Bulletproof

[Kristopher]

Re: Bulletproof

 

If I ever actually get to run something again, I'm just going to use a x3 STUN multiplier for all Killing Attacks.

 

I really don't see a need to make different types of weapons or other attacks different. Physics doesn't care whether a .40SIG bullet was fired from a mundane pistol or a supervillain's "Killstick MkII."

[zornwil]

Re: Bulletproof

 

Based on comments above, I must say I really have no issue with the great STUN produced by unusually high numbers in the "STUN lottery". I have always found it to work well enough as a representation of a killing attack landing in a bad spot or such, and it reminds me of how glancing blows have put down heroes completely on occassion, even if in point of fact in the comics it's, I admit, moreso a plot device.

 

That being said, I fully appreciate the concern over (for example) a 2d6 KA from a "regular" weapon producing 50 stun damage and stunning a PC. From what I can see, though, fewer (?) are objecting to this sort of damage being inflicted by a 2d6 KA power, the primary objection is where this sort of damage can come from a mook who shouldn't have the power to really cause a PC (at least in most Champions as opposed to heroic-level games) to break a sweat. IF one falls into this category of not being concerned about powers as opposed to mook-level armaments, I don't think there's a realistic fix, frankly, aside from the advice given in the text as to speeding up combat and dealing with mooks, which includes (IIRC - ?) basic advice on handwaving mook damage. I say I don't think there's a true systemic fix because I don't think realistically it makes sense to try to factor damage from mooks as separate from powered or "significant" NPCs and that's almost the only place this road goes to. The only other places I can think of is restricting stun multiples on weapons bought as real world or, much more hairy, revamping completely the damages these weapons produce and then rescaling the entire system somehow.

 

If the objection is more generic and is as to the STUN lottery, well, I just am not down with "fixing" that as I think it works great, so on that point I can only agree to disagree.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Bulletproof

 

If I ever actually get to run something again' date=' I'm just going to use a x3 STUN multiplier for [b']all[/b] Killing Attacks.

 

I really don't see a need to make different types of weapons or other attacks different. Physics doesn't care whether a .40SIG bullet was fired from a mundane pistol or a supervillain's "Killstick MkII."

 

I would agree, except than killing attacks do as much Stun and more Body than normal attacks.

 

Going with the statistical average of 2.5 base could work, but is messy.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Bulletproof

 

I would agree, except than killing attacks do as much Stun and more Body than normal attacks.

 

Going with the statistical average of 2.5 base could work, but is messy.

 

I go with the x3 myself, as I said before, as it reduces the largest issue, which is extreme stun rolls. That being said, KAs do...

 

...for the same active points as a Normal Attack you get...

... more body on average

... equivalent stun

... limited defenses that can apply to this attack

 

So... if this is true... by 5th Edition rules... to get an equivalent attack, you'd need AVLD +(x1.5) Does Body +(x1) and increased Body (nothing remotely like this in the book, so say give it a +(x.5) This means that roughly... a KA is a +(x3) modifier. So a single dice of KA should be 20 points, not 15 (equivalent of a x2 multiplier.)

 

I guess if you ignore the slight increase in Body and put a limit on the AVLD that allows non-resistant vs. the Stun as long you have SOME resistant... you can fudge the number back toward a x2 multiple.

 

Still, KAs are a more efficient attack, based on the core rule of 5 pts = 1d6.

 

So... taking this conversation even further off on a tangent... would it make sense to have KAs cost 20 points per d6? Would this balance the equation (and in this case I'm not even considering the stun lotto, which I jettisoned years ago.)

 

5 pts. = 1 pip killing

10 pts. = 1/2d6 killing

15 pts. = 1/2d6+1 killing

20 pts = 1d6 killing

 

Unlikely to change anything, but just something that has bugged me about KA pricing.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Bulletproof

 

Always good for a laugh. Look, I agree with you, John. Kill Attack should be a measurably different power. It should do more BODY and less STUN than a normal attack at the same DC. The game is set up so that is accomplished by defences rather than how the power is defined, which is fine, but leads to these problems being endlessly debated.

 

You say bricks don't have to worry about bullets in comics? Agreed. But all of them are scared of Wolverine's claws. The problem is that the system as it stands doesn't model that: even a 2d6 RKA can get (on a lucky roll) through virtually any defences.

 

Perhaps I would be persuaded to apply the 'stun multiple only BODY that gets through' line if the power did more BODY? As is I thiink it completely neuters the power...which may be your point.

