HOUSE RULES: Fixing the stun Lottary

[Talon]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth

With a 12d6 Energy Blast, that will result in 0 BODY and 22 STUN after defenses on an average roll, and you'd almost never do BODY (the chances of getting 21 BODY on 12 dice are extremely small). Using your option with a 12d6 Killing Attack, it would result in 2 BODY and 32 STUN after defenses, and you'd usually do BODY... sometimes several BODY. All for no increase in cost.

 

Note than a rules-standard 4d6 KA will do more BODY (4 on average) but less STUN.

 

+0 Advantage is definitely the most cost-balanced way to price this house rule -- I like it because it's simple, but I don't like that it removes the "more BODY, less STUN" tendency of KAs.

[Bengal]

I kind of like the stun lottery. You shouldn't expect to have as much control over a killing attack as you have over a normal attack- they're aupposed to be dangerous to use.

[Arthur]

Personally, I'm a fan of the Hit Location chart. Of course, I go for a very "realistic" gaming approach. If I were to propose a fix for a more casual style, I'd do this:

 

Roll one die. Figure up the BODY damage as for a Normal attack. Add 2. There's the STNx.

 

Die Result - STNx

 

1 - 2

2 - 3

3 - 3

4 - 3

5 - 3

6 - 4

 

GIves a little more variation than the straight x3.

 

Another way would be 1/2d+1, like this:

 

1 - 2

2 - 2

3 - 3

4 - 3

4 - 4

6 - 4

[Rick]

KA 4d6: Average body 14, average stun 28-42

 

EB 12d6: Average Body 12, Average stun 42.

 

But averages aren't the problem, it's that KA get so much more potential stun. I Like 1/2d6 for Super heroes (We play by the rules in Hero level games).

 

Another option is to add a stunX to EB's. In champions use the hit loc chart. Roll 3d6 and what ever the NStunX is apply to the EB.

[Farkling]

We use x3, and it's been satisfactory.but, I miss the unpredictability of the killing attacks. I actually like the fact that you can hit someone with a Killing Attack and do a few pips in STUN damage. The concept of "cauterized puncture wound, system ignores the damage" works nicley for me. I am toying with raiding my other polyhedrals, and I think we may try a d4.

 

The quoted 1/2 d6 +1 images well for me too. I'll have to ask my friend with the pillowcase if he has any 1d3's he wants to part with.

 

Though, cinematically I've alway described the 1x-2x STUN as a flesh wound or a near miss, and the 5x lotto hit as a strike to a vital area. Vital organs, major arteries, massive concussion damage, head hits.

[Chris Goodwin]

Part of the problem with the "stun lotto" is the flatness of the curve. Try (3d6/3)-1 and see if that doesn't work better. You get a 1 in 54 chance of having a stun multiple of 5 rather than 1 in 6.

[Blue]

I may be in the minority, but I like the wild swings. Of course in my games it has been working in my favor and not the players

 

I'm whacky in that I like randomness, even when it works against me. It means a little more drama sometimes.

 

I mean, sure it's fair to average the STUN multiplier and say that in some cases it's just not possible for the weaker hero to damage a tough foe. But this is a game of heroism, of people overcoming. The lesser hero might get in one good blast, and with a regular damage roll that maxes out, may even Stun the villain.

 

I don't think Killing Attack STUN is broken; it's crazy... like I like it.

[BNakagawa]

I fail to see how a wildly variable STUN result = drama.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

I fail to see how a wildly variable STUN result = drama.

I agree. As a GM dice are my tools, not my master. One-punching a supposedly tough opponent because of a single lucky roll isn't very dramatic IMHO.

[Farkling]

Huh?

 

You mean comic book heroes never get in lucky shots?

 

Villains don't happen to get a solid strike on a hero in a firefight?

 

Solid hits aren't turned into flesh wounds at the last minute?

 

PErhaps I am reading the wrong comic books?

