Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Arrows tend to penetrate plate' date=' where a bullet will mushroom on impact. Unless it is steel jacketed, titanium tipped...[/quote']

 

Well yeah' date=' but the point is, what should the effect be when it [i']doesn't[/i] penetrate (as often or as rarely as that may be)?

 

Actually, it's frequent - museum reconstructors have found it's very, very hard - almost impossible - to put an arrow through plate armour, even at close range. This matches history - as plate armour got better, the longbow ceased to be a frontline weapon (the short bow had ceased to be more than a support/harrassment weapon after mail became widespread). By the time of the White Company in Italy or the Wars of the Roses in England, massed longbows had been relegated to a support/harrassment function, because armoured men at arms would just dismount when facing archers and then walk right over them.

 

The longbow had its heyday during the hundred years war when knights wore bascinets (often open-faced) and armour was still heavily based on composite suits with lots of gaps covered by mail. And of course the other ranks were wearing mail, if they had anything ...

 

And to answer the question - if the attack doesn't penetrate, the effect is going to depend on how massive (or more accurately, how much momentum) the attack has. So an arrow will normally have relatively little, a sling bullet more (That's why ancient generals deployed slingers by preference against heavily armoured targets, despite the bows' longer range) a sword more again and a club or mace, the most (again, partly why these were favoured against heavily armoured opponents - their durability being the other part).

 

I'm a fan of keeping KA, but making them more effective against lightly armoured targets by applying the multiplier only to damage that gets through rDEF. A typical killing attack (bullet, knife. laser) that bounces is going to do little or no harm to the wearer. One that gets through could really mess you up.

 

Of course I'd prefer integrating AVLD and NND, and rating the cost of the advantage vs how common the defence is. That way killing can simply be an advantage on a normal attack and rDEF is rated as a "very common" defence (or possibly common, or even rare depending on setting: it'd be pretty rare in Western Hero, for example). Simple, clean, balanced and as a bonus, you get a mechanism that lets you balance the cost of lethal attacks depending on how you want your campaign to go.

 

cheers, Mark

[Trebuchet]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I'm a fan of keeping KA, but making them more effective against lightly armoured targets by applying the multiplier only to damage that gets through rDEF. A typical killing attack (bullet, knife. laser) that bounces is going to do little or no harm to the wearer. One that gets through could really mess you up.

This is the way I'd like to see KA done as well. It allows appropriate characters in "non-realistic" campaigns like supers to need a minimum of Resistant defenses to be effectively bulletproof to rifles and pistols while still allowing heavier weapons to be a legitimate threat.

[Patriot]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I have a goofy Idea!

 

-1 to stun multipliers (PD) 25points

-1 to stun multipliers (ED) 25points

Defense type power any one can buy it , but I am sure those who have been abused by the lotto might be the first in line.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

And to answer the question - if the attack doesn't penetrate, the effect is going to depend on how massive (or more accurately, how much momentum) the attack has. So an arrow will normally have relatively little, a sling bullet more (That's why ancient generals deployed slingers by preference against heavily armoured targets, despite the bows' longer range) a sword more again and a club or mace, the most (again, partly why these were favoured against heavily armoured opponents - their durability being the other part).

 

I'm a fan of keeping KA, but making them more effective against lightly armoured targets by applying the multiplier only to damage that gets through rDEF. A typical killing attack (bullet, knife. laser) that bounces is going to do little or no harm to the wearer. One that gets through could really mess you up.

 

Yes. Agreed. In fact, I had kind of assumed that was understood. The question, though, is how we deal with it in the system. Neither of the suggestions you offered helps in the case of weapons like swords and spears, which can still hurt like hell when they don't penetrate (not to mention having other effects like dumping you on your ass--i.e. Knockdown/back). So what consistent approach could we take that would allow us that range of options for vastly different weapons?

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Yes. Agreed. In fact' date=' I had kind of assumed that was understood. The question, though, is how we deal with it in the [i']system[/i]. Neither of the suggestions you offered helps in the case of weapons like swords and spears, which can still hurt like hell when they don't penetrate (not to mention having other effects like dumping you on your ass--i.e. Knockdown/back). So what consistent approach could we take that would allow us that range of options for vastly different weapons?

