Killing Damage in 6e

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

I never understood why people liked fumble and critical rules because there will always be more enemies rolling the dice than PCs' date=' so all it does - in exchange for the occasional boasting rights on beheading an ogre - is tip the odds against the PCs.[/quote']

 

Because most people are really bad at statistics. I worked this out many, many years ago, and thereafter retired my homebrew critical tables ... and the players whined about it, despite the fact that my "Dead PCs" folder was full of characters laid low by critical hits. People - on the whole - always expect that they'll win the lottery.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Low multiplier areas, normal atatcks do better, but KAs have a real advantage for the bits anyone is ever going to actually aim at. Again, it seems that what killing attacks are really good at is causing lots of stun damage.

 

That just makes me feel dirty.

 

I have solution for you: I floated it back in the pre-6E threads, but it's solidified due to changes made in 6E, and I am going to play test it in my next campaign: we're moving from 5E to 6E, so one more small change won't make much difference.

 

Here's the plan.

 

1. Drop "killing attack" as a seperate power. "Killing attack" simply becomes "applies vs resistant defence" - which is already covered by the advantage AVAD.

 

2. Rejig the costs of AVAD, so that they actually reflect utility, and simplify the rules. The numbers I have played around with are:

 

Move up one step on the table: +1/4

Move up two steps on the table: +1

Move three steps up on the table: +2

 

NND goes back to being a special advantage: +1, all or nothing, does stun only. It was always an awkward fit in AVAD, anyway.

 

All of the "special rules" about how AVAD attacks become stun only, that killing attacks don't follow the AVAD rule exactly, etc, ... goes away.

AVAD attacks don't become STUN only, and they apply both STUN and BOD vs their chosen defence.

 

So a "killing attack" simply applies against a resistant form of the same defence (a +1/4 advantage). I've run the math with attacks of up to 100 active points, vs defences from 0-20 non-resistant, + 0-20 resistant. If we look at blast, "killing" attacks since they now use the "roll a d6, total is stun, 1 is 0 BOD, 2-5 is 1, 6 is 2" always do less STUN and less BOD in total than a normal attack of the same active points. They are exactly as volatile as normal attacks (because they are normal attacks). That doesn't sound like a winner. However, when you run the math, the results are interesting. When the ratio of resistant to non-resistant defences is low, "killing" blast usually does more BOD through defences than a normal blast, and sometimes more STUN, but as resistant defences increase normal is better at getting stun through. But even when the ratio or resistant defences are very high compared to normal defences, a killing attack is rarely worse. That pretty much only occurs against defences that are totally resistant.

 

But how about other attacks than just blast?

Well, STR costs the same and works against the same defences as Blast, so no problems there. HA and TK also work against the same defences, so again, the outcome will be the same.

Mental blast is not the same - it does no BOD and it already acts against an uncommon defence So making a mental blast "killing" would mean it would only cost +1/4 to make it work against a rare defence ... but then it costs +1/2 now. It's not a great change in cost and one relatively easily countered. I can't see it as a problem.

 

All the other attack powers either don't work against defences at all (Change environment, Entangle, etc) or work against uncommon defences and don't in any case do BOD damage. It would cost (for example) the same for Flash attack to go up against resistant Flash Defence than against Flash Defence to an unusual sense group, and frankly, that's not a significant change in my opinion.

 

Finally what about moving a normal blast to work against uncommon or rare defence? That would cost +2 for for a rare defence, but under my suggestion, it does BOD. So compared to current rules, it would be slightly more expensive than to do STUN damage, and slightly cheaper to do BOD damage. However, if doing BOD to your target is the goal, it's only marginally less expensive than just buying a killing attack and adding penetrating under the current rules, and would do significantly less STUN. That seems like a reasonable tradeoff. Since Penetrating killing attacks have not been a problem in most games, it also suggests to me that it's not unbalanced. With regard to moving Blast to working against Mental Defence, that would be +1, making the basic cost the same as Mental Blast. Unlike Mental blast, it does BOD, which seems like a clear advantage, but also unlike mental blast, it works against DCV (a limitation) and doesn't get the no range and partially indirect advantages. It seems reasonably balanced.

 

In short, this approach offers several advantages (from my point of view).

1. It removes the problem of killing attacks being best if you want to stun the target. With this approach, it's mostly good for attacking targets with less resistant defence and doing BOD to them: ie: for killing.

2. It simplifies the whole adding KA to normal attacks thing: now they use the same mechanism - you treat "killing" like any other advantage. You can prorate damage, you can have attacks which mix killing and normal damage.

3. It simplifies the system as a whole: there's no need to have two completely different mechanisms for "I hit him with a club".

and

4. Especially for Hugh - it offers the flexibility to do something he asked about recently - to be able to convert a single power between normal and killing damage. With this approach, a simple variable special effect would do it.

 

The one potential negative that I can see is that it becomes slightly easier to bypass high PD/ED and inflict BOD damage via this approach with a few dice of attack vs an uncommon defence. I don't see that as outweighing the advantages for the following reasons:

 

a: It compensates somewhat for removing the ability to do more BOD via the volatile killing mechanism - I've seen a 9DC KA roll 16 or more BOD plenty of times. I've never seen anyone roll 16 BOD on a 9DC normal attack.

b: It's relatively cheap to counter powers using AVAD to deliver BOD: 5 points of non-resistant mental defence would largely eliminate the BOD from a 50-point Blast vs mental defence. My suggested change would probably lead to a few more PCs having a few points in Mental defence and Power defence, though.

c: AVAD is already an exclamation point power - I'd watch out for any powers using it just as carefully as I already do.

 

So, what do you think? Is there anything I've missed?

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

A lot depends on the defense purchases. Let's assume that rDEF remains fairly common. So, we have a 12d6 Normal Attack (42 STUN, 12 BOD on average) that inflicts 18 STUN, no BOD on that 24 defense, 12 rDEF example target. Or we have a 9 1/2 d6 AVAD rDEF attack that rolls 32.5 on average, and 9.5 BOD, only vs rDEF. This slides 20.5 STUN past our sample target, but no BOD. More effective at delivering STUN and less effective at delivering BOD.

 

Maybe that +1/4 only makes the BOD bypass normal defenses. In that case, the KA only gets 8.5 STUN past those defenses.

 

We also get a 6d6 Blast versus an exotic defense that will put 21 STUN and 6 BOD past a target with no exotic defenses, or 16 and 1 if he has 5 points of the exotic defense. Why am I paying the same +1 advantage for an NND against that same exotic defense that is STUN only and does nothing to a target with any of that defense?

 

If I want my Mental Blast to do BOD, I suppose I just add +1. Seems fair - it would cost more than that to add IPE, Vs mDCV and LoS Range to the Blast. But a Blast vs Power or Flash defense does BOD automatically at the +1 level. 6d6 Blast vs Power Defense seems superior to a 4d6 Drain - BOD and STUN. The first averages 21 STUN and 6 BOD, less Power Defense. The second will average 14 CP, minus Power Defense, and get that much STUN, and half that BOD, through to the target. Against an undefended target, that's 14 STUN and 7 BOD. 5 Power defense means 16 STUN, 1 BOD, or 9 STUN, 4.5 BOD. I guess the Drain is more effective at punching BOD through, which may make up for being less effective at inflicting STUN.

 

Bump both up to 4d6 Blast vs rPow Def and 2 1/2d6 Drain vs r Pow Def, and we'll pretty much always get 14 STUN, 4 BOD or 9 STUN, 4.5 BOD. Not sure 0.5 BOD makes up for 5 STUN. But that rare guy with rPow Def will take more BOD from the drain.

 

After all that, I don't think it's necessarily unbalanced (hard to say until you see how the game evolves - do less people buy rDEF because these AVAD's are pretty rare?), but it doesn't seem to accomplish the objective of making killing attacks kill.

