Stun Multiplier

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

.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.]

 

Trust me, it's not going to skew the numbers. With a 12d6 attack vs 27 def like we've been discussing, the average net stun is 15.0081. You'd have to up the defense to 36 before it even makes a .5 stun difference (6.47618 net stun). As I said, you can safely use simply the average with normal attacks if the def is significantly less than 3.5 times the dice of the attack.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

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

 

Capping the multiples would work in balancing this construct. With only 2 multiples, the advantage doesn't stack to the point where it gets grotesque. However, the need for a cap illustrates my point that +1/4 isn't a balanced price.

 

Didn't we agree on this point pages ago?

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

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?

 

It matters whether you can take the character to -11 or below. And if you can't take them to that level in one shot, then the con stunning matters.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

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.

 

I've actually seen a player buy the sonic flash double knockback, defined as a sonic boom. It made perfect sense conceptually to me, and I trusted the player enough not to abuse it.

[lemming]

Even villians think Stun Multiples are the way to go:

 

The thought balloon says, "I'm gonna go out and stun someone!"

 

 

Another of Sam Bell's villians by the name of X-terminator

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

TCapping the multiples would work in balancing this construct. With only 2 multiples, the advantage doesn't stack to the point where it gets grotesque. However, the need for a cap illustrates my point that +1/4 isn't a balanced price.

 

Gary, my reason for a cap (as stated a number of times) is that killing attacks are intended to KILL. Buying +10 Multiples does not, to me, retain an attack intended to kill, so I disallow such powers.

 

And I remain unpersuaded that +1/4 is not balanced within the statement of the rules that more than +2 is a "GM Permission" ability. From that statement, it is not intended this advantage be purchased to more than the +1/2 level. Perhaps 6e can simply say "+1 SM costs +1/4. +2 costs +1/2. No higher level may be purchased, as the attack has then ceased to have the dealing of lethal damage as its main purpose."

 

Finally, your "fix" leaves a power with this advantage inferior in all respects to a normal power at the same AP. This is not, therefore, fixed. It is merely unbalanced in a different direction. Any revised pricing should result in a power with this advantage being more powerful in some situations, and less powerful in others, than a power without the advantage.

 

It seems we disagree on this fundamental point. I don't see much else which can be said.

 

 

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Gary, my reason for a cap (as stated a number of times) is that killing attacks are intended to KILL. Buying +10 Multiples does not, to me, retain an attack intended to kill, so I disallow such powers.

 

And I remain unpersuaded that +1/4 is not balanced within the statement of the rules that more than +2 is a "GM Permission" ability. From that statement, it is not intended this advantage be purchased to more than the +1/2 level. Perhaps 6e can simply say "+1 SM costs +1/4. +2 costs +1/2. No higher level may be purchased, as the attack has then ceased to have the dealing of lethal damage as its main purpose."

 

Actually the rules state that more than +1 is "GM permission".

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Finally, your "fix" leaves a power with this advantage inferior in all respects to a normal power at the same AP. This is not, therefore, fixed. It is merely unbalanced in a different direction. Any revised pricing should result in a power with this advantage being more powerful in some situations, and less powerful in others, than a power without the advantage.

 

It seems we disagree on this fundamental point. I don't see much else which can be said.

 

Actually, the advantage would still be more powerful in certain situations, such as when stacked with other advantages.

 

And 150% knockback fits your criteria of an advantage "inferior in all respects" to a normal power at the same AP. Except that you can stack it with certain other power/advantage sets to make Double Knockback a worthwhile option. As you would be able to do with Increased Stun Multiple even with the repricing to +3/4 for +2.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

Actually, the advantage would still be more powerful in certain situations, such as when stacked with other advantages.

 

And 150% knockback fits your criteria of an advantage "inferior in all respects" to a normal power at the same AP. Except that you can stack it with certain other power/advantage sets to make Double Knockback a worthwhile option. As you would be able to do with Increased Stun Multiple even with the repricing to +3/4 for +2.

 

I don't feel it should be necessary to "make" the advantage workable only in stacking situations. If it is, NND should also be surcharged so it ios not useful outside stacking, as should numerous other advantages.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I don't feel it should be necessary to "make" the advantage workable only in stacking situations. If it is, NND should also be surcharged so it ios not useful outside stacking, as should numerous other advantages.

 

Except a few advantages are already that way. Such as AP (not usually worth a +1/2 unless stacked with other advantages) or Double Knockback.

 

And no other existing advantage allows a power to do more net stun than the equivalent EB vs all defense levels. If you stick to one level of increased SM as suggested by the book, the advantage isn't too devastating. If you allow more than 1-2 levels, then the killing attack will do significantly more stun vs all defense levels and should be repriced accordingly so that it is no longer the case.

[Farkling]

Alright Mr. Number Crunching Gary.

 

I am now curious about something observed during play sessions, and YOU have a spreadsheet somewhere that will handle it. I see no need to do the calculations myself at this point. I wonder if AP in general can be found more efficient than +x SM RKA's to simulate an Impact attack with a risk of doing BODY damage.

