Damage Reduction Limitation Help

[JohnOSpencer]

I am making a character who is invulnerable to small arms fire(ie. low damage killing attacks). I have given him 15 PD armor, hardened; but I want to make him less affected by the STUN multiplier lottery. I was thinking of giving him Damage Reduction, Resistant, STUN only(-1/2), only vs killing attacks which do not get BODY through his armor. What kind of limitation does everyone think that would be? I was thinking -1/2, but want to see what you guys say.

 

Thanks

John Spencer

[JeffreyWKramer]

It partly depends how frequent large and/or double-AP/double-Penetrating KAs are in the campaign. Remember, with 15 points of Hardened rPD, a normal 4d6 KA won't do body on the average roll.

 

If you're in a very high-powered campaign where large KAs and/or multiple levels of AP/Penetrating are in common, I suppose a -1/2 Limitation would be warranted, but in many campaigns (including any with an cap of around 60 active points in attack), that Limitation would probably only be worth -1/4.

[Zed-F]

Note that a regular 20-pt. Physical damage reduction (non-resistant) will work against the stun from killing attacks so long as you have another resistant defense as well.

[JohnOSpencer]

Originally posted by JeffreyWKramer

It partly depends how frequent large and/or double-AP/double-Penetrating KAs are in the campaign. Remember, with 15 points of Hardened rPD, a normal 4d6 KA won't do body on the average roll.

 

If you're in a very high-powered campaign where large KAs and/or multiple levels of AP/Penetrating are in common, I suppose a -1/2 Limitation would be warranted, but in many campaigns (including any with an cap of around 60 active points in attack), that Limitation would probably only be worth -1/4.

 

Lets just say in a campaign I am thinking of buying it for a PC i sucked up a 6d6ka, followed by a 7d6; and another PC took 30 body from a KA(before defenses) followed by 24.

 

But, in a 60 AP cap campaign, you think it would only be worth an additional -1/4, even though it only works vs killing attacks, and only if they do no body?

 

John Spencer

[JeffreyWKramer]

Originally posted by JohnOSpencer

Lets just say in a campaign I am thinking of buying it for a PC i sucked up a 6d6ka, followed by a 7d6; and another PC took 30 body from a KA(before defenses) followed by 24.

 

But, in a 60 AP cap campaign, you think it would only be worth an additional -1/4, even though it only works vs killing attacks, and only if they do no body?

 

Ah, I misread part of your initial post. My error.

 

As to the second part of your quote above, I forgot that it was only for KAs. That's a significant Limitation, so in a 60 AP campaign, I'd probably give it an additional -1/2 Limitation (-1 total, with the "stun only" Limitation). I wouldn't give it more than that, though, as in a 60 AP campaign, your defenses will generally prevent any BODY from getting through.

 

In the campaign you're describing, though, it sounds like high-power KAs are pretty common, so there it would probaby be worth a bit more - maybe a -1 1/4 total Limitation.

[TheEmerged]

It'll depend heavilyy on how common KA's are in your campaigns. In mine, -1/2 would be about right; maybe a little high but not intolerably so.

 

Alternatively, I know some GM's who feel that the elimination of the Stun Lottery is part of the Real limitation on weapons. Personally I use Hit Locations to determine Stun Mod so it's less of an issue for me in the first place. I can however see in a more "four color" campaign that such a rule (limiting "real" weapons to x2 or x3 stun mod) would fit the genre.