Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

[The Main Man]

Here's something that I've thought is a slightly broken concept for a couple of years and now I have finally piped up about on these boards.

Penetrating lets a minimum amount of damage bypass a target's defenses equal to the BODY rolled on the dice.

 

Reduced Penetration splits the BODY of an attack in half for defense calculation purposes.

 

If I have been reading all of that correctly for all of these years, I believe that that means that Reduced Penetration can artificially reduce the BODY for a Penetrating KA, and thusly it would get to do its minimum damage.

 

I will be the first to say that this is looking at things from a purely mechanical standpoint - I have attached no SFX to the build idea.

 

Furthermore, I am aware that Hardened (5e) and Impenetrable (6e) can screw this build over, which my be the balancing factor.

 

So does anyone else think that it may be broken.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

Not particularly. Generally Penetrating Attacks will do their Penetrating Body anyways, under most conditions, and rarely do enough Body for the "Penetrating Body" to be less than the regular Body Damage after Defenses.

 

Remember, Penetrating does whichever is greater. If the Regular Body After Defenses is never, or almost never, greater than the Penetrating Damage it's a moot point to attach Reduce Penetration.

It may, however, be a hinky build because of that, and a GM could stop it on merits that Reduced Penetration in this instance isn't really Limiting the Power and is thus worth no points.

 

Broken? No.

Suspect? A bit.

[The Main Man]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

Fair enough - suspicious sounds like a better disposition.

 

But yeah, the fact that Penetrating only does the greater of two damage totals is what makes it possibly suspect, and I'm thinking that it gets worse as Active Points and Damage Classes rise because the combination will do more and more BODY.

[TSandman]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

Penetrating + Reduced Penetration slapped on the same power is kinda contradictory, no? I mean logic-wise, they *seem* to be mutually exclusive (not taking the rules/build into account, only the *wording*) I'd ask the crator of that particular build to explain to me *very clearly* why those two *must* be used together, because my mind cannot wrap itself around that particular combo...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

Reduced penetration is not 'reduced penetration' - it is 'reduced Armor Piercing'. Think of it that way and it all goes warm and fuzzy.

[sobran]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

Reduced penetration is not 'reduced penetration' - it is 'reduced Armor Piercing'. Think of it that way and it all goes warm and fuzzy.

Hmm. Reduced Armor Piercing + Penetrating...? No, I'm afraid I would still be looking at my player funny.

 

EDIT: I just realized you weren't being serious. I will leave my foolish response so that all may point and laugh at me.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

On a less flippant note, say you had a 4d6 KA reduced penetration, so you roll 2x2d6 (say you get 3 and 4 on both rolls).

 

You apply 7 Body damage against the target's defences, twice.

 

If you ALSO have penetrating you do at least 4 BODY damage, irrespective of the reduced penetration, unless the target has hardened (or impenetrable in 6e) defences in which case there is no minimum.

 

To take some examples of different defences:

 

9 DEF, hardened/impenetrable:

 

4d6KA: 5 Body on average

4d6 KA reduced penetration: 0 Body on average

4d6 KA reduced penetration, penetrating, 0 Body on average

 

9 DEF

 

4d6KA: 5 Body on average

4d6 KA reduced penetration: 0 Body on average

4d6 KA reduced penetration, penetrating, 4 Body on average

 

 

so...there is a difference between reduced peetration and penetration: they are not opposites and do not cancel (except linguistically). Actual results may vary

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

As far as special effects go, I think this would work well for something like a needle or thorn spray, or needler gun; something that fires lots of narrow projectiles. They're almost guaranteed to cause some damage, but they can't inflict a LOT of damage unless it's on a soft target. Kind of a 'death of a thousand cuts' deal.

[The Main Man]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

Penetrating + Reduced Penetration slapped on the same power is kinda contradictory' date=' no? I mean logic-wise, they *seem* to be mutually exclusive (not taking the rules/build into account, only the *wording*) I'd ask the crator of that particular build to explain to me *very clearly* why those two *must* be used together, because my mind cannot wrap itself around that particular combo...[/quote']

 

The wording is more of a coincidence to me than anything else. I can make Armor Piercing ammo with Piercing in DC after all.

