Stun Lock

[Hugh Neilson]

35 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

I believe 5e and beyond basically codified what was already implied by considering the cited rules together. You can certainly disagree, if you like, but  stating that they are separate … while ignoring the similarities that warrant similar treatment … won't get you very far … especially since in 5e and beyond they ARE treated the same.

 

If my character has a 23 DEX and, on his phase, is hit for 5 STUN at 20 DEX, then he cannot benefit from taking a recovery in that phase,  but can recover from being stunned.  They ARE NOT treated the same.

 

2 hours ago, Surrealone said:

Also on 4e p167:

"The character may be hit while taking a Recovery. If any STUN or BODY gets past the character's defenses, the character does not get to Recover (he does not get back END or STUN)."

 

Altering your emphasis, since you seem to have ignore the fact that the inability to Recover means not getting back END or STUN, and does not mention recovering from being stunned.

 

As well, a character who is Stunned gets a PS 12 Recovery, regaining STUN and END, and does not recover from being Stunned, either instead of or in addition to regaining STUN and END.

 

[Toxxus]

"A character who is Stunned or recovering from being Stunned can take no action, take no Recoveries (except a free post-Segment 12 Recovery), and is unable to move."

 

They cannot logically be treated "the same" or you would never get to recover from being stunned.  Clearly that is not the intent.

Similarly, I doubt the intent was that you can only recover from being stunned during the free post-Segment 12 Recovery.

 

Even still they are not treated the same for the reasons Hugh points out above.

 

Tactical Power Build:

1pt NND - Mega-Scaled to planetary - defense is not already being stunned or wearing a Legion of Evil synaptic regulator, invisible power effects = "A strange malady has afflicted the world.  Anyone who suffers a stunning blow or fall - never recovers.  They are trapped in their stunned state until they die from lack of food & water.".

 

 

 

 

[Vanguard]

On 6/11/2019 at 11:24 AM, massey said:

 

Wow you're right.  Crap.  We've been playing it wrong for more than 20 years.

 

Have you though?

 

I mean, if it's working for your game and you folks are having fun, are you truly doing it wrong?

 

21 hours ago, dsatow said:

Yeah, the rule work well for heroic games where someone get pounded into unconsciousness but less so for superheroic games or heroic games bordering on the superheroic.  In those games, I usually just house rule that getting unstunned is an attack action without the extended time.

 

It actually works rather poorly for heroic level games because you're generally dealing with lower amounts of defenses but higher levels of attacks.  So the chances of being Stunned are higher than they are in a Superheroic game where the defenses are much, much higher.

 

You're also dealing with much more limited amounts of phases in a heroic level game than a superheroic one.  So, in general, that ruling is much more of a show stopper in heroic games.

 

15 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Related, I use a house rule where knockout levels are dependent on your CON.  Its a subtle change, but it helps make CON matter more and fits in my mind

 

So instead of 

 

0 to -10 stun = recover per phase

-11 to -20 stun = recover every post 12 phase

-21 to -30 stun = Recover per minute

etc

 

Its now

 

0 to -CON in stun = recover per phase

-CON+1 to -CONx2 = recover every post 12 phase

etc

 

Basically the hardier you are, the more abuse you can sustain before it puts you down long term.  This applies only for PCs, of course.

 

Oh . . . I like that.

 

Mind if I steal it?

[Christopher R Taylor]

I got the idea from someone else, its all just part of the gaming community

[Surrealone]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

If my character has a 23 DEX and, on his phase, is hit for 5 STUN at 20 DEX, then he cannot benefit from taking a recovery in that phase,  but can recover from being stunned.  They ARE NOT treated the same.

 

 

Altering your emphasis, since you seem to have ignore the fact that the inability to Recover means not getting back END or STUN, and does not mention recovering from being stunned.

 

As well, a character who is Stunned gets a PS 12 Recovery, regaining STUN and END, and does not recover from being Stunned, either instead of or in addition to regaining STUN and END.

 

With respect to your first sentence in the quote, above, I will remind you that I pointed out similarities between Recovery and recovery from being stunned that warrant similar treatment.  Not once did I claim they were identical … or treated identically.  Thus, I would appreciate it if you would apply the term 'similar' as written … without taking to mean 'so similar as to be identical' … because by expecting 'similar' to mean 'identical' you've taken what I wrote and intended … and twisted/interpreted it to mean something I never wrote or intended.  As a clarifying reminder, my statement about being 'treated the same' was made solely within the context of whether you get to recover from being stunned or take a Recovery … if you get hit.

