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

[Fox1]

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

 

Those of you with high CV characters (and you know who you are' date=' Treb) probably have little problem in getting +6 to +8 OCV, which makes your attack's twice as powerful in damage terms. [/quote']

 

A campaign that allows an on the top CV advantage of +6 to +8 OCV over typical foes has more balance issues than just the balance between normal and killing attacks...

 

If you break the system, expect it to break.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

A campaign that allows an on the top CV advantage of +6 to +8 OCV over typical foes has more balance issues than just the balance between normal and killing attacks...

 

If you break the system, expect it to break.

 

Any Supers game. 18 DEX bricks have a base CV of 6, and 35 DEX martial artists have a base DCV 12. That's a 6 point spread before considering skill levels, growth modifiers, or any other things that affect CV.

 

The Supers genre has many examples of characters so slow they never get missed, so fast they never get hit, and so skilled they always hit.

[Sean Waters]

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

 

What Hugh said.

[Fox1]

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

 

What Hugh said.

 

I don't read what Hugh says, he's on my ignore list. Making the assumption it had something to do with my last reply to you, I took a peek.

 

Wasn't worth the effort as usual.

 

Do you have your response? If not, I'll consider the subject closed.

[Sean Waters]

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

 

I don't read what Hugh says, he's on my ignore list. Making the assumption it had something to do with my last reply to you, I took a peek.

 

Wasn't worth the effort as usual.

 

Do you have your response? If not, I'll consider the subject closed.

 

You are really great, you know, Fox1: a real tonic. I can sand down the furniture with the abrasiveness of the average reply. I mean that in a good way

 

Thre is nothing unusual in bricks in my games having 15 DEX and no levels (they hit enemies with buildings: why bother with skill) and MA/speedsters having Dex in the 30 area. That is a CV difference of 10-5 = 5.

Most MAs have at least a couple of levels they can add to OCV from manoeuvres or levels, so that's a CV difference of 7. Hitting all the time for 28 damage or half the time for 56 damage: well I know which works out better in HERO given that we subtract defences. 56 damage is stunning country. Once stunned the opponent 's DCV drops...and they never get to recover, especially as the MA/speedster probaby has a higher speed too, so after that first hit, all of them are doing top damage.

 

This doesn't seem to reflect the baseline 'reality' of the source material.

 

That's pretty much what Hugh said.

 

Now your games may be different, and if so then you'll have less problem with hit locations, which is fine: as I said it is less of a problem in heroic games, maybe even a feature.

 

Even randomising the multiplier tends to favour fast characters: 1 in 6 hits has a x5 multiplier, so the SPD 3 against the SPD 6 - the speedster again has twice the chance of a stunning hit: against a faster opponent played competently, you are stunned, you are out. Again more of a problem with supers where speed differences tend to be greater.

 

Solution? Fixed multipliers or, better yet, fixed damage. Players get extra damage from good play not good rolls.

 

You may consider the subject closed now

[Fox1]

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

 

Now your games may be different' date=' and if so then you'll have less problem with hit locations, which is fine: as I said it is less of a problem in heroic games, maybe even a feature.[/quote']

 

Looking over your numbers I see one simple fact, that you've created your own problem in the design of characters allowed in your game (or perhaps your GM did).

 

There are other issues with high CV advantage that need to be dealt with in order to balance the game. As you have such values, I must assume you've dealt with them by altering character design or other methods. Yet here you use the words "That seems wrong to me." as if there is no way of dealing with the problem in a Superheroic game.

 

There a huge number of ways of dealing with it.

 

First up is to realize that hit location is a optional rule- not just in its entirely, but in its parts. So, 1. Don't use hit location for normal attacks, only kill attacks and 2. Don't allow called shots.

 

Problem solved.

 

The other solution is to build your characters such that they exist in a world with the full hit location rules. Not very hard at all actually.

 

Also problem solved.

