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

[Duke Bushido]

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

 

Wow!

 

There're a lot of great ideas on how to 'fix' the KA issues. Nice work, folks!

 

I'm almost ashamed of how we did it after reading all this......

 

I just changed the Stun Multiplier rules:

 

KAs have a Stun Multiplier of 2, period. No extra levels, no nothing. 2.

 

This keeps it under control for 'good guys,' as it makes KA much more fatal. How? Well, simply put, if you are buying it for the Stun, you have to do a whole lot of Body to get that Stun. Proportionally speaking, you're going to most likely get more Stun per Body pip with a regular attack. "Killing Attack" now focuses on "killing." Seemed practical.

 

So now killers buy it, and non-killers don't. I was never really happy with the idea of 'heroes'-- the good guys-- buying a massively lethal attack in the hopes of winning the Stun lotto to get a quick subdual.

 

That, and our method has completely eliminated a lot of cheezy constructs like "5d6 KA, Stun damage Only." You want subdual damage, don't buy a lethal attack.

 

 

I was always pretty happy with it, as was the bulk of my group, but judging from the amount of thought that went into some of your fixes, it seems almost juvenile.....

[radioKAOS]

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

 

I can't say that KA has ever been a problem in games that I've played in. Rarely does a player ever have one, and if so, there must be a darn good reason for it and there's a ton of stigma that goes along with it. Most Heros don't agree with killing attacks, they just aren't Heroic.

[gewing]

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've seen a few instances where the high dex characters had high enough OCV to target the head as a matter of course. Sometimes it was VERY nasty, others... Not so.

 

depends on the characters.

[Sean Waters]

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

 

The problem with killing attacks is encapsulated in this poser, at least for me:

 

As a reasonably standard 350 point character facing a dozen agents, would you rather they had 6d6 EB autofire blasters or 2d6 RKA autofire blasters?

 

Let's face it : it isn't being killed that worries you: 12 point of resistant defence is not that big a deal, it is the wild stun. At most you'll take a few points in total from the 6d6 EBs, you could wind up stunned and unconscious - quite easily - from the 2d6 RKAs.

 

Whilst I know I shouldn't care about the label, Killing Attacks do not do what they say on the box: they are stun generators, at least in bulk, and they are not balanced witht he system baseline power, the EB.

 

I see no reason for having a seperate mechanic, so I just use killing attacks as straight 1d6 per DC, apply BODY to reistant defences only and STUN to all defences if yu have any resistant. Given that most characters have at least a point or two of resistant defence, the balance issue goes away, and KAs then just become a way of killing, rather than KOing, low powered NPCs.

[Fox1]

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

 

As a reasonably standard 350 point character facing a dozen agents' date=' would you rather they had 6d6 EB autofire blasters or 2d6 RKA autofire blasters?[/i']

 

In my campaign, neither weapon would give a 350 point character much cause for concern.

 

It seems we run very different campaigns.

 

Which once agains points out a truism with HERO, if it's a problem- it's highly likely to be one of your own creation.

[Dr. Anomaly]

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

 

Which once agains points out a truism with HERO' date=' if it's a problem- it's highly likely to be one of your own creation.[/quote']

Which, given the amount of slamming you've done of the system with all the various things it "does wrong", is a very elightening comment.

[Fox1]

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

 

Which' date=' given the amount of slamming you've done of the system with all the various things it "does wrong", is a [i']very[/i] elightening comment.

 

I freely admit that the changes I've done in order to match HERO to my own style of play and requirements are of my own creation and represent no true balance issues (with the exception off hand of 'Dive for Cover' vs. melee).

 

Thus I don't claim HERO's firearms are 'unbalanced' and thus seek to recost them.

 

No, I claim they aren't as realistic as I need and thus alter how I construct them- without changing base costs.

 

See the difference?

[Trebuchet]

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

 

My biggest gripe with Killing Attacks has always been the Stun Lotto. I don't like fixed Multipliers either. If we were to keep the multiplier I'd like to weight it lower with Stun X of 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4 rather than the current 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 system we have now.

 

An idea I was kicking around a while back was to make Killing Attacks a +1 Advantage to EB. You'd calculate Stun and BODY exactly the same way as Normal Attacks do; but only Resistant Defenses apply versus the BODY and Stun done by a KA. I haven't quite figured out how I'd do HKA with this method; I'd probably just allow STR to add but then the attack automatically gets no range.

 

Example: The archvillain Slaughter fires his 6d6 RKA (12 DC) at Square Jawed Hero and hits. SJH, a martial Artist, has 6 rPD (2 Levels of Combat Luck) and 18 total PD. On an average roll Slaughter's RKA does 6 BODY and 21 Stun. Subtract SJH's defenses, and he takes 0 BODY and 15 Stun; and he could take as much as 6 BODY and 30 Stun with all 6's. SJH's in for a rough afternoon.