 

What's the net difference between the +2 STUN multiple attack versus the equivalent Armor Piercing EB ??

 

My experience in play from Josh's wide plasma beam (RKA, +2 SM) is that it does NOT reliably do as much STUN damage as the equivalent priced AP EB in the Weather Witch's power suite. Josh's player is of the same opinion. Am I seeing averages versus wide swings?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

Except a few advantages are already that way. Such as AP (not usually worth a +1/2 unless stacked with other advantages) or Double Knockback.

 

And no other existing advantage allows a power to do more net stun than the equivalent EB vs all defense levels. If you stick to one level of increased SM as suggested by the book, the advantage isn't too devastating. If you allow more than 1-2 levels, then the killing attack will do significantly more stun vs all defense levels and should be repriced accordingly so that it is no longer the case.

 

+1 advantage. Choose NND or +4 SM. At 60 points, NND averages 21 STUN. At 60 points, 2d6 RKA averages 7 BOD x 6 2/3 stun = 46 2/3 STUN - 27 DEF = 19 2/3 STUN. Marginally less STUN on average. Still has a shot (though slim) at doing knockback and/or BOD on inanimate objects.

 

+2 advantage. Choose NND Does BOD or +8 SM (yes, a ridiculous level). Average 14 STUN and 4 BOD, or average 4.5 BOD * 10 2/3 = 48 STUN - 27 DEF = 21 STUN. The RKA gets all the way to the normal NND's stun.

 

The KA admittedly has some pretty wild shifts - but a chance of doing extraordinarily high damage is balanced against the chance of inflicting nothing (oops! 2 STUN and 10 SM = 20 STUN - he laughs!), so that villain with all of 5 (or less) STUN gets off another shot/escapes/what have you.

 

At the +2 advantage level, take 4 BOD reliably every hit. Make the defense Force Field and give this guy a KA (with no Stun multiple) in his multipower. While he kills the opponents vulnerable to his NND, his alies take down the force fielders. He can kill them when they're out and their fields are down.

 

A 2 1/2d6 Penetrating KA will reliably get about 2 BOD through a phase, and average 24 STUN (not even a dent after defenses).

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling

I am now curious about something observed during play sessions, and YOU have a spreadsheet somewhere that will handle it. I see no need to do the calculations myself at this point. I wonder if AP in general can be found more efficient than +x SM RKA's to simulate an Impact attack with a risk of doing BODY damage.

 

My guess is AP will have a better chance of doing BOD. Both are +1/2 advantages, so say we can get a 3d6 KA (67.5 AP). It averages 10.5 BOD. 15 rDef will reliably stop the bonus SM KA, but the AP attack will sometimes get through 25 rDef.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Farkling

Alright Mr. Number Crunching Gary.

 

I am now curious about something observed during play sessions, and YOU have a spreadsheet somewhere that will handle it. I see no need to do the calculations myself at this point. I wonder if AP in general can be found more efficient than +x SM RKA's to simulate an Impact attack with a risk of doing BODY damage.

 

What's the net difference between the +2 STUN multiple attack versus the equivalent Armor Piercing EB ??

 

My experience in play from Josh's wide plasma beam (RKA, +2 SM) is that it does NOT reliably do as much STUN damage as the equivalent priced AP EB in the Weather Witch's power suite. Josh's player is of the same opinion. Am I seeing averages versus wide swings?

 

It all depends on the defense of the target. AP attacks are most worthwhile when the target has high non-hardened defenses. And EB's would certainly be more "reliable" at producing stun. It's just that KA's ability to hit the homerun increases their average stun done.

 

For a 67.5 pt attack (3d6 RKA +2 SM vs 9d6 AP EB), here are some expected damages vs various defenses:

 

Def 20

RKA 29.2

EB 21.5

 

Def 24

RKA 25.4

EB 19.5

 

Def 28

RKA 21.9

EB 17.5

 

Def 32

RKA 18.7

EB 15.5

 

Def 36

RKA 15.7

EB 13.5

 

Def 40

RKA 13.2

EB 11.5

 

Actually, there doesn't appear to be a single defense level where the 9d6 AP EB is going to average more net stun than the 3d6 RKA +2 SM.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

+1 advantage. Choose NND or +4 SM. At 60 points, NND averages 21 STUN. At 60 points, 2d6 RKA averages 7 BOD x 6 2/3 stun = 46 2/3 STUN - 27 DEF = 19 2/3 STUN. Marginally less STUN on average. Still has a shot (though slim) at doing knockback and/or BOD on inanimate objects.

 

VS 27 Def, the 2d6+4 does 20.8 net stun. Above 27 def, the NND is better. Below 27 Def, the 2d6+4 is better at producing stun. And the 2d6+4 has a slightly better chance of con stunning a 23 con target at 27 def.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

+2 advantage. Choose NND Does BOD or +8 SM (yes, a ridiculous level). Average 14 STUN and 4 BOD, or average 4.5 BOD * 10 2/3 = 48 STUN - 27 DEF = 21 STUN. The RKA gets all the way to the normal NND's stun.

