Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Zanslev

KA Vs Energy Blast

Recommended Posts

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

A plastic cup with a hole in it may have been designed to hold liquids' date=' but the design is not effective.[/quote']

 

Perhaps my original statement was not stated well so rephrasing: A plastic cup was designed to hold liquids whether it has a hole in it or not. Broken or not, the original design is still the design. Of course, any design can be improved. I think there are enough threads here on the forums which speak about how people think KA is broken so I won't touch that.

 

A normal or agent will be taken down by a 12d6 EB or a 4d6 KA. If we're swatting bugs, the EB and KA are also about equal in their effectiveness. There is no advantage to the KA against very inferior opponents, but there's little drawback (other than that moral imperative not to kill).

 

And depending on the campaign, that's all the matters.

 

I will suggest that this is not the norm. If resistant defenses were as uncommon as other exotic defenses, I would agree that a killing attack merits an increase in cost over a normal attack. That is not, however, the way that the game has generaly evolved.

 

And in my gaming experience, I disagree with the norm statement but then again, part of my and your understanding is what experience(s) you've had, the campaign(s) you've been part of, etc etc. My experience holds up my statement while yours may hold up yours. It depends.

 

I'm not touching the aspect of trying to 'fix' killing attacks, for those who think it needs to be fixed, tweaked, whatever; there are plenty of threads for that already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

And in my gaming experience' date=' I disagree with the norm statement but then again, part of my and your understanding is what experience(s) you've had, the campaign(s) you've been part of, etc etc. My experience holds up my statement while yours may hold up yours. It depends.[/quote']

 

I think if you look to published characters , you'll find most or all characters have resistant defenses. This, to me, is the best indicator of "the norm" in the eyes of the system authors.

 

However, I would agree that the reason the system evolved to have virtually universal resistant defenses is the fact that KA's would be vastly overpowered were they not universal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

I was playing with EB's and KA's one day, when I realized that I don't see the point to an energy blast at all. Point for point, Killing attacks seem to do more body than an equal number of active points of Energy blast, espesially when you figure in the fact that Killing attacks ignore unresistant defenses.

 

So what's the point to buying EB's?

 

I read this this morning, and at work composed a response. I'm going to go ahead and post that, and THEN wade through what everyone else said.

 

 

Congratulations. You've discovered this game system's biggest "dirty little secret." While the situation is more complex than you probably realize, your basic observation is correct: Killing Attacks are more effective than Normal Attacks of the same active point value.

 

This has been the case from the very first, and in two decades it has not been completely corrected yet. The problem has been tacitly acknowledged and steps taken towards dealing with it - or working around it - but for some reason they have held back from a complete and definitive solution. So your options are to deal with a fundamental inequity in the system - one that violates on of the "meta rules" in fact - or to "house rule it."

 

As an example of why the issue is complex: Killing Attacks are actually superior to Normal Attacks for two seperate reasons.

 

One is that a Killing Attack is a form of Attack VS Limited Defense that does BODy (say, isn't that normally a total +2 1/2 advantage?) for which the relevant defense costs half again what normal defense costs. This is the meta rule it violates; the attack is no more expensive but the defense costs +50% more, the opposite of the way attacks and defenses are supposed to be costed.

 

The other is that it enjoys a more favorable dice roll. Rolling much fewer dice results in more random results, and more frequent very high rolls; this is a benefit because of the way defenses work in Hero. Those high rolls are not "cancelled out" by the more numerous very low rolls, because there is no drawback to a very low damage roll. In Hero, a roll that fails to penetrate defenses is a roll that does no damage, whether it falls short by 1 point or by 10. This situation exists because Killing Attacks roll only one third as many dice as Normal Attacks, but the problem is exacerbated by taking that initial roll and further randomizing it by rolling a single die for the STUN multiplier. You will probably find a score or more of threads referencing the "STUN Lottery" or "STUN Lotto."

 

You will hear from people who try to minimize or justify the situation, and from others with a variety of proposals for solving it. I'm one of the latter. I'll detail three possible solutions, with reasons why I think one is best, the other less so, and the last the least satisfactory.

