Limits on Killing attacks?

[zornwil]

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.

 

Could be in concept as well, particularly a high roller type character.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Not in my campaigns.

 

Nor in mine, frankly. However, the Boards contain a lot of discussion of players who like the lottery.

 

The average STUN might be higher' date=' but it's not because of the variance in the dice. It's because KAs are simply more deadly than normal attacks.[/quote']

 

It's because there is more variance. 4 to 120 is more variable than 12 - 72. 5 dice (4d6 and the Stun Multiple) have wider statistical swings than 12 dice.

 

So' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

I'm not arguing anything is, or is not, OK. I am pointing out that KA's, on the whole, are capable of delivering greater STUN after significant defenses than normal attacks. [As early as 2e, there was a module suggesting the villains won't use KA's unless it's the only way to get some STUN damage in on tne heroes. This should not be news.]

 

The degree of variability with the normal attack is far less than the KA' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

They're both bell curves, the killing attack is just a narrower bell curve. The Stun multiple roll itself is linear, but 4 BOD and 20 STUN doesn't impress any more than 24 BOD and 24 STUN.

 

I agree - players don't opt for standard effect, preferring a higher average with greater volatility. Why then would you expect them to shy away from an attack with an even greater voariability, and greater average STUN getting through. [Yet mine do, and I do as well. This comes back to play style.]

 

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' date=' 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.)[/quote']

 

2d6 can inflict 2 BOD on a normal, as can a 4d6 pulled punch. Violence risks someone getting hurt. Sanitizing violence sends the message that violence can occur with no one getting hurt. That's a dangerous message to send. But we're well beyond game mechanics in that discussion.

 

I wasn't referring to Durak attacking a normal' date=' but a PC. These are control mechanisms I use as a GM to constrain players who are a bit too fond of their KAs.[/quote']

 

How does John Q Public know whether FlameMaster is using a killing attack (BAD Flamemaster!) or an Energy Blast (Oh, that's all right then!). Is it really less acceptable to use a knife in a bar fight (call it 1/2d6 KA, 1d1+1 w/ STR) than level someone with a crowbar (call that +4d6 normal, so 6d6)? Both are fully capable of inflicting serious injury (killing IRL).

 

I just find it odd your concern is only players who are too fond of KA's. I'm just as concerned by Super characters who throw around 12d6 EB's as those who have a 4d6 KA. Either is, in my opinion, "Lethal Force".

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

This has been the "Wolverine attitude" for a long time. "A man comes at me with his fists, I meet him with my fists." Further, virtually all Supers are using attack powers which are at least as lethal as a Hero system handgun. Is it "wrong" for Batman/Robin/Nightwing to throw Batarangs? Look at the effects - these are reguualrly shown 1/3 to 1/2 embedded in their target - or going right through a hand. That's a KA to me.

 

Play the STUN lottery if you like' date=' 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).[/quote']

 

There's a big stretch between "KA" and "icing opponents". Most Supers have adequate resistant defenses that a KA is not really a threat to life and limb. You want to scare a Super, you need a Penetrating KA. The fact is that, as it stands, KA's are only marginally more effective at doing BOD than normal attacks, but they are more effective at Stunning opponents and average greater STUN.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

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.

 

To correctly do this analysis, yu need to consider every possible roll, and its likelihood of coming up. Anyone out there have the analysis? I know it's been done before. [Gary, where are you?]

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

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' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

ASIDE: Am I the only one who is somehwat surprised to see Wolverine used to support the assertion that killing attacks don't fit the Supers genre?

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Heh, probably!

 

Just as an aside, my playes don't use the lottery, either. KAs are bought normally with the purpose of object damage, and even then it's been rare.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Why the assumption that KAs to more STUN on average? It's not true.

 

60 points:

 

KA 4d6 will do an average of 14 BODY, with a 2.66666x multiplier ((1+1+2+3+4+5)/6) does 37.3333 STUN.

 

EB 12d6 will average 12 BODY and 42 STUN.

 

The numbers say that the KA will cause more damge but hurt less. It makes sense. Compare the last time you accidentally cut yourself and the last time you stubbed your toe.

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

ASIDE: Am I the only one who is somehwat surprised to see Wolverine used to support the assertion that killing attacks don't fit the Supers genre?

Central to Wolverine's character was his struggle to control his killing nature. It wasn't seen as the "right thing to do"; it was seen as one of his personal demons. So, I'm not arguing it was appropriate.

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

It's because there is more variance. 4 to 120 is more variable than 12 - 72. 5 dice (4d6 and the Stun Multiple) have wider statistical swings than 12 dice.

You need to take a statistics class. The average (i.e. arithmetic mean) is not affected by the variation in the dice. It's the total of all results divided by the total number of results. Period. The variance is accounted for by the standard deviation.

I'm not arguing anything is' date=' or is not, OK. I am pointing out that KA's, on the whole, are capable of delivering greater STUN after significant defenses than normal attacks. [As early as 2e, there was a module suggesting the villains won't use KA's unless it's the only way to get some STUN damage in on tne heroes. This should not be news.']

It's not news. And I'm glad to hear we're not suggesting that rampant use of KAs is a good thing.

They're both bell curves' date=' the killing attack is just a narrower bell curve. The Stun multiple roll itself is linear, but 4 BOD and 20 STUN doesn't impress any more than 24 BOD and 24 STUN.[/quote']I was referring to the STUN multiplier.

I agree - players don't opt for standard effect' date=' preferring a higher average with greater volatility. Why then would you expect them to shy away from an attack with an even greater voariability, and greater average STUN getting through. [Yet mine do, and I do as well. This comes back to play style.']

