Hmmm. More on Special Effects

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

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

 

Pretty much - because Effect Defense should be more expensive that standard defenses IMO, it takes into account all possible forms of attack - from "Mind Control: you're on fire" to Mr. Flames actually lighting you on fire.

 

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

 

Alright, that makes it 4 Points per +1 Special Effect Defense.

 

If you want to get even more of a breakdown it can take the following Limitations:

-0 Common Defense

-1/4 Uncommon Defense

-1/2 Rare Defense

-1 Very Rare Defense

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Alright' date=' that makes it 4 Points per +1 Special Effect Defense.[/quote']

The unification part points to another problem: How is this defense Drained?

Is it a seperate power?

Or is it affected by a Drain ED/OD since it is in Part ED and PD? What about a Drain to Mental or Power Defenses? Or Flash defense?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

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

 

Not really. Poisons do not always just kill, some are debilitating and damage does not debilitate in HERO. So there is a wide range of attack forms relating to poisons that I have used in the past.

 

 

Doc

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Not really. Poisons do not always just kill' date=' some are debilitating and damage does not debilitate in HERO. So there is a wide range of attack forms relating to poisons that I have used in the past.[/quote']

Such a poison would be a "Drain, NND Does BODY (defense is appropriate Life Support [immunity]; +1)", so still a build using the NND Form.

But the question wasn't about RKA, but if Poison in your book requires "NND Does BODY (defense is appropriate Life Support [immunity]; +2*)" or if you allow them without it?

 

*I noticed the math in the book is of: 3 Steps down (Very Common to Rare), 1 Step up (NND) = +1. And then comes "Does Body" with +1.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

The unification part points to another problem: How is this defense Drained?

Is it a seperate power?

Or is it affected by a Drain ED/OD since it is in Part ED and PD? What about a Drain to Mental or Power Defenses? Or Flash defense?

 

Hugh's method makes this question easier and we might reason by association. Hugh's method was to choose the defence most likely to be used in defending against such attacks (such as ED for fire) and advantage that. Drains therefore would draw against the power if they target ED or fire.

 

I would say therefore, in the Ghost Angel build, that you would choose a core defence (pick the one most closely related to the SFX) that would be susceptible to adjustment and have the SFX link there as well. I would not want to allow any defensive drain to work against it - at 4points per point I would want some payback!

 

Pretty much - because Effect Defense should be more expensive that standard defenses IMO' date=' it takes into account all possible forms of attack - from "Mind Control: you're on fire" to Mr. Flames actually lighting you on fire.[/quote']

 

Our reasoning had been that Damage Negation works on the standard ED/PD/mental defence spectrum unless you want it to be SFX related. If you do, then it works against a range of powers that have a specific SFX. The SFX Damage Negation cost the same as the standard Damage Negation. So we extrapolated to the fact that FX defences should be 1 to 1 cost to standard ones - you gain breadth from SFX but lose the breadth of the standard defences.

 

I was open to it costing more.

 

 

 

Alright, that makes it 4 Points per +1 Special Effect Defense.

 

If you want to get even more of a breakdown it can take the following Limitations:

-0 Common Defense

-1/4 Uncommon Defense

-1/2 Rare Defense

-1 Very Rare Defense

 

Hm. So an SFX defence would cost from 4 points per point to 2 points per point depending on how common the SFX were in the campaign. By that, I think it should mean, for player characters, how common the SFX was among villains in the GMs campaign and, for NPCs, how common the SFX were among player characters.

 

Would not want to facilitate gaming round the edges!

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Such a poison would be a "Drain' date=' NND Does BODY (defense is appropriate Life Support [immunity']; +1)", so still a build using the NND Form.

But the question wasn't about RKA, but if Poison in your book requires "NND Does BODY (defense is appropriate Life Support [immunity]; +2*)" or if you allow them without it?

 

A bit confused but let me try again. Some of those builds might be Drain but they would not necessarily be NND Does BODY.

 

I realised the question was not about RKA but I have found that NND Does BODY is probably a far better way to kill most people than RKA, point for point.

