KA Vs Energy Blast

[Comic]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Forgive me. I'm using risk and uncertainty as technical terms, with narrow technical definitions taken from the fields that study them. I can't begin to deal with broad nontechnical conventions about how they make people using them want to feel, in a mathematical discussion. I'll capitalize them in future when I mean them technically.

 

The jagged distribution described above is part of how KA generates Uncertainty.

 

In any single dice roll there is Risk. When that dice roll has a chance of determining whether there will be a next dice roll, that creates dependence. (e.g. If you're CON-Stunned, you lose your attack, or if you're *plinked* during a recovery action, you gain your Recovery in Stun and have effectively more Stun to counter the effects of the attacks against you.)

 

Independent dice rolls only generate Risk. Dependent dice rolls can generate Uncertainty.

 

Aesthetic arguments about how much prettier one distribution chart looks than another, I'm uncertain about how to address... I haven't watched enough Fashion Television to comment on them.

[Mister E]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

If I were ever to GM' date=' I think I would house-rule it that martial artists who fall out of airplanes DIE.[/quote']

 

Mister E: My Martian Martial Arts Artist jumps out of the airplane without a parachute.

 

Vestnik: Dude... you are so dead.

 

Mister E: Can I make an Extraordinary Breakfall Roll to land on my feet and take no damage? I've got a Breakfall of 20-.

 

Vestnik: ...

 

Mister E: *cough*reformed-rules-lawyer*cough* Whatever is best for the paradigm of the game is fine with me.

[bwdemon]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

You're sure you want to go the "secret and technical definition" route with your argument? Let's talk stochastics...

 

Risk is just measurable uncertainty. The probability of each result from a killing attacks is fully measurable. This puts the object of argument firmly in the risk category. The term uncertainty should only be used where the probabilities are not measurable.

[Comic]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

...

Risk is just measurable uncertainty. The probability of each result from a killing attacks is fully measurable. This puts the object of argument firmly in the risk category. The term uncertainty should only be used where the probabilities are not measurable.

 

Er..

 

You're saying Risk is measurable Uncertainty, which in turn is the term meaning unmeasurable probabilities?

 

I must've taken a wrong turn somewhere in your post.

 

For me, Risk is measurable probability. Uncertainty applies where some element is unmeasurable.

 

Each result from any one killing attack is fully measurable.

 

The outcome of an iterative process of many dependencies and factors, however, rapidly transits into the realm of unmeasurables. If you're diligent and time is no object and you're good at estimation, you may be able to approach a few phases of combat probabilistically.

 

After a few more, stochastic models will begin to break down, if conditions and ratios are right.

 

Killing attacks tend to more strongly favor those conditions and ratios of chaos. This is what I mean when I claim KA's lead to Uncertainty.

 

And.. this is all a tenuous and somewhat irrelevant digression, which has so little to do with the topic of the thread that I'll gladly apologize for bringing it up, and move on.

[bwdemon]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

The problem comes about from poor use of the word uncertainty. True uncertainty cannot be expressed in terms of probability. Risk is what would otherwise be called uncertainty, but can be expressed in terms of probability.

 

It appears that you're attempting to view each roll of the dice as something that is dependent on previous rolls and that will influence subsequent rolls. Or, at least, it looks like you're attempting to say that stochastic modeling would do so. However, each roll is fully independent of all others and to be treated as such. Probability will always be measurable for each roll of a killing attack, so true uncertainty will never come into play. So we're limited to discussions of risk.

 

And, getting back to the thread topic, one problem with the killing damage mechanic is that is goes against the grain of the system. Everything else in HERO is modeled off of the bell curve. Only killing attacks deviate from this. In doing so, they allow for aberrant results in the otherwise clean operation of the system.

[Lucius]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

If HERO wasn't based on the bell curve and probability meant nothing to conflict resolution, then the killing mechanic would be just another meaningless way to have fun with dice. Instead, it represents an aberration in the system that can (and nearly always is) used as an exploit. The game would be far better off without it.

 

The conclusion is debateable, but I thought I'd point out that someone started a thread specifically to debate exactly that conclusion.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary argues with itself.

[Comic]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

The problem comes about from poor use of the word uncertainty. True uncertainty cannot be expressed in terms of probability. Risk is what would otherwise be called uncertainty' date=' but can be expressed in terms of probability.[/quote']

 

Probably best to distinguish between 'uncertainty' and 'Knightian Uncertainty'. That way, we can be clear that the one I'm using (Knightian) differs from Risk in a precise and meaningful way, which I hope removes the muddle.

 

(Even if we used the Stochastic definition of Uncertainty, i.e. as a measure of Standard Deviation, the discussion still largely works, but why muddle?)

 

It appears that you're attempting to view each roll of the dice as something that is dependent on previous rolls and that will influence subsequent rolls. Or, at least, it looks like you're attempting to say that stochastic modeling would do so. However, each roll is fully independent of all others and to be treated as such. Probability will always be measurable for each roll of a killing attack, so true uncertainty will never come into play. So we're limited to discussions of risk.

 

Yes. And no.

 

I'm viewing rolls of dice in the game as dependent on previous rolls and influencing subsequent rolls. This would be Deterministic modelling. Stochastic modelling is used for independent rolls, and deals only with Risk, not Knightian Uncertainty. But the game as a whole is not Stochastic.

 

Where is the dependence and influence?

 

I'm not suggesting that if I roll a particular result with my dice one time, the next time the probability distribution of results will change, or anything of that sort. (E.g. Like drawing results from a hat, as each result is removed, that result is removed from the future pool of possible outcomes.)

 

I'm suggesting that use of attacks in game are part of a decision matrix. Do you have the Endurance to make the next attack? Will you, if you Push this time? Do you have Limited Uses? Are rationing decisions necessary when you use your attack? What about Spreading, or Haymaker, or Coordination or other special maneuvers -- if you use them this time, how will they influence next time? If you do more KB than you have movement, does this mean your opponent gets a free Recovery as you close the distance again? And what about your target? They can Push their Force Field or Force Wall, opt to Roll with Punch, Missile Deflect, move away, take cover, etc.

 

In any combat Turn, thousands of these combinations are possible, and their probabilities change with each prior outcome. If you have no END or Uses left, your probability of doing damage falls to zero, for example. Any one roll retains its Stochastic properties. The applicability of that roll, however, is dependent on the combat situation, which is determined by the culmination of all prior rolls and the decisions made by future-looking intelligent participants in the combat. That makes Deterministic models more appropriate.

 

The role of Knightian Uncertainty in all of this is that Normal attacks of the same power -- all other things being equal (ceteris parebus) -- are 'reliable' and will allow gamblers to know the Risk of a combat overall, while a KA's are unreliable and gamblers will have no help from estimates of outcomes. This changes the game, and the decisions that future-looking participants in combat will make.

