Jump to content

Damage Negation


dsatow

Recommended Posts

I finally figured out why I dislike damage negation, beyond the clunky mechanics on how to calculate how many dice to remove from the attack.  The problem comes down to the difference with normal PD/ED vs. resistant PD/ED.  If we assume negation at 5 point per die is related to the cost of blast, that seems fair in that 6 points of PD/ED negate 1 die of blast but the negation is only stopping a maximum of 2 body normal.  So a -1 pt deduction from 6 points of PD seems fair.  Even at 3d6 of negation, there isn't a lot to complain about.

 

It against killing attacks where there appears to be a problem.  To negate 1 DC of killing is 3 points of resistant defense.  But multiplying it out to 3DC and this doesn't hold true.  3 DC of killing does a maximum of 6 body and 18 stun.  18 PD or ED resistant is 27 points.  One can argue that only 6 of the PD/ED is resistant, but that still calculates out 21 points worth of defense for 15 points.  Furthemore, unlike regular PD and ED, damage negation applies to AVLDs/NNDs and Drains of Body or Stun.

 

The question would be how to fix the issue.

 

I've thought of treating damage negation like any other defense.  In this scenario, the negation is considered non-resistant at 5 points and may be bought with the resistant advantage.  Instead of subtracting the dice from the attacker, the defender rolls their damage negation and subtracts their roll from the attack.  When the defender rolls their damage negation, they roll normal dice against the killing attack.  Ex if the attacker has a 1d6K +4 Stun mod, this is equivalent to a 6d6N attack.  The defender rolls damage negation which determines the amount of stun and body negated.  So on average a 6d6 damage negation will negate 6 Body and 21 Stun of Killing or normal attacks.

 

Negation would be bought still as PD, ED, Mental, etc.  Negation is not affected by AP nor Penetrating.

 

Does this sound like a good fix or am I missing something?  Am I totally off base?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never actually used damage negation in anger.  However, in my head it is sitting as an SFX based defence rather than an effect based defence.  So it is the tool I might reach for if the character is resistant to fire in a way it is not to other attacks.  So other energy attacks or physical attacks, or drains or anything affect him far more profoundly than they would if they were based on fire.

 

is it properly costed? Dunno.  I think that to begin breaking it down by attack type though goes counter to it being a broad based defence against a particular SFX.

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dsatow said:

I've thought of treating damage negation like any other defense.  In this scenario, the negation is considered non-resistant at 5 points and may be bought with the resistant advantage.  Instead of subtracting the dice from the attacker, the defender rolls their damage negation and subtracts their roll from the attack.  When the defender rolls their damage negation, they roll normal dice against the killing attack.  Ex if the attacker has a 1d6K +4 Stun mod, this is equivalent to a 6d6N attack.  The defender rolls damage negation which determines the amount of stun and body negated.  So on average a 6d6 damage negation will negate 6 Body and 21 Stun of Killing or normal attacks.

 

Negation would be bought still as PD, ED, Mental, etc.  Negation is not affected by AP nor Penetrating.

 

Does this sound like a good fix or am I missing something?  Am I totally off base?

I personally loathe this idea.  Why?  Well, most folks I know seem to dislike the complexity introduced by Damage Negation.  (You, yourself, even complained of its 'clunky mechanics' [to use your exact words].)  And now you want to add even more complexity/clunkiness by having one way of doing things for standard attacks ... and another way for killing attacks?

 

Adding more complexity/clunkiness to something you already think is complex/clunky ... as a so-called solution ... is about as fooked up as a football bat, IMHO.  (Why on earth would you advocate 'fixing' something by making it more of what you said you 'dislike'???)

 

If you think DN is too cheap for what it does against killing attacks, then I recommend simply House Ruling its cost upward for applicability against Killing Attacks and being done with it.  Your use of the Resistant Advantage seemed like a fairly good way to go to achieve that goal, by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I have never actually used damage negation in anger.  However, in my head it is sitting as an SFX based defence rather than an effect based defence.  So it is the tool I might reach for if the character is resistant to fire in a way it is not to other attacks.  So other energy attacks or physical attacks, or drains or anything affect him far more profoundly than they would if they were based on fire.

 

is it properly costed? Dunno.  I think that to begin breaking it down by attack type though goes counter to it being a broad based defence against a particular SFX.

