New Power: Invulnerability

[zornwil]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Maybe I'm reaching but the problem here seems to be with falling damage being nearly 3 times what the average 350 point superhero dishes out. We could just reduce falling damage, I suppose, or.......

 

 

Despite saying many times recently that I am against fixed cost powers and invulnerability generally (I just like arguing), can I suggest this...

 

If you are going to do immunity, let us not mess about let us not limit ourselves to normal and killing damage, let’s go for adjustment powers and the whole shebang.

 

Life Support works by preventing you from taking damage from certain things. I’ve never been that happy with Life Support. I mean, if you spend 10 points to be immune to terrestrial poisons and you are bitten by The Rattler whose bio specifies that his bite contains rattlesnake venom, do you take damage just because he paid the points or not? No logic. Silly.

 

Mind you, LS does get some things right. 10 points to be immune to suffocation. Never had a problem with that, really, and it tends to be quite a rare thing anyway….

 

Taking that as a starting point…

 

Taking no BODY damage from a specified source, sfx or in a specified environment say…20 points

 

That would cover damage from a common sfx, common source or common environment, something like fire, animals or, say, roads.

 

Weird, huh, can’t take BODY when on a road. Still….

 

Advantages and limitations

 

Advantage

 

(STOP) VERY COMMON SFX/SOURCE/ENVIRONMENT +1

 

So to be immune to ENERGY Body damage would cost 20 (x+1) = 40 points

 

Limitations

 

UNCOMMON SFX/SOURCE/ENVIRONMENT: -1 Sonics/snakes/furniture shops

RARE SFX/SOURCE/ENVIRONMENT –2 Clockwork/rattlesnales/space

 

Let’s go further and include STUN damage. For 60 points the Life Support stops STUN damage as well as BODY. The same modifiers apply.

 

If you have LS at the 60 point level, for +1 you can be immune to any kind of adverse effect from that SFX/SOURCE/ENVIRONMENT.

 

So, for 60 (+1 for VERY COMMON) and (+1 for ALL EFFECTS) i.e. 180 points you can be immune to energy, no matter what it purports to do or how. You can’t be flashed with flares, burned with fire, knocked back with concussive force, drained with neg-energy. Hell you can’t even be stopped by an energy force wall, you’re immune, baby.

 

Going back to not needing to breathe, that would be 60 points very rare, or 20 points. OK that is twice what I thought was a reasonable starting point before, but I’m not feeling like halving the points on everything else and I can live with it.

 

Personally I’d be inclined to limiting the maximum LS points one character can have to, say 300, but you may have no restraint at all, I don't know.

 

You can group several rare effects/sources/environments to make one uncommon or common sfx/source/environment.

 

This will utterly muck about with really high point games. I don’t care: I never play really high point games

Not a bad approach. In the ultimate, perfect solution, it seems to make sense to tie LS and all that together...and I like the notion here.

[zornwil]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Oh I don't know: I think not being able to effect the real world unless you pay 3 times the price for anything you want to effect it is pretty utility worthy, and then you have an advantage which enables attacks to effect the desolid. Invulnerabitity goes way beyond that....in some ways...

 

I think the thing I don't get about this particular iteration of the power is the fact that it is limited to BODY. I mean, the way I see it, if it can hurt you, enough of it can kill you. You are not invulnerable to fire if wading through it you keep going 'ow! ouch! ooh!' then pass out. I mean your flesh may not actually burn but it is getting to you somehow. Even if it heats you until the chemical processes no longer work, you are going to die. I can't think of a single example of a character that takes damage but just can't be killed. Some might resurrect, but then there is a power to do that. In fact you could do this type of invulnerability with resurrection, couldn't you, and probably cheaper. If you are taking BODY damage you'll be taking far more stun...

 

Also, if you have invulnerability to BODY damage you can apply a -1/2 limitation to all your other defences 'only to stop STUN damage'. That would sure save a lot of points....maybe 30 or more....

Mmmm, well, I don't see it as a core system rule, but I think it fits some styles of campaigns. I think the idea that you can be stunned and not killed by even excessive force is just that while your skin is tough and all, the system shock is still going to addle you. But at that point maybe an adaptation such as RDU Neil's Infamous Patented Niggling Damage-o-rama (um, just my made-up name for his invention! ), where the character takes a minimum of 1 BOD for a certain amount of STUN. In this case, though, given the intent, I'd make it very high, like 80 STUN = 1 BOD or such.

