Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

[RDU Neil]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Ah... I've got it...

 

 

An elite of heroes.

 

A sinister of villains.

 

A kludge of flunkies.

 

A victim of bystanders.

 

A fodder of agents.

 

A captive of DNPCs.

 

heh... this is fun

 

I'll shut up now...

[pinecone]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Ah... I've got it...

 

 

An elite of heroes.

 

A sinister of villains.

 

A kludge of flunkies.

 

A victim of bystanders.

 

A fodder of agents.

 

A captive of DNPCs.

 

heh... this is fun

 

I'll shut up now...

Hurumph...Thats a Hostage of DNPCs I tell ya!...and I would prefer a "Monologue" of Villians..

[ghost-angel]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Hurumph...Thats a Hostage of DNPCs I tell ya!...and I would prefer a "Monologue" of Villians..

You can have more than one name for something, so we can use Hostage and Captive of DNPCs.

 

and a single villain would be a Monologue.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Hurumph...Thats a Hostage of DNPCs I tell ya!...and I would prefer a "Monologue" of Villians..

 

I actually thought of "hostage" after I posted, but somehow liked "captive" better. Not as blunt an allusion, IMO.

[Gummibear]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

I keep trying to figure out what a Fine Read Mist of X is? Any suggestions?

 

A FRM of Targets? Doesn't have any poetry to it...

[Gummibear]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

A Quick Corvid List

 

Murder of Crows

Unkindness; Constable; Conspiracy of Ravens

Parliment; Building of Rooks

Tiding of Magpies

Party; Scold; Band of Jays

Chattering of Coughs

Jackdaws and Nutcrackers are simply Flocks

 

Rookery can be used, if rarely, for Rooks, Crows, Ravens, and Magpies.

 

any questions?

 

A Constable? Oh yeah, Jess is a law enforcement officer...heh

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

I keep trying to figure out what a Fine Read Mist of X is? Any suggestions?

 

A FRM of Targets? Doesn't have any poetry to it...

Mooks? Minions? Henchmen?

[RDU Neil]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Mooks? Minions? Henchmen?

 

 

That would be a scatter of mooks.

[Black Rose]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

I say minions, myself. As in, a fine red mist of minions.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

....or even mignons....

[Greywind]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Fileted?

[pinecone]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Hmmm... A mook of agents...a bloodbath of mooks.....a migrane of disads...

[Christougher]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

I leave this thread for a few days, and just LOOK at what you people have done with it. LMAO.

 

Hugh Neilson: You don't believe KAs are underpriced. I do. As someone else said - more body, more stun, and AVLD effects for free. I'm not going to pick a fight over it, this is one to agree to disagree over.

 

Sean Waters: Love the Long Term Stun idea. Definitely going to have to consider it.

 

Gummibear: That's the exact effect I'm aiming for.

 

RDU Neil: This has been suggested before, but with different values of 20. A possibility, but I want people willing to pay the points to be unbreakable to be unbreakable.

 

Lucius: Daaamn. I'd been kicking around the ideas you presented in that essay for other reasons. Mucho fascinating, and you have rep coming as soon as I can give it.

 

Notable laughter from the derailment: Greywind, RDU Neil and pinecone.

[Lucius]

Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

I leave this thread for a few days, and just LOOK at what you people have done with it. LMAO.

 

Hugh Neilson: You don't believe KAs are underpriced. I do. As someone else said - more body, more stun, and AVLD effects for free. I'm not going to pick a fight over it, this is one to agree to disagree over..

 

I've been trying without success to find out who first said "You're entitled to your own opinions; you're not entitled to your own facts."

 

It's a fact the Hero System, as written, has two powers that do essentially the same thing, do damage; and that one does so more effectively, having, among other things, a limited form of the AVLD advantage; but that both cost the same per damage class.

 

Now, it's my opinion that's a bad thing, an error that ought to be corrected; it may be your opinion it's a good thing somehow; but I don't see how the facts can be disputed.

