Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

[prestidigitator]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Hmm...I don't know. AVAD: Defenses Made of Adamantium (Rare; +3/2) is how I would probably build Wolverine's claws myself. It may be incredibly expensive in comparison, but it blows the hell out of Armor Piercing and such, and seems appropriate.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Hero can not build either 'unbreakable', nor 'cuts through anything' because you end up with the 'immoveable object hit by an unstoppable force thing'. Of course it has been shown in the comics that there are some things that Wolverine's claws can not cut through and that Cap's vibranium shield can be broken*, so we assume that the use of such words both in the game and in the comics involves a silent and invisible 'almost'.

 

What we really need to look at is how all of this affects character builds and game play, and that is an interesting question. I suspect that, whilst some will have been early adopters (OK not so early now), there are a lot of people who have 5e inertia, even if they have moved on to 6e. This thread may well spark a new burst of creative energy, and not a few evil chuckles.

 

Here I agree - and I also agree that there are other ways to get "greater cutting power", such as

 

Hmm...I don't know. AVAD: Defenses Made of Adamantium (Rare; +3/2) is how I would probably build Wolverine's claws myself. It may be incredibly expensive in comparison' date=' but it blows the hell out of [i']Armor Piercing[/i] and such, and seems appropriate.

 

which deserves some Rep.

 

*Can I just take a moment to RAGE against the ridiculousness of preventing the damage from a fall by standing on the shield when you hit the ground?

 

[nitpick]By the rubber science of vibranium, it absorbs all vibration and kinetic energy. Thus, standing on the shield prevents any force of the fall passing through to the person standing on the shield. However, that was not Cap's shield, which is not made of vibranium, but rather a unique alloy incorporating many properties of adamantium, with (I believe) a bit of vibranium built in, which has never been duplicated or successfully analyzed. It was the shield he was given by the Black Panther, made of vibranium, while John Walker wielded the original shield at the government's request. Cap noted that this was a trick his own shield, which he still preferred, could never have duplicated. [/nitpick]

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Hmm...I don't know. AVAD: Defenses Made of Adamantium (Rare; +3/2) is how I would probably build Wolverine's claws myself. It may be incredibly expensive in comparison' date=' but it blows the hell out of [i']Armor Piercing[/i] and such, and seems appropriate.

While that is an interesting build and I like it, I don't think it accurately portrays the source material. Wolverine has occasionally run into alien substances he cannot cut. Also, there are several characters with energy defenses like force fields that he hasn't been able to injure.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

While that is an interesting build and I like it' date=' I don't think it accurately portrays the source material. Wolverine has occasionally run into alien substances he cannot cut. Also, there are several characters with energy defenses like force fields that he hasn't been able to injure.[/quote']

Hmm. Perhaps. We could probably find a broader range of SFX to include, maybe even bumping it down from the Rare category for the comic source material. But in any case I think AVAD can still work well for it.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Hmm. Perhaps. We could probably find a broader range of SFX to include' date=' maybe even bumping it down from the Rare category for the comic source material. But in any case I think AVAD can still work well for it.[/quote']

 

That seems like about the same amount of trouble to go through for what is essentially a sfx based aproach as it would be to just define a set # of levels of AP and Penetrating for the Claws and just say things that can stop them need to have and equal or higher # of levels of Hardened & similar Advantages. Damage Negation is the wildcard here though. Cap's Shield arguably should have a fairly high level of it and should be used to help set the campaign benchmark. The Claws can then have a slightly lower amount of Reduced Negation for attacks in a Multipower or limited VPP.

[Shinobi Killfis]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

I was going through some of my 4e materials the other day, and it struck me how few of the sample supers really were playable with 6e guidelines. This isn't a problem per se, of course, but it has meant that using older adventures has required more tuning than I was expecting. Of course I could go back to old school guidelines (20 - 30 DEF, 12 DCs) but I'm determined to at least give the 6e suggestions a fair shake before I dismiss them.

 

Thus far, it has seemed to me that DCV at 5 points per is a tremendous rip off. An 8d6 armour piercing AE 1m radius attack smashes through 25 DEF and does 15 or so STUN, all for a mere 60 active points. Every single one of the PCs has at least one +1/4 AE power (they haven't cottoned on to Armour Piercing yet though). For the PCs, OCV seems overpriced as well - you don't need much to hit hexes, after all.

 

Which is not to say that I think it doesn't work. Jury is still out. Very different to what I'm used to though.

 

On the other side though the +1/2 advantage for AoE hex given the old defenses made it somewhat useless on its own. You were effectively forced into a monstrous build if you wanted an AoE attack. And the you got the spiral down of doom where you ended up with a 2d6 EB NND, 10 shot autofire, o end, AoE radius or whatever. And it all started because you wanted your AoE to do more than nick the target. I mean sheesh a normal raidus AoE was 6d6 at 60AP in 4e. That would barely bother the martial artists and agents you fought.

