Killing Epiphany

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Did the palindromedary eat the title?

 

Because the killing attack is applied against more expensive defenses.

 

Given that a PC lacking some minimum level of resistant defenses, if only so a small KA does not equate to "get out a fresh character sheet", I don't see the need for resistant defenses having a significant impact on the effectiveness of KA's in practice. It does in theory, but I've never seen a gaime where this theory materializes into a significant advantage for a killing attack over a normal attack. The stun multiple does, but not the defense issue. In fact, you are the only person I have ever seen cite this as an issue. Can you relate actual game experience which leads you to consider this a major issue?

 

I actually considered this' date=' and rejected it because I wasn’t sure how to answer the question “Then what do you do with 1 or 2 DC attacks?â€[/quote']

 

"Subtract 1 from the BOD". I'd apply a minimum 1 to the 1/2 d6. I can live with a 5 point KA being useless - especially when it would solve the Penetrating issue.

 

This was part of what I was aiming for. After all' date=' if we have to HAVE two different classes of attacks like we do, they ought to have demonstrably different functions – rather than one being a superior option at an equivalent cost, which is what we have now.[/quote']

 

The KA is superior only against targets of higher defenses. At about 5 DEF per 3 DC, the normal and KA are about equal at inflicting STUN (ie STUN past defenses). Below that level, the normal attack is superior. Above, the KA shines.

 

The issue isn't whether they should be differentiated, but how. If I wanted to change KA's I would eliminate the Stun multiple, which many people have correctly noted is an orphan mechanic. Instead, KA's would be 5 points per d6, counted as normal attacks, except that they would do 1 BOD on a 1-5, 2 on a 6, and would subtract 1 from each roll for Stun. This would leave the averages unchanged, but eliminate the volatility caused by the stun multiple.

 

If one has to have a defense cap' date=' I don’t see a problem with raising it. And given that I keep hearing that killing attacks are the way to go against automatons, entangles, force walls, and the inanimate, I hardly see how my proposal “weakens†them more than the availability of killing attacks already does. [/quote']

 

More points to defenses also means less points to other areas. Play balance will change, in some fashion.

 

And KA's are more effective against inanimate objects (and similar constructs). Under your model, however, they are not.

[casualplayer]

Re: Killing Epiphany

 

We are already very used to the concept of Uncommon/Common/Very Common. Change AVLD to a tiered structure, +1 1/2, +1 and +1/2 advantage respectively, with resistant defenses being very common in most games, and eliminate that part about AVLDs not doing BODY except with GMs permission. Ditch killing damage entirely and just modify regular DCs.

[Lucius]

Killing Epiphany

 

The issue isn't whether they should be differentiated, but how. If I wanted to change KA's I would eliminate the Stun multiple, which many people have correctly noted is an orphan mechanic. Instead, KA's would be 5 points per d6, counted as normal attacks, except that they would do 1 BOD on a 1-5, 2 on a 6, and would subtract 1 from each roll for Stun. This would leave the averages unchanged, but eliminate the volatility caused by the stun multiple.

 

 

A worthy idea. Perhaps I should give that some thought.

 

 

We are already very used to the concept of Uncommon/Common/Very Common. Change AVLD to a tiered structure' date=' +1 1/2, +1 and +1/2 advantage respectively, with resistant defenses being very common in most games, and eliminate that part about AVLDs not doing BODY except with GMs permission. Ditch killing damage entirely and just modify regular DCs.[/quote']

 

Another good idea. I think that’s what the palindromedary was driving at. The problem is that, as I stated at the beginning of this thread, Resistant Defense is basically a kind of adder, not an advantage; and it seemed to me that just as defensive advantages (hardened) correspond to offensive advantages (armor piercing, penetrating) then defensive adders should correspond to offensive adders.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And a defensive palindromedary corresponds to an offensive palindromedary, and all is symmetry.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Did the palindromedary eat the title?

 

This was part of what I was aiming for. After all' date=' if we have to HAVE two different classes of attacks like we do, they ought to have demonstrably different functions – rather than one being a superior option at an equivalent cost, which is what we have now.[/quote']

 

I also believe that Killing attacks should do slightly higher BODY and slightly lower STUN damage than normal attacks.

 

Currently, killing attacks do +1/6 more Body, and -1/8 less Stun than normal attacks (on average).

