Gary

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? And you've been arguing this whole thread that there was nothing wrong with such a structure. And you used this example specifically because it has the potential for a 1 shot knock out for unprotected characters. For damaging attacks, there is no corrrespondence to nigh invulnerability unless there is the potential for a one shot knockout. Some constructs are broken simply by eyeballing them. Such as multipowering every single non-combat stat/power with defenses. It's pretty obvious that these structures are broken so no one even tries to slip them past the GM. The 1 defense at a time succor does create flexible defenses. It's just the same as a 2 slot multipower with PD and ED, except that it's not as efficient. And why would you presume the character with Aid starts with a decent suite of defenses? Not worth the points paid for the marginal flexibility. If this was historically no problem like youi're asserting, then why don't any actual published characters have a multipower like this? Surely if it were balanced someone would have one! Again, would you consider 180 pts for 5 attacks that can be used 1 at a time to be fairly priced? I would certainly think that 90 is its true value based on decades of experience with the game. Now for defenses, a 15 pt multipower with a PD slot, ED slot, and balanced slot is too cheap at 18 pts. I view the defensive multipower the same way as undercosted PD. Even if you limit the overall PD of a player who pays 1/2 while everyone else pays full, the cost structure itself would be unbalanced. Same with flex boy if everyone else is paying full for their defenses. You were declaring that optimizing a character was being a rules rapist. Shrug. Grond still can't hurt flex boy if he has 75 defenses. If you take Ogre, he'll lose pretty much everytime because flex boy is presumably hurting him with every attack. Grabs do not make the grabbee ineffectual. He can still fight back unless he has an accessible focus or a restrainable limitation. I guess you'd be ok if 1 pleyer pays 1/2 for PD and everyone else pays full since you'll limit his overall PD and come up with foes that'll challenge him... You were the one who was saying that this was just good tactics. I guess you really do agree with my statement that these tactics suck the fun from the game, but it looks like you were just being argumentative. And the VPP was limited after it was shown to be a problem. IOW, your answer is no.

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? It's abusive as discussed in this thread. If you change the parameters so that flex dude has less in both defenses than fixed dude, then that's not the situation we've been discussing. Again, you seem to be arguing that flash is too effective. Why haven't you seen them at all? I personally think it was something that nobody seriously considered because it was so obviously broken. Just like if someone converted every non-combat characteristic or power into a 2 slot multipower with defenses as the other slot. Adjustment powers do create flexible defenses. How the heck are you arguing that point??? And defenses are only cheaper if they're flexible. If they're fixed, they're actually MORE expensive since you have to purchase both PD and ED, not to mention resistance. Why would anyone buy flex slots for a defensive multipower when its cheaper to have a PD slot, ED slot, and balanced slot??? Yeah 1 pt of just about anything is trivial, especially since a 1 pt multipower with 2 slots would cost 3 pts. The book doesn't list every single combination of powers/advantages/frameworks that are abusive. It doesn't explicitly state that charges of end reserve is abusive for example, and that's probably the most broken construct in the game. I'll eyeball it and see if it's acceptable in my campaign. We're using the straight normal attack as our baseline since that's by far the most common attack form for someone without a multipower. If you want to argue that most characters with 1 attack only have a NND, be my guest. Yeah, your trivial 1 pt multipower won't wreck a game. Wait a minute, you were the one who used attacks with lockout as your example. In fact, you specifically used a EC with a total cost of 180 as your example. Now you're changing it and using attacks that can be MPA'd??? Can you remain consistent with your examples??? Would you consider PD undercosted at 1/2 pt per point? What if a player only purchased a few points of it? Gotcha, you consider the 5 slot multipower dude overpowered because he can always be optimized against his opposition compared to someone with a straight attack. Most people have a pretty good idea about the attacks of their opponents after a couple of encounters. Flex boy would know that Grond isn't throwing plasma bursts at him and that Sapphire isn't going to be slugging him. OTOH, a flex defensive slot is completely unpredictable. It could be at any of 3 separate settings at any time. It must suck for your player who gets picked by the lottery as the designated target at the beginning of a fight by the villains. I'm sure your players love being knocked into GM option land at phase 12 of every fight because 4 villains all concentrate on him. That doesn't sound fun to me. What would be an acceptible circumstance for someone to take: 10 MP 1 u +10 Pre 1 u +5/5 Def 12 MP 1 u +6 Ego 1 u +6/6 Def Is there any player who you would allow these constructs, and similar ones for Int, Com, or Running?

