Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

[schir1964]

Alternate System

This system presumes that the current rules for Killing Attacks and Resistant Defenses is removed and replaced with the following rules.

 

Killing Advantage [+1/2 Per Level]

This advantage changes the damage of an attack into killing damage and each level increases the amount of body done by the attack by a multple (x2, x3, etc...).

 

Resistant Advantage [+1/4 Per Level]

This advantage grants Normal Defenses full effect against Killing Damage and each additional level increases the amount defenses vs Killing Damage by a multiple (x2, x3, etc...).

 

Killing Damage vs Normal Defenses

Normal Defenses have half effect vs Killing Damage.

 

Example:

10d6 EB, +1/2 Killing [75 Points] - Average Stun/Body [35,20]

4d6 EB, +2 Killing [60 Points] - Average Stun/Body [14,16]

 

- Christopher Mullins

[JackValhalla]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

Well, I'll grant that it does simplify the dice rolls of killing attacks. And if you want to simplify the mechanics, it's as good as anything else I've seen or come up with myself.

But, I always rather liked the unpredictable nature of killing attacks, multiplying one die roll by another.. It seemed more realistic. As my daddy taught me when I was learning RPGs at his knee, "Unless the system is fundamentally flawed, more dice means more realism". The more randomized elements you inject, the more true it will be to actual events.

But, for a lot of players, simplicity of use is better. Some say that it's more dramatic, I disagree.

Also, I'm not sure about the "diminishing returns" policy you have built into it. The first level of the advantage makes it bypass non-resistant defenses, and it multiplies the BODY damage. Maybe the first level is to bypass the defenses, and every successive level multiplies damage? Ditto the resistant defenses.. first level to affect killing damage, successive levels to multiply its efficacy.

I can see that you have attempted to downplay killing attacks by making the resistant defenses cheaper than the killing attacks (1/4 opposed to 1/2), but I think that you will find all of your characters to be totally impermeable to killing attacks. You have kept the cost of killing attacks the same (1 1/2 regular attacks) but you have made the defenses half as expensive. And your additional +1/2 advantage to double BODY damage is roughly equivalent to armor piercing.. doubling the damage vs. halving defenses is nearly the same thing under normal active point barriers, only a few points from one another. But, to continue the analogy of 'armor piercing', your equivalent of the hardened advantage is 1/4 rather than 1/2.. you have slanted things far in the balance of defenses. If that is your intention, this is the correct method to use.

Also, how does this work in conjunction with Damage Reduction?

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

I can see why you would take this approach from the viewpoint of simplifying the mechanics and making them consistent, but I would have to playtest a departure like this before I could offer a constructive opinion.

 

schir, have you tried running this in a game, and if so what was the result?

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

Are you using the standard formula for pointing out Active & Real costs, or a house rule?

 

Because those Body multiples look real attractive with advantage stacking.

 

Just sayin'

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

Alternate System

This system presumes that the current rules for Killing Attacks and Resistant Defenses is removed and replaced with the following rules.

 

Killing Advantage [+1/2 Per Level]

This advantage changes the damage of an attack into killing damage and each level increases the amount of body done by the attack by a multple (x2, x3, etc...).

 

Resistant Advantage [+1/4 Per Level]

This advantage grants Normal Defenses full effect against Killing Damage and each additional level increases the amount defenses vs Killing Damage by a multiple (x2, x3, etc...).

 

Killing Damage vs Normal Defenses

Normal Defenses have half effect vs Killing Damage.

 

Example:

10d6 EB, +1/2 Killing [75 Points] - Average Stun/Body [35,20]

4d6 EB, +2 Killing [60 Points] - Average Stun/Body [14,16]

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

So for 90 points (to pick a level), I could have any of the following:

 

- 18d6 EB (average 63 STUN, 18 BOD)

- 12d6 EB +1/2 killing (average 42 STUN, 24 BOD)

- 9d6 EB +1 killing (average 31.5 STUN, 27 BOD)

- 7d6 EB, +1 1/2 killing (average 24.5 STUN, 28 BOD)

- 6d6 EB, +2 Killing (average 21 STUN, 30 BOD)

- 5d6 EB, +2 1/2 killing (average 17.5 STUN, 30 BOD)

- 4 1/2d6 EB, +3 killing (average 16 STUN, 31.5 BOD)

- 4d6 EB, +3 1/2 killing (average 14 STUN, 32 BOD)

- 3d6 EB, +5 Killing (average 10.5 STUN, 33 BOD)

- 2d6 EB, +8 Killing (average 7 Stun, 34 BOD)

- 1d6 EB, +17 1/2 Killing (average 3.5 Stun, 36 BOD)

 

Seems to scale OK. I'll put a 1d6 with as many multipliers as my AP supports into my Multipower. That should handle any pesky Force Walls or Entangles

 

Maybe drop it 2 multiples to make it AP, penetrating - good point about advantage stacking.

 

Say, can I limit it to "only inanimate objects" - so much for any foci in the area!

 

With those initial impressions aside, the problem I see is that this makes it too easy to trade off lower STUN for higher BOD. How many characters could survive a 36 BOD hit from a killing attack (average for that 1d6 monster above, but absolute maximum for a 6d6 KA under the conventional rules)? How many can survive the 72 BOD that will come up one time in 6?

 

Under the current model, if I wanted KA’s to have an enhanced BOD to STUN ratio, I’d require them to take reduced Stun multiple limitations. This would enhance the ratio without reducing the active point requirement for a given level of BOD damage.

 

Of course, you could limit the number of multiples – 36 is clearly abuse of the system. But even an average of 24 compared to a 90 AP Entangle or Force Wall sends both those powers to the Hall of Useless Abilities. Reducing this to 60 AP, we’re talking an average of 16 BOD at the +1/2 level, or 18 at +1 – and 20+ BOD won’t be uncommon. This approach will, in my view, motivate increased rDEF to feel the character has a decent chance at survival.

 

While the concept of an increased BOD to STUN ratio for killing attacks has some appeal on a theoretical basis, in practice I see it causing a lot of problems, with the above being the most notable.

 

Of course, we could increase the cost of the advantage, but that risks making the KA useless. Part of the problem is in the underlying game purpose of a killing attack. From a theory standpoint, we want this to be an attack that kills, not KO’s. From a practical standpoint, however, that means the only way the user of a KA wins in combat is if he kills his opponent – and we don’t generally want the choices for PC’s reduced to “win” or “die”. The theoretically perfect answer makes for a practically poor game experience.

[schir1964]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

Well' date=' I'll grant that it does simplify the dice rolls of killing attacks....[/quote']

Actually, wasn't trying to simplify anything. I was re-reading the threads concerning Killing Attacks and possible other mechanics.

 

Basically, those who post about it's "problems" boils down to two things:

 

1) Stun Lotto = Bad (Obviously you don't have problem with this).

2) Killing Attacks should do more body than normal attacks on average regardless of Stun results.

 

A thought occured to me and I wondered what would happen if Killing/Resistant were simply removed from the game. If so, then all that would be needed to reimplement them would be two Advantages. The system kind of already does the Resistant aspect with Damage Resistance.

 

Thank you for your analysis. I was wondering if should have made the values of Killing/Resistant the same or make Resistant cheaper. Defenses are supposed to be cheaper than the Attacks, but since the cost of Defenses are cheaper by default, I think if I made the two advantages the same value, this idea would still be preserved.

 

This was just an initial attempt at another Killing mechanic that also addressed the Resistant side of things.

 

Also' date=' how does this work in conjunction with Damage Reduction?[/quote']

Same thing could be said of Armor and Force Field which both are considered resistant by default. Nothing would change other than they are treated as already having the first level Resistant Advantage built in.

 

Now whether you can stack additional levels onto them or not... I'm still cogitating...

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

I can see why you would take this approach from the viewpoint of simplifying the mechanics and making them consistent, but I would have to playtest a departure like this before I could offer a constructive opinion.

 

schir, have you tried running this in a game, and if so what was the result?

Sorry, I don't have game with which to try out many of my ideas. Studying for A+ Certification...

 

I rely on the more experienced GMs here to test or simply tell me if my ideas are a no go from a broad usage standpoint.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

Are you using the standard formula for pointing out Active & Real costs, or a house rule?

 

Because those Body multiples look real attractive with advantage stacking.

 

Just sayin'

May have been something I've overlooked. What advantage starcking would be overly effective?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

May have been something I've overlooked. What advantage starcking would be overly effective?

 

Let's try an example. I want a "disintigrator beam". It doesn't harm tissue, just objects.

