Same Limitation, radically difference values. There is no "As Written" for malleable Limitations dependant on camapign parameters.

[Vondy]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

With respect 'it is arbitrary' doesn't cut it: I buy this stuff for sensible guidelines as to how to build characters' date=' and, by and large, that is what I get. Why should things veer so far off target in this one area?[/quote']

 

Complete disagreement. Frequency limitations are dependent on, you guessed it, frequency. As frequency varies from one genre to another, and even one game to another, it is wholly unreasonable to expect a one size fits all limitation value in the Core Rules. It might be preferable to have a sidebar giving guidelines for setting such limitations, or a list of examples for the major genres. What you want is essentially reasonable in every other case, but with frequency limitations it only possible for a game that has one genre or setting it covers. That's not Hero.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

The whole thing is unthinking: the same sort of 'one size fits all' application of limitation (-1/2 will do) applies to fire, arrows, light powers. It applies whether the base power refers just to one of energy/physical or both.

 

It doesn't work it to say 'it depends on genre' because the rules are supposed to give you a starting point. This assumes, in effect, a different genre for every sfx, rather than any useful starting point.

 

It only applies to certain stuff though - if you look at 'limited power' then 'only v women' is a -1. That has to be about right: about half the characters in most worlds will be women. We're taking a generic base. Sure if the game you are playing is 'The Super Sisters of Womanworld' (a very pleasant holiday destination, let me tell you) it is not worth that BUT no one reading the book would expect that as a base line.

 

Can anyone tell me in what genre 'light' accounts for more than half the attacks?

 

Only one you make up to prove me wrong.

[Naanomi]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

80s GI Joe Cartoon World, with the proliferation of Lasers on both sides of the battlefield. Damage came in three flavors... Laser, Karate Chop, and Knockback Damage from ninja moves or explosions.

[Hierax]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

Like Sean, I agree. Limitations should reduce the cost commensurate with the reduction in utility. I'm also a believer in examining the reciprocal. If +15 ED, only vs Fire, costs 10 points, this implies the cost of +15 ED, not vs Fire, should cost about 5 points, totaling 15 for +15 ED vs Fire and Not Fire.

 

I wouldn't allow a -2 limitation for not vs fire - not even close - so -1/2 for only vs fire seems inapppropriate.

 

Yes, in a "pay for what you get system" (like Hero claims to be and "should" be) the positive and negative of the Limitations should add up in a proportional manner of cost:

 

• 1 of 2 things should be 50%
  
• 1 of 3 things should be 33% and 2 of 3 things should be 67%
  
• 1 of 4 things should be 25% and 3 of 4 things should be 75%
  

For example, I've worked up some physical defenses as being only vs 1 of 3 types of possible physical damage (Cut, Puncture, Bash) each of them has to be worth a -2 Limitation on the rPD otherwise it's more expensive to take the Limited Defences than it is to take unlimited Defences:

[5e] Heavy Chainmail Armor:

 

Armor 6 rPD / 6 rED = 18pts.

(simplified version)

 

vs.

 

8 rPD / 8 rED Only vs. Cutting Attacks (-2) = 8 pts

6 rPD / 6 rED Only vs. Puncturing Attacks (-2) = 6pts

4 rPD / 4 rED Only vs. Bashing Attacks (-2) = 4 pts

Total = 18 pts

Any value less than -2 for 1 of 3 things wouldn't work. But you're unlikely to see such "high" Limitation values for such things in official Hero writeups.

 

The reciprocal of the Limited Powers should add up to the same as the non-Limited Power:

6 rPD / 6 rED Only vs. Puncturing Attacks (-2) = 6pts

6 rPD / 6 rED Not vs. Puncturing Attacks (-1/2) = 12pts

Total = 18 pts

 

vs.

 

Armor 6 rPD / 6 rED = 18pts.

Energy attacks are less clear-cut than physical attacks because there are more kinds (but that's a topic worth it's own thread).

