Eliminating Killing Attacks

[zornwil]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Cheers zornwil. Note though' date=' that I only said that it is '[i']at[/i] the very heart', not that it is the very heart!

Fair enough, though I probably still wouldn't go quite that far.

 

More like the aorta!

[Gary]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Hmm' date=' actually, KAs do slightly lower average STUN. For example, let's take a 4d6 RKA and 12d6 EB (both 60 active pts). The RKA averages 14 BOD, 37 STUN. The EB averages 12 BOD, 42 STUN. The RKA will always do less raw STUN (average or max). Resistant defenses will make the difference here i suppose (lower defenses against the KA's STUN), but IMO, that's compensated for by the extra randomness of the SM. You will get hosed on a roll now and then, and you will score big now and then (well, i've heard that, never done it myself )[/quote']

 

 

When the defender has >27 defenses, KAs do more net stun on average than normal attacks at the 60 pt level. And when (Def + Con) > 43, KA's have a better chance of stunning the target. That's simply how the math works.

 

 

What i think most people hate about the SM is the fact that you take the KA roll of very few dice, which gives you a bell curve. You then multiply that by 1-5, resulting in a much fatter final bell curve than the EB's bell curve. I assume that's why it's referred to as a "lottery", hehe.

 

My group has been toying with a new KA: 10pts/die, rolled as straight BODY and STUN. That is, a 4d6 RKA is a 40 active point attack, and does the pips rolled as both BODY and STUN. This ends up doing around 50% more BODY, but only 50% the STUN on average. These KAs are deadly. To fix the extra KB they might do, we halved the body for KB purposes at first. We're now trying out counting KB as you would on Normal dice (1pip = 1KB, etc). So far, it's easier than the SM, but i'm still a little uneasy about it myself. I liked the Lottery. =P

 

People would just stick a slot in their multipower with this, and only pull out the attack when needed. Or when they simply want to kill their target. Force walls and entangles would become obsolete.

[jeddy]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

When the defender has >27 defenses' date=' KAs do more net stun on average than normal attacks at the 60 pt level. And when (Def + Con) > 43, KA's have a better chance of stunning the target. That's simply how the math works.[/quote']

 

Doh! You're right, i'm ignoring my own bell curve statement, heh. You may be right in that the KA STUN curve extends farther to the sides, which would give you a better possibility of doing more damage with a KA. The EB has an much lower likelyhood of doing 75% of its max than the KA i guess. [edit: In fact, KA just does more max damage, i did some bad math somewhere when i was thinking about this originally, sorry. ]

 

People would just stick a slot in their multipower with this' date=' and only pull out the attack when needed. Or when they simply want to kill their target. Force walls and entangles would become obsolete.[/quote']

 

That is a problem for sure. Luckily, we're actually all pretty good about keeping things fair, so this hasn't happened. Yet. Some of the group just couldn't stand the Lottery, and wanted to get rid of it. I personally don't mind, though it might be time to explore just how broken this could end up with various other advantages thrown on it.

[zornwil]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

For a second, glancing at the email that came in to notify of new messages, I thought the title of the thread was "Elemental Killing Attacks"!

 

Two great controversies that go great together! (extra emoticons just for Rage)

[Vorsch]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

The RKA will always do less raw STUN (average or max).

 

I presume you dont mean Max here.

 

4d6 RKA max is 120 compared to 72

 

chance of a 100+ roll on a Ka is about 1 in 48

 

chance for a 60+ roll on a eb is about 1 in 4000, campared to 1 in 6 for a KA. Hmmm what would i choose..... such a difficult choice.

[Gary]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I presume you dont mean Max here.

 

4d6 RKA max is 120 compared to 72

 

chance of a 100+ roll on a Ka is about 1 in 48

 

Actually, 1 in 111.

 

 

chance for a 60+ roll on a eb is about 1 in 4000, campared to 1 in 6 for a KA. Hmmm what would i choose..... such a difficult choice.

 

60+ on 12d6 is 1 in 877. 60+ on 4d6 RKA is 1 in 4.8.

 

Just the math geek in me speaking.

