House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

[Just Joe]

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

 

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.

Not a bad build, at least if the weapon is exceptional, but I'm not sure it's any simpler than my approach. If you want to handle a range of related cases, I think your approach becomes an even bigger hassle. Also, the extra stun should be at least approximately proportional to the amount of body that gets through.

[Just Joe]

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' date=' Armor Piercing, and/or (especially) Penetrating.[/quote']I'm no expert on lasers, but I think they can vary in power extremely widely. A relatively weak laser could be a small number of dice and need not be AP or penetrating. I wasn't thinking of it being likely to do body, I was thinking it's hard for it to hurt you if it doesn't do body.

 

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

I don't generally use penetrating, nor is it at all common in my group. My approach would just mean that the higher stun X would apply to whatever body penetrated, just like body that got past armor by any other means. If it were likely to come up in a game of mine, I would have to give more thought as to whether this might be unbalancing, but right now it does not seem that way to me.

[Just Joe]

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

 

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 necessarily useless, but less useful, or useful less often.

 

But most critically is that it doesn't match the reality. A mace clanging across a helmet will still hurt' date=' 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.[/quote']So you're with me, right Hugh?

 

As for must do BOD to do STUN, possibly lasers and shurikens (though the latter might just be so small as to make this generally true). For weapons that do little STUN (compared to bullets and maces) unless they do BOD, add switchblades, light bows, hacksaws, and monofilament knives, to name a few.

[Just Joe]

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

 

OddHat' date=' 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.[/quote']I'm not sure whether you're misunderstanding me or I'm misunderstanding you (or both). But for the record, it was OddHat's build as an alternative to mine that used the "must do body" limitation. My idea had some resemblance to such a limitation, but not that close of one

[Lord Liaden]

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

 

I feel the responsibility to continue my input on this, since I was the first one to raise the "Real Weapon/ Real Armor" analogy. If anyone thinks I'm out of line or missing something crucial, please let me know.

 

I'd just like to point out that my suggestion was really just intended to represent the resilience of superhumans to real-world weaponry, primarily for more four-color supers settings. In Hugh Neilson's example which Just Joe quoted above, the mace which presumably would have been built with "Real Weapon," strikes a kevlar vest (all published examples of which have been built with "Real Armor"). In this case the two Limitations cancel each other out, so that they would affect each other as per the normal rules. Now if one of these items was an "energized morningstar," or the other was "omnium steel chainmail," then the outcome might be different.

 

As Hugh points out, this should not be the standard for Killing Attacks, nor was that ever my intention. I freely admit that for the issue with which Thrakazog started this thread - modifying how KA function generally - this mechanic doesn't really help.

[Duke Bushido]

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

 

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

 

Hiya, GA!

 

Great to be back!

 

I'll give you the short, obedience-to-social-graces version:

 

Bought a beautiful piece of property with a run-down house. Moved out to the woods (a great place to be!). No net access. Remodeled the house-- almost. Wife changed her mind with about one month of work left to go. Still got the property; she's considering demo and complete rebuild.

 

But I got net now.

 

Great to be back.

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

I don't see the problem. If Swashbuckler wants to be able to hurt PAG's' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

In LL's game, that works and I like that approach. As I understand the initial poster's house rule, ALL KA's will face the "no BOD inflicted means no STUN gets through" restriction. It is to that house rule that I direct the question of offsetting benefits to Swashbuckler (or restrictions/drawbacks to PAG).

[JamesG]

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

 

In LL's game' date=' that works and I like that approach. As I understand the initial poster's house rule, ALL KA's will face the "no BOD inflicted means no STUN gets through" restriction. It is to that house rule that I direct the question of offsetting benefits to Swashbuckler (or restrictions/drawbacks to PAG).[/quote']

 

Hi, I'm also in the same game as CBikle and Thrakazog and it is myself and the main GM who are mostly pushing for the house rule in question.

 

Let me clear up a misconception here. The rule proposed, as mentioned in the first post in this thread, specifies that STUN done by KAs that don't do Body is halved. Not eliminated, but halved.