Play style is one thing, but deliberately using a deadlier attack because you want to hit it lucky is something else.

2d6 can inflict 2 BOD on a normal' date=' as can a 4d6 pulled punch. {snip}[/quote']But, since normals usually have a normal DEF of 2, they don't take any actual BODY damage.

How does John Q Public know whether FlameMaster is using a killing attack (BAD Flamemaster!) or an Energy Blast (Oh' date=' that's all right then!). Is it really less acceptable to use a knife in a bar fight (call it 1/2d6 KA, 1d1+1 w/ STR) than level someone with a crowbar (call that +4d6 normal, so 6d6)? Both are fully capable of inflicting serious injury (killing IRL).I just find it odd your concern is only players who are too fond of KA's. I'm just as concerned by Super characters who throw around 12d6 EB's as those who have a 4d6 KA. Either is, in my opinion, "Lethal Force".[/quote']You're right, they are, against normals. What I'm saying, though, is that some supers can tolerate a normal attack without taking any BODY, even a big one. But, unless they have some resistant DEF, the KA will go right through them.I've always felt that KAs were undercosted, based on that fact alone. Something that bypasses defenses so easily AND causes primarily killing damage shouldn't be as cheap as it is, IMO.

This has been the "Wolverine attitude" for a long time. "A man comes at me with his fists' date=' I meet him with my fists." Further, virtually all Supers are using attack powers which are at least as lethal as a Hero system handgun. Is it "wrong" for Batman/Robin/Nightwing to throw Batarangs? Look at the effects - these are reguualrly shown 1/3 to 1/2 embedded in their target - or going right through a hand. That's a KA to me.[/quote']Well, I haven't read any comics in about 15 years, and I never read Batman, so I can't comment. However, Batman is the "avenging dark knight" type, so in that sort of setting, more deadly actions are normally within genre. They aren't in more four-color settings.

There's a big stretch between "KA" and "icing opponents". Most Supers have adequate resistant defenses that a KA is not really a threat to life and limb. You want to scare a Super' date=' you need a Penetrating KA. The fact is that, as it stands, KA's are only marginally more effective at doing BOD than normal attacks, but they are more effective at Stunning opponents and average greater STUN.[/quote']They're only marginally more effective IF the target has, as you say, significant resistent DEF. How does the PC know? What if he unleashes that KA against someone who doesn't? Normal attacks are generally safe against any super. KAs aren't always that way.I guess I'm just objecting to the plethora of deadly attacks we're seeing, especially in supposed "heroes". It's out of genre, it's undercosted, and it's munchkinizing things. The objective should be to win the fight, not kill the opponent.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

You need to take a statistics class. The average (i.e. arithmetic mean) is not affected by the variation in the dice. It's the total of all results divided by the total number of results. Period. The variance is accounted for by the standard deviation.

 

The arithmetic mean is average BOD x 2.67. However, it is not the average STUN before defenses that makes the KA effective. It is average STUN that gets through defenses. In the case of a normal attack, this is arithmetic mean - DEF, as every possible STUN total is represented, and each variation of 1 point on any die increases STUN by 1. Not so for a KA - a 46d KA can roll 4 STUN or 120 STUN. It cannot roll 116, 117, 118 or 119 STUN. This complicates the math immensely - you need to determine each possible roll, its statistical likelihood and the STUN it would inflict. 0 is 0, even if it's 4-25, which skews the results.

 

Minimum damage for either attack equally likely. For the normal attack, that's 12 or 72, which average 42 (the average of the normal attack will e2qual the average of the extremes). 4 STUN and 120 STUN are equally likely on a 4d6 KA, but their average is 62. The spread of possibilities differs for a KA due to the multiplication mechanic.

 

I'm not the Board Statistician, and I haven't done the math, but I have been persuaded by the more methemtically inclined (Gary in particular) that a KA will, on average, deliver more STUN after defenses to a typical Super. A search of old threads will likely turn up the math, but I'm not that energetic.

 

BTW, since you don't understand this (based on your comments to me) it appears you are the one who needs a statistics class.

 

I was referring to the STUN multiplier.

 

There is more to the variability than Stun Multiple. People are fooled into looking at average BOD x average STUN multiple (I know I was) because it's easy to compute. But it's not that simple, as the above min/m,ax comment shows.

 

Let's reduce the dice to make a more simplistic analysis. We'll assume a 2d6 KA, versus defenses of 12 (half as many dice so half as much defense; all resistant so BOD is not an issue). Contrast it with a 6d6 normal attack. 3d6 will average 21 = 9 after defenses. 7 x 2 2/3 = 18 2/3 = 6 1/3 after defenses.

 

The possible rolls on 3d6 will each happen one time in 216. I've plotted them in Excel. The average STUN rolled is, in fact, 18 2/3 (which we already knew). However the average STUN inflicted (with all rolls of 12 or less equalling zero) is about 8.6, or about 135% of the average for the normal attack.

 

Lower defenses to, say, 5. The EB now averages 16 STUN through, but the KA only averages 13.77. Raise DEF to 18. The EB averages 3, and the KA averages 5.56.

 

The KA's strength is getting large STUN through high defenses, so low defenses reduce its efficiency in inflicting STUN (ie this isn't so much an issue in, say, Fantasy Hero, where everage defenses are lower compared to average attacks).

 

This is the dichotomy of Killing Attacks in a Supers campaign - an attack intended to be lethal is, in fact, more effective at knocking out the typical Super opponent than an equivalent Normal attack.

 

There is an easy fix, if you don't mind a house rule. "Killing attacks are intended to kill, not wound. Therefore, in this Supers campaign, all Killing Attacks, as a default, must take the -1/2 limitation "-2 Stun Multiple". This will ensure killing attacks are effective at inflicting BOD, and not at inflicting STUN."

