Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

....and of course, Hugh (although I haven't run the figures) I suspect that your example only works well with small DC attacks - as DC increases, the rate of increase of probablity curve distribution increasesmore for killing attacks than normals, which already have a pretty bendy one.

[incrdbil]

Re: Combat Luck - Some Results

 

You seem to be selectively interpreting one throwaway example I gave as an excuse to ignore the real issue.

 

 

selectively? No. I'm interpretign it pretty much by the rules, the ones you claim there is some alleged problem. If you want to give examples to support or establish that issue, choose ones that hold up and discard the ones that don't, as you have to waste time dealing with them.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

....and of course' date=' Hugh (although I haven't run the figures) I suspect that your example only works well with small DC attacks - as DC increases, the rate of increase of probablity curve distribution increasesmore for killing attacks than normals, which already have a pretty bendy one.[/quote']

 

I use small DC's because I'm not using complex algorithms, just a spreadsheet (I didn't want to go to 6d6 Normal, for example). There's been some analysis of this on the Boards before, however, and I believe it works out that the KA is superior in getting STUN through to the target if the target's defenses exceed about 2 DEF per damage class of attack.

 

With a 1d6 KA/3d6 Normal attack and 6 DEF, they come out at 4.569 Normal and 4.500 KA. The KA wins at higher defenses, and the normal attack at lower ones.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

I use small DC's because I'm not using complex algorithms, just a spreadsheet (I didn't want to go to 6d6 Normal, for example). There's been some analysis of this on the Boards before, however, and I believe it works out that the KA is superior in getting STUN through to the target if the target's defenses exceed about 2 DEF per damage class of attack.

 

With a 1d6 KA/3d6 Normal attack and 6 DEF, they come out at 4.569 Normal and 4.500 KA. The KA wins at higher defenses, and the normal attack at lower ones.

 

1d6 killing is a flat distribution with extreme damage as likely as any other amount. Anything above 1d6+1 would NOT have a flat distribution curve, and so extreme damage gets increasingly less likely as DC increases. As you say thoug, Hugh, it is a much more difficult calculation, and not one I feel up to with my limited mathematical and spreadsheet abilities, but if anyone out there has run the numbers, I'd be interested in the results.

 

In my little world, I'd rather have killing attacks only really scary for low defence characters. Now I mainly play Champions and I mainly don't encourage killing attacks, and I'm going to try standardised damage next time I run a game, which will probably make killing attacks pretty pointless. Why don't I just scrap them then? Well I want guns in the game, and, occasionally, when a character is caught without resistant defences, or a DNPC is threatened I want the BODY damage potential of a killing attack to be reasonably worrying.

 

I'll let you know how that goes.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Alternatives

 

Which would be fine' date=' if the problem were the "stun lotto." It isn't.[/quote']

I can accept that, but the STUN lotto was the only problem my solution was attempting to solve. The "free AVLD" problem is a separate issue that I don't have a solution for (even if I grant that it's a problem, which I don't entirely, but sort-of).

 

But the real, Hero-violating-its-own-rules PROBLEM is that a killing attack is a "free" advantage of the Attack Vs Limited Defenses type, and the counteracting defense is a plus half advantage.

So how much is it worth? Instead of a "free" advantage, what would the balanced price be? I trust that you don't think it should be as high as 17.5 points per DC of a killing attack (which is what "AVLD, Does BODY" +2 1/2, would cost). So we've got it narrowed down to more than +0 and less than +2.5. Would anyone care to propose a further narrowing?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

1d6 killing is a flat distribution with extreme damage as likely as any other amount. Anything above 1d6+1 would NOT have a flat distribution curve' date=' and so extreme damage gets increasingly less likely as DC increases.[/quote']

 

The result holds at higher levels, primarily due to the single die (throughout) used to determine the stun multiple. I'm not sure the proportions hold perfectly, but my recollection is they were still pretty close when someone ran the math at 12 DC.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

One of the things that has always bothered me is that the Normal Stun Multiplier for a Hit Location applies after defenses, so a guy in plate mail can still possibly be very difficult to knock out with a club to the head even though a sword likewise applied puts his lights right out (even if it does no Body).

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

One of the things that has always bothered me is that the Normal Stun Multiplier for a Hit Location applies after defenses' date=' so a guy in plate mail can still possibly be very difficult to knock out with a club to the head even though a sword likewise applied puts his lights right out (even if it does no Body).[/quote']

Yep.

