"Penetrating" Attacks

[C-Note]

Comparing Penetrating Normal and Penetrating Killing Attacks:

 

A 3DC Penetrating Normal Attack (3d6), assuming all normal damage is absorbed by defenses, will do an average of 3 STUN which penetrates the defenses.

 

A 3DC Penetrating Killing Attack (1d6), assuming all killing damage is absorbed by defenses, will do an average of 1 BODY which penetrates the defenses.

 

There is an option in the rules (6E1 342) that states "At the GM’s option, the target may take a minimum of 1 point of effect for every Damage Class in the Penetrating power."

 

Using this option, the Penetrating Normal Attack will still do 3 STUN minimum, but the Penetrating Killing Attack will now do 3 BODY minimum.

 

Am I misunderstanding this optional rule?

 

One other question: If a weapon is 2d6 HKA Penetrating, does the Penetrating Advantage also apply to any Strength Damage increase, or only the initial 2d6?

[IndianaJoe3]

Am I misunderstanding this optional rule?

 

Yes. That optional rule should only apply to attacks that do not do STUN or BODY (such as Adjustment powers, Flash, or Transform).

[C-Note]

Yes. That optional rule should only apply to attacks that do not do STUN or BODY (such as Adjustment powers, Flash, or Transform).

Thanks, but 6E1 342 doesn't state that option is only for non-STUN or non-BODY attacks.  Do you have another reference? I also checked the errata and there's no entry.

[Beast]

1 dc in a killing attack would be worth 1/3 of a point x3 =1body point
I would agree that 3 stun should be done(no lotto) and add 1 for each level of added stun multiplier

[C-Note]

One other question: If a weapon is 2d6 HKA Penetrating, does the Penetrating Advantage also apply to any Strength Damage increase, or only the initial 2d6?

[Hyper-Man]

Strength and Maneuver bonuses get prorated by the amount of damage adding Advantages a HA or HKA have.  So in your example a 2d6HKA with Penetrating (+1/2 Advantage) STR would add 1/2d6k or 1d6-1d6k per 15 points of bonus STR applied (2/3rds of what it normally would without Penetrating).

 

To the original question. 

That optional rule would make a HUGE change in play.  Normally a 4d6K with Penetrating is almost guaranteed to do a minimum of 4 BODY damage unless the target has Impenetrable defenses.  The optional rule changes that to 12 BODY which is equal to the Standard Effect rule of x3.  That might not seem so bad considering that 4d6k with a +1/2 Advantage = 90 Active Points or a 6d6k with no Advantages (~21 Body damage before defenses).  However, attacks with a large number of other Advantages (otherwise known as Advantage Stacking) have the potential to make an even bigger change.

 

Here is an example from the VPP of my rookie version of Superman:

0 26) Heat Vision v4: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6, Area Of Effect Accurate (4m Radius; +1/2), Penetrating (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/2), Autofire (5 shots; 2 END per shot fired; +1 1/2) (60 Active Points); Can Be Deflected (-1/4), No Knockback (-1/4) Real Cost: 30
[Notes: Up to 5d6k total damage vs. targets without resistant defenses. On average will do 1 Body per hit vs. targets without Impenetrable resistant defenses.] - END=2

 

With a 1 Body minimum per Damage Class for Penetrating option this attack would now do up to 15 Body verses targets without Impenetrable resistant defenses.  That's practically the same average Body as a regular 4d6k without advantage that is only stopped by Resistant defenses. And it is nearly an auto-hit attack with the AOE Accurate.  Determining the number of hits from the Autofire becomes the de facto damage roll.

 

A LOT more characters would end up buying Impenetrable Resistant defenses or the Combat Luck Talent.

 

From TALENT CREATION 6E1 Page 447:

6 Combat Luck: Resistant Protection (3 PD/3 ED), Hardened (+1/4), Impenetrable (+1/4) (13 Active Points); Luck Based (encompasses all the restrictions described in the text; -3/4), Nonpersistent (-1/4)

 

HM

[mrinku]

CC skips over this particular optional rule. Thank goodness.

 

However, my take would be that it's meant to be working as a form of Standard Effect... normal Penetrating does 0-2 points per dice rolled (not DC), so a rule that normalised that to 1 point regardless of the dice roll works okay, just like Standard Effect giving 3 points instead of a 1d6. In fact the Standard Effect rule even mentions that things that count normal body rolled (like Flash) can use Standard Effect to simply take 1 point per die instead.

 

@Hyper-Man: Hate to correct you, but 4d6K isn't guaranteed a minimum of 4 body. Roll four ones and it's zero. That's only a 1 in 1296 chance, but rolling 2 or 3 penetrating body is fairly common. However, your main point is not affected by that at all. Sorry to niggle

 

Penetrating never did use Damage Classes - it's whole mechanic is based on the dice rolls (you don't get any extra penetration from a 1d6+1 KA over a 1d6 one).

 

And... just because it didn't make the errata yet, doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

 

Man, it was simpler in 4e when Hardened protected against both AP and Pen...

[Hyper-Man]

Thanks for the catch. I've internalized the normal Penetrating effect to mean the number of Killing dice that I was thinking of it as a type of standard effect when it wasn't. Post edited.

