House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

[Thrakazog]

My current group is debating a new house rule and, being curious, I was wondering what people here had to say about it. The rule is this:

If a KA does no body to it's target, after defenses, then STUN damage remaining after defenses are applied is halved.

Example, Gun Boy shoots his pistol (a 2d6 RKA) at Mr. Brick. He hits his target and rolls 10 BODY with a STUN multiplier roll of 5 for a total of 40 STUN. Mr. Brick's rPD is 25. Since no BODY damage gets through, then the 15 STUN Mr. Brick normally would take after his PD is applied gets halved to 7.

Our campaign is 4-color superheroic. The idea is to better reflect the way super-tough charcaters like the Thing or Colossus seem unfazed as the bullets bounce off of them.

Our discussions have already touched on the fact that this penalizes PCs who use KAs, like our sword-wielding PC Musketeer. We've also discussed how a PC like my Hard Eight, a brick with 35rPD (20 hardened!), basically gets 50% resistant PD damage reduction for free.

One specific question I had was, if the rule gets adopted, should it apply regardless of attack power advantages like armor piercing or penetrating? I figured that BODY damage is BODY damage, and that if you take one point of penetrating BODY you don't get to halve the STUN, but another person thought that penetrating BODY damage should be exempt from the house rule.

Thoughts?

[Derek Hiemforth]

Interesting. I haven't tried a house rule like that, but it certainly sounds worth a try. I agree with you on the Penetrating BODY... I'd say that *any* BODY done eliminates the 1/2 STUN deal.

[Gary]

I would limit the impact of the rule to any KAs that have the Real Weapon limitation. And make Real Weapon a -1/2 Limitation in your world.

This would have the desired effect while not penalizing PCs or important NPCs at the same time.

[Supreme Serpent]

It's a way of handling it, and in a superhero universe I think would work fine.

Reflects KAs as things that can tear you up IF they penetrate. If you can get past the guy's armor, the sword will do lots of damage. If the sword can't get through, use a big club instead. :)

I've been using a house rule that if the target's resistant Def is at least twice the Body rolled on the KA, no STUN possible either. (so 24 resistant def is total immunity to 2d6KA, for example)

Regarding the question - I wouldn't change it based on advantages. AP makes it more likely to do Body, so no need for a special exception. If you allow Penetrating KAs in the first place, I don't see why you would need to make a special rule for them either. If Penetrating KAs bother you (which they should IMO), just don't allow them, or don't allow them to do Body.

[Derek Hiemforth]

I would limit the impact of the rule to any KAs that have the Real Weapon limitation. And make Real Weapon a -1/2 Limitation in your world.

This would have the desired effect while not penalizing PCs or important NPCs at the same time.Ooh, I think that's a good addition. It keeps the bullet-bouncing effect, without necessarily bouncing Death Plasma Man's attacks. :thumbup:

[OddHat]

I've played in campaigns where no stun was done by KAs that didn't do body, but normal PD and ED never help against that damage. The result was a complete nerf of KAs against Supers.

I've also used various fixed Stun multiples to help reflect comic book style Bullet Bouncing. A fixed Stun Multiple of 2.5 for all killing attacks works well if you don't want to use complicated builds or allow Damage Reduction.

That said, if I were using the approach you're suggesting, I'd say that only weapons with the Real Weapon limitation are affected. 50% Damage Reduction, Stun Only, Only vs Killing Attacks made by Weapons with Real Weapon Limit, Not if any Body gets through. It would only cost you 8 or so points to buy that as a power, and it's in genre enough that I wouldn't sweat giving it to all characters as a freebie. Plus, it does not nerf sword using PCs.

[Lord Mhoram]

I would limit the impact of the rule to any KAs that have the Real Weapon limitation. And make Real Weapon a -1/2 Limitation in your world.

This would have the desired effect while not penalizing PCs or important NPCs at the same time.


That is exactly what I did in my last game, and I was going to bring it up, and you beat me too it.
Get out of my BRAIN!! :D

Bascially all "normal" weapons had a similar effect on supers, but any non normal weapon (and I would let the PCs know that the weapon they are facing was not normal, so they could take approriate action) would act as according to the rules. :)

[Vorsch]

How many times in comics is a word weilding MA seen to do any stun damage to the likes of hulk collossus Etc. Unless they do body due to the fact its a special adamantium/magic/monomolecular sword.

same applies to guns

[Lord Liaden]

I've long used a similar method to what others are proposing, based on the "Real Weapon" Limitation. In my case I compare the damage potential of the attack to the Defense of the target. If the attack with Real Weapon would normally be incapable of doing Body damage to the target past Defenses with a Standard Effect roll, then the attack is treated as though it had the Reduced Penetration Limitation vs that target. If the attack is incapable of doing Body damage with its maximum roll, then the target takes no Stun or Knockback from that attack, no matter what amount is rolled on the dice. Note that this does not apply to any Defense that is built with the "Real Armor" Limitation; those are affected by Real Weapon normally.

I've found that this rule makes for much more "four color" fights against normal thugs with guns, and allows even standard supers to withstand more powerful military-grade weapons. It also provides an explanation for why all those super-agencies like VIPER and UNTIL arm their agents with "supertech" blasters rather than standard firearms; they're more effective against super opposition.

FWIW I also allow for the reverse effect, i.e. if an attack that's built without Real Weapon (like that of most supers) is used against an inanimate object like a wall or a vehicle, or any personal Defense built with Real Armor, and the attack would normally do Body damage to the target with its largest roll, then the Defense of the target is halved vs that attack, as though the attack were Armor Piercing against it. This effect doesn't apply to inanimate objects made of campaign-defined "super materials," e.g. adamantium, inertron, questionite etc. Doing this also adds to the four-colorness of super combat, especially the classic "supers vs tanks" scenario.

I don't change the Limitation value of Real Weapon or Real Armor in my campaigns, because IMO when you add up how and when the drawbacks occur it's not significantly more limiting than -1/4. Naturally YMMV. You can of course make the damage result what you prefer if the Armor Piercing/ Reduced Penetration analogy doesn't work for you, like doubling or halving damage; but the key for me is the Real Weapon/ Real Armor dynamic, which makes for a consistent "four-colorizing" mechanic without having to change how all the other "normal" stuff works in the game.

[Lord Mhoram]

I've long used a similar method to what others are proposing, based on the "Real Weapon" Limitation.

That is almost word for word what I used, I was just to lazy to explain it. I may have got it off the boards from you posting it previously in fact. :)

[Derek Hiemforth]

I've long used a similar method to what others are proposing, based on the "Real Weapon" Limitation.Your whole system there is nothing short of brilliant, LL. I'll be stealing it forthwith. :D

You must spread some Repuation around before giving it to Lord Liaden again.

[Hugh Neilson]

I've long used a similar method to what others are proposing, based on the "Real Weapon" Limitation. In my case I compare the damage potential of the attack to the Defense of the target. If the attack with Real Weapon would normally be incapable of doing Body damage to the target past Defenses with a Standard Effect roll, then the attack is treated as though it had the Reduced Penetration Limitation vs that target. If the attack is incapable of doing Body damage with its maximum roll, then the target takes no Stun or Knockback from that attack, no matter what amount is rolled on the dice. Note that this does not apply to any Defense that is built with the "Real Armor" Limitation; those are affected by Real Weapon normally.

I've found that this rule makes for much more "four color" fights against normal thugs with guns, and allows even standard supers to withstand more powerful military-grade weapons. It also provides an explanation for why all those super-agencies like VIPER and UNTIL arm their agents with "supertech" blasters rather than standard firearms; they're more effective against super opposition.

FWIW I also allow for the reverse effect, i.e. if an attack that's built without Real Weapon (like that of most supers) is used against an inanimate object like a wall or a vehicle, or any personal Defense built with Real Armor, and the attack would normally do Body damage to the target with its largest roll, then the Defense of the target is halved vs that attack, as though the attack were Armor Piercing against it. This effect doesn't apply to inanimate objects made of campaign-defined "super materials," e.g. adamantium, inertron, questionite etc. Doing this also adds to the four-colorness of super combat, especially the classic "supers vs tanks" scenario.

I'd be inclined to apply the Real Armor limitation to things like tanks and other vehicles, and make this a property of Real Armor. The materials which this does not apply to would then not have the Real Armor limitation. This is likely just semantics, but I'm thinking of this as a means of differentiating the Super who buys a normal motorcycle (and uses the Real Armor limitation) from the Super who buys a SuperCycle not affected by these limitations. There should be a point difference, IMO, not just a "my motorcycle is built of Questonite" SFX.

I like the overall theory, however, of using Real Weapon and Real Armor to differentiate in this fashion. If Sword Weilding Super wants to affect Collosus with his sword, he simply doesn't take Real Weapon, and he's back in balance.

[Lord Liaden]

That is almost word for word what I used, I was just to lazy to explain it. I may have got it off the boards from you posting it previously in fact. :)

To be fair, I have incorporated refinements suggested by other folks on the boards in previous discussions, so the final form isn't wholly my invention.

[Lord Liaden]

I'd be inclined to apply the Real Armor limitation to things like tanks and other vehicles, and make this a property of Real Armor. The materials which this does not apply to would then not have the Real Armor limitation. This is likely just semantics, but I'm thinking of this as a means of differentiating the Super who buys a normal motorcycle (and uses the Real Armor limitation) from the Super who buys a SuperCycle not affected by these limitations. There should be a point difference, IMO, not just a "my motorcycle is built of Questonite" SFX.

Hmm... that's a very interesting point. It's never come up as an issue in my campaign; we haven't had anyone want a super-armored vehicle. Super-materials are mostly for personal Foci, or sometimes for supervillain bases or battle craft, so points are less of a concern.

I didn't want to change the cost of everything that's already built in HERO sourcebooks. Since "Real Weapon" and "Real Armor" are already a part of the writeups for virtually all applicable real-world items, using them in this way wouldn't require a change.

Say, how would you feel about an Adder for the Vehicle Perk for PCs who want more durable transportation? Another possibility would be giving all "normal" Vehicles and Bases a Vulnerability to "super" attacks, or perhaps a Physical Limitation reflecting their Defense being halved. That would make for simple and minimal change to their character sheets. Or you could apply an Advantage to the Defenses of a Vehicle or a Base wall, "Super." ;) I'd say that +1/4, same as for Hardened, would be enough for most superheroic campaigns, where super attacks would be at least as common as non-super ones.

[Hugh Neilson]

Say, how would you feel about an Adder for the Vehicle Perk for PCs who want more durable transportation?

That's another potential solution, however I'm more inclined to apply the default rule to the items or abilities the character pays the default points for, and apply "real world" to those which are inferior to the default.

As you note, most of the items which would require a writeup change either already have the limitation or (and here I'm thinking of tanks) are not paid for by PC's so points aren't a major issue.

[CBikle]

I should mention that I'm in this game.

The players in favor of the house rule are OK with really high stun totals (stun lotto), but only if the attack actually does body.

My counter-proposal was a flat X3 stun mult, which would reduce chances of the stun lotto, but some of the players don't feel that the rule is balanced and/or accurately reflect how some super-heroes are seemingly immune to small and heavy weapons fire (ie: taking little or no stun) that doesn't appear to "do body".

Personally, I think that's more of a reflection of really high defenses, Con, Damage reduction, etc. I don't think a house rule is necessary to reflect this.

I like Lord Liaden's house rule, which when you think about it, is kind of a reverse-version of the Reduced Penetration limit.

[Lord Liaden]

I like Lord Liaden's house rule, which when you think about it, is kind of a reverse-version of the Reduced Penetration limit.

Thanks for noticing. ;) Whenever possible, I prefer to extrapolate any rules modifications I make from existing precedents. IMHO they fit better that way into the overall logic of the HERO framework.

I also prefer house rules that can fit onto existing writeups without requiring much if any change to them, so that they're more a matter of just looking at those writeups differently.

[CBikle]

If Sword Weilding Super wants to affect Collosus with his sword, he simply doesn't take Real Weapon, and he's back in balance.

I'd prefer this route, but I think some of my co-players want this rule to be hardwired into killing attacks rather than as a PC preference.

[bigdamnhero]

How many times in comics is a word weilding MA seen to do any stun damage to the likes of hulk collossus
A word wielding martial artist? Would that be like Chi power? I don't remember seeing that one in UMA or NH? :confused:
Sorry, couldn't resist.;)

Actually, I think you could argue that most superhero swords tend to get treated like Normal attacks anyway, especially back in the Silver-Early-Bronze Age. Think of Valkyrie from the Defenders - I remember her whaling on people a lot with that big ol' pigsticker of hers, but I don't remember a whole lotta blood flying.

Oh, and I like the suggested Real Weapon/Real Armor house rule. Not sure if I want to use it in my current game - depends how "Silver Age" we want to go.

