Netzilla

Eh, you asked me for clarification on the interaction between Deflection and Reflection and I provided one based on RAW.  If you want to house rule things, then house rule away.  There's no need to justify it to me as I'm not playing at your table.  From your POV, I'm just some random dude on the internet.

Btw if helps, Im converting older characters and trying to devise a guideline. So if a character just has missile Deflection then I just buy Deflection. If they bought MD with reflection then I only need to buy Reflection.

A clarification on this part, since I haven't addressed it directly. 

If a pre-6e character only has the base Missile Deflection, then you don't need to purchase Deflection at all.  The 6e Block rules allow you to block ranged attacks without the need for any extra powers.  You may be at a penalty, depending on the GM's ruling (you could potentially counter this by purchasing PSLs).

If a pre-6e character has Missile Deflection with the Missile Deflection at Range Advantage (+1), then they would need to purchase Deflection in 6e.  Note, that this does not apply if the Missile Deflection at Range was only purchased at the +1/2 level because that only allows MD to work in the adjacent hex abd 6e Block already allows blocking for the adjacent "hex" (though at a -2 penalty; again PSLs can help).

If a pre-6e character has bought levels to improve their Missile Deflection roll, then the 6e version needs to buy Ranged CSLs with Block to emulate the improved odds.

If a pre-6e character has Missile Deflection with the +20/+30 Reflection ability, then the 6e character needs to buy Reflection up to a level to match what seems reasonable for the 5e character to reflect.  If the 5e character was in a campaign with a 50-70 AP range for attack powers, the 6e version would need to be able to Reflect 70 AP powers to maintain similar utility.

So, I might build a 6e Questionite Shield like so:

Questionite Shield, MP (60 pool), all slots OAF (Questionite Shield)

f - Blocking (20 AP total) +3 CSL with Block (6 AP) plus +3 CSL with Ranged Block (6 AP) plus +4 PSL to counter 'Block vs Ranged' penalties (8 AP).

f - Bounce Attack, Reflection up to 60 Active Point Attack (40 AP), OAF (Questionite Shield)

f - Thrown 12d6 Blast (60 AP), Range Based on Strength, 1 Recoverable Charge, Lockout

f - Bash: Hand Attack +4d6 (20 AP)

If you have an SFX for Reflection, then you should be able to use it to Block ranged attacks.  Otherwise, that would make the Reflection power pointless as you cannot Reflect what you cannot Block.  So, hopefully, the GM either allows it as is or works with the player to come up with an SFX that does work.  In the case of a shield, I'd look askance at any GM that didn't allow it.

Similarly, a character could buy both Reflection and Deflection using the same SFX (perhaps some sort of mirror-like force wall).  Again, it's up to the GM as to if this would be allowed.  Even if it is allowed, however, unless the GM is willing to bring in an optional rule from APG1, your character would not be able to Reflect any attacks that had to be stopped via Deflection.  Only attacks within reach that were Blocked could be Reflected, even if the SFX is still a mirror-like force wall.

Still wrong.

 

The Questionite Shield can be used to Block Ranged attacks targeted at the user of the shield.  Deflection would absolutely be necessary to block an attack targeting someone else more than 1m away (the definition of Deflection). 

 

HM

Exactly. 

Deflection's primary purpose is to block attacks (melee or ranged) that target someone or something that is out of your reach.

Reflection's primary purpose is to reflect ranged attacks that were aimed directly at your character or a target within reach.  With an Advantage, you can also reflect melee attacks aimed directly at your character or a target within reach.

You're not allowed to use Reflection with Deflection by RAW.  Therefore, there is no way that Reflection could require Deflection.  The two powers have no relationship at all by RAW.  On the other hand, whatever SFX you use for Reflection should allow you to Block ranged attacks because otherwise you would have a useless power.  You can only Reflect something you Block.

This is another reason why Deflection isn't required to be able to Block a ranged attack RAW.  Since Reflection cannot work with Deflection, if you only allow blocking ranged attacks via Deflection, then you can never Reflect ranged attacks.

Netzilla if I understand Reflection correctly, you don't need deflection now because it's already absorbed into the price of reflection. I.e the Questionite Shield has Reflection so it can block any ranged attack already.

In fact, Reflection explicitly disallows its use with Deflection in the very first sentence of the Reflection description.  However, APG1 has an optional rule to allow them to be used together by applying the Ranged (+1/2) Advantage on Reflection.

The price of Deflection isn't factored into the price of Reflection.  For one thing, Deflection has a flat cost of 20 Active Points whereas Reflection has a graded cost based on how many Active Points you can reflect.  So, if you can only Reflect 15 Active Points, it only costs you 10 Active Points, which is less than Deflection would have been.  If you can reflect 60 Active Points, it costs you 40, which is double the cost of Deflection.

Deflection is primarily the ability to Block attacks at range.  Optionally, if the GM allows (or requires) it, you can apply a Limitation to this so that it only blocks attacks made against your character.

Reflection is the ability to bounce attacks directed against your character back at the Attacker (or, with an advantage, against any target).

It is technically correct, assuming you've got the rarity of ED Force Field right for your campaign.  This is why I only use Active Points as a starting guideline when balancing powers.  For the campaign I'm currently prepping (Golden Age) the rarity would be a bit higher but even if it weren't, I'd limit the dicage on that attack for precisely the reasons you state.  After all, nothing requires that you build all powers in an MP to the MP's Active Point limit.

I can't imagine a blank piece of vinyl would be any more expensive than a vinyl gaming hex-mat.

You might want to look at the Skill and Characteristic Roll modifiers of Change Environment.

In a battle of subtlety and maneuver, I give the edge to Luthor due to having a larger fortune higher tech base for more and better resources.

