Defences against the stun of KAs [Archive] - HERO Games Discussion Boards

Sean Waters

May 26th, '08, 08:46 AM

Hugh Neilson

May 26th, '08, 01:58 PM

I think this would be necessary to justify increasing the cost of a killing attack. It would also nicely eliminate "AVLD - Resistant Flash Defense". You would pay an extra advantage for your attack to be reduced only by a resistant form of the defense.

BNakagawa

May 27th, '08, 01:49 AM

Kenn

May 27th, '08, 08:27 AM

Killing Attacks are assumed to have some kind of attribute that makes muscle, bone, fat and flesh ineffective as defenses against them. Muscle, bone, fat and flesh can defend against blunt ("normal damage") attacks.

The basic assumption is that resistant defenses effectively blunt the stun damage.

A bullet that hits me in the chest is going to rip through the muscle, fat, and flesh and maybe hit a lung or my heart. A bullet that hits my flack vest, is very likely to hurt, but the tightly bound kevlar fibres distribute the force over a larger area.

A sword to my head is going to cut me open. If I'm wearing a helm, the impact may still make my head ring, but that's from the helmet striking the whole side of my face., not from a cut.

A laser will cut right through me. I can run my unshielded hand through an open flame. I put my gauntleted hand in the flame, and if I'm unlucky, the gauntlet will heat up. You shoot a laser at the gauntlet, and the gauntlet heats uo before the laser cuts through.

Mike W

May 27th, '08, 08:04 PM

Why do the rules allow all defences to be used against killing attacks if you have any resistant defence at all?

This has always been the way we have done it, of course, and I can see that it has game balance implications - if we did not do it that way then killing attacks would very often create 'stun' results, unless you either bought limited addional resistant defences (only against stun from KAs - messy) or always bought your resistant defences high (not desperately realistic).

So there are clearly solid game balance reasons, but that was back then. Nowadays, Hero is a toolkit, a character modelling system, and I'm coming to the conclusion that rule constraints like this - systems in place to balance the game - have to be looked at to determine if they are still appropriate. Moreover, it simply is not very realistic: if you have 10 pd and you get stabbed for 6 Body, it is not going to hurt signigicantly less than if you had 1 point resistant defences on - 5 Body still get through.

If ONLY resistant defences stopped killing attacks, then there would be a clear case for increasing the cost of killing attacks: they would, in effect, be a +1/2 advantage over the equivalent DCs of normal attack, and similarly, a +1/2 advantage on normal defences would make those defences fully resistant to killing attacks (I'd suggest a +1/4 advantage would make normal defences resistant to EITHER the Body or Stun of Killing Attacks).

Anyway - any thoughts on this: even if you don't belive any changes should be made it might be useful to discuss all the implications?

I think the fact that you if you take BODY damage , you must take an equal amount of STUN damage, regardless of what DEF you have is an important part of the balance.

I think that giving people "full DEF" versus the STUN of killing attacks does two things that are imporant to play. First, it keeps the casualties down. It's not just the fact that only allowing resistant DEF to reduce the STUN damage would result in more people getting stunned. It would also result in more people getting killed, especially PCs since any nasty bad guy who just stunned you with a KA would likely try to finish you off with the next shot.

Second, there are cinematic reasons.

In a gun battle, can you imagine how important it would be to get the first the shot in? Similarly, how can you have long sword fights?

Kdansky

May 27th, '08, 08:17 PM

That is how I would want to have Killing Attacks redefined in 6th. Only resistant defenses work, and KAs are more expensive. We can then also go and roll them the same way as EB. The only sad thing about it. I like to have choices which are different, and this one is not so much.

braincraft

May 27th, '08, 10:37 PM

The obvious solution is to build humans with limited DEF.

-1/4, not against lethal attacks, anyone?

Qelan

May 28th, '08, 01:57 AM

The obvious solution is to build humans with limited DEF.

-1/4, not against lethal attacks, anyone?

I am with braincraft.

Hugh Neilson

May 28th, '08, 05:16 AM

The obvious solution is to build humans with limited DEF.

-1/4, not against lethal attacks, anyone?

I am with braincraft.

If 90% of the abilities uses require a limitation, I'd rather build in the limitation and make that the standard. Which is the present structure.

[besides, it's only lethal if it kills me and it doesn't kill me if my defenses apply - paradox]

Tech

May 28th, '08, 06:05 AM

If 90% of the abilities uses require a limitation, I'd rather build in the limitation and make that the standard. Which is the present structure.

Agreed.

Although in the campaign I'm in, the houserule we use it that if you have resistant defenses, you get to use up to twice the resistant defense to defend agaisnst the Stun damage, up to your maximum defense.

EX. Ironclad has a PD of 20 with 10 Armor for a power. He's hit for a KA sword for 10 Body and 30 Stun. The 10 Body doesn't get through the armor. For the stun damage, Ironclad gets to subtract 20 PD from the Stun (10 Armor resistant defense x2 = 20) and thus, takes 10 Stun.

This houserule prevents the abuse of people taking only 1 or 2 pts of Resistant Defense knowing they will get their full PD or ED against the Stun... doesn't do much against the Body damage though.

Markdoc

May 28th, '08, 06:18 AM

the problem with increasing the cost of KAs is that it makes them ineffective when used to break things like force walls, entangles and foci.

The simplest answer is to reduce the amount of stun generated by KAs.

I agree. Killing attacks that don't penetrate defences should do little if any stun. That solves several problems with one hit.

First, it eliminates the much hated stun-lottery (personally it doesn't bother me that much, but I acknowledge that many people do hate it.)
Second, it provides a simple way to build the bullet-resistant Brick comic in comic books: if you have decent rPD, you need fear no ordinary bullets
Third, it actually gives you a reason to use EB such as the energy blaster used by some super agents: if bullets won't stop him, at least the blaster might hurt him...

cheers, Mark

Sean Waters

May 31st, '08, 02:09 PM

Perhaps the humble KA is not there to damage material objects, but to damage the living. A 60 point KA averages 14 points of Body and has a pretty good chance of exceeding that by a good few points. An entangle with 60 points spent on it usually has 6/6 DEF/BODY but can get up to 8/4 DEF/Body at a push. A Force Wall averages 12/12 DEF but can theoretically get up to 24/0 (a stupid idea, because any energy attack will take it down completely) or, if transparent, get up to 16/0: again pretty daft as a general defence although it might be OK for certain types of build.

That means that killing attacks, especially, undermine the effect of other powers - making them far less useful. Also they tend to take down the world around them pretty effectively (although nowhere near as effectively as I personally powerful attacks ought to - I tend to seriously reduce the higher end of 'real world' DEF though rather than increase Body damage).

IMO, KAs already do too much Body (despte what I said above): Hero allows very cheap KAs - either as slots in MPs or as HKAs to which you can add your strength damage, so, in effect, further undermining the effect of defensive powers and entangle.

Now if KAs worked as a +1/2 advantage you'd only manage 8 Body from a 60 point attack. As has been pointed out this quite seriously undermines the ability of KAs to damage things, which seems counterintuitive , but probably isn't: KAs are designed to kill, not necessarily to damage to physical objects: a bullet, whilst it may well do quite a bit of damage to a person, is unlikely to do much damage to a concrete wall.

That would mean that the EB, or equivalent normal attack, would be king for damaging undifferentiated/homogenous stuff, or perhaps the AP EB would. However, for damaging living objects, the Killing Attack would come into its own.

SteveZilla

Jun 6th, '08, 11:00 PM

Sean Waters

Jun 6th, '08, 11:56 PM

I like the idea that all of the defense applies against the KA's Stun Damage if you have some Resistant Defense against the KA. IMO it is a good model for the effect of wearing a Bullet-Proof Vest. The vest is enough Resistant Defense to stop the Body of the KA, and as someone else upthread observed, it "blunts" the Stun of the attack, allowing the full defense to be used against the Stun damage. The "tougher" the cop wearing the vest, the less they will be seriously affected by the Stun of the KA that gets through the BP Vest.

That works if the vest actually stops the Body of the attack or at least a significant part of it (so you can explain the bleedthrough of Body damage as bruising and broken ribs, perhaps, but it is no model at all when the vest is insufficient to stop the bullet penetrating. Almost all of the stun will be as a result of the internal damage. Moreover, if the vest incorporates plating, not just kevlar, very little stun is ever likely to get through. A bullet simply is not heavy enough to do much impact damage: it hurts because it deforms and tears flesh.

You could define a vest with a new type of defence: conversion defences. A conversion defence would convert DCs of killing damage into DCs of normal damage.

Say you buy 1 DC of physical conversion for 1 point. When the vest is hit, you look at the total conversion defence and subtract that from the total DC of the charcter, and apply the remainder as a killing attack and the converted part as a normal attack, so:

2d6 KA (6 DCs) hits a vest with 4 Conversion Defence. The attack is 'split' into a 4DC normal attack (which does e.g. 4 Body, 14 stun) and a 2DC KA (which does e.g. 2 Body and 6 stun. If the character has any resistant defences, apply them first to the KA damage. Let us say this one doesn't - that would mean teh character takes the 2 Body and 6 stun from the KA. the damage from the 'converted' normal part of the attack applies to defences normally.

That seems to me to be quite a nice model: the tougher cop gets to apply his higher normal defences to the converted part of the damage, but not to any actual KA that penetrates - which is probably quite realistic.

