[Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

If a mook is going after someone with 50-60 pt attacks in the first place' date=' he's probably the minion of someone tougher, and he's probably [b']expecting[/b] 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.

 

By the same logic, if he's going up against someone with a high power KA, presumably he's expecting there's a good chance he's not coming back. And why would someone who signs up with VIPER ( or Dr. Destroyer) be described as a "rational being".

 

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)' date=' and not so terrifying vs well protected targets (also realistic).[/quote']

 

And, based on your initial comment, not a viable "main attack" in some genres (most notably Supers, where you draw several example Supers from to support your "KA should be AP" assertion.

 

Apparently' date=' you've never had a low rDef villain in your campaign ever.[/quote']

 

You're not reading my comments, Gary. I'm not saying these don't exist. I am saying they are sufficiently uncommon, and that the advantages of your KA against these targets (mooks and uncommon to rare adversaries) are not sufficient to outweigh their limitations against the more common targets. The targets exceptionally vulnerable to KA's are both uncommon and capable of being defeated by non-KA attacks (albeit, perhaps requiring an extra phase). The targets not exceptionally vulnerable to KA's are pretty much immune to KA's.

 

The normal attack is useful against both types of targets. The KA is utterly useless against one type of target. Hence, the term "overspecialized".

 

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' date=' the AP is a more cost efficient choice.[/quote']

 

AP is the more cost efficient choice under your revised model for a KA and assuming that hardened defenses remain rare. The game has already shown its evolution towards character survivability. What percentage of comic book supers are reasonably described as "bulletproof" in one form or another? What percentage of Hero Games supers emulate this by lacking resistant defenses?

 

A character without resistant defenses is slaughtered by a KA. Thus, over the years, players have made sure their characters have resistant defenses, ultimately evolving to Combat Luck and similar "missed me as a defense, not DCV" powers. If killing attacks were quite rare, or less lethal, rDEF would also have been quite rare. They aren't, so rDEF became a prerequisite for character survival.

 

If AP KA's are the "new world order" - practically every villain with a KA has AP, and inflicts significant BOD damage to targets lacking hardened defenses, as you seem to opine would be the case - then character survivability will force hardened defenses to become more common. Very limited constructs may end up arising - for example, "Hard to Kill - Hardened on 10rPD, only to resist BOD damage from killing attacks" , for example.

 

When AP KA's are rare, demand for hardened defenses to reduce BOD damage from them is low. Under your hypothesis that every Super with a viable KA is AP, characters lacking hardened defenses will have short lifespans. RESULT: Demand for hardened defenses goes up.

 

If you scale your KAs to the PCs defenses' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

There's a scale between "don't ever want their characters to die" and "don't want a common attack form to be fatal when encountered". Hardening a single point of rPD reduces the BOD taken by an AP KA by 2 under your model. That's a pretty low investment for a pretty high return, especially where your model anticipates AP to be taken on pretty much every high powered KA, so AP KA's will be much more common.

 

Under the current model, Hardening your rDEF reduces damage by 1 BOD per point Hardened and AP KA's are much rarer than they will be under your model.

 

By the same logic that virtually every comic book character with an effective KA must have armor piercing, virtually every comic book character who survives combat with such opponents must have some means of dealing with those AP KA's. The two that spring to mind are hardening their rDEF (which, like AP KA's, is the cost effective approach) and significant regeneration.

 

In a typical PC party' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

I agree that, under the present model, hardened defenses are pretty rare. So are AP killing attacks. You propose significant change to the present model. By the same logic you espouse above, it seems equally reasonable to state that "If every character with a killing attack has Armor Piercing, that calls into question metagaming and conception issues and perhaps a lack of control by the GM."

 

That's what KAs do. In real life' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

The "real weapon" limitation works quite nicely in resolving that conundrum, as I believe an earlier poster suggested. As well, shouldn't that .50 cal have "beam weapon", so the best it can do is slowly drill a small hole through the vault door?

 

What happens when a human being is hit by the number of .50 cal rounds it would take, in game terms, to get through that vault door? Yet characters in the comics survive hits from characters with KA's that can slice through vault doors (example: several Hellfire Club agents - decidedly mooks - injured by Wolverine in X-Men 133, IIRC, show up some issues later enhanced by cybernetics - they were wounded seriously, but not killed).

 

The simple fact is that most adventure genres ARE NOT realistic in terms of damage inflicted to objects vs damage inflicted to living targets. "realistic" often impairs "playable".

 

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

 

Not every character need have one for Entangles and Force Walls to be relegated to the scrap heap if average KA BOD is increased significantly.

 

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.

 

In my eyes, an attack which is incapable of inflicting any harm on a significant proportion of the typical opponents one will face is unlikely to be a viable general purpose attack power. Killing Attacks are, in the course material, viable general purpose attack powers. A KA which is ineffectual at delivering STUN is also not a viable general purpose attack power, unless the game is structured such that killing opponents is a common combat result.

 

However, the desire to relegate KA's to "does BOD more effectively; delivers STUN much less effectively" is a common one on the boards. To reiterate, achieving this goal in most generes and games will generally mean KA's will not be viable general purpose attack powers.

 

Once we've established we're OK with these not being viable general purpose attack powers, we need a way to make KA's more effective with BOD, and less so with STUN, without making Entangle, Force Wall, Automotons, etc. useless (assuming, again, that we don't want them to be rendered useless). I would note that your approach accomplishes this, in my view.

 

A fairly straightforward means of achieving KA's that are much more effective at inflicting BOD than STUN, and do not relegate Entangles, Force Walls and Automotons to the scrap heap, without creating a brand new KA construct from whole cloth and working through the ripple effects, is to simply require the -2 Stun Mult limitation.

 

Flattening the Stun Multiple curve is another approach. I don't like a 3x Multiple (average STUN matches a normal attack, which is too high). 2x is too low, so that leaves numbers hard to work with in-game. Maybe a multiple of 1,2,3,3,3,4 (same average as the current model, but less variability) might work.

 

apparently the need to do equivalent stun as a normal attack is your sole criteria for whether a KA is viable.

 

Not necessarily "equivalent", but also not neutralized. The present KA average is lower than a normal attack, although the Lotto builds it back up. Using a similar average with variability reduced seems a reasonable tradeoff for the enhanced effectiveness against Entangles, etc.

 

You're right' date=' it should be 10 Body and 24.5 Stun. Still a very lethal attack.[/quote']

 

Gary, I'd classify you as among, if not #1, the most mathematically proficient board members. What does it say about the intuitiveness of your approach that you're making math errors in its application?

 

Also, with the above in mind, how many players are going to wish to play a low DEF character? Such characters typically also have average to low CON and BOD, so the first typical hit likely stuns the character. The second will KO him, and leave him close to death, if not already dead. If both rolls are just a touch above average - well within the realm of statistical probability - he's taken 24 or 26 BOD, and is probably dead. How many low DEF characters will a typical player go through before he decides on a concept that supports higher, and possibly hardened, defenses?

 

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.

 

It's more competitive than I originally believed. Of course, hardened defenses neuters the KA without impacting the normal attack at all, and (as you can see above), I continue to believe that your model, where virtually all significant KA's will need to be AP in order to be competetive, will make "Hardened" the new "Resistant" (ie must be squeezed into most concepts somehow to make them viable). Combat Luck is already hardened, so look for lots more characters with Combat Luck, or some similar construct that only works against KA BOD.

 

The KA will also require 3+ attacks to reduce a typical target to 0 BOD. Now, 3+ attacks to get the target below 0 STUN is also pretty common, but the KA lacks synergy with the more common Stun-inflicting attacks in this regard.

 

Regardless of the anxiety level, most RPG combats end when one target is put down, not when someone flees. How heroic is it to see combats the heroes lose end either in their deaths, or in their fleeing the scene?

 

Not useless. Highly useful vs certain foes.

