Hmmm. More on Special Effects

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

In any case' date=' 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?[/quote']

6E1 185, "damage reduction as immunity"

APG 87, "expanded damage negation"

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

You got there before I did Torchwolf - I just remembered "Unified Defense" from Ultimate Energy Projector.

 

Trying to price it out right seems to be the difficult part. UEP suggests 1 point/+1 but only versus things that would effect PD or ED. I would suggest adding in the exotic defenses (Mental, Power, Flash) should be another 1pt/+1.

 

For a total new Unified Defense of 2Points per +1 Def, nonResistant - but works against any form of attack (that has defenses apply- NND still requires the NND Defense) regardless of what Defense it normally applies to. It fits into the AVAD model of 6E better IMO, as well.

 

It makes it cheap enough that simply trying to buy lots of Limited Defenses probably won't be cheaper - but more expensive than any one form of Standard Defense, which I think it also for the better.

 

As for Sense Affecting Powers trying to go against Special Effect (Invisibility); I suggest treating each SFX as a "Non Targeting Sense" for costing purposes and use the standard costs listed.

 

NNDs, the Attacker has paid a heavy premium to enforce a specific defense that is All Or Nothing - I would suggest that needs to stay the same. It may also make a lot of sense that 1) GMs not allow NNDs that are too wonky (Resistant Smell Flash Defense is right out) and 2) In all likelyhood someone buying an Immunity via Unified Defenses probably has the required Defense already (if you're buying Unified Defense "Smoke SFX" you probably have Expanded Breathing to some level if not the full level).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I think that extremely common might be nearly indistinguishable from generic defenses' date=' and maybe that category should be dropped.[/quote']

 

I'd have to disagree, but this comes largely to defining "extremely common". Even in High Fantasy, Magic isn't likely to be half or more of the attacks that any of the five defenses in question could defend against. If we're basing the price on five different types of defenses, the frequency of the SFX as applied to each needs to be considered - a lot of ED attacks, many Power and Flash and most Mental defense attacks are likely Magic in a fantasy game. Not many PD ones are, and a fire (like a torch) or acid can be used as an attack. Venoms and toxins often work against power defense, and any bright light can cause a flash effect. What percentage of attacks the character can reasonably be expected to face should be expected at each level of "common" for the SFX needs to be determined.

 

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

 

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

 

We're foregoing the cost of Resistant, but otherwise that build would defend against a lot without restricting the SFX it can effect. Mind you, I'm not a fan of requiring "resistant" on exotic defenses, either, so I would discount that pretty heavily.

 

Depending on the concept, should this include:

*Hardened? (Damage Negation effectively does this)

 

I'd say no, but you could harden it separately.

 

*Resistance? (Damage Negation is Resistant by default)

 

Any broad SFX practically will include killing attacks, so yes, it needs to be resistant.

 

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

 

I'd say no - you can be pushed back even if it doesn't harm you.

 

*LS: Safe Environment in appropriate cases? (might be included for free' date=' but that would also make SFX Defense a bit cheesy at low levels)[/quote']

 

Again, I'd say no. However, if you faced an NND with the right SFX, you would get your SFX Defense even if you lacked the appropriate defense to neutralize the NND entirely.

 

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.

 

Overll, I find these lowballed. Why would Physical and Energy differ? The cost of PD and ED don't differ.

 

I don't think +10 defenses against Gravity Powers is worth nearly as much as +5 PD, ED, PowDef, Flash Def and Mental Defense, so -1 for "very rare" is lowballed. However, I don't see one SFX for energy attacks meriting 2/3 the cost of all SFX for energy attacks - the limitations are generally lowballed.

 

-0 (Very Common)

-1/2 (Common)

-1 (Uncommon)

-1 1/2 (Rare)

-2 (Very Rare)

 

I still find these extemely low. 1 defense against all physical attacks costs 4 points? For 3, I could have +2 rPD. 1 defense against a very rare attack type still costs more than +1 PD, and almost as much as 1 rPD - are they going to be even remotely close in utility? Not in most games I've seen. Your math (below) seems to work out differently, though.

 

 

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)

 

Even at these levels, is it in any way equitable to price +5 defense against one rare SFX (say Light attacks) equal to +5 PD or +5 ED? I can't see them being similar in utility.

 

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

 

The only reason I can see to set Arcane Defense at 2 points is that Magic is a very common SFX in fantasy (I'm hard pressed to think of one remotely similar in frequency in Supers) AND crosses over all five defenses with great frequency. That would be the absolute maximum cost I could see imposing, and only under the circumstances that this is a special effect you would seldom go a combat without encountering, and never expect it to be missing two combats in a row. It should be no more frequent than a combat with no attacks that go against PD!

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

For a total new Unified Defense of 2Points per +1 Def, nonResistant - but works against any form of attack (that has defenses apply- NND still requires the NND Defense) regardless of what Defense it normally applies to. It fits into the AVAD model of 6E better IMO, as well.

