Does Body, bypassing defences

[David Blue]

Ki-rin: "Was the change from 4th Ed to 5th Ed that allows an NND to do Body a Good, Neutral, or Bad Thing?" and "Is the Ad "Does Body" (+1) properly costed game balance wise in 5ed?"

 

That seems like a good topic, or these seem like two naturally entwined topics, to be included in this thread.

 

Related and on-topic issues for this thread would include Penetrating, Killing, Autofire, and all sorts of nasty attacks versus Power Defence. Plunging the dagger in the heart, disregarding the steel or the steel-hard skin in the way, via any mechanic you can imagine - let's hear the whole gory list, and your ideas.

 

This is my first thread. I'd really love it if discussion could remain on the topic of the ever-growing list of ways to act against BODY while bypassing defences.

 

... The desirability or usefulness of that for various games and genres, the costing and balance issues, the tendency of this to simplify and speed up or complexify and slow down the game, transparency or uncertainty about characters and powers and what they do and - stuff like that is all on-topic, but all only when connected to killing while/by bypassing defences. No big topic drift, please.

[Mike W]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

I think NNDs that do BODY are helpful. It makes building poisons much easier. You just build them as NND, does BODY, defense is the appropriate immunity or regeneration.

 

It might be a little underpriced though. Maybe, 1 1/4 or 1 1/2. After all, you can put "Does BODY" on a EGO Attack for +1 and the defense is probably a little more common.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

Something else to consider is a 3d6 Suppress Body with Continuous (+1). With an average of 5 Body per hit and the ability to add an additional attack above and beyond the first on each subsequent phase (5, 10, 15 etc...) you could take out a 15 Body character without Power Defense in 4 phases if you can afford the End cost. Remember that if you get a character to negative their normal Body (-15 for the example above) you kill them regardless if it was an adjustment power or regular attack power that caused the reduction of Body.

 

HM

[Mike W]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

Maybe DRAIN but to me SUPPRESS just doesn't feel right.

[lemming]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

Sidepoint: You could have NND's do Body in 4th. (I'd have to dig for the advantage cost, but the description of NND says with permission by GM)

 

I think it's a good way to model some attacks and don't have much problem with it's cost. It's not something I'd want to see as a characters main attack though.

[Gary]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

Something else to consider is a 3d6 Suppress Body with Continuous (+1). With an average of 5 Body per hit and the ability to add an additional attack above and beyond the first on each subsequent phase (5, 10, 15 etc...) you could take out a 15 Body character without Power Defense in 4 phases if you can afford the End cost. Remember that if you get a character to negative their normal Body (-15 for the example above) you kill them regardless if it was an adjustment power or regular attack power that caused the reduction of Body.

 

HM

 

Suppress Body was found to be too unbalancing in actual play IME. It's trivial to Suppress most character's Body to 0 and then either have a friend hit them with a Penetrating KA, or have one yourself Triggered after the Suppress. Voila, instant disintegration beam.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

Suppress Body was found to be too unbalancing in actual play IME. It's trivial to Suppress most character's Body to 0 and then either have a friend hit them with a Penetrating KA' date=' or have one yourself Triggered after the Suppress. Voila, instant disintegration beam. [/quote']

 

Technically you don't even need that, just keep hitting with the same Suppress (which is now cumulative as I understand, so long as you pay the constant END for each shot). Once the target is negative enough BODY, he just dies. Desentigration is just a matter of SFX.

[CourtFool]

llama spit: NND Does Body (defense is shield or Force Field)

 

I believe it was needed to build certain constructs, but yes, it does open a can of worms. As long as a GM watches it closely it should not be a problem. It is certainly not the only advantage that can cause major issues if not contained.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

Ki-rin: "Was the change from 4th Ed to 5th Ed that allows an NND to do Body a Good' date=' Neutral, or Bad Thing?" and "Is the Ad "Does Body" (+1) properly costed game balance wise in 5ed?"[/quote']

 

Off the top of my head regarding the core issue of Does BODY, I'd combare it do a Drain BODY.

 

EB 4d6 NND Does BODY (60 points)

vs

Drain BODY 4d6 Ranged (60 points)

 

EB: Average 4 BODY 14 STUN

Drain: Average 14 Effect (7 BODY)

 

EB: If the target has the defense, he takes no damage.