 

Various attacks useless against most targets but very effective against certain foes are generally not common main attack forms. In most genres, KA's are common main attack forms. Your approach relegates them to Swiss Army Multipower Slots, to be used on rare occasions, but not commonly.

 

The 1d6-1 (or 1/2) STUN, count BOD a bit higher and charge 5 points per die approach:

 

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!

 

It does marginally less STUN, across the board, than a normal attack. It's not utterly useless against certain types of targets, and it doesn't require additional advantages to have some level of effectiveness. It also has the same effectiveness regardless of whether the target's defenses are hardened, so it's less likely to be utterly useless. It's also more effective against most targets that only take BOD. It has, however, accomplished the goal of eliminating the ability of the KA to inflict far more STUN than a normal attack without creating an entirely new construct (although it's pretty close).

 

Another Thought

 

This isn't directly related to your proposed model, or even to the overall topic. I'm starting a new thread, so maybe any comments are better included there.

 

By the way, if we're OK with characters commonly having a normal attack and a killing attack, probably AP, in a multipower so they can select the best one for any given situation, why aren't we equally OK with a character having two defensive powers, one normal and with higher defenses and one slightly lower hardened defenses, so he too can select whichever is preferable at any given point.

 

In other words, why is it generally OK conceptually to have a Fire Blast that's a normal attack, a Concentrated Fire Blast that's a KA, and a Very Concentrated Fire Blast that's an AP KA, but it's rarely or never OK conceptually to have a Force Screen (+20/+20 Force Field) and a Copncentrated Force Screen (+16/16 Hardened Force Field)? Both are metagaming to some effect, using basically the same SFX for various different mechanics.

[Lucius]

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']

 

 

In other words – instead of looking for what might work, accept something I already know doesn’t work?

 

I’m sorry, the logic of that escapes me.

 

yes' date=' that should work....[/quote']

 

Uh, no. No, I’m afraid it doesn’t work.

 

If everyone were willing to accept the “Rules as Written” and no one wanted to consider alternatives or improvements, we’d all still be playing first edition Dungeons and Dragons. I admit some people think that would be a good thing, but I’m afraid I have to disagree.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I’m not even happy that someone wrote up a D&D version of the palindromedary. And they didn’t even credit me

[Gary]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

By the same logic' date=' if he's going up against someone with a high power KA, presumably he's [b']expecting[/b] there's a good chance he's not coming back. And why would someone who signs up with VIPER ( or Dr. Destroyer) be described as a "rational being".

 

 

Let's take a real world example. A soldier in a battle who gets a shrapnel hit that doesn't penetrate his helmet would in game terms be stunned but not necessarily knocked out. What would likely happen is that when he shakes off the effects, he'll stay in the battle and continue fighting. Now if the same solder was shot in the chest for 8 Body damage, even if he's conscious, he's calling for a medic and getting out of the fire zone!

 

I have no reason to believe that the mook wouldn't have the same thought process.

 

 

And, based on your initial comment, not a viable "main attack" in some genres (most notably Supers, where you draw several example Supers from to support your "KA should be AP" assertion.

 

 

It's a viable main attack in Fantasy Hero as long as the GM doesn't give all opponents plate armor. Perhaps a knight might carry both a mace and sword like historical knights did, and use the mace vs highly defended targets. In the supers genre, KAs only become less viable unless AP because PCs in a RPG tend to have lots more rDef than characters in the comics. In comics, there's a lot of characters running around with very little in the way of rDef who would rightfully be scared of a KA.

 

 

You're not reading my comments, Gary. I'm not saying these don't exist. I am saying they are sufficiently uncommon, and that the advantages of your KA against these targets (mooks and uncommon to rare adversaries) are not sufficient to outweigh their limitations against the more common targets. The targets exceptionally vulnerable to KA's are both uncommon and capable of being defeated by non-KA attacks (albeit, perhaps requiring an extra phase). The targets not exceptionally vulnerable to KA's are pretty much immune to KA's.

 

I think you're only looking at the supers genre, and only at campaigns that you're familiar with. There are a lot of potential targets where the KA would be more useful. Plus under this approach, overall rDef doesn't have to be as high as the current model.

 

 

The normal attack is useful against both types of targets. The KA is utterly useless against one type of target. Hence, the term "overspecialized".

 

You can use the exact comment for the current structure. The 12d6 normal attack is useless vs targets with 42 def, but the KA is useful vs all types of targets. Therefore the NA is "overspecialized"

 

I disagree that the KA becomes useless. It merely shifts downward the range of defenses where it would be effective.

 

AP is the more cost efficient choice under your revised model for a KA and assuming that hardened defenses remain rare. The game has already shown its evolution towards character survivability. What percentage of comic book supers are reasonably described as "bulletproof" in one form or another? What percentage of Hero Games supers emulate this by lacking resistant defenses?

 

A character without resistant defenses is slaughtered by a KA. Thus, over the years, players have made sure their characters have resistant defenses, ultimately evolving to Combat Luck and similar "missed me as a defense, not DCV" powers. If killing attacks were quite rare, or less lethal, rDEF would also have been quite rare. They aren't, so rDEF became a prerequisite for character survival.

 

If AP KA's are the "new world order" - practically every villain with a KA has AP, and inflicts significant BOD damage to targets lacking hardened defenses, as you seem to opine would be the case - then character survivability will force hardened defenses to become more common. Very limited constructs may end up arising - for example, "Hard to Kill - Hardened on 10rPD, only to resist BOD damage from killing attacks" , for example.

 

When AP KA's are rare, demand for hardened defenses to reduce BOD damage from them is low. Under your hypothesis that every Super with a viable KA is AP, characters lacking hardened defenses will have short lifespans. RESULT: Demand for hardened defenses goes up.

 

 

Again, it's a matter of GM control. If the GM wants KA to remain terrifying and a viable weapon, then he can simply control the level of PC defenses to more closely model the source material. And the GM can help by sending fewer villains with AP KAs so there's less incentive to buy hardened defenses.

 

 

There's a scale between "don't ever want their characters to die" and "don't want a common attack form to be fatal when encountered". Hardening a single point of rPD reduces the BOD taken by an AP KA by 2 under your model. That's a pretty low investment for a pretty high return, especially where your model anticipates AP to be taken on pretty much every high powered KA, so AP KA's will be much more common.

 

Under the current model, Hardening your rDEF reduces damage by 1 BOD per point Hardened and AP KA's are much rarer than they will be under your model.

 

By the same logic that virtually every comic book character with an effective KA must have armor piercing, virtually every comic book character who survives combat with such opponents must have some means of dealing with those AP KA's. The two that spring to mind are hardening their rDEF (which, like AP KA's, is the cost effective approach) and significant regeneration.

 

You're assuming KAs will be just as common under the new system as under the current system. And just because a character can buy something doesn't mean that he should. Otherwise 1-3 pts of mental, flash, and power defense and lack of weakness would be pretty darn good buys for EVERYONE.

 

I agree that, under the present model, hardened defenses are pretty rare. So are AP killing attacks. You propose significant change to the present model. By the same logic you espouse above, it seems equally reasonable to state that "If every character with a killing attack has Armor Piercing, that calls into question metagaming and conception issues and perhaps a lack of control by the GM."

 

If you're complaining about the lack of effectiveness of KA and you're the one who allows every character to purchase hardened, then yes I see a lack of control by the GM.

 

The "real weapon" limitation works quite nicely in resolving that conundrum, as I believe an earlier poster suggested. As well, shouldn't that .50 cal have "beam weapon", so the best it can do is slowly drill a small hole through the vault door?

 

Not if someone actually purchases a .50 cal with character points. Or a longsword that's 1.5d6 and 3d6+1 with Str. Because the range of damage is so great, the vault door will eventually be chopped to pieces by the longsword paid with character points. It would happen even quicker if the character purchased a 2 handed sword.

