6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

[MagicPegasus]

I love the 5th Edition rules and think they are a big improvement over the 4th and all the other Editions I've used since the beginning of this fantastic game.

 

But the stun multiplier rules could use an improvement. I have come up with an improved method for generating a STUN multiplier. Currently, the rules give you the following five options:

 

(1) Roll 1d6-1 (minimum of 1). This generates a number from 1 to 5 with an average of 2.67.

 

(2) Flat x3. This generates the number 3 with an average of 3.

 

(3) Roll 1/2d6. This generates a number from 1 to 3 with an average of 2.

 

(4) Roll 1/2d6+1. This gererates a number from 2 to 4 with an average of 3.

 

(5) Use the Hit Location Table. This generates a number from 1 to 5 with an average of 2.84.

 

It is my impression that the Hit Location Table will generate the sort of average STUN multilplier that the game designers wanted, since this is the system that they spent the most time on. So if you are going to use one die to generate a STUN multiplier, it would be best if it also generates an average of 2.84.

 

I have come up with a system I call the 6-2 STUN Multiplier Method. You simply roll 1d6 and if the result is a 6, it becomes a 2. The average STUN multiplier for this method is 2.83, almost exactly the same as the Hit Location Table. The following outlines the 6-2 Method:

 

(6) Roll 1d6 (a roll of 6 becomes a 2). This generates a number from 1 to 5 with an average of 2.83.

 

Using the 6-2 Method: When you roll a 6 you can just realize that it's really a 2 you rolled for the STUN multiplier. Or, if you want, you could take a black 1d6 and remove 4 of the dots using a black felt marker so it looks just like the 2 on the die. This makes the result very obvious and makes this STUN multiplier method easy to use.

 

If Hero Games ever put out a box package for the game it could include a STUN multiplier die with the following sides: x1, x2, x2, x3, x4, x5.

 

Let me know what you think.

 

-Kevin

[JMHammer]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

Kevin,

 

How did you determine the average Stun Multiplier for the Hit Location Table? There is only a 1 in 216 of rolling a 3 on 3d6, but a far greater chance of rolling a 10 on 3d6. If you didn't take this into account, the average Stun Multiplier from this method will probably be smaller than you had calculated.

 

But perhaps you did work this into your equations, and if so: Please ignore.

 

Best wishes,

John H

[MagicPegasus]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

I think I will need to recalculate my average from the Hit Location Table.

[MagicPegasus]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

I recalculated the average STUN multiplier from the Hit Location Table and came up with 2.82. So my original conclusions are all still valid. The 6-2 Method would work quite well.

[BNakagawa]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

The average of 2.8something stunmod for using the hit location table assumes that there will never be any called shots.

[paigeoliver]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

The average of 2.8something stunmod for using the hit location table assumes that there will never be any called shots.

 

I fail to see how that matters? I got halfway through typing a long explanation to why it didn't matter, and I just erased it. It doesn't matter, it would be unrelated data for the purposes of this. Much like saying that the average of 2.8 doesn't count weapons with increased stun multiple.

[BNakagawa]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

Assuming that the designers of the killing attack "intended" for the true average of the stunmod to be = to the average yielded by the hit location chart is not a good idea.

 

Your impression is mislead. The stun multiple was first printed in the first printing of Champions. The hit location chart first appeared in Espionage.

 

If you do a search of the boards, there have been pages and pages posted on the mathematical analysis that show that, even with an average of 2.67, the stunmod of KAs is probably too large. Increasing it to 2.8whatever is just going to make it worse.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

I think the issue that most people have with STUNx isn't so much what the average STUNx is... it's what the extreme STUNx's are and how often they come up. Yes, your "6-2" method will give you an average result that is very close to the average result of the Hit Location Chart STUNx... slightly closer than the 1d6-1 method.

 

However, the 6-2 method doesn't much address the real problem with the 1d6-1 method... the one that usually causes people to turn away from it in search of something better. Namely, that a STUNx of 5 comes up one time in six, and a STUNx of 1 comes up 2 times in six. This is the "STUN Lottery;" the one-in-six chance that you can wallop something (or do almost nothing) to a degree many players find disproportionate.

 

With the 6-2 method, you still get a STUN of 5 one time in six. It's still a STUN lottery. It doesn't make you less likely to get a 5, it just changes the average slightly. It does make you less likely to get a 1, but not nearly in the at the same level as the Hit Location Chart.

 

With the Hit Location Chart, the chance of getting a STUNx of 5 is not one-in-six (16.67%) like the 1d6-1 method or the 6-2 method. It's 4.63%, or less than one-in-twenty.

 

And with the HLC, the chance of getting a STUNx of 1 is not two-in-six (33.33%) like the 1d6-1 method or even one-in-six (16.67%) like the 6-2 method... it's only 6.48%, or less than one-in-fifteen.

