[Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

[Lucius]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

I started a thread to discuss Amadan Na Briona's excellent idea. Or maybe I should call it Steve Long's excellent idea, since he seems to have thought of it but for some reason didn't apply it across the board....

 

After years of being troubled by it, I feel closer than ever to a real solution to the "Killing Attack Vs. Normal Attack" dilemma. And I have Amadan Na Briona to thank for it.

 

He made the brilliantly simple suggestion that instead of either "nerfing" the Killing Attack or increasing its cost, Killing Attacks and Normal Attacks could be balanced against each other by reducing the cost of Normal Attacks - as is already done with Hand to Hand Normal Attacks, differentiated from Hand to Hand Killing Attacks by their "Mandatory Limitation."

 

Instead of solutions that lead to various "ripple effects" that must be accounted for, this solution seems to fit well into the game - given that it's basically a solution the Rules as Written have already partially adopted. Also, it helps to address the frequently made observation that STR is too cheap for the effect; it may not be a total fix for that problem (it won't change the fact that 10 pts of STR gets you 11 pts worth of figured characteristics) but it will at least make it less eggregious.

 

However, a Killing Attack is distinguished from a Normal Attack in two distinct ways:

1. The Attack Vs Limited Defense aspect, because it goes against a defense that is 50% more expensive than Normal defenses, and

2. The more favorable damage rolling mechanic.

 

So I think there needs to be two seperate limitations required to create a Normal Attack.

 

The only questions remaining are - what should the values of those limitations be?

And, what should the limitations be called?

 

I may decide to put a poll in, but I definitely want to start a discussion on it.

 

I would say the minimum must be - 1/4 for each, thus -1/2 for both, given that this is what is currently official for Hand to Hand Normal Attacks. I propose a maximum of -1 for both together, on the grounds that the Martial Arts rules (by counting added damage classes at half-value for Killing Attacks) imply that a Normal Attack is worth about half what a Killing Attack is. If anyone wants to argue for a higher value than that I may be prepared to entertain it, but I would be skeptical.

 

As for what to call them, I really have no idea at this point. Maybe "Attack Vs. Common Defenses" or even "Attack Vs Universal Defenses" for the limitation to "normalize" how damage applies, and "Roll for STUN" for the limitation to "normalize" how damage is rolled.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Trying to normalize a palindromedary.....

 

Log, I apologize for crossposting this here in the thread you started to discuss the proposal to simply eliminate Killing Attacks.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks eliminating Killing Attacks leads to eliminating Resistant Defense, which obviates Armor (three powers excised at one stroke!) and means the cost of Force Field may need to be revisited...

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Log, I apologize for crossposting this here in the thread you started to discuss the proposal to simply eliminate Killing Attacks.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks eliminating Killing Attacks leads to eliminating Resistant Defense, which obviates Armor (three powers excised at one stroke!) and means the cost of Force Field may need to be revisited...

Don't apologize. It's a big topic that's bound to spin off like that.

 

 

 

 

 

Now, if you brought up Batman vs Firelord here...

[Gary]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

My suggestion is to take an idea from GURPS. Make it an Advantage on a normal attack.

 

Killing

 

Killing is a +1/4 or +1/2 Advantage on an attack. At the +1/4 Level, it is only stopped by Resistant Defenses and All Body that penetrates defenses is multiplied by 1.5 with a corresponding increase in Stun. So a 5d6 attack with the +1/4 Killing Advantage costs 31 pts. If it rolls 6 Body and 18 Stun vs a target with 2 pts of Resistant Defense and 5 normal defense, 4 Body and 13 Stun gets through. The Body is multiplied by 1.5 to 6 Body, and 2 additional Stun is done because that is the increase in Body done. The target takes a net of 6 Body and 15 Stun. Against a target with no resistant defenses, the target takes a net of 9 Body and 21 Stun.

 

At the +1/2 Level, it works the same as at the +1/4 Level, except any Body that gets through defenses is multiplied by 2.

 

This Advantage makes KAs very lethal to unprotected targets, but slightly less effective vs well protected targets. It makes KAs more effective vs Entangles, but less effective vs Force Walls.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Killing

 

Killing is a +1/4 or +1/2 Advantage on an attack. At the +1/4 Level, it is only stopped by Resistant Defenses and All Body that penetrates defenses is multiplied by 1.5 with a corresponding increase in Stun. So a 5d6 attack with the +1/4 Killing Advantage costs 31 pts. If it rolls 6 Body and 18 Stun vs a target with 2 pts of Resistant Defense and 5 normal defense, 4 Body and 13 Stun gets through. The Body is multiplied by 1.5 to 6 Body, and 2 additional Stun is done because that is the increase in Body done. The target takes a net of 6 Body and 15 Stun. Against a target with no resistant defenses, the target takes a net of 9 Body and 21 Stun.

 

At the +1/2 Level, it works the same as at the +1/4 Level, except any Body that gets through defenses is multiplied by 2.

 

This Advantage makes KAs very lethal to unprotected targets, but slightly less effective vs well protected targets. It makes KAs more effective vs Entangles, but less effective vs Force Walls.

 

My first thought is that this is an interesting idea. Let's run some numbers.

 

Let's consider a 75 DC attack. 15d6 Normal, 12d6 +1/4 Killing and 10d6 +1/2 Killing. Let's look at a few reasonable targets:

 

- Lightly Defended Target: 15 Def, 5 Resistant

Normal Attack does 0 BOD, 37.5 STUN on average (rolls 15 and 52.5)

KA +1/4 does 10.5 BOD, 30.5 STUN on average (rolls 12 and 42)

KA +1/2 does 10 BOD, 25 STUN on average (rolls 10 and 35)

 

Practically, light armor is no longer viable - getting hit with a KA is basically a death sentence.

 

- Mid Level defense: 25 DEF, 12 resistant

Normal Attack does 0 BOD, 27.5 STUN on average (rolls 15 and 52.5)

KA +1/4 does 0 BOD, 17 STUN on average (rolls 12 and 42)

KA +1/2 does 0 BOD, 10 STUN on average (rolls 10 and 35)

 

- Brick: 35 DEF, 20 rDEF

Normal Attack does 0 BOD, 17.5 STUN on average (rolls 15 and 52.5)

KA +1/4 does 0 BOD, 7 STUN on average (rolls 12 and 42)

KA +1/2 does 0 BOD, 0 STUN on average (rolls 10 and 35)

 

Practically, against characters with typical defenses, KA is pretty much useless.

 

- Automaton: say 12 Defenses (so a typical Normal attack does a bit of BOD)

Normal Attack does 3 BOD (rolls 15)

KA +1/4 does 0 BOD on average (rolls 12)

KA +1/2 does 0 BOD (rolls 10)

 

- Automaton: say 8 Defenses (so a typical Normal attack does quite a bit of BOD)

Normal Attack does 7 BOD (rolls 15)

KA +1/4 does 6 BOD on average (rolls 12)

KA +1/2 does 4 BOD (rolls 10)

 

- 7d6 8 DEF entangle w/ 7 BOD

Normal Attack does 7 BOD (rolls 15) and barely breaks out

KA +1/4 does 6 BOD on average (rolls 12) and is still entangled

KA +1/2 does 4 BOD (rolls 10) and remains entangled

 

- 15 DEF Force Wall

Normal attack needs to roll one above average to break through

KA +1/4 needs to roll 4 above average to break through

KA +1/2 needs to roll 6 above average to break through

 

Against obstacles that only take BOD, the KA is less useful than the normal attack.

 

OVERALL Why would anyone ever take the Killing Attack? It will be less useful (right down to completely useless) than the normal attack in almost all circumstances.

 

Possible fix: Have only the second level and price it at +1/4. Let's look at that:

 

15d6 Normal, 12d6 +1/4 Killing. Let's look at the same reasonable targets:

 

- Lightly Defended Target: 15 Def, 5 Resistant

Normal Attack does 0 BOD, 37.5 STUN on average (rolls 15 and 52.5)

KA does 14 BOD, 34 STUN on average (rolls 12 and 42)

 

- Mid Level defense: 25 DEF, 12 resistant

Normal Attack does 0 BOD, 27.5 STUN on average (rolls 15 and 52.5)

KA +1/4 does 0 BOD, 17 STUN on average (rolls 12 and 42)

 

- Brick: 35 DEF, 20 rDEF

Normal Attack does 0 BOD, 17.5 STUN on average (rolls 15 and 52.5)

KA +1/4 does 0 BOD, 7 STUN on average (rolls 12 and 42)

 

Practically, against characters with typical defenses, KA is pretty much useless. Against lightly armored targets, it's fatal.

 

- Automaton: say 12 Defenses (so a typical Normal attack does a bit of BOD)

Normal Attack does 3 BOD (rolls 15)

KA +1/4 does 0 BOD on average (rolls 12)

 

- Automaton: say 8 Defenses (so a typical Normal attack does quite a bit of BOD)

Normal Attack does 7 BOD (rolls 15)

KA +1/4 does 8 BOD on average (rolls 12)

 

- 7d6 8 DEF entangle w/ 7 BOD

Normal Attack does 7 BOD (rolls 15) and barely breaks out

KA +1/4 does 8 BOD on average (rolls 12) and barely breaks out

 

- 15 DEF Force Wall

Normal attack needs to roll one above average to break through

KA +1/4 needs to roll 4 above average to break through

 

Against obstacles that only take BOD, the KA is marginally more useful in some cases and less useful in others. The better the target is defended, the less useful the KA becomes.

 

OverallStill don't see much point taking a KA, even when we toughen the advantage up, unless I want to blow away Martial Artists, normals, mooks and other lightly defended targets.

 

The problem is that the KA under this approach has minimal or no effect against targets with defenses that provide credible protection against normal attacks, unless we significantly reduce the levels of resistant defenses. However, dropping rDEF will make the KA extremely lethal, meaning (I suspect) that players will be reluctant to have low rDEF scores.

[Gary]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

My first thought is that this is an interesting idea. Let's run some numbers.

