double stun only for con stunning

[dugfromthearth]

I want a power (a lash, but could be a slap, nerve strike, poison, or other effect) that does not do much stun towards knocking out a character but can easily con stun them.

 

I got the idea from double knockback of doubling the stun only for determining con stun - rather then buying extra dice and putting the limitation "only for con stun" on them, which seems more complicated and clunkier.

 

For the effect I want, I want the stun doubled AFTER defenses, which significantly reduces the value.

 

+1 would be basically just buying more damage which would actually do stun.

 

so a +1/2 advantage seemed about right.

 

other suggestions?

 

does +1/2 seem right?

[badger3k]

This one's easier. Right now I can't see any other easy way. For my taste, +1/2 sounds ok for 2xstun, only vs con to stun somebody. Works for me.

[OddHat]

I'd say +3/4. Once somebody is CON stuned they're going to be out of the fight in the next phase unless someone comes to their rescue.

[dugfromthearth]

3/4

 

3/4 is the cost of double knockback, and it doesn't seem as powerful as double knockback.

 

I would have gone with 3/4 if the doubling applied before defenses, but with the doubling applied after defenses it seemed too expensive.

[Lord Mhoram]

I'd go with +1/2, if I went with an advantage.

 

I'd actually just buy more dice, and all the extra dice would have "Only inflicts stun for purposes of stunning, target takes no actual stun" at maybe a -1, and "Stunning damage can be no more than double the base attack's damage after defenses" for another -1 (maybe less depending on how much damage the base attack could do).

[BNakagawa]

This would be better built as buying more DC of attack with the appropriate limitation. A pretty large limitation if it only applies to stun through defenses. (unless you've already bought it AVLD/NND/BoECV)

 

Introducing an advantage that multiplies damage (even if "ONLY" for the purpose of achieving a Con Stun result) is a can of worms you probably don't really want to open.

 

Notable complications: can you buy it more than once? Do you have to take the additional +1 penalty if you buy an autofire attack that uses this advantage? Can you put this on an NND? AVLD? Ego attack?

 

$0.02

[Hugh Neilson]

I agree with the posters who'v already weighed in on the side of extra dice with limitations. These extra dice do no knockback (-1/4), do Stun only for the purposes of stunning (-1/2; no STUN at all is -3/4) and can't be spread (-1/4), so I'd call that -1 in aggregate.

 

They also (if I read your comments correctly) fail to work at all if the opponent takes no Stun before these extra dice, and I'd give that a futher limit based on how often that's likely to happen in the campaign. Altough considering no stun at all is a -3/4 and you already got -1/2, I'm not really inclined to reduce the cost any more for further possibilities of doing no stun.

 

I agree with the posters who note an advantage is not appropriate for this. The aproach above raises the cost by 50% regardless of how many other advantages the power has.

[austenandrews]

I judge Stunning an opponent to be a lot more potent that others here. Often one Phase of being Stunned is all it takes to turn a battle. As a GM I'd rule that you have to buy extra dice of damage with Limitations, but I'd be hard-pressed to give more than -1/2 for it. Certainly not as high as -1. The idea is to build a power that will in a single shot reduce the target to 0 OCV/0 DCV and effectively Dispel an entire Phase. In my view that's worth more than 2.5 pints per 1d6.

 

-AA

[Supreme Serpent]

I don't remember the limit values I gave it, but some time ago I did something similar for a knock-out attack (poison dart, etc). Wanted to be able to easily KO a normal, but not heavily affect characters w/high CON/STUN. Ended up doing 4D6 NND, with extra 4D6 if target stunned by attack, extra 4D6 if target stunned and KO'd by attack. Average hit on normal would end up at 42 stun, which would stun them and put them to -22 stun, but to most supers would only do 14 stun.

[dugfromthearth]

"Notable complications: can you buy it more than once? Do you have to take the additional +1 penalty if you buy an autofire attack that uses this advantage? Can you put this on an NND? AVLD? Ego attack?"

 

Okay these complications certainly do make the advantage more trouble then the extra dice with a limitation.

 

I figure the lim is -1/2 as a base, but at that point it does body.

 

no body is worth -0

 

If an attack does not body does it automatically then do no knockback, or would you add no knockback for -1/4?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by dugfromthearth

Okay these complications certainly do make the advantage more trouble then the extra dice with a limitation.

 

I figure the lim is -1/2 as a base, but at that point it does body.

 

no body is worth -0

 

If an attack does not body does it automatically then do no knockback, or would you add no knockback for -1/4?

