Powers Issues -- F-K

[The Main Man]

As I understand Lucius, 2) is more: Players insist that Killing Attacks aren't mechanically superior and seem to believe this. Is there some disadvantage to KAs that the math doesn't show, but which players feel in play? Could the players actually be right?

- Klaus

I understand where he is now, but (and this is getting a bit OT) but I simply stating my interpretation of the original comments.

[Vulcan]

The advantage normal attacks have over killing attacks is consistency. You can generally count on a normal attack doing between 3 and 4 points of STUN per die. Killing attacks are much more variable because of the STUN multiple. The BODY roll will average between 3 and 4 points per die (but with significantly greater chance of higher and lower results because of the much lower number of dice rolled), but the STUN multiple could make that anything from 3 (3 BODY x 1 STUN) to 20 (4 BODY x 5 STUN) with a fairly flat distribution between them.

So what happens is that killing attacks have a 1 in 3 chance of bouncing entirely, a 1 in 3 chance of doing fairly average damage, and a 1 in 3 chance of doing massive amounts of STUN - far more than the equivalent normal attack is capable of, much less likely to do.

I am starting to lean toward the 'locked' STUN multiple of 3 as the proper solution. That way (for example) a 4d6 KA averages 14 BODY and 42 STUN on the average, vs. a normal 12d6 Attack averages 12 BODY and 42 STUN. The KA could do as much as 72 STUN - but so could the normal attack (the KA remains somewhat more likely to do so because of the lower dice rolled). However, the KA might also only do 12 STUN, just like the normal attack - and is also more likely to do so!

And that small amount of extra BODY from equivalent-point attacks is balanced by the KA rolling an extra die for Knockdown/back...

[Hugh Neilson]

The advantage normal attacks have over killing attacks is consistency. You can generally count on a normal attack doing between 3 and 4 points of STUN per die. Killing attacks are much more variable because of the STUN multiple. The BODY roll will average between 3 and 4 points per die (but with significantly greater chance of higher and lower results because of the much lower number of dice rolled), but the STUN multiple could make that anything from 3 (3 BODY x 1 STUN) to 20 (4 BODY x 5 STUN) with a fairly flat distribution between them.

So what happens is that killing attacks have a 1 in 3 chance of bouncing entirely, a 1 in 3 chance of doing fairly average damage, and a 1 in 3 chance of doing massive amounts of STUN - far more than the equivalent normal attack is capable of, much less likely to do.

I am starting to lean toward the 'locked' STUN multiple of 3 as the proper solution. That way (for example) a 4d6 KA averages 14 BODY and 42 STUN on the average, vs. a normal 12d6 Attack averages 12 BODY and 42 STUN. The KA could do as much as 72 STUN - but so could the normal attack (the KA remains somewhat more likely to do so because of the lower dice rolled). However, the KA might also only do 12 STUN, just like the normal attack - and is also more likely to do so!

And that small amount of extra BODY from equivalent-point attacks is balanced by the KA rolling an extra die for Knockdown/back...

I don't agree that equal STUN is offset by loss of knockback. Knockback is primarily an issue in Supers games. A 12DC normal attack or killing attack will generally knock the target back, on average, 5" or 3.5" - both mean halved DCV. To me, that's pretty much equal.

As well, if you have a choice of steady damage rolls of, say, 39 to 45 STUN or getting 14, 14, 28, 42, 56 or 70, the latter is superior at Stunning the target, and as a result is superior. Against a target with 25 Defenses, the first approach gets 14 to 20 points through every time, average 17. The second gets 0, 0, 3, 17, 31 or 45, an average only 1 point lower but a 1 in 3 chance you'll stun a target of 30 or less CON. Volatility makes the KA a superior attack.

Having the occasional whiff isn't a big price to pay when you know it will take 3 or 4 hits to take down a typical target.

[The Main Man]

I figure that the x3 multiplier would be a sufficient change with the "STUN Lotto" being an alternative mechanic if the other (conform to Normal damage rolling) does not happen.