With respect to your second sentence in the quote, above, I ignored nothing. The lack of what you said was not mentioned is precisely why I used the term 'implied' rather than the term 'stated'.  If it was actually stated, I'd have cited it.  Geez.  Do I need to provide a dictionary definition of 'imply' for you?  (Rhetorical question, of course … as a result of being frustrated that my use of the term 'implied' still resulted in you telling me something wasn't mentioned.  Why else did you think I used the term 'implied', hmm?)

With respect to your last sentence in the quote, above -- I never said PS 12 Rec had any impact on recovery from being stunned. Key to this is that PS 12 recovery is just bookwork done at a convenient time in the cycle of segments to account for the normal, autonomic processes associated with the body doing its thing to breathe, heal, etc.  Thus, OF COURSE a PS 12 Rec doesn't impact the state of being stunned.  Bringing it up merely muddies some already muddy water, IMHO.

[Toxxus]

4 hours ago, Surrealone said:

Also on 4e p167:

"The character may be hit while taking a Recovery. If any STUN or BODY gets past the character's defenses, the character does not get to Recover (he does not get back END or STUN)."

 

This line states that you have to take STUN/BODY damage "while taking a recovery".

 

In the case of recovering from being stunned - The time window starts and stops on the characters DEX on their Phase. 

 

Why would getting hit before the recovery starts or after it ends stop the recovery from happening?

 

 

[Toxxus]

I went to ponder the meaning of life and recovering from being stunned and re-read the current edition rules and something occurred to me that seems odd.

 

This part of the rules:

"A character can recover from
being Stunned in the Segment in which he was
Stunned if he had a Phase in that Segment and
his Phase has not yet occurred"

 

Doesn't seem logically consistent with this part of the rules:

A character may be hit by an attack in the
Phase in which he’ll recover from being Stunned
before getting to do so (i.e., by another character
whose DEX is higher than his). ...If the character
takes no damage from the attack after applying
his defenses, he may still recover from being
Stunned as normal. However, if the character takes
any STUN or BODY damage from the attack, he
cannot recover from being Stunned that Phase.

 

So... Your character can get stunned on a segment in which he has a Phase and hasn't gone yet - despite taking damage that segment - he gets to Recover.

 

But, if you get hit in a segment in which you have a Phase and take damage while stunned ... you do NOT get to Recover.

 

Both involve being stunned and taking damage on the same segment, but have very different outcomes.

 

 

 

[assault]

5 hours ago, Surrealone said:

A character build is often quite important when it comes to the tactics that character can effectively employ. Thus, builds are, indeed, tactical in nature … making build advice warranted in a tactical discussion. Even 'teamwork making a difference' implies a build … because a character needs to actually have the Teamwork skill in the build in order to employ it effectively.

 

This is a rather distinctive take on the game.

Of course in broad terms, the tactics used by, say, a Brick will differ from those used by a Blaster. But builds that are "tactical in nature" in this context tend to be gimmick builds, and not particularly tactically flexible. As such, discussions cease to be about tactical principles, and instead become about the gimmicks.

 

As for characters needing to have the Teamwork skill... no. It doesn't take a skill to Haymaker a Stunned opponent, or distract an opponent from attacking your Stunned team mate.

[assault]

1 hour ago, Toxxus said:

I went to ponder the meaning of life and recovering from being stunned and re-read the current edition rules and something occurred to me that seems odd.

 

This part of the rules:

"A character can recover from
being Stunned in the Segment in which he was
Stunned if he had a Phase in that Segment and
his Phase has not yet occurred"

 

Doesn't seem logically consistent with this part of the rules:

A character may be hit by an attack in the
Phase in which he’ll recover from being Stunned
before getting to do so (i.e., by another character
whose DEX is higher than his). ...If the character
takes no damage from the attack after applying
his defenses, he may still recover from being
Stunned as normal. However, if the character takes
any STUN or BODY damage from the attack, he
cannot recover from being Stunned that Phase.

 

So... Your character can get stunned on a segment in which he has a Phase and hasn't gone yet - despite taking damage that segment - he gets to Recover.

 

But, if you get hit in a segment in which you have a Phase and take damage while stunned ... you do NOT get to Recover.

 

Both involve being stunned and taking damage on the same segment, but have very different outcomes.

 

An odd quirk.

 

Either ask Steve, house rule it to be consistently one or the other, or accept the quirk, shrug and move on.