 

In a fantasy game, say 5 rDEF and 5 defenses, that 3d6+1 Longsword with a strong, skilled user passes 6.5 BOD through armor and 24.5 STUN on a chest hit. A 10d6 normal attack gets 25 STUN, no BOD though. His 8d6 vs rDEF attack (10 DC/1.25) will pass 3 BOD and 23 STUN past that armor. It seems pretty comparable for Fantasy. Both attacks are similar but the better BOD motivates the killing attack under either model. Of course, we're applying 10 DC attacks against 10 total defenses, half resistant - that's only 1 def per DC.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

I never understood why people liked fumble and critical rules because there will always be more enemies rolling the dice than PCs' date=' so all it does - in exchange for the occasional boasting rights on beheading an ogre - is tip the odds against the PCs.[/quote']

 

I keep telling people this, but nobody listens.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

I have solution for you: I floated it back in the pre-6E threads, but it's solidified due to changes made in 6E, and I am going to play test it in my next campaign: we're moving from 5E to 6E, so one more small change won't make much difference.

 

Here's the plan.

 

1. Drop "killing attack" as a seperate power. "Killing attack" simply becomes "applies vs resistant defence" - which is already covered by the advantage AVAD.

 

2. Rejig the costs of AVAD, so that they actually reflect utility, and simplify the rules. The numbers I have played around with are:

 

Move up one step on the table: +1/4

Move up two steps on the table: +1

Move three steps up on the table: +2

 

NND goes back to being a special advantage: +1, all or nothing, does stun only. It was always an awkward fit in AVAD, anyway.

 

All of the "special rules" about how AVAD attacks become stun only, that killing attacks don't follow the AVAD rule exactly, etc, ... goes away.

AVAD attacks don't become STUN only, and they apply both STUN and BOD vs their chosen defence.

....

 

cheers, Mark

 

That works really well. 'Killing Attack' costs the same as Armor Piercing (+1/4). AP effectively halves defences and resistant defences are 'on average' (if such a thing exists!) about half of total defences, so with that 'traditional' build, AP and KA would do the same amount of damage.

 

It would mean that you would probably have to up the active points of 'real' firearms and other weapons because otherwise they would do less damage to unarmoured targets (certainly less Body: a 'current' 2 1/2d6 KA (8DC) would do 6 Body. Of course you may WANT killing attacks to be generally less deadly, but that is a different discussion.

 

Hmm...I suppose one criticism is that: you balance the Stun pretty well, but at the cost of Body damage: unless you reduce defences across the board, Body damage for superheroes will become extremely unlikely...

[Netzilla]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

I never understood why people liked fumble and critical rules because there will always be more enemies rolling the dice than PCs' date=' so all it does - in exchange for the occasional boasting rights on beheading an ogre - is tip the odds against the PCs.[/quote']

 

Markdoc pretty much hit on it. It's the lottery/gambling mentality. A number of players feel it adds a bit of excitement and "risk" to play with criticals/fumbles. I've found that even works if you have fairly innocuous critical as well. My preferred crit system gives the effect of a free Haymaker (+4DC) rather than max damage. It's a substantial bonus that when combined with the Imparing/Disabling rules it provides a nice feeling of being a boost without being overwhelming.

[Netzilla]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

I strongly agree with you.

However, I also am aware that there is a vocal contingent of gamers who prefer their RPGs include occasional, random, semi-unavoidable PC death such that there is a noticeable PC turnover rate. I am not such a person, so I can only speculate as to their motives.

 

It's partly a matter of pride at having "run the gauntlet". If you manage one of the few survivors, it's a more "meaningful" accomplishment if there's a large pile of dead bodies to compare your character against.

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

A lot depends on the defense purchases. Let's assume that rDEF remains fairly common. So, we have a 12d6 Normal Attack (42 STUN, 12 BOD on average) that inflicts 18 STUN, no BOD on that 24 defense, 12 rDEF example target. Or we have a 9 1/2 d6 AVAD rDEF attack that rolls 32.5 on average, and 9.5 BOD, only vs rDEF. This slides 20.5 STUN past our sample target, but no BOD. More effective at delivering STUN and less effective at delivering BOD.

 

Maybe that +1/4 only makes the BOD bypass normal defenses. In that case, the KA only gets 8.5 STUN past those defenses.

 

No, as I'd envisage it, killing attacks go against rDEF. I'd like to avoid the kludge where BOD goes against one defence and STUN against another. It doesn't bother me that a killing attack does more damage - albeit only stun - against defences that are 50/50 rDEF and nDEF. if you are opposing an attack to a defences that are more than 50% of the attack's active points, I'd expect little or no body to go through.

 

We also get a 6d6 Blast versus an exotic defense that will put 21 STUN and 6 BOD past a target with no exotic defenses' date=' or 16 and 1 if he has 5 points of the exotic defense. Why am I paying the same +1 advantage for an NND against that same exotic defense that is STUN only and does nothing to a target with any of that defense? [/quote']

 

Because the exotic defence is both more exotic (as noted in 6E1, most NND defences would count as "rare") and more flexible. I certainly would not count "Mental defence" as rare. And of course one doesn't normally buy an NND to do BOD: there are far more efficient ways.

 

If I want my Mental Blast to do BOD' date=' I suppose I just add +1. Seems fair - it would cost more than that to add IPE, Vs mDCV and LoS Range to the Blast. But a Blast vs Power or Flash defense does BOD automatically at the +1 level. 6d6 Blast vs Power Defense seems superior to a 4d6 Drain - BOD and STUN. The first averages 21 STUN and 6 BOD, less Power Defense. The second will average 14 CP, minus Power Defense, and get that much STUN, and half that BOD, through to the target. Against an undefended target, that's 14 STUN and 7 BOD. 5 Power defense means 16 STUN, 1 BOD, or 9 STUN, 4.5 BOD. I guess the Drain is more effective at punching BOD through, which may make up for being less effective at inflicting STUN. [/quote']

 

Yup. Even more so, if you ignore the Stun and go only for BOD drain. I looked specifically at Drain when doing the math.

 

Bump both up to 4d6 Blast vs rPow Def and 2 1/2d6 Drain vs r Pow Def, and we'll pretty much always get 14 STUN, 4 BOD or 9 STUN, 4.5 BOD. Not sure 0.5 BOD makes up for 5 STUN. But that rare guy with rPow Def will take more BOD from the drain.

 

After all that, I don't think it's necessarily unbalanced (hard to say until you see how the game evolves - do less people buy rDEF because these AVAD's are pretty rare?), but it doesn't seem to accomplish the objective of making killing attacks kill.

 

Under most - not all - situations, however, it does push more BOD through than a normal attack, which was the point, while - as you illustrate - staying more or less in balance with other attack powers. I doubt this rule change would make killing attacks very much less rare: I'm guessing most people would still have some rDEF. But it is true that it would probably make rDEF slightly less of a must-have, in supers games: I think that's a plus, overall.

 

a fantasy game' date=' say 5 rDEF and 5 defenses, that 3d6+1 Longsword with a strong, skilled user passes 6.5 BOD through armor and 24.5 STUN on a chest hit. A 10d6 normal attack gets 25 STUN, no BOD though. His 8d6 vs rDEF attack (10 DC/1.25) will pass 3 BOD and 23 STUN past that armor. It seems pretty comparable for Fantasy. Both attacks are similar but the better BOD motivates the killing attack under either model. Of course, we're applying 10 DC attacks against 10 total defenses, half resistant - that's only 1 def per DC.[/quote']

 

Sure in this case, the target is likely to end up unconscious at the same speed - but the killing attack is better at killing.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

That works really well. 'Killing Attack' costs the same as Armor Piercing (+1/4). AP effectively halves defences and resistant defences are 'on average' (if such a thing exists!) about half of total defences, so with that 'traditional' build, AP and KA would do the same amount of damage.

 

It would mean that you would probably have to up the active points of 'real' firearms and other weapons because otherwise they would do less damage to unarmoured targets (certainly less Body: a 'current' 2 1/2d6 KA (8DC) would do 6 Body. Of course you may WANT killing attacks to be generally less deadly, but that is a different discussion.

 

Hmm...I suppose one criticism is that: you balance the Stun pretty well, but at the cost of Body damage: unless you reduce defences across the board, Body damage for superheroes will become extremely unlikely...