 

Under the current rules, I'll buy a 4d6 RKA, not vs living targets (say -1) for 30 points (average 14 BOD). Under your proposal, I'll buy, say, a 6d6 EB, +1 Killing (average 18 BOD) with the same limitation and the same price. 4 BOD more under your system.

 

Over time, I decide I like this power. However, I also want a wide angle beam that destroys objects in a conic area, with no range. I'll convert my power to a Multipower with the standard beam, a conic explosion and a conic beam. Both will stay 60 AP.

 

For 60 AP, my new powers under current rules are 2 1/2 d6 Conic Explosion and 2d6 Conic Area. Average BOD for the explosion is 9, and for the Area is 7. I lose 5 (35.7%) and 7 BOD (50%), respectively, on average.

 

Under your new rules, I get 5d6 (62.5AP) or 4 1/2 d6 (57.5 AP) explosive and 4d6 AE, both +1 killing. Average BOD for the explosion will be 13.5 (15 with the higher AP option). For the AE it will be 12 BOD. I'm losing 4.5 BOD (25%) and 6 BOD (33.3%) respectively.

 

The smaller percentage of BOD lost by adding new advantages reflects the benefits of advantage stacking. You'll see this in any system that makes Killing an advantage. It's more manipulable in this one because killing is scalable.

 

Using the same example, assume I started with a 1d6, +11 KA blast (average of 22 BOD). making it explosive, I get 1d6 +10 1/2 KA +1/2 Explosion, average of 21 BOD. I can make it full AE with an average of 20 BOD.

 

Now, we can certainly cover this over with "but I'm looking for powers built to concept", however my Disintigrator beam only does BOD to inanimate objects, so maximizing the BOD it does hardly seems out of concept for the power.

[Gary]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

May have been something I've overlooked. What advantage starcking would be overly effective?

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

The whole concept of advantage stacking comes about because you don't have to purchase advantages on other advantages, but merely on the base power. So it's cheaper to add advantages to a low base power high advantage attack than a high base power attack.

 

For example, a 4d6 Area Effect NND costs the same as a 12d6 EB. But to purchase 0 End would cost only 10 additional points for the first attack and 30 additional points for the 2nd attack.

[schir1964]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

...Seems to scale OK. I'll put a 1d6 with as many multipliers as my AP supports into my Multipower. That should handle any pesky Force Walls or Entangles

 

Maybe drop it 2 multiples to make it AP, penetrating - good point about advantage stacking.

 

Say, can I limit it to "only inanimate objects" - so much for any foci in the area!...

Thanks Hugh, I knew you would help me with this. (8^D)

 

I'll have to look at the Armor Piercing and Penetrating stacking and see how that should mesh.

 

Now since you used 90 Active Points for your example, let's use that same number for Defenses in retrospect.

 

90 Active Points allows the following combinations:

90 PD (45 rPD) or 90 ED (45 rED)

45 PD/ED (23 rPD/rED)

72 rPD or 72 rED

60 Armor (30 rPD/rED) or various combinations

90 Force Field (45 rPD/rED) or various combinations

 

Since Force Field can be used in Frameworks, I think Foci protected by such are relatively safe.

 

With those initial impressions aside' date=' the problem I see is that this makes it too easy to trade off lower STUN for higher BOD. How many characters could survive a 36 BOD hit from a killing attack (average for that 1d6 monster above, but absolute maximum for a 6d6 KA under the conventional rules)? How many can survive the 72 BOD that will come up one time in 6?[/quote']

Okay, that's a good point. I'll have to think about that.

However, please note that any character who spent 90 Points for 72 PD or ED resistant defenses would always survive this attack. But we are talking extremes now, which should always be considered, but noted as that.

 

Under the current model' date=' if I wanted KA’s to have an enhanced BOD to STUN ratio, I’d require them to take reduced Stun multiple limitations. This would enhance the ratio without reducing the active point requirement for a given level of BOD damage.[/quote']

Yes, but it wouldn't actually increase the Body done to defenses, so nothing is gained. But certainly a valid choice.

 

Of course' date=' you could limit the number of multiples – 36 is clearly abuse of the system. But even an average of 24 compared to a 90 AP Entangle or Force Wall sends both those powers to the Hall of Useless Abilities. Reducing this to 60 AP, we’re talking an average of 16 BOD at the +1/2 level, or 18 at +1 – and 20+ BOD won’t be uncommon. This approach will, in my view, motivate increased rDEF to feel the character has a decent chance at survival.[/quote']

A couple of points here.

 

You are correct that the 1d6 example is an abuse of the system. Please also note that even with the current rules that any small power stacked with many advantages tends to become an abusive power.

 

Also, what I infer from this is that this advantage should definately have a Caution Sign on it or perhaps a Stop Sign, just like many other advantages that can lead to abuse.

 

While the concept of an increased BOD to STUN ratio for killing attacks has some appeal on a theoretical basis' date=' in practice I see it causing a lot of problems, with the above being the most notable.[/quote']

Granted, but I was going with what some had posted what a Killing Attack should be, as opposed to what it currently is. Not saying that one way is better or worse than the other, just expanding the scope of what some could have with change to the system.

 

Of course' date=' we could increase the cost of the advantage, but that risks making the KA useless. Part of the problem is in the underlying game purpose of a killing attack. From a theory standpoint, we want this to be an attack that kills, not KO’s. From a practical standpoint, however, that means the only way the user of a KA wins in combat is if he kills his opponent – and we don’t generally want the choices for PC’s reduced to “win” or “die”. The theoretically perfect answer makes for a practically poor game experience.[/quote']

Well that really depends on the type of game the GM and Players want, right?

Not what I or you want aesthetically. You quite right in that it depends on what the "game purpose of a killing attack", but this should be determined by the GM and Players, not the game, right? (8^D)

 

One way to look at it is as an Optional Advantage/Rule like Hit Locations. It's there to allow for different game experience, but it's up to the GM and Players to decide that. We don't remove the Hit Locations just because the game defines what the kind of game it should be (Champions), do we? (8^D)

 

But we are now delving into game design/philosophy. I'm just offering an alternative system for handling Killing/Resistant, not a die hard "This is the way it must/should be done" solution.

 

I do need help with identifying possible over the board gotchas, like the Advantage Stacking issue that was mentioned. I'll look into that and see what could be done about it if there is indeed a problem.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

The whole concept of advantage stacking comes about because you don't have to purchase advantages on other advantages, but merely on the base power. So it's cheaper to add advantages to a low base power high advantage attack than a high base power attack.

 

For example, a 4d6 Area Effect NND costs the same as a 12d6 EB. But to purchase 0 End would cost only 10 additional points for the first attack and 30 additional points for the 2nd attack.

Right, I just wanted to know which ones might cause a problem and look at them.

 

So how do you resolve the problem with the example you just gave?

Do you forbid combining those advantages (NND, 0 END, Area Effect)?

 

If it is already a problem with the current rules, how is that now handled?

Just wondering.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

Let's try an example...

Yes, I understand the idea of Advantage Stacking. And your example shows it quite well using my Advantage.

 

But how is this different than any other Stacking issue with other Advantages in the system?

 

Is it because it actually does more Body than normal?

 

I'm sure there has to be other advantages in the current system that have the exact same problem. How were those problems addressed?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

Right, I just wanted to know which ones might cause a problem and look at them.

 

So how do you resolve the problem with the example you just gave?

Do you forbid combining those advantages (NND, 0 END, Area Effect)?

 

If it is already a problem with the current rules, how is that now handled?

Just wondering.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Yes, I understand the idea of Advantage Stacking. And your example shows it quite well using my Advantage.

 

But how is this different than any other Stacking issue with other Advantages in the system?

 

Is it because it actually does more Body than normal?

 

I'm sure there has to be other advantages in the current system that have the exact same problem. How were those problems addressed?

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

This is back to the whole stacking issue. The rules currently manage by exception, so in theory you would build more exceptions to manage this, increasing the Advantage cost when stacked with AoE or Autofire or NND or various others.

 

The problem compared to "any other Stacking issue with other Advantages in the system" is the sheer prevalence of KAs in various genra, hence its break-out as its own power from the earliest editions.

 

I don't think the discussion is too reasonable as a workable rule outside of particular house circumstances without addressing the underlying stacking effectiveness issues.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

Thanks Hugh' date=' I knew you would help me with this. (8^D)[/quote']

 

We live to serve. It's an interesting idea, but I think there are reasons we don't have an attack that does huge amounts of BOD, such as this proposal would create.

