House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

[Foxiekins]

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

 

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.

 

A Hulk analog...? I wouldn't call someone a Hulk analog unless they had at least a 60 STR and a 60 CON... Along with at least 20 rPD and 20 rED...

 

A 2d6+1 RKA will do at most 13 Body, and at most 65 Stun... That would get no Body at all through his 20 rPD, and 33 Stun through his total PD... This will *not* stun someone with a 60 CON...

 

A STR and CON of 60 will give you a REC of 24... Two phases later, the inflicted Stun is gone, although Hulk is likely still pissed, and smashing things...

 

And remember, this is if the Attack does MAXIMUM damage... If it does more nearly Average damage of 8 Body and 24 Stun, then he takes bupkis... If you shoot him with this 2d6+1 RKA every phase, in the long run he takes 2.3888 recurring Stun damage per phase, and Max damage will *not* stun him...

 

If the Brick Character in question does not have CON that is comparable to his STR, then he has not made a character that can shrug off such attacks...

[CBikle]

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

 

A Hulk analog...? I wouldn't call someone a Hulk analog unless they had at least a 60 STR and a 60 CON... Along with at least 20 rPD and 20 rED...

 

A 2d6+1 RKA will do at most 13 Body, and at most 65 Stun... That would get no Body at all through his 20 rPD, and 33 Stun through his total PD... This will *not* stun someone with a 60 CON...

 

A STR and CON of 60 will give you a REC of 24... Two phases later, the inflicted Stun is gone, although Hulk is likely still pissed, and smashing things...

 

In my 20 + years in playing the game, I have yet to see a PC go beyond a 40 Con.

 

In my example, I was figuring the Hulk analog would have a 30 rPD (that's including his regular PD) and a 30 con. So if the heavy pistol rolled max damage (13 body/65 stun), it would stun him by 5 pts. It's unlikely, but I have personally seen that exact type of situation occur on numerous occasions.

[Foxiekins]

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

 

In my 20 + years in playing the game, I have yet to see a PC go beyond a 40 Con.

 

In my example, I was figuring the Hulk analog would have a 30 rPD (that's including his regular PD) and a 30 con. So if the heavy pistol rolled max damage (13 body/65 stun), it would stun him by 5 pts. It's unlikely, but I have personally seen that exact type of situation occur on numerous occasions.

 

As I put in my edit, (done after your reply, it seems), my philosophy is that if you want a character to shrug off attacks, give him a CON commensurate with his STR... If you don't, he will be able to dish it out, but not take it...

[bwdemon]

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

 

The Force Wall build from UB can make super tough characters totally immune to bullets. You pick a certain level of Defense (13 PD in the 2d6+1 RKA example, 19 to cover everything up to 3d6+1) and it can't do enough Body to break through to the character.

 

An attack that does do enough Body to break through "staggers" the character such that he has to recompose himself (bring the Force Wall back up) in order to use its benefits again. This does a good job of simulating those threats that require a concerted and continuous wave of attacks to bring down.

 

Were I to make a Hulk or Juggernaut build, I would very likely use this method, which would allow him to shrug off those little KAs and attacks that a character like him does shrug off. Very few characters deserve this sort of power, though, so I wouldn't want to apply to every superhero by default through a houserule.

 

As for CON, I find that I tend to make characters with CON closer to their STR score. In most cases, it just seems right. A character that strong usually (but not always) has a similar degree of toughness. I don't make too many characters with STR 80, but if one of my characters has a 60 STR, then his CON will probably be between 40 and 60. This is higher than most and not exactly cost-efficient, but it makes sense to me so that's how I build it. Foxiekins certainly has a point in saying that a character without an appropriately high CON hasn't been built to simulate the effect of avoiding being Stunned by high-Stun attacks.

 

OddHat, I was speaking specifically to JustJoe's build in that post above. I feel the "must do Body" limitation is best used only for those things that have to get into the bloodstream or at least past the skin in order for a linked effect to occur. For example, simulating a drug-filled dart or a venomous snake's bite. In those examples, the killing damage is truly minimal and the greatest damage comes from the linked effect. This is not an appropriate mechanic to simulate something that will have no problem getting through the sole of your average running shoe.

