CON Only to Resist Stunning

[Rapier]

In 5E CON was a handy little thing to have. Not only did it help you to avoid being Stunned, but you had all those handy Figured Characteristics that were getting a boost.

 

So limiting your CON with Only to Resist Stunning was a moderately significant Limitation.

 

However, in 6E, there are no Figureds. CON is only good for CON Rolls and Stunning.

 

I'm debating in my head, and don't believe the Limitation is worth more than -1/2 but I can't decide if maybe it should only be worth -1/4.

 

I haven't seen any published characters (that I can recall) that had such a build.

 

Thoughts?

[Nolgroth]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

I would agree that -1/4 is about where I would place the limitation.

[Doc Samson]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

I think I am in the -1/4 group too. I can't remember the last time I made a CON Roll whereas resisting being STUNNED happens most phases of combat

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

Is it a limitation at all? When do we make CON rolls?

 

In 5e, "No Figured" was -1/2, and CON provided Figured's and resistance to Stunning. Taking No Figured was uncommon because of the value of Figured's.

 

Now, CON is really a "character tax". Unless you want to spend most of your time recovering from being Stunned, you buy enough CON that the typical attack isn't likely to STUN you. You don't buy it for any other reason, so "limiting" it to only prevent being stunned seems quite non-limiting to me.

 

If someone wants to cite other uses for STUN that would come up on at least a sporadic basis, I'd be OK with -1/4, but I don't see anything else CON does in 6e.

[Wolf]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

I personally agree with you Hugh to be honest; however, I could see using a Con rolls to resist sleepy-ness (That character that decided to stay up all night and pull guard shift, while everyone else got a full nights rest, the classic I'm following him all night tracking scene, the wizard up all night researching- rolling to see if he doesn't crash at the midnight point, etc.), resisting poison (fairly simple explanations), Psi/Ego powers that have the use Con disad, I could see jacking a "push" depending on a Con roll... I can honestly see a great deal of odd little uses... then again, I've never actually had any occur in-game.

 

So Again, I gotta go with you and say that despite the above list it's getting something for nothing to use the 'only to resist stun' modifier. Heck I really didn't allow it in earlier editions, I just didn't decouple very often, and thought it was a bit 'twink-y' but I know others probably would disagree (however, we all have to rule things based on our game group, and for mine, this is what was necessary).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

I personally agree with you Hugh to be honest; however' date=' I could see using a Con rolls to resist sleepy-ness (That character that decided to stay up all night and pull guard shift, while everyone else got a full nights rest, the classic I'm following him all night tracking scene, the wizard up all night researching- rolling to see if he doesn't crash at the midnight point, etc.), resisting poison (fairly simple explanations), Psi/Ego powers that have the use Con disad, I could see jacking a "push" depending on a Con roll... I can honestly see a great deal of odd little uses... then again, I've never actually had any occur in-game. [/quote']

 

And those would be great ancillary uses for CON which would justify a limitation for "only to resist Stunning", and, if used in games regularly, make CON more worth its cost. REP to you!

[Wolf]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

, big smile of pride...

"why thank you sir!"

[dmjalund]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

we need more CON based skills!

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

Con rolls are also used in high gravity. But outside of certain Star Hero campaigns, that's not a very common situation.

[Rapier]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

I personally agree with you Hugh to be honest; however' date=' I could see using a Con rolls to resist sleepy-ness (That character that decided to stay up all night and pull guard shift, while everyone else got a full nights rest, the classic I'm following him all night tracking scene, the wizard up all night researching- rolling to see if he doesn't crash at the midnight point, etc.), resisting poison (fairly simple explanations), Psi/Ego powers that have the use Con disad, I could see jacking a "push" depending on a Con roll... I can honestly see a great deal of odd little uses... then again, I've never actually had any occur in-game. [/quote']

 

See, that's what I keep coming up with. I've keep thinking that there is this huge list of things CON is good for. All the snake bites, diseases and infections, poisons, curses, tiredness and drowning. But how often does any of that really happen? Not often.

 

One of the things I've come to realise (and has really set in) is that by removing Figureds we now have some Characteristics that just kind of sit out there like a lump. When playing D&D didn't everyone (except maybe the Ranger, iirc) drop their LOWEST score into Charisma? It was the least useful.

 

So I've been trying to evaluate and design characters based on the human range (8 is average, 10 is heroic average and 20 is max human). Most characters don't really rate more than an 11 or 12 CON, some maybe as high as 13 or 14 at the outside. Yet these values are low enough that Stunning is going to be constant and regular, which I don't want. Someone that gets smacked around as often as your average Hero should be able to build up a certain tolerance for the aftereffects of damage (eg Stunning).

 

CON should be a general representation of how healthy and resilient a character is, not necessarily simply and solely a representation of how well they can take a punch.

 

While I can see Hugh's point and can even, to an extent, agree. I think there should be some manner for me to differentiate the effects and game use of a characteristic from the base effect of the characteristic itself. I guess it comes down to me, as GM, to try and use CON a bit more.

[Fearghus]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

Con is one of those characteristics that has become less important in 6th ed than in 5th Ed. or I guess a more accurate way of phrasing it it has become more less important. The separation of calculated characteristics has had the most drastic effect on Dex but Con has become useless for almost anything other than resisting stun or the arbitrary Con rolls a GM may require of players. As such I am thinking "Only to resist stun" limitation would be no more than -1/4, and I would likely not allow it to be a limitation at all in my games.

[Nevenall]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

CON is used to resist environmental radiation, and CON rolls are made to reduce the impact of Disabling injuries. Both optional rules.

