Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

[Zed-F]

Any thought on how much of a lim this is? I did a quick search and couldn't find an example, though IIRC I've seen this before somewhere. Can someone locate an example off the top of their head?

 

My guess is it's either -1 1/2, or -2.

 

I am not real happy about having a 250-point character with only 13 CON. I'd rather buy real CON, but due to genre conventions, I'm having to design the most point-squeezed character I've ever tried to build, without being able to use most of my usual cost-reducing tricks. Time for some creativity...

[McCoy]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

Depends. How does this differ from "CON, does not add to figured characteristics?"

 

If you do not recall ever having to make a CON roll, I would say -1/2. If you are in a campagine where such things as "Mind control based on CON" or CON rolls used a save vs disease are common, it might be worth -1.

 

How does your GM use CON?

[JJR]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

I agree with McCOY. No figured characteristics is only a -1/2, and con has no other use except for con rolls. I might give an additional -1/4 for no con roll too, but that would be it.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

Yeah, you are basically looking at CON does not affect Figured. -1/2 and call it a day.

 

Prolly cheaper to buy Damage Reduction STUN Only (-1/2), which falls out at the lower end but at least scales better.

[Mortannis]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

just seems rare to me that gms use the con stat much. When was the last time you have seen the flash get the sniffles?

[JJR]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

just seems rare to me that gms use the con stat much. When was the last time you have seen the flash get the sniffles?

Con is not well represented within the system. I personally use con rolls for immunities to various diseases, poisons, and the like. Immunity to the flu might be a con roll -1. Immunity to bee venom might be con roll +1. In that way the con stat does get used in some fashion, assuming you have games that take into account cold & flu seasons and the like.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

I agree with McCOY. No figured characteristics is only a -1/2' date=' and con has no other use except for con rolls. I might give an additional -1/4 for no con roll too, but that would be it.[/quote']

 

Does anyone actually BELIEVE CON no figured is properly priced? -1/2 works for DEX (math is perfect) and STR (which provides many other benefits). For BOD or CON, it's way too low. How can I be sure? Have you ever seen anyone take the limitation on CON or BOD? If you did, register them in "remedial math for dummies".

 

If your GM will give you a -1 limitation or less, buy normal CON and sell back your extra END. The net cost of the CON will be 1 point per CON (same as a -1 limitation), and you get the bonus STUN, REC, ED and CON rolls. "He's asthmatic".

 

[ASIDE: For BOD, sell back the bonus STUN to get BOD at 1 point per rather than take a -1/2 "no figured" limitation.]

 

I would allow a greater limit on CON and BOD for no figured. Similarly, "no figured" on other stats (nnot DEX, STR, CON, BOD) is a -0 since they don't have any figured.

[That Masked Man]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

Does anyone actually BELIEVE CON no figured is properly priced? -1/2 works for DEX (math is perfect) and STR (which provides many other benefits). For BOD or CON, it's way too low. How can I be sure? Have you ever seen anyone take the limitation on CON or BOD? If you did, register them in "remedial math for dummies".

 

If your GM will give you a -1 limitation or less, buy normal CON and sell back your extra END. The net cost of the CON will be 1 point per CON (same as a -1 limitation), and you get the bonus STUN, REC, ED and CON rolls. "He's asthmatic".

 

[ASIDE: For BOD, sell back the bonus STUN to get BOD at 1 point per rather than take a -1/2 "no figured" limitation.]

 

I would allow a greater limit on CON and BOD for no figured. Similarly, "no figured" on other stats (nnot DEX, STR, CON, BOD) is a -0 since they don't have any figured.

 

What about if the game uses NCM? Wouldn't that change the values?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

What about if the game uses NCM? Wouldn't that change the values?

 

I don't think I'd change the values for NCM. The point of NCM is that going above "human norm" is expensive, and thus should be rare.

 

CON is the extreme example - +10 CON gives 21 points in Figured, and resistance to Stunning. If someone wants to spend 13 points (40/3 assuming a -2 limitation) for +10 "Stun Defense", I don't think he's getting excessive benefit from those points.

 

There's an added complexity here as well. If we want to assess a different limitation when paying the NCM multiple, we'd also need to look at the NCM multiple avoided on figured stats that exceed the maximum.

 

In any case, a characteristic with a limitation is a power, and powers aren't subject to NCM.

[TheEmerged]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

Agreed -- unless Mental Power vs CON is fairly common this is probably -1/2 and at most -3/4. Now, in my own campaigns MPvC are somewhere between 'uncommon' and 'just common enough that I can't call them rare'.

