"Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

[Ganesh]

This hit me today. It seems so simple and elegant that it must be wrong.

 

I'd imagine the special effect might be, say, a wave of sudden nausia that causes the target to pause.

 

 

Dispel Constitution, 20d6 (60 ap), -1/4 reduced penetration.

 

1 dc Energy Blast, penetrating, standard effect (should do 1 stun, period), linked to the above attack.

 

Given that constitution is 2 points per, you basically roll 10d6. If the total exceeds the target's CON + Power Defense, their Con is dispelled (reduced to zero) and they take 1 stun damage (more stun than their con) and become Stunned. This averages hitting someone with a CON of 35, more if you haymaker, and will always take care of a standard NPC.

 

The only lasting effect, once their turn of recovering from being Stunned is over, is 1 stun damage...which is about as harmless as you can get.

 

 

Note: if you consider CON to be a "defensive power" and thus be difficult to dispel by default, you might be left rolling 5d6, which only averages 17.5...hits many heroes and but misses most bricks. Haymaker would push it up to about 21. You could stun someone with a CON of 30, but it's unlikely.

 

This seems far to good to be true. What am I missing?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

I see two problems with this approach.

 

1. I don't think Dispel can be used vs. Characteristics.

 

from:

Hero System 5th Edition, Revised ■ Chapter One

page 149

 

Dispel can dispel any Power, even Dispel (don’t think about it too much — you’ll hurt your brain). However, Dispel cannot affect Characteristics; use Drain for that sort of effect.

 

2. Multiple Power Attacks (MPA) that include adjustment powers don't get the immediate benefit of the combination. If a character uses a Drain ED + EB combo the EB still goes against the pre-drain ED.

 

BTW,

The most efficient 'Stun Target' mechanic is usually Suppress vs. STUN.

[Tonio]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

This hit me today. It seems so simple and elegant that it must be wrong.

 

I'd imagine the special effect might be, say, a wave of sudden nausia that causes the target to pause.

 

 

Dispel Constitution, 20d6 (60 ap), -1/4 reduced penetration.

 

1 dc Energy Blast, penetrating, standard effect (should do 1 stun, period), linked to the above attack.

 

Given that constitution is 2 points per, you basically roll 10d6. If the total exceeds the target's CON + Power Defense, their Con is dispelled (reduced to zero) and they take 1 stun damage (more stun than their con) and become Stunned. This averages hitting someone with a CON of 35, more if you haymaker, and will always take care of a standard NPC.

 

The only lasting effect, once their turn of recovering from being Stunned is over, is 1 stun damage...which is about as harmless as you can get.

 

 

Note: if you consider CON to be a "defensive power" and thus be difficult to dispel by default, you might be left rolling 5d6, which only averages 17.5...hits many heroes and but misses most bricks. Haymaker would push it up to about 21. You could stun someone with a CON of 30, but it's unlikely.

 

This seems far to good to be true. What am I missing?

 

You can't Dispel Characteristics. Also, even if you could, the attacks being simultaneous, you'd be checking against the un-Dispelled CON for Stunning.

 

A solution I've found for the "Stun Target" power is a STUN Suppress with the Instant Limitation. Being Instant, it has no lasting effects (any other hits would go against the target's normal STUN). But if you Suppress more STUN than the target has CON, he's Stunned. As per the rules, getting the STUN back from the Suppress ending won't revert your Stunned status.

 

Edit: Meh! Beat me to it! But yeah, what Hyper-Man said.

[nexus]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

Suggestion

 

Entangle vs Constitution (just like vs Ego)

Cannot Form barrier and doesn't provide defense

Only drops DCV to Half (as per Stunned)

Lasts one Phase only (optional)

Cost Endurance to maintain (optional)

 

The biggest weakest to this aside from requiring a House rule (Entangle vs another characteristic) is that that Target non persistent continuous powers won't turn off at the bottom of the segment, Maybe link a Dispel to the base attack

[CTaylor]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

This seems far to good to be true. What am I missing?

 

Its too complicated and expensive for the effect. Just use a Stun drain with a limitation "only to stun" (-1 1/2 at least).

[ideasmith]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

If you don't mind using a house rule: Flash with Causes Unusual Disability.

 

(In case the link doesn't work for you: That's post#133 of the Powers Issues -- F-K Page 9)

[braincraft]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

What's all this wank with Adjustment powers?

 

Energy Blast NND (defense is physiology not subject to nausea), Only to cause CON Stun (-1).

 

The active points will be a little high, but so long as you don't get out of hand with it I don't think it'll be a problem.

[Sean Waters]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

You can't Dispel Characteristics. Also, even if you could, the attacks being simultaneous, you'd be checking against the un-Dispelled CON for Stunning.

 

A solution I've found for the "Stun Target" power is a STUN Suppress with the Instant Limitation. Being Instant, it has no lasting effects (any other hits would go against the target's normal STUN). But if you Suppress more STUN than the target has CON, he's Stunned. As per the rules, getting the STUN back from the Suppress ending won't revert your Stunned status.

 

Edit: Meh! Beat me to it! But yeah, what Hyper-Man said.

 

Supress stun will certainly allow you to make someone pass out and they will certainly suffer the effects of stunning if they lose more stun than their CON due to the supress effect (reasonably likely given how cheap supress is and how relatively uncommon large amounts of PowDef are), but if the supress turns off the stun comes back AND you are no longer stunned - all the effects of the supressed stun go away.

 

I'd certainly run with Braincraft's suggestion - an attack power that doesn't cause damage directly, but only for stunning. I've built this sort of thing in the past using Ego Attack , and I might have phrased it slightly differently

[Hyper-Man]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

...but if the supress turns off the stun comes back AND you are no longer stunned - all the effects of the supressed stun go away.

