HOUSE RULES: Fixing the stun Lottary

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Farkling

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 ??

Ya, thats mine. Penetrating works as normal.

 

One side note, not immediately relevant but on the subject, I allow damage reduction to work against penetrating's minimum damage. Otherwise, IMO, Penetrating gets too much bang for the buck and becomes a main-villain dropper to easily. Just my opinion and doesnt affect the STUN multiple bit, but I thought Id mention it while on the subject of Penetrating

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling

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.

 

As a point of correction, the agent does not have to roll high on all his dice. He can roll average on his 4d6 RKA (14 BOD), but he needs to roll high on the STUN multiple to get 70 STUN. He has a 1 in 6 chance if he rolls average BOD.

 

Now, punks with handguns need to roll high on all dice. A 2d6 RKA can inflict 60 STUN, but only one time in 216. The Brick will take out a lot of mooks in the time it takes to fire 216 shots that hit, and that one shot won't likely STUN him, much less take him out. On average BOD, they have a 1 in 6 chance to inflict 35 STUN on average BOD, and any self-respecting Brick can take a lot of 35 STUN hits (infinite in many cases). So generally, they do bounce bullets. But not "exploding shells").

 

I think your suggestion of "apply the 3x default" to real world weaponry (or even just to weaponryu below the heavy artillary level) would save some dice rolling, as well as preserving the "bullets just bounce off him" image of well-defended bricks.

 

For what it's worth, I see merit on both the "prevent wild variance" and "allow wild variance" sides. My players have maintained the attitude, in Supers, that Killing Attacks are intended to kill, not to provide a chance at big STUN on a well-defended opponent, so it hasn't been a problem. I think they're also concerned by the fact that the KA will do no STUN half the time. And they've never complained that a lucky shot from a rifle could inflict some serious STUN. On the characters where that's an issue, their DEF, CON and STUN is generally enought to deal with lucky rolls from anything under heav military equipment.

[Blue]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

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?[snip]

Then why not just roll normal dice for everything. (That's both sarcasm and truth). By making killing attacks like normal attacks then you lose a lot of what makes a killing attack KILLING.

 

But as a serious suggestion, if you're really concerned about it, Drop Killing attacks as we know them all together! Instead purchase them like EBs and define them as "Killing" or "Normal" when you buy them. That way they either are stopped by everything or stopped by rDEF. I find this concept incredibly vanilla, but I thought I'd toss it out there for ya. EXAMPLE:

 

Normal Killing Attack at 60 Active =14 BODY, 42 STUN v. rDEF.

 

Normal EB Attack at 60 Active = 12 BODY, 42 STUN v. DEF.

 

EB as Killing Attack at 60 Active = 12 BODY, 42 STUN v. rDEF.

 

A villain would take the same STUN from either KA, 1 Less BODY per 30 active points, but the STUN would be evened out for ya.

[Talon]

Originally posted by Blue

Then why not just roll normal dice for everything. (That's both sarcasm and truth). By making killing attacks like normal attacks then you lose a lot of what makes a killing attack KILLING.

 

I think one of the points made in this discussion is that having KAs do lots more STUN damage isn't exactly making them "more killing".

 

[/b]But as a serious suggestion, if you're really concerned about it, Drop Killing attacks as we know them all together! [/b]

 

I actually like this idea because it simplifies the system -- taking two methods of rolling damage and reducing them to one is a powerful way to make the system easier to learn. Unfortunately, you then get into some messy areas -- why shouldn't HKA and HA work exactly the same, for example.

[Vondy]

Superheroic games only:

 

I apply a fixed stun multiplier to any weapon built with the "real weapon" limitation.

 

In my PBEM games I use the "standard effect" rule for everything, but have modified it to the actual average (3.5) instead of the rounded average (3).

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Talon

I think one of the points made in this discussion is that having KAs do lots more STUN damage isn't exactly making them "more killing".

