Killing Attacks: Possible House Rule

[Durzan Malakim]

Deadlier is a bit hyped, no? The mean changes from 7 to 8 comparing 6 damage classes... :-)

 

Maximum damage is 12 BODY for both, which occurs once in every 36 rolls for 2D6 and about once in every 800 rolls for the 6D6 version. This gap increases as damage classes do.

 

I could make a case for the current version being deadlier more often by more reliably delivering maximum damage.

 

The new version does however more reliably deliver BODY...which, to me, is the point of a killing attack.

 

Doc

 

I stand corrected. You're only slightly deadlier on average. :-)

 

Actually, being consistently limited to average damage may mean you never overcome someone's defenses to do BODY damage. It will depend on your campaign norms for defense. For example, if your campaign norm was 10 resistant defense, then you'd only exceed that defense around 1% of the time compared to 16% of the time for a normal Killing Attack. If that's what you're going for, then mission accomplished.

[phoenix240]

It does if you want to allow rolls that produce low STUN and high BODY. You calculate STUN from the number on the die so higher number is higher STUN. That pretty much means you have to choose 3 to 5. If you don't care about low STUN and high BODY, pick any number you want.

 

Oh, I thought the intent was to allow Killing Attack score Body totals lower than their Damage Class unlike the house rule I originally suggested. Sorry, I misunderstood you. That is something  wouldn't mind preserving but I wanted to dial back some complexity as well so that aspect might have to be grudgingly sacrifice, for Superheroic games anyway. Heroic games with Hit Locations I could just use RAW. 

[Durzan Malakim]

Oh, I thought the intent was to allow Killing Attack score Body totals lower than their Damage Class unlike the house rule I originally suggested.

 

This particular effect requires having a die roll that produces 0 BODY. It's what I modeled for Nolgroth. It also makes the average damage match standard Killing Attacks, but you're still unlikely to roll either extremely high or extremely low. It's still possible but much more rare.

[phoenix240]

This particular effect requires having a die roll that produces 0 BODY. It's what I modeled for Nolgroth. It also makes the average damage match standard Killing Attacks, but you're still unlikely to roll either extremely high or extremely low. It's still possible but much more rare.

 

Yeah, there is a tiny chance of rolling an attack the does 0 Body, something not possible with the current RAW. But its a very small chance and something that could be a bug or a feature depending on what you're looking for. 

[phoenix240]

I think I might be comfortable with Killing Attacks having a higher minimum Body. It  may make players more cautious about launching 9+ DC Killing Attacks at targets with unknown defenses. Plus with no Stun Lotto there's not a big game driven reason to do so. 

[mrinku]

People still think KAs are better at doing STUN? Those people should avoid Vegas because they don't have a good handle on gambling. 

 

Even before 6e fixed that cold it was not the case. With the 1/2d6 STUN multiplier it's now very much worse than Normal damage for STUN and the Stun Lotto has far less variance (though more variance than the equivalent Normal dice). If you're using an earlier edition and the STUN lottery bugs you, there's nothing to stop you adopting the 6e one.

[phoenix240]

The trick I've seen is get a small KA then stack a ton of "Increased Stun Multi" on it. 

[mrinku]

The trick I've seen is get a small KA then stack a ton of "Increased Stun Multi" on it. 

 

Right. But that's not actually the "Stun Lottery" itself but rigging the roll. That's also an advantage that should count towards DC caps. But there's nothing wrong with the approach and it may provide the effect you're after (maybe an arrow with a knockout drug injector? Possibly an effect for a Lightsaber?).

 

Comparing a 1d6K with a +4 Stun multiple (30 active points) with 6d6 Normal (same). Former does 1-6 BODY, averaging 3.5 and 5-42 STUN, averaging 21. The latter does 0-12 BODY, averaging 6, and 6-36 STUN averaging 21. So I fully get the trick... but it's up to the player to justify it and the GM to approve it.

[phoenix240]

Right. But that's not actually the "Stun Lottery" itself but rigging the roll. 

