Stun Multiplier

[zornwil]

Originally posted by lemming

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

 

No, it's not that at all as I wouldn't do it myself - EVER DAMN YOU EVER! - no, seriously, though, I'm not into it for myself, but I think it is certainly a more balanced approach. As you know, I can't be accused of being overly-concerned with balance (though I'm not saying I allow imbalance in a bad way).

[lemming]

Originally posted by zornwil

No, it's not that at all as I wouldn't do it myself - EVER DAMN YOU EVER! - no, seriously, though, I'm not into it for myself, but I think it is certainly a more balanced approach. As you know, I can't be accused of being overly-concerned with balance (though I'm not saying I allow imbalance in a bad way).

You run the most balanced unbalanced game I've seen.

[Farkling]

1) Knockback generated by EB's and KA's are the same (on average), the extra 1d6 for KA's is to counterbalance the higher BODY total.

 

2) The STUN lotto begins at -1 to account for the higher BODY total on the dice, giving a multiple of 1,1,2,3,4,5. A cinematic GM takes the 1 hits as through and throughs that the BODY is coping with shock and STUN loss from. The 5 on the lotto is "hit him right between the eyes witha .50 caliber round, he's down and lying in an expanding pool of blood"

 

3) Statistically, yes, KA damage may be slightly higher. This is NOT relevant to defenses unless there are no resistant defenses on the target.

 

4) I wish I still had the damn table I did on the last thread this came up on. Next time I'll save it.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by lemming

You run the most balanced unbalanced game I've seen.

 

That's high praise coming from you, thanks very much! :)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling

1) Knockback generated by EB's and KA's are the same (on average), the extra 1d6 for KA's is to counterbalance the higher BODY total.

 

Actually, they average the same at the 105 AP level (21 d6 EB - 7 = 14; 7d6 KA x 3.5 = 24.5 - 10.5 = 14"). Below, the EB will do more knockback, and above the KA wins.

 

The point, however, was that a bonus SM KA will lose out on knockback.

 

Originally posted by Farkling

2) The STUN lotto begins at -1 to account for the higher BODY total on the dice, giving a multiple of 1,1,2,3,4,5.

 

A 21d6 EB averages 73.5 STUN, and our 7d6 KA averages a bit lower at 65.4. Add one SM and get 5 1/2 d6 KA for 106 points and STUN averages 71.6. Buy a lot of extra stun multiples, and the KA rapidly surpasses the EB.

 

If not for the -1, the KA would do grerater STUN from the outset, clearly the wrong result. Plus the fact that half of KA's will inflict minimal STUN counterbalances the fact that some KA hits inflict a ton of STUN.

 

Fixed Stun Multiples

 

A fixed 3x multiple equalizes KA and EB average STUN. The KA does a bit more BOD, has the Res Def advantage (for what it's worth) and at standard point levels does less KB. Shouldn't the standard be 2.5 (a bit less than the average) to be consistent with other standard effects (considered to roll 3, not 3.5)? This would still leave the KA at a STUN disadvantage of about 20% (eg. 35 vs 42 at 60 AP), It would, however, guarantee te KS doesn't get that dreaded "1x" effect.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

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.

 

I did not say BOD and knockback are always more valuable. I said they are sometimes more valuable.

 

The "swiss army knife" multipower remains an issue, but comes back ore to whether frameworks create problems than whether KA stun multiples are accurately priced. I could make the same case that NND's are too cheap since the SAKMP gets swapped for a straight attack on anyone who looks like he has the defense.

 

Originally posted by Gary

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

 

Here, I must disagree with your design philosophy. I do so carefully because, in general, I agree with your comment. However, HERO has the philosophy of "anything is possible". Balancing this, the bok indicates where the GM should carefully consider whether a power should be allowed using caution signs, stop signs and "requires GM permission" notes. The last is, in my opinion, the highest level of caution the rules give. And more tha none bonus stun multiple is, by the books, a "requires GM permission" ability.

 

Many "usable as an attack" items are hugely unbalancing. That is why the advantage has a stop sign. Should the advantage be removed from the books, or the combinations which cause real issues (eg. megascale movement powers, EDM) be elimninated from the rules? They are commonly disallowed by GM's, so tyhey are normally house ruled away, as you put it. But deleting the option deletes any means of constructing some abilities.

 

I probably wouldn's miss "+1 Stun Multiple". If you want an attack that knocks people out, buy an EB. But at reasonable levels, it is a reasonable means of creating a KA that brings STUN and BOD averages closer to a normal attack.

 

The cost of HERO's flexibility is a need for players and GM's to be vigilant for potential abuses of that flexibility. The regularly recurring "abusive power" threads highlight that quite well.

 

Finally, if you feel I'm "jumping down your throat", then I apologize. That's not my intention. Perhaps you kight cnsider posting as though the ideas of others may have some merit, even when they do not agree with your own.

[Gary]

Hugh, thanks for clearing the air.

 

I do generally try and consider other's viewpoints. When I disagree with someone, I usually back up what I say and give a reason why I disagree. When I agree with someone, I don't hesitate to say so either, such as when I agreed with your incremental strength idea.

 

Anyway, I hope we can continue our future discussions with less acrimony. Thanks again.

[TheEmerged]

RE: Set STUN Mod. Actually, I use a limited version of this myself -- it's part of the penalty for the "real" disadvantage. If the attack doesn't do BODY to the target it does x2 Stun. It allows for the genre convention of bouncing bullets (a convention I happen to like).

