Killing Attacks - Alternate Mechanics

[Hugh Neilson]

Ported over from a Champions thread being derailed...context below.  My own KA epiphany was when I realized I gave agent-types KAs because they had a better chance, at those lower DCs, of punching some STUN through to the Supers.  Wait, if the same DCs do more stun past defenses on average, isn't that a sign it's not balanced, even ignoring "increased STUN multiple"?

 

As another approach to KA's on 1d6 per 5 points, consider counting BOD like we do now, except that we get 1 BOD on 1-5, 2 on a 6.  This averages 3.5 BOD per 3 DC's, just like the pre-6e KA model.  That's the easy part.  We also want to average roughly 9 1/3 STUN on 3d6 if the goal is to match a pre-6e KA.  The average roll will be 10.5, so if we subtracted half the dice rolled, we would get 9.0.  What if we added up the dice, but ignored all 2's (they count nothing)?  That would average 3.16667, so 3d6 averages 9.5.

 

Now we have a "not so volatile" killing attack that averages a bit more BOD and a bit less STUN.  The averages are similar to the pre-6e KE, but the volatility is reduced to match Normal attacks.

 

But maybe I want those wild swings - combat is risky and uncertain, and one good roll could change everything!

 

 OK, so let's keep the existing KA.  But let's make the normal attack volatile as well.  Give the normal attack the same DC structure as a KA - 15 points buys 1d6.  Roll that for BOD.  We want that 1d6 to average 3, not 3.5.  Simple answer:  6's count as 3's.  Now we average 3 BOD per 1d6.  We want that to average 10.5 STUN, the same average roll as 3d6.  Simple - 1d6 Stun Multiple.  Now the normal attack shares the same volatility as a killing attack.

 

In my experience, the hit locations chart gives both reasonably similar volatility, so the KA does not overshadow the normal attack, but the KA remains more volatile just because it rolls less dice.  2d6 KA gets a max 12 result 1 time in 36.  6d6 Normal maxes out only one time in 46,656.  The above approaches give them the same volatility.  Both types of attacks keep the averages, more or less, that they had in 5e and prior editions.  As they have similar volatility, I don't pick a KA to have that potential for a massive hit that puts serious STUN onto a high defense target.  Either all attacks are low-volatility, so no such option exists, or all attacks are high volatility, so we can use a normal attack or a KA to hope for that lucky shot.

 

Hit locations?  Both attacks can use them, but for normal attacks, we need to add one to all Stun Multiples of 2 or higher, and break the 1's to a selection of 1's and 2's.  If we use low volatility KA's, the Normal Attack multipliers can apply without modification.

 

12 hours ago, BNakagawa said:

And you can get +42 Stun Multiple and Armor Piercing. Or +42 Stun multiple and area effect 1 hex so you can never miss. Or +40 Stun Multiple (which averages the same stun as 12d6 EB that is also Armor Piercing AND never misses.

 

In any case, the +1 Stun Multiple advantage should never have existed in the first place. And it certainly shouldn't be +1/4.

 

IIRC, at one time it alternated between +1/4 and +1/2, as +1/2 is too expensive.

 

I can't recall whether advantage stacking is discussed in the rules, but it likely should be.  However, the issue above is easily resolved by a GM realizing that "GM permission to add more than one" is a red flag, so +40 should probably be denied permission.

 

12 hours ago, BNakagawa said:

But beyond simply averaging the same (or more) stun than an equivalent active point energy blast, the fundamental problem with the killing attack is the swinginess or extreme variability of the results.

 

Due to the lower number of dice being thrown, an extremely low or extremely high result is much more likely with a KA than an EB. Also, there is the matter of the stun multiple.

 

Do a little thought experiment. Would you allow a power that just rolled 1d6 and multiplied the result by the number of damage classes? I mean, it averages EXACTLY the same as a vanilla energy blast, so it's gotta be balanced, right?

 

I'm betting the answer is, hell no. 

