The Penetrating Advantage and your input.

[Demonsong]

The Penetrating Advantage and your input.

 

Taken (cut) directly form FAQ on Penetrating.

Q: Could you provide an example of the various methods for applying Penetrating, using an RKA 1d6 (3 DCs)?

A: Using the standard method, an RKA 1d6 has no BODY Penetrate on a roll of 1, 1 BODY Penetrate on a roll of 2-5, and 2 BODY Penetrate on a roll of 6.

Using the “1 point of Penetrating effect per DC,†an RKA 1d6 has 3 BODY Penetrate.

Using the Standard Effect Rule, as discussed above, an RKA 1d6 has 1 BODY Penetrate.

 

So what method do you use as a GM or as a player in your gaming group? I am currently torn. Penetrating has not been use in my campaign as of yet but its about to come storming on. In the form of a new Acid Spell the party Mage just finishing up researching, and in the form of some vary nasty Rail guns and X-Ray Lasers. So I need to make a decision fairly soon. I am thinking that 3 Body per D6 is too much, I am not real fond of the normal die method, and I think 1 Body per D6 is too little for a +1/2 Advantage. So I am Leaning A Standard 2 Body per D6 Killing.

 

Thoughts? Please be honest. Am I nuts?

 

Thanks

[Monolith]

I just use the rolling method. The player rolls the die and gets between 1 and 6 BODY damage done with a potentional guarantee of 0-2 BODY penetrated (with the average being 1). A 1d6 RKA still does its 1-6 BODY damage to the target. The Penetrating just means that on an average roll you are usually guaranteed to do some damage to the target.

[McCoy]

The rolling method, then apply STUN multiplier to the BODY that actually penetraited.

[lemming]

I think the amount of body is fine and would go with McCoy's method.

 

And then a quick rant about the adv anyway...

But then, I really don't like Penetrating on killiing attacks. I actually run it at a lesser power level.

 

For +1/2 a killing attack with Penetrating always gets at least X amount of STUN through, where X equals the body rolled.

 

For a +1 it acts like in the book.

 

For the Why? I got abused once by 1d6 RKA, autofire, Penetrating, 20 shots, and enough levels to hit 20 times.

[Demonsong]

McMoy

 

The rolling method, then apply STUN multiplier to the BODY that actually penetraited.

 

According to FRED BODY done by Penetrating Damage is not reduced by Damage Reduction. Would you allow Damage Reduction to reduce the STUN using your method?

 

Monilith

 

Using that method, a 1D6 Killing attack with Penetrating will do an average of 1 points BODY. I was thinking that that is a little too low for a +1/2 Advantage. You obviously disagree. Has using this method in your campaign affected its use at all? For good of bad? Is it used more or less popular than AP. I guess my problem is that AP (as you know also a +1/2 Advantage) is a better buy, at least in my mind. Maybe that’s just the power gamer in me talking. (Bad power gammer....back back I say. )

[lemming]

Originally posted by Demonsong

According to FRED BODY done by Penetrating Damage is not reduced by Damage Reduction. Would you allow Damage Reduction to reduce the STUN using your method?

Gah, forgot about that. DamRed as written shouldn't unless it's hardened

[Demonsong]

Lemming

 

I am confused; you don’t like penetrating because it was abuse once in your game?

 

There are lots of thing in FRED that can be abuse, I don’t think that makes then bad. I had a GM pull something similar to that against me once with an AFX10 NND. I didn’t stop using NND’s after wards. Am I miss understanding you?

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Demonsong

Using that method, a 1D6 Killing attack with Penetrating will do an average of 1 points BODY. I was thinking that that is a little too low for a +1/2 Advantage. You obviously disagree. Has using this method in your campaign affected its use at all? For good of bad? Is it used more or less popular than AP. I guess my problem is that AP (as you know also a +1/2 Advantage) is a better buy, at least in my mind. Maybe that’s just the power gamer in me talking. (Bad power gammer....back back I say. )

The method I use is the Standard Rule for Penetrating, and the first one Steve mentions in his answer. I get the feeling that you are looking at the Penetrating RKA and thinking that it only does a set amount of damage, but that is not the case. A 1d6 RKA does between 1 and 6 BODY; so when your mage uses the spell he rolls 1d6 to see how much damage the acid spell does. The Penetrating aspect of the spell just symbolizes that the attack will usually do some damage. The Penetrating is not additional damage or the only damage.

 

Some examples might help:

 

#1: A mage shoots the acid spell at an orc wearing no armor. The damage rolled is 4 BODY and since the orc has no rDEF he takes 4 BODY from the acid attack. The Penetrating gives no advantage here.

 

#2: A mage shoots the acid spell at an knight wearing plate armor (8 DEF). The mage rolls 4 BODY, and it does not get through the plate armor, but because the spell is Penetrating the knight takes 1 BODY damage (base on the roll of 4).

 

The Penetrating itself is not the damage. The damage is the RKA. The Penetrating just guarantees some damage will be done on an average roll, no matter how much rDEF the target has, as long as it is not Hardened versus Penetrating.

 

If you choose to use the Set Effect rules, than a 1d6 RKA will always do 3 BODY damage and will always Penetrate 1 BODY (because a 3 roll is 1 BODY of Penetrating). I just prefer the rolling method over the set effect method because I think players enjoy the uncertainty of the rolling process.

