Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

[Frenchman]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

Yea, I was confused about that too. What difference does it make what order the defenses are applied in? For AP, non-hardened (or those that arent hardened enough) are halved, regardless of whether or not the hardened defenses are 'on top' or 'beneath' them.

 

Right?

[SirViss]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

The biggest problem with layered defenses is if the character has Ablative defenses. The rule say that they SHOULD be the first defenses to be affected, but of course this should be modified by common and dramatic sense.

 

At least, that is what I remeber reading...

[RDU Neil]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

I'm not very bright so perhaps you can explain the difference:

 

Say a 50 point AP attack hits the armour. With 10pd on the outside, only 45 gets through to the armour underneath and this stops 20 more, so 25 get through.

 

The other way around, the 20 hardened mean that only 30 get through and the 10 non-hardenned stop another 5, so 25 get through. Same result, n'est pas?

 

With odd numbers it might make a point or two difference or roundings, but that would be all.

 

Maybe it comes from how I do Armor Piercing. I have the amount of Body rolled subtracted from the total defense. Layering becomes important.

 

If the 20 Soft is outside, and is hit by 10 Body/35 Stun AP... then the 10 AP reduces the 20 to 10, add on the 10 Hard, and you have 35-20 for 15 stun getting through.

 

If you harden the outer defense, the 10 AP hits the 10 Hard first, is negated, so you have 35-full 30 = 5 Stun getting through.

 

Or, if you use AP the old fashion way... if I have the 10 Hard out front, this intercepts the blast first, totally negating the AP, so full 30 defense vs. 35 stun as compared to if the Soft defense is hit first, it will be halved, 20 down to 10, leaving 35 - 20.

 

(In this example the numbers work out identically, but you see my point, I hope.)

 

If you layer a single point of hard defenses ON TOP of soft defenses, you negate AP (especially in the old school use) completely. You can't halve the soft defenses underneath, because the 1pt of Hard on top shuts off the AP completely.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

Maybe it comes from how I do Armor Piercing. I have the amount of Body rolled subtracted from the total defense. Layering becomes important.

 

If the 20 Soft is outside, and is hit by 10 Body/35 Stun AP... then the 10 AP reduces the 20 to 10, add on the 10 Hard, and you have 35-20 for 15 stun getting through.

 

If you harden the outer defense, the 10 AP hits the 10 Hard first, is negated, so you have 35-full 30 = 5 Stun getting through.

 

Or, if you use AP the old fashion way... if I have the 10 Hard out front, this intercepts the blast first, totally negating the AP, so full 30 defense vs. 35 stun as compared to if the Soft defense is hit first, it will be halved, 20 down to 10, leaving 35 - 20.

 

(In this example the numbers work out identically, but you see my point, I hope.)

 

If you layer a single point of hard defenses ON TOP of soft defenses, you negate AP (especially in the old school use) completely. You can't halve the soft defenses underneath, because the 1pt of Hard on top shuts off the AP completely.

 

I don't see what's so hard about AP if you use the book rules for AP. Regardless of where the hardened defenses are layered, I would halve the non-hardened defenses and not halve the hardened ones. In your example, 35 - 20/2 - 10 = 15 STUN through, regardless of which defense is struck first.

 

Penetrating is stopped with any hardened defenses, whether they are hit first or last, so again layering should make no difference. If I saw it being abused, I'd house rule that 1 point hardened only stops 1 point penetrating, but I haven't seen any 1/1 Force Fields or Armor being hardened to avoid penetrating on the cheap.

 

As for your AP variant, if you want to design your own rules, I think determining how the defenses layer is your problem, not Hero Games'.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

I don't see what's so hard about AP if you use the book rules for AP. Regardless of where the hardened defenses are layered' date=' I would halve the non-hardened defenses and not halve the hardened ones. In your example, 35 - 20/2 - 10 = 15 STUN through, regardless of which defense is struck first.[/quote']

 

This is how I've always ruled it... not considering "layering" at all. Lumping defenses into one big chunk. That works fine, but I wrote this in response to what I read (perhaps interpreted incorrectly) that there were actual rules for layering (which has come up as a "Hmmm... how would this work?" kind of question in my games) that were not in the actual book, but it some side reference somewhere. (And while I don't have the book with me, I swear the rules on AP are the same as hardened. ANY hard defenses stop it cold... but I may be remembering the 4th Edition rule.)

 

Penetrating is stopped with any hardened defenses, whether they are hit first or last, so again layering should make no difference. If I saw it being abused, I'd house rule that 1 point hardened only stops 1 point penetrating, but I haven't seen any 1/1 Force Fields or Armor being hardened to avoid penetrating on the cheap.