 

Strictly as a replacement for 1d6-1, I guess the 6-2 method is okay. But most folks seek alternative STUNx methods because they want to lessen the impact of the STUN lottery, and 6-2 does not do this at all. The HCL is a much better bet for that.

[lemming]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

I fail to see how that matters? I got halfway through typing a long explanation to why it didn't matter' date=' and I just erased it. It doesn't matter, it would be unrelated data for the purposes of this. Much like saying that the average of 2.8 doesn't count weapons with increased stun multiple.[/quote']

Well, I see Bryce's point and your's as well. You're both coming at it from different directions.

 

I think Bryce is against the Stun lotto which is my reason as well for going to a flat 3 multiple.

 

And Derek did a very nice breakdown.

[MagicPegasus]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

Thank you all for responding to my posting.

 

I agree that the main problem with the 1d6-1 method is the STUN Lottery as it is so aptly refered to. My 6-2 method was mainly trying to get the resulting average STUN multiplier to equal that of the Hit Location Table. It did achieve that goal but the STUN Lottery problem is still out there.

 

Hi/Low STUN Multiplier

 

My original idea for an improvement in this regard was what I called the Hi/Low STUN Multiplier. It is a super simple idea that is very easy to impliment. You simply roll 1d6. On a roll of 1 to 3 the multiplier is x2, and on a roll of 4 to 6 the multiplier is x3. This generates a number between 2 and 3 with an average of 2.5. It completely gets rid of the STUN Lottery effect, and it generates a random multiplier very quickly.

 

The reason I didn't post this as my first suggestion was that it's ave was 2.5 and maybe that was too low considering that 1d6-1 (minimum of 1) will give you 2.67 and the HLT will give you 2.82.

 

This begs the question as to what the average STUN multiplier should be in the first place. If you compare a 12d6 EB with a 4d6 RKA you find the following averages:

 

12d6 EB (42 STUN/12 BODY) vs. normal

4d6 RKA (37 STUN/14 BODY) vs. resistant (using 1d6-1 method, min of 1)

4d6 RKA (42 STUN/14 BODY) vs. resistant (using flat x3 method)

4d6 RKA (39 STUN/14 BODY) vs. resistant (using my 6-2 method)

4d6 RKA (35 STUN/14 BODY) vs. resistant (using my hi/low method)

4d6 RKA (35 STUN/14 BODY) vs. resistant (using 1d6-1 method, no min)

 

My first observation is that using the flat x3 method you do just as much STUN and more BODY than the 12d6 EB. I would rather have the RKA than the EB anyday because it is more powerful for the same amount of points.

 

The 1d6-1 and 6-2 methods do a more resonable amount of damage but they a plagued by the STUN Lottery effect.

 

Now, if you remove the minimum of 1 restriction from the 1d6-1 method you generate a number between 0 and 5 with an average of 2.5. This is exactly the same average as my hi/low method. Now it will do an average of 2 points less STUN damage with a 60 point attack, but considering that it is only vs. resistant defenses, I think it is balanced.

 

The hi/low method is fast and balanced and gets rid of the extreem randomness. It is my first choice.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

I like 1,2,3,3,3,4

 

That gets the same average as d6-1, with less extremes.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

Consider just going to a straightforward d3 STUN Multiple.

[Gary]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

Thank you all for responding to my posting.

 

I agree that the main problem with the 1d6-1 method is the STUN Lottery as it is so aptly refered to. My 6-2 method was mainly trying to get the resulting average STUN multiplier to equal that of the Hit Location Table. It did achieve that goal but the STUN Lottery problem is still out there.

 

Hi/Low STUN Multiplier

 

My original idea for an improvement in this regard was what I called the Hi/Low STUN Multiplier. It is a super simple idea that is very easy to impliment. You simply roll 1d6. On a roll of 1 to 3 the multiplier is x2, and on a roll of 4 to 6 the multiplier is x3. This generates a number between 2 and 3 with an average of 2.5. It completely gets rid of the STUN Lottery effect, and it generates a random multiplier very quickly.

 

The reason I didn't post this as my first suggestion was that it's ave was 2.5 and maybe that was too low considering that 1d6-1 (minimum of 1) will give you 2.67 and the HLT will give you 2.82.