 

So KAs can still dish out PLENTY of stun on a good roll. Just not OVERWHELMING amounts of Stun to high defense targets.

 

And my PC (Musketeer) is the only one in the group who regularly uses a Killing Attack. Beleive me, I'm not pushing for a rule that will render my PC ineffective. I still expect Musketeer to be plenty effective. But now when we face the high defense master villains or Brick, our tactics will need to be a little more advanced than "Let Musketeer beat on him until he rolls a 6 on the stun multiple." Actually, if Musketeer gets a six on the stun multipler and an above average Body roll, he's still going to be dishing out about the same or more stun than the rest of the PCs and their normal damage attacks, even after the halving. But at least it won't be double (or more) everyone else's.

 

Also:

 

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.

 

Your examples are flawed (IMHO). A mace off the helmet can cause a concussion. That's BODY damage. A bullet against a kevlar vest can crack ribs. That's BODY damage. Just because it does not pierce the flesh does not mean it's "no Body" in HERO terms. So I do not feel you've shown a real world example of a Killing Attack that does "no Body" but still does significant stun.

[Thrakazog]

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

 

I'd like to take this moment to point out that Musketeer wears a plumed and dashingly-colored hat.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[ghost-angel]

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

 

So KAs can still dish out PLENTY of stun on a good roll. Just not OVERWHELMING amounts of Stun to high defense targets.

I personally think you could still be best served by switching to a flat 3 STUNx; and that's from experience from the same frustrations.

 

As for the Kevlar/Bullet - even without the cracked ribs (Body) it can still leave one heckuva bruise (Stun).

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

I personally think you could still be best served by switching to a flat 3 STUNx; and that's from experience from the same frustrations.

 

I agree that the 3x Multiple is a superior approach. The problem is the KA extremes at the high end, which in some respects balances out extremes at the low end (but not perfectly). The solution is not to downgrade only the high end, but to eliminate the wide swings. A fixed stun multiple meets that goal.

 

As for the Kevlar/Bullet - even without the cracked ribs (Body) it can still leave one heckuva bruise (Stun).

 

Bingo. And the helmed warrior struck by a mace can still be knocked for a loop, even if he took no BOD.

[Gary]

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

 

This idea is reposted from a previous thread.

 

Since the other thread was a little cluttered, I'd thought I'd start a new one. Just brainstorming and borrowing an idea from GURPs. How about making KA a +1/4 advantage on Normal Attacks that are stopped by Resistant Defenses. Body and Stun are rolled as normal, but any Body that gets through defenses are doubled and Stun is increased by a corresponding amount. 2d6 would be subtracted for Knockback, not 3d6.

 

Let's compare 15d6 normal attack vs 12d6 'killing attack' at 75 AP and assume they roll average.

 

Vs 15/30 defenses, the NA would do 0 Body and 22.5 net stun while the KA would do 0 Body and 12 net stun.

 

Vs 10/30 defenses, the NA would do 0 Body and 22.5 net stun while the KA would do 2*2=4 Body and 12+2=14 net stun.

 

Vs 5/20 defenses, the NA would do 0 Body and 32.5 net stun while the KA would do 7*2=14 Body and 22+7=29 net stun.

 

Vs 0/20 defenses, the NA would do 0 Body and 32.5 net stun while the KA would do 12*2=24 Body and 42+12=54 net stun.

 

Some assessments:

 

1) Against high resistant defense targets, the NA is significantly better. Which kinda makes sense since a warhammer is better against plate armor than a sword would be.

 

2) Against many inanimate objects and Force Walls, the Normal Attack is better. Again, a blaster should probably be better against a door than a laser in doing structural damage.

 

3) Against low resistant defense targets, the KA is significantly better. As it should be.

 

4) Against many objects and Entangles, the KA is significantly better.

 

For stuff like rapiers and lasers, you might want to have a custom -1/4 Limitation that Body after defenses isn't doubled vs inanimate objects. And perhaps make it so that any focus with the Real Weapon limitation only multiples by 1.5 instead of 2 to keep the body count reasonable.