 

I wouldn't want them to do any more Body than that, otherwise we start to unbalance the system.

 

And given that I keep hearing that killing attacks are the way to go against automatons' date=' entangles, force walls, and the inanimate, I hardly see how my proposal “weakens” them more than the availability of killing attacks already does.[/quote']

 

I wonder if people who favor killing attacks for damaging inanimates do so because of the (IMO) "cheat" using a 1 php KA + Penetrating? Just such a construct came up in a (4th ed) game I was in, and despite being touted as "It's a 60 pt power" (+11 total advantages), it was overly effective.

 

I successfully argued that a 1 pip killing attack is effectively the same as a 1D6 killing attack that always rolls 1. And as such, cannot penetrate. Using the 1pip+PEN also takes one of the primary factors of RPGs (IMO) out of the mix -- the variability of damage.

 

But all told, I see no real problem with the price of killing attacks. For one thing, while one has to pay for resistant defenses, everybody starts out with some normal defenses for free. And another factor is that killing attacks do 3.5" less knockback on average, and thus less knockback damage than normal attacks.

 

And there is the "metagame" aspect that IMO the GM is supposed to enforce. That being that using a killing attack is more noticed by people, and that people will tend to react negatively to people who use them frequently (i.e., it's much less heroic to use a 4D6 RKA than a 12D6 EB, despite being equal, points-wise).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Did the palindromedary eat the title?

 

And there is the "metagame" aspect that IMO the GM is supposed to enforce. That being that using a killing attack is more noticed by people' date=' and that people will tend to react negatively to people who use them frequently (i.e., it's [b']much[/b] less heroic to use a 4D6 RKA than a 12D6 EB, despite being equal, points-wise).

 

I don't buy this. How does Joe Sixpack tell the difference between a 12d6 Lughtning Bolt EB abd a 4d6 lightning Bolt RKA?

[Kristopher]

Re: Killing Epiphany

 

Not directed at anyone in particular, but I still haven't, in all the times this has been debated, seen a convincing argument as to why Killing Attacks should be removed from the game and replaced with some kind of Advantage or Adder. At most, fixing the multiplier is enough.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Did the palindromedary eat the title?

 

I also believe that Killing attacks should do slightly higher BODY and slightly lower STUN damage than normal attacks.

 

Currently, killing attacks do +1/6 more Body, and -1/8 less Stun than normal attacks (on average).

 

I wouldn't want them to do any more Body than that, otherwise we start to unbalance the system.

 

Bear in mind that these figures represent damage generated, not damage inflicted. Against most meaningful targets, these values will not be equal.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Did the palindromedary eat the title?

 

I also believe that Killing attacks should do slightly higher BODY and slightly lower STUN damage than normal attacks.

 

Currently, killing attacks do +1/6 more Body, and -1/8 less Stun than normal attacks (on average).

 

I wouldn't want them to do any more Body than that, otherwise we start to unbalance the system.

 

To repeat an idea I wish I had come up with:

 

Make Killing Attacks 1 DC = 1d6.

 

The roll on the d6 is Stun. Subtract the number of dice from total stun. [if you wish to be a purist, 1's don't get reduced, but that's an unnecessary complication).

 

For every 6, the attack does 2 BOD. All other dice (1's included) do 1 BOD.

 

Only resistant defenses count vs BOD; all defenses count vs Stun as long as you have at least 1 resistant defense point.

 

Same averages as current KA's for BOD, a small bit less for STUN, and no more STUN Lottery.

 

AVLD Issue

 

There is another issue some point to, that KA's are subject to more costly defenses. In my view, the game has evolved to the point that this is huilt into standard character design, and does not create an actual advantage for the KA. However, the fix for this would be, in my view, to make "Killing" a +3/4 advantage (same as AVLD for a subset of existing defenses), with the tradeoff that both BOD and STUN are stopped only by resistant defenses.

 

Note that you could still buy the higher BOD attack without buying the "rDEF only" advantage, just as we can presently buy an EB with the "AVLD" advantage. Obviously, I'm leaving out the usual +1 for Does Bod - I don't find it necessary given how common rDEF is already. Unless you're prepared to much more severely restrict rDEF (down to the levels of other exotic defenses to be fair), the cost of attacks against them should not be significantly increased.

[NinjaGeek]

Re: Did the palindromedary eat the title?