 

The volatility of the KA,, at least in the 1 - 5 multiple model, makes it the more efficient means of pushing STUN past defenses in excess of about 2x DCs (we did a lot of math on this at one time). That volatility, which also makes Stunning a highly defended target more possible, made it problematic.

 

I toyed with a less extreme "volatile" normal attack and a less volatile KA... I wonder if I still have that somewhere...

THERE IT IS!  Spruce it up to recognize 6e and...voila

Actually, we've already derailed "what should I port over?" too much - I'll start a new thread.

 

10 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

That is one reason I did away with the stun multiple in my campaigns except for things like magic items.  Its not mathematically efficient, despite feeling like it is better.

 

And the stun lotto as well as other oddities with KA's (particularly at the heroic, low end) is all part of the reasons several of us like the idea of turning KA into the same mechanic as normal damage, with a slight reduction in stun per die (-1 per die).  A current 1d6 KA turns into a 3d6 (same damage classes) counted the same as normal attacks for body and -1 stun per die.  The results are extremely close to the same, but it only requires one mechanic and solves a lot of the issues brought up.

 

I am pretty sure the +1 multiple started for certain fantasy hero weapons and then had to be costed out for the broader rules.

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I am pretty sure the +1 multiple started for certain fantasy hero weapons

 

I don't recall, but there are several variants and advantages that aren't mechanically sound, but work for magic items (like penetrating).  That first edition of Fantasy Hero was incredibly innovative and full of great new ideas, even if some of them were a bit rough around the edges.

[rravenwood]

5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I am pretty sure the +1 multiple started for certain fantasy hero weapons and then had to be costed out for the broader rules.

 

As a side note, it appeared in some Espionage! weapons, and was written up by George MacDonald as an Advantage (+1/2) in Adventurers Club #2.

 

And now back to the actual discussion...

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, rravenwood said:

 

As a side note, it appeared in some Espionage! weapons, and was written up by George MacDonald as an Advantage (+1/2) in Adventurers Club #2.

 

And now back to the actual discussion...

That sounds like the starting point- it became, IIRC, +1/2 for the first +1, +1/4 for the next and alternating +1/2 and +1/4 after.  Or one could say a +2 multiple was a +3/4 advantage.  Since there's no +3/8, a +1 SM becomes a +1/2 advantage.

[unclevlad]

For me, this is completely backwards, because 

 

Volatility is NOT the friend of the PCs.

 

PCs make 1 or 2 rolls, typically, against any individual foe, and hey, if one comes out good?  Doesn't matter.  The PCs have to absorb ALL the hits, because they don't go away.

 

Math time.  Taking your suggestion...normal damage does 1,2,3,4,5,3 BODY.  Mean is 3 BODY per...ok.  Variance is 0.  OK, that's no different, actually.  The variance using standard normal damage (for BODY) is 0.  Checking with a quick 3d6 (equivalent to 9d6)...BODY done ranges from 7 to 11 73% of the time;  6 to 12, 88% of the time.  The problem is, the STUN is therefore massively dependent on a single d6.  Here's a section of the resulting stun outcomes:

 

Stun dam 20 N=45 P= 67.3611111111111
Stun dam 21 N=27 P= 65.27777777777777
Stun dam 22 N=27 P= 63.19444444444444
Stun dam 24 N=68 P= 57.947530864197525
Stun dam 25 N=9 P= 57.25308641975308
Stun dam 26 N=9 P= 56.55864197530864
Stun dam 27 N=38 P= 53.62654320987654
Stun dam 28 N=30 P= 51.31172839506173
Stun dam 30 N=59 P= 46.75925925925926
Stun dam 32 N=33 P= 44.21296296296296
Stun dam 33 N=27 P= 42.129629629629626
Stun dam 35 N=27 P= 40.04629629629629
Stun dam 36 N=70 P= 34.645061728395056
Stun dam 39 N=9 P= 33.95061728395061
Stun dam 40 N=66 P= 28.858024691358022
Stun dam 42 N=30 P= 26.54320987654321
Stun dam 44 N=27 P= 24.459876543209877
Stun dam 45 N=39 P= 21.450617283950617

 

