Penetrating Stun AND Body

[Steve]

I was looking through the rules and wondering if there was a way to build a normal damage attack that had penetrating effect on the Stun and also the Body it did.

 

Can this be done? Penetrating Body damage seems like it can only be done via a Killing Attack power.

[Duke Bushido]

How far back in the rules are you willing to go?

 

I think Armor Piercing is still viable in the Long Editions; I dont remember for certain about 6e.  That can make quite a difference.

 

And of course, there is the originalvversion of that as well: 2e's Piercing Points as presented in Champions III.  Very pricey, but there are some Limitations you can add that would help: only up to sufficient points to score 1 Body, only for X attack, etc.

 

 

 

 

[Steve]

My current thinking is to add an extra +1/4 Advantage to Penetrating to do what I’m looking for, but then the trick is how to calculate the penetrating Body.

Maybe one Body for every five Stun that penetrates? That doesn’t seem too overpowering.

[Christopher R Taylor]

One of each for every 1 body the dice do in normal damage seems fine for an additional +¼ advantage

[unclevlad]

17 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

One of each for every 1 body the dice do in normal damage seems fine for an additional +¼ advantage

 

OK, so let's get definite here.  9d6 normal and 3d6 killing.  We also assume no Impenetrable.  

 

Normal, with RAW Penetrating:  at least 9 STUN gets through.

Killing, with RAW Penetrating:  on average, 3 BODY gets through

 

If I'm reading you right...are you saying

 

Normal with Imp Penetrating:  9 BODY *and* 9 STUN?  

Killing with Imp Penetrating:  ........  I'm not sure but it sounds like you're saying 3 BODY and 3 STUN.  

 

What I'd suggest for level 2 penetrating:  

normal:  STUN as above.  BODY...every 6 rolled does 1 BODY that gets through.

killing:  in addition to the BODY rolled, STUN also gets through.  Multiply the BODY that gets through by the attack's stun multiplier.  

 

For single attacks, things wouldn't be too bad.  The dangerous combo would be allowing this with Autofire.  I'd be inclined to say this would rate as an "especially effective attack" and the autofire would inherit that +1 kicker.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

For single attacks, things wouldn't be too bad.  The dangerous combo would be allowing this with Autofire.  I'd be inclined to say this would rate as an "especially effective attack" and the autofire would inherit that +1 kicker.

 

I am pretty sure, without looking at the book, that penetrating already applies the +1 kicker.  but even if it did not, a +¾ advantage plus ¼ to ½ from the Autofire is pushing you up pretty high into cost already.

 

From what I understand, the OP wants penetrating normal attacks to penetrate both body and stun, so 5d6 blast would deliver 5 body and 5 stun minimum on average.

[unclevlad]

Penetrating doesn't mention Autofire.  Autofire doesn't list Penetrating explicitly, so it's a GM's call if they count as "especially effective."  With the normal Penetration...it could go either way, because you're going to run afoul of AP and/or DC issues.  If you're looking at 12 DC/60 point caps, then a 3 shot AF, Penetrating...that's +3/4.  You can get 6 1/2 dice for 58 points...but this is at full END, so that's an 18 END volley.  IF all 3 shots hit, it's a total of ~19 STUN, which is decent, but not all that likely.  Remember:  against a single target, firing for multiple hits, the "second hit" is at -2, and the "third hit" is at -4.  Much of the time you'll only get 2 impacts, so we're talking ~13 STUN.  And you're STILL burning 18 END.

