Hmmm. More on Special Effects

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

You think just because it is in the rules' date=' a Bad GM can't just say "We don't use them"?[/quote']

 

That is silly. Why have any rules in that case....?

 

Once more, I will ask the basic question. If a player came to you wanting a character who would have enhanced defences against fire, how would you go about that. If fire is too easy an answer, what about someone wanting enhanced defence against heat (which could include friction style powers etc)? would you just give them that defence for free as a bonus for good character concept or would you charge them? If you charge them, what would you charge them?

 

My concern, like hyperman, is that the game focusses on building the character. To provide the range of offensive capabilities and be true to concept a wide range of game effects can often be used. All of them pulled around the same SFX. If a second character wants to be resilient to all of those attacks (but only when they have that SFX) the designing player often has to be psychic to determine which game effects will be used in future game designs.

 

However, if you dont like the idea, just ignore me. I'm not Steve Long and I am not writing this into 7th Edition...

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

As long as the same GM would allow it for other player too, why not?

If not and he did not announced such things then I must wonder about the quality of his GMing and I would certanly doubt his ability to make a game where I have fun.

 

So how is Player A's concept of "Fire Attack that works against Mental Defense" superior to Player B's concept of "Resistant to all forms of Fire Attacks"? Why should Player A's wishes for the game override those of Player B? To me, the approach that allows both players to build the character they want is the best answer, and the ability to define a defense as working against a special effect rather than a game mechanic would contribute to that ability.

 

As long a I knew in advantage that could happen and this is the way the campaign is played' date=' there is not problem with that. And like somebody else pointed out: There are a bajillion other SFX one could use to circumvent your "Only vs Fire" Protection totally and without things like avad. So I don't see any point in expanding the defense, when any enemy with half a brain would just use a different sfx to hit me.[/quote']

 

You're applying the rules from a mechanistic perspective. The character wanting high resistance to fire attacks is reasoning out his character. If it's very easy to circumvent his resistance to fire, that seems to suggest the cost should be pretty low. It should not be, for example, +1 rPD +1 rED + 1rPowDef + 1 r Mental Defense + 1r Flash Defense x 6 Sense Groups, all Only vs Fire (-1/2) for a cost of 10 points for +1 "Fire Defense". It seems like even charging 1 point for Fire Defense, +50% to make it Resistant, we may be charging considerably more than the ability is worth in practice.

 

Of course, the same logic suggests that, once you know I have high PD and ED, you will be able to simply break out an Exotic attack to be more effective. The Human Flamethrower probably isn't able to retaliate with a Lightning Burst, and the Hulk rarely uses mental attacks, even against the Juggernaut.

 

A pick-up game does not mean that no Player/GM Contract is there. So it's just an issue of communication, not the rules.

Also, why would anybody play a game that is not fun? The entire point of playing is to have fun, so either you have fun playing the bad game or ... well, no idea why else you keep playing when it is not fun.

 

Is "Fun" binary? Perhaps having this added option makes a fun game more fun, and its absence reduces the fun.

 

If a player has a character concept to have better defences against fire then that is what he should have. I need to investigate damage negation as I have never used it but to achieve a guranteed better defence against fire you need either the GM to go along with it (and if you have rolling GMs this is more difficult than if you have a constant one) or you need rules that everyone can point to and say - "See' date=' I paid for this convenience". Right now the rules are "buy all the defences that you think you will need" and, for this small area, I think that is too expensive and makes the game look silly to newcomers.[/quote']

 

Damage Negation is also predicated on the "1 DC of Physical/Energy/Other Mechanical Damage Type" model, so the same issue exists here. Actually, maybe -1/2 for "only vs a specific SFX" would actually be reasonably priced if it gave the character defenses against every mechanical application of that SFX. So you buy +20 rED, only vs Fire for 20 points, and this reduces all damage effects from fire by 20 - whether they are vs ED, PD, Mental, Flash, Power Defense or even NND's - it's a Fire SFX, so defenses "only vs fire" defend against it.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Damage Negation has an option to work Vs SFX listed; such as "-1 DC All Firearms" - as long as the SFX is Firearms (and the GM agrees with that) then it falls inside this field.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Damage Negation is also predicated on the "1 DC of Physical/Energy/Other Mechanical Damage Type" model' date=' so the same issue exists here. Actually, maybe -1/2 for "only vs a specific SFX" would actually be reasonably priced if it gave the character defenses against every mechanical application of that SFX. So you buy +20 rED, only vs Fire for 20 points, and this reduces all damage effects from fire by 20 - whether they are vs ED, PD, Mental, Flash, Power Defense or even NND's - it's a Fire SFX, so defenses "only vs fire" defend against it.[/quote']

 

I would think possibly grading the limitation depending on anticipated frequency. Light based attacks might be very common when you are hunted by the Children of the Holy Beam and so your limitation might not actually be worth anything, whereas gravity based attacks might be rare and so worth -1.

 

the variation would obviously vary from campaign to campaign but you could probably come up with a generic set for your average Champions campaign...

 

Doc

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

That is silly. Why have any rules in that case....?

Do bad GM need a valid, logical reason for their bad GMing?

Also you seem to forget that any GM can customize the game as he wants, with officail allowance on 6E1 9 ("Customizing hero to suit yourself"). And I bet most bad GMs think their way to play is a lot of fun. At least for themself.

 

So how is Player A's concept of "Fire Attack that works against Mental Defense" superior to Player B's concept of "Resistant to all forms of Fire Attacks"? Why should Player A's wishes for the game override those of Player B? To me' date=' the approach that allows both players to build the character they want is the best answer, and the ability to define a defense as working against a special effect rather than a game mechanic would contribute to that ability.[/quote']

I thought it was clear that the the fires SFX attack vs. Mental Defense was a intentionally ridicoulus action.

If the two power should actually ever met, then the defending player either knew that this could happen in advance - or this is a chacse of bad GM/bad Communication.

 

Of course' date=' the same logic suggests that, once you know I have high PD and ED, you will be able to simply break out an Exotic attack to be more effective. The Human Flamethrower probably isn't able to retaliate with a Lightning Burst, and the Hulk rarely uses mental attacks, even against the Juggernaut.[/quote']

A GM allowing higher-than limit defense against punches and all other "normal Damage" better knew what he does. Would that for exampls still cover being hit by a car (thrown by the hulk)?

Also, any good build character has at least one alternate SFX, Flash, Entangle, Mind Control or NND power. Take a look at the champions here, they really have good examples. The bricks (Ironclad, Ogre) are a little bit of the exceptions but that will be compensated by an defense blocking them being really expensive - or having holes that can be exploited using the environment.

For example you could hit ogre with a still conneted power line, like Defender does on Champions P 155 + 157. "Booyah for Brains", indeed.

You can do way more with 12 DC Blast or 40-60 STR than just punching your enemy phase per phase....

 

Is "Fun" binary? Perhaps having this added option makes a fun game more fun' date=' and its absence reduces the fun.[/quote']

More (complex) rules have hardly ever produced more fun in playing. If at all, they only induced more bad GMing by creating more GM who never truly read the book(s). Hero is already a lot of rules and incomplete understanding is already producing a lot of non-fun misunderstandings.