 

What happens when a human being is hit by the number of .50 cal rounds it would take, in game terms, to get through that vault door? Yet characters in the comics survive hits from characters with KA's that can slice through vault doors (example: several Hellfire Club agents - decidedly mooks - injured by Wolverine in X-Men 133, IIRC, show up some issues later enhanced by cybernetics - they were wounded seriously, but not killed).

 

That example supports the fact that Wolverine has AP on his KA. If he simply rolled lots of dice rather than reducing the defenses of the target, those mooks would be quite dead.

 

 

The simple fact is that most adventure genres ARE NOT realistic in terms of damage inflicted to objects vs damage inflicted to living targets. "realistic" often impairs "playable".

 

There also has to be an element of believability as well. After all, the game would be quite playable if there were rules that blow guns can penetrate M1 Abrams tanks or if normal humans can leap 100 feet. But that would violate believability. The longsword hacking apart the vault door isn't quite as bad, but it's still pretty unbelievable.

 

In my eyes, an attack which is incapable of inflicting any harm on a significant proportion of the typical opponents one will face is unlikely to be a viable general purpose attack power. Killing Attacks are, in the course material, viable general purpose attack powers. A KA which is ineffectual at delivering STUN is also not a viable general purpose attack power, unless the game is structured such that killing opponents is a common combat result.

 

I wouldn't say "incapable of inflicting any harm". The KA still does stun, just less of it than the corresponding NA.

 

Also, the KA is generally only good in the source material against weakly defended foes. You don't see Hulk, Thing, Invisible Woman, Iron Man, or any other hard targets afraid of guns or a sword. But Storm, Cyclops, Spiderman, Hawkeye, etc go to great lengths not to be hit by sharp pointy objects.

 

Also at the lower power levels, swords only seem effective when they draw blood as can be seen from countless novels, movies, tv series, comics, etc. You almost never see someone wear down the targets stun and knock them out while not doing body, a result which is quite possible in the current system against a knight wearing plate.

 

However, the desire to relegate KA's to "does BOD more effectively; delivers STUN much less effectively" is a common one on the boards. To reiterate, achieving this goal in most generes and games will generally mean KA's will not be viable general purpose attack powers.

 

Once we've established we're OK with these not being viable general purpose attack powers, we need a way to make KA's more effective with BOD, and less so with STUN, without making Entangle, Force Wall, Automotons, etc. useless (assuming, again, that we don't want them to be rendered useless). I would note that your approach accomplishes this, in my view.

 

A fairly straightforward means of achieving KA's that are much more effective at inflicting BOD than STUN, and do not relegate Entangles, Force Walls and Automotons to the scrap heap, without creating a brand new KA construct from whole cloth and working through the ripple effects, is to simply require the -2 Stun Mult limitation.

 

Flattening the Stun Multiple curve is another approach. I don't like a 3x Multiple (average STUN matches a normal attack, which is too high). 2x is too low, so that leaves numbers hard to work with in-game. Maybe a multiple of 1,2,3,3,3,4 (same average as the current model, but less variability) might work.

 

 

It still leaves a mechanic that's significantly different from everything else in Hero and it still has the extreme volatility in dice rolls.

 

Not necessarily "equivalent", but also not neutralized. The present KA average is lower than a normal attack, although the Lotto builds it back up. Using a similar average with variability reduced seems a reasonable tradeoff for the enhanced effectiveness against Entangles, etc.

 

My proposed KA isn't neutralized. It does less stun true, but still does stun unless the target's defenses are extremely high. In fact, it does roughly the same stun as your proposed KA (33.5 at the 60 pt level vs either 30 or 36 under your system). If you're saying that my KA is "neutralized", then you're also saying that your KA is "neutralized" as well.

 

 

Gary, I'd classify you as among, if not #1, the most mathematically proficient board members. What does it say about the intuitiveness of your approach that you're making math errors in its application?

 

I was doing the numbers in my head instead of using a spreadsheet. Mistakes happen.

 

 

Also, with the above in mind, how many players are going to wish to play a low DEF character? Such characters typically also have average to low CON and BOD, so the first typical hit likely stuns the character. The second will KO him, and leave him close to death, if not already dead. If both rolls are just a touch above average - well within the realm of statistical probability - he's taken 24 or 26 BOD, and is probably dead. How many low DEF characters will a typical player go through before he decides on a concept that supports higher, and possibly hardened, defenses?

 

As many players as under the current system. A character with 4-6 rDef faces the exact same thing vs a 4d6 KA, possibly worse since rolling really high is far more likely than rolling really high with 9.5d6. Since some players still play relatively low rDef characters under the current system, there's no reason why they wouldn't under the new one. They may not play a 0 rDef character, but they wouldn't under the current system or your proposed system either.

 

It's more competitive than I originally believed. Of course, hardened defenses neuters the KA without impacting the normal attack at all, and (as you can see above), I continue to believe that your model, where virtually all significant KA's will need to be AP in order to be competetive, will make "Hardened" the new "Resistant" (ie must be squeezed into most concepts somehow to make them viable). Combat Luck is already hardened, so look for lots more characters with Combat Luck, or some similar construct that only works against KA BOD.

 

Funny how 30 or 36 stun is considered "competitive" in your eyes, but 33.5 isn't.

 

 

The KA will also require 3+ attacks to reduce a typical target to 0 BOD. Now, 3+ attacks to get the target below 0 STUN is also pretty common, but the KA lacks synergy with the more common Stun-inflicting attacks in this regard.

 

Regardless of the anxiety level, most RPG combats end when one target is put down, not when someone flees. How heroic is it to see combats the heroes lose end either in their deaths, or in their fleeing the scene?

 

Unless Healing or Regeneration is very common, then taking body has effects that linger long after the battle is over. I wouldn't consider a body drain that regenerates per month to be useless, but you wouldn't get many dice at 60 pts.

 

Various attacks useless against most targets but very effective against certain foes are generally not common main attack forms. In most genres, KA's are common main attack forms. Your approach relegates them to Swiss Army Multipower Slots, to be used on rare occasions, but not commonly.

 

The 1d6-1 (or 1/2) STUN, count BOD a bit higher and charge 5 points per die approach:

 

 

 

It does marginally less STUN, across the board, than a normal attack. It's not utterly useless against certain types of targets, and it doesn't require additional advantages to have some level of effectiveness. It also has the same effectiveness regardless of whether the target's defenses are hardened, so it's less likely to be utterly useless. It's also more effective against most targets that only take BOD. It has, however, accomplished the goal of eliminating the ability of the KA to inflict far more STUN than a normal attack without creating an entirely new construct (although it's pretty close).

 

 

6 or 12 less stun is "marginally less stun" but 8.5 less stun makes an attack "neutralized", "useless", or "not competitive". Hmm...

[Enforcer84]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

I need killing attacks to kill people

You can't kill people with Fluffy Pillow Attacks. I've tried.

[Toadmaster]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

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

 

 

These threads just blow my mind if people don't like KA's then don't use them. Seems pretty easy to me, oh, well.

[GAZZA]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

These threads just blow my mind if people don't like KA's then don't use them. Seems pretty easy to me' date=' oh, well. [/quote']

"Doctor doctor, it hurts every time I move my arms like this."

 

"Then don't do that!"

 

We're trying to cure the problem that we see, not bury our heads in the sand.

[Comic]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

I need killing attacks to kill people

You can't kill people with Fluffy Pillow Attacks. I've tried.

 

Use both hands. Apply pressure evenly but not so much that the case stretches and allows air in. Dig your knee into their vitals or solar plexus. Don't let up.

 

It's not terribly efficient, mind, but it'll get the job done.

 

Helps if you start with a thumb to the voicebox.

[GAZZA]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Or alternatively, rip the pillow case into shreds and braid them into a makeshift rope, wrap the rope around your intended victim's throat, and squeeze.