 

I've never needed such a rule as my players shun KA's. If I had a game mechanic power gamer playing, I would probably have to impose such a rule.

 

Play style is one thing' date=' but deliberately using a deadlier attack because you want to hit it lucky is something else.[/quote']

 

The fact is, in the typical Supers campaign, KA's aren't al that lethal. Used on Supers, they generally inflict little or no BOD. Used on normals, the difference between a KA and a normal attack in terms of hospitalization, while there, is not substantial. This is an essential feature of the game - make KA's do a lot more BOD than normal attacks, and they easily shred Entangles and Force Walls, not to mention Automatons, removing such factors from the game since they can't be competitive.

 

But' date=' since normals usually have a normal DEF of 2, they don't take any actual BODY damage.[/quote']

 

On average. They will take 2 BOD 1 time in 36 (box cars) and 1 BOD on every roll where a 6 is not matched by a 1 or a 6 on the other die. Here again, your use of arithmetic mean is throwing off your resuklts. On average, that attack will do 2 BOD which 2 DEF will block. But it will sometimes do 3 or even 4, which will inflict BOD. On average, 0.28 BOD will be inflicted per punch (and 5 STUN). He'll hit 62.5% of the time, so each phase will inflcit 3.125 STUN on average, and and about 0.1736 BOD. Joe Average has a 4 REC, so he will lose 2.25 STUN per turn. His stats are 8's so he has 16 STUN and should last about 7 turns (more if he gets up after recovering from KO). He should be down 1 BOD by that time, on average.

 

You're right' date=' they are, against normals. What I'm saying, though, is that some supers can tolerate a normal attack without taking any BODY, even a big one. But, unless they have some resistant DEF, the KA will go right through them.[/quote']

 

Which is why one virtually never sees a Super without some form of resistant defenses. Again, a construction decision driven by game mechanics.

 

I've always felt that KAs were undercosted' date=' based on that fact alone. Something that bypasses defenses so easily AND causes primarily killing damage shouldn't be as cheap as it is, IMO.[/quote']

 

Make it, say, 20 points per d6, and it now averages less BOD than a normal attack, losing its function entirely (unless it's used against soft targets).

 

Well' date=' I haven't read any comics in about 15 years, and I never read Batman, so I can't comment. However, Batman is the "avenging dark knight" type, so in that sort of setting, more deadly actions are normally within genre. They aren't in more four-color settings.[/quote']

 

While somewhat more noir, Batman and friends retain the absolute prohibition against killing traditional with 4 colour settings. In fact, IIRC, Superman has intentionally taken lives (the three Kryptonians) where Batman has, to my knowledge, never done so.

 

They're only marginally more effective IF the target has' date=' as you say, significant resistent DEF. How does the PC know? What if he unleashes that KA against someone who doesn't? Normal attacks are generally safe against any super. KAs aren't always that way.[/quote']

 

Mechanics being what they are, virtually every Super has resistant defenses. How does the PC know that every Super can withstand a 12d6 Energy Blast? I have difficulty with a "code vs killing" character launching his full attack suite against an unknowqn target, whether normal or killing attack.

 

The players have preconceptions. One is that, like them, virtually every capable opponent has a defense against Killing Attacks. Another is that all Supers have good defenses. Yes, I can design a villain with no resistant defenses and the KA characters can demolish him. I can also design a character with defenses "not vs BOD damage" and the characters will probably kill him as well.

 

I guess I'm just objecting to the plethora of deadly attacks we're seeing' date=' especially in supposed "heroes". It's out of genre, it's undercosted, and it's munchkinizing things. The objective should be to win the fight, not kill the opponent.[/quote']

 

Where we seem to differ is on what constitutes a "

deadly attack". A 126d EB is as deadly, or more so, than a 3d6 KA, but you want to come down hard on the KA and let the EB weilder away.

 

Put a Hologram of a raving Grond over a captive normal human, then let your players sneak in "unnoticed" by the Big G. Do you think that poor slob under the hologram is going to survive, regardless of whether any of your players have a killing attack? In virtually all games, they'll hit Grond with everything they've got - call that 4 12d6 normal attacks. Will a normal survive that better than 4 4d6 KA's? Will the press or the police somehow "know" those weren't killing attacks? How does a 4d6 Flame RKA look different from a 12d6 Flame EB? [i keep asking that question and you keep ignoring it, BTW]

 

I don't like seeing killing attacks used for the purpose of KOing the villains. Neither do you, as I see it. Where we seem to differ is that I understand the mechanics enough to see what drives the "powergamer's" (for lack of a better word) selection of a KA. Against a typical Super opponent, it is no more lethal than a normal attack, and more effective at inflicting STUN.

 

Assuming the role playing in genre solution doesn't work, there are two ways to address this mechanically. First, make it more lethal. Reducing or eliminating resistant defenses for most characters, and commensurately reducing the power and frequency of KA's is one approach. Second, reduce its potential to inflict massive STUN damage. Approaches include requiring the "Reduced Stun Multiple" limitation or using a standard STUN multiple. The latter must be less than three, however, or the KA now gets the same average STUN as an EB, and still has greater variability. 2.67 or 2.5 wuld work.

