If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

[OddHat]

In my current game I'm thinking of replacing Killing Attacks with normal EBs, then using a +1/4 advantage "Killing" to apply the damage only against resistant defenses.

 

A 1d6 killing attack currently gets you 3.5 Body and 8.75 Stun against Resistant defenses for 15 points. Make "Killing" a +1/4 advantage on EBs, and you get 2 Body and 7 Stun for 12 points.

 

There would be no "Killing" AVLDs, NNDs or Ego Attacks; if you wanted one of those to do body, you' just apply the Does Body advantage.

 

So, does this seem like a reasonable fix, or is there another method you'd like?

 

If you're fine with the Stun Lotto as is and don't give a smeg, that's cool as well.

[Sean Waters]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

I'd be inclined to make it a straight conversion with no advantage or limitation as 3DC of EB or RKA cost the same at present. Clearly a KA has more utility as it is applied to more limited defences but, if people are not getting the stun lotto advanatge they are probably going to be less concerned about killing attacks with the attendant risk of actually killing someone. As the 'advantage' to normal defences to make them resistant is (in effect) +1/2, arguably this should be the conversion factor here but that would make killing attacks pretty pointless in superhero games wehre taking BODY will be rare anyway and almost everyone has some resistant defence so will be getting full defence against STUN.

 

Can I suggest that you might also consider an adder: 5 points gets you +2 BODY. That way you can build killing attacks that do more BODY that STUN proportionally, if that really is what you are after. Then, instead of a 12d6 Killing attack averaging 12 Body and 42 STUN (formerly a 4d6 killing attack) you could have a 1d6 killing attack that does +22 BODY (for a total of 23 BODY and 3 stun, on average). I'd probably say this 'added BODY' doesn't count for KB purposes.

[MitchellS]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

We are currently using using energy blast with a 10 point adder to convert the rolled damage to killing. You can then switch them back and forth as need be.

[Fox1]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

I'm fine with them as is. Using the hit location rules for the STUN multiple brings the stun lotto under control nicely IMO.

 

If I were to change them, I'd also do a straight EB cost rate with a +0 advantage to represent the need for resistant defenses. Not killing people has always be considered a even trade off in HERO for reduced damage effectiveness.

[Metaphysician]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

Heh, part of my would actually be inclined to ditch the difference, and make the default be that any attack can be used in either a nonlethal or lethal manner. IOW, a 60 STR brick does 12d6 N if he's pulling his punches, or 4d6 K if he's not. Ditto for every other attack type.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

So' date=' does this seem like a reasonable fix, or is there another method you'd like?[/quote']

This is exactly the method I've been experimenting with, mostly because it's easier to teach at demos and con games. So far, it's worked quite well and no complaints. I could agrue a case for killing being either a +0 or +1/4 advantage, depending on the genre & campaign.

 

I like Sean's suggestion of adding a couple points of Body to make them a little more lethal. So maybe killing becomes a +0 advatange as is, or a +1/4 advatange if it adds 1 Body per, say 3 DC?

 

 

bigdamnhero

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"

[bigdamnhero]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

Heh' date=' part of my would actually be inclined to ditch the difference, and make the default be that any attack can be used in either a nonlethal or lethal manner. IOW, a 60 STR brick does 12d6 N if he's pulling his punches, or 4d6 K if he's not. Ditto for every other attack type.[/quote']

Interesting idea, and I can see it working for a lot of super-hero type attacks. But in other genres, punches are always going to be normal and bullets are always going to be killing.

 

 

bigdamnhero

"On my planet there is a saying -- the man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken."

"Life expectancy must be fairly short among your people."

[MitchellS]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

But in other genres' date=' punches are always going to be normal and bullets are always going to be killing. [/quote']

Not necessarily. There are plenty of genre examples of grabbing someone's head and twisting it to break the neck, or hitting someone so hard you kill them. Those things are difficult to emulate with normal damage.

[Intrope]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

I recall someone (Derek?) using a +1/2 Killing Advantage on EBs--but it also adds +1 BODY/die. So, 15 pts. gets you 4 BODY, 7 STUN on average. This seemed to be one of the best options IMO.

