Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

[Nucleon]

Salutations, Mortals. Nucleon, having seen enough of the KA's Stun Lotto in His (superheroic) campaigns, has decided to make a houserule which eliminated KAs, making Killing an Advantage in its stead. Here is, after a few months tryout, what this change has brought for Him and His players.

 

First, here is the Killing Advantage:

 

Killing; Adds 50% to the Body damage of a given attack, which is soakable only with Resistant defenses. Stun damage stays the same. Knockback, however, is half the Body dice rolled (no more adding an extra die of Knockback reduction for "killing attack"). If the Advantage Penetrating is also chosen, it is determinated with the same formula as for knockback (half Body dice rolled). Cost; +¼.

 

In the first incarnation of this new rule, Killing was doubling Body damage instead, which has made of Nucleon's campaign a bloody one.

 

At that point, Nucleon thought about making Resistant defenses cheaper, like a +¼ Advantage on a given defense rather than the +½ it actually costs -and He even give some considerations about eliminating Resistant defenses altogether (after all, a Killing attack is somewhat of a cheap, common AVLD when we think about it, much cheaper than an AP attack wich is stopped by Hardened, a mere +¼ Advantage)- But that would changes things that are too close to the system's core, like Armor, Force Field and Damage Reduction. And let's admit it, Nucleon was too lazy to quell all the shockwaves that this would cause.

 

Finally, after some tryouts, He opted for the Advantage that has been described above.

 

Let's see some average numbers to see how it works:

 

A 44 Magnum revolver was originally listed as a 2d6 RKA; Average damage was 7 Body, plus a wildly decided amount of Stun Damage that could reach, with the +1 multiplier of this particular weapon, from 7 to 42 Stun. Typical knockback (7 minus 3d6) was inexistant.

 

Nowadays, a 44 Magnum is an Energy Blast 6d6 Killing; It averages 9 Body (6+50%), does 21 stun, and has a (as feeble) knockback of (6/2=3)-(2d6).

 

Now, something more muscular; A former 6d6 HKA, Penetrating. That used to amount to an average of 21 Body, 6 of them Penetrating. The Stun Lotto's first Prize was 105 Stun. Knockback was 21 minus 3d6, for an average of 10".

 

With the Houserule, the same amount of active point (a bit less in fact) gets thee a 15d6 attack, Killing and Penetrating. Such an attack does, once again on average, 22-23 Body, 7-8 of them Penetrating, 52-53 Stun, and knockback was 7-8", minus 2d6, or almost inexistant.

 

This somewhat lack of knockback is a bit of a problem; Many players, seeing how ineffective the knockback is, will simply buy back the Killing Advantage's worth with "Does No Knockback" Limitation. But apart from this, the houserule holds the road quite well

 

Yep, that has prompted Nucleon to do some changes regarding Independant trinkets such as weapons, and some conversions to published charaters as well, but all in all, it works rather well now. Nucleon must also give credit to His roleplaying group and their patience regarding their GM's revisions.

 

What doth you think about that?

 

[EverKnight]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

At first glance this seems reasonable to me. There does look to be more maths involved in it though. I guess you've tried it out so you know if it takes up more time in game doing all the calculations.

 

The problem with the knockback stems from you dividing the amount of BODY done instead of just knocking off a few inches with an extra d6. If you kept the knockback to BODY rolled minus 2d6 then you will get some knockback. If you take the two examples then the Magnum has the possibility of doing a few inches, which matches the dramatic, seen in the movies, action. For the second example knockback would be 15-2d6 = 8" on average, compared to the 10" for the standard RKA version.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

EDIT: fix to +1/4 (misread on my part)

 

Hmmm...let's work with 60 AP.

 

Baseline: 12d6 EB averages 42 STUN, 12 BOD, 5" Knockback

 

4d6 KA (5er) averages 37.33 STUN, 14 BOD, 3.5" Knockback

 

9 1/2d6 EB KA (+1/4) averages 33.5 STUN, 14.25 BOD, 0" Knockback exactly

 

So the KA is now equal in BOD, much reduced in STUN and less useful for Knockback (but still knocks a target down). It's definitely a true Killing Attack - it's not good for much else, only shredding targets with moderate to low resistant defenses. Stun Multiple solved; attack is for killing.

 

As noted, "no knockback" seems natural, as you won't likely do much knockback anyway. For the same 60 points, I can get

 

12d6 EB, Killing (+1/4) no knockback (-1/4) and do average 42 STUN, 18 BOD, No Knockback.

 

This implies that the advantage should be +0, but the attack now does no knockback whatsoever - you want Knockback, buy Does Knockback.

 

With this approach, your KA averages considerably more BOD and a bit less STUN than the current model, does no knockback whatsoever and flattens the Stun Multiple curve. It's now an attack whose primary fucntion is to kill living target, and secondary is to break non-living targets (doing 50% more BOD than an equivalent normal attack). Seems reasonable.

 

Of course, if you price that at the same as an EB, every Energy Projector with a multipower will be immune to Entangles and shatter force wals with ease. This, to me, is the problem with the "killing attack". Logically, it should do more BOD and less STUN. But if you enhance BOD significantly, you reduce/eliminate the utility of Entangles and Force Walls, and make it easier to break objects.

 

I'm curious whether the playtested version has reduced, increased or maintaned the frequency of PC's purchasing killing attacks and/or the frequency of their use. Certainly, they are more focused on shredding the target than stunning him. Is that what you want in your Supers game?

