New Power: Invulnerability

[prestidigitator]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

I don't know that the HECK is going on here! I edited my last post (because an automatic log-out messed up my preview-edit-post sequence) and it seemed to stick, but now that I am revisiting the thread it is back to its original content AGAIN! I'm

 

So anyway, here is what it was supposed to be; you can ignore my previous post. Maybe I'll try to delete it. I don't have much faith that anything will work there at this point!

 

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....

 

I will call 0% DR for a cost of zero points the, "zero point." If you ignore the zero point, plotting the log (base 2 if you like, though the base actually does not matter) of cost vs. DR (or damage=100%-DR if you like) gives a linear relationship. This would indicate that 100% DR should cost double the what 75% DR does. However, if you include the zero point, this breaks completely (log of zero has infinite magnitude; i.e. it is undefined).

 

If you plot cost vs. log (again base does not really matter) of damage (100%-DR), the zero point fits in nicely in a linear fashion with 50% DR and 75% DR, but as indicated 25% DR lies (barely) off the line. This would indicate that 100% DR would be infinitely expensive, and that 25% DR should really cost a little less (about 8.3 points using your numbers, which I believe are for Non-Resistant DR--of questionable value for an immunity power--and about 12.5 points if the 15/30/60 cost I remember for Resistant DR is correct).

 

However, both views are not completely correct given all the values (including the zero point) existing in the standard system. Of course, there aren't a lot of values in the standard system from which to derive a model. Take this as you will.

[prestidigitator]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Furthermore' date=' a character must define the special effect of an Uncommon group of attacks (Gravitic, Green Argonite, etc.) which affects him despite his Invulnerability.[/quote']

I don't like this as an absolute for this Power. I think the weakness should be a Limitation (and/or a Susceptibility if appropriate) or the lack thereof should be an Advantage (a very steep one, if you prefer). Partly this is due to the feeling that if we are going to go this way, we should allow it to go the whole way. Also, if a character buys Physical or Energy invulerability but not both, there is already a huge class of attacks that can still affect him/her; why require another restriction? It's like cutting a pastry in half and then saying it still has to have a doughnut hole (now I realize how hungry I am, damn it!).

 

I guess you can take this with a grain of salt. As I have said before I don't think complete safety from physical (Body) harm is as big a deal as everyone seems to make it out to be. Making a character last forever (and especially stand up through all combats) is going to take a whole host of other costly Powers anyway.

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

I don't like this as an absolute for this Power. I think the weakness should be a Limitation (and/or a Susceptibility if appropriate) or the lack thereof should be an Advantage (a very steep one' date=' if you prefer). Partly this is due to the feeling that if we are going to go this way, we should allow it to go the [i']whole[/i] way. Also, if a character buys Physical or Energy invulerability but not both, there is already a huge class of attacks that can still affect him/her; why require another restriction? It's like cutting a pastry in half and then saying it still has to have a doughnut hole (now I realize how hungry I am, damn it!).

 

I guess you can take this with a grain of salt. As I have said before I don't think complete safety from physical (Body) harm is as big a deal as everyone seems to make it out to be. Making a character last forever (and especially stand up through all combats) is going to take a whole host of other costly Powers anyway.

This is a valid criticism, but I'm not certain how to address it. I'm trying to find a balance point between making Invulnerability so effective it's unbalancing without making it completely pointless to purchase.

 

What if a 10 Point Adder removed the requisite Achilles Heel? That would make the cost 40 Points? Or is Susceptability enough of a potential weakness to remove the need for an Achilles Heel? After all, since this is a Stop Sign Power, a GM could always require any character who buys Invulnerabilty to also take a Susceptibilty as a Disad.

[ghost-angel]

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.

 

erg... your math needs some redoing.

 

step 1- 15pts / 25%DR

(x2pts / +100%)

step 2- 30pts / 50%DR

(x2pts / +50%)

step 3- 60pts / 75%DR

 

by your logic the next step would be

x2pts / +25%

step 4- 120pts / 93.75% (~94%)DR

 

or you could go the steps of: x2pts / +25% Which looks more like what is going on. So 120pts = 100%DR.