 

Now since you used 90 Active Points for your example' date=' let's use that same number for Defenses in retrospect.[/quote']

 

OK - and let's compare them to the results of a 12d6 +1/2 Killing attack, averaging 24 BOD, a 6d6 +2 Killing Attack, averaging 30 BOD, and that 1d6 +17 KA averaging 35 BOD. Let's also look at the 1 in 6 chance that attack gets 70 BOD instead.

 

SIDE NOTE: The stacking of KA advantage alone, while it boosts the BOD, doesn't boost it substantially, so it may not be hugely problematic. I'd be far better off buying AP and Penetrating, and only getting 33 BOD. That means a minimum of 33 STUN gets through (I can't see how the BOD is penetrating) unless the character has double hardened defenses. Inflicting a guaranteed 33 STUN matches the average for a 90 DC attack, assuming characters are buying commensurate defenses, say 30/30 Resistant, precisely.

 

90 Active Points allows the following combinations:

90 PD (45 rPD) or 90 ED (45 rED)

 

To spend only 90 points, this character has either 90 PD or 90 ED, is defenseless in the other category and has no resistant defenses. He's likely dead when hit with any kiling attack, so let's discard this option.

 

45 PD/ED (23 rPD/rED)

 

With 45/45, the character has already spent his 90 points and has no resistant defenses. Better balanced against PD and ED attacks, but just as dead when struck with a KA.

 

72 rPD or 72 rED

 

Immune to KA's of the right defense and deceased if struck with a KA of the wrong defense. [NOTE: if you are the attacker, exchange the words "right" and "wrong" ]

 

60 Armor (30 rPD/rED) or various combinations

 

This assumes a character who makes all of his defenses resistant, so fair enough. He will take no BOD on average, some from an above average damage roll at the +1 level, and 5 from an average roll on the 1d6 maximized KA (he's dead if the guy rolls a 6). To me, this is a pretty reasonable maximum, by the way. How many characters in a 60 AP attacks game have 20/20 resistant defenses?

 

90 Force Field (45 rPD/rED) or various combinations

 

Make sure you keep spending that 9 END per phase - when the Field drops, you're dead. More to the point, in most games I don't think force field users have 50% more defenses than armor wearers.

 

May I suggest another combination? Equal PD and ED, half of which is resistant. That would be 36 PD and ED, 18 of which is resistant. This character would take 3 BOD damage from a typical 6d6 killing attack in the current system. In your proposed system, he takes 6 BOD from a +1/2 KA, 12 from a +1 KA and 17 from the 1d6 monster KA. To reiterate, I think this approach motivates characters to enhance their resistant defenses to increase their ability to survive.

 

Now that assumes the 18 points is only Resistant once. If he pays the same +1/2 he would pay in the normal game, he'd get "double resistant" in your structure, so his full 36 defense would resist the killing attack, as he would have a multiple. I hadn't previously recognized that you have effectively reduced the price of resistant defenses by half.

 

While that goes some way to balancing KA's and resistant defenses, it throws force fields and armor out of whack compared to buying defenses and damage resistance.

 

If I buy +10 Armor, it costs 15 points and is resistant, so I subtract 10 BOD from a killing attack that hits me. Similarly, a 10 point force field at 0 END will subtract 10 BOD. For the same price, I can have +12 PD, Resistant (+1/4) and take 12 BOD off any KA that hits me, plus take an extra 2 stun off other attacks, or I can have +10 PD, Double Resistant, and get the benefit of subtracting 20, rather than 10, points from killing attacks' BOD damage.

 

The easy solution here would be to make Armor and Force Fields double resistant by default, but even then adding more layers of Resistant will be cheaper for defenses than for Armor and Force Fields.

 

Since Force Field can be used in Frameworks' date=' I think Foci protected by such are relatively safe.[/quote']

 

Foci carried by persons who have Force Fields that Protect Carried Objects are relatively safe. What percentage of focus users does that make up? Agenst, in particular, will see their foci trashed in short order.

 

Yes' date=' but it wouldn't actually increase the Body done to defenses, so nothing is gained. But certainly a valid choice.[/quote']

 

Increasing the BOD per AP creates the imbalance.

 

Using a 90 AP example once more, how useful are Entangles? Average 9 BOD 9 DEF crumbles before these revised Killing Attacks. Force Walls are similarly disadvantaged. They need substantially greater AP to stand any chance of blocking a killing attack.

 

 

Also' date=' what I infer from this is that this advantage should definately have a Caution Sign on it or perhaps a Stop Sign, just like many other advantages that can lead to abuse.[/quote']

 

Except that, unlike most Caution or Stop Sign powers, Killing attacks are pretty much universal in their scope. Will street ounks no longer carry guns or switchblades because KA's have a stop sign?

 

Well that really depends on the type of game the GM and Players want, right?

Not what I or you want aesthetically. You quite right in that it depends on what the "game purpose of a killing attack", but this should be determined by the GM and Players, not the game, right? (8^D)

 

If you want significantly higher lethality, there are ways to achieve it without this type of optional rule. Most simply, restricting the frequency and magnitude of resistant defenses makes killing attacks more lethal without placing Entangles and Force Walls in the trash.

 

One way to look at it is as an Optional Advantage/Rule like Hit Locations. It's there to allow for different game experience' date=' but it's up to the GM and Players to decide that. We don't remove the Hit Locations just because the game defines what the kind of game it should be (Champions), do we? (8^D)[/quote']

 

Hit locations don't change the structure near as much as this approach. [uGH! Imagine a head hit with one of these killing attacks!]

 

I do need help with identifying possible over the board gotchas' date=' like the Advantage Stacking issue that was mentioned. I'll look into that and see what could be done about it if there is indeed a problem.[/quote']

 

Elimination of the ability to buy multiples would mitigate this considerably.

 

The other issue I see is the relegation of entangles and force walls to "virtually useless" status, and the Focus becoming an engangered species due to the ease with which these new KA's will demolish them.

[schir1964]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

This is back to the whole stacking issue. The rules currently manage by exception, so in theory you would build more exceptions to manage this, increasing the Advantage cost when stacked with AoE or Autofire or NND or various others.

 

The problem compared to "any other Stacking issue with other Advantages in the system" is the sheer prevalence of KAs in various genra, hence its break-out as its own power from the earliest editions.

 

I don't think the discussion is too reasonable as a workable rule outside of particular house circumstances without addressing the underlying stacking effectiveness issues.

Ah, okay. So the prevalance of Killing Attacks simply highlights the stacking issue which already exists.

 

That makes sense.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

Actually, wasn't trying to simplify anything. I was re-reading the threads concerning Killing Attacks and possible other mechanics.

 

Basically, those who post about it's "problems" boils down to two things:

 

1) Stun Lotto = Bad (Obviously you don't have problem with this).

2) Killing Attacks should do more body than normal attacks on average regardless of Stun results.

If this is your goal, it seems to me there are much easier ways of doing it. A method I've proposed involves simply treating KAs just like normal attacks except that (1) they apply the BODY only against Resistant Defences and STUN vs. all defenses if the target has some resistant (just like the standard way) and (2) the BODY & STUN are counted slightly differently:

 

Number on d6: 1   2   3   4   5   6
Normal STUN:  1   2   3   4   5   6  (standard)
Normal BODY:  0   1   1   1   1   2  (standard)
Killing STUN: 1*  1   2   3   4   5
Killing BODY: 0   1   1   1   2   2

 

This method produces the *exact* same average STUN and BODY as the standard Killing Attacks do. Same maximum, too.

 

*You can let a roll of 1 be 0 STUN on a Killing Attack if you like, then it's just a simple matter of adding the dice and then subtracting the number of dice.

[schir1964]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

We live to serve. It's an interesting idea' date=' but I think there are reasons we don't have an attack that does huge amounts of BOD, such as this proposal would create.[/quote']

Perhaps, but Armor Piercing and Penetrating have similar effects as far a Body is concerned. But I hear what you are saying.

 

OK - and let's compare them to the results of a 12d6 +1/2 Killing attack' date=' averaging 24 BOD, a 6d6 +2 Killing Attack, averaging 30 BOD, and that 1d6 +17 KA averaging 35 BOD. Let's also look at the 1 in 6 chance that attack gets 70 BOD instead.[/quote']

Yes, the variance of any 1d6 attack with lots of nasty Advantages will always be abusive. This is again no different than standard 1d6 Killing Attack with lots of Stun Multiplier, one does more Body, the other does more Stun. Both are abusive. I'm not saying that my construct may have more effect since we are dealing with Body damage. I'm probably going to make a change to the values and run the numbers again to see how they compare.