Oh, and there are always powers that are Based on CON.

[ghost-angel]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

In almost every game I'm in - read: any Genre but Champions - CON Rolls come up often enough and are important enough that they're worth a -1/4, but not more than that.

 

In a Champions Game it's a -0.

[casualplayer]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

CON's value Only to Resist Stunning is directly proportional to how prevalent AVADs are in your game. Not very heroic to get punked by 4d6 that bypasses your defenses and exceeds your 13 CON.

[rjcurrie]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

In almost every game I'm in - read: any Genre but Champions - CON Rolls come up often enough and are important enough that they're worth a -1/4, but not more than that.

 

In a Champions Game it's a -0.

 

I still think it's a -1/4 in Champions but I can see an argument for -0.

[Matt Holck]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

I was thinking just drop con in 6th

and use body for stun threshold

[Wolf]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

I was thinking just drop con in 6th

and use body for stun threshold

 

Personally, I'd go with removing Body, and using Con for damage... just due to already having the roll pre-built into con... IE, you'd have to make a Body roll (which honestly is only an issue if you use Hero Designer a great deal, as I have) otherwise it's just as easy to add a "body roll" to body. But for me personally I'd still need to have a stat roll that covers some of the ancillary rolls that might pop up that the Con roll is good for. But I don't think that that's not a bad idea, heck you could even re-name it to Health, and even increase the cost a tad.

 

Health (this is somewhat cool because as you loose health you ability to deal with stun damage will decrease, and your Health rolls will become worse):

Body type HP: what was formerly "body" damage would just read Health damage.

Con Type rolls: use this roll for endurance, and health checks, poison, staying awake, extreme "push," feats of endurance, etc. Lowering your rolls as you take damage may also be an interesting part of using this system.

Con type resistance to stun... This would become the same thing as what con is used for, however with this system any "body"/Health damage you took reduces your ability to take the next hit (this would quickly compound itself, and you would end up with a "death spiral" as it were, so some people my not see it as "fun."

 

I don't know how far this idea can be used, but I do like the mechanic it seems to suggest happening.

 

You loose functionality to "build" a glass jaw, or someone who has low HP, but can take a hit... so I don't think it's going in the direction that DOJ is going, but it's got some interesting uses.

[Fearghus]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

I was thinking just drop con in 6th

and use body for stun threshold

 

The only drawback to this is that it reduces versatility. If I want to represent a character that is large (high body) but for what ever reason easily fatigued (low con) I can't do that if there is only one stat. unless I buy a limitation on a portion of the characteristic which makes it MORE complicated not less so. I like the distinction between body and con for that reason.

[Chimera 12]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

The only drawback to this is that it reduces versatility. If I want to represent a character that is large (high body) but for what ever reason easily fatigued (low con) I can't do that if there is only one stat. unless I buy a limitation on a portion of the characteristic which makes it MORE complicated not less so. I like the distinction between body and con for that reason.

 

If you want him easily fatigued, that's more up the alley of low END than low CON.

 

Part of the issue is, I think, that most things you might intuitively use CON for in other games tend not to come up in Hero so much. There's no "fortitude save" vs. poison or sickness, for example; the usual Hero examples are built as simple straight-up NNDs, Drains, or the like, and work just as well whether the target's CON is 8 or 28. You don't make CON rolls vs. exhaustion, those effects are governed by END and REC instead. And so on.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

As far as the power goes, Remember that a character who has extra CON only to resist being Stunned, will at some point be better off buying "Cannot be stunned" if you buy enough of it. Just a reminder about options.

[Rapier]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

As far as the power goes' date=' Remember that a character who has extra CON only to resist being Stunned, will at some point be better off buying "Cannot be stunned" if you buy enough of it. Just a reminder about options.[/quote']

 

It's only three or four points. Just enough to swing over to not being Stunned by average attacks. I've gone with -1/4. Not that it makes any difference. The cost difference (between -1/4 and -1/2) is at max 1 pt and frequently not even that.

[ghost-angel]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

As far as the power goes' date=' Remember that a character who has extra CON only to resist being Stunned, will at some point be better off buying "Cannot be stunned" if you buy enough of it. Just a reminder about options.[/quote']

 

But it's likely a nice high number, as that triples the cost of your Defenses.

[ghost-angel]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

I still think it's a -1/4 in Champions but I can see an argument for -0.

 

I'm sure in some, or even many, it probably is. I just haven't played in any.

[Daltwisney]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

But it's likely a nice high number' date=' as that triples the cost of your Defenses.[/quote']

 

 

Actually, 'Cannot Be Stunned' has no effect at all on the cost of defenses, you are thinking of 'Takes No Stun'.

 

More on topic, the value of this as a limitation is certainly dependent on the game being run. If the 'other' uses of CON come up frequently, it might be worth -1/4. Looking at "Limited Power" as a basis (which is likely what this would fall under), if the power loses less than a quarter of it's effectiveness, it's a -0. So, if your game has you resisting poison or disease, or rolling a Con Roll to exert yourself once for every three times you are hit, I could see -1/4.

 

In my personal experience, I have not run into ANY games where it was that common in over 20+ years of Champions/Hero. I might have made a dozen CON rolls in that time. But, opposite to G-A, 90%+ of the games I have run or been in have been Champions rather than FH or another Heroic setting, so YMMV.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning

 

I've considered using CON (or other characteristic) as a Defense against an AVAD. (Steve filed it under, "GM Permission" and wanted to think more about it.)