Limits on Killing attacks?

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Zornwil' date=' 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.[/quote']

I wish I remembered my probability math, I used to know how to calculate all that stuff instead of creating it by brute force.

 

I don't disagree that there's a high-damage issue, just saying there is some balance in that picture, whether it's acceptable according to person and campaign.

 

I would point out that another factor (stating the obvious) is the SPD and capability of the one with the KA. A faster character with a KA is almost certainly (in absence of detailed analysis I say "almost" just to hedge) going to be better off than with a Normal Attack on the whole, while a slower character is playing a much hgiher game of risk, particularly depending on their defenses.

 

Also, singular or out-numbered villains can do well with KAs, IMHO, because it represents their need to put down members of teams potentially quickly, though they will still face many opponents at once.

 

I recall some analysis that increased STUN multiples are an even better deal for the price.

 

But I think one also has to take the genre very carefully into account. IMHO, in a more gritty and lower-powered but still super-heroic campaign the standard KA makes a lot of sense to properly empower police and agents and other normals with serious weaponry. Personally, I think the randomness better illustrates the uncertainty and danger to heroes as well as the frustration of using those weapons in "flesh wounds" iand such. By all means I can still see containing the randomness though.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

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.

One of the things I do concerning this is to not roll the STUNx, but roll for Hit Location instead. It doesn't take any additional time, and cuts down on the extremes. At the Player's option, I simply allow them to assume a 3x for the roll if they are using KAs. This way, "lucky" shots are just that, really lucky, and the SFX is defined by the Hit Location (typically shot in the head). I figure if a Brick takes a shot full in the head and is only Stunned, it's still well within genre.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

I recall some analysis that increased STUN multiples are an even better deal for the price.

 

It's a discrepancy, to me, that the rules indicate a killing attack should jnot be used to achieve a high Stun resukt, then provide an option for enhancing STUN, but not BOD. Why not an advantage that increases the BOD without enhancing STUN? It's supposed to KILL, isn't it?

[BNakagawa]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

It's a discrepancy' date=' to me, that the rules indicate a killing attack should jnot be used to achieve a high Stun resukt, then provide an option for enhancing STUN, but not BOD. Why not an advantage that increases the BOD without enhancing STUN? It's supposed to KILL, isn't it?[/quote']

 

the corollary to your question is - why isn't there a modifier that increases the stun result of an EB? (granted, this would be prone to abuse in an identical fashion to the usual increased stun X junk)

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?Everyone is focusing on whether the STUN damage from a KA is comparable to the equivalent normal attack. The spread on the STUN is greater, the possibility of getting a STUN result is higher, and so forth. Unfortunately, there's still more to the story than that.A Killing Attack's BODY damage bypasses nonresistant defenses. I flipped through a couple of the books today, and I noted several characters who have resistant DEF too low to reasonably prevent their being wounded by a 4D6 KA (the 60-point level being discussed). So, I'm going to disagree slightly with one of Hugh's earlier statements that the BODY damage done by a normal attack vs. a KA is a wash against supers.Before I write up the list, though, this is only a sample, and these types of characters are in the minority. Most of the villains in CKC have resistant DEF high enough to reasonably expect to bounce the BODY damage from a 4D6 KA (especially the master villains). However, there are enough of the other type to take notice.I omitted characters such as Cheshire Cat and Shrinker, whose primary defense is an unusually high DCV. I also omitted characters, such as Masquerade and Mirage, who don't get involved in direct combat if they can avoid it. Still, I came up with several villains who could expect to take BODY damage from a 4D6 KA, but not from a 12D6 normal attack:Character...................................DEF/rDEFScorpia........................................14/8Ultrasonique.................................18/10Binder..........................................17/9Radium........................................18/12Blowtorch.....................................18/12Fenris..........................................21/11Herculan......................................21/6Hornet.........................................12/5Riptide.........................................16/6Thorn...........................................16/6What's my point? That you can't just look at the STUN damage. In each of these cases, the villain would expect, on average, to take 0 BODY from a normal attack when the equivalent KA would inflict (sometimes significant) BODY. In fact, except for Scorpia and Hornet, most of these folks would likely never take BODY damage from a 12D6 normal attack. But they could all expect to take BODY from a 4D6 KA, just about every time.It gets worse when you consider that a 4D6 roll has a shallower bell curve than the 12D6 roll. In other words, the 12D6 roll will tend towards the center more than the 4D6 roll - meaning it's less likely to vary a whole lot from its average value of 12 BODY.Okay, so what? Well, "so what" is the difference between a villain with a few bruises and a hospitalized one. Bad PR for the hero, to say the least.I'm not trying to start another argument. The majority of the villains in CKC, and in the other supers books, can reasonably ignore BODY damage from either KAs or normal attacks. So Hugh was right - especially if we're talking about the likes of Grond, Firewing, or Dr. Destroyer - that the difference in BODY is negligible (if even noticed) most of the time. I just don't want all the folks reading this thread (especially the newbies) to think they can safely buy a KA and unleash it on any super-powered target they want.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

