New Advantage: Stunning

[Tech]

A while back, my brother suggested a new advantage to our group: Stunning Advantage +1/2 cost. Anyone hit with a power has half their CON calculated for purposes of being stunned by the attack. At least 1 player says he hates it. Why? He thinks it's a cheap shot basically.

 

I have various questions: do you think the advantage cost is too high/low? Do you think it's fairly balance? Do you think this is a cheap shot?

 

Here's the question I really would like answered: How would you design an attack that's designed to make it easier to stun an opponent. I already know about 6d6 NND attacks with the limitation: only to Stun someone so please don't mention it.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

Here's the question I really would like answered: How would you design an attack that's designed to make it easier to stun an opponent. I already know about 6d6 NND attacks with the limitation: only to Stun someone so please don't mention it.

 

I suppose you could Link your attack to a Suppress CON. Or if you're really cheesy, you could buy extra attack dice and link the attack to a similar amount of Heal.

 

- Klaus

[Comic]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

1. The cost of the Stunning Advantage appears to be only slightly too high at +1/2, on the few scenarios I checked. As the only advantage on attacks, it results in far less overall Stun and about the same rate of Stunned opponents, give or take. I'm not sure I'd drop it to +1/4.

 

2. When combined with KAs on autofire or MPA + high relative SPD, Find Weakness and Armor Piercing, it makes a huge difference in Stun Lotto outcomes for Stunning purposes, but increases the plink rate a bit, too, and overall delivers far less Stun than the same attacks without the advantage.

 

Not sure if I'm overlooking anything.

 

Other ways to make it easier to Stun an opponent? Not sure I'd let Change Environment modify CON for purposes of determining Stunning Only.. but it's a feasible mechanic. There's always Drain/Dispel/Suppress CON, if done in the right order following the MPA rules. And then there's the Cumulative advantage applied to Stun only, only for the purpose of determining Stun.

 

Of course, you can get a similar result with Mental Entangle with the right limitations, against most targets.

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

Let's compare a 12d6 EB, averaging 42 stun against 2DC defences (24 ED) letting 18 stun through.

 

Now we look at an 8d6 STUNNING (+1/2) attack averaging 28 stun against the same defences letting 4 stun through.

 

On a straight comparison the straight EB is better in every way. There is not a CON value that you can pick that would let you stun someone with a STUNNING attack but not with a normal attack, given those assumptions.

 

Now let us look at a more highly advantaged example - let us add NND into the mix.

 

You compare a 6d6 NND to a 4 1/2 d6 STUNNING NND (actually 57 points), and you run 21 stun (on average) against 16 stun. Now we see how it becomes nasty: that will stun anyone up to about 32 CON, which is almost anyone.

 

So, useless on its own but with substantial synergy used with other advantages. Not a great start for a sell, to be honest.

 

I suppose I would be reluctant to allow it because what you'll get is a MP with a stunning slot and a normal slot. Stun the target to render them unable to retaliate and to drop any non-persistent defences then swap to the full damage flavour attack to keep them down.

 

It seems to me too much like metagaming - building an advantage specifically to allow you to manipulate a rule. I'd be against it.

 

Of course by that token there's no straight attack that allows you to stun in one hit. Try a linked NND EB and ranged CON drain. IME CON values are often close enough to Stun Through Defences that even 2d6 CON drain can make stunning quite likely.

[Tech]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

It seems to me too much like metagaming - building an advantage specifically to allow you to manipulate a rule. I'd be against it.

 

Now, while I agree, I also disagree. I see it being the same as AP except against a different Stat. AP in this case, tries to ensure you take Stun. Overall, I don't see it metagaming. However, I can see your point. Also, please understand I'm neutral in regards to this Advantage; my brother thought it up.

 

I'm not for or against this - I want to see what others think and therefore appreciate what you said Sean.

[BNakagawa]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

I am typically against advantages that are only useful via advantage stacking.

 

This is one of those advantages.

 

As previously noted, a simple NND w/ stunning power is unreasonably powerful.

