Limits on Killing attacks?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Instead of going Standing Effect on the BODY damage' date=' why not the STUN damage? If you are really concerned it does too much damage, just say that all STUNx rolls are x3 and be done with it. That's the modifier for the Chest on the Hit Location, and theoretically the location always hit when not using the HL table. Just use a x3 and have fun.[/quote']

 

This approach can also work. However, you still have 1 chance in 1,296 of inflicting 72 STUN, where a normal attack has i chance in 2,176,782,336. I've rolled the former (24 BOD on 4d6). I've never rolled the latter.

 

Setting BOD at 12 and rolling the stun multiple caps Stun at 60, but means you have 1 chance in 6 of achieving this. You certainly have better than 1 chance in 6 of getting 60+ with ordinary rolls, but you'd only have about a 1 in 28 chance of getting 20+ BOD (and 60+ STUN with a 3x multiple).

 

Overall, I'd say capping the muliple will lower the extremes more effectively.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Instead of going Standing Effect on the BODY damage' date=' why not the STUN damage? If you are really concerned it does too much damage, just say that all STUNx rolls are x3 and be done with it. That's the modifier for the Chest on the Hit Location, and theoretically the location always hit when not using the HL table. Just use a x3 and have fun.[/quote']

 

Funny, I could never get my head round stats at school, but...

 

My contention is that BOTH the Stun and Body are lotteries. The former more so - it is a single die, and you can solve that with a set multiplier. 3 makes sense in that it means that the maximum Stun is the same as an equivalent DC normal attack BUT yields stun results above average (albeit not by too much - the average for 1d6-1 MIN 1 is 2.667 from memory).

 

However the Body portion of the attack also has too wide a distribution or results as it uses only a third the dice of an equivalent value normal attack.

 

This means that in addition to working against limited defences, it has the same average damage as a normal attack and a far higher probablity of a result that stuns. (4d6 KA averages 14 Body and with a 3x SM will average 42 Stun - the same stun as a 12DC normal attack but more Body. It will there is an even distruibution of higher and lower totals, so the average remains 14/42, you'll have several hits that cause less or no stun to a defended target and an equal number that cause higher stun, quite possibly enough to Stun a target (assuming 23 CON and 30 DEF, you need to roll 18 on 4d6 to stun: not that hard. An equivalent DC normal attack has a practically negligible chance of causing that much damage)

 

So that doesn't work for me.

 

Similarly if you reduce the multiplier to 2, it makes the attack practically useless: the average stun damage plumets to 28 and the maximum stun damage to 48 - this is in fact a perfect exampleof the wild distribution of damage you get from this power.

 

Using the hit location rules gives an average stun multiplier of 2.86 or thereabouts - actually a 'better' average than using the stun multiplier as is, although a better distribution as it is a bell curve, but still a tight one: 3d6 gives a wide distribution. You can correct this to an extent by making the stomach and head location 5 multipliers x3 not x4 and x5 respectively. There's probably a better fix if you care to work it out but even then you are rolling far fewer dice IN TOTAL than an equivalent DC normal attack, so the distribution will be wider and more variable, and it hands additional advantages to the killing attack over and above applying to limited (resistant) defences in that the chances of stunning are higher against medium and well defended targets.

 

It isn't 'fixable', it is, IMO, too badly broken*. I refer to my cunning plan to calculate KA and normal damage the same way, just apply it to defences differently. It still makes killing attacks more effective, but more marginally so, it is entirely consitent with other game mechanics. I can live with the small advantage it gives to killing attacks against limited defences.

 

 

 

*Actually this is the wrong phrase - it makes it sound like there was a time it wasn't broken, and there wasn't

[Dust Raven]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Funny, I could never get my head round stats at school, but...

 

My contention is that BOTH the Stun and Body are lotteries. The former more so - it is a single die, and you can solve that with a set multiplier. 3 makes sense in that it means that the maximum Stun is the same as an equivalent DC normal attack BUT yields stun results above average (albeit not by too much - the average for 1d6-1 MIN 1 is 2.667 from memory).

