Vulnerability Questions

[Tech]

I can't say I've seen this asked before so here's a couple questions:

 

1) If you have 2x Stun and Body from Blasters, as well as 2x Stun and Body from Killing Attacks, what damage happens if hit by a Blaster Killing attack?

 

2) For whatever reason, can you have more than a 2x Stun or Body from an attack (say 3x Stun from ______)?

[Scott Baker]

1) I would say you take 4x, assuming I allowed both of those vulnerabilities on 1 character. Likely I would only allow one as I would determine that "blasters" are/are not KAs.

 

2) Not in the Rules As Written. The GM can add additional steps if they like. I wouldn't as that's a ploy for extra points that would just lead to an unhappy player when they run into that vulnerability and are likely taken down with one hit of whatever.

[Tech]

1) I would say you take 4x, assuming I allowed both of those vulnerabilities on 1 character. Likely I would only allow one as I would determine that "blasters" are/are not KAs.

 

2) Not in the Rules As Written. The GM can add additional steps if they like. I wouldn't as that's a ploy for extra points that would just lead to an unhappy player when they run into that vulnerability and are likely taken down with one hit of whatever.

 

1) Interesting but I must respectfully disagree on the blaster point. Any attack can have different ranges of power. Take Lazer from CKC as an example. Saying "blasters" are/are not KA is rather arbitrary. I bring up the 2x or 4x question because I've run into the problem primarily as a GM on the villain-side.

 

 

2) If I used it, as GM I'd give it to a villain, never a player.

[Lord Liaden]

I never "double dip" on Vulnerability penalties from multiple Special Effects. It seems incredibly unbalancing, making SFX the biggest determinant in whether an opponent goes down from a particular attack. And it exceeds the explicit limit on how much of a multiplier you can get from a Vulnerability.

 

I don't think any player would take Vulnerability to Magic, and Vulnerability to Fire, if they thought they'd take an exponential whammy from Magic Fire. In the case of overlap like that I just use the larger penalty of the two, if there's a difference. Mind you, if one Vulnerability is for Stun and the other for Body, an attack covering both SFX would do both Stun and Body damage.

 

FWIW I could find no official ruling for this specific circumstance in the rule books or any version of the FAQ. Perhaps someone else would do better.

[Tom Cowan]

I would go with 3x for some thing like having two vulnerabilities kick in.  1x for the normal damage 1x for the Blast Vulnerability and 1x for the Killing Vulnerability.

[Ndreare]

I would inflict X2.

 

For reasons see Lord Laiden post above

[Tech]

I never "double dip" on Vulnerability penalties from multiple Special Effects. It seems incredibly unbalancing, making SFX the biggest determinant in whether an opponent goes down from a particular attack. And it exceeds the explicit limit on how much of a multiplier you can get from a Vulnerability.

 

I don't think any player would take Vulnerability to Magic, and Vulnerability to Fire, if they thought they'd take an exponential whammy from Magic Fire. In the case of overlap like that I just use the larger penalty of the two, if there's a difference. Mind you, if one Vulnerability is for Stun and the other for Body, an attack covering both SFX would do both Stun and Body damage.

 

FWIW I could find no official ruling for this specific circumstance in the rule books or any version of the FAQ. Perhaps someone else would do better.

 

 

Although I generally agree with you, I do disagree your SFX determination. If a character has two Complications going off (whether a Suscept,, Vulnerability, Psych Limit, etc) and you're getting points for them, you should reap them. Although 2x damage is mentioned (and no more), there is a possible precedent for taking more than 2x damage:

 

in Champions Complete, p 129, near the end of the page, it is stated "Vulnerability may be chosen more than once, to apply to more than one aspect of a single attack type (such as taking extra STUN and extra BODY from fire/heat attacks), to apply to different attack types (such as taking extra STUN from fire/heat attacks and from ice/cold attacks), or both."

 

I disagree & agree with your second paragraph. Some players may take both because of the whammy (had that happen more than once due to concept).

 

I'm thinking I'm going to post this to Steve Long and see what he says. I do think he'll go with the 2x being the max but again, if you're taking Complications and getting the points for them, you should reap those complications.

[worldshaking00]

I think x3 would be more in the spirit of the Complication. Technically, each complication would factor in regularly (once for base dmg, once for first comp., once for second comp.) so you wouldn't be cheese-weasling.

