Zombie PCs

[Hugh Neilson]

You are correct, I suppose, but I wouldn't want to do that or allow a character to do that, anyway.

 

Here's the thing, though.  a 60 active point Killing Attack is 4d6, that's an average of 14 body.  Your PD won't do jack against that.  So now that you've spent your 120 points to be protected from normal attacks, you have to spend another 252 points to ignore killing damage as well.

 

Now, I guess if your campaign is fine with that kind of spending okay but even at 2x cost, its still a huge number.  You're not really convincing me the price is right here.

 

All of my examples used fully resistant PD and ED priced at triple the normal cost as the baseline.

 

For a typical character, the value of Reduction and Defenses rests primarily in reducing STUN taken, as a KO is far more likely than a kill.  For an automaton, the value is entirely reducing the BOD taken.  Halving the BOD taken by an attack requires considerably less PD or ED.  It requires precisely the same Damage Negation and Damage Reduction. 

 

As such, I agree with increasing the cost of PD and ED.

 

It takes roughly triple the defenses to offset the STUN from single DC of normal damage offense as to offset the BOD.  Those defenses are approximately equally valuable against a normal attack (average 3 BOD per DC) and a killing attack (average 3.5 BOD per DC).  As an automaton, you will have to make all your defenses resistant or be exposed to KAs - you have no need to defend against STUN. 

 

As such, I agree that triple price is, if not perfect, in the ballpark for actual "subtract from the damage rolled" defenses.

 

1 DC of Damage Negation takes out an average of 1  BOD and 3.5 STUN for a normal, and 1 BOD for an Automaton.  It is no more valuable to the Automaton, so its price should not change.

 

Halving the BOD after defenses for an Automaton and halving the STUN (and BOD on rare occasions) for a non-Automaton are of approximately equal value, if not identical value - your key take down stat, so the number of hits before you are out of the fight, has effectively been doubled.  As such, Damage Reduction is of approximately equal value.

 

For 60 points, our non-Automaton could purchase +120 STUN instead.  For the same 60 points, the Automaton can buy 60 BOD.  I don't think 50% damage reduction is worth 120, or 180, BOD for an Automaton.

 

Let's work some math.  All those d20 players have done all the math on character options, and they point to Hero as the "math guru game"

 

It's a 12 DC game.  My PC is going to be an automaton (because automaton PC's is where this started), and the GM has set a limit of 10 PD/ED, all of which can be resistant.   So I buy the full PD/ED, which is worth 90 points (including starting stats).  I buy 16 BOD.  Another player buys (for 60 points) 50% damage reduction.  He only has 4 rPD/rED and 10 BOD to offset that 60 point investment.  Finally, a third player buys 4 rPD, 4rED and 76 BOD - takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin' .

 

So, when the blasts start flying:

 

(a)  My character takes an average of 2 BOD from a 12 DC normal attack, and 4 BOD from a KA, so let's say an average of 3 BOD per hit.  After 6 hits, I'm down.  That's not a bad baseline.

 

(   The DR guy takes 4 BOD from a normal attack, 5 from a KA and only has 10 BOD.  3 attacks and he's done.  Even without increasing the price of Damage Reduction, it is not a good deal.

 

©  The BOD guy is taking 9 - 10 BOD per hit, but his 76 BOD can soak up 8 or 9 hits before he's down.  He does take a lot more work to get back in shape after a battle, though.

 

Seems like the DR guy is already getting poor results.  You want to make that concept more expensive why, exactly?  Show me how it is that you are correct a price increase for DR is warranted.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I really don't know why you keep talking about damage reduction.  Its like we're having two different conversations, in two different languages here.

 

My only point is that tripling the cost of defenses is too expensive for what it gives you, and doubling is closer to the real value.  And that some defenses such as DCV, flash defense, and knockback resistance ought not be included in this increase.  You're off arguing in Swahili about damage reduction.

[Hugh Neilson]

In a typical 12DC game, I see about 40 - 50 STUN and in the ballpark of 25 defenses, with probably 15 or so resistant.  So that's 25 + 25 +30*.5 = 65 points on defenses (ignoring the pretty nominal base).  The result is that the character takes 17 stun from an average hit, so he weathers 3 (to be at -1 to -11 STUN), or 4 (if he gets a REC in there somewhere, including the phase or PS12 after falling to negatives) hits.

