No Saving Throw(+2) vs. Impervious(+1)

Ask M&M 2e rules questions that your fellow gamers can't answer. Only Mutants & Masterminds Line Developer (and creator) Steve Kenson can post replies. He visits the boards in between projects and convention appearances so please be patient!
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 9:19 am

No Saving Throw(+2) vs. Impervious(+1)

Post by Dan_Kopes » Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:32 am

Yet another question about No Saving Throw from me. This one is along the lines of the Irresistable Force vs. the Immovable Object.

Here's the scenario that I was wondering about:

- Attacker with Damage 10 with No Saving Throw(+2)
- Defender with Protection 11 with Impervious(+1)

Does the hit go through or not?
- Impervious says that the defender would not have to make a roll because the damage level is below the Impervious level.
- But No Saving Throw says that the target always takes the minimum effect.

Here are the 3 possible outcomes that I can think of:
1) Impervious trumps No Saving throw = no damage at all
2) No Saving Throw trumps Impervious = roll a save with a minimum result of a bruise, possibly more.
3) They both work! Impervious works and no save is rolled, but No Saving Throw causes the minimum result of a bruise.

I'm leaning towards #3 because No Saving Throw is a more powerful Extra because of it's cost and it should have some effect.

Thanks in advance!

Steve Kenson
Posts: 4118
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:20 am
Location: Freedom City, USA

Post by Steve Kenson » Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:41 am

I agree that #3 should be the answer: Impervious means no save is required, No Saving Throw sets a minimum effect.
Steve Kenson -
Green Ronin Publishing