...spanking...

[Sean Waters]

As in 'Brand spanking new idea for a killing attack mechanic', so now you're here anyway you might as well have a look at it...

 

So, I’ve been thinking about killing attacks. I am not keen on the way Hero does it, but I’m not here to argue that it should be changed generally.

 

What I do plan to do though is to change it in my games.

 

Here’s how; see what you think and please tell me if you spot any potential problems. Ay Thenkew.

 

15 points for 1d6 (3DC) of killing attack.

 

Nothing new there then.

 

The trick though, is what you do with it:

 

Roll your KA dice, and subtract resistant defences. The resultant total is then rolled as a normal NND Does Body attack.

 

So, 2d6 KA, roll averages 7 but ranges from 2-12. Let’s assume an average roll.

 

Target has 3 points of resistant defence from combat luck, and 20 pd in total.

 

7-3=4, so roll 4d6 (averages 14 STUN and 4 BODY) and apply that to the target. The only thing that modifies that damage at all it resistant damage reduction.

 

Compared to a ‘current’ KA, the average BODY will be exactly the same, the average stun will be higher in this case (KA would do 7 BODY and, on a multiplier of 3, 21 stun, of which 4 Body and 1 stun would get through).

 

So, it is more dangerous than a normal KA then?

 

Yes it is, in that example. Of course it also means that with 12 points of resistant defence you are completely immune to damage from 2d6 killing attacks.

 

Why change? Well, first off this feels more realistic: the stun and Body damage delivered are proportional.

 

Second, you can do this:

 

ALSO, for 5 points you can buy and extra 1d6 for penetration purposes, or for 10 points, you can buy an extra 1d6 for damage purposes.

 

SO, you can build an attack like this: 1d6 KA with 1d6 penetration (for 20 points). You roll each die separately. Say you get a 4 and a 3. You use the total to determine if you penetrate defences, but cannot do more than 4 dice of damage. Armour piercing ammo, but much more tuneable than the advantage.

 

OR 1d6 KA +1d6 damage (for 25 points), and on the same roll you can get through 4 points of armour but you do (Penetration + 4)d6 if you do. Shotguns but much more tuneable than reduced penetration.

 

KB is always based on the KA+Damage total, and never accounts for additional penetration dice.

 

So, no criticism of the existing mechanic, but what do you think of this one?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: ...spanking...

 

Okay. You can do that, but I don't see why you would. As usual, I have trouble piecing ideas together that are really, really alien (I have a history of it, just ask Karin's Dad). However, in this case, what I'm seeing is this:

 

Killing Attack Damage = Roll dice to get new dice pool, modified by target's resistant defenses. Now, roll NND (!!) damage against your target. Which is really killing damage. Mostly this will manipulate the BODY final (you can roll, say, more 6's) or screw up the STUN final. Either one is really fine. The point of a KA is to deal more BODY damage than a Normal Attack. Also fine.

 

So if you really want to screw with it, you might try something simpler (I'm a big advocate of simpler). F'rinstance:

 

-- Killing Damage Dice count 6s as "+1" or "Extra Rolls." This will kill people off quite quickly, if that's what you want.

 

-- Don't count additional PD against KA STUN damage (as in Champions 4th; this is an argument I often have with Chris, as he's used to the old rules). In this case, your normal PD doesn't apply against the total damage of the big bad attack. So your targets will drop faster.

 

But again, this smacks of over complication to me. My gauge is always "What would MY players think?" I think they would lynch me, and using them as my guideline, there's no way I would implement this change.

[Reality Czech]

Re: ...spanking...

 

...

Compared to a ‘current’ KA, the average BODY will be exactly the same, the average stun will be higher in this case (KA would do 7 BODY and, on a multiplier of 3, 21 stun, of which 4 Body and 1 stun would get through).

 

Overall I like the tuneable aspect of this damage model, but I have an issue with a character taking less STUN than Body damage. To me it's counterintuitive (Maybe just because of how I imagine STUN and how I've described it)

 

A physical injury is usually associated with a comparitively large debilitating effect due to pain, shock, and the negative impact on concentration and decision-making abilities upon trauma.

 

Apart from that (and maybe it's just this one example that puts the overall idea in a bad light for me) I think it's attractive for the stab at greater realism and flexibility in describing the effects of varying attacks.

[Reality Czech]

Re: ...spanking...

 

... My gauge is always "What would MY players think?" I think they would lynch me' date=' and using them as my guideline, there's no way I would implement this change.[/quote']

 

I look at this every time I consider a "house rule". If it's not unappealing to you or your players, go to town like Charlie Brown.