 

Needless to say, any weapon would be converted into it's equivalent damage class in damage. So a 1d6+1 pistol is 20 AP and would be converted into a 3d6 KA (15 AP with a +1/4 Advantage). A 2d6 rifle would be converted into 5d6 KA (25 AP with a +1/4 Advantage).

 

Nice, clean, and elegant. Fixes the Stun Lotto and does its job of shredding unprotected targets while not being as good against high resistant defense targets. Targets in a non-superheroic campaign would rightfully fear it, while Supers usually have enough Resistant Defenses so that they don't have too much to fear. Seems to fit the genre material pretty well and gives a reason why VIPER would outfit its agents with 10d6 EBs rather than assault rifles when dealing with tough supers.

[CBikle]

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

 

I'd like to take this moment to point out that Musketeer wears a plumed and dashingly-colored hat.

 

To be fair, he only wears that when he goes to Barbara Streisand concerts or when he goes antiquing on fire island.

[SteveZilla]

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

 

Some HERO sword writeups make the killing and non-killing damage into slots in a Multipower' date=' with the non-killing one representing smiting with the flat of the blade.[/quote']

 

There is also the optional maneuver, Club Weapon, on p392 of 5re.

[SteveZilla]

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

 

My counter-proposal was a flat X3 stun mult, which would reduce chances of the stun lotto, but some of the players don't feel that the rule is balanced and/or accurately reflect how some super-heroes are seemingly immune to small and heavy weapons fire (ie: taking little or no stun) that doesn't appear to "do body".

 

Personally, I think that's more of a reflection of really high defenses, Con, Damage reduction, etc. I don't think a house rule is necessary to reflect this.

 

There is also the possiblity of buying Missile Deflection defined as "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm prepared for an attack". It exactly mimics the old B/W Superman TV show where he'd just stand there in his classic Superman pose while the crooks would unload their guns at him. Just don't ask me to explain why he'd duck the now empty gun when it was thrown at him.

[SteveZilla]

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

 

70 or more on 12d6 is about 23.9 million to one odds.

 

Increased Stun Multiple is significantly underpriced at 1/4 and overpriced at 1/2. It should be +3/4 for +2SM or +1 for +3 SM.

 

Here's some grist for the mill. Probability graphs for a 3d6+1 RKA (standard stun multiple), and all regular damage graphs from 1d6 to 30d6:

 

Stun_of_3d6+1_RKA.zip

 

dice_graphs.zip

[Foxiekins]

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

 

Let me clear up a misconception here. The rule proposed' date=' as mentioned in the first post in this thread, specifies that STUN done by KAs that don't do Body is [b']halved[/b]. Not eliminated, but halved.

 

So KAs can still dish out PLENTY of stun on a good roll. Just not OVERWHELMING amounts of Stun to high defense targets.

 

Ah, halving is a LOT different than eliminating, yes...

 

Hmmmmm..... So a 1d6 AP Rapier with enough STR behind it for 2d6 damage, could do at most 12 Body and 60 Stun... Or 30 Stun if the 12 Body doesn't Penetrate... It's simple to apply, reminds me a bit of the Body Multiplier for Killing Attacks and Hit Locations, and doesn't require refiguring the cost of everything... And it emphasizes the Body Damage of a Killing Attack by leaving it as is...

 

I've contemplated that Killing Attacks might be better with a 1d4 Stun Multiple before this, but this House Rule is simple to apply, and seems to correct the same issue... I say go ahead and use it, and I'm tempted to steal the idea for myself...

[SteveZilla]

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

 

My current group is debating a new house rule and, being curious, I was wondering what people here had to say about it. The rule is this:

 

If a KA does no body to it's target, after defenses, then STUN damage remaining after defenses are applied is halved.

 

Example, Gun Boy shoots his pistol (a 2d6 RKA) at Mr. Brick. He hits his target and rolls 10 BODY with a STUN multiplier roll of 5 for a total of 40 STUN. Mr. Brick's rPD is 25. Since no BODY damage gets through, then the 15 STUN Mr. Brick normally would take after his PD is applied gets halved to 7.

