DoT/Con

[Sean Waters]

So, damage over time against Constant+Uncontrolled+Costs END to Activate:

 

Killing Attack - Ranged 2d6, Damage Over Time (2 damage increments, damage occurs every three Segments, +2 1/4) (97 Active Points)

 

This does 2d6 Killing damage to a target at range and then another 2d6 Killing 3 segments later, then it stops. You pay END once when you activate the power.

 

Whereas:

Killing Attack - Ranged 2d6, Costs Endurance Only To Activate (+1/4), Constant (+1/2), Uncontrolled (+1/2) (67 Active Points)

 

This does 2d6 Killing damage to a target at range then (assuming that the attacker is SPD 4), another 2d6 Killing 3 segments later, and it KEEPS GOING. You pay END once when you activate the power.

 

The second one has to have a reasonably common/obvious way to stop it, the first doesn't.

 

Cost wise, the first one is 97 points. The second one is 67 points. Does that seems a bit, well, wrong to you? The second way seems (generally) to be much more useful: it is true that the target may be able to stop the damage before it repeats, but that is probably going to take at least a little trial and error, and, if they can not work it out, it just keeps on going. It costs about 2/3 of the 'price' of the first one.

 

Now Damage over Time is a nice idea - it enables us to define a damage effect quite precisely BUT it seems to me it costs too much. I've used 3 segments/SPD 4 as being pretty common, but even if we use 6 segments, the cost is 75 points - still rather more. DoT may be good for low SPD characters, it is not good for high SPD characters. AND this is the minimum number of damage applications - increasing the number ramps up cost.

 

Thoughts?

[bigbywolfe]

Re: DoT/Con

 

My first thought is that personally I wouldn't allow "Cost END Only to Activate" on a Constant, Uncontrolled damaging Power. But that doesn't speak to point balance for the system of course.

[Sean Waters]

Re: DoT/Con

 

I used CEOTA as it most closely mirrors the effect of DoT, but I take your point. Mind you with END being so cheap, get rid of the 7 points CEOTA adds and you can have 35 more END to power it - that is 2 repetitions, on (nearly) 3 seperate attacks for the same 'price' - still a whole lot cheaper than DoT.

[Daltwisney]

Re: DoT/Con

 

First off, CEOTA is pretty much redundant here. An Uncontrolled power already feeds off a pool of END spent when the power is first applied. And the power continues until that pool runs out of END. What you seem to be aiming for is a bastardized version of Reduced END cost, already cited as a warning flag for Uncontrolled powers.

 

Both power constructs require a reasonably common and obvious method of deactivating the power (for DoT, see 6e1, p 330) so that consideration isn't an issue.

 

What you are seeing as "Method B is cheaper than Method A" is really "Method A is more expensive than Method B". Damage over Time is primarily intended to simulate effects that occur over a prolonged period. By shortening the period, you are jacking up the cost.

[Sean Waters]

Re: DoT/Con

 

First off, CEOTA is pretty much redundant here. An Uncontrolled power already feeds off a pool of END spent when the power is first applied. And the power continues until that pool runs out of END. What you seem to be aiming for is a bastardized version of Reduced END cost, already cited as a warning flag for Uncontrolled powers.

 

Both power constructs require a reasonably common and obvious method of deactivating the power (for DoT, see 6e1, p 330) so that consideration isn't an issue.

 

What you are seeing as "Method B is cheaper than Method A" is really "Method A is more expensive than Method B". Damage over Time is primarily intended to simulate effects that occur over a prolonged period. By shortening the period, you are jacking up the cost.

 

I had not spotted that DoT requires the same 'common way to deactivate' that Uncontrolled does - rep for that when I'm able. That just makes it worse though, IMO.

 

I used COETA because then you get two builds that are nigh identical in effect, but very different in cost. Whilst it is true that reducing the time period increases cost, I would say it is still a reasonable comparison - to get DoT to the same real cost as the alternative build you have to cause damage once per turn.

 

I now about the metarule that says (and I paraphrase) 'you should always go with the most expensive build' - what I'm saying though is not that we should scrap DoT, but simply that we might want to look at the cost of it, using a previously common build as a starting point.

 

Don't get me wrong - I like what you can do with DoT - I think it is very useful - but it does make you wonder why you need both 'Uncontrolled' and DoT and whether the costing implications are fine tuned enough.

[director13]

Re: DoT/Con

 

A related issue is comparing the cost of DoT versus Compound, Linked powers with Extra Time and costs no end on the linked powers. In the 2-3 instance field, real costs are cheaper with the compound power version. At the 3 instance version, both linked versions go off at the same time, as opposed to chaining off each other.

