Reduced Penetration

[bigdamnhero]

I’ve never been happy with Reduced Penetration as written. For one thing, I think the mechanic is more complicated than it needs to be: divide into two ½ attacks, calculate BODY damage separately, combine together to compute STUN, Knockback is greater of the two ½ rolls… Too fiddly for such a simple concept. Also, since I usually see RP applied to Killing Attacks, I don’t like the fact that RP ignores half-dice and +1/-1 dice (per FAQ). Lastly, it reduces damage so much you might as well just call it “Does No Body” most of the time, which I feel is worth more than a -1/4 Limitation.

 

[sidebar: I know there is an argument that Does No Body is as much an Advantage as a Limitation. I tend to disagree, personally. It has the potential to be abused, sure -- if a superhero with a CvK tried to take RP as an excuse to use his 4d6 RKA indiscriminately, I’d say RP was at best a -0 Lim in that case. But overall, for most characters in most genres, I’d say it’s a Limitation far more often than not. Anyway…]

 

 

Math alert: Following a conversation ghost-angel and I had about RP, I decided to run some numbers. Using the standard character guidelines in 5ER (p28), let’s take a Standard Heroic character with “typical” defenses: 10DEF including 5rDEF. The “typical” Damage Class range for Standard Heroic is 3-8. Looking at the top of the range, a 2½d6 HKA (DC8) does an average of 9 Body, of which 4 would normally get past defenses. But with RP, splitting it into 2x1d6K attacks you’d have to roll at least one six to get any Body through at all. Even if we blow off the FAQ and treat it as two 1d6+1K (DC4) attacks, most attacks will still do 0 Body.

 

Let’s try a Standard Superheroic example. “Typical” defenses are supposed to be 20 DEF, 10 rDEF; typical attacks are 6-14 DCs. 14 DCs is 4½d6K, which does an average of 16 Body, 6 of which would normally get through. With regular RP you have 2x2d6K attacks, which have roughly a 6% chance of getting any Body through at all. (If you treat it as 2x1d6+1K, those odds increase to a whopping 11%.)

 

Another way to look at it: at the Heroic level, you have to go up to DC9 before an average roll gets a single point of Body past 5 rDEF. A non-RP attack does that at the DC5 level. I’m not necessarily equating the two -- STUN damage is the same -- but I think it’s an interesting comparison. At the superheroic level, you have to go up to DC18 before an average roll gets a single point of Body past 10 rDEF. A non-RP attack would do that at the DC9 level. So again, seems like you may as well just say “Does No Body” and save yourself the headache.

 

 

Other options: Simply doubling the target’s resistant defense against Body damage (ie - the inverse of the AP rule) would achieve very similar average results for less complexity. But since I think those results are too low for a -1/4 Lim, let’s try x1.5.

 

Using this method in the examples above, the Heroic target’s 5 rDEF is increased to 8 for purposes of calculating Body damage. Which means a 2½d6 HKA will get one Body through on average; with a lucky roll, you could still do some decent BODY damage, tho far less than you would without the RP Lim. That’s the same as a regular DC5 attack, at least in terms of Body damage. In the superheroic example, the target is treated like it has 15 rDEF, which means the 4½d6 HKA will get 1 Body through on average. That compares to a DC 9 non-RP attack.

 

 

Long post to get to a short proposal...

 

Reduced Penetration: (-1/4 Limitation) multiply the target’s rDEF by 1.5 for the BODY damage done from the attack; STUN, KB, etc are all calculated normally. As an option, the GM could allow "2xrDEF" as a -1/2 Limitation.

 

Discuss.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

 

 

Long post to get to a short proposal...

 

Reduced Penetration: (-1/4 Limitation) multiply the target’s rDEF by 1.5 for the BODY damage done from the attack; STUN, KB, etc are all calculated normally. As an option, the GM could allow "2xrDEF" as a -1/2 Limitation.

 

Discuss.

 

Nice number crunches. For my sake, I treated the "split the attack in half" as "Double the defence" so since about a month after reduced pen/ was first described I've run it as "Double rD for body of the attack" and I've never had any problems.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

I don't bother with seperate rolls. The few times I've used RP as a GM (never seen a player use it) I just roll the attack, divide the BODY by two (drop fractions) and apply the attack. 4d6KA rolls 14 BODY, does two 7 BODY attacks applied vs. target's rdef, Stun modx14 for Stun.

 

RP more complicated than it needs to be? Maybe. Complicated? Not really, IMO.

 

In a broader sense, with tools like AP, Piercing, Increased STUN Mod, Autofire, "Xd6, only if base attack does BODY" and such available, is RP really necessary?

