Automaton Vehicles

[GAZZA]

I've noticed a possible problem with 6th edition and its failure to adopt any unified "incomplete character" rules.

 

Let's say I want to build a zombie. It can't be hurt (no STUN); the only way to take it down is to reduce its BODY to negatives (ie it doesn't lose any powers when it takes damage).

 

Obviously the classic way to build this is as an Automaton. You cough up 60 points for the Takes No Stun power. You pay three times the cost for your defences. And you have to pay END for movement and STR.

 

Or - you could build it as a vehicle with an onboard computer. Vehicles get "takes no STUN" for free, and they don't even pay an increased defence cost for it. Their movement and STR is automatically 0 END (admittedly they get a turn mode for Running. That isn't even necessarily inappropriate for a clumsy zombie). And as an added bonus, if you make a giant zombie you can ride inside of it for no extra cost.

 

Have I missed something?

[dmjalund]

Re: Automaton Vehicles

 

IIRC when a vehicle takes body, it starts losing functionality - incluyding the possibility of the computer going off line

 

also you have to buy programs for the computer

[GAZZA]

Re: Automaton Vehicles

 

Hmm. I can't find that, but assume it's true - then it's comparable to a 45 point Takes No STUN. You're right about having to program the computer, but it is unlikely to cost you that many points.

[Utech]

Re: Automaton Vehicles

 

You're missing nothing -- so long as that's what you want in your game.

 

Now, if you were a player in a game I was GMing, I'd have to tell you "Sorry, but you're clearly breaking the spirit, if not the letter, of the rules here. No, your zombies cannot be built as vehicles."

[GAZZA]

Re: Automaton Vehicles

 

Or - and this is just a thought - one of two things could be the case:

- Automaton Takes No STUN power is overly expensive (considering not just the cost of the power, but the defences cost as well).

- Vehicles should be subject to the defence penalty as well.

 

Zombies are an illustrative example only of course, and there's nothing wrong per se with building a zombie as a vehicle instead of an Automaton. Consider an evil necromancer who animates a giant zombie and rides in its stomach, for example. I realise that the rules are designed for simplicity, but since we got the optional velocity rules in both 5e and 6e it would have been nice to get the Incomplete Characters as optional rules as well; they enabled some interesting builds that are a little painful to construct without them. Anyone know if GamingPhil ever intends to finish updating them to 6e?

[Susano]

Re: Automaton Vehicles

 

The x3 cost for Defenses is to balance Automaton characters against the PCs. If your Automaton costs 700 points and the PCs are 125 each, you might want to rethink things a bit. Also, Vehicles technically cost total/5, so you can get some really cheap zombies. However... I agree that buying your zombie horde as a mass of vehicles seems to violate the spirit and intent of the rules. That, and (IMO) it's a lot easier to build Automatons in Hero Designer than it is to build vehicles with computers.

[GAZZA]

Re: Automaton Vehicles

 

The x3 cost for Defenses is to balance Automaton characters against the PCs. If your Automaton costs 700 points and the PCs are 125 each' date=' you might want to rethink things a bit.[/quote']

I'm not sure where you got those numbers - 700 points and 125? Sorry, what am I missing?

 

Also, Vehicles technically cost total/5, so you can get some really cheap zombies.

So do Automatons, so there's no saving there (aside from the fact that you're already saving because vehicle zombies are cheaper).

 

However... I agree that buying your zombie horde as a mass of vehicles seems to violate the spirit and intent of the rules. That, and (IMO) it's a lot easier to build Automatons in Hero Designer than it is to build vehicles with computers.

It is still not clear to me why there is a difference. I realise historically there always has been, but that's really no excuse. Vehicles are basically the same as automatons in the way they take damage - neither takes STUN, only BODY. Indeed vehicles are superior because for no extra change they get to give those defences to anyone that rides in them. It doesn't really make a lot of sense for automatons to be that much more expensive.

 

But OK, zombies bother you. What about robots then? No reason not to build those as vehicles. Robotic cars, if you really have a problem with it. Nobody agrees with me that these costs should be aligned? I'm not saying it's important, I'm just saying it's weird.

[Susano]

Re: Automaton Vehicles

 

I'm not sure where you got those numbers - 700 points and 125? Sorry' date=' what am I missing?[/quote']

 

I just made them up as an example. If you zombie/golem/giant robo/whatever costs 700 points when you're done, due to the x3 for Defenses, Automaton powers, and what not, and your PCs are only 125 each, then you might want to rethink your initial build.

