Eliminating Killing Attacks

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Just to let you know' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

There's still a bit of a lottery, but my experience is locations flatten the curve.

 

"Only" -8? ONLY? What level of CV have you got in your campaigns? -8 is a LOT. -4 isn't as bad' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Who would play a character with significant Growth? Their DCV's are quite poor.

 

If we assume a low DCV Brick (say DCV 6), and a 14 OCV martial arts type (OCV 14 isn't out of the ballpark by any stretch), he can target the head and hit on 11-.

 

Now, if I know hit locations are in play, rather than buy a 4d6 RKA, why not buy 3d6 and 8 PSL's to hit the head with that attack? Instead of averaging 14 BOD and 37 1/3 STUN, I'll average 10.5 BOD and 52.5 STUN - and I spend less END. Cheesy concept, I know, but there you go.

 

Martial Artist vs Brick - take the head shot every time, and pump up your DCV to outlast him.

 

This is why I've never used hit locations in Champions, anyway. Plus, with 350 points to play with, enough PSL's to kill the "head location" penalty (or even 8 3 point levels) really aren't that many points.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

with 350 points to play with' date=' enough PSL's to kill the "head location" penalty (or even 8 3 point levels) really aren't that many points.[/quote']

 

Who wouldn't spend 24 out of 300+ points to double their damage? And in most games, that 24 points won't even be applied against the campaign max for active point costs (at least, until the GM notices what's going on).

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Well, when playing Supers games, if you simply get rid of the Body multiplier and don't allow aimed shots (other than to bypass armor or some other SFX) using the Hit Locations chart to determine the StunX of killing attacks solves the stun lotto without increasing the lethality of said attacks.

 

Of course, I like even my Supers games lethal, so I have no problem using the chart as is...

[bushido11]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

About the STUN lottery...

 

IMO, I like the STUN lottery. Yeah, it's an extra die roll, but it's just one die that you roll. Yeah, you multiply, but multiplying is easy! Roll 3d6 and get 9 BODY, roll 1d6-1 (get a 4), 9 x 4 = 36. Easy. Also, you can interpret the STUN lottery roll as another form of hit location. A STUN multiplier of x1 probably hit the body or a limb, while a STUN multiplier x5 hit someone right in the head! Much more convenient than having to roll another 3d6 and looking at a chart (I want as little to do with charts as possible in my games).

 

Counting the normal damage BODY is more of a hassle, IMO. It's almost like a dice pool, and dice pools just drag stuff out, even if it's just for binary results. Yeah, I can just say 1 BODY per 1d6 STUN, but a little variation is good. It just takes some getting used to, I guess.

[gewing]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

posted by bblackmoor

"The other reason is the ludicrous and justly-despised Stun lottery so beloved by those who are themselves ludicrous and justly-despised."

 

 

Are you bashing munchkins, or just everyone who plays the game as is?

[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).

 

Look, you're talking about using random hit locations for replacing the stun roll.

 

Great. So people don't get a 1 in 6 chance of maxing out the roll. What they get is the ability to automatically max out the roll if they target the head. That's -8 to hit, unless the target is already incapacitated, in which case it's -4. You can entangle people pretty easily, so a Viper 5-team can first catch somebody in an entangle that's transparent to attacks then drill people in the head with rifle slugs until they're unconscious. (this won't take long, trust me)

 

Why does it make the low-DCV brick obsolete? Well, I've played Dex 18 bricks. Often they perform maneuvers that lower their DCV, including Move throughs, grabs and haymakers. There are numerous villains in the CU that can get a 12 OCV trivially. Among them are Vibron, Thunderbolt II, Thunderbird, Tesseract. Some go higher, like Mechassassin and Utility.

 

Were I to play some of my slow bricks in a game with CKC villains and your house rule, they'd get KOed all the freaking time, because any villain with any tactics whatsoever would just shoot them in the head and be done with it. Hence, my assertation that your house rule makes the low-DCV brick obsolete. PSLs are cheap, the ability to shrug off KAs to the head is not.

 

If your house rule was the norm in Champions (hit locations determine stunX) then I'd never play a brick again. I doubt anyone else would either. A couple of PSLs and anybody can KO a brick anytime they feel like it.

