only to stun

[Ascolacicola]

I have a PC who is playing a ninja type and wants to be able to sneak up behind people and stun them (he has been playing a rogue in wow and is in love with sap). I like the idea but do not want him doing that much stun so easily. What I want to do is give him something like a 6d6 NND (not v.s. those with 360 perception or similar enhanced perception), (requires a stealth roll) and have another limitation (Stun capped when target stunned -- so even if he rolled a 30 and the character's con is only 15 the attack would only do 15 stun)

 

I have four questions:

 

(1) is the stun cap limitation legal?

(2) is there a place in the champions rules where an attack like this is already described, perhaps more elegantly?

(3) can anyone suggest a limitation value/better way to do it?

(4) can I use 'does not stun' and have the attack give the 1 phase delay of being stunned while doing no real stun?

[Weldun]

Re: only to stun

 

This really belongs here.

 

But so to actually be helpfull, I recommend the character should just buy some extra HA levels with the stun only (-0) and only from surprise (-1) modifier. They already will probably need faily good stealth rolls just to get close enough to use it, and only to stun effects are a little cumbersome.

[Rapier]

Re: only to stun

 

A sap is not too difficult. A blackjack is listed as 2d6 Normal damage.

 

It would be possible to use Martial Arts and create a custom MA that uses Stunning Techniques. Purchase a couple extra DCs and maybe a level or two and Bob's Your Uncle. It is logical that a sock full of sand would do a little bit of BODY, you are (after all) whacking someone with a weight.

 

There are also plenty of Nerve Strikes and things you can use.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: only to stun

 

(1) is the stun cap limitation legal?

I can't think of any reason it wouldn't be, assuming the GM (ie - you) aproves.

 

(2) is there a place in the champions rules where an attack like this is already described' date=' perhaps more elegantly?[/quote']

Not that I can think of off the top of my head.

 

(3) can anyone suggest a limitation value/better way to do it?

I don't know if it's "better," but I might write it up as "Conditional: only vs targets that fail to perceive character." Value would depend on Ninja-Boy's Stealth compared to the typical PER roll in your campaign. It also depends on how you run "attacks from behind" -- some GMs assume that once a character becomes visible on the battlefield, all characters are assumed to automatically perceive him unless there's a reason not to. Others base it off the characters' "facing". (Yes, I know there are no Facing rules in Hero; hence the quotes.) In the former case, Ninja-Boy will likely only be able to pull this trick off once, maybe twice per combat; I'd call that a -1 Lim. OTOH, if you're more generous about giving out "From Behind" bonuses, then it might only be worth a -1/2.

 

The value of the STUN cap depends on how often you expect a 6d6 NND attack to significantly exceed the CON of a typical villain. If supervillain CONs tend to approach 20 in your world, then most of the time the character will only "waste" a couple points of damage, so that's not much of a Lim. It'd be more limiting against mooks, obviously, but in most "typical" Champions campaigns the heroes are expected to be able to smack mooks around anyway. Maybe -1/4?

 

(4) can I use 'does not stun' and have the attack give the 1 phase delay of being stunned while doing no real stun?

I have a vague recollection of seeing a write-up somewhere for an attack with the Limitation "Only to Stun Target." Can't think of where I saw it - sorry. The idea is that the damage is only compared vs target's CON to determine stunning, but is not actually subtracted from target's STUN; was that what you meant? That'd be a much bigger Limitation, obviously, possibly as high as -1?