 

I don't buy this. How does Joe Sixpack tell the difference between a 12d6 Lughtning Bolt EB abd a 4d6 lightning Bolt RKA?

When a hero defeats his foe with a 12d6 EB lightning bolt, Joe Sixpack sees an unconscious felon lying on the ground.

 

But when a hero defeats his foe with a 4d6 RKA lightning bolt, Joe Sixpack sees a charred body that look more like a KFC extra crispy drumstick than the villain he saw robbing the bank ten minutes ago.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Did the palindromedary eat the title?

 

Bear in mind that these figures represent damage generated' date=' not damage inflicted. Against most meaningful targets, these values will not be equal.[/quote']

 

True, but to try to include all the possible variances of targets would excessively complicate the comparison. Also, I was comparing those things that the player has control over -- the building of his character. He has no control over how all the targets he might shoot at will be built.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Did the palindromedary eat the title?

 

When a hero defeats his foe with a 12d6 EB lightning bolt, Joe Sixpack sees an unconscious felon lying on the ground.

 

But when a hero defeats his foe with a 4d6 RKA lightning bolt, Joe Sixpack sees a charred body that look more like a KFC extra crispy drumstick than the villain he saw robbing the bank ten minutes ago.

 

If that was a bank robber thug (normal human; 2 ED, no resistant; 8 BOD; 16 STUN)

 

- Average KA does 14 BOD, 37 Stun. Thug is KO'd and dying (-6 BOD), but not dead. Recovers once per minute (-21 Stun), so out for a while. 1st minute gets to -17 Stun; 2 turns later -9; next turn (2 phases + PS 12) conscious at 3 STUN. Total time out: 1 minute, 36 seconds.

 

- Average EB does 12 BOD, 42 Stun. Thug is KO'd and dying (-2 BOD), but not dead. Recovers once per minute (-24 Stun), so out for a while. 1st minute to -20 STUN, second minute to -16 Stun, 2 turns to -8; next turn (2 phases + PS 12) conscious with 4 STUN. Total time out: 2 minutes, 36 seconds.

 

Both thugs have taken enough BOD that they will die before recovering from KO, so they both need immediate medical attention. The one hit with the EB will take longer to recover consciousness, assuming he does receive medical attention. The one hit with the KA will, admittedly, take longer to recover from his injuries, but with 3.5 months vs 2.5 months (based on standard rates of body recovery), they're both looking at an extended convalescence.

 

I don't see the above results as all that different to Joe Sixpack observing the results.

 

If it was a Super with, say, 20 Def, 10 rdef, the KA will do BOD where the EB will not, so that will result in more grave injuries. Take him up to 15 rDEF and he won't generally take BOD. There's a pretty narrow window where the KA will be significantly more lethal than the EB.

[NinjaGeek]

Re: Did the palindromedary eat the title?

 

If that was a bank robber thug (normal human; 2 ED, no resistant; 8 BOD; 16 STUN)

 

- Average KA does 14 BOD, 37 Stun. Thug is KO'd and dying (-6 BOD), but not dead. Recovers once per minute (-21 Stun), so out for a while. 1st minute gets to -17 Stun; 2 turns later -9; next turn (2 phases + PS 12) conscious at 3 STUN. Total time out: 1 minute, 36 seconds.

 

- Average EB does 12 BOD, 42 Stun. Thug is KO'd and dying (-2 BOD), but not dead. Recovers once per minute (-24 Stun), so out for a while. 1st minute to -20 STUN, second minute to -16 Stun, 2 turns to -8; next turn (2 phases + PS 12) conscious with 4 STUN. Total time out: 2 minutes, 36 seconds.

 

Both thugs have taken enough BOD that they will die before recovering from KO, so they both need immediate medical attention. The one hit with the EB will take longer to recover consciousness, assuming he does receive medical attention. The one hit with the KA will, admittedly, take longer to recover from his injuries, but with 3.5 months vs 2.5 months (based on standard rates of body recovery), they're both looking at an extended convalescence.

 

I don't see the above results as all that different to Joe Sixpack observing the results.

You're right that a 4d6 rka is not an instant death sentence. My comment exagerates to be humorous while making a point. The point being that killing attacks kill people, but normal attacks generally do not. (We're talking about fights among super-heroic level characters. All bets are off if your heroes are in the habit of running around blasting normals.)

