CON: Over-Nerfed?

[prestidigitator]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

That's like "why do we park in driveways and drive on parkways?"

DAMN! I knew there was something I'd been doing wrong all this time!

[RexMundi]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

I do something like that in my games.

 

Knocked out characters normally takes recoveries on every available Phase as long as they are -1-10 STUN. That rate drops down the Time Chart for every -10 STUN. This interestingly correlates with a standard character having 10 CON, so my house rule makes it so that the initial range of which a character can take recoveries every Phase is equal to a character's negative CON number.

 

So a 10 CON character gets their normal recovery rate anywhere from -1-10 STUN while a 15 CON character can make recoveries every phase from -1-15 STUN - At -16-25 STUN it drops to a recovery every minute, and so on every -10 STUN as normal.

 

Not a bad Idea at all. Methinks I shall give this structure a shot.

 

~Rex

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

I do something like that in my games.

 

Knocked out characters normally takes recoveries on every available Phase as long as they are -1-10 STUN. That rate drops down the Time Chart for every -10 STUN. This interestingly correlates with a standard character having 10 CON, so my house rule makes it so that the initial range of which a character can take recoveries every Phase is equal to a character's negative CON number.

 

So a 10 CON character gets their normal recovery rate anywhere from -1-10 STUN while a 15 CON character can make recoveries every phase from -1-15 STUN - At -16-25 STUN it drops to a recovery every minute, and so on every -10 STUN as normal.

 

Seems to me this would make it tough to end a combat, especially in high CON games like, say, CU Supers.

[The Main Man]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

Seems to me this would make it tough to end a combat' date=' especially in high CON games like, say, CU Supers.[/quote']

I primarily use the rule to kick PCs back into play sooner. Since Supers games also typically involve higher damage to go with those higher CONs, I think it might be a wash (if I didn't feel lazy right now I'd roll up my sleeves and do the math).

 

I secondarily use it for important villains to put up a challenge. Mooks, OTOH, are still just plain KOed at 0 STUN.

 

Now that you mention it though, I haven't GMed a Superheroic game in quite some time...

[RexMundi]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

Thing is though, Rarely in a Supers Game, do you see High Con. What you see is built basically, is the amount of Con you need to avoid being stunned After you figure out the amount of defense you can get away with. For most Supers games that gives you a Con from about 18 to 23. That's about it. It's not so much "over nerfed" as it is "Low on the Priority list" for a lot of folks.

 

~Rex

[kjandreano]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

I do something like that in my games.

 

Knocked out characters normally takes recoveries on every available Phase as long as they are -1-10 STUN. That rate drops down the Time Chart for every -10 STUN. This interestingly correlates with a standard character having 10 CON, so my house rule makes it so that the initial range of which a character can take recoveries every Phase is equal to a character's negative CON number.

 

So a 10 CON character gets their normal recovery rate anywhere from -1-10 STUN while a 15 CON character can make recoveries every phase from -1-15 STUN - At -16-25 STUN it drops to a recovery every minute, and so on every -10 STUN as normal.

 

That sounds good, I'll have to try that. It makes CON worth more without going too far.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

Thing is though, Rarely in a Supers Game, do you see High Con. What you see is built basically, is the amount of Con you need to avoid being stunned After you figure out the amount of defense you can get away with. For most Supers games that gives you a Con from about 18 to 23. That's about it. It's not so much "over nerfed" as it is "Low on the Priority list" for a lot of folks.

 

~Rex

 

Thats true, but it still doesn't answer the question of if it is actually worth its 2/1 price point. Back when CON netted you some ED, STUN and REC, and kept you from being Stunned, sure it was worth 1 CON for 2pts. But now essentially all it does is keep your character from being Stunned. It has little game utility outside of that, so it really isn't worth 1 CON for 2cp.

 

Of course since I run mostly Heroic level games, I tend to use CON in a few different ways. For someone who has reached 0 or less END, I require CON rolls to keep going at -1 for every -5 END. If they fail the CON roll they can't do anything that phase except Recover. (if they can) I also use CON rolls to resist certain environmental effects, diseases and poisons etc. I also plan to work on some method of using it to calculate how a character uses Long Term Endurance (I haven't looked at how 6th handles LTE yet though)

[Panpiper]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

I play mostly fantasy hero with the bad guys swinging killing attacks. A 12 and 13 on the hit location deals a X4 stun multiple, which for even an average blow, can deal a lot of stun. If they get a bit better than average, a character can easily find themselves standing in the front line doing nothing at half DCV, while the bad guys line up to swing more 'killing attacks'. Typically, that character is going down!

 

When I am building a character for fantasy hero, constitution is one of the most important stats for me. It is of a desperate desire to stay alive importance.

[megaplayboy]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

Thats true, but it still doesn't answer the question of if it is actually worth its 2/1 price point. Back when CON netted you some ED, STUN and REC, and kept you from being Stunned, sure it was worth 1 CON for 2pts. But now essentially all it does is keep your character from being Stunned. It has little game utility outside of that, so it really isn't worth 1 CON for 2cp.

