Pulling a Punch & Code vs. Killing

[Echo3Niner]

That's a fantastic point.

 

Superman has the advantage that he is more powerful than most of his foes.  Superman's player can afford to take OCV penalties, punch for fewer dice, pull his punch, etc., because he is more powerful.  This is also a legitimate reason for him to hold back most of the time -- Superman knows that if he hits with full power he has a good chance of putting BODY on his opponent.

 

All this talk about Superman; I have a great example of this: 

 

 

He actually says what you're saying...

[Echo3Niner]

I'll preface this with the fact that I'm new to the forum, and just coming back to Champions after a long time away.

 

I also have an issue with the "everyone in costume can take my hit" logic.  There are far too many power levels represented in most games, to have this logic make sense to me.

 

At one point you may be fighting a powered battle armor villain, who can take your shot; but later (or even in the same group of villains) you're fighting a Cat Woman/Black Window, who could not.  All costumed, all fight with others that may be far physically stronger, but just because of that, shouldn't be hit with something that could kill them.  IMNSHO

 

What about the magic or mental powered villain?  They're in costume, and have powers to rival the heroes, but likely can't take a full powered direct shot from a powerful energy blast or punch from a powerful tank.

 

I would say a Super with CvK would have to hold something back on a villain until they know what they can take.  They shouldn't miss on purpose, but should hold back on the damage, until they know what they're facing.  In case they could kill them accidentally.  This to me is the point of CvK.  (Sorry, don't know the CC rules well enough to tell you how to do this mechanically.)  Now, I also agree this should not cause the heroes to lose automatically, because the two phases they held back was “all the villain needed” to destroy them.  But for 20 points, you knew the type of business you were in when you decided to be a hero, and maybe sometimes one or two of the group gets hurt worse because everyone is holding back at the beginning; so be it.

 

Trust me, I understand Rules of Engagement, and how they put you at risk; it’s the difference between the “good guys” and the “bad guys” in my opinion…

 

I'm also a Marvel guy, so don't know the DC references as well...  So, I would say that in general, someone with the ethics of Spiderman or Daredevil, would not run around in a group with Wolverine or the Punisher.  Both of these have actually been covered in Marvel comics (back in my comic's day – late 70's to late 90's); with specific cross-overs where these points are an issue and discussed (to the point of the two "heroes" working contrary to each other in fights with villains).  As an example of what I'm talking about; in this Wolverine/Spiderman crossover: after a woman Wolverine cares for dies, a platoon of "agents" comes after him.  There are three panels in silhouette, of blood and body parts going 30 foot in the air.  Spiderman finally arrives, and fights Wolverine, allowing surviving "bad guy agents" to escape, because Wolverine's behavior is as bad as the bad guys to Spidey.  This is classic "ends-justify-the-means" vs. "the-means-matter"; or anti-hero vs. hero, respectively.

 

So even if you're not running a "four color" style campaign, the concept of the "type" of heroes the players are going to run should be discussed ahead of time.  Because a group of "heroes" and "anti-heroes" shouldn't be comfortable in the same room, let alone working together (unless forced to for a short period of time by circumstances).  This is characterized (as someone else mentioned), by Cyclops and Wolverine not getting along (beyond the Jean Grey issue).  Cyclops has a very low CvK (IMO), and thus even though it's low, still has an issue with Wolvie's "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" ethics.

 

I think that in order for CvK to be worth the 20 points, it needs to play into the way they are playing their characters (now, if they are "just doing it anyway" or are being "forced to" is a different question I'll address in a sec.).

 

So, taking the two points above together; the "type" of heroes being played should be discussed ahead of time, and if everyone says they're playing heroes (as opposed to "anti-heroes"), then they could all take CvK at 20 points, "and just play their character that way", because that's the type of campaign they chose to play.  If one of the players is really an "anti-hero" at heart (and can't have fun as a "goody two shoes"), and plays his character that way; this should be addressed by talking about it with the GM/group, and the group should discuss if the campaign they thought they were going to play, really fits the players.  So also IMO, a player should never “be forced” to pull their punches to adhere to the CvK they have; but it should be discussed and a group enjoyable compromise found (up to and including not playing a Super Hero game).

