Jump to content

Target Defenses Resisted by the Attacker


CptPatriot

Recommended Posts

I had the idea to make a character who would have some defenses centered around their telepathic ability to read people around them.

 

Examples:

  1. +5 DCV with the SFX of a telepath being able to able to read your mind and being able to move to counter an attack.
     
  2. 12 PD/12 ED Resistant Protection with the SFX of a telepath who pushes into the minds of her attackers the subconscious thought that 'you really don't want to hurt me.'

Now, I had two ideas about this and I wanted to see how you feel about these and discuss it.

  1. Requires A Mental Attack roll; Must be made each Phase for each person attacking (-1)
    It's handled in the same way as every other Mental power, but it also will tend to slow combat down
     
  2. Limited Power: Reduce power by -5 Active Points(AP) per 3 Points of Mental Defense(MD) (-½)
    I came up with -5 AP per 3 points MD since 3 points of MD would be enough to nullify the standard effect of one die of Mental Power, and as it still allows for a partial application of the defense.
    A -½ limitation seems to work where Mental Powers are relatively uncommon.

I'd really like to hear your opinions and other ways to simulate this.

Archie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate option 1 as well.  -1 suggests that you think the power will fail reasonably often due to this?  It is the equivalent, system wise, of choosing a 9- roll to use the power.

 

Rather than have to make all the rolls against all of the people, why not just make the 9- roll each time.  I realise this loses some of the flavour of it being tailored to the willpower of the particular opponent but it avoids a lot of rolling...and a lot of MCV checking before those rolls... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I had two ideas about this and I wanted to see how you feel about these and discuss it.

 

Requires A Mental Attack roll; Must be made each Phase for each person attacking (-1)

It's handled in the same way as every other Mental power, but it also will tend to slow combat down

As others have noted, this will unduly slow the game. Also, as Doc notes, this implies your mental attacks only hit on a 9-, so your nmOCV is 2 less than the typical opponent's mDCV. That's not the case for most Mentalists, so it seems unlikely. Unless this represents a conscious use of the ability (ie that DCV or extra defense works only on targets you have imposed it on, by making a mental attack and ending your phase, one target at a time, I think that limitation is way too high.

 

 

Limited Power: Reduce power by -5 Active Points(AP) per 3 Points of Mental Defense(MD) (-½)

I came up with -5 AP per 3 points MD since 3 points of MD would be enough to nullify the standard effect of one die of Mental Power, and as it still allows for a partial application of the defense. A -½ limitation seems to work where Mental Powers are relatively uncommon.

Why not use the AVAD chart? Presently, it has a "defense" of:

 

- for DCV, attacker uses an Area of Effect or other attack that bypasses DCV

- for defenses, attack circumvents normal defenses.

 

Assess the frequency of such attacks in your game, move up/down the AVAD chart to locate the base limitation/advantage, then move it (gut feel based on AVAD to NND) two steps down the limitation chart for the fact that these abilities will still have their effect, and you are adding a defense rather than changing it. Then, each point of mental defense removes 1 AP.

 

Now, to play Devil's Advocate, how significant an advantage (not mechanical, practical) is it for the mentalist to get to know either:

 

- option 1: the mDCV of those attacking him (since the success or failure of his own attack roll will determine whether he got bonus DCV or reduce his defenses); or

 

- option 2: whether, and how much, mental defense the guy attacking him has (since he will know how far his DCV fell or his reduced defenses)?

 

The GM can cover this up to some extent, but targets which can easily hit him (if he's used DCV) or seem to get a lot of damage through (if he bought defenses) are the ones most likely resistant to his mental powers. So much the better if the GM says "42 STUN, 12 BOD, and you are down 5 defenses against this attack".

 

Finally, this seems to make extra work for the GM - most GM's just LOVE PC abilities that make lots of extra work for them, right, since running everyone else in the world isn't really enough to keep them, occupied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

APG I 49 has the "Psionic -1/2" limitation.

