Damage and Defenses

[GeekySpaz]

I apologize in advance. this is a bit lengthy.

 

I imagine this issue has been discussed on this forum before but I can't find it in past posts so I will raise the question again.

 

I am starting a new DC campaign in a couple of weeks and before the game begins I need to address is the proper balance between damage and defenses.

 

I want to make sure that combat has a certain degree of lethality to it. If the players launch themselves into combat with no regard for the amount of damage they are throwing around then they will kill most of the opponents they face. In other words if they want to leave opponents alive they have to exercise some restraint. This will be important as there will be in-character consequences for needlessly killing bad guys and constantly using excessive force.

 

The way I see it killing attacks are more effective for putting down a bad guy quickly (put down = no longer a threat in this encounter, i.e. KO'd or killed) but run a great risk of killing them. Normal damage attacks run much less risk of killing someone but it will be more difficult to put them down. The problem is this. I have found that both killing attacks and normal attacks cause a bunch of STUN and relatively modest amounts of BODY damage. Additionally normal attacks do more STUN on average than killing attacks for the same number of damage classes. What this means is that if a character is wearing any armor, and therefore gets to apply all his defense to the stun from an attack, then normal damage attacks are the quickest route by which to bring down a bad guy. Since normal damage attacks almost never do enough body damage to get through the targets defenses the bad guys will almost always be knocked out and not killed and thus the players have no need to restrain themselves.

 

I've looked over the suggestions made in the DC book. The one idea I liked best from that book was to treat minor NPC's as dead when they drop below -10 STUN. I have a couple of issues with this. Since normal damage attacks do more STUN they remain more effective than killing attacks. Also this rule shouldn't be applied to major NPC's in which case there is again no need to exercise any restraint when fighting a major villain.

 

Has anyone else had the issues I am having? If so how have folks dealt with it? Ideally I don't want to make an already complicated system any more complex and I would like to avoid altering the core mechanics of the system much. Any ideas on what I can do?

[Comic]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

Drop their defenses, and increase their CON?

 

Use DEF less and Reduction more?

 

Use Knockback for the fatality - landing on broken machinery, into running machinery, blown out a window to a 40 story fall, or onto a street in front of a bus. You're the GM, you control where people land.

 

Dangerous things carried by dangerous people can be dangerous. Experimental weapons with the 'explodes if takes body' side effect can decimate your NPC ranks.

 

Electricity is your friend. It's everywhere, buried in cables running through walls and ceilings and wires strung overhead on utility poles. Just add water -- also everywhere -- to turn Normal into Killing damage.

 

And speaking of water -- it only takes four inches of water to drown someone who lands face down in it when below 0 Stun.

 

And if your heroes are throwing huge attacks, but the villains are too tough to be hurt by small attacks, remember the roof supports are likely less tough than the combatants, but can hold up a lot more weight. A hero who publicly levels a skyscraper can count on a bad day in the press.

[Psylint]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

Couple of things:

 

1. Your defenses may be too high, you might want to go with lower defense, higher Con, and/or damage reduction STUN.

 

2. Normal dice tend to do more consistent Stun damage (this consistency increases with dice) where as Killing attacks tend to be more variable. Given the quasi-binary nature of resistant defenses (that is to say that it doesn't matter if an attack does 1 Stun or 10 Stun to a target with 10 resistant Def) I'm not sure killing attacks lose as often in the "stun lottery" as it may appear at first glance.

 

3. Ignore the rule that non resistant defenses apply to the STUN of killing attacks. [used to be that way anyway, back in the day].

 

4. Encourage players with killing attacks to buy the +1 Stun multiplier and/or allow players to buy the +1 Stun multiplier in duplicate or triplicate.

 

Peace

[Remjin]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

Well, assuming this is a modern type DC campaign, remember that most "armor" is soft armor like kevlar and all the other fabric blends, some with hard plates inserted to increase defense to certain critical areas. Taking a lot of stun from a killing attack is actually pretty realistic, even with anti-stab vests.