 

 

Most problems in HERO can be resolved not by rule change or cost adjustments, but by careful character design and proper use of the rules as written.

[Sean Waters]

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

 

Most problems in HERO can be resolved not by rule change or cost adjustments, but by careful character design and proper use of the rules as written.

 

I agree and I don't use hit locations in superhero games. Used to. Got burned. Don't any more.

 

Standard damage is also an optional rule, and one I favour.

 

I would be interested to see the builds in supers campaign that didn't have quite a substantial CV difference though. Of course it can be done: you just say everyone has to have a CV of 5 to 8 (or whatever) and that may be fine for that camapign, but it doesn't reflect the apparent variations in the coic books. That may be of no concern in your game.

[Fox1]

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

 

I would be interested to see the builds in supers campaign that didn't have quite a substantial CV difference though. Of course it can be done: you just say everyone has to have a CV of 5 to 8 (or whatever) and that may be fine for that camapign' date=' but it doesn't reflect the apparent variations in the coic books. That may be of no concern in your game.[/quote']

 

There are other ways of dealing with the problem besides reducing the base CV spread.

 

However I strongly disagree that a lower spread doesn't reflect the comics. I've ran with a lower spread for years even before the hit location rules because I feel that it DOES reflect comics.

 

HERO uses a rather Bell for its hit resolution system, small modifiers go a long way.

[Guest bblackmoor]

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']

 

There's no need to make it an Advantage. Energy Blast and Killing Attack effectively inflict the same damage. Increasing the cost of "killing" damage is unnecessary.

 

See also:

http://www.westguard.org/index.php?title=House_rules#Consistent_Killing_Damage_.28inactive.29

[Tom Carman]

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

 

There's no need to make it an Advantage. Energy Blast and Killing Attack effectively inflict the same damage. Increasing the cost of "killing" damage is unnecessary.

Yes and no. They have the same cost per DC. But relative to an EB, a KA has both an advantage (protected against by resistant defenses) and a limitation (does less knockback). If you are only getting the first, then it is worth some degree of advantage.

[Sean Waters]

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

 

Whilst I agree with everything you say, Tom, the fact is that at present 1DC of KA or normal attack cost the same and have roughly equivalent effects but for their application to defences: realistically there are not likely to be many characters, especially in supers games, without a point or two of resistant defences so the only real difference will be in the application of BODY damage.

 

Logically it SHOULD be an advantage but to make it one changes the balance (if such it is) that we have now

[archermoo]

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

 

Hitting all the time for 28 damage or half the time for 56 damage: well I know which works out better in HERO given that we subtract defences. 56 damage is stunning country.

Just a quick aside, the doubling for STUN from a Normal attack for a head shot is applied after defenses, not before. In fact the only modifier from the hit location chart that isn't applied after defenses is the StunX, since that is how you determine the base Stun from a Killing Attack. So assuming that your Brick had 25 PD vs that attack, it is the difference between 3 and 6 getting through. And I'm guessing Mr. Brick actually has more PD than that...

[prestidigitator]

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

 

There's another possibility between allowing all targeted shots and not using them at all: you can allow the less specific target areas; i.e. "Head Shot," "High Shot," "Body Shot," etc. This allows characters to increase the likelihood of a damaging shot without making it a certainty (there may in fact be a good chance of doing decreased damage). For example, for a Head Shot (-4 OCV), there is only a 1/3 chance that a hit will land on the head; the rest of the time it will hit hand, arms, or shoulders (pretty low damage areas).

[archermoo]

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

 

There's another possibility between allowing all targeted shots and not using them at all: you can allow the less specific target areas; i.e. "Head Shot' date='" "High Shot," "Body Shot," etc. This allows characters to increase the likelihood of a damaging shot without making it a certainty (there may in fact be a good chance of doing decreased damage). For example, for a Head Shot (-4 OCV), there is only a 1/3 chance that a hit will land on the head; the rest of the time it will hit hand, arms, or shoulders (pretty low damage areas).[/quote']

 

Well, hand and arm are certainly low damage areas, but shoulders is a base x3 StunX. Which is just above the theoretical average...