 

SIDE NOTE: The stacking of KA advantage alone' date=' while it boosts the BOD, doesn't boost it substantially, so it may not be hugely problematic. I'd be far better off buying AP and Penetrating, and only getting 33 BOD. That means a minimum of 33 STUN gets through (I can't see how the BOD is penetrating) unless the character has double hardened defenses. Inflicting a guaranteed 33 STUN matches the average for a 90 DC attack, assuming characters are buying commensurate defenses, say 30/30 Resistant, precisely.[/quote']

Agreed. This is what I was getting at. As far as Penetrating with Killing Attacks, you are guaranteed 1 Body damage per 1d6 thrown regardless of any defenses, if I'm not mistaken.

 

To spend only 90 points' date=' this character has either 90 PD or 90 ED, is defenseless in the other category and has no resistant defenses. He's likely dead when hit with any kiling attack, so let's discard this option.[/quote']

Actually, you are incorrect. (8^D)

Re-read my initial post. Normal Defenses get half effect vs Killing Attacks with this construct. So in either case, the character gets 90 PD/45 rPD or 90 ED/45 rED. This of course affects some of your other posts based on this mis-information.

 

So this may have an effect on your analysis

 

This assumes a character who makes all of his defenses resistant' date=' so fair enough. He will take no BOD on average, some from an above average damage roll at the +1 level, and 5 from an average roll on the 1d6 maximized KA (he's dead if the guy rolls a 6). To me, this is a pretty reasonable maximum, by the way. How many characters in a 60 AP attacks game have 20/20 resistant defenses?[/quote']

Okay let me make sure I understand this.

60 Active Points

Attack:

1d6 (+11 KA grants x22 Damage Multiplier) 60 Active Points. (0,1,2 = 0,22,44 Body Damage)

Possible Defense:

60 PD/30 rPD

60 ED/30 rED

30 PD/ED (15 rPD/rED)

60 Armor (20 rPD/rED)

60 Force Field (30 rPD/rED)

 

Yep, anyone getting hit by this attack is going to be hurt badly, and couple of them will be dead. But then again, if the GM is allowing +11 worth of advantages for any power in his game, he's got other issues to deal with, not just this one. (8^D)

 

Even purchasing non-resistant defenses, the character wouldn't truely be dead from this attack given the same points spent on same type the attack is against. (See my correction above about normal defenses)

 

If the character doesn't have the appropriate defenses, then it is no different than the current system. If you don't have the defense you don't have the defense, that is why it is called a Killing Attack in the current system.

 

I'll skip a lot of the other points since you are evaluating it on mis-information.

 

Now that assumes the 18 points is only Resistant once. If he pays the same +1/2 he would pay in the normal game, he'd get "double resistant" in your structure, so his full 36 defense would resist the killing attack, as he would have a multiple. I hadn't previously recognized that you have effectively reduced the price of resistant defenses by half.

 

While that goes some way to balancing KA's and resistant defenses, it throws force fields and armor out of whack compared to buying defenses and damage resistance.

And what is stop you from applying the Resistant Advantage to Armor and Force Field?

I haven't made a decision yet since I haven't had a chance to run the numbers for those constructs.

 

Allowing this might good or bad depending.

 

The easy solution here would be to make Armor and Force Fields double resistant by default' date=' but even then adding more layers of Resistant will be cheaper for defenses than for Armor and Force Fields.[/quote']

Yes, but you are getting more Resistant Defenses for lower cost upfront with the initial purchase. Whether this is fully equitable trade off or not, I don't know.

 

Foci carried by persons who have Force Fields that Protect Carried Objects are relatively safe. What percentage of focus users does that make up? Agenst' date=' in particular, will see their foci trashed in short order.[/quote']

Well that is issue. I don't have time to address it right now, so I'll deal with it at the same time I deal with Advantage Stacking.

 

Increasing the BOD per AP creates the imbalance.

 

Using a 90 AP example once more, how useful are Entangles? Average 9 BOD 9 DEF crumbles before these revised Killing Attacks. Force Walls are similarly disadvantaged. They need substantially greater AP to stand any chance of blocking a killing attack.

Well, if the BOD per AP is an imbalance, wouldn't DEF per AP also be considered an imbalance, which is what Entangles do?

 

Not saying your wrong, just that you would have to gage both implemenations as the same, since they use the same implementation.

 

Except that' date=' unlike most Caution or Stop Sign powers, Killing attacks are pretty much universal in their scope. Will street ounks no longer carry guns or switchblades because KA's have a stop sign?[/quote']

Two problems with your presumptions here.

 

1) Killing Attacks are not Universal in their scope. But of course we may have completely different ideas as what this actually means. (8^D)

2) "Commone Guns/Switchblades" aren't going to be any different than they are now. How do they pose imbalance. Only when a player starts trying to tack on the extra levels is when the GM should start looking, which is what the whole point of the Caution/Stop Sign is all about. I'm sure there are other examples of existing mechanics that have Caution/Stop Signs that are just as staple as Killing Attacks are. I don't have my book handy so I'll look them up later.

 

If you want significantly higher lethality' date=' there are ways to achieve it without this type of optional rule. Most simply, restricting the frequency and magnitude of resistant defenses makes killing attacks more lethal without placing Entangles and Force Walls in the trash.[/quote']

This is philisophical point, and this is one option the GM has, if that is what he truly wants, but then again, maybe he wants to destroy objects and not be more lethal to characters. or maybe both. So this is simply another option for the GM to get what he truly wants.

 

Hit locations don't change the structure near as much as this approach. [uGH! Imagine a head hit with one of these killing attacks!]

Of course not since it is an optional rule meant to be a tack on to how the current system works. But this is a rabbit trail where I could continue to give example after example using existing mechanics and you'll simply find some way to refute them that would make sense to you.

 

Understood. You think the current construct as you understand is too powerful for what it does. I'm inclined to agree with you at this point, but I don't agree that it is necessarily a bad idea as far game style is concerned.

 

So I will be changing the values and running the numbers again to try to trim down the fat of the benefit.

 

Elimination of the ability to buy multiples would mitigate this considerably.

Which it is actually meant have, per the GM. If you are suggesting a Guideline for the GM, I'm not opposed to that.

 

Some GMs here already impose a +2 Advantage restiction on all powers. That would take care of the problem, right.

 

The other issue I see is the relegation of entangles and force walls to "virtually useless" status' date=' and the Focus becoming an engangered species due to the ease with which these new KA's will demolish them.[/quote']

Agreed. I'll look at this in more depth later.

 

You've brought up some great points.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

If this is your goal...

The goals aren't really mine. I simply noticed them in the other thread and this was a different way to approach it.

 

Did you post your solution to the other thread?

I don't remember seeing it, but that was a large thread. If you did, no seemed to mention it later on.

 

Of course, Hugh might not like this solution either since it may be overly effective vs Focii/Entangles, but it may be a matter of degree, and it is hard to know how much is too much.

 

Thanks anyway though.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

Perhaps' date=' but Armor Piercing and Penetrating have similar effects as far a Body is concerned. But I hear what you are saying.[/quote']

 

AP halves defenses at the cost of reducing average BOD by 1/3. Penetrating lets you get an average of 1 BOD per KA die through non-hardened defenses. Both are advantages I look pretty carefully at when applied to KA’s because of their lethality. Let’s shift to 60 AP attacks:

 

Current system: 4d6 KA averages 14 BOD. 2 1/2d6 AP averages 9 BOD. Against a target with 10 rDEF, they each do 5 BOD. 21/2 d6 Pen averages 9 BOD, 2.5 penetrating, so the target takes 2.5 BOD.

 

8d6 Killing +1/2 averages 16 BOD, so the same rDEF takes 6 BOD. Make it AP and it’s now 6d6 averaging 12 BOD and getting 7 BOD through. We’ve already addressed advantage stacking, so let’s leave that as a separate issue, although I would expect to see some KA’s at the +1 or +1 ½ level. You suggest capping the advantages at +2 below. That would be 4d6 KA +1 1/2 (16 average BOD) AP, so 9 BOD past defenses.

 

Agreed. This is what I was getting at. As far as Penetrating with Killing Attacks' date=' you are guaranteed 1 Body damage per 1d6 thrown regardless of any defenses, if I'm not mistaken.[/quote']

 

Not quite – it’s normal BOD counted on killing dice. That will be the average. Applied to the new KA, however, you toss more dice. A 6d6 +1/2 KA Penetrating attack, if it gets 1 BOD through per die guaranteed, gets 6 BOD through guaranteed. That’s quite a bit higher than the 2.5 BOD a 60 AP penetrating KA will average in the current rules.

