Limits on Killing attacks?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

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.)

Of course, there is the fact that a few points of STUN difference between RKA and EB aren't particularly unbalancing or really makes one more powerful than another. Also keep in mind that the PC will be fighting normals/agents as well as supers, where all of the villains will be almost always fighting supers (the PCs).

 

I still stand by my statement, though I was speaking more broadly than just about KAs.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Nebula does.

 

I don't need Nebula to have a campaign. I do need megavillains (not necessarily Dr. D, but characters to fill that role). Such megavillains can readily be constructed without a power contruct a PC would be denied, albeit at point levels not available to starting (or possibly any) PC's.

 

After 40 years of weekly gaming, a PC could be comparable to Dr. Destroyer. He will never be comparable to Nebula, because of the EDM UAA. As I would deny such a construct to a PC, I don't feel it appropriate to allow it to an NPC. As such, so long Nebula!

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

I don't need Nebula to have a campaign. I do need megavillains (not necessarily Dr. D' date=' but characters to fill that role). Such megavillains can readily be constructed without a power contruct a PC would be denied, albeit at point levels not available to starting (or possibly any) PC's.After 40 years of weekly gaming, a PC could be comparable to Dr. Destroyer. He will never be comparable to Nebula, because of the EDM UAA. As I would deny such a construct to a PC, I don't feel it appropriate to allow it to an NPC. As such, so long Nebula![/quote']You know, this is getting scary. We're in agreement again. ;)Yeah, I first saw Nebula and said, "When Hell freezes over and pigs grow wings and fly through it wearing ice skates." :)I always try to look at things from the perspective of the players, as if I were playing the character and ask, "Would I be genuinely upset if someone did that to my character?" If the answer is "yes", then I don't do it someone else.Before everyone climbs on - that doesn't mean I'm not going to slap the hero with a 20D6 EB once in a while. That's the hazard of combat - but the heroes have defenses against that sort of thing, and the effect is temporary. Being confined in another dimension and subject to torture for all eternity, with no way to get back - that's WAY over the top.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Blowtorch strikes me as the classic "Merc with an edge" character. Tough enough that the polkice have a problem' date=' 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.]

 

This may be so, but he costs 350 points. Which begs the question, should a PC be allowed to take him as a hunted at the 'as powerful' level even though the player may or may not know that he's essentially the Champions equivalent of Glass Joe?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

I don't need Nebula to have a campaign. I do need megavillains (not necessarily Dr. D, but characters to fill that role). Such megavillains can readily be constructed without a power contruct a PC would be denied, albeit at point levels not available to starting (or possibly any) PC's.

 

After 40 years of weekly gaming, a PC could be comparable to Dr. Destroyer. He will never be comparable to Nebula, because of the EDM UAA. As I would deny such a construct to a PC, I don't feel it appropriate to allow it to an NPC. As such, so long Nebula!

That can make a campaign stale though. How do you handle those situations where the adventure calls for something like that? Those times when something like that would make your job as a GM easier, and the game more enjoyable for the players? No I don't want my character to be sent to Hell, but nobody said it's a one way trip. There's plenty of stories where the heroes are sent someplace where there's no escape, and then escaped.

 

Of course, you're well within your rights to not do stuff like that, I'm just saying it's not necessarily a bad thing to actually do them.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Okay, with nothing else to do between calls at work today, I did a little figuring.

 

To all of those who worked up spiffy charts that "proved" that KAs are more effective in a Champs game than normal attacks, did you take into account that even though a KA has an increased chance of Stunning, it also has a HUGE increased chance of doing absolutely NO DAMAGE? Wouldn't that balance everything out, at least a bit?

[Vorsch]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Not realy, a bad roll on a normal attack does very littly damage to most characters. KA have the instant win effect which is highly tempting for players.

 

How many fights are ended by one lucky roll of a KA ( lucky being one in 6 )

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Not realy, a bad roll on a normal attack does very littly damage to most characters. KA have the instant win effect which is highly tempting for players.

 

How many fights are ended by one lucky roll of a KA ( lucky being one in 6 )

My point is that its more likely to get that bad roll on a KA when compared to a normal attack. How many 12d6 EB have you rolled and did absolutely no damage to a target with average defenses?

[BNakagawa]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

My point is that its more likely to get that bad roll on a KA when compared to a normal attack. How many 12d6 EB have you rolled and did absolutely no damage to a target with average defenses?

 

 

compare two powers - one will do 1/6th of the target's stun (through defenses) every time you hit. the other has a 5/6 chance of doing nothing and a 1/6 chance of doing all of the target's stun in one go.