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?Hey, can somebody pass me that plate of crow over there? Yeah, that's right, the big helping. And a fork, too, while you're at it... I just couldn't get this out of my head, so I built a quick little utility today to run the numbers. And, what I got confirms virtually everything Hugh has been saying.I ran all the actual possible results for 1D6, 2D6 and 3D6 KAs, along with all the results for 3D6 and 6D6 normal attacks. (I was going to do 9D6 as well, but when I calculated the algorithm would take about 150 hours to run the 10 million possible combinations, I decided against it.) :)Okay, the results are as follows:3D6 normal (216 possible results, maximum possible damage 18).......................Avg Dam.......SDev of DamageDEF 0:..................11.....................3DEF 10:..................1.....................2DEF 20:..................0.....................0DEF 30:..................0.....................0For the 1D6 KA (36 possible results, maximum possible damage 30).......................Avg Dam.......SDev of DamageDEF 0:....................9.....................7DEF 10:..................3.....................5DEF 20:..................1.....................2DEF 30:..................0.....................0Okay, now we can look at the 6D6 normal attack (46,656 possible results, max damage of 36):.......................Avg Dam........SDev of DamageDEF 0:..................21.....................4DEF 10:.................11.....................4DEF 20:...................2.....................3DEF 30:...................0.....................0And, finally, the 2D6 KA (216 possible results, max damage 60):.......................Avg Dam........SDev of DamageDEF 0:...................19....................13DEF 10:..................10....................12DEF 20:....................5.....................8DEF 30:....................2.....................5So, we can see that, as the DEF value goes up, the damage that is actually inflicted on the character is higher, on average, for the KA than for the corresponding normal attack. Which, to reiterate, confirms what Hugh's been saying. It also confirms my opinion that KAs are undercosted. They bypass normal defenses AND do more damage than the corresponding normal attack (and we won't even talk about increased STUN multiples).The SDev is included to demonstrate that the KA has that much higher degree of variability than the normal attack. Of course, SDev is not entirely a good measure in the case of the KA, because the KA doesn't fall along a nice bell curve (see attached PDF if you're curious). But still, the degree of variability is much higher on the KA. (Much more so than the difference between Standard Effect and rolling normal dice.)However, that variability isn't the reason for the higher average STUN (after defenses) delivered by the KA. That comes from its high end being so much higher than the normal attack, and the fact that it's a flatter curve (i.e. you have a higher chance of hitting the high end with the KA than with the normal attack). For example, you have 1 chance in 216 of getting maximum damage (60 STUN) with the 2D6 KA. However, you only have 1 chance in 46,656 of getting the maximum of 36 STUN with the 6D6 normal attack.Now, to some of Hugh's specific comments:

This is the dichotomy of Killing Attacks in a Supers campaign - an attack intended to be lethal is' date=' in fact, more effective at knocking out the typical Super opponent than an equivalent Normal attack.There is an easy fix, if you don't mind a house rule. "Killing attacks are intended to kill, not wound. Therefore, in this Supers campaign, all Killing Attacks, as a default, must take the -1/2 limitation "-2 Stun Multiple". This will ensure killing attacks are effective at inflicting BOD, and not at inflicting STUN."[/quote']I like this solution. I'll consider it. Maybe even with only a -1/4 Limitation to discourage munchkinism (although so far my players haven't gravitated to KAs very much).

Put a Hologram of a raving Grond over a captive normal human' date=' then let your players sneak in "unnoticed" by the Big G. Do you think that poor slob under the hologram is going to survive, regardless of whether any of your players have a killing attack? In virtually all games, they'll hit Grond with everything they've got - call that 4 12d6 normal attacks. Will a normal survive that better than 4 4d6 KA's? Will the press or the police somehow "know" those weren't killing attacks? How does a 4d6 Flame RKA look different from a 12d6 Flame EB? [i keep asking that question and you keep ignoring it, BTW']

You can't. Happy?But you can tell the difference between a fist and a gun.And the "fragile normal hidden by an illusion" is a good ploy to use against players who are too bloody-minded. With normal or KAs. Although, normally most of my players tend to hit with less-than-maximum attacks the first time out (but they may not do so if they're convinced it's really Grond, and they actually know who that is).As an aside, the police would probably not get too grumpy in that situation, if the characters were able to prove that the illusion tricked them into thinking it was Grond. It's kind of like a cop shooting a kid with a toy gun in a dark alley. Based on how things looked to the cop, he was justified in doing what he did. Where it's fun is in discouraging the players from opening up with both barrels right off the bat.

I don't like seeing killing attacks used for the purpose of KOing the villains. Neither do you' date=' as I see it. Where we seem to differ is that I understand the mechanics enough to see what drives the "powergamer's" (for lack of a better word) selection of a KA. Against a typical Super opponent, it is no more lethal than a normal attack, and more effective at inflicting STUN.[/quote']Now that I've run the complete statistical picture, I agree. Sorry for any hurt feelings or offense taken; I tend to be long on mouth sometimes - you know, type first and ask questions later.

Assuming the role playing in genre solution doesn't work' date=' there are two ways to address this mechanically. First, make it more lethal. Reducing or eliminating resistant defenses for most characters, and commensurately reducing the power and frequency of KA's is one approach. Second, reduce its potential to inflict massive STUN damage. Approaches include requiring the "Reduced Stun Multiple" limitation or using a standard STUN multiple. The latter must be less than three, however, or the KA now gets the same average STUN as an EB, and still has greater variability. 2.67 or 2.5 wuld work.[/quote']All good ideas. I appreciate the discussion (even if I lost).

