[Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

For the comic book reality I want' date=' ideally I want SharpThings to do more BODY and BluntThings to do more STUN (not, IMHO, an unreasonable request, since if you ignore DEF and just look at the raw damage averages this is even what the RAW deliver - it's just that once you [b']do[/b] factor DEF into the equation KAs sometimes become much better STUN delivery vehicles than NAs - and to me, that is undesirable and deserving of repair. YMMV).

 

Getting there is most of the issue, though. Let's say we restructured the existing mechanics such that KA's did 50% more BOD (pre-defense) than an equivalent AP normal attack, but only 2/3 the Stun. Let's assume a 60 AP KA does, say, 15 BOD and 28 Stun, while a normal attack averages 10 BOD and 42 Stun.

 

What should a 60 AP entangle do? If it keeps the present 6d6 BOD and 6 DEF, the character with a normal attack will generally take 2 phases to break out, while the KA character easily escapes in one phase.

 

What about a 60 AP Force Wall? At the current 12 PD/12 ED, the normal attack won't penetrate unless it exceeds its average considerably, and the KA shreds it easily.

 

How about an Automoton opponent? Give it 8 Defenses, so the normal attacker can at least have some impact, and the KA shreds it for 7 BOD per hit. Bump its defenses to 10 and the KA still does 5, but the normal attack bounces off on average. Boost it to 12 so the KA takes a few shots to bring it down, and the normal attack becomes completely ineffective.

 

Change this to an opponent expected to be taken down by Stun damage, and the reverse occurs - anything tough enough to stand up to the normal attacker is invulnerable to the KA.

 

Increasing the range of BOD and STUN damage has a certain appeal from an intellectual perspective, but has serious mechanical problems integrating into the system. The effective characters in such a system will have a KA and a normal attack. The worthless characters will have entangles and force walls.

[bwdemon]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

A good point - we could remove a lot of items from the current system and build them with other abilities (do we really need Transform when it just combines healing and aid' date=' or Absorbtion which is just Aid with a limitation, or Force Field and Armor when they're just modified defenses and Damage resistance, or Healing when it's just Aid with a long fade rate, only to restore to starting level, or...)?[/quote']

 

It is important to keep in mind the difference between helpful and unhelpful complications in a gaming system. Some help the game by arranging concepts logically (e.g. EB could be Damage + Range, but having it as its own makes it easier for people to pick up the book and work with it). Some hurt the game by including deviant mechanics with no real gain (e.g. Killing damage). Removal of the unhelpful complications makes the game better - addition by subtraction, if you will.

 

For example, if you remove KAs and resistant defenses, then Force Field and Armor are completely unnecessary and their unbalanced costs can be removed. Then we're down to PD & ED, which you buy with the appropriate modifiers as needed, and all's well. The system becomes significantly less complicated and more balanced. It's a win-win move.

 

Also, I don't quite get Transform as being Healing and Aid. Explain this a bit more?

 

You could boil the system down to a very few powers ("move", "attack", "defend", "perceive") and a ton of modifers, but would the end result be superior to the present system?

 

I don't think any system should boil down quite so completely as you're describing above. Nor does the removal of a few absolutely unnecessary complications necessitate the removal of complications that serve the game well. You're using a slippery slope argument, but putting a cliff a few feet off the starting point. Remove the unhelpful complications. Add and tweak the helpful complications as needed to make the game better.

 

What it comes down to is whether the game is more accessible and balanced after the changes. I want the game to be easy to play for new and old players. I want the game to be balanced, such that 5pts of X isn't better than 5pts of Y at the same thing. Right now, it isn't accessible and it isn't balanced. Removal of killing damage is a good start to fixing the problem.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

It is important to keep in mind the difference between helpful and unhelpful complications in a gaming system. Some help the game by arranging concepts logically (e.g. EB could be Damage + Range' date=' but having it as its own makes it easier for people to pick up the book and work with it). Some hurt the game by including deviant mechanics with no real gain (e.g. Killing damage). Removal of the unhelpful complications makes the game better - addition by subtraction, if you will.[/quote']

 

I think this is tough to disagree with in principal. It's in the application that we encounter differences of opinion between gamers.

 

For example' date=' if you remove KAs and resistant defenses, then Force Field and Armor are completely unnecessary and their unbalanced costs can be removed. Then we're down to PD & ED, which you buy with the appropriate modifiers as needed, and all's well. The system becomes significantly less complicated and more balanced. It's a win-win move.[/quote']

 

Until we realize that Conan, with his 12 PD, cannot be injured by a dagger blade, or even a typical sword thrust, because his PD is equally effective against a razor's edge as against a fist. Then we start getting questions about the differences between killing and normal damage, and why the system can't handle this differentiation.