 

Actually' date=' maybe -1/2 for "only vs a specific SFX" would actually be reasonably priced if it gave the character defenses against every mechanical application of that SFX.[/quote']

So that is your real problem. You think defenses are Overpriced/Limitations are undervalued. I doubt you would say the same thing if you made a fire-EP.

 

I would think possibly grading the limitation depending on anticipated frequency. Light based attacks might be very common when you are hunted by the Children of the Holy Beam and so your limitation might not actually be worth anything, whereas gravity based attacks might be rare and so worth -1.

 

the variation would obviously vary from campaign to campaign but you could probably come up with a generic set for your average Champions campaign...

That almost sounds like you never read the Limitation "Only Works Against [limited Type Of Attack] (-¼ to -1)" on 6E1 148. Because what you say is exactly what is said there.

 

"How would I build Fireresistant Power":

Energy damage Negation, Only vs Fire (-1/2, as said in 6E1 148). And not ripping the player of by cirumventing it.

Of course any Fire EP I build would have at least one not killing attack power that works against fireproof enemys. Not his best, but something.

 

With Damage Neagation we have already covered:

Normal Damage, Killing Damage, Drain STUN, Drain Body and AVAD variants of these.

A mere -6 DC (30 AP, 20 Real Cost) literally halve any 12DC Fire based attack. And after that, your defenses still apply.

 

Bouncing Bullets of your chest is a littlebit more difficulty with the Firearms presentet in 6E2, but perhaps it's better to ignore these and just buy mook weapons like it is done in the champions book - normal Multipowers, with DC Limits apropirate to their Overall points.

[phoenix240]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Here are a couple of older threads I started a while back that never got much traction.

Looking back, I think they were failed attempts to discuss some of the same themes brought up in this thread.

Campaign Damage Caps, Code vs. Killing & Pulling a Punch

Scale of Detail in HERO gaming

 

Or maybe not.

 

Interesting discussion. I've wondered how much of disadvantage CaK is a traditional, "balanced" Champions game from time to time. Its very difficult to "accidentally" kill anyone in Hero System even when slinging pretty sizable attacks and most opponents are "balanced" enough to take at least one major hit, some times several even ostensible "low Defense" characters. They'll usually be knocked out and injured but not killed and some GMs (and many players) take CaK in the Terminator 2 "He'll live." fashion.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I thought it was clear that the the fires SFX attack vs. Mental Defense was a intentionally ridicoulus action.

If the two power should actually ever met, then the defending player either knew that this could happen in advance - or this is a chacse of bad GM/bad Communication.

 

I find it difficult to credit the idea that the players know up front every possible attack power that might be used, by anyone, in the course of an extended campaign. Hypnotizing Flames might be a strange flame power which targets mental defense.

 

Also' date=' any good build character has at least one alternate SFX, Flash, Entangle, Mind Control or NND power. Take a look at the champions here, they really have good examples. The bricks (Ironclad, Ogre) are a little bit of the exceptions but that will be compensated by an defense blocking them being really expensive - or having holes that can be exploited using the environment.[/quote']

 

Actually, I find good characters based on a specific special effect do not take "a power or two with a different special effect, just in case". They play to concept. What is the Human Torch's non-fire SFX attack? Which of Cyclops' attack powers do not rely on his eyebeams? Some characters are quite versatile, of course (Iron Man and Hawkeye come to mind), but others are, by concept, focused around a specific special effect. But I suppose the Torch can always buy an "Eternal Flame" NND which works unless you have LS: Immortality so he has something to use against Asbestos Man.

 

More (complex) rules have hardly ever produced more fun in playing. If at all' date=' they only induced more bad GMing by creating more GM who never truly read the book(s). Hero is already a lot of rules and incomplete understanding is already producing a lot of non-fun misunderstandings.[/quote']

 

Really? Let us begin with the most simple, rules-light role playing game. It is called by many names, but I will use "Let's Pretend" It has pretty much no rules - children play it all the time. It tends to lead to issues such as "Bang - you're dead - fall down"; "No, you missed me". Should we add rules, or does that add complexity and make the game unfun?

 

We could certainly create a simple rule to resolve combat. For example, heads - Character A wins the combat, and Tails, it is won by Character B. Let's extrapolate to "Heads - the attempted action is completely successful and Tails it fails utterly" We now have a complete rules set. Anything more is clearly overkill, and will only add excessive complexity and make the game less fun, right?

 

Most RPG's add at least one rule for how we determine whether a given attack hit or missed, and at least one rule for determining the extent of damage caused by that hit.

 

Some get more complex, and add rules for how various situations might modify the likelihood of hitting, the type and extent of effect arising from a successful attack, etc.

 

There is certainly a line where added complexity may detract from the fun of the game, but that line is crossed at different places for different people, and even varies depending on the nature of the rules under discussion. It is not a truism that increasing complexity reduces fun.

 

So that is your real problem. You think defenses are Overpriced/Limitations are undervalued. I doubt you would say the same thing if you made a fire-EP.

 

If my fire-EP was conceptually to be resistant/immune to fire damage, I would say that spending 10 points for every defense point against fire is excessive. Why would it make any sense to pay 4 points for +5 ED against Special Effect X when, for a small extra investment, I can get the same level of defense against everything that works against ED? The loss of utility is far greater than the points saved. If we are using points as a balancing metric, even a very rough one, then cost and utility must move together.

 

That almost sounds like you never read the Limitation "Only Works Against [limited Type Of Attack] (-¼ to -1)" on 6E1 148. Because what you say is exactly what is said there.

 

"How would I build Fireresistant Power":

Energy damage Negation, Only vs Fire (-1/2, as said in 6E1 148). And not ripping the player of by cirumventing it.

 

So for 40 points, I can have +40 rED vs Fire. For 60, I could have +40 rED against all energy SFX. I certainly wouldn't allow +40 rED against all but fire for 20 points, so the result just doesn't add up. Far more utility is lost than points saved.

 

And I'm not fire resistant when someone buys an NND or AVAD fire bolt, or weakens my character with his Heat Stroke Drain, am I?

 

Of course any Fire EP I build would have at least one not killing attack power that works against fireproof enemys. Not his best' date=' but something.[/quote']

 

So, basically, being resistant/immune to fire will be virtually useless in your game anyway. Given that, why should it carry a significant point cost?

 

With Damage Neagation we have already covered:

Normal Damage, Killing Damage, Drain STUN, Drain Body and AVAD variants of these.

A mere -6 DC (30 AP, 20 Real Cost) literally halve any 12DC Fire based attack. And after that, your defenses still apply.

 

The same -6 DC (30 AP, 30 Real Cost) will literally halve any 12DC energy based attack. And after that, your defenses still apply. Is the ability to drop 6 DC's from every other energy SFX really only worth 10 points?