 

The simplest method for accomplishing the goals of this advantage is to simply buy more DCs of the attack with a limitation that the extra dice count only for the stun calculation. Sure, it pushes up the active points of the attack, but so what, you're looking for a more effective attack, you should have to pay for it.

 

Applying the 'stunned' template to an enemy is a surefire way of getting them delivered to KOville. It shouldn't be cheap, reliable or easy.

[CTaylor]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

This might work, it would take a bit of testing to see the advantage value, but I'd treat it like autofire: if used on a power that does not affect normal defenses (or AE) the cost doubles.

[prestidigitator]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

I'd call it a Limitation rather than an Advantage. Some portion of an attack (Limitation on some of the dice) does no actual Stun (or Body) damage (making it easier for the target to recover from the attack). I'd call that a -1/2 or -1 or something, but as you will. That too close to that NND attack we're supposed to avoid? **shrug**

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

Let's compare a 12d6 EB, averaging 42 stun against 2DC defences (24 ED) letting 18 stun through.

 

Now we look at an 8d6 STUNNING (+1/2) attack averaging 28 stun against the same defences letting 4 stun through.

 

On a straight comparison the straight EB is better in every way. There is not a CON value that you can pick that would let you stun someone with a STUNNING attack but not with a normal attack, given those assumptions.

 

Now let us look at a more highly advantaged example - let us add NND into the mix.

 

You compare a 6d6 NND to a 4 1/2 d6 STUNNING NND (actually 57 points), and you run 21 stun (on average) against 16 stun. Now we see how it becomes nasty: that will stun anyone up to about 32 CON, which is almost anyone.

 

So, useless on its own but with substantial synergy used with other advantages. Not a great start for a sell, to be honest.

 

This might work' date=' it would take a bit of testing to see the advantage value, but I'd treat it like autofire: if used on a power that does not affect normal defenses (or AE) the cost doubles.[/quote']

 

So now the NND will be 4d6, average roll 14, STUNs up to a 27 CON rather than a 31 CON.

 

I'm in favour of buying extra dice that do no STUN or BOD. Alternatively, a Linked CON Suppress would seem to work reasonably well, also Limited that it applies only for this one attack (Instant). It seems to me it is more appropriate to add the attack that enhances the likelihood of being STUNned rather than create an advantage for this.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

The problem w/ an advantage like this is that the game kind of undervalues stunning people due to its assumption of bias towards not killing. In other words, the premium is associated with doing BODY, not STUN; Stun Only isnt even worth a limitation per the rules for instance.

 

The basic way to build an effect like this, on an individual basis, is as a Partially Limited Attack. Something like....

 

1d6 EB

+1d6 Only To Determine Stunning(-1 1/2), Just Double The Base Die vs Rolling A Second Die (-0)

 

5 + 2 = 7 points per d6.

 

If you wanted to bundle it into an advantage fine and well, but its between a +1/4 and a + 1/2 so it's either going to be discounted or overcosted, your choice.

 

 

{shrugs}

 

Eh, whatever. Doesn't seem game breaking, nor does it seem necessary. Try it out and see how it plays, no harm no foul if it turns out to be a bust or a success.

[CTaylor]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

Hugh, Sean, run your numbers like that on other advantages like armor piercing and autofire. See if in every situation and build they are equally ideal and advantageous.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

AP vs EB? Well, a 12d6 normal attack will roll an average of 42 STUN, and an 8d6 AP attack will average 28 STUN. The EB will be superior at defenses (unhardened) under 28, and AP at defenses over 28. In earlier editions, when average defenses per DC were higher, AP was probably priced about right. Now I think it's overpriced.

 

Make it +1/4 and the average roll on 9 1/2 d6 is 33.5. AP is now superior at defenses above 17, unless they are hardened. That breakpoint's probably a little low, although the possible neutralization of AP with hardened defenses mitigates that somewhat.

