Nighty Night Stick

[dsatow]

So, I am making a villain who mostly does ranged attacks.  But he has this one focus call the nighty night stick.  Its an AVAD all or nothing attack.  The defense is either Life Support Need Not Sleep or Full End & Stun.  Full end and stun is a very common defense I would think, but this basically makes the attack straight damage.

 

Is this too abusive to put onto players or not?

[Netzilla]

As soon as someone takes any damage or uses any END, the stick becomes viable. It's just not a good first strike option.

[Cantriped]

Yes, this is way too abusive.

Having "Full END and STUN" isn't a reasonably common defense for any number of reasons. Most of which boil down to the fact that the villain can deprive the target of their Defense with almost no effort. For example, your villain can hold action until just after the target has moved or attacked and hit them with the Nighty Night Stick after they've spent END (and long before they can even attempt to take a Recovery), or your villain can hold action until have his henchmen have softened the target up to hit them with the Nighty Night Stick, or your villain can soften them up himself with a regular punch to knock off a few STUN before following with the Nighty Night Stick in a Multiple Attack.

 

A more reasonably common defense would be:

NND (Defense is LS: Does Not Sleep or Wearing a rigid Helmet which provides 3 or more points of rPD).

 

In other words, you couldn't knock out anybody who doesn't sleep, or whose wearing a hard-hat or helmet... but typical superhero in bullet-proof spandex is screwed.

[Hugh Neilson]

It's funny...if the defense were Life Support - Resistant to Heat, would we suggest this is overpowered or underpriced?

 

I agree "being at full END/STUN" is not remotely reasonable as a defense, but if you think "need not sleep" is not common enough, then move the AVAD cost further down the chart for a higher advantage.

 

On one thread, we accept "Attack versus hardened impervious resistant smell flash defense" is OK, and on another, we complain LS: Need not Sleep isn't common enough. I don't know why people think Hero is complicated...

 

I'd be good with an AVAD chart that bottoms out at "nothing reduces the damage inflicted".

[Christopher R Taylor]

I'm fine with full END/STN but I wouldn't treat that as reasonably common.  In combat nearly everyone is below that almost immediately and for the whole fight.  In fact, I'd call that pretty uncommon.

[Hyper-Man]

I probably sound like a broken record but I think this a perfect fit for the "Stunning" option for Change Environment introduced in one of the Advanced Players Guides.  If you do a search with my name you should be able to find a post with all the details of mechanics and cost.

 

HM

[IndianaJoe3]

 But he has this one focus call the nighty night stick.  Its an AVAD all or nothing attack.  The defense is either Life Support Need Not Sleep or Full End & Stun.  Full end and stun is a very common defense I would think, but this basically makes the attack straight damage.

 

How would you handle a target that had a reduced need to sleep (i.e, at the 8 hours/week level)?

[Cantriped]

It's funny...if the defense were Life Support - Resistant to Heat, would we suggest this is overpowered or underpriced?

 

I agree "being at full END/STUN" is not remotely reasonable as a defense, but if you think "need not sleep" is not common enough, then move the AVAD cost further down the chart for a higher advantage.

 

On one thread, we accept "Attack versus hardened impervious resistant smell flash defense" is OK, and on another, we complain LS: Need not Sleep isn't common enough. I don't know why people think Hero is complicated...

 

I'd be good with an AVAD chart that bottoms out at "nothing reduces the damage inflicted".

There are actually a reasonable number of things in an average game world that are immune to high heat, or do not eat/sleep. For example, Objects (including Foci), Vehicles, and Bases cannot be damaged by an NND Attack whose defense is "Does Not Sleep" because needing to sleep in a quality only inherent to Characters and Automatons (but see below). Objects, Vehicles, and Bases are dirt common, people hide behind them, use them to thwack each other, or blow them up all the time. Similarly Automatons usually have Total (or nearly Total) Life Support.

 

Meanwhile... who has Resistant Smell Defense? I don't think I've ever seen an Automaton, Base, Character, Object, or Vehicle written up that had it. 

[Hyper-Man]

I probably sound like a broken record but I think this a perfect fit for the "Stunning" option for Change Environment introduced in one of the Advanced Players Guides.  If you do a search with my name you should be able to find a post with all the details of mechanics and cost.

 

HM

 

Here's one of the links:

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/90492-extra-damage-only-for-stunning/?p=2406596

 

HM

 

[dsatow]

Thanks.  I also talked it over with another GM.

 

As a response to some of the questions, if you have need less sleep, you'd have 1/2 or more damage reduction on top of any damage reduction you had.

 

I ended up calculating its cost as if the full stun/end didn't matter and just made it against LS:Need not sleep though the full stun/end is added in.  This makes it not usable as a surprise attack but it wasn't designed to be anyways.  Thanks for the input.

[Beast]

what ever the level of advantage for "Self Contained Breathing " I would say No Need for sleep would be 2 levels beyond that
since there are 3 levels (8/per week ,8 hrs per yr, no need to sleep)each would be a 1/3 damage reduction) imho

[Hugh Neilson]

Isn't Self Contained Breathing 1 level beyond "breathe in one unusual environment"? My question would be how common need not sleep is compared to the other defenses.

