Vulnerability questions

[Tech]

Ya play a game system for decades and.. anyways, I want other opinions or even the official answer, if one is to be given.

 

When it comes to a vulnerability (ex. 2x Stun from Cold attacks), I've always assumed the cap is 2x Stun or Body, since no where are there examples beyond that. However, my two questions are:

 

1) Can a vulnerability exceed 2x Stun/Body?

For example: 3x Stun from Ego Attacks.

 

2) Do attacks which hit two different vulnerabilities stack?

Example: Robotman has two vulnerabilities; 2x Stun from Electricity and 2x Stun from Killing attacks. He is hit with an electrical RKA. Does he take 4x Stun?

 

Time for these questions to never raise their heads again. And the answers are..?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

I don't believe there are any official rules for a Vulnerability exceeding 2x. I'd generally be reluctant to allow it. 2x Stun from a decent attack is normally crippling enough that a further multiple wouldn't have a lot more impact - how many points would you give for "Falls to GM's option if hit by an attack of this SFX"? 2x BOD is already considerable, and going much higher pretty much means a serious hit from that SFX will be fatal - so my choices as a GM are "don't exploit the vulnerability" or "kill the character".

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

Tech,

 

For the official ruling, post your questions under the 'Rules Questions' forum, on up from here.

 

I don't know of any answer from the rules...

[prestidigitator]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

I don't believe there are any official rules for a Vulnerability exceeding 2x. I'd generally be reluctant to allow it. 2x Stun from a decent attack is normally crippling enough that a further multiple wouldn't have a lot more impact - how many points would you give for "Falls to GM's option if hit by an attack of this SFX"? 2x BOD is already considerable' date=' and going much higher pretty much means a serious hit from that SFX will be fatal - so my choices as a GM are "don't exploit the vulnerability" or "kill the character".[/quote']

That's my take on it as well.

[Lucius]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

I'd probably rule that in the case of the stacked vulnerabilities, the attack does TRIPLE damage. Why?

 

First, the attack does its base damage, X.

 

But a vulnerability doubles that, adding another X on top, making it 2X.

 

A second, equal vulnerability adds the equivalent of another attack, making it 3X.

 

The extra damage from vulnerability applies only to the basic attack, not to other extra damage done by another vulnerability!

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary points out that Mr. Alexander may be consulted for a logical opinion, but Mr. Long must be consulted for an official ruling.

[David Johnston]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

1. I would not say so. If you allowed higher levels of vulnerability you would pretty much guarantee that the character would be totally turfed the first time he ran into an opponent on his level with that attack, taking so much body as to ensure instant death, or so much stun that he'd be unconscious for months or years. I would find this inconvenient.

 

2. I would not say so for the above reason. But if electrical attacks are typically killing attacks, I would reduce how common electrical attacks are considered to be, to account for the fact that you are only vulnerable in a meaningful sense to the non-killing attack electrical attacks.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

I'd probably rule that in the case of the stacked vulnerabilities, the attack does TRIPLE damage. Why?

 

First, the attack does its base damage, X.

 

But a vulnerability doubles that, adding another X on top, making it 2X.

 

A second, equal vulnerability adds the equivalent of another attack, making it 3X.

 

The extra damage from vulnerability applies only to the basic attack, not to other extra damage done by another vulnerability!

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary points out that Mr. Alexander may be consulted for a logical opinion, but Mr. Long must be consulted for an official ruling.

I suppose I might rule that way very, very occasionally if the target had two Vulnerabilities that both applied to a particular attack (such as maybe a Vulnerability to, "magic," and a Vulnerability to, "electricity," when hit by a lightning bolt spell), but usually I'd still just take the worst case, and I wouldn't allow a character to take a trivially redundant Vulnerability (such as Vulnerability to the Body damage of electrical attacks taken twice).

[Guest lucky]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

I'd generally be reluctant to allow it. 2x Stun from a decent attack is normally crippling enough that a further multiple wouldn't have a lot more impact - how many points would you give for "Falls to GM's option if hit by an attack of this SFX"?

