Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

[Christougher]

One thing I've noticed in superhero games is the difficulty in doing BODY damage. A high strength prick punching a lightly defended character (say 60 STR vs 15 PD) routinely knocks them unconscious without harm. Some people will argue that's a feature of the system and/or the genre. Fine, but take that argument elsewhere, I want a "grittier" feel game where serious harm is a possibility. These are my ideas on how to accomplish that goal, I'm looking for comments and suggestions.

 

First, all defenses are halved vs the BODY of an attack. The previous 15 PD stops 8 BODY and 15 stun, resulting in similar unconsciousness but taking 4 BODY. Inanimate objects, Entangles and Force Walls do not suffer this halved BODY defense.

 

Defenses with the Hardened(+1/4) advantage offer full body protection. I expect this will lead to an increase in the purchase of Hardened defenses, especially for lower-defense characters. Armor Piercing is not significantly affected by small amounts of Hardened defense, so it stays a +1/2 Advantage. Penetrating attacks can be blocked completely by the same Hardened defense, so it is lowered to a +1/4 advantage.

 

Killing attacks are fixed at x2 Stun multiple. High DC Killing attacks become just that - KILLING. This means that 24 Resistant PD is effectively bulletproof, while 12 Resistant Hardened lets some stun through, but no body.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

First' date=' all defenses are halved vs the BODY of an attack. The previous 15 PD stops 8 BODY and 15 stun, resulting in similar unconsciousness but taking 4 BODY. Inanimate objects, Entangles and Force Walls do not suffer this halved BODY defense.[/quote']

 

This may cause players to want to boost their defenses overall, which should be watched out for. It's a means to achieving your goal of more blood. egeneration seems like a much better value with this rule, as well.

 

Defenses with the Hardened(+1/4) advantage offer full body protection. I expect this will lead to an increase in the purchase of Hardened defenses' date=' especially for lower-defense characters. Armor Piercing is not significantly affected by small amounts of Hardened defense, so it stays a +1/2 Advantage. Penetrating attacks can be blocked completely by the same Hardened defense, so it is lowered to a +1/4 advantage.[/quote']

 

No real feelings one way or another on this issue.

 

Killing attacks are fixed at x2 Stun multiple. High DC Killing attacks become just that - KILLING. This means that 24 Resistant PD is effectively bulletproof' date=' while 12 Resistant Hardened lets some stun through, but no body.[/quote']

 

Given the reduced value of the killing attack, should its cost be reduced? Rather than just fixing the multiple at x2, consider requiring all killing attacks take the "-1 Stun Multiple" limitation. Standard effect then makes the multiple 2 anyway (or you can let them roll, with an average of 2 Multiple anyway, but a little more variance).

[ghost-angel]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Depending on the genre you're looking to get the high body count in simply restricting DEF overall works amazingly well.

 

When I run Cyberpunk games the rDEF usually caps around 9, average being 6. Small arms fire isn't too much of a threat, but start bringining heavy arms and machine guns and people quickly look to run or talk their way out of a firefight.

 

For a supersgame ... I'm not sure I want my SuperHero to take BODY all that often. That Brick punching a Normal will do some serious harm - but punching another Super will do less so. I always looked at the Supers as having to deal with "Living in a glass world" where they are able to cause significant damage to their surroundings if not each other and thus part of the challenge of being Super.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

The problem with this approach - if what you are after is a bloodier/scarier game is that it favours characters who have high defences anyway - if you have 30pd you are virtually immune to the BODY of anything up to a 15 DC EB/punch, so you don't need to buy your defences hardenned - which means more people are simply going to buy higher defences, which is encouraging a certain approach. If that is what you want then cool, but be aware of the monster you may be creating

 

The other way you could do this is scap the current BODY damage calculation and simply say that every 5* full points of STUN that get through defences cause 1 BODY. Use the old method against inanimate targets.

 

 

*Obviously you can adjust this number to suit....

[pinecone]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

The easiest way to get that feel is to strongly encourage Damage reduction with low defences...everyone is still real tough, but bod can flood through....but it will make "one punches" a thing of the past......6 of one...half dozen of the other...Ohhh...and you might also try using Hit locations 12D6 to the face does an average of 24 body....thats 9 past 15 PD....youch!...or try Both...then the 9 Bod turns into 4 bod (though he's likely to only have 10-12 def in this senario, so 7 to 6 on average...)

[Greywind]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Judging by your terminology, I'd have to assume you don't like characters with high strength.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

A lot of contemporary games seem to be taking the approach of overflowing whatever form of non-lethal damage they have into their lethal damage equivalents. This seems to provide a reason for a little caution; its not like you can keep beating on someone recklessly once they are unconscious to keep them there and not worry about doing any, "permanent," damage.