 

No argument there.

 

As for your AP variant, if you want to design your own rules, I think determining how the defenses layer is your problem, not Hero Games'.

 

Again, my variant rules didn't have an issue, until the question of layering came up. The lack of comments on layering in the main book I've always interpreted as "Hero assumes no layering" but then to find that there ARE rules for it, but not in the book... that surprised me (and annoyed me, I'll admit.)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

Here's one I wouldn't be able to get my head round: a 10d6 EB with, say, 6 of the dice armour piercing. How would you apply that and stay sane?

 

BTW hardened defences used to stop teleport in 4th ed. Am I right in thinking this is no longer the case?

[RDU Neil]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

Here's one I wouldn't be able to get my head round: a 10d6 EB with, say, 6 of the dice armour piercing. How would you apply that and stay sane?

 

That is actually how my "house rule" on AP came about. When you just subtract body rolled, it is pretty easy to have some dice AP and others not.

 

In fact, 2d6, one AP, one standard, was how I built a lot of assault rifles (basic stats) for my game. Roll two dice, different colors, one color indicates the AP die. Subtract body from that die from defenses, and apply the TOTAL of the two dice vs. remainder of defenses. Work really well in my games, and I call this "light armor piercing" in general.

 

I can't imagine doing this with the old "halve defenses" route. Yow.

[laxrulz777]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

I'm not sure I understand the delimma on "layering"

 

For AP it doesn't really matter right... you just have the non-hardened defenses and total everything up right?

 

For penetrating you just check do the math as if it was a normal EB (or RKA or whatever) then look at the leftover stun... If it's above the stun that should have penetrated then you do nothing... If it's below that amount then the amount of Stun done is penetrated stun (as rolled by the dice) - hardened defenses.

 

Indirect bypasses defenses based on SfX

 

Ablative defenses are always applied first (common sense permitting) and damage reduction is always applied last (Ablative Damage Reduction should not be allowed for this reason).

 

Am I missing something?

 

as for the partial AP I say no way... just don't allow it...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

That is actually how my "house rule" on AP came about. When you just subtract body rolled, it is pretty easy to have some dice AP and others not.

 

In fact, 2d6, one AP, one standard, was how I built a lot of assault rifles (basic stats) for my game. Roll two dice, different colors, one color indicates the AP die. Subtract body from that die from defenses, and apply the TOTAL of the two dice vs. remainder of defenses. Work really well in my games, and I call this "light armor piercing" in general.

 

I can't imagine doing this with the old "halve defenses" route. Yow.

 

 

So you've got 15rPD/25PD and you roll 4 (ap) and a 6 (non ap). Good roll!. The stun multiple is a standard 3. What damage do you take?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

Indirect bypasses defenses based on SfX

 

...

 

Am I missing something?

QUOTE]

 

Only that indirect never bypasses personal defences, no matter what the sfx. The blast starts half a millimetre inside this helmet...

 

The right level of indirect will bypass a non-personal force wall, but it will do that regardless of sfx.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

1 pip RKA Penetrating, for 7 real points will destroy ANY Force Wall, and ANY Focus.

 

I'm sorry, but there is not enough air freshener in the world for that to pass the smell test. It's not just cheese, it's Limburger.

 

For Pen vs. FW, I interpret the rules thusly:

 

Pen does some damage to the TARGET regardless of the target's defenses (unless hardened).

FW goes down when the FW's DEF is exceeded.

 

So the Penetrating Attack does damage to the guy behind the Force Wall (assuming it hits the guy's DCV), but it doesn't bring down the FW. Penetrating is still useful, the guy will be very surprised to find he isn't as safe as he thought he was.

 

For focuses, the book says you don't have to destroy the entire power with a one body hit, if the GM doesn't want to. Otherwise many Area Effect attacks will destroy all focuses in the area, even when the targeted characters emerge relatively unscathed.

 

I like Killer Shrike's idea of considering all foci to be infinitely hardened. Though I might say that they should be only finitely Hardened - say one to three levels. If you paid the extra points for four levels of Penetrating, that's a lot less cheesy, and you should get something for your money. 1d6 Pen x4 = 45 points.

 

And that bit in the FAQ about 1 pip Pen doing 1 BODY automatically is one more reason I have a generally low opinion of the FAQ. If I bought 1d6 Pen for three times the points, I still have a 1/6 chance not to do any Penetrating damage.

 

The Rulebook is carefully written, mulled over, improved, playtested, revised, proofread, corrected, reviewed and corrected again. The FAQ, on the other hand, seems to be just a collection of hastily given answers to immediate problems that needed to be quickly resolved. I never saw an announcement that said, "New FAQ ready for playtesting."

