Forum

There's an easier fix, if this is a problem for you. Just state that damage from regular gear – i.e., not based on superpowers – cannot employ Double Damage if its basic damage wouldn't have hurt the target.

Yes! And this isn't even a "fix" since it's already fully included in the rules with the "The GM has final say on what stunts can be used for" rule on page 81.

Right now, the issue comes from Double Damage applying before armour, which lets low-tier weapons get past protection they arguably shouldn’t be able to affect at all.

This is still trying to solve for a problem that doesn't really exist. As I mentioned before, the game rules need to be taken into account holistically and not piecemeal. To go more into what I mean, let's consider a couple of scenarios during play.

First, if I'm a PC, then it would be unbelievably frustrating if my GM put me up against enemies that I couldn't hurt under any circumstance (unless it was very rarely, and then only where I / the group would need to figure out a vulnerability for the foe as part of a story point). So even if my attacks with a single success (like say a basic Blast) couldn't hurt an older Viltrumite, I would still want there to be the chance that I could do something if I got lucky enough to use the double damage stunt.

This would come down to the idea that as part of the game, the GM would be running it in a way that wouldn't have the PCs regularly going up against enemies they couldn't affect - because what would be the point and that wouldn't be any fun. So the current rules support this better, without requiring all kinds of tweaks in the other direction.

Coming at it from the other direction, why would the GM put the PCs up against enemies that can't hurt them at all? If there's no risk whatsoever, then the GM might as well just narrate "You stand there and their measly bullets bounce off you, then you swoop through and murder them all." Because there would be no point to play the scene out in the game if there's no real chance for failure. But, even if the GM wanted to throw in a scene here or there to allow the PCs to feel really powerful by being entirely unaffected by the fire from a group of soldiers, then they can still do that with the rules as they are - by simply invoking the one I mentioned on page 81 above where the GM has final say on what a stunt can be used for. This is a clean way to handle those - what should be - exceptional and rare situations where the GM wants the PCs to feel like gods with no risk, but it maintains the default framework where there is risk involved in all the action scenes.

There's an easier fix, if this is a problem for you. Just state that damage from regular gear – i.e., not based on superpowers – cannot employ Double Damage if its basic damage wouldn't have hurt the target.

So, anyone with even basic Protection (Armor 2) would be immune from weapons that did 2 damage or less (submachineguns, shotguns, pistols, blunt and sharp melee weapons, etc.).

To reinforce the superiority of supers (hehe), you could also say that this rule only applies to superpowered armor. So kevlar vests and the like would not offer this automatic protection.

But this still leans into case-by-case rulings (what counts as “regular gear,” what qualifies as “wouldn’t have hurt,” etc.), whereas the underlying issue comes from the timing of Double Damage itself.

Applying Double Damage after armour keeps everything within the existing rules, removes the need for exceptions, and preserves a consistent sense of scale between normal and superpowered threats.

As written, the current interaction allows low-damage weapons to occasionally bypass high armour purely through stunt timing, which creates edge cases that don’t align well with the intended fiction.

There's an easier fix, if this is a problem for you. Just state that damage from regular gear – i.e., not based on superpowers – cannot employ Double Damage if its basic damage wouldn't have hurt the target.

Yes! And this isn't even a "fix" since it's already fully included in the rules with the "The GM has final say on what stunts can be used for" rule on page 81.

Right now, the issue comes from Double Damage applying before armour, which lets low-tier weapons get past protection they arguably shouldn’t be able to affect at all.

This is still trying to solve for a problem that doesn't really exist. As I mentioned before, the game rules need to be taken into account holistically and not piecemeal. To go more into what I mean, let's consider a couple of scenarios during play.

First, if I'm a PC, then it would be unbelievably frustrating if my GM put me up against enemies that I couldn't hurt under any circumstance (unless it was very rarely, and then only where I / the group would need to figure out a vulnerability for the foe as part of a story point). So even if my attacks with a single success (like say a basic Blast) couldn't hurt an older Viltrumite, I would still want there to be the chance that I could do something if I got lucky enough to use the double damage stunt.

This would come down to the idea that as part of the game, the GM would be running it in a way that wouldn't have the PCs regularly going up against enemies they couldn't affect - because what would be the point and that wouldn't be any fun. So the current rules support this better, without requiring all kinds of tweaks in the other direction.

Coming at it from the other direction, why would the GM put the PCs up against enemies that can't hurt them at all? If there's no risk whatsoever, then the GM might as well just narrate "You stand there and their measly bullets bounce off you, then you swoop through and murder them all." Because there would be no point to play the scene out in the game if there's no real chance for failure. But, even if the GM wanted to throw in a scene here or there to allow the PCs to feel really powerful by being entirely unaffected by the fire from a group of soldiers, then they can still do that with the rules as they are - by simply invoking the one I mentioned on page 81 above where the GM has final say on what a stunt can be used for. This is a clean way to handle those - what should be - exceptional and rare situations where the GM wants the PCs to feel like gods with no risk, but it maintains the default framework where there is risk involved in all the action scenes.

