Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

A method I have considered:

 

Killing attacks are the same price as normal attacks (5 pts/d6) and work exactly the same way, except that:

 

a) BODY damage is applied against Resistant Defenses only (as is standard).

STUN damage is applied against total Defense, if the target has some Resistant Defense, if not target takes the full damage (as is standard).

c) They do 1d6 less Knockback (as is standard).

d) They do -1 STUN per die, minimum 1.*

e) A roll of 5 on a die counts as 2 BODY, just like a 6 would.

 

This creates an attack that does *exactly* the same average damage, both STUN and BODY, as a standard, by-the-book Killing attack. The only thing that's different is there is no STUN lotto.

 

*If you like, you can eliminate the minimum of 1 STUN on each die. This produces equivalent results to eliminating the minimum of 1 on the STUN Multiplier for a regular KA.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

A method I have considered:

 

Killing attacks are the same price as normal attacks (5 pts/d6) and work exactly the same way, except that:

 

a) BODY damage is applied against Resistant Defenses only (as is standard).

STUN damage is applied against total Defense, if the target has some Resistant Defense, if not target takes the full damage (as is standard).

c) They do 1d6 less Knockback (as is standard).

d) They do -1 STUN per die, minimum 1.*

e) A roll of 5 on a die counts as 2 BODY, just like a 6 would.

 

This creates an attack that does *exactly* the same average damage, both STUN and BODY, as a standard, by-the-book Killing attack. The only thing that's different is there is no STUN lotto.

 

*If you like, you can eliminate the minimum of 1 STUN on each die. This produces equivalent results to eliminating the minimum of 1 on the STUN Multiplier for a regular KA.

 

 

That sounds dangerously like it could work Slightly more BODY, noticeably less stun. Hmmm. Far more predicatable results (always my biggest bone of contention with killing attacks): I suppose there are arguments against that in heroic campaigns: bullets are far more predictable and far less likely to kill even with hit location etc rules.

 

Still can't please everyone, eh?

 

An elegant solution, Phil, and I'd rep you if I could.

[Lucius]

Killing as an Advantage; Some Alternatives

 

A method I have considered:

 

Killing attacks are the same price as normal attacks (5 pts/d6) and work exactly the same way, except that:

 

a) BODY damage is applied against Resistant Defenses only (as is standard).

STUN damage is applied against total Defense, if the target has some Resistant Defense, if not target takes the full damage (as is standard).

c) They do 1d6 less Knockback (as is standard).

d) They do -1 STUN per die, minimum 1.*

e) A roll of 5 on a die counts as 2 BODY, just like a 6 would.

 

This creates an attack that does *exactly* the same average damage, both STUN and BODY, as a standard, by-the-book Killing attack. The only thing that's different is there is no STUN lotto.

 

*If you like, you can eliminate the minimum of 1 STUN on each die. This produces equivalent results to eliminating the minimum of 1 on the STUN Multiplier for a regular KA.

 

 

Which would be fine, if the problem were the "stun lotto." It isn't. There are people who have a problem with the stun lotto, and this among other suggestions is a way to combat that. 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. However, this is a structure well worth considering; it reminds me of the one someone already proposed, also based on rolling dice as for a normal attack, and applying it against only resistant defenses.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary Enterprises

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

How is it free? I'm not finding the explenation if it's in this thread - my search-fu is weak this morning ... a KA costs 3x as much for 1D6 of damage. The average Body is only .5 higher, and that only starts to add up after a good amount of dice. I'm not seeing the "free" here.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

How is it free? I'm not finding the explenation if it's in this thread - my search-fu is weak this morning ... a KA costs 3x as much for 1D6 of damage. The average Body is only .5 higher' date=' and that only starts to add up after a good amount of dice. I'm not seeing the "free" here.[/quote']

KAs cost the same per DC, and do only slightly different average damage per DC than Normal Attacks. The real differences are the minor AVLD aspect, the reduced Knockback, and the different damage distribution.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

How is it free? I'm not finding the explenation if it's in this thread - my search-fu is weak this morning ... a KA costs 3x as much for 1D6 of damage. The average Body is only .5 higher' date=' and that only starts to add up after a good amount of dice. I'm not seeing the "free" here.[/quote']

 

Bring a character who has no resistant defenses to a gunfight (or swordfight).