It's a discrepancy' date=' to me, that the rules indicate a killing attack should jnot be used to achieve a high Stun resukt, then provide an option for enhancing STUN, but not BOD. Why not an advantage that increases the BOD without enhancing STUN? It's supposed to KILL, isn't it?[/quote']

I think that everyone is getting a little too hung up on labels again here.

 

Killing attacks are a use of force, that regardless of whether they break bones or cause extreme bleeding, that are indiscriminate in their destructiveness. Normal Attacks are by their very nature designed to subdue more often than kill*. The fact that killing attacks just happen to be more effecient at taking down opponents that have prepared for them by wearing armor does not diminish the impact of the decision of an attacker who chooses to use a lethal force killing attack in combat rather than a normal damage attack. It is a choice of 'take them down nomatter the cost'.

 

*How often do you see large male animals (bears, deer, rhino's, lions etc.) in the wild that are actually using their natural killing attacks vs. each other (teeth, claws and horns) instead of more typically just applying their STR in approximations of punches, shoves and tackles? Sometimes but the they are usuall the exception and not the rule. The main reason is that all they are trying to accomplish is just to establish dominance (PRE attack) instead of actually killing a fellow member of their species.

'HERO-System' games no matter the genre being played generally assume that the players have characters that are the 'good guys' and do not 'normally' try to take down the bad guys with an attack that has a rather large chance of killing them unless there is a MAJOR reason. How often does Superman use his Heat-Vision vs. individual opponents in battle? Not very many. He usually exhausts all other means or is already aware of the extreme power level of the opponent before he cuts loose with that attack.

 

To argue about the combat effeciency of KA vs. NA without taking the above situations into account is just meta-gaming since they are not intended to be 100% equivalent attacks. If a GM is running into more and more player submitted characters with too many KA's when compared to the flavor of game that they want to run they have many ways to curb that behavior. But it should never be so much of a problem to require anything more than use or non-use of the optional rules to handle.

 

Remember, we are still talking about the rules for a RPG, not a Wargame.

 

HM

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

I think that everyone is getting a little too hung up on labels again here.

 

The reference is more to the comment in the rules that killing attacks are intended to kill, and should not be purchased for the hope of greater Stun results, not to the name of the power.

 

'HERO-System' games no matter the genre being played generally assume that the players have characters that are the 'good guys' and do not 'normally' try to take down the bad guys with an attack that has a rather large chance of killing them unless there is a MAJOR reason. How often does Superman use his Heat-Vision vs. individual opponents in battle? Not very many. He usually exhausts all other means or is already aware of the extreme power level of the opponent before he cuts loose with that attack.

 

And when I watch the X-Men cartoon, Wolverine's claws somehow never draw blood. So what?

 

To argue about the combat effeciency of KA vs. NA without taking the above situations into account is just meta-gaming since they are not intended to be 100% equivalent attacks. If a GM is running into more and more player submitted characters with too many KA's when compared to the flavor of game that they want to run they have many ways to curb that behavior. But it should never be so much of a problem to require anything more than use or non-use of the optional rules to handle.

