Damage Negation Doesn't Seem Very Good

[Hugh Neilson]

31 minutes ago, Simon said:

You're saying that a chart in the rulebook which literally shows 2DC killing costing 10 points and being either 1/2D6 or 1D6-1 is not clear enough for you?

 

I'm saying that, as I read them, those charts determine the number of DCs that a given number of dice represents, within the constraints that 1 DC = 5 AP but many abilities do not cost 5 points, or a neat multiple of 5 points, per 1d6.

 

Actyually, I just tripped over a counter-example (which is not in the errata unless it was updated since I last looked).  V1, p 242 includes the example of a semiautomatic .45 handgun, as RKA 2d6-1. +1 Increased Stun Multiple (+1/4) (34 active points).  25 x 1.25 = 31.25, so 31 AP.  34/1.25 = 27.2, implying that example used a 12 point cost for 1d6-1 (27 x 1.25 = 33.75 rounded to 34).

 

So either I extrapolate from the chart that, since 1/2d6 and 1d6-1 are both 2 DCs, and 1/2d6 costs 10 points, 1d6-1 also costs 10 points, or I extrapolate from that example power that it is 12 points.

 

That leads me to search "d6-1", and I note that, on V1 page 462, a 3 DC KA with a +1/4 advantage is 1d6-1, and a 3 DC KA with a +1/2 advantage is 1/2d6, so the charts do not reflect the two as always being identical.  This recurs quite a few times in the KA chart on that page.  Firebrand, on page 21, has a 2d6 AP RKA, which his 15 STR brings to 3d6-1, again implying 12 points for 1d6-1.

 

In V2, p 97, we find the oddity of 1/2d6-1 as a 22 1/2 point per d6 attack (a KA with a +1/2 advantage, maybe?).  3 DCs are 1/2d6 and 4 DCs are 1d6-1.  Half dice and d6-1 are also staggered in the 20 points per 1d6 column, which the notes say is a KA with a +1/4 advantage.  That entire column goes +1, 1/2d6, d6-1, full d6.

 

On V2, p 100, Brak the Barbarian's dagger is noted as doing 1d6-1, and adding 3 DCs would make that 5 DCs or 1 1/2d6 (no mention of 2d6-1), but the point of that example is that he is capped at 1d6+1 anyway.

 

On the weapons tables (e.g p 204 in V2), we have active point costs for many weapons. A dagger does 1d6-1 and has an AP of 21 (12 x 1.75 for 0 END and Can Be Thrown), while a knife does 1/2d6 and has an AP of 17 (10 x 1.75).  No great comparables jump out on page 206, and the various other modifiers on p 208 make the firearms hard to compare quickly.

 

While I am getting a strong sense that the "rules as implied" set 1d6-1 at 12 points (divided by 5 = 2.4, so 2 DC), if there is any explicit statement to that effect, I did not find it - and I cannot imagine you would have missed it if it were in there, as I know how solid your rules knowledge is - I'd lose that contest every time!  It does, however, seem to indicate that the APG use of 12 points may be what Steve Long had in mind, but never put to paper, in the pre-APG rules.

 

So, I guess what my research leads me to conclude is that the chart in question is not clear enough, especially in the context of the above, for me to conclude that 1d6-1 KA (or transform, or Blast with +2 advantages, or Drain with +1/2 advantages) costs 10 points, only that it is 2 DCs regardless of what it costs.

 

But with no explicit statement, that's my interpretation and does not invalidate other interpretations.

 

[Simon]

You found errata.  Congratulations.  

The point remains that according to the rules as written and as validated by Steve Long and as coded into HD and as used in numerous examples and as shown in multiple locations within 6E1, 6E2, and 5ER, Killing Damage is broken down by full damage classes only and follows 
1 DC = 5 points = 1 pip

2 DC = 10 points = 1/2D6, 1D6-1

3 DC = 15 points = 1D6

4 DC = 20 points = 1D6+1

5 DC = 25 points = 1 1/2D6, 2D6-1

...and so on ad infinitum.