 

Then bring him to a fight where each opponent has equal DC's to the guns, but as a normal attack (eg. replace those 2d6 handguns with 6d6 sling bullets).

 

I think many of us long-time Hero gamers don't see this advantage because we're used to the premise that all characters will have at least some resistant defences.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

Ah. Ok. I can sort of see it.

 

I definitely don't see it being a problem. Though that's probably because, as you pointed out, I'm used to the premise that all characters will have some rDef, Either equipment or paid for, in almost every game. I've played a few without it and still didn't run into any problems beyond the Stun Lotto.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Alternatives

 

Which would be fine, if the problem were the "stun lotto." It isn't. There are people who have a problem with the stun lotto, and this among other suggestions is a way to combat that. 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. However, this is a structure well worth considering; it reminds me of the one someone already proposed, also based on rolling dice as for a normal attack, and applying it against only resistant defenses.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary Enterprises

 

 

Hello Lucius: I get your point but don't see it as a problem so much.

 

I accept that in Fantasy Hero where characters are buying spells there are real advantages to killing attacks. In most other genres I don't see it as so much of a problem.

 

A couple of balance points even there though:

 

1. In a world where magic is common, defences against magic will be common. 3/3 damage resistance only v magic killing atatcks (-1) OAF (charm) 1 real point will certainly mitigate the problems of killing attacks. it would be considered equipment. Anyway, even in a fantasy game, resistant dfences are pretty common.

 

2. Although EB and RKA may not be balanced, everyone has equal access to them, and can choose: OK a 1d6 RKA is probably a lot more use than a 3d6 EB in a fantasy campaign: that is why you'll rarely see spells bought as 3d6EB. Once you get up to higher power levels, the difference between EB and RKA in practice becomes less (a 4d6 RKA and a 12d6 EB are both going to total Joe or Jane Normal)

 

3. Making killing attacks more expensive also makes them pretty useless. A 2d6 killing attack, (applying the +1/2 principle) should cost 45 points, the same as a 9d6 EB. 2d6 RKA does (on average) 7 BODY and 18 STUN, 9d6 EB does 9 BODY and 32 STUN. Against an unarmoured character with (say) 8pd - normal human maximum - the killing attack does full damage, the EB does 1 BODY and 24 STUN. The same human in leather armour (2 armour)carrying the charm I mentioned above takes 2 BODY and 8 stun from the RKA and 0 BODY, 22 Stun from the EB. OK the KA still does some damage but not enough to be really useful in combat. Currently a 3d6 RKA (45 points) would do 10 BODY and 26 stun on average and do 10/26 against the unarmoured opponent and 5/16 against the armoured one. Take out the STUN lotto and you'll rarely if ever stun with a killing attack - a really quite major balance point, and you'll have a similar takedown rate otherwise, it is just that the KA victim will be dead, the EB victim will be unconscious. Unconscious is better: you have to get to -BODY before the KA victim is out of the fight, but o STUN will do for the EB victim.

 

I'm sorry I just don't (other than the stun lotto) see it as unbalanced. Your experience doubtless does vary. Experiences may go up as well as down. Your game is at risk if you don't keep up repayments.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

I agree, Sean. I think the reason you buy a NA in a game where KAs are prevalent is for the case where you really do want to subdue someone rather than killing them outright, and in that case it is almost an advantage to have a NA. This is similar to the philosophy that makes Stun Only a -0 on EB.

[Lucius]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

How is it free? I'm not finding the explenation if it's in this thread - my search-fu is weak this morning ... a KA costs 3x as much for 1D6 of damage. The average Body is only .5 higher' date=' and that only starts to add up after a good amount of dice. I'm not seeing the "free" here.[/quote']

 

 

Well, you'd be right - ----> IF <--- it were the case that the Killing Attack went against the same defenses, or even defenses that COST the same, as a normal attack.