 

[prestidigitator]

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

 

Well, hand and arm are certainly low damage areas, but shoulders is a base x3 StunX. Which is just above the theoretical average...

 

Once a Head Shot hits, the probabilities and STUNxs and BODYxs are:

Location   Prob  STUNx  BODYx
--------   ----  -----  -----
Head       2/6     5      2
Hands      1/6     1     1/2
Arms       2/6     2     1/2
Shoulders  1/6     3      1

For an average STUNx of 3 and an average BODYx of about 1.08. However, the standard deviation of the STUNx is about 1.53, giving it about the same value as that of the, "Stun Lotto"). Sounds, "fair," for a -4 OCV to me.

 

NOTE: I previously forgot to take a square root for the, "Stun Lotto," standard deviation (which is actually about 1.49) and had a bad Hit Location Chart from a non-standard character sheet, which gave a STUNx of 2 for the Shoulders (completely random Hit Locations actually have an average of about 2.87 and a standard deviation of about 0.97 using the correct Hit Location Chart). I apologize for the mistakes.

[archermoo]

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

 

Once a Head Shot hits, the probabilities and STUNxs and BODYxs are:

Location   Prob  STUNx  BODYx
--------   ----  -----  -----
Head       2/6     5      2
Hands      1/6     1     1/2
Arms       2/6     2     1/2
Shoulders  1/6     3      1

For an average STUNx of 3 and an average BODYx of about 1.08. However, the standard deviation of the STUNx is about 1.53, giving it about the same value as that of the, "Stun Lotto"). Sounds, "fair," for a -4 OCV to me.

 

Oh certainly. Wasn't trying to say it was an overwhelming advantage or anything. Just pointing out that while hand and arm are indeed low STUN locations, the shoulder isn't. I mean, it is obviously a lot lower than head, but it isn't bad. In general when I have a character that has penalty levels for offsetting targeting mods (and is using a killing attack), I have them target chest on most shots, assuming they have at least 3 levels. That way it isn't any harder of a shot than taking a random roll on the chart, and while it means I can't get a x4 or x5, it also means I can't get a x1 or a x2. Generally works fairly well.

[Fox1]

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

 

Logically it SHOULD be an advantage but to make it one changes the balance (if such it is) that we have now

 

Besides, not killing people is considered an advantage in and of itself. That's why "Does Stun Only" is a -0 limit in HERO.

[MicroMike]

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

 

Hit locations to determine Stun are fine for the hack & slash crowd, but what about area effect KA's? Fireball, grenades, gas attacks, etc.

 

In my games we use 1/2d6+1 Stun multiplier. It evens out the Stun, to x2, x3 or x4. Eliminates the ultra lucky x5 Stun, and the dread x1 'nothing' Stun. Listed on 5ER page 405 under Stun Muliplier Variants.

 

My .02

[Fox1]

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

 

Hit locations to determine Stun are fine for the hack & slash crowd' date=' but what about area effect KA's? Fireball, grenades, gas attacks, etc.[/quote']

 

I don't use Hit Locations for area effect/ex attacks, I just use a flat 3x stun multiple seeing no reason for more randomization than that which exists in the low number of dice used for KA resolution.

 

Something of an small edge to the KA over EB there, but again NOT killing people is considered an advantage in HERO.

[prestidigitator]

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

 

I just don't like a flat x3 multiplier (or 1/2d6+1, which has an average of x3), because I feel that Normal Attacks should average at least a little more Stun damage than Killing Attacks. It is their only real advantage other than a bit more Knockback (and many don't use Knockback a lot of the time anyway--especially in heroic games where Killing Attacks tend to make their appearance). With a x3 set or average Stun Multiplier, Killing attacks average more Body and the same Stun (except on the fractional dice) per DC.