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? It sounds like you're arguing that flash attacks are too effective. Which is a completely separate argument than what we're discussing. And yes, the dex drain allows you to fight back. Being nigh invulnerable does not. You can balance everything you want since you're the GM and you can set whatever limits you want. But costs should reflect utility and the cost of a power should reflect how useful it is. If PD cost only 1/2 of a point per point, you can say that a balance can be reached by limiting PD. But the underlying problem is that the cost would be too little for what you get from it. Flexible defenses are cheaper. Fixed defenses are more expensive since you have to cover double. That's the whole reason why adjustment powers have half effect on defenses. You like to speak in hyperbole don't you? It's a manner of degree as always. A 1 pt shift obviously won't affect things much. A 10-15 pt shift in defenses WILL have a drastic effect as shown by numerous examples througout this thread. Did you even read the context of my statement? I was specifically referring to the defensive multipower, not Zl'f. I seem to recall that it was YOU who first questioned why a defensive multipower wasn't banned if it was unbalancing. And I'm merely pointing out that there IS a de facto ban on it since it's nonexistent in the published characters. And yes, if no published character has anything like a proposed player build, you can bet I'll look very closely at it. But attack multipowers have a lot of wastage compared to defensive multipowers. Let's go back to the 6d6 NND and 12d6 EB vs 30 defenses. The 6d6 NND gains only 9 Stun or 25 active pts advantage by switching slots, and he's paid 6 pts for that priviledge. A 10 pt defensive multipower in contrast will most likely save 10 stun for 10 active points and he's spent exactly 1 pt for this ability. Please go back to my example of what happens when you add 5 net stun to an average attack and when you subtract 5 net stun from an average attack. Somone with 0 base PD/ED will take body from virtually every hit, not just KAs. That's a huge difference. Just compare someone who has a choice of 5 60 pt attacks. Do you honestly think that ability is worth 180 pts????? Would you consider someone who can pay 1/2 pt per PD (no limitations) to be overly efficient? Or would you claim that you would have to look at the whole character? And yes if someone paid 5 pts for 10 PD but doesn't have anything else for defenses it won't unbalance the game. But it doesn't change the fact that the underlying cost structure is too cheap. Depends on the synergy. This is minor stuff compared to the defensive multipower or the autofire nnd. Nebula's description strongly implies that it only works after the subject is subdued and that it requires a phase of solemn pronouncements. It's pretty telling that XDM usable as attack is more common than a defensive multipower... Hugh, do your players try and use the 6d6 NND instead of a 12d6 EB vs a 30 def target? Would you call that "rules rape" or a smart tactic by the player? Yet you seem to feel that someone optimizing a VPP is a "rules rapist". You're also assuming that the attackers know exactly how the defender has his defenses aligned. Since they have to guess, they'll have to peel off 2 attackers to be sure, which leaves one of flex boy's buddies completely free from attack. Incidentally if you wanted to fight most optimally in Champions, you would concentrate 3-4 team members on 1 defender per phase since 1 target down is a lot better than 3 targets hurt. If both sides consistently used that tactic, it would be effective but would suck the fun out of Champions completely for both sides. And you're also assuming that every fight will be a team on team situation. I don't know about you, but there is a significant amount of 1 on 1 combat in most games. Still highly abusive since for a trivial cost, it's allowing Pre or Ego to convert to defense when not needed. 10 MP 1 u +10 Pre 1 u +5/5 Def 12 MP 1 u +6 Ego 1 u +6/6 Def 12 MP 1 u +12 PD 1 u +12 ED 1 u +6/6 Def Amazing that you think the first 2 multipowers are highly abusive, but number 3 is just fine.