 

Assessing AP requires consideration of both defenses and the target's DCV vs attacker's OCV, making the math much more complex. At 12d6 normal vs 9 1/2d6 for a chance at multiple hits, we're losing 8.5 STUN per hit for a possible 1 or 2 extra hits. At, say, 20 defenses, the normal EB does 22. The AF does 13.5, so adding about 63% of 13.5 makes a break even. I need an OCV 2 points superior to my opponent's DCV to need an 11- for two attacks to hit, about a 62.5% chance, so if my OCV is more than 2 points higher than the typical DCV, autofire will generate better results. As defenses tend to rise as DCV declines, the issue becomes a complex one, but if a target with 20 defenses would tend to a DCV 2 lower than my OCV, the two attacks come out about even. That's probably reasonable.

[The Main Man]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

Oh no...

 

Has it finally come?

 

A... *gulp* +3/8 Advantage?

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

Hugh' date=' Sean, run your numbers like that on other advantages like armor piercing and autofire. See if in every situation and build they are equally ideal and advantageous.[/quote']

 

AP + EB, as Hugh says, is probably not worth it except as a mult slot for doing Body damage to heavily armoured stuff (mind you a lot of heavily armoured stuff is hardened, which kinda defeats the purpose). It doesn't combine with NND, obviously.

 

Autofire does though: 3 shot autofire (+1/2) and NND (+1) gives you 24 points of attack (or 4 1/2d6 normal) on up to 3 hits. So, average of 16 stun x 3 = 48, which is surely very nasty. However, none of them will be stun hits, and, given that you need to hit by 4 to make 3 hits. This is a brick killer but not necessarily unbalancing unless the character has a high OCV.

 

Mind you I look carefully at any advantage stacking - especially the NND/autofire combination. We need autofire in the system and we need NND in the system, but I'm very wary of them together.

 

The fact that a power or advantage can be abused is no good reason to exclude it from the system, but I'd need to be convinced that it has to be there and cannot be built in some other way (or that way is too complex to use regularly), and 'stunning' does not seem to fit the bill.

 

If you want a stunning attack, buy a 'stun only' killing attack: 1 in 3 hits are almost certain to stun. In fact you could buy a 2 1/2d6 killing attack with +2 stun mulipliers and make it stun only. That averages 9 Body and 42 stun, and, like I said, stuns about 1 time in 3.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

AP + EB' date=' as Hugh says, is probably not worth it except as a mult slot for doing Body damage to heavily armoured stuff (mind you a lot of heavily armoured stuff is hardened, which kinda defeats the purpose). It doesn't combine with NND, obviously.[/quote']

 

The biggest problem with AP and its sister, Penetrating, is that the characters it would be most effective against tend to harden their defenses, making AP and Penetrating useless. If the GM allows the player to pay for AP or Penetrating, he should design opposition with that in mind. If he's not going to do that, tell the player not to bother spending the points since it will carry no benefit in his game.

 

Autofire does though: 3 shot autofire (+1/2) and NND (+1) gives you 24 points of attack (or 4 1/2d6 normal) on up to 3 hits. So' date=' average of 16 stun x 3 = 48, which is surely very nasty. However, none of them will be stun hits, and, given that you need to hit by 4 to make 3 hits. This is a brick killer but not necessarily unbalancing unless the character has a high OCV.[/quote']

 

It will be very effective against anyone with a low DCV. Of course, the character could have had a 6d6 NND and Rapid Fire it, with a bit less likelihood of hitting with the early attacks. Or he could buy a 4.5d6 NND and spend the other 15 points on skill levels and/or PSL's with that NND. Same cost and better odds of all three hitting.

 

Mind you I look carefully at any advantage stacking - especially the NND/autofire combination. We need autofire in the system and we need NND in the system' date=' but I'm very wary of them together.[/quote']

 

We should also look at other ways of achieving the same, or better, effect.

 

The fact that a power or advantage can be abused is no good reason to exclude it from the system' date=' but I'd need to be convinced that it has to be there and cannot be built in some other way (or that way is too complex to use regularly), and 'stunning' does not seem to fit the bill.[/quote']

 

Agreed on all counts.

[CTaylor]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

Mind you I look carefully at any advantage stacking - especially the NND/autofire combination. We need autofire in the system and we need NND in the system, but I'm very wary of them together.

