New Advantage: Stunning

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

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

 

I'm courting controvesy. Interesting relationship

 

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 always look warily at any power with a lot of advantages. I mean, you're quite right about advantage stacking: 1d6 EB, x30 increased stun muliplier (+8.5) and AoE radius doubled twice (4" radius) gets you an average of 33.5 stun in a 4" radius, which is only 1.5 stun less than the nonAoE, non-advantaged base power.

 

That's what I mean by wrong. Too efficient for the cost. If Hero tried to be one thing, it is fair, and this just does not seem fair balanced against the base power. To my mind an advantage makes a power better in some area but at a cost. I'm not really seeing a downside here (especially if compared to a stun only attack).

 

This seems to me like a simple economics problem. In the real world, there is never 'money on the table', at least not for long. Someone takes it. The same applies in a game environment, only more so because the rules are clearer. If you come up with a way to make a power more effective and there is not a downside, or not one that balances the upside, then people will naturally gravitate that way which has the potential to throw the whole game off. And that IS wrong.

[CTaylor]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

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.

 

60 active points, you cannot ignore the active cost. And you have to roll well to do the job, rather than having a power that reliably does what its designed to do.

 

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

 

Other than the fact that some people have more CON than others, and are harder to stun, you mean?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

60 active points' date=' you cannot ignore the active cost. And you have to roll well to do the job, rather than having a power that reliably does what its designed to do.[/quote']

 

If we allow "only for Stunning" as a 3 point AP cost per d6 (a bit more expensive than 60 AP with a -1 limitation), why wouldn't every character who can take a 20d6 "Stunning Only" attack in a MP with their 12d6 Normal Attack?

 

First, I let you move, and I soak your damage. Then I fire my 20d6 STUN Attack which does 70 STUN, less your defenses, and likely Stuns you. Now I switch my MP to EB and unload 3 - 5 Rapid Fired EB's on your 0 DCV.

 

Any structure which allows for a power which can reliably stun the target creates a one hit win.

[BNakagawa]

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.

 

I also agree that any advantage that increases damage is a poor approach.

 

It literally screams out to be used for advantage stacking.

 

50 AP power = 1d6 EB NND, Area Effect 1 hex, +30 extra stun = 33.5 NND that only has to hit your hex.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

I always look warily at any power with a lot of advantages. I mean, you're quite right about advantage stacking: 1d6 EB, x30 increased stun muliplier (+8.5) and AoE radius doubled twice (4" radius) gets you an average of 33.5 stun in a 4" radius, which is only 1.5 stun less than the nonAoE, non-advantaged base power.

 

That's what I mean by wrong. Too efficient for the cost. If Hero tried to be one thing, it is fair, and this just does not seem fair balanced against the base power. To my mind an advantage makes a power better in some area but at a cost. I'm not really seeing a downside here (especially if compared to a stun only attack).

 

This seems to me like a simple economics problem. In the real world, there is never 'money on the table', at least not for long. Someone takes it. The same applies in a game environment, only more so because the rules are clearer. If you come up with a way to make a power more effective and there is not a downside, or not one that balances the upside, then people will naturally gravitate that way which has the potential to throw the whole game off. And that IS wrong.

 

That's a reasonable perspective. However, there are other elements of HERO which can become horribly unbalancing, especially in combination. The usual admonition from the rules is, "If you think it's unbalancing, don't use it." For example, I know plenty of GMs who won't allow a Power to have more than a certain total in Advantages, and would never allow +8.5 in anything (I include myself in that). But to disallow an Advantage completely can restrict some really interesting and appropriate effects. (I considered this issue quite a bit recently when designing an unorthodox Power for a major NPC villain; but that's probably a subject for another thread.)

 

"STUN Only" is an interesting specific case IMO, in that it presupposes enough benefits to only doing STUN which makes it a commonly desirable alternative to an attack which also does BODY and Knockback. IME that's only true in a setting where there are significant ethical, legal, and social consequences to frequent use of potentially lethal force, which would not be true for many settings, e.g. war campaigns, "hack-n-slash" fantasy, much post-apoc, and the like.

[Vulcan]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

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.)

 

The STUN Lotto hopefully will be fixed in 6E. In my opinion, that's by far and away the biggest thing that needs fixing in HEROS.

 

As far as the STUNNED -> KO tranformation, that generally works better on Energy Projectors and Mentalists (who generally have non-persistent FF as their main defense) than say, bricks and power armor (who have Armor instead). Martial artists and speedsters generally avoid being hit in the first place - and are usually KO'd on the first hit anyway.

 

SO the Stunning advantage seems like a way to hurt Energy Projectors and Mentalists more than anything else.

[Vulcan]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

60 active points' date=' you cannot ignore the active cost. And you have to roll well to do the job, rather than having a power that reliably does what its designed to do.[/quote']

 

So once we have a power that reliably Stuns a target, then how long 'til someone asks for a power that reliably KO's a target? Then how long 'til someone asks for a power that reliably KILLS a target?