 

So. Not all of the poisons in my campaign requires NND does BODY. Not all of them do damage and of those that do not, not all of them are drains.

 

 

Doc

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

So. Not all of the poisons in my campaign requires NND does BODY. Not all of them do damage and of those that do not' date=' not all of them are drains.[/quote']

Then they might be called poison, but for game effect they are not. I mean, it is not affected by "Immunity to all Poisons", so it's not part of the group "all poisons". Poison are build with NND but that isn't. So it must be something else.

 

One thing that easily comes in my mind here is acid. Poison and Acid have much in common, inlcuding that acid in your blood is as bad as poison in your blood.

But there is still one mayor difference: a poison requires a succeptible metabolism. A poison will not work against doorknobs, skeletons, robots or wierd alien physiologies. A acid will.

In fact in fiction I have often seen acids declared as poison (a "poison attack" that melts bones, stone and other nonliving matter seem pretty common).

 

So I think all those "Poison attacks without NND", are in reality just simple acid SFX attacks and would fall under the Acid Resistance.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Then they might be called poison' date=' but for game effect they are not. I mean, it is not affected by "Immunity to all Poisons", so it's not part of the group "all poisons". Poison are build with NND but that isn't. So it must be something else.[/quote']

 

Far be it for me to say that I think you have the wrong end of the system stick here but....

 

SFX are nothing to do with the mechanical tools used by the system to get the effect required. There is no restriction in the HERO system as to what power might be used to achieve the effects of a poison. Some poisons cause you to be inebriated. No NND necessary there. Some poisons paralyse. No NND necessary there. And neither of those would have the acid SFX in my opinion.

 

I am not sure where you picked up this conviction that all poisons must be NND?

 

Doc

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Far be it for me to say that I think you have the wrong end of the system stick here but....

 

SFX are nothing to do with the mechanical tools used by the system to get the effect required. There is no restriction in the HERO system as to what power might be used to achieve the effects of a poison. Some poisons cause you to be inebriated. No NND necessary there. Some poisons paralyse. No NND necessary there. And neither of those would have the acid SFX in my opinion.

 

I am not sure where you picked up this conviction that all poisons must be NND?

 

Doc

Then you are right: With your interpretation of Special Effect and what it can do/work against, there is no book way to protect you fully against even something as simple as a poison.

[Hugh Neilson]

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.)

 

So, for 7.5 points (6 if we add in Unified Power), I can have +1 rPD, +1rED, +1 Power Defense, +1 Flash Defense and +1 Mental Defense that works only against, let’s say, bludgeoning special effects (extremely common, so -0).

 

For the same 6 points (including Unified Power), my teammate can have I can have +1 rPD, +1rED, +1 Power Defense, +1 sight Flash Defense and +1 Mental Defense that works against all special effects.

 

Are the two realistically comparable in effectiveness? Whenever there is a bludgeoning power that works against non-Sight flash defense or is an NND, I gain an advantage. For every non-bludgeoning attack that works against something other than non-Sight flash defense and is not an NND, my teammate has an advantage. I don’t think those two situations will occur with roughly equal frequency in most games.

 

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)

 

I would suggest, rather, that even an extremely common SFX merits a significant limitation, unless the game is one where there are very few valid SFX for anything. The Fantasy Hero suggestion for Arcane Defense prices this at 2 points in a game system where Magic will be an extremely frequent SFX. If we extrapolate from 7.5 AP, that’s about a 2.75 total limitation. That would be -1/4 for Unified Power, and -2.5 for Extremely Common Special Effect.

 

Of course, using limitations in this fashion, there would be virtually no incremental savings moving down the chain, but we could establish that an extremely common SFX defense costs 2 points, with very common perhaps costing 1.5 points, common costing 1, uncommon 2 defense per 1 point and rare 4 defense per 1 point.

 

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.

 

Well, they need to be monitored. Do they need to be capped? I’m not convinced. Let’s return to Arcane Defense, which we’ll suggest costs 2 points in a High Magic fantasy campaign. So the character sinks, say, 30 points (20% of a starting heroic character!) into Arcane Defense, and gets an extra 15 defense against all magic abilities. Tack on, say, 6 PD and ED, and he takes no damage from a typical 6 DC magical attack (but an above average roll slips something by). Maybe he bumps up to 25 Arcane Defense (cost 50 points – 1/3 of his available points), and is now pretty much immune to 8 DC magic attacks.

