Impenetrable

[tombrown803]

In the hero discord a discussion has come up about if a character has multiple powers that apply the same type of defense (For example, a force field that provides PD and normal PD) and only one of them has the Impenetrable advantage how does this apply overall. For some reason I remember discussion and/or a rules clarification about this but could not find anything. If someone could help direct me to an old post addressing this it would be appreciated

[unclevlad]

Penetrating is essentially an NND effect;  so long as you have 1 point of impenetrable defense that applies against the attack, the Penetrating minimum damage is negated.

 

If the resistant defense has the Impenetrable, this will stop both normal and killing Penetrating, because the resistant defense counts against the STUN of a normal attack.

 

If the normal defenose has the Impen, it'll stop the Penetrating STUN from a normal attack, but it doesn't stop the BODY of a killing attack, so a penetrating killing attack would still do its minimum BODY.  If the attacker's decided to say it applies to the STUN from the killing attack?  Then it would, since the normal defense still applies to the STUN. 

[IndianaJoe3]

13 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

Penetrating is essentially an NND effect;  so long as you have 1 point of impenetrable defense that applies against the attack, the Penetrating minimum damage is negated.

 

This is incorrect. (Or else why would you buy more than one point of Impenetrable?) Each point of Impenetrable defense stops one point of Penetrating damage. For example, if a character has 5 RPD, plus 5 RPD (Impenetrable), it would stop 10 points of damage plus 5 points of Penetrating damage.

[unclevlad]

20 minutes ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

This is incorrect. (Or else why would you buy more than one point of Impenetrable?) Each point of Impenetrable defense stops one point of Penetrating damage. For example, if a character has 5 RPD, plus 5 RPD (Impenetrable), it would stop 10 points of damage plus 5 points of Penetrating damage.

 

6E1 342:

 

Targets with Impenetrable defenses (6E1 147) ignore the effect of Penetrating (though they still suffer the normal damage or effect from the power); characters with Damage Reduction cannot reduce the minimum effect (see 6E1 186). Characters can buy Penetrating multiple times, but only to counteract multiple levels of Impenetrable.

 

I don't see your 1-for-1 interpretation.  Mind, I *agree* it's the sensible ruling, and I'd be fine with it...but that wording doesn't support it, and the errata I have (February 2020) does not mention this.

 

There's a qualifier here, but it's unclear.  6E1 147.

 

A character cannot have partially Impenetrable defenses. A given defense must be all Impenetrable, or it’s not Impenetrable at all. A character can, however, have some defenses that are Impenetrable, and others that are not.
 

So what does this mean?  I buy layered defenses, quite often.  Base PD/ED.  Tough skin...personal armor (maybe expressed as buying Resistant on the base defense, maybe buying Resistant Protection).  Occasionally, a reinforced suit...more armor, on a focus.  Then a force field...resistant prot that's at least nonpersistent;  it may or may not cost END.  Some of those layers might be pretty darn light, but that's sensible, IMO, for many non-brick types.  

 

So, if I do this...can I make just 1 layer impenetrable, like the force field?  

 

The sweet thing is, the 1-for-1 interpretation allows this ambiguity to get tossed out, and puts Penetrating and Impen on equal footing with each other, and with the general pattern in Hero...scaled, not absolute.

[LoneWolf]

The way we have always done it is to compare the defense with the impenetrable advantage against the minimum damage of the penetrating attack.  So, if you are hit with a killing attack and the minimum damage is 4 and you have 2 points of impenetrable defense you reduce the minimum damage by 2.   Basically, treat the penetrating portion of the damage as an AVLD with the defense being suitable impenetrable defense. 

Edited October 24, 2023 by LoneWolf

[Christopher R Taylor]

Honestly the book isn't 100% clear, and Steve isn't here to ask, sadly.  It could read either way: either you can buy just 1 point and it covers everything... or you have to buy all your defense impenetrable to get anything.