The idea is to alter the way one looks at it as being a flat modifier in absence of Hit Locations as opposed to an absence of dice rolling.

[Vulcan]

I don't agree that equal STUN is offset by loss of knockback. Knockback is primarily an issue in Supers games. A 12DC normal attack or killing attack will generally knock the target back, on average, 5" or 3.5" - both mean halved DCV. To me, that's pretty much equal.

Fair enough. Although I did mention knockdown as well... which result in much the same end result so I conceed the point.

As well, if you have a choice of steady damage rolls of, say, 39 to 45 STUN or getting 14, 14, 28, 42, 56 or 70, the latter is superior at Stunning the target, and as a result is superior. Against a target with 25 Defenses, the first approach gets 14 to 20 points through every time, average 17. The second gets 0, 0, 3, 17, 31 or 45, an average only 1 point lower but a 1 in 3 chance you'll stun a target of 30 or less CON. Volatility makes the KA a superior attack.

I think you misunderstand my proposal. The STUN multiple is fixed at 3. Period. So the volatility is provided by the (in the example) 4d6 rolled for BODY, and then that result is multiplied by 3. Yes, it is more volatile than (in the same example) 12d6 normal attack, as an artifact of rolling less dice. But it is way less volatile than the 1d6-1 STUN multiple of the existing rules.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I am starting to lean toward the 'locked' STUN multiple of 3 as the proper solution. That way (for example) a 4d6 KA averages 14 BODY and 42 STUN on the average, vs. a normal 12d6 Attack averages 12 BODY and 42 STUN. The KA could do as much as 72 STUN - but so could the normal attack (the KA remains somewhat more likely to do so because of the lower dice rolled). However, the KA might also only do 12 STUN, just like the normal attack - and is also more likely to do so!
And that small amount of extra BODY from equivalent-point attacks is balanced by the KA rolling an extra die for Knockdown/back...

As you example shows, a 4d6K will do the same average STUN and more average BODY than 12d6N. The extra BODY might be offset by reduced KB, as you say - but what about the fact that you need Resistant Defenses against KAs? That also needs to be offset.

At Netzilla shows, increasing the cost of 1d6K to 20 points (4 DCs) might make KAs a bit wimpier than NAs in terms of doing STUN to typical targets and in terms of doing BODY to fully resistant targets. The last problem will persist if the cost is increased above 15.

Something that might work would be to keep the cost at 15, but rework the STUNx die so that 1-2 means x2 and 3-6 means x3 - i.e., an average x2.667 multiplier. Then 4d6K would do an average of 14 BODY and 37.333 STUN; i.e., more BODY and less STUN than a NA.

Another is the make the STUNx a flat 3 and the cost 20 per d6, but say that typical entangles and dead objects only have halfway resistant defenses. This will make KAs do more BODY than NAs versus most targets, which offsets that they will do less STUN.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

Something that might work would be to keep the cost at 15, but rework the STUNx die so that 1-2 means x2 and 3-6 means x3 - i.e., an average x2.667 multiplier. Then 4d6K would do an average of 14 BODY and 37.333 STUN; i.e., more BODY and less STUN than a NA.

As a minimalist change solution, this works. It doesn't disturb the current averages, but it eliminates the extremes at both ends. It caps the KA's STUN at the same level as an equivalent normal attack. There's still some volatility in that a 4d6 KA will get that maximum 72 STUN 1 time in a bit under 2,000 rolls (the normal attack needs a bit over 2 billion rolls), but the violatility would be markedly reduced.

Advanced options could then include multiples of 1,2,3,3,3,4 or the d6-1, for those who want a lot more volatility, with a discussion on the impact this has on KA's becoming the "attack of choice" for getting STUN through to high defense targets.

Hit locations remains as a more "realistic" structure where ALL attacks - normal or killing - do more damage hitting certain locations and less damage hitting others

I like it - it resolves the issue with a minimum of change to the existing rules.