 

Otherwise, it uses the Hit Loc mod or x3 for Area Effect.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

Hugh, thanks for clearing the air.

 

I do generally try and consider other's viewpoints. When I disagree with someone, I usually back up what I say and give a reason why I disagree. When I agree with someone, I don't hesitate to say so either, such as when I agreed with your incremental strength idea.

 

Anyway, I hope we can continue our future discussions with less acrimony. Thanks again.

 

You've read my posts, Gary - I'm not coming from high moral ground here, am I?

 

I think we both like to get our poiint across, and I know I'm not overly politically sensitive to the phrasing of my points. We may disagree on some issues, but that's life. And I agree with some other posters who've indicated we definitely get a thorough analysis of the issue.

 

If you look over the last coul=ple of threads (this one and Rapid Fire), we generally agree on a lot of the issue, but disagree with how severe the issue is, and how to deal with it. At the end of the day, neither of us would lightly allow someone to take +12 Stun M

 

One last parting shot. A 1d6 RKA, +16 Stun Multiple (75 points) averages 3.5 BOD and 65.3 STUN. A 5d6 RKA does 17.5 BOD and 46.7 STUN. A 15d6 EB does 52.5 STUN, 15 BOD. They're very different, but not wholly unbalanced. The 1d6 KAwill basically never get knockback, and will do no damage (1 BOD) 1 time in 6, two times in 6 against high DEF targets. On the other hand, 1 time in 3, it's probably instant KO. The variability is way too high, so I'd probably allow it only if the character agreesto Standard Effect (3 BOD, 56 Stun on average). The volatility is the bigger problem, and a bit worse than a regular KA since the range is the full 1-6.. All we've done is trade a SM Lotto for a BOD Lotto.

 

If we use +3/4 per two multiples, 1d6 gets +11 stun mult for a +4 advantage (5 x 3/4 + 1/4 = +4) averages 47.8 STUN (virtually no change from the 5d6 RKA despite loss of BOD and KB) and still has a hideous range (14 average on 1 BOD, 84 on a 6). Your approach may not ban the construct, but it might just as well - it just isn't effective.

 

And that's the crux of my case - the present rule is not hideously unbalancing. Your fix does not restore the balance, it simply tips it the other way. I guess one could then go +3 SM for +1, or +5 for +1 1/2, but I don't see the problem being big enough to mandate such a solution.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

One last parting shot. A 1d6 RKA, +16 Stun Multiple (75 points) averages 3.5 BOD and 65.3 STUN. A 5d6 RKA does 17.5 BOD and 46.7 STUN. A 15d6 EB does 52.5 STUN, 15 BOD. They're very different, but not wholly unbalanced. The 1d6 KAwill basically never get knockback, and will do no damage (1 BOD) 1 time in 6, two times in 6 against high DEF targets. On the other hand, 1 time in 3, it's probably instant KO. The variability is way too high, so I'd probably allow it only if the character agreesto Standard Effect (3 BOD, 56 Stun on average). The volatility is the bigger problem, and a bit worse than a regular KA since the range is the full 1-6.. All we've done is trade a SM Lotto for a BOD Lotto.

 

If we use +3/4 per two multiples, 1d6 gets +11 stun mult for a +4 advantage (5 x 3/4 + 1/4 = +4) averages 47.8 STUN (virtually no change from the 5d6 RKA despite loss of BOD and KB) and still has a hideous range (14 average on 1 BOD, 84 on a 6). Your approach may not ban the construct, but it might just as well - it just isn't effective.

 

And that's the crux of my case - the present rule is not hideously unbalancing. Your fix does not restore the balance, it simply tips it the other way. I guess one could then go +3 SM for +1, or +5 for +1 1/2, but I don't see the problem being big enough to mandate such a solution.

 

Well, 65.3 stun vs 46.7 is a pretty severe difference. 40% increased stun! And the probability of con stunning your foe is much greater for most defense levels. Yeah it does no body or knockback, but usually the vastly superior con stun probabilities and 40% greater stun outweigh those factors.

 

Also if you want less variability, you can easily purchase 2d6 +6 SM for 75 pts. This averages 60.7 stun or a 30% increase, but reduces the chances of a bad result.

 

The +3/4 for +2 isn't as good if you take it to the extremes such as with buying +11 SM, but it's less imbalancing this way than +1/4 for +1. And it protects against "advantage stacking", especially if you limit it to "reasonable" amounts of extra SM purchased. For example, it would cost 75 pts to add area effect radius to the 5d6 RKA. It costs only 15 pts to add area effect to the 1d6+11 attack. It costs 37 pts to add 0 end to 5d6, and only 7 pts to add 0 end to the 1d6+11.

 

Also, compare the current system to AP. An AP attack will halve the defense of the target at a cost of reduced body and reduced knockback. +2 SM will increase the stun done by 75% at the same cost. And it works even against targets with hardened defenses. So the 3d6 AP attack does 10.5 body 28 stun vs 1/2 defenses, while the 3d6+2 SM does 10.5 body 49 stun. The defender will have to have 42 non-hardened resistant defenses before the two attacks become comparable. That doesn't seem too likely in a campaign with 67 pt attacks. The +2 SM provides greater benefits than AP, and should cost more.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

Well, 65.3 stun vs 46.7 is a pretty severe difference. 40% increased stun! And the probability of con stunning your foe is much greater for most defense levels. Yeah it does no body or knockback, but usually the vastly superior con stun probabilities and 40% greater stun outweigh those factors.