 

Plenty of ways.

[Comic]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

In other words – instead of looking for what might work' date=' accept something I already know [i']doesn’t[/i] work?

 

I’m sorry, the logic of that escapes me.

You strike me as a logical person. I'm sure the practice of setting a limit on the time and energy you're willing to invest looking for an improvement is something you've seen in other contexts and accepted.

 

For example, the Supreme Court decided George W. Bush would be president because it would be costly to keep on debating the issue, on exactly that basis. This is just like that. The KA issue is flooded with dangling chads and no clear consensus is to be had. So once the debate has gone on long enough.. in this case, for me, well over a decade, I choose to go with RAW, and move on. If you've been debating it less than ten years, be my guest to consider it further and see what you come up with -- leaving me to, you know.. roleplay instead. If you've been in this debate for more than a decade.. maybe it's time to consider hanging it up and moving on with us?

 

If everyone were willing to accept the “Rules as Written” and no one wanted to consider alternatives or improvements, we’d all still be playing first edition Dungeons and Dragons. I admit some people think that would be a good thing, but I’m afraid I have to disagree.

 

Some alternatives lead to improvements.

 

Some lead to Aasimar bards named Dangling Chad.

 

In a decade, I've seen way too much of Chad. I've seen shoddy math arguments, half-baked 'solutions' (including several of my own), and endless tail-chasing circles by people who often forget before it's over why they started. I'm willing to settle for something which, in the long run, isn't so awful, has many advantages, and certainly works better than the solutions I've seen posted on Usenet, or on online games, or on other forums, or here, in my experience. So long as it gets people roleplaying.

[GAZZA]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

You strike me as a logical person. I'm sure the practice of setting a limit on the time and energy you're willing to invest looking for an improvement is something you've seen in other contexts and accepted.

Interesting.

 

Posting on a message board isn't roleplaying, whether you post in favour or against. I suspect most people here aren't taking time out from a gaming session to post. So the two aren't really in conflict.

 

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion, of course - and given that most people probably use the RAW, you are even probably in the majority - but why stomp on the rest of us? What harm are we doing?

[Lucius]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

These threads just blow my mind if people don't like KA's then don't use them. Seems pretty easy to me' date=' oh, well. [/quote']

 

That was the original point of the thread. Instead, it's drifted into....well, you see where it's gone.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is along for the ride.

[Lucius]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

I need killing attacks to kill people

You can't kill people with Fluffy Pillow Attacks. I've tried.

 

People have been killed with Fluffy Pillow Attacks. Usually when they were asleep at the time of the attack the attacker held the fluffy pillow over their heads until they never woke up again.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary reiterates that you don't need killing attacks to kill people.

[Lucius]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

You strike me as a logical person. I'm sure the practice of setting a limit on the time and energy you're willing to invest looking for an improvement is something you've seen in other contexts and accepted.

 

Yes. That's one reason I'm not out there campaigning to change the cost of STR and CON despite the fact that they net more in terms of figured characteristics than they cost. Or trying to simplify the game by eliminating that almost vestigial characteristic, COM.

 

Although I have been thinking of starting a poll or two just to check on what the board consensus is on those topics too. Except COM, who cares?

 

 

For example' date=' the Supreme Court decided George W. Bush would be president because it would be costly to keep on debating the issue, on exactly that basis. This is just like that. [/quote']

 

And we all know how well THAT turned out. But I'm afraid that's a topic that belongs in another part of the forums.

 

 

I see your point, but I'm afraid you've picked an analogy that undercuts your own position. Saying this issue is "just like that" one is overinflating the importance of the question of how to balance Killing and Normal Attacks. Or maybe it's trivializing the Office of the President. One or the other.

 

 

The KA issue is flooded with dangling chads and no clear consensus is to be had. So once the debate has gone on long enough.. in this case' date=' for me, well over a decade, I choose to go with RAW, and move on. If you've been debating it less than ten years, be my guest to consider it further and see what you come up with -- leaving me to, you know.. roleplay instead. If you've been in this debate for more than a decade.. maybe it's time to consider hanging it up and moving on with us?[/quote']

 

I don't think it's been going on for me, personally, that long.

 

It's only been a year or so since I had the epiphany about Resistant Defense, when I realized that it's a unique construct that combines features of both an Advantage and an Adder.

 

It's only very recently that I've realized that instead of balancing Killing Attacks against Normal Attacks by either "nerfing" the Killing Attack or raising its cost, we can reduce the cost of Normal Attacks - as has already been done with the Hand to Hand versions of these attacks. I started a thread on it and am somewhat bemused that so far no one has pounced on it to argue either for it or against it, but at this point while it's not "perfect" (to get perfect, we'd have to tear the whole system down and rebuild it) I think it may be close to the best possible solution (short of that radical step of rebuilding from the ground up.)

 

 

Some alternatives lead to improvements.

 

We are here in agreement.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary Enterprises

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

In the supers genre' date=' KAs only become less viable unless AP because PCs in a RPG tend to have lots more rDef than characters in the comics. In comics, there's a lot of characters running around with very little in the way of rDef who would rightfully be scared of a KA.[/quote']

 

And why did the Supers game, in genre, drift away from the low rDEF model of many comic book supers? Because comic book supers don't have to deal with die rolls. The writer decides whether Spiderman gets hit with the buillet, or nimbly avoids it. In game, the dice come up "3", and "no rDEF" Spidey takes 2d6+1 BOD. Realistic? Sure. In genre? Not so much.

 

Tack on a "most serious opponents with a KA have Armor Piercing" model, and Spidey needs hardened defenses as well - those serious opponents will hit on occasion.

 

I also find we as a group seem to assume a visible difference between KA's and normal attacks. That visible difference is there when we see a gun or a knife. Is a blast of flame a normal attack, or a killing attack? What about Electro's lightning bolts? These are pretty tough to distinguish visibly, but I think fires and lightning kill people pretty regularly, don't they?

 

You can use the exact comment for the current structure. The 12d6 normal attack is useless vs targets with 42 def' date=' but the KA is useful vs all types of targets. Therefore the NA is "overspecialized"[/quote']

 

Two issues here. First, how many targets have defenses of 40+ in a 12DC game? This simply reflects game balance. Second, we need to use some baseline for measurement. The normal attack (being the common one and the "normal" one) tends, rightly or wrongly, to be that base.

 

Part of the problem is that normal defenses apply equally against BOD and STUN. This creates characters invulnerable to BOD damage from normal attacks. Yet the Thing - definitely a high DEF target - has been in battles where he is clearly taking normal damage, and he winds up bloodied, but not KO'd. Assuming he has, say, 25 PD, that means at least a 20d6 attack with a very good roll. 6 rolls of 6 and 19 of 2 should get 49 STUN through, and that only did 1 BOD. If his opponent has enough dice to consistently get a point or two of BOD through, he shouldn't still be standing.

 

Many, perhaps most, comic book characters appear to have considerably more defenses against STUN than against BOD, viewed in Hero terms. This is something the game does not presently simulate, although I suppose one could limit a portion of one's defenses to protect against STUN only. Unfortunately, it's difficult or impossible for hard mechanics to perfectly simulate genre results which arise due to artistic license.

 

Again' date=' it's a matter of GM control. If the GM wants KA to remain terrifying and a viable weapon, then he can simply control the level of PC defenses to more closely model the source material. And the GM can help by sending fewer villains with AP KAs so there's less incentive to buy hardened defenses.[/quote']

 

Controlling the level of rDEF would have a similar effect with standard KA's.

 

You're assuming KAs will be just as common under the new system as under the current system.

 

Assuming we were building to concept before and continue to build to concept now, why would the frequency of killing attacks change between the two systems?

 

And just because a character can buy something doesn't mean that he should. Otherwise 1-3 pts of mental, flash, and power defense and lack of weakness would be pretty darn good buys for EVERYONE.