It does involve a little more calculation but most refinements do.

About the Stun Lotto: How about taking 2d6, divide by 2, round down, subtract 1 (minimum of 1, of course)?

xResult % Chance
1 29.62962963
2 25.92592593
3 22.22222222
4 18.51851852
5 3.703703704

Here's another idea for Killing Attacks to reduce the Stun they do. Each d6 of a killing attack comes with two more d6 that adds to the Stun Damage. No Multiple, so no Stun Lotto. 1d6 KA = 1d6, count fully as STUN and BODY damage, +2d6 that count fully as STUN damage.

A 1d6 KA with this method maxes out at 6 BODY, 18 STUN. Since this significantly drops the potential Stun damage a KA can do, I would think it would go with any change that the KA Stun is only stopped by the resistant def.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that we need to reduce the stun of killing attacks, my point is more that if a killing attack fails in its primary objective, that is doing killing damage to the target, then it si wrong to allow a ludicrous amoutn of stun through.

Tghinking about it the way to accomplish that is pretty obvious: roll damage, apply defences to Body damage THEN calculate stun damage depending on how much Body got through:

No Body penetration of defences: stun multiplier = 2
Up to half total Body damage penetrates: stun multiplier = 3
More than half total Body damage penetrates: stun multiplier = 4

This removes the 1 and 5 results (both of which can be a bit silly) and ties the stun to how effectively the attack penetrated defences, whilst not requiring any additional mechanic or rolls.

I quite like your 'roll stun seperately and add' mechanic. I'll have a think about that one :thumbup:

Kdansky

Jun 8th, '08, 08:15 PM

About the Stun Lotto: How about taking 2d6, divide by 2, round down, subtract 1 (minimum of 1, of course)?

xResult % Chance
1 29.62962963
2 25.92592593
3 22.22222222
4 18.51851852
5 3.703703704

I have tried that for a game. It was horrible. It slows down combat significantly (try to do (9/2 -1) * 17 quickly) and does not alleviate the problem at all. Instead of having a instakill result once every couple phases, you only have about one per turn. Which is still too much.

I will try x2 or 1d3 next game. Probably x2 for HKAs improved by strength (because those are always HUGE), and 1d3 for RKAs (since these tend to 20% to 50% smaller).

SteveZilla

Jun 8th, '08, 10:01 PM

I have tried that for a game. It was horrible. It slows down combat significantly (try to do (9/2 -1) * 17 quickly) and does not alleviate the problem at all. Instead of having a instakill result once every couple phases, you only have about one per turn. Which is still too much.

I will try x2 or 1d3 next game. Probably x2 for HKAs improved by strength (because those are always HUGE), and 1d3 for RKAs (since these tend to 20% to 50% smaller).

Having never tried it in-game, I wasn't sure how easy it would be to do that math. On the surface, it seemed no harder than any other combat rolls & calculations. I am surprised that with a 3.7% chance, a x5 multiple is coming up about once per turn. That tells me an average of about 27 Killing Atacks are being thrown per Turn. :eek:

Do you have a DC cap for your game? If so, why are RKAs 20-50% below that? :confused:

=====

It seems to me that the main objection to the Stun for Killing Attacks (generated the normal way) is two-fold. That x5 generates too high a STUN value, and that it comes up way too often.

I was wondering how many of us think that x5 is too high, but think that x4 would be acceptable as a maximum?

As an aside, one of the nice (IMO) things about my idea of using two additional dice (per d6 of KA) to determine the full STUN of the KA is that the STUN results become a smooth "bell curve", loosing the gaps & jumps that using a multiplier causes.

Book Method: 1d6 KA => 3.5 Avg/6 Max BODY, 9.333 Avg/30 Max STUN
My Method: 1d6 KA => 3.5 Avg/6 Max BODY, 10.5 Avg/18 Max STUN

My Method produces a STUN curve identical to a normal attack of equal DCs, and 0.5 more BODY per 3 DCs (presuming neither are advantaged).

Doc Democracy

Jun 9th, '08, 05:26 AM

I agree. Killing attacks that don't penetrate defences should do little if any stun. That solves several problems with one hit.

First, it eliminates the much hated stun-lottery (personally it doesn't bother me that much, but I acknowledge that many people do hate it.)
Second, it provides a simple way to build the bullet-resistant Brick comic in comic books: if you have decent rPD, you need fear no ordinary bullets
Third, it actually gives you a reason to use EB such as the energy blaster used by some super agents: if bullets won't stop him, at least the blaster might hurt him...

I like this one.

I think that a killing attack should get its STUN as multiples of BODY done to the target. I'd even be willing to see the multiplier increased for this but if it bounces then it would do no damage.

I would allow defences to be bought such that they allowed the STUN to be done through them but I'll bet few people would do that.

I think that I'd make the rule something like as follows:

0 BODY - 0 STUN
1-3 BODY - 1-3 * 1D6
4-6 BODY - 4-6 * 2D6

Etc etc

Now this makes the Killing attack increasingly effective if the damage is getting through but much less effective if it is not.

Some people might not like the exponential increase in STUN/BODY ration but I like the fact that a hit that does lots of BODY is almost certain to do lots of STUN.

I might even implement this in the next game I run.

Doc

Hugh Neilson

Jun 9th, '08, 05:35 AM

I like this one.

I think that a killing attack should get its STUN as multiples of BODY done to the target. I'd even be willing to see the multiplier increased for this but if it bounces then it would do no damage.

I would allow defences to be bought such that they allowed the STUN to be done through them but I'll bet few people would do that.

I think that I'd make the rule something like as follows:

0 BODY - 0 STUN
1-3 BODY - 1-3 * 1D6
4-6 BODY - 4-6 * 2D6

Etc etc

Now this makes the Killing attack increasingly effective if the damage is getting through but much less effective if it is not.

Some people might not like the exponential increase in STUN/BODY ration but I like the fact that a hit that does lots of BODY is almost certain to do lots of STUN.

I might even implement this in the next game I run.

The problem I see with this approach is that the utility of a KA becomes dependent on the attack/defense ratio in the game in question. In a gritty, low rDEF, high DC game, BOD generally gets through, and KA's will be effective.

In a higher rDEF game, the utility of KA's decline, and Penetrating or AP become the only way to make a KA effective. Who wants an attack that will get an average of 1-6, or 2-12, STUN through?

Move up to a game level where KA's rarely get BOD through, and they become next to useless, outside AP Penetrating attacks designed to guarantee at least some BOD against most characters.

If I need to get at least 4 BOD through to stand a chance at inflicting some STUN, then I want the ability to buy my KA to get that kind of BOD through on a reliable basis. If I get 4 BOD through on average, I'll get 28 STUN through on average, which is pretty potent, so I'd probably settle for reliably getting 2 - 5 BOD through on a typical hit in a Supers context. But that's a lot of BOD per hit in a standard Supers game. And if half the characters will be basically immune (bulletproof), I want the other half to be seriously injured to make up for it, or my points are much better spent elsewhere. That's going to add up to a pretty hefty body count.

Doc Democracy

Jun 9th, '08, 06:18 AM

The problem I see with this approach is that the utility of a KA becomes dependent on the attack/defense ratio in the game in question. In a gritty, low rDEF, high DC game, BOD generally gets through, and KA's will be effective.

I guess it all becomes designing the game that you want.

In my superheroes I would enforce defences based on whether people expect them to be bulletproof - hard to stop - tough - essentially normal.

It is all about feel and this would provide a good way of getting the feel without necessarily losing the ability to chew up the background.

If someone feels the need to do damage to characters and KAs are not doing that then they can stick to normal damage, modify the killing attacks or go for some other method of attack.

I do not buy into the desire of players to buy killing attacks to get the ability to do lots of STUN damage.

I think that the utility of a killing attack should vary dependent upon the game - it does when you switch between genres of fiction as well.

In some cowby games one bullet and you are dead. In other thrillers the hero gets shot and is running several scenes later, injury apparently forgotten, fought through, ignored.

:)

Doc

Sean Waters

Jun 9th, '08, 08:02 AM

Everyone has a different idea about how damage from killing attacks should work.

Personally I don't like the two stun lotteries we have at present. Everyone talks about the possibility of a '5' coming up for stun as being the only problem, but it is not: because of the small number of dice we roll for Body damage, you get very variable results there too, so even if you peg the stun multiple at (say) 3, then you can still get results for Body of 17 or more on 4d6 about 1/4 of the time, and that translates to a stun result of 51+, which would be very unlikely on 12d6 (about 7.5% of the time).

So, even correcting for the stun multiplier, you can get some pretty wild Body results, which that can translate to some pretty wild Stun results - and also has the effect of making the whole world more randomly frangible, as it becomes far more difficult to predict if an object will be damaged by a given attack.

Mind you, whilst I can (and have) suggested a number of fixes, from rolling killing attacks like normal attacks to rolling normal attacks like killing attacks and many points in between and, indeed, off to the side, in truth no one solution is going to make everyone happy.

To have any hope of seriously improving the overall satisfaction stats you need to represent several different options with a commentary on best use for various genres and feels. The only real guiding principle is that a KA should be no more effective than a normal attack in terms of point utility, so it should not really make a great deal of difference which method any given group choses to use - there would still be a reasonable basis for comparison.