 

They may have gone too far with both lowering the average defenses and lowering the advantage costs of these things, but I like the +1/4 advantage for AP and AoE. It feels like they get used now, outside of a gimmick.

[dmjalund]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Although cheapening AoE does force everyone to buy high def, even if it is not in character

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Although cheapening AoE does force everyone to buy high def' date=' even if it is not in character[/quote']

 

It seems in character that those with low defenses are in danger when hit with an area effect attack. Does the cost of AVAD (especially its NND variant) force everyone to buy a high DCV instead of relying on high defenses. or does it mean that those reliant on high defenses can take meaningful damage from attacks against which he has no defenses?

 

In any case, characters are pretty much forced to have an attack at/near campaign standards even when this may not seem to be in character (Nightcrawler seems effective in the comics, but I don't think he has the same DC's as Wolverine, Colossus or Cyclops). The Killing Attack rules (prior to 6e, at least) forced all characters to have some resistant defenses, didn't they? The Stunning rules force a superhuman CON on everybody (at least 6e removed the requirement to have a superhuman DEX, though pretty much all the published characters still seem to), and no one can get by with a 10 PRE and a 10 EGO, can they? Surely these are not always in character either.

 

Part of the problem is that AoE combines two benefits, the ability to hit more than one target and the ability to circumvent DCV ("Attack with Alternate Targeting Mechanic"?), and a drawback, potential to hit friendly targets, at its base. Perhaps these should be decoupled? We have the ability to buy AoE that must hit each target separately and, if we do so, to select which targets are affected. Why can't we have the ability to select which targets in the area are affected and circumvent their DCV, or to circumvent DCV without an "area" this affects?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Changing the cost of AP to +1/4 was not the only way to make AP more competitive. Allowing AP stacking (2xAP = DEF/4) works.

 

Thing is though that is how it is now. At the same cost point, an AP attack does more damage through normal defences than a 'straight' normal attack. It is worth noting that there are no advantages for defences that make them more effective against normal attacks - only advantages that counter attack advantages. Again, this may be the intention: who knows. I don;t recall any complaints about the cost of AP when we were discussing 6e, least not the first level of it anyway.

 

I mentioned this before but it is worth repeating: we shouldn't simply concentrate of the effect AP has (and had) on Stun, but on Body too. AP attacks mean you can damage almost anything. That undermines the effect of other powers like Entangle and Barrier, and makes the whole world more fragile.

 

Changing the cost of AP to +1/4 has a pretty substantial effect on Body damage: apply to a killing attack and you can do 3d6 AP for 56 points. You can expect to do Body through 20 resistant defence. That is plain nasty.

 

The new rules on killing attacks mean that they are pretty rubbish at doing Stun, but make a KA AP and you have something that becomes a very effective attack. Look at the resistant defences of the sample superhero characters and you'll see that they vary from 10 to 15 (Hardpoint has 15) and no one has hardened defences (not even Hardpoint)

 

Hardpoint has 12 Body: 3d6 AP KA will do 11 Body against 8 rDef: 3 through per hit. Eagle Eye (again with big defences for a martial artist) will take 5 per hit and Taurus and Maelstrom take 6 per hit.

 

Also worth checking out the stun through on AP KAs: Hardpoint would take no Body and 8 Stun on average against a 4d6 KA, but take 3 Body and 12 stun with an AP KA (normal and AP normal attacks would do 0 Body and 22/23 Stun respectively).

 

It is interesting that what we have now is a way for villains with killing attacks to be a real threat to heroes by doing Body damage without stunning them all the time, but they need to build with AP. Inevitably that will mean higher, and hardened, defences because, unless every team has a healer or everyone has regeneration, Body takes far too long to recover.

 

Things seem geared to the sample character levels of defence and attack, but you have to wonder how long those guidelines will survive in the real world. I think defences will be higher, and that makes AP even more effective.

 

Of course you can chase your tail forever on that one...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

It seems in character that those with low defenses are in danger when hit with an area effect attack. Does the cost of AVAD (especially its NND variant) force everyone to buy a high DCV instead of relying on high defenses. or does it mean that those reliant on high defenses can take meaningful damage from attacks against which he has no defenses?

 

In any case, characters are pretty much forced to have an attack at/near campaign standards even when this may not seem to be in character (Nightcrawler seems effective in the comics, but I don't think he has the same DC's as Wolverine, Colossus or Cyclops). The Killing Attack rules (prior to 6e, at least) forced all characters to have some resistant defenses, didn't they? The Stunning rules force a superhuman CON on everybody (at least 6e removed the requirement to have a superhuman DEX, though pretty much all the published characters still seem to), and no one can get by with a 10 PRE and a 10 EGO, can they? Surely these are not always in character either.

