Eliminating Killing Attacks

[zebediah]

Several otherwise interesting threads have been drowning in pennies as everyone puts in their $.02 on "killing attacks" and "normal attacks" over and over and over...

 

So here's a place to explicity do that. I'm sure there have been other threads for that before, but it's obviously still a bone of contention. Perhaps if people talk about it here, they won't feel the need to talk about it everywhere else.

 

 

Here's my suggestion, to rekindle the flame, as it were...

 

Eliminate "killing attacks." Don't make it a +0 advantage on normal attacks---just eliminate them.

 

Instead, make ED and PD cost 1.5 points per (just like armor), and put a limitation on it, "does not prevent damage from [Attacks whose SFX would logically do killing damage against me]" These attacks, for a normal human, include bullets, sharp objects, fire, and electricity when well grounded. Depending on how frequent they are in the campaign, the disad would be worth more or less, but "-1/2, power loses about 1/3 of its effectiveness" is a good guideline.

 

This also allows for things like vampires in V:TM, who take lethal damage from fire-based attacks, light-based attacks, sharp objects, and pokey wooden things to the chest, but who do not take lethal damage from guns (Fortitude is complete DEF for them).

 

Or for an insect race with squishy insides and a chintinous exoskelliton that's good at deflecting blades but it more vulnerable to blunt trauma, like being beaten with clubs and falling.

 

Or for "creatures of living lightning" who are fairly resillent unless being attacked with electricity, magnetism, water, or conductive metal, but a metal sword and a metal pipe both rip right through'em just as easily. A wooden spear, no matter how sharp, isn't any more effective than a wooden club.

 

 

Regardless, the point is that "protects from all corporial damage" should be the default, and "not against certain types" is a limitation.

 

If you like the stun lottery, make that an advantage/limitation on a normal Blast... +0 is "does 3 pips per DC", +0 is "roll 1 die per DC", +1/2 (just guessing here) is "roll 1 die per 3 DCs", and you might be able to take things like +2, "roll one die for every 10 DCs." Such a generalized advantage could then also be applied to adjustment powers, mental powers, flash attacks, healing, entangles....anywhere you're rolling dice for effect. Well, maybe not "luck." That would be too strange.

 

So....thoughts? Comments? Flames? Bring'em on. I'm sure they'll be interesting.

[Guest Kolava]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

It's interesting, but I don't think it does a better job at simulating damage than the current system of killing/normal does. The examples you gave are best achieved through vulnerabilities and suceptabilities.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Several otherwise interesting threads have been drowning in pennies as everyone puts in their $.02

 

That's a cute phrase. I'll have to remember that.

 

Instead' date=' make ED and PD cost 1.5 points per (just like armor), and put a limitation on it, "does not prevent damage from [Attacks whose SFX would logically do killing damage against me']"

 

I appreciate what you might be trying to accomplish, but I think it would needlessly make the game system more complex, and would wind up causing disagreements as people quarrel over what "logically do killing damage against me" might entail.

 

My own perspective on the subject is covered in as much detail as I am likely to ever provide over in the Polishing the Hero System topic (that is a link directly to my first message on the subject; it continues for a page or two afterward). I don't want to type it all in again, and I do think it is on-topic where it is, so I am content to leave it there. But feel free to check it out.

 

If you respond to it here, in this thread, I will try to clarify anything that might still be unclear (although I think I have made it as clear as is within my power to make it). If I do not have anything new to add to what I have already posted in that thread, then I probably won't bother.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Recalling an older Supers game, I believe it was Golden Heroes. This game had both Hits to Stun and Hits to Kill. An attack would, by default, do the same number of dice for Stun and Kill. However, the power could be defined to do up to 2d6 more Killing than Stun, or up to 2d6 more STUN than killing. As an example, a 6d6 STUN and 6d6 Killing attack could be instead defined to do 7d6 STUN and 5d6 Kill.