 

In my opinion (which is open to change, I only recently came to this conclusion and may have overlooked something) the best solution is the one proposed by Amadan Ni Briona: to make "Normal Attack" a -1/2 Limitation to reflect that it is less effective than a Killing Attack of the same Active Cost. Among other benefits, this solution has the advantage of being one that's already incorporated in the Rules as Written, but only for Hand to Hand Normal Attacks (remember how I said the situation had been addressed in the rules, but only partially?) One has only to apply the same limitation to Energy Blast, and the difference in effectiveness between Killing and Normal is accounted for with a difference in Real Cost across the board.

 

I regret to say that I think my own proposal is inferior to this. I proposed making Killing Attack a special kind of Adder with a cost based on base cost; in other words, if you wanted 30 pts of Killing Attack, that required a 15 pt Adder, for a total of 45 Base Points before applying Advantages. I derived this from the way Resistant Defenses work. If you look at powers that grant Resistant Defense, especially Damage Resistance and Armor, you will see that making a defense Resistant to Killing Attacks increases the Base Cost, like an Adder, but is based on exactly how much defense you want to make Resistant, like and Advantage. Because attack Powers (such as Flash) are mated to defense Powers (such as Flash Defense) and attack Advantages (such as Armor Piercing) are mated to defense Advantages (such as Hardened) I reasoned that what amounted to a defense Adder implied an attack Adder. The reason I no longer endorse my own solution is that it leaves another problem unsolved; the issue of the cost of STRength compared to other damaging powers. Given all the benefits of STR, especially the figured characteristics, it has been observed to be "under costed" and after complaints about the Killing Attack quandary (usually expressed as complaints about the "STUN Lotto") you will find discussions about increasing the cost of STR are also popular. I think (provisionally) that Amadan Ni Briona's solution is therefore simpler and more elegant.

 

Finally, because some people still advocate it, I will mention the variations on making Killing Attack an Advantage. If Resistant Defense were an Advantage I might be more inclined to agree with such a solution; but between the problems people see with "Advantage stacking" and the fact that it does not match the defense mechanics, I can't agree that making Killing Attack an Advantage is the right choice.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And a No Normal Defense Killing Palindromedary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

KA's do less Knockback.

 

Only applies if you’re using Knockback. And how much is that worth, anyway? How much of a limitation is “Does no Knockback?” I’m too lazy to look it up right now.

 

Perhaps I misunderstand the basis of your question but this seems to be a statement of going for maximum efficiency; a Killing Attack over Energy Blast in that a KA can do more Stun than an EB (with a good Stun Multiplier roll) with the same number of points: 30 pts gives 6d6 EB (max 36 Stun and 12 body) or 2d6 KA (12 Body and 60 Stun).

 

Even without the Stun Multiplier roll, a Killing Attack is more effective at doing damage because it uses fewer dice, paradoxical as that sounds.

 

I'll use a, b and c to address the above:

a) the Hero Games system isn't perfect. I agree that 5 pts should be mechanically equal to 5 pts elsewhere but what game system is perfect?

 

That’s no excuse for tolerating a flaw that could be corrected.

 

B) In my experience, most heroes do not use 12d6 against normals or even agents. They hold back, pull punches, use NND or something else, many players have heroes that use Stun Only attacks. Also, many players do not use full power even against supervillains unless it's known they can take that much power. So, we have different experiences here. I'm sure others have as well. Technically, 12d6 EB will only bring a normal to 0 Body, not kill them assuming the normal has 10 Body.

 

That’s making a few other assumptions. For example, that the 12d6 Energy Blast doesn’t roll even slightly higher than average BODy. Or that the normal has a 10 BODy as opposed to 8, which if I’m not mistaken is what the normal “man in the street” is supposed to have.

 

 

 

Let me be plain: the fact that KAs do more BODY than an EB is absolutely fine with me. "Working as intended". No problem. Nothing to see here. ;)

 

It's the fact that they also do more STUN that I think is "broken".

 

 

While much of what you say is accurate and well expressed, I’m afraid I disagree here.

 

The wild variance in STUN damage for Killing Attacks is realistic and appropriate, and as far as I’m concerned, part of “working as intended” or at least as _I_ would intend blades and bullets and lasers to work. What is “broken” is that two kinds of attacks cost the same when one is superior to the other. What I think needs to change is the price paid for one or the other.

 

And, it seems the fundamental objection is the Stun lotto. My solution:

 

Eliminate it. :)

 

Set base stun multiplier to x3. Increased/Decreased Stun Multiplier advantages modify it from there. You'll still get more unpredictability than with EBs on average, but your average and maximum Stun come out as the same value.