 

Our campaign is 4-color superheroic. The idea is to better reflect the way super-tough charcaters like the Thing or Colossus seem unfazed as the bullets bounce off of them.

 

At it's base, is this primarily a problem with the Stun Lotto and/or the possible over-abundance of KAs in the game? If it's the latter, that would seem to be the purview of GM's control of the game, and not a mechanics issue. If it's the former, why change lots of other stuff to fix a single thing?

 

If you want to just make the top end of the Stun Multiple even less likely, you could try changing the Stun Multiple to 2d6/2-1, rounded down, minimum of one. It greatly reduces the chance of a 5, and has the added benefit of moderately reducing the chance of a '1' result as well.

 

2d6/2-1	Odds		1d6-1	Odds
1	27.7778		1	33.33333
2	30.5556		2	16.66667
3	25.0		3	16.66667
4	13.8889		4	16.66667
5	2.77778		5	16.66667

[Foxiekins]

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

 

Okay, I'm confused now... Is the halving of Stun if Body doesn't penetrate done before or after defenses...?

[ghost-angel]

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

 

Okay' date=' I'm confused now... Is the halving of Stun if Body doesn't penetrate done before or after defenses...?[/quote']

Halving is done after Defenses in the proposed method. And it's not if Body Doesn't Penetrate. It's if Max Body That Can Be Rolled < rDEF then Stun is halved After Defenses are applied.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

Halving is done after Defenses in the proposed method. And it's not if Body Doesn't Penetrate. It's if Max Body That Can Be Rolled < rDEF then Stun is halved After Defenses are applied.

 

My sense was that it was STUN after defenses that was halved (ie effectively 50% damage reduction), but that the attack had to inflict BOD in order to avoid the halving (ie a 2d6 KA rolling 8 BOD would be halved against a 10 rDEF target). Perhaps one of the participants in the campaign proposing this house rule can remind us, as there have been a lot of other alternatives presented on the thread.

 

Another question for that house rule:

 

If a character wanted his defenses NOT to cause such Stun halving, how would that be handled? It seems reasonable that this would be a limitation on the defenses. I suppose some kind of disadvantage would work, but the limitation seems more appropriate. This would seem an appropriate limitation for, say, defenses that represent taking all the STUn and BOD, but rapidly regenerating the harm.

[Thrakazog]

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

 

The house rule as originally proposed:

 

KA's which do no BODY damage to the target after defenses only do 1/2 the normal STUN total after defenses. KA's which do any BODY damage at all apply STUN normally to the target.

 

Example #1: 3d6 KA rolls 11 BODY and 44 STUN damage. Target defenses are 15rPD/30PD. No BODY damage is taken by the target, so the 14 points of STUN which normally would apply are halved to 7 points.

 

Example #2: 3d6 KA rolls 11 BODY and 44 STUN damage. Target defenses are 10rPD/20PD. Target takes 1 BODY damage and 24 STUN damage as per the normal rules.

[SteveZilla]

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

 

The house rule as originally proposed:

 

KA's which do no BODY damage to the target after defenses only do 1/2 the normal STUN total after defenses. KA's which do any BODY damage at all apply STUN normally to the target.

 

Example #1: 3d6 KA rolls 11 BODY and 44 STUN damage. Target defenses are 15rPD/30PD. No BODY damage is taken by the target, so the 14 points of STUN which normally would apply are halved to 7 points.

 

Example #2: 3d6 KA rolls 11 BODY and 44 STUN damage. Target defenses are 10rPD/20PD. Target takes 1 BODY damage and 24 STUN damage as per the normal rules.

 

How would Combat Luck work with this house rule?

[Foxiekins]

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

 

How would Combat Luck work with this house rule?

 

I'd say it would work just like any other resistant defense... Confusion out of the way, this is an extremely simple check to make... An attack does Body, or it doesn't...

 

I like it...

 

Definately stealing it for myself...