NND vs Barrier

[prestidigitator]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

Possible' date=' sure, but not [b']free[/b]. If you want the psychokinetic power to squeeze the air out of someone's lungs, with the only proviso is that you can see them, then you ought to buy at least LOS on the NND. If you want some sort of meson based NND ray that can go through any intervening barriers, then you ought to buy Indirect for it.

Isn't that what I said? "You could have a NND that's Indirect enough to get through...." As in, if you've applied the Indirect Advantage, this is how it might interact....

[dmjalund]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

what advantage would you put to a NND attack that is not affected by any defense it can penetrate?

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

what advantage would you put to a NND attack that is not affected by any defense it can penetrate?

 

NND is either completely blocked or unaffected. 6e refers to it as, "all-or-nothing".

[bigbywolfe]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

I'd be willing to bet that the powers in question were NND with the defense being Force Field or Force Wall in 5E and it's simply a matter of poorly translating them into 6E. I always thought Force Wall was treated more like a type of defense than like an object in 5E. For instance, an AoE attack that could surpass a Force Wall's defense would technically still center on where it was aimed beyond the Force Wall, not detonate at the Force Wall (a ruling which a lot of people ignored, but was semi-official with the usual GM discretion proviso).

[GAZZA]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

I'd be willing to bet that the powers in question were NND with the defense being Force Field or Force Wall in 5E and it's simply a matter of poorly translating them into 6E. I always thought Force Wall was treated more like a type of defense than like an object in 5E. For instance' date=' an AoE attack that could surpass a Force Wall's defense would technically still center on where it was aimed beyond the Force Wall, not detonate at the Force Wall (a ruling which a lot of people ignored, but was semi-official with the usual GM discretion proviso).[/font']

On the other hand you explicitly still needed Indirect to bypass your own Force Wall, so I'm not really sure that changed.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

On the other hand you explicitly still needed Indirect to bypass your own Force Wall' date=' so I'm not really sure that changed.[/quote']

 

Fair point. But in 5E didn't it also say that Force Walls were not air tight, so things like gas attacks built AoE and NND were not stopped unless you had Life Support linked to the FW? Then again, maybe that's partly the combination of AoE and NND...

[dsatow]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

Fair point. But in 5E didn't it also say that Force Walls were not air tight' date=' so things like gas attacks built AoE and NND were not stopped unless you had Life Support linked to the FW? Then again, maybe that's partly the combination of AoE and NND...[/quote']

 

This is still present in 6E1 pg 170 bottom of first column.

[Sean Waters]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

GAS ASIDE

Gas sxf still affect Barriers (and, for that matter, Desolidification - you still need to breathe) unless they are made airtight, which can be done by linking LS: self COntained Breathing to the Barrier. I don't like that mechanic - it implies that whatever is inside the barrrier does not need to breathe, or can breathe normally, whatever is outside. After all the barrier doesn't need to breathe.

 

That is not a cost thing, it is a mechanics thing. I'd have no problem if that was the intent: the barrier, if englobing, somehow generates it's own breathing gasses. I'd also allow you to buy 'LS: Self contained breathing' with the -1/2 limitation 'Requires Gas Exchange' - basically the barrier would allow oxygen in and CO2 out but not allow the passage of any other gasses - you would be safe from poison but you could still die in a vacuum (although there may be some delay as the barrier would trap some oxygen). This may also allow the character to 'breathe' underwater, so long as the water is sufficiently aerated. That is just a modification of LS though.

 

If you wanted to suffocate someone who was englobed, then I would require that you buy CE: Suffocation (from APG). Of course having a gas impermeable barrier could be a problem if you ever want to englobe yourself, so it is arguable that 'gas impermeable' should be a +0 modifier on the barrier power. That comes down to effective useage. I would still require a linked CE suffocation, personally.

 

Also on gasses, has anyone noticed that a number of useful AoE modifiers have disappeared from the core rules - Conforming and 2D. Conforming reappears in APG, but 2D seems to have gone, unless I'm missing it.