 

This isn't to say that KA's and rDEF are the only answer, but I don't think it's as easy as "pull the current model and make guns and swords do the same damage as fists and sticks".

 

Also' date=' I don't quite get Transform as being Healing and Aid. Explain this a bit more?[/quote']

 

Typo fixed, thanks - should be Transfer.

 

I don't think any system should boil down quite so completely as you're describing above. Nor does the removal of a few absolutely unnecessary complications necessitate the removal of complications that serve the game well. You're using a slippery slope argument' date=' but putting a cliff a few feet off the starting point. Remove the unhelpful complications. Add and tweak the helpful complications as needed to make the game better.[/quote']

 

Again, easy in theory. Much more difficult to get agreement as to precisely where the line between the unhelpful and the helpful complications is best drawn.

 

What it comes down to is whether the game is more accessible and balanced after the changes. I want the game to be easy to play for new and old players. I want the game to be balanced' date=' such that 5pts of X isn't better than 5pts of Y at the same thing. Right now, it isn't accessible and it isn't balanced. Removal of killing damage is a good start to fixing the problem.[/quote']

 

To me, accessibility problems come down as much or more to every gaming group having a series of house rules ("sure, the book says that, but we play differently") as it does to the complexity of the rules. It's pretty tough to argue that the game should be "more difficult" to play, but simplification comes at the cost of options. The game is "simpler" if we remove limitations and END. Is it "better"? Again, we get into that argument about which complications are goood, and which are not.

 

The present KA structure is an anomaly - it's the only place we multiply one random result by another. But if we're looking for a reduction in orphan mechanics, why not reduce the number of dice thrown for all other attack powers, and add a multiplier roll to these as well? Now we remove the complaint (justified or not) about throwing and adding "huge numbers of dice" making Hero combat "bog down into a slow-moving math exercise".

[bwdemon]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Until we realize that Conan' date=' with his 12 PD, cannot be injured by a dagger blade, or even a typical sword thrust, because his PD is equally effective against a razor's edge as against a fist. Then we start getting questions about the differences between killing and normal damage, and why the system can't handle this differentiation.[/quote']

 

Which is why the alternatives have been posted. Extra normal damage dice, bought as "BODY Only" ensure that things that are more BODY-focused than STUN-focused are appropriately and reasonably represented.

 

I would also note that Conan shouldn't have a 12 PD. I'd think something in the 4-6 range (without armor).

 

It's pretty tough to argue that the game should be "more difficult" to play, but simplification comes at the cost of options. The game is "simpler" if we remove limitations and END. Is it "better"? Again, we get into that argument about which complications are good, and which are not.

 

Killing attacks fall into the "not good" set of complications. Killing attacks include a different damage mechanic, a smaller dice poll (bad for the reasons discussed above), a multiplier (compounds the small pool problem), an extra knockback die, and rules on resistant defense that state that rDEF resists BODY and normal DEF resists STUN, unless you have no rDEF, in which case your rDEF resists STUN (which is to say, not at all).

 

In other words, killing damage is not a good thing that helps the game become more accessible to players and maintain balance. The entire mess could be removed and the game would only be better for it. The option lost? None. You can still model all of the attacks you want, with lethality altered through "STUN Only" and "BODY Only" dice.

 

The present KA structure is an anomaly - it's the only place we multiply one random result by another. But if we're looking for a reduction in orphan mechanics, why not reduce the number of dice thrown for all other attack powers, and add a multiplier roll to these as well? Now we remove the complaint (justified or not) about throwing and adding "huge numbers of dice" making Hero combat "bog down into a slow-moving math exercise".

 

I've never had anyone complain about too many dice being thrown (unless it came from me when my PC was hit by some mean old NPC's attack...). Plus, the small pool is one of the problems with the Killing mechanic.