 

BTW: my name isnt John.

 

The assumption on your part apparantly is that Wolvy's claws are 2d6. My assumption would be if bricks arent concerned by 2d6 KA bullets but are concerned by wolvy's claws, then more than likely his claws do more than 2d6.

 

However, even considering that, aside from some tough talk and flavor, how often does wolvy actually slice someone open? Practically never, since valuable IP rarely gets offed. Wolvy typically opens up on characters that are either not organic, are faceless goons, or can take it.

 

Eitherway, my method does not neuter Killing Attacks as long as you are using them to actually inflict BODY Damage, it simply ties their STUN directly to the amount of BODY that actually gets thru defenses rather than haphazardly resulting in auto-staggers or comas from attacks that completely bounced off the character.

 

The major problem with KA's is that because of the multiplied STUN factor of KA's as the AP's climb the range of STUN generated from killing attacks outpaces defenses, requiring characters that want to resist them to buy their defenses up extremely high.

 

Thus, IMO, KA's are more powerful than normal attacks for the same cost in high powered games such as the supers genre. Further, Killing Attacks are against the genre of many classic supers games. Thus, yes, my method deliberately dillutes KA's on the high end. That's the purpose of a House Rule after all -- to correct a perceived flaw. The lethality of KA's is untouched by the method, but the STUN Lottery is eliminated.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Bulletproof

 

I go with the x3 myself, as I said before, as it reduces the largest issue, which is extreme stun rolls. That being said, KAs do...

 

...for the same active points as a Normal Attack you get...

... more body on average

... equivalent stun

... limited defenses that can apply to this attack

 

SNIP

 

Still, KAs are a more efficient attack, based on the core rule of 5 pts = 1d6.

 

SNIP

I agree that they are more effective, but rather than increasing the cost of KA's I prefer to lower their effectiveness, thus not throwing the points off for all the characters that already have KA's.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Bulletproof

 

However' date=' even considering that, aside from some tough talk and flavor, how often does wolvy actually slice someone open? Practically never, since valuable IP rarely gets offed. Wolvy typically opens up on characters that are either not organic, are faceless goons, or can take it. [/quote']

 

He did take a big slice out of Ben Grimm's rocky face some years back. The Thing i as well defended as any brick, IMO.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Bulletproof

 

He did take a big slice out of Ben Grimm's rocky face some years back. The Thing i as well defended as any brick' date=' IMO.[/quote'] Which sounds like BODY dmg, not STUN dmg to me.

 

The point is, via the stanard HERO System KA resolution Wolvy could scrape his claws across Ben Grimm's rocky hide, have no real effect, but rock out on the STUN multiple and put the Thing into a STUN-coma.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Bulletproof

 

Which sounds like BODY dmg, not STUN dmg to me.

 

The point is, via the stanard HERO System KA resolution Wolvy could scrape his claws across Ben Grimm's rocky hide, have no real effect, but rock out on the STUN multiple and put the Thing into a STUN-coma.

 

Agreed - KA's are overly effective at inflicting STUN, and not effective enough at getting BOD through. Ideally, a KA would average higher BOD and lower STUN. However, if you take this approach, KA's become overly effective at breaking force walls, automatons and entangles, creating that always-feared ripple effect.

 

What if we made KA's work as follows:

 

- 1d6 costs 5 points

- Count damage exactly like a normal attack

- against a living target, BOD is increased by 50%

- only resistant defenses count against the BOD

- STUN is reduced by resistant defenses twice

 

The average roll will be 42 STUN, 12 BOD. Against an object, it's as effective as an energy blast.

 

Against a normal (8 BOD), all 18 BOD goes through - he's killed instantly. He would also take 40 STUN. An EB leaves him at -2 BOD and does 40 STUN.

 

Against a Super of (say) 20 PD, 10 rPD, it inflicts 8 BOD and (42 - 20 - 10) 12 STUN. An EB would inflict 22 STUN, no BOD.

 

Against a Brick (say 30 PD, 15 resistant) it inflicts 3 BOD and no STUN, where an EB would inflict 12 STUN, but no BOD

 

A much more lethal KA, although very high DEF targets (especially high rDEF) will be completely immune.

[Gary]

Re: Bulletproof

 

Just thinking. Maybe make it a Talent?

