Stun Multiplier

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

See previous. The actual "correct" price depends on the average defense level of the campaign, but should be roughly +1/3 or so.

 

See, this is the problem with "assume". The game must simulate systems where average defense is very high or very low. An old poll found campaigns where average attacks were 10d6 and average defenses 35, and others where average attacks were 15d6 and average defenses 15. What should the cost be in these capmaigns?

 

This type of variance may have gone by the wayside with "campaign norms" in the book, of course. And even if they haven't, the rules can hardly be faulted for falling down if we devate markedly from the norms they are designed for.

 

But look! We have different genres. How do the numbers add up in a campaign where resistant defenses average 5, and total defenses average 10, but attacks of 3d6 KA (or 9d6 normal damage) are common [typical 150 point campaign]? Seems to me that's pretty close for Fantasy Hero - if anything, spell attacks (where you'll most often see a +1 Stun Multiple] get even higher!

 

I'd quote some Star Hero figures but alas! I don't have those genre books. Perhaps some sci fi fan will add to my comments above.

 

This variability makes it pretty tough to base an advantage on average stun that gets through average defenses from an average DC attack! Note that Stun Multiple bonuses are hardly the only advantages whose impact varies depending on genre. If we're working with 45 AP attacks and 5/10 defenses, what use is a Penetrating KA? 2d6 Penetrating KA gets 2 BOD through on an average attack anyway - a 3d6 KA will get 5.5 BOD through. And let's not even talk about a 9d6 EB vs 6d6 Penetrating! Armor piercing's impact varies similarly.

 

Your analysis considers only relatively high average attacks and defenses - the system has to consider all the power levels it is designed to play at.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Your analysis considers only relatively high average attacks and defenses - the system has to consider all the power levels it is designed to play at.

 

You can't help but consider average defense levels when assigning costs. Armor Piercing is virtually worthless when average defenses are 2, but is worth its weight in gold when average defenses are 50. The +1/2 advantage is clearly based on its value in "typical" campaigns. That means with "typical" defense values, or at least a fairly narrow range.

[BNakagawa]

I don't see how setting makes any difference in this case.

 

More damage is more damage. 25% more points for 37% more damage is a bargain no matter how you look at it. Especially if you're allowed to do it multiple times. Especially if you stack it with autofire, explosion, or armor piercing or whatever else floats your boat.

 

$0.02

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

You can't help but consider average defense levels when assigning costs. Armor Piercing is virtually worthless when average defenses are 2, but is worth its weight in gold when average defenses are 50. The +1/2 advantage is clearly based on its value in "typical" campaigns. That means with "typical" defense values, or at least a fairly narrow range.

 

This argues for varying the costs of many different advantages depending on the campaign norms. This is certainly an aproach which could be taken and supported. However, if Hero had taken that apprach, the advantages section wuld have not one cost, but several, depending on the campaign power level. It does not. Nor do genre books assign differing values to the various advantages to reflect their reduced or enhanced applicability in such settings.

 

Instead, many advantages are naturally better suited to some campaign structures than others. As such, these advnatages are used more in such settings.

 

CONCLUSION: Although varying the cost of advantages to fit the genre and average power levels would be one way to design a game, it is not the method adopted by the HEro system. Instead, some advnatages will be considered more seriously in some settings than in others.

 

"Difficult to Dispel" is seldom taken in super campaigns, at least in my experience. Do you apply a reduced cost (say +1/4 for two doubliungs) to encourage it, or simply accept that this is an advantage which is of limited utility, and consequently will rarely be seen, in a Supers campaign? It seems a lot more valuable in a Fantasy Hero campaign (especially one where every two bit spellcaster has a Dispel - any magic power of 10d6 or more, and defense spells are restricted by your GM to +6/+6 [12 points, 21 if you make your force field 0 END Hardened].

 

If you want to rewrite the rules to suit the specifics of your campaign, that's your preorgantive. But you commonly post these changes to the Boards as though you feel these should be the default rule in FREd, not as specific tweakings applicable only to the specifics of your campaign world.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

If you want to rewrite the rules to suit the specifics of your campaign, that's your preorgantive. But you commonly post these changes to the Boards as though you feel these should be the default rule in FREd, not as specific tweakings applicable only to the specifics of your campaign world.