 

I'm not thrilled by the idea of the same phase recovery. I'd probably rule that being stunned causes you to lose the phase. I can see the argument for the opposite position though.

Actually I'm not sure what I would do.

[Duke Bushido]

5 hours ago, Toxxus said:

doubt the intent was that you can only recover from being stunned during the free post-Segment 12 Recovery.

 

 

I've already said my piece, but I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for the mental image that inspired.  Truly awesome.     

 

Thanks.  Thank you so very, very much.

 

 

Duke

[Duke Bushido]

Here's one:

 

Can I use a held Phase to recover? 

[Christopher R Taylor]

To take a recovery yeah To recover from being stunned, not so much

 

[Hugh Neilson]

18 hours ago, Toxxus said:

Tactical Power Build:

1pt NND - Mega-Scaled to planetary - defense is not already being stunned or wearing a Legion of Evil synaptic regulator, invisible power effects = "A strange malady has afflicted the world.  Anyone who suffers a stunning blow or fall - never recovers.  They are trapped in their stunned state until they die from lack of food & water.".

 

 

If the defense is a force field, resistant ED or mental defense (each of which are common NND defenses), and the power's user has a SPD of 5, then most of the planet will quickly fall.  They are taking 5 STUN per phase and only getting 4 back on PS12, so they must use phases to recover or gradually fall unconscious.  Make it 1/2d6 (average 10/turn), and a 2 SPD, 4 REC character character can do  nothing but take recoveries or they will be KOd.  I don't believe the problem here is the Stunning rules.

 

17 hours ago, Surrealone said:

With respect to your first sentence in the quote, above, I will remind you that I pointed out similarities between Recovery and recovery from being stunned that warrant similar treatment.  Not once did I claim they were identical … or treated identically. 

 

No, you simply claimed that the one area where you asserted they are "clearly implied" to be the same must be the same, despite the numerous other differences.

 

13 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Here's one:

 

Can I use a held Phase to recover? 

 

12 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

To take a recovery yeah To recover from being stunned, not so much

 

 

Under 6e, the answer is "NO".  p 129, "A character cannot Hold his Action (or voluntarily lower his DEX) and then Recover."  The rules are also clear that being stunned eliminates the held phase - you need a new phase on which to recover.

 

I have never seen it played otherwise.  If it were, why would anyone declare a recovery on their DEX?  They would delay, then, at DEX [negative my DEX], take the recovery.

 

I'll note that I don't allow "I wait until right at the end of the segment to take my delayed action".  There are no lovely young ladies in bikinis walking through the battle with signs telling you when Phase 4 ends and Phase 5 begins.  Delayed actions need to be taken in relation to some other detectable occurrence (such as "now that the agents have fired their weapons, I'll do X" or "I wait until someone comes around the corner".

[Toxxus]

5 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If the defense is a force field, resistant ED or mental defense (each of which are common NND defenses), and the power's user has a SPD of 5, then most of the planet will quickly fall.  They are taking 5 STUN per phase and only getting 4 back on PS12, so they must use phases to recover or gradually fall unconscious.  Make it 1/2d6 (average 10/turn), and a 2 SPD, 4 REC character character can do  nothing but take recoveries or they will be KOd.  I don't believe the problem here is the Stunning rules.

 

The defense is "not currently being stunned".  That way nobody takes any damage at all.  But once they're stunned - it's all over.  Stun Lock coma time for everyone.  The damage is probably right at or just below the REC of everyone so healthy types stay conscious, but Stun Locked by the crazy (imo) rule that taking any damage prevents you from recovering from being stunned.  The less healthy will gradually fall into a coma from which they never recover.

 

The power effects almost nobody.  But eventually every NFL player that takes a hard hit.  Every MMA fighter or boxer that takes a stunning blow succumbs to a permanent stun lock.

 

Sports are completely abandoned.  Culture is destroyed by the Legion of Evil! 

[Hugh Neilson]

Sure - but the problem is not the STUN rules.  A more common defense which is book-legal makes the same construct even more devastating. 

 

I would classify " not being stunned" in the same category as "a lack of anything", so not a legit NND defense, but that's neither here nor there - any common NND or AVAD defense will affect the vast majority of the population, and you can just tack on "only works on Stunned targets" for whatever limitation value is considered appropriate.

[Toxxus]

18 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Sure - but the problem is not the STUN rules.  A more common defense which is book-legal makes the same construct even more devastating. 