 

Quote

From what I understand, the OP wants penetrating normal attacks to penetrate both body and stun, so 5d6 blast would deliver 5 body and 5 stun minimum on average

 

Yeah, that's the goal, but that doesn't mean a 5d6 does 5 BODY and 5 STUN...and for DARN sure, come on, saying that's just another +1/4?  You're at least halfway to saying AVAD, Does BODY.  There's no bloody way in heck that's worth just +1/4.  An additional +1?  Not sure but at least that's a lot closer.  Not a chance.  For an additional +1/4, even +1/2, the efficiency can't go up that much.  Say it's +1/2 so we get the easier +1.  What's better, 5d6 Improved Penetration, or 10d6?  Depends on your target, of course...but the 10d6 will rarely do BODY against reasonable characters.  The net effect?  What you're suggesting is, for all intents and purposes, a form of Killing Attack...and one where Resistant Defenses does not apply.

 

Let's also compare this to AVAD, Does BODY, vs. Impenetrable PD...as opposed to Resistant PD.  Resistant PD is Uncommon, so that's just +1/2.  Impenetrable...?  It feels Rare to me, so +1;  I could also buy calling it the in-between, since we actually have a step available, and call it +3/4.  If that's a +2, well, the advantage is you do get more STUN through per die...but as above, remember that you won't have as many dice available.  So this Improved Penetrating feels like +1 1/4 or +1 1/2.

 

For an additional +1/4, I'd probably give 1 BODY for every 3 full BODY dealt, or something like that, if you don't like 1 BODY for each 6 rolled.  Automatically dealing BODY is NOT!!! something associated with normal damage attacks, tho.  Remember:  the roots of the game lie in *not* killing, but knocking out.  Something that supports this, needs to be EXPENSIVE.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Yeah, that's the goal, but that doesn't mean a 5d6 does 5 BODY and 5 STUN...and for DARN sure, come on, saying that's just another +1/4?  You're at least halfway to saying AVAD, Does BODY.  There's no bloody way in heck that's worth just +1/4.  An additional +1?

 

AVAD is +1½ to make a power work against a rare defense (like impenetrable), so halfway there looks about right at +¾ to me  Surely not +1½.  You did some math up above to show how limited the power is because of END and AP caps.

[unclevlad]

AVAD against a rare defense doesn't do BODY.  That's +2 1/2.  Granted you won't get the STUN, so it doesn't rate as high.  But it's high.  Perhaps a comparison can be made...damage negation and reduction can be bought as STUN only or BODY only, as a -1/2 limitation.  So as a target, what do you say to starting from AVAD, Does BODY, BODY ONLY...the STUN is computed against all applicable defenses.  It would be 1/2 less of an advantage.  Note that even if the normal defense would bounce the attack...the BODY done in the attack also becomes the minimum STUN damage.  

 

I'll also bring up a systemic/campaign consideration.  If a 35 active point attack (4d6 with your +3/4 Improved Penetrating) can do me 4 BODY...I'll tell you right now, I'm buying my base PD and ED with Impenetrable...or, I'll stage my resistant protection and put put Impenetrable on 6-8 points for PD and ED.  It's cheap;  it'd cost an additional 2 points, and it would, by and large, bounce this advantage.  But you're giving me almost no choice.  It's too large a hole, if Improved Penetrating does this much damage, and my counter is too cheap.

 

I'll grant:  at higher levels, the risk you face if you don't buy all the special defenses can easily become untenable.  This would be adding a fifth 'special' defense...resistant, mental, flash, power, now impenetrable...and it would kick in VERY early.  I love building characters I'd be, in my dreams, specifically in Drew Hayes' Super Powereds universe.  I have my guidelines, and some accommodations to handle conventions in that world that differ from Hero's.  But there's also a massive difference in assumptions:  villains will kill heroes.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  None of this knocking out, they're trying to kill.  (Heroes normally try not to, but if circumstances require it...do what you must.)  This isn't unique to this universe;  in fact, I think, it's the norm for urban fantasy and supers literature.  Hero's premise is still tied to the 80s, if not even earlier.

 

But if the goal is to knock out rather than kill, then your Improved Penetrating should philosophically also be substantially more expensive than you suggest.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Granted you won't get the STUN, so it doesn't rate as high.

 

Plus exaggeration aside, its not remotely half way to AVAD does Body either.  You get the full Body through, but a fraction of the stun.