[unclevlad]

Let me make one mild adjustment.

 

The book is 100% UNclear.

[Lord Liaden]

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Let me make one mild adjustment.

 

The book is 100% UNclear.

 

Which would be logical for something called "Impenetrable."

 

I found this passage in the official Sixth Edition rules FAQ (which you can download from here along with FAQ for Fifth Edition), p. 10, which appears to address this issue. TBH I'm not sure if it makes it more or less clear, but it is Steve's word on the subject:

 

 

Q: If a character has some defenses that are Impenetrable and some that are not (as discussed on 6E1 147), how do you determine whether Impenetrable “cancels out” Penetrating (and thus that the damage applies to the character normally), or the Penetrating attack has its standard (Advantaged) effect?

 

A: If a character who has some Impenetrable defenses and some defenses that are not Impenetrable is hit with a Penetrating attack, compare the average BODY for the Penetrating attack to the Impenetrable defenses. (In the case of Drains and the like, count the “Normal Damage BODY” for these purposes, unless it’s a Drain BODY, in which case determine the average in the standard mathematical way.) If the average BODY exceeds the Impenetrable defenses, the Impenetrable is “overcome” and the Penetrating attack has its standard (Advantaged) effect. If the average BODY is less than or equal to the Impenetrable defenses, the Impenetrable “negates” the Penetrating and the attack applies to the target’s defenses in its standard (non-Advantaged) way.

 

Example: Protector has 20 PD (non-Advantaged). He also has Resistant Protection (10 PD/10 ED), Impenetrable. He’s hit with an RKA 2½d6, Penetrating bullet. The average BODY for that RKA would be 8.75 (2.5d6 x 3.5). That’s less than 10 PD, so Impenetrable applies and the Penetrating effect is negated.

 

Later, Protector’s slashed with a magic sword (HKA 4d6, Penetrating). The average BODY on this attack is 14. That’s more than 10 PD, so the Impenetrable doesn’t apply; the attack has its usual Penetrating effect.
 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Lord Liaden

[unclevlad]

OK, well...thanks for the reference.

 

But that's a terrible interpretation.  It's setting up a HUGE transition from No Damage to Full Damage, or vice versa, based on a single point of damage or defense.

 

I suppose...it might not really matter.  That 4d6 KA penetrating is an 18 DC attack.  I *hope* that's doing something.  I don't feel like doing the math, but would you rather face:

a)  6d6 KA

b)  4 1/2d6 AP KA

c)  4d6 Penetrating KA

 

I'd still say that blowing off Penetrating generally is the safest approach, unless you really have points to spare.  Another option might be...if the GM allows Autofire, Penetrating killing attacks that *don't* require the +1 for "unusually efficient attacks"...then I might wanna have enough Impen to bounce those.  

 

 

[Doc Democracy]

I suppose it reflects a defence that is perfect until it collapses catastrophically.  I agree though that it looks like something only villains will use! GMs can afford to be profligate with their points...

[LoneWolf]

Does the same thing apply to hardened defenses?   If I have 2 points of hardened armor and an additional 10 points of resistant defenses and 10 more points in PD what happens when I get hit with an armor piercing attack.   Do I have 12 resistant DEF and 22 total DEF, or do I have 7 resistant DEF and 12 total DEF?  The wording of the two advantages in the book is identical.  

 

This makes those advantages worthless.  For 6 points I can buy 1 PD, 1 ED resistant defense with x2 hardened and x2 impenetrable and ignore 99.999% of the attacks with those advantages.   Make this a set of underwear (IIF) and the cost drops to 5 points.  If I buy a 23 DEF force field, I can totally ignore the BODY on a 4d6 double AP attack.   Even a 13 DEF force Field will on the average allow me to take no BODY from the 90-point power.  

 

A more sensible way would be to look at the defense purchased with the advantage and adjust the defense against the attack based on that.  So, the AP attack will halve any non-hardened defense, and the impenetrable DEF will reduce the amount of “Minimum” damage.  