 

Anther way to look at it is you don't halve the damage you take.

100pts Damage at

step 1 = 75pts Damage

step 2 = 50pts Damage

step 3 = 25pts Damage

 

if 50 pts is half of 75 then I quit. DR is not based on DCs so the geometric arguement doesn't work - it takes a flat percentage off the total damage delivered regardless of the DCs of that damage, as potentially 4DCs can deliver less damage than 2DCs.

 

[edit: on a side note the 25%-50%-75% progression can be a very strait line. It IS a very strait line. 25-40-65-93 is not.)

[Black Rose]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

A thought occured to me as I was reading the current "final version" of Invulnerability. Since Invulnerability only protects against BODY damage, why not, as an optional rule for pricing (for those campaigns which fall outside of the usual parameters) declare that Invulnerability costs as many AP as the maximum DCs x 2.5, round to the nearest 5? This is for those campaigns where the GM limits Defenses to add an element of mortality to things.

 

Forex: the GM sets the DC Range for this game at 8-12, and the max campaign limit at 15. 15 x 2.5 = 37.5, round to 40.

 

Note that this would merely be a suggestion for those GMs who felt that a power which made the player completely Invulnerability to Body damage needed to be a bit more expensive than the value given. Though I don't know why; you're gonna have to buy Defenses to reduce the Stun taken regardless.

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

A thought occured to me as I was reading the current "final version" of Invulnerability. Since Invulnerability only protects against BODY damage, why not, as an optional rule for pricing (for those campaigns which fall outside of the usual parameters) declare that Invulnerability costs as many AP as the maximum DCs x 2.5, round to the nearest 5? This is for those campaigns where the GM limits Defenses to add an element of mortality to things.

 

Forex: the GM sets the DC Range for this game at 8-12, and the max campaign limit at 15. 15 x 2.5 = 37.5, round to 40.

 

Note that this would merely be a suggestion for those GMs who felt that a power which made the player completely Invulnerability to Body damage needed to be a bit more expensive than the value given. Though I don't know why; you're gonna have to buy Defenses to reduce the Stun taken regardless.

I would be adverse to that idea only because I dislike the idea of "floating costs" for Powers on principle. I feel Powers within the Hero system should have a fixed and immutable cost; not one which varies deliberately from campaign to campaign.

 

There is, of course, nothing to prevent a GM from implementing your suggestion as a "house rule" in his own campaign if he feels Invulnerability might be unbalancing.

[prestidigitator]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

This is a valid criticism, but I'm not certain how to address it. I'm trying to find a balance point between making Invulnerability so effective it's unbalancing without making it completely pointless to purchase.

 

What if a 10 Point Adder removed the requisite Achilles Heel? That would make the cost 40 Points? Or is Susceptability enough of a potential weakness to remove the need for an Achilles Heel? After all, since this is a Stop Sign Power, a GM could always require any character who buys Invulnerabilty to also take a Susceptibilty as a Disad.

I think requiring any character who buys an Invulnerability to also take a Susceptibility would be akin to the, "Achilles Heel;" as you say an individual GM might well require it, but I wouldn't like to see it be a general requirement of the Power.

 

A +10 Adder? Sure. I wouldn't even mind seeing it be a +50 Adder, or a +2 or higher Advantage. Maybe that would help for those really high-powered games where an Achilles Heel would be devestating. In low-powered games it would also allow, "total," invulnerability to be an expensive proposition; possibly the most expensive part of a character. At the same time this lesser invulerability with the normal weak point would appear decently cost-effective in the low-powered games. Beats me.

[Southern Cross]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Trebuchet,I'd reword the first line of thelast paragraph of your Invulnerability description to read as follows:This Power can only be taken if the character (or object) can take STUN damage.(Bases and vehicles do not have STUN,and hence cannot purchase the Invulnerability Power).

[Duke Bushido]

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:

 

Fire away!