 

Part of the problem is that AoE combines two benefits, the ability to hit more than one target and the ability to circumvent DCV ("Attack with Alternate Targeting Mechanic"?), and a drawback, potential to hit friendly targets, at its base. Perhaps these should be decoupled? We have the ability to buy AoE that must hit each target separately and, if we do so, to select which targets are affected. Why can't we have the ability to select which targets in the area are affected and circumvent their DCV, or to circumvent DCV without an "area" this affects?

 

'Automatic Hit' as an advantage, has been discussed before, and back in 5e there was some conscensus that you could buy it as a sort of NND attack (only it always hit except in the defined circumstances).

 

I like the idea of decoupling the ability to hit (nearly) automatically and the ability to hit several targets, although we can sort of do that with a selective AoE and a bunch of 2 point levels with the attack. I'm a fan of breaking everything down to basic building blocks.

[GAZZA]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

It seems in character that those with low defenses are in danger when hit with an area effect attack. Does the cost of AVAD (especially its NND variant) force everyone to buy a high DCV instead of relying on high defenses. or does it mean that those reliant on high defenses can take meaningful damage from attacks against which he has no defenses?

AVAD is still relatively expensive though. An AVAD versus, say, Mental Defence is a +1 1/2 advantage, meaning that a 12DC attack is 4.5d6, or about 16 STUN through. Considering the suggested maximum defence is 25 for a starting super, that's actually less than a 12d6 no-frills attack will get through.

 

But an AP AE 1m 12 DC attack is 8d6. You're giving up 4 dice for the ability to have a low OCV, not care about your target's DCV, and halving his defences. That is an exceptionally good deal. I've yet to see many PCs now that don't have at least one area effect attack in their arsenal, and they're targetting supers with them instead of agents.

 

Again - I'm not saying this means the game is now broken. Just that it's a very different environment than it used to be, and I'm still evaluating exactly what that means.

 

The Stunning rules force a superhuman CON on everybody (at least 6e removed the requirement to have a superhuman DEX, though pretty much all the published characters still seem to), and no one can get by with a 10 PRE and a 10 EGO, can they? Surely these are not always in character either.

Previously, you could theoretically get away without a superhuman CON if you had a superhuman DEX, but you're right of course that most PCs are going to have a CON at least in the 18-20 range. However, my games obviously differ from yours with PRE and EGO; lots of players dump on those IME. It certainly doesn't make them unplayable.

 

The points about how useful AE used to be ("not very") are reasonable ones. I don't entirely agree; AEs used to be the agent killers, and even at +1 they were good at that. But it is certainly a defensible position.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

The points about how useful AE used to be ("not very") are reasonable ones. I don't entirely agree; AEs used to be the agent killers' date=' and even at +1 they were good at that. But it is certainly a defensible position.[/quote']

 

You're kinder that I am. Its just too huge a change to me and really changes the dynamic in ways I do not care for

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

You're kinder that I am. Its just too huge a change to me and really changes the dynamic in ways I do not care for

 

One way to deal with AoE is do not allow players to buy the lowest level: +1/4. You can still buy AoE under 6e, but the minimum cost is +1/2, with the commensurate larger area (if you want it). That can stop the AoE synergies becoming too powerful and limit the damage that lightly defended but high DCV will take whilst still making the attack effective. That means a 60 point attack will do no more than 8d6, which is like adding 14 defence to the targets you 'automatically' hit. Hmm. Even with a +1/4 AoE it is like adding 11 defence to fast targets.

 

It all depends on the balance in your game and what build guidelines you have, but that does not seem like a bad trade off.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Back to armor peircing. We've dropped it entirely except for defeating hardened occasionally and switched entiring to the "piercing" mechanic on page 113 of the APG. we find it a much superior mechanic for our purposes and, to our minds at least, more logical.

 

Basically you pay for points which cancel out points of defense. The cost depends on the type of defense nullified.

 

I love the APG.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

Changing the cost of AP to +1/4 was not the only way to make AP more competitive. Allowing AP stacking (2xAP = DEF/4) works.

 

So I can buy a 6d6 EB, double AP and quarter my target's defenses. Let's say that leaves him 5 defenses of 20 if they aren't hardened. I'll roll 21 on average, and do 16 STUN if his defenses are not hardened, 11 if they have one level of hardened or 1 if they are double hardened (and we definitely have an arm's race going). Or I can buy a 6d6 NND vs Hardened ED and roll the same 21 damage, getting 5 more through if the target lacks hardened defenses, but losing 11 or 1 if he has hardened defenses/double hardened. Of course, if hardened defenses are quite common and double hardened shows up with regularity, I should be able to make the defense "double hardened ED", since that would now be a "reasonably common defense". It need only be as common as the various Life Supports.

 

Thing is though that is how it is now. At the same cost point' date=' an AP attack does more damage through normal defences than a 'straight' normal attack.[/quote']

 

I see this as a feature - the advantaged attack should be more effective some of the time if it will be less effective other times. A 12d6 Blast can be spread to fill four hexes, creating a minor AoE that does 8d6, with elements of Selective. A similarly priced Selective AoE will probably cover a broader area (bonus in some cases), but it can't bump up to 12d6 by having a reduced area (drawback in others).