 

A couple of SFX ideas though could be special shotgun ammunition or a precise one-two punch.

[The Main Man]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

Oh, and Sean Waters is totally right - it is basically an inverse AP.

 

A truly inverted Penetration would be a power with a maximum damage cap equal to the BODY rolled.

 

And nice idea for SFX CrosshairCollie - I didn't even think of needlers.

[Balabanto]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

Here's something that I've thought is a slightly broken concept for a couple of years and now I have finally piped up about on these boards.

Penetrating lets a minimum amount of damage bypass a target's defenses equal to the BODY rolled on the dice.

 

Reduced Penetration splits the BODY of an attack in half for defense calculation purposes.

 

If I have been reading all of that correctly for all of these years, I believe that that means that Reduced Penetration can artificially reduce the BODY for a Penetrating KA, and thusly it would get to do its minimum damage.

 

I will be the first to say that this is looking at things from a purely mechanical standpoint - I have attached no SFX to the build idea.

 

Furthermore, I am aware that Hardened (5e) and Impenetrable (6e) can screw this build over, which my be the balancing factor.

 

So does anyone else think that it may be broken.

 

I don't THINK this is broken. I KNOW this is broken. Just because you can throw a limitation on something doesn't mean you SHOULD throw a limitation on something. The idea of building penetrating attacks with reduced penetration falls into the same "hinky" category as buying a ton of flight with UAO, Indirect and noncombat multipliers, and buying Martial Throw.

 

In general, I wouldn't allow this attack. If you wanted to build a needler, you should buy an Autofire, Penetrating attack, or an Area of Effect, Penetrating attack if a whole bunch of needles are sheared off a piece of plastic at once. The fact that you can still do it in combination with these only proves just how broken it is.

 

This might be easier to understand by this principle.

 

A Limitation that is not a Limitation is worth no points. Therefore, these are the questions you must ask.

 

1) Does every single application of this limitation make everything better? (The old version of Only in Hero ID, For Instance)

 

2) Will the use of this limitation significantly hinder just this character, or all characters equally when the same special effect is used? If the limitation doesn't hinder that specific character in the same way as other characters, and the power can be easily acquired by multiple beings in exactly the same way, then it isn't a limitation either. All characters should be hindered equally by the same limitation. It is possible that a lesser value might be received for that limitation, but usually, the differences are pretty glaring and obvious. (Example: Bob can summon his gun back to his hand at any time. He receives a lesser bonus for his gun, or no bonus at all, because it can't be disarmed, only destroyed.)

 

3) Is it related in some basic way to the way the Universe functions? In a game where everyone requires Incantations and Gestures to cast their spells, these aren't really limitations, because everyone who can cast spells acquires these disadvantages for free. You don't get points for them because everyone already has them. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but not many.

 

4) Will giving this PC or NPC said power create a war of escalation between the PC's or between the GM and the PCs? This is how games die. One of the ways that players leave games is because other players step on THEIR psychological limitations. Judge carefully your group of players as people before allowing something like this. Sometimes it may be wiser to just say 'No' and bite the bullet on a little immediate anger for the overall long term good of the game or gameworld.

[dmjalund]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

I will only respond to 3) as it is the only one I have an opinion about

 

the cost of spells are not just compared to other spells, but everything else that costs points (e.g., Characteristics, Skills, racial abilities)

 

so the cost of a spell should be compared with Racial Infravision (that does not have spell limitations) or even Skill levels

[The Main Man]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

I've never seen anyone in my group actually build it - I'm the only one who concocted it, and like I said in my original post, that was a few years back.

 

And as far as my group goes on stuff like this... let's just say that I've taught them everything that they know, but not everything that I know with this being an example of such restrained knowledge and a bunch of stuff that I learned from these boards.

[Heroic Halfwit]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

I can see reduced penetration and penetrating for a Wolverine clone, to represent that it's really 2 attacks that occur essentially simultaneously and have great penetrating power individually. Of course reduced penetration often times is an actual advantage on the "heroic" side of the street as it allows the character to use killing attacks to stun rather than kill, but that's by the by.