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Mmmm' date=' well, I don't see it as a core system rule, but I think it fits some styles of campaigns. I think the idea that you can be stunned and not killed by even excessive force is just that while your skin is tough and all, the system shock is still going to addle you. But at that point maybe an adaptation such as RDU Neil's Infamous Patented Niggling Damage-o-rama (um, just my made-up name for his invention! ), where the character takes a minimum of 1 BOD for a certain amount of STUN. In this case, though, given the intent, I'd make it very high, like 80 STUN = 1 BOD or such.[/quote']I think some people are having a tough time with the disconnect between pain and physical damage. While the two are often intertwined, it it quite possible to experience tremendous pain that is still not life threatening. (I've been assured kidney stones fall into this category.) And in fiction, there are plenty of examples of pain-only devices, such as direct stimulation of the pain centers of the brain. ("Mr Sulu, your agonizer please.").

 

I tried to create a new Power that was balanced and would help better define a character who is fundamentally indestructible, but buying Invulnerability was never intended to be the sole package for such a character any more than buying 10 points worth of martial arts makes a character a Martial Artist. There are many feasible ways to execute this concept, from massive defenses to Regeneration/Resurrection to a mix of defenses and Damage Reduction. All I was trying to do was add another tool to the toolkit. Obviously the idea lacks sufficient merit.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Only in that falling unconcious is fundamentally equivalent to dying. Sure the character is not technically dead, but in D&D when a PC dies it is often off to the Clerics of god Whathisname for a quick raise dead. Is there a real difference between that and -30 STUN? Really?

 

Hawksmoor

[OddHat]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

I think some people are having a tough time with the disconnect between pain and physical damage. While the two are often intertwined, it it quite possible to experience tremendous pain that is still not life threatening. (I've been assured kidney stones fall into this category.) And in fiction, there are plenty of examples of pain-only devices, such as direct stimulation of the pain centers of the brain. ("Mr Sulu, your agonizer please.").

 

I tried to create a new Power that was balanced and would help better define a character who is fundamentally indestructible, but buying Invulnerability was never intended to be the sole package for such a character any more than buying 10 points worth of martial arts makes a character a Martial Artist. There are many feasible ways to execute this concept, from massive defenses to Regeneration/Resurrection to a mix of defenses and Damage Reduction. All I was trying to do was add another tool to the toolkit. Obviously the idea lacks sufficient merit.

 

I think the idea of a simple one-step mechanic to represent fundamentally indestructable characters has great merit in comic book and high fantasy campaigns. Like Churchill's dinner companion, I'm mostly haggling over price.

[zornwil]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

I think some people are having a tough time with the disconnect between pain and physical damage. While the two are often intertwined, it it quite possible to experience tremendous pain that is still not life threatening. (I've been assured kidney stones fall into this category.) And in fiction, there are plenty of examples of pain-only devices, such as direct stimulation of the pain centers of the brain. ("Mr Sulu, your agonizer please.").

 

I tried to create a new Power that was balanced and would help better define a character who is fundamentally indestructible, but buying Invulnerability was never intended to be the sole package for such a character any more than buying 10 points worth of martial arts makes a character a Martial Artist. There are many feasible ways to execute this concept, from massive defenses to Regeneration/Resurrection to a mix of defenses and Damage Reduction. All I was trying to do was add another tool to the toolkit. Obviously the idea lacks sufficient merit.

I wouldn't go that far. I just think the need is niche enough that it doesn't have critical mass for a good evaluation by people as there's a lack of interest. I'm not sure myself if I'd put it in the core book, but I like the idea, Treb.

 

As I think about it, you know, it's actually a really good way to do vampires and some other undead, as in some versions!

 

Hmmmm......so maybe there's more to this...

 

In fact, maybe, it would be "perfect" with the same rule as most absolutes, that there's an "achille's heel" that should be designed, some reasonable but not obvious or overt weakness, as is required with Desolid and similar abilities.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

I think the idea of a simple one-step mechanic to represent fundamentally indestructable characters has great merit in comic book and high fantasy campaigns. Like Churchill's dinner companion' date=' I'm mostly haggling over price.[/quote']

 

[zornwil]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Only in that falling unconcious is fundamentally equivalent to dying. Sure the character is not technically dead, but in D&D when a PC dies it is often off to the Clerics of god Whathisname for a quick raise dead. Is there a real difference between that and -30 STUN? Really?

 

Hawksmoor

But that only applies in some scenarios. I think Treb's could/would apply in others.