 

If it was a Super with, say, 20 Def, 10 rdef, the KA will do BOD where the EB will not, so that will result in more grave injuries. Take him up to 15 rDEF and he won't generally take BOD. There's a pretty narrow window where the KA will be significantly more lethal than the EB.

I guess I'm operating under different assumptions than you.

 

I'm assuming that there are a lot of characters running around without very little or no resistant defenses, but enough normal defenses to essentially ignore the body of 12d6 normal attack. 10 is a lot of resistant defense in my book. 10 rPD is enough to make a character almost bullet proof.

 

But of course, I grew up reading comics in the silver and bronze ages when characters like Wolverine and the Punisher were the exception not the rule. Most characters who weren't inherently bullet proof didn't feel the need to wear body armor under their leotards.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Did the palindromedary eat the title?

 

- Average EB does 12 BOD' date=' 42 Stun. Thug is KO'd and dying (-2 BOD), but not dead.[/quote']

 

I think your math is off. He'd be at zero body (12 BOD - 2 PD or ED = 10 Bod gets though).

 

Which means he isn't bleeding to death. The other guy (at -6 Body) has only 4 Turns to live -- a whole 48 Seconds.

 

--------------------

Edit: Oops. My mistake. A character starts to bleed at zero, not -1 Body. So the recipient of the EB has 10 Turns to live -- 120 Seconds or two minutes.

[Lucius]

Re: Did the palindromedary eat the title?

 

You're right that a 4d6 rka is not an instant death sentence. My comment exagerates to be humorous while making a point. The point being that killing attacks kill people' date=' but normal attacks generally do not. (We're talking about fights among super-heroic level characters. All bets are off if your heroes are in the habit of running around blasting normals.) .[/quote']

 

Well, if we’re talking about fights among super-heroic characters, normal attacks generally do not kill people, and killing attacks generally do not kill people.

 

I guess I'm operating under different assumptions than you.

 

I'm assuming that there are a lot of characters running around without very little or no resistant defenses, but enough normal defenses to essentially ignore the body of 12d6 normal attack. 10 is a lot of resistant defense in my book. 10 rPD is enough to make a character almost bullet proof.

 

Those assumptions seem to be no longer valid (if they ever were) for Hero games these days. Even if you DO assume your opponents have some Resistant Defense, the fact remains that Killing Attacks are superior to Normal Attacks of the same point value; this eventually leads to the ubiquity of Killing Attacks, which leads to an environment in which Resistant Defense becomes practically mandatory for everyone, which is why FRED has a kludge called “Combat Luck†which makes Resistant Defense available for everyone.

 

I think your math is off. He'd be at zero body (12 BOD - 2 PD or ED = 10 Bod gets though).

 

Which means he isn't bleeding to death. The other guy (at -6 Body) has only 4 Turns to live -- a whole 48 Seconds.

 

--------------------

Edit: Oops. My mistake. A character starts to bleed at zero, not -1 Body. So the recipient of the EB has 10 Turns to live -- 120 Seconds or two minutes.

 

And that’s assuming he had 10 BOD. Although 10 is the starting point for characters, I believe it’s stated that the average normal person is assumed to have 8 in primary characteristics.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Insert mandatory palindromedary tagline here.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Did the palindromedary eat the title?

 

Even if you DO assume your opponents have some Resistant Defense' date=' the fact remains that Killing Attacks are superior to Normal Attacks of the same point value; [/quote']

 

Superior for doing Body. The EB got through more Stun, so for that purpose, it was the superior attack (in the examples).

 

this eventually leads to the ubiquity of Killing Attacks' date=' [/quote']

 

I disagree somewhat on that point. I think that KAs become ubiquitous only if the GM allows them and doesn't restrict the Hero's use of them. Batman doesn't go around shooting people and throwing grenades. Wonder Woman doesn't carry a knife or bow.

 

I'm sure Green Lantern could, instead of creating a blunt "force shot" (I don't know the actual name for his non-lethal attack) could create a hyper-sharp one (RKA+AP+PEN?). But if he does make it, I'm pretty sure it's really, really... really rare for him to use it on something other than an object.