 

 

 

 

Lucius: Daaamn. I'd been kicking around the ideas you presented in that essay for other reasons. Mucho fascinating, and you have rep coming as soon as I can give it.

 

Notable laughter from the derailment: Greywind, RDU Neil and pinecone.

 

Can you elaborate on the "other reasons" you had in mind? I'm interested. Thank you.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Feeding scrabbled eggs to the palindromedary

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

It's a fact the Hero System' date=' as written, has two powers that do essentially the same thing, do damage; and that one does so more effectively, having, among other things, a limited form of the AVLD advantage; but that both cost the same per damage class.[/quote']

 

In my experience, that "limited form of AVLD" has negligible impact on the KA's ability to inflict damage, due to the "1 rDEF means all Def aplies against STUN". This is a chicken and egg situation - the AVLD effect has minimal impact because every credible opponent has resistant defenses, and every credible opponent has resistant defenses because they wuld otherwise be helpless against a KA. Because it's been around since 1e, it's become ingrained into character design, and is just accepted. Would it be nice to change it? Sure, I suppose so. But to me, it's far less ahuge deal than what some on this board make it out to be.

 

And if a change results in KA's virtually never being purchased (or only being purchased by characters who are more concerned about concept than efficiency), I consider it a change for the worse. Making KA an effective, say, +1/2 advantage, such that a 60 AP killing attack is a 2 1/2d6 KA would, to me, reduce the effectiveness of a killing attack to the point of uselessness.

 

The ability to inflict a bit more BOD makes sense to me - it is a killing attack. That should, in my opinion, be balanced with other detriments. Reduced knockback alone is not enough. On first blush, the lower average STUN (before defenses) meets this test. However, the volatility of the Stun Lotto results in that lower average pre-defense Stun commonly being more than average post-defense STUN. The solution, to me, is a fix which smooths out that volatility and leaves average pre-defense STUN in its present range.

 

That might be accomplished by:

 

- a flat 2.5 Stun multiple. 3 is too big (same average stun as an EB), 2 is too small, and 2 2/3 (the average of 1d6 - 1) is too fractional. This is a bit uglier math than many want.

 

- use a d4 (or a d6 treating 5 as 2 and 6 as 3 - even less volatility) for the STUN multiple

 

- use a 1,2,3,3,3,4 STUN multiple. (d6 but 5 or 6 is a 3). This has the same average multiple as the current d6 - 1 approach but smooths out the extremes.

 

How will it work?

 

OK, let's assume a game of 30 AP attacks and 10 defenses. A normal attack averages 21 STUN, so 11 past defenses. A regular 2d6 KA does an average of 18 2/3 STUN, but slips 9.83 past defenses. You know what? I'm OK with that result. So I'd say the result is OK if average defenses are in the range of 5 DEF per 3 DC.

 

Notably, this is where the average has been set in the 5e standards. Older editions suggested a greater DEF to DC ratio, which made the KA more effective. Under 5e standards, the KA will be less effective inflicting STUN, except against targets of relatively high defenses. In my example, the breakpoint is 13 defenses, where the KA gets an average of 8.05 STUN through. At 20 defenses, the KA averages 4.73 STUN through. By this time, the 6d6 Normal should skew a bit as well, but I'm too lazy to work out that algorithm.

 

With 1,2,2,3,3,4 we get an average STUN from the KA of 8.26 vs 10 DEF, 4.01 vs 17 DEF breakpoint, and 2.76 vs 20 DEF. The KA is relatively ineffective at inflicting STUN, and probably a useless attack unless the game's average rDEF will allow it to be regularly effective at killing opponents.

 

Changing to 1,2,3,3,3,4, we get an average STUN from the KA of 9.37 vs 10 DEF, 5.31 vs 16 DEF breakpoint, and 3.31 vs 20 DEF. The KA is a bit more effective at inflicting STUN, but probably still relatively useless unless the game's average rDEF will allow it to be regularly effective at killing opponents.