 

There are Role Playing aspects and Game aspects. If there were a power which worked, in practice, exactly like a standard Energy Blast, but cost only 3 points per die and was noted as "An ability that's not very heroic", regardless of what you call it it would not be balanced. Id is a more effective combat power than similarly priced abilities.

 

Whether KA is more effective than an equal investment in EB is much less clear. However, it does tend to inflict more STUN than an equivalent normal attack in a Supers game. If that is causing players to select KA's over normal attacks, contrary to the genre, then the rules should be modified to provide an in-game reason to follow the genre.

 

That doesn't mean the KA rules need to change. In many genres, and many Supers games, it's not causing a problem. In games where it is, there are solutions - fixed stun multiple or requring the "reduced stun multiple limitation" seem adequate to me. But saying "The villains can use these more efficient attacks, but you can't" is bound to face some resistance, at least from some players in some games. Just like banning, say, EDM Usable as an Attack, but then letting the villains commonly have and use the construct.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Character...................................DEF/rDEF

 

Scorpia........................................14/8

Ultrasonique.................................18/10

Binder..........................................17/9

Radium........................................18/12

Blowtorch.....................................18/12

Fenris..........................................21/11

Herculan......................................21/6

Hornet.........................................12/5

Riptide.........................................16/6

Thorn...........................................16/6

 

Interestingly, with the possible exceptions of Fenris and Herculan (and they're right on the bubble), these characters are all below the defense level at which a KA will average more stun inflicted at the 60 AP level. So there are some characters (a limited number, as you note, though adding those who rely on high DCV would increase the figure) against whom KA is not the most effective means of inflicting STUN.

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

(snip)I flipped through a couple of the books today' date=' and I noted several characters who have resistant DEF too low to reasonably prevent their being wounded by a 4D6 KA (the 60-point level being discussed). [/quote']This is also is representative of the weird degree to which the HERO characters don't well represent what many (most?) of us see in play.

I just don't want all the folks reading this thread (especially the newbies) to think they can safely buy a KA and unleash it on any super-powered target they want.

And I include this to ensure you don't misunderstand me, this is a good point and I'm not trying to detract from it. Just an additional comment re HERO stock characters.

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

I think that everyone is getting a little too hung up on labels again here.

 

Killing attacks are a use of force, that regardless of whether they break bones or cause extreme bleeding, that are indiscriminate in their destructiveness. Normal Attacks are by their very nature designed to subdue more often than kill*. The fact that killing attacks just happen to be more effecient at taking down opponents that have prepared for them by wearing armor does not diminish the impact of the decision of an attacker who chooses to use a lethal force killing attack in combat rather than a normal damage attack. It is a choice of 'take them down nomatter the cost'.

 

*How often do you see large male animals (bears, deer, rhino's, lions etc.) in the wild that are actually using their natural killing attacks vs. each other (teeth, claws and horns) instead of more typically just applying their STR in approximations of punches, shoves and tackles? Sometimes but the they are usuall the exception and not the rule. The main reason is that all they are trying to accomplish is just to establish dominance (PRE attack) instead of actually killing a fellow member of their species.

'HERO-System' games no matter the genre being played generally assume that the players have characters that are the 'good guys' and do not 'normally' try to take down the bad guys with an attack that has a rather large chance of killing them unless there is a MAJOR reason. How often does Superman use his Heat-Vision vs. individual opponents in battle? Not very many. He usually exhausts all other means or is already aware of the extreme power level of the opponent before he cuts loose with that attack.

 

To argue about the combat effeciency of KA vs. NA without taking the above situations into account is just meta-gaming since they are not intended to be 100% equivalent attacks. If a GM is running into more and more player submitted characters with too many KA's when compared to the flavor of game that they want to run they have many ways to curb that behavior. But it should never be so much of a problem to require anything more than use or non-use of the optional rules to handle.

 

Remember, we are still talking about the rules for a RPG, not a Wargame.

 

HM

I think Hugh well-answered some of the concern, and I agree both with him that KAs don't pose an issue in many, if not most, instances, though the text is misleading, and with you that there is a degree to which such close inspection and cost analysis is at least somewhat unfair.