BNakagawa

Jun 9th, '08, 08:59 AM

Sean Waters

Jun 9th, '08, 09:15 AM

If that's too much math, then roll two dice for the stun multiple and take the lower roll.

This method yields an average of about 2.5 stun multiple.
11x1 30.56%
9x2 25%
7x3 19.44%
5x4 13.89%
3x5 8.33%
1x6 2.78%

A difficulty is not simply the decision how to apply a stun multiple but also the problem that the Body result is also highly variable.

BNakagawa

Jun 9th, '08, 09:22 AM

A difficulty is not simply the decision how to apply a stun multiple but also the problem that the Body result is also highly variable.

True, but it's also part and parcel of the nature of the killing attack as perceived by most.

If I tell you somebody got shot by a 9mm automatic pistol, then depending on where they were hit, you'd be asking me when they were due to get out of the hospital or where to send flowers.

Sean Waters

Jun 9th, '08, 09:46 AM

True, but it's also part and parcel of the nature of the killing attack as perceived by most.

If I tell you somebody got shot by a 9mm automatic pistol, then depending on where they were hit, you'd be asking me when they were due to get out of the hospital or where to send flowers.

That again comes back to penetration: a bullet that doesn't get into you is not likely to send you for a wooden overcoat. My view on that is that we have hit locations to sort all that out, and could ramp up the complexity of hit locations a little to simulate more gritty realities, whislt completely ignoring them for unrealistic worlds.

The same could easily be said for normal attacks: a punch to the nose is likely to be far more debilitating than a punch to the shoulder blade, but we don't feel the need to make damage variability a function of normal attacks in the same way.

Markdoc

Jun 9th, '08, 09:54 AM

The problem I see with this approach is that the utility of a KA becomes dependent on the attack/defense ratio in the game in question. In a gritty, low rDEF, high DC game, BOD generally gets through, and KA's will be effective.

In a higher rDEF game, the utility of KA's decline, and Penetrating or AP become the only way to make a KA effective. Who wants an attack that will get an average of 1-6, or 2-12, STUN through?

Move up to a game level where KA's rarely get BOD through, and they become next to useless, outside AP Penetrating attacks designed to guarantee at least some BOD against most characters.

I'm not sure that's a bug rather than a feature: in gritty games, killing attacks are supposed to be dangerous. In high-point supers, they aren't supposed to be dangerous. Look at Wolverine, pretty much the poster boy for "I go stabby". How many times does he actually kill named characters with his "cut through anything" claws? Sure, he chews up the scenery (in both meanings of the phrase), but he rarely kills anything more important than ninjas with his claws, and they die like flies against almost anyone.

cheers, Mark

BNakagawa

Jun 9th, '08, 10:20 AM

That again comes back to penetration: a bullet that doesn't get into you is not likely to send you for a wooden overcoat. My view on that is that we have hit locations to sort all that out, and could ramp up the complexity of hit locations a little to simulate more gritty realities, whislt completely ignoring them for unrealistic worlds.

The same could easily be said for normal attacks: a punch to the nose is likely to be far more debilitating than a punch to the shoulder blade, but we don't feel the need to make damage variability a function of normal attacks in the same way.

Not necessarily. A 9mm bullet that goes in one side of my arm and out the other is not likely to kill me. Same with my foot, my hand, my leg, and a good percentage of my torso. (major arteries notwithstanding)

A 9mm bullet that goes in one side of my brain, heart or spine is much more likely to kill or catastrophically injure me. It's not about penetration, it's about location. One inch one direction or another might make the difference between a week in rehab and DOA.

That's one of the principal arguments for the degree of randomness in KA body totals. A knife wound can be superficial or it can be lethal.

Hit locations are an optional ruleset, even more complicated than Killing attacks. Also more potentially unbalancing. 8 PSLs vs hit location penalties are worthless to a character with no attacks, but absolutely devastatingly effective to one with good OCV and a powerful attack...

Maur

Jun 9th, '08, 10:47 AM

Hugh Neilson

Jun 9th, '08, 10:53 AM

I'm not sure that's a bug rather than a feature: in gritty games, killing attacks are supposed to be dangerous. In high-point supers, they aren't supposed to be dangerous. Look at Wolverine, pretty much the poster boy for "I go stabby". How many times does he actually kill named characters with his "cut through anything" claws? Sure, he chews up the scenery (in both meanings of the phrase), but he rarely kills anything more important than ninjas with his claws, and they die like flies against almost anyone.

He is not, however, basically ineffective against super powered opposition (named characters). The proposed change would mean you are either ineffective or lethal, with no real room in between.

Doc Democracy

Jun 9th, '08, 11:05 AM

He is not, however, basically ineffective against super powered opposition (named characters). The proposed change would mean you are either ineffective or lethal, with no real room in between.

It is all a matter of build. If you are determined to build adamantium claws as a killing attack with no other power possible then that's the way of it. If you want to be a bit more creative in giving them the possibility of being built as added dice to HtH then you will have options...

Hero is not as restrictive as you are making out in support of your argument...

:D

Doc

Hugh Neilson

Jun 9th, '08, 11:18 AM

It is all a matter of build. If you are determined to build adamantium claws as a killing attack with no other power possible then that's the way of it. If you want to be a bit more creative in giving them the possibility of being built as added dice to HtH then you will have options...

Hero is not as restrictive as you are making out in support of your argument...

There are certainly alternatives to build Wolvie's claws. However, I would rather simply eliminate Killing Attacks entirely then make them a choice between "useless" and "lethal". The proposed change leaves no real room in between.

Markdoc

Jun 9th, '08, 11:31 AM

Here's an idea that possibly addresses both of these points and simplifies things slightly from where we are now.

1. Leave the mechanisms for KA exactly where they are - in other words, a killing attack costs 15 points per d6 (or 3 DC) and does 1-6 BOD. This answers the problems about balancing killing attacks off against forcewalls, entangles, etc.

2. Change the killing attack multiplier to a full d6, but only apply it against BOD that goes through resistant defences. Killing attacks completely ignore nonresistant defences. This means that against unarmoured targets a killing attack is unequivocally superior - it does more BOD (on average) and more STUN - on average. In gritty settings a guy with a sword is far more likely to take you out than a guy with a baseball bat, which seems about right. It is however, much more variable, reflecting the way killing attacks work in real life.

What this means is that killing attacks remain the preferred way of doing BOD to a target - across any range of rDEF, they still do more damage than a normal attack of equivalent points. However, their ability to do STUN rapidly degrades, though it remains more variable. And a character with more rDEF than the attack can dish out is essentially immune to it, since 0 BOD will get through to be multiplied.

The advantages of this approach are:
1. Minimal differences from existing rules - therefore remains balanced against other powers
2. Killing attacks are good for killing people, not so good for stunning people
3. Killing attacks are more variable.
4. Slightly simpler math (instead of "count body, multiply by d6-1, subtract rDEF from BOD, subtract rDEF+DEF from STUN" you get "count body, subtract rDEF from BOD, multiply by d6 for STUN")
5. You can now simplify hit locations to use the same multipliers for normal and killing damage.
6. It allows a relatively simple way to build "bullet-proof bricks" and "bullet-proof vehicles" without rendering the target impervious to harm.

Conceptually, it also makes sense. Imagine an armoured target like Iron Man taking a hit from a high powered rifle (3d6 RKA). It goes "ping" and at most staggers him a little. Now imagine the same target being hit by a 9d6 punch from (say) another armoured suit. It has even less chance to penetrate his defences than the RKA, but it is very likely to do do knockback, hurling him several metres away. In that case, it's reasonable that more STUN is done as the target is mashed up against the inside of his armour (and his brain is bounced off the inside of his skull).

The only disadvantage I can see is that at the heroic level, smaller killing attacks will become ineffective against heavily-armoured foes. That's not actualy unrealistic - late period knights on foot were almost immune to arrow fire, and it would place a premium on the kind of weapons actually used by knights of that era (picks, polearms - any sort of AP weapon). For modern games body armour would be very effective against small arms, but a hit to an unprotected bit would take you out right smart. That's also not unrealistic, but in both cases, it would alter game balance significantly.

The cost of STUN multiplier would also need looking at: with this system, it might be better priced at +1/4, but I haven't played around with the numbers enough to say.

cheers, Mark

Markdoc

Jun 9th, '08, 11:48 AM

By the way, you can die from being shot while wearing a bulletproof vest and the bullet not penetrating. Look at the two bank robbers from LA that were wearing full body armor. One was basically pulped internally by the shockwave of all those rounds the cops fired into him, but none got through the armor.

Incorrect.

Larry Phillips shot himself in the head, to avoid capture - and he didn't do it through his armour. Emil Matasareanu's armour was penetrated by at least 10 bullets, according to police reports (the coroner's report says 29 injuries, but I guess most of them were superficial) and he later bled to death while awaiting an ambulance.
http://losangeles.broowaha.com/article.php?id=859
In Hero terms, the armour stopped most of the BOD and pretty much all of the STUN, but the 10 or 11 BOD he had taken from the bullets that got through was enough that he bled out on his recoveries.