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

I wouldn't go that far. I just think the need is niche enough that it doesn't have critical mass for a good evaluation by people as there's a lack of interest. I'm not sure myself if I'd put it in the core book, but I like the idea, Treb.

 

As I think about it, you know, it's actually a really good way to do vampires and some other undead, as in some versions!

 

Hmmmm......so maybe there's more to this...

 

In fact, maybe, it would be "perfect" with the same rule as most absolutes, that there's an "achille's heel" that should be designed, some reasonable but not obvious or overt weakness, as is required with Desolid and similar abilities.

I do think Invulnerability needs an "Achilles Heel." (That might even be a good term for it.) I should have included that from the get go. I'll probably use wording similar to the required vulnerability for Desolidification. I just wanted to look at other possible flaws for the idea.

 

There are of course ways to abuse this Power, as there are for many (if not most) others. As always, the responsibility for preventing abuse lays on the GM, as it does with most "Stop Sign" Powers and certain Power combinations. But if you take away all potentially abusive Powers, FREd would be the size of Sidekick.

 

Thanks for the kind words, Zorn. Guess I'm just a bit put out because people weren't starting a ticker-tape parade for Invulnerability. :

[OddHat]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

I do think Invulnerability needs an "Achilles Heel." (That might even be a good term for it.) I should have included that from the get go. I'll probably use wording similar to the required vulnerability for Desolidification. I just wanted to look at other possible flaws for the idea.

 

There are of course ways to abuse this Power, as there are for many (if not most) others. As always, the responsibility for preventing abuse lays on the GM, as it does with most "Stop Sign" Powers and certain Power combinations. But if you take away all potentially abusive Powers, FREd would be the size of Sidekick.

 

Thanks for the kind words, Zorn. Guess I'm just a bit put out because people weren't starting a ticker-tape parade for Invulnerability. :

 

It's a good take on the idea; I often use a Resurection+Regrowth power for about 25 points for almost the same thing (representing a character that is very difficult to kill). My main concern with the Never Takes Body option is that the character then has almost no reason to spend points on body, and (unlike resurection) knows that he can't be killed with anything other than exotic powers. Adding an Achilles Heel helps with those issues.

 

As far as the other current Invulnerability debate is conerned, I'm worried that some of the proposals make all other standard defenses and attacks obsolete; keeping the price high helps with that, at least in a 350 point game.

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Kind of a NNA (No Normal Attack)

[prestidigitator]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Ah, nostalgia.

 

The very first character I built using Hero was a (otherwise) puny little dork who had something like 30 rPD/rED that was Hardened, 75% Resistant Damage Reduction (Hardened) for both Physical and Energy, a Triggered Persistant Aid that boosted all stats up to starting values only, Full Life Support, and 20 Power Defense that was Hardened. Everything was Always On, so he couldn't kill himself if he wanted to (which came up several times). However, none of his defenses worked against Stun, and he had Vulnerabilities that were x2 Stun vs. all HTH attacks (something like that).

 

I think the character costed about 150 points total. It turned out that (with the Armor, DR, and Aid) it would take something like 84 Body damage to even scratch him, and even then it would heal in short order. He was this strange little plasticy looking guy who evolved rather quickly between different temperments (for several adventures he was an annoying bubbly little twit that couldn't keep his mouth closed and kept getting smacked by the other PCs, and then for several he was a terminally depressed fop who tried to commit suicide at every possible opportunity). I didn't take Disadvantages for that; it was all roleplaying, baby!

 

The character was meant to be multi-genre, and I actually played him in several campaigns. The story was that someone powerful would ultimately wind up getting really annoyed by him and send him off into a valcano, into space, freeze him for a millenia or two, throw him into a different dimension, etc. (he spent most of his time between adventures in extreme agony, because most of his Life Support and such--like Self-Contained Breathing--caused extreme debilitating pain). One of the best tactics the character provided was to allow the other PCs to pick him up and use him as a weapon, throw him into the gears of the Armageddon Machine, etc.

 

This character shouldn't have an, "Achilles Heal." Maybe that would be a +50 Point Adder or something? A +4 Advantage? Maybe that's our mechanism for making it more expensive in 500-point campaigns.