 

But isn't that genre? It was one of the things that I considered when thinking about this design: it blunts BOD damage at the higher end, where Supers are likely to have high defences, but keeps a good deal of lethality at the lower end, for Heroic games, particularly if you are using hit locations - that average of 6 BOD from an assault rifle would be reliable one-shot kill of normals or low level "tough guys" on a head or vitals location.

 

When I was considering this, I was also assuming (consciously) as a default that Supers would not use hit locations and that Heroic games probably would. The effect of that is that in a Supers game it becomes easier to build a "bullet-proof" hero, while at the heroic end, it would reduce volatility - you're less likely to get a one-shot kill, but also less likely to shoot someone in the face, and give them a minor flesh wound.

 

In truth though, I've always felt that Heros system weapons were a teensy bit underpowered: I'd be inclined to increase them all by +1/4. So the 2 1/2 RKA would become an 8d6 "killing" blast. That'd mean against unarmoured foes, one hit puts you down and dying, even for most PCs, if shot in the head or vitals, and a dangerous wound most other places. More importantly, though, it'd mean that handguns would be dangerous but not utterly lethal: you don't want people to require an assault rifle to pose a credible threat.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

No' date=' as I'd envisage it, killing attacks go against rDEF. I'd like to avoid the kludge where BOD goes against one defence and STUN against another.[/quote']

 

That was the approach I had envisioned, so that's confirmed/

 

It doesn't bother me that a killing attack does more damage - albeit only stun - against defences that are 50/50 rDEF and nDEF. if you are opposing an attack to a defences that are more than 50% of the attack's active points' date=' I'd expect little or no body to go through.[/quote']

 

So what is the normal attack intended to be good at under your model? The KA removes 20% of the average roll as +1/4 advantage, but defenses aganst the KA cost 50% more.

 

The biggest complaint against the pre-6e KA was that, statistically, it was generally superior to a normal attack of the same price. Your system does not appear to address that problem.

 

To smooth out the numbers, let's assume a 15 DC game, so I either get a 15d6 Normal Attack (average roll 52.5 STUN and 15 BOD) or a 12d6 KA. (average 42 STUN and 12 BOD). With a budget for 2 nDEF and 1 rDEF per DC, that's 37.5 points. That will pay for 37 defense, 1 resistant, or 30 defense, 15 resistant, or 25 defense, all resistant. The three choices take:

 

15 STUN and no BOD/41 STUN and 11 BOD

 

22.5 STUN and no BOD/27 STUN and no BOD

 

27.5 STUN and no BOD/17 STUN and no BOD

 

Probably best to just buy all my defenses resistant. Of course, if that becomes the standard, then the KA is useless as the normal attack will always be superior. I can buy 29 defense with 19 resistant - that means I take 23.5 from the normal attack and 23 from the KA. But the normal attack will do more knockback.

 

End result - no attack punches BOD through. Either KA is superior at inflicting STUN, or defenses rise so it is not. I don't disagree that BOD damage is not desirable in most Supers games, but this model means leaves the KA with no niche at all in such settings. At present, they do a bit more BOD so are useful against things like entangles and automatons, and are relegated to a niche role, but still have a role, at least.

 

Because the exotic defence is both more exotic (as noted in 6E1' date=' most NND defences would count as "rare") and more flexible. I certainly would not count "Mental defence" as rare. And of course one doesn't normally buy an NND to do BOD: there are far more efficient ways.[/quote']

 

Returning NND to a straight +1 removes any utility for NND's against defenses which are not rare. It may still be easier to segregate NND from AVAD, even if it's based on the same step up model, though.

 

Yup. Even more so' date=' if you ignore the Stun and go only for BOD drain. I looked specifically at Drain when doing the math.[/quote']

 

If I do BOD only, it's not comparable to an attack that also does STUN. A 6d6 BOD drain will drain 10.5 BOD on average. A normal attack that does no STUN takes a hefty limitation, as does a KA with a 1x STUN multiple.

 

Under most - not all - situations' date=' however, it does push more BOD through than a normal attack, which was the point, while - as you illustrate - staying more or less in balance with other attack powers. I doubt this rule change would make killing attacks very much less rare: I'm guessing most people would still have some rDEF. But it is true that it would probably make rDEF slightly less of a must-have, in supers games: I think that's a plus, overall.[/quote']

 

If "only vs rDEF attacks" remain common, then rDEF will logically remain common. No one wants to play the BatSmear. With the KA more effective at inflicting both BOD and STUN, there is no real reason to use a normal attack.

 

Interestingly, at 10d6 KA (rounded up a bit) and 12d6 Normal, both get 10 BOD through to a Normal.

 

Sure in this case' date=' the target is likely to end up unconscious at the same speed - but the killing attack is better at killing.[/quote']

 

So why buy the one that is worse on all fronts? Buy a KA and make it "Stun Only" - it will still get more STUN through to most targets.

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Probably best to just buy all my defenses resistant. Of course' date=' if that becomes the standard, then the KA is useless as the normal attack will always be superior. [/quote']

 

You sum up the advantage I see, here. My suggestion was to killing attacks better at injuring targets with less resistant defence, while normal attacks are better in that they have a higher total damage output. In other words, KAs are best against soft targets, while normal attacks are better against hard targets.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

If resistant defenses are unrestricted, they will logically be bought up to the point that the KA and the normal attack are pretty much identical at any given DC level. If they are restricted, the KA becomes the attack of choice since it outperforms the normal attack unless rDEF are a very high proportion of all defenses.

 

And just slapping a KA and a normal attack in a multipower gets me back to selecting the best tool for each opponent - low rDEF proportionately, smack him with the KA. High rDEF gets the normal attack. Both attacks are used to KO, as BOD won't be done to any reasonably defended target.

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

If resistant defenses are unrestricted' date=' they will logically be bought up to the point that the KA and the normal attack are pretty much identical at any given DC level. If they are restricted, the KA becomes the attack of choice since it outperforms the normal attack unless rDEF are a very high proportion of all defenses.[/quote']

 

That's the situation today, just with slightly more complex rules for normal and killing attacks, no? How many heroes do you see without sufficient rDEF to bounce most of the killing damage that is likely to be thrown their way?

 

just slapping a KA and a normal attack in a multipower gets me back to selecting the best tool for each opponent - low rDEF proportionately' date=' smack him with the KA. High rDEF gets the normal attack. Both attacks are used to KO, as BOD won't be done to any reasonably defended target.[/quote']

 

That's the situation today, just with slightly more complex rules for normal and killing attacks, no? It's always useful to have multiple attacks.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

So why bother making it basically the same with minor differences? At present, a Killing Attack averages a higher BOD number and is therefore superior for breaking an entangle, smashing an object or defeating an automaton that takes no STUN. That is not the case under your new model - the normal attack is superior in this regard. The KA is, in fact, superior at killing, where your model requires I buy enough rDEF to offset the STUN if I want my character to be viable, which defenses will more than offset the BOD. We're back to the "use a killing attack so we can lay a little STUN on this guy" model.

 

If your goal is to make the KA the attack of choice, I think your model will work quite admirably, but I think it relegates normal attacks to a poor choice, selected only when a KA is unavailable. That's a pretty standard Fantasy model, so may work fine for such games. It's not a standard I would want for Supers.

 

Seems like dropping other AVAD type attacks from affecting exotic defenses to affecting rPD or rED also makes a lot of sense, though. 6d6 Drain STR vs Pow Def or 10 1/2d6 Drain STR vs rPD means you need more than 16 rPD to make this same cost attack less effective than the Drain, and that assumes you had no power defense. Of course, that's a "real points only" comparison.

