Limits on Killing attacks?

[saffo]

In your game, do you limit your players to a specific amount of killing dice on a single attack during character creation? If you allow players to use any amount, what are your reasons for this? Have you had a particular experience that caused you to limit killing attacks in some way?

 

Thanks,

Saffo

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Technically, I don't limit attacks. Practically, I do have an edpectation of "campaign average" for attacks, defenses, etc., and I do assess whether characters with abilities which deviate materially from the average (high or low) will be problematic.

 

I do look at the whole attack, which could be an issue for KA's. For example, if campaign average is 12 damage classes, a 60 STR and a 4d6 HKA does not constitute two campaign average attacks. The KA is a 24 DC attack due to the combination of STR and KA.

 

As for KA's, my players have never really gravitated to them, so I haven't had any need. I would fix the stun lottery (there are a few older threads on options for this) before I would specifically limit the size of KA's.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

I generally don't limit damage-classes either. I operate on the 'I'm the GM, it's my job to challenge you. Therefore, the powerful you are, the more powerful the opposition is'. Essentially, it's the player's choice if he wants to be a JLA Worldbeater or a Teen Titan scrub.

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

In your game, do you limit your players to a specific amount of killing dice on a single attack during character creation? If you allow players to use any amount, what are your reasons for this? Have you had a particular experience that caused you to limit killing attacks in some way?

 

Thanks,

Saffo

 

Largely depends on the kind of players you have and the kind of campaign you want to run. I would assume you're asking because you're trying to run a Champions campaign, or one similar to the 4-color comic genre. Some players graduate to HERO from D&D, or other systems where everything is a killing attack (i.e. no such thing as STUN damage), and, as a result, their mindset is, well, hack & slash. (If the only way you can take a foe out of the fight is to kill him, it limits your options.)

 

If you're trying to run a hack & slash campaign, great. But if you're trying for something more like traditional 4-color comics, where death is a rare thing, is treated as a major event, and is not the goal of a "hero", you might have to make some adjustments. You can certainly do this by limiting the KA DCs (not forgetting to account for STR adding to HKAs). That's the simplest way.

 

You can also restrict yourself to using foes that have lots of resistant DEF. KAs are, by and large, less effective at removing a foe from combat in the HERO system than normal attacks, as they tend to do less STUN damage for the same DC attack, especially when you consider that the normal attack has a whole lot less variation in its STUN damage than the KA. It's twice as likely for the KA to have a STUN multiplier of 1 than any other single possibility - and when that happens, a character with resistent DEF typically giggles. (Example: 4D6 KA on average, does 14 BODY and 37 STUN. A 12D6 normal attack, on the other hand, does 12 BODY and 42 STUN. Might not seem like a lot, but over the course of a two-turn fight, those extra 5 STUN for every attack add up.) Having foes with large amounts of resistent DEF works well if one of the players is using normal attacks; when he's always the one who knocks the bad guy out of the fight, the others will take notice. In fact, I've had several players over the years ask to rebuild their characters with normal instead of killing attacks for just that reason - they found them to be ineffective in combat. (Remember, we're talking about 4-color comic campaigns here, where characters routinely bounce bullets off their chests.)

 

Another idea to rein in players who like to leave corpses lying about is to exert pressure from the 'social' side of the game. A supposed "hero" whose body count rivals Ghenghis Khan will be villified in the press, Hunted by the police (not to mention more civic-minded heroes and groups), and generally frowned upon (this is true even in the real world). He'll be denied help by law enforcement, become the target of arrest attempts every time he shows his face, and generally wind up a pariah. You can use this type of pressure on a player if he's a little too eager to initiate bloodletting, and assuming he would respond to it.

 

The best thing to do is to make sure you and your players agree on the kind of campaign you want to run, and the kind of world you're trying to simulate. If you make it clear up front that killing is frowned upon, then the players will be less likely to load up on KAs.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

I am reasonably strict about maximum DCs, and most of my games don't allow a 'basic attack' of more than 12DC, 60 active points or a 4d6 KA (including STR), assuming a 250-350 point character.

