Killing Attacks - Alternate Mechanics

[Hugh Neilson]

20 minutes ago, BNakagawa said:

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.

 

Even before considering that, think about high levels of Growth!  But Christopher is only suggesting replacing the roll for an abstract multiple, not allowing called shots.

[unclevlad]

Right.  Called shots have notable drawbacks that are separate from a hit location table.

 

Hmm, I need lunch, but I'll take a swing at the hit locations.  It's not particularly different.  I suspect, tho, it'll still be too easy to do high STUN.

 

For reference:  72 STUN on 4d6 KA per 6E is 1 in 3888.  For 12d6, it's about 1 in 2 billion.  So saying, oh, they have the same potential max, is grossly misleading.  On 12d6, you'll exceed 50 only about 6% of the time...and exceed 54 about 1%.  On 4d6, you'll roll 18+ about 16% of the time, and obviously, 1/3 of the time you'll get the 5 or 6 STUN die.  So over 5% of the time, you'll do a minimum of 54.  So it's quite a bit more often.  Whether it's at the level of 'unreasonable'?  That's a subjective evaluation, and much depends on campaign style, and of course, how often the group agrees to use/face KAs.  Comics supers?  Certain foes will have KAs but not that many.  Urban fantasy, there's probably quite a few;  the bad guys are more likely out to kill.  Superhero (novel) fiction can lean either way.

[unclevlad]

OK.

Stun mult 1:  hands and feet; 14 / 216

Stun mult 2:  arms, thighs, legs;  67 / 216

Stun mult 3:  shoulders, chest;  79 / 216

Stun mult 4:  stomach, vitals;  46 / 216

Stun mult 5:  head;  10 / 216

 

Results.  STUN is the amount.  N is the exact number of ways it can happen (this is a 3d6 KA, rolling 3d6 hit location, so there are 46,656 possibilities.

P is the probability that the damage will be the column 1 value OR HIGHER.  That's as before.  Note that if you want the probability for "less than this" you can just go with 100 - P.

 

The dark line is hit locations;  the yellow line uses the 1/2 d6 STUN multiplier.  Note that 9d6 normal would hit 40+ STUN about 6% of the time.  So hit locations increase volatility greatly, and lead to significantly higher STUN.  Even 10% of the time, you're looking at 48+ STUN...on a 9 DC attack.

 

Dark line uses hit locations for the stun mult.  Magenta line is 5E (d6-1).  Yellow line is 6E (1/2 d6).  

 

[unclevlad]

Oh, BTW:  for those who like to look at these things...

 

anydice.com has a nice, simple graphical display for simple dice math.  They show the exact probability of getting each value, as a percentage.  But you can pretty easily read the head or tail sections for things like "how often would I exceed 40 damage on 9d6?"

 

I'm sure there's others out there, I was happy with this.  It doesn't work for the killing damage STUN probabilities, tho, of course.

[BNakagawa]

It doesn't make any sense to just use hit locations to determine stun multiples and not allow them to increase or decrease normal damage.

[unclevlad]

14 minutes ago, BNakagawa said:

It doesn't make any sense to just use hit locations to determine stun multiples and not allow them to increase or decrease normal damage.

 

I don't necessarily agree with that, but even more...I'd hate to use hit locations with normal attacks, for supers.  Hand, arm, leg, foot...attack effectively misses, as it's half STUN and half BODY.  That's 56 out of 216, or 1/4.  Head and Vitals is 2x BODY, that's 31 / 216 or 1/7.  1.5x STUN adds Stomach, so 1.5x or 2x STUN is also 56 / 216...again basically 1/4.

 

'course I'm not a fan of hit locations period, but this just inserts a MASSIVE amount of volatility, in huge chunks.

[BNakagawa]

11 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

I don't necessarily agree with that, but even more...I'd hate to use hit locations with normal attacks, for supers.  Hand, arm, leg, foot...attack effectively misses, as it's half STUN and half BODY.  That's 56 out of 216, or 1/4.  Head and Vitals is 2x BODY, that's 31 / 216 or 1/7.  1.5x STUN adds Stomach, so 1.5x or 2x STUN is also 56 / 216...again basically 1/4.