 

As an example, look up stories involving people getting shot with vests on, and you'll see a lot of them still fall (sometimes just from the shock of being shot, sometimes because it was a more significant round. Pistol bullets shouldn't knock people down with the more common calibers, but most people fall due to the mental aspect of being shot. At least that's what various studies have said. I've never been shot. I have an allergy to high velocity lead. )

 

With stab vests you still get the kinetic energy, just not the pointy bit stuck in you. So it might not be that unrealistic. I can't really say, honestly, but it seems to make sense to me.

 

A reduction in stun might work for the feel you're going for, or like suggested above, adding a stun damage reduction to armor as part of the game... like 50% or something. That would make for a more cinematic game where armor keeps you going pretty well and allowing for less of people being stunned until they're actually really hurt. You may want to even add ablative to your armors, as most modern armor degrades as it is hit more, with a few exceptions.

 

Which, when that dragonskin or whatever makes it to the civilian market more readily, I may have to purchase that for work eventually. That'll be my excuse, anyway. I just want it cuz its coooool. =)

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

I recall addressing this not a few moments ago. Where was I? Oh yes.

 

Well, simply, you can balance everything very easily. Go with what's listed in the text and don't worry about trying to reinvent the wheel. Let your Desert Eagle deal 2d6+1, use Armor Piercing ammunition, use Penetrating Ammunition, don't hesitate to STUN people, remove Reduced Penetration from your Shotguns and make them One Hex Accurate.

 

Personally, lately, I've been tempted to make shotguns 1 Hex Accurate/Autofire 5 to represent a load of buck shot (and 'dropping' the overall damage output -- so it'll shred an unarmored target but won't be as effective against ballistic armor).

 

Ultimately people tend to forget just how many ways there are to inflict pain & suffering. There's shock batons, AP rounds, APSD rounds, tons of Autofire options, haymakers, flash bangs, grenades, and unit tactics. Nothing's funnier than watching your PC abort to Dodge, only to have a Grenade lobbed at his position immediately thereafter.

 

Dodge is great to avoid gunfire. Not so much versus an explosion.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

Use Hit Location and Bleeding rules. Increase the damage done by firearms (I'm assuming this is Dark Champions) by at least one full DC (Damage Class).

 

Really, to be honest- the use of Normal Damage attacks IS restraint. If opt to use a staff or a lead pipe to take down a baddie rather than my high caliber rifle..... that is restraint. In my opinion, at least.

[GeekySpaz]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

Really, to be honest- the use of Normal Damage attacks IS restraint. If opt to use a staff or a lead pipe to take down a baddie rather than my high caliber rifle..... that is restraint. In my opinion, at least.

 

I agree that normal damage should be the arm of restraint. However it doesn't represent any restraint from the players when the normal damage attacks do more overall STUN than the equivalent killing attack and are thus the most efficient way to bring down the badguy. Unless I'm grossly misunderstanding something in the rules that is what happens.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

I think you're overthinking this. Let the player characters do as they wish against an assortment of bad guys wearing different levels of protection. They'll figure out quickly enough what gives quick knockdowns and what kills too often or doesn't give them enough time to interrogate the perps. (For one thing, starting off with guns means the local PD will arrive that much more quickly). Unless they want to start a war with the police, that's plenty of incentive to avoid indiscriminate killing. Dead bodies create too much attention.

 

It's easy to forget how powerful DC attacks are in relation to normal people. In our first DC adventure, my character Justicar hospitalized a 16-year-old gang member by using an 8d6 attack. Eight dice is a serious threat to a normal teenager. After that he came up with a Stun Only attack.

[Psylint]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

GeekySpaz,

 

Where are you getting Normal damage does more than equivalent Killing damage?

