New Power: Invulnerability

[Sean Waters]

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 ....

 

 

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

 

Excellent idea, and i like it because it mimics an existing 'power'/price structure, although I don't think you need the 3x cost on defences: having to buy resistant is enough IMO. The 3x cost was each DC of damage does 1 BODY/3 STUN on average, so you needed the cost hike so that automatons had to spend a reasonable amount on defences: it doesn't work in reverse.

 

I'd probably make it cost more (Takes no stun at the top level is 60 points or 45 if you can be disabled).

 

An obvious caveat would also be 'can't buy 'No STUN' and 'No BODY' even for automatons, unless you are extremely cruel

[Duke Bushido]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

I'm not going to take anything away from Trebuchet-- he's done a lot of work and come up with a solid, workable idea, _and_ he had the faith in it to put it out here for analysis and comment; much respect to you, T.

 

But like Sean, I think that Prestidigitator has come up with a somewhat more elegant structure, and it has the added appeal of reading and functioning more like a counterpart / corollary to Takes No Stun.

 

I don't know about requiring Defenses to be Resistant (though I certainly agree that, much like Takes No Stun, characters with Takes No Body should pay more for their protection). My issue with making them buy Resistant Def is simply that it is not a realistic price penalty; the character is getting more effective Def for the price. Resistant Defenses protect from KA Stun damage as well as Body. I'd be more inclined to simply impose a +1/2 or +1 (or whatever I ultimately find to be appropriate) cost penalty on the character's defenses across the board.

 

While a lot of people have siezed on the 'absolute' angle of this power (and I have no argument with that; this _is_ very much an absolute. But it's one I'm willing to accept), I'd like to offer the idea that this power has less practical utility than does Takes No Stun.

 

All this power really does is ensure that the character will one day return to adventure / menace again. Unlike an automaton-- or even a car!-- he will not be able to casually shrug off attacks and soldier on until he is destroyed. He can be Stunned, which means he can be subdued. A well-executed attack strategy may stop a small band of 'invulnerable' opponents far faster (and with less collateral damage) than a single automaton on a rampage.

 

-----------------------------------

 

One aspect I'd like to see, either in the 'base' rules for the power, or as a Limitation of some sort, is the option of being badly hurt-- hurt beyond the comprehension of non-invulnerables. No, I'm not a sadist, but I don't think that this power should be too 'gimme,' at least not until it becomes cosmically priced (like Sean's suggested 120 pts a few posts back).

 

Suppose that this power ultimately means simply that the character can't be killed, period. (I know my posts are long, and I hope that as I better learn board culture I can curb that, but please; bear with me. I think this will make the suggested prices more agreeable to many who are against the constuct)

 

Suppose that the player is required to track Body damage (this idea will work better with the suggested "Invulnerbility" than the "Takes No Body", though it may make a great Limitation for TNB) as normal. And the 0-Body and Negative Body rules are still in effect, with the singular exception that the character will not die. Possibly even the character will not suffer Bleeding damage, etc, but decidedly he will not die.

 

This allows the character to know the humility of 'mere mortals' and perhaps not be anywhere near as unbalancing as some opponents of the construct fear. (Call it a -1 or -2 Limitation. I'm thinking -2 personally) With this option, the character could concievably be reduced to -50(starting BODY) or worse. Obviously he's down for the count, and will remain there until he heals up naturally. It could be weeks, or months. But he won't die.

 

I recommend this option simply because it was part of the early concept for the brick I discussed some pages back. (eventually he exp pt'ed out of that). With this option, the character simply can't be killed, but he can certainly be hurt very, very badly-- possibly be effectively removed from a campaign if he were the epicenter of a meteor strike or something.....

 

Trebuchet and Prestidigitator---

Great ideas, both of you! I'd rep you both for this great idea, but I've got to spread it a bit according to the box!

 

 

Duke

[prestidigitator]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Suppose that the player is required to track Body damage (this idea will work better with the suggested "Invulnerbility" than the "Takes No Body", though it may make a great Limitation for TNB) as normal. And the 0-Body and Negative Body rules are still in effect, with the singular exception that the character will not die. Possibly even the character will not suffer Bleeding damage, etc, but decidedly he will not die.