That’s a fair perspective, and I agree with a lot of what you’re saying about keeping the game playable and fun, especially not putting PCs in situations where they literally can’t affect anything.

I think where I’m coming from is slightly different though:

I’m not aiming for 'you can never hurt X,' but more for consistent scale. In most supers systems, the baseline is that lower-tier attacks don’t affect higher-tier defences unless you bring the right tools (piercing, weaknesses, teamwork, etc.). The exception is finding a way through — not getting lucky with raw damage.

Right now, that distinction is a bit blurred because Double Damage lets low-tier attacks occasionally function like high-tier ones, which is where the odd edge cases come from.

I do agree the GM can handle this via page 81, and that works — I just tend to prefer when that kind of scale is baked into the core mechanics, so the fiction (bullets vs Viltrumites) holds consistently without needing to rely on rulings.

That said, I completely get your point about maintaining risk and avoiding non-games, and I think that’s clearly something the system is prioritising.

That’s a fair perspective, and I agree with a lot of what you’re saying about keeping the game playable and fun, especially not putting PCs in situations where they literally can’t affect anything.

I think where I’m coming from is slightly different though:

I’m not aiming for 'you can never hurt X,' but more for consistent scale. In most supers systems, the baseline is that lower-tier attacks don’t affect higher-tier defences unless you bring the right tools (piercing, weaknesses, teamwork, etc.). The exception is finding a way through — not getting lucky with raw damage.

Right now, that distinction is a bit blurred because Double Damage lets low-tier attacks occasionally function like high-tier ones, which is where the odd edge cases come from.

I do agree the GM can handle this via page 81, and that works — I just tend to prefer when that kind of scale is baked into the core mechanics, so the fiction (bullets vs Viltrumites) holds consistently without needing to rely on rulings.

I feel like we've entered a "get the last word" situation here, so I'll just say this one last thing and bow out since it's clear we don't agree on this particular point.

What you are calling a "more consistent scale" is functionally the same as "you can never hurt X," which as I said isn't very fun from a player's perspective and not very appropriate for a GM to use as a challenge against the players. I don't see the scale as "relying on rulings" any more than determining whether a character with Telekinesis can lift a certain object within their weight range that happens to be secured to a wall or not - they both require the GM to consider the circumstances for that specific situation and make a "ruling." The game gives default / baseline guidance on how the GM might make those determinations, but they'll still have to use common sense, Google, or comic book character familiarity to come to those quick decisions.

I also believe that where you're saying "lower-tier attacks don't affect higher-tier defenses unless you bring the right tools" supports how stunts already work in conjunction with the aforementioned rule on page 81 about the GM determining whether a stunt works or not. If a PC gets extra successes, they could only spend one on double damage if it's appropriate for them to do so - i.e. they have piercing, found a weak spot like inside the mouth or something, the foe is weak to magic and is near a ley-line, kryptonite lacing, etc.). If they don't have those circumstances in play, the stunt isn't appropriate in the first place - and the GM could just decide and share that. I can't speak for them, but I imagine that's what the designers had in mind with how it works.

But if the rules by default said "a rifle round can never affect a character with Armor 4 or higher," then you would have to start tweaking too many other subsystems that would mean situational modifiers just to make it possible for a PC to hurt special targets during play - rifle bullets that do more damage, devices that reduce the enemy's armor, etc. instead of it just already being possible in most situations with good rolls. It just seems so much simpler to make it a GM call over whether double damage is applicable as a stunt or not, especially since the GM would still be making that decision based on the scene's circumstances for any of the other stunts like knockback, disarm, trick shot, or bang heads.

Anyway, as I said, I'll bow out now here and thanks for the civil discussion, but I'll end with sharing again that our group has found the game to work really well to capture the feel of comics and superheroes. It's just the right mix of simplicity and crunch.

I'd like to thank you both for you imput and points of view, its great being able to have discussion and I personally appreciate the ideas you've both given.

Time and play will show where I end up falling.


It is a shame we don't seem to be getting much feedback from the designers on some of the questions that various people have posted, I understand they're busy but even an hour a week would clear them all I'd have thought.

It is a shame we don't seem to be getting much feedback from the designers on some of the questions that various people have posted, I understand they're busy but even an hour a week would clear them all I'd have thought.

Since it seems like you're fishing, I'll bite.

Just because we don't engage in every forum thread doesn't mean we don't see and review every post. While I've answered several questions here (even as of yesterday), not every post needs an answer from us. For instance, in this thread, Argonaught has laid out pretty much what I would have answered anyway, so I didn't feel like there was a need to pile on any more. It's a community forum, so it's great when the community chimes in to help.

I'm also far more active on Discord than I am on forums, and frequently engage there.

We have tried to respond to and provide feedback in the way it matters the most - the revisions that we have made throughout the months-long alpha and beta process that have made it into the final book.

