When sfx lie

[bigbywolfe]

Re: When sfx lie

 

People keep harping on the fact that it is a poor match of Mechanics to SFX. So what? That really has nothing to do with the issue of “SFX lying” which will never happen if the Players and GM are on the same page.

[Markdoc]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Unless, as indicated, you model it that way simply to get a guage on how many points you intend to charge for invulnerability and then play it, in game, straight as invulnerability...

 

Just wanted to add that to keep its profile there. After all - if you, the GM, agree with a player that what he has bought makes him invulnerable then it should, in play, make him invulnerable.

 

Yep, I understand that part - it's just that DCV is a really poor gauge for that purpose, since it only protects you against attacks that you can react to (ie have normal DCV against) and which are not area effect. As I've noted, I'm not keen on the whole idea of "invulnerability" in my games, but if a GM were to allow it, then working out how much it would take to cver any reasonable damage and setting the cost there seems to be a reasonable approach. But if you were to price it, you are going to get more consistent results using the tricked out desolid, or lots of rDEF/DEF to gauge where the price should be. DCV is going to give you a very different number in most cases (though here, we've slipped from discussing SFX to discussing mechanisms )

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Is TK BoECV appropriately constructed? Why is ArachidMan able to dodge Corporal Punishment's mighty blows' date=' ElectroLass' lighning bolts and LaserMan's LaserEyes, but not a thrown rock?[/quote']

 

Ah, but he's not dodging! He's "invulnerable" remember? All of the attacks "hit him" by the SFX definition. Your question is an excellent example of precisely why poorly matched SFX and powers are confusing.

 

The better question is why a thrown rock can hurt him when the other attacks can't. The answer is: DCV doesn't work against ECV. As to if that's appropriate, I can't see why not: the Mentalist who can hit the target no-one else can because "she can read his mind and knows where he's planning to move" is a staple of the comics - Psylocke's always saying it, for example. A better question would be "why does a thrown rock hurt him, when a bullet or a mighty fist does not ... even though according to sfx, all three hit". The answer of course is that extra DCV is a really poor match for passive defences. I've noted several times it can work perfectly well for "active" defences.

 

 

This is the more significant issue to me. You haven't actually created "invulnerability". The character will take damage if he's out of combat' date=' since he's at 0 DCV. Hmmm...I'm reminded of Marvel's Gladiator. Disrupt his "invulnerability" by shaking his confidence or by psionic dampers, and he's not so invulnerable any more. Still, if the SFX were "he's invulnerable", then I think the in-game interaction should match this. The attack "misses" and due to SFX does not pass beyond the invulnerable body of the target. Similarly, if a character with +30 PD and +30 ED with the SFX "he twists out of the way" interposes himself, I question whether the attack that does no damage due to his extra defenses should actually be stopped. By SFX, didn't he twist out of the way?[/quote']

 

This is the exact same issue to me. 30 PD/ED is a poor match for dodge - since it'll work perfectly well if the character is entangled, falls out of a plane, is in the centre of a giant explosion or is attacked while unconscious. You could improve it by making it +30PD/ED (only while capable of dodging), but it's probably far cheaper to simply buy some extra DCV.

 

All of this brings us back to Sean's original point: while you can in theory assign pretty much any SFX to a power, in general, it makes much more sense to assign one that maps reasonably well.

 

cheers, Mark

[Phil]

Re: When sfx lie

 

As I've noted' date=' I'm not keen on the whole idea of "invulnerability" in my games, but if a GM were to allow it, then working out how much it would take to cver any reasonable damage and setting the cost there seems to be a reasonable approach. [/quote']

 

If a character was to have an Invulnerability schtick - a genuine character theme rather than just one of a suite of abilities - I'd be inclined to put in multiple elements, just to be sure: lots of DEF, maybe some limited Desolid, some Damage Negation AND some extra DCV too, just for good measure. That's probably the only way I'd allow that particular SFX to apply to DCV though.

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Unless, as indicated, you model it that way simply to get a guage on how many points you intend to charge for invulnerability and then play it, in game, straight as invulnerability...

 

Just wanted to add that to keep its profile there. After all - if you, the GM, agree with a player that what he has bought makes him invulnerable then it should, in play, make him invulnerable.

 

 

If I spend 40 points on DCV more than anyone else, I'm not going to get hit very often, because I'm +8 DCV and everyone needs a '3' to hit me.

 

Does that mean I should just write down on the character sheet '40 points: Invulnerable'?

 

Does it hell. What about the poor schmuck who paid 60 points for 3/4 physical damage reduction - he's only 3/4 invulnerable and only to physical attacks and he paid 60 points for it. And he still takes KB.

