Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

[Alibear]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

True. Hmm ... what about PD only works v unarmed attacks?

[Sean Waters]

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

 

Interesting ideas, but I'm not sure there are not simpler ways to accomplish it.

 

Testing this at extremes, if we buy 1d6 for 5 points and then advantage it for maximum stun, we can get +44 stun for +11 - for a total of 60 points. Blimey. That is 1d6+44 stun, averaging 47.5, with a range of 45-50.

 

OK, you get a bit more stun on average: +5.5 points. Actually I can see most people going for +43 stun and making the attack killing: it will cause a derisory amount of Body but the stun also benefits from ignoring non-resistant defences, which substantially adds to damage through defences. That seems horribly effective. In fact, given that normal attack averages tend to be pretty good at that level, you get above average stun for 12d6 even if you roll a 1 and there is a 1 in 6 chance of 'rolling' 50, it is going to take some convincing NOT to take it.

 

Look familiar?:

 

Killing Attack - Ranged 1 point, +44 Increased STUN Multiplier (+11) (60 Active Points): 1 point x 1d6-1 +44 stun (44 to 49 stun range, averaging 46.67)*

 

OK, same procedure with 'killing: 5 points for 1d6, and the rest on + Body: that is +22 Body: so 23 Body average with a 22 to 24 range. OK, that leaves out the 'killing' aspect but that is massively more effective at destroying scenery, entangles and such than current powers, and adding in 'killing' only reduces the attack damage by 1 Body: 22 Body (only against resistant defences). That is going to mean a massive inflation in resistant defence, or a lot of dead characters. IMO increasing Body damage spoils games because balance is no longer attainable - you can not plan build a robot that will be a challenge for all comers when some PCs kick out twice as much Body damage as others.

 

OK, it is tuneable, to an extent, but no more so than persuading the GM to let you spend a bit more on your primary attack, which seems a more agreeable way to go about it ( I want to do more Body: I'll buy the attack as 12d6 but I want to take +3d6 (Body Only -1): OK?). It is MAINLY tuneable to allow increased Body damage - the increase there is significant, whereas the Stun increase is relatively modest.

 

The other probem I can see with this, potentially, is that you can buy a MP with a stun attack and a Body attack and just use the one you need: it is rare that you really want to do Stun and Body with the same attack. If you can justify it (and who can't justify practically anything after a few years playing Hero?) it would be mad not to.

 

It all seems a bit complicated. I am not convinced we need to be able to do more than 1d6/5 points damage.

 

It comes down tot that for me: why do we need to be able to do more than an average of 12 Body per attack in a 12DC game? We already have AP, which allows a bit of tuning, and AVLD/NND if you want to go all out - but they are largely self correcting as they reduce damage potential for a given DC cap, even if they allow progressively higher defences to be breached.

 

 

 

*I don't allow increased stun multiple either. I know: spoilsport.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

True. Hmm ... what about PD only works v unarmed attacks?

 

'Normal' normals only have 2 pd anyway, so a norml normal (STR 10) armed with pretty much any sort of weapon is going to be doing Body through defences with each hit, on average: a normal normal can do 3d6 normal damage with a stick - you can beat someone to death in less than a minute if you do not run out of END and hit every time - that is also probably not very realistic (too quick) but I could live with that - weapons are dangerous.

 

The problem is that Hero defines 'normal' as up to 8pd, which means you can take a prolonged beating with a baseball bat fom someone with 20 STR and suffer little or no permanent injury (a club does 6d6 normal in the hands of a 20 STR character, averaging 6 BODY - none gets through 8 pd except on an exception roll): that same character would kill a normal normal in 2 hits.

 

The problem is the range is too great, but if you don't allow the higher levels of PD, then too much stun gets through.

 

Another solution, and one that would work better if figured characteristics become standard, would be to seperate defence against stun and defence against Body. You could do it one of two ways:

 

1. Start each at '2', but buy them up seperately: Body defence can never exceed stun defence: that is OK, but significantly increases the cost of defences, and means every character would have to be re-written.

