Hugh Neilson

This falls into the same category as many other limitations - is it limiting in the context of the specific character in the specific campaign? The pricing question is an issue. Typically, "resistant" has been a +1/2 advantage. It doesn't seem like this has been re-evaluated with the evolution of killing attacks. It was +1/2 when nonresistant defenses did not reduce Stun damage from killing attacks, which made nonresistant defenses considerably less valuable. If anything, the loss of reducing Drains and STUN damage from KAs suggests that nonresistant is more limiting for DN and DR than for normal defenses (ie moving Resistant Protection to PD and ED). It seems like either nonresistant DN and DR should still reduce STUN from KAs (and perhaps all switches between Resistant and Nonresistant should be repriced at -1/4) or nonresistant DN and DR should be a greater limitation than nonresistant defenses. The -1/2 for "only BOD" or "only STUN" presupposes that reducing each is of equal importance. Where that supposition is not accurate for the specific campaign or character, I would take issue with the limitation. In other words, as a GM, if you apply, and I allow, "No BOD" to your Negation or Reduction, then the onus is on me as GM to ensure that the limitation becomes relevant in actual gameplay. For STUN Only, that means ensuring there are instances where you are at risk of BOD damage not reduced by these defenses. If I have two players, one who pays full price for Negation (or Reduction) and one who takes a discount for "STUN only", the first player deserves to see some value for the extra points spent.

I come back to defenses that only block STUN having no real limitation if the character's other defenses are likely to block all the BOD. If a player insists on point savings from defenses that don't defend against BOD, that suggests that the player expects this to come into play so that his character takes BOD damage. The pricing of damage negation factors in affecting attacks other than normal and killing attacks. Given it has only been in 6e, maybe the pricing needs fine tuning. If so, the answer is to fix the pricing, not allow a non-limiting limitation for some uses of the ability. To the rolls, I would want a mechanism that allows a single roll to avoid slowing the game with extra rolls, so I like Steve's approach that the rolls are made with dice that are differentiated from "does STUN" and "does not do STUN". If I as GM have to do a lot more work, I'm not likely to allow the construct. Another approach would be rolling the negation - attacker rolls full damage, defender rolls negation to subtract - but that's also going to slow down the game.

I would not allow a limitation for Stun Only defenses unless the character's other defenses leave BOD damage a reasonable possibility. I don't see that very often. As I see complications and limitations as the player's communication of the kind of challenges they want to face, limiting defenses against BOD means that they want BOD damage to come up as a real threat.

Agreed that DR is expensive in a "standard Supers" context. Move to a "Cosmic" context and it starts looking better - like most fixed cost abilities. If the average attack caps at 12 DCs, I probably want 15 rDEF to shave off the BOD. I can then buy +10 PD/ED for 20 (and take 17 from a typical attack). 25% Reduction (nonresistant) means 27 - 7 = 20 from a standard attack. A bit more damage from normal attacks and killing attacks, and a bit less from AVADs. If the average attack caps at 24 DCs (obviously a very high-powered game), I might want as much as 30 rDEF to deal with KAs (maybe I can get by with 25). That leaves 54 STUN from a typical attack, so if I want that down to, say, 24 STUN, I would need another 30/30 defenses for 60 points. For 60, I could have 50% resistant DR. Nonresistant would only cost 40. Either gets me down to 27 STUN from a standard attack, but also halves AVAD (and STUN/BOD drains if we go Resistant - if not, I could buy 20 Power Defense with the extra points).

When the player defines it, the GM should assess how common that is. The player may either need to define it more broadly or receive lower points.

This can be a campaign setting issue rather than character by character. We want characters immune to 8DC normal attacks, but 12DC Supers will sometimes bloody each other? 9 DC Negation and 3 Defenses. 12DC drops to 3d6, which will get a BOD through on an above average roll, and only inflict 8 STUN past defenses on average. As has been noted, DR is better against above average attacks. Consider a 12DC game again. Typical defenses of, say, 25. An average hit does 17 STUN. Drop defenses to 10 and add on 50% DR. First, we will see blood - average roll of 42/12 means 2 BOD, halved = 1, past defenses. STUN 42-10 = 32 = 16 past defenses. Comparable. Now toss in Grond doing 18d6. Defenses mean 63 - 25 = 38 STUN. 63-10=53/2 = 26 STUN. Significant. But you also take 8/2 = 4 BOD. At some point for really high power, buying Reduction instead of more defenses makes sense. If you toss around 20d6 routinely, 25 defenses blocks all BOD. If we only want about 20 damage from an average hit, you need another 25 Defenses, or 5 defenses and 50% Reduction. This is a historical artifact of not assessing how high Normals went in 1e. If we took every published Super, reduced SPD by 2, DEX by 10 and CV by 3, they would be back in human range for those where SPD/DEX is not a schtick, and still interact with each other in the same manner. Agents could be toned down a bit and be a greater threat, and a normal cop or soldier coud actually hit many Supers. Reverse compatibility would be lost if they did that now, though. That could be good for Hero - most other games avoid reverse compatibility between editions - buy this edition's version of that ability/character instead.

Whenever I see a build like this, I like to remind my players that their choice of limitations and complications are my guides for the types of challenges they want to see in the game. For example, "Susc: Green Argonite" means that you want to see the occasional scenario where that special element shows up and is used to create a significant challenge for the hero. DNPC means that you want to see scenarios where your character must place himself in a disadvantageous position to help out that DNPC. The "someone credentialed" mitigates any limitation considerably. If you make it a Limitation, expect situations where those Credentials stop working at the worst possible time. Maybe Super is Mind Controlled to attack his DNPC - too bad he cannot activate that item to save himself and the innocent bystanders around him. Or maybe another Argonian will steal the item - poor Cop can't prevent it as he can't activate the item on his own. Perhaps someone with Shape Change on a cellular level can trick that credentialization - and that cop. What does it take to turn it back off again? This sounds like players with a very adversarial mindset in Player vs GM mode. I see all the "it makes PERFECT sense in context of my backstory" arguments. How does it make sense in the context of "these are the interesting scenarios and stories it might lead to in-game"?

What he said...

It doesn't hurt at all. But the skeleton can probably function a lot better with a shattered foot than a shattered spine.

Well, at least they can talk to the invisible character once his presence is known. But the EMTs won't see him lying in the debris.

I don't see an issue with any character that paid for all abilities to be 0 END selling back END. They may regret that should they be attacked by Mental Paralysis, though. I would ensure that CON rolls are encountered with sufficient frequency and impact to justify a 10 point savings if a character sold back its 10 CON. This is no different than a 10 point Complication.

Do your teammates have area effect attacks? If teammates can't see you, they can't help you.

Unless I misrecall, the CE itself has to be ongoing for the "being stunned" effect to be ongoing. That's a lot like taking continuous damage.

Note that Martial Arts adds DCs, not dice. AP AoE on Strength will reduce the dice added with +2 DC. See 6e v2 starting on page 96. Page 99 discusses adding damage with maneuvers among other things.

As LL says, read the early stories. He has trouble with enemies including: - an old man with a flying suit; - a pudgy scientist with robotic arms; - a cowboy, a bulky thug and a midget who knows martial arts. Just off the top. If you write Spidey more powerful, some enemies can be scaled up, but others don't make as much sense scaled up to match SuperSpidey.