 

A character should get what they pay for, but they should pay for what they get.  Spending 5 points to be completely ignore the AP and PEN advantage on all energy and physical attacks is insane.  
 

[Duke Bushido]

8 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

Does the same thing apply to hardened defenses?  

 

 

I am going to have to review 6e Impenetrable to tell you if those things are the same that hapoens with Hardened, but here is what hapoens with Hardened:

 

Your two points of Hardened defenses count at full value (in this case, 2 points) against an Armor Piercing attack.  All other non-hardened applicable defenses are cut in half.

 

You can stack them anyway that you like, but Armor Piercing halves anything that isnt Hardened;  Hardened does not simply stop an AP attack.

 

An opponent can buy Armor Piercing twice (or more) on the same attack.  The second (and any additional) purchase of Hardened does not further halve the defenses; no matter how many multiples of AP an attack has, it cannot reduce defenses by more than 1/2.

 

What additional instances do is negate Hardened.  In you example, were I using a double AP attack, I would halve all of your relevant non-Hardened defenses.  The second instance of Armor Piercing will negate an instance of Hardened.  Thus, with my double AP attack, I would have your non-Hardened defenses _and_ your Hardened defenses (cutting that 2 to a single point).

 

Now let me be clear: what I am saying is that a double AP attack will reduce the value of _any_ and _all_ single-hardened attacks.

 

If you have a hardened breastplate, a hardened undershirt, and a hardened chest tattoo, a double-hardened attack will halve _all of them_.

 

What it will _not_ halve is a double-hardened defense.  That'a right:  just like Armor Piercing, Hardened may be purchased multiple times on the same defense.

 

So if you double-harden your breastplate, a double-armor piercing attack will not halve this defense, but _will_ halve the single-hardened undershirt and tattoo.  Now if you _triple harden_ that tattoo, then your attacker would need to have a _triple AP_ attack to halve its defense value.

 

Even if he _does_ have a Triple Armor Piercing attack and you have no hardened anything, his attack will never reduce your defenses to more than 1/2 their value.

 

 

Hope that helps.

 

 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I have an NPC superhero in my Champions campaign named Captain Invincible.  Other than flight and 40 STR, his only powers are defenses.  Lots, and lots of defenses. I built him so he could fall out of orbit or be hit with the deadliest weapon listed in the book and not be stunned.  His defenses were ALL double hardened.

 

He was very expensive, but I thought, what if some PC bought a double AP attack?  Can't have him be bothered by that...

 

He was mostly a nuisance hero.  He is... not bright, and has a very fixed code of very simple boy scout ethics, so he gets into some confusing situations and is easy to fool.  But he was always for the right thing and honor, so he'd listen to the PCs if he caught them doing questionable stuff or if they were body swapped/mind controlled/replaced by clones, etc.   He was just very, VERY hard to put down.

[unclevlad]

What LW is talking about starts here:

 

Quote

A character cannot have partially Hardened defenses. A given defense must be all Hardened, or it’s not Hardened at all.  A character can, however, have some defenses that are Hardened, and others that are not.

 

As he noted, it's the SAME language as Impen.  So, his extremely legit point...if this is the case, then does the Rules FAQ answer...see LL's post for the link...ALSO apply?

 

I started to write a response, but stopped...because the FAQ ruling, even if it was for Impen, made me question it.

 

This is the text in 5E, page 115:

 

Quote

For example, a character could Harden his natural PD and ED, but not his Armor.  If a character has some defenses that are Hardened, and some that are not, the Hardened defense applies in full against an Armor Piercing attack, and non-Hardened defenses have half value as usual.

Against Penetrating or Indirect, any Hardened defense, no matter where it's layered in, stops the Advantage from affecting the character.

