double stun only for con stunning

[dugfromthearth]

I want a power (a lash, but could be a slap, nerve strike, poison, or other effect) that does not do much stun towards knocking out a character but can easily con stun them.

I got the idea from double knockback of doubling the stun only for determining con stun - rather then buying extra dice and putting the limitation "only for con stun" on them, which seems more complicated and clunkier.

For the effect I want, I want the stun doubled AFTER defenses, which significantly reduces the value.

+1 would be basically just buying more damage which would actually do stun.

so a +1/2 advantage seemed about right.

other suggestions?

does +1/2 seem right?

[badger3k]

This one's easier. Right now I can't see any other easy way. For my taste, +1/2 sounds ok for 2xstun, only vs con to stun somebody. Works for me.

[OddHat]

I'd say +3/4. Once somebody is CON stuned they're going to be out of the fight in the next phase unless someone comes to their rescue.

[dugfromthearth]

3/4 is the cost of double knockback, and it doesn't seem as powerful as double knockback.

I would have gone with 3/4 if the doubling applied before defenses, but with the doubling applied after defenses it seemed too expensive.

[Lord Mhoram]

I'd go with +1/2, if I went with an advantage.

I'd actually just buy more dice, and all the extra dice would have "Only inflicts stun for purposes of stunning, target takes no actual stun" at maybe a -1, and "Stunning damage can be no more than double the base attack's damage after defenses" for another -1 (maybe less depending on how much damage the base attack could do).

[BNakagawa]

This would be better built as buying more DC of attack with the appropriate limitation. A pretty large limitation if it only applies to stun through defenses. (unless you've already bought it AVLD/NND/BoECV)

Introducing an advantage that multiplies damage (even if "ONLY" for the purpose of achieving a Con Stun result) is a can of worms you probably don't really want to open.

Notable complications: can you buy it more than once? Do you have to take the additional +1 penalty if you buy an autofire attack that uses this advantage? Can you put this on an NND? AVLD? Ego attack?

$0.02

[Hugh Neilson]

I agree with the posters who'v already weighed in on the side of extra dice with limitations. These extra dice do no knockback (-1/4), do Stun only for the purposes of stunning (-1/2; no STUN at all is -3/4) and can't be spread (-1/4), so I'd call that -1 in aggregate.

They also (if I read your comments correctly) fail to work at all if the opponent takes no Stun before these extra dice, and I'd give that a futher limit based on how often that's likely to happen in the campaign. Altough considering no stun at all is a -3/4 and you already got -1/2, I'm not really inclined to reduce the cost any more for further possibilities of doing no stun.

I agree with the posters who note an advantage is not appropriate for this. The aproach above raises the cost by 50% regardless of how many other advantages the power has.

[austenandrews]

I judge Stunning an opponent to be a lot more potent that others here. Often one Phase of being Stunned is all it takes to turn a battle. As a GM I'd rule that you have to buy extra dice of damage with Limitations, but I'd be hard-pressed to give more than -1/2 for it. Certainly not as high as -1. The idea is to build a power that will in a single shot reduce the target to 0 OCV/0 DCV and effectively Dispel an entire Phase. In my view that's worth more than 2.5 pints per 1d6.

-AA

[Supreme Serpent]

I don't remember the limit values I gave it, but some time ago I did something similar for a knock-out attack (poison dart, etc). Wanted to be able to easily KO a normal, but not heavily affect characters w/high CON/STUN. Ended up doing 4D6 NND, with extra 4D6 if target stunned by attack, extra 4D6 if target stunned and KO'd by attack. Average hit on normal would end up at 42 stun, which would stun them and put them to -22 stun, but to most supers would only do 14 stun.

[dugfromthearth]

"Notable complications: can you buy it more than once? Do you have to take the additional +1 penalty if you buy an autofire attack that uses this advantage? Can you put this on an NND? AVLD? Ego attack?"

Okay these complications certainly do make the advantage more trouble then the extra dice with a limitation.

I figure the lim is -1/2 as a base, but at that point it does body.

no body is worth -0

If an attack does not body does it automatically then do no knockback, or would you add no knockback for -1/4?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by dugfromthearth
Okay these complications certainly do make the advantage more trouble then the extra dice with a limitation.

I figure the lim is -1/2 as a base, but at that point it does body.

no body is worth -0

If an attack does not body does it automatically then do no knockback, or would you add no knockback for -1/4?

Unless you think No Body is a +1/4 advantage if it still does knockback, I'd say it still does knockback. Ego attacks do neuther BOD nor Knockback, but can add "does knockback for +1/4 IIRC. That doesn't enable them to do BOD.

