How would you handle this damage situation?

[Tech]

The old villain, Fire and Ice, has been around in the campaign so I gave him a new attack. It's a 5d6 EB NND (LS: heat or cold). He fires intense cold from one hand and intense heat from the other hand; the hero getting hit gets caught between fainting from heat and falling unconscious from the cold, hence the NND.

 

I ran into a situation last game where a superheroine is immune to cold but vulnerable to fire. What would have happened if she'd been hit by the attack? Been pondering this and I'm thinking she'd still take some damage in a convulated way, since she would still be getting hit with intense heat. Fortunately, she wasn't hit by the attack and I didn't hurt my brain trying to figure this out. A straightforward response is she doesn't take damage since he has one of the LS required but special effects says otherwise. How would you handle this?

[Hugh Neilson]

This seems more like two NNDs (one vs LS:Heat, the second vs LS: cold) combined as a Linked attack.  The general rule is that a character should not have multiple NNDs, but for this I'd be inclined to allow (say) 1d6 vs LS Heat, 1d6 vs LS Cold and 3d6 vs either (the extreme heat or cold do some damage, but the juxtaposition does the majority of the damage).  If the juxtaposition is more minor, relatively, then 2d6 vs LS Heat, 2d6 vs LS Cold and 1d6 vs either

[Sean Waters]

As you've defined it, if she had LS: Cold, she takes no damage, despite the vulnerability to heat.

 

Maybe the lack of hot/cold contrast negates much of the attack and the cold part nullifies the heat, at least in her case.

[LoneWolf]

OR is not AND, the way you have it defined either immunity will stop it.  Since many characters have immunity to both having both of them could be a valid defense.  The damage may be caused by the shock of the rapid shift from one temperature to another instead of being actually damaged by either temperature.  

Edited April 4, 2023 by LoneWolf

[Sean Waters]

Well, no, the way the OP defines it either immunity will stop it. It is OR, as stated by the OP.

 

It couldn't really be AND: I certainly wouldn't say that 'many, characters have both and I would say there's not enough characters that are likely to have immunity to both heat and cold to make it a valid NND condition.  If the damage is caused by the shock of the rapid transition and you are ignoring one half of the transition there's going to be no shock, so the whole attack fails.

[Tech]

If you go by rules only, then strictly speaking: she's immune. However, that ignores the special effects of the power, which is the very reason we have such a diversity of powers. I've seen alot of rules lawyers ignoring special effects. Special Effects of a power are indeed a determining factor. For example, Missile Deflection takes that into account as part of the rules.

 

Part of the attack is hot, part is cold; system shock of those two is nasty (been in that situation IRL). I'm inclined to still give a little damage because hot is still hot and she'd still still react the hot aspect.

[LoneWolf]

Immunity to heat and cold is only two points per immunity.   I don’t know about other games but in games I play in having both is actually fairly common.  A lot of power suits have both as do other characters that can survive in different environments.  Back in earlier edition when full life support cost 30 point there were a couple NND’s that had full life support as the defense.  Most insulation protects equally vs heat and cold. 

 

I would allow having both as a defense.  

[unclevlad]

10 hours ago, Tech said:

If you go by rules only, then strictly speaking: she's immune. However, that ignores the special effects of the power, which is the very reason we have such a diversity of powers. I've seen alot of rules lawyers ignoring special effects. Special Effects of a power are indeed a determining factor. For example, Missile Deflection takes that into account as part of the rules.

 

Part of the attack is hot, part is cold; system shock of those two is nasty (been in that situation IRL). I'm inclined to still give a little damage because hot is still hot and she'd still still react the hot aspect.

 

Then write it properly.  LANGUAGE MATTERS.

 

If it requires BOTH heat and cold, and that's common enough in your opinion to be viable for an NND, then, fine, so be it.  If you write it up as heat OR cold, then all it takes is one.  You're writing up the formal definition here, so you CANNOT use SFX arguments.  You want the SFX to do X?  Write it properly so the rules text...the power definition...matches.  No, I never give SFX preference...or even influence...here.

