New Power: Invulnerability

[Warp9]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

I think that is my problem with the idea. You mention in the original post that Superman is virtually the poster child for invulnerability' date=' and yet we had a story line where he was beaten to death by physical force. That is the problem with absolutes of any stripe - I'm not sure they really exist even in the source material.[/quote']

Agreed. I just don't see the need for Invulnerability.

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

I think that is my problem with the idea. You mention in the original post that Superman is virtually the poster child for invulnerability' date=' and yet we had a story line where he was beaten to death by physical force. That is the problem with absolutes of any stripe - I'm not sure they really exist even in the source material. That makes campaign specific virtual invulnerability far preferable to my way of thinking - it allows for the occasional blip outside the margins.[/quote']I don't really disagree; especially since a campaign-specific and quite reasonable form of limited invulnerability appears in 5E Fantasy Hero. I was unaware of that when I originally posted this idea or I probably would not have proposed it at all. (Like you, I don't believe true invulnerability exists in the source material.)

 

5000 posts! W00t!

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

And there we will have to agree to disagree. To my way of thinking if you have bought a power that makes your limitation not worth anything you shoudln't be penalised - the injunction is there to prevent you getting something for nothing' date=' not to make you pay twice.[/quote']

 

I don't think any campaign "needs" invulnerability, but if it existed, I think it ought to be something along the lines of the "automaton" limitation, that is, not for PCs. On the other hand, if the GM does allow invulnerability of some sort, I'd suggest just getting "desolid" and buying STR and all other attacks with the "affects solid" advantage. The GM might require further limitations such as "only vs fire attacks" or some such, but you get the idea. It should be expensive enough, in every case, to require the player to consider if he wouldn't really rather have something else, without being so expensive as to make it useless because the character can't then afford anything else but invulnerability.

[eightiesboi]

Absolute, Relative, and Effective Invulnerability - Concepts, not just mechanics

 

Hello all,

 

This is my second post on the boards, so please excuse me if I violate any customs. I am a long-time RPGer; I first started playing D&D (yes, the original) in 1976-7. The first sci-fi RPG I ever played was Metamorphosis Alpha, followed by Gamma World. The first Hero RPG I played was actually Villains and Vigilantes, although I used to adapt Champions material to my campaign all the time. I am a relative newcomer to the Hero System, having only used it for about 3 years now, but I have grown to really appreciate its adaptability. I think it is one of the best gaming systems I've ever used.

 

But enough about me... This post is the end-product of my lurking on the boards, reading a lot of source and meta-game material, and a long walk for lunch. I was thinking about the desirability (or lack thereof) for Invulnerability. I realized that conceptualizations of invulnerability can fit into roughly three categories (regardless of mechanic): Absolute, Relative, and Effective (which could also be called Conditional).

 

Absolute Invulnerability: This is exactly as it would seem. A character having this ability would be Invulnerable to Absolutely Everything. HA. RKA. EB. NND. XYZ. PhDs. You name it, she is invulnerable to it. This is an absolute state, needing no basis in any sort of mechanic to explain the effect, or in other words, it doesn't really matter if her ability zeros out all damage dice, or if she is unhittable by any means, or what not: the effect remains the same. This might be modeled by using a modification of Damage Reduction, Desol, or a new ability, but in the end what matters is that she can't be hurt. Ever.

 

Relative Invulnerability: This character has invulnerability according to the game world. If the greatest amount of damage that can be done in the game world is "x" amount, and the character purchases the appropriate amount of double-super-secret hardened defenses (or the like) to protect against this damage, then she is relatively Invulnerable. This is still only relative, as if something (like the GM) changes the game world to allow greater than the formerly agreed upon damage, then the character is vulnerable (but probably tough to hit / hurt). In other words, she can't be hurt by normal game world means, but change the rules, and it's rabbit season.

 

Effective Invulnerability: This character is invulnerable unless a certain condition is met, or alternatively is only invulnerable as long as a condition is met (thus, this could be called Conditional Invulnerability). Stupendous Man is invulnerable; unless you have some Green Jello, then he goes all wobbly.

 

Where am I going with all this? Simple. As GMs (and players), we are constantly looking for ways to make our games better; i.e., more interesting, easier to play, more internally consistent, more fun, etc. Having read this and other, similar threads, it is clear that there is a persistent and entrenched dichotomous "yes there should be / no there shouldn't be" debate on invulnerability, where movement from one camp to the other is fairly rare. But even within the "Yes" camp, there seems to be a lack of consensus on just "how" invulnerability should be conceptualized, which leads to great disagreement on how to build the effect. Thus, I am not proposing a mechanic; instead I suggest stepping back from the rules and looking at the bigger picture. Once a GM has decided how to categorize Invulnerability (or any similar "absolute" power), then an appropriate mechanic can be designed.