 

It makes it cheap enough that simply trying to buy lots of Limited Defenses probably won't be cheaper - but more expensive than any one form of Standard Defense, which I think it also for the better.

 

[...]

 

NNDs, the Attacker has paid a heavy premium to enforce a specific defense that is All Or Nothing - I would suggest that needs to stay the same. It may also make a lot of sense that 1) GMs not allow NNDs that are too wonky (Resistant Smell Flash Defense is right out) and 2) In all likelyhood someone buying an Immunity via Unified Defenses probably has the required Defense already (if you're buying Unified Defense "Smoke SFX" you probably have Expanded Breathing to some level if not the full level).

I totally agree. Actually I even find the 4 Point/1 Def a great bargain, considering that you get the entire Flash Defenses thrown in for free and this is valued against a defense that is attackable by 9 different Drains.

 

For the commonity of a particular SFX against a Defense:

As far as I can remember you prooved me wrong in the asumption that a Poison Attack Flash cannot work against Power Defense/Flash Defense/be a non-NND attack. So I guess nobody can say "Fire SFX agaisnt Defense X is less likely then against Defense Y".

When every SFX can generally work against every Defense, then it can generally work against them with the same likelyhood. It just requires a player making them. In specific campaigns this may vary, of course.

 

@Hugh:

You simply disagree with the Limitation values from the book. Just double them for your world.

As far as I can tell, the rest of us seem contend to let a -1/4 be enough for a Very Commons SFX.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

For the commonity of a particular SFX against a Defense:

As far as I can remember you prooved me wrong in the asumption that a Poison Attack Flash cannot work against Power Defense/Flash Defense/be a non-NND attack. So I guess nobody can say "Fire SFX agaisnt Defense X is less likely then against Defense Y".

 

That implies no one can say "less likely" when we have determined it is not "impossible". If 1% of Mental Defense attacks have Fire SFX, and 75% have Psionics SFX, that does not mean that a Fire SFX attack that is defended by mental defense is impossible. However, it does mean, at least to me, that Mental Defense, only vs. Psionic SFX is a lot more valuable than Mental Defense, only vs Fire SFX. If one is more valuable than the other, its point cost should be higher.

 

When every SFX can generally work against every Defense' date=' then it can generally work against them with the same likelyhood. It just requires a player making them. In specific campaigns this may vary, of course.[/quote']

 

OK, let's rephrase that to use something other than SFX. Every number from 3 to 18 is a possible result on a 3d6 roll. Does it follow that it is equally likely one will roll a 3 or a 10? Obviously not. The fact that both are possible does not make them equally likely.

 

Variance may be more significant in specific campaigns. Rules need to be applied in specific campaigns, not in a vacuum.

 

@Hugh:

You simply disagree with the Limitation values from the book. Just double them for your world.

As far as I can tell, the rest of us seem contend to let a -1/4 be enough for a Very Commons SFX.

 

Having chosen to use points to build characters, character building becomes, in part, an exercise in economics. Spending 20 points here should carry benefits more or less the same as the other options for spending those 20 points. For a -1/4 limitation, a power should lose a minor portion of its benefits. To me, removing all but one SFX from a purchase of PD, ED, Power, Mental and Flash defense removes a very significant portion of the benefits, not just a small portion.

 

Let's assume, as a GM, you are presented with a character who has game normal attributes, and 120 points left over. He is debating how to spend those points. So he presents me with two alternatives:

 

(a) I will spend that 120 points on 75 defenses against each of two "very common" attacks. This will practically make him immune to those two SFX.

 

( I will buy 10 points each of rPD, rED, 20 each of Power Defense, Mental Defense and Sight Flash Defense. and an extra 15 PD and ED

 

To (, my answer is "no way". The character will be far too well defended for the game. To (a), I can look at the two SFX, then look at the myriad of other SFX available in the game which will affect him normally, and likely conclude that the character will be playable.

 

In a game with a broad array of SFX, "special effects defense" is very much a niche power. It should be priced accordingly.

 

Now, one way to achieve that would be to assess "very common" down to "very rare" on the basis of "this SFX will show up about X% of the time". Now set "X" for each of Very common (which should, to my mind, be so common its absence from a given combat would be noteworthy - that's not Fire in a Supers game) down to "very rare".

 

Based on standard defenses of 12 rDEF and 20 in total, and a 12 DC game, the character probably needs to bump his rDEF up to 24 and his total defense to 60 or so (and mega-attacks will still overcome this - a 12d6 attack Haymakers to 16, for an average roll of 56 STUN, so a lucky Haymaker from a campaign standard attack will still slide some Stun through; a Haymaker'd 4d6 KA averages 18.5, so BOD is still possible on a good roll as well). So that's +40 defenses, of which 12 are resistant - 52 points x 1/2 for a very rare SFX = 26 points. Pretty costly for a niche power.