 

2. As a house rule in a grittier campaign, assume that pd/ed against BODY is half what it is against STUN: normal normals start with 2pd and 1 pd against Body, and PCs can buy that up to 8 pd (4 agsint Body).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

..The house rule would 'devalue' defences a bit but not as much as the first option and would put a premium on resistant defences (which would stop body ona 1 for 1 basis) - not a bad idea in heroic games.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Seeing as people have, in fact, been killed by punches. Even a single well placed punch...

 

Not unrealistic at all.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I see the guy with that 8 PD who can be hit with the club repeatedly as those big muscled giants in the martial arts movies who just stand there and take it. Realistic? No? But superheroic? Also no.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

You are correct about the energy. However' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

We aren't running a computer simulation of a physics experiment here, and I was more interested in damage to the target than in specific impulse given to the target by the impact. I think it is good enough to count the energy that goes into the target, regarless of it being (in a real-world collision) heat, deformation, or what have you, as "damage". Which would mean that the "bounced" bullet should do less damage to teh target than the "caught" bullet. Despite identical defenses and damage rolls. I wouldn't want that level of SFX entanglement in the mechanics.

 

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...)' date=' if you are safe inside your shell it is the jostling around inside that's going to hurt.[/quote']

 

Again, not condusive to Comic Book Physics. That level of realism would just about invalidate a valid Comic Book Archetype -- the Battlesuit. It would mean Iron Man gets killed the very first time The Hulk lands a fist on him, regardless of "Hulkbuster Armor".

[Utech]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I've no problem with Killing Attacks as they are.

 

I understand, however, that some folks would like their killing attacks to be used more for killing and less to play the Stun Lotto. I also understand that just taming the Stun Lotto (lots of methods available) isn't enough for some. So...

 

Rule that all living things take the default Vulnerability: 2 x BODY from Killing Attacks for 0 points.

 

To deal with armor, shields, and the like, you could make it Vulnerability: 2 x BODY from Killing Attack damage that penetrates defenses.

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Interesting ideas, but I'm not sure there are not simpler ways to accomplish it.

 

Testing this at extremes, if we buy 1d6 for 5 points and then advantage it for maximum stun, we can get +44 stun for +11 - for a total of 60 points. Blimey. That is 1d6+44 stun, averaging 47.5, with a range of 45-50.

 

OK, you get a bit more stun on average: +5.5 points.

 

Right, I already did the math on extreme versions and came to the conclusion that trading off an extra 5.5 stun on average for 11 BOD and associated knockback was reasonable - especially since stacking +11 in advantages on a power is going to be a wee bit of a red flag for a GM.

 

Actually I can see most people going for +43 stun and making the attack killing: it will cause a derisory amount of Body but the stun also benefits from ignoring non-resistant defences' date=' which substantially adds to damage through defences. That seems horribly effective. In fact, given that normal attack averages tend to be pretty good at that level, you get above average stun for 12d6 even if you roll a 1 and there is a 1 in 6 chance of 'rolling' 50, it is going to take some convincing NOT to take it.[/quote']

 

As you note, if you really push the approach I suggested to the limit, you get effects which are somewhat more effective (though you really have to push the systems to its limit to get that) - essentially you are trading off 11 dice worth of BOD for 2 dice worth of STUN. However, bear in mind that your +11 in advantages gets you a maximum of 50 stun - rather less than half of the maximum generated by a regular KA under the current rules - even without Increased Stun modifier! You have 1 chance in 6 chance of generating 50 STUN with the system I suggested, even if it's abused to max. You have 1 chance in 3 of generating more stun than that with a regular killing attack of the same active points .... so, no, I can't really see as "horribly effective".

 

It more reliably generates a more stun than a regular attack and is less volatile than a KA .... which was kind of the point.