 

While this method is not perfected, it still means Killing attacks will almost always leak some Stun through to characters with low Resistant defenses. The current method in Hero allows a perfect 4d6 RKA to do 24 BODY, yet roll a "1" or "2" and leak almost no Stun through to a character with any Resistant defenses.

[McCoy]

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

 

My biggest gripe with Killing Attacks has always been the Stun Lotto. I don't like fixed Multipliers either. If we were to keep the multiplier I'd like to weight it lower with Stun X of 1' date=' 1, 2, 2, 3, 4 rather than the current 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 system we have now.[/quote']

One of my house rules is that the stun multiplier is 1d6-1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 rather than 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Partly this is "realism," I have seen (and once received) serious injuries where the victim said "I didn't feel a thing." It does not change the STUN lottery that much, average of 2.5 rather than 2.67, but it does seem to give the players pause that an attack might do rolled BODY but zero STUN.

 

I have thought about a house rule to eliminate rED & rPD, two more characteristics to keep track of during combat. Haven't tried or tested this yet, but I'm thinking full PD or ED apply to every attack, all attacks are rolled as "normal" damage, and current KA's, especally guns and knives, would acquire a level of penetraiting (+ 1/2) in conversion.

 

Just a thought.

[Trebuchet]

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

 

Interesting approach. Let us know how that works out for you and your group.

[Duke Bushido]

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

 

Heh heh heh heh----

 

I mentioned this thread during a game last night, and one of my players had a humorous solution. I thought you might enjoy it, so I'm sharing it.

 

In light of all the concern about the inordinate amount of Stun done by a 'killing' attack, and the concern about good guys using a 'killing' attack, he suggests simply re-naming it! 8D

 

 

Duke

[Sean Waters]

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

 

Heh heh heh heh----

 

I mentioned this thread during a game last night, and one of my players had a humorous solution. I thought you might enjoy it, so I'm sharing it.

 

In light of all the concern about the inordinate amount of Stun done by a 'killing' attack, and the concern about good guys using a 'killing' attack, he suggests simply re-naming it! 8D

 

 

Duke

 

Sometimes, the best solutions are the simplest ones

[Sean Waters]

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

 

I freely admit that the changes I've done in order to match HERO to my own style of play and requirements are of my own creation and represent no true balance issues (with the exception off hand of 'Dive for Cover' vs. melee).

 

Thus I don't claim HERO's firearms are 'unbalanced' and thus seek to recost them.

 

No, I claim they aren't as realistic as I need and thus alter how I construct them- without changing base costs.

 

See the difference?

 

Can we all come and play in your game? It sounds absolutely perfect.

[Dr. Anomaly]

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

 

I freely admit that the changes I've done in order to match HERO to my own style of play and requirements are of my own creation and represent no true balance issues (with the exception off hand of 'Dive for Cover' vs. melee).

 

Thus I don't claim HERO's firearms are 'unbalanced' and thus seek to recost them.

 

No, I claim they aren't as realistic as I need and thus alter how I construct them- without changing base costs.

 

See the difference?

I see the point of the differences you're pointing out as of now. I'm still trying to decide if I think that fits with posts you've made on these kinds of subjects before or not.

 

(Not a poke at you, or anything...I'm quite sure you meant that sort of approach all along. I'm just not sure I think that's the way it has come across in the past. But I'm quite willing to take you at your word on this now and go forward from here. )

[Fox1]

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

 

Can we all come and play in your game? It sounds absolutely perfect.

 

Luke: "I don't believe it"

 

Yoda: "That is the reason you fail"

[Fox1]

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

 

I see the point of the differences you're pointing out as of now. I'm still trying to decide if I think that fits with posts you've made on these kinds of subjects before or not.

 

Even those who generally can't stand me have admitted I'm consistent if nothing else. I don't believe you'll find a single post by me ever supporting a change in costing for any of the powers, skills, or characteristics in HERO.

 

You will find disagreement with certain changes in 5th edition, disagreements of style, or statements about rule sections I wouldn't use or would replace. But point costing and balance? Very rare if ever.

[Sean Waters]

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

 

Even those who generally can't stand me have admitted I'm consistent if nothing else.......

 

The boards would be a poorer place without you.

 

Mind you, you could do with being more consistent

[Duke Bushido]

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

 

Sometimes' date=' the best solutions are the simplest ones [/quote']

 

heh heh---

 

Well, it was certainly amusing!

 

The humor was two-fold; it was also a subtle dig at one of our House 'changes' (these are usually semantic, and not the same as House Rules) that's been around since the 80s. Every so often, we'd have a new player-- usually new to role-playing in general-- who had a hard time wrapping his suspension of disbelief around a gun or a spear or a thrown knife being and "Energy" Blast.

 

So we changed the name to 'Ranged Attack,' and there hasn't been a problem since. That, and it brings it nicely in line with "Hand-to-Hand Attack," Killing Attack, "Ranged Killing Attack," etc....

 

 

Sorry--- drifting! My bad.

 

Back to the discussion:

 

The 'Killing' Advantage on stadard EB sounds intriguing; I might play test that with our group and see how it goes over.

