New Advantage: Robust Immunity

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

The same reason you have PD/ED + Resistant Defenses' date=' Armor, and Force Field...[/quote']

 

Which could readily be eliminated into different builds for PD/ED and rDEF. Force Field is just "defenses costs END" and Armor just puts the two together as a power. Other than making it clear that defenses can be a power, Armor in particular serves no real purpose, and is only, IMO, still around because it was once a separate power, costed differently.

 

or Armor Piercing and Penetrating (both have the goal to allow damage to get through defenses)...

 

Both have very different approaches and results.

 

They make certain SFX that would become very complex and tedious easier to build.

 

Buying attacks and defenses seems neither inordinately complex nor overly tedious to me. To properly balance the advantage, you should end up with a similar cost to the "attack + Defense" EC anyway - they are of similar power level, and drained together.

 

How does the attack option work if it's on an EB and someone attacks me with a similar SFX attack which is:

 

- a KA

- an NND

- an AVLD

- against the other defense (PD vs ED)?

[zornwil]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

Which could readily be eliminated into different builds for PD/ED and rDEF. Force Field is just "defenses costs END" and Armor just puts the two together as a power. Other than making it clear that defenses can be a power, Armor in particular serves no real purpose, and is only, IMO, still around because it was once a separate power, costed differently.

 

 

 

Both have very different approaches and results.

 

 

 

Buying attacks and defenses seems neither inordinately complex nor overly tedious to me. To properly balance the advantage, you should end up with a similar cost to the "attack + Defense" EC anyway - they are of similar power level, and drained together.

 

How does the attack option work if it's on an EB and someone attacks me with a similar SFX attack which is:

 

- a KA

- an NND

- an AVLD

- against the other defense (PD vs ED)?

Hugh, brief comment, you imply to be consistent with a slight rewriting of EC rules. Not as dramatic as schir1964's new house rule, but still not really orthodox. And therefore not necessarily a good comparison, either.

 

Of course, I have long opposed the way the EC rules are written anyway on that account.

[zornwil]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

One other comment - the "defenses are cheaper than attacks," even though I know it's written in the book as a metarule, is really misleading. Defenses qualify for less ways of being bundled effectively into frameworks, making their cost options more limited than attack cost options, and the variety of attacks and defenses means (as clearly intended, not implying this is broken) that while cheaper on a single attack type to defense type, defenses on the whole become more expensive on the whole as one tries to be prepared across the board. Also, the variability of attacks against the certainty of defenses means that it's quite difficult and even cost-prohibitive to guard against high attack rolls. So I think that the "defenses have to be cheaper" argument, while not strictly wrong, has to be qualified specifically when engaged in an argument as to whether it's applicable and if so, how so, given that the game design is really a mesh of that concept on a 1:1 basis versus a clear intent to make it easier for a mechanical gaming element allowing focused attacks to get through all but those players who invest more in particular defenses (and thereby leave themselves open against other attack types).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

Hugh, brief comment, you imply to be consistent with a slight rewriting of EC rules. Not as dramatic as schir1964's new house rule, but still not really orthodox. And therefore not necessarily a good comparison, either.

 

Of course, I have long opposed the way the EC rules are written anyway on that account.

 

It took me a second to figure it out, then I realized the defenses in my EC writeup cost no END. I generally ignore the "END using powers in an EC" rule. No biggie, however. Just change the construct to:

 

EC:

 

Xd6 Energy Blast

+10/3 X ED Force Field, 0 END, only vs SFX of Energy Blast

 

That tracks, and comes pretty close to an absolute dice reduction. At 12d6, for example:

 

30 EC:

 

30 - 12d6 EB, Sonic Energy

20 - +40 ED Force Field, 0 END (+1/2) only vs Sonic Energy (call it -1/2 even though that's a woefully minor limitation value)

 

I like the force field better, as this power seems it should have a visible manifestation.

 

Total cost 80 points, so effectively a +1/3 advantage to the Energy Blast. +40 ED won't quite eliminate the average 12DC attack but it will combine with existing defenses. I end up with a fraction, however. If we made the Field 48 ED (4X), we get 28 for the Field, 88 in aggregate, or almost exactly a +1/2 advantage for "all attacks of the same SFX". If I were to adopt the Robust advantage, I think it would have to be +1/2 for all attacks of same SFX.

 

Pulling the Field outside an EC and eliminating the limitation, I get a +48 0 END field (72 points, 20% more than the EB cost). I'd probably use a +1 advantage for "all sfx". A bit cheaper than the force field approach, but draining the EB will also drain the defenses, which happens with the EC but not without it.

 

Mind you, you'd think defenses "only versus own attack" would be a -2 [at least!], meaning personal immunity is also vastly overpriced, even at +1/4.

 

While I still see the construct as unnecessary, the above may be useful for costing it.

[zornwil]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

Coolness, Hugh, thanks.

[schir1964]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

Which could readily be eliminated into different builds for PD/ED and rDEF. Force Field is just "defenses costs END" and Armor just puts the two together as a power. Other than making it clear that defenses can be a power' date=' Armor in particular serves no real purpose, and is only, IMO, still around because it was once a separate power, costed differently.[/quote']

I guess we will have to disagree on the "reason", since I think the reason for Armor and Force Field is to simplify character builds since they add nothing which can't be already done with the base defenses and advantages and limitations.

