Damage Shield Abuse

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by 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.

 

I understand what you mean, it's hard to "grasp" (pun intended) many damage shields that aren't offensive and defensive (see Phil's example of the rocky body though). Regardless, there are instances of such, and by parsing out the various aspects of the power, it makes it easier to analyze what value should be assessed for such, and for various add-ons.

[slaughterj]

Re: slaughterj

 

Originally posted by Kristopher

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.

 

Nope, not ticked off at all, no negative tone was intended

 

My response was purely directed to the point that the system should charge appropriately for things, thus (1) you mention Continuous and from a theoretical standpoint, it makes sense to include, but from a points sense, it does not, and the points sense is what has to win out, and (2) regarding abusive advantages used with DS, only then should an extra cost be assessed, because only then is it abusive - to require an extra cost on DS itself which effectively nerfs its value does no good whatsoever.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

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?

 

Nope! Which is why it's all about the points, and the DS advantage should say it makes the power continuous.

 

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

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.

 

Thanks! I wouldn't do it with the +1/2 / -1/2 method because of the problems that creates with including it in power frameworks, that it results in the power costing more END for no good reason, etc.

[pinecone]

Yeah I didn't mean to sound like I was in favor of the current method ('cause I'm not) But I can see why they may have gone in that direction ,I think I said so earlier...if I did not I sure meant to....+1/2 seemed to cover the increased utility that can be wrung out of the D/S but special attacks cause problems that to me seem very simular to Autofire so I suspect a simular answer is likely to work...I really like the AF D/S idea I will have to try it it give value without being hosey.....

[slaughterj]

...Still waiting to see how this should be resolved...I HATE to change the values of something (doesn't make characters / campaign line up with published products and direct comparisons to others' characters / campaigns), but I would REALLY like to use DS in Hero...

 

Thinking of going with the +0 Advantage for DS (no Continuous required), with an additional +1/2 for the expanded list of HtH offensive uses, and applying an additional +1 for the potentially abusive additional advantages.

[Caveman]

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.

 

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.

 

Then Again, 10d6 with an average roll(3.5 per die) will do 35 STUN and 10 Body. This gets 15 Stun through a defense of 20, 10 Through a def of 25. I would hazzard a guess that this is comparable to the NND. You might as well not have the damage shield then.

[Kristopher]

The Damage Shield does go off every time the character is struck, with no OCV/DCV roll.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Kristopher

The Damage Shield does go off every time the character is struck, with no OCV/DCV roll.

 

Yeah, but only if struck, and only if attacked, and only if by a melee attack, and still suffers damage from the successful hit.

[badger3k]

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.

 

Urk - as I put in another board, just because the power can be abused, doesn't mean that there's a problem with it, either. (Nothing against you, Kolava, you just happened to post that saying, which I recently heard parroted over and over by a munchkin on another board, so I felt I should reply).

 

My first question, based on my experience, is: What's so unbalanced about it? I have used damage shields in the past, and currently I use very few - I tend not to use them for several reasons:

 

a) They tend to be limited for the character conceptions I've developed so far.

 

Most players prefer active offenses rather than an offensive defense.

 

c) The ones I have used tend to be in FH, and since the characters just need to stay away, they can be countered pretty easy. If my games were mostly melee or hth, than my opinion might change.

 

For the point costs, they seem ok so far- not too powerful and not too weak, although I do feel they could lower the cost if they wanted, but that feeling isn't strong enough to make me change it myself - (even I sometimes would like a large KA DS to incinerate people ala a fire elemental without spending a fortune in points). Oh well.

 

As for all the NND etc, I normally wouldn't allow anything that seemed abusive - I haven't run into any that are overpowering, nor any that can't be beaten in other ways. The whole point of the game is to be challenging - to player and GM alike. That said, I have had abusive constructs (some of them my own creations - oops), and if they prove overpowering they get modified, pure and simple. If the game ceases to be fun, then why play?

 

I do like the defensive only limitation for the damage shield, though - that can work for a variety of powers/situations. Thanks Phil!

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by slaughterj

Yeah, but only if struck, and only if attacked, and only if by a melee attack, and still suffers damage from the successful hit.

 

Yes, but my point wasn't about the cost in this case. It was about the claim that you might as well not have the NND Damage Shield because a straight EB of the same 50-point AP cost will do the same average damage to the same average character. The Damage Shield accomplishes something that the straight-up EB doesn't, and simulates things that the straight EB doesn't. The fact that its average damage is comparable is entirely beside the point.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Kristopher

Yes, but my point wasn't about the cost in this case. It was about the claim that you might as well not have the NND Damage Shield because a straight EB of the same 50-point AP cost will do the same average damage to the same average character. The Damage Shield accomplishes something that the straight-up EB doesn't, and simulates things that the straight EB doesn't. The fact that its average damage is comparable is entirely beside the point.

 

Gotcha, not my claim, that was Caveman's Anyway, see my earlier analysis of EB, EB NND, and EB DS for analysis of what DS gives you that EB doesn't, but also, what EB gives you that DS does not. I don't feel DS gives you more, it just gives you something different.