Re: Bricks Get Hosed, Or Not Just about the most efficient construct in 5th edition is a brick with a EC and base martial arts, if built straight without limitations.

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? The defender can still fight back effectively since usually none of these are one shot knockouts. Having a fixed "nigh invulnerable" is vastly different than being able to switch around your "nigh invulnerable" at will. It looks like you've decided that flex defensive guy should have overall lower defenses than fixed guy as a requirement. Does that mean that you believe that an attacker with a multipower with many slots should have a lower attack level than someone with a straight attack or with few slots? It's the only basis we have, and it is the official setting after all. How much more power? 80 pts is a lot greater than 60 pts no matter how you slice it. Frankly, a 1d6 stun drain IS more acceptable than +5/5 defense. Both are completely unacceptable, but the extra defenses are worse due to the nature of defenses. And yet you're completely ok with allowing PD to switch to ED and vice versa through a defensive multipower when not in use... Not in the form that we've been discussing. It's also possible that it's not. Requiring balanced slots is no less arbitrary, but has the advantage that it meshes with virtually all published characters, and there's basically no judgement calls necessary. Flex dude is not twice as restricted as fixed dude, but he's paying only slightly more than half the cost. I'm not sure why you're bringing in an example of someone purchasing 5 60 pt attack powers straight. I'm aware of no characters, published or otherwise who have done so. Are you questioning multipowers in general? Taking no figured characteristics is inefficient. Plus, having a base defense of 0 is inefficient because now you start taking BODY if hit at your weak point. Purchasing a 15 pt multipower with 3 slots, +15 PD, +15 ED, and +8/+7 IS overly efficient. Most people with a VPP have a higher than 18 stat. Usually, they have 23-33 in the relevant stat, at least in the Superheroic genre. Not practical in the sense that the GM would never allow it. Yeah if it were strictly legality at work, then someone could buy +1" leap usable as attack megascale to whatever degree necessary and blast his foe into the sun. But if you can't get it by the GM, it's not practical. Most GMs I know won't allow cosmic pools because they can wreck most campaigns in the hands of a clever player. You either have to have multiple attackers with a variety of different attacks concentrating on flex dude and ignoring his buddies, or have to have 1 single attacker who has the capabilities of multiple forms of attacks guessing right on which attack to select. Also, you could claim that people would notice that Turtle Man becomes rather timid when in his shell or Mental Man becomes scatterbrained in combat. That doesn't lessen the abusiveness of these structures. It is not ALWAYS mathematically superior since someone with a 18 Con could be stunned by a single 5d6 attack, but never by 3 separate 3d6 attacks. The fact remains that sometimes cost changes or rule changes are necessary. The fact that not a single published 5th edition character has a defensive multipower like the one we've been discussing speaks volumes.