 

Obviously you don't think this.

 

Both have very different approaches and results.

Not really, they're basic function is still identical, defense vs SFX, and making certain advantages and limitations doesn't change that basic function.

 

But that is neither here nor there.

 

Buying attacks and defenses seems neither inordinately complex nor overly tedious to me. To properly balance the advantage' date=' you should end up with a similar cost to the "attack + Defense" EC anyway - they are of similar power level, and drained together.[/quote']

This presumes that EC's are balanced, which they aren't per se, just like MP and VPP aren't balanced per se. Not to mention that by using an EC for comparison you automatically force a restriction on the concept that the Robust Immunity does not. The restriction that if you use an Adjustment Power on one of the powers or the EC that all powers and EC are affected which may not fit the concept that the player is trying to build. Now some concepts would fit this restriction well, but it shouldn't be forced.

 

The Robust Immunity advantage doens't force this restriction. Just because the Attack Power is affected by an Adjustment Power suddenly doesn't change the fact that they are can still subtract the full dice of what they are capable of. To do that would require a Transform that removes the power or the advantage altogether.

 

How does the attack option work if it's on an EB and someone attacks me with a similar SFX attack which is:

 

- a KA

- an NND

- an AVLD

- against the other defense (PD vs ED)?

Good question, and one I was waiting for.

 

I think it is best handled by the GM. As long as the SFX matches then it would affect all modified versions since the Advantages and Limitations haven't changed the basic SFX of the power. If the Advantages and Limitations have changed the SFX, it's a non-issue since the SFX aren't going to match anyway. So it is handled by the GM at the beginning when he determines if the SFX matches the immunity or not.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

This presumes that EC's are balanced' date=' which they aren't per se, just like MP and VPP aren't balanced per se.[/quote']

 

It provides a reasonable starting point within the exisyting structure, which is my prefernce for costing any ability out. If I can build it two ways, I should get similar, if not identical, costs.

 

Not to mention that by using an EC for comparison you automatically force a restriction on the concept that the Robust Immunity does not. The restriction that if you use an Adjustment Power on one of the powers or the EC that all powers and EC are affected which may not fit the concept that the player is trying to build. Now some concepts would fit this restriction well' date=' but it shouldn't be forced.[/quote']

 

ummmm...if I Drain a power with an advantage, the power and the advantage both decline at the same rate, since I drain AP of the power. If 12d6 of EB with Robust Immunity (+2) gets drained by 15 points, it will now be 11d6 EB with Robust Immunity (+2), and will logically act in all ways like 11d6, not 12d6 The character no longer has 12d6 of Robust Immunity.

 

Draining 15 AP from an 8d6 Penetrating EB leaves a 6d6 Penetrating EB, not an AEB that still rolls 8d6 for Penetrating.

 

Good question, and one I was waiting for.

 

I think it is best handled by the GM. As long as the SFX matches then it would affect all modified versions since the Advantages and Limitations haven't changed the basic SFX of the power. If the Advantages and Limitations have changed the SFX, it's a non-issue since the SFX aren't going to match anyway. So it is handled by the GM at the beginning when he determines if the SFX matches the immunity or not.

 

Well, at least that differentiates it from Force Field...it also may justify an increased cost over the one I posit, since a 12d6 Robust Immunity (+2) EB on, say, a Light EB should reduce EB's and KA's based on light, bright light flashes, dazzle blasts that are AVLD vs Flash Defense, NND's with light SFX HKA lightsabers, Mind Controlling Hypnotic Lights and the ability to use my own lights to suppress the light powers of others.

 

If I were looking for such a constrct, I'd rather see a mechanic that permist the purchase of SFX Defense, which reduces all attacks of a given SFX, regardless of the mechanical defense it would normally apply to.

[zornwil]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

Just a couple comments, I'm enjoying reading and don't feel I have anything much to add to the core of this argument besides what you are now exchanging.

 

It provides a reasonable starting point within the exisyting structure' date=' which is my prefernce for costing any ability out. If I can build it two ways, I should get similar, if not identical, costs.[/quote']

 

I agree with this approach as a validation method, though not "the" validation method. Of course we have to consider if the costs we are seeing "seem right" and seem consistent against other system aspects. At the least, though, as you suggest, we HAVE to do this in order to be sure that we are all aware of the potential issues and how other constructions will be seen by players.

 

If I were looking for such a constrct, I'd rather see a mechanic that permist the purchase of SFX Defense, which reduces all attacks of a given SFX, regardless of the mechanical defense it would normally apply to.

 

In terms of how player concepts tend to really come up, I also usually go this way, and have an SFX-based invulnerability power for this. But I like schir1964's idea where you have a character where their attack power is also linked to a very specific and corresponding resistance. I don't know if I'd apply it (I also would have to look at costs), except one area I think it really might work well are for small powers, and especially for those types of small powers in games with low power levels. Again, have to look at the alternative builds and see.

[schir1964]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

It provides a reasonable starting point within the exisyting structure' date=' which is my prefernce for costing any ability out. If I can build it two ways, I should get similar, if not identical, costs.[/quote']

Actually, building it without using Frameworks woiuld be a reasonable starting point. But they should be examined at some point in the overall scheme of things. But that is just a difference in approach to evaluating the construct.