 

If you want 'invulnerable' then pay for it. Sure you can use the 'absolute effect rule' but the absolute effect of 'very high DCV' is that you do not get hit by individually targeted attacks whilst free to move' - so let's not even bother rolling if someone throws a punch. It doesn't mean 'Can not take damage from OCV based effects'.

 

That is why we have a point based system - so that things balance out. It doesn't work to say 'OK, you're unhittable by individually targeted attacks when you are able to move freely, so we'll treat that is if you can not be hurt'. It means no such thing. Sure the point based system can be abused but it sets the baseline for balance. Going off on one and deciding that we are going to introduce 'invulnerability ' to the system for 40 points (if I've correctly understood what you are saying) does mean that you're not playing Hero any more: I've got DnD books up in the loft somewhere - doesn't mean I'm playing it.

 

Sweeping changes to game balance like that mean that there is no reasonable basis of comparison between what you are playing and what another group is playing. I know that the book incessantly reminds us that we can change anything we like, and so you can - but it means that what you are then playing is not a useful metric for addressing issues in the rules most other people are playing.

 

Now if you want to play that way, cool. Be happy. But what you're really doing is making it up as you go along - no bad thing, perhaps, but you're going to have to be a darned good GM to avoid all the pitfalls that Hero has spend six editions ironing out, and all the issues it currently addresses - if played straight out of the book.

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

anyone besides me notice the absence of the OP now ?

 

Busy week

[Markdoc]

Re: When sfx lie

 

If a character was to have an Invulnerability schtick - a genuine character theme rather than just one of a suite of abilities - I'd be inclined to put in multiple elements' date=' just to be sure: lots of DEF, maybe some limited Desolid, some Damage Negation AND some extra DCV too, just for good measure. That's probably the only way I'd allow that particular SFX to apply to DCV though.[/quote']

 

In one of our early games, we actually had a PC whose shtick was invulnerability: he bought a bunch of DEF, some power defence and life support. In theory he could still be hurt by exotic attacks like NNDs, but he was to all intents and purposes, invulnerable, and if the GM had wanted to wave the fiat wand and say "totally invulnerable" it would not have changed the game dynamic significantly. Of course having sunk most of his points into being invulnerable, he couldn't actually do much and was retired after only a couple of months of play. Amusingly his replacement was a character who could fly really well - but otherwise couldn't do much. He didn't last very long either

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

People keep harping on the fact that it is a poor match of Mechanics to SFX. So what? That really has nothing to do with the issue of “SFX lying” which will never happen if the Players and GM are on the same page.

 

 

What is a lie? No, let's not go there...

 

Let us go to 'How do you know they are all on the same page?' If you've been playing together for years and evolved your playstyle so that you know and accept each other's shorthand, you can be confident of singing from the same hymn sheet. However, many people - and all new players - will not have that. I'm not saying that it is wrong to decide that an extra (x) DCV equals invulnerability, I'm saying it is irresponsible to suggest that DCV can work that way without discussing the issue in full - and the rules are arguably overlong as it is.

 

There seems to be a move here to suggest - in some cases - that sfx are 'king' that they cannot lie because they are always the purest expression of truth and that everything else better get in line behind, or else (OK, perhaps I'm employing hyperbole a little too freely there...), but I do not subscribe to that view - and neither do the rules. SFX is what a power or other mechanic looks like in game. They can provide MINOR advantages in some situations - so long as those advantages are balanced by MINOR limitations in some situations. HERO does not suggest we come up with a concept and sfx and then just spend an appropriate number of points on it. I might as well say that I'm buying 50 points of Blast and calling that invulnerability because I can shoot any incoming attack before it hits me. It is a concept with a viable sfx, but is simply is not how the 'Blast' power works.

 

To my mind if a particular sfx misrepresents what is happening mechanically - as 'DCV=Invulnerability' does in my opinion, it lies.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

If I spend 40 points on DCV more than anyone else, I'm not going to get hit very often, because I'm +8 DCV and everyone needs a '3' to hit me.

 

Does that mean I should just write down on the character sheet '40 points: Invulnerable'?

 

Does it hell. What about the poor schmuck who paid 60 points for 3/4 physical damage reduction - he's only 3/4 invulnerable and only to physical attacks and he paid 60 points for it. And he still takes KB.

 

OK. You as GM say that 40 'extra' points of DCV are not enough. Depending on the game that might mean a significant overall amount of points sunk into the power. That might compare more favourably to your 60 point example.