Inconsistant, that. I've pretty much ignored that for a long time.... depending on my intent for the feel of a campaign, I'll do stun mods EITHER before or after defences, but I keep it consistant between NStun and Stun Mods. Before increases fear and loathing all around, while after makes armor a LOT more effective.

For realisms sake, I'll often go with after. Just IME, but its hard to deny first hand experiences. I've been hit in the head REPEATEDLY with a sword while wearing a heavy helmet with no significant effect on my conciousness or ability to function. The again I've also been Stunned by a good full body impact with the ground in full plate. And I'm pretty sure I was burning Stun after I ran out of END in that fight (full feild plate is both HOT and HEAVY if'n you aren't used to it... especially in Hanford in late summer!), so that the throw that Stunned me also put me into the happy woozy 0 to -10 Stun state (aware of surroundings but unable to act). Those days did a good job of convicning me that armor is underrated in most games.

Of course, I still want to see a good mechanisim for Shock in this system of ours.

[Lucius]

Killing as an Advantage; Some Alternatives

 

I can accept that, but the STUN lotto was the only problem my solution was attempting to solve. The "free AVLD" problem is a separate issue that I don't have a solution for (even if I grant that it's a problem, which I don't entirely, but sort-of).

 

 

So how much is it worth? Instead of a "free" advantage, what would the balanced price be? I trust that you don't think it should be as high as 17.5 points per DC of a killing attack (which is what "AVLD, Does BODY" +2 1/2, would cost). So we've got it narrowed down to more than +0 and less than +2.5. Would anyone care to propose a further narrowing?

 

Well, we can definitely cut it down further based on the fact that if you have ANY resistant defense, then ALL defense goes against stun. I had forgotten, by the way, that Attack Vs Limited Defense was normally STUN only. Yes, I think making it a +2 1/2 advantage would be too high.

 

And we can narrow it down from the other side, in that if the relevant defense is a +1/2 advantage, then the offensive advantage should be at least +1/2.

 

So we're looking at a minimum of +1/2 and a maximum of, say, +2?

 

I'd say the balance point is near the lower end of that spread. I'll second the question: can anyone propose a further narrowing?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary fears classical musicians, for they sometimes use a weapon it is vulnerable to: the dreaded crab cannon.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

Wasn't there a breakdown a long time ago of what the +2 Advantage on a Normal Attack that made it a Killing Attack was?

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

An odd thought.

 

Has anyone ever played around with swapping this question all the way around to the other side?

 

Eliminating the 1d6N for 5pts structure and making all attacks use the KA damage class structure, with the ability to define attacks as Normal, so they are fully affected by non resistant defences, don't take the obligatory -1 to the Stun Mod and don't take the -1d6 to knockback?

 

Haven't run ANY numbers here, just throwing out an idea that popped into my head... I was looking at all the various Killing Attack threads and thinking "Am I the ONLY person who thinks the uniform damage from Normal Attacks is more of a problem than the variable damage from Killing Attacks".

 

For my part, I don't usually have ANY problems with Killing attacks, but I tend to dislike the incredibly predictable nature of normal damage. Granted, 90% of my games have used hit locations, which defuses the Stun Lotto (And I've been known to use the hit location chart even in games that DON'T use hit locations, in place of a Stun Die)

[Lucius]

Killing as an Advantage; OR Normal as a Limitation

 

An odd thought.

 

Has anyone ever played around with swapping this question all the way around to the other side?

 

Eliminating the 1d6N for 5pts structure and making all attacks use the KA damage class structure, with the ability to define attacks as Normal, so they are fully affected by non resistant defences, don't take the obligatory -1 to the Stun Mod and don't take the -1d6 to knockback?

 

Haven't run ANY numbers here, just throwing out an idea that popped into my head... I was looking at all the various Killing Attack threads and thinking "Am I the ONLY person who thinks the uniform damage from Normal Attacks is more of a problem than the variable damage from Killing Attacks".

 

For my part, I don't usually have ANY problems with Killing attacks, but I tend to dislike the incredibly predictable nature of normal damage. Granted, 90% of my games have used hit locations, which defuses the Stun Lotto (And I've been known to use the hit location chart even in games that DON'T use hit locations, in place of a Stun Die)

 

That's a creative idea. What if we defined "Normal" as a limitation on "Killing", you mean? Might be worth thinking about.

