Eliminating Killing Attacks

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

p270 fred

 

This means absolutely nothing to me.

 

For one thing, page numbers change between editions, so that is of no help.

 

For another, "Fred" is the bald old man married to Ethel. The game system I use is called Hero System Fifth Edition, or "Hero 5" or "H5" for short.

[zornwil]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

This means absolutely nothing to me.

 

For one thing, page numbers change between editions, so that is of no help.

 

For another, "Fred" is the bald old man married to Ethel. The game system I use is called Hero System Fifth Edition, or "Hero 5" or "H5" for short.

Another hater of the "FRED" naming, I take it? Not to keen on it myself.

 

To be fair, though, the page number for 5th edition (by any name) is the same, and the boards' convention for 5ER or 5th Revised or whatever will be to call it by another name than "Fifth" or "FRED" without a qualifier.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Also, with a 10/die KA, there is no point in ever buying force wall ever again. If you're capped at 60 ap (multipower, VPP etc) then you'll always get blown through by someone else's multipower/vpp.

 

And everyone's foci must be unbreakable or be KA bait. (or rather, even more than they currently are)

 

I did discuss that in my original post. Any addition of BOD damage (to make KA's more lethal) will have ramifications to constructs that take only BOD damage. Preventing the loss of automatons, force walls and entangles would require the BOD damage of these new KA's be reduced to 2/3 against such targets, reducing BOD for these targets to its old level, so you get another multiplier effect in KA's.

 

Any change to the system has ripple effects, which is why I don't like making them without a serious reason to do so.

 

 

[ASIDE: An appropriate "standard effect" for KA's would be to multiply BOD by either 2.67, the average stun multiple, or 2.5. 3 is way easier, though, so it's a compromise. 2 is too low, which is likely why the rules recommend a diffferent "standard effect" for killing attacks.]

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

For another' date=' "Fred" is the bald old man married to Ethel. The game system I use is called Hero System Fifth Edition, or "Hero 5" or "H5" for short.[/quote']

 

Well, blackmoor is Dave Arneson's D&D campaign setting, but we still reply to your posts.

[Agent X]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

This means absolutely nothing to me.

 

For one thing, page numbers change between editions, so that is of no help.

 

For another, "Fred" is the bald old man married to Ethel. The game system I use is called Hero System Fifth Edition, or "Hero 5" or "H5" for short.

You don't have to call it Fred but that's not stopping anyone else. I liked Ethel, btw.

 

What makes your killing attacks more lethal than normal attacks? I still don't get it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

You don't have to call it Fred but that's not stopping anyone else. I liked Ethel, btw.

 

What makes your killing attacks more lethal than normal attacks? I still don't get it.

 

As I read his posts, bblackmoor is satisfied so long as KA's are lethal to targets who lack resistant defenses (his KA version still works like the standard KA in that regard - only resistant defenses block body and any resistant defense means all defenses apply against STUN).

 

From his comments, he's not looking for a way to make KA's more lethal against Supers, byt rather to make them less likely to get the high STUN results that come with the 5x stun multiple.

 

Given that's all he's after, his method works as well as any other. I just don't see it as inherently superior to using a flat stun multiple. That said, a 3x stun multiple allows KA's the same average stun as normal attacks, plus a bit more BOD, plus circumvention of normal defenses, so I'm not sold on that as a solution either. Maybe a stun multiple range of 2,2,2,3,3,4 (same average but smoothing off the high and the low) would work.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I did discuss that in my original post. Any addition of BOD damage (to make KA's more lethal) will have ramifications to constructs that take only BOD damage. Preventing the loss of automatons, force walls and entangles would require the BOD damage of these new KA's be reduced to 2/3 against such targets, reducing BOD for these targets to its old level, so you get another multiplier effect in KA's.

 

Any change to the system has ripple effects, which is why I don't like making them without a serious reason to do so.

 

 

[ASIDE: An appropriate "standard effect" for KA's would be to multiply BOD by either 2.67, the average stun multiple, or 2.5. 3 is way easier, though, so it's a compromise. 2 is too low, which is likely why the rules recommend a diffferent "standard effect" for killing attacks.]

 

Ugh. now THAT's kludgy.

 

Aside to the aside: Why is 2 too low? Why should we be concerned with the Stun of a KA being too low?

 

Perhaps a better workaround is rather than automatically losing 1 stun when taking 1 body damage, you should take 1d6 stun per body taken.

 

Then the base KA wouldn't need to have so much stun associated with it to accomplish the effects of inducing shock on body-damaging attacks.

[gewing]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I have always assumed the greater possible stun from a killing attack to be part of the reason it is more lethal.