 

I never set a limit. I just said that if there was a limit set based on DEX then both player and GM should be able to agree about the in-play consequences - even if that was effective invulnerability. As GM I do have to be looking at relative effects and based on how many posts you make (along with the rest of us) on changing or amending the rules, I'd say six editions have not been enough to get the balance quite right yet.

 

I am making the point that the GM can use several metrics if they want to introduce something absolute into the game. Some ARE better than others but none of them are absolutely invalid.

 

Personally I dont like absolute effects at all - so I would not be making that agreement with a player unless the invulnerability came with some pretty interesting caveats for gameplay. As for NPCs, I dont really care about balancing points, if I dont want the NPC hurt I dont really care what the players roll or what powers they have - I care about how they approach the problem I set them. I am the only absolute in the game and if I dont use that well, then no-one will want to play in my games...that's my incentive.

 

That is why we have a point based system - so that things balance out. It doesn't work to say 'OK' date=' you're unhittable by individually targeted attacks when you are able to move freely, so we'll treat that is if you can not be hurt'. It means no such thing. Sure the point based system can be abused but it sets the baseline for balance. Going off on one and deciding that we are going to introduce 'invulnerability ' to the system for 40 points (if I've correctly understood what you are saying) does mean that you're not playing Hero any more: I've got DnD books up in the loft somewhere - doesn't mean I'm playing it.[/quote']

 

Well, apart from the 40 point thing (that was your metric). As I said before, I always shrink from the 'you're not playing HERO anymore' arguments. As far asa I am concerned, if the game I am playing uses HERO as it's base, then I am playing HERO...

 

You had your coffee this morning?

 

Sweeping changes to game balance like that mean that there is no reasonable basis of comparison between what you are playing and what another group is playing. I know that the book incessantly reminds us that we can change anything we like' date=' and so you can - but it means that what you are then playing is not a useful metric for addressing issues in the rules most other people are playing.[/quote']

 

Back to the portability between campaigns thing. I dont expect the characters in my game to necessarily fit into anyone else's - one of the accommodations I made when I play HERO. I would not allow a character into my game just because another GM reckoned it was OK for their game.

 

Now if you want to play that way' date=' cool. Be happy. But what you're really doing is making it up as you go along - no bad thing, perhaps, but you're going to have to be a darned good GM to avoid all the pitfalls that Hero has spend six editions ironing out, [/quote']

 

I could take exception to the 'you're just playing make believe, I'm roleplaying' implication, but I wont, coz I have just had my coffee AND a nice crossant.

 

and all the issues it currently addresses - if played straight out of the book.

 

And that is one of the big problems with HERO that we all identify, it is incredibly difficult to play, straight out of the book. The system plays best if the GM makes the necessary decisions about his game before he lets the players loose and, that is true even when it is simply 15 years of experience telling you what you will and will not allow a player to do or have in your game.

 

Doc

[torchwolf]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I can see some possible situations in a game where extra DCV bought with IPE might work, especially when it comes to speedsters:

"I'm So Fast You Can't See Me Move": +8 DCV, IPE. This would be interpreted by me as a GM something like this: "OK, Megamonochrome, your Bolt of Ultimate Blackness seemed to hit Speedo dead-on, but he didn't even flinch. In fact, he's grinning at you. Oh, and you also notice that the corner limestone building now has a big hole in it - a wide-eyed little boy is having a peep out his new window."

This would probably tell my players that a) the Bolt passed harmlessly through Speedo, or never hit Speedo. They couldn't know, however, if it was due to DCV (his actual Power used), Desolidification (vibration harmlessly through the Bolt at hyperspeed), or some other Power. They would be aware that they would probably have to change their tactics, though (as well as being careful about where missed blasts end up).

 

Personally, I would probably not allow the "Invulnerable" description or sfx for DCV for much the same reasons: it doesn't jibe with the way I want to describe game mechanics in effect (even though they might not be obvious as to exactly how they are originally built). YMMV.

[Utech]

Re: When sfx lie

 

GM: "OK, actually Corporal Punishment misses, but he sees his attack bounce off - he's apparently invulnerable to bullets!"

Mind Lass. "OK, my TK is BOECV. I hit him with a thrown rock."

GM: "Ummmm, well, he's invulnerable to bullets, and Mighty Man's steel crushing blows ... but not to thrown rocks."

Congratulations, Markdoc, you've knocked the stuffing out of that straw man! I doubt he'll come up again. (I hope not. I'm tired of seeing him.)

 

Let's start again:

GM: "Invulnerable Man smiles a wicked smile as Corporal Punishment's bullets bounce off his chest. Clearly he was ready for the attack. You'll have to catch him unawares or aim better if you want to do any damage."