[Farkling]

Besides. Those wild swings are an inherent disadvantage to using a killiong attack. Not to mention pulping the mortals. I don't want the STUN to be predictable to the player.

 

If you want to reliably put someone down, you need to use normal attacks Stun Drains. A killing attack MAY get a lucky x5 hit, but it is more likely to get a x1 or x2 STUN result.

 

What about the villains (or outlaws) that don't have resistant defenses? BLAM. There they are dying or sufering from the use of excessive force. Lawsuit!

 

If your players are reliably using killing attacks and STUN lotto to take people down, there may be something wrong with the scenes presented, or there may be loaded dice (I caught a player doing that once!). Killing attacks to tend to lower STUN in my experience...with the occasional "knock 'em down" hit.

 

YMMV

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Farkling

You mean comic book heroes never get in lucky shots?

 

Villains don't happen to get a solid strike on a hero in a firefight?

 

Solid hits aren't turned into flesh wounds at the last minute?

Sure they do, but it doesn't need to be dictated by dice. If wildly random swings in damage are so wonderful, why not create a similar randomization mechanic for normal attacks? Why should only Killing Attacks be so random? Comic books don't plot their stories with dice, Farkling, they're written to provide drama and action. So too are RPGs. This is interactive fiction, so it's distinctly different from any comic book or adventure novel which cannot be interactive but merely narrative. Champions is not a comic book, it's a role-playing simulation of comic books. That's a subtle but very important distinction.

 

Randomization has its place in gaming but the dice are not in charge when I'm the GM, I am. If I don't like the result required by a given die roll, either because its too good or too bad, I'll discard it. My job as GM is to provide a good adventure for my players, not to let some inanimate cubes of plastic dictate my story. The important interaction is between myself and my players, not between any of us and the dice. Dice are tools just like graph paper and hex maps.

[Talon]

One of the reasons I became disenchanted with the STUN Lotto was that players starting purchasing killing attacks so they could take down the big bad guys. Their reasoning was that an average roll on an EB did little to nothing, and EBs don't deviate much from average -- while a KA does. So they were willing to sit through a few Phases of poor STUN multipliers in order to get the 4s and 5s.

 

When I realized this was a reasonable strategy, I started considering alternatives for the STUN multiplier.

[Guest Keneton]

The Stun Lottery eliminates the brick wading thru assult weapons like rainwater. Instead you know one 5x x 12 will hurt him really bad.

 

Its not dramatic, its pathetic. Please look at the 2nd and third sytem I propose, you will get your bricks back!

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Talon

One of the reasons I became disenchanted with the STUN Lotto was that players starting purchasing killing attacks so they could take down the big bad guys. Their reasoning was that an average roll on an EB did little to nothing, and EBs don't deviate much from average -- while a KA does. So they were willing to sit through a few Phases of poor STUN multipliers in order to get the 4s and 5s.

 

When I realized this was a reasonable strategy, I started considering alternatives for the STUN multiplier.

Same here.

[Farkling]

Now I know how Gary feels.

 

Trebuchet; I still don't picture the mechanic as broken. I've played since 1982 (I think it was, not that I wanted to date myself). I do have a broad base to draw from, and am not a Johnny come lately. I am less than a year as a steady poster on these boards though. I never heard of Fuzion until after FRED came out. how's that for isolated from the HERO community?

 

The drama lies in the fact that KA's are suuposed to be DANGEROUS, and if the STUN lotto is wildly unpredictable, it fosters characters who respect Killing attacks (Batman, DareDevil, Many X-Men), versus the Superman types who will simply stand in front of them regardless. Cory has "mosly invulneralbe" as a psych limit. slightly different in play from overconfidence.

 

I believe Killing Attacks are DESIGNED to be unreliable. Especially in a standard Champion Universe. From what I've seen skimming over the "genre correct" characters in the HERO books, there ARE characters that a Killing Attack will blow to pieces. Or am I wrong? Collectively you guys own all the books, what percentage of characters have resistant defenses? i can't even look up the Champions now, as I still have not located my genre book. I think it has been permanently borrowed by an ex-player.

