Constructs and Atomization 2e

[DarkMaster]

So, me and one of my players have been... discussing constructs, specifically how they relate to the disintegrate power. She says they "get a fort save because I like a particular construct" (Zero from the megaman games). And I say, "they have no con score, the power says they don't get a save, even if it didn't, they have no fort score to save with. Stop arguing."

the question being, how can I explain this better?

[Narsil]

A fortitude save measures natural biological resistances, such as antibodies, immune system, and the fact that biological cells are self-repairing to an extent. A construct auto-fails an affects object fortitude save effect because it lacks these.

Though the argument could be made that Reploids from Mega-Man, and similar robots such as Transformers, actually do have fortitude saves. Mostly due to the fact that despite their artificial nature, they at least partly mimic some major and minor biological functions.

[FuzzyBoots]

Steve Kenson has suggested that Constructs get either a Toughness or a Reflex save against Affects Objects Fortitude saves. Personally, I suggest taking the lower of the two so that they don't just skate by (most constructs are Toughness shifted, so they already have a high Toughness save). Non-construct objects don't get this, of course. Alternately, you can run with a -5 on the roll for 0 Con, which means they have a chance of shaking off effects, but not a great one.

But canonically, constructs don't get a save against Affects Objects Fortitude.

[Doctor Devious]

Of course, affects objects fortitude powers should have a suitable descriptor: how does it effect objects (in a manner that avoids a default construct's fortitude immunity). Most builds I've seen don't really make a case for having the affects objects / fortitude case in their power to start with.

[Paragon]

Of course, affects objects fortitude powers should have a suitable descriptor: how does it effect objects (in a manner that avoids a default construct's fortitude immunity). Most builds I've seen don't really make a case for having the affects objects / fortitude case in their power to start with.

Most disintegration effects, however do, and that's one of the big construct-killers.

[Doctor Devious]

True enough - but few have a suitable descriptor as to how its done. (Plus corrosion in 2e had a split save: toughness save for objects, fort for living beings - so corrosion/disintegrate vs. constructs wasn't a problem in RAW).

Cell-busting vibration? Sure, that can be fort. But how does it damage an object? Simply paying for Affects Objects is not enough. Explain how a fort save is valid for an object and I'll let it fly. In this case, component shattering vibration sounds reasonable if the construct's build has a sense of containing "vital micro-components". So androids/robots would be fair targets. If not - a solid energy construct say - then not really. And you'll still have to define why not use the corrosion split save approach.

Or my preferred route: ignore the construct rules and build a character with appropriate descriptors, but otherwise as normal (be it PC, villain or minion); so likely with immunity to biological/life energy effects (much more limited than fort immunity but more appropriate) and with a non-zero fort score.

[Paragon]

True enough - but few have a suitable descriptor as to how its done. (Plus corrosion in 2e had a split save: toughness save for objects, fort for living beings - so corrosion/disintegrate vs. constructs wasn't a problem in RAW).

I think you misread that, Doc. The only functional difference between Corrosion and Disintegration was supposed to be range. Anything else was just clumsiness of terminology at best.

Cell-busting vibration? Sure, that can be fort. But how does it damage an object? Simply paying for Affects Objects is not enough. Explain how a fort save is valid for an object and I'll let it fly. In this case, component shattering vibration sounds reasonable if the construct's build has a sense of containing "vital micro-components". So androids/robots would be fair targets. If not - a solid energy construct say - then not really. And you'll still have to define why not use the corrosion split save approach.

The simplest is atomic distruption or the like. The bottom line is that even in 3e, Weaken is the way you reduce defenses, and that's a Fort save as a default. Same for pretty much any sort of Affliction at all, including ones that only work on common constructs.

Really, the suggestion Steve made back when that when a Fort effect is directed at a Construct where it follows, you substitute a Reflex save is about the only one that doesn't create some serious problems. You can sometimes argue Affects Objects is overpriced then, but given how much lower a Construct's Reflex save usually is compared to its Toughness, and given some of those work on things that don't have a Reflex save either (such as walls or installations), I just can't work up too much sympathy.

