Taking Body from excess Stun

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Taking Body from excess Stun

 

How I get the impression that Normal Attacks aren't supposed to deal Body in Superheroic games?

 

This is the first mention you have made of restricting your discussion to superheroic games. Many of the responses have specifically mentioned heroic games.

 

As well, you seem to assume the guideline levels of DC's, defenses, etc. are engraved on stone tablets and cannot be varied in a given game, which is completely off the mark.

 

In most Supers games, I would agree that taking BOD is rare. Attacks typically must be designed to do meaningful BOD (penetrating KA's, for example) because the genre (at least as structured in Hero, which is more 4 color than Iron Age) sees few deaths.

 

- Killing attacks deal more body (on avery 20% as one of the original playtesters remarked), but less stun

- Blast deals a lot more stun, but way less body

- 14 DC vs 20 Normal Defense. That the worst combination shown in the guidelines. The sheer amount of combinations make actually rolling 21 or more Body damage near impossible.

- you can't make the Body of Normal Damage Penetrating, without GM permission.

 

Normal attacks are more effective at inflicting STUN and less effective at inflicting BOD, yes. But killing attacks can and do inflict STUN and normal attacks can and do inflict BOD. 6e modified KA's with the specific intention of reducing their ability to sporadically deliver high STUN totals against very well defended targets.

 

Now, you're using the 25 top of range PD, so why not the top of range rPD (15) and top of range DC's (14)? A typical Blast will get 17 STUN and no BOD past defenses. A typical KA will roll 14 on 3d6 + 2 on 1/2 d6 and get 1 BOD past defenses, and 7 STUN. The character is likely to be KO'd by the Blast long before he is killed by the KA. In fact, most will be KO'd before being killed even by the KA. Supers tend not to die easily.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Taking Body from excess Stun

 

If you really want to be doing more BODY damage, just buy more lethal attacks, either with Advantages or more DC. I don't think there is any reason to give extra bonuses to normal or killing attacks so they can inflict more BODY; that is just going to make things more complicated.

 

The one time I can see this rule coming into play is for NND attacks that are STUN-only, but could still potentially kill someone in real life (knockout gas or a taser or somesuch). Most of the time I would just GM fiat that, but for more realism you might want a house rule for it. I think I would go for something like 1 BODY if the character is stunned by the attack, or possibly 1 BODY for every 6 rolled if they fail a CON roll or something. You would have to play with the numbers depending on how lethal you want it to be. Be careful though; Does BODY is a +1 Advantage on NND attacks for a good reason.

 

Repped.

 

There's nothing wrong with "target takes BODY when the attack's BODY damage exceeds target's defenses, and takes no BODY damage if it doesn't". This looks to me like yet another house rule which falls in the category of a solution in search of a (non-existent) problem.

[Steve]

Re: Taking Body from excess Stun

 

How would a Vulnerability that increases Stun affect this calculation? Would increased Stun damage also yield a few more points of Body damage?

[phoenix240]

Re: Taking Body from excess Stun

 

Repped.

 

There's nothing wrong with "target takes BODY when the attack's BODY damage exceeds target's defenses, and takes no BODY damage if it doesn't".

This looks to me like yet another house rule which falls in the category of a solution in search of a (non-existent) problem.

 

It's not intended to be a universal replacement for the base rule. I never said there was anything wrong with base rule. It didn't give the play experiene I wanted for some settings. House Rules aren't always around fixing something at least AFAIC. They can be implemented to adjust the rules for different playstyles and settings. In this instance, I wanted a rule the gives combat a somewhat more dangerous feel both on the offense and defense side and longer term consquences. As I said earlier, it's not suitable for all the genres (It's not 4 color, for example). So far its been in a play three sessions and had the desired effect.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Taking Body from excess Stun

 

How would a Vulnerability that increases Stun affect this calculation? Would increased Stun damage also yield a few more points of Body damage?

 

If you want to go the Complication route (i.e. frail Grandma Smith has a bad ticker that could make a taser hit lethal) you would buy it as a Physical Complication or a Susceptibility. You can buy Vulnerability to increase BODY damage, but that is independent of any STUN inflicted.

[phoenix240]

Re: Taking Body from excess Stun

 

How would a Vulnerability that increases Stun affect this calculation? Would increased Stun damage also yield a few more points of Body damage?