 

So I have been thinking about having every full 5 Stun done after a target reaches -10 Stun also do a point of Body (no defenses apply). That's every 5 Stun in each attack, not every 5 Stun lost. So if a character is at 3 Stun and is hit with an attack that does 0 Body/26 Stun after defenses, then an attack that does 0 Body/4 Stun after defenses, then one that does 1 Body/9 Stun after defenses, he will lose a total of 2 Body (the first attack does 13 Stun beyond taking him to -10 Stun) plus 0 Body (the second attack doesn't do a full 5 Stun) plus 2 Body (one from the attack itself and one from the 9 Stun--the target is lucky there wasn't one more Stun in the attack), for a total loss of 4 Body.

[Christougher]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Prestidigitator - Reasonable idea, but I'm looking for something that applies while they're conscious too. See Sean Waters' idea.

 

Greywind - It applies equally well to large energy blasts too.

 

Pinecone and Ghost-Angel - All that does is increase the body taken - along with a corresponding increase in stun. I'm happy with the current defense vs stun ratio; it's the defense to body ratio I dislike. And I want to allow bulletproof, if they pay for it.

 

Sean Waters - Reasonable, but that has the same effect on bricks as it does on lighter defended characters. Plus it's additional math, which my idea does too. :/

 

Hugh Neilson - I expect a bit of increase, but not much, I think Healing and Regen will increase some too. As for Killing Attacks, I don't believe they've been reduced in value, I believe they've been properly (re?)defined as a Killing Attack, not an Occassional Knockout Attack.

 

 

I don't necessarily want supers to take BODY all the time, but I want them to feel the risk of that possibility. Given the average DC to defense ratio, someone with 'average' defenses almost never has to worry about it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Hugh Neilson - I expect a bit of increase' date=' but not much, I think Healing and Regen will increase some too. As for Killing Attacks, I don't believe they've been reduced in value, I believe they've been properly (re?)defined as a Killing Attack, not an Occassional Knockout Attack.[/quote']

 

The point cost needs to be competetive if you want anyone to use them. I don't believe they're discount priced now, so if you remove their ability to Stun, without some cost reduction, why should anyone pay the points?

 

To me, the 2x Stun multiple will leave the KA doing nothing whatsoever to Super opponents most of the time. Your games defenses may vary, allowing it to keep some value against animate targets. In mine, all it would be is a bit more average BOD for an entangle or similar target.

 

To be honest overall, I son't see much of a difference between "BOD almost bever inflicted" and your statement of not normally having to worry about it, especially if it's quickly regenerated or Healed even when it does happen.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Good thread, this one.....This is something I have often thought about, Christougher. One of my favourite comics was Zenith from 2000AD, and something thathappened there was that, whilst characters could exchange blow after blow, very often a fight would end when one of them got in a killer punch - literally: if the target was distracted or the attacker was really making an effort then they would cause BODY damage. I've often wondered how to simulate this.

 

Couple of options:

 

1. it is sfx: basically you do the combat as normal, but when a character is reduced to 0 to -10 stun they basically just stand there, and you can deliver a fatal coup de grace if you like as a full phase action, against which they get no defences, or a non fatal one if you like .

 

2. some sort of mechanic...well, that's what this thread is about I suppose.

 

It depends whether you simply want more people dead at the end of a combat or whether you actually want more characters taking BODY damage DURING combat.

 

The other thing to consider is some mechanic for long term STUN. Let me explain. A lot of the stuff we would think of as BODY damage is probably anything that lasts longer than it takes to recover STUN - so a bruise - which won't be gone in a minute, or a minor cut or scrape, can only really be simulated by BODY damage or just descriptive colour, and the fact that you are bruised when you get into a fight tomorrow is just ignored.

 

The answer I have considered (but never implimented) is long term stun. Basically similar to the method I've suggested above - every 5 points of stun you take, after defences, one of them is long term stun (I use little boxes on the character sheet, and make off damage with a diagonal line: this enables me to alternate the direction of the diagonal so that I can tell wounds apart for healing purposes, if necessary: to mark off a long term stun, turn the diagonal into a cross). LTS heals at the same time and the same rate as BODY, and LTS counts to reduce your maximum stun. What this means, in effect, is that you WILL carry some damage over between combats, even if you do not actually take BODY damage, and it is much more finely graded than BODY damage, so it is pretty good for simulating the sort of minor damage that would otherwise probably get forgotten about, inluding minor cuts, pulled muscles, bruises, even the odd broken rib...