 

What about adopting the flat x3 Stun Multiple? Our 60 AP KA now averages 42 STUN, 14 BOD, 3.5" Knockback, and we flatten the curve quite a bit (not entirely - rolling 24 BOD to get 72 STUN is considerably more likely than rolling 12 6's on an EB). Drop the Stun multiple to 2.5 and we now average 35 Stun, which makes this attack inflict 1/6 more BOD and 1/6 less Stun than the EB. That seems reasonable.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

OK, running numbers: 60 active point attack (4d6 killing/12d6 normal) with 'KILLING' costs 75 points in Nucleon's campaign (one has to adopt the patois of the locals don't'cha'know?)

 

KAs are going to yield results further from the norm than normal attacks, but

 

The attack does 18 BODY, as opposed to the, well, 17/18 BODY a 5d6 killing attack would do. Stun is 42 (as opposed to 47) and KB is 6-2d6 as opposed to 17/18-3d6. Not sounding like a bargain.

 

cf normal attacks: a normal attack at 75 points is 15 BODY, 52 STUN and 15-2d6 KB. Still not sounding like a bargain.

 

Personally Sean Waters is surprised Nucleon's campaign is a lot bloodier: those few points of BODY probably wouldn't make a huge amount of difference in many campaigns as far as damage goes to characters (unless the level of resistant defences is finely balanced at that point) but would allow increased property damage and make force walls and entangles virtually unuseable (a few points of BODY damage makes a LOT of difference there).

 

Sean Waters doesn't want to turn this into another one of those arguments over KA: good or bad - they are here and show no signs of leaving BUT can Sean Waters suggest the following:

 

1. For a +0 advantage a normal attack can be designated as killing. Roll damage as for a normal (not killing) attack but apply BODY damage against resistant defences only and STUN damage against total defences ONLY if the target has some resistant defence (as for KAs now). Why +0 ?- well it isn't a points balance thing but a style thing: against most superheroes it will make little difference as most have some resistant defence BUT it will make killing normals easier, so that it is far more of a villain power than a hero one. Far more predictable results: a 2d6 RKA becomes a 6d6 KEB, and comparing averages the damage is (killing first killing normal second) 7/6 BODY and 18/21 STUN.

 

2. Use a standard multiplier for the damage from killing attacks. Sean Waters would recommend '3' but many opt for lower multipliers. Even then Nucleon gets a secondary stun lotto as Nucleon only rolls a relatively few killing dice for BODY damage so Nucleon will tend to get quite a range of results.

 

Can Sean Waters just commend Nucleon on actually trying this in a campaign though: most of Sean Waters' contributions are on a purely theoretical level and actual game play experiences can be very different to Sean Waters' expectations. Well done Nucleon. Now about that 'referring to yourself in the third person' thing......

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

Why not just use a standard STUNx.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

Whenever I see someone posting a new rule, I ask myself: does it pay for itself? That is, does the extra effort the rule requires make the game more fun, enough that it's worth adopting the new rule? (Edit: Thought I'd use this as my new signature.)

 

Personally, I'm not sure that I'd use it -- not because I dislike it, but because I have other house rules that I'd like to try.

[Nucleon]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

(Since thy post contains elements raised up by EverKnight, ghost-angel and Sean Waters, this post is a response to them as well.)

 

So the KA is now equal in BOD, much reduced in STUN and less useful for Knockback (but still knocks a target down). It's definitely a true Killing Attack - it's not good for much else, only shredding targets with moderate to low resistant defenses. Stun Multiple solved; attack is for killing.

 

It now does a wee bit more Body damage for the same AP value, at a rate of about 1-2 body more on 60 Active points.

 

Nucleon must say here that the tryouts were largely done with Killing doing twice the amount of Body rolled, and it turned out to be too gory at higher levels (over 60 AP). The decision to bring it down to +50% is relatively as recent as Nucleon's current campaign.

 

As noted, "no knockback" seems natural, as you won't likely do much knockback anyway.

 

Granted.

 

This implies that the advantage should be +0, but the attack now does no knockback whatsoever - you want Knockback, buy Does Knockback.

 

Or... Nucleon could let go of the rules He made concerning Kb from Killing attacks. That would mean; rolled Body dice minus (typically) 3d6 for determining actual Kb. He has to ask his virtueous players about that tryout, thought.

 

Thy proposition is quite valid, but it will tend to significally increase the Body damage, as thou also concluded.

 

Of course, if you price that at the same as an EB, every Energy Projector with a multipower will be immune to Entangles and shatter force wals with ease. This, to me, is the problem with the "killing attack". Logically, it should do more BOD and less STUN. But if you enhance BOD significantly, you reduce/eliminate the utility of Entangles and Force Walls, and make it easier to break objects.

 

Correct; this is the reason why the Body Damage isn't that much superior now. That shouldn't do too much difference; in the most extreme cases, the target will get out of an Entangle or pierce a Force Wall about a phase faster, maybe.

 

Not perfect, He admits. But still better than having your main PC getting offed in the first Turn by sheer Stun damage from a lucky multiplier IHO.

 

I'm curious whether the playtested version has reduced, increased or maintaned the frequency of PC's purchasing killing attacks and/or the frequency of their use. Certainly, they are more focused on shredding the target than stunning him. Is that what you want in your Supers game?

 

What about adopting the flat x3 Stun Multiple? Our 60 AP KA now averages 42 STUN, 14 BOD, 3.5" Knockback, and we flatten the curve quite a bit (not entirely - rolling 24 BOD to get 72 STUN is considerably more likely than rolling 12 6's on an EB). Drop the Stun multiple to 2.5 and we now average 35 Stun, which makes this attack inflict 1/6 more BOD and 1/6 less Stun than the EB. That seems reasonable.

 

Nucleon had a Punisher-like PC who used to eliminate superpowered opposition with autofire KAs; when a few of them hit, the chance of getting a "6" were getting quite probable even thought the Body damage itself is more predictible -Nucleon is sure you know what He means. The Body damage never was the problem here.