 

Where did I state that this is should be the default rule? I made a point (very thoroughly backed up) that paying +25% for an advantage that does +37.5% more damage means that the advantage is too cheap. And that the differential increases exponentially with with the number of stun multiples bought. Compare the 2d6 + 6 SM for example, with the 5d6 RKA.

 

Heck, you agree that there is a problem since you apparently want to limit the number of SMs bought to 1-2. If even YOU think that this is a problem, then why are you criticizing me for pointing it out?

[Marcus]

While I certainly accept, and agree with, the points raised here as reguards the mathmatical impact of increased stunX, I disagree that increased stun multiple is, in and of itself, the problem.

 

At least on my own part, the 'point' of the KA is its variability, as opposed to the 'point' of a Normal Attack, which is its reliability. There are times, and opponents, where all one wants is a good likelyhood of getting close to 49 stun and 14 body... and times when your only hope is to roll 5d6-1 and offer up a prayer to the dice gods that they will smite your opponent. Buying up the stun multiple and loosing dice reduces that variablity.

 

The 'problem' if their is one comes in the fact that a 2d6RKA +4 Stun Multiple is (in terms of stun dealt) an 'equivalent' attack to the 4d6RKA (if not superior) but much easier to further advantage. 4d6RKA AP is 90 active points... 2d6RKA +4 Stun Multiple AP is 75 Active Points. Weve enough room left in a hypothetical 75 active point ceiling game to make this sucker 1 Hex Accurate, or Zero End, or the like... and still be at 90 Active Points. 2d6RKA +4 StunX AP AOE 1 Hex Accurate is going to very reliably be more useful than 4d6RKA AP... more stun, more accurate.

 

The efficiency of heavily advantaged powers is an old, and well know issue.. as I see it, the threat of increased Stun X is that it makes a power easier to subsequently advantage.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

Where did I state that this is should be the default rule?

 

When you said:

 

"The "balanced" price for increased stun multiple for killing attacks should be +3/4 for every +2 stun multiple, with each odd stun multiple costing +1/2 and each even stun multiple costing +1/4."

 

implying that +1/4 is an unbalanced price.

 

Originally posted by Gary

I made a point (very thoroughly backed up) that paying +25% for an advantage that does +37.5% more damage means that the advantage is too cheap.

 

Your focus on "how much damage gets through average defenses assuming the target is struck" seems to result in tunnel vision. A 2d6 EB will get no damage through in most campaigns. A 1d6 NND will average 3.5, infinitely greater! Is NND unbalanced? Using 60 points and 25 defenses, 12d6 gets gets 17 STUN but 6d6 NND gets 21 (35% more!) Ban the NND? Reprice it to +1 1/4 where 56 points gets 17.5 damage (leaving some leeway for the fact some will take no damage)?

 

Note that we have to reprice the advantage for every variance in average attacks and/or defenses, which basically means rewriting the rules for every genre, subgenre and even power level. Kind of defeats the purpose of a universal game system, at least in my opinion.

 

Originally posted by Gary

And that the differential increases exponentially with with the number of stun multiples bought. Compare the 2d6 + 6 SM for example, with the 5d6 RKA.

 

Take anything to a ludicrous extreme, and the results will be ludicrous. My simple answer to the player is "go back to FEREd and read the note that Killing Attacks are intended to kill. This attack clearly is not intended to kill, but to inflict STUN. It is therefore outside the intent of the mechanic, and thus the spirit of the rules. DENIED - find a more apropriate mechanic

 

Originally posted by Gary

Heck, you agree that there is a problem since you apparently want to limit the number of SMs bought to 1-2. If even YOU think that this is a problem, then why are you criticizing me for pointing it out?