 

I would classify " not being stunned" in the same category as "a lack of anything", so not a legit NND defense, but that's neither here nor there - any common NND or AVAD defense will affect the vast majority of the population, and you can just tack on "only works on Stunned targets" for whatever limitation value is considered appropriate.

 

Ah, gotcha.

 

So in addition to "not being stunned" we add Legion of Evil member pins and any type of force field as a defense.

 

But the idea that a steady ticking 1pt of STUN damage per phase stops someone from being able to recover from being stunned - forever - feels ridiculously exploitable.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I'll note that I don't allow "I wait until right at the end of the segment to take my delayed action".  There are no lovely young ladies in bikinis walking through the battle with signs telling you when Phase 4 ends and Phase 5 begins.

 

There are certain rules and game simulations which are part of play which take the place of real world interaction.  The phase/segment system is a method of representing reacting to a moving, fluid combat and timing things carefully without being able to see and take those actions yourself.  Further, while a superhero with decades of combat training and experience can time things perfectly, a middle aged author and illustrator eating pizza at a gaming table will not.

 

In other words: saying things like "I wait until right at the end of the segment to take my delayed action" is just a way of simulating that training and timing.  Its a method of allowing players to get their character to do the stuff they'd do in a fight, with rules.  Saying "no you can't do that because there's no clock on the wall saying what phases are up" misses the entire point of the interaction.

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, Toxxus said:

 

Ah, gotcha.

 

So in addition to "not being stunned" we add Legion of Evil member pins and any type of force field as a defense.

 

But the idea that a steady ticking 1pt of STUN damage per phase stops someone from being able to recover from being stunned - forever - feels ridiculously exploitable. 

 

I will suggest that a lot of things in Hero are very exploitable.  Flip this back to the source material - "he's reeling - keep on him and don't let him recover" is pretty common.  Practically, am I going to spend a phase (rather than use a carefully crafted, only triggered when a target is stunned, cheesy construct) to use a 1 pip NND, or would I and my team use that moment of half DCV to lay on enough attacks to put the baddie down for the count?

 

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

There are certain rules and game simulations which are part of play which take the place of real world interaction.  The phase/segment system is a method of representing reacting to a moving, fluid combat and timing things carefully without being able to see and take those actions yourself.  Further, while a superhero with decades of combat training and experience can time things perfectly, a middle aged author and illustrator eating pizza at a gaming table will not.

 

In other words: saying things like "I wait until right at the end of the segment to take my delayed action" is just a way of simulating that training and timing.  Its a method of allowing players to get their character to do the stuff they'd do in a fight, with rules.  Saying "no you can't do that because there's no clock on the wall saying what phases are up" misses the entire point of the interaction.

 

We're likely going to disagree on that point.  How does your interpretation differentiate from Captain America using his years of experience to land a perfectly-timed blow and J. Jonah Jameson blowing cigar smoke in the Scorpion's face knowing that, an instant later, the segment will be over and he can Dive for Cover?  Cap can certainly Delay waiting for the Scorpion to act first, and leave him an opening.  That's what I see in the source material.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

How does your interpretation differentiate from Captain America using his years of experience to land a perfectly-timed blow and J. Jonah Jameson blowing cigar smoke in the Scorpion's face knowing that, an instant later, the segment will be over and he can Dive for Cover?

 

That's exactly what I'm describing.  In game terms that's using a delayed phase and other meta gaming tricks tactically in a fight to gain an advantage.

[Toxxus]

23 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Practically, am I going to spend a phase (rather than use a carefully crafted, only triggered when a target is stunned, cheesy construct) to use a 1 pip NND, or would I and my team use that moment of half DCV to lay on enough attacks to put the baddie down for the count?

 

Smashing on a stunned target is tactically very sound and against powerful opponents is a desperate window of opportunity for the heroes to exploit (in a good way).  It's a very common tactic and completely logical.

 

The idea that an enemy could be stunned for infinity - while recovering to full STUN from post-segment-12 recoveries - due to taking 1pt of STUN damage each phase is silly beyond reckoning to me.

 

Anti-cinematic Example:

 

Hero:  After delaying my phase I crit a body punch to the liver.  Tyson is crushed.

Hero:  I jab Tyson for 1pt of STUN damage.

Hero:  I jab Tyson for 1pt of STUN damage.

--------  5 Turns and 20 Phases Later --------

Michael Buffer:  Tyson has fully recovered.  He's breathing easy and looks as fresh as ever!

Hero:  I jab Tyson for 1pt of STUN damage and I mock him - each - and - every - phase.