 

I still think the whole KA mechanic should be ditched for an AVLD mechanic, since it removes the Stun Lotto issue altogether, while producing an appropriate effect and homogenizing (and thus simplifying) combat mechanics. From a victim's perspective, there would be some small benefit to increasing resistant defense (since they won't ever face nonresistant defenses), but this is mitigated heavily (if not completely) by the fact that you won't ever see Stun Lotto amounts.

[Foxiekins]

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

 

As for CON' date=' I find that I tend to make characters with CON closer to their STR score. In most cases, it just seems right. A character that strong usually (but not always) has a similar degree of toughness. I don't make too many characters with STR 80, but if one of my characters has a 60 STR, then his CON will probably be between 40 and 60. This is higher than most and not exactly cost-efficient, but it makes sense to me so that's how I build it. Foxiekins certainly has a point in saying that a character without an appropriately high CON hasn't been built to simulate the effect of avoiding being Stunned by high-Stun attacks.[/quote']

 

Exactly... If I make a character with STR and CON differing by more than 10, it's because of a Conscious Design Decision on my part... Sometimes I will make a character tougher than he is strong, sometimes vice versa, but always as a Conscious Decision...

[OddHat]

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

 

My own prefered method for the Bullet Proof problem is a fixed stun multiple for weapons with the Real Weapon limitation and not using the double stun when out of combat rules in campaigns where you want Supers to be more or less immune to bullets. As Hugh once pointed out, a 2d6 Killing Attack under the current rules maxes out at 120 stun if it hits out of combat. Very few 350 point characters are going to be walking around with the PD and CON needed to ignore that.

 

The Force Wall option works, and I have used it myself on characters. It does however require either Indirect on the character's STR or a handwave allowing the character to reach through his own wall.

 

A combination of high PD, CON, and Damage Reduction works as well, with no house rules, but can bring up the problem of characters who are immune to bullets also ending up effectively immune to anything short of massive force. That works better in higher point campaigns.

[Trebuchet]

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

 

My own prefered method for the Bullet Proof problem is a fixed stun multiple for weapons with the Real Weapon limitation and not using the double stun when out of combat rules in campaigns where you want Supers to be more or less immune to bullets. As Hugh once pointed out, a 2d6 Killing Attack under the current rules maxes out at 120 stun if it hits out of combat. Very few 350 point characters are going to be walking around with the PD and CON needed to ignore that.

 

The Force Wall option works, and I have used it myself on characters. It does however require either Indirect on the character's STR or a handwave allowing the character to reach through his own wall.

 

A combination of high PD, CON, and Damage Reduction works as well, with no house rules, but can bring up the problem of character who are immune to bullets also ending up effectively immune to anything short of massive force. That works better in higher point campaigns.

After reading this thread carefully, I have decided that when I'm GMing our Champions game, any Real Weapon which even with max damage on the roll is incapable of doing any BODY to the target does no Stun at all. So if Joe Bankrobber opens up full auto on our team brick Silhouette (32 PD/24 rPD) with his AK-47 (2d6 RKA), the bullets simply bounce off without any effect at all because his maximum possible BODY generated is 12; only half of her rPD. Of course, the ricochets and/or misses might be hazardous to nearby normals and even other heroes, but Silhouette herself is totally immune to such puny attacks. Her friend Zl'f, with 12PD/8rPD, gets no such immunity and had best avoid Joe's attack.

 

OTOH, if Joe's buddy Biggun Bob pulls out an RPG-7V anti-tank missile (7d6+1 RKA) and hits our heroine, then the Stun to Silhouette will be calculated normally because it can theoretically generate sufficient BODY to penetrate our heroine's defenses. If he rolls poorly the attack may still bounce off, but a good roll (especially with a high StunX) might still flatten her.

 

In the genre (four color) of our MidGuard campaign, I simply see no reason for someone with defenses higher than an M1A1 Abrams tank to worry at all about some poor schlub with an ordinary rifle or pistol. The other GMs in our group are free to use this method or ignore it, but that's how I'm going to handle it from now on.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

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.