 

RE: Questioning the value of "No Figured" for CON. The problem isn't with the value of the limitation -- the problem is that CON has, in my opinion, far too much influence on figured characteristics.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

Agreed -- unless Mental Power vs CON is fairly common this is probably -1/2 and at most -3/4. Now, in my own campaigns MPvC are somewhere between 'uncommon' and 'just common enough that I can't call them rare'.

 

RE: Questioning the value of "No Figured" for CON. The problem isn't with the value of the limitation -- the problem is that CON has, in my opinion, far too much influence on figured characteristics.

 

The limitation should be based on the relative values of what the character giuves up, and what he retains. In my opinion, figured characteristics make up way more than 1/3 of the value of CON, so a character buying CON with no figured stats should not be required to pay 2/3 of the usual cost (the result of a -1/2 limitation). 1/3 sounds at least somewhat more reasonable (the result of a -2 limitation).

[Dust Raven]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

All the arguments for No Figured and the actual value of CON taken into account...

 

I'd suggest a flat -1 if you GM never or extremely rarely uses CON for anything other than stunning and figured characteristics.

 

Personally, I do use CON for more. I usually modify most poisons, toxins and disease effects to include a "targets makes a CON roll" in their description. I don't care if Bolderstone (CON 40) didn't buy the approprite LS or Immunity (who does?), he's likely to shrug off mild toxins and defeat some major ones in his natural antibodies alone.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

no figureds, no CON rolls--I like the -1 lim, because it comports with the 1pt per pt of defense principle--what you're buying is "stun defense", in effect.

 

Plus the math is easier than a -3/4

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

no figureds, no CON rolls--I like the -1 lim, because it comports with the 1pt per pt of defense principle--what you're buying is "stun defense", in effect.

 

Plus the math is easier than a -3/4

 

On one hand, I like this approach. On the other, if I can pay 5 points for 5 "stun defense", or 10 points for +5 CON, and sel back 10 END for a 5 point savings, which is superior?

 

The latter gives me the same STUN defense, an extra 1 ED (so 6 more points of energy attack, rather than 5, required to STUN me), 3 more STUN (so less likely to be KO'd) and 1 more REC, plus better CON rolls for whatever that's worth.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

So the thread has gone this far, and nobody's commented on the phrase "CON Stunning"?

 

It's just "Stunned," not "CON Stunned." There's no other kind of Stunned. FREd never uses the phrase "CON Stunned."

 

Humph.

 

Anyway, my view on this is pretty close to the consensus here -- the -1/2 Limitation for No Figured Characteristics, and an additional -1/2 to eliminate other uses of CON (CON Rolls, resisting drugs bought as Mental Powers Based On CON, and so forth), should do the trick adequately.

[Old Man]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

I would use -1 because PRE Defense is also -1...no?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

So the thread has gone this far, and nobody's commented on the phrase "CON Stunning"?

 

It's just "Stunned," not "CON Stunned." There's no other kind of Stunned. FREd never uses the phrase "CON Stunned."

 

In my defense, I have been using "Stunned", not "CON Stunned". I've pretty much given up hope of persuading others of the apropriate terminology, however.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

I've heard the phrase CON Stunned used before, though I never use it myself.

 

As to the topic; I would give the power (lets call it Stun Defense for consistancy sake) a total limitation of -1.

 

Why?

 

-1/2 for No figured Characteristics.

-1/2 for "Only to increase Stunned Threshold"

 

Here's my explaination:

 

CON is used mainly to increase figured characteristics like ED, Stun, REC and (most importantly) End. Its secondary usage is resistance to being Stunned. In some games, Con rolls can be important. Additional uses? How about resisting Mental Powers bought to work vs CON instead of EGO? How about resistance to Adjustment powers? (its more difficult to drain a higher CON to negative levels)

Here's a doozy; Con rolls are sometimes required to recover from Impairing or Disabling wounds! Depending on the nature of the impairment, a failed roll means that the character has a permanent loss of characteristic points and must purchase them back (physical therapy!)

 

With the above uses in mind, I'd say that +10 Con only vs being Stunned is easily worth a -1.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

So the thread has gone this far, and nobody's commented on the phrase "CON Stunning"?

 

It's just "Stunned," not "CON Stunned." There's no other kind of Stunned. FREd never uses the phrase "CON Stunned."

 

Humph.

I'm occasionally caught using that term within my group, mainly because several of my players use it. I try not to though.

 

As conventions when I demo Hero System, I'll use the term "dazed" instead of Stunned, because it causes less confusion for new players.

[zornwil]

Re: Extra CON only to prevent CON Stunning

 

Just to chime in, I'd go with -1. I think that's more generally consistent, as Shadowpup alludes to above, as well as other comments.