 

Let's work with 45 active points since I don't like the extra +1 pip RKA. And let's lower the def by the same percentage, or to 20 def. That's 3d6 NND does Body vs 1d6+8 SM. The NND does 3 body and 10.5 stun on average. The RKA does 19.0 stun on average. Granted that it doesn't do body, but 81% more stun isn't anything to sneer at either.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

VS 27 Def, the 2d6+4 does 20.8 net stun. Above 27 def, the NND is better. Below 27 Def, the 2d6+4 is better at producing stun. And the 2d6+4 has a slightly better chance of con stunning a 23 con target at 27 def.

 

Looks pretty even, then.

 

Originally posted by Gary

Let's work with 45 active points since I don't like the extra +1 pip RKA. And let's lower the def by the same percentage, or to 20 def. That's 3d6 NND does Body vs 1d6+8 SM. The NND does 3 body and 10.5 stun on average. The RKA does 19.0 stun on average. Granted that it doesn't do body, but 81% more stun isn't anything to sneer at either.

 

I'd rather take 19 Stun per attack than 3 BOD. I'll live a lot longer, absent regeneration/healing. But there's no question +8 SM is well into the realm of the ridiculous, and I would not be inclined to allow it in any case. Come to think of it, I don't believe I've ever aproved an NND that does BOD. Mind you, I don't think anyone ever asked for either one.

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by Gary

It all depends on the defense of the target. AP attacks are most worthwhile when the target has high non-hardened defenses. And EB's would certainly be more "reliable" at producing stun. It's just that KA's ability to hit the homerun increases their average stun done.

 

For a 67.5 pt attack (3d6 RKA +2 SM vs 9d6 AP EB), here are some expected damages vs various defenses:

 

Def 20

RKA 29.2

EB 21.5

 

Def 24

RKA 25.4

EB 19.5

 

Def 28

RKA 21.9

EB 17.5

 

Def 32

RKA 18.7

EB 15.5

 

Def 36

RKA 15.7

EB 13.5

 

Def 40

RKA 13.2

EB 11.5

 

Actually, there doesn't appear to be a single defense level where the 9d6 AP EB is going to average more net stun than the 3d6 RKA +2 SM.

I don't understand how you're getting these numbers. The 9d6 EB rolls an average of 31.5 STUN, so your numbers are right for the AP EB, but the 3d6 RKA does 10.5 BODY x 4.7 = 49 STUN on average. So the numbers should be:

 

Def 20

RKA 29

EB 21.5

 

Def 24

RKA 25

EB 19.5

 

Def 28

RKA 21

EB 17.5

 

Def 32

RKA 17

EB 15.5

 

Def 36

RKA 13

EB 13.5

 

Def 40

RKA 9

EB 11.5

 

The EB would do 2" or KB on average, and the RKA would do no KB. A max roll with the RKA would do no BODY to any of the above defenders, but a max roll with the EB would do BODY to the first four. Is there something else I'm missing?

[Gary]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

I don't understand how you're getting these numbers. The 9d6 EB rolls an average of 31.5 STUN, so your numbers are right for the AP EB, but the 3d6 RKA does 10.5 BODY x 4.7 = 49 STUN on average. So the numbers should be:

 

Def 20

RKA 29

EB 21.5

 

Def 24

RKA 25

EB 19.5

 

Def 28

RKA 21

EB 17.5

 

Def 32

RKA 17

EB 15.5

 

Def 36

RKA 13

EB 13.5

 

Def 40

RKA 9

EB 11.5

 

The EB would do 2" or KB on average, and the RKA would do no KB. A max roll with the RKA would do no BODY to any of the above defenders, but a max roll with the EB would do BODY to the first four. Is there something else I'm missing?

 

Yes, you're missing the fact that you can't do below 0 stun with an attack. This isn't really a factor with normal attacks, but it greatly matters with killing attacks.

 

Using just raw averages, 1d6 RKA will do 0 stun vs 10 resistant def. However, that clearly is not the case since a max roll will do 20 net stun. The average for the 1d6 RKA vs 10 def is 2.75 net stun, not 0.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

Yes, you're missing the fact that you can't do below 0 stun with an attack. This isn't really a factor with normal attacks, but it greatly matters with killing attacks.

 

Using just raw averages, 1d6 RKA will do 0 stun vs 10 resistant def. However, that clearly is not the case since a max roll will do 20 net stun. The average for the 1d6 RKA vs 10 def is 2.75 net stun, not 0.

 

If you go a bit further back in the thread, you'll see where Gary and I discuss his use of one averaging method for EB and a different one for KA. Gary's right that the impact is more significant for KA's than EB's, but it's still comparing apples to oranges (or at least Red Delicious and Granny Smith)

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

If you go a bit further back in the thread, you'll see where Gary and I discuss his use of one averaging method for EB and a different one for KA. Gary's right that the impact is more significant for KA's than EB's, but it's still comparing apples to oranges (or at least Red Delicious and Granny Smith)

 

For all the defense levels that we've been comparing, the straight average for EB's is within 1 decimal point of the true average anyway. It's simply not a significant factor for EB's unless the Def gets close to 3.5 times the dice of the attack.