 

ummmm...if I Drain a power with an advantage' date=' the power and the advantage both decline at the same rate, since I drain AP of the power...[/quote']

To be completely factual, it depends on the advantage and what it does.

 

Example:

10d6 EB with Personal Immunity retains Personal Immunity regardless of how much you drain it.

 

And since Robust Immunity was based on that construct and it's application, then it's rules should be the default.

 

Now perhaps an additional Modifier should be included to allow for the restriction you describe in order to allow for those concepts that would make sense to be built that way.

 

Again, it should not be the default if we are to stay consistent with the Personal Immunity construct.

 

Just My Humble Opinion

 

Well' date=' at least that differentiates it from Force Field...it also may justify an increased cost over the one I posit, since a 12d6 Robust Immunity (+2) EB on, say, a Light EB should reduce EB's and KA's based on light, bright light flashes, dazzle blasts that are AVLD vs Flash Defense, NND's with light SFX HKA lightsabers, Mind Controlling Hypnotic Lights and the ability to use my own lights to suppress the light powers of others.[/quote']

You bring up a good point. There would have to be either some conversion from Normal to Killing or have cost reflect the increased ability to subrtract dice directly regardless of type of attack. Or perhaps a change in the how the basic mechanics work.

 

I'll have to think more on this...

 

I'll definately have to add more levels to the Robust Immunity for balance.

 

Thanks, that was very useful.

 

If I were looking for such a constrct' date=' I'd rather see a mechanic that permist the purchase of SFX Defense, which reduces all attacks of a given SFX, regardless of the mechanical defense it would normally apply to.[/quote']

Technically, you can sort of already get this type of effect with a current mechanic and modifiers (Suppress: All Powers of SFX, Zero END, Persistent, Area Effect, Personal Immunity, Damage Shield).

 

How's that for cost? (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

I guess we will have to disagree on the "reason"' date=' since I think the reason for Armor and Force Field is to simplify character builds since they add nothing which can't be already done with the base defenses and advantages and limitations.[/quote']

I admit, this one has had me scatching my head a bit. They decide to roll Regen into Healing (since it's basically doing the same thing, but then add a whole passle of modifiers, including some which break the rules, to rebuild it), to roll Instant Change into Transform (see comments on Regen/Healing) but decide to keep Armor, Force Field, Damage Resistance, and basic PD & ED all seperate?!?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

Actually' date=' building it without using Frameworks woiuld be a reasonable starting point. But they should be examined at some point in the overall scheme of things. But that is just a difference in approach to evaluating the construct.[/quote']

 

To me, use of an EC in evaluation makes sense due to the linkage through SFX. Similarly, I would evaluate a "choice" ability (such as trading off DC for OCV) using a multipower construct. In most cases, recreation without a frameowkr makes the most sense.

 

To be completely factual, it depends on the advantage and what it does.

 

Example:

10d6 EB with Personal Immunity retains Personal Immunity regardless of how much you drain it.

 

And since Robust Immunity was based on that construct and it's application, then it's rules should be the default.

 

If my 12d6 EB is drained away to 8d6, Personal Immunity is no longer protecting me from a 12d6 EB, only an 8d6 EB.

 

On the other hand, even if that 12d6 EB is Pushed by 2d6 and Haymaker'ed for another 4d6, I still take no damage. That brings up an interesting question for the RI construct. If I have 12d6 with RI, does an attack defended by that RI which is a 12d6 attack, Pushed by +2d6 and Haymaker'ed, inflict:

 

- no damage, as a 12d6 RI offsets a 12d6 attack, including any modifiers [a bit more cumbersome to manage in play]

 

- 6d6 damage, as only 12d6 are removed [in which case, we've weakened PI and it's more expensive than it initially appears to be immune to an equivalent attack using RI - also, can you add dice to RI without adding them to the EB and, if so, why do we need the initial attack power at all?]

 

- 2d6, as RSI offsets the attack dice plus all maneuver bonuses, but not Pushing?

 

- 4d6, as RSI offsets the attack dice plus Pushing, but not maneuver bonuses?

 

You bring up a good point. There would have to be either some conversion from Normal to Killing or have cost reflect the increased ability to subrtract dice directly regardless of type of attack. Or perhaps a change in the how the basic mechanics work.

 

While speaking in d6, I was actually thinking the mechanic would reduce each attack by its DC, not dice, so 12d6 EB RI would reduce a KA by 4d6, an AP blast by 8d6 and an NND by 6d6. My point was more directed at the ability to gain a wide array of different defenses, including at least one (NND Defense) not otherwise available under the rules.

 

Technically, you can sort of already get this type of effect with a current mechanic and modifiers (Suppress: All Powers of SFX, Zero END, Persistent, Area Effect, Personal Immunity, Damage Shield).

 

How's that for cost?

 

Very expensive, except you've left off a lot of limitations. It doesn't suippress all powers of the SFX, as it only affects attack powers. It suppresses them only to the extent they are used to attack me, as the damage taken by my teammate would be unchanged. This also implies PI is not essential - I'm OK with the damage being reduced if it's reflected back at me. One could make a case for Always On, but it doesn't seem very limiting in this instance. The Suppress can't accumulate, since it reduces the attacks by the same DC as my own attack. These will all lower the cost, but the power won't be "framework friendly".