 

However, this is the dynamic that Gary is often on about, which is whether the intention of points for abilities is to be truly "balanced". And if not, why bother with points. I am not really of this school of thinking (I have pointed out before I believe there are deliberate imbalances and they suit heroic fiction well), but I think it's a school from which graduates important warnings and concepts which inform the further development of the game.

 

Wow, now that's some fence-straddling worthy of Hermit! But, truly, the point is that you cite well the reasons why, in the end, the issue is certainly more complex than mere points balance.

 

And I think another issue, which Hugh begs by citing the text's commentary and then divergent approach, is that the rules do a sometimes-poor job of really informing the reader as to these issues. I don't really fault the rules - that's a ton fo material to get into, and it quickly becomes even more daunting. This is why I think a "HERO Arcana" or "Ultimate GM" (as someone pointed out) would be a very good product. It would be even better if such a product included opposing views on the same issue, along with some degree of reconciliation as the authors agree, to illustrate the complexity, robustness, and flexibility of the toolkit as you get under the hood. Unfortunately, though, the downside is such a product would inevitably be misquoted and invite the hoots and howls of the "HERO's too hard!" crowd.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

The reference is more to the comment in the rules that killing attacks are intended to kill' date=' and should not be purchased for the hope of greater Stun results, not to the name of the power.[/quote']

 

And when I watch the X-Men cartoon, Wolverine's claws somehow never draw blood. So what?

That's more of a nod to the power of TV censors than the character from the comics so I don't see the relevance to this conversation. Superman (or a very close alternate reality version of him) DID kill Luthor with Heat-Vision in an episode of animated Justice League to illustrate the point at which that alternate team crossed the line.

 

 

There are Role Playing aspects and Game aspects. If there were a power which worked, in practice, exactly like a standard Energy Blast, but cost only 3 points per die and was noted as "An ability that's not very heroic", regardless of what you call it it would not be balanced. Id is a more effective combat power than similarly priced abilities.

Whether KA is more effective than an equal investment in EB is much less clear. However, it does tend to inflict more STUN than an equivalent normal attack in a Supers game. If that is causing players to select KA's over normal attacks, contrary to the genre, then the rules should be modified to provide an in-game reason to follow the genre.

Why? Batman is could become far more effective in combat if he only was willing to use a gun. There is no 'rule' other than his psychological limitations (part of the 'Role' playing aspect of HERO) that keep that from happening which works just fine.

 

That doesn't mean the KA rules need to change. In many genres, and many Supers games, it's not causing a problem. In games where it is, there are solutions - fixed stun multiple or requring the "reduced stun multiple limitation" seem adequate to me. But saying "The villains can use these more efficient attacks, but you can't" is bound to face some resistance, at least from some players in some games. Just like banning, say, EDM Usable as an Attack, but then letting the villains commonly have and use the construct.

You just agreed with my earler sentiment here. The basic structure of KA's are not broken in most games. However, the appropriate use by NPC's in a particular game might be broken.

 

HM

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

{snip}That doesn't mean the KA rules need to change. In many genres' date=' and many Supers games, it's not causing a problem. In games where it is, there are solutions - fixed stun multiple or requring the "reduced stun multiple limitation" seem adequate to me. But saying "The villains can use these more efficient attacks, but you can't" is bound to face some resistance, at least from some players in some games. Just like banning, say, EDM Usable as an Attack, but then letting the villains commonly have and use the construct.[/quote']Hearty agreement. Letting the villains have something the players can't is a REALLY bad idea; it can actually drive players away from the game. And that helps nobody.If a rules change is made, or restrictions are placed on which powers people can have, they have to apply across the board, in the simple interest of fairness if for no other reason.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

And when I watch the X-Men cartoon' date=' Wolverine's claws somehow never draw blood. So what?[/quote']

That has more to do with censors than with the genre, realism or body armor. If you are running a cartoon RPG geared toward children, then you might as well use the Loony Toons damage, where high explosives only leave you Stunned and covered in soot.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

One of the things I've noticed is the constant use of the Champions genre as a baseline for determing if KAs or more or less effective than normal attacks. What about other genres? Fantasy, Modern, Star Hero and so on. Does it hold true there as well? The rules are universal, though the effectiveness may vary from genre to genre.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Hearty agreement. Letting the villains have something the players can't is a REALLY bad idea; it can actually drive players away from the game. And that helps nobody.