 

Yet, as noted previously, a human being wearing a bulletproof vest may take not even 1 point of Body damage, but be stunned or even knocked out by the impact. I suggest that is "realism".

 

While I agree there is a place for a rule which prevents the typical "real weapon" from achieving such extreme results, even there "no BOD = no STUN" seems excessive. Simply imposing a 3x, or 2.5x Multiple on such weapons due to their RW limitation would do the trick.

 

And who says the Hulk analog should be unfazed by maximum damage from a heavy pistol. A lucky shot, directly to the face, which manages to faze the Hulk for a single segment seems very much in keeping with typical comic book writing. Good luck getting that lucky a second time before the Hulk deals with the matter!

 

"Puny human! Do not shoot Hulk in eye again, or Hulk will SMASH!"

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

In my 20 + years in playing the game, I have yet to see a PC go beyond a 40 Con.

 

In my example, I was figuring the Hulk analog would have a 30 rPD (that's including his regular PD) and a 30 con. So if the heavy pistol rolled max damage (13 body/65 stun), it would stun him by 5 pts. It's unlikely, but I have personally seen that exact type of situation occur on numerous occasions.

 

Perhaps that should mean his CON ought to be increased to the point he can shrug off those attacks you believe he should be able to shrug off. Alternatively, some Damage reduction which only applies to real weapons (or only applies to KA's with certain STUN multiples) would do the trick quite nicely. In other words, I question whether the prolem is that the rules don't work properly, or thatvthe character has not been designed properly. These new rules would mean that 8 rDEF allows characters to shrug off most shots from pistols. How many Supers don't have 8 rDEF? Even Z'lf has 8 rDEF! Of course, now we have a pistol that does 8 BOD, 40 STUN failing to inflict any STUN, but 9 BOD, 36 STUN smacks Z'lf for 24 STUN. "ARRRGH! I've been NICKED!" is heard as she passes out...

 

I do see where a rules fix is desirable for games where we want supers to casually bounce bullets, however. Here, the simple "real weapons have a 2.5 (or even 3x) Stun Multiple, no roll" would fix this quite nicely. The gun maxes out at 33 (39) STUN, Hulk takes three (nine) STUN and turns, growling, at the guy with the lucky shot. The Hulk's massive (and no time required) PRE attack has the normal firing the gun quivering, and Hulk crushes the gun in his mighty fist, using casual STR, in his next phase. This approach permits characters at the 350 point level to bunce bullets without an excessive cost, while preserving the balance in the cost structure for anyone leaving off that Real Weapon limitation. This approach also doesn't make penetrating, or even double penetrating, ammo become a logical standard commodity for gun-toting mercs expecting possible action by Supers. The suggested house rule means it's likely better to have a 1d6 pistol with double penetrating than a 2d6+1 Heavy Pistol if your targets will have bulletproof vests. If they're really tough, that little peashooter with DoubPen rounds is superior to an AK-47 or a heavy rifle. How does that fit with a desire for greater realism or aesthetics?

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

After reading this thread carefully' date=' I have decided that when I'm GMing our Champions game, any Real Weapon which even with max damage on the roll is [i']incapable[/i] of doing any BODY to the target does no Stun at all.

 

To explore this further, as "incapable even at max" seems a rational threshhold for real weapons, how do the following issues interact:

 

- the character has enough rDEF to ignore the attack, but it's on an activation roll. Is the weapon "capable of damaging the character", or can it do STUN only if the activation roll fails?

 

- the character has rDEF to offset the damage, but it comes from Combat Luck or a similar concept (eg. "Just grazed me"). Is the weapon "incapable" of doing BOD? ie can Z'lf now safely ignore a 1d6+1 handgun?

 

- will limitations like "one BOD gets through" and advantages like Penetrating on KA's have their costs re-evaluated given this rule? The limitation is probably more relevant, as advantages are controlled by Real Weapons, but it would seem a foolish gunman who would go up against (the possibility of) Supers with normal ammo.

 

- what about such real defenses as bulletproof kevlar? Perhaps the Real Armor limitation could be made permeable to STUN from real weapons, solving that dilemma.