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

So why bother making it basically the same with minor differences? At present' date=' a Killing Attack averages a higher BOD number and is therefore superior for breaking an entangle, smashing an object or defeating an automaton that takes no STUN. That is not the case under your new model - the normal attack is superior in this regard. The KA is, in fact, superior at killing, where your model requires I buy enough rDEF to offset the STUN if I want my character to be viable, which defenses will more than offset the BOD. We're back to the "use a killing attack so we can lay a little STUN on this guy" model.[/quote']

 

Yup. Hero gamers have gotten into the mindset that killing attacks are the way to deal BOD damage to objects, because they do more BOD damage over all. But in real life, many of the things we think as killing attacks (guns, swords, etc) are quite poor at dealing out BOD to inanimate objects. I see no game mechanics reason that killing attacks should be the method of choice for breaking objects. That's the way it is now, but I see no reason that it has to be that way. So making normal attacks superior to KA in dealing damage to inanimate targets is a design positive, IMO.

 

As it stands, though, even with the current model and the 3x STUN multiple, if you want to lay some stun on someone, killing attacks are still the way to go. The volatility of the BOD score means that a 12 DC attack generates 42 STUN on average, with a normal range of 35-49. A killing attack generates 42 STUN on average, with a normal range of 33-51 - and a likely upper end of 60! And the percentage difference increases as you go down in dice: at 6DC, the normal range for blast tops out at 24.5 vs 27 for KA: with a likely upper end far higher for both BOD and STUN on the KA. You know the math. Applying your arguments to the current rules you'd have to say that killing attack is the attack of choice and that it relegates normal attacks to a poor choice.

 

You are right, in that my suggested change doesn't shift the balance much. Under current rules, killing attacks generate more BOD and are much more likely to do BOD damage. They do equivalent stun on average and are more likely to get STUN through high defences. My suggested change is to let Normal attacks do more total BOD and STUN (making them better for overall damage and knockback*) and let Killing attacks work better against soft targets. In addition, it simplifies the game mechanics - all attacks that do physical damage now use the same mechanism -and makes some previously problematic builds easy.

 

If your goal is to make the KA the attack of choice' date=' I think your model will work quite admirably, but I think it relegates normal attacks to a poor choice, selected only when a KA is unavailable. That's a pretty standard Fantasy model, so may work fine for such games. It's not a standard I would want for Supers.[/quote']

 

See above: by your metrics KA is already the attack of choice. One thing I strongly suspect you are right about is that in Supers game, the ratio of resistant to nonresistant defences would increase slightly (at least for Bricks). Since the points spent on that have to come from somewhere, I'm guessing that the amount of non-resistant defence will decrease slightly. In that situation, normal attacks are advantaged against characters with high resistant defences. Also remember by making killing attacks less volatile, the rule change makes it easier for killing to sneak some STUN through on tagets without fully resistant defences, but makes it much harder to get that big hit. That's going to decrease the need for really high defences to some extent. Which attack is better depends on the balance of the target's defences. And really, if KA are better against some targets and Blast is better against others, then I'd say the design goal has been achieved.

 

Under current rules, as Lucius and Sean have pointed out KA is always better, regardless of the makeup of the target's defences. As you say, it should be "the attack of choice" I see that as a design flaw. Not a major one, but still: under current rules, there is no situation where a mix of resistant and nonresistant defences is better against KA than blast.

 

In Supers games, this suggested rules change looks like it would make it relatively easy to build bricks who are immune to gunfire, but still susceptible to blast, while as you note, in Heroic settings it should not move the dial too much.

 

Seems like dropping other AVAD type attacks from affecting exotic defenses to affecting rPD or rED also makes a lot of sense' date=' though. 6d6 Drain STR vs Pow Def or 10 1/2d6 Drain STR vs rPD means you need more than 16 rPD to make this same cost attack less effective than the Drain, and that assumes you had no power defense. Of course, that's a "real points only" comparison.[/quote']

 

Hmm. Math error? Under my suggested change, dropping Power attack one category on the AVAD table nets you a -1/4 limitation: that takes your 6d6 Drain STR to 7.5 Drain STR: meaning that any target with rPD of 6 or more would be better off. That really does not seem at all unbalancing: in the vast majority of cases, you'd be better off going against power defence.

 

cheers, Mark

 

* I didn't note it as a specific change, so I assumed that it was understood that we would still use the same KB rules for KA as an advantage: it occurs to me that that might not have been clear.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Yup. Hero gamers have gotten into the mindset that killing attacks are the way to deal BOD damage to objects' date=' because they do more BOD damage over all. But in real life, many of the things we think as killing attacks (guns, swords, etc) are quite poor at dealing out BOD to inanimate objects.[/quote']

 

SFX issue. Axes and fire are pretty effective means of damaging objects, I think.

 

As it stands' date=' though, even with the current model and the 3x STUN multiple, if you want to lay some stun on someone, killing attacks are still the way to go. The volatility of the BOD score means that a 12 DC attack generates 42 STUN on average, with a normal range of 35-49. A killing attack generates 42 STUN on average, with a normal range of 33-51 - and a likely upper end of 60! And the percentage difference increases as you go down in dice: at 6DC, the normal range for blast tops out at 24.5 vs 27 for KA: with a likely upper end far higher for both BOD and STUN on the KA. You know the math. Applying your arguments to the current rules you'd have to say that killing attack is the attack of choice and that it relegates normal attacks to a poor choice. [/quote']

 

Are we talking about the current model, or a 3x Stun Multiple? You seem to be using the two as synonyms. The 6e model sets the stun multiple at 1 - 3, so the average is 2, not 3. 6e KA's are not good at inflicting STUN because they parallel the normal attack only one time in 3 (3x multiple matches pretty nicely, although a very high result is still a bit more likely than with a normal attack).

 

In a heroic game, with hit locations, we return to a wider range of multiples, but we also get multipliers for normal attacks, so we add volatility to both killing and normal attacks.

 

You are right' date=' in that my suggested change doesn't shift the balance much. Under current rules, killing attacks generate more BOD and are much more likely to do BOD damage. They do equivalent stun on average and are more likely to get STUN through high defences.[/quote']

 

I think 6e did a lot to change the likelihood of punching STUN past high defenses by removing the big outliers (x4 and x5) and lowering the average to x2.

 

My suggested change is to let Normal attacks do more total BOD and STUN (making them better for overall damage and knockback*) and let Killing attacks work better against soft targets. In addition' date=' it simplifies the game mechanics - all attacks that do physical damage now use the same mechanism -and makes some previously problematic builds easy.[/quote']

 

It also either makes the KA the attack of choice (if resistant defenses are limited) or removes the efficacy of the KA (if they are not). That's not a lot different from the status quo, however. 6e KA's are much less useful in a Supers game where rDEF neutralizing their BOD will be common, as their STUN averages so much lower than a normal attack. Your model requires much higher rDEF to reach the same result.

 

See above: by your metrics KA is already the attack of choice. One thing I strongly suspect you are right about is that in Supers game' date=' the ratio of resistant to nonresistant defences would increase slightly (at least for Bricks). Since the points spent on that have to come from somewhere, I'm guessing that the amount of non-resistant defence will decrease slightly. In that situation, normal attacks are advantaged against characters with high resistant defences. Also remember by making killing attacks less volatile, the rule change [b']makes it easier for killing to sneak some STUN through[/b] on tagets without fully resistant defences, but makes it much harder to get that big hit. That's going to decrease the need for really high defences to some extent. Which attack is better depends on the balance of the target's defences. And really, if KA are better against some targets and Blast is better against others, then I'd say the design goal has been achieved.

 

Emphasis added. To me, the biggest plus of the 6e change is that killing attacks now serve their named purpose - they are good at killing. Returning to using the KA to slip some extra STUN through strikes me as a step backwards. That is, however, purely a matter of taste.

 

Under current rules' date=' as Lucius and Sean have pointed out KA is always better, [b']regardless of the makeup of the target's defences[/b]. As you say, it should be "the attack of choice" I see that as a design flaw. Not a major one, but still: under current rules, there is no situation where a mix of resistant and nonresistant defences is better against KA than blast.

 

Let's look...24 def, 12 rDEF

 

12d6 Normal attack gets that average of 42 and 18 damage slips by reliably. 4d6 KA gets an average of 14 x 2 = 28 and slips 4 past defenses. If we reliably get 20 BOD per shot (averaging 5 per d6), we get 0, 16 and 36 past defenses, an average of 17 1/3. Can you reliably roll 20 on 4d6? We need to beat it to meet the average of the normal attack. We get extra volatility - punching 36 STUN past defenses is likely to stun. But this requires 20 BOD on 4d6 - that's not going to be common, and 2/3 of even those low likelihood rolls will be less effective than the normal attack.