 

I agree there is a problem if you buy ridiculous amounts of the advantage. I do not agree that, if used for its intended purpose, the ability is mispriced. If you buy ridiculous levels of Force Field, it also becomes unbalanced (very quickly in somke genres, such as Fantasy Hero). Should we make it more expensive at all levels, or simply cap the amount (whether a guideline or an absolute resriction) which can be purchased?

 

I prefer the latter approach to changing the rules for everyone to stop abuses by rules rapists. A rules rapist will find a way to manipulate any rules system. One strength of Hero is the explicit counsel that GM's deny any contruct which is unreasonable and would thus be unbalancing. I prefer to use that meta rule to curb abuses rather than propose changes to the system as a whole.

 

Similar to prior threads, I'll ask the open question of anyone reading - despite the POTENTIAL for abuse, has anyone seen large bonus stun multiples ACTUALLY used to unbalance the game?

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

When you said:

 

"The "balanced" price for increased stun multiple for killing attacks should be +3/4 for every +2 stun multiple, with each odd stun multiple costing +1/2 and each even stun multiple costing +1/4."

 

implying that +1/4 is an unbalanced price.

 

It is an unbalanced price. I'm not the only one saying so, and I've backed up my statement. You haven't refuted it at all except to say that you don't think it's unbalanced.

 

And where in that statement did I say that it should be the default in Fred?

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Your focus on "how much damage gets through average defenses assuming the target is struck" seems to result in tunnel vision. A 2d6 EB will get no damage through in most campaigns. A 1d6 NND will average 3.5, infinitely greater! Is NND unbalanced? Using 60 points and 25 defenses, 12d6 gets gets 17 STUN but 6d6 NND gets 21 (35% more!) Ban the NND? Reprice it to +1 1/4 where 56 points gets 17.5 damage (leaving some leeway for the fact some will take no damage)?

 

Note that we have to reprice the advantage for every variance in average attacks and/or defenses, which basically means rewriting the rules for every genre, subgenre and even power level. Kind of defeats the purpose of a universal game system, at least in my opinion.

 

This is a different thing entirely. You keep missing the point. +25% in price for +37.5% in damage is unbalanced no matter what defense levels are in any campaign.

 

Prove me wrong.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Take anything to a ludicrous extreme, and the results will be ludicrous. My simple answer to the player is "go back to FEREd and read the note that Killing Attacks are intended to kill. This attack clearly is not intended to kill, but to inflict STUN. It is therefore outside the intent of the mechanic, and thus the spirit of the rules. DENIED - find a more apropriate mechanic

 

I pointed it out already that the more SM's bought, the greater the difference due to the exponential nature of the effect. And that 1 or 2 SM had a limited effect. So why are you jumping down my throat again?

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I agree there is a problem if you buy ridiculous amounts of the advantage. I do not agree that, if used for its intended purpose, the ability is mispriced. If you buy ridiculous levels of Force Field, it also becomes unbalanced (very quickly in somke genres, such as Fantasy Hero). Should we make it more expensive at all levels, or simply cap the amount (whether a guideline or an absolute resriction) which can be purchased?

 

There is a problem even at lower levels, especially if you stack advantages. +25% for +37.5% is the reality. It's just that at 1 level, the exponential effect doesn't have time to get really obnoxious, unless you have advantage stacking at work.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I prefer the latter approach to changing the rules for everyone to stop abuses by rules rapists. A rules rapist will find a way to manipulate any rules system. One strength of Hero is the explicit counsel that GM's deny any contruct which is unreasonable and would thus be unbalancing. I prefer to use that meta rule to curb abuses rather than propose changes to the system as a whole.

 

Similar to prior threads, I'll ask the open question of anyone reading - despite the POTENTIAL for abuse, has anyone seen large bonus stun multiples ACTUALLY used to unbalance the game?

 

The rules were already changed from +1/2 to +1/4 for increased SM. This thread is merely questioning whether that was the right step.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

It is an unbalanced price. I'm not the only one saying so, and I've backed up my statement. You haven't refuted it at all except to say that you don't think it's unbalanced.

 

And where in that statement did I say that it should be the default in Fred?