[CBikle]

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

 

Yet, as noted previously, a human being wearing a bulletproof vest may take not even 1 point of Body damage, but be stunned or even knocked out by the impact. I suggest that is "realism".

 

While I agree there is a place for a rule which prevents the typical "real weapon" from achieving such extreme results, even there "no BOD = no STUN" seems excessive. Simply imposing a 3x, or 2.5x Multiple on such weapons due to their RW limitation would do the trick.

 

And who says the Hulk analog should be unfazed by maximum damage from a heavy pistol. A lucky shot, directly to the face, which manages to faze the Hulk for a single segment seems very much in keeping with typical comic book writing. Good luck getting that lucky a second time before the Hulk deals with the matter!

 

"Puny human! Do not shoot Hulk in eye again, or Hulk will SMASH!"

 

You're preaching to the choir. I pretty much agree with you here.

[CBikle]

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

 

Perhaps that should mean his CON ought to be increased to the point he can shrug off those attacks you believe he should be able to shrug off. Alternatively' date=' some Damage reduction which only applies to real weapons (or only applies to KA's with certain STUN multiples) would do the trick quite nicely. In other words, I question whether the prolem is that the rules don't work properly, or thatvthe character has not been designed properly. [/quote']

 

This isn't about one character; a few of the players (including the primary GM, but not me) want a universal rules change where the stun lotto winfall doesn't apply to a character who didn't receive any body damage from an attack, especially in cases where it seems unrealistic.

 

They don't want to see the powered armor guy stunned/knocked-out from the swashbuckler-guy's rapier HKA that didn't do any body damage.

[Trebuchet]

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

 

To explore this further' date=' as "incapable even at max" seems a rational threshhold for real weapons, how do the following issues interact:[/quote']Good questions; and I'd given some thought to all of them.

 

- the character has enough rDEF to ignore the attack, but it's on an activation roll. Is the weapon "capable of damaging the character", or can it do STUN only if the activation roll fails?

It would require a successful Activation Roll first. BTW, nobody in our campaign has any defenses on an Activation Roll so the point would be moot, at least in our game.

 

- the character has rDEF to offset the damage, but it comes from Combat Luck or a similar concept (eg. "Just grazed me"). Is the weapon "incapable" of doing BOD? ie can Z'lf now safely ignore a 1d6+1 handgun?

Combat Luck is predicated on the idea the character is actively working to avoid getting hit. Since Zl'f has 6 of her 8 rPD provided by her Combat Luck the answer is no, she can't simply ignore a 1d6+1 handgun. She could probably ignore a 1 pip Killing attack; but we really don't see too many of those in our campaign. I may decide defenses provided by Combat Luck do not apply towards this rule since that Talent is already assuming active avoidance of an attack. That would seem a reasonable compromise.

 

- will limitations like "one BOD gets through" and advantages like Penetrating on KA's have their costs re-evaluated given this rule? The limitation is probably more relevant, as advantages are controlled by Real Weapons, but it would seem a foolish gunman who would go up against (the possibility of) Supers with normal ammo.

Advantages on attacks would work as normal; so a PEN Killing attack against a Hero could do Stun assuming the hero didn't have appropriate Hardened defenses. However, the odds of a Real Weapon having PEN ammo is pretty much nil. AP would be more common, of course. If the AP attack is still incapable of doing BODY damage then my rule applies as described. If one BODY gets through due to a Limitation on the defenses, then clearly the defenses are inadequate to prevent any damage from the attack getting through and normal rules apply.

 

- what about such real defenses as bulletproof kevlar? Perhaps the Real Armor limitation could be made permeable to STUN from real weapons, solving that dilemma.

Kevlar cannot be made impenetrable to real weapons anyway without making it so heavy with ballistic inserts a normal couldn't move, so the question is largely moot (The real stuff would be sectional and/or have Activation Rolls). However, it is reasonable that Real Armor have a corresponding limitation to Real Weapons and would ignore this rule. So a hero wearing Real Armor as opposed to "bulletproof spandex" may or may not have sufficient defenses depending on the proportion of his defenses provided by that Real Armor.