 

No one ever claimed it was an honest lottery  

[Hugh Neilson]

 

A possible House rule we're bouncing around for our campaigns

 

When you roll for Normal damage a value of 1 on the die generate 0 Body, 2-4 is 1 Body and 6 generate 2 Body. 

 

As an alterate for Killing Damage, roll them as you would Normal (1 six sided die per Damage Class) but a value of 1 on the die generaes 1-4 generates 1 Body and 5-6 generates 2 Body. Which would create a base amount of Body equal to the Damage Class and slightly higher results on Average while Average Stun would remain the same and the Max possible Body would be the same (x2 Damage Class).  

 

Killing Attack Body would still only be stoped by Resistance Defense, an Die roll would be used for Knockback, etc. In game that use Hit Location use the stun and Body modifers for Normal Attack for both types of attack. 

 

For example, a Damage Class 6 attack the roll: 1 6 2 4 1 1 (Bad roll!) would generate:

 

Normal: 4 Body 15 Stun 

 

Killing: 7 Body 15 Stun

 

Using this House Rule Killing does more Body, the Stun Lotto effect is eliminated and there is no additional rolls needed to resolve Killing Attacks.. Killing could just become and Advantage. I'm not sure what he value would be yet. 

 

The Increased Stun Multiplier Advantage is lost but it could be replicated by buying more dice as Stun Only on the base attack. 

Thoughts?

 

 

Any structure that allows the KA to get the same STUN and more BOD than a normal attack for the same price begs the question why anyone should buy a Normal attack.

 

People still think KAs are better at doing STUN? Those people should avoid Vegas because they don't have a good handle on gambling. 

 

Even before 6e fixed that cold it was not the case. With the 1/2d6 STUN multiplier it's now very much worse than Normal damage for STUN and the Stun Lotto has far less variance (though more variance than the equivalent Normal dice). If you're using an earlier edition and the STUN lottery bugs you, there's nothing to stop you adopting the 6e one.

 

It's not STUN before defenses, but STUN after defenses, that made the pre-6e Stun Lottery a winner.  With 6e, average BOD x 3 = average STUN of a normal attack.  No more reason to use a KA to try to KO a target.

 

Pre-6e, a 12 DC normal attack averages 42, with limited volatility.  It averages 22 STUN past 20 defenses, 17 past 25 defenses, 12 past 30 defenses or 7 past 35 defenses.

 

A 12DC KA will average 14 BOD.  1/3 of the time, it gets 14 STUN, and 1/6 each rolls 28, 42, 56, 70.  Average 37 1/3 so the normal attack looks better.

 

But against 20 DEF, it gets 0,0,8,22,36,50 past defenses, average 19 1/3 (normal attack's 22 is a bit higher, but 1/3 of these hits will stun most targets).

 

Against 25 DEF, it gets 0,0,3,17,31,45 past defenses, average 16, one less than the normal attack with a 1/3 shot at stunning many targets, and 1/6 of stunning a 40 CON target. 

 

Against 30 DEF, the KA gets 0,0,0,12,26,40 past defenses, average 13, one better than the normal attack with a 1 in 6 chance to stun a lot of targets.

 

Against 35 DEF, the KA gets 0,0,0,7,21,35 past defenses, average 10.5, 3.5 better (50% more) than the normal attack with a 1 in 6 chance to stun a lot of targets.

 

As defenses climb, the KA becomes the better bet to slip a bit more STUN though, and has a much better chance to STUN most targets.  That was the real math of the Stun Lotto.

[phoenix240]

Any structure that allows the KA to get the same STUN and more BOD than a normal attack for the same price begs the question why anyone should buy a Normal attack.

 

 

 

If you don't want to risk Killing or severely injuring your target (or surroundings/bystanders if your attack misses) and Killing DCs would be more expensive with Killing as an Advantage. Killing attacks would still inflict less KB in Superheroic games though that could be a pretty minor issue. As I recall (its been awhile) Killing Attacks can't be be Spread. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Any structure that allows the KA to get the same STUN and more BOD than a normal attack for the same price begs the question why anyone should buy a Normal attack.