 

As I stated is illustrated in the comics above; a "hero" (with strong CvK) would actually fight/oppose an "anti-hero" who is blasé about killing.

 

Conversely, a group who wants to play a party of anti-heroes, shouldn't be allowed to take the CvK points at all IMO.

 

I also feel that someone with CvK should take into account "collateral damage", and fret that pounding the bad guy through a building might cause innocent deaths...

 

Anyway, just some thoughts.

[dmjalund]

how much would a talent allowing a person to pull there punch without penalty cost?

[phoenix240]

how much would a talent allowing a person to pull there punch without penalty cost?

 

Would PSLs to offset the Pulling a Punch Modifier work? You could even call the Power "Used to living in a world made out of cardboard..." or something similar.

 

I'd imagine characters with Disadvantages like Crushing Grip probably can't Pull their Punches or suffer an increase Penalty.

[Cantriped]

I believe so. CC page 33 indicates that the following should be sheet-legal.

"Living In A World Made Of Cardboard"   |   +4 to OCV against OCV Penalties For Pulling a Punch (as 1-point PSLs) (4 Active Points)

Note: As the penalty is -1/5 DCs this is a high enough modifier to compensate for Pulling a Punch of up to 20 DCs allowing you to halve the BODY damage of such attacks without a CV penalty.

[pinecone]

Echo39, for reasons that baffle me, I cannot "quote" I agree, I remember playing at a Con about a million years ago...it was the playtest for Voice...I was playing a CVK character, and when a "battle scarred merc" "Hero" cut loose on a villain with a RKA autofire, I dove in front of it, and took the attack myself. I just figured I was playing my character... Once it became clear the Graf could "take it" and was a casual killer neo natzi, the "gloves came off". (I tossed him out of a 40 story window)

 

Some of this stuff may be "Style" issues though. Many players seem to take a video game approach, where villians are targets, that are built to be blasted, so role play is not a consideration. In such a world, I suppose CVK is a "non limitation" because there is never a need for self moderation.

[pinecone]

Phoenix, I think that should work fine...I'd call it "Due care" PSL: Pulling a Punch" and call it good. Of course, even with PSLs you can fail to pull, and possible cripple somebody...

[Cantriped]

Mechanically speaking, there is no way to "Fail to Pull a Punch" but still hit the target (and thus end up doing Full BODY); you can only fail to connect with the attack because of the OCV penalty associated with Pulling A Punch. If you have PSLs to counter the CV penalty pulling a punch would be no more difficult than striking with full power (or reduced DCs). 

 

However, if you wanted that mechanic in your campaigns, you could forbid the optional maneuver Pulling A Punch, and instead require characters in your campaign purchase STUN Only (+0) as an Independant Advantage for their Strength/Power, and place Requires A Strength/Power Tricks Roll as a limitation on it. However since that would still cost 1 CP (unless said GM ruled otherwise and made it free to characters with CvK), it would be a pretty pointless power and a mean thing to do to one's players simply to achieve a harsher mechanical effect. 

[Hyper-Man]

Mechanically speaking, there is no way to "Fail to Pull a Punch" but still hit the target (and thus end up doing Full BODY); ..

 

Not true.

 

from Champions Complete page 154:

 

PULLING A PUNCH

(½ Phase; -1 OCV per 5 DC; +0 DCV)

Allows a character to cause full STUN with an attack, but only half BODY. Calculate Knockback from the reduced BODY total. If the Attack Roll succeeds exactly, the attack does its normal damage. Characters may use Pulling A Punch with other Combat Maneuvers. In many Champions campaigns, GMs allow characters to simply choose to Pull their attacks (no OCV penalty), so they’re not “penalized” for trying to avoid seriously injuring opponents.