 

Originally posted by Gary

The rules were already changed from +1/2 to +1/4 for increased SM. This thread is merely questioning whether that was the right step.

 

Which is it, Gary? Are you saying your fix (or some other fix) should be the rule, or aren't you? Either the present rule (+1 SM is a +1/4 advantage) is unbalanced and should be fixed, or it isn't.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

This is a different thing entirely. You keep missing the point. +25% in price for +37.5% in damage is unbalanced no matter what defense levels are in any campaign.

 

Prove me wrong.

 

Adding 25% to the cost of something already balanced and making it 37.5% more effective across the board would be unbalanced. Let's assume that KA and other attacks, all without advantages, are balanced.

 

Adding 37.5% STUN damage for 25% does not increase knockback or body damage, does it? Perhaps these are valueless in your campaign. They are not in mine. Frankly, as a player, I would much rather my character be knocked out by an attack that does lots of stun than killed by an attack that does lots of body.

 

Apply your logic to NND's (a comment made previously which you have chosen to ignore). AYou use the example of a 15d6 EB getting 27.5, 22.5 or 17.5 STUN past various defense levels. A 15d6 NND costs twice as much, and gets 52.5 damage through. 100% increase in cost. Damage increases by 90%, 133% or 200%. What should we change the advantage to in order to balance the NND? The average of the three increases, by the way, is 141% - that implies somewhere between +1 1/4 and +1 1/2. If we make that change, do we change the AVLD cost? Using a 7 1/2 d6 NND (same cost), we inflict 26.5 STUN across the board. It's a bit closer now, although still superior against all but the lightest defended target. By that logic, it is probably "balanced" (since it won';t work on everyone), but only with 75 AP attacks and defenses ranging from 25 to 35.

 

Let's look at Penetrating. A 10d6 Penetrating EB costs the same, and inflicts 10, 10, and 10 STUN, on average. Should we reduce the price of Penetrating? The results are worse across the board. Make it armor piercing instead. Now it inflicts 22, 20 or 17 - again, worse at al average defense levels. Clearly it must also be overpriced, right? And this is before considering the possibility of hardened defenses - perhaps these should be removed to make Penetrating and AP have at least some value!

 

Or do we need to adjust only those items you perceive as providing a benefit at your campaign levels of defenses? Which advantages are "balanced" by your definition?

 

Looking solely at STUN that gets through on an average attack with an arbitrary level of active points and an arbitrary range of defenses does not show the whole picture. It looks like classic "determine test data from conclusions desired" research.

 

For me, the Hero System is sufficiently balanced - without me tinkering with it - to be effective. Where it does not balance, it is generally due to a pretty "out there" construct which is pretty easy to identify and rule against.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Which is it, Gary? Are you saying your fix (or some other fix) should be the rule, or aren't you? Either the present rule (+1 SM is a +1/4 advantage) is unbalanced and should be fixed, or it isn't.

 

It is unbalanced at the +1/4 level, but the benefits at that level don't stack enough to cause major problems.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Adding 25% to the cost of something already balanced and making it 37.5% more effective across the board would be unbalanced. Let's assume that KA and other attacks, all without advantages, are balanced.

 

Adding 37.5% STUN damage for 25% does not increase knockback or body damage, does it? Perhaps these are valueless in your campaign. They are not in mine. Frankly, as a player, I would much rather my character be knocked out by an attack that does lots of stun than killed by an attack that does lots of body.

 

Stun damage in almost every campaign is the primary objective of normal and killing attacks. Maybe you have a mutant campaign where body or knockback for some bizarre reason is more valuable than straight stun, but that's not the case in any campaign I've ever seen.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Looking solely at STUN that gets through on an average attack with an arbitrary level of active points and an arbitrary range of defenses does not show the whole picture. It looks like classic "determine test data from conclusions desired" research.

 

The increase SM applies to virtually every level of defenses except extremely high ones. Higher average stun is higher average stun no matter how you slice it. Using your limit of +2 SM still means that you're getting +75% more stun at the price of +50%. And this advantage increases as you put more SM's in, or stack it with other advantages.