 

Another couple of issues, this time on SFX. Should RI vary in cost depending on how common the sfx it affects is (an issue I also have with "only vs this SFX" under the rules)? If I apply RI to a Magical Fire blast at the +1 level, am I defended from all fire attacks, all magical attack, all magical fire attacks, or all magical attacks (including, say, cold) and all fire attacks (including, say, technology)?

[schir1964]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

To me' date=' use of an EC in evaluation makes sense due to the linkage through SFX. Similarly, I would evaluate a "choice" ability (such as trading off DC for OCV) using a multipower construct. In most cases, recreation without a framework makes the most sense.[/quote']

Well, if that true, then you would have to include the EC Framework Cost as part of the cost in the evaluation, since you are essentially saying that the EC is a single power. Did you include the cost of the EC Framework in your comparison example?

 

If my 12d6 EB is drained away to 8d6' date=' Personal Immunity is no longer protecting me from a 12d6 EB, only an 8d6 EB.[/quote']

Actually, per the rules, and using the GM option suggested in the book, personal immunity grants immunity regardless of the amount of dice or damage classes.

 

To clarify: The book states that the GM could allow identical twins to be immune to each other EBs iif they had Personal Immunity on the EBs.

 

You are suggesting that if one character's EB is drained, they suddenly become vulnerable to the idential twins EB that isn't drained. I don't believe the intent was to allow for that possiblity. The twin retains his immunity to his twin even if his own EB is drained to zero. That was the intent based on how Personal Immunity is described. You can ask Steve Long if you want an official answer to the intent.

 

Perhaps you have something in the book that suggests otherwise that I've missed?

 

On the other hand' date=' even if that 12d6 EB is Pushed by 2d6 and Haymaker'ed for another 4d6, I still take no damage. That brings up an interesting question for the RI construct. If I have 12d6 with RI, does an attack defended by that RI which is a 12d6 attack, Pushed by +2d6 and Haymaker'ed, inflict...[/quote']

This is the type of questions I was hoping for.

 

I was simply looking at a simple subtraction of dice for damage, but the full Robust Immunity version needs to be broken down further to account for the different types of attacks and how to handle them.

 

But for the Pushing/Haymaker (12d6 EB vs 12d6 Immunity) example then the dice would be subtracted normally. So any pushed or haymakered attack would still cause damage since they've exceeded the immunity.

 

Very expensive' date=' except you've left off a lot of limitations. It doesn't suippress all powers of the SFX, as it only affects attack powers.[/quote']

I thought you were wanting a more orthodox type of "defense".

PD/ED/MD/PWRD/FD/Armor/Force Field (vast majority of defense powers) only protect a single individual from damage and don't extend to other people by default. (Exception: Force Wall)

 

So I modeled the Suppress to reflect those. I know I may have left off a couple of limitations, just pointing out that expense of the most direct way of doing what you wanted with existing rules.

 

And as such, it should also be considered for cost evaluation.

 

Another couple of issues' date=' this time on SFX. Should RI vary in cost depending on how common the sfx it affects is (an issue I also have with "only vs this SFX" under the rules)? If I apply RI to a Magical Fire blast at the +1 level, am I defended from all fire attacks, all magical attack, all magical fire attacks, or all magical attacks (including, say, cold) and all fire attacks (including, say, technology)?[/quote']

Again, GM determined, just like any other advantage uses SFX as basis. Such as the Adjustment Powers Variable SFX advantage. If the GM thinks the value for the SFX specified should be more or less, he will change it.

 

When I get time I'm going to modify the Robust Immunity level to address some what you have brought up.

 

Thanks for the critical thinking... (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

Well' date=' if that true, then you would have to include the EC Framework Cost as part of the cost in the evaluation, since you are essentially saying that the EC is a single power. Did you include the cost of the EC Framework in your comparison example?[/quote']

 

I assumed the EB and defenses were the sole powers in the EC, and included the base cost of the EC, yes. Having purchased the EB, any other powers could be added to the EC anyway, so the full cost of the EB, plus reduced cost of the defense, seemed most effective at simulating the ability.

 

Actually' date=' per the rules, and using the GM option suggested in the book, personal immunity grants immunity regardless of the amount of dice or damage classes.[/quote']

 

Since we have to use an "isn't it cool" GM option to get this effect in the first place, the player has no real right to complain about how it works. For pure personal immunity, I would say the advantage itself is all or nothing. If the character still has any EB, he gets the immunity. If, however, it has been fully drained or suppressed, depending on SFX, I might consider this no longer having the power at all so he's no longer immune.

 

However, once we get into the much wider applicable Robust Immunity, we need more definitive rules than "the GM will figure out how this option works". As well, I believe the RI subtracting specific dice also eliminates PI being absolute in that it too wouild only subtract its dice. Thus, the twin can Push and Haymaker (or just buy up his EB with experience) to punch through your personal "Immunity". Perhaps that should be personal resistance instead? "Immune" carries a connotation of absolute.