 

Still, if you're hearing it, the "fistful of dice" complaint can be solved in several ways. One of the easiest is just going with lower AP caps. Like DEX & SPD, damage is subject to arbitrary escalation. Why do we have bigger attacks? Because that's what the GM & PCs decided on an the source material puts 23/5/12d6 as the standard. Revise to a 15/3/8d6 standard and you drop out a bunch of extra dice. This allows you to drop defenses and either get a LOT more depth and versatility out of your characters or reduce disadvantages so characters aren't quite so burdened.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Which is why the alternatives have been posted. Extra normal damage dice' date=' bought as "BODY Only" ensure that things that are more BODY-focused than STUN-focused are appropriately and reasonably represented.[/quote']

 

But these are again resisted by those with higher than average physical defenses. IIRC, the equivalent to a 20 STR under the NCM rules is an 8 PD. That absorbs a lot of BOD. A weapon that currently inflicts 2d6 killing (let's make it a gun to avoid STR addition issues) averages a roll of 7, and inflicts 7 BOD to a normal person, who has no rDEF.

 

For normal damage to average the same 7 BOD, it needs to roll 9, so let's call that 3d6 + 6d6 BOD only. That makes the limitation for BOD only -1, to keep the cost 30 points.

 

But now we get that "top physical stats" human, wearing no armor. Whether that's Conan or Durable Dan makes no real difference. He has PD of 8 and averages only 1 BOD from that gun. Note that he has only achieved NCM, not even paid double for "legendary" levels of PD - someone with 12 PD would effectively be immune to that gun.

 

Add 4 points of armor, and they're both functionally immune, where under the old system they would both have taken some BOD from an average hit. Even a 4 PD character (base from having a 20 STR) wearing that 4 DEF armor is pretty tough against gunfire.

 

I would also note that Conan shouldn't have a 12 PD. I'd think something in the 4-6 range (without armor).

 

My fault for using a specific name. I wanted someone whose PD was at a "legendary" level which, IIRC, 12 is. 4-6 seems pretty standard - if we assume a 23 STR (remarkable; higher than NCM - but not a lot higher), he starts off with 5.

 

Killing attacks fall into the "not good" set of complications. Killing attacks include a different damage mechanic, a smaller dice poll (bad for the reasons discussed above), a multiplier (compounds the small pool problem), an extra knockback die, and rules on resistant defense that state that rDEF resists BODY and normal DEF resists STUN, unless you have no rDEF, in which case your rDEF resists STUN (which is to say, not at all).

 

In other words, killing damage is not a good thing that helps the game become more accessible to players and maintain balance.

 

You are taking the binary approach of "keep it as is" or "remove it entirely". Other options exist.

 

The entire mess could be removed and the game would only be better for it. The option lost? None. You can still model all of the attacks you want' date=' with lethality altered through "STUN Only" and "BODY Only" dice.[/quote']

 

This will have its own ripple effects on the game, however. A simplistic example - are these:

 

(a) ordinary damage dice purchased with limitations? If so, there's little point having a killing attack in a Multipower. You'll shave a few points off the slot cost, but you may as well have a normal attack with Stun and BOD, since you can't eke out any more AP by having BOD only dice.

 

( purchased separately, say at 2 points per BOD die and 3 points per STUN die? Now that 60 AP MP can have a 30d6 BOD attack (only for use on robots, force walls and entangles - I have a CvK, after all!) and a 20d6 STUN attack (it's more humane, you understand!). That's a pretty big change from having a 4d6 KA and a 12d6 normal attack.

 

There are other options, of course. Under the latter approach, perhaps STUN and BOD dice can't be different by more than, say, 3 dice. Of course, then we get the examples of attacks which are unnoticed, despite the fact the target is mortally wounded, which this approach cannot reasonably simulate.

 

Hey, damage reduction just got a lot cheaper too, since there's no longer a "resistant" component. Since Captain Bulletproof no longer need purchase resistant defenses to be bulletproof, he can redirect the points to Hardening his defenses and still have points left over.

[bwdemon]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

(a) ordinary damage dice purchased with limitations? If so' date=' there's little point having a killing attack in a Multipower. You'll shave a few points off the slot cost, but you may as well have a normal attack with Stun and BOD, since you can't eke out any more AP by having BOD only dice.[/quote']

 

This is exactly what I recommend. "BODY Only" would be a -1 limitation (combination of "No KB" and "Does no STUN"). "STUN Only" is a -0 Limitation (strangely, "Reduced Penetration" is -1/4). Since limitations don't impact the active cost, you couldn't go over 12d6 total in a 60AP MP.

 

As far as buying 12d6 normal without limitations goes, it depends whether you are trying to stat out your attack as imagined in concept or just trying to get the most bang for the buck. A power's mechanics should work to achieve the effect as described in the character's concept, even if not necessarily advantageous mechanically.

