Reflection - Active Points or DC

[GAZZA]

As written, someone with the power to Reflect 60 Active Point attacks would struggle to reflect a 12d6 Energy Blast with the +1/4 advantage "1/2 END". This is also the case with adjustment powers and Dispel, of course.

 

Is this a good or a bad thing? I would suggest that the concept of damage classes, if we ignore their mundane utility for comparing (eg) Blasts and Killing Attacks, is to separate "advantages that make attacks easier to use" (reduced END, possibly charges, many uses of trigger, and so on) from "advantages that make the attack more dangerous" (armour piercing, continuous, and so on). I think there is a possible case for making "interfere with attack" powers (such as adjustment powers, reflection, dispel, and so on) work on DC rather than active points.

 

Of course the problem then becomes inconsistent effects; if I use a Drain that affects all your fire powers, then it becomes a bit weird to affect your 10d6 Blast 1/2 END differently to your +10 PD/+15 ED Resistant Protection power.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Reflection - Active Points or DC

 

Seems like a decent idea for Reflection, but I wouldn't use it for Adjustment Powers except maybe for PURELY defensive applications (like that defensive option for Dispel).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Reflection - Active Points or DC

 

Reflect negates an incoming attack and potentially damages an opponent. Building that with defences and attacks would be expensive, even with Requires A Skill Roll.

[GAZZA]

Re: Reflection - Active Points or DC

 

Actually, it doesn't negate an incoming attack. You can only Reflect an attack that you have blocked, so it was already negated by the time you got to see if you could reflect it.

 

In any case you misunderstand - I'm not suggesting we build Reflect with defences and attacks, but rather that instead of specifying the maximum amount of Active Points that can be reflected, specify it as the maximum damage classes instead. Just as an idea. It's not clear to me that a 10d6 Blast with 0 END should be harder to reflect than one without reduced endurance.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Reflection - Active Points or DC

 

Actually, it doesn't negate an incoming attack. You can only Reflect an attack that you have blocked, so it was already negated by the time you got to see if you could reflect it.

 

In any case you misunderstand - I'm not suggesting we build Reflect with defences and attacks, but rather that instead of specifying the maximum amount of Active Points that can be reflected, specify it as the maximum damage classes instead. Just as an idea. It's not clear to me that a 10d6 Blast with 0 END should be harder to reflect than one without reduced endurance.

 

Good point. I keep forgetting you can block ranged attacks now as a matter of course. Mind you, I'm actually less comfortable with the block mechanic now than I used to be. personally I think Block should be a power, even if it is an everyman power. Thinking of it that way, what Reflect does is creates a variable special effect triggered attack. Which would mean we don't really need Reflect.

 

As to DC v CP, well, thorny one: I could see that it shouldn't be any more difficult to block a 10d6 1/2 END attack than a 10d6 (normal END) attack, but what about a 10d6 Armor Piercing attack? Shouldn't that be harder to stop? For that matter, if we are going to go and be logical about it, shouldn't a 10d6 (Reduced Penetration) attack be EASIER to block?

 

Modifiers that affect damage could potentially be included when calculating reflection potential and modifiers that don't could be left out BUT that makes things sludgy slow, or requires that people are organised enough to note the totals when they write up the character.

 

Not sure what my point is, but I'm confident I'm not alone in that.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Reflection - Active Points or DC

 

Modifiers that affect damage could potentially be included when calculating reflection potential and modifiers that don't could be left out....

That's exactly what basing it on DCs would do, since DCs are now defined as Active Points/5 when taking into consideration only Advantages that affect how damage is applied.

 

Incidentally, I'm considering aiding such DC/dice/AP calculations by making a note alongside each power, along with total Active Points, number of DCs, or dice of effect per DC, or total Active Points (including the rest of the Advantages) per DC, or just the total of Advantages that affect damage/DCs, or something like that.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Reflection - Active Points or DC

 

That's exactly what basing it on DCs would do, since DCs are now defined as Active Points/5 when taking into consideration only Advantages that affect how damage is applied.

 

Incidentally, I'm considering aiding such DC/dice/AP calculations by making a note alongside each power, along with total Active Points, number of DCs, or dice of effect per DC, or total Active Points (including the rest of the Advantages) per DC, or just the total of Advantages that affect damage/DCs, or something like that.

 

This is true. Good point.

 

I think that it will be important to include the 'combat point' calculation if you do that, as you suggest.

 

I suppose the counter argument is that you compare these two:

 

8d6 Blast 1/2 END

 

v

 

8d6 Blast AP

 

Same character point cost, but if you only have to pay to reflect the 'combat points' then the first can be reflected fully by a Reflection that can manage 8DC, the second can't. That means that you are adding utility to combat advantages (or taking it from noncombat ones) - they make the power more difficult to counter - whereas 'noncombat' advantages don't. That skews cost comparisons.

 

I understand the logic of DC reflecting, but you need to be aware of all the consequences.