 

You're either intentionally being obtuse about this or you're actively trying to make an issue where there is not one.

[Simon]

From Steve Long (way back in 2012):
 

Quote

In the case of Killing Damage ending in -1, there is no separate cost; as noted in the Damage Class table on 6E2 97, 2d6-1 is the same DC as 1.5d6 and technically would have the same cost (25 points in this case). However, in the interest of distinguishing weapons more precisely, I often use the "increased damage differentiation" rules on APG 56 (so that, for example, 2d6-1 would cost 27 points).

 

So, again, the RAW is clear.  The deviations you're seeing in the examples are due to Steve's predilection for using some rules from APG in his writeups (though he explicitly did not want those to become cannon and had me keep HD at the RAW of 2 DC = 10 points = 1/2D6, 1D6-1).  

 

It would have been significantly easier to code HD to have 1/2D6 killing = 10 points and 1D6-1 killing = 12 points...but that's not RAW and not what Steve wanted.

[Hugh Neilson]

All of those examples come from the 6e core rules - don't they predate APG?

 

Anyway, from your comments, Steve clearly intended either option (1/2d6 and 1d6-1) be a 10-point cost, regardless of the 6e builds and the Damage Classes chart for KAs consistently working backwards to a 12-point cost.  "Steve told you" definitely trumps "rule books imply", at least for me.

 

I'll pop the book items cited above into the 6e Errata page.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I don't see how anyone could argue that the ½d6/d6-1 options were in any way an implication, since that's been a routinely used and constant rule used in what, 6 iterations of the rules?  Its not subtle, or hidden, or suggested like Combined Attacks was, it was in black and white right on the pages of every single set of rules and used repeatedly in thousands of examples.

[Hugh Neilson]

As indicated above, I have never seen any explicit statement that 1d6-1 can be purchased, instead of purchasing 1/2d6 - at all, much less with a price point specified.

 

Every example I found today with a search for "6d-1" reflects a cost of 12 points for "d6-1".

 

Do you have either a cite for the statement that 1d6-1 can be purchased for 10 points, or an example where that damage level is constructed at a cost of 10, rather than 12, points?  I recall d6-1 being used pretty commonly on the weapons tables, intended for "pay with cash" rather than "pay with points".  I can't think of any pre-6e build examples, but I can't say I would remember them if there had been any.  Since you say there are thousands of examples, I assume you will have no difficulty producing a few.

 

In any case, Simon has more than demonstrated that Steve considers 10 points to be the RAW in 6e. 

[Hugh Neilson]

This discussion belongs here,  not in the Errata thread.

 

13 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

Along these lines, should there ever be another edition of the rules, then I'd suggest streamlining all this.

a)  1 DC --> +1 pip

b)  2 DCs --> ONE OF (2 pips, 1/2 d6, +d6-1).  The only one I really don't like is the 1/2 d6.  I'd prefer to avoid half dice when possible.  I don't have a strong favorite between 2 pips and d6-1;  overall it makes little difference.  2 pips is simpler and cleaner;  it's a bit less effective, but hey, it's also guaranteed, where d6-1 isn't.

 

But just use one of them ALL the time.

 

While I agree in principal (if you want two different results, they should have two different costs, what is standard effect on a half die?  The average of 2 seems right.  Don't you already have the choice of making that half die standard effect?

[unclevlad]

Not that I can see.  You can make the entire power Standard Effect...with the scaling problems we've discussed...but not parts of it.  

 

Standard effect...ok, open up the stock HD.  RKA, 1d6.  SE is 3 BODY, 6 STUN.  +1:  4 BODY, 8 STUN.  +1/2d6:  4 BODY, 8 STUN.  +1d6-1:  4 BODY, 8 STUN.  Increase the base to 2d6...same thing.  All 3 add 1 BODY, 2 STUN.