 

Yes. The Excess total is calculated after all modifiers to Stun have been applied. Body Vulnerabilities don't increase the final Body taken in any case.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Taking Body from excess Stun

 

It's not intended to be a universal replacement for the base rule. I never said there was anything wrong with base rule. It didn't give the play experiene I wanted for some settings. House Rules aren't always around fixing something at least AFAIC. They can be implemented to adjust the rules for different playstyles and settings. In this instance' date=' I wanted a rule the gives combat a somewhat more dangerous feel both on the offense and defense side and longer term consquences. As I said earlier, it's not suitable for all the genres (It's not 4 color, for example). So far its been in a play three sessions and had the desired effect.[/quote']

 

It makes a lot more sense in that context -- thanks for clarifying. As a tool for "fine-tuning" lethality, I see where you're going with this. In my campaign, if something like this became necessary, I'd be wondering if the defenses were higher than they should be, however.

 

If I seem harsh when it comes to home rules, it's just because I've seen some real stinkers in play. Most were "fixes" for things that weren't broken, or "improvements" that weren't needed, or just the random expectorations of GM's determined to prove they were brilliant game designers. (They weren't.) In nearly every case, they made the game worse instead of better -- and pointing out the the 'unintended consequences' of their poorly-thought-out home rule to the would-be game designer just made them dig in their heels and insist on using it.

 

I occasionally use a house rule, if it's absolutely necessary... but I wash my hands afterwards.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Taking Body from excess Stun

 

It makes a lot more sense in that context -- thanks for clarifying. As a tool for "fine-tuning" lethality' date=' I see where you're going with this. In my campaign, if something like this became necessary, I'd be wondering if the defenses were higher than they should be, however.[/quote']

 

The problem commonly perceived is that having sufficient defenses to be protected adequately from STUN damage makes BOD damage from normal attacks unlikely to impossible. Short of limiting some defenses to not apply against BOD damage (requiring that would also be a house rule in its fashion - as are all caps), there's no easy solution. Until we got Damage Negation, of course.

[phoenix240]

Re: Taking Body from excess Stun

 

Damage Negation didn't feel quite right for what I wanted. I didn't want the characters to be invulnerable to attacks below a specific level just more prone to taking Body without jiggering around too much with Defense levels or mandating that everyone take high DC or heavily Advantaged KAs regardless if it fit their concepts or not. I also felt too much like the MDC/SDC divide in Palladium, something I never liked very much.

[Christopher]

Re: Taking Body from excess Stun

 

I think the main problem is the difference between normal damage Body and normal STUN (a 1:3.5 thing). That way you need much more to Protect yourself from STUN than for Body (this is twice as serious, as normal Defense works agaisnt killing STUN).

 

I think we could use hughs idea of a "Only vs. STUN" non-resistant defense, by adopting "Only vs. SFX" rule:

For normal (non-Resistant) defenses in superheroic games I would say it is only around a -1/4, since as said above the main purpose of those attacks is to do stun. But mostly it's what you think would be right (with your goal of doing Body with normal attacks, this could of course be higher).

For Resistant defenses and normal Defenses with Resistant-Advantage I would say this is not even allowed. Partially because balacing it is near impossible, but also the purpose of that defense is to Block Killing Body (wich is why it costs about 50% more) so limiting it to not affect body damage is just building normal Defense, Only vs STUN.

 

the only question left is "how much Defenses vs. normal BODY and how much vs. STUN is okay for your campaign". Actually that is a similar question as with how high Resistant Defenses are allowed to be:

The average BODY/3 DC of normal Damage is 3, the STUN/3 DC is 10.5.

The average BODY/3 DC of Killing Damage is 3.5, the STUN/3 DC is 7. The main reason they do more Body is simply that fewer defenses apply (according to the guidelines only 50% for Standart and Heroic, but around 75% for Superheroic).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Taking Body from excess Stun

 

I think the main problem is the difference between normal damage Body and normal STUN (a 1:3.5 thing). That way you need much more to Protect yourself from STUN than for Body (this is twice as serious, as normal Defense works agaisnt killing STUN).

 

I think we could use hughs idea of a "Only vs. STUN" non-resistant defense, by adopting "Only vs. SFX" rule:

For normal (non-Resistant) defenses in superheroic games I would say it is only around a -1/4, since as said above the main purpose of those attacks is to do stun. But mostly it's what you think would be right (with your goal of doing Body with normal attacks, this could of course be higher).