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?Based on Hugh's suggestion, I ran the average data again, but this time using a 1D6 - 2 STUN multiplier (as if you had taken the -1/4 Limitation). Here are the results:3D6 normal:............................Average.............SDevDEF 0:......................11....................3DEF 10:......................1....................2DEF 20:......................0....................0DEF 30:......................0....................01D6 killing:............................Average.............SDevDEF 0:........................7....................6DEF 10:......................1....................3DEF 20:......................0....................1DEF 30:......................0....................06D6 normal:............................Average.............SDevDEF 0:......................21......................4DEF 10:....................11......................4DEF 20:......................2......................3DEF 30:......................0......................02D6 killing:............................Average.............SDevDEF 0:......................14..................10DEF 10:......................6....................9DEF 20:......................2....................5DEF 30:......................1....................23D6 killing:............................Average.............SDevDEF 0:......................21..................14DEF 10:....................11..................13DEF 20:......................6..................10DEF 30:......................3....................7The KA is still slightly more effective at the upper end, but not significantly so. The top end is reduced by a multiple of (6 * # of dice) in each case. 1D6 maxes out at 24 vs. 30; 2D6 at 48 vs. 60, 3D6 at 72 vs. 90, and so forth. This is still higher than the maximum of the corresponding normal attacks, but it's more manageable.I think this just became the default house rule for my campaign. The standard STUN multiplier for KAs is 1D6-2. Limitations and Advantages start from there. This should help the players out when some enterprising thug with a gun shows up and rolls that lucky 6 on the STUN multiple, too.Minimal adjustment, no significant change in mechanics, blunts the STUN lottery. I like it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

I just couldn't get this out of my head' date=' so I built a quick little utility today to run the numbers. [/quote']

 

Nice analysis - thanks for posting the results. If you search back through similar threads, you'll find someone (Gary, IIRC) had to work pretty hard to convince me of this discrepancy. It's counterintuitive that an attack whose average roll is lower will average more damage inflicted (even if only on higher DEF targets).

 

I like this solution. I'll consider it. Maybe even with only a -1/4 Limitation to discourage munchkinism (although so far my players haven't gravitated to KAs very much).

 

My theory was a 1/2 limitation for -2 to the SM making it 1d6-3 in total. Based on your analysis below, I think requiring -1 (for -1/4 limitation and d6-2 SM) would work as an equalizer. My approach would essentially eliminate KA as an effective attack for delivering STUN damage.

 

But you can tell the difference between a fist and a gun.

 

Definitely. But I'm not sure being shot by a .22 isn't preferable to being slugged by Grond. [And you won't know when I fire if I am using depleted uranium shells or rubber bullets either!]

 

And the "fragile normal hidden by an illusion" is a good ploy to use against players who are too bloody-minded. With normal or KAs. Although' date=' normally most of my players tend to hit with less-than-maximum attacks the first time out (but they may not do so if they're convinced it's really Grond, and they actually know who that is).[/quote']

 

There's lots of ploys to force the issue (I recall the Gilt Complex in an old Adventurers Club). I've never had to use any because my players have never "abused" their lethal powers. I did run a 4e scenario which tricked the characters into hitting hard against a soft target (though far from an innocent one), which had some interesting RP results, but it was still entrapment.

 

As an aside' date=' the police would probably not get too grumpy in that situation, if the characters were able to prove that the illusion tricked them into thinking it was Grond. It's kind of like a cop shooting a kid with a toy gun in a dark alley. Based on how things looked to the cop, he was justified in doing what he did. Where it's fun is in discouraging the players from opening up with both barrels right off the bat.[/quote']

 

Police - well, they likely have to investigate and lay charges. District Attorney/Crown prosecuter needs to decide whether to press charges, however, and I expect a lot of sympathy from any judge, however. Public sympathy would certainly favour the character. [Mind you, public sympathy favoured a storekeeper who shot an armed robber and killed him - he was still convicted, though the sentence was at the low end of the legal range.]

 

Now that I've run the complete statistical picture' date=' I agree. Sorry for any hurt feelings or offense taken; I tend to be long on mouth sometimes - you know, type first and ask questions later. [/quote']

 

There's an old saying about people who live in glass houses which applies to me here. I don't take offense that easily, and some of my posts can be less than politically sensitive as well.

 

I appreciate the discussion (even if I lost).

 

No winners, no losers, just a good discussion all around. And unlike some posters many around here will remember and cringe at , you looked at the opposing viewpoint, analyzed it objectively and concluded. Nothing wrong with that!

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

It might have been said and I've forgotten, but in any case the stun lottery works both ways. There's little more annoying if you have a KA than rolling a 1 or 2. And the deviation mentioned above with larger KAs becomes more of a crapsoot, both for worse and better.

 

I don't tend to think of KAs as undercosted just because average actual damage inflicted is more with higher target DEFs. There is a higher likelihood of less damage as well as a higher likelihood of more damage. And with all due respect d6-2 as a stun multiple does make for a 50% chance of doing relatively trivial stun damage, to the point I think it's far too blunted. One thing to consider isn't merely the SDev but the spread. However, if it works for you that's great and to be fair it wouldn't matter as far as playing in your games to me (though I'd be far less likely to take a KA even for "color", such as one of my PC's lower-KA knife - it's already far too ineffecive, at d6-2 it'd be of marginal value).