 

Of course, it's been demonstrated that the subtleties of DoT continue to escape me.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: DoT/Con

 

First let me say I have only skimmed over DoT (and I don't have it in front of me now), so I might be missing something as I shoot my mouth off here, but...

 

My understanding of Continuous Uncontrolled powers are that they only last as long as the END you put into them, so Cost END only to Activate is already implied. But if you want the power to last 4 segments, then you spend 4 segments worth of END when you activate the power; then it runs itself. This is why you never allow 0 END to be purchased with Cont. Unc., unless there is a defined amount of time the thing lasts. And there is has to be a way to shut the power down early too, so if the target cancels the power before it has run its course, that END is lost.

 

That said, the DoT version does seem a bit overpriced compared to the Cont. Unc. version, especially with how cheap END is in 6E. The only reason it might not be is that I see this as the best way to model poison, which is going typically going to be a small RKA with NND & Does BDY advantages as well, so the extra advantages piled on by DoT won't contribute as much to the overall cost of the power as you might guess at first blush.

[Sean Waters]

Re: DoT/Con

 

First let me say I have only skimmed over DoT (and I don't have it in front of me now), so I might be missing something as I shoot my mouth off here, but...

 

My understanding of Continuous Uncontrolled powers are that they only last as long as the END you put into them, so Cost END only to Activate is already implied. But if you want the power to last 4 segments, then you spend 4 segments worth of END when you activate the power; then it runs itself. This is why you never allow 0 END to be purchased with Cont. Unc., unless there is a defined amount of time the thing lasts. And there is has to be a way to shut the power down early too, so if the target cancels the power before it has run its course, that END is lost.

 

As has been pointed out to me, both Uncontrolled and DoT require a way for the target (or a third party) to shut the power down early.

 

Here's my understanding of the END thing...

 

Continuous uncontrolled definitely requires END - unless you have END power modifiers: say the power would normally cost 6 END per phase - you could start it with 24 END dedicated to it and it will last 4 phases.

 

If it has COETA then you just pay 6 END (to activate it) and it keeps going until stopped (or a time limit is reached) - JUST like DoT.

 

If it has 0 END then you pay no END and it keeps going until stopped (or a time limit is reached).

 

That said' date=' the DoT version does seem a bit overpriced compared to the Cont. Unc. version, especially with how cheap END is in 6E. The only reason it might not be is that I see this as the best way to model poison, which is going typically going to be a small RKA with NND & Does BDY advantages as well, so the extra advantages piled on by DoT won't contribute as much to the overall cost of the power as you might guess at first blush.[/quote']

 

DoT has a lot of interesting options for modelling specific concepts - and for that reason I like it. My issue is just about cost and utility compared to uncontrolled.

 

That leads to confusion over when you should use one and when you should use the other - bearing in mind, when you build a power that does damage quickly over time it will almost always be cheaper to use uncontrolled.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: DoT/Con

 

As has been pointed out to me, both Uncontrolled and DoT require a way for the target (or a third party) to shut the power down early.

 

Here's my understanding of the END thing...

 

Continuous uncontrolled definitely requires END - unless you have END power modifiers: say the power would normally cost 6 END per phase - you could start it with 24 END dedicated to it and it will last 4 phases.

 

If it has COETA then you just pay 6 END (to activate it) and it keeps going until stopped (or a time limit is reached) - JUST like DoT.

 

This is why I wouldn't allow COETA any more than I would allow 0 END with a Cont. Unc. power. If there is a reasonable defined time limit, I might let it go, but nothing open ended. I will have to tinker with some powers using the DoT and Cont. Unc. approaches though before I can make any informed comments.

[Sean Waters]

Re: DoT/Con

 

This is why I wouldn't allow COETA any more than I would allow 0 END with a Cont. Unc. power. If there is a reasonable defined time limit' date=' I might let it go, but nothing open ended. I will have to tinker with some powers using the DoT and Cont. Unc. approaches though before I can make any informed comments.[/quote']

 

This is a sensible approach but bear in mind that you can pick up 30 END for 6 points these days - enough to keep a 60 AP attack 'burning' for 5 full phases - that is actually much less, cost wise, than COETA or 0 END would cost on such a power - which still leaves ConUnc (Constant Uncontrolled) as a cheaper and at least as effective option. More, I suppose, to the point - for a 'reasonable' comparison, you only need 6 additional points of END to make the ConUnc power work for as long as the DoT power - and that is very cheap, especially as END costs 1 point for 5 END these days.