Mind Lass: "OK, my TK is BOECV. I hit him with a thrown rock."

GM: "He wouldn't very well be called Invulnerable Man if he weren't a tough nut to crack! He's a nut all right. And plenty tough. Roll to hit."

Mind Lass: "How's that?"

GM: "Not good enough. The rock bounces off his chin. At best, you helped remove a bit of scruff he missed with the morning shave."

 

As far as I can see' date=' DCV really doesn't map will to invulnerability - as your example shows: there's a ton of ways to get around it - many of which don't correspond to doing more damage or even hitting more accurately.[/quote']

There's nothing in HERO that maps perfectly to invulnerability. High ED, PD, Mental Defenses, Flash Defenses, Power Defenses, Desolidification . . . you name it, there's bound to be a way around it. Which means if your schtick is invulnerability, you'll need to cover more than one base. No one has argued that.

 

Whether you buy increased DCV or not, however, it's perfectly within the rules to describe any "miss" result as a "hit" that does no damage and call that "invulnerability" or "chin block" or "damn I'm good" or "the Force" or "cheese factor X" or "Larry". That's particularly appropriate for Bricks and similar characters whose schtick is all about being tough enough to bounce bullets and has nothing to do with being nimble. It's nothing but sfx and if it makes the game more fun for you to play, good on you! If you're not able to suspend your disbelief enough, then don't allow that particular sfx in your game.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Ah' date=' but he's [b']not[/b] dodging! He's "invulnerable" remember? All of the attacks "hit him" by the SFX definition. Your question is an excellent example of precisely why poorly matched SFX and powers are confusing.

 

I think you misinterpreted my comment. My question was why the BOECV thrown rock could hit the highly agile Arachnakid, who is dodging out of the way. He can avoid bullets and laser beams, but not thrown rocks? That BOECV TK is not properly matching its build to its SFX either, so the problem is just as much in the attack build (Invulnerable Man is hurt by thrown rock) as in the defense build. if Invulnerable Man had purchased defenses instead, he would still be injured by the Thorwn Rock NND. That's not a flaw in Invulnerable Man's build.

 

This is the exact same issue to me. 30 PD/ED is a poor match for dodge - since it'll work perfectly well if the character is entangled, falls out of a plane, is in the centre of a giant explosion or is attacked while unconscious. You could improve it by making it +30PD/ED (only while capable of dodging), but it's probably far cheaper to simply buy some extra DCV.

 

All of this brings us back to Sean's original point: while you can in theory assign pretty much any SFX to a power, in general, it makes much more sense to assign one that maps reasonably well.

 

The problem is that some SFX that map really well make for 8unplayable characters. High DCV Man has to contend with lucky rolls and AoE's. If he's actually a normal guy (3 PD/ED - 50% better than Joe on the Street) who is very hard to hit, he won't survive long in a 12 DC game. Even the Poster Child for high DCV on the Boards,Trerb's character Z'lf, has some defenses to ensure the occasional lucky shot spells defeat instead of death.

 

Ultimately, the game has to simulate the source material, and the source material often has these "no visible defense" characters survive amazing things. Combat Luck simulates that by making defenses out of luck, dodging or what have you.

 

DCV as invulnerability doesn't work so well, IMO, primarily because it doesn't actually result in Invulnerability due to the existence of attacks that bypass DCV. But the game doesn't really allow for invulnerability - everything scales. If I buy 75 PD/ED, I'm pretty much invulnerable...until someone comes along with an exotic attack. I can buy up all the exotic defenses, right down to 30 Hardened Impenetrable Resistant Smell Flash Defense...but someone will come along with an NND that bypasses my defenses eventually. If someone wants to allow invulnerability in their game, they have to price it out somehow. Because it's an absolute effect, that pricing isn't easy. "Desolid only to procect from damage, 0 END, Persistent" might do the trick. That costs less than 80 points, where 75% physical and energy damage reduction costs 120, but Desolid Man needs either a handwave or an ability to affect the solid world.

 

But 75% P and E reduction is also overpriced in many games. Consider a 12 DC Supers game. You start with 2 PD and 2 ED. You then either buy:

 

(a) 75% P and E reduction. Typical 12d6 attack does 2 BOD, 10 STUN. 8d6 Agent Blaster does 1 BOD, 6 STUN. 18d6 megaAttack does 4 BOD, 15 STUN.

( +40 PD, +40 ED, Resistant Typical 12d6 attack does nothing. 8d6 Agent Blaster does nothing. 18d6 megaAttack does 0 BOD, 21 STUN.