Stun damage is the result.  N is the exact number of ways it can happen;  for example 45 STUN is 15 BODY, x3, or 9 BODY, x5.   P is the probability, therefore, of rolling that level of stun OR HIGHER.  So about 1/3 of the time, this method gives 20 STUN or less...little or no STUN will get by defenses.  And almost 30% of the time, it'll be 40+.  The maximum possible stun on standard 9d6 is 54, and that's a once-in-a-lifetime roll (probability is 1 in 6*9th, which is ~ 10M.)  The max on 3d6 with a stun mult is 90...and it's only 1 in 1296.  RARE, sure, but 7776 times more likely.  The probability of 54 or more is ~11% using the 3+1 rolling idea.

 

So, what kind of defenses do you need now?

 

Unless you really *want* the PCs to get stunned *routinely*, that is.

 

Also note:  this forces changes to Damage Negation which are fairly awkward, and very likely makes Damage Reduction almost essential, because massive STUN is what you MUST worry about first.  Damage Negation is...actually, kinda interesting.  The way it would have to work is, 5 points to negate 1 BODY...BEFORE the STUN roll is even made.  So if you have, say, 20 points DN, you knock 4 BODY...the 10 BODY rolled --> 6.  THEN you compute the STUN the target takes, based on the 6 BODY damage.  That might work very nicely, truth be told...if the stun roll's insane volatility can be tamed.  That's the looming disaster, that stun volatility.  Note that in 6E they realized it..and went from d6-1 for KA stun mult, to d3.  Going to d6 is just that much worse, even with the mild drop in damage.  The average BODY drops from 10.5 to 9, on 3d6...15%.  But rolling a straight d6, instead of a shifted d6, means that the 4+ stun multiplier goes from 1/3 to 1/2 of the time, and the high knockout threat 5 or 6 stun mult is 1/3 of the time rather than 1/6th.

 

  

[dmjalund]

its not the volatility it's the max value. with no volatility, if an attack is less than the defense, it will always be less than the defense. The more volatility, the higher potential maximum the hits can have and thus the higher defense the attacker has a chance of affecting.

[BNakagawa]

It IS the volatility. 

 

Extreme volatility makes bricks unplayable. It also makes other types far less viable, but it has extreme effect against bricks.

 

Imagine a +0 Power Modifier to Energy Blast: All or Nothing.

 

You flip a coin and do either maximum or minimum damage. Minimum, Maximum and average damage are unchanged from vanilla Energy Blast, but all of a sudden, bricks are unplayable.

[Ndreare]

The stun lottery was something that bugged me for a while.

I have been away from Hero since 2016, but at that time I felt the solution for my table was a flat *2 Stun Multiplier. No rolling needed. 

 

We don't do arms race at the table. I just veto them as a GM off the bat.  So stacking advantages was/is not an issue. 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Its a bit frustrating as a PC to have your KA either bounce or do a lot of damage, depending on a single die roll.  That's one of the things that I don't like with D&D, the single die roll resolution for nearly everything.  I love the polyhedral dice, but I don't like how they are used.  Savage Worlds has single die roll resolution as well, although it can "explode" to more dice creating extreme volatility, again.

 

I appreciate the designers of Hero trying to make different kinds of attacks feel different and have different mechanics, but in the end I think its best to convert KA into blast damage and treat the defenses differently.

[rravenwood]

17 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

19 hours ago, rravenwood said:

As a side note, it appeared in some Espionage! weapons, and was written up by George MacDonald as an Advantage (+1/2) in Adventurers Club #2.

That sounds like the starting point- it became, IIRC, +1/2 for the first +1, +1/4 for the next and alternating +1/2 and +1/4 after.  Or one could say a +2 multiple was a +3/4 advantage.  Since there's no +3/8, a +1 SM becomes a +1/2 advantage.

 

It was just a straight +1/2 until 5th ed. (well, 5ER for sure) where it dropped down to a straight +1/4.  The alternating values for multiple levels of the Advantage might be a good optional approach if +1/2 seems too much and +1/4 seems too low.