[Lord Liaden]

Actually, I think you could argue that most superhero swords tend to get treated like Normal attacks anyway, especially back in the Silver-Early-Bronze Age. Think of Valkyrie from the Defenders - I remember her whaling on people a lot with that big ol' pigsticker of hers, but I don't remember a whole lotta blood flying.

Some HERO sword writeups make the killing and non-killing damage into slots in a Multipower, with the non-killing one representing smiting with the flat of the blade.

[Killer Shrike]

Here is my House Rule for KA's:

The Stun Multiple is applied only to the portion of BODY that gets past resistant defenses, but the target takes all of that STUN damage without applying defenses at all.

So if 10 Body and x4 were rolled vs a target that had 5 Resistant Defense, the target would take 10-5 = 5 x 4 = 20 STUN with no defense.

On the other hand I generally keep defenses a tad on the low side.

[ghost-angel]

My personal opinion is it makes defenses far more effective, a small amount of rDEF now goes a lot further - it is exactly like giving 50% Damage Reduction for free.

It looks like you're trying to take the bite out of the STUN Lotto to me, in which case I suggest a flat 3 STUNx.

We switched to that with some great success in our games, at least I think so. Bricks are predictably bricks and the others take their knocks without 1 hit drops as was common before.

So, my personal opinion, as I was asked it in PM and wasn't otherwise going to comment - don't like it.

If you do apply the rule then Advantages should act normally, AP halves the effective DEF and Penetrating always put a Body Through.

That's probably all you'll get out of me on the subject as I seem to be the minority few who likes KAs as they are and thinks that any such "fix" is done with a flat STUNx3. Which I like.

[Thrakazog]

Some HERO sword writeups make the killing and non-killing damage into slots in a Multipower, with the non-killing one representing smiting with the flat of the blade.

In our case, the group swordsman bought the "smiting" flat-of-the-blade attack as a KA with increased STUN multipliers. It would still be affected by the rule.

[The Souljourner]

Personally, I think it's hard enough to do damage in Hero as it is. Superman and Thing can bounce bullets off their chests 'cause they have 40+ rPD. If your guys want to be able to do that, spend the points on it. Why limit the effectiveness of bullets, anyway? Most of them are like 1-2d6, most of the time that'll plink off any reasonably armored brick anyway, maybe doing a tiny amount of stun.

Also, there's no gradation... it's full or half. The guy with the 5 rPD flak vest takes 5 stun from a 5 body x3 multiple KA, or 13 stun from a 6 body x3 multiple KA. That's a big jump for an attack that only did a little more real damage.

-Nate

[bwdemon]

some of the players don't feel that the rule is balanced and/or accurately reflect how some super-heroes are seemingly immune to small and heavy weapons fire (ie: taking little or no stun) that doesn't appear to "do body".

Personally, I think that's more of a reflection of really high defenses, Con, Damage reduction, etc. I don't think a house rule is necessary to reflect this.

It isn't just a reflection of high defenses, but also a reflection of the other side of the STUN lotto. I've seen plenty of 12 Body/12 Stun 2d6 KAs as well as plenty of 2 Body/10 Stun 2d6 KAs. Barring increased Stun Multiplier, you have a 33% chance of causing as much Stun as Body with a KA. Sure, you can cause up to five times as much Stun as Body, but that's 16.7% of the time.

Plus, if you have any rPD (assuming a physical KA), then you get to use your entire PD against the Stun damage. For the hero who has entirely resistant PD & ED, this isn't a big deal, but the guy who isn't so well-protected can benefit a great deal here.

So where's the problem? A 2d6 HKA with Reduced Penetration and +4 to the Stun Multiplier costs a mere 48pts. With 6 DC worth of oomph behind it (martial arts and/or STR) that goes up to 3d6. Now, for that 48pts (plus whatever you paid for oomph), you have an attack that isn't likely to do Body to a target with rPD (two groups of 5.25 on average?), but can cause ridiculous Stun (68.25 on average?).

The problem lies with the Increased Stun Multiplier advantage, because it is worth more than the +1/4 advantage cost, especially when several are stacked. Should some things have it? Sure. Should they have more than one level of it? Probably not, but the rules already say to get GM permission if you use more than one level of it (perhaps they were too subtle there).

You still have the occasional 4d6 KA that wins the Stun lotto. The average Stun will be right around 37, which is just a little behind a 12d6 normal attack (42), but you can get up to a whopping 120 Stun with a "Yahtzee!" roll for the KA. It'll be relatively rare, but it is a gamestopper when it happens. There really is no good fix for this, unfortunately.

What I'd prefer to see (should H6 occur) would be a +1/4 version of AVLD for resistant defenses (maybe +1/2?). That way, it'd use the same mechanic as normal attacks and avoid the Stun lotto problem. It'd also recognize that the killing attack is better than a normal attack of the same DC, because it does go against a more rare and often weaker defense.

[Hugh Neilson]

My personal opinion is it makes defenses far more effective, a small amount of rDEF now goes a lot further - it is exactly like giving 50% Damage Reduction for free.

Well, only for KA's. However, this sums up my issue with "fixes" like this - it gives out something for nothing. If this fix were implemented, I suspect we'd see a trend away from killing attacks. That's fine if you consider them overused now, but it's not fine if the result is that killing attacks just go away because they aren't effective.


It looks like you're trying to take the bite out of the STUN Lotto to me, in which case I suggest a flat 3 STUNx.

3xis easy, but I dislike it because it means a KA averages the same stun as a normal attack. Since it averages more BOD, I feel it should average less STUN. As well, it does still have greater swings than a normal attack because you roll 1/3 as many dice and multiply by 3. Using 2.5 (or the perfect average 2.67) may be better.

Another alternative, however (refined from many prior threads, and not my idea initially) is to make KA's more consistent with normal damage. Make a 1d6 KA cost 5 points. Add the dice, then subtract half the number of dice, for STUN (round up). BOD is counted like a normal attack, except 1 BOD is inflicted on a 1. [Alternatively, 0 BOD on a 1 and 2 on a 5 or 6, but the former is quicker since you just take the total # of dice and add the # of 6's].

RESULT: This attack will average 7 BOD per 6 DC, just like a normal killing attack. It will average 18 STUN per 6 DC (a bit less than the current 18.69; close enough in my view). But it won't have the volatile swings of **plink** 1 Stun multiple or **POW** 5 Stun multiple.

Leave the same rules in place for knockback, resistant defenses, etc. and you have a very similar attack in terms of average effectiveness, but eliminate the wild swings of STUN damage.


It isn't just a reflection of high defenses, but also a reflection of the other side of the STUN lotto. I've seen plenty of 12 Body/12 Stun 2d6 KAs as well as plenty of 2 Body/10 Stun 2d6 KAs. Barring increased Stun Multiplier, you have a 33% chance of causing as much Stun as Body with a KA. Sure, you can cause up to five times as much Stun as Body, but that's 16.7% of the time.

The problem is that the KA is balanced as to average roll for STUN before defenses, but it's really STUN after defenses that counts. If your opponent has 35 defenses, it makes no difference whether you roll 35 STUN or 5 STUN, he's unaffected either way. However, it makes a huge difference whether you roll 40 STUN or 70 STUN. Volatility has less impact on the down side than it does on the up side.

A KA will generally average out to about the same STUN past defenses as a normal attack when the target's defenses are about 2 per DC. If defenses are higher, the KA punches more STUN through n average, but if they're lower the normal attack is superior.

For example, look at a 3 DC attack (for ease of math):

Defenses Average STUN after Defense
KA Normal

0 9.3333 10.5
1 8.3333 9.5
2 7.3889 8.5
3 6.5278 7.5
4 5.75 6.5046
5 5.0833 5.5231
6 4.5 4.5694
7 4.0278 3.662
8 3.5556 2.8241
9 3.1389 2.0833
10 2.75 1.4583
11 2.4167 0.9583
12 2.0833 0.5833
13 1.8333 0.3241
14 1.5833 0.162
15 1.3333 0.0694
16 1.1389 0.0231
17 0.9722 0.0046
18 0.8056 0

The normal attack is superior up to 6 defenses, and inferior afterwards. It's interesting that the 5e recommendations at various power levels do seem to use a 2x DC = average defense algorithm. I'm curious whether this was coincidence or whether someone did this analysis.

Note that we seem to see the most concerns about KA's in Supers games, where average defenses, in my experience, tend to exceed 2 per average attack DC. Little concern tends to be raised in Fantasy, where the average defense tends to be equal to or less than 2 per average DC (and where the hit location chart results in less extremes, I believe).


The problem lies with the Increased Stun Multiplier advantage, because it is worth more than the +1/4 advantage cost, especially when several are stacked. Should some things have it? Sure. Should they have more than one level of it? Probably not, but the rules already say to get GM permission if you use more than one level of it (perhaps they were too subtle there).

I don't know that I agree with this. Let's look at our choices here, and assume we have a 12 DC attack to start (for ease of working with +1/4 advantages). A 4d6 KA will average 14 BOD, 37.38 STUN. A 12d6 EB will average 12 BOD, 42 STUN.

Add a +1 SM, or +1d6 KA, or +3d6 normal, and we get:

49 average Stun (11.62 more) or 17.5 BOD, 46.73 STUN (9.35 more) or 15 BOD, 52.5 STUN (10.5 more)

Tack on another +1 SM, or +1d6 KA, or +3d6 normal, and we get:


63 average STUN (14 more), or 21 BOD, 56 STUN (9.27 more), or 18 BOD, 63 STUN (10.5 more).

+1 SM will add more STUN, but it doesn't add BOD, or Knockback, so I think the tradeoff is fairly reasonable. It would be clearly overpriced as a +1/2 advantage, since we'd then have a 4d6 KA, +1 SM, or a 6d6 KA, or an 18d6 Normal attack, making the comparison:

14 BOD, 49 STUN vs 21 BOD, 56 STUN vs 18 BOD, 63 STUN.


You still have the occasional 4d6 KA that wins the Stun lotto. The average Stun will be right around 37, which is just a little behind a 12d6 normal attack (42), but you can get up to a whopping 120 Stun with a "Yahtzee!" roll for the KA. It'll be relatively rare, but it is a gamestopper when it happens. There really is no good fix for this, unfortunately.

First off, a huge STUN roll is not as rare as you seem to think. It doesn't have to be 120 STUN. An average BOD roll with a 5x multiple is 70 STUN. Average or above BOD and 5x multiple is about one roll in 12 (plus there are some 4x and a very few 3x rolls that will beat 70). To equal or exceed 70 STUN on 12d6 EB is far less likely (10 6's, 2 5's or 11 6's, 1 4). I make that a bit more often than 1 in 17 million rolls (Gary, you lurking? You probably have the odds off the top - I see 12 ways to roll 11 6's and 1 4, and 132 ways to roll 10 6's and 25's, out of 2,176,782,336 possible rolls). For illustraion, if you roll 12 d6 and add them up in 6 seconds, that's over 3.2 YEARS of consecutive rolling (no sleep, no food, etc.), or just under 10 years rolling 8 hours a day, every day (no vacations). I'm betting that would get you into the Guiness Book long before you'd have any statistical likelihood of rolling a 70+ roll.


What I'd prefer to see (should H6 occur) would be a +1/4 version of AVLD for resistant defenses (maybe +1/2?). That way, it'd use the same mechanic as normal attacks and avoid the Stun lotto problem. It'd also recognize that the killing attack is better than a normal attack of the same DC, because it does go against a more rare and often weaker defense.

To me, this works only if coupled with a sharp reduction in the percentage of characters who have resistant defenses. At present, they are near-universal (because of the KA issue), so KA has pretty much balanced out on the defensive front.

[Gary]

70 or more on 12d6 is about 23.9 million to one odds.

Increased Stun Multiple is significantly underpriced at 1/4 and overpriced at 1/2. It should be +3/4 for +2SM or +1 for +3 SM.

[bigdamnhero]

My personal opinion is it makes defenses far more effective, a small amount of rDEF now goes a lot further - it is exactly like giving 50% Damage Reduction for free.
Well, only vs KAs that have the Real Weapon limitation. I actually agree that KAs are generally fine as they are (and I like the flat x3 STUNx too). But if you're looking for a more Silver Age game and want your supers to be able to ignore Puny Mundane Guns (tm), then I think that's not a pretty slick way of doing so.

[ghost-angel]

3xis easy, but I dislike it because it means a KA averages the same stun as a normal attack. Since it averages more BOD, I feel it should average less STUN.
You dislike it for the same reasons I like it. I think the Stun should be compareable in a DC for DC match up, and KAs put more body through as they are Killing.

[bigdamnhero]

You dislike it for the same reasons I like it. I think the Stun should be compareable in a DC for DC match up, and KAs put more body through as they are Killing.
But then couldn't you make the argument that Killing Attacks should cost more than Normal Attacks?