 

I’m sorry, but the STUN lotto is not “the fundamental objection.” Your solution does not even begin to address the Attack VS Limited Defense aspect of the advantage of Killing Attacks, and you acknowledge that you still get more unpredictability in the damage of Killing Attacks. It just makes that unpredictability less egregious and eliminates the situation of Killing Attacks doing max STUN that actually exceeds that of Normal Attacks.

 

 

I see the game description saying "killing attacks are designed to kill", but I don't see evidence of that design being successful in actual game play. In actual game play, the more common result is that the Stun Lotto enhances the possibility of inflicting significant Stun on an opponent with higher than average defenses.

***********************************************************

A plastic cup with a hole in it may have been designed to hold liquids, but the design is not effective

 

Well said. Thank you.

 

 

 

 

A normal or agent will be taken down by a 12d6 EB or a 4d6 KA. If we're swatting bugs, the EB and KA are also about equal in their effectiveness. There is no advantage to the KA against very inferior opponents, but there's little drawback (other than that moral imperative not to kill).

 

True, except for one point; the point about the moral imperative not to kill. If you are that concerned about killing, you won’t be using a 12d6 Energy Blast against “normals” either. People freak out about a little knife because it’s labeled “Killing Attack!” but a “brick’s” punch, a “martial artist’s” strike, and an “energy projector’s” blast may all be far more likely to actually kill someone.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And an Attack Vs Limited Defense Does Body Armor Piercing Palindromedary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Only applies if you’re using Knockback. And how much is that worth' date=' anyway? How much of a limitation is “Does no Knockback?” I’m too lazy to look it up right now.[/quote']

-1/4. I'm anally retentive. :)

 

While much of what you say is accurate and well expressed, I’m afraid I disagree here.

We do, but not quite for the reason you express. I don't think we disagree that the "problem" with KAs as they currently stand is that they do more STUN and BODY than Normal Attacks of the same AP total - ie that they are "strictly superior" - which is all I was saying above.

 

I don't agree that the STUN lotto (or any similar "widely varying STUN") mechanic is a good one - I prefer the "bring KAs into line with NAs" rather than the alternative that you and Amadan Ni Briona like - but that's just my personal preference; certainly your preference answers the "remove the relative effectiveness disparity" complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

And, it seems the fundamental objection is the Stun lotto. My solution:

 

Eliminate it. :)

 

Set base stun multiplier to x3. Increased/Decreased Stun Multiplier advantages modify it from there. You'll still get more unpredictability than with EBs on average, but your average and maximum Stun come out as the same value.

 

This is what I do, though in some campaigns I replace the d6-1 with the Hit Location chart. You still get the spread, but the extremes occur less often and I feel better knowing you just did OMG STUN by hitting them in the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

True' date=' except for one point; the point about the moral imperative not to kill. If you are that concerned about killing, you won’t be using a 12d6 Energy Blast against “normals” either. People freak out about a little knife because it’s labeled “Killing Attack!” but a “brick’s” punch, a “martial artist’s” strike, and an “energy projector’s” blast may all be far more likely to actually kill someone.[/quote']

 

Yup. It always bugged me when the guy with the Code vs Killing would freak out over a 1/2d6 KA Batarang but had no problem tossing out his 15d6 EB at an unknown target. "Killing Attack" and "Lethal Attack" are very different concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

I think to answer the EB vs KA debate, you should consider the following proposal.

 

Would you allow a +0 modifier for an EB that would allow you to roll a 1d6 EB and multiply the result by however many dice of EB you would normally roll?

 

so, for 50 active points, you would roll 1d6 and get either 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 stun and either 0, 10, 10, 10, 10 or 20 body.

 

By definition, this power averages exactly the same number of stun, body and knockback as a normal EB.

 

How can such a construct be unbalancing?

 

Then ask yourself if you would also allow there to be a +1/4 advantage on said EB that would allow you to add +1 stun on the die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

-1/4. I'm anally retentive. :)

 

 

We do, but not quite for the reason you express. I don't think we disagree that the "problem" with KAs as they currently stand is that they do more STUN and BODY than Normal Attacks of the same AP total - ie that they are "strictly superior" - which is all I was saying above.