 

Besides, a 6d6 E-Blast NND will reliably Stun a target of 20 CON or less, and has a pretty good chance of doing so to a target 0f 25 CON.

 

Other than the fact that some people have more CON than others, and are harder to stun, you mean?

 

Well, yes, that's one of the big reasons they bought the CON in the first place. It would be unfair to make their purchase of a high CON useless because everyone and their uncle has a Stunning attack in their MP.

 

The game changes to a strategy of 'dump CON for DEX and have a big END Reserve...'

[tesuji]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

My objection would be from a game balance perspective...

 

if you can reliably stun an enemy with your shots, then your shots only need to do over a turn more than he can recover and you win the fight hands down.

 

sure it takes a while but you have plenty of time since the enemy is just staying stunned and then losing a few stun here and there.

 

Would you set your campaign defense levels SO LOW that normally when you get hit you get stunned? No? Why not? Wont all your players just love losing acyion after action every time they get hit?

 

If the answer was no, you wont say allow 12dc attacks commonly in a game with 15 pt defenses and 25ish cons because nobody likes being con-stunned on nearly every hit?

 

no you say? not fun?

 

well then why add a new way of buying the necessary damage dice so you can slip an attack that "reliably con-stuns with each hit"?

 

IMo the best way to purchase this kind of attack would be to allow some dice to be bought limited - does no body or KB and stun only counts for stunning - and go from there (understanding defenses aply first to the normal dice.) That way you avoid accidentally allowing a better attack thing thru, since you keep this attack within whatever damage caps you allow.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

IMO the most elegant way to STUN a character in HERO is still Suppress vs. Stun. It does what it does and nothing more.

 

An Advantaged approach is only desirable if the goal is to stack Advantages. It will always be a higher active cost than the Suppress method though.

[CTaylor]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

If we allow "only for Stunning" as a 3 point AP cost per d6 (a bit more expensive than 60 AP with a -1 limitation), why wouldn't every character who can take a 20d6 "Stunning Only" attack in a MP with their 12d6 Normal Attack?

 

That sounds like a problem with the cost, not the advantage. or the concept; powers that can be misused are part of the system, it's why we have GMs instead of faux "game balancing" patches.

 

So once we have a power that reliably Stuns a target, then how long 'til someone asks for a power that reliably KO's a target? Then how long 'til someone asks for a power that reliably KILLS a target?

 

I would expect there are people who already ask for this stuff now. The fact that silly people demand silly things doesn't mean we ought not do something.

[Vulcan]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

I would expect there are people who already ask for this stuff now. The fact that silly people demand silly things doesn't mean we ought not do something.

 

And asking for a power that will reliably Stun any target strikes me as no less silly than a power that will reliably kill any target.

 

If, in games you run as a GM, you want to house-rule in such an advantage or power, go right ahead. But it doesn't belong in the core rules any more than any other Absoulte.

[tesuji]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

And asking for a power that will reliably Stun any target strikes me as no less silly than a power that will reliably kill any target.

 

 

Actually, i think allowing in a game a power that reliably stuns enemies will last right up until the bad guys start using it too, and suddenly the players figure out just how much unfun one-hit-stuns are.

 

then the cries for stun defense or limited "only for con stun" con start coming up and then...

 

players despise losing actions, being forced to sit and watch other people play the game, and in a game where (for some people) combats take so long, that whole reliably stunning one-hit powers will lose their sweet attractiveness soon enough.

 

I dont know for sure, rampant speculation, but i think a lot of this may derive from MMORPG which feature "stunning" as a big part of their games, but the difference there is in real time the stunning lasts for second in an mmorpg while being stunned and losing a phase in a team vs team supers game might well have you sitting on your hands for 30 minutes, only to get stun whacked again as the next phase is about to begin.

 

all of course IMO.

 

 

Hmmm... how about this as a meta-rule -

PROBATIONARY POWERS -

For any special request for NEW POWER or NEW ADVANTAGES from a player, such as "wanna do better stun etc, the GM may allow it in as a probationary power. A probationary power is allowed for a six month trial but in that time can ONLY be used by NPCs. At the end of six months of play if the players (having been HIT BY the power for six months) all agree it seems balanced and fun addition to the game, then the players can start buying said NEW POWER or NEW ADVANTAGES.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

That sounds like a problem with the cost' date=' not the advantage. or the concept; powers that can be misused are part of the system, it's why we have GMs instead of faux "game balancing" patches.[/quote']

 

But what should the cost be? You are concerned that the AP are too high if this is a limitation on a 5 point per die power. It can't be 5 points per d6 - an EB does STUN, BOD and Knockback in addition to possibly stunning the target. Considering all it gives up, -1 is a pretty light limitation. But considering the results, 3 points per d6 seems quite cheap.