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

It might have been said and I've forgotten' date=' but in any case the stun lottery works both ways. There's little more annoying if you have a KA than rolling a 1 or 2. And the deviation mentioned above with larger KAs becomes more of a crapsoot, both for worse and better.I don't tend to think of KAs as undercosted just because average actual damage inflicted is more with higher target DEFs. There is a higher likelihood of less damage as well as a higher likelihood of more damage. And with all due respect d6-2 as a stun multiple does make for a 50% chance of doing relatively trivial stun damage, to the point I think it's far too blunted. One thing to consider isn't merely the SDev but the spread. However, if it works for you that's great and to be fair it wouldn't matter as far as playing in your games to me (though I'd be far less likely to take a KA even for "color", such as one of my PC's lower-KA knife - it's already far too ineffecive, at d6-2 it'd be of marginal value).[/quote']Yes, the STUN lottery works both ways. But we're trying to tell a story here, and the wild randomness it introduces is, in my experience, harmful to the story aspects of the game.The point was to discourage people from taking KAs as a means of doing STUN damage. Killing Attacks are there for the purpose of inflicting BODY damage, whether used against living or unliving targets. (Hence the comment Steve L. made in the Power description about not taking KAs just hoping for a lucky STUN multiple.) At this, they are very effective - they do more damage than the comparable normal attack, and they bypass normal defenses. Blunting their STUN damage simply prevents the lucky "look Ma, 90 STUN" effect.It's an attempt to restrict the influence of luck on combat. It's no fun to be humming along, using great tactics, giving and taking, only to have the character go down for the count because of a single lucky die roll. (After all, do you really want Dr. Destroyer to go down because a character got a lucky 6 at the wrong time?) :)Plus, I never said that players would only have the 1D6-2 multiplier available. If you really want that extra STUN multiple, you can still take the +1/4 Advantage.

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

IME, Killing Attacks haven't been a detriment anymore than any other lucky roll. While they have some "wild randomness", that also occurs with to-hit rolls (we've all rolled those oddly-timed 3s and 18s) and regular damage (again, we've all seen such as getting 6 6s among a 12d6 roll with the other dice suitably mid or better). While it happens with Killing Attacks, you do need 2 sets of high-side numbers to really have a surprising effect (either lows on both #s or highs on both #s).

 

As stated, I don't mean disrespect in that if it works in your game, great, and I wouldn't hesitate about playing in such a game. I did, however, miss the +1/4, I think it's good you have the option, though I wouldn't grouse about it if you didn't.

 

However, now I'm going to say something I hope won't be taken as too forward, but one shouldn't craft scenarios without accounting for these random sorts of events, bearing in mind they can and will happen with other die rolls. Again, this is not to say you shouldn't do a -2, nor to say that others shouldn't apply the more-common fixed stun multiple (lemming does that in his game, always x3, period), in fact I wholly undersand that. But I think it's a stretch to call it a story-buster as opposed to the possibility with other randomized events in game in that one must consider that and roll with the punch if and when it happens. I am NOT disputing that containing the stun multiple does contain the potential, just that the potential remains.

 

I would add that personally I prefer the fxied multiple solution if there is to be a change. I think x2.5 would also be a fair value as much as x3, and I personally would prefer x2.5 than the x2 whichi your system produces on average, though recognizing yours gives a nice capability to get as high as x4.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

It might have been said and I've forgotten, but in any case the stun lottery works both ways. There's little more annoying if you have a KA than rolling a 1 or 2. And the deviation mentioned above with larger KAs becomes more of a crapsoot, both for worse and better.

 

I don't tend to think of KAs as undercosted just because average actual damage inflicted is more with higher target DEFs. There is a higher likelihood of less damage as well as a higher likelihood of more damage. And with all due respect d6-2 as a stun multiple does make for a 50% chance of doing relatively trivial stun damage, to the point I think it's far too blunted. One thing to consider isn't merely the SDev but the spread. However, if it works for you that's great and to be fair it wouldn't matter as far as playing in your games to me (though I'd be far less likely to take a KA even for "color", such as one of my PC's lower-KA knife - it's already far too ineffecive, at d6-2 it'd be of marginal value).

 

The crapshoot aspect mitigates the issue somewhat, and is one reason why players (esp. those who haven't done the complex mathematical analysis, and see the lower average) may shy away from KA's..

 

As well, the incidence of the problem depends on the ratio of average attack to average defenses. MikeyMitchell's tables look accurate to me. At an average of 5 DEF per 3 DC, the KA is, on an average hit, inflicting marginally less STUN than an EB (compare 6d6 normal and 2d6 KA on MM's charts). At higher levels, the KA becomes superior in inflicting STUN damage, albeit less consistent. This means the campaign norms have a significant impact on the eficiency of a KA vs a normal attack.

 

Let's assume 2 campaigns where attacks average 60 AP. If average defenses are in the 25 range (not uncommon in Supers games), the KA will be more effective at delivering STUN. If average defenses are in the 10-15 range (Fantasy games, say) the KA loses its efficiency in delivering STUN damage. If average defenses are 20 (the 5e suggestion for Supers with attacks in the 60 AP range, IIRC - maybe that's one reason behind this figure being reduced), the KA is almost as effective at delivering stun, and more likely to Stun or do BOD to a target, so balances pretty well with normal attacks.

 

d6-2 means a KA will likely get no STUN past defenses half the time, which would blunt them significantly as a means of knocking out a target. The issue then comes down to whether you want KA's to be efective at knockouts, or only effective at inflicting serious injury (BOD), which is a matter of flavour.

 

As for the randomness, while I agree this can affect other areas, the KA's stun multiple grants it a higher incidence of random big numbers. Assume a campoaign average 20 DEF, 23 CON. Would you rather have an attack that consistently delivers 30 Stun (10 after defenses) with 90% of rolls falling between 20 and 40, or one which averages 28 STUN, but rolls under 13 25% of the time and over 33 25% of the time?

 

The latter will achieve a STUN result 25% of the time (the former almost never), and will not vary materially in the Stun inflicted after defenses. Let's face it, if a target is Stunned, any sharp super-team will turn that into a knockout pretty much every time.

 

Statistics always bear out over time for PC's. And you end up relying on the law of averages, not only to level out your results but also that, when you have a bad night with the dice, teammates have a good night, so it evens out.

 

Ultimate Super Mage (4e) had the comment on a campaign where players were challenged to design the most unbalanced attack possible with 60 AP. The attack that, over time, had the most substantial effect in altering the combats unpredictably was the humble 4d6 KA, due to the Stun multiple.

