Would this power be legal?

This is the catch-all forum, for Mutants & Masterminds threads that you're not quite sure where to put.
hypervirtue
Zealot
Zealot
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:12 pm

Would this power be legal?

Postby hypervirtue » Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:01 pm

Here is one I was thinking of for legality (my group is going to start a new campaign soon)...

So I am thinking a shield, like a device, built to the following specifications:

Power: Aegis Shield - Ranks: 10 - Cost: 3:1 (-2/5 pts) - Total Spent: 18 - Ranged(?)

Effect: Nullify (Damage effects)
Extra: Reaction (when attacked)
Flaw: Removable (2pt)

Does this seem too powerful? Suggestions? Comments?
One can lift a rock with pure power, but a pure heart can move mountains.

Monolith
Superhero
Superhero
Posts: 2087
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:07 pm

Re: Would this power be legal?

Postby Monolith » Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:13 pm

When you nullify you do so against a descriptor, not against an effect. Damage is an effect. Nullify should be against fire damage, or cold damage, or whatever descriptor the damage might have. So yeah, a blanket damage nullify is too powerful.

hypervirtue
Zealot
Zealot
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:12 pm

Re: Would this power be legal?

Postby hypervirtue » Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:27 pm

Yup, that is correct Monolith - Meant to put "Physical Damage Effects"
One can lift a rock with pure power, but a pure heart can move mountains.

User avatar
Doctor Devious
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 521
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:28 pm

Re: Would this power be legal?

Postby Doctor Devious » Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:53 pm

Alternate resistance: +1/rank (will to toughness).
Broad: starts at +1/rank, but this is very-very broad, so +2? And even normal 'broad' requires explicit GM approval!
Reaction: +3/rank (nullify is a standard action normally, so it is the +3 version).
So 6 to 7pts/rank (more likely 7) => 60 or 70 base; -2pts per 5, reduced by 1 flat (easily removable + indestructible) => 37 or 43 points.

Pricey indeed and not as good as you'd think at that price. e.g. fortitude attacks; only a 50/50 odds of working on rank 10 effect and so on. I suspect you'll find better protection-via-shield schemes for the cost.

User avatar
digitalangel
Groupie
Groupie
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 11:45 am

Re: Would this power be legal?

Postby digitalangel » Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:44 pm

24 points gets you a devie that provides 1/2 effect toughness immunity (80/2 = 40 *3/5 for easily removable = 24 by my math). The limited flaw on immunity could be taken as half effect or as limitied to physical either way, so either letting you half the rank of any effect making you do a toughness save or just giving you flat our immunity to physical damage. No need to mess with reaction and nullify, just use immunity or straight toughness.

hypervirtue
Zealot
Zealot
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:12 pm

Re: Would this power be legal?

Postby hypervirtue » Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:39 pm

Good call Digital Angel.

I'm just looking for something other than normal toughness. The big thing I hate about 3E is it made everything so generic.

EVERYONE has, more or less, the same toughness, even taking impervious (Which is NOT worth the cost, and nobody will EVER convince me otherwise, it was nerfed because people couldn't handle there being something that could be very effective against area effects and perception range attacks. That change did cause me to lose a lot of respect for the M&M dev team.) and EVERYONE more or less has the same damage.

Probably better to just go the immunity route. Really hate how they made it nearly impossible to make a legitimate "invulnerable" type in 3E.
One can lift a rock with pure power, but a pure heart can move mountains.

insaniac99
Firebrand
Firebrand
Posts: 898
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:12 am

Re: Would this power be legal?

Postby insaniac99 » Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:49 am

hypervirtue wrote:Good call Digital Angel.

I'm just looking for something other than normal toughness. The big thing I hate about 3E is it made everything so generic.

EVERYONE has, more or less, the same toughness, even taking impervious (Which is NOT worth the cost, and nobody will EVER convince me otherwise, it was nerfed because people couldn't handle there being something that could be very effective against area effects and perception range attacks. That change did cause me to lose a lot of respect for the M&M dev team.) and EVERYONE more or less has the same damage.

Probably better to just go the immunity route. Really hate how they made it nearly impossible to make a legitimate "invulnerable" type in 3E.


Using tradeoffs our group has a spread of 7-8 in various ranks. When I make a PL10 invulnerable character I'll put toughness at 13-15 and have either some regeneration, some limited invulnerability, or something else though I don't make those often.

User avatar
digitalangel
Groupie
Groupie
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 11:45 am

Re: Would this power be legal?