 

I've been playing with HERO system hit locations longer than FH has been in print. I was one of the playtesters for Espionage. Please don't try to tell me how hit locations work. Assuming placed shots are available to all combatants, then your house rule is a bad idea for Champions.

 

You seem to think that head shots are rare things, but in a game system that allows people to put up darkess (with personal immunity), area effect entangles that are transparent to attacks, invisibility and shrinking, and so on, it's pretty easy to design something that can catch people in the cranium without too much trouble.

 

$0.02

[zebediah]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Just a little more gasoline on the fire...

 

Re: aimed shots that do more damage.

 

First: How much does armor, head only cost? How about DCV, head only? Would you allow these in your games? Would you consider an "arms race" between "DCV, head only" and "OCV, only to negate the penalty for aiming at the head"?

 

Hero already seems to have a halfway decent was of giving people with too much OCV the opportunity to do more damage, in the 5 point CSLs can be used as 5 points of attack damage as well.

 

 

 

A little philosophical note on hit locations, and why they seem to exist:

 

Hit locations seem mostly to be a concession to characters with too much OCV, allowing them to trade in some of it for a damage multiplier.

 

Given the option of trading in OCV for a damage adder, and trading in OCV for a damage multiplier on a reasonably large attack, which is more tactically sound? If I can double my damage by taking a -8 to hit, or I can add 8dc for taking a -8 to hit on my 20dc mega-attack, there's an obvious choice there.

When numbers get big, multiplication is a scary, scary thing.

 

Hero also has a great way of making your attacks always hit, without boosting your OCV to obscene levels--double the cost of your attack power. For +1/2, AoE (hex) and +1/2 (no range penalties), on OCV of more than 9 is overkill. The more possible ways you have of doing a single thing, the more difficult balance is, as the same effect should have a nearly equal point cost. Allowing OCV and damage to be interchangable, particularly as a multiplier, makes any notion of balance a major pain.

 

(I recall quite vividly, from one GURPS campaign, just how powerful hit locations could be...our two archers would regularly do 8x damage (2x from being peircing, 4x from going through the opponent's eye into his brain...) with no blowthrough, meaning that they could trivially take out critters the rest of the party didn't stand a chance against. Between that and the not-very-well-balanced GURPS "weaponmaster" advantage, they had little incentive to spend points on anything other than skill with bows in terms of maximizing combat effectiveness)

 

Now, if you're just using the hit location table instead of 1d-1, then you're really (mechanically, and we're talking mechanics, not sfx) substituting a different probability curve to multiply by, with the sfx of hitting your opponent in different places. Which is all well and good, but shouldn't be confused with using a hit location system--not saying that Dust Raven is, but that it should be made clear.

[zebediah]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

One thing that hasn't been brought up much is the idea of adopting the 1d6*1d6 mechanic more generally. Let us use the approximation that 4d6 ~= 1d6*1d6, as the KA does (1d6 RKA, +1/4 to increase the stun multiple, is just shy of 19 points).

 

 

Would you be willing to allow, at no change in cost (or even as a slight limitation--after all, KAs aren't affected by nonresistant defenses) that substitution for every power that can have a 4d6 roll? Flashes? Mind Control? Luck? Normal Energy Blasts?

 

What is it about 1d6*1d6 that implies lethality, or visa versa?

 

Would you be willing to take that final, scary step and allow someone an attack that does 1d6*1d6 body, and 1d6*1d6*1d6 stun? That is, after all, only a roll of three dice for something that would otherwise require 5 or 16 dice to be rolled...and if the character wants an attack that has a huge range of possible damages, how would you build it?

[Turin]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Well you could always use the hit location table with out allowing called shots. It would still be a lottery, but with more lottery like chances.

 

I really only play FH but we haven't had a problem with people twisting the hit location rules. I personally really like hit locations and it adds a bit to our FH campaign with out being over the top.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

One thing that hasn't been brought up much is the idea of adopting the 1d6*1d6 mechanic more generally.

 

And for very good reason.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

If your house rule was the norm in Champions (hit locations determine stunX) then I'd never play a brick again. I doubt anyone else would either. A couple of PSLs and anybody can KO a brick anytime they feel like it.

 

Look at the Hit Location table, it contain a BODYx and a STUNx - hit locations do determine the stun multiple if you use them. pg 276 and 277 outline this. They also determine STUNx for Called Shots. A head shot with a KA does x5 STUN and x2 BODY. simple.