 

I don't agree that the STUN lotto (or any similar "widely varying STUN") mechanic is a good one - I prefer the "bring KAs into line with NAs" rather than the alternative that you and Amadan Ni Briona like - but that's just my personal preference; certainly your preference answers the "remove the relative effectiveness disparity" complaint.

 

There may be a way to make everyone happy.

 

As I have repeatedly pointed out, Killing Attacks are superior to Normal Attacks for two seperate reasons; the way damage is generated, and the way it is applied, i.e. the rolling mechanic and the defense mechanic.

 

If we assume that the standard Killing Attack is our "default" and define less-effective deviations from that as limitations, we can actually have two seperate limitations: one to change how it's rolled, one to change how it's applied against defenses.

 

Now all we have to do is figure out what those limitations should be....

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary adds "and if one of them should be applied to Hand to Hand attack too....probably so."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing Thought in This Direction...

 

One of the places where the system has addressed the discrepency in effectiveness between the two classes of attacks is in martial arts, where it takes two Damage Classes of Normal Attack to equal one Damage Class of Killing Attack. Which would seem to indicate that Normal Attacks are actually worth about half of Killing Attacks, suggesting a total limitation value of -1.

 

With that in mind, perhaps we should have two seperate limitations, each worth -1/2.

 

I tentatively propose:

 

Normal Damage Roll: A power with this limitation follows the damage rolling rules for Normal Attacks, that is, 1 d6 for each 5 active points is rolled for total STUN, with each roll of 2-5 adding one point of BODy damage and each roll of 6 adding two points of BOD. Limitation: -1/2

 

Stopped by Normal Defenses: A power with this limitation subtracts the full value of appropriate non-resistant defenses from both BOD and STUN damage. Limitation: -1/2

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary Enterprises

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Don't Energy Blasts also have the inherent advantage of being able to spread? Or did I miss that getting phased out?

 

I think -1d6 for a +1 OCV or a -1d6 per hex area effect is MIGHTY versatile.. I based my namesake character around the whole concept back in 3rd edition.

 

-Cratermaker (16d6 EB with an OCV of 4 - Spread his attacks for ocv or mook control, but when a villain got stunned.....KAPOW!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Don't Energy Blasts also have the inherent advantage of being able to spread? Or did I miss that getting phased out?

 

Yes, EB can do that and HA cannot. However, HKA can also spread.

 

I still think normal vs killing isn't an issue. I have no personal experience that would lead me to believe killing attacks, in practice, are superior to normal attacks to the point of needing to cost more, nor have I heard of anyone else's personal experiences leading them to the same conclusion. It's all in the math, and math, like any form of logic, is a really good tool for reaching a wrong answer with absolute certainty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Hm, and is it legal to "spread" a Ranged Killing Attack under current Rules as Written?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Asking a palindromedary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Hm, and is it legal to "spread" a Ranged Killing Attack under current Rules as Written?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Asking a palindromedary

 

5ER page 380

 

"Spreading is most commonly used with Energy Blast, but characters may also Spread with other types of Ranged attacks (unless the GM rules otherwise)."

 

 

Note: the Dust Raven thinks the phrase "unless the GM rules otherwise" should only be included in any given rulebook ONCE, at the begining, in a sentence that reads "All rules presented in this book should be assumed to be followed by the statement: Unless the GM rules otherwise." It would really save a lot of space for Hero System publications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Continuing Thought in This Direction...

 

One of the places where the system has addressed the discrepency in effectiveness between the two classes of attacks is in martial arts' date=' where it takes two Damage Classes of Normal Attack to equal one Damage Class of Killing Attack. Which would seem to indicate that Normal Attacks are actually worth about half of Killing Attacks, suggesting a total limitation value of -1.[/quote']

Unfortunately I think it is more plausible that this is not the reason. A normal person has the ability to do normal damage with STR, so all martial arts maneuvers that add NA are doing is improving an existing ability. On the other hand, killing attacks are not normally possessed, which means a maneuver that gives KA damage is granting a new ability, and that might be why they decided that increasing it is only half as effective.

 

Hmm... although adding damage to existing KAs is also halved, which supports your position. Let's see:

  • ASSUMPTION: If a power has a built in advantage considered in its base cost, then the limitation to remove that advantage is equal to what the advantage would normally cost. (EG: New Power: Armour Piercing 0 END Energy Blast, costing 10 points per die. If you want a version of this that is not AP, then you get a -1/2. If you want a version that is neither 0 END nor EB, you get a -1).