 

You've missed my point. Both the 5d6 KA and the 1d6 +16 SM KA cost the same as the 15d6 EB. That's my baseline for comparisons, since the EB is the "standard attack" and a KA is built to kill instead.

 

The straight KA does 89.0% the average STUN and 116.7% the average BOD of the EB. It will do 7" knockback on average vs 8" for the EB, so abut even (the damage won't matter, only the loss of CV and 1/2 phase to get up).

 

The +16 SM KA averages 124.4% the STUN and 23.3% the BOD of the EB. It will virtually never do knockback. That's the tradeoff.

 

Originally posted by Gary

Also if you want less variability, you can easily purchase 2d6 +6 SM for 75 pts. This averages 60.7 stun or a 30% increase, but reduces the chances of a bad result.

 

This is 115.6% of the EB Stun, 46.7% of the EB BOD and minimal chance of knockback, though a better chance than 1d6, compared to the baseline of an ordinary attack.

 

Originally posted by Gary

The +3/4 for +2 isn't as good if you take it to the extremes such as with buying +11 SM, but it's less imbalancing this way than +1/4 for +1.

 

At 1d6, +11, we average 91.0% STUN, 23.3% the BOD and no knockback, inferior in all respects to the 15d6 EB, with the possible exception of a target lacking resistant defenses entirely.

 

Make it 2d6 with +4 Stun Multiple and it averages 46.69 STUN (88.9% EB), 7 BOD (46.7%) and limited knockback prospects. Again, inferior in all respects.

 

3d6+1 with +2 averages 11.5 BOD (76.7% EB), 53.71% STUN (102.3% KA) and small KB on average, but much more likely to fail to do knockback than the EB. Under the rules as written, it costs the same as the EB. Under your modification, it costs 87.5 points, a 1/6 increase.

 

Your problem with the level of enhanced STUN over a normal KA is fixed at the cost of making the advantage inferior to the alternative of an ordinary EB.

 

Originally posted by Gary

And it protects against "advantage stacking", especially if you limit it to "reasonable" amounts of extra SM purchased. For example, it would cost 75 pts to add area effect radius to the 5d6 RKA. It costs only 15 pts to add area effect to the 1d6+11 attack. It costs 37 pts to add 0 end to 5d6, and only 7 pts to add 0 end to the 1d6+11.

 

Advantage stacking is a completely separate issue. Note the disproportionate AE attacks which are also NND (and hey, why not toss 0 END on there as well!)

 

Originally posted by Gary

Also, compare the current system to AP. An AP attack will halve the defense of the target at a cost of reduced body and reduced knockback. +2 SM will increase the stun done by 75% at the same cost. And it works even against targets with hardened defenses. So the 3d6 AP attack does 10.5 body 28 stun vs 1/2 defenses, while the 3d6+2 SM does 10.5 body 49 stun. The defender will have to have 42 non-hardened resistant defenses before the two attacks become comparable. That doesn't seem too likely in a campaign with 67 pt attacks. The +2 SM provides greater benefits than AP, and should cost more.

 

The defenses need not be resistant - as long as the target has any Rdef, all his defenses count against STUN. The 3d6 AP attack is, however, much more likely to do serious (BOD) injury, as is a Penerating attack. It will get through 20 rDef half the time (non-hardened, of course). But the bigger question is, if +2 SM is more effective than AP, does tis mean SM is underpriced, or AP is overpriced? AP is valuable only where average defense is quite large compared to average attacks.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

You've missed my point. Both the 5d6 KA and the 1d6 +16 SM KA cost the same as the 15d6 EB. That's my baseline for comparisons, since the EB is the "standard attack" and a KA is built to kill instead.

 

The straight KA does 89.0% the average STUN and 116.7% the average BOD of the EB. It will do 7" knockback on average vs 8" for the EB, so abut even (the damage won't matter, only the loss of CV and 1/2 phase to get up).

 

The +16 SM KA averages 124.4% the STUN and 23.3% the BOD of the EB. It will virtually never do knockback. That's the tradeoff.

 

The trouble with using raw EB damage as the baseline is that this ignores defenses. Your analysis is correct if the average damage level of the campaign is 0, but incorrect if the average defense is higher. With 30 average defenses, the 15d6 EB will average 22.5 net stun, the 5d6 RKA will average 21.0 net stun, the 1d6 +16 SM will average 37.2 net stun, and the 2d6+6 will average 31.3 net stun. And the higher the average defense, the greater the discrepancy.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

At 1d6, +11, we average 91.0% STUN, 23.3% the BOD and no knockback, inferior in all respects to the 15d6 EB, with the possible exception of a target lacking resistant defenses entirely.

 

At 1d6+11, we average 21.1 net stun vs 30 defenses. About in the same ballpark as the 15d6 EB. It still does less knockback and body, but it's a lot closer to the 15d6 EB than the 1d6+16 which averages 37.2 net stun.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Make it 2d6 with +4 Stun Multiple and it averages 46.69 STUN (88.9% EB), 7 BOD (46.7%) and limited knockback prospects. Again, inferior in all respects.