Speaking as a physician who has seen bullet trauma, I'd say it's damn near impossible to do lethal injury with a bullet that doesn't penetrate body armour, no matter how many times you hit it - and Phillips and Matasareanu prove that.

cheers, Mark

Kenn

Jun 9th, '08, 12:25 PM

Kenn

Jun 9th, '08, 12:30 PM

On a semi-related note, do any of you remember how in some old supplements (most notably Aaron Allston's Strike Force) how there were characters with "bullet proof spandex" bought as Damage Resistance?

Granted this was back in the days when Damage Resistance was bought either "half" or "full". I sometime wonder how that compares to Armor for modeling the effects of some types of body armour.

Mike W

Jun 10th, '08, 08:21 AM

Having never tried it in-game, I wasn't sure how easy it would be to do that math. On the surface, it seemed no harder than any other combat rolls & calculations. I am surprised that with a 3.7% chance, a x5 multiple is coming up about once per turn. That tells me an average of about 27 Killing Atacks are being thrown per Turn. :eek:

Do you have a DC cap for your game? If so, why are RKAs 20-50% below that? :confused:

=====

It seems to me that the main objection to the Stun for Killing Attacks (generated the normal way) is two-fold. That x5 generates too high a STUN value, and that it comes up way too often.

I was wondering how many of us think that x5 is too high, but think that x4 would be acceptable as a maximum?

As an aside, one of the nice (IMO) things about my idea of using two additional dice (per d6 of KA) to determine the full STUN of the KA is that the STUN results become a smooth "bell curve", loosing the gaps & jumps that using a multiplier causes.

Book Method: 1d6 KA => 3.5 Avg/6 Max BODY, 9.333 Avg/30 Max STUN
My Method: 1d6 KA => 3.5 Avg/6 Max BODY, 10.5 Avg/18 Max STUN

My Method produces a STUN curve identical to a normal attack of equal DCs, and 0.5 more BODY per 3 DCs (presuming neither are advantaged).

In some ways a large number of KA doesn't surprise me. If you look through the published characters, especially for 4th edition, it seemed like almost every villain with an energy power had a KA slot. But resistant defenses were less common. That kind of ratio leads to some bloody gaming.

As a way to tone down the blood, we basically let anyone buy 8-10 points of resistant defenses as "necessary for survival in a supers game", regardless of anything else. They could buy it natural, call it an armored costume, whatever they wanted. We also used the x3 STUN multiplier and it worked pretty well. The math was a lot easier and having 4D6 for the BODY still left KA with a lot more variable damage than their EB/HA counterparts.

Sean Waters

Jun 10th, '08, 11:09 AM

8 PSLs vs hit location are deadly even with someone with a weak OCV as it means that what few hits that person gets in are far more damaging than another weak OCV character that lacks those PSLs. Gives that character double the body and 5x stun mult for any killing attack that connects. The person with high OCV might not even need those PSLs to do the same thing if the DCV/Defenses of the target are proportionally weaker.

I've never played in champions (supers don't interest me at all), so I've only played using the hit locations (no stun lotto) and don't find the variability of KAs to be all that bad vs normal attacks.

By the way, you can die from being shot while wearing a bulletproof vest and the bullet not penetrating. Look at the two bank robbers from LA that were wearing full body armor. One was basically pulped internally by the shockwave of all those rounds the cops fired into him, but none got through the armor.

I bow to markdoc on this one. I daresay that if you spent enough time shooting someone in a bulletproof vest then you could do some quite serious, but superficial, damage even if the bullets did not penetrate, but then you could do the same if you punched them enough. If a bullet does not penetrate armour then the only damage it does is through momentum, and the punch probably beats it there, given the difference in mass between a properly swung fist and a bullet.

As for the PSLs I think they fit awkwardly into Hero: we specifically do not have a damage system that relates to how well you hit someone. I've never seen a non-super (or non-magic) explanation for someone being able to shoot the head every time they hit.

Sean Waters

Jun 10th, '08, 11:10 AM

Not necessarily. A 9mm bullet that goes in one side of my arm and out the other is not likely to kill me. Same with my foot, my hand, my leg, and a good percentage of my torso. (major arteries notwithstanding)

A 9mm bullet that goes in one side of my brain, heart or spine is much more likely to kill or catastrophically injure me. It's not about penetration, it's about location. One inch one direction or another might make the difference between a week in rehab and DOA.

That's one of the principal arguments for the degree of randomness in KA body totals. A knife wound can be superficial or it can be lethal.

Hit locations are an optional ruleset, even more complicated than Killing attacks. Also more potentially unbalancing. 8 PSLs vs hit location penalties are worthless to a character with no attacks, but absolutely devastatingly effective to one with good OCV and a powerful attack...

The problem I have is that the variability of Body does not work well with defences.

If a target is not armoured at all then you can simulate the variability of Body damage with a wide range random damage roll - just like we have at present.

However, if a character is armoured, the same logic makes much less sense: if a bullet can't penetrate a 4mm sheet of metal (for example) it won't penetrate it no matter where it is on the body. The great variability makes building armour which is basically bulletproof quite difficult.

That is compounded when you add in stun multiples: a bullet that bounces off a helmet will not do 5 times as much stun as a bullet that bounces off a glove.

I agree that the location of a hit that gets Body through is a vital component of the formula for calculating effect, but I don't think that it should only be a factor, not the whole of the consideration.

The problem is even clearer with inanimate objects: If you fire a bullet at a sheet of steel it will go through or it won't and, if you fire another, unless you change the range or angle of attack, that will do the same thing: the results will be consistent. Killing damage in Hero is anything but consistent.

Of course I appreciate that, in combat, there are randomising factors: range and angle of attack do change, often all the time, but that still does not really explain the difference to my mind.

A system where the damage done by killing attacks was more consistent and the randomisation of damage was done by a hit location system that was genre specific we might have a better model all round.

Sean Waters

Jun 10th, '08, 11:29 AM

Complete aside but I think that Body damage, whilst realistic in terms of the time it takes to heal (generally) is so debilitating that it can spoil an adventure.

I think that an intermediate step between stun and Body might be a nice idea. The trouble is the extra book keeping that 'long term stun' entails.

One way around this is to make certain assumptions about Body damage. the first point of Body damage from any attack is mainly shock - it can be fatal, but doesn't last that long: if you survive the battle, it goes away.

The second point of Body damage from any attack causes bruising and contusion which lasts a day (or maybe less if you want a more heroic feel).

Any additional Body damage is 'normal' and heals as per the rules.

This means that characters can often take a reasonable amount of Body without having to rush off home to take to their beds immediately after every combat.

BNakagawa

Jun 10th, '08, 12:10 PM

As for the PSLs I think they fit awkwardly into Hero: we specifically do not have a damage system that relates to how well you hit someone. I've never seen a non-super (or non-magic) explanation for someone being able to shoot the head every time they hit.

You know that face recognition software used in casinos (and other places) to scan for crooks/card counters etc?

That + a laser = a production line for headshots.

Markdoc

Jun 10th, '08, 02:28 PM

As far as the option Marcdoc put forth a few posts up goes, I think it sounds interesting, and at least worth considering. I do have a question about it.

How would one explain why, for example, an armoured medieval knight would be in more pain from someone hitting him with a 5 lb. club than the same someone hitting him with a 5 lb. sword? If the armour is thick enough, he'd possibly take no stun from the sword blow, but the club might still do STUN damage.

Remember that a club also has to take into account nonresistant DEF so at the low end of the scale, a light club is unlikely to do much. But in general, clubs (and similar impact weapons) are heavier than swords or pointy weapons, so they will pack more momentum - which translates to stun. So a 1+1d6 HKA will likely weigh 3 lbs, versus 5 lbs for a 4DC club. That's where your extra stun comes in.

cheers, Mark

Maur

Jun 10th, '08, 02:38 PM

Incorrect.

Larry Phillips shot himself in the head, to avoid capture - and he didn't do it through his armour. Emil Matasareanu's armour was penetrated by at least 10 bullets, according to police reports (the coroner's report says 29 injuries, but I guess most of them were superficial) and he later bled to death while awaiting an ambulance.
http://losangeles.broowaha.com/article.php?id=859
In Hero terms, the armour stopped most of the BOD and pretty much all of the STUN, but the 10 or 11 BOD he had taken from the bullets that got through was enough that he bled out on his recoveries.

Speaking as a physician who has seen bullet trauma, I'd say it's damn near impossible to do lethal injury with a bullet that doesn't penetrate body armour, no matter how many times you hit it - and Phillips and Matasareanu prove that.

cheers, Mark

Hmm, thought I'd read about their autopsy which talked about the internal injuries sustained but can't find the article any more (my google fu is failing me as usual).

SteveZilla

Jun 11th, '08, 03:41 AM

The problem is even clearer with inanimate objects: If you fire a bullet at a sheet of steel it will go through or it won't and, if you fire another, unless you change the range or angle of attack, that will do the same thing: the results will be consistent. Killing damage in Hero is anything but consistent.

The dice of an attack are there to represent (IMO) the dynamics of a combat, not a bench test for a gun. By clamping the gun down so it's aimed at exactly the same spot on a target round after round, and also clamping the target down so it doesn't move is, IMO, trading in the dice for Standard Effect.

Of course I appreciate that, in combat, there are randomizing factors: range and angle of attack do change, often all the time, but that still does not really explain the difference to my mind.

I think it is a sufficient explanation for most genres/flavors.