 

I mentioned this before but it is worth repeating: we shouldn't simply concentrate of the effect AP has (and had) on Stun, but on Body too. AP attacks mean you can damage almost anything. That undermines the effect of other powers like Entangle and Barrier, and makes the whole world more fragile.

 

Changing the cost of AP to +1/4 has a pretty substantial effect on Body damage: apply to a killing attack and you can do 3d6 AP for 56 points. You can expect to do Body through 20 resistant defence. That is plain nasty.

 

If no one can inflict BOD, why do we have the stat? In most Supers games, AP is the only practical way to inflict BOD. The most significant change to KA's in 6e, in my view, is that their purpose is to kill. They are not effective at delivering a knockout. In a Supers game where BOD damage is not expected to be the norm, KA's should be rare since they are ineffective without BOD damage. In a Supers game intended to deliver Saturday Morning Super Friends results, Killing Attacks should be disallowed entirely, as doing BOD (their sole reason for existence) is out of character for the campaign. I suppose they could be restricted to only damage objects (ref: Wolverine in cartoons) instead.

 

The new rules on killing attacks mean that they are pretty rubbish at doing Stun, but make a KA AP and you have something that becomes a very effective attack. Look at the resistant defences of the sample superhero characters and you'll see that they vary from 10 to 15 (Hardpoint has 15) and no one has hardened defences (not even Hardpoint)

 

Hardpoint has 12 Body: 3d6 AP KA will do 11 Body against 8 rDef: 3 through per hit. Eagle Eye (again with big defences for a martial artist) will take 5 per hit and Taurus and Maelstrom take 6 per hit.

 

So that's 8 hits to kill Hardpoint (the STUN isn't likely to take him down - killing is the only way the KA is likely to end the battle). It will take 4 hits (5 if he has 11-12 BOD) to kill Eagle Eye and 4 (5+ if he has more than 12 BOD) to kill Maelstrom. And, unlike attacks that do STUN, your teammates' attacks (which are likely not AP KA's) will not accumulate to help take him down - you need to get all those hits yourself.

 

Also worth checking out the stun through on AP KAs: Hardpoint would take no Body and 8 Stun on average against a 4d6 KA' date=' but take 3 Body and 12 stun with an AP KA (normal and AP normal attacks would do 0 Body and 22/23 Stun respectively).[/quote']

 

Looks like they'll fall faster if we add another normal or AP STUN attack to the mix and ditch the KA.

 

It is interesting that what we have now is a way for villains with killing attacks to be a real threat to heroes by doing Body damage without stunning them all the time' date=' but they need to build with AP. Inevitably that will mean higher, and hardened, defences because, unless every team has a healer or everyone has regeneration, Body takes far too long to recover.[/quote']

 

If the intent is that BOD never be done, then higher and hardened defenses are one option, and banning KA's (or AP KA's, or any attack intended to do BOD) is probably the solution. A 6d6 BOD Drain will take most targets down a lot faster than that AP killing attack, by the way. Does that mean everyone also needs high Power Defense, or that such attacks will be scrutinized, especially in games where BOD damage is supposed to be rare?

 

AVAD is still relatively expensive though. An AVAD versus' date=' say, Mental Defence is a +1 1/2 advantage, meaning that a 12DC attack is 4.5d6, or about 16 STUN through. Considering the suggested maximum defence is 25 for a starting super, that's actually less than a 12d6 no-frills attack will get through.[/quote']

 

Many AVAD's apply the "all or nothing" modifier. How do your numbers stack up after that? However, we also need to add "does BOD" if we want those claws to be effective, so it's not a low cost alternative.

 

But an AP AE 1m 12 DC attack is 8d6. You're giving up 4 dice for the ability to have a low OCV' date=' not care about your target's DCV, and halving his defences. That is an exceptionally good deal. I've yet to see many PCs now that don't have at least one area effect attack in their arsenal, and they're targetting supers with them instead of agents.[/quote']

 

So now an AoE attack can actually be effective - is that the problem? That 8d6 AoE AP will roll 28 on average, so 15 damage to that 25 Defense Super. That's even less than the AVAD you dismiss above. Drop defenses to 20, and it gets 18 through, compared to 22 from the normal attack. [ASIDE - who would buy an AVAD vs Mentalk Defense instead of a Mental Attack for 10 points per 1d6 to do 21 and attack ECV at unlimited range?]

 

Previously' date=' you could theoretically get away without a superhuman CON if you had a superhuman DEX, but you're right of course that most PCs are going to have a CON at least in the 18-20 range. However, my games obviously differ from yours with PRE and EGO; lots of players dump on those IME. It certainly doesn't make them unplayable.[/quote']

 

Lacking a superhuman CON meant a lucky shot, or an AoE, commonly ended the battle - how is that different now?