[Sean Waters]

Re: ...spanking...

 

Overall I like the tuneable aspect of this damage model' date=' but I have an issue with a character taking less STUN than Body damage. To me it's counterintuitive (Maybe just because of how I imagine STUN and how I've described it)

 

A physical injury is usually associated with a comparitively large debilitating effect due to pain, shock, and the negative impact on concentration and decision-making abilities upon trauma.

 

Apart from that (and maybe it's just this one example that puts the overall idea in a bad light for me) I think it's attractive for the stab at greater realism and flexibility in describing the effects of varying attacks.

 

 

The example given (4 Body, 1 stun) is how the CURRENT rules work. My variant would deliver 4 Body and 14 stun.

 

There is a rule that you take 1 Stun for every Body damage, even if you (theoretically) take no stun at all, so in fact it would be 4 Body and 4 stun you'd take under the existing rules.

 

The point of the modified rule is that the stun will be proportional to the body damage.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: ...spanking...

 

It's different Sean, I'll give you that!

 

My biggest concern would be about the second roll - thus adding more to the rolls made during combat...other than that it seems OK on the surface.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: ...spanking...

 

But if you divorce the natural PD from the STUN damage, you will get the same effect. All the results, none of the fuss. Only allow rPD to reduce STUN damage, and voila. All without the painful rules adjustments.

[Sean Waters]

Re: ...spanking...

 

Okay. You can do that, but I don't see why you would. As usual, I have trouble piecing ideas together that are really, really alien (I have a history of it, just ask Karin's Dad). However, in this case, what I'm seeing is this:

 

Killing Attack Damage = Roll dice to get new dice pool, modified by target's resistant defenses. Now, roll NND (!!) damage against your target. Which is really killing damage. Mostly this will manipulate the BODY final (you can roll, say, more 6's) or screw up the STUN final. Either one is really fine. The point of a KA is to deal more BODY damage than a Normal Attack. Also fine.

 

So if you really want to screw with it, you might try something simpler (I'm a big advocate of simpler). F'rinstance:

 

-- Killing Damage Dice count 6s as "+1" or "Extra Rolls." This will kill people off quite quickly, if that's what you want.

 

-- Don't count additional PD against KA STUN damage (as in Champions 4th; this is an argument I often have with Chris, as he's used to the old rules). In this case, your normal PD doesn't apply against the total damage of the big bad attack. So your targets will drop faster.

 

But again, this smacks of over complication to me. My gauge is always "What would MY players think?" I think they would lynch me, and using them as my guideline, there's no way I would implement this change.

 

The idea is not simply to increase Body damage, but to quite significantly change the way in which killing attacks are applied.

 

The existing rules allow an enormous discrepency between body delivered and stun taken, whereas this approach makes the result directly linked. Moreover only resistant defences will affect the result - none of this mullarkey with normal defences counting if you have any resistant defence, so whilst combat luck will still be useful, you are no longer able to virtually ignore bullets with just that power alone.

 

It isn't that complicated either, to my mind:

 

Roll killing dice, subtract resistant defence and roll the resulting number of dice as a normal does body NND.

 

If you can define the process in one line it is not that difficult: it seems at least as easy as the current method and without the need to do any multiplication

[Thia Halmades]

Re: ...spanking...

 

Fair enough. I see what you're saying, I just don't hold with it. Which doesn't mean it's invalid -- it means I'm looking at it and going "Eh... why?" You can SER STUN if you want to do that (3 and then modifiers; which would give you more reason to add STUN multipliers) and elsewhichsuch. However, as I'm so fond of saying, "It's your game, whatever works for you works for you. But in the spirit of the request, 'does this make sense?' Sure, it makes sense, but it smacks of overcomplication and I would never use it."

 

I can tell you that a "gun fires bullets." It's one line, it's not that complicated, but taking the weapon apart, and understanding each piece, can be. *shrug*

[Reality Czech]

Re: ...spanking...

 

The example given (4 Body, 1 stun) is how the CURRENT rules work. My variant would deliver 4 Body and 14 stun.

 

There is a rule that you take 1 Stun for every Body damage, even if you (theoretically) take no stun at all, so in fact it would be 4 Body and 4 stun you'd take under the existing rules.

 

The point of the modified rule is that the stun will be proportional to the body damage.

 

Whoops, you got me there. I read it backward (hey, at least I read it.)

[Sean Waters]

Re: ...spanking...