 

But Killing Attack goes against "Resistant" defenses - and to make a defense resistant is, in essence, a +1/2 Advantage.

 

Do you begin to see it now? Killing Attack is essentially a form of Attack Vs. Limited Defenses. Sure, the defense is common as dirt - but that's only because Killing Attack is itself so common. As I pointed out earlier, if it had been the case, from the very inception of Champions, that you could make an attack Armor Piercing for free, then almost all defenses would have the Hardened advantage - even if you raised the price of Hardened to +1/2. And it may be common, but it isn't cheap - a clear violation of the principle that the defense should be cheaper than the attack (armor piercing, if I recall, is a +1/2 advantage, and hardened is a +1/4, unless my memory is getting very rusty.)

 

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

What palindromedary?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

Well, you'd be right - ----> IF <--- it were the case that the Killing Attack went against the same defenses, or even defenses that COST the same, as a normal attack.

 

But Killing Attack goes against "Resistant" defenses - and to make a defense resistant is, in essence, a +1/2 Advantage.

 

To those that don't see the issue, what is your stand on a 2d6 + 1 RKA, AVLD vs Flash Defense (62.5 AP)? Note that the power will do no BOD (it's an AVLD), but anyone hit will take full STUN unless they have resistant flash defense. An average hit does [8 x 2.67 =] 21.36 Stun.

 

For interest, that's just a touch more than the 21 average Stun a 6d6 NND will inflict on someone lacking the "reasonably common defense". Would you allow an NND to select "Resistant Flash Defense" as its defense?

[Lucius]

Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

KAs cost the same per DC' date=' and do only slightly different average damage [i']per DC[/i] than Normal Attacks. The real differences are the minor AVLD aspect, the reduced Knockback, and the different damage distribution.

 

I'm afraid I have to disagree with calling the AVLD "minor." See below.

 

Bring a character who has no resistant defenses to a gunfight (or swordfight).

 

Then bring him to a fight where each opponent has equal DC's to the guns, but as a normal attack (eg. replace those 2d6 handguns with 6d6 sling bullets).

 

I think many of us long-time Hero gamers don't see this advantage because we're used to the premise that all characters will have at least some resistant defences.

 

Thank you.

 

Hello Lucius: I get your point but don't see it as a problem so much.

 

I accept that in Fantasy Hero where characters are buying spells there are real advantages to killing attacks. In most other genres I don't see it as so much of a problem.

 

A couple of balance points even there though:

 

1. In a world where magic is common, defences against magic will be common.

 

This is Not Necessarily the Case.

 

Anyway, even in a fantasy game, resistant dfences are pretty common.

 

I think another part of what bugs me is that they HAVE to be common. Resistant defenses are so bloody ESSENTIAL to having a survivable character, that they had to introduce that "Combat Luck" kludge to justify giving invisible armor to characters that have no reason to have invisible armor, other than that not having means they end up quickly dead or maimed. And then THAT leads to ridiculous situations like the character then being immune to blowgun darts - see the recent post elsewhere on the boards.

 

2. Although EB and RKA may not be balanced, everyone has equal access to them, and can choose: OK a 1d6 RKA is probably a lot more use than a 3d6 EB in a fantasy campaign: that is why you'll rarely see spells bought as 3d6EB. Once you get up to higher power levels, the difference between EB and RKA in practice becomes less (a 4d6 RKA and a 12d6 EB are both going to total Joe or Jane Normal)

.

 

Um, well, yes. and a 60d6 Energy Blast, or a 60d6 Energy Blast with Armor Piercing, are both likely to total the average Champions Superhero (unless they've been getting a lot tougher while I wasn't looking.) That's no reason to say Armor Piercing should be free.