 

Note that you can also write it up as a compound power...2 1/2d6 NND (LS: heat) + 2 1/2 d6 NND (LS: cold), as Hugh said, or his more complex combination.  Or 1 1/2d6 Heat, 1 1/2 d6 cold, and 2d6 either.  Whatever.  And that works in its own way.

[LoneWolf]

The defense of an NND is not a special effect it is a game mechanic.  Special effects can have minor effects on how a power operates, but anything that is significant enough to be a game mechanic needs to be dealt with when the power is purchased.  If the special effect is something represented by an advantage or limitation that needs to be taken and defined when the power is created.  If you made a mistake in how the power should be built that can be adjust at an appropriate time.  Personally I would not allow a power to be adjusted during a game session, especially during combat.  To me that is not proper game etiquette. 

 

Personally I think having both immunity to cold and heat makes more sense for an NND.  Any direct blast with a temperature high enough to ignore characters normal ED should be doing body.  An NND with the defense of immunity to heat should be more indirect like raising the temperature around the character or even directly raising the body heat of the target.  If one blast heats up the character but is not enough to actually damage him and the second blast cools him down to a much lower temperature that also cannot damage him, that seems more reasonable. 

[Hugh Neilson]

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Then write it properly.  LANGUAGE MATTERS.

 

Exactly.

 

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

If it requires BOTH heat and cold, and that's common enough in your opinion to be viable for an NND, then, fine, so be it.  If you write it up as heat OR cold, then all it takes is one.  You're writing up the formal definition here, so you CANNOT use SFX arguments.  You want the SFX to do X?  Write it properly so the rules text...the power definition...matches.  No, I never give SFX preference...or even influence...here.

 

I would say that the writeup suggests a special effect of dealing damage not through intense heat or extreme cold, but through rapid temperature fluctuations, with a target resistant to either extreme heat or extreme cold being able to shrug off the effects, as the heat or cold alone are not sufficient to inflict damage.

 

If your SFX is, say, fire, and things should catch fire and keep burning after the initial hit, then you purchase a continuing damage effect to align your power with your vision of the SFX. Your don't get significant benefits for free. 

 

If your GM thinks having LS: Heat OR LS: Cold is more common than having either one specifically, and more common than having both, then NNDs choosing between the three would potentially have different costs. Taking the lowest cost (most common defense) and then asserting that targets with that defense should still inflict some damage argues that you did not properly design (and pay for) the power. Judicious choice of SFX should not carry significant mechanical benefits.

 

Minor benefits? Sure.  With minor drawbacks.  What drawbacks would you attribute to offset the benefit of allowing some targets who have the defense you defined still take damage?

[unclevlad]

3 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If your GM thinks having LS: Heat OR LS: Cold is more common than having either one specifically, and more common than having both, then NNDs choosing between the three would potentially have different costs. Taking the lowest cost (most common defense) and then asserting that targets with that defense should still inflict some damage argues that you did not properly design (and pay for) the power. Judicious choice of SFX should not carry significant mechanical benefits.

 

 

"Potentially" being a key word there.  The granularity is poor, here;  there just aren't that many options.  Common is rPD or rED;  Uncommon is the typical Flash Defs, or Mental or Power Def.  Even in low-power/heroic games, most characters will have rPD.  Almost all supers will have rPD and rED.  Flash, Mental, or Power?  As you move up in power, you'll probably see one of em reasonably often.

 

I'll grant:  I personally take LS:  Heat and LS:  Cold frequently...but also, rarely just one of em.  They're 'hero' powers...you don't want your mighty hero shivering in 0 degree weather, right?  So, yeah, if that's the mindset, then the rarity might change. 

 

You *can* also distinguish between "what do people have in general" versus "what do the heroes, villains, and minions (on either side) have?"  Because taking out a normal or a minion is trivial.  You may just consider 'rarity' as how often, and how much, do the full power PCs and NPCs have it?