"Tis Limitation represents a power that simulates a psionic ability — which means it should
only work when other minds are present, not
when inanimate objects are involved. It doesn’t
apply to Mental Powers (which already suffer
from this restriction); it’s intended for abilities
that normally would apply to “mental” and “nonmental” situations. Examples include Combat
Skill Levels, Danger Sense, and certain attacks that
“mimic” Mental Powers through the application of
ACV, AVAD, and other Advantages. For example,Danger Sense with Psionic wouldn’t alert a character to the danger posed by a trap or rockslide,
since neither of them involve a mind in any way
— it only warns him about threats posed by beings
with minds.
In most cases, Psionic is worth -½. Te GM
may allow characters to take it at the -¼ level if
the power could work based on mental traces or
energies lef in a physical object. For example,
Danger Sense with -¼ Psionic could perceive a
trap (assuming the “mental energies” of whoever
placed it linger in it), but not a rockslide or other
natural disaster (which have no “mental” component at all)."

Another somewhat common example would be the ability to "Cloud Mens Mind: Invisibility, Psionic(-1/2)"

 

1. CSL/CV, Psionic is simple. As would be Danger Sense (do not forget it).

 

2. Could work as PD/ED, Psionic. Defenses can also include stuff like "Combat Luck" wich is "dodging by sheer luck". Mentally predicting the enemies move would work as well.

The special effect you describe does sound more like a drain of some sort, but you can easily use the game effect of PD/ED with that special effect too.

 

I actually thought about making such a Character once. There was a D&D Prestige class with exactly such a mechanic (a Duellist based on reading attackers minds).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've occasionally done RSR on certain defenses, such as Roll with the punch, Requires Breakfall Roll. Or Chin Block, Requires CON Roll. Doesn't slow things down too much, because the defending character makes their roll after the attacker has finished and moved on. Requiring an Attack Roll would be different tho, as it requires the attacking player to stay engaged in the mechanics so the defender knows what DMCV they need to hit. So yeah, that'll slow things down alright.

 

I do like the 2d option. Putting AVAD on a Defensive power seems odd to me, so Limited Power works for me. I might even be inclined to do something similar for high DMCV, say -5AP per point of DMCV that exceeds the defender's OMCV?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do like the 2d option. Putting AVAD on a Defensive power seems odd to me, so Limited Power works for me. I might even be inclined to do something similar for high DMCV, say -5AP per point of DMCV that exceeds the defender's OMCV?

The "A" stands for attack, so I would not use the AVAD advantage, but I think it forms a reasonable baseline for setting the limitation, or at least a comparable for the initial "my gut feel is...", buch like the "must hit with an attack roll" mechanism can be assessed in light of the level of Activation Roll the same limitation would command.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've occasionally done RSR on certain defenses, such as Roll with the punch, Requires Breakfall Roll. Or Chin Block, Requires CON Roll. Doesn't slow things down too much, because the defending character makes their roll after the attacker has finished and moved on. Requiring an Attack Roll would be different tho, as it requires the attacking player to stay engaged in the mechanics so the defender knows what DMCV they need to hit. So yeah, that'll slow things down alright.

 

I do like the 2d option. Putting AVAD on a Defensive power seems odd to me, so Limited Power works for me. I might even be inclined to do something similar for high DMCV, say -5AP per point of DMCV that exceeds the defender's OMCV?

I guess I'm the only one who reads it this way, so either I'm completely wrong or something in the new rules clears up my confusion, but regarding option 1:

 

As someone above noted, is "requires an attack roll" not essentially the same as "requires a skill roll," with a different target number each time based on the targets DMCV? (Forgive me; I read that in thread and assume it's the new Defensive Ego Combat Value). If that is the case, then perhaps "requires a Skill roll" is the better way to go, simply because--

 

and this is where I am thinking that I must be horribly wrong, but here goes:

 

Does not "requires an attack roll sort of default the use of this power into an attack, thus ending your Phase?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is "requires an attack roll" not essentially the same as "requires a skill roll," with a different target number each time based on the targets DMCV? (Forgive me; I read that in thread and assume it's the new Defensive Ego Combat Value).

Yes, except it requires "input" from the other character which means in practice it can take longer to adjudicate than a simple Skill Roll. (And you're correct about Defensive Mental Combat Value is the new black Defensive Ego Combat Value.)

 

Does not "requires an attack roll sort of default the use of this power into an attack, thus ending your Phase?

Oh wow, yeah! Under RAW, any Action that requires an Attack Roll is by definition an Attack Action and ends your Phase. Which gets really complicated when it happens on your attacker's Phase - does it force you to Abort to your next Phase? I'd be inclined to handwave that if I really thought an Attack Roll is the way to go here, but we keep coming up with more and more reasons to avoid that route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...