 

Which one is better?

 

They both average the same net stun, BTW.

 

Another way of looking at it: if I am being attacked by a person or people using normal attacks that are constantly hitting me for small amounts of damage, then I have the opportunity to move my levels into DCV, dodge, run for it or take hostages when my STUN gets low. If I get drilled in the head for 90 STUN by a KA and koed in one shot, I have NO opportunity to adjust my tactics.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

That can make a campaign stale though. How do you handle those situations where the adventure calls for something like that?

 

At that point, I'm not dealing with a character, but a plot device. If an alien machine blows up and hurls our heroes across the dimensions, or a DEMON ritual opens the gates of Hell, that's a different animal.

 

At the same time, a hero with EDM UAA which requires a 60 day ritual and a lock of the victim's hair would likely pass the "smell test" and be allowed to a PC (though why he would want it...)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

To elaborate on BNakagawa's point, would you rather have an attack which does 20 points every hit (after defenses or 40 points half the time and none the other half.

 

Both will average the same number of hits to KO any given target, but only one will Stun him. The KA adds the advantage that the average is actually higher (again, assuming Super level defenses).

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

My point is that its more likely to get that bad roll on a KA when compared to a normal attack. How many 12d6 EB have you rolled and did absolutely no damage to a target with average defenses?

From the GM who runs evil bad misanthropic nasty villains who want to kill, I've seen those villains more often lose a phase essentially completely to no damage than one-punch somebody. But to Vorsch's point, I've seen the one-punch, but nowhere near 1 in 6 KAs. PS - and even with a one-punch, that's to a single character; I don't recall a super-team or villain/villain team losing from a sole KA although a lucky KA HAS INDEED been the culmination of a fight, and I won't swear it wasn't one that was close to that point, I'm not sure.

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

At that point, I'm not dealing with a character, but a plot device. If an alien machine blows up and hurls our heroes across the dimensions, or a DEMON ritual opens the gates of Hell, that's a different animal.

 

At the same time, a hero with EDM UAA which requires a 60 day ritual and a lock of the victim's hair would likely pass the "smell test" and be allowed to a PC (though why he would want it...)

But I do think there's a fine line between plot device and some villains. Almost by design; people don't play villains, GMs do. I have on rare occassion given a power to a villain that I don't think I'd allow a PC, though perhaps only literally 2 or 3 times over the last 20+ years.

 

PS - and I'd maintain this fits the source material.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

You can get a little caught up in this talk of averages, so why not look at how it works in practice?

 

Download a dice rolling program, can I suggest this excellent one by Tony Moller:

 

http://www.aroooo.com/rpg_stuff/dice_roller/

 

It does Hero dice and lots of others.

 

In one box line up a 4d6 killing attack, in the second, a 12d6 normal attack, and roll a few times. See how long it takes to get a killing attack roll that ends the combat, even if you've just had four in a row that wouldn't break a window. (I just did this: my FIRST roll was 46/11 for the normal attack and 85/17 for the killing attack. Assuming defences of around 30, the killing attack certainly stunned and probably KO'd the opponent. Imagine how you'd feel if your character was the recipient.)

 

You'll notice how 'averages' work in practice.

 

Now, honestly, re-evaluate your position.

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

You can get a little caught up in this talk of averages, so why not look at how it works in practice?

 

Download a dice rolling program, can I suggest this excellent one by Tony Moller:

 

http://www.aroooo.com/rpg_stuff/dice_roller/

 

It does Hero dice and lots of others.

 

In one box line up a 4d6 killing attack, in the second, a 12d6 normal attack, and roll a few times. See how long it takes to get a killing attack roll that ends the combat, even if you've just had four in a row that wouldn't break a window. (I just did this: my FIRST roll was 46/11 for the normal attack and 85/17 for the killing attack. Assuming defences of around 30, the killing attack certainly stunned and probably KO'd the opponent. Imagine how you'd feel if your character was the recipient.)

 

You'll notice how 'averages' work in practice.

 

Now, honestly, re-evaluate your position.

What's wrong with actual gameplay results? Less theoretical than even this. Isolating an element and examining its singular impact should not be dismissed, I agree, but is ultimately an impaired exercise in a complex system, particularly one which is not a win/lose game.

 

PS - and if you had 4 in a row that didn't do anything, mightn't the attacker be in some degree of hurt unless his opponent is having the same problem?

