The things I've learned playing the Stun Lottery

[Undertow]

Re: The things I've learned playing the Stun Lottery

 

 

It is even possible if you want to define a "killing attack" as "Stun only." or to make it Attack Vs. Limited Defense and therefore Stun only.

 

 

I had a player who wanted to do this with his character. He even wanted a limitation for it to do stun only. I told him no. A killing attack is a killing attack if you want to do stun only buy a normal attack and define it as stun only. If you put AVLD on a killing attack in my game you have to pay extra for the does body. Anyone who tries to use the stun lotto that way is abusing the mechanics.

A killing attack should be dangerous, and have consequences when they are used. I see stun as a measure of pain a + or - stun multiple should reflect Killing attacks that are defined to inflict more or less pain as part of their effect.

[BNakagawa]

Re: The things I've learned playing the Stun Lottery

 

As long as the target has more defenses than the minimum damage, there is a difference between the average damage generated and the average damage inflicted.

[Weldun]

Re: The things I've learned playing the Stun Lottery

 

:celebrateEnchanted Locker-room Towel of Doom:celebrate

1d6 HKA (15), 0 END (+½), +18 STUN Multiplier (+4½); 90 active; Extra Tme - Extra Segment (Must Wind Up, -½), OAF (Unbreakable): Enchanted Locker-room Towel of Doom(-1), Gestures (Must Wind Up, One Hand, -¼), Reduced Penetration (-¼), STR Mininum 1 (-¼), 1½ Handed Weapon (-¼). Real Cost=26 points.

 

I made this one up when a GM said that he would let ANY power construct under 90 active points, as long as the math held up. After trying to tell him why this was a bad idea and failing, I showed him. In this structure, the reduced penetration actually serves the power, causing you to roll 2x½d6 for BODY and then rolling for STUN multiplier. Minimum damage. 2x1pt BODY, 1x38 STUN. And with 2x½d6, 4 is going to show up VERY often, thats 4 BODY and 76 STUN!! on a 90 active point power.

[CBikle]

Re: The things I've learned playing the Stun Lottery

 

If you score well enough' date=' have the decency to stare in slack jawed amazement along with everybody else as Doctor Destroyer gets one-shotted by your 60 AP attack.[/b']

 

Unfortunately, the kind of GM who throws Dr. D at you is probably also the kind who won't allow that scenario to happen. ("it's dramatically inappropriate").

 

This is another drawback to the stun lotto, in that all those crappy stun rolls are fine, but the 1st time you roll 20 body/100 stun on the main villain (near the beginning of the battle), many GMs will somehow cheat you out of it ("Dr. Destroyer explodes into a million robot pieces, because YOU WERE REALLY FIGHTING A ROBOT ALL ALONG !!!".)

[Weldun]

Re: The things I've learned playing the Stun Lottery

 

Unfortunately, the kind of GM who throws Dr. D at you is probably also the kind who won't allow that scenario to happen. ("it's dramatically inappropriate").

 

This is another drawback to the stun lotto, in that all those crappy stun rolls are fine, but the 1st time you roll 20 body/100 stun on the main villain (near the beginning of the battle), many GMs will somehow cheat you out of it ("Dr. Destroyer explodes into a million robot pieces, because YOU WERE REALLY FIGHTING A ROBOT ALL ALONG !!!".)

Which is why a good GM works with what the PC's dice dictate. the "it's dramatically appropriate/inappropriate" arguement is best left

1. 
   
2. on another thread (just trying the keep things on track)
   
3. applied only to the GMs decision to fudge their own dice results.

[CBikle]

Re: The things I've learned playing the Stun Lottery

 

1. 
   
2. on another thread (just trying the keep things on track)

 

Sorry, but how GM's handle the "wild card" nature of excessive stun rolls is as perfectly valid in this thread as any other by-products.

[Weldun]

Re: The things I've learned playing the Stun Lottery

 

Please don't quote me out of context. My statement was that the "it's dramatically appropriate/inappropriate" debate belonged elsewhere.

[TheRavenIs]

Re: The things I've learned playing the Stun Lottery

 

Don't play. Do as I said in my post above. Use set effect and buy +'s to stun. Then you always do x damage.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: The things I've learned playing the Stun Lottery

 

[i made this one up when a GM said that he would let ANY power construct under 90 active points' date= as long as the math held up. After trying to tell him why this was a bad idea and failing, I showed him. In this structure, the reduced penetration actually serves the power, causing you to roll 2x½d6 for BODY and then rolling for STUN multiplier. Minimum damage. 2x1pt BODY, 1x38 STUN. And with 2x½d6, 4 is going to show up VERY often, thats 4 BODY and 76 STUN!! on a 90 active point power.[/quote]

 

Two notes:

1) 1d6 is 15 Active Points, 1/2 d6 is 10 Active Points. 1d6 RKA split by Reduced Penetration splits to 1/2d6 and 1 pip (or, alternately, just double the target's effective rDEF).