 

I'll also promote something I've been doing, which is graduating heat/cold resistance.  I dislike full-out All or Nothing like LS: heat or cold...particularly when it's so ambiguous as to how far it goes.  So I figured, OK, rework it.  LS:  Temperature.  1 point gives 2 TLs' worth of expansion of your personal comfort zone.  It can be 1 TL heat, 1 TL cold, or 2 TLs of heat or cold resistance.  To translate that into AVADs...they count as damage reduction.  1 level, 25%;  2 levels, 50%;  3 levels, 75%.  LS: Heat/Cold is moved up to Uncommon, and if you apply NND to it, then even 1 level bounces it.  

 

Note that this is actually slightly MORE expensive, if you want to ignore SERIOUSLY cold weather like Antarctica or a Siberian winter.  Going by 6E2 145, if you want 70 below zero F, that's 6 to 8 TLs, depending on how wide your TLs are.  I really don't have that much of a problem with that, because that's REALLY cold.  Most of us who've lived in cold country have seen a chart like this:

 

and frostbite isn't END/REC loss...it's BODY damage.  The rules are largely talking about hypothermia considerations, but at some point, there should be a transition into frostbite issues.  And that probably should be a bit more expensive.  

[Hugh Neilson]

Why am I flashing back to the "falling" discussion?  4 points to be immune to arctic weather and another 4 to be immune to Sahara-level heat.  How much to be immune to the cold of space and the heat of a volcano?  Maybe I'll just spend those points on ED instead - I'll get way more benefit over the course of a campaign.  I can play "immune to extreme temperatures man" in a game where the GM applies costs commensurate with the benefits.

[unclevlad]

Then stay with what's there.  The limit of my suspension of disbelief is different from yours.

[Grailknight]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Why am I flashing back to the "falling" discussion?  4 points to be immune to arctic weather and another 4 to be immune to Sahara-level heat.  How much to be immune to the cold of space and the heat of a volcano?  Maybe I'll just spend those points on ED instead - I'll get way more benefit over the course of a campaign.  I can play "immune to extreme temperatures man" in a game where the GM applies costs commensurate with the benefits.

 

Because environmental damage is different from combat damage.

 

One is about resistance to instantaneous shocks and the other is about resisting conditions that upset bodily functions over time. If your grill flares up and you're too close, you may get a burn. If you sit in the sauna for 6 hours, you'll be lucky to survive but you won't have any burns. Heat is the root cause of both but there's a difference between the magnitude and intensity of heat in each situation.

 

PD/ED is about the grill, Life Support is about the sauna. The first is general and covers a wide range of SFX, the second is very specialized and tailored to specific SFX. Yes, points spent on PD/ED will be more generally useful but sometimes we want to tell a story where those other points shine. When you're the GM you can tell your players not to spend those points that way because it will never come up. I think as a GM that the player who spent those points should get a chance to shine if only by not being inconvenienced by the setting. If you're going to enforce Limitations, then highlight specialties once in a while also.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

10 hours ago, unclevlad said:

I'll grant:  I personally take LS:  Heat and LS:  Cold frequently...but also, rarely just one of em. 

 

I am not wanting to derail this discussion; iwas struck by the differences from group to group.

 

Myself, I regularly take one or the other temperature extreme LS on my Blaster characters- most of their SFX lend well to the idea of being able to use a miniscule portion of their power to either heat or cool themselves.  I don't often take both.  Noa the rules (at least the older ones I use) let me buy "immune to extreme heat and cold" in one whack, so I usually take a limitation to have just one.

 

For me, that is granularity enough.  Given that so many of the modern rules (post 4e) have moved to things like "Growth is in larger steps, but you can declare your character to not be at maximum size" and other such things-- even 4e had changes to Reduced Endurance (half, then zero) and verbiage that said "but you can declare that it still cost a some amount of Endurance if you want to."   All that being said, and the initial cost of that particular Life Support anyway having gotten cheaper over the years, I wouldn't bother doing anything more than possibly taking a minor limitation to create a character who is "cold tolerant' instead of "cold proof," and then declare what his limit is (keeping in mind that to deserve a limitation, it should be a level he can reasonably expect to exceed now and again, of course).