 

If we severed the BOD component of normal attacks from the STUN component, we could have a similar effect in Hero. Effectively, if you want a "normal" attack, you buy EB normally. If you want an exceptionally effective "killing attack", you buy more "Body dice" than "Stun dice". Or vice versa.

 

The problem comes down to costing out STUN dice and BODY dice separately, in some reasonable fashion. Off the top, maybe we charge 2 points per Body die (which also includes the Knockback component) and 3 per STUN die, and voila. Maybe it's 1 for a killing die, since "no knockback" and "STUN only" leaves a 4 point per die stunning attack.

 

Now, of course, we have the ripple effect:

 

- resistant defenses are gone. Alternatively, we create an advantage for Body dice (+1/2? +1?) that they are only stopped by resistant defenses, or an advantage on the attack as a whole that only resistant defenses block BOD and all defenses block STUN, but only if the target has some resistant defenses.

 

- a 20 pr 40 AP power does 20 BOD on average (20d6, killing dice), or that a 60 or 80 AP power inflicts 20d6 STUN. Perhaps we also need an Entangle-like rule that an attack's STUN dice can't be more than half its BODY dice, or vice versa. Maybe we tighten the connection more than that, so the potential spread is reduced, but then we get back to difficulty creating a KA which is lethal against comparable supers.

 

Another approach, I suppose, would be to alow a limitation for "reduced STUN" or "no STUN". Lethal attacks are now the same AP as non-lethal attacks, but less expensive. This won't translate well in games with AP caps.

 

DC Heroes had the approach of not varying the attacks, but having lethal and non-lethal combat. By default, you use "Stun Combat" and switch to "Killing combat" only by anouncing it. This would have the advantage of eliminating the need for combat armor (the designers' notes indicate the approach was adopted after watching 3 crooks with guns reduce Batman to Batstain with a couple of lucky rolls). It would be nice for 4 color, since we'd eliminate the possibility of accidentally killing a target. It would suffer drawbacks of lack of restraint for the same reason.

 

Overall, the present system works just fine for me.

 

Want a more lethal KA? Buy it -2 to Stun multiples and buy more dice.

 

Don't like the STUN lottery? Rule a standard effect multiplier (x2.5? x 2 2/3 - the real average? 3?), or impose a system that lowers the curve (eg. 1/2 d6+1 - higher average but flatter, or 1,2,3 = 2 SM, 4,5 =3, 6 = 4 -same average, less variation). Someone once posted 2d6/2 - 1 to flatten the curve and leave all possibilities intact.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Want a more lethal KA? Buy it -2 to Stun multiples and buy more dice.

 

Personally, as a GM, I would forbid that. Not everything that can be done ought to be done.

[Magmarock]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Personally' date=' as a GM, I would forbid that. Not everything that can be done ought to be done.[/quote']

 

Man, I have said this soooooo many times that I lost count.

Paraphrased of course. My version is: "Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should be done!"

 

Mags

[Magmarock]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Oh, and for the record:

 

I think the way KAs are done by the book is just peachy-keen. My group has no problem with it. Never have.

 

Mags

[Zanthis]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I just hate the stun multipler period. I like how Hugh called it the "Stun Lottery". That's really what it is. What also annoys me is ED . I'd just as soon drop ED.

 

Of course, best would be drop PD and ED, replacing them with Body Defense (BD) and Stun Defense (SD). These subtract from BODY and STUN damage respectively. You could keep resistant defenses if you wanted (giving you rBD and rSD) or just make "Killing Attacks" Normal Attacks with Armor Piercing (possible a variant of AP that only halves BD).

 

That's my $0.02

[Dust Raven]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I just hate the stun multipler period. I like how Hugh called it the "Stun Lottery". That's really what it is. What also annoys me is ED .

So use Hit Locations for KAs. It's what I do.