 

6d6 Normal Damage, Max 36 Stun, 12 Body

2d6 Killing Damage, Max 60 Stun, 12 Body

 

The more DC's you roll, in my experience, the more likely the Killing Attack, over time, does more damage. In my experience, normal dice tend to do more consistent damage, but Killing attacks to more "burst damage." I also think your perception might be colored by the tendency for Killing Attacks to kill or otherwise seriously injure anyone they knockout. But in any event..

 

You want a bit of lethality, but not over much:

Options:

 

1. Have some NPC's walk around without resistant defenses, that should get plenty lethal.

 

2. Limit resistant defenses to 1/2 or less of the Max Body damage of the allowable killing attacks.

 

3. Everybody gets reasonable resistant pd, and Damage Reduction Stun (non resistant), the reasoning that folks do practice "taking it on the chin" but not the systemic shock of getting "stuck like a pig"

 

4. Raise the damage cap for Killing Attacks over normal attacks.

 

 

And your perception of restraint, I think is a little off. I have a mentalist with 2 mind controls, one is limited to "Sleep" the other is limited to "Kill yourself" both are justified by the campaign, character etc. The "Sleep" Mind Control works in 2 or 3 attacks (it's cumulative); the "Kill Yourself" takes at least 10 and often 20 or more to work.

 

Which is exercising restraint?

 

Alternative, hand the Hulk a dagger. Which would you rather be hit with, the Hulk using a dagger (max 2d6 Killing dice) or Hulk with a Punch (20d6 normal, minimum). Personally, give me the knife, 'cause I might survive that, may even stay conscious, but the virtually guaranteed 20+ Body of the punch is going to leave me, at best, unconscious and bleeding to death.

 

Knocking people out is restraint as opposed to killing them. And if it's not, then I'm not sure yours is a traditional Dark Champions campaign.

 

Peace

[Manic Typist]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

I think he's saying is that he wants them to CONSCIOUSLY restrain themselves, but right now they aren't faced with having to make a decision like that because their use of Normal Damage attacks makes that unnecessary.

 

Raise the lethality of firearms. I'm serious. "Huh, this pistol does a whole lot of damage in one shot. Heck, with a single bullet I can straight up kill a guy!"

 

Remember, mooks are mooks. If they take a certain amount of damage from a single hit (say half or 1/4 their Body), they go down/die. This could be doubly true for Killing Damage.

 

Roleplay how they'd react to being shot. "Oh my God! I've been shot! Oh gawdohgawdohgawd! Get me to a hospital! I don't want to die!"

[GeekySpaz]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

I think I need to elaborate a bit on the theme of my campaign. The PCs will be low level supers functioning in a sort of law enforcement capacity. I'm not a police officer but my limited understanding of the role of police is that it is not their job to kill people. It is however often necessary for them to stop someone from doing something and when the situation is dire enough, or when the officer or someone else is in danger from the intended action then the police officer must use the most efficient means at his disposal to stop the assailant. In many cases the most efficient means that officer has is his sidearm. If police had a non-lethal alternative to their sidearm that was as efficient as the sidearm they would use that instead of the sidearm.

 

I want to force the same sort of priority based decisions on the PCs. I want it to be the case that for the most part the most efficient at their disposal is one that stands a good chance of resulting in a fatality. In order to stop someone without killing them they will have show restraint by using attacks which are less efficient.

 

That is what I'm trying to get at with the whole restraint aspect.

 

If you have an attack that will put your assailant down (asleep or unconscious) in 2 hits and an attack that will kill your assailant in several hits but will not drop him until he is dead, why would you use the killing attack? Your creating an unnecessary risk to yourself or anyone else the assailant wants to harm and your needlessly killing the assailant.

 

In response to Psylints example of the 2d6 killing attack vs the 6d6 normal attack: You have a good point but I should mention that I'm using hit location. Therefore a hit which results in a stun multiplier of 5 for the killing attack would have to be to a location where the normal stun multiplier is 2 so the maximum stun damage for the normal attack would be 72 Stun which is greater than the maximum 60 Stun for the killing attack.