 

If a rules change is made, or restrictions are placed on which powers people can have, they have to apply across the board, in the simple interest of fairness if for no other reason.

 

While this is a bit off topic, I have to disagree. If what you say held any water, where would Doctor Destroyer be without the Powers he has that no sane GM would allow a PC (in a standard champs game)? Villains get to choose from all the toys. Heroes only get to choose from the heroic and balanced ones. It's part of what makes them heroes instead of viginalte powergamer characters.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Character...................................DEF/rDEF

 

Scorpia........................................14/8

Ultrasonique.................................18/10

Binder..........................................17/9

Radium........................................18/12

Blowtorch.....................................18/12

Fenris..........................................21/11

Herculan......................................21/6

Hornet.........................................12/5

Riptide.........................................16/6

Thorn...........................................16/6

 

 

True, these characters are very vulnerable to getting their tickets punched by a 4d6 KA.

 

Also true is that I don't think many of these villains are very well constructed.

 

In terms of supporting a superhero game where the action even vaguely resembles the source materials (comic books) these writeups do not deliver the goods.

 

I do not think it is a very good thing where a villain (take Blowtorch for example) is basically one solid shot away from being taken out of the game. 18 def and a Con of 18? Even a bad roll on 12d6 EB stuns him. First one to land a shot sets him up for the inevitable putaway shot. An average roll leaves him with all of 6 stun left. That and he has a DCV of 7.

 

Did they playtest any of these writeups?

 

I'm sure they want to make combats quicker but I don't think the answer is to make villains out of balsa wood and paper mache.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

I'm sure they want to make combats quicker but I don't think the answer is to make villains out of balsa wood and paper mache.

 

Blowtorch strikes me as the classic "Merc with an edge" character. Tough enough that the polkice have a problem, dangerous, perhaps, to a low powered Super. But the type who have to be in very superior numbers to take on a standard Super. [There's an old Iron Man issue where he fights a few dozen such characters. That's overkill [iM has lots of xp], but I could see 3 Blowtorch clones to one standard 350 point Super.]

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

While this is a bit off topic' date=' I have to disagree. If what you say held any water, where would Doctor Destroyer be without the Powers he has that no sane GM would allow a PC (in a standard champs game)? Villains get to choose from all the toys. Heroes only get to choose from the heroic and balanced ones. It's part of what makes them heroes instead of viginalte powergamer characters.[/quote']

 

CAVEAT: I haven't re-read Dr. D recently.

 

However, I don't think he has powers that would be denied the PC's. I think he has point levels and power magnitudes that would be denied the PC's, because he is a mega-villain. That's a different animal - in d20 terms, he's an "epic level character". But he doesn't have "Extra Dimensional Movement - Usable as an attack - send hero to Hell" opr a similar construct I would deny to a PC. He "just" has points of a magnitude permitting him to buy a lot more such powers at a much higher level.

 

[bTW, what would happen to a GM who decided the starting Supers should begin their careers in mortal combat with a team designed on the Dr D model? I doubt that campaign would last long either.]

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

One of the things I've noticed is the constant use of the Champions genre as a baseline for determing if KAs or more or less effective than normal attacks. What about other genres? Fantasy' date=' Modern, Star Hero and so on. Does it hold true there as well? The rules are universal, though the effectiveness may vary from genre to genre.[/quote']

 

As I have noted above, that's one reason I don't support a change to KA's in general. The "excess Stun" issue only arises at a certain baseline of defenses. In Supers, the standard (20 DEF/60 AP attack) is right about at that breakpoint. In Fantasy Hero (where attacks often still reach 12 DC, but defenses are considerably lower), the problem doesn't exist. KA's are less effective, on average, at inflicting STUN. The hit location chart also has a (somewhat lesser) mitigating effect as it reduces the high extremes.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

That's more of a nod to the power of TV censors than the character from the comics so I don't see the relevance to this conversation. Superman (or a very close alternate reality version of him) DID kill Luthor with Heat-Vision in an episode of animated Justice League to illustrate the point at which that alternate team crossed the line.