 

Either way, I though that the difference from,one table to another was extremely nteresting; thank your for sharing! 

 

 

10 hours ago, unclevlad said:

They're 'hero' powers...you don't want your mighty hero shivering in 0 degree weather, right?  

 

Another table to table difference that fascinated me.   Possibly because of all superheroes (with whom,I admit to having very little familiarity), I am most familiar with Captain Marvel (the original character from the old-as I-am-and-then-some comics (there was a stash of them in the loft over my grandfather's milk room)  and Spiderman (same reason).  I recall Spiderman complaining about the cold, the heat, and catching a cold from patrolling in the rain-  all,that seemed to make him that much more real, and prove his dedication.  In the words of my father (who always scoffed at superheroes: "it is easy to brave when you are invincible."

 

To this day, I use the chill of the night air through leotards or the rain wicking through your pants and into your socks, instantly filling your boots-- things like that- as a vital part of setting the mood for a scene or even a short journey.  Even our superheroes have to cope with high humidity and the concern of deodorant failure.  Outside of high-tech settings, LS vs weather / temperature extremes isn't terribly common for us.  In high tech settings, most characters have an all-climate survival suit or battery-powered undies. 

 

Again; the observation interested me.

 

I return you to the regularly-scheduled discussion. 

 

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Most of us who've lived in cold country have seen a chart like this:

 

I havent seen one of those since I left Circle in '78, and I dont miss them _at all_!     

 

 

 

10 hours ago, unclevlad said:

and frostbite isn't END/REC loss...it's BODY damage. 

 

 

Modeling it accurate to real life effects, it's a Transform: rarely do the capillary beds fully restore (tons of tissue from micro-scarring, even in the meat of the extremity) and the nenrve damage- well, we all know that nerves don't heal-  anyway, a victim of frostbite picks up the disadvantages of prone to frostbite (once you get it, it is easier to get again- at least in the same general area- owing to the healing issues noted above) and "pain on exposure to cold- dependinf on the severity of the nerve damage, the cold doesnt even have to be "extreme"  by game standards: just cold.  There are myriad distinctive features that go with it as well, depending on exactly what tissue died (for you warn-climate types, the blackness associated with frostbite is necrosis: dead tissue.  That is going to fall off and is never coming back.  There is a small chance of systemic infection, but thanks to the freezing of affected blood vessels in the same area, that chance is much smaller with frostbite than with other types of necrosis.  If you are really unfortunate, a tiny piece of frozen or dead internal tissue makes it to the bloodstream, lodges in your brain, and causes a stroke, but this is ridiculously rare.  However, that is an even bigger T-form, and I would tie it to rolling 3 one's on your unlike dice and even that would only trigger an,activation roll of six or less.  It is _rare_.)

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

Modeling it accurate to real life effects, it's a Transform: rarely do the capillary beds fully restore (tons of tissue from micro-scarring, even in the meat of the extremity) and the nenrve damage- well, we all know that nerves don't heal-  anyway, a victim of frostbite picks up the disadvantages of prone to frostbite (once you get it, it is easier to get again- at least in the same general area- owing to the healing issues noted above) and "pain on exposure to cold- dependinf on the severity of the nerve damage, the cold doesnt even have to be "extreme"  by game standards: just cold.  There are myriad distinctive features that go with it as well, depending on exactly what tissue died (for you warn-climate types, the blackness associated with frostbite is necrosis: dead tissue.  That is going to fall off and is never coming back.  There is a small chance of systemic infection, but thanks to the freezing of affected blood vessels in the same area, that chance is much smaller with frostbite than with other types of necrosis.  If you are really unfortunate, a tiny piece of frozen or dead internal tissue makes it to the bloodstream, lodges in your brain, and causes a stroke, but this is ridiculously rare.  However, that is an even bigger T-form, and I would tie it to rolling 3 one's on your unlike dice and even that would only trigger an,activation roll of six or less.  It is _rare_.)