[Vorsch]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

well i still favour the ka.

 

cheers

[ghost-angel]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Easier than answering the question' date=' apparently.[/quote']

 

Let me break it down for you... go back and read your own post if you forget the question.

 

first part: I don't like it (if that wasn't apparent already). But let me clarify: I think it's stupid, doesn't solve the problem and eliminates the deadliness that KILLING attacks are supposed to have.

 

second part: Total Number On Dice Rolled For KA times 3 (three).

[let me reference a rules page: 270, two hundred and seventy.]

 

[i at least use a sanctioned variant rather than some half baked idea]

 

 

does that help? or should I make a picture? diagrams maybe? a flow chart perhaps? let me know... because apparently plain English doesn't cut it.

 

 

and yeah - I noticed you hadn't much to say about the average 75 AP attack not being able to pop through 20DEF with the BODY rolled....

[jeddy]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I presume you dont mean Max here.

 

4d6 RKA max is 120 compared to 72

 

chance of a 100+ roll on a Ka is about 1 in 48

 

chance for a 60+ roll on a eb is about 1 in 4000, campared to 1 in 6 for a KA. Hmmm what would i choose..... such a difficult choice.

 

I am a horrible horrible crackhead. Please ignore all my previous posts on this subject. I have no idea where my numbers came from, but they're... um... a bit wrong. Continue to call it the STUN Lottery, i may start doing that too.

 

*skulks off to figure out where my math went bad*

[BNakagawa]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Let's use 30 AP for ease of math. 6d6 normal attack averages 21 STUN, 6 BOD.

 

2d6 KA averages 7 BOD and [7 x 2.67 =] 18.69 STUN

 

2.67 being the average of 1,1,2,3,4,5 which can be rolled as a stun multiple.

 

Maybe I'm not responding to what you were talking about?

 

Ghost angel was referring to the p270 variant where the stun mod is fixed at 3.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

does that help? or should I make a picture? diagrams maybe? a flow chart perhaps?

 

You're babbling.

 

You said that the Energy Blast game mechanic (xd6) was as broken, if not more broken, than the Killing Attack mechnaic (xd6 * (1d6 - y)). My question was "What do you think is wrong with the Energy Blast game mechanic, and what would you propose to fix it?"

 

Personally, I do not think you have an answer, because I do not think you put any thought into your original statement. Which is why your responses since have had the logical sturdiness of an episode of Gilligan's Island.

[zornwil]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Why do we have to respond so harshly to each other? Isn't it enough to disagree?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Why do we have to respond so harshly to each other? Isn't it enough to disagree?

 

I didn't initially mean it to be harsh. I made my case for sweepng away the last, lingering vestige of the Old Republic... (ahem) for fixing Killing damage, and having made my case I was content to leave it at that. Ghost Angel made a comment about the standard method for rolling damage which surprised me, so, aside from any discussion of how Killing damage is currently determined, I asked Ghost Angel to elaborate on that comment. But she hasn't, preferring to continue spouting nonsense about Killing damage, blah blah blah. And that, eventually, irked me, so I responded harshly.

 

I am not always as gracious as I would like to be. I'm still working on it.

 

I am also annoyed that my phrasing was so clumsy. "Logical sturdiness"? Bleh. Oh, well.

[Vorsch]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Having reviewed the last threads with Ghost Angel what nonsense is she spouting.

 

And 20rDef is meant to be nigh on indestructible, in hero its easy to be indestructable.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

You're babbling.

 

You said that the Energy Blast game mechanic (xd6) was as broken, if not more broken, than the Killing Attack mechnaic (xd6 * (1d6 - y)). My question was "What do you think is wrong with the Energy Blast game mechanic, and what would you propose to fix it?"

 

Personally, I do not think you have an answer, because I do not think you put any thought into your original statement. Which is why your responses since have had the logical sturdiness of an episode of Gilligan's Island.

 

Well, let's try this again.

 

Energy Blast Machanic is good for non-killing Normal Attacks. Killing Attacks should be lethal - have a higher Body Damage.

 

If the STUN Lotto is an issue page 270 of the Rule Book outlines an alternative that creates a flat STUN curve based off the roll on the dice.