 

However the Body portion of the attack also has too wide a distribution or results as it uses only a third the dice of an equivalent value normal attack.

 

This means that in addition to working against limited defences, it has the same average damage as a normal attack and a far higher probablity of a result that stuns. (4d6 KA averages 14 Body and with a 3x SM will average 42 Stun - the same stun as a 12DC normal attack but more Body. It will there is an even distruibution of higher and lower totals, so the average remains 14/42, you'll have several hits that cause less or no stun to a defended target and an equal number that cause higher stun, quite possibly enough to Stun a target (assuming 23 CON and 30 DEF, you need to roll 18 on 4d6 to stun: not that hard. An equivalent DC normal attack has a practically negligible chance of causing that much damage)

 

So that doesn't work for me.

You're still overlooking that in addition to the probability that a roll that does damage will Stun the target, there's an identical probability that a roll that hits won't even do damage. That is a balancing factor.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

You're still overlooking that in addition to the probability that a roll that does damage will Stun the target' date=' there's an identical probability that a roll that hits won't even do damage. That [i']is[/i] a balancing factor.

 

Not overlooking it (I don't think I am, anyway): average damage delivered is the similar, and in fact higher at reasonable levels of defence, so the low/high damage already balances and the stunning effect is on top of that.

 

To take an example 12DC normal/KA against 30 DEF 23 CON over say 6 phases. Assume the characteres are identical apart from their attacks.

 

Assume you always hit and the normal attack always does average damage (OK not entirely valid, but damage will always be near average), so 12 stun get through per phase, never stunning.

 

Total damage through 30 DEF is 12 x 6 = 72

 

Assume you roll each of the possible stun multipliers once, and always get average BODY (14) - this is a lot less valid as an assumption, but it'll do: there is as much chance of a high as a low result, so the average is valid.

 

1 : 14

1: 14

2: 28

3: 42

4: 56

5: 70

 

Total damage through 30 DEF is 12+26+40 = 78 AND there are two stun results!

 

KA wins both ways.

 

At 20 DEF normal does 22 x 6 = 132 stun, and KA does 8+22+36+50=116 with two stun results, but 20 DEF is unrealistically low if you are throwing 12DC attacks - unless you rely on high DCV or some other type of defence. Even so, over six rounds there is only a 16 point difference (coincidentally the same average per phase as the stun multiplier - 2.667!)

 

Now, let us look at stunning. People often forget that you need to take a full phase to recover, so over 6 rounds (at the 20 DEF level) the character with the normal attack loses 2 rounds to being stunned - that is he can not deliver an attack that phase and his total stun delivered drops by 2x22=44 to 88. So KA wins hands down even at that level.

 

One other thing that is forgotten about being stunned - you are half DCV (and half penalties on hit locations if you are using them) and if you take any stun or body on the phase you recover on you don't get to recover that phase.

 

In a one on one duel, getting stunned is fatal, at least potentially: the minimum number of phases you lose is 1: you may not get an action again against an opponent who is as fast as you.

 

Now in an individual combat I completely accept that you may wind up with a string of 1s and 2s as multipliers, and your KA may be ineffective, but over a reasonable number of combats the KA will win far more than it loses against equivalent DC normal attacks. I also know the examples are artificial in that the 20DEF example is likely to score some stunning hits for the normal attack - but like I say I think 20 DEF is low for this level of attack anyway.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

You're still overlooking that in addition to the probability that a roll that does damage will Stun the target' date=' there's an identical probability that a roll that hits won't even do damage. That [i']is[/i] a balancing factor.

 

Would you rather fight an attacker who will do a steady 15 STUN per phase against your defenses, or one who will alternate between 0 and 30, and 30 will Stun you?