 

In any case, it's still a bit better at dispensing with entangles and force walls, breaking things, etc. As wel, either smoothing approach also reduces the incidence of a 1x Multiple, which means the KA will less often have no effect at all.

 

Overall, I'd say the KA and EB are pretty balanced if the game follows the guideline of 5 defense per 3 DC. If I were to change anything, I'd probably be inclined to go to 1,2,3,3,3,4. This would eliminate the huge hits with a 5x multiple, but offset that by reducing the "pings" where no stun is inflicted at all.

 

I would have to reconsider the AVLD issue IF the game world was such that resistant defenses were rare (half or less credible opponent characters would have any resistant defenses; most would take 2 or 3 BOD from an average KA roll). In the standard game structure, however, resistant defenses are omnipresent, at least beyond the mook level, so the AVLD aspect of KA;s is pretty much useless.

 

I've been trying without success to find out who first said "You're entitled to your own opinions; you're not entitled to your own facts."

 

There you have the math. You can't get much more factual.

[Lucius]

Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

If your only problem is with the "Stun Lotto" why not simply change killing attacks to the normal mechanic - roll 1d6 for stun, and BOD equals number of dice, +1 for each 6, -1 for each 1 rolled. Just apply it as killing damage, with killing attack's limited AVLD, if you really think that's no big deal.

 

If you want more body, buy more dice. If you want more body but few stun, buy more dice and apply a limitation to reduce the amount of Stun. "Does no Stun" is a -3/4 limitation - perhaps define a killing attack as one where half the dice are bought with that limitation. Or create a lesser limitation to halve the Stun total.

 

I don't think (and here we're back in dealing with opinions, although I'm trying to get a grip on the facts) that costing a power appropriately will make it "useless." You say making Killing an advantage, even a +1/2 advantage (and I'm more inclined to think it should be +1), will mean no one uses it "unless the concept requires it." How is the opposite situation any better? When I ask why, under the current dispensation or the proposed alternatives where Killing is allowed to have a free advantage, anyone would bother taking a normal attack, the only answers I get boil down to "concept!"

 

Pardon me, but I don't think characters should be penalized for staying in concept by making their attack power weaker PER POINT than the next guy's. If the power is weaker, they should get to pay fewer points for it.

 

Or I get the argument "Superheroes aren't supposed to kill" - and if that meant they weren't supposed to have powers capable of killing, they wouldn't have normal attacks of 10d6 or more, either, so that argument makes even less sense.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary reminds me I have to get to work. Bye!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

I don't think (and here we're back in dealing with opinions' date=' although I'm trying to get a grip on the facts) that costing a power appropriately will make it "useless." You say making Killing an advantage, even a +1/2 advantage (and I'm more inclined to think it should be +1), will mean no one uses it "unless the concept requires it." How is the opposite situation any better? When I ask why, under the current dispensation or the proposed alternatives where Killing is allowed to have a free advantage, anyone would bother taking a normal attack, the only answers I get boil down to "concept!"[/quote']

 

My players have never gravitated towards KA's. If they had, the easy fix would be "fix the STUN lotto". If a KA is virtually useless because it cannot inflict reasonable damage on opponents/targets, it is logical for no one to buy it.

 

Similar to the manner in which no one buys Aid, Self Only - buying bonus characteristics is far more effective.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

I don't like the killing attack mechanic and I have tinkered with it in the past, never particularly successfully.

 

Here's what I would like to see killing attacks do: kill.

 

NOT, and I have to stress this, DESTROY.

 

There's a difference. Hit someone in the chest with a 3 lb lump hammer and you'll hurt them, but probably not kill them. Shoot them in the chest with a bullet and you'll probably kill them. If they have a steel plate held in front of their chest, the bullet may sting but won't do any real harm, the hammer will still hurt and may still break bones.

 

Now turn to the wall behind them and repeat the experiment. You'll do more damage with the hammer than the bullet to the wall.

 

This says to me that what killing attacks are good at (if, indeed a bullet is a typical killing attack, but the same results would be obtained with, for example, a knife) if causing critical damage, not damage generally, so the amount of BODY done by a killing attack should probably be lower than a normal attack, and unless it is done to a 'soft' target.