[Doc Democracy]

I have been around for a lot of iterations of this debate and I had a thought which might be novel.

 

Have we been approaching the problem from the wrong direction.  We keep trying to change the way the damage is generated by the attack rather than how the damage is mitigated by the defence.

 

Should we be looking at an advantage on defences that reduce the multiplier?

 

If you have non resistant defences you are prone to greater volatility.  If you have resistant defences then you can further advantage those defences to reduce the volatility of killing attacks.

 

A different approach?

 

Doc

[unclevlad]

The issue only lives with killing damage.  You'd have to target the defensive adjustment to match, and this risks spreading defenses out too much.

 

I'd prefer to stay with normal dice, and make Lethal an advantage.  Perhaps for +1/2:

--the BODY rolled goes against resistant defenses only

--versus the STUN, target gets full resistant defense, but only 1/2 non-resistant defense.

--Damage negation:  these are advantaged DCs, so reduce as normal, if the negation isn't resistant.

 

Haven't done any testing, just tossing it out there.  

[Scott Ruggels]

 The Response from the other thread of mine 

 

...  When I GMed, I would present it as an open ended problem for the players to solve through sound tactics, or even diplomacy, and because I got my entertainment as a GM watching the players figure out the problem, I was never put off by the Players One shotting a problem with an elegant solution, or a skillful application of violence. 

 

The limiting factor for KAs was, and is the points.  How many points are you allowing for these KAs? Now I know 6e has inflated point totals into the unreasonable range, since I stick to 4th Edition, but with point totals into the 400s, a lot of shenanigans can be snuck in with the rest of the character.  Also it keeps the fights from going on too long. I don't have the time I did in College, where I could  spend 6-8 hours on a game, often time all combat. It was fun, but its nowadays unfeasible. This kind of talk leads to yet another edition of Champions to fix a problem that only effects a certa9in style of GMs.

[unclevlad]

The problem exists any time KA DCs are allowed to be equal to normal-damage DCs.

 

I'll also suggest that the problem with combat length is inherent, or nearly so.  The genre has 2 types of fights:  versus mooks, or versus real opponents.  Mooks should drop quickly and easily;  Batman and Robin clear out Joker's or Riddler's minions in a couple panels.  It's easy to give the mooks too much, when you're dealing with them in a quasi-modeling approach rather than a narrative one.  Then with the real opponents, the fight's supposed to go on.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I'd prefer to stay with normal dice, and make Lethal an advantage.

 

Last year some time we ran the numbers on this very extensively checking with various advantages and not to build killing attacks as normal attacks.  In the end, what we finally ended up with was the cost is exactly the same, but KA loses 1 stun per d6 to offset its increased lethality against unarmored targets.  The numbers line up really well through a huge range of damage classes.  I'd dig up the post but I am not feeling very motivated.

[Hugh Neilson]

20 hours ago, unclevlad said:

For me, this is completely backwards, because 

 

Volatility is NOT the friend of the PCs.

 

PCs make 1 or 2 rolls, typically, against any individual foe, and hey, if one comes out good?  Doesn't matter.  The PCs have to absorb ALL the hits, because they don't go away.

 

Math time.  Taking your suggestion...normal damage does 1,2,3,4,5,3 BODY.  Mean is 3 BODY per...ok.  Variance is 0.  OK, that's no different, actually.  The variance using standard normal damage (for BODY) is 0.  Checking with a quick 3d6 (equivalent to 9d6)...BODY done ranges from 7 to 11 73% of the time;  6 to 12, 88% of the time.  The problem is, the STUN is therefore massively dependent on a single d6.  Here's a section of the resulting stun outcomes:

 