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I find it difficult to credit the idea that the players know up front every possible attack power that might be used' date=' by anyone, in the course of an extended campaign. [i']Hypnotizing Flames[/i] might be a strange flame power which targets mental defense.

Okay, please explain why being immune to being burned protects you from being hypnoticed by flames and in the same times does not protects you against other hypnotic effects, like the Hypntoic Flaming Image of an Ilusionist (SFX != Flames).

Even if the sun had a mind, it could be hypnotised and you can't get more fireproof than a star.

 

Actually' date=' I find good characters based on a specific special effect do not take "a power or two with a different special effect, just in case". They play to concept. What is the Human Torch's non-fire SFX attack? Which of Cyclops' attack powers do not rely on his eyebeams? Some characters are quite versatile, of course (Iron Man and Hawkeye come to mind), but others are, by concept, focused around a specific special effect. But I suppose the Torch can always buy an "Eternal Flame" NND which works unless you have LS: Immortality so he has something to use against Asbestos Man. [/quote']

I guess he let his 3 Teammates beat him up. That why he is in a team, so the others can compensate his weakness. If he isn't, he should have something. Like most solo heroes or those playable as ones have something.

Or he could just drain the air around him with his flames, making it impossible to breahte (NND vs LS: Self Contained braething or change enviroment). Also, let's test his if he has LS: High Temperatures, with "Heatstroke, Drain 6d6 NND (LS: High temeratures)".

 

Really? Let us begin with the most simple' date=' rules-light role playing game. It is called by many names, but I will use "Let's Pretend"[/quote']

You compare one rule with 460 (6E1) + 320 (6E2) + 198 (APG) = 978 Pages of highly concentrated rules. [iRONIC]That is totally a good example[/iRONIC].

 

So' date=' basically, being resistant/immune to fire will be virtually useless in your game anyway. Given that, why should it carry a significant point cost?[/quote']

Something around 9 DC and a 60 Reserve, 100 Point Real cost Flame Powers Multipower is a GREAT difference.

A 400 Point Villian will have made the mistake of not taking anyhting for this chase exactly once and even with 10 INT people are just able to learn from mistakes.

 

The same -6 DC (30 AP' date=' 30 Real Cost) will literally halve any 12DC energy based attack. And after that, your defenses still apply. Is the ability to drop 6 DC's from every other energy SFX really only worth 10 points?[/quote']

You asume the GM allows you to spend more points on a non-limited Defense, wich is a moot point since it brings your overall defenses (in Energy Defenses) over the limit.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Okay' date=' please explain why being immune to being burned protects you from being hypnoticed by flames and in the same times does not protects you against other hypnotic effects, like the Hypntoic Flaming [i']Image[/i] of an Ilusionist (SFX != Flames).

 

Who said that protection from being burned protected you from being hypnotised by flames. If a character has a concept of having added protection from anything with a flame SFX then it is possible that is because they have some control over flames (like a fire elemental or fire mage). If someone uses that SFX against them then that same control should be able to disrupt those flames to provide a defence.

 

Even if the sun had a mind' date=' it could be hypnotised and you can't get more fireproof than a star.[/quote']

 

There are a lot of assumptions in that one sentence, none of them relevant to the discussion at hand...

 

 

You compare one rule with 460 (6E1) + 320 (6E2) + 198 (APG) = 978 Pages of highly concentrated rules. [iRONIC]That is totally a good example[/iRONIC].

 

Yup. Just making the extreme example of saying that adding a rule does not always equal less fun. If this was true then HERO would definitely be less fun than most games out there because it is definitely one of the most rules heavy examples out there...

 

I am going to have to go read Damage Negation - am not well up on the 6th edition additions...

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Okay' date=' please explain why being immune to being burned protects you from being hypnoticed by flames[/quote']

 

Doc D covers it nicely.

 

I guess he let his 3 Teammates beat him up. That why he is in a team' date=' so the others can compensate his weakness. If he isn't, he should have something. Like most [i']solo[/i] heroes or those playable as ones have something.

 

So it's wrongbad to want defense against all attacks of a given SFX, but just good character design to want attacks that circumvent every defense. Seems off to me, somehow.

 

Having to prevail in a situation when his powers are useless seems a classic comic book trope to me.

 

You compare one rule with 460 (6E1) + 320 (6E2) + 198 (APG) = 978 Pages of highly concentrated rules. [iRONIC]That is totally a good example[/iRONIC].

 

I rebut your explicit statement that "More (complex) rules have hardly ever produced more fun in playing." Each and every RPG ever written adds rules to "let's pretend". That's all RPG's are - a more structured form of "Let's Pretend". So either more, and more complex, rules do produce more fun in playing, or every RPG ever written is inferior to "Let's Pretend" and, for that matter, to Coin Toss Gaming.

 

Something around 9 DC and a 60 Reserve, 100 Point Real cost Flame Powers Multipower is a GREAT difference.

A 400 Point Villian will have made the mistake of not taking anyhting for this chase exactly once and even with 10 INT people are just able to learn from mistakes.

 

So if immunity to a single SFX is basically useless, why should it also be expensive? Many classic comic characters have faced opponents against which their specific powers are useless. They don't start carrying around laser pistols and body armor to compensate for this weakness.

 

You asume the GM allows you to spend more points on a non-limited Defense' date=' wich is a moot point since it brings your overall defenses (in Energy Defenses) over the limit.[/quote']

 

So it's OK to overprice it because the full version will be disallowed entirely? Maybe the player wants campaign maxmum defenses against only one single special effect. Why should he not save significant points compared to the character with campaign maximum defenses against all special effects?

 

Making creative or unusual powers cost excessive points merely leads all the players to build variants on the same character, since any character breaking that mold is forced to be inefficient and less competitive by excess pricing for his unusual abilities. Better to buy the abilities the GM permits to be efficient.

 

I was hapy to see the prices of REC, END and STUN fall markedly in 6e because this made high STUN and REC a viable choice instead of higher defenses, and high END and REC a viable choice instead of buying reduced END. But I like to see variety in the characters, not a group filled with characters whose only real difference is their choice of flavour text.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

That almost sounds like you never read the Limitation "Only Works Against [limited Type Of Attack] (-¼ to -1)" on 6E1 148. Because what you say is exactly what is said there.

 

"How would I build Fireresistant Power":

Energy damage Negation, Only vs Fire (-1/2, as said in 6E1 148). And not ripping the player of by cirumventing it.

Of course any Fire EP I build would have at least one not killing attack power that works against fireproof enemys. Not his best, but something.

 

With Damage Neagation we have already covered:

Normal Damage, Killing Damage, Drain STUN, Drain Body and AVAD variants of these.

A mere -6 DC (30 AP, 20 Real Cost) literally halve any 12DC Fire based attack. And after that, your defenses still apply..

 

OK. I have read Damage Negation properly now. As Hugh pointed out, in its base form it is limited, like ED, to one attack form (ED, PD etc). However, like Ghost Angel says, you can buy it to cover a whole special effect (like Fire) rather than limit it to an attack form.

 

However, that does still not do what I am proposing.

 

You say it sounds like I have never heard of Only versus xx attacks at -1/2.