 

I notice you didn't jump down the throat of Bnakagawa even though he made the same observation that I made.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

For me, the Hero System is sufficiently balanced - without me tinkering with it - to be effective. Where it does not balance, it is generally due to a pretty "out there" construct which is pretty easy to identify and rule against.

 

If something has to be houseruled for most campaigns, it has no business being in the rulebook in the first place.

[PhilFleischmann]

Just tacking on more advantages, or the same advantage multiple times, is not a fair comparison. You have to look at equal point powers to decide if they're balanced.

 

I'll use 75 AP, because it avoids half-dice.

Just for reference:

 

75 AP of EB does an average of 15 BODY and 52.5 STUN

75 AP of RKA d.a.a.o. 17.5 BODY and 46.333 STUN

 

About balanced so far? Then let's continue:

 

If +1 SM is a +1/4 advantage, then

 

75 AP of RKA w/+1 SM d.a.a.o. 14 BODY and 51.667 STUN

 

If +1 SM is a +1/2 advantage, then

 

75 AP of RKA w/+1 SM d.a.a.o. 11.5 BODY and 42.333 STUN

 

Which of these two looks more balanced to you?

 

For 75 AP you can have:

a 15 BODY, 52.5 STUN

b 17.5 BODY, 46.3 STUN

c 14 BODY, 51.667 STUN

 

or

a 15 BODY, 52.5 STUN

b 17.5 BODY, 46.3 STUN

c 11.5 BODY, 42.3 STUN

 

At +1/4 you do slightly less STUN, BODY, and Knockback than the EB, but you go against resistant defenses.

 

At +1/2, I can't imagine why anyone would want to buy +1 Stun Multiple.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

Which of these two looks more balanced to you?

 

For 75 AP you can have:

a 15 BODY, 52.5 STUN

b 17.5 BODY, 46.3 STUN

c 14 BODY, 51.667 STUN

 

or

a 15 BODY, 52.5 STUN

b 17.5 BODY, 46.3 STUN

c 11.5 BODY, 42.3 STUN

 

At +1/4 you do slightly less STUN, BODY, and Knockback than the EB, but you go against resistant defenses.

 

At +1/2, I can't imagine why anyone would want to buy +1 Stun Multiple.

 

A nice summary. I would just clarify that only the BOD goes against resistant defenses assuming the character has any resistant defenses. However, there is the advantage of potentially mush higher STUN on a good SM roll (offset by the drawback of piotentially much lower STUN).

 

As we add more multiples, the avreage STUN does go up, but the BOD, and Knockback come down. As well, the range of damage becomes more erratic since, with less dice of BOD, rolling minimum damage becomes much more likely - when's the last time a 15d6 EB came up all 1's?

[TheEmerged]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

For me, the Hero System is sufficiently balanced - without me tinkering with it - to be effective. Where it does not balance, it is generally due to a pretty "out there" construct which is pretty easy to identify and rule against.

 

Said it a thousand times if I've said it once, not just here but for several other systems:

 

The veto power of the GM is no excuse for maintaining a flaw in the rules. The veto power only works for a GM that understand the system and anything that assumes it creates a hurdle for new players.

[Gary]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

At +1/2, I can't imagine why anyone would want to buy +1 Stun Multiple.

 

Nobody is suggesting a straight +1/2 for +1 SM. The suggestion is +3/4 for +2 SM. If a character buys only 1 SM, it's not efficient, but the player pays more up front to prevent abusiveness.

 

It's exactly the same thing as buying Double Knockback on attacks. Buying the +1/2 version is stupid most of the time since the player could simply buy 50% more dice for the same price and do more stun in the process while doing the same Knockback. However, the +3/4 version for Double Knockback is balanced at that price. The player is forced to pay more up front to get 150% Knockback, even though it's not cost effective, because it'd be too cost effective to pay only a +1/4 advantage for +50% knockback.

[BNakagawa]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

At +1/4 you do slightly less STUN, BODY, and Knockback than the EB, but you go against resistant defenses.