 

You are suggesting that if one character's EB is drained' date=' they suddenly become vulnerable to the idential twins EB that isn't drained. I don't believe the intent was to allow for that possiblity. The twin retains his immunity to his twin even if his own EB is drained to zero. That was the intent based on how Personal Immunity is described. You can ask Steve Long if you want an official answer to the intent.[/quote']

 

I could ask Steve, but he didn't create personal immunity - it existed in previous editions with (IIRC) the same option. So he didn't have the intent. In any case, you are expanding the ability well beyond its intent under PI, so I would say these issues need to be addressed.

 

I thought you were wanting a more orthodox type of "defense".

PD/ED/MD/PWRD/FD/Armor/Force Field (vast majority of defense powers) only protect a single individual from damage and don't extend to other people by default. (Exception: Force Wall)

 

But the Suppress, as drafted, reduces the attack powers possessed by those in the area. Thus, that 12d6 EB is now reduced to, for example, a 4d6 EB. It also costs less END, I believe, since it is only 4d6 now, but only 4d6 may be used against any target. Robust Immunity didn't reduce the blast to 4d6 if fired against another target.

 

As such, I continue to consider some form of defense to be the appropriate comparative measure. However, if RI provides more than one type of defense, my example is definitely undercosted.

[schir1964]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

However' date=' once we get into the much wider applicable Robust Immunity, we need more definitive rules than "the GM will figure out how this option works". As well, I believe the RI subtracting specific dice also eliminates PI being absolute in that it too wouild only subtract its dice. Thus, the twin can Push and Haymaker (or just buy up his EB with experience) to punch through your personal "Immunity". Perhaps that should be personal resistance instead? "Immune" carries a connotation of absolute.[/quote']

Fair enough. You make some excellent points and I must admit that your analysis seems logical and reasonable.

 

I can live with that implementation also. I'll work on expanding and clarify further the construct and then post again when it ready to be evaluated again. Thanks for your time and effort.

 

I could ask Steve' date=' but he didn't create personal immunity - it existed in previous editions with (IIRC) the same option. So he didn't have the intent. In any case, you are expanding the ability well beyond its intent under PI, so I would say these issues need to be addressed.[/quote']

Ah, that's right. And I agree that issues do need to be addressed and I'll see what I do to rectify that.

 

But the Suppress' date=' as drafted, reduces the attack powers possessed by those in the area. Thus, that 12d6 EB is now reduced to, for example, a 4d6 EB. It also costs less END, I believe, since it is only 4d6 now, but only 4d6 may be used against any target. Robust Immunity didn't reduce the blast to 4d6 if fired against another target.[/quote']

Ah, see that perhaps you are looking at only one implementation of the Suppress power.

 

The implementation I was looking at is the following:

Suppress with Area Effect, Zero END, and Persistent allows for the following to happen in the game.

 

Character A (Attacker) who is outside the Suppress field fires his full 10d6 EB (Fire) at Character B and dice are rolled.

Character B (Defender) either rolls his 5d6 Suppress (Fire SFX) or uses that static value (Set Effect) to reduce the total amount of damage from the attack that enters the suppress field.

 

Does this make more sense now?

 

Just a clarification and is now a tangent. (8^D)

 

As such' date=' I continue to consider some form of defense to be the appropriate comparative measure. However, if RI provides more than one type of defense, my example is definitely undercosted.[/quote']

I'll try to address that.

 

Thanks again.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

Ah, see that perhaps you are looking at only one implementation of the Suppress power.

 

The implementation I was looking at is the following:

Suppress with Area Effect, Zero END, and Persistent allows for the following to happen in the game.

 

Character A (Attacker) who is outside the Suppress field fires his full 10d6 EB (Fire) at Character B and dice are rolled.

Character B (Defender) either rolls his 5d6 Suppress (Fire SFX) or uses that static value (Set Effect) to reduce the total amount of damage from the attack that enters the suppress field.

 

Does this make more sense now?

 

Not really. The damage done is also reduced, since this is AoE, when targetting the guy standing next to Our Hero. I'm not saying you can't build this with Suppress, but that it would have a number of limitations with no set system costs, so the ultimate cost of Suppress would be quite arbitrary, making it less useful as a benchmark.

[schir1964]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

Not really. The damage done is also reduced' date=' since this is AoE, when targetting the guy standing next to Our Hero. I'm not saying you can't build this with Suppress, but that it would have a number of limitations with no set system costs, so the ultimate cost of Suppress would be quite arbitrary, making it less useful as a benchmark.[/quote']

Oh, with that last post I wasn't suggesting the cost be used as benchmark. You concept you wanted is outside of what I was after. That's why I said it was a tangent. I was simply expressing that what you wanted "could" be built with Suppress and current Advantages/Limitations, which you just acknowledged. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

Robust Immunity construct has been updated.

 

Hugh, what do you think?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[CourtFool]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

Which would mean you would be able to subtract 1 PIP from the attack... nice... (8^D)

 

I misread the Robust version.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

Robust Immunity construct has been updated.

 

Hugh, what do you think?

 

The new version alters the pricing, but doesn't resolve many of the issues. At +1, it can affect an NND, AVLD or AP EB, but can it affect a killing attack, flash or Mind Control - a different mechanical attack with the same SFX? If not, why not?

 

So for 60 points, my 12d6 EB can also reduce the damage I take from EB's of the same SFX.