 

Much as I'm loving this conversation and the Hero boards in general, I have sad news. I anticipate not being online so much for a while. We'll see how things play out.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders when Lucius is going to buy down that damned 5 dice of unluck......

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

It has been suggested before and no one seemed that keen. Makes for short scary combats: say a 9DC attack , roll 3 dice, average 10.5 (let's say 10) means 1 in 6 you roll 60 STUN, and it COULD be a LOT more: characters stunned all over the place, unconscious in no time - as Hugh Neilson has been pointing out averages mean squat to the killing stun mechanic. Even sticking with 1d6-1 you get 50 stun 1 in 6 hits....

 

If you like chaotic combat and charcters who, no matter how high their defences can still get totalled, then this is the way to go. Personally I'm not that brave.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; OR Normal as a Limitation

 

That's a creative idea. What if we defined "Normal" as a limitation on "Killing", you mean? Might be worth thinking about.

 

Much as I'm loving this conversation and the Hero boards in general, I have sad news. I anticipate not being online so much for a while. We'll see how things play out.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders when Lucius is going to buy down that damned 5 dice of unluck......

 

 

That news is sad: I'm enjoying these little discussions Hopefully it will be a very temporary state of affairs?

[incrdbil]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

the stun lotto in the superheroic setting is my only concern--the amount of boody, cost of KA itself isn't as worrisome. I'm going to give a field report on the 2.5 fixed multiple from my next session here.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

"Am I the ONLY person who thinks the uniform damage from Normal Attacks is more of a problem than the variable damage from Killing Attacks".

Very good point! There are many circumstances (campaigns, genres, individual scenarios) where the wide variability of KA damage is a good thing. Such as a very powerful character vs. a hoard of low-power minions. If all the LPMs have 1d6 K, and the VPC has 10 rPD/ 20 PD, he won't take body, but has a chance to take significant STUN. He can't just ignore them. If the wide variability is eliminated (such as by the method I gave), then he'll always bounce all the STUN as well as the BODY.

 

For certain game "feels", the hoard needs to pose a credible danger.

 

And the same holds true occasionally for normal attacks, as ANB suggests. Repped!

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

It has been suggested before and no one seemed that keen. Makes for short scary combats: say a 9DC attack , roll 3 dice, average 10.5 (let's say 10) means 1 in 6 you roll 60 STUN, and it COULD be a LOT more: characters stunned all over the place, unconscious in no time - as Hugh Neilson has been pointing out averages mean squat to the killing stun mechanic. Even sticking with 1d6-1 you get 50 stun 1 in 6 hits....

 

If you like chaotic combat and charcters who, no matter how high their defences can still get totalled, then this is the way to go. Personally I'm not that brave.

hmmmm....

Some fearsomeness there, for sure.

I really don't know the answers, myself, but the inherent nature of bell curves and averages means that the more dice rolled, the more consistantly average the damage will be. Barring using the critical hit system, you are likely to NEVER see a max damage roll from a large normal attack. This kinda bothers me.

Say you're looking at a hight power game. One player buys a 15d6EB normal attack... the other a 5d6 RKA. Both pay the same points. The guy with the normal attack is paying for an attack that, while in THEORY can max out at 30 Body and 75 stun, will realistically never acheive that. Maybe once in the life of his character, if he's really lucky. The RKA guy can max at 30 body and 150 stun. Which he has comparatively good odds of rolling. Rolling all 6's on 6 dice is unusual but far from impossible. The two attacks aren't even on the same plaing feild. Damage wise, Odds wise, efficiency wise... in all cases the KA is more efficient. Even without the limited AVLD aspect of KA's. I'd almost be inclined to say that a campaign should pick one model or the other and go for it. If you like very standardized average predictable damage for your game (like many Champions GM's prefer), use the 5pts per 1d6 model and make killing damage a modifier, using some of the above suggestions. If you like unpredictable high damage potential where you can never tell how bad an attack is going to hurt, do the opposite. Using both in the same game will almost INEVITABLY lead to a drift in favor of Killing attacks, because players want bang for their buck, and paying points for damage potential that will never be reached is counter to that urge. Granted, only your real gamist types will THINK of it in those terms, but the simple fact is that as play evolves, I've seen most normal damage based characters eventually add some form of KA to their characters because its nice having SOMETHING that will let you pull off the lucky "The chips are down, only a lucky hit will save us now" power... and normal damage doesn't work that way.

 

Well... with one exception...