 

How about Force Wall 0 End Persistent Transparent to Energy (+1.5) Self Only (-1/2) No Range (-1/2) Only vs attacks with Real Weapon limitation (-2)?

 

This translates to roughly 3 pts for 2 pts of the "Invulnerability" Talent.

 

If a character wants 12 pts of "Invulnerability" to Real Weapons, he pays 18 pts and he's completely proof against 2d6 of Real Weapons. Against larger size Real Weapons, he will take no damage if the body of the attack is less than or equal to 12, and he has an additional 12 PD vs larger Real Weapons.

[zornwil]

Re: Bulletproof

 

Just thinking. Maybe make it a Talent?

 

How about Force Wall 0 End Persistent Transparent to Energy (+1.5) Self Only (-1/2) No Range (-1/2) Only vs attacks with Real Weapon limitation (-2)?

 

This translates to roughly 3 pts for 2 pts of the "Invulnerability" Talent.

 

If a character wants 12 pts of "Invulnerability" to Real Weapons, he pays 18 pts and he's completely proof against 2d6 of Real Weapons. Against larger size Real Weapons, he will take no damage if the body of the attack is less than or equal to 12, and he has an additional 12 PD vs larger Real Weapons.

Talent, at least for the super genre, is a good solution at least conceptually. I like the idea of sticking it there. And the construction seems right. You might be on to something here.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Bulletproof

 

Agreed - KA's are overly effective at inflicting STUN' date=' and not effective enough at getting BOD through. Ideally, a KA would average higher BOD and lower STUN. However, if you take this approach, KA's become overly effective at breaking force walls, automatons and entangles, creating that always-feared ripple effect.[/quote']I think we're trying to make this much more complicated than it really needs to be. I think we should consider making KAs simply do the same Stun as they do BODY; i.e., get rid of the Stun Multiplier entirely. A 2d6 KA would have a fair chance of killing a normal in a single shot (especially if we use Hit Locations, as would be in most realistic/non-super campaigns.) It might take a couple of shots or a bit of bleeding time to kill a normal with 8-10 BODY, but that's not unrealistic given that over 90% of gunshot victims survive if they get medical treatment. Only Resistant defenses would apply against Stun from Killing Attacks.

 

This still makes Killing Attacks more lethal than regular attacks (as they should be) but prevents them from delivering ludicrously high Stun results as they can under current rules. And if lethality is needed for Dark Champions/Fantasy Hero/Iron Age campaigns, the Hit Location Chart is more than adequate for a wider range of Stun results.

 

This might make it more practical for lightly defended supers to forego resistant defenses, since extra BODY would be just as useful in preventing death by "real" weapons. As an additional bonus, this would make building quasi-Invulnerable characters a lot easier. Simply decide what level of Killing Attack you want the character to be invulnerable to and buy just that much Resistant defenses. Want to ignore anything up to a heavy machine gun? Then 18+ rPD ought to do the trick. Want to ignore modern tanks? 48 rPD is the magic number.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Bulletproof

 

here's some alternate ideas to think about on this subject...

 

Most RPG combat mimics real life pretty good in one important aspect. Killing someone is usually easier than just subduing them. Law enforcement deals with this problem all the time as the recent death of a Boston Red Socks fan from pepper spray illustrates. There is nothing wrong with Killing attacks being slightly more powerful than Normal ones. They represent the ultimate choice when being used. If you using a killing attack against an unknown opponent you are trying to kill him first, subdue second.

 

It is a moral choice no different than the one made by all other Jedi to refrain from emulating the Emperor by using the Dark Side powers like Force Lightning and Force Choke Holds. Real world Political/Military comanders have to make similar decisions with regard to the use of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons. The Super Hero genre gives a very good example of this with Superman. He has access to one of the more powerful RKA attacks with his Heat Vision. Does he use it vs. opponents very often? No, because very few have such incredible resistance to damage like himself he chooses to not risk killing them when other options like his fists are still available.

 

Even if the genre of what ever game being played is not Super-Heroes or the players do not have Codes vs. Killing the GM can still show the negative aspects of indescriminate use of lethal force instead of using more 'Normal' attacks.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Bulletproof

 

BTW: my name isnt John.

 

The assumption on your part apparantly is that Wolvy's claws are 2d6. My assumption would be if bricks arent concerned by 2d6 KA bullets but are concerned by wolvy's claws, then more than likely his claws do more than 2d6.