 

2 nearly simultaneous attacks makes a good justification, in my opinion for such a construct, otherwise it gets dicey. I suppose there do exist certain forms of radiation that don't dilute in air, but dissipate rapidly upon contact with organic or metallic material. If someone could show me the science of it, I'd be all for it, otherwise I'd just assume munchkinism.

[JaredThaler]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

Actually, what would be unbalanced is a penetrating attack where the reduced penetration reduces a 1d6 penetrating attack to 2 1/2d6 penetrating attacks.

 

1 1d6 penetrating deals on average 1 penetrating damage,

2 1/2 d6 penetrating attacks average 1.333 penetrating damage, so here you have a limitation actually *increasing* the average effectiveness of the attack.

 

Throw in Explosive, Autofire 15, (and use it at 0 range, so you can't really miss,) and you have an attack that does 20 body on average, only blockable by hardened defense. (As opposed to an attack that just deals 15 penetrating body. )

 

One of the reasons why I usually try to harden at least 3 points of my armor...

[Daltwisney]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

Actually' date=' what would be unbalanced is a penetrating attack where the reduced penetration reduces a 1d6 penetrating attack to 2 1/2d6 penetrating attacks.[/quote']

 

In most cases, you would have to start with a 1d6 + 1 (4 DC) attack to get 2 x 1/2d6 (2 DC ea) attacks. With 1d6, you would get 2 x 1pip attacks.

 

1 1d6 penetrating deals on average 1 penetrating damage,

2 1/2 d6 penetrating attacks average 1.3333 penetrating damage, so here you have a limitation actually *increasing* the average effectiveness of the attack.

 

Following up on the above:

1) 1d6 Penetrating deals an average of 1 Penetrating damage.

2) 2 x 1pip Penetrating deals 2 Penetrating damage.

 

or

 

1) 1d6+1 Penetrating deals an average of 1 Penetrating damage.

2) 2 x 1/2d6 Penetrating deals an average of 1 Penetrating damage.

 

The first application is 'broken' because you are applying Reduced Penetration in a manner, which while legal by the RAW, is not the intended application (Breaking a larger attack into 2 smaller attacks to represent Armor/Defense being MORE effective at stopping BODY damage).

 

Throw in Explosive' date=' Autofire 15, (and use it at 0 range, so you can't really miss,) and you have an attack that does 20 body on average, only blockable by hardened defense. (As opposed to an attack that just deals 15 penetrating body. )[/quote']

 

30 BODY average for the 2x1pip attack, but only 15 BODY for the 2x1/2d6 (assuming 15 hits, see below.)

 

Most GMs will still require an attack roll, even if they consider the DCV of 'self' to be 0, and for an Autofire 15 attack to hit with every shot (assuming an average 11 hit roll), you still need a 28 OCV. You most likely also want Charges or Reduced END (that base attack costs between 90-120 END). You have also most likely vaporized every standard Focus and all the terrain in the area, including the ground.

 

One of the reasons why I usually try to harden at least 3 points of my armor...

 

Good choice, since you are in the area defined above, and adding Personal Immunity would only increase the cost further.

[Daltwisney]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

So does anyone else think that it may be broken.

 

I would have to say no. A Killing attack with Reduced Penetration will do less damage than one without with 2 exceptions:

1) 0 Resistant Defense - thus damage is equal in both cases.

2) a KA with Reduced Penetration AND Penetrating that has a base value of 1d6 or 1/2d6. (This takes advantage of the note in the Penetrating rules that a 1 pip Penetrating attack does a minimum of 1 Penetrating BODY)

 

A KA with Reduced Penetration and Penetrating does less than one with only Penetrating except as noted above.

 

I've attached a table with the results for a 4d6 KA with average rolls (3,4,3,4) vs rDef for the various combinations. Other than Note 2 above, I don't see anything that strikes me as broken.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]34472[/ATTACH]

[Kristopher]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

Hmmm... 1 pip RKA, Autofire, Penetrating...