 

'course I'm not a fan of hit locations period, but this just inserts a MASSIVE amount of volatility, in huge chunks.

I agree in principal, but if you're going to introduce a mechanic for killing attacks without applying it to normal attacks, it doesn't allow for 1:1 comparisons.

[unclevlad]

OK, but the thread's been considering the options/impact of different approaches to doing KA damage, both BODY and STUN, so it's apples to apples in that sense.  The game mechanics are clearly built around normal damage without the use of hit locations, so it's still legitimate to see how any of these compare to what the fundamental baseline is.  

 

I will say it's good to bring it up.  It helps to recognize that hit locations severely distort the cost of attacks versus defenses, and probably the relative values of PD/ED/Armor versus damage negation versus damage reduction.

 

Brings up a point we haven't really mentioned yet.

 

The core volatility of killing attack dice, for the BODY, has a significant impact on defenses.  If KAs are a concern, and if they're allowed comparable maximum DCs, then you have to buy *substantial* rDef.  12d6 normal, you'll see more than 15 BODY *rarely*.  And it won't be much over 15.  OTOH, facing 4d6 K, 19+ BODY happens 10% of the time.  So if you're thinking average defense...14...is enough...you're risking pretty significant damage.  Not fatal on its own, but substantial.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

It doesn't make any sense to just use hit locations to determine stun multiples and not allow them to increase or decrease normal damage.

 

We just used it as a more interesting way to give stun multiples to KA instead of the d6-1 and found it worked very well for our group.

[unclevlad]

11 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

We just used it as a more interesting way to give stun multiples to KA instead of the d6-1 and found it worked very well for our group.

 

It actually does work better in a couple ways:  notably less likely to completely fizzle at the low end, somewhat less likely to get the massive STUN.  It still allows massive stun, tho.

[Scott Ruggels]

On 7/21/2022 at 8:28 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

 

I think it is interesting, and would work well for some special effects, like Lightning attacks, and some other natural phenomena.  It would probably have to be bought, as an advantage, though depending on how it's implemented, I could see it as a limitation as well. But for the sake of argument, its classed as an advantage.

17 hours ago, unclevlad said:

OK.

Stun mult 1:  hands and feet; 14 / 216

Stun mult 2:  arms, thighs, legs;  67 / 216

Stun mult 3:  shoulders, chest;  79 / 216

Stun mult 4:  stomach, vitals;  46 / 216

Stun mult 5:  head;  10 / 216

 

Results.  STUN is the amount.  N is the exact number of ways it can happen (this is a 3d6 KA, rolling 3d6 hit location, so there are 46,656 possibilities.

P is the probability that the damage will be the column 1 value OR HIGHER.  That's as before.  Note that if you want the probability for "less than this" you can just go with 100 - P.

 

The dark line is hit locations;  the yellow line uses the 1/2 d6 STUN multiplier.  Note that 9d6 normal would hit 40+ STUN about 6% of the time.  So hit locations increase volatility greatly, and lead to significantly higher STUN.  Even 10% of the time, you're looking at 48+ STUN...on a 9 DC attack.

 

Dark line uses hit locations for the stun mult.  Magenta line is 5E (d6-1).  Yellow line is 6E (1/2 d6).  

 

 A Graph that illustrates another reason for me to NOT adopt 6th Edition.

[Hugh Neilson]

22 hours ago, unclevlad said:

For reference:  72 STUN on 4d6 KA per 6E is 1 in 3888.  For 12d6, it's about 1 in 2 billion.  So saying, oh, they have the same potential max, is grossly misleading.  On 12d6, you'll exceed 50 only about 6% of the time...and exceed 54 about 1%.  On 4d6, you'll roll 18+ about 16% of the time, and obviously, 1/3 of the time you'll get the 5 or 6 STUN die.  So over 5% of the time, you'll do a minimum of 54.  So it's quite a bit more often.  Whether it's at the level of 'unreasonable'?  That's a subjective evaluation, and much depends on campaign style, and of course, how often the group agrees to use/face KAs.  Comics supers?  Certain foes will have KAs but not that many.  Urban fantasy, there's probably quite a few;  the bad guys are more likely out to kill.  Superhero (novel) fiction can lean either way.

