Simple Killing

[Legendsmiths]

With all the threads on Killing damage that mayhaps have gotten derailed, I would propose this:

1. Killing is a +0 Advantage.
   
2. Roll Normal Dice for STUN & BODY.
   
3. Apply to Resistant Defenses.
   
4. Calculate reduced knockback (or no knockback).
   
5. Track bleeding (or don't).

To me, from a metagame point of view, this is an acceptable solution. While it doesn't accurately model the current damage done by killing attacks, I think it acknowledges the spirit of the different types of damage.

 

There are advantages to both killing and normal attacks that I think are relatively balanced.

 

Certainly when teaching people the game this would make things nice and easy.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Simple Killing

 

With you on that one, mudpyr8. Not entirely balanced, not entirely like the way we do it at the moment BUT killing people is a bit of a disadvantage in itself in most civilised societies, so I'd call it even and go for the simple solution: which this is.

 

Hoorah!

[ghost-angel]

Re: Simple Killing

 

I think this is the method Bigdamnhero used at Tacticon this last September (Denver convention). It seemed to work pretty well in game as I recall, but I only got a chance to try it in two scenarios.

 

I'll have to ask him next time I'm in contact.

[ThatDarnCat]

Re: Simple Killing

 

An intersting look at Killing damage.

 

Not much of a difference for Body and Stun inflicted, but it allows players to use a single style of attack.

 

I've had many situations over the years of players who became confused when a killing attack was made, since they couldn't fathom the stunX. The only drawback I see is in designing killing attacks that do increased Stun, but you could alwaysbuy extra dice as Stun Only.

 

BTW Ghost, can you give us the rundown on this variat system or is that why you have to contact Bigdamnhero?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Simple Killing

 

If I remember correctly the variant was almost exactly as Mudpyr8 laid out, though knockback was handled normally I think. I don't know what the costing was per die though, it was Con Games which tend to leave points and costing off the character sheets and stick only to "What's it do"

[Lucius]

Too Simple Killing

 

Can someone explain to me why anyone would ever buy anything but a killing attack then?

 

"You can buy attack X that applies damage to a more expensive and relatively limited kind of defense, or attack Y that applies damage to a cheaper and very common kind of defense, and they both cost the same."

 

"I'll take X!!!"

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Puzzled pedant on a palindromedary

[ghost-angel]

Re: Simple Killing

 

Because Super Heroes aren't supposed to plaster everything to the wall and turn it into a Fine Red Mist.

 

Sometimes you want high Stun and low Body - Normal Attack. Sometimes you want it DEAD - Killing Attack.

 

It's not about points in the end - it's about concept, genre and Story.

[ThatDarnCat]

Re: Simple Killing

 

Because Super Heroes aren't supposed to plaster everything to the wall and turn it into a Fine Red Mist.

 

Sometimes you want high Stun and low Body - Normal Attack. Sometimes you want it DEAD - Killing Attack.

 

It's not about points in the end - it's about concept, genre and Story.

A varient I use is a low die KA with lots of StunX, say +5... This gives a killing attack with a relatively low mortality to KO ratio. When a 5 Body attack can inflict 40 stun it gets the players attention.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Simple Killing

 

I personally want Killing Attacks to inflicst a higher Ratio of BODY to STUN. I want them to HURT. I want them to kill you.

 

If I wanna knock you out I'm just gonna smack you with a big Normal Attack.

[ThatDarnCat]

Re: Simple Killing

 

I personally want Killing Attacks to inflicst a higher Ratio of BODY to STUN. I want them to HURT. I want them to kill you.

 

If I wanna knock you out I'm just gonna smack you with a big Normal Attack.

When it comes to Champions I really like using Agents and if you are going to use agents you do need lots of quirky guns and gadgets for said agents.

 

How you want to handle killing damage depends on what you and your players.

[Lucius]

Too Simple Killing

 

Because Super Heroes aren't supposed to plaster everything to the wall and turn it into a Fine Red Mist.

 

Sometimes you want high Stun and low Body - Normal Attack. Sometimes you want it DEAD - Killing Attack.

 

It's not about points in the end - it's about concept, genre and Story.

 

A few points.