 

ANY resistant defenses allow for FULL PD and/or ED to be used against the STUN damage from a KA, this seems to be a design construct to reduce the STUN lotto. Has every CU character purchased resistant defenses? I am really curious now. Perhaps then it IS a flaw that the designers are incapable of seeing/admitting?

 

We'll never know from them, as Steve has been adamant in his refusals to discuss design philosophy. We'd have to elect a delegate to go buy him a pint or something and get him to discuss it.

 

I haven't changed any game mechanics to keep my bloodthirsty players in hand, not even in the days of BBB. My personal control has been the environment. The players don't KNOW if someone has resistant defenses by looking at them. Force Fields and Power Armor, yes, the players can assume that those are resistant defenses (easy to spot in my book). Shoot the same player after their force field fails, and you'll be on the evening news for sure. Cory (PC) is incredibly tough, but her resistant defenses are quite low without her costume. A player who blasted her with a KA on accident could do serious damage. Normal looking folks could have a PD of 35, and NO resistant defenses. If Josh incinerates one of them, he'll be wanted for murder at worst, and excessive force at the least. There's always that risk in the real world, "this is a Killing Attack, I could actually KILL that guy. Should I use it and hope I just knock him out?"

 

Look at someone like Cyclops, who has a CVK at maximum; he usess his NORMAL blasts at reduced levels, and in the old days he would STOP other X-Men from using Killing attacks on targets. Yeah, Cyclops will someday get killed because he starts low and works upward with his DC's. But that IS a CVK played properly. That psych limit took him down in X-Men 2. She should've killed him there in the prison.

 

The other solution is to cripple the STUN dealing power of the Killing attack to steer players away from it. That just doesn't seem right. It SHOULD have the potential to exceed or fizzle.

 

Everybody throws numbers around, so I guess I should take a shot at it.

Let us consider 4d6 RKA Yahtzees (statistically, do they not all have an equal chance of occuring?)

All 1's: 4 BOD, 4 STUN

All 2's: 8 BOD, 8 STUN

All 3's: 12 BOD, 24 STUN

All 4's: 16 BOD, 48 STUN

All 5's: 20 BOD, 80 STUN

All 6's: 24 BOD, 120 STUN

So, does this indicate that the AVERAGE damage from a 4d6 RKA is 5 BOD, 21 STUN ?? No, by no means. As we are looking at an extremely unlikely sample group. Looks good though, don't it? Like most of the numbers we generate here.

 

We can consider the STATISTICAL AVERAGE for the 4d6 RKA(which is an analysis, but irrelevant to actaul play. Once cannot roll 3.5 on a 6-sided polyhedron), SD = Normal (Standard) Dice

Statistically all damage dice come up 3.5. We will use that for our first STUN multiple also.

4d6 RKA = 14 BOD, 35 STUN.

12d6 SD = 12 BOD, 32 STUN.

Interestingly, this mirrors the earlier information posted. pt to pt, killing attacks are more efficient at generating STUN and BODY. i guess the tendency to reduce normals to paste is not a down side in most campaigns.

However, the actaul variance couples to THIS set of figures, when 4d6 RKA => 14 BODY.

SM 1 = 14, SM 2 = 14, SM 3 = 28, SM 4 = 42, SM 5 = 56, SM 6 = 70. Oddly enough, the truer average of this curve is 32 STUN, as opposed to the oft quoted 42 STUN yielded by (14+70) / 2. So statistically, the EB and the RKA do the SAME Stun damage.

 

Let's see, we have an earlier quote:

KA 4d6: Average body 14, average stun 28-42

EB 12d6: Average Body 12, Average stun 42.