Hero:  I inform Tyson they should deliver his mail to this corner of the ring because this is where he lives now and I jab him for 1pt of STUN.

 

 BARF!  There's nothing dramatic, heroic or cinematic about being permanently locked down by 1pt of STUN damage.  Does not compute.

[dmjalund]

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I don't believe the problem here is the Stunning rules

in this case what is broken is the Megascale rules

[Beast]

On 6/11/2019 at 8:42 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Related, I use a house rule where knockout levels are dependent on your CON.  Its a subtle change, but it helps make CON matter more and fits in my mind

 

So instead of 

 

0 to -10 stun = recover per phase

-11 to -20 stun = recover every post 12 phase

-21 to -30 stun = Recover per minute

etc

 

Its now

 

0 to -CON in stun = recover per phase

-CON+1 to -CONx2 = recover every post 12 phase

etc

 

Basically the hardier you are, the more abuse you can sustain before it puts you down long term.  This applies only for PCs, of course.

the old CalTech game I was in for 25 yrs used body for the break points so near death could have you in a very long coma time if no healing was availible(could mean a quest for the rest of the team and maybe something like visiting the pearly gates)

 

[Beast]

yes this stun lock is something that a GM could do
WTH is the rest of the TEAM doing
Team means you help out you TEAMMATE if the are in trouble
a TEAMMATE in trouble might mean grabbing your fallen and REGROUPING and reassessing who engages who

Going solo invites this action and means a deathtrap for the solo or a reason for the team to regroup and come up with a new plan to engage the villain and rescue the solo

[Toxxus]

16 minutes ago, Beast said:

Going solo invites this action and means a deathtrap for the solo or a reason for the team to regroup and come up with a new plan to engage the villain and rescue the solo

 

In this particular case I believe the issue is that the rule for recovering from being stunned is unnecessarily punitive and leads to some pretty anti-heroic scenarios.

 

I've beat this horse into a fine red puree by now, but taking damage shouldn't stop you from recovering from being stunned unless it is sufficient to stun you again.

 

The rules aren't even consistent with themselves:

1-  If you have a lower DEX than your attacker then you can recover from being stunned in the same segment despite having taking sufficient damage to stun you in the same segment.

2-  If you hold your action - You lose it and cannot recover from being stunned.  Now you're effectively stunned for 2 phases (current phase & next phase to recover - maybe).

3-  If you have a higher DEX than your attacker then you can recover from being stunned ONLY if you don't take any damage at all in the next segment you have a Phase in until your DEX arrives.  Any damage at all stun-locks you - indefinitely.

 

Situation 1 makes sense to me.

Situation 2 I don't like as much.

Situation 3 I have to house rule so I can continue to have players and not have my boss monsters stun-locked by a single critical hit.

[Beast]

Just now, Toxxus said:

 

In this particular case I believe the issue is that the rule for recovering from being stunned is unnecessarily punitive and leads to some pretty anti-heroic scenarios.

 

I've beat this horse into a fine red puree by now, but taking damage shouldn't stop you from recovering from being stunned unless it is sufficient to stun you again.

 

The rules aren't even consistent with themselves:

1-  If you have a lower DEX than your attacker then you can recover from being stunned in the same segment despite having taking sufficient damage to stun you in the same segment.

2-  If you hold your action - You lose it and cannot recover from being stunned.  Now you're effectively stunned for 2 phases (current phase & next phase to recover - maybe).

3-  If you have a higher DEX than your attacker then you can recover from being stunned ONLY if you don't take any damage at all in the next segment you have a Phase in until your DEX arrives.  Any damage at all stun-locks you - indefinitely.

 

Situation 1 makes sense to me.

Situation 2 I don't like as much.

Situation 3 I have to house rule so I can continue to have players and not have my boss monsters stun-locked by a single critical hit.

I've seen the stun lock scenario in plenty of movies and comics(hero might feign being dead or KO'ed then surprise attack the villain)

It is the GM's choice to use it or not
The Team needs to keep and eye on each others 6 o'clock and bail them out if possible
a possible out is to either target the agent with a full power attack(most will fold) or wait till the bottom of the phase and have a ranged attacker haymaker vs the super power level stun locker and reverse  the scenario

you phase lasts from when do something with your full move(this can be broken up into many actions percieve1/2 move ,percieve  other 1/2 move or attack) till the start of your NEXT phase

a speed 6 character has a phase every 2 seconds and his full move takes 2 seconds it is just done as a if it is instant otherwise we would be playing Starfleet Battles where each movement is 10kkm/1m when your phase comes up