 

[Not directed at Duke directly, but at the need for "accurate simulation" to allow me to "suspend my disbelief"]

 

Now let's discuss the long-term effects of being repeatedly bludgeoned into unconsciousness.  Show me a game that models this realistically.

[Hugh Neilson]

12 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

Because environmental damage is different from combat damage.

 

One is about resistance to instantaneous shocks and the other is about resisting conditions that upset bodily functions over time. If your grill flares up and you're too close, you may get a burn. If you sit in the sauna for 6 hours, you'll be lucky to survive but you won't have any burns. Heat is the root cause of both but there's a difference between the magnitude and intensity of heat in each situation.

 

PD/ED is about the grill, Life Support is about the sauna. The first is general and covers a wide range of SFX, the second is very specialized and tailored to specific SFX.

 

That covers SFX. I'm discussing cost. And that "immune to extreme heat" covers both the sauna and the grill flare-up, but not Stanley Steamer's Hot Steam NND or Blowtorch's Flamethrower.

 

12 hours ago, Grailknight said:

Yes, points spent on PD/ED will be more generally useful but sometimes we want to tell a story where those other points shine. When you're the GM you can tell your players not to spend those points that way because it will never come up. I think as a GM that the player who spent those points should get a chance to shine if only by not being inconvenienced by the setting. If you're going to enforce Limitations, then highlight specialties once in a while also.

 

This is my costing point from a different angle. If you are charging the character 10 points for immunity to high heat, then you need to set up in-game situations that make this immunity worth 10 points. 

[Grailknight]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

That covers SFX. I'm discussing cost. And that "immune to extreme heat" covers both the sauna and the grill flare-up, but not Stanley Steamer's Hot Steam NND or Blowtorch's Flamethrower.

 

 

This is my costing point from a different angle. If you are charging the character 10 points for immunity to high heat, then you need to set up in-game situations that make this immunity worth 10 points. 

 

But you're not discussing cost fairly. Life Support for either extreme heat or cold costs 2 points and 4 for both. When it comes to making a character, that's a trade-off of 1 skill on average. Don't compare it to PD/ED compare it to Survival. That's really what the Life Support options are for: superhuman adaptability not superhuman toughness.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Grailknight

[Doc Democracy]

47 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

 

But you're not discussing cost fairly. Life Support for either extreme heat or costs 2 points and 4 for both. When it comes to making a character, that's a trade-off of 1 skill on average. Don't compare it to PD/ED compare it to Survival. That's really what the Life Support options are for: superhuman adaptability not superhuman toughness.

 

And I guess the problem arises when the system blurs the boundaries.  Environmental effects bring combat effects into adaptability questions and the NND effects discussion brigns adaptability powers into combat.  🙂  So what is the system to do.  I like the fact tha things can be drawn from various aspects fo the system to answer questions, it avoids needless duplication in the system.

 

There is always the thing that the GM says the life support power to withstand extreme heat does not help tyou against a Fire Bolt attack because the attack is causing extreme trauma over a short period of time rather than allowing the character to operate within an extreme environment.  I usually pre-empt such things by raising it with the player when the character is being designed: "Why can he walk through a raging conflagration but will fold when he is hit by a bolt from Johnny Storm??"  That is a management response rather than a system one (relevant in HERO as so much of it is managing the options).

 

Systemically, I agree with Neil, I think the system claims to be balanced and, if we recognise that claim, then 4 points spent in one area should be reasonably equivalent to 4 points spent in another.