 

( purchased separately, say at 2 points per BOD die and 3 points per STUN die?

 

I wouldn't use or recommend this method.

 

Hey, damage reduction just got a lot cheaper too, since there's no longer a "resistant" component. Since Captain Bulletproof no longer need purchase resistant defenses to be bulletproof, he can redirect the points to Hardening his defenses and still have points left over.

 

All I have to say is that every character has to be appropriate for the game they play in. If Captain Bulletproof fits the game with high defenses, hardened defenses, and damage reduction, then by all means go with it. If the character ends up with defenses that exceed the parameters of the game, then the points will have to go elsewhere (might I recommend Missile Deflection?).

 

As for me, I outright ban Damage Reduction except in very specific and limited circumstances (e.g. representing immunity to your own SFX). I impose stronger restrictions on defenses than on offense (I want successful attacks to do damage) and I temper it all with an eye toward the character's SPD and CV (probability-magnitude-rate measurement). I'm very focused on balance, though, while others let their players do whatever they can fit in, under, or around the rules.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

I want the game to be balanced' date=' such that 5pts of X isn't better than 5pts of Y at the same thing.[/quote']

 

As far as buying 12d6 normal without limitations goes' date=' it depends whether you are trying to stat out your attack as imagined in concept or just trying to get the most bang for the buck. A power's mechanics should work to achieve the effect as described in the character's concept, even if not necessarily advantageous mechanically.[/quote']

 

Which is it? I agree that I want players to stat out the attack as imagined in concept. However, I also don't want them penalized because of the concept they imagined. In the Multipower example, the character whose attack will do a lot of BOD and limited STUN gets no more BOD out of the attack, loses the STUN, and saves minimal, if any, points. IOW, 5 points spent on a BOD only slot is worth a lot less than 5 points spend on a BOD + STUN slot.

 

Now, that's already the case when MP slots are limited. But wasn't the goal to improve the system?

[bwdemon]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Both!

 

5pts of EB is equal to 5pts of EB "BODY Only" so it isn't a problem. That's the point of the limitation. 12d6 of X need not be equal to 12d6 of Y, because of different costs. In this case, 12d6 "Body Only" (30pts) has to match 6d6 Normal (30pts) in effect. On average, that's 12 BODY vs. 6 BODY and 21 STUN and, I think, a pretty fair balance.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Both!

 

5pts of EB is equal to 5pts of EB "BODY Only" so it isn't a problem. That's the point of the limitation. 12d6 of X need not be equal to 12d6 of Y, because of different costs. In this case, 12d6 "Body Only" (30pts) has to match 6d6 Normal (30pts) in effect. On average, that's 12 BODY vs. 6 BODY and 21 STUN and, I think, a pretty fair balance.

 

I would tend to agree. However, it is not balanced if one looks at a 12d6 EB in a Multipower, or a 12d6 BOD only EB in a multipower. Or would you consider 42 STUN is worth 3 points?

 

More to the point, if a character should have both a normal attack and a killing attack, so he places both within a Multipower, what is the point of spending an extra 3 points to have a 12d6 BOD only EB and a 12d6 EB? There will never be a benefit to using the 12d6 BOD only slot.

[bwdemon]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Even viewed in the vacuum of the multipower slot cost, it'll cost half as much as the 12d6 attack (3pts "U" or 6pts "M" vs. 6pts "U" or 12pts "M"). Like every other power that goes into a multipower, it has to abide by the restrictions in place on the multipower framework. Your problem is more with how the framework operates than with the powers' costs.

[Comic]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Okay, here's my list of solutions to the KA problem, and my comments on them. It's far from complete or fair-seeming, I'm sure.

 

 

 

 

Attack Fixes:

Armor Piercing

- overall does less body for the same AP to anyone except people with high DEF, when KB is counted. A great way to model sharp stuff and destroy foci. Except when combined with other advantages or when applied to KA's, not an especially good substitute for KA's if the point is to be more lethal. Reduces total dice of the attack, so outcomes get more, not less, variable (one of the objections to KA's).

Penetrating

- does more Stun, not more Body.

Piercing

- an abandoned advantage from an earlier version of the game, epitomizes the problems with advantages meant to simulate 'more lethal, less stunning'. Works like Penetrating, except does Body instead of Stun. Seems like a good idea, until play-tested. Or thought about. Usually combined with mass-fire options (Autofire, Trigger, high SPD, agents, duplication, AoE 1 hex) to increase lethality, especially in campaigns set too near to Oz.