 

That volatility is the issue.  We're moving between the extremes of setting standard damage - 12 DC is always 42 STUN, 12 BOD normal or 37 STUN 14 BOD KA (the pre-6e averages) and toss a coin - it's either 12 STUN, 0 BOD or 72 STUN, 24 BOD for a normal attack or 120 STUN, 24 BOD for a KA.  How effective each approach in between is depends a lot on the defenses of the target, because the roll is not as important as the damage passed through defenses.

 

20 hours ago, unclevlad said:

OK.

Stun mult 1:  hands and feet; 14 / 216

Stun mult 2:  arms, thighs, legs;  67 / 216

Stun mult 3:  shoulders, chest;  79 / 216

Stun mult 4:  stomach, vitals;  46 / 216

Stun mult 5:  head;  10 / 216

 

 

 

Compared to 1d6-1, where we would see 64/216 1, and 32/216 for the rest, much less chance of plinking, slightly lower chance of 4-5 and markedly lower chance of a 5.  Average multiple grows to 2.87 from 2.67.  It's not the spread that  makes the issue less noticable in Heroic games with hit locations.

 

18 hours ago, BNakagawa said:

It doesn't make any sense to just use hit locations to determine stun multiples and not allow them to increase or decrease normal damage.

 

I don't believe the suggestion was to use hit locations.  It was to use that probability distribution to determine a stun multiple in the abstract.  For 12 points (8 PSLs to offset hit location penalties) every attack can target the head.  12 points isn't a big investment for a Super to double normal damage or guarantee a 5x KA Stun multiple.

 

17 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

I don't necessarily agree with that, but even more...I'd hate to use hit locations with normal attacks, for supers.  Hand, arm, leg, foot...attack effectively misses, as it's half STUN and half BODY.  That's 56 out of 216, or 1/4.  Head and Vitals is 2x BODY, that's 31 / 216 or 1/7.  1.5x STUN adds Stomach, so 1.5x or 2x STUN is also 56 / 216...again basically 1/4.

 

'course I'm not a fan of hit locations period, but this just inserts a MASSIVE amount of volatility, in huge chunks.

 

You're not going to want it because you don't want the added volatility.  The question is not "do I want added volatility" or "should this be the new damage standard".  It is "how do we level the playing field between KAs and normal attacks, by reducing KA volatility to be comparable to normal attacks (which has attracted minimal comment) or by enhancing Normal Attack volatility to be comparable to Killing Attacks.  It's funny - Hero gamers are normally about dials we can set, and options for our preferred playstyle, not one true wayism like "more volatility bad for me so bad for everyone". 

 

For those of us not fans of volatility, we don't need a STUN multiple - we can go to that 1d6 = 1 DC KA model from my initial post (that one has not attracted much commentary; I'll reprint below), or discuss other options, to bring KA volatility down.  For those who like that wild swinginess, why is it good for KAs but not good for normal attacks (unless your goal is to incent all characters to killing attacks).  My wakeup call for this was realizing how often I gave mooks 2d6 KAs instead of 6d6 Blasters so they could get some STUN through.  The KA was always the better choice at the same DC and point cost.

 

17 hours ago, BNakagawa said:

I agree in principal, but if you're going to introduce a mechanic for killing attacks without applying it to normal attacks, it doesn't allow for 1:1 comparisons.

 

That is one reason Heroic has less issues, I believe - Normal attacks can also do enhanced damage.

 

16 hours ago, unclevlad said:

OK, but the thread's been considering the options/impact of different approaches to doing KA damage, both BODY and STUN, so it's apples to apples in that sense.  The game mechanics are clearly built around normal damage without the use of hit locations, so it's still legitimate to see how any of these compare to what the fundamental baseline is.  

 

I will say it's good to bring it up.  It helps to recognize that hit locations severely distort the cost of attacks versus defenses, and probably the relative values of PD/ED/Armor versus damage negation versus damage reduction.