 

You can get a few extra DC for your basic attack if there are no balance issues to my mind (eg if a character wants lower than average defences but a higher than normal attack, I'd probably allow it).

 

By 'basic attack' I mean the damage you'll do just using the attack before adding in haymakers and pushing.

 

Probably not what you meant, but one interesting idea that came out of one of the Killing Attack threads was rolling to hit with one dice a different colour to the other two and using that as the STUN multiplier dice for killing attacks.

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Probably not what you meant' date=' but one interesting idea that came out of one of the Killing Attack threads was rolling to hit with one dice a different colour to the other two and using that as the STUN multiplier dice for killing attacks.[/quote']

 

Sounds like a good dice-rolling reduction idea. I like it.

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Just to weigh in, nope, no specific limit.

[pinecone]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

The only time I make an issue out of an attacks size is if it is way out of line in comparison to the rest of the team....if I bring in a heavy hitter just for you and you get tanked, every one else is hosed...I've never had a player insist that would be OK....just lucky I guess (but if I ever did I'd just go with it and see how it plays out)

[RDU Neil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

The only time I make an issue out of an attacks size is if it is way out of line in comparison to the rest of the team....if I bring in a heavy hitter just for you and you get tanked' date=' every one else is hosed...I've never had a player insist that would be OK....just lucky I guess (but if I ever did I'd just go with it and see how it plays out)[/quote']

 

Very important point. DC limits (killing or not) tend to only be an issue when two different PCs are way out balanced. You have a team of Teen Titans in relative point levels, but one player shows up with a min-maxed combat monster who would make the JLA take notice... that doesn't fit the game. This is the time when the "game" aspects of things can over ride the "role playing" aspect.

 

Yeah, comics have Thor and Black Panther on the same team... but IME, only the best GMs can balance that kind of disparity in power/combat effectiveness well, and usually just for one shots or short campaigns as it gets really hard to do for a lengthy campaign.

 

YMMV, but then you did ask for opinions.

[Blue]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

I simply limit the maximum Active Points of attacks and the players are pretty good in general about not taking the max anyway.

 

Mostly, they know that a miss that hits a civilian will instantly kill him, and also that with large KA's they can still kill a villain, and that's not what the game is about. In fact, you don't get full XP if you kill a villain in my game. Depending on how the event played out, you might get none.

[Bengal]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Right on, Blue. Both in the making of my own characters and in the games I judge (ol MSH RPG term there), I limit each character to one power of 80 active points, and everything else should be around 60 or below. My players know I'm not going to throw something at them that they can't take down, now that has attacks that greatly exceed their defenses without some mitigating factor. sually, a tight PC will use that 80 active-point power on something other than a killing attack- a power which I discourage in general anyway.

[spaceprincessecho]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

My general philosophy involves not giving strict limitations on what powers/levels of such a character can have. I just require a player to think about its character, why does the character do what he does? What sort of things does she believe, especially in regards to how her powers interact with the world?

 

Although, if a character shows up at my table with 90% of his points in a KA, I'll probably take some objection to that. Likewise with anything else that strikes me as problematic for the campaign, but I'd leave it at a case-by-case judgement rather than predefining such rules.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

My restrictions on KAs aren't really any different than with any other Attack Power, or any Power really. I do tend to discourage them in most Champions games, at least as a primary attack (a good knife is usefull for more than just stabbin' people).

[KA.]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

This brought up an interesting idea.

Whenever I hear about point limits, I understand the potential need for them, but I am reminded of Restrictor Plates used in car racing.

They improve "fairness", at the risk of making everyone get bunched up around one central point.

Good in some ways, bad in others.

 

Here is what I just thought of, totally off the cuff.

How about allowing players to have a power that exceeds campaign limits, but only if it is purchased at full cost?

