Killing Attack idea

[Gary]

Since the other thread was a little cluttered, I'd thought I'd start a new one. Just brainstorming and borrowing an idea from GURPs. How about making KA a +1/4 advantage on Normal Attacks that are stopped by Resistant Defenses. Body and Stun are rolled as normal, but any Body that gets through defenses are doubled and Stun is increased by a corresponding amount. 2d6 would be subtracted for Knockback, not 3d6.

 

Let's compare 15d6 normal attack vs 12d6 'killing attack' at 75 AP and assume they roll average.

 

Vs 15/30 defenses, the NA would do 0 Body and 22.5 net stun while the KA would do 0 Body and 12 net stun.

 

Vs 10/30 defenses, the NA would do 0 Body and 22.5 net stun while the KA would do 2*2=4 Body and 12+2=14 net stun.

 

Vs 5/20 defenses, the NA would do 0 Body and 32.5 net stun while the KA would do 7*2=14 Body and 22+7=29 net stun.

 

Vs 0/20 defenses, the NA would do 0 Body and 32.5 net stun while the KA would do 12*2=24 Body and 42+12=54 net stun.

 

Some assessments:

 

1) Against high resistant defense targets, the NA is significantly better. Which kinda makes sense since a warhammer is better against plate armor than a sword would be.

 

2) Against many inanimate objects and Force Walls, the Normal Attack is better. Again, a blaster should probably be better against a door than a laser in doing structural damage.

 

3) Against low resistant defense targets, the KA is significantly better. As it should be.

 

4) Against many objects and Entangles, the KA is significantly better.

 

For stuff like rapiers and lasers, you might want to have a custom -1/4 Limitation that Body after defenses isn't doubled vs inanimate objects. And perhaps make it so that any focus with the Real Weapon limitation only multiples by 1.5 instead of 2 to keep the body count reasonable.

 

Needless to say, any weapon would be converted into it's equivalent damage class in damage. So a 1d6+1 pistol is 20 AP and would be converted into a 3d6 KA (15 AP with a +1/4 Advantage). A 2d6 rifle would be converted into 5d6 KA (25 AP with a +1/4 Advantage).

 

Nice, clean, and elegant. Fixes the Stun Lotto and does its job of shredding unprotected targets while not being as good against high resistant defense targets. Targets in a non-superheroic campaign would rightfully fear it, while Supers usually have enough Resistant Defenses so that they don't have too much to fear. Seems to fit the genre material pretty well and gives a reason why VIPER would outfit its agents with 10d6 EBs rather than assault rifles when dealing with tough supers.

[Kristopher]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

A warhammer is "better" against plate armor because of the limitations of plate armor on a human body. Both the warhammer and the sword are pretty much useless against, say, a tank, even if they both weigh the same.

 

Whereas against a human in plate armor or against an armored vehicle, an armor-piercing bullet is much more effect than either a warhammer or a sword.

[Vondy]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

A warhammer is "better" against plate armor because of the limitations of plate armor on a human body. Both the warhammer and the sword are pretty much useless against, say, a tank, even if they both weigh the same.

 

Whereas against a human in plate armor or against an armored vehicle, an armor-piercing bullet is much more effect than either a warhammer or a sword.

 

I think hero mechanics are sufficiently abstract to allow for a varied range of interpretations in terms of applying them to "the real world." As a result, while I don't think Gary's "warhammer example" illustrates the point he's trying to make very well, I understand and accept his general line of reasoning. The point isn't really "warhammer versus plate-mail," which is largely subjective in terms of mechanics (and I would make a warhammer a killing attack...). Rather, its an attempt to illustrate a simpler more streamlined mechanic. I don't know what I think of the method yet. I have to ponder it.

[Gary]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

A warhammer is "better" against plate armor because of the limitations of plate armor on a human body. Both the warhammer and the sword are pretty much useless against, say, a tank, even if they both weigh the same.

 

Whereas against a human in plate armor or against an armored vehicle, an armor-piercing bullet is much more effect than either a warhammer or a sword.

 

 

I think the warhammer is better than the sword because while neither can actually penetrate plate, the warhammer transmits its energy more efficiently than the sword. The tank is irrelevant since its defenses are so high that it wouldn't matter what melee weapon is used unless it's something like a vibroblade or lightsaber.

 

The AP bullet again is a different class of item since it's expected to penetrate the armor and thus would be eligible for the multiplication effect. If it didn't actually penetrate the armor, it would cause less damage than the sword or warhammer.