 

I still like my idea of decreasing the multiplier if no penetration but not eliminating it. After that just give pluses or minuses to the stun multiplier by weapon.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Yes. Agreed. In fact' date=' I had kind of assumed that was understood. The question, though, is how we deal with it in the [i']system[/i]. Neither of the suggestions you offered helps in the case of weapons like swords and spears, which can still hurt like hell when they don't penetrate (not to mention having other effects like dumping you on your ass--i.e. Knockdown/back). So what consistent approach could we take that would allow us that range of options for vastly different weapons?

 

Personally...

 

the point of KAs is Body Damage. The default should be KAs do as much or less Stun on average than Energy Blast (say, x2 or 1/2D STUNx).

 

If you want to model an attack that imparts a lot of energy and does Stun Damage even if it doesn't injure that's what Increased Stun Multiple is for.

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Yes. Agreed. In fact' date=' I had kind of assumed that was understood. The question, though, is how we deal with it in the [i']system[/i]. Neither of the suggestions you offered helps in the case of weapons like swords and spears, which can still hurt like hell when they don't penetrate (not to mention having other effects like dumping you on your ass--i.e. Knockdown/back). So what consistent approach could we take that would allow us that range of options for vastly different weapons?

 

Knockback isn't a problem - that's calculated regardless of defence.

 

The issue of getting STUN through armour does mean that killing attacks (if we're thinking "realistic" arms and armour) will run the range from "ping" to "Ow, that hurt". However, it's relatively rare that an edged weapon like a sword or a spear will do significant STUN through armour, without doing you some BOD damage, unless someone's hacking away without concern for their weapon.

 

Remember that a steel sword doesn't work like a rattan one. With a rattan weapon, you give someone a good wallop - even on solid armour - and you can leak some damage through just from impact. But do that with a steel weapon and you'll damage the blade and possibly even break it (not an unusual event, judging by contemporary accounts, but not something we try and simulate, usually).

 

Of course this doesn't hold true for heavy axes and maces, but I think we can fake that by calling them AP Nor does it differentiate armour very well - mail's not great against piercing weapons, but relatively effective against slashing attacks - and there you'd expect to be able to do STUN through .... Here we're running up against how granular we want the system to be.

 

All, in all, though, that's why I prefer just making "killing" an advantage on regular dice of attacks and only counting rDEF against both BOD and STUN.

 

cheers, Mark

[SteveZilla]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I'm a fan of keeping KA' date=' but making them more effective against lightly armoured targets by applying the multiplier only to damage that gets through rDEF. A typical killing attack (bullet, knife. laser) that bounces is going to do little or no harm to the wearer. One that gets through could really mess you up.[/quote']

 

Then how do we differentiate between the bullet that "bounces off" the Steel Breastplate and the same bullet that is "stopped by" the Kevlar Vest? Both bullets start with the same energy, and both bullets his their targets. To complicate the matter, let's say that both the Steel Breastplate and the Kevlar Vest have the same value of PD. Now what is the determining factor?

[SteveZilla]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Remember that a steel sword doesn't work like a rattan one. With a rattan weapon' date=' you give someone a good wallop - even on solid armour - and you can leak some damage through just from impact. But do that with a steel weapon and you'll damage the blade and possibly even break it (not an unusual event, judging by contemporary accounts, but not something we try and simulate, usually).[/quote']

 

Hmm. Maybe the SFX for a hard suit of armor calls for not just the Armor power, but also:

1. An amount of Missile Deflection to represent the chance the shot will ricochet and not dump all of it's energy into the target's armor, and

2. A Damage Shield w/ Activation Roll vs Thin metallic weapons to represent the chance for the weapon to damage itself.

 

Of course this doesn't hold true for heavy axes and maces' date=' but I think we can fake that by calling them AP Nor does it differentiate armour very well - mail's not great against piercing weapons, but relatively effective against slashing attacks - and there you'd expect to be able to do STUN through .... Here we're running up against how granular we want the system to be.[/quote']

 

Darn that granularity! I think I'll make a CoV character named Professor Granularity.