 

By comparison, I could use that 60 points to buy, say, +20 ED Armor (fire only), +20 Flash Defense (Fire SFX only), +20 Mental Defense (Fire SFX only) and +20 Power Defense (Fire SFX Only), 90 AP, 60 real points. I've assumed no physical FireBolts, but conservatively acquired all other defenses. No protection from NND's, but I expect to have the defenses to any relevant NND's due to my own SFX. Only 20 defense, so about 6d6 on average, but then I feel "only vs specific SFX" really merits a greater limitation. And these defenses protect me from all attacks, not just an Energy Blast. They also don't drain away with my EB, but then they can be drained separate from it.

[schir1964]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

The new version alters the pricing' date=' but doesn't resolve many of the issues. At +1, it can affect an NND, AVLD or AP EB, but can it affect a killing attack, flash or Mind Control - a different mechanical attack with the same SFX? If not, why not?[/quote']

I removed the option to affect across different types of powers since the conversion of dice goes counter to the purpose of the advantage. To simplify things.

 

If you need to have it go across different powers then tack on the advantage that Adjustment Powers use to affect mutiple powers. So you could do it if you wanted to handle the extra complexity.

 

But using what I've got as is, you need to apply the Advantage to each Attack Power that you want to have an immunity to. This keeps things balanced and retains the simplicity of application.

 

So for 60 points' date=' my 12d6 EB can also reduce the damage I take from EB's of the same SFX...[/quote']

Kind of got lost on your comparison so I'll try to give some numbers myself.

 

Fire Blast: 10d6 EB [50 AP]

Fire Blast: 10d6 EB with RI +1/2 [75 AP]

Fire Blast: 10d6 EB with RI +1 [100 AP]

 

For 25 Points you get to subtract 10 Dice from any Fire SFX EB (doesn't affect modified EB - AVLD, etc...).

 

For 50 Points you get to subtrack 10 Dice from any Fire SFX EB (regardless of modifiers).

 

Another Comparison:

Normal Attack Power: 5 AP per 1d6 effect

Robust Immunity (+1/2 Version): 2 Points Per 6 Points of Super Defense vs Specific SFX

Super Defense vs Specific SFX: Normal Defense Type (1 Point), Limited SFX (-1/2) = 5 Points per 6 Points Defense

 

Normal Attack Power: 5 AP per 1d6 effect

Robust Immunity (+1 Version): 5 Points Per 6 Points of Super Defense vs Specific SFX

Super Defense vs Specific SFX: Normal Defense Type (1 Point), Hardened x4 (+1), Limited SFX (-1/2) = 10 Points Per 6 Points Defense

 

Killing Attack Power: 15 AP per 1d6 effect

Robust Immunity (+1 Version): 15 Points Per 6 Points of Super Defense vs Specific SFX

Super Defense vs Specific SFX: Resistant Defense Type (3 Points Per 2 Points Defense), Hardened x4 (+1), Limited SFX (-1/2) = 14 Points Per 6 Points Defense

 

Do you think this is too expensive, too cheap.

 

Remember, the goal is to simplify an implementation of certain concepts, not to grant some sort of all inclusive defense. If that's what you want, then there is already another thread dedicated to that with different possible implementations. I get that you probably wouldn't use this construct in favor of others, but I do want the kinks worked out of this one.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

I removed the option to affect across different types of powers since the conversion of dice goes counter to the purpose of the advantage. To simplify things.

 

To me, this complicates matters rather than simplifying them. The character with a fire EB now reduces damage from a fire EB, or a Bright Fire AVLD vs Flash Defense, but not a Fire KA. To me the KA is more similar to the EB than the AVLD is. I suspect players building a concept are looking for resistance to all damage from the special effect, not limited to a specific attack mechanism.

 

If you need to have it go across different powers then tack on the advantage that Adjustment Powers use to affect mutiple powers. So you could do it if you wanted to handle the extra complexity.

 

Most of those extra powers are likely in a Multipower for most characters - do they have to now pick the correct attack slot to have defenses?

 

But using what I've got as is' date=' you need to apply the Advantage to each Attack Power that you want to have an immunity to. This keeps things balanced and retains the simplicity of application.[/quote']

 

The former I don't know - matching for balance becomes ugly at this point. The latter may simplify aplication, but it eliminates the desired conceptual simplicity which I thought was the goal in the first place.

 

For 25 Points you get to subtract 10 Dice from any Fire SFX EB (doesn't affect modified EB - AVLD' date=' etc...).[/quote']

 

For 25 points, I could buy +25 ED, or +38 ED, fire only, and have it apply against a lot more attacks than an unmodified EB.

 

For 50 Points you get to subtrack 10 Dice from any Fire SFX EB (regardless of modifiers).

 

For 50 points, I can buy +20 ED Armor, Fire Only, +20 Flash DEF, Fire Only, +20 Power Defense Fire Only and +20 mental Defense, fire only. A bit less defense from the EB but far broader in application.

 

Do you think this is too expensive' date=' too cheap.[/quote']

 

Based on the above, I'd have to say too expensive. Let's assume I buy +20 ED Armor, and add on +30 Ed and +30 of each exotic defense, all only vs fire. That's 150 AP, 100 real points, only enough to cover two attack forms using RI.