 

Let's consider a 75 DC attack. 15d6 Normal, 12d6 +1/4 Killing and 10d6 +1/2 Killing. Let's look at a few reasonable targets:

 

- Lightly Defended Target: 15 Def, 5 Resistant

Normal Attack does 0 BOD, 37.5 STUN on average (rolls 15 and 52.5)

KA +1/4 does 10.5 BOD, 30.5 STUN on average (rolls 12 and 42)

KA +1/2 does 10 BOD, 25 STUN on average (rolls 10 and 35)

 

Practically, light armor is no longer viable - getting hit with a KA is basically a death sentence.

 

Light armor is already not viable with 75 pt KAs.

 

5d6 KA does 12.5 Body and 32 Stun (rolls 17.5 and 2.67 SM)

 

- Mid Level defense: 25 DEF, 12 resistant

Normal Attack does 0 BOD, 27.5 STUN on average (rolls 15 and 52.5)

KA +1/4 does 0 BOD, 17 STUN on average (rolls 12 and 42)

KA +1/2 does 0 BOD, 10 STUN on average (rolls 10 and 35)

 

- Brick: 35 DEF, 20 rDEF

Normal Attack does 0 BOD, 17.5 STUN on average (rolls 15 and 52.5)

KA +1/4 does 0 BOD, 7 STUN on average (rolls 12 and 42)

KA +1/2 does 0 BOD, 0 STUN on average (rolls 10 and 35)

 

Practically, against characters with typical defenses, KA is pretty much useless.

 

- Automaton: say 12 Defenses (so a typical Normal attack does a bit of BOD)

Normal Attack does 3 BOD (rolls 15)

KA +1/4 does 0 BOD on average (rolls 12)

KA +1/2 does 0 BOD (rolls 10)

 

- Automaton: say 8 Defenses (so a typical Normal attack does quite a bit of BOD)

Normal Attack does 7 BOD (rolls 15)

KA +1/4 does 6 BOD on average (rolls 12)

KA +1/2 does 4 BOD (rolls 10)

 

- 7d6 8 DEF entangle w/ 7 BOD

Normal Attack does 7 BOD (rolls 15) and barely breaks out

KA +1/4 does 6 BOD on average (rolls 12) and is still entangled

KA +1/2 does 4 BOD (rolls 10) and remains entangled

 

- 15 DEF Force Wall

Normal attack needs to roll one above average to break through

KA +1/4 needs to roll 4 above average to break through

KA +1/2 needs to roll 6 above average to break through

 

Against obstacles that only take BOD, the KA is less useful than the normal attack.

 

OVERALL Why would anyone ever take the Killing Attack? It will be less useful (right down to completely useless) than the normal attack in almost all circumstances.

 

 

Possible fix: Have only the second level and price it at +1/4. Let's look at that:

 

15d6 Normal, 12d6 +1/4 Killing. Let's look at the same reasonable targets:

 

- Lightly Defended Target: 15 Def, 5 Resistant

Normal Attack does 0 BOD, 37.5 STUN on average (rolls 15 and 52.5)

KA does 14 BOD, 34 STUN on average (rolls 12 and 42)

 

- Mid Level defense: 25 DEF, 12 resistant

Normal Attack does 0 BOD, 27.5 STUN on average (rolls 15 and 52.5)

KA +1/4 does 0 BOD, 17 STUN on average (rolls 12 and 42)

 

- Brick: 35 DEF, 20 rDEF

Normal Attack does 0 BOD, 17.5 STUN on average (rolls 15 and 52.5)

KA +1/4 does 0 BOD, 7 STUN on average (rolls 12 and 42)

 

Practically, against characters with typical defenses, KA is pretty much useless. Against lightly armored targets, it's fatal.

 

- Automaton: say 12 Defenses (so a typical Normal attack does a bit of BOD)

Normal Attack does 3 BOD (rolls 15)

KA +1/4 does 0 BOD on average (rolls 12)

 

- Automaton: say 8 Defenses (so a typical Normal attack does quite a bit of BOD)

Normal Attack does 7 BOD (rolls 15)

KA +1/4 does 8 BOD on average (rolls 12)

 

- 7d6 8 DEF entangle w/ 7 BOD

Normal Attack does 7 BOD (rolls 15) and barely breaks out

KA +1/4 does 8 BOD on average (rolls 12) and barely breaks out

 

- 15 DEF Force Wall

Normal attack needs to roll one above average to break through

KA +1/4 needs to roll 4 above average to break through

 

Against obstacles that only take BOD, the KA is marginally more useful in some cases and less useful in others. The better the target is defended, the less useful the KA becomes.

 

OverallStill don't see much point taking a KA, even when we toughen the advantage up, unless I want to blow away Martial Artists, normals, mooks and other lightly defended targets.

 

The problem is that the KA under this approach has minimal or no effect against targets with defenses that provide credible protection against normal attacks, unless we significantly reduce the levels of resistant defenses. However, dropping rDEF will make the KA extremely lethal, meaning (I suspect) that players will be reluctant to have low rDEF scores.

 

The problem as always is Advantage Stacking.

 

I suspect if you throw AP and/or Pen and/or Autofire into the mix that the numbers will change.

 

More to the point, I think this is a feature, not a bug. KAs tend to be not quite as good as normal attacks if the attack doesn't penetrate armor (look at a warhammer vs a sword against plate armor) but what does get through tends to hurt a LOT more. Philosophically, I wouldn't mind if people did throw fewer KAs in a campaign. That seems to fit the "typical" superheroic genre better. And the difference between a JLA and an Authority campaign could be that the JLA campaign is filled with 20 rDef characters while the Authority campaign has 3 rDef characters.

 

I would agree that the pricing should be at the +1/4 level for 2X effect.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Light armor is already not viable with 75 pt KAs.

 

5d6 KA does 12.5 Body and 32 Stun (rolls 17.5 and 2.67 SM)

 

True. That's what I get for not including a "current rules" comparable.

 

The problem as always is Advantage Stacking.

 

I suspect if you throw AP and/or Pen and/or Autofire into the mix that the numbers will change.

 

That's a separate problem, but I dislike the idea of making the base construct useless due to a fear of abusive advantage stacking. We could double the cost of most advantages so that stacking won't create abilities as unbalanced as they do now, but I don't see that as solving any problems.

 

This approach definitely makes Penetrating a good advantage for any KA - you get twice as much through, since all BOD taken is doubled.

 

More to the point' date=' I think this is a feature, not a bug. KAs tend to be not quite as good as normal attacks if the attack doesn't penetrate armor (look at a warhammer vs a sword against plate armor) but what does get through tends to hurt a LOT more. Philosophically, I wouldn't mind if people did throw fewer KAs in a campaign. That seems to fit the "typical" superheroic genre better. And the difference between a JLA and an Authority campaign could be that the JLA campaign is filled with 20 rDef characters while the Authority campaign has 3 rDef characters.[/quote']

 

Reducing KA's in a Supers game is very different from reducing them in a Fantasy campaign, or a Modern Adventure campaign. Many genres are affected, all differently.

 

What are the DC's in a typical fantasy game? a 1 1/2d6 Longsword with enough adders to get to 3d6 seems pretty powerful to me, so that's 9 DC's. Use a 7d6 attack (+1/4 = 44 AP) for that KA, and it needs to roll 2 above average to inflict any BOD on a Plate-armored target. The 3d6 Longsword gets at least a little through on an average hit.

 

The need to penetrate armor (or tough hide, or combat luck) makes the KA as proposed useless against many opponents, and almost always less productive than the normal attack.

 

I would agree that the pricing should be at the +1/4 level for 2X effect.

[Gary]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

True. That's what I get for not including a "current rules" comparable.

 

 

 

That's a separate problem, but I dislike the idea of making the base construct useless due to a fear of abusive advantage stacking. We could double the cost of most advantages so that stacking won't create abilities as unbalanced as they do now, but I don't see that as solving any problems.

 

This approach definitely makes Penetrating a good advantage for any KA - you get twice as much through, since all BOD taken is doubled.

 

 

The base construct isn't useless. It works quite well against low armored foes or certain entangles. It does the job it's supposed to do very well, but is inferior to normal attacks at taking out high resistant defense oppoenents.

 

Remember, not every opponent you'll face has the campaign max in rDef, even in a superheroic game.

 

The problem isn't with Advantage stacking in general, but that all you need to do is add 1 advantage to vastly increase the effectiveness of KAs using this approach. The KA advantage would work very well with AP, so much so that I believe it would be instantly competitive if not slightly superior to normal attacks. Penetrating would also be very lethal, although there should probably be a rule that Body is divided by 3 and then doubled to account for the fact that you're rolling a lot more dice to begin with.

 

 

Reducing KA's in a Supers game is very different from reducing them in a Fantasy campaign, or a Modern Adventure campaign. Many genres are affected, all differently.

 

What are the DC's in a typical fantasy game? a 1 1/2d6 Longsword with enough adders to get to 3d6 seems pretty powerful to me, so that's 9 DC's. Use a 7d6 attack (+1/4 = 44 AP) for that KA, and it needs to roll 2 above average to inflict any BOD on a Plate-armored target. The 3d6 Longsword gets at least a little through on an average hit.

 

The need to penetrate armor (or tough hide, or combat luck) makes the KA as proposed useless against many opponents, and almost always less productive than the normal attack.

 

 

Again, it's a feature not a bug. A longsword should have a very difficult time penetrating plate armor and should be less effective than the corresponding 9d6 warhammer. OTOH, it should do a lot more damage than the mace against someone wearing leather or padded armor. And it does under this system.

 

Yes, there are a lot of foes that it's worse against compared to EB, but there are a lot where it's better.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

The base construct isn't useless. It works quite well against low armored foes or certain entangles. It does the job it's supposed to do very well' date=' but is inferior to normal attacks at taking out high resistant defense oppoenents.[/quote']

 

Looking back at my examples, I don't see it as enjoying superiority with enough frequency to make it worthwhile compared to equivalent DC's of normal attack. Against the average or high defense target, it's useless. Against a very low defense target, it's lethal, but the normal attack will Stun that opponent anyway, leaving the target just as defeated. Against obstacles that take BOD only, it's still of limited or no application, with the equivalent normal attack generally enjoying an advantage or, possibly, a minor detriment.