[zornwil]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

Here's one I wouldn't be able to get my head round: a 10d6 EB with, say, 6 of the dice armour piercing. How would you apply that and stay sane?

 

BTW hardened defences used to stop teleport in 4th ed. Am I right in thinking this is no longer the case?

I'd just halve 6/10 of the defenses. So if it were 20 PD, it'd be 14 PD (half of 6/10 of 20 (i.e., half of 12 = 6) + all of 4/10 of 20 (i.e., all of 8)). Though I have a feeling there's some flawed math there in terms of balance. But I've never run across or thought about it before. I'm just giving you a snap, in-game sort of ruling.

 

As to teleport vs hardened defenses, it doesn't say anything about that in the power description in 5th, but it could be buried elsewhere.

[zornwil]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

(snip)

The Rulebook is carefully written, mulled over, improved, playtested, revised, proofread, corrected, reviewed and corrected again.

 

Being nitpicky, but I really question how much 4th or 5th were in terms of the more "innovative" (i.e., unexpected) changes. They both reflected some conventional and valid wisdom from common playing experiences, but I really don't think either edition was at all so carefully playtested as you suggest for things like (for example) Damage Shield.

 

PS!!!

 

1 pip RKA Penetrating, for 7 real points will destroy ANY Force Wall, and ANY Focus.

 

Not if the FW is Hardened or the Focus is built appropriately, to be fair.

 

Page 172, "Targets with Hardened defenses ignore the effect of Penetrating..."

 

Also, though, the FAQ answer is odd, because it also says on that page "...the target takes a minimum of 1 "Normal Damage BODY" rolled on the dice. ... This means the character takes no points of effect from each 1" Emphasis mine.

 

PPS - it also says "At the GM's option, the target may take a minimum of 1 point of effect for every Damage Class..." Again, emphasis mine. This may be where Steve got his idea in the FAQ, but 5th says this is purely GM option. It should not have been canonized in the FAQ.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

So the Penetrating Attack does damage to the guy behind the Force Wall (assuming it hits the guy's DCV)' date=' but it doesn't bring down the FW. Penetrating is still useful, the guy will be very surprised to find he isn't as safe as he thought he was.[/quote']

 

I like that approach. I like that approach a lot!

 

And that bit in the FAQ about 1 pip Pen doing 1 BODY automatically is one more reason I have a generally low opinion of the FAQ. If I bought 1d6 Pen for three times the points' date=' I still have a 1/6 chance not to do any Penetrating damage.[/quote']

 

Now, a lot of the FAQ is very useful. That piece, however, is not (IMO). I look a step earlier and say "for twice as many points, you halve the likelihood of effectiveness" and say "no, 1 pip does not penetrate". I wuld alow a player to make his KA penetrating for STUN. In this case, it does at least as much STUN as the BOD rolled, and a 1 pip penetrating RKA would inflict 1 STUN automatically.

 

The Rulebook is carefully written' date=' mulled over, improved, playtested, revised, proofread, corrected, reviewed and corrected again. [/quote']

 

There are a number of 5e changes I consider inferior to most of the FAQ. And not only the ones commonly addressed on the boards (like shape shift, damage shield and regeneration). Most, however, are easily house ruled away with no impact on point costs or the infrastructure of the game.

[laxrulz777]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

 

Only that indirect never bypasses personal defences, no matter what the sfx. The blast starts half a millimetre inside this helmet...

 

The right level of indirect will bypass a non-personal force wall, but it will do that regardless of sfx.

 

If a character has armor defined as a shield (maybe with a 14<- activation) I would say the indirect will (probably) bypass that. If a character is trying to take out the driver of a tank I would say that someone with good familiarity with the tank could make a heavily penalized attack roll to try to originate the blast inside the tank and hit the driver (bypassing the tank's armor)...

 

To me, Indirect bypasses any kind of "directional" defense as well as some kinds of "field" defense. If a character has force field usable on others defined as a damping field where attacks do less damage then indirect doesn't help. If it is defined as the hero generating absorbing fields in front of allies to block incoming attacks then the hero better have some idea where the attack is coming from to stop it (i.e. a small indirect, like a grenade launcher, could be stopped... but a large indirect, like tentacles from the ground is going to require a DEX roll at the very least to stop it).