 

But if you divorce the natural PD from the STUN damage' date=' you will get the same effect. All the results, none of the fuss. Only allow rPD to reduce STUN damage, and voila. All without the painful rules adjustments.[/quote']

 

Not quite.

 

First off a KA that does not penetrate will not cause stun.

 

Assuming a 12DC (60 AP) normal campaign, you can manage 4d6 killing attacks, which can damage characters with very significant resistant defences (we're talking 14 points on an average roll, probably not reasonably safe until you get up to 18 or thereabouts.

 

With the 'penetration dice' rule and the same active point cap you could build a 3d6 KA with 3d6 of penetration, so about 21 points of resistant defence will see you safe on average and about 25 to be reasonably sure.

 

For the Wolverine types you could even go to 2d6 KA and 6 dice of penetration, so anything less than 28 points of resistant defence wil see you regularly damaged. That's a lot. Of course you are only doing damage in the 2-12 stun. 0-4 Body range, but it is getting though nice and regularly. Death of a thousand cuts and all that.

 

It just feels so much more balanced.

 

Second it is more customiseable than the current system (see above).

 

Third it seems more logical (I hear what you say about just reducing stun by resistant defences, but that makes combat luck almost useless in a superheroic campaign).

 

Fourth it mitigates the damage lottery of killing attacks by removing the damage multiplier (although killing attacks will still have a much wider range of damage than normal attacks).

 

Anyway, the downside is that it does take two rolls, a 'penetration' roll and a 'damage' roll. You can't really combine them into a single roll either.

 

Still, you've got less maths to caulculate damage through defences: only one subtraction (instead of 2), only one defence total (instead of 2) and no multiplication.

 

Have to see how it works in practice, I suppose.

[incrdbil]

Re: ...spanking...

 

Roll your KA dice, and subtract resistant defences. The resultant total is then rolled as a normal NND Does Body attack.

 

From the speed of game school: uh-uh.

 

roll to hit. Roll to damage. subtract Defense. Roll to damage again.

 

from the 'I only care about KA problems for superheroes' school school: Given how rare it is to take body with standard superhero defenses, it'll take a high number of KA dice to have any effect at all without an unlikely roll.

 

Might give a desired result, but no more than other sugegsted methods that didnt add a extra dice rolling step.

[Reality Czech]

Re: ...spanking...

 

From the speed of game school: uh-uh.

 

roll to hit. Roll to damage. subtract Defense. Roll to damage again.

 

from the 'I only care about KA problems for superheroes' school school: Given how rare it is to take body with standard superhero defenses, it'll take a high number of KA dice to have any effect at all without an unlikely roll.

 

Might give a desired result, but no more than other sugegsted methods that didnt add a extra dice rolling step.

 

IMO, This is basically a matter of taste again; if the extra time taken to do it this new way is unacceptable... do it the old way. If you think the extra time is worth the extra realism you're attempting to attain, then go for it, the only valid questions then become:

 

1) Does your system work as intended?

2) Are you doing it as simply and elegantly as possible?

 

If you and the players are willing to spend the extra time (like some are when applying hit locations and whatnot) then go ahead.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: ...spanking...

 

The first question I'm going to ask is, does it pay for itself? IOW, does the added fun it provides make up for the complexity it adds?

 

That aside, it will tend to skew killing attacks rapidly against lesser armored targets; a completely unarmored target could theoretically take twice as much BODY as it is normally possible for the killing attack to do. (Makes smaller KA's much more useful against unarmored targets for that reason. 1d6 Killing? Not a bad chance of an unarmored target taking 12 BODY. 1/2d6 has a better chance of doing 6 BODY.) In fact, that's kind of my chief objection.

 

I see how it could be done with one roll: roll a number of d6 equal to your DC, as a normal attack. Subtract one BODY worth of dice per resistant DEF the target has (in other words, subtracting a die with a 6 on it would count as two BODY worth). You could specify largest dice first, or smallest dice, or the player and GM take turns, or something else. Whatever is left is the damage the target takes, counted as normal dice.

[Sean Waters]

Re: ...spanking...

 

The first question I'm going to ask is, does it pay for itself? IOW, does the added fun it provides make up for the complexity it adds?

 

That aside, it will tend to skew killing attacks rapidly against lesser armored targets; a completely unarmored target could theoretically take twice as much BODY as it is normally possible for the killing attack to do. (Makes smaller KA's much more useful against unarmored targets for that reason. 1d6 Killing? Not a bad chance of an unarmored target taking 12 BODY. 1/2d6 has a better chance of doing 6 BODY.) In fact, that's kind of my chief objection.