 

Now:

a)  5E doesn't have Impen.  That's a 6E change.  Probably good;  allowing Hardened to apply to both, for just 1/4, is ludicrous.

b)  In our extensive recent discussion on AP, these were the interpretations I think all of us accepted.

c)  But the 6E FAQ *throws this out of the water* for Impen.  It's got a completely different basis.  It's not standard scaling, it's a yes/no, pass/fail comparison.

 

And the rules in 5E still have the terrible, ambiguous language.  We know:

--every defense class is different...PD, ED, Power, Mental, each Flash.  Completely separate.

--the 5E text clearly distinguishes normal and resistant within the class, so essentially 12 typical defense *classes*.

 

What is NOT clear:  in 5E, can I buy my Armor with Hardened, and my Force Field *without*?  IOW, does the "all or nothing" apply to a specific source of the power...or is it overall to the entire specific class?  The latter would say that if my Armor is hardened but my FF is not, then NOTHING is.  

 

And to add more fuel?  There is an OBVIOUS cut and paste error in 6E...it's in the errata.  The text for Impen says "an attack with Impen applies normally against a Hardened defense."  This is corrected in the errata...but it's cut and paste, and the FAQ even says it's wrong.  It doesn't work that way.  So...we must consider that the Hardened text was also not edited properly.  The all-or-nothing aspect made sense for Penetrating;  it makes NO sense for Hardened, where there's clean rules to handle the partial hardening.

 

So LW gets all the stuff you're saying there Duke......but he's pointing out that *as written in 6E*...it's seriously NOT CLEAR how things work.  Even taking into account the FAQ ruling on Impen...are we expected to ALSO use that for Hardened, as a yes/no, pass/fail?  I HOPE not.

 

 

[LoneWolf]

One thing to keep in mind is that even the developers make mistakes at times.  To me this is clearly one of those times. This has apparently been going on for a few editions.     

 

To me the fix is simple.  For hardened defense you halve anything that is not hardened to the appropriate level.  For impenetrable you apply the amount of appropriate impenetrable defense against the minimum damage. 

 

Even though this is not official I suggest that everyone adopt this as a house rule.  I would also suggest that this be officially adopted and added to any upcoming FAQ. 

[unclevlad]

For hardened, that is the 5E rule anyway, and there's no systemic logic to make any change.  And, AFAIK?  No one treated AP and Hardened any differently from the 5E handling, until you properly pointed out the textual issues.

 

This doesn't belong in the FAQ, tho;  IMO, it belongs in the errata.  Strike ALL the text that talks about "all or nothing" and write it properly...note that the text in 6E talks in parts about Defense Powers...individual powers, then later about Defenses, in ways that are both unnecessary and awkward.   5E comes close, there's just a matter of striking the parts that don't apply, since it talks about so many things.  I'd rather see it elevated as high as possible. 

 

This holds for both Hardened and Penetrating...because the interpretation in the FAQ is *so* at odds to what we were thinking.  Again...bring it ALL the way forward to the errata. 

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

Well-timed post, Sir.  I just started crawling through books (see my earlier comment that i would have to review the 6e rules on Impenetrable before taking a SWAG at it.

 

I never got that far, becauae I notices that from ita inception. AVLD / AVAD makes itself illegal in its onw text.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

textual issues.

 

That is exavtly what seems to be going on with AVLD.  In the text, I mentions being available for Killing Attack, Blast, Drain, Mental Powers-  then says "not Flash, because it isnt legal for any power where Normal BODY Damage is applied against a defense.

 

Meaning it isn't legal for Killing Attack or Blast, either, as both od those have their "normal BODY damage" applied against a defense.  Everything in the book that either deals BODY or counts BODY has that BODY apply against a defense.

 

Surely, most everyone else has always ignored that, too, but as bad text goes. That has now survived from 4 to 5 to 5r to 6 and never been addressed for clarity.

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

7 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

That is exavtly what seems to be going on with AVLD.  In the text, I mentions being available for Killing Attack, Blast, Drain, Mental Powers-  then says "not Flash, because it isnt legal for any power where Normal BODY Damage is applied against a defense.