 

That's more or less my point. If you demand any new modifier work perfectly in every conceivable build, you'll have no new advantages. It simply has to work as well as previously established and useful ones.

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

That's more or less my point. If you demand any new modifier work perfectly in every conceivable build' date=' you'll have no new advantages. It simply has to work as well as previously established and useful ones.[/quote']

 

I'm not saying that (although it would be nice ) My difficulty with 'stunning' is that it only works synergistically - on its own it has no value at all for physical and energy attacks. It only really works for attacks the defender has no defences against. That makes it wonky (to use a technical term) from the kick off (to mix my metaphors).

[CTaylor]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

I don't understand what you mean; it adds another effect on to an existing power: it causes your attacks to be more likely to stun an opponent (1/2 CON probably isn't the right mechanic, x2 stun only for stunning would probably work better, and cost a bit more). Who this works on will vary a great deal by attack and defenses, like autofire, NND, armor piercing, etc.

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

I don't understand what you mean; it adds another effect on to an existing power: it causes your attacks to be more likely to stun an opponent (1/2 CON probably isn't the right mechanic' date=' x2 stun only for stunning would probably work better, and cost a bit more). Who this works on will vary a great deal by attack and defenses, like autofire, NND, armor piercing, etc.[/quote']

 

What I mean is that it does not do that at all unless the target has no defences, or extremely low defences, against the attack because you reduce the power of the attack by 2/3, which reduces the actual effect by more than 2/3 for targets with relevant defences. For an attack which the target has defences for it is not going to be at all effective. The other advantages you mention all work on their own, even if they work even better synergistically. Stunning doesn't, as writ.

 

Now doubling the stun damage for stunning would work - but the advantage would have to cost less than +1 (if you think about it). At +1/2 in a 12 DC game you'd be averaging 56 stun for stunning purposes, which would be a stun result every time. You may not see anything wrong with that but it seems too powerful to me.

 

At +3/4 you could manage a 6 1/2d6 attack under the DC limit, which averages 23 stun, which doubles to 46 for stunning purposes. That could work, from a mechanical perspective, but I don't like where it is going: it would become almost de rigeur, at least for the player who cares at all about combat efficiency, and combat would become all about who hits first, because once an opponent is stunned, it is all over bar the kicking them while they are down.

 

Stunning should occur as a result of an occasional lucky roll, IMO, not by the application of an advantage. If you want a character who stuns frequently, persuade the GM to let you exceed the DC cap, with limited damage dice, or link in a drain to reduce CON or defences.

[CTaylor]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

I agree I think the +3/4 pattern for double knockback would be the way to go: double stun for the purposes of stunning the target only, and you would have a pretty good power build.

 

There is a lot of precedent not just in comics and movies, but in games for powers that stun and do no long term or even short term damage. It takes an extraordinarily expensive power to do that even semi-reliably in Hero, for a very temporary effect. Something along these lines would be welcome; that's probably why Mr Long asked if a stunning power wouldn't be reasonable to add to the 6th edition in his posts on the subject.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

Here's the question I really would like answered: How would you design an attack that's designed to make it easier to stun an opponent. I already know about 6d6 NND attacks with the limitation: only to Stun someone so please don't mention it.

 

The HERO System Almanac I, for 4E HERO, presented an optional STUN Multiplier for Normal Damage Attacks, at the same cost as the Multiplier for Killing Damage (+1/2 then). It worked differently, though; for each +1/2 Advantage, one would add +1 to each die rolled for Normal Damage, e.g. a 10d6 attack would roll normally for damage, then add +10 to determine the STUN total.

 

I've used this same mechanic in my 5E games, with the new +1/4 cost for each +1 STUN Multiplier, and been very satisfied with the results.

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

The HERO System Almanac I, for 4E HERO, presented an optional STUN Multiplier for Normal Damage Attacks, at the same cost as the Multiplier for Killing Damage (+1/2 then). It worked differently, though; for each +1/2 Advantage, one would add +1 to each die rolled for Normal Damage, e.g. a 10d6 attack would roll normally for damage, then add +10 to determine the STUN total.

