CON Stunned without STUN

[Lightray]

Help! I’m trying to build a power that CON Stuns the target, but they do not lose STUN from the attack. I can’t find a satsifactory way to model this.

 

I’ve considered a big NND with a big “Only For CON Stunning†disadvantage.

 

Maybe a Suppress of some kind? (Suppress STUN?)

 

Suggestions, anyone?

[Talon]

Just take an attack that does STUN and apply a "doesn't actually do STUN, other than for Con Stunning" Limitation. I'd give that around a -1 probably.

 

I'd also consider it a Minor Transformation, but that will probably cost more.

[Guest C_Zeree]

I like the suppress idea mentioned, you need PowD to resist it, so its already an AVLD almost. Plus it seems more elegant than NND EB Only to CON Stun.

 

Prob cheaper than the NND Only for Stunning too

 

My 2c

[Farkling]

"Only to CON Stun" sounds like a cheesy way to buy "Suppress vs. all target's powers, lasts for SPD/12 phases"

 

A mechanic application to a special effect desired. I don't think I'd allow it EXCEPT on an EB/NND combo.

[eepjr24]

Disad?

 

Hrm. I would want a special effect for this. I can see a few out there that I would allow it for, though. In general, I would probably give it something like a -3/4, assuming it was a normal EB. I justify that because it is not doing KB, Body, or Stun (Except for figuring Con Stun). On the flip side, I would also allow someone to buy Con, only to prevent being con stunned as a -1 limitation.

 

- Ernie

[Lightray]

The special effect is, essentially, a "Power Word: Stun" -type spell. The character is pretty much a turn-of-the-century Mystery Man. As this'd be her only real "attack" -- Stun someone for a phase, run away -- I don't think it will be too abusive.

 

I do think it could be abusive if she started setting up opponents for her teammates to take down, but I'll be able to control that through the scenarios.

 

I would like a more elegant approach, though...

 

Suppress STUN, Noncontinuous is looking promising. But it would take down an opponent for one segment, which would not necessarily be their next phase. I think.

[Guest Keneton]

Build as an area effect accurate entangle that only last 1 phase.

 

[JeffreyWKramer]

Originally posted by Keneton

Build as an area effect accurate entangle that only last 1 phase.

 

This is the best idea I've seen so far. Make the Entangle Fully Invisible and "Entangle and Character both take damage" - a hit will knock the character out of his "stunned" state.

[Tech]

Originally posted by JeffreyWKramer

This is the best idea I've seen so far. Make the Entangle Fully Invisible and "Entangle and Character both take damage" - a hit will knock the character out of his "stunned" state.

 

This doesn't seem to be enough. If 'Stunned', the target shouldn't be able to do anything. However, an entangle doesn't prevent actions such as taking a recovery, blasting their way out or staying in the entangle yet use Mental powers to name a few. Likewise, it is unbalanced for those who for whatever reason can't break their way out of the entangle (which I doubt is very few, except maybe martial artists). If gone this route, I'd give it Immune to all senses, a high DEF and some kind of time limitation like only lasts 3 segments. However, this gets horrendously expensive and goes a roundabout way of getting your power effect.

 

I personally prefer the NND route. Simple, precise and sweet although still expensive.

ex. 10d6 NND, only to Con Stun -3/4. Real Cost: 67 pts.

[eepjr24]

NND?

 

I am not even certain that the power needs NND. If we are talking turn of the century Dark Champions, I would go with:

 

STUN: 11D6 EB (Energy), Only to cause stun for CON stunning purposes (-3/4), Standard Effect. AP: 55, RP: 31

 

This gives 33 Stun for purposes of stunning. After defenses this would yield 21 stun (1 above NCM for average humans) for someone in 6 ED armor and with 6 ED natural. That would strike me as pretty high for a turn of the century type game. If it is not high enough, simply raise it a couple dice to account for the higher defenses. I am conceviving of this power as pretty much all or nothing, and the above construct lets the GM have more control on who it works against.