 

The beauty, and the flaw, of the Hero System is that it is soooo sfx driven. It's what makes a Hero GM's life tougher then, say, a D&D GM... but its also why i love the system

[zornwil]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

(snip)

 

There are a number of 5e changes I consider inferior to most of the FAQ. And not only the ones commonly addressed on the boards (like shape shift, damage shield and regeneration). Most, however, are easily house ruled away with no impact on point costs or the infrastructure of the game.

 

I'm curious, what in particular (just highlights I mean) are you referring to? And what in the FAQ is superior to 5e changes? Just out of curiousity and respect for your opinion.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

I'm curious' date=' what in particular (just highlights I mean) are you referring to? And what in the FAQ is superior to 5e changes? Just out of curiousity and respect for your opinion.[/quote']

 

Off the top of my head:

 

- Transfer not functioning as a Drain after the maximum transfer (to me, Transfer is a linked Aid and Drain, and can be built that way cheaper) [The FAQ requirement to pay twice for the ability to expand the stat transferred also bugs me in this regard as a Linked power would again be more effective.]

 

- Entangle - we have a limit for 1 BOD, one for 0 DEF, and we restrict Entangles not taking these to 2d6/1 DEF or 2DEF/1d6 BOD. And the pricining isn't consistent.

 

- Healing/Aid/Transfer should be made transparent with advantages to be able to (or limits to not be able to) exceed base stat; be able to restore lost stats; have no limit to the boost to the stat; cost END.

 

- The ability to affect multiple stats with adjustment powers should be separated from the ability to change the stats. eg. "Any one fire-based power" should be +1/4. "Fire based EB and Force Field" should be +1/4. "Any two fire-based powers" should be +1/2 (which is 2 +1/4 advantages).

 

[Overall, I think the current rules went too far the other way on adjustment powers due to issues arising under 4e rules.]

 

- Elemental Controls should not be restricted to powers that cost END. This creates the ability to have, for example, Healing (0 END) in an EC, but not Aid that costs no END, solely because one costs END as a default and the other does not. [sub "force field" for "Healing" and "armor" for "aid" for another stupid example]

 

- I disagree with default exclusion of many powers from frameworks. If the framework makes Life Support or Flash Defense too much a bargain compared to Energy Blast or Force Field, then characters paying full freight for EB are ripped off compared to those paying full freight for Life Support.

 

- Summon a Specific Person should not double the cost of the power, unless the "specific person" is exceptionally useful. In some cases, it should actually reduce the cost.

 

- EC powers should be usable in multiple power attacks - this provides a benefit to someone using an EC rather than a Swiss Army Multipower.

 

- Charges as an advantage should cap out at the cost for 0 END on the same power.

 

- Telekinesis should be costed at 1 point per 1 STR, but have its indirect aspects removed. You want Indirect, pay for the advantage.

 

- There should be no cost to shift defenses on a power within equally common groups (eg. a Drain vs Flash Defense should be a +0 advantage, just as an EB can act against PD or ED at no cost).

 

I'm sure there's more, but I don't have the book in front of me (as usual).

 

I can't recall any specific FAQ items which are superior (and there are lots that are equally poor), but I'm sure I've seen some.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

So you've got 15rPD/25PD and you roll 4 (ap) and a 6 (non ap). Good roll!. The stun multiple is a standard 3. What damage do you take?

 

15rPD - 4 = 11rPD... no body gets through because 10 body done.

 

25PD - 4 = 21Pd... 9 stun gets through with x3 multiple.

 

Essentially the AP is subtracted from the total "non-hardened" that would be applied. With KAs, there are two different applications (Body vs. resistant & Stun vs all of it), so the AP is applied to both applications.

 

Yes... this is not as "math effective" in many cases as halving defenses, but I did that on purpose. This more closely matches the 1 per 5 rule... doesn't bring in this random "halving" concept, and doesn't allow weird stuff like a 1d6 EB with AP, to somehow HALVE the 100 ED down to 50.

 

It works really well with KAs to punch through light armor completely. (Subtract enough resistant defense so that there is zero or negative remaining, and now the entire damage is applied as if they were unarmored.) This was the effect I really wanted, which was to make Armor Piercing what I felt it should be... piercing through armor to damage the underneath... rather than a mechanic to get Stun through high defense characters.

 

YMMV, and I'm sure it does.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

If a character has armor defined as a shield (maybe with a 14<- activation) I would say the indirect will (probably) bypass that. If a character is trying to take out the driver of a tank I would say that someone with good familiarity with the tank could make a heavily penalized attack roll to try to originate the blast inside the tank and hit the driver (bypassing the tank's armor)...