Drain: If the target has the defense (Power Defense) he subtracts it from the amount rolled and needs around 20 points to be effectively immune (but not quite).

 

EB: BODY damage heals over time based on target's REC (or Healing). Average character (REC 8, as an estimate) will heal completely in 2 weeks.

Drain: BODY heals back 5 active points per Turn. Target will heal back in about 3 Turns.

 

EB: Will kill a target with 10 BODY in an average of 5 hits. Can leave target to die after 3 hits.

Drain: Will kill a target with 10 BODY in 3 hits. Can't leave target to die because he will recover the BODY too fast.

 

Well, it looks like the Drain has more immediate and determined effects, but the EB wins out overall, particulary if against targets without the required defenses. Of course, you can do other stuff with Drain that you can't do with the EB. Like spend a few more points to Drain other stuff, or few more to Drain other stuff at the same time.

[David Blue]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

Sidepoint: You could have NND's do Body in 4th. (I'd have to dig for the advantage cost, but the description of NND says with permission by GM)

 

I think it's a good way to model some attacks and don't have much problem with it's cost. It's not something I'd want to see as a characters main attack though.

Right you are, Lemming. With some reservation as to the spirit of the rules then.

 

4th edition Hero System Rulebook, page 96: "NND attacks are STUN only: they can only do body with the express permission of the GM. ... There are many other possible attacks, but they cannot inflict BODY and must have a reasonably common defence (or set of defenses) approved by the GM."

 

So it was clear that you weren't supposed to do this, and there was no elaboration on doing it - but respect for the way a particular GM might want things prevailed. And that meant that the door was open a little crack.

 

4th edition Hero System Rulebook, page 92: "AVLD attacks are STUN only, except with special permission from the GM. ... The GM should approve all powers bought with AVLD."

 

Again, the example is only with a Normal attack that does no BODY. There is no hint that you should seek blood, no Killing attack suggestion or example, nothing but a door that is closed ... except for a faint line of light, that says to the seeker of death sans defence - push! Push!

 

I agree the door was open enough for people who want to do this, even back in 4th edition.

 

But I honestly don't see how George MacDonald, Steven Peterson and Rob Bell could have avoided this. You've got to respect how the gamemaster wants to do things in their own game. I can't see how they could reasonably have given less encouragement to go this way.

 

The prize - attacking BODY, bypassing defenses - is so overwhelming that the door was bound to be pushed all the way open.

 

Bringing us to the flowering garden of means of bringing about death that I want us all to explore in this thread.

 

Let us get to know every flower of resistless doom, learn all its implications, and cherish its beauty!

[Trebuchet]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

It should still be noted that "Does BODY" is a Stop Sign Advantage, and if combined with NND still has to fulfil the requirements for NND. (And of course, combined with Does BODY such an attack would quite reasonably come under extremely close scrutiny by the GM.)

 

I'd probably never permit a PC to have such a Power; and I'd only do it with a villain whose major attack is along those lines like Plague.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

Any attack that does BOD and bypasses normal defenses makes for a very lethal ability. This is true, whether it's an NND that does BOD or a BOD drain - both can kill their target very easily if he lacks the appropriate defense. It's up to the GM and the group to assess how lethal they want their game to be and allow, or disallow, certain constructs accordingly.

 

And IIRC Does BOD was +1 in 4th Ed as well.

[David Blue]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

Any attack that does BOD and bypasses normal defenses makes for a very lethal ability. This is true' date=' whether it's an NND that does BOD or a BOD drain - both can kill their target very easily if he lacks the appropriate defense.[/quote']Yup.

 

Even faster with Autofire of course. Autofire is wonderful with attacks that do BODY and bypass defenses.

 

And IIRC Does BOD was +1 in 4th Ed as well.

I'm sure you're right, but I haven't found it so far.

 

On the other hand I did find two other things of interest.

 

Based On Ego Combat Value, page 93: "All EGO based attacks should be STUN only, except with special permission from the GM."

 

This is the same as before: there is a KEEP OUT! notice, but the door is unlocked.

 

It also says: "Any Powers that would be modified by defenses (such as Energy Blast or Power Drain) can apply either to that defence, or to the character's Mental Defence ..."

 

It doesn't even hint at a killing attack, but that "such as" is the familiar crack of light, and besides Power Drain is a magnificent raw material from which to refine killing constructs.