 

On average, even assuming the second character always gets the 0 first, each battle goes "KA takes 15 STUN; KA takes another 15 STUN, KA Stuns opponent and then just keeps pounding him". The KA character finishes each fight down 30 STUN but victorious.

 

Very simplistic example, but illustrative.

 

Let's take a similar question. Assume, in a campaign, the typical DEF is 25 and the typical attack is 12d6. Most characters have a 12d6 attack, so they do 17 STUN on each hit. A player with otherwise typical stats wants an attack power which does 17d6 (averaging an extra 17.5 STUN, so twice as much damage - which will STUN most targets) which has an Activation Roll of 10-. Is it allowed?

 

Most of us will say "No - 17DC's in a 12DC campaign is excessive". Yet this power has the same effect described above - a 50% chance of doing no damage, and a 50% chance of doing double damage and stunning the target. Average stun per shot that would have hit (had it activated) is the same.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Let's take a similar question. Assume, in a campaign, the typical DEF is 25 and the typical attack is 12d6. Most characters have a 12d6 attack, so they do 17 STUN on each hit. A player with otherwise typical stats wants an attack power which does 17d6 (averaging an extra 17.5 STUN, so twice as much damage - which will STUN most targets) which has an Activation Roll of 10-. Is it allowed?

 

Most of us will say "No - 17DC's in a 12DC campaign is excessive". Yet this power has the same effect described above - a 50% chance of doing no damage, and a 50% chance of doing double damage and stunning the target. Average stun per shot that would have hit (had it activated) is the same.

 

Nice... and here I thought this thread was but then you came up with that sweet little example.

 

Again... nice.

[Agent X]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

I like killing attacks and normal attacks just the way they are.

[saffo]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Find weakness (x2) + 75 or 80 active point killing attack is insane. The problem that arises is when you go to fight the main bad guy in your campaign and you dont know if your players are going to kill him with 1-2 hits... It can make things rather um...unheroic.

[Agent X]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Find weakness (x2) + 75 or 80 active point killing attack is insane. The problem that arises is when you go to fight the main bad guy in your campaign and you dont know if your players are going to kill him with 1-2 hits... It can make things rather um...unheroic.

Two successful find weakness rolls and a 12d6 autofire 3 normal attack are pretty effective too. 30 dropped down to 8, average of 4 body and 34 stun gets through for each attack - total 12 body, 102 stun

 

Find Weakness is really not a useful way to argue against killing attacks.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

The KA stuns about one hit that does damage past DEF in 4. There are many' date=' many hits that don't do damage, and you are looking closer to 1 in 10 hits to actually Stun the target.[/quote']

 

I don't know what numbers you're looking at. My figures show a 22.26% chance for a 4d6 KA to stun a def 30, Con 23 target.

[saffo]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

It seems to me, and maybe this is just chance, that the possibility of rolling high or low on 5d6 dice is better than the possibility of rolling high or low on 12 dice. In other words the more dice you use the more average things become.

 

Imagine someone rolling 5 dice and doing 140+ stun.

I am not arguing against killing attacks. I am against munchkins. I am also pro Heroic story telling. If someone foils your game because of random chance, it doesn’t seem very fun. If someone foils your game because of well thought out powers…. I don’t know maybe I am old fashioned that way.

[Agent X]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

It seems to me, and maybe this is just chance, that the possibility of rolling high or low on 5d6 dice is better than the possibility of rolling high or low on 12 dice. In other words the more dice you use the more average things become.

 

Imagine someone rolling 5 dice and doing 140+ stun.

I am not arguing against killing attacks. I am against munchkins. I am also pro Heroic story telling. If someone foils your game because of random chance, it doesn’t seem very fun. If someone foils your game because of well thought out powers…. I don’t know maybe I am old fashioned that way.

Too much balancing against random chance means necessarily too much predictability. Surprises are not necessarily foiling a game.

[saffo]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

I think that largely depends on what type of game you are running. If one player continually strikes down the villains (maybe he has a lucky night with the dice)... It could lead to an unfun experience for everyone.