 

It would be nice to see a 'volume based' AoE modifier to properly account for gas and liquid attacks, but I can see how that might be awkward to rule on the fly. At present to 'do' a gas attack properly you really need to buy 'Conforming' twice - which makes it quite expensive.

END OF GAS ASIDE

[bigbywolfe]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

I'm missing something. Why would you need to buy Conforming twice?

[dmjalund]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

Allow the character to buy Suffocation (from APG: CE) as an adder to Barrier

[Sean Waters]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

I'm missing something. Why would you need to buy Conforming twice?

 

Conforming has two 'forms'. One simulates a gas: allows the AoE to seep through cracks, settle in depressions and such. It does not allow the AoE to exceed the area you have bought for it, so, if you set off a 6m radius gas attack in a 12 meter long, 2 metre wide corridor, it will only travel 6m from point of origin.

 

The other form of 'Conforming' allows the AoE to fill the available area, so long as it does not exceed the area in total - in the above example this sort of Conforming would allow the whole corridor to be flooded. To do gas 'properly' you need both.

 

There is another way to do 'basic' conforming: buy AoE (any area) and define the area as 'whatever area the attack lands in'.

 

I don;t think 'Conforming (Gas)' is worth +1/2, but perhaps someone can convince me otherwise.

[Sean Waters]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

Allow the character to buy Suffocation (from APG: CE) as an adder to Barrier

 

...er...indeed!

[Markdoc]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

Let me put it this way - to rule it the way you suggest' date=' NND always comes with free Indirect. Does that seem right to you? Normally, if there is a wall (even a window, which is a transparent wall) between you and the target, your attack must bust through the wall in order to reach the target. But since an NND does no body (usually, and in this case), an NND cannot break through a wall.[/quote']

 

Correct. An NND does not "break through" - it leaves no hole and does no damage. And by the RAW, NNDs can't go through walls:

AVAD attacks do not ignore Barriers or other obstacles (such as walls). Obstacles block AVADs like they would any other attack, unless the AVAD has an appropriate form of Indirect.

 

Note that's "big B" barrier, so it means the power.

 

I understand why that's in the rules - to avoid giving away a freebie +1/2, but it's always struck us as such an awkward ruling for NNDs, that we typically houserule it (allowing for special effects of course: it makes perfect sense for gas to be blocked by a wall). Otherwise, it's rather odd that your agony ray will go right through Juggernaut's impregnable armour ... but that he is perfectly safe if he's standing on the other side of a DEF0, BOD1 pane of glass.

 

The value of being able to shoot through walls, is to some extent compensated for by the fact that ... well, your attack shoots through walls, meaning you sometimes shoot things you didn't mean to, and that you need some sort of indirect sight to be able to exploit it, in most cases. The plus side (under this ruling) for a character with an NND is that they can safely shoot it through their own Barrier. The downside is that other people can shoot NNDs through your Barrier too. Given that the benefit of buying NND is that it ignores conventional defences, I don't have a problem with allowing it a degree of indirect - in as much as it simply ignores irrelevant defences.

 

For AVAD attacks that do BOD, they might ignore DEF, but still have to blow their way through walls and Barriers.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

Not often I disagree with you, Markdoc but...I think a lot of NNDs should, logically, be built with 'indirect', in which case that is the way they should be built. If the 'Agony Ray' should be able to penetrate a pane of glass (presumably without shattering it) then it needs to be indirect, or built as a Mental Blast or somesuch. Or buy a linked 4d6 Blast and define it as 'penetrating' so that the attack can do some physical damage too, to get through minor obstacles.

 

To be honest, I think NND is overused: it makes sense for some sort of poison attack, suffocation, that sort of thing, because it is easy enough to understand that if you can not breathe you will take damage and (at least to an extent) the amount of damage is consistent between individuals.