 

If you can get away with 10 EGO and 10 PRE, then the PRE attack rules are pretty much ignored.

 

The points about how useful AE used to be ("not very") are reasonable ones. I don't entirely agree; AEs used to be the agent killers' date=' and even at +1 they were good at that. But it is certainly a defensible position.[/quote']

 

A 12d6 Blast, spread to fill 6 hexes, generally hit quite a few agents. Stop spreading, and it was useful against their leaders as well. For the price of a Multipower with a 12d6 Blast and a 6d6 AoE, I could buy a 14d6 Blast and have 2 points left over for an OCV level with it. Now I can spread to hit 8 hexes, and get 7 more STUN through on the Big Bad, with a better chance of hitting.

[GAZZA]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

It strikes me that Piercing seems to be a fairly useless power for normal damage attacks. For 10 points, I can reduce the target's ED by 5, or I could instead just buy an extra +2d6 to my Blast that will average an extra 7 damage, so it's better to just increase the Blast.

 

For 15 points, I could reduce the target's Mental Defence by 5, or I could 1.5d6 to my Mental Blast and average an extra 5.5 damage, so again - better to just increase the Mental Blast. And it's not even close if you decide to Pierce with Mind Control or Mental Illusions.

 

For 30 points, I could reduce the target's Power Defence by 10, or I could add 3d6 to my Drain and average 10.5 extra effect - once again, Piercing is disfavoured.

 

In all of these cases, note that Piercing is even worse if you use it against someone with low defences (as they can't go negative). That's not much of a problem with a Blast, but it might well be with a mental power or a Drain.

 

It has some use with Flash. For 30 points you can reduce someone's Flash Defence by 10. Alternatively, you can buy +6d6 Flash Sight, but that's only an average of 6 more segments, so Piercing wins. Although if you're using AVAD Flash Defence (+1) for a Blast, you could buy another 3d6 and do 10.5 extra damage, so it loses there.

 

It's useful for Killing Attacks. For 15 points, you can reduce the target's resistant defence by 5. An extra +1d6 KA only average 3.5 extra BODY. So RKA 3d6, Piercing 5 will do more BODY to anyone who has 5 or more resistant defences than RKA 4d6 will. It is true that the latter will do a bit more STUN, but that can be ignored for killing attacks in 6e, at least at the superheroic level.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

You're forgeting if you cancel out all or most of your defense you start taking BODY pretty seriously. Not useless at all.

 

The real thing with piercing is it models the effect I want better. I've always hated the halving of defenses. it makes no sense to me that normalman loses 1 point of defense while Superman loses 20 points for example.

[GAZZA]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

I'm not forgetting it, I'm ignoring it. If you have 25 defences in a 12d6 game, then even if you spend 40 points on Piercing and have a 4d6 Blast you'll still fail to do BODY most of the time. If you want to do BODY then a KA is a much better option - after all, in most supers games "STUN only" isn't even considered a limitation.

 

I'm not arguing with the idea of Piercing so much as the specific implementation - it doesn't seem to do the job properly for normal attacks. I would imagine that if you wanted something like:

 

Blast 10d6

Blast +2d6, total Blast cannot do more than 60 STUN and 20 BODY to target after defences (-X)

 

that -X might be considered a limitation to a lot of GMs. Even if that wasn't, something like this:

 

Blast 6d6

Blast +6d6, total Blast cannot do more than 36 STUN and 12 BODY to target after defences (-Y)

 

would almost certainly be worth at least a -1/2. If you were concerned about the fact that it's a bit more random, even if you take Standard Effect you're still doing better than with Piercing. That second construct with Standard Effect effectively reduces the targets defences by 18, which would cost 36 points to do with Piercing (plus it's better, because if you happen to roll badly you get more dice to try and push through a slightly better result)

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

I'm not forgetting it, I'm ignoring it. If you have 25 defences in a 12d6 game, then even if you spend 40 points on Piercing and have a 4d6 Blast you'll still fail to do BODY most of the time. If you want to do BODY then a KA is a much better option - after all, in most supers games "STUN only" isn't even considered a limitation.

 

 

One the other hand, if you blast someone with say 16 defense that would not take any body form an average 12d6 attack, they take massive damage. It allows for lots of interesting flexibilty

 

It would be an easy way to make say a blaster which with a few points of non resistant piercing was really lethal to normals but to superhumans not really, for example. maybe a rifle version might have a few points of reisistant piercing for that pesky blaster resistant vest.

 

I have to admit, I'm more interested in proper simulation than ideal point

efficiency though.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

The real thing with piercing is it models the effect I want better.

 

This is the only reason to choose any given mechanic over another mechanic.

[randian]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

AVAD is still relatively expensive though. An AVAD versus, say, Mental Defence is a +1 1/2 advantage, meaning that a 12DC attack is 4.5d6, or about 16 STUN through. Considering the suggested maximum defence is 25 for a starting super, that's actually less than a 12d6 no-frills attack will get through.