[Fox1]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

Not necessarily. There are plenty of genre examples of grabbing someone's head and twisting it to break the neck' date=' or hitting someone so hard you kill them. Those things are difficult to emulate with normal damage.[/quote']

 

You have the joint break actions with martial arts.

 

If you insist, you could easily make a normal killing attack strike/grab for everyone much like a haymaker is the normal guy's option for Offensive Martial Strike.

[MitchellS]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

You have the joint break actions with martial arts.

 

If you insist, you could easily make a normal killing attack strike/grab for everyone much like a haymaker is the normal guy's option for Offensive Martial Strike.

If I'm going to rewrite rules I might as well rewrite them in a fashion I prefer.

[OddHat]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

I recall someone (Derek?) using a +1/2 Killing Advantage on EBs--but it also adds +1 BODY/die. So' date=' 15 pts. gets you 4 BODY, 7 STUN on average. This seemed to be one of the best options IMO.[/quote']

 

That does look good. Keeps it closer to where it is now than my option.

[archermoo]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

I'm fine with them as is. Using the hit location rules for the STUN multiple brings the stun lotto under control nicely IMO.

 

Agreed. I use hit locations for killing attacks in all genre, and it has always worked quite well.

[Sean Waters]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

Interestingly, the hit location rules give a higher average STUN than rolling randomly, so I'm not the biggest of fans. Also I don't use hit locations in superhero games, as it makes a mockery of the brick characters: there is just too much variation in CV - it makes high DEX characters, in effect, high damage characters. Whilst the same applies in heroic level campaigns, the differences, and thus the imbalance, are less and therefore more acceptable.

 

Whilst this may be 'realistic', HERO is primarily designed with an eye to balance, and this throws the balance out by quite a ways.

[Tom Carman]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

In my current game I'm thinking of replacing Killing Attacks with normal EBs' date=' then using a +1/4 advantage "Killing" to apply the damage only against resistant defenses. [/quote']

I don't have my book at work... Is there an official Limitation for Reduced Knockback (which KAs have relative to EBs)?

[Fox1]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

Whilst this may be 'realistic'' date=' HERO is primarily designed with an eye to balance, and this throws the balance out by quite a ways.[/quote']

 

If you're looking for balance in HERO, you're looking in the wrong place. Rather you should look to your own use of the system.

 

HERO's 'balance' for KA vs. EB vs. Stun only attacks is based upon one simple concept- that it is better not to kill than it is to kill. If that for some reason is not the case in your campaign, you're in for some serious rule changes to force HERO to balance.

 

A wasted effort IMO, you'll never really get there except by accepting an illusion of balance someway along the way. One may as well just go with the default.

[archermoo]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

Interestingly, the hit location rules give a higher average STUN than rolling randomly, so I'm not the biggest of fans. Also I don't use hit locations in superhero games, as it makes a mockery of the brick characters: there is just too much variation in CV - it makes high DEX characters, in effect, high damage characters. Whilst the same applies in heroic level campaigns, the differences, and thus the imbalance, are less and therefore more acceptable.

 

Whilst this may be 'realistic', HERO is primarily designed with an eye to balance, and this throws the balance out by quite a ways.

 

I've never had the problem you describe. Using the hit location chart for killing attacks at all power levels has always worked quite well for me. I've never had any complaints about bricks feeling like they're a mockery, nor have the high DEX characters been the high damage characters.

[Fox1]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

I've never had the problem you describe. Using the hit location chart for killing attacks at all power levels has always worked quite well for me. I've never had any complaints about bricks feeling like they're a mockery' date=' nor have the high DEX characters been the high damage characters.[/quote']

 

 

I have never experienced it either. Indeed if there is any leaning at all, the reverse seems to be the case if only slightly.

 

I think it extremely likely the described problem has another source than the difference between KA and normal attacks.

[prestidigitator]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

If I really wanted to eliminate the, "Stun Lotto," I would probably keep Killing Attacks as separate Powers (HKA and RKA with the usual 5 points per DC) and roll them like Normal Attacks but add -1 Stun per DC and +1 Body per 2 DCs. Defenses would apply as they usually do against Killing Attacks.