That's exactly my point. When players or GMs are buying something called "Killing Attack" because it can potentially dish out more STUN than a "normal" attack, something is patently wrong. Statistically it's a heck of a lot more likely for a villain to roll 4 6's (18 BODY, 90 STUN) from a 3d6 RKA and Stun Multiple than it is for a hero to roll all 6's on an equivalent 9d6 EB for 12 BODY, 54 STUN. What's wrong with this picture?

[PhilFleischmann]

Although I usually use the standard STUNx rule, I do occasionally toy with other approaches. I like the 2d6/2-1 that was mentioned, especially because of the finer granularity of results. I also like using the HLC to determine the STUNx. Someone mentioned 3d6/3-1 which I also like, but have never thought of doing before. It provides even finer granularity of results if you're willing to multiply 14 by 2 2/3.

 

Two suggestions that I use occasionally:

 

1) Drop the minimum of 1 for the STUNx, let it be 0 once in a while. This is realistic. Have you ever cut yourself and not known it? You look down and notice you're bleeding, but you didn't feel any pain. Remember when President Reagan got shot? (Today is his 93rd birthday, BTW) He didn't even feel the bullet. And it hit him in the head! According to FREd, he should have taken 5x STUN, but instead he took none!

 

1a) I've tried to come up with a slightly different Hit Location Chart for hits from behind, but that's a separate discussion. (Back of head /= face, crotch /= buttocks, etc.)

 

2) Similar to what was mentioned before, use 5 points per die of Killing attacks just like normal attacks, but count the STUN and BODY slightly differently: STUN is -1 on each die (or for greater simplicity, just subtract the number of dice from the total of pips). BODY is 0 for each one rolled, 1 for each two through four, and 2 for each five or six. (0,1,1,1,2,2) IOW, BODY = (# of dice) - (# of 1's rolled) + (# of 5's and 6's rolled). This produces the exact same average STUN and BODY as the standard method - and the same maximum and minimum too!

[Farkling]

I thought a little on this...

 

The Ka's yield a wider varaince.

 

My gut feeling is that a standard attack is far more likely to yield average STUN results than a KA, as stated above.

A 12d6 EB hits the average far more frequently than the 4d6 KA, simply by volume of dice. I think. The 12d6 EB can't have the same bell curve percentage of hitting high or low.

 

I dug a little HTML sheet that normalizes a statistical curve out of my archives. I got it off the net during my statistics coursr.

for 4d6, ~60% of results give us 11-16 BODY, and ~90% returns 8-19 BODY. As previously discussed, the Stun Multiple ranges from 1-4 ~90% of the time, and 1-3 ~60% of the time.

So the KA yields 11-48 STUN 60% of the time, and returns 8-76 STUN 90% of the time.

 

With my available tools, I intuit from the two curves that the normal attack returns 11-13 BODY 60% of the time, and 10-14 BODY 90% of the time. Figured by hand would allow plotting the intersection of the two curves...I think. I don't remember how to really. The STUN is 37-46 60% o fthe time, and 32-51 STUN 90% of the time.

 

Hmmmm. A tremendous difference in the minimum STUN, though the high occurences are wider. So my gut instinct about the bell curve is right. Who knew?

 

 

And here's an old thought;

thinking about probabilities is tricky business and in many cases is counterproductive, because it can obscure the intuitions we get from playtesting. Those intuitions are usually right. The mathematical machinations are usually flawed

[gewing]

Re: HOUSE RULES: Fixing the stun Lottary

 

I have thought about that, I like it better than a set 3x or using 1d6-2, or whatever.

 

Originally posted by JmOz

How would you fix it?