 

I'd say it's not nearly as useful as +13 PD/+13 ED, or bumping the attacks Multi by 3 DC at 0 END cost, or an extra 10 REC and 32 STUN, or +2 DCV and +5 mDCV, or any of the numerous other choices for spending that 26 points. Sure, some of these would likely violate campaign maxima. Is it the intent that every character have the campaign max in everything, then select flavour abilities that will rarely be useful, and will be vastly overpriced, without complaint because there's nothing actually worth buying? This just creates two tiers of points, the ones you have to spend to get to the campaign maxima in important and useful abilities (if you don't, your character won't be competitive) and the ones you get to direct yourself to abilities that won't be very useful.

 

If my character has to spend 20 points to get +10 defenses against fire attacks, my expectation would be that fire attacks come up pretty often to justify this point expenditure.

 

More subjectively, though, a good GM will give his players the opportunity to show off unique and unusual character abilities, so that may, in itself, raise the frequency of those SFX. Where the GM would previously not go looking for a Gravity-based character, knowing that such a character would create an opportunity to give the character with resistance to such attacks some spotlight time, he may now go looking for such a character, making such powers more common in the specific campaign. Of course, if he's adjusting the cost of these defenses to the fellow who's resistant, don't forget to tell the guy with the Vulnerability to Gravity Powers to bump up the value of his complication!

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

In short:

"I think the limitation values for [Only one SFX] are to small".

 

Just rework the list as following for your games:

*Extremely Common SFX (-1/4)

*Very Common SFX (-1/2)

*Common SFX (-1)

*Uncommon SFX (-2)

*Rare SFX (-3 to -4)

 

Then move Fire SFX to where you think they are right for your given campaign.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

So what is an "extremely common SFX" that is so frequently encountered that 75% to 80% of all attacks (or all attacks against that specific defense type) will fall into that category?

 

"Everything Defense" costs 5 points - 1 PD, 1 ED, 1 Flash Defense, 1 Power Defense and 1 Mental Defense [non-resistant]

 

"Only vs Physical" is a -4 limitation compared to buying unlimited "Everything Defense"! By what logic is "only vs fire" less limited?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Well - I believe we've all agreed that 5 Points was too high, and that it is either in the ballpark of 4 Points or 2 Points.

 

I'm leaning towards the idea that Special Effects Defense is 2 Points per NonResistant +1.

 

Also - just to get back at "Only Versus Physical" - you've tried to Limited it back down to a Mechanic (PD) - Only Versus Physical on this model would be -0 or -1/4 at best. At 5 Points/+1. "Physical Special Effect" can cover everything from "sand in the eyes Flash" because that's a Physical SFX of "throwing sand in someone's eyes" no "something modeled as going after PD.

 

It's not actually doing any good to try and break SFX Based Defense down to a Mechanic. Though granted PD will go against anything defined as PD - regardless of SFX. It's still not the same thing as "only Physical Special Effects". And that's a really important distinction that needs to be made.

 

Still - 2pts/+1 is going to cost out better and likely more fairly overall.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Would like to thank everyone for contributing so freely to the thread. It has been really interesting for me.

 

Personally I am now thinking that there is a place for this kind of thing. Given the precedents set by Damage Negation, I think that we should keep it simple.

 

The base cost for a defence against SFX is 2pts/+1. The assumption is that this SFX will be used against the character at least once per session.

 

If the SFX is more common than this, the cost would be 1pt/+1, so you would expect multiple opponents in a session and at least one per combat to attack using the SFX. (This fits with the mechanical variety examples - I would expect some kind of attack of any number of SFX to be targetted against ED this often, if I expect some kind of attack of a single SFX using any number of powers, then the cost should be the same - as per Damage Negation)

 

If the SFX is less common then the cost would be 1pt/+2, so this is likely to be an SFX that is not used as an attack expcept in unusual circumstances. It would probably be used by a single organisation or a small group of villains, for example.

 

The GM may believe that an SFX is likely to come up vanishingly rarely in a campaign. I would expect the GM to cost it as 1pt/+10. This would allow the the player to easily buy effective invulnerability to something that 'might' never come up in gameplay.

 

I think that this combines a general level of affordability along with some nod in the direction of how common particular SFX are without getting into huge rafts of detail about rarity etc. The more complex something is the less it is likely to be used.

 

Good compromise?

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Personally I am now thinking that there is a place for this kind of thing. Given the precedents set by Damage Negation, I think that we should keep it simple.

 

The base cost for a defence against SFX is 2pts/+1. The assumption is that this SFX will be used against the character at least once per session.

 

This seems like a reasonable baseline, although I would use "per combat" rather than "per session". My initial thought was also "per session", but two issues dissuaded me. First, different groups play sessions of different length. Second, some sessions don't actually have any combat, as they focus on investigation and other matters. For my definition, though, "combat" must mean a significant battle, not just, say, chasing down and catching a fleeing VIPER agent in the course of investigating their activities, stopping a mugger or starting a brawl in a dive bar during your search for information.