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? If the character was exactly the same except that he has 80 pt attacks vs 60 pt attacks, then it is grossly unbalancing. That's the situation we have since you basically took the same character and traded a 60 pt multipower with 5 slots for 60 Str and a 20 pt multipower with slots that can add to the attack. He also needs to have a high Ego and Dex to be able to attack both. But there aren't really a lot of characters with both sets of attacks, and he can be fought back effectively by his target unless he's being a sniper mentalist who everyone agrees would be unbalancing anyway. That's a major difference. Attacking a weak point is fine, but the target can still fight back and can still potentially win. Being nigh invulnerable means that the fight is pretty much a foregone conclusion. That's a major problem Someone with a 35/20 fixed defense is far more vulnerable than someone with 20/20 and +15 flexible defense. Since I don't know your campaign and you don't know mine, the CU seems to be a reasonably representative campaign setting that we can use as a common basis for discussion. 40 + 20 for attacks would be ok. 60 + 20 would be too powerful. And defenses are overpowering as shown by previous examples. Let's take the ridiculous power construct to highlight this issue. Suppose Turtle Man purchases a multipower with 2 slots. +10 Pre and +5/5 defense for 12 pts. He defaults to +10 Pre and is pretty impressive, but in battle he just hides in his shell and looks rather pedestrian. I think everyone would agree that this is an abusive construct even though he can be zapped by a high level presence attack if he's not expecting it. Example 2 would be Mind Man. He buys a multipower with 2 slots, +10 Ego and +10/10 Def. He's normally very strong willed and uses the +10 Ego as his default, but when trying to protect himself, he becomes distracted. Yes, he can be blindsided in battle if he faces a mentalist that he's not expecting, but I think you would agree that this construct is abusive. These 2 examples are admittedly ridiculous, but they are legal and they do highlight what happens when you can shift points from dead weight to something useful even if there happens to be a drawback associated with it. Depends on where you set those defense levels. It costs 6 pts and the defender can still fight back effectively. A 1-2 pt defensive slot can make it so that the defender can't fight back effectively. She also doesn't have a defensive multipower because it would be unbalancing. Another solution would be to require balanced defenses in a vpp or multipower. So someone can't have a 20 PD slot, a 20 ED slot, and a 10/10 slot. He must have just the 10/10 slot. That seems to be the solution that published characters use. No it isn't. Someone with fixed defenses must pay 2 pts for +1PD/+1ED. It takes him 7 pts to cancel 5 pts of attack since he has to cover both. The flex dude needs only a little more than half of that amount. If he has 0 base PD and ED, he's probably not unbalanced and he's not terribly efficient. +1 advantage. It's cheap to have the skill roll for a relatively low level vpp. Considering there are no published characters who have this structure (and I looked through over 100), it's probably just that it didn't even occur to the designers that anyone would do this. The closest example I found was a mage with a 10PD/10ED/6 Power slot and a 10PD/10ED/6 Mental slot in a multipower with many powers. Most of these aren't practical in actual play either. Defenses aren't cheaper than attacks when you consider that you have to purchase multiple varieties and most of them are dead weight at any given moment. Since you seem categorically opposed to changing any costs, would you be ok to pay +2 for an autofire NND 0 end attack since the original version of champions allowed it?