 

Nowadays, the very same player has abandonned the concept of killing attacks as a mean to stun (as do many players in HERO's superpowered genre). For that, he now takes regular attacks, or NNDs and the such. Killing attacks are now bought to dismiss vehicules, automatons or barriers, or simply to kill.

 

The KA system sounds somewhat out of place IHO, but buying a KA with a capped multipower strikes Nucleon as ineffective, or even odd. Few of Nucleon's player would do it, but still, there is a need for an attack that does an efficient, predictible amount of Body damage.

 

[Nucleon]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

Personally Sean Waters is surprised Nucleon's campaign is a lot bloodier: those few points of BODY probably wouldn't make a huge amount of difference in many campaigns as far as damage goes to characters (unless the level of resistant defences is finely balanced at that point) but would allow increased property damage and make force walls and entangles virtually unuseable (a few points of BODY damage makes a LOT of difference there).

 

Well, it was bloody when the said houserule was twice the Body damage rolled, as Nucleon stated in the original post. It is now somewhat more "normal" in feel.

 

Sean Waters doesn't want to turn this into another one of those arguments over KA: good or bad - they are here and show no signs of leaving BUT can Sean Waters suggest the following:

 

1. For a +0 advantage a normal attack can be designated as killing. Roll damage as for a normal (not killing) attack but apply BODY damage against resistant defences only and STUN damage against total defences ONLY if the target has some resistant defence (as for KAs now). Why +0 ?- well it isn't a points balance thing but a style thing: against most superheroes it will make little difference as most have some resistant defence BUT it will make killing normals easier, so that it is far more of a villain power than a hero one. Far more predictable results: a 2d6 RKA becomes a 6d6 KEB, and comparing averages the damage is (killing first killing normal second) 7/6 BODY and 18/21 STUN.

 

It does have some qualities that makes Nucleon ponders. However, he thinks that this dramatically decrease the effectiveness of Entangles and Barriers; Do the math, and compare it to your exact point about it.

 

2. Use a standard multiplier for the damage from killing attacks. Sean Waters would recommend '3' but many opt for lower multipliers. Even then Nucleon gets a secondary stun lotto as Nucleon only rolls a relatively few killing dice for BODY damage so Nucleon will tend to get quite a range of results.

 

By the Stars, that's quite valid too. At least it's got the merit of disturbing less things around.

 

Can Sean Waters just commend Nucleon on actually trying this in a campaign though: most of Sean Waters' contributions are on a purely theoretical level and actual game play experiences can be very different to Sean Waters' expectations. Well done Nucleon. Now about that 'referring to yourself in the third person' thing......

 

 

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

...............

 

It does have some qualities that makes Nucleon ponders. However, he thinks that this dramatically decrease the effectiveness of Entangles and Barriers; Do the math, and compare it to your exact point about it.

 

................

 

 

Entangles and FWs have resistant defence anyway so Sean Waters does not think that +0 for 'killing attack rolled using normal dice' is likely to effect them at all. Mind you Sean Waters has been wrong before on a number of occasions.....

[Lucius]

Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

Salutations' date=' Mortals. Nucleon, having seen enough of the KA's Stun Lotto in His (superheroic) campaigns, has decided to make a houserule which eliminated KAs, making [i']Killing[/i] an Advantage in its stead. Here is, after a few months tryout, what this change has brought for Him and His players.

 

*Some deletions*

 

At that point, Nucleon thought about making Resistant defenses cheaper, like a +¼ Advantage on a given defense rather than the +½ it actually costs -and He even give some considerations about eliminating Resistant defenses altogether (after all, a Killing attack is somewhat of a cheap, common AVLD when we think about it, much cheaper than an AP attack wich is stopped by Hardened, a mere +¼ Advantage)- But that would changes things that are too close to the system's core, like Armor, Force Field and Damage Reduction. And let's admit it, Nucleon was too lazy to quell all the shockwaves that this would cause.

 

:

 

 

I am stunned!

 

 

(Recovering from being stunned.)

 

Okay. First of all, this is very close to what I had already decided to do as a house rule. (That's why I was stunned.) And I have also been wondering for some time when someone would point out the obvious - that the Killing Attack/Resistant Defenses complex of game rules is an obvious violation of some of the basic principles of Hero System, such as "For every attack there is a defense, and the defense is usually cheaper." Killing Attack is, as you say, merely a kind of ABSOLUTELY FREE Attack vs Limited Defense advantage, and the defense against it is a ** +1/2 ADVANTAGE ** (!)

 

 

I am not sure how this situation has remained uncorrected through all these revisions, other than to say that it has, after all, always been this way and people are so used to it that they just don't see it....until it's pointed out. If someone introduced a brand new attack advantage and counteracting defense advantage that were so grossly out of balance, it would be shot down - or corrected and put in balance - almost immediately.

 

Now, here is something else that really struck me hard, reading everyone else's posts....

 

HERO SYSTEM IS NOT JUST CHAMPIONS.

 

 

 

In theory, as I understand it, Hero System is supposed to work for everything. Consider that the whole knockback question does not even usually apply except in superheroic games. What does it do to your equations when you factor that in?

Same goes for the question of "do you want your supers doing that?" or however it was expressed. Well, generally speaking, your four color supers don't have killing attacks anyway. That's for villains, agents, and the occasional "Wolverine" type. But more to the point, not everyone uses Hero to play "supers."

 

Now, personally, I never had a problem with the "Stun lottery" for the simple reason that it more or less cancels out. Also, I usually play with Hit Locations. What I have a problem with is the simple fact that Killing Attack is an attack advantage that, under current rules, you don't have to pay for - and that the counteracting defense is a +1/2 advantage.