 

Killing Attacks should not need to be changed: e.g. Number Rolled = Body Done (vs the EB Method with counting pips etc), to eliminate exceedingly low and exceedingly high STUN done by Killing Attacks simply use a flat "times 3" multiple to the Body Done.

 

75 AP Killing Attack = 5D6, assume a roll of 3,4,2,6,2 for 17 BODY.

instead of rolling another die and subtracting one, just multiply by 3.

17 * 3 = 51 STUN.

 

This prevents one from having to change a base mechanic of the game (ie, a Killing Attack Die = 3 Damage Classes, a Normal Attack Die = 1 Damage Class).

 

As for your very early clames regarding frustration that 75 Active Point Attacks routinely bounced off of 20 points of Defense some simple mathematics will note that it should bounce most of the time. 20 DEF is considered to be very high regarding BODY Damage.

 

If you want a character that is hard to STUN or bring to 0 STUN you have several options:

1. Purchase more STUN

2. Purchase more CON (to prevent the dreaded Stunned Condition)

3. Purchase DEF with a Limiation: vs STUN Only

4. do something uncalled for and alter the game mechanics for attacks.

 

It's all up to you, but I think option 4 is a lousy choice to make.

 

does that help?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Energy Blast Machanic is good for non-killing Normal Attacks. Killing Attacks should be lethal - have a higher Body Damage.

 

Oh, so it's just this stuff again. Been there, debunked it, moved on. But thanks for answering the question.

[zornwil]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I didn't initially mean it to be harsh. I made my case for sweepng away the last' date=' lingering vestige of the Old Republic... (ahem) for fixing Killing damage, and having made my case I was content to leave it at that. Ghost Angel made a comment about the [i']standard[/i] method for rolling damage which surprised me, so, aside from any discussion of how Killing damage is currently determined, I asked Ghost Angel to elaborate on that comment. But she hasn't, preferring to continue spouting nonsense about Killing damage, blah blah blah. And that, eventually, irked me, so I responded harshly.

 

I am not always as gracious as I would like to be. I'm still working on it.

 

I am also annoyed that my phrasing was so clumsy. "Logical sturdiness"? Bleh. Oh, well.

To be fair, that wasn't directed solely at you, and was by no means entitled to single you - or even this thread - out. And I'm not saying this as if I haven't done the same, either.

[gewing]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I guess I'll have to re-read. IIRC, You SAID you debunked it, and didn't really.

 

OH well.

 

 

 

Oh' date=' so it's just this stuff again. Been there, debunked it, moved on. But thanks for answering the question.[/quote']

[Rick]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

No ones debunked anything on either side of the arguement.

[palehorse]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Hmph... Well, I'm not yet convinced one way or another on making a rules change for Killing attacks, but I do think I'm going to drop them altogether for my next Champions game for a couple of other reasons. One, because I like to run non-lethal, Silver Age-y type games, and they're not really appropriate anyway. And two, because I have a bunch of HERO newcomers, it'll save me from having to explain the two different types of damage and two different types of armor to them, which has thrown some newcomers I've gamed with in the past.

 

So I guess however this thread turns out, I still got something good out of it.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

well i still favour the ka.

 

cheers

 

Well, who wouldn't? KAs are clearly superior at stunning superheroes and villains.

(ones with defenses and pretty high cons, anyways, just like 90% of the published ones)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

OK, bear with me, since I'm adding WAY more than 2 cents here in an effort to analyze this issue.

 

As I see it, the expressed problems with killing attacks are twofold. First, that they are not sufficiently lethal (which I assess as infliction of Body damage). Second, that they are excessively effective at inflicting STUN. In other words, normal attacks should be more effective at delivering a knockout and killing attacks should be more effective at killing.

 

Terms of Reference

 

I measure the ability of the attack in two ways. First, average damage. Second, range of damage, a measure of standard devation - how often will this attack significantly exceed its averages, thus making it more likely to punch through defenses.