 

Remember' date=' not every opponent you'll face has the campaign max in rDef, even in a superheroic game.[/quote']

 

They don't need the max. Average is quite adequate. I did the math with 15 DC, so I boosted defenses a bit over the 12d6 norm. In fact, the 25/12 average I used is pretty close to the 25/15 norm for high powered Supers (with 10 to 16 DC attacks). Drop it down to 12d6 normal or 10d6 KA, vs the stanbdard Super's 20/10 defenses, and we get a normal attack averaging 22 STUN, 0 BOD, and the KA averaging 0 BOD and 15 Stun. Sure, it does extra BOD on an above average roll, but it needs to roll 14 BOD to beat the average Stun of that normal attack.

 

9 DC is the top end of the Powerful Heroic DC range, and the expectation there is 10 DEF, 5 DEF. 9d6 normal gets 21.5 Stun and no BOD. Your 7d6 KA averages 4 BOD through, and 22.5 Stun, so now it's clearly superior at the average levels. The sole determinant of whether the KA or the normal attack will come out ahead is rDEF. And if characters are dropping like flies because the rDEF levels make KA's lethal, the pressure will be on for higher rDEF levels - no one likes making a new character every other session.

 

The problem isn't with Advantage stacking in general' date=' but that all you need to do is add 1 advantage to vastly increase the effectiveness of KAs using this approach. The KA advantage would work very well with AP, so much so that I believe it would be instantly competitive if not slightly superior to normal attacks. Penetrating would also be very lethal, although there should probably be a rule that Body is divided by 3 and then doubled to account for the fact that you're rolling a lot more dice to begin with.[/quote']

 

So now we have a construct that's too weak without advantage stacking, and too powerful with. That's not my idea of solving a problem.

 

Again' date=' it's a feature not a bug. A longsword [b']should[/b] have a very difficult time penetrating plate armor and should be less effective than the corresponding 9d6 warhammer. OTOH, it should do a lot more damage than the mace against someone wearing leather or padded armor. And it does under this system.

 

Marginally more. Is it enough to make up for its being useless against many others? I don't believe it is. Now, it may justify putting it in a Multipower so I can choose the one that will be more effective, but choosing between the two, the KA is unlikely to make for an effective character. Making swords the weak sister weapon is counter-genre - it's not called "Hammers & Sorcery". Even from a strict realism perspective, how do we now build those English longbows that fired arrows right through the French armor at Agincourt?

[Gary]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Looking back at my examples' date=' I don't see it as enjoying superiority with enough frequency to make it worthwhile compared to equivalent DC's of normal attack. Against the average or high defense target, it's useless. Against a very low defense target, it's lethal, but the normal attack will Stun that opponent anyway, leaving the target just as defeated. Against obstacles that take BOD only, it's still of limited or no application, with the equivalent normal attack generally enjoying an advantage or, possibly, a minor detriment.[/quote']

 

It becomes a specialty attack just like AP currently is. AP also has a very limited set of opponents that it's better against than a straight attack. At the 75 pt level, it's only better vs foes with > 35 non-hardened defenses. Not terribly common. And AP like my proposed KA also only becomes worthwhile once you stack advantages such as Autofire or Penetrating with it.

 

 

They don't need the max. Average is quite adequate. I did the math with 15 DC, so I boosted defenses a bit over the 12d6 norm. In fact, the 25/12 average I used is pretty close to the 25/15 norm for high powered Supers (with 10 to 16 DC attacks). Drop it down to 12d6 normal or 10d6 KA, vs the stanbdard Super's 20/10 defenses, and we get a normal attack averaging 22 STUN, 0 BOD, and the KA averaging 0 BOD and 15 Stun. Sure, it does extra BOD on an above average roll, but it needs to roll 14 BOD to beat the average Stun of that normal attack.

 

And there are TONS of foes who aren't at the average. Average in this case is a villain built on the same points as the hero. The vast majority of opponents are not a typical PC's equal. There are plenty of orcs, viper agents, soldiers, etc where the attack is viable. And just stack 1 advantage on the attack and it becomes viable even against equals.

 

9 DC is the top end of the Powerful Heroic DC range, and the expectation there is 10 DEF, 5 DEF. 9d6 normal gets 21.5 Stun and no BOD. Your 7d6 KA averages 4 BOD through, and 22.5 Stun, so now it's clearly superior at the average levels. The sole determinant of whether the KA or the normal attack will come out ahead is rDEF. And if characters are dropping like flies because the rDEF levels make KA's lethal, the pressure will be on for higher rDEF levels - no one likes making a new character every other session.

 

Again, a feature not a bug. If the PCs have 15 resistant defenses, that would probably explain why Viper arms its agents with 10d6 EBs instead of AK-47s when the AK-47 would be a lot more lethal in Hero terms. And why the majority of comic book characters unleash what appear to be normal attacks instead of KAs.

 

 

So now we have a construct that's too weak without advantage stacking' date=' and too powerful with. That's not my idea of solving a problem.[/quote']

 

I guess you don't like the AP advantage.

 

Marginally more. Is it enough to make up for its being useless against many others? I don't believe it is. Now, it may justify putting it in a Multipower so I can choose the one that will be more effective, but choosing between the two, the KA is unlikely to make for an effective character. Making swords the weak sister weapon is counter-genre - it's not called "Hammers & Sorcery". Even from a strict realism perspective, how do we now build those English longbows that fired arrows right through the French armor at Agincourt?

 

Not every foe will have plate armor. The vast majority of orcs, goblins, and ogres will take more damage from swords than hammers. And against tough foes like dragons, you're screwed unless you have a dragon slaying sword (AP and more dice vs dragons) anyway.

 

The longbows usually didn't penetrate plate armor unless it hit a weak point such as the joints unless it was very close range. What it did was kill horses, annihilate the soldiers with weaker armor (the majority since relatively few could afford plate), and knock knights off their mounts. All of which a 6d6 RKA under my system could do. And even then, the English had lines of dismounted knights of their own to hold off the French that made it through the barrage.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

It becomes a specialty attack just like AP currently is. AP also has a very limited set of opponents that it's better against than a straight attack. At the 75 pt level' date=' it's only better vs foes with > 35 non-hardened defenses. Not terribly common. And AP like my proposed KA also only becomes worthwhile once you stack advantages such as Autofire or Penetrating with it.[/quote']

 

This comes down to whether one wants a KA to be a viable attack, or a very specialized attack form. AP is very useful against high defense targets, who are powerful. The 15d6 EB will not be significantly less useful in demolishing mooks than the 12d6 KA under your model, although it will not kill them as frequently, so there's no real advantage gained.

 

And there are TONS of foes who aren't at the average. Average in this case is a villain built on the same points as the hero. The vast majority of opponents are not a typical PC's equal. There are plenty of orcs' date=' viper agents, soldiers, etc where the attack is viable. And just stack 1 advantage on the attack and it becomes viable even against equals.[/quote']

 

That vast majority of mooks, as stated above, will be taken out by the KA or the normal attack. Returning to my previous examples, even the relatively low DEF target takes more STUN from the EB than the KA. That VIPER agent will be just as defeated when a 15d6 normal attack inflicts 37.5 Stun and 0 BOD as when a 12d6 KA inflicts 14 BOD and 34 STUN. Both are KO'd. One is also bleeding to death. I see no significant tactical advantage in having a target that is bleeding to death as well as being KO'd.

 

Again' date=' a feature not a bug. If the PCs have 15 resistant defenses, that would probably explain why Viper arms its agents with 10d6 EBs instead of AK-47s when the AK-47 would be a lot more lethal in Hero terms. And why the majority of comic book characters unleash what appear to be normal attacks instead of KAs.[/quote']

 

It fails to explain why characters who use KA's are even remotely effective.

 

I guess you don't like the AP advantage.

 

Frankly, AP also tends to show up only in Multipowers so it suffers from the same issue. However, it has the advantage of being potentially more useful against more dangerous opponents. This KA has an advantage only against lightly defended mooks, if there. Who needs an advantage to take out the mooks?

 

Not every foe will have plate armor. The vast majority of orcs' date=' goblins, and ogres will take more damage from swords than hammers. And against tough foes like dragons, you're screwed unless you have a dragon slaying sword (AP and more dice vs dragons) anyway.[/quote']

 

They will take far more BOD damage. 9d6 normal attack vs, say, 4 rDEF and 8 DEF total will average 1 BOD, 23.5 STUN. Target's likely stunned and one hit away from completely out of the fight. 7d6 KA does 6 BOD and 21.5 STUN. Target's likely stunned and one hit away from completely out of the fight, and also nearly dead after that second hit. No major difference in play.

 

The longbows usually didn't penetrate plate armor unless it hit a weak point such as the joints unless it was very close range. What it did was kill horses' date=' annihilate the soldiers with weaker armor (the majority since relatively few could afford plate), and knock knights off their mounts. All of which a 6d6 RKA under my system could do. And even then, the English had lines of dismounted knights of their own to hold off the French that made it through the barrage.[/quote']

 

I'm not expert in medeival history, but my understanding is that the English longbow went through the breastplate of many French knights at 100 yards plus. The English are believed to have had about 5,000 archers and 900 foot soldiers at Agincourt, so I'd suggest the dismounted knights didn't win the day.

 

Early on the 25th' date=' Henry deployed his army (approximately 900 men-at-arms and 5,000 longbowmen) across a 750 yard part of the defile. It is likely that the English adopted their usual battle line of longbowmen on either flank, men-at-arms and knights in the centre, and at the very centre roughly 200 archers. The English men-at-arms in plate and mail were placed shoulder to shoulder four deep. The English archers on the flanks drove pointed wooden stakes called palings into the ground at an angle to force cavalry to veer off. [/quote']

 

Sounds like most of the English men at arms had plate armor too.