 

It doesn't really make any 'sense' for Maelstrom (sample character 6.2.227) to have a NND like this - Stun-Blast: Blast 6d6, NND (defense is ED Resistant Protection that Costs Endurance; +1)

 

Quite apart for the wft? of resistant protection that costs endurance, there is no explanation as to why this works - now before anyone gets their feathers up, I fully acknowledge that you don't NEED to define how powers work - all you need is a mechanic BUT from a role playing POV, having a handle on what is happening in game is helpful. Why is it that Maelstrom's Stun Blast affects Hardpoint straight through his armour, but if Hardpoint took off his armour and stood behind it, he would be fine?

 

Part of the reason we do not build exactly what we want is because we want attacks to remain effective. Refine a build with too many advantages that you probably wont need that often and the resultant damage is pathetic. Add 'Indirect (variable source point, same path) and 'Personal Immunity' to the attack (because it makes sense that the energy Maelstrom is composed of is not going to harm him) and the attack is down to 4d6+1 for the same 60 points that gets you a 6d6 NND.

 

The finessed build is appropriate - but the character will be spending a lot more on their attack than others in order to be competitive, or settling for lower damage.

 

There is nothing wrong with a house rule that NNDs are automatically indirect, but it is a balance issue: it makes Barriers a lot less useful and Entangles a lot more useful. It also means you have costing issues with 'Does Body' (why shouldn't that be indirect too? The agony ray causes you to have convulsions that cause actual damage - why shouldn't that ignore windows, like the stun only version does?). How do you build a NND that, logically, SHOULD be stopped by glass - like a spray of contact poison, or acid?

 

NND is fraught with issues anyway, so this one is no real biggie in the overall scheme of things, but it is an interesting one to mull over.

[Markdoc]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

Not often I disagree with you' date=' Markdoc but...I think a lot of NNDs should, logically, be built with 'indirect', in which case that is the way they should be built. If the 'Agony Ray' should be able to penetrate a pane of glass (presumably without shattering it) then it needs to be indirect, or built as a Mental Blast or somesuch. [/quote']

 

Oh, does mental blast get indirect for free?

 

The rules certainly don't suggest it does. And that's kind of what I mean. I agree that NNDs with goofy defences make their appearances, though as a GM I try to ensure any NNDs are at least appropriate. But experience tells me that letting NNDs bypass defences (including walls) while it might excite disapproval from a "rules purity" aspect doesn't seem to unbalance the game to any notable degree. And I can deal with the fact that NND can include a degree of indirect. Just as Mental blast doesn't seem to be unbalancing, even though it costs the same as NND - though it has multiple advantages (attacks vs DCMV, attacks vs a rare defence, no range modifier ... and, you suggest, a degree of indirect as well) which indicate it should cost more.

 

Part of the reason we do not build exactly what we want is because we want attacks to remain effective. Refine a build with too many advantages that you probably wont need that often and the resultant damage is pathetic. Add 'Indirect (variable source point, same path) and 'Personal Immunity' to the attack (because it makes sense that the energy Maelstrom is composed of is not going to harm him) and the attack is down to 4d6+1 for the same 60 points that gets you a 6d6 NND.

 

The finessed build is appropriate - but the character will be spending a lot more on their attack than others in order to be competitive, or settling for lower damage.

 

Right and this is part of the reason we're OK with NNDs that can (in some cases) ignore walls, because as they stand the +1 usually makes such attacks annoying rather than deciding - making them weaker doesn't seem to justify the extra cost, in this instance and as noted up-thread, allowing them to penetrate Barriers is both an advantage and a disadvantage, so +0 seems a reasonable number.

 

here is nothing wrong with a house rule that NNDs are automatically indirect' date=' but it is a balance issue: it makes Barriers a lot less useful and Entangles a lot more useful. It also means you have costing issues with 'Does Body' (why shouldn't that be indirect too? The agony ray causes you to have convulsions that cause actual damage - why shouldn't that ignore windows, like the stun only version does?). How do you build a NND that, logically, SHOULD be stopped by glass - like a spray of contact poison, or acid?[/quote']

 

Special effects give minor advantages and disadvantages. A spray of contact poison would be stopped by glass, where the agony ray would not - but could also be dripped onto a comrade's blade to give him a weak, linked one-use NND.