 

I agree, KAs would have to take a +¼ advantage to represent their body being basically an AVAD against resistant defenses.  Slightly more expensive, but more powerful as well.

[phoenix240]

I mentioned that under this house rule, Killing would  probably become an Advantage. We haven't worked out the value yet. 

[mrinku]

 

 

If you don't want to risk Killing or severely injuring your target (or surroundings/bystanders if your attack misses) and Killing DCs would be more expensive with Killing as an Advantage. Killing attacks would still inflict less KB in Superheroic games though that could be a pretty minor issue. As I recall (its been awhile) Killing Attacks can't be be Spread. 

 

Originally only Energy Blast could be Spread, although Entangle had a rule that was similar.

 

6e (and for all I know 5e) allows any ranged attack to be spread unless it's Beam or already effects an area. But guns are usually built with Beam anyway.

 

In all cases the special effect has to make sense to allow Spreading an attack. However most will allow it or be obvious Beam ones.

[phoenix240]

Originally only Energy Blast could be Spread, although Entangle had a rule that was similar.

 

6e (and for all I know 5e) allows any ranged attack to be spread unless it's Beam or already effects an area. But guns are usually built with Beam anyway.

 

 

I'm not using 6e.

[phoenix240]

As a possible additional rule if the idea of Killing Attack having a chance to generate 0 Body is a bug is to set a minimum Body possible say 1/3 DC class so a 6 DC Killing attack has minimum 2 Body (like its 2d6 RAW version). Its adds a bit more math (and its division...) but dividing by 3 is usually fairly easy and it only comes up once,. 

[Durzan Malakim]

As a possible additional rule if the idea of Killing Attack having a chance to generate 0 Body is a bug is to set a minimum Body possible say 1/3 DC class so a 6 DC Killing attack has minimum 2 Body (like its 2d6 RAW version). Its adds a bit more math (and its division...) but dividing by 3 is usually fairly easy and it only comes up once,. 

 

The chances of rolling 2 or less BODY with a 6d6 attack is around 0.36%, which is approximately 4 times in a thousand rolls. Against targets with resistant defenses there is no effective difference between 2 BODY and 0 BODY. Against unprotected targets you could just hand-wave/role-play it as a "1 in a million" chance of being grazed by a bullet instead of being damaged.

[phoenix240]

The chances of rolling 2 or less BODY with a 6d6 attack is around 0.36%, which is approximately 4 times in a thousand rolls. Against targets with resistant defenses there is no effective difference between 2 BODY and 0 BODY. Against unprotected targets you could just hand-wave/role-play it as a "1 in a million" chance of being grazed by a bullet instead of being damaged.

 

Of course you can hand wave,  but the idea occurred as an option if someone was bothered by the idea of Killing Attack doing 0 Body before Defenses. . 

[mrinku]

I'm not using 6e.

 

Well, it could be a 5e rule. Others will know. I skipped 5e and went straight from 4e to Champions Complete.

[phoenix240]

Well, it could be a 5e rule. Others will know. I skipped 5e and went straight from 4e to Champions Complete.

 

Unfortunately, I don't have easy book access ATM.  

 

But its been the rule we used for quite some time so its a difference between Killing and Normal for us anyway.

[Hugh Neilson]

I agree, KAs would have to take a +¼ advantage to represent their body being basically an AVAD against resistant defenses.  Slightly more expensive, but more powerful as well.

 

 

I mentioned that under this house rule, Killing would  probably become an Advantage. We haven't worked out the value yet.

It's a tough balancing act.

 

The AVAD aspect of BOD looks like an issue up front, but how often does a credible opponent have no rDEF (and no other protection from killing damage)?

 

I find, at least in Supers games, KA has become very much a niche power. Its real utility is not killing living opponents, but averaging a bit more BOD against automatons, barriers, entangles, etc. Make that "a lot more damage" to make up for it being less useful than a normal attack at STUN damage, and you can get rid of automatons, barriers, entangles, etc. - everyone uses their Killing Attack slot, and carves through them.