 

This allows the character to know the humility of 'mere mortals' and perhaps not be anywhere near as unbalancing as some opponents of the construct fear. (Call it a -1 or -2 Limitation. I'm thinking -2 personally) With this option, the character could concievably be reduced to -50(starting BODY) or worse. Obviously he's down for the count, and will remain there until he heals up naturally. It could be weeks, or months. But he won't die.

So the Power would have the simple effect of removing the limit at -Body. Period. Your Body score can be whatever, but once you take 2xBody...so what; you've taken 2xBody, and you can take more. That's not a bad idea either. Of course, it is completely equivalent to having no Body score at all because there are absolutely no penalties (in the standard system--I impose some myself) for lost Body or being in negative Body. The benefit above my solution is that you could still use the Body stat for the Transform and Disabling rules. Eh. Either way.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Oh---

 

I was under the impression that there _were_ penalties for negative BODY....

 

I hate that my rule books are packed up! Grrr..... I may have glossed over that to begin with, honestly. We've always played that a character at -1 Body was unconscious, -2(BODY) was dead or dying, depending on theme (usually dead).

 

With the idea I put forward, I was thinking along the lines of

 

up to -2(Body) you can heal as normal. Regain conciousness at 1BODY

 

each additional negative multiple of BODY moves healing rate down the time chart; doubles healing time; whatever works for you.

 

Essentially, I was opening the floor for discussion of the idea.

 

But if there are no effects for negative Body, then no, it wouldn't be very different from just being unstoppable period.

 

Hmmmm.....

 

So what sort of penalties do you asses for negative BODY?

[prestidigitator]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Oh---

 

I was under the impression that there _were_ penalties for negative BODY....

 

I hate that my rule books are packed up! Grrr..... I may have glossed over that to begin with, honestly. We've always played that a character at -1 Body was unconscious, -2(BODY) was dead or dying, depending on theme (usually dead).

 

That's what I believed for a long time as well. Zero or negative Body? Dying and unconscious. But actually the only penalty to being at negative Body is that you are Dying (i.e. losing extra Body) until you are attended to with Paramedics or Healing (you could even use one of those on yourself unless you are also unconscious due to Stun loss). EDIT: I have been swayed around to the idea that this is kinda cool, except that I don't really like how easy it makes it for characters at -5 Body to keep adventuring indefinitely as long as they don't take more damage.

 

So what sort of penalties do you asses for negative BODY?

I have been applying a -1 to attacks, Skills, and Characteristic rolls (basically everything resolved with the 3d6 curve--except for Activation Rolls and other things not under the direct control of the character). The first -1 comes at zero Body (where you start Dying), and there is an additional -1 for each 2 Body you are below zero. I am thinking of reducing the extra penalty to Body/5 for more dramatic effect, but I'm not sure of this one.

 

I also use a rule similar to that that the Bleeding rules use for, "re-opening," your wound when performing strenuous activities (such as combat). I don't have the specifics of what the roll actually is with me, but if you fail the roll you start Dying again. I believe the last version I had forced a roll each Turn, and you could avoid the roll by succeeding in a Recovery Action at least once within any particular Turn (meaning you have to take at least one Full Phase per Turn and do nothing but Recover--and your Recovery can't be denied due the the taking of Stun or Body). EDIT: Oh, and Pushing forces an immediate check with a -1 penalty per 5 points in the Push.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Ah, I see.

 

Then the ideas I popped up above really wouldn't do you any good anyway, would they? Though I suppose you could use them to keep Characters alive and suffereing truly ridiculous penalties, hoping for that elusive '3' on their next roll! 8D

 

Though with the idea in mind that you aren't _necessarily_ unconcious from Body Damage, I'll have to think about allowing characters to remain concious until -1(BODY), though obviously in bad shape-- bleeding, etc. Then asses forced unconsciousness etc as we already use. This will have the added affect of making the 'Inuvulnerable' (name to be decided on later) Limitation to Takes No BODY actually limiting while still allowing the player to reap some benefit from having bought the power in the first place. That is to say, he won't be killed and is therefore invulnerable, but will very much suffer 'normal' (and beyond) damage for the privellege _and_ be succeptible to the Bleeding rules, which will of course advance their poor condition.

