How would you adjudicate attacks damaging the Soul instead of the Body - mods state there is no rule so it has to be a house rule

[Sean Waters]

27 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Body is not merely physical presence, its life force.  You can "kill" a machine by breaking its physical form, but you can also kill a person by doing zero physical harm to it, and attacking its will to live and soul in their Body.

 

Remember, Hero is special effects-driven.  The mechanics are how it happens in game terms (meta), and the special effect is how it looks and behaves in the game.  Blast is blast, whether electricity, fire, or sonic.  The mechanics do x, but that doesn't define the why or how.  You define that.

 

"Kill" a ghost?  Do body to it until it doesn't have Body any longer.  How does this work?  That's where special effects come in.

 

Now, if you want to create a different sort of mechanic, an option is to build a physical limitation, defining how and when they "die" outside of body damage.  Something like "dies if EGO drained to 0" or similar.

 

True, but to (shockingly) play Devil's Advocate for a moment, Spirit could easily be something separate to Body such that they could be at different values and damage to one would not necessarily damage the other.  You could accomplish that with a mess of modifiers but if it is a major component of that particular game it would be best to create a separate system for it rather than have everyone created using a complicated build.

 

If it is something that only applies to a few characters and a few NPCs then a build it approach would be better.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

You could accomplish that with a mess of modifiers but if it is a major component of that particular game it would be best to create a separate system for it rather than have everyone created using a complicated build.

 

That's why I suggested the use of a complication to simulate the effect he's looking for.  Its easier and cleaner than building an entirely new system and works within existing structures.

[martinsaw01]

I'm reminded of the old Mayfair DC Heroes game, which had 9 stats, 3 each for physical, mental and mystical/soul attributes.   One was the targeting stat, the second the damaging stat and the third the resistance stat that took the damage.

Mobdro Vip

[Greywind]

6 hours ago, martinsaw01 said:

I'm reminded of the old Mayfair DC Heroes game, which had 9 stats, 3 each for physical, mental and mystical/soul attributes.   One was the targeting stat, the second the damaging stat and the third the resistance stat that took the damage.

 

Body to Body.
Mind to Ego.
Spirit gets lost in translation.

[inshashare]

If you're not using a drain, then you're using an AVAD...which might be worse, as to do 'real' damage you'd need to add the equivalent of Does BODY.  It makes no sense for your attack to target PD when it's targeting something insubstantial.

[inshashare]

11 hours ago, inshashare said:

If you're not using a drain, then you're using an AVAD...which might be worse, as to do 'real' damage you'd need to add the equivalent of Does BODY.  It makes no sense for your attack to target PD when it's targeting something insubstantial. shareit app vidmate apk

I would probably define this as AVAD, versus Ego Def, Does BODY, with either OECV vs. DECV or OCV vs. DECV 

[mahtovid]

The way I want it to work is to use EGO as a substitute for BOD.  So the attack if a 1d6 killing attack does 1 to 6 body damage and 1d6 times that number in Stun.  So average of 3.5 and 12.15 or 4 EGO and 12 STUN.  Let us use that in the example.

[Duke Bushido]

KYou can do that either by GM fiat (simply declaring there are two type of Killing Attack, and requiring players to define theirs at the time of purchase), or with the advantage "Attack Versus Limited Defense: Ego Defense."  This still requires a bit od fiat-- "and it does damage to EGO," but ir also  makes players pay a bit more.  While I dont believe that points are truly up to the job of creating balance, it seems fair that an attack against a significantly lower defense (on average) that damages a significantly lower characterisric (on average) that has no book-defined method of recovering itself should cost a little more than a normal attack.

 

Similarly, requiring "Based on EGO Combat Value" raises the cost and brings EGO into the equation.  However, it also means using ECV but targetint BODY and normal defenses, etc-

 

Unless you use GM fiat to declare that you target normally (OCV, vs PD /ED, etc, but does damage to EGO instead of BODY.

 

 

Essentially, you are in the middle,of chosing GM Fiat or a custom modifier for the power you envision.

 

It is pretty easy: find an existing modifier that almost has the right feel,and cost, and use it as the bltemplate to build what you specifically desire.

 

 

 

[Tech]

I can only think of people playing loud music at 1am to attack the soul...