© +50 PD, 20 resistant; +50 ED, 20 Resistant Typical 12d6 attack does nothing. 8d6 Agent Blaster does nothing. 18d6 megaAttack does 0 BOD, 9 STUN.

 

And this is in the higher end of Hero campaigns. In a Heroic game, damage reduction is even less a bargain. Any fixed cost absolute effect will be overpriced in some games and underpriced in others. Setting a fixed cost for Invulnerability will be no different.

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Having had my coffee, I can't see why people would particularly want to create a power with an sfx that is misleading, unless it is to take advantage of any potential confusion i.e. give themselves an unpaid for advantage. At the heart of it, that is probably what I resent.

 

BTW: 75% DR also reduces the damage from a wide range of other attacks including NNDs and adjustment powers, so simply comparing it to physical and energy defences does not work well.

 

Moreover it is MORE efficient if your base Stun and Body are higher because it is not truly a defence - it is a multiplier for CON, BODY, STUN and REC (and regeneration/healing) etc: if you have 20 STUN and 3/4 DR, against the attacks it works on you have 80 stun - so you've 'gained' 60 stun (against, say, physical attacks). If you start with 40 stun then you 'gain' 120 stun against those attacks.

 

3/4 DR (phys, en and mental) cost 180 points. If you have 60 stun to start with, it pays for itself there and then (and then some) - it is like buying those characteristics up to 240 PLUS it protects against other sorts of attacks and makes you unstunnable and massively increases your apparent healing rate.

 

DR is misunderstood. Poor thing.

[Markdoc]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Congratulations, Markdoc, you've knocked the stuffing out of that straw man! I doubt he'll come up again. (I hope not. I'm tired of seeing him.)

 

Let's start again:

GM: "Invulnerable Man smiles a wicked smile as Corporal Punishment's bullets bounce off his chest. Clearly he was ready for the attack. You'll have to catch him unawares or aim better if you want to do any damage."

Mind Lass: "OK, my TK is BOECV. I hit him with a thrown rock."

GM: "He wouldn't very well be called Invulnerable Man if he weren't a tough nut to crack! He's a nut all right. And plenty tough. Roll to hit."

Mind Lass: "How's that?"

GM: "Not good enough. The rock bounces off his chin. At best, you helped remove a bit of scruff he missed with the morning shave."

 

Right. That's one approach - but now you are saying that by defining his levels in DCV with a certain special effect , he ALSO gets free levels in ECV or extra free PD. As GM, of course, you can do anything you want, but you are now playing a game very different from the majority of Hero system players. SFX is supposed to described what you power looks like, but the mechanics describe how it works, more or less. You're suggesting instead that clever definition of SFX can net you major, quantifiable advantages in how your power set functions.

 

There's nothing in HERO that maps perfectly to invulnerability. High ED' date=' PD, Mental Defenses, Flash Defenses, Power Defenses, Desolidification . . . you name it, there's bound to be a way around it. Which means if your schtick is invulnerability, you'll need to cover more than one base. No one has argued that.[/quote']

 

Agreed. This argument is not about "invulnerability" per se, but about poor matches between SFX and power set. You could for example, take a player with super-running and define it as "flight". Would you then allow the payer to take off from the ground? It's within the scope of his SFX, after all, and he's no more paid for it than Invulnerable man paid for extra ECV.

 

Whether you buy increased DCV or not' date=' however, it's perfectly within the rules to describe any "miss" result as a "hit" that does no damage and call that "invulnerability" or "chin block" or "damn I'm good" or "the Force" or "cheese factor X" or "Larry". That's particularly appropriate for Bricks and similar characters whose schtick is all about being tough enough to bounce bullets and has nothing to do with being nimble. It's nothing but sfx and if it makes the game more fun for you to play, good on you! If you're not able to suspend your disbelief enough, then don't allow that particular sfx in your game.[/quote']

 

I certainly wouldn't allow either of the quoted examples in my game, but that's got less to do with suspension of disbelief and more to do with practical play: a poor match of SFX and powerset leads to all sorts of logical conundrums, many of which have already been noted. I like Hero system, precisely because a little thought at character creation means that as GM I know how the character works, which means actually running the game is a snap.

 

cheers, Mark

[Matt Holck]

Re: When sfx lie

 

The Brain has +2 DCV based on the idea that the attacker can't bring themselves to hit the the Brain

with the limitations

not versus automatons -1/4

The attacker can make an Ego Roll at -3 to ignore this extra DCV -3/4 (see saving throws)

[Markdoc]

Re: When sfx lie

 

I think you misinterpreted my comment. My question was why the BOECV thrown rock could hit the highly agile Arachnakid' date=' who is dodging out of the way. [/quote']

 

See my response to this point in the prior post: the SFX is "I already know where he's going to dodge to, before he acts on the thought". Not a particularly uncommon shtick - in fact, one I have already encountered in the game.