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? The knockback tricks work much better at 16+ DCs. At 10-12 DCs, the knockback damage is usually negligible, especially since it's halved a large chunk of the time if you don't hit a hard object. Someone who's basically invulnerable to the other guy or who takes vastly reduced damage, should win these fights since presumably there's nothing preventing Invulnerable guy from fighting intelligently as well. Actually, yes I would consider an 80 pt attack to be hideously unbalancing compared to a 60 pt attack. Just like I would consider spot adjusting a defense to 35 to be hideously unbalancing vs a 25 defense. It's a matter of degree. A person with 30 MD can run roughshod over one relatively narrow class of opponent. A person with 35 fixed PD can run roughshod over a larger but still fairly limited set of opponents. A person with the defensive multipower can run roughshod over a large set of opponents (anyone who depends on 1 class of attacks). A matter of degree. Just compare the number of characters with 1 class of attack vs the number of pure mentalists. I would be ok if you had a 60 pt multipower with this structure. I would not be ok with a 25 pt defensive multipower with this structure because increasing defenses is way more overpowering than adjusting an attack. As shown by many examples throughout this thread. What's happening with a multipower with both defenses and movements is that points that were suboptimal in certain situations (movements when you need defense) can be shifted optimally on the fly. You seem to recognize that this is unbalancing. The balancing point for the fact that defenses are cheaper than attacks is that you have to purchase more than one of them. Somone who purchases 20/20 defenses for 40 pts has 20 pts of "dead weight" on his character sheet when attacked by 1 class of attack. However, that same person with 20 pts of flexible defenses has considerably less "dead weight" because he's drawing from the defense that happens to not be in use. He's basically shifting PD to ED or vice versa. This situation is basically the same as the first situation. Points are shifting from a suboptimal setting to an optimal setting. Yet you think only the first situation is unbalanced. VPPs are kinda unique in that you can stash virtually any power in it for free once the control cost is paid. Multipowers have to have each slot paid separately. What I would probably do would be to double the cost of the slots for defenses in a multipower. So it would cost 2 pts for a +10 PD ultra slot in a multipower. Relative cost of defenses vs attacks, and the fact that defense trumps attacks as shown previously. No it's not rebalanced. You went through the whole example of the 6 pt NND slot adding 9 pts of stun damage vs a 30 Def target. That's had a lesser effect than a 1 pt defensive slot would be vs a standard attacker because the 1 pt defensive slot is adding on to an existing defense whereas the attack is built from scratch. A standard VPP is as ridiculous as a power with about +6 worth of advantages? We have different definitions of "ridiculous"... Perhaps the designers simply missed it. Or perhaps they didn't think anyone would actually do it since it's abusive. I don't see a single character in CKC or Champions Universe with a defensive multipower that can be altered in this fashion. Just like I don't see any with a multipower of just movements. What official 5th edition character has a multipower with defenses like this? It's pretty easy to abuse. Happens all the time. Bricks tend to use those 30 extra points on higher defenses, more damage resistance, and hardening of defenses. Martial artists use thos extra 30 pts on combat luck, Dex, martial maneuvers, and DCV (another form of defense). Recognizing imbalances might someday rectify them. At one time, it was perfectly legal to stack Autofire and NND and Reduced End together with no difficulty. It sounds like you would have no problems with that combination costing +2 and depending on player restraint and GM oversight to control it.

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? It seems to me that this is proving my point. That an add-on multipower is far more powerful than one where every attack is built from scratch. Hence another big advantage to the defensive multipower. I will send a reasonable cross section of opponents. I do not have a "screw the player" attitude where I must send attackers that target their weaknesses. And yes, I will occasionally send a mentalist after a party member with 30 pts of mental defense bought straight. He paid the points for that ability and shouldn't be penalized for it by not allowing that ability to be effective occasionally. He is 30 pts worse vs most other types of opponents, so I don't see it as a problem if he gets an occasional easy win. Wait a moment. This entire thread was about whether a multipwer of defenses was appropriate or balanced and now your arguing that a multipower of defenses and movements isn't appropriate or balanced????????? Why are we even going back and forth if you yourself concede that some types of multipowers are overpowered??? How the heck did you get from a VPP at double cost to a multipower at double cost? Then adding directly to defenses is unbalanced because defenses are cheaper. After all, a 10 pt multipower slot in Aid will add 1.75 pts of defense on average and 3 pts max whereas if added directly to defenses, it adds +10. Now why are defenses cheaper in general? The ONLY possible reason is because a defender must purchase multiple types of defenses to cover their bases. If PD and ED were replaced by DEF, then it would be too cheap at 1 for 1. But because a player has to buy both of them separately, it becomes balanced... unless he can adjust the defenses on the fly. Ah, the ridiculous power construct argument. Umm, the game has costed away these synergistic effects when recognized. Such as with halving adjustment powers on defenses and the additional +1 nonstandard autofire adjustment, and the doubling of cost for reduced end on autofires etc. That's because leaving the rules as is is abusive. It sounds to me that you would be fine with an 5 shot Autofire NND 0 End costing only a +2 total Advantage...