 

 

Crud; I thought I was going to actually get that final version here in the quote. Oh well; we all know what it was, or at least where to find it,right?

 

Earlier in the thread, you commented that you felt perhaps no one had utility for this power. Well I happen to agree with you that in rare cases, this power is perfect. In fact, when I first read your suggestion, I wish I had heard back in the early years when we were using a mimeographed copy of 1E!

 

Back when I was a player my GM asked me to design and play a brick (I was new to this particular group, having moved) as his current group of players didn't have one, nor did they need another Batman. So I set about, with his permission (and some extra points to bring me up 'on par' with established characters, of course) to design an unusual brick-- I like to go away from stereotype.

 

Partly from concept, partly from the personality I assigned him during play, he quickly became the favorite of my characters amongst the other players. But niether I nor my GM were ever completely satisfied with this character, because part of the concept from the get-go was that he was invulnerable to PD and nigh-invulnerable to ED (model THAT!), while still quite stunnable and with a perfectly normal human sensation of pain (as in 1d6? Man, that hurts like Hell!)

 

We tried a lot of things over the years, as we discovered them, but we never really got what we wanted:

 

Lots of really high defenses. Tried holding up a falling building while the other players cleared civilians. Eventually the building collapsed (ran out of END for pushing). Damage was high enough to kill the character. Saved by GM fiat.

 

Even more defenses, with more BODY. Block-buster bomb at a summit meeting took him out again. Saved by GM fiat.

 

Damage reduction. During an earthquake scenario, he used himself as a structural support for a suspension bridge until traffic could be cleared from it. Repeated struggle against aftershocks etc wore him down. Killed again; saved by GM fiat. (though DR did perfectly for the 'nigh-invulnerable' ED angle, and remained in use until the character was retired)

 

One day Dragon magazine published a list of fairly forgettable powers for Champions, including one odd Luck-based construct called Extra Life. It cost 4pts, which were lost forever. We tried that as well. It worked great _once_. "Okay, that blast of thrust from the rocket booster should have killed you, but the Extra Life kicked in; you're in agony, but you're alive. Next phase! Okay, you're still trapped, and that thruster's still blasting.....")

 

And over and over.

 

I guess that this is the long-winded way of saying that regardless of the simulation or construct, when you need Invulnerability, _not_Invulnerability won't do.

 

We used GM fiat until the day the character was retired, but it was never 'right,' and we were never happy with it.

 

Frankly, I like your construct, I like your pricing, and if you don't mind, I think I'm going to wedge it into our House Rules.

 

Now I do have one thing I'd like to ask you. You said that you don't like fluctuating point costs (and Black Rose, that's a great idea on pricing potentially unbalancing powers! If I can have your blessing, I think I'll borrow that one, too!). How do you handle power Advantages and Limitations? As written in the book, or do you vary them by campaign?

 

For example, if you have a character whose powers don't work in the water and you assign a -1 to his powers, does it matter if the entire campaign takes place in the desert? Or the ocean?

 

I ask this because that in itself is indicitive of the need for fluid pricing. If someone has an EB that only works in sunlight but he operates only on a floating platform in orbit around the sun, why should his EB be less costly than someone in the same environment who opted to not take that limitation? Depending on the answer, you might get handed character sheets with constructs like "swimming; only in the water"......

 

 

The books have always suggested that limitations and advantages be priced relative to the campaign; why do you feel that the powers should not?

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Trebuchet' date='I'd reword the first line of the last paragraph of your Invulnerability description to read as follows:This Power can only be taken if the character (or object) can take STUN damage. (Bases and vehicles do not have STUN,and hence cannot purchase the Invulnerability Power).[/quote']An excellent suggestion; consider it done.

 

I'll try to post a "final" final version in a day or two; I'm also considering prestidigitator's suggestion of Susceptability not being a requirement of the Power but rather something the GM can insist on if he wishes.