 

And that is why Stochastic arguments are of limited use and relevant only when considered in context.

 

And, getting back to the thread topic, one problem with the killing damage mechanic is that is goes against the grain of the system. Everything else in HERO is modeled off of the bell curve. Only killing attacks deviate from this. In doing so, they allow for aberrant results in the otherwise clean operation of the system.

 

Don't Luck and Unluck also deviate from this? Don't some Talents and Perks have fixed, rather than random, effects? Movement takes you fixed distances per action, not random distances. Activation rolls, in and of themselves, follow the bell curve. Stacked dependent Activation rolls, however, don't. The game is full of non-belled elements. I believe it would overcomplicate and weaken it to force the Normal curve into every mechanic...

 

But if it floats your boat, go for it. Move 2d6" per round, with a 3d6 noncombat multiplier.

[bwdemon]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Nothing in your first section has any bearing on a game mechanics argument. Each roll is independent, actions determining whether that roll will or will not be attempted are meaningless in the context of this thread. I'm discussing whether the mechanic makes sense in HERO and whether the wind is blowing from the west at 6pm on a Tuesday has nothing to do with the mechanic in question.

 

As I said before (and can show you if you really want to see it), anyone can reliably plot the potential outcomes of a killing attack without significant effort. Therefore, you can "gamble" on results without any more effort than you would for normal damage. The numbers don't plot out sensibly, given the rest of the HERO SYstem, but they are easily determinable.

 

When dice are rolled in HERO for action resolution, they adhere to the bell curve - except for killing attacks. Even Luck and Unluck follow the bell curve (count the sixes/ones, which increase or decrease in probability depending on how many dice of each are involved). If an action/ability requires no roll, then there is no mechanism for resolution - it always succeeds. Still, the general power of many of these items is measured based on other items' adherence to the bell curve (e.g. PD & ED v. Normal Damage).

 

Why does killing damage get to avoid the reasonable constraints of the system? At one point, prior to serious consideration about the impact of the mechanic chosen, it was another mechanic included in the game just to have another mechanic to set it apart from standard damage. Now it is a legacy item of no real value to the game outside of nostalgia.

[ghost-angel]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Why does killing damage get to avoid the reasonable constraints of the system? At one point' date=' prior to serious consideration about the impact of the mechanic chosen, it was another mechanic included in the game just to have another mechanic to set it apart from standard damage. Now it is a legacy item of no real value to the game outside of nostalgia.[/quote']

 

The BODY and a KA follows the Bell Curve as much as the STUN of a Normal Attack.

 

If there's any strange and problematic mechanics involved in KAs it's that they decided on something rather bizzare for the Stun of a KA. And there are a megaton load of suggestions on how to "fix" that in any given game.

 

Me I like the suggested Optional Rule (no one start the "clearly suprerior arguement again please) in the book. A buncha people have come up with ones they like.

 

The way these discussions/arguements go you'd think the writers of the game had managed to violate the Laws Of Thermodynamics with D6s.

[Lucius]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

The BODY and a KA follows the Bell Curve as much as the STUN of a Normal Attack.

 

If there's any strange and problematic mechanics involved in KAs it's that they decided on something rather bizzare for the Stun of a KA. And there are a megaton load of suggestions on how to "fix" that in any given game.

 

Me I like the suggested Optional Rule (no one start the "clearly suprerior arguement again please) in the book. A buncha people have come up with ones they like.

 

The way these discussions/arguements go you'd think the writers of the game had managed to violate the Laws Of Thermodynamics with D6s.

 

No, they just violated one of their own meta-rules.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wants to buy the gliding power, and ride those dynamic thermals. Huh?

[ghost-angel]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

No, they just violated one of their own meta-rules.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wants to buy the gliding power, and ride those dynamic thermals. Huh?

 

I don't think so.

(yes I know that Defense thing, I don't think it was violated)

[Comic]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

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

 

Reliability. At the 12d6 level, half of all stun damage is within a few pips of 42, and the dozen most extreme possible outcomes in either direction are less than one percent likely.

 

Fewer accidental deaths. Since everyone alive has a little non-resistant DEF, those missed shots might not do quite as much damage as the comparable KA to innocent bystanders, the targets of Reflected attacks, etc.

 

Spread granularity and spread value. For -1 DC of EB, you gain 1 OCV. For -3 DC of KA, you gain the same 1 OCV.

 

People don't know you don't care if they live or die when you hit them - With an EB, you can't always argue you didn't mean to kill them. With a Killing Attack, you may be on much shakier ground if you're trying to persuade, say, Grond, that you didn't mean to cause an owie.

 

Duel of honor - if your foe doesn't go with a KA, you're arguably less honorable if you don't also forego the KA.

 

What your friends think of you - Haven't heard terribly many people say 'Gee, I think your gun is kinda cute.' (Well, sadly, I have heard it, but.. er.. uh.. Nevermind.)

[GAZZA]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Reliability. At the 12d6 level' date=' half of all stun damage is within a few pips of 42, and the dozen most extreme possible outcomes in either direction are less than one percent likely.[/quote']

If, in the average combat, a villain will be subjected to 6 or more successful attacks, reliability falls short of "blind luck". Whether or not this is true or not is highly campaign dependent; certainly it is true in my experience, but part of the equation is "what is the average SPD?" (since the more post phase 12 recoveries you get the more "normal attacks" it takes to put you down).

 

Fewer accidental deaths. Since everyone alive has a little non-resistant DEF, those missed shots might not do quite as much damage as the comparable KA to innocent bystanders, the targets of Reflected attacks, etc.

14 BODY vs no resistant defences puts the average 8 BODY bystander into negatives. 12 BODY vs 2 PD will do the same. In fact, since the 12 BODY will probably average about 5" KB and drop another 3 BODY through the defences, you're looking at a comparison of -6 BODY vs -5 BODY - a difference not even great enough to make the Paramedic roll easier for the normal attack.

 

Besides, Hero has no official rules for hitting targets you weren't aiming at. I grant you it is a common house rule, but the point of the discussion is the effects of a RAW KA vs a RAW non-KA.

 

Spread granularity and spread value. For -1 DC of EB, you gain 1 OCV. For -3 DC of KA, you gain the same 1 OCV.

Not according to 5ER pp 380; you lose 1 DC (not 1 die) per spread point from either.

 

People don't know you don't care if they live or die when you hit them - With an EB, you can't always argue you didn't mean to kill them. With a Killing Attack, you may be on much shakier ground if you're trying to persuade, say, Grond, that you didn't mean to cause an owie.

An interesting argument considering your chances of doing BODY to Grond are not exactly significant (even supposing he was intelligent and reasonable enough to care that you hit him with an attack that didn't do as much BODY damage - hardly a slam dunk there).