No Limitations.

No savings for an Elemental Control Group.

It cannot be a Multipower Slot.

It cannot be created via a Variable Power Pool.

They just have to buy it straight, along with any Advantages.

 

In the campaigns I have been a part of, nearly every power has had its cost reduced in some manner. Either through Limitations, EC's, MP's, something.

Which means that if Mortar Man really has to have that 8d6 RKA Explosion, he is going to be paying 180 points for it!

 

Not that I expect many players to take this option, but if someone is really obsessed with playing "The Human Bomb", at least the answer is not just "No."

 

Obviously many players will quickly see that their one-trick-pony is not very versatile, but there are plenty of characters in comics who aren't that versatile either, at least until some hack gets ahold of them and redoes their background to include "ninja/spy/mystic/whatever I need for this plot".

 

But on the other hand, the game is supposed to be about the characters, not just the Powers and Abilities.

 

Which means that "Mortar Man" may have personality, dialog, and emotional realism that would be a credit to any campaign.

 

Not to mention being handy when you need to take out that big missle silo.

 

KA.

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

This brought up an interesting idea.Whenever I hear about point limits' date=' I understand the potential need for them, but I am reminded of Restrictor Plates used in car racing.They improve "fairness", at the risk of making everyone get bunched up around one central point.[/quote']The rules acknowledge this problem, and suggest that each player pick one Power that's his "schtick", and allow him to go above limits with that one Power. That tends to reduce the "bunching" problem. A good solution to making characters unique is simply to make all the characters unique - if everyone is playing bricks, it tends to get worse as far as the "bunching" problem is concerned.That said, I think your idea is also interesting:

Good in some ways' date=' bad in others.Here is what I just thought of, totally off the cuff.How about allowing players to have a power that exceeds campaign limits, but only if it is purchased at full cost?No Limitations.No savings for an Elemental Control Group.It cannot be a Multipower Slot.It cannot be created via a Variable Power Pool.They just have to buy it straight, along with any Advantages.In the campaigns I have been a part of, nearly every power has had its cost reduced in some manner. Either through Limitations, EC's, MP's, something.Which means that if Mortar Man really has to have that 8d6 RKA Explosion, he is going to be paying 180 points for it!Not that I expect many players to take this option, but if someone is really obsessed with playing "The Human Bomb", at least the answer is not just "No."Obviously many players will quickly see that their one-trick-pony is not very versatile, but there are plenty of characters in comics who aren't that versatile either, at least until some hack gets ahold of them and redoes their background to include "ninja/spy/mystic/whatever I need for this plot". :mad:But on the other hand, the game is supposed to be about the characters, not just the Powers and Abilities. Which means that "Mortar Man" may have personality, dialog, and emotional realism that would be a credit to any campaign.Not to mention being handy when you need to take out that big missle silo. ;)KA.[/quote']One of the old 4E supplements, "The Mutant File", explored the idea of characters with only one real superpower, and a bunch of skills. They wound up being, as you say, one-trick ponies, but they were broadened by carrying weapons and armor, and knowing martial arts. It's an interesting character concept, and does match the comic "mutant" idea fairly well.Your idea for "no cost reducing stunts" would make sure that Megablast was something the player REALLY wanted. You'd still have to watch it, of course, but it's a good way to feel out the players' motivations.

[Silbeg]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Just to weigh in' date=' nope, no specific limit.[/quote'] Me, neither. However, the players haven't chosen to use killing attacks, in general. THey may bitch about villains using them (and even then, a KA of greater than 4d6, with or without STR, is an extreme rarity), but they tend to not see heroes as using them (or maybe they don't see them as an effective attack?).

 

On the other hand, I tend to strongly shy away from the NND KAs that do BODY, and the like, because while the players don't mind (all that much) their heroes being pounded from one end of the battle to the other, taking STUN until the cows come home, they really don't like taking BODY...