 

I think that probability is an important part of the game. It is one of the very things that allows players to suspend disbelief and feel as though they are influencing the game.

 

Creative power design is another thing which I think is prized in the Hero system. If a player can come up with a cool power, which is approaching the effectiveness of a killing attack then god bless them.

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

I like killing attacks and normal attacks just the way they are.

Can we stop agreeing for once?

[BNakagawa]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

I think that largely depends on what type of game you are running. If one player continually strikes down the villains (maybe he has a lucky night with the dice)... It could lead to an unfun experience for everyone.

 

I think that probability is an important part of the game. It is one of the very things that allows players to suspend disbelief and feel as though they are influencing the game.

 

Creative power design is another thing which I think is prized in the Hero system. If a player can come up with a cool power, which is approaching the effectiveness of a killing attack then god bless them.

 

It also depends on if people are using rigged dice or otherwise skewing results of allegedly random die rolls...

 

Somewhat harder to do with 12d6...somewhat easier if you only really need to fudge one die.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Would you rather fight an attacker who will do a steady 15 STUN per phase against your defenses, or one who will alternate between 0 and 30, and 30 will Stun you?

 

On average, even assuming the second character always gets the 0 first, each battle goes "KA takes 15 STUN; KA takes another 15 STUN, KA Stuns opponent and then just keeps pounding him". The KA character finishes each fight down 30 STUN but victorious.

 

Very simplistic example, but illustrative.

 

Let's take a similar question. Assume, in a campaign, the typical DEF is 25 and the typical attack is 12d6. Most characters have a 12d6 attack, so they do 17 STUN on each hit. A player with otherwise typical stats wants an attack power which does 17d6 (averaging an extra 17.5 STUN, so twice as much damage - which will STUN most targets) which has an Activation Roll of 10-. Is it allowed?

 

Most of us will say "No - 17DC's in a 12DC campaign is excessive". Yet this power has the same effect described above - a 50% chance of doing no damage, and a 50% chance of doing double damage and stunning the target. Average stun per shot that would have hit (had it activated) is the same.

 

 

A nice example: sometimes a new perspective example is far more effective than all the maths you can throw at a problem.

 

I like killing attacks and normal attacks just the way they are.

 

RANT=ON I appreciate you like them, as is your perfect right, but two questions to consider:

 

1. Do you like using them or having them used against you?

2. Why do you like them - how do they add to the enjoyment of the game for you and others?

 

Two successful find weakness rolls and a 12d6 autofire 3 normal attack are pretty effective too. 30 dropped down to 8, average of 4 body and 34 stun gets through for each attack - total 12 body, 102 stun

 

Find Weakness is really not a useful way to argue against killing attacks.

 

I quite agree, which is why, if a player came to me with that construction I'd want to evaluate it very carefully, to just let it in because it is in the rules that you can build it. With a low find weakness and a low OCV, it might not be unbalancing. I'd have to ask myself why the player wanted a power like this and if the answer was purely 'so I could beat everyone', they'd be back off to the drawing board.

 

Don't forget the autofire is +.25 and the find weakness at least +10 points so on a 12d6 attack you'd have spent 85 active points, which may well exceed campaign maxima anyway.

 

Aside: I'm not keen on Find Weakness either - it is often used as munchkin fuel. On a 60 AP power buying AP that activates on 11 or less with burnout would cost (60x.5)/1.75=17 points. That is 5 points more that the basic level of armour piercing. Find weakness is more useful in that it can apply multiple times and, even if it 'burns out' against one target, you can still use it against others. Unless the player has a really good reason for buying Find Weakness (a warning power) they can buy it as limited armour piercing instead.

 

I quite agree that the existence of one munchkin power isn't a good way to justify the existence of another...

 

Too much balancing against random chance means necessarily too much predictability. Surprises are not necessarily foiling a game.