 

But in the more general case, I've pointed out numerous times that this danger factor for BODY simply isn't there. Normals get pasted by either; supers take BODY from neither. It's a harsh life to be a normal in a world of supers, but that's just the way it is.

 

Duel of honor - if your foe doesn't go with a KA, you're arguably less honorable if you don't also forego the KA.

This is just off the wall, man. Most duels of honor traditionally involve swords or guns, neither of which are particularly known for being simulated in the Hero system with non-KAs. The only examples from fiction that spring to mind are:

• Blackadder the Second. There, they dueled with cannons.
  
• Streetfighter the Movie. And if you really want to use that as a good example of anything...

Traditionally once "honour" has been impugned, the other guy has to snuff it.

 

But letting that slide for the moment - at best, you're suggesting that if the other guy willingly handicaps themselves, so should you (in the interests of fairness). Does that not concede the point that using a KA vs an EB is "unfair"? And even if not, I would suggest that taken a step further this means that if you're a flying energy projector and your foe is a 6" Running brick with all of his extra STR bought as Density Increase (so he can't Leap either), you should forgo your flying and range capabilities and go toe to toe. But most onlookers would see less "honour" and more "stupidity" in that. If your foe can throw 12d6 Energy Blasts, you're not dishonourable for responding with 4d6 RKAs.

 

What your friends think of you - Haven't heard terribly many people say 'Gee, I think your gun is kinda cute.' (Well, sadly, I have heard it, but.. er.. uh.. Nevermind.)

Funny, I don't recall too many people saying, "Gee, your ability to throw lightning bolts is kinda cute" either.

 

Again: the reason people don't like guns is because they can kill you. 12d6 Energy Blasts can also kill you. If you fear the one you will fear the other.

[Comic]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Granted.

 

All points above are either more correct, or at least funnier, than my answers, quibbles aside. Quibbles being that

a) I never claimed reliability was more reliable than blind luck;

average Body after DEF of a 4d6 KA vs a 2 DEF normal -including KB, which on either about 3" for the KA or about 5" for the EB _halved_ isn't expected add Body- is 14 vs. 10, or 40% more lethal;

c) if your GM is willing to have your 14- VIPER Hunted really show up 92% of the time with every agent they have plus hired supervillains, then I'm willing to bet the same GM will have some rule for accidentally hitting innocent bystanders;

d) I always get the Spreading rule wrong -- I blame all my GMs' house rules;

e) I'm thinking if Grond believes I caused him an owie, there'll be Body damage -- mine -- and I doubt he's a great example to use in any discussion since I'm sure Grond will attack on much slimmer pretexts than 'owie' ;

f) Blackadder's just hitting below the belt -- no way I'm going to out-comic Mr. Bean;

g) .. ooh. Interesting math question time!

 

The premise is this: EB's are on the normal curve, are dominated by stochastic processes, and have an extremely high probability of doing damage very near their average, to the extent that the reasonable observer ought to expect the damage of the next EB will be average.

 

Conversely KA's are on a non-normal distribution (for Stun), a higher standard deviation (for Body), and are so much more Uncertain (both in Stochastic and Knightian sense) as to be less predictable and more parameterizable. This means the reasonable observer ought to expect the outer limits of damage, depending on the observer's needs in any case, not the average.

 

Why does this matter?

 

Well, for example, when approaching a combat, the observer expecting to run into 60 AP EB's and KA's should anticipate 12 Body/42 Stun from the EBs and 24 Body/120 Stun from the KA's. Not because Probability predicts that KA's will do so much more damage, but because the usefulness of Probability is diminished by the nature of KA's.

 

Strategically, this makes the KA-user the higher-value target, and tactically this means every method to reduce the odds of being hit by the KA in the long run is best. At the same time, in the case of a controlling mind behind several defenders from KA's, each KA should be treated as if it will *plink* since it is in the observer's best interest to take the highest possible risks with pawns to neutralize the target with the KA.

 

Further, in self-defense social arguments, actions taken against an expected 24 Body/120 Stun are so much easier to justify, regardless of how extreme, than when facing 12 Body/42 Stun. While these aren't necessarily _sensible_ arguments, how often do we see the less reasonable argument supported by people judging debates because they're easily swayed to their own folly? In short, you're more likely to be let off the hook for doing anything to someone who has a KA ready than to someone with an equally (or even more) lethal non-KA.

 

From both the tactical and the social point of view, the inherent mechanics of KA's makes those with them preferred targets. I believe the paradigm is, "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

 

Anyway, back to the original question, now that I've agreed I was entirely outmatched by superior logic and wit up to now.

 

EB gives.. more KB! There's always that. Well. It doesn't give _much_ more KB, and KB is of dubious use if you'd rather hit your opponent than chase their limp body around.

 

And let's not forget.. Surprise! You're holding a big 4d6 o-dachi in your left hand, waving it around, and saying something like, "Wait, we have to settle the rules..." as you walk all philosophically toward your opponent and sneak off a 12d6 lightning bolt to their hit loc 13 with your right hand while they're saying, "Rules? There ain't no ru... *ZOT*"

 

Ayup. Judging from many comments, most guys would be surprised if you went with the EB when you could've used a KA.

 

That's about all I've got, to answer the original question: KB, and Surprise.

[GAZZA]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

If you do a s//g on "KA" for "higher AP attack" you get the same argument.

 

Basically, you're arguing that KAs are better than EBs, but it's all cool, because a dude with a KA will get munched on by everybody sooner. But that's just silly - you can't balance mechanics with social restrictions, because mechanics are universal and social restrictions are not. This is the exact same argument that the WotC boards use when they say, "Hey, Shapechange isn't overpowered - if you go around in the form of a dragon, some bigger dragon will come over and eat you/all the bad guys will focus on you first/people will think you're evil" and so forth - but the reality is that none of this changes the simple fact that Shapechange is overpowered there, nor that KAs are overpowered here. (For those of you unfamiliar with D&D -

lucky you! But hopefully the argument makes sense anyway).

 

Someone with a nasty reputation with have the Reputation or Casual Killer disadvantage. Heck, if you wanted to you could put some sort of Side Effects "may cause bystanders to hate you" limitation the way Lucius suggests. But even suggesting that these sorts of "social limitations" exist is tantamount to conceding the point, power wise.

 

I realise that FREd and 5ER say you shouldn't buy a KA "just to try and get a good STUN multiplier". Likewise they probably suggest you shouldn't let someone buy 1024 1500pt different forms with Multiform. And probably most GMs wouldn't let you get away with that. But the fact that it is possible to not abuse a power does not mean that power is not abusive. I can prevent abuse of any power - most trivially, by banning it. But the beauty of balanced powers and mechanics is that they work pretty well even for sloppy GMs (like me sometimes - oh come on, we all have our off days, right? Oh, right. Just me then? Fair enough).

[Lucius]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Edited because: I posted before reading the entire thread, and I don't want to kick an honorable man when he's down.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Restraining the palindromedary who still wants to kick and keeps saying "Set effect! What about the set effect rule!"

