Wacky attack

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Wacky attack

 

This is another example of the the rule; Just because something can be built legally doesn't mean you should build/allow it. P.s. Hyper-man you use this and I'll buy Flying Dodge!

 

Well, with a name like Munchkinator that should be pretty obvious.

 

However, Flying Dodge would not be as good as a Dive for Cover vs. this attack since it is Ranged & AOE (only the additional Range Penalty from movement would help. In the 6e version at least, 2 levels of AP could be traded out for No Range Penalty to remove even that benefit).

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Wacky attack

 

Hyper-man I mentioned flying dodge soley because I remember the uproar in discussion awhile back. And I was referrencing what I said about the general rule of just because you can shoulddn't mean you should. I.e. if you munchkin this way then I'll munchkin that way .

[Sean Waters]

Re: Wacky attack

 

With the new rules on killing attacks, I would not allow this attack now: 60 points in a KA gets you an average of 28 Stun, and 'reasonable range' of 14 to 54. A normal attack at 60 points averages 42 Stun (and technically works against more defences, although that is rarely a problem in practice), so the enormous STUN multiplier clearly gives an 'unfair advantage'.

 

Excellent necromancy, by the way.

[Christopher]

Re: Wacky attack

 

With the new rules on killing attacks' date=' I would not allow this attack now: 60 points in a KA gets you an average of 28 Stun, and 'reasonable range' of 14 to 54.[/quote']

I think your math failed.

 

I think you meant: if 14 Body is average, you are equally likely to to get 28 Stun (2 on the d3) as 14 Stun (1 on the d3) or 42(3 on the d3).

42 (not 54) is still just the average Stun Roll of the 60 AP Blast and you only have about 1/3 of the chance to get that much (and 2/3 chance to get less than that)

Also, all Defenses work against the STUN of a KA, even if you are a normal with 2 PD and no Resistant Defenses.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Wacky attack

 

I think your math failed.

 

I think you meant: if 14 Body is average, you are equally likely to to get 28 Stun (2 on the d3) as 14 Stun (1 on the d3) or 42(3 on the d3).

42 (not 54) is still just the average Stun Roll of the 60 AP Blast and you only have about 1/3 of the chance to get that much (and 2/3 chance to get less than that)

Also, all Defenses work against the STUN of a KA, even if you are a normal with 2 PD and no Resistant Defenses.

 

The average is 28 still: 14 Body and 2 Stun Multiplier.

 

The 'reasonable range' I assumed that the low end would be 10 Body roll and a x1 Stun multiplier, and the high end would be 18 Body and x3 multiplier. Averages only take you so far when you are dealing with something as volatile as a killing attack.

 

As to the stun, I genuinely had not noticed that the rule had changed, so thank you for that. I've been assuming that you still need resistant defences to stop killing stun. Learn something new every day.

[Christopher]

Re: Wacky attack

 

The average is 28 still: 14 Body and 2 Stun Multiplier.

 

The 'reasonable range' I assumed that the low end would be 10 Body roll and a x1 Stun multiplier, and the high end would be 18 Body and x3 multiplier. Averages only take you so far when you are dealing with something as volatile as a killing attack.

That math still only works if you compare a above average Roll Killing Roll with a average Normal Damage Roll. The 54 Stun Result is unlikely, but I don't know how unlikely. So you need to first figure out what Stun result on 12d6 Normal is equally unlikely as 54 Stun on 4d6 KA with 1d3 stun Multiplier.

 

But since the maximum for both is equal (4x6x3 = 12x6 = 72), wjile the average is lower (4x3.5x2 = 28 < 12x3.5 = 42), I think the Blast will have the better Stun Result with better chances in all instances.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Wacky attack

 

Yes, but not better than the increased STUN multiplier build. This conversation started years ago when the STUN multiplier was 1d6-1, which meant a much higher maximum and much more volatility.

[Christopher]

Re: Wacky attack

 

Yes' date=' but not better than the increased STUN multiplier build. This conversation started years ago when the STUN multiplier was 1d6-1, which meant a much higher maximum and much more volatility.[/quote']

It may have started that way, but the last post clearly denote 6E as the Ruleset of Quesiton. In fact is was revived (necored?) because one built was upadted to 6E.

 

As for the increased Stun Multiplier:

That only get's better if you don't have to mind the total AP/DC (building weapons for heroic campaigns)

4d6 KA, 60 AP; does 14 Body, 28 Stun Average, 72 Stun Max

2.5d6 KA, Double Increased Stun (+1/2), 60 AP; does 9 Body, 36 STUN on average, 75 Stun max.

No Relevant Improvement and by no means unbalancing.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Wacky attack

 

I'm saying that it is worse in 6e. At least in 5e, the volatility of the base attack made the munchkinism less pronounced and even potentially desireable. As has been pointed out, low base power cost means it is easy to add advantages for little extra cost.

 

Stunna! 60 active and real points. Stunna only does 1 Body but manages 41 to 43 stun (average 42), costs no END and is double armour piercing.

Killing Attack - Ranged 1 point, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Armor Piercing (x2; +1/2), +40 Increased STUN Multiplier (+10)

 

This is going to put 30 Stun through 24 PD of hardened defences, very, very reliably. Or you could do 1pip x44 Stun multiplier and do 45-48 stun reliably, or 1/2d6 with +20 multiplier and do 21-66 (averaging 44) or 1d6 with +12 multiplier and average 49 stun with a one in 6 chance of doing at least 78 Stun.

 

The technical DC of all of these is very low, and even if the advantages contribute to DC, no higher than the 'base' killing attack and the AP is no higher than the base killing attack.

[Christopher]

Re: Wacky attack

 

You can buy any amount of Increased STUN, but you need GM approval for every level after the first.

So in the end it only prooves that "you should not built everything you can built".

[Sean Waters]

Re: Wacky attack

 

Well, yes, which is why I concluded that, as built, I would not particularly mind it in 5e, in 2007, but I would object in 6e, in 2012.