[prestidigitator]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Trebuchet' date='I'd reword the first line of thelast paragraph of your Invulnerability description to read as follows:This Power can only be taken if the character (or object) can take STUN damage.(Bases and vehicles do not have STUN,and hence cannot purchase the Invulnerability Power).[/quote']

Good point! Certain Automaton Powers would disqualify a character as well!

 

EDIT: Though it might be fun to allow it for a really tough challenge. Such an exception would, of course, completely require GM approval (probably even GM building, as I don't see it happening for PCs at all except in really, really off-the-wall games!).

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

[snip]Now I do have one thing I'd like to ask you. You said that you don't like fluctuating point costs (and Black Rose, that's a great idea on pricing potentially unbalancing powers! If I can have your blessing, I think I'll borrow that one, too!). How do you handle power Advantages and Limitations? As written in the book, or do you vary them by campaign?

 

For example, if you have a character whose powers don't work in the water and you assign a -1 to his powers, does it matter if the entire campaign takes place in the desert? Or the ocean?

 

I ask this because that in itself is indicitive of the need for fluid pricing. If someone has an EB that only works in sunlight but he operates only on a floating platform in orbit around the sun, why should his EB be less costly than someone in the same environment who opted to not take that limitation? Depending on the answer, you might get handed character sheets with constructs like "swimming; only in the water"......

 

The books have always suggested that limitations and advantages be priced relative to the campaign; why do you feel that the powers should not?

Thanks for the kind words; and I liked the story about your character who really needed this Power.

 

In answer to your question, I don't like variations on the base cost of Powers precisely because that's what Limitations are for. And what's the first rule of Limitations? "A Limitation that doesn't limit the character isn't worth any bonus!" (5er, page 280) By definition Limitation values are going to depend on the campaign and genre. Furthermore, it is incumbent upon the GM to apply those Limitations. If AquaKid needs water every 4 hours to live and his player insists on taking a -1 Limitation to all of his Powers, then it's up to the GM to have about half of AquaKid's adventures take place somewhere water is not easily available.

 

Say you used this version of Invulnerability to build a Superman homage. He's tough as nails, but he has two significant weaknesses: He's not Invulnerable to magic, and he can be hurt by kryptonite. So he applies a "Not vs. Magic" Limitation to his Invulnerability. How much that would be worth would depend on the game world. If magic-using bad guys are as rare as hen's teeth, then it might be -¼ or even -0. On the other hand, if mad necromancers are as common as waffles at IHOP then this might be worth as much as -1. Context is everything.

 

Kryptonite, since it's pretty much harmless to humans, would be undoubtably bought as a Susceptability.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Good point! Certain Automaton Powers would disqualify a character as well!

 

EDIT: Though it might be fun to allow it for a really tough challenge. Such an exception would, of course, completely require GM approval (probably even GM building, as I don't see it happening for PCs at all except in really, really off-the-wall games!).

 

 

heh heh heh ---

 

"The Swami sees an upswing of PCs with Mental Paralysis in the future....."

 

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Say you used this version of Invulnerability to build a Superman homage. He's tough as nails' date=' but he has two significant weaknesses: He's not Invulnerable to magic, and he can be hurt by kryptonite. So he applies a "Not vs. Magic" Limitation to his Invulnerability. How much that would be worth would depend on the game world. If magic-using bad guys are as rare as hen's teeth, then it might be -¼ or even -0. On the other hand, if mad necromancers are as common as waffles at IHOP then this might be worth as much as -1. Context is everything.[/quote']

 

 

...off topic a bit, but this is also the 'werewolf problem': defences NOT V SILVER WEAPONS. What is that worth? Well, in a modern campaign there will be NO silver weapons. We don't make them, BUT as soon as anyone works out this is a werewolf, they'll be melting down the cutlery to make bullets. Same problem with Superman: Kryptonite and magic might be rare but by now everyone knows they effect Big Blue, so if they are expecting him, they'll make sure they have some.