 

I am not looking to limit the defence, I am looking to advantage my defence. I do not want to have to think about the attack forms I need to defend against nor do I want to think about the powers used to attack me. ED is limited to those attacks built to target ED, Damage Negation, even in SFX form, only defends against a limited number of attacks (flash is not included, entangle is not included and most drains are not included).

 

I want to buy 20 points of defence and advantage them such that it works against ED as normal and additionally limits the effects of all attacks that have a Fire SFX.

 

Now that I think about it, I think that if someone does purchase this advantage then they should have to purchase it for all defences that they do buy - this avoids any danger of choosing the lowest defence they have to get the universal SFX coverage...

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I think the different views being discussed in this thread illustrate a need for there to be a more formalized method or even requirement for GM's to define ALL the Campaign Rules they plan on using up front. As it stands' date=' most of the existing rules are character centric and don't lend themselves to easily showing potential interaction issues that are more directly important to a GM setting up his game-verse. I know there are bits and pieces already available but I for one would welcome a book dedicated to this concept alone. Not a book about rules but one about picking a consistent grouping and use of existing rules. The APG does some of this but it is otherwise still primarily focused on construction methods for individual abilities deemed too difficult to model with the core book toolkit.[/quote']

 

This is almost a project proposal. I'm not sure that you need to have it in the rulebook but there is definite gap for an online resource that walks a GM through the process of setting parameters for his campaign.

 

There are a lot of things that you need to decide on that are set at some default within the main rules - a kind of default Champions Campaign that assumes a lot of things unstated elsewhere.

 

I think this deserves a thread of its own Hyper-Man, I will have a think and see if I can come up with a starter post that will aid it. Possibly it will be a family of threads - each looking at something different in the campaign set-up.

 

Doc

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Who said that protection from being burned protected you from being hypnotised by flames. If a character has a concept of having added protection from anything with a flame SFX then it is possible that is because they have some control over flames (like a fire elemental or fire mage). If someone uses that SFX against them then that same control should be able to disrupt those flames to provide a defence.

That is a totally different aproach than "Fireproof Guy".

So his actions disrupt the attack? It's not that he is resistant, but that the enemy attack get's weakened before it can affect him.

How about a triggered Drain "One Firepower" for that? Take a look at interference (APG 170) too.

Or the SFX of a defensive action like Block (maybe with a bonus against his SFX, to simulate that it is easier).

Or Area Supress, Personal Imunity/Hole in the Middle.

 

So if immunity to a single SFX is basically useless' date=' why should it also be expensive? Many classic comic characters have faced opponents against which their specific powers are useless. They don't start carrying around laser pistols and body armor to compensate for this weakness.[/quote']

Again: A Multipower with with a Real point cost of 100 Points full of Blasts is a hell of a lot more than a bit of Martial Arts or a single, no-range 9 DC Attack.

And like the book says: You need to have Skills/Attacks/Perk for the chase you can't use your powers. "Even if his powers are disabeled, the character should have some way to do something heroic" - somewhere in the books....

 

So it's OK to overprice it because the full version will be disallowed entirely? Maybe the player wants campaign maxmum defenses against only one single special effect. Why should he not save significant points compared to the character with campaign maximum defenses against all special effects?

Overpriced? Normal allowance for Energy Defense according to the book for 400 Points champions equals 27 (18 rED) + 7 (7 ED) = 34 AP.

With a -6 DC, only vs. Fire you have TWICE of that against fire. A normal 12 DC Blast, has only 6 DC left and must still overcome the entire 34 AP of Energy Defenses.

Lets make the math:

6d6 vs 25 normal Defense: average roll of 6 Body, 21 STUN. Nothing. The average 12 DC Fire attack does NOTHING against him.

Highest Roll (1:46,656): 12 Body, 36 STUN. After defenses: 0 Body, 11 STUN.

 

2d6 Killing vs 18 Resistant, 25 normal Defense: average Roll of 7 Body, 14 STUN. Nothing, again. Highest Roll (1:108):

12 Body, 36 STUN. again, 0 Body and and 11 STUN.

 

"If that is the best you've got, this fight won't even take a moment"

 

Making creative or unusual powers cost excessive points merely leads all the players to build variants on the same character' date=' since any character breaking that mold is forced to be inefficient and less competitive by excess pricing for his unusual abilities. Better to buy the abilities the GM permits to be efficient.[/quote']

Sorry, but I can do a whole lot more with the rules than you can even imagine. And as you can see, the rules already have answers for even the most creative ideas you can churn out.

It's just impossible to know all of the rules at once, that is why we start "How to Build" Threads instead of saying "the rules can't do X so let's fix them", ignoring the fact that they could do this all the time.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

OK. I have read Damage Negation properly now. As Hugh pointed out' date=' in its base form it is limited, like ED, to one attack form (ED, PD etc). However, like Ghost Angel says, you can buy it to cover a whole special effect (like Fire) rather than limit it to an attack form.[/quote']

 

Which begs the question why we cannot simply apply that same logic to other defensive powers, such as ED, Damage Reduction or Resistant Defense. I'd still suggest a sliding scale based on frequency, but for a common special effect, the same cost as "all attacks against one specific defense" seems reasonable. Given we now have a precedent in the rules, why not extrapolate that to other forms of defenses and move on.

 

I am not looking to limit the defence' date=' I am looking to advantage my defence. I do not want to have to think about the attack forms I need to defend against nor do I want to think about the powers used to attack me. ED is limited to those attacks built to target ED, Damage Negation, even in SFX form, only defends against a limited number of attacks (flash is not included, entangle is not included and most drains are not included).[/quote']

 

It seems to me that you want to both advantage the defense (it works against all attack types, not just one) and limit the defense (it works only against one special effect). Based on the Damage Negation option, that seems to work out to a break even. This is really not that dissimilar from adjustment powers. Normally, they work against one specific mechanic. You can switch them to work against a special effect, add more mechanics or special effects, etc. by purchasing advantages. If we accept that, for defensive powers, changing from "all attacks that work against this defense type" to "all attacks that have this SFX" is a +0 advantage, then we have a starting point. We can always quibble over pricing (ie should this be an advantage, or a limitation; should it depend on how common that SFX is - but we don't make that distinction for adjustment powers), but we have the basis for a mechanic.

 

I want to buy 20 points of defence and advantage them such that it works against ED as normal and additionally limits the effects of all attacks that have a Fire SFX.

 

I wasn't looking for ED that acts as normal ED and also defends against all attacks of a Fire SFX. That could be +20 ED (purchased normally) and +20 Fire Defense, not against fire attacks that target ED (perhaps that's a -1/2 limitation, or -1, depending on what proportion of fire attacks we believe normally go against ED).