 

My solution is to make "Killing" a +1/2 advantage that turns a normal attack into the equivalent damage class of killing attack - so 15 base points turns into a 1d6 killing attack. That still leaves the defensive advantage at the same cost as the attack advantage. If I get the game up and running, and find I have any useful observations on this solution, I may post them.

 

Meanwhile, I have a question for Nucleon (no, not "why do you speak in the third person?" I regularly interact with people with even more distracting affectations.)

 

What do you do with the idea of STR adding damage to hand to hand Killing Attacks? Or do your players never use them, opting for ranged Killing Attacks, so the situation never arose?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary Enterprises

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

I am stunned!

 

 

(Recovering from being stunned.)

 

Okay. First of all, this is very close to what I had already decided to do as a house rule. (That's why I was stunned.) And I have also been wondering for some time when someone would point out the obvious - that the Killing Attack/Resistant Defenses complex of game rules is an obvious violation of some of the basic principles of Hero System, such as "For every attack there is a defense, and the defense is usually cheaper." Killing Attack is, as you say, merely a kind of ABSOLUTELY FREE Attack vs Limited Defense advantage, and the defense against it is a ** +1/2 ADVANTAGE ** (!)

...............

 

You are so very right but (and there will be a number of people chuckling to see ME writing this ) it aint about the points its about the play.

 

You have to remember that this all started off as a superhero game, where the vast majority of characters had resistant defences, so whilst you are right IN THEORY, in PRACTICE, if you just made killing attacks more expensive they would be pointless (pun, as always, intended )

 

Even with this variant, I have to say that MOST (superheroic) characters are not going to have an issue with killing damage. My gripe with killing attacks has never been about the actual killing bit, but about the (to my mind) ridiculous (ok bit pejorative, but it is my opinion) stun calculation mechanic, which is far too random for my liking. Mind you I did promise I would not head the thread off in that direction, so I won't.

 

Let me re-state my objection to any attack or mechanic that allows higher BODY damage than current attacks:

 

1. They are always going to end up in a multipower, as, otherwise, you'll never win a fight against anyone with moderately good resistant defences: you simply will not do enough STUN.

2. They are going to be used (in superheroic combat, at least) to break furniture, forcewalls and focii (and, of course entangles, but I did not want to spoil the flow). Not only does this effect the relative worth of FW and entangle, witht he associated game balance issues, but it is unrealistic: you don't generally use killing attacks to break things in the 'real world' - want to break a wall down? Use a sledgehammer or a wrecking ball. Big normal attacks - all scenery has DEF which is resistant so does not much care whether you hit it with normal or killing attacks, it just cares about the amount of BODY done.

 

My take is this: killing attacks SHOULD be dangerous to differentiated and specialised systems, like humans, computers, and all manner of delicate stuff you can break with a LITTLE damage in the right place. They should (generally) be pretty useless against undifferentiated, simple systems, like walls.

 

Killing attacks are dangerous NOT because they do massive damage but BECAUSE they are capable of directing that damage to vital systems - circulatory system/nervous system/whatever.

 

SO to build a 'proper'* killing attack, what you need is a simgle mechanic that operates differently depending on the target. This doesn't work well with Hero, but, in effect, it goes like this:

 

Normal attack:

 

12d6 EB = 60 points (60 active)

 

Killing attack:

 

8d6 EB (killing damage - applies BODY damage only v resistant defences +0) PLUS

8d6

(only if other part of attack caused BODY damage -1/2)

(only if target is a differentiated complex system -1/2)

 

60 points (90 active)

 

SO, against walls and such like the bullet by and large bounces or causes minimal damage. Against living organisms and other delicate stuff it causes substantially more damage UNLESS there are defences that prevent it getting to the squidgy bits.

 

OK, a bit complex, and possibly there are far better ways to model it but the principle must be sound: bullets/knives/claws are ONLY really dangerous if they can transmit their energy to vital components of the target.

 

I have a point on healing, but I'll post that seperately, methinks....

 

 

 

 

 

* as defined by me, obviously - your view may differ

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

Now, here is something else that really struck me hard, reading everyone else's posts....

 

HERO SYSTEM IS NOT JUST CHAMPIONS.

 

 

Once more, quite right BUT (always one of them, eh?) even with heroic level games resistant defences tend to be relatively common especially with combat luck talents and so on. Moreover, if everything DOES balance then, in theory, a normal attack and a killing attack should have basically the same utility per cost point. It is like desolid: in low point games you are not goign to be able to afford it BUT if you do scrape the points together NO ONE is goign to have an attack that can touch you, absent GM fiat, because no one can afford to splash out on attacks that affect desolid that they will only need once in a lifetime.

 

Like I said above my issue with killing attacks is the STUN component, nothing else: over the entire range of genres that HERO can emulate the powers do, pretty much, balance. If you get it right for just ONE genre, you will throw it out of whack with others. You have a valid point that it is 'set' for superheroic emulation more that other genres BUT, OTOH, in other genres it is not really an issue: in youe basic heroic campaign the only access to killing attacks is going to be through equipment you probably do not have to pay points for - so it is equally available to everyone (OK, maybe the odd MA manouvre you pay for but the point holds generally).

 

If you are buying KAs as equipment, points balance is far, far less important than it would be otherwise.

 

Can I just say though, I do sympathise with your well presented views - it is something I've spent a lot of time considering myself, and those views need to be aired and discussed, so thanks for bringing them out. I'm not saying I have the answers, but it is worthy discussion material

[Sean Waters]

Healing damage

 

Kinda a derail but, I think, still relevant to the discussion.