AVAD Mental/Power/Sight-Flash/Hearing-Flash is a +1 advantage, not +1 1/2.

 

My problem with Armor Piercing isn't so much the change in cost of AP, it's the change in cost of defense, to wit that you now need separate advantages to defend against Armor Piercing and Penetrating, and presumably another +1/4 to defend against any future alternate damage mechanic. With the absurdly cheap cost of Reduced Negation (and no means to defend against it, not that I think Damage Negation is a worthwhile defense in most cases) and the equally absurd cost of flashing multiple sense groups (while the defender must still buy defense separately for each), the balance of power has definitely tipped in favor of offense.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

So I can buy a 6d6 EB' date=' double AP and quarter my target's defenses. Let's say that leaves him 5 defenses of 20 if they aren't hardened. I'll roll 21 on average, and do 16 STUN if his defenses are not hardened, 11 if they have one level of hardened or 1 if they are double hardened (and we definitely have an arm's race going). Or I can buy a 6d6 NND vs Hardened ED and roll the same 21 damage, getting 5 more through if the target lacks hardened defenses, but losing 11 or 1 if he has hardened defenses/double hardened. Of course, if hardened defenses are quite common and double hardened shows up with regularity, I should be able to make the defense "double hardened ED", since that would now be a "reasonably common defense". It need only be as common as the various Life Supports.[/quote']

 

You are obsessed with Stun, Hug . Your NND will do no Body, which makes it useless against entangles/force walls/barriers and such. I'm not saying that AP should be an advantage that lets you stun your opponent more readily, just that there were other ways to make it competitive without making it cheaper. 2d6 KA double AP means that you can expect to damage a 25 DEF object with regularity. It is a matter of chosing the right tool for the job.

 

 

 

I see this as a feature - the advantaged attack should be more effective some of the time if it will be less effective other times. A 12d6 Blast can be spread to fill four hexes' date=' creating a minor AoE that does 8d6, with elements of Selective. A similarly priced Selective AoE will probably cover a broader area (bonus in some cases), but it can't bump up to 12d6 by having a reduced area (drawback in others).[/quote']

 

Again I think you are concentrating over much on Stun effects and not looking at Body. If you look at both then bear in mind that (using sample characters) even 9/1/2d6 AP Blast has a fair chance of doing Body to a 20 Def opponent (you need a decent roll, but you only need to manage 11 Body). Plus you get the increased Stun.

 

Now either AP will be rare (and very effective) or, by the simple rules of economics, people who notice the effectiveness will use it, leading to an increase in the purchase of hardened defences, making normal attacks more effective again. The thing is that it is easy to switch attacks in a MP from phase to phase and, whilst theoretically as easy to shift defences in a MP, you never know which one you are going to need. Ultimately it increases damage through defences whichever way you look at it. In addition, hardened is only rarely, if ever, going to be bought for Entangle - and AP massacres entangles. It is probably worth having a MP slot just for that.

 

 

If no one can inflict BOD' date=' why do we have the stat? In most Supers games, AP is the only practical way to inflict BOD. The most significant change to KA's in 6e, in my view, is that their purpose is to kill. They are not effective at delivering a knockout. In a Supers game where BOD damage is not expected to be the norm, KA's should be rare since they are ineffective without BOD damage. In a Supers game intended to deliver Saturday Morning Super Friends results, Killing Attacks should be disallowed entirely, as doing BOD (their sole reason for existence) is out of character for the campaign. I suppose they could be restricted to only damage objects (ref: Wolverine in cartoons) instead.[/quote']

 

KAs were not made any more effective at killing in 6e than in 5e, just not so good at stunning, at least mechanically - but defences generally do seem to be down. I probably wouldn't design a brick character like Taurus to play: he has 10 rPD and no regeneration. He may survive the first few encounters, but unless he has significant periods of rest between fights, he is going to be much use. There seems to be a shying away from KAs though. Hardpoint has a KA in his 60 point MP but it has no advantages, is heavily limited, and still only goes to 3d6, despite the fact that it would only have cost 1 point more to make it 4d6.

 

I'm not sure that the game is being pushed toward a more 'four colour' feel - maybe it is.

 

Looks like they'll fall faster if we add another normal or AP STUN attack to the mix and ditch the KA.

 

I don't build villains to beat heroes, I build villains to challenge heroes, and that means that I'm not necessarily after the best way to stun or KO someone. The great thing about Body damage is that it is scary to players - this could be the end of their PC, and, if as GM you regulate healing abilities properly, it is easy enough to put PCs into situations where they are really going to feel that they are in danger, without having them constantly falling over and having a nap.

 

KAs are nicely villain.