 

Normal attacks are not 'too balanced' against random chance, but killing attacks which use far fewer dice have a far larger chance of getting extreme results in either direction. This means low as well as high, but in a game where the total damage that gets through per attack - not just the average over time - is important (and I'm talking about Hero here...), the this is a vital factor.

 

Again I agree with you that surprises are not necessarily game-foiling, but surprises by their nature shouldn't happen often - certainly not 1 in 4 attacks...

 

Can we stop agreeing for once?

 

Can I ask you to consider the same questions I put to Agent X earlier in this rather long post?

 

RANT=OFF

 

Believe it or not I am willing (even eager) to be convinced that killing attacks are a good idea, but the only arguments I have seen in their favour so far tend to fall into the following categories:

 

1. That's the Hero system - live with it/We've always done it that way.

2. I like killing attacks

3. Random (unpredictable)=good

 

Which are all assertions of preference rather than arguments, and

 

4. You can roll badly with killing attacks so it isn't as useful as you seem to think

 

Which is true but ignores the full range of effects i.e. for each time you roll a no-damage attack you've going to (on balance) roll a stunning attack, which is far more of an advantage than most proponents seem to accept or even consider.

 

The arguments against killing attacks seem far more quantifyable in terms of game balance. I do appreciate that different powers should do different things and that perfect balance is not attainable in practice, or even in theory. Variety is the spice of life and a rolling stone gathers no moss, but platitudes and axioms aside, what are the arguments FOR killing attacks?

 

(OK: the rant may have come back on a bit towards the end there.... _

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Believe it or not I am willing (even eager) to be convinced that killing attacks are a good idea, but the only arguments I have seen in their favour so far tend to fall into the following categories:

 

1. That's the Hero system - live with it/We've always done it that way.

2. I like killing attacks

3. Random (unpredictable)=good

 

Which are all assertions of preference rather than arguments, and

 

4. You can roll badly with killing attacks so it isn't as useful as you seem to think

 

Which is true but ignores the full range of effects i.e. for each time you roll a no-damage attack you've going to (on balance) roll a stunning attack, which is far more of an advantage than most proponents seem to accept or even consider.

 

The arguments against killing attacks seem far more quantifyable in terms of game balance. I do appreciate that different powers should do different things and that perfect balance is not attainable in practice, or even in theory. Variety is the spice of life and a rolling stone gathers no moss, but platitudes and axioms aside, what are the arguments FOR killing attacks?

 

(OK: the rant may have come back on a bit towards the end there.... _

 

I haven't had a lot of problems with KA's, because I game with a group who doesn't abuse them. I believe Zornwil is on record as having similar experience. But I think TRL makes a good point.

 

To perhaps try to rephrase the issue, we have a number of gamers who believe KA's should be eliminated or modified. Assume the Hero System used an approach such as (say) any attack which does BOD can be a Normal Attack or a Killing Attack as a +0 modifier. Killing attack BOD is defended only by resistant defenses, and STUN is defended by all defenses, but only if the target has at least 1 point of resistant defense. Killing attacks roll 3d6, rather than 2d6, to determine knockback.

 

Do you think there woud be as many discussions about the appropriateness of this mechanic? To the extent there are, do you think they wuld center around "The mechanic should be changed", or whether +0 is apropriate (eg maybe it should be +1/4 or +1/2 for applying to a rarer defense form)?

 

I think TRL's "uberpoint", which runs through a lot of his "challenge the rules" questions, is "Do we like this rule because it makes the game better, or because it's always been there so it's familiar"? And that's a very fair question.

[zornwil]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

(snip)

 

1. Do you like using them or having them used against you?

2. Why do you like them - how do they add to the enjoyment of the game for you and others?

 

As you asked, though I think I've pretty well exhausted my comments in this and other threads -

 

- I've seen it used both ways, I can't recall ever being bothered by a killing attack or bothered in using them against someone; the only fatal blow that landed in an RPG ever when not intended against a PC was from a regular STR blow, I'll note. I admit, I fudged it and said he lived as I had let the PCs get in over their heads and it was an early game session in (what turned out to be) a long-running campaign.