  • CONCLUSION: You are valuing the ability to put BODY against resistant defences as approximately equal to Armour Piercing in utility.

On the face of it this looks too good to me, but I do realise that I'm coming at this from the assumption that resistant defences are approximately as common as they are at the moment, when in fact were your proposal to be adopted it might mean that "resistant" was approximately as rare or rarer than "hardened".

 

This could do with some playtesting, methinks, but it sounds workable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

There may be a way to make everyone happy.

 

As I have repeatedly pointed out, Killing Attacks are superior to Normal Attacks for two seperate reasons; the way damage is generated, and the way it is applied, i.e. the rolling mechanic and the defense mechanic.

 

Not everyone agrees with your assessment of the situation.

 

I for one vehemently and absolutely disagree with the entire premise.

 

I don't care what mathematical points you toss at me. Actual Game Play has proved my stance to be correct as far as I'm concerned. I'm already happy so any changes you make automatically make me unhappy - the first part of your post is wrong. You may have a way to make a bunch of people happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Hmm.. Well, I guess the house rule in our games is that you cannot spread Killing Attacks. It seems to me that if you implemented some sort of rule like this (and maby allowing Killing Attacks to spread for a small advantage on the power - either a quarter or half advantage depending on your game) then there would be a big tactical difference between EB's and KA's - perhaps enough to "level" the effectiveness of the two powers? Sure would be easier to implement than changing costs or rules for the powers.

 

-CraterMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Not everyone agrees with your assessment of the situation.

 

I for one vehemently and absolutely disagree with the entire premise.

 

I don't care what mathematical points you toss at me. Actual Game Play has proved my stance to be correct as far as I'm concerned. I'm already happy so any changes you make automatically make me unhappy - the first part of your post is wrong. You may have a way to make a bunch of people happy.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

I've seen this debate before. And it's curious how the same -- to me -- bad math keeps getting applied to it by people who claim to be reducing an imbalance, yet always come up with fixes that overall increase that imbalance.

 

Forgive me if I seem to be criticizing people, that is not my intention. I do not mean to seem insulting or to belittle.

 

Both sides on the debate raise valid and meaningful points well worth examining. It's just where the 'facts' people state don't match what some simple first year college statistics that I refer to.

 

At the 60 AP level:

a) EB averages 42 Stun before defenses

B) KA averages roughly 37.3 Stun.

 

If you want a fixed Stun multiple, anything above x2.25 is making your KA more dangerous.

 

The commonest Stun result for 4d6 KA is 14, at 4%. The second commonest, 60, at 3.9%. You could flip a coin: heads=14 Stun, tails=60 Stun -- and have a far superior mechanism for avoiding Stun Lotto than the fixed multiplier 'patch'.

 

Max damage on a 4d6 KA happens once in 7776 rolls. That's 24 Body, 120 Stun. While it's a big ouch, most of the tough heroes who stand in the way of 60 AP attacks can survive that (though they should be unconscious from it). Even if you look for the half-dozen or so highest rolls, they happen less than three percent of the time. Targets also could easily suffer far worse from the KB damage, and the chances of that (assuming a solid structure within 21" and no KBR) are more likely than the Stun Lotto.

 

The dominating factor in Stun Lotto builds isn't the average damage, but the chances of getting in at least one big hit before being stopped.

 

Every KA has roughly a 50% base plink factor (chance of Stun damage being less than max Body). Again, most tough heroes who stand around sucking up 60 AP attacks will have defenses that can handle this level of damage, and then some. KA's will *PLINK* harmlessly up to 75% of the time, statistically, for the toughest characters, and another 20% of the time will not do enough damage to Stun the target for the phase. (They still can be knocked down or knocked back, which is overall the KA's most significant impact in most combat phases.)

 

What follows is an explanation of how a munchkin's mind works, so if you find exposure to such things painful, skip the section.

==================================================

Assume a character with 36 DEF and 33 CON. The 4d6 KA will *PLINK* 70% of the time, and will not do Stun exceeding their CON 90% of the time.

 

After two successful hits, plinking falls to 49%, and odds of being Stunned almost doubles to 19%. After three hits, plinking is only a little more than one third likely and there's a 28% chance of having been Stunned at least in one round. Here's were KA's shine.

