Taming Absolutes

[Mentor]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Well, that clinches it, then. Automatons are too unbalanced and thus broken.

 

But seriously, folks, the automaton rules do create a sort of interesting challenge for fisticuffs and force beam heavy genres if the defenses are not somehow balanced to allow the PCs some possibility of winning.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

And while I DO agree with you and applaud the point you bring up' date=' I think you are stretching too much, way too much, as you say "most walls, machines..." (as stated, automotons to me simply do not apply to these arguments). In point of fact, most walls and machines are significantly lower than 8 DEF, they will be more quickly and easily blasted with KAs, and I'm not sure how one can say any more than that. It doesn't invalidate your point regarding higher-rated systems, but for blowing through standard environmental stuff they perform as the book suggests.[/quote']I was operating under the assumption that if the attack, be it Killing or normal, blows a hole in the wall/barrier/vehicle, it's pretty much worked as intended. Unless you're trying to allow the occupants of a stadium egree through that hole all at once, any hole is good enough. A larger hole in most cases is superfluous.

[zornwil]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

I was operating under the assumption that if the attack' date=' be it Killing or normal, blows a hole in the wall/barrier/vehicle, it's pretty much worked as intended. Unless you're trying to allow the occupants of a stadium egree through that hole all at once, any hole is good enough. A larger hole in most cases is superfluous. [/quote']

True point, but if you want to make sure you can knock down walls and so on, it's handy to use a low-level KA. And of course the common use to break foci is there, too.

[Guest NGD Illuminati]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

I haven't found a fix that satisfied me: a set multiple of 2 makes killing attacks all but useless, a set multiple of 3 makes them average the same stun damage as normal attacks but still leaves a lot of swing (and higher BODY averages) - the stun lotto is two part - the stun multiplier AND the wilder body totals obtained with fewer dice, and overall a substantially better bet than normal attacks.

 

That's why I prefer to replace the mechanic altogether.

More BODY than a normal attack would seem in line with the concept of killing attacks. The objections from those who dislike KA seem to center around the way Stun is executed (We love that word!). No single method will be acceptable to everybody. Persuasive arguments have been made on both sides. Perhaps rather than disputing the rationale for KA and since Hero Games has indicated no intent to change the Killing Attack rules, it would be more profitable for posters to focus on coming up with a couple of reasonable House Rules to address those issues?

 

Fnord.

 

Hammerlock shows his corset with rotary.

[zornwil]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

More BODY than a normal attack would seem in line with the concept of killing attacks. The objections from those who dislike KA seem to center around the way Stun is executed (We love that word!). No single method will be acceptable to everybody. Persuasive arguments have been made on both sides. Perhaps rather than disputing the rationale for KA and since Hero Games has indicated no intent to change the Killing Attack rules, it would be more profitable for posters to focus on coming up with a couple of reasonable House Rules to address those issues?

 

Fnord.

 

Hammerlock shows his corset with rotary.

Is this your first serious post?

[Guest NGD Illuminati]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Is this your first serious post?

"Reply hazy. Ask again later."

 

Fnord.

 

Amythest railguns bring posies and melancholy.

[DangerousDan]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

The problems is, which I think I've said three times now, just because Sean doesn't like Invulnerability DOES NOT mean that it doesn't have a place in the system. If he doesn't like it he can just NOT ALLOW it in his game. It isn't his cup of tea, not the way he likes to run a game, fine, but I fail to see how adding it would take away in any shape or form from his role playing experience such that it has absolutely no place in anyone's campaign.

 

TB

 

So, let me get this straight--there is not only a place for a power that allows a character to ignore ALL Physical, Energy, Adjustment, Mental, NND, AVLD, Flash attacks, Find Weakness as well as every Useable As an Attack power imaginable, but it should also be something that a PC can afford?

[DangerousDan]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

I'd actually prefer Invisibility and Darkness to be built as penalties to the senses than as they now are. It would allow for much better gradiation; making "Invisibility" subsume everything from low contrast clothing (-2) to camouflage (-4) to high-tech chameleon suits (-8) to full "Invisible Woman"-type (-10) invisibility and beyond. Likewise for Darkness; it just applies to an area rather than just a person. And it still means even a mook might spot you with a "3" PER roll.

 

Repped.

 

I, too somewhat like this idea, but to my mind, there are two separate mechanics involved. In the case of Invisibility and Darkness, the existing rule completely eliminates a perception roll. You can have a PER roll of 30- and still be unable to perceive the target. On the other extreme, the GM need only require a perception roll when he decides that things are not obvious. When the GM decides that something is obvious, the character perceives it, even if his adjusted perception roll requires a '3'.