[prestidigitator]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

1. it is sfx: basically you do the combat as normal' date=' but when a character is reduced to 0 to -10 stun they basically just stand there, and you can deliver a fatal coup de grace if you like as a full phase action, against which they get no defences, or a non fatal one if you like .[/quote']

Isn't that already a part of the rules? Or is it that they have to be below -10 Stun normally?

 

The other thing to consider is some mechanic for long term STUN. Let me explain. A lot of the stuff we would think of as BODY damage is probably anything that lasts longer than it takes to recover STUN - so a bruise - which won't be gone in a minute, or a minor cut or scrape, can only really be simulated by BODY damage or just descriptive colour, and the fact that you are bruised when you get into a fight tomorrow is just ignored.

 

The answer I have considered (but never implimented) is long term stun. Basically similar to the method I've suggested above - every 5 points of stun you take, after defences, one of them is long term stun (I use little boxes on the character sheet, and make off damage with a diagonal line: this enables me to alternate the direction of the diagonal so that I can tell wounds apart for healing purposes, if necessary: to mark off a long term stun, turn the diagonal into a cross). LTS heals at the same time and the same rate as BODY, and LTS counts to reduce your maximum stun. What this means, in effect, is that you WILL carry some damage over between combats, even if you do not actually take BODY damage, and it is much more finely graded than BODY damage, so it is pretty good for simulating the sort of minor damage that would otherwise probably get forgotten about, inluding minor cuts, pulled muscles, bruises, even the odd broken rib...

That's interesting. You could even make the recovery rate for Long Term Stun somewhere between that of Body and normal Stun. You could give a Recovery every minute, or 20 minutes, or hour. Maybe it would even make sense to have it recover at the same rates as Long Term End (every 6 hours if resting; every day otherwise).

[pinecone]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Well Low def plus Damage reduction does Not equal more stun.....and using the hit location chart does not change the Average amount done either...it makes the rare attack much more or much less effective, but most do base damage...it does sound like what you're looking for is so specialized that you'll need a special mechanic of some sort.....maybe a "Lucky punch" power of +6D6 act (8)....or a HKA with the same lim....so just once in a while there is a "big whammy".....

[Gummibear]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

You could also require two different defenses-one versus body and one versus stun. It would have a similar effect as the x2 stun however it allows the characters to build what they really want. Of course its more bookeeping, but it seems that you are heading that way anyway.

 

Example

Captain America Clone Guy(not wearing chainmail) gets hit by generic Brick badguy. CACG has 5 res PD v Body because hes a super soldier, but has 20 PD v Stun because hes a tough guy. The Brick does 10 body and 28 stun so CACG takes 3 body and 8 stun. CACG is bloody, but is still conscious. So now CACG wipes the blood off of his cheek and winces when he gets up from the broken rib, but raises his shield and prepares to do battle.

 

This would work just as well with a killing attack. The thing to remember is to keep the level of defences at the proper level during player creation. IF the players have been playing for a while sometimes a "paradigm shift" is in order, and they get to rework their characters.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

You could also require two different defenses-one versus body and one versus stun. It would have a similar effect as the x2 stun however it allows the characters to build what they really want. Of course its more bookeeping, but it seems that you are heading that way anyway.

 

Example

Captain America Clone Guy(not wearing chainmail) gets hit by generic Brick badguy. CACG has 5 res PD v Body because hes a super soldier, but has 20 PD v Stun because hes a tough guy. The Brick does 10 body and 28 stun so CACG takes 3 body and 8 stun. CACG is bloody, but is still conscious. So now CACG wipes the blood off of his cheek and winces when he gets up from the broken rib, but raises his shield and prepares to do battle.

 

This would work just as well with a killing attack. The thing to remember is to keep the level of defences at the proper level during player creation. IF the players have been playing for a while sometimes a "paradigm shift" is in order, and they get to rework their characters.

Ah yeah - good idea.

 

That's how Jessica is built, a significant portion of her DEF is "Vs STUN Only" thus making her increadibly hard to knock out, but fairly easy to injure.

[Lucius]

Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

The point cost needs to be competetive if you want anyone to use them. I don't believe they're discount priced now' date='

 

 

 

 

Believe it. Killing attacks are underpriced; see the "Killing as Advantage" thread. I think we may be getting close to nailing down the exact advantage value.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary observes that some issues are mobius strips.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Others have talked about something similar... here is my house rule.

 

For every 20 Stun after defenses, you take a Body... no way to eliminate it.

 

This kind of thing allows for a grittier, "You know you've been in a fight" kind of deal, and would allow one brick to actually do body to another brick, which happens all the time in comics, but is almost impossible in a "by the book" Hero game.