 

3. Making killing attacks more expensive also makes them pretty useless. A 2d6 killing attack, (applying the +1/2 principle) should cost 45 points, the same as a 9d6 EB. 2d6 RKA does (on average) 7 BODY and 18 STUN, 9d6 EB does 9 BODY and 32 STUN. Against an unarmoured character with (say) 8pd - normal human maximum - the killing attack does full damage, the EB does 1 BODY and 24 STUN. The same human in leather armour (2 armour)carrying the charm I mentioned above takes 2 BODY and 8 stun from the RKA and 0 BODY, 22 Stun from the EB.

.

 

That depends. If I can aim to miss the armor, he takes full damage. If I can aim for the head, he takes 25 stun after the armor and PD and is stunned and nearly (it not totally) unconscious. If I can BOTH hit the head and miss the armor, he takes 7 Body and 35 Stun and probably an impairing or disabling wound as well.

 

OK the KA still does some damage but not enough to be really useful in combat. Currently a 3d6 RKA (45 points) would do 10 BODY and 26 stun on average and do 10/26 against the unarmoured opponent and 5/16 against the armoured one. Take out the STUN lotto and you'll rarely if ever stun with a killing attack - a really quite major balance point, and you'll have a similar takedown rate otherwise, it is just that the KA victim will be dead, the EB victim will be unconscious. Unconscious is better: you have to get to -BODY before the KA victim is out of the fight, but o STUN will do for the EB victim.

 

I'm sorry I just don't (other than the stun lotto) see it as unbalanced. Your experience doubtless does vary.

 

I think the part that really bugs me is the obvious (to ME) imbalance of having a free attack advantage countered by a defense advantage that costs +1/2. I just don't see how that adds up.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Oh, THAT palindromedary

[incrdbil]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

that they had to introduce that "Combat Luck" kludge to justify giving invisible armor to characters that have no reason to have invisible armor, other than that not having means they end up quickly dead or maimed.

 

 

Well, unless you have keen psychihc insights the rest of us aren't priveleged to have, Combat luck simply represents a genre element.

 

And then THAT leads to ridiculous situations like the character then being immune to blowgun darts - see the recent post elsewhere on the boards.

 

Only to one certain interpretation of how blowgun darts work--and that by an GM witha poor sense of judgement if he says the Combat Luck always makes him immune to the blowgun dart.

 

I think the part that really bugs me is the obvious (to ME) imbalance of having a free attack advantage countered by a defense advantage that costs +1/2. I just don't see how that adds up.

 

When something is obvious to only one... perhaps it is not really obvious

[Lucius]

Combat Luck - Some Results

 

Only to one certain interpretation of how blowgun darts work--and that by an GM witha poor sense of judgement if he says the Combat Luck always makes him immune to the blowgun dart. QUOTE]

 

This is quoted from the forum for Hero System 5th Edition Questions.

 

This may be a case by case basis sort of thing but here it goes...

 

Suppose a hero has 1 level of Combat Luck. He is attacked by a thug with a blow gun that does a 1 pip RKA and has poison with the limitation RKA Must Do BODY (-1/2). Does this make the hero effectively immune from having to worry about being attacked by such a weapon?

 

Perhaps I should post this in the Hero System Discussion forum...

 

Strictly speaking' date=' absolutely it does -- the hero's luck, or toughness, or whatever the special effect of his Combat Luck is will always keep his opponent from getting in a sufficiently good "hit" to inject him with the poison. The attacker's either going to have to take advantage of the Limitations on Combat Luck, or build a bigger gun. Or the GM's going to have to make characters take You Only Nicked Me/Hero's Grace (Champions 138, PH 272) instead of Combat Luck.[/quote']

 

Well, okay, maybe Steve Long is "a GM with a poor sense of judgement." But you said it, I didn't.

 

I also understand that the reason Killing Attacks are so common is NOT just because they are unbalancingly cheap, but because bladed weapons and projectile weapons such as bows & guns are common in almost any game setting, from the mundane to the fantastic. So even if the cost of a killing attack were appropriately point-balanced to the costs of normal attacks, normal defense, and resistant defense, it would still be common and we'd STILL probably end up looking for ways to give characters "invisible armor." So I'm guilty of confusing what are two related, but not identical issues.

