Jump to content
SteveZilla

Extra CON, only to avoid becoming Stunned?

Recommended Posts

6e.  What is a good ballpark value for the Limitation "Only To Avoid Becoming Stunned" to be applied to an extra purchase of CON?

For example, an 18 CON character and low-ish defenses wants to be able to avoid becoming Stunned, so buys +5 CON; Only To Avoid Becoming Stunned(-?).  In 6e, would it be a -3/4, -1/2, or -1?

If this is already listed in a book, please give the reference to it.  :)  Thanks all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No book reference I'm aware of, so let's get mathematical! 

6e sets the price of CON at 1 point per 1 CON.  5 CON therefore costs 5 points, and provides +5 to your Stunning threshold as well as +1 to your CON rolls.  We now have X+Y=5, solve for X.  Technically it also protects against being Adjustment Power'd down to 0 CON and the problems that causes, but how likely is that to matter?

6e sets the price of a Skill Level that provides +1 with a given characteristic roll at 2 points per +1.  So +1 to your CON rolls is worth 2 points.  We now have Y=2.  Substitute and simplify, X=3. 

So 5 CON only to prevent Stunning should cost 3 points.  A -3/4 Limitation will make 5 CON cost 2.86 points, a -1/2 Limitation will make 5 CON cost 3.33 points.  The 2.86 is closer to 3 than 3.33 is, so the most accurate Limitation value is -3/4. 

Assuming, of course, that the CON Skill Level is fairly priced, this should be a very fair price. 

 

Personally I've never seen a CON roll or any construct that'd call for one at my table, so I'd say "-0" and "so don't" if one of my players asked and we were playing 6e. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Con doesn't contribute to figured characteristics in 6e and I rarely see a Con roll in game, I'd call it a 0 or at most -1/4. Honestly I probably wouldn't allow it. 

 

Like what about: Body, Only to absorb damage as a limitation? Anything? I wouldn't give it anything. I kinda feel like this is the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Likewise.  What is the function of CON in the game, if it is not a general measure of robustness and mechanical number to avoid being stunned?  In most games, I would think that 90% of the time it is used in-game, it is about whether or not the character is stunned. 

 

If CON plays a much bigger role in your game (lots of powers acting against CON etc) then that changes the calculation, possibly quite drastically.

 

Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I agree with Tywyll with the value of limitation being worth -1/4. However I do use CON not to be Stunned as a legit build.

 

Con rolls are more common in our campaigns so for us it's worth a -1/4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In my experience, most CON rolls tend to occur in heroic level games.

 

Based on that, I suggest a -0 limitation for superheroics and maybe -1/2 to -1/4 in heroic games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off the top of my head, the following are determined/affected by CON:

  • Holding one's breath (sans Life Support);
  • The effects of radiation on one's character (sans Life Support);
  • Impairing effects when a head or torso hit is made using impairment rules;
  • Long term effects of disablement when a disabling hit is made using disabling rules; 
  • How much one can push when using dangerous pushing rules (since dangerous pushes drain CON); and
  • How resistant to physical torture a character is when CON is used (to represent physical toughness or hardiness instead of relying on PRE or EGO) to resist PRE attacks that are based on physical pain.

-1/4 to -1/2 is what I tend to see in 6e games due to the above -- depending on how many of the optional rules are in play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2019 at 11:30 AM, dsatow said:

 

In my experience, most CON rolls tend to occur in heroic level games.

 

Based on that, I suggest a -0 limitation for superheroics and maybe -1/2 to -1/4 in heroic games.

 

Here's one superhero campaign that uses it. :)  Hence my suggestion for -1/4 but it varies depending on the campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tech said:

 

Here's one superhero campaign that uses it. :)  Hence my suggestion for -1/4 but it varies depending on the campaign.

 

 

We use it so much that we just made it Base-0 Characteristic: SD (Stun Defense).

 

Did the same for Presence Defense  (PrD) and Ego Defense (MD).

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, this would be a -0 in most campaigns - CON rolls and Mental Powers based on CON simply aren't all that common. Even in a game where they are (relatively) common, Stunning resistance would probably still be the primary use of CON so it would be -1/4. OTOH, if the GM is doing something weird like building poisons as AVAD (CON), it might be worth -1/2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's look at this another way.