[austenandrews]

I'd call it Stun Only (since that's the only effect it's designed for), which is a -0 Lim, then add -1/2 "only for Stunning." Anything more seems gratuitous to me. It'll probably have a bunch of other Limitations on top of that (Focus, et al.) so the cost ought to work out in the end.

-AA

[dugfromthearth]

okay so I'm looking at going with extra dice with the limitations "only for stunning -1/2" and "does no knockback -1/4" for a combined -3/4.

[Bartman]

I would also look at using the standard effect option. I just find it more asthetically pleasing to have something like 10d6 EB +18 stun only for con stun, rather than 10d6 EB +6d6 only for con stun.

[Dust Raven]

If all you are doing is Stunning the target, you could always do this:

Stunner: Suppress STUN 10d6 (standarf effect: 30) 50 Actie; Instant (-1/2) 33 Real.

It doesn't cause any real loss of STUN, but if the target has a CON of 29 or less, they will be Stunned. If they 29 or less actuall STUN, they will even momentarily black out, but will still have their full STUN an instant later. All of this assumes they don't have any Power Defense.

This type of attack is best when Linked to a damaging attack, such as an NND or AVLD.

[dugfromthearth]

interesting approach. I will have to look at that and play with it a bit.

it looks good.

[prestidigitator]

I agree with the Suppress: Stun idea. Or maybe a NND attack/Ego Attack linked to your normal attack (like the poison examples). Most likely is just extra dice that do no Body. I would call extra dice, "only to stun target," at most a -1/4, if I allowed it a Limitation at all. The primary purposes of doing Stun are to stun and knock out an opponent. Stunning them can in ways be easier (if they have 200 Stun, you may still only need to do 10 at once to stun them), even if it is slightly less detrimental and perhaps shorter term. Why shouldn't smacking a character with something that might stun him/her also contribute to knocking him/her out? If I got hit with enough attacks that had a chance of stunning me, I would probably expect to lose consciousness eventually, no matter the nature of the attack. There is a reason why the whole system makes reference to stunning and knocking out a target in just about all the same places, and with just about the exact same effects.

Consider: I stun you. You are 1/2 DCV, cannot act, and have half the targetting penalties (I think I'll hit you in the head now) until not only your next Phase, but the one after (it takes your next Phase to "recover"). Hmm. And don't think you can abort your next action. Oh, by the way, everything you have that is not Persistent turns off (that includes those Combat Skill Levels, folks!). If you were flying, you are now hitting the ground and taking damage, by the way.

[Dust Raven]

And this is why my players like to make characters with high CONs.

[dugfromthearth]

as soon as you get an action you recover from being stunned. It happens at your dex, so the effect only lasts until your next phase - not the one after that.

in supers the half dcv and 1/2 targeting penalty can be nasty, if the gm allows you to target the head - which I do not allow in supers.

in heroic levels a -4 to target the head is still a major penalty, and half dcv only lowers you from maybe 4 to 2, so they are not that severe.

likewise in heroic you don't have flying and forcefields and other non-persistent powers.

So this might be a heroic/superheroic issue. Being stunned in superheroes is usually a lot nastier then being stunned in heroics.

[austenandrews]

For that matter, is it legal to Dispel STUN? Just wondering.

-AA

[dugfromthearth]

you should be able to suppress stun - you can drain it after all.

[Farkling]

In consideration of the original idea...aren't you looking at Reducd Penetration from underneath (or upside down) ?

[Dust Raven]

Originally posted by austenandrews
For that matter, is it legal to Dispel STUN? Just wondering.

-AA

I brought this up with Steve some time ago in the Questions forum.

You can't Dispel Stun because it's a Characteristic, not a Power. You can Drain or Suppress it though. And targets can be Stunned if the effect rolled is higher than their CON.

[BNakagawa]

A rhetorical question:

Isn't STUN essentially a defense? (it wards off unconsciousness) So wouldn't the suppress be halved?

$0.02

[Farkling]

I've never seen a BODY Drain halved...why would a STUN drain be halved?

I suppose those WOULD be defenses though...hmmm....perhaps the BODY and STUN drains should have half effect...

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling
I've never seen a BODY Drain halved...why would a STUN drain be halved?

I suppose those WOULD be defenses though...hmmm....perhaps the BODY and STUN drains should have half effect...