 

NND is fraught with issues anyway' date=' so this one is no real biggie in the overall scheme of things, but it is an interesting one to mull over.[/quote']

 

Yup, exactly my feeling. Given that this is really not a big issue, I'm inclined to house rule as indicated. If a player wanted to abuse that ruling by buying N-ray vision and using the NND to snipe from behind cover as a standard tactic, then it passes from being a reasonable use of special effect to being a standard attack and I'd require indirect. Just as with the contact poison example given - if the PC started envenoming all his buddies' weapons then usable by other would also be appropriate (and required). For an effect that simply doesn't see that much use - shooting through walls as 0 OCV is not a really viable tactic - I'm inclined to go with common sense.

 

In a move sure to outrage rules puritans, I also don't require people whose energy blast is defined as "fire" to buy "sticky" and "continuous uncontrolled at 0 End" so that they can set things like curtains on fire or a linked change environment to simulate smoke. They can buy those things, of course, if they want, but the absence of them would not prevent the occasional use of fire blast to generate smoke.

 

cheers, Mark

[GAZZA]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

Oh, does mental blast get indirect for free?

 

The rules certainly don't suggest it does.

Err - what?

 

6e1pp148: "Conventional barriers don't stop Mental Powers" and then gives examples that, I submit, do a lot more than merely "suggest" that Mental Blast gets Indirect-like effects for free.

 

Then there is 6e1pp335 at the Indirect advantage itself: "Mental Powers, which operate directly from one mind to another, don't need this Advantage ..."

[dmjalund]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

A suggestion: a NNDs that do BODY but can't damage walls, should be able to pass through them. NNDs that can damage walls are stopped by them.

[Markdoc]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

A suggestion: a NNDs that do BODY but can't damage walls' date=' should be able to pass through them. NNDs that can damage walls are stopped by them.[/quote']

 

That is pretty much what I suggested, and how we play them. That is, of course, a house rule. By RAW, any barrier/wall - eve a sheet of paper - will stop an NND or AVAD.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

Err - what?

 

6e1pp148: "Conventional barriers don't stop Mental Powers" and then gives examples that, I submit, do a lot more than merely "suggest" that Mental Blast gets Indirect-like effects for free.

 

I'd simply translated this the same way I had translated the fact that NNDs are not stopped by conventional defences

 

Then there is 6e1pp335 at the Indirect advantage itself: "Mental Powers' date=' which operate directly from one mind to another, don't need this Advantage ..."[/quote']

 

That one, on the other hand, is pretty conclusive - and shows that unconventional attacks can sometimes get "indirect" for free So I don't have a problem houseruling the same in for NND, with the restrictions noted above.

 

Here's an interesting thought, though.

Regular NND EB is 10 points per d6. (active 10) Let's say - for argument's sake - it's defined as a gas that causes mental hallucinations that confuse and weaken the target, and so the protection is a barrier or self contained breathing

Now let's use mental blast instead. Mental blast, using OCV/DCV, is 10 points per d6 (active 12.5) Same real cost, but takes no range modifiers, is partially invisible and indirect - for a +1/4 on active points. Make it NND (it's defined as a gas that causes mental hallucinations that confuse and weaken the target, and so the protection is a barrier or self contained breathing) and it costs 7 points per d6 (12.5 active)*

 

Discuss

 

*Note - you can make it much cheaper (an extra -1), if you make it apply to PD instead of mental defence and then make it an NND, but that's cheese I wouldn't tolerate as a GM

This is why I am OK with NND including a limited form of direct - Mental blast, to me, should be more or less equivalent to AVAD/ alternate CV. In this case, special effects may permit a minor (but often very useful) side effect.