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

average Body after DEF of a 4d6 KA vs a 2 DEF normal -including KB' date=' which on either about 3" for the KA or about 5" for the EB _halved_ isn't expected add Body- is 14 vs. 10, or 40% more lethal; [/quote']

 

A typical Normal has 8 BOD and will be at -2 or -6 BOD, and bleeding to death.

 

An above average Normal with 10 BOD will be at 0 or -4 and bleeding to death.

 

Either one will be dead inside of two minutes. The one hit with the killing attack is noot "more dead". Dead is dead. Both attacks are lethal force.

 

Your Grond example - note that he is using normal attacks to tear you limb from limb. Does that somehow make his attack more socially acceptable?

[Comic]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

A typical Normal has 8 BOD and will be at -2 or -6 BOD, and bleeding to death.

 

An above average Normal with 10 BOD will be at 0 or -4 and bleeding to death.

 

Either one will be dead inside of two minutes. The one hit with the killing attack is noot "more dead". Dead is dead. Both attacks are lethal force.

 

Your Grond example - note that he is using normal attacks to tear you limb from limb. Does that somehow make his attack more socially acceptable?

 

A 60 AP attack scales to something like an RPG, industrial laser, or lightning bolt -- in the realm of generally lethal to ordinary people on direct hits. Setting aside how irresponsible it may be for the good guys to be throwing around damage on that level in any given situation, it's impossible to call this anything but the game working as designed.

 

Scale down the damage to 50 AP or less (for example by having the attack pass through a thin wall and lose a couple of DC's before hitting the bystander) and you still do 40% more lethal damage to your target with a KA on average. If you're carefully choosing the 8 BODY normal, lack of Paramedics around to stabilize victims, and bleeding rules appropriate to grim and gritty campaigns, then you surely will manufacture a victory for your math, and miss entirely the point that people have asked for a more lethal attack that still allows them to play their hero survivably, and gotten one.

 

Incidentally, most people who die of gunshots in the real world have been shot more than once. I suggest selecting conventional damage levels for examples -- up to the large of handguns and blades suited to street-level campaigns.

 

If you scale your campaign to a 25 AP cap on attacks, then you'll expect to take three attacks before your normal human is bleeding to death for the Normal attack, vs. only two for the KA.

 

This makes KA's 50% more lethal, in the ordinary sense.

 

The normal will also be CON-Stunned by one and deeply unconscious after two average hits of the Normal attack, while they wouldn't be CON-Stunned by the expected KA attack, and would remain conscious until bleeding to death from KA's.

 

As modelling of the real world, this is an astoundingly good working mechanic which happens to also work very well scaled up to higher levels.

 

As for my Grond example, please let me restate, I've already conceded that Grond is a poor example to use. I meant Ogre. Ogre's far more likely to be reasonable and socially acceptable.

 

And yes, there is a whole set of persuasive studies that would suggest that Grond's (er, I mean Ogre's) Normal attack is more socially acceptable than the equivalent KA, from Ellsberg's Paradox to the legal theory of justifiable force in self defense.

 

Can someone explain to me what it is people want, that isn't satisfied by the above?

 

o An attack that scales up so superhumans are affected by it exactly the same way as normals? Why? Superhumans can teleport, read minds, suffer susceptibilities, and are unlike normal humans in so many ways that this is hardly a blip.

 

o A more lethal attack to heroes for cheaper points that also happens to be balanced but doesn't remove your favorite characters from play? ...

 

o Spending less time unconscious? Adapt your strategies to cope with this unpleasant factor. It's what the learning process is for.

 

o Being surer of what will happen in any given situation before the dice are rolled? Consider LARPing as a possiblity, since that misses the point of dice.

 

o All without making a more complicated mechanic, and making it just like the way everything else works in the game?

 

There is a mechanic for this. KA's cost exactly what EB's do (5 pts per 1d6), the total rolled/2 = BODY = Stun of the attack. Non-resistant defenses don't affect KA damage. To compensate for having to divide by two, there's never any KB to roll for a KA. I personally hate this method, but it does work.

[Lucius]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

 

Can someone explain to me what it is people want, that isn't satisfied by the above?

.

 

I'm not sure what this question means in context.

 

 

 

 

There is a mechanic for this. KA's cost exactly what EB's do (5 pts per 1d6), the total rolled/2 = BODY = Stun of the attack. Non-resistant defenses don't affect KA damage. To compensate for having to divide by two, there's never any KB to roll for a KA. I personally hate this method, but it does work.

 

 

There's one I don't think I've seen.

 

Roll dice as Normal (pardon the expression)

Take half that amount, and that is both BODY and STUN - is that what you mean?

 

In that case, instead of rolling and halving, why not set the price at 10/die?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes a sign of the times: "Right Lane Ends. Wrong Lane Goes On Forever."

[Comic]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Take half that amount' date=' and that is both BODY and STUN - is that what you mean?[/quote']

 

Yes. BODY = STUN. You don't count up 1's and 6's, simply add up the total rolled and divide by two, rounding down.

 

In that case, instead of rolling and halving, why not set the price at 10/die?

 

More dice always leads to a smoother distribution. Fewer dice, while easier to tally and avoiding rounding or division, retains the higher standard deviation of lower numbers of dice.

 

Keep in mind, I'm not recommending this mechanic. It's at least as flawed as the standard KA mechanic. It makes for a very lethal game, breaks foci with ridiculous ease (unless you adopt the further complication that targets that have no Stun characteristic or take no Stun from attacks also halve the BODY of KA's before DEF under this mechanic), and I need not mention that it takes relatively few points to make a character completely immune to attacks of this sort (DEF 36 in a 60 AP game).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

There's one I don't think I've seen.

 

Roll dice as Normal (pardon the expression)

Take half that amount, and that is both BODY and STUN - is that what you mean?

 

In that case, instead of rolling and halving, why not set the price at 10/die?

 

I agree with your logic that 10 points per d6 makes more sense than 5 points for 1/2 d6.

 

With 60 AP now averaging 21 BOD, however, we can kiss Force Walls and Entangles goodbye. A 6d6 6 DEF entangle or a 12 PD 12 ED Force Wall (both also 60 AP) can't compete against that level of BOD damage. Automotons become a problem as well - any automoton with the DEF to last a few phases against attacks averaging 21 BOD will be invulnerable to those normal attacks that can only muster up 12 BOD on average.

 

Pretty much every KA "fix" I've seen proposed that drops the STUN and raises the BOD suffers from the same problem - enhance average BOD from KA's, and anything that only takes BOD is shredded.

[GAZZA]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Can someone explain to me what it is people want, that isn't satisfied by the above?