 

If a target is stunned or knocked out, they are more likely to bleed to death.

 

Oh, that is right, I LIKE bloody DI and FH level games.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Another thing to take into account with KAs and STUN is that if your Resistant DEF and NonResistant DEF are not the same (ie, you have normal PD and Armor) you get to add them together to block the STUN of a KA.

 

example:

10PD

10rPD Armor

 

= 10 DEF vs BODY and 20 DEF vs STUN from a Killing Attack.

 

This, of course, is moot if you simply buy rDEF with Damage Resistance in which case you may not have any NonResistant DEF.

 

On that note, if you have high defenses overall, both rDEF and normal DEF you have a better chance of resisting STUN from a Killing Attack - taking some of the bite out of it, but certainly not all and definitely not consistently.

 

As for the KA = 10pts/die, I really haven't taken the moment to go through every rammification of going that route. But, if I were to alter the rules regarding KAs it would be to make them as lethal as possible without making them ridiculously lethal. I would probably enforce the flat STUNx of 3, possibly 2 considering the higher Body Damage of a 10ptKA.

 

As for Advantage Stacking - I see it as the responsiblity of the GM that no power enters the game without fitting into the game. Stack away, but if it's out of concept or would be too imbalancing it should be denied and redone to fit the Game At Hand - just because you can do it does not mean you should do it.

 

 

As for the "what to call the Rulebook" sidenote: bblackmoor - there is currently only 1 (ONE) version out, so when a page number is referenced it is currently correct. Page 270 of EVERYONE'S book right now, and we're assuming you're using fith ed., is the same. When 5ER (AS STEVE CALLS IT) comes out that's how the majority of the posters on this board will reference it. If that bothers you then build a wall and get over it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Asuming one's goal is not to make KA's more lethal (ie do more BOD than they currently do), but to make them less likely to KO an opponent by STUN loss, one workaround would be a house rule which requires all KA's to have the -2 Stunx limitation and to deny any use of bonus stun multiples.

 

The KA now has the same AP cost, so the BOD totals aren't increasing in VPP's or multipowers, and an AP cap will take care of any other increases to BOD. The KA is limited to the same damage a nromal attack would do on average, and achieves that only one time in 6. The smaller number of dice allows a greater possibility a KA will max out, but that max will be no greater than the max on the same AP of EB (eg. 72 for 60 AP).

 

The loss of the high end of the STUN race means KA's are considerably less effective, on average, than normal atacks at inflicting STUN.

 

As in all things, the solution depends on the goal you're looking for. This should work for those wanting to use the established KA framework (whether for traditional reasons or because having the face amount on the dice represent BOD focuses KA's more on BOD done) but remove the use of KA's to achieve huge amounts of STUN. It also works within established Hero costs (ie the limitation is already statted out). It can be partially phased in (impose only one reduced Stun x as the minimum) if desired.

 

It won't satisfy bblackmoor because it still requires you to multiply the BOD results by another roll, but he's the only one who seems hung up on eliminating that mechanic, and he already has a solution that works for him.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Aside to the aside: Why is 2 too low? Why should we be concerned with the Stun of a KA being too low?

 

At 15 points per die, I benieve a KA with an automatic stun multiple of 2 will be more expensive than the power is worth. Others may find a different result.

 

In my view, if the SM is an automatic 2, then KA's will never be seen outside a nice cheap multipower slot. And I may as well save 20% by applying -1 Stun Multiple as well, since it's highly unlikely to inflict STUN anyway. I'll only be using it when BOD is all that matters. For obvious reasons, -2 SM should not be allowed if we make the SM automatically 2.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I think I like the imposed -2 Stun Multiple Limiation mechanic. There's no change in AP and you're focusing the power on the amount of Body it can do.

 

beyond that I don't have any problems with the current method of handling KAs, then again multiplication isn't complicated in my mind.

[Frenchman]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

One thing I came up with was to eliminate the -1/2 limitation on HAs (EBs don't have it, after all) and increase KAs to 4 DCs per die. So for 5 points, you'd have a 1 pip KA, 10 a 1/2 d6, 15 would get you 1d6-1, and 20 would get a full 1d6.

 

I created a few characters doing this, and they were able to function well, but it hasn't taken with my group mainly because no one is willing to go through the extra step in the Hero Designer.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

One thing I came up with was to eliminate the -1/2 limitation on HAs (EBs don't have it, after all) and increase KAs to 4 DCs per die. So for 5 points, you'd have a 1 pip KA, 10 a 1/2 d6, 15 would get you 1d6-1, and 20 would get a full 1d6.