[Gary]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

This comes down to whether one wants a KA to be a viable attack' date=' or a very specialized attack form. AP is very useful against high defense targets, who are powerful. The 15d6 EB will not be significantly less useful in demolishing mooks than the 12d6 KA under your model, although it will not kill them as frequently, so there's no real advantage gained.[/quote']

 

Unless you want to clear them out of the fight without the mooks recovering. At the 15d6 level, a mook is going down regardless. At the 10d6 vs 12d6 level or the 8d6 vs 10d6 level, the mook might be stunned for con, but will recover and be a problem later. Some body done to him might just convince him to stay down.

 

Or perhaps a low defense automaton such as a zombie where stun is irrelevant.

 

Or a low rDef high damage reduction foe.

 

Also relevant is what rDef the GM assigns the enemies. If he throws ALL high def characters at you, obviously you won't use the KA much. If he throws an appropriate mix of foes at you, then the KA will be better some of the time.

 

That vast majority of mooks, as stated above, will be taken out by the KA or the normal attack. Returning to my previous examples, even the relatively low DEF target takes more STUN from the EB than the KA. That VIPER agent will be just as defeated when a 15d6 normal attack inflicts 37.5 Stun and 0 BOD as when a 12d6 KA inflicts 14 BOD and 34 STUN. Both are KO'd. One is also bleeding to death. I see no significant tactical advantage in having a target that is bleeding to death as well as being KO'd.

 

Again, you're only using the 75 pt level and you're not thinking of foes such as zombies or Rubber Man.

 

It fails to explain why characters who use KA's are even remotely effective.

 

Actually, the characters who almost exclusively use KAs that I can think of generally have AP on their KA such as Wolverine or the Black Knight. Other characters such as Punisher with normal KAs don't seem terribly effective against high def supers.

 

Frankly, AP also tends to show up only in Multipowers so it suffers from the same issue. However, it has the advantage of being potentially more useful against more dangerous opponents. This KA has an advantage only against lightly defended mooks, if there. Who needs an advantage to take out the mooks?

 

The same opponent with extremely high def usually has it hardened anyway. And the highest def opponents may or may not be the most dangerous. Frankly, low def mentallists are probably more dangerous than high def damage sponges.

 

They will take far more BOD damage. 9d6 normal attack vs, say, 4 rDEF and 8 DEF total will average 1 BOD, 23.5 STUN. Target's likely stunned and one hit away from completely out of the fight. 7d6 KA does 6 BOD and 21.5 STUN. Target's likely stunned and one hit away from completely out of the fight, and also nearly dead after that second hit. No major difference in play.

 

Using your particular examples, yes. Over a wider range of opponents and attacks, no.

 

I'm not expert in medeival history, but my understanding is that the English longbow went through the breastplate of many French knights at 100 yards plus. The English are believed to have had about 5,000 archers and 900 foot soldiers at Agincourt, so I'd suggest the dismounted knights didn't win the day.

 

You're probably thinking of the battle of Crecy where armor wasn't as evolved and could be penetrated. At Agincourt, the Knights were defeated as much by the mud and the terrain as by the English. The Knights mostly made it to the English lines intact, but were exhausted by then and were easy prey to the dismounted English knights and even the longbowmen who used hammers, axes, and swords to attack. Once a knight fell, it was virtually impossible for him to get up, especially with active opponents keeping him down. Some knights were even reported to drown in the muddy ground.

 

Sounds like most of the English men at arms had plate armor too.

 

They were essentially knights. The French army was composed of knights and men at arms, and the majority did not have plate.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Unless you want to clear them out of the fight without the mooks recovering. At the 15d6 level' date=' a mook is going down regardless. At the 10d6 vs 12d6 level or the 8d6 vs 10d6 level, the mook might be stunned for con, but will recover and be a problem later. Some body done to him might just convince him to stay down.[/quote']

 

This comes down to role playing. The GM that has opponents just keep coming, heedless of the fact that they have been shown to be outclassed, will doubtless have the same opponents continue to attack while bleeding to death.

 

Or perhaps a low defense automaton such as a zombie where stun is irrelevant.

 

Or a low rDef high damage reduction foe.

 

In regards to damage reduction, won't the KA BOD and Stun still be reduced?

 

Basically, the KA will be useful only where the target has normal defenses that are vastly superior to rDEF. If we assume that Zombie Automoton has defenses that are all resistant, the 9d6 Normal Attack is superior at defenses 6 and higher, and the KA becomes preferable at 5 or lower rDEF.

 

I can't see the KA as the single attack of choice for anyone, since its superiority will be rare, and its inferiority against the wrong opponent enough to render it virtually useless.

 

Also relevant is what rDef the GM assigns the enemies. If he throws ALL high def characters at you' date=' obviously you won't use the KA much. If he throws an appropriate mix of foes at you, then the KA will be better some of the time.[/quote']

 

That "appropriate mix of foes" requires a significant number with minor or no rDEF. In order for that to have any degree of verisimilitude, there would need to be a significant portion of player characters with the same defense ratio. And that won't happen, because their life expectancy is trashed by their vulnerability to KA Bod damage. Your approach essentially relies on the heroes always being significantly tougher (in terms of r DEF) than the world around them, just to have decent survival chances.

 

Actually' date=' the characters who almost exclusively use KAs that I can think of generally have AP on their KA such as Wolverine or the Black Knight. Other characters such as Punisher with normal KAs don't seem terribly effective against high def supers.[/quote']

 

Whether their attacks are AP depends largely on whether they need to be in order to be effective.

 

The same opponent with extremely high def usually has it hardened anyway.

 

Which is why AP gets relegated to the trash heap. Using the same logic you use above, the GM is at fault for not providing an appropriate mix of foes, some of whom have an achilles heel when it comes to AP attacks.

 

And the highest def opponents may or may not be the most dangerous. Frankly' date=' low def mentallists are probably more dangerous than high def damage sponges.[/quote']

 

The 15d6 EB is pretty effective at taking out those low DEF mentalists. The KA is not needed.

 

The bottom line is that your approach converts the KA to an attack which, to be effective, must kill. That matches the description quite nicely, and may be a good thing for some games. However, it also means high lethality, frequent replacement of PC's and lots of dead NPC's instead of recurring villains, or ensuring rDEF is high enough to neuter the KA as a viable attack option.

[Gary]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

This comes down to role playing. The GM that has opponents just keep coming' date=' heedless of the fact that they have been shown to be outclassed, will doubtless have the same opponents continue to attack while bleeding to death.[/quote']

 

A mook might have 10 Def and 15 Con. A 10d6 Attack may or may not stun him for con and certainly won't knock him out.

 

Not all GMs will decide not to give mooks recoveries.

 

 

In regards to damage reduction, won't the KA BOD and Stun still be reduced?

 

Yeah, but body is still leaking through and possibly significant amounts of it depending on rDef levels.

 

 

Basically, the KA will be useful only where the target has normal defenses that are vastly superior to rDEF. If we assume that Zombie Automoton has defenses that are all resistant, the 9d6 Normal Attack is superior at defenses 6 and higher, and the KA becomes preferable at 5 or lower rDEF.

 

Yep. The Zombie from Hero System Bestiary has 4 PD and 2 ED. Most cannon fodder automatons tend to have very little defense.

 

I can't see the KA as the single attack of choice for anyone, since its superiority will be rare, and its inferiority against the wrong opponent enough to render it virtually useless.

 

The characters who do use it as a single attack of choice tend to purchase AP as well such as Wolverine.

 

That "appropriate mix of foes" requires a significant number with minor or no rDEF. In order for that to have any degree of verisimilitude, there would need to be a significant portion of player characters with the same defense ratio. And that won't happen, because their life expectancy is trashed by their vulnerability to KA Bod damage. Your approach essentially relies on the heroes always being significantly tougher (in terms of r DEF) than the world around them, just to have decent survival chances.

 

Why? If you look at most RPGs, the PCs ARE significantly tougher than the world around them. Otherwise they'd die off every other adventure. And remember, in a RPG PCs tend to be different than in a novel or comic because there is no writer fiat to protect them. When was the last time you ran a Hero character who expects to see significant combat, and didn't have resistant defenses?

 

Whether their attacks are AP depends largely on whether they need to be in order to be effective.

 

Against tougher foes, AP needs to be there as a slot in the MP.

 

Which is why AP gets relegated to the trash heap. Using the same logic you use above, the GM is at fault for not providing an appropriate mix of foes, some of whom have an achilles heel when it comes to AP attacks.

 

If a PC were to purchase an AP normal attack as his SOLE attack of choice, then yes the GM does bear some responsibility to making sure the PC can use the power effectively a reasonable amount of the time. Most PCs tend not to though.

 

The 15d6 EB is pretty effective at taking out those low DEF mentalists. The KA is not needed.

 

Unless you want them to flee the battle instead of taking a recovery or 2 and making a nuisance of themselves.

 

 

The bottom line is that your approach converts the KA to an attack which, to be effective, must kill. That matches the description quite nicely, and may be a good thing for some games. However, it also means high lethality, frequent replacement of PC's and lots of dead NPC's instead of recurring villains, or ensuring rDEF is high enough to neuter the KA as a viable attack option.

 

Yep. Killing Attacks should be lethal and not just a means to inflict more stun than normal attacks.

 

Important villains and PCs always have higher rDef than typical. That's part of what makes them important. And if PCs start massacring NPCs, there's a whole section of the rulebook that deals with the social consequences.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

A mook might have 10 Def and 15 Con. A 10d6 Attack may or may not stun him for con and certainly won't knock him out.

 

I rarely see a 10d6 attack roll 25 or less STUN.

 

Not all GMs will decide not to give mooks recoveries.

 

Assuming 10 DEF and 15 CON, plus 30 STUN (lots for a mook), 1 hit from a 10d6 normal attack will stun him and drop him to 5 STUN. The second will stun him again and drop him to -20 STUN. Will the battle last long enough for him to get recoveries sufficient to regain consciousness? Assuming a 5 REC (see below), he needs 2 turns to get to -10, then another 3 phases to be conscious.

