Eliminating Killing Attacks

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

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).

 

To be effective, I think these would need to be caps. Under your system, I assume a "BOD only" attack that does no STUN would not be possible. It's not viable now, so I don't see that as a change to the system.

 

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, this allows characters to get 25% more out of the extreme edges of the attacks - 25% more BOD dice than a killing attack nw allows, and 25% more STUN dice than an EB. Under the current system, 60 AP would get a 12d6 STUN only attack and a 4d6 KA, both at a discount from 60 RP.

 

Going back to that 6d6 6 DEF entangle, the above means the KA should break it every time and (with a 17.5 BOD average) double its BOD about half the time. As such, I still see a weakening of Force walls, entangkes and similar mechanics under your approach. And, again, the Brick becomes significantly disadvantaged against entangles, assuming he can't choose to define his STR as "Killing Damage".

 

Going back to our 25 DEF target, an extra 10.5 STUN gets through on each shot (average total is 52.5, or 27.5 STUN inflicted) so a Stun result is considerably more likely. Again, the Brick is disadvantaged assuming he can't choose to make his STR do "Stun Only" damage.

 

It would make the system more focused on offense (assuming average defense levels aren't increased) and reduce the competetiveness of DEF-based "attacks" like Entangle or Force Wall, while enhancing the effectiveness of drains and similar adjustment powers against "BOD Dice" only or "STUN Dice" only. It would also favour characters who can choose the breakdown on their attacks (most likely in a multipower) over characters who can't (such as Bricks). That may be good or bad, depending on the type of system you're trying to create.

 

I find it somewhat remeniscent of the old Golden Heroes approach. Characters had Hits to Stun and Hits to Kill as separate pools. Attacks did six sided dice of STUN and Kill which were equal, unless the character chose to vary them in which case the could vary by no more than (IIRC) 2d6.

 

The only substantive benefit I perceive is eliminating the STUN lottery, and I think there are mechanics for fdoing that which would make far less change to the system, and not have the same ripple effect. But I like the way the system currently balances between offense and defense, so I'm not supportive of a change which alters that balance. If you want a more offense-focused system (more STUN results, things break easier, fights end faster), this would be a good first step.

[atlascott]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

In non-supers games, it makes sense, because a club is not a bullet or knife.

 

In supers games, I discourage guys from taking killing attacks bc in 4 color games, they are fringe genre material. But I don't restrict them--but I DO make it clear that if they run around killing people, there are repercussions.

 

Last supers foray--one of my guys just buys a bunch of sifferent KA's, because he is The Predator. 5d6 hka, Hunted: Other supers: US govt., etc. Perfect example of being able to do something, but just because you can, doesnt mena you should....