 

Now that I think about it' date=' I think that if someone does purchase this advantage then they should have to purchase it for all defences that they do buy - this avoids any danger of choosing the lowest defence they have to get the universal SFX coverage...[/quote']

 

Why? If I buy +20 ED, Resistant, Fire Effects, then I have 20 resistant defenses that only work against Fire SFX and spend 30 points. If I instead choose to buy +5 Power Defense, Fire Effects, then I have +5 defenses that only work against fire effects and are not resistant for 5 points. If I also have 15 rED, that will also reduce damage from fire attacks provided they would normally be defended by ED, and if I already have 5 power defense, adjustment powers directed against fire attacks will be reduced by that plus my Fire Defense.

 

That is a totally different aproach than "Fireproof Guy".

 

Many powers can be used for multiple special effects and character concepts. That's a pretty basic Hero System premise.

 

So his actions disrupt the attack?

 

No, he is somehow able to take less damage/effect from such attacks. How is special effects.

 

It's not that he is resistant, but that the enemy attack get's weakened before it can affect him.

How about a triggered Drain "One Firepower" for that? Take a look at interference (APG 170) too.

 

A Drain reduces the target's ability to use the power on an ongoing basis. That makes it weaker against everyone, not just the character intended to be resistant to such SFX. Speaking of APG, Special Effect Defenses would make a great APG topic.

 

Or the SFX of a defensive action like Block (maybe with a bonus against his SFX, to simulate that it is easier).

Or Area Supress, Personal Imunity/Hole in the Middle.

 

Block is fine if the character wants to be able to avoid the attack on an all or nothing basis, only when using an action. I don't think that's what we're looking for. Many of the attacks which this character would logically be resistant to would not be subject to Block.

 

Suppress again defends everyone, and weakens the actual attack power so it does not, if Suppressed to nil, even activate. Personal Immunity and Hole in the Middle are advantages applied to the attack, not abilities taken by a defender. A precedent that one can take Personal Immunity as a naked advantage to gain immunity to someone else's attack power strikes me as a bad idea. Hole in the Middle has the same issue, as well as being relevant only to area effect attacks.

 

Again: A Multipower with with a Real point cost of 100 Points full of Blasts is a hell of a lot more than a bit of Martial Arts or a single, no-range 9 DC Attack.

And like the book says: You need to have Skills/Attacks/Perk for the chase you can't use your powers. "Even if his powers are disabeled, the character should have some way to do something heroic" - somewhere in the books....

 

It doesn't mean he should be 100% effective. Many characters in the source material are not, and that translates to the game.

 

Overpriced? Normal allowance for Energy Defense according to the book for 400 Points champions equals 27 (18 rED) + 7 (7 ED) = 34 AP.

With a -6 DC, only vs. Fire you have TWICE of that against fire. A normal 12 DC Blast, has only 6 DC left and must still overcome the entire 34 AP of Energy Defenses.

Lets make the math:

6d6 vs 25 normal Defense: average roll of 6 Body, 21 STUN. Nothing. The average 12 DC Fire attack does NOTHING against him.

Highest Roll (1:46,656): 12 Body, 36 STUN. After defenses: 0 Body, 11 STUN.

 

So what if this character's trade off is that he has 7 ED and 6 DC's Damage Negation? That is, he is very resistant to fire attacks, but not other energy attacks. Should his negation now be cheaper because it sums to less? Should the cost of a 6d6 Blast be negligible, since it's not going to penetrate those typical defenses, and each extra die cost steadily more because it will get damage past higher and higher defenses? Some systems do charge more for each added increment of an ability, however that's not the norm in the Hero System.

 

Maybe those 6 DC's are adding to a Heroic character's more limited defenses. How does that change the pricing? If he buys 9 DC's, and the game's DC max is usually 6, such that the last 3 rarely have any impact, should he get a discount on those to reflect how infrequently they are actually useful, or does your logic apply only to justify charging more than an ability is actually worth in play, not less?

 

Sorry, but I can do a whole lot more with the rules than you can even imagine. And as you can see, the rules already have answers for even the most creative ideas you can churn out.

It's just impossible to know all of the rules at once, that is why we start "How to Build" Threads instead of saying "the rules can't do X so let's fix them", ignoring the fact that they could do this all the time.

 

So far, I haven't seen a reasonably priced "all powers of fire SFX do less damage to this target" ability come out of your comments, and we're on the fifth page of this discussion. I don't believe you have found a simple and obvious right answer, only an approach you are prepared to live with that does not achieve Doc's or my objectives for the ability.

 

As well, an ability that can only be created by a kludgy mish-mash of advantages and limitations, often counterintuitive, is not the most desirable solution. It's no solution at all when the result is a badly mispriced ability, whether far too expensive or far too cheap for its effects.

 

Being resistant to one specific special effect is a very common ability in source material for multiple genres. A simple, elegant way to simulate that in-game is desirable - which, to my mind, is why Damage Negation mentions the possibility to start the ball rolling. Extrapolating from that suggestion seems the most reasonable approach.

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

You can switch them to work against a special effect' date=' add more mechanics or special effects, etc. by purchasing advantages. If we accept that, for defensive powers, changing from "all attacks that work against this defense type" to "all attacks that have this SFX" is a +0 advantage, then we have a starting point.[/quote']

I still doubt the validity of a Mental Blast with Fire as Result SFX, so making a All-Fire DN that blocks Mental Attacks does not makes any sense for me.

 

I wasn't looking for ED that acts as normal ED and also defends against all attacks of a Fire SFX. That could be +20 ED (purchased normally) and +20 Fire Defense' date=' not against fire attacks that target ED (perhaps that's a -1/2 limitation, or -1, [b']depending on what proportion of fire attacks we believe normally go against ED[/b]).

Wrong perspective. You Limit ED, so you have to ask how many attacks that go agaisnt ED normally have Fire SFX so how much is this ED limited towards normal ED.

 

Suppress again defends everyone' date=' and weakens the actual attack power so it does not, if Suppressed to nil, even activate. Personal Immunity and Hole in the Middle are advantages applied to the attack, not abilities taken by a defender. A precedent that one can take Personal Immunity as a naked advantage to gain immunity to someone else's attack power strikes me as a bad idea. Hole in the Middle has the same issue, as well as being relevant only to area effect attacks.[/quote']

You don't get what I meant. Using the rules for Supreission, Area of Effect and Hole in the Middle (plus no Range) one could make a Supress that hinders all enemy Fire EP's around oneself, but does not affects yourself.

 

Using the rules for "Suppression Fields" (6E1 197) and Personal Imunity, one could weaken all power passing the space around him, except for his own.

 

 

It doesn't mean he should be 100% effective. Many characters in the source material are not' date=' and that translates to the game.[/quote']

Okay, seriously. How is a 9 DC attack anywhere near the a 90 Rael Cost Offesive Multipower in fighting power.

Mroe precisely: Take the "Multipower Set" of the Fire-Archetype from Champions 6E 258 and compare it to a 9 DC Martial Arts punch (inlcuding STR).

How is the 9 DC punch anywhere near 100% of the Firepower or Versatilty the multipower offers?