 

I guess what I'm saying is one way to work it out is for the GM to look at the liitations and ake sure the problem turns up an appropriate amount. The player can hardly complain if every other villain has magnetic defences, given that he took a -1 on his EB 'not v magnetic defences', and saved a packet.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

In answer to your question' date=' I don't like variations on the base cost of Powers precisely because that's what Limitations are for. And what's the first rule of Limitations? [b']"A Limitation that doesn't limit the character isn't worth any bonus!"[/b] (5er, page 280) By definition Limitation values are going to depend on the campaign and genre. Furthermore, it is incumbent upon the GM to apply those Limitations.

[snip]

 

I know it probably doesn't seem like much to you, but I think this is the best-thought out explanation I've heard for not adjusting powers to the campaign. While I have always known that advantages and limitations should (and do) fluctuate to match the campaign, it simply never struck me that done correctly _that should be sufficient!_

 

Thanks! Like Sean said: sometimes the simple way is the best way!

 

 

Duke

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

1. I'm not against a power that prevents death especially superheroic campaigns. Death is rarely a problem in my games, but I like most characters to have to at least be aware of the possibilty.

 

2. I'm always a bit confused where sfx and mechanics intertwine.

 

What I'm getting at is this: no problem (despite all I said before - I just like talking) with the power, but does it go far enough?

 

I mean if you have a disintegration beam defined as a RKA you live, if it is defined as a ranged BODY drain, you die.

 

Perhaps, for double cost you can remove the possibility of death altogether. You just don't take BODY damage, from any source, period. 60 points is a healthy chunk of your starting points for a power that prevents something that rarely happens anyway. I have no doubt that actually building this power is going to be 1. more expensive and 2. impossible, but it seems fair enough on a straigh cost/utility basis.

 

Also, I think you need to add into your description:

 

If you take this power you can not buy your BODY below 10 and you can not take any limitation on any power purporting to make it not work against BODY damage. This 10 BODY does not give figured STUN.

 

....even then, most characters would have a higher BODY than 10 if they were not invulnerable, so the character is saving some points there. The 'no figured stun' (which will cost the character an extra 10 points, in effect) will help to offset this.

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

....oh, and whilst the 60 point version would not stop transforms, it WOULD prevent the character from being transformed into something that could be a killed. Diamond would be a chicken, but an indestructible one.

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

I mean if you have a disintegration beam defined as a RKA you live, if it is defined as a ranged BODY drain, you die.

 

Perhaps, for double cost you can remove the possibility of death altogether. You just don't take BODY damage, from any source, period. 60 points is a healthy chunk of your starting points for a power that prevents something that rarely happens anyway. I have no doubt that actually building this power is going to be 1. more expensive and 2. impossible, but it seems fair enough on a straigh cost/utility basis.

Invulnerability is intended to represent just that. It is not, and never was, intended to prevent death. If a charcter wants to be immune to death, then he can buy the additional Powers (such as Resurrection) to do so. If he wants to be immune to Drains, he can buy Power Defense.

 

Also, I think you need to add into your description:

 

If you take this power you can not buy your BODY below 10 and you can not take any limitation on any power purporting to make it not work against BODY damage. This 10 BODY does not give figured STUN.

 

....even then, most characters would have a higher BODY than 10 if they were not invulnerable, so the character is saving some points there. The 'no figured stun' (which will cost the character an extra 10 points, in effect) will help to offset this.

You're trying to overthink this. It'd serve him right. I've said from the very beginning that Invulnerability was only one of the Powers a character would need to be truly indestructible. If a character is dumb enough to sell back BODY just because he's bought Invulnerability, then he's got no complaint when the Molecule Man Transforms him into an indestructible pretzel.

 

Any Power which tried to take a "Does not work vs. BODY damage" Limitation would be invalid anyway because a Limitation has to have some negative effect on the Power; and that's up to the GM to enforce; not the Power description. Almost any (maybe every) Power can be abused. I'm trying to provide a new gadget in the toolbox. I'm not going to hold the GM's hand while he runs his game. I'm going to assume he is in control of his own game. I've already made it a "Stop Sign" Power; that's as far as it needs to go. The rest is up to the GM,

[Phil]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Well, for what it's worth in light of the whole debate, I just thought I'd throw my tuppeneth of contrary opinion into the mix. I dont like it because its an absolute, and the problem with absolutes in a generic system is that they are of variable utility. So a 30 point power in a 600 point game is a tiny outlay, in a 150 point game it's a significant outlay. And yet the concept of 'invulnerability' does exist at throughout the power scale, from fantasy and sci-fi through pulp to cosmic-scale supers.