 

2d6+4 averages 18.3 net stun vs 30 defenses. At this point, it is significantly inferior to the 15d6 EB. But it is still closer in value than the 2d6+6 which averages 31.3 net stun.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

3d6+1 with +2 averages 11.5 BOD (76.7% EB), 53.71% STUN (102.3% KA) and small KB on average, but much more likely to fail to do knockback than the EB. Under the rules as written, it costs the same as the EB. Under your modification, it costs 87.5 points, a 1/6 increase.

 

3d6+2 averages 20.2 net stun (for 79 pts). Under the current system, 3d6+3 would average 29.9 net stun. The 3d6+2 is still closer in value to the 15d6 EB than the 3d6+3.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Your problem with the level of enhanced STUN over a normal KA is fixed at the cost of making the advantage inferior to the alternative of an ordinary EB.

 

Slightly inferior, as opposed to being significantly superior as with the current system. 1d6+16 averages a whopping 65% more net stun than a 15d6 EB when defenses are 30. And the numbers don't change a whole lot if you vary the defenses from 20 to 40, with the EB doing better at lower defenses and the KA doing better vs higher defenses.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Advantage stacking is a completely separate issue. Note the disproportionate AE attacks which are also NND (and hey, why not toss 0 END on there as well!)

 

Like it or not, we have to consider advantage stacking. If you throw any additional advantages on the power, the power of +1/4 for +1 SM gets out of hand pretty quickly. With +3/4 for +2, it takes significantly longer before it gets out of hand.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

The defenses need not be resistant - as long as the target has any Rdef, all his defenses count against STUN. The 3d6 AP attack is, however, much more likely to do serious (BOD) injury, as is a Penerating attack. It will get through 20 rDef half the time (non-hardened, of course). But the bigger question is, if +2 SM is more effective than AP, does tis mean SM is underpriced, or AP is overpriced? AP is valuable only where average defense is quite large compared to average attacks.

 

AP is probably slightly overpriced at +1/2. However it is much more valuable than a +1/4. In a system that only operates in .25 increments, +1/2 is the closest to its "true" value. Also, AP tends to be thrown on stuff like autofire attacks where it doesn't cost as much.

 

One additional factor that I didn't calculate but which certainly applies is that the 1d6+16 has a much better chance of con stunning the target than the 15d6 EB for most defense and con levels.

 

As an aside, an interesting way of doing lots of stun with almost standard effect would be to buy 1 pip RKA with +56 SM for 75 pts. You would get a range of 57-61 stun, with an average of 58.67 stun.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

The trouble with using raw EB damage as the baseline is that this ignores defenses.

 

We've been over this. Every genre has its own atack/defense ratios. If you're going to assess "damage vs defenses", you can't just ignore all genres except one either. HERO is a universal rules system.

 

Originally posted by Gary

Like it or not, we have to consider advantage stacking.

 

At this point, the issue becomes not one of pricing individual advantages, but one of whether the advantage stacking rules need to change. These discussions all seem to come back to powers with stacked advantages, so that seems to be a key underlying issue. I'm not saying it should change, but I'm not experiencing any of these theoretical problems you site on various threads.

 

Originally posted by Gary

As an aside, an interesting way of doing lots of stun with almost standard effect would be to buy 1 pip RKA with +56 SM for 75 pts. You would get a range of 57-61 stun, with an average of 58.67 stun.

 

Which is likely another reason that more than 2 SM bonuses "requires GM approval" (which I take to mean "Is illegal under the baseline rules, but the rule could be ignored where appropriate for a specific power construct which will not be unbalancing"]

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

We've been over this. Every genre has its own atack/defense ratios. If you're going to assess "damage vs defenses", you can't just ignore all genres except one either. HERO is a universal rules system.

 

The trouble is that a 0 average defense campaign isn't the norm at all. You can't take a 0 def campaign as the baseline. IME, defenses average between 2 and 3 times the average dice of the campaign. So a 12d6 campaign will have defenses averaging 24-36 defense (even if defenses get out of this range a little, the analysis doesn't change much). And at "typical" defense levels, the net damage of +SM gets out of hand quickly relative to "typical" KAs and EBs.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

At this point, the issue becomes not one of pricing individual advantages, but one of whether the advantage stacking rules need to change. These discussions all seem to come back to powers with stacked advantages, so that seems to be a key underlying issue. I'm not saying it should change, but I'm not experiencing any of these theoretical problems you site on various threads.

 

Which is likely another reason that more than 2 SM bonuses "requires GM approval" (which I take to mean "Is illegal under the baseline rules, but the rule could be ignored where appropriate for a specific power construct which will not be unbalancing"]

 

Yeah, advantage stacking is a problem. One possible "fix" might be to make advantages multiplicative instead of additive (as long as they are different advantages). Thus area effect nnd would be (1+1)*(1+1) and cost 4 times the base cost instead of 3 times the base cost of the current system. Or you as GM can simply watch any construct with multiple advantages carefully.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

The trouble is that a 0 average defense campaign isn't the norm at all. You can't take a 0 def campaign as the baseline.

 

Then ditch NND's, which generally act against zero defenses. AVLD's and mental attacks must go as well. A +1 advantage eliminates all defenses against many opponents or gets +4 SM against all opponents.

 

Originally posted by Gary

IME, defenses average between 2 and 3 times the average dice of the campaign. So a 12d6 campaign will have defenses averaging 24-36 defense (even if defenses get out of this range a little, the analysis doesn't change much). And at "typical" defense levels, the net damage of +SM gets out of hand quickly relative to "typical" KAs and EBs.