 

I created a few characters doing this, and they were able to function well, but it hasn't taken with my group mainly because no one is willing to go through the extra step in the Hero Designer.

 

I like it in general. The only fault I see in it is that if you have a character whose only full power attack is a 60 AP (3d6 in your scheme) RKA and they have to escape a 6d6 entangle or punch through a 12/12 force wall, it's harder for them to succeed than an equivalent active point EB...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

One thing I came up with was to eliminate the -1/2 limitation on HAs (EBs don't have it, after all) and increase KAs to 4 DCs per die. So for 5 points, you'd have a 1 pip KA, 10 a 1/2 d6, 15 would get you 1d6-1, and 20 would get a full 1d6.

 

I created a few characters doing this, and they were able to function well, but it hasn't taken with my group mainly because no one is willing to go through the extra step in the Hero Designer.

 

So a killing attack would now do less BOD than a normal attack (10.5 vs 12 at 60 AP)? That doesn't strike me as a lethal attack, which is what I consider a killing attack should be.

[Frenchman]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

This is all very true, and it does reduce the effectiveness of KAs.

 

Of course, instead of nerfing killing attacks, we could slap a -1/2 modifier on energy blast, with the same reasoning as the one behind hand-to-hand attacks. This would make them cheaper than a killing attack (which they should be, if you ask me) without mussing up the damage levels.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

The problem with Killing Attacks is not their cost effectiveness. As has been amply demonstrated, point for point they are virtually identical to Energy Blasts in cost-effectiveness. There is no need to make Killing Attacks cheaper or more expensive, because if you did they would no longer be balanced with the rest of the game system.

 

The *only* problems with Killing Attacks are due to the idiotic method in which their damage is rolled. If that were brought into conformance with the rest of the game system, by making it 1d6 per Damage Class, with Stun and Body counted in the standard fashion, all of the usability, playability, and game-balance problems with Killing Attacks would vanish.

 

(And have vanished, for those of us who have implemented the Consistent Killing Damage house rule.)

[Gary]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

The problem with Killing Attacks is not their cost effectiveness. As has been amply demonstrated, point for point they are virtually identical to Energy Blasts in cost-effectiveness. There is no need to make Killing Attacks cheaper or more expensive, because if you did they would no longer be balanced with the rest of the game system.

 

The *only* problems with Killing Attacks are due to the idiotic method in which their damage is rolled. If that were brought into conformance with the rest of the game system, by making it 1d6 per Damage Class, with Stun and Body counted in the standard fashion, all of the usability, playability, and game-balance problems with Killing Attacks would vanish.

 

(And have vanished, for those of us who have implemented the Consistent Killing Damage house rule.)

 

 

Actually, killing attacks are more cost effective than EBs point for point. It's true that vs "typical" defense levels, they do slightly less net stun to the target, but against "typical" defense and con levels, the KA is far superior in Stunning the target. Also you occasionally run into the people without resistant defenses, and you have access to the ultra cost effective Increased Stun Multiple, which is too cheap at a mere +1/4.

[Mightybec]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

The system works fine for me.

[Resartus]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I'm planning an extensive set of changes to the current system to form a house system. One of the changes removes EBs and KAs from the game as they exist now. Every attack becomes a compound power that usually includes stun damage and body damage. Bascially you just roll the dice listed for each stat or power effected and subtract the numbers rolled from the character's stat pools. No stun lotto, no counting BOD, just plain addition and subtraction like most other games. There are a lot of things I like about Hero but the current damage mechanics aren't one of them.

 

The equivalent of a 30 AP EB might look like:

Ion Blaster: 6d6 stun, 2d6 body vs. ED (maser sfx)

 

Has the same average and almost the same range as the current system, but you could modify it up or down to suit your need for leathality based on genre.

 

A hand gun might look like:

Berreta model 92 (9mm): 2d6 stun, 4d6 body vs. PD (bullet sfx)

HK USP (.45 ACP): 4d6 stun, 5.5d6 body vs. PD (bullet sfx)

 

I'm sure your thinking, that's a lot of body damage, and it is. But I'm going to modify the hit location chart to reduce body damage based on location. Basically most of the body damage would just blow through your arm or leg, but a solid hit to a vital area with have the full effect rolled. I'll also up the average BODY stat to bring it closer to stun.

 

As far as cost goes I'm thinking 3 or 4 points per die.

 

I'm also considering dropping resistant defenses as well. They're only there to support how killing attacks work now. I'm more of the mind that defense is defense, if something stops physical damage then it should work against all physical damage unless the attack has an advantage that improves it's penetration, or the defense is limited to specific sfx (i.e. bullet resistant vests). There are already power advantages that cover defense penetration just fine it shouldn't be an inherent part of the power.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I'm not sure I like it. Too easy to slap it into a multipower with one slot doing all stun damage and one slot doing all body damage.