 

So the damage table for a KA would look like:

DCs  Dice  Stun  Body Count
---  ----  ----  ----------
1   1d6    -1    +0
2   2d6    -2    +1
3   3d6    -3    +1
4   4d6    -4    +2
5   5d6    -5    +2
6   6d6    -6    +3
...

The minimum Stun would be equal to the Body Count (so if you rolled all 1s on 6d6, you would still do 3 Body and 3 Stun).

 

BTW, I think I would apply the Normal Stun Multiplier of the Hit Location Chart to Stun before defenses, both for Normal and Killing Attacks.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

I recall someone (Derek?) using a +1/2 Killing Advantage on EBs--but it also adds +1 BODY/die. So' date=' 15 pts. gets you 4 BODY, 7 STUN on average. This seemed to be one of the best options IMO.[/quote']Yep, that was mine. Here's a post from an old thread on this subject.

Let me start off by saying that I wouldn't change the existing mechanics. Although they may seem somewhat confusing at first, they're not that confusing when you get used to them. Also, any clarity gained by changing the mechanics would be offset by the fact that, if the players had a question about how something worked, they could no longer consult the rulebook for the answer (because the info in the rulebook would work differently).

 

Having said that, he's a thing I came up with, oh, ten years ago probably, for making Killing Attack a Power Advantage instead of a separate Power, and for changing how it worked. Take it for whatever it's worth.

 

Killing Attack

 

This Advantage transforms an Energy Blast into a Killing Attack. This Advantage can ONLY be applied to Energy Blast, not to Hand-to-Hand Attack (HA) or any other Power. An Energy Blast with this Advantage causes more BODY damage than a normal Energy Blast, and the damage it causes (both BODY and STUN) is applied against the target's Resistant Defenses only.

 

A Killing Attack's BODY damage is counted the same way as an Energy Blast's, except that 1 BODY is added to the BODY count on each die. In other words, a die roll of 1 counts as 1 BODY instead of 0, a roll of 2-5 counts as 2 BODY instead of 1, and a roll of 6 counts as 3 BODY instead of 2. The STUN damage is counted as it is for a normal Energy Blast -- by adding up the pips shown on the dice.

 

A Killing Attack must be defined as Ranged (RKA) or Hand-to-Hand (HKA). If it is defined as an RKA, it works as described above with a range of 5x the Character Points in inches. If it is defined as an HKA, it does not receive a No Range Limitation, but the user may add his STR to the attack at a ratio of 1d6 per 7.5 STR (or 7.5 STR above the STR Min in cases where that is applicable). The most that can be gained from additions for STR, Martial Arts, etc. (all of which function as the current KA rules, except that the ratio is 7.5 per 1d6 instead of 15 per 1d6) is equal to the original attack (for a total max of 2x the original attack).

 

Killing Attacks take a +1d6 penalty when rolling for Knockback.

 

* Killing Attack Cost Multiplier: +1/2

 

 

If you use Killing Attacks with this method, the usual net result is Killing Attacks that have less extreme swings in results, do a bit more BODY than traditional Killing Attacks, and do a bit less STUN than traditional Killing Attacks.

 

For example, let's compare them in a fairly typical Champions environment, with 60 Active Point attacks and average defenses of 25 (of which, say, 15 is Resistant).

 

The traditional Killing Attack will be 4d6, rolling an average of 14 BODY and 36 STUN. Subtracting the rDEF from the BODY and the total DEF from the STUN, that leaves 0 BODY and 21 STUN after defenses.

 

This newfangled Killing Attack will be 8d6, rolling an average of 16 BODY and 28 STUN. Subtracting the rDEF from both the BODY and the STUN, that leaves 1 BODY and 13 STUN after defenses.

 

As you can probably guess, the basic goal of this mechanism is to turn Killing Attack into something you use to kill/destroy things... not something you hope to use to knock things out by hitting the STUN lotto. However, it is not wildly different in its results from the existing Killing Attack results, so it doesn't change play balance tremendously.