 

So do Automatons, so there's no saving there (aside from the fact that you're already saving because vehicle zombies are cheaper).

 

Automatons don't get any sort of cost break, unless you buy them as Followers, in which case you can buy them in large masses due to the Base Cost /5 and the x2 for 5 points rule. Vehicles, IIRC, don't get this sort of deal. A 700 point Automaton costs

 

It is still not clear to me why there is a difference. I realise historically there always has been, but that's really no excuse. Vehicles are basically the same as automatons in the way they take damage - neither takes STUN, only BODY. Indeed vehicles are superior because for no extra change they get to give those defences to anyone that rides in them. It doesn't really make a lot of sense for automatons to be that much more expensive.

 

But OK, zombies bother you. What about robots then? No reason not to build those as vehicles. Robotic cars, if you really have a problem with it. Nobody agrees with me that these costs should be aligned? I'm not saying it's important, I'm just saying it's weird.

 

Well, it depends on what you're doing. Zombie human? That's an Automaton. Zombie elephant controlled by necromancy to be a conveyance and war machine? That's a Vehicle. But saying you want to buy zombie humans as Vehicles just because it's cheaper seems to be wrong. As for the costs? I've never had an issue with it, so I don't see a problem. But then, I'm not one for looking for end runs around the limitations of the system.

[GAZZA]

Re: Automaton Vehicles

 

I just made them up as an example. If you zombie/golem/giant robo/whatever costs 700 points when you're done' date=' due to the x3 for Defenses, Automaton powers, and what not, and your PCs are only 125 each, then you might want to rethink your initial build.[/quote']

Err... obviously, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

 

Automatons don't get any sort of cost break, unless you buy them as Followers, in which case you can buy them in large masses due to the Base Cost /5 and the x2 for 5 points rule. Vehicles, IIRC, don't get this sort of deal.

Pretty much any way you buy automatons you'll get the cost break. Followers, Summon, whatever. I suppose if someone wanted to play an Automaton he'd pay full price, but I can't imagine that as being likely. And according to 6e1 pp107 vehicles (and bases) get the same, so they're equal as far as that is concerned.

 

 

Well, it depends on what you're doing. Zombie human? That's an Automaton. Zombie elephant controlled by necromancy to be a conveyance and war machine? That's a Vehicle. But saying you want to buy zombie humans as Vehicles just because it's cheaper seems to be wrong. As for the costs? I've never had an issue with it, so I don't see a problem. But then, I'm not one for looking for end runs around the limitations of the system.

Can you point to who it is you think is trying to find an end run around the limitations of the system? Hint: I'm not. I'm just pointing out that you have two STUN-less constructs where one has to pay a lot more for defence than the other despite having utility that it as good or better. As I say, I don't think it's that important - just that it is weird. There is no innate reason for this "limitation of the system" to exist. Surely either not taking STUN is a significant enough power that it justifies the increase in defence cost, or else it isn't. It shouldn't be one way for automatons and one way for vehicles - arguably, anyway.

[Susano]

Re: Automaton Vehicles

 

Err... obviously' date=' but I don't see what that has to do with anything.[/quote']

 

Did you read the first sentence of my initial post? I initially said that the x3 for Defenses is to help GMs balance an Automaton character (be it a foe or a PC) against the PCs. That's all. It was an observation as to why they pay x3 for everything.

 

Pretty much any way you buy automatons you'll get the cost break. Followers, Summon, whatever. I suppose if someone wanted to play an Automaton he'd pay full price, but I can't imagine that as being likely. And according to 6e1 pp107 vehicles (and bases) get the same, so they're equal as far as that is concerned.

 

Ah, so they do.

 

Can you point to who it is you think is trying to find an end run around the limitations of the system? Hint: I'm not. I'm just pointing out that you have two STUN-less constructs where one has to pay a lot more for defence than the other despite having utility that it as good or better. As I say, I don't think it's that important - just that it is weird. There is no innate reason for this "limitation of the system" to exist. Surely either not taking STUN is a significant enough power that it justifies the increase in defence cost, or else it isn't. It shouldn't be one way for automatons and one way for vehicles - arguably, anyway.

 

And I'm saying I don't really see an issue with it. Vehicles have other issues to deal with aside from not taking STUN and paying more for Defenses that make them (IMO) separate from Automatons.

[GAZZA]

Re: Automaton Vehicles

 

Did you read the first sentence of my initial post? I initially said that the x3 for Defenses is to help GMs balance an Automaton character (be it a foe or a PC) against the PCs. That's all. It was an observation as to why they pay x3 for everything.

