ghost-angel

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates? Personally, I think it would fly in the face of Common Sense to interpret Healing as a one-use Power even under 5Es wording. Given the absence of a Fade Rate, I would just assume place an appropriate time limit on reusing it. It could very well vary by Game in that case.

Re: Would you allow the white knight defense? "Ultimate Supermage"?

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates? Yeah, 5E left things a little... restricted, unless you were willing to use a more liberal interpretation of the rules.

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates? The Max Body you can heal Per Day (without buying down the Reuse Time) is 12 Body. Next day - 12 More Body are Healed. Resurrection is not an All Or Nothing Use Once Power. There are no restrictions on how long a person has to be dead by the book. Enough applications of Resurrection can bring anyone back from any amount of Negative Body.

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? Oh, I did run all the numbers again using the 6E Costs. I can't reveal anything per request of Steve though, so it may not be worth anything to say that I'm happy with the results I got.

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? OK, I have some info. I got kind of bored with the exercise. There's one flaw, and I'll explain that before I continue on. You state that buying STUN should be an equivalent build to buying Defenses. This, by itself, is the flaw. Mitigating Damage will always be preferable to taking Damage. Even if the Damage Taken is Less Than your Recovery you must spend all Actions Recovering from Damage to equate Defending Against said Damage to equalize the two. Even a series of small undefended, unrecovered attacks will KO a Character eventually. A small amount of Defense prolongs this, a larger amount negates it. For large attacks, all removing Defenses does is quicken the Stun/KO rate, but it is even more inevitable, especially if your REC is less than Damage Taken. Recovery is the key to this point, the higher your Recovery the better off you are at any case. But it's also where the greatest variance comes in. If the Defenders Speed is twice or more the Attackers Speed they can spend the Phases taking Recoveries, negating Damage quickly without losing the ability to retaliate. If the Defenders Speed is less than or equal to the Attackers Speed the Defender will always lose eventually without Damage Mitigation. It's an inherent aspect of the two concepts. You cannot hold out forever. Only "long enough." On to the dog and pony show. Bases: PD/ED: 2 MD/PwD: 0 Stun: 20 REC: 4 CON: 15 -All Damages used were Averages -Body Damage was Ignored, assume Stun Only Attacks. Points Spent: 20 PD/ED 8 MD/PwD: 4 Stun: 20 REC: 4 -Normal Attacks, Ego Attacks, and Drain Stun start doing Damage at 3 Damage Classes -Killing Attacks start doing Damage at 4 DCs. -Normal Damage exceeds Recovery Rate at 4 DCs (it takes 2+ Recoveries to undo the Damage Taken) -Killing, Ego, and Drain Damage exceeds REC Rate @ 6 DCs -Target is Instantly Knocked Out at 12 DCs for Normal and Killing Attacks (14 DCs for Ego and Drains) Points Spent: 20 PD/ED: 2 MD/PwD: 0 Stun: 32 REC: 8 -Normal, Ego and Drains start doing Damage at 1 Damage Class -Killing at 2 DCs -Normal Damage exceeds REC Rate at 3 DCs -Killing, Ego, Drain exceeds REC Rate at 5 DCs -Instant KO at 10 DCs for Normal Attacks (@ 15 DCs for Killing) (@ 19 DCs for Ego, Drains) At low point levels Defenses are definitely better at current costs. If we Double the cost of all Defenses we get: PD/ED 5 MD/PwD: 2 Stun: 20 REC: 4 -Normal, Ego, Drains start doing Damage at 2 DCs -Killing at 3 DCs -Normal Damage exceeds REC Rate @ 3 DCs -Killing, Ego, Drains exceeds REC Rate @ 4 DCs -Instant KO at 8 DCs for Normal Attacks (@ 11 DCs for Killing) (@ 13 DCs for Ego, Drains) I don't know what results you wanted to get. But that's what it looks like if you spend 20 Points on Defenses, 20 on Stun/REC and 20 on Defenses doubling their cost. Now, if the MetaRule that Defenses should be cheaper than their Attacks you run into the problem that PD/ED cost 12 Points to mitigate 1 Damage Class of Normal Attack. Assuming you buy both a PD and ED Attack, you're spending 10 Points. Defenses are now more expensive than Attacks in regards to making sure you're covered. But then, you're spending lots of points on REC, Stun and hopefully Speed in order to take these REC with, otherwise those are meaningless points. Since I hold the hypothesis is flawed, I won't comment further. You should be spending points in all locations. Stun is not, and will not ever be, a replacement for Defenses. Damage Mitigation will always be favorable to Damage Soaking unless your Recovery Rate and Ability To Recovery exceeds their ability to Damage. Maybe I should have skewed to 40/60 Stun/REC - but then you're spending most of your time standing back up from being Stunned or KO'd. Since raising the cost of Defenses makes them more expensive than Attacks (thus skewing the whole curve in the OTHER direction) that's not a viable solution. The alternative is to lower the cost of Stun and Recovery - and then buy all three: Stun, Recovery, and Defenses. EDIT: I'm not posting my spreadsheet because I used a number of formula, and parts of other spreadsheets I used as a part of SETAC to get an idea of what doubling Defense Costs does, and I'm in no mood to strip that info out.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD In this case when the components were broken down they were put back together as a lesser number of options to fiddle with and less pieces to do the same things more evenly. Making it, hopefully, easier for new and old alike.