 

cheers, Mark

[GAZZA]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

That one' date=' on the other hand, is pretty conclusive - and shows that unconventional attacks can sometimes get "indirect" for free So I don't have a problem houseruling the same in for NND, with the restrictions noted above.[/quote']

Obviously you're free to do whatever you wish, but I do not believe you can really say that the RAW really support the idea that NNDs get Indirect for free. It isn't really clear to me if that's what you're claiming, or whether you're just saying that you think it's a reasonable house rule (in which case we disagree, but clearly you can have whatever house rules you wish).

 

Here's an interesting thought, though.

Regular NND EB is 10 points per d6. (active 10)

 

Well that isn't actually true. It depends entirely on what the defence is. It was true in 5e, yes, but it is merely "often" true in 6e.

 

Let's say - for argument's sake - it's defined as a gas that causes mental hallucinations that confuse and weaken the target, and so the protection is a barrier or self contained breathing

 

For argument's sake? Well I don't accept that barrier is a valid defence (anymore than "not being hit' is), but since Life Support is, and that would make it +1, I'll play along.

 

Now let's use mental blast instead. Mental blast, using OCV/DCV, is 10 points per d6 (active 12.5) Same real cost, but takes no range modifiers, is partially invisible and indirect - for a +1/4 on active points.

 

You have lost me. Are you saying:

a) That Mental Blast using OCV/DCV is 10 points per d6, active 12.5? (It isn't; Mental Blast is 10 points per die, and OCV and DCV cancel each other out).

 

That Mental Blast using OMCV/DMCV is 10 points per d6, active 12.5? (It isn't; this is just a straight Mental Blast, no advantages or limitations, and it's 10 points per die active and real).

 

c) That Mental Blast is getting a +1/4 Indirect advantage? (It cannot gain anything by doing so that it doesn't already have).

 

d) That Mental Blast is being reconfigured to use OCV/DCV (a +0 advantage) and then buying Indirect? (Changing it to target DCV with OCV does not stop it being a Mental Power any more than making a Blast OMCV vs DMCV makes it a Mental Power - it merely changes the combat value, and it is still going to be automatically able to penetrate barriers). This is my best guess, but if that's what you're trying to argue, this doesn't quite do it. Based On CON is a -1 limitation that, used on Mental Blast (which doesn't care about EGO anyway), would indeed turn into a normal "barrier stopped" attack power. You could then add Indirect for +1/4 on that if you liked; the real cost would be 6.25 per die rather than 10.

 

Make it NND (it's defined as a gas that causes mental hallucinations that confuse and weaken the target, and so the protection is a barrier or self contained breathing) and it costs 7 points per d6 (12.5 active)*

 

Assuming d) above, Mental Blast with the advantages NND (+1), Indirect (+1/4), and Based On CON (-1) is 22.5 active points and 11.25 real points per die. I have no idea where you came up with 7, as your previous claim was that it cost 10/12.5 and then you added another advantage. Possibly you meant a combination of a) and then NND here. If you turn Mental Blast into a NND vs Life Support, that is a +0 advantage, so it is still 10 active points and 10 real points per die.

 

Discuss

If we use the Based On CON version, Blast with the advantages Indirect +1/4 and NND (+1) is only 11.25 active points per die and the same real cost. A 60 active point multipower can accommodate 5d6 of Blast and only 2.5d6 of Mental Blast, and they are mechanically identical.

 

If we use the Mental Blast, OCV vs DCV (+0), NND Life Support (+0), then it is 10 active points per die compared to 11.25 active points per die for the Blast. Slight advantage to the Mental Blast there, but you said it was a grenade, so you quite possibly want a small AE on that as well. Once you throw in even +1/4 AE, the Blast is now 12.5 per die and so is the Mental Blast version. And in either case you don't have to be able to see your target for the Blast version, but you do for the Mental Blast version. They are, in short, not simulating quite the same thing, so it isn't that surprising that they are slightly different in cost.