 

Just some thoughts. Actually, this thought has me running around with thoughts as if they were scissors! I need to get some of this on paper, or at least on disk.....

 

 

Duke

[ghost-angel]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Excellent idea, and i like it because it mimics an existing 'power'/price structure, although I don't think you need the 3x cost on defences: having to buy resistant is enough IMO. The 3x cost was each DC of damage does 1 BODY/3 STUN on average, so you needed the cost hike so that automatons had to spend a reasonable amount on defences: it doesn't work in reverse.

 

I'd probably make it cost more (Takes no stun at the top level is 60 points or 45 if you can be disabled).

 

An obvious caveat would also be 'can't buy 'No STUN' and 'No BODY' even for automatons, unless you are extremely cruel

 

100% Damage Reduction!!

[zornwil]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Perhaps it's stated earlier, but just for the record, at negative BODY, you lose 1 BODY per Turn, see page 413 in 5ER.

 

I like Prestidigitator's "Takes no BOD" for alien/ghost-like things, and Trebuchet's for beings like Superman. To me, Prestidigitator's shouldn't default to CON for Transforms and such, I would instead have some all-or-nothing achille's heel, perhaps the same for Killing as well as Transformation, in keeping with what I think is a more common sort of theme for these rare sorts.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Ah....

 

so I'm not the only one who feels that we have begun to move into two separate powers, then?

 

Though I'd still like to find a way to reconcile one as advantages/limitations of the other......

 

 

Duke

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

While I probably (almost certainly!) have a personal bias here, I think there is a legitimate difference between "Invulnerability" as I have presented it and prestigitator's "Virtually Unkillable" (which is what it seems to be in essence) version. Both may have their place in the Hero toolkit; but I don't think they're really describing the same thing. There is a big difference, at least in concept, between not getting injured at all and being able to take an infinite amount of injury. At first glance, the idea has merit for certain concepts that Invulnerability doesn't quite fit.

 

I'd like to see a fully written up version of prestigitator's suggested Power, including those changes suggested in the thread.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

As would I, actually.

 

If no one else tries it on, I'll take a stab at it later on in the week or early next. Right now, it's rack time......

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

100% Damage Reduction!!

 

 

I've said it before: if you are expecting consistency, you need to look over there:thumbup:

[ghost-angel]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

I've said it before: if you are expecting consistency' date=' you need to look over there:thumbup:[/quote']

 

the only consistent thing about anything is that nothing is consistent, including the inconsistancies.

[prestidigitator]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

While I probably (almost certainly!) have a personal bias here' date=' I think there is a legitimate difference between "Invulnerability" as I have presented it and prestigitator's "Virtually Unkillable" (which is what it seems to be in essence) version. Both may have their place in the Hero toolkit; but I don't think they're really describing the same thing. There is a big difference, at least in concept, between not getting injured at all and being able to take an infinite amount of injury. At first glance, the idea has merit for certain concepts that Invulnerability doesn't quite fit.[/quote']

 

Perhaps. The, "Takes No Body," could possibly become equivalent to the, "Invulnerability," when combined with the No Hit Locations and Does Not Bleed Automaton Powers. I'm not entirely sure.

 

I'd like to see a fully written up version of prestigitator's suggested Power, including those changes suggested in the thread.

Ag! Work? I'll think about it if I can make myself get off my a**. Others are welcome to give it a stab too, of course.

 

EDIT: (I can't guarantee I will be too lazy to critique others' attempts. I'm so horrible!)