 

Overall I find the official Limitations values are vastly under-rated and the powers sometimes terribly over-costed and, as a result, I feel I have to change them because it bugs me but I guess for a lot of Hero gamers this sort of thing doesn't bug them, so they just use it as written without worrying about it.

 

In the end, ya just gotta do what works for ya.

[Vondy]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

The whole thing is unthinking: the same sort of 'one size fits all' application of limitation...

 

It doesn't work it to say 'it depends on genre' because the rules are supposed to give you a starting point...

 

I believe I said it would be preferable to have a sidebar explaining how to set frequency limitations, or a genre by genre list for some example effects, no?

 

This assumes' date=' in effect, a different genre for every sfx, rather than any useful starting point...[/quote']

 

No, it assumes, the frequency of a given effect will be determined by genre.

 

Straight up: do all effects show up with the same frequency in all genres?

 

Yes or no?

 

My answer is a resounding "no."

 

You've brought no argument to the contrary.

 

You've just said you don't like it.

 

As such, and I say this in the nicest way possible: get over it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

Vondy, I was responding to a number of points in a number of posts: if I sounded like I was having a go at your point of view, I apologise, but I don;t get your view at all. Well, most of it.

 

Yes there should be an explanation as to how to allocate appropriate limitations, but, given that we rarely go below -2, that should be the default limitation for a limited damage type - it reduces the cost to 1/3 and so should reduce the utility by a similar amount: using -1/2 as the default value is silly. Even then very few genres will have any given attack that accounts for 1/3 of all damage types.

 

Of course all sfx are going to be based on the genre: pointless point. Moreover, changing the point of the thread to something different. The OP was saying, as was I, that the values given in the rules don't make sense.

 

What I'm doing is criticising the rules as not being useful here. They are not, in their current form. Of course if someone wants to actually put an argument as to why -1/2 is a useful base line limitation value, I'm all ears.

[Panpiper]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

My goodness Hierax. I am quite impressed with your handle on the mathematics of the mechanics.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

While I understand that the value given to the example Limitations are arbitrary, I have to say arbitrary does not have to mean pointless. If they were mostly set at -2, meaning they would only be effective 1/3 of the time, the examples would actually be about right, or pretty close, for many if not most genres. Sure, -2 is arbitrary and may need to be changed in certain genres/campaigns, but isn’t that better than an arbitrary -1/2 that is drastically inaccurate for most of the common genres played with Hero? Especially considering that newer players may not have a firm grasp on how to judge the worth of such a Limitation?

 

Oh, and Rep to Hierax for the math.

[Ice9]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

These values are all suggestions from the Limited Power Limitation...

...In a game where the PCs are in Sunken Atlantis where there is almost no fire to be heard of then "Only Vs Fire" is probably a -2 Limitation.

This may be the crux of the problem right here. Conditional Power does appear to suggest a -2 limitation for something which is very rare. However, that is not an appropriate limitation value. -2 means (at most) a 2/3 reduction in cost, appropriate for something which applies 1/3 of the time. Now maybe in some cases, 1/3 is rare, but for types of attacks, very few will occur more than 1/3 of the time.

 

Something which is actually quite rare, only occuring 10% of the time, should really have a -9 limitation value. Yes, -9. I would, however, say that this is only a full limitation for things - like defenses - where you don't get to pick when it gets used. Hierax has a good demonstration of why this is the case.

[Ice9]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

The whole thing is unthinking: the same sort of 'one size fits all' application of limitation...

 

It doesn't work it to say 'it depends on genre' because the rules are supposed to give you a starting point...

I believe I said it would be preferable to have a sidebar explaining how to set frequency limitations, or a genre by genre list for some example effects, no?

With "one size fits all", I believe Sean was actually referring to using the same values for PD/ED, Deflection, and Desolidification. Because different defense power encompass different subsets of attacks, using the same values makes no sense. For instance, in this hypothetical setting:

 

All attacks are evenly split between bullets, plasma explosives, and swords.

