Damage Shield Abuse

[Guest Kolava]

But that means that very accurate and skilled attackers suffer more? That doesn't make sense IMO.

[pinecone]

I treated AF dam sheild as one auto hit plus roll to hit for follow on with a max number of hits equal to the number of shots.....you get value for your points but not an uber power ...I had my worst experiance as a player vs a damage sheild with a nonstandart power and have ever since thought the same extra cost mechanic that we use for auto-fire should apply to damage sheild.....the power was Transfer Stun ,Dam sheild....U.G.L.Y.......

[melessqr]

What's wrong with just saying "No" when a player does something that's abusive?

 

Melessqr

[Monolith]

Originally posted by melessqr

What's wrong with just saying "No" when a player does something that's abusive?

Just say no? GMs cannot do that. Why... it's against the GM Code! I'm sure even the FAQ says a GM cannot say no!

[melessqr]

Just say no? GMs cannot do that. Why... it's against the GM Code! I'm sure even the FAQ says a GM cannot say no!

 

Damn... guess I'll have to turn in my weapon and badge then. I sure as heck ain't stoppin' sayin' "No".

 

Melessqr

[dugfromthearth]

GMs should never say know to abusive powers

 

they should allow them, then hit the character with an even more abusive villain.

 

sure your character has an autofire penetrating damage shield. By my villain uses mind control and telescopic N-Ray vision to make you do the bank robbing for him from miles away.

[Vondy]

I never had a problem with damage shield abuse at +1/2

 

The reason for this was: normal and killing attacks with damage shied are 25% less powerful than regular attacks on a point for point basis, and with a normative 3/2 damage to defense ratio they just weren't that damage. You could nickel and dime someone with it, but that was it.

 

But what about all those exotic attacks? I hear you cry.

 

The answer is simple enough. I had the good sense to say no to anything that would unbalance play.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by melessqr

What's wrong with just saying "No" when a player does something that's abusive?

 

Melessqr

 

As I've said a thousand times and will likely say a thousand more -- the veto privelege of the GM is no excuse for maintaining a flaw in the rules.

[melessqr]

As I've said a thousand times and will likely say a thousand more -- the veto privelege of the GM is no excuse for maintaining a flaw in the rules.

 

To which flaw are you refering?

 

Melessqr

[Vondy]

Originally posted by TheEmerged

As I've said a thousand times and will likely say a thousand more -- the veto privelege of the GM is no excuse for maintaining a flaw in the rules.

 

It is impossible to write core rules that fit every campaign, sub-genre or style of play. At best guidelines can be suggested for the application of rules or options that may prove problematic, but in the end it must rely on someones judgement.

[Guest Kolava]

It's the Oberoni fallacy...

 

The ability to make a problem go away with house rules doesn't mean the problem isn't still there. Nothing in the core rules should be so unbalanced that no GM would use it.

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by melessqr

To which flaw are you refering?

 

Melessqr

 

Any of them -- I wasn't responding to a flaw, I was answering your question.

[JmOz]

Originally posted by Kolava

But that means that very accurate and skilled attackers suffer more? That doesn't make sense IMO.

 

Sure it does, the more accurate the hit, the better contact they have made with the body, if they barely hit they only made light contact...

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Kolava

It's the Oberoni fallacy...

 

The ability to make a problem go away with house rules doesn't mean the problem isn't still there. Nothing in the core rules should be so unbalanced that no GM would use it.

 

Conversely, just because you feel you need to deal with something with house rules does not mean it is broken or unbalanced.

 

Lots of GMs used Damage Shield and found it fine. The problem as I perceive it is that the old way didn't work for a "significant" number of groups, but the new way isn't working for at least as roughly large a group.

[Caveman]

Originally posted by JmOz

My rule about AF on DS is that it just changes the to hit. Let me explain, if the character who is trying to hit makes it by 3 he would get affected twice (As per normal AF rules, every 2 the attack is sussesful is a +1 attack)

 

I think it would be more appropriate to use AF on DS like AF on mental powers. i.e. - The best roll for damage affects the the person hitting you and you could have the person with the DS make a to-hit roll (with no skill levels, dependant upon the situation). This would probably help with the abuse and the person with the DS would still get something for his points spent(he wouldn't just be arbitrarily neutered)

 

[slaughterj]

Can someone post some of these allegedly concrete examples of DS abusiveness under the +1/2 valuation, or the present valuation requiring the +1 for Continuous (if any)?

 

Separate from the consideration of abusiveness of stacked advantages on DS, which presumably can be ameliorated similarly as to how AF has been fixed with those advantages, I think DS should be a +0 advantage as a baseline, perhaps with a +1/2 advantage for use in HtH combat.