 

This begs the question as to what the average STUN multiplier should be in the first place. If you compare a 12d6 EB with a 4d6 RKA you find the following averages:

 

12d6 EB (42 STUN/12 BODY) vs. normal

4d6 RKA (37 STUN/14 BODY) vs. resistant (using 1d6-1 method, min of 1)

4d6 RKA (42 STUN/14 BODY) vs. resistant (using flat x3 method)

4d6 RKA (39 STUN/14 BODY) vs. resistant (using my 6-2 method)

4d6 RKA (35 STUN/14 BODY) vs. resistant (using my hi/low method)

4d6 RKA (35 STUN/14 BODY) vs. resistant (using 1d6-1 method, no min)

 

My first observation is that using the flat x3 method you do just as much STUN and more BODY than the 12d6 EB. I would rather have the RKA than the EB anyday because it is more powerful for the same amount of points.

 

The 1d6-1 and 6-2 methods do a more resonable amount of damage but they a plagued by the STUN Lottery effect.

 

Now, if you remove the minimum of 1 restriction from the 1d6-1 method you generate a number between 0 and 5 with an average of 2.5. This is exactly the same average as my hi/low method. Now it will do an average of 2 points less STUN damage with a 60 point attack, but considering that it is only vs. resistant defenses, I think it is balanced.

 

The hi/low method is fast and balanced and gets rid of the extreem randomness. It is my first choice.

 

 

Comparing raw stun for killing and normal attacks isn't a good idea. You need to compare net stun after defenses for the typical defense level of your campaign, and you have to compare the probability of Stunning the target with one hit.

[MagicPegasus]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

Using 1,2,3,3,3,4 does reduce the extremes somewhat, but it's hard to impliment without a new chart or a die with just those numbers on it.

 

Using a straightforward d3 STUN Multiple is very quick and simple, but it generates an average number of 2.

 

An average between 2.5 and 2.8 is probably the best. My hi/low method will do this. Another way to look at my hi/low method is that it is a 1d2+1 STUN Multiplier.

[MagicPegasus]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

I got my chart of 3d6 roll probabilities and it was acurate within 0.001%. So I was able to recalculated the Hit Location Table with it with complete accuracy. It turns out that the average STUN Multiplier from it is actually 2.8652 (or 2.86). So that table definately makes killing attacks more powerfull. And that's not even including called shots.

[paigeoliver]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

I got my chart of 3d6 roll probabilities and it was acurate within 0.001%. So I was able to recalculated the Hit Location Table with it with complete accuracy. It turns out that the average STUN Multiplier from it is actually 2.8652 (or 2.86). So that table definately makes killing attacks more powerfull. And that's not even including called shots.

 

If your doing a called shot it is probably the head, which in most genres with called shots would have a good chance of being unarmored. Which means the stun is the last thing you have to worry about.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

I got my chart of 3d6 roll probabilities and it was acurate within 0.001%. So I was able to recalculated the Hit Location Table with it with complete accuracy. It turns out that the average STUN Multiplier from it is actually 2.8652 (or 2.86). So that table definately makes killing attacks more powerfull. And that's not even including called shots.

 

Except that, if you're using hit locations anyway, you are presumably also using them for normal attacks. So that Head Shot that inflicts 5x STUN x on a KA also doubles STUN from a normal attack (OUCH!). To me, that would level the playing field somewhat.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

Keep in mind that you don't have to use the entire HLC in order to use it for the STUNx. In our games, we roll all STUNx's on 3d6 per the HLC, but don't use the actual HLC for anything else (no BODY mods, no called shots, etc.) We just use the 3d6 roll for the bell curve on the STUNx.

[Trebuchet]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

I got my chart of 3d6 roll probabilities and it was acurate within 0.001%. So I was able to recalculated the Hit Location Table with it with complete accuracy. It turns out that the average STUN Multiplier from it is actually 2.8652 (or 2.86). So that table definately makes killing attacks more powerfull. And that's not even including called shots.

Called shots' date=' however, change the probabilities of even [i']getting[/i] a hit considerably. The penalties for a called shot go as high as -8, and that decreased probability has to be factored into any modified Stun Multiple method. Your numbers apply only to random hits on the Hit Location Chart. And calculating that will be very difficult because -4 (or -3, or whatever) have a very different effect on different characters due to variations in CV. Making a called -8 head shot might be fairly routine for a PC with a 38 DEX, martial arts, and 3 Skill Levels; it's another thing entirely for a normal hero with an 18 DEX and one level. Gary is the only person on these boards I'd trust to crunch numbers like that to calculate the actual probabilities.

 

I've never been a fan of the Stun Lottery, but were I to find it necessary to address I'd simply cap the max stun multiple at 4 (Since I run and play in a four color game where Killing Attacks are rather uncommon, I've not had any real reason to institute a change.). Thus d6-1 would provide Stun Multiple rolls of 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4. This in essence gives you a reversed bell curve, and keeps the Stun Multiple a bit lower.

[DoctorItron]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

I agree that the STUN lottery problem is the 1 in 6 chance of getting a x5 multiplier. Most villains crumble under such withering firepower. As a GM, I don't want to give every master villain 50% damage resistance in order to avoid going down in one shot.

