Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

[Markdoc]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

A GM who would allow "Takes no Stun" without careful consideration also likely allows other troublesome constructs. One might be EDM-UAA' date=' which is book legal, but stop signed. How does our Takes no STUN PC fare against that attack?[/quote']

 

Actually, the PC I mentioned who had "Takes no stun" and regeneration was in fact disposed by exactly that route

 

It was essentially the only thing the others had that could stop him...

 

cheers, Mark

[prestidigitator]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

No Hit Locations' date=' specifically, eliminates the Stun Multiple, something a lot of players would like to do. Actually, using no Hit Locations could form a very effective part of making a character "bulletproof" on a cost-effective basis. [All in games where there is a Stun multiple, of course.']

Not true at all. It simply means you don't use the Hit Locations Chart for determining the Stun Multiple (so KAs must determine it randomly). It also means there may be no limbs or other parts to Disable if using those rules (certainly if it still has such parts that can be Disabled, it is up to the GM to decide when and if they are).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

Not true at all. It simply means you don't use the Hit Locations Chart for determining the Stun Multiple (so KAs must determine it randomly). It also means there may be no limbs or other parts to Disable if using those rules (certainly if it still has such parts that can be Disabled' date=' it is up to the GM to decide when and if they are).[/quote']

 

Have to admit I hadn't looked at the rules. This being the case, however, why would someojne pay points to get a d6-1 Stun Multiple rather than Hit Locations? Absent called shots, the odds of a 5x multiple go up, not down - hardly something I'd pay for.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

Not true at all. It simply means you don't use the Hit Locations Chart for determining the Stun Multiple (so KAs must determine it randomly). It also means there may be no limbs or other parts to Disable if using those rules (certainly if it still has such parts that can be Disabled' date=' it is up to the GM to decide when and if they are).[/quote']

 

I agree with Hugh I think.

 

The way I see it, if a character has no Hit Locations, all locations are effectively the "chest" location: BODY x1, NSTUNx1, STUNx 3. Anything else doesn't make sense.

[keithcurtis]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

Maybe we can get Keith “I’ve been doing this for years†Curtis to tell us more about how it can be made to work.

Well, I've listed a lot of my opinions above: put serious limits on STR and DEF, attack them differently, disable body parts as they take body, and so forth. There's also a lot of stuff in the link I posted.

Admittedly, I do only have one PC data point to work from, but the player in question is a notorious min-maxer. So far, it has never been a problem.

 

Keith "any specific questions? Curtis

[prestidigitator]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

I agree with Hugh I think.

 

The way I see it, if a character has no Hit Locations, all locations are effectively the "chest" location: BODY x1, NSTUNx1, STUNx 3. Anything else doesn't make sense.

I don't know....

 

...a hit for' date=' say, 5 BODY and 20 STUN does that much damage whether.... In short, the optional Hit Location Table is useless against this automaton.[/quote']

[prestidigitator]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

Have to admit I hadn't looked at the rules. This being the case' date=' however, why would someojne pay points to get a d6-1 Stun Multiple rather than Hit Locations? Absent called shots, the odds of a 5x multiple go up, not down - hardly something I'd pay for.[/quote']

It's for the concept of the Automaton as much as anything.

 

I think it is particularly helpful against called shots, and also vs. the Disabling rules. In a campaign that doesn't use Hit Locations at all, I'd say there's really no need for this Automaton Power (at least no need to charge for it).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

It's for the concept of the Automaton as much as anything.

 

Hmmm...I think my next game will charge 15 points for being a Mutant. Maybe we'll get a bit more creativity if I charge for all the uncreative concepts!

 

I think it is particularly helpful against called shots' date=' and also vs. the Disabling rules. In a campaign that doesn't use Hit Locations at all, I'd say there's really no need for this Automaton Power (at least no need to charge for it).[/quote']

 

Hopefully, Steve will give us a clarification (I see you've posted the question). I hadn't given it much thought since I rarely/never see an Automoton that takes STUN, in which case it only means there are no 2x or 1/2x BOD locations.

[casualplayer]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

Automatons are listed under Equipment in the book. Meaing they specifically ARE NOT intended for PCs to have those powers.

 

So all that above: moot point. there's nothing to work around.

 

5ER p458 "PCs cannot purchase Automaton Powers."

 

Nothing to fix. Nothing to clear out. If a GM wants to allow a PC to have Automaton Powers any imbalances or issues he brings into his game are his to resolve not the systems.

 

And in your gaming lifetime, how many NPC-only classes have you seen slowly morph into allowable for players, through groveling or slow erosion of the rules? Damage Reduction started out as only for NPCs also, for big, Godzilla-type threats that would laugh at your puny pinprick attacks.