Ah, fair enough. My point is that computer controlled vehicles have the same benefit for no cost. Now, presumably the point is that computer controlled vehicles aren't "characters" in the same sense as automatons. That is a defensible position of course.

 

 

nd I'm saying I don't really see an issue with it. Vehicles have other issues to deal with aside from not taking STUN and paying more for Defenses that make them (IMO) separate from Automatons.

Ah, I see. I should be clearer, my apologies.

 

I am not advocating that automatons be replaced by computer controlled vehicles, though I certainly see how it could be taken that I was. Apart from anything else not all automatons have these features, and some don't lose powers at all. Automatons don't get focus bonuses for being bulky. There are plenty of differences, I certainly acknowledge that.

 

My point is that purely from a defence point of view, 45 point "Takes No STUN" Automatons can be considered equivalent to Vehicles. My proposal of computer controlled vehicles as robots is intended for illustrative purposes - as I believe it would be reasonable that some GMs would do that as vehicles and others as automatons - indeed, that many GMs would consider such creations on a case by case basis. Fair enough? If you disagree - if you think that all robots should be built as automatons - then that's cool, it was only an example.

 

The reason that automatons pay the "defence tax", as you say, is to balance them against similarly pointed characters. An automaton with a 15 rPD is going to pretty much ignore 12 DC attacks; a PC with 15 PD is going to take 25-30 STUN from them. The thing is, this is also true of vehicles. A vehicle with 15 rPD is similarly largely immune to typical 12 DC attacks. Many GMs, myself included, prefer vehicle DEF to be limited to approximately 1/3 of what PCs get. Indeed, vehicles even grant this defence to any passengers, which automatons do not (barring exotic advantages).

 

Mostly this is going to come up, if anywhere, in something like Champions, where it is within genre for PCs to be up against vehicles and expect to be victorious. I expect heroic level games don't try and shoot tanks with hand weapons, but superheroes often will. If vehicle defences are allowed to be approximately equal to PC defences, then PCs need exotic powers to be able to affect the vehicle (Penetrating, Armour Piercing, Indirect, or what have you). That may be fine, you might think that's totally appropriate. But you then lose the comic book staple of superheroes smashing up tanks and airplanes.

 

Now I'm not saying that vehicles should have to pay the defence tax necessarily. I think that limiting the maximum defences is probably good enough. But I think that might well be good enough for Automatons as well. Not a huge deal - most automatons, at least, are probably going to be the "property" of an NPC, which means that a few extra points here or there isn't that important - but an oddity, nonetheless.

 

I compared it to the velocity damage rules for a reason. Way back in 4th edition, the Move Through and Move By rules were pretty much exactly what the core rules are now. But a clever HERO afficionado whose name escapes me noted that as written, these rules didn't reflect internal consistency within the rules - doubling your velocity roughly doubles the number of dice you rolled (assume 0 STR for the sake of simplicity). This is questionable on two accounts: firstly, the proper relationship for kinetic energy should use a square relationship rather than a linear one; secondly, there is a largely accepted convention in HERO that doubling the force of an attack means adding +1d6 (mostly based on the Strength table, and most certainly arguable, but a defensible position nonetheless). This clever individual came up with a way to model this type of damage more consistently, with the resultant effects on throwing and falling as well. Now, the end result was a little more complex, and the original rule was fine for most situations and most players - but it was considered good enough to make it in as optional rules in both 5e and 6e.

 

Another very clever individual who posts here as GamingPhil I believe noted, after Horror Hero in 4e brought us Spirits, that Automatons, Vehicles, Bases, and Spirits had certain features in common and yet were not necessarily consistent in those features; to cut a long story short, he came up with the Incomplete Character rules that unified the concepts and also provided the tools to generate new types of characters. I'm simply suggesting that it would have been nice to see GamingPhil's ideas make it into 6e as optional rules. Perhaps they weren't as easily adapted, or were rejected for balance reasons; I did see a thread about it that apparently predated the release of 6e, and appears to have been abandoned since. I for one would welcome such rules, not because I think they are desperately needed, but simply because I think that they are a useful tool to have in order to build some unusual characters - and as an added bonus, if you choose to use them, then you get more consistency across character "types". Is such consistency needed, or the lack of it problematic? I agree, doubtful. But it would be nice to have regardless.

[Ice9]

Re: Automaton Vehicles

 

Speaking of Automatons, am I the only one who finds the "x3 for all defensive powers (including DCV)" to be rather mysterious and not mathematically correct? Really, it should only apply to things that subtract a static number from incoming damage. So primarily PD/ED.