 

Hit Locations also have a Normal STUN multiplier. a Head Shot with a normal attack does x2 STUN.

 

Hit Locations are also an optional rule, which means they are not the default for any campaign or genre unless you state they are.

 

As for the brick issue, buy more DEF.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Look at the Hit Location table, it contain a BODYx and a STUNx - hit locations do determine the stun multiple if you use them. pg 276 and 277 outline this. They also determine STUNx for Called Shots. A head shot with a KA does x5 STUN and x2 BODY. simple.

 

Hit Locations also have a Normal STUN multiplier. a Head Shot with a normal attack does x2 STUN.

 

Hit Locations are also an optional rule, which means they are not the default for any campaign or genre unless you state they are.

 

As for the brick issue, buy more DEF.

 

The house rule I am objecting to uses the hit locations for the Stun modifier on Killing attacks, so your point on head shots doubling stun on a normal attack is irrelevant.

 

Buy more DEF? Most of my bricks have maxxed out defenses already and still can't withstand 4d6 KA to the head if the house rule is in use. No fix there.

 

The post clearly states that the hit location rule IN CHAMPIONS, where the hit location rule is generally not used, is a bad idea.

 

Please try in the future to read messages a little more thoroughly before responding.

[zebediah]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

One thing that hasn't been brought up much is the idea of adopting the 1d6*1d6 mechanic more generally.

 

And for very good reason.

 

Hey, I'm not claiming I support it -- just that's its a conceptual possibility. Consider it reductio ad absurdum if you like. If you woudln't accept for things other than a "killing attack," why not, and who do you accept it for a killing attack? We all know where you'd stand on this particular idea, bblackmoor. This is for people who support the "stun lottery."

 

Or, if you're using one of the alternative to 1d6 * 1d6 (mostly seems to be dice/3 * (result of some table)), would you accept that as a reasonable sustitute for mechanics other than killing attacks?

[BNakagawa]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

One thing that hasn't been brought up much is the idea of adopting the 1d6*1d6 mechanic more generally. Let us use the approximation that 4d6 ~= 1d6*1d6, as the KA does (1d6 RKA, +1/4 to increase the stun multiple, is just shy of 19 points).

 

 

Would you be willing to allow, at no change in cost (or even as a slight limitation--after all, KAs aren't affected by nonresistant defenses) that substitution for every power that can have a 4d6 roll? Flashes? Mind Control? Luck? Normal Energy Blasts?

 

What is it about 1d6*1d6 that implies lethality, or visa versa?

 

Would you be willing to take that final, scary step and allow someone an attack that does 1d6*1d6 body, and 1d6*1d6*1d6 stun? That is, after all, only a roll of three dice for something that would otherwise require 5 or 16 dice to be rolled...and if the character wants an attack that has a huge range of possible damages, how would you build it?

 

I've simplified the question. Would you be willing to tolerate an EB that just rolled 1d6 and multiplied that roll by the number of damage classes?

 

This power has exactly the same minimum damage, maximum damage and average damage as a vanilla Nd6 EB.

 

So, why wouldn't you allow this construct? Essentially, it's a stun lottery for normal attacks. It's a LOT faster than rolling and counting Nd6 damage, especially in high powered champions games.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

We all know where you'd stand on this particular idea' date=' bblackmoor. This is for people who support the "stun lottery."[/quote']

 

Ah, I see. Carry on, then.

[Vorsch]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

KA seems to be designed to reflect being shot by a pistols as its base effect. It can do alot of damage or just a flesh wound, kill you without much stun, or knock you out with a minor wound.

 

Problem being its based on damage that gets through defences. A pistol or any other RKA will have a consistant penetration value, ie what level of defences it can overcome ( same as a EB for sake of argument ). This is not reflected in the way KA deal damage, a player with a 4d6RKA will get 20+ rolls fairly often ( 1/20 ), a 12d6 eb player will probabilly never get 20+ ( 8 6s, 4 2-5s, 0 1s ).

 

Point being targets with resistant defences shouldnt have to suffer the high damage output of KA which is solely based of its effects if it actually does body.

 

Personally i go with x2 stun multiple + 1d6xbody inflicted stun.