 

The problem of the ubiquity of killing attacks, and that ubiquity making resistant defenses someone everyone "has" to have is one that, as far as I can see, just has to be lived with. Short of redefining blades and bullets as normal attacks (and if THEY aren't killing attacks, what IS?) I see no way around it.

 

 

The issue of Killing Attack being a +0 Advantage countered by a +1/2 defense Advantage is another matter - it is by no means inevitable, and changing it would be no more disruptive than doubling the cost of Aid was.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Now, the palindromedary IS inevitable, as long as I'm around....

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

On the combat luck point, I see no problems with building it so that it never stops the FIRST point of BODY damage, just 2,3 and 4. That way blow guns still work fine and you can legitimately say, of what should have been quite a nasty wound, 'It is just a scratch!'

 

I am not unadjacent to your position, Lucius: I used to argue the same thing myself, it is just that I don't see the problem as that major. You say magical defences are not necessarily common - you are right, but that is the game world. The mages might be chucking 2d6 KAs about, but so are the barbarians, and the fact that the mages have to pay for it would be more of a problem to me if the ONLY magic available was damaging magic: but it can be used for so much more.

 

As to head shots and such like, well, if you use hit location, a normal attack will also do a lot more damage to the head....

 

Point is, to my mind, it is about balancing UTILITY. In a normal fight, where both sides have access to even low level resistant defences (and certainly in fantasy literature, resistant defences tend to be incredibly common) I don't think it will make a lot of difference to the outcome whether you are armed with a normal or killing attack IF you use standard or average damage. So I think utility is balanced, as is cost.

 

I've said it before,a nd I'll say it again: the ability to stun someone is a show stopper. Killing attacks just don't allow that, if you remove the stun lottery.

[EverKnight]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

Hey Lucius

 

I can fully understand where you are coming from when you compare a +0 advantage for the killing to a +1/2 advantage for the defenses.

 

One point I would just like to throw your way. Resistant defenses are only required for the BODY part of the damage, which is going to be a lower number than the STUN damage. So we could say that only half of the total needs to be resistant as a rough estimate. Taking that into consideration we can then say the advantage on the defenses is only equivalent to +1/4.

 

When we look at it this way then the difference doesn't seem as great.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

OK, down to cases: two normals, STR 15/CON15/BODY10/PD5/STUN30. No resistant defences. Killer has a great mace (2d6 kill) and Norm has a great club (6d6 normal). Who wins?

 

Lets assume that they both hit every time, and we are using AVERAGE damage (7/18 for the mace and 6/21 for the club).

 

First hit Norm is down 7/18 and stunned. Nasty. Mind you, Killer is down 1/16 and stunned, so they both recover a phase and hit again. Both stunned and unconscious and Norm is dying. Eventually Killer will win, but it is not all one way traffic.

 

OK lets put them in 4 point armour and see what happens.

 

First hit Killer is down 0/12 and Norm is down 3/9. Second hit, Killer is down 0/24 and Norm is down 6/18, third hit, Norm is down 9/27 and Killer is seriously unconscious. Game over.

 

OK, a bit artificial, doesn’t take into account recoveries and other stuff, like how long it will take Norm to get that BODY damage back, BUT, in a straight fight, it does show that it is not all in favour of killing attacks: against an armoured opponent, a normal attack is often better, and the more armour, the more that is true.

 

So, normal and killing attacks are not balanced in every situation, but is that not the point? There ARE some (not uncommon) situations where a normal attack is better than a killing attack, in the same way there are some situations where a 6d6 strength succour is better than a 2d6 killing attack. The balance is across the range of experiences a character might have.

 

So once more, I come back to this: normal and killing attacks are NOT (IMO) unbalanced.

 

Mind you defence costs might be. If this worries you, allow characters to buy defences that ONLY work against BODY damage for 1 point for 2. Exactly the same cost, by coincidence, as damage resistance.

 

Good discussion, BTW. I'm really enjoying myself

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

OK lets put them in 4 point armour and see what happens.

