6e: Defense Misunderstanding

[Odraude]

So I am making a character by the standard superheroic guidelines and on page 35 of the main rulebook, it says that the def of the average super hero is 20-25/12-18. Does that mean that the total defense is 20-25 with 12-18 as the resistant or is it actually 32-43, adding the two together. I think its the former. Which one is it?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

the former

[Odraude]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

Alright thanks. So 25/18r is good for a brick at that level?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

I think so.

 

My 6e version of a beginning Superman has 25/20r that can be boosted with other abilities.

[Beast]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

in a 60pt active game anything over 12 resistant makes a 4d6 KA pretty much useless

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

in a 60pt active game anything over 12 resistant makes a 4d6 KA pretty much useless

 

In a four colour Supers game, killing attacks should be pretty much useless.

[Beast]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

Why should 1 power in the whole game be rendered useless

There are plenty of villains where their attacks threaten death and dismemberment

There should be some threat from KAs

I'm not saying that they should be able to 1 shot a character, but they should be able to wear down a character where the character might have to think of having to retreat before getting killed

 

In a four colour Supers game' date=' killing attacks should be pretty much useless.[/quote']

[Odraude]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

This is 80 point (14 DC). though i can see how that can block alot of damage even then. At least there is Armour Piercing and Penetrating.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

Why should 1 power in the whole game be rendered useless

There are plenty of villains where their attacks threaten death and dismemberment

There should be some threat from KAs

I'm not saying that they should be able to 1 shot a character, but they should be able to wear down a character where the character might have to think of having to retreat before getting killed

 

In four color comics, characters hardly ever (read: almost never) die.

[Escafarc]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

In four color comics' date=' characters hardly ever (read: almost never) die.[/quote']

 

And even when they do. They get better.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

Why should 1 power in the whole game be rendered useless

There are plenty of villains where their attacks threaten death and dismemberment

There should be some threat from KAs

I'm not saying that they should be able to 1 shot a character, but they should be able to wear down a character where the character might have to think of having to retreat before getting killed

 

The power is not rendered useless in the whole game. It is rendered useless for a specific sub-genre, four colour supers, because it is not consistent with the genre for those four colour Supers to routinely be seriously injured by attacks. In other words,

 

In four color comics' date=' characters hardly ever (read: almost never) die.[/quote']

 

Frequent lethal killing attacks violate that aspect of the genre. rDEF at a level that makes BOD damage unlikely from a campaign standard DC killing attack carries that genre-appropriate result, and forces the GM, or the player, to carefully consider any attack which is designed to carry a potential of lethal damage to a typical character.

 

As to rendering one specific power useless, how useful is immunity to radiation in the Fantasy genre? How many Modern Adventure characters buy Faster than Light travel? The Hero system provides a wide array of tools to game in many different genres. The choice of which tools to use will depend on the purpose to which you intend to apply them.

 

I initially considered the change to KA's inappropriate because it made them pretty much useless in a Supers game. However, I have come to believe that is not a flaw, but a feature. They are less useful in a Supers game, which demotivates their use. Rarity of such attacks is consistent with the source material, so the change makes genre emulation easier. We no longer see mooks carry 2d6 machine guns rather than 8d6 blasters because the machine gun has a chance of getting some significant STUN through. Instead, they prefer the Blaster (like all those villainous agencies in the comics use) and the mugger with a pistol doesn't stun or take down Bulletproof Bob because he gets a lucky roll.

[Ice9]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

Also, we're talking useless against a brick. That's exactly the type of character it should be useless against, just like Mind Control is probably not going to work on a mentalist.

 

Actually, in an 80-pt game, 25/18 is really not going to cut it for a brick, not unless they have other defenses like DR and massive STUN.

An average 80pt (16 DC) Blast deals 56 STUN. To be a "brick" a character should be able to take maybe half a dozen of those, and not get stunned by them.

So we need: DEF + CON > 56, and STUN / (56 - DEF) > 5

 

Let's try an example:

Mr. Titan has 100 STUN. Therefore, he needs at least 37 DEF. Let's say 40.

He then need at least 17 CON. Let's say 25 (he is a brick, after all).

Alternately, he could have 30 CON, 30 DEF, and 200 STUN.

 

rDEF-wise, 20 rDEF would usually protect him from killing attacks, but to be safe he'd need at least 25. However, if he has any Regeneration (even at the BODY/hour level),

then 20 is fine, as BODY damage won't put him in bed for weeks.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

In four color comics' date=' characters hardly ever (read: almost never) die.[/quote']

 

Don't read much Image do you.

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

People have been dropping like flies at DC and Marvel in recent years, too. Sure they end up being brought back to life a few years later, but that doesn't mean they weren't killed in the first place.