 

And that’s assuming he had 10 BOD. Although 10 is the starting point for characters' date=' I believe it’s stated that the average normal person is assumed to have 8 in primary characteristics.[/quote']

 

I went with what the previous examples used. True, an "Average Person" (5re, p345) only has 8 Body. But he is *also* 30 points underbuilt! Even the "Noteworthy Normal" (who has 10 Body) comes in at 3 points under cost.

[Lucius]

Re: peating myself.

 

Superior for doing Body. The EB got through more Stun, so for that purpose, it was the superior attack (in the examples).

 

No. Killing Attacks are better than Normal Attacks of the same point value. And in two seperate ways. As I put it in a recent email:

 

The defense against a Normal Attack is either Physical

Defense (PD) or Energy Defense (ED) depending on how

the attack was classified when it was designed. PD or

ED costs 1 pt for 1 pt. But the defense against

Killing Attacks is different. The BOD damage of a

Killing Attack can only be stopped by "Resistant"

defenses; the STUN CAN be stopped by nonresistant

defenses, but ONLY if there is at least 1 pt of

Resistant defense. 2 pts of PD or ED can be made

resistant by spending 1 pt; if you check, defenses

that are "naturally" considered resistant, such as

armor, are based on a price structure of 3 pts for 2

pts of resistant defense. In other words, the defense

against Killing Attacks costs 50% more than the

defense against Normal Attacks.

 

It is axiomatic in Hero that every attack has a

defense; even a No Normal Defense attack must specify

some specific power, condition, or attribute against

which it will fail. Exotic attacks like Flash (which

disrupts a character's senses) are countered by Flash

Defense. Mental Defense subtracts from the

effectiveness of mental powers. The Advantage of Armor

Piercing, which lets an attack ignore half of the

relevant defense for a +1/2 advantage, is countered by

the Advantage for defenses of Hardened, which is only

a + 1/4 advantage. Attack vs Limited Defense (an

advantage with a variable price structure) usually

goes against a defense power with the 1/1 cost

structure.

 

But a Killing Attack goes against a limited form of

defense (almost all characters have PD or ED at no

point cost; resistant defenses must be purchased and

normal Humans don't have them) while costing exactly

the same, damage class for damage class, as an Energy

Blast. It's like getting an advantage for free.

 

Thus I say:

 

They violate the "meta

> rule"

> > that an attack should cost more than its defense.

> >

 

But resistant defenses don't work, mathematically,

like an Advantage. They add to the power's base cost,

increasing it BEFORE Advantages are factored in.

"Resistant" is more like what we call an "Adder" than

an "Advantage."

 

Thus I say:

> >

> >

> > The relationship between resistant and

> nonresistant

> > defense is not like that of an advantaged and

> > non-advantaged power. Nor is it quite like that of

> a

> > power with and without an adder. It is

> mechanically

> > unique. But it is close enough to working like an

> > adder, that perhaps we can consider it one.

> >

> > Like an adder, Resistant Defense adds to Base

> Points,

> > not Active Points. It differs mainly in that, like

> an

> > advantage, it is linked to the cost of the base

> power

> > - that is, if you want to make 12 pts of PD

> resistant,

> > it costs twice as much (in terms of Base Points)

> as

> > making 6 pts resistant.

> >

 

Since "Resistant" is basically an Adder, I concluded

that "Killing" should also be an Adder:

 

> > An Attack Power, like Flash, has a Defense Power,

> like

> > Flash Defense. An Attack Advantage, like Armor

> > Piercing, has a Defense Advantage, like Hardened.

> >

> > So Killing and Resistant should be paired, an

> Attack

> > Adder and a Defense Adder.

> >

 

The problem is complicated, however, by the fact that

Killing Attacks enjoy another advantage (if not

Advantage) over Normal Attacks; a more favorable

damage rolling mechanic.

 

3d6 Killing and 9d6 Normal cost the same and are

theoretically "equal." But the result of rolling more

dice for the Normal attack has an "averaging" effect;

the numbers tend to cluster around an average result,

and you could wait a long time for the 9d6 Normal

attack to do max damage, or anywhere near it. The 3d6

Killing attack will get an abnormally high roll more

frequently; and the addition of only ONE die (a flat

probability, with NO bell curve effect) for the Stun

multiplier exacerbates this "anti-averaging" effect,

resulting in the infamous "Stun Lotto" that Hero

players so often reference.