 

Let's look to that KA - 8d6 assuming +1/4. Our Mook probably has some focused defenses, which tend to be resistant. Let's say 4, like the zombie (6 natural PD/ED seems pretty high for a mook). That 8d6 attack will roll 28 STUN and 8 BOD, on average, so 4 BOD gets through. The mook takes 8 BOD and 22 STUN, so he's in exactly the same condition as the mook hit with the normal attack - Stunned, not out - except that he's badly wounded. A second attack will take him to -14 STUN and -6 BOD (assuming a 10 BOD mook). He's bleeding to death and KO'd. Assume he has a 5 REC (15 CON and 10 STR would do that, so it seems conservative). He gets a PS 12 recovery, then recovers on each phase, so he'll be awake (but at -7 BOD) a few phases into the next turn.

 

The mook hit with the KA is actually awake sooner than the one hit with the normal attack. Again, I suggest that a GM who applies the lemming mentality that mooks just keep coming until they can't come any more will do so whether the mook is at negative BOD or not.

 

One more hit on the 5 STUN mook with the normal attack will put him back at -20 STUN. One more hit on the -7 BOD mook will kill him. I suppose if you expect combat to last a minute or more, the guy with the KA has an advantage.

 

Yep. The Zombie from Hero System Bestiary has 4 PD and 2 ED. Most cannon fodder automatons tend to have very little defense.

 

I prefer my PC's to have attacks useful against more than cannon fodder.

 

The characters who do use it as a single attack of choice tend to purchase AP as well such as Wolverine.

 

I'm reluctant to consider every serious character whose main attack is a KA to have AP.

 

Why? If you look at most RPGs' date=' the PCs ARE significantly tougher than the world around them. Otherwise they'd die off every other adventure. And remember, in a RPG PCs tend to be different than in a novel or comic because there is no writer fiat to protect them. When was the last time you ran a Hero character who expects to see significant combat, and didn't have resistant defenses?[/quote']

 

Under the present KA structure, that rDEF doesn't make a KA a complete waste of points. Under yours, it does. No PC need ever fear a sword, claws or any other non-AP KA under your model. And, since AP KA's are more devestating, and likely much more common, under your model, Hardening those resistant defenses starts to look like a much more desirable (maybe mandatory) step to take.

 

Against tougher foes' date=' AP needs to be there as a slot in the MP. [/quote']

 

Not every character should have, or need, the proverbial swiss army multipower.

 

If a PC were to purchase an AP normal attack as his SOLE attack of choice' date=' then yes the GM does bear some responsibility to making sure the PC can use the power effectively a reasonable amount of the time. Most PCs tend not to though.[/quote']

 

And this tendency will extend to KA's under your model. That's fine, provided that was the goal, but I find it a poor means of fixing KA's for games that wanted KA's to remain a viable attack form.

 

Unless you want them to flee the battle instead of taking a recovery or 2 and making a nuisance of themselves.

 

The mentalist can be taken out of the battle quite readily by application of normal attacks. I'll assume we're back to a 15d6 Normal attack and a 12d6 KA. Let's give our Mentalist 18 defenses (quite light for a Super), of which 10 come from his force field (natural 8 PD/ED seems quite heavy for a mentalist). Tack on a 23 CON and STUN of 35.

 

15d6 average roll is 52.5 less 18 = 34 stun inflicted - STUNNED. A second hit inflicts a further 34 STUN so he's at -33 STUN. Nighty night. Bump his Stun to 50, and he now is at -18 STUN, so he can recover in a turn and a half or so.

 

12d6 average roll is 42 and 12 BOD, so he takes 4 BOD, and 28 STUN - STUNNED. The second hit costs another 4 BOD and another 28 STUN, so he's either at -21 STUN (once a minute - down for the count, essentially) or -6 STUN (back up in a couple of phases). Whether he flees or retaliates is up to his personality, but he has more opportunity to do either than the one taken down by normal attacks.

 

I think a lot of games would see the characters logically gang up on the one inflicting lethal damage, rather than flee the scene.

 

Yep. Killing Attacks should be lethal and not just a means to inflict more stun than normal attacks.

 

But they're only lethal to mooks under your system, same as the regular Hero KA's.

 

Important villains and PCs always have higher rDef than typical. That's part of what makes them important. And if PCs start massacring NPCs' date=' there's a whole section of the rulebook that deals with the social consequences.[/quote']

 

The social consequences, and their importance, depend entirely on the setting and genre.

[Gary]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

I rarely see a 10d6 attack roll 25 or less STUN.

 

It does occasionally, especially if you're spreading a few dice to get more mooks.

 

 

Assuming 10 DEF and 15 CON, plus 30 STUN (lots for a mook), 1 hit from a 10d6 normal attack will stun him and drop him to 5 STUN. The second will stun him again and drop him to -20 STUN. Will the battle last long enough for him to get recoveries sufficient to regain consciousness? Assuming a 5 REC (see below), he needs 2 turns to get to -10, then another 3 phases to be conscious.

 

Let's look to that KA - 8d6 assuming +1/4. Our Mook probably has some focused defenses, which tend to be resistant. Let's say 4, like the zombie (6 natural PD/ED seems pretty high for a mook). That 8d6 attack will roll 28 STUN and 8 BOD, on average, so 4 BOD gets through. The mook takes 8 BOD and 22 STUN, so he's in exactly the same condition as the mook hit with the normal attack - Stunned, not out - except that he's badly wounded. A second attack will take him to -14 STUN and -6 BOD (assuming a 10 BOD mook). He's bleeding to death and KO'd. Assume he has a 5 REC (15 CON and 10 STR would do that, so it seems conservative). He gets a PS 12 recovery, then recovers on each phase, so he'll be awake (but at -7 BOD) a few phases into the next turn.

 

The mook hit with the KA is actually awake sooner than the one hit with the normal attack. Again, I suggest that a GM who applies the lemming mentality that mooks just keep coming until they can't come any more will do so whether the mook is at negative BOD or not.

 

One more hit on the 5 STUN mook with the normal attack will put him back at -20 STUN. One more hit on the -7 BOD mook will kill him. I suppose if you expect combat to last a minute or more, the guy with the KA has an advantage.

 

There's a HUGE difference between a mook taking a bunch of stun and a mook taking 8 Body plus an equivalent amount of stun. In any game I've been a part of, most people would tend to think that the latter is a far more serious matter and would be FAR more terrified of the KA, but perhaps it's different in your experience.

 

 

I prefer my PC's to have attacks useful against more than cannon fodder.

 

They are. I was merely giving an example of a relatively common foe where you would use the KA.

 

I'm reluctant to consider every serious character whose main attack is a KA to have AP.

 

It makes perfect sense to me. Just look at Wolverine, Lobo, Black Knight, etc. Arguably, all of them have AP.

 

 

Under the present KA structure, that rDEF doesn't make a KA a complete waste of points. Under yours, it does. No PC need ever fear a sword, claws or any other non-AP KA under your model. And, since AP KA's are more devestating, and likely much more common, under your model, Hardening those resistant defenses starts to look like a much more desirable (maybe mandatory) step to take.

 

I have no problems with PCs and important NPCs hardening their defenses. They're SUPPOSED to be much tougher than regular characters. Also, AP KAs will only be more common if the GM chooses to make them more common. Such as for tougher and nastier NPCs and weapons. If the GM keeps the AP KA suitably rare, there's no need for the every PC to purchase hardened, just like a suitably rare body drain doesn't necessarily force every PC to purchase power defense.

 

Not every character should have, or need, the proverbial swiss army multipower.

 

And this tendency will extend to KA's under your model. That's fine, provided that was the goal, but I find it a poor means of fixing KA's for games that wanted KA's to remain a viable attack form.

 

 

What you're apparently saying is that if someone can't use KA as his SOLE means of attack, it's not a viable attack form. Pardon me if I'm putting words in your mouth. I massively disagree. I think there remains a niche for an attack that's devastatingly effective under certain circumstances but ineffective vs really tough opposition.

 

 

The mentalist can be taken out of the battle quite readily by application of normal attacks. I'll assume we're back to a 15d6 Normal attack and a 12d6 KA. Let's give our Mentalist 18 defenses (quite light for a Super), of which 10 come from his force field (natural 8 PD/ED seems quite heavy for a mentalist). Tack on a 23 CON and STUN of 35.

 

15d6 average roll is 52.5 less 18 = 34 stun inflicted - STUNNED. A second hit inflicts a further 34 STUN so he's at -33 STUN. Nighty night. Bump his Stun to 50, and he now is at -18 STUN, so he can recover in a turn and a half or so.

 

12d6 average roll is 42 and 12 BOD, so he takes 4 BOD, and 28 STUN - STUNNED. The second hit costs another 4 BOD and another 28 STUN, so he's either at -21 STUN (once a minute - down for the count, essentially) or -6 STUN (back up in a couple of phases). Whether he flees or retaliates is up to his personality, but he has more opportunity to do either than the one taken down by normal attacks.

 

I think a lot of games would see the characters logically gang up on the one inflicting lethal damage, rather than flee the scene.

 

 

Apparently in your campaign based on your other statement and this one, people consider it of negligible consequence that they're taking 8 Body. Apparently only Stun matters in your campaign.

 

But they're only lethal to mooks under your system, same as the regular Hero KA's.

 

They're lethal to low rDef opponents. Those aren't all mooks.

 

 

The social consequences, and their importance, depend entirely on the setting and genre.

 

Yes they do. I was responding to your comment that there would be droves of dead NPCs. And I was pointing out what would happen in a typical superheroic campaign. In a fantasy hero campaign, it might be a feature that the group leaves behind hordes of dead orcs and goblins.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

It does occasionally' date=' especially if you're spreading a few dice to get more mooks.[/quote']

 

The normal attack can spread much more effectively. Spreading your 8d6 KA to hit, say, 3 hexes leaves 5d6, which will average 5 BOD (mook takes 2) and 17.5 STUN (mook takes 9.5). The 10d6 attack falls to 7d6, averaging 24.5, still leaving a decent chance at stunning the three mooks.