 

In Supers games' date=' this suggested rules change looks like it would make it relatively easy to build bricks who are immune to gunfire, but still susceptible to blast, while as you note, in Heroic settings it should not move the dial too much.[/quote']

 

Immune to KA's or immune to low DC gunfire? 6 DC's in your model is 4 1/2d6, so 27 resistant defenses will block out any chance of damage. That doesn't seem overly susceptible to Blast but 12d6 will still punch 15 STUN through. Of course, this assumes no nonresistant defenses. But 27 rDEF would be pretty effective against a 2d6 KA with a 1 - 3 multiplier. No 2x multiplier gets anything through, and only a 10, 11 or 12 BOD roll stands a 1/3 chance of trickling a bit of STUN through. And only 12 of those defenses need to be resistant.

 

Hmm. Math error? Under my suggested change' date=' dropping Power attack one category on the AVAD table nets you a -1/4 limitation: that takes your 6d6 Drain STR to 7.5 Drain STR: meaning that any target with rPD of 6 or more would be better off. That really does not seem at all unbalancing: in the vast majority of cases, you'd be better off going against power defence.[/quote']

 

So +3/4 to go from rDEF to Exotic Defense, but -1/4 to go from exotic defense to rDEF? For some reason, that seems inequitable to me.

 

Overall, I struggle with the underlying concept that moving from normal to resistant defenses costs +1/2, but attacking resistant rather than normal defenses costs only +1/4. That just seems wrong. At +1/2, the 12 DC KA falls to 8d6, averages a roll of 28 STUN and gets 16 past our 24 def, 12 rDEF character, making the KA slightly less effective at punching STUN through. Then we're back to the KA not really being good for much of anything, of course. But, in a low lethality Supers game, what should killing attacks really be good for?

 

6d6 KA averages 21 STUN and 6 BOD, and gets 16 and 1 past that 5 rDEF armor, compared to a 9d6 normal attack getting no BOD and 21.5 STUN past the same armor plus a 5 PD. Is it worth 5.5 STUN to inflict BOD damage? Is 5 rDEF high or low? Depends on the game, but this "gut feels" more balanced.

[Istaran]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

The other issue, especially with superheroic games, as defences are higher is that normal and killing attacks work differently on the hit location table.

 

Take an average 12DC attack against 24 defence*, and work out a head hit. We will just worry about Stun for the moment.

 

1. Normal attacks: 42 damage v 24 defence = 18 through defences and that doubles (for the head hit) to 36.

2. Killing attacks: 14 Bodyx5 = 70 Stun-24 = 46

 

That is a big difference, and substantially favours killing attacks, certainly for head hits...let's see...1.5x multiples for normal are x4 for killing so (using the same figures:

 

1. Normal attacks: 42 damage v 24 defence = 18 through defences and x1.5 = 27.

2. Killing attacks: 14 Bodyx4 = 56 Stun-24 = 32

 

Low multiplier areas, normal atatcks do better, but KAs have a real advantage for the bits anyone is ever going to actually aim at. Again, it seems that what killing attacks are really good at is causing lots of stun damage.

 

That just makes me feel dirty.

 

 

*Not universal but I think 2xDC is a reasonable level for defences

I'm wondering if it would be more balanced for the normal multiplier to be applied pre-defenses?

For your example, that pushes the headshot to 60 STUN v 48 for the KA. The body blow (x4/x1.5) is 39 v 32 for the KA. Typical (x3/x1) would be 18 vs 16 for the KA.

Normal becomes all around better for dealing STUN, and the prefered choice for games with high resistant defenses. KA keeps its niche of being higher BODY per DC, and with only resistant counting so it is a good object/barrier/entangle/automaton breaker, but not the all-purpose go-to when hit locations are in play.

This makes normal pick up roughly the same variability as KA does in a hit location world, and makes punching someone in the head a perfectly devastating attack (for a brick anyways).

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

SFX issue. Axes and fire are pretty effective means of damaging objects' date=' I think.[/quote']

 

You're kind of making my point for me. Yes, it is an SFX issue. There's nothing that suggests KA need be inherently better at damaging inanimate objects

 

Are we talking about the current model' date=' or a 3x Stun Multiple? You seem to be using the two as synonyms. The 6e model sets the stun multiple at 1 - 3, so the average is 2, not 3. 6e KA's are not good at inflicting STUN because they parallel the normal attack only one time in 3 (3x multiple matches pretty nicely, although a very high result is still a bit more likely than with a normal attack).[/quote']

 

I started (and was continuing) by responding to Sean's comment:

 

"Low multiplier areas, normal atatcks do better, but KAs have a real advantage for the bits anyone is ever going to actually aim at. Again, it seems that what killing attacks are really good at is causing lots of stun damage.

 

That just makes me feel dirty."

 

3x is the standard multiplier for KA if you are using hit locations. I agree that if you are using the multiplier die instead that the average is lower, but that doesn't affect the point made. It simply means that in many games, rather than all games, KA is the clear winner.

 

In a heroic game' date=' with hit locations, we return to a wider range of multiples, but we also get multipliers for normal attacks, so we add volatility to both killing and normal attacks.[/quote']

 

As Sean has already noted (and he's correct) the comparison is not even close.

 

It also either makes the KA the attack of choice (if resistant defenses are limited) or removes the efficacy of the KA (if they are not). That's not a lot different from the status quo' date=' however. 6e KA's are much less useful in a Supers game where rDEF neutralizing their BOD will be common, as their STUN averages so much lower than a normal attack. Your model requires much higher rDEF to reach the same result.[/quote']

 

No, as I have noted several times, it does not. You keep saying this, without any backing evidence. Indeed, your argument that KA would either be overpowering or totally useless, indicates that you yourself are not sure what the outcome would be. Defences are not binary: how effective they are against an attack depends on how much you buy: the effect of KA vs blast is likewise going to vary depending on defences. I'm utterly unconcerned about whether KA leaks some STUN through or not: what I really want to see is that KA is more effective vs soft targets and Blast more effective against hard targets. If that damage is BOD, well, that's important (it's a killing attack after all), but if it's STUN, also fine. It's the overall effect I am concerned with. Arm your agents with blasters or assault rifles? I'd like it to be a more consequential choice.

 

What I suspect we would see in games with this mechanism is simply a slight shift in balance from where we are now - characters who want to be bulletproof would up their rDef to prevent too much stun. But the decreased volatility of the BOD generated means that increase is offset to some extent by the fact that you now need less total DEF to avoid getting stunned by the occasional high roll. Those who were not so concerned about being bulletproof would not, as the change I've suggested would decrease the amount of rDEF needed to avoid serious BOD damage. Right now 6 rDEF is not enough to protect against a 6DC killing attack - it's going to get BOD through nearly 70% of the time - and potentially quite a lot of BOD. Using a normal dice mechanism, 6 rDEF provides pretty good protection vs a 6DC killing attack. Characters whose archetype is "avoiding damage through skill and/or agility" could actually get by with less rDEF. Killing attacks would be "dangerous" for them - meaning they could end up really unconscious - but they need less rDEF to avoid ending up accidentally dead, which is an important distinction.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure how many players would go that route: defeat is defeat But at least it becomes a viable option. It changes the dynamics of the game and I think in a good way.

 

So +3/4 to go from rDEF to Exotic Defense, but -1/4 to go from exotic defense to rDEF? For some reason, that seems inequitable to me.

 

Overall, I struggle with the underlying concept that moving from normal to resistant defenses costs +1/2, but attacking resistant rather than normal defenses costs only +1/4. That just seems wrong. At +1/2, the 12 DC KA falls to 8d6, averages a roll of 28 STUN and gets 16 past our 24 def, 12 rDEF character, making the KA slightly less effective at punching STUN through. Then we're back to the KA not really being good for much of anything, of course. But, in a low lethality Supers game, what should killing attacks really be good for?