...

 

No.

 

from:

http://www.herogames.com/rulesFAQ.htm?ruleset=&section=&keywords=suppress+stun&dateString=

 

If a character Suppresses more of a target’s STUN than the target has CON, is the target Stunned?

 

Yes, but the target gets to recover from being Stunned per the usual rules; maintaining the Suppress does not prevent this (though applying the Suppress a second time in the Segment when he tries to recover would).

 

and from:

228 ■ Character Creation: Powers Hero System 5th Edition, Revised

 

Stun: If a character Suppresses more of a target’s STUN than the target has CON, the target is Stunned. The target gets to recover from being Stunned (not Recover the lost STUN) per the usual rules.

 

There is NO mention anywhere about not suffering the effects of being Stunned if the effect was caused by a Suppress that is no longer in effect.

[CTaylor]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

Yeah anything that reduces your stun in one action below a number equal to your CON stuns you. Suppressing stun will stun the target, and it's cheaper than a Drain: for about 40 active points you are guaranteed to stun any normal and most PCs (average roll 28, most don't have power defense). Make it an instant and "only to stun" and you've got a pretty cheap power.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

Only to cause CON Stun (-1).

 

What's a CON Stun?

 

[ideasmith]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

What's a CON Stun?

 

 

It's an unofficial alternative to 'stun', for the apparent purpose of reducing confusion between stunning and Stun damage.

[archermoo]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

It's an unofficial alternative to 'stun'' date=' for the apparent purpose of reducing confusion between stunning and Stun damage.[/quote']

 

The ostensible purpose at least. I've only ever seen the redundant term cause confusion, never clear it up.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

What's a CON Stun?

 

 

 

That should be the HERO board's official version of "Who's on first?"

[Sean Waters]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

No.

 

from:

http://www.herogames.com/rulesFAQ.htm?ruleset=&section=&keywords=suppress+stun&dateString=

 

 

 

and from:

228 ■ Character Creation: Powers Hero System 5th Edition, Revised

 

 

 

There is NO mention anywhere about not suffering the effects of being Stunned if the effect was caused by a Suppress that is no longer in effect.

 

You are quite right, as usual. I'd made the clearly silly assumption that if you can recover from being dead when a Body suppress turns off and you can recover from the effects of unconsciousness when a Stun suppress turns off then recovering from being stunned shouldn't be a problem. Live and learn (when the Body suppress turns off, anyway).

[JmOz]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

ME STUPID

 

Why not

 

20d6 EB stun only,to stun only (-1)

[Tonio]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

ME STUPID

 

Why not

 

20d6 EB stun only,to stun only (-1)

 

Well, I wouldn't use it for two reasons. First, I'd rather use the built-in Limitations rather than the catch-all "Limited Power" and "Conditional Power" Limitations (that is, the "custom" Limitations). Second, adjudicating how much of a limitation value to assign to "to stun only" can be iffy. On the other hand, the STUN Suppress, Instant, uses only built-in Limitations, so there's no need to eyeball any values.

 

But that's just me... I'm uncomfortable with eyeball values, and try to avoid them whenever possible. I'm not suggesting you, or anybody else, should.

[nexus]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

There could also be some issues with Active Point limits in some campaigns.

[CTaylor]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

20d6 EB stun only,to stun only (-1)

 

Well, it costs an awful lot as Nexus points out, which makes it troublesome for power frameworks and campaigns. -1 is way too low for an attack that only stuns in my opinion.

[Sean Waters]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

Easy solution:

 

40 points Suppress STUN 12d6 (60 Active Points); Instant (-1/2)

 

Here's my problem:

 

This is too cheap for what is in fact a powerful effect, especially given that power defence is rarely anywhere near as high as PD and ED, AND it makes use of a meta-concept of the game.

 

42 'stun' damage against Power Defence will probably stun almost anyone every time. I would not allow it as it is unbalancing.

 

If you want a 'stun effect' try a mind control, possibly based on CON. Not the obvious way, perhaps, but quite appropriate. Might depend on concept, I suppose.

[Alibear]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

Are we coming at this bass ackwards again? Trying to define a power before we have the special effect we are trying to simulate? I never try to simulate meta-rules. Ever. Only special effects.

 

If you can't tell me what the power does in plain English I can't build it and won't allow it in my games.

[Utech]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

20d6 EB stun only,to stun only (-1)

 

Well, it costs an awful lot as Nexus points out, which makes it troublesome for power frameworks and campaigns. -1 is way too low for an attack that only stuns in my opinion.

Funny. I see it as an Advantage.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

Here's my problem:

 

This is too cheap for what is in fact a powerful effect, especially given that power defence is rarely anywhere near as high as PD and ED, AND it makes use of a meta-concept of the game.

 

42 'stun' damage against Power Defence will probably stun almost anyone every time. I would not allow it as it is unbalancing.

 

 

That appears to be flawed logic since i could use it against ANY adjustment powers.

 

I agree on the sfx vs. meta concept in principle.

 

However, the idea of building an attack specifically to "Stun" someone is a reasonable sfx considering that sci-fi genres like Star Trek and Star Wars have had weapons with a "Stun" setting for years.

[Kdansky]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

But those usually do Stun damage, and not Stun for a second or two. Now see, this is where I would like two terms....

 

Stunned as effect as in: Look at any MMOG (no RP in those). I also think that suppress works well and is too good.

[Alibear]

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

 

Yes but those attacks are just knoncking people unconcious not 'Hero Stunning' them. Think it through.

 

If you want a Star Trek Phaser buy a MP with an RKA slot and a EB stun only slot. Job done.