 

 

 

If the intent is that BOD never be done' date=' then higher and hardened defenses are one option, and banning KA's (or AP KA's, or any attack intended to do BOD) is probably the solution. A 6d6 BOD Drain will take most targets down a lot faster than that AP killing attack, by the way. Does that mean everyone also needs high Power Defense, or that such attacks will be scrutinized, especially in games where BOD damage is supposed to be rare?[/quote']

 

I think Body counts as a defence power, so you only get to do 3d6 (well 6d6/2), and the Body loss from adjustment powers comes back quickly. There's the 'Body damage is scary' thing and there's the 'Body damage lasts a long while' thing. 6d6/2 is still plenty now that Body costs 1 point

 

Like I say, I don't build GM characters to beat PCs, but to provide interesting challenges. I like the idea of a KA, and I like the idea of an AP KA, as a way to spice things up. Not so keen as simply a way to do more stun to characters and damage to property.

 

Many AVAD's apply the "all or nothing" modifier. How do your numbers stack up after that? However' date=' we also need to add "does BOD" if we want those claws to be effective, so it's not a low cost alternative.[/quote']

 

ADAV All Or Nothing Does Body probably costs +2 in advantages, meaning that you get a 4d6 Blast/1d6+1 KA. I'm often a little conceptually shaky about such contructs sometimes (alien acid blood, maybe. Not sure what else: Wolverine's claws seem to vary with the writer, and, anyway, being hard and sharp in no way actually means you can cut through sruff that is softer. I mean, you can't cut a tree down with a single axe strike just because the axe is made of titanium steel and incredibly sharp.

 

Rubber science: I'll get my kitten on it.

[Jhamin]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

[nitpick]By the rubber science of vibranium, it absorbs all vibration and kinetic energy. Thus, standing on the shield prevents any force of the fall passing through to the person standing on the shield. However, that was not Cap's shield, which is not made of vibranium, but rather a unique alloy incorporating many properties of adamantium, with (I believe) a bit of vibranium built in, which has never been duplicated or successfully analyzed. It was the shield he was given by the Black Panther, made of vibranium, while John Walker wielded the original shield at the government's request. Cap noted that this was a trick his own shield, which he still preferred, could never have duplicated. [/nitpick]

 

Unfortunately, Cap has done this with his own shield a few times. Of course most of the occasions I can summon up go back to the West Coast Avengers era.

[Ice9]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

In Champions, an attack that primarily does BODY seems pretty niche. Often, you don't even want to deal BODY damage. I would see the purpose of AP more as "good against highly-armored foes" than "good at dealing BODY". So to my mind, against with better than average DEF, AP attacks should be dealing more STUN - in exchange for dealing less against lightly armored foes (or those with hardened armor), and less knockback.

 

Killing Attacks being primarily a way to deal BODY damage, I have no problem with - they are called "killing" after all. Although it does mean that gun (or other KA) based characters probably need an alternate attack against high-rDEF foes.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Armour Piercing in Champions 6e

 

You are obsessed with Stun' date=' Hugh[/quote']

 

I don't want AP to be a niche advantage designed to cut barriers and entangles and accomplish little else. The primary purpose of normal attacks is to inflict STUN, and the primary purpose of killing attacks is to inflict BOD. AP should make either attack more effective at its primary purpose when the target lacks hardened defenses.

 

Your NND will do no Body' date=' which makes it useless against entangles/force walls/barriers and such.[/quote']

 

That's what killing attacks are for (or BOD drains against inanimate objects, which are considerably better if we're looking at straight up point efficiency).

 

I'm not saying that AP should be an advantage that lets you stun your opponent more readily' date=' just that there were other ways to make it competitive without making it cheaper. 2d6 KA double AP means that you can expect to damage a 25 DEF object with regularity. It is a matter of choosing the right tool for the job.[/quote']

 

If I'm putting a 25 defense object in play as a GM, it's because it is not expected to be broken through, so it will likely be hardened as well to serve that purposes. A niche attack whose purpose is to get past defenses the campaign limits indicate should be invulnerable is not something I want brought into the game.

 

Again I think you are concentrating over much on Stun effects and not looking at Body. If you look at both then bear in mind that (using sample characters) even 9/1/2d6 AP Blast has a fair chance of doing Body to a 20 Def opponent (you need a decent roll' date=' but you only need to manage 11 Body). Plus you get the increased Stun. [/quote']

 

9 x 3.5 = 31.5 + 2 = 33.5 - 20/2 = 23.5. 12 x 3.5 = 42 - 20 = 22. Doing 1.5 extra STUN on targets lacking hardened defense while sacrificing knockback does not seem at all unreasonable to me. The possibility a BOD or two may get through over a prolonged combat isn't changing the effectiveness of the AP attack by much. Impact on 6d6, 6 DEF entangle - average 9.5 BOD - 3 = 6.5 - break out in one hit. Normal attack - 12 - 6 = 6 - break out in one hit.

