Jump to content
MechaniCat

Poisons and Saving Throws

Recommended Posts

Regardless of the mechanics you choose to implement Poison Resistance it better work consistently or you're going to have an upset player.

 

It does seem more in keeping with Life Support that it would provide protection against environmental hazards rather than attacks.

 

That being said if the poison resistant dwarf gets bitten by a common rattle snake and then takes full damage because of the poison attack is modeled - they're going to be upset with you.

 

Probably a good place for the Absolute Effect rule and a campaign specific CP cost based on the prevalence of poison attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It does seem more in keeping with Life Support that it would provide protection against environmental hazards rather than attacks.

 

6th edition rules (big book) say so explicitly (pg 245):

 

Quote

A character with a Safe Environment Life Support doesn’t take damage from that type of environmental condition, or from a Change Environment that creates that condition. However, he still takes damage from attacks with that special effect due to the sudden system shock. For example, a character who can survive Intense Heat can walk around in the desert without suffering any discomfort or ill effects from the heat, and can tolerate a “Heatwave” created by Change Environment without harm, but still takes damage from fire- or heat-based attacks or being dunked in lava.

 

Now this only specifically mentions the "safe environment" type (heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, radiation) but its not hard to extrapolate from that to all the rest of Life Support protections by concept.


Incidentally it also backs up my earlier statements in other discussions about life support vs poison only making the poison stop hurting while in effect, instead of negating the poison:
 

Quote

Applying Life Support to someone who’s already taken damage from something (such as Safe Environment for an environmental effect, or Immunity for a poison or alcohol) doesn’t “cure” or “reverse” that effect. It simply prevents the character from taking further damage from it.

 

The poison is still there, it just doesn't hurt as long as the LS is in effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

The poison is still there, it just doesn't hurt as long as the LS is in effect.

 

Depends on the nature of the poison, doesn't it?

Say in this case the party Dwarf is trying to win a drinking contest and the party mage uses a Life Support: Alcohol Immunity spell on them.

Given a few hours the Dwarf's body will naturally remove the toxin (alcohol).

 

I've allowed a player with life support - all diseases - AoE - Usable by Nearby to give a group of sick villagers immunity to a disease long enough for their immune systems to defeat the illness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Depends on the nature of the poison, doesn't it?

 

Not in terms of how the power works.  As long as the poison is present in the character, it stays present, even if they have life support.  Life support doesn't negate anything or dispel anything, it just makes it not harm the character as long as the life support functions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Not in terms of how the power works.  As long as the poison is present in the character, it stays present, even if they have life support.  Life support doesn't negate anything or dispel anything, it just makes it not harm the character as long as the life support functions.

 

So using my example from above you'd have the Dwarf become instantly drunk as soon as the life support ended?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

He would return to being as intoxicated as the liquor levels remaining in his system would normally cause. 

 

I guess that's kind of my point.  Those liquor levels would diminish to the tune of rougly 1.5 drinks per hour as part of liver function.

 

If the Life Support was maintained for 8 hours shouldn't they be reasonably OK when it drops?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Toxxus said:

 

I guess that's kind of my point.  Those liquor levels would diminish to the tune of rougly 1.5 drinks per hour as part of liver function.

 

 

 

Does this take in to account the historical fact that Dwarven livers are 50% larger and 37% more efficient the average human liver? ;D

 

So more like 3 drinks per hour clearance rate.

 

Given their stature though we can assume a proportional stomach size. Explaining why dwarves go through beer like water and prefer those notorious dwarven spirits for actually getting drunk.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

6th edition rules (big book) say so explicitly (pg 245):

 

 

 

For what it's worth, _every_ edition says that very same thing:  environmental immunity (in the case of Poison, think allergens, belladonna, nightshade, etc) only.  Attacks  (for poisons, think prepared extracts from these same sources: a "concentrated and purified" version of these same things, if it helps to rationalize the disconnect) still affect the characters.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2019 at 9:18 AM, SpaceknightFenix said:

Not exactly a big fan of the 'saves' system, if we're gonna use anything like what D&D has. Con doesn't get any love, because all the stuff that made Con good are gone, you don't get stun, you don't get end, you get..... resistance to being dazed, and a better Con roll, which is pointless, because it doesn't come up nearly often enough to count as a point and it doesn't add defense anymore. So just regular defense costs the same amount per point and stops damage rather than allowing you to shrug it off.