[Doc Samson]

Re: DoT/Con

 

While I love the concept, I have had some issues incorporating DoT into my campaign. Not even comparing to CEotA Continuous Uncontrolled, I don't think DoT compares well to normal unadvantaged attacks. It either seems not worth the points compared to a power without the advantage or totally broken, depending on how many increments you buy. My chart below assumes the power doesn't have the increments spread out past 1 Turn (in my case none of my players were interested in a DoT that lasted longer than a 1 or 2 Turn combat). While the book recommends AVAD and Penetrating when not using the "defense only applies once" option, this seems to only makes the divide even larger.

 

Example DoTs:

 

2 damage increments, damage occurs every six segments, defense only applies once (+1¾)

2d6 Blast x 2 increments = 4d6 total = 27.5 APs

5½d6 normal Blast = 27.5 APs

Conlcusion: less damage than an unadvantaged Blast of the same APs and takes a turn to do full damage and can be negated

 

3 damage increments, damage occurs every four segments, defense only applies once (+2½)

2d6 Blast x 3 increments = 6d6 total = 35 APs

7d6 normal Blast = 35 APs

Conlcusion: less damage than an unadvantaged Blast of the same APs and takes a turn to do full damage and can be negated

 

4 damage increments, damage occurs every three segments, defense only applies once (+3½)

2d6 Blast x 4 increments = 8d6 total = 45 APs

9d6 normal Blast = 45 APs

Conlcusion: less damage than an unadvantaged Blast of the same APs and takes a turn to do full damage and can be negated

 

6 damage increments, damage occurs every other segment, defense only applies once (+4½)

2d6 Blast x 6 increments = 12d6 total = 55 APs

11d6 normal Blast = 55 APs

Conlcusion: slightly more damage than an unadvantaged Blast of the same APs but takes a turn to do full damage and can be negated

 

6 damage increments, damage occurs every segment, defense only applies once (+5)

2d6 Blast x 6 increments = 12d6 total = 60 APs

12d6 normal Blast = 60 APs

Conclusion: same damage as an unadvantaged Blast of the same APs but takes a turn to do full damage and can be negated

 

12 damage increments, damage occurs every segment, defense only applies once (+6)

2d6 Blast x 12 increments = 24d6 total = 70 APs

14d6 normal Blast = 70 APs

Conclusion: potentially broken level of damage despite being spread out over a turn and possible negation

[Sean Waters]

Re: DoT/Con

 

Interesting analysis. The modifier does look really useful but them more I see of it the more I am concerned about the cost balance - and this crystallises that view even more.

[Doc Samson]

Re: DoT/Con

 

I could almost accept the costs being equal for equal damage attacks if the only difference was that damage was spread out a bit (the net result being the same) but I couldn't see any of my players creating a Blast that has a "reasonably common and obvious set of circumstances that will turn it off or negate it" without wanting some points back. Despite the coolness factor, I see this getting very little use in our games. We will probably just continue to define poisons and acids as we had before (Continuous Uncontrolled or just via SFX).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: DoT/Con

 

I could almost accept the costs being equal for equal damage attacks if the only difference was that damage was spread out a bit (the net result being the same) but I couldn't see any of players creating a Blast that has a "reasonably common and obvious set of circumstances that will turn it off or negate it" without wanting some points back. Despite the coolness factor' date=' I see this getting very little use in our games. We will probably just continue to define poisons and acids as we had before (Continuous Uncontrolled or just via SFX).[/quote']

 

Even without some means of turning off the power, doing 12d6 all up front seems more valuiable than having the results of that 12d6 attack spread over a turn. The former will provide a possibility of stunning the target, and take him down faster, so it is more valuable.

 

I wonder whether some of the problem is the flat modifier for "defenses only apply once". Perhaps that should increase the advantage for the number of increments of damage. It's clearly more valuable for an attack that will take effect 12 times than for one that will onlyt take effect twice, as it effectively converts damage past a certain point to an NND against which the target has no defenses.

[Sean Waters]

Re: DoT/Con

 

It is a bit worrying that we have a thread where everyone seems to be agreeing - are there no dissenting voices?

[Doc Samson]

Re: DoT/Con

 

It is a bit worrying that we have a thread where everyone seems to be agreeing - are there no dissenting voices?

I was going to play my own Devil's Advocate and say perhaps for long term attacks (such as a disease or other chronic ailment) it is a good system but the "reasonably common and obvious set of circumstances that will turn it off or negate it" requirement makes any effect intended to last out of combat trivial. Drains (with long return rates) and Transforms remain better for building long-term effects.

 

IMHO to make DoT balanced, a DoT's damage/ effects should be increasingly (slightly) higher than that of a standard attack as the time between increments increases and the negation circumstances should be an option in the way that NND is optional for AVAD.