 

OK' date=' same procedure with 'killing: 5 points for 1d6, and the rest on + Body: that is +22 Body: so 23 Body average with a 22 to 24 range. OK, that leaves out the 'killing' aspect but that is massively more effective at destroying scenery, entangles and such than current powers, and adding in 'killing' only reduces the attack damage by 1 Body: 22 Body (only against resistant defences). That is going to mean a massive inflation in resistant defence, or a lot of dead characters. IMO increasing Body damage spoils games because balance is no longer attainable - you can not plan build a robot that will be a challenge for all comers when some PCs kick out twice as much Body damage as others.[/quote']

 

Actually, in most of our games, it isn't in the slightest bit unusual for some PCs to kick out twice the BOD damage as others. However, I agree that at the suggested advantage cost, when you push it to the extreme, the BOD damage does become problematic. However, it does work fine until you start kicking in more than +5 in BOD modifiers - and I wanted to keep the cost/damage output comparable to current KA.s. A rules change like this would need to be stop-signed and the implications of allowing extreme BOD modifiers allowed. But I doubt very much we'd see either rDEF inflation or PC death, anymore than the existence of the infamous "NND, does BOD, Continuous uncontrollable KA" has obliterated hundreds of characters: it is possible to build lethal highly advantaged attacks - but few GMs would allow it.

 

 

OK' date=' it is tuneable, to an extent, but no more so than persuading the GM to let you spend a bit more on your primary attack, which seems a more agreeable way to go about it ( I want to do more Body: I'll buy the attack as 12d6 but I want to take +3d6 (Body Only -1): OK?). It is MAINLY tuneable to allow increased Body damage - the increase there is significant, whereas the Stun increase is relatively modest.[/quote']

 

That's intentional, to keep the damage output commensurate with current killing attacks over a reasonable range of advantage (+0 to +4). However, you do have point, that maybe it's too good a buy.... I will ponder that

 

The other probem I can see with this' date=' potentially, is that you can buy a MP with a stun attack and a Body attack and just use the one you need: it is rare that you really want to do Stun and Body with the same attack. If you can justify it (and who can't justify practically anything after a few years playing Hero?) it would be mad not to.[/quote']

 

Yes ..... and no. Long ago, pretty much every character in our game had a multipower with both an NND and a KA, or a KA and a highly advantage STUN-generating KA. After all, you'd be mad not to, right? Any rules set needs to be built with potential abuse in mind, but I'm not sure that we need to assume that all players are always abusive - it's like the "cut through anything" build I recently posted - a KA twinned with an NND, does BOD, whose defence precludes rDEF. It's an attack that will hurt any foe, and everyone has one, right? Or not.

 

It all seems a bit complicated. I am not convinced we need to be able to do more than 1d6/5 points damage.

 

Huh. I suggested it since it seemed (still seems, actually) much simpler than the system we have now.

 

It comes down tot that for me: why do we need to be able to do more than an average of 12 Body per attack in a 12DC game? We already have AP' date=' which allows a bit of tuning, and AVLD/NND if you want to go all out - but they are largely self correcting as they reduce damage potential for a given DC cap, even if they allow progressively higher defences to be breached.[/quote']

 

DC caps? What are those? Oh, yeah, an optional rule some people use. Never seen a use for them myself as a GM - and for me, any rules design argument that starts with "But in a game where the GM sets caps ..." comes pre-labelled as "Irrelevant to the discussion at hand", just as "But in a game where the GM has outlawed rDEF...".

 

Personally - as long as it's not going to be abusive in most situations, I like the idea of more design flexibility - especially if paired with less complexity.

 

*I don't allow increased stun multiple either. I know: spoilsport.

 

Shrug. It's a useful modifier, which I (and my players) use from time to time, but I'd look pie-eyed at any power a player presented that was mostly modifier and hardly any power, so we've never had a problem with it being abused.

 

cheers, Mark

[Greywind]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I've no problem with Killing Attacks as they are.

 

I understand, however, that some folks would like their killing attacks to be used more for killing and less to play the Stun Lotto. I also understand that just taming the Stun Lotto (lots of methods available) isn't enough for some. So...

 

Rule that all living things take the default Vulnerability: 2 x BODY from Killing Attacks for 0 points.

 

To deal with armor, shields, and the like, you could make it Vulnerability: 2 x BODY from Killing Attack damage that penetrates defenses.

Why not just put a working cap on BODY?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Seeing as people have, in fact, been killed by punches. Even a single well placed punch...

 

Not unrealistic at all.

 

Well, not really. I mean it is remotely possible that, somehow, a punch killed someone, but in the vast majority of such cases it is not the punch but hitting the head on a sharp enough object as the victim falls that kills, cracking the skull or such.