 

Powerful? Sure - he’s going to be extremely hard to take down with magic. But a knife between the ribs is still going to take him down. And he’s spent a third of his character points to get there. What else could that 50 points have purchased? This seems like a very flavoured character, with unusual abilities, not a game breaker by any stretch. Slap those 50 points into 10 skill levels with Swords and +2 Speed instead and let’s see how the two characters compare!

 

This approach still requires some consideration of the frequency of various sfx within a campaign. Also' date=' Flash Defense, Power Defense (etc.) would be rendered superfluous.[/quote']

 

No more than PD/ED are superfluous. You could certainly remove them, but there’s no need to eliminate a generic defense against a specific type of attack. I’d rather add SFX defense than use it to replace something else.

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.

 

I’m unclear how this differs from Torchwolf, other than making it a new power. My teammate spends the same 5 points and has nonresistant PD, ED, Sight Flash, Power and Mental defense which works against all attack forms. It seems pretty clear the pricing favours generic defences by a wide margin, relegating SFX defense to a very expensive flavour power commonly purchased by those who are OK being one trick pony sidekick characters.

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Let’s return to Arcane Defense' date=' which we’ll suggest costs 2 points in a High Magic fantasy campaign. So the character sinks, say, 30 points (20% of a starting heroic character!) into Arcane Defense, and gets an extra 15 defense against all magic abilities. Tack on, say, 6 PD and ED, and he takes no damage from a typical 6 DC magical attack (but an above average roll slips something by). Maybe he bumps up to 25 Arcane Defense (cost 50 points – 1/3 of his available points), and is now pretty much immune to 8 DC magic attacks.[/quote']

I only have the "Arcane Defense" from the APG, but there all magic attacks go only against AD. No stacking of other defenses and AD against Magical attacks.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Well' date=' 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... [/quote']

 

A good example

 

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.

 

Actually, even if I use your baseline that each and every poison must be an NND Does BOD (LS: Immunity) , I still cannot build a character who is resistant to, but not necessarily immune to, all poisons. Either he lacks the LS and takes full effect, or he has the LS and takes no effect.

 

Like Doc D, I see a lot of examples of chemical and poison type attacks that are not NND – Does BOD. Wasp poison is paralytic, not lethal. Action fiction chloroform is a knockout drug. Many attacks that would fall into this SFX are designed as Drains or Suppresses, and are defended against by power defense, not by a specific immunity (some are limited to not function against some types of targets, but that’s beside the point). AVAD vs Power Defense is a fairly common build as well, whether it does BOD or not.

 

Can you cite a single example of a drug or poison built as an NND Drain that Does BOD?

 

One approach is certainly to mandate that each and every poison, drug, etc. in game must be built as an NND Does BOD attack. Similarly, requiring every attack with Fire SFX be built to be defended by either ED or LS: High Heat (whether NND or a limitation that such characters are immune – eg. Heat Stroke Drain would carry the limitation “not vs targets with LS: Immune to High Heat) would allow the construction of a fire resistant character.

 

However, few games impose that tight a restriction on any SFX, and every SFX would need to be covered to create the option of purchasing resistance to all attacks of the SFX in question. SFX Defense provides an option for those who do not wish to categorize each and every possible SFX in their game, and regiment them to ensure the means of buying functional immunity is clear and unambiguous without special effect defenses.

 

Then they might be called poison, but for game effect they are not. I mean, it is not affected by "Immunity to all Poisons", so it's not part of the group "all poisons". Poison are build with NND but that isn't. So it must be something else.

 

One thing that easily comes in my mind here is acid. Poison and Acid have much in common, inlcuding that acid in your blood is as bad as poison in your blood.

 

But there is still one mayor difference: a poison requires a succeptible metabolism. A poison will not work against doorknobs, skeletons, robots or wierd alien physiologies. A acid will.