 

All, in all, though, that's why I prefer just making "killing" an advantage on regular dice of attacks and only counting rDEF against both BOD and STUN.

 

I think that it would be better priced as an Adder, but that's a different matter.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Personally... There comes a point where I cease wanting to emulate "reality" (go to the NGD and search for "woman's bra stops bullet") and just want something I can game with.

 

Everyone has 100D6 Luck + 100D6 Unluck both the SFX of "Reality, not doing what you think it does since the Big Bang"

[prestidigitator]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Then how do we differentiate between the bullet that "bounces off" the Steel Breastplate and the same bullet that is "stopped by" the Kevlar Vest? Both bullets start with the same energy' date=' and both bullets his their targets. To complicate the matter, let's say that both the Steel Breastplate and the Kevlar Vest have the same value of PD. Now what is the determining factor?[/quote']

 

I suppose you could buy 1" of Knockback Defence for the kevlar vest if you really wanted some kind of distinction between the two. If neither bullet penetrates, the major difference is going to be that the bouncing bullet imparts more momentum transfer to the target. Of course, the amount of momentum transferred from a bullet is laughably minimal, so talking about the difference between the two is awfully silly even if we do cross the line into cinematic play where a bullet can blow someone back across a room (because in that case it's silly to turn to the realm of physics for answers).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

There's a big difference between how a bullet and a heavy axe and a blowtorch ought to be bought, even if the base power is 'killing attack'.

 

Of course you'll probably never get a consensus as to exactly what the effects are in reality, so it is daft to expect the game to get it 'right'.

 

Many people seem to attribute almost mystical properties to bullets.

 

IMO against 'hard' armour (something with metal or ceramic plate inserts) a non-penetrating small arm bullet shoult have practically no effect.

 

Against 'soft' armour (something like a kevlar vest without inserts) a bullet should have similar effect to an equivalent DC normal attack, taking into account all defences. There's no way to do that in Hero and no easy way to simulate that (You can buy increased defence only to stop the 'top' part of any Stun but it is messy).

 

That is not based on experience, just logic: a metal plate is not goin to deform significantly - so the degree of point deformation of the underlying tissue will be minimal - it won't hurt much, unless the transfer of energy is significant - and a bullet hitting a hard surface will more than likely bounce - whereas one hitting a soft surface won't, so passing on more of its energy, and hurting more - plus against 'soft' armour there will be far more deformation of the underlying tissue. Because of the bounce you will not even get as much KB against hard armour as soft armour.

 

HOWEVER a weapon like a battle axe which is relatively slow, 'powered' (i.e. there is a force pushing it forward throughout - it is not just relying on momemntum) and much heavier would not 'bounce' so much even against hard armour. If the armour is not deformed the impac may be only minimally felt but the KB could still be significant (although perhaps mitigated by the weight of the armour).

 

'Fire' is different again - no momentum - in common with most energy attacks (which should therefore as a rule be built with 'no KB'). Now there is a degree of pain from heating tissues before destroying them, but that is minor - generally a burn only really hurts if some tissue damage is done i.e. (at least by my definition) if some long terms (BODY) damage is done -so if Body does not penetrate then little or no stun should get through.

 

For Hero to get it 'right' then you need to build it 'right' in the first place. I think we could have a far more useful version of killing attack from a 'construction' point of view, and some other system tools (rule or build) that allows, for instance, conversion of KAs to NAs by certaqin defences.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I agree with the build it right. I've always built hard armor with some extra non resistant PD/ED. for example.if you want to tailor this stuff to how you think it should function as opoosed to the default just needs a little more work.