[BNakagawa]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

What's wrong with actual gameplay results? Less theoretical than even this. Isolating an element and examining its singular impact should not be dismissed, I agree, but is ultimately an impaired exercise in a complex system, particularly one which is not a win/lose game.

 

PS - and if you had 4 in a row that didn't do anything, mightn't the attacker be in some degree of hurt unless his opponent is having the same problem?

 

Gameplay results are purely anecdotal evidence.

 

The properties of one random number multiplied by another random number is not.

 

But if you are committed to anchoring your arguments in actual game play experience, my contribution is this: Most of the GMs I have played with use villains with considerably more defenses than the published materials would suggest is average. They are dissatisfied with villains that fold like a cheap suit after one solid hit, be it EB or KA. This makes using EBs in play less attractive than KAs.

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

Gameplay results are purely anecdotal evidence. The properties of one random number multiplied by another random number is not.But if you are committed to anchoring your arguments in actual game play experience' date=' my contribution is this: Most of the GMs I have played with use villains with considerably more defenses than the published materials would suggest is average. They are dissatisfied with villains that fold like a cheap suit after one solid hit, be it EB or KA. This makes using EBs in play less attractive than KAs.[/quote']And, IMHO, therein lies the problem. I don't care how many 350-pt heroes with 12DC attacks you throw at Dr. Destroyer, more than likely he's going to laugh off any normal attack they can throw at him. That's why the players start resorting to KAs - just to have SOME chance of doing SOMETHING to stop him.That's why I tend to be fond of Damage Reduction for master villain types rather than extraordinarily high defenses. It means they don't fold like a house of cards from a lucky hit, but it also means the average hero has a reasonable chance of contributing something towards bringing them down. I also try to encourage the players to take exotic attacks (like Drains, et al) for those cases where the villain is too heavily defended for normal attacks to be effective.And, yes, I'm aware this is drifting off topic...but it seemed a logical tangent. Is that an oxymoron?

[Vorsch]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

If a vilain has 50 resistant defences he will shrug off almost all 12d6 attacks, the guy with the 4d6 KA is still a threat ( any KA multiple with 5 or 6 will do some damage probabilly, with a chance of a stun and even instant knockout ).

 

KAs are simply anti genre and anti reality. guns dont take out superman or the hulk, not even on there best roll do they inflict even 1 pt of stun to these types.

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Gameplay results are purely anecdotal evidence.

 

The properties of one random number multiplied by another random number is not.

 

But if you are committed to anchoring your arguments in actual game play experience, my contribution is this: Most of the GMs I have played with use villains with considerably more defenses than the published materials would suggest is average. They are dissatisfied with villains that fold like a cheap suit after one solid hit, be it EB or KA. This makes using EBs in play less attractive than KAs.

Just to be clear, while statistics on damage are, as I think I noted, useful, they tell only a relatively small portion of the story when taking into account character builds (SPD, protections, and DCes of damage, along with many nuances), tactics, dynamics of games (# PCs, types of opposition), and the fact that games vary in nature from wargame-like combat-oriented to self-conscious cooperative story-telling to who-knows-what. In this light, I contend that actual gameplay is necessarily a primary factor before we declare any mechanic broken or lacking. In fact, this is why we often criticize that a game may not have been playtested nearly enough - the math of probability by no means accounts for how it will play out and without proper playtesting. Along these lines, I contend every edition of Champion/HERO has suffered from to some degree or another, but most games also do, and this is because of the commercial aspect - you can't just hand a commercial game out for broad playtesting, so you necessarily release to market and sees what happens. There's a reason d20 v3 had problems - they couldn't release the rules changes to a wide audience without compromising sales, so they had to "wait and see", hence d20 v3.5.

 

I would say that many GMs find the published material somewhat lacking in general in regard to character creation (allowance for ECs, ratio of defense in general, not just for villains), let alone your point which I agree with.

 

However, while you might say that EBs are less desirable, the thing is we see many (I don't know if it's most but it might be) superhero games using EBs over KAs both for villains and heroes, yet with KAs thrown in also. The KA villains, to my mind but I may be wrong, rarely seem to dominate any more than others. I think we have to bear in mind the nuances of characters, wherein we have many factors besides Defense - Desolids, Damage Reductions, Aids, and many other ways to counter damage. In this light, substantive damage might not be such an issue, and the variability of KA's damage becomes an even more serious question on the low end of it, where a character is likely to completely waste a phase. And where KA is removed from variability with a 3x STUN multiple (a proposed mod by the HERO rules themselves), I contend that you simply don't see an issue with KA then, I would add.