 

A basic comparison of EB and EB-DS (without HtH use):

EB characteristics:

- can hit at range (or in melee)

- requires a 'to-hit' roll

- hits only 1 target

- uses END only when used

- takes an attack action

EB-DS characteristics:

- can't hit at range (thus no use versus ranged-attack characters)

- no hit roll by DS user, but hit roll required for attacker of DS user

- can hit more than 1 target (if attacked more than once), but might hit none (not just because of a failed to hit roll, but because the attacker might choose to attack a different target or use a ranged attack instead)

- uses END every phase, regardless whether attacked

- doesn't take an attack action

 

Balancing it all out, a defensive DS does not appear to be of more value than an EB, and *might* not be worth as much, but certainly does not merit a cost that is +1 1/2 (including continuous) over an EB (and likely not even +1/2 over an EB).

[slaughterj]

My post above was more theoretical, now this one is more concrete.

 

Compare the following 60AP attacks, 12D6 EB, 8D6 EB-DS (assuming no need for +1 for Continuous), and 8D6 EB-AP, for effectiveness:

 

12D6 EB, average damage result: 42 STUN

- To use it successfully requires an attack roll, an attack action, and expenditure of END, but it can hit at range.

- Against 20 DEF: does 22 STUN

- Against 25 DEF: does 17 STUN

- Against 30 DEF: does 12 STUN

 

8D6 EB-DS, average damage result: 28 STUN

- To use it successfully requires an opponent's attack roll to be successful and to be a melee attack, and expenditure of END (regardless whether attacked), but doesn't require an attack action.

- Against 20 DEF: does 8 STUN

- Against 25 DEF: does 3 STUN

- Against 30 DEF: does 0 STUN

 

8D6 EB-AP, average damage result: 28 STUN

- To use it successfully requires an attack roll, an attack action, and expenditure of END, but it can hit at range.

- Against 20 DEF: halves DEF to 10, does 18 STUN

- Against 25 DEF: halves DEF to 12, does 16 STUN

- Against 30 DEF: halves DEF to 15, does 13 STUN

 

Comparatively speaking, even at +1/2 advantage value, a DS is largely ineffective for a typical range of defenses, and does not nearly equate to the AP advantage (which itself is fairly equivalent to simply buying up the base power). This is why I don't think even +1/2 should be charged for DS, rather it should be a +0 option, and have offensive aspects of DS involve either an advantage or some sort of construct to link it to one's STR / HtH attacks (the latter might not be necessary if the DS, as it should be, is defined as including Continuous, and thus would be "Triggered" to affect an opponent when struck with STR / HtH attack).

[Kristopher]

The average result on 8d6 is 28. I'm not sure what you consider "average defenses," but that will do an average of 3 STUN damage to a character with 25 def, and an average of 8 to a character with 20 def. I always thought that was fairly balanced, myself.

 

What got a little unbalanced was stuff like NND damage shields, which at 50 active points would do an average of 14 points of STUN to a character without the counter to the NND (4d6 EB = 20 ap, +1 NND, +1/2 Damage Shield, 20 * 2.5 = 50 ap; 4 * 3.5 = 14 STUN). That's under the 4th Ed Damage Shield that doesn't require Continuous.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Kristopher

The average result on 8d6 is 28. I'm not sure what you consider "average defenses," but that will do an average of 3 STUN damage to a character with 25 def, and an average of 8 to a character with 20 def. I always thought that was fairly balanced, myself.

 

I posted a range of typical defenses seen in typical Champions campaigns, thus "average defenses." Doing 3-4 STUN with an average attack versus an average defense is fairly irrelevant, and doesn't merit buying a separate attack (because you'd still need an EB, etc. for use at the same time (i.e., not in an MP with the DS) if you were going to do *something* effective). Who is going to be doing a melee attack against a character? Bricks and Martial Artists. 3-4 STUN is meaningless against the brick, and against the Martial Artist, they aren't affected much, but often will have a ranged attack available to fall back on, or simply can attack another target, or just take a couple of hits on this target if they must and sustain minimal damage. Especially where a PC knows that DSs are overcosted, they know that they can either suffer the minimal consequences from a DS or know that if they take a big hit from one, that the GM "massaged" things in ways unavailable to the PC, neither of which is a pleasant alternative.

 

Originally posted by Kristopher

What got a little unbalanced was stuff like NND damage shields, which at 50 active points would do an average of 14 points of STUN to a character without the counter to the NND (4d6 EB = 20 ap, +1 NND, +1/2 Damage Shield, 20 * 2.5 = 50 ap; 4 * 3.5 = 14 STUN). That's under the 4th Ed Damage Shield that doesn't require Continuous.

 

Okay then, if that's where the problem is, that's where the problem needs to be addressed. Just like AF has the extra +1 when used with potentially abused advantages, just do the same thing with DS, but the system shouldn't simply nerf DS entirely. And the idea of requiring Continuous is fine from a theoretical perspective, but when you run the numbers, it's nonsensical - things should be worth what you have to pay for them, and a functional DS is not so under 5e, and wouldn't be even if Continuous wasn't required (i.e., even a +1/2 advantage for a defensive DS is overcosted, per my above example and analysis).