Stun dam 20 N=45 P= 67.3611111111111
Stun dam 21 N=27 P= 65.27777777777777
Stun dam 22 N=27 P= 63.19444444444444
Stun dam 24 N=68 P= 57.947530864197525
Stun dam 25 N=9 P= 57.25308641975308
Stun dam 26 N=9 P= 56.55864197530864
Stun dam 27 N=38 P= 53.62654320987654
Stun dam 28 N=30 P= 51.31172839506173
Stun dam 30 N=59 P= 46.75925925925926
Stun dam 32 N=33 P= 44.21296296296296
Stun dam 33 N=27 P= 42.129629629629626
Stun dam 35 N=27 P= 40.04629629629629
Stun dam 36 N=70 P= 34.645061728395056
Stun dam 39 N=9 P= 33.95061728395061
Stun dam 40 N=66 P= 28.858024691358022
Stun dam 42 N=30 P= 26.54320987654321
Stun dam 44 N=27 P= 24.459876543209877
Stun dam 45 N=39 P= 21.450617283950617

 

Stun damage is the result.  N is the exact number of ways it can happen;  for example 45 STUN is 15 BODY, x3, or 9 BODY, x5.   P is the probability, therefore, of rolling that level of stun OR HIGHER.  So about 1/3 of the time, this method gives 20 STUN or less...little or no STUN will get by defenses.  And almost 30% of the time, it'll be 40+.  The maximum possible stun on standard 9d6 is 54, and that's a once-in-a-lifetime roll (probability is 1 in 6*9th, which is ~ 10M.)  The max on 3d6 with a stun mult is 90...and it's only 1 in 1296.  RARE, sure, but 7776 times more likely.  The probability of 54 or more is ~11% using the 3+1 rolling idea.

 

So, what kind of defenses do you need now?

 

Unless you really *want* the PCs to get stunned *routinely*, that is.

 

Also note:  this forces changes to Damage Negation which are fairly awkward, and very likely makes Damage Reduction almost essential, because massive STUN is what you MUST worry about first.  Damage Negation is...actually, kinda interesting.  The way it would have to work is, 5 points to negate 1 BODY...BEFORE the STUN roll is even made.  So if you have, say, 20 points DN, you knock 4 BODY...the 10 BODY rolled --> 6.  THEN you compute the STUN the target takes, based on the 6 BODY damage.  That might work very nicely, truth be told...if the stun roll's insane volatility can be tamed.  That's the looming disaster, that stun volatility.  Note that in 6E they realized it..and went from d6-1 for KA stun mult, to d3.  Going to d6 is just that much worse, even with the mild drop in damage.  The average BODY drops from 10.5 to 9, on 3d6...15%.  But rolling a straight d6, instead of a shifted d6, means that the 4+ stun multiplier goes from 1/3 to 1/2 of the time, and the high knockout threat 5 or 6 stun mult is 1/3 of the time rather than 1/6th.

 

  

 

This is why the Stun Lottery was an issue for KAs as well.  Average of, say, 14 BOD on 4d6 will average 37 1/3 stun before defenses, compared to 42 from normal damage (12d6).But against 25 defenses, good luck getting 25 STUN past defenses - not very often.  The KA, on an average BOD roll, will get over 30 STUN past defenses 1/3 of the time using the 1-5 stun multiple.

 

That made it much more effective at inflicting STUN damage, as well as way more likely to Stun the target.

 

Defenders of the KA stun lotto must like that volatility, so give them the option for a much more volatile normal attack as well, and their playing field is levelled.

 

Those preferring less volatility (see BNakagawa's post below) can choose the less volatile option for both normal and killing damage.

 

If you like 0 volatiilty, we have standard effect (which I would change to "rolls average", not "rolls all 3's").

 

18 hours ago, BNakagawa said:

It IS the volatility. 

 

Extreme volatility makes bricks unplayable. It also makes other types far less viable, but it has extreme effect against bricks.

 

Imagine a +0 Power Modifier to Energy Blast: All or Nothing.

 

You flip a coin and do either maximum or minimum damage. Minimum, Maximum and average damage are unchanged from vanilla Energy Blast, but all of a sudden, bricks are unplayable.

 

This is why KAs became the attack of choice to get significant STUN past a Brick's defenses. Pump defenses to 30, and the KA will do 0,0,0,12,26,40 - 1 chance in 6 to stun the 33 CON Brick.  How often will you roll 63+ on 12d6?