 

Again, this rule applies only to attacks bought as and/or obviously with the Real Weapons Limitation (like a dropped cop's gun). Blasters, photon blasts, light sabers, mystic swords and other fictional weapons would do damage as designed. It's just meant to allow tough bricks to ignore mundane attacks like switchblades and 9mm pistols. An anti-tank missile hardly qualifies as "mundane" except perhaps against the likes of Superman. Few Champions bricks approach his level of defense.

[Foxiekins]

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

 

This isn't about one character; a few of the players (including the primary GM, but not me) want a universal rules change where the stun lotto winfall doesn't apply to a character who didn't receive any body damage from an attack, especially in cases where it seems unrealistic.

 

They don't want to see the powered armor guy stunned/knocked-out from the swashbuckler-guy's rapier HKA that didn't do any body damage.

 

Looking at Hand-To-Hand Weapons, a Stiletto is 1/2d6 AP, and a Short Sword is 1d6... I would call a Rapier 1d6 AP... This becomes 2d6 AP at most if the character has sufficient STR... This does at most 12 Body... If your Rapier guy is wandering about with a higher damage weapon than that, it isn't a Rapier... If you assume it has a STR Min of 8, say, and this is a Heroic Campaign, this requires him to have a 23 STR... If this is a Superheroic Campaign, and the weapon doesn't have a STR Min, he would still need a 22 STR...

 

If this is a Real Weapon, it will take damage when you use it to stab a heavily armored person... At 22 Active Points, and I'm assuming 1.6 kg, it would be DEF 5, BODY 1... If he does no Body to Power Armor guy, and yet knocks him out from the impact, he will also snap his Sword in two...

 

Since DEF + BODY of an object limits how much damage it can dish out as a club, you could simply say that Real Weapons cannot do more Body than their DEF + BODY to a Target with resistant defenses... If so, Rapier Guy won't do more than 6 Body, and at most 30 Stun... If that can stun a Powered Armor character, then he isn't all that heavily armored... If you really want a House Rule, this is how I would suggest you do it...

 

Even so, what is 60 Stun going to do againt Power Armor Guy after you subtract half his total PD, and then compare to his CON...? If it can, then that's the possible payoff for Rapier Guy for breaking his weapon, and likely taking some damage himself from the impact...

[Duke Bushido]

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

 

A word wielding martial artist? Would that be like Chi power? I don't remember seeing that one in UMA or NH?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

 

Yep. From a long time back, in the old West. 'Course, we used to call 'em punslingers....

[ghost-angel]

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

 

Duke! Haven't seen you in ages. Hope things are good.

[Lord Liaden]

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

 

Good questions; and I'd given some thought to all of them.

 

It would require a successful Activation Roll first. BTW, nobody in our campaign has any defenses on an Activation Roll so the point would be moot, at least in our game.

 

Combat Luck is predicated on the idea the character is actively working to avoid getting hit. Since Zl'f has 6 of her 8 rPD provided by her Combat Luck the answer is no, she can't simply ignore a 1d6+1 handgun. She could probably ignore a 1 pip Killing attack; but we really don't see too many of those in our campaign. I may decide defenses provided by Combat Luck do not apply towards this rule since that Talent is already assuming active avoidance of an attack. That would seem a reasonable compromise.

 

Advantages on attacks would work as normal; so a PEN Killing attack against a Hero could do Stun assuming the hero didn't have appropriate Hardened defenses. However, the odds of a Real Weapon having PEN ammo is pretty much nil. AP would be more common, of course. If the AP attack is still incapable of doing BODY damage then my rule applies as described. If one BODY gets through due to a Limitation on the defenses, then clearly the defenses are inadequate to prevent any damage from the attack getting through and normal rules apply.

 

Kevlar cannot be made impenetrable to real weapons anyway without making it so heavy with ballistic inserts a normal couldn't move, so the question is largely moot (The real stuff would be sectional and/or have Activation Rolls). However, it is reasonable that Real Armor have a corresponding limitation to Real Weapons and would ignore this rule. So a hero wearing Real Armor as opposed to "bulletproof spandex" may or may not have sufficient defenses depending on the proportion of his defenses provided by that Real Armor.