 

- As to how I "like" them, I think they model, in heroic fiction, the randomness of these killing strikes' stunning effects well enough and they are simply another option that makes sense. I think, to Hugh's point earlier, the text is inconsistent in its discussion of them and there's a degree to which they ought well be admitted as blows that can be very all-or-nothing. Generally, from what I can see, they're reasonably balanced though it seems it could well be argued they're better off as 17 or 18 points per d6 perhaps or such.

 

Also, I don't mind this whole randomness/lottery thing, I think it adds richness and complexity in some cases. I certainly don't think it detracts, except possibly in solo or 2-person games, even then I've never had it come up as a problem.

 

What I have not seen from anyone is a convincing argument that simply taking the rules' own stun multiple standard option and using that is ineffective. That's what lemming uses in his games and it seems to well contain any stun lottery fears.

 

To the issue of challenging them as a rule, that's fine. But I think "because it's always been that way" isn't entirely invalid, either, as that can be the evidence of experience as easily as it can be reflexive non-thought. Personally, I think the real issue is more that we don't have a good way to handle stacking Advantages, which is where I think the 15/1d6 came from instead of being a +2. I agree that we can't make Killing a +2 because it would then be too easily abused in the stacking of Advs, but I think in any case this sort of inconsistency is a bigger issue than the stun lottery and KAs.

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

I haven't had a lot of problems with KA's' date=' because I game with a group who doesn't abuse them. I believe Zornwil is on record as having similar experience. But I think TRL makes a good point. To perhaps try to rephrase the issue, we have a number of gamers who believe KA's should be eliminated or modified. Assume the Hero System used an approach such as (say) any attack which does BOD can be a Normal Attack or a Killing Attack as a +0 modifier. Killing attack BOD is defended only by resistant defenses, and STUN is defended by all defenses, but only if the target has at least 1 point of resistant defense. Killing attacks roll 3d6, rather than 2d6, to determine knockback.Do you think there woud be as many discussions about the appropriateness of this mechanic? To the extent there are, do you think they wuld center around "The mechanic should be changed", or whether +0 is apropriate (eg maybe it should be +1/4 or +1/2 for applying to a rarer defense form)?I think TRL's "uberpoint", which runs through a lot of his "challenge the rules" questions, is "Do we like this rule because it makes the game better, or because it's always been there so it's familiar"? And that's a very fair question.[/quote']I agree, Hugh. I seriously doubt this thread would have carried on as long as it has if KAs had the same probability distribution as normal attacks. We'd be arguing over whether the bypassing of normal defenses was worth +0, +1/4, or +1/2. Then again, the thread might have lasted this long...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Then again' date=' the thread might have lasted this long... [/quote']

 

The Hero Gamer Rules Monger package deal includes "Flogging Dead Horses" skills at +3.

 

Offset by Psych Lim (common, Strong) Can't let a rules issue die

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

The Hero Gamer Rules Monger package deal includes "Flogging Dead Horses" skills at +3.

 

Offset by Psych Lim (common, Strong) Can't let a rules issue die

 

 

I'm only supposed to have it at +3?!? Sheesh, that's about 30 points I can save right there then...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

As you asked, though I think I've pretty well exhausted my comments in this and other threads -

 

- I've seen it used both ways, I can't recall ever being bothered by a killing attack or bothered in using them against someone; the only fatal blow that landed in an RPG ever when not intended against a PC was from a regular STR blow, I'll note. I admit, I fudged it and said he lived as I had let the PCs get in over their heads and it was an early game session in (what turned out to be) a long-running campaign.

 

Hmm if regular strength way doing Body damage then defenses would have been low enough that I can only assume the character never got hit with a killing attack - or it was a killing attack that weakened them enough to let the regular strength do so much damage.