 

1. We're not all superheroes. Hero is not just Champions.

 

2. I notice worrying about killing folks never stopped superheroes from buying 10, 12, or more dice of "normal" damage. That IS a "Killing Attack" from the point of view of the hapless normal who happens to get killed by it.

 

3. We're not (at the moment) discussing a distinction between a high Stun low Body attack and a low Stun high Body attack. The proposed rule would have all attacks calculated the exact same way - just applied to different defenses. If I read it right, it even eliminates the "all Defense applies to Stun if there is ANY resistant defense" that applies to "by the book" killing attacks.

 

4. For that matter, the numbers crunchers have already pointed out that the "by the book" killing attacks aren't "high Body, low Stun." Up and down the board, in a variety of situations, they prove more useful at doing Stun damage than normal attacks.

 

5. If you're trying not to kill somebody, you can always "pull your punch." Whether you're using a 12d6 energy blast or a "by the book" killing attack or the variation presented here.

 

6. If what you want is to create differences based on the relative amounts of Stun to Body done, remember that "does Stun Only" is a -0 limitation. If eliminating all body done is -0, then obviously so is eliminating half, or a third, or any fraction. Just make your "killing attacks" calculate damage normally, and your "kinder, gentler" attacks not meant to kill can do half Body or something. Obviously, the exact ratio has to be set at character creation! Or so I would think. But see point 3 above - what this thread was originally about is a variation that doesn't even affect relative Stun/Body ratios, but only what defense can be applied against the attack.

 

7. "It's not about points in the end." But when we're talking about what powers do or should cost, then it is EXACTLY about points. There's supposed to be a reason we do all this math. If I want a hero to have a 12d6 energy blast, or a 60 STR, do the last few dice, or maybe 30 pts of Str, come cheaper because it's a "disadvantage" to have all that power if I hit a normal?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary quotes a haiku:

 

One must count points, else

Pointless the game: but know that

Points are not the point.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Simple Killing

 

Ah, I think I see a stickiging point .. If I'm reading the mechanic right, and it's what I'm thinking...

 

The two attacks are not calculated the same.

 

The Killing Attack Dice Total is both Stun and Body and applied to rDEF. (4D6 rolling a 3,4,4,5 = 16 Body/16 Stun not 4 Body/16 Stun)

 

If I'm not reading it right ... then I'm on your side completely - I'd always take a KA.

[Steve]

Re: Simple Killing

 

With all the threads on Killing damage that mayhaps have gotten derailed, I would propose this:

1. Killing is a +0 Advantage.
   
2. Roll Normal Dice for STUN & BODY.
   
3. Apply to Resistant Defenses.
   
4. Calculate reduced knockback (or no knockback).
   
5. Track bleeding (or don't).

 

The problem with this is that you are applying damage against a limited form of defense, so it increases the relative effectiveness. Hero has always seemed to me to have an underlying philosophy that increased effectiveness should be balanced by increased cost. Right now, a Killing Attack is roughly a +2 Advantage. I don't think it's right to effectively triple the cost effectiveness unless you cut the cost of defenses to compensate. Maybe make Resistant Defense a +1/4 Advantage instead of +1/2 like it is now?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Too Simple Killing

 

4. For that matter' date=' the numbers crunchers have already pointed out that the "by the book" killing attacks aren't "high Body, low Stun." Up and down the board, in a variety of situations, they prove more useful at doing Stun damage than normal attacks.[/quote']

 

Actually, a KA is only more effective at getting STUN past defenses if defenses are relatively high. If the target has, say, 2 PD (Joe Normal), a 6d6 EB will be more effective at delivering STUN than a 2d6 KA.

 

but the KA is far more effective if the target has comparatively high defenses. I thing the breakpoint was in the 2 DEF per DC range.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Simple Killing

 

Okay, I must be making some assumptions because I don't understand many of the counterpoints raised in this thread.

 

Currently RKA is 5 points per DC and EB is 5 points per DC. I am making the assumption that that cost is accurate. As I mentioned at the start of this thread I am using the spirit of what a killing attack and normal attack are, not what perhaps they might be cost out as (+2 advantage???). Currently K attacks are applied against limited defenses that cost more than regular defenses so yes, why wouldn't you always choose the K attack?