 

However, even considering that, aside from some tough talk and flavor, how often does wolvy actually slice someone open? Practically never, since valuable IP rarely gets offed. Wolvy typically opens up on characters that are either not organic, are faceless goons, or can take it.

 

Sorry NotJohn, I was looking at the bottom of the post and saw the name: it's your quote (smacks forehead with palm, or possibly some sort of fern)

 

In answer to the Wolvy point, the slice up frequency depends on who is writing him.

 

Look, what I might do is post a poll to see if people think that Killing attacks are a good mechanic or not. If every one loves them, why am I still talking?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Bulletproof

 

Just thinking. Maybe make it a Talent?

 

How about Force Wall 0 End Persistent Transparent to Energy (+1.5) Self Only (-1/2) No Range (-1/2) Only vs attacks with Real Weapon limitation (-2)?

 

This translates to roughly 3 pts for 2 pts of the "Invulnerability" Talent.

 

Best "use of mechanics" solution yet. I take it you're handwaving the need for indirect on Superman's STR to attack through his force wall (as well as the +2 points to cover his full hex), given the lack of abuse in the construct.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Bulletproof

 

I think we're trying to make this much more complicated than it really needs to be. I think we should consider making KAs simply do the same Stun as they do BODY; i.e.' date=' get rid of the Stun Multiplier entirely. A 2d6 KA would have a fair chance of killing a normal in a single shot (especially if we use Hit Locations, as would be in most realistic/non-super campaigns.) It might take a couple of shots or a bit of bleeding time to kill a normal with 8-10 BODY, but that's not unrealistic given that over 90% of gunshot victims survive if they get medical treatment. Only Resistant defenses would apply against Stun from Killing Attacks.[/quote']

 

And typical characters would buy this attack...why? I'm assuming you aren't changing the cost of the KA. A 60 AP KA therefore averages 14 BOD and STUN, and maxes out at 24 BOD/Stun. How often will a typical Super take damage from this? If he does, of course, he'll likely run out of BOD before running out of STUN, so WolvyClone can't take opponents down, only out.

 

This might make it more practical for lightly defended supers to forego resistant defenses' date=' since extra BODY would be just as useful in preventing death by "real" weapons. As an additional bonus, this would make building quasi-Invulnerable characters a lot easier. Simply decide what level of Killing Attack you want the character to be invulnerable to and buy just that much Resistant defenses. Want to ignore anything up to a heavy machine gun? Then 18+ rPD ought to do the trick. Want to ignore modern tanks? 48 rPD is the magic number.[/quote']

 

Assumes you don't encounter KA's very often -e extra BOD will delay death, but you need a l,ot more time to recover BOD in between hits from KA's (assuming Regen and Healing aren't available readily).

[Gary]

Re: Bulletproof

 

Best "use of mechanics" solution yet. I take it you're handwaving the need for indirect on Superman's STR to attack through his force wall (as well as the +2 points to cover his full hex)' date=' given the lack of abuse in the construct.[/quote']

 

 

Yeah, there's going to be some handwaving. And you're correct that I think it's ok because the construct isn't the slightest bit abusive.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Bulletproof

 

OK, stupid of me to think a poll might resolve anything. The consensus seem to be that we like KAs, but there are a significant proportion of those who do like them who argue against the STUN lottery.

 

I suppose one real objection, in some ways, to Killing Attacks is that they are priced equivalently to normal attacks (average damage works out about the same for a 12d6 EB or a 4d6KA - yes, I know deviation from the average is a problem, but bear with me) but are stopped by a more limited group of defences, which in a utility balancing exercise means they should cost more.

 

So, I thought we might make them cost less. I posted this suggestion earlier, but I've refined the idea a little. You cost KAs like EBs with a +1/2 advantage: BODY only stopped by resistant defences, STUN only stopped if there are SOME resistant defences (as we are used to). Resistant defences are very common, so this shouldn't be too much unrealistic. Roll the dice as if it was a normal attack, total up STUN and BODY, then double the BODY. The attack then does more BODY and less STUN. Use the base BODY damage to calculate KB, without the additional 1d6 penalty. If you want to keep KAs as a seperate power rather than modified normal damage, they would cost 7.5 points per 1d6. This would be better, probably, or a 4d6KA with armour piercing would work out at 40 points rather than 45, but either way works for me, and 7.5 is such an awkward number when we are used to 5s and 10s.