 

NOTE: None of the above takes the mitigating effect of your change in defenses into account.

 

Actually, you are incorrect.

Re-read my initial post. Normal Defenses get half effect vs Killing Attacks with this construct. So in either case, the character gets 90 PD/45 rPD or 90 ED/45 rED. This of course affects some of your other posts based on this mis-information.

 

So if I pay 30 points for PD, I get 30/15. If I spend 37 (+1/4 Resistant), it’s 30/30.

 

I have to pay 45 for Armor that’s 30/30, or 30 for a force field that’s 30/30 and costs END. The change to the cost of resistant defenses changes the balance between armor/force field and ordinary defenses. It also means there are no more non-bulletproof characters – a normal human with 2 PD should be immune to papercuts.

 

Probably not a major issue as I don’t see a lot of characters without some level of resistant defenses. However, a “tough guy” fantasy character with 8 PD is now immune to BOD from a typically strike from a 2d6 KA (a 3 DC attack), even when wearing no armor. Is this a desirable result?

 

Okay let me make sure I understand this.

60 Active Points

Attack:

1d6 (+11 KA grants x22 Damage Multiplier) 60 Active Points. (0,1,2 = 0,22,44 Body Damage)

Possible Defense:

60 PD/30 rPD

60 ED/30 rED

30 PD/ED (15 rPD/rED)

60 Armor (20 rPD/rED)

60 Force Field (30 rPD/rED)

 

Yep, anyone getting hit by this attack is going to be hurt badly, and couple of them will be dead. But then again, if the GM is allowing +11 worth of advantages for any power in his game, he's got other issues to deal with, not just this one.

 

Even purchasing non-resistant defenses, the character wouldn't truely be dead from this attack given the same points spent on same type the attack is against. (See my correction above about normal defenses)

 

Let’s make it 9d6 with +1 Killing. That’s 27 BOD on average, more than enough to hospitalize our 30 PD, 15rPD character. Dropping the example down to 60 AP, it’s 6d6 killing, average 18 BOD. What’s the typical defenses for such a game, about 20/10? Two hits and near death seems very lethal to me. The character is effectively forced to make a greater proportion of his defenses resistant. Mind you, he can have 30 PD, all resistant, for the same cost he previously paid for 30 PD, 15 resistant.

 

So the net impact of the change is that KA’s still inflict no BOD on typical opponents, they now are much less effective at inflicting STUN, but they are vastly superior at breaking objects, force walls and entangles. I guess I may as well have one in my Multipower in case of an opponent silly enough to still have an entangle, force wall or focus in the “new world order”.

 

Phil’s approach is, in my view, a far superior, and more intuitive, means of fixing the stun multiple problem without changing the balance of KA to other abilities. Why make a change any more drastic than that needed to fix the underlying problem?

 

I guess if you want to play Cthulhu Hero (ie if the opponent has an attack of any real significance, one hit death is likely), this might be a good optional rule, but I can get the same result by just stepping up the AP for their attacks.

 

And what is stop you from applying the Resistant Advantage to Armor and Force Field?

 

Nothing, but they still start out behind regular defenses. If I have 20 PD, I start with 10 rPD. For +5 points, I get another 10 rPD. 20 PD, 20rPD, cost 25 points. For a further 5 points, I get 20 more rPD (but no more PD).

 

If I use armor instead, I start by paying 30 points for 20 PD, 20rPD. That’s a 5 point premium on buying PD and making it Resistant. If I want 20PD, 40 rPD through Armor, I need to make it Resistant, so that’s 37 points, 7 more than just buying PD and making it resistant. Under your approach, armor becomes more costly than the equivalent resistant defense at all levels. Is this a rational result? Armor is, mechanically, just resistant PD with another name.

 

If I use a force field, I can buy 20 PD, 20 rPD for 20 points, but I pay END. To be comparable, it needs to be 0 END, which is 30 points. Again, 5 point advantage to just buying resistant PD. If I want 40rPD, I need one level of resistant, which costs another 5 points, so the force field stays 5 points more costly than equivalent resistant defenses purchased as PD and Resistant.

 

Allowing this might good or bad depending.

 

I’d say there’s no good from making two mechanically identical abilities carry different point costs.

 

Yes' date=' but you are getting more Resistant Defenses for lower cost upfront with the initial purchase. Whether this is fully equitable trade off or not, I don't know.[/quote']

 

If I only spend 20 points on Armor, I get 13 1/3 PD, all resistant, versus 20 PD, 10 resistant. For +1/4 on 4 PD (one more point), I can make those 4 points fully resistant and get 20 PD, 14 Resistant. 21 points spent on armor gets me 14 PD, 14 rPD. Given the choice of getting an extra nonresistant 6 PD for free, or not getting it, the answer seems pretty obvious.

 

Well' date=' if the BOD per AP is an imbalance, wouldn't DEF per AP also be considered an imbalance, which is what Entangles do?[/quote']

 

I don’t think we agree as to what entangles do. I don’t find them to be unbalanced at the present time, so adding an attack that walks all over them, to me, throws them out of balance into the “virtually useless” category.

 

Not saying your wrong, just that you would have to gage both implemenations as the same, since they use the same implementation.

 

Two problems with your presumptions here.

 

1) Killing Attacks are not Universal in their scope. But of course we may have completely different ideas as what this actually means.

 

Show me any genre where another Caution/Stop Sign power is routinely available to low power grunts [OOPS! You said you would just below – I’ll look forward to it]. Any street thug or bandit will have a KA.

 

2) "Common Guns/Switchblades" aren't going to be any different than they are now. How do they pose imbalance. Only when a player starts trying to tack on the extra levels is when the GM should start looking' date=' which is what the whole point of the Caution/Stop Sign is all about. I'm sure there are other examples of existing mechanics that have Caution/Stop Signs that are just as staple as Killing Attacks are. I don't have my book handy so I'll look them up later. [/quote']

 

The KA as you propose to redefine it is virtually useless absent some additional multipliers – the BOD increase doesn’t offset the STUN loss at the base level, especially when even Joe Normal gets 1 rDEF for free.

 

BTW, under your model, does 1 rDEF still mean normal defenses apply vs KA Stun, or do only rDEF apply vs KA Stun?

 

Understood. You think the current construct as you understand is too powerful for what it does. I'm inclined to agree with you at this point' date=' but I don't agree that it is necessarily a bad idea as far game style is concerned.[/quote']

 

“Too powerful” is an imprecise term. I think it:

- overly increases lethality

- creates an ability which either kills the target or does nothing (I don’t like that kind of binary result)

- eliminates other game mechanics (entangle, force wall, probably foci) from being viable

 

None of those issues are necessarily insurmountable. However, I don’t see a problem solved by this option which provides a sufficient benefit to justify having to deal with these issues.

[schir1964]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

The change to the cost of resistant defenses changes the balance between armor/force field and ordinary defenses. It also means there are no more non-bulletproof characters – a normal human with 2 PD should be immune to papercuts.

I only take exception to this because it is a gross mis-representation of what this construct actually does.

 

1) "Non-Bulletproof Characters" is flat out wrong, since a normal character (2 PD/2 ED) can be killed just as easily with this Killing Advantage as with the standard Killing Attack. My system allows them to substract 1 rPD/1 rED from the Killing Damage. If you are somehow equating this to a "Bulletproof Character", I'd like to know how.

2) "immune to papercuts" is an interpretation that is extremely reaching. I wouldn't classify a "Papercut" as a Killing Attack and not even as a Nomral Attack. I don't understand this comparison at all.

 

Probably not a major issue as I don’t see a lot of characters without some level of resistant defenses. However' date=' a “tough guy” fantasy character with 8 PD is now immune to BOD from a typically strike from a 2d6 KA (a 3 DC attack), even when wearing no armor. Is this a desirable result?[/quote']

Understand where are you coming from.

 

But you have the exact same problem with all Figured Stats. You get them by default when you purchase the primary stats whether you want them or not. The same solution for them should also work here.

 

Of course I myself would wonder how a Normal without armor has 8 PD, and saying he just a "Tough Guy" wouldn't do it, but that's just me. Other GMs may differ.

 

Let’s make it 9d6 with +1 Killing. That’s 27 BOD on average, more than enough to hospitalize our 30 PD, 15rPD character. Dropping the example down to 60 AP, it’s 6d6 killing, average 18 BOD. What’s the typical defenses for such a game, about 20/10? Two hits and near death seems very lethal to me. The character is effectively forced to make a greater proportion of his defenses resistant. Mind you, he can have 30 PD, all resistant, for the same cost he previously paid for 30 PD, 15 resistant.