 

Meaning it isn't legal for Killing Attack or Blast, either, as both od those have their "normal BODY damage" applied against a defense.  Everything in the book that either deals BODY or counts BODY has that BODY apply against a defense.

 

It's poorly phrased, but can be read in context. To me, it means that you can apply Penetrating to an attack's damage where you add the points on the dice and apply that to a defense. You cannot apply it to an attack 's damage computed with the "normal damage BOD" system where you get 0 for a 1, 1 for a 2-5 and 2 for a 6.  So you can't apply Penetrating to the BOD of a normal attack.  Since Flash has no effect that sums the rolls on the dice, you can't apply Penetrating to a Flash.

 

The 6e issue with Impenetrable is pretty simple.  Way back in 1e, we had Armor Piercing.  Hardened defended against it. 

 

Around Champions III/2e, we added Penetrating.  It needed a defense.  Well, we already had Hardened, so the simple approach was to allow Hardened to also defend against Penetrating.  Given 2 Hardened DEF did little against AP, we just tack on that Hardened blocks Penetrating entirely.

 

Fast forward to 6e, and the decision to carve "Impenetrable" off from Hardened.  I see the issue there as "cut & paste" without assessing that this means any Impenetrable voids Penetrating entirely.  The best response, to me, would have been 1 Impenetrable defense reduces 1 point of Penetrating damage. An 8d6 Penetrating Blast rolls average 28 STUN, 8 Penetrating.  You have 30 defenses, 5 of which are Impenetrable?  Then you take 28-30 = 0; or 8 - 5 = 3 Penetrating STUN.  3 STUN gets through.

 

For some reason, Penetrating got various weird rulings.  The "average roll" rule is a close second to "1 pip KA, Penetrating is always 1 Penetrating BOD" ruling.

[IndianaJoe3]

On 10/25/2023 at 8:02 PM, LoneWolf said:

One thing to keep in mind is that even the developers make mistakes at times.  To me this is clearly one of those times. This has apparently been going on for a few editions.     

 

To me the fix is simple.  For hardened defense you halve anything that is not hardened to the appropriate level.  For impenetrable you apply the amount of appropriate impenetrable defense against the minimum damage. 

 

Even though this is not official I suggest that everyone adopt this as a house rule.  I would also suggest that this be officially adopted and added to any upcoming FAQ. 

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant.

[unclevlad]

On 10/26/2023 at 5:53 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

Fast forward to 6e, and the decision to carve "Impenetrable" off from Hardened.  I see the issue there as "cut & paste" without assessing that this means any Impenetrable voids Penetrating entirely.  The best response, to me, would have been 1 Impenetrable defense reduces 1 point of Penetrating damage. An 8d6 Penetrating Blast rolls average 28 STUN, 8 Penetrating.  You have 30 defenses, 5 of which are Impenetrable?  Then you take 28-30 = 0; or 8 - 5 = 3 Penetrating STUN.  3 STUN gets through.

 

 

Yeah, but after thinking about it...the counter is that even 5-6 resistant impenetrable basically negates all penetrating.  Killing?  It's the fact that you're only averaging 1 BODY that'll penetrate, per die...that costs 22.5 points.  6 will bounce it.  It won't bounce all the STUN...but even on a 15 DC, 10d6 Penetrating...the target takes all of 4.  

 

So I *suspect* that's why the ruling is as it is.  I think there isn't much argument that Penetrating on a normal attack isn't great to begin with, most of the time;  the exception that comes to mind quickly is giving your grunt horde a BUNCH of em, to nickel and dime someone.  For killing damage, well, you get *something* through, and worrying the PCs is a Very Good Thing IMO.  But, if we go with "1 point of impen resistant negates 1 BODY"...the defense becomes too cheap for it to be practical.