 

In Supers, I agree.

 

What about Fantasy? 6 Armor/Force Field plus 3 - 6 DEF = 9 - 12. 3-4 DC attacks are prettly light in most fantasy campaigns I've seen. 6 DC seems a norm, and 9 DC is not out of the question. That's a range of 1 - 2.

 

I can't speak for Star Hero, but I'm guessing the attack/defense multiple is similar or worse.

 

Westerns, Pulps or Spy games will likely see 0 defenses, at least against guns - bullet proof vests aren't the norm in these genres. Horror games too, and here larger attacks might even be expected, depending on the subgenre.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Then ditch NND's, which generally act against zero defenses. AVLD's and mental attacks must go as well. A +1 advantage eliminates all defenses against many opponents or gets +4 SM against all opponents.

 

The NND is less devastating than +4 SM in general.

 

1) The NND is occasionally stopped by the appropriate defenses. The +4 SM works vs almost everyone.

 

2) Which does more net stun depends on the average defense level of the campaign. For a 60 pt campaign, the 6d6 NND does 21 net stun. The 2d6+4 does about the same net stun vs 27 def (although with a somewhat higher chance of con stunning a 23 con target). Vs higher than 27 def, the NND does better net stun while the 2d6+4 does better vs lower def. However, the defense has to be 33 or higher before the 6d6 NND has a better chance of con stunning a 23 con target.

 

3) It's easier stacking the +SM onto autofire attacks. There is no +1 efficiency surcharge that needs to be paid for +SM.

 

4) The NND is already more devastating to a target in a "typical" superheroic campaign than a straight EB. So if +4 SM is better than NND, the difference is even more extreme.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

In Supers, I agree.

 

What about Fantasy? 6 Armor/Force Field plus 3 - 6 DEF = 9 - 12. 3-4 DC attacks are prettly light in most fantasy campaigns I've seen. 6 DC seems a norm, and 9 DC is not out of the question. That's a range of 1 - 2.

 

I can't speak for Star Hero, but I'm guessing the attack/defense multiple is similar or worse.

 

Westerns, Pulps or Spy games will likely see 0 defenses, at least against guns - bullet proof vests aren't the norm in these genres. Horror games too, and here larger attacks might even be expected, depending on the subgenre.

 

Let's compare 6 DC vs 9 def like you're suggesting.

 

The 6d6 EB does 12 net stun on average. The 1d6+4 SM does 14.7 net stun, or 23% more stun. The 2d6 RKA does 10.5 net stun. Even at extremely low defense levels, the 1d6+4 is still better than the 6d6 EB.

 

Using the high end of your range, 9 DC vs 12 Def:

 

The 9d6 EB does 19.5 net stun. The 1d6+8 does 25.6 net stun, or 31% more. The 3d6 RKA does 16.7 net stun.

 

Even in lower powered games, +SM is more devastating.

[Hugh Neilson]

Gary, all of your comparisons are with +4 stun multiples, +8 stun multiples, etc. Given FREd sets more than +2 as requiring GM permission (about as close to illegal as one can get without banning a power outright), I would be more inclined to base analyses on +2 Stun Multiple.

 

Originally posted by Gary

The NND is less devastating than +4 SM in general.

 

1) The NND is occasionally stopped by the appropriate defenses. The +4 SM works vs almost everyone.

 

And yet "NND Defense" is dismissed by you as non-limiting in many other threads.

 

Originally posted by Gary

2) Which does more net stun depends on the average defense level of the campaign. For a 60 pt campaign, the 6d6 NND does 21 net stun. The 2d6+4 does about the same net stun vs 27 def (although with a somewhat higher chance of con stunning a 23 con target). Vs higher than 27 def, the NND does better net stun while the 2d6+4 does better vs lower def. However, the defense has to be 33 or higher before the 6d6 NND has a better chance of con stunning a 23 con target.

 

Now let's apply your supposed "fix". The NND still does 21 STUN. The EB still does 42 gross Stun or 15 STUN versus 27 DEF. The KA does 20.67 STUN against the same DEF level under existing rules (and assuming GM permission for a +4 SM). Change this to GaryWorld, where +4 SM is now +1.5. Let's use a 1 1/2d6 KA (62.5 AP). Average BOD? 5.5 SM? 6.67. STUN 36.7 - 27 = 9. It also does less BOD and KB than the EB. You haven't banned it, but you may as well. And the +2 SM (not specifically requiring GM permission) is 2d6+1 (61.25 AP), does 8 BOD x 4.67 = 37.36 STUN or 10 vs 27 DEF - again, whol;ly inferior to the EB. Just ban the advantage and get it over with, Gary!

 

Originally posted by Gary

Let's compare 6 DC vs 9 def like you're suggesting.

 

The 6d6 EB does 12 net stun on average. The 1d6+4 SM does 14.7 net stun, or 23% more stun. The 2d6 RKA does 10.5 net stun. Even at extremely low defense levels, the 1d6+4 is still better than the 6d6 EB.

 

This is a tough level to compare your fix - +1 1/2 on 30 AP leaves a 12 AP attack.

 

Originally posted by Gary

Using the high end of your range, 9 DC vs 12 Def:

 

The 9d6 EB does 19.5 net stun. The 1d6+8 does 25.6 net stun, or 31% more. The 3d6 RKA does 16.7 net stun.