A system where the damage done by killing attacks was more consistent and the randomization of damage was done by a hit location system that was genre specific we might have a better model all round.

That IMO mixes the genre-specific rules that are usually limited to genre books with the general-use rules found in the core book(s). Also, what about those GMs who don't want to fuss with Hit Locations? There needs to be a way to determine results without involving Hit Locations.

Sean Waters

Jun 11th, '08, 08:45 AM

The dice of an attack are there to represent (IMO) the dynamics of a combat, not a bench test for a gun. By clamping the gun down so it's aimed at exactly the same spot on a target round after round, and also clamping the target down so it doesn't move is, IMO, trading in the dice for Standard Effect.

This is really getting away from the reason for the thread (mea culpa), but the point is that the explanation given for the Body of killing attacks being so variable against a living target (that hit location really is critical - a hit in the heart of brain will kill you) do not apply to the inanimate, or at least that sector of the inanimate that doesn't include objects with compartmentalised critical systems. The damage a killing attack does against a wall should be far more predictable than the damage it does against a person.

I think it is a sufficient explanation for most genres/flavors.

However the exact same factors apply in equal measure to normal attacks - if range and angle of attack are the explanation for the variability in damage then the same ranges and distributions should be found in normal and killing attacks.

That IMO mixes the genre-specific rules that are usually limited to genre books with the general-use rules found in the core book(s). Also, what about those GMs who don't want to fuss with Hit Locations? There needs to be a way to determine results without involving Hit Locations.

Core Hero already contains genre specific rules like hit locations. Hit locations and other rules (like impairing/disabling, bleeding etc) are there because it is impossible to put a handgun bullet in a normal unwounded and unenhanced hero (10 Body) and kill them. Put a heavy handgun against someone's temple and pull the trigger and, even on a maximum damage roll you won't kill them. They won't even eventually die. Much as we would like to seperate out the genre specific rules, I can't see that happening unless we are willing to sacrifice a lot of credibility.

Sean Waters

Jun 11th, '08, 08:47 AM

You know that face recognition software used in casinos (and other places) to scan for crooks/card counters etc?

That + a laser = a production line for headshots.

Heh. Nice. Doesn't explain the majority of characters who take PSLs to hit locations, but it is certainly a plausable explanation.

Markdoc

Jun 11th, '08, 10:44 AM

Hmm, thought I'd read about their autopsy which talked about the internal injuries sustained but can't find the article any more (my google fu is failing me as usual).

I've read the coroner's report, though it's no longer accessible because the LA time article that linked to it is gone. There were internal injuries, but they were from the bullets which ether penetrated his armor or went through gaps. For example, you can see in the video that he was limping badly towards the end, - that's because he took a bullet in the foot through a gap in his armour, not from shock through the armour. Phillips was bleeding heavily from a wound he took to his neck - which also went through a gap in his armour, and so on.

Practically speaking, human tissue (apart from a few vital organs) is highly flexible and can easily be highly distorted and then move back into place with little or no serious damage. It's why the whole idea of "hydrostatic shock" and "temporary cavitation" that used to be all the rage is now though to be so much hooey: in real life situations, it doesn't seem to do anything.

cheers, Mark

Kdansky

Jun 11th, '08, 05:23 PM

Tech

Jun 12th, '08, 07:04 AM

I do not buy into the desire of players to buy killing attacks to get the ability to do lots of STUN damage.

Fortunately, I haven't ever run into this problem. Even if I did, however, I wouldn't worry about it: for whatever reason, the Stun multiplier of killing attacks are very frequently low. If you want to do alot of stun damage in the campaign I'm in, don't pick KA. :rolleyes:

Kenn

Jun 12th, '08, 07:56 AM

I've not seen a problem with it either. In fact there was a player in one game I was in who got frustrated because he was playing this clawed demon brick, and he always went to the claws (HKA) first and several phases would finally give in and punch.

Doc Democracy

Jun 12th, '08, 10:15 AM

Far be it for me to repeat the maths of lots of people in previous threads.

The problem with killing attacks are the extreme high results, they come up too often.

in a 60 point game you get 12D6 or 4D6K.

Maximum STUN/BODY of the normal attack is 72 STUN 24 BODY which comes up a vanishingly small number of times, the but, on average, the killing attack will achieve in the region of 70 STUN every six hits (when the average BODY gets the maximum multiplier).

If average defences are 30 PD - giving the 12D6 12 STUN on average hit, then the killing attack will do 40 STUN every sixth hit or so - resulting almost inevitably in a stunned opponent - ripe for a finishing off attack. The normal attack will almost never do the damage to achieve a stun effect if average CON is around 28.

If I am metagaming then give me killing attacks every time - me and my buddy will win....

Doc

Kenn

Jun 12th, '08, 03:19 PM

That's a statistic, as in the third type of untruth after "lies" and "damned lies".

If I roll 1 die 5 times, and get 1 on the first roll, 2 on the second, 3 on the third, 4 on the 4th, and 5 on the fifth. On the sixth roll, what is the likelihood that a 6 will come up.

1 in 6. A die has no memory.

Doc Democracy

Jun 13th, '08, 12:00 AM

That's a statistic, as in the third type of untruth after "lies" and "damned lies".

You say it as if statistics were valueless in making game decisions. All good gamblers have an intuitive grasp of statistics and any scientist will use statistics to provide insight to problems.

The misuse of statistics may be rife but that does not mean that my use of statistics is any less value than your anecdotal relation of how Killing Attacks never really do that much STUN.

If I roll 1 die 5 times, and get 1 on the first roll, 2 on the second, 3 on the third, 4 on the 4th, and 5 on the fifth. On the sixth roll, what is the likelihood that a 6 will come up.

1 in 6. A die has no memory.

That works both ways - just because my Psycho Killer did throw a 6 on the multiplier this attack does not mean he will not do so this time.

1 in 6 is still a statistic. :)

As for results - with the 14 BODY average I am happy in a game where DEF 30 is high defences with multipliers of 3,4 or 5. Half the time I am doing at least as much stun as the normal attack does (42, 56 and 70 STUN). Indeed, I will be doing getting a stun result far more regularly than my normal attack weilding friends.

Again - more statistics but there is no way to discuss this sensibly without some level of chance analysis.

Doc

Doc

Kdansky

Jun 13th, '08, 03:25 AM

I have done *extensive* analysis on how KA vs EB is in favour of KA. Just search through the posts I have written, I think the thread is called something with the phrase "unrefutable" in it. Download my Java code and test it. KAs are just better.

Doc Democracy

Jun 13th, '08, 03:44 AM

Paragon

Jun 16th, '08, 07:55 AM

No, it's not like that. The thing is: You do not need to roll a x5 (or rather: 6+6 in this case), it's often enough to roll a x4 (or even x4.5 if you accept half numbers). So it comes up way more often than only in the x5 case. Even x3 might be very big (4d6 -> 20 body -> 60 stun, try to roll 60+ on 12d6, that will take you a couple minutes of constant rolling).

So yes and no, it's mainly the maximum height, and not how often it comes up. Even if that's rare, it sucks each and every time.

Yeah. The problem is that unless defenses are very low in a campaign, the extent stun multiple rules almost always make a killing attack a fight ender over time just because its pretty likely that 4 or 5 will come up often enough to do the job. This becomes, if anything, more pronounced as the damage goes up.

Paragon

Jun 16th, '08, 07:58 AM

Fortunately, I haven't ever run into this problem. Even if I did, however, I wouldn't worry about it: for whatever reason, the Stun multiplier of killing attacks are very frequently low. If you want to do alot of stun damage in the campaign I'm in, don't pick KA. :rolleyes:

But they don't want to do a lot of _average_ stun damage; they want the gusts, because the gusts in the end matter more; they're more likely to stun a target or put it down outright. Against low defense opponents this may not be crucial, but against those with relatively high defenses, the benefits are almost impossible to miss; if you spend a lot of time bouncing but dump enough stun into the target to stun them one time in six, you're still far more effective on the whole than someone else who leaks tiny amounts of stun through consistently.

Sean Waters

Jun 16th, '08, 09:04 AM

I'm very confident that, over time (any usually not over much of it), KAs are better at getting stun damage delivered than normal attacks and cause far more stun results than normal attacks, whenever the defences in a campaign are average or above (about 2x attack DC). For lower defences, people tend to fall over so quickly it barely matters.

The trouble with anything like this, though, is that anecdotal evidence will overwhelm the numbers. Player A will have been stunned or KO'd by relatively small KAs, and so see them as stun-bombs, and Player B will have rolled 1x and 2x multiples several phases in a row and so see them as damp squibs.

Over time, statistically (and that is not a dirty word, so long as you know the margins of error), KAs deliver more Body and more Stun, but less KB. They are, in short, a better bargain. Average damage matters far less than average damage through defences AND the range of the damage: KAs win on both counts. Despite that they have been with us so long that they have the patina of respectability.

What we need to look at, perhaps, is what we want to be able to model with our damage systems. Many people see the bullet as the 'classic' killing attack, but it is not, not really.

A killing attack is a damaging power that is defined not so much by the mechanic (even thought that tends to dominate discussion) but by the fact that you require special defences to counter it.

