Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

[prestidigitator]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I might try a house rule to the 1/2 D6 for StunX. Roll and count the KA BODY normally, then roll an equal number of dice and total both groups to determine STUN. Increased STUN Multple would just add more dice to the second (STUN) part of the roll.

 

So a 4d6 KA would be rolled with 4d6 to detrmine BODY like:

 

4, 2, 5, 4 = 15 BODY,

 

Then 4 more dice would be rolled to get total STUN like:

 

3, 2, 6, 5 = 16. 16 + 15 = 31 STUN.

 

The number of dice to add to get the total STUN (prior to any ISMs) can also be fine-tuned depending upon how "Stunning" killing attacks should be in the game world.

 

Huh. That's an interesting idea. How about making the total number of Stun dice equal to the DCs of the attack (so you roll Total DCs minus KA dice for "extra Stun")? Perhaps minus a die or two so it does less than a Normal Attack of the same size.

 

So your example of a 4d6 Killing Attack (12 DCs) would roll four dice for Body damage and add the result to say 6d6 more for the Stun (12-4, minus another two for it being a KA without Increased Stun Multiple).

[Trebuchet]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

You could still purchase 6e and house-rule that one thing...

 

While the volitality of the BODY of a KA is greater than an equal normal attack, I think the limited number of dice in any KA limits the detrimental effects of this volitility. So I'm not too concerned with BODY volitility, especially considering that it would take 20 BODY after defenses to kill a normal (un-bought-up BODY) character.

 

I might try a house rule to the 1/2 D6 for StunX. Roll and count the KA BODY normally, then roll an equal number of dice and total both groups to determine STUN. Increased STUN Multple would just add more dice to the second (STUN) part of the roll.

 

So a 4d6 KA would be rolled with 4d6 to determine BODY like:

 

4, 2, 5, 4 = 15 BODY,

 

Then 4 more dice would be rolled to get total STUN like:

 

3, 2, 6, 5 = 16. 16 + 15 = 31 STUN.

 

The number of dice to add to get the total STUN (prior to any ISMs) can also be fine-tuned depending upon how "Stunning" killing attacks should be in the game world.

Why not just double the rolled BODY damage to calculate Stun rather than take the time to roll twice as many dice? Quicker, with on average identical results.

 

My thought on either of these methods is that they make Killing Attacks do too little Stun. While I disliked the old Stun Lottery because its outliers were either too little or too much, I don't want them to become totally ineffectual either. With this method you're paying 3X as much for an attack that does precisely the same Stun as a normal attack against a target with rDEF but potentially much more if the target lacks any Resistant defenses. Is that a worthwhile buy? If Hero were to go that way, then buying AP or PEN attacks become a much better buy than KA.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Why not just double the rolled BODY damage to calculate Stun rather than take the time to roll twice as many dice? Quicker' date=' with on average identical results.[/quote']

 

That is equivalent to just setting the StunX to a fixed x2 multiple, which compounds the volitility of the low number of dice for BODY into that for STUN. True, the Lotto is limited by it being x2, but I feel that adding in more dice increases the granularity of STUN results while diluting the volitility. And aren't we used to counting up twelve or more dice at a time anyway? I don't think counting up 8 or so dice would be significantly slower than the 18 dice of a pushed haymaker.

 

My thought on either of these methods is that they make Killing Attacks do too little Stun.

 

I did state that the number of dice added to determine total stun can be fine tuned to the GM's desire for more or less STUN on average.

 

With this method you're paying 3X as much for an attack that does precisely the same Stun as a normal attack against a target with rDEF but potentially much more if the target lacks any Resistant defenses.

 

I think that because KAs do:

 

A) more body on average,

more frequently deliver high BODY rolls than an equivalent normal attack, and

C) are more effective against targets who's DEF is partially or totally non-resistant...

 

... that KAs should do on average less STUN than an equivalent normal attack, and not exceed the max STUN of an equivalent normal attack.

 

Another minor complication that hasn't been mentioned is that KAs cause ~3" less knockback than normal attacks (and thus potentially 3d6 less damagage from Knockback) -- if Knockback is being used.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Well, given the bell curve makes whether or not something is accomplished pretty predictable, perhaps we need a 3d6 roll of Damage Classes vs Defense Classes to determine whether the attack actually penetrates to do damage, followed by a more volatile damage roll to determine how much damage is actually inflicted.

 

That adds another roll to every attack, though, so we probably want to avoid that.

 

Maybe we can integrate it with the OCV/DCV roll that determines whether you hit at all (whether or not it has any effect). It doesn't matter that much whether you did no damage because you missed, or because you couldn't get past the target's defenses, so we just merge "Did it hit or did he dodge" with "Did it do damage or bounce off his defenses".

 

I wonder if there are any games out there that thought of this remarkable abstraction to make a single roll to see whether your attack both hit and does damage...

 

Actually, it matters quite a bit whether you didn't do damage because you missed or you bounced off their defenses.

 

Assuming you have some method of improving either your damage or accuracy, you need to know which of the above scenarios is true so you pick the right response.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Well, given the bell curve makes whether or not something is accomplished pretty predictable, perhaps we need a 3d6 roll of Damage Classes vs Defense Classes to determine whether the attack actually penetrates to do damage, followed by a more volatile damage roll to determine how much damage is actually inflicted.

 

That adds another roll to every attack, though, so we probably want to avoid that.

I could get behind something like this, and have occasionally pondered similar ideas. I think it might have merit. A lot of the more "hideously realistic" combat systems in other games have used something of the sort

 

Maybe we can integrate it with the OCV/DCV roll that determines whether you hit at all (whether or not it has any effect). It doesn't matter that much whether you did no damage because you missed, or because you couldn't get past the target's defenses, so we just merge "Did it hit or did he dodge" with "Did it do damage or bounce off his defenses".