 

At the moment, defences cost significantly less than attacks, especially as attacks get more and more limited by the extremes of the bell curve. The key barrier to stacking defences high enough to simulate invulnerability is Rules of X and similar limitations. Simply modify these either as a special case or by limiting on the basis of real cost of defences rather than active cost, and I think the problem is solved. I'm just not convinced by any of the discussion so far that such a power is necessary - invulnerability is general defined as 'cannot be harmed by the means available in the medium presented', which is not the same thing as totally incapable of being harmed. Who knows whether Achilles could handle a punch from Zeus. I suspected he couldn't! The Shaggy Man's invulnerability was on the basis of an apparently infinite regeneration, but drop him in the centre of a sun and lets see how he does. Superman is classed as 'invulnerable' yet has been shown on many occasions as being anything but.

 

Sorry, nice piece of work, but I'm not convinced either by the need, by the conceptual argument or the pricing.

[prestidigitator]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Perhaps this should actually look almost the same as the, "Takes No Stun," Automaton Power. Something like:

Takes No Body - Stun Only (STOP)

 

A character with this Power does not have a Body Characteristic. They may not sell back their Body (nor may they buy it up--they simply don't have the Characteristic at all). Transforms act against the character's Con instead. The character cannot die except by indirect means (such as aging if appropriate or being rendered functionally dead by a source of Continuous Stun damage, a Transform, etc.).

 

A character with this Power

must

buy all defenses as Resistant (either by buying defenses that are normally resistant or through use of the

Damage Resistance

Power), and all such defenses cost three times the usual amount (but only the standard cost is used if the character sells back any defenses). A character may only take both

Takes No Body

and the

Takes No Stun

Automaton Power with GM permission.

 

If the optional Disabling and/or Bleeding rules are used and the character does not have the

Does Not Bleed

Automaton Power (and/or

No Hit Locations

, as appropriate), a character with this Power should keep track of Body wounds only for purposes of determining how much Stun damage is taken from Bleeding and what Disabling effects occur and for how long. Disabling rules should use the character's Con instead of Body. Such, "wounds," will go away at the normal rate and through the normal means (they will, "heal," by the character's Rec each month, may be closed with the Paramedic Skill, healed with Healing, etc.).

Example

Stoneman has 30 Str and 20 Con. He buys

Takes No Body - Stun Only

for 30 points. He must now buy Damage Resistance for his natural 6 PD and 4 ED, and this Damage Resistance costs triple (the Damage Resistance will have a final cost of 15). If Stoneman spends points directly on his PD or ED, it will cost him triple for each, and he must also buy Damage Resistance for this extra PD or ED at triple the normal cost (3 character points to convert 2 points of Normal defense to Resistant defense). Likewise, Stoneman will have to pay triple the normal cost for Armor, Force Field, Force Wall, and any other Powers the GM deems appropriate.

Cost:

Takes No Body - Stun Only

costs 30 points. All Defense Characteristics and Powers must be Resistant and cost three times the normal cost.

Just an idea. It could be fiddled with cost-wise or for the Transform/Disabling thing for balance, of course.

[zornwil]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

....oh' date=' and whilst the 60 point version would not stop transforms, it WOULD prevent the character from being transformed into something that could be a killed. Diamond would be a chicken, but an indestructible one.[/quote']

The way I've done it in my game all along with Transform is that the target normally has the same # of points and if they lose capability those points all get diverted to defense.