 

I still dislike threshold-style rules, so I'm not a fan of Steve's either.

 

I'm leaning to just saying...heck with it.  Throw Penetrating out.  I don't think there's any big loss;  how much do any of us *use* it?  Combine that witht he editing issues...ta-ta!!!

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 I think there isn't much argument that Penetrating on a normal attack isn't great to begin with, most of the time

 

Which is why I argued it should be a +¼ advantage for normal attacks at least, if not killing.  Its just not worth the cost and the resulting reduction in power (as you demonstrate) makes it not worth taking -- and impenetrable is even less worth taking because almost nobody buys penetration.

[Chris Goodwin]

On 10/29/2023 at 3:08 PM, unclevlad said:

I'm leaning to just saying...heck with it.  Throw Penetrating out.  I don't think there's any big loss;  how much do any of us *use* it?  Combine that witht he editing issues...ta-ta!!!

 

I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't best. 

 

For pretty much every other advantage there's an easy SFX description.  But I can't think of one for Penetrating. 

 

Can we point at comic book characters with Penetrating attacks?  Fantasy monsters or spells?  Science fiction weapons? 

 

The mechanical usage for it is spelled out in the advantage description.  "The player wants an attack that always gets some damage through..."  What's the SFX justification for that?  (I'm not asking for a description of an attack that has Penetrating; I'm asking, what it is about that attack that "always gets some damage through"?)

[Lord Liaden]

Hmm... interesting question.

 

Off the top of my head: Being set on fire. Doused in acid. Bitten by an insect swarm. Blasted with a stream of sand. Crushed by extreme pressure. A volley of armor-piercing flechettes. Yes, there are other ways to build those things mechanically in HERO, but IMHO they can all represent small amounts of damage getting past Defenses not tailored to counter them, especially if they're Constant attacks.

[unclevlad]

Penetrating...how about high mass, low velo, blunt force?  Mace versus plate mail.  12 gauge *slug* versus typical bullet-proof vest.

 

25 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Off the top of my head: Being set on fire. Doused in acid. Bitten by an insect swarm. Blasted with a stream of sand. Crushed by extreme pressure. A volley of armor-piercing flechettes. Yes, there are other ways to build those things mechanically in HERO, but IMHO they can all represent small amounts of damage getting past Defenses not tailored to counter them, especially if they're Constant attacks.

 

In Star Fleet Battles, there's a trick the Romulan plasma weapons can use, called enveloping.  It does lesser damage, but to ALL shields, so if one's down?  Uh oh.  Some of these are that type...they're searching out weak points and breaching through them.  The attacks you've noted are similar to this.  The insect swarm, the stream of sand...those might be stopped by Impermeable, rather than Impenetrable.  

 

I don't really think this is Penetrating, but I will grant, it fits the mechanics we have better.  Slug to the chest can kill you from the shock of impact, even if the armor isn't breached.  

 

But if we

[Chris Goodwin]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

Hmm... interesting question.

 

Off the top of my head: Being set on fire. Doused in acid. Bitten by an insect swarm. Blasted with a stream of sand. Crushed by extreme pressure. A volley of armor-piercing flechettes. Yes, there are other ways to build those things mechanically in HERO, but IMHO they can all represent small amounts of damage getting past Defenses not tailored to counter them, especially if they're Constant attacks.

 

All of these things, though... if a character had enough defenses to bounce all of the damage from those things, then should any of the damage still get through? 

 

LL, you've given me a lot of good SFX for "damage" but nothing that is specifically "damage that should leak through defenses that are otherwise high enough to bounce all of it".  Or alternatively, some of those could be SFX for Drains, particularly being doused in acid or sandblasted.  All of the things you mention are certainly SFX for attacks that should get damage through to characters without enough DEF to fully resist them -- perhaps that's one of those obvious things that need not be mentioned? 

 

You've also given me at least one thing to think about, namely that I should have been more specific in my original ask, about characters with high defenses.