 

That scene would have been just as effective had Superman instead picked Luthor up, followed by a cutaway where we hear a crunch and a scream, followed by a return to the Oval Office where Luthor's armor lies mangled on the floor, a still bare hand sticking out.

 

In other words, it doesn't matter whether the attack was a KA or a normal atack. Alternate Superman used his vastly superior power to murder an already-beaten opponent. [similarly, it doesn't matter whether nhis heat vision was an RKA or an EB]

 

Why? Batman is could become far more effective in combat if he only was willing to use a gun. There is no 'rule' other than his psychological limitations (part of the 'Role' playing aspect of HERO) that keep that from happening which works just fine.

 

Considering Batman's vast MA skills, I'm not sure he would be more effective. He DOES use killing attacks - a Batarang that goes straight through a criminal's hand, or is buried to half its length in his thigh does not strike me as an EB.

 

Second, if use of guns were common and cost no points (ie Bats could readily use them under the game rules), he would deserve points for his disadvantage that prevents him from doing so. That he would have to pay points, and likely would be no more effective, both argue for the fact he gets 0 points for this disadvantage. Finally, Bats is a fictional character whose actions are controlled by the writer. Good role players play characters who have, and adhere to, psychological limitatioins that reduce their combat effectiveness (like a well-written fictional character). Combat monsters and rules mechanics generally avoid such disadvantages, or play them poorly in the hopes of minimizing the limitations on their characters' actions.

 

You just agreed with my earler sentiment here. The basic structure of KA's are not broken in most games.

 

I'm not convinced they are broken in many cases. However, there is a mechanical reason players will be drawn to their use. Some fairly easy fixes within the toolbox are all that is needed to correct that when and if it is a problem.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

And I think another issue' date=' which Hugh begs by citing the text's commentary and then divergent approach, is that the rules do a sometimes-poor job of really informing the reader as to these issues. I don't really fault the rules - that's a ton fo material to get into, and it quickly becomes even more daunting. This is why I think a "HERO Arcana" or "Ultimate GM" (as someone pointed out) would be a very good product. It would be even better if such a product included opposing views on the same issue, along with some degree of reconciliation as the authors agree, to illustrate the complexity, robustness, and flexibility of the toolkit as you get under the hood. Unfortunately, though, the downside is such a product would inevitably be misquoted and invite the hoots and howls of the "HERO's too hard!" crowd.[/quote']

 

Agreed on all counts. I'd love to see more of the philosophy behind the game rule decisions. However, I know Steve dislikes discussing such philosophy. As well, it begs arguiments that this isn't what the philosophy should be, and opens up optional rules (of the kind you suggest above) which should be used if your philosophy (for this campaign, this genre or for the game as a whole) differs. d20 includes a bit of this now ("behind the curtain" sidebars), but not a lot, and the restriction to only a little doubtless has the same reasoning behind it.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

While this is a bit off topic' date=' I have to disagree. If what you say held any water, where would Doctor Destroyer be without the Powers he has that no sane GM would allow a PC (in a standard champs game)? Villains get to choose from all the toys. Heroes only get to choose from the heroic and balanced ones. It's part of what makes them heroes instead of viginalte powergamer characters.[/quote']

 

This is a very common mistake in game design. I'm not talking simply Hero System or Superhero games... I'm talking any game, any genre.

 

The system should be designed to support the genre you are trying to emulate. The fact that KAs in supers games are more effective (in many cases) than normal attacks is counter to this philosophy... if you are trying to use Hero for Four Color style games. If you want the players to play heroes, don't make it difficult to do so. Challenges should come about as part of role playing... not through mechanics that make you statistically less effective. The PLAYER should not have to suffer the struggle of being heroic... the CHARACTER does that. If the player is supposed to be playing a Hero, then the system should make it easy/effective/desirable to do so.

 

It is a totally backward concept to say that the PLAYER should have to work with less effective tools in making a character, than the enemies he will face. That is taking the "vs" concept into metagame and this is what subtly forces the Us vs. Them mentality.