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Then how do we differentiate between the bullet that "bounces off" the Steel Breastplate and the same bullet that is "stopped by" the Kevlar Vest? Both bullets start with the same energy' date=' and both bullets his their targets. To complicate the matter, let's say that both the Steel Breastplate and the Kevlar Vest have the same value of PD. Now what is the determining factor?[/quote']

 

We don't differentiate them, any more than we differentiate them now. Edit (unless, of course you want to differentiate armours by making them fully resistant if they are "hard" and only partially resistant if they are flexible)

 

And to be fair, that's probably not too unrealistic - multiple people I have talked to in real life who have had a bullet stopped by a ballistic vest have said they didn't actually notice they had been hit until later. That's not always the case, of course, but for me, it's "close enough".

 

Cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I think that it would be better priced as an Adder' date=' but that's a different matter. [/quote']

 

I'm not keen on an adder, because if we use "regular dice" then you may see "12 d6 EB killing attack" - adders make less sense when you have a wide range of dice and where the benefit increases with active points.

 

So a (let's say) 10 point adder is going to be a significant deal for normal weapons (in the 2-6 d6 range) but no biggie for someone with 14d6 attack - it costs him only two dice to be able to ignore non-resistant defence, which in many instances is going to be significant.

 

cheers, Mark

[SteveZilla]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I suppose you could buy 1" of Knockback Defense for the Kevlar vest if you really wanted some kind of distinction between the two. If neither bullet penetrates' date=' the major difference is going to be that the bouncing bullet imparts more momentum transfer to the target.[/quote']

 

The bullet that ricochets off of the armor retains more of it's energy than the bullet that is caught by the vest because it keeps moving.

 

Of course' date=' the amount of momentum transferred from a bullet is laughably minimal, so talking about the difference between the two is awfully silly even if we [i']do[/i] cross the line into cinematic play where a bullet can blow someone back across a room (because in that case it's silly to turn to the realm of physics for answers).

 

True, but to me it seems like some are trying to make there be a difference between the two scenarios as part of the KA mechanic.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I'm not keen on an adder, because if we use "regular dice" then you may see "12 d6 EB killing attack" - adders make less sense when you have a wide range of dice and where the benefit increases with active points.

 

So a (let's say) 10 point adder is going to be a significant deal for normal weapons (in the 2-6 d6 range) but no biggie for someone with 14d6 attack - it costs him only two dice to be able to ignore non-resistant defense, which in many instances is going to be significant.

 

cheers, Mark

 

You may have a point about the low end of attacks. I just think that it would be seriously overcosted as a +1/2 Advantage.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Part of the problem with getting it right with KAs is that we deduct defences in an odd way - for stun it is resistant defences PLUS non-resistant defences (or nothing) - but some level of resistant defence is almost ubiquitous in many genres.

 

Now resistant defences are, effectively, a +1/2 advantage on normal defences. If we didn't deduct non-resistant defences, just resistant ones, that would make the idea of killing attacks being a +1/2 advantage more attractive.

 

Mind you it doesn't work well because it reduces the amount of Body damage delivered, making KAs less effective at destroying inanimate objects (should they be good at destroying inanimate objects) and less deadly against normal humans (but still more deadly than normal attacks - which is why you buy killing attacks after all).

 

However it means that a 1d6 KA (gun) becomes a 1/2d6 KA, making a single shot kill pretty much impossible against a normal starting character even with all the optional rules in place.

 

Getting it right is a balancing act - you need to be able to balance various perceived realities and will never please everyone all of the time.

 

However, Body is not so much the issue that most people worry about with KAs - it is stun. The point is we do not need that wild variation because in genres where bullets are likely to incapacitate PCs in one hit (and there are very few actual genres out there where that happens, even if it is 'theoretically possible' - PCs always just get 'winged') you are likely to be using the optional rules which substantially increase the STUN range of even normal attacks.

 

I think Body OUGHT to be the issue too though because first we have a more volatile total - as we are rolling a smaller number of dice AND the total is higher than normal dice anyway. Again - in genres where PCs are supposedly killable in one or two hits we use optional rules to increase deadliness - we simply do not need that kind of range of effect in the base mechanic.