 

Doc

I think the classification of physical, energy, or mental is just a higher level of special effect.  Kind of like kingdom is in defining whether its an animal, plant, or mineral.

 

Also, if someone has 6d6 fire damage negation and are hit by a flaming sword a 2d6K, does the damage negation negate the damage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Surrealone said:

I personally loathe this idea.  Why?  Well, most folks I know seem to dislike the complexity introduced by Damage Negation.  (You, yourself, even complained of its 'clunky mechanics' [to use your exact words].)  And now you want to add even more complexity/clunkiness by having one way of doing things for standard attacks ... and another way for killing attacks?

 

Adding more complexity/clunkiness to something you already think is complex/clunky ... as a so-called solution ... is about as fooked up as a football bat, IMHO.  (Why on earth would you advocate 'fixing' something by making it more of what you said you 'dislike'???)

 

If you think DN is too cheap for what it does against killing attacks, then I recommend simply House Ruling its cost upward for applicability against Killing Attacks and being done with it.  Your use of the Resistant Advantage seemed like a fairly good way to go to achieve that goal, by the way.

yeah, for an example of clunkiness see 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having the defender with Damage Negation roll the dice and subtract the result from the attacker's damage roll seems like a workable idea, if you're willing to have the extra dice roll inserted into combat.

 

There are certainly other game systems that use such a mechanic of defender and attacker both rolling.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And the palindromedary keeps rolling along

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lucius said:

Having the defender with Damage Negation roll the dice and subtract the result from the attacker's damage roll seems like a workable idea, if you're willing to have the extra dice roll inserted into combat.

 

There are certainly other game systems that use such a mechanic of defender and attacker both rolling.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And the palindromedary keeps rolling along

 

I agree however I remeber a thread a long time ago and something like this was suggested and some people cried “Heresy!”.

 

Gadets! had a optional rule for rolling absorption dice for value of PD/ED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2017 at 4:26 AM, dsatow said:

 

 

It against killing attacks where there appears to be a problem.  To negate 1 DC of killing is 3 points of resistant defense.  But multiplying it out to 3DC and this doesn't hold true.  3 DC of killing does a maximum of 6 body and 18 stun.  18 PD or ED resistant is 27 points.  One can argue that only 6 of the PD/ED is resistant, but that still calculates out 21 points worth of defense for 15 points.  Furthemore, unlike regular PD and ED, damage negation applies to AVLDs/NNDs and Drains of Body or Stun.

Am I totally off base?

 

You seem to be worrying about the maximums. I'd focus on the average as a basis of comparison. For a normal 3d6 blast 11 PD or ED stops all average damage, (rounding up to 11) while it takes 15 points for negation. For a 1d6 KA, 12 points of resistant PD and ED stops average damage..rounding the average body roll up to 4. Again, 15 points for negation. The cost advantage for normal or resistant defenses becomes more pronounced for minimums.

 

Added extra complexity because you take maximum damage rolls as the testing point for a defense doesn't seem to be the optimal solution.

 

For negation guys in an explosion..roll a  separate reduced total against them taking off dice for range, then the negation at the same time the other damage is rolled.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2017 at 8:42 PM, dsatow said:

yeah, for an example of clunkiness see 

 

 

 

On 12/16/2017 at 10:15 PM, Lucius said:

Having the defender with Damage Negation roll the dice and subtract the result from the attacker's damage roll seems like a workable idea, if you're willing to have the extra dice roll inserted into combat.

 

There are certainly other game systems that use such a mechanic of defender and attacker both rolling.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And the palindromedary keeps rolling along

 

 

On 12/17/2017 at 6:50 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

Not sure why you think DN is clumsy. You subtract dice of DN from appropriate DC.  Yes you quoted Steve Longs answer. I would have made it even simpler by counting down as normal and the guy with DN just takes off the highest dice in order.

 

My solution to this issue is to simply alternate removing the highest then lowest dice from the DN character's damage in order to come as close as possible to maintaining a proper average. 

 

For example, a 12DC normal explosion goes off, and there is a character with 6DN 4 meters away.  The dice come up 6, 6, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1.  At the point here the character is, the first 2 dice will have dropped off due to the explosion, removing both the sixes.  The 6DN, then, will remove 4, 1, 4, 1, 3, 1; leaving us with 3, 3, 3, 2 as the final damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the general premise of the thread, I strongly recommend reading Killer Shrike's analysis of the Damage Negation rules located here:

http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/GeneralThoughtsOnDamageNegation.aspx

 

The short of it is, PD/ED and rPD/rED are often better deals than Damage Negation unless you're allowed to buy enough DN to counter all (or nearly all) of the dice of your campaign's average DC.  However, i suspect that's something that most GMs would not be inclined to allow.