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? A lot harder to beat an opponent if you can't stun him... You're adding 25 pts to the 60 Str. If I have another 25 pts to add to my defenses, it's pretty trivial to make that multipower completely worthless. No, if the GM facilitates it by a reasonable selection of opponents and challenges. It's a poor GM who plans EVERY encounter to specifically target a player's weaknesses and avoid their strengths. If there's a reasonable cross section of encounters, the player will be overpowering in a number of them. I'd throw the Minutemen into the campaign because they reasonably would be in the campaign and this would be a reasonable limitation on them. I would just make sure that not EVERY encounter was vs Minutemen. The thing is that it's dirt cheap to add movements to the defensive multipower since the reserve is already paid. So it's directly comparable. In other words, you'll artificially limit his VPP. Not really different than charging double for defenses that can be adjusted on the fly. You can carry this "logic" to adjusting defensive powers. Since it can be abused, your solution would be to allow them to be adjusted at full effect but have the GM artificially cap the final defense level or discuss with the player how to limit the effects. Yet the playtesters clearly thought that wasn't a solution and slapped a 1/2 effect penalty on adjusting defenses. They didn't ban it, they simply modified the structure until it was balanced in their opinion. Why can't you recognize that in Hero, there are synergistic effects and certain combinations of powers/frameworks/advantages are worth more than their raw points suggest?

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? Not too many of those characters. And they're already paying double points essentially for this kind of attack. A defender paying double points for double defenses would be immune to standard attacks. It doesn't need to be in several defenses at once. Just 1 defense at a time. Defenses, movements, and misc powers. My "fix" for something like a VPP that can be adjusted in combat would be to require double cost for defenses. So allocating 20 pts of a VPP would add 10 pts of defenses to the character. It sounds like you have no experience at all with a capable player with a flex defense and you're only theorizing at the moment. If you have a capable player who can vary his defense at will, I'm sure you'll run into the exact same situation as what forced adjustment powers to have half effect on defenses.

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? 6 pts for the NND slot adds 9 stun for a 30 def target, or 1.4 hits reduced on average. 1 pt adds 10 def, so if base def was 25, then it would increase the number of hits needed from 2.3 to 5.7. 2 hits more effective at 1/6 the cost. I think part of the disconnect between attacks and defenses is the fact that each slot of an attack multipower is building the attack from "scratch". For defenses, you're adding onto an existing base so there's no or very little "waste" involved. An analogous example would be a +60 Str slot in the multipower for a character with 20 existing Str which many GMs feel would be unbalancing. This factor strongly favors defensive multipowers over attack multipowers. Actual game results shows it to be highly unbalancing. I refer you to VPP Boy for results in actual play.

Re: New Density Question Make it a Change Environment with long lasting effects. I'd rule it 3 pts to give an object or person +1" knockback resistance penalty (matching other 3 pt abilities in usefulness). And you could define each +1" KB resistance as having the special effect of halving the target's mass.

Re: Teleport as a defensive move You can have him purchase the Flying Dodge maneuver for 5 pts. The maneuver might be somewhat unbalancing, but it does what the player wants.

Re: Thank you - Yay! Zorn isn't leaving! We can kick him around awhile longer...

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? No, a smart player will pick when and where to setup the strong defense. If the player doesn't perceive it to be his advantage do do so, he will not have it up. Therefore far more attacks will hit the strong defense than a weak defense. If there were a lot of characters with fixed 30/20 defenses, then the attack multipower would reduct 5.3 hits. I find that to be a very rare case in actual play. Since the VAST majority of characters have defenses within a few of each other, your conclusion simply doesn't match reality. However, attackers with attacks of 1 form are vastly more common than ones with equal physical and energy attacks. At least a magnitude more common. Also, the simplified situation is for illustration. I don't have the time or desire to map out every single possible combination of attacks, defenses, OCV, DCV, combinations of attackers, defenders, terrain, etc mathematically. The point (and you've never addressed it), is that choosing the right defense burns off more attacker actions than choosing the wrong defense hurts.