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? I don't think the costs are as off as you think. So I've never felt the need for that level of depth. But alright. First, CON needs to be set at a Set Level. I will use 15. Second, the comparison is Defenses vs Stun - remove all notions of "being hit" for the comparison we're going to simply use a Number Of Hits to reduce to 0 Stun. CVs, Dex and Speed are irrelevant. Third, because Tactical Situations vary too much, we can only be assured of a Post-12 Recovery. We will simply measure Number Of Recoveries Needed to regain Lost Stun due to an Attack Fourth, Damage Classes are 5 Points/ Damage Class. 1DC = 1D6 Normal Attack, 1 Pip Killing Attack, 1/2D6 Ego Attack and Drain. Follow the progression normally. We assume that the Defender has purchase ALL Defeneses, CON+REC will be purchased at a 60/40 Rate (if a Defender bought 10points of Defenses total they will have +6 CON +4 REC). Just because. They get 2 PD, 2ED, 0 MD, 0 PwD, 20 Stun, 4 Rec (calculated as if you had Figured at Starting Levels). Stun = 1:1 REC = 2:1. Then we'll make up some adjustments in numbers based on some results. Also, I will note Defenses are priced compared to Attacks. Not Stun and I believe you're starting from a false presumption to begin with. I'll be back later tonight with a work-up from 1 Damage Class to 20 Damage Classes with some results. It takes a bit of time to get the spreadsheet working correctly.

Re: Any more Ultimate Series books on the horizon Steve has already said he's not going to write or work on such a book. Numerous times. I doubt he's changed his mind at this point.

Re: Fooling Telepathy I believe the FAQ clarifies the issue - IPE is not needed on Invisibility or Shapeshift. I do believe Sean does not use the FAQ.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD I think, it's a switching gears issue. Look at Lord Mhoram's post - he uses AVLD throughout it. (Not to pick on you LM, you just happen to be a prominent recent poster on it - this is not meant as insulting in any way.) I don't think they've caught on that AV Alternate D could mean anything the Group sees as a Defense to a particular attack. It looks too much like AVLD which could mean some are instinctively looking for the NND Construct as something outside AVAD - thinkiing possibly that AVAD applies to switching Defense Powers around, and not just defenses in a generic way (like stating Life Support as a valid AVAD All Or Notihing (AVAD-AON) construct). I'm just guessing though. I wouldn't imagine it to be any harder or easier to create AON Attacks under 6E as it was to create NND under 5E.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD I thought the design goal was to steal all our monies?

Re: new advantage im playing with

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? Throwing in Speed, CVs and "did you or did you not get hit?" into the mix now produces enough variables, and enough game dependant variables, that I don't believe a useful cost comparison can be made.