 

Thus, a brick on brick fight where they have 30 plus defensese and 80 STR and 80-100 stun or so (this is the tough brick level in my campaigns) will do 20 stun after defenses when going all out against each others (maybe 45% of the time this happens) and thus you end up with bricks with broken noses and collar bones, broken fingers and serious bruises... but never any one big nasty wound, since two body would requirs 40 plus stun to get through in a single shot.

 

This works really well for me... used it for years, and it makes combat seem more resonant and serious, without tipping the game into a blood bath.

 

Try it, you'll like it!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

The point cost needs to be competetive if you want anyone to use them. I don't believe they're discount priced now' date=' [/quote']

 

Believe it. Killing attacks are underpriced; see the "Killing as Advantage" thread. I think we may be getting close to nailing down the exact advantage value.

 

To me, the proof is in the actual gaming. If you have a theoretically perfect determination of the appropriate advantage, and the result is that the ability loses all or virtually all of its practical utility (end result: no one buys it), then you have overpriced the ability. One example, in the current system, would be the Damage Aura - the advantage total is now perfect, but the result is an attack so weak as to be next to useless, so the construct is not used.

 

If you reduce the dice on a killing attack by 1/3, I suspect you will find few, if any, characters buying killing attacks, as a normal attack of equal cost/active points will be as or more effective in virtually all situations. You can create a circumstance where the KA is superior (eg. opponent has 100/100 defenses, no resistant defenses) but it will likely be both rare and contrived.

 

While I agree that killing atacks gain some aspect of AVLD, the evolution of the game to date is that resistant defenses are ubiquitous (largely because of the KA rules), such that the AVLD aspect of the killing attack has become irrelevant in most cases.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

The point cost needs to be competetive if you want anyone to use them. I don't believe they're discount priced now' date='

 

 

 

 

Believe it. Killing attacks are underpriced; see the "Killing as Advantage" thread. I think we may be getting close to nailing down the exact advantage value.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary observes that some issues are mobius strips.

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I respect that, I personally think that they aren't underpriced - they don't have the +0 Advantage you claimed in the other thread and have little problem with it.

 

But, as I said - you have your own thoughts on that. Telling one to "Believe it." is hardly useful conversation.

[Lucius]

Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Telling one to "Believe it." is hardly useful conversation.

 

 

I apologize; I do not intend to offend. Perhaps you will find this more useful.

 

 

 

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€

[Greywind]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Normal to Killing is a ratio of 3:1, so in actuality there are 2/3's fewer dice rolled for a killing attack than a normal attack.

[Lucius]

Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Normal to Killing is a ratio of 3:1' date=' so in actuality there are 2/3's fewer dice rolled for a killing attack than a normal attack.[/quote']

 

Yes, that's one reason why the "killing mechanic" is more random than the "normal mechanic." The more dice, the more "averaged" the damage is.

 

LA

p

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

I apologize; I do not intend to offend. Perhaps you will find this more useful.

 

No offense taken - but I would note that's not my quote, but ghost-angel's.

 

Instead of dividing these mechanics according to normal and killing' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Conversion of normal damage to a "stun lotto" system is the alternate means of levelling the playing field which rarely gets discussed. I like your approach, however, of applying the "lotto" mechanic to attacks whose effects are to be more wide-ranging in the game setting.

 

So far' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

While I can concur with this on a theoretical basis, practically it isn't the wayt the game plays out. It is the Stun Lotto aspect of killing attacks which have proven, in actual gameplay, to be the problematic aspect of the killing attack mechanics. Their similarity to an AVLD has not, in play, proven to be a problem.

 

That's most likely because both the KA and the concept of resistant defenses have been with us since Champions v 1.0, so their existence has been factored into character design from the outset. If KA's and resistant defenses had not ben introduced until a later edition, when "standard character design" was already established in the minds of gamers, with the result that resistant defenses were much less common, I think this would be, or would have become, more of an issue. As it is, the system has developed in a different direction, essentially providing a variety of mechanisms and SFX that justify virtually every character having resistant defenses, at least in genres where KA's are paid for in points and should not create a fear of imminent death (westerns, for example, rarely feature resistant defenses, but gunfights are expected to be lethal).

 

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€

 

One can argue either that:

 

(a) Killing attacks are underpriced (your approach)

 

( AVLD's are not properly costed out, at least in all permutations (certainly my opinion if one wants to make an AVLD vs Mental Defense, or change the defense on a power which already affects an exotic defense by default)

 

© The KA is a different animal from the AVLD and is consequently priced differently.

 

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?