 

- Ernie

[Gary]

Re: Disad?

 

Originally posted by eepjr24

Hrm. I would want a special effect for this. I can see a few out there that I would allow it for, though. In general, I would probably give it something like a -3/4, assuming it was a normal EB. I justify that because it is not doing KB, Body, or Stun (Except for figuring Con Stun). On the flip side, I would also allow someone to buy Con, only to prevent being con stunned as a -1 limitation.

 

- Ernie

 

I'd give a -2 limitation for con only to prevent con stunning.

 

At a -1 limitation, it would cost you 10 pts for +10 con.

 

However, for the exact same 10 pts, you could buy +10 con and sell back 20 end. You would get +10 con, +2 ED, +2 Rec, and +5 stun. The ED, Rec, and Stun are pure "profit" compared to your -1 limitation.

[Tom McCarthy]

I keep thinking a big Mental Illusion ("You are not in combat") will net you the DCV reduction and cause them to lose a phase, so long as they don't make their breakout roll.

 

Alternatively, an NND Flash vs. all senses might have the right in game effect [Defence is having CON greater than X, or CON plus Power Defnce greater than X].

 

Alternatively, and with GM's permission, a 5D6 Drain SPD, causes them to lose next phase, then fades immediately (-0), will do half the job. Multi-power attack using this with a BOECV Entangle and you may get the effect you want.

[Farkling]

Mind Control (10d6)

Based on CON

Single Command

 

"You are STUNned"

[Dr. Anomaly]

Originally posted by Farkling

Mind Control (10d6)

Based on CON

Single Command

 

"You are STUNned"

Y'know, I was going to suggest Mind Control with one command "Take no actions of ANY kind", but I think this may be even better.

 

Of course, if it were me I'd also add on a limitation like "Mind Control automatically broken when target executes a 'Recover from being Stunned' action (-1)" ... I say -1 because the Breakout is VERY easy, something the target will immediately do (they think they're stunned, so they do a 'recovery') *and* automatic once they take the action.

 

Alternately you could make it Ablative, with each 'Recovery' action the victim takes lowering the Activation check by one level; the Activation check would be rolled at the start of each of the victim's phases, and if the check failed, the Mind Control would break and thus allow them a their full action that phase. I'd probably call that one a -1/2.

[jallen0002]

Mind Control Seems Best?

 

I think the mind control option is the best all around option. The character wants a "Power Word Stun" type effect which really does not affect the character's physical characteristics so much as it renders them unable to take an action for a small amount of time.

 

Doing an NND attack or any sort of attack that will reduce the characters STUN will be expensive and probably more powerful/damaging than the intended effect.

 

Jeremy

[CrosshairCollie]

I tried working on something like this myself once ... I wound up trying to create a new power called Stun Blast. I couldn't find a cost that was right for it, though ... 5 per die seemed too cheap, 10 too expensive. The basic power was that you rolled the dice, subtracted Power Defense, and if the result exceeded the target's CON, he got Stunned.

 

This was under 4E when I was making it, but I was figuring that a 50 active Stun Blast at 5/die would be 35, which would stun darn near anybody, but at 10/die, it'd come up to be 17, which would Stun normals, but that's it. Really, it kinda sucked.

 

I think either Mind Control or a very temporary Entangle on ECV would be the best ways to go about it.

[Lightray]

Although I like the Mind Control vs. CON suggestion, looking at the power’s description I didn’t want to have to judge if the roll needs to be CON+10 or CON+30 every time, and imposing a Mandatory Effect CON+30 didn’t feel right, either. And I didn’t want the breakout roll to be a factor.

 

If this character wasn’t just going to be limited to occasional flashback adventures, I might consider making a new power. I’d suggest an instant Adjustment Power at 1d6 per 5 points (vs. CON to check for Stunning, Power Defense applies) -- but make it No Range by default. If they want it ranged it’ll be 7.5 pts./1d6, which seems about right.