 

One thing I am toying with is this:

 

Multiply by the stun multiplier ONLY what gets through the rDEF, this will make it very dangerous for Mundanes (no rDEF) but against heroes or people in body armor not so bad

[austenandrews]

In my last FH session, the PCs fought some animated stone creatures. Instead of the usual Hit Locations I had them roll 1d6-1 for STUN, reasoning that the creatures were fairly homogenous (monolithic?). One of the players complained, after his character got knocked out by a head shot, that it wasn't fair that the PCs didn't get to roll head shots, too. Which was funny, because with 1d6-1 he had a far greater chance of getting the x5 STUN Multiplier.

 

-AA

[Gary]

Originally posted by Farkling

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.

 

What specific numbers do you want to see? I didn't want to read through this entire thread.

[Farkling]

Well geeze...i've forgotten now, that was five or six posts ago.

 

 

How about one of your ever present analyse versus various defense levels.

 

EB - BODY and STUN

KA - BODY and STUN, using 1d6-1 Stun Multiple

KA - BODY and STUN, using 1d6-1 Stun Muiltiple, only multiplyed by the PENETRATING BODY

 

Shrike's posted Method:

This is how I do it. The STUN multiplier is applied to the BODY which gets through defenses, but the target takes that much STUN w/o applying defenses. Damage Reduction works normally against this STUN. KB is resolved normally as well, off the full body.

 

My gut instinct says that Shrike's method is still unbalanced. I thin it would gurantee lower average Stun than equivalent EB's agasinst bricks, and higher average Stun versus "partial rDEF's"

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Farkling

My gut instinct says that Shrike's method is still unbalanced. I thin it would gurantee lower average Stun than equivalent EB's agasinst bricks, and higher average Stun versus "partial rDEF's"

So break it down by the numbers if you like.

 

Heres what I can tell you: Ive been using it for a long time, and it reduces the STUN from Killing attacks to a level I am content with. Its easy to apply, and works quickly when the game is being played.

 

It will never literally generate MORE STUN than would be generated normally however. If a target happens to have a small amount of Resistant DEF and a large amoung of Nonresistant DEF, then yeah, they will be highly effected. Considering they are being hit by a killing attack (which is meant to kill afterall) the fact that they get messed up if they lack rDEF in any considerable quantity does not bother me in the slightest.

[Gary]

What Shrike's method seems to do is to only count resistant def. Nonresistant def has no effect whatsoever vs a killing attack. Here is an analysis with the standard 1d6-1 SM, assuming half the defenses are resistant. I'm going to compare the standard 4d6 RKA with 12d6 EB.

 

Vs 16/8 def:

12d6 EB does 26.0 net stun

4d6 RKA does 22.2 net stun

Shrike would do 16.1 net stun

 

Vs 20/10 def:

12d6 EB does 22.0 net stun

4d6 RKA does 19.4 net stun

Shrike would do 11.2 net stun

 

Vs 24/12 def:

12d6 EB does 18.0 net stun

4d6 RKA does 16.9 net stun

Shrike would do 6.9 net stun

 

Vs 28/14 def:

12d6 EB does 14.0 net stun

4d6 RKA does 14.5 net stun

Shrike would do 3.7 net stun

 

Vs 32/16 def:

12d6 EB does 10.1 net stun

4d6 RKA does 12.4 net stun

Shrike would do 1.6 net stun

 

Of course these numbers would change if there were a lower percentage of resistant defenses relative to normal defenses, but I can't imagine anyone buying lower resistant defenses in such a world.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

Gary those are averages ... but that's not really a useful set of numbers for this debate. A more useful measure would have included standard deviations or shown the range that 50% or so of dice rolls fall within.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Gary

What Shrike's method seems to do is to only count resistant def. Nonresistant def has no effect whatsoever vs a killing attack.

Correct. But each point of rDEF stops an average of about 3 STUN due to the multiplying effect.

 

Originally posted by Gary

Of course these numbers would change if there were a lower percentage of resistant defenses relative to normal defenses, but I can't imagine anyone buying lower resistant defenses in such a world.

Varies by genre and character. Most characters in our CU supers campaigns come in around 9 or 10, with three levels of Combat Luck or 10 Damage Resistance/ Armor being popular choices. Kevlar Vests use the recommended 9 DEF as well, so cops and the like also have in that ballpark of rDEF.