[bwdemon]

To me, (the AVLD method) works only if coupled with a sharp reduction in the percentage of characters who have resistant defenses. At present, they are near-universal (because of the KA issue), so KA has pretty much balanced out on the defensive front.

How so? The advantage is cheap (+1/4, I doubt I'd go to +1/2) and you get to face resistant defense, rather than normal defense. Only super-tough builds have equal normal and resistant defenses, so you're getting some extra Stun out of the deal more often than not. Against less-than-super or unarmored (or even lightly-armored) targets, you'll still do a lot of Body and Stun.

Let's say we've got a standard energy projector with a 5 PD/ED and a 20 PD/ED force field. We hit him with a 12d6 normal attack and a 10d6 AVLD (resistant) attack. The 12d6 normal does 42 Stun on average, so 17 would get through. The 10d6 AVLD would do 35 Stun on average, so 15 would get through. That's pretty close and that's facing a character with a high resistant/normal ratio.

Make it a 15d6 normal attack and a 12d6 AVLD (for equal cost purposes). The 15d6 attack hits for 52.5 Stun on average, which translates to 27.5 on average. The 12d6 AVLD would hit for 42 Stun on average, which translates to 17 Stun getting through. This is a 10.5 Stun discrepancy, but it isn't a bad thing or even uncommon in the HERO system.

In a game where defenses are low, Armor Piercing is overpriced. In a game where defenses are high Armor Piercing can be underpriced. Faced with 28 ED, an 8d6 AP EB is equal to a 12d6 normal EB. Faced with a 10 ED, that 8d6 AP EB is a waste. Faced with a 50 ED, it's a godsend.

Similarly, the lower the resistant/normal ratio is on the target's defenses, the greater the effect of the attack. Since it is reasonably balanced at the 12 DC level, I feel confident saying that a +1/4 advantage would be suitable.

I didn't make this clear before, but since it is an AVLD my system would not allow the target to use full normal defense against Stun where they have any available resistant defense applied to the attack. Both Stun and Body would be applied solely to resistant defense under this system.

[CBikle]

Just realized that the proposed rule would make Force Fields much more powerful.

For a base of 30 pts. , you can create a 15 PD/ED FF that will prevent the average body damage from a 4d6 RKA. For 37 pts. you can make it completely hardened.

[Thrakazog]

True, but remember, the house rule we're thinking of adopting only applies to KA's with the "real weapon" limitation. As it applies directly to our campaign, Musketeer's sword is not purchased with the limitation, so this house rule wouldn't apply to him.

[CBikle]

True, but remember, the house rule we're thinking of adopting only applies to KA's with the "real weapon" limitation.

I'm not so sure Mark and James are on board with that.

If they are, it effectively means nothing has changed from the PCs perspectives (the only PCs who use KA's are the ones run by myself and James and neither of us uses a "real weapon").

Let's be honest, in our game, this rule is only going to affect small arms fire anyway and how often do we run into that ?

Basically, we're implementing a house rule for something that never happens.

[Thrakazog]

Basically, we're implementing a house rule for something that never happens.

Good point.

*scratches head, looks at drawing board*

[Lord Liaden]

3xis easy, but I dislike it because it means a KA averages the same stun as a normal attack. Since it averages more BOD, I feel it should average less STUN. As well, it does still have greater swings than a normal attack because you roll 1/3 as many dice and multiply by 3. Using 2.5 (or the perfect average 2.67) may be better.


As long as KA "fixes" have been brought up, I might as well mention mine.:D I've been using (3D6/3)-1 for my Stun Multiplier for a while now. I made a little chart showing all the results, with roundoffs, so that I don't have to divide in the middle of the game. This way the bell curve starts to make an appearance, and extreme results at either end become much rarer. While this still allows for the occasional great or lousy random roll, in practice the KA pretty consistently does more Body but less Stun than a Normal Damage attack of the same DC. Which is supposed to be the difference between them.

[bwdemon]

I missed this blurb before. Sorry about that! :)


First off, a huge STUN roll is not as rare as you seem to think. It doesn't have to be 120 STUN. An average BOD roll with a 5x multiple is 70 STUN. Average or above BOD and 5x multiple is about one roll in 12 (plus there are some 4x and a very few 3x rolls that will beat 70). To equal or exceed 70 STUN on 12d6 EB is far less likely (10 6's, 2 5's or 11 6's, 1 4). I make that a bit more often than 1 in 17 million rolls (Gary, you lurking? You probably have the odds off the top - I see 12 ways to roll 11 6's and 1 4, and 132 ways to roll 10 6's and 25's, out of 2,176,782,336 possible rolls). For illustraion, if you roll 12 d6 and add them up in 6 seconds, that's over 3.2 YEARS of consecutive rolling (no sleep, no food, etc.), or just under 10 years rolling 8 hours a day, every day (no vacations). I'm betting that would get you into the Guiness Book long before you'd have any statistical likelihood of rolling a 70+ roll.

The best I've ever done with 12d6 is 69 Stun. We all just sat there and stared in shock for a few minutes. Ten sixes, one five, and one four. I knocked out the target and even did 2 Body. Probably my best Champions damage roll, die-for-die, ever. Still, I get your point, but it ignores the downside of the Stun lotto.

It's really easy to do no damage at all with a 4d6 KA. You roll a 1 or 2 on your Stun multiple and you'll be lucky to get out of the teens, let alone do any damage to your target. Roll a 3 and you can claim 28 Stun on average and that won't impress any superhero. So, for 50% of the possibilities, you get garbage out of an average Body roll. Make it a 4 and you've got 42 Stun, which is respectable, but requires you to roll above the average. A 5 will get you 56 Stun and a 6 will get you 70 Stun - both of which are exceptional numbers and less likely from a 12d6 normal attack.

So there's a lot of bad with the potential for good. The bad takes up 50%, the mediocre takes up 16.7%, and the good takes up 33%. It's a screwy system, but the downside is bigger than the upside. That's why I prefer the AVLD mechanic. You do away with Stun lotto altogether and it fits into the game better - one less mechanic a new player has to remember, right?

[CBikle]

Good point.

*scratches head, looks at drawing board*

I think the focus of the original rule (no body=half-stun) was geared towards our stun rolls vs. VIP NPCs. Basically, the GM doesn't want to see the master-villain with 30/30 defenses, getting clocked by a lucky roll that does
120 stun.

I think the fact that the rule benefits you and SunStrike was an unintentional
side-effect.

[ghost-angel]

But then couldn't you make the argument that Killing Attacks should cost more than Normal Attacks?
Sure, but then you break the 5pts/DC rule. KA is a metagame method of saying "I want this it be a more lethal attack."
And really, since most player think in terms of how many dice they get to roll it's already 3x as expensive per Die In The Pile.

We don't have to go make everything "perfectly balanced" - that way lies only madness.

[CBikle]

Sure, but then you break the 5pts/DC rule. KA is a metagame method of saying "I want this it be a more lethal attack."
And really, since most player think in terms of how many dice they get to roll it's already 3x as expensive per Die In The Pile.

We don't have to go make everything "perfectly balanced" - that way lies only madness.

I agree 100 %. I think a flat X3 stun mult would solve the issue (and speed up combat), but have been unable to convince everyone of this.

[bigdamnhero]

Basically, we're implementing a house rule for something that never happens.
Good point.

*scratches head, looks at drawing board*
Don't you hate it when that happens? :D


Sure, but then you break the 5pts/DC rule. KA is a metagame method of saying "I want this it be a more lethal attack."
A long time ago, we played around with making KA a Modifier rather than a seperate Power, with a value ranging from -1/4 to +1/4 depending on genre, campaign, etc. In the end we finally decided it would be a +0 Advantage 99% of the time anyway so why bother, and we left it as-is. :shrug:


We don't have to go make everything "perfectly balanced" - that way lies only madness.
I tend to agree. Tho I can see where some folks might feel that allowing KA's to do more BOD and equal STUN makes them slightly more powerful compared to NAs. But particulalry in 4-color games where CvKs are common, KAs come with more than enough disadvantages to balance things out anyway. And in genres where it might be more of an advantage, you're typically not paying points for equipment anyway, so cost is less critical.

[Hugh Neilson]

I tend to agree. Tho I can see where some folks might feel that allowing KA's to do more BOD and equal STUN makes them slightly more powerful compared to NAs. But particulalry in 4-color games where CvKs are common, KAs come with more than enough disadvantages to balance things out anyway. And in genres where it might be more of an advantage, you're typically not paying points for equipment anyway, so cost is less critical.

Not all games are four colour games where CVK's are common, and not all other games have KA's only from free equipment.

In four colour games, I don't see KA's having a huge disadvantage in any case. Most real opponents have enough rDEF that a KA won't kill them anyway, and Joe Normal will be just as dead hit with a 12d6 normal attack as a 4d6 KA.

[Hugh Neilson]

Still, I get your point, but it ignores the downside of the Stun lotto.

It's really easy to do no damage at all with a 4d6 KA. You roll a 1 or 2 on your Stun multiple and you'll be lucky to get out of the teens, let alone do any damage to your target. Roll a 3 and you can claim 28 Stun on average and that won't impress any superhero. So, for 50% of the possibilities, you get garbage out of an average Body roll. Make it a 4 and you've got 42 Stun, which is respectable, but requires you to roll above the average. A 5 will get you 56 Stun and a 6 will get you 70 Stun - both of which are exceptional numbers and less likely from a 12d6 normal attack.

So there's a lot of bad with the potential for good. The bad takes up 50%, the mediocre takes up 16.7%, and the good takes up 33%. It's a screwy system, but the downside is bigger than the upside. That's why I prefer the AVLD mechanic. You do away with Stun lotto altogether and it fits into the game better - one less mechanic a new player has to remember, right?

I statted this out above. The KA is superior at inflicting damage on a high defense target. Let's assume we're dealing with Marco MasterVillain. He has 35/35 Defenses. He's gooing to be hit six times. Which of the following six stun totals would you rather inflict:

38, 40, 42, 42, 44, 46

So Marco takes 3, 5, 7, 7, 9 and 11 - total 42, and no danger of being Stunned.

OR

14, 14, 28, 42, 56, 70

So Marco takes nothing three times, 7, 21 and 35, total 63 and a decent chance that last one stuns him?

The second is just the six possible stun multiples applied to average damage on a 4d6 KA, where the first is clustered around average for 12d6. That volatility makes a lot of difference.

[bigdamnhero]

Not all games are four colour games where CVK's are common, and not all other games have KA's only from free equipment.
Of course. I was (over)simplifying.

[bwdemon]

Which of the following six stun totals would you rather inflict:

38, 40, 42, 42, 44, 46 - So Marco takes 3, 5, 7, 7, 9 and 11 - total 42, and no danger of being Stunned.

OR

14, 14, 28, 42, 56, 70 - So Marco takes nothing three times, 7, 21 and 35, total 63 and a decent chance that last one stuns him?

The second is just the six possible stun multiples applied to average damage on a 4d6 KA, where the first is clustered around average for 12d6. That volatility makes a lot of difference.

My reply is that I'd rather have option #1. I tend to think from a "consistency in game design" perspective, rather than a "what gives me the greatest possible effectiveness" perspective. If I want pure results, I make my Rom Neutralizer and all targets go to Limbo (for reference purposes, I don't go for pure results). I'd much rather have consistency in the system than a chance at an aberrant result.

[Hugh Neilson]

My reply is that I'd rather have option #1. I tend to think from a "consistency in game design" perspective, rather than a "what gives me the greatest possible effectiveness" perspective. If I want pure results, I make my Rom Neutralizer and all targets go to Limbo (for reference purposes, I don't go for pure results). I'd much rather have consistency in the system than a chance at an aberrant result.

Perhaps my question would have been better phrased "which would be more effective". In my view, powers of similar effectiveness should have a similar cost. [Conic EDM UAA isn't a power which I'd generally allow in my games.]

[Just Joe]

On the one hand, I think there is merit in the arguments that bricks should just buy their defenses higher and that taming the stun lotto is the real solution (and these approaches may be combined). On the other hand, Lord Liaden's solution is rather elegant, and has numerous advantages already mentioned in this thread (provided that one is playing something close to 4-color Champions).

I would like to consider another perspective, not yet considered in this thread. Whether or not a KA should be able to do substantial stun without getting through any body depends in part on what the KA represents. I will give examples more applicable to heroic level games (recall that we aren't on the Champions board), but the issue could still come into play in a 4-color Champions game as well.