 

Now to GaryWorld, where 49 points gets us 1d6 + 6 SM, which will do 18 net Stun. Less STUN, BOD and everything else than a 9d6 EB.

 

My point here is not that huge stun multiple bonuses would not be unbalancing - they easily could be. That's why the require explicit GM permission (a statement in FREd that generally implies "should not normally be permitted"). But changing the cost so it's not worth buying at all is no solution - it's just a backwards means of banning the power. If I don't like Transform, I can ban it honestly (NO transofrms. Ever!) or I can raise the cost 50% (you can buy it, but you're wadting your points), efectively banning it, or I can punish those buying it by giving every opponent 15 points of power defense only vs transforms. Be honest, and just ban it the offensive power outright.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Gary, all of your comparisons are with +4 stun multiples, +8 stun multiples, etc. Given FREd sets more than +2 as requiring GM permission (about as close to illegal as one can get without banning a power outright), I would be more inclined to base analyses on +2 Stun Multiple.

 

You were the one who brought up the NND comparison. Therefore I used +4 SM simply because it is the same level of advantage and therefore completely comparable. And most of the time, +4 SM is better than NND unless you get extremely high defense levels.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

And yet "NND Defense" is dismissed by you as non-limiting in many other threads.

 

I didn't say "non-limiting". I said mostly "non-limiting". There is a difference.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Now let's apply your supposed "fix". The NND still does 21 STUN. The EB still does 42 gross Stun or 15 STUN versus 27 DEF. The KA does 20.67 STUN against the same DEF level under existing rules (and assuming GM permission for a +4 SM). Change this to GaryWorld, where +4 SM is now +1.5. Let's use a 1 1/2d6 KA (62.5 AP). Average BOD? 5.5 SM? 6.67. STUN 36.7 - 27 = 9. It also does less BOD and KB than the EB. You haven't banned it, but you may as well. And the +2 SM (not specifically requiring GM permission) is 2d6+1 (61.25 AP), does 8 BOD x 4.67 = 37.36 STUN or 10 vs 27 DEF - again, whol;ly inferior to the EB. Just ban the advantage and get it over with, Gary!

 

Your analysis ignores the fact that you can't get less than 0 net stun with an attack. Therefore your numbers are going to be off for killing attacks. Let's up the attack to 75 pts and increase the defense level to 27*(75/60) or 34. This way we can work in nice round numbers (I hate working with 1/2d6).

 

Under the current system, 15d6 EB does 18.5 net stun. 4d6+1 SM does 19.9 net stun, or 7.6% more. 3d6+3 SM (for 79 pts) does 26.3 net stun vs 22 net stun for a 16d6 EB at the same price. 2d6+6 SM does 27.8 net stun for 75 pts, or a whopping 50.3% greater net stun. Under my system, you would only get 2d6+4 SM or 15.3 net stun vs 34 def. This is 17.3% less net stun than the EB.

 

However, which is closer to the "true" value of the advantage, 50.3% more stun, or 17.3% less stun? I submit that the 2d6+4 is much closer to the "true" value than 2d6+6.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Now to GaryWorld, where 49 points gets us 1d6 + 6 SM, which will do 18 net Stun. Less STUN, BOD and everything else than a 9d6 EB.

 

18.9 net stun vs 12 def to be accurate for the 1d6+6. I submit that 18.9 is closer to 19.5 than 25.6 is. And thus 1d6+6 is closer to the "true" value of the advantage. "+3/4 for +2" falls short, but it errs a shorter distance than "+1/4 for +1" errs in the opposite direction.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

My point here is not that huge stun multiple bonuses would not be unbalancing - they easily could be. That's why the require explicit GM permission (a statement in FREd that generally implies "should not normally be permitted"). But changing the cost so it's not worth buying at all is no solution - it's just a backwards means of banning the power. If I don't like Transform, I can ban it honestly (NO transofrms. Ever!) or I can raise the cost 50% (you can buy it, but you're wadting your points), efectively banning it, or I can punish those buying it by giving every opponent 15 points of power defense only vs transforms. Be honest, and just ban it the offensive power outright.

 

Why should I ban it? At +3/4 for +2, it's still a viable purchase when you add other advantages on it such as AP, autofire, area effect, or explosion. People would tend to use it to add flavor to other advantaged attacks, rather than use it for their primary attack.

 

Of course your entire analysis would apply to 1.5 times knockback. Nobody would purchase it as a straight power advantage as is, since for the same cost they could simply purchase 50% greater dice and get the same knockback with bigger benefits. However, +1/4 would be too cheap, so they erred on the side of non-abusiveness by making the cost +1/2.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

Your analysis ignores the fact that you can't get less than 0 net stun with an attack.

 

Average damage is average damage. Analysis of the breakpoint where 15d6 EB does 0 or less STUN isn't worth the time. One drawback of normal KA's is the possibility they inflict no STUN whatsoever, so the guy with 1 STUN remaining just keeps going.

 

Originally posted by Gary

Under the current system, 15d6 EB does 18.5 net stun. 4d6+1 SM does 19.9 net stun, or 7.6% more. 3d6+3 SM (for 79 pts) does 26.3 net stun vs 22 net stun for a 16d6 EB at the same price. 2d6+6 SM does 27.8 net stun for 75 pts, or a whopping 50.3% greater net stun. Under my system, you would only get 2d6+4 SM or 15.3 net stun vs 34 def. This is 17.3% less net stun than the EB.