 

Brings up a point we haven't really mentioned yet.

 

The core volatility of killing attack dice, for the BODY, has a significant impact on defenses.  If KAs are a concern, and if they're allowed comparable maximum DCs, then you have to buy *substantial* rDef.  12d6 normal, you'll see more than 15 BODY *rarely*.  And it won't be much over 15.  OTOH, facing 4d6 K, 19+ BODY happens 10% of the time.  So if you're thinking average defense...14...is enough...you're risking pretty significant damage.  Not fatal on its own, but substantial.  

 

Yup - volatility means you either need much higher defenses to cope with the occasional lucky roll (and there will be one eventually), and those defenses are so high average attacks become useless.  Enough defenses to feel secure a 5x Stun Multiple isn't always going to exceed CON is enough defenses that the same DC normal attack is useless.  Those who want the volatility presumably also want a combat model with a material risk that a lucky shot will stun a typical target.  That's not "right" or "wrong" - it's just a different playstyle.

 

2 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

 

I think it is interesting, and would work well for some special effects, like Lightning attacks, and some other natural phenomena.  It would probably have to be bought, as an advantage, though depending on how it's implemented, I could see it as a limitation as well. But for the sake of argument, its classed as an advantage.

 A Graph that illustrates another reason for me to NOT adopt 6th Edition.

 

So why would a similar level of volatility to that which a KA gets by default be an advantage on a normal attack? If this added volatility should carry a higher cost for an attack that averages 3.5 STUN and 1 BOD per DC, and caps out at 120 STUN and 20 BOD, why would it not be an advantage for the KA, that averages more BOD and a bit less STUN, has similar volatility and caps out at 120 STUN and 24 BOD, even before considering the KA requires a special defense (I don't see that as huge when pretty much everyone buys that special defense)?

 

A less volatile KA Option:  For 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.  That's a "normal attack" level of volatility for Killing Attacks.

[SCUBA Hero]

Another option, for those who like the stun volatility, is to roll body dice for normal attacks as usual, then roll a single d6-1 stun multiple.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The biggest advantage (after smoothing out stun lotto) of going to the normal blast roll for KA damage classes is not having to figure out damage classes, followed by how it makes low end heroic characters feel more interesting.  That d6 sword upgrading to a d6+1 is just... disappointing.  But 3d6 going to 4d6 feels like you really are getting more.  And with half dice you can make it even more granular.

[unclevlad]

What about...leave killing damage is it is, where 1d6 is 15 points.  Do a fixed stun multiplier, or perhaps a VERY narrow one.  The bigger change is that the STUN is only reduced by resistant defenses, NOT by normal defenses.

 

When this game to mind, I started thinking the stun mult might be a flat 2.  Then 3d6 killing would be 10 BODY, 20 STUN average.  

 

If you want some variation, then roll a d6:  1-2, 1.5x STUN;  3-4, 2x STUN;  5-6, 2.5x STUN.  Or perhaps 1.5x STUN is 1 only, 2.5x STUN is 6 only, everything else is a 2.  

 

This is just off the top of my head right now.  Even with 2.5x STUN, the max STUN on a 9 DC attack is 45, but that's very unlikely.  Conversely, tho, a decent amount of STUN will get through much of the time.  It feels like it helps both damage negation and damage reduction, as long as they're resistant, because now the cost comparison is much more strongly tied to resistant defenses rather than normal defenses.

[Penthau]

My house rule for killing attacks is based on the idea that killing attacks that get through resistant defenses hurt a lot more. A bullet that doesn't penetrate a vest is going to hurt, but nothing like the bullet that didn't encounter the vest. What I do is a fixed stun multiplier of 2 for the BODY of the KA, but add 2x stun for every body done to the victim. So for an attack of 10 body/20 stun vs 10 resistant PD, the attack would do 0 body/10 stun. Against 10 PD/5 resistant, it would do 5 body and 10 stun + 10 more for the 5 body that got through. Against 10 PD/0 resistant, it would do 10 body/10 stun + 20 more for the 10 body that got through. It also has the advantage of being quick to calculate, with just maybe a couple of multiplying by 2.