Consider the following weapons: a light bow, a laser, a mace, and a bullet. The light bow can be pretty painful to an unarmored target, but if it doesn't do body, it's probably not going to do much, if any, stun. A laser, arguably, is a more extreme case: it can do horrendous amounts of stun if it gets past armor, but may do little or none if it does no stun (possibly depending on the kind of armor -- armor that converts the attack to heat and disperses it might leak through considerable stun, while reflective armor should stop all stun). Also, notice that it is not clear that the 0 body / 1 body line is all that crucial. Light bows and (even powerful) lasers that net 1 body through defenses still might not do much stun. By contrast, a mace which does no body might cause considerable stun. Of course, body damage can penetrate without the mace itself penetrating armor, but still I think this attack can do significant stun without doing body and can certainly do a LOT of stun without doing much body. Similarly, bullets from at least some guns hitting some kinds of armor (e.g., kevlar) can cause considerable amounts of stun while doing little or no body.

How do we represent the difference between these two types of attacks? I have a suggestion that is theoretically quite simple, though in practice it might be a bit unweildy. My suggestion (#1) is to build weapons like light bows and lasers (as well as whips and switchblades, perhaps) with an increased stun X that only applies to body that gets past armor and/or a decreased stun X that only applies to body that does NOT get past armor. Weapons like bullets and maces can still be built according to the ordinary rules, with or without increased stun X.

To this, I would add (though these suggestions are theoretically separable) the suggestion (#2) that for all KA's, the minimum stun after defenses be equal to the body past defenses times the stun X (modified, if applicable, by suggestion #1 above).

Whaddaya think?

[ghost-angel]

I agree 100 %. I think a flat X3 stun mult would solve the issue (and speed up combat), but have been unable to convince everyone of this.
When we switched over (both to remove the Stun Lotto, which I've been railing against for many a year now) and to simplify combat I waded into a combat with my brick.

A brick designed to take the brunt of the Stun Lotto more or less intact for the campaign levels at hand (3-4D6 KA tops, 12-16D6 Normal).

And I cleaned house, two phases in we did some math, decided maximum damage on the attacks being thrown in that combat could get a single Stun through. So he didn't bother rolling damage anymore and the only reason we didn't skip to 'I Win' was the tension of wading through combat was taking precious moments.

So I rebuilt the brick and cranked the defenses way way down. Have yet to see if I did it right. Just something to keep in mind if you manage to go a 3 STUNx.

[Manic Typist]

I can't tell if I am glad or not to have never used the Stun Lotto.

I've only run in Heroic level campaigns were we use the Hit Locations table.

[Foxiekins]

Example, Gun Boy shoots his pistol (a 2d6 RKA) at Mr. Brick. He hits his target and rolls 10 BODY with a STUN multiplier roll of 5 for a total of 40 STUN. Mr. Brick's rPD is 25. Since no BODY damage gets through, then the 15 STUN Mr. Brick normally would take after his PD is applied gets halved to 7.Thoughts?

Yo, Thrakazog... What's Mr. Brick's PD...? Not his rPD, just his PD...

If you re-read the rules, you'll see that someone resists KA Body with rPD, but they resist KA Stun with rPD *and* PD... If Mr. Brick has at least 75 STR, for a PD of 15, then he takes *NO* Stun Damage in your example with no House Rule at all... If Mr. Brick's rPD plus his PD equals 60 or more, there is no way he can take *any* Stun from a 2d6 RKA...

[CBikle]

Yo, Thrakazog... What's Mr. Brick's PD...? Not his rPD, just his PD...

If you re-read the rules, you'll see that someone resists KA Body with rPD, but they resist KA Stun with rPD *and* PD... If Mr. Brick has at least 75 STR, for a PD of 15, then he takes *NO* Stun Damage in your example with no House Rule at all... If Mr. Brick's rPD plus his PD equals 60 or more, there is no way he can take *any* Stun from a 2d6 RKA...

I think Thrakazog knew this but just provided the example above for simplicity.

Assume that the character's natural PD of 10 is bought as resistant and that he has an additional +15 PD armor for a total of 25 rPD.

[Foxiekins]

I think Thrakazog knew this but just provided the example above for simplicity.

Assume that the character's natural PD of 10 is bought as resistant and that he has an additional +15 PD armor for a total of 25 rPD.

If Mr Brick bought his defenses that way, then he is *asking* to wince when RKAs hit him... Bouncing bullets without wincing takes PD on top of rPD... If you designed the character without extra PD to let you do that, that was a choice you made in character design...

You are guessing, however... Until Thrakazog says something on the subject, neither of us knows...

[bwdemon]

Just for clarification's sake, you use PD instead of rPD only if you have some rPD in the first place. You do not add PD & rPD together. A character with PD 25 and rPD 20 would subtract 20 Body and 25 Stun of any successful physical KA (see the examples on pgs. 409-410).

[Foxiekins]

Just for clarification's sake, you use PD instead of rPD only if you have some rPD in the first place. You do not add PD & rPD together. A character with PD 25 and rPD 20 would subtract 20 Body and 25 Stun of any successful physical KA (see the examples on pgs. 409-410).

It's not PD instead of rPD, it's PD in addition to rPD...

The character in question *has* rPD, or he wouldn't be subtracting any Stun at all from the RKA, which he did in the example...

And a character with PD 25 and rPD 20 would subtract 20 Body and 45 Stun, with the exception that an amount of Stun will always get through his defenses equal to the amount of Body that gets through...

[ghost-angel]

Just for clarification's sake, you use PD instead of rPD only if you have some rPD in the first place. You do not add PD & rPD together. A character with PD 25 and rPD 20 would subtract 20 Body and 25 Stun of any successful physical KA (see the examples on pgs. 409-410).
p410 - Taking Damage section, 2d: "If the character has any rDEF, add the applicable forms of Defense - both Normal and Resistant - together to determine his total Defense. Subtract this total Defense from the STUN damage done by the attack."

If I have PD 15, and Armor 15PD I have 15rPD which adds to my Normal Defense of 15PD for 30 Defense vs the STUN of Killing Attacks.

What you are trying to say, I think, is if you have 30PD and 15 of which is rPD then you have 15 PD vs BODY and 30PD vs STUN of KAs.

But if you have 30PD and an additional 15rPD then you have 15PD vs BODY and 45PD vs STUN of KAs.

[bwdemon]

Correct. In my example, assuming the character in question had 5 PD (from 25 STR) and 20 rPD from Armor, the character would have 25 PD and 20 rPD and only 25 PD would be subtracted.

It's a sematic issue, but important to avoid misinterpretation. I use my method of stating the issue, because the game mechanics don't talk about subtracting your natural PD, then your resistant PD from damage done. It says to subtract your PD, which includes all powers that may be in effect at the time. If I have a character with 5 PD and 20 PD armor and someone asks what the character's PD is, I say "25" not "5"

To further clarify the issue, if a character has 30 PD and damage resistance for 20 PD, the character subtracts 30 from the Stun caused by a successful physical KA, not 50.

[Foxiekins]

Yes, but Thrakazog's example is regarding a Brick... 20 rPD + 5 PD for 25 total doesn't sound like a brick... It sounds more like a Martial Artist in Armor...

[ghost-angel]

I think you guys are talking a bit past each other and agreeing at the same time.

Foxiekins doesn't appear to be adding PD and rPD together before the KA, as I and many others do for Total PD and Total rPD. bwdemon is doing just that.


To further clarify the issue, if a character has 30 PD and damage resistance for 20 PD, the character subtracts 30 from the Stun caused by a successful physical KA, not 50.
exatly.

[bwdemon]

I think we were all saying the same thing, but I just wanted to make sure it was properly clarified. :)

[Thrakazog]

If Mr Brick bought his defenses that way, then he is *asking* to wince when RKAs hit him... Bouncing bullets without wincing takes PD on top of rPD... If you designed the character without extra PD to let you do that, that was a choice you made in character design...

You are guessing, however... Until Thrakazog says something on the subject, neither of us knows...

The most relevant example I can give you is a brick with 20rPD and 35PD. I did know the rules regarding how to apply killing damage to defenses, yes.

[Foxiekins]

The most relevant example I can give you is a brick with 20rPD and 35PD. I did know the rules regarding how to apply killing damage to defenses, yes.

Assuming the 35 PD includes the 20 rPD, a 2d6 RKA can roll 7 Body, and still have *no* chance of Stun getting through... PD is rather cheap at a cost of 1 point per... Plus, remember, you only get a noticable game effect at the time the attack hits if the Stun after defenses exceeds their CON...

35 total PD (including the 20 rPD) implies the character has a 75 STR... If he has a 75 CON as well, an attack will have to apply more than 110 Stun to cause an immediate effect... Otherwise, you will only see effect from it cumulatively...

To be able to do more than 110 Stun at all, an RKA has to be 4d6 or better, or better than 3d6 with +1 Stun Multiple, or better then 2.5d6 with +2, etcetera... Even if you define "shrugging it off" as taking no Stun, this character can automatically do that to 1d6+1 RKAs or smaller, and has roughly an 88 percent chance of it happening with the 2d6 RKA you mention... If this isn't enough, all he needs to do is buy up his PD a bit...

Another 15 PD would only be 15 points, put him at 50 PD, 20 rPD, and then your example attack doing 10 body can do no Stun at all... Someone wanting to shrug bullets and take no Stun just has to buy up his PD, and you don't have to worry about if a rule change is fair... If it seems too expensive, you can always let him buy PD with the Limitation "Only when an Attack doesn't do Body Damage"... I'm not sure what value that Limitation would be, though... Does Ultimate Brick have that Limitation in it...?

[ghost-angel]

Another 15 PD would only be 15 points, put him at 50 PD, 20 rPD, and then your example attack doing 10 body can do no Stun at all... Someone wanting to shrug bullets and take no Stun just has to buy up his PD, and you don't have to worry about if a rule change is fair... If it seems too expensive, you can always let him buy PD with the Limitation "Only when an Attack doesn't do Body Damage"... I'm not sure what value that Limitation would be, though... Does Ultimate Brick have that Limitation in it...?
I don't think that's a standard Limitation in TUB. I'd place it around -1/2.

Another trick I've become fond of is PD;Vs STUN Only.

[Foxiekins]

I don't think that's a standard Limitation in TUB. I'd place it around -1/2.

Another trick I've become fond of is PD;Vs STUN Only.

Do you rate that one at -1/2 also...?

Come to think of it, the pair of them sound interesting... Mix and Match, compared to what you want...

[Just Joe]

I can't tell if I am glad or not to have never used the Stun Lotto.

I've only run in Heroic level campaigns were we use the Hit Locations table.I generally use the hit location table as well, but it retains most of the features of the Stun Lotto that people dislike.

BTW, isn't anyone going to reply to my post (#48, on p. 4)? :o

[bwdemon]

BTW, isn't anyone going to reply to my post (#48, on p. 4)? :o


How do we represent the difference between these two types of attacks? I have a suggestion that is theoretically quite simple, though in practice it might be a bit unweildy. My suggestion (#1) is to build weapons like light bows and lasers (as well as whips and switchblades, perhaps) with an increased stun X that only applies to body that gets past armor and/or a decreased stun X that only applies to body that does NOT get past armor. Weapons like bullets and maces can still be built according to the ordinary rules, with or without increased stun X.

To this, I would add (though these suggestions are theoretically separable) the suggestion (#2) that for all KA's, the minimum stun after defenses be equal to the body past defenses times the stun X (modified, if applicable, by suggestion #1 above).

I think you pretty much covered the worst aspect within your own post. The system would be awkward under the best conditions. There are other things that also bother me a little, but the big factor - and the one that seals its fate for me - is the awkwardness of the system.

[Just Joe]

I think you pretty much covered the worst aspect within your own post. The system would be awkward under the best conditions. There are other things that also bother me a little, but the big factor - and the one that seals its fate for me - is the awkwardness of the system.Fair enough, though a simpler solution has since come to mind that could work for lasers and other KA's with essentially no physical impact.* The stun X for the body that does not exceed rED would be 0. So stun would just be (bod rolled minus rED) times stun multiple (determined as you see fit, e.g., 3, 2-4, stun lotto, or hit location).

But even my original suggestion is not so hard to implement. Say a bow has a -1 stun X before defenses. Suppose an attacker rolls 5 body, 3 X stun against a target with 2 rPD + 4 non-resistant PD.

Stun is [(2)(3-1) - (2+4)] + (5-3)(3) = [4-6] + 6 = 6

[4-6] + 6 = 6 ??? Well, kind of. I don't know the way to express in mathematical formulas that the first term in brackets (the stun caused by the body that does not exceed armor) cannot be less than zero.

Hmmm . . . I'm thinking that this is not too complicated to use, but it might be too complicated to explain (though probably less so FTF, with a few examples and the learner able to quickly ask questions).


* or similar way to cause stun without body, as a fire attack might, for example.

[OddHat]

Fair enough, though a simpler solution has since come to mind that could work for lasers and other KA's with essentially no physical impact.* The stun X for the body that does not exceed rED would be 0. So stun would just be (bod rolled minus rED) times stun multiple (determined as you see fit, e.g., 3, 2-4, stun lotto, or hit location).