 

HM

[C-Note]

Just thinking, the optional rule makes more sense if we're talking about "Character Points" of effect (1CP for 1 BODY, 1CP for 2 STUN).  Then, a 2DC Penetrating attack would do a minimum of 2 BODY or 4 STUN.  It still gives more weight to the Penetrating killing attack, but it's not as unbalanced as I originally thought.

[Hyper-Man]

?! It looks like you are just making the Stun minimum higher than even the published optional rule. The Body minimum is the same and my breakdown above still applies.

 

HM

[C-Note]

I think I'm just being dense regarding the definition of "1 point of effect", so I posted this question over in the "6th Edition Rules" forum:

 

     For the "Penetrating" advantage, there is an option in the rules (6E1 342) that states "At the GM’s option, the target may take a minimum of 1 point of effect for every Damage Class in the Penetrating power."

 

     Does this mean that:

 

     A.  "1 point of effect" is absolute, so a 2DC Penetrating attack will do either 2 STUN minimum (for a Normal attack) or 2 BODY minimum (for a Killing Attack).

 

     or

 

     B.  "1 point of effect" refers to Character Points, so a 2DC Penetrating attack will do either 4 STUN minimum (for a Normal attack) or 2 BODY minimum (for a Killing attack).

[BoloOfEarth]

Speaking of Penetrating and Impenetrable, how do you handle the amount of Penetrating damage vs. the amount of Impenetrable defense?

 

In my campaign, the team mage has a Mass Stoneskin spell, which provides 6 rPD / 6 rED, Hardened and Impenetrable (in addition to the heroes' own resistant defenses).

 

If one of the heroes is hit with, say, an 9d6 Penetrating Blast, I figure it would stop 6 points of Penetrating STUN, so on an average 9 BODY roll, 3 STUN gets through.  I'm cool with that.

 

However, for the same-priced 3d6 Penetrating RKA, would it also stop 6 points of Penetrating BODY, thus stopping that same RKA cold even if you max out the damage roll?  That seems a little out of balance to me. 

 

Yeah, I know if 3 sixes are rolled, that gets 12 BODY past the 6 points of actual defense, completely regardless of Penetrating.  (Though the heroes' own defenses take care of most if not all of that.)  My point being, there's no real point in adding Penetrating to a KA if adding Impenetrable to what is effectively a low-grade Kevlar vest would completely negate the Penetrating effect of anything shy of an anti-tank missile.

 

My inclination is that 6 points of Impenetrable resistant defense should block 6 DC worth of Penetrating KA.  So that 3d6 Penetrating RKA gets, on average, 1 BODY through, which seems comparable to the 3 STUN that gets through the 9d6 Penetrating Blast.

 

Thoughts?

[mrinku]

Impenetrable totally negates the normal "minimum damage" of Penetrating. It doesn't matter how many points are actually in the defence (although obviously very low defences won't have too much effect against the usual damage). Keep in mind also that Penetrating only puts a floor on the appropriate damage done - if the actual damage done after defences is more than that, there's no effect.

 

I'm not totally sure how it's meant to go with some PD Impenetrable and other not, but CC (p106) says "A given defense must be all Impenetrable or it's not Impenetrable at all", which suggests putting armour on top of Stoneskin negates the advantage. On the other hand, doing so provides more sheer protection and may make Penetrating a moot point.

 

With the Penetrating Blast, let's assume 6rPD armour, 6rPD Stoneskin and 6 PD for a total of 18 PD. If the attack rolls 9 BODY, 32 STUN, all the BODY will be stopped and 14 STUN gets through, which is more than the BODY rolled, so Penetration has no net effect anyway.

 

If the roll had been nine results of "2", causing 9 BODY and 18 STUN, normally no damage would be caused, but Penetrating would cause 9 STUN to be taken.

 

In the case of the Penetrating 3D6 RKA things get more interesting. Assuming 11 Body, 22 STUN is caused and the effect roll is 3 "normal dice body", all the regular BODY is stopped by the 12rPD, but 3 BODY are taken because of Penetrating, and 4 STUN gets through.

 

If you took off the armour and faced them with your bare Stoneskin your rPD would be Impenetrable, but you'd actually take five body, so it wouldn't really much matter. However, if the armour itself was Impenetrable (regardless of how much protection it provides) your rPD is now 100% Impenetrable and Penetrating is nullified.

 

Impenetrable works well against smaller Penetrating attacks that are designed to nibble your BODY and STUN down regardless of your mighty defences. Against attacks that will actually get through your defences anyway and do significant damage it can be useless.

 

6pt Stoneskin on a Wizard with no armour against penetrating arrows and spells in the 1d6K range? Likely to stop them cold. And the rPD/ED is going to help regardless. 

 

Note that the same "all or none" rule applies to Armour Piercing/Hardened.

 

At least in CC.