 

9 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Its a bit frustrating as a PC to have your KA either bounce or do a lot of damage, depending on a single die roll.  That's one of the things that I don't like with D&D, the single die roll resolution for nearly everything.  I love the polyhedral dice, but I don't like how they are used.  Savage Worlds has single die roll resolution as well, although it can "explode" to more dice creating extreme volatility, again.

 

I appreciate the designers of Hero trying to make different kinds of attacks feel different and have different mechanics, but in the end I think its best to convert KA into blast damage and treat the defenses differently.

 

If you do no damage past defenses, it makes no difference whether you rolled exactly his defenses or 20 under. Once you mathed it out, like unclevlad did above, the advantage of volatility shines through.

[unclevlad]

Then why did 6E shift from 1d6-1, for the stun multiplier, to 1/2 d6?

 

SOME volatility is a good thing, but with the d6-1, or worse, your suggested d6, the degree becomes gross.  Both in the absolutely, utterly insane max damage...a brick taken from full STUN to negatives with *1 shot*???  And the VERY high frequency of extreme (high and low) damage.  Yeah, fine, the KA will bounce off the brick quite a bit...but it ALSO bounces off the far less heavily armored blaster, or perhaps does a bit of BODY to the martial artist...but otherwise no STUN.  The key isn't that it doesn't even tickle the brick...yeah, it doesn't matter there, if it's 5 STUN too low or 20...but in other cases, it does.

 

And the fact that your proposal allows 10 STUN per DC means it's nothing but random.  It's, as someone pointed out, D&D Disintegrate...keep trying til they miss their save.  Or Flesh to Stone.  Save or Die was derided *heavily* in the later stages of 3.5, and that's what you're suggesting.

 

No.  Volatility of this degree has NO advantages.

[Hugh Neilson]

The KA did not simply get reduced volatility in 6e.  It was adjusted to be about killing - BOD damage - and not about STUN.  At a 3x multiple the KA  manages STUN on par with a normal attack - 12 DC delivers 42 on average.  Due to the smaller number of dice rolled, it retains some volatility compared to a normal attack.  It will manage 72 STUN much more often than a 12d6 Blast.

 

This relegates the KA to a niche power in a Supers game (still useful for barriers, automatons, etc., but no longer the go-to for getting STUN on defended targets).  That's fine - in that genre, a killing attack should be a niche power.

 

But there were also some, like Scott, who liked that volatility.  It also worked much better in heroic games (in part, I believe, due to lower defense to DC ratios, in part due to hit locations providing some volatility to normal attacks as well).

 

For them, a KA that can roll 70 STUN one time in 6, or get really lucky with 5 x 24 = 120 STUN on occasion, was and is desirable.

 

So they may prefer to extend similar volatility to normal attacks.  20 x 6 = the same 120 STUN, and an average roll with a max multiple will kick out 72 damage.

 

I agree that this is, long-term, detrimental to the PCs.  So are critical hits - and many players love those.

 

The stun lotto level of volatility may well have no advantages in your games, or in my games.  Clearly, some liked it, as the 1d3 multiple was a sore point for many looking at 6e.

 

Making volatility one more dial that can be set allows them to have the volatility they want, without requiring you or I incorporate it into our games.

 

As someone who likes the stun lotto volatility, I'm interested in@Scott Ruggels thoughts on making normal attacks similarly volatile.

[Ndreare]

I imagine to get the same thing from normal attacks what about not rolling the dice of damage. But instead use Hit locations and the Killing attack multiplier for every die. 

For example on a head shot that 12d6 blast inflicts 60 stun. If you play with critical hits then a critical hit would be 6 stun for each die. 

 

I think it is overly simple so it would not make everyone happy. But maybe it could be a starting point. 