[Remjin]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

I think I need to elaborate a bit on the theme of my campaign. The PCs will be low level supers functioning in a sort of law enforcement capacity. I'm not a police officer but my limited understanding of the role of police is that it is not their job to kill people. It is however often necessary for them to stop someone from doing something and when the situation is dire enough, or when the officer or someone else is in danger from the intended action then the police officer must use the most efficient means at his disposal to stop the assailant. In many cases the most efficient means that officer has is his sidearm. If police had a non-lethal alternative to their sidearm that was as efficient as the sidearm they would use that instead of the sidearm.

I believe that is why they use tazers as much as they do... even though everyone is trying to get rid of those devices as "too dangerous" because people with cardiac problems can die from them. Yet, oddly, the cause of most of those cardiac problems is high doses of drugs in the system rather than having a bad heart or the like.

 

You can't hit criminals often, because the public cries about that. You can't taze them. You can't stun gun them. You can't pepper spray them. All of these potentially could cause death (it does happen, though rarely) thus the public outcry against each one. And then the complaints that our streets aren't safe enough. Hmmm. Wait, just realized I'm tangenting way off the subject... SORRY!

 

The original point was, perhaps you could give them "less lethal" options like tazer style devices and similar objects. That may help as an overall theme. The reason killing attacks are more lethal is because they bypass normal defenses and require resistant defenses, not necessarily from the numbers generated. Perhaps if resistant defenses weren't so prevalent you'd find your answer there?

[GeekySpaz]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

The original point was, perhaps you could give them "less lethal" options like tazer style devices and similar objects. That may help as an overall theme. The reason killing attacks are more lethal is because they bypass normal defenses and require resistant defenses, not necessarily from the numbers generated. Perhaps if resistant defenses weren't so prevalent you'd find your answer there?

 

The problem becomes the numbers generated for the following reason. With the amount of stun damage done by normal attacks it can take noticeably fewer hits to drop someone with a normal damage attack than it does to drop them with a killing attack. Therefore the players have no reason to use killing attacks and no reason to hold back if the goal is not to kill someone since their most powerful attacks have a relatively small chance to kill someone.

[GeekySpaz]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

I believe that is why they use tazers as much as they do... even though everyone is trying to get rid of those devices as "too dangerous" because people with cardiac problems can die from them. Yet, oddly, the cause of most of those cardiac problems is high doses of drugs in the system rather than having a bad heart or the like.

 

You can't hit criminals often, because the public cries about that. You can't taze them. You can't stun gun them. You can't pepper spray them. All of these potentially could cause death (it does happen, though rarely) thus the public outcry against each one. And then the complaints that our streets aren't safe enough. Hmmm. Wait, just realized I'm tangenting way off the subject... SORRY!

 

Actually I don't think you are tangenting off the topic at all. I would like to hear more about this. If what you are saying is true then I may be sorely underestimating the effectiveness of tazers and other less-lethal attacks. It does cause me to wonder why then police still carry and use firearms as much as they do. Is it because they have not yet developed a tool that is less-lethal while being just as effective as a gun, and that does not have a negative image in the public eye?

[Remjin]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

Actually I don't think you are tangenting off the topic at all. I would like to hear more about this. If what you are saying is true then I may be sorely underestimating the effectiveness of tazers and other less-lethal attacks. It does cause me to wonder why then police still carry and use firearms as much as they do. Is it because they have not yet developed a tool that is less-lethal while being just as effective as a gun' date=' and that does not have a negative image in the public eye?[/size']

 