[Solomon]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

I think the idea has its merits, though I'm not enterely sold on it yet.

 

I do find the additional STUN damage to be unnecessary, though, as it makes those attack IMHO too powerful against unarmored targets. The whole point of a Killing Attack should be to do more BODY damage to your opponent. The method you are proposing would make a "Killing attack, does no BODY" a very useful attack. Something of a disconnect IMHO.

[Utech]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

I'm afraid I continue to be mystified as to why anyone would want to make Killing Attacks an Advantage on Normal Attacks.

 

Killing Attacks are one kind of power.

Normal Attacks are another kind of power.

 

They are different. Their mechanics are different. I don't see the attraction in folding them together. Could someone explain?

[Gary]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

I think the idea has its merits, though I'm not enterely sold on it yet.

 

I do find the additional STUN damage to be unnecessary, though, as it makes those attack IMHO too powerful against unarmored targets. The whole point of a Killing Attack should be to do more BODY damage to your opponent. The method you are proposing would make a "Killing attack, does no BODY" a very useful attack. Something of a disconnect IMHO.

 

 

Well, the 15d6 normal attack does 15 Body and 52.5 average Stun. The 12d6 'killing attack' does 24 Body and 54 Stun vs completely unarmored targets. An additional 1.5 Stun on a 15 DC attack doesn't seem to be too much of a bonus vs such a limited target set (0 Resistant Defense targets).

 

The way I structured the power, 'killing attacks' are better vs low armor targets and normal attacks are better vs high armor targets. And neither one is obviously better than the other in general. That seems balanced to me.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

I'm afraid I continue to be mystified as to why anyone would want to make Killing Attacks an Advantage on Normal Attacks.

 

Killing Attacks are one kind of power.

Normal Attacks are another kind of power.

 

They are different. Their mechanics are different. I don't see the attraction in folding them together. Could someone explain?

 

Think about it like this:

 

Killing Attacks are like Armor Piercing in the same way that Resistant Defenses are like Hardened. Forget about power vs. advantages for a moment. That's the basic non-sfx argument.

 

sfx based argument: the 2 most common sfx for killing damage are bullets and blades (with lasers a close 3rd). All 3 can be explained with EB + AP mechanics nearly as well as the current system (which is really not too different than what Gary's method does). I am by no means a history expert but aren't bullets/gunpowder given a lot of the credit for ending the reign of armored knights. Speaking of Armored Knights, didn't they tend to bash each other with large relatively blunt weapons like maces and hammers and reserve swords and other edged weapons for lesser or un-armored opponents?

 

The costing of +1/4 instead of say +1/2 is about the only reservation I have since there is already a precedent for the latter with AP and Penetrating.

 

HM

 

HM

[schir1964]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

I'm afraid I continue to be mystified as to why anyone would want to make Killing Attacks an Advantage on Normal Attacks.

 

Killing Attacks are one kind of power.

Normal Attacks are another kind of power.

 

They are different. Their mechanics are different. I don't see the attraction in folding them together. Could someone explain?

Because there is precedent for this type of modeling, whether it is a good thing or not.

 

Take the Penetrating Advantage. You apply it to Energy Blast and it changes how the mechanics of Energy Blast actually work.

 

Take the No Normal Defense Advantage. You apply it to Energy Blast and it changes how the mechanics of Energy Blast actually work.

 

... and so forth.

 

Making Killing Attacks and Advantage that changes how the mechanics of Energy Blast work would be consistent with the above.

 

Again, whether that is a good thing or not is a completely different discussion.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Solomon]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

One potential issue I see with your variant KA is that one point of resistant defense would stop three points of damage - two BODY and one STUN.

 

As it is, I feel the official HERO rules already encourage characters to get at least a few points of Resistant Defenses even when it doesn't fit concept. At the same time, it's somewhat unusual for characters, even bricks, to have fully resistant defenses, because you'll rarely need more than, say, 15 Resistant Defenses in a 60 AP campaign.

 

Now, with your variant... on one hand, martialists or other light-armored characters would need higher Resistant Defenses to avoid being KO'd or killed. OTOH, bricks won't need as high Resistant Defenses to be mostly impervious to BODY damage. So I think your variant KA would narrow the range for effectively useful Resistant Defenses. I'm not saying this is a bad thing for game balance - I just feel it pushes game balance in a direction I find as of yet uninteresting.

[Gary]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

One potential issue I see with your variant KA is that one point of resistant defense would stop three points of damage - two BODY and one STUN.