 

Mind you I don't really mind Killing attacks killing things: that is the idea, really. If they are being used then you should be scared for your Body not just your Stun.

 

- As to how I "like" them' date=' I think they model, in heroic fiction, the randomness of these killing strikes' stunning effects well enough and they are simply another option that makes sense. I think, to Hugh's point earlier, the text is inconsistent in its discussion of them and there's a degree to which they ought well be admitted as blows that can be very all-or-nothing. Generally, from what I can see, they're reasonably balanced though it seems it could well be argued they're better off as 17 or 18 points per d6 perhaps or such.[/quote']

 

HtH attacks and HKAs might be pretty random, but the only real random factor with RKAs is where they hit: the energy they carry is suprisingly consistent.

 

Also' date=' I don't mind this whole randomness/lottery thing, I think it adds richness and complexity in some cases. I certainly don't think it detracts, except possibly in solo or 2-person games, even then I've never had it come up as a problem. [/quote']

 

You have that wrong: order adds richness and complexity, randomness just adds noise

 

What I have not seen from anyone is a convincing argument that simply taking the rules' own stun multiple standard option and using that is ineffective. That's what lemming uses in his games and it seems to well contain any stun lottery fears.

 

There's a discussion on the effects of the x3 multiple earlier in this thread. Killing attacks, on average, more Body, similar stun and more stunning hits against defences balanced to a given attack level. Convinced me.

 

To the issue of challenging them as a rule' date=' that's fine. But I think "because it's always been that way" isn't entirely invalid, either, as that can be the evidence of experience as easily as it can be reflexive non-thought. Personally, I think the real issue is more that we don't have a good way to handle stacking Advantages, which is where I think the 15/1d6 came from instead of being a +2. I agree that we can't make Killing a +2 because it would then be too easily abused in the stacking of Advs, but I think in any case this sort of inconsistency is a bigger issue than the stun lottery and KAs.[/quote']

 

A fair point (you're always fair, so I'd expect no less). I have anecdotal evidence of why I don't like killing attacks, but that doesn't prove anything.

 

I should be running a new Champions game in a month or so and i'll use my suggested mechanic for killing attacks and see how it works. incidentally the suggested machanic would also deal with the 'stacking of advantages problem'.

 

I'll let y'all know how it goes.

 

One more point then I think I'll wave the white flag on this one and we can all wander off claiming victory of sorts.

 

How would you feel if we changed the normal attack mechanic, so that it worked like killing attacks but Body and Stun applied to normal defences and there was a 2d6 KB modifier, and cost 15 points per 1d6?

 

OK you like having both, you are not saying one is better, I get that. We could make killing attacks roll like normal attacks do now.

 

Tell you what. I don't reckon anyone would be bothered with them killing attacks then. What do you think?

 

Right, I couldn't find a white flag, so here's me waving two. Least I think that's what they are....

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

I'm only supposed to have it at +3?!? Sheesh' date=' that's about 30 points I can save right there then... [/quote']

 

Package deals represent a minimum, remember

[TheRealVector]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

Reading this thread has inspired me. In my next game all players must take the psych disadvantage: Code To Kill. Killing attacks mandatory.

 

Not only will they kill at the drop of a hat, they will knock people's hats off just for the fun of it.

 

OK, not really. It is good to see that I'm not the only one using the straight X3 stun multiplier. Goodbye stun lottery.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Limits on Killing attacks?

 

one additional little point for consideration, tho it doesn't affect most superhero genre games.....

we also tend to use the crit hit rules in much the same form as they were layed out in 4 ed.

Suddenly makes Normal attacks MUCH more dangerous, when there is a reasonable chance that that same 12d6 normal attack can inflict 24 body and 72 stun in a hit. If you add in crit rules, the predictablility of Normal attacks suddenly inverts the predicatbility of killing attacks if you crit with a 4d6 rka, your stun will still be random, and biased towards the lower end if you are using the stun die rather than locations.