 

If you can last until you've Stunned your target and then press your advantage while they're down, there's no one you can't knock out. But on average it takes six successful hits to do this, all the while doing fairly poor Stun overall.

 

It's a dangerous game. If you're building like a munchkin, you make sure your SPD is at least 50% higher than your expected opponent's, or your CV exceeds theirs by at least two in total, to ensure you get those six chances.

 

Most GMs won't see these as unreasonable in your build. "A 25 Str, Dex 29, SPD 6 MA with a 2d6 HKA and a couple of Martial DC's? Sure, why not?"*

 

The more attempts compared to your opponent's chances to stop you, the better your odds of hitting the Stun Lotto - even if it means reducing the DC to get autofire.

==================================================

 

But even with all of these factors skewing things to make the KA more likely to knock out the target, it still only can approach the efficiency of the equal-priced normal attack at doing Stun damage, statistically.

 

The real edge is that the risk of being Stun Lotto'd can make targets treat the KA with more respect or fear... which isn't a bad thing to my mind, considering it's a Killing Attack.

 

My conclusion, after watching the Stun Lotto myth wage across Usenet and discussion boards and so on for a dozen years or more is, "KA is not broken. It doesn't need fixing. Leave it alone. If you want to patch something, patch the school system, it's not teaching math skills."

 

*There are some perfectly non-munchkin builds that look exactly like this, but they also have useful martial maneuvers that get used instead of whacking away with the katana every action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

A 4d6 RKA against typical defences can be dangerous, but it's a crap shoot (as you point out).

 

However, lower dice are more effective as KAs than NAs. For example: assume a DEF of 20 (some of which is resistant); a 6d6 normal attack averages 2.22 STUN while a 2d6 RKA averages 4.73 STUN (more than double). Make the defences "brick level" at 30 DEF and the NA drops to 1.09 average STUN while the KA drops to 4.22 - in other words, the bricks 50% greater defences barely mean anything at all. Switching to a KA is more effective than switching to Armour Piercing or Penetrating for a low DC attack (4d6 AP NA does 4.19 STUN to 10 DEF and 0.93 STUN to 15 DEF; about 4 STUN for 4d6 Pen regardless of DEF).

 

A typical fight might be 4 agents per superhero (assuming no superpowered assistance on the villains side). Arm them all with 6d6 normal attacks and you really don't have to worry very much; arm them all with 2d6 RKAs and they can quite feasibly take out the slower moving so-called "bullet proof" targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Not everyone agrees with your assessment of the situation.

 

I for one vehemently and absolutely disagree with the entire premise.

 

I don't care what mathematical points you toss at me. Actual Game Play has proved my stance to be correct as far as I'm concerned. I'm already happy so any changes you make automatically make me unhappy - the first part of your post is wrong. You may have a way to make a bunch of people happy.

 

You are correct. When I said "make everybody happy" I was overstating the case. That will obviously never happen.

 

I'd be happy just to make a bunch of people happy.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is happy at one end. )-: :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Continuing Thought in This Direction...

 

Unfortunately I think it is more plausible that this is not the reason. A normal person has the ability to do normal damage with STR, so all martial arts maneuvers that add NA are doing is improving an existing ability. On the other hand, killing attacks are not normally possessed, which means a maneuver that gives KA damage is granting a new ability, and that might be why they decided that increasing it is only half as effective.

 

Hmm... although adding damage to existing KAs is also halved, which supports your position. Let's see:

  • ASSUMPTION: If a power has a built in advantage considered in its base cost, then the limitation to remove that advantage is equal to what the advantage would normally cost. (EG: New Power: Armour Piercing 0 END Energy Blast, costing 10 points per die. If you want a version of this that is not AP, then you get a -1/2. If you want a version that is neither 0 END nor EB, you get a -1).

  • CONCLUSION: You are valuing the ability to put BODY against resistant defences as approximately equal to Armour Piercing in utility.

On the face of it this looks too good to me, but I do realise that I'm coming at this from the assumption that resistant defences are approximately as common as they are at the moment, when in fact were your proposal to be adopted it might mean that "resistant" was approximately as rare or rarer than "hardened".

 

This could do with some playtesting, methinks, but it sounds workable.

 

Well, as I recall, Ranged is +1/2 and No Range is -1/2. There are probably other examples where "the limitation to remove that advantage is equal to what the advantage would normally cost."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Insert inevitable palindromedary tagline here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...