Re: EGO Attack True, now we'll see if the 6E costs out the same. What I meant was - back in the day when EB and EA were created, they didn't have all the tools we have on hand to balance it that way. At least, I'm pretty sure some of the elements we're using today weren't there originally. Is that enough to justify a cost change? Could be.

Re: The "Mental"-ness of Mental Powers Hugh has a good point. While I don't think they were designed specifically for Sniping, I think they were designed to Work Differently, and ended up in such a way as to appear to be a Snipers Tool. they appear to have been designed to "not work like physical attacks so let's trip out the parts that make it physical" and removed Ranged penalties (minds don't care how far apart they are), removed physical interaction (your brick walls can't stop my mind!), removed visibility (people can't see psychic powers). But I don't see that they added much back into balance out those factors. It may be they never came up. I dunno.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD I think All Or Nothing is Addative with AVAD, if I read Steve right since those are part of the same Advantage.

Re: Genre Conventions & Values Miami Vice = TV Cop Show Style, mostly clean, there might be some bodies but not blood and plot holes can be ignored if you look cool doing it. Not quite action, but laws are 'glossed over' for the Heroes.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD Steve lists changing Combat Value and Changing Defenses as two separate Advantages, so they wouldn't add up and cancel out in that case, they would apply separately like any two different advantages.

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? Compare the cost of taking all forms of Defense that prevent Stun Damage from any source (PD, ED, MD, PowerD) versus purchasing an equivelant amount of Stun or Stun+Recovery. Map the Defenses across multiple levels as well (I suggest, to keep it simple, 8/12/20 but you could get more detailed and go up to 25 or 30 on the high end) and weight Stun 60/40 when spending points on Stun+Recovery instead of Defenses. Ignore Killing Body for now as that requires Resistant Defenses which are purchased differently - and under 6E Normal Defenses always apply against Killing Stun so they aren't needed to block Killing Stun anyways. If you are going to set a "base level" to block incoming Killing Body, you have to 1) set that level explicitely and 2) account for that in the costing structure. the math needs to be done across a wide range of possible Power Levels to account for any level that the System will be used at (not just Superheroic) I suggest from 1 Damage Class to 20 Damage Classes using Normal Attack, Killing Attack (with a 6E Stun Multiple of 1D3), Ego Attack and Drain Stun - I would use only Averages for this since we're starting to get a lot of data to compare. Set a CON Level that determines Stun Threshold as a baseline, unchanging, and you'll find a Break Point where Defenses vs Stun becomes either viable or extraneous. If you are unwilling to perform a full wide ranging cost analysis that takes into effect all the possible Mechanics Stun works against (for whatever reason, time, desire, etc) then your analysis will fall short in properly costing any, or all, defenses versus the utility of none, some, or all points spent on Stun. But just comparing Stun to PD/ED for a small variance in possible incoming Attacks disregards a large part of the System, ignores scalability and ultimately you will find that balancing only at one point unbalances at others.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD Steve mentions that AVAD will have an All Or Nothing element, which replaces NND. So yes, AVAD replaceds AVLD and NND and puts them under a single more unified structure.

Re: Lucha Libre Hero It's awesome, that's for sure. I managed to get my hardcopy before the_bunneh then eh? Tina likes me more

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD oooh, has SETAC been revealed?

Re: Fooling Telepathy IPE on Invisibility is a particulary broken perception of the Visibility Rules. Invisibility: Sight Group. The Power really shouldn't be Visible to anything, but you still make noise when you walk (Visible Hearing Group) and still have a scent (Visible Smell/Taste Group) thus YOU are Visible to other Senses. Which is the Intent of it. Too strict a reading of the rules leads to just as much a broken game as too liberal a reading. IPE on Shapeshift... I don't see it's need either. It messes with Intent. If I'm reading your mind in the same room and you think "I'm really Bob in Accounting" and not who you really are I can still See that you are you, and not Bob, even if reading your mind says your Bob. Thus, I would interpret no IPE needed. But I read the rules with a much looser interpretation than Sean.

Re: EGO Attack