 

First hit Killer is down 0/12 and Norm is down 3/9. Second hit, Killer is down 0/24 and Norm is down 6/18, third hit, Norm is down 9/27 and Killer is seriously unconscious. Game over.

 

OK, a bit artificial, doesn’t take into account recoveries and other stuff, like how long it will take Norm to get that BODY damage back, BUT, in a straight fight, it does show that it is not all in favour of killing attacks: against an armoured opponent, a normal attack is often better, and the more armour, the more that is true.

 

 

Now, let us assume both are PC's and were engaged in separate combats. Their teammates come to their rescue and they are ready to move on again after about 10 minutes.

 

Except that another battle like that last one will likely kill Norm (and he's down 9 STUN since he's down 9 BOD, isn't he? Maybe that's just a house rule), where Killer has already recovered all that lost Stun.

 

Maybe the group has lots of Healing, so we can Heal Norm back up from near-death once an hour all day. Of course, that simply removes the threat imposed by BOD damage overall, doesn't it?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

Now, let us assume both are PC's and were engaged in separate combats. Their teammates come to their rescue and they are ready to move on again after about 10 minutes.

 

Except that another battle like that last one will likely kill Norm (and he's down 9 STUN since he's down 9 BOD, isn't he? Maybe that's just a house rule), where Killer has already recovered all that lost Stun.

 

Maybe the group has lots of Healing, so we can Heal Norm back up from near-death once an hour all day. Of course, that simply removes the threat imposed by BOD damage overall, doesn't it?

 

Good points, although I may have anticipated some of them. You could make more: if we had included proper chances to hit they'd only have done so 62% of the time, and at a speed of, say, 3, we would have factored in at least one recovery, which would have helped Killer enormously, but that is not the point I am trying to make.

 

What I am saying is that KA and NA are NOT the same thing, they do a different job, it is not as if KA does what NA does only better. If the party were fighting a dragon, with 12 physical armour they'd be much better off using normal attacks than killing attacks.

 

I accept that in a straight fight between unarmoured opponents, the KA has the adge and the edge gets bigger if the compared attacks are smaller, but as DC or armour increases, normal attacks are more effective.

 

If you ARE paying points for spells, there is little point in a 2d6 EB, but a 1/2d6 RKA can still be effective. OTOH, in normal campaigns, anything above about 6DCs and normal attacks start to become more effective, depending on armour, and exact build. The question we are considering is ARE THE COSTS BALANCED: what should be the advantage for turning a normal attack into a killing attack?

 

Well, if you just shift straight over, saying a 6d6 NA becomes a 6d6 KA (rolling normally) then the killing attack is going to be better every time. OTOH, if you use some of the mechanics suggested, and I refer you here to PhilFleishmann's suggestion or just using standard/average damage.

 

The problem to my mind if that strange little balancing mechanic that says, if you have resistant defences AT ALL then ALL of your relevant defence (resistant and nonresistant) counts. Without this we wouldn't even be having this argument.

 

Personally the cost imbalance, whilst real, is not too much of an issue for me, and I've already rehearsed my arguments for that one.

[incrdbil]

Re: Combat Luck - Some Results

 

Well, okay, maybe Steve Long is "a GM with a poor sense of judgement." But you said it, I didn't.

 

I'll point out somethign about the blowgun attack, and the nature of combat luck. Is the blowgun attack coming by suprise? If so, the GM is within rights not to allow Combat Luck to apply--or use a EPR roll as described to allow the use of Combat luck. You seem to be selectively interpreting one limited effect and trying to use it as some basis for a problem that doesn't exist.

 

Then there are the other genre based ways to work variants of Combat luck--whatever way you want to do it, the blowgun example certainly is of very limited, or no use as an example in what you are trying to establish.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

What I am saying is that KA and NA are NOT the same thing' date=' they do a different job, it is not as if KA does what NA does only better. If the party were fighting a dragon, with 12 physical armour they'd be much better off using normal attacks than killing attacks.[/quote']

 

I think when we add in hit locations, it balances things out a lot, since that 5x Stun Multiple for a head shot is counterbalanced by 2x (or is it 1.5x) Stun for a normal attack.