 

For me, Absolute Invulnerability powers (and any other "true" absolutes) aren't just stop signs, they are big ole' game destructive no-no Do Not Enter signs. The reason is simple: once they've been allowed in, the only way to deal with them (without removing them by fiat) is to allow other characters (PCs or NPCs) to have other or similar absolute powers in an escalating arms race of sorts, and the inevitable "irresistible force, immovable object" problem rears its ugly head. Absolute Invulnerability might work as a tool for the GM in world-building (for instance, in a fantasy RPG with true gods), but I think that even this circumstance is of limited usefulness.

 

Relative Invulnerability is not much better, even though it looks it, as sooner or later the GM may find it necessary to raise the damage level (or whatnot) for the sake of the story, balance, or drama, or whatever--and then that GM has just gone back on an agreement as to what the player was getting when she paid points for the power in question. Some players would look at this as a challenge, but many would feel as though their GM has "betrayed" them by changing the rules mid-game. Further, if the change in damage cap is due to circumstances that have increased the overall power of the characters (or as a rare occurrence meant to upset the status quo before returning to normal), then a player could simply buy their defense back up (or not worry about the "change"); however, if the higher damage cap is to revoke the character's Relative Invulnerability, then the player's feelings of betrayal may be justified. Never a fun place to be.

 

On the other hand, Effective or Conditional powers have an in-built expectation that sooner or later, the guy with the Green Jello is going to show up. It still requires careful management to keep the power from getting out of hand or having the player irritated by the amount of Green Jello in the world, but is potentially manageable. In fact, whole interesting plot developments can be made about well-thought powers that are effective or conditional; especially if "normal" characters have to save the [in]effectively invulnerable brick. Of the three conceptualizations, I find this to be the least problematic; YMMV.

 

In sum, I personally don't think that Invulnerability as a power is the problem, as long as the GM first answers the questions "when," "how," and "under what conditions?". Or, in other words, absolutes should be effectively conditional (or conditionally effective). My two cents.

[Patriot]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Invulnerability follow up time:

 

Inside normal campaign guidelines to power has limited use. Most bricks probably won't take that much body to begin with.

 

 

That being said, when the "annual" event comes up, when an alien armada is attacking our fair planet, or some god-creature sees us as an appetizer. The power does have its uses ( notably because most bricks are using the ape sh@@- ballistic tactics and are scrambling into the fray).

 

The end result is this: even in the worst of situations, It allows a team to man up behind a brick, coordinating with him ( or them) and be heroes.

 

As such , This power is now a fixture in my campaign , yes, it will have a stop sign, and yes it is approved case by case. It leads to good heroing and gets my seal of approval:thumbup:

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Good heroing is good.

 

OTOH knowing you're going to die and doing it anyway makes for really good heroes.

[mmshah]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

One can sorta buy this power already, albeit more expensive (which it should be IMO) with 3 things:

 

1) Damage Reduction 75% Resistant

 

2) Absorption (to Body and Stun, +0 Healing Effect Advantage", Arbitrary Amount of Autofire, Persistent)

Note: "Healing Effect" Advantage is described in UEP, it allows healing to starting values only, but can have unlimited effect (ie. no Maximum)

 

3) Arbitrary Amount of Hardend PD/ED

 

Arbitrary is whatever level you like (keep in mind the doubling nature of Hardend and Autofire so this is not as expensive as it looks).

 

Now When this character takes Damage you first subtract your Ed or PD (this is nominal as these are intentionally kept low or at starting values) then divide the damage by 4. However the character heals back 1 CP of Body and 1 CP of Stun for certain dice rolled against him. Examine this on a per die basis and you'll see what I mean.