 

Of course since I run mostly Heroic level games, I tend to use CON in a few different ways. For someone who has reached 0 or less END, I require CON rolls to keep going at -1 for every -5 END. If they fail the CON roll they can't do anything that phase except Recover. (if they can) I also use CON rolls to resist certain environmental effects, diseases and poisons etc. I also plan to work on some method of using it to calculate how a character uses Long Term Endurance (I haven't looked at how 6th handles LTE yet though)

 

Um, it doesn't cost 2 pts per point in 6E. It's just 1 point. Which, if I'm writing up a brick, is pretty awesome. I can spend 30 points and have a character who's nearly unstunnable.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

Um' date=' it doesn't cost 2 pts per point in 6E. It's just 1 point. Which, if I'm writing up a brick, is pretty awesome. I can spend 30 points and have a character who's nearly unstunnable.[/quote']

 

Did it get changed to 1/1? I've not memorized everything from 6th yet. My bad.

 

I don't have a problem with CON 1/1 if all it does is stop a character from being Stunned, however in some genres it doesn't have much utility beyond this unless the GM goes out of his way to include it somehow, so I would definitely consider CON to have been "nerfed"

 

(now that I think about it, I was totally thinking about the price of DEX but talking about CON. I shouldn't post first thing in the morning before breakfast!)

[Ragitsu]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

I play mostly fantasy hero with the bad guys swinging killing attacks. A 12 and 13 on the hit location deals a X4 stun multiple, which for even an average blow, can deal a lot of stun. If they get a bit better than average, a character can easily find themselves standing in the front line doing nothing at half DCV, while the bad guys line up to swing more 'killing attacks'. Typically, that character is going down!

 

When I am building a character for fantasy hero, constitution is one of the most important stats for me. It is of a desperate desire to stay alive importance.

 

What the hell do the wizards do?

[RexMundi]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

What the hell do the wizards do?

 

In my Fantasy Hero game, the Magic is very Physically taxing, hence, Con is as important for the wizards, as it is for the guys trying not to get Con-Stunned.

 

~Rex

[Panpiper]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

What the hell do the wizards do?

In the game I am playing right now (GMing for the moment), our solitary sorceress has no healing spells that could intervene in the situation where a character gets stunned. She can make healing potions that could be used afterwards, but a stunned character is in serious trouble with nothing she can do (despite having a spell book a half inch thick).

 

Magic using characters in my games tend to have lower constitutions and stun, but they also tend to have higher resistant defenses. They are still easier to stun or knock out (which usually drops their resistant defense), but they have the advantage of not typically being on the front line, so the bad guys are not then pounding on them next segment with three more killing attacks, all of which are likely to hit.

[lemming]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

In my Fantasy Hero game, the Magic is very Physically taxing, hence, Con is as important for the wizards, as it is for the guys trying not to get Con-Stunned.

 

~Rex

 

Pet peeve of mine: Why bother saying Con-Stunned? Do you have characters getting Dex-Stunned?

[Panpiper]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

Pet peeve of mine: Why bother saying Con-Stunned? Do you have characters getting Dex-Stunned?

It's because a lot of players have a difficult time discerning the difference between taking stun and being stunned.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

Pet peeve of mine: Why bother saying Con-Stunned? Do you have characters getting Dex-Stunned?

 

I ran into this in my very first Champions gaming in the 80's. I think it is in no small part due to the way STUN and STUNNED sound so similar, especially at a loud gaming table. Not everyone experienced this of course but it happened to enough to be natural to some and a pet-peeve to others. I don't get the peeve part though. Other parts of the game are all about giving character's abilities unique names (Heat Vision, Magic Missile, etc..). There is a certain utility included when someone says "con-stunned" even if someone familiar with HERO has never heard it before I seriously doubt they don't get the meaning even if they do get a vocabulary peeve response (it combines the 2 stats used to determine the effect described).

[Ragitsu]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

not typically being on the front line

 

A simple, but elegant and time-tested strategy!

[The Main Man]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

Um' date=' it doesn't cost 2 pts per point in 6E. It's just 1 point. Which, if I'm writing up a brick, is pretty awesome. I can spend 30 points and have a character who's nearly unstunnable.[/quote']

That's the part that confuses me about this thread - how was CON nerfed at all? Sure it seems like a rather empty Characteristic, but it does everything it did back in 5e. Figured Characteristics didn't matter in gameplay, and CON was priced out that you generally got what you paid for with Figured Characteristics. Again, how was it nerfed?

[The Main Man]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

Pet peeve of mine: Why bother saying Con-Stunned? Do you have characters getting Dex-Stunned?

 

Same boat here mein freund. I correct my friends all the time about that one, but they never learn...

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

Both of the groups I played with in the early 90's called it "CON-Stunned". From what I understand, that's just what people called it back then.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

I think I already mentioned this, but I'm going to start saying STUN-conscious.

 

Only problem: does that mean you're conscious or not conscious?

[lemming]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

Both of the groups I played with in the early 90's called it "CON-Stunned". From what I understand' date=' that's just what people called it back then.[/quote']

 

Only some people.

[megaplayboy]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

"fubar" may also work...

[torchwolf]

Re: CON: Over-Nerfed?

 

I think I already mentioned this, but I'm going to start saying STUN-conscious.

 

Only problem: does that mean you're conscious or not conscious?

Would "STUN-semiconscious" be when you're between -1 and -10 STUN?