 

Now, at first one may think that a tendency to roll

high is balanced by the same probability of rolling

low; but because of the way defenses work in Hero,

this is not the case. If both attacks are against a

character with a defense of 30, any roll of less than

30 fails to penetrate; it does not matter if it missed

doing damage by 1 pt or by 20 pts, it has no effect on

the target. In other words, if you're the attacker, a

very low damage roll isn't any worse for you than a

low damage roll that almost, but not quite, exceeded

defenses; BUT, a very high damage roll is much better

for you than a high damage roll that only exceeds

defenses by a few points. Rolling too low by 1 or 20

points makes no difference, but exceeding defenses by

20 points can be very different from exceeding

defenses by 1 pt. If you exceed defenses by the amount

of the target's CON, the target is stunned and easily

struck again.

 

As I put it in a recent post, it costs you nothing to

play the Stun lotto, and everyone who plays is a

winner sometimes.

 

So as it stands, Killing Attacks are clearly superior

to Normal Attacks of the same point value; nor am I

the first or only one to point out that they are

"overpowered, or underpriced, depending on how you

want to look at it." Some people online have commented

that in the long run, almost everyone acquires a

Killing Attack, even if only as one slot in a

multipower. And it is no wonder; barring some kind of

houserule to balance them, there is little reason to

take a "Normal" attack, and every reason to take a

Killing attack.

 

Still don't believe me? Take a look in the current

edition under Talents, and look at Combat Luck. This

is basically "armor for people that don't wear armor."

It's a testament, if not to the growing ubiquity of

Killing Attacks, at least to the fact that that if you

don't have SOME kind of resistant defense, whether it

fits your character concept or not, then when you do

meet a Killing Attack, you will fall like wheat before

the scythe.

 

 

I disagree somewhat on that point. I think that KAs become ubiquitous only if the GM allows them and doesn't restrict the Hero's use of them. Batman doesn't go around shooting people and throwing grenades. Wonder Woman doesn't carry a knife or bow.

 

First point:

 

HERO SYSTEM IS NOT JUST CHAMPIONS

 

Second point:

 

Well, of course, if the person running the game doesn't allow them, there won't be any Killing Attacks. If she doesn't allow Swinging, no character will have Swinging. I don't allow time travel to the past or reliable Precognition (Alexander's Laws of Time: The past may be known, but not changed. The future may be changed, but not known.) But I think the existence of Combat Luck in Fifth Edition speaks for itself.

 

Third point:

 

Batman and Wonder Woman are characters in comic books; they aren't characters in a game of Champions. If they were, I wouldn't be surprised if their players got Killing Attacks (assuming they don't have a Game Operations Director who's forbidden Killing Attacks.) For that matter, isn't Batman's Batarang considered a Killing Attack? As I recall, the DC Heros game classified it as such. Even if they didn't classify guns that way.

 

Fourth point:

 

There is a difference between a Killing Attack and a "killing attack." A 10d6 Energy Blast is a "killing attack" in the sense it could kill somebody; a No Normal Defense Ranged Killing Attack that does STUN only is not a "killing attack" in that it's not going to kill anyone. Just as a Flash VS Hearing isn't very bright, and a character with Invisibility to Scent is clearly apparent if you look at him, even if he's standing in a field of Darkness to Sound.

 

Fifth point:

 

Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot of the time?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary suggests that maybe people don't listen the first time.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Did the palindromedary eat the title?

 

I think your math is off. He'd be at zero body (12 BOD - 2 PD or ED = 10 Bod gets though).

 

Which means he isn't bleeding to death. The other guy (at -6 Body) has only 4 Turns to live -- a whole 48 Seconds.

 

--------------------

Edit: Oops. My mistake. A character starts to bleed at zero, not -1 Body. So the recipient of the EB has 10 Turns to live -- 120 Seconds or two minutes.

 

A standard human has base stats of 8, not 10. My Thug is base level - 8 BOD and 16 STUN.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Did the palindromedary eat the title?

 

Superior for doing Body. The EB got through more Stun' date=' so for that purpose, it was the superior attack (in the examples).[/quote']

 

My examples use exactly average STUN. KA's have a much wider range, but lower average. Against targets below a certain defense level, the EB remains superior at inflicting STUN after defenses. Beyond that point, the KA's higher volatolity means it averages more STUN after defenses. The breakpoint is, IIRC, about 5 DEF per 3 DC, which is (coincidentally or deliberately) the approximate recommended averages in 5e.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Did the palindromedary eat the title?