 

Last time I looked, 1 point invested in defenses would block 1 point of one of physical, energy, flash I(one sense group), power or mental attacks.

 

1 point of CON defends against being Stunned  by attacks which are defended by any of those five, and by attacks which are  not reduced by any of them, such as NNDs.

 

That point balance seems superior, to me at least, to "spend 75 points and get +6 ED (6 points), +15 STUN (15 points), +60 END (30 points) and +12 REC (24 points), or spend 60 points on +30 CON and get paid 15 points for also getting 30 more points' resistance to being Stunned and a +6 bonus should a CON roll crop up".  When getting more costs less, there is a clear, objective problem - or at least that is my view.

 

Practically, however, I would say that CON is a character tax.  Everyone needs enough CON to avoid being routinely Stunned by a campaign-standard attack.  Preventing being Stunned is its main function, although bringing in more CON rolls would also be cool. 

 

Pre-6e, everyone still  bought enough CON to avoid being Stunned by campaign standard attacks, then assessed whether they would otherwise buy enough additional points in each Figured stat to make more CON worthwhile.  Even if you did not want the STUN, it was still break even to buy up CON.  No one (with any game understanding) bought CON - no figured. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those attacks are expensive and rare, so it's a matter of whether or not you think that two points/con are worth it for most of your adventures. The fact is, that two points used to give you ED, End, and Stun, in addition to protecting against being dazed. Personally, I don't think that two points is, if someone's gonna nail me with an NND, and I don't have any power defense, then congratulations to them: they tagged me in a weak spot, but I do not think it's worth it, because defenses are so cheap.

 

I don't exactly play 6e, for a reason, but I am familiar with the rules, and I buy CON for the astounding list of benefits it gives me, which make it well worth the 2 points/shot, rather than buying all of those things separately.

 

My point is basically what you're stating, Con used to be worth buying, but it's not anymore

 

Poor Defender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the big problem with Con in 6th is that it really only has one use, and it functions in a way that it's really a binary state.  You either have enough, or you don't.  That means the cost structure is all jacked up because of it.  The Con that doesn't prevent you from being Stunned is worthless.

 

Suppose you are in a 12D6 game, and you've already decided to purchase 20 PD/ED and no special defenses.  How much Con should your character buy, and how much should you be charged for it?  Well, to be effective, you should probably have at least +12 Con.  That will prevent you from being Stunned by an average roll.  But of course, not every roll is average, and not every attack is a straight 12D6.

 

Buying +5 Con is only going to protect you in extremely limited circumstances (i.e., when the opponent has a really low power attack or rolls really poorly).  The points that don't actually protect you from being Stunned should be worth less.  Buying +35 Con is also going to protect you in extremely limited circumstances.  If your opponent rolls great, even on a haymaker, they probably won't get 45 through.  Since it isn't actually giving you anything, shouldn't Con past a certain point be virtually free?

 

I'm not going to fool around with bell curve charts to determine what the appropriate cost should be, but I think it's clear that there's a problem.  This doesn't even address the automaton power "Cannot Be Stunned", which seems to indicate that Con should never cost more than 15 points, no matter how much you buy.

 

When Con added to figured characteristics, there was still a reason to buy it higher even if we all knew the cost wasn't quite right.  Of course, the costs of some of those figured characteristics have been lowered in 6th edition, so perhaps the old cost wasn't as out of whack as people thought.  +10 Con (20 points in 5th ed) with 6th ed figured pricing would give you +5 Stun (2.5 pts), +2 Rec (2 pts), 2 ED (2 pts), and +20 End (4 pts).  So were 5th ed prices actually off base?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SpaceknightFenix said:

Those attacks are expensive and rare, so it's a matter of whether or not you think that two points/con are worth it for most of your adventures. The fact is, that two points used to give you ED, End, and Stun, in addition to protecting against being dazed. Personally, I don't think that two points is, if someone's gonna nail me with an NND, and I don't have any power defense, then congratulations to them: they tagged me in a weak spot, but I do not think it's worth it, because defenses are so cheap.

 

I don't exactly play 6e, for a reason, but I am familiar with the rules, and I buy CON for the astounding list of benefits it gives me, which make it well worth the 2 points/shot, rather than buying all of those things separately.

 

My point is basically what you're stating, Con used to be worth buying, but it's not anymore

 

Poor Defender.