 

More to the point, single punches kill, if at all, once in a very blue moon, and not in a few hits, or boxing would be a much more exciting experience.

[Patriot]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Well, not really. I mean it is remotely possible that, somehow, a punch killed someone, but in the vast majority of such cases it is not the punch but hitting the head on a sharp enough object as the victim falls that kills, cracking the skull or such.

 

More to the point, single punches kill, if at all, once in a very blue moon, and not in a few hits, or boxing would be a much more exciting experience.

 

 

Isn't that called a critical hit?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Right' date=' I already did the math on extreme versions and came to the conclusion that trading off an extra 5.5 stun on average for 11 BOD and associated knockback was reasonable - especially since stacking +11 in advantages on a power is going to be a wee bit of a red flag for a GM. [/quote']

 

I don't see it as a trade off - generally if the point is to do lots of stun you don't want to do a lot of Body or KB - you don't need both at once - in fact you generally don't WANT both at once.

 

As you note' date=' if you really push the approach I suggested to the limit, you get effects which are [u']somewhat[/u] more effective (though you really have to push the systems to its limit to get that) - essentially you are trading off 11 dice worth of BOD for 2 dice worth of STUN. However, bear in mind that your +11 in advantages gets you a maximum of 50 stun - rather less than half of the maximum generated by a regular KA under the current rules - even without Increased Stun modifier! You have 1 chance in 6 chance of generating 50 STUN with the system I suggested, even if it's abused to max. You have 1 chance in 3 of generating more stun than that with a regular killing attack of the same active points .... so, no, I can't really see as "horribly effective".

 

It more reliably generates a more stun than a regular attack and is less volatile than a KA .... which was kind of the point.

 

I may have misunderstood the 'killing attack' advantage you suggested - was that mean to work the same way for Body and Stun? I assumed it was.

 

That would mean that, assuming in a 12DC game (I know, I've read the whole post) you have 24 normal defence of which 12 is resistant , on average, you do an average (with your system) of 47 stun, you take off 12 from that, doing 35 through defences, as opposed to an average (for normal attacks) of 42-24 = 18 through defences. Now, of course, with KAs, stun averages are all but meaningless, but even there you are only subtracting (using my, not unreasonable example) 12 rather than 24 defence. That makes a lot of difference to damage through defence.

 

I also accept that a 4d6 KA can do 100+ stun on an alarmingly regular basis -but then that is one of the reasons I don't think it should work that way for that precice reason. I don't think we need a system for doing more stun that is any more complicated than 'more dice'.

 

Actually, in most of our games, it isn't in the slightest bit unusual for some PCs to kick out twice the BOD damage as others. However, I agree that at the suggested advantage cost, when you push it to the extreme, the BOD damage does become problematic. However, it does work fine until you start kicking in more than +5 in BOD modifiers - and I wanted to keep the cost/damage output comparable to current KA.s. A rules change like this would need to be stop-signed and the implications of allowing extreme BOD modifiers allowed. But I doubt very much we'd see either rDEF inflation or PC death, anymore than the existence of the infamous "NND, does BOD, Continuous uncontrollable KA" has obliterated hundreds of characters: it is possible to build lethal highly advantaged attacks - but few GMs would allow it.

 

One question I might ask is - why? Why should an attack that does more Body 'hurt' less: if it doing that much damage why doesn't that also translate into more shock/pain/bloodloss - i.e. more stun. What is this advantage going to simulate?

 

Moving on from there I see no problem with a game where some characters kick out considerably less than average Body - but it is a problem to my mind if some characters are kicking out twice average. The difference between NND Does Body and your suggesting is that NNDDB, on a 60 point power, does 4 Body, when it works. That means one hit kills are not really possible. Even against a martial artist whose concept doesn't call for substantial resistant defence. Hence no real need for resistant defence inflation (assuming some sort of healer or whatnot is on hand). OTOH if people know that they could get hit by 20+ Body from a standard hit, I can see that pinging the 'let's get behind some armour' feelings.