 

Example: a 2d6 RKA (7 BODY, 19 stun average, max damage 12 BODY, 60 STUN) becomes a 4d6 RKA doing 8 BODY and 14 STUN average (max damage 16 BODY, 24 STUN), and it IS much more of an average. It is a consistent mechanic with the rest of the game and should be easy to implement - just double the number of dice and roll as above. Moreover it means that KAs will do more BODY and less STUN per DC, which some people have been arguing is how it should work.

 

It still isn't 'fair' in that KA should be more expensive, but it then makes them practically pointless in superhero games. You can't win them all.

 

What do you think? (I don't expect anyone to abandon the current system, I'm not QUITE that egotistical yet, but do give this one some thought. Cheers.)

 

This method should make KAs in superhero games no more effective: I fully expect that many heroes will have sufficient defences to stop the damage entirely (a 4d6 KA becomes an 8d6 KA and does 16 BODY/28 Stun on average), but it does mean that KAs are better at breaking stuff. At heroic level, it makes guns just as deadly and scary, especially if used in conjunction with hit locations, but slightly more predicatable.

[zornwil]

Re: Bulletproof

 

Yeah' date=' there's going to be some handwaving. And you're correct that I think it's ok because the construct isn't the slightest bit abusive.[/quote']

I will add - handwaving is okay for Talents, basically, given the way Talent construction was explained IMHO.

 

BTW, rep will be coming your way Gary.

[zornwil]

Re: Bulletproof

 

OK, stupid of me to think a poll might resolve anything. The consensus seem to be that we like KAs, but there are a significant proportion of those who do like them who argue against the STUN lottery.

 

I suppose one real objection, in some ways, to Killing Attacks is that they are priced equivalently to normal attacks (average damage works out about the same for a 12d6 EB or a 4d6KA - yes, I know deviation from the average is a problem, but bear with me) but are stopped by a more limited group of defences, which in a utility balancing exercise means they should cost more.

 

So, I thought we might make them cost less. I posted this suggestion earlier, but I've refined the idea a little. You cost KAs like EBs with a +1/2 advantage: BODY only stopped by resistant defences, STUN only stopped if there are SOME resistant defences (as we are used to). Resistant defences are very common, so this shouldn't be too much unrealistic. Roll the dice as if it was a normal attack, total up STUN and BODY, then double the BODY. The attack then does more BODY and less STUN. Use the base BODY damage to calculate KB, without the additional 1d6 penalty. If you want to keep KAs as a seperate power rather than modified normal damage, they would cost 7.5 points per 1d6. This would be better, probably, or a 4d6KA with armour piercing would work out at 40 points rather than 45, but either way works for me, and 7.5 is such an awkward number when we are used to 5s and 10s.

 

Example: a 2d6 RKA (7 BODY, 19 stun average, max damage 12 BODY, 60 STUN) becomes a 4d6 RKA doing 8 BODY and 14 STUN average (max damage 16 BODY, 24 STUN), and it IS much more of an average. It is a consistent mechanic with the rest of the game and should be easy to implement - just double the number of dice and roll as above. Moreover it means that KAs will do more BODY and less STUN per DC, which some people have been arguing is how it should work.

 

It still isn't 'fair' in that KA should be more expensive, but it then makes them practically pointless in superhero games. You can't win them all.

 

What do you think? (I don't expect anyone to abandon the current system, I'm not QUITE that egotistical yet, but do give this one some thought. Cheers.)

 

This method should make KAs in superhero games no more effective: I fully expect that many heroes will have sufficient defences to stop the damage entirely (a 4d6 KA becomes an 8d6 KA and does 16 BODY/28 Stun on average), but it does mean that KAs are better at breaking stuff. At heroic level, it makes guns just as deadly and scary, especially if used in conjunction with hit locations, but slightly more predicatable.

But it does make KAs less effective as there's notably less STUN. Given that's what you want...okay. It may be a fair construct. I happen to like KAs and STUN lottery just fine and in addition I prefer HIGHER stun in my game so this doesn't have any attraction for me. But that's my bias and you can't really get past that. As to the game as a whole, I don't see a problem with KAs as they stand, but your suggestion would be tolerable for me to play under.