 

At 3 or 4 points per die, you'd be able to fit either 15 or 20 dice per slot, with plenty of room to spread and wipe out a room full of agents or to easily hit a martial artist. On the body side, you'd be able to trivially blow away any force wall, foci, entangle or automaton.

 

Too unbalanced, IMO.

[Resartus]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I'm not sure I like it. Too easy to slap it into a multipower with one slot doing all stun damage and one slot doing all body damage.

 

At 3 or 4 points per die, you'd be able to fit either 15 or 20 dice per slot, with plenty of room to spread and wipe out a room full of agents or to easily hit a martial artist. On the body side, you'd be able to trivially blow away any force wall, foci, entangle or automaton.

 

Too unbalanced, IMO.

 

As a polish to the current system I agree with you it's too cheap. Some of the other changes I'm making include increasing body by a factor of 2 or more to bring it in line with stun. Inanimate objects would need a boost in defence as well as body to stay in line with the changes but I'm planning on doing that as well.

 

To keep things in line with the current system you'd need to charge 7 points per d6 of body damage. That is the cost by the way if you take the "reduced stun multiplier" limitation 5 times. Currently you can only take that limitation 4 times reducing the cost to 7.5 points per DC but I'm shooting for a pure body attack. I personally think that a stun only EB is worth a -1/4 limitation which would bring a pure stun attack to exactly 4 points per DC.

 

So here is the Ion Blaster compound power example again with the current system costs and then the changes I've just mentioned:

 

Current Rules:

Ion Blaster: (Total: 60 Active Cost, 45 Real Cost) Energy Blast 6d6, STUN Only (+0) (Real Cost: 30) plus Killing Attack - Ranged 2d6 (30 Active Points); -4 Decreased Stun Multiplier (-1) (Real Cost: 15)

 

My Changes:

Ion Blaster: (Total: 38 Active Cost, 38 Real Cost) Stun Attack - Ranged 6d6 (Real Cost: 24) plus Body Attack - Ranged 2d6 (14 Active Points) (Real Cost: 14)

 

If you wanted the compound attack to closer simulate a current 30 AP Energy Blast you could drop one of the Body Attack (killing) damage classes and it would only cost 31 points. The benefit, you just roll the damage and subtract from the affected stat, no counting BOD, no stun lotto. I'd still drop resistant defenses and just let normal PD or ED handle everything, but that's just me.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

As a polish to the current system I agree with you it's too cheap. Some of the other changes I'm making include increasing body by a factor of 2 or more to bring it in line with stun. Inanimate objects would need a boost in defence as well as body to stay in line with the changes but I'm planning on doing that as well.

 

This also means modifying the Entangle and Force Wall rules, as these are both akin to inanimate objects. With many attacks likely reducing their BOD damage to enhance their STUN (and why not? Supers aren't generally trying to inflict BOD damage), Entangles and Force Walls could be come much more effective.

 

The contrary approach, of course, is a multiplower of "all STUN Dice" and "all BOD dice", using the former against live targets and the latter against objects, entangles, force walls and automatons. I think you're seriusly underestimating the impact of this change.

 

To keep things in line with the current system you'd need to charge 7 points per d6 of body damage. That is the cost by the way if you take the "reduced stun multiplier" limitation 5 times. Currently you can only take that limitation 4 times reducing the cost to 7.5 points per DC but I'm shooting for a pure body attack. I personally think that a stun only EB is worth a -1/4 limitation which would bring a pure stun attack to exactly 4 points per DC.

 

Let's compare:

 

Current system:

 

60 Multipower, 60 AP

 

3 u 4d6 RKA, does no STUN (-1)

5 u 12d6 EB, does STUN only (-1/4)

 

Total 68 points

 

vs 25 DEF Super - use EB and average 42 STUN = 17 STUN to opponent.

vs 6 BOD 6 DEF entangle, use KA and average 14 BOD, inflicting 8 (and breaking the entangle, but not doubling its remaining BOD).

 

Proposed System

 

60 Multipower, 60 AP

 

6 u 8 1/2d6 BOD Damage (8 x 7 = 56 pts + 4 = 60)

6 u 15d6 EB, does STUN only (15 x 4 = 60 points)

 

vs 25 DEF Super - use EB and average 52.5 STUN = 25.5 STUN to opponent, much more likely to STUN.

vs 6 BOD 6 DEF entangle, use KA and average 30 BOD, inflicting 22 (and shattering the entangle with almost 4x its remaining BOD)

 

To fix the Entangle problem, you have to cut it down to about 5 points per die, so 60 points gets 12d6 (12 DEF 12 BOD) and that KA gets 18 BOD through, breaking the entangle easily (or 4 per die, so 15/15, so the average hit just gets through). But now our 60 STR Brick will be entangled forever, while our EP gets out with ease.