 

Odds indicate that you will get a lower multiple. you have a 50% chance (1,2,3) of getting minimal/ineffective STUN damage (14, 14, 28). We don't think it happens that way. GM's remember the lucky shots and the one punchs more than the "spang, no damage" occurences. Players ALWAYS remember the lucky shots. And on the unlucky ones, I see handfuls of dice tossed on the floor in disgust. My recent campaign experience is that Josh is disillusioned with his 4d6 RKA plasma beam, and is trying to rationalize a less lethal attack. The weather witch takes targets down far more reliably with her 12d6 EB.

 

In the old days the simplest equalizer was that spreading cost 1d6 not 1 DC. i think that house rule in itself would interfere with the "efficiency" everyone seems to attribute to KA's, AVLD's, and NND's. in the old days, when villains unloaded with Killing attacks, players ducked for cover, instead of standing and taking it. In my experience, the flatter the curve for Stun Multiples, the more fearless characters become. "That idiot, he can't get more than 60 STUN on me with that .45 round, it couldn't possibly roll more than 15 BODY, and the maximum Stun Multiple is x4. I stand there and let im shoot me, then I take his gun and feed it to him." -- now if he could potentially do x5, for 75 STUN...it might be enough to daze me while he runs for it...I think chances in combat should be chances.

 

More input folks. Let's see if we can figure out waht is actually broken.

[Farkling]

PS - for the assault weapons, well, I tend to use flat multiples for agents, and only roll occasionally. Don't tell the gaming group.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Now I know how Gary feels.

 

Originally posted by Farkling

The drama lies in the fact that KA's are suuposed to be DANGEROUS, and if the STUN lotto is wildly unpredictable, it fosters characters who respect Killing attacks (Batman, DareDevil, Many X-Men), versus the Superman types who will simply stand in front of them regardless. Cory has "mostly invulnerable" as a psych limit. slightly different in play from overconfidence.

 

I believe Killing Attacks are DESIGNED to be unreliable. Especially in a standard Champion Universe. From what I've seen skimming over the "genre correct" characters in the HERO books, there ARE characters that a Killing Attack will blow to pieces. Or am I wrong? Collectively you guys own all the books, what percentage of characters have resistant defenses? i can't even look up the Champions now, as I still have not located my genre book. I think it has been permanently borrowed by an ex-player.

FYI, I'm still using the standard Stun Lottery method in my campaign. It's not like I'm rushing to change it; I've simply never been really happy with it. I've actually discussed changing the Stun Multiplier with two of the other GMs in my campaign, but they're both OK with it as written and I'm not going to override them.

 

I don't think KAs really qualify as "more dangerous." Danger seems to hint at an increased danger of taking Body, but almost every character I've ever seen has some Resistant Defenses. As someone pointed out above, some players are buying KAs for their PCs not because it does more BODY (which after all should be the purpose of KAs) but because they want the big Stun Multiple to KO villains. This tendency is only aggravated by the ability to purchase additional Stun Multiples. You can't buy extra Stun for normal attacks. (Why isn't there an Extra Stun option available as an Advantage for regular attacks? +25% Stun as a +½ Advantage, maybe?) So it seems to me that the standard Stun Lottery may be defeating the intended purpose of Killing Attacks because people are buying KAs not for their lethality but for their enhanced Stun aspects.

 

I know Steve Long inherited the Stun Lottery from his predecessors, so it may simply be that even he couldn't figure out a smoother way to do it. (Look how many different methods people have presented just in this one thread.) Of course, I've never understood why Killing attacks are their own Power and not simply a +1 Advantage to EB.

[Metaphysician]

Um, remember, RKAs normally have a stun multiplier of 1d6-1, or an average of 2.5

[Guest Keneton]

Originally posted by Farkling

PS - for the assault weapons, well, I tend to use flat multiples for agents, and only roll occasionally. Don't tell the gaming group.

 

If you are changing it its broken.