But even my original suggestion is not so hard to implement. Say a bow has a -1 stun X before defenses. Suppose an attacker rolls 5 body, 3 X stun against a target with 2 rPD + 4 non-resistant PD.

Stun is [(2)(3-1) - (2+4)] + (5-3)(3) = [4-6] + 6 = 6

[4-6] + 6 = 6 ??? Well, kind of. I don't know the way to express in mathematical formulas that the first term in brackets (the stun caused by the body that does not exceed armor) cannot be less than zero.

Hmmm . . . I'm thinking that this is not too complicated to use, but it might be too complicated to explain (though probably less so FTF, with a few examples and the learner able to quickly ask questions).


* or similar way to cause stun without body, as a fire attack might, for example.

I might do it differently.

Xd6 RKA, No Knockback, Beam, -2 Reduced Stun Multiple linked to Drain Stun, Ranged, RKA Must Do Body (-1/2). That gets you the extra stun only after defenses with less fiddling around. YMMV, of course.

[bwdemon]

One of the "other things" I mentioned above related specifically to the types of attacks that you're classifying as "must do Body to do Stun." Some of those attacks are just extremely likely to cause Body (e.g. lasers) due to very high dice, Armor Piercing, and/or (especially) Penetrating.

Penetrating would take on a much greater degree of importance, because it fulfills the Body damage requirement. Now, granted, I feel that more KAs should use it, but this would perform an end run on your mechanic.

[Thrakazog]

35 total PD (including the 20 rPD) implies the character has a 75 STR... If he has a 75 CON as well, an attack will have to apply more than 110 Stun to cause an immediate effect... Otherwise, you will only see effect from it cumulatively...

STR was 65, and who in hell has a 75 CON? Average attack AP for the campaign is around 55-70.

Thanks to everyone who's contributed to answering my questions. Your creativity and ingenuity is a testament to all of you, as always.

[OddHat]

One of the "other things" I mentioned above related specifically to the types of attacks that you're classifying as "must do Body to do Stun." Some of those attacks are just extremely likely to cause Body (e.g. lasers) due to very high dice, Armor Piercing, and/or (especially) Penetrating.

Penetrating would take on a much greater degree of importance, because it fulfills the Body damage requirement. Now, granted, I feel that more KAs should use it, but this would perform an end run on your mechanic.

JustJoe's mechanic or the linked Drain Stun with "Must Do Body"?

I ask mainly because I tend to feel that "RKA Must Do Body", like many limitations, is much less limiting with certain builds. While I don't like fiddling around with limitation costs more than I have to, I'd probably disallow an "RKA Must Do Body" limit on an attack power linked to a Penetrating attack.

[Hugh Neilson]

If I wanted to reduce the STUN done by killing attacks in my games, I would simply require all KA's to be purchased with a Stun Multiple limitation, whether -1, -2 or "1 Stun Multiple". That wouldn't give an unanticipated boost to certain builds (Penetrating KA's and hardened rDEF in this case), and would use established costing mechanisms rather than kludgy rule fixes.

[OddHat]

If I wanted to reduce the STUN done by killing attacks in my games, I would simply require all KA's to be purchased with a Stun Multiple limitation, whether -1, -2 or "1 Stun Multiple". That wouldn't give an unanticipated boost to certain builds (Penetrating KA's and hardened rDEF in this case), and would use established costing mechanisms rather than kludgy rule fixes.

I think JustJoe's intended effect was very low stun if no Body got through, much higher Stun if Body did get through. Or are you refering to the OP?

[Hugh Neilson]

I think JustJoe's intended effect was very low stun if no Body got through, much higher Stun if Body did get through. Or are you refering to the OP?

I'm back to the OP. As far as "no STUN unless it does BOD", I think that might be a viable limitation for specific attacks, but I wouldn't want it as the standard.

First, you can eliminate the +X Stun Multiple advantage - it's useless to trade down BOD to do more STUN under this model. Not that this would be a huge loss anyway.

Second, all those Reduced Penetration KA's should get a much bigger limitation.

But most critically is that it doesn't match the reality. A mace clanging across a helmet will still hurt, even if the helm prevents severe injury. A bullet striking a kevlar vest fails to penetrate, but can still KO the vest's wearer. I can't, off the cuff, think of any great examples where STUN is dependent on BOD damage being inflicted, and while I suspect they exist, I also think they are rare enough that they are best handled as a modifier to the standard, rather than being made the standard.

BTW, has anyone considered the advantage they would charge for a KA that CAN do STUN with no BOD if the standard were "no BOD means no STUN"?

[That said, the idea of real weapons being required to do BOD through "not real" defenses would be a userful tool in a Supers game where you want bullets to bounce.

[Foxiekins]

STR was 65, and who in hell has a 75 CON? Average attack AP for the campaign is around 55-70.

Thanks to everyone who's contributed to answering my questions. Your creativity and ingenuity is a testament to all of you, as always.

Well, a character I am contemplating on another thread was originally envisioned at 80 STR, 80 CON, 20 BODY, 20 rPD, and 20 rED...

I usually build Brick Types with CON = STR...

What *is* this fellow's CON, then...?

[CBikle]

If I wanted to reduce the STUN done by killing attacks in my games, I would simply require all KA's to be purchased with a Stun Multiple limitation, whether -1, -2 or "1 Stun Multiple". That wouldn't give an unanticipated boost to certain builds (Penetrating KA's and hardened rDEF in this case), and would use established costing mechanisms rather than kludgy rule fixes.

Thrakazog and I are in the same game where this rule is being considered.

The concerns are more over aesthetics/realism than the stun lotto.

The players (who are for the rule change) don't like the idea of a 2d6+1 RKA heavy pistol doing a crapload of stun (and possibly stunning) a Hulk analog (just as an example) when he/it doesn't even take a pt. of body damage.

[Foxiekins]

Thrakazog and I are in the same game where this rule is being considered.

The concerns are more over aesthetics/realism than the stun lotto.

The players (who are for the rule change) don't like the idea of a 2d6+1 RKA heavy pistol doing a crapload of stun (and possibly stunning) a Hulk analog (just as an example) when he/it doesn't even take a pt. of body damage.

A Hulk analog...? I wouldn't call someone a Hulk analog unless they had at least a 60 STR and a 60 CON... Along with at least 20 rPD and 20 rED...

A 2d6+1 RKA will do at most 13 Body, and at most 65 Stun... That would get no Body at all through his 20 rPD, and 33 Stun through his total PD... This will *not* stun someone with a 60 CON...

A STR and CON of 60 will give you a REC of 24... Two phases later, the inflicted Stun is gone, although Hulk is likely still pissed, and smashing things...

And remember, this is if the Attack does MAXIMUM damage... If it does more nearly Average damage of 8 Body and 24 Stun, then he takes bupkis... If you shoot him with this 2d6+1 RKA every phase, in the long run he takes 2.3888 recurring Stun damage per phase, and Max damage will *not* stun him...

If the Brick Character in question does not have CON that is comparable to his STR, then he has not made a character that can shrug off such attacks...

[CBikle]

A Hulk analog...? I wouldn't call someone a Hulk analog unless they had at least a 60 STR and a 60 CON... Along with at least 20 rPD and 20 rED...

A 2d6+1 RKA will do at most 13 Body, and at most 65 Stun... That would get no Body at all through his 20 rPD, and 33 Stun through his total PD... This will *not* stun someone with a 60 CON...

A STR and CON of 60 will give you a REC of 24... Two phases later, the inflicted Stun is gone, although Hulk is likely still pissed, and smashing things...

In my 20 + years in playing the game, I have yet to see a PC go beyond a 40 Con.

In my example, I was figuring the Hulk analog would have a 30 rPD (that's including his regular PD) and a 30 con. So if the heavy pistol rolled max damage (13 body/65 stun), it would stun him by 5 pts. It's unlikely, but I have personally seen that exact type of situation occur on numerous occasions.

[Foxiekins]

In my 20 + years in playing the game, I have yet to see a PC go beyond a 40 Con.

In my example, I was figuring the Hulk analog would have a 30 rPD (that's including his regular PD) and a 30 con. So if the heavy pistol rolled max damage (13 body/65 stun), it would stun him by 5 pts. It's unlikely, but I have personally seen that exact type of situation occur on numerous occasions.

As I put in my edit, (done after your reply, it seems), my philosophy is that if you want a character to shrug off attacks, give him a CON commensurate with his STR... If you don't, he will be able to dish it out, but not take it...

[bwdemon]

The Force Wall build from UB can make super tough characters totally immune to bullets. You pick a certain level of Defense (13 PD in the 2d6+1 RKA example, 19 to cover everything up to 3d6+1) and it can't do enough Body to break through to the character.

An attack that does do enough Body to break through "staggers" the character such that he has to recompose himself (bring the Force Wall back up) in order to use its benefits again. This does a good job of simulating those threats that require a concerted and continuous wave of attacks to bring down.

Were I to make a Hulk or Juggernaut build, I would very likely use this method, which would allow him to shrug off those little KAs and attacks that a character like him does shrug off. Very few characters deserve this sort of power, though, so I wouldn't want to apply to every superhero by default through a houserule.

As for CON, I find that I tend to make characters with CON closer to their STR score. In most cases, it just seems right. A character that strong usually (but not always) has a similar degree of toughness. I don't make too many characters with STR 80, but if one of my characters has a 60 STR, then his CON will probably be between 40 and 60. This is higher than most and not exactly cost-efficient, but it makes sense to me so that's how I build it. Foxiekins certainly has a point in saying that a character without an appropriately high CON hasn't been built to simulate the effect of avoiding being Stunned by high-Stun attacks.

OddHat, I was speaking specifically to JustJoe's build in that post above. I feel the "must do Body" limitation is best used only for those things that have to get into the bloodstream or at least past the skin in order for a linked effect to occur. For example, simulating a drug-filled dart or a venomous snake's bite. In those examples, the killing damage is truly minimal and the greatest damage comes from the linked effect. This is not an appropriate mechanic to simulate something that will have no problem getting through the sole of your average running shoe.

I still think the whole KA mechanic should be ditched for an AVLD mechanic, since it removes the Stun Lotto issue altogether, while producing an appropriate effect and homogenizing (and thus simplifying) combat mechanics. From a victim's perspective, there would be some small benefit to increasing resistant defense (since they won't ever face nonresistant defenses), but this is mitigated heavily (if not completely) by the fact that you won't ever see Stun Lotto amounts.

[Foxiekins]

As for CON, I find that I tend to make characters with CON closer to their STR score. In most cases, it just seems right. A character that strong usually (but not always) has a similar degree of toughness. I don't make too many characters with STR 80, but if one of my characters has a 60 STR, then his CON will probably be between 40 and 60. This is higher than most and not exactly cost-efficient, but it makes sense to me so that's how I build it. Foxiekins certainly has a point in saying that a character without an appropriately high CON hasn't been built to simulate the effect of avoiding being Stunned by high-Stun attacks.

Exactly... If I make a character with STR and CON differing by more than 10, it's because of a Conscious Design Decision on my part... Sometimes I will make a character tougher than he is strong, sometimes vice versa, but always as a Conscious Decision...

[OddHat]

My own prefered method for the Bullet Proof problem is a fixed stun multiple for weapons with the Real Weapon limitation and not using the double stun when out of combat rules in campaigns where you want Supers to be more or less immune to bullets. As Hugh once pointed out, a 2d6 Killing Attack under the current rules maxes out at 120 stun if it hits out of combat. Very few 350 point characters are going to be walking around with the PD and CON needed to ignore that.

The Force Wall option works, and I have used it myself on characters. It does however require either Indirect on the character's STR or a handwave allowing the character to reach through his own wall.

A combination of high PD, CON, and Damage Reduction works as well, with no house rules, but can bring up the problem of characters who are immune to bullets also ending up effectively immune to anything short of massive force. That works better in higher point campaigns.

[Trebuchet]

My own prefered method for the Bullet Proof problem is a fixed stun multiple for weapons with the Real Weapon limitation and not using the double stun when out of combat rules in campaigns where you want Supers to be more or less immune to bullets. As Hugh once pointed out, a 2d6 Killing Attack under the current rules maxes out at 120 stun if it hits out of combat. Very few 350 point characters are going to be walking around with the PD and CON needed to ignore that.

The Force Wall option works, and I have used it myself on characters. It does however require either Indirect on the character's STR or a handwave allowing the character to reach through his own wall.

A combination of high PD, CON, and Damage Reduction works as well, with no house rules, but can bring up the problem of character who are immune to bullets also ending up effectively immune to anything short of massive force. That works better in higher point campaigns.After reading this thread carefully, I have decided that when I'm GMing our Champions game, any Real Weapon which even with max damage on the roll is incapable of doing any BODY to the target does no Stun at all. So if Joe Bankrobber opens up full auto on our team brick Silhouette (32 PD/24 rPD) with his AK-47 (2d6 RKA), the bullets simply bounce off without any effect at all because his maximum possible BODY generated is 12; only half of her rPD. Of course, the ricochets and/or misses might be hazardous to nearby normals and even other heroes, but Silhouette herself is totally immune to such puny attacks. Her friend Zl'f, with 12PD/8rPD, gets no such immunity and had best avoid Joe's attack.