 

I don't use Hit Locations for any type of attack other than KAs, and with a KA, only to determine the STUNx. This eliminates the lottery instantly (no more 1 in 6 chance of x5 STUN).

[Mutant for Hire]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

The normal attack is an attack with a 1:3 BODY to STUN ratio. My thought for a killing attack is simply to reverse the proportions. To create an attack with a 3:1 BODY to STUN ratio. That is, eliminate the STUN lottery and actually make the killing attack a low STUN attack. If you want to STUN opponents, boost the STUN factor on the attack up by an advantage. Killing attacks are to kill opponents. Not knock them out.

[Magmarock]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Killing attacks are to kill opponents. Not knock them out.

 

Yeah, but a lot of times they do just that. I think KAs should hurt. A lot. And it's up to the individual target to build defenses that allow them to shake off the pain.

 

 

Unless your KA has a built-in anesthetic, or has some other reasoning behind the lack of pain (i.e. a napalm attack that burns away all the nerve-endings so no pain is felt initially).

 

My contribution to the penny jar.

 

 

Mags

[BNakagawa]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

So use Hit Locations for KAs. It's what I do.

 

I don't use Hit Locations for any type of attack other than KAs, and with a KA, only to determine the STUNx. This eliminates the lottery instantly (no more 1 in 6 chance of x5 STUN).

 

Then you have people buying PSLs vs hit locations and they always hit the STUN jackpot.

 

That, and it renders the low DCV brick obsolete.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Wow, the topic intrueged me. But I have to say that the idea of eliminating "killing" attacks in favor or just STUN attacks and adding more modifiers and changing costs and .. the initial post made the new concept so much more complicated.

 

and Armor is just a tidy way of saying "+2pts DEF +1pts Dmg Resistance" and not 1.5 pts/DEF

 

You buy a killing attack to Kill people, you buy a Normal attack to Knock them out/down.

 

You have a character that's can't resist damage from a type of attack, say a Vampire who's resistant defenses don't work on Fire buy a limitation on their rDEF: Not vs Fire

 

As for that damned STUN Lottery - use Hit Locations, Standard Effect for STUN only or some other similar convention.

 

that's just my pennies in the jar though.

[Rick]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

My group to deal W/the stun lottery in Champians (we like the hit location in hero games) we simply roll 1/2d6 for the StunX. This makes Killing attacks used for doing body, not for the occasional stun win fall.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Yeah, but a lot of times they do just that. I think KAs should hurt. A lot. And it's up to the individual target to build defenses that allow them to shake off the pain.

 

 

Unless your KA has a built-in anesthetic, or has some other reasoning behind the lack of pain (i.e. a napalm attack that burns away all the nerve-endings so no pain is felt initially).

 

My contribution to the penny jar.

 

 

Mags

True. Many many times in films and such have you seen someone get shot or stabbed and collapse, presumed dead, but after the fight, when the loved one rushed to their side, the manage to regain consciousness. Sometimes they even to this in the middle of the fight to fire off that unexpected final shot while still prone.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Then you have people buying PSLs vs hit locations and they always hit the STUN jackpot.

Not really. The default isn't to aim for a specific location. Even if I wasn't using HL for KAs, anyone in any campaign can do this.

 

That, and it renders the low DCV brick obsolete.

Um... how? A character's DCV has nothing to do with rolling Hit Location.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Not really. The default isn't to aim for a specific location. Even if I wasn't using HL for KAs' date=' [i']anyone[/i] in any campaign can do this.

 

That, and it renders the low DCV brick obsolete.

Um... how? A character's DCV has nothing to do with rolling Hit Location.

 

 

The default isn't to aim for a specific location? So, what, they only do that when they actually want to win fights?

 

It's entirely obvious from context that this is applied to a champions game because every other genre uses hit locations as a default replacement for the stun roll. So not anyone in any campaign can do this, eh? It's clearly your house rule for a champions-ish game and I think it's a bad idea.

