Damage Reduction Vs. Extra PD/ED

[baronspam]

I have been trying to crunch some numbers on the effectiveness of Damage Reduction vs. just buying extra PD.

 

Now, As DR stops a percentage of incoming damage, it is more cost effective in campaigns with larger average attacks. However, for "average" supers campaigns, It seems that DR is break even at best in cost effectivness compaired to just buying extra PD or ED. Some examples:

 

Lets say that the campaign standards are 12d6 is the average normal attack and 2 points per dc is the average defense. That means the average attack will do 42 points, average defence is 24, meaning average damage per hit is 18 stun. Lets say a character takes 20 points that they would have spend to PD and put it in 50% DR instead. So, they hit for 42, subtact this time 4 PD, that leaves 38/2=19 points. So on a strictly average hit, you are actually slight behind just buying PD with those 20 points instead of DR. It evens out as you add a DC or two, and you eventually pull slightly ahead, but by that time you are out of the damage range of most typical supers campaigns.

 

The powers still has its uses. You can layer it on top of normal defences to make someone very resistant to a specific special effect. Its also a way to build master villians so that they can be very tough, but not outright immune to character attacks. But for the most part, does anyone have a good reason to use DR as the "Frontline" defence for a character, rather than PD or ED?

[Starcloud]

Re: Damage Reduction Vs. Extra PD/ED

 

Concept, mostly. Some things are better modeled with DR than with Resistant defenses.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Damage Reduction Vs. Extra PD/ED

 

I have been trying to crunch some numbers on the effectiveness of Damage Reduction vs. just buying extra PD.

 

Now, As DR stops a percentage of incoming damage, it is more cost effective in campaigns with larger average attacks. However, for "average" supers campaigns, It seems that DR is break even at best in cost effectivness compaired to just buying extra PD or ED. Some examples:

 

Lets say that the campaign standards are 12d6 is the average normal attack and 2 points per dc is the average defense. That means the average attack will do 42 points, average defence is 24, meaning average damage per hit is 18 stun. Lets say a character takes 20 points that they would have spend to PD and put it in 50% DR instead. So, they hit for 42, subtact this time 4 PD, that leaves 38/2=19 points. So on a strictly average hit, you are actually slight behind just buying PD with those 20 points instead of DR. It evens out as you add a DC or two, and you eventually pull slightly ahead, but by that time you are out of the damage range of most typical supers campaigns.

 

The powers still has its uses. You can layer it on top of normal defences to make someone very resistant to a specific special effect. Its also a way to build master villians so that they can be very tough, but not outright immune to character attacks. But for the most part, does anyone have a good reason to use DR as the "Frontline" defence for a character, rather than PD or ED?

 

OK, let's look a little deeper. I was going to comment on ignoring rDEF, but 20 points for nonresistant equals 30 points for resistant in either case.

 

As you indicate, on an average hit from a normal attack, DR takes 1 point more damage. He will take more from lower DC attacks and less from higher DC attacks.

 

On a hit from an armor piercing attack (9 1/2d6 average 33.5 stun), Defense takes [33.5 - 12 = ]21.5 STUN and the DR character takes [33.5 - 2 = 31.5/2 =] 15.75. Significant advantage to Damage Reduction.

 

An NND can be affected by Damage Reduction, but not defenses. Again, DR has the advantage.

 

Of course, the character with 4 defenses and DR will also take considerable BOD, and should consider regeneration or an alternate fast healing ability.

 

The above seems like two abilities with more or less equivalent strengths and weaknesses, not one clearly superior in all cases.

[Naanomi]

Re: Damage Reduction Vs. Extra PD/ED

 

Ive used it twice...

 

Once when combining it with quick regeneration, which worked well...

And once linked to a growth power, because fighting other giant opponents is exactly when those more than typical DCs started appearing.

 

Combined with other defenses it can make your character a bit more 'unique', but like Damage Negation you often just break even or less for not having just went with more Damage Reduction

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Damage Reduction Vs. Extra PD/ED

 

Hugh points out good cases where Damage Reduction outshines normal PD/ED. In my mind, DR is good for characters who don't go down because they are tough, not because they are indestructible. Colossus of the X-Men would have really high PD/ED, but Wolverine would have DR.

 

DR also has great utility for master villains. It allows you to set their defenses low enough that all the heroes can contribute some damage whether they have powerful attacks or mediocre ones, but it keeps the villain from being KO'ed by one big hit.

[pinecone]

Re: Damage Reduction Vs. Extra PD/ED

 

I have been trying to crunch some numbers on the effectiveness of Damage Reduction vs. just buying extra PD.

 

Now, As DR stops a percentage of incoming damage, it is more cost effective in campaigns with larger average attacks. However, for "average" supers campaigns, It seems that DR is break even at best in cost effectivness compaired to just buying extra PD or ED. Some examples:

 

Lets say that the campaign standards are 12d6 is the average normal attack and 2 points per dc is the average defense. That means the average attack will do 42 points, average defence is 24, meaning average damage per hit is 18 stun. Lets say a character takes 20 points that they would have spend to PD and put it in 50% DR instead. So, they hit for 42, subtact this time 4 PD, that leaves 38/2=19 points. So on a strictly average hit, you are actually slight behind just buying PD with those 20 points instead of DR. It evens out as you add a DC or two, and you eventually pull slightly ahead, but by that time you are out of the damage range of most typical supers campaigns.

 

The powers still has its uses. You can layer it on top of normal defences to make someone very resistant to a specific special effect. Its also a way to build master villians so that they can be very tough, but not outright immune to character attacks. But for the most part, does anyone have a good reason to use DR as the "Frontline" defence for a character, rather than PD or ED?