[Diamond Spear]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

How about :

 

Reduced Penetration: (-3/4 Limitation) Only half of BODY rolled is applied; STUN, KB, etc are all calculated normally.

 

Almost the same as Supreme Serpent’s method but it boosts the limitation from -1/4 to -3/4 as I agree that -1/4 is too low.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

Consider:

 

1) 4d6 KA, Reduced Penetration (-1/4): 48pts

 

2) 2d6 KA: 30pts + 2d6 KA, linked (-1/2)*: 20pts --- total 50 pts

 

Both do equivalent BODY. The RP attack should get more STUN through, and is already cheaper. Why the need to make it even more so?

 

 

 

 

 

*using old school generic linked, didn't try to crack open 5th and see what hoops are involved these days. If ends up as lower level limitation, makes point even moreso.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

I usually use the Double Target's rDEF vs BODY method also. Makes it quite simple.

 

Also remember that the main point of Reduced Penetration is that it doesn't get through (penetrate) resistant defenses as much (reduced). A little armor provides a lot of protection against a RP attack. But RP attacks are still just as dangerous to people without resistant defenses (i.e., normal people) as regular attacks. That's why they're commonly used for animal attacks. A tiger or a shark will rip a normal person to bits, but won't do anything to someone with a moderate amount of rDEF.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

I don't bother with seperate rolls. The few times I've used RP as a GM (never seen a player use it) I just roll the attack, divide the BODY by two (drop fractions) and apply the attack. 4d6KA rolls 14 BODY, does two 7 BODY attacks applied vs. target's rdef, Stun modx14 for Stun.

 

RP more complicated than it needs to be? Maybe. Complicated? Not really, IMO.

 

In a broader sense, with tools like AP, Piercing, Increased STUN Mod, Autofire, "Xd6, only if base attack does BODY" and such available, is RP really necessary?

 

Hey, I like this idea. Doens't completely nerf RedPen. But keeps math relatively simple.

 

We haven't had much chance to really work the way BigDamnHero does RepPen in the game - only one villain has had it so far. So on the surface I liked his approach better than By The Book anyways, I eventually ran the same basic numbers he did and came to about the same conclusion as well.

 

But the simple Divide Body Done In 2 thought sounds intrigueing. . .

[Sean Waters]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

I've never really understood what 'reduced penetration' was for. I mean, look at the result: you take reduced BODY damage, but the same stun. It is used for claws and shotguns, which seems strange: if the claws don't penetrate your armour, and so don't actually rip the flesh, why does it not hurt a lot less?

 

I'd probably settle for a bigger limitation value that reduced both stun and body damage. In fact in an ideal world I'd ditch redpen altogether and build this with a smaller attack with autofire and some sort of custom advantage (+1/4?) to allow any stun damage that gets through defences to add for stunning purposes, so instead of:

 

2d6 RKA reduced penetration (24 points)

 

you get

 

1d6 RKA 2 shot autofire (+1/4) and stun adds (+1/4) for 22 points

 

(which is what SS was saying)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

I've never really understood what 'reduced penetration' was for. I mean' date=' look at the result: you take reduced BODY damage, but the same stun. It is used for claws and shotguns, which seems strange: if the claws don't penetrate your armour, and so don't actually rip the flesh, why does it not hurt a lot less?[/quote']

 

It's very much dependent on what the KA will generally accomplish in the specific game. In a fantasy game, where rDEF caps at, say, 8, the difference between a 4d6 KA and a 4d6 KA, reduced penetration is arguably very significant - perhaps even life or death.

 

In a Supers game where rDEF averages, say, 15-20, what did applying RPen to that 4d6 KA actually change? Oh, it doesn't do BOD on a very high roll. Not a huge change, so should the limitation really be the same?

[tesuji]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

IMX both in supers and FH and SCiFi... most enemies drop due to stun damage. certainly this cn vary with some genres, like a 4d6 RKA vs 8 defenses... but unless you wind up with a lot more stun in the stun to body ratio typically found, your enemies drop due to stun before they drop due to body... vast majority of the time.

 

I mean, even in the 4d6 rka vs 8 def... the difference is between KO the enemy due to stun vs kill the enemy. either way... enemy goes down.

 

I do not see increasing the value for RP, heck, I am in favor of reducing it, as frankly if the choice between EB does body and EB stun only is a no point call, then why have EB redpen at -1/4???