OTOH, if Joe's buddy Biggun Bob pulls out an RPG-7V anti-tank missile (7d6+1 RKA) and hits our heroine, then the Stun to Silhouette will be calculated normally because it can theoretically generate sufficient BODY to penetrate our heroine's defenses. If he rolls poorly the attack may still bounce off, but a good roll (especially with a high StunX) might still flatten her.

In the genre (four color) of our MidGuard campaign, I simply see no reason for someone with defenses higher than an M1A1 Abrams tank to worry at all about some poor schlub with an ordinary rifle or pistol. The other GMs in our group are free to use this method or ignore it, but that's how I'm going to handle it from now on.

[Hugh Neilson]

Thrakazog and I are in the same game where this rule is being considered.

The concerns are more over aesthetics/realism than the stun lotto.

The players (who are for the rule change) don't like the idea of a 2d6+1 RKA heavy pistol doing a crapload of stun (and possibly stunning) a Hulk analog (just as an example) when he/it doesn't even take a pt. of body damage.

Yet, as noted previously, a human being wearing a bulletproof vest may take not even 1 point of Body damage, but be stunned or even knocked out by the impact. I suggest that is "realism".

While I agree there is a place for a rule which prevents the typical "real weapon" from achieving such extreme results, even there "no BOD = no STUN" seems excessive. Simply imposing a 3x, or 2.5x Multiple on such weapons due to their RW limitation would do the trick.

And who says the Hulk analog should be unfazed by maximum damage from a heavy pistol. A lucky shot, directly to the face, which manages to faze the Hulk for a single segment seems very much in keeping with typical comic book writing. Good luck getting that lucky a second time before the Hulk deals with the matter!

"Puny human! Do not shoot Hulk in eye again, or Hulk will SMASH!"

[Hugh Neilson]

In my 20 + years in playing the game, I have yet to see a PC go beyond a 40 Con.

In my example, I was figuring the Hulk analog would have a 30 rPD (that's including his regular PD) and a 30 con. So if the heavy pistol rolled max damage (13 body/65 stun), it would stun him by 5 pts. It's unlikely, but I have personally seen that exact type of situation occur on numerous occasions.

Perhaps that should mean his CON ought to be increased to the point he can shrug off those attacks you believe he should be able to shrug off. Alternatively, some Damage reduction which only applies to real weapons (or only applies to KA's with certain STUN multiples) would do the trick quite nicely. In other words, I question whether the prolem is that the rules don't work properly, or thatvthe character has not been designed properly. These new rules would mean that 8 rDEF allows characters to shrug off most shots from pistols. How many Supers don't have 8 rDEF? Even Z'lf has 8 rDEF! ;) Of course, now we have a pistol that does 8 BOD, 40 STUN failing to inflict any STUN, but 9 BOD, 36 STUN smacks Z'lf for 24 STUN. "ARRRGH! I've been NICKED!" is heard as she passes out...

I do see where a rules fix is desirable for games where we want supers to casually bounce bullets, however. Here, the simple "real weapons have a 2.5 (or even 3x) Stun Multiple, no roll" would fix this quite nicely. The gun maxes out at 33 (39) STUN, Hulk takes three (nine) STUN and turns, growling, at the guy with the lucky shot. The Hulk's massive (and no time required) PRE attack has the normal firing the gun quivering, and Hulk crushes the gun in his mighty fist, using casual STR, in his next phase. This approach permits characters at the 350 point level to bunce bullets without an excessive cost, while preserving the balance in the cost structure for anyone leaving off that Real Weapon limitation. This approach also doesn't make penetrating, or even double penetrating, ammo become a logical standard commodity for gun-toting mercs expecting possible action by Supers. The suggested house rule means it's likely better to have a 1d6 pistol with double penetrating than a 2d6+1 Heavy Pistol if your targets will have bulletproof vests. If they're really tough, that little peashooter with DoubPen rounds is superior to an AK-47 or a heavy rifle. How does that fit with a desire for greater realism or aesthetics?

[Hugh Neilson]

After reading this thread carefully, I have decided that when I'm GMing our Champions game, any Real Weapon which even with max damage on the roll is incapable of doing any BODY to the target does no Stun at all.

To explore this further, as "incapable even at max" seems a rational threshhold for real weapons, how do the following issues interact:

- the character has enough rDEF to ignore the attack, but it's on an activation roll. Is the weapon "capable of damaging the character", or can it do STUN only if the activation roll fails?

- the character has rDEF to offset the damage, but it comes from Combat Luck or a similar concept (eg. "Just grazed me"). Is the weapon "incapable" of doing BOD? ie can Z'lf now safely ignore a 1d6+1 handgun?

- will limitations like "one BOD gets through" and advantages like Penetrating on KA's have their costs re-evaluated given this rule? The limitation is probably more relevant, as advantages are controlled by Real Weapons, but it would seem a foolish gunman who would go up against (the possibility of) Supers with normal ammo.

- what about such real defenses as bulletproof kevlar? Perhaps the Real Armor limitation could be made permeable to STUN from real weapons, solving that dilemma.

[CBikle]

Yet, as noted previously, a human being wearing a bulletproof vest may take not even 1 point of Body damage, but be stunned or even knocked out by the impact. I suggest that is "realism".

While I agree there is a place for a rule which prevents the typical "real weapon" from achieving such extreme results, even there "no BOD = no STUN" seems excessive. Simply imposing a 3x, or 2.5x Multiple on such weapons due to their RW limitation would do the trick.

And who says the Hulk analog should be unfazed by maximum damage from a heavy pistol. A lucky shot, directly to the face, which manages to faze the Hulk for a single segment seems very much in keeping with typical comic book writing. Good luck getting that lucky a second time before the Hulk deals with the matter!

"Puny human! Do not shoot Hulk in eye again, or Hulk will SMASH!"

You're preaching to the choir. I pretty much agree with you here.

[CBikle]

Perhaps that should mean his CON ought to be increased to the point he can shrug off those attacks you believe he should be able to shrug off. Alternatively, some Damage reduction which only applies to real weapons (or only applies to KA's with certain STUN multiples) would do the trick quite nicely. In other words, I question whether the prolem is that the rules don't work properly, or thatvthe character has not been designed properly.

This isn't about one character; a few of the players (including the primary GM, but not me) want a universal rules change where the stun lotto winfall doesn't apply to a character who didn't receive any body damage from an attack, especially in cases where it seems unrealistic.

They don't want to see the powered armor guy stunned/knocked-out from the swashbuckler-guy's rapier HKA that didn't do any body damage.

[Trebuchet]

To explore this further, as "incapable even at max" seems a rational threshhold for real weapons, how do the following issues interact:Good questions; and I'd given some thought to all of them.


- the character has enough rDEF to ignore the attack, but it's on an activation roll. Is the weapon "capable of damaging the character", or can it do STUN only if the activation roll fails?It would require a successful Activation Roll first. BTW, nobody in our campaign has any defenses on an Activation Roll so the point would be moot, at least in our game.


- the character has rDEF to offset the damage, but it comes from Combat Luck or a similar concept (eg. "Just grazed me"). Is the weapon "incapable" of doing BOD? ie can Z'lf now safely ignore a 1d6+1 handgun?Combat Luck is predicated on the idea the character is actively working to avoid getting hit. Since Zl'f has 6 of her 8 rPD provided by her Combat Luck the answer is no, she can't simply ignore a 1d6+1 handgun. She could probably ignore a 1 pip Killing attack; but we really don't see too many of those in our campaign. I may decide defenses provided by Combat Luck do not apply towards this rule since that Talent is already assuming active avoidance of an attack. That would seem a reasonable compromise.


- will limitations like "one BOD gets through" and advantages like Penetrating on KA's have their costs re-evaluated given this rule? The limitation is probably more relevant, as advantages are controlled by Real Weapons, but it would seem a foolish gunman who would go up against (the possibility of) Supers with normal ammo.Advantages on attacks would work as normal; so a PEN Killing attack against a Hero could do Stun assuming the hero didn't have appropriate Hardened defenses. However, the odds of a Real Weapon having PEN ammo is pretty much nil. AP would be more common, of course. If the AP attack is still incapable of doing BODY damage then my rule applies as described. If one BODY gets through due to a Limitation on the defenses, then clearly the defenses are inadequate to prevent any damage from the attack getting through and normal rules apply.


- what about such real defenses as bulletproof kevlar? Perhaps the Real Armor limitation could be made permeable to STUN from real weapons, solving that dilemma.Kevlar cannot be made impenetrable to real weapons anyway without making it so heavy with ballistic inserts a normal couldn't move, so the question is largely moot (The real stuff would be sectional and/or have Activation Rolls). However, it is reasonable that Real Armor have a corresponding limitation to Real Weapons and would ignore this rule. So a hero wearing Real Armor as opposed to "bulletproof spandex" may or may not have sufficient defenses depending on the proportion of his defenses provided by that Real Armor.

Again, this rule applies only to attacks bought as and/or obviously with the Real Weapons Limitation (like a dropped cop's gun). Blasters, photon blasts, light sabers, mystic swords and other fictional weapons would do damage as designed. It's just meant to allow tough bricks to ignore mundane attacks like switchblades and 9mm pistols. An anti-tank missile hardly qualifies as "mundane" except perhaps against the likes of Superman. Few Champions bricks approach his level of defense.

[Foxiekins]

This isn't about one character; a few of the players (including the primary GM, but not me) want a universal rules change where the stun lotto winfall doesn't apply to a character who didn't receive any body damage from an attack, especially in cases where it seems unrealistic.

They don't want to see the powered armor guy stunned/knocked-out from the swashbuckler-guy's rapier HKA that didn't do any body damage.

Looking at Hand-To-Hand Weapons, a Stiletto is 1/2d6 AP, and a Short Sword is 1d6... I would call a Rapier 1d6 AP... This becomes 2d6 AP at most if the character has sufficient STR... This does at most 12 Body... If your Rapier guy is wandering about with a higher damage weapon than that, it isn't a Rapier... If you assume it has a STR Min of 8, say, and this is a Heroic Campaign, this requires him to have a 23 STR... If this is a Superheroic Campaign, and the weapon doesn't have a STR Min, he would still need a 22 STR...

If this is a Real Weapon, it will take damage when you use it to stab a heavily armored person... At 22 Active Points, and I'm assuming 1.6 kg, it would be DEF 5, BODY 1... If he does no Body to Power Armor guy, and yet knocks him out from the impact, he will also snap his Sword in two...

Since DEF + BODY of an object limits how much damage it can dish out as a club, you could simply say that Real Weapons cannot do more Body than their DEF + BODY to a Target with resistant defenses... If so, Rapier Guy won't do more than 6 Body, and at most 30 Stun... If that can stun a Powered Armor character, then he isn't all that heavily armored... If you really want a House Rule, this is how I would suggest you do it...

Even so, what is 60 Stun going to do againt Power Armor Guy after you subtract half his total PD, and then compare to his CON...? If it can, then that's the possible payoff for Rapier Guy for breaking his weapon, and likely taking some damage himself from the impact...

[Duke Bushido]

A word wielding martial artist? Would that be like Chi power? I don't remember seeing that one in UMA or NH? :confused:
Sorry, couldn't resist.;)


Yep. From a long time back, in the old West. 'Course, we used to call 'em punslingers....

[ghost-angel]

Duke! Haven't seen you in ages. Hope things are good.

[Lord Liaden]

Good questions; and I'd given some thought to all of them.

It would require a successful Activation Roll first. BTW, nobody in our campaign has any defenses on an Activation Roll so the point would be moot, at least in our game.

Combat Luck is predicated on the idea the character is actively working to avoid getting hit. Since Zl'f has 6 of her 8 rPD provided by her Combat Luck the answer is no, she can't simply ignore a 1d6+1 handgun. She could probably ignore a 1 pip Killing attack; but we really don't see too many of those in our campaign. I may decide defenses provided by Combat Luck do not apply towards this rule since that Talent is already assuming active avoidance of an attack. That would seem a reasonable compromise.

Advantages on attacks would work as normal; so a PEN Killing attack against a Hero could do Stun assuming the hero didn't have appropriate Hardened defenses. However, the odds of a Real Weapon having PEN ammo is pretty much nil. AP would be more common, of course. If the AP attack is still incapable of doing BODY damage then my rule applies as described. If one BODY gets through due to a Limitation on the defenses, then clearly the defenses are inadequate to prevent any damage from the attack getting through and normal rules apply.