 

While averages are easier, range is crucial. A power with greater range will have a better chance of punching through high defenses for substantial damage. Gary's shown statistically that, because of the greater variance, KA's are more likely to STUN high DEF, high CON characters, because on average, they will do more STUN after defenses. I'm not going to repeat his statistics.

 

For simplicity, examples will assuem a 60 AP power.

 

Present System

 

Lethality: A KA will average slightly more body than a normal attack, a difference of 1 BOD per 30 AP. A 4d6 KA averages 14 BOD, where a 12d6 EB averages 12. A KA has a much grerater range of damage, both because fewer diuce are rolled and because normal attacks vary only with rolls of 1 or 6. The primary incidence of "increased lethality" is the resistant defense rule. Against normals, the KA is considerably more lethal. Against peers of the characters (who generally have resistant defenses), it's not, really.

 

Knockout: A 4d6 KA averages 37.38 STUN. A 12d6 EB averages 42 Stun. However, again,. the KA has far greater range because STUN depends largely on the roll of a single die. 70+ STUN from a 4d6 KA is fairly common. 70+ STUN from a 12d6 EB requires at least 10 6's rolled - FAT CHANCE!

 

Ancillary stun from knockback could also be an issue. The EB averages 5" knockback and the KA 3.5". At very high levels, the KA ultimately overcomes the extra die to do more knockback (eg. 120 AP will be 17" for the EB and 17.5" for the KA). Again, the KA has greater range.

 

The EB caps at 72 - 1 chance in 2,176,782,336.

The KA caps at 120-1 chance in 7,776.

 

To illustrate, a character with SPD 5 would have to attack every phase for almost 1,650 game YEARS (no sleep, no breaks), on average, to achieve maximum STUN on an EB. The same character with a KA "only" requires 5.184 hours. Or, if we assume your character rolls damage, on average, 10 times per hour (combats being higher, noncombats lower) in a game, you'll have to play, non-stop, for almost 25,000 years. Your KA will take a little over a month of non-stop gaming to max out.

 

The EB also requires the same period to max out Body. The KA will get maximum BOD 1 time in 1,296 (our hypothetical character needs less than an hour of straight attacking, and our non-stop player needs 5.4 days.

 

CONCLUSION: Under the present system, the KA is only marginally more lethal, but can be significantly more effective in Stunning, and even delivering a one shot knockout. The EB has slight;ly greater average STUN, but far less range.

 

bblackmoor Solution

 

If I understand the proposal, it would change a KA to the same rolls as a normal attack. However, each die would do 1 BOD (even on a 1), or 2 on a 6. The attack wouldf apply against resistant defenses as the current KA does.

 

Lethality: This attack will average exactly the same BOD as a KA under the current system. Adding BOD on a 1 evens them out. However, it wll have far less range. If anything, that makes this version less lethal. Of course, normals will still be waxed, but how often do our characters fight normals?

 

Stun, on the other hand, is now exactly the same as a normal attack, except agaionst a target with no resistant defenses (who was likely to be KO'd anyway).

 

CONCLUSION: This only solves half the problem. It resolves the STUN issue, but killing attacks still aren't significantly more lethal than nornal attacks. If anything, they lose lethality due to the loss of range.

 

Proposed Solution

 

Well, Hero is the ultimate toolbox, right? There's probably a solution in here. **There it is!** A KA can take a -1/4 limitation for an extra -1 Stun Multiple. So let's impose a further -2 as the default. A KA does d6-3 x BOD for STUN, minimum 1x. That's an average of 1.5x BOD. Each d6 will cost 10 points, rather than 15 points. We replace the current KA with this default. How does that work?

 

Lethality: That 60 point KA now does 6d6, or 21 BOD on average. That's way more than 12 BOD inflicted by the EB, and will kill a normal on even under average rolls. It's got more dice, so a bit less range. Max BOD will be realized on 1 roll in 46,656 (1.296 dats for the character; 194.4 days for a player).

 

Stun: It averages 31.5 STUN versus the EB's 42, a much more substantial variance. However, it will equal the EB 1/6 of the time, and beat it by 50% 1/6 of the time. That final 1/6 remains a concern, and it still has greater range due to the BOD variance as well. [Our character needs almost 8 days to max stun, and our player about 3.2 years].