[Vulcan]

As you example shows, a 4d6K will do the same average STUN and more average BODY than 12d6N. The extra BODY might be offset by reduced KB, as you say - but what about the fact that you need Resistant Defenses against KAs? That also needs to be offset.

At Netzilla shows, increasing the cost of 1d6K to 20 points (4 DCs) might make KAs a bit wimpier than NAs in terms of doing STUN to typical targets and in terms of doing BODY to fully resistant targets. The last problem will persist if the cost is increased above 15.

Something that might work would be to keep the cost at 15, but rework the STUNx die so that 1-2 means x2 and 3-6 means x3 - i.e., an average x2.667 multiplier. Then 4d6K would do an average of 14 BODY and 37.333 STUN; i.e., more BODY and less STUN than a NA.

Another is the make the STUNx a flat 3 and the cost 20 per d6, but say that typical entangles and dead objects only have halfway resistant defenses. This will make KAs do more BODY than NAs versus most targets, which offsets that they will do less STUN.

- Klaus

Good point. I can go with either of those proposals.

[IndianaJoe3]

Time for my last thoughts on Powers (F-K).

Find Weakness
Find Weakness is now a Talent.

Images
Images now rely on ambient conditions to be perceived. They do not create light, and may require a PER roll to detect in adverse conditions.
Advantage: Easily Perceived (+1/4) – An Easily Perceived Image can be detected regardless of the ambient conditions (visible in a dark room or audible in a noisy crowd).
Limitation: Obvious (-1/2) – an Obvious Image is automatically recognized as an image without a Perception roll.

Killing Attack – Hand-To-Hand
The STUN Multiplier is fixed at 3.

Killing Attack – Ranged
The STUN Multiplier is fixed at 3.

[The Main Man]

My final $.02:

Killing Damage becomes a +0 Power Advantage (I prefer changing the name to "Lethal" but that's besides the point).

It is rolled and calculated just like Normal Damage but it instead requires Resistant Defenses to defend against.

It is a +0 Advantage because:
1) that's how it generally calculates out in 5ER
2) Killing is not always the answer


If that change is not made, then I think that the STUNx should be fixed at x3 with 1d6-1 being an alternative mechanic.
The idea is to present x3 as the Superheroic alternative to the Hit Location Chart, rather than the current presentation of x3 being an alternative to rolling 1d6-1.


I agree that Find Weakness should recede to being a Talent, but I also agree with the idea that Defenses are not the only thing that they work against, but each aspect should be purchased separately.

[Hugh Neilson]

Captain Crossposter Strikes Again!

Hit locations, and the associated chance of substantially increased damage, have never worked well when I've tried them in superheroic games, and that applies as much for normal attacks as killing attacks - suddenly everyone is a lot more fragile. If that is what you want, cool.

In most other genres, they work OK, but then what they do is change the dynamic of the game: you can trade OCV for more damage. PCs tend to be in the group with the highest DEX/skill, along with the major villains, so most mooks are unlikely to be able to take advantage of hit location rules, which is why they cause less of a problem. Bear in mind though that, even in a hit location game you do not have to specify a location for your aim - you can just take the random roll - and that has pretty similar chances of causing high damage as 1d6-1.

I find the problem is that, without hit locations, only KA's gain the opportunity to do increased damage. When a normal attack also gets a boost from a head shot, the playing field between the two is more level.

To the fragility problem, one could use the hit location rules in a Supers game with the proviso that they affect only STUN and not BOD, damage. Thus, the head shot would have a much better chance to stun or KO, but would (as the source material does) leave the target unconscious, not dead.

Another point on hit locations: I think that, if we have them, there should be one or more powers that mitigate their effects, perhaps done through the life support rules:

Opening automaton powers up for general purchase would allow this to be addressed. Their pricing would need re-examination as they would see more common use, but that's fine.