 

As it is, I feel the official HERO rules already encourage characters to get at least a few points of Resistant Defenses even when it doesn't fit concept. At the same time, it's somewhat unusual for characters, even bricks, to have fully resistant defenses, because you'll rarely need more than, say, 15 Resistant Defenses in a 60 AP campaign.

 

Now, with your variant... on one hand, martialists or other light-armored characters would need higher Resistant Defenses to avoid being KO'd or killed. OTOH, bricks won't need as high Resistant Defenses to be mostly impervious to BODY damage. So I think your variant KA would narrow the range for effectively useful Resistant Defenses. I'm not saying this is a bad thing for game balance - I just feel it pushes game balance in a direction I find as of yet uninteresting.

 

Fair enough point. Although Bricks would still need relatively high levels of resistant defense to stop stuff like artillery shells and missiles, even if they don't need it against most villains.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

I like this idea a lot.

 

Looking at the examples, it seems that even relatively low levels of resistant defences are effective in limiting stun overload, and I have always intuitively felt that 'killing' attacks should hurt more if the primary load (the Body damage) gets through defences, and less if it doesn't. This seems to fit the criteria.

 

Must try this out.

[Utech]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

Speaking of Armored Knights' date=' didn't they tend to bash each other with large relatively blunt weapons like maces and hammers and reserve swords and other edged weapons for lesser or un-armored opponents?[/quote']

No. Not really. Most armored knights used edged weapons to fight each other. But I'm not sure what that has to do with my question.

 

Yes, you can use Armor Piercing on an Energy Blast to simulate a gun. You could also purchase a Ranged Killing Attack. The RKA makes a lot more sense because Killing Attacks automatically work against a limited sort of defense. An RKA is different from an EB because an RKA is designed to kill (thus the name ). Should you wish an even more powerful gun, you can purchase the RKA with the Armor Piercing Advantage. Or Piercing. Or all sorts of other things.

 

I think it is much, much better to have two Power options (Energy Blast and Ranged Killing Attacks) to which I can apply Advantages and Limitations than it is to have just one.

 

I would like to know why other people seem to think otherwise.

[Utech]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

Take the Penetrating Advantage. You apply it to Energy Blast and it changes how the mechanics of Energy Blast actually work.

Certainly. And if you apply the Penetrating Advantage to a Ranged Killing Attack, you change the mechanics of how the Ranged Killing attack actually works.

 

What I don't understand is why you would want to throw out a Power here.

 

Killing Attacks already have their own special mechanics that (in my opinion) have worked pretty darn well for years. What is gained by removing Killing Attacks as a power?

 

Again' date=' whether that is a good thing or not is a completely different discussion.[/quote']

I suppose that's the discussion I'm trying to have.

 

I don't see it as any better. Could someone explain it?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

Utech: whatever you or I might think of the killing attack mechanic the fact remains that a significant proportion of Hero players (assuming that the posters to these boards are at all representative) don't like the killing attack mechanic.

 

It is not going to be changed in the system, that is a given BUT there are plenty of people trying to find an acceptable 'house rule' alternative. that is what this is all about.

 

You like KAs, I don't. We meet and discuss, and maybe change our minds and maybe not, but at the end of it all we've probably learned a bit even if it is just perspective on the problem.

 

At present the only real difference between KAs and NAs is that the KA mechanic produces a much more random result, both for Body and for Stun 9the fact that the KA works against different defences is not so much of a problem to me). I don't like that. There are cost arguments and there are utility arguments, but what I really don't like is a mechanic, different from anything else, that introduces randomness that is not reflected int he design considerations of the rest of the system.

 

You can disagree of course: that may be WHY you like it, but that is the problem I have. Now the toolkit approach of Hero does not extend to 'real' alternatives to the killing attack mechanic (fixing the stun multiple is about as far as it goes), so if I, and others like me want to build 'killing attacks' like guns and swords, we need to come up vith viable alternative builds.

 

One of those viable alternatives is an advantaged normal attack. There are pros and cons. Here's a con:

 

60 point killing attack with +1/4 advantage = 75 points, so 12d6 KA=15d6 NA.

 

BUT, add armour piercing to both and the 12d6 KA (AP) costs 105 points and the 15d6 NA (AP) costs 112.

 

So, I DO like this approach but it has problems.

 

It also has real benefits: it models killing attacks quite well - if they actually get into you they are going to do a lot of damage, if they don't they will probably do a lot less.

 

Ideally we would have a seperately costed KA that worked differently to the current mechanic, but that does not mean we should not explore the possibilities.