I recall a Justice inc game where the resident "Jon Carter of Mars" type strong jawed hero, with his 25 (IIRC) strength, cinematic brawling martial arts, and plenty of levels killed, dead, in one shot no less, a sabertoothed tiger. 12d6 uppercut, crit to the head...

X2 BOD, X2 NSTUN on a 24 body 72 stun attack...letsee...that comes out to...

48 BODY AND 144 STUN, before defences.

buh bye putty tat

 

Seriously tho... I agree that we're all descending into armed camps... its time that we agree to disagree. As I see it, we have 2 basic philosophies representing here... those who feel that increased random factors and unpredicitability are good and those who don't. both sides have valid points, and I doubt either side will sway the other.

I happen to be in the "random factors" camp.

 

and to adress TRL's questions....

 

I appreciate you like them, as is your perfect right, but two questions to consider:

 

1. Do you like using them or having them used against you?

2. Why do you like them - how do they add to the enjoyment of the game for you and others?

 

1. Yes... I like being on both sides of KA's. our games tend to only use Normal attacks for fairly predictable attacks that are , in common situations, non fatal. As TRL has said, KA's (in real life, that is) are fairly predicable in the amount of force/energy they convey to a target, but I don't think anyone has addressed my issue of the vast amount of effect difference that can be caused by very small shifts within a given location. Tri Tac games (Fringeworthy, Bureau 13/Stalking the Night Fantastic) did the best job of translating anatomy into game terms, but was EXTREMELY clumsy. It did show however, that the same bullet hitting say, the thigh, could be anything from an annoying flesh wound, to a crippling blow, to a fatal injury.... impacts within say, a given 3 cm radius could pass clean through the meat, hit a thighbone, or rip open the femoral artery and cause a target to bleed out withing seconds. (The last, incedentally, happened to a Forest Ranger friend of my first rangemaster... he was hit by a .22 long rifle slug that had been fired into the air, coming back down to earth. It ripped open his femoral and he died before he could get to his car and call for help. show me how that can happen with a 1d6+1 RKA hitting location 14 without GM intervention... I already agree that guns are basically underpowered in Hero system as written..they are designed to accomodate Superheroic reality.)

2. They increase, IMHO, realism, and add "fear and loathing" to the campaign. I have seen PC's callously waltz through withering quantites of Normal attacks because they could usually predict about how much grief they'd take. Anything that decreases the predictability of damage increases the amount of concern said attacks produce in the minds of PC's, thus promoting more genre appropriate effects, such as taking defensive actions. (can everyone say,"I Roll with the Punch!" one of Spidermans favorite moves when facing hardhitting baddies, IIRC

 

Believe it or not I am willing (even eager) to be convinced that killing attacks are a good idea, but the only arguments I have seen in their favour so far tend to fall into the following categories:

 

1. That's the Hero system - live with it/We've always done it that way.

2. I like killing attacks

3. Random (unpredictable)=good

 

Which are all assertions of preference rather than arguments, and

 

4. You can roll badly with killing attacks so it isn't as useful as you seem to think

 

Which is true but ignores the full range of effects i.e. for each time you roll a no-damage attack you've going to (on balance) roll a stunning attack, which is far more of an advantage than most proponents seem to accept or even consider.

 

The arguments against killing attacks seem far more quantifyable in terms of game balance. I do appreciate that different powers should do different things and that perfect balance is not attainable in practice, or even in theory. Variety is the spice of life and a rolling stone gathers no moss, but platitudes and axioms aside, what are the arguments FOR killing attacks?

I don't need to address all of these...just #3

You proved my point at the same time you proved your own...

3. Random (unpredictable)=good

 

Which are all assertions of preference rather than arguments

 

Random (unpredictable)=Bad

is an assertation of preference rather than an argument.

 

EDIT>

Oh yeah, I almost forgot...

what are the arguments FOR killing attacks?

They make pretty patterns on the walls when you use them against soft targets