 

6d6 KA averages 21 STUN and 6 BOD, and gets 16 and 1 past that 5 rDEF armor, compared to a 9d6 normal attack getting no BOD and 21.5 STUN past the same armor plus a 5 PD. Is it worth 5.5 STUN to inflict BOD damage? Is 5 rDEF high or low? Depends on the game, but this "gut feels" more balanced.

 

I understand your confusion, because I had exactly the same reaction and worked through exactly the same math. When I first suggested this idea back in the "what would you like to see" thread for 6E, I also felt that if increasing from DEF to rDEF was +1/2, then going from attacking rDEF instead of DEF should also be at least +1/2. But I did the math (lots of different ways) and came to the same conclusion that you did. It's simply not worth +1/2 to go against rDEF, compared to the loss of effect vs normal attacks. I've tried the analysis over attacks of 1-20 DC vs def from 5-40 with 0-50% rDEF. It's just not worth +1/2 and I cannot refute the math.

 

I've done the same analysis for +1/4, and the numbers suggest killing attacks are better where rDEF is low (no surprise there) but as the number of DC increase you fairly quickly end up at a point where the KA does more BOD, but less stun, even though rDEF is low - or somewhat to my surprise - non-existent.

 

One possibility that you raise though, that I hadn't considered: if "killing" was made a +1/2 advantage, you could end up with a situation where in game with high defences (like Supers) that KA would become useless (or at least more specialised: they'd still be good for mowing down mooks, or heroes with little rDEF) whilst retaining the desired lethality in heroic-level games. That's actually quite an attractive idea, allowing a fairly smooth transition from gritty to 4-colour effects.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Markdoc pretty much hit on it. It's the lottery/gambling mentality. A number of players feel it adds a bit of excitement and "risk" to play with criticals/fumbles. I've found that even works if you have fairly innocuous critical as well. My preferred crit system gives the effect of a free Haymaker (+4DC) rather than max damage. It's a substantial bonus that when combined with the Imparing/Disabling rules it provides a nice feeling of being a boost without being overwhelming.

 

Although I would not call it a critical system as such, one thing that we played with was using the roll to hit as part of the damage roll. That reverses the idea that a roll of 3 is the best possible hit: it means that only skilled attackers can get near maximum damage because if you can hit on a 14 or less you are clearly better than your opponent (or your oppoenent is heavily disadvantaged). That only has a minor effect on overall damage usually (moreso with killing attacks as you roll fewer dice), but it does mean that two opponents of similar skill will generally take longer to decide a winner than mismatched opponents, and generally it is harder to land a big damage hit on someone who is superior to you in combat, or fighting defensively, which seems appropriate.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

You're kind of making my point for me. Yes' date=' it is an SFX issue. There's nothing that suggests KA need be inherently better at damaging inanimate objects[/quote']

 

Nor that it should be worse. We appear to have discussed this to the point that there is no reason a KA should do BOD in different amounts from a normal attack.

 

As Sean has already noted (and he's correct) the comparison is not even close.

 

Yet the stun multiple has always seemed a much more significant issue in Supers (no hit locations) than Heroic (with hit locations). Perhaps that attributes to lower defenses in Heroic as much or more than there also being multiples for normal attacks.

 

No' date=' as I have noted several times, it does not. You keep saying this, without any backing evidence. Indeed, your argument that KA would either be overpowering or totally useless, indicates that you yourself are not sure what the outcome would be. Defences are not binary: how effective they are against an attack depends on how much you buy: the effect of KA vs blast is likewise going to vary depending on defences. I'm [b']utterly [/b]unconcerned about whether KA leaks some STUN through or not: what I really want to see is that KA is more effective vs soft targets and Blast more effective against hard targets. If that damage is BOD, well, that's important (it's a killing attack after all), but if it's STUN, also fine. It's the overall effect I am concerned with. Arm your agents with blasters or assault rifles? I'd like it to be a more consequential choice.

 

We're trying to predict Gamer Psychology, which is tricky. We're assuming a standard of 24 defenses, with a baseline half resistant, which allows 2 BOD through from an average 12DC KA, and 4 STUN on average, 18 from a 3x multiple (the current max if we don't use hit locations). The normal attack also averages 18 STUN, so presumably that's a reasonable level acceptable to the "typical" player or character.

 

Shifting the KA mechanic, I assume the character still wants to keep average STUN to 18 and average BOD to 2 or less. Keeping a 10d6 KA to 18 STUN will require 17 rDEF, so it seems most likely the typical character will shell out an extra 5 points to bump his rPD and rED. Now he rarely or never takes BOD from killing attacks, and normal or killing attacks average 18 STUN. 5 points is not a huge chunk of the budget, so I don't necessarily see him dropping his total defenses.

 

What I suspect we would see in games with this mechanism is simply a slight shift in balance from where we are now - characters who want to be bulletproof would up their rDef to prevent too much stun. But the decreased volatility of the BOD generated means that increase is offset to some extent by the fact that you now need less total DEF to avoid getting stunned by the occasional high roll.

 

That issue is already largely resolved by a d3 multiple. I've yet to see a heroic game where enough defenses could be purchased to avoid a 5x multiple stunning the target. Is your experience different in this regard? Are the same characters at no risk of Stunning from an equal DC normal attack? A 9d6 normal attack against our 10 def, 5 tDef target will average 31.5 stun, less 10 defenses = 21 (rounded), doubled is 42. Seems likely the target is just as stunned as he was from a 3d6 AK and a 5x multiple (average 10.5 x 52.5 - 10 = 42, again rounded).

 

Those who were not so concerned about being bulletproof would not' date=' as the change I've suggested would decrease the amount of rDEF needed to avoid serious BOD damage. Right now 6 rDEF is not enough to protect against a 6DC killing attack - it's going to get BOD through nearly 70% of the time - and potentially quite a lot of BOD. Using a normal dice mechanism, 6 rDEF provides pretty good protection vs a 6DC killing attack. [/quote']

 

KO'd is also out of the fight. 6 rDEF will protect me from the BOD on an average attack 4 1/2d6 attack. I'm feeling pretty much unkillable. But I'm also taking 10 STUN per hit. That will take me out pretty quick. How much am I taking from a normal attack? 21 - 6 = 15, so if I have 5 normal defenses, I take the same 10. No BOD, 10 STUN, so pretty much equal. I assume that 10 STUN doubles to 20 on a head shot for either type of attack, so no difference there.

 

Characters whose archetype is "avoiding damage through skill and/or agility" could actually get by with less rDEF. Killing attacks would be "dangerous" for them - meaning they could end up really unconscious - but they need less rDEF to avoid ending up accidentally dead' date=' which is an important distinction. To be honest, I'm not sure how many players would go that route: defeat is defeat But at least it becomes a viable option. It changes the dynamics of the game and I think in a good way.[/quote']

 

At heroic levels, they can likely get by - at 3 rDEF, say, they will average 1.5 BOD from that KA, and 3 more Stun is hardly the end of the world, especially if you rely on not getting hut.

 

At a Supers level, I don't know that these characters are going to be OK taking significantly greater Stun from a KA. That 9 1/2d6 KA against, say, 8 - 10 rDEF (assuming 15 - 20 total and half resistant) will pass 23 - 25 STUN through on a standard hit. Assuming a 23 or less CON, that means Stunned, which means done. The "soft target" Supers seem likely to lean more, not less, to r DEF. 4d6 KA passes through 4 - 6 BOD? Well, maybe that's OK. A bit of once a day (or hour) Regen for fast healing, and not getting hit very often, may well do the trick. 3x multiple passes 22 - 27 STUN through, which would be the same taken from a normal attack, so maybe he's OK being stunned if he's tagged.

 

Ultimately, it becomes a flavour thing. I'd prefer to see KA's be about BOD more than STUN. If we assume rDEF is half total, may as well just make the attack AP.