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Well, for what it's worth in light of the whole debate, I just thought I'd throw my tuppeneth of contrary opinion into the mix. I dont like it because its an absolute, and the problem with absolutes in a generic system is that they are of variable utility. So a 30 point power in a 600 point game is a tiny outlay, in a 150 point game it's a significant outlay. And yet the concept of 'invulnerability' does exist at throughout the power scale, from fantasy and sci-fi through pulp to cosmic-scale supers.

 

At the moment, defences cost significantly less than attacks, especially as attacks get more and more limited by the extremes of the bell curve. The key barrier to stacking defences high enough to simulate invulnerability is Rules of X and similar limitations. Simply modify these either as a special case or by limiting on the basis of real cost of defences rather than active cost, and I think the problem is solved. I'm just not convinced by any of the discussion so far that such a power is necessary - invulnerability is general defined as 'cannot be harmed by the means available in the medium presented', which is not the same thing as totally incapable of being harmed. Who knows whether Achilles could handle a punch from Zeus. I suspected he couldn't! The Shaggy Man's invulnerability was on the basis of an apparently infinite regeneration, but drop him in the centre of a sun and lets see how he does. Superman is classed as 'invulnerable' yet has been shown on many occasions as being anything but.

 

Sorry, nice piece of work, but I'm not convinced either by the need, by the conceptual argument or the pricing.

Obviously I don't agree with you or I wouldn't have offered up this Power in the first place. I was addressing what I felt was a hole in the powers list that made it impossible to build a character who can't be hurt, at least by conventional means. That it was impossible to do this in Hero is a complaint I've heard leveled against Hero for years; especially by players of other superhero RPGs. Nobody is under any obligation to permit it in their game even were it to someday become an official Power; say in 6th Edition. But based on the volume of positive comments and Rep I've received for Invulnerability, I suspect I'm not the only one who thought there might be room in the toolkit for such a Power. YMMV.

 

And if the arguments for the need and/or concept don't sway you, the pricing is moot. Just don't use it. I've heard arguments as to the cost being too low (or high!), but what I'd really like is a few GMs and players to try it out (once I post the final version) and give it a good playtest. Then we can see if it's unbalancing and/or underpriced.

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

OK, here is what I hope will be the "final" final version.

 

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 totally 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 Susceptibilities or Side Effects. Invulnerability costs no END to use, and is a Persistent Power.

 

This Power may not be applied to any Automaton or character which takes the "Cannot Be Stunned" or "Takes No Stun" Powers. This Power can only be taken if the character (or object) can take STUN damage. (Bases and vehicles do not have STUN, and hence cannot purchase the Invulnerability Power).

 

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 so high that the character becomes unbeatable. The GM may if he wishes require that the character purchasing this Power take a Susceptibility Disadvantage which can cause BODY damage.

[prestidigitator]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

OK' date=' here is what I hope will be the "final" final version. [/quote']

...and what do you think about Bleeding and Disabling? Should the character be made immune to these by the Power as well, should that require other Powers or Adders, or what? I think it would be cool to allow a character that can basically be beat into a bloody pulp, with snapped limbs, mashed hands, and gouged eyes, who could just keep going and going as long as there is something his body is still capable of.

 

(See my previous post.)

 

EDIT: "Come back here! I'll bite your legs off!"

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

...and what do you think about Bleeding and Disabling? Should the character be made immune to these by the Power as well' date=' should that require other Powers or Adders, or what? I think it would be cool to allow a character that can basically be beat into a bloody pulp, with snapped limbs, mashed hands, and gouged eyes, who could just keep going and going as long as there is [i']something[/i] his body is still capable of.

 

(See my previous post.)

 

EDIT: "Come back here! I'll bite your legs off!"

I gave that a bit of thought, and decided it wasn't much of an "invulnerability" that allowed a character to be beaten to a bloody pulp, have limbs amputated, or have his bones broken. Since a character with Invulnerability can't take BODY damage (although he can lose BODY from Drains and the like), I don't see how Bleeding and Disabling would even apply. What you're looking for really sounds more like an "Unkillable" Power to me.

 

Design away! My work here is done.