 

Also, like Damage Reduction, it's far more effective when blended with other types of damage resistance, and should probably be adjudicated in a similar fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2017 at 4:52 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

Btw gotta agree with Surrealone. If you dislike the complexity but are adding to complexity, then I don’t think it’s a good idea.

 

The idea with the roll against is to remove exceptions to how the mechanic works. 

 

For example,

  • against a straight attack, you subtract the dice.
  • For area of effects, roll for those with the most damage negation and add more dice to those who don't.
  • For explosion, roll all the dice and randomly remove certain amounts of dice (see Steve Long's answer).

In the roll against idea, you just roll against the damage and negate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're just starting to use 6E for our fantasy campaign, we're still using 5ER for our supers.  I figure DN isn't appropriate for a Heroic-level campaign, but I don't think I'd allow it at all even in Champions.  Something about it seems too meta to me.  Plus the aforementioned clunkiness.  It sounds more like a power for a time manipulation SFX:  "I'll turn back time one second and the damage that was just done never happened."  If we ever port our supers to 6E I think I'll just pretend it doesn't exist.  Still, I appreciate threads like this, I do understand it much better now.  Great discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dsatow said:

 

The idea with the roll against is to remove exceptions to how the mechanic works. 

 

For example,

  • against a straight attack, you subtract the dice.
  • For area of effects, roll for those with the most damage negation and add more dice to those who don't.
  • For explosion, roll all the dice and randomly remove certain amounts of dice (see Steve Long's answer).

In the roll against idea, you just roll against the damage and negate it.

 

When you put it that way, it sounds like a good idea. Except....

 

28 minutes ago, Armory said:

We're just starting to use 6E for our fantasy campaign, we're still using 5ER for our supers.  I figure DN isn't appropriate for a Heroic-level campaign, but I don't think I'd allow it at all even in Champions.  Something about it seems too meta to me.  Plus the aforementioned clunkiness.  It sounds more like a power for a time manipulation SFX:  "I'll turn back time one second and the damage that was just done never happened."  If we ever port our supers to 6E I think I'll just pretend it doesn't exist.  Still, I appreciate threads like this, I do understand it much better now.  Great discussion.

 

I've always understood the function of Damage Negation to be allowing for things like truly "Bulletproof" characters without having to buy ridiculous amounts of ordinary defense. If small arms fire only dos up to , say, 2d6 +1 damage, then 7 levels of Damage Negation allows one to effectively ignore guns. Making it a "roll off" brings uncertainty back into the equation. 

 

However, "roll and subtract the Damage Negation dice" does strike me as a good solution to things like Area Effects and Explosions.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Bulletproofing a palindromedary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Normal AoE attacks and DN mesh just fine because the damage is the same regardless of where you are in the area. It's only Explosions that really need special treatment.

 

I'm really not sure why dsatow suggested a different mechanic for AoE in his idea, but since it's a custom rule anyway, he's entitled to impose it as part of that, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mrinku said:

Normal AoE attacks and DN mesh just fine because the damage is the same regardless of where you are in the area. It's only Explosions that really need special treatment.

 

I'm really not sure why dsatow suggested a different mechanic for AoE in his idea, but since it's a custom rule anyway, he's entitled to impose it as part of that, I guess.

It just seemed clunky to me.  But given arguments and comments since then, I'll not engage that portion of the idea.  I still think I'll treat damage negation as non-resistant as most people who use it are using a combination of the damage negation and normal defenses (rPD/rED) and it addresses my major concern about it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, Netzilla's post (above) is spot-on ... and the Killer Shrike analysis is worth the read. 

 

From what I can see,  you seem to be driving the cost structure up (against Killing Attacks) solely based on the maximums DN can do.  As a reminder, most of the time the dice roll average, not maximum ... so it seems a bit odd to drive the cost structure up based on outlier maximums ... instead of basing your decision on averages.  Because of that, it feels like you're out to penalize DN just because you find it clunky and/or don't care for it.  Hey, if you're the DM, that's your right ... but if that's what you're doing, then if I were a player in your game I'd request that you call it what it is (i.e. own it) rather than basing decisions on outliers.  Why?  Well, outlier-based decisions set a really bad precedent, IMHO. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hadn't even heard of DN before this year.