 

If you're complaining about the lack of effectiveness of KA and you're the one who allows every character to purchase hardened, then yes I see a lack of control by the GM.

 

Putting, say, 3 points into hardening my resistant defenses (only) would mean buying Hardened on 12 points of rDEF (24x 1/2 Dam Res = 12 x 1/4 = 3), so I can harden 6 PD and 6 ED. That will reduce the damage I take from an AP KA by 3, which is doubled after my defenses, so reduces BOD damage by 6 (and STUN by 3) when faced with a KA. Will 3 points of Mental, Flash or Power Defense be that effective at keeping my character alive?

 

In the Supers genre, your system not only enhances the value of Hardening defenses which protect against KA BOD, it also encourages far more AP KA's. Both make hardened rDEF far more valuable. As such, there will be greater impetus to purchase it.

 

If the GM then says "no, only one character may have Hardened rDEF", that GM control can keep down the incidence of this ability. If those without hardened rDEF then find themselves at a substantial disadvantage (eg. they take 8 BOD from every hit with an AP killing attack, and they face opponents with AP killing attacks, say, every third or fourth scenario), I suspect the GM will find a backlash, assuming the players did not share the GM's expectation of a highly lethal game.

 

Part of the problem is that an "effective killing attack" should be lethal. Excessive lethality means characters drop like flies. That's not a common style for most genres' campaigns.

 

Not if someone actually purchases a .50 cal with character points. Or a longsword that's 1.5d6 and 3d6+1 with Str. Because the range of damage is so great' date=' the vault door will eventually be chopped to pieces by the longsword paid with character points. It would happen even quicker if the character purchased a 2 handed sword.[/quote']

 

Gary, you argue above that effective GM control can easily manage the increased value of hardened defenses if AP KA's are the only way to build an effective KA. If that is the case, why wouldn't GM control such as "you must put a limitation (even a -0 Limitation) on your character point purchased 50 cal, longsword or 2 handed sword so that it cannot chop a vault door to pieces?

 

That example supports the fact that Wolverine has AP on his KA. If he simply rolled lots of dice rather than reducing the defenses of the target' date=' those mooks would be quite dead.[/quote']

 

Let's look at some examples. Assume our mercenary mook has 4 PD armor plus 6 normal PD. We'll give him, say, 10 BOD and 25 STUN. This seems like a fair Supers Mook (actually, I think the Armor would normally be higher and the base PD lower, but we've been using 4 rDEF). Let's use a 12DC camiagn norm.

 

10d6 GaryKA hits mook, rolling 35 STUN and 10 BOD. This gets 6 BOD past armor, doubled is 12, mook is dying. He takes 31 STUN, so he's just barely down. When he recovers, he should either flee or get killed by the next hit. Under your logic, he either flees or he feigns unconsciousness until Wolvie leaves, then presumably uses Paramedic to bind his wounds.

 

7d6 GaryKA hits mook, rolling 24.5 STUN and 7 BOD. This gets 3 BOD past armor, doubled is 6, mook is bloodied, but not dying. He takes 17 or so STUN, so he's conscious, but probably Stunned. That means Wolvie has to hit him again [one hit was adequate in the comics]. That's another 6 BOD, and another 18 STUN (rounded up this time), so he's now just like the first target. [AP doesn't add a lot in terms of effectiveness dealing with mooks - which we knew]

 

4d6 Hero Standard KA hits mook, rolling 14 BOD and 37 STUN (the latter varies widely, but let's assume we've adopted a STUN Multiple smoothing mechanic). This gets 10 BOD past armor; mook is dying. He takes 27 STUN, so he's just barely down. Same logic should apply as with your 10d6 KA.

 

2 1/2d6 Hero Standard AP KA hits mook, rolling 9 BOD and 24 STUN (the latter varies widely, but let's assume we've adopted a STUN Multiple smoothing mechanic). This gets 5 BOD past armor; mook is bloodied. He takes 14 STUN, so he's not even stunned, in all likelihood. He gets hit again, so he's just barely KO'd but at 0 BOD, bleeding to death.

 

The same result in all cases. The only variance is that the AP attacks require two hits in all cases, so if Wolvie has an AP KA, he's likely above the campaign norm. Let's bump him to 75 AP to reflect this.

 

12d6 GaryKA hits mook, rolling 42 STUN and 12 BOD. This gets 8 BOD past armor, doubled is 16, mook is dying. He takes 40 STUN, so he's KO'd.

 

8 1/2d6 GaryKA hits mook, rolling 30 STUN and 8.5 BOD. This gets 6.5 BOD past armor, doubled is 13, mook is dying. He takes 31 or so STUN, so he's just barely down.

 

5d6 Hero Standard KA hits mook, rolling 17.5 BOD and 47 STUN (the latter varies widely, but let's assume we've adopted a STUN Multiple smoothing mechanic). This gets 13.5 BOD past armor; mook is dying. He takes 37 STUN, so he's KO'd.

 

3d6+1 Hero Standard AP KA hits mook, rolling 11.5 BOD and 31 STUN (the latter varies widely, but let's assume we've adopted a STUN Multiple smoothing mechanic). This gets 9.5 BOD past armor; mook is bloodied, maybe dying. He takes 26 STUN, so he's just barely KO'd.

 

Again, similar results for all four choices.

 

The biggest Hero Mechanics question is how the targets can be so badly wounded they need surgery to survive, but they don't bleed to death in the two minutes max. period they can survive at negative BOD. That's all dramatic license in game or in comic, though.

 

Overall, whether Wolvie has AP or normal KA, and whether we use the standard model or your model, the results on each mook are pretty much unchanged.

 

There also has to be an element of believability as well. After all' date=' the game would be quite playable if there were rules that blow guns can penetrate M1 Abrams tanks or if normal humans can leap 100 feet. But that would violate believability. The longsword hacking apart the vault door isn't quite as bad, but it's still pretty unbelievable.[/quote']

 

Yes, there is a tradeoff. The longsword hack is as easily managed (or as hard to manage) by a GM as the use of hardened defenses under your KA moddel, or rDEF in general under the current model. In a Heroic game, the LS has the Real Weapon limitation. In a Supers game, don't Supers with swords accomplish feats like this in the comics frequently?

 

I wouldn't say "incapable of inflicting any harm". The KA still does stun, just less of it than the corresponding NA.

 

Also, the KA is generally only good in the source material against weakly defended foes. You don't see Hulk, Thing, Invisible Woman, Iron Man, or any other hard targets afraid of guns or a sword. But Storm, Cyclops, Spiderman, Hawkeye, etc go to great lengths not to be hit by sharp pointy objects.

 

Hulk vs Wolverine. Wolvie has proven pretty effective at inflicting BOD damage against the Hulk. This comes back to the comment (far) above that part of the problem is defenses that are equally effective against STUN and BOD. Artistic license is also there, of course.

 

Also at the lower power levels' date=' swords only seem effective when they draw blood as can be seen from countless novels, movies, tv series, comics, etc. You almost never see someone wear down the targets stun and knock them out while not doing body, a result which is quite possible in the current system against a knight wearing plate.[/quote']

 

Does any indication of Blood mean BOD damage? 8 bloody scratches from a cat and a normal person needs medical attention to survive? 20 needles (a small number in allergy testing) that draw blood means most patients are dead?

 

By the same token, in heroic fiction, it is very common for the hero to be KO'd by a killing attack and left for dead, yet he is alive and later recovers.