 

Your KA loses ground on Spreading since it has less dice to start with.

 

There's a HUGE difference between a mook taking a bunch of stun and a mook taking 8 Body plus an equivalent amount of stun. In any game I've been a part of' date=' most people would tend to think that the latter is a far more serious matter and would be FAR more terrified of the KA, but perhaps it's different in your experience.[/quote']

 

Properly role played, the mok who has taken 8 BOD should be terrified. However, the one who was hit twice by the normal attack and KO'd without even a chance to retaliate should also be thinking "hopeless case" when he wakes up.

 

Most GM's who are applying the "mooks are lemmings" approach will have them keep attacking whether they're bleeding to death or "just" obviously and hopelessly outclassed. You can certainly run your mooks as terrified of BOD damage but lacking any fear of Stun damage, being KO'd repeatedly, taking knockback damage, etc., to give the KA that greater fear factor you want, but to me that's a concession to add some viability to your KA model.

 

They are. I was merely giving an example of a relatively common foe where you would use the KA.

 

So far, all examples appear to be mooks or custom-designed to be much more vulnerable to your KA's than to normal attacks.

 

It makes perfect sense to me. Just look at Wolverine' date=' Lobo, Black Knight, etc. Arguably, all of them have AP.[/quote']

 

This is a chicken and egg argument. Because your KA model makes KA's ineffectual without AP, and those characters have effective KA's, you conclude they must be AP. Under a model where KA's can be effective against relatively equal opposition without being AP, these characters don't need AP KA's to be competetive, so they won't all have it.

 

And survivability of my character seems dependent on having Hardened my resistant defenses, so clearly I',m much more inclined to do so under your KA model than I was before. If AP becomes more useful , more ciommon, and more sevestating to go up against, the defense will naturally be more prized, and PC's (and major NPC's) more inclined to apply that advantage.

 

I have no problems with PCs and important NPCs hardening their defenses. They're SUPPOSED to be much tougher than regular characters.

 

Which makes KA's a non-viable attack form against PC's.

 

Also' date=' AP KAs will only be more common if the GM chooses to make them more common. Such as for tougher and nastier NPCs and weapons. If the GM keeps the AP KA suitably rare, there's no need for the every PC to purchase hardened, just like a suitably rare body drain doesn't necessarily force every PC to purchase power defense.[/quote']

 

Which means the KA as a viable attack form for NPC's disappears - PC's will pretty much be invulnerable to them (except for that AP KA which is about as rare as a BOD drain in standard play).

 

What you're apparently saying is that if someone can't use KA as his SOLE means of attack' date=' it's not a viable attack form. Pardon me if I'm putting words in your mouth. I massively disagree. I think there remains a niche for an attack that's devastatingly effective under certain circumstances but ineffective vs really tough opposition.[/quote']

 

As noted above, even if I agree with your niche attacks, KA's have now been made useless against player characters, so the opposition will either lack them or get no real use out of them. As for a niche attack useful against mooks, I'd much rather take something that sacrifices damage capacity for multiple targeting, such as an AoE NND or AoE Entangle, than an attack which sacrifices STUN damage to do BOD damage. Especially when the targets this is really effective against are mooks, not major threats, and taking an extra phase or two will not be that big a deal.

 

And the KA should logically be effective as a primary form of attack. If it wasn't, combat and warefare would not have evolved to favour KA's. I can't think of any source material where KA's used by credible opposition (as opposed to, say, a mugger's handgun in a Supers game) are not a significant threat to the heroes - without requiring an addition to the KA itself, such as AP.

 

But let's look at that AP KA. Let's use a 12 DC game, with average defenses 20/10 (standard Supers). Three opponents, one with low defenses (let's keep our 10/4 character), one at that 20/10 average ands a third with 30/15.

 

Normal attack is 12d6 (average roll 42/12), KA is 9 1/2d6 (average roll 33.5/9.5) and AP KA is 7d6 (and a bit higher cost than the others; average roll 24.5/7).

 

Against the low defense target, the normal attack averages 32 Stun and 2 BOD. The target is likley Stunned. The KA will average 11 BOD and 29 Stun. The AP KA manages 6 BOD and 17.5 Stun. We already knew KA's are lethal to low DEF targets. AP isn't very useful here, but we probably knew that as well.

 

Average defenses? Normal attack manages 22 STUN, no BOD. The KA will average 13.5 STUN and 0 BOD, making the normal attack superior. The AP KA attack will get 4 BOD through, and 6.5 Stun. I guess if he can whittle the guy down and kill him over many atacks, he'll win, but I'd expect the target to retaliate. It's going to take more KA hits to kill the target than normal hits to KO him, I expect, but the KA is lethal if applied over time. An AP normal attack would inflict 18 Stun and no BOD - that's likely going to take the target out faster.

 

Our high defense target takes 12 Stun from the normal attack. The KA and AP KA are utterly ineffectual on an average hit. An AP normal attack will do 13 Stun, marginally better than the normasl attack.

 

So I don't see adding AP to significantly level the playing field. It means the low DEF target will be dispatched, rather than stunned and then KO'd. The mid level target might be whittled down over time, but the normal attack will KO him first. The high defense target laughs at your KA, AP or otherwise.

 

Basically, the only thing the KA has to recommend it is that the target may be more scared of taking BOD than Stun, so he might flee.

 

Apparently in your campaign based on your other statement and this one' date=' people consider it of negligible consequence that they're taking 8 Body. Apparently only Stun matters in your campaign.[/quote']

 

In my games, people would consider 8 BOD a major issue - that's a lethal attack. However, they would also consider an attacker who strikes first (mooks are almost always slower), knocks them silly (stunned), then finishes them off (second attack KO's) to be a major, possibly unbeatable threat. A mook who actually does recover from that KO (a turn and a half later, at least) looking at the field of battle, having half a dozen Stun and End, is logically going to consider fleeing the field, not rejoining a hopeless fight. Apparently, in your games, the lemmings will keep throwing themselves at the vastly superior foe in hopes of wearing them down, so only BOD matters in your campaign.

 

They're lethal to low rDef opponents. Those aren't all mooks.

 

Important villains and PCs always have higher rDef than typical. That's part of what makes them important.

 

Based on the above, a KA will be useless against any important NPC. In my corner of the universe, that means "any opponent who is at the same level as the PC", since I consider the PC's to set a standard for their opposition. I would find it damaging to suspension of disbelief to water down all the opposition's defenses as compared to the PC's so that the PC's KA can be useful, when NPC KA's are worthless.

 

In a game where the PC's are top of the heap and rarely, if ever, face opposition of a power level equivalent to their own, this would not be an issue. That doesn't describe most games, in my experience.

 

Yes they do. I was responding to your comment that there would be droves of dead NPCs. And I was pointing out what would happen in a typical superheroic campaign. In a fantasy hero campaign' date=' it might be a feature that the group leaves behind hordes of dead orcs and goblins.[/quote']

 

In the Supers game (again, in my experience) the heroes are commonly facing opponents at a power level at least equivalent to their own. Thus, KA commonly useless.

[Gary]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

The normal attack can spread much more effectively. Spreading your 8d6 KA to hit, say, 3 hexes leaves 5d6, which will average 5 BOD (mook takes 2) and 17.5 STUN (mook takes 9.5). The 10d6 attack falls to 7d6, averaging 24.5, still leaving a decent chance at stunning the three mooks.

 

Your KA loses ground on Spreading since it has less dice to start with.

 

 

The spreading was in reference to your comment that 10d6 = automatic stun vs 10 def 15 con. I was pointing out that a relatively common tactic would greatly reduce the chance of stunning.

 

 

Properly role played, the mok who has taken 8 BOD should be terrified. However, the one who was hit twice by the normal attack and KO'd without even a chance to retaliate should also be thinking "hopeless case" when he wakes up.

 

Who said anything about being hit twice? The one single hit from the 8d6 KA does 8 body to the mook while the one single hit from the 10d6 NA does no body and stuns but does not knock out the mook. One single recovery will get the mook back into the action. At that point, 8 body vs 0 body becomes a huge factor in the mook's willingness to fight.

 

 

Most GM's who are applying the "mooks are lemmings" approach will have them keep attacking whether they're bleeding to death or "just" obviously and hopelessly outclassed. You can certainly run your mooks as terrified of BOD damage but lacking any fear of Stun damage, being KO'd repeatedly, taking knockback damage, etc., to give the KA that greater fear factor you want, but to me that's a concession to add some viability to your KA model.

 

Mooks are considered "lemmings" to fight after being stunned but not knocked out??? And yes, I would consider it obvious that someone who takes 8 body would be far more terrified than if he merely took buttloads of stun.

 

So far, all examples appear to be mooks or custom-designed to be much more vulnerable to your KA's than to normal attacks.

 

My examples are of foes that KA is better vs.

 

This is a chicken and egg argument. Because your KA model makes KA's ineffectual without AP, and those characters have effective KA's, you conclude they must be AP. Under a model where KA's can be effective against relatively equal opposition without being AP, these characters don't need AP KA's to be competetive, so they won't all have it

 

Not at all. Just compare them to a "normal" KA such as a gun or regular sword. I would assume anyone who has ever read Wolverine, or Black Knight would know that their attacks penetrate armor far better. Punisher who DOES use normal guns, doesn't fare well against well defended foes.

 

And survivability of my character seems dependent on having Hardened my resistant defenses, so clearly I',m much more inclined to do so under your KA model than I was before. If AP becomes more useful , more ciommon, and more sevestating to go up against, the defense will naturally be more prized, and PC's (and major NPC's) more inclined to apply that advantage.

 

Do all your characters have power defense, mental defense, flash defense, and lack of weakness?

 

Which makes KA's a non-viable attack form against PC's.

 

If EVERY PC has high hardened PD and ED, yes.

 

Which means the KA as a viable attack form for NPC's disappears - PC's will pretty much be invulnerable to them (except for that AP KA which is about as rare as a BOD drain in standard play).

 

If EVERY PC has high hardened PD and ED, yes. Although NPCs can get great mileage against hostages.