 

This would be the "physical" SFX as suggested by GA - it would cover pretty much every attack PD applies to, but also the "sand in the eyes" Flash, the "bad bruise/ripped tendon" Drain and the "Nasty Scars" transform and maybe some ED Hand Attacks or KA's such as a flaming sword with damage from the blade enhanced by the flames (sorry - can't think of a mental defense example). It is more common than PD, and it should cost more.

 

This would likely be Arcane Defense in a high fantasy game, where most credible opposition will have some kind of magical firepower.

 

In assessing "how common", in addition to the likelihood one opponent would have this SFX in a typical battle, a SFX that might be less frequent, but might be used by the entire opposition with reasonable frequency, might fit this category. For example, in a Supers game with a lot of agent battles, technological weaponry SFX might fit the mold. Although some scenarios pit the heroes against super powered opposition, in battles with VIPER, their agents are likely all armed with technology, and their basic Martial Arts being the only effective attack hurts them greatly.

 

In a fantasy game, even a high magic game, this could be normal weapons. While not as frequent, perhaps, this renders the character immune to animal attacks (including big ugly monsters with no magical attacks) as well as the city guard.

 

If the SFX is more common than this' date=' the cost would be 1pt/+1, so you would expect multiple opponents in a session and at least one per combat to attack using the SFX. (This fits with the mechanical variety examples - I would expect some kind of attack of any number of SFX to be targetted against ED this often, if I expect some kind of attack of a single SFX using any number of powers, then the cost should be the same - as per Damage Negation)[/quote']

 

Pretty sure that should say "less common" rather than "more common". This cost equates to that of PD and ED, so it seems reasonable. This might be Arcane Defense in a lower magic Fantasy game, where magic is often encountered, but non-magical enemies aren't unheard of either. Psionics in some sci fi campaigns would fit this level, or firearms in a street level game. I can't think of an SFX in a typical Supers game that would fit this model - maybe Technology or Magic, depending on how common they are in the specific game.

 

If the SFX is less common then the cost would be 1pt/+2' date=' so this is likely to be an SFX that is not used as an attack expcept in unusual circumstances. It would probably be used by a single organisation or a small group of villains, for example.[/quote']

 

I think your drop in cost is about right, but I would suggest this is an attack type likely to be seen less frequently than every combat/every session, but something that would be expected to come up perhaps every 2 or 3 sessions/combats. We're now getting into pretty common SFX as we classically use the term SFX in discussing energy projectors, so this might include fire/heat and electricity in a typical Supers game.

 

We can certainly drop down the frequencies to, say, 3 DEF per point for a less frequent SFX (maybe expected every four or five combats/sessions). Maybe 5 DEF per point for a rare SFX (something that might show up less than every 5th session but more than every 10.

 

The GM may believe that an SFX is likely to come up vanishingly rarely in a campaign. I would expect the GM to cost it as 1pt/+10. This would allow the the player to easily buy effective invulnerability to something that 'might' never come up in gameplay.

 

At this point, we're definitely at "flavor power", and this seems a fair place to stop the clock and say "less often than 10% of combats" fits this pricing. For 7 points, you can have 50 rDEF against all such attacks, which seems reasonable for a flavor power.

 

I think that this combines a general level of affordability along with some nod in the direction of how common particular SFX are without getting into huge rafts of detail about rarity etc. The more complex something is the less it is likely to be used.

 

I would add that we pretty much have to leave frequency to the individual game and gaming group, similar to complications. It seems like a reasonable model to playtest.

 

It also seems easily extrapolated to other defensive powers like Negation and Damage Reduction, simply by applying the same multiple or fraction based on the SFX against which the power will provide defense. Rather than +50 defense against that rare SFX, you could buy 12 DC's Damage Negation or, at the extreme, 12 points for 100% Damage Reduction.

[torchwolf]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

The base cost for a defence against SFX is 2pts/+1. The assumption is that this SFX will be used against the character at least once per session.

This cost seems fair, whether we call it SFX Defense or Unified Defense.

 

Additional details I'd suggest, just to clarify it:

*SFX Defense protects against all attacks using a specific SFX, but is neither Resistant nor Hardened; this would be purchased as Advantages to SFX Defense.

*SFX Defense provides no benefits that would fall under Life Support; this is purchased separately.

*KB Resistance can be purchased separately, versus SFX, at 1pt/-2m (half of normal cost is what I'd suggest, assuming SFX Defense costs 2pts/+1).

 

 

If the SFX is more common than this' date=' the cost would be 1pt/+1[/quote']

...wouldn't this become 3pts/+1, if the standard cost is 2pts/+1?

 

If the SFX is less common then the cost would be 1pt/+2

This is the trickiest part to cost out. The effective usefulness of SFX Defense drops _hugely_ with frequency, so 1pt/+2 (effectively a -3 Limitation) might be reasonable. A more moderate 1pt/+1 (corresponding to a -1 Limitation) might be too expensive; it would likely be much more limiting than "useful half of the time".