 

Either it's balanced and universally available or it should not be polluting the game. And it's so easy to emulate with a cranked up CON that it doesn't have to be there, so Automaton Powers are literally the appendix of the HERO System.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

And in your gaming lifetime, how many NPC-only classes have you seen slowly morph into allowable for players, through groveling or slow erosion of the rules? Damage Reduction started out as only for NPCs also, for big, Godzilla-type threats that would laugh at your puny pinprick attacks.

 

Either it's balanced and universally available or it should not be polluting the game. And it's so easy to emulate with a cranked up CON that it doesn't have to be there, so Automaton Powers are literally the appendix of the HERO System.

They were the same way in 4E. I don't know about 3E or ealier.

 

So they haven't morphed into PC abilities. If you let a PC play an automaton that's on your head. I wouldn't allow it ever. EVER. E-V-E-R.

 

do what you like.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

They were the same way in 4E. I don't know about 3E or ealier.

 

So they haven't morphed into PC abilities. If you let a PC play an automaton that's on your head. I wouldn't allow it ever. EVER. E-V-E-R.

 

do what you like.

 

Maybe 6e...and clearly some gamers ARE allowing these to PC's, for reasons which seem reasonable when cited above.

 

BTW, can anyone point me toward this mythical "Damage reduction is restricted to NPC's" cite? It was introduced in Champions III, and I don't recall it being "NPC's only" at that time. Although there may have been a caution that this is what it was intended for, I seem to recall a statement that it was intended to permit characters who were very tough without being bulletproof, which would include PC's and NPC's.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

Maybe 6e...and clearly some gamers ARE allowing these to PC's, for reasons which seem reasonable when cited above.

 

BTW, can anyone point me toward this mythical "Damage reduction is restricted to NPC's" cite? It was introduced in Champions III, and I don't recall it being "NPC's only" at that time. Although there may have been a caution that this is what it was intended for, I seem to recall a statement that it was intended to permit characters who were very tough without being bulletproof, which would include PC's and NPC's.

I know the reference isn't in 4E for sure. Someone is either misremembering or grasping for straws.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

I know the reference isn't in 4E for sure. Someone is either misremembering or grasping for straws.

 

I've heard this "only for NPC's" theory mentioned before, so I think someone recalls (or misrecalls) that being the case. I'd just like to get a reference to verify if it's me who is mistaken.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

Hmmm...I think my next game will charge 15 points for being a Mutant. Maybe we'll get a bit more creativity if I charge for all the uncreative concepts!

 

Hopefully, Steve will give us a clarification (I see you've posted the question). I hadn't given it much thought since I rarely/never see an Automoton that takes STUN, in which case it only means there are no 2x or 1/2x BOD locations.

Perhaps I shouldn't have made those statements in separate paragraphs. Please take them as an autonomous ( ) unit. Also remember that there are multipliers for the Stun of Normal Attacks (after defenses ).

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

STUN does not just represent hydrostatic shock or whacking your thumb with a hammer. If a jostle rattles your chips or brings on the blue screen of death' date=' then you take STUN. Look how often Robocop had to reboot. The Metal Men often took STUN, and could regenerate back from the dead (in Magnus' lab) as long as their Responsometers didn't get busted. I think, in fact, they experimented with the idea of buying their REC Only in Dr. Magnus' lab. Go figure.[/quote']

Hmmm...an interesting way to model this could be by taking some sort of "Must Be Rebooted" Lim or Disad. Once the character's STUN is reduced to 0, he doesn't wake up until an outside source reboots him by some pre-defined mechanism. I could see this as some kind of Disad Physical Limitation (Greatly Impairing, occurring either Frequently or Infrequently depending on the campaign) or possibly as a Conditional Power Lim on his REC?

 

And in your gaming lifetime' date=' how many NPC-only classes have you seen slowly morph into allowable for players, through groveling or slow erosion of the rules? Damage Reduction started out as only for NPCs also, for big, Godzilla-type threats that would laugh at your puny pinprick attacks.[/quote']

Personally, I don't have a problem with potentially-unbalancing powers being available as long as they are heralded by LARGE FLASHING NEON STOP SIGNS (couldn't figure out how to make the text flash, sorry) warning this is potentially unbalancing, use at your own risk, etc. Balance is an important part of the game, but it's not the only part after all. Once in awhile, it's kinda fun to play something that's ridiculously cheesy -- if only to get it out of your system, so that after a couple sessions you can say "Well that was totally broken, now back to our regularly-scheduled program..."

[casualplayer]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

Well, Robocop thought he was being clever by buying all of his powers ran off an END Battery, and having to tap the grid for REC. I suspect that the Metal Men bought all their powers to 0 END, sold back their REC and bought REC and Regen Only in Dr. Magnus' lab.

 

Thanks for not blowing me off as clutching at straws, BDH.

[shaunclinton]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

Most PC style 'automatons' in the literature can be knocked out and stunned.

 

The Metal Men, Cyborg, Robotman, Deathlok, Robocop, Metallo, etc. have all suffered this fate.