 

My proposed KA isn't neutralized. It does less stun true' date=' but still does stun unless the target's defenses are extremely high. In fact, it does roughly the same stun as your proposed KA (33.5 at the 60 pt level vs either 30 or 36 under your system). If you're saying that my KA is "neutralized", then you're also saying that your KA is "neutralized" as well.[/quote']

 

The key difference is that the other examples all deliver highter BOD to penetrate defenses. That "hero standard" KA averages 14 BOD, not 10, at 12 DC. It is more effective at removing a force wall or a brick wall which your KA lacks. It has a small advantage against a 12DC entangle, but your KA shares that. A "hero standard" KA also has the Lotto advantage, but that advantage is excessive, at least in games that don't use hit locations. [ASIDE: I find hit locations mitigate the lotto, not so much in changing the odds of a high multiple, but in allowing a multiple for normal attacks as well.]

 

As many players as under the current system. A character with 4-6 rDef faces the exact same thing vs a 4d6 KA' date=' possibly worse since rolling really high is far more likely than rolling really high with 9.5d6. Since some players still play relatively low rDef characters under the current system, there's no reason why they wouldn't under the new one. They may not play a 0 rDef character, but they wouldn't under the current system or your proposed system either.[/quote']

 

So we already agree that the current system fails to cover the source material perfectly in that the source material seems to include a lot of 0 rDEF characters. We also agree that the system motivates, if not requires, that departure, as no one pays that 0 rDEF character. This has been accepted in the game, as witness abilities like Combat Luck. Why then, would a system like you propose not result in a similar drift towards hardened rDEF? If I only have 6 rDEF, and every BOD from a KA that gets past it will inflict 2 BOD to my character, the cost of hardening it seems pretty cheap compared to the exposure of not hardening it.

 

That's an other metagaming issue, BTW. It seems that most characters with hardened defenses in the source material would be high defense characters, but it's low DEF characters that are most motivated to harden their defenses in the game. This is unrelated to the KA issue, however, even if the motivation is enhanced a bit under your model.

 

Funny how 30 or 36 stun is considered "competitive" in your eyes' date=' but 33.5 isn't.[/quote']

 

It's competetive if there are some offsetting advantages. The higher BOD vs Defense enjoyed by all models but yours is an offsetting advantage. The Stun Lotto (if not smoothed) is also an offsetting advantage, but one which poses philosophy issues (ie why is a killing attack made more competitive by allowing it to beat normal attacks at inflicting Stun).

 

We are all biased by our own experiences, of course. In my Supers games, my players have not exploited the Stun Multiple. They generally use killing attacks against inanimate objects and automotons (robots) because they are more effective at inflicting BOD. Under your model, high DEF objects and automotons are better defended against KA's, so this advantage fades.

 

Unless Healing or Regeneration is very common' date=' then taking body has effects that linger long after the battle is over. I wouldn't consider a body drain that regenerates per month to be useless, but you wouldn't get many dice at 60 pts.[/quote']

 

Those lingering effects don't help the already defeated character who inflicted the BOD. They also matter most when further BOD inflicting attacks come up afterwards, and their main effect is putting the target closer to death. Again, we get back to that lethality issue.

 

6 or 12 less stun is "marginally less stun" but 8.5 less stun makes an attack "neutralized"' date=' "useless", or "not competitive". Hmm...[/quote']

 

6 less STUN on average with higher average BOD to deal with the inanimate and the chance of greater STUN is competitive. There is a tradeoff - more useful often enough to matter. 8.5 less STUN with no offsetting advantage is not competitive. I don't see "I kill him instead of KO'ing him" or "maybe he'll run away with all that BOD loss" as a significant offsetting advantage. You do. That seems to be the crux of our difference.

 

Gary, I think we're just talking in circles here. I'm going to try to restrict future responses to any new issues.

[GAZZA]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Just a side note: you aren't allowed to have partially Hardened defences (though you can have some hardened and some not, eg Hardened Armour and non-Hardened PD/ED).

[Gary]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

And why did the Supers game, in genre, drift away from the low rDEF model of many comic book supers? Because comic book supers don't have to deal with die rolls. The writer decides whether Spiderman gets hit with the buillet, or nimbly avoids it. In game, the dice come up "3", and "no rDEF" Spidey takes 2d6+1 BOD. Realistic? Sure. In genre? Not so much.

 

Tack on a "most serious opponents with a KA have Armor Piercing" model, and Spidey needs hardened defenses as well - those serious opponents will hit on occasion.

 

Yep

 

I also find we as a group seem to assume a visible difference between KA's and normal attacks. That visible difference is there when we see a gun or a knife. Is a blast of flame a normal attack, or a killing attack? What about Electro's lightning bolts? These are pretty tough to distinguish visibly, but I think fires and lightning kill people pretty regularly, don't they?

 

For energy it's tougher and can be simulated either way, but physical KAs generally are quite noticeable.

 

Two issues here. First, how many targets have defenses of 40+ in a 12DC game? This simply reflects game balance. Second, we need to use some baseline for measurement. The normal attack (being the common one and the "normal" one) tends, rightly or wrongly, to be that base.

 

Not that many have 34+ either, but you seem to be using that as your threshold against my method.

 

 

Part of the problem is that normal defenses apply equally against BOD and STUN. This creates characters invulnerable to BOD damage from normal attacks. Yet the Thing - definitely a high DEF target - has been in battles where he is clearly taking normal damage, and he winds up bloodied, but not KO'd. Assuming he has, say, 25 PD, that means at least a 20d6 attack with a very good roll. 6 rolls of 6 and 19 of 2 should get 49 STUN through, and that only did 1 BOD. If his opponent has enough dice to consistently get a point or two of BOD through, he shouldn't still be standing.

 

Many, perhaps most, comic book characters appear to have considerably more defenses against STUN than against BOD, viewed in Hero terms. This is something the game does not presently simulate, although I suppose one could limit a portion of one's defenses to protect against STUN only. Unfortunately, it's difficult or impossible for hard mechanics to perfectly simulate genre results which arise due to artistic license.

 

Yep.

 

Controlling the level of rDEF would have a similar effect with standard KA's.

 

Nope. Standard KAs still have the high variability in Body damage and the stun lottery.

 

Assuming we were building to concept before and continue to build to concept now, why would the frequency of killing attacks change between the two systems?

 

A lot of energy attacks could go either way and would tend to be defined more as EBs if KAs become less effective at stunning foes. As for physical attacks, things like maces might now be defined as NAs instead of KAs like under the current system (to make them competitive with swords).

 

 

Putting, say, 3 points into hardening my resistant defenses (only) would mean buying Hardened on 12 points of rDEF (24x 1/2 Dam Res = 12 x 1/4 = 3), so I can harden 6 PD and 6 ED. That will reduce the damage I take from an AP KA by 3, which is doubled after my defenses, so reduces BOD damage by 6 (and STUN by 3) when faced with a KA. Will 3 points of Mental, Flash or Power Defense be that effective at keeping my character alive?

 

3 pts of Lack of Weakness might. And power, mental, and flash have a whole lot of other beneficial effects. Also, it's probably going to cost more because you can't harden only part of a defense. Also, you have to harden the base PD and ED as well as the damage resistance, so now the cost is 9 pts to harden 6/6.

 

In the Supers genre, your system not only enhances the value of Hardening defenses which protect against KA BOD, it also encourages far more AP KA's. Both make hardened rDEF far more valuable. As such, there will be greater impetus to purchase it.

 

If the GM then says "no, only one character may have Hardened rDEF", that GM control can keep down the incidence of this ability. If those without hardened rDEF then find themselves at a substantial disadvantage (eg. they take 8 BOD from every hit with an AP killing attack, and they face opponents with AP killing attacks, say, every third or fourth scenario), I suspect the GM will find a backlash, assuming the players did not share the GM's expectation of a highly lethal game.

 

Part of the problem is that an "effective killing attack" should be lethal. Excessive lethality means characters drop like flies. That's not a common style for most genres' campaigns.

 

It's up to the GM to determine what style his campaign is. If the GM wants KAs to be terrifying, he should limit rDef and hardened. If he wants it to be just another attack option, then he simply doesn't set any limitations on defenses.

