Stun Only vs Reduced Penetration.

[Kenn]

Okay, one of the oddball things about Hero I sometimes wonder about... Why is "Stun Only" a -0 limitation, but reduced penetration a -1/4 limitation. Made all the more peculiar by the fact that the Stun Only attack also gets the effects of "no knockback" for no cost as well.

 

Compare...

 

30 6d6 Energy Blast, Stun Only (-0)

 

vs

 

20 6d6 Energy Blast, Reduced Penetration(-1/4), No knockback(-1/4)

 

The second attack will probably do body damage to anyone with an ED less than three. Otherwise, the affects of the two attacks are pretty much the same. But because the latter attack could possibly do body damage, there is a savings of 10 points? That seems weird to me.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Stun Only vs Reduced Penetration.

 

Well, other than the fact that Reduced Penetration was put in with Killing Attacks in mind (to help simulate the high-damage/low penetration aspects of things like animals' claws), I'm not sure what your concern is.

 

Do you feel that RP should be -0 or that STUN only should be -1/4?

[Tom Carman]

Re: Stun Only vs Reduced Penetration.

 

Stun-only attacks are -0 partly because they are completely ineffective against any non-living target (Limitation), and they have absolutely no damage risk to living targets (Advantage).

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Stun Only vs Reduced Penetration.

 

Stun-only attacks are -0 partly because they are completely ineffective against any non-living target (Limitation)' date=' and they have absolutely no damage risk to living targets (Advantage).[/quote']

 

BINGO!

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Stun Only vs Reduced Penetration.

 

BINGO!

 

As a side note, if those two are considered to 'balance' one another, why do Stun Only attacks also inherently do no knockback?

 

One of my few houserules; Stun Only attacks do knockback unless you buy them otherwise.

[Tom Carman]

Re: Stun Only vs Reduced Penetration.

 

As a side note, if those two are considered to 'balance' one another, why do Stun Only attacks also inherently do no knockback?

 

One of my few houserules; Stun Only attacks do knockback unless you buy them otherwise.

 

To do any knockback, you have to first do some Body damage (whether it penetrates defenses or not). Stun Only means "no Body" means "no KB".

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Stun Only vs Reduced Penetration.

 

To do any knockback' date=' you have to first do some Body damage (whether it penetrates defenses or not). Stun Only means "no Body" means "no KB".[/quote']

 

Yep.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Stun Only vs Reduced Penetration.

 

To do any knockback' date=' you have to first do some Body damage (whether it penetrates defenses or not). Stun Only means "no Body" means "no KB".[/quote']

 

Then shouldn't Stun Only be -1/4, because it does No Knockback? Or perhaps include No Knockback as a mandatory limitation on a Stun Only attack (akin to HTH Attack's mandatory -1/2)?

[SteveZilla]

Re: Stun Only vs Reduced Penetration.

 

On a broader scale, I would like to ask:

 

Is there is a reason why some Advantages (including -0 "Limitations") seem to include the effect of a Limitation but preclude getting a reduced price? Things like the "No Range" aspect of Damage Shields as well as the "No Knockback" aspect of Stun Only.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Stun Only vs Reduced Penetration.

 

On a broader scale, I would like to ask:

 

Is there is a reason why some Advantages (including -0 "Limitations") seem to include the effect of a Limitation but preclude getting a reduced price? Things like the "No Range" aspect of Damage Shields as well as the "No Knockback" aspect of Stun Only.

 

Basically what I was getting at, thank you for phrasing it better than I did.

 

Steve doesn't do design philosophy questions, though, so all we're liable to get is rampant speculation.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Stun Only vs Reduced Penetration.

 

We're real good at that!

 

The first possible reason that comes to mind is that the Advantage is already at the minimum (+1/4 or a -0), and the inclusing of the No Range/No Knockback isn't enough more to warrent the +1/4 going to a -0, and the -0 going to an actual Limitation of -1/4.

 

I can see the No Range on Damage Shields being not allowed so as to not heavily favor using Ranged powers to begin with just for the cost break at the end.

 

About Knockback -- I have a question. Does a Drain/Transfer BODY cause Knockback, and thus be valid to have the No Knockback Limitation?

[Alibear]

Re: Stun Only vs Reduced Penetration.

 

About Knockback -- I have a question. Does a Drain/Transfer BODY cause Knockback' date=' and thus be valid to have the No Knockback Limitation?[/quote']

 

 

No, but you could add 'does knockback' as an advantage to a drain.

[Tom Carman]

Re: Stun Only vs Reduced Penetration.

 

Then shouldn't Stun Only be -1/4' date=' because it does No Knockback? Or perhaps include No Knockback as a mandatory limitation on a Stun Only attack (akin to HTH Attack's mandatory -1/2)?[/quote']

 

Since it already had the implied Advantage of "guaranteed no damage to the target", you could just increase it a bit with the addendum "and no collateral damage either". That will offset the Limitation for No KB, remaining at -0.