[pinecone]

One other consideration...what if I have a Damage sheild and I grab and sqeeze? Does the target take damage every phase? I'm thinkin yes and that sounds like a continueous attack, I've also seen D/S combined with Move bys and Move throughts...I'm not trying to rain on the parade by when crafting rules it's important to look at all possable uses. I personally think D/S would be OK at the +1/2 level with an additional +1 for unusual attacks ala Autofire And a stop sign to idicate that the GM should carefully study before unleasing it on his/her campain.....maybe continueous should be optional and if not taken the sheild does not work on non action phases and let special effects decide when or if it is required.....

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by pinecone

One other consideration...what if I have a Damage sheild and I grab and sqeeze? Does the target take damage every phase? I'm thinkin yes and that sounds like a continueous attack, I've also seen D/S combined with Move bys and Move throughts...I'm not trying to rain on the parade by when crafting rules it's important to look at all possable uses. I personally think D/S would be OK at the +1/2 level with an additional +1 for unusual attacks ala Autofire And a stop sign to idicate that the GM should carefully study before unleasing it on his/her campain.....maybe continueous should be optional and if not taken the sheild does not work on non action phases and let special effects decide when or if it is required.....

 

Were you responding to me or in general? My examples and discussion were oriented toward a purely defensive DS. To the extent that it has offensive capabilities, that *might* warrant an advantage, but first I have to be convinced a defensive DS is on par with a regular attack, e.g., EB. Right now, I don't see a defensive DS as being worth an EB, and no more than a +0 advantage. IIRC, a basic DS in the book includes the grab offensive damage effect in addition to being defensive, but not other HtH uses? With that alone, it *may* be equivalent to an EB, and require a +1/2 for full HtH use, but I think it's important to look at the smallest use first, weigh it against knowns such as EB, and gradually add effects to it and compare, to properly weigh out what each stage of effects should cost.

[pinecone]

I guess alittle of both.....I guess my experiance with D?S has always turned into "I took damage from the moveby so my sheild should effect him!" and anyway it's hard not to see a "I'm made of lava" damage sheild burning someone held...on that point though what if I grab and sqeeze a D?S character and my speed is higher? Even a defensive sheild then acts on non action phases so it should be considered.

[Kristopher]

slaughterj

 

I'm just giving you the other side of things.

 

Personally, I think that requiring Continuous for Damage Shield was like using a sledge hammer to kill a house fly, but I understand the motivations, I think.

 

Maybe I'm not reading your post with the correct tone, which is easy to do online, but it sounds like you're ticked off at me, and I'm not sure why.

[PhilFleischmann]

I have always believed that DS was just fine at +1/2. I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again.

 

Does anyone truly believe that a 10d6 EB (50 pts.) is equivalent in power to a 4d6 DS (also 50 pts., at the +1 for Continuous and +1/2 for DS)? How about a 5d6 NND (also 50 pts.) compared to the 4d6 DS?

 

Without the "offensive" capability of a DS that slaughterj mentions, he makes a good argument that it should be a +0 advantage. I would keep it at +1/2, but add a -1/2 lim: Defensive Only. Meaning, you can grab someone and use the DS. A long time ago, in 4th Ed., I had a villian like this, SFX: he's made of rock so if you puch him, you hurt your hand, but if you touch him without significant impact, like to shake his hand, you don't take his DS. Likewise, he doesn't do damage just touching you.

 

On the topic of AF and DS, I don't think it should ever work the way some have describe (I realize I may be blatantly disagreeing with something in FREd or in the FAQ, but I'm right anyway). Since the guy with the DS isn't making an attack roll at all, the DS only hits once, like normal. I would allow for an AF DS, but its effect is to do multiple damages to someone who hits you with an AF attack. This is getting a little confusing, so let me give an example:

 

Human Flame has a regular DS. He's hit by Joe Badguy. JB takes the DS once.

Human Flame is hit by Mercury's AF punch for multiple hits. Merc takes the DS once.

Plasma Man has an AF DS. PM is hit buy Joe Badguy. JB takes the DS once.

Plasma Man is hit by Mercury's AF punch for multiple hits. Merc takes the DS multiple times, once for each hit (up to the number of "hits" the PM's DS was bought for).

If Mercury has 10x AF, but PM's damage shield is only 5x AF, Merc can only be damaged up to 5 times per use of the AF punch, even if he hits more than 5 times.

[Farkling]

I think someone who autofire punches (or sweeps me more than once) should take multiple damage from my HtH damage shield.

 

I also have been testing DS as a straight +1 advantage and nobody thinks it unbalanced yet.