That's my take on it as well.

Ditto.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

I'd probably rule that in the case of the stacked vulnerabilities, the attack does TRIPLE damage. Why?

 

First, the attack does its base damage, X.

 

But a vulnerability doubles that, adding another X on top, making it 2X.

 

A second, equal vulnerability adds the equivalent of another attack, making it 3X.

 

The extra damage from vulnerability applies only to the basic attack, not to other extra damage done by another vulnerability!

 

I think this is a reasonable interpretation.

 

I will, however, draw the comparison to d20, which made the same interpretation in its 3rd edition where damage is multiplied (ie if you do 2x damage for one reason, and 3x damage for another, the total is 4x damage, not 6x).

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

Granted I haven't really looked hard at the text for Vuln since 3rd edition, but at that point the rule was IIRC that you got points based on the frequency of the given attack multiplied by the level of Vuln.

 

For instance, Vuln x3 to an uncommon attack would be (10pts)x3 = 30.

or Vulnx4 to a rare attack would be (5pts)x4 = 20

or Vulnx5 to a common attack would be, well, just stupid.

 

I have never used Vuln beyond x2 for anyone but NPCs, and in those cases it was almost always kind of a plot point. I don't think I would allow a PC to go past x2 unless they could give me a really good reason.

 

__________________________________________________________

I like living in the past. Its cheaper there.

[David Johnston]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

I have never used Vuln beyond x2 for anyone but NPCs

 

Generally speaking I've always found 2x Vulnerability plus getting the defenses with "not versus" is more than adequate even if the NPC is Superman.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

Granted I haven't really looked hard at the text for Vuln since 3rd edition' date=' but at that point the rule was IIRC that you got points based on the frequency of the given attack multiplied by the level of Vuln.[/quote']

 

5er provides for 1.5x and 2x, but no more. I don't recall ever seeing a greater multiplier in any prior edition.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

5er provides for 1.5x and 2x' date=' but no more. I don't recall ever seeing a greater multiplier in any prior edition.[/quote']

 

Well I had to go back and look, and the earlier rules do not suggest that you could have a Vuln at higher than x2, but does not say you could not do it either. I guess the logical assumption (which seems to be the consensus here) was that no one would take it beyond x2 so there was no need to write it out specifically. Which I guess does not speak well for my powers of logic, so I will have to chalk it up as a folly of youth (we are talking over 20 years ago here).

 

____________________________________________________________

"Why follow me to higher ground, lost as you swear I am." - Ed Roland

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

2) Do attacks which hit two different vulnerabilities stack?

Example: Robotman has two vulnerabilities; 2x Stun from Electricity and 2x Stun from Killing attacks. He is hit with an electrical RKA. Does he take 4x Stun?

 

From the FAQ:

 

Q: If a character has two or more Vulnerabilities that apply to a single attack, how should they be applied?

 

A: If a character has two or more Vulnerabilities that apply to a single attack, add the multipliers together to get a final multiplier that affects the damage. For example, a x1.5 and a x2 become a x3.5 multiplier; two x2 multipliers become a x4 multiplier.

 

So, the official answer is "yes."

 

As for an "official" example for Vulnerability beyond x2, there is a suggestion in Galactic Champions p. 143 for increasing the destructiveness of superhumans vs inanimate objects (a common convention of the subgenre) by making such objects Vulnerable to the super's attacks: "You can set the Vulnerability level wherever he wants - 1 1/2 times BODY, 2 times BODY, 3x BODY, or more." (Emphasis mine.) No method for calculating that degree of Disadvantage was given, though; it's just a campaign groundrule. That's the closest that at a published book comes to the subject AFAIK.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

From the FAQ:

 

Q: If a character has two or more Vulnerabilities that apply to a single attack, how should they be applied?

 

A: If a character has two or more Vulnerabilities that apply to a single attack, add the multipliers together to get a final multiplier that affects the damage. For example, a x1.5 and a x2 become a x3.5 multiplier; two x2 multipliers become a x4 multiplier.

Holy moley! That's even worse than multiplying them, which would bring a x1.5 and a x2 to x3, not x3.5.