Example

Critical Hit = dice x6 stun, Body x2 (do not roll hit location)

3-5 Head = dice x5 Stun, Body x2
6 Hands = dice x1 Stun
7-8 Arms = dice x2 Stun
9 Shoulders = dice x3 Stun
10-11 Chest = dice x3 Stun
12 Stomach = dice x4, Body x1.5
13 Vitals = dice x4, Body x1.5
14 Thighs = dice x2
15-16 Legs = dice x2, Body x0.5
17-18 Feet = dice x1, Body x0.5

[Christopher R Taylor]

Before 6th came out we'd started using hit locations instead of a stun multiplier die.  That way you get 3d6 and a more predictable, smoother curve of effects (both low and high tend to be unlikely, but possible). You ignore all the other hit location mechanics and just use it to determine the stun multiplier of the KA.

[BNakagawa]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Before 6th came out we'd started using hit locations instead of a stun multiplier die.  That way you get 3d6 and a more predictable, smoother curve of effects (both low and high tend to be unlikely, but possible). You ignore all the other hit location mechanics and just use it to determine the stun multiplier of the KA.

The notion of trying hit locations for damage in a superhero game has been attempted and for the most part discarded. Far too easy to drop people with repeated headshots. Or even just one. Not very fun to be on the receiving end of those.

[Hugh Neilson]

8 hours ago, Ndreare said:

I imagine to get the same thing from normal attacks what about not rolling the dice of damage. But instead use Hit locations and the Killing attack multiplier for every die. 

For example on a head shot that 12d6 blast inflicts 60 stun. If you play with critical hits then a critical hit would be 6 stun for each die. 

 

I think it is overly simple so it would not make everyone happy. But maybe it could be a starting point. 


Example

Critical Hit = dice x6 stun, Body x2 (do not roll hit location)

3-5 Head = dice x5 Stun, Body x2
6 Hands = dice x1 Stun
7-8 Arms = dice x2 Stun
9 Shoulders = dice x3 Stun
10-11 Chest = dice x3 Stun
12 Stomach = dice x4, Body x1.5
13 Vitals = dice x4, Body x1.5
14 Thighs = dice x2
15-16 Legs = dice x2, Body x0.5
17-18 Feet = dice x1, Body x0.5

 

This would add similar volatility to normal attacks (maybe even more than KA's with the max damage potential).  I haven't mathed out anything with KAs.

 

5 hours ago, BNakagawa said:

The notion of trying hit locations for damage in a superhero game has been attempted and for the most part discarded. Far too easy to drop people with repeated headshots. Or even just one. Not very fun to be on the receiving end of those.

 

I think hit locations smooth the results a bit.  I have not mathed it out, but 3-5 is 4.63% likely and 13 (vitals IIRC) is 9.72%, so that totals 14.35% versus 16.67% to roll Location 5.  That's not a major reduction in the odds of 5x STUN, even without targeting specific locations and just replacing the 1d6 multiple in abstract.

[Ndreare]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

This would add similar volatility to normal attacks (maybe even more than KA's with the max damage potential).  I haven't mathed out anything with KAs.

I know it would. This was the effect desired for when Hugh Neilson asked how to make normal damage more volitile. (See bellow/above)

 

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

As someone who likes the stun lotto volatility, I'm interested in@Scott Ruggels thoughts on making normal attacks similarly volatile.

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

The notion of trying hit locations for damage in a superhero game has been attempted and for the most part discarded.

 

I agree, but as I said, you ignore all the mechanics except the stun multiple.  Hit Locations aren't used for targeting or body multiples or anything else, its just a 3d6 alternate to the stun multiple.  So nobody can try to target the head, or any other part.  Its just an alternate mechanic for resolving how much stun a KA did.

[BNakagawa]

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

This would add similar volatility to normal attacks (maybe even more than KA's with the max damage potential).  I haven't mathed out anything with KAs.

 

 

I think hit locations smooth the results a bit.  I have not mathed it out, but 3-5 is 4.63% likely and 13 (vitals IIRC) is 9.72%, so that totals 14.35% versus 16.67% to roll Location 5.  That's not a major reduction in the odds of 5x STUN, even without targeting specific locations and just replacing the 1d6 multiple in abstract.

Called shots and half hit location penalties when the target isn't expecting it (you are invisible or you are on the other side of a wall and have indirect attacks) It makes low DCV bricks pretty useless.