 

o An attack that scales up so superhumans are affected by it exactly the same way as normals? Why? Superhumans can teleport, read minds, suffer susceptibilities, and are unlike normal humans in so many ways that this is hardly a blip.

And yet Hero prides itself on being a universal system. So yes, I want an attack that scales up so superhumans are treated the same way as normals (proportionally, of course); it works for everything else, why not KAs?

 

o Spending less time unconscious? Adapt your strategies to cope with this unpleasant factor. It's what the learning process is for.

There is no strategy that can deal with blind luck. It's Phase 12, the start of the fight, between me and MismatchedOpponentMan (either way - either I'm a lot better than him and he should be no threat to me with a single attack, or the other way around). Either I go first, or he goes first. If I'm outmatched, and I go first, then despite all the strategic preparation he may have done, he has a not-insignificant chance of getting pasted if I pull out my "socially acceptable KA variant" (I didn't take the "people hate you" limitation ). If he's outmatched and goes first, same deal. If the guy doing the outmatching goes first (far more likely) then the strategic option is basically "take out the guy with the equal Active Points but mechanically superior attack first", which is frankly not something I recall Napolean or Machiavelli ever mentioning.

 

Now sure, a 12d6 attack can deliver 72 STUN, and that will almost certainly STUN you and quite possibly knock you out as well. It's not the fact that high numbers are possible that bothers me - it's purely a question of frequency (12d6 will deliver 72 STUN once in 2 176 782 336 rolls - I've been roleplaying since I was 10, and I'm now 34, and I don't think I've made that many rolls yet ).

 

o Being surer of what will happen in any given situation before the dice are rolled? Consider LARPing as a possibility, since that misses the point of dice.

I'm confused.

 

On the one hand, you seem to be arguing the following point:

Heroes who use KAs get really bad press. They shouldn't be doing it. So I don't see those Mastermind Villains dropping in phase 12 Turn 1 as often as you guys are claiming. Sure, villains might get lucky on the heroes occasionally, but villains are supposed to cheat.

 

But then you make a statement like the above, which instead seems to be saying:

Wild results are more fun. Those of you who like the relative predictability of bell curve distributions are babies - suck it up, wimps.

 

(Exaggerated for Comic effect ).

 

These two positions seem to be opposed to me. The first seems to agree that KAs are more powerful but social restrictions should keep them in the hands of the villains, where it doesn't really matter because the GM can always give villains 18d6 NND Does BODY attacks if he wants. The second suggests that the mechanic that KAs use is "better" than the normal bell curve, throws some much needed wildness into the fight, and there should be more of it (which would suggest that you wouldn't have as much problem with heroes toting 4d6 RKAs as the first position implies you would).

 

I think I've made about all the relative points I can make against the first position - at this point you either agree and are about to adopt my house rule (a man can dream ...), agree but don't care because it works fine for you as is (which is a totally cool position from my perspective - it just makes the debate much less interesting), or you still disagree despite my brilliant and thought provoking counter arguments (well, someone had to say it ). I really don't have any new information there.

 

The second position has a bit more meat to it because it goes into probability and so forth, which is a pet interest of mine. But my main counterargument to that is only tangentially related to probability.

 

Just to be clear: the position I'm arguing against is this: "the KA 'roll and multiply' mechanic gives more fun results than the boring old predictable bell curve of normal attacks". If you don't hold that position, by all means correct me; I'm not intending that to be a straw man. And note that some of those on "my" side of the KA vs EB debate would actually agree with this position (there has been a proposal that KA becomes the norm and that EBs get a -1/2 "normal attack" limitation but use the same mechanics as KAs - going up against all defences instead of only resistant ones; this removes the argument that KAs have an unfair advantage).

 

I would counter that if "wild amounts of STUN" become the norm, then the old BBB guidelines on suggested DEF ranges for a supers game go out the window. KAs have two characteristics: they often do very little damage, and they often do a heck of a lot of damage. You don't need much DEF to protect against the former (so you might as well have a lower PD and ED); no reasonable amount of DEF is any good against the latter (so you might as well have a lower PD and ED). Bricks step aside, for this is the world of the speedster, where the only decent defence is not getting hit. Unfortunately there is no way to apply such a defence. If you just crank up your DCV, then everyone will crank up their OCV to compensate. And once everyone is SPD 12, there's no escape that way either.

 

I maintain that some level of predictability is a good thing, since it allows for more diverse character archetypes to flourish. If you want to be unpredictable in combat, then be unpredictable in combat! Swing from the chandeliers. Blast the floor underneath that tough guy that you can't seem to hurt. Throw a cream pie in his face.

 

KAs, in my experience, don't lead to more unpredictability. The chance of that mega stun is so appealling that the reverse happens: you predictably go for the KA every time, since there aren't many situations where it's even as low as the 2nd best option.

 

But of course, as always, YMMV.

[Comic]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

Okay, here goes.

 

Pretend, if you can, you've never seen the Hero system, or at least never encountered any of the things you think I've said so far.

 

And yet Hero prides itself on being a universal system. So yes' date=' I want an attack that scales up so superhumans are treated the same way as normals (proportionally, of course); it works for everything else, why not KAs?[/quote']

 

Irrelevant side-track and faulty conclusion. Let's skip that.

 

There is no strategy that can deal with blind luck.

 

Of course there is. There are many. Hedging, diversification, insurance, fallback positions and mitigation are only a few ploys to deal.

 

It's not the actual blind luck that is the issue. It's that the reasonable person will have to respect the blind luck and go through the expense of these mitigating preparations that is.

 

It's Phase 12, the start of the fight, between me and * MismatchedOpponentMan (either way - either I'm a lot better than him and he should be no threat to me with a single attack, or the other way around). Either I go first, or he goes first. If I'm outmatched, and I go first, then despite all the strategic preparation he may have done, he has a not-insignificant chance of getting pasted if I pull out my "socially acceptable KA variant"

 

*Edit mine. It's not that KA's are more powerful and having them makes you more effective. Arguably, they just aren't more powerful, but that argument is somewhat 'religious' and can never be resolved by reasoning. There's no reason not to equally respect both sides, with this recognition. So let's skip whether or not the KA is more powerful, because we don't, for the purposes of this discussion, need to settle that argument one way or the other.

 

All we need to agree on is that the reasonable person has the right to treat KA's as more powerful whenever it suits their needs. I can concede that your belief that KA's are more powerful gives you that right.

 

If your belief doesn't allow you to concede that I too have the right to treat KA's as more dangerous, then my argument that KA's (being more wildly variable) are parametric rather than probabilistic should support my good-faith approach to KA's by their parameters (outer limits) rather than by their probabilities.

 

(Btw, do you mean if if you're outmatching in this case? Either way, irrelevant.)

 

More later...

 

(I didn't take the "people hate you" limitation ).

 

An annoying misreading of what I've said.

