Takes No Body

[unclevlad]

On 8/24/2018 at 3:36 PM, archer said:

 

On the other hand, a day one team of new players should very well be able to face Dr. Destroyer's Robo-Annihilator and have to find a way to stop it without being able to do any BODY to it. "Unstoppable" adamantium/prometheum automatons are seen in comics all the time. Force the characters to trap, entangle, drop a building on it, or otherwise find some way to restrain it.

 

 

That's not Takes No Body.  That's 100 rDef, double hardened.  Takes No Body says it would literally ignore being at ground zero of a nuclear blast;  it is infinite defense.  Well, OK, stunned into the next millenium, but physically intact.

 

 

[dmjalund]

Stunned till the next millennium is usually enough for the opponent to declare victory.

[Surrealone]

On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 6:59 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

No, its not nit picking.  Taking no body is like taking no stun.  You could simulate "Takes No Stun" by buying someone with a huge amount of stun and recovery or self healing but its still suffering stun damage and recovering it instead of taking none at all.  All these arguments people are bringing up are applicable to TNS and yet hey, that power is in the rules, because it simulates a certain kind of build better than a block o' powers!

 

People need to think more generically here, as in the way you build Hero powers and not fixate on Toon.  I only used that as an introduction: here's how the power acts.  Broaden your mind and horizons.  Think a bit: how would you build a character that simply takes no body damage (the way other automotons take no stun!  Its as if we already have a mechanic in the game to compare it to!).  This isn't restricted to the game Toon, okay?

 

Sometimes I think Hero players are like vampires to sunlight when it comes to new ideas: it burnnns!!!!  Make it go away!!!!!

Taking no BODY is ~not~ like taking no STUN because if you take enough BODY, you die … but you can take STUN ad infinitum and still live.  For this reason they are VERY different things.  The rates at which one naturally recovers BODY and STUN are also key differences -- one highlighted by the fact that Regeneration exists as a pre-built Power to allow for faster automatic BODY recovery.

As for people thinking more generically -- your examples were presented as what you intended to build -- so we ran with that. It's not magically ~my~ fault that your examples were specific/limited.  It's also not ~my~ fault that your example used Toon (a game I happen to have played) and that you neglected the fact that Toons do, in fact, take BODY damage, since hit points in Toon are that game's equivalent of BODY … and falling down is that game's equivalent of Death.  Finally, sticking to your examples doesn't make anyone's mind in need of broadening or make Hero players vampiric.  Instead, it means your examples were limited and your goal less clear than you apparently intended.  That, sir, is on you … and only you.
 

On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 11:46 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

I'm gonna give up suggesting ideas to debate on here, every time it turns into "here's why that's stupid and you should shut up because its new and that frightens us, precious"

 

No one told you anything was stupid. No one told you to shut up.  You, however, have condescended to others by indicating you believe your idea frightened someone -- and I don't think anyone here did anything that warranted that.  Perhaps instead of using Toon as your example, it might help if you throw out a power build of your own … and provide your rationale for whatever cost you assign to it -- then we could actually see your concept for your new idea and provide feedback on it … rather than taking stabs at builds based on examples that apparently were only meant as a guideline (without anyone ever having indicated that in the original post).  We don't read minds, you know...

 

What say you?

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Takes No Stun is a tough one to compare to, as it was intended only for automatons (under GM control) and changes the costing of defenses as well as carrying its own point cost.  By changing overall design parameters, it becomes very difficult to compare to other options.  Because it was never intended for PC use, I question whether its costing was important anyway.  The GM can give it as many, or as few, points as it needs. 

 

It was initially intended as a component of a completely different "character paradigm".  A car already "takes no STUN", and no one needed a specific point cost for that. 

 

Is TNS needed?  It is intended to simulate "objects which can take actions", a rather broad category, in my view.  Maybe, instead, vehicles should have had a "can act independently" power, or automatons should be built with a combined "vehicle + computer" model.   However, the effect is common enough in the source material that I agree some build was needed.

 

Is there a similarly broad category of "things that are utterly indestructible" such that a Takes No Body power is needed, rather than using existing tools in the toolbox to simulate the effect?  Two examples tossed out have been Toons and indestructible robots.  The many ideas tossed out seem to suggest we can already achieve this effect with existing tools.  Are there other examples for which these existing builds don't work?

 

Doesn't APG take Damage Reduction up to 100%?  That, limited to "BOD only" is another possibility. 

 

If that is not viewed as adequate, then I suggest the constructs using existing abilities are useful to establish a pricing point for a "Takes No BOD" power. 

 

The chief objection seems to be "but it could still take BOD".  So invoke the Absolutes rule.  But then, maybe I want to build the Ultimate Nullifier, which can inflict enough BOD to destroy anything.  Now we have the Ultimate Nullifier fired on Odin's Destroyer or an Adamantium Robot.  Does "destroys anything" prevail, or does "indestructibility" prevail?  This is the problem with absolutes.  We have to agree that, in the game context, either one or the other, but not both, are possible. 

 

If we want Indestructible, perhaps we agree that "Damage Reduction, Physical and Energy, 100%, BOD only" means indestructibility.  Or that x DCs of Damage Negation to BOD (it does  not protect against physical or energy, but against BOD damage - could do the same with Damage Reduction 100%) is "utterly indestructible".  We then rename that "Takes no BOD" and we are done.

 

Until someone comes in with "Transform Indestructible Toon into Pool of Coloured Gunk" (The Dip) and then we again have to determine how Takes no BOD interacts with this new construct. 

[archer]

On 8/23/2018 at 10:46 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I'm gonna give up suggesting ideas to debate on here, every time it turns into "here's why that's stupid and you should shut up because its new and that frightens us, precious"

 

I apologize for my earlier response. I now get exactly what you are saying.

[Tech]

Unfortunately, it looks like CR Taylor's been turned off by comments here. Was going to give another suggestion but don't think there's a point to that now.