 

46d/+1 SM 7.6% more STUN, 6.7% less BOD and a reduced chance of knockback. Doesn't seem unbalanced to me.

 

3d6/+3 SM: 19.5% more STUN, 30% less BOD, even less chance of knockback. Still in the game, although this is the point where I'm not seing a Killing Attack any more and considering denying GM permission.

 

2d6/+6 SM - 50.3% greater stun, 53.3% less BOD, generally no kncokback and about a 0% chance I'm giving GM permission because this is no longer a killing attack.

 

17.3% less STUN than the EB is ludicrous - less Stun, less BOD and less kncokback, and you call it "balanced". Just ban more than +2 (or whatever) to the Stun Multiple and move along.

 

Originally posted by Gary

However, which is closer to the "true" value of the advantage, 50.3% more stun, or 17.3% less stun? I submit that the 2d6+4 is much closer to the "true" value than 2d6+6.

 

When one considers only STUN and no other effect of the power? Sure. Why not shave the costs of all the powers by making them do neither BOD nor Knockback, then?

 

Originally posted by Gary

Of course your entire analysis would apply to 1.5 times knockback. Nobody would purchase it as a straight power advantage as is, since for the same cost they could simply purchase 50% greater dice and get the same knockback with bigger benefits. However, +1/4 would be too cheap, so they erred on the side of non-abusiveness by making the cost +1/2.

 

I've NEVER had anyone buy Double Knockback. It is overpriced, so we ignore it. Buy extra dice that only doi knockback instead! Violates AP limits? So what? They're highly limited dice so it's not unbalancing.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Average damage is average damage. Analysis of the breakpoint where 15d6 EB does 0 or less STUN isn't worth the time. One drawback of normal KA's is the possibility they inflict no STUN whatsoever, so the guy with 1 STUN remaining just keeps going.

 

For normal attacks, I agree. With killing attacks, you have to factor in that you can't do below 0 stun. A simple example would be a 1d6 RKA vs 10 def. Using your analysis, it would do 0 average stun. Using a proper analysis, it would do 2.75 average stun.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

46d/+1 SM 7.6% more STUN, 6.7% less BOD and a reduced chance of knockback. Doesn't seem unbalanced to me.

 

3d6/+3 SM: 19.5% more STUN, 30% less BOD, even less chance of knockback. Still in the game, although this is the point where I'm not seing a Killing Attack any more and considering denying GM permission.

 

2d6/+6 SM - 50.3% greater stun, 53.3% less BOD, generally no kncokback and about a 0% chance I'm giving GM permission because this is no longer a killing attack.

 

17.3% less STUN than the EB is ludicrous - less Stun, less BOD and less kncokback, and you call it "balanced". Just ban more than +2 (or whatever) to the Stun Multiple and move along.

 

17.3% less stun is less ludicrous than 50.3% more stun. And the above examples don't really highlight another important aspect. Con stunning.

 

Vs a 34 def and 28 con (quite reasonable in a 75 pt world. This analysis would still work vs a 27 def 23 con in a 60 pt world), here are the con stun percentages:

 

15d6 EB 6.6% chance

4d6+1 31.1% chance

3d6+3 40.5% chance

 

Quite a significant change.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

When one considers only STUN and no other effect of the power? Sure. Why not shave the costs of all the powers by making them do neither BOD nor Knockback, then?

 

I repeat. 50.3% greater stun is more ludicrous than 17.3% less stun.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I've NEVER had anyone buy Double Knockback. It is overpriced, so we ignore it. Buy extra dice that only doi knockback instead! Violates AP limits? So what? They're highly limited dice so it's not unbalancing.

 

And yet Double Knockback is in the same boat as my version of increased stun multiple. It's a nice add on when you stack other advantages on the power, but not something you want on its own. But I don't see you arguing that double knockback should be cheaper.

[Farkling]

Why am I always around pouring kerosene on the fire?

 

My players pretty much don't sit down and point crunch the effeciency of the powers. They don't want THAT much math. They go for obvious broken stuff, or they buy flavor. I mostly get flavor purchases by the Multipower players, and normal purchases by the others. The EC characters that can actually save UP the 20-30 points for power purchase stand a chance of getting a broken power through, just for reward and variety.

 

Double Knockback IMHO is more useful than a +3 SM. It wreaks greater havoc on the surrounding environment, AND usually allows for a free shot as the target attempts to return to the fray (provided of course, he coped with the additional 12d6 or 10dr+10d6 from going through the building)

 

I don't think 2xKB is broken, nor do I consider it overpriced. On Wheels specialty power, it was a perfect fit, and he tacked persoanal immunity on top for a firm bonus and to avoid the question of being affected by his own attack if he was in the middle of the AE. The only other place I have seen a player writeup with 2xKB is in one of the Cyborg's alternate weapon platforms.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

For normal attacks, I agree. With killing attacks, you have to factor in that you can't do below 0 stun. A simple example would be a 1d6 RKA vs 10 def. Using your analysis, it would do 0 average stun. Using a proper analysis, it would do 2.75 average stun.

 

ummm...let's use 11 DEF. Average from a 3d6 EB is also 0 if you don't trot out the big statistical analysis machine. By using one model for one power and a different one for the other, you skew the results.