 

To take your thought further, what you are creating is a matter of GM control. You force the players to work with sub-optimal tools... then require them to role play said characters in a proscribed framework (How I think a Hero should be) with little or no game system support for such rolel playing. This means that the only way the PLAYERS can get positive reinforcement of their character and play style is through the GM giving approval.

 

This is GM control issues. Now the players have only one source of satisfaction... that is the GM smile and nod and arbitrary decision in their favor because they "played like the GM wanted them to..."

 

System must support the style of play intended. This is why the concept of "universal systems" is inherently flawed. In fact, this is why I feel that Hero System is NOT a good "Silver Age - Shining Hero - Four Color" style system. I think it is an excellent Bronze Age/Iron Age type system... and while the KA vs Normal is only a small part of this... it is a part.

 

(I'm also of the school that a point system like Hero exists as an attempt at the Platonic ideal of "balance." It may never reach that goal, but it should operate from that basic vision. From my POV, those elements that are purposefully "unbalanced" to support one genre or another need to be conscious abberations and stated as such. An extreme example of this... if you really wanted to enforce the Heroic Ideal in Champions, a good move would be to reduce the cost of Normal Damage to 4pts. per die. This allows players to get more for their points, and supports mechanically being effective with "heroic" powers. This would be a conscious abberation of the rules to drive a certain style/genre of game by altering the balance in favor of normal attacks, which is what you want to see.)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Dust Raven's comments about other genres got me thinking.

 

If Hero is designed to be a mirror to comics, TV, films and stories, then we have to bear in mind that resistant defences are far less common in sci-fi and fantasy than they are in games.

 

Fantasy characters might have some armour: they don't all have armour though. Cops may wear a bullet proof vest, but not all the time by along chalk. Future-heroes might have their force field belt, but as often they don't.

 

Even in the superhero comics, there are significant numbers of characters with no resistant defences at all. Not one of the list of characters compiled by MikeyMitchell had NO resistant defence...

 

We use resistant defences because we are afraid of killing attacks, that is it. We are afraid of them because they come up often enough to worry about and are devastating if you don't have resistant defences.

 

Not sure where this thought is going; I'm not saying that we shouldn't have killing attacks. I think I would like to see alternative methods of buying any using them though, not necessarily replacing the existing mechanic, just there as an alternative for the significant number of people who play this game and do not like them very much. Just because that is how we have always done killing attacks, doesn't mean we got it right.

 

Here's my 'problems for discussion'

 

1. Killing attacks are normal attacks that work against limited defences. They are not costed that way. Whether a KA or a normal attack is more effective against a target with a large amount of resistant defence probably should not be our yardstick...they are utterly devastating if you don't have appropriate defences.

 

2. Killing attacks are anomalous (sp?) as they allow you to apply your full non-resistant defence to the stun damage if you have any reistant defence. this fix obviously makes them more playable but hides the problem mentioned above about the costing. This makes little sense other than an a game fix: if you have 3rPD Body armour and a bullet does 12 BODY, you take 9 BODY damage. Having 60 pd means you only take the 9 stun from taking nine body. Take off the body armour and get shot for 9 Body and your massive PD has no effect on stun....hmmmm....

 

3. The rules and mechanics for killing attacks make resistant defences ubiquitous when they probably shouldn't be.

 

 

We could solve some of this by saying normal defences apply to the stun from killing attacks whether or not you have resistant defences. Work?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

We could solve some of this by saying normal defences apply to the stun from killing attacks whether or not you have resistant defences. Work?

 

Likely not - 2 average hits from a 60 AP KA, and the character is likely dead or dying. I thinkl resistant defenses are virtually universal so the cjaracter will live, even if KO'd by the Stun.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

However' date=' I don't think he has powers that would be denied the PC's. I think he has point levels and power magnitudes that would be denied the PC's, because he is a mega-villain. That's a different animal - in d20 terms, he's an "epic level character". But he doesn't have [b']"Extra Dimensional Movement - Usable as an attack - send hero to Hell"[/b] opr a similar construct I would deny to a PC. He "just" has points of a magnitude permitting him to buy a lot more such powers at a much higher level.

Nebula does.