 

Let's fine tune it. Instead of d6-3 (1,1,1,1,2,3), let's make the stun multiple 1 or 2 (50% chance of either). That smooths out the curve, and should give the EB the STUN advantage in all cases (until Gary tells me otherwise, anyway...).

 

With this increased damage, knockback becomes an issue. For knockback purposes, let's use only half the KA's body. Now KA's will average 0" knockback, versus the 5" average of the EB. We could knock the subtraceted dice down to 2 if you want KA's to do knockback - now it will average 3.5" at 60 AP, still less than the EB.

 

[i[Conclusion[/i] This KA is much more lethal than an EB, or the current model KA. The cost is that it is not at al efficent at inflicting STUN - it will likely kill most targets long before knocking them out.

 

Do I Want to Change?

 

Well, I don't see huge problems in the current system. If you want killing attacks to be focused on killing the target, not knocking him out, the above approach will work admirably. But this change will change the tone of the game. If KA's are common, character death will be too.

 

As well, these KA's will cut through objects, automotons, entangles and force walls far more effectively than any power currently on the books. They will quickly find their place in the traditional swiss army multipowqer for that very purpose. This will be a propblem for any "more lethal" version of the killing attack. This could be alleviated in my mechanic by only applying 2/3 of the BOD from a KA to non-living targets, and we're back to the old averages. But we've also complicated the system at least as much as "roll dice, now roll another one and multiply".

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

OK' date=' bear with me, since I'm adding WAY more than 2 cents here in an effort to analyze this issue.[/quote']

 

Allow me to say that I am impressed at your effort. I think it will be wasted, though. There appear to be only a handful of people who even see the problems with Killing Attacks.

 

A KA will average slightly more body than a normal attack' date=' a difference of 1 BOD per 30 AP.[/quote']

 

The variance is less than 10%. The average of the two mechanics is virtually identical. In fact, it is as close to identical as it can be given the variables involved.

 

Against normals' date=' the KA is considerably more lethal.[/quote']

 

No. A "killing damage" attack rolled as (xd6) is of the same lethality as an attack rolled using (xd6 * (1d6 - y)). Targets without resistant defenses die.

 

If I understand the proposal' date=' it would change a KA to the same rolls as a normal attack. However, each die would do 1 BOD (even on a 1), or 2 on a 6. The attack wouldf apply against resistant defenses as the current KA does.[/quote']

 

Sorry, that was a typo. The Consistent Killing Damage rule is that killing attacks are rolled the same way normal attacks are rolled: (xd6) where x is the number of Damage Classes, with Stun and Body counted in the same way.

 

This only solves half the problem. It resolves the STUN issue' date=' but killing attacks still aren't significantly more lethal than nornal attacks.[/quote']

 

Do what? They kill people without resistant defenses. That's what killing attacks do. Against targets with resistant defenses, killing damage and non-killing damage are and should be indistinguishable. That's what resistant defenses are for.

 

But we've also complicated the system at least as much as "roll dice' date=' now roll another one and multiply".[/quote']

 

Since the needless complexity is explicitly one of the problems which needs to be solved with regard to the current (xd6 * (1d6 - y)) killing damage mechanic, yours is not an acceptable solution.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

The problem with a flat 3 stun multiple is that it fixes the range problem but not the average problem.

 

If you take a 1d6KA vs 3d6 EB striking a 6 def 8 con normal, the KA comes out on top.

 

It averages more stun through defenses 5 to 4.523. It also stuns the target more often, 1 shot in 3 compared to roughly 1 in 11 for the EB.

 

The only way in which the EB is superior is if the normal has 1 stun (The KA has a 1 in 3 chance of doing no damage and the EB has a 1 in 11 chance of the same) of you have some pressing need to inflict at least 1 stun to the target.

 

That and a marginally better chance of causing knockback.

[zornwil]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Very well done, Hugh, without offense to bblackmoor's rebuttals, I think that's an excellent summation and set of notions (other than adjusting for the typo pointed out, which, while not entirely trivial, by no means invalidates the post).