 

Setting a fixed cost for Invulnerability will be no different.

 

I think you are missing my point: my comments are not about setting a cost for absolute advantages - indeed I have tried to stay away from that discussion, as it has little or nothing to do with Sean's OP. Let's try it another way. Generally invulnerability is though of as "really tough to hurt". I'm not fussed about NND, or AVLD or Force field or any sort of mechanism at all, I'm just thinking concept here. In contrast, not getting hit by attacks is generally thought of as being "hard to hit". Again, no mechanisms here, just general concepts: your SFX could be entirely unrelated to dexterity - you could be nimble, precognitive, out of phase or something that affects targetting you - whatever.

 

Now when it comes to mechanisms, "really tough to hurt" maps pretty simply to high defences. It doesn't actually matter what those defences are (Armour, rPD, DR, whatever) - it's still fairly simple mapping of concept. Likewise "hard to hit" maps pretty readily to DCV - conceptually. Now in theory, you can define "hard to hurt" as actually being "hard to hit" and vice versa ... but it's a poor mapping of SFX to powerset, as the various examples discussed here have so clearly shown.

 

cheers, Mark

[megaplayboy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Eh, I don't completely agree with that--what about "you have to hit him cleanly in order to hurt him, otherwise the blow will just glance off his defenses" DCV levels(on top of fairly strong static defenses)? The BOECV attack then becomes a "clean hit", the area effect is something that he can't really toughen up in one spot for, and the other examples, ditto. If you want to have the entangle not have to hit the higher DCV, a simple limitation will take care of that. By itself, it's an imperfect simulation of "all" forms of invulnerability--but to simulate the "I twist out of the way to avoid full damage", "I toughen up at the last minute in anticipation of the blow", and "nothing less than a clean hit will hurt me" type of limited/situational invulnerability, it's potentially useful and viable.

[Markdoc]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Eh' date=' I don't completely agree with that--what about "you have to hit him cleanly in order to hurt him, otherwise the blow will just glance off his defenses" DCV levels(on top of fairly strong static defenses)? The BOECV attack then becomes a "clean hit", the area effect is something that he can't really toughen up in one spot for, and the other examples, ditto. If you want to have the entangle not have to hit the higher DCV, a simple limitation will take care of that. By itself, it's an imperfect simulation of "all" forms of invulnerability--but to simulate the "I twist out of the way to avoid full damage", "I toughen up at the last minute in anticipation of the blow", and "nothing less than a clean hit will hurt me" type of limited/situational invulnerability, it's potentially useful and viable.[/quote']

 

Sure - I gave multiple ways in which DCV can be used to simulate difficulty in landing a solid hit in earlier posts: as a GM, I'd be good with any of them, even "He stops it with his hand", and including your suggestion above. Pretty much the only one I would NOT be good with is "Yep, you hit 'm smack in the face and it did nuthin'" - since it implies very strongly that a solid hit is not effective.

 

A good example of where I am going with this was my comment to my wife who was reading over my shoulder a couple of nights ago. In our current game, she belongs to a cult that teaches water-magic. I pointed out that although she can learn water-based attacks, she would not (in my game anyway) be allowed to learn a water-based attack that set things on fire - though technically there's nothing to stop you defining your attack's SFX as "a water blast that sets things on fire" - except common sense.

 

Just as I wouldn't go for that, I wouldn't go for SFX that stated "I'm invulnerable, except to attacks that hit me".

 

cheers, Mark

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: When sfx lie

 

A good example of where I am going with this was my comment to my wife who was reading over my shoulder a couple of nights ago. In our current game, she belongs to a cult that teaches water-magic. I pointed out that although she can learn water-based attacks, she would not (in my game anyway) be allowed to learn a water-based attack that set things on fire - though technically there's nothing to stop you defining your attack's SFX as "a water blast that sets things on fire" - except common sense.

 

How about a spell that separates the hydrogen from the oxygen so that the water explodes? That could set things on fire.

[Utech]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Right. That's one approach - but now you are saying that by defining his levels in DCV with a certain special effect ' date=' he ALSO gets free levels in ECV or extra free PD.[/quote']

When did I say that? It's obvious that anyone building a character meant to be "invulnerable" would buy more than DCV. Please, do not put words in my mouth.