 

In this very specific issue, I agree with those saying that you should be explicit in your language when designing powers.  I do think that we all recognise that we are often lax in some of our language and, when it comes to the current question, it looks like the intention of the power might not match up with what was written down.  I am inclined, always, to make rulings that are more likely to favour players.  So, if this was a villain, I would be inclined to tell the players that I will rule the NND was stopped by either heat or cold LS.  I would then point out that, next time, only having one of those LS would reduce the effectiveness of the NND rather than stop it (and would then probably build it like Hugh suggested near the start.  If it was a player then I would probably give them a reduced effectiveness (handwaved with a promise to come back and re-model after the game session was finished).

 

Doc

[Grailknight]

I see where we differ here. To me, that raging conflagration is a Hazard, doing combat damage every segment. That's an ED problem. The desert or arctic are more as what I see as environmental damage.

 

It also ties into the Hero costing of combat and out of combat abilities. Combat uses being much higher on average, whereas anything Hero puts on the noncombat time scale is fairly cheap.

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

This is actually kind of related to a conundrum I've been thinking about a while in Fantasy Hero.  Let's say you have a sword, pretty easy to define: KA vs PD.  But then let us say that a wizard enchants the sword so that it has an electrical crackling field and deals more damage with electricity defined as a KA vs ED (for simplicity's sake).

 

Is that two separate attacks: ED and PD?  Is it one bigger combined damage attack adding both together? 

 

Now, before you say "depends on how you define it", which is more or less true, how does the second one work?  Does it go against PD or ED?  Does it split between them?  Do you average them out?

[Doc Democracy]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Now, before you say "depends on how you define it", which is more or less true, how does the second one work?  Does it go against PD or ED?  Does it split between them?  Do you average them out?

 

Too late, depends on how you define it!  😁

 

But I mean that in narrative terms rather than game ones. 

 

The electrical crackling field might simply be electricity, bringing in a second effect under the same die roll, if you hit you do the physical damage and, because you brought the electrical field close enough, it also exposes the target to electricity which might mean normal damage to ED or it might mean NND.

 

On the other hand, the electrical field might enhance the penetration of the cutting edge either doing more damage or more effectively penetrating armour.

 

It might even cause other effects, rendering the target immobile (due to electric shock) or immobilising the part of the body hit.

 

It really does need a more detailed description before you get into the mechanics. 🙂

 

Doc

Edited April 6, 2023 by Doc Democracy

[LoneWolf]

I would probably do the electrical damage as a AVLD instead of a normal attack.   Metal armor or being though should not stop being electrocuted.  Probably use a normal attack instead of a killing attack, but you could use a killing attack that does BODY, but it will be incredibly expensive.    

[unclevlad]

What CRT is pointing out is that the complete separation of PD and ED creates situations that are just a PITA.  Champions Now threw out the split, so you could do this and it works *simply*.  

 

LW:  AVAD is plausible, but no matter what, if you want it to do BODY, it's gonna be very expensive.  And it doesn't address the issue, so much as side-step it. 

 

I'm not saying the split defenses don't have advantages too, but yeah, it does make "separate but distinct" standard-defenses damage packets useless.

 

This really isn't an SFX argument, either, because the SFX that're being brought up are deliberately contrived to justify the mechanical spin forced by the rules.  It is simply ridiculously impractical to say "2d6K (physical) + 4d6 vs. energy" so we don't.  We define the mechanics then contrive the SFX so we go...yeah, ok, that sounds right.

 

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

[Not directed at Duke directly,

 

 

No offense taken, Sir.

 

 

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

but at the need for "accurate simulation" to allow me to "suspend my disbelief"]

 

That was the point I thought I was making. 

 

That, and unless the story centers around different levels of temperature tolerance--

 

Well, out another way: the rules put total immunity at what?  4 points?  That in itself suggests how often it matters in the source material.  Moving from Champions to "a universal system" actually brought the price _down_, suggesting that outside rhe original source material, it matters even less.

 

Ultimately, you are paying those for points for defense against flavor text.

 

(Although as the guy in charge of weiting that flavor text, you think I would be more bothered by that realization)