 

At +1/2, I can't imagine why anyone would want to buy +1 Stun Multiple.

 

1: Because you can stack the stun mod with a smaller attack laced with power advantages. A 3d6+1 RKA with a +1 stun mod doesn't compare with 5d6, but 2d6 RKA with a +2 stun mod AP might...

 

2: Having a less lethal attack with a large amount of stopping power is a reasonable enough goal for actual weapons developers to put real money into it.

 

3: Why should I care? I see no reason why the system needs ANY bonus to the stun multiple at ANY cost. This is a killing attack. It should be used to kill people and damage stuff.

 

4: You've just described for me the best argument for increasing the cost of the +1 Stun Mod to +3/4.

 

$0.02

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

1: Because you can stack the stun mod with a smaller attack laced with power advantages. A 3d6+1 RKA with a +1 stun mod doesn't compare with 5d6, but 2d6 RKA with a +2 stun mod AP might...

OK. Let's try it:

 

5d6 RKA d.a.a.o. 17.5 BODY and 46.3 STUN

2d6 RKA +2 stun Mod d.a.a.o. 7 BODY and 32.7 STUN

 

Do those look anywhere close to being equal?

 

2: Having a less lethal attack with a large amount of stopping power is a reasonable enough goal for actual weapons developers to put real money into it.

 

3: Why should I care? I see no reason why the system needs ANY bonus to the stun multiple at ANY cost. This is a killing attack. It should be used to kill people and damage stuff.

These two points seem to contradict each other. Though neither one is relevent to my argument. I'm not making any value judgement on Increased STUN Multiple. I'm not saying whether it's useful, or why anyone might want it or not. All I'm talking about is what's the fair price for it, assuming someone does want it.

 

4: You've just described for me the best argument for increasing the cost of the +1 Stun Mod to +3/4.

Eh? How do you come to that conclusion? I just showed how +1/2 is too expensive, so you conclude that +3/4 is better?

 

Let's try Gary's suggestion of +2 SM for +3/4. I'll use a huge AP cost so as to not deal with fractional DCs:

 

105 Active Points (!) gives:

21d6 EB = 21 BODY, 73.5 STUN

7d6 RKA = 24.5 BODY, 65.3 STUN

 

If +2 SM is +3/4, then we have:

 

4d6 RKA, +2 SM = 14 BODY, 65.3 STUN

 

So for the same price, you can have less BODY (and Knockback) and the same STUN damage. Sorry, but it looks like +3/4 for +2 STUNx is still too expensive.

[Gary]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

OK. Let's try it:

 

5d6 RKA d.a.a.o. 17.5 BODY and 46.3 STUN

2d6 RKA +2 stun Mod d.a.a.o. 7 BODY and 32.7 STUN

 

Do those look anywhere close to being equal?

 

Yes it does. The 2d6 attack was an armor piercing attack, so depending on defense levels, it could be better. At least it's in the same ballpark.

 

 

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

Eh? How do you come to that conclusion? I just showed how +1/2 is too expensive, so you conclude that +3/4 is better?

 

Let's try Gary's suggestion of +2 SM for +3/4. I'll use a huge AP cost so as to not deal with fractional DCs:

 

105 Active Points (!) gives:

21d6 EB = 21 BODY, 73.5 STUN

7d6 RKA = 24.5 BODY, 65.3 STUN

 

If +2 SM is +3/4, then we have:

 

4d6 RKA, +2 SM = 14 BODY, 65.3 STUN

 

So for the same price, you can have less BODY (and Knockback) and the same STUN damage. Sorry, but it looks like +3/4 for +2 STUNx is still too expensive.

 

Yeah, but if you take the current price of +1/4, you get +3 SM for 105 pts, and we average 14 Body and 79.3 Stun. That's a LOT better than the 65.3 Stun for the 7d6 RKA. The +3/4 for +2 SM seems to be a lot better fit for the price than the current cost of +1/4 for +1 SM. And unless you want to use eighths for costs, the +3/4 is as close as you're going to get to its "true" value.