I say that the mechanic is not central to the definition of the power because I'm keen to get away fromt he idea that the bullet is the 'standard/classic' killing attack. Sure bullets have interesting damage potentials, and they tend to be quite random, but if you want a power that does damage in a random way, build this:

Bullet Bang: (Total: 80 Active Cost, 63 Real Cost) Energy Blast 8d6 (Real Cost: 40) plus Energy Blast 4d6 (20 Active Points); Activation Roll 14- (-1/2) (Real Cost: 13) plus Energy Blast 4d6 (20 Active Points); Activation Roll 11- (-1) (Real Cost: 10)

There you go: 8-16 dice damage. If we had an advantage that meant that the damage was only stopped by resistant defences (+1/2, perhaps, given their general prevalance, as a sort of special exception to the AVLD rule), we'd have a pretty decent bullet simulation.

OTOH, a plasma attack is going to hurt a lot even if it does not do much Body, because it sears the nerves near the surface:

Plasma attack: (Total: 70 Active Cost, 70 Real Cost) Energy Blast 2d6, No Normal Defense (Fireproof; +1), Does BODY (+1) (30 Active Points) (Real Cost: 30) plus Energy Blast 4d6, No Normal Defense (Fireproof; +1) (40 Active Points) (Real Cost: 40)

If you want an attack that is designed to take down structures, then you have this:

Shatter Smack: (Total: 80 Active Cost, 63 Real Cost) Energy Blast 8d6 (Real Cost: 40) plus Energy Blast 8d6 (40 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (Only does Body; -1/2), No Knockback (-1/4) (Real Cost: 23)

My point is twofold: in some ways the existence of a KA system makes us lazy; we assume one size fits all and it really does not, but second, and more important, we simply do not need it to emulate what we see as 'killing attacks'. The system already has that pretty much covered.

Paragon

Jun 16th, '08, 09:22 AM

My point is twofold: in some ways the existence of a KA system makes us lazy; we assume one size fits all and it really does not, but second, and more important, we simply do not need it to emulate what we see as 'killing attacks'. The system already has that pretty much covered.

Well, to be honest, for most users if they have to go to too much trouble to build an attack, they'll just do the simple thing and not bother with the nuances, even if the simple thing doesn't really do what it should. That's the intrinsic problem with effect based systems; they're great when you want to get something just right, but the cost of that is that you often have to do a lot of fiddling just for relatively day-to-day usage.

Sean Waters

Jun 16th, '08, 10:20 AM

Well, to be honest, for most users if they have to go to too much trouble to build an attack, they'll just do the simple thing and not bother with the nuances, even if the simple thing doesn't really do what it should. That's the intrinsic problem with effect based systems; they're great when you want to get something just right, but the cost of that is that you often have to do a lot of fiddling just for relatively day-to-day usage.

You are quite right.

I suppose, if I were starting from scratch, I might be inclined to do it with advantages:

Killing attack: only resisted by resistant defences: -1
Killing attack: affected by normal defences except for <specific target type*>, which require resistant defences: -1/2

I'd then rule that the DEF or non-living objects was supplemented by the same amount of nonresistant defences, so a 5 DEF wall was 5rDEF and 5 more nonrDEF.

OK, perhaps not quite as nice as a single seperate power.

*For example if the <specific target type> was complex living organisms, like people and many animals, then the attack would be more deadly against that target type e.g. bullets. If the <specific target type> was rigid inanimate objects, then it would make a decent sonic/vibrational attack.

Paragon

Jun 17th, '08, 08:30 AM

You are quite right.

I suppose, if I were starting from scratch, I might be inclined to do it with advantages:

Killing attack: only resisted by resistant defences: -1
Killing attack: affected by normal defences except for <specific target type*>, which require resistant defences: -1/2

I'd then rule that the DEF or non-living objects was supplemented by the same amount of nonresistant defences, so a 5 DEF wall was 5rDEF and 5 more nonrDEF.

OK, perhaps not quite as nice as a single seperate power.

If we had a more robust AVLD system, it probably would make KA's somewhat superflous (though some people _like_ the mechanic of KA stun multiples, balance be damned).

steamteck

Jun 17th, '08, 09:08 AM

Fortunately, I haven't ever run into this problem. Even if I did, however, I wouldn't worry about it: for whatever reason, the Stun multiplier of killing attacks are very frequently low. If you want to do alot of stun damage in the campaign I'm in, don't pick KA. :rolleyes:

See, despite a million mathematical models presented here, In actual gameplay with HERO since 1st edition gameplay has always been like you describe. The KA guy almost always takes massive damage from the other guy before his lucky roll comes up and when it does it never seems to be as devastating as presented in these arguments.
The KA shines in heroic games for us because of the low resistant defenses and that seems right. In Supers the only way it gets bought is because of inescapable concept ( a laser IS a KA)
Now buying superheroic defense with how it works in mind makes a big difference I suppose but good design is always better than bad anyway.

Paragon

Jun 17th, '08, 09:31 AM

See, despite a million mathematical models presented here, In actual gameplay with HERO since 1st edition gameplay has always been like you describe. The KA guy almost always takes massive damage from the other guy before his lucky roll comes up and when it does it never seems to be as devastating as presented in these arguments.

Speak for yourself. I've seen exactly the result I described over the same period; for every time someone managed to have a bunch of 1's or 2's come up the whole fight, someone got a 6 right out the gate and stunned or outright took out someone in the first round of the fight.

As someone said, ancedotal experience can tell you all kinds of things, most of them wrong; that's why if you don't use the maths, you'll make decisions that, even if they reflect what's happened in the past, may have nothing to do with the future, and they certainly won't tell you what'll happen anywhere where conditions differ.

Now buying superheroic defense with how it works in mind makes a big difference I suppose but good design is always better than bad anyway.

The problem is that high defenses are actually the place that makes KAs matter more, as those will almost inevitably choke off normal damage more and more as the dice increase and the variance decreases.

Sean Waters

Jun 17th, '08, 09:40 AM

See, despite a million mathematical models presented here, In actual gameplay with HERO since 1st edition gameplay has always been like you describe. The KA guy almost always takes massive damage from the other guy before his lucky roll comes up and when it does it never seems to be as devastating as presented in these arguments.
The KA shines in heroic games for us because of the low resistant defenses and that seems right. In Supers the only way it gets bought is because of inescapable concept ( a laser IS a KA)
Now buying superheroic defense with how it works in mind makes a big difference I suppose but good design is always better than bad anyway.

Individual anecdotal evidence is of limited value: I can quote any number of examples where KAs have proved ridiculously effectvie on the very first hit....but think on this: you simply can't do 70 damage with a 60 AP attack unless it is a KA, and then it comes up about one hit in six. If the dice don;t love you it is true that you might never get any damage through at all, but that is ridiculously unlikely.

BNakagawa

Jun 17th, '08, 09:56 AM

See, despite a million mathematical models presented here, In actual gameplay with HERO since 1st edition gameplay has always been like you describe. The KA guy almost always takes massive damage from the other guy before his lucky roll comes up and when it does it never seems to be as devastating as presented in these arguments.
The KA shines in heroic games for us because of the low resistant defenses and that seems right. In Supers the only way it gets bought is because of inescapable concept ( a laser IS a KA)
Now buying superheroic defense with how it works in mind makes a big difference I suppose but good design is always better than bad anyway.

We'll never make progress as long as people take one anecdotal description and use it to form their worldview.

Math is the only reliable source of data, because anyone can check your math for errors, but nobody here can prove that Tech's words are even vaguely true without having witnessed all of the hero system gaming he has ever done.

steamteck

Jun 17th, '08, 12:23 PM

We'll never make progress as long as people take one anecdotal description and use it to form their worldview.

Math is the only reliable source of data, because anyone can check your math for errors, but nobody here can prove that Tech's words are even vaguely true without having witnessed all of the hero system gaming he has ever done.

Fine I'll bow out but remain unconvinced until someone gives a mathematical model that vaguely reconciles with my decades of play. Mathematical models shouldn't get a pass on the reality check more than anything else.I have to admit these discussion does more to disprove peoples mathematical models to me than anything else. Since nothing is broken for our group I really have no business in this discussion anyway.

Remember me the next time the charging rhino completely ignores your near fatal hit and tramples and gores your PC:D

BNakagawa

Jun 17th, '08, 12:49 PM

Fine I'll bow out but remain unconvinced until someone gives a mathematical model that vaguely reconciles with my decades of play. Mathematical models shouldn't get a pass on the reality check more than anything else.I have to admit these discussion does more to disprove peoples mathematical models to me than anything else. Since nothing is broken for our group I really have no business in this discussion anyway.

Remember me the next time the charging rhino completely ignores your near fatal hit and tramples and gores your PC:D

Nobody expects the math to get a free pass. Everyone who posts math should expect that if they're wrong somebody will point it out, showing the work necessary to prove the point.

The problem with anecdotal testimony that this is true and that isn't is that it is by nature context sensitive and for people who you don't game with, essentially useless. Things that I have held to be cast in stone and foundations of the system have been cast aside in some gaming groups.