 

Healing.

 

I was thinking about healing killing attacks (well, especially killing attacks) and I came up with this thought:

 

You get hit in the arm for 5 BODY, it is disabled, you may have broken bones and even substantial tissue loss.

 

You get hit in the heart for 3 points of BODY damage, which multiplies up to 6. The actual tissue damage is likely to be far less in the second instance BUT the amount of damage to be healed is higher even though, from a technical standpoint, the damage to the heart is likely to be far easier to repair - a small tear in the muscle tissue is serious damage to a heart, whereas the arm might have a great deal of torn muscle, broken bones, ripped blood vessels and so on.

 

The thought I'm leading up to is that, when using hit locations, you should apply the damage modifiers to your healing rolls too - healing to the vitals is twice as effective as to the chest, which is twice as effective as to a limb. The damage multipliers do NOT imply greater tissue damage, they imply the same amount of damage to a more sensitive system. In fact all you would be doing is healing the DELIVERED damage rather than the perceived damage: 4 points of damage would need the same amount of healing whether it was to the head, the chest or the arm, even though the 'perceived' damage would be 8,4 or 2 respectively.

 

Anyway, that's what I think

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

Entangles and FWs have resistant defence anyway so Sean Waters does not think that +0 for 'killing attack rolled using normal dice' is likely to effect them at all. Mind you Sean Waters has been wrong before on a number of occasions.....

 

You allude to it later, Sean. If a power can achieve a significantly greater BOD total for the same AP as the current KA, it makes it easier to break entangles and force walls, reducing their utility.

 

Your comments on the relative effectiveness of, say, a sword, a bullet or a laser against a human vs a wall open up another issue.

 

Perhaps these could be solved by a rule that KA's automatically have "reduced penetration" when attacking an inanimate object (forcer wall, entangle, etc.), but now we're getting even greater complexities.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

HERO SYSTEM IS NOT JUST CHAMPIONS.

 

True. However, this thread arises from a Champions game. As well, I don't believe the Stun Lotto has been as big an issue in non-Supers games. I stand to be corrected in that regard, if anyone wishes to address the point.

 

Now' date=' personally, I never had a problem with the "Stun lottery" for the simple reason that it more or less cancels out. Also, I usually play with Hit Locations.[/quote']

 

I used to believe the "cancels out" argument until Gary called me on it and presented the math. The fact is that the average STUN a KA inflicts, after defenses, on a target with relatively high defenses (IIRC, it worked out to a breakpoint at about twice the DC of the attack) is superior to an equal AP normal attack. As such, the KA is more effective in stunning and knocking out high defense targets.

 

Your comment about hit locations is dead on, in my opinion. Hit locations smooth out the multiple issue a bit. More importantly, they also enhance the BOD of the KA, making it more lethal, as well as causing greater STUN. Finally, normal attacks can also benefit from a good Hit Location roll, which means they also benefit from a "stun lotto" of sorts.

 

The fact that hit locations smooth out some of the rough spots is another reason this tends to be perceived as less of a problem in genre where hit locations are commonly used. Are there any genre outside of Supers which don't generaly use hit locations?

[Nucleon]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

HERO SYSTEM IS NOT JUST CHAMPIONS.

 

True. Under another name, Nucleon has played a 100 pts Heroic campaign once and He found out that the whole KA concept works better in this particular setting. His problem is, need it to be repeated, the Stun Lotto in superheroic campaigns.

 

My solution is to make "Killing" a +1/2 advantage that turns a normal attack into the equivalent damage class of killing attack - so 15 base points turns into a 1d6 killing attack. That still leaves the defensive advantage at the same cost as the attack advantage. If I get the game up and running, and find I have any useful observations on this solution, I may post them.

 

So what you did is raise the cost of KAs while letting the mechanics be the same. Do you still use a Stun multiplier with this method?

 

It is Nucleon's opinion that KA should be reflected as either a cheap and easy way to get a dirty job done, and an efficient way to bust throught things; To raise their cost to high may make 38 Specials and knives too costly for the common thug.

 

The superpowered genre still need death threats, even thought it should be a relatively uncommon occurence.

 

What do you do with the idea of STR adding damage to hand to hand Killing Attacks? Or do your players never use them, opting for ranged Killing Attacks, so the situation never arose?

 

Nucleon does not want to embark in His own houserules more than it is necessary, but here is how He defines, say, a 20 STR cyborg with a retractable forarm blade;

 

Rectractable Blade; +2d6 HTH (6d6 w. STR), all Killing (+¼), Restrainable Cyberware (-¼). This is the power's description.

 

Now for the calculations: ((30x1.25)-20)%1.25, =14 pts Real Cost

 

First, Nucleon figured the entire damage (30) before He multiplied it by the Advantage (1.25) to get the Active Cost (37.5), then He substracted the Active pts of the Character's own STR (20), Before dividing the result by the Limitation (1.25). Works like a charm.

 

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

Okay. First of all' date=' this is very close to what I had already decided to do as a house rule. (That's why I was stunned.) And I have also been wondering for some time when someone would point out the obvious - that the Killing Attack/Resistant Defenses complex of game rules is an obvious violation of some of the basic principles of Hero System, such as "For every attack there is a defense, and the defense is usually cheaper." Killing Attack is, as you say, merely a kind of ABSOLUTELY FREE Attack vs Limited Defense advantage, and the defense against it is a ** +1/2 ADVANTAGE ** (!)[/quote']

Hrm... maybe.

 

Let's tear it apart.

 

1D6 Killing = 15 points, does 6 Body maximum, 3 average (rounded down).

1D6 Normal = 5 points, does 2 Body Maximum, 1 average.