 

The GM may believe that an SFX is likely to come up vanishingly rarely in a campaign. I would expect the GM to cost it as 1pt/+10. This would allow the the player to easily buy effective invulnerability to something that 'might' never come up in gameplay.

Such an invulnerability might even be granted for no points, though that might prove to be a loophole in practice.

 

I think that this combines a general level of affordability along with some nod in the direction of how common particular SFX are without getting into huge rafts of detail about rarity etc. The more complex something is the less it is likely to be used.

 

Good compromise?

Seems very good. I agree about detail rafts, though those float well while still paddling towards the Reasonable Numbers Islands.

 

Some might like a Frequency Limitation chart instead, though doing it that way will also implicitly generate some extra work for the GM, often without significantly improving game play. I'd think "talk to the GM" would generally work better.

 

Vulnerabilities are easier to evaluate than defenses. Glowing green rocks somehow become much more frequent when someone is vulnerable to them, and silver is worth much more once everyone notices what it works against. You can't use Defenses actively, though.

If you know you're pretty much invulnerable to the Gravity SFX, you can stand in front of gravity manipulators and hope they won't get the idea to make the roof above you extremely heavy. Sure you can sign up to take down Gravitar, but once she's imprisoned, then what? Increase the value of your Frequency Limitation?

 

In most superheroic campaigns, where there is fairly large number of sfx, but which are also all used fairly frequently, the above structure seems fine.

 

For more general use though, I think Hugh made a very important point about frequency of sfx (my apologies to Hugh if I misinterpreted or misrepresented this point):

*in a campaign with a limited number of common sfx, as might be the case for most Heroic-level campaigns, uncommon or rare sfx should be cheaper (since the most common sfx would tend to be used _much_ more frequently that uncommon). Most characters would tend to spend points to protect against the most common types, or even buy equipment with money or Resource Points instead of Character Points to do so (if allowed in the campaign).

*in a campaign with a huge number of sfx, uncommon or rare sfx should be cheaper (since the frequency of a specific sfx would effectively be lowered by the existence of a large number of available other sfx). Most characters would tend to use generalized defenses almost exclusively.

 

EDIT: Hugh actually brought up most of the points I was about to make before I posted this.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I ballsed that up didn't I? It was all so clear in my head and it did not translate to my fingers very well....

 

Standard SFX defence 2pts/+1

against less common SFX 1pt/+1

Rare attack SFX 1pt/+2

 

 

with the added information from torchwolf that I fully agree with as boilerplate:

*SFX Defense protects against all attacks using a specific SFX, but is neither Resistant nor Hardened; this would be purchased as Advantages to SFX Defense.

*SFX Defense provides no benefits that would fall under Life Support; this is purchased separately.

*KB Resistance can be purchased separately, versus SFX, at 1pt/-2m (half of normal cost is what I'd suggest, assuming SFX Defense costs 2pts/+1).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Erm, I have not read everything in this thread so this may already have been covered, but to address the OP, surely the best way to make it look like you have not got mental powers is to buy those powers with invisible/non-obvious sfx rather than building a seperate power to hide them? Well, I say 'best', certainly not that cheap, but it would work against anything.

 

As for sfx v damage types other than the mechanically defined ones, there is something in The Ultimate Energy Projector, and possible AGP, called something like 'unified defence', which works like normal defences only against absolutely anything. Well, this is Her: not ANYTHING - you can still get around it with NND type attacks.

 

The best universal defence is damage reduction, which can specifically be defined as working against a sfx, however the base power is built (Damage Reduction as Immunity: 6E1.185). That even works against NNDs.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I ballsed that up didn't I? It was all so clear in my head and it did not translate to my fingers very well....

 

Standard SFX defence 2pts/+1

against less common SFX 1pt/+1

Rare attack SFX 1pt/+2

 

 

with the added information from torchwolf that I fully agree with as boilerplate:

*SFX Defense protects against all attacks using a specific SFX, but is neither Resistant nor Hardened; this would be purchased as Advantages to SFX Defense.

*SFX Defense provides no benefits that would fall under Life Support; this is purchased separately.

*KB Resistance can be purchased separately, versus SFX, at 1pt/-2m (half of normal cost is what I'd suggest, assuming SFX Defense costs 2pts/+1).

 

Some Modifiers for this that seem appropriate;

 

Partial SFX; -1/2. Only works against a subset of a Special Effect. Such as 'natural fire' or 'necromantic magic'.

 

Multiple SFX; ?? Value, possibly starting at +1 and for every additional +1/4 adds another Special Effect. Allows the defense to work against fmore than one Special Effect, such as Fire & Heat or Icr and Water. Suggested that they be thematically aligned, Light & Ice probably shouldn't be combined under one Defense.

 

Just some thoughts.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Partial SFX; -1/2. Only works against a subset of a Special Effect. Such as 'natural fire' or 'necromantic magic'.