 

So what if this character's trade off is that he has 7 ED and 6 DC's Damage Negation? That is' date=' he is very resistant to fire attacks, but not other energy attacks. Should his negation now be cheaper because it sums to less? Should the cost of a 6d6 Blast be negligible, since it's not going to penetrate those typical defenses, [/quote']

Both stupid questions:

a) Minimum unlimited ED for 400 point Superheroic campaigns is give as 12 rED (18 AP) + 8 ED (8 AP) = 26 AP. When you have less, your character won't be useable in any fight featuring someone with energy attack. This is the minimum we have to asume - anything less won't be a valid build.

From the same perspective 6 DC is the lower Limits attacks should have, using standart defenes. Anything less is just a waste of points. Take an 8D6 Attack, 0 End (60 AP) in the same Multipower as your 12 DC attacks, and you have a viable 0 End Attack agaisnt mooks, perfectly suited for Multiattacks. So I just asume that 6 DC blast has some not Advantages not counting for DC-calcuation and thus is a viable Attack/Power.

If not, you are wasting points

 

Please stop throwing in concepts and Ideas that are intentionally not viable for the games we are dicussing here.

 

So far' date=' I haven't seen a reasonably priced "all powers of fire SFX do less damage to this target" ability come out of your comments, and we're on the fifth page of this discussion. I don't believe you have found a simple and obvious right answer, only an approach you are prepared to live with that does not achieve Doc's or my objectives for the ability.[/quote']

Permantly throwing in intentionally useless ideas/inviable concepts does not help. Give me a attack that a decent GM would allow in a real game and I show you what is possible right now.

 

Being resistant to one specific special effect is a very common ability in source material for multiple genres. A simple' date=' elegant way to simulate that in-game is desirable - which, to my mind, is why Damage Negation mentions the possibility to start the ball rolling. Extrapolating from that suggestion seems the most reasonable approach.[/quote']

Yes, but how many of the Fire Resistant guys can't be hypnoticed with the Image of a Flame? How many Mental Attacks in Fiction have a non-Mental Result SFX and are combat viable?

I think you are going way to far in declarign attacks as Fire SFX, despite them being Mental Attacks or having a clearly different Result SFX.

[torchwolf]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

If we accept that' date=' for defensive powers, changing from "all attacks that work against this defense type" to "all attacks that have this SFX" is a +0 advantage, then we have a starting point. We can always quibble over pricing (ie should this be an advantage, or a limitation; should it depend on how common that SFX is - but we don't make that distinction for adjustment powers), but we have the basis for a mechanic.[/quote']

Hero System (Champions) started out with the implication that attack powers should have an sfx, but while it might also have been implied that defense powers should have an sfx (and so work vs a specific sfx), this wasn't enforced very explicitly.

Possibly, a generic "ED" should really be an Advantage in many campaigns, much as a "Variable Special Effects" attack.

 

 

Which begs the question why we cannot simply apply that same logic to other defensive powers' date=' such as ED, Damage Reduction or Resistant Defense. I'd still suggest a sliding scale based on frequency, but for a common special effect, the same cost as "all attacks against one specific defense" seems reasonable. Given we now have a precedent in the rules, why not extrapolate that to other forms of defenses and move on.[/quote']

Something along the lines of a universal defense was suggested in Fantasy Hero (p81 in 5th Ed, p111 in 6th Ed):

 

Arcane Defense (AD). Although discussed primarily as a Characteristic, it would apply in general and could presumably be purchased as a Power.

As suggested in FH, it would protect against anything with the magic sfx; attacks against PD or ED, Drains, NNDs, Transforms or what have you.

Because this would be so universally useful, the suggested cost is at least 2, perhaps 5. This would correspond to an Advantage of maybe +1 to +4, which puts it in the general range of similar modifiers for Adjustment Powers... which seems to confirm what's been noted about looking at the Modifiers for Adjustment Powers.

 

Being resistant to one specific special effect is a very common ability in source material for multiple genres. A simple' date=' elegant way to simulate that in-game is desirable - which, to my mind, is why Damage Negation mentions the possibility to start the ball rolling. Extrapolating from that suggestion seems the most reasonable approach.[/quote']

Personally, I think Damage Negation is the most interesting and promising game mechanic to base sfx-based defenses on.

 

However: all sfx are not equal in practical usefulness. Even in a generic superheroic campaign using superheroic physics, most GMs would occasionally allow some secondary effects:

a fire-user might put things on fire using his powers; water projectors might short-circuit electrical devices; etc.

 

The sfx discussion in Ultimate Energy Projector uses an Adder and/or Advantage for various sfx to determine how useful it is against other possible sfx.

In a pick-up game, it may be useful to have a standardized list of the most common sfx in the campaign, and how useful they are against each other.

If nothing else, it might give the specific sfx used a bit more detail that helps distinguish characters from each other, especially if there are a few Energy Projector PCs in the game.

 

 

A thought on campaign design considerations (at least concerning the always-recurring sfx issue):

In relation to source literature, there were also two fairly useful (but now semi-defunct) game systems which used mechanics to deal with sfx with a different game design philosophy:

 

*MSH (Marvel Super Heroes by TSR) used the concept of sfx-based "Power Stunts" (in Hero System terms, this would be using the Power Skill to achieve temporary effects appropriate to the sfx (and likely adding slots to a Power Framework for "learned" Power Stunts).

Defenses just stated the sfx and left application up to the GM to adjudicate (not so difficult in the MSH system). There were generally few generic "energy" defenses (though the design philosophy left many characters without defenses, instead using Health Points in a D&D-like fashion to survive fights, in addition to a Karma system slightly similar to HAPs).

 

*DCH (DC Heroes/MEGS by Mayfair Games) used a list of ways an sfx-defined Power could be used in game terms, and set the cost of the Power based on how many different applications the sfx had (in Hero System terms, you purchased pre-built Power Frameworks).

Defenses were handled much the same as in MSH (again, different design philosophy, integrating some defense mechanics into Attributes, together with a Hero Point system slightly similar to HAPs).

 

Of course, the Hero System doesn't put as much emphasis on a particular defensive solutions - having defenses limit damage taken, or being able to take a lot of damage, or avoiding being hit in the first place, etc. - there are several legitimate and effective ways to survive in combat.

 

(yes, I'm aware many of you reading this already know these systems, just describing some elements here for comparison purposes)

 

A way of handling how to define sfx (and for that manner, defense costs) would be to define beforehand which the common sfx in a campaign will be, and just evaluate any newly established sfx in comparison to (and possibly by how well/poorly the new sfx fared vs previously established sfx).

 

 

Just a few thoughts on related matters.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I still doubt the validity of a Mental Blast with Fire as Result SFX' date=' so making a All-Fire DN that blocks Mental Attacks does not makes any sense for me.[/quote']

 

So, in your games, an extremely high limitation for Mental Defense, Fire SFX Only, would seem appropriate. Perhaps even so high there is no charge assessed. I suspect most SFX-based defenses would see some defense types predominate and others appear rarely, if at all. It does not invalidate the concept. If anything, it provides another reason to have a SFX-based defense cost less than the sum of all the defenses it might incorporate.

 

I will also remind you that it was you, earlier in the thread, that stated the choice of what defense an attack goes against is completely up to the attacker purchasing the power. That opens up the possibility of any SFX power applying against any defense.