Postby digitalangel » Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:11 am

Trade offs or not, I very rarely hit PL caps on combat abilities. Our group tends to play a lot of PL 5-8 characters and by the time I build the character out I am usually struggling for points, but I tend to build characters with a decent amount of skills, advantages, and other abilities and some combat ability instead of going for combat focused characters.

If your group consists of players that like to beat up the bad guy and are mostly combat focused characters (and they don't use a lot of trade offs to specialize more), then I see how you think almost everyone at a given PL has the same stats. If everyone is building basically the same character, then of course they all look pretty close to each other.
Image

Monolith
Superhero
Superhero
Posts: 2087
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:07 pm

Re: Would this power be legal?

Postby Monolith » Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:00 pm

hypervirtue wrote:I'm just looking for something other than normal toughness. The big thing I hate about 3E is it made everything so generic.

You do realize the pl rules for 3e are exactly the same as the rules from 2e? Every 2e character was balanced to pl using attack + damage, dodge + toughness, and skill level. The pl wording in 2e on pages 24-25 is virtually identical to the wording in 3e. Nothing has been changed between the two editions.

Likewise the rules for creating powers was also nearly identical: start with an effect, give it advantages and flaws, give it a descriptor and a name. The only difference in 2e was that the core rules gave you a bunch of prefab powers already built while in 3e they only gave you a few prefab powers. Of course the Power Profile books are full of all those prefab powers.

User avatar
FuzzyBoots
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 9719
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:15 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: Would this power be legal?

Postby FuzzyBoots » Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:06 pm

Eh... there were some changes in 3E, such as forcing lower levels on the "exotic saves" of Fortitude and Will and, as he said, Impervious was severely nerfed. The increase in cost of skills (done at the cost of much more generic skills) means that creating a character with skills pumps up the price at the expense of other areas. I'm not quite as bitter about 3E as I once was, but I do still see 2E as a bit better overall. Mainly, it bugs me that they knew about all of the issues in 2E... and then changed things that already worked instead. *shrug* It just didn't really feel like a step forward.

Monolith
Superhero
Superhero
Posts: 2087
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:07 pm

Re: Would this power be legal?

Postby Monolith » Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:54 pm

FuzzyBoots wrote:Eh... there were some changes in 3E, such as forcing lower levels on the "exotic saves" of Fortitude and Will and, as he said, Impervious was severely nerfed. The increase in cost of skills (done at the cost of much more generic skills) means that creating a character with skills pumps up the price at the expense of other areas. I'm not quite as bitter about 3E as I once was, but I do still see 2E as a bit better overall. Mainly, it bugs me that they knew about all of the issues in 2E... and then changed things that already worked instead. *shrug* It just didn't really feel like a step forward.

I don't see any point in debating 2e or 3e when it comes to which one is better. We like what we like. :)

But the notion that characters weren't balanced to pl in 2e is false. In 2e you still added toughness + defense to get pl. You still added attack + damage/effect to get pl. Characters in the books were all based on the same basic equations in 2e as they are in 3e. In 2e if you had a 10 dodge at pl 10 then the most toughness you could have was 10. Nothing has changed in that regard. You still used tradeoffs the same way, and so on.

User avatar
FuzzyBoots
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 9719
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:15 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: Would this power be legal?

Postby FuzzyBoots » Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:07 pm

Monolith wrote:But the notion that characters weren't balanced to pl in 2e is false. In 2e you still added toughness + defense to get pl. You still added attack + damage/effect to get pl. Characters in the books were all based on the same basic equations in 2e as they are in 3e. In 2e if you had a 10 dodge at pl 10 then the most toughness you could have was 10. Nothing has changed in that regard. You still used tradeoffs the same way, and so on.

{nods} The only things "removed" were the ones he was complaining about when it came to the really tough characters, effective Impervious and feats such as Withstand Damage that let you shift to a more Toughness and less Defense. And possibly the ability to shift lethal damage to non-lethal, although that was kind of conditional and worked more for the Action Survivor type that keeps getting away with only getting banged up in explosions or against swords instead of exiting with injuries that take a long time to heal. I do kind of wish that they'd addressed the more glaring issues with Defense / Attack shifting characters in terms of efficacy, but as has been proved repeatedly when people suggest patch rules, that's tricky stuff. And arguably, it only adds a certain percentage of efficacy (I don't feel like looking up Elric's figures, but a damage shift of about 3 only makes the character likely to win one more battle out of 20 compared to the character with no shifts) and creates the occasional case of things really sucking for the Defense / Attack shifted character (A defense-shifted character, when he does get hit, is more likely to be facing a critical hit and you'll get cases of attack-shifted characters hitting their opponent by a margin of 11, but doing significantly less damage than the damage-shifted counterpart who only hit by 5, even if they made a critical hit. This can be modified by things like Multiattack, but that drives the cost up for the attack-shifted character).