 

Now arguably we could simply do this: you take a normal attack and you can decide if it is a killing attack for +0* (after all 1DC of normal and killing cost the same at present) - and that decides how defences are applied. It gets rid of the wild mood swings that KAs are prone to, makes them more dangerous to 'normal' humans, but no more dangerous to property and the majority of superheroic characters. It also has the advantage of being simpler than the system we have at present.

 

That is not 'balanced' or 'fair' - clearly a KA is more effective than a normal attack then - but it always has been and that has always been the second string argument, and usually only used to rebut those who inexplicably claim that KAs are 'less effective' than normal attacks. Well, of course they ARE against very low defences compared to the DC os the attack - but then against very low defences the Body aspect beceoms that much more of a worry.

 

Another option is to apply defences differently: every point of resistant defence (at no extra cost) 'converts' a DC of incoming KA to NA:

 

A 3d6 KA (9DC) hits someone with 7 points of resistant defence. The target takes 7d6 in 'normal damage' and 1/2d6 in killing damage (to which no defences apply).

 

That means that against heavily armoured targets KAs are no more effective than normal attacks, but against lightly armed targets thay can be deadly - and volatile.

 

Some might not like that it is an extra step in the damage resolution process or that it requires the dissemination of information about defences (maybe), but so what - it is not as if it adds 5 minutes to every turn, and I don't really see why it matter if the players know that the vilain has 8 points of resistant defence.

 

 

 

*Or make it a 1 point adder - small enough not to really matter in cost, but enough to differentiate KA and NA

[prestidigitator]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

The bullet that ricochets off of the armor retains more of it's energy than the bullet that is caught by the vest because it keeps moving.

 

You are correct about the energy. However, that doesn't imply more momentum transfer; quite the opposite. The more elastic the collision ("bouncier"), the more momentum that is transferred, due to conservation of linear momentum. The energy transferred in a plastic ("sticky") collision goes more into deformation and heat, and less into the kinetic energy of the target.

 

True' date=' but to me it seems like some are trying to make there be a difference between the two scenarios as part of the KA mechanic.[/quote']

 

Yeah. I'm more concerned about attacks that do have quite significant momentum or active force (e.g. a HTH weapon or self-propelled ranged weapon rather than a small projectile) behind them. Like a vehicle collision (provided the whole thing doesn't crimp down on you like a tin can...), if you are safe inside your shell it is the jostling around inside that's going to hurt.

[The Main Man]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Regardless of function, to change Killing damage into a Power Advantage would easily put it at a +0 value because the benefits of Killing Damage are not significant enough to warrant a greater value.

 

This brings up the defense < attack cost ratio, since at first sight, having Killing, the offensive component, cost +0 seems at first to make it cheaper than Resistance at +1/2.

 

But upon closer inspection, it costs 5 points to generally inflict 1 BODY, 3 STUN damage, while it takes 4.5 points to stop it while rendering BODY damage impossible.

 

So why else should Killing damage be a +0 Power Advantage?

 

The mere fact that sometimes you don't want to kill or severely harm your opponent can make the Advantage have a slight drawback.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Regardless of function, to change Killing damage into a Power Advantage would easily put it at a +0 value because the benefits of Killing Damage are not significant enough to warrant a greater value.

 

This brings up the defense < attack cost ratio, since at first sight, having Killing, the offensive component, cost +0 seems at first to make it cheaper than Resistance at +1/2.

 

But upon closer inspection, it costs 5 points to generally inflict 1 BODY, 3 STUN damage, while it takes 4.5 points to stop it while rendering BODY damage impossible.

 

So why else should Killing damage be a +0 Power Advantage?

 

The mere fact that sometimes you don't want to kill or severely harm your opponent can make the Advantage have a slight drawback.

 

I'm not sure your damage/defence comparison holds water. For normal damage it costs 15 points for 3DC, which averages 10.5 stun and 3 Body, but ranges from 3 to 18 stun and 0 to 6 Body, although the extremes are somewhat unlikely.

 

For 15 points you get 15 pd, which will stop a 3d6 normal physical attack most of the time, completely (ignoring KB), and let, at most, 3 stun through even on the best damage roll. No damage gets through on average.