[SCUBA Hero]

Originally posted by Metaphysician

Um, remember, RKAs normally have a stun multiplier of 1d6-1, or an average of 2.5

Not quite; the STUN multiple cannot go below 1. So the possible results are:

 

1

1

2

3

4

5

 

16/6 = 2.67

 

2.67 is the average.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Talon

One of the reasons I became disenchanted with the STUN Lotto was that players starting purchasing killing attacks so they could take down the big bad guys. Their reasoning was that an average roll on an EB did little to nothing, and EBs don't deviate much from average -- while a KA does. So they were willing to sit through a few Phases of poor STUN multipliers in order to get the 4s and 5s.

 

When I realized this was a reasonable strategy, I started considering alternatives for the STUN multiplier.

 

This, to me, is where the real issue lies. The above reasoning is sound.

 

If you use the STUN lotto (and like most, I still do), the image of the brick wading through a hail of bullets is lost - a 5x STUN multiple + good BOD roll and he takes a significant STUN hit.

 

Similarly, if the villain is "all but indestructible", perhaps we give him 45 defenses. An average 12d6 EB will hit him for 42 and he takes nothing. A bit above average will chip away.

 

But an average RKA will do 14 BOD - no STUN half the time (1 or 2 Stun multiple), same as the EB with a 3x, 11 STUN 1 time in 6 and 25 STUN 1 time in 6. To get 25 STUN with an EB, you have to average 5 per die, statsistically far less likely (Gary, feel free to chime in with the odds here).

 

Give the KA a 3x SM, and you solve that problem, but it now averages the same STUN as the EB, and still has wilder swings due to only 4 dice actually being rolled. Its average is up from 2.67 (2 chances of 1, and one each of 2-5), so it does more STUN than normal.

 

Make the SM 1-4, and we have an average of 2.5, and a lower variance. Make it 2,2,2,3,3,4 and we keep the 2.67 average, but reduce the variance.

 

I agree with those posters who say a KA is SUPPOSED to be dangerous, but it should be dangerous in the BOD it inflicts, not the STUN. If our MegaVillain has 45def, 25 rDef, hitting him with a 4d6 KA never draws blood, but has a much better chance than an EB of inflicting serious STUN. Killing attacks should be good at killing, not knocking people out.

[tesuji]

How about...

 

Make killing attacks just an effect. Buy all attacks as either Eb or HA and make the determination of killing or not a part of the definition when the power is taken just like whether the attack does body or not.

 

The plus side of the KA option is against low resistant defense guys more body will get thru because all their non-resistant defenses wont apply. The downside is the exact same thing, taking misses into consideration and the frequency of no-defense bystanders (and in some games the prejudice against killing attacks.) heck, even goons might not be armored and thus be prone to dying from these KAs.

 

If there are so many more low defense bad guys thats its Ok to risk killing and so few bystander issues that this seems to your to be an advantage, make it one. Make the "killing attack" a +1/4 advantage.

[TheEmerged]

I think what it really boils down to is... what you WANT to be happening. Personally I want super-powered people to be able to walk through a hail of bullets without taking damage -- when the military can knock Grond out with enough rockets, where's the threat?

 

That's why I connected the set stun mod to the Real disadvantage. That means normal weapons can't hurt them but nova attacks can without getting outrageous in size.

 

But if you *want* a Grond that has to fear the military? Hey, it's your campaign, go with what you like!

[Farkling]

Keneton:: I use a flat 3 Stun Multiple for Agents in large groups. i have 5-7 players a night, and with a mass of 20 agents (or 30 or so straights if its gang/police related) I prefer to sacrifice the extra rolls for speed of play.

 

Hmm.

 

no input from anyone on what percentage of CU characters do not have resistant defenses? how about statistics on characters that bought enough to stop body from pistols and nothing else?

 

I cannot STAND the concept of a target being killed without ever taking significant STUN damage though. It just doesn't work for me. I need to build a spreadsheet and look at the (Shrike?) method of applying the STUN multiple to BODY that penetrates the defenses. How does that interact coupled with Penetration on a KA ??