 

Anyway the reason no one gets NNDBD (uncontrolled continuous) is because it is no fun. They are not advantages that are supposed to go together. This 'mo Body' advantage is designed to kill, bing-banga-boom. No fun. Actually maybe a villain gets NNDNDUC - afterall that is down to about 2d6 with a bit of reduced END, which is long enough to beat the hell out of the guy who did it to you before it kills you AND it is NND, so at least one PC will heve the defence AND it is uncontrolled so it is relatively easy to 'turn off' - all these things have built in safeguards. They are not just nukes.

 

 

 

Yes ..... and no. Long ago' date=' pretty much every character in our game had a multipower with both an NND and a KA, or a KA and a highly advantage STUN-generating KA. After all, you'd be mad not to, right? Any rules set needs to be built with potential abuse in mind, but I'm not sure that we need to assume that all players are always abusive - it's like the "cut through anything" build I recently posted - a KA twinned with an NND, does BOD, whose defence precludes rDEF. It's an attack that will hurt any foe, and everyone has one, right? Or not.[/quote']

 

My experience has been different - both KAs and NNDs have been comparatively rare, not because they are not effective - they are - but because they are special - and oversaturation takes that away. The knife wielding psycho is scary in part because they use a KA, the DarkBolt firing alien is scary because even the team tank feels his blasts. That is just preference though, not an objective reason. Here's one: the examples you give already demonstrate that there are plenty of ways of doing killing damage as there is: what does the proposal add, other than another way?

 

 

 

Huh. I suggested it since it seemed (still seems' date=' actually) much simpler than the system we have now.[/quote']

 

...that might be your answer, and I agree that there are complicated ways of doing damage through defences, but the simplest one has to be +Xd6.

 

 

 

DC caps? What are those? Oh' date=' yeah, an optional rule some people use. Never seen a use for them myself as a GM - and for me, any rules design argument that starts with "[i']But in a game where the GM sets caps ...[/i]" comes pre-labelled as "Irrelevant to the discussion at hand", just as "But in a game where the GM has outlawed rDEF...".

 

Personally - as long as it's not going to be abusive in most situations, I like the idea of more design flexibility - especially if paired with less complexity.

 

We need some frame of referenceo manage a meaningful comparison, and a '12DC game' was not meant to indicate that you can not exceed 12DC, but that you'd expect 'standard' attacks to not exceed 12DC without GM permission, so not a cap, a guideline, for comparison purposes.

 

Personally I struggle to see how a game would work if there was a big difference in damage output between characters, unless the characters were balanced in other ways - whic you can do if the GM builds all the characters, not so much if everyone wants to get their hands dirty, and build stuff. Well, it CAN work, but it is a lot of work for the GM to create meaningful challenges for a team that has a big range of damage/defence. It is not so much the potential for abuse - I don't care about that so much - it is that it makes enjoyable scenarios harder to build - IMO, obviously.

 

 

Shrug. It's a useful modifier' date=' which I (and my players) use from time to time, but I'd look pie-eyed at any power a player presented that was mostly modifier and hardly any power, so we've never had a problem with it being abused.[/quote']

 

I've always looked pie-eyed at an advantage that makes a killing attack do more stun. Then again I would - I don't like the KA mechanic.

 

I'd simply make each DC of KA work as 1d6 normal.

 

Body damage stopped by resistant defence. Stun stopped by rDEFx2*.

 

I'd probably make 'stun only' a -1/2 (it does no KB either), and 'Body only' also worth -1/2, which seems more consistent with the rest of the system.

 

The volatility exhibited by KAs on unarmoured normals is then accounted for by optionsl rules - impairing, disabling, bleeding and such (...and we'll be overhauling THOSE rules in an thread coming soon...)

 

 

 

 

*Never really did understand why someone with 3rPD and 24 PD should barely feel something that takes out half their Body in one hit.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Isn't that called a critical hit?

 

Well I wouldn't do it that way personally - criticals come up far too often - perhaps an open ended critical system could work (on a roll of 3, nominate one of your damage dice, and if it comes up '3' then roll again and add - something like that). Also we don't have a critical system that works that way

 

I'd be more inclined to do it as a really unfortunate unluck roll or some other cunning disadvantage.

 

Hmm. On your 'hit roll'. EACH '3' you roll you use as a damage dice (the hit dice should be a different colour from the damage dice). Each one that comes up '3' again on the damage roll you roll agains and add.