 

The math looks good but don't forget that Move Through!, and Haymaker! are part of "normal" campain damage, and vs those the DR does look better....you also forgot to look at Body...witha 4 PD you take an average of 8 Body per 12 DC attack...you can't survive that....DR characters usually need PD and ED equal to game average DC's to be "playable"...Regen can make a diff as well.

 

Personally I Like DR a lot, but, it really is just a preferance. For a 12Dc game I'd likely build a Superman clone with say 12-15 def and 1/2 Dam Reduction, and feel just fine about it....

[sinanju]

Re: Damage Reduction Vs. Extra PD/ED

 

Concept' date=' mostly. Some things are better modeled with DR than with Resistant defenses.[/quote']

 

Yep. My Black Knight has lots of DR, low resistant PD & ED, and regeneration. The DR is there to simulate his superpower--he TAKES all the damage, but he heals so fast that effectively most of it never even slows him down. Then a little actual resistant defense, plus Regen for whatever actually gets through.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Damage Reduction Vs. Extra PD/ED

 

The only mechanical reason to use DR as a replacement for defenses is if you expect to be the beneficiary of adjustment powers.

 

Using DR as a replacement for defenses makes for a lousy superman analogue, IMO. I don't want my superman taking damage from 4d6 normal on a regular basis...

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Damage Reduction Vs. Extra PD/ED

 

More DEF can make people so tough they cannot be hurt, wears DR scales nicely. DR also works on many other things (AVAD, Drain STUN, etc). Often in games I play, we have a limit of X amount of DEF, with Y amount of DR = Z amount of DEF (So X = Z + DEF). It is more expensive to get DR and DEF, but usually provides more protection. DR also makes recoveries better.

[pinecone]

Re: Damage Reduction Vs. Extra PD/ED

 

The only mechanical reason to use DR as a replacement for defenses is if you expect to be the beneficiary of adjustment powers.

 

Using DR as a replacement for defenses makes for a lousy superman analogue, IMO. I don't want my superman taking damage from 4d6 normal on a regular basis...

 

Well it's a trade off... if you go with 'Big PD/ED" you're only happy till a big pushed haymaker knocks you on you backside.....but as long as your "Superman" clone is a "playable" character, you have to decide how to build 'em. A "DR" Kryptoian can take haymakers from Grond (though not for long...) a 35 PD dude goes from Macho to no-mas in one fell swoop...

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Damage Reduction Vs. Extra PD/ED

 

I don't think it needs to be an either/or decision.

 

I think Bricks should be allowed to have 2 types of defenses: passive and active.

By passive I mean what is already being discussed here as base/average defenses.

By active I mean powers that are definitely NOT always on whether its Wonder Woman's Bracelets or Superman suddenly finding the 'strength' the resist the Mad Scientist's death ray that has already stunned him previously. Unfortunately, the idea of allowing a 2-tiered approach throws chaos into most GM's carefully crafted rule-of-X formula. Damage Reduction, Damage Negation, Deflection and to a lesser extent defenses derived from Density Increase all work better if considered 2nd-tier defenses.

[Christopher]

Re: Damage Reduction Vs. Extra PD/ED

 

Put both defenses (+attack and movement) in a Multipower. The cost for effective DN will balance everything.

[Gauntlet]

I definitely have seen DR allow the character or villain to get through those HUGE attacks better than one with the large amount of DEF, at lease 50% or 75%. (I have found that 25% is truly not worth the points.) While it does not stop a character from taking damage, it is very good at keeping you from being stunned. Verse attacks that do the game's standard amount of damage, just buying up your regular defense is better.

 

One thing I have done a few times in a Champions game is buy DR with the limitation "STUN Only" which is good at lowering the points and can keep you in the fight longer. Though thinking about it I am not sure if this limitation is work -1/2 as in Champions games attacks rarely due BODY damage.

[Grailknight]

First, you're responding to a post from 12 years ago.

 

Second, Damage Reduction comes with Resistant and Nonresistant options already, so no limitation is needed.

[unclevlad]

4 hours ago, Grailknight said:

First, you're responding to a post from 12 years ago.

 

Second, Damage Reduction comes with Resistant and Nonresistant options already, so no limitation is needed.

 

Agreed about the thread necro...

 

But I've never been sure whether the STUN of a KA should be reduced by STUN-only, non-resistant DR.  It feels that it shouldn't, but it's not at all clear.  If you can take STUN only on non-resistant DR, tho?  It's actually pretty darn cheap.  50% nonresistant is 20, with a -1/2?  13 points.  Or, 75% NR is 40, -1/2 drops that to 27.  Still expensive, but might be viable in a higher-DC campaign.  You only buy resistant defenses, and if you're worried about AP...you may not need to buy ALL of your resistant with Hardened.  Still likely need some, tho.

 

I also have this issue with damage negation.  If I can counter STUN from both normal and killing attacks, with damage negation with Nonresistant and STUN Only...that's a -3/4  So, 6 DCs negation for 17 points?  That's cancelling 21 points of STUN.  To be sure:  the Nonresistant is only -1/4, so the reduction there is only from 20 to 17.  Not huge.

[Steve]

I’m finding it helpful in managing damage in my campaigns to use limited forms of Damage Negation. Just a few dice seems to give Rocky levels of toughness to Heroic characters. I’ve also toyed with giving sectional limitations, like how armor is built.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Steve

[unclevlad]

In 6E, yes, negation is the way to go, rather than reduction.  It's more flexible, cheaper, and in most cases, more effective than DR.  The root issue is that negation combines with defenses synergistically;  reduction and defenses are antagonistic.  

 

Prior to 6E, reduction had one MAJOR advantage:  the risk of ginormous STUN from an even moderately bad (for the target) KA damage roll with that 5 or 6 on the STUN die.