 

People have the right to see you as a determined killer for taking KA's intrinsically with the mechanic in the same way as they have the right to see you as a healer with the mechanic Aid: Body, or the right to see you as outright abnormal if you take the mechanic Teleport.

 

The nature of KA's is heightened, non-accidental (therefore intentional or depravedly indifferent) lethality, the way the nature of tunneling is to move through the ground. It's not an option to choose or not choose it as a limitation.

 

It's certainly well within the control of the GM to determine the social mores regarding KA's. Set the campaign in Texas, Sparta, ancient Rome or Switzerland, for example, it's a matter of civic duty to be willing to kill for the sake of public order and defense. Set it in most of New England, Belgium, historic Japan outside of certain social classes, and it's not.

 

It's also certainly well within the control of the player to have their character behave in ways that alter the view people take of their character carrying a KA. Act with outstanding and notable restraint in every circumstance, go out of your way to avoid resorting to the KA (even when it could give you an advantage) and make a great show of respecting that it is a KA and not a right to lord your vast superiority over the unarmed masses, and you'll make a heroic impression.

 

The preceding two paragraphs discuss entirely non-mechanical aspects, and could equally apply to arguments about high AP attacks with the Beam limitation, Alteration powers with near-permanent malign effects on others, or any powers that create a substantial hazard. They could apply to peeing on the sidewalk, for that matter.

 

If he's outmatched and goes first, same deal. If the guy doing the outmatching goes first (far more likely) then the strategic option is basically "take out the guy with the equal Active Points but mechanically superior attack first", which is frankly not something I recall Napolean or Machiavelli ever mentioning.

 

Napolean and Machiavelli both predate Nash, Knight, Ellsberg, and Chuck Norris. They're of historical interest only. Also, both Bonaparte and Nicolo were remarkable for the time they spent in prison after losing.

 

However, your point is sound. As Sun Tzu said, "The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him."

 

So long as you have a choice of who to attack, and you (or I) treat the KA as the superior threat, we ought to remove that threat before any other, if we are able.

 

So long as we have a KA, we can make sure the rational enemy will treat that threat as the priority, and thus more efficiently employ the combination of all our maneuvers and attacks against them.

 

Now sure, a 12d6 attack can deliver 72 STUN, and that will almost certainly STUN you and quite possibly knock you out as well. It's not the fact that high numbers are possible that bothers me - it's purely a question of frequency (12d6 will deliver 72 STUN once in 2 176 782 336 rolls - I've been roleplaying since I was 10, and I'm now 34, and I don't think I've made that many rolls yet ).

 

Right. Which is why you're perfectly justified as a rational strategist in treating the 12d6 Normal attack as if it will _probably_ do 36-45 Stun and 10-14 Body. That's because it's Stochastic in its standard deviation, i.e. Probabilistic, or non-deterministic.

 

You'd be irrational to treat this attack in any other way in your overall strategic planning. As a special case, you are justified in small expenditures to mitigate results outside of this expected range.

 

I'm confused.

 

Can't be helped. I'm confusing, when read in haste or without will to research. I know I only ever read my own writing quickly and without study, so I'm always confused by it.

 

On the one hand, you seem to be arguing the following point:

Heroes who use KAs get really bad press. They shouldn't be doing it. So I don't see those Mastermind Villains dropping in phase 12 Turn 1 as often as you guys are claiming. Sure, villains might get lucky on the heroes occasionally, but villains are supposed to cheat.

 

Easy to remove the confusion in this. Simplistic and careless reading could of course lead to these conclusions. I seldom bother to check what I've written for clarity. I am an uncharitable writer, and reading me is hard work.

 

Heroes who use KA's could get good, bad or indifferent press. Heroes who use KA's use them in intentional or depraved ways, and ought get the press of the intentional or of the depraved.

 

I also don't care if master villains drop in phase 12 Turn 1, or even before, if the overall campaign is well-developed and the play is fun and the GM prepared. Sure, it can be anti-climatic to win unexpectedly. I guess you'll just have to weep all the way to the victory parade.

 

Are villains supposed to cheat?

 

Meh. I haven't thought so simplistically about my villains in a long time. Cheaters are clearly more villain-like. Villains who are intentional or depraved killers are supposed to be dangerous, and heroes who are not foolhardy respect the dangers they face (whether the villain behind the danger is respectable or not) and are, to me, more heroic.

 

But then you make a statement like the above, which instead seems to be saying:

Wild results are more fun. Those of you who like the relative predictability of bell curve distributions are babies - suck it up, wimps.

 

(Exaggerated for Comic effect ).

 

Thanks. I love Comic effects.

 

Wild results allow the interplay of probabilistic and parametric systems, which gives a superior range of game challenges. If you're not in the mood for those challenges, or want to focus on a particular set of them, I'm fully behind you and support it. So long as you're doing it on purpose and realize that it is a limiting approach which may lead to unsatisfying results.

 

These two positions seem to be opposed to me. The first seems to agree that KAs are more powerful but social restrictions should keep them in the hands of the villains, where it doesn't really matter because the GM can always give villains 18d6 NND Does BODY attacks if he wants.

 

The key word is 'seem'. If a KA seems to be a higher-value attack (to you because you believe it is more dangerous, to me because I know it is more chaotic -- chaos being a subset of deterministic or parametric fields) then anyone, hero or villain, will if rational treat them as more dangerous when it suits their needs.

 

Sun Tsu suggests another way to get the same effect: keep your attacks concealed and unknown. Until your opponent knows what you might do, they'll have the same parameterization problem.

 

The difference between your approach and mine is this: your belief that the attack is more dangerous requires you to treat it so even when it may be against your interest, while my categorization of the attack as parameterized means I can in special cases treat it either as more dangerous or as less dangerous. These cases can lead to better strategies.

 

The second suggests that the mechanic that KAs use is "better" than the normal bell curve, throws some much needed wildness into the fight, and there should be more of it (which would suggest that you wouldn't have as much problem with heroes toting 4d6 RKAs as the first position implies you would).

 

Too inelegant. Not what I mean at all. Non-Probabilistic effects in games take the games to new levels. These aren't necessarily better levels, just different.

 

I love to see people roleplay their characters well. If their character happens to be a hero carrying an industrial laser or a 400 hp chainsaw, then why should that make any difference to me?

 

I think I've made about all the relative points I can make against the first position - at this point you either agree and are about to adopt my house rule (a man can dream ...), agree but don't care because it works fine for you as is (which is a totally cool position from my perspective - it just makes the debate much less interesting), or you still disagree despite my brilliant and thought provoking counter arguments (well, someone had to say it ). I really don't have any new information there.

 

Meh. House rules. I preferred him in Wooster & Jeeves. I'm glad I could provide you an opportunity to be brilliant yet again, although I completely disagree with your shakier propositions.

 

The second position has a bit more meat to it because it goes into probability and so forth, which is a pet interest of mine. But my main counterargument to that is only tangentially related to probability.