 

Yes, I want a player or significant NPC to have the capability to STUN Grond with an RKA. Let me remind you, a 4d6 RKA is in the realm of ANTI-TANK weaponry! That should have an outside chance of stunning Grond. It isn't 50% by any means. I'm perfectly happy using x3 for "Real Weapons", but that's a streamlining option. Environmental multipliers used against conscious characters of significance can also use x3 multiplier, as they are actively moving and defending themselves. i think this is mimicking in part the concept of applying the SM to penetrating BODY damage.

i fully expect the pickup GM to go with a dice rolling program and hit locations, since the game is in his home office and he runs at his desk. He'd be Fantasy Heroing anyways.

 

Let's see. Grond hit with an average roll from the agent wielding a 4d6 RKA Energy Bazooka will take 56 STUN - 70 STUN approximately 33% of the time. The agent has to roll high on ALL his dice for this to occur. The 70 STUN might daze old Grond. With Cory as an example, I can say that a 70 STUN hit will put her into "seeking cover" or "unorthodox assault" mode. At x3 STUN (around 42 STUN per hit), she will simply advance and attack, as she can take it for a few phases, and has at least one extra phase on the attacker.

I did make an error on the curve calculations though, it is actually

SM 1 = 14, SM 2 = 14, SM 3 = 28, SM 4 = 42, SM 5 = 56, SM 6 = 70. Oddly enough, the truer average of this curve is 37 STUN, as opposed to the oft quoted 42 STUN yielded by (14+70) / 2. The RKA does less STUN damage than a normal attack, at the risk of killing people (especially mortals).

Moral:: Don't do math at O'Dark Thirty.

 

The 5d6 RKA Energy Bazooka (Heavy Weapons Special, 14- Activation, Bulky) gives us a different average set.

SM 1 = 18, SM 2 = 18, SM 3 = 35, SM 4 = 53, SM 5 = 78, SM 6 = 88. We've jumped a category. This fellow is more dangerous. He is edging into the category of 50% chance for significant STUN (53 - 88), with a 33% chance for Dangerous levels (78-88 STUN). This is on AVERAGE. But then again, this weapon is better than any anti-tank laser on the market, and doesn't require a tractor trailer for the cooling system. The x3 Average generated is 53 STUN. Dangerous indeed. I think this is the level of a Blast Furnace...but I haven't got my book handy.

 

Theoretically, let's move up to the 6d6 Energy Bazooka, popularly named the "Suicide Gun" here at VIPER Research and Devrlopment. ROCKET EXHAUST in Champions does 6d6 Energy Killing (and 18d6 Physical I think). They call this the "Suicide Gun" at VIPER because the guy that carries it into combat is typically blown to pieces by heroes and villains alike (6d6 RKA, Bulky, Six Shots, Bulky, 14- Activation, Side Effect - missing Activation Roll causes charge loss and random discharge) unless the gun actually detonates while in use (random discharge hits wielder). Average BODY => 21, so

SM 1 = 21, SM 2 = 21, SM 3 = 42, SM 4 = 63, SM 5 = 84, SM 6 = 105. This reduces normal people to a fine mist. Armored agents may leave a partial corpse, probably the armored parts.

 

It may be 66% for significant average damage, it may be 50%. Let's call it 58% for significant average STUN damage. Grond may even think about cover. Cory will. Even the x3 damage is definitely nothing Cory would shrug off. 63 STUN should be an attention getter to anyone.

 

I DID check one thing in depth on my spreadsheet. At the breakpoint DC's (3,6,9 .. 60) the killing attack does 1 extra BODY per 6 DC's, and loses 2 STUN per 5 DC's when compared to equivalent Normal Attacks. If you use a x3 STUN multiple, the average STUN damage is THE SAME between the KA and the EB at all levels (on the breakpoints) i'm going to see if I can figure out how to check every damage class.

 

Where is Gary and all his numbers? I thought he liked this theoretical stuff? He's much better with spreadsheets than I am, for sure. Maybe he's tired of arguing with Hugh and I. Though Hugh and I aren't really on the same side here.