 

[Cantriped]

Huh, so it is, I'd missed that in my previous read through.

[Hugh Neilson]

Buy enough PSL's to offset the penalty to -1. Buy one more PSL only to offset the penalty if the attack would otherwise hit by 1 or more. Since that PSL fails if you hit exactly, you can no longer hit exactly.

 

Or buy "Naked Advantage - Does no BOD" for 1 point.

[Lucius]

Oopsproof: (Total: 5 Active Cost, 2 Real Cost) +1 OCV (5 Active Points); Limited Power Only applies if "pulling a punch" and only if it makes the difference between hitting exactly, or making it by 1 (-1 1/2) (Real Cost: 2)

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that if you spend an extra 10 END for an extra 10 STR, and take an OCV penalty to do half BOD, you are both pushing a punch and pulling it at the same time.

[Hyper-Man]

I think it's probably unique among "Critical Hit Systems" in that it has no linkage with whether or not an extremely good or bad number (like 3 or 17, *normally an 18 will always miss) was actually rolled "To Hit".  The actual roll could be an 11 but if that's exactly what was needed To Hit, then the "Pull" attempt fails and full damage is delivered.

[Cantriped]

I do not think it turns into a Critical Hit... CC says the attack does it's normal damage, not it's maximum damage. Which is the term Critical Hits are described with later on in CC on pg. 160.

Also as creative as it is to have CSLs turn off/on in order to shift your CV one point off of an even hit... Rules As Written I don't think you can use a limitation to change your Combat Value after an attack has already been rolled in order to achieve a more desirable result. However if your campaign is using Heroic Action Points (which I never have...), than those should be able to be used to modify the result of the attack roll after it has been rolled in order to avoid an even hit.

[Echo3Niner]

I'm actually OK with the small probability that when trying to pull a punch, you accidentally do normal damage; it's not perfect, as a technique or as a character, they could make a mistake.

 

Superdude could still accidentally hurt supervillain while trying to pull his punch, it can happen.  My thought is that he should try (if he's got CvK), and that it shouldn't have the OCV penalty (perfectly within the rule as stated in CC), so he can still hit (as I understand it).   Now, if he tries to pull his punch, but accidentally hurts, or even kills the villain, then they should play out the "Oh man I can't believe I just did that; I'm gonna go get drunk, or gonna fly out into space to be alone, or go to my secret place, or the top of a mountain, or bottom of a syringe"; whatever it takes for that hero to get over it.  That to me is great fodder for good roleplaying...  Which as I understand it, is the whole point for Complications.

 

My opinion is that the player should get the 20+ points for CvK, as long as he tries to pull his punch when fighting an unknown quality opponent.  If it doesn't workout, or some innocent bystander get's hurt by falling debris, or whatever, well, now you've gotta roleplaying issue to deal with, so play it out.  Still worth the 20+ points.

 

If they take 20+ points of CvK and don't pull their punches and/or don't roleplay out when they've caused major harm or death to an opponent or innocent; well, then that's when the GM needs to speak to that player and either they need to start playing it that way, or they should buy off the CvK.  If they choose to buy it off, the group needs to determine if they can work together, based on how extreme everyone's behavior is (both pro and con CvK).

[Hyper-Man]

I do not think it turns into a Critical Hit... CC says the attack does it's normal damage, not it's maximum damage. Which is the term Critical Hits are described with later on in CC on pg. 160.

Also as creative as it is to have CSLs turn off/on in order to shift your CV one point off of an even hit... Rules As Written I don't think you can use a limitation to change your Combat Value after an attack has already been rolled in order to achieve a more desirable result. However if your campaign is using Heroic Action Points (which I never have...), than those should be able to be used to modify the result of the attack roll after it has been rolled in order to avoid an even hit.

 

I guess I should've said 'Critical Hit/Critical Failiure'-like.