 

I understand your confusion' date=' because I had exactly the same reaction and worked through exactly the same math. When I first suggested this idea back in the "what would you like to see" thread for 6E, I also felt that if increasing from DEF to rDEF was +1/2, then going from attacking rDEF instead of DEF should also be at least +1/2. But I did the math (lots of different ways) and came to the same conclusion that you did. It's simply not worth +1/2 to go against rDEF, compared to the loss of effect vs normal attacks. I've tried the analysis over attacks of 1-20 DC vs def from 5-40 with 0-50% rDEF. It's just not worth +1/2 and I cannot refute the math.[/quote']

 

Without going over the math, the assumption that rDEF is 50% probably floats away once KA's do STUN against rDEF only. Wherever we set the attacks, rDEF will presumably adjust to compensate. If it doesn't, and KA's get more STUN for the same DC's, KA's become the attack of choice. With KA's the attack of choice, buying more rDEF becomes very tempting - and after a while, that KA is no longer the attack of choice.

 

I've done the same analysis for +1/4' date=' and the numbers suggest killing attacks are better where rDEF is low (no surprise there) but as the number of DC increase you fairly quickly end up at a point where the KA does more BOD, but less stun, even though rDEF is low - or somewhat to my surprise - non-existent.[/quote']

 

You must also be assuming normal defenses are low. Joe Softtarget takes average 9.5 BOD from a 9 1/2d6 KA and average 10 BOD from a 12d6 Normal Attack. Pugilist Pete's 6 PD doesn't protect him from the KA, but drops the Normal BOD to 6. Of course, neither is a credible threat - I think you have to focus on defenses that are likely from viable opponents.

 

Does KA return to the attack to use on the high defense master villain? Well, AP should also be the attack of choice, so he hardens his defenses. If we're going to build the master villain to be more or less impenetrable (say 40 defenses assuming 12 DC attacks), we're not going to leave him with 20 rDEF, taking 13.5 average from a KA. We'll bump that rDEF to 31 or 32 to make KA no more effective.

 

One possibility that you raise though' date=' that I hadn't considered: if "killing" was made a +1/2 advantage, you could end up with a situation where in game with high defences (like Supers) that KA would become useless (or at least more specialised: they'd still be good for mowing down mooks, or heroes with little rDEF) whilst retaining the desired lethality in heroic-level games. That's actually quite an attractive idea, allowing a fairly smooth transition from gritty to 4-colour effects.[/quote']

 

We often refer to "heroes with little rDEF", but my experience is they rely on DCV more than defenses, and have low defenses across the board. Mooks have the same low defenses, but not the DCV. While a KA will be very lethal, a normal attack will KO them just as effectively, even if it passes a bit less STUN along. If the normal attack is better at damaging high DEF targets, and either attack can take out the low DEF targets, the normal attack logically becomes the attack of choice.

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Nor that it should be worse. We appear to have discussed this to the point that there is no reason a KA should do BOD in different amounts from a normal attack.

 

Exactly!

 

Yet the stun multiple has always seemed a much more significant issue in Supers (no hit locations) than Heroic (with hit locations). Perhaps that attributes to lower defenses in Heroic as much or more than there also being multiples for normal attacks.

 

Remember that many Superhero games also use hit locations. We often (though not always) did, and I've seen plenty of GM's on these boards say that they use hit locations for Supers. I've also run heroic games where we didn't use hit locations (though admittedly, only once, for Pulp game). However, it's clear that you cannot make assumptions about whether hit locations are in play or not and ideally, the power rules should work with both.

 

We're trying to predict Gamer Psychology, which is tricky. We're assuming a standard of 24 defenses, with a baseline half resistant, which allows 2 BOD through from an average 12DC KA, and 4 STUN on average, 18 from a 3x multiple (the current max if we don't use hit locations). The normal attack also averages 18 STUN, so presumably that's a reasonable level acceptable to the "typical" player or character.

 

Shifting the KA mechanic, I assume the character still wants to keep average STUN to 18 and average BOD to 2 or less. Keeping a 10d6 KA to 18 STUN will require 17 rDEF, so it seems most likely the typical character will shell out an extra 5 points to bump his rPD and rED. Now he rarely or never takes BOD from killing attacks, and normal or killing attacks average 18 STUN. 5 points is not a huge chunk of the budget, so I don't necessarily see him dropping his total defenses.

 

He may, or he may not: either way it's not a big deal, at the level where somebody can afford to shell out over 50 points on defences: you would not expect to be seeing a lot of BOD either way. But one of the things that I don't like about the current setup is the way it strongly favours the fact that everyone has a high (for whatever scale you are playing on) DEF with sufficient rDEF to cover likely BOD damage. That's the "standard set up" whether you're wearing spandex or a battlesuit and I would not mind at all differentiating that more.

 

That issue is already largely resolved by a d3 multiple. I've yet to see a heroic game where enough defenses could be purchased to avoid a 5x multiple stunning the target. Is your experience different in this regard? Are the same characters at no risk of Stunning from an equal DC normal attack? A 9d6 normal attack against our 10 def' date=' 5 tDef target will average 31.5 stun, less 10 defenses = 21 (rounded), doubled is 42. Seems likely the target is just as stunned as he was from a 3d6 AK and a 5x multiple (average 10.5 x 52.5 - 10 = 42, again rounded).[/quote']

 

Yes, my experience is very different: we've played Heroic games with characters well over 300 points, and we've used hit locations in superheroic games. In both cases, you can see DEF sufficient to avoid stunning - but not sufficient to cope with a wild roll - particularly in that situation where the PC is opposed by lots of mooks, so you are fielding masses of smaller attacks. You were commenting before on how likely it was to roll 20 on 4d6 - the statistical answer is about 1%, but if you are running games where the hero is opposed by many lower powered foes, the answer that counts is ... it could happen a couple of times a session.

 

The D3 for Stun multiple is an improvement (IMO) but it doesn't even come close to solving the problem.

 

Ultimately' date=' it becomes a flavour thing. I'd prefer to see KA's be about BOD more than STUN. If we assume rDEF is half total, may as well just make the attack AP.[/quote']

 

It's a flavour thing - but it's also a mechanics thing. I don't really care if killing attacks are about STUN or BOD (though I'd prefer BOD) but I do care that soft targets and hard targets react to killing and normal attacks differently in-game. With the current setup, Batman with his 6 rPD suit plus 16 PD and Superman with his 24 rPD skin regard an attacker with a gun more or less identically. That seems fundamentally wrong to me. Even if you are not using hit locations, the current D3 stun multiple doesn't address that.

 

Without going over the math' date=' the assumption that rDEF is 50% probably floats away once KA's do STUN against rDEF only. Wherever we set the attacks, rDEF will presumably adjust to compensate. If it doesn't, and KA's get more STUN for the same DC's, KA's become the attack of choice. With KA's the attack of choice, buying more rDEF becomes very tempting - and after a while, that KA is no longer the attack of choice.[/quote']

 

Exactly! That's exactly the point I have been making. Why should the rules enforce an assumption of 50% rDEF? I know why mechanically: it's because high rDEF gives you almost no advantage. By why thematically? So seeing that assumption float away is exactly where I'd like to go - with the caveat that I doubt everyone will pile on the rDEF, to the point that KAs become totally ineffective, since that's relatively expensive: not everyone's a brick. It means that KA will be better for some targets and worse against others.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Remember that many Superhero games also use hit locations. We often (though not always) did' date=' and I've seen plenty of GM's on these boards say that they use hit locations for Supers. I've also run heroic games where we [b']didn't[/b] use hit locations (though admittedly, only once, for Pulp game). However, it's clear that you cannot make assumptions about whether hit locations are in play or not and ideally, the power rules should work with both.

 

24 PD, 12 resistant hit with a 12DC head shot takes 42 - 24 = 18 x 2 = 36 STUN from a normal attack, or 14 x 5 - 24 = 46 from a KA. Not an insignificant difference, but most targets are stunned from either hit. Under your model, we get the same 36, or [33.5 - 12 = 21.5 x 2 =] 43, a 7 point difference (rather than 10), and the KA does no BOD. I think hit locations level the playing field considerably compared to the Normal attack always averaging 18 STUN and the KA getting 46 past defenses on a lucky roll. The 6e model (1d3) removes that "lucky roll stuns" aspect if hit locations aren't used, or adds it for both if they are.