 

2. That damage isn't THAT much more than a good roll on an 18d6 EB (63 Stun), which is also 90 Active.

[Weldun]

Re: The things I've learned playing the Stun Lottery

 

Two notes:

1) 1d6 is 15 Active Points, 1/2 d6 is 10 Active Points. 1d6 RKA split by Reduced Penetration splits to 1/2d6 and 1 pip (or, alternately, just double the target's effective rDEF).

My bad, but not in the way you think. I was assuming at least 5 points of effective strength (after paying for the +4½, non-END-related advantages), and failed to mention it. Please forgive me on that part.

2. That damage isn't THAT much more than a good roll on an 18d6 EB (63 Stun)' date=' which is also 90 Active.[/quote']What's 76/4? It's 19, so that would mean that the assumption was an average body roll, but a MINIMUM multiplier. The range is 38-144 STUN, compared to the 18-108 on the EB.

 

The Enchanted Towel of Doom was an exercise in rules abuse. Showing what could be done if a GM wasn't paying attention. I also got him to realise that he need to words things differently. For example, instead of simply saying "no power with more than 90 active points", you say "No power or power-construct generating more than 90 active points of effect". (Power-construct was a group term that all members of the group understood.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The things I've learned playing the Stun Lottery

 

My bad' date=' but not in the way you think. I was assuming at least 5 points of effective strength (after paying for the +4½, non-END-related advantages), and failed to mention it. Please forgive me on that part.What's 76/4? It's 19, so that would mean that the assumption was an average body roll, but a MINIMUM multiplier. The range is 38-144 STUN, compared to the 18-108 on the EB.[/quote']

 

That's about 28 STR, making this power effectively 118 AP. A 21 1/2d6 EB willl average 75.5 STUN per hit. Unlike the Towel, it can be spread for enhanced OCV, or to strike multiple targets.

 

The Enchanted Towel of Doom was an exercise in rules abuse. Showing what could be done if a GM wasn't paying attention. I also got him to realise that he need to words things differently. For example' date=' instead of simply saying "no power with more than 90 active points", you say "No power or power-construct generating more than 90 active points of effect". (Power-construct was a group term that all members of the group understood.)[/quote']

 

If the character instead purchased a 6d6 HKA for 90 points, with all the same limitations (26 RP), he could inflict a 7 1/2d6 RKA for the same points. This would average 26.5 BOD and inflict between 26.5 and 132.5 STUN on an average BOD hit, and average 70.67 Stun. It will also do knockback pretty much every time. Your added advantages really don't make the attack a lot more powerful. Your Hand Towel maxes out at 138 Stun (two half dice at 6 x 23 Stun multiple). If the standard KA above manages 4 average on the 7d6 (not too far above the average roll), it gets 30 BOD and 150 Stun with a 6 on the stun multiple. A really good roll will get much greater STUN levels.

[Lucius]

Re: The things I've learned playing the Stun Lottery

 

And there's always that pesky 'Code Against Killing' thing.

 

Which comes in where?

 

“Code against Killing” has absolutely zero to do with the game concept of “Killing Attack.” It has to do with the fact that the character is committed to not killing people.

 

A “Killing Attack” that does only STUN can’t kill anyone – by definition. A “Killing Attack” that can do very little BODy is unlikely to kill anyone. A “Killing Attack” with the potential to do a lot of BODy is very likely to kill someone.

 

A “Normal Attack” that does only STUN can’t kill anyone – by definition. A “Normal Attack” that can do very little BODy is unlikely to kill anyone. A “Normal Attack” with the potential to do a lot of BODy is very likely to kill someone.

 

The innocent bystander lying on the pavement in severe shock at -2 BOD and probably unconscious doesn’t care if the attack that just zapped him was bought as a “Normal Attack” or a “Killing Attack.” Neither does his family. Neither should the guilt-and-grief stricken superhero desperately trying to administer first aid to him and wishing he hadn’t been suckered into unleashing his powers against what turned out to be a hologram.

 

For the purposes of psychological limitations, a “killing attack” is any attack that is apt to kill somebody – regardless of how the underlying power is purchased.