 

Originally posted by Gary

17.3% less stun is less ludicrous than 50.3% more stun. And the above examples don't really highlight another important aspect. Con stunning.

 

17.3% less STUN = power is less useful in all respects, since it has an advantage only in STUN. The results of your analysis can hardly be surprising, Gary. If I buy an advantage on a power that serves ONLY to increase the STUN it inflicts, I would expect it to have an advantage in terms of inflicting STUN.

 

The ADVANTAGE only affects STUN. Thus, I would expect the power to have a STUN ADVANTAGE. Is a 50.3% advantage excessive? Honestly, it probably is. That's why more than +2 SM is "only with GM permission".

 

Originally posted by Gary

And yet Double Knockback is in the same boat as my version of increased stun multiple. It's a nice add on when you stack other advantages on the power, but not something you want on its own. But I don't see you arguing that double knockback should be cheaper.

 

Possibly because the thread is discussing increased Stun multiples... My general feeling is that any ability which is generally shunned is probably overpriced. But I don't care about "Double Knockback" enough to want to adjust it. Of course, the same can be said of "+8 Stun Multiple". It's better to just cap it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling

Why am I always around pouring kerosene on the fire?

 

Someone has to! I appreciate it - Gary's so persistent you can almost start to believe him after a while if you get no support.

 

Originally posted by Farkling

My players pretty much don't sit down and point crunch the effeciency of the powers.

 

Mine neither. And they'll normally suggest a change if something develops to be overpowered.

 

Originally posted by Farkling

I don't think 2xKB is broken, nor do I consider it overpriced. On Wheels specialty power, it was a perfect fit, and he tacked persoanal immunity on top for a firm bonus and to avoid the question of being affected by his own attack if he was in the middle of the AE. The only other place I have seen a player writeup with 2xKB is in one of the Cyborg's alternate weapon platforms.

 

At least SOMEONE is using it!

 

BTW, I think Cory's power pool is one of the most logical and creative use of the framework I've seen. Kudos!

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

ummm...let's use 11 DEF. Average from a 3d6 EB is also 0 if you don't trot out the big statistical analysis machine. By using one model for one power and a different one for the other, you skew the results.

 

I'm not skewing my results at all. It's just that with normal attacks vs defenses that are significantly less than 3.5 times the dice, the average works out pretty well. The 3d6 EB vs 11 def does 0.96 stun on average. On the whole, you can normally ignore the fact that you can't get less than 0 stun when dealing with normal attacks. You can't ignore it when dealing with killing attacks and trying to calculate an average.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

17.3% less STUN = power is less useful in all respects, since it has an advantage only in STUN. The results of your analysis can hardly be surprising, Gary. If I buy an advantage on a power that serves ONLY to increase the STUN it inflicts, I would expect it to have an advantage in terms of inflicting STUN.

 

The ADVANTAGE only affects STUN. Thus, I would expect the power to have a STUN ADVANTAGE. Is a 50.3% advantage excessive? Honestly, it probably is. That's why more than +2 SM is "only with GM permission".

 

What percentage increase would you consider reasonable?

 

And what about my point about con stunning percentages?

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Possibly because the thread is discussing increased Stun multiples... My general feeling is that any ability which is generally shunned is probably overpriced. But I don't care about "Double Knockback" enough to want to adjust it. Of course, the same can be said of "+8 Stun Multiple". It's better to just cap it.

 

Double knockback can be pretty gruesome when stacked with a 3 base point attack. For example, a 10d6 sonic flash does knockback, double knockback costs 60 pts. Dispels work the same way. And what about purchasing Presence does knockback double knockback...

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

I'm not skewing my results at all. It's just that with normal attacks vs defenses that are significantly less than 3.5 times the dice, the average works out pretty well. The 3d6 EB vs 11 def does 0.96 stun on average. On the whole, you can normally ignore the fact that you can't get less than 0 stun when dealing with normal attacks. You can't ignore it when dealing with killing attacks and trying to calculate an average.

 

.96 vs 0. On a 15 point power, I don't think I would dismiss this. You can't measure two different ways then claim comparability. [Well, I suppose you can - after all, you did - but you can't reasonably expect to be perceived as credible when doing it.]

 

Originally posted by Gary

What percentage increase would you consider reasonable?

 

Maybe 50.3% is reasonable. I don't think so, but then that's why I would simply cap the multiples.

 

Originally posted by Gary

And what about my point about con stunning percentages?

 

What about it? This is merely another outgrowth of enhanced STUN damage. For some characters, 30 STUN (or less) is unconscious anyway, so once we hit 40, or 50, who really cares how much higher it gets?

 

Originally posted by Gary

Double knockback can be pretty gruesome when stacked with a 3 base point attack. For example, a 10d6 sonic flash does knockback, double knockback costs 60 pts. Dispels work the same way. And what about purchasing Presence does knockback double knockback...

 

Gosh, those constructs don't seem manipulative at all, do they? Perhaps this is evidence that a Hand Attack type fix needs to be applied to those powers so all attacks have a base 5 pt cost (eg. Flash gets a -1/2 limit if it targets a non-targeting sense only; Dispel is purchased as Suppress with -1/2 for immediate fade, etc.). Or perhaps GM's simply need to be alert for power constructs that are intended to milk the system - if we only see double KB on those powers, maybe the advantage needs to carry a premium on 3 point base attack powers.