 

to defend against Maximum Body (buying Armor for rDEF, as that's a good benchmark, it can be done cheaper with FF):

6rDEF = 9 points ratio DEF::OFF = 3::5 points.

2DEF = 2 points ratio DEF::OFF = 2::5 points.

 

what about defending against an Average Body Damge roll [note: Armor is 3 for 2, why waste the point and buying something like PD+Dmg Res is the same cost, and the "average body are odd numbers, we'll assume one buys extra D]:

4rDEF = 6 points ratio DEF::OFF = 2::5 points.

1DEF = 1 point ratio DEF::OFF = 1::5 points.

 

Doesn't seem to far off to me, the ratios seem pretty close. As for actual points payed the Attack is paying an extra 10 points for every Die of Effect, the defender is paying 7 points more to defend against all of it - still less than the attack to it's cheaper - and 5 points more to defend against most of it - half as much as the attacker is paying.

 

Killing Damage, pound for pound, seems to do what it's supposed to do - attempt to kill people faster. The problems I have with KAs come only with the STUN Lotto which is a stupid mechanic IMO (and many others) and the system could do itself a favor by switching around the idea of which form of KA Stun is the Optional Rule.

 

KA Stun: Flat multiple x3 for Supers Games, x2 for Heroic Games.

Optional Rule: Roll a D6-1 to determine STUNx.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

HERO SYSTEM IS NOT JUST CHAMPIONS.

 

Correct, but...and this may be a topic for another thread... it started out that way, and many of the design decisions point to that.

[Lucius]

Re:Sponding to a Lot of Posts

 

Once more' date=' quite right BUT (always one of them, eh?) even with heroic level games resistant defences tend to be relatively common especially with combat luck talents and so on. :[/quote']

 

There's a reason resistant defences are so common, even at heroic level now, and always have been at super level - such that the one published superhero without any, Seeker, was widely mocked for the lack.

 

The reason is that you need them to defend against killing attacks.

 

If, from the very inception of the first Champions game, it had been the case that Armor Piercing was a FREE advantage, there would have been an awful lot of Armor Piercing attacks, and almost EVERYONE would have "Hardened" defenses.

 

 

Moreover' date=' if everything DOES balance then, in theory, a normal attack and a killing attack should have basically the same utility per cost point. ...... You have a valid point that it is 'set' for superheroic emulation more that other genres BUT, OTOH, in other genres it is not really an issue: in youe basic heroic campaign the only access to killing attacks is going to be through equipment you probably do not have to pay points for - so it is equally available to everyone (OK, maybe the odd MA manouvre you pay for but the point holds generally).[/quote']

 

How about spells?!?

 

"a normal attack and a killing attack should ahve basically the same utility per cost point...." but my point is, they don't.

 

Can I just say though, I do sympathise with your well presented views - it is something I've spent a lot of time considering myself, and those views need to be aired and discussed, so thanks for bringing them out. I'm not saying I have the answers, but it is worthy discussion material

 

Thank you. I am rediscovering the pleasure of this unique online community.

 

 

Kinda a derail but, I think, still relevant to the discussion.

 

Healing.

 

I was thinking about healing killing attacks (well, especially killing attacks) and I came up with this thought:

 

You get hit in the arm for 5 BODY, it is disabled, you may have broken bones and even substantial tissue loss.

 

You get hit in the heart for 3 points of BODY damage, which multiplies up to 6. The actual tissue damage is likely to be far less in the second instance BUT the amount of damage to be healed is higher even though, from a technical standpoint, the damage to the heart is likely to be far easier to repair - a small tear in the muscle tissue is serious damage to a heart, whereas the arm might have a great deal of torn muscle, broken bones, ripped blood vessels and so on.

 

The thought I'm leading up to is that, when using hit locations, you should apply the damage modifiers to your healing rolls too - healing to the vitals is twice as effective as to the chest, which is twice as effective as to a limb. The damage multipliers do NOT imply greater tissue damage, they imply the same amount of damage to a more sensitive system. In fact all you would be doing is healing the DELIVERED damage rather than the perceived damage: 4 points of damage would need the same amount of healing whether it was to the head, the chest or the arm, even though the 'perceived' damage would be 8,4 or 2 respectively.

 

Anyway, that's what I think

 

A VERY good idea. I will probably use it! Thank you.

 

 

You allude to it later, Sean. If a power can achieve a significantly greater BOD total for the same AP as the current KA, it makes it easier to break entangles and force walls, reducing their utility.

 

Your comments on the relative effectiveness of, say, a sword, a bullet or a laser against a human vs a wall open up another issue.

 

Perhaps these could be solved by a rule that KA's automatically have "reduced penetration" when attacking an inanimate object (forcer wall, entangle, etc.), but now we're getting even greater complexities.

 

"Real Weapon" limitation. Assumed to be part of the build of "normal" equipment.

It basically says you can't use a weapon to do something it obviously can't do, like cut down a tree with a pocketknife (unless you're willing to take a LONG time at it....) Already in the system, but I don't feel like looking up the page number.

 

 

I used to believe the "cancels out" argument until Gary called me on it and presented the math. The fact is that the average STUN a KA inflicts' date=' after defenses, on a target with relatively high defenses (IIRC, it worked out to a breakpoint at about twice the DC of the attack) is superior to an equal AP normal attack. As such, the KA is more effective in stunning and knocking out high defense targets.[/quote']

 

 

Yet another reason I hadn't seen that Killing Attacks are underpriced.

 

So what you did is raise the cost of KAs while letting the mechanics be the same. Do you still use a Stun multiplier with this method?.

 

I intend to use hit locations. Where hit locations aren't appropriate, I do plan to use the "Stun Lottery."