Anyhow, we're probably departing from the actual topic at hand, of course. :-D

hypervirtue
Zealot
Zealot
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:12 pm

Re: Would this power be legal?

Postby hypervirtue » Sat Feb 08, 2014 7:13 am

Monolith wrote:
FuzzyBoots wrote:Eh... there were some changes in 3E, such as forcing lower levels on the "exotic saves" of Fortitude and Will and, as he said, Impervious was severely nerfed. The increase in cost of skills (done at the cost of much more generic skills) means that creating a character with skills pumps up the price at the expense of other areas. I'm not quite as bitter about 3E as I once was, but I do still see 2E as a bit better overall. Mainly, it bugs me that they knew about all of the issues in 2E... and then changed things that already worked instead. *shrug* It just didn't really feel like a step forward.

I don't see any point in debating 2e or 3e when it comes to which one is better. We like what we like. :)

But the notion that characters weren't balanced to pl in 2e is false. In 2e you still added toughness + defense to get pl. You still added attack + damage/effect to get pl. Characters in the books were all based on the same basic equations in 2e as they are in 3e. In 2e if you had a 10 dodge at pl 10 then the most toughness you could have was 10. Nothing has changed in that regard. You still used tradeoffs the same way, and so on.


You had more options in 2E for making characters more unique, especially with regards to "invuln" types.

Example:

2E - Make a character with a 14 toughness, and a 14 impervious on that toughness.

You were tough. Most things couldn't hurt you. They had to use non-toughness save attacks usually. You were invulnerable. This was considerably different to a character with a 10 toughness save, or even a 14 toughness save *without* invulnerable.

One of the big "complaints" about such in 2E was that it make Perception Range damage attacks worthless against you, as well as most area effect damage attacks (those that were non-targetable).

I never felt that was an issue because I thought it was the normal price for having attacks that you didn't have to roll to hit with. There would be situations where they would be inferior.

In 3E a character with 18 toughness and 18 impervious, can still be damaged by someone who had an 8 damage attack (and used their built-in power attack) it might be unlikely, but can still happen. I really am against the idea that Batman can punch Superman and actually damage him.
One can lift a rock with pure power, but a pure heart can move mountains.

Monolith
Superhero
Superhero
Posts: 2087
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:07 pm

Re: Would this power be legal?

Postby Monolith » Sat Feb 08, 2014 8:37 am

hypervirtue wrote:I really am against the idea that Batman can punch Superman and actually damage him.

The maximum damage Batman can do with a punch is 8. Superman is invulnerable to anything 9 or less. The rules and build seem to agree with what you are against. :)

I'd also say that in many cases the character with the 14 impervious toughness in 2e also had a 14 fort save; which still made them hard to hurt if you considered alternate resistance to be a +1. That meant the only things which could hurt him were will save attacks. It's quite uncommon to power stunt from toughness to will: Cyclops isn't going from kinetic blasts to mental attacks; which meant that even with power stunting the character was still virtually unstoppable.

Impervious was flawed in 2e and had hundreds of posts and threads about it over the years; and generated dozens of different house rules. Considering all the debate over the years I can't see how anyone is surprised impervious was changed.

SilvercatMoonpaw
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 10068
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:57 am

Re: Would this power be legal?

Postby SilvercatMoonpaw » Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:51 am

Monolith wrote:I'd also say that in many cases the character with the 14 impervious toughness in 2e also had a 14 fort save; which still made them hard to hurt if you considered alternate resistance to be a +1. That meant the only things which could hurt him were will save attacks. It's quite uncommon to power stunt from toughness to will: Cyclops isn't going from kinetic blasts to mental attacks; which meant that even with power stunting the character was still virtually unstoppable.

Impervious was flawed in 2e and had hundreds of posts and threads about it over the years; and generated dozens of different house rules. Considering all the debate over the years I can't see how anyone is surprised impervious was changed.

That sounds more like the rule needed to be that all four saves were linked PL-wise sort of like the way Fort and Will are in 3e so if you had high Toughness you couldn't have very high Fortitude.


Return to “General M&M”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests