House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

[CBikle]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

Yo, Thrakazog... What's Mr. Brick's PD...? Not his rPD, just his PD...

 

If you re-read the rules, you'll see that someone resists KA Body with rPD, but they resist KA Stun with rPD *and* PD... If Mr. Brick has at least 75 STR, for a PD of 15, then he takes *NO* Stun Damage in your example with no House Rule at all... If Mr. Brick's rPD plus his PD equals 60 or more, there is no way he can take *any* Stun from a 2d6 RKA...

 

I think Thrakazog knew this but just provided the example above for simplicity.

 

Assume that the character's natural PD of 10 is bought as resistant and that he has an additional +15 PD armor for a total of 25 rPD.

[Foxiekins]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

I think Thrakazog knew this but just provided the example above for simplicity.

 

Assume that the character's natural PD of 10 is bought as resistant and that he has an additional +15 PD armor for a total of 25 rPD.

 

If Mr Brick bought his defenses that way, then he is *asking* to wince when RKAs hit him... Bouncing bullets without wincing takes PD on top of rPD... If you designed the character without extra PD to let you do that, that was a choice you made in character design...

 

You are guessing, however... Until Thrakazog says something on the subject, neither of us knows...

[bwdemon]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

Just for clarification's sake, you use PD instead of rPD only if you have some rPD in the first place. You do not add PD & rPD together. A character with PD 25 and rPD 20 would subtract 20 Body and 25 Stun of any successful physical KA (see the examples on pgs. 409-410).

[Foxiekins]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

Just for clarification's sake' date=' you use PD instead of rPD only if you have some rPD in the first place. You do not add PD & rPD together. A character with PD 25 and rPD 20 would subtract 20 Body and 25 Stun of any successful physical KA (see the examples on pgs. 409-410).[/quote']

 

It's not PD instead of rPD, it's PD in addition to rPD...

 

The character in question *has* rPD, or he wouldn't be subtracting any Stun at all from the RKA, which he did in the example...

 

And a character with PD 25 and rPD 20 would subtract 20 Body and 45 Stun, with the exception that an amount of Stun will always get through his defenses equal to the amount of Body that gets through...

[ghost-angel]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

Just for clarification's sake' date=' you use PD instead of rPD only if you have some rPD in the first place. You do not add PD & rPD together. A character with PD 25 and rPD 20 would subtract 20 Body and 25 Stun of any successful physical KA (see the examples on pgs. 409-410).[/quote']

p410 - Taking Damage section, 2d: "If the character has any rDEF, add the applicable forms of Defense - both Normal and Resistant - together to determine his total Defense. Subtract this total Defense from the STUN damage done by the attack."

 

If I have PD 15, and Armor 15PD I have 15rPD which adds to my Normal Defense of 15PD for 30 Defense vs the STUN of Killing Attacks.

 

What you are trying to say, I think, is if you have 30PD and 15 of which is rPD then you have 15 PD vs BODY and 30PD vs STUN of KAs.

 

But if you have 30PD and an additional 15rPD then you have 15PD vs BODY and 45PD vs STUN of KAs.

[bwdemon]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

Correct. In my example, assuming the character in question had 5 PD (from 25 STR) and 20 rPD from Armor, the character would have 25 PD and 20 rPD and only 25 PD would be subtracted.

 

It's a sematic issue, but important to avoid misinterpretation. I use my method of stating the issue, because the game mechanics don't talk about subtracting your natural PD, then your resistant PD from damage done. It says to subtract your PD, which includes all powers that may be in effect at the time. If I have a character with 5 PD and 20 PD armor and someone asks what the character's PD is, I say "25" not "5"

 

To further clarify the issue, if a character has 30 PD and damage resistance for 20 PD, the character subtracts 30 from the Stun caused by a successful physical KA, not 50.

[Foxiekins]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

Yes, but Thrakazog's example is regarding a Brick... 20 rPD + 5 PD for 25 total doesn't sound like a brick... It sounds more like a Martial Artist in Armor...

[ghost-angel]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

I think you guys are talking a bit past each other and agreeing at the same time.

 

Foxiekins doesn't appear to be adding PD and rPD together before the KA, as I and many others do for Total PD and Total rPD. bwdemon is doing just that.

 

To further clarify the issue' date=' if a character has 30 PD and damage resistance for 20 PD, the character subtracts 30 from the Stun caused by a successful physical KA, not 50.[/quote']

exatly.

[bwdemon]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

I think we were all saying the same thing, but I just wanted to make sure it was properly clarified.

[Thrakazog]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

If Mr Brick bought his defenses that way, then he is *asking* to wince when RKAs hit him... Bouncing bullets without wincing takes PD on top of rPD... If you designed the character without extra PD to let you do that, that was a choice you made in character design...

 

You are guessing, however... Until Thrakazog says something on the subject, neither of us knows...

 

The most relevant example I can give you is a brick with 20rPD and 35PD. I did know the rules regarding how to apply killing damage to defenses, yes.

[Foxiekins]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

The most relevant example I can give you is a brick with 20rPD and 35PD. I did know the rules regarding how to apply killing damage to defenses' date=' yes.[/quote']

 

Assuming the 35 PD includes the 20 rPD, a 2d6 RKA can roll 7 Body, and still have *no* chance of Stun getting through... PD is rather cheap at a cost of 1 point per... Plus, remember, you only get a noticable game effect at the time the attack hits if the Stun after defenses exceeds their CON...

 

35 total PD (including the 20 rPD) implies the character has a 75 STR... If he has a 75 CON as well, an attack will have to apply more than 110 Stun to cause an immediate effect... Otherwise, you will only see effect from it cumulatively...

 

To be able to do more than 110 Stun at all, an RKA has to be 4d6 or better, or better than 3d6 with +1 Stun Multiple, or better then 2.5d6 with +2, etcetera... Even if you define "shrugging it off" as taking no Stun, this character can automatically do that to 1d6+1 RKAs or smaller, and has roughly an 88 percent chance of it happening with the 2d6 RKA you mention... If this isn't enough, all he needs to do is buy up his PD a bit...

 

Another 15 PD would only be 15 points, put him at 50 PD, 20 rPD, and then your example attack doing 10 body can do no Stun at all... Someone wanting to shrug bullets and take no Stun just has to buy up his PD, and you don't have to worry about if a rule change is fair... If it seems too expensive, you can always let him buy PD with the Limitation "Only when an Attack doesn't do Body Damage"... I'm not sure what value that Limitation would be, though... Does Ultimate Brick have that Limitation in it...?

[ghost-angel]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

Another 15 PD would only be 15 points' date=' put him at 50 PD, 20 rPD, and then your example attack doing 10 body can do no Stun at all... Someone wanting to shrug bullets and take no Stun just has to buy up his PD, and you don't have to worry about if a rule change is fair... If it seems too expensive, you can always let him buy PD with the Limitation "Only when an Attack doesn't do Body Damage"... I'm not sure what value that Limitation would be, though... Does Ultimate Brick have that Limitation in it...?[/quote']

I don't think that's a standard Limitation in TUB. I'd place it around -1/2.

 

Another trick I've become fond of is PD;Vs STUN Only.

[Foxiekins]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

I don't think that's a standard Limitation in TUB. I'd place it around -1/2.

 

Another trick I've become fond of is PD;Vs STUN Only.

 

Do you rate that one at -1/2 also...?

 

Come to think of it, the pair of them sound interesting... Mix and Match, compared to what you want...

[Just Joe]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

I can't tell if I am glad or not to have never used the Stun Lotto.

 

I've only run in Heroic level campaigns were we use the Hit Locations table.

I generally use the hit location table as well, but it retains most of the features of the Stun Lotto that people dislike.

 

BTW, isn't anyone going to reply to my post (#48, on p. 4)?

[bwdemon]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

BTW' date=' isn't anyone going to reply to my post (#48, on p. 4)? [/quote']

 

How do we represent the difference between these two types of attacks? I have a suggestion that is theoretically quite simple, though in practice it might be a bit unweildy. My suggestion (#1) is to build weapons like light bows and lasers (as well as whips and switchblades, perhaps) with an increased stun X that only applies to body that gets past armor and/or a decreased stun X that only applies to body that does NOT get past armor. Weapons like bullets and maces can still be built according to the ordinary rules, with or without increased stun X.

 

To this, I would add (though these suggestions are theoretically separable) the suggestion (#2) that for all KA's, the minimum stun after defenses be equal to the body past defenses times the stun X (modified, if applicable, by suggestion #1 above).

 

I think you pretty much covered the worst aspect within your own post. The system would be awkward under the best conditions. There are other things that also bother me a little, but the big factor - and the one that seals its fate for me - is the awkwardness of the system.

[Just Joe]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

I think you pretty much covered the worst aspect within your own post. The system would be awkward under the best conditions. There are other things that also bother me a little' date=' but the big factor - and the one that seals its fate for me - is the awkwardness of the system.[/quote']Fair enough, though a simpler solution has since come to mind that could work for lasers and other KA's with essentially no physical impact.* The stun X for the body that does not exceed rED would be 0. So stun would just be (bod rolled minus rED) times stun multiple (determined as you see fit, e.g., 3, 2-4, stun lotto, or hit location).

 

But even my original suggestion is not so hard to implement. Say a bow has a -1 stun X before defenses. Suppose an attacker rolls 5 body, 3 X stun against a target with 2 rPD + 4 non-resistant PD.

 

Stun is [(2)(3-1) - (2+4)] + (5-3)(3) = [4-6] + 6 = 6

 

[4-6] + 6 = 6 ??? Well, kind of. I don't know the way to express in mathematical formulas that the first term in brackets (the stun caused by the body that does not exceed armor) cannot be less than zero.

 

Hmmm . . . I'm thinking that this is not too complicated to use, but it might be too complicated to explain (though probably less so FTF, with a few examples and the learner able to quickly ask questions).

 

 

* or similar way to cause stun without body, as a fire attack might, for example.

[OddHat]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

Fair enough, though a simpler solution has since come to mind that could work for lasers and other KA's with essentially no physical impact.* The stun X for the body that does not exceed rED would be 0. So stun would just be (bod rolled minus rED) times stun multiple (determined as you see fit, e.g., 3, 2-4, stun lotto, or hit location).

 

But even my original suggestion is not so hard to implement. Say a bow has a -1 stun X before defenses. Suppose an attacker rolls 5 body, 3 X stun against a target with 2 rPD + 4 non-resistant PD.

 

Stun is [(2)(3-1) - (2+4)] + (5-3)(3) = [4-6] + 6 = 6

 

[4-6] + 6 = 6 ??? Well, kind of. I don't know the way to express in mathematical formulas that the first term in brackets (the stun caused by the body that does not exceed armor) cannot be less than zero.

 

Hmmm . . . I'm thinking that this is not too complicated to use, but it might be too complicated to explain (though probably less so FTF, with a few examples and the learner able to quickly ask questions).

 

 

* or similar way to cause stun without body, as a fire attack might, for example.

 

I might do it differently.

 

Xd6 RKA, No Knockback, Beam, -2 Reduced Stun Multiple linked to Drain Stun, Ranged, RKA Must Do Body (-1/2). That gets you the extra stun only after defenses with less fiddling around. YMMV, of course.

[bwdemon]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

One of the "other things" I mentioned above related specifically to the types of attacks that you're classifying as "must do Body to do Stun." Some of those attacks are just extremely likely to cause Body (e.g. lasers) due to very high dice, Armor Piercing, and/or (especially) Penetrating.

 

Penetrating would take on a much greater degree of importance, because it fulfills the Body damage requirement. Now, granted, I feel that more KAs should use it, but this would perform an end run on your mechanic.

[Thrakazog]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

35 total PD (including the 20 rPD) implies the character has a 75 STR... If he has a 75 CON as well' date=' an attack will have to apply more than 110 Stun to cause an immediate effect... Otherwise, you will only see effect from it cumulatively...[/quote']

 

STR was 65, and who in hell has a 75 CON? Average attack AP for the campaign is around 55-70.

 

Thanks to everyone who's contributed to answering my questions. Your creativity and ingenuity is a testament to all of you, as always.