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

It's a good take on the idea; I often use a Resurection+Regrowth power for about 25 points for almost the same thing (representing a character that is very difficult to kill). My main concern with the Never Takes Body option is that the character then has almost no reason to spend points on body' date=' and (unlike resurection) knows that he can't be killed with anything other than exotic powers. Adding an Achilles Heel helps with those issues.[/quote']Both the fact that exotic attacks are out there and the Achilles' Heel exists ought to mitigate not buying extra BODY. Besides, isn't buying extra BODY just because it enhances character survivability metagaming to some degree? There's a big difference between being hard to kill because you're tough and being tough because you're hard to kill. And realistically, one can achieve very nearly the same effect for the same points just by purchasing enough Hardenened Armor. The only difference is that Invulnerability is absolute, just like Desolidification. But it's really only useful against ultralarge attacks (beyond the levels achieved in most campaigns); against small attacks (less than 30d6) conventional defenses are more efficient.

 

As far as the other current Invulnerability debate is conerned, I'm worried that some of the proposals make all other standard defenses and attacks obsolete; keeping the price high helps with that, at least in a 350 point game.

Maybe. But I don't particularly like any of those other proposals; they all seem too much like bending current rules beyond all recognition rather than creating a new Power. Of course, if I liked that approach my proposal would have looked more like them.

[OddHat]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Both the fact that exotic attacks are out there and the Achilles' Heel exists ought to mitigate not buying extra BODY.

 

Fair enough.

 

Besides, isn't buying extra BODY just because it enhances character survivability metagaming to some degree? There's a big difference between being hard to kill because you're tough and being tough because you're hard to kill.

 

I was thinking on different lines. I dislike characters with 60 STR, 30 CON, and 10 BODY. It feels off kilter to me. A smart player can justify it, and the rules often make it a good choice, but it still bugs me; it's playing the rules rather than the game, something which I'd say we both would like to avoid.

 

And realistically, one can achieve very nearly the same effect for the same points just by purchasing enough Hardenened Armor. The only difference is that Invulnerability is absolute, just like Desolidification. But it's really only useful against ultralarge attacks (beyond the levels achieved in most campaigns); against small attacks (less than 30d6) conventional defenses are more efficient.

 

My own preference is to stick to conventional defenses in almost all situations, but I do like having a "the character absolutely will not die" mechanic.

 

Maybe. But I don't particularly like any of those other proposals; they all seem too much like bending current rules beyond all recognition rather than creating a new Power. Of course, if I liked that approach my proposal would have looked more like them.

 

Of the other proposals, the one I like best is 100% Damage Reduction for 120 points, as the rules already come close to modelling that. Similarly, "Takes no Body" for 80 points feels about right to me; expensive enough to keep it rare outside of very high power games. However, I understand the urge to price it lower; 80 real points just to avoid a rare issue is not practical in a 350 point game.

 

I think that most of the problem comes from real world attack damage inflation in 5th Ed. When ordinary rifle rifles can potentially knock out your team brick, and a fall can kill him, he feels less like a comic book Super. I usually use nested defenses and house rules to deal with this, but these arguments have sold me on the need for a simpler mechanic.

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

I was thinking on different lines. I dislike characters with 60 STR' date=' 30 CON, and 10 BODY. It feels off kilter to me. A smart player can justify it, and the rules often make it a good choice, but it still bugs me; it's playing the rules rather than the game, something which I'd say we both would like to avoid.[/quote']Personally I've never seen a Champions PC with only 10 BODY, much less a brick. BUt while I agree with you that it feels off kilter, who are we to decide what the ration of defenses:BODY should be? If a player's concept requires it, then I don't see why we have any grounds to object. Besides, the existence of the Achilles Heel and exotic attacks such as Transformation and Drain provide a pretty good incentive to buy some extra BODY even if a character has my version of Invulnerability.

 

My own preference is to stick to conventional defenses in almost all situations, but I do like having a "the character absolutely will not die" mechanic.

This is my own feeling as well, but I like having the mechanic available in the toolkit if a particular concept requires it. There are lots of Powers in Hero I've never used for a PC or even for a villain, but that doesn't mean I think those Powers should not be in the book. There are plenty of campaigns and players out there who use very different philosophies for character design than I do.

 

Of the other proposals, the one I like best is 100% Damage Reduction for 120 points, as the rules already come close to modelling that. Similarly, "Takes no Body" for 80 points feels about right to me; expensive enough to keep it rare outside of very high power games. However, I understand the urge to price it lower; 80 real points just to avoid a rare issue is not practical in a 350 point game.

100% Damage Reduction would be my preferred alternative if my version were not available, although I think it's overpriced for the utility provided in a typical 350 point game even if given a "Only vs BODY" for -2. I think the 80 point version is simply far too expensive. I still think 30 points is about right for this Power, although I'm prepared to see it go for 40.