 

My own thoughts on it are that it's not needed in most cases since regular defences basically do the same job.

 

I can see a case for the "vs special effect" version "Fire has no effect on her!", however.  As part of the toolkit it has its place, though it possibly would have been better to revise the existing defences into a more unified group (i.e. apply PD, ED, Mental, Power or Special Effect to a new catch-all power of Defense that replaces PD, ED, Power Defence and Mental Defence, with resistance as just an Advantage. I'm sure the idea has been mooted before.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Surrealone said:

Honestly, Netzilla's post (above) is spot-on ... and the Killer Shrike analysis is worth the read. 

 

From what I can see,  you seem to be driving the cost structure up (against Killing Attacks) solely based on the maximums DN can do.  As a reminder, most of the time the dice roll average, not maximum ... so it seems a bit odd to drive the cost structure up based on outlier maximums ... instead of basing your decision on averages.  Because of that, it feels like you're out to penalize DN just because you find it clunky and/or don't care for it.  Hey, if you're the DM, that's your right ... but if that's what you're doing, then if I were a player in your game I'd request that you call it what it is (i.e. own it) rather than basing decisions on outliers.  Why?  Well, outlier-based decisions set a really bad precedent, IMHO. :) 

 

The cost issue bypasses the fact that it affects AVLDs and Drains. Even if we assume 3.5 points per defense.  3d6 Damage Negation gives you 10.5 resistant defenses + 10.5 power defense against body and stun drains + 10.5 defense against all NNDs and AVLDs regardless of whether you have the defense or not.  It is also not affected by AP or Pen which effectively makes it hardened and impenetrable no matter how many levels of armor piercing or penetration you may have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dsatow said:

 

The cost issue bypasses the fact that it affects AVLDs and Drains. Even if we assume 3.5 points per defense.  3d6 Damage Negation gives you 10.5 resistant defenses + 10.5 power defense against body and stun drains + 10.5 defense against all NNDs and AVLDs regardless of whether you have the defense or not.  It is also not affected by AP or Pen which effectively makes it hardened and impenetrable no matter how many levels of armor piercing or penetration you may have. 

 

Damage Reduction also applies to AVADs, works against body and stun drains .... and is not affected by AP.  (Penetrating affects Damage Reduction unless it's bought Impenetrable).  Yet you're ok with Damage Reduction's costing, right?

 

And, of course, DN has its own nemesis: Reduced Penetration ... unlike Damage Reduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

 

Damage Reduction also applies to AVADs, works against body and stun drains .... and is not affected by AP.  (Penetrating affects Damage Reduction unless it's bought Impenetrable).  Yet you're ok with Damage Reduction's costing, right?

 

And, of course, DN has its own nemesis: Reduced Penetration ... unlike Damage Reduction.

 

Mostly yes, because damage reduction comes after other defenses and doesn't totally eliminate damage, has a normal and resistant cost structure, and costs rather a lot for the amount of damage savings you get.

 

30 pt resistant PD damage reduction to justify its cost (not counting the other benefits) needs to reduce damage by 20 points of stun.  That means at least 39 points of stun past defenses.  In a 12DC game, that means something like 3 Defense.  What damage reduction does do effectively is level the effectiveness of slow large scale attacks against rapid smaller attacks.  This makes it idea for bosses or large opponents.  It also reduces stun chances on the user.  What it doesn't do is make the user invulnerable to a normal attack within the damage range of the game as every attack will generally do stun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Netzilla said:

Since Damage Negation applies to the DCs of the attack, it's actually pro-rated in the case of Advantaged attacks.  So a +1 AVAD Blast is 10 points per die (aka 1/2 die per DC).  3 Levels of Damage Negation stops 3 DCs, thus only 1 1/2 dice of that AVAD Blast.

 

That may be, but it subtracts straight from AP and Pen attacks (per 6e1p184).  So even if we adjust the cost for AVLDs and Drains, after rounding in defenders favor, that's 11 resistant, 6 power def, 6 NND/AVLD def.  If we cheapen the cost of the power defense to 3 since it only affects Body and Stun drains, and treat the NND/AVLD defense as 1 point per point, that's still 25 points of defense.

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...