[C-Note]

As mrinku said, Penetrating and Impenetrable cancel each other out completely.  As per 6E1 147 (and the errata): 

 

"Impenetrable (+1⁄4): A Defense Power with this Advantage is particularly resistant to Penetrating attacks. An attack with Penetrating applies normally against an Impenetrable defense; the usual “minimum damage” effect is ignored. Characters can buy Impenetrable multiple times to counteract multiple purchases of Penetrating. A character’s normal PD and ED, as well as any Defense Power, can be Impenetrable. A character must buy Impenetrable with each of his  Defenses separately; a character who has a Impenetrable PD doesn’t automatically get Impenetrable ED, for example. A character cannot have partially Impenetrable defenses. A given defense must be all Impenetrable, or it’s not Impenetrable at all. A character can, however, have some defenses that are Impenetrable, and others that are not."

[Hyper-Man]

Snippets from APG1 page 61-62:
 

Partial Hardening
If a character has some defenses that are Hardened, and some that are not, the Hardened defense applies in full against an Armor Piercing attack, and non-Hardened defenses have half value as usual.
With Impenetrable, any Impenetrable defense, no matter where it’s layered in, stops Penetrating from affecting the character. (Of course, GMs should remain wary of players who attempt to unfairly exploit this rule by buying a tiny amount of some defense and making it Impenetrable just to stop Penetrating attacks.)

However, some GMs may prefer to establish alternate rules/guidelines. One possible method is this: if the DCs of the Penetrating attack exceed the number of points of a layered Impenetrable defense, the Impenetrable won’t counteract the Penetrating. Suppose, for example, a character has a Impenetrable Resistant Protection (10 PD/10 ED) that costs END and some innate Resistant Protection and PD that aren’t Impenetrable. An 11 DC (or greater) Penetrating attack would ignore the Impenetrable, allowing Penetrating to have its usual effect. If that particular standard doesn’t work for you, it shouldn’t be too hard to come up with one that does.

 

HM

[mrinku]

Yeah. It looks like Mr Hiemforth stuck with C-Note's quote on this for Champion Complete.

 

Don't blame him. A guideline that immediately points out the Munchkin option is just asking to be revised.

 

To be fair, it's also a lot less likely that the OP's scenario will turn up in Champions than, say Fantasy HERO, and Supers can afford to pay full price for their defense advantages. The poor Champions GM gets enough of that crap. 

 

And... some of these product abbreviations are confusing me a bit. Is there a glossary anywhere? 6e1 I'm guessing is 6th Edition volume 1, but what's APG1?

 

I actually have a bit of 6e Champions stuff that someone gave me (Powers, Campaign and the three Enemies books, though not 6e Champions itself or 6e HERO. 5e FRED as well, but it's not in the same city as me at the moment. I got 5e Dark Champions and Hudson City too, but I'm careful of using those as rule resources).

[Hyper-Man]

APG 1 & 2 = Advanced Player Guide 1 & 2

 

6e1 & 2 = Hero System sixth Edition 1 & 2

 

HM

[Hugh Neilson]

In my view, a reasonable compromise is that 1 point of Impenetrable defense stops 1 point of Penetrating damage. An alternative would be requiring application of Impenetrable to all defenses. That special Bulletproof Vest (+3 PD/+3 ED, Resistant, Impenetrable, OIF) must also add Impenetrable to the wearer's other defenses to be effective.

[BoloOfEarth]

In my view, a reasonable compromise is that 1 point of Impenetrable defense stops 1 point of Penetrating damage. An alternative would be requiring application of Impenetrable to all defenses. That special Bulletproof Vest (+3 PD/+3 ED, Resistant, Impenetrable, OIF) must also add Impenetrable to the wearer's other defenses to be effective.

 

I did ask in the 6E Rules Questions thread, and Steve Long answered that *any* Impenetrable, no matter how small, stops *all* Penetrating damage.  Given this, I don't see why everybody doesn't buy one level of Combat Luck -- for 6 points, you can pretty much ignore all Penetrating attacks no matter how large.

 

That said, I think I'm going with a variation on Hugh's first idea, but rather than stopping point per point (which skews toward Blasts over Killing Attacks), each point of Impenetrable defense would stop the Penetrating damage from 1 DC of an attack, reducing BODY rolled the same way as done in an Explosion (drop the highest die first, then the next highest, etc.).  Since the Mass Stoneskin is 6 rPD / 6 rED, that works out to an easy top 6d6 of Blast or top 2d6 of Killing Attack.

[dsatow]

In my groups, we do impenetrable defense stop penetrating attacks point for point.  It hasn't been a big issue.  The rules do state than any amount of impenetrable (+1/2) on a defense makes them immune.

 

Side note: I don't know if this was mentioned but 1 pip of penetrating killing attack does 1 Body min.  1/2d6 penetrating killing attack does 1 pip of body on 50% chance.  Using standard damage on 3DCs of penetrating killing attack does 1 pip of Body minimum with 1 Stun minimum.  The minimum effect on 3 DC is determined not per DC but by the die modified by the rule at the bottom of 6ev1 pg 342.  So 3 DC Killing penetrating would be 3 body on a normal roll which in turn turns to 1 Body penetrating.

[Tech]

In our campaign, Penetrating on KA only allows Stun equal to the Body rolled from the KA to get through; it doesn't let Body damage through.