 

Well, since you are describing a killing attack, I'd have to say that the end result is a +0 advantage overall (assuming I agree with the system's pricing of a killing attack). But that's a pretty cynical view.

 

Let's turn it around - would you allow a character to have a killing attack (in its present form), and receive a substantial limitation for "does not inflict BOD"? You are charging a hefty advantage for the fact this KA does BOD. To me, the added +1 advantage for an NND or AVLD which does BOD is intended to send the message that this can be a game-breaker as most characters will have little or no defense agains this power. If resistant defenses were uncommon (say, possessed by under 1/3 of "real" opposition), I would likely be inclined to agree that the "does BOD" advantage would be appropriate. Given the omnipresence of resistant defenses, however, I would suggest placing "does BOD" on the construct you suggest would be a waste of points, and consequently few if any characters would purchase the power. The utility of the power does not justify the cost you propose.

 

One could just as easily try to rebuild Life Support: breathes underwater as a Healing construct which Heals all abilities reduced by drowning damage (+2; common SFX) and has a "reset rate" of 1 phase (what's that, another +2?), self only, 0 END, persistent. So that costs what? 1d6 Heal is 10 points x [1 + 2 all drowning +2 resets each phase +1/2 0 END +1/2 persistent] = 60 AP, self only makes it 40 real points. Technically, a reasonably accurate depiction of the poiwer (although I still have to handwave the usual inability to recover while unable to breathe - should that be an extra advantage, do you think?)., but practically hugely overpriced for its utility.

 

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

 

My first suggestion would be "you want a normal attack, so buy a normal attack". It cannot be worth more than -1/4, since "does not BOD" is worth -1/4, and also eliminates any prospect of knockback. As it seems somewhat less limiting than "does no BOD", I am inclined to say this is a -0 limitation.

 

PPS (Post Palindromedary Script) : What if I wanted a No Normal Defense attack' date=' Does Body, the Defense is – Resistant Defenses? That’s +1 ½ even for “extremely common defense.†[/quote']

 

Again, I come back to the utility of the power. Have you EVER seen an NND whose defense is "resistant defenses"? Why do you suppose that is? Because the power's lack of utility means it's not worth paying for.

 

To turn this around, how much would you pay for a 4d6 EB, NND Resistant Defenses, Does BOD, if you were buying it for your player character?

 

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€

 

Yes. Because it will be useless against most credible opposition. Again, I ask how much you would pay for your character to have that ability.

[Gummibear]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

For all those that think that a killing attack is underpriced this further example.

 

Go into your garage and turn on your circular saw.

Put your arm under the blade.

Cut off your arm.

 

You just took "only" about 3 body. Keep that in mind as you go into shock when nobody can make a paramedic roll and stop the bleeding.

 

If you are stupid enough to actually do this, thank you for thinning the gene pool.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Personally I think KAs are acceptably lethal for a normal and a Heroic Character. I've never had a problem killing people in HERO with them.

 

As Hugh Neilson pointed out, most problems are with the STUN Lotto, I think it's a stupid mechanic and would much rather see a flat STUNx of 2 or 3.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

For all those that think that a killing attack is underpriced this further example.

 

Go into your garage and turn on your circular saw.

Put your arm under the blade.

Cut off your arm.

 

You just took "only" about 3 body. Keep that in mind as you go into shock when nobody can make a paramedic roll and stop the bleeding.

 

If you are stupid enough to actually do this, thank you for thinning the gene pool.

 

 

Good one: you almost had me there.

 

Circular saw. Mmmmm. Maybe build that as a gradual effect KA and....OK. I'll stop.

 

This is a good point, and what is more a circular saw can do a hell of a lot more damage than a bullet, in terms of gobbets of flesh all over the place (well you would probably have a job getting your whole head off using a gun....

 

The problem is though how it is costed in the game not how it is in reality, and whether that cost does and/or should equate in some way to other damage causing powers. Personally I think the cost is about right: against a no-resistant-defence character, killing attacks are permanent and scary things. The problem is that Hero covers so many different genres, and in some, killing attacks are far less use.

 

My beef with them AT PRESENT is that, over the range of values of damage that they do they do more stun and more body then the same points in EB against most targets. I think this is wrong.

 

I think against armoured targets they should be virtually useless.

 

To carry on your example, put your arm in a titanium tube THEN try to cut through it with that circular saw. Maybe you felt some vibration, and eventually the metal will get hot, but that is it, really. OK, not a great example as the titanium tube will probably protect pretty effectively against normal damage too, BUT if you hot the arm up (in the tube) and get someone to whack it with a baseball bat, it will probably hurt more than the circular saw ever did.