 

The only form of, "adding them," I would possibly use would be:

1 + (1.5 - 1) + (2 - 1) = 1 + 0.5 + 1 = 2.5

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

Holy moley! That's even worse than multiplying them, which would bring a x1.5 and a x2 to x3, not x3.5.

 

The only form of, "adding them," I would possibly use would be:

1 + (1.5 - 1) + (2 - 1) = 1 + 0.5 + 1 = 2.5

 

While I'm inclined to agree this is more fair, I'm not sure how much impact either choice really has. Whether the character takes 2.5x, 3x or 3.5x [or 3x vs 4x if he has 2 double stun vuulnerabilities], the bottom line is that he's suffering serious damage. At the low end, a typical 12d6 EB does 105 STUN. At the high end, it's 147 STUN. [126 or 168 for a pair of 2x Stun] How many characters can stand up to either one? I suppose if you have extreme STUN, or maybe damage reduction, the 105 might allow you to recover, but I suspect you're stunned, which is effectively GM Option anyway unless your opponents fail to capitalize on it.

 

If they are to BOD, you may want to have a backup character in the wings. 12 BOD to 30 or 42 - either will be painful, although I suspect the odds of surviving the first are far better. It would certainly make more difference on BOD vulnerabilities.

 

More to the point, a character taking two vulnerabilities that will commonly overlap should be advised of how the GM will interpret both operating at the same time, and how common such an occurence may be. If you don't want them to overlap, pool them into a single vulnerability. For example, rather than 2x STUN from lasers (20 points) and 1.5x STUN from Energy RKA's (10 points), assuming each SFX to be common, maybe you should take 1.5x STUN from Energy RKA's and Lasers (15 points - very common) and "Rises to 2x STUN from Lasers" for 10 more points.. Same basic effect, except you cap out at 2x STUN and don't need to worry about the multiplication effect.

[Frenchman]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

For example' date=' rather than 2x STUN from lasers (20 points) and 1.5x STUN from Energy RKA's (10 points), assuming each SFX to be common, maybe you should take 1.5x STUN from Energy RKA's and Lasers (15 points - very common) and "Rises to 2x STUN from Lasers" for 10 more points.. Same basic effect, except you cap out at 2x STUN and don't need to worry about the multiplication effect.[/quote']

 

This is along the lines of what I'd do if a player had multiple vulnerabilities that overlapped - I doubt I'll see very many of them, though. They'd also need a damned good reason to have these vulnerabilities - and my players know enough to realize that their disadvantages will be utilized against them. If you have 40 points of disadvantages which amount to "Attack type X puts me in a coma," then expect to wake up in the hospital a lot.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

While I'm inclined to agree this is more fair' date=' I'm not sure how much impact either choice really has....[/quote']

I know. See my previous posts. I was just surprised and a bit dumbfounded by the ruling.

[Rapier]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

Holy moley! That's even worse than multiplying them, which would bring a x1.5 and a x2 to x3, not x3.5.

 

The only form of, "adding them," I would possibly use would be:

1 + (1.5 - 1) + (2 - 1) = 1 + 0.5 + 1 = 2.5

 

That is my interpretation also. The Vulnerability is actually +1 Multiple vs SFX. So a +1 Magic and a +1 Electricity is a +2 Multiple or x3. Regardless of what the official ruling may be this is how I have always and will always rule those situations.

[Rapier]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

I know. See my previous posts. I was just surprised and a bit dumbfounded by the ruling.

 

I am too. It just doesn't make any sense alongside some of the other rulings on mutliples and math and such.

[Silbeg]

Re: Vulnerability questions

 

Holy moley! That's even worse than multiplying them, which would bring a x1.5 and a x2 to x3, not x3.5.

 

The only form of, "adding them," I would possibly use would be:

1 + (1.5 - 1) + (2 - 1) = 1 + 0.5 + 1 = 2.5

 

Well, the "official" method is certainly more "math light", but I think that this is by far a more "fair" method.

 

However, as has been said before, in either case, the character is probably paste...