 

As I stated before, we use a set Stun Multiplier (which, from the discussion, seems to put us in the minority, but it works for us, and when everything is said and done, that's really the heart of it, isn't it?) for KA and RKA.

 

But this thread has made me curious about possibly allowing a version of-- no, let's say 'a power similar to' the current construction of KA, just for the oodles of Stun potential. The thing I'm concerned about, however, is that I do not want to simply slap "Does no Body" on KA and call it good. A power with oodles of Stun potential _should_ do some Body, if only as a balance against cheap abuse.

 

Yes, I know that attacks which do no body cannot affect inanimate objects, etc, and are thus considered to be 'balanced.' But for me personally, I don't want characters running around indiscriminately blasting away at any opponent simply because they can't possibly hurt him, and it's the easiest way to subdue him. I want Body damage to be a factor, but not quite like it is in the current KA set-up. I want the players to understand that they must still be careful with their powers, as a slip-up or even a simple miss can have powerful consequences. I want them to have to act responsibly.

 

Right now-- and please, keep in mind that I haven't run any numbers or tests; it's just a thought that occured to me rereading this thread-- I'm waffling between two possibles:

 

1) allowing a 'Stun Multiplier' Advantage on EB (cost not yet even thought about)

2) raising the price of the current KA to 20/die and setting the Multiplier at four or even five.

 

Just ideas, but given the thoughts on this thread so far, I'd like to get a little feedback, in case there's some glaring issues I haven't considered.

 

Thanks.

[prestidigitator]

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

 

It's a little bit of an aside, but I'd like to say that one of the things that has always bothered me about Killing Attacks is the difference between N 1/2d6 and (N+1)d6-1. 1/2d6 has an average of 2 and a max of 3. 1d6-1 has an average of 2.5 and a max of 5. How are these even close to equivalent? I don't think the 1/6 chance of getting zero on an extra 1d6-1 makes up for it at all! Shouldn't 1d6-1 be worth more points than 1/2d6? I just always go with 1/2d6, but it generates some discrepencies when I want to go with the standard weapon charts as well....

[Fox1]

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

 

I don't think the 1/6 chance of getting zero on an extra 1d6-1 makes up for it at all! Shouldn't 1d6-1 be worth more points than 1/2d6?

 

It is.

 

2 1/2d6K = 40 points

3d6-1K = 42 points

3d6K = 45 points.

[Guest bblackmoor]

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

 

As I stated before' date=' we use a set Stun Multiplier (which, from the discussion, seems to put us in the minority, but it works for us, and when everything is said and done, that's really the heart of it, isn't it?) for KA and RKA.[/quote']

 

We use Hero System's "x3 Stun Multiplier" option, too. It was amazing how everyone's complaints about Killing Attacks went away almost immediately. I don't think anyone has *****ed about Killing Attacks in my group since then. I highly recommed it (particularly if you can't convince your group to adopt my "Consistent Killing Damage" rule -- I couldn't ).

 

P.S. The word that was censored is a synonym for "complain". I am not going to try and guess why it was censored. It's no more offensive than "***" (which is to say, not very).

 

P.P.S. You have got to be kidding me. I deliberate chose an innocuous word, just for an easy comparison, and that's censored too?? Someone has gotten a bit carried away, I think. How about "hell"? Until the 1960s, the word "hell" was forbidden from US network television. What year is this, again? Whatever. I give up.

 

Sometimes I just want to weep for the human race.

[Duke Bushido]

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

 

Everything is relative.

 

Maybe I've outlived the ethics under which I was raised, but if you're second example was the 'noun form' of your synonym for 'complain,' then I prefer it edited anyway; I find it to be one of the absolute most offensive things that can be said in the english language.

 

As for the set stun multiplier--

yes, it solved most all the complaints. People now only use it to build truly lethal attacks; no one gets it for the Stun Lotto, ignoring all the damage they are doing with the BODY.

 

But we use a x2 multiplier.

and I've considered a x1.5 for some constructs.

[Guest bblackmoor]

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

 

Maybe I've outlived the ethics under which I was raised' date=' but if you're second example was the 'noun form' of your synonym for 'complain,'[/quote']

 

It wasn't. Both are completely inoffensive words that one can say on television. (I'm not sure what word you are thinkng of, but frankly I'm not going to put much thought into trying to figure it out.)

 

Life goes on.

[prestidigitator]

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

 

It is.

 

2 1/2d6K = 40 points

3d6-1K = 42 points

3d6K = 45 points.

Really?! That's great! Did I miss that? Where is it? Under (Hand/Ranged) Killing Attacks? In the Damage Section? Where? This was soo messed up in 4E (where they had some crazy, "if the damage is increased...," vs., "if the damage is decreased...," wording). I'll be really happy if they have fixed it and I just missed that.

[Fox1]

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

 

Really?! That's great! Did I miss that? Where is it?

 

Page 95 of Dark Champions is at least one reference.