In my old Champions game, we did notice that normal attacks have their own version of the Stun Lotto.

The Knockback Lotto.

Also known as "The only way a High DC normal attack can pull off a massive lucky blow".

Theres something a bit wrong when a 90 STR brick throws a pushed haymaker and prays for a good low roll on the KB dice, because he KNOWS thats the only way to dish enough damage to take down the Big Bad.

 

Edit: I also might note in our long running campaign that the folks with normal attacks who DIDN'T go the route of buying a back up KA of some sort usually wound up taking an increased KB attack. Go Figure.

 

Post Edit Edit: Using hit locations does resove some of the imbalance issues, because the locations that let KA's shine ALSO give measurable bonuses to normal attacks. In the above exaple, using hit locations will let the Normal damage guy do double stun in the exact same circumstance that the KA guy does max stun (head hits), thus in theory giving them both the same potential max Stun and Body. The KA is still more likely to do so tho, by far

[prestidigitator]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

Has anyone ever played around with swapping this question all the way around to the other side?

 

Eliminating the 1d6N for 5pts structure and making all attacks use the KA damage class structure, with the ability to define attacks as Normal, so they are fully affected by non resistant defences, don't take the obligatory -1 to the Stun Mod and don't take the -1d6 to knockback?

 

Haven't run ANY numbers here, just throwing out an idea that popped into my head... I was looking at all the various Killing Attack threads and thinking "Am I the ONLY person who thinks the uniform damage from Normal Attacks is more of a problem than the variable damage from Killing Attacks".

 

For my part, I don't usually have ANY problems with Killing attacks, but I tend to dislike the incredibly predictable nature of normal damage. Granted, 90% of my games have used hit locations, which defuses the Stun Lotto (And I've been known to use the hit location chart even in games that DON'T use hit locations, in place of a Stun Die)

That's an interesting way of doing it. I've suggested this kind of thing in a sense. In the effort to make the distribution of larger and smaller Effect and Damage Rolls look more similar, I suggested a while back a way of rolling a set number of dice (e.g. 3d6) and re-counting them in a systematic manner for bigger attacks. The effect is that small and large attacks (and rolls that tend to have difference numbers of dice, such as Normal Attacks vs. Killing Attacks) all have (very close to) the same kind of spread in results. I haven't play tested it, and people didn't seem all that keen on the idea, but there you go.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

That's an interesting way of doing it. I've suggested this kind of thing in a sense. In the effort to make the distribution of larger and smaller Effect and Damage Rolls look more similar' date=' I suggested a while back a way of rolling a set number of dice (e.g. 3d6) and re-counting them in a systematic manner for bigger attacks. The effect is that small and large attacks all have (very close to) the same kind of spread in results (or rolls that tend to have difference numbers of dice, such as Normal Attacks vs. Killing Attacks). I haven't play tested it, and people didn't seem all that keen on the idea, but there you go. [/quote']

Yeah, I've thought about the same soultion. It does work. Added to hit locations, it even balances. To get the same spread as killing dice, I'd think you'd want to roll a number of dice equal to DC/3 and then triple them. Hmmm.... Odd dice out problems. Maybe total DC/4, multiply the effects x4 then roll the odd dice? Might help give a bit of edge to compensate for the AVLD aspect of KA's?

Combined with hit locations it'd seem to solve MOST of the issues.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

Linky: Set Distribution by Rolling 3d6 (or 1d6, 2d6, 4d6, etc.) for All Damage/Effect Rolls

[Lucius]

Essay: Normal Killing (Killing Normals?)

 

While I was offline, I have been thinking about the issues and I composed the following, ready to post it as soon as I was back online.

 

Note, I'm online today; I can't promise for tomorrow or next week.

 

Essay: Normal Killing

(Killing Normals?)

 

I thought I’d try to summarize the important points so far in these discussions.

 

First of all, the core rules present two very different mechanics for determining damage. These two mechanics – the one for “normal†and the one for “killing†damage – play out very differently.

 

In “normal†damage, the total rolled on the dice is STUN. One BODy is done for each 2-5, zero BOD for a 1, two BOD for a 6. Often many dice are rolled, creating a “bell curve†of damage where most results cluster around the average. This averaging effect is even more pronounced when it comes to BODy damage, given that most rolls on a given die do exactly 1 BOD. Thus a 10d6 normal attack is VERY likely to do exactly 10 BODy. The more dice, the more predictable the damage.