 

Characters can likely lay their hands on breathing apparatus if need be. Can they resist this power with Red Bull?

[Cantriped]

Maybe?

Depends on how Red-Bull is built... if it is built as LS: Does Not Sleep with a 6 Hour Continuing Charge... then definitely yes.

[Hugh Neilson]

Then I will need the build for coffee, wakeup pills, energy drinks, etc. to assess how rare the defense is. My preference would be to ask the player how he envisions the power working and assess the rarity from there. If a reduced need for sleep reduces the damage, maybe caffeine and other stimulants should act as Damage Negation. Try going a month without sleep using caffeine - I don't think you really have "Does Not Sleep".

 

But it may well be a valid defense to the power, depending on how the player envisions it. The defense certainly becomes a lot more common at that point.

 

[Envisions a series of ads featuring the character and Energy Drink products similar to the old Hostess ads...]

[doccowie]

My preference would be to ask the player how he envisions the power working and assess the rarity from there.

 

QFT!

 

(Oooh, for the first time ever I used "QFT" in an appropriate manner. I'm nearly a proper internetter!)

[Ninja-Bear]

Kinda late but isnstead of full end/stun, why not allow target to make CON roll?

[Hyper-Man]

Kinda late but isnstead of full end/stun, why not allow target to make CON roll?

 

That's the Stunning Rule I first mentioned in post #6

 

HM

[Ninja-Bear]

That's the Stunning Rule I first mentioned in post #6

 

HM

The problem I had with the stunning rule wasn't the build per se but having it at -6. I would set it at -4.

[Ninja-Bear]

The more I think about it, the more I can see it being even less and make it -2. The reason is that this power is similar to grabs/entangles in that I thought no everyone likes a chance to get out even if its slim. I've been in an unbreakable hold and it no fun for me as a player or GM. I came to-2 figuring that most CON is 20ish and that is 13-. A -2 still gives you an 11-. Agents though at 13 CON is 12- so they would have 10-.

[Hugh Neilson]

Its funny how all thought of the math leaves us when we talk about a "saving throw". A CON roll at -2 is, as set out above, a 10- for agent-types, probably 12- or 13- for most Supers. So the power has a 50% chance of working against an agent, a 16.2 - 25.93% chance of working against most Supers and less if that Super has an exceptional (33+) CON.

 

Why not just take a standard NND, and have it activate on an 8- (25.93% chance of success) for a -2 limitation instead? That way, you get a better chance at a high powered opponent with a CON of 28+.

 

"Make a CON roll at -2" is a much more common defense than any typical NND choice. In addition, the character can never be confident using the NND - whether it worked or failed against his current opponent last time, it may or may not succeed this time. He can't choose other attacks (and avoid wasting his action) because Target X is clearly immune, or focus on Target Y, who clearly is not immune.

[Ninja-Bear]

Hugh here is my thinking about the CON roll. I feel confident in saying that most people don't mind if there is a power that can one shot a look. The problem is if it can one shot (here I mean mechanically effective) your PC. Btw- I pulled those CON scores out of thin air. I found in my experience that most powers can be considered abusive if bought at high enough levels and especially if there is no "saving throw". Also I'm not saying my method is the best, just that I don't see the need to flat out deny the stunning effect optional power. It just needs care for use. Which applies to everything else in this game.

[Hugh Neilson]

I haven't worked a lot with the Stunning CE, and I don't have the books in front of me. I was thinking a more conventional attack that outright fails if the target makes a CON roll.

 

I suggested a CE or other attack that only STUNs back in the SETAC days, as well as one that suffocates (to me, the ability which has longest been sorely lacking I can't create a water bubble, or cut off Grond's air supply with a force bubble?)

 

These are powerful, but limited, abilities, which makes them challenging to cost fairly. An attack big enough to reliably STUN a target would be extremely powerful, and loses a lot cutting it down to just stunning. How many characters would be conscious after two hits that Stun them? How about three hits?

 

If we take the "saves have to be pretty easy" model too far, we get old 1e/2e high level D&D - don't bother with spells that have saves because they work less than a quarter of the time. If it rarely affects my PC, it also rarely affects the villains. Of course, if it is highly effective, it changes the dynamic of the game. Better find some defense for MasterVillain - if he can be reliably Stunned every time one PC acts, he's not going to last long. On the other hand, what use is Stunning one agent in the crowd?

[Hyper-Man]

The problem I had with the stunning rule wasn't the build per se but having it at -6. I would set it at -4.

 

I think you are confusing my particular example of the power build in action with the actual base Power.  Stunning has no default "minus" to the CON roll built in.

 

HM

[Cantriped]

In addition, much like Break-Out rolls for Mental Attacks, the target gets cumulative bonuses the longer they are subjected to the Stunning combat effect.

[Ninja-Bear]

I think you are confusing my particular example of the power build in action with the actual base Power. Stunning has no default "minus" to the CON roll built in.

 

HM

I very well could be. I thought I saw -6 with CE build on the thread you linked.