 

Wrong perspective. You Limit ED' date=' so you have to ask how many attacks that go agaisnt ED normally have Fire SFX so how much is this ED limited towards normal ED.[/quote']

 

I can either limit ED to "not vs attacks with Fire SFX", or limit Fire Defense to "not vs attacks reduced by ED". All we want is to avoid overlap in such a case, so limiting either defense would achieve the same result. A character with 40 ED (to pick an extreme) is already very well defended against a typical Fire Blast. How much is extra ED that only protects against Fire actually worth? This is an area the system doesn't really address at present. If half the fire SFX attacks are affected by ED, then "Fire Defense" that doesn't add to ED loses half its effectiveness.

 

You don't get what I meant. Using the rules for Supreission' date=' Area of Effect and Hole in the Middle (plus no Range) one could make a Supress that hinders all enemy Fire EP's around oneself, but does not affects yourself.[/quote']

 

Yes, we could make a very complex structure where the character's protection depends on the AP of the incoming attack. I think Doc D wants the ability to reduce damage from all fire attacks on the basis of having extra defenses against those powers, a much easier construct to conceptualize and apply during a game. That's what I'd like to see as well.

 

Okay' date=' seriously. How is a 9 DC attack anywhere near the a 90 Rael Cost Offesive Multipower in fighting power.[/quote']

 

Once again we get to the relativity issue. If 9 DC is nowhere near as useful as 12 DC, why does it cost 75% of the 12 DC cost? 9 DC is sufficient to break down brick walls. Perhaps the concept of a Human Torch does not include kicking down brick walls, or knocking out, and severely injuring, the typical Normal with a single strike of his mighty/well-trained fists. This may be how your games play. It is not how everyone's games play.

 

Mroe precisely: Take the "Multipower Set" of the Fire-Archetype from Champions 6E 258 and compare it to a 9 DC Martial Arts punch (inlcuding STR).

How is the 9 DC punch anywhere near 100% of the Firepower or Versatilty the multipower offers?

 

Having a 9 DC punch plus the Multipower Set of the Fire-Archetype is, by definition, more powerful and more versatile than having only the Multipower. Should the Martial Artist, possessing a suite of 12 DC martial maneuvers, also have a 9 DC flame blast, or should we look to his concept to see whether this is appropriate?

 

Both stupid questions:

 

Well, I'm getting plenty of stupid answers, so I'm OK with that.

 

a) Minimum unlimited ED for 400 point Superheroic campaigns is give as 12 rED (18 AP) + 8 ED (8 AP) = 26 AP. When you have less' date=' your character won't be useable in any fight featuring someone with energy attack. This is the minimum we have to asume - anything less won't be a valid build.[/quote']

 

OK, since we're throwing the word around, that's a very stupid comment. The charts are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. They do not impose hard minima or maxima. A high STUN, high REC character can have far less defenses and be quite viable. The fragile, but fast (high DCV) character is another example of a build which has well below "guideline" defenses and yet plays quite well in many/most games.

 

For myself, I do not want a game where every character has near identical abilities, differentiated only by SFX. A wide variety of characters can be fully valid builds. Mentor and Trebuchet (who have not posted for a while) provided a great example of a long-running game where character abilities were widely differentiated, with DC's ranging from (IIRC) 14 or 15 down to about 9, and similar differences in defense and CV levels.

 

From the same perspective 6 DC is the lower Limits attacks should have, using standart defenes. Anything less is just a waste of points. Take an 8D6 Attack, 0 End (60 AP) in the same Multipower as your 12 DC attacks, and you have a viable 0 End Attack agaisnt mooks, perfectly suited for Multiattacks. So I just asume that 6 DC blast has some not Advantages not counting for DC-calcuation and thus is a viable Attack/Power.

If not, you are wasting points

 

Perhaps so, in your games. Would that mean, in your games, I can choose to have an unlimited number of 3 DC attacks, since (in your view) they are utterly useless?

 

Please stop throwing in concepts and Ideas that are intentionally not viable for the games we are dicussing here.

 

I don't know what you think you are discussing. I am discussing a broad concept applicable to a wide array of games, gaming styles and genres. I am not discussing your games in particular. I am also not restricting my discussion to games that prohibit damage negation (from other posters, there are a good number who don't like that mechanic), but any system we come up with should be usable in your games, their games and many other games.

 

Permantly throwing in intentionally useless ideas/inviable concepts does not help. Give me a attack that a decent GM would allow in a real game and I show you what is possible right now.

 

So, are we looking for something a decent GM would allow in a real game, or something you would allow in your game? The two are not necessarily identical.

 

Yes, but how many of the Fire Resistant guys can't be hypnoticed with the Image of a Flame? How many Mental Attacks in Fiction have a non-Mental Result SFX and are combat viable?

I think you are going way to far in declarign attacks as Fire SFX, despite them being Mental Attacks or having a clearly different Result SFX.

 

Whether I can, off the cuff, come up with a design you like and accept is really not the point. The point is that, in my experience, when we dismiss a potential mechanic or SFX, there turns out to be someone out there who has a concept which squarely falls within that mechanic or SFX. By dismissing it, we reduce the flexibility of the game. To me, one of Hero's main strengths is its flexibility, so I support enhancing flexibility and oppose restricting it, even if the specific concept is one I see no use or desire for in my games.

 

Something along the lines of a universal defense was suggested in Fantasy Hero (p81 in 5th Ed, p111 in 6th Ed):

 

Arcane Defense (AD). Although discussed primarily as a Characteristic, it would apply in general and could presumably be purchased as a Power.

As suggested in FH, it would protect against anything with the magic sfx; attacks against PD or ED, Drains, NNDs, Transforms or what have you.

Because this would be so universally useful, the suggested cost is at least 2, perhaps 5. This would correspond to an Advantage of maybe +1 to +4, which puts it in the general range of similar modifiers for Adjustment Powers... which seems to confirm what's been noted about looking at the Modifiers for Adjustment Powers.

 

I see this as a specific application of the general concept we are discussing. The advantage should be a big one when Magic is one of the most common SFX in the game.

 

However: all sfx are not equal in practical usefulness. Even in a generic superheroic campaign using superheroic physics, most GMs would occasionally allow some secondary effects:

a fire-user might put things on fire using his powers; water projectors might short-circuit electrical devices; etc.

 

Nor are they equal in frequency!

 

Of course' date=' the Hero System doesn't put as much emphasis on a particular defensive solutions - having defenses limit damage taken, or being able to take a lot of damage, or avoiding being hit in the first place, etc. - there are several legitimate and effective ways to survive in combat.[/quote']

 

Quoted for emphasis - these do not require your ED range from 20 to 25...