[LoneWolf]

What I would do is to buy the attack as a killing attack and take AVAD (-1/2) with the defense being normal defense and applying the penetrating to that.  Common to very common changes it to a limitation instead of and advantage. Buy the attack at 1/3 the number of dice you would as for a killing attack.  Since for every BODY you take you do a minimum of 1 STUN this makes both the BODY and STUN penetrating.  You roll the damage like it was a killing attack but apply your non-resistant defense.   The cost penetrating is offset by the AVAD so it works out to be the same cost as a regular killing attack. 

[Hugh Neilson]

A killing attack will roll an average of 3.5 BOD, one of which will be Penetrating for a +1/2 advantage.  +1/4 to make all the BOD from a normal attack (so 3 BOD per 3DC) penetrating is ridiculously low.  Even +3/4 is way too cheap. Why should anyone ever bother with a Penetrating KA under that model?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Why should anyone ever bother with a Penetrating KA under that model?

 

Because its cheaper?

[LoneWolf]

Buying it as a penetrating killing attack with the AVAD and does BODY is a rules legal method.  The extra advantage requires a GM approve it and would be a house rule.   The cost is fairly similar, but the KA has a higher active cost and END cost.   To me that suggest that the additional +1/4 is too low.  I would bump that up to an additional +1/2 instead.  Since what you really are asking for is to apply penetrating to two different stats buying it twice seems to be about right.   Since penetrating is a +1/2 advantage this should be a +1.  

[Hugh Neilson]

2d6 KA, Penetrating (+1/2) costs 45 points.  On an average roll, 2 BOD would be penetrating.

 

Under your proposed model, 5d6 Blast, Stun and BOD Penetrating (+3/4) would cost 44 points and do, on average, 5 STUN and BOD penetrating.

 

The KA is not "cheaper".

[Christopher R Taylor]

No, it literally is cheaper: 25 points at +¾ (44 pts)  is more expensive than 25 points at +½ (37).  That's just math. 

 

You're right, though, its more efficient with those points, and you've convinced me it should be a +½ advantage to make it do body and stun both.

 

Personally I consider penetrating to be too costly for what you get to begin with, though.  Armor Piercing got justly reduced to a +¼ advantage, penetrating should have as well.

[unclevlad]

WRT RAW Penetrating...if a Penetrating Autofire doesn't kick in the +1 "especially effective" advantage, and I don't think it should, then Penetrating may be effective in Autofire mode.  On its own, I do agree:  it feels overpriced.  In Autofire?  It might work out reasonably well.  Another one...Penetrating can be good for trained minions, with Coordinated Attack, because the stun total from multiple hits stacks, for determining if the target is stunned.  Penetrating rounds might not be too much of a stretch, whereas AVAD or NND might be.  YMMV.

 

Back to Hugh's comparison...2d6K w/RAW Penet is 45 points for 2 BODY, and therefore 2 STUN.  Even raising Imp Penet to +1, 4d6 Imp Penet is 40 points and doing 4 BODY and 4 STUN. 

 

Now, I'll grant:  Penetrating is a poor, inefficient choice on a killing attack, much moreso IMO than on a normal attack.  Thus it's really hard to draw a direct comparison.   At +1 for Imp Penet...as I've mentioned before, what this would dictate to me, is buying maybe 4/4 normal and 3/3 resistant with Impenetrable.  It only increases the cost by 4, and would negate penetrating attacks mostly completely.  The level of BODY this advantage poses, is just too high to ignore for many characters.  OK, Damage Negation, I might not worry about it nearly as much.  

[LoneWolf]

Instead of AVAD you could simply take the limitation limited power (-1/2) normal defenses apply.   That would not require you to take does body as it would still be going against its normal defense.     That would work out, so it costs the same as a normal attack.  So, buy 26-1 RKA for 25 points, or for the full 60 active points it would be a 3d6-1 which would cost 40 points.   This way does not get as much stun through, but it does get body through.