[Beast]

I consider that body is also the will to live so the soul is part of the stat

So an ego blast that does body can kill and leave a good looking corpse(just clean up the blood leaking from the nose and ears)

 

[mahtovid]

Once you have that mechanic in place, simply declare "vs Body" or "vs EGO / Spirit" as part of the SFX of the power. get-vidmate.com  instasave.onl

[Ninja-Bear]

12 hours ago, Tech said:

I can only think of people playing loud music at 1am to attack the soul...

Or EMO/screech Metal at any hour!

[Doc Democracy]

You know, as entertaining as the discussion is, is the whole thing not covered by a physical limitation.  Either "Dies if EGO reduced to zero" or possibly a dependence on positive EGO score.  When it goes below zero, they will die unless that EGO recovers to a positive score.

[LoneWolf]

If you use EGO for this what happens when a different power drains EGO.  The OP wanted to avoid drains for this attack but drains are still part of the game and EGO drains with different special effects still exist.  When you make a house rule you need to consider all the ramifications of what you are proposing to change.  Using EGO to determine when someone means that EGO suddenly becomes a lot more important and the cost for it should be adjusted.  This comes close to making EGO a super stat that everyone needs to buy up instead of what it currently is.

 

As to Duke Bushido’s stating spirits do not have body.  That is does not seem to be part of the rules.  I looked in the 5th edition bestiary and the Ghost is listed as having 10 Body.  From the looks of it that was from some specific supplement and should be considered a house rule.  By the book spirits have a BODY stat.  

 

To me the most elegant solution would be to write it up as an NND that does BODY with the defense of being object or creature without a soul or spirit.  
 

[Duke Bushido]

4e.   

 

The only rules ever published specifically creating spirits and noncoporeal boojums.

 

They are essentially AI with extra options.

 

 

You wanr to stab your ghost with a coat hanger, by all means: use the 5e bestiary ghost.

 

 

 

 

 

[unclevlad]

"BODY" in a context of spirits can also mean how resilient they are, before they're disrupted/destroyed.  It need not translate to flesh and bone.  Even if you have a fully desolid spirit, BODY can still measure this notion.  

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

.  

 

To me the most elegant solution would be to write it up as an NND that does BODY with the defense of being object or creature without a soul or spirit.  
 

 

 

That would still be a house rule.

 

Per every edition since the creation of NND, the defense cannot be a lack of something.

 

If you want to house rule that it works in this case, that's fine- it is your game after all.  If are worried about what the books say, it's no good.

 

 

[DentArthurDent]

6e, p305-306 Transform.

I think this has what you want. A description of Spirit on p305. A description of using either BOD or PRE on p306.

However, there is no discussion of ‘normal’ healing for PRE. And I agree with the previous postings that you will want to define how the healing process works ahead of time. Even if it’s REC per month, like BOD.

[LoneWolf]

How is an NND that does body a house rule?  The book lists does BODY as a +1 Advantage.  With any NND you need to have a reasonably common defense.   There are a lot of objects and creatures that do not have souls.  Robots and other automations usually do not have souls, nor do most objects.    

[Ninja-Bear]

9 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

That would still be a house rule.

 

Per every edition since the creation of NND, the defense cannot be a lack of something.

 

This I find surprising because I swear that being Deaf was a legal example of Sound NND. 

[Duke Bushido]

I _think_ ( but do not recall with certainty) that deafness was given as an example of being immune to a Flash v hearing.  Again, I am not certain.

 

However, strictly by the book(s), defense against NND has to be a "positive"- a result of a definite purchase or action- and cannot be "negative"- a specific inaction or lack of a purchase.

 

Though you don't have to buy normal hearing, but you _do_ have to declare your character to be deaf, so it is marginally possible that Deafness can be pushed as a legitimate corner case.

 

 

[unclevlad]

19 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

To me the most elegant solution would be to write it up as an NND that does BODY with the defense of being object or creature without a soul or spirit.  

 

This would possibly be a valid limitation if you're playing in a Clone Wars-esque campaign, where robots might well be MORE common than humans.  However, by and large, most opponents will be humans, and thus presumed to have souls.  So IMO this isn't a valid NND defense in most cases, at least not as the only condition.  By comparison, I group most teleporters, full desolid types, and those with XDM as "phase shifters."  I often give them HA or Blast NNDs, often one that does BODY and one that doesn't.  The defenses are having teleport, desolid, or XDM.  Being able to phase means you resist phasing attacks.  