 

Not to mention that +3/4 for 2 protects against advantage stacking much better than +1/4 for 1.

[Stone]

Originally posted by Solomon

I feel that "+1 STUN multiplier" is fairly priced, but it might still pose a problem if bought multiple times. A +3 STUN Multiplier Killing Attack averages higher STUN (and lower body) than a normal attack of comparable active points.

 

Factor in the dreaded "STUN Multiplier lotto" and you get an unpredictable attack that might or might not result in a huge amount of STUN; a "chaos factor" not all GM might be willing to deal with.

 

I was toying w/an idea to curb the "stun lotto". I was going make the SM be 3 and increase the cost of increased SM to 1/2. Not sure if I am going to keep this or not though.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

Yeah, but if you take the current price of +1/4, you get +3 SM for 105 pts, and we average 14 Body and 79.3 Stun. That's a LOT better than the 65.3 Stun for the 7d6 RKA. The +3/4 for +2 SM seems to be a lot better fit for the price than the current cost of +1/4 for +1 SM. And unless you want to use eighths for costs, the +3/4 is as close as you're going to get to its "true" value.

 

Not to mention that +3/4 for 2 protects against advantage stacking much better than +1/4 for 1.

 

1. "Clearly Superior"

 

OK, first off +3 SM (example above) results in 21% more STUN, but 43% less BOD and a commensurate reduction in the likelihood of knockback. STUN is important, but it's not everything. For some examples, consider:

 

- "takes no STUN" automotons such as robots and golems

 

- objects - which power would you prefer if you need to damage a 20 DEF wall, or get through a 1 DEF 50 BOD obstruction quickly?

 

- How about a 20 DEF force wall (not that unreasonable iof we have 105 point attack powers flying around)

 

- I need to move my target (maybe he's radioactive and standing awfully close to sensitive chemicals, or sensitive normals) - sometimes, one shot won't KO, or it's too late by the time I get my following action.

 

A little time and creativity will build lots more examples where STUN is not the key item. As such, I challenge whether having a STUN advantage is always "clearly superior". If it were, why would anyone buy a KA - normal attacks do more STUN for the points anyway. 21d6 EB does 73.5 STUN, 21 BOD and way more knockback than either KA example.

 

2. The Rules as Written

 

+1/4 per +1 SM creates a real concern only when purchased multiple times. Gary implicitly accepts this as he allows the first +1 for a +1/4 advantage. Go back to FREd and read the description. More than one +1 requires GM permission. I'm not inclined to grant it, not so much for game balance but because killing attacks should bbe used to model attacks that kill, rather than ko. Enhancing STUN without enhancing BOD doesn't fit that model.

 

3. The KA Lotto Equalizer

 

Want the Wolverine clones to hate your character? Buy the KLE. Damage Reduction, Stun Only, 1/4 vs KA's with SM 4+; 1/2 vs KA's with SM 5+; 3/4 vs KA's with 6+ SM. This blunts the lotto quite effectively. It's not cheap, but there are some pretty hefty limitations. -1/2 for "Stun Only" seems right. "Only vs KA's" should be -1/2 or -1 by itself. Base the SM limitation similar to "activation". A 4+ happens 1 in 3 on normal KA's, and 9 or less is a 37.5% chance. A 5+ occurs 1 in 6, so say 8 or less (7 or less is 16.2%). Activation rolls don't go low enough to describe a 6+ multiple!

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

1. "Clearly Superior"

 

OK, first off +3 SM (example above) results in 21% more STUN, but 43% less BOD and a commensurate reduction in the likelihood of knockback. STUN is important, but it's not everything. For some examples, consider:

 

- "takes no STUN" automotons such as robots and golems

 

- objects - which power would you prefer if you need to damage a 20 DEF wall, or get through a 1 DEF 50 BOD obstruction quickly?

 

- How about a 20 DEF force wall (not that unreasonable iof we have 105 point attack powers flying around)

 

- I need to move my target (maybe he's radioactive and standing awfully close to sensitive chemicals, or sensitive normals) - sometimes, one shot won't KO, or it's too late by the time I get my following action.