 

So the net impact of the change is that KA’s still inflict no BOD on typical opponents, they now are much less effective at inflicting STUN, but they are vastly superior at breaking objects, force walls and entangles. I guess I may as well have one in my Multipower in case of an opponent silly enough to still have an entangle, force wall or focus in the “new world order”.

Hugh, stop beating the horse. It's dead. (8^D)

 

I already said that I'm inclined to agree with you that the current construct is too powerful right now. I'm going to change it. So don't bother with any more number comparisons until that is done.

 

With the current system, Killing Attacks cost 3x as much as Normal Attack. My construct is no where near that expensive. The cost has to go up.

 

Phil’s approach is' date=' in my view, a far superior, and more intuitive, means of fixing the stun multiple problem without changing the balance of KA to other abilities. Why make a change any more drastic than that needed to fix the underlying problem?[/quote']

Not sure if it is "more intuitive", and I already said that there was nothing wrong with it. But from you point of view, wouldn't it alllow break those Entangles/Focii much easier?

I figured you wouldn't like based on just that result. But again, it may be a matter of degrees.

 

I guess if you want to play Cthulhu Hero (ie if the opponent has an attack of any real significance' date=' one hit death is likely), this might be a good optional rule, but I can get the same result by just stepping up the AP for their attacks.[/quote']

Well, considering how you showing just how weak AP is compared to this construct, I guess you would have to be stepping it up a lot. I don't know.

 

Nothing' date=' but they still start out behind regular defenses. If I have 20 PD, I start with 10 rPD. For +5 points, I get another 10 rPD. 20 PD, 20rPD, cost 25 points. For a further 5 points, I get 20 more rPD (but no more PD).[/quote']

Yeah... I don't know what the problem is?

I do better with charts.

 

If I use armor instead' date=' I start by paying 30 points for 20 PD, 20rPD.[/quote']

Ummm.... maybe I'm just dense, but there is no 20 PD in Armor. It's all Resistant by default.

 

That’s a 5 point premium on buying PD and making it Resistant.

Yes, I already said this was so.

 

If I want 20PD' date=' 40 rPD through Armor, I need to make it Resistant, so that’s 37 points[/quote']

Ummm.... you lost me. Armor is resistant by default. There is no extra points spent to make it resistant. Secondly, if you want to double the effect, you add another Level of Resistant, and now you simply have 40 rPD Armor. Done.

This might be too cheap, but I haven't run the numbers on it yet.

 

If I use a force field' date=' I can buy 20 PD, 20 rPD for 20 points, but I pay END. To be comparable, it needs to be 0 END, which is 30 points. Again, 5 point advantage to just buying resistant PD. If I want 40rPD, I need one level of resistant, which costs another 5 points, so the force field stays 5 points more costly than equivalent resistant defenses purchased as PD and Resistant.[/quote']

See above response.

 

I’d say there’s no good from making two mechanically identical abilities carry different point costs.

[Nit Pick] They are not identical abilities since they are different constructs in the current rules to begin with. But I get the gist of what you mean by that.

 

I don’t think we agree as to what entangles do. I don’t find them to be unbalanced at the present time' date=' so adding an attack that walks all over them, to me, throws them out of balance into the “virtually useless” category.[/quote']

You just keep beating that dead horse... (8^D)

 

Not saying your wrong' date=' just that you would have to gage both implemenations as the same, since they use the same implementation.[/quote']

Precisely what I'm attempting to do here. You help is greatly appreciated.

 

Show me any genre where another Caution/Stop Sign power is routinely available to low power grunts [OOPS! You said you would just below – I’ll look forward to it]. Any street thug or bandit will have a KA.

First, I would strongly disagree with that last sentence.

I would agree with, "Any street thug or bandit will have an Attack (Normal or Killing)."

 

Okay, let's take trip down the rabbit hole. (8^D)

Lighting Reflexes (Caution): I easily see many thugs/bandits having this.

Missle Deflection (Caution): Thrown objects only of course.

Cumulative (Caution): Thugs are notorious for using knockout chemicals (Ether) for kidnappings.

Penetrating (Caution): Thugs use weapons that are going to hurt, whether lethal/non-lethal.

 

Now personally, I think NND and Damage Shield should be Caution Signs as well, but that's just me.

 

You'll probably disagree with most of what I stated here, but that's okay, since this is mainly opinion and perception of the certain genre's anyway.

 

BTW' date=' under your model, does 1 rDEF still mean normal defenses apply vs KA Stun, or do only rDEF apply vs KA Stun?[/quote']

Good question. Haven't decided yet, since I haven't run the numbers either way.

 

None of those issues are necessarily insurmountable. However' date=' I don’t see a problem solved by this option which provides a sufficient benefit to justify having to deal with these issues.[/quote']

Well, you'll have to take it up with the other posters who I co-opted the goals from. (8^D)

 

Where some people see a problem, others see a feature. Go figgur... (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

1) "Non-Bulletproof Characters" is flat out wrong, since a normal character (2 PD/2 ED) can be killed just as easily with this Killing Advantage as with the standard Killing Attack. My system allows them to substract 1 rPD/1 rED from the Killing Damage. If you are somehow equating this to a "Bulletproof Character", I'd like to know how.

 

2) "immune to papercuts" is an interpretation that is extremely reaching. I wouldn't classify a "Papercut" as a Killing Attack and not even as a Nomral Attack. I don't understand this comparison at all.

 

All characters now have resistant defenses. How many 2PD/2ED characters do you see in combat in your games? A character who has any sort of combat build will almost certainly have more than 2 PD/ED. How much ED does it require to hold your hand in a candleflame and never take BOD damage? If they have resistant defense, why don't hypodermic needles bend rather than penetrate their skin? How mush rDEF is required to achieve these effects? It does become a philosophical issue as much as a mechanical issue.

 

As for papercuts, they inflict well under 1 BOD, but they cut flesh. I don't think Superman gets papercuts, or pokes his finger with a staple. Batman does (or is at least susceptible to these) and firm leather gloves (which may not even add a whole 1 DEF) will protect you from them. How much rDEF does it take to be protected? In the current mechanics structure, I can easily say "1 rDEF means the character is immune to papercuts" - he has something normal human flesh lacks. Limitations may override this (Combat Luck, I'm looking at you...), but in general, I would not expect a character with resistant defense to suffer papercuts.

 

But you have the exact same problem with all Figured Stats. You get them by default when you purchase the primary stats whether you want them or not. The same solution for them should also work here.

 

I can sell back figured stats. Can I sell back resistant defenses? I don't find a character getting +1 PD because he buys +5 STR to be a big deal. However, a character buying +12 PD (and we're out of the heroic realm now) and becoming immune to damage from a switchblade doesn't sit right.

 

Of course I myself would wonder how a Normal without armor has 8 PD' date=' and saying he just a "Tough Guy" wouldn't do it, but that's just me. Other GMs may differ.[/quote']

 

8 is the human limit before NCM doubling kicks in, if I recall correctly. Let's call him a champion level boxer. He's pretty resistant to punches - OK. he can't cut his finger with a paring knife? Not so OK - at least in my view.

 

With the current system' date=' Killing Attacks cost 3x as much as Normal Attack. My construct is no where near that expensive. The cost has to go up.[/quote']

 

I think "KA is 3x as expensive as a Normal Attack" is a pretty superficial analysis. A 1d6 KA is a 3 DC attack. 3 DC of killing attack costs the same as 3 DC of normal attack. It averages 1/6 more BOD (3.5 vs 3) and 88.9% as much Stun (3.5 x 2.67 = 9.33 vs 10.5). Your KA, at the +1/2 level, does 2/3 the Stun (2d6 rather than 3d6) and 1/3 more BOD (4 rather than 3).

 

We haven't looked at knockback, come to think of it. A 12d6 normal attack averages 12 BOD, 5" knockback. A 4d6 KA averages 14 BOD, 3.5" Knockback. An 8d6 "new" KA averages 16 Bod and 5.5" knockback, assuming the same "one more die subtracted" rule applies. in Supers games, at least, it looks like KA's will do more knockback than normal attacks. Again, this is a function of the multiplicated BOD. Maybe the easiest solution is to leave KA's with -2d6, but use the base BOD, with no multiples, to determine knockback. Your KA's at the example level then do considerably less knockback than the standard mechanic (average 1" at 12 DC level).