 

Just to be clear: the position I'm arguing against is this: "the KA 'roll and multiply' mechanic gives more fun results than the boring old predictable bell curve of normal attacks". If you don't hold that position, by all means correct me; I'm not intending that to be a straw man. And note that some of those on "my" side of the KA vs EB debate would actually agree with this position (there has been a proposal that KA becomes the norm and that EBs get a -1/2 "normal attack" limitation but use the same mechanics as KAs - going up against all defences instead of only resistant ones; this removes the argument that KAs have an unfair advantage).

 

Okay. Correcting you. I don't hold that position. Never been bored playing Champions, and I can't think of a time I've ever played a character with a KA.

 

I do dislike House Rules as a matter of taste. Takes away from my time spent understanding the campaign world to have to absorb spurious, needless or math-challenged 'improvements' that don't enrich the campaign itself.

 

I would counter that if "wild amounts of STUN" become the norm, then the old BBB guidelines on suggested DEF ranges for a supers game go out the window. KAs have two characteristics: they often do very little damage, and they often do a heck of a lot of damage. You don't need much DEF to protect against the former (so you might as well have a lower PD and ED); no reasonable amount of DEF is any good against the latter (so you might as well have a lower PD and ED). Bricks step aside, for this is the world of the speedster, where the only decent defence is not getting hit. Unfortunately there is no way to apply such a defence. If you just crank up your DCV, then everyone will crank up their OCV to compensate. And once everyone is SPD 12, there's no escape that way either.

 

Intriguing insight. I should've said something like this days ago. Or maybe I did. I get confused reading my own posts. Up until "Bricks step aside."

 

It's also the world of Darkness, Missile Deflection, Invisibility, Shape Shift, taking cover, Movement, Shrinking, Stretching, and the myriad other tactics available for coping with attacks. While Hulk is perfectly capable of soaking the damage of any number of punches, I've seen him dodge in combat. I've seen him missile deflect. I've seen him move-by with superleap to place himself far from an opponent after the end of his action so they couldn't retaliate. This is pretty much the archetypal Brick. If he can do these things, why can't my Champions Brick on a smaller scale?

 

And again, it's not so inelegant as you contend. There are plenty of reasons to have higher DEFs that fall far short of being able to cope with the maximum Stun of KA's. For instance, to cope with the median Stun of KA's.

 

I maintain that some level of predictability is a good thing, since it allows for more diverse character archetypes to flourish. If you want to be unpredictable in combat, then be unpredictable in combat! Swing from the chandeliers. Blast the floor underneath that tough guy that you can't seem to hurt. Throw a cream pie in his face.

 

All good things in moderation. Perfect predictability reduces any game to Tic Tac Toe.

 

Unpredictability that extinguishes character archetypes is a Bad Thing of course, and ought be carefully balanced by the GM. For example, by helping the team of heroes form in such ways that they compensate for each others' weaknesses, and not punitively or archly abusing disadvantages.

 

KAs, in my experience, don't lead to more unpredictability. The chance of that mega stun is so appealling that the reverse happens: you predictably go for the KA every time, since there aren't many situations where it's even as low as the 2nd best option.

 

But of course, as always, YMMV.

 

And here's where the power of paradox comes. Less predictable elements can make an overall more predictable. The outcomes I've seen have made for more stable, rich and exciting games.

 

If your game equilibrium state is dissatisfying, I recommend examining more closely the reasons. As House said this week, (he was stealing the quote) "You wake up in the morning and your paint is peeling, your water is boiling and your curtains aren't covering your windows. Which do you fix first? Answer, none. Your house is on fire. Don't treat the symptoms, look for the root cause."

 

There's likely something else wrong if your game needs a set of house rules to fix something that by testimonial is no problem for many players. Oh. Wait. I was respecting the opposite view, as an essentially religious difference. Nevermind. Carry on.

[Lucius]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

People have the right to see you as a determined killer for taking KA's intrinsically with the mechanic in the same way as they have the right to see you as a healer with the mechanic Aid: Body, or the right to see you as outright abnormal if you take the mechanic Teleport.

 

Right. Mechanics like Killing Attack are evil, and mechanics like Aid and Healing are good. That's why vampires, trolls, and other monsters with Regeneration are so trusted and respected.

 

* The nature of KA's is heightened' date=' non-accidental (therefore intentional or depravedly indifferent) lethality,[/quote']

 

Except when it's not. A Killing Attack with No Normal Defense, Based on Ego Combat, Attack Vs. Limited Defense, or just bought with the "No BODy" option, would be incapable of even accidently killing someone.

 

[sarcasm]

And I'm sure my mutant character Tigra who was born with fangs and retractable claws through no fault of her own, will have to become a depraved, indifferent villain, or at best a dark angsty anti-hero. Unless she has these features surgically removed she is forever barred from being one of the "good guys."

[/sarcasm]

 

*

the way the nature of tunneling is to move through the ground. It's not an option to choose or not choose it as a limitation.

 

What is and isn't an option to choose as a limitation depends on the game and the person running it. I could decide that in my world the Darkness power is always irredeemably evil and anyone buying it must take the limitation "moral taint" - no option not to. Or I could define a certain type of sorcery, say necromancy, as always having particular limitations and include that among them, but the specific powers could be acquired in other, less soul-tainting ways. So a demonologist's "Infernal Evocation" could have a "moral taint" limitation but a druid's "Call of the Wild" doesn't, even though both use the mechanic "Summon."

 

*Can't be helped. I'm confusing' date=' when read in haste or without will to research. I know I only ever read my own writing quickly and without study, so I'm always confused by it.[/quote']

 

Actually, that explains a lot.

 

 

*

I do dislike House Rules as a matter of taste.

 

Actually, I think it would be nice if house rules were less necessary. I do hope some future edition will correct some of these problems (and as I have noted, there has already been progress in that direction.)

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The disgruntled palindromedary remarks that we're still not kicking as hard as we could. It's getting downright vicious. Maybe I should buy off that "moral taint" limitation....

[GAZZA]

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

 

(Btw' date=' do you mean if if you're outmatching in this case? Either way, irrelevant.)[/quote']

I phrased that exceptionally poorly.

 

What I meant was more along the following lines: either I'm a 350 point super going up against Mechanon, or I'm a 350 point super going up against Generic Mook #13. Either way it's a mismatch. Either way the outcome should not be in doubt.

 

That's what I meant by "mismatched".

 

With a KA in the hands of me-vs-Mechanon or Mook-vs-me, then the outcome is in doubt, because the underdog here has a weapon that has an effectiveness out of proportion to its Active Points.

 

The nature of KA's is heightened, non-accidental (therefore intentional or depravedly indifferent) lethality, the way the nature of tunneling is to move through the ground. It's not an option to choose or not choose it as a limitation.