 

 

As noted above, even if I agree with your niche attacks, KA's have now been made useless against player characters, so the opposition will either lack them or get no real use out of them. As for a niche attack useful against mooks, I'd much rather take something that sacrifices damage capacity for multiple targeting, such as an AoE NND or AoE Entangle, than an attack which sacrifices STUN damage to do BOD damage. Especially when the targets this is really effective against are mooks, not major threats, and taking an extra phase or two will not be that big a deal.

 

Pretty much every single adjustment to KA to have them do more body and less stun fails your test then.

 

If you want more mileage from KAs, then limit resistant defenses to 1/3 or 1/4 total defenses. It's no more of an arbitrary limit than limiting total defenses in the first place.

 

 

And the KA should logically be effective as a primary form of attack. If it wasn't, combat and warefare would not have evolved to favour KA's. I can't think of any source material where KA's used by credible opposition (as opposed to, say, a mugger's handgun in a Supers game) are not a significant threat to the heroes - without requiring an addition to the KA itself, such as AP.

 

The history of warfare works against you, rather than for you. The vast majority of people in history did not have high resistant defenses. Vs the relatively few that did, specialized weapons were developed such as warhammers, maces, picks, polearms, HEAT, Sabot, etc. "Regular" killing attacks do just fine against people with leather or padded armor, or soft targets such as trucks in more modern settings.

 

In most source material, "credible" KAs usually has some huge edge vs normal KAs such as a gun or spear. And high def characters usually aren't worried unless their defense is penetrated.

 

 

But let's look at that AP KA. Let's use a 12 DC game, with average defenses 20/10 (standard Supers). Three opponents, one with low defenses (let's keep our 10/4 character), one at that 20/10 average ands a third with 30/15.

 

Normal attack is 12d6 (average roll 42/12), KA is 9 1/2d6 (average roll 33.5/9.5) and AP KA is 7d6 (and a bit higher cost than the others; average roll 24.5/7).

 

Against the low defense target, the normal attack averages 32 Stun and 2 BOD. The target is likley Stunned. The KA will average 11 BOD and 29 Stun. The AP KA manages 6 BOD and 17.5 Stun. We already knew KA's are lethal to low DEF targets. AP isn't very useful here, but we probably knew that as well.

 

AP KA averages 10 Body and 29.5 stun.

 

Average defenses? Normal attack manages 22 STUN, no BOD. The KA will average 13.5 STUN and 0 BOD, making the normal attack superior. The AP KA attack will get 4 BOD through, and 6.5 Stun. I guess if he can whittle the guy down and kill him over many atacks, he'll win, but I'd expect the target to retaliate. It's going to take more KA hits to kill the target than normal hits to KO him, I expect, but the KA is lethal if applied over time. An AP normal attack would inflict 18 Stun and no BOD - that's likely going to take the target out faster.

 

 

AP KA does 4 Body and 18.5 Stun on average.

 

Our high defense target takes 12 Stun from the normal attack. The KA and AP KA are utterly ineffectual on an average hit. An AP normal attack will do 13 Stun, marginally better than the normasl attack.

 

AP KA does 0 Body and 9.5 Stun on average. A slightly above average roll does body.

 

 

So I don't see adding AP to significantly level the playing field. It means the low DEF target will be dispatched, rather than stunned and then KO'd. The mid level target might be whittled down over time, but the normal attack will KO him first. The high defense target laughs at your KA, AP or otherwise.

 

It looks like you're not halving defenses for AP.

 

 

Basically, the only thing the KA has to recommend it is that the target may be more scared of taking BOD than Stun, so he might flee.

 

See above.

 

 

 

In my games, people would consider 8 BOD a major issue - that's a lethal attack. However, they would also consider an attacker who strikes first (mooks are almost always slower), knocks them silly (stunned), then finishes them off (second attack KO's) to be a major, possibly unbeatable threat. A mook who actually does recover from that KO (a turn and a half later, at least) looking at the field of battle, having half a dozen Stun and End, is logically going to consider fleeing the field, not rejoining a hopeless fight. Apparently, in your games, the lemmings will keep throwing themselves at the vastly superior foe in hopes of wearing them down, so only BOD matters in your campaign.

 

Again, you're assuming 2 attacks per mook. 1 single attack from the KA sends the mook fleeing if he recovers. It doesn't take that 2nd attack like it would for the normal attack.

 

 

 

Based on the above, a KA will be useless against any important NPC. In my corner of the universe, that means "any opponent who is at the same level as the PC", since I consider the PC's to set a standard for their opposition. I would find it damaging to suspension of disbelief to water down all the opposition's defenses as compared to the PC's so that the PC's KA can be useful, when NPC KA's are worthless.

 

Perhaps you should redo your math.

 

In a game where the PC's are top of the heap and rarely, if ever, face opposition of a power level equivalent to their own, this would not be an issue. That doesn't describe most games, in my experience.

 

In the Supers game (again, in my experience) the heroes are commonly facing opponents at a power level at least equivalent to their own. Thus, KA commonly useless.

 

Not useless, specialized.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

The spreading was in reference to your comment that 10d6 = automatic stun vs 10 def 15 con. I was pointing out that a relatively common tactic would greatly reduce the chance of stunning.

 

And I was pointing out that this same relatively common tactic impacts your KA as or more severely.

 

Who said anything about being hit twice? The one single hit from the 8d6 KA does 8 body to the mook while the one single hit from the 10d6 NA does no body and stuns but does not knock out the mook. One single recovery will get the mook back into the action. At that point' date=' 8 body vs 0 body becomes a huge factor in the mook's willingness to fight.[/quote']

 

If played as a lemming, the mook keeps coming as long as he's capable. If played as a reasoning creature, being one hit stunned and reeling should indicate that he's out of his league. Either way, the KA is not significantly superior to the normal attack. Only if I assume that the mook will only be afraid of the KA (and, having 10 DEF, he took 2 BOD from a 12d6 normal attack as well, so both are approaching lethality) does the KA enjoy the superiority you suppose. And what is the hero's objective? Capture for the authorities, make him flee or leave him dead?

 

To social ramifications, doing 2 BOD probably leaves our Mook with an argument of unnecessary force. 8 BOD clearly does. The same social mores that prevent the KA leaving a trail of dead NPC's prevents using them as a death threat to mooks, doesn't it?

 

My examples are of foes that KA is better vs.

 

Alll of which are mooks or customized to make the KA superior.

 

Not at all. Just compare them to a "normal" KA such as a gun or regular sword. I would assume anyone who has ever read Wolverine' date=' or Black Knight would know that their attacks penetrate armor far better. Punisher who DOES use normal guns, doesn't fare well against well defended foes.[/quote']

 

Batman punches a robot and his hand hurts. Superman punches a robopt and his hand goes straight through. Is Supes using AP STR, or more damage classes? The two are difficult to distinguish as fictional characters traditionally lack character sheets. Wolvie's claws are described in such a way that AP seems a reasonable conclusion, but this is not true for every other character who uses non-mundane KA's in comics history.

 

Do all your characters have power defense' date=' mental defense, flash defense, and lack of weakness?[/quote']

 

Not at all. However, in my games, adjustment, mental, flash and FW powers are less common than KA's, and they tend to leave a cyharacter defeated, not dead. Most gamers (mature ones, at least) are OK with their characters being defeated on occasion, or even with frwquency. "Dead; make a new one" tends to have a much greater negative perception.

 

If EVERY PC has high hardened PD and ED' date=' yes.[/quote']

 

In a 12 DC game, 10 hardened rDEF will generally do it. That's not all that high.

 

If EVERY PC has high hardened PD and ED' date=' yes. Although NPCs can get great mileage against hostages.[/quote']

 

4d6 Hero KA averages 14 BOD - hostage at -6 BOD (assuming normal standard 8 BOD). 7d6 AP KA your version (12 1/4 DC) does the same 14 BOD. I'd cal that a draw. Now, a 9 1/2d6 KA will get 19 on average, killing the target instantly, so it's a more effective hostage threat, I suppose. Still, Beware the Threatener lacks that ring of Arch-nemesis somehow.

 

Pretty much every single adjustment to KA to have them do more body and less stun fails your test then.

 

Actually, most tear through force walls, entangles and automotons much more effectively than normal attacks, so they pass the "useful" test, but relegate those abilities to the "useless" category since many characters will have these in a MP.

 

If you want more mileage from KAs' date=' then limit resistant defenses to 1/3 or 1/4 total defenses. It's no more of an arbitrary limit than limiting total defenses in the first place.[/quote']

 

Sure. That works just as well on KA's as currently in the system, especially if coupled with a Stun lotto fixer. Examples abound. A simple one is requiring all KA's take the limitation "-2 Stun Multiple".

 

AP KA averages 10 Body and 29.5 stun.

 

7d6 AP KA averages a roll of 24.5 Stun and 7 BOD. Should be 10 BOD (I agree I must not have halved the rDEF) 19.5 Stun (after 10 x 1/2 def) plus 5 extra BOD done = 24.5 STUN. I thought it was only the extra BOD that increased STUN, but I may have misread or misremembered. That would enhance the KA in all examples.

 

AP KA does 4 Body and 18.5 Stun on average.

 

AP KA does 0 Body and 9.5 Stun on average. A slightly above average roll does body.

 

I'll take an average of 12 Stun with a high roll doing more, or better still an AP normal attack rolling 28 and inflicting 13 (woopee - one more - but it will shine against someone with uberdefenses of, say, 40/20).

 

Again' date=' you're assuming 2 attacks per mook. 1 single attack from the KA sends the mook fleeing if he recovers. It doesn't take that 2nd attack like it would for the normal attack.[/quote']

 

Assuming the mook would not flee after recovering from being stunned but will flee before dying (ie he's only a KO lemming, not a robot, or zombie, or mind controlled, or "more afraid of his masters than of death" - standard 'mooks are lemming' GM reasoning). BTW, I can question (normally or telepathically) a KO'd mook. I can't question a dead or fled mook.