All less lethal devices have limitations. Tazers have short range and can only fire one or two sets of darts at a time before needing a cartridge change. Also limited by battery life. "stun guns" or stun batons require physical contact. Rubber bullets are still lethal, just a bit less. A projectile at 600+ FPS (just a guess there, but its faster than my paintballs for sure, and I'd guess much higher.. but its just a guess) still can cause a lot of damage. Sticky foam? Possible to suffocate someone by gumming up their nose and mouth. If the criminals have guns (they usually do, no matter what the gun laws, because criminals... by definition... don't follow the law.), none of these (except, maybe, rubber bullets..) is going to help you much. Same goes with other lethal methods. You can't stop a guy from running you over with his car with tazers or anything of the sort. Example: case in new york where media blasted cops for stuffing 40+ rounds into the bachelor's car because he "bumped" them. Truth: he tried to run them over 3 times, smashed their vehicle, and an officer saved himself (barely) by leaping out of the way. That officer still went to the hospital for injuries, but he didn't die. Also, round count is nothing. Any reasonably competent person can empty a pistol within a few seconds, even with 20 round magazines. 9mm also doesn't penetrate through vehicles well, usually, depending on the type of rounds used. BTW, side note: hollowpoints are not meant to do excessive wounds, they're meant to STOP within the body for full energy dump and to keep others safe by avoiding shots passing through the body. There are never baseball sized holes on the other side of the body. That's a myth.

 

Guns are, despite all the PC talk otherwise, for killing people. You don't shoot to wound, you shoot to kill. They will say "neutralize," but the military will say kill, and they aim for the same place. Funny, that. You use guns because you have to. Since the police are sued for doing their stated job every day of the year, and the use of firearms is mis-reported in the media constantly, the incentives to NOT shoot someone are STRONG. You are nearly GUARANTEED to be in court for shooting someone, no matter what the circumstances. Either you'll be in criminal court so that everyone can second guess your every movement broken down by each 1/100th of a second over the course of 9 months, or you'll be in civil court, or both. Sorry, bleeding-hearts don't like guns or see a need for them. The police will protect us! Federal court says: no, actually, they have no duty to do that. Average FAST police response time, assuming information given to 911? 20 minutes. Overall average? Over 45 minutes. This is actually good. Cops can't be EVERYWHERE at once. Thats just common sense.

 

Misrepresentations in media include another school shooting rampage stopped by..? Media says: police arrival and the attacker surrendering. Actual story? A teacher had a pistol in his trunk from a session at the target range. He got it out and held the shooter at gunpoint until police arrived. Media says: pair of teenage criminals stopped by a locked door! Person who owned home said: I showed them my glock and they ran away.

 

The simple fact of it is that guns are more effective in stopping violent crime. Tazers can only be used in situations where the person isn't immediately lethally dangerous, there is relative control of the situation, and that the barbs can penetrate. They're fired by compressed gas.

 

People don't fear a funny looking toy. They do fear a gun. Watch some of the COPS episodes (yeah, I know) where they feature tazers. I'm sure they're on YouTube or some other site. Its not only amazingly funny, but you'll see that the situations are typically not dire. They aren't using tazers in gunfights, they're stopping violent drunks and other unruly people that don't need to be shot but need to be restrained. Its an option to physically man-handling someone or getting into that kind of an altercation where a lot of bad things can happen. Cops aren't UFC fighters or master martial artists or anything like that. Can YOU like to wrestle a 350 pound man to the ground? That's where Tazers and the like are useful. Less lethal for less lethal situations. Lethal response to lethal situations. Some cops are so paralyzed by their fear of going to court that they won't shoot and are killed. Some cops just can't go through with shooting another person.. and can also be killed for it. Cops are people, just like you and me, but they are held to a ridiculous standard for violent situations by people who have never been in them.

 

Granted, there have been abuses and wrong-doing by cops as well, don't get me wrong. Again, they are people, and fallible like us all. But, in regards to dealing with crime its a crap-shoot. I've lived near Detroit and I now live near Chicago ("near" being a relative term, but suffice it to say I hear a lot of the news from both media and sometimes those involved or near to it) and have experienced some of the crime that is generated by such large urban centers. My conclusion at this point? They need better guns. LA found this out with that crazy bank robbery and other crimes with similar levels of firepower. If a gang-banger can pick up an AK-47 or AR-15 from the local shop or illicit dealer and through ingenuity or criminal actions by others have a fully automatic weapon (or not), what do the police do with 9mm pistols? They die. Some police departments are SLOWLY implementing patrol rifles and shotguns again. Why? Because they need them sometimes. In my county, we've had a huge upswing in bank robberies in the last several years... and I'm not talking about guys with notes.