 

Why? because I've had characters stuck in entangles before. If a nasty villain has a shot at you while stuck in an entangle, they'd have to be daft not to take a called shot to your head. You're a gimme and an average roll on 4d6 KA is going to drill you for 70 stun, less whatever defenses the entangle gives you, assuming it isn't transparent to attacks. I don't know about you guys, but 70 stun KOs most of my characters and con stuns the rest of them.

 

As for why the low DCV brick becomes obsolete if hit locations determine stun rolls, well, it's only -8 OCV to target a head and it's only -4 to target the high shot which yields a head shot one time in three. You do the math.

 

The only scenario in which this is not true is if called shots are not legal, which strikes me as just a little ludicrous. In a genre which supports find weakness and people shooting weapons out of your hands and so on, not being able to pick a spot on a target just doesn't fly.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I do not think adding an additional die roll and adding an additional table lookup is a good idea. Part of the reason for eliminating "Killing Attacks", per se, is that they add needless complication to the game system. The other reason is the ludicrous and justly-despised Stun lottery so beloved by those who are themselves ludicrous and justly-despised. Adding Hit Locations to superheroic games makes the first problem worse, and in my opinion has little to no effect on the second problem (possibly even making it worse).

 

Making "Killing" a +0 option on Energy Blast, just like "Normal" and "Stun only", solves both of these problems, eliminates a glaring and annoying glitch in the game system, and removes the temptation for certain players to exploit that bug.

[schir1964]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

This has been discussed before and several different methods to replace the Stun Multiplier.

 

1) For every body that gets through Defenses, roll 1d6 of Stun damage.

2) Roll (Body Rolled - # of Dice Rolled) 1d6 for Stun.

 

Just two more methods of replacing the Stun Multiple if that is your goal.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Agent X]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I do not think adding an additional die roll and adding an additional table lookup is a good idea. Part of the reason for eliminating "Killing Attacks", per se, is that they add needless complication to the game system. The other reason is the ludicrous and justly-despised Stun lottery so beloved by those who are themselves ludicrous and justly-despised. Adding Hit Locations to superheroic games makes the first problem worse, and in my opinion has little to no effect on the second problem (possibly even making it worse).

 

Making "Killing" a +0 option on Energy Blast, just like "Normal" and "Stun only", solves both of these problems, eliminates a glaring and annoying glitch in the game system, and removes the temptation for certain players to exploit that bug.

Killing attacks aren't needlessly complicated. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the damage and it doesn't take any longer to multiply a few dice by one modified die roll than it does to add up the stun and body on 3 times as many dice. I know. I've been doing this for quite some time. I remember the first game I played and both types of attacks were used and I got it immediately and it didn't take any more time for one than the other. Why? Because it aint complicated.

[Mentor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

In a multi genre system, I think both normal and killing attacks are appropriate.

 

I like Champions supers being able to send one another flying through brick walls, dust themselves off and get back into the fray, all the while suspending reality as to what the real damage would be.

 

Likewise, my first western game served notice to players and GM alike that being shot meant weeks of recovery at best and therefore one engaged in gunpaly as a last resort. Bullets don't care if you are a Marine, Ranger, Ninja or Spetsnaz. The damage is the same and it is bad and some game genres should recognize that.

 

If a hero in our Champions universe uses killing attacks for the stun lottery and they aren't on a giant robot, the ramifications from the rest of the team, world governments and public opinion would be overwhelming. IMO, roleplaying and assertive GMing is the solution for killing attack abuse, or any other game abuse rather than a change of rules.

[Delthrien]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

My own two shekels:

 

I rather liked the DC Heroes version of "normal" and "killing" combat. I like the idea that most attempts to kill an opponent are matters of intent rather than inherent... well, aside from attacks designed to do BODY damage -- could never figure out how to favor stun damage with a .357 magnum...