 

Pocket bricks are forever having gunshots ping off there heads, they dont appear to take even one point of stun, nevermind knocking them out.

 

Anything which makes KA less attractive to players is good in my book, EBs should be better at something after all.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

There's still a bit of a lottery, but my experience is locations flatten the curve.

 

 

 

Who would play a character with significant Growth? Their DCV's are quite poor.

 

If we assume a low DCV Brick (say DCV 6), and a 14 OCV martial arts type (OCV 14 isn't out of the ballpark by any stretch), he can target the head and hit on 11-.

I'm fine with that, if the MA wants to reduce his chance of hitting from nearly 100% to below 65%. He's paid the points for the privilage.

 

Now, if I know hit locations are in play, rather than buy a 4d6 RKA, why not buy 3d6 and 8 PSL's to hit the head with that attack? Instead of averaging 14 BOD and 37 1/3 STUN, I'll average 10.5 BOD and 52.5 STUN - and I spend less END. Cheesy concept, I know, but there you go.

 

Martial Artist vs Brick - take the head shot every time, and pump up your DCV to outlast him.

 

This is why I've never used hit locations in Champions, anyway. Plus, with 350 points to play with, enough PSL's to kill the "head location" penalty (or even 8 3 point levels) really aren't that many points.

This brings up other questions about min-maxing and munchkining the character beyond concept. As a GM I keep this balanced. I'm lucky in that I don't even have to try very hard. My players know the rules, your powers are SFX, the mechanics in the book are what make your powers work. Nobody's gonna get PSL levels to Hit Locations unless they can tell me why their character would have them.

 

I recognize this a a luxury in my group which allows me to use the Placed Shots rule. I can understand if other groups don't.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Look, you're talking about using random hit locations for replacing the stun roll.

 

Great. So people don't get a 1 in 6 chance of maxing out the roll. What they get is the ability to automatically max out the roll if they target the head. That's -8 to hit, unless the target is already incapacitated, in which case it's -4. You can entangle people pretty easily, so a Viper 5-team can first catch somebody in an entangle that's transparent to attacks then drill people in the head with rifle slugs until they're unconscious. (this won't take long, trust me)

 

Why does it make the low-DCV brick obsolete? Well, I've played Dex 18 bricks. Often they perform maneuvers that lower their DCV, including Move throughs, grabs and haymakers. There are numerous villains in the CU that can get a 12 OCV trivially. Among them are Vibron, Thunderbolt II, Thunderbird, Tesseract. Some go higher, like Mechassassin and Utility.

 

Were I to play some of my slow bricks in a game with CKC villains and your house rule, they'd get KOed all the freaking time, because any villain with any tactics whatsoever would just shoot them in the head and be done with it. Hence, my assertation that your house rule makes the low-DCV brick obsolete. PSLs are cheap, the ability to shrug off KAs to the head is not.

 

If your house rule was the norm in Champions (hit locations determine stunX) then I'd never play a brick again. I doubt anyone else would either. A couple of PSLs and anybody can KO a brick anytime they feel like it.

 

I've been playing with HERO system hit locations longer than FH has been in print. I was one of the playtesters for Espionage. Please don't try to tell me how hit locations work. Assuming placed shots are available to all combatants, then your house rule is a bad idea for Champions.

 

You seem to think that head shots are rare things, but in a game system that allows people to put up darkess (with personal immunity), area effect entangles that are transparent to attacks, invisibility and shrinking, and so on, it's pretty easy to design something that can catch people in the cranium without too much trouble.

 

$0.02

I have to disagree. Most of the high OCV villains I use that are very tactical also have high SPDs. Those with moderate to high DC attacks realize that making a "main body" roll is far better than taking a head shot. They'll hit almost every time, and repeatedly doing some damage is better than making a more chancy shot for extra damage. If their DC isn't enough to do significent damage, then they'll start targeting the head or vitals. My players tend to use the same tactics.

 

As for designing villains to make head shots, I never do this. Sure, it's possible and easy, but it doesn't suit my gaming style or the campaign I run. If I wanted to simulate a character that always and consistantly shot at and hit the head of his targets, I'd just write up his attacks with extra DC and define the damage as being "general" and the SFX as head shots.