 

I think I'm tangenting again. *sigh* In any case, guns are still necessary. Until they devise something quite a bit more effective than our current less lethal technology, they're here to stay because they're necessary. Until we have star trek phasers or something, we're stuck with it. And, as far as I'm concerned, if the criminals are trying to kill you... your response should be likewise until they are no longer a threat, at which point you can fall back to pepper spray and tazers and the like as necessary. I'm sorry if this came off as a rant, but I live in a gun-hating state and I work in an armed position, so you can imagine how much I fear ever having to use it, yet knowing that there are situations in which I may just have to. I can't abide letting others die because I'm worrying about going to court over it. We also carry pepper spray, which is nice to have as an alternative.. but boy, would I prefer a tazer. Get some blowback from a spray-can once and you'll understand. Not fun. My apologies for the meandering prose. =)

[GeekySpaz]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

Very informative Remjin. Thank you. I take it from some of the things you've said that you are a police officer or something similar?

 

Anyway much of what you said confirms what I am trying to say in this thread. In lethal situations cops have to use lethal force because less lethal force doesn't cut it.

 

To relate this to the campaign I am starting the PCs will be essentially low powered superhuman cops fighting super powered criminals. My intent was to make the PCs have to deal with the same sort of issues that cops have to deal with. Not that I'm trying to make light of those issues. I would not want to deal with those issues in real life and have a great deal of respect for those who are able to do so. But similar to what cops have to deal with in real life I want to force that sort of decision upon my players. In a lethal situation my PCs should be more likely to choose a lethal attack rather than a less-lethal attack because it gives them a greater capability to stop those who are trying to hurt someone though it has the unfortunate consequence of killing the badguys.

 

The problem being in the Hero mechanics I find that due to the stun damage less lethal normal attacks have a tendency to stop people more quickly than the equivalent killing attack. In other words I don't think the mechanics reflect what you have described above and I am searching for a simple fix to the mechanics to change that.

 

Correct me if I'm mis-interpreting any of what you had said.

[Remjin]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

Very informative Remjin. Thank you. I take it from some of the things you've said that you are a police officer or something similar?

 

I just work in security, I don't want to be a cop. I probably wouldn't do well as a cop and I'd rather not deal with all that hassel. That, and I can barely run to save my life much less regularly. =) In the type of security I do, which is more top end stuff (e.g. not at a mall or shoe store, my company handles embassies, power plants, various federal offices, etc. We're in Iraq as well.), we have to be armed. Unfortunately, unlike police, we don't have any official powers or protections. We're just citizens, hired thugs if you will. =) Thus, the legal ramifications are much worse for us, and we're lumped in with all the dimwitted yahoos that are usually security for most places. If you read about a security officer being killed, notice that he never has a name. Ever. If anyone else dies, even the party clown, they get a name.

 

The problem being in the Hero mechanics I find that due to the stun damage less lethal normal attacks have a tendency to stop people more quickly than the equivalent killing attack. In other words I don't think the mechanics reflect what you have described above and I am searching for a simple fix to the mechanics to change that.

 

Correct me if I'm mis-interpreting any of what you had said.

 

I think your problem lies in the basic resistant vs nonresistant defenses. If you apply a 2d6 KA to a 4 PD adversary and do 7 body, 21 stun, he takes 7 body and 21 stun, nearly killing him and probably stunning him. If you take the equivalent 6d6N attack and do 7 body and 21 stun, he takes 3 body and 18 stun. That stuns him and hurts him, but not enough to stop the fight. A typical human only does 2d6 normal damage (strength, no DCs or combat levels or maneuvers.) and that seems about right. When fighting high powered criminals, they may have power, but why do so many have resistant defenses? That's actually not normal at all.