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? You see, in every campaign that I've been a part of, we have smart players. Smart players would shift their 10 pt defensive slot to the appropriate defense instead of a 5/5 slot only when they perceive that it's advantageous to do so. That implies that attacks are hitting the strong defense significantly more often than the weak defense. Maybe in a campaign without smart players the weak defense will be more often, but certainly not in any campaign that I've been part of. I said it SPECIFICALLY 2 posts ago that it was a vast oversimplification of combat to illustrate my point. Yet you don't address the point at all that spot defenses are VASTLY more effective than spot attacks. The 20 to 30 defense person gains 4 additional hits by utilizing the right defense and loses only 1.3 hits by utilizing the wrong defense.

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? Ok, let's be a little less extreme and allow the character to vary his defenses from 20 to 30 each with a default of 25. The 10DC attack needs to hit 4 times to take him out at default defenses. If someone surprises him and attacks his weak defense, it'll take 2.67 hits to take him out on average. He loses only 1.33 hits on average. If they strike his tough defense, it'll take 8 hits to take him out. He gains 4 hits. The gain outweighs the loss significantly. Now when you factor in that it takes a surprise shot to hit his weak defense to begin with, and that there are significantly more opponents who are going to be hitting his strong defense, it shows that spot defenses are significantly more valuable than spot attacks. The designers recognized this and doubled the cost of adjusting defenses.

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way?

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? Combat in Hero basically boils down to how many phases it takes on average to take out the other guy which is a character's stun/ (average net damage through defenses times probability of hitting). This is a vast oversimplification of Champions combat, but it should be sufficient to illustrate the point. It's an A/B equation. Now Hugh, you're an accountant and a very experienced one if I remember correctly. Beyond the fact that 10 pts of defenses produces 10 pts of effect while 10 pts of attack produces 7 pts of effect, there is another subtler factor that you should recognize as an accountant. Increasing defenses or DCV reduces the denominator of the above equation and increasing attacks or OCV increases the denominator. If you know anything about math at all, you would recognize that decreasing a denominator has a greater effect than increasing the same denominator! Do you understand now?

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? Hugh, we're going around in circles. I'm very surprised that an experienced player such as yourself has such trouble recognizing the balance and dynamics between offense and defense. Here are 2 examples, 1 with DCV and 1 with defenses that should illustrate the point. Example 1 A and B both have the same CV but A has 6 levels while B has none. Let's assume both do 15 Stun through defenses on average and both have 40 Stun. If A puts all his CSLs in OCV, he hits on a 17- and is hit on 11-. He hits 99+% of the time and is hit 62.5% of the time. In this case, B can fight back effectively and it is possible he'd win by getting 2-3 hits and rolling high for damage while A rolls low for damage. A is favored, but B is somewhat competitive. If A puts all his levels in DCV, he hits on 11- and is hit on 5-. There is basically no chance at all for B to compete. He'll never hit 2-3 times before A hits 2-3 times. In this case, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion on how the battle ends. Example 2 A and B both do about 15 stun through defenses on average and both have 40 Stun. A can either increase his attack or his defenses (through changing a multipower slot or using an adjustment power. It doesn't matter how he does so). Both have the same CV. If A increases his attack by 10 pts, he adds 2d6 or 7 Stun to his net damage on average and now does 22 on average. He now only needs 2 hits on average instead of 3 to take out B, while B still needs 3 hits on average. But a combination of A missing or rolling low on damage and B hitting or rolling high on damage could still allow B to win the fight. B is still competitive. If A increases his defense by 10 pts, now B only does 5 net Stun through defenses on average. Now it takes B a whopping 8 hits on average to beat A. Now there's virtually no chance that A can lose this fight. True that increasing the attack increases the chance of stunning the target, but that doesn't change the relative odds between the 2 scenarios by that much. If these 2 examples don't illustrate the difference between attacks and defenses, I don't know what will.