 

I've used this same mechanic in my 5E games, with the new +1/4 cost for each +1 STUN Multiplier, and been very satisfied with the results.

 

IIRC there is something along these lines in Ultimate Energy Projector, although I wonder about this one too (these all cost 50 points):

 

50 point attack (10d6) = 35 stun on average

40 point attack (8d6) + 1/4 increased normal stun = 28+8 = 36 stun

25 point attack (5d6) + 1 increased normal stun (x4) = 17.5+20 = 37.5 stun

5 point attack (1d6) + 9 increased normal stun (x36) = 3.5+36=39.5

 

I mean, you have to roll less dice, which some might like, and it is certainly better than relying on standard effect for causing damage, but even with 36 levels of it you only average (in this example, at least) + 4.5 stun.

 

However, I just feel this approach is wrong. IMO the power that best typifies the ability to do stun damage to a target is EB, or any equivalent normal attack. Making such an attack stun only is a +0 power modifier, so why should we have an advantage that trades off lower Body and KB against higher stun? It does not seem like a consistent approach.

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

I agree I think the +3/4 pattern for double knockback would be the way to go: double stun for the purposes of stunning the target only, and you would have a pretty good power build.

 

There is a lot of precedent not just in comics and movies, but in games for powers that stun and do no long term or even short term damage. It takes an extraordinarily expensive power to do that even semi-reliably in Hero, for a very temporary effect. Something along these lines would be welcome; that's probably why Mr Long asked if a stunning power wouldn't be reasonable to add to the 6th edition in his posts on the subject.

 

12d6 EB (doesn't cause any damage - only for stunning effect -1) costs 30 points, does what you ask - stuns (assuming you roll high enough) without long (or even short) term damage.

 

It only costs another 5 points (10 active) to make that 14d6, which in a game set up around 12DC totals is likely to be getting in the region (assuming a DCx2 DEFENCE) 25 through defences, and I don't know about your games but CON values tend to be in the 23-25 range unless you are a brick, so a decent chance of stunning most opponents.

 

Moreover I don't accept that the effect is temporary - what we are looking at is an attack that causes an opponent to drop non-persistent defences and skill levles (pretty difficult to do otherwise - you'd need a big dispel or a mind control), lose and held action, reduce their DCV to 1/2 and lose their next full phase - at least.

 

Now I accept that IS temporary in one sense, but given that the character will be in the middle of combat, that sort of temporary is all you need to end the fight.

 

I think my biggest problem here is that the power is no fun. If you can semi-reliably stun opponents, every fight becomes about first strike, or damage reduction becomes de rigeur. I think that such an advantage would have far reaching implications for the way the game is played.

 

You may see that as over dramatising the situation, but any tactically competent player can use such an ability to huge advantage. if that is the sort of game you want, de-cap DC, don't add new rules.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

What I mean is that it does not do that at all unless the target has no defences' date=' or extremely low defences, against the attack because you reduce the power of the attack by 2/3, which reduces the actual effect by more than 2/3 for targets with relevant defences. For an attack which the target has defences for it is not going to be at all effective. The other advantages you mention all work on their own, even if they work even better synergistically. Stunning doesn't, as writ.[/quote']

 

Exactly. AP and Autofire work better against some targets, and worse against others. The proposed Stunning does not.

 

Now doubling the stun damage for stunning would work - but the advantage would have to cost less than +1 (if you think about it). At +1/2 in a 12 DC game you'd be averaging 56 stun for stunning purposes' date=' which would be a stun result every time. You may not see anything wrong with that but it seems too powerful to me.[/quote']

 

I agree it can't be +1. If my choice is a 6d6 attack that rolls 21 STUN and 6 BOD on average, then doubles that STUN to 42 to determine whether I Stun the target, or a 12d6 attack that averages the same 42 STUN for all purposes, and averages 12 BOD, clearly I want the 12d6 attack.