An interesting question. I'm inclined to define a Defense as something that prevents loss of Stun and BOD (or other things, in the case of exotic defenses). The definition has to have limits, otherwise we get all these "defenses":

- REC prevents me staying unconscious
- END keeps me from taking STUN from overexertion
- CON keeps me from being Stunned
- DEX contributes to DCV (DEFENSE-ive combat value, right?)
- EGO contributes to DECV
- Hey, EGO, STR and CON all contribute to defenses! [that's more of a stretch in that the defenses don't get drained along with the stat)
- PRE and EGO both give you presence defense
- Denisty Increase provides knockback resistance
- and so does Clinging
- Regeneration keeps you from running out of BOD
- Life Support is NND defense
- Any common power can defend against NND's
- So can characteristic and skill rolls

And, since we all know players who will do so (none on the boards of course ;) )

- Flight lets me avoid combat preserving my STUN and BOD - all movement powers are defense
- Healing, absorption and Aid boost stats that can prevent being knocked out
- What about my Transfer? It can restore STUN! It should cost double to drain too!

Finally, of course:

- The best Defense is a good Offense. :D

Is there anything NOT defensive now? Hey, some of my disad's cause me to flee combat - aren't they also defensive? :confused:

I think I'll stick to defensive powers being limited to PD, ED and the powerrs under the "defense powers" label in FREd.

Either that or make them cost 4x to adjust and halve the price of adjustment powers (since they either have half effect or 1/4 effect. :rolleyes:

[dugfromthearth]

stun is not a defense.

pd, ed, mental defense, etc are defenses of stun.

however - if you wanted to suppress CON so that it was easier to stun someone I would probably consider CON to be a defense. Although I'm not sure about that.

[Tech]

My brother came up with his own advantage called "Stunning". For a +1/2 advantage, the person being struck only gets 1/2 his CON for purposes of being stunned. I think it's well balanced and would use it more but the players don't care for it. (shrugs)

[dugfromthearth]

hmm, basically armor piercing being applied to CON.

seems like a decent comparison on the face of it.

[austenandrews]

Hey, that's it, Suppress CON, "Only for purposes of Stunning." It's just as good as Suppress STUN but, um, a little more expensive.

Have we tapped this out yet?

-AA

[BNakagawa]

Originally posted by Tech
My brother came up with his own advantage called "Stunning". For a +1/2 advantage, the person being struck only gets 1/2 his CON for purposes of being stunned. I think it's well balanced and would use it more but the players don't care for it. (shrugs)

I don't like this, either.

Same issues: Can you buy this on an ego attack (eww) can you buy this advantage more than once (ewwwwwww) can you buy this on an NND/AVLD (ewww)

I mean, worst case scenario: Buy a couple d6 of NND with fixed result, multiple purchases of stunning, uncontrolled continuous and your target will never get another phase. (ewwwwww)

Alternately, buy 4d6 EGO attack with stunning 2x and you've got a 60 ap power that hits trivially and stuns Grond on an average roll. (ewwwww)

I wouldn't allow this.
$0.02

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by dugfromthearth
as soon as you get an action you recover from being stunned. It happens at your dex, so the effect only lasts until your next phase - not the one after that.
Wrong. Your next normal Phase is taken up while you are, "recovering from being stunned." If you look really carefully at the chart that describes modifiers to DCV, you'll see 1/2 DCV and 1/2 targetting penalties for not only, "Stunned," but also, "Recovering From Being Stunned." That means: I stun you in 6. Your Phase is on 9, which is the action you must use up recovering from being stunned. Your next Phase is on 12, which is when you are finally able to act, can activate your non-persistent powers, and finally get back your full DCV.You lose your powers and DCV not only at the point I hit you, but for the Phase you lost as well.

[dugfromthearth]

I will look up the recovering from being stunned in the rules when I get home.


A problem with CON being halved for stunning is that you can't buy a counter to it (CON hardened), unless you count inherent.

[Tech]

Originally posted by BNakagawa
Alternately, buy 4d6 EGO attack with stunning 2x and you've got a 60 ap power that hits trivially and stuns Grond on an average roll. (ewwwww)

I wouldn't allow this.
$0.02

Assuming you're talking about the 'Stunning' advantage, the entire power with Stunning 1x on 4d6 would be 60 AP. There is no 2x on the advantage (can only buy once). A 6d6 Ego attack is quite powerful, also.

[Dust Raven]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
Wrong. Your next normal Phase is taken up while you are, "recovering from being stunned." If you look really carefully at the chart that describes modifiers to DCV, you'll see 1/2 DCV and 1/2 targetting penalties for not only, "Stunned," but also, "Recovering From Being Stunned." That means: I stun you in 6. Your Phase is on 9, which is the action you must use up recovering from being stunned. Your next Phase is on 12, which is when you are finally able to act, can activate your non-persistent powers, and finally get back your full DCV.You lose your powers and DCV not only at the point I hit you, but for the Phase you lost as well.