 

A standard human has base stats of 8' date=' not 10. My Thug is base level - 8 BOD and 16 STUN.[/quote']

 

Oops. You're right on that. Must be that old Pentium math error.

[SteveZilla]

Re: peating myself.

 

Second point:

 

Well, of course, if the person running the game doesn't allow them, there won't be any Killing Attacks.

 

At least in the hands of trigger-happy PCs, that is. NPCs under the GM's control can easily have them if the GM so desires.

 

But I think the existence of Combat Luck in Fifth Edition speaks for itself.

 

That’s your opinion. I have a different one.

 

Third point:

 

Batman and Wonder Woman are characters in comic books; they aren't characters in a game of Champions. If they were, I wouldn't be surprised if their players got Killing Attacks (assuming they don't have a Game Operations Director who's forbidden Killing Attacks.)

 

THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS BESIDES HAVING RAMPANT KILLING ATTACKS AND NO KILLING ATTACKS.

 

A GM can discourage a player of a heroic PC (note I didn't say SUPER-heroic. After all, Hero System is more than just Champions) from having one without forbidding them outright.

 

For that matter' date=' isn't Batman's Batarang considered a Killing Attack? As I recall, the DC Heros game classified it as such. Even if they didn't classify guns that way.[/quote']

 

Considered by whom? And even if it is, how often has he embedded one into someone's chest? And I might point out that the Batarang is just one thing out of many in his Utility Belt. The vast majority of his equipment is of a "non-lethal" (not based upon RKA or HKA) variety.

 

They didn't classify guns as killing attacks? Now that is just stupid of them.

 

Fourth point:

 

There is a difference between a Killing Attack and a "killing attack." A 10d6 Energy Blast is a "killing attack" in the sense it could kill somebody;

 

Well, by that definition, even a 3D6 attack could be considered a "killing attack". It just takes a little longer. Or a Change Environment that does damage could be a "killing attack".

 

a No Normal Defense Ranged Killing Attack that does STUN only is not a "killing attack" in that it's not going to kill anyone.

 

And if a cop tasers a person with a weak heart and they die, was that a "killing attack"? It resulted in a death, so it must have been.

 

Just as a Flash VS Hearing isn't very bright' date=' and a character with Invisibility to Scent is clearly apparent if you look at him, even if he's standing in a field of Darkness to Sound.[/quote']

 

And does a tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear it make a sound? You lost me on this part's relevance.

 

Fifth point:

 

Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot of the time?

 

Perhaps because some people just don't agree with your conclusions about Killing Attacks? I know I don't, and that's because of personal experience.

 

The palindromedary suggests that maybe people don't listen the first time.

 

I suggest that maybe the palindromedary is making a bloody mountain out of a molehill. Perhaps some didn't listen. But perhaps, just perhaps, some people are fallible, or are reading while at work, and thus aren't able to *quite* give it 100% of their attention. So "the palindromedary" can kindly go fly a kite.

[NinjaGeek]

Re: Did the palindromedary eat the title?

 

Those assumptions seem to be no longer valid (if they ever were) for Hero games these days.

I'll take your word for it. I'm sure you've played in more Champions games than I have. But if that's true, it's a real shame because it removes one of the differences between the different archetypes in superhero comics. It is no big deal to be the "man of steel" who bounces bullets off his chest if every tom, dick, and harry is running around with the equivalent of a bullet proof vest. Daredevil sure would have been a lot more boring if sais, katanas, and throwing stars bounced off him like he was wearing a suit of plate mail.

 

Even if you DO assume your opponents have some Resistant Defense, the fact remains that Killing Attacks are superior to Normal Attacks of the same point value; this eventually leads to the ubiquity of Killing Attacks,

If your assertion is true, then it sounds like munchkinism is pervasive among Champions players. The purpose of having two different types of attacks in Champions is obvious: to enable the system to simulate the non-lethal combat which is (was?) pervasive in the comic book super hero genre. Using killing attacks instead of normal attacks just to play the stun lotto (as opposed to when it really fits the character concept and the campaign style) is just another form of min-maxing IMHO. I don't see why GMs would allow it.

 

which leads to an environment in which Resistant Defense becomes practically mandatory for everyone, which is why FRED has a kludge called “Combat Luck” which makes Resistant Defense available for everyone.