[Daltwisney]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

Hmmm... 1 pip RKA' date=' Autofire, Penetrating...[/quote']

 

Yes, either VERY painful or totally ineffective. In a fantasy game, can make a great basis for a Magic Missile type spell.

[JaredThaler]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

Except that the "body count" of a one Pip attack is defined to be 0... (Since, unless I misunderstand, a +1 pip is identical to an aditional die that can only roll 1's.)

 

so a 1 Pip Penetrating RKA is just a waste of a 1/4 advantage.

 

As fo rolling to hit, sure, go ahead, but since the maximum scatter distance of a AoE attack is half the distance to the target, if the target is self, then you miss, and scatter 0/2 hexes...

 

Yeah. I could roll 10 scatter dice, but why bother?

 

I did forget that I need 4 DC's not 3. So that may change some stuff in the equation.

 

but:

 

1) 1d6+1 Penetrating deals an average of 1 Penetrating damage.

2) 2 x 1/2d6 Penetrating deals an average of 1 Penetrating damage.

 

actually, 1/2d6 deals an average penetrating damage of .666..

(1-2 = 0 body, 3-6 = 1 body on a half die.)

 

so 2 x 1/2 d6 = average of 1.333 penetrating.

[Vulcan]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

I don't worry too much about it. Why? Because as a GM, it's fairly easy for me to nerf it if it is being abused. All I have to do is Harden enough DEF on anyone/thing that has an excuse for it so that the abusive attack will bounce.

 

Or just flat disallow it / require the power be changed if I don't feel like being that big of a jerk about it.

 

One Penetrating/Reduced Pen combo that worked surprisingly well in a superhero game was for a werewolf. Big Nasty Fangs: 2d6 HKA (4D6 with STR), Penetrating, Double Knockdown, Reduced Penetration.

 

The fangs were big and tough enough to punch through light-to-medium armor, but since pressure was being applied from both sides of the target (top jaw, bottom jaw)...

 

Double Knockdown was because he would grab the target with his teeth and shake it before letting go, which whould knock many targets off-balance and make them fall down.

[Daltwisney]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

Except that the "body count" of a one Pip attack is defined to be 0... (Since, unless I misunderstand, a +1 pip is identical to an aditional die that can only roll 1's.)

 

so a 1 Pip Penetrating RKA is just a waste of a 1/4 advantage.

 

+1 pip on an attack die is defined to be 0, but a 1 pip attack is defined to do a penetrating BODY of 1 (6E1, 342).

 

 

As fo rolling to hit, sure, go ahead, but since the maximum scatter distance of a AoE attack is half the distance to the target, if the target is self, then you miss, and scatter 0/2 hexes...

 

Yeah. I could roll 10 scatter dice, but why bother?

If you wish to allow a zero range Autofire attack to automatically hit the maximum number of times, feel free.

 

I did forget that I need 4 DC's not 3. So that may change some stuff in the equation.

 

but:

 

 

 

actually, 1/2d6 deals an average penetrating damage of .666..

(1-2 = 0 body, 3-6 = 1 body on a half die.)

 

so 2 x 1/2 d6 = average of 1.333 penetrating.

a 1/2d6 Penetrating does 1 BODY on a 4,5,6. (6E1, 342) Thus .500 average.

 

so 2 x 1/2d6 = average of 1.000 penetrating.

[JaredThaler]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken?

 

+1 pip on an attack die is defined to be 0' date=' but a 1 pip attack is defined to do a penetrating BODY of 1 (6E1, 342).[/quote']

 

Thats new. I'm not sure I like that. I guess it is usefull for emulating some things (Snake bites, etc which are required to deal damage to trigger a secondary effect, but which shouldn't get a full 1/2 die of damage.

 

If you wish to allow a zero range Autofire attack to automatically hit the maximum number of times' date=' feel free.[/quote']

 

Not any given 0 range, but certainly I fail to see how a 0 range AoE autofire can effectively miss given the minimum scatter distance.

 

a 1/2d6 Penetrating does 1 BODY on a 4' date='5,6. (6E1, 342) Thus .500 average.[/quote']

 

Hmm.

 

Apparently I've been running that one wrong for years.