[Grail Quest]

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

 

Besides' date=' not killing people is considered an advantage in and of itself. That's why "Does Stun Only" is a -0 limit in HERO.[/quote']

 

(1)

I don't think it's an advantage per se so much as it is a mixed package of advantage (theoretically absolutely non-lethal) and limitation (useless against objects).

 

So, "Does STUN Only" is really a +0/-0 or maybe a +.25/-.25 modifier.

 

(2)

Which segways into the issue of packaged powers. A clearer example might be EGO Attack.

I may want an EGO attack, but not one that has unlimited range. Do I build this with a Normal Attack with modifiers, or EGO Attack with Limitations?

Or, I want a mental attack that does something else than STUN-only damage (maybe a Flash or Drain). In such a case, I have to stack advantages and limitations.

 

For "more correctness", EGO attack should really be Energy Blast with modifiers.

 

What packaged powers do is manage Active Points, which is a measuring stick for many things in HERO, and which, especially when a power has a lot of Limitations, is an inadequate measurement system.

 

So, going back to Killing Attacks:

 

(a) It's kind of like a Normal Attack with AVLD vs. Resistant PD or ED, on BODY Damage only (+1/4).

 

( It complicates things by having a different way of rolling BODY. This, in turn, forces it to use a different way of calculating KB.

 

If we instead just use a Normal Attack with modifiers, we can streamline the system more by reducing the number of rules required. Killing Attacks, like EGO Attack, is an anomaly in the system. They are not power elements like other effects, but packaged powers.

 

The same might be argued for Armor and Force Field, but that's another topic entirely.

[Sean Waters]

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

 

I just don't like a flat x3 multiplier (or 1/2d6+1' date=' which has an average of x3), because I feel that Normal Attacks should average at least a little more Stun damage than Killing Attacks. It is their only real advantage other than a bit more Knockback (and many don't use Knockback a lot of the time anyway--especially in heroic games where Killing Attacks tend to make their appearance). With a x3 set or average Stun Multiplier, Killing attacks average more Body and the same Stun (except on the fractional dice) per DC.[/quote']

 

Average stun means very little when 1 in 6 hits is likely to be enough to stun an opponent: that is the great inequity of the Stun Lotto, and average damage is somewhat similar. A few points difference in average values of damage is almost irrelevant given that Hero defences subtract damage and there are certain effects (stunning) for exceeding thresholds.

 

Whilst I agree with Fox1 as to the 'natural disincentive' to killing attacks: they kill people - it doesn't work in practice. Super opponents almost always have ways of avoiding or surviving killing attacks and a normal mook hit with a 12d6 EB is as dead as one hit with a 4d6 RKA, or will be very soon. In practice, there is little difference in lethality between normal and killing attacks, but KAs, given their much broader damage range, are better at stunning opponents, which seems to me to be daft.

[Fox1]

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

 

I just don't like a flat x3 multiplier

 

If you don't like, you don't like. Nothing to be said about that. I find your reasoning however for doing so completely personal and campaign specific.

[Fox1]

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

 

If we instead just use a Normal Attack with modifiers, we can streamline the system more by reducing the number of rules required. Killing Attacks, like EGO Attack, is an anomaly in the system. They are not power elements like other effects, but packaged powers.

 

If you wish to go down the path towards re-writing HERO system, you are certainly free to do so.

 

I however see no advantage to myself of any kind however. If this was ever done for a upcoming edition, I would not measure such a effort in what was gained- for it would gain nothing, but rather in what was lost. I imagine the result would be as lacking as FUZION was and for much the same reasons.

 

But we'll see if it every actually happens.

[Fox1]

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

 

Whilst I agree with Fox1 as to the 'natural disincentive' to killing attacks: they kill people - it doesn't work in practice.

 

Again, I think you are considering your construction methods as the only solution to an issue at hand.

 

As characters, weapons and objects are constructed in my own campaign, the disincentive is very clear and solid in its impact.