 

Some characters have significantly more than that, some less. Damage Reduction and Damage Resistance are popular choices.

 

 

In the fantasy campaign that we just started (uses superheroic rules, save that equipment can be bought w/ cash and characters need some appropriate and accepted schtick to buy actual Powers), DEF 6 Chain Mail is the norm, but the average KA works out to the 2d6+1 ballpark or less (Long Sword), save for exceptional specimens and highly trained warriors. Its a much more lethal environment than supers, appropriately, but the same means of calcing STUN works out fine. As a side effect of the multiplying effect, 9 DEF plate stops about 9 extra STUN over DEF 6 Chainmail, which also makes the added expense and weight of Plate a bit more palatable.

[Farkling]

For heroic level fiction, I use Hit Locations.

 

For supers I'm not sure I like this method.

If I shoot someone who has purchased 25 rPD, with a Bazooka round, they are ensured of NO damage. A 4d6 RKA cannot penetrate theur armor, so the STUN multiple is irrelevant.

[gewing]

I can't remember what my old group instituted after I left, something like killing attacks end up with a range of 1-4x . It might even have been straight 3x. Bugged me quite a bit.

 

Originally posted by austenandrews

In my last FH session, the PCs fought some animated stone creatures. Instead of the usual Hit Locations I had them roll 1d6-1 for STUN, reasoning that the creatures were fairly homogenous (monolithic?). One of the players complained, after his character got knocked out by a head shot, that it wasn't fair that the PCs didn't get to roll head shots, too. Which was funny, because with 1d6-1 he had a far greater chance of getting the x5 STUN Multiplier.

 

-AA

[Trebuchet]

Upon further reflection, I think the Hero System KA Stun multiples work just fine as is. The randomization is a bit irritating to an old wargamer like me, but it actually simulates the wildly disparate results of real world shootings fairly well. If some players (or GMs) are buying KAs simply due to the possible combat advantage from Killing Attacks' Stun Multiple and not due to character concept then that's poor GMing and a manifest failure to enforce genre. It's incorrect to blame the game system for a failure of the system's users. Don't blame the gun, blame the gunman.

 

Very few superheroes have or use Killing Attacks. Killing attacks would of course be the norm in fantasy, Dark Champions or action genres such as espionage or pulp adventure. Those genres are more "realistic" and hence swords, guns and knives are going to be much more common than in four-color comics.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Correct. But each point of rDEF stops an average of about 3 STUN due to the multiplying effect.

 

And thus resistant defenses are far more valuable than in the normal universe where 1 pt of resistant defense stops 1 pt of stun (assuming you have at least some resistant defenses to begin with). Perhaps you should increase the cost of resistant defenses in your world, since they seem to be far more valuable than in the default Champions Universe.

 

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Varies by genre and character. Most characters in our CU supers campaigns come in around 9 or 10, with three levels of Combat Luck or 10 Damage Resistance/ Armor being popular choices. Kevlar Vests use the recommended 9 DEF as well, so cops and the like also have in that ballpark of rDEF.

 

In your campaign, resistant defenses are so valuable that everyone should get as much as they can get away with. My guess is that a superheroic campaign will have every character with enough resistant defenses to make killing attacks useless (admittedly this fits the genre except for people like Wolverine).

[Gary]

Originally posted by Vanderbilt_Grad

Gary those are averages ... but that's not really a useful set of numbers for this debate. A more useful measure would have included standard deviations or shown the range that 50% or so of dice rolls fall within.

 

It's easy to do that for normal attacks. It's a nightmare to try and setup for killing attacks, or for Shrike's method.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Upon further reflection, I think the Hero System KA Stun multiples work just fine as is. The randomization is a bit irritating to an old wargamer like me, but it actually simulates the wildly disparate results of real world shootings fairly well. If some players (or GMs) are buying KAs simply due to the possible combat advantage from Killing Attacks' Stun Multiple and not due to character concept then that's poor GMing and a manifest failure to enforce genre. It's incorrect to blame the game system for a failure of the system's users. Don't blame the gun, blame the gunman.