Kevlar cannot be made impenetrable to real weapons anyway without making it so heavy with ballistic inserts a normal couldn't move, so the question is largely moot (The real stuff would be sectional and/or have Activation Rolls). However, it is reasonable that Real Armor have a corresponding limitation to Real Weapons and would ignore this rule. So a hero wearing Real Armor as opposed to "bulletproof spandex" may or may not have sufficient defenses depending on the proportion of his defenses provided by that Real Armor.

Again, this rule applies only to attacks bought as and/or obviously with the Real Weapons Limitation (like a dropped cop's gun). Blasters, photon blasts, light sabers, mystic swords and other fictional weapons would do damage as designed. It's just meant to allow tough bricks to ignore mundane attacks like switchblades and 9mm pistols. An anti-tank missile hardly qualifies as "mundane" except perhaps against the likes of Superman. Few Champions bricks approach his level of defense.

As I mentioned I've been using the Real Weapon/ Real Armor distinction in my campaign for a while, and this is almost exactly how I handle these specific issues.

I have yet to see any published HERO writeup of a real-world weapon with the Penetrating Advantage; if anyone knows of one I'd like to hear where. :)

[Hugh Neilson]

This isn't about one character; a few of the players (including the primary GM, but not me) want a universal rules change where the stun lotto winfall doesn't apply to a character who didn't receive any body damage from an attack, especially in cases where it seems unrealistic.

They don't want to see the powered armor guy stunned/knocked-out from the swashbuckler-guy's rapier HKA that didn't do any body damage.

My simplistic question: does this rules change render Swashbuckler Guy useless against the opposition as well? He paid points for his powers too, right? It sounds like the real issue is "Power Armor Guy should be invulnerable to Swashbuckler's attacks for no point expenditure to PA and no savings to Swash". My preference is a game where Powered Armor Man and Swashbuckler can both be on the same team and feel like equal contributors. No player, in my experience, likes his character to be the less than effective sidekick.

So, in other words, what offsetting advantage does Swashbuckler get to level the playing field so PA (or any high rDEF concept) does not become the superior SFX?

Perhaps for reasons of realism, we require that powered armor be purchased as a vehicle. After all, how does bonus DEX and STR from powered armor add to the wearer's natural abilities? The driver can only react to the limit of his own abilities, and the suit's servos don't get any faster just because the pilot has superhuman speed. This would mean PA Man will be immune to attacks that don't do BOD, as the vehicle's defenses won't be breached.

Or maybe we require all stats purchased via Powered Armor to have No Figured, as making the suit stronger (more powerful servos) doesn't make it more durable, plus have a -0 limitation that they are not cumulative with stats of the wearer in excess of 8 (so +32 STR in powered armor means you have STR 40, even if the guy inside is STR 23). This also makes it more realistic - the fact the wearer is an olymic weightlifter rather than a 98 poind weakling doesn't make the servo-motors any stronger, does it?

These are only a couple of examples - we could certainly impose different limits on Powered Armor SFX, and the various other SFX and echanics, to level them off with weakening killing attacks, for realism. Of course, we're starting to look class-based, since characters will be better at somethings and worse than others based solely on their SFX.

It seems to me that the specific issue is more reflective of the stun lotto than a broader problem, so I'd look at a fix to the Stun lotto. Several have been suggested. I don't recall whether the "Make KA 5 points per DC" solution has been offered. Under this approach, each die of KA costs 5 points, does 1d6-1 STUN and does 1 BOD, 2 if a six is rolled. That eliminates the STUN lotto. KA's average more BOD and less STUN than equal DC normal attacks, and the wide variances are eliminated.

Or just ditch KA's entirely. Make claws, etc. an AP advantage and/or extra dice of normal damage. Not as much differentiation betwen KA's and normal attacks, of course, but if you want an attack designed to kill, just buy extra dice that do no STUN.

[Trebuchet]

As I mentioned I've been using the Real Weapon/ Real Armor distinction in my campaign for a while, and this is almost exactly how I handle these specific issues.Have you had any issues in your campaign with these rules? Any complaints from players who aren't immune to the mundane weaponry or other problems?


I have yet to see any published HERO writeup of a real-world weapon with the Penetrating Advantage; if anyone knows of one I'd like to hear where. :)The only real-world weapon I can think of that might possibly qualify as Penetrating would be HESH anti-tank rounds, which are designed to kill or incapacitate the crew with spalls knocked off the inside of the vehicle's armor from the force of the projectile's impact.

How you'd build that in Hero I'm not sure. Probably with Penetrating. :D

[Lord Liaden]

Have you had any issues in your campaign with these rules? Any complaints from players who aren't immune to the mundane weaponry or other problems?

In fact the response has been pretty much the opposite - the players love the four-color feel that this adds to combat. There are a few things to keep in mind about this, though: One, the characters with the lower Defenses are usually the ones who specialize in avoiding getting hit, so they don't really expect to be immune. Two, this only works against real-world weapons, and if you're running a four-color campaign you generally have supervillains and agents with super weapons which can appreciably thump the bricks, while the speedsters and martial artists gleefully mock them. :p

Three, if you saw my first post on the thread you read my addition of Reduced Penetration to the mechanics of this system. This allows some of the more lightly-armored PCs to take a hit from many conventional firearms and still keep going. They'll be a lot more sore than the bricks, but they'll survive. :eg:



The only real-world weapon I can think of that might possibly qualify as Penetrating would be HESH anti-tank rounds, which are designed to kill or incapacitate the crew with spalls knocked off the inside of the vehicle's armor from the force of the projectile's impact.

How you'd build that in Hero I'm not sure. Probably with Penetrating. :D

Hmm... based on that description it sounds more like some kind of Linked attack Triggered when the shell penetrates the vehicle's armor, but I'd need more info for an intelligent evaluation.

[Trebuchet]

Hmm... based on that description it sounds more like some kind of Linked attack Triggered when the shell penetrates the vehicle's armor, but I'd need more info for an intelligent evaluation.Well, the shell doesn't actually penetrate the vehicle's armor. That's the whole point of it. It hits the armor and smashes flat, transferring the impact energy to the armor, and a piece of armor on the inside of the vehicle thus breaks loose and proceeds to bounce around the interior at a high rate of speed (with predictable results for the crew). It's almost more of an Indirect attack. HESH, BTW, is an acronym for High Explosive Squash Head. IIRC they were a late WW2 invention of the German Army.

I'm sure a Google search would turn up any number of technical explanations and diagrams. Modern laminated armors like Chobham on the M1 Abrams are specifically designed to defeat this type of warhead because among the "laminations" are empty spaces to absorb the spalls.

[ghost-angel]

I have yet to see any published HERO writeup of a real-world weapon with the Penetrating Advantage; if anyone knows of one I'd like to hear where. :)
Penetrating Frangible Ammunition: Equipment Guide p69 (table p84); 5ER p266 (example power); Dark Champions p206

I make no claims to the accuracy of the build vs real life. Just that they're there in the books.

[Lord Liaden]

Thanks G-A, I'll take a look.

[Just Joe]

My simplistic question: does this rules change render Swashbuckler Guy useless against the opposition as well? He paid points for his powers too, right? It sounds like the real issue is "Power Armor Guy should be invulnerable to Swashbuckler's attacks for no point expenditure to PA and no savings to Swash". My preference is a game where Powered Armor Man and Swashbuckler can both be on the same team and feel like equal contributors. No player, in my experience, likes his character to be the less than effective sidekick.

So, in other words, what offsetting advantage does Swashbuckler get to level the playing field so PA (or any high rDEF concept) does not become the superior SFX?I don't see the problem. If Swashbuckler wants to be able to hurt PAG's, he just doesn't buy his sword as a real weapon. This might be because it's made of super-metallium, or because he is just THAT amazing with a sword, or for whatever reason. If players take the real weapon limitation in Lord Liaden's campaign, they do so knowing what they're getting into.

[Lord Liaden]

I think if I did allow a Penetrating weapon with the Real Weapon Limitation into my campaign, I would try treating the Penetrating Advantage as though it were Armor Piercing only for calculating whether the attack could do Body damage to the target with a maximum roll; i.e. divide the Defense by two and compare the result to maximum damage. If that maximum exceeded the Defense of the target, then the attack would do its normal Penetrating Body damage.

I would want to try this out in play, though; as I said, the situation hasn't come up in my campaign.

[Just Joe]

I might do it differently.

Xd6 RKA, No Knockback, Beam, -2 Reduced Stun Multiple linked to Drain Stun, Ranged, RKA Must Do Body (-1/2). That gets you the extra stun only after defenses with less fiddling around. YMMV, of course.Not a bad build, at least if the weapon is exceptional, but I'm not sure it's any simpler than my approach. If you want to handle a range of related cases, I think your approach becomes an even bigger hassle. Also, the extra stun should be at least approximately proportional to the amount of body that gets through.

[Just Joe]

One of the "other things" I mentioned above related specifically to the types of attacks that you're classifying as "must do Body to do Stun." Some of those attacks are just extremely likely to cause Body (e.g. lasers) due to very high dice, Armor Piercing, and/or (especially) Penetrating.I'm no expert on lasers, but I think they can vary in power extremely widely. A relatively weak laser could be a small number of dice and need not be AP or penetrating. I wasn't thinking of it being likely to do body, I was thinking it's hard for it to hurt you if it doesn't do body.


Penetrating would take on a much greater degree of importance, because it fulfills the Body damage requirement. Now, granted, I feel that more KAs should use it, but this would perform an end run on your mechanic.I don't generally use penetrating, nor is it at all common in my group. My approach would just mean that the higher stun X would apply to whatever body penetrated, just like body that got past armor by any other means. If it were likely to come up in a game of mine, I would have to give more thought as to whether this might be unbalancing, but right now it does not seem that way to me.

[Just Joe]

As far as "no STUN unless it does BOD", I think that might be a viable limitation for specific attacks, but I wouldn't want it as the standard.

First, you can eliminate the +X Stun Multiple advantage - it's useless to trade down BOD to do more STUN under this model.Not necessarily useless, but less useful, or useful less often.


But most critically is that it doesn't match the reality. A mace clanging across a helmet will still hurt, even if the helm prevents severe injury. A bullet striking a kevlar vest fails to penetrate, but can still KO the vest's wearer. I can't, off the cuff, think of any great examples where STUN is dependent on BOD damage being inflicted, and while I suspect they exist, I also think they are rare enough that they are best handled as a modifier to the standard, rather than being made the standard.So you're with me, right Hugh? ;)

As for must do BOD to do STUN, possibly lasers and shurikens (though the latter might just be so small as to make this generally true). For weapons that do little STUN (compared to bullets and maces) unless they do BOD, add switchblades, light bows, hacksaws, and monofilament knives, to name a few.

[Just Joe]

OddHat, I was speaking specifically to JustJoe's build in that post above. I feel the "must do Body" limitation is best used only for those things that have to get into the bloodstream or at least past the skin in order for a linked effect to occur. For example, simulating a drug-filled dart or a venomous snake's bite. In those examples, the killing damage is truly minimal and the greatest damage comes from the linked effect. This is not an appropriate mechanic to simulate something that will have no problem getting through the sole of your average running shoe.I'm not sure whether you're misunderstanding me or I'm misunderstanding you (or both). But for the record, it was OddHat's build as an alternative to mine that used the "must do body" limitation. My idea had some resemblance to such a limitation, but not that close of one

[Lord Liaden]

I feel the responsibility to continue my input on this, since I was the first one to raise the "Real Weapon/ Real Armor" analogy. If anyone thinks I'm out of line or missing something crucial, please let me know. :o

I'd just like to point out that my suggestion was really just intended to represent the resilience of superhumans to real-world weaponry, primarily for more four-color supers settings. In Hugh Neilson's example which Just Joe quoted above, the mace which presumably would have been built with "Real Weapon," strikes a kevlar vest (all published examples of which have been built with "Real Armor"). In this case the two Limitations cancel each other out, so that they would affect each other as per the normal rules. Now if one of these items was an "energized morningstar," or the other was "omnium steel chainmail," then the outcome might be different. ;)

As Hugh points out, this should not be the standard for Killing Attacks, nor was that ever my intention. I freely admit that for the issue with which Thrakazog started this thread - modifying how KA function generally - this mechanic doesn't really help.

[Duke Bushido]

Duke! Haven't seen you in ages. Hope things are good.

Hiya, GA!

Great to be back!

I'll give you the short, obedience-to-social-graces version:

Bought a beautiful piece of property with a run-down house. Moved out to the woods (a great place to be!). No net access. Remodeled the house-- almost. Wife changed her mind with about one month of work left to go. Still got the property; she's considering demo and complete rebuild.

But I got net now.