 

*Note - you can make it much cheaper (an extra -1), if you make it apply to PD instead of mental defence and then make it an NND, but that's cheese I wouldn't tolerate as a GM

 

I don't see why not, as it doesn't serve to make the Mental Blast cheaper than the Blast (only equal cost, and higher active cost).

 

Indeed, Mental Powers Based On CON will often be NND, as they represent such things as truth drugs and similar.

 

It is possible that you missed the important point here: ACV does not make a Mental Power into a normal power. A Mental Blast that is OCV vs DCV still possesses the line of sight and barrier ignoring features that a more normal Mental Blast (OMCV vs DCMV) has. This is completely fair - it costs the same, after all! To make a Mental Power into a normal attack power you need Based on CON (-1); normally this has the disadvantage that it changes the characteristic used to determine effectiveness from EGO to CON, but since EGO doesn't matter for Mental Blast CON doesn't either. And again, this is fair - at that point you basically have a power with the same real cost as Blast but twice the active cost (which means, in practice, that you would rarely if ever want to buy it that way - an unsurprising conclusion, since effectively Based On CON files off the "Mental" from "Mental Blast").

 

This is why I am OK with NND including a limited form of direct - Mental blast, to me, should be more or less equivalent to AVAD/ alternate CV.

I do not see how this conclusion follows from the premise. It appears that you were intending to demonstrate that if you load Mental Blast with the right set of modifiers you get a barrier-penetrating NND for a cheaper cost than you could do with just a Blast, but unless I've missed what you're saying here, this is just not true.

 

In this case, special effects may permit a minor (but often very useful) side effect.

Of course, but routinely granting a +1/4 or better advantage is a lot more than a minor side effect is, I would argue, more than what most "minor side effects" routinely encompass.

[Markdoc]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

Obviously you're free to do whatever you wish' date=' but I do not believe you can really say that the RAW really support the idea that NNDs get Indirect for free. It isn't really clear to me if that's what you're claiming, or whether you're just saying that you think it's a reasonable house rule (in which case we disagree, but clearly you can have whatever house rules you wish).[/quote']

 

I'm not. My first post unambiguously stated that by RAW NNDs are stopped by walls and barriers and I quoted the section from the rules covering that. I then explicitly said that we house rule otherwise (and have done for many years) because it leads very occasionally to inexpressibly stupid results (an energy beam that will slice through the most advanced armour, but will bounce off a sheet of newsprint, for example).

 

Well that isn't actually true. It depends entirely on what the defence is. It was true in 5e' date=' yes, but it is merely "often" true in 6e.[/quote']

 

OK, we'll settle for usually or "often" true. Doesn't alter the math or the reasoning.

 

 

You have lost me. Are you saying:

a) That Mental Blast using OCV/DCV is 10 points per d6, active 12.5? (It isn't; Mental Blast is 10 points per die, and OCV and DCV cancel each other out).

 

This is what I mean, and also it is correct. You don't cancel advantages and limitations off against each other. First you add +1/4 (real cost/active cost 12.5 per d6) then you apply the limitations (real cost 10, active cost 12.5).

 

The "based on OCV/DCV" was simply so that it would function like a regular EB (you don't actually need it to generate this effect) - and it makes the point that the most cost effective way to build an NND is often not to start with EB, but with Mental blast.

 

And yet, I haven't seen that mental blast is generally considered unbalancing - even though it can be built to have the same cost and utility as EB, NND .... plus LoS, IPE and Indirect!

 

It's one of those things which - by RAW - looks unbalanced: indeed, in the build up to 6E discussions that point was made repeatedly. But in real life, it really doesn't seem to be. The same, in my experience, applies to letting NND be somewhat indirect. In theory, it looks unfair. In practice, it's had no discernible effect apart from avoiding arguments like "Yes, I know your NND will go through any amount of armour and forcefield, but you still can't shoot him through the window" (note, this has not only actually occurred, in my own experience, it occurred three times with three different players in three different games, run by two different GMs). I like consistency in my games, but there are times when slavish adherence to RAW starts to interfere with fun.