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

I have almost never used an NND KA at all (NPC or PC) and look askance at them for player use.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

I have almost never used an NND KA at all (NPC or PC) and look askance at them for player use.

 

Ditto, and I will include in that any attack with non-standard defenses which does BOD. Penetrating KA's make a very rare appearance.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

I have almost never used an NND KA at all (NPC or PC) and look askance at them for player use.

I keep the NND KAs to poisons and such. I built a stun ray once with a NND KA with LOTS of STUN Multiplier bonuses though. Toss in AE: One Hex and you got a nasty stun ray. Of course, I'd never allowed that construct in play, even for a villain.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

KAs are, by and large, less effective at removing a foe from combat in the HERO system than normal attacks, as they tend to do less STUN damage for the same DC attack, especially when you consider that the normal attack has a whole lot less variation in its STUN damage than the KA. It's twice as likely for the KA to have a STUN multiplier of 1 than any other single possibility - and when that happens, a character with resistent DEF typically giggles.

 

This is true when you fight opponents with 0 def.

 

It is less true when you fight opponents with higher defenses.

 

The higher the defenses, the less true it becomes. A 12d6 EB will never do any damage whatsoever against a target with 72 defenses, but a 4d6 KA will sometimes do some damage...in fact, it might do as much as 48 points.

 

Also, in Champions, a typical EB has a low, bordering on laughably low chance of generating a stun result on a typical opponent. An equivalent number of active points of KA will typically stun the same target one shot in 3 or 4.

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

And although some people hate the STUN lottery thing, others find it good for a concept and hope it pays off once in a while.

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

This is true when you fight opponents with 0 def.It is less true when you fight opponents with higher defenses.The higher the defenses' date=' the less true it becomes. A 12d6 EB will never do any damage whatsoever against a target with 72 defenses, but a 4d6 KA will sometimes do some damage...in fact, it might do as much as 48 points.Also, in Champions, a typical EB has a low, bordering on laughably low chance of generating a stun result on a typical opponent. An equivalent number of active points of KA will typically stun the same target one shot in 3 or 4.[/quote']5ER, p. 194: "A character should never buy a Killing Attack simply because he hopes to obtain high STUN Multiplier rolls."If a character has a DEF of 72, the GM needs to be taken out and horsewhipped.And, yes, you can Stun an opponent with a KA...sometimes. But you can also fail to do ANY damage whatsoever...sometimes. Let's look at an example:Assume a character has a 4D6 KA (equivalent to 12D6 Normal). On average, that attack will do 14 BODY in damage. And, let's just say the target has a DEF of 25 (fairly average), some of which is resistant (so he can use all of it against the STUN of the KA). Here are the possible results (again, assume average rolls):Roll 1 on STUN Multiplier: 14 STUN, no damage penetratesRoll 2 on STUN Multiplier: 14 STUN, no damage penetratesRoll 3 on STUN Multiplier: 28 STUN, 3 STUN penetratesRoll 4 on STUN Multiplier: 42 STUN, 17 STUN penetratesRoll 5 on STUN Multiplier: 56 STUN, 31 STUN penetratesRoll 6 on STUN Multiplier: 70 STUN, 45 STUN penetratesSo, as you say, you have about a 1 in 3 chance of getting a Stun result (assuming the target's CON isn't at least 31). But you also have a 1 in 3 chance of getting NO damage through, plus a 1 in 6 chance of getting negligible STUN through, plus a 1 in 6 chance of only getting as much STUN through as the normal attack will produce, on average, every time. If I bump the DEF up to 30 (as many bricks have), your Stunning chances drop to 1 in 6. True, you're not going to Stun someone with that high a DEF (most likely) with a normal attack, but you're also probably going to get SOME damage with each attack.Like someone else said, you're gambling - it's a lottery. You're taking that 1 in 3 chance above the 2 in 3 chance of not doing any better than the normal attack - in most cases, markedly worse. I'd rather have a batter who hits a consistent .330 or .340 than the home run king who only gets on base 1 time in 6.On top of that, you're doing less KB, and - most significantly - you're a HERO who's throwing around an attack that has a more-than-likely chance of hospitalizing the individual if he has no resistant DEF (which most normals don't, and some supers as well). Even if you dial it down, you're still causing BODY damage - which means your target is always going to be wounded if he has no resistent DEF. Not really appropriate for a "heroic" character.I generally play four-color supers, so my view is somewhat biased. I generally discourage players from taking KAs, but, if they do, I make sure to use the lottery against them as often as possible. If you punch Durak, he takes it as a challenge. If you pull a knife or a sword, he gets serious. If you kill a normal because you were a bit too eager with that KA...you're in serious kimchee.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