 

In the proposal above, one reason is reduced or no knockback. Personally, I'd play it with no KB. But regardless, it would seem that those of you making the point about a more effective attack vs. limited defenses being the ideal choice are missing that I am assuming the current cost of the attacks is accurate. If you disagree with that point, the rest of this is obviously going to be off.

 

The only way a 3d6K vs. 9d6 N attack differ is in the normalization of the damage (the curve centered on 10.5K and 9N) and the minimum damage (3K vs. 0N). The amount of STUN delivered is very different in the extremes based on whether you are using hit locations (N attack does more STUN) or a STUNx die (K attack does more STUN). So, for a heroic level game using hit locations it would seem that N attacks are actually better. They do more STUN on average and have the potential to do more STUN in the extreme.

 

Another assumption I am making here is that those differences are a fundamental result of using two different dice mechanics to deliver roughly the same results. Perhaps the thought was having two dice mechanics would make distinguishing the attacks easier, as opposed to having two dice mechanics to deliver slightly different damage ranges. If you agree with the latter view, then this thread would be very much counter to that.

 

I don't necessarily agree one way or the other. I'm just offering a alternative view based on the assumption that perhaps the differing dice mechanics are an artifact as opposed to an aid.

 

As for STUNx on Normal dice attacks, just have it increase the STUN by 1/3 per +1. This doubles the amount of STUN as a +3/4 advantage, which is just short of doubling the cost as if you bought x2 as many dice (STUN only).

 

Defenses would be applied as they are now: total PD & rPD against N attack BODY & STUN, rPD against K BODY, total PD & rPD against K STUN if rPD is >0.

 

Anyway, just some thoughts from a different perspective.

[Utech]

Re: Simple Killing

 

I've been following all the Killing Attack threads with some interest. It seems that many people are frustrated with the "STUN Lotto." I can understand that. Introducing a fixed STUN Multiplier seems a good solution, but I prefer to keep that sort of thing random. How's about just rolling three dice, dividing by three and subtracting 1 for calculating the STUN Multiplier?

 

Example:

3d6 Killing Attack hits. Damage dice show 2, 3, and 6 for a total of 11 BODY. 3 dice are rolled for the STUN Multiplier and come up 10. 10 / 3 - 1 = 2.33 (rounds down to 2) for a total of 22 STUN damage.

 

This would put a bell-curve into the mix to tame the STUN Lotto and generally ensure that Killing Attacks are high BODY, low STUN attacks. Heck (if you don't mind the extra math) you could decide not to round the STUN Multiplier and produce more variety in the amount of STUN you do...

 

Example:

3d6 Killing Attack hits. Damage dice show 2, 3, and 6 for a total of 11 BODY. 3 dice are rolled for the STUN Multiplier and come up 10. 10 / 3 - 1 = 2.33 for a total of 26 STUN damage.

 

Just a thought.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Simple Killing

 

Or, do 3d6 count BODY and that's your multiplier (treat 0 as 1/2). Or do 2d6 count BODY +1. Both of these average to 3, but one maxes at 6 the other at 5.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Simple Killing

 

Interesting idea, Utech!

 

My problem with the Stun Lotto has never been with the randomness (I like random just fine) but with the extreme results possible. (And far, far, too many munchkin players take KAs strictly for their potential to render a one-shot fight-stopper.) It just doesn't seem right for a Killing Attack which is literally incapable of inflicting BODY on its target to be able to Stun or KO that target. In the real world any attack which causes enough trauma to render one unconscious is capable of causing physical damage as well (Indeed, bruises and black eyes are indications of damaged capillaries; so obviously some damage took place at least on a microscopic level).

 

My ideas towards thwarting this disconnect both with reality and the source material have leaned towards two directions:

 

1) Reduce the Stun Multiplier to make KAs less able to generate huge numbers of Stun; especially if zero BODY was inflicted. Either change the Stun Multiplier to a flat 3 (Which I dislike because the randomness totally disappears) or weight the Multiple towards lower numbers (perhaps 1d6-2; with a roll of 1 - 3 still generating a 1X Multiple. This gives resulting multiplers of 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4.