 

I don't think 6e CON is worth 2 points.  Apparently, neither did Steve Long, since it is priced at 1 point, not 2 points, but treated as a defensive stat so that adjustment powers do not get a huge boon targeting it.

 

Was it " well worth buying" in 5e or prior?  Yes, if you wanted a discount on buying Figured Characteristics.  If my Blaster could buy an Energy stat for 2 points that gave him +1 REC per 5 points, +1 STUN per 2 points, +2x points in END and +1 DC to all energy attacks for every 10 points, I would have been all over that too.  Pay 60 points for 12 CP worth of REC, 15 CP of STUN,  30 CP of END and +3 DC to my Blast (15 CP - more value if I have more attacks)?  Sure.  And that is less of a sweetheart deal than CON was.  That's not "well worth buying", it's a sweetheart deal where you get more than you pay for.  Blasters would be stupid not to buy up Energy.

 

Assuming we accepted that REC, STUN and END were appropriately priced outside of bulking them up as Figured Characteristics.

 

6e could have kept figured.  They are easy to add back in.  CON could provide the same stats as before. 1 STUN per 2 CON is now worth 0.25 points/CON.  2 END per CON is worth 0.4 points per CON.  +1 REC per 5 CON is another 0.2 points per CON.  +1 ED per 5 CON is another 0.2.  That totals 1.05 points for those Figured stats.  Price CON at 2 points again, and we are pretty much back to 5e.  Is that a discount to the Figureds, or only 0.95 CP to reduce the likelihood of being Stunned?  Of course, CON - no Figured should not be a -1/2 limitation, it should be -1 to roughly equate to what you are giving up.

 

1 hour ago, massey said:

Well, the big problem with Con in 6th is that it really only has one use, and it functions in a way that it's really a binary state.  You either have enough, or you don't.  That means the cost structure is all jacked up because of it.  The Con that doesn't prevent you from being Stunned is worthless.

 

Suppose you are in a 12D6 game, and you've already decided to purchase 20 PD/ED and no special defenses.  How much Con should your character buy, and how much should you be charged for it?  Well, to be effective, you should probably have at least +12 Con.  That will prevent you from being Stunned by an average roll.  But of course, not every roll is average, and not every attack is a straight 12D6.

 

Buying +5 Con is only going to protect you in extremely limited circumstances (i.e., when the opponent has a really low power attack or rolls really poorly).  The points that don't actually protect you from being Stunned should be worth less.  Buying +35 Con is also going to protect you in extremely limited circumstances.  If your opponent rolls great, even on a haymaker, they probably won't get 45 through.  Since it isn't actually giving you anything, shouldn't Con past a certain point be virtually free?

 

I'm not going to fool around with bell curve charts to determine what the appropriate cost should be, but I think it's clear that there's a problem.  This doesn't even address the automaton power "Cannot Be Stunned", which seems to indicate that Con should never cost more than 15 points, no matter how much you buy.

 

When Con added to figured characteristics, there was still a reason to buy it higher even if we all knew the cost wasn't quite right.  Of course, the costs of some of those figured characteristics have been lowered in 6th edition, so perhaps the old cost wasn't as out of whack as people thought.  +10 Con (20 points in 5th ed) with 6th ed figured pricing would give you +5 Stun (2.5 pts), +2 Rec (2 pts), 2 ED (2 pts), and +20 End (4 pts).  So were 5th ed prices actually off base?

 

First, I would agree that pre-5e, REC, STUN and END were overpriced.  Did anyone seriously consider buying up STUN and REC instead of buying +5/+5 defenses?  Did we ever think about more END and REC, or just slap Reduced END on some abilities.

 

The question of keeping Figured was raised in SETAC, and Steve's answer nailed it.  If the prices have been fixed, so getting Figureds through Primary Stats is priced appropriately, compared to buying the stats, and "No Figured" takes off the value of those Figured, then why bother having two ways to buy Figured?

 

You and I both get the same math (should have read your post first...).  But if SpaceknightFenix thinks it's not worth a point to be more resistant to being stunned, then wouldn't he just buy up the Figureds anyway, and not buy the CON?  All you have done is set a de minimis Figured (or a sellback of figured) for whatever STUN we want to be adequately protected from being Stunned.  To me, that is a needless complexity, not a game improvement.  Want ED and REC?  Buy ED and REC.