 

To redefine Invisibility and Darkness as minuses to perception, their "obviousness" must be defined, lest the character find the minuses to perception given by his "invisibility" arbitrarily ignored by the GM. I'd choose for Invisibility or Darkness, if built as minuses to perceptions, to always require a perception roll, unless the character has limitations on the power.

 

Alternatively, you can introduce a limitation that changes the absolute of invisibility into an adjustment to perception, such as Limited to -10 to PER (-1/4); Limited to -6 to PER (-1/2); Limited to -4 to PER (-1); Limited to -2 to PER (-1 1/2), with the understanding that the character is never "obvious" to the affected senses. It may not be quite as satisfying or as economical, but it is within the rules, assuming the GM accepts the levels of "Limited Power" given here.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

More BODY than a normal attack would seem in line with the concept of killing attacks. The objections from those who dislike KA seem to center around the way Stun is executed (We love that word!). No single method will be acceptable to everybody. Persuasive arguments have been made on both sides. Perhaps rather than disputing the rationale for KA and since Hero Games has indicated no intent to change the Killing Attack rules, it would be more profitable for posters to focus on coming up with a couple of reasonable House Rules to address those issues?

 

Fnord.

 

Hammerlock shows his corset with rotary.

 

I have long accepted that KAs are here to stay, and any suggestions I come up with are no mre than house rules. I do think that a discussion of the merits and problems of approaches (including 'standard' mechanics) has merit though both because it leads to a wider understanding of the issues you need to account for in house rules and because it keeps me occupied and out of trouble.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

... and because it keeps me occupied and out of trouble.

 

Didn't work. I just got a call from the London "bobbies" asking me about you in conjunction with a stolen box of plastic wrap, unaccounted for case of Wesson oil and three missing llama's from the estate of Lord Bently, Earl of Nottingham.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't tell 'em anything... I swear!

[Trebuchet]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

So' date=' let me get this straight--there is not only a place for a power that allows a character to ignore ALL Physical, Energy, Adjustment, Mental, NND, AVLD, Flash attacks, Find Weakness as well as every Useable As an Attack power imaginable, but it should also be something that a PC can afford?[/quote']An Invulnerability which encompassed all of those would be in essence countering an infinite number of attacks, and hence should have an infinite cost. However, to the best of my recollection no one in this thread was advocating a version of Invulnerability that did all that. Most have been far more limited; and the focus of most has been to negate BODY damage from physical/energy attacks.

 

Even the classic "invulnerable" character, Superman, was regularly affected by Drains, Trasformas, and the like.

[Teflon Billy]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

An Invulnerability which encompassed all of those would be in essence countering an infinite number of attacks, and hence should have an infinite cost. However, to the best of my recollection no one in this thread was advocating a version of Invulnerability that did all that. Most have been far more limited; and the focus of most has been to negate BODY damage from physical/energy attacks.

 

Even the classic "invulnerable" character, Superman, was regularly affected by Drains, Trasformas, and the like.

Also, the most that I advocated was an SFX Absolute Invulnerability. In general though, I like the Soveriegn Defense (-1 DC) concept that this thread brought out, split between the 5 classes of defense, though I would make Flash Soveriegn Defense generic it'd be too expensive to require people to by SD for each and every class of Flash to be invulnerable (especially considering how rare some of the weirder Flashes are)

 

TB

[Sean Waters]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

Didn't work. I just got a call from the London "bobbies" asking me about you in conjunction with a stolen box of plastic wrap, unaccounted for case of Wesson oil and three missing llama's from the estate of Lord Bently, Earl of Nottingham.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't tell 'em anything... I swear!

 

 

It's art, honest!

 

 

 

Have you ever seen a shaved llama?

[DangerousDan]

Re: Taming Absolutes

 

It's tough to model an effect if you don't know what the effect is. I'd classify Invulnerability as never taking any ill effects from the attack type(s) to which one is invulnerable.

 

Invulnerability is an absolute - if a character is "invulnerable", that means he cannot be hurt (at least by those attack types to which he is invulnerable).By this definition, Invulnerability effectively equates to infinite defenses against the type of attack (or damage, or effect) in question. It could also be viewed as 100% Damage reduction.

 

I just had a nasty thought. Invulnerability as the combination of two Automaton powers: Takes no STUN (60 AP) and Takes no BODY (??? AP).

 

Of course, one of these powers does not exist, but if it did, it would make a constructing an "invulnerable" character quite simple.