 

As to how much I prefer stun, the way I do attacks in my game is that the BOD REMOVES any defenses, and the STUN is applied against the remaining total (if any) - e.g., if you have 20 PD and get hit with a 6 BOD, 18 STUN attack, you'll subtract the 6 BOD from the PD, leaving 14 PD to absorb the incoming 18 STUN, so you'll take 4 STUN. I would not suggest this to anyone else, necessarily, it's just my preference.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Bulletproof

 

Example: a 2d6 RKA (7 BODY' date=' 19 stun average, max damage 12 BODY, 60 STUN) becomes a 4d6 RKA doing 8 BODY and 14 STUN average (max damage 16 BODY, 24 STUN), and it IS much more of an average. It is a consistent mechanic with the rest of the game and should be easy to implement - just double the number of dice and roll as above. Moreover it means that KAs will do more BODY and less STUN per DC, which some people have been arguing is how it should work.[/quote']

 

I'll change this to 60 AP for supers, OK? The end result is that your 60 AP KA averages 16 BOD, 28 STUN, and a 60 AP normal attack averages 12 BOD, 42 STUN. An old KA averaged 14 BOD and 37 STUN but had the wild swing of the lotto.

 

Is an extra 4 points BOD worth loss of 14 STUN? I suspect we'd still see KA's in multipowers (more effective against Entangles, Force Wals, objects, automatons, etc.) but that would be about it. The only characters with KA as a main attack power would be of the "Kill my opponent or lose" variety. Maybe that's a good thing - KA's would be used to inflict BOD damage, not to inflict STUN damage. But it also enhances lethality.

 

I suspect it would also see resistant defenses creep up a bit to avoid taking BOD damage every time a villain fires off a killing attack. Hardened resistant defenses seem more valuable under this approach as well. I don't think players expect their Super characters to take BOD frequently (absent a schtick like regeneration).

 

Meanwhile, Fantasy characters will take a bit more BOD, on average. At lower DC's, likely not too huge an issue.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Bulletproof

 

And typical characters would buy this attack...why? I'm assuming you aren't changing the cost of the KA. A 60 AP KA therefore averages 14 BOD and STUN' date=' and maxes out at 24 BOD/Stun. How often will a typical Super take damage from this? If he does, of course, he'll likely run out of BOD before running out of STUN, so WolvyClone can't take opponents down, only out.[/quote']First of all, it's pretty clear that in most Champions campaigns characters buy KAs almost entirely for the Stun Lottery effect. Actual bullets and blades are pretty rare amongst supers who are not playing in a Dark Champions/Iron Age type game. In those cases, the Hit Location Chart will provide the necessary randomness. And since only Resistant defenses would protect against Killing damage and Stun under my proposed method, many characters whose defenses are not 100% Resistant could still take Stun above that rolled on the dice. When a mook with a 3d6 RKA can roll lucky and KO a hero with 29 rPD and 60 Stun in one shot, something's very wrong. He only needs 4 good dice instead of 9 to generate 90 points of Stun; while an equivalent 9d6 normal attack maxes out at 54 Stun. It's clear that it's a heck of a lot easier to roll 4 "6" results than 9. And of course Advantages such as Penetrating and Armor Piercing would only increase the probability of meaningful injury.

 

Also, lower general defenses (which would automatically follow since under my method most bricks would no longer need defenses in the 35+ range in order to avoid being hammered by the Stun Lottery) introduce another element into the game: Taking BODY. Many brick characters go entire careers without taking BODY from anything but Drains and the like. But it's good for heroes to bleed once in a while. Wasn't it you that formerly had as a signature that quote from FREd along the lines of "HERO is not attempting to simulate real life; it is intended to recreate the dramatic action of film and fiction"? Since when does a major character get one-shotted in a film? Indiana Jones gets shot, stabbed and beaten within an inch of his life in every film. It just makes his final victory that much sweeter.

 

And Wolverine managed to clobber bad guys without killing them just fine for quite a while without killing. I remember him slicing and dicing Hellfire Club mooks' guns left and right, and with an occasional martial art maneuver he did just fine. It was years before they showed him actually killing anyone but robots.

 

I'm not saying my method is the Holy Grail of Killing Attacks, and I think it would probably not work well in Fantasy Hero or other "realistic" games. But I think there are some distinct advantages to it, especially in Four Color or Silver Age campaigns. That's why I tossed it out here: So we can kick the idea around a bit and try to smooth out the rough edges.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Bulletproof

 

First of all' date=' it's pretty clear that in most Champions campaigns characters buy KAs almost entirely for the Stun Lottery effect.[/quote']

 

The only character in my campaign who has a KA has the limitation "not versus living targets", but that's a pretty unusual result for half a dozen characters. In our group, I've rarely seen KA's used as a major attack, but that's more the players playing genre than any mechanicla reason. I see a need to address the STUN lotto. However, I'd probably go to a 1-4 result (1,2,2,3,3,4) as a first and easy step.