The ultimate martial arts showdown:

Karate Kid (Legion of Super Heroes) vs Shang Chi

Teal'c because he actually got to win fights on occasion.

In a similar vein -- Battle of the Cannon Fodder:

Imperial Storm Troopers vs Federation Red Shirts

Robin's gadgets give him the edge for the win.

Space Dogfight!

Wedge Antilles in an Ep IV X-Wing vs nBSG Starbuck in a nBSG Viper

Batman uses his detective and tactical acumen to arrange an appropriate ambush and takedown.  Batman wins.

Battle of the Good Guy Space Smugglers

Malcom Reynolds vs Han Solo (Eps 4-6)

I'd love to see it. Is it in the files section?

Me too!

No, not in the files section.  I wrote it for my own use never really intending to share it.  So, the UI is kind of clunky and there's zero documentation.  I'll PM you guys a google drive link if you want to play with it.

For each new campaign I create a spreadsheet that takes the PCs' Characteristics and Defenses, and calculates how much damage they'll take from an average hit at each DC. So I know an attacker who does 2d6K will on average get X BODY and Y STUN through with each hit, which will KO the PC in this many hits, or kill him in that many hits, or will Stun him with a lucky Vitals shot, etc. Compare their CVs like Hugh described, and that gives you a sense of how long that will take.

 

The converse spreadsheet lists the PCs' primary attacks and compares them against different Defenses, so I have an idea how long it will take them to hurt the villain. It's not an exact science, but I find it works well enough.

I've written a Java app that does basically the same thing.

That's it. I say we go to statistical rounding. It's the only way to be sure.

Also, when you work in Hit Locations, CV disparities can make called shots very attractive.  That can quickly unbalance a scenario as well (remembering the PC Martial Artist with +8 CSLs who always called the head because his CV was that good; fortunately he was a glass cannon which helped balance that out). 

Yeah, Hugh nails it.  Raw points really don't tell the tale when it comes to balancing encounters.  You have to look at what goes into those points (and Hugh picks out the key values). 

For folks new to the system, it can be surprising how a little variance in something like CV can have a big impact.  Take a look at the Success Roll Odds table on page 232 of Champions Complete.  If Capt Accuracy's OCV is 3 higher, then he only need a 14- to hit for 90% odds.  If his DCV is also 3 higher, then his opponent needs an 8- for 25% odds.  That's a pretty big mismatch and it's only a 3 point difference in OCV and DCV.  In order to turn that into a fair fight, Cpt Accuracy's foe needs to either dish out big damage or attack way more often.  Defensively, his foe needs to be able to soak a lot more.

I think NB's point was that such info as you just cited might make a good addition to CV4.

Just to throw another option out there for those who forget or can't roll fewer/different colored dice, is you can remove dice after the fact by alternating between removing from the top and bottom of the roll.  So, in the case of the 12d6 move through, let's say you rolled 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 1 and the attacker has 4 dice of DN.  The defender would take the full 45 stun and 12 Body.  The attacker would remove the 6, one of the 5s, the 2 and the 1 and so would take 31/3 = 10 Stun and 10/3 = 3 Body (as opposed to 15:4).  This does give a slight advantage to having an odd number of DN but that doesn't personally bother me.

Even with "no PVP allowed", I dislike the PC with DCV 7 having a 4 DCV if stunned while the adversary gets a DCV of 3.

 

Does that mean if, while he is Stunned, he is Mind Controlled to fight for the PC's, he gets bumped up to a 4 DCV? Rounding up now favours the PCs, right? Or does it mean he has a 3 DCV if attacked by a PC and a 4 if attacked by one of their opponents (maybe this is a three, or more, way battle).

 

Does it mean the Stunned PC has a 4 DCV if an opponent attacks him, but a 3 if an ally tries to use an Aid, a Heal, or just grab him for a quick escape?

 

"Halve the character's DCV and round up" seems like a very simple approach that is fair across the board.

Eh, none of my groups have run into these problems.  The 7 DCV rounding to 4 for PCs and 3 for foes is just one of those 'little extras' that makes the PCs better than everyone else.  Giving minor mechanical edges like this to the PCs is just how our group rolls.  Similarly, when there's an initiative tie (rare because we go in order of DEX, SPD then INT) between a PC and NPC, our house rule is that the PC always gets the edge.  The roll-off only happens in ties between 2 PCs or 2 NPCs.

With the mind-control scenario, this would count as PC v PC and so my group would round in the defender's favor (as noted in my previous post).

As for helping a Stunned PC, players can always choose to be 0 DCV vs someone rendering them aid.  If they choose not to do this (perhaps for fear of being attacked by someone else), then they round down (to 3) vs the assistance attempt and up (to 4) vs the attempt at harm.

Round in the PC's favor (round in defender's favor for PC vs PC) may sound complicated when written out, but I've never noticed it slow down play in practice.  As for it being 'unfair' to give the PCs this type of edge, this (and our init house rule) is small enough that I'm willing to accept any hurt feelings on the part of the NPCs.

I was thinking along those same lines. Use the highest priced Adder among the powers in the list and use that as the base cost.

There is a Limitation that allows AoEs to be deflected to represent grenades and the like. Is it possible that is what you're thinking of?

Since the sense is defined as part of the radio group, HRRP has you covered as far as sharing the sense goes. Targeting based on that might be a little trickier, but is essentially no different than a toward observer relaying attack coordinates, so I'd personally allow it. You might want to consider making the HRRP Targeting (only via relayed target data), if you want to charge for it (as I recall, you explicitly cannot target via Clairsentience).

Take a look at the Accidental Change Complication (Champions Complete pg 125).