 

Multiple SFX; ?? Value, possibly starting at +1 and for every additional +1/4 adds another Special Effect. Allows the defense to work against fmore than one Special Effect, such as Fire & Heat or Icr and Water. Suggested that they be thematically aligned, Light & Ice probably shouldn't be combined under one Defense.

 

Both of these would simply change the frequency of encountering an attack the defense is useful against. To me, then, this simply modifies the frequency, and the atendant limitation. If "Fire" is common, then "natural fire" is less common, so likely has a higher limitation. If both Light and Ice are "rare", either of the two might be "uncommon".

 

I wouldn't buy Strength "only with arms" and Strength "only with legs", I'd buy Strength "only with arms and legs", reducing the limitation for either "only arms" or "only legs" accordingly.

[Markdoc]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

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

 

That's precisely why I do not want SFX as a mechanic in my games

 

Is Chloroform a poison? Yeah, technically it is. Is water a poison? Well, yes, under some circumstances, it is. So is oxygen. The problem with SFX-based mechanics is that SFX always have the potential to be pretty nebulous.

None of the suggested cures for the special effects problem seem any less poisonous (the reverse, actually) than the original problem.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

That's precisely why I do not want SFX as a mechanic in my games

 

Is Chloroform a poison? Yeah, technically it is. Is water a poison? Well, yes, under some circumstances, it is. So is oxygen. The problem with SFX-based mechanics is that SFX always have the potential to be pretty nebulous.

None of the suggested cures for the special effects problem seem any less poisonous (the reverse, actually) than the original problem.

 

I think this is the case with a lot of mechanics. "Only vs Poison" has the same issue, as does "Code vs Killing". Really, SFX Defense is only "PD, ED, Flash, Power and Mental Defense, plus a reduction to NND, only vs this special effect".

 

Hero doesn't play smoothly out of the box. It requires the GM and player to discuss the player's vision of abilities and limitations. If your "Poison Defense" protects you against chloroform, water and oxygen, then that's less limiting than a tighter definition of "poison", and moves up the frequency chart. Similarly, if the character had any abilty limited to "only vs Poison Breathers", you would probably apply a lesser limitation if this included oxygen breathers. In both cases, we need to define "poison".

 

If I think "Code vs Killing" extends to animals, vampires, space aliens and robots, but the player thinks it extends only to human beings, we're going to have an argument. If, instead, we discuss this up front and I can say "that's less frequent, so the value is reduced".

 

Better defining the parameters up front (I like this as part of the character description/backstory) can avoid a lot of arguments.

[Markdoc]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I think this is the case with a lot of mechanics. "Only vs Poison" has the same issue' date=' as does "Code vs Killing". Really, SFX Defense is only "PD, ED, Flash, Power and Mental Defense, plus a reduction to NND, only vs this special effect". [/quote']

 

Yup, and that's how I'd build it, instead of attempting to generate a new mechanism. That way you know up front what you are getting into.

 

If I think "Code vs Killing" extends to animals' date=' vampires, space aliens and robots, but the player thinks it extends only to human beings, we're going to have an argument. If, instead, we discuss this up front and I can say "that's less frequent, so the value is reduced".[/quote']

 

I've honestly never met a player who thought that code vs killing only applied to humans. I wouldn't have a problem with it as a complication, but it's pretty clearly worth less points than the standard. I'd handle defences the same way: rather than trying to generate a new mechanism, I'd just modify existing defences. That has to be done in any Hero game.

 

And it is a new mechanism. Here's a simple example: a character is "resistant to mental powers". He's grabbed by a telekinetic hand. Is he more difficult to move? Or does "resistant to mental powers" not cover mental telekinesis? Alternately, he encounters an invisible character whose special effect is that he mentally prevents people noticing him. Can he see the guy? Or does "resistant to mental powers" not affect mental powers that don't use a damage-inflicting mechanism?

 

These are not far-out or contrived powers, and a character who is resistant to mental powers could reasonably expect to be less affected by them. However, that means you have to try and take something priced based on PD/ED and apply it to - say - TK, or invisibility, or flight, or ...

Or alternatively, you have to say "Well, "resistant to mental powers" doesn't actually mean "resistant to mental powers" - it means "resistant to some kinds of mental powers".

 

Which is exactly where we are now. Why, exactly, are we trying to add an extra mechanism to get the exact same result we already have?

 

cheers, Mark

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Both of these would simply change the frequency of encountering an attack the defense is useful against. To me, then, this simply modifies the frequency, and the atendant limitation. If "Fire" is common, then "natural fire" is less common, so likely has a higher limitation. If both Light and Ice are "rare", either of the two might be "uncommon".

 

I wouldn't buy Strength "only with arms" and Strength "only with legs", I'd buy Strength "only with arms and legs", reducing the limitation for either "only arms" or "only legs" accordingly.

 

I think Frequency is a bad measurement. Commonality is a better one. Frequency applies intervals, "every session" or "every combat" and that is the wrong road to travel IMO. It starts to constrict the game. Commonality just means one is more likely to be encountered than the other and doesn't require it coming up at regular intervals.