What never fails is the math. Assuming the dice aren't loaded, the math always works out in the end.

archermoo

Jun 17th, '08, 01:02 PM

Where is the math? I can't find Kdansy's post . I did the search he suggested and got only this thread. I tried Killing attacks and got lots.My wife the accountant is actually quite curious since her own math agrees with me. She thinks you guys may have screwed formulas but I can't find it to prove or disprove. If she agrees with your math I will concede the point ( but don't rely on it in our world of gaming:D

Well, the problem with the math is that it depends on things like how much defense the target has. Without taking defenses into account the straight baseline KA vs NA gives the KA slightly lower average STUN, with a higher total amount possible. As you start to add defenses, the KA starts to be a better bet, eventually passing NAs. Exactly where the breakpoint is depends on how many DCs the attacks are.

Personally, I have almost always used the Hit Location Chart for at the very least determining the StunX of KAs, and I've never had a problem with them being unbalanced.

Doc Democracy

Jun 17th, '08, 01:02 PM

Steamteck, in case you need to find it, Kdansky's thread on the math of KA versus EB is here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63335).

Doc

archermoo

Jun 17th, '08, 01:04 PM

Steamteck, in case you need to find it, Kdansky's thread on the math of KA versus EB is here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63335).

Doc

But make sure you go fairly far into the thread before you start looking at the numbers. It was a while before the model he was using became accurate.

Doc Democracy

Jun 17th, '08, 01:05 PM

I'm glad you captured that post in a quote Archermoo - I went away to find the thread and came back to find it gone - I was beginning to wonder if I'd imagined it!

Doc

archermoo

Jun 17th, '08, 01:07 PM

I'm glad you captured that post in a quote Archermoo - I went away to find the thread and came back to find it gone - I was beginning to wonder if I'd imagined it!

Doc

I must have been replying to it when he deleted it. :)

Steamteck, let me know if you want me to remove the text of your message from my reply.

steamteck

Jun 17th, '08, 05:16 PM

Steamteck, in case you need to find it, Kdansky's thread on the math of KA versus EB is here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63335).

Doc

Thanks

Paragon

Jun 18th, '08, 07:48 AM

Well, the problem with the math is that it depends on things like how much defense the target has. Without taking defenses into account the straight baseline KA vs NA gives the KA slightly lower average STUN, with a higher total amount possible. As you start to add defenses, the KA starts to be a better bet, eventually passing NAs. Exactly where the breakpoint is depends on how many DCs the attacks are.

There are also complicating issues involving the linearity of the base damage too; over and above the intrinsic gust in the standard stun multiple die, a 2d6 KA gets more gusting than a 6d6 NA just because its rolling 2d6 instead of 6. This gets fairly trivial by the time you're hitting 12 DC and isn't terribly strong at 9 DC, but at the low end it can be quite marked; a 1d6 KA does its maximum damage (30 stun) one time in 36, whereas its normal equivalent only does it one time 216. Now naturally one time in 36 still isn't a common result, but its frequent enough that it can tip a fight by stunning someone who otherwise simply couldn't be stunned by the attacks involved.

Personally, I have almost always used the Hit Location Chart for at the very least determining the StunX of KAs, and I've never had a problem with them being unbalanced.

Even hit locations have some problems here, but the fact they trend toward the middle much more strongly makes the gusting rather less pronounced. The problem with them is that by necessity, KAs and NAs in the hit location system interact with defenses differently, and this creates some artifacts of its own.

archermoo

Jun 18th, '08, 08:04 AM

There are also complicating issues involving the linearity of the base damage too; over and above the intrinsic gust in the standard stun multiple die, a 2d6 KA gets more gusting than a 6d6 NA just because its rolling 2d6 instead of 6. This gets fairly trivial by the time you're hitting 12 DC and isn't terribly strong at 9 DC, but at the low end it can be quite marked; a 1d6 KA does its maximum damage (30 stun) one time in 36, whereas its normal equivalent only does it one time 216. Now naturally one time in 36 still isn't a common result, but its frequent enough that it can tip a fight by stunning someone who otherwise simply couldn't be stunned by the attacks involved.

Yup. I never said that defenses were the only matter complicating the math. Just that it isn't as straightforward as some people seem to believe.

I'll also note that while a 1d6 KA has a 1 in 36 chance of doing maximum damage, it also has a 1 in 18 chance of doing minimum damage.

Even hit locations have some problems here, but the fact they trend toward the middle much more strongly makes the gusting rather less pronounced. The problem with them is that by necessity, KAs and NAs in the hit location system interact with defenses differently, and this creates some artifacts of its own.

Again, yup. Things are complicated. I've never had any particular balance issues running KAs with hit locations to determine StunX. And I like the way the current system works WRT Normal damage and Killing damage. So I'd be quite happy with it staying just the way it is.

Paragon

Jun 18th, '08, 08:14 AM

Yup. I never said that defenses were the only matter complicating the math. Just that it isn't as straightforward as some people seem to believe.

Sure.

I'll also note that while a 1d6 KA has a 1 in 36 chance of doing maximum damage, it also has a 1 in 18 chance of doing minimum damage.

Yeah, but the issue is that often that doesn't matter as much; it just means that you do nothing rather than leaking some stun through that may or may not matter (because you don't hit again until post-12 has washed it away. The high end result, on the other hand, almost always matters.

Again, yup. Things are complicated. I've never had any particular balance issues running KAs with hit locations to determine StunX. And I like the way the current system works WRT Normal damage and Killing damage. So I'd be quite happy with it staying just the way it is.

The problem with the current system in hit locations is while its not as severe as the die roll on gusting (because the high multiple locations are relatively low occurance), it still ends up meaning that killing attacks are much better against significant defenses because its way too easy for a normal attack even in a high multiple location to either flat out bounce or do minimal damage, since its damage is multiplied afterwards and killing attack before. The only time normal dice come out better is against low multiple locations where this features is a small benefit, but since that usually means its the difference between no stun and a pretty small amount of stun, its just less noticeable than the inverse.

Mind you, if you use it in settings where damage tends to outreach defenses noticeably, its probably not an effect that's going to be very visible since most damage gets a fair bit through anyway, and in those cases the effect isn't very pronounced and probably pretty much trivial.

archermoo

Jun 18th, '08, 08:29 AM

since its damage is multiplied afterwards and killing attack before.

As a note, this is somewhat misleading. Of course the amount of Stun of a KA is determined before defenses are applied to it. It has to be. There isn't anything to apply the defenses to until then. Just as you don't remove the dice whose BODY don't get through defenses in a Normal Attack before you count up the STUN, you don't alter the basis of the amount of STUN done by a Killing Attack until after you determine how much STUN the attack does.

Paragon

Jun 18th, '08, 09:36 AM

As a note, this is somewhat misleading. Of course the amount of Stun of a KA is determined before defenses are applied to it. It has to be. There isn't anything to apply the defenses to until then. Just as you

I don't think its misleading, its just a statement of fact; as you note, its a necessity as long as killing stun is a multiplier, as otherwise you have nothing to base it on. But it still has the effect that the locational multipliers produce vastly different results for killing or normal damage based on the defense of the target; there's no overwhelming reason why the normal damage had to be multiplied after the defenses that I can see. If that was the case they'd be pretty close to equivelent under hit locations.

archermoo

Jun 18th, '08, 09:44 AM

I don't think its misleading, its just a statement of fact; as you note, its a necessity as long as killing stun is a multiplier, as otherwise you have nothing to base it on. But it still has the effect that the locational multipliers produce vastly different results for killing or normal damage based on the defense of the target; there's no overwhelming reason why the normal damage had to be multiplied after the defenses that I can see. If that was the case they'd be pretty close to equivelent under hit locations.

Of course they produce vastly different results. They are doing very different things, by different methods. One is determining the base STUN generated by an attack, one is modifying the STUN already generated for an attack.

Paragon

Jun 18th, '08, 10:00 AM

Of course they produce vastly different results. They are doing very different things, by different methods. One is determining the base STUN generated by an attack, one is modifying the STUN already generated for an attack.

I don't see it as vastly different things; in the end, they're attacks delivering damage to the target, and the fact one tends to deliver more stun to the target than the other while costing the same doesn't seem a virtue (and frankly, if I was going to expect stun to transfer through armor better with either a sword or a club of otherwise comparable magnitude, it'd be the club).

Hugh Neilson

Jun 18th, '08, 10:40 AM

Yup. I never said that defenses were the only matter complicating the math. Just that it isn't as straightforward as some people seem to believe.

I'll also note that while a 1d6 KA has a 1 in 36 chance of doing maximum damage, it also has a 1 in 18 chance of doing minimum damage.

If the damage rolled is not greater than the target's defenses, it makes no difference whether you rolled exactly those defenses or minimum damage.

Simplistically, let's assume a 12DC game with average defenses of 25. Would you prefer to do 42 damage every hit, consistently, or alternate between 2 and 62? The average damage is 10 points less for the latter approach. However, after two hits, the first has inflicted 34 damage. The second has inflicted 37 damage (marginally more despite a considerably lower average). Further, the opponent whose CON falls between 17 and 36 was not stunned by the first attacker, and was by the second attacker.

Volatility does pay off over time.

The problem with the current system in hit locations is while its not as severe as the die roll on gusting (because the high multiple locations are relatively low occurance), it still ends up meaning that killing attacks are much better against significant defenses because its way too easy for a normal attack even in a high multiple location to either flat out bounce or do minimal damage, since its damage is multiplied afterwards and killing attack before. The only time normal dice come out better is against low multiple locations where this features is a small benefit, but since that usually means its the difference between no stun and a pretty small amount of stun, its just less noticeable than the inverse.