 

If we're just playing the STUN lotto, then I suspect that Dragon would much rather be smacked with normal attacks.

 

Let's lower our numbers to make the math easier. Assume our Dragon has 6 Armor and 4 PD, total 10. His attackers have 3 DC attacks, either normal or killing. [it's a very low powered game.]

 

On average, he takes 1.4583 STUN from each Normal atack which connects (ie that damage gets through his defenses). A 1d6 KA will average 2.75 Stun past his defenses.

 

Let's assume he's attacked by half a dozen 3 SPD opponents. He's so big they always hit. After a turn, he has taken 26.25 STUN from the Normal attackers. He's sucked up 49.5 STUN from the Killers. Which Dragon is KO'd sooner, on average?

 

Note that neither attacker has any chance at inflicting BOD, yet the KA is still more effective than the equivalent normal attack at laying some Stun on the dragon.

 

If we use hit locations instead, I believe this will be much more even, since those 4 and 5 times Stun Multiples will also get more STUN through with a normal attack. But if you're playing a genre or game without hit locations, the KA is more effective in dealing STUN to high defense targets. This is where Nucleon started, I believe.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

We are obviously doing the maths differently:

 

For a 3DC normal attack I make average damage 10.5 (or half a point through dragon defences on average) and for the killing attack I make average damage (based on current kill attack damage calculation) 9.333, or no damage through dragon defences. In neither case will the dragon take BODY.

 

You may be using a more cunning distribution curve: I'm just adding and dividing, but by my calculations, the dragon has far more to fear from the normal attacks.

 

If you are using a more cunning distribution curve then you have uncovered my other problem with the killing attack mechanism - the lotto is not confined to the stun multiplier but also comes into play with BODY calculation - you get much greater variation with a smaller number of dice and in a game where you have to exceed threshold points to even cause damage, over time that can be a real problem.

 

However, if we had a mechanism that made the probability curve the same for normal and killing attacks but still, otherwise, gave results as we have them at present, I'd be happy.

 

Actually even with a more accurate distribution (working out the chances of any given damage roll and dividing by the chance of actually attaining that roll) I make average killing damage 1.67 and average normal damage 3.23, so I am still confused. Base state for me, of course

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

OK I've worked out the maths the way you did now.

 

The problem you have uncovered is that there are two parts to the STUN lotto - the stun multiplier and the smaller number of dice rolled to determine BODY, which gives a much flatter distribution curve.

 

That is why I liked PhilFleischmann's suggestion so much. OR just use average damage values and don't roll dice at all.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Killing as an Advantage; Some Results

 

In my supers game I've been running Killing Attacks with Standard Effect for the Stun Multiplier (evening the average Stun total for them with Normal Damage Attacks of the same Active Points), with the further restriction that KA can't be Spread except with special permission by the GM. So far it seems to be keeping the two types of attack more reasonably balanced, and of course makes KA faster to run. (Because you roll fewer dice of KA than NDA you still have a better chance of rolling high with the former, but you also have a better chance of rolling low.)

[Lucius]

Re: Combat Luck - Some Results

 

 

I'll point out somethign about the blowgun attack, and the nature of combat luck. Is the blowgun attack coming by suprise? If so, the GM is within rights not to allow Combat Luck to apply--or use a EPR roll as described to allow the use of Combat luck. You seem to be selectively interpreting one limited effect and trying to use it as some basis for a problem that doesn't exist.

.

 

 

The problem exists, and I've already acknowledged that the reference to Combat Luck is off on a tangent from the problem I was trying to focus on. I've already clarified the two seperate issues involved, and acknowledged that one is pretty much insoluble - unless we want to join DC Heroes in calling a gun a non-lethal attack, which is a worse kludge than Combat Luck. At that point, you might as well be playing Toons.

 

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

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Thank brianca Alexander for the palindromedary avatar