Are you sure it's not because more lethal iron age/dark champions style campaigns are more common now than when Champions was first introduced? Killing attacks have always had the advantages you are talking about.

[Lucius]

Re: Killing a Dead Palindromedary

 

 

And does a tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear it make a sound? You lost me on this part's relevance.

 

 

The point was that there are powers with names like "Flash," "Invisibility," and "Darkness" that we don't automatically assume are literally a sudden bright light, the ability to be unseen, or the absence of light. The name of a power in game terms is not necessarily a literal description of what it is. The same is true of "Killing Attack."

 

I’m sorry if I was unclear.

 

I'll take your word for it. I'm sure you've played in more Champions games than I have. But if that's true, it's a real shame because it removes one of the differences between the different archetypes in superhero comics. It is no big deal to be the "man of steel" who bounces bullets off his chest if every tom, dick, and harry is running around with the equivalent of a bullet proof vest. Daredevil sure would have been a lot more boring if sais, katanas, and throwing stars bounced off him like he was wearing a suit of plate mail.

 

Well, to give the concept it’s due, the idea behind “Combat Luck†isn’t that Daredevil is bouncing bullets or whatever off his chest: it’s that he’s twisting and dodging and managing either not to get hit, or to only be grazed by attacks that would otherwise seriously injure or possibly mortally wound him. It’s also not supposed to be as reliable as ordinary “armor†as the power is normally defined.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Even the bullet proof palindromedary fears the dreaded Crab Cannon!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing a Dead Palindromedary

 

Well' date=' to give the concept it’s due, the idea behind “Combat Luck†isn’t that Daredevil is bouncing bullets or whatever off his chest: it’s that he’s twisting and dodging and managing either not to get hit, or to only be grazed by attacks that would otherwise seriously injure or possibly mortally wound him. It’s also not supposed to be as reliable as ordinary “armor†as the power is normally defined. [/quote']

 

We alll know KA's and resistant defenses have been with us since 1e. I think most Hero players (or at least those who kept playing) took the path of least resistance and bought some resistant defenses for all characters, due to the existence of killing attacks.

 

As the editions piled up, this became more and more ingrained to the Hero System mindset. Published characters all had some resistant defenses. Genres made reasons for everyone to have resistant defenses. Ultimately, we got to 5e, and Combat Luck as an excuse for pretty much every character to have some resistant defenses.

 

Why? Because it emulates the source material. Daredevil, Han Solo, Merlin and Doc Savage don't drop under a few bullets - they manage to avoid serious injury. The mechanical solution - inobvious resistant defenses.

 

DC Heroes grapppled with the same issue and decided guns could be used in non-lethal combat. The first edition even acknowledges that sounds stupid, but notes that watching Batman become Batstain in combat with a few gun-weilding thugs convinced them this was a necessary compromise.

 

Now, if 2e has made KA's cost 10 points per DC, because they apply against a limited defense, made both STUN and BOD reduced only by resistant defenses, and set resistant defenses up as being as uncommon as Flash, Power and Mental defense, the game might have gone a different direction, with killing attacks being much more deadly, but inflicting much less damage per shot. We'd then have complaints that a handgun can barely nick a healthyhuman with one shot, though. At this point, the direction the system took is pretty much ingrained, and I doubt the fundamental change to more expensive KA's and much scarcer resistant defenses would meet stiff resistance.

[CourtFool]

Epiphany Strike

 

For a moment' date=' I just had a hope this thread would have a cool character who killed by inspiring others with a revalation of such clarity that it shook their personal perception of reality to the core through horror or reaching a state of perfect bliss, making them drop dead on the spot.[/quote']

 

Cost	Power
79	Epiphany Strike: Ego Attack 10d6, Limited Power Only vs. those that have
not allready had the epiphany (+0), Personal Immunity (+1/4),
Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Area Of Effect (28" Radius; +1),
Does BODY (+1) (375 Active Points);
Extra Time (5 Minutes, Only to Activate, -1),
Limited Power Targets must hear and understand attacker (-1/2),
No Range (-1/2), Requires An Oratory Roll  (-1/2),
Limited Power All or nothing (-1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4),
Does Not Provide Mental Awareness (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4)

[prestidigitator]

Re: Killing Epiphany

 

Don't tempt that llama!