 

I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure why you have the issue. Seems like your bad guys might just have too much in the way of defenses they probably shouldn't have if this is a DC world. Resistant armor is actually uncommon, especially covering the whole body. A vest? Maybe. Pants? Never seen 'em. Arms? The military is just starting to use upper arm cover, and still nothing to the legs. A few full body suits exist, but they're nothing like standard or even in mass production. Use what's there, fully, before modifying rules. We rarely have trouble with lethality issues and we just use the book. If we want it dead, it usually dies, and via KA.

 

We're playing a high powered game and our "brick" has 10 resistant defense. In a 350 point DC Monster Hunter game (thus the high points). Our opponents? usually 3 PD (non-resistant) with some hardcore soldier types with access to advanced stuff having 5 PD (resistant).

[Trebuchet]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

Having worked as a security guard for several years in the past, I can attest that the average armed security guard is nothing more than a uniformed mook. They're no better trained and no smarter than your average stick-up artist or mugger. They just operate (usually) on the right side of the law.

 

Unarmed security guards are nothing more than paid observers; they don't even rate being considered mooks.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

I think your problem lies in the basic resistant vs nonresistant defenses. If you apply a 2d6 KA to a 4 PD adversary and do 7 body, 21 stun, he takes 7 body and 21 stun, nearly killing him and probably stunning him.

 

I think that might be his problem as well.

 

If your average NPC takes 7 Body, after defenses, in one shot- the fight is OVER. He does not struggle on with his 3 Body. He falls down unconscious or dead. He's a mook. Heck, most "Joe Normals" actually have only around 8 Body. Heroes, special NPCs- they get the full treatment.

[Remjin]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

Having worked as a security guard for several years in the past, I can attest that the average armed security guard is nothing more than a uniformed mook. They're no better trained and no smarter than your average stick-up artist or mugger. They just operate (usually) on the right side of the law.

 

Unarmed security guards are nothing more than paid observers; they don't even rate being considered mooks.

 

That's about right. Security personnel tend to get paid poorly and thus you get... well... crappy security. =) A lot of them have only one job skill: have not been arrested for a felony. Most don't shoot very well. There are few jobs that require you really be that proficient with your firearm. I'm an okay shot, I score 100% on my qualifications, but the tests aren't really hard for anyone even semi-serious about being a decent marksman. I've shot with others that hit just about everything except the target. I'm not quite sure how they pass, and I don't really want to know.

 

I always find it funny, in most games, that security guards usually fight to the last man despite overwhelming odds, and never flee, no matter what. Personally, if the oft brought up "terrorist attack" ever came, I'd run screaming like a school girl unless they cornered me. Then I'd just scream like a school girl.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

I find that the best way to impart the feel you want, aside from lowering the defenses as previously mentioned, is to make liberal use of the optional combat rules. DC games are usually gritty and violent, and the optional combat rules add a lot to that style. Hit Locations, Critical Hits, Impairing, Disabling, and Bleeding.... toss all those in the mix and things start getting mighty unpredictable. Criticals are the most controversial rule, but they work well in a realistic game, because they really impart the feel that the maximum damage an attack can throw represents a "solid hit" and as such moderate power attacks are suddenly much more fearsome... that 6d6 punch can kill a normal dead with a crit to the head, and because Crits are dependent on both relative skill levels and dumb luck, you can't reliably avoid them, thus forcing a measure of restraint on the use of force.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

I always find it funny' date=' in most games, that security guards usually fight to the last man despite overwhelming odds, and never flee, no matter what. Personally, if the oft brought up "terrorist attack" ever came, I'd run screaming like a school girl unless they cornered me. Then I'd just scream like a school girl. [/quote']I'd like to think that the guards that protect major corporations and installations are a bit higher caliber than the usual schlubs that work at a bank or mall. Unfortunately that may just be wishful thinking.