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

No, it literally is cheaper: 25 points at +¾ (44 pts)  is more expensive than 25 points at +½ (37).  That's just math.

 

I don't know what you are comparing.  I am comparing a 2d6 Penetrating KA (45 points) which will inflict 2 BOD per hit on an opponent to 5d6 normal, +3/4 Improved penetrating which costs 44 points - 1 point less - to inflict 5 BOD on the same opponent. 

 

Under RAW, the cost for 1 BOD on average penetrating is 22.5 points (1d6 Penetrating KA).  Under your proposed model, it becomes 8.75 points (1d6 Blast Improved Penetrating). You may as well make all the BOD rolled on the KA Penetrating as well.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I don't know what you are comparing.

 

Like to like, you're comparing 6 DC to 5 DC.  It is not surprising that an attack of lesser damage class would cost less than one of greater.

[Hugh Neilson]

OK, let's try to spell it out again...

 

I am comparing:

 

2d6 KA is 30 points x 1.5 Penetrating = 45 points /5 = 9 DC and averages 2 penetrating BOD.

 

to:

 

5d6 Blast is 25 points x 1.75 "CRT Penetrating" = 44 points/5 = 9 DC and averages 5 penetrating BOD.

 

So, for one character point cheaper, your proposed pricing provides 2.5x penetrating BOD at the same 9 DC.

 

I do not know what you are comparing with 6 DC and 5 DC, or 44 points versus 37 points, or whatever. 

 

Perhaps the bizarre results of your proposal are explained by your failure to make an actual comparison with a similar ability under RAW.

 

Yes, Penetrating increases DCs - see 6e V2 p 98 (or the example leading in, which is a Penetrating attack).

 

Oh, and in my view, it should be surprising if a 4d6 Blast with 0 END, Affects Desolid, targeting mDCV with mOCV, fully Indirect and fully IPE with LoS range would cost less than a 5d6 Blast, since the 4d6 blast is 1 DC lower.  Advantages increase costs regardless of whether they increase DC. 

 

Perhaps a more rational approach would be to allow +1/2 Penetrating to apply to BOD, instead of STUN, on either a standard effect basis (1 BOD penetrating per 3d6 normal attack) or 1 BOD penetrating for every 3 BOD rolled.   Or even per 10 STUN rolled (3d6 averages 10.5 STUN, but we'll give the precision up for ease of calculation).  This would then average the same 1 penetrating BOD per 3 base DC achieved by a killing attack.

[Grailknight]

On 12/23/2022 at 9:47 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

AVAD is +1½ to make a power work against a rare defense (like impenetrable), so halfway there looks about right at +¾ to me  Surely not +1½.  You did some math up above to show how limited the power is because of END and AP caps.

 

END costs and AP caps are not a measure of effectiveness and shouldn't even be considered in the cost of a game mechanic. Those are character and campaign constraints and have no bearing on placing this in the rules alongside any other Advantage. This not just an AVAD but an AVAD with Does BODY against a rare defense. And, per Hero Designer, Penetrating does not trigger the double cost for Autofire,(Neither does Armor Piercing, Affects Desolid or Increased STUN Multiplier) so you're looking at an ability that potentially puts out a great deal of BODY damage for a lower cost than the equivalent Killing Attack.  

 

This Advantage is just a method of buying a better Killing Attack. It's at best a character tax, because in a game where this option exists, Impenetrable becomes a very common to universal purchase. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

OK, let's try to spell it out again

 

 

Its okay Hugh, I'm not an infant.  I understood what you were doing.  I was just telling you what I was doing.  You asked a question: why ever buy penetrating on KA, and I said, because its cheaper, like for like.  Then I said, its more efficient to buy the system I proposed but more costly, then said "you're right, its too cheap." 

 

You can go on with your analysis all you want, but I'm done here.