 

So yeah, by RAW walls and barriers stop NND/AVAD attacks ... except mental blast. As a house rule, allowing NND/AVAD to bypass them - based on special effect - appears to be no biggie.

 

cheers, Mark

[GAZZA]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

This is what I mean' date=' and also it is correct. You don't cancel advantages and limitations off against each other. First you add +1/4 (real cost/active cost 12.5 per d6) then you apply the limitations (real cost 10, active cost 12.5).[/quote']

I am reminded of the Princess Bride. "You seem a decent fellow. I 'ate to kill you."

 

It is, of course, generally true that advantages and limitations don't cancel out, but if you look at 6e1pp318, there is an explicit example of the type of Mental Blast you're talking about. It says that adding the two modifiers "... may result in their cancelling out, becoming a +0 advantage ..."

 

OK, admittedly it says that is with special GM Permission, but the context of that is that without such permission you aren't actually allowed to change both the offensive and defensive aspects of the attack (but I can't really see why anyone would refuse such permission).

 

 

The "based on OCV/DCV" was simply so that it would function like a regular EB (you don't actually need it to generate this effect) - and it makes the point that the most cost effective way to build an NND is often not to start with EB, but with Mental blast.

Well, I don't really agree. The effect is not identical. Starting with Blast you end up with something that is slightly more expensive (but because of the way advantages stack, it won't be with even an additional +1/4) but that has the advantage that you need not see your target to attack them. You can't hurl a grenade over an opaque wall to attack someone behind it if the power that the grenade is built on is a mental power, because you need line of sight for that.

 

Of course there is no range limitation on the Mental Blast version, and it can be used against targets with a lower effect of Mind Scan lock, but these sorts of oddities really just point to the probable result that Mental Blast isn't really the power you're after (unless of course you want those oddities).

 

And yet, I haven't seen that mental blast is generally considered unbalancing - even though it can be built to have the same cost and utility as EB, NND .... plus LoS, IPE and Indirect!

An interesting observation. I find the polar opposite myself. Once you want a few advantages (Does BODY being common, also Area Effect or Autofire) it becomes much more efficient to start with Blast and apply ACV (+1/4 OMCV vs DMCV), AVAD Mental Defence (+1). If my algebra is correct, the breakeven point is a +1/4 more:

 

Mental Blast 5d6, AE 4m radius (+1/4) [62 Active]

Blast 5d6, ACV (+1/4 OMCV vs DMCV), AVAD Mental Defence (+1), AE 4m radius (+1/4) [62 Active]

 

More than +1/4 and Blast is cheaper. Of course the blast version is visible, not indirect, and limited in range. So again - not quite the same thing.

 

It's one of those things which - by RAW - looks unbalanced: indeed, in the build up to 6E discussions that point was made repeatedly. But in real life, it really doesn't seem to be. The same, in my experience, applies to letting NND be somewhat indirect. In theory, it looks unfair. In practice, it's had no discernible effect apart from avoiding arguments like "Yes, I know your NND will go through any amount of armour and forcefield, but you still can't shoot him through the window" (note, this has not only actually occurred, in my own experience, it occurred three times with three different players in three different games, run by two different GMs). I like consistency in my games, but there are times when slavish adherence to RAW starts to interfere with fun.

Yes, I understand, but personally I think NNDs get off pretty easily in 6e anyway. An NND vs Flash Defence Hearing (typically a sonic blast) is only a +1/2 advantage in 6e, which means you can squeeze 28 STUN in a 60 active point power. That's a pretty good deal without also making it bypass walls, I think.