 

Agreed. This argument is not about "invulnerability" per se' date=' but about poor matches between SFX and power set.[/quote']

No. This is an argument about between those who see "you don't get to roll damage dice" as equivalent to "invulnerable" and those who insist that "you don't get to roll damage dice" must equal "you missed".

 

You could for example' date=' take a player with super-running and define it as "flight". Would you then allow the payer to take off from the ground? It's within the scope of his SFX, after all, and he's no more paid for it than Invulnerable man paid for extra ECV.[/quote']

I wouldn't. Haven't suggested anything of the sort, either.

 

I like Hero system' date=' precisely because a little thought at character creation means that as GM I [b']know[/b] how the character works, which means actually running the game is a snap.

Excellent. Then you'll agree that thinking "if they can't roll any damage dice against my character, I'm invulnerable" is perfectly logical. You'll know how both how the character works and how the game mechanics function. You'll have expanded your horizons and opened up to another way to play. Snap on!

[Sean Waters]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Eh' date=' I don't completely agree with that--what about "you have to hit him cleanly in order to hurt him, otherwise the blow will just glance off his defenses" DCV levels(on top of fairly strong static defenses)? The BOECV attack then becomes a "clean hit", the area effect is something that he can't really toughen up in one spot for, and the other examples, ditto. If you want to have the entangle not have to hit the higher DCV, a simple limitation will take care of that. By itself, it's an imperfect simulation of "all" forms of invulnerability--but to simulate the "I twist out of the way to avoid full damage", "I toughen up at the last minute in anticipation of the blow", and "nothing less than a clean hit will hurt me" type of limited/situational invulnerability, it's potentially useful and viable.[/quote']

 

 

Is it though? If Shale (High DCV, sfx 'I tense up at the last minute in anticipation of the blow') throws himself in front of Penelope Pitstop so that the machine guns of the Ant Hill Mob can not perforate her pink perfection, is she actually protected? In order to actually prevent an attack from hitting he, doesn't he actually have to take the hit himself: it is one thing saying 'it looks like he takes the hit and ignores it', it is another to say that his sfx ACTUALLY allow him to stop an attack - he is not using Deflection, just DCV. If he's actually hit, then his DCV will not prevent damage from accruing to Shale, will it?

 

The problem here is that you EITHER say - oh go with the sfx - if he is not hurt when they fire at him then he's not hurt when he gets in the way of an attack OR

 

Well, he effectively reduced his DCV to the point where he WAS hit so he does take the damage - which is 'mechanically' right - you might suggest that as he is interposing this somehow prevents him from tensing up properly.

 

So you either grant a very useful ability that has not been paid for, change how DCV works with a house rule, or tell Shale's player that the build does not reflect the construct and he'd better think about doing it some other way.

 

That is not DENYING the concept, or stifling creativity - it is just explaining what DCV actually does.

 

For the record, I'm a lot less worried about DCV being a 'glancing hit' than a 'solid hit that does no damage' because it is reasonably clear to all concerned that the character is getting out of the way of the attack - and so, logically, teh attack could carry on and hit something behind the character. The sfx and powers work together reasonably well there.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Congratulations, Markdoc, you've knocked the stuffing out of that straw man! I doubt he'll come up again. (I hope not. I'm tired of seeing him.)

 

Let's start again:

GM: "Invulnerable Man smiles a wicked smile as Corporal Punishment's bullets bounce off his chest. Clearly he was ready for the attack. You'll have to catch him unawares or aim better if you want to do any damage."

Mind Lass: "OK, my TK is BOECV. I hit him with a thrown rock."

GM: "He wouldn't very well be called Invulnerable Man if he weren't a tough nut to crack! He's a nut all right. And plenty tough. Roll to hit."

Mind Lass: "How's that?"

GM: "Not good enough. The rock bounces off his chin. At best, you helped remove a bit of scruff he missed with the morning shave."

 

 

There's nothing in HERO that maps perfectly to invulnerability. High ED, PD, Mental Defenses, Flash Defenses, Power Defenses, Desolidification . . . you name it, there's bound to be a way around it. Which means if your schtick is invulnerability, you'll need to cover more than one base. No one has argued that.

 

Whether you buy increased DCV or not, however, it's perfectly within the rules to describe any "miss" result as a "hit" that does no damage and call that "invulnerability" or "chin block" or "damn I'm good" or "the Force" or "cheese factor X" or "Larry". That's particularly appropriate for Bricks and similar characters whose schtick is all about being tough enough to bounce bullets and has nothing to do with being nimble. It's nothing but sfx and if it makes the game more fun for you to play, good on you! If you're not able to suspend your disbelief enough, then don't allow that particular sfx in your game.