 

It's tough to adopt a one size fits all limitation in this regard. If you already have 20 PD in a game where 12 DC is the cap, you're unlikely to take BOD already. If you only have 10, not having the next few reduce BOD damage is much more significant.

 

There's also a ripple effect. If BOD damage is more common, higher BOD and (especially) regeneration become much more valuable. Damage reduction also becomes more significant, as it will at least reduce BOD taken. On the attack side, first strike (to reduce or eliminate attacks, and thus BOD, taken) becomes more important.

 

For Resistant defenses and normal Defenses with Resistant-Advantage I would say this is not even allowed. Partially because balacing it is near impossible' date=' but also the purpose of that defense is to Block Killing Body (wich is why it costs about 50% more) so limiting it to not affect body damage is just building normal Defense, Only vs STUN.[/quote']

 

Given all Resistant does is make the defense reduce BOD done from a KA, making it "not vs BOD" seems very counterproductive. If we accept that defenses get a -1/4 for "not vs BOD from normal attacks", then +10 PD costs 8 points. +10 rPD at -3/4 would cost 8.5 points, and -1 would cost 7.5, so one of those two would be about right - but if the defense doesn't work vs BOD, buying it Resistant serves no purpose, so just buy nonresistant defenses at -1/4, if that's where we set the limitation.

 

Another approach would be to change the way defenses work, rather than changing the way attacks work. Maybe defenses against normal attacks reduce STUN by their full amount, but only reduce BOD by 1/3 of their value. We can keep KA BOD reduced solely by resistant defenses, since that's easy to adjust on its own.

 

So that 20 DEF Super only has 7 defenses against BOD damage. That's probably too low, so maybe we make the ratio 2:1 (now he has 10 defenses) or even 1.5:1 (so he has 13 defenses). The fraction can be an ugly one to math out - you'll put the number on the character sheet anyway, so you only do the math once.

[Steve]

Re: Taking Body from excess Stun

 

Using Damage Negation at low levels and combined with lower levels of other defenses has worked out pretty well in controlling the Body/Stun issue in my Icons campaign. I've thought about adding in the 1 for 20 rule to bloody up combat a bit more.

 

As an example, Supernal, the team's brick is built with 18 resistant PD & ED with 2 levels of Damage Negation and 25% Damage Reduction versus Stun only. In the recent fight with Mechanon (Mk I), the villainous robot hit for maximum damage on a 12d6 attack. Taking off 2 DC for his Damage Negation and running the calculations for his other defenses resulted in 31 Stun and 2 Body getting through. If I did the 1 for 20 rule, that would have resulted in an extra Body point.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Taking Body from excess Stun

 

We have argued endlessly* over the years about how to best do killing attacks, or at least the infliction of Body. The short answer is 'it depends what you want'.

 

The system that suits you best will depend on the sort of game you are playing and the points you are playing with. It will depend on how you 'see' long and short term damage. It will depend on whether you want some sort of realism or prefer the cinematically improbably but dashed exciting.

 

I like the idea of a system that allows for all of that. My first, and possibly best, advice is 'build the characters to reflect your reality. For example if you are playing an 'Iron Age' superhero game then build characters with defences that are not automatically going to stop all Body damage, or build characters with, say, a penetrating killing attack that is only triggered when they do a certain amount of damage to an opponent, or when they roll particularly well on the 'hit'.

 

For example:

Bonebreaker: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Penetrating (+1/2) (30 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (Can only be used as a multiple power attack, with another power at full effect; -1/2), Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (Only when the roll to hit succeeds by 2 or more; -1/2), Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (Only works when the multiple power attack does at least 10 stun through defences; -1/2) 30 active, 10 real

 

Alternatively, if you are looking for house rules, you could try this:

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/38325-Long-Term-Stun?highlight=long+term+stun

 

Basically...

Variant 1: Every 5 stun through defences causes 1 Long Term Stun. Long Term Stun reduces maximum Stun and recovers at REC/hour. Once LTS = Stun, any additinal LTS is taken as Body damage. This allows super-types to beat each other to death.

 

Variant 2: Same thing but you count LTS as any Stun through defences in excess of your CON i.e. any stunning blow can also cause LTS.

 

Killing attacks work the same way but cause Body rather than LTS.

 

 

*Well not endlessly, at least not yet.