 

Zornwil, I also find it interesting that posters like you and me, who haven't seen KA's dominate the game, seem to play with experienced gamers who role play characters, rather than focus primarily on mechanical efficiency. To a large extent, I think that's why our experience doesn't include a lot of problems with KA's.

 

At the same time, if you're building low-point agents to go up against Supers, how often do you use a 2d6/3d6 KA (which will get STUN through sometimes) in favour of a 6d6/9d6 EB? I know I've caught myself doing this.

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Hugh, as to the point about playing with experienced gamers, I agree, I think it makes a big difference and to be fair that shouldn't be minimized. Good point.

 

Re agents against supers, I tend more towards NNDs, occasionally Piercing or AP, and lots of AoE. Not so much with KAs. HOWEVER, I do use small KAs with the weaker villains! So to your point but slightly askew, yes, certainly sometimes.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Hugh' date=' as to the point about playing with experienced gamers, I agree, I think it makes a big difference and to be fair that shouldn't be minimized. Good point.[/quote']

 

On reflection, it's not even experience, necesarily. It's mindset. Experienced rules mechanics will use KA's as it will inflict more STUN on average. However, novice or experienced, gamers who want to play the genre (as opposed to win the fights at all costs) tend to shy away from KA's.

 

The group has a lot of impact on new players, of course. In a group where RP is important, new players will RP. In groups where mechanical efficiency is prized, they won't. [some will move to an environment that better fits their playstyle, of course, whether novice or experienced.] I think KA's would be a bigger issue in a group of rules mechanics and combat monsters than RP'ers and simulationists who have a greater tendency to self-police exploitation of any rules loopholes.

 

The same group who says "KA's cause minimal problems" are on the "GM Permission" thread identifying themselves as very liberal "because my players don't abuse it".

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Well I'm certainly not going to argue the maths aspect of it, other than to say I think both Hugh and MikeyMitchell deserve rep for writing so much (my eyes hurt!).

 

What jiggers bell curves is the cut off of defences that subtract from damage rather than simply make it harder to hit like some other (inferior) systems. In addition you have sertain break points: getting one hit which does a lot of damage then three hits that do very little can be far better than getting four hits that do average damage, if the big one is enough to stun the target...Anyway, there you go.

 

OK Law 101...

 

On the killing innocents point, in England we have this thing we call 'The Eggshell Skull Rule'. You punch someone and it kills them you are as guilty of killing them as if you had shot and killed them, even if the reason they died was because they had a weak skull that is easily shattered that the puncher knew nothing about.

 

The difference comes in this way: to be guilty of murder you have to intend to kill someone or do them really serious harm, so punching someone is less likely to be seen as intending to kill or cause really serious harm than shooting someone, even if they have the same result.

 

If you are hitting someone you believe to be Grond it could be argued that you were not going to do much real harm BUT the counter argument is that you were hitting him as hard as you could hoping to do some serious harm, so you had the intention even if you did not have (as far as you knew) the means.

 

To top it all off even if you are found not guilty of murder you are still almost certainlky going to be guilty of manslaughter, which doesn't carry a mandatory life sentence like murder does but can still get you locked up for years.

 

Even if you get acquitted of that on something like a self defence argument you are going to have spent probably a year or more preparing for and going through the trial, which is a pain in anyone's neck.

 

The point of all this is to issue a gentle warning: if you are going to have your heroes kill someone accidentally, don't sweep the consequences away. This is big drama, a major plot-arc, and likely to have profound effects on the hero and even the game legal system. I wouldn't want to do all that just to register my dislike of the mechanics of killing attacks.

 

Most GMs profess that their villains do not use killing attacks, by and large. The reason for that I venture to suggest is that they know that they are unpredictable, and whilst we all have to adjust to the odd upset, we don't want it happening every couple of sessions. Agents tend to be given relatively small killing attacks because we know that a superhero can pretty much ignore 6d6 EBs but can never quite discount 2d6 RKAs.

 

Can I suggest telling the players ahead of time that if they want to use killing attacks you will be using opponent's with similar attacks. They'll laugh at the x1 stun multipliers then, when they get that x5 at an inconvenient time they are not so cocky. Make players who insist on having any using killing attacks take negative reputations or appropriate hunteds. If you don't like Killing Attacks, there are good ways to discourage their use. If you do like them, don't complain when that 4d6 killing attack hits you in the head.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

My work here is done.

 

As a point of clarification: My primary goal is to educate people on the hidden effectiveness of the stun lottery.

 

Most PCs have no fear of even a hundred agents armed with 6d6 EB blasters, but cringe if faced with a dozen agents armed with 2d6 KA rifles. Now you know why.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Why the assumption that KAs to more STUN on average? It's not true.

 

60 points:

 

KA 4d6 will do an average of 14 BODY, with a 2.66666x multiplier ((1+1+2+3+4+5)/6) does 37.3333 STUN.

 

EB 12d6 will average 12 BODY and 42 STUN.

 

The numbers say that the KA will cause more damge but hurt less. It makes sense. Compare the last time you accidentally cut yourself and the last time you stubbed your toe.

 

KAs do more stun after you subtract (significant) defenses.

Oh, look -- a dead horse! I set for haymaker!