 

the big difference is frankly "against things which do not stun" lime walls doors and entangles. At the same time, a "stun only EB" or "red pen" attack is a fine "rapid fire" against an entangled enemy where you dont break the entangle and thus get several shots at DCV 0 (minus penalties.)

 

so count me in with the "rp should be -0 in most cases" and maybe -1/4 in very few campaign specific situations.

 

but yes, just make it half body or double defense against the body or something other than roll two attacks and add stun."

[Sean Waters]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

It's very much dependent on what the KA will generally accomplish in the specific game. In a fantasy game, where rDEF caps at, say, 8, the difference between a 4d6 KA and a 4d6 KA, reduced penetration is arguably very significant - perhaps even life or death.

 

In a Supers game where rDEF averages, say, 15-20, what did applying RPen to that 4d6 KA actually change? Oh, it doesn't do BOD on a very high roll. Not a huge change, so should the limitation really be the same?

 

Wouldn't argue that it makes a difference to the outcome in combat, I'm just saying it makes no sense to buy claws and shotguns that way, and I'm struggling to think of any reason I'd want to buy it from a conceptual POV. From a metagame munchkin POV it is fine and dandy.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

I have never been wild about RP, but as a GM I do use it for villains, because it allows a werewolf to take down a low rPD character without too much fear of outright killing him. Really it is just a way for a bad guy to have a large active point attack and not be too lethal. Admittedly though, the calculation of damage always struck me as a bit odd.

 

Having made several characters with RP attacks, the difference between the -¼ lim for RP and a +¼ Autofire design with the same sfx (and I have used both) is twofold. First, Autofire costs lots more END, so I save it for attacks with charges (like a shotgun or cluster of needles or something). Second, when you start using Elemental Controls and Multipowers the point breaks are different. If I am paying for a EC slot, I would rather take RP and get the limitation to save points. In a Multipower, who cares about a -¼ on a single slot? I know that sounds munchkiny, but there it is.

 

Once again, HERO lets you do things different ways with slightly different flavor, it just depends on exactly what you want (and maybe how much you can pay for it).

 

________________________________________________________

"The fiction in her family was that she was never nice.

I'd say she was very, I just did not see the price." - S. Vega

[Sean Waters]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

Autofire END is a strong point against the build I suggested, but I'm still struggling to think of a realistic use for an attack that works the way RP does. Anyone?

[Guest TheUnknown]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

It's a useful mechanic for things ie like animal claws ect that can tear through non resistant def but not to great againts resistant structures such as brick, stell, diamond, ect. To me it adds realism just enough wear a normal human would be afraid of a tiger but a hero with armor or resistant def would not think twice. But to each there own.

 

By the by the whole def damage thing is broken anyway and its up to the GM to moderate it into balance. Example normal tanks having 16-19 Def making it impossible under normal conditions for the old 100 ton hulk to trash them at all unless he roles extremely well.

[Psylint]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

If claws don't penetrate why do they hurt?

 

Even been **censored** slapped by a Grizzly Bear? Even if the claws don't penetrate the force of the blow is itself enough to break bones, concuss brains, burst blood vessels. Sure if the claws rip you open, you're having a really, really bad day, but getting hit at 1,000+ psi of kinetic energy is no "flesh wound."

[Guest TheUnknown]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

If claws don't penetrate why do they hurt?

 

Even been **censored** slapped by a Grizzly Bear? Even if the claws don't penetrate the force of the blow is itself enough to break bones, concuss brains, burst blood vessels. Sure if the claws rip you open, you're having a really, really bad day, but getting hit at 1,000+ psi of kinetic energy is no "flesh wound."

 

not a valid arguement because as I pointed out normals and anyone with out rd would take full body of the kill as if normal you only seperate attack in halve for determining boby from kill and knock back thus you rarely see if at all a person flying back 15-20ft from a bear attach they may fall back a few feet and as for the you feeling the blow the total body is still used to determine stun.

 

the 1000 psi has no baring because if a armor or superhero is designed to be as tough as let say re-enforced concrete the bear would and should have no effect just as it could destroy or truel damage the re-enforced concrete beyond superficial levels.

 

Now again I say it makes perfect sence because a bear cant claw through a bank vault or concrete wall no matter how hard it tries but the things it can affect it affects well and the things it cant well it needs to realize that collosous metal body is just to much for it. Ie he should never feel the damage od a bear by realism based on what he has and can shrug off!

 

Rep to myself!

[Guest TheUnknown]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

If claws don't penetrate why do they hurt?

 

Even been **censored** slapped by a Grizzly Bear? Even if the claws don't penetrate the force of the blow is itself enough to break bones, concuss brains, burst blood vessels. Sure if the claws rip you open, you're having a really, really bad day, but getting hit at 1,000+ psi of kinetic energy is no "flesh wound."