 

In practice, what ends up happening in these situations is that the player pulls out another tool from his Swiss Army Knife AKA multipower. Any half way decent player is going to use the high stun attack (+3 SM) only vs targets that take stun. He'd use a high body tool vs things lke the force wall. And against most targets, it's the stun that's important.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

A little time and creativity will build lots more examples where STUN is not the key item. As such, I challenge whether having a STUN advantage is always "clearly superior". If it were, why would anyone buy a KA - normal attacks do more STUN for the points anyway. 21d6 EB does 73.5 STUN, 21 BOD and way more knockback than either KA example.

 

EB does not do more stun on average than the killing attack. It all depends on the average defense levels of the campaign. In most campaigns and most damage/defense levels, the RKA and EB are roughly comparable in the amount of net stun done to the target. RKA's are better against higher defenses, and EBs are better vs lower defenses.

 

So if 7d6 RKA is roughly comparable to 21d6 EB, then a variant of RKA that does 21% more stun damage than the 7d6 RKA is going to be clearly superior to the 21d6 EB.

 

Also, the 7d6 RKA is going to do exactly the same knockback on average as the 21d6 EB.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

2. The Rules as Written

 

+1/4 per +1 SM creates a real concern only when purchased multiple times. Gary implicitly accepts this as he allows the first +1 for a +1/4 advantage. Go back to FREd and read the description. More than one +1 requires GM permission. I'm not inclined to grant it, not so much for game balance but because killing attacks should bbe used to model attacks that kill, rather than ko. Enhancing STUN without enhancing BOD doesn't fit that model.

 

Yeah, one level of SM only increases expected stun by 1.375/1.25 or 10% over a straight attack. That's livable.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

3. The KA Lotto Equalizer

 

Want the Wolverine clones to hate your character? Buy the KLE. Damage Reduction, Stun Only, 1/4 vs KA's with SM 4+; 1/2 vs KA's with SM 5+; 3/4 vs KA's with 6+ SM. This blunts the lotto quite effectively. It's not cheap, but there are some pretty hefty limitations. -1/2 for "Stun Only" seems right. "Only vs KA's" should be -1/2 or -1 by itself. Base the SM limitation similar to "activation". A 4+ happens 1 in 3 on normal KA's, and 9 or less is a 37.5% chance. A 5+ occurs 1 in 6, so say 8 or less (7 or less is 16.2%). Activation rolls don't go low enough to describe a 6+ multiple!

 

Hmm, I'd rule that DR only vs KAs can be purchased separately at the difference in price between the resistant and non-resistant versions of DR. IOW, 5, 10, or 20 pts for 1/4, 1/2, or 3/4. This doesn't stop normal attacks, nnds, avlds, or stun drains, so it seems to be a fair price, unless the character already has unusually high defenses to begin with. And I wouldn't allow any more than 1/4 limitation for the "activation" roll. I might even make it a -0 limitation.

 

That's because the low stun multiples probably wouldn't get through my defenses to begin with. A 1 SM occurs 1/3 of the time which equates to a 11- activation roll, but only vs 2+ SM's certainly isn't worth a -1 limitation. The 1 SM simply wasn't going to hurt you anyway, so only activates on 2+ SM is a worthless limitation.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Stone

I was toying w/an idea to curb the "stun lotto". I was going make the SM be 3 and increase the cost of increased SM to 1/2. Not sure if I am going to keep this or not though.

I've found making the STUN mod a constant 3 works pretty well

[zornwil]

Originally posted by lemming

I've found making the STUN mod a constant 3 works pretty well

 

Much to my anoyance, he's right.

 

Seriously, I see it in his games and it works well as a moderating influence. I don't run that way in my games - I like the stun lottery - but I think it works well for a game.

[lemming]

Originally posted by zornwil

Much to my anoyance, he's right.

 

Seriously, I see it in his games and it works well as a moderating influence. I don't run that way in my games - I like the stun lottery - but I think it works well for a game.

If it makes you feel better I had to see it in someone else's game first.