 

Very few superheroes have or use Killing Attacks. Killing attacks would of course be the norm in fantasy, Dark Champions or action genres such as espionage or pulp adventure. Those genres are more "realistic" and hence swords, guns and knives are going to be much more common than in four-color comics.

 

But the fact are that it *is* genre for many supers to have killing attacks. In the comics or on TV these usually only get used against robots & other ‘non-living’ targets but they do have them.

 

Examples range from the TV Teen Titans (Raven’s darkness shards that shred robots & objects but that are never used on the bad guys) to the Comic book Avengers (Black Knight’s sword) & X-Men (Wolverine anyone). Bottom line is that killing attacks are all over the place but that their lethality combined with code vs. killing results in restrained usage.

 

In many champs characters killing attacks can fall well within character concept. Bricks with ‘rend limb from limb’, fire blasters with ‘lethal burn’ attacks, and martial artists with bladed weapons are all ‘in character’ for the genre.

 

The problem with the current stun lotto & the default HERO rules is that it becomes far more advantageous to use a 60 point RKA than it is to use a 60 point EB and that you are still unlikely to kill the target. So even with a CVK a hero is likely to feel free to unload against most bricks & mega bad guys. Against a ‘worldbeater’ most characters would stand a much better shot of stunning or KOing their foe with a 4d6 RKA than they would with a 12d6 EB … and they will most likely fail to do body either way so they don’t have to worry about killing.

 

Now you can argue that ‘They wouldn’t use it anyway if they had a CVK!’ but I disagree. CVK simply means that the character will not kill or risk the chance in most situations. So against a normal human that 12d6 EB will not be used since it would be very likely to kill … but against Dr. Destroyer the odds of a 4d6 RKA doing a single pip of body are nill and it doesn’t require looking at his sheet to realize this.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

Originally posted by Gary

It's easy to do that for normal attacks. It's a nightmare to try and setup for killing attacks, or for Shrike's method.

 

I know. I just figured that since you were invoked as 'the man' ... well....

 

[Talon]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

It will never literally generate MORE STUN than would be generated normally however. If a target happens to have a small amount of Resistant DEF and a large amoung of Nonresistant DEF, then yeah, they will be highly effected. Considering they are being hit by a killing attack (which is meant to kill afterall) the fact that they get messed up if they lack rDEF in any considerable quantity does not bother me in the slightest.

 

Under the normal rules, if a character has any rDEF, they get to apply their total DEF (resistant and non-resistant) against the STUN of the KA. Since you apparently don't do this, isn't it the case that characters with low resistant and high non-resistant defenses will take more STUN than per the normal rules?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Vanderbilt_Grad

Now you can argue that ‘They wouldn’t use it anyway if they had a CVK!’ but I disagree. CVK simply means that the character will not kill or risk the chance in most situations. So against a normal human that 12d6 EB will not be used since it would be very likely to kill … but against Dr. Destroyer the odds of a 4d6 RKA doing a single pip of body are nill and it doesn’t require looking at his sheet to realize this.

 

This is a concept I find many players (especially new ones, but spome older ones as well) have difficulty with. A 12d6 EB, on average, will reduce a normal human to 0 BOD. It will do serious harm against anyone with defenses in the realm of "normal human". It IS a lethal attack, despite not being a killing attack. And firing it on an unknown target is not appropriate for someone with a CVK.

 

A 1d6 KA, however, will likely inflict serious harm, but absolutely will not kill in one shot, or even place its target in danger of death (assuming one does not use hit locations). It is a killing attack, but not a lethal attack.

 

A 15d6 EB, or punch, IS lethal force, no less so than a gun.