 

The automaton should be out after 4 hits as well, on that logic.  Assuming a minor investment in BOD, let's give him 15, so he should take 4 hits that do 3 - 5 BOD on average.  Unlike my non-automaton, enemies will unload those Killing Attacks, which are practically useless against the fellow above, but average more BOD so are way more useful against automatons, so let's say half the attacks will be KA's.  A normal attack will roll 12 BOD, and a KA will roll 14, so 9 defenses will result in that 3 - 5 BOD on average.  9 + 9 + (9+9)/2 = 27.  Doubled is 54 points so a discount from the average non-automaton.  Triple is 81, so an extra 16 points over the non-automaton. 

 

The automaton also pays for automaton powers, of course.  But those replace CON, EGO, Mental Defense, MCVs, STUN, much of the value of REC and defense against PRE attacks.

 

Tripled cost of PD, ED and rDEF seems a lot more reasonable than doubled to me. The value of other defenses is not significantly changed, so their costs should be unchanged.  That includes DCV, Flash Defense, KB resistance, damage negation and damage reduction.

[Christopher R Taylor]

 And the average character has 10 body, not 15, so your comparison should be against a 10 body character.  And that means 4 hits averages 2-3 body per hit to take them down. 

 

So with this information a character you describe is down in 2 hits and spent 110 points for the privilege.  Plus, because so much more is spent on those defenses, putting even a small modifier on them is expensive.  Just making PD/rPD hardened is 16 more points.

 

 And don't forget to add in the 45-60 points it costs just to not take stun to begin with when you add up how much things cost.  That's the equivalent of adding at least 20 CON and 50 stun in 6th edition.  An automaton isn't automatically mindless, so the presence and mental stuff ooes not apply; no PC is going to be a brainless zombie.

 

So now its not quite so reasonable to triple defenses, is it?

[g3taso]

I understand zombies take no STUN. However, even if they take no stun I assume they can use the disabling and limb breaking rules just fine with stun weapons like clubs, brass knuckles so suchlike. 

 

Trenchknife, MW:  (Total: 60 Active Cost, 24 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6 (1d6+1 w/STR), Armor Piercing (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (30 Active Points); OIF (-1/2), STR Minimum 6 (-1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4) (Real Cost: 13) plus Hand-To-Hand Attack +3d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Penetrating STUN (+1/2) (30 Active Points); Hand-To-Hand Attack (-1/2), STR Minimum 6 (-1/2), OIF (-1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4) (Real Cost: 11)

 

I'm actually fighting zombies in our current campaign but I'm hoping this will be just fine to break the odd zombie arm while I am in combat

[Christopher R Taylor]

If you can't hack a zombie apart, what's the point of even fighting one?

 

As a GM I have no problem with that, the Takes No Stun distinction is in how it affects them in game play, not what happens visually.  If you take the "loses no abilities" level, they can still lose parts, they just don't become any weaker as a result.  A zombie can still bite and kick with no arms!

[Hugh Neilson]

And the average character has 10 body, not 15, so your comparison should be against a 10 body character.  And that means 4 hits averages 2-3 body per hit to take them down.

I find no shortage of characters who make an investment in BOD.

 

An automaton isn't automatically mindless, so the presence and mental stuff ooes not apply; no PC is going to be a brainless zombie.

Perhaps when you write 7e. In 6e, however

 

First, since an Automaton isn’t really a sentient, living being, it automatically has a 0 EGO, 0 OMCV, and 0 DMCV, and is immune to all Mental Powers. An Automaton cannot make EGO Rolls and doesn’t have the ability to make its own decisions.

 

 

they are.

 

The rules provide for automaton duplicates, and summoned automatons are also pretty reasonable. The rules need to work for these PC abilities as well, and I would suggest that is a priority over your variant rule free willed automaton. If we are going to completely redefine the automaton, then sure, let's put everything back on the table.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I find no shortage of characters who make an investment in BOD.

Yes, but if you're basing your math on the presumption of buying another power that kind of skews things.

 

Perhaps when you write 7e. In 6e, however

Its a definitional issue.  People use "automaton" to define characters with "automaton" powers such as "Takes no Stun" and "Does Not Bleed."  I can't speak for the original poster, but I suspect that's what he meant by a Zombie PC.  Not a mindless lump of meat that is motivated by the commands of others, but guys with these sorts of powers.

[g3taso]

If undead like this don't take stun, then nerve strikes are out against them. Too bad.  What are the best ways to disable zombies that characters can use?

[DasBroot]

If undead like this don't take stun, then nerve strikes are out against them. Too bad.  What are the best ways to disable zombies that characters can use?

 

Shoot them in the head with a Killing attack.