[Mentor]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

Two points:

 

1. I like the general approach of making KA an advantage to a normal attack but I also am OK with BODY that penetrates generating lots of nasty STUN. KA should be dangerous and rare enough in some genres as to give second thoughts about using them for mere STUN lotto. Kill a normal or even a super without good reason and the legal, moral and psychological implications should be huge.

 

2. As Sean and others pointed out, too often resistant defenses are bought for a character based solely on the defensive efficiency and contrary to any reasonable character concept. The need for GMs to convince players that they will reward good character concept builds and good role playing is always important rather than only safe or efficient builds. Some heroes are just really tough without being made of rock or metal.

[Kristopher]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

Whereas I think that people running around without inherent defense and without any worn protection is one of the silliest genre bits in comics.

[Mentor]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

How is a character whose schtick is built around being so fast as to not get shot, or not being seen, or being so tough that they heal quickly right after being shot, or using TK to make the projectile miss silly?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

How is a character whose schtick is built around being so fast as to not get shot' date=' or not being seen, or being so tough that they heal quickly right after being shot, or using TK to make the projectile miss silly?[/quote']

well, considering how abundant light body armor seems to be in the comics...

[Kristopher]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

How is a character whose schtick is built around being so fast as to not get shot' date=' or not being seen, or being so tough that they heal quickly right after being shot, or using TK to make the projectile miss silly?[/quote']

 

 

All of those things would count under a broad catagory of "defenses".

 

I was thinking more of the characters who aren't supertough, aren't superagile, aren't superlucky, and aren't in any other way "super-protected" from harm, and yet don't wear any kind of significant body armor, carry a nifty forcefield projector, or do anything of the sort.

 

And yet they're rarely endangered by this lack of prudence.

[Mentor]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

OK, gotcha. You make a good point.

 

Seems like poor character design on the part of the writers to me.

[Mentor]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

well' date=' considering how abundant light body armor seems to be in the comics...[/quote']

Yes, but SHIELD agents just aren't as cool as Spidey.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

I haven't participated in many of the legendary killing attack threads so I don't know if this has been mentioned or not....

 

Isn't it possible that the current Killing Attack and its more random damage effect was an intentional design? And just like Find Weakness it was an additional way to express hit-location-like effects before those rules were added to the system in later releases of the original Champions rules?

 

Why is it that you can spread EB's but not KA's? Maybe the original game designers wanted to represent broader damage or damage that connected with the main 'body' of the target (chest). I would bet that a lot of current Champions use this rule as the default and only use Find Weakness and/or Killing Attacks (which are usually played as being 'beam attacks' by default without taking the actual limitation) to represent the occasional Good or Bad "Hit Location" on a target.

 

HM

[Utech]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

Ideally we would have a seperately costed KA that worked differently to the current mechanic' date=' but that does not mean we should not explore the possibilities.[/quote']

I'm so very happy to read this.

 

I certainly never meant to indicate that you should not discuss house rule alternatives! I apologize if that is what came across.

 

Anyone who is unhappy with a game mechanic should definitely think about alternative solutions. More power to you and all who think there is a better way to handle the mechanics of Killing Attacks. I will definitely continue to read these threads because I think there are plenty of great ideas for new mechanics. I think that making Killing into an Advantage is a mistake and I don't understand why you would want to go there. But that's just my humble 2 yen.

[Gary]

Re: Killing Attack idea

 

I'm so very happy to read this.

 

I certainly never meant to indicate that you should not discuss house rule alternatives! I apologize if that is what came across.

 

Anyone who is unhappy with a game mechanic should definitely think about alternative solutions. More power to you and all who think there is a better way to handle the mechanics of Killing Attacks. I will definitely continue to read these threads because I think there are plenty of great ideas for new mechanics. I think that making Killing into an Advantage is a mistake and I don't understand why you would want to go there. But that's just my humble 2 yen.

 

 

IMO, Killing Attacks should fit the following criteria:

 

1) They should do more Body to unprotected targets

2) They should be balanced against normal attacks

3) The mechanics shouldn't be too complicated and should be easily understandable

4) Related to 2 is that there should be a reasonable number of clearly defined circumstances where the KA is superior and a reasonable number of clearly defined circumstances where the NA is superior

5) They should not be able to end a combat against an undamaged high end foe in a single shot without an extraordinary roll (and rolling a single '6' doesn't qualify)

6) Low level KAs should not be able to inflict even a single stun point vs a well protected target.