 

For 15 points you can also get 1d6 KA, which averages 3.5 Body and 9.3 stun, but ranges from 1 to 6 Body and from 1 to 30 stun, with the extreme results rather more likely.

 

You can get 10 points of resistant defence for 15 points...

 

OK, you don't NEED 10 points, you only need 6 to stop all the Body: that costs 9 points, levaing you 6 more for normal PD: 6/12. No damage gets through on average, but getting damage through is MUCH more likely, and it is actually possible to do 18 stun - as much as you can roll with 3d6 normal, even taking into account the defence.

 

Now let us look at what that does to taking 3d6 and calling it 'killing' - damage is not likely to get to 6 Body, but it is a possiblity. 4 or even 5 Body is quite likely, so let us compensate for 5: that is 7.5 points, leaving 7.5 'striaght' pd: 5/12.5: you still get no damage through on average but damage is now much more likely (you have to roll 13 instead of 16 on 3d6). Defences that are designed to stop KAs will let 3 more stun through on average than ones that are designed to stop normal attacks per 3d6, which averages at +1 stun per DC. If you average 3.5 stun per DC, that must make KAs at least a +1/4 advantage.

 

So, let us not fool ourselves that 'Killing Attack' actually IS a +0 advantage - that is preposterous - but let us say that, given how we play the game and build characters - how, in other words, we compensate for KAs, allows us that conceit.

 

The answer is to ditch the mechanism for something that works properly,or, if we can not manage that, something that works better, and at least using normal damage rolling and calling it a killing attack at a +0 advantage is a step in the right direction.

 

Having said that, KAs only matter in superheroic games, so that is where we need to get them right.

 

Eh?

 

Well it is only in superheroic games that you generally pay for KAs and resistant defences - in heroic games they are generally equipment, so cost is far less of an issue. You can balance things in heroic games within the campaign: tone down KAs, or tone them up across the board - the GM generally controls access.

 

Superhero tank/brick types can bounce bullets off their chests without noticing. That is what we need to be able to do, without paying ludicrous cost. At present it is very messy to be bulletproof: making KAs a +0 advantage to normal attacks makes being bulletproof realsistically possible. For a given degree of 'realistically'.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Although of only limited use here is an zipped Excel Spreadsheet that compares stun damage through defences for 3DC normal and killing attacks - you can change the effective defences for comparison purposes.

 

It doesn't exactly work the same for larger DC totals but the pattern is similar.

 

If anyone is interested but can not read Excel spreadsheets or zip files I can do static .pdf or other spreadsheet formats if you like or email you the spreadsheet direct - post a reply or send me a PM.

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

A concept I was playing with, was the idea of letting people "buy up" the amount of damage STUN and BOD their attacks do - per dice.

 

We can already increase Stun damage on normal attacks - you just buy more dice and add "does no BOD", which gives you 1-6 STUN (ave. 3.5) for 5 points. Not a great deal, since 5 points normally gets you the same STUN but also 0-2 (ave. 1) BOD. I'd prefer "does no BOD" to be a -1/4 limitation, but I can see why they made the design decision to make it +0.

 

But what about letting people buy up the BOD they do? Again, we can do this now by adding more dice and putting "does no Stun, -3/4" - that adds 0-2 BOD at a cost of 2.25 points

 

Based on this, and the concept that all attacks could work on the "normal dice mechanic" I ran a little spreadsheet.

 

Currently a dice does 1-6 STUN. If you could add +1 to that total for +1/4, you end up with an attack that does slightly more STUN on average than an unadvantaged attack, but less BOD (because you get fewer dice for the same price, but you do 2-7 STUN on a d6). In addition, while you increase your average STUN slightly, you decrease your volatility. You can't do as much STUN as you could on a maxed out roll and you can't roll as low as you can on a crappy roll. This is true at every level I tested for 1-20d6 and for an advantage from +1/4 to +2.