 

Use any Penetrating killing attack.

 

Use Drain liberally.  Draining their Body will kill them the same as anything else.  Draining their running speed is more effective, though - they're already slow so one tap of a 60 AP drain run speed will make them statues. Activate the Mega-Cheese Beam and see if the GM was paying attention and bought Inherent for their "Takes No Stun" power with a drain that targets it - if he didn't they become mortal and all attacks work on them normally. Drain their pathetic Speed.  The list goes on.

 

The standard ones aren't particularly strong, physically (human max).  An 8 PD Barrier big enough to englobe it will take it out of the campaign forever.  Or simply drop something heavy enough they can't lift on them.

 

Change Environment to mess up their run speed (again).

 

So many options depending on genre they're being used in.

[bigdamnhero]

Hugh: Fair point about Automatons (generally) being mindless. However, 6e1 p145 says this about Automaton Powers:

Their name comes from the fact that in most campaigns they can only be purchased by Automatons... At the GM’s option Automaton Powers can be used for other types of beings.

Basically they're drawing a distinction between an "Automaton" in the traditional sense and "Character with Automaton Powers." So adding Takes No Stun to a character doesn't automatically make them a mindless drone. Christopher is right that there wouldn't be much point in a PC with no free will. (Actually part of the Package Deal is a Physical Limitation that they have to obey their creator's orders to the letter; part of the scenario is them figuring out how to subvert the necromancer's intent while following his orders literally.)

 

What are the best ways to disable zombies that characters can use?

In general, anything that does BODY - the more, the better. For this particular game, I'm not using the trope where headshots are the only way to kill zombies, so anything that does enough BODY will do. I also am using the version of Takes No Stun where they Can Be Stunned, so enough STUN can still slow them down even if it won't stop them.

[Mister E]

"Aaah! Zombies!" [[NSFW]] a movie made from the point of view of zombies:

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

My discussion on point costs was largely directed at the rules, not the specific game.

 

Having decided we will make all of the PC's Zombies, we need to decide what that means. Are they immune to mental powers? Are they immune to PRE? Do they get "Takes no STUN", or does their retention of full faculties mean that they can be stunned and KO'd? What abilities do they get for free as part of the campaign ground rules, and what must be paid for?

 

If they all have Takes no Stun at the 45 point level, then it really doesn't matter that this normally costs 45 points - they are characters with an everyman power, and whatever additional points they have are really the character building points.

 

So, let's assume our Zombies, as fantasy characters, had Standard Heroic fantasy defenses of 6 - 10 (3 - 5 resistant), to deal with 3 - 8 DC attacks. Let's set a 6 DC standard.

 

As living beings, an average normal attack was rolling 21 STUN, 6 BOD, so STUN was the real threat, getting 10 - 15 through per hit. Expect that means 2 - 4 hits to KO. A 2d6 KA was pasting 2 - 4 BOD through on average, so probably 4 or 5 hits to be at negative BOD if we assume 10 - 15 BOD. As they tend to take a lot more BOD, I find such characters tend to buy some BOD. STUN is similar to a normal attack (3 x 7 = 21).

 

If we reverse engineer the 3x cost, they should end up with 2 - 3 defenses, of which 1 or 2 is Resistant. STEP 1: I would convert all their defenses to rDEF, as BOD is so much more meaningful. That's not a huge point gift, though. Now they take 3 or 4 BOD from an average normal attack, or 4 or 5 from a KA, and they'll last 2 - 4 hits (just like they used to be KOd with 2 - 4 hits, I note). So that seems balanced.

 

The question is whether you WANT them to be balanced against their living selves, or if you want them to be nigh-unstoppable juggernauts. I would not tinker with the 3:1 rule in that regard - if you want them to be harder to hurt, just add a few defense points to each of them just like you are adding automaton powers and disadvantages. Maybe you want them to have to be hacked to bits by KA's - OK, then give them +5 DEF, nonresistant (or give them 5 DC's nonresistant damage negation) - now normal attacks are virtually useless against them and they can take 2 - 4 average level KA's to be taken out.

 

I don't think the problem rests with the automaton mechanics or costs. I think it rests with you deciding what you want the norm for this campaign to be.

[Hugh Neilson]

returning to the initial question:

 

Now I love that 6ed treats Automaton Powers as just another set of Powers you can apply to any character. And I get why Automaton defense costs are tripled under RAW. But while that works well when building NPC automatons from the ground up, it broke everything when added to PCs as part of a package deal. So my question is, if this were your game, what would you do?