 

I think that most of the problem comes from real world attack damage inflation in 5th Ed. When ordinary rifle rifles can potentially knock out your team brick, and a fall can kill him, he feels less like a comic book Super. I usually use nested defenses and house rules to deal with this, but these arguments have sold me on the need for a simpler mechanic.

Even Ben Grimm doesn't ignore falling off a 40 story building, although I rather doubt he takes any BODY from the fall. But a guy who can survive a hit from an enraged Hulk should be able to survive a 30d6 terminal velocity impact rather easily. Invulnerability would allow such a character to do that even from orbit. But I'd better stop here, because this is getting me back towards my problems with the Stun Lottery...

[Sunday_Gamer]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

I just double the cost of 75% damage reduction and introduced 100% damage reduction. Needless to say, there's a large stop sign next to it.

 

Sunday

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

...if you plot, on a graph, points cost against damage reduction you will see it is not a straight line: as cost increases it tends towards 100% damage reduction but doesn't get there. It is more accurate to say each doubling of cost halves the damage you take - even this is not a perfect fit, but close enough for government work - so for 80 (non-res) or 120 (res) you get 87.5% damage reduction - you take 1 point of damage from every 8 dished out. For 160/240 you get 93.75% DR or 1 point in 16. Either is functional invulnerability IMO, but avoids the absolutes, which I think is desireable.

 

I could be wrong.

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

I'm afraid I don't follow that argument. If 120 points buys you a Power called "Damage Reduction 100%," I can't see any player or GM accepting that it really means "Damage Reduction 87.5%."

 

My second question: Even if you are correct, would any player actually be willing to pay 100% more to jump from 75% Damage Reduction to 87.5% Damage Reduction? That's not much of an improvement for 60 points.

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

I'm afraid I don't follow that argument. If 120 points buys you a Power called "Damage Reduction 100%," I can't see any player or GM accepting that it really means "Damage Reduction 87.5%."

 

My second question: Even if you are correct, would any player actually be willing to pay 100% more to jump from 75% Damage Reduction to 87.5% Damage Reduction? That's not much of an improvement for 60 points.

 

The point is that 120 points doesn't buy you 100% DR: that is based on a logically flawed argument that the cost/benefit is plotted in a straight line, and it is not.

 

RE the second point, probably not in a lot of cases, but it does get more attractive in high points games. Mind you I'm not an advocate of absolute immunity to damage anyway, so I would prefer this approach, wouldn't I? Mind you only taking 1 point of damage in 8 is, for most purposes, functional invulnerability: a 20 dice attack will only do 8 or 9 damage before you consider other defences: it becomes possible to recover damage as fast as you can take it, so you can, in effect, take damage forever, which is, as I said, functional invulnerability.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

...if you plot, on a graph, points cost against damage reduction you will see it is not a straight line: as cost increases it tends towards 100% damage reduction but doesn't get there. It is more accurate to say each doubling of cost halves the damage you take - even this is not a perfect fit, but close enough for government work - so for 80 (non-res) or 120 (res) you get 87.5% damage reduction - you take 1 point of damage from every 8 dished out. For 160/240 you get 93.75% DR or 1 point in 16. Either is functional invulnerability IMO, but avoids the absolutes, which I think is desireable.

 

I could be wrong.

 

Not to support the bureaucracy, but even government tends not to be out that much.

 

You're only looking at 2 points (50% and 75%), which allows "doubling cost halves damage" and "doubling cost adds 25%" to be equally valid trends. But when you add in 25% Reduction, only "doubling adds 25%" makes sense.

 

If doubling halved damage, we should go 25% - 62.5% - 81.25%, or there should be no 25% category.

 

Plus, I dislike the idea of 96.875% damage reduction costing 480 points, a 240 point step up from 93.75% damage reduction. There has to be some consideration of point utility here.

[Metaphysician]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Meh, while there are some circumstances where a limited focus total invulnerability is useful, IMHO, much "cleaner" to just give the character extremely high defense.

 

And as some have said, I'd use Damage Reduction 100% as the basis for building any total immunity powers.

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Not to support the bureaucracy, but even government tends not to be out that much.

 

You're only looking at 2 points (50% and 75%), which allows "doubling cost halves damage" and "doubling cost adds 25%" to be equally valid trends. But when you add in 25% Reduction, only "doubling adds 25%" makes sense.

 

If doubling halved damage, we should go 25% - 62.5% - 81.25%, or there should be no 25% category.