 

And since only Resistant defenses would protect against Killing damage and Stun under my proposed method' date=' many characters whose defenses are not 100% Resistant could still take Stun above that rolled on the dice.[/quote']

 

They'll take STUN = BOD, won't they? Absent rDEF vs BOD only, I suppose.

 

When a mook with a 3d6 RKA can roll lucky and KO a hero with 29 rPD and 60 Stun in one shot' date=' something's very wrong.[/quote']

 

While I agree with this issue, it's pretty Golden Age (invulnerable targets KO'd by a club over the head). In any case, it's an issue - especially with a statistically significant chance of this result (or one close enough to get the same end result).

 

Also' date=' lower general defenses (which would automatically follow since under my method most bricks would no longer need defenses in the 35+ range in order to avoid being hammered by the Stun Lottery) introduce another element into the game: Taking BODY. [/quote']

 

35 or 20, a 90 STUN hit still hammers the character. Most 35 DEF bricks I see are looking for the benefits against normal and killing attacks - they're just hard to hurt overall.

 

Many brick characters go entire careers without taking BODY from anything but Drains and the like. But it's good for heroes to bleed once in a while.

 

This again depends on campaign style, but for myself I don't disagree. [Mind you, IMC again the character I recall closest to death was the Brick since his rPD wasn't hardened and he got AP'd. Again, an unusual result.]

 

Wasn't it you that formerly had as a signature that quote from FREd along the lines of "HERO is not attempting to simulate real life; it is intended to recreate the dramatic action of film and fiction"? Since when does a major character get one-shotted in a film? Indiana Jones gets shot' date=' stabbed and beaten within an inch of his life in every film. It just makes his final victory that much sweeter.[/quote']

 

Not my sig, but I do recall someone using it. Whether "getting beaten within an inch of your life" is a lot of BOD, or a lot of STUN is open to debate, though STUN loss is very fleeting. In any case, Indy isn't Supers, and I'd envision a campaign of that nature having pretty low rDEF limits (but maybe 1 BOD/hr or 1 BOD/day regen being pretty common).

 

And Wolverine managed to clobber bad guys without killing them just fine for quite a while without killing. I remember him slicing and dicing Hellfire Club mooks' guns left and right' date=' and with an occasional martial art maneuver he did just fine. It was years before they showed him actually killing anyone but robots.[/quote']

 

It was implied in the Savage Land (about #116 - "there is no mercy in him"), and the HC mooks were believed dead until they showed up as cyborgs (so pretty badly wounded in any case). But I agree Wolvie's claws originally smacked of V&V - a better chance to hit, more damage, but not a different type of damage. This could be accomplished by toasting KA's and using claws as a focus for AP, or something similar.

 

I'm not saying my method is the Holy Grail of Killing Attacks' date=' and I think it would probably not work well in Fantasy Hero or other "realistic" games. But I think there are some distinct advantages to it, especially in Four Color or Silver Age campaigns. That's why I tossed it out here: So we can kick the idea around a bit and try to smooth out the rough edges. [/quote']

 

Actually, I think your solution is a workable solution. If you want KA's to be KILLING attacks, make them inflict body. The easiest approach would be to require every KA to take -2 Stun Multiple for a -1/2 limitation, and just rule that this is 1-3 = 1 SM, 4-6 = 2 SM (same 1.5 average). But if KA's do only STUN = BOD, I would see 15 points per die as pretty overpriced, at least under the current model (even with only rDEF applied).

[zornwil]

Re: Bulletproof

 

Just to revisit this (sorry) - but just to be clear, is the objection to a 3d6 KA from a "mook" KOing a PC accompanied by no objection to a 3d6 KA energy beam from a villain NPC KOing a PC?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Bulletproof

 

Just to revisit this (sorry) - but just to be clear' date=' is the objection to a 3d6 KA from a "mook" KOing a PC accompanied by no objection to a 3d6 KA energy beam from a villain NPC KOing a PC?[/quote']

 

I'm more inclined to object to a 45 AP attack one-shotting a PC (or NPC), when other forms of attack at the same AP would be considerably less effective. A mook with a 20d6 EB Cannon is a dangerous mook!