Yet Another STUN Multiple Thread...

[Derek Hiemforth]

Sorry.

 

 

First off, let me say that I haven't followed any recent STUNx threads, so apologies if I'm re-covering well-trod ground here. Mainly, I'm just interested in getting people's thoughts about my idea below, to sanity check it and see if I'm overlooking something.

 

I've never been a big fan of the standard 1d6-1 STUNx, because I think it results in attacks doing too little damage too often, and doing too much damage too often. But it makes sense to me that Killing Attacks are somewhat more haphazard than Normal Damage attacks in terms of the amount of STUN they cause, so I don't want to just use a flat STUNx of 3 or some such thing. Therefore, I've long used the STUNx column of the Hit Location Table (with its 3d6 bell curve) in place of the straight 1d6-1 STUNx, even in games where the Hit Location Table as a whole isn't being used.

 

However, that solution has never been wholly satisfying to me, for two reasons:

1. I like the idea of being able to make a roll and have the STUNx shown right there on the die, rather than consulting a table.
   
2. The STUNx distribution on the Hit Location Table -- while better than the straight 1d6-1 roll -- isn't exactly what I'd like to see either.

'Cause all other things being equal, I want the STUNx to both average 3, and result in 3 more often than any other value, but without simply using 3 as a flat value. The 1d6-1 model and the 3d6 Hit Location Table model don't really do that. Their results break down like this:

1d6-1 Model:
[u]STUNx   % Chance[/u]
 5      16.67
 4      16.67
 3      16.67
 2      16.67
 1      33.34

3d6 Hit Location Table Model:
[u]STUNx   % Chance[/u]
 5       4.63
 4      21.29
 3      36.57
 2      31.01
 1       6.48

I'm really looking for a symmetical distribution, where 3 is the most likely result, then 4 and 2 are equally likely, but noticeably less common than 3, and finally 5 and 1 are equally likely, but far less common still. A single d6 isn't granular enough to allow this.

 

So I started toying with the idea of using a non-6-sided die as a STUNx die. (Blasphemy, I know. ) While pondering various die types, I realized that a d12 might work well. I'd get a blank d12, and mark the faces with 1 one, 2 twos, 6 threes, 2 fours, and 1 five. That would result in this distribution:

[u]STUNx   % Chance[/u]
 5       8.33
 4      16.67
 3      49.98
 2      16.67
 1       8.33

Virtually half the time, the STUNx would come up 3, but it would still allow for some variation, and less extreme variation (fives and ones) than the standard method.

 

Any thoughts?

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Yet Another STUN Multiple Thread...

 

Personally I haven't seen that one before, and it's a pretty cool concept - a single-die-produced bell curve. The one point of concern that I might have is making 3 the most frequent result. The impression I've always had about the Stun Multiplier is that it was intended to result in a Killing Attack that would on average do more BODY and less STUN damage than a Normal Damage attack. (Of course on average it does, but the STUN totals vary widely by using a single die.) A x3 multiplier will on average give the same amount of STUN as a Normal Damage attack of the same Damage Class, but more BODY, as well as requiring Resistant Defenses to stop it. So Killing Attacks still come out as potentially more efficient than Normal Damage.

 

For that reason you might consider more 1 and 2 results on the die, and fewer 3s.

 

FWIW I ran Killing Attacks for a long time by rolling 3d6, dividing the result by 3 (I made a chart with all the rounded off results), then subtracting 1 to get the Stun Multiplier. It took slightly longer to resolve than the standard method, but the bell curve started to take shape, with the center at less than 3.

[MitchellS]

Re: Yet Another STUN Multiple Thread...

 

I use 1d3+1 for Stun X. This gives a range of 2-4 with an average of 3. You never completely wimp-out and you never hit the jackpot.

[Doug Limmer]

Re: Yet Another STUN Multiple Thread...

 

For what it's worth, rolling 3d6 and using a table like:

3-6: x1 multiplier

7-8: x2 multiplier

9-12: x3 multiplier

13-14: x4 multiplier

15-18: x5 multiplier

gives almost the same probability results as Derek's idea, but I couldn't come up with a good mnemonic for remembering the chart easily.

 

A chart like:

3-6: x1 multiplier (9%)

7-10: x2 multiplier (41%)

11-14: x3 multiplier (41%)

15-18: x4 multiplier (9%)

gives an average of x2.5 multiplier, and is easier to remember, but doesn't give one modal multiplier result, and may not be what you want, either.

 

Just some random ideas. :-)

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Yet Another STUN Multiple Thread...

 

A x3 multiplier will on average give the same amount of STUN as a Normal Damage attack of the same Damage Class' date=' but more BODY, as well as requiring Resistant Defenses to stop it. So Killing Attacks still come out as potentially more efficient than Normal Damage.[/quote']Hmm. Good point. I love symmetry, but I guess sometimes we just have to make sacrifices.

 

What about 2 ones, 3 twos, 4 threes, 2 fours, and 1 five? That would give an average of 2.75, which is closer to the standard method's average of 2.67.

[Nevenall]

Re: Yet Another STUN Multiple Thread...

 

I like it, but I hate rolling d12 because they are pefectly formed for rolling straight off the table. The extra time it takes to pick them up off the floor just ain't worth it.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Yet Another STUN Multiple Thread...

 

How about a d4 stun multiple? Averages 2.5 and you don't have to worry about it rolling off the table. (do be careful if it happens, though!)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Yet Another STUN Multiple Thread...

 

Whilst this does not convince me that killing attacks work to my expectations, Derek's approach is novel and an excellent fix for the flat distribution extremes of a single die or a single multiplier. Particularly impressed with the hit location analysis. Rep when you stop making sense for a while.

 

BTW you could use 2d6 as follows:

 

2-3 = 1 (8.34%)

4-5 = 2 (19.44%)

6-8 = 3 (44.44%)

9-10 = 4 (19.44%)

11-12 = 5 (8.34%) (averages 3)

 

 

or...(and this is probably a better distribution AND easier to remember)

 

 

2-4 = 1 (16.67%)

5-6 = 2 (25%)

7-8 = 3 (30.55%)

9-10 = 4 (19.44%)

11-12 = 5 (8.34%) (averages 2.77)

 

Actually....the hit location table averages 2.86 stun multiplier. You could roll 3d6 and :

 

6 or less = 1 (9.3%)

7-9 = 2 (28.2%)

10-12 = 3 (36.6%)

13-15 = 4 (21.3%)

16-18 = 5 (4.6%)

 

The distribution is almost perfect, quite easy to remember (6/9/12/15/18) and averages 2.83 damage so there should be almost no difference between rolling a random multiplier and rolling a hit location - except the latter doesn't need a lookup table.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Yet Another STUN Multiple Thread...

 

What about 2 ones' date=' 3 twos, 4 threes, 2 fours, and 1 five? That would give an average of 2.75, which is closer to the standard method's average of 2.67.[/quote']

That's pretty good.

 

I like to use 2d6/2 - 1 (with 1 being minimum). It gives the same average result as the d6-1, but with more 3s and fewer 1s and 5s.

 

If you don't like doing the extra math, you could get 2 blanl d6s and number them:

 

0 0 1 1 2 2 and 1 1 2 2 3 3

 

Which gives an average of 3. Or

 

1 1 2 2 3 3 and 0 0 0 1 1 2

 

Which gives the standard 2.667 average. (There are other numbering schemes that are functionally the same.)