Or my preferred route: ignore the construct rules and build a character with appropriate descriptors, but otherwise as normal (be it PC, villain or minion); so likely with immunity to biological/life energy effects (much more limited than fort immunity but more appropriate) and with a non-zero fort score.

The problem is there are classes of things that are active but no less machine like than a forklift, and some are opposition; even if its not a major character having a way to evaporate those at will is problematic.

[Doctor Devious]

... I think you misread that, Doc. The only functional difference between Corrosion and Disintegration was supposed to be range. Anything else was just clumsiness of terminology at best.

You are spot on: the toughness save in those powers is to avoid turning to dust after the toughness drain - constructs atomically fail the drain save (but which they should also automatically pass due to immunity fort...? It's all utterly confused - as it is with Affects Objects on any fort save effect). My error: the problem is as bad in these cases as everywhere else.

... The problem is there are classes of things that are active but no less machine like than a forklift, and some are opposition; even if its not a major character having a way to evaporate those at will is problematic.

Yup, another problem alright: the only fix I can see is to introduce an "inanimate fort" for all objects, i.e. as I suggested, dump all the construct rules 'cos basically the object system is broken re. fort saves.

Alternatively, dump Affect Objects as written and replace it with "Alternate Object Save" - so you have to explain its descriptor mechanic for objects to your GM and they can determine if your Alternate Object Save aspect should be allowed or not.

Given the often suggested idea that 3e is fundamentally a polished 2e Ultimate Powers, its a shame they didn't actually look at the often-reported issues with constructs, vehicles, Devices/Equipment, low-ranks of some "breaker" powers (1 rank of flight or teleport for example) and try to actually make the game better - rather than sell the same thing again.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

The problem is there are classes of things that are active but no less machine like than a forklift, and some are opposition; even if its not a major character having a way to evaporate those at will is problematic.

My take is that if it has disrupt-able systems, no matter how mechanical, it should have a Fortitude save to represent that.

Corrosion and Disintegration should instead have an initial Toughness, or maybe Reflex, save as they aren't trying to disrupt systems but simply destroy them.

[Paragon]

The problem is there are classes of things that are active but no less machine like than a forklift, and some are opposition; even if its not a major character having a way to evaporate those at will is problematic.

My take is that if it has disrupt-able systems, no matter how mechanical, it should have a Fortitude save to represent that.

Its an approach, but it means you'd have to give Fortitude saves and presumably Constitution to anything that wasn't basically a rock. That'd probably look odd to most people, and is a pretty radical rework.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Its an approach, but it means you'd have to give Fortitude saves and presumably Constitution to anything that wasn't basically a rock. That'd probably look odd to most people, and is a pretty radical rework.

It gets very confusing to me when the same rating used to represent something's armor is also used to represent its internal systems not breaking. And then further you can shut down some systems without actually breaking anything. So I don't like "substitute Toughness".

I also get confused by how something that affects a biological entity's system, i.e. by requiring a Fortitude save, can affect something without those systems at all. "Affect Objects" seems like a kludge to me.

The problem, as I see it, is that either Fortitude is being interpreted in too much of a biology-centric view and should be broadened, or there is a category of save that is missing from the game that represents the same thing Fortitude does for constructs. Given the choice I prefer to use the simpler change.

[Monolith]

It seems the easiest way to deal with the problem is to have 2e drain and 3e weaken target toughness as the default rather then fort. You can always do an alternate resistance to fort as a +0 modifier for powers that need that type of effect, like a poison. That way the game wouldn't need the affects objects modifier at all.

If someone changes the weaken resistance to fort then a construct would be immune due to spending 30 points for immunity to fort effects. It would be up to the gm to make sure the resistances make sense when the power is purchased.

[Paragon]

You'd still need Affects Objects for Afflict, some versions of which should affect both, because they're pseudo-damage effects that just don't fit the normal damage paradigm.