 

For instance - Damage Reduction. 50% DR has exactly the same utility to an automaton as it does to a human - it reduces incoming damage by half. Unlike PD/ED, it does not have a larger effect when only BODY damage is being taken. Ditto DCV, obviously, as well as Damage Negation and Desolidification. There's no actual balance reason that these things should cost more, unless your goal is just to discourage anyone from having Takes No STUN (which would be better accomplished by the GM disallowing it).

 

Actually, I think a cleaner approach (in that it interfaces better with Growth and Density Increase) would be that the cost remains the same, but the amount of PD/ED granted by any power is divided by 3.

[Lucius]

Re: Automaton Vehicles

 

if nothing else, I have to reputize Gazza for bringing something to my attention that I never considered before.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

+5 for 2X palindromedaries

[GAZZA]

Re: Automaton Vehicles

 

Speaking of Automatons' date=' am I the only one who finds the "x3 for [b']all[/b] defensive powers (including DCV)" to be rather mysterious and not mathematically correct? Really, it should only apply to things that subtract a static number from incoming damage. So primarily PD/ED.

 

For instance - Damage Reduction. 50% DR has exactly the same utility to an automaton as it does to a human - it reduces incoming damage by half. Unlike PD/ED, it does not have a larger effect when only BODY damage is being taken. Ditto DCV, obviously, as well as Damage Negation and Desolidification. There's no actual balance reason that these things should cost more, unless your goal is just to discourage anyone from having Takes No STUN (which would be better accomplished by the GM disallowing it).

 

One could in fact argue that automatons (and vehicles ) should get a cost break on Damage Reduction, as they get no utility from the STUN reduction ability. Though I'm not sure I'd make that argument personally.

 

You raise a good point. Apart from anything else this rule is a bit odd. PD and ED are divided by 3, but your base DCV is not, even though further increases to all are tripled. Does this apply to BODY as well? BODY is considered a defence power for the purposes of Adjustment powers, and having lots of BODY definitely is very handy for a STUN immune character. On balance I'm inclined to suggest it probably should affect BODY, but I've never played it that way before (although in fairness I've yet to run an automaton in 6e).

 

Actually, I think a cleaner approach (in that it interfaces better with Growth and Density Increase) would be that the cost remains the same, but the amount of PD/ED granted by any power is divided by 3.

Works for me.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Automaton Vehicles

 

We went with tripling the cost only of PD and ED defenses (but not DN or DR), and then ruling that when other defenses block BODY damage (such as Power Defense vs. a Drain BODY), they have 1/3 effect for automatons.

 

I hadn't really thought about the automaton vs. vehicle issue before but I think it is a cause for concern. I'm not really sure that the best solution isn't just to say that vehicles also pay triple for defenses in the same way automatons do.

[Lucius]

Re: Automaton Vehicles

 

Funny this should come up now.

 

A few years ago, I created and posted an alien species that I described as using "robot vehicles" - but never got around to writing up those vehicles. I am in the process of doing so now.

 

 

And I just noticed that Hero Designer has the Automaton Powers on the available list for vehicles, despite the fact a vehicle already takes no STUN. Maybe it's to protect the passenges from taking STUN?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks I should ask Steve Long, but I've already asked him enough stupid questions over the years

[Escafarc]

Re: Automaton Vehicles

 

And I just noticed that Hero Designer has the Automaton Powers on the available list for vehicles, despite the fact a vehicle already takes no STUN. Maybe it's to protect the passenges from taking STUN?

The palindromedary thinks I should ask Steve Long, but I've already asked him enough stupid questions over the years

 

Oh great the Power Armor built as a Vehicle just got a up-grade.

[Lucius]

Re: Automaton Vehicles

 

Oh great the Power Armor built as a Vehicle just got a up-grade.

 

It seems really strange that an effect of being inside a certain vehicle would be immunity to STUN damage - but every time you take BOD damage, you lose a Power....

 

 

I wonder if it's on the list for Bases....

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary tries to stop Lucius before he invents Takes No STUN, Usable as Attack, Area Effect, Megascale

[Tasha]

Re: Automaton Vehicles

 

That' date=' and (IMO) it's a lot easier to build Automatons in Hero Designer than it is to build vehicles with computers.[/quote']

 

quoted for Truth! the Vehicle and Computer rules just suck. I would rather build Automations any day of the week.

 

Also Vehicles use a different template because a Vehicle has to be actively controlled. I guess you could buy a computer with Navigation and Vehicle Familiarity to simulate auto pilot.