 

Besides, it's not "heroic" to always make head shots, not is it to be always hit in the head.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Just a little more gasoline on the fire...

 

Re: aimed shots that do more damage.

 

First: How much does armor, head only cost? How about DCV, head only? Would you allow these in your games? Would you consider an "arms race" between "DCV, head only" and "OCV, only to negate the penalty for aiming at the head"?

 

Hero already seems to have a halfway decent was of giving people with too much OCV the opportunity to do more damage, in the 5 point CSLs can be used as 5 points of attack damage as well.

Don't VIPER agents all have extra armor for the head?

 

Now, if you're just using the hit location table instead of 1d-1, then you're really (mechanically, and we're talking mechanics, not sfx) substituting a different probability curve to multiply by, with the sfx of hitting your opponent in different places. Which is all well and good, but shouldn't be confused with using a hit location system--not saying that Dust Raven is, but that it should be made clear.

This is pretty much what I'm doing. I use the Hit Location table instead of the 1d6-1 roll to put a (in my opinion) better curve on the probability of making that x5 STUNx on a roll.

 

I do use the Placed Shots rule as well, but it's not often used in favor of the genre and real-world tactics (military and police and trained to aim for the "main body" for a reason; even really good shots still do this).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

As for the brick issue' date=' buy more DEF.[/quote']

 

Ok - since my Birck will always get shot in the head, he will take 2x normal STUn, and a 5x multiple on KA's. Absent these rules, he'd normally have (say) 27 PD and ED in a 60 AP campaign. Ca1l it 15 resistant. He'd take about 15 STUN from the typical 12d6 EB, and about 10 from the typical 4d6 RKA.

 

To get back to that level, he needs 69 DEF (to take 15 from a doubled EB of 84 STUN) or 60 to get that KA stun down to 10. He's still taking 2x BOD that gets through - he'll need to double his resistant defenses, maybe a bit more, or buy more BOD.

 

The defenses will cost 84 points (PD & ED) plus 15 to double his resistant defenses - just shy 100 points. I think I'll play a martial artist instead!

 

Higher DC's, higher average defenses and a greater spread of OCV/DCV is common in Champions. As a result, hit locations don't work well, in my opinion.

 

Now you could certainly just use the hit location stun multiple chart and ignore hit location and called shots altogether to get a different likelihood for each KA multiple.

[Acroyear]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

We've used hit locations and called shots for well over a decade in Champions and never had the problem BN seems to have with it. Sure, things like head shots, and grabbing someone so someone else could get a better head shot happened. Never was a problem, though, it's just good old fashioned fightin' tactics.

 

Granted, PSLs were not in the equation (as they exist now, but we bought similar things), but they still counted towards OCV caps, anyway.

 

Some slower people did purchase additional defenses against called shots (actually, I think the favored mechanic was "only vs stn multipliers over 1.5n or 3k" or something similar). I believe some others purchased one of the automaton powers to protect against hit locations. I have no clue how 5th handles that, though.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

The house rule I am objecting to uses the hit locations for the Stun modifier on Killing attacks' date=' so your point on head shots doubling stun on a normal attack is irrelevant.[/quote']

 

Reread my post please. I'll just assume you completely skipped the first pharagraph.

 

The Hit Location Table Gives STUN MULTIPLES For Killing Attacks.

 

it's not a house rule. It's part of the hit location table. A house rule would be using Hit Location & Stun Lottery.

 

Just for the record, I personally hate the STUN Lottery, gets me every damn time. Especially with head shots.

 

Buying more DEF is simply an option, Hugh's right - it's darned expensive. And a Head Shot should HURT. But then, if you're trying to beat the STUN Lotto you're spending as much on DEF anyway. 18rDEF completely ignores the body for attacks that are 9DCs or less, only the STUN has any hope of taking that character down. That's fairly tough IMO.

 

The Hit Location table is optional anyway, and rarely used in the Champions games I've played.

 

Unforetunately I don't have any real good ideas for elminating the Stun Lotto, and it has worked in my favor on occasion. I suppose that little bit of tension "Am I gonna shrug this off or be out for the count?" can make combat a bit more suspseful. I think I like the randomness just a bit, even if it does bite me in the ass half the time.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I have to disagree. Most of the high OCV villains I use that are very tactical also have high SPDs. Those with moderate to high DC attacks realize that making a "main body" roll is far better than taking a head shot. They'll hit almost every time, and repeatedly doing some damage is better than making a more chancy shot for extra damage. If their DC isn't enough to do significent damage, then they'll start targeting the head or vitals. My players tend to use the same tactics.