[Lucius]

Belated comment on Killing Attacks:

This idea has come up from time to time over the years, as we've endlessly discussed what to do about the Killing/Normal problem, but I don't remember seeing it in these 6th Edition Forums:

While my own preferred solution is to make Normal a Limitation, one benefit of having Killing as an Advantage, Adder, or the like, is that it could then be applied to other powers, like Flash for example, so that instead of "counting Body" it would be "counting pips."

And then of course it would be possible to stack Penetrating on Flash as well.

Lucius Alexander

Counting palindromedaries.

[The Main Man]

Belated comment on Killing Attacks:

This idea has come up from time to time over the years, as we've endlessly discussed what to do about the Killing/Normal problem, but I don't remember seeing it in these 6th Edition Forums:

While my own preferred solution is to make Normal a Limitation, one benefit of having Killing as an Advantage, Adder, or the like, is that it could then be applied to other powers, like Flash for example, so that instead of "counting Body" it would be "counting pips."

And then of course it would be possible to stack Penetrating on Flash as well.

Lucius Alexander

Counting palindromedaries.

OT1H, you make a compelling point.

But OTOH, I think that if Killing attacks are relatively unaltered, then Flash could conform to it.

That actually would be kind of neat now that I think of it.

1d6 of Flash costs 15 CP, 1/2d6 costs 10CP, and 1 pip costs 5 CP.

You roll the Flash dice and that's the number of segments that the Target is flashed - no need to mention BODY whatsoever now that I think about it.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Some thought about STUN damage and BODY damage:

1 point of STUN costs one character point. 1 point of BODY costs one character point if you buy the figured STUN back. IOW, BODY and STUN cost the same. The difference is that BODY damage is more deadly and takes far longer to heal.

Since they cost the same, you would imagine that characters would want much more BODY than STUN, yet this is not the case. Only a couple of the Champions 4e sample characters have BODY > 15 (not even Mechanon or Ogre!), and most have BODY 9-12.

The reason is simple: A typical attack does about 3 times as much STUN as BODY, but this damage is applied against the same defenses. If you have decent protection against STUN, you're not likely to take BODY damage.

I have used this as an argument to split defenses in Body Defense and Stun Defense (BD and SD) rather than PD and ED. However, the thought could be taken a step further. Since losing BODY is so much worse than losing STUN, shouldn't BODY (and BD) be more precious than STUN (and SD)?

Perhaps BODY should cost 2 points without adding to STUN, and BD should cost 3 points (+1 for Resistant).

Armor should thus cost 4 points per +1 BD and 2 points per +1 SD, and Force Field half that. This means that Armor that subtracts 1 point from the STUN and BODY from all physical and energy damage will cost twice what it does now. However, (1) I expect most will choose to buy only about half as much BD as SD, and (2) I think defenses now are too cheap compared to STUN and REC.

In support of (2): Let's say that a character is hit three times in a turn by attacks that do 5 STUN through defenses. He could be protected from this by buying +5 PD, +5 PD, which currently costs 10 points, or he could buy +15 STUN, +15 REC, which currently costs 45 points. Now, which do you suppose he buys? Sure, REC has other uses, and STUN also protects against NND and AVLD attacks, and it isn't at half value against armor-piercing attack, but even so, defensens seems a much better deal (particularly as they also protect against BODY).

- Klaus

[Steve Long]

Hey folx! It's time for me to start reading all the 6E threads, and that means I need to lock them.

Hopefully 15 months has been plenty of time for anyone who wanted to have a say, to have a say. So please, don't start up other threads to try to continue discussions, send me PMs with points you "just have to make," or anything like that. It's time for y'all to sit back, relax, have a frosty beverage, and let me get 6E written.

We definitely appreciate everyone's interest, participation, and ideas! I'm looking forward to reading the posts and seeing what nuggets of wisdom lurk therein. I have no doubt 6E is going to be even better than it would have been because of our fans' enthusiastic efforts at providing us with input and suggestions.