Hi all, relatively new lurker, I think first-time poster, and relatively new Heroes 6E GM (6E is the first edition I've played, we've played 3 campaigns in it, 1 for over a year).
If there's a better section for this kind of thing, let me know (I have more questions about the why of certain rules).
Anyways, I have a question about Takes No STUN.
As is often said, complete immunity is not something that HERO is set up for, and so things like Life Support and Takes no STUN are nice big wrenches in the system.
Still, I want to understand why Takes No STUN triples the cost of Defensive Powers.
This isn't a sour grapes "this makes my idea super expensive" kind of complaint, it is a "this makes zombies and golems significantly more expensive than they weight they hit at, and none of my players ever take it, even if they make Robots (there is a precident that some Androids are so complex that they can be stunned precident, and they all take it if offered)" complaint.
I understand that taking Stun out of consideration is a significant disruption in combat, particularly if the opponent up against it has invested heavily in blasts or HAs or increased stun modifiers on Killing attacks, but I do not see the solution given really fixing the problem, but instead causing a whole horde of others.
For starters:
For the 60 points that the (more useful of the two) Takes No STUN power costs, you can get
The Cannot be Stunned power for 15 points,
+20 to REC, with the Limitation (only for the recovery of STUN points, which I think would reasonably be -1) for 10 points,
+10 pts each of PD and ED for 20 points, and
+30 points of STUN for 15 points.
All of which without invoking the defense trippling. If you have even a few reasonable amount of defenses (say DCV of 5 and rPD/rED of 3/3, normally 19 points, but instead 57), you can purchase the PD/ED to +20 apeice and the STUN up to +62 for the difference in price or start putting in 25% or 50% Damage Reduction for Stun Only (-1/2). In campaign power levels in which we play, that's effective immunity to Stun, without additional defenses being tripled.
Therefore, my players see no incentive to take the power. There's a precidence for automitons not taking it (vampires and Champions villian robots), and simply saying no to them just disincentivizes robot and undead characters.
As for me as the GM, it means that, while skeletons and zombies are fine, since they pretty much have no defense except not taking stun, golems and such are wildly overpriced for their hitting power against the PCs.
Beyond the fact that it makes golems more expensive than I feel they should be and my players not take the power, there's simply the logical aspect of the trippling. Trippling is a geometric effect for a benefit that I'm not convinced is geometric. Trippling means Power Advantages and Limitations are trippled, is that better or worse than giving defensive abilities a +2 power advantage cost? It just seems like a really clunky and clumsy mechanic. If anyone has had a different experience, or horror stories of an earlier edition where the trippling wasn't there, I'd love to hear it.