 

So there's no help there, because the latter 2 make no sense at all.  And we know standard effect grossly nerfs the result as you move up the line.  Because it's incorporated an adjustment, to eliminate the fraction, prematurely.  

 

If we adopt the adjustment we've mentioned:  standard effect gives you the mean of whatever you're rolling, then the mean of 1/2 d6 is 2.  1/2 d6 with beneficial rounding means 1,1,2,2,3,3.  I'd just rather call that +2.  

 

Standard effect on 1d6-1 varies.  On a base of 1d6, 2d6-1 has a mean of 6.  1d6+2 has a mean of 5.  On a base of 2d6, 3d6-1 has a mean of 9.5; 2d6+2 has a mean of 9.  Using the mean for standard effect computations shares the root problem that killing dice have...inconsistent steps.  It's not a large amount, but it's annoying.  The rounding issue (even or odd full dice) can't be helped, it's implicit.  But I'd rather not add another aspect.  So just calling 2 DCs a flat +2 avoids things.  +1, +2, another die.  Easy to understand, as fair as can be made as long as the system embraces killing dice.

[Hugh Neilson]

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

Not that I can see.  You can make the entire power Standard Effect...with the scaling problems we've discussed...but not parts of it. 

 

From 6e v1 p 133

 

Quote

At the GM’s option, you can apply the Standard Effect Rule to only part of a Power. That means part of it has a fixed result, while the rest is determined randomly and added to the fixed portion. For example, Arkelos could have a Major
Transform 4d6+9.

 

So a partial standard effect is contemplated in the RAW.

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

Not that I can see.  You can make the entire power Standard Effect...with the scaling problems we've discussed...but not parts of it.  

 

Standard effect...ok, open up the stock HD.  RKA, 1d6.  SE is 3 BODY, 6 STUN.  +1:  4 BODY, 8 STUN.  +1/2d6:  4 BODY, 8 STUN.  +1d6-1:  4 BODY, 8 STUN.  Increase the base to 2d6...same thing.  All 3 add 1 BODY, 2 STUN.

 

So there's no help there, because the latter 2 make no sense at all.  And we know standard effect grossly nerfs the result as you move up the line.  Because it's incorporated an adjustment, to eliminate the fraction, prematurely. 

 

All that really tells me is that my decision not to use HD is the right one, and further supports the view that Standard Effect needs to be changed.  I also do not allow 1 Pip Penetrating KA to mean that 1 Pip is Penetrating, which clearly deviates from RAW.

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

 

Standard effect on 1d6-1 varies.  On a base of 1d6, 2d6-1 has a mean of 6.  1d6+2 has a mean of 5.  On a base of 2d6, 3d6-1 has a mean of 9.5; 2d6+2 has a mean of 9.  Using the mean for standard effect computations shares the root problem that killing dice have...inconsistent steps.  It's not a large amount, but it's annoying.  The rounding issue (even or odd full dice) can't be helped, it's implicit.  But I'd rather not add another aspect.  So just calling 2 DCs a flat +2 avoids things.  +1, +2, another die.  Easy to understand, as fair as can be made as long as the system embraces killing dice.

 

 

Why not just eliminate all random rolls?  You get 1 BOD from a KA per 5 points.  For every 30 points, you get a "Bonus BOD" to keep the average neat.  You get 3 STUN from a Normal attack for 5 points. 

 

If we fix Standard Effect for 1/2d6 to be a roll of 2 (and a "BOD count of 0), we solve the issue for those wanting to use SE, and don't change anything for those preferring 1/2d6.  1d6-1 becomes a 12 point "GM's Option" variant, which is the manner in which it is currently applied, based on my search above, each and every time it is used in the 6e rules.

[unclevlad]

Ahh...yeah, OK.  Rules allow it;  HD isn't set up for it.  