 

I see how it could be done with one roll: roll a number of d6 equal to your DC, as a normal attack. Subtract one BODY worth of dice per resistant DEF the target has (in other words, subtracting a die with a 6 on it would count as two BODY worth). You could specify largest dice first, or smallest dice, or the player and GM take turns, or something else. Whatever is left is the damage the target takes, counted as normal dice.

 

 

Well not really: 1d6KA, roll 6, unarmoured opponent, so 6d6 NND Does BODY. That's about 1 in 289 000 chance of 12 Body.

 

You can certainly get 7 or 8 Body on a lucky roll, but you are not really likely to exceed that. Personally I don't have a problem with that: killing attacks should be nasty things that you only use if you want to try and kill someone. Unarmoured opponents should worry about killing attacks, and anyone who uses a killing attack should expect to have to deal with the consequences.

[incrdbil]

Re: ...spanking...

 

If you think the extra time is worth the extra realism you're attempting to attain, then go for it, the only valid questions then become:

 

 

Well, the thing is..the extra time isnt any better than alterantives that dont take extra time.

 

I'll also note this method makes the stun multipler advantage in all existing characters go away..so unless you scale the power for extra dice for stun only purposes...ehh.

 

Said my piece. Done.

[Reality Czech]

Re: ...spanking...

 

Well, the thing is..the extra time isnt any better than alterantives that dont take extra time.

 

I'll also note this method makes the stun multipler advantage in all existing characters go away..so unless you scale the power for extra dice for stun only purposes...ehh.

 

Said my piece. Done.

My full statement was this:

IMO, This is basically a matter of taste again; if the extra time taken to do it this new way is unacceptable... do it the old way. If you think the extra time is worth the extra realism you're attempting to attain, then go for it, the only valid questions then become:

 

1) Does your system work as intended?

2) Are you doing it as simply and elegantly as possible?

Which addresses what you said after taking a portion of what I said; to wit: If it's doing what it's supposed to do and it's a simple and elegant as you can make it, then it's worth the time. If you can't meet these criteria, it's (at best) no better and therefore worth no extra time.

I don't want to come off snippy here, but if you don't take the whole context of a statement you can effectively reverse the intended message, as you more or less did here.

My intended message may have been a little blurry... What I was trying to get across was:

"Some of the previous posts indicate folks may not like the idea of extra rolling, but what you ought to worry about is refining what you have if you're examining using this system. If you can't refine it to satisfaction you probably ought to stick with the current model as it's already workable. Don't let the idea of extra rolling discourage you all by itself unless you can't get your model to improve things in your opinion."

[incrdbil]

Re: ...spanking...

 

My intended message may have been a little blurry... What I was trying to get across was:

"Some of the previous posts indicate folks may not like the idea of extra rolling, but what you ought to worry about is refining what you have if you're examining using this system. If you can't refine it to satisfaction you probably ought to stick with the current model as it's already workable. Don't let the idea of extra rolling discourage you all by itself unless you can't get your model to improve things in your opinion."

 

and if thats the process followed..why bring it up on a forum if only your satisfaction is needed, not the input of others.

 

Maybe I'm crazy, but the last line of the origina post did read "So, no criticism of the existing mechanic, but what do you think of this one?"

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: ...spanking...

 

Well not really: 1d6KA, roll 6, unarmoured opponent, so 6d6 NND Does BODY. That's about 1 in 289 000 chance of 12 Body.

 

You can certainly get 7 or 8 Body on a lucky roll, but you are not really likely to exceed that. Personally I don't have a problem with that: killing attacks should be nasty things that you only use if you want to try and kill someone. Unarmoured opponents should worry about killing attacks, and anyone who uses a killing attack should expect to have to deal with the consequences.

 

As objections go, it is a small thing but mine own. (Said the gentleman to the lady.)

[Sean Waters]

Re: ...spanking...

 

As objections go' date=' it is a small thing but mine own. (Said the gentleman to the lady.)[/quote']

 

And I will defend your right to it to my dying breath!*

 

 

 

 

 

*Well, someone's dying breath, anyway....

[BNakagawa]

Re: ...spanking...

 

Makes KA really useful against unarmored opponents, marginal against lightly armored opponents and entirely useless against armored opponents.

 

If that is what you're looking for, then rock on.

 

FWIW, the CKC writeup of Ogre is immune to a 5d6 AP PKA under your rules. On an average roll, he won't suffer any damage from a 8d6 AP PKA.