 

For Normal Attacks this becomes:

 

Roll of 1 = 0 Body AND 1 Stun

Roll of 2 = 1 Body AND 2 Stun

Roll of 3 = 1 Body AND 3 Stun

Roll of 4 = 1 Body AND 4 Stun

Roll of 5 = 1 Body AND 5 Stun

Roll of 6 = 2 Body AND 6 Stun

 

After DR this becomes:

Roll of 1 = 0 Body AND 0.25 Stun

Roll of 2 = 0.25 Body AND 0.5 Stun

Roll of 3 = 0.25 Body AND 0.75 Stun

Roll of 4 = 0.25 Body AND 1 Stun

Roll of 5 = 0.25 Body AND 1.25 Stun

Roll of 6 = 0.5 Body AND 1.5 Stun

 

And Absorption Heals back: (recall Autofire is arbitrarily high so we can assume the Absorption Roll at least covers any attack)

Roll of 1 = 0 Body AND 0 Stun

Roll of 2 = 0.5 Body AND 1 Stun

Roll of 3 = 0.5 Body AND 1 Stun

Roll of 4 = 0.5 Body AND 1 Stun

Roll of 5 = 0.5 Body AND 1 Stun

Roll of 6 = 1 Body AND 2 Stun

 

Note: I have converted CP to Characteristic Values for Body and Stun (ie 2 CP from Absorption = 1 Body)

 

Net Damage:

Roll of 1 = 0 Body AND 0.25 Stun

Roll of 2 = 0 Body AND 0 Stun

Roll of 3 = 0 Body AND 0 Stun

Roll of 4 = 0 Body AND 0 Stun

Roll of 5 = 0 Body AND 0.25 Stun

Roll of 6 = 0 Body AND 0 Stun

 

So only on rolls of 1 or 5 does any net damage not get healed, of course on average no damage stays, but due to extreme luck of the dice its possible to inflict damage however that damage is really small, ie. even if you rolled all 1's or 5's (or combination thereof) on a 12d6 attack only 2 stun is not healed automatically (Assuming a base ED/PD of 2). And even then on subsequent attacks that 2 could be healed unless of course only 1's and 5's were rolled.

 

So the character needs only enough Body so that he is not outright killed from an attack and with 75% DR you won't need that much. Regeneration Resurrection is also possible to cover this but would most likely be more expensive.

 

Hardend is needed on ED/PD since DR does not affect Penetrating attacks, but since you dont need anymore then your base ED, PD for this build its not expensive to rack up Hardend to whatever level you require.

 

For Killing Attacks it possible to hurt the character if the Body damage is low (ie not much to Absorb from) and Stun damage is high. Ie either rolling x5 for the stun multiplier or buying alot of Increased Stun multiplier. But even then the DR still counts so for example:

 

A 1d6 Killing attack (+12 Stun Multiplier) Could do a Max of:

6 Body, 102 Stun

After DR:

1 Body, 25 Stun

After Absorption:

0 Body, 19 Stun

 

Thus with Killing Attacks its possible to KO the character, but he really is unKillable Body damage is always healed.

 

I prefer this method of Invulnerablilty, its within the rules, its expensive (thou not insanely priced) and its not really Invulnerability, its only Invulnerablity to Body damage, Stun can still get thru but its hard to do.

 

Note I have caluclated the above damage based on 0 ED/PD with a normal character's base 2 ED/PD the damage numbers would be slightly less.

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Nice - the 'healing absorption' is effectively 4x as effective because of the damage reduction, which makes it pretty cost effective.

[Patriot]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

 

 

2) Absorption (to Body and Stun, +0 Healing Effect Advantage", Arbitrary Amount of Autofire, Persistent)

Note: "Healing Effect" Advantage is described in UEP, it allows healing to starting values only, but can have unlimited effect (ie. no Maximum)

 

 

 

Auto fire on absorption.....I run a pretty high lvl game, and I am pretty lax with the rules, but auto fire on absorption seems a little ....off to me

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Ha - hadn't spotted the autofire on absorbtion - and would not allow it as it is not an attack power.

[mmshah]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Its in the rules under Absorption in the Main Book (pg. 133), but you can also buy dice instead if you like but this get very expensive.

 

You can read up on the page reference I gave as to how Autofire works with Absorption, but I'll also try to explain here. First Autofire Absorption does NOT allow you to absorb multiple times from the same attack, it just basically increases the BODY that can be absorbed from a single attack (Autofire X means roll the dice X times take the highest result and then add X-1 (just like calculating Autofire Knockback)). So keep in mind even if you have Autofire x1,000 Absorption if you get hit by a 1 BODY attack you can only absorb 1 BODY.