[Agent X]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

If a vilain has 50 resistant defences he will shrug off almost all 12d6 attacks, the guy with the 4d6 KA is still a threat ( any KA multiple with 5 or 6 will do some damage probabilly, with a chance of a stun and even instant knockout ).

 

KAs are simply anti genre and anti reality. guns dont take out superman or the hulk, not even on there best roll do they inflict even 1 pt of stun to these types.

No, they're not. It's simple to interpret a 2d6 RKA gun with real weapon limitation as indicating it can't do anything against bulletproof types. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

If a vilain has 50 resistant defences he will shrug off almost all 12d6 attacks, the guy with the 4d6 KA is still a threat ( any KA multiple with 5 or 6 will do some damage probabilly, with a chance of a stun and even instant knockout ).

 

KAs are simply anti genre and anti reality. guns dont take out superman or the hulk, not even on there best roll do they inflict even 1 pt of stun to these types.

I was going to disagree but...conditionally anyway, I'd be wrong I suppose. Let me say why "conditionally."

 

Let's say Superman and the Hulk "shrug off" 60 points of STUN damage, just for sake of argument - I think this is about right because 12d6, if we want them to ignore those "most" of the time, should be accounted for as being shrugged off at the 60 level (5 6es), and they start "feeling it" beyond that. So if we want them to shrug that off, this would probably mean that they have around 30 effective points of damage, and a CON of 30, again for sake of argument (presonally, I'd put Hulk at around 40 Armor and 75% Damage Reduction and I think anyone who wouldn't is all wet, but, hey, I admit, that's just me!). So they "feel" 61 damage, being stunned by that. To your point, a result of 61 or higher occurs 17.1036% of the time, meaning basically a 1 in 6 chance. A 4d6 KA is the equivalent in HERO terms of something greater than any sort of regular machine gun or shotgun or such (according to Dark Champoins anyway nothing gets that big) but is just under a SAM (SAM is 5d6, I can't find an actual weapon at 4d6!?), so probably a heavy tank blast. So if Hulk is hit by something just under a SAM, say a heavy tank, there's a 1 in 6 chance he'll be stunned or worse.

 

I have no idea as to the level of power you're positing for Superman (he's all over the board) and Hulk has varied a good bit but is easier to perceive. So Hulk being hit by a heavy tank or light SAM and going down 1 out of 6 times, I agree, may not be "realistic" in genre context (real-world it seems pretty realistic to me, but I refuse to argue about that), although I don't know as I think others might find that fine. Whatever the case, though, I think Hulk would be built with serious Damage Reduction and skew this argument more heavily in favor of saying KA may not be that major an issue even with the multiple.

 

4d6 KA is a LOT of force. That is not a SWAT team or anything civilians have access to.

[Vorsch]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

4d6 killing represents less force than a 12d6 eb, it kills but is not as "punchy" does less kb for starters. KA have the unaccounted and unpaid for advantage of being stoped buy resistant defences only. EB should be better at basic damage dealing than a advantaged attack

 

If nothing else it represents exactly the same amount of force,

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

4d6 killing represents less force than a 12d6 eb, it kills but is not as "punchy" does less kb for starters. KA have the unaccounted and unpaid for advantage of being stoped buy resistant defences only. EB should be better at basic damage dealing than a advantaged attack

 

If nothing else it represents exactly the same amount of force,

Personally, I've assumed in the past the "force" was the same in total but with different effect, hence its working only against resistant defense.

 

In any case, how do you resolve the issue, out of curiousity?

[Vorsch]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Personally i think KA should do alot of body only if they inflict damage.

 

KA have a flat x2 multiple plus 1d6xbody actually taken by target.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

You use the best tool for the job.

 

I can count on one hand the number of PCs I've seen whose ONLY 60 active point attack option was a 4d6 ka.

 

The superhero genre is strongly weighted to the high end of the spectrum. Nobody really cares how good your PC is at beating up nearly infinite numbers of 0 point unarmed thugs.

 

The game is about your ability to go toe to toe with serious threats, especially the 'master villain' who is designed to take on the whole team.

 

Against such targets, your weapon of choice is the trusty 4d6ka. You have numbers against him so the fact that you may waste one attack in 3 is immaterial. The fact that one time in 3, you will do way more damage than if you threw 12d6 EB is not immaterial. It is why the munchkins in every campaign I've been in end up throwing 4d6 KA as often as possible whenever they think they can get away with it, whenever the situation calls for it.