Great to be back.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread. :D

[Hugh Neilson]

I don't see the problem. If Swashbuckler wants to be able to hurt PAG's, he just doesn't buy his sword as a real weapon. This might be because it's made of super-metallium, or because he is just THAT amazing with a sword, or for whatever reason. If players take the real weapon limitation in Lord Liaden's campaign, they do so knowing what they're getting into.

In LL's game, that works and I like that approach. As I understand the initial poster's house rule, ALL KA's will face the "no BOD inflicted means no STUN gets through" restriction. It is to that house rule that I direct the question of offsetting benefits to Swashbuckler (or restrictions/drawbacks to PAG).

[JamesG]

In LL's game, that works and I like that approach. As I understand the initial poster's house rule, ALL KA's will face the "no BOD inflicted means no STUN gets through" restriction. It is to that house rule that I direct the question of offsetting benefits to Swashbuckler (or restrictions/drawbacks to PAG).

Hi, I'm also in the same game as CBikle and Thrakazog and it is myself and the main GM who are mostly pushing for the house rule in question.

Let me clear up a misconception here. The rule proposed, as mentioned in the first post in this thread, specifies that STUN done by KAs that don't do Body is halved. Not eliminated, but halved.

So KAs can still dish out PLENTY of stun on a good roll. Just not OVERWHELMING amounts of Stun to high defense targets.

And my PC (Musketeer) is the only one in the group who regularly uses a Killing Attack. Beleive me, I'm not pushing for a rule that will render my PC ineffective. I still expect Musketeer to be plenty effective. But now when we face the high defense master villains or Brick, our tactics will need to be a little more advanced than "Let Musketeer beat on him until he rolls a 6 on the stun multiple." Actually, if Musketeer gets a six on the stun multipler and an above average Body roll, he's still going to be dishing out about the same or more stun than the rest of the PCs and their normal damage attacks, even after the halving. But at least it won't be double (or more) everyone else's.

Also:



But most critically is that it doesn't match the reality. A mace clanging across a helmet will still hurt, even if the helm prevents severe injury. A bullet striking a kevlar vest fails to penetrate, but can still KO the vest's wearer. I can't, off the cuff, think of any great examples where STUN is dependent on BOD damage being inflicted, and while I suspect they exist, I also think they are rare enough that they are best handled as a modifier to the standard, rather than being made the standard.

Your examples are flawed (IMHO). A mace off the helmet can cause a concussion. That's BODY damage. A bullet against a kevlar vest can crack ribs. That's BODY damage. Just because it does not pierce the flesh does not mean it's "no Body" in HERO terms. So I do not feel you've shown a real world example of a Killing Attack that does "no Body" but still does significant stun.

[Thrakazog]

I'd like to take this moment to point out that Musketeer wears a plumed and dashingly-colored hat.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[ghost-angel]

So KAs can still dish out PLENTY of stun on a good roll. Just not OVERWHELMING amounts of Stun to high defense targets.
I personally think you could still be best served by switching to a flat 3 STUNx; and that's from experience from the same frustrations.

As for the Kevlar/Bullet - even without the cracked ribs (Body) it can still leave one heckuva bruise (Stun).

[Hugh Neilson]

I personally think you could still be best served by switching to a flat 3 STUNx; and that's from experience from the same frustrations.

I agree that the 3x Multiple is a superior approach. The problem is the KA extremes at the high end, which in some respects balances out extremes at the low end (but not perfectly). The solution is not to downgrade only the high end, but to eliminate the wide swings. A fixed stun multiple meets that goal.


As for the Kevlar/Bullet - even without the cracked ribs (Body) it can still leave one heckuva bruise (Stun).

Bingo. And the helmed warrior struck by a mace can still be knocked for a loop, even if he took no BOD.

[Gary]

This idea is reposted from a previous thread.

Since the other thread was a little cluttered, I'd thought I'd start a new one. Just brainstorming and borrowing an idea from GURPs. How about making KA a +1/4 advantage on Normal Attacks that are stopped by Resistant Defenses. Body and Stun are rolled as normal, but any Body that gets through defenses are doubled and Stun is increased by a corresponding amount. 2d6 would be subtracted for Knockback, not 3d6.

Let's compare 15d6 normal attack vs 12d6 'killing attack' at 75 AP and assume they roll average.

Vs 15/30 defenses, the NA would do 0 Body and 22.5 net stun while the KA would do 0 Body and 12 net stun.

Vs 10/30 defenses, the NA would do 0 Body and 22.5 net stun while the KA would do 2*2=4 Body and 12+2=14 net stun.

Vs 5/20 defenses, the NA would do 0 Body and 32.5 net stun while the KA would do 7*2=14 Body and 22+7=29 net stun.

Vs 0/20 defenses, the NA would do 0 Body and 32.5 net stun while the KA would do 12*2=24 Body and 42+12=54 net stun.

Some assessments:

1) Against high resistant defense targets, the NA is significantly better. Which kinda makes sense since a warhammer is better against plate armor than a sword would be.

2) Against many inanimate objects and Force Walls, the Normal Attack is better. Again, a blaster should probably be better against a door than a laser in doing structural damage.

3) Against low resistant defense targets, the KA is significantly better. As it should be.

4) Against many objects and Entangles, the KA is significantly better.

For stuff like rapiers and lasers, you might want to have a custom -1/4 Limitation that Body after defenses isn't doubled vs inanimate objects. And perhaps make it so that any focus with the Real Weapon limitation only multiples by 1.5 instead of 2 to keep the body count reasonable.

Needless to say, any weapon would be converted into it's equivalent damage class in damage. So a 1d6+1 pistol is 20 AP and would be converted into a 3d6 KA (15 AP with a +1/4 Advantage). A 2d6 rifle would be converted into 5d6 KA (25 AP with a +1/4 Advantage).

Nice, clean, and elegant. Fixes the Stun Lotto and does its job of shredding unprotected targets while not being as good against high resistant defense targets. Targets in a non-superheroic campaign would rightfully fear it, while Supers usually have enough Resistant Defenses so that they don't have too much to fear. Seems to fit the genre material pretty well and gives a reason why VIPER would outfit its agents with 10d6 EBs rather than assault rifles when dealing with tough supers.

[CBikle]

I'd like to take this moment to point out that Musketeer wears a plumed and dashingly-colored hat.


To be fair, he only wears that when he goes to Barbara Streisand concerts or when he goes antiquing on fire island.

[SteveZilla]

Some HERO sword writeups make the killing and non-killing damage into slots in a Multipower, with the non-killing one representing smiting with the flat of the blade.

There is also the optional maneuver, Club Weapon, on p392 of 5re.

[SteveZilla]

My counter-proposal was a flat X3 stun mult, which would reduce chances of the stun lotto, but some of the players don't feel that the rule is balanced and/or accurately reflect how some super-heroes are seemingly immune to small and heavy weapons fire (ie: taking little or no stun) that doesn't appear to "do body".

Personally, I think that's more of a reflection of really high defenses, Con, Damage reduction, etc. I don't think a house rule is necessary to reflect this.

There is also the possiblity of buying Missile Deflection defined as "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm prepared for an attack". It exactly mimics the old B/W Superman TV show where he'd just stand there in his classic Superman pose while the crooks would unload their guns at him. Just don't ask me to explain why he'd duck the now empty gun when it was thrown at him. :winkgrin:

[SteveZilla]

70 or more on 12d6 is about 23.9 million to one odds.

Increased Stun Multiple is significantly underpriced at 1/4 and overpriced at 1/2. It should be +3/4 for +2SM or +1 for +3 SM.

Here's some grist for the mill. Probability graphs for a 3d6+1 RKA (standard stun multiple), and all regular damage graphs from 1d6 to 30d6:

Stun_of_3d6+1_RKA.zip (http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=22284&d=1152064025)

dice_graphs.zip (http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=22285&d=1152086851)

[Foxiekins]

Let me clear up a misconception here. The rule proposed, as mentioned in the first post in this thread, specifies that STUN done by KAs that don't do Body is halved. Not eliminated, but halved.

So KAs can still dish out PLENTY of stun on a good roll. Just not OVERWHELMING amounts of Stun to high defense targets.

Ah, halving is a LOT different than eliminating, yes...

Hmmmmm..... So a 1d6 AP Rapier with enough STR behind it for 2d6 damage, could do at most 12 Body and 60 Stun... Or 30 Stun if the 12 Body doesn't Penetrate... It's simple to apply, reminds me a bit of the Body Multiplier for Killing Attacks and Hit Locations, and doesn't require refiguring the cost of everything... And it emphasizes the Body Damage of a Killing Attack by leaving it as is...

I've contemplated that Killing Attacks might be better with a 1d4 Stun Multiple before this, but this House Rule is simple to apply, and seems to correct the same issue... I say go ahead and use it, and I'm tempted to steal the idea for myself...

[SteveZilla]

My current group is debating a new house rule and, being curious, I was wondering what people here had to say about it. The rule is this:

If a KA does no body to it's target, after defenses, then STUN damage remaining after defenses are applied is halved.

Example, Gun Boy shoots his pistol (a 2d6 RKA) at Mr. Brick. He hits his target and rolls 10 BODY with a STUN multiplier roll of 5 for a total of 40 STUN. Mr. Brick's rPD is 25. Since no BODY damage gets through, then the 15 STUN Mr. Brick normally would take after his PD is applied gets halved to 7.

Our campaign is 4-color superheroic. The idea is to better reflect the way super-tough charcaters like the Thing or Colossus seem unfazed as the bullets bounce off of them.

At it's base, is this primarily a problem with the Stun Lotto and/or the possible over-abundance of KAs in the game? If it's the latter, that would seem to be the purview of GM's control of the game, and not a mechanics issue. If it's the former, why change lots of other stuff to fix a single thing?

If you want to just make the top end of the Stun Multiple even less likely, you could try changing the Stun Multiple to 2d6/2-1, rounded down, minimum of one. It greatly reduces the chance of a 5, and has the added benefit of moderately reducing the chance of a '1' result as well.


2d6/2-1 Odds 1d6-1 Odds
1 27.7778 1 33.33333
2 30.5556 2 16.66667
3 25.0 3 16.66667
4 13.8889 4 16.66667
5 2.77778 5 16.66667

[Foxiekins]

Okay, I'm confused now... Is the halving of Stun if Body doesn't penetrate done before or after defenses...?

[ghost-angel]

Okay, I'm confused now... Is the halving of Stun if Body doesn't penetrate done before or after defenses...?
Halving is done after Defenses in the proposed method. And it's not if Body Doesn't Penetrate. It's if Max Body That Can Be Rolled < rDEF then Stun is halved After Defenses are applied.

[Hugh Neilson]

Halving is done after Defenses in the proposed method. And it's not if Body Doesn't Penetrate. It's if Max Body That Can Be Rolled < rDEF then Stun is halved After Defenses are applied.

My sense was that it was STUN after defenses that was halved (ie effectively 50% damage reduction), but that the attack had to inflict BOD in order to avoid the halving (ie a 2d6 KA rolling 8 BOD would be halved against a 10 rDEF target). Perhaps one of the participants in the campaign proposing this house rule can remind us, as there have been a lot of other alternatives presented on the thread.

Another question for that house rule:

If a character wanted his defenses NOT to cause such Stun halving, how would that be handled? It seems reasonable that this would be a limitation on the defenses. I suppose some kind of disadvantage would work, but the limitation seems more appropriate. This would seem an appropriate limitation for, say, defenses that represent taking all the STUn and BOD, but rapidly regenerating the harm.

[Thrakazog]

The house rule as originally proposed:

KA's which do no BODY damage to the target after defenses only do 1/2 the normal STUN total after defenses. KA's which do any BODY damage at all apply STUN normally to the target.

Example #1: 3d6 KA rolls 11 BODY and 44 STUN damage. Target defenses are 15rPD/30PD. No BODY damage is taken by the target, so the 14 points of STUN which normally would apply are halved to 7 points.

Example #2: 3d6 KA rolls 11 BODY and 44 STUN damage. Target defenses are 10rPD/20PD. Target takes 1 BODY damage and 24 STUN damage as per the normal rules.

[SteveZilla]

The house rule as originally proposed:

KA's which do no BODY damage to the target after defenses only do 1/2 the normal STUN total after defenses. KA's which do any BODY damage at all apply STUN normally to the target.

Example #1: 3d6 KA rolls 11 BODY and 44 STUN damage. Target defenses are 15rPD/30PD. No BODY damage is taken by the target, so the 14 points of STUN which normally would apply are halved to 7 points.

Example #2: 3d6 KA rolls 11 BODY and 44 STUN damage. Target defenses are 10rPD/20PD. Target takes 1 BODY damage and 24 STUN damage as per the normal rules.

How would Combat Luck work with this house rule?

[Foxiekins]

How would Combat Luck work with this house rule?

I'd say it would work just like any other resistant defense... Confusion out of the way, this is an extremely simple check to make... An attack does Body, or it doesn't...

I like it...

Definately stealing it for myself...