Normal attacks with 'Reduced Stun' limitations

- One of the better mechanics, 'Reduced Penetration' (-1/4) doesn't shave a lot of points, does not result in KA's becoming much less dangerous, does let High DEF types wade into gun-wielding mobs without fear. More complicated to do the math, since it adds a few steps to determining damage taken, and not worth the extra steps for my money, but overall harmless.

Fixed Stun Multipliers

- mathematically, one of the worst solutions. Any fixed multiplier above x2.25 makes KA's more reliable, removing the high *plink* ratio that is their natural balancing factor. Many propose x3 (or higher!?) Stun multipliers, which leads not only to higher Stun on average, but more reliable attacks. Doesn't address most of the usually cited objections to KA's. A really poor 'solution'.

NND does Body

- See Piercing.

AVLD does Body

- See Piercing.

Buying extra body

for normal attacks - Fuzzy schemes adding levels of complexity, usually without playtesting or much statistical support. These usually add fixed Body to the damage for fixed cost. A good way to get most of the weaknesses of other 'solutions' with none of the advantages.

Buying 'death pips'

- Much like hit location tables (so adding levels of complexity and accounting), only built on characters earning 'death points' they can assign to other characters. When a character's accumulated enough pips assigned by others (or in some cases, them-suicidal-selves), they die by GM-contrived deus-ex-machina. Not my cup of tea.

Power Destruction: Body

- See Piercing.

Transform, cumulative: to Dead

- See Piercing.

Nerfed KA's

- The GM reduces KA lethality by limiting them to 5 DC or less. A very good solution - simple, clean, consistent.

 

Defense Fixes:

Really HUGE DEF -

PD/ED of 100+, in games with 60 AP attack caps. Uhh.. No comment. Really.

Death as a special effect

- Death, regardless of rolls, is treated as a special effect. You encounter something that 'should' kill you, and regardless of your Body or DEF, you can simply die -- no game-mechanical effect -- because the genre dictates that you ought to. Won't prevent your ghost/revenant/etc. from carrying on, but you're 'dead' by spfx.

Death a GM-fiat-only effect

- GM decision is the only factor. There's no game mechanic for death. Negative Body is only a guideline for healing times.

Stun "de-Multiplier" skills, powers, or talents

- Can be workable and justifiable for certain concepts. One example is a Con-based skill. For every 5 points you make the roll by, you reduce the Stun Multiplier of a KA that you have taken by 1. Not sure of the balance, and does add moderate complexity to the game. Overall the best solution from my point of view, since it is the least intrusive and the closest to current mechanics, while addressing the issue that _some_ people feel they ought to take less Stun from KA's. (Well, who doesn't want to take less damage from attacks?

)

Now, a campaign setting without KA's, I'm perfectly glad to see.

 

In the world as it was when Champions first came out, the popular imagination was much less drenched in killing attacks.

 

Outside of some professions and sports, handguns were on the order of one one-thousandth as common three decades ago as they are now, I would guess. Those guns that there were had much less power on average. Blades, too, were pretty primitive and small compared to today's weapons in movies, books and games.

 

A better world? I don't know. But it's a perfectly playable one.

 

As is a game where everyone brings a KA, and it's up to the Heroes if wading in blood is the only way to solve their problems.

[GAZZA]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Could you repeat your reasoning as to why 2.25 is the "magic STUN multiplier"; the average roll of 1d6-1 is 2.667. I'm not saying you're wrong; quite possibly you are taking into account something I have not considered.

 

Addition to the "Attack Fixes": different ways to roll the same number of dice as a normal attack of the same DC, but count STUN and BODY differently. A couple of the proposals have been:

• Count 5 as 2 BODY and count every die as 1 less (minimum 1) STUN for a KA. A little lower average STUN, average BODY the same as RAW.
  
• Count 1 as 1 BODY (not 0). Count 6 as 4 STUN (not 6). This is my current house rule; the average BODY and STUN is almost identical as the RAW (STUN is actually slightly higher - a 12DC attack averages 37.33 STUN in the RAW and 38 STUN with my system; BODY is identical).

[Brother Jim]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

This is just off the top of my head with no thought into it.

 

Read KA dice as pips of both Body and Stun.

There is no Stun Multiplier roll. The base multiplier is X1.

 

That's all I got right now. Personally I don't really have a problem with KA's, but I mostly played Heroic or "realistic" Supers not "Four color" Superheroic.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Just to put the two side by side.