 

Sure, my katana does 2d6 killing with STR added, and is more likely to kill a normal than a 6d6 energy blast because of two factors; the normal’s lack of resistant defense (although with a piddly 2 PD or ED in any case, that’s negligible) and the “lottery” aspect of rolling 2 instead of 6 dice making a high roll much more likely. But if you’re throwing 10 or 12 d6 of energy blast around, you are at LEAST as dangerous to a normal as I am. In fact, more so: if I miss my stroke, I am very unlikely to hit a bystander by mistake, whereas if you’re throwing those energy blasts around at range on a busy street, you are more likely to hit someone who wasn’t your intended target.

 

So if you want to object to Killing Attacks on the basis of “we shouldn’t kill people!” remember that, first, that objection does not apply to ALL Killing Attacks (I could kill someone with a 1 Pip killing attack but it would take a while….) and second, that the objection applies just as strongly to ANY attack that can kill someone – which includes most superheroic energy blasts, martial arts strikes, etc.

 

I had a player who wanted to do this with his character. He even wanted a limitation for it to do stun only. I told him no. A killing attack is a killing attack if you want to do stun only buy a normal attack and define it as stun only. If you put AVLD on a killing attack in my game you have to pay extra for the does body. Anyone who tries to use the stun lotto that way is abusing the mechanics.

A killing attack should be dangerous, and have consequences when they are used. I see stun as a measure of pain a + or - stun multiple should reflect Killing attacks that are defined to inflict more or less pain as part of their effect.

 

Your player wanted not only an attack that would only do STUN, but one that would do a LOT of STUN. The mechanical way to get that attack is a Killing Attack.

 

I find it interesting that there are all kinds of powers where we all agree that the “mechanical name” doesn’t matter. The player of a character with an aversion to bright lights won’t have a problem with a sonic-based character who has “Flash vs Hearing” just because he has a power with the word “Flash” in its description. But there are some powers where people DO get all hung up on taking the name literally, and Killing Attack is one of them.

 

You’ll notice that in my original comment I specified something like “If your group is playing it ‘by the book’ with no relevant houserules.” If you change the rules, then the game changes – by definition.

 

And houserules are almost inevitable, because the “by the book” rules are, well, “broken.” As it stands, Killing Attacks are just plain better than Normal Attacks of the same point value.

 

I think the best solution is to treat “Killing” as an Adder to a Normal Attack, in the way that “Resistant” is, in essence, an Adder to a Defense.

 

And for what it’s worth, when I get around to running my Fantasy Hero game for the group here in Indy, I’m planning to dispense with the “killing mechanic” almost entirely – killing attacks will roll the same number of dice as normal attacks, calculate STUN and BODy the same way, but then apply only Resistant Defenses to the BODy. I will, of course, be using Hit Locations.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary sings along with Melanie: “And gamblin’ is illegal, in the state of mind I’m in.”

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: The things I've learned playing the Stun Lottery

 

Which comes in where?

 

“Code against Killing†has absolutely zero to do with the game concept of “Killing Attack.†It has to do with the fact that the character is committed to not killing people.

 

Actually, to my experience, Code Against Killing means that the character is committed to not inflicting Body damage by any means, and would only use such an attack against a target he *knows* could not take Body from it. Since not every character has obvious visible Resistant Defenses, using a killing attack (or a high-level Normal attack, for that matter) is a questionable move.

 

There are reasons I've had long arguments with people explaining that they can't beat the 10 Body villain to -9 Body and stabilize him without violating their CVK ...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The things I've learned playing the Stun Lottery

 

There are reasons I've had long arguments with people explaining that they can't beat the 10 Body villain to -9 Body and stabilize him without violating their CVK ...

 

Here we agree

 

Actually' date=' to my experience, Code Against Killing means that the character is committed to not inflicting Body damage by any means, and would only use such an attack against a target he *knows* could not take Body from it. Since not every character has obvious visible Resistant Defenses, using a killing attack (or a high-level Normal attack, for that matter) is a questionable move.[/quote']

 

One classic CvK character is Batman. Those Batarangs look to be doing BOD damage when they pierce through a thug's hand or thigh. They just don't do enough to be life threatening, at least without Bats targetting a head shot (although the question why none of those thugs ever bleeds out when a batarang is halfway through his thigh is a good one...)

[Weldun]

Re: The things I've learned playing the Stun Lottery

 

Your Hand Towel maxes out at 138 Stun (two half dice at 6 x 23 Stun multiple).

??? Oh. Yeah. I forgot the -1 that it starts with didn't I. Oh well. It's still a fun power.

[ghost-angel]

Re: The things I've learned playing the Stun Lottery

 

Any discussion regarding the STUN Multiplier will degrade into a debate regarding attack mecahnics and why everything is broken.

 

(the preceeding has been brought to you by the STR for 2 Points Society of Gaming)

/humor