 

In addition to my point if a bat does not penetrate why does it hurt just because something hurts has no merit on whether it should affect something tougher or not. I could split a humans head with a bat or 20 pound sludge hammer but hit a small time brick in most comics and they would barely feel it if at all does not change how effective the weapon is just it has limits to what it can affect.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

For my sake' date=' I treated the "split the attack in half" as "Double the defence" so since about a month after reduced pen/ was first described I've run it as "Double rD for body of the attack" and I've never had any problems.[/quote']

Probably the simplest way to do it IMO, if you want results numerically similar to the official method. Which is a seperate conversation.

 

RP more complicated than it needs to be? Maybe. Complicated? Not really' date=' IMO. [/quote']

I agree it's not calculus. But still: every little bit adds up. In my book, "more complicated than it needs to be" is synonymous with "too complicated."

 

It's very much dependent on what the KA will generally accomplish in the specific game. In a fantasy game, where rDEF caps at, say, 8, the difference between a 4d6 KA and a 4d6 KA, reduced penetration is arguably very significant - perhaps even life or death.

 

In a Supers game where rDEF averages, say, 15-20, what did applying RPen to that 4d6 KA actually change? Oh, it doesn't do BOD on a very high roll. Not a huge change, so should the limitation really be the same?

I agree it varies with genre & campaign. But in the example you cite, a 4d6K is a pretty heavy attack for a standard heroic game. In a superhero campaign, an equivilant attack would be around 6d6K or 7d6K, so nerfing the Body damage is still not insignificant. What I'm looking for is a way to reduce the amount of BODY done, without completely eliminating it most of the time. I think the x1.5 idea lets me do that. Going to x2 is still an option, of course. (When in doubt, I prefer more options. )

 

so count me in with the "rp should be -0 in most cases" and maybe -1/4 in very few campaign specific situations.

I disagree, tho I do see your point. You're right that in most supers games, characters tend to fall from STUN long before they drop from BODY. But that isn't always the case in other genres. Also, from a PC standpoint, taking even a couple points of BODY in a setting without magical healing is a Big Deal, because it takes so long to recover. Plus there's the psychological/roleplaying factor of having "drawn blood."

 

In addition to my point if a bat does not penetrate why does it hurt

Yes, but a bat is a Normal Attack. I know this is an artificial distinction, but the whole point of Killing Attacks is to have some attacks that do more Body damage.

 

Related question: has anyone ever seen a PC take RedPen? In my experience, it's exclusively an NPC power anyway.

[tesuji]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

I disagree, tho I do see your point. You're right that in most supers games, characters tend to fall from STUN long before they drop from BODY. But that isn't always the case in other genres. Also, from a PC standpoint, taking even a couple points of BODY in a setting without magical healing is a Big Deal, because it takes so long to recover. Plus there's the psychological/roleplaying factor of having "drawn blood."

 

In the four Fh games i participated in resistant defenses were typically less than 5 and rarely more than 8. Typical attacks were in the 4-7 DC range, the biggest i recall being 3d6K

 

In those games, characters still tended to fall more from loss of stun than from body... almost always... the exceptions being more flukey dice than weapon vs armor and flukey dice can go either way... stun multiples neing what they are.

 

looking at typical values i see expressed in HERO source books for guns and armor, i still see similar figures.

 

As for how long it takes to heal... you do not recover any quicker from a coup de grace after you are knocked unconscious than from being actually killed by body loss while standing.

 

As for the psychological impact, the psychological impact of "one more hit and i get knocked out" trumps the psychological impact of "i am bleeding"

 

All of course IMX.

 

Certainly in some campaigns, ones where the typical Stun to body ratio of characters is higher than the usual stun to body ratio of damage, after defenses, the reverse may well be true and the limitation a real limitation... but those fit IMo well into the "not included when i say "most cases".

 

but each Gm sets their own lim values ihopefully to match their campaign actual in play results, as opposed to just blindly accepting the book, and so whatever actually works in your game... thats cool!!

 

to me the value is primarily determined by "how many times will the ability to damage non-stunable targets (entangles, walls doors, automatons, etc) come into play?" Scifi game battling driod armies... dawn of the dead zombie hoardes... definitely worth a lim.

[tesuji]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

Related question: has anyone ever seen a PC take RedPen? In my experience, it's exclusively an NPC power anyway.