 

Again, this rule applies only to attacks bought as and/or obviously with the Real Weapons Limitation (like a dropped cop's gun). Blasters, photon blasts, light sabers, mystic swords and other fictional weapons would do damage as designed. It's just meant to allow tough bricks to ignore mundane attacks like switchblades and 9mm pistols. An anti-tank missile hardly qualifies as "mundane" except perhaps against the likes of Superman. Few Champions bricks approach his level of defense.

 

As I mentioned I've been using the Real Weapon/ Real Armor distinction in my campaign for a while, and this is almost exactly how I handle these specific issues.

 

I have yet to see any published HERO writeup of a real-world weapon with the Penetrating Advantage; if anyone knows of one I'd like to hear where.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

This isn't about one character; a few of the players (including the primary GM, but not me) want a universal rules change where the stun lotto winfall doesn't apply to a character who didn't receive any body damage from an attack, especially in cases where it seems unrealistic.

 

They don't want to see the powered armor guy stunned/knocked-out from the swashbuckler-guy's rapier HKA that didn't do any body damage.

 

My simplistic question: does this rules change render Swashbuckler Guy useless against the opposition as well? He paid points for his powers too, right? It sounds like the real issue is "Power Armor Guy should be invulnerable to Swashbuckler's attacks for no point expenditure to PA and no savings to Swash". My preference is a game where Powered Armor Man and Swashbuckler can both be on the same team and feel like equal contributors. No player, in my experience, likes his character to be the less than effective sidekick.

 

So, in other words, what offsetting advantage does Swashbuckler get to level the playing field so PA (or any high rDEF concept) does not become the superior SFX?

 

Perhaps for reasons of realism, we require that powered armor be purchased as a vehicle. After all, how does bonus DEX and STR from powered armor add to the wearer's natural abilities? The driver can only react to the limit of his own abilities, and the suit's servos don't get any faster just because the pilot has superhuman speed. This would mean PA Man will be immune to attacks that don't do BOD, as the vehicle's defenses won't be breached.

 

Or maybe we require all stats purchased via Powered Armor to have No Figured, as making the suit stronger (more powerful servos) doesn't make it more durable, plus have a -0 limitation that they are not cumulative with stats of the wearer in excess of 8 (so +32 STR in powered armor means you have STR 40, even if the guy inside is STR 23). This also makes it more realistic - the fact the wearer is an olymic weightlifter rather than a 98 poind weakling doesn't make the servo-motors any stronger, does it?

 

These are only a couple of examples - we could certainly impose different limits on Powered Armor SFX, and the various other SFX and echanics, to level them off with weakening killing attacks, for realism. Of course, we're starting to look class-based, since characters will be better at somethings and worse than others based solely on their SFX.

 

It seems to me that the specific issue is more reflective of the stun lotto than a broader problem, so I'd look at a fix to the Stun lotto. Several have been suggested. I don't recall whether the "Make KA 5 points per DC" solution has been offered. Under this approach, each die of KA costs 5 points, does 1d6-1 STUN and does 1 BOD, 2 if a six is rolled. That eliminates the STUN lotto. KA's average more BOD and less STUN than equal DC normal attacks, and the wide variances are eliminated.

 

Or just ditch KA's entirely. Make claws, etc. an AP advantage and/or extra dice of normal damage. Not as much differentiation betwen KA's and normal attacks, of course, but if you want an attack designed to kill, just buy extra dice that do no STUN.

[Trebuchet]

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

 

As I mentioned I've been using the Real Weapon/ Real Armor distinction in my campaign for a while' date=' and this is almost exactly how I handle these specific issues.[/quote']Have you had any issues in your campaign with these rules? Any complaints from players who aren't immune to the mundane weaponry or other problems?

 

I have yet to see any published HERO writeup of a real-world weapon with the Penetrating Advantage; if anyone knows of one I'd like to hear where.

The only real-world weapon I can think of that might possibly qualify as Penetrating would be HESH anti-tank rounds, which are designed to kill or incapacitate the crew with spalls knocked off the inside of the vehicle's armor from the force of the projectile's impact.