 

I think the real wide-open gate in 4th Edition was in Penetrating, on page 96: "Penetration Attack can be applied to the STUN of normal attacks, to the BODY of Killing Attacks, to the Power lost from Drain, and any other effect that presents the total of the dice against the target's defenses."

 

There is an extended example with a Killing Attack, which is the strongest form of permission and encouragement. And Penetrating, like Continuous, Based on Ego Combat Value, Autofire, Armour Piercing and Area Effect was not a Stop Sign or a Magnifying Glass Power. Full speed ahead!

 

It seems to me this represents an important milestone on the way to the modern approach of killing by direct (but sophisticated) application of points. (Which seems to have reached its apogee so far in Suppress BODY.)

 

Mere Penetrating I think should not be under-rated as to its potential killing effectiveness in relation to other advantages.

 

And it is one of the more advanced, less crudely "simulation-minded" advantages. You put it on Agent weapons to put some damage on high defence targets. In other words, it's more about achieving a game result than simulating a thing. I think doing BODY, bypassing defenses, has a lot to do with achieving results.

 

Also I note the preferential treatment of Killing, which gains a vastly more potent effect from the application of the same Advantage at the same cost - a pervasive bias in Hero which I think also points in our familiar direction.

 

Thus, even in 1990, fairly early in the Iron Age, Hero was evolving towards the future.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

The history of the "Does BODY Damage" Advantage is actually rather interesting. It was first introduced for 3rd Edition Champions in the old Gadgets! supplement of weapons and equipment for superhero games, at the same +1 level. It applied only to NND and AVLD attacks, though. When 4E came out that specific Advantage was eliminated, the BODY capability of these attacks being relegated to "GM's permission." Quite a few HERO gamers that I've had contact with were unhappy with that, feeling (as I did) that this was such a serious added capability that it warranted the additional price, so they kept using the Advantage.

 

When the 4E HERO System Bestiary came out, it constructed the venoms of a number of poisonous creatures with NND that was explicitly defined as doing BODY. However, the stated Defense against this attack was "Immunity to the appropriate Venom," which was so rare in most campaigns that the cost of NND for venoms was always +2, essentially the same as the old NND + Does BODY. (BTW I've continued to allow rare-defense NND attacks at +2, but without BODY damage - that's still extra.)

[David Blue]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

The history of the "Does BODY Damage" Advantage is actually rather interesting. It was first introduced for 3rd Edition Champions in the old Gadgets! supplement of weapons and equipment for superhero games, at the same +1 level. It applied only to NND and AVLD attacks, though. When 4E came out that specific Advantage was eliminated, the BODY capability of these attacks being relegated to "GM's permission." Quite a few HERO gamers that I've had contact with were unhappy with that, feeling (as I did) that this was such a serious added capability that it warranted the additional price, so they kept using the Advantage.

 

When the 4E HERO System Bestiary came out, it constructed the venoms of a number of poisonous creatures with NND that was explicitly defined as doing BODY. However, the stated Defense against this attack was "Immunity to the appropriate Venom," which was so rare in most campaigns that the cost of NND for venoms was always +2, essentially the same as the old NND + Does BODY. (BTW I've continued to allow rare-defense NND attacks at +2, but without BODY damage - that's still extra.)

Thank you, that's fascinating stuff!

 

So, to draw only one of many possible lessons from this history, it seems that what's driving this is the strong desire and determination of the Hero community to do BODY without allowing normal defenses. This is not a top-down thing, driven by game designers doing what they wanted rather than what players wanted. In 4th edition the game designers even resisted the trend as much as they politely could. But "the people! united! could never be defeated!"

 

That's really, really interesting!

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

I also have to correct an assumption about Suppress vs. BODY that has been mentioned a couple of times on this thread: by the official rules Suppressing a target's BODY, no matter how far, in and of itself will not kill the target. The following passage is taken from the rules FAQ, with emphasis added by myself:

 

 

Q: How does Suppress BODY interact with the rules on bleeding to death once a character reaches negative BODY?

 

 

A: A character who has positive BODY, and is Suppressed into negative BODY, does not lose more BODY in Post-Segment 12.

 

If reduced to negative his BODY solely due to Suppress, a character “dies†for all intents and purposes, but comes back to life when the Suppress ceases to apply.

 

If a character is in negative BODY numbers due to a wound, and a Suppress adds to that effect, he keeps bleeding from the wound on Post-Segment 12 and will eventually die for real.