In fact in fiction I have often seen acids declared as poison (a "poison attack" that melts bones, stone and other nonliving matter seem pretty common).

 

So I think all those "Poison attacks without NND", are in reality just simple acid SFX attacks and would fall under the Acid Resistance.

 

There is no game mechanic called “Poison”, so stating that an attack whose SFX is defined as “poison” cannot be “poison” is simply you imposing your interpretation on everyone else in the game. Will the character in Doc D’s example be prohibited from buying any attack not mechanically an NND – Does BOD because they are poison attacks? In your games, perhaps he would. Not so in most games. I suspect leafing through the Villains books could provide a host of example powers that are “poison” by SFX, but are not Poison by your definition. Anyone have USPD or Champions Powers handy for such reference?

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Okay, so some people build Cloroform as Blast, Posion, STUN Only.

 

Then what is preventing me from defining my Chloroform as as Chemical/Chemical, Air based/Gasous Attack, so your Poision Resistance will not help against it?

[Clonus]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Okay, so some people build Cloroform as Blast, Posion, STUN Only.

 

Then what is preventing me from defining my Chloroform as as Chemical/Chemical, Air based/Gasous Attack, so your Poision Resistance will not help against it?

 

The GM slapping you for being silly.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

In any SFX based power there will always be an element of negotiation about the applicability to certain attacks. I think that it comes down to reasonability. If the GM wants to say that something is a chemical, not a poison then it is his perogative to do so. I think you might find that the poison resistance quickly becomes chemical resistance.

 

Like you said, a bad GM can screw you up....

 

 

Doc

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

The GM slapping you for being silly.

Like a different could slapp you for being silly, because you made a poison that is not a NND.

 

Also, I did not even imply intention. For some Chloroform will be clearly one thing, for the next one it will be something totally different. And like was said above, neither build is wrong or right.

[Martin2]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I have recently created a DNPC with multipower poison spit that does not do body or stun damage but SFX poison of:

 

AOE cone Flash (gets in the eyes)

Drain Speed (paralysis)

 

And have just realised the 5 points LS: all poisons cancells all his powers!

 

So up against anyone with it his powers will be useless!

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I have recently created a DNPC with multipower poison spit that does not do body or stun damage but SFX poison of:

 

AOE cone Flash (gets in the eyes)

Drain Speed (paralysis)

 

And have just realised the 5 points LS: all poisons cancells all his powers!

 

So up against anyone with it his powers will be useless!

 

Have you specifically built them such the the life support would cancel the powers? Just because you have LS to extreme heat does not mean that heat based attacks will not damage you.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Like a different could slapp you for being silly, because you made a poison that is not a NND.

 

Also, I did not even imply intention. For some Chloroform will be clearly one thing, for the next one it will be something totally different. And like was said above, neither build is wrong or right.

 

It was not the build that Clonus deemed worthy of the slap but the thought that simply calling chloroform a chemical does not remove the fact that it is a poison...

 

Now. I might have an argument with the GM about certain drugs and whether those were poisons or simply bioactive. A sleeping draught might not be designated a poison despite having the exact same mechanical build as cholorform. But one is a poison, the other is not....

 

Working with SFX is difficult simply because they do not have the clarity of the mechanics...

 

 

Doc

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I have recently created a DNPC with multipower poison spit that does not do body or stun damage but SFX poison of:

 

AOE cone Flash (gets in the eyes)

Drain Speed (paralysis)

 

And have just realised the 5 points LS: all poisons cancells all his powers!

 

So up against anyone with it his powers will be useless!

Not unless you build them as NND, with "Imunity to Specific Poison" being the defense.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

The idea of a single SFX based Defense has been discussed before. Coming up with the sweet spot for pricing is tricky

 

Links to a couple of older related threads

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/55605-New-Mechanic-Meta-Defense

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/55352-Sooo...-Immunity-to-magic

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I do like the Aproach to use 100% DR, defined as "against" SFX. It's basically what the book tells us, even with an example for poison.

And the 100% DR is in the APG, listed with 120 Points even.