 

To me, Indirect bypasses any kind of "directional" defense as well as some kinds of "field" defense. If a character has force field usable on others defined as a damping field where attacks do less damage then indirect doesn't help. If it is defined as the hero generating absorbing fields in front of allies to block incoming attacks then the hero better have some idea where the attack is coming from to stop it (i.e. a small indirect, like a grenade launcher, could be stopped... but a large indirect, like tentacles from the ground is going to require a DEX roll at the very least to stop it).

 

The beauty, and the flaw, of the Hero System is that it is soooo sfx driven. It's what makes a Hero GM's life tougher then, say, a D&D GM... but its also why i love the system

 

Completely with you on the tank example, but then I wouldn't call that a personal defence. I'd disagree with the shield though: unless the target is standing still with the shield held at arms's length. In combat it would be impossible to work out where the gap is between a rapidly moving target and their even more rapidly moving target. If the shield is on an activation roll I might let the indirect attack reduce the activation level in proportion to the number of points that they would have got for a surprise attack- but like a surprise attack that trick would rapidly get less effective with use.

 

FRED 167 specifically says that indirect can not bypass personal defences and whilst you can always overrule anything, it isn't a 'legal' use of the power advantage.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

15rPD - 4 = 11rPD... no body gets through because 10 body done.

 

25PD - 4 = 21Pd... 9 stun gets through with x3 multiple.

 

Essentially the AP is subtracted from the total "non-hardened" that would be applied. With KAs, there are two different applications (Body vs. resistant & Stun vs all of it), so the AP is applied to both applications.

 

Yes... this is not as "math effective" in many cases as halving defenses, but I did that on purpose. This more closely matches the 1 per 5 rule... doesn't bring in this random "halving" concept, and doesn't allow weird stuff like a 1d6 EB with AP, to somehow HALVE the 100 ED down to 50.

 

It works really well with KAs to punch through light armor completely. (Subtract enough resistant defense so that there is zero or negative remaining, and now the entire damage is applied as if they were unarmored.) This was the effect I really wanted, which was to make Armor Piercing what I felt it should be... piercing through armor to damage the underneath... rather than a mechanic to get Stun through high defense characters.

 

YMMV, and I'm sure it does.

 

 

A very interesting construct. I think I rather like it, you know. Well done.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

A very interesting construct. I think I rather like it' date=' you know. Well done.[/quote']

 

Cool. Glad to hear it. Lemme know if you play test it. What I've found is that it makes AP attacks (KAs or Normal) pretty lethal vs. low defense characters... but much less effective vs. high defense types (bricks, et al). To me this "feels" right... but if your players are used to the old rule, it might take some getting used to. Suddenly agent types, or low defense PCs are in more lethal danger from, say an 10d6 AP Energy Blast, than before. We've found that we just consider any AP attack (even a Normal attack) to be more like a Killing Attack... and play accordingly. Giving random agents AP Killing Attacks becomes much more dangerous to PCs, if they are the street fighter/martial artist type who may only have 10-20 defenses in the first place.

 

Hope it works out for you.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

Cool. Glad to hear it. Lemme know if you play test it. What I've found is that it makes AP attacks (KAs or Normal) pretty lethal vs. low defense characters... but much less effective vs. high defense types (bricks' date=' et al). [/quote']

 

Actually, the more I see of this construct, the more I think it should be an advantage in addition to the present Armor Piercing. One advantage thjat is lethal, one that is intended to be more effective against higly defended targets.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

Penetrating was always used for "radiation blasts" in my old games. The idea that though the brute force and heat might be resisted' date=' the radiation goes right through, burning you from the insides.[/quote']

 

I would call that an NND that does body, with the defense being "immune to hard radiation". (I usually think of things for which there is normally no defense as being a form of NND.)

 

That is an interesting idea, though (even though I wouldn't build it that way).

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

BTW hardened defences used to stop teleport in 4th ed. Am I right in thinking this is no longer the case?

 

Thank the gods. That was, without question, the worst rule revision in H4 (and is, all by itself, sufficient reason for people still playing H4 to upgrade).

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Penetrating Killing/BOD Attacks

 

1 pip RKA Penetrating' date=' for 7 real points will destroy ANY Force Wall, and ANY Focus. I'm sorry, but there is not enough air freshener in the world for that to pass the smell test. It's not just cheese, it's Limburger.[/quote']

 

Agreed. A rule that is rarely used, but when it is used is used almost exclusively to cheat, is simply a bad rule. But there's no reason to expend a lot of effort constructing complicated house rules for something like that. Since this advantage is rarely used, and is virtually never used in any non-cheating way, the simplest and least labor-intensive fix is simply to get rid of it.

 

Penetrating attacks permit Stun to leak through defenses. Done.