 

If a character has lost some BODY due to a wound, but not enough to put him in the negatives, and Suppress takes him into the negatives, he does not bleed on Post-Segment 12, and will “come back to life†after the Suppress is removed if it takes him to negative his BODY.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

Thank you, that's fascinating stuff!

 

So, to draw only one of many possible lessons from this history, it seems that what's driving this is the strong desire and determination of the Hero community to do BODY without allowing normal defenses. This is not a top-down thing, driven by game designers doing what they wanted rather than what players wanted. In 4th edition the game designers even resisted the trend as much as they politely could. But "the people! united! could never be defeated!"

 

That's really, really interesting!

 

I'm pretty certain that no RPG ruleset has ever had more fan input than HERO. Steve Long and Steve Peterson have both mentioned that over the years that 5E was in development, they received countless letters and comments from fans regarding what they thought needed to be changed. That's not even counting the input from numerous playtest groups for the proposed revisions. Many of the most persistent comments eventually found their way into the rules.

 

Believe it or not, IIRC Steve Long has mentioned that the addition of Continuous to the Damage Shield construct in 5E was in response to fan complaints that it didn't make logical sense without it. I'm not sure that the final cost of Damage Shield was quite what those fans were going for, though.

[OddHat]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

Thank you, that's fascinating stuff!

 

So, to draw only one of many possible lessons from this history, it seems that what's driving this is the strong desire and determination of the Hero community to do BODY without allowing normal defenses. This is not a top-down thing, driven by game designers doing what they wanted rather than what players wanted. In 4th edition the game designers even resisted the trend as much as they politely could. But "the people! united! could never be defeated!"

 

That's really, really interesting!

 

And, to be fair, there aren't many simple ways to simulate some types of real world and comic book danger (nerve gas, poisons, some types of virus and bacteria) other than allowing attacks that do body while bypassing normal defenses. You could do something with penetrating, but if you're in a campaign where poison gas is in use it's more intuitive to use a gas mask for protection than to pile on the kevlar.

[lemming]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

The history of the "Does BODY Damage" Advantage is actually rather interesting. It was first introduced for 3rd Edition Champions in the old Gadgets! supplement of weapons and equipment for superhero games' date=' at the same +1 level.[/quote']

Thanks! I knew it had been costed out, but hadn't had the time to look.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

I also have to correct an assumption about Suppress vs. BODY that has been mentioned a couple of times on this thread: by the official rules Suppressing a target's BODY' date=' no matter how far, in and of itself will [b']not kill[/b] the target. The following passage is taken from the rules FAQ, with emphasis added by myself:

 

 

Q: How does Suppress BODY interact with the rules on bleeding to death once a character reaches negative BODY?

 

 

A: A character who has positive BODY, and is Suppressed into negative BODY, does not lose more BODY in Post-Segment 12.

 

If reduced to negative his BODY solely due to Suppress, a character “dies†for all intents and purposes, but comes back to life when the Suppress ceases to apply.

 

If a character is in negative BODY numbers due to a wound, and a Suppress adds to that effect, he keeps bleeding from the wound on Post-Segment 12 and will eventually die for real.

 

If a character has lost some BODY due to a wound, but not enough to put him in the negatives, and Suppress takes him into the negatives, he does not bleed on Post-Segment 12, and will “come back to life†after the Suppress is removed if it takes him to negative his BODY.

 

Really? That's what I thought it was but was under the assumption it had changed with Revised. That's good news then!

[David Blue]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

Killing Attacks (RKA, HKA) bought versus limited defenses (AVLD) are good.

 

A few points of Penetrating or Armour Piercing on Mental Defence or Power Defence could be good, but just buying the Killing damage even bigger may often be even better.

 

(Also: AAA - Always Add Autofire.)

 

One of the nice things about this is that fair play means characters often shouldn't have such resistant defenses, because (a) they don't seem to simulate anything, and ( "spot defence" is generally considered bad gaming.

 

Knockback Resistance, often used for AVLDs (I'm thinking of Vibrator Girl, a character in a team I once played a character in), is probably best of all. Character concept will often dictate that only so much Knockback Resistance will be bought, or none, and that's a fatal weakness.