 

2) Restructure Killing Attacks so they become a narrow type of AVLD which acts as a +1 Advantage to other Powers; with the appropriate defense being Resistant defenses, and then apply Stun and Body normally. So a 6d6 EB (Killing +1) does an average of 6 BODY and 21 Stun applied only against the target's Resistant defenses, but could do as much as 12 BODY and 36 Stun. Thus a normal cop who gets shot with a 6d6 EB Killing assault rifle but is wearing 4 rPD body armor would take an average of 2 BODY and 17 Stun (and be Stunned); which seems reasonably realistic. With this option, we'd need playtesting to see if the +1 is perhaps too high and thus perhaps a +¾ or +½ value would be more appropriate.

 

I favor the first option more because it doesn't require totally rewriting all characters and weapons within the Hero System which use Killing Attacks. The second option would require extensive rewrites.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Simple Killing

 

If we made KA's multiples 1,2,3,3,3,4 that would center on the standard of 3, provide some variance and smooth out the extremes, with the same average roll as 1d6-1.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Simple Killing

 

If we made KA's multiples 1' date='2,3,3,3,4 that would center on the standard of 3, provide some variance and smooth out the extremes, with the same average roll as 1d6-1.[/quote']I would be very comfortable with that option, but how would you accomplish those numbers with a d6? 1 = 1; 2 = 2, 3 to 5 = 3, 6 = 4? 1d6-2 seems easier to do on the fly.

[Mister E]

Re: Simple Killing

 

As far as the stun-lotto in concerned, me and my gaming group have always been big fans of rolling for hit locations.

 

 

I think the Killing Attack (+0) Advantage is the way I'll play the game; Primarily because I can't stand the garbage that goes along with building a Killing Attack into an EGO Attack.

 

The fact that it is simply more difficult to justify rDEF in the game means Killing Attacks will be more deadly, natch. But if I really wanted to up the lethality of Killing Attacks in general, I would just raise the DC's, and use the Decreased STUN Multiplier (-1/4) Limitation.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Simple Killing

 

As far as the stun-lotto in concerned, me and my gaming group have always been big fans of rolling for hit locations.

 

 

I think the Killing Attack (+0) Advantage is the way I'll play the game; Primarily because I can't stand the garbage that goes along with building a Killing Attack into an EGO Attack.

 

The fact that it is simply more difficult to justify rDEF in the game means Killing Attacks will be more deadly, natch. But if I really wanted to up the lethality of Killing Attacks in general, I would just raise the DC's, and use the Decreased STUN Multiplier (-1/4) Limitation.

The fatal flaw (if you'll pardon the pun) of making Killing a +0 Advantage has already been mentioned: What player in his right mind wouldn't opt to bypass all or most of a target's defenses (as you would if only rDEF apply) for free? To be at all workable, Killing as an Advantage needs to cost a minimum of +½ (Putting on a par with Armor Piercing or Penetrating); and +¾ or +1 is more likely the correct cost for this Advantage.

 

If all you want is bloodier games then caps on defenses, particularly Resistant defenses, seem far less damaging to the system.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Simple Killing

 

Currently RKA is 5 points per DC and EB is 5 points per DC. I am making the assumption that that cost is accurate. As I mentioned at the start of this thread I am using the spirit of what a killing attack and normal attack are' date=' not what perhaps they might be cost out as (+2 advantage???). Currently K attacks are applied against limited defenses that cost more than regular defenses so yes, why wouldn't you always choose the K attack?[/quote']

Part of the +2 is that many people like to buy things in Whole Dice. 1D6 of Killing is indeed 3x as expensive as 1D6 of Normal. Sure, it's still 5pts/DC ... but people rarely buy things in terms of "Damage Classes".

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Simple Killing

 

I would be very comfortable with that option' date=' but how would you accomplish those numbers with a d6? 1 = 1; 2 = 2, 3 to 5 = 3, 6 = 4? 1d6-2 seems easier to do on the fly.[/quote']

 

1=1

2=2

3=3

4=4

5=3

6=3

 

seems simplest.

 

d6-2 imposes a limitation (-1 SM) on the KA for no point savings. This seems appropriate only if you believe the KA is presently underpriced.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Simple Killing

 

1=1

2=2

3=3

4=4

5=3

6=3

 

seems simplest.

 

d6-2 imposes a limitation (-1 SM) on the KA for no point savings. This seems appropriate only if you believe the KA is presently underpriced.

That'd work.

 

Ideally you could modify a die to reflect that.