 

AP on Killing Attacks is a better buy if there is a lot of low-level rDEF in the game. A 2d6 AP RKA is very helpful against a foe with 14 or less rDEF, but is really not helpful at all against someone with a higher rDEF. If everyone has higher than 15 rDEF then Penetrating will guarantee you some damage where the AP advantage will give you nothing. Of course all of this is based on the idea that you are trying to do BODY and not just STUN damage to the target.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Demonsong

I am confused; you don’t like penetrating because it was abuse once in your game?

 

Actually that was the pushed over the edge example. There were a few other times when it was just distasteful instead of a WTF reaction. I know there's lots of abuse potential all over the place in Hero. And sometimes it depends on campaign, players, and GMs.

 

One of the other points that I have against Penetrating is that I tend to run combats that are a bit longer. The villians & heroes have higher defenses and attacks than what are in the current books. This means that there would be more body done because they will have to be hit multiple times. More chances of an accidental kill.

 

It's a style issue. I get the feeling that more emphasis is on a quick knockout in the current characters.

[Demonsong]

Monolith, Lemming,

 

Fair enough, good answers. My thanks to you both.

[Gary]

One massive abuse is the focus buster, a 1D6 RKA explosion or area effect 2-4X penetrating standard effect that just nukes most breakable foci.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Gary

One massive abuse is the focus buster, a 1D6 RKA explosion or area effect 2-4X penetrating standard effect that just nukes most breakable foci.

Oh yeah. Forgot about that. Though apparently with Standard effect you can buy a One Pip killing attack which will still do one body with penetrating.

 

I think that's in a FAQ somewhere, but I could be wrong. I don't have a problem with that, but one would have to check for cheese.

[RadeFox]

Quick Chime from another source...

I too prefer to allow the STUN to be the penetrating force, even for KA's. Its just way too messy otherwise, and too deadly. We are working on a conversion for Vampire to Hero, and one of the GM's is considering make the a Gangrels Feral claws a 2d6, Double AP, Pentrating HKA. I am not happy with that, I feel is WAY too powerful. Espectially since most Vamps could easily bump their strength enough to get that up to 3 dice. It would mean that no matter how good your Armor or Fortitude, someone with claws is going to kill you in a very few phases, no matter what.

 

Is something to think about seriously for GM's. I think when I get around to running Hero, Pentrating is going to be one of those Stop Sign's from 4E.

[Old Man]

Originally posted by RadeFox

one of the GM's is considering make the a Gangrels Feral claws a 2d6, Double AP, Pentrating HKA.

 

Since when do Gangrels have claws of adamantium or lightsaber? Can you imagine trying to pick your nose with something like that?

[Tech]

I use a house rule for Penetration that goes something like this: no amount of BODY will ever be caused by the Penetration. Instead, an amount of Stun equal to the BODY of the KA gets through. My players like the houserule. I have a less dangerous campaign that a lot of others I read about.

[Demonsong]

I have a campaign that is several steps above normal in terms of lethality. Out of the seven people currently in my campaign, 6 have higher than average defenses in terms of PD/PDr and ED/EDr, (4 of them have defenses on the high brick level), and the one char that does not have above average defenses is an invisible, teleporting sword master, with an insane DCV. Needless to say they just laugh at most normal attacks.

 

Don’t get me wrong I am not complaining. Hell I helped them build there characters. And the world they are in is a hard one and it’s about to get worse. So maybe that why I am looking at penetrating differently than most.

[Talon]

Penetrating can be very effective (I'll step back from "abusive"), especially in supers games where defenses are high and people are not used to taking BODY. In low-defense games like most heroic campaigns, it's less of a big deal since people take BODY all the time.

 

My opinion is that it's more or less reasonably priced (except for the Focus killer thing, see below), but is inappropriate with KAs for some genres.

 

Focus Killing: I think it's silly that Foci somehow don't have BODY, so I would either disallow Penetrating KAs against Foci, or change the rules to give them BODY. If you allow Focus killer attacks, then Penetrating is massively underpriced.

 

I also think that 1 pip Penetrating KAs shouldn't Penetrate any damage ever, but it's not a huge deal.

[Blue]

My best use of penetrating so far was when I gave it to a team of agents and also gave them teamwork. Then they proceeded to target the same guy. Each successful hit did 5-6 STUN automatically with their puny rifles; this can be pretty effective. If there are 12 Agents and only 1/3 of them are hitting, that's still 20-24 STUN done on their attack phase. Puts the heroes slightly more on the defensive and forces them to find ways to break up the teamwork of their foes.

 

A single person using penetrating is only useful when you've got some unbeatable Doc Destroyer type you're facing. And then you might need to buy Penetrating multiple times for the guys with purchases of "hardened".

[pinecone]

I basicly have no problem,in fact due to a house rule it is slightly more effective...I have always levied a "must take a point of stun per body taken" rule,it's just me....my main warning about Pen is the fact that almost all Force walls become useless when it becomes common....

[Farkling]

I imagine at the point that penetrating becomes common, you could add a custom 5 or 10 point adder to Harden your Force Wall (up to half DEF maybe?) against Penetrating attacks "only"... that would certainly be easier to deal with than doing the math on the limited polwer advantage to cover part of the wall's defense.