 

For a +1/2 advantage to double STUN, most targets take minimal STUN and BOD and loses his DCV, all nonpersistent powers and his next phase. In a team setting, we let Stunner go first, then we all pound the stunned guy while his DCV is low. In a solo setting, I hold my action, suck up ,my opponent's first attack, then use my Stuns the Target MP slot to STUN him, switch to my high damage slot for my next phase (before he recovers) and Rapid Fire him into oblivion.

 

At +3/4 you could manage a 6 1/2d6 attack under the DC limit' date=' which averages 23 stun, which doubles to 46 for stunning purposes. That could work, from a mechanical perspective, but I don't like where it is going: it would become almost de rigeur, at least for the player who cares at all about combat efficiency, and combat would become all about who hits first, because once an opponent is stunned, it is all over bar the kicking them while they are down.[/quote']

 

Now our Double Stun attack manages a whopping 4 STUN advantage over a normal attack. Seems pretty light for pretty much losing any other impact from the blast.

 

Does the advantage accumulate? Can I buy it four times to make this a +3 advantage on a 3d6 attack and get 16x the STUN for purposes of Stunning? That's 10.5 STUN and 168 for purposes of Stunning - everyone is Stunned and no one is hurt. See tactics above. Maybe additional purchases add one to the multiple, so that's 10.5 STUN, +5 for Stunning is 52.5 STUN. That at least makes it chancier.

 

The bottom line, however, is exactly as Sean says - the attack becomes a first strike auto-win, so it will go in every multipower. We hit the target with "better chance of Stunning" attacks until someone succeeds, then we KO the poor sucker while his DCV is slashed (and his nonpersistent powers are all off).

 

My simplistic answer - offer to playtest it with the villains and see if the group thinks it's balanced after seeing the results when it's used against them!

 

There is a lot of precedent not just in comics and movies' date=' but in games for powers that stun and do no long term or even short term damage. It takes an extraordinarily expensive power to do that even semi-reliably in Hero, for a very temporary effect. Something along these lines would be welcome; that's probably why Mr Long asked if a stunning power wouldn't be reasonable to add to the 6th edition in his posts on the subject.[/quote']

 

There's a lot of precedent in those source materials for "being Stunned" being something you can recover from and still win the combat. If we're going to add a mechanic that allows the target to be more easily stunned, I think we also need to revise the rules for being stunned so that the target is not so easily moved from "stunned" to "KO'd - GM's Option" while stunned. If, for example, being Stunned meant that you lose your next phase, without causing powers to shut off or DCV to be reduced, then being able to reliably stun most targets would be much less overpowered.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

IIRC there is something along these lines in Ultimate Energy Projector, although I wonder about this one too (these all cost 50 points):

 

50 point attack (10d6) = 35 stun on average

40 point attack (8d6) + 1/4 increased normal stun = 28+8 = 36 stun

25 point attack (5d6) + 1 increased normal stun (x4) = 17.5+20 = 37.5 stun

5 point attack (1d6) + 9 increased normal stun (x36) = 3.5+36=39.5

 

I mean, you have to roll less dice, which some might like, and it is certainly better than relying on standard effect for causing damage, but even with 36 levels of it you only average (in this example, at least) + 4.5 stun.

 

However, I just feel this approach is wrong. IMO the power that best typifies the ability to do stun damage to a target is EB, or any equivalent normal attack. Making such an attack stun only is a +0 power modifier, so why should we have an advantage that trades off lower Body and KB against higher stun? It does not seem like a consistent approach.

 

Well, one could ask the same thing about the Stun Multiplier for Killing Attacks. IME it gives you the ability to adjust the lethality level and Knockback of the attack to something less than normal, but more than the absolute "STUN only," which wouldn't suit the SFX of every possible attack or the preferences of every player.

 

Sean, while your number breakdowns are fine for averages, keep in mind that as this Advantage adds fixed amounts of additional damage, the possible range of results will be smaller, and the minimum possible damage higher, reducing the chance for a really poor roll. Also, as with all Advantaged Powers, the cost of subsequent additional Advantages (e.g. Area Of Effect, Reduced Endurance, and so on) diminishes.

 

(I must admit I looked a bit askance at you saying, "this approach is wrong." Doesn't sound like HERO-talk to me.)