[Beast]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

dying is not the issue

It is the threat of dying that a killing attack is meant to do in this genre

The Villain is always trying to kill the hero

Why call it a "death trap" if there is no possibility of death

 

with 6th nerfing the stun on KAs and the recommended defenses KAs are next to worthless as powers

if Steve wants the stun lotto less effective for KAs I can see that,but the recommended defenses then need to be adjusted so KAs are a credible threat

 

In four color comics' date=' characters hardly ever (read: almost never) die.[/quote']

[Greywind]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

Don't read much Image do you.

Image was never four color. Image was the bloody age of comics.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

dying is not the issue

It is the threat of dying that a killing attack is meant to do in this genre

 

The threat of dying is real only if there is a reasonable possibility death will result.

 

The Villain is always trying to kill the hero

 

Really? Villains have no other goals, and are all casual psychotic killers? In my games, many villains would just as soon the heroes would get lost and stay out of their way so they could accomplish their real objectives. In many scenarios, their objective is not to take the heroes down, but to achieve some other objective, such as robbery (which may require they get past, or get away from, the heroes - perhaps the most practical means is by KOing them, but if the hero is Stunned, they'll take the opportunity to bolt, not hang around to finish the job), world domination (which may require distracting, circumventing or avoiding the heroes in preference to engaging in combat) or more villain-specific goals ("I just want to go home"; "I will have my revenge on MegaCorp for firing me"; etc.).

 

Why call it a "death trap" if there is no possibility of death

 

Why call it a KILLING attack if its primary means of success is to knock the target out? Drowning is not a killing attack, yet many classic death traps rely on suffocating the hero.

 

with 6th nerfing the stun on KAs and the recommended defenses KAs are next to worthless as powers

 

This is only true in genres where rDEF are typically more than adequate to block the BOD damage of a typical KA. In a fantasy game where the typical character has maybe 6 rDEF tops, and killing attacks of 2 - 3d6 are common, BOD damage is a very real threat. In modern action/adventure, where characters tend to have little or no rDEF, killing attacks are an even greater threat. But those genres tend to include a higher body count amongst the major characters, so that is appropriate.

 

I would suggest that Image-style "heroes and villains are at very real risk of death" settings would do well to reduce or even eliminate most forms of resistant and non-resistant defenses in favour of damage negation. In a typical Champions setting, we might see the characters average 20 - 25 defense. We can restrict their rDEF to make killing attacks a lethal threat, but 12 - 14 DC's of normal damage (such as Super-Strength) isn't going to draw blood. That's not consistent with this sub-genre. But if the characters instead buy enough Damage Negation to reduce STUN damage to an equal level (say 6 - 8 levels of Negation, coupled with 2 - 5 PD and ED), then a 12 - 14 DC normal attack will still deliver BOD damage. If the typical Brick has 8 Negation + 5 DEF (all resistant), he will still take BOD from the occasional 12 DC normal attack, will take a bit from the typical 12 DC killing attack, and above norm attacks, or Pushed attacks, or Haymakers, will ramp the BOD damage up very quickly. That, to me, is a far better simulation of the Iron Age Death Match supers styel

 

if Steve wants the stun lotto less effective for KAs I can see that' date='but the recommended defenses then need to be adjusted so KAs are a credible threat[/quote']

 

I would say rather than the recommended defenses need to be adjusted IF, IN YOUR GAME SETTING AND GENRE, you want KAs to be a credible threat. If, in your setting and genre, you want the possibility of character death to be remote, then the existing guidelines accomplish this very well for Supers. Probably less so for Heroic level games, where BOD damage is often much more frequent. My Pulp character has no rDEF whatsoever, but does have 1 BOD/hour Regen and a pretty good BOD score. Death is a threat, but it's also a threat for his combat-oriented teammates who have a bit of combat luck, and his weird science teammate whose force field is pretty sturdy, but occasionally fails to prevent any BOD damage.

 

In the past, the Stun Lottery ensured the killing attack was still a credible attack, even if the game setting/genre was one where death was expected to be rare to nonexistent so the characters were virtually immune to BOD damage. The 6e change, to me, is more honest - it simply makes the Killing Attack an attack whose sole purpose is to kill. In games where a body count is not appropriate, it is not an appropriate power, and as a consequence it is nerfed, demotivating its use. In games where a body count is appropriate, different defense guidelines will permit killing (and, likely, normal) attacks to inflict BOD damage, but the KA will have the edge in delivering BOD damage, while the normal attack is the clear preference for delivering STUN.

[Ice9]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

A "death trap" doesn't need to do a lot of damage. For instance, a laser that does RKA 1d6, Penetrating is enough when the hero is strapped to a table. Something that kills people in one shot is less of a "death trap" than a "super weapon".

I mean, if a character is KO'd and captured, then they're pretty screwed. That is the "real risk of death". Getting randomly killed because an agent rolled high with a shotgun is not in-genre for anything but the grittiest low-power superheroes.

[dsatow]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

in a 60pt active game anything over 12 resistant makes a 4d6 KA pretty much useless

 

I think its more balanced. A killing attack is supposed to do more body than stun, but players were always using it for its stun potential rather than body potential.