 

Remember' date=' the goal is to simplify an implementation of certain concepts, not to grant some sort of all inclusive defense.[/quote']

 

A concept that has added defenses against only certain mechanics using only certain SFX is not springing to mind...

[schir1964]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

To me' date=' this complicates matters rather than simplifying them. The character with a fire EB now reduces damage from a fire EB, or a Bright Fire AVLD vs Flash Defense, but not a Fire KA. To me the KA is more similar to the EB than the AVLD is. I suspect players building a concept are looking for resistance to all damage from the special effect, not limited to a specific attack mechanism.[/quote']

I guess this is matter of perception.

Players also expect thier Fire Attack EB to also heat up the room and cause spot fire any place it touches, but the mechanics say you have to buy other things to allow for that unless the GM hand waves it.

 

But I see your point.

 

Most of those extra powers are likely in a Multipower for most characters - do they have to now pick the correct attack slot to have defenses?

< hehe >

I totally didn't explain myself well, since you didn't understand at all what I was saying.

 

There already exists an Advantage (for Adjustment Powers), that expands the effect of an attack to include affecting additional powers simultaneously.

 

It works like this:

+1/2 - 2 Powers Simultaneously

+3/4 - 4 Powers Simultaneously

+1 - 8 Powers Simultaneously

+1 1/4 - 16 Powers Simultaneously

+1 1/2 - 32 Powers Simultaneously

+1 3/4 - 64 Powers Simultaneously

+2 - All Powers/Stats Simultaneoulsy

 

So if you want to affect more than Defense, use this advantage on top of the current one. Since there are only 5 or 6 Defenses, an Additional +1 would do the trick. But then you have to deal with all the DC conversion from the original Attack Power during play.

 

The former I don't know - matching for balance becomes ugly at this point. The latter may simplify aplication' date=' but it eliminates the desired conceptual simplicity which I thought was the goal in the first place.[/quote']

Desired Conception Simplicity? What is that? (8^D)

 

I was trying to make buidling certain concepts easier. And hoping as a side effect that the XP spending also be made easer for certain concepts.

 

Now there are two types of complexity being discussed here and that may be the issue.

 

I'm looking at simplifying the building process easier withoiut impacting the game play complexity too much. Why? I'm not a number cruncher so subtracting Dice is much easier to me than doing DC conversions during game play.

 

You seem to be wanting to allow for the making concept much easier to build, even if impacts the game play complexity much greater. Why? I can only presume that you are a number cruncher and as such DC conversions aren't a concern during game play. Just a guess that could be completely wrong.

 

But once again, I understand where you are coming from. I've sacrificed some simplicity in building to avoid some complexity in game play.

 

For 25 points' date=' I could buy +25 ED, or +38 ED, fire only, and have it apply against a lot more attacks than an unmodified EB.[/quote']

Yes you are absolutely right!!!! (8^D)

+38 ED vs Fire [Orthodox Method]

+60 ED vs Fire [Robust Immunity +1/2 with 10d6]

 

Remember subtracting the Attack Dice is equivalent to have the appropriate defense vs the specific Attack Power and SFX.

 

For 50 points' date=' I can buy +20 ED Armor, Fire Only, +20 Flash DEF, Fire Only, +20 Power Defense Fire Only and +20 mental Defense, fire only. A bit less defense from the EB but far broader in application.[/quote']

Again, you are absolutly right!!! (8^D)

+20 ED/FD/PwrD/MD vs Fire Only [Orthodox Method]

+60 ED/FD/PwrD/MD/PD vs Fire Only [Robust Immunity +1 with 10d6]

 

Maybe you not looking at this right.

 

Or perhaps I'm not seeing something.

 

Maybe Zornwil can help? (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

There already exists an Advantage (for Adjustment Powers), that expands the effect of an attack to include affecting additional powers simultaneously.

 

It works like this:

+1/2 - 2 Powers Simultaneously

+3/4 - 4 Powers Simultaneously

+1 - 8 Powers Simultaneously

+1 1/4 - 16 Powers Simultaneously

+1 1/2 - 32 Powers Simultaneously

+1 3/4 - 64 Powers Simultaneously

+2 - All Powers/Stats Simultaneoulsy

 

So if you want to affect more than Defense, use this advantage on top of the current one. Since there are only 5 or 6 Defenses, an Additional +1 would do the trick. But then you have to deal with all the DC conversion from the original Attack Power during play.

 

But this isn't more defenses - the AVLD EB which I can already reduce is not against the ED which the EB would act against. If my SFX are "ice/cold" then there are PD and ED attacks both of which are reduced.

 

I have to multiply the number of different attack forms, which seems a more substantial number, and I'm likely looking at +2 (when did they add stages between +1 and +2, anyway?).

 

I was trying to make buidling certain concepts easier. And hoping as a side effect that the XP spending also be made easer for certain concepts.

 

Perhaps some examples of those concepts would illustrate the intent. It's still pretty murky to me.

 

Yes you are absolutely right!!!! (8^D)

+38 ED vs Fire [Orthodox Method]

+60 ED vs Fire [Robust Immunity +1/2 with 10d6]

 

Remember subtracting the Attack Dice is equivalent to have the appropriate defense vs the specific Attack Power and SFX.