[Sean Waters]

Re: ...spanking...

 

Makes KA really useful against unarmored opponents, marginal against lightly armored opponents and entirely useless against armored opponents.

 

If that is what you're looking for, then rock on.

 

FWIW, the CKC writeup of Ogre is immune to a 5d6 AP PKA under your rules. On an average roll, he won't suffer any damage from a 8d6 AP PKA.

 

KA is already really useful against unarmoured opponents.

 

This makes it (probably) more useful against middling armour, and makes it buildable so that you can cut through almost anything, by trading penetration against damage. not sure what Ogre's pd is. 28 last time I looked, but that will be much higher now, I suspect. you wouldn't build an attack as armour piercing under my rules - you'd up the penetration. If he is not taking damage from a 8d6 AP PKA then he has to have at least 28 points resistant hardenned or 56 points. I'm guessing the first....hardened is largely irrelevant under the new system (you can still buy AP I suppose, but why?)- build tougher defences.

 

To me it seems that you wouldn;t eb doing damage with a current killing atatck - well, no body anyway - just stun.

 

As to effect on different defences,

 

Watch:

 

60AP attack: 4d6 KA

 

Unarmoured:

 

Current rules: 4-24 (av 14) BODY and 4-120 stun (av 37, but it could be anything)

New: 4-24 BODY (av 14) and 4-144 stun, average 49 (and a pretty good average)

 

So, nasty? Yes: but it is anyway.

 

Moderate defences (10rpd 20 total)

 

Current rules: 0-14 Body (average 4) and 0-100 stun (average 17, but all over the place)

New: 0-14 (average 4) and 0-84 stun (average 14)

 

High Defences (20rpd 30 total)

 

Current rules: 0-4 Body (average 0) and 0-90 stun (average 7)

New: 0-4 Body (average 0) and 0 to 24 stun (average 0)

 

So not that much difference really, if you discountt he wilder excesses of the stun lottery, which this mitigates, BUT, for the same AP total you could buy:

 

2d6 KA + 6d6 penetration. That would mean that you could expect to get 2 body and 7 stun through the 'high' defences - well, through any resistant defences up to 20 points, really - it is a low damage high penetration attack.

 

To do that with the current system you would have to buy penetrating or armour piercing: 2 1/2 d6 armour piercing would (on average) do no Body and 9 stun, or penetrating, which would do 2 or 3 Body and 9 stun on average. Of course penetrating would do 2 or 3 Body even if the armour was rated at 100 resistant and was 2 feet thick. Oh, and if you are facing an oppoennt with combat luck, hard cheddar - no body through at all. Not very realistic.

 

So the proposal is not so good at getting stun through defences, I'll give you that. Never saw the point of that with killing atatcks, but that is another story. The Body damage is identical to the current system but you can customise the damage and penetration to whatever you have in mind, which the current system does not allow you to do.

 

I've always thought that, tactically, we'd be better off with a different sort of mechanic for killing attacks. This allows you to be invulnerable to small arms fire, if you have 12 points of resistant pd. Good, as far as I am concerned. Special ammo might still cause you problems and you have to worry about superpowered killing attacks, but mook boy will no longer be one-shotting iron man.

[Sean Waters]

Re: ...spanking...

 

and if thats the process followed..why bring it up on a forum if only your satisfaction is needed, not the input of others.

 

Maybe I'm crazy, but the last line of the origina post did read "So, no criticism of the existing mechanic, but what do you think of this one?"

 

I suppose there has to be comparison, but I'm not really trying to convince anyone to change. I do think this idea allows you to do more stuff though, and for a customiseable game that is important.

 

The extra rolling is a time issue, but not too serious a one: the first roll JUST looks at Total and the second roll is reduced by defences, so you will (generally) have fewer dice to add up.

 

Other than the issue of the extra rolls are there any perceived problems?

[BNakagawa]

Re: ...spanking...

 

The average damage of 4d6 KA against 20 rdef, 30 def total is over 13.

 

Don't use the formula of average damage - defenses = average stun inflicted. This formula only works when defenses = 0 or when defenses > maximum stun possible.

[Sean Waters]

Re: ...spanking...

 

The average damage of 4d6 KA against 20 rdef, 30 def total is over 13.

 

Don't use the formula of average damage - defenses = average stun inflicted. This formula only works when defenses = 0 or when defenses > maximum stun possible.

 

Well I bow to your superior mathematical knowledge. SO the current version of KA does more stun than an EB of the same DCs against good defences, but less against no defences?

 

How....wrong....