 

Now, backing up, I agree with the law of diminishing return on CON.  It's really obvious for CON.  But it's also there for many other abilities.

 

If you're in a 12d6 game, how much of your 20 defenses should be Resistant?  Well, if you buy 2 points of rDEF, you're taking 12 BOD from a typical 12 DC KA instead of 14.  Your 10 BOD will run from "healthy" to "bleeding out" to "dead" in the same number of attacks, so should that have been free?  Raising it from 15 to 20 means the opponent needs to do that much better than an average roll, or have an attack that much higher than game norms, so should the price be declining?  What if you're going from 20 rDEF to 25?

 

And those defenses are also devaluing your CON, aren't they?  If you don't take as much damage from physical and energy attacks, you don't need as much CON to deal with them, do you?

 

If I go to 45 defenses in than 12 DC game, how much are another 45 worth?  The first 45 mean I will take no STUN from a slightly above average attack.  The  next 45 are a lot less useful.  But maybe the price of AP should be higher if used against me, as it is a lot more valuable.  Unless, of course, my defenses are so high that you can't even get STUN past half of them.

 

DEX is binary when used to determine combat order.  If the game features pretty much everyone with a 23-35 DEX, there's little difference between 20 and 5, or 36 and 136.

 

Yeah, my rolls get better, but once I can be confident of making a roll with a -5 penalty, what more do I need?

 

If campaign DCV is 8-12, OCV above 15 has pretty limited value, and if campaign OCV is 8-12, DCV above 15 or so is losing value too.

 

In that 20 DEF game, should the first 5d6 of attack powers be free?  They're pretty much useless.  Once you hit 20d6, you're getting an average of 50 past defenses, so how much are more dice worth?

 

Back to CON, if it equals your STUN, then any more has no value for sure, right?

 

Most stats are relative to other abilities in game, so there is a value low enough to be functionally worthless, and high enough to functionally be an absolute. 

 

As to "immune to being stunned", what is the combined cost of Stun and defenses that equate to "does not take STUN damage"?  There is a reason automaton powers are not suggested for PCs.  Why don't I have to buy them for vehicles and bases too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, I'm with Massey on this. I don't think it's a good thing to have, you don't run into much that's as binary as Con is, Psionics has a tiered system, where bypassing your defense has progressively worse effects. Transforms have to surpass your defense and your body. Flash effects are binary, in that you're blinded or you're not, but if the flash wears off before you act again, and no one attacks you during that time, then there's no real effect. In the case of Stun, Con is basically acting as a defense, against the Dazed condition, it doesn't help you in the slightest against anything else, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2019 at 9:30 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

As to "immune to being stunned", what is the combined cost of Stun and defenses that equate to "does not take STUN damage"?  There is a reason automaton powers are not suggested for PCs.  Why don't I have to buy them for vehicles and bases too?

 

Because it never occurred to the game designer that someone would want to build a vehicle or base that can be stunned or rendered unconscious, therefore such things take no STUN by default.

 

The palindromedary thinks that before something is rendered unconscious it has to be conscious....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lucius said:

 

Because it never occurred to the game designer that someone would want to build a vehicle or base that can be stunned or rendered unconscious, therefore such things take no STUN by default.

 

The palindromedary thinks that before something is rendered unconscious it has to be conscious....

That is kinda the definition. We call non-conscious things 'temporarily disabled' or 'off' when they are knocked out for lack of better terms. Though, most of the time, if you damage most things enough that they're no longer functional, then they are destroyed in the process. If you want a robot or whatever that can be knocked out, then your best bet is to not use the automaton rules, it can still be, ostensibly, defined as an automaton, but it isn't using those rules.

 

Also, palindromedary doesn't mean anything, but it sounds like you're trying to say peasantry, proletariat, or something else equally condescending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SpaceknightFenix said:

 

Also, palindromedary doesn't mean anything, but it sounds like you're trying to say peasantry, proletariat, or something else equally condescending.

 

Palindromedary does mean something.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And it doesn't mean peasantry or proletariat. Nor pachyderm or piledriver. Nor pantywaist nor pennypincher nor pumpernickel....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SpaceknightFenix said:

Unless it has something to do with words like dad, bob, or toot, I doubt it. Only thing I can find is a poem about someone's palindrome woes.

 

It’s his word for his avatar, a two headed camel that’s the same forward and backward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...