 

I wonder if there are any games out there that thought of this remarkable abstraction to make a single roll to see whether your attack both hit and does damage...

Boo Hiss...

 

But seriously, on this same topic, this exactly why I, long ago, have almost universally adopted the optional Critical Hit rules. They function to remove volatility, and top load it, for really good attack rolls. It requires a bit of a conceptual shift, in that you have to start approaching attacks with the basic assumption that this attack may well do it's maximum damage at any time and adjust play and design considerations accordingly, but I've found it works shockingly well over the years (And makes Normal Attacks much more balanced with Killing attacks as a bonus)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Well, given the bell curve makes whether or not something is accomplished pretty predictable, perhaps we need a 3d6 roll of Damage Classes vs Defense Classes to determine whether the attack actually penetrates to do damage, followed by a more volatile damage roll to determine how much damage is actually inflicted.

 

That adds another roll to every attack, though, so we probably want to avoid that.

 

Maybe we can integrate it with the OCV/DCV roll that determines whether you hit at all (whether or not it has any effect). It doesn't matter that much whether you did no damage because you missed, or because you couldn't get past the target's defenses, so we just merge "Did it hit or did he dodge" with "Did it do damage or bounce off his defenses".

 

I wonder if there are any games out there that thought of this remarkable abstraction to make a single roll to see whether your attack both hit and does damage...

 

 

One option for KAs that certainly nods in that direction - and doesn't involve more rolling (possibly less) is this:

 

1. Compare the damage class of the attack to the rDEF of the target

2. If DC is less than or equal to rDEF, you do NO BODY and Standard Effect Stun

3. If DC is greater than or equal to rDEF you roll damage as 'normal' but subtract rDEF from Body damage and 2xrDEF from Stun damage

 

That gets rid of volatility v defences but preserves it for actual damage. Needs tweaking, but it is the kernel of an idea.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

One option for KAs that certainly nods in that direction - and doesn't involve more rolling (possibly less) is this:

 

1. Compare the damage class of the attack to the rDEF of the target

2. If DC is less than or equal to rDEF, you do NO BODY and Standard Effect Stun

3. If DC is greater than or equal to rDEF you roll damage as 'normal' but subtract rDEF from Body damage and 2xrDEF from Stun damage

 

That gets rid of volatility v defences but preserves it for actual damage. Needs tweaking, but it is the kernel of an idea.

 

Why restrict this to KA's? By the same logic, if your PD is 3x the DC of a normal attack, drop the normal attack to standard effect and you can have no effect with it. Now someone can be bulletproof or punchproof.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Why restrict this to KA's? By the same logic' date=' if your PD is 3x the DC of a normal attack, drop the normal attack to standard effect and you can have no effect with it. Now someone can be bulletproof or punchproof.[/quote']

 

Actually it is half of an idea I'm working on. The full idea calculates stun on a normal roll, then calculates Body based on how much stun you take through defences. The trouble with applying it to normal attacks is that normal defences stop Body - so almost every normal hit would only apply standard effect damage (or you need a new defence value: DEF/3. You compare that to penetration for normal attacks). I'll post the full idea in the next few days if I get the chance.

 

I like the approach in that it can actually speed combat, but it might be a bit all or nothing for some.

 

One way around that is by allowing your roll to hit or Margin of Success to modify penetration (not a logical thing, but a gaming thing). Something like this:

 

MOS: For each 2 points of success with your roll to hit, you add 1 to your penetration.

 

OR

 

 

Hit roll:

 

Hit roll Penetration

3-4.......-4

5-6.......-3

7-8.......-2

9-10......-1

11.........+0

12-13....+1

14-15....+2

16-17....+3

[GamePhil]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Consider instead rolling Stun X only against the amount of effective damage from the KA.

 

2D6 KA, average 7 Body, 21 Stun. Against someone that has resistant defenses, let's say one level of Combat Luck, 3 rPD, we now have 4 Body, 12 Stun.

 

Done this for years, and in the right type of campaign, it works well. I typically use it for superhero games on the extremes of "grit": for a lighter tone game, most characters will be virtually immune to KA's, which will be primarily for destroying objects. For a darker game, Killing Attacks are meant to KILL, not knock out without doing Body, and I restrict Resistant Defenses by character concept accordingly.

 

That isn't to say that the monofilament whip can't knock you out, just that it will slice you up in order to do so.

 

You want to knock someone out in those games, use an Energy Blast or something more exotic.

[JaredThaler]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

refering to the suggestion that xStun be restricted to only body that penetrated the armor

 

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']

 

Since I did not see it sugguested elsewhere:

 

Do it the same way we do it everywhere else. Use limitations / advantages:

 

-1/4 on rPD / rED: Does not reduce amount of body multiplied by stun modifier. (Chain or other highly flexible, lightly padded armor.)

 

-1/4 on rPD / rED: Treat Body as penetrating for purposes of multiplying by stun modifier. i.e. if the weapon is stopped by the vest, count the body as if it were penetrating, and multiply it by the stun modifier to determine how much stun damage gets through.(Kevlar)

 

Additional advantages:

 

Since Stun is now directly determined by how much body penetrated, it no longer makes sense for the stun to be reduced by non resistant defenses. (So you can't buy 40 PD, make one resistant, and suddenly the 40 PD goes from not blocking Killing attack stun to stopping killing attack stun)

 

+1/4 on PD / ED: reduces stun from Killing attacks. This represents a defense that comes from inate physical toughness, rather than from armor. A good example would be a blob that does not have any nerve clusters or vital organs, Killing attacks may cut off pieces, but won't be particularly painful.

 

Minimum Stun is still 1 Stun per 1 Body taken.