 

I’m going to go with the NND Does No STUN (-3/4) option. She’ll have to have 1/2 END on it, but with Incantation and Reduced By Range I don’t think it’ll be too abusive.

 

Thanks for the help, all.

[KA.]

I hope I am not beating a horse that is, if not dead, sorely wounded, but to me the constuct you describe is Entangle BOECV, or "Mental Paralysis".

 

It prevents the target from acting, without doing any "damage" to him, and in a retro, "mystery man" setting, it makes perfect stylistic sense.

It will work on "normals" but those with "mysterious mental powers" will be mostly immune.

 

KA

[Farkling]

Suppress CON followed by a normal STUN blast is my only other contribution, but I suppose that's too much time for the set up.

 

Could always buy one of those limited SPD boosts (only for Stun in Suppression Field)

 

Or perhaps something convolute::

 

STUN Field:: Suppress vs CON, 1-Hex Area Effect, Megascale (1 Hex = 100 meters), No Range, Limit/Side Effect:: CON is suppressed ONLY against Zap Bolt).

Zap Bolt:: 2d6 NND EB, linked to STUN Field.

 

Suppress is a constant power, so it just need to be turned on in this case. Then the wimpy STUN blast that can't hurt a normal much can be used to STUN people.

[McCoy]

7d6 STUN Drain, standard effect, limitation, STUN returns immedently (-1). This would do 21 STUN minus Power Defense, which would Con Stun anyone with a CON 21 or less.

[jallen0002]

The actual average would be 24.5 (or 25 rounding up).

 

Average of a D6 is 3.5 , hence why 11 or less is the default.. 11 or less = 50/50 chance with 3D6

 

Jeremy

[Farkling]

I forgot about that...

 

Drain will cause a STUN result just like any other STUN loss.

Already acts agauinst Power Defense...isn't all or nothing.

 

Maybe tinker the limitaion more towards a "all STUN returns following a recovery"

 

NND is +1.

 

So, 10d6 EB NND only to STUN target is 10 points per die and all or nothing.

 

Power Drain vs STUN is 10 points per die, and has no range...so to equal the EB we spend 15 points per die, but have a larger limitation on the power's inherent nature.

 

As a theoretical question, what IS the NND defense?

 

Power Drian would work on virtually anyone, and has a dazing effect, since if it doesn't cause a STUN, there is a chance another attack CAN because of the temporary loss of STUN pips.

 

THe NND will be aborted by the Defense, and have no effect at all some targets. I vote for the Power Drain myself. I think the Power Word Stun should have a minimal effect on all targets...the ADnD effect would be more like the NND (people are so powerful they are simply immune).

[Lightray]

What I wanted to have happen was basically only the effects of CON Stunning:

- 1/2 DCV

- All non-Persistent powers cease

- Lose next Phase

 

That's why I didn't want to go with things like Entangle BOECV, which doesn't quite catch all those effects.

 

Likewise, Suppressing (or Dispelling) STUN would actually knock someone out when their STUN went to 0 ("If a character's STUN total si reduced to zero or below..."). That's a bit too much.

 

The Suppress CON AoE + 2d6 NND would give some wonky results -- everyone in the AoE would be getting Stunned by low-power attacks. Plus, that's two sets of dice to roll and count.

 

The NND defense I chose was "Unable to Hear" whether by deafness, Darkness to Hearing, or even Hearing Flash Defense. I figure it's at least as common a defense as "Life Support: immune to poisons" commonly used for venom NNDs.

[Nevenall]

I would use drain.

I'm pretty sure that you cannot use Suppress or Dispel on Characteristics.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Originally posted by Nevenall

I'm pretty sure that you cannot use Suppress or Dispel on Characteristics.

Steve's clarified in the FAQ that you can in fact use Suppress on Characteristics, but not Dispel.