Re: Reverse Missiles as a standalone power... how would you model it?
 

As DR approaches infinity, CWA becomes irrelevant. As DR approaches infinity, AoN becomes irrelevant. As DR approaches zero, CWA becomes an infinitely bad limitation (it just prohibits wearing armor). As DR approaches zero, AoN becomes an infinitely bad limitation (it makes the DR's usefulness approach zero for a full set of attacks).

Re: Reverse Missiles as a standalone power... how would you model it?
 

That sounds more like an argument for the pricing scheme I'm suggesting than against it.

Re: Reverse Missiles as a standalone power... how would you model it?
 

Except that, because CWA doesn't change value (whether it should or not), then AoN shouldn't change value either. It's entirely possible that both should do so, but currently CWA doesn't.

Re: Reverse Missiles as a standalone power... how would you model it?
 

I'm using a canonical precedent to prove my point. If two modifiers behave in a similar way depending on the progression of some other value, then their price should be modified by the same (or similar) function of said value. Since CWA is cost-static, the precedent dictates that so should be AoN.

Re: Reverse Missiles as a standalone power... how would you model it?
 

But they don't behave in a similar way. Not at all.

"Cannot wear armor" is functionally like a temporary disad. When using your DR (assuming that it is switchable), you lack the ability to do something that ordinary people can do.

"Only against attacks doing less than x points of damage" is functionally like an accessibility. Your power works only against a certain percentage of attacks that you will encounter in the campaign.

They aren't remotely the same thing. Besides, I know you've read the threads on "Cannot wear armor" -- its intended as a balance mechanism, and even Kromm acknowledges that it isn't an ideal construction.

Are you *really* trying to assert that the following two limitations should carry the same modifer?

1) "Only against attacks doing less than 5 points of damage."
2) "Only against attacks doing less than 100 points of damage."

Re: Reverse Missiles as a standalone power... how would you model it?
 

CWA is NOT a TD, for two reasons. First, there is no corresponding CWA Disadvantage, and the limitation is not limited to giving back 40*.8 points (like a TD would be). Second, as a balance mechanism, it merely indicates 'non-stackability' of natural and unnatural DR: with a mere Perk you get to wear whatever armor you like, as long as your DRs don't stack. I'm sure you also agree that no longer being able to increase DR by one, and no longer being able to increase it by 100 are just as different in terms of opportunities lost.

Re: Reverse Missiles as a standalone power... how would you model it?
 

I said it was "functionally like" a temp disad.

...because it would be a massive point crock for people not intending to wear armor...

...because the value of a CWA disad would be genre-dependent -- depending upon how much DR was available as gear.

Neither of these changes the fact that CWA is functionally equivalent to a temporary disadvantage. Sorry.

Good point. That's *another* way in which it would CWA differs from what I've proposed. Thanks!

Yes, I agree completely. We're saddled with an imperfect solution for CWA because a perfect solution would be complex, cumbersome, and difficult to munchkin proof. I don't see that as a good reason that we always have to use imperfect values on limitations for DR.

You have yet to indicate why you think that DR X (Accessibility, Only protects versus attacks doing Y damage or less) is an innappropriate use of an accessibility, and shouldn't be priced according to how common attacks doing Y damage or less are in the campaign. Those are the only relevant questions.

Re: Reverse Missiles as a standalone power... how would you model it?
 

In a way, AoN is the opposite of Flexible in many aspects.

All Or Nothing: bleeds 100% of damage if D>DR.
Flexible: bleeds 20% of (crushing) damage if D<DR.

Allow me to elaborate:

First, I will confess that Flexible DR is not effective against Arm Locks and the like. However, since this property works independently of the DR value, we can disregard it. I also fully understand that Flexible DR has weakness only against damage types with certain 'blunt trauma' properties. Thus, we will assume that we're dealing with Crushing damage, and that the non-flexible and/or AoN DR is limited to only protect against crushing damage, to avoid side arguments.

Now, onward with the interesting stuff.

• DR 1 through 4 with flexible is no worse against a punch in the chest, whether with ST1 or ST100. Limitation Value? -20%.
• DR 5 with flexible lets through 1 point of damage, if and only if damage is >4 and <=DR=5. Limitation Value? -20%.
• DR 10 w/ flexible lets through 20% of damage, if and only if damage is >4 and <=DR=10. Limitation Value? -20%.
• DR 100 w/flexible lets through 20% of damage, if and only if damage is >4 and <=DR=100. Limitation Value? -20%.
• DR 1000 w/flexible lets through 20% of damage, if and only if damage is >4 and <=DR=1000. What's worse, it is no more useful against punches for up to 100 points of damage than DR of merely 100. Limitation Value? -20%.

As you can see, there is no correlation between how much of a damage spectrum triggers a 'bleed' an the limitation value.

Likewise, DR 8 with AoN is no better than DR 1 with AoN against an attack doing 10 points of damage. But this is just the case with Flexible, reversed, i.e. where 'bleedings' occurs on a damage no less than, instead of between.

Once again, the RAW creates a precedent.

Re: Reverse Missiles as a standalone power... how would you model it?
 

Huh? AoN is the opposite of Flexible and should therefore be priced the same?

I must reiterate:
You have yet to indicate why you think that DR X (Accessibility, Only protects versus attacks doing Y damage or less) is an innappropriate use of an accessibility, and shouldn't be priced according to how common attacks doing Y damage or less are in the campaign. Those are the only relevant questions.

Re: Reverse Missiles as a standalone power... how would you model it?
 

Because I already pointed out a case which shows that 'Only vs. damage in a specified range' does not change if the range is tied to the level of DR.