[prestidigitator]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

To me' date=' Prestidigitator's shouldn't default to CON for Transforms and such, I would instead have some all-or-nothing achille's heel, perhaps the same for Killing as well as Transformation, in keeping with what I think is a more common sort of theme for these rare sorts.[/quote']

Hmm. That could be a possibility. I just wasn't sure I wanted to suggest that it do too much. I usually feel it is better (at least in this area) to have a few small Powers that can be combined into a larger effect than one massive Power that does it all. So my dendency would be to have, "Takes No Body," and, "Cannot Be Transformed" as distinct Powers. I think the Disabling and Bleeding are already covered by existing Powers: the Automaton No Hit Locations and Does Not Bleed Powers to be specific. Eh. Either way. I'll admit I was not too happy about replacing Body with Con. Maybe it should just have been, "the character's Body Characteristic is only used to resolve Transforms and Disabling," but I sort of felt it was better to go the standard Automaton/Computer/Vehicle route of, "character does not have this Characteristic," too.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Perhaps. The' date=' "Takes No Body," could [i']possibly[/i] become equivalent to the, "Invulnerability," when combined with the No Hit Locations and Does Not Bleed Automaton Powers.

 

Sounds like your on to something, but what do you see being gained by _Does Not Bleed_ if the character takes no BODY damage to begin with? As I understand it, bleeding is tied directly to BODY damage as both cause and effect. I'd like to hear what you have in mind here. Also, what corollation (sp) do you see between "Takes No BODY" and _No Hit Locations_? Or is it just a price modifier sort of thing? I am intrigued.

 

At the moment, I am pretty happy with the idea of "Takes No Body," but am unsure of the pricing.

 

But I am undecided as to whether the 'lesser' version of it-- the one where a character can suffer infinite BODY damage but cannot die-- can even work as a limited version: What sort of_general_ Limitations would accurately define such a restriction? Would it require a power-specific Limitation (Which I really don't care for)? Or maybe an anti-adder-- some kind of 'subtractor?' (which is neat, but as it is unprecedented, I'd like to avoid it if possible to do so elegantly).

 

Or should it exist as as distinctly separate power, such that we are distinguishing "Indestructable" from "Durable"?

 

My mind..... oh, how she reels....

[prestidigitator]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Sounds like your on to something' date=' but what do you see being gained by _Does Not Bleed_ if the character takes no BODY damage to begin with? As I understand it, bleeding is tied directly to BODY damage as both cause and effect. I'd like to hear what you have in mind here. Also, what corollation (sp) do you see between "Takes No BODY" and _No Hit Locations_? Or is it just a price modifier sort of thing? I am intrigued.[/quote']

Bleeding is caused by Body damage, which is why I suggested keeping track of wounds in my example Power even though they don't affect your Body Characteristic (because you don't have one). The primary effect of Bleeding is that you lose Stun, although it is also possible to lose more Body. So a character with, "Takes No Body," could potentially get a bunch of knife wounds, from which he takes no Body in the literal sense, but from which he bleeds profusely and may pass out (or even go into a coma).

 

Similarly, the Disabling rules have effects based on where you are hit and how much Body damage is inflicted on a portion of the body. Certainly if you had both Does Not Bleed and No Hit Locations you wouldn't have to worry about tracking wounds because neither of these is likely to affect you. In that case you basically have a Stun score, and that is all.

 

At the moment, I am pretty happy with the idea of "Takes No Body," but am unsure of the pricing.

Yeah. I'm not sure of price either. I just went with something close to the low end of the prices that were being discussed. I'd probably have to think about it carefully and compare to Automaton Powers and such before coming up with a price that I would be comfortable using.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Okay,

 

this one's been quiet for a while, and frankly, that's great. I figure everyone interested in it has their viewpoints on the plate, and those who don't probably don't care about the idea to begin with.

 

I have just finished copying the text of this whole thread (my trip out of town was delayed a day and a half), and hopefully I'll have some time to cypher on it when I get back. As no one has posted anything yet as who to reconcile the two discussed versions, I will, per my word, make the attempt.

 

See you when I get back.

 

Oh, and P--

 

I missed this the first time through:

 

So the Power would have the simple effect of removing the limit at -Body. Period. Your Body score can be whatever' date=' but once you take 2xBody...[b']so what; you've taken 2xBody, and you can take more. That's not a bad idea either. Of course, it is completely equivalent to having no Body score at all [/b]because there are absolutely no penalties (in the standard system--I impose some myself) for lost Body or being in negative Body. The benefit above my solution is that you could still use the Body stat for the Transform and Disabling rules. Eh. Either way.