 

To fix the STUN blast problem, you need to reduce the average cost of DEF by about 50% to get the same average damage, so DEF 37. But now a balanced attack (12d6 STUN and 4d6 BOD) trickles a mere 5 STUN through.

 

To repeat, I don't think you've fully flowed the ramifications of your proposed change through.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I have two words on this subject.

 

Hand Attack.

[Resartus]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

This also means modifying the Entangle and Force Wall rules, as these are both akin to inanimate objects. With many attacks likely reducing their BOD damage to enhance their STUN (and why not? Supers aren't generally trying to inflict BOD damage), Entangles and Force Walls could be come much more effective.

 

The contrary approach, of course, is a multiplower of "all STUN Dice" and "all BOD dice", using the former against live targets and the latter against objects, entangles, force walls and automatons. I think you're seriusly underestimating the impact of this change.

 

 

 

Let's compare:

 

Current system:

 

60 Multipower, 60 AP

 

3 u 4d6 RKA, does no STUN (-1)

5 u 12d6 EB, does STUN only (-1/4)

 

Total 68 points

 

vs 25 DEF Super - use EB and average 42 STUN = 17 STUN to opponent.

vs 6 BOD 6 DEF entangle, use KA and average 14 BOD, inflicting 8 (and breaking the entangle, but not doubling its remaining BOD).

 

Proposed System

 

60 Multipower, 60 AP

 

6 u 8 1/2d6 BOD Damage (8 x 7 = 56 pts + 4 = 60)

6 u 15d6 EB, does STUN only (15 x 4 = 60 points)

 

vs 25 DEF Super - use EB and average 52.5 STUN = 25.5 STUN to opponent, much more likely to STUN.

vs 6 BOD 6 DEF entangle, use KA and average 30 BOD, inflicting 22 (and shattering the entangle with almost 4x its remaining BOD)

 

To fix the Entangle problem, you have to cut it down to about 5 points per die, so 60 points gets 12d6 (12 DEF 12 BOD) and that KA gets 18 BOD through, breaking the entangle easily (or 4 per die, so 15/15, so the average hit just gets through). But now our 60 STR Brick will be entangled forever, while our EP gets out with ease.

 

To fix the STUN blast problem, you need to reduce the average cost of DEF by about 50% to get the same average damage, so DEF 37. But now a balanced attack (12d6 STUN and 4d6 BOD) trickles a mere 5 STUN through.

 

To repeat, I don't think you've fully flowed the ramifications of your proposed change through.

 

 

Very good points, thank you. And your right I'm just starting to workout the specifics of this idea and I originally intended it to be part of a system derivation, I didn't envision it working well with the current system. However, I do have a reasonable fix that might balance things a bit more. You can use the pure damage types to recreate and tweak the types of attacks available to your compaign, sort of genre convention if you will. To support the typical champions genre you could do the following:

 

Normal attacks (HAs and EBs) start with a 3-to-1 ratio of Stun damage to Body damage. The body damage can be reduced to nothing allowing a stun only attack.

 

Lethal attacks (RKAs and HKAs) must have a 1-to-1 ratio of Stun damage to Body damage. The Stun damage may be increased to simulate the "knock down" effects of specific weapons and attacks (i.e. large caliber bullets, "man-stopper" specialty ammo). This reflects the current system limitation on the minimum stun multiplier of 1.

 

So with those meta-rules in place you get the following multipower attacks:

 

60 point multipower, 60 AP

 

5u - RKA: 5d6 Body Attack - Ranged plus 5d6 Stun Attack - Ranged (7x5=35 AP plus 4x5=20 AP, 55 AP total)

6u - EB: 2d6 Body Attack - Ranged plus 11.5d6 Stun Attack - Ranged (7x2=14 AP plus 4x11 + 2=46 AP, 60 AP total)

6u - Stun Only: 15d6 Stun Attack - Ranged (4x15=60 AP)

 

That's a bit closer to the current system and gives you an RKA that isn't going to out stun an EB and a very basic rolling mechanic. Basically I'd like to see more of the internals of Hero, it's a nice tool kit as is, but I'd like a little more granularity so you can see the genre conventions expressed as templates or meta-rules to make it more obvious what can be tweaked and what will be affected when you do so.

 

Any way, let me know what you think, the feedback has been good so far and I learn a little more about this system every time I post.