 

 

Congrats you're handing free extra advantages to abilities. There's no straw man here or even a credible attempt by you to create one. Your answer seems to be"just change the power to MAKE it fit." It is a poor fit because the mechanic is designed to do something else which has everything with being nimble/

[megaplayboy]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Sure - I gave multiple ways in which DCV can be used to simulate difficulty in landing a solid hit in earlier posts: as a GM' date=' I'd be good with any of them, even "[i']He stops it with his hand[/i]", and including your suggestion above. Pretty much the only one I would NOT be good with is "Yep, you hit 'm smack in the face and it did nuthin'" - since it implies very strongly that a solid hit is not effective.

 

A good example of where I am going with this was my comment to my wife who was reading over my shoulder a couple of nights ago. In our current game, she belongs to a cult that teaches water-magic. I pointed out that although she can learn water-based attacks, she would not (in my game anyway) be allowed to learn a water-based attack that set things on fire - though technically there's nothing to stop you defining your attack's SFX as "a water blast that sets things on fire" - except common sense.

 

Just as I wouldn't go for that, I wouldn't go for SFX that stated "I'm invulnerable, except to attacks that hit me".

 

cheers, Mark

 

I think one way to come close to the "you punch him in the face to no discernible effect" without misleading the player, and while keeping it consistent, would be to require an OCV vs. OCV roll to get the benefit of the extra DCV levels, then define the effect as a "casual chin block". You then let the PC make a perception roll to pick up on the various cues that indicate that ToughGuy's not actually invulnerable, just really good at anticipating and bracing for the opponents' attack(s).

[Markdoc]

Re: When sfx lie

 

When did I say that? It's obvious that anyone building a character meant to be "invulnerable" would buy more than DCV. Please' date=' do not put words in my mouth.[/quote']

 

Shrug. In that case, you're having a discussion with yourself and nobody else on this thread. We were talking about using improved DCV (and only DCV) to reflect "invulnerability". Now it seem's you're agreeing with my point that high DCV with the SFX "invulnerable" isn't a good fit and that you need other powers to simulate it. Well, why didn't you just say so at the beginning?

 

 

No. This is an argument about between those who see "you don't get to roll damage dice" as equivalent to "invulnerable" and those who insist that "you don't get to roll damage dice" must equal "you missed".

 

In your case, perhaps. Not mine, however, nor as far as I can see, anybody else's. It's already been mentioned at least twice that damage negation can cause a similar effect.

 

 

Excellent. Then you'll agree that thinking "if they can't roll any damage dice against my character' date=' I'm invulnerable" is perfectly logical. You'll know how both how the character works and how the game mechanics function. You'll have expanded your horizons and opened up to another way to play. Snap on![/quote']

 

This sentence makes no sense at all.

 

cheers, Mark

[torchwolf]

Re: When sfx lie

 

Of course any of the suggested ways of handling Invulnerability: DCV IPE would work excellently as long as everyone (GM and players) agree on how to represent that, but to me (and possibly the OP) the question is not whether it could be used as such in a game, but rather if it should be.

 

It does seem a bit counterproductive to base an "Invulnerable" concept on a game mechanic that doesn't exactly correspond to the desired end result - if nothing else it requires any or all of these redefinitions and/or reinterpretations just to make it work that way. It also makes me wonder a bit of other implications of this:

 

• the GM would have to be careful about the OCVs of this character's opponents, otherwise they will ruin his concept if the DCV is handling the mechanics (i.e., Invulnerablo is effectively only "generally", getting hurt once in a while by enemies with high enough OCVs)
  
• the character is not as "Invulnerable" when going on the offensive using certain maneuvers like Haymaker
  
• the character is not as invulnerable when totally surprised (OK, this may be meta-game explained as the need to focus or something similar) and in fact is probably downed when this happens
  

All this means the GM has to either disregard certain discrepancies, alter some mechanics, or flat out declare "it is an absolute effect" if the DCV way of defining "Invulnerable" is chosen. Granted, this may happen with almost any Hero build at some point, when any illogical consequence requires the GM to make a decision of rules applications, but I would think that when a way to represent something in the game is selected, care should be taken to avoid inconsistencies and/or later complications involving the rules at design time, not at game play time.

 

Just because you can purchase Telepathy as Detect Thoughts, Discriminatory, doesn't mean that is a viable or reasonable way to model telepathy, especially when the Telepathy Power covers the game mechanics well enough not to make you reinterpret or reinvent the ability.

 

On the costing issue - while 5-8 levels of DCV is expensive if made IPE, it is not a good indicator of the value of being "Invulnerable" since DCV has its cost derived from a different aspect of combat than the costs of defenses.