 

He may' date=' or he may not: either way it's not a big deal, at the level where somebody can afford to shell out over 50 points on defences: you would not expect to be seeing a lot of BOD either way.[/quote']

 

4d6 KA vs 12 rDEF = 2 BOD, 4 on a head shot. With 10 - 15 BOD and normal healing, that's not insignificant.

 

But one of the things that I don't like about the current setup is the way it strongly favours the fact that everyone has a high (for whatever scale you are playing on) DEF with sufficient rDEF to cover likely BOD damage. That's the "standard set up" whether you're wearing spandex or a battlesuit and I would not mind at all differentiating that more.

 

I don't think changing the KA will change that much. They'll have enough rDEF to level out the Stun, I suspect.

 

Yes' date=' my experience is very different: we've played Heroic games with characters well over 300 points, and we've used hit locations in superheroic games. In both cases, you can see DEF sufficient to avoid stunning - but not sufficient to cope with a wild roll - particularly in that situation where the PC is opposed by lots of mooks, so you are fielding masses of smaller attacks. You were commenting before on how likely it was to roll 20 on 4d6 - the statistical answer is about 1%, but if you are running games where the hero is opposed by many lower powered foes, the answer that counts is ... it could happen a couple of times a session.[/quote']

 

The 1-5 multiple made this a clear problem when compared with normal attacks and no hit locations. For low power mooks, hit locations would make no difference. 8d6 would cap out around 32 (4 per die), so with hit locations, that passes 16 points on to our 24/12 baseline, while 2d6 KA has a 1 in 36 chance of passing 36 through on a head shot. For higher power levels, 12 DC passes 36 and 4d6 KA passes 46 through, as set out above.

 

The D3 for Stun multiple is an improvement (IMO) but it doesn't even come close to solving the problem.

 

It significantly removes the incentive for that KA. That 2d6 KA that would get 60 every now and then caps out at 36 - 12 STUN through. Annoying, but you won't get THAT many perfect hits. A 4d6 KA has a 1 in 3 chance of being competitive with the normal attack's stun levels.

 

It's a flavour thing - but it's also a mechanics thing. I don't really care if killing attacks are about STUN or BOD (though I'd prefer BOD) but I do care that soft targets and hard targets react to killing and normal attacks differently in-game. With the current setup' date=' Batman with his 6 rPD suit plus 16 PD and Superman with his 24 rPD skin regard an attacker with a gun more or less identically. That seems fundamentally wrong to me. Even if you are not using hit locations, the current D3 stun multiple doesn't address that.[/quote']

 

We've already seen it - everyone needed some rDEF, and we gradually evolved to Combat Luck and similar constructs to provide it. Bats gets his 6rPD suit and takes 27.5 STUN from an average KA vs 20 from an average Blast, and he'll be armoring the suit more with xp to avoid being stunned every time a lucky KA hit lands. Supes, meanwhile, takes 18 from a normal attack or 9.5 from a KA, so the KA is less useful against him and, once Bats shells out the xp, more or less equal against him.

 

Current model, Bats loses 8 BOD from that KA. Seems he's pretty motivated to avoid those. Your model, he takes about 3.5, but probably enough STUN difference that he's stunned. Either way, he's motivated to higher rDEF to stay alive and competitive. I'm more concerned that Bats sees a need for 22 defenses when Supes has 24 - obviously his superior CV isn't exactly paying off.

 

Exactly! That's exactly the point I have been making. Why should the rules enforce an assumption of 50% rDEF? I know why mechanically: it's because high rDEF gives you almost no advantage. By why thematically? So seeing that assumption float away is exactly where I'd like to go - with the caveat that I doubt everyone will pile on the rDEF' date=' to the point that KAs become totally ineffective, since that's relatively expensive: not everyone's a brick. It means that KA will be better for some targets and worse against others.[/quote']

 

Going from 12 rDEF to 18 costs 6 points (3 each for PD and ED). At 18 and 24, normal attacks average 18 and KA's average 15.5, so that's more than enough. Drop it to 16 and only spend 4 points, and Normal and KA are pretty much equal. Go from 24 & 12 to 23 & 14 and he takes 19 or 19.5 with no extra points spent - he can spend the extra 4 with xp.

 

It may work better in many Heroic games where available rDEF is more easily and plausibly restricted, and you can always enforce limits in a Supers game as well. But then everyone likely buys the limit and we're back to homogeneity at a different level. And we've provided an incentive for one type of attack vs the other, so we're back to one being favoured.

 

My experience was that Blasters had the most rDEF because they used more Force Fields.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

It is worth noting that KAs, even under 6e with 1-3 stun multipliers, are still more likely to obtain stunning results (in the Hero sense) than normal attacks at the same DC: a combination of an above average roll (15+ on 4d6), which occurs about 45% of the time and a 3 multiplier will give an above average stun result for a 12DC normal atatck and the thing I've noticed about probabilities is that they are only useful for predicting stuff from a distance: you can go through as single session where you manage to roll 3 on 3d6 several times. Then you won't do it for agaes, but that is not the point, the point is that it has added significant randomness to the scenario - if those rolls were critical to the outcome of the scenario.

 

What normal attacks do is normalise damage distribution, which is generally a good thing for players and the GM. It is also worth noting that a 12DC normal attack is fatal to most 'normal' humans.

 

It might be worth asking what killing attacks are in the system for, and what we want them to do.

 

I think that what I would like killing attacks to be good at is killing stuff. In almost every case, attacks that kill do so by damaging internal organs: blades and bullets cut blood vessels or damage heart or brain, fire destroys the lungs, and so on. In most cases, killing attacks are things that destroy or disrupt the integrity of flesh. To kill quickly you generally have to damage or destroy a vital organ. Suffocation is a sort of exception: nothing gets destroyed, but the brain runs out of power and stops - similar principle, but a bit of a different approach.

 

 

What this means is that the Hero system of using Body as a measure of how damaged you are and whether you are alive or not is not necessarily terribly accurate. OK, Stun is not terribly accurate but probably does a better job of keeping a tally of consciousness than Body does of aliveness.

 

Moreover, attacks that kill do not need to do a lot of damage to kill - they just need to do a bit in the right place. It is easier to cut through an artery than a finger - so, gain - Body damage does not necessarily do a good job of indicating lethality.

 

Whilst it might well be true that attacks that do a lot of damage have a good chance of killing a target, it is not necessarily true that attacks that have a good chance of killing a target do a lot of damage.

 

This leaves us with issues, given the current framework for purchasing 'damage'.

 

It seems to me that there are a couple of points here:

 

1. How likely it is that the attack is going to be able to damage vital organs - sort of 'penetration', and

2. What effect an attack that has penetrated should have.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

It is worth noting that KAs' date=' even under 6e with 1-3 stun multipliers, are still more likely to obtain stunning results (in the Hero sense) than normal attacks at the same DC: a combination of an above average roll (15+ on 4d6), which occurs about 45% of the time and a 3 multiplier will give an above average stun result for a 12DC normal atatck[/quote']

 

It's not so far above as to be implausible on 12d6. I've seen lots of 50+ rolls on 12d6, so setting the bar at 45 isn't really that high. And 45+ is about a 15%, based on a 15+ BOD roll being 45% likely and 1/3 of these getting a 3xs multiple. 24x2 = 48, so the extreme BOD 2x multiples aren't very significant, statistically.

 

However, 51+ is still much more likely on a 4d6 KA than a 12d6 normal attack.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Absolutely: which makes the killing attack the weapon of choice for those who expect to be chucking a lot of lead down range i.e. the enemy NPC mooks. Killing attacks are not that good for PCs: they are not reliable enough to be worth the risk of spending an entire combat doing no damage - but NPCs have a different outlook - eventually they will roll well.

 

I think that we probably do not really (in any absolute sense) need a different mechanism from Blast + Advantages to 'do' lethal attacks (or eventually lethal attacks), but if we are going to have a specific 'killing attack' mechanism, I think it should be different to the one we have.