 

As far as removing all rolls?  Come on, this is reductio ad absurdem.  There's no significant variance when we're ONLY considering the 1/2 d6 --> a flat 2.  If you want Standard Effect, fine...but make the clean mathematical definition, not some ridiculous kludge like "bonus BOD for every 30 points."  "Standard Effect is that the Power does average damage...."  rather than a flat 3.

 

Quote

If we fix Standard Effect for 1/2d6 to be a roll of 2 (and a "BOD count of 0), we solve the issue for those wanting to use SE, and don't change anything for those preferring 1/2d6.  1d6-1 becomes a 12 point "GM's Option" variant, which is the manner in which it is currently applied, based on my search above, each and every time it is used in the 6e rules.

 

Are we talking normal dice or killing dice?  The entire discussion's been killing dice, so how would 1/2d6 EVER be 0 BODY?  If it's normal dice, it still makes no sense.  1,1,2,2,3,3...4 out of 6 give 1 BODY, so the mean is 2/3.  Fractions over 1/2 --> the next integer up.  

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Are we talking normal dice or killing dice?  The entire discussion's been killing dice, so how would 1/2d6 EVER be 0 BODY?  If it's normal dice, it still makes no sense.  1,1,2,2,3,3...4 out of 6 give 1 BODY, so the mean is 2/3.  Fractions over 1/2 --> the next integer up. 

 

There is a "count the BOD" on killing dice when they are Penetrating.  As a half die would count 1 on 4 - 6 and 0 on 1 - 3 (6e v1 p342; not the 2/3 chance you indicate), I am suggesting a standard effect half die would count 0.

[unclevlad]

7 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

There is a "count the BOD" on killing dice when they are Penetrating.  As a half die would count 1 on 4 - 6 and 0 on 1 - 3 (6e v1 p342; not the 2/3 chance you indicate), I am suggesting a standard effect half die would count 0.

 

Not applicable.  That's a rule specifically for Penetrating, and it is not a model for standard half damage.  Penetrating treats the dice as "normal damage dice"...so they're using the 6E2 98 rules.

 

Normal damage attacks

 

Quote

If a character has to roll a half die (½d6), damage is determined differently. Roll the half die separately, or use a different color or size die to identify it as the ½d6. The face value of the die is multiplied by one-half and rounded up to get the
number of STUN done. The ½d6 does 1 BODY if the roll is a 4, 5, or 6.

 

This has the sensible, simple rule for *pip* counting...multiply by 1/2, round up.  With killing dice, you're doing pip counting, for BODY...so use that part of the rule.  For Penetrating, you're not doing pip counting in any situation.

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Not applicable.  That's a rule specifically for Penetrating, and it is not a model for standard half damage.  Penetrating treats the dice as "normal damage dice"...so they're using the 6E2 98 rules.

 

Normal damage attacks

 

 

This has the sensible, simple rule for *pip* counting...multiply by 1/2, round up.  With killing dice, you're doing pip counting, for BODY...so use that part of the rule.  For Penetrating, you're not doing pip counting in any situation.

 

In either case you get 1 BOD half the time, not 2/3 of the time which was how I read your comment below

 

13 hours ago, unclevlad said:

how would 1/2d6 EVER be 0 BODY?  If it's normal dice, it still makes no sense.  1,1,2,2,3,3...4 out of 6 give 1 BODY, so the mean is 2/3.  Fractions over 1/2 --> the next integer up. 

 

As RAW standard damage rounds the half point of 3.5 average down, it would logically also round the 0.5 average of a half die down (even without the ridiculous "only count a half die as +1" model).  Moving Standard to Average, so 2d6 = 7, I would still round half points down, so 3d6 = 10 and 3d6-1 = 9.

 

Standard effect has an even more problematic discrepancy between half dice (count as +1) and 1d6-1 (count as 3 points and ignore the -1).  IMO, they should each count 2 points, rounding down the 0.5 in the average damage.  So, for example, I would count 4d6-1 as 13, being 3 x 3.5 + 2.5.  Clearly not RAW (and RAW clearly lowballs standard effect).