 

In this example it is being used to cover very large attacks in a cost effective way, rather then having to buy lots of dice. If you buy lots of dice of Absorption then you have to spend a very large number of character points to buy the required powers (and again for energy/mental damage). Anyone can buy up super high defenses with 120 points in ED and PD each, but the idea of invulnerablity is to have it cost more then 60 points but less then some ridiculously high number. Thats why I feel this cost is justified, its more then 60 (the price of the 75% DR alone) but not that much higher (the price of the Absorption you can get away with in a normal 60 AP cap campaign is probably around 8 points per damage type).

 

Here's a comparison between dice and Autofire:

 

Absorption 6d6 (18 Points Standard Effect) (Persistant +1/2, 2 Charactersitics at once (Body and Stun) +1/2, Healing Effect +0) 60 CP

Standard Effect is take to eliminate the randoms of dice rolls, this will protect against upto 18 Body of an attack

 

Absorption 1 pip (Persistant +1/2, 2 Charactersitics at once (Body and Stun) +1/2, Healing Effect +0, Autofire 20 Shots +2) 8 CP

This will protect against upto 20 Body of an attack

 

As you can see the Autofire way is alot cheaper. So it just depends on what you want "Invunerablity" to cost in your game, keeping in mind you can still take Stun damage its just hard to do (as described in my first post). I don't think the OP had in mind Invulnerability that cost 120 Points per type of damage (if Autofire is not allowed). Also keep in mind that even in a 60 AP cap game its quite possible to do more then 18 Body on an attack (due to luck, teamwork etc). And higher "levels of Invulnerabilty" (by this I mean Max Body of attack that can be Absorbed) with dice get even more expensive very quickly if forced to buy dice, with Autofire its quite cheap even, whatsmore it can even be bought in a 60 AP cap game. Another reason I'd allow this is because Absorption as a power by itself doesn't really work too well, defenses in the form of either DR or ED/PD are required to survive long enough to be able to use it, so buying this power separately (without and DR for example) wouldn't really be that useful. Further not all attacks are Absorbable, NND's and AVLD's for example, these attacks will deal damage however DR will still reduce this damage.

 

NOTE: I'd like to point out this ONLY works is because the Healing Effect advantage has no maximum effect to it, Autofire does NOT overcome the rules for maximum effect. So if you try to use it with a normal Absorption power you still limited by what you can roll as to your maximum effect. One combination I would certainly NOT allow would be Healing Effect, Autofire and Absorption as a Defense as this would allow you get have insanely high ED/PD by buying massive amounts of Autofire since you are not limited by Maximum Effect.

 

Alternately you could allow Autofire but Cap it at the Max that could be rolled on the Dice, this is approach that I use for example:

 

Absorption 4d6 (+0 Healing Effect, +1/2 Autofire 5, +1/2 Persistent, +1/2 Body and Stun) 50 AP

This would let you roll 4d6, 5 times and take the highest and then add 4. But Max it at 24 (Max of 4d6), in this example you should expect at least 20 Body of an attack to be covered. You can drop the need for Standard Effect because the roll 5 times and take the highest part of Autofire should be enough to cover any potentially bad rolls, thou the possibility remains of extremely bad luck in rolling for Body but its really low.

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

As such ' date=' This power is now a fixture in my campaign, yes, it will have a stop sign, and yes it is approved case by case. It leads to good heroing and gets my seal of approval [/quote']I'm glad someone finally had the opportunity to play test Invulnerability and found it useful in a game.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

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.

 

Eh, I've made several non-brick Champions PC's with 10 BODY. But then most of my Champs games just never much worried over BODY, most everyone had defenses capable of making them only ever take stun.

 

Hey, when your GM likes tossing around 20d6, it's kind of a choice between "High Defenses" or "Die."

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Eh, I've made several non-brick Champions PC's with 10 BODY. But then most of my Champs games just never much worried over BODY, most everyone had defenses capable of making them only ever take stun.

 

Hey, when your GM likes tossing around 20d6, it's kind of a choice between "High Defenses" or "Die."

That pretty much proves my point: If even non-bricks can survive with only 10 BODY despite their lower defenses (compared to typical Champions bricks) then certainly bricks are not in a lot of danger of being killed in a typical campaign. That's why I priced my version of Invulnerability fairly low.

 

A 20d6 attack requires only 20 PD or ED to survive. I consider that low-average for typical Champions characters (usually enough for MA's or speedsters); the average in our campaigns over the last 25+ years has been in the mid- to upper-20's with bricks starting in the 30's.

[Patriot]

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

 

Has anyone tool kitted Invulnerability into Hero designer yet?

 

 

 

I am to lazy to do it:o