 

If the player slaps a -1/4 limitation on CON for this purpose, then he is saying "I want my character to be challenged  by CON-based things other than being Stunned every four or five game sessions".  If he slaps on -1/2, he is saying "that should happen every two or three game sessions".

 

As the GM, either I allow the limitation and commit to making that happen, or I disallow it because I don't expect or want those issues to be as frequent in the game.

 

If, as the GM, I allow you to spend points, that is a social contract that the ability will carry an in-game value commensurate with the points you spent.  If I allow you a point discount, I am also entering a social contract that the loss of utility will carry an in-game drawback commensurate with the points you saved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a side note, the uses I usually see for Con Rolls at heroic level but not superheroics are

  • Con rolls to prevent getting sick.
  • Con rolls for sudden shock death or as a GM saving grace against a player suddenly dying due to bad rolls.
  • Con rolls against poison (basically the poison defense is a successful Con roll).
  • Con rolls against torture (this actually does come up in supers games enough to note but generally I frown on supers actually using torture).
  • Con rolls for Sex.  Don't ask.  The GM set it up so that a success will represent a later positive on a pregnancy test.
  • Con rolls for wounding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've built characters with this as an (1/4) limitation, mostly because I wanted the characters to preform in a mechcanically appropriate way without have superhuman CON.

 

If your character needs 28 or so CON because you want to make a character that isn't stunned that often, but thematically can't stay awake for long periods, work tirelessly, resist strong drink exceptionally well, etc.  So the character would have a much more human CON of 15 or 18, and then an extra ~10 points of stun resistance on top of that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2019 at 8:18 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

Let's look at this another way.

 

If the player slaps a -1/4 limitation on CON for this purpose, then he is saying "I want my character to be challenged  by CON-based things other than being Stunned every four or five game sessions".  If he slaps on -1/2, he is saying "that should happen every two or three game sessions".

 

As the GM, either I allow the limitation and commit to making that happen, or I disallow it because I don't expect or want those issues to be as frequent in the game.

 

If, as the GM, I allow you to spend points, that is a social contract that the ability will carry an in-game value commensurate with the points you spent.  If I allow you a point discount, I am also entering a social contract that the loss of utility will carry an in-game drawback commensurate with the points you saved.

 

On the other hand, the Power "Cannot Be Stunned" is only like 15 points.  So really, anything over a 25 Con should arguably be free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Crusher Bob said:

I've built characters with this as an (1/4) limitation, mostly because I wanted the characters to preform in a mechcanically appropriate way without have superhuman CON.

 

If your character needs 28 or so CON because you want to make a character that isn't stunned that often, but thematically can't stay awake for long periods, work tirelessly, resist strong drink exceptionally well, etc.  So the character would have a much more human CON of 15 or 18, and then an extra ~10 points of stun resistance on top of that.  

 

One possible way to model this - especially in 5e and earlier where figured stats are a thing - would be to buy additional PD/ED with the limitation - Only to prevent being stunned.

 

Since PD/ED also prevent BODY and STUN damage and the limited version wouldn't you'd probably be able to take a sizable limitation value on that (-1 to -1.5 ?).  Although, it wouldn't help at all against NND or mental attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Only if the GM allows it. And even in 6th, the Power can be banned per GM.

 

The GM can disallow anything in his game.  Doesn't matter.  It doesn't change the underlying issue that somebody decided "can't be stunned" was only worth 15 points.

 

The problem is that figured characteristics were far more tightly connected to the system than the people who made 6th edition wanted to admit.  In 4th and 5th, "only to avoid being stunned" was actually a pretty big limitation on Con.  I'd argue it would be worth a -2, because Con kept you from being stunned, but it also gave you a buttload of figured stats.  Thus a 15 point "can't be stunned" automaton power in 5th would be equivalent to buying +23 Con only to prevent being stunned.  That would put a normal character at 33 Con (assuming they didn't also buy it higher for the figured stats), which with normal defense puts you pretty safely into the "probably won't be stunned" range.

 

But with the removal of figured characteristics, and the decision to make Con 1 point for 1, now "cannot be stunned" for 15 points is very poorly priced.  It's an absolute steal, particularly with Change Environment now having an adder that automatically stuns people, regardless of Con score.

Share this post


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

 

The GM can disallow anything in his game.  Doesn't matter.  It doesn't change the underlying issue that somebody decided "can't be stunned" was only worth 15 points.