 

The KA could be structured with a different BOD count to average 3.5 per 3 DCs, and could do less STUN to compensate. For example, 1d6 does 1 BOD on 1 - 5 and 2 on 6, or any of the variations above - it only taxes one more on 1 die roll to get the 3.5 average out of the same damage mechanic we use for normal damage. Subtract 1 STUN per die and it averages 2.5 STUN instead of 3.5 per 1d6, so 12 DC averages 30 instead of 42. That's a big drop, but if BOD damage is a serious threat (so moving into more rDEF restricted games, which most Heroic games are), it could balance out.

 

But will it be any more balanced, or markedly easier game play, than the current model? Maybe - we remove the issue of having two vastly different damage mechanics, including two very different hit location models, streamlining the system.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I find, at least in Supers games, KA has become very much a niche power. Its real utility is not killing living opponents, but averaging a bit more BOD against automatons, barriers, entangles, etc

 

 

I think in Supers games it always has been.  At least that's the way it always was in the Champions games I played in back to the early 80s.  People took a KA either for special occasions of due to character concept (This is Wolver..mean, he has claws on his toes!).

 

For me its the simplifcation of having to worry only about one damage system and one hit location chart, plus no more confusion about damage classes (truly baffling to new players).

[mrinku]

The purpose of killing attacks in a Champions game isn't to really challenge normal attacks as far as superfights go, but to be the thing that normals use to hurt each other, IMHO.

 

It's a baseline lethality that provides your definition of "bulletproof" or "nothing less than a bursting shell can penetrate my skin" or "blade than can cut through any object"

 

It's there so that when a bank robber pulls a gun on a teller your hero has to do something about it. No one expects the robber to gun down the hero themselves.

 

It's also a red flag for certain character types to be telegraphed as killers.

 

Now, some hero builds go with killing attacks, but in that case it's almost a Complication, since you'll routinely not be able to use the power on a target. I ran Robobushi/Warrior for years with his katana and Code of Honour (and RKE laser in the Robobushi version) and that frission between having the power to kill but the restraint not to was essential to the character. Wolverine works in the X-Men for precisely that reason.

[phoenix240]

 

 

 

It's a tough balancing act.

 

 

Its probably something that each person would have to evaluate for their own campaigns if they like this variant. 

[mrinku]

I must admit I do like the concept of rolling it all into one power. I'd even seriously consider discarding HA in the process so that Normal Attack operates the same as Killing Attack does now (free choice between ranged or STR added damage). I'm sure the idea's been brought up before. You'd end up with something like:

 

Attack: 5 points per 1d6 damage. Choose between ranged or hand-to-hand (STR adds to a hand-to-hand attack). Additionally the power may be defined as doing Killing damage instead of Normal.

 

...and follow one of the 1d6 per DC killing damage ideas discussed above. I'm of the opinion that Normal and Killing should still stay equivalent in points (i.e. don't do it with an advantage) but be balanced by reducing the STUN potential of KAs. To restate my own idea, which I'm quite warming to:

 

1. KA does 1 BODY on rolls of "0" (i.e. the range of BODY done is [1,1,1,1,1,2] - this is exactly equivalent to the current average rolls)

2. KA dice read STUN as the current "stun multiplier" roll for the edition used (i.e. -1 for older, 1/2d6 for 6e) to get the STUN

 

Usual rules for resistant defences, knockback etc stay as they are.

 

IE: I roll 2, 4, 5, 1, 6, 1, 4, 3 on 8d6, which gives N-damage of 7 BODY and 26 STUN, or K-Damage of 9 BODY and 15 STUN using 6e; 20 STUN using earlier editions.

 

This also directly removes the STUN lottery effect, as KA and Normal dice now have the same distribution curve. A couple of things still need to be looked at - Penetrating is the main one that springs to mind, though you could always just divide the effect dice by 3. Or drop it. Or just go with the effect roll doing minimum STUN for BOTH Normal and Killing and using limited AP for those kind of effects (AP BODY damage only).