[Trebuchet]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

Interestingly' date=' the hit location rules give a higher average STUN than rolling randomly, so I'm not the biggest of fans. Also I don't use hit locations in superhero games, as it makes a mockery of the brick characters: there is just too much variation in CV - it makes high DEX characters, in effect, high damage characters. Whilst the same applies in heroic level campaigns, the differences, and thus the imbalance, are less and therefore more acceptable.[/quote']Seems to me that even most high-CV characters are going to pass on going for the high-Stun attack multiplier if it means a -6 or -8 to hit (and of course many, if not most, MAs don't even use Killing Attacks). And if the characters just roll normally to hit and figure BODY, then use random hit location strictly to determine Stun, it should balance out nicely.

[archermoo]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

Seems to me that even most high-CV characters are going to pass on going for the high-Stun attack multiplier if it means a -6 or -8 to hit (and of course many' date=' if not most, MAs don't even use Killing Attacks). And if the characters just roll normally to hit and figure BODY, then use random hit location strictly to determine Stun, it should balance out nicely.[/quote']

 

That's been my experience, though we use the BodyX multiplier as well.

[prestidigitator]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

Interestingly, the hit location rules give a higher average STUN than rolling randomly, so I'm not the biggest of fans. Also I don't use hit locations in superhero games, as it makes a mockery of the brick characters: there is just too much variation in CV - it makes high DEX characters, in effect, high damage characters. Whilst the same applies in heroic level campaigns, the differences, and thus the imbalance, are less and therefore more acceptable.

 

Whilst this may be 'realistic', HERO is primarily designed with an eye to balance, and this throws the balance out by quite a ways.

While it is true that the mean for the Stun Multiplier is a little bit higher for randomly-determined Hit Locations than for randomly-determined Stun Multipliers using the 1d6-1 method (the mean is 2.75 instead of 2.67, a difference of less than 0.1), the standard deviation is also much smaller (about 1.02 rather than about 2.22). This means rolls are much more likely to fall close to the mean. I suspect this, "narrower curve," is very appealing to those who do not like the, "Stun Lotto."

 

EDIT: Oops. Those values aren't quite right. See post #40 below. Actual (approximate--to the nearest 0.01) values:

Method       Avg   Std Dev
------       ---   -------
"Lotto"      2.67   1.49
Random Locs  2.87   0.97

[Sean Waters]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

My concerns about using hit locations apply both to normal and killing attacks. Those of you with high CV characters (and you know who you are, Treb) probably have little problem in getting +6 to +8 OCV, which makes your attack's twice as powerful in damage terms. That seems wrong to me. This is only likely to be a real problem in supers games.

 

Killing attack mechanics have the same problem to my mind: you can score ridiculously big stun quite easily. Mind you with the basic mechanic there is nothing you can do to ensure big stun - it is, at least, random.

 

Personally I'm perfectly happy to use standard damage for all attacks. Rolling and counting all those dice is one of the biggest slow downs for supers combat. I allow bonus dice of damage for cunnnig manoeuvres: tactical stuff rather than simply rolling against a characteristic. That also solves all my concerns about killing attacks. I know a lot of people like rolling all those dice; it's a good feeling, but I'm less inclined to do so now than I was.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

 

My concerns about using hit locations apply both to normal and killing attacks. Those of you with high CV characters (and you know who you are, Treb) probably have little problem in getting +6 to +8 OCV, which makes your attack's twice as powerful in damage terms. That seems wrong to me. This is only likely to be a real problem in supers games.

 

Killing attack mechanics have the same problem to my mind: you can score ridiculously big stun quite easily. Mind you with the basic mechanic there is nothing you can do to ensure big stun - it is, at least, random.

 

I agree with the OCV/DCV spread problem. It's especially pronounced when you remember that the high DEF characters tend to have lower DCV's. At the extreme, that giant monster with DCV -5 doesn't get much mileage from his 40 Defenses if every shot that hits does double damage.

 

The easy answer is to use hit locations, but not called shots. Simply consider it a randomizing structure for how serious the hit was, rather than a strict "where did the blow land" determination.

 

While average STun from a KA is higher using hit locations, my experience is that it lowers the odds of the extremes, esp. that elusive x5.