[David Blue]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

I'm pretty certain that no RPG ruleset has ever had more fan input than HERO. Steve Long and Steve Peterson have both mentioned that over the years that 5E was in development, they received countless letters and comments from fans regarding what they thought needed to be changed. That's not even counting the input from numerous playtest groups for the proposed revisions. Many of the most persistent comments eventually found their way into the rules.

 

Believe it or not, IIRC Steve Long has mentioned that the addition of Continuous to the Damage Shield construct in 5E was in response to fan complaints that it didn't make logical sense without it. I'm not sure that the final cost of Damage Shield was quite what those fans were going for, though.

I believe you. I never realised how much a bottom-up process Hero rules design had become, but now I see it, it makes sense.

 

I don't want to get into discussing Damage Shield, but in general I'm inclined to cut the games designers some slack, especially in a situation like this. If the committed fans require lots of things and don't realise or don't want to internalise what the implications will be, what's the designer to do?

 

And' date=' to be fair, there aren't many simple ways to simulate some types of real world and comic book danger (nerve gas, poisons, some types of virus and bacteria) other than allowing attacks that do body while bypassing normal defenses. You could do something with penetrating, but if you're in a campaign where poison gas is in use it's more intuitive to use a gas mask for protection than to pile on the kevlar.[/quote']Yup.

[David Blue]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

However, we're looking at two different kinds of "customers" : heroic customers, for whom the notional Hero cost of something is generally irrelevant, and super-heroic customers, for whom the hero cost of doing things is critical, because they pay for that with variable power pool points, or in other ways that come down to character points.

 

So cost means primarily "cost in a superheroic context".*

 

One thing DC Heroes had that Champions does not have is an explicit, seriously and systematically implemented assumption that if an attack will have the effect of taking a character out of the fight, the cost should be the same as doing so by slugfest, even if that results in a very high cost. I like that.

 

In the context of doing BODY, it seems to me that even-handed game design would make it about equally expensive to do similar amounts of BODY by different means. I have no objection to an attack that kills like Joker venom or the Red Skull's favourite toxin; only for even-handedness the super-heroic character point cost (not the off-the-shelf financial cost) of doing BODY by such means should be no cheaper than that of simply bludgeoning the target into injury and ultimately to death. The crunching fists of a character like Orion should be, active point for active point, about as effective as any other means of inflicting injury and death.

 

(Of course some attacks are designed without BODY and often without Knockback not to injure the target. I leave them aside in considering this balance.)

 

Clearly, no such aspiration has any future in Hero. ("The people! United!" Etc.) What we have instead is a flourishing garden of subtle and resistless BODY-dealing game mechanics, a hot-house of sinister death that I want to explore in something like the spirit of the Addams family, savouring every horror.

 

There is also the pure, scientific "what is this?" element. The resistless BODY-dealing attacks are odd and special enough that it's important just to pool information on how to resolve them. It's often not obvious.

 

One of the reasons why we pay so much attention to combat and so little to the heroes just having dinner is that you can lose characters in combat, or get them injured. This is much, much more true with attacks that do BODY, bypassing defences.

 

* No, that's wrong. Fantasy wizards also build spells with points.

 

In that context, a game system that makes it practically impossible to trash an Abrams tank by bashing in the front armour but relatively trivial to poison whole worlds to death may indeed be appropriate and supporting of the genre in which the witches may brew their spells. Darn. Well, I have no answer to that one, so I'll post regardless.

[OddHat]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

In that context' date=' a game system that makes it practically impossible to trash an Abrams tank by bashing in the front armour but relatively trivial to poison whole worlds to death may indeed be appropriate and supporting of the genre in which the witches may brew their spells. Darn. Well, I have no answer to that one, so I'll post regardless.[/quote']

 

Actually, you could design mechanical effects to smash an inanimate object fairly cleanly, and very cheaply if the GM permitted the infamous Killing NND Does Body versus Inanimate Objects. I don't like those effects much; I want my tank smashing Supers to do it through raw might. Still, they're available.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Does Body, bypassing defences

 

Actually' date=' you could design mechanical effects to smash an inanimate object fairly cleanly, and very cheaply if the GM permitted the infamous Killing NND Does Body versus Inanimate Objects. I don't like those effects much; I want my tank smashing Supers to do it through raw might. Still, they're available.[/quote']

 

And if you use some of the options suggested for high-powered supering in Galactic Champions, the raw might of most Supers will be quite adequate for tank smashing.