 

The problem is that figured characteristics were far more tightly connected to the system than the people who made 6th edition wanted to admit.  In 4th and 5th, "only to avoid being stunned" was actually a pretty big limitation on Con.  I'd argue it would be worth a -2, because Con kept you from being stunned, but it also gave you a buttload of figured stats.  Thus a 15 point "can't be stunned" automaton power in 5th would be equivalent to buying +23 Con only to prevent being stunned.  That would put a normal character at 33 Con (assuming they didn't also buy it higher for the figured stats), which with normal defense puts you pretty safely into the "probably won't be stunned" range.

 

But with the removal of figured characteristics, and the decision to make Con 1 point for 1, now "cannot be stunned" for 15 points is very poorly priced.  It's an absolute steal, particularly with Change Environment now having an adder that automatically stuns people, regardless of Con score.

Ok why does it matter what an ability costs if it’s not allowed in the game? If you’re allowed to take cannot be stunned then you have a point. However since was just pointing out that your original fix ( as you rightly pointed out) is always to some degree dependent on GM/game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, massey said:

 

The GM can disallow anything in his game.  Doesn't matter.  It doesn't change the underlying issue that somebody decided "can't be stunned" was only worth 15 points.

 

The problem is that figured characteristics were far more tightly connected to the system than the people who made 6th edition wanted to admit.  In 4th and 5th, "only to avoid being stunned" was actually a pretty big limitation on Con.  I'd argue it would be worth a -2, because Con kept you from being stunned, but it also gave you a buttload of figured stats.  Thus a 15 point "can't be stunned" automaton power in 5th would be equivalent to buying +23 Con only to prevent being stunned.  That would put a normal character at 33 Con (assuming they didn't also buy it higher for the figured stats), which with normal defense puts you pretty safely into the "probably won't be stunned" range.

 

But with the removal of figured characteristics, and the decision to make Con 1 point for 1, now "cannot be stunned" for 15 points is very poorly priced.  It's an absolute steal, particularly with Change Environment now having an adder that automatically stuns people, regardless of Con score.

I went over this before, but keep in mind that 5 CON currently gets you +5 to your Stunning threshold and +1 to all CON rolls.  A CON roll skill level is 2 points, so if you accept that as a valid pricing (depends overwhelmingly on the frequency of CON rolls, as I've said there's none in my game) then 15 points of Stun threshold is 25 Stun threshold.  If you could buy +25 CON only to prevent Stunning, that'd generally be as good as Can't be Stunned. 

I think the real issue is that CON rolls don't happen often in some genres so 2/5ths of the theoretical value of CON is wasted.  If CON were 1/2 point per, it'd be a lot more practical compared to just trying to get Can't Be Stunned past your GM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just played in a Champions game where the GM announced a house rule at the start that the "CON-STUNNING" rule would not be used.  The reason he gave was that it could speed up the game.  I think that this worked out fine . . . and we were able to complete two major combats in one game session . . . :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2020 at 2:24 PM, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

I went over this before, but keep in mind that 5 CON currently gets you +5 to your Stunning threshold and +1 to all CON rolls.  A CON roll skill level is 2 points, so if you accept that as a valid pricing (depends overwhelmingly on the frequency of CON rolls, as I've said there's none in my game) then 15 points of Stun threshold is 25 Stun threshold.  If you could buy +25 CON only to prevent Stunning, that'd generally be as good as Can't be Stunned. 

I think the real issue is that CON rolls don't happen often in some genres so 2/5ths of the theoretical value of CON is wasted.  If CON were 1/2 point per, it'd be a lot more practical compared to just trying to get Can't Be Stunned past your GM. 

 

Yeah, the problem is that having Con only to prevent stunning is an all or nothing affair.  Either you have enough for the damage you're taking that moment or you don't.  Excess Con above the damage you're likely to take in a game is wasted.  But Con that's too low is wasted as well.  There's a Goldilocks number range that is just right, and anything outside that range is crappy.

 

In a 12D6 game where you have 20 Def, then a 10 Con is woefully inadequate.  But so is a 15 Con.  That 5 point difference is negligible.  At the other end of the scale, a 30 Con is probably more than enough (barring some crazy fluke rolls).  Is a 35 Con really worth that 5 extra points?  Probably not.  Is a 50 Con worth it?  Most definitely not.

 

In the days of figured characteristics, there could at least be some justification to go higher.  These days there's no point to go beyond the amount of Stun you expect to take in a single hit.

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...