 

To me this means that killing attacks should not be doing more BODY than normal attacks, nosireebob.

 

The other thing I don't like about KAs is the ridiculously disproportionate BODY/STUN damage delivered quite often: a character with 12 rpd and a total of 20 pd can take 40 stun but no body from a bullet. That just ain't right.

 

Not sure how to accomplish that in a straightforward and playable way, or, indeed, whether accomplishing it would enhance gameplay. What I'm going to do is call KA a +0 advantage to EB, and call it done. That way there is no real advantage to taking a KA except against the very rare unarmoured target, but no real disadvantage too: it becomes almost entirely a style thing.

 

As I believe damage should be exponential in Hero it fits with this too: far less variation, certainly at higher levels.

 

If you want flavour differences, here you go: KA is a +? advantage to EB, ONLY resistant defences count but they count double against the stun component of damage.

 

What would that be worth?

 

Let us run numbers:

 

12d6 EB = 42/12 on average for 60 points.

 

Assuming defences of 10/20, against a normal attack you would take 22 stun, no BODY.

 

If a KA was +0, you would take 2 BODY and 22 STUN.

 

If defences were fully resistant you would take no BODY and 2 STUN.

 

If you only had 5 resistant defence you would take 7 BODY and 32 stun.

 

(and 3 resistant defence, for you combat luck junkies, would result in 9/36 damage)

 

I don't think that is too bad, you know. I might go with that. Doesn't exactly fulfill my criteria above, but feels different to normal attacks and reasonably realistic against soft targets. Might make it take 'reduced penetration' as part of the +0 package against inanimate objects, or just assume that inanimate objects have a couple of extra points of DEF against KAs. Doesn't bother me too much, that bit. What it is is dead easy to use in play. That counts for a lot in my book.

 

Or you could make it a +1/2 and not double defences, so (same active point attack) against 10/20 would be 0/18, against 20/20 would be 0/8 and against 5/20 would be 3/25. No, don't like that so much. Doesn't feel right.

 

Of course in a game with no or rare resistant defences, KA would be really scary. To be honest they should be. What we have here is a power that balances differently depending on the genre, but that is the case with KAs at present anyway.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

There's a difference. Hit someone in the chest with a 3 lb lump hammer and you'll hurt them, but probably not kill them. Shoot them in the chest with a bullet and you'll probably kill them. If they have a steel plate held in front of their chest, the bullet may sting but won't do any real harm, the hammer will still hurt and may still break bones.

 

Now turn to the wall behind them and repeat the experiment. You'll do more damage with the hammer than the bullet to the wall.

 

This says to me that what killing attacks are good at (if, indeed a bullet is a typical killing attack, but the same results would be obtained with, for example, a knife) if causing critical damage, not damage generally, so the amount of BODY done by a killing attack should probably be lower than a normal attack, and unless it is done to a 'soft' target.

 

I suggest a bullet is a Beam Effect killing attack. Assume the same exeriment using an axe - also a KA - and your results will vary a bit, I expect.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

I suggest a bullet is a Beam Effect killing attack. Assume the same exeriment using an axe - also a KA - and your results will vary a bit' date=' I expect.[/quote']

 

Trying to effectively map real world weapons/attacks to "either/or" normal vs. killing damage is just not a place Hero, as a system, should go.

 

Killing vs normal is more a matter of two elements... the hardness, density, sharpness and force of the weapon... and the substance it hits.

 

Ex.: A baseball bat... across my back, thighs, even chest... could be considered normal damage. Hit my head, knees, stomach/vitals... killing attack.

 

The system isn't designed (nor do I think it should be) to handle this much granularity (though it can be adapted in play as crunchy as a GM wants to get in their own game).

 

I think focusing on the word "killing" in KAs is unfortunate... since I see no problem with the "Body Damage" of the the killing attack being interpreted two ways. Apply Damage to the Body of the target to determine how much life force/functionality you have reduced. BUT... have a second application of the damage to the "form" of the target based on SFX level considerations (mass, limbs, structure, etc.) to determine structural damage.