Only vs Bullets is a:

-0 limitation on Deflection - All deflectable attacks are bullets.

-1 limitation on PD - Half of physical attacks are bullets.

-2 limitation on Desolidification - 1/3 of all attacks are bullets.

[Phil]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

* Fire (Just Flames): Much more limited' date=' this is probably a quarter or energy attacks at most. So -3 for energy-specific, -7 for general, and maybe lower.[/quote']

 

I definitely agree, broadly speaking. However, I would be reluctant to go much beyond -2 or -3, just because the potential benefit is so far out of scale with the potential benefit if the power does come to be activated slightly more than you initially expect.

 

This highlights an issue with Hero in general - it is a command economy system, not a free market economy. And what I mean by that is you must determine the price of a product in advance, without knowing the exact frequency that it will turn out to be useful, whereas a system that awarded (or cost) points every time the power was actually used will inevitably be more accurately priced.

[dmjalund]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

I reckon that the limitation may be less than would be figured from above calculations, because behaviour can minimise the effect of limitations. (use different tactics if the enemy has plasma bolts rather than fire powers for example)

[Ice9]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

For attacks, or other powers you actively choose to use, that could often be the case. Teleportation that only works on Sunday, while certainly limited, probably isn't -6 limited.

 

But for defenses, it's actually more like the reverse. Once word gets around that Heat King is virtually immune to flames, any foe that can will be avoiding flame attacks against him - even foes that only have flame attacks will tend to target his teammates instead, unless the GM is feeling generous. So I think it'd be more likely that if anything, you'd have to worry about the power being activated less often than initially expected.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

We're not that good at modifier maths, unfortunately, and to an extent, you can understand why: +1/2 is not the opposite of -1/2...

 

+1/2 adds 50% to the cost, whereas -1/2 subtracts 33%. The 'Advantage v cost' graph is a straight line, whereas the 'Limitation v cost' graph is a curve. There are very few modifiers which exceed -2, but perhaps there should be more.

 

Whilst I like Phil's idea that this is a 'Command Economy System' that can be difficult to do and make the game sufficiently realistic: if there are 4 characters in the team and each has a different form of limited defence, the team will have to be facing at least 5 different attacks regularly: the 4 limited types and at least one other, so the cost of the defences should be no more than 20% of the full cost....or a -4 limitation - and as Ice9 points out, opponents with any nouse will soon realise who they can affect with various attacks and not target the ones that are invulnerable (or nearly so) to a given attack - further reducing the defence utility.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

My goodness Hierax. I am quite impressed with your handle on the mathematics of the mechanics.

 

Yeah, not only is Hierax one of your fellow Canadians and an all around great guy, he's also quite smart.

[Vondy]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

What I'm doing is criticising the rules as not being useful here.

 

I don't disagree with this. I think putting in a baseline limitation for a genre based frequency variable is incorrect. That's why I suggested it would be preferable not to do so, and instead, *only* provide guidelines, and perhaps some examples. At the same time, I'm still trying to figure out how one could possibly conceive of a one sized fits all frequency limitation value in the core rules, as opposed to the genre books, at all. Hence my position: if you're going to run Hero you need to get comfortable with your inner regnant self.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Why are Limited Defenses so costly?

 

I've often found the given values for 'Only vs SFX" lims to be insufficient in the past as well...in fact there is at least one old thread on the subject. While they might match up in some campaigns, in many others they penalize a character for concept -- its often more efficient to just buy unlimited defenses.

 

However, it is very difficult to give universal limitation values for something as variable as commonality across campaigns and genres.

 

It is very easy for the GM to make a judgment call and set values that are appropriate to their particular campaign. I wouldn't bat an eye at "Only vs Fire" being a -2 in most campaigns, for instance, but in a setting based around the four common elements that might be too much as Fire is likely to be more common.

 

The HERO System, Semper Gumby! Always Flexible.