[OddHat]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

One of the "other things" I mentioned above related specifically to the types of attacks that you're classifying as "must do Body to do Stun." Some of those attacks are just extremely likely to cause Body (e.g. lasers) due to very high dice, Armor Piercing, and/or (especially) Penetrating.

 

Penetrating would take on a much greater degree of importance, because it fulfills the Body damage requirement. Now, granted, I feel that more KAs should use it, but this would perform an end run on your mechanic.

 

JustJoe's mechanic or the linked Drain Stun with "Must Do Body"?

 

I ask mainly because I tend to feel that "RKA Must Do Body", like many limitations, is much less limiting with certain builds. While I don't like fiddling around with limitation costs more than I have to, I'd probably disallow an "RKA Must Do Body" limit on an attack power linked to a Penetrating attack.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

If I wanted to reduce the STUN done by killing attacks in my games, I would simply require all KA's to be purchased with a Stun Multiple limitation, whether -1, -2 or "1 Stun Multiple". That wouldn't give an unanticipated boost to certain builds (Penetrating KA's and hardened rDEF in this case), and would use established costing mechanisms rather than kludgy rule fixes.

[OddHat]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

If I wanted to reduce the STUN done by killing attacks in my games' date=' I would simply require all KA's to be purchased with a Stun Multiple limitation, whether -1, -2 or "1 Stun Multiple". That wouldn't give an unanticipated boost to certain builds (Penetrating KA's and hardened rDEF in this case), and would use established costing mechanisms rather than kludgy rule fixes.[/quote']

 

I think JustJoe's intended effect was very low stun if no Body got through, much higher Stun if Body did get through. Or are you refering to the OP?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

I think JustJoe's intended effect was very low stun if no Body got through' date=' much higher Stun if Body did get through. Or are you refering to the OP?[/quote']

 

I'm back to the OP. As far as "no STUN unless it does BOD", I think that might be a viable limitation for specific attacks, but I wouldn't want it as the standard.

 

First, you can eliminate the +X Stun Multiple advantage - it's useless to trade down BOD to do more STUN under this model. Not that this would be a huge loss anyway.

 

Second, all those Reduced Penetration KA's should get a much bigger limitation.

 

But most critically is that it doesn't match the reality. A mace clanging across a helmet will still hurt, even if the helm prevents severe injury. A bullet striking a kevlar vest fails to penetrate, but can still KO the vest's wearer. I can't, off the cuff, think of any great examples where STUN is dependent on BOD damage being inflicted, and while I suspect they exist, I also think they are rare enough that they are best handled as a modifier to the standard, rather than being made the standard.

 

BTW, has anyone considered the advantage they would charge for a KA that CAN do STUN with no BOD if the standard were "no BOD means no STUN"?

 

[That said, the idea of real weapons being required to do BOD through "not real" defenses would be a userful tool in a Supers game where you want bullets to bounce.

[Foxiekins]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

STR was 65, and who in hell has a 75 CON? Average attack AP for the campaign is around 55-70.

 

Thanks to everyone who's contributed to answering my questions. Your creativity and ingenuity is a testament to all of you, as always.

 

Well, a character I am contemplating on another thread was originally envisioned at 80 STR, 80 CON, 20 BODY, 20 rPD, and 20 rED...

 

I usually build Brick Types with CON = STR...

 

What *is* this fellow's CON, then...?

[CBikle]

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

 

If I wanted to reduce the STUN done by killing attacks in my games' date=' I would simply require all KA's to be purchased with a Stun Multiple limitation, whether -1, -2 or "1 Stun Multiple". That wouldn't give an unanticipated boost to certain builds (Penetrating KA's and hardened rDEF in this case), and would use established costing mechanisms rather than kludgy rule fixes.[/quote']

 

Thrakazog and I are in the same game where this rule is being considered.

 

The concerns are more over aesthetics/realism than the stun lotto.

 

The players (who are for the rule change) don't like the idea of a 2d6+1 RKA heavy pistol doing a crapload of stun (and possibly stunning) a Hulk analog (just as an example) when he/it doesn't even take a pt. of body damage.