 

My own preference would be to make "killing" attacks a maneuver rather than separate kind of attack power. It would represent "not holding anything back" perhaps easier to enact (a small OCV bonus), but more difficult to defend when engaged (an equivalent DCV penalty). The kind of thing a berserk (or enraged) character would use.

 

On the whole, I think it's a matter of style. Golden or Silver age games might be better suited to something like this. Bronze or Iron age games less so.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

In a multi genre system' date=' I think both normal and killing attacks are appropriate.[/quote']

 

Just to be clear, I do not suggest eliminating the distinction between Normal damage and Killing damage. I suggest modifying how Killing damage is represented mechanically, for the reasons stated above.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

My own preference would be to make "killing" attacks a maneuver rather than separate kind of attack power. It would represent "not holding anything back" perhaps easier to enact (a small OCV bonus)' date=' but more difficult to defend when engaged (an equivalent DCV penalty). The kind of thing a berserk (or enraged) character would use.[/quote']

 

That's an interesting idea. Another person mentioned the way DC Heroes handles the matter, too. I have never played DC Heroes, oddly enough, so the idea is a new one to me. I'd be interested in seeing how your idea works out in play. I may give it a shot sometime.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Just to let you know, this house rule is for a campaign that doesn't normally use Hit Locations. I was actually under the assumption this discussion specifically pertained to campaigns not using Hit Locations. When you use Hit Locations, there is no STUN Lotto, the HL rolled takes care of the STUNx for you.

 

The default isn't to aim for a specific location? So' date=' what, they only do that when they actually want to win fights? [/quote']

Actually, because the "good" location on the chart are something around -8 to hit, they just make a normal attack roll and roll for random location. Chances are good for at least average damage (might hit a hand, might hit the heat, but most likely chest/shoulders/stomach area). Have you ever used the Hit Location rules?

 

It's entirely obvious from context that this is applied to a champions game because every other genre uses hit locations as a default replacement for the stun roll. So not anyone in any campaign can do this, eh? It's clearly your house rule for a champions-ish game and I think it's a bad idea.

Um... exactly where are you coming from? What characters can't make Placed Shots as described on page 277 of Hero System Fifth Edition? It's clearly an official rule from the core book. Wether or not it's a good or bad idea is up for debate, but I happen to like it. I'm not sure what you like. I can't tell whether or not you don't like Champions, Hit Locations or "my idea", but they all look the same to me.

 

Why? because I've had characters stuck in entangles before. If a nasty villain has a shot at you while stuck in an entangle, they'd have to be daft not to take a called shot to your head. You're a gimme and an average roll on 4d6 KA is going to drill you for 70 stun, less whatever defenses the entangle gives you, assuming it isn't transparent to attacks. I don't know about you guys, but 70 stun KOs most of my characters and con stuns the rest of them.

So you do like Hit Locations? Or do you think they are unbalancing and shouldn't be used? Do you think the STUN Lotto is better?

 

As for why the low DCV brick becomes obsolete if hit locations determine stun rolls, well, it's only -8 OCV to target a head and it's only -4 to target the high shot which yields a head shot one time in three. You do the math.

"Only" -8? ONLY? What level of CV have you got in your campaigns? -8 is a LOT. -4 isn't as bad, but it's still a big penalty. A -8 will turn an 11- (62% chance of a hit) into a 3- (less than 1% chance). A -4 will make it 7- (around 25% chance). Doing the math seems to make that "Head Shot (head through shoulders)" have about the same chance of actually hitting the head, but a far less chance of actually hitting the target. The -8 is obviously worthless. Granted, if you are "head and shoulders" above your target in the first place (say, normally needing a 20- to hit), making Placed Shots is just a matter of taste.

 

The only scenario in which this is not true is if called shots are not legal, which strikes me as just a little ludicrous. In a genre which supports find weakness and people shooting weapons out of your hands and so on, not being able to pick a spot on a target just doesn't fly.

Well, at least this statement seems clear enough. We agree. I think. Why are you trashing my post?