 

KA is a mechanic, not a special effect. Even if the "default" social attitude towards things like guns and swords is antagonistic and for some reason lightning bolts and fire blasts are okey dokey (though I wouldn't want them marrying my sister), one can certainly envisage a special effect that used the KA mechanic but didn't have that social issue. What's wrong with the idea of (say) a STUN-only KA? There really shouldn't be a problem with it. It's just a mechanic. Perhaps you want to simulate something that either hurts a lot or barely hurts at all, but never does any "real" damage? Sure there are lots of ways to do that - this is Hero after all - but a KA fits that model pretty well.

 

However, your point is sound. As Sun Tzu said, "The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him."

That explains why both of us keep arguing, at any rate.

 

So long as you have a choice of who to attack, and you (or I) treat the KA as the superior threat, we ought to remove that threat before any other, if we are able.

I have perhaps not been clear here. "Focus your attacks on the more dangerous foe", sure. No problem. Good idea. (I'll be right behind you... you first... ).

 

But IMHO, if you're using Hero or any other point based system, "more dangerous foe" should mean, all else being equal, "one who has the attack with the highest DC".

 

I don't have a problem with someone having a bigger gun than me, if they've paid more points for it. It's when I've bought the gun that is supposed to do more STUN/less BODY and you've paid the same points to get one that is supposed to do more BODY (against less defences)/less STUN, and then it turns out you're actually doing more STUN than I am, that I begin to take issue.

 

So long as we have a KA, we can make sure the rational enemy will treat that threat as the priority, and thus more efficiently employ the combination of all our maneuvers and attacks against them.

Or as long as we have an AE 20d6 Energy Blast Selective with scads of combat levels we can make the same assumption. But I'm cool with the latter - it's expensive to buy, and it should be more dangerous (otherwise you're getting ripped off). I'm not so cool with the former - it's cheap to buy, and it shouldn't be more dangerous (otherwise I'm getting ripped off).

 

I also don't care if master villains drop in phase 12 Turn 1, or even before, if the overall campaign is well-developed and the play is fun and the GM prepared. Sure, it can be anti-climatic to win unexpectedly. I guess you'll just have to weep all the way to the victory parade.

I guess our experiences vary. If my players turned up for a session where they go up against the big bad, and it was over at DEX 26 Phase 12 Turn 1, they'd be pretty vocally disappointed. So much so that I'd almost certainly fudge things so that it didn't happen. Arguably substituting my house rule for KAs is exactly this type of fudging.

 

Wild results allow the interplay of probabilistic and parametric systems, which gives a superior range of game challenges.

I can't really agree with you there, because taken to the logical extreme that makes Snakes and Ladders a better game than chess.

 

If you're not in the mood for those challenges, or want to focus on a particular set of them, I'm fully behind you and support it. So long as you're doing it on purpose and realize that it is a limiting approach which may lead to unsatisfying results.

I'm not sure it's possible to create a house rule "accidentally". Any rule constitutes a "limiting approach" but it's highly incorrect to imply that limits are bad - limits are absolutely neutral (some are good, some are bad, some are necessary). Following the RAW is a limiting approach in and of itself; following the suggested campaign guidelines is a limiting approach; deciding to use Hero to play your RPG instead of M&M is a limiting approach. None of these are bad decisions; none of them are inferior decisions - the limit is established because in the eyes of whomever establishes the limit the alternative is worse and leads to "unsatisfying results". I consider the STUN lotto to be a very unsatisfying result.

 

I do dislike House Rules as a matter of taste. Takes away from my time spent understanding the campaign world to have to absorb spurious, needless or math-challenged 'improvements' that don't enrich the campaign itself.

Forgive me if I consider it highly unlikely that you never use house rules. If I'm wrong about that you constitute (IME) a unique example in all of roleplaying gamers I've ever met, talked with, or even heard about. Heck, most people that play board games use house rules.

 

And as far as whether or not they are improvements or otherwise - sometimes rules change. This is Hero 5th edition. Most of what changed since 1st edition probably had its origins in somebody's house rules. At least, I fervently hope so - it would be a shame to discover that nobody playtested them.

 

It's also the world of Darkness, Missile Deflection, Invisibility, Shape Shift, taking cover, Movement, Shrinking, Stretching, and the myriad other tactics available for coping with attacks.

Yes, but it makes more sense to compare a bowl of ice cream to a bowl of yoghurt than to a 747. KAs and EBs are both primary attacks that work directly against defences to do STUN and BODY. If you want to open a thread comparing the relative advantages of Darkness and Invisibility or something, I'd be intrigued to see it.

 

While Hulk is perfectly capable of soaking the damage of any number of punches, I've seen him dodge in combat. I've seen him missile deflect.

Which means that sometimes the guy punching you has a 10 STR, and sometimes he has a 250 STR. I've got no issue with "some attacks are better than others". My issue is that "better attacks should cost more".

 

All good things in moderation. Perfect predictability reduces any game to Tic Tac Toe.

Or chess.

 

And here's where the power of paradox comes. Less predictable elements can make an overall more predictable. The outcomes I've seen have made for more stable, rich and exciting games.

Just a case of YMMV.

 

In exactly the same way that I can still have fun with the RAW as they are (by house ruling KAs so they work, IMHO, "properly"), you would not be denied your enjoyment were they to change (you would have the option of treating dangerous attacks as having more AP, or if you wanted to you could house rule things back to the old way).

 

And in any case the KA mechanic isn't even always less predictable. 1 pip RKA, +22 STUN multiplier (+11) is a 60 active point attack that will do exactly 1 BODY and 22-27 STUN per attack - much less unpredictable than a 12d6 Energy Blast. Straw man? OK, dump the STUN multiplier and compare a 1 pip RKA to a 1d6 Energy Blast. Same AP, same level of predictability, and ignoring resistant defences, very near the same attack.

 

Spend 12 times as many points on an Energy Blast and you get an attack that is roughly 12 times as good. Spend 12 times as many points on a KA... well, I submit that that equation no longer holds. YMMV.

 

There's likely something else wrong if your game needs a set of house rules to fix something that by testimonial is no problem for many players. Oh. Wait. I was respecting the opposite view, as an essentially religious difference. Nevermind. Carry on.

I have no issues with "testimonials" by many players, but by no means are they at all convincing to me if all they constitute is testimonials. I don't play with any of those players; I'm sure they're well intentioned and honest, but that doesn't mean that I should treat their opinions as more important than my own any more than they should treat mine with any particular respect. That's all subjective. For all I know - and I've more than a small suspicion this is correct - that is simply because some gamers do not like to tinker as much as I do with their game.

 

Showing the math for one position or another is much more interesting and plausibly able to convince me otherwise, which is why I applaud your efforts in that direction - it is much more refreshing to see some solid objective reasoning for why KAs are not so bad. I'm still in the process of checking your math there.