 

My current campaign tried a few house rules, and the best fix for us seems to be 1d4 for the multiplier. Works out to an average of 2.5 - close enough to the 1d6-1 average of 2.67. A minor advantageous side-effect of the switch to 1d4 is that someone can roll their killing dice and the multiplier without having to declare which die is the multiplier.

 

The x3 multiplier was no good when we tried it. Killing attacks use less dice than energy blasts with the same active points. The killing attack has more variability because of fewer dice, and therefore still involves a bit of STUN lottery. I crunched some numbers and decided a 2.7 fixed multiplier would be okay, but the math would be awkward.

 

We also tried keeping the standard 1d6-1, but turning a roll of 6 into x4 (rather than x5). Possible results were 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4. The ends of the bell curve came up too often.

[JohnOSpencer]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

Keep in mind that you don't have to use the entire HLC in order to use it for the STUNx. In our games' date=' we roll all STUNx's on 3d6 per the HLC, but don't use the actual HLC for anything else (no BODY mods, no called shots, etc.) We just use the 3d6 roll for the bell curve on the STUNx.[/quote']

 

This is what I do as well and aside from one player who is always hit in the vitals it works very well.

 

John

[MagicPegasus]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

I like some of your ideas and alternate ways of doing the STUN multiplier. The original method of 1d6-1 has a number of built in problems and that is why the 5E rules has 4 alternative methods. And some of you folks have your own house rules to deal with the problem. And that's why I came up with two of my own methods. The 6-2 method replaces a roll of 6 with a 2. But I like my other idea more.

 

In the hi/low method (or 1d2+1) you roll a six-sided die and a roll of 1,2, or 3 gives you a x2 STUN multiplier while a roll of 4,5, or 6 gives you a x3 STUN multiplier. For me, this is the way I would go.

 

Using the Hit Location Table generates a nice bell curve where you only get a x1 6.5 % of the time and a x5 with only 4.6 % probability. And it adds color by saying where you hit. The downside is it takes a bit longer to use and that it has an average STUN multiplier of x2.86. I now feel that this is too high an average. As another poster pointed out, the HLT was only introduced in Danger International and the original method had a lower average.

 

Rolling 1d4 does make identifying the STUN multiplier die very easy, and it gets rid of the x5. But the x1 still comes up 25 % of the time.

 

Using 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4 does get rid of the x5 and it has an average of x2.5 which I think is the perfect average. But the x1 and x4 will each come up 33 % of the time. A 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4 variant would put the wieght towards the middle and would be a good improvement over the 1d6-1 (minimum of 1) system. But you need a table or a special die with only those numbers in order to impliment the idea. You could get a black die for your STUN multiplier and use a black marker to change the 6 to a 2 and the 5 to a 3.

 

But for easy implimentation the 1d2+1 (or hi/low method) works the best. It is actually simular to the flat x3 method, except it generates x2 and x3.

 

As DoctorItron pointed out, killing attacks use less dice than normal attacks with the same active points. This means that on a 4d6 RKA it is more likely to roll all 6's or all 1's than on a 12d6 EB. That effect alone creates a minor STUN lottery for killing attacks. That's why I don't have a problem with just going with x2 or x3 as in the 1d2+1 method.

[John T]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

Comparing raw stun for killing and normal attacks isn't a good idea. You need to compare net stun after defenses for the typical defense level of your campaign' date=' and you have to compare the probability of Stunning the target with one hit.[/quote']

Another minor balancing factor on KAs (and, incidentally, Martial Arts) is the reduced Knockback.

 

John T

[DoctorItron]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

Another minor balancing factor on KAs (and, incidentally, Martial Arts) is the reduced Knockback.

 

John T

 

Knockback can be your friend, but it can also be your enemy.

 

For HTH KA's and martial attacks the reduced knockback acts somewhat like an advantage. If a PC HTH fighter runs up to a villain energy blaster and does a lot of knockback, then the PC gets shot while trying to close the distance again.

[JohnOSpencer]

Re: 6-2 Stun Multiplier Method

 

Using the Hit Location Table generates a nice bell curve where you only get a x1 6.5 % of the time and a x5 with only 4.6 % probability. And it adds color by saying where you hit. The downside is it takes a bit longer to use and that it has an average STUN multiplier of x2.86. I now feel that this is too high an average. As another poster pointed out, the HLT was only introduced in Danger International and the original method had a lower average.

 

I'm not sure why your so hot on a 2.86 average being too much. An equal DC Normal damage attack is going to do more stun on average. Granted, not much more, but more. The only time the Hit location chart gets out of hand is when the KA had extra stun multiple.

 

John