 

I also think people seem only to look at average rolls and forget that the attack is still effective.

 

If we look at a 3d6 killing attack against 20/12r (note that the attack is 1 DC less than the suggested average for this defense which would be 3d6+1)

 

Body Stun=1 Stun=2 Stun=3 Chance of doing stun

3 3 6 9 0% out of 0.5% of rolls

4 4 8 12 0% out of 1.4% of rolls

5 5 10 15 0% out of 2.8% of rolls

6 6 12 18 0% out of 4.6% of rolls

7 7 14 21 33% out of 6.9% of rolls

8 8 16 24 33% out of 9.7% of rolls

9 9 18 27 33% out of 11.6% of rolls

10 10 20 30 33% out of 12.5% of rolls

11 11 22 33 66% out of 12.5% of rolls

12 12 24 36 66% out of 11.6% of rolls

13 13 26 39 66% out of 9.7% of rolls

14 14 28 42 66% out of 6.9% of rolls

15 15 30 45 66% out of 4.6% of rolls

16 16 32 48 66% out of 2.8% of rolls

17 17 34 51 66% out of 1.4% of rolls

18 18 36 54 66% out of 0.5% of rolls

 

This means you have a smidgeon under a 26% chance to do at least 1 body. Doing 1 Body usually means doing 1 stun, at least in the games I play in, but we'll exclude that in this calculation.

 

Out of 648 combinations of how the dice roll, 304 combinations do at least 1 stun in 46.9136% of the time. 23.9198% of the time, the character will do at least 10 stun past defenses.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

Don't read much Image do you.

You consider most of what Image puts out "four color comics"?!

 

I don't know if I could read what you consider Iron Age...

[GAZZA]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

Hrm.

 

A few points:

- I find the suggested defences (which are basically unchanged since 5th edition) to be ... interesting. In 4th edition, the recommendation was defences of about 2-2.5x the maximum DC of an attack (so 24-30 in a 12 DC game; a little lower if you have a high DCV). Evidently at some point this was decided to be too high - I presume because it meant fights were taking too long. That's OK I guess - the new campaign I just started is using the new suggestions - but it feels a bit paper thin to me. I guess the idea is to have more STUN now, which is fair enough.

 

- Prior to 5th edition, supers games didn't have any limits on how much of your defences could be resistant. It didn't really matter either; you didn't buy a KA in Champions to do BODY, you bought it for the STUN lotto. (Well, OK, sometimes you bought Penetrating and so on, but you can totally still do that now). This bit of silliness is gone, and I won't miss it; now KAs are what you buy when you want to do BODY. And it's not at all genre-contrary for superheroes to have such attacks bounce off them, so I'm not even sure a limit on resistant defences is appropriate; there are plenty of ways to get BODY through if you absolutely have to, but the average brick being able to ignore 4d6 KAs isn't going to keep me awake at nights.

[Ice9]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

Yeah, these new defenses look a bit low. We generally use 20 - 30 as our range for defenses, in a 12 DC game; even then, bricks need a good amount of Con and Stun to live up to their name. With 25 DEF, against 12 DC attacks, a Brick needs in the neighborhood of 100 STUN to keep standing even a single turn.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

Yeah' date=' these new defenses look a bit low. We generally use 20 - 30 as our range for defenses, in a 12 DC game; even then, bricks need a good amount of Con and Stun to live up to their name. With 25 DEF, against 12 DC attacks, a Brick needs in the neighborhood of 100 STUN to keep standing even a single turn.[/quote']

 

...Or have the ability to boost his defenses above 25 at the expense of offense or movement (see my 350 5er & 400 6e versions of Superman in my JLA thread link in sig below).

[Utech]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

Yeah' date=' these new defenses look a bit low. We generally use 20 - 30 as our range for defenses, in a 12 DC game; even then, bricks need a good amount of Con and Stun to live up to their name. With 25 DEF, against 12 DC attacks, a Brick needs in the neighborhood of 100 STUN to keep standing even a single turn.[/quote']

 

I rather like games with these "low" defenses. They encourage people to get out of the way of attacks, use their surroundings, spend points on special defenses that go a long way toward flavoring your character, and all that good stuff.

 

Other people prefer games where the heroes and villains stand toe to toe slugging it out. That's cool, too. Just not my cup of tea.

[Ice9]

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding

 

Well, I think it's fine for many character types to have low defenses - speedsters, ranged types, martial artists, mentalists, most gadgeteers. It's just that "standing toe to toe" is pretty much the archetype of a Brick. I'd say that a "Brick" who focused on dodging attacks and using their surrounding to get out of the way is really more of a martial artist, or at least a hybrid.

 

And sure, those defenses don't have to be on all the time. But I think if a GM was using the guidelines as a hard cap, then having higher defenses in a multipower wouldn't fly either.