(technique design) capping the defense bonus against an attack

[Plane]

Using MA91's rules, should there be some kind of upper limit on how big a bonus you can give to your target's active defences?

If you gave +6 for example, this gives you +12 to offset penalties, so you could completely buy off the -12 for a 3-strike combination (MA80) which would be incredibly useful if you were designing your character around battling Berserk enemies who could never make active defences anyway and never benefit from that huge +6 bonus.

Giving something like +20 to target defences (+40 to skill!) could be used to buy damage bonuses, buy off up to half the hit location penalties, etc.

I was thinking maybe instead of a hard cap that there could be decreasing returns, like maybe each progression is half as good as the last:

+2 default = +1 defences (2:1 ratio)
+3 default = +2 defences (1:1 ratio)
+4 default =+4 defences (1:2 ratio)
+5 default = +8 defences (1:4 ratio)
+6 default = +16 defences (1:8 ratio)
+7 default = +32 defences (1:16 ratio)
+8 default = +64 defences (1:32 ratio)

This would make it harder to exploit this to destroy Berserk (AOA-only) foes, or when designing attacks intended to be used by surprise (assassins) where foes aren't normally going to get defences anyway.

Even with a diminishing returns system there should probably still be some kind of hard cap though. A foe being +64 to defend against you isn't normally going to be any worse than them being +32, unless you were planning on taking a -50 to skill to do a -25 defences deceptive attack.

[Kromm]

This is covered under Designing Realistic Techniques ("Opponent's Defenses: Realistic bonuses to the target's defenses against an offensive technique shouldn't exceed +2.") and Designing Cinematic Techniques ("Opponent's Defenses: Bonuses to the target's defenses against offensive techniques can go as high as +4 in cinematic games."). See Martial Arts, pp. 93-94.

[Plane]

Would those be the tech limits before using Telegraphic Attack, so the absolute max would be +4 realistic and +6 cinematic if combining them?

Or would TA count as already a sort of a new custom technique, with the 2 drawbacks of "can't riposte" and "evaluate doesn't help" paying for the 2 benefits of owning a new technique and bonuses being able to exceed 0?

[Mysterious Dark Lord v3.2]

Why not ite attack caps and defense caps together?

If you want a Defense roll totalling 15, you need an Attack roll totalling 15 first. And vice versa. This provides a sensible cap on ability, while also allowing upward advancement.

And eventually you would get combat monsters with huge Attack.Defense bonuses whose battles could destroy cities! MWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Mysterious Dark Lord v3.2

Why not ite attack caps and defense caps together?

If you want a Defense roll totalling 15, you need an Attack roll totalling 15 first. And vice versa. This provides a sensible cap on ability, while also allowing upward advancement.

And eventually you would get combat monsters with huge Attack.Defense bonuses whose battles could destroy cities! MWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!

Er, this is about getting +2 to your attack (only for offsetting penalties) in exchange for giving your target +1 to defend against the attack. It doesn't boost your defences at all.

Actually boosting your "Own Defenses" requires taking a penalty on the attack instead of getting a penalty-offsetting bonus. Plus you need to buy this for just one active defence.

I guess that COULD get broken by say, striking out at ST 0 with a non-damaging weapon at -20 to skill to get +10 to dodge, but now that I've been reminded to look at the follow-up notes (MA94) I can see it limits you to +2 for realistic games and +4 in cinematic games, exactly like "Opponent's Defenses"

The flip side of this is also if you plan on all-out attacking (maybe you're a berserker) is maximizing the penalty to "Own Defences" to get a penalty-offsetting bonus. This too, however, is also limited to -2/-4 on MA94. Beyond that would require collecting other drawbacks.