 

Also, as a GM, I wouldn't want to have to nail down every subset of every SFX. If I say "Fire" is "Common" and you purchase the Defense at that level, but only want some kinds of fires I'd rather Limit the Defense than start charting how common every little bit is and moving up and down the scale constantly. A flat Limitation is, IMO, better than the "This is more common than that, but less common than the other and more common than that one other which is also more common than that first one but then..." dance.

 

If the idea of "only arms", "only legs", "only arms and legs" is an issue if they're all the same value then Partial SFX can vary from -1/4 to -1/2.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Yup' date=' and that's how I'd build it, instead of attempting to generate a new mechanism. That way you know up front what you are getting into.[/quote']

 

So how would this be any less open to interpretation than a separate mechanic? Whether a bunch of defenses with limitations ("only vs Mental Powers") or a single "SFX Defense: Mental Powers", we need to assess the commonality of that SFX (I like that term, GA!) and assess how broad its coverage is (for example, whether or not it includes mental Telekinesis; how it interacts with psionic Invisibility).

 

I've honestly never met a player who thought that code vs killing only applied to humans. I wouldn't have a problem with it as a complication' date=' but it's pretty clearly worth less points than the standard. I'd handle defences the same way: rather than trying to generate a new mechanism, I'd just modify existing defences. That has to be done in any Hero game.[/quote']

 

Hero could just as easily have had "Defense", which applies to every attack, with limitations if you only want Physical attacks or Mental attacks. In fact, IIRC the leadup to 6e discussed merging PD and ED so you would take Limited Defense if your defenses worked only against physical attacks. If it makes you feel better about its fit in the existing Hero model, let's just call SFX Defense a Talent. We can look through it to the underlying defenses with limitations anyway.

 

And it is a new mechanism. Here's a simple example: a character is "resistant to mental powers". He's grabbed by a telekinetic hand. Is he more difficult to move? Or does "resistant to mental powers" not cover mental telekinesis? Alternately' date=' he encounters an invisible character whose special effect is that he mentally prevents people noticing him. Can he see the guy? Or does "resistant to mental powers" not affect mental powers that don't use a damage-inflicting mechanism?[/quote']

 

Interesting issues to overcome. Let's assume a player wants to be "resistant to mental powers". How would you advise he build that so that, in your game, he is highly resistant to mental powers? In particular, let's assume TK Resistance is part of his vision. It can't be STR to resist TK - he wants it to be part of the character's makeup, so it must work whether or not he is aware of the TK attack, or even conscious. We could say "no, Hero can't do that". We could design a hugely kludgy construct that's far more costly than the benefits it delivers. Or we could place a reasonable price on the ability and call it a day.

 

To psionic invisibility, I would look to how the power itself has been set up. Do characters with a certain level of mental defense see the character? Then the same points of Mental SFX Defense should do the trick. If no one can perceive him, it seems like mental defenses have nothing to do with his power, so perhaps the design of that Psionic Invisibility should be questioned.

 

I think Frequency is a bad measurement. Commonality is a better one. Frequency applies intervals' date=' "every session" or "every combat" and that is the wrong road to travel IMO. It starts to constrict the game. Commonality just means one is more likely to be encountered than the other and doesn't require it coming up at regular intervals.[/quote']

 

I like the term "commonality". The same issue exists, though. If it rarely or never arises in play, it doesn't seem "very common". But something we expect to arise roughly half the time might very well be seen for three sessions running, then not appear for a while, just by natural game play. But that's the same as Vulnerability, isn't it?

 

Also' date=' as a GM, I wouldn't want to have to nail down every subset of every SFX. If I say "Fire" is "Common" and you purchase the Defense at that level, but only want some kinds of fires I'd rather Limit the Defense than start charting how common every little bit is and moving up and down the scale constantly. A flat Limitation is, IMO, better than the "This is more common than that, but less common than the other and more common than that one other which is also more common than that first one but then..." dance.[/quote']

 

I don't see a need to define commonality for every possible SFX. I don't do that now. I assess them when someone wants to put that on their character sheet.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Maybe I just like Modifiers

[Lucius]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Maybe I just like Modifiers

 

said the insightful ghost angel thought-provokingly

 

Lucius Alexander

 

immediately prompting the palindromedary rider, who largely agreed with these reasonable sentiments, to ironically post a distracting message that unaccountably highlights excessive adverbs and adjectives rather than the game-mechanical sense of the word "modifier."

 

 

 

I just got chewed out by a palindromedary.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

No Sir, your Honor, I don't remember who brought the rope.

[Markdoc]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

So how would this be any less open to interpretation than a separate mechanic?

 

Ummmm ... because ED works against defined mechanisms? As does PD, MD, etc? Buying +5 ED, only vs fire, is pretty straightforward. If the attack goes against ED and the SFX is fire, then you know where you are.

 

Whether a bunch of defenses with limitations ("only vs Mental Powers") or a single "SFX Defense: Mental Powers"' date=' we need to assess the commonality of that SFX (I like that term, GA!) and assess how broad its coverage is (for example, whether or not it includes mental Telekinesis; how it interacts with psionic Invisibility).[/quote']

 

No, now you are back in D&D territory: in which how a power works depends on how it is defined, not how it's built. That's precisely what I'd like to avoid.

 

Interesting issues to overcome. Let's assume a player wants to be "resistant to mental powers". How would you advise he build that so that' date=' in your game, he is highly resistant to mental powers? In particular, let's assume TK Resistance is part of his vision. It can't be STR to resist TK - he wants it to be part of the character's makeup, so it must work whether or not he is aware of the TK attack, or even conscious. We could say "no, Hero can't do that". We could design a hugely kludgy construct that's far more costly than the benefits it delivers. Or we could place a reasonable price on the ability and call it a day[/quote'].

 

Sure: Here's "Resistant to mental powers"

 

Suppress 1d6, all [special effect] powers simultaneously (+2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), MegaScale (1" = 1,000 km; +1), Damage Shield (Affects Mental And Physical Attackers; +1), Continuous (+1) (37 Active Points); Limited Special Effect: Mental powers Uncommon SFX (-1), Custom Modifier: affected powers recover immediately (-1), Always On (-1/2), Custom Modifier: only those powers affecting player (-1/2) 9 real. Set it at Standard effect and it costs 9 points to reduce any mental power by 3 active points. Since it's bought as a passive surface "damage shield" and "only those powers which affect him" it doesn't bring down all mental powers in the area, despite his "all mental powers simultaneously" advantage - but it would protect against any number of attacks.

 

It's not perfect: it only protects him in a 1000 km diameter, so the power can be bypassed by people zapping him mentally from another planet .... but then, no power in Hero system is absolute It'll certainly cover 99.99% of all attacks. And technically speaking it might not affect "Invisibility bought as mind control: don't notice me" since that doesn't require contact. A GM might however rule that that "affected" him and therefore was reduced.

 

To psionic invisibility' date=' I would look to how the power itself has been set up. Do characters with a certain level of mental defense see the character? Then the same points of Mental SFX Defense should do the trick. If no one can perceive him, it seems like mental defenses have nothing to do with his power, so perhaps the design of that Psionic Invisibility should be questioned.[/quote']

 

So what, PCs can't define their own powers, because their special effect might conflict with a new power that works off special effects? Tell me you are not serious.

 

A simple construct like the one I outlined above, avoids those sort of GM fiat problems and in addition tells me exactly how many active points are affected, how the power interacts with adjustment powers, or power frameworks, or other powers, when it works, when it doesn't. I can make a simple, transparent ruling on "psionic invisibility" using the rules we already have. See, this whole "Makin' stuff up on the fly" is exactly what I want to avoid and why SFX-based mechanisms need to be approached with caution. The only other option to making new rules interpretations all the time is to work out every potential power combo in advance - or we're back in D&D territory, making new rules on the fly all the time.

 

That's not for me, bub. I play Hero to get away from that sort of stuff.

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Sure: Here's "Resistant to mental powers"

 

Suppress 1d6, all [special effect] powers simultaneously (+2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), MegaScale (1" = 1,000 km; +1), Damage Shield (Affects Mental And Physical Attackers; +1), Continuous (+1) (37 Active Points); Limited Special Effect: Mental powers Uncommon SFX (-1), Custom Modifier: affected powers recover immediately (-1), Always On (-1/2), Custom Modifier: only those powers affecting player (-1/2) 9 real. Set it at Standard effect and it costs 9 points to reduce any mental power by 3 active points. Since it's bought as a passive surface "damage shield" and "only those powers which affect him" it doesn't bring down all mental powers in the area, despite his "all mental powers simultaneously" advantage - but it would protect against any number of attacks.

 

So the pricing is 3 points/+1. A bit more expensive than we had been planning but not entirely out of the same ballpark.

 

 

So what' date=' PCs can't define their own powers, because their special effect might conflict with a new power that works off special effects? Tell me you are not serious. [/quote']

 

Not exactly. Simply questioning the design of the power. Is it Psionic Invisibility if mental defence does not aid in countering it? If not, why not. If it is reasonable that the mental defence does not work then any defence with mental powers SFX should not work against it either.

 

A simple construct like the one I outlined above' date=' avoids those sort of GM fiat problems and in addition tells me exactly how many active points are affected, how the power interacts with adjustment powers, or power frameworks, or other powers, when it works, when it doesn't. I can make a simple, transparent ruling on "psionic invisibility" using the rules we already have. See, this whole "Makin' stuff up on the fly" is [b']exactly[/b] what I want to avoid and why SFX-based mechanisms need to be approached with caution.

 

Ahem - I see in the construct this little gem "Limited Special Effect: Mental powers Uncommon SFX (-1)". Far as I can see, any ruling you make based on this build could just as easily be based on 3 points of defence against powers with mental powers SFX.

 

Doc