Mind you, if you use it in settings where damage tends to outreach defenses noticeably, its probably not an effect that's going to be very visible since most damage gets a fair bit through anyway, and in those cases the effect isn't very pronounced and probably pretty much trivial.

This is also an issue. Even if we set the stun multiple at 3 (assume we always hit the chest - this is the multiple the hit locations trend to), a 12DC normal attack has a 1 in 2.176 billion chance of coming up 72. A 12 DC killing attack has a 1 in 1,296 chance of coming up with a 24 and doing 72.

There are 24 possibilities for a roll of 3 6's on those 4 dice (1 chance in 54), which will range from 19 to 24 BOD and 57 - 72 STUN. There are a lot of other combinations which can roll 19+. How often do you roll 57+ on 12d6?

archermoo

Jun 18th, '08, 11:30 AM

I don't see it as vastly different things; in the end, they're attacks delivering damage to the target, and the fact one tends to deliver more stun to the target than the other while costing the same doesn't seem a virtue (and frankly, if I was going to expect stun to transfer through armor better with either a sword or a club of otherwise comparable magnitude, it'd be the club).

You don't see determining a base value as different than modifying an existing one? Then I guess we don't have much of a common ground to discuss this issue over.

BNakagawa

Jun 18th, '08, 02:30 PM

not only does a base KA inflict more damage through defenses against meaningful opponents than a EB, there are further elements that make them superior stun generators.

+1/4 advantage = + 1 stun multiple.

funny, the EB (or normal attack) has no such advantage. One would think that it would, but it doesn't.

Curious that an attack that isn't intended to generate stun has such an advantage. Curiouser still that it's so cheap.

In heroic games, you can use 2 levels to increase the stun multiple.

Depending on how many DC you're throwing, you might be better off using those two levels to increase your attack by one DC. But, once you're throwing more than 4 DC, you're probably better off increasing your stun multiple. (assuming you're not trying to break a focus, entangle, force wall, or other target that doesn't take stun)

I've been in Fantasy Hero games where I saw 4d6 KAs thrown. Ouch.

In such a game, 2 levels yield, effectively +14 stun on the average. If you were using a normal attack, they would yield +3.5 stun on the average, or 25% as much effect.

Kdansky

Jun 18th, '08, 05:39 PM

If you look at the numbers in my old thread (page 5 of this thread for link) you will see that hit locations don't change the facts much (a bit, yes), they are extremly similar in effect to rolling 1d6-1 for stun modifier. So the "using hit locations makes the problem go away" is purely anecdotal, or rather, an urban myth, so to speak.

Hugh Neilson

Jun 18th, '08, 06:57 PM

In heroic games, you can use 2 levels to increase the stun multiple.

In what version of the rules? My 5er provides for skill levels adding DC's, not stun multiples, on page 53.

Tonio

Jun 18th, '08, 07:00 PM

You don't see determining a base value as different than modifying an existing one? Then I guess we don't have much of a common ground to discuss this issue over.

This is misleading... in both instances you're applying a multiplier to a value to determine the total STUN inflicted. You can think of it as "KA's normal multiplier is 1d6-1, NA's is 1... hit locations replace the normal multiplier with another one". You can think of KA's as doing a "base" STUN equal to the BODY done, which then gets multiplied by the STUN multiplier, rather than doing a base STUN equal to the BODY done multiplied by the STUN multiplier. Mathematically, they're the same thing. Using that point of view, the only conceptual difference between KA STUN multiplier and NA STUNx when using hit locations is whether they're applied before or after defenses.

Sean Waters

Jun 18th, '08, 11:48 PM

Extreme results are not good for what is, after all, a game. Hero doesn't really pretend to be a simulation of reality, and, it seems to me, we already get pretty significant variations in damage on a random basis from rolls to hit: either you do or you don't. People seem OK about that though. That is probably because they can build a character to deal with a hit, if that is what they want.

That is probably the point, by and large, I can't build a character who doesn't have to worry about killing attacks too much without spending a ridiculous number of points. It is not just whether a killing attack is points effective (or over effective) it is also, very much, about the cost of insuring against them.

Whenever you play in a Hero game, the chances are that there are very many more oppoenents than there are PCs, and for exactly the same reason that critical hits, despite many people liking them, work very much against PCs, killing attacks have the same effect: it si very difficult for a small group to deal with the big hits: KOing one PC at or near the start of the fight changes everything, KOing one villain at or near the start of a fight makes little difference, unless it is the BigBad, in which case the whole thing is an anti-climax, which is worse.

Kdansky

Jun 19th, '08, 01:39 AM

Exactly. The point is less the points (yay for puns). It's "which gives me a good story when I play the game." The random KOs happening from good rolls of stun modifiers are nearly always detrimental to the game.

- PC gets KOd early: Very bad, due to unexpected TPK risk and boredom for the particular player.
- Random Thug bites it: Irrelevant.
- BBEG gets slaughtered segment 12 (lucky hit, 20 on my 4 1/2 d6 HKA, x5 stun, resulting in (holy cow!) 100 stun pre defenses, after I subtract the BBEG evil defenses of 35 (ludicrous in a 60 Ap game), he still takes 65, is definitely stunned and probably even KO'd). Sure, I can add 50% DR to his defenses, but that is not a solution, that is a band-aid. I could also just give him 100 CON. Bandaid!
- PC consistently rolling horrible 1's and getting nearly killed by mooks. Also not good for fun.

SteveZilla

Jun 19th, '08, 03:04 AM

I have been convinced that Killing Attacks (and possibly Resistant Defenses) need reworking. They are too voilatile IMO -- primarily the STUN from them. Violatile BODY results are 1) easier to deal with, 2) within the same range of BODY from an equal Normal Attack, and 3) "In Concept" for most F/X of Lethal-type attacks IMO.

The final straw for me was when I looked not just at the average damage for two 3DC attacks, but their min and max results, and the odds of the max results as well:

3DC NA ~ 0/3/6 BODY, 3/10.5/18 STUN (Odds of Max Roll: 1:216)
3DC KA ~ 1/3.5/6 BODY, 1/9.3/30 STUN (Odds of Max Roll: 1:36)

Statisticly speaking, the KA will produce it's max result 6 times by the time the NA produces it's max result (which is also less than the KA max result) a single time.

So, how do I fix Killing Attacks in my game (and possibly Resistant Defenses)?
1. Use a different d6 for the Multiple (like 2/2/2/3/3/3 for the faces), and no subtraction?
2. Roll two additional dice for each KA die to determine the total (of all dice) STUN?
3. Remove KA's entirely, replacing them with an Advantage on either EB or HA, called Lethal(+1/4 ~ +1/2)?

Would any of these changes (of all, I'd guess the last to be most likely) necessitate changing that the STUN is stopped by Resistant Defense + Non-Resistant Defense to just being stopped by the Resistant Defense?

Would adoping a Lethal(+?) Advantage to replace KAs require us to examine things like Armor Piercing (possibly) and Penetrating (most likely)?

What's going on over in the 6ED discussion about KAs?

Paragon

Jun 19th, '08, 07:34 AM

You don't see determining a base value as different than modifying an existing one? Then I guess we don't have much of a common ground to discuss this issue over.

I'm not concerned about process; I'm concerned about results. The result is that defenses preturb one far more than the other. Since its only the process that does this, I see no particular benefit to it. There's no easy way to fix it at the KA end (as you note, there's got to be an upfront multiplier there or they're useless against defenses) but there's no reason once you did that you had to multiply the normal damage after defenses; it might have been mroe desireable to do so, but if so, it would have been more desireable to put a flat multiplier on KA and then multiply _that_ again after defenses.

I'm just not seeing much of any virtue to the current split method, and I don't even recall hearing an argument for one; the only one I can even think of is an argument that normal damage should be worse against armor and the like, and I'd be interested to hear why someone thinks so if that was their argument (since I think, if anything, the opposite is generally more true).

archermoo

Jun 19th, '08, 12:12 PM

This is misleading... in both instances you're applying a multiplier to a value to determine the total STUN inflicted. You can think of it as "KA's normal multiplier is 1d6-1, NA's is 1... hit locations replace the normal multiplier with another one". You can think of KA's as doing a "base" STUN equal to the BODY done, which then gets multiplied by the STUN multiplier, rather than doing a base STUN equal to the BODY done multiplied by the STUN multiplier. Mathematically, they're the same thing. Using that point of view, the only conceptual difference between KA STUN multiplier and NA STUNx when using hit locations is whether they're applied before or after defenses.

No, I'd say your assessment is the one that is misleading. Hit locations do not modify the amount of STUN that a KA can do. They have the same range whether you are using the hit location chart or not. The chart is simply used to determine what the base STUN of the attack is rather than using 1d6-1. Normal attacks on the other hand have their available damage range modified by using the chart. The chart isn't used to determine how much base STUN a normal attack does. However it does determine how much the target takes after defenses are taken into account.

As I have said, they are two totally different processes. That they are handled differently makes perfect sense, as there isn't any reason that they should be handled the same. And as a note, I'm not addressing whether or not the multiple for Normal attacks should be before or after defenses. I'm just saying that the fact that the chart is used to determine the base STUN damage of a Killing Attack isn't a good argument for how Normal Attacks are modified by the hit location chart.