 

And this is the +1/4 AP. Make it +1/2 and we get 8d6 - average stun past defenses 18 (inferior to normal attack). Average BOD nil. Likelihood of getting 11+ BOD roll to pass a BOD point through fairly remote. Likelihood of BOD damage having significant impact in a typical combat - negligible. 6d6, 6 DEF entangle? Average attack gets 5 BOD - still entangled. Why did I even spend the few points to add an AP attack to my Multipower? If it's only useful purchased to extreme levels, it's not much of a tool for the toolkit.

 

Now either AP will be rare (and very effective) or' date=' by the simple rules of economics, people who notice the effectiveness will use it, leading to an increase in the purchase of hardened defences, making normal attacks more effective again.[/quote']

 

Or they have to choose between greater resistance to normal or AP attacks, encouraging a variety of characters, each with different strengths and weaknesses.

 

The thing is that it is easy to switch attacks in a MP from phase to phase

 

Sure. But it's not typically obvious that the AP attack is doing more STUN. The players need to extrapolate that from the results. It should not be obvious to the casual observer that the 9.5d6 AP attack (which averages all of 1.5 more stun, less than a 7% increase) inflicted more damage than the 12d6 normal attack.

 

In addition' date=' hardened is only rarely, if ever, going to be bought for Entangle - and AP massacres entangles. It is probably worth having a MP slot just for that. [/quote']

 

See above. Entangle does not look massacred.

 

KAs were not made any more effective at killing in 6e than in 5e' date=' just not so good at stunning, at least mechanically[/quote']

 

Yup. They roll more BOD on average, and considerably less STUN. They are not useful to KO. They are useful primarily to inflict BOD damage and kill the opponent. They are no longer the attack of choice to get lucky and inflict a high STUN result against a well defended target.

 

but defences generally do seem to be down. I probably wouldn't design a brick character like Taurus to play: he has 10 rPD and no regeneration. He may survive the first few encounters' date=' but unless he has significant periods of rest between fights, he is going to be much use. There seems to be a shying away from KAs though. Hardpoint has a KA in his 60 point MP but it has no advantages, is heavily limited, and still only goes to 3d6, despite the fact that it would only have cost 1 point more to make it 4d6.[/quote']

 

What's his REC? High REC bricks recover BOD fairly quickly. Expecting characters to take some BOD damage from KA's does not seem unreasonable, if you want KA's to be a threat. If you don't, then ban them. Don't make them ineffectual unless the user piles a bunch of advantages on them.

 

I don't build villains to beat heroes' date=' I build villains to challenge heroes, and that means that I'm not necessarily after the best way to stun or KO someone. The great thing about Body damage is that it is scary to players - this could be the end of their PC, and, if as GM you regulate healing abilities properly, it is easy enough to put PCs into situations where they are really going to feel that they are in danger, without having them constantly falling over and having a nap.[/quote']

 

So should the heroes be able to take meaningful BOD damage from a KA (like Tauros can) or not (Taurus bumped up to 15rDEF and/or with Regen, as you indicate you would design a character)? Building to make normal KA's ineffective so we can show that AP is effective when applied to a KA seems counterproductive.

 

I think Body counts as a defence power' date=' so you only get to do 3d6 (well 6d6/2), and the Body loss from adjustment powers comes back quickly. There's the 'Body damage is scary' thing and there's the 'Body damage lasts a long while' thing. 6d6/2 is still plenty now that Body costs 1 point[/quote']

 

Indeed, it is. 11 BOD past defenses (even short term - and how does the target know it is short term?) seems much more effective than 1 or 2 on an exceptional hit. And dead is dead, even from a drain.

 

Like I say' date=' I don't build GM characters to beat PCs, but to provide interesting challenges. I like the idea of a KA, and I like the idea of an AP KA, as a way to spice things up. Not so keen as simply a way to do more stun to characters and damage to property.[/quote']

 

NPC's don't need to balance anyway. I'd like to see the various choices be relevant to PC's, not just NPC's.

 

ADAV All Or Nothing Does Body probably costs +2 in advantages' date=' meaning that you get a 4d6 Blast/1d6+1 KA. I'm often a little conceptually shaky about such contructs sometimes (alien acid blood, maybe. Not sure what else: Wolverine's claws seem to vary with the writer, and, anyway, being hard and sharp in no way actually means you can cut through sruff that is softer. I mean, you can't cut a tree down with a single axe strike just because the axe is made of titanium steel and incredibly sharp. [/quote']

 

More BOD than that AP attack, even priced at +1/4, and it gets some STUN through (14 from the Blast - a bit less STUN and a bit more BOD than the AP attack). Conceptually, how is this shakier than "really very sharp so it has AP twice"?

 

Unfortunately' date=' Cap has done this with his own shield a few times. Of course most of the occasions I can summon up go back to the West Coast Avengers era.[/quote']

 

I don't think Cap was a West Coaster - USAgent was, and after his stint as Cap, they swapped shields back, so he had the vibranium one.