 

A way of handling how to define sfx (and for that manner' date=' defense costs) would be to define beforehand which the common sfx in a campaign will be, and just evaluate any newly established sfx in comparison to (and possibly by how well/poorly the new sfx fared vs previously established sfx).[/quote']

 

Yes and no. In the early days of Champions, a lot of villains had a Vulnerability to Sonics - so some players designed characters with Sonic SFX to take advantage of that. Sonics became more common as a result. It's easier to enforce how common/uncommon a given SFX can be in games where the "powers" are determined by the GM - for example, in a Fantasy game where spells are GM designed and must be found by players, it's easy to make Sonic SFX a rare and precious thing. Not so in a wider ranging Supers game where players define their own SFX. The GM can control how common that SFX is among the NPC's, but not easily among the PC's.

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Multi-quote posts won't get us anywhere, so I better stop using them right now.

 

What I would really like to see is one real example of the Problem you want to solve. And with real I don't mean "somebody could", but "somebody has".

[torchwolf]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

NOTE: Mostly, I'm summarizing and restating much of what's already been said, for clarity purposes, and throwing some numbers into the air:

Simplistic suggestion for sfx-based defenses (assuming either PD, ED, Resistant Protection or Damage Negation as a base for the SFX Defense Power):

Advantage and Limitation below would modify final sfx-based defense cost.

 

1) Expanded Defense Advantage to SFX Defense

*Defense protects against multiple Effects vs a specific SFX (+1 per Power Category)

(Attack Powers PLUS 1 of Adjustment Powers OR Sense-Affecting Powers OR Mental Powers etc.)

*Defense protects against all Effects vs a specific SFX (+4)

(Attack Powers PLUS Adjustment Powers AND Sense-Affecting Powers AND Mental Powers etc.)

 

2) Limited Defense Limitation to SFX Defense (expanded categories from APG)

*Extremely Common SFX (-0)

*Very Common SFX (-1/4)

*Common SFX (-1/2)

*Uncommon SFX (-1)

*Rare SFX (-1 1/2 to -2)

 

For Uncommon or Rare SFX (necessarily campaign-dependent definitions), this would not necessarily be unbalancing enough to count against campaign DEF limits.

Quite likely, Extremely Common, Very Common and possibly also Common SFX Expanded Defenses needs to be carefully monitored.

 

This approach still requires some consideration of the frequency of various sfx within a campaign. Also, Flash Defense, Power Defense (etc.) would be rendered superfluous.

 

 

However: all sfx are not equal in practical usefulness.

Nor are they equal in frequency!

It would be an interesting but strange campaign world if they were.

 

 

SFX frequency:

 

Since PCs would not usually fight each other (in most campaigns), they might not directly affect sfx frequency - though indirectly they would, as GMs would likely design some NPCs to challenge PCs with similar or diametrically opposed powers, especially in a superhero campaign, and likely also if there were PC magic users in a fantasy game.

Exact values of any Advantages and Limitations need to be applied in a campaign context, of course, but will likely need periodical review to remain fair.

I still think a GM needs to have a general idea of sfx frequency within a specific campaign, though it's hard to define even loosely by just genre.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

What I would really like to see is one real example of the Problem you want to solve. And with real I don't mean "somebody could"' date=' but "somebody has".[/quote']

 

Well, take my friend's concept for a character next time we play HERO. He wants to play a Swamp Thing-style character, a policeman shot and thrown into a chemical waste plant. He didn't die and came back as a revenant style character. He wants to have the power to throw chemicals and mix stuff. he is essentially walking dead witha chemical waste twist. He wants to be highly resistant to all attacks based on poison SFX as he is poison incarnate...

 

Doc

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I really haven't read all the responses - and I'm just going to cut to the chase; Here's another idea, different angle than torchwolf's solution:

 

Create a new Defense Power - "Special Effect Defense" - it works against a chosen Special Effect, only that Special Effect, but in whatever form that Special Effect takes place.

 

We can kind of gather a baseline by adding up 1 point of each Defense - 1PD + 1ED + 1MD + 1PwrD + 1Flash (I'm just treating Flash Defense as one entity for simplicity, I'm not really in the mood to do the Hero Equivalent of String Theory). 5 Points pretty much covers all the basic defenses.

 

Special Effect Defense

5 Points per +1 Defense, Defense is NonResistant.

Persistent, Doesn't Cost END, yada yada.

 

Choose a Special Effect (Fire, Evil, Bavarian Cream, Sonic, Light, Fire, Magic) - no matter how that Special Effect is employed against you, this defends against it.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

We can kind of gather a baseline by adding up 1 point of each Defense - 1PD + 1ED + 1MD + 1PwrD + 1Flash (I'm just treating Flash Defense as one entity for simplicity, I'm not really in the mood to do the Hero Equivalent of String Theory). 5 Points pretty much covers all the basic defenses.

 

Special Effect Defense

5 Points per +1 Defense, Defense is NonResistant.

Persistent, Doesn't Cost END, yada yada.

 

Choose a Special Effect (Fire, Evil, Bavarian Cream, Sonic, Light, Fire, Magic) - no matter how that Special Effect is employed against you, this defends against it.

 

So. we get to buy five points of defence for five points and the possibility that there are other effects that it might work against for free?

 

Hugh had proposed that 1 point of effect defence would cost one point but would not provide generic defence. So a character might purchase 15 PD, 15 ED and 10 fire defence. When attacked by an energy beam (ED) he would have 15 points to defend against the damage, when attacked by a flame thrower he would have 25 points to defend against the damage. Cost - 40 points

 

Your proposal would cost 80 points to get the same benefits but would also provide 25 points against the energy beam and 10 points against a range of other generic effects. Is that how you see it??

 

Doc

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Well, take my friend's concept for a character next time we play HERO. He wants to play a Swamp Thing-style character, a policeman shot and thrown into a chemical waste plant. He didn't die and came back as a revenant style character. He wants to have the power to throw chemicals and mix stuff. he is essentially walking dead witha chemical waste twist. He wants to be highly resistant to all attacks based on poison SFX as he is poison incarnate...

 

Doc

Asuming a campaing in wich the normal rules (6E1 and 6E2) are used:

"Characters buy lethal poisons as RKAs, NND Does BODY (defense is appropriate Life Support [immunity]; +1);" (6E2 211)

LS: All Poisons, 5 Active Points. (6E1 245)

 

When it should include chemicals and Acids too, this becomes a little bit more difficulty.

 

We can kind of gather a baseline by adding up 1 point of each Defense - 1PD + 1ED + 1MD + 1PwrD + 1Flash (I'm just treating Flash Defense as one entity for simplicity' date=' I'm not really in the mood to do the Hero Equivalent of String Theory). 5 Points pretty much covers all the basic defenses.[/quote']

One thing in additon: Usually you can make the defenses "Unified" in addition.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Christopher, it is in the area where it gets more difficult that Hugh and I are operating in this thread. Do you see some utility in having the option of covering the less common but possible attacks the character may face that he should have some resistance to?

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Christopher' date=' it is in the area where it gets more difficult that Hugh and I are operating in this thread. Do you see some utility in having the option of covering the less common but possible attacks the character may face that he should have some resistance to?[/quote']

First say me: Are Poison in your book always build with "NND Does BODY (defense is appropriate Life Support [immunity]; +1)", or not?