New Power: Destructive Attack

[schir1964]

Destructive Attack

A Destructive Attack is only affected by resistant defenses. The character rolls the dice of a Destructive Attack and totals them. This sum is the Stun Total of the attack. For every three stun done one body is generated with a minimum of one body per die rolled.

 

Formula: Stun = Dice Total, Body = integer (Stun Total / 3)

 

Cost: 10 Points Per 1d6 Destructive Attack

 

Options

Body Only: -0 Limitation

 

Addendum: If one wanted to use this as an Advantage instead of separate power, then it could be a +1/2 Destructive Advantage for Attacks that go against Normal Non-Resistant Defenses and do body normally. For Attacks that go against Exotic Non-Resitant Defenses and do no body normally, double the value of the Advantage.

 

Thoughts?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Trebuchet]

Re: New Power: Destructive Attack

 

This is essentially just a cheaper variant of Killing Attack. The only real difference is it gets rid of the Stun Lotto. In other words, I like it better than the current method.

 

60 AP Killing Attack: 4d6 - Average BODY 10, Average Stun 26

 

60 AP Destructive Attack: 6d6 - Average BODY 7, Average Stun 21

 

Seems about right for a Power which costs only 2/3 as much as Killing Attacks; especially with only Resistant Defenses applying vs both Stun and BODY damage. I'm not sure it's as good at breaking things as conventional Killing Attacks since most inanimate objects have Resistant defenses by default.

[Sean Waters]

Re: New Power: Destructive Attack

 

Not sure Trebuchet's averages for killing attacks is quite right: more like 14 Body and 37 stun.....I think the KA shows averages for 3d6, not 4.

 

The issues I have with destructive attacks, including current killing attacks revolve around both Body and stun.

 

The stun arguments are well rehearsed.

 

The Body arguments perhaps less so.

 

If an attack is going to be 'destructive' then it has to either generate a lot of body or bypass or reduce target defences.

 

To this extent, I'm not sure 'killing attack' wouldn't have been a better name for the suggested power - it is fine for killing things with no resistant defences but poor at damaging inanimate objects with DEF: i.e. what it doesn't really do as well as either a KA or a normal attack, is destroy stuff.

 

Now to look at this in the broad view, we should perhaps first ask whether high Body attacks are desireable in the game.

 

I have no real issues with massive property destruction, but from a balance POV, high Body damage in a reasonably common attack will devalue powers like entangle and force wall.

 

So: 1: do we want a destructive attack?

 

Well I don't particularly, but I can see how it might be attractive. So let's look at it.

 

Starting with what we have got, EB does Body damage in a good average range (and don't forget, against the inanimate, it makes no real difference whether the attack works against normal or resistant defences: all that matters is the Body total). Killing attacks average more Body and so it over a bigger range. The costs are equivalent (1DC=5 points). Killing attacks are a better way to destroy things in most cases, although you'll get the odd low roll.

 

Can we add something new?

 

Well what your construct does quite differently is determine Body based on STUN rather than on counting Body dice. That makes the BODY total far more reliable, but, due to the cost, reduces the total. It also makes the stun AVDL, but that's not really what I'm concentrating on here...

 

Because the base cost is higher, advantaging the power costs more per die, so adding armour piercing, for example makes a 4d6 destructive attack and an 8d6 EB equivalent, cost wise. Can't see that looking attractive.

 

In short, if Body damage is your aim then I think you would not persuade anyone from a more standard attack.

 

OK let's look at stun.

 

I like the idea of resistant defences being the only things to stop the stun from a design purity POV, and I've said in the past that I consider allowing normal stun to stop killing attack stun (if you have ANY resistant def) is a balance fix. However, I'm not sure: if a knife hits your armoured chest and penetrates (but is slowed by) the armour, I can see how there should be significant stun through defences, but if the armour stops the Body damage, I'd imagine there would be very little stun through.

 

Your method gives far more consistent stun results thant he killing attack mechanic, and it seems that it is here that it might be an attractive attack: the brick with 10/30 pd/rpd is relatively safe from average killing attacks but more vulnerable to the destructive attack stun, but I still don't think it is enough to sell to the masses. The difference in this example would be 7 v 11 stun through defences.

 

Making it a +1/2 advantage (logical as resistant defences are effectively +1/2 on normal ones) yields better results: average damage of 8/9 Body and 28 Stun: again the main effect (as against KAs) will be more stun through if the target has some resistant defence and much higher normal defence. It is still going to be quite a specialised attack...in the example: the difference of damage through defences (using the above example would be 7 (KA) against 19 - a far more respectable total, but KAs still have potentially more use (higher Body, potentially a LOT of stun).

 

Moreover it does not avoid the problem (and I know I shouldn't get hung up on names): it is just not that destructive. Mind you at thi scost, and givent he mechanic involved, I'd say it is sufficiently different to warrant inclusion.

 

You could just go this way:

 

Destructive EB

 

Rolled as a normal EB, and at the same cost but add 1 Body to the total for every full 3DC and subtract 1 stun from the total for every DC.

 

Thus a 12d6 (60AP) DEB would average 12+4=16 Body and 42-12=30 stun

 

Better than an average KA at Body, with the trade off being lower stun. Personally as I said above I don't think that it is necessary; we have armour piercing or just more dice, with 'body only' limitations. My particular concern about having 'an attack for every opponent' is that you wind up with an attack MP, and it devalues defences generally.