 

I always pictured automatons in the HERO sense as being the disposable kind that villains have kicking around and that give heroes with a CAK a chance to 'cut loose' and trash them all.

 

That being said if a character really, really warranted it I wouldn't have a problem giving the power to him and letting the chips fall where they may. I have had a few robotic PCs ask about it; but once I explained about the above characters and the finality of the solution to characters who take no stun they soon changed their minds.

[zornwil]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

Automatons are listed under Equipment in the book. Meaing they specifically ARE NOT intended for PCs to have those powers.

 

So all that above: moot point. there's nothing to work around.

 

5ER p458 "PCs cannot purchase Automaton Powers."

 

Nothing to fix. Nothing to clear out. If a GM wants to allow a PC to have Automaton Powers any imbalances or issues he brings into his game are his to resolve not the systems.

I would wonder why that is, exactly. We can only speculate. To me, it's the probable imbalance issue, and I don't see another valid reason that automoton powers can't be employed by PCs. But to me, that's not so dissimialr from Damage Reduction, which balances poorly at somewhat high and very low end scales within HERO. But if it's only a balance issue then I see no real reason for the prohibition, I just see STOP sign powers.

[zornwil]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

mostly definitely. I just wanted to be perfectly clear that these are not Powers a Player can take' date=' or should take, and thus are not the responsibility of the system to "fix." There's a certain amount of balancing that needs to go on, but not to the extent and worry that Player Available Powers needs to be. IMO.[/quote']

Ah, but actually is it a toolkit if we have such a flat rule? So if we want HERO to be the toolkit as self-professed, I daresay it's a (minor, almost trivial) fix.

 

If we're talking game layer, no problem, nothing to fix.

 

This is a result of the schizophrenia of our fair system.

[zornwil]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

I've brought this up before, but Sinanju plays the Black Knight in my supers game, and we decided to give that character Takes No Stun. He's modelled generally after the Monty Python Black Knight, who clearly suffers no stun regardless of the nature of the wound. In turn, that's a send-up of various Celtic/Celtic-inspired myths/legends of warriors who would fight on despite losing limbs, even their head (I can't recall precisely but there's at least a couple incidents of characters in old tales walking around with their heads held at their sides).

 

We do use hit locations, because that helps to dictate how body damage might affect the Black Knight, such as losing a hand.

[OddHat]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

I've brought this up before, but Sinanju plays the Black Knight in my supers game, and we decided to give that character Takes No Stun. He's modelled generally after the Monty Python Black Knight, who clearly suffers no stun regardless of the nature of the wound. In turn, that's a send-up of various Celtic/Celtic-inspired myths/legends of warriors who would fight on despite losing limbs, even their head (I can't recall precisely but there's at least a couple incidents of characters in old tales walking around with their heads held at their sides).

 

We do use hit locations, because that helps to dictate how body damage might affect the Black Knight, such as losing a hand.

 

I really need to play in your Supers game one of these days.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

Ah, but actually is it a toolkit if we have such a flat rule? So if we want HERO to be the toolkit as self-professed, I daresay it's a (minor, almost trivial) fix.

 

If we're talking game layer, no problem, nothing to fix.

 

This is a result of the schizophrenia of our fair system.

 

This I won't deny at all. Personally I would just call it a STOP SIGN Power and go on my way.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

I've brought this up before, but Sinanju plays the Black Knight in my supers game, and we decided to give that character Takes No Stun. He's modelled generally after the Monty Python Black Knight, who clearly suffers no stun regardless of the nature of the wound. In turn, that's a send-up of various Celtic/Celtic-inspired myths/legends of warriors who would fight on despite losing limbs, even their head (I can't recall precisely but there's at least a couple incidents of characters in old tales walking around with their heads held at their sides).

 

We do use hit locations, because that helps to dictate how body damage might affect the Black Knight, such as losing a hand.

So...sounds like a gritty, realistic Iron Age supers game? [Remind me to rep Sinanju too when I see him next!]

[zornwil]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

I really need to play in your Supers game one of these days.

Move to Oregon!

 

Actually we are doing some Teamsite (voice over IP) stuff so maybe we could do something like that. I'm not doing any PBEM, I keep wanting to but I just don't have the time.

[zornwil]

Re: Player Characters who might need Automoton Powers

 

So...sounds like a gritty' date=' realistic Iron Age supers game? [Remind me to rep Sinanju too when I see him next!']

I almost missed the laugh and was going to ask what you were talking about!

 

It's pretty mixed, actually, in tone. I've gotten reactions of the campaign as a mix of Rockford Files, X-Files, and regular super 4-color, which probably isn't too bad of a quick categorization. We've had grim and gritty deaths and drama, extra-dimensional travels, plenty of lighter-toned humorous fun, lots of conspiracy stuff, sci-fi, and so on. For me it's all fairly typical as my types of games go, so It's pretty much a Zorn genre...