 

How you'd build that in Hero I'm not sure. Probably with Penetrating.

[Lord Liaden]

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

 

Have you had any issues in your campaign with these rules? Any complaints from players who aren't immune to the mundane weaponry or other problems?

 

In fact the response has been pretty much the opposite - the players love the four-color feel that this adds to combat. There are a few things to keep in mind about this, though: One, the characters with the lower Defenses are usually the ones who specialize in avoiding getting hit, so they don't really expect to be immune. Two, this only works against real-world weapons, and if you're running a four-color campaign you generally have supervillains and agents with super weapons which can appreciably thump the bricks, while the speedsters and martial artists gleefully mock them.

 

Three, if you saw my first post on the thread you read my addition of Reduced Penetration to the mechanics of this system. This allows some of the more lightly-armored PCs to take a hit from many conventional firearms and still keep going. They'll be a lot more sore than the bricks, but they'll survive.

 

 

The only real-world weapon I can think of that might possibly qualify as Penetrating would be HESH anti-tank rounds, which are designed to kill or incapacitate the crew with spalls knocked off the inside of the vehicle's armor from the force of the projectile's impact.

 

How you'd build that in Hero I'm not sure. Probably with Penetrating.

 

Hmm... based on that description it sounds more like some kind of Linked attack Triggered when the shell penetrates the vehicle's armor, but I'd need more info for an intelligent evaluation.

[Trebuchet]

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

 

Hmm... based on that description it sounds more like some kind of Linked attack Triggered when the shell penetrates the vehicle's armor' date=' but I'd need more info for an intelligent evaluation.[/quote']Well, the shell doesn't actually penetrate the vehicle's armor. That's the whole point of it. It hits the armor and smashes flat, transferring the impact energy to the armor, and a piece of armor on the inside of the vehicle thus breaks loose and proceeds to bounce around the interior at a high rate of speed (with predictable results for the crew). It's almost more of an Indirect attack. HESH, BTW, is an acronym for High Explosive Squash Head. IIRC they were a late WW2 invention of the German Army.

 

I'm sure a Google search would turn up any number of technical explanations and diagrams. Modern laminated armors like Chobham on the M1 Abrams are specifically designed to defeat this type of warhead because among the "laminations" are empty spaces to absorb the spalls.

[ghost-angel]

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

 

I have yet to see any published HERO writeup of a real-world weapon with the Penetrating Advantage; if anyone knows of one I'd like to hear where.

Penetrating Frangible Ammunition: Equipment Guide p69 (table p84); 5ER p266 (example power); Dark Champions p206

 

I make no claims to the accuracy of the build vs real life. Just that they're there in the books.

[Lord Liaden]

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

 

Thanks G-A, I'll take a look.

[Just Joe]

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

 

My simplistic question: does this rules change render Swashbuckler Guy useless against the opposition as well? He paid points for his powers too, right? It sounds like the real issue is "Power Armor Guy should be invulnerable to Swashbuckler's attacks for no point expenditure to PA and no savings to Swash". My preference is a game where Powered Armor Man and Swashbuckler can both be on the same team and feel like equal contributors. No player, in my experience, likes his character to be the less than effective sidekick.

 

So, in other words, what offsetting advantage does Swashbuckler get to level the playing field so PA (or any high rDEF concept) does not become the superior SFX?

I don't see the problem. If Swashbuckler wants to be able to hurt PAG's, he just doesn't buy his sword as a real weapon. This might be because it's made of super-metallium, or because he is just THAT amazing with a sword, or for whatever reason. If players take the real weapon limitation in Lord Liaden's campaign, they do so knowing what they're getting into.

[Lord Liaden]

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

 

I think if I did allow a Penetrating weapon with the Real Weapon Limitation into my campaign, I would try treating the Penetrating Advantage as though it were Armor Piercing only for calculating whether the attack could do Body damage to the target with a maximum roll; i.e. divide the Defense by two and compare the result to maximum damage. If that maximum exceeded the Defense of the target, then the attack would do its normal Penetrating Body damage.

 

I would want to try this out in play, though; as I said, the situation hasn't come up in my campaign.