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? Well, based on our previous example, 2/2/3 vs 15/15. Somehow I'm seeing a difference here... Not neutralize. Fight effectively you mean. Neutralization is being immune to the other's attacks. Adding a slot to the MP that bypasses the defender's highest defenses still allows the defender to fight back effectively unless it's a one shot KO, and generally a single MP attack slot won't allow that. Yep, but flex boy has a lot more foes that are restricted, including very basic archetypes such as brick, MA, or pure mentalist. The other ones you mention have 1 specific foe, not whole classes of foes. Yep, draining defenses is more effective than draining attacks. Conversely adding to defenses is more effective than adding to attacks. Do you see where this is going? Unless the mentalist can 1 shot KO the defender, then the defender can fight back effectively. Plus breakout rolls are the great equalizer. Then you've never really experienced the effect. Trust me, the VPP boy with spot defenses was highly unbalancing.

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? The 6d6 NND vs 12d6 EB causes 9 marginal stun vs a 30 def target for a cost of 6 pts. Adding a slot that gives +15 extra defense over your normal defense stops 15 marginal stun at a probable cost of 1-3 pts. At extremely weak levels if at all. Gotcha. You're suggesting the equivalent of the tunnelling N-Ray vision mentalist to keep flex defender in check. Gotcha. You'll never send a brick, martial artist, weapons master, blaster who only has energy attacks, pure mentalists, etc after flex boy. And flex boy is no worse off than generic defense boy 1/2 the time, but far better off 1/2 the time. Sounds good to me. Why do you think there is a halving rule for adjusting defenses? Gotcha. You're ok with bricks, martial artists, weapons masters, blasters who only has energy attacks, pure mentalists, etc all becoming cannon fodder. In a team setting yes, but the typical HERO campaign has far more combats than many on many. Hugh, have you actually run a flex boy type defender in an actual campaign, or is this all hypothetical to you?

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? Not a chance. Plenty of characters can survive 1 or 2 ego blasts. Not many characters can survive if they can't affect their opponents at all. And while he's being zapped, he can fight back effectively (he's not useless). The mentallist cannot fight back effectively for the expenditure of 2 pts. Now show me where the attack multipower at a cost of 1-2 pts can make whole classes of defenders useless. Yes, it's actually very uncommon to have a multipower where not a single power uses up the reserve or close. 2 14d6 energy blasts in the same multipower? Who the heck has that? Also I'll point out that this 14d6 attack will do 29 stun to the generic 20/20 FF. Drain and Flash will have FULL effect vs that defender. So part of the time, the flex defender is no worse off than generic defender. Part of the time he's in much better shape. BUT again as I've been pointing out ad nauseum, I've stated again and again in this thread and apparently nobody is listening that flex defender shines vs an attacker with 1 form of attack. Throw the mentallist at generic dude and he's toast. Throw him at flex boy and mentalist is toast. With generic defense dude, the 70 pt multipower just crushes anyway 100% of the time, rather than 50% of the time. OK, why do you think there is a rule about halving adjustment effects vs defenses?

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? That's also a pretty good multipower design.

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? Or I can build the multipower as: 35 Multipower reserve 3 u +35 PD 3 u +35 ED 3 u +17/+18 or +18/+17 1 u +15 mental defense 1 u +15 power defense 1 u +15 flash defense 47 pts. Your boy can now have 20/20 FF (at 1 end more per phase) and 2/2/3 power/mental/flash. Frankly, I can't see how that stacks up at all. There are plenty of Martial Artists, Bricks, Energy Blaster, Weapon Masters, Mentallists, agents, etc in any campaign. It would be an odd and unbelievable campaign where everyone has an attack multipower with Physical/Energy/Mental/Power/Flash slots. After damage resistance, he has 150 pts left. He's going to have sucky stats and/or skills and/or attacks and/or movements. If he spends 90 pts on a 60 pt multipower with 5 slots, he now has 60 pts to spend on stats, movements, and skills. Somehow this character doesn't seem terribly unbalancing to me...