 

Rest assured that if the heroes encounter security guards in my DC campaign they'll be portrayed as most of them really are: lazy, incompetent, and at best poorly trained.

 

Of course, the guards working for EvilCo are all former Navy SEALs...

[Remjin]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

I'd like to think that the guards that protect major corporations and installations are a bit higher caliber than the usual schlubs that work at a bank or mall. Unfortunately that may just be wishful thinking.

 

Rest assured that if the heroes encounter security guards in my DC campaign they'll be portrayed as most of them really are: lazy, incompetent, and at best poorly trained.

 

Of course, the guards working for EvilCo are all former Navy SEALs...

 

In all honesty, it really comes down to a very few simple factors: how much you're paid, your individual integrity or duty, and if you care. There is no way you're going to get a person being paid $8 an hour, disrespected, abused, with poor management to do much of anything. They don't care. They're being treated like dirt, thus you'll get dirt. Pay him a GOOD wage, and you'll get better people, because its more worth it. Treat him well, and he'll want to do his job more. Those two together usually make him care, or he will on his own.

 

MOST security gets paid tiddlywinks.. your mall guards, shoe store guards, most bank security, and all the other schlubs that are made fun of all the time. SOME of these will actually care, some of them are doing this while they test to become cops, firemen, or otherwise. Most of them just suck.

 

Corporate security varies wildly, depending on the company's willingness to pay. The nuclear power stations in this state are contracted to a company that starts their security people at $21k a year. That's like $10.50 an hour. After over a decade of working for them, you might get close to $20 an hour. Yuck. I wanted an excuse to buy myself an AR-15, but the pay wasn't worth my even bothering to apply. This is in Illinois, cost of living is high (though not New York City or California high). That's barely above living in your mom's basement at start pay, if you're lucky. And they're protecting NUCLEAR FISSION REACTORS!!!!!! They get more firearms training, but not that much. I don't want to glow in the dark by the time I get a decent rate of pay. Another corporation, that I can't name, actually has higher starting pay. Their security is unarmed, and they're mostly concerned with properly greeting each executive in the appropriate prescribed manner for that particular executive... or YOU'RE FIRED! They carry around cards with the proper greeting.

 

A lot of federal gigs pay better.... like $27+ an hour. They have higher shooting requirements but carry revolvers with low-power ammunition. Embassies are better paid and armed. Delegate duties more so. Private security with armored limos and all that are usually independent contractors working for a contracting company and can earn quite a bit... except all expenses and taxes and stuff are handled by you. I almost got into this gig, but the company has been sputtering their startup for about 2 years now. I lost track and interest after that.

 

Basically, in depicting security personnel, I'd adjust the scale of competency to the job being done as it sounds like you're doing, and just remember that in essence they're all mercenaries and pay is going to be commensurate with their willingness to do things. Outside of that, to be realistic, just treat them as individuals. There are a lot of lame and lazy security personnel out there in all levels of it, though... just the nature of the business. However, at the delegate duty level and up its usually a pretty hand-picked crew, so probably a lot less of that gets through. I haven't been at that level, though, so I couldn't say for sure. At my level we have a lot of schlubs and a lot of serious people, its an interim level that draws more people because it pays pretty well, but management isn't the best at this level, as it doesn't quite pay well enough there to attract anyone good.

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

3. Ignore the rule that non resistant defenses apply to the STUN of killing attacks. [used to be that way anyway' date= back in the day].

Can you provide an edition and page number for that? I don't recall that being the case in any edition - not saying you're wrong, just that I can't recall any cite that supports it.

[Remjin]

Re: Damage and Defenses

 

Can you provide an edition and page number for that? I don't recall that being the case in any edition - not saying you're wrong' date=' just that I can't recall any cite that supports it. [/quote']

 

I thought it was that non-resistant defenses only apply if resistant defenses for the attack apply...? Where's my rules reference guide... Bloodstone, where are you? =)