 

The problem is that even with a -1 it will cost 120 Active and 60 Real cost. Okay for me, but Hugh will complain about this being way to expensive.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I think Hugh would be fine with 120 active points to simulate an immunity to an SFX. After all it is a one to one cost comparison with 100% Damage reduction against a single mechanical effect. If you are happy to swap effects at complete immunity for one to one, why the problem at lesser point costs?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Okay, so some people build Cloroform as Blast, Poison, STUN Only.

 

Then what is preventing me from defining my Chloroform as as Chemical/Chemical, Air based/Gasous Attack, so your Poision Resistance will not help against it?

 

Nothing prevents you from defining/describing Chloroform as a Chemical/Chemical, Air based/Gasous Attack. It is, however, still a poison, and poison resistance will still apply. A lot of this definition should be undertaken in constructing the power. The GM should get a handle on the types of attack the player envisions his Resistance being effective against. Is it only "poison", or all chemicals (like the sleeping draught mentioned by Doc D)? When you say "fire", does that include extreme heat with no flames? Does "extreme heat" include a laser beam? The breadth of coverage of the defense should determine the extent of the limitation applied.

 

 

It was not the build that Clonus deemed worthy of the slap but the thought that simply calling chloroform a chemical does not remove the fact that it is a poison...

 

Agreed.

 

I do like the Aproach to use 100% DR, defined as "against" SFX. It's basically what the book tells us, even with an example for poison.

And the 100% DR is in the APG, listed with 120 Points even.

 

The problem is that even with a -1 it will cost 120 Active and 60 Real cost. Okay for me, but Hugh will complain about this being way to expensive.

 

This is more a problem with Damage Reduction, as it is priced at a absolute level. In a game where attacks never top 6 DC, paying 120 points to be immune to, say, all physical attacks is ridiculously expensive. You could buy 12 rPD + 24 PD for 40 points and be just as invulnerable.

 

Now, let's move to a High Powered game where attacks top out in the 24 DC range. 48 rPD + 96 PD costs 168 points. Mind you, 30 rPD + 70 PD for 115 would be functionally invulnerable, but that's getting pretty close to 120 points.

 

Let's make it Galactic Powered, where even the average attack is in the 24 DC range, and DC's into the 30's are OK for high powered master villains, and 120 points for immunity to physical attacks, say, seems like a bargain.

 

The one to one ratio makes perfect sense, at least for relatively common SFX that might spread over several defense types. It is the lack of scaling for damage reduction that creates an issue, one which is relevant whether or not we apply Damage Reduction against a specific SFX.

 

In any case, Damage Reduction, like all the other defenses we have been discussing, is not SFX based. You buy physical or energy damage reduction, so adjustment powers still seep through. Is Poison/Chemical damage physical or energy?

 

As well, the one size fits all -1 limitation ignores the fact that some SFX are more common than others. Is it really worth the same to be immune to Time Powers and Ultrasonics as it would be to be immune to all physical, or all energy, attacks? Not in any game I've played in. The limitation should scale with the frequency of the special effect in question.

 

Immunity could reasonably begin at a set price for a very broad SFX (such as "all physical attacks", being 100% physical damage reduction) and scaling down from there. "All Slashing/Cutting attacks" for half that cost certainly seems reasonable in a typical Fantasy, for example. They're a fairly broad subset of physical attacks. "All Blades" (defined as the Weapon Familiarity group) covers a lot less area, so should be cheaper still (maybe 1/4 the "All Physical" cost). "Swords" is narrower, "Longswords" narrower still and "Nonmagical Longswords" even more narrow, and should carry commensurate reductions in cost.

 

I would not want to see Life Support defined as 50 points for total life support, and if you only want immunity to cobra venom, you get a -2 limitation. Similarly, I don't think dropping from "immune to all physical attacks" to "immune to left handed punches" warrants only a -2 limitation.

[torchwolf]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

The idea of a single SFX based Defense has been discussed before. Coming up with the sweet spot for pricing is tricky

 

Links to a couple of older related threads

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/55605-New-Mechanic-Meta-Defense

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/55352-Sooo...-Immunity-to-magic

Very good points brought up, thanks for reposting those links.