[emphasis added for clarity of refference]

 

Not quite; it is similar to having no BODY score, but there is one fundamental difference:

 

With no BODY score, you aren't out of commission waiting to heal. Keep in mind that the suggestion to track body was intended for a 'lesser' version of the power, one that let you become disabled-- even comatose-- but not killed.

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

So the Power would have the simple effect of removing the limit at -Body. Period. Your Body score can be whatever' date=' but once you take 2xBody...so what; you've taken 2xBody, and you can take more. That's not a bad idea either. Of course, it is completely equivalent to having no Body score at all because there are absolutely no penalties (in the standard system--I impose some myself) for lost Body or being in negative Body.[/quote']One other difference is that since losing BODY also causes a character to lose Stun on a 1:1 basis, if the character takes enough BODY using this Power they will also automatically be rendered unconscious; something that is ordinarily quite rare in normal game play. It really blurs the boundary between Stun and BODY. (Have we inadvertantly recreated Hit Points? )

[OddHat]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

If you can still take Body, but not die, I don't see how that is different from the current Resurection power using a GM's option to allow unlimited body damage to be recovered from. I don't say that's a bad thing; it's just that this particular take looks a lot like an already available option.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

If you can still take Body' date=' but not die, I don't see how that is different from the current Resurection power using a GM's option to allow unlimited body damage to be recovered from.[/quote']

 

Right; one of the constructs I'm trying to come up with is essentially the same, at least in use. The only real difference is moving from Fiat to Construct, though in this case, the character would not be required to actually have Regeneration. Of the two, this is the 'lesser' construct, and right now has the working title of "Indestructable."

 

The other construct is "Invulnerable," and is the primary topic of this thread. Invulnerable is, loosely, Takes No Body, but I'm trying to examine it for practical differences that might merit a separate construct all its own.

[Comic]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Apologies for the necro, but since this mechanic's been referred to elsethread and clearly had time to be playtested...

 

How's it working, for those who use it?

[Vondy]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

I don't have a problem with it conceptually.

 

I'm not sure how cost effective it is, however.

 

A brick tends to run high PD/ED scores and making them resistant is extremely cheap. Even with this power a brick will have to run a high PD/ED to soak stun so he's almost always going to opt for making them hardened/resistant. It could work for niche concepts (i.e., an "unbreakable" character with this and damage reduction, but normal level defenses).

 

For non-brick concepts it might come in more handy, but even then, it would probably end up having limitations attached to it. Fire guy would want "Invulnerability: ED, Fire Only -1" which would come out to 15 points. Now we've swung the other way, for non-bricks is it too cheap? (personally, for a supers game, I'm fine with fire guy not getting burned for 15 points)

 

At that point the question becomes: why this instead of the extant Deso version? I know its normally SFX based, but you could simply allow it to cover broader FX using lower limitation than -1, but with the Body Only -1 limitation tacked on. Indeed, the math comes out almost the same done that way.

 

One potential answer is, of course, "its easier to write on the character sheet and comes across as less wonky." That would work for me, but I tend to take the stance "if there is an extant power that can do it without too much fuss don't make a new one," but I'm conflicted because I also think "short notations on character sheets are a taste of the world to come."

 

I think you need to run some live tests and see if the cost is right.

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Short answer? The Desolid-based version of invulnerabilty is awkward at best; ridiculous at worst. It's also badly overpriced for its in-game value.

 

I've never claimed this was anything more than a new tool in the toolkit to recreate a specific and rather narrow ability. I'd like to see some playtesting, but nobody in our campaign has an appropriate concept to use this Power. It needs to be tested with a player character over the longterm.

[Thrakazog]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

I know it doesn't address the BODY-only aspect, but I've seen:

 

Damage Reduction, 100% - 80 AP

Damage Reduction, resistant, 100% - 120 AP

 

You could always apply a modifier such as "doesn't reduce STUN -1/2", and there you go.