I'm not replying here to rebuff what you posted, but to share that I feel like we - and speaking for myself, I - have been pretty darn active in engaging with the community with this game. We are definitely very busy as you mentioned, but rest assured that we're seeing it all, even if we don't answer every post. And that won't stop - I'm committed to continuing to engage going forward as we build out all the exciting things we have planned for the future of the Invincible RPG.

Thanks!

For instance, in this thread, Argonaught has laid out pretty much what I would have answered anyway, so I didn't feel like there was a need to pile on any more.

I'm also far more active on Discord than I am on forums, and frequently engage there.

Lastly, I feel like we have provided a great deal of feedback where it matters the most - in the revisions that we have made throughout the months-long alpha and beta process that have made it into the final book.

I'm not replying to you here to rebuff what you posted, but to share that I feel like we - and speaking for myself, I - have been pretty darn active in engaging with the community with this game. We monitor all of the feedback and have made adjustments as needed based on the overall picture of the entirety of the feedback from all the places we receive it (here, other forums, Discord, and most importantly, playtesting). You can rest assured that we're seeing it all, even if we don't answer every post.

Nice! I'm glad what I posted was aligned with the design philosophy. It definitely felt like that was the intent in the dozen or so sessions we've played.

And I will take a moment to thank you for all the engagement with the game. You haven't been absent or silent at all. I've seen you in the Year Zero Worlds Discord server often answering all sorts of questions (answering some of them multiple times, and some that are so questionable it tries my patience just reading them, so I can't imagine how much patience you have to have just to answer them).

It is much appreciated, and you and the team have made a really great game!

It is a shame we don't seem to be getting much feedback from the designers on some of the questions that various people have posted, I understand they're busy but even an hour a week would clear them all I'd have thought.

Since it seems like you're fishing, I'll bite.

Just because we don't engage in every forum thread doesn't mean we don't see and review every post. While I've answered several questions here (even as of yesterday), not every post needs an answer from us. For instance, in this thread, Argonaught has laid out pretty much what I would have answered anyway, so I didn't feel like there was a need to pile on any more. It's a community forum, so it's great when the community chimes in to help.

I'm also far more active on Discord than I am on forums, and frequently engage there.

We have tried to respond to and provide feedback in the way it matters the most - the revisions that we have made throughout the months-long alpha and beta process that have made it into the final book.

I'm not replying here to rebuff what you posted, but to share that I feel like we - and speaking for myself, I - have been pretty darn active in engaging with the community with this game. We are definitely very busy as you mentioned, but rest assured that we're seeing it all, even if we don't answer every post. And that won't stop - I'm committed to continuing to engage going forward as we build out all the exciting things we have planned for the future of the Invincible RPG.

Thanks!

Hehe cheers for the bite and reply
I'll put my hand up and say maybe I missed the replies, and in case you feel like I was being too precious, I certainly wouldn't expect all threads to be replied on.

Good to know that Argonaught was more on point

I'm sorry, but characters such as Omni-Man, Invincible, any other Viltrumites, as well as Superman, the Hulk, Supreme, et al should outright be immune to all "normal attacks" such as untrained punches, basic firearms, and so on. Unless a weakness has been implemented, I have never seen such characters take any damage from such sources.

Look at this newest season of the Animated Series: Debbie got hurt by punching Nolan three times and required medical treatment. I feel that the game should reflect this.

But hey - that's an easy house rule: Higher Tier Characters might be immune to such tasks. YMMV, but you could even just add an "Immunity" power to certain characters like Viltrumites....

I'm sorry, but characters such as Omni-Man, Invincible, any other Viltrumites, as well as Superman, the Hulk, Supreme, et al should outright be immune to all "normal attacks" such as untrained punches, basic firearms, and so on. Unless a weakness has been implemented, I have never seen such characters take any damage from such sources.

Look at this newest season of the Animated Series: Debbie got hurt by punching Nolan three times and required medical treatment. I feel that the game should reflect this.

But hey - that's an easy house rule: Higher Tier Characters might be immune to such tasks. YMMV, but you could even just add an "Immunity" power to certain characters like Viltrumites....

There's nothing to be sorry about. As has been mentioned in this thread, the rules already cover this - no house rule needed.

For the "Higher Tier Characters," their armor already prevents "normal" attacks from hurting them. The only way a normal firearm or punch could ever get past the armor is with the double damage stunt after multiple successes on an attack roll, but the rules also say that the GM has final say on what stunts can be used for, so the GM can easily determine that double damage just doesn't apply with mundane attacks against those characters.

And even the show's new scene with Debbie hurting herself punching Nolan can already be represented in the game. Debbie's Strength would be a 2, definitely not higher than a 3, and her Fighting cant' be that high. Even if she hits, she's never getting past Nolan's armor. Debbie makes the slugfest attack roll and Nolan decides to block it (since he could have just as easily moved out of the way and not let the blow land). He successfully blocks it with his pec, then uses the counterattack that deals damage to her (while also using the "Pulling Your Punch" option that the rules give to make sure she only took some of the damage).