Um...Right.

Page 274 of FREd: "He regains his full DCV (and placed shot modifiers return to normal), but he still cannot act until his next Phase; recovering from being Stunned is all he can do that phase. However, after recovering from being Stunned, a character my, if he wishes, Abort to a defensive Action (even in the same Segment in which he recovers from being Stunned).

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Dust Raven
Page 274 of FREd: "He regains his full DCV (and placed shot modifiers return to normal), but he still cannot act until his next Phase; recovering from being Stunned is all he can do that phase. However, after recovering from being Stunned, a character my, if he wishes, Abort to a defensive Action (even in the same Segment in which he recovers from being Stunned).]
Hmm. I would call that a pretty direct contradiction with the DCV chart. Maybe a question on the Rules board is appropriate.

[Dust Raven]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
Hmm. I would call that a pretty direct contradiction with the DCV chart. Maybe a question on the Rules board is appropriate.

I'm a bit confused....what contradiction with the DCV chart? What chart?

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Dust Raven
]I'm a bit confused....what contradiction with the DCV chart? What chart?
The "DCV Modifiers" chart on 5e, pg 245 lists two distinct entries: "Stunned" and "Recovering from being Stunned." Both of these conditions impose 1/2 DCV and 1/2 Hit Location modifiers. Since they were listed seperately, I figured they must be two different states, and the only two states I could think of that made sense for this were: character is hit, and hasn't yet come to his/her lost action--the one which now must be used to recover from being stunned--and character has used the Phase to recover from being stunned instead of acting normally, but has not reached another (normal) Phase (i.e. (s)he is still "recovering").I guess Steve's answer rules out this interpretation, so I now have no idea why both of these conditions are listed in the chart.

[C_Zeree]

Not what your asking for really, but adding my bit.

Stun them for some time for 15 RP.

Stun: Entangle 1d6, 2 DEF, Works Against CON, Not STR (+1/4), Cannot Be Escaped With Teleportation (+1/4), Takes No Damage From Physical Attacks All Attacks (+1/2) (30 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), Cannot Form Barriers (-1/4), Attack Must Do STUN (-1/4)

[austenandrews]

Originally posted by C_Zeree
Stun: Entangle 1d6, 2 DEF, Works Against CON, Not STR (+1/4), Cannot Be Escaped With Teleportation (+1/4), Takes No Damage From Physical Attacks All Attacks (+1/2) (30 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), Cannot Form Barriers (-1/4), Attack Must Do STUN (-1/4)

Good grief, now I've seen everything! :)

Actually it's clever, in an utterly twisted way. But I can't wait to see someone with CON Usable As Attack to help their friends escape the Stun-net. ;)

-AA

[dugfromthearth]

I agree, that is clever in a twisted way.

I would make by con instead of str be a major advantage though, not +1/4.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by dugfromthearth
]I agree, that is clever in a twisted way.

I would make by con instead of str be a major advantage though, not +1/4.
Yes. I would make it the difference between, say, an AVLD and an AVLD that works against common defenses (I forget the exact values).

[C_Zeree]

Doin my best to "think out of the box." Gotta love HERO.

Although, there was supposed to be an extra +3/4 Adder, NND vs. succesful CON roll. With the new HD v2 it stripped it off because you can't use NND with Entangles. Ooops.

The idea was based off a mental entangle. The character overcomes it by rolling CON as he would strength to overcome it. Other characters can't aid through CON helping. An applicaiton of Healing does act like an attack though.

Should have fully looked it over, before class rush. :)

[Dust Raven]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
The "DCV Modifiers" chart on 5e, pg 245 lists two distinct entries: "Stunned" and "Recovering from being Stunned." Both of these conditions impose 1/2 DCV and 1/2 Hit Location modifiers. Since they were listed seperately, I figured they must be two different states, and the only two states I could think of that made sense for this were: character is hit, and hasn't yet come to his/her lost action--the one which now must be used to recover from being stunned--and character has used the Phase to recover from being stunned instead of acting normally, but has not reached another (normal) Phase (i.e. (s)he is still "recovering").I guess Steve's answer rules out this interpretation, so I now have no idea why both of these conditions are listed in the chart.

Oh that....mmm....Nothing in the FAQ....nothing in the Errata either...most strange.

Oh well....when in doubt always trust the text, never a table. If my guess is correct, "Recovering From Being Stunned" and "Stunned" are the same thing, and both stop once the character recovers, on his DEX, when next he would have an action. Not between then and when he actuall acts next.

[EDIT] Just checked the Rules Questions Board. Guess that answers it for both of us. You had me scratching my head for a while there :D.