 

Gary, you argue above that effective GM control can easily manage the increased value of hardened defenses if AP KA's are the only way to build an effective KA. If that is the case, why wouldn't GM control such as "you must put a limitation (even a -0 Limitation) on your character point purchased 50 cal, longsword or 2 handed sword so that it cannot chop a vault door to pieces?

 

That leads to a whole lot of GM judgement calls which opens a whole can of worms. If you declare arbitrarily that a longsword can't damage 16 Def, then how about 15 def, 14 def, etc? And suppose Longswordman's buddy Clawman has the same attack. Is he limited as well? How about their buddy Lightsaberman?

 

Let's look at some examples. Assume our mercenary mook has 4 PD armor plus 6 normal PD. We'll give him, say, 10 BOD and 25 STUN. This seems like a fair Supers Mook (actually, I think the Armor would normally be higher and the base PD lower, but we've been using 4 rDEF). Let's use a 12DC camiagn norm.

 

10d6 GaryKA hits mook, rolling 35 STUN and 10 BOD. This gets 6 BOD past armor, doubled is 12, mook is dying. He takes 31 STUN, so he's just barely down. When he recovers, he should either flee or get killed by the next hit. Under your logic, he either flees or he feigns unconsciousness until Wolvie leaves, then presumably uses Paramedic to bind his wounds.

 

12 body in 1 shot is basically death for mooks.

 

7d6 GaryKA hits mook, rolling 24.5 STUN and 7 BOD. This gets 3 BOD past armor, doubled is 6, mook is bloodied, but not dying. He takes 17 or so STUN, so he's conscious, but probably Stunned. That means Wolvie has to hit him again [one hit was adequate in the comics]. That's another 6 BOD, and another 18 STUN (rounded up this time), so he's now just like the first target. [AP doesn't add a lot in terms of effectiveness dealing with mooks - which we knew]

 

Actually 5 body past defenses for 10 total body and 24.5 Stun.

 

4d6 Hero Standard KA hits mook, rolling 14 BOD and 37 STUN (the latter varies widely, but let's assume we've adopted a STUN Multiple smoothing mechanic). This gets 10 BOD past armor; mook is dying. He takes 27 STUN, so he's just barely down. Same logic should apply as with your 10d6 KA.

 

Same as the others, but a lot more variability. The attack could easily roll 8 body 8 stun, or 20 body 100 stun.

 

2 1/2d6 Hero Standard AP KA hits mook, rolling 9 BOD and 24 STUN (the latter varies widely, but let's assume we've adopted a STUN Multiple smoothing mechanic). This gets 5 BOD past armor; mook is bloodied. He takes 14 STUN, so he's not even stunned, in all likelihood. He gets hit again, so he's just barely KO'd but at 0 BOD, bleeding to death.

 

7 Body through defenses and 19 Stun.

 

The same result in all cases. The only variance is that the AP attacks require two hits in all cases, so if Wolvie has an AP KA, he's likely above the campaign norm. Let's bump him to 75 AP to reflect this.

 

The AP attack is less effective in general vs low rDef characters.

 

12d6 GaryKA hits mook, rolling 42 STUN and 12 BOD. This gets 8 BOD past armor, doubled is 16, mook is dying. He takes 40 STUN, so he's KO'd.

 

8 1/2d6 GaryKA hits mook, rolling 30 STUN and 8.5 BOD. This gets 6.5 BOD past armor, doubled is 13, mook is dying. He takes 31 or so STUN, so he's just barely down.

 

5d6 Hero Standard KA hits mook, rolling 17.5 BOD and 47 STUN (the latter varies widely, but let's assume we've adopted a STUN Multiple smoothing mechanic). This gets 13.5 BOD past armor; mook is dying. He takes 37 STUN, so he's KO'd.

 

3d6+1 Hero Standard AP KA hits mook, rolling 11.5 BOD and 31 STUN (the latter varies widely, but let's assume we've adopted a STUN Multiple smoothing mechanic). This gets 9.5 BOD past armor; mook is bloodied, maybe dying. He takes 26 STUN, so he's just barely KO'd.

 

Again, similar results for all four choices.

 

This time you did halve defenses for AP.

 

The biggest Hero Mechanics question is how the targets can be so badly wounded they need surgery to survive, but they don't bleed to death in the two minutes max. period they can survive at negative BOD. That's all dramatic license in game or in comic, though.

 

Overall, whether Wolvie has AP or normal KA, and whether we use the standard model or your model, the results on each mook are pretty much unchanged.

 

Nope, the AP attack does less body to the mook in all cases. In the 75 AP version, there's a reasonable chance that the mook is killed outright with the regular KA. In all cases, there's less time for help to arrive to save the mook for the reguler KA vs the AP KA.

 

 

Yes, there is a tradeoff. The longsword hack is as easily managed (or as hard to manage) by a GM as the use of hardened defenses under your KA moddel, or rDEF in general under the current model. In a Heroic game, the LS has the Real Weapon limitation. In a Supers game, don't Supers with swords accomplish feats like this in the comics frequently?

 

Supers who can do this usually have magic or special weapons such as Wolverine's claws or Black Knight's sword. "Normal" KAs such as Green Arrow's regular arrows, Punisher's guns, or Taskmaster using a sword will never penetrate a vault door.

 

Hulk vs Wolverine. Wolvie has proven pretty effective at inflicting BOD damage against the Hulk. This comes back to the comment (far) above that part of the problem is defenses that are equally effective against STUN and BOD. Artistic license is also there, of course.

 

Wolverine seems to have a variable number of levels of AP and Penetrating. It appears the writers roll a D6 and that's how many levels of each advantage he as for any particular issue.

 

Does any indication of Blood mean BOD damage? 8 bloody scratches from a cat and a normal person needs medical attention to survive? 20 needles (a small number in allergy testing) that draw blood means most patients are dead?

 

Given the visuals of any typical movie such as Conan, Lord of the Rings, Braveheart, etc, blood most certainly means Body damage.

 

By the same token, in heroic fiction, it is very common for the hero to be KO'd by a killing attack and left for dead, yet he is alive and later recovers.

 

He's not merely KO'd, he's taken a lot of body in general He's usually at close to negative his body and often has to be nursed back to health over weeks or months.

 

The key difference is that the other examples all deliver highter BOD to penetrate defenses. That "hero standard" KA averages 14 BOD, not 10, at 12 DC. It is more effective at removing a force wall or a brick wall which your KA lacks. It has a small advantage against a 12DC entangle, but your KA shares that. A "hero standard" KA also has the Lotto advantage, but that advantage is excessive, at least in games that don't use hit locations. [ASIDE: I find hit locations mitigate the lotto, not so much in changing the odds of a high multiple, but in allowing a multiple for normal attacks as well.]

 

It's more effective at removing a force wall, but not vs brick walls at 5 Def. Vs a 6 def 6 body entangle, your KA needs to roll 4 above average to take it down with a full phase to spare. My KA needs to roll 2 only above average, which is significantly easier. Vs low def high body objects such as dirt, trees, or airplanes, my KA is much better.

 

So we already agree that the current system fails to cover the source material perfectly in that the source material seems to include a lot of 0 rDEF characters. We also agree that the system motivates, if not requires, that departure, as no one pays that 0 rDEF character. This has been accepted in the game, as witness abilities like Combat Luck. Why then, would a system like you propose not result in a similar drift towards hardened rDEF? If I only have 6 rDEF, and every BOD from a KA that gets past it will inflict 2 BOD to my character, the cost of hardening it seems pretty cheap compared to the exposure of not hardening it.

 

That's an other metagaming issue, BTW. It seems that most characters with hardened defenses in the source material would be high defense characters, but it's low DEF characters that are most motivated to harden their defenses in the game. This is unrelated to the KA issue, however, even if the motivation is enhanced a bit under your model.