 

Well, not exactly. 60 ED would wipe out the typical 15d6 attack, and would apply against EB's, killing attacks (assuming some rED elsewhere), AP attacks and other mechanics. The RI approach means subtract 10d6 from ordinary EB's and get no defense against anything else.

 

Similarly, while the +1 level is broader in the types of defenses which may be simulated, real defenses would also help against other attack forms. These won't - it has to be an EB.

[schir1964]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

But this isn't more defenses - the AVLD EB which I can already reduce is not against the ED which the EB would act against. If my SFX are "ice/cold" then there are PD and ED attacks both of which are reduced.

Error on my part. I meant Attacks but somehow got Defenses into my noggin.

 

I have to multiply the number of different attack forms' date=' which seems a more substantial number, and I'm likely looking at +2 (when did they add stages between +1 and +2, anyway?).[/quote']

Every additional +1/4 doubled the number of powers affected, so the additional stages weren't explicity put in print, but were obvious.

 

...

I won't bother with the rest. I know what you were getting at, but I was pointing out that you seemed to be overlooking the actual reduction (added defense) that Robust Immunity was granting.

 

Anyway, you've beaten me down to the point that I went ahead and totally restructed Robust Immunity again. It was a lot more work but you forced me to do it... thanks. (8^D)

 

How does this compare now?

Does solve any of the issues for you?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Advantage: Robust Immunity

 

Robust Immunity

 

Still looking for a term other than "immunity", which sounds absolute. I can't think of one that's not already used in some other capactity, though.

 

This advantage is applied to an attack and allows the character to reduce/negate the effect of similar attacks. This advantage can be purchased at varying levels to reflect different SFX. When the character is attacked and has the matching immunity, the number of dice the character has in the attack that the advantage is applied to is subtracted from the number of dice that is rolled from the incoming attack.

 

Example:

10d6 EB (Fire Blast) with Expanded Immunity is attacked with a 12d6 EB (Fire Blast). Ten dice are removed before rolling the attack, thus the attack becomes a 2d6 attack.

 

No changes here.

 

+1/4: Personal Immunity

Grants the character immunity to his own attacks that might affect him via Area Effect or Reflection.

 

I've never seen PI as worth +1/4 in most cases, and this further waters it down. I suppose the character's unlikely to be anything but immune absent a push/haymaker. Maybe even then as he'll still have his normal defenses.

 

+1/2: Expanded Immunity

Grants the character immunity to any attack that is the same Power and SFX (GM Determined).

Energy Blast (Fire) with Expanded Immunity will be immune to any Energy Blast (Fire) regardless of advantages.

 

Again, does a 12d6 EB w/ RI reduce a 10d6 AP EB to 2d6 (based on damage classes) or eliminate it (based on dice). If the latter, attacks with other advantages become poor choices for RI.

 

Similarly, does it reduce an NND (heat stroke, for example) or AVLD (vs flash defense, say)? I assume so, as they're still EB's. It seems the KA is closer to the EB than an AVLD-Flash Defense.

 

I also still find it counterintuitive that this power would wipe out a 12d6 EB, probably reduce a 15d6 or 16d6 blast to nothing after defenses, yet allow a 1d6 KA to pass right on through.

 

Robust Immunity

+3/4: Grants the character immunity to any Normal Attack Power that is the same SFX (GM Determined). Cumulative Advantage.

Energy Blast (Fire) with Robust Immunity will be immune to any attack that causes Normal Damage (regardless of advantages) that is the same SFX (GM Determined).

 

I'm unclear how this differs from Expanded. If anything, it seems less potent, as an NND is not logically "normal damage".

 

+3/4: Grants the character immunity to any Resistant Attack Power that is the same SFX (GM Determined). Cumulative Advantage.

Energy Blast (Fire) with Robust Immunity will be immune to any attack that causes Resistant Damage (regardless of advantages) that is the same SFX (GM Determined).

 

So now it's +1 1/2 to catch all attacks of this SFX. What if it's applied to a KA in the first place? Would it grant immunity at the +1/2 level to killing damage, but not normal damage? "Sorry, he'd have to get that fire hotter before your defenses will work?"

 

+3/4: Grants the character immunity to any Adjustment Attack Power that is the same SFX (GM Determined). Cumulative Advantage.

Energy Blast (Fire) with Robust Immunity will be immune to any attack that causes Adjustment Reduction (regardless of advantages) that is the same SFX (GM Determined).

 

+3/4: Grants the character immunity to any Sensory Attack Power that is the same SFX (GM Determined). Cumulative Advantage.

Energy Blast (Fire) with Robust Immunity will be immune to any attack that causes Sensory Reduction (regardless of advantages) that is the same SFX (GM Determined).

 

Unless I'm missing something, that's +3 to have the full SFX covered (except mental powers aren't there). A 10d6 EB means a 150 point cost, which would buy 225 points of defenses "only vs Fire". Call that 45 PD and 45 ED Armor (90 of that 150) and 30 each Power, Flash and Mental defense. That will handle well over 10d6 of a normal attack and deal with most exotic attacks quite effectively. Yes, a high roll on 10d6 will get something through, but an average roll on 13d6 will be ineffectual, which seems a pretty fair trade off.

 

I'm still not seeing the point of this construct, however. What concept does it aid that can't be done with simple defenses.