 

With that in mind, it seems like the AP (potential effectiveness) have not been changed, so 5 points per 1d6 should remain as the AP. However, utility and flexibility have been cut, justifying a limitation at some level.

 

I liken this to Hand Atack - too cheap at 3 AP per d6, but probably not at 5 AP and 3 RP.

[BNakagawa]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

The STUN Lotto hopefully will be fixed in 6E. In my opinion, that's by far and away the biggest thing that needs fixing in HEROS.

 

As far as the STUNNED -> KO tranformation, that generally works better on Energy Projectors and Mentalists (who generally have non-persistent FF as their main defense) than say, bricks and power armor (who have Armor instead). Martial artists and speedsters generally avoid being hit in the first place - and are usually KO'd on the first hit anyway.

 

SO the Stunning advantage seems like a way to hurt Energy Projectors and Mentalists more than anything else.

 

Stunning people affects most:

 

1: Anyone who relies on active defenses (missile deflection, blocking, dodging)

2: Anyone who relies on non-persistant defenses or high DCV

3: Anyone with low SPD

4: Master villains or anyone who is going to be fighting a large number of opponents by themselves.

[CTaylor]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

And asking for a power that will reliably Stun any target strikes me as no less silly than a power that will reliably kill any target.

 

Up to you; being dead is kind of permanent, though.

[tesuji]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

Up to you; being dead is kind of permanent' date=' though.[/quote']

 

the key is a reliable stun power is merely a slower way to reach dead.

 

keep stunning the target until he eventually drops unconscious, never gaining any actions.

then walk up and kill the unconscious guy...

 

a reliable stun removes target actions and as long as that occurs it doesn't really matter how long it takes. some situational exceptions may arise but there is really little difference between "i keep whacking him and he gets no actions" and "i whack him and he goes down" as far as the victim is concerned.

 

but again, this new power wont last long after the enemies start using it too. its just so much no-fun to be a pc losing actions reliably in a long combat type game. this is one of the reasons hero balance recommendation set the attack and defense values at points where it is unlikely to have one-hit stuns.

 

but hey, maybe i am insane! give it a try. send a superteam armed with attacks that reliable one-hit stun the pcs and see how long before the griping starts. tell the pcs it is in three month trial and that if after 3 months they think the fights are cooler and more fun with all the stunning you will let the pcs have it too.

 

see how well that goes over!

[Tech]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

It's curious how the proposed advantage goes from 'being more easily able to stun a target' to 'being a reliable way to stun a target'. Never said it was a reliable way to stun a target, nope. At any rate, the proposed advantage was permanently dropped in favor of other suggested ways posters here have given... and cheaper in cost, too!

 

Thanks to all for your input.

[Vulcan]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

Up to you; being dead is kind of permanent' date=' though.[/quote']

 

And under many circumstances, the follow-up shot on a character whose non-persistant FF is down translates into a dead character. So Stunning can be just as permanent in it's lasting effects, if there is time for a follow-up shot.

 

And if the whole team is stunned, then there's plenty of time for that follow-up shot...

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

It's curious how the proposed advantage goes from 'being more easily able to stun a target' to 'being a reliable way to stun a target'. Never said it was a reliable way to stun a target, nope. At any rate, the proposed advantage was permanently dropped in favor of other suggested ways posters here have given... and cheaper in cost, too!

 

Thanks to all for your input.

 

We are always happy to argue the toss for a couple of dozen pages if necessary (and it always seems to be...even if we can only manage 3 on the night...).

 

Generally I set up characters so that stunning is possible on a decent damage roll anyway: genetic engineering of gameplay

[CTaylor]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

the key is a reliable stun power is merely a slower way to reach dead.

 

And flashed, and entangled, and grabbed... better not let people be able to do that either!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Advantage: Stunning

 

And flashed

 

Enhanced senses work, characters have flash defense, and they can still act while blind.

 

and entangled

 

Characters break out, teleport out and have indirect or mental attacks which are not stopped by the entangle.

 

and grabbed

 

Characters break out, teleport out and have indirect or mental attacks which are not stopped by the grab, and can attack their assailant. And allies have an easier time attacking the assailant.

 

better not let people be able to do that either!

 

A 60 AP power in a typical 60 AP game can blind for a turn with the target character still able to act. A 60 AP Entangle slows the typical target down, but rarely takes him out of the battle. A 60 STR Grab does much the same.

 

And a 60 AP attack can Stun the target. It is simply not highly likely to do so.

 

All of these attacks have the capability of taking down an opponent. None have certainty. But "it always stuns" attacks are pretty much guaranteed KO for the target. If you want to more reliably stun the target, you need a higher AP attack. The higher AP reflects the greater power afforded. Just as:

 

- a more reliable Entangle to hold the target will pay extra points to block Teleports, not block incoming attacks and have higher defenses and/or BOD to hold him longer

 

- a more reliable Flash will pay extra points to block more sense groups.