 

I consider the wide range of stun possible with a Killing Attack to be an approximation of reality - for whatever that's worth. It is quite possible to be knocked out or go into shock from wounds that are not at all life threatening in themselves, and people have also been known to stay on their feet and keep fighting until they literally fall over dead.

 

I was reading earlier tonight about a man who was shot, drove off his would be robbers, and went on to deliver four pizzas before finding out he had taken a bullet in the leg.

 

 

Nucleon does not want to embark in His own houserules more than it is necessary, but here is how He defines, say, a 20 STR cyborg with a retractable forarm blade;

 

Rectractable Blade; +2d6 HTH (6d6 w. STR), all Killing (+¼), Restrainable Cyberware (-¼). This is the power's description.

 

Now for the calculations: ((30x1.25)-20)%1.25, =14 pts Real Cost

 

First, Nucleon figured the entire damage (30) before He multiplied it by the Advantage (1.25) to get the Active Cost (37.5), then He substracted the Active pts of the Character's own STR (20), Before dividing the result by the Limitation (1.25). Works like a charm.

 

:saturn.

 

Um. Maybe so, and maybe I've just been out of the game too long, but I didn't understand that. Did anyone else?

 

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary proudly points out that the pedant has posted with multi-quote for the first time, and he's using too much alliteration too.

[Nucleon]

Re: Sponding to a Lot of Posts

 

Um. Maybe so, and maybe I've just been out of the game too long, but I didn't understand that. Did anyone else?

 

Maybe Nucleon's tutorial skills are not what they used to be. He'll try to explain His previous exemple in a more elaborate manner.

 

So, we have this STR 20 Cyborg. She have a retractable blade in her forarm, that will increase the damage she does by 2d6 (she already got 4d6), as well as make it Killing, refered in His exemple an +¼ Advantage.

 

First, Nucleon puts the Killing Advantage to the whole damage that blade would do, that is 20 (Cyborg's STR cost in AP) plus 2d6 worth of HTH Attack (10 AP before the mandatory HA Limitation). That makes 30 Active points. The Killing Advantage being at +¼, Nucleon multiplies this 30 pts by 1.25:

 

(20+10) x1.25 = 37.5 pts. This is the Active cost.

 

Then, He substract the Cyborg STR's Active cost (20 pts). These basic 4d6 to damage are already paid for with Characteristics. What we needed was the additional cost for the Killing advantage to be bought for these same 4d6. So then we have:

 

(37.5) -20 = 17.5 pts.

 

This is the amount on which the Limitations will be effective -they do not affect base STR. The only Limitation here will be the mandatory HA Attack (-½) for simplicity's sake (Nucleon has forgotten about it the first exemple, His mind probably wandering on the far reaches of Centauri at the time):

 

(17.5) /1.5 = 11.6 pts. This is the Real cost.

 

The whole power would be written like this:

 

Cyber Blade; HTH Attack +2d6 (6d6 w. STR), all Killing (+¼), HA Attack (-½):

(((20+10) x1.25) -20) /1.5 = 11.6 pts (37.5 pts Active Cost).

 

Now doubts are striking at Nucleon; It is what you asked Him for, isn't it? If it isn't, well, Nucleon would bode you well to re-phrase it, if you please.

 

[incrdbil]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

I've really considered the +0 advantage route to making killing attacks out of normal attacks.

 

Despite the elegance of the +0 advantage solution, I lean towards the standard multiplier, for reasons detailed below.

 

 

What I’m not set on is the value to use for the standard multiplier. Maybe I’m too picky—for standard effect damage, I use 3.5, not 3—I want to encourage players to use standard effect, and giving them a penalty versus average performance isn’t a way to encourage them.

 

 

That said, using 3 as a standard multiplier is a bit rewarding, and the next increment, 2.5 is a bit punishing and slightly clumsy in speed of calculation perhaps. The average result, 2.66 is very clumsy.

 

 

sorry about the hard to read table--no matter what I do in formatting, it crams it together with no spacing.

The impact is as follows. (I rounded up or down, except for .5)

Body Mult (Max/Avg/Min Body)

Attack Max Avg Min 2.5 2.66 3.0

 

2d6 RKA 12 7 2 30/17.7/5 32/18.6/ 5.3 36/21/6

3d6 RKA 18 10. 5 3 45/26./7 48/28/8 54/31.5/9

4d6 RKA 24 14 4 60/35/10 64/37/10 72/42/12

5d6 RKA 30 17 .5 5 70/44/12.5 80/46.5/13 90/52.5/15

…

 

Average Body/Stun for normal attacks

6dc 6/.21

9dc 9/31.5

12dc 12/42

15 dc 15/52.5

 

 

The advantage approach reduces body damage somewhat, and provides slightly more stun. It eliminates the stun lotto even better than a standard multiplier. Heck, it reduces the body lotto. But it makes me wonder, from a power building point of view, why not make everything a KA?

 

 

2.5 or 3.0 as a standard multiplier or 3.0 changes the balance of how the attacks work now.. but either solution does get rid of the stun lotto as a bonus. (And as many players may like taking advantage of this this, think of all the great BODY damage attacks you have rolled, but only got a 1 multiplier) This seems to really outclass the 2.66 option though accurate to current averages, is too clumsy. This multiplier still leaves some volatile stun results based on the few dice rolled for killing attacks.

 

 

My initial glance made me think to use the 3.0 multiplier the sure winner-simple calculation potent damage that is in line with stun from normal attacks of the same DC—but looking at the attack—better average body damage, equivalent stun damage on average, and requiring resistant defenses, why by a normal attack? The current game model rewards normal attacks with more consistent, higher stun totals on average, And though killing attacks can go through the roof, they often disappoint on stun damage.

