Confused by Penetrating

[handleyj]

This is one thing in the main book that I wish had an example.

 

So if I have a RKA 4d6, Penetrating. What does that mean? Does that mean the target of such an attack takes the full BODY damage (i.e. they get no benefit from their rDEF at all against the BODY damage)? But their DEF still affects the STUN damage?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

-joe

[KA.]

Re: Confused by Penetrating

 

Check this thread:

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22818

 

KA.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Confused by Penetrating

 

This is one thing in the main book that I wish had an example.

 

So if I have a RKA 4d6, Penetrating. What does that mean? Does that mean the target of such an attack takes the full BODY damage (i.e. they get no benefit from their rDEF at all against the BODY damage)? But their DEF still affects the STUN damage?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

-joe

 

The BODY of an RKA attack is the regular total of the dice. Penetrating means that unless the target has Hardened defenses, the "Normal Body" of the damage roll is a minimum amount of damage that gets though the defenses. "Normal Body" means the method used to determine the BODY damage done by a normal attack, since in those the regular total of the dice is the STUN damage done.

 

Determining "Normal BODY" is quite easy. For each d6, a 6 counts as 2 "Normal BODY", 5 to 2 counts as one, and a 1 on the d6 counts as zero. So a 4d6 RKA PEN attack that rolls 6, 5, 3, 1 for a regular total of 15, the Normal BODY result would be read as 2, 1, 1, 0 for a total of 4. WHich means that unless the defense is Hardened, no matter how much resistant defense the target has, he's going to take a minimum of 4 BODY. This is not additional damage, merely a minimum. So for the above roll, against a target with a defense of 13, he takes the minimum imposed by Penetrating (4 BODY) instead of what would normally have been only 2 BODY.

[handleyj]

Re: Confused by Penetrating

 

Ah ha! Thank you both!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Confused by Penetrating

 

I've still not found a concept based use for penetrating.

 

**sigh**

[jtelson]

Re: Confused by Penetrating

 

I've still not found a concept based use for penetrating.

 

**sigh**

My concept is I want to do body?

 

 

One of the few - This would be the GM applying penetrating

 

In Star Fleet Battles there was either a standard or optional rule for leaky shields - 1 point of damage out of X (4 I think) always gets through. So if you wanted to model a world where shields were leaky vs some attacks, those attacks would get penetrating (only vs shields).

[ghost-angel]

Re: Confused by Penetrating

 

I've still not found a concept based use for penetrating.

 

**sigh**

 

I use it for vampire fangs, high velocity needles, and wherever I think something should punch through no matter what.

[jtelson]

Re: Confused by Penetrating

 

I use it for vampire fangs' date=' high velocity needles, and wherever I think something should punch through no matter what.[/quote']

 

For those I've tended to add Only Penetrating Damage Applies (-x/x) as the concept implies defences have minimal effect on the attack.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Confused by Penetrating

 

Since the higher of the two damage ratings apply at best it's a -0 Lim, even then why bother at all; it's what Penetrating is FOR.

[jtelson]

Re: Confused by Penetrating

 

Since the higher of the two damage ratings apply at best it's a -0 Lim' date=' even then why bother at all; it's what Penetrating is FOR.[/quote']

 

Well, it would simulate an attack that simply disregarded most defenses.

 

So a needler that doesn't care if you're armored or not; that always does about the same amount of damage, could be modeled as Penetrating - only Penetrating damage applies. The limitation's value would vary based on the number of unarmored or very lightly armored opponenets you're likely to encounter in the campaign.

[jtelson]

Re: Confused by Penetrating

 

I've still not found a concept based use for penetrating.

 

**sigh**

 

Thought of another one

 

"I hit him so hard his teeth rattle" - Brick Trick Xd6 EB Penetrating 0 Range (or Penetrating on Str, or HtH Attack, or however your group does modified melee attacks)

[ghost-angel]

Re: Confused by Penetrating

 

Well, it would simulate an attack that simply disregarded most defenses.

 

So a needler that doesn't care if you're armored or not; that always does about the same amount of damage, could be modeled as Penetrating - only Penetrating damage applies. The limitation's value would vary based on the number of unarmored or very lightly armored opponenets you're likely to encounter in the campaign.

 

Standard Effect is also a -0 Limitation.

 

Sorry, can't see "only Penetrating damage" as any kind of actual Limitation on the Power since you're already garuanteed damage.

[jtelson]

Re: Confused by Penetrating

 

Standard Effect is also a -0 Limitation.

 

Sorry, can't see "only Penetrating damage" as any kind of actual Limitation on the Power since you're already garuanteed damage.

 

You're paying extra points for the guarentee and in a Superheroic game or one with few lightly/non armored targets I'd agree it's probably not worth anything as a limit, but in less Heroie settings, low points, few defenses you get 3 points of effect under the Standard Effect rules but 0-2 under what I was describing - that's not an insignificant reduction.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Confused by Penetrating

 

No - what I mean is a guaranteed level of damage is -0 Limitation.

 

With Penetrating you are paying to get a guaranteed minimum through any defense; saying "and the normal damage doesn't count" isn't much (if any) of a Limitation regardless unless the defenses are so low you're always better off without the Penetrating and buying another D6 or two of Attack anyways.

 

If the defenses are high enough to almost need penetrating to guarantee a certain amount through then you're not limited.

If the defenses are low enough that you can almost always do the same or more damage without the penetrating you're not limited.

 

It's a wash. There's no Limitation involved in "always getting X through" in my eyes.

[Kenn]

Re: Confused by Penetrating

 

I think the idea of this limitation is that the target would always take the lesser of the two values.

 

An unarmoured person (say the typical victim in a vampire story) being struck with a 1d6 Penetrating HKA with this limitation would never take more than 2 BODY, and usually just 1.

 

Whether that's actually a limitation or not would depend on the genre/rules.

[jtelson]

Re: Confused by Penetrating

 

I think the idea of this limitation is that the target would always take the lesser of the two values.

 

An unarmoured person (say the typical victim in a vampire story) being struck with a 1d6 Penetrating HKA with this limitation would never take more than 2 BODY, and usually just 1.

 

Exactly

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: Confused by Penetrating

 

I've tended to view Penetrating as usable to model attacks that tend to creep back along the pathway of the defense rather than overwhelming it, like feedback from a hit on force shields making consoles explode in a shower of sparks even though the shields themselves remain in operation. Or like a heat-based attack that can't punch through armor, but can raise its temperature enough to make things very uncomfortable for the wearer.