 

As I stated above, it's up to the GM to determine the tone of his campaign and set attack levels and defenses accordingly.

 

 

It's competetive if there are some offsetting advantages. The higher BOD vs Defense enjoyed by all models but yours is an offsetting advantage. The Stun Lotto (if not smoothed) is also an offsetting advantage, but one which poses philosophy issues (ie why is a killing attack made more competitive by allowing it to beat normal attacks at inflicting Stun).

 

We are all biased by our own experiences, of course. In my Supers games, my players have not exploited the Stun Multiple. They generally use killing attacks against inanimate objects and automotons (robots) because they are more effective at inflicting BOD. Under your model, high DEF objects and automotons are better defended against KA's, so this advantage fades.

 

There are offsetting advantages such as vs entangles and low def high body objects and automatons.

 

Those lingering effects don't help the already defeated character who inflicted the BOD. They also matter most when further BOD inflicting attacks come up afterwards, and their main effect is putting the target closer to death. Again, we get back to that lethality issue.

 

Those lingering effects have a great deal of effect. First of all, you can't recover body in a combat without regeneration while you can recover stun. With 1 or 2 recoveries, it may take longer to knock out the target than you think, especially if he has teammates covering him. Secondly, if he faces another combat within the adventure, he's starting off at a significant disadvantage. This may influence a 12 body character who has already taken 6 body whether to proceed or might affect his strategy in his next encounter.

 

6 less STUN on average with higher average BOD to deal with the inanimate and the chance of greater STUN is competitive. There is a tradeoff - more useful often enough to matter. 8.5 less STUN with no offsetting advantage is not competitive. I don't see "I kill him instead of KO'ing him" or "maybe he'll run away with all that BOD loss" as a significant offsetting advantage. You do. That seems to be the crux of our difference.

 

Don't forget better vs entangles and vs low def high body items and automatons. And if you inflict body damage, you can skirmish, doing a little damage, retreating, and striking again. If you're only inflicting stun damage, this will never work since all stun will have been recovered by the time you get back.

 

Gary, I think we're just talking in circles here. I'm going to try to restrict future responses to any new issues.

 

Ok.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

3 pts of Lack of Weakness might. And power' date=' mental, and flash have a whole lot of other beneficial effects. Also, it's probably going to cost more because you can't harden only part of a defense. Also, you have to harden the base PD and ED as well as the damage resistance, so now the cost is 9 pts to harden 6/6.[/quote']

 

6 + 6 + 6 = 18 x 1/4 for Hardened = 4. [That's one for you and about a dozen for me in halving defenses vs AP, I think!] Mind you, my original Damage Resistance should have cost less to harden too.

 

That leads to a whole lot of GM judgement calls which opens a whole can of worms. If you declare arbitrarily that a longsword can't damage 16 Def' date=' then how about 15 def, 14 def, etc? And suppose Longswordman's buddy Clawman has the same attack. Is he limited as well? How about their buddy Lightsaberman? [/quote']

 

Whose concept justifies hardened defenses and whose doesn't also leads to a whole lot of GM judgement calls which opens a whole can of worms.

 

This time you did halve defenses for AP.

 

Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut!

 

Supers who can do this usually have magic or special weapons such as Wolverine's claws or Black Knight's sword. "Normal" KAs such as Green Arrow's regular arrows' date=' Punisher's guns, or Taskmaster using a sword will [b']never[/b] penetrate a vault door.

 

So the latter three should be required to take "real weapon" and the former should not, in order to properly emulate the SFX they have selected, right? We're back to appropriate GM control.

[Gary]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

6 + 6 + 6 = 18 x 1/4 for Hardened = 4. [That's one for you and about a dozen for me in halving defenses vs AP' date= I think!] Mind you, my original Damage Resistance should have cost less to harden too.

 

I was talking automatons. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

 

Whose concept justifies hardened defenses and whose doesn't also leads to a whole lot of GM judgement calls which opens a whole can of worms.

 

Yep. But it's the same as who's concept justifies power defense or mental defense as well. And the GM decision is basically made once at chargen rather than time after time during actual gaming situations.

 

So the latter three should be required to take "real weapon" and the former should not, in order to properly emulate the SFX they have selected, right? We're back to appropriate GM control.

 

Not really. All of them do things that real life equivalents don't, especially when wielded by their aforementioned characters. They just don't batter down large vault doors.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Not really. All of them do things that real life equivalents don't' date=' especially when wielded by their aforementioned characters. They just don't batter down large vault doors.[/quote']

 

Then perhaps they should have a different limitation which encompasses only those parts of "real weapon" that area appropriate (I can't think of any, frankly, for your examples - I think the special things they do are purchased separately with character points - but there may be some). That may be a -0 limitation, like many limitations that don't come up very often and aren't all that significant, but are logical extensions of the SFX of a character's powers.

[Gary]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Then perhaps they should have a different limitation which encompasses only those parts of "real weapon" that area appropriate (I can't think of any' date=' frankly, for your examples - I think the special things they do are purchased separately with character points - but there may be some). That may be a -0 limitation, like many limitations that don't come up very often and aren't all that significant, but are logical extensions of the SFX of a character's powers.[/quote']

 

That's a pretty significant limitation that isn't as limiting as real weapon. It's not quite fair for Swordsman to not be able to cut a vault door while Lightsaberman can. It's better to treat them the same which my KA structure will.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

That's a pretty significant limitation that isn't as limiting as real weapon. It's not quite fair for Swordsman to not be able to cut a vault door while Lightsaberman can. It's better to treat them the same which my KA structure will.

 

Is it fair that a laser beam can be reflected by a mirror but a bullet can't? I would let Swordsman use his sword as a lever to move a large rock or pry open a drawer. Lightsaberman can't do that - his lightsaber isn't corporeal. SFX incorporate numerous small benefits and drawbacks.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

That's a pretty significant limitation that isn't as limiting as real weapon. It's not quite fair for Swordsman to not be able to cut a vault door while Lightsaberman can. It's better to treat them the same which my KA structure will.

 

Is it fair that a laser beam can be reflected by a mirror but a bullet can't? I would let Swordsman use his sword as a lever to move a large object with more DEF than thge KA can penetrate, or pry open a drawer without damaging the contents. Lightsaberman can't do those things - his lightsaber isn't corporeal. SFX incorporate numerous small benefits and drawbacks.

[Gary]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Is it fair that a laser beam can be reflected by a mirror but a bullet can't? I would let Swordsman use his sword as a lever to move a large object with more DEF than thge KA can penetrate' date=' or pry open a drawer without damaging the contents. Lightsaberman can't do those things - his lightsaber isn't corporeal. SFX incorporate numerous small benefits and drawbacks.[/quote']

 

I think there is a big difference between being able to cut through the side of a tank and using your weapon as a crowbar.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

I think there is a big difference between being able to cut through the side of a tank and using your weapon as a crowbar.

 

Then if, by default, the powers you paid for through your weapon CAN cut through the side of a tank, and the SFX of your weapon say you CANNOT cut through the side of a tank, you should take a limitation on that power reflecting the fact that it cannot cut through the side of a tank.

 

The value of that limitation depends on how significant that limitation is. The fact that there should be such a limitation is clear from the fact that your mechanical build does not properly emulate the constructed effect without such a limitation. "Real Weapon, -1/4" does it for me.

[Gary]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Then if, by default, the powers you paid for through your weapon CAN cut through the side of a tank, and the SFX of your weapon say you CANNOT cut through the side of a tank, you should take a limitation on that power reflecting the fact that it cannot cut through the side of a tank.

 

The value of that limitation depends on how significant that limitation is. The fact that there should be such a limitation is clear from the fact that your mechanical build does not properly emulate the constructed effect without such a limitation. "Real Weapon, -1/4" does it for me.

 

 

And then you get the whole host of GM judgement calls in game. It's better to simply have the mechanic where this isn't a problem.