 

Not sure if it is "more intuitive", and I already said that there was nothing wrong with it. But from you point of view, wouldn't it alllow break those Entangles/Focii much easier?

I figured you wouldn't like based on just that result. But again, it may be a matter of degrees.

 

Phil's structure resolves the stun multiple while leaving average BOD unchanged from the current KA structure. As such, his KA's are exactly as dangerous to an entangle, force wall or focus as the current KA structure - no more, no less. They do lose some volatility, which is why they alleviate the Stun Multiple issue.

 

Well' date=' considering how you showing just how weak AP is compared to this construct, I guess you would have to be stepping it up a lot. I don't know.[/quote']

 

Actually, I meant AP as in Active points in this context.

 

Ummm.... maybe I'm just dense, but there is no 20 PD in Armor. It's all Resistant by default.

 

Ummm.... you lost me. Armor is resistant by default. There is no extra points spent to make it resistant. Secondly, if you want to double the effect, you add another Level of Resistant, and now you simply have 40 rPD Armor. Done.

This might be too cheap, but I haven't run the numbers on it yet.

 

It provides 20 PD which is all resistant, compared to 20 PD, of which half is resistant. To buy armor, I pay 1.5 points per +1 defense, and get fully resistant defenses. To buy PD/ED, I pay 1 point per +1 defense and it's not resistant. Under the current model, I add 1/2 point per +1 defense to make it resistant, so it costs exactly the same as armor and does exactly what armor does. Same cost, same benefit. Seems fair.

 

Under your model, I pay 1.5 points for 1 PD armor. This increases my PD by 1 and also increases my rPD by 1. IOW, I subtract 1 from STUN from attacks, and I subtract 1 from BOD done by a KA.

 

If I spend 1.5 points on PD, being +1 PD, +1/2 Resistant, this increases my PD by 1, but increases my rPD by 2. IOW, I subtract 1 from STUN from attacks, and I subtract 2 from BOD done by a KA. The Resistant PD carries the same cost, but provides one extra defense against KA Bod. What advantage does Armor offer to make it worth the same point cost?

 

They are not identical abilities since they are different constructs in the current rules to begin with. But I get the gist of what you mean by that.

 

They are functionally identical abilities. Armor and PD or ED made resistant have exactly the same function in game. There is no mechanical difference whatsoever. How many GM's would tell a player running, say, Colossus that his steel skin either MUST BE or CANNOT BE purchased as Armor, rather than defenses and damage resistance?

 

First, I would strongly disagree with that last sentence.

I would agree with, "Any street thug or bandit will have an Attack (Normal or Killing)."

 

My assumption is that you are not changing the classification of typical attacks. Any street thug will commonly have a gun. Any bandit will commonly have a bow and a sword or knife. These are killing attacks. By contrast, I see very few thugs or bandits, in actual play experience, built using:

 

Lighting Reflexes (Caution): I easily see many thugs/bandits having this.

 

Which, frankly, merits a caution sign only to say "Be careful - when your player finds out how expensive this is for its utility you may have a problem."

 

Missle Deflection (Caution): Thrown objects only of course.

Cumulative (Caution): Thugs are notorious for using knockout chemicals (Ether) for kidnappings.

 

When did we start needing cumulative to do more STUN by attacking for another phase?

 

Penetrating (Caution): Thugs use weapons that are going to hurt' date=' whether lethal/non-lethal.[/quote']

 

How many standard weapons do you see written up with penetrating?

[schir1964]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

... I would not expect a character with resistant defense to suffer papercuts...

That's fine and there no reason that shouldn't make that call for your games.

 

But I wouldn't classify a paper cut as a Killing Attack, so normal defenses would apply normally. So technically, they are immune to them anyway. The net effect as far as game purposes, paper cuts are ignored unless it is a plot driven thing (the villian has you tied up in a device designed to give you a thousand paper cuts within two hours...(8^D)).

 

Neither of these is correct or incorrect.

 

Now if your trying to run a realistic game (paper cuts cause damage, 40 foot falls onto concrete are normally fatal) then your going to have some problems. There's already a thread that discussed the fact that the closer to real life you try to simulate with Hero, the more difficult it becomes due to trying to express mundane things with Hero mechanics. Just an aside.

 

I can sell back figured stats. Can I sell back resistant defenses? I don't find a character getting +1 PD because he buys +5 STR to be a big deal. However' date=' a character buying +12 PD (and we're out of the heroic realm now) and becoming immune to damage from a switchblade doesn't sit right.[/quote']

Actually, you can only sell back one. After that, you are pickled. The problem remains. (8^D)

 

8 is the human limit before NCM doubling kicks in' date=' if I recall correctly. Let's call him a champion level boxer. He's pretty resistant to punches - OK. he can't cut his finger with a paring knife? Not so OK - at least in my view.[/quote']

I wouldn't consider a champion level boxer having 8 PD in Hero. Perhaps 3, maybe 4 at most, but that's really pushing it. He's not Heroic and he's not a Superhero, which is what Hero is designed for.

 

But again, that's just my opinion, doesn't mean yours isn't as valid.

 

I think "KA is 3x as expensive as a Normal Attack" is a pretty superficial analysis. A 1d6 KA is a 3 DC attack. 3 DC of killing attack costs the same as 3 DC of normal attack. It averages 1/6 more BOD (3.5 vs 3) and 88.9% as much Stun (3.5 x 2.67 = 9.33 vs 10.5). Your KA' date=' at the +1/2 level, does 2/3 the Stun (2d6 rather than 3d6) and 1/3 more BOD (4 rather than 3).[/quote']

Perhaps it is superficial.

 

But now I have to ask, using what is straight out of the book, if I purchase the same number Dice for a plain old Energy Blast and a plain old Ranged Killing Attack, don't I pay 3x as much for same number dice?

Regardless of what damage they do, am I not paying 3x as much in points?

 

That's all I was referring to. Perhaps I'm being too simple looking at it that way. Obviously, the +1/2 isn't costing 3x as much like the current system, and you point out that it gives you more bang for the buck, which is correct and why I think the cost for my version of the Killing Attack should be increased.

 

Now how that balances (benefit vs detriment) with the rest of the powers will again need to be evaluated, which might be what you are referring to.

 

We haven't looked at knockback' date='...[/quote']

Good points all. I'll add that to my list of things to check over.

 

Phil's structure resolves the stun multiple while leaving average BOD unchanged from the current KA structure. As such' date=' his KA's are exactly as dangerous to an entangle, force wall or focus as the current KA structure - no more, no less. They do lose some volatility, which is why they alleviate the Stun Multiple issue.[/quote']

Yes, I'll take your and Phil's word on it for the Average. I don't doubt it. But could graph the distribution of the curve for me. I think the Bell Curve has been made steeper or wider or something. This could have an overall effect of making it easier to break Entangles/Focii more often than the current Killing Attack would. That's just my gut feeling. Could be way off on that. You guys are the number crunchers so I'll leave that one to you guys.

 

Actually' date=' I meant AP as in Active points in this context. [/quote']

Okay. (8^D)

That's why I spell out certain things unless I'm sure the context will make it clear what the acronym means. I have enough problems communicating without adding in more. (8^D)

 

Reading that made my head hurt.

I'm just not getting it. But that's nothing new for me.

 

: I don't agree that PD/ED + Resistant and Armor grant the same benefits/detriments. But maybe you weren't trying to imply that.

 

Okay, let me put down my own calculations and you can tell me where I'm daft. (8^D)

 

Armor (2 rPD, 0 rED) [Cost: 3 Points]

4 PD/2 rPD [Cost: 4 Points]

2 rPD [Cost: 3 Points]

 

Okay, I think I see what you are talking about. You think it is a problem that inherent defenses are getting more Normal Defense at the same level of Resistant Defense. I don't see this as unbalancing, since the player needs to have a reason to have high inherent defenses instead of Armor (Just because you can build it a certain way, doesn't mean you should).

 

They are functionally identical abilities. Armor and PD or ED made resistant have exactly the same function in game. There is no mechanical difference whatsoever. How many GM's would tell a player running' date=' say, Colossus that his steel skin either MUST BE or CANNOT BE purchased as Armor, rather than defenses and damage resistance?[/quote']

Actually, reasoning from effect, the Colossus's defenses should be purchased as a "Power", not as his normal PD/ED stats. This is where we may be talking past each other.

 

I've been talking about the PD/ED Stats, not PD/ED the Powers. There is a big difference between the two, just like the between PD/ED Stats and Armor.

 

You can turn off PD/ED Powers, Armor, and Force Field. You can not turn off PD/ED Stats.