 

I did once.The Gm did not catch on that it was my "how to get a non-body EB for 20% off" until mostly thru the campaign. The SFX was a bean bag round... EB with redpen but its been a long long time since i played, I usually GM.

 

BTW FWIW as GM i would give "does no body" the same lim value for a given campaign I give to redpen, whatever that may be.

[Vestnik]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

Related question: has anyone ever seen a PC take RedPen? In my experience, it's exclusively an NPC power anyway.

 

I do it all the time for characters with claws or teeth, so they can mangle people but not bust through steel walls. Kind of a Real Weapon limitation for natural KAs.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

In the four Fh games i participated in resistant defenses were typically less than 5 and rarely more than 8. Typical attacks were in the 4-7 DC range, the biggest i recall being 3d6K

 

In those games, characters still tended to fall more from loss of stun than from body... almost always...

Well, I typically use Hit Locations and Sectional Armor when I play FH, DC, etc, so hits to unarmored or lightly-armored locations can be lethal.

 

As for how long it takes to heal... you do not recover any quicker from a coup de grace after you are knocked unconscious than from being actually killed by body loss while standing.

 

As for the psychological impact, the psychological impact of "one more hit and i get knocked out" trumps the psychological impact of "i am bleeding"

True, but not my point. Assuming you're not KO'd, there's a big difference between "Oh, I was down half my STUN" and 1 Turn later you're recovered, compared to "****, I lost 4 Body!" and your character sheet will bear the scars for weeks. Body damage is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

but each Gm sets their own lim values ihopefully to match their campaign actual in play results' date=' as opposed to just blindly accepting the book, and so whatever actually works in your game... thats cool!![/quote']

Absolutely! I'm just trying to find the lim value that's right for my campaign.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

Reading this thread has gotten me thinking...

I'm thinking I agree that when you break it down, Reduced Penetration might gimp attacks too much for a -1/4 limit.

 

But in greater terms... it gets me thinking...

Anyone remember back to some of the 3rd edition games where there was another category called "Modifiers" in addition to Advantages & Limitations?

While I'm really in NO hurry for a 6th edition, I wonder occasionally if the idea should be revisited. Thereare some current Limitations that I personally think would balance much better if they applied to the AP calculation instead of the RP calculation. Reduced Pen is one of them. I've used it a fair bit in desigining monsters, shotguns and the like, but I have noticed... I tend to "upgun" Red Pen attacks in much the same way Dark Champions does... If Shotguns were written up in Dark Champions with the same number of Damage Classes as comparable rifles, no one would use them and they'd be soundly reviled here on the boards as "too wimpy". The design strategy is smply to increase the Active Point level to a point where the write up gives the right "feel" without regard to final cost. This approach is fine for Heroic games, but gets in the way with Superheroic ones, IMO.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

I don't bother with seperate rolls. The few times I've used RP as a GM (never seen a player use it) I just roll the attack, divide the BODY by two (drop fractions) and apply the attack. 4d6KA rolls 14 BODY, does two 7 BODY attacks applied vs. target's rdef, Stun modx14 for Stun.

 

RP more complicated than it needs to be? Maybe. Complicated? Not really, IMO.

 

In a broader sense, with tools like AP, Piercing, Increased STUN Mod, Autofire, "Xd6, only if base attack does BODY" and such available, is RP really necessary?

 

The only drawback I see is that if you're concerned about the stun lotto, then this isn't a limitation at all.

 

This bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the 4d6 KA, does no body construct that people who have CVKs but still like to play the lotto tend to favor...

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Reduced Penetration

 

Anyone remember back to some of the 3rd edition games where there was another category called "Modifiers" in addition to Advantages & Limitations?

Yeah, I've occassionally thought of that too. I'm not sure having the 3rd category was really worth the added effort. (What was it they called the extra point cost after Modifiers but before Limitations?) But it is conceptually odd that AP adds to Active Cost, but RP doesn't subtract from it. Or that adding Range to a non-ranged Power adds to its AP, but taking No Range for a ranged Power doesn't decrease its AP.

 

Maybe instead of Advantages & Limitations, what we should have are Effect and Use Modifiers. The former directly affect the Power's effectiveness, positively or negatively -- AP, RP, NND, Charges, -- and are therefore added/subtracted before AP calculation. The later only affect how the Power is used, again positively or negatively -- Uncontrolled, Delayed Effect, Foci, RSR -- and therefore affect RP cost, but not AP.

 

I dunno, just a random thought. I'm sure the arguments over which modifiers are Effect and which are Use (someone could probably come up with better names for them) would make the "Is _____ Overpriced?" arguments seem tame by comparison.