 

I would suggest' date=' rather, that even an extremely common SFX merits a significant limitation, unless the game is one where there are very few valid SFX for anything. The Fantasy Hero suggestion for Arcane Defense prices this at 2 points in a game system where Magic will be an extremely frequent SFX. If we extrapolate from 7.5 AP, that’s about a 2.75 total limitation. That would be -1/4 for Unified Power, and -2.5 for Extremely Common Special Effect.[/quote']

This may be overvaluing the frequency of Magic as SFX. I'd think Magic is merely Common in fantasy, except maybe in high fantasy or urban fantasy. In any case, more on Frequency Limitations below.

 

Of course' date=' using limitations in this fashion, there would be virtually no incremental savings moving down the chain, but we could establish that an extremely common SFX defense costs 2 points, with very common perhaps costing 1.5 points, common costing 1, uncommon 2 defense per 1 point and rare 4 defense per 1 point.[/quote']

I think that extremely common might be nearly indistinguishable from generic defenses, and maybe that category should be dropped.

 

 

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.

I’m unclear how this differs from Torchwolf' date=' other than making it a new power. My teammate spends the same 5 points and has nonresistant PD, ED, Sight Flash, Power and Mental defense which works against all attack forms. It seems pretty clear the pricing favours generic defences by a wide margin, relegating SFX defense to a very expensive flavour power commonly purchased by those who are OK being one trick pony sidekick characters.[/quote']

I reasoned from the Adjustment Powers modifiers. I think ghost-angel's approach is better, though more on pricing below.

 

Pretty much - because Effect Defense should be more expensive that standard defenses IMO' date=' it takes into account all possible forms of attack - from "Mind Control: you're on fire" to Mr. Flames actually lighting you on fire.[/quote']

"Unified Defense" from Ultimate Energy Projector (p14) suggests a cost of 1 pt for PD and ED, vs a specific sfx, but then again, that might be too cheap.

 

1 PD + 1 ED + 1 Mental Def + 1 Power Def + 1 Flash Def [Active Points: 5], Unified Power (-1/4) [Cost: 4 pts]

 

It seems a bit high, but may be about right.

 

Depending on the concept, should this include:

*Hardened? (Damage Negation effectively does this)

*Resistance? (Damage Negation is Resistant by default)

*KB Resistance? (Damage Negation includes -2m per DC)

*LS: Safe Environment in appropriate cases? (might be included for free, but that would also make SFX Defense a bit cheesy at low levels)

 

If you want to get even more of a breakdown it can take the following Limitations:

-0 Common Defense

-1/4 Uncommon Defense

-1/2 Rare Defense

-1 Very Rare Defense

 

Or possibly... (adjusting from my suggestion towards UEP p14; superheroic examples)

-0 Very Common (any physical attacks)

-1/4 Common (any energy attacks)

-1/2 Uncommon (Electricity, Fire, Magic, Sonics, Telekinetic, blaster pistols)

-3/4 Rare (Ice/Cold, Light)

-1 Very Rare (Gravity, Magnetism, Time, Vibration)

NOTE: GM permission might be required for Very Common

For comparison, I'd think "Only vs Fire" would rate (-1/2) in most campaigns.

However, both the "Unified Defense" and Damage Negation (when purchased to only protect against a specific sfx) effectively cost about half of normal.

To end up with a similar pricing structure for SFX Defense, Frequency Limitations need to be about doubled.

 

-0 (Very Common)

-1/2 (Common)

-1 (Uncommon)

-1 1/2 (Rare)

-2 (Very Rare)

 

 

Using the Special Effect Defense suggested, that would mean:

 

Cost per 1 SFX DEF (SFX Frequency) [5 Active Points], Unified Power (-1/4)

[rounding arbitrarily for increments]

 

4 (Very Common)

3 (Common)

2 (Uncommon)

1 (Rare)

1/2 (Very Rare)

 

These values seem about right to me, and also falls in the cost range suggested for Arcane Defense in FH (2 pts, possibly up to 5 pts).

 

EDIT: Unnecessary application of Persistent deleted...