 

So no, Colossus shouldn't be built with PD/ED the Stats since reasoning from SFX would seem to clearly indicate that his defense is a Power not a Stat.

 

Of course, Just My Humble Opinion.

 

My assumption is that you are not changing the classification of typical attacks. Any street thug will commonly have a gun. Any bandit will commonly have a bow and a sword or knife. These are killing attacks. By contrast' date=' I see very few thugs or bandits, in actual play experience, built using:[/quote']

Okay. Am I supposed to argue with that or something. (8^D)

 

I simply see more thugs carrying clubs than thugs with guns. But it depends on the genre. Since you mention the Bow for the Bandits, you just changed the setting of what I thought you were talking about before. In that setting, I wouild agree that Bandits specifically would generally carry Knives (big ones) since they are used for more than just attacking someone. But now you've just changed a major criteria of our discussion. I was talking about spending points for Nomal/Killing attacks, but what you've described here sounds more like equipment that isn't paid for by points.

 

Which' date=' frankly, merits a caution sign only to say "Be careful - when your player finds out how expensive this is for its utility you may have a problem."[/quote']

I see as guide for GMs, "Be careful with these powers since they could have alter or ruin plots and game fun."

 

When did we start needing cumulative to do more STUN by attacking for another phase?

Look Hugh, I'm giving you example SFX of common attacks in general that would require mechanics that have Caution/Stop signs. No where did I suggest that these SFX would only apply to EB/KA/STR.

 

Obviously, you haven't found as many uses for Culmulative that others have.

 

How many standard weapons do you see written up with penetrating?

Well, that depends on the campaign being run, the GM running it, and the genre involved.

 

I haven't run Heroic level games, just Superheroic. So I have seen many writeups of weapons besides the ones I do, and the players I had.

 

Perhaps you are referring to normal equipment? (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

Actually' date=' you can only sell back one. After that, you are pickled. The problem remains.[/quote']

 

However, making rDEF a figured characteristic of PD and ED exacerbates the problem rather than resolving it. And my character who's OK with the figured's from his other stats, but by concept should not be resistant to BOD damage from guns or knives, has no means of eliminating those resistant defenses. Can he take a -1/4 limitation on his PD/ED that does not grant resistant defenses?

 

I wouldn't consider a champion level boxer having 8 PD in Hero. Perhaps 3' date=' maybe 4 at most, but that's really pushing it. He's not Heroic and he's not a Superhero, which is what Hero is designed for.[/quote']

 

Couldn't a champion boxer be a pulp hero character? Ted Grant was a world champion boxer before he took on the identity of Wildcat. In any case, a boxer with a 15 STR already has 3 PD - how is one more "really pushing it" for a guy who makes his living giving and taking physical blows? If a world-class boxer isn't a character who could logically approach the NCM level (not the "absolute maximum anything human could have", I'll note, but just the point at which it is so rare the cost doubles), what character is? But he shouldn't be immune to a pocket knife dropped on his foot, and bullet-resistant.

 

Perhaps it is superficial.

 

But now I have to ask, using what is straight out of the book, if I purchase the same number Dice for a plain old Energy Blast and a plain old Ranged Killing Attack, don't I pay 3x as much for same number dice?

Regardless of what damage they do, am I not paying 3x as much in points?

 

To me, the cost per number of dice is far less important than the cost per point of damage inflicted by those dice. Comparing number of dice is not a useful exercise, in my opinion, unless those dice accomplish the same thing. Nomral attacks and KA's both inflict BOD and STUN. Comparing the BOD and Stun average, while not the be-all end-all, is the starting point for a realistic comparison of the two where equal points are invested.

 

And in my opinion, that's a FACT, not an OPINION.

 

That's all I was referring to. Perhaps I'm being too simple looking at it that way. Obviously' date=' the +1/2 isn't costing 3x as much like the current system, and you point out that it gives you more bang for the buck, which is correct and why I think the cost for my version of the Killing Attack should be increased.[/quote']

 

If the cost were brought back into line with respect to BOD damage, then you've weakened the power beyond its roots, as it will also do less stun than the original. That implies you consider the current KA too cheap, since a version that does the same BOD would, in your mechanic, cost the same and do less Stun.

 

Yes' date=' I'll take your and Phil's word on it for the Average. I don't doubt it. But could graph the distribution of the curve for me. I think the Bell Curve has been made steeper or wider or something. This could have an overall effect of making it easier to break Entangles/Focii more often than the current Killing Attack would. That's just my gut feeling. Could be way off on that. You guys are the number crunchers so I'll leave that one to you guys.[/quote']

 

The bell curve flattens, because more dice are rolled. That version of a KA will be more consistent in achieving the average roll, and less prone to extremes. A 4d6 standard KA will roll 24 (or 4) BOD 1 time in 1,296. A 12d6 PhilKA will do 24 BOD one time in 531,441, and no BOD 1 time in 2,176,782,336. Its average is the same, however, so I find it no more effective than a regular KA at object destruction.

 

: I don't agree that PD/ED + Resistant and Armor grant the same benefits/detriments. But maybe you weren't trying to imply that.

 

Okay, let me put down my own calculations and you can tell me where I'm daft. (8^D)

 

Armor (2 rPD, 0 rED) [Cost: 3 Points]

4 PD/2 rPD [Cost: 4 Points]

2 rPD [Cost: 3 Points]

 

Okay, I think I see what you are talking about. You think it is a problem that inherent defenses are getting more Normal Defense at the same level of Resistant Defense. I don't see this as unbalancing, since the player needs to have a reason to have high inherent defenses instead of Armor (Just because you can build it a certain way, doesn't mean you should).

 

Let's assume for discussion that I agree with you that PD/ED and Armor are so different as to justify requiring builds be constructed one way or the other. [i don't, but let's assume I do.]

 

I see it as unbalancing because I don't think a character whose concept justifies high inherent defenses should get the same reslt for less cost than a character whose concept demands armor. Concept should not determine cost. Effectiveness should determine cost.

 

Actually, reasoning from effect, the Colossus's defenses should be purchased as a "Power", not as his normal PD/ED stats. This is where we may be talking past each other.

 

I've been talking about the PD/ED Stats, not PD/ED the Powers. There is a big difference between the two, just like the between PD/ED Stats and Armor.

 

Stats with a limitation are a power. Can Colossus buy +X PD/ED,OIHID, or is he restricted to Armor OIHID?

 

Can you tell me what the "Big Difference" is? +10 PD, with Damage Resistance currently costs 15 points and allows the character to subtract 10 points from Stun and Bod inflicted by normal and killing attacks. +10 PD Armor currently costs 15 points and allows the character to subtract 10 points from Stun and Bod inflicted by normal and killing attacks. Apply a limitation to either one, and they will cost the same and allow the character to subtract 10 points from Stun and Bod inflicted by normal and killing attacks. To me, that's functionally identical. They do not come with SFX attached, so they are just building blocks.

 

Frankly, if the game had started out with resistant defenses costing 1/2 the cost of the underlying defense, I don't believe we would even HAVE an armor power, but that's not how we started out, and these functionally identical abilities did begin having differing costs. Bringing their costs in to match, to me, was an improvement. It recognized that the same game benefits should have the same point cost.

 

But now you've just changed a major criteria of our discussion. I was talking about spending points for Nomal/Killing attacks' date=' but what you've described here sounds more like equipment that isn't paid for by points.[/quote']

 

You are talking about changing the KA mechanic. That applies whether we're paying points or using free equipment. The points just help us balance it out.

 

I see as guide for GMs' date=' "Be careful with these powers since they could have alter or ruin plots and game fun."[/quote']

 

In general, I agree. With respect to Lightning Reflexes, however, I think my definition is more appropriate. [All I'm saying here is Lightning Reflexes is vastly overpriced, and I don't see it as a serious danger to anyone's game balance.]

 

Look Hugh' date=' I'm giving you example SFX of common attacks in general that would require mechanics that have Caution/Stop signs. No where did I suggest that these SFX would only apply to EB/KA/STR.[/quote']

 

The issue started off with my comment that KA's were far more universal/common in most games (apparently not in yours) than abilities currently possessing a caution/stop sign.

 

Most of us, I think, start with normal equipment stats when equipping normal thugs for any genre.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Alternate System: Killing Attacks/Resistant Defenses

 

Does anyone else ever post to these threads, or do we just go back and forth until one of us gets tired?

 

Is ANYONE lurking out there? We're not that tough on those who disagree with us that they should all be scared away, are we Christopher?