 

As for designing villains to make head shots, I never do this. Sure, it's possible and easy, but it doesn't suit my gaming style or the campaign I run. If I wanted to simulate a character that always and consistantly shot at and hit the head of his targets, I'd just write up his attacks with extra DC and define the damage as being "general" and the SFX as head shots.

 

Besides, it's not "heroic" to always make head shots, not is it to be always hit in the head.

 

Your tactics are great - in D&D. In the Hero system, and Champions especially, it's a lot more valuable to be able to blow a chunk of damage through defenses occasionally than it is to leak a few through reliably.

 

You'll never stun anybody with a few points, but a whole chunka stun one time in six stands an extremely good chance of stunning a target. Anyone who's ever played this game knows how likely getting stunned leads to getting KOed (or killed)

 

If you're taking a few points here and there, it gives you PLENTY of time to calculate roughly how many more attacks you can take before you're going to have to switch to putting levels on defense, aborting to dodge, block or running away.

 

If you take a buttload of STUN in one go, and you get con stunned, you sit there with your ass hanging out waiting for it to get kicked. You don't get to adjust to the situation, the situation gets to adjust to you. Here comes the move through, the autofire, the haymaker, the offensive strike. Punch your ticket, you're going to KO-city.

 

Your house rule may work great IN YOUR HOUSE. So keep it there. Don't go offering it as a fix for anyone else's problems without also explaining all the other baggage that goes along with it, like having to rewrite half of the villains in the CU, or else explaining why they are obliged to never take head shots when it might be the best way to take people down.

[G.W.Lerose]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Long time reader first time poster Anyways...

 

It seems that this thread has changed from whether or not KA's are a good idea to what is the best method for calculating the STUN X. Of coarse both really depend on genre. In some genres one can toss out Stun completely, Champions is not one of them. I play my Champions games fast and loose, using a standard x3 stun multiplier for KA. Sure it over simplifies matters, but then for me Champion's combat should be simple. Other genres I preffer messier, but I like the good ol' four color quasi-predictable comic book combat sometimes.

 

OTOH....as far as the origenal concern... I like the existence of KA's if for no other reason then to limit the number of dice being thrown around. Heck I use a Mega Damage Scale house rule for the really big guns (nukes, main gun of a Space Destroyer, etc.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I have to disagree. Most of the high OCV villains I use that are very tactical also have high SPDs. Those with moderate to high DC attacks realize that making a "main body" roll is far better than taking a head shot. They'll hit almost every time' date=' and repeatedly doing some damage is better than making a more chancy shot for extra damage. If their DC isn't enough to do significent damage, then they'll start targeting the head or vitals. My players tend to use the same tactics.[/quote']

 

Even avoiding the issue that enough PSL's to get around the head shot penalties would be pretty cheap for a Champions character, it seems to me a higher speed makes the head shot even more sound. I'll take the -8 to hit (and hit on an 11- from prior examples) on my opponent's "off phases". When he retaliates, I can Dodge, Dive for Cover or Block, as well as reallocate any levels to DCV. Even if I need an 8-, I should hit one time in four. If I need an 10-, that's half the time.

 

Using a 12 DC attack (4d6 KA or 12d6 EB), that Brick with a head shot takes 70 STUN (or 84 STUN) on average. He needs 30 DEF and a 40 CON to avoid being stunned on an average KA shot. Not a lot of bricks can meet that level.

 

That's way better than trickling in 7 STUN a shot for my KA, or 12 from my EB against that 30 DEF. 40 (or 52) one time in 4 is still more damage, and 1 time in 4 for a high OCV character vs a slow brick is pretty conservative. And my odds go way up once he's stunned and both DCV and placed shot modifiers are halved. Against a 6 DCV, that takes me from 8- to 15-!

 

Dust Raven, your experience seems to be based on players and a GM who voluntarily refrain from exploiting the called shot tactic. Have you ever had someone in your group "break the unwritten rule" and specifically build and play to exploit the called shot?