 

Not useless' date=' specialized.[/quote']

 

Overspecialization tends to uselessness.

[Foxiekins]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Quite a few posts back, someone said he'd prefer for blunt attacks to be better at inflicting STUN, and for sharp attacks to be better at inflicting BODY...

 

Has anyone suggested dropping the STUN Multiplier, and rolling 1d6 STUN for every point of BODY damage rolled, treating sixes as ones, and subtracting normal PD or ED from just the STUN of a Killing Attack...?

 

2d6 RKA... Say you roll 8 BODY... Then you roll 8d6 for STUN, which is anywere from 8 to 40 STUN, with an average of about 21 STUN...

 

Someone with a PD of 10, and wearing 5 rPD of Armor, would take 3 BODY and 6 STUN from that 21 STUN... Dunno if this is what the original poster is looking for, but what do the rest of y'all think...?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

One of the more intuitive KA fixes I've seen suggests the following:

 

- KA costs 5 points for 1d6

 

- Add the total on all the dice, and subtract the number of dice rolle. This is the STUN [variant - each die does its roll -1 for Stun, with a minimum 1 per die]

 

- Count BOD as a normal attack, except that rolls of 5 or 6 each count as 2 BOD. [Variant: 1-5 are 1 BOD and 6 is 2 BOD]

 

- BOD is resisted only by resistant defenses. Stun is resisted by all defenses as long as the target has at least 1 rDEF

 

- Subtract 1 extra d6 in determining knockback

 

If I wanted to change KA's, I think I'd take this approach. It dovetails with normal attacks, removes the Stun lotto and leaves average BOD the same as a current KA. I might change Stun to subtract 1 point from the total roll for every 2d6 in the attack, as this would bring average STUN close to the current model.

[Gary]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

And I was pointing out that this same relatively common tactic impacts your KA as or more severely.

 

Nope. If neither stuns for con, then the one that does body is more terrifying.

 

 

If played as a lemming, the mook keeps coming as long as he's capable. If played as a reasoning creature, being one hit stunned and reeling should indicate that he's out of his league. Either way, the KA is not significantly superior to the normal attack. Only if I assume that the mook will only be afraid of the KA (and, having 10 DEF, he took 2 BOD from a 12d6 normal attack as well, so both are approaching lethality) does the KA enjoy the superiority you suppose. And what is the hero's objective? Capture for the authorities, make him flee or leave him dead?

 

If a mook is going after someone with 50-60 pt attacks in the first place, he's probably the minion of someone tougher, and he's probably expecting to take lots of stun if attacked. OTOH, taking 8 body per shot is life threatening and far more terrifying for any rational being no matter how well trained or prepared he is.

 

To social ramifications, doing 2 BOD probably leaves our Mook with an argument of unnecessary force. 8 BOD clearly does. The same social mores that prevent the KA leaving a trail of dead NPC's prevents using them as a death threat to mooks, doesn't it?

 

Yep. Which is why someone shouldn't casually throw around KAs unless the genre supports it. But my approach makes KAs absolutely terrifying vs unprotected targets (very realistic), and not so terrifying vs well protected targets (also realistic).

 

Alll of which are mooks or customized to make the KA superior.

 

Apparently, you've never had a low rDef villain in your campaign ever.

 

Batman punches a robot and his hand hurts. Superman punches a robopt and his hand goes straight through. Is Supes using AP STR, or more damage classes? The two are difficult to distinguish as fictional characters traditionally lack character sheets. Wolvie's claws are described in such a way that AP seems a reasonable conclusion, but this is not true for every other character who uses non-mundane KA's in comics history.

 

Either AP or more DCs allow KAs to penetrate armor. So obviously the comic book characters with KAs who are effective have one or the other. It's just that in a RPG where characters have a budget, the AP is a more cost efficient choice.

 

Not at all. However, in my games, adjustment, mental, flash and FW powers are less common than KA's, and they tend to leave a cyharacter defeated, not dead. Most gamers (mature ones, at least) are OK with their characters being defeated on occasion, or even with frwquency. "Dead; make a new one" tends to have a much greater negative perception.

 

If you scale your KAs to the PCs defenses, it's easy to inflict body without killing. Actually easier than with traditional KAs since someone with 10 rDef could easily take 10+ body from a single 4d6 KA. If your players don't ever want their characters to die, then perhaps they shouldn't play RPGs.

 

In a 12 DC game, 10 hardened rDEF will generally do it. That's not all that high.

 

In a typical PC party, perhaps 1-2 characters have hardened defenses. If every character has hardened defenses, that calls into question metagaming and conception issues and perhaps a lack of control by the GM.

 

4d6 Hero KA averages 14 BOD - hostage at -6 BOD (assuming normal standard 8 BOD). 7d6 AP KA your version (12 1/4 DC) does the same 14 BOD. I'd cal that a draw. Now, a 9 1/2d6 KA will get 19 on average, killing the target instantly, so it's a more effective hostage threat, I suppose. Still, Beware the Threatener lacks that ring of Arch-nemesis somehow.

 

That's what KAs do. In real life, most KAs are of higher DCs than the defenses they face which is why they're effective. If facing defenses higher than their DC, they generally don't do anything, or very little. But in game terms, to be immune to a .50 cal, a vehicle must have 18 rDef. Even a vault door would be shot apart by a .50 cal eventually which would never happen in real life.

 

Actually, most tear through force walls, entangles and automotons much more effectively than normal attacks, so they pass the "useful" test, but relegate those abilities to the "useless" category since many characters will have these in a MP.

 

And this tears through low rDef targets. Also, you're the one who stated that "Not every character should have, or need, the proverbial swiss army multipower."

 

 

Sure. That works just as well on KA's as currently in the system, especially if coupled with a Stun lotto fixer. Examples abound. A simple one is requiring all KA's take the limitation "-2 Stun Multiple".

 

A KA with -2 SM would be far worse at inflicting stun at typical targets than my method. That would automatically disqualify it in your eyes because apparently the need to do equivalent stun as a normal attack is your sole criteria for whether a KA is viable.

 

 

7d6 AP KA averages a roll of 24.5 Stun and 7 BOD. Should be 10 BOD (I agree I must not have halved the rDEF) 19.5 Stun (after 10 x 1/2 def) plus 5 extra BOD done = 24.5 STUN. I thought it was only the extra BOD that increased STUN, but I may have misread or misremembered. That would enhance the KA in all examples.

 

You're right, it should be 10 Body and 24.5 Stun. Still a very lethal attack.

 

 

I'll take an average of 12 Stun with a high roll doing more, or better still an AP normal attack rolling 28 and inflicting 13 (woopee - one more - but it will shine against someone with uberdefenses of, say, 40/20).

 

At 30/15 it's relatively close. At 20/10, the AP KA does 4.5 more body and slightly less stun. Taking 4.5 body would tend to scare people more than taking slightly more stun would.

 

Anyway, based on your 3 examples, the AP KA is quite competitive with a NA.

 

 

Assuming the mook would not flee after recovering from being stunned but will flee before dying (ie he's only a KO lemming, not a robot, or zombie, or mind controlled, or "more afraid of his masters than of death" - standard 'mooks are lemming' GM reasoning). BTW, I can question (normally or telepathically) a KO'd mook. I can't question a dead or fled mook.

 

That's a very good assumption. Someone who takes 8 body in most campaigns would be far more terrified than someone who takes one hard shot but no body. It's not a lemming, but a rational trained soldier. Of course if the GM doesn't give mooks recoveries or has all cowardly mooks who run as soon as hit, then taking body doesn't matter.

 

Overspecialization tends to uselessness.

 

Not useless. Highly useful vs certain foes.

 

One of the more intuitive KA fixes I've seen suggests the following:

 

- KA costs 5 points for 1d6

 

- Add the total on all the dice, and subtract the number of dice rolle. This is the STUN [variant - each die does its roll -1 for Stun, with a minimum 1 per die]

 

- Count BOD as a normal attack, except that rolls of 5 or 6 each count as 2 BOD. [Variant: 1-5 are 1 BOD and 6 is 2 BOD]

 

- BOD is resisted only by resistant defenses. Stun is resisted by all defenses as long as the target has at least 1 rDEF

 

- Subtract 1 extra d6 in determining knockback

 

If I wanted to change KA's, I think I'd take this approach. It dovetails with normal attacks, removes the Stun lotto and leaves average BOD the same as a current KA. I might change Stun to subtract 1 point from the total roll for every 2d6 in the attack, as this would bring average STUN close to the current model.

 

Using the 10/4, 20/10, and 30/15 targets:

 

10/4

12d6 KA under this system would do 10 Body 20 or 26 Stun

 

20/10

12d6 KA does 4 Body 10 or 16 Stun

 

30/15

12d6 KA does 0 Body 0 or 6 Stun.

 

I find it very interesting that you spent pages of analysis saying that if an attack does less stun than a NA or if an attack isn't viable as a character's sole attack, that it would be useless. Yet the one method you actually like fails both tests!

[Toadmaster]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

 

 

 

 

Aaaaaagggggghhh

[Lucius]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

 

 

 

 

Aaaaaagggggghhh

 

While my reaction is not nearly so extreme, I can actually relate to this.

 

I think the Franco-Firthite-Long solution as proposed by Frenchman and Amadan Na Briona, based on the precedent set by Steve Long, is actually the simplest and best solution, but I'm afraid I may end up having to wade through a lot of math, examples, and argument, before I am quite certain of the details of implementation.

 

However, I think the simple "Give Energy Blast a mandatory -1/2 limitation" already playtested by Frenchman is the one I will go with unless someone produced a convincing argument against it or unless I see it not working in my own playtesting.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is still chewing

[Comic]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Or save the time tweaking, fiddling and proving what _might_ work in the face of substantial experience with disappointing alternatives that never quite satisfy everyone.. and spend that time roleplaying while using RAW?

[Arabic]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Or save the time tweaking' date=' fiddling and proving what _might_ work in the face of substantial experience with disappointing alternatives that never quite satisfy everyone.. and spend that time roleplaying while using RAW?[/quote']

 

yes, that should work....