 

Using 2.5 instead, while a slightly less simple calculation, doesn’t upset that balance between normal and killing attacks as much.

 

 

Maybe I’m fine tuning too much.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

One interesting note (and a slight derail)

If you play with both hit locations AND critical hits, Normal damage attacks become MUCH more fearsome, because the crit rules utterly bypass the damage curve, and its a LOT more noticeable with a normal attack.

 

Back when the optional crit rules were first released, I hadn't really absorbed this fact till I was playing in our Star Hero campaign and I critted with an uppercut to a bad guys head. 4d6 from str +4d6 from an offensive strike.... in the head. bad guy had no helmet, and around a 5 PD.

 

48 stun X2 for location =96 stun minus 5 pd= 91 stun.

16 body minus 5 pd = 11 body x2 for location= 22 body

 

the snapping sound you just heard was the bad guys neck.

 

max damage is greater than max from a comparable KA, tho the need for resistant defences chhanges the total outcome some... the 15 body will double to 30 and waste the guy even more efficiently... but theres a pretty big difference 'tween 75 stun and 96.

[Lucius]

Carried Over From Another Thread.....

 

I thought this was relevant......this is the post that started the thread over in Champions

 

 

I have a guy who only plays characters with RKA. Luckily I limited him to only having a 3d6. Needless to say he got really lucky against a my Arch Villain. Almost took him out with one hit. How do I prevent this from happening? I don't want to have him remake a character but I want to make him tough enough to handle him if he gets lucky again. I just don't want to make him useless.

Pretty much what I am asking is how do you deal with RKA?

 

 

As other have said... as has been said in many threads before this... and will be said in many threads after this...

 

Stun Multiplier... the Stun Lotto... is one of the more broken mechanics in Hero. It has it's place... but very often that place is NOT in a supers campaign.

 

My suggestion... go with a flat x3 multiple. Speeds up the game with only one roll, easy to figure... allows people to adjust defenses accordingly... and for most supers games, it is more "genre."

 

Many a gamer has come to find that despite all the weird things you can do with Hero... the bizarre and complex and munchkinist power builds... the single most abusive power is a KA... because of the Stun Multiple. (The HKA is even worse, cause you can add STR to increase the attack.)

 

When it was concluded that the Aid power was too easily abused, they eventually doubled the cost.

 

As for the "Stun Lotto" being a "broken mechanic" : maybe if you're playing Supers. Knockback would be pretty broken if you used it in most heroic settings. It's just not appropriate there, so the rules say use it only for supers. Maybe they need a similar change to the "Stun Lotto," saying don't use it for Supers.

 

 

Part of it is I have just started playing the game. My group likes the game mechanics and I didn't realise how powerful RKA were that powerful. I pretty much have been only playing this game for 2 months.

 

I can see why you didn't realize that. The cost of 1d6 killing is the same as for 3d6 normal. You'd THINK they'd be equivalent in value.

 

This is interesting. I never had much of a problem with KA because I just figured that the occasional high stun was just a feature of actually getting shot.

 

Howerver, I have a question for you all. Let's say that the stun multiplier is fixed at a low value, say two, and that most or all knockback is removed, because bullets really don't toss people around. Does that then justify reducing the cost of a KA? Or is the "overpriced" feature required to make players shy away.

 

I'm assuming that DC limits would still be the same, so campaign limits would prevent buying higher levels of KAs.

 

Killing attacks aren't overpriced - they're underpriced.

That said, if you do want to eliminate the "stun lotto" for supers, there shouldn't necessarily be a cost break for it, just as a fantasy mage or martial artist at heroic level can't take a "does no knockback" limitation.

 

 

Here's something I liked the thought of:

 

New House Rule!

 

Killing attacks cost 2d6/15 points. Therefore, double the dice of all existing Killing Attacks.

 

However, this damage is now applied like an Energy Blast (including counting BODY pips), but is only stopped by Resistant Defenses. This includes the STUN damage.

 

This is an interesting idea. It certainly eliminates the "Stun Lotto"

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Thanks to brianca Alexander for the palindromedary avatar

[Trebuchet]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

Here is a method I've considered:

 

Killing becomes a +1 Advantage to any normal attack. Only Resistant defenses apply against both the BODY and Stun done by a Killing attack (In essence, Killing becomes a restricted form of AVLD). Killing attacks do no Knockback by default; if a character wants to do KB with a Killing attack he must buy the Does Knockback advantage. No more Stun Lotto, but Killing Attacks become quite lethal against targets without any Resistant defenses (such as normals).

 

How would this play out? VillainMan has a 6d6 K(illing) EB for 60 Active Points. He shoots Hero Lad and rolls an average 6 BODY and 21 Stun. Hero Lad has 20 PD including 1 level of Combat Luck but no other Resistant defenses, so he takes 6 - 3 = 3 BODY and 21 - 3 = 18 Stun.

 

Under the existing rules VillainMan would have a 4d6 RKA for 60 AP, he would roll average damage of 14 BODY (doing 11 BODY to Hero Lad), and could generate from 0 to 40 Stun after applying Hero Lad's defenses. (Of course, in a campaign using standard Killing Attacks it's unlikely Hero Lad would be satified with only 3 rPD or rED.)

 

Is this better than the current method? It depends on what you want your campaign to simulate.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

...................

 

Is this better than the current method? It depends on what you want your campaign to simulate.

 

I think Trebuchet has his sights on target here: you first off have to decide what sort of game you want THEN you have to decide how you want your killing attacks to work. If you want blood and gore everywhere then you ned a mechanical system that will allow BODY damage through campaign average defences, and you amay have to sacrifice some points balance to do it.