 

For those of you wondering, I did not use '6' because it is already a sort of critical and I didn't use '1' because, well, it would be a bit silly, if you think about it. Any number in the 2-5 range would have done, but '3' just did it for me, not least because it was a 3 that got you the critical in the first place. Seemed only fair.

 

Hmm. I'm off message again, aren't I?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I see the guy with that 8 PD who can be hit with the club repeatedly as those big muscled giants in the martial arts movies who just stand there and take it. Realistic? No? But superheroic? Also no.

 

Maybe we need a third category: Gritty/Heroic/Superheroic. Gritty would have charatceristic maxima of 15, with secondaries of 4/4/3/8/30/30.

 

Or maybe the big guy was just blocking with his head. I mean, he can't just ignore a 6d6 attack with 8pd: he's still going to take KB and plenty of stun - just not any Body.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Well' date=' not really. I mean it is remotely possible that, somehow, a punch killed someone, but in the vast majority of such cases it is not the punch but hitting the head on a sharp enough object as the victim falls that kills, cracking the skull or such.[/quote']

 

But neither 1" knockback nor a fall from a 1" height is going to kill anyone in Hero either.

 

I don't see it as a trade off - generally if the point is to do lots of stun you don't want to do a lot of Body or KB - you don't need both at once - in fact you generally don't WANT both at once.

 

A Multipower of a "max BOD, no STUN" and "max STUN, no BOD" attack seems very likely, doesn't it?

 

That would mean that' date=' assuming in a 12DC game (I know, I've read the whole post) you have 24 normal defence of which 12 is resistant , on average, you do an average (with your system) of 47 stun, you take off 12 from that, doing 35 through defences, as opposed to an average (for normal attacks) of 42-24 = 18 through defences. Now, of course, with KAs, stun averages are all but meaningless, but even there you are only subtracting (using my, not unreasonable example) 12 rather than 24 defence. That makes a lot of difference to damage through defence.[/quote']

 

It also means sending Force Wall, Entangle and Automatons to the scrapheap. That 6d6, 6 DEF entangle is useless against an attack that routinely dishes out 24 BOD. Any of the above potent enough to challenge the fellow with a KA that dishes out 24 BOD is invulnerable to those with attacks balanced between STUN and BOD.

 

I'd probably make 'stun only' a -1/2 (it does no KB either)' date=' and 'Body only' also worth -1/2, which seems more consistent with the rest of the system.[/quote']

 

I find BOD only is much more limiting, since BOD is much more likely to be offset by defenses. STUN only, OTOH, is typically much more useful in that very few characters have enough defenses to ignore the STUN from a typical attack and, once that character is KO'd, killing him becomes much easier as a matter of common sense.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I use a Flat 3 for the StunX... has worked so far nicely.

The problem with this is that then 1d6K would do the same average Stun as 3d6N, but do more Body, which even requires special defenses - all at the same cost. Killing Attacks simply become too cost effective.

 

It might work if the cost of KAs were increased to 20 per d6.

 

- Klaus

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

OK sure whatever.

 

AGAIN - IN PRACTICE = NO PROBLEMS.

 

 

I don't give a #$^$%&%^## what the math says.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

But neither 1" knockback nor a fall from a 1" height is going to kill anyone in Hero either.

 

Falls can (at the GM option) be considered killing, depending on what you land on. 1" of KB would translate to 1pip of kill damage, which doubles if it hits the head, which is enough for bleeding to kick in (which can kill within minutes), and anyone with a vulnerability could be in trouble. Of course you'd have to unlucky - so most people simply are not going to die int hat way - but someone built with an 'eggshell skull' could.

 

My point was that we should be modeling the more common result: a single 'normal' punch to the head does not kill, and Hero does that - removing pd for normals v body damage would mean relatively frequent kills. Far too frequent - whereas it should be a freak event that the rules probably do not need to bother modeling at all.

 

 

 

A Multipower of a "max BOD' date=' no STUN" and "max STUN, no BOD" attack seems very likely, doesn't it?[/quote']

 

Oh I don't know - I think it would be quite likely - the only problem is justifying it: tuneable phasers: set to stun or set to kill? As I mentioned it is difficult to imagine an attack that could cause massive damage but barely be felt. Hmm. Poison, maybe.