 

If we went with +1 STUN for +1/4 advantage, you get an attack that consistently does a little more stun - and significantly less BOD - for every level of the advantage you choose. And it's simple to use. Basically you simply add 1 to your total for every dice you roll, for each level of advantage. So a "6d6 attack , +2 STUN Modifier" does 12+6d6. A "6d6 attack , +3 STUN Modifier" does 18 + 6d6, etc.

 

If you apply the same logic to BOD, but using a +1/2 advantage, you get a similar effect. You do - on average - significantly more BOD, but also much less STUN and you again decrease volatility - you can't do very high BOD (however unlikely a maxed out roll would be anyway with more than a few dice) and you can't do very low BOD.

 

If you stack the advantages, you end up with an attack that does significantly less stun, and slightly more BOD than an unadvantaged attack, over pretty much every price point.

 

Hmmmm. Combine this with a +1/4 advantage called "Killing" that allows your attack to ignore (completely) non-resistant defences, and you end up with a simple, elegant and highly tunable system for doing damage.

 

A killing attack currently costs 15 points per d6 and uses the unique multiply the dice system. Under my suggested change it'd use the same dice counting system system as regular attacks with a beefed up BOD modifier. So a "killing, +3 BOD Modifier" attack would cost 13.5 XP, do marginally more BOD on average, and slightly less on a maxed out roll than a regular KA. It'd also do slightly more STUN, than a regular KA on average - but much less than a normal attack of the same cost - and much, much less than a maxed out roll under the current system.

 

And because it all uses the same basic D6 damage system, you can build composite attacks - a 6d6 attack that was partially advantaged, for example, so that it did partially normal and partially killing damage, to reflect a spiky club, vs - say - a sword, which is all killing damage but does relatively less STUN if it's stopped by rDEF, or a mace which is also all killing damage, but also does more killing STUN - or a 6d6 club, which does all normal damage. Or an attack that did partially more BOD, or partially more STUN - and in each case, it's easy calculate. A Club with a heavy head that did some extra damage could be bought as "2d6 HA, +1 BOD Modifier, +4d6 HA". You simply roll 6d6, count the BOD as normal and add 2.

 

That also lets you mix and match armour to differentiate different types, which could be a mixture of resistant and non-resistant: right now, you can't do that, since non-resistant DEF works fully against STUN from killing damage, if you have any rDEF - or doesn't work at all, if you don't ....

 

Using this system, you can choose lethal or non-lethal, high stun or low stun attacks and the costs are actually comparable to what we have now - absent the STUN lottery. It'd require almost no alterations to published characters (a minor tweak to the cost of KA.s but the average effectiveness would remain about the same) but would let people differentiate exactly what we were talking about upthread - attacks of different kinds and armour of different kinds - and what's more, it's actually simpler and more consistent than the rules we have now! For a start it simplifies calculating defences: they are resistant, or not, and apply against killing or not, instead of the current hybrid. We can also dump the current complex rules on when and how to add damage to KA and HA from STR: everything uses the same mechanism.

 

It also lets you buy "bulletproof" in a supers setting (bullets are high BOD modifier attacks, with no STUN modifier) at reasonable cost.

 

Damn. The more I think about this, the more I like it.

 

cheers, Mark

[Alibear]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I've recently wondered if we should change how def and res def works.

 

Should normal people get to use pd against body at all? Should normal pd/ed not only work v stun and res def against body regardless if it's a killing attack or not?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I've recently wondered if we should change how def and res def works.

 

Should normal people get to use pd against body at all? Should normal pd/ed not only work v stun and res def against body regardless if it's a killing attack or not?

 

I think this is a build thing. Even though a normal CAN have a pd/ed of 8, that is an awful lot and it might pay to reduce that or amend it slightly: say the maximum a naked normal can have is 4 pd/ed, and every point you boy over that (up to 8) ONLY adds if you have some sort of additional armour or defence that you are wearing: heavy clothing might add +1 pd, for example, thus allowing you to use up to 5 'natural' pd.

 

The trouble with removing pd for defence against normal attacks is that two normals can punch each other to death in less than 30 seconds, which is a tad unrealistic.