5ER' date=' p. 194: "A character should never buy a Killing Attack simply because he hopes to obtain high STUN Multiplier rolls[/quote']Doesn't change the fact that some players do.

Assume a character has a 4D6 KA (equivalent to 12D6 Normal). On average' date=' that attack will do 14 BODY in damage. And, let's just say the target has a DEF of 25 (fairly average), some of which is resistant (so he can use all of it against the STUN of the KA). Here are the possible results (again, assume average rolls):Roll 1 on STUN Multiplier: 14 STUN, no damage penetratesRoll 2 on STUN Multiplier: 14 STUN, no damage penetratesRoll 3 on STUN Multiplier: 28 STUN, 3 STUN penetratesRoll 4 on STUN Multiplier: 42 STUN, 17 STUN penetratesRoll 5 on STUN Multiplier: 56 STUN, 31 STUN penetratesRoll 6 on STUN Multiplier: 70 STUN, 45 STUN penetratesSo, as you say, you have about a 1 in 3 chance of getting a Stun result (assuming the target's CON isn't at least 31). But you also have a 1 in 3 chance of getting NO damage through, plus a 1 in 6 chance of getting negligible STUN through, plus a 1 in 6 chance of only getting as much STUN through as the normal attack will produce, on average, every time. If I bump the DEF up to 30 (as many bricks have), your Stunning chances drop to 1 in 6. True, you're not going to Stun someone with that high a DEF (most likely) with a normal attack, but you're also probably going to get SOME damage with each attack.[/quote']The variance on the KA is considerably greater, with the result being average STUN that gets through is considerably higher. I've seen 24 BOD and a 5x Stun multiple. I've never seen 12 6's on a 12d6 attack.

Like someone else said' date=' you're gambling - it's a lottery.[/quote'] Another term often used for gambling is "rolling the dice". Both attacks have random results, but the KA does get more STUN through on average, at the risk of more often being ineffectual. Of course, one could also trade off an EB with a "standard effect" EB. The normal EB will average 42 STUN, but will sometimes roll low. The standard effect EB gets only 36 STUN, but gets it every time.

you're a HERO who's throwing around an attack that has a more-than-likely chance of hospitalizing the individual if he has no resistant DEF (which most normals don't' date=' and some supers as well). Even if you dial it down, you're still causing BODY damage - which means your target is always going to be wounded if he has no resistent DEF. Not really appropriate for a "heroic" character.[/quote'] 4d6 KA does 14 BOD on average to Joe Nromal, then knocks him back 3" - likely no more BOD. He's hospitalized. 12d6 EB inflicts 10 BOD after 2 DEF, and knocks him back 5", for another BOD half the time. They're both hospitalized. I'm having touble concluding that one character appears more heroic.

I generally play four-color supers' date=' so my view is somewhat biased. I generally discourage players from taking KAs, but, if they do, I make sure to use the lottery against them as often as possible. If you punch Durak, he takes it as a challenge. If you pull a knife or a sword, he gets serious. If you kill a normal because you were a bit too eager with that KA...you're in serious kimchee.