 

I'm trying to wrap my head around taking 3x dmg in the first place, but 4x would be beyond overkill. Most x3 damages should practically kill a character already, at least in my game. If your campaign has characters running around like Galactus wearing adamantine underwear with capital ship-level force fields, YMMV.

[Armitage]

It's certainly not unprecedented in existing character designs.  I grabbed one of the Champions Villains books and one of the first characters, Anubis, takes 2x STUN from Life/Holy attacks and 2x STUN from Water attacks.

While a weapon based on a high-pressure jet of holy water might not be common, that's what Variable Special Effect is for.

 

The Advanced Player's Guide specifically discusses being Vulnerable to two special effects for a single attack.

"A character may have two or more Vulnerabilities that are affected by a single attack - for example, a character who's Vulnerable to Ice/Cold and Vulnerable to Magic could get hit by a Frost Bolt spell.  In that situation, multiply the larger multiplier by the smaller multiplier to get the overall multiplier.  Thus, two x1.5 multipliers become a x2.25 multiplier, a x1.5 and x2 multiplier become a x3 multiplier, and two x2 multipliers become a x4 multiplier."

[Ndreare]

I think I would have to disagree with Mr Long on this one in my games.

 

It's a bummer really because normally he's right about these rules things, what with him being the highest authority and all.

[bigdamnhero]

I think x2 plus x2 = x4 is the only fair way to go here. (If it were x1.5 plus x1.5, I'd probably round it to x2 for simplicity's sake.)

 

But I can't imagine allowing a PC to take both of those Vulnerabilities, unless RKA Blasters were practically unheard of in that game universe. In my games, most blasters have both Blast and Kill settings. Which means the first time a VIPER Agent thinks to flip that selector switch the PC is going to take 24 BODY and 48 STUN. Each hit. And that's from a freakin mook: a superhero-level blaster (4d6 RKA) is going to average 56 BODY and 112 STUN!

 

Honestly anytime a character wants to take multiple Vulnerabilities with potential for overlap, that's a trigger for a "So what's your backup character concept?" conversation.

[Scott Baker]

1) Interesting but I must respectfully disagree on the blaster point. Any attack can have different ranges of power. Take Lazer from CKC as an example. Saying "blasters" are/are not KA is rather arbitrary. I bring up the 2x or 4x question because I've run into the problem primarily as a GM on the villain-side.

 

 

2) If I used it, as GM I'd give it to a villain, never a player.

Feel free to disagree. I only stated what I might do in my game. That doesn't make it arbitrary, it makes it part of my campaign world background. If I ran Lazer in that circumstance, I'd change the character write-up.

 

As far as being published in a book of villains, you'll find the forums are full of people who disagree with how particular characters in the published sources have been built (from 1E up to current 6E/CC/FHC). If your choice is to only used published characters as-is, that's totally acceptable. That others (including myself) may not do so, doesn't make our choices any less acceptable than yours, just different.

 

My final thought: You posted in a discussion forum. If you wanted an official statement, you should have started over in the 6E Rules Questions forum--where I see you have now posted and Steve has responded. (been offline for a couple of days, so just catching up.)

[Scott Baker]

Honestly anytime a character wants to take multiple Vulnerabilities with potential for overlap, that's a trigger for a "So what's your backup character concept?" conversation.

I agree, as in #2 of my original reply.

[Tech]

Feel free to disagree. I only stated what I might do in my game. That doesn't make it arbitrary, it makes it part of my campaign world background. If I ran Lazer in that circumstance, I'd change the character write-up.

 

As far as being published in a book of villains, you'll find the forums are full of people who disagree with how particular characters in the published sources have been built (from 1E up to current 6E/CC/FHC). If your choice is to only used published characters as-is, that's totally acceptable. That others (including myself) may not do so, doesn't make our choices any less acceptable than yours, just different.

 

My final thought: You posted in a discussion forum. If you wanted an official statement, you should have started over in the 6E Rules Questions forum--where I see you have now posted and Steve has responded. (been offline for a couple of days, so just catching up.)

 

Your point is taken about your game. I often change published characters myself.