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

{snip}Can I suggest telling the players ahead of time that if they want to use killing attacks you will be using opponent's with similar attacks. They'll laugh at the x1 stun multipliers then' date=' when they get that x5 at an inconvenient time they are not so cocky. Make players who insist on having any using killing attacks take negative reputations or appropriate hunteds. If you don't like Killing Attacks, there are good ways to discourage their use. If you do like them, don't complain when that 4d6 killing attack hits you in the head.[/quote']Hear, hear! :)Although players may balk that I'm stunting their KAs effectiveness at delivering STUN damage, they have to remember that the door swings both ways. I've had combats where some street punk with a shotgun got a lucky STUN multiplier and put a brick down. To my mind, well out of genre. I wrote it off as a fluke at the time (before I ran the numbers), but now I'm convinced it's a glitch in the mechanics. Capping the top end at a maximum of 4x means that 2D6 KA tops out at 48 STUN instead of 60 - and that, I believe, will make a big difference in minimizing the luck factor.For the other folks who mentioned that randomness is a part of the game and shouldn't be allowed to ruin the story - you're basically right. As GM, you can always ignore or re-roll results that bust your story. However, the randomness associated with attack rolls and normal damage falls within a normal (i.e. bell curve) distribution, meaning that the results tend to cluster in the center. Plus, the more dice you roll, the steeper the curve gets - meaning the results cluster even more to the center. So, you can predict with reasonable sureness that the results won't be too far removed from the average the vast majority of the time.The KA doesn't work that way, because the STUN multiplier is, first, linear (sort of) - meaning all results (except 1) have an equal probability of occurring. Second, it's a multiple - which really screws with the distribution. (See the PDF attached to my previous post for the distribution of a 4D6 KA.) It looks nothing like a bell curve, which means the predictability is much less.What I'm basically saying is that the randomness associated with virtually every other part of the system is far more predictable, and thus controllable, than the KA. I've never been fond of them for that reason, but before, it was an intuitive dislike. Now I have the data to back it up! :)This has been a good discussion. My thanks to all the participants. I like learning new stuff - even about a game system I've been playing for over 20 years.

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

I was running some numbers comparing a 3d6 KA to a 9d6 Normal Attack.

 

A 3d6 KA has a 17.5% chance of inflicting 10 or less STUN; a 9d6 Normal Attack has an infintessemally small chance of 10 or less (.00001% chance).

 

A 3d6 KA has a 27% chance of inflicting 11-20 STUN; a 9d6 Normal Attack has a 1.5% chance of that range.

 

A 3d6 KA has a 8% chance of inflicting 21-25 STUN; a 9d6 Normal Attack has a 7% chance.

 

A 3d6 KA has a 10% chance of inflicting 26-30 STUN; a 9d6 Normal Attack has a 34% chance.

 

A 3d6 KA has a 6% chance of inflicting 31-35 STUN; a 9d6 Normal Attack has a 36% chance.

 

A 3d6 KA has a 6% chance of inflicting 36-40 STUN; a 9d6 Normal Attack has a 18% chance.

 

A 3d6 KA has a 10% chance of inflicting 41-50 STUN; a 9d6 Normal Attack has a 4% chance.

 

A 3d6 KA has a 12% chance of inflicting 51-60 STUN; a 9d6 Normal Attack has a .05% (only up to 54 STUN).

 

A 3d6 KA has a 5% chance of inflicting 61-90 STUN.

 

Broader ranges:

range KA Normal

0-15 35% .05%

16-20 9% 1%

21-30 17% 41%

31-40 15% 54%

41+ 23% 4%

 

But put quite another way - versus Defender with his 15 PD/ED armor and 5 PD/ED normal defense:

 

Inflicting STUN Damage KA% Normal%

0 35% 1%

1-5 9% 11%

6-15 18% 66%

16-34 23% 22%

35-45 10% 0%

46-55 3% 0%

56-65 1% 0%

66+ 1% 0%

 

Chance of being stunned: KA= 38%; Normal=22%

Chance of 0--10 STUN: KA=10%; Normal=0%

Chance of -11--20 STUN: KA=5%; Normal=0%

Chance of -21--30 STUN: KA=2%; Normal=0%

Chance of -31 or < STUN: KA=;1% Normal=0%

 

I really think it's a matter of taste on the whole. There is greater than a 1 in 3 chance a 3d6 KA does NO damage to Defender while a 9dd6 Normal Attack is 99% certain to do some damage. However, there is a 38% chance of stunning him with the KA and only a 22% chance with the Normal. There's an 8% chance with the KA of reducing Defender to -11 or worse with the 10% chance of getting him in the 0-10 negative range.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Zornwil, one further item. Ignoring Stunned results, how many hits will to take, on average, for the Normal and the KA attack to put the target down? If the KA has the same (or even one greater) average number of hits, and also has over a 70% greater chance (22% vs 38%) of Stunning the target, I know which one, mechanically, I would want.

[Silbeg]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Most GMs profess that their villains do not use killing attacks, by and large. The reason for that I venture to suggest is that they know that they are unpredictable, and whilst we all have to adjust to the odd upset, we don't want it happening every couple of sessions. Agents tend to be given relatively small killing attacks because we know that a superhero can pretty much ignore 6d6 EBs but can never quite discount 2d6 RKAs.

While I may not be the typical GM, the reasons many villains don't use KAs are more role-playing issues.

 

To start with, most villains are generally intelligent (excepting the Ogre-like thugs), and realize that if they go around killing everyone they meet, eventually they are going to be taken out in the same manner. Also, when given the choice, they will likely forgo killing attacks in many cases as the use of obvious killing attacks could easily increase the severity of their crime.

 

There is usually a large difference between the crimes of "assault" and "assault with a deadly weapon". While it can be argued that a 12d6 normal attacks is as deadly (to normals) as a 4d6 killing attack, it is the obvious lethal nature of a "huge-ass" sword as opposed to a brick's punch.

 

Granted, that being said, I will use KAs for villains when they make sense, from a role-playing aspect.