• Would you re-build all the PCs, lowering defenses and juggling other points so the total costs are equal after taking into account the tripled cost of defenses?
• Or would you just handwave it, ignore the increased cost of the defenses and leave each PC with their pre-zombie defenses, but with Takes No STUN layered on top?
• Or something in-between/else?

 

Assuming they had 3-5 rDEF and 6-10 total DEF before, and assuming a 6DC standard attack in the game, if they keep those defenses, they will be largely invulnerable to normal attacks, and pretty resistant to KA's. I don't know what defenses they had before, though, or what campaign standard attacks are. If they game was based on 12 DC's, and they had 15 - 20 defenses, 8-10 resistant, then leaving their defenses unchanged will make them immune to normal attacks and highly resistant to KA's. So, I'd first need to know the actual numbers we're working with.

 

Second, I'd need to know the tone you are looking for. Are they supposed to be pretty vulnerable, having to hide out and avoid being detected as a concerted attack by, say, police would easily destroy them, or are they expected to be nigh-invulnerable monsters? The former suggests reduced defenses. The latter may even suggest bumping them up.

[bigdamnhero]

Assuming they had 3-5 rDEF and 6-10 total DEF before, and assuming a 6DC standard attack in the game, if they keep those defenses, they will be largely invulnerable to normal attacks, and pretty resistant to KA's. I don't know what defenses they had before, though, or what campaign standard attacks are. If they game was based on 12 DC's, and they had 15 - 20 defenses, 8-10 resistant, then leaving their defenses unchanged will make them immune to normal attacks and highly resistant to KA's. So, I'd first need to know the actual numbers we're working with.

[nod] They're pretty-much in range with your assumptions, with the tougher characters a little higher than that. A couple 4-5 rDef Kevlar vests, 3-6 Def worth of Combat Luck, etc; attacks in the 6-9 DC range.

 

Second, I'd need to know the tone you are looking for. Are they supposed to be pretty vulnerable, having to hide out and avoid being detected as a concerted attack by, say, police would easily destroy them, or are they expected to be nigh-invulnerable monsters? The former suggests reduced defenses. The latter may even suggest bumping them up.

Somewhere in between - tough, but certainly not unstoppable. At the risk of being glib: I'd like them to be about as tough as their point totals (including the zombie package deal) suggest they ought to be, but I'm really not convinced they are.

 

Even tho this game is written as a one-shot where the PCs start out as zombies, the way I wrote it was as if these had been PCs in a long-running game, last week we had a TPK, and this week I'm bringing you all back as zombies. Which is what threw me off, because I had trouble getting my head around the idea that Bubba's* Kevlar vest was suddenly less bulletproof than it had been yesterday. OK, maybe we say it was damaged in the TPK fight, but what's to stop him from going out and buying a new one? Do I have to reduce the Def of that vest just because the guy buying it Takes No Stun? It's one of those things that makes little sense narratively, even if mechanics necessitate it.

 

* And yes, one of the PCs is in fact named Bubba.

[Hugh Neilson]

So how did the other character become less combat-lucky? Maybe the spread-out impact over a living body is more effective in reducing BOD damage than for a dead body. Why should the gun do the same BOD damage against a zombie who has no functional organs to be damaged by the bullet, and isn't suffering from blood loss? Why does that Kevlar stop an axe?

 

If you're OK with them keeping the same defenses and rDEF now that only BOD damage matters, I say go for it. But if you slap a suit of plate mail on a skeleton in a typical fantasy game, and give it full defenses, I think that skeleton just got a huge power boost.

[Christopher R Taylor]

But if you slap a suit of plate mail on a skeleton in a typical fantasy game, and give it full defenses, I think that skeleton just got a huge power boost. 

Which is fine, but you need to be aware of it ahead of time.

[Lucius]

So how did the other character become less combat-lucky? Maybe the spread-out impact over a living body is more effective in reducing BOD damage than for a dead body. Why should the gun do the same BOD damage against a zombie who has no functional organs to be damaged by the bullet, and isn't suffering from blood loss? Why does that Kevlar stop an axe?

 

If you're OK with them keeping the same defenses and rDEF now that only BOD damage matters, I say go for it. But if you slap a suit of plate mail on a skeleton in a typical fantasy game, and give it full defenses, I think that skeleton just got a huge power boost.

I am not going to do the search on it right now, but Steve Long is on record as answering the question "what if a necromancer summons some skeletons with Automaton powers and provides them money-bought suits of armor?" as saying the money-bought real equipment works at full value.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary Powers