[Sean Waters]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

Whilst I am late to the fray on this one, I think it is worth pointing out that Mental Powers are not indirect, they just target on an entirely different basis. There may be no difference most of the time, but the rules are wrong, in my opinion, to say that mental powers do not need Indirect: you could buy a Barrier, for example, with Mental Defence. If a Mental Power had 'Indirect' then it could bypass the mental defence of the Barrier. Even if it did not, it could still target through a transparent barrier - it is just that the attack would be subject to the damage total being reduced by the Mentall Defence of the Barrier (I don't THINK that a Mental Blast would have to overcome the defence of a barrier AND reduce Body to zero to penetrate). The need for Indirect for mental powers is very limited, but still exists.

 

As to the relative cost of Mental Blast as against other attack types - well we have run that one up the flag pole and saluted it enough times. If it is a problem, make Mental Defence more common in the game. Also worth remembering that, because it has a higher base cost (10 points as opposed to 5x+1=10), it will cost more to make a Mental Blast do Body damage than a 'standard NND' (of course the reverse is not true - limited Mental Blasts are not cheaper than equivalently limited NNDs): 4d6 NND Does Body = 60 points, 4d6 Mental Blast Does Body = 80 points. Even then, mental blasts only work against beings with minds, so the 80 points you spend there still can not blast a wall down, or destroy an automaton. They are different powers doing different things and, although there is significant overlap, one will be more use in some situations and the other more use in other situations. The art of the GM is to make sure that the situations balance out.

[dmjalund]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

Just had a thought - Since a Barrier has PD/ED and BODY, would a Mental Barrier have Mental Defence and EGO?

[GAZZA]

Re: NND vs Barrier

 

Whilst I am late to the fray on this one' date=' I think it is worth pointing out that Mental Powers are not indirect, they just target on an entirely different basis. There may be no difference most of the time, but the rules are wrong, in my opinion, to say that mental powers do not need Indirect: you could buy a Barrier, for example, with Mental Defence. If a Mental Power had 'Indirect' then it could bypass the mental defence of the Barrier. Even if it did not, it could still target through a transparent barrier - it is just that the attack would be subject to the damage total being reduced by the Mentall Defence of the Barrier (I don't THINK that a Mental Blast would have to overcome the defence of a barrier AND reduce Body to zero to penetrate). The need for Indirect for mental powers is very limited, but still exists.[/quote']

This is a very interesting question.

 

The way I'm reading 6e1pp169, while a Barrier can have Mental Defence, it doesn't look like it actually stops (say) a Mental Blast. I think that it merely subtracts from it. An example is probably warranted: let's say my Barrier has 5 PD, 5 ED, 5 BODY, and 5 Mental Defence (or Flash Defence, Power Defence, etc).

 

If I attack with a Blast or RKA, and do less than 10 BODY, then my attack is stopped by the Barrier (though if it did more than 5 BODY it will reduce the Barrier BODY for the next attack). But if I attack with a Mental Blast, I think it will still affect my (barrier protected) target - he'll just get an extra 5 Mental Defence. I am somewhat extrapolating from the "only to protect barrier" limitation here, possibly incorrectly. If I am wrong, and a Barrier can stop mental powers that don't do enough BODY to get through, then it is a perfect defence against most mental powers as none of them do BODY (one can of course construct powers that do). I'm a bit concerned about just how effective that would be. Of course such a barrier could still be brought down with normal attacks, but the possibility of something like a 10m long, 1m tall, 1/2m thick barrier with 12 BODY, 12 PD, 11 ED, and 1 Mental Defence as a 60 active point power, or something similar. (In other words, I'm hoping that diverting a single point of PD or ED to Mental Defence doesn't mean that you're invulnerable to any non-BODY inflicting mental powers).

 

The reason I would argue that you're not is because it isn't clear to me that Mental Powers need Indirect to target the person behind the barrier. It isn't, in fact, clear to me that mental powers are even affected by a barrier that has mental defence - they are described as working directly from one mind to another. It could be argued that the only reason to put Mental Defence in a barrier is to protect against exotic AVAD attacks that happen to target Mental Defence.