 

But also note the defenses are phrased as positive statements...having teleport, desolid or XDM.  

 

It's a bit too long to paste here, IMO, but go to 6E1, page 326.  Under NND defenses, there are 2 applicable paragraphs.  For inappropriate, "lack of" is expressly stated.  So you can't use "lack of a soul" as a defense.  OTOH, in the next paragraph, talking about a fantasy attack, it is legal to define the defense as "having a soul."  The campaign premise is that demons and undead (the spell's intended target) *don't* have souls.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

This I find surprising because I swear that being Deaf was a legal example of Sound NND. 

I believe Le Sone had that ability.  I don't think the restriction was stated in 2e, and since Duke plays 3e, I suspect it may have been added there.  I am pretty sure it was in by 4e.

[Ninja-Bear]

I also realized that I probably misunderstood the whole lacking a thing as a Defense since Need not Breathe is viable Gas Attacks. You are paying points to be able not to breathe. Set the point aside for a second and I think many agree on how this logic doesn’t make sense. Gas attacks don’t work skeletons cause they cannot breathe but a medusa’s turn object to stone works on a blind man even though a blind man cannot see her. (Yes there is a work around).  

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I also realized that I probably misunderstood the whole lacking a thing as a Defense since Need not Breathe is viable Gas Attacks. You are paying points to be able not to breathe. Set the point aside for a second and I think many agree on how this logic doesn’t make sense.

 

You make good points, Amigo,  but the confusion seems to come from selective expectations.  Remember that at all times, the game paradigm and the real world are not related.  The game systemcan be used to simulate  the real world, but always poorly, as there us no direct one-to-one conversion for anythinf except measurements.

 

There is one other point where there is intended to be a real-world analogue: the starting character.  Obviously, there is a desire for fairness, so all starting characters are,identical in game twrms and abilities until the player modifies then with powers, abilities, limitations, etc.  Until that happens, all characters are the same.  Honestly, that is the basis of half of the "how do I model" and "but you must X in order to Y" threads.

 

The short version of this is that all starting characters are assumed to breathe unless you buy a trait of some sort that makes it unnecessary- all people, all aliens, all Atlanteans, all brains-in a-jar, all robots, and all skeletons.

 

If you do not buy the appropriate Life Support, a toxic atmosphere is just as damaging to you as it is to Captain Five Lungs.  You are free to "rubber science" why- 'chlorine gas eats away at the bones and weakens them in BODY damage an equivalent amount that breathing chlorine gas does to normies.

 

As one last pursuit of "all characters are just special effects of a normal human being" thinking:  other things one would never expect from a skeleton is movement, an INT and an EGO score, STR and DEX, and one-hundred-percent not REC.  Any form of communication or teamwork is right out, as well.

 

However, any player making a skeleton will scream bloody murder when you tel him he has none of these things.  He exoevts them, because characters are special effects for a collection of initially-identical characteristics.

 

In HERO, skeletons breathe by default.  One must pay for Life Support to avoid enduring that nuisance.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

 but a medusa’s turn object to stone works on a blind man even though a blind man cannot see her. (Yes there is a work around).  

 

Won't lie:  

 

It has been over 50 years since I read the medusa story.  After that, I just relied on "collective culture" to keep my keep even on the bulk od mythology.  While I respect that a lot of people have gone out of their way to consume and study a great deal of it, and that I myself like a lot of the ideas and concepts enough to remember the gist of things, I wasnt interested enough to track down more or remember more than the themes of what I have read.

 

All that being said:

 

Did her gaze effect a blind man?  I cannot recall that, but as previously-confessed, she might have used it on a Volkswagen or two; I couldn't tell you for certain.

 

I do know it didn't work on Perseus, and I know it didn't work for the same reason that I suspect,it was never used on a blind man:

 

NND was not the only power modifier in effect.  I expect her T-form included multiple modifiers (15 ots per die then NND on top of that- some GMs might require "Does BODY" as its effectiveness is determined in terms of BODY 'done! To the target.  This gets extra-spicy pricey in a hurry.

 

Fortunately, there are waya to,bring that cost down:  you might considier Limitations-  things like "requires direct eye contact."  There are orobably some,others we could find justification for, but I think that is the important one for this conversation.

 

Great points, though, and thank you for bringing them up, N-B!