 

 

 

It also means sending Force Wall' date=' Entangle and Automatons to the scrapheap. That 6d6, 6 DEF entangle is useless against an attack that routinely dishes out 24 BOD. Any of the above potent enough to challenge the fellow with a KA that dishes out 24 BOD is invulnerable to those with attacks balanced between STUN and BOD.[/quote']

 

Agreed - an advantage that displaces so many useful powers and concepts is not a thing I am keen to see.

 

 

 

I find BOD only is much more limiting' date=' since BOD is much more likely to be offset by defenses. STUN only, OTOH, is typically much more useful in that very few characters have enough defenses to ignore the STUN from a typical attack and, once that character is KO'd, killing him becomes much easier as a matter of common sense.[/quote']

 

I based the suggestion on the cost of doing the same for defences. Whilst I agree with your analysis, it is a matter of build to a large extent, and ANY Body through defences tends to be a lot more serious - and long term - than stun through defences.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

OK sure whatever.

 

AGAIN - IN PRACTICE = NO PROBLEMS.

 

 

I don't give a #$^$%&%^## what the math says.

 

I for one have had problems in practice, even with a set stun multiplier: the Body total is also pretty volatile. It depends on the sort of game though.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Exactly - it depends on the game.

 

All this "but the math says" whining kind of annoys me when two people use the same thing and get completely different results.

 

Obviously there is more going on than Math and that can't be used as the only argument - which is essentially what's happening from many people.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Exactly - it depends on the game.

 

All this "but the math says" whining kind of annoys me when two people use the same thing and get completely different results.

 

Obviously there is more going on than Math and that can't be used as the only argument - which is essentially what's happening from many people.

 

 

I agree and say that every time this comes up.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I think the maths is an element we have to take into consideration - I've used it myself

 

However, it is not the whole of the story. My concerns with KAs and stun comes about from my experiences, and the maths and such came afterwards. The trouble with anecdotal evidence is that it subjective and untestable. I think that the problems that I encounter with KAs are less noticeable in heroic games.

 

Here's what I want: my character picks up a handgun and shoots someone with it. I expect it to mess the target up. The range of possibilities is from 'instant death' to a 'flesh wound', but I'd expect the 'usual' result for a torso hit to be 'messed up', with a side of 'help, I'm bleeding'. That is nothing to do with Hero, it is just what I expect hand guns to do.

 

Killing attacks are pretty good at the range of damage that bullets can manage, so a tick there. Normal attacks don't do that. Well, not without a little encouragement - in a realistic gritty game we tend to use the optional rules: hit locations/disabling/bleeding that makes taking Body so much nastier. I dont think we need both: a decent average with relatively minimal variation, just for flavour, coupled with a lit location system that applied multipliers and dividers could accomplish that. The problem to my mind with 'base volatility' is the interaction with defences - whilst volatility makes sense against targets with sensitive squishy bits, it makes little sense against less differentiated targets.

 

Now stun is more of an issue: I'm sure you CAN take a big wound and not feel it instantly BUT you are going to soon AND my expectations are that generally i.e. the vast majority of the time - hits hurt propertionally to the injury. Let's be real about this - generally someone not feeling or noticing a massive wound is a dramatic device to allow someone a last soliloquy before they fall over. You can solve that problem with a set stun multiplier, of course, but then you rely on the variation in Body to vary the stun.

 

Anyway, that's what I think.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

If it hurts proportionally to the injury wouldn't the Flat Stun X be advantageous? small injury less pain.

 

We're never going to simulate "reality" where a bra manages to stop a bullet but a well connected but not overly hard smack to the temple causes shock and death... at least not well. So - honestly - it's stupid to try.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Exactly - it depends on the game.

 

All this "but the math says" whining kind of annoys me when two people use the same thing and get completely different results.

 

Obviously there is more going on than Math and that can't be used as the only argument - which is essentially what's happening from many people.

 

The difference is that everyone's anecdotes about their game is context sensitive and there isn't enough time to detail enough about them to make these things meaningful to anyone but one person.

 

Math is not context sensitive and the statistics are the same for everyone.