 

I posted this question in the forum for Steve Long after seeing there was no apparent official answer that anyone knew of. I'll rarely post a question for Steve in his forum because it's likely other players will know the answer. Perhaps I or someone else might have a misunderstanding of a rule or I may have missed a rule that others know of. This forum can have official determinations that perhaps have been already been answered - it's unnecessary to post to Steve for official answers if you can get an answer here. Perhaps a question being pondered will have already been asked and answered in this forum. I will always post here first and read others responses for an answer.

 

If a player wants to have more than one Vulnerability to Stun from different attacks, (ex 1.5x Stun - Blasters, 2x Stun - Gases), I'm fine with that. I don't know of any player who's taken 2x Body from any killing attack type.

 

Seeing Steve's answer, I'm just a little surprised at the 4x effect: I expected him to go with a max of 2x effect.

[WistfulD]

Seeing Steve's answer, I'm just a little surprised at the 4x effect: I expected him to go with a max of 2x effect.

 

Well, Steve is known for ruling as it looks like the books best support, rather than what he thinks would be best, even if it is a subject that the books don't specifically address.

 

I'd say that the 4x is not what I would do, but I'm okay with it. A character taking two vulnerabilities is really asking to get wall-smeared if they run up against both at once.

[Greywind]

As a GM, I would be honorbound to see that the character ran into it at least on e in his career.

[Altair]

I can't speak for everyone, but the way I see it, you've kind of got three possible scenarios here.

 

Either

1. The player has taken these separate vulnerabilities hoping to get hit with that at least once, hoping for a cool "Red Kryptonite" moment, or something like
2. The player has taken these separate vulnerabilities hoping that the GM doesn't notice
3. Or conversely, they're doing something specific, like a vampire who's not thrilled with garlic, holy water, wooden stakes, etc., but they're not looking for a super-whammy.

Anyway. In scenario one - which, full disclosure, is what I would be doing if this showed up on my sheet - you gotta hit'm with the whammy. At least once. Make it a big deal. In scenario two, I kind of agree with Greywind - honor demands it. And it can still be a cool character moment. In scenario three, where someone's trying to express a particular flavor, but is neither looking for a super-wham, nor really trying to game the system, I'm kind of ambivalent.

 

I feel like it would be really context-dependent. Is the player disruptive? Is the character balanced? What makes sense in the cosmology of your setting? And more to the point, how important are those things?

 

/$.0.02

 

(Edited for grammar, clarity)

Edited May 20, 2015 by Altair

[bigdamnhero]

Either

1. The player has taken these separate vulnerabilities hoping to get hit with that at least once, hoping for a cool "Red Kryptonite" moment, or something like
2. The player has taken these separate vulnerabilities hoping that the GM doesn't notice
3. Or conversely, they're doing something specific, like a vampire who's not thrilled with garlic, holy water, wooden stakes, etc., but they're not looking for a super-whammy.

Good breakdown.

1. As long as the player knows that moment is coming: cool.
2. Make sure the players knows that moment is coming: are they cool with that?
3. Easiest way to handle that is to lump them all into one Vulnerability, increasing how Common the condition is. (ie individually each of those might be Uncommon, but together they're probably Common, maybe even Very Common, particularly if those weaknesses are common knowledge.)

[Hugh Neilson]

 

Good breakdown.

1. As long as the player knows that moment is coming: cool.
2. Make sure the players knows that moment is coming: are they cool with that?
3. Easiest way to handle that is to lump them all into one Vulnerability, increasing how Common the condition is. (ie individually each of those might be Uncommon, but together they're probably Common, maybe even Very Common, particularly if those weaknesses are common knowledge.)

 

 

To #2 - communication is key.  It can be very helpful to discuss with the player how you interpret any complication.  "You are taking this as "very common; total"  I interpret that to mean...".  That gives the player the option of toning down the frequency or impact if they wish to do so.  For a Vulnerability, the issue is often frequency (if you want it to be Very Common, expect it to come up every other game session, at least - that means those two Very Common vulnerabilities will come up in tandem quite a bit".

 

To #3, great solution.  You want a complication that causes double damage when either of these SFX hits you, but never does more, then one vulnerability seems like the appropriate mechanic.  You want the points from "2x STUN from Blasters" and "2x STUN from killing attacks", then you have two separate vulnerabilities and, when they combine, it will be devastating.  Take the lesser points from "2x Stun from Blasters or Killing attacks" and the combination issue goes away.