 

In “killing†damage, the total of dice is the BODy, and one third fewer dice are rolled, diminishing the “averaging†effect. Furthermore, the STUN multiple is always rolled on a SINGLE die; because of the “Minus 1, but always at least 1†effect, the multiplier has one chance in three of being 1, but a 5 is just as likely as a 3 or 4. And no matter how many dice are rolled for BODy, only 1 is rolled for the multiplier – it’s an “anti-averaging†effect.

 

So a 2d6 killing attack has 1 chance in 36 of doing max BOD; the theoretically equivalent 6d6 normal attack has 1 in 46656, by my calculations. (Feel free to correct; in any case, it’s long odds.) This unpredictability of killing attacks is great enough for BODy, but truly extreme for STUN, thus the common expression “The Stun Lottery.â€

 

Presumably, the core rules use one mechanic for “normal†attacks and the other for “killing†attacks because the original designers thought killing attacks should be more unpredictable.

 

But there is no reason we HAVE to use these mechanics as presented. If you dislike the “Stun Lotto†simply have killing attacks rolled like normal attacks, but still applied as killing attacks; full damage if no resistant defense, BOD blocked only by resistant defense, STUN blocked by full defense if there is any resistant defense. If you like damage to be less predictable, you can roll normal attacks like killing attacks, but applied as normal attacks; all damage stopped by the relevant defense.

 

An advantage of the latter course is that you can further differentiate by means of the Stun multiple; attacks meant to knock out can buy increased stun multiplier advantage, attacks meant to kill can buy higher dice but take decreased stun multiplier limitation.

 

If you use hit locations, the “STUN lottery†is less of an issue, but the fundamental “averaged out vs. wildly unpredictable†difference remains. And the higher the power (number of dice) the bigger the difference.

 

So far, I have merely been repeating the ideas of others; here is some speculation of my own.

 

Instead of dividing these mechanics according to normal and killing, they could be used to define other different kinds of damage in a game. For example, if you want magick to be more dangerous and unpredictable than melee, you could have all melee weapons calculate damage the “normal†way (even if they are doing killing damage) and have damaging spells calculate damage the “killing†way (even if the damage is normal, or even if it’s No Normal Defense.) Making all side effects use the killing mechanic could really give wizards pause.

 

If you want Energy attacks – fire, lightning, a superhero’s cosmic blasts, an aliens ray gun – to seem wild and scary, use the “normal†mechanic for Physical attacks, the “killing†mechanic for Energy.

 

Just remember, this is NOT turning a normal into a killing attack or vice versa – the damage is still APPLIED the same, it’s just a question of how it’s calculated before being applied to defenses.

 

Totally off-the-wall tangent: someone suggested that there was a +2 Advantage that turned 1d6 of normal damage into 1d6 of killing damage. My take on this is, if you want to imagine such an Advantage, it has other applications; such as making a Flash attack that would be “roll 3d6, count ‘BODy’ for segments,†into one that that is simply, “roll 1d6 for segments.†One could even apply it to simplified Healing, and roll for BODy and then for a STUN multiplier. This would allow “maxing out†a Healing roll sooner – whether you want that in your game or not is another matter, I’m just discussing options.

 

So far, we have some very useful ideas. But the primary problem remains, that a killing attack is basically a kind of Attack Vs. Limited Defenses, Does Body, that you can get for free, when the relevant defense is a + ½

Advantage. That’s aside from doing slightly more BODy on average, and quite aside from the question of whether the lottery-like aspects balance out in the long run.

 

Let’s look at it this way. Say I want to buy a normal physical attack that applies to limited defenses (resistant defense) and does Body (Thank you to whoever reminded me that “does Body†is an additional advantage to AVLD.) That’s a total +2 ½. So 1d6 (5 base points) costs 17 active pts.

But resistant defense isn’t quite as “exotic†as, say, power defense. And there’s a further limitation; if the target has ANY of the applicable Limited Defense, then ALL physical defense applies against the STUN (but not the BODy.) Now, according to my FRED, AVLD is + ¾ if the defense “is simply a limited form of the Power’s standard defense.†I would assume that by “limited†here, it means “some but not all examples of the standard defense†such as, say, a force field – except that an example in the sidebar gives “PD force field†as a defense, and the AVLD is still full value. But resistant defenses, while relatively expensive, are still common – so let’s assume the AVLD is + ¾ and then with Does Body it totals + 1 ¾ . Now all we have to do is figure out the value of the limitation “If any of the limited defense is present, the target applies the full standard defense to the STUN.â€

 

We had already started narrowing down the range of what the Killing Advantage is actually worth; perhaps this will help us get closer.