 

Unless you think No Body is a +1/4 advantage if it still does knockback, I'd say it still does knockback. Ego attacks do neuther BOD nor Knockback, but can add "does knockback for +1/4 IIRC. That doesn't enable them to do BOD.

[austenandrews]

I'd call it Stun Only (since that's the only effect it's designed for), which is a -0 Lim, then add -1/2 "only for Stunning." Anything more seems gratuitous to me. It'll probably have a bunch of other Limitations on top of that (Focus, et al.) so the cost ought to work out in the end.

 

-AA

[dugfromthearth]

okay so I'm looking at going with extra dice with the limitations "only for stunning -1/2" and "does no knockback -1/4" for a combined -3/4.

[Bartman]

I would also look at using the standard effect option. I just find it more asthetically pleasing to have something like 10d6 EB +18 stun only for con stun, rather than 10d6 EB +6d6 only for con stun.

[Dust Raven]

If all you are doing is Stunning the target, you could always do this:

 

Stunner: Suppress STUN 10d6 (standarf effect: 30) 50 Actie; Instant (-1/2) 33 Real.

 

It doesn't cause any real loss of STUN, but if the target has a CON of 29 or less, they will be Stunned. If they 29 or less actuall STUN, they will even momentarily black out, but will still have their full STUN an instant later. All of this assumes they don't have any Power Defense.

 

This type of attack is best when Linked to a damaging attack, such as an NND or AVLD.

[dugfromthearth]

interesting approach. I will have to look at that and play with it a bit.

 

it looks good.

[prestidigitator]

I agree with the Suppress: Stun idea. Or maybe a NND attack/Ego Attack linked to your normal attack (like the poison examples). Most likely is just extra dice that do no Body. I would call extra dice, "only to stun target," at most a -1/4, if I allowed it a Limitation at all. The primary purposes of doing Stun are to stun and knock out an opponent. Stunning them can in ways be easier (if they have 200 Stun, you may still only need to do 10 at once to stun them), even if it is slightly less detrimental and perhaps shorter term. Why shouldn't smacking a character with something that might stun him/her also contribute to knocking him/her out? If I got hit with enough attacks that had a chance of stunning me, I would probably expect to lose consciousness eventually, no matter the nature of the attack. There is a reason why the whole system makes reference to stunning and knocking out a target in just about all the same places, and with just about the exact same effects.

 

Consider: I stun you. You are 1/2 DCV, cannot act, and have half the targetting penalties (I think I'll hit you in the head now) until not only your next Phase, but the one after (it takes your next Phase to "recover"). Hmm. And don't think you can abort your next action. Oh, by the way, everything you have that is not Persistent turns off (that includes those Combat Skill Levels, folks!). If you were flying, you are now hitting the ground and taking damage, by the way.

[Dust Raven]

And this is why my players like to make characters with high CONs.

[dugfromthearth]

as soon as you get an action you recover from being stunned. It happens at your dex, so the effect only lasts until your next phase - not the one after that.

 

in supers the half dcv and 1/2 targeting penalty can be nasty, if the gm allows you to target the head - which I do not allow in supers.

 

in heroic levels a -4 to target the head is still a major penalty, and half dcv only lowers you from maybe 4 to 2, so they are not that severe.

 

likewise in heroic you don't have flying and forcefields and other non-persistent powers.

 

So this might be a heroic/superheroic issue. Being stunned in superheroes is usually a lot nastier then being stunned in heroics.

[austenandrews]

For that matter, is it legal to Dispel STUN? Just wondering.

 

-AA

[dugfromthearth]

you should be able to suppress stun - you can drain it after all.

[Farkling]

In consideration of the original idea...aren't you looking at Reducd Penetration from underneath (or upside down) ?

[Dust Raven]

Originally posted by austenandrews

For that matter, is it legal to Dispel STUN? Just wondering.

 

-AA

 

I brought this up with Steve some time ago in the Questions forum.

 

You can't Dispel Stun because it's a Characteristic, not a Power. You can Drain or Suppress it though. And targets can be Stunned if the effect rolled is higher than their CON.

[BNakagawa]

A rhetorical question:

 

Isn't STUN essentially a defense? (it wards off unconsciousness) So wouldn't the suppress be halved?

 

$0.02

[Farkling]

I've never seen a BODY Drain halved...why would a STUN drain be halved?

 

I suppose those WOULD be defenses though...hmmm....perhaps the BODY and STUN drains should have half effect...