[/quote']What if you kill a normal with a standard EB? Is it OK for Durak, since his Punch isn't a KA, to clock a normal and kill him? How does Joe Normal know the difference between a Lightning Bolt EB and a Lightning Bolt KA? 60 AP atacks are lethal to normals, whether they are KAs or not.

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

Doesn't change the fact that some players do.

Not in my campaigns.

The variance on the KA is considerably greater' date=' with the result being average STUN that gets through is considerably higher. I've seen 24 BOD and a 5x Stun multiple. I've never seen 12 6's on a 12d6 attack.[/quote']The average STUN might be higher, but it's not because of the variance in the dice. It's because KAs are simply more deadly than normal attacks. So, again, you're arguing that it's okay to use an attack whose avowed purpose is to KILL the opponent, based on the "lucky roll" theory.

Another term often used for gambling is "rolling the dice". Both attacks have random results' date=' but the KA does get more STUN through on average, at the risk of more often being ineffectual. Of course, one could also trade off an EB with a "standard effect" EB. The normal EB will average 42 STUN, but will sometimes roll low. The standard effect EB gets only 36 STUN, but gets it every time.[/quote']The degree of variability with the normal attack is far less than the KA, based on being a bell curve instead of a linear one. Standard Effect is an option, the lowest variability one, but I generally don't see players opt for it.

4d6 KA does 14 BOD on average to Joe Nromal' date=' then knocks him back 3" - likely no more BOD. He's hospitalized. 12d6 EB inflicts 10 BOD after 2 DEF, and knocks him back 5", for another BOD half the time. They're both hospitalized. I'm having touble concluding that one character appears more heroic.[/quote']The difference is that you can tone down a normal attack to where it won't hurt the normal. You can't do that with a KA. Even a 1/2D6 KA will still wound the normal, where a 2D6 normal attack won't. You can probably use 4D6 of normal damage and pull your punch pretty safely. (Especially since I only invoke a flat -1 OCV penalty in super campaigns for pulling the punch.)

What if you kill a normal with a standard EB? Is it OK for Durak' date=' since his Punch isn't a KA, to clock a normal and kill him? How does Joe Normal know the difference between a Lightning Bolt EB and a Lightning Bolt KA? 60 AP atacks are lethal to normals, whether they are KAs or not.[/quote']I wasn't referring to Durak attacking a normal, but a PC. These are control mechanisms I use as a GM to constrain players who are a bit too fond of their KAs. The purpose of a Killing Attack is to KILL - and many folks don't take kindly to that. I remember one comic where The Watcher was looking at what would have happened if Wolverine had killed the Hulk. He was in a bar, celebrating, when some of the other patrons took offense to his attitude. Melee ensued, and Wolverine was having a dandy time with just his fists - until one of the opponents pulled a gun. At that point, the claws came out. Same deal - if the sum of the damage is a few bruises, it's just a good fight. If you try to KILL the opponent, though, the gloves come off.Again, you can tone the normal attack down and pull the punch to avoid hurting Joe Average. You CAN'T tone down a KA, because the STUN it does is contingent on doing BODY. Meaning you can use a normal attack to disable a low-powered individual without hurting him, but you can't use a KA that way.Play the STUN lottery if you like, but if your GM lets you get away with icing opponents just because you want to do so, then, IMO, he's not being true to genre (assuming you're playing supers, of course).

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

The variance on the KA is considerably greater' date=' with the result being average STUN that gets through is considerably higher.[/quote']Oh, just for everyone's information - I just ran a calculation. This statement isn't true for our example of the 4D6 attack vs. a DEF of 25. It does:0 + 0 + 3 + 17 + 31 + 45 / 6 = 16 STUN on average.The normal attack does 17 STUN on average. Since 25 is a reasonably common DEF in a Standard campaign, I'd say your average STUN value is about the same. Assuming, of course, the target has some resistant DEF. If not, the KA is always going to do more damage.