 

So I’ll put it to those of you who run games; if I came to you with a power like this:

Energy Blast, Xd6 energy

Advantages:AVLD (Resistant Defense), Does Body

Limitation: If target has any of the Limited Defense, then FULL Energy Defense applies, only to STUN (BODy goes only against the Limited Defense)

 

What limitation value would you apply?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary suggests turning it around. If I bought a killing attack with the limitation “Apply all relevant defense, not just resistant defense,†what would THAT limitation be worth?

 

PPS (Post Palindromedary Script) : What if I wanted a No Normal Defense attack, Does Body, the Defense is – Resistant Defenses? That’s +1 ½ even for “extremely common defense.â€

 

 

 

And yet I could get the same effect by taking a killing attack with the LIMITATION “no effect at all on targets with resistant defenses.â€

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

Thank you for your excellent sumamry, Lucius.

 

Couple of philosophical points to consider when looking at distribution preferences:

 

1. If damage is exponential it SHOULD be confined to a narrow range

2. A wide variance on damage interacts with other Hero mechanics, specifically KB and stunning - you should be aware of the relatively extreme effect that such damage can have.

3. I've got this chart thingy:

http://herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=875447&postcount=11

basically it is, in chart form, Presdidigitators idea for randomising damage (or rather evening the distribution of damage, which has that effect) BUT the dice you roll to determine how much damage you do are the same ones that decided whether you hit: result - you do ore damage if you roll HIGH to hit, but (obviously) if you roll too high you miss. This keeps extremely high damage out of most combat unless the target is helpless. It's an idea....

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

One more problem with the current killing attack mechanism is integration into the rest of the system: it really does not work well with hit locations.

 

 

An example. (OK I'm talking superheroic damage and defence but it scales to heroic too, and makes no more sense there...)

 

 

4d6 KA/12d6 NA against a head hit where you have 30 resistant PD. Even if they both do 14 BODY and the normal attack does 50 stun, the target takes (50-30)x2=40 stun from the normal attack and (14x5)-30=60 from the killing attack. Same hit on the hand? NA does (50-30)/2=10 and the KA does (14x2)-30=0.

 

Where is the sense in that? I know hit locations are optional but they work well with normal attacks: not with killing attacks and there is no real way around it.

 

The killing attack is not Hero to me.

 

It is in Hero, always has been, but mistakes don't get better with age

[prestidigitator]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

One more problem with the current killing attack mechanism is integration into the rest of the system: it really does not work well with hit locations.

 

 

An example. (OK I'm talking superheroic damage and defence but it scales to heroic too, and makes no more sense there...)

 

 

4d6 KA/12d6 NA against a head hit where you have 30 resistant PD. Even if they both do 14 BODY and the normal attack does 50 stun, the target takes (50-30)x2=40 stun from the normal attack and (14x5)-30=60 from the killing attack. Same hit on the hand? NA does (50-30)/2=10 and the KA does (14x2)-30=0.

 

Where is the sense in that? I know hit locations are optional but they work well with normal attacks: not with killing attacks and there is no real way around it.

 

The killing attack is not Hero to me.

 

It is in Hero, always has been, but mistakes don't get better with age

Err...although I am having some difficulty with your math, I agree with the general point; having Normal Attacks and Killing Attacks use the same mechanism could eliminate the stupid before/after defenses differences that come into play with Hit Locations. Of course, you can also choose to apply the Normal Stun Multiplier before defenses, or use a random Stun Multiplier for Killing Attacks and then apply the Normal Stun Multiplier as if it were a Normal Attack, but those approaches each have some non-trivial issues as well.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

Err...although I am having some difficulty with your math' date=' I agree with the general point; having Normal Attacks and Killing Attacks use the same mechanism could eliminate the stupid before/after defenses differences that come into play with Hit Locations. Of course, you can also choose to apply the Normal Stun Multiplier before defenses, or use a random Stun Multiplier for Killing Attacks and then apply the Normal Stun Multiplier as if it were a Normal Attack, but those approaches each have some non-trivial issues as well.[/quote']

 

 

I see what you mean

 

Bad example then, but the principle does hold as you rightly point out.