 

Plus, I dislike the idea of 96.875% damage reduction costing 480 points, a 240 point step up from 93.75% damage reduction. There has to be some consideration of point utility here.

 

 

10=25%

20=50%

40=75%

 

looks like 3 points to me. 3 points not in a straight line. 3 points on a curve. A curve that tends towards but doesn't get to 100%. Mind you, it is a while since I've done maths....

 

The point about utility is well made, but I think it ignores the fundamantal problem (to my mind, at least) that for 240 points you want to be able to make characters invulnerable to physical and energy damage.

 

Allow that and you shift the dynamics of the whole game into a very silly place. Everyone needs special attacks to effect anyone. I don't like the idea of invulnerability. In fact, even though I'm pretty sure my mathematical model is the right one, no one in my games can buy 87.5% damage reduction: it is not necessary or desireable to go above 75%, which is why the game, quite rightly in my opinion, stops there.

 

100% invulnerability to damage might be OK, if you really think it necessary, for limited sfx powers 'Electricity? I eat electricity!" (and rep if anyone recognises the source of THAT quote), but I've never felt it necessary, in actual play, to have the power available. It comes up all the time in hypothetical discussion and character design, it is just never actually needed in play. The standard defences have always been more than enough, if properly applied.

[OddHat]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

100% invulnerability to damage might be OK, if you really think it necessary, for limited sfx powers 'Electricity? I eat electricity!" (and rep if anyone recognises the source of THAT quote), but I've never felt it necessary, in actual play, to have the power available. It comes up all the time in hypothetical discussion and character design, it is just never actually needed in play. The standard defences have always been more than enough, if properly applied.

 

I kind of agree with this. 40 Hardened PD, 75% Damage Reduction, and a 38+ CON are about where my "invulnerable" characters max out in a high end campaign, sometimes with an extra power or two to top things off; I've never felt that they were not tough enough to fill their genre roll.

 

OTOH, one step is simpler.

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Here's the final (hopefully!) version of Invulnerability. There are several clarifications and a minor change to the power as first presented:

 

Invulnerability: (Stop Sign)

 

Type: Special/Defensive Power

 

Duration: Persistent

 

Target: Self Only

 

Range: Self Only

 

Costs END: No

 

Cost: 30 Points for Physical; 30 Points for Energy

 

A character with Invulnerability is immune from taking BODY damage from any Physical and/or Energy Attack. This defense is fully Resistant and provides equal protection from both Killing and non-Killing attacks. Penetrating, Armor Piercing, AVLD or NND attacks which do BODY based on Energy or Physical attacks have no effect. It does not protect the character from the associated Stun from an attack even though it provides total protection from BODY damage. It provides protection only versus attacks which cause actual damage, and not against attacks which merely utilize BODY damage rolls to calculate effect, such as Flashes or Entangles. It does not protect the character in any way from Drains, Transforms, and other Adjustment Powers. Invulnerability does not provide any protection from Susceptabilities or Side Effects. Invulnerability costs no END to use, and is a Persistent Power.

 

Furthermore, a character must define the special effect of an Uncommon group of attacks (Gravitic, Green Argonite, etc.) which affects him despite his Invulnerability.

 

This Power may not be applied to any Automaton or character which takes the "Cannot Be Stunned" or "Takes No Stun" Powers, and is not recommended for vehicles or bases. GM's should exercise caution as this Power may be unbalancing in some campaigns. Since the character is immune to BODY damage, care should be taken that his defenses against Stun damage or exotic attacks are not excessively high so the character does not become unbeatable.

Fire away!

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

100% invulnerability to damage might be OK' date=' if you really think it necessary, for limited sfx powers 'Electricity? I eat electricity!" (and rep if anyone recognises the source of THAT quote), but I've never felt it necessary, in actual play, to have the power available. It comes up all the time in hypothetical discussion and character design, it is just never actually needed in play. The standard defences have always been more than enough, if properly applied.[/quote']I believe I've already acknowledged that Invulnerability is of strictly limited utility for most standard Champions games. Nor did I design this Power so I could fulfill a pet project in my own campaign; I have no character concept in mind to use this Power.

 

I fully expect its greatest application will be for very high powered Champions and/or Galactic Champions games (700+ points) or to represent certain powerful and well-nigh-unkillable supernatural creatures in Fantasy Hero. It does provide what I think is a useful addition to the toolkit, just as Dark Champions added Semi-Armor Piercing.