Penetrating vs Armor Piercing, Impenetrable vs Hardened

[Grailknight]

5 pts per DC. Per DC. I did 15 pts for 3DCs vs. 3.5 rPD or rED. We can also do 5 pts for -1 DC vs. 1.5*3.5*1/3=1.75. Either way, you are paying 2.86 times as much per point of damage abeyance for the benefit of it working on a broader array of defenses.

 

Your argument seems to be focused on the  BODY effects of Killing Attacks  ignoring Normal attacks. Some of that is my fault for incorrectly describing the power earlier.

 

The power is better than the average die roll indicates.15 points of Damage Negation gives 18 PD or ED with 6 rPD or rED in actuality. It completely stops those 3 DC even if the die roll is maximized every time.

 

Also, while I can't speak for the games you play/GM, in my experience, Damage Negation is used as a supplement rather than a replacement to a character's Resistant Defenses. I focus more on the effects it has on STUN in Superheroic games.

[WistfulD]

You still missed the point I was trying to make.

 

An attack with AP is usually useful when the target does NOT have the defense.

An attack with Penetrating is usually useful when the target does NOT have the defense.

An attack with Reduced Negation is ONLY useful if the target actually has Damage Negation.

 

Is your argument strictly that in the offense-defense arms race you take the defensive Damage Negation first and then your opponents start taking Reduced Negation, while with AP and Pen., you take the offensive AP and Pen. first, and then your opponenets start taking the defenses Hardened and Inpenetrable?

[WistfulD]

[1.] Your argument seems to be focused on the  BODY effects of Killing Attacks  ignoring Normal attacks. Some of that is my fault for incorrectly describing the power earlier.

 

[2.] The power is better than the average die roll indicates.15 points of Damage Negation gives 18 PD or ED with 6 rPD or rED in actuality. It completely stops those 3 DC even if the die roll is maximized every time.

 

[3.] Also, while I can't speak for the games you play/GM, in my experience, Damage Negation is used as a supplement rather than a replacement to a character's Resistant Defenses. I focus more on the effects it has on STUN in Superheroic games.

(paragraph numbers added to ease discourse)

 

1. You are correct, that is my focus (our games tend towards Dark Heroes levels of survivability and used weapons/armor), and the numbers to compare are different if you are a) using a lot blast/HA attacks or using HKA/RKAs, but Stun is still an overriding concern. A case of YMMV Based On the Game You Play, to be sure.

 

2. To emulate total immunity, or for the security blanket effect, sure, and maybe if you have one or two levels, sure. To accurately compare values however, I'm not convinced. Characters do not get hit with maximum damage hits. Admittedly, they do get hit with greater than average hits, and the character in a 3D6 damage cap campaign who gets their rPD/rED up to 11 and thinks it is the same as 9 levels of DN is a fool who had better spend the savings on Body, con, and stun. Still, in the long haul, compairing against the absolute maximum potential damage seems far fetched.

 

3. Yes, you are likely to have some of each, but then the comparison gets so complex, I'm not sure I'd want to try to draw too many conclusions without the caveate "only applies to situations almost exactly like this."

 

Superheroic campaigns and STUN--well, you are compairing (using my comparison of averages) 5 pts per DC of DN to 3.5 pts of non-resistant PD/ED, instead of the 3DCs of DN vs. rPD/rED of 3.5, so the numbers are closer, but you are also using more dice. As the number of dice go up, the less likely max damage or other extreme values is*. Protecting towards the average or some level above begins to make more sense. An interesting balance, to be sure.

 

*standard deviation for rolling X 6-siders is sqrt(X*2.91666...)