 

I'm mixing my two threads here... but I state again, I think it is a mistake to related Body damage (as in damage to life force) in a one-to-one manner with structural damage. I think the two are separate. i.e. You can have a large amount of structural damage, but not have severely threated the life/functionality (like shooting the crap out of a car, but the engine runs and tires go)... or you can have little structural damage, but severe lethality (example, a single bullet to the heart).

 

Hero breaks down a bit when you try to match life damage to structural damage in a one-to-one manner.

[schir1964]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

The last three posts have inspired me. See you over at GIR. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Lucius]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Re: The business about the bullet and knife not damaging a wall - -

 

That's covered by the "real weapon" limitation, which says that you can't use a weapon to do things that it can't do.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

As opposed to the unreal palindromedary advantage, which allows the palindromedary to do things it can't do....hey, wait a minute, how did that get on the character sheet?

[Christougher]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

The other thing I don't like about KAs is the ridiculously disproportionate BODY/STUN damage delivered quite often: a character with 12 rpd and a total of 20 pd can take 40 stun but no body from a bullet. That just ain't right.

[/quote=Sean Waters]

 

That is THE reason I started this thread. It also applies equally to a 12 Body, 60 Stun normal damage attack too.

 

My players have never gravitated towards KA's. If they had, the easy fix would be "fix the STUN lotto".

[/quote=Hugh Neilson]

 

This sounds like you're admitting that KA's Stun Lotto *can* be a problem, only that you haven't experienced it. I have. I wanna fix it.

 

If a KA is virtually useless because it cannot inflict reasonable damage on opponents/targets, it is logical for no one to buy it.

[/quote=Hugh Neilson]

 

What definition of 'reasonable damage' are you looking for, stun or body? In my game, the only reason someone should buy a Killing attack is the desire to inflict large amounts of body and try to KILL someone. Stun is irrelevant.

 

Can you elaborate on the "other reasons" you had in mind? I'm interested.

[/quote=Lucius]

 

Mostly the rest of what you ran through. One of the triggers was the inability to make a Penetrating Flash, so I was trying to figure out a reasonable advantage for "Reads Stun as Body". Backfiguring the cost from KA to EB, then applying the results to Flash...tripling Flash's base cost to 15 AP/d6 was about the same, but could be made Penetrating. Been a while, and I don't have my thought process written down, so it's kinda muddy.

 

BTW, I agree that KAs and/or the Stun Lotto are overpriced; Hugh Neilson is arguing the other side. You quoted my answer to him and argued against it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

Re: The business about the bullet and knife not damaging a wall - -

 

That's covered by the "real weapon" limitation, which says that you can't use a weapon to do things that it can't do.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

As opposed to the unreal palindromedary advantage, which allows the palindromedary to do things it can't do....hey, wait a minute, how did that get on the character sheet?

 

The 'real weapon cop put' you mean: let us not beother with rules, we will make you apply some sort of common sense and call it a limitation: it is all good....

[Sean Waters]

Re: Not Quite another Killing Attack Thread

 

That is THE reason I started this thread. It also applies equally to a 12 Body, 60 Stun normal damage attack too.

 

 

.....the difference being, you'll never roll that....or very rarely: normal attacks over 6DC tend to stick pretty close to the 1:3.5 ratio of BODY to STUN, whereas KAs don't, and even if you fix the ratio, the BODY still varies wildly. You know, for BODY, I might be tempted to just roll STUN then apply (say) 1 BODY for eacg 10 stun after defences, and for killing attacks, roll BODY and apply (say) 4 or 5 stun for each BODY after defences. Never work, of course, but it sounds good....

 

....a better fix is whatch your campaign defence levels: if no on ever takes BODY and you think they should it is a certain bet their defences are too high. Never forget you can limit defences, including normal pd and ed to 'only v STUN' or 'only v BODY' to fine tune those defences if you want to.