 

Now' date=' that's already the case when MP slots are limited. But wasn't the goal to improve the system?[/quote']

 

Your problem is more with how the framework operates than with the powers' costs.

 

Under the current model, there is at least some benefit to a Multipower having a Normal Attack and killing Attack slot. Under your model, this is foolish. It simply wastes the 3 points, since there is nothing the Killing Attack does that the Normal Attack doesn't also accomplish (plus inflict STUN).

 

Yes, the costing issue exists with every limitation on a MP slot. How often do you buy a power that is not limited, then buy the same power with a limitation? However, it is your apraoch which converts a KA from a distinct ability to a power with a limitation. Your model fails to provide a power which inflicts more BOD for the same AP. It is simply a power which inflicts less STUN. As such, it doesn't really provide a "killing attack", in my view.

[Comic]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Assuming single combat:

 

A regular 4d6 KA has 70 possible Stun outcomes ranging from 4 to 120, averaging 37.3 before defenses.

 

At x2.25, there's only 21 outcomes, between 9 and 54, averaging 31.5 before defenses.

 

But look at the two DEF comparisons of 20 and 30, with a 'moderately high' CON of 25. At DEF 20, you only average 11 damage per hit after defenses, but you do damage 85% of the time. Even at DEF 30, you still do some Stun 45% of the time. This is slightly more reliable than a Normal 12d6 attack for doing damage, but much less likely to CON Stun the target (3% of the time for 20 DEF, never for 30 DEF).

 

This is not superior to a regular 4d6 KA, or a 12d6 Normal attack, overall, but it's better than you would expect of an attack that averages so much less Stun.

 

At x2.5, you do 15 damage to the 20 DEF target, and retain or slightly improve on your reliability (90% and 56%) but now you also CON Stun 10% and 1% of the time, which is approaching the odds of being CON Stunned on the regular attack, but with the advantage that only 1/10th to 9/20ths of the time will the target get a Recovery under attack without additional damage ruining the recovery.

 

In iterative simulations, this is enough to make the fixed multiplier attack superior to the regular KA at x2.5, but not at x2.25, all other factors being equal. (That process, I must leave to you to reproduce, as I no longer have access to the software package I ran this on a decade or so ago.)

 

At x3 fixed multiplier, you CON Stun one third to one sixth of the time you attack, and you do some damage 97% to 76% of the time. Congratulations, you've built a machine that seldom loses in head-to-head combat.

 

Of course, this is all theoretical and approximate and built on assumptions and bound to be affected by play style and house rules and game circumstances so much as to make precision impossible to claim.

[GAZZA]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

You don't mind if I check your math on that? I'll get back to you on the weekend - it's not that I don't trust you, I just want to make sure I understand your point.

[Lucius]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Okay, here's my list of solutions to the KA problem, and my comments on them. It's far from complete or fair-seeming, I'm sure.

 

 

I'm not sure this is the place for such a list (that is, I was thinking maybe we should start a new, more general thread about all the different solutions proposed) but as long as you started one, you left out at least three that I noticed.

 

Here are two I recently highlighted as the best so far in my estimation:

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

And then there is your own solution: to balance the two kinds of attacks by arbitrarily attaching an uncosted limitation to the mechanically superior power, a kind of "Side Effects: Moral Taint" that applies to anyone using a Killing Attack power, regardless of how they use it or how dangerous their particular version of the power is.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders if this means Killing Attacks join Transform on the very short list of powers for which the "third aspect" of character reality, the spiritual, is relevant....

[bwdemon]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Yes' date=' the costing issue exists with every limitation on a MP slot. How often do you buy a power that is not limited, then buy the same power with a limitation? However, it is your approach which converts a KA from a distinct ability to a power with a limitation. Your model fails to provide a power which inflicts more BOD for the same AP. It is simply a power which inflicts less STUN. As such, it doesn't really provide a "killing attack", in my view.[/quote']

 

The problem between us here is that you see the killing attack as a necessity, part of the swiss army knife that is a multipower (the part that hurts really tough villains, objects, and entangles). For me, I see it as a broken mechanic, used to exploit loopholes in the system, that rarely fits concept. If the character has an energy blast, use that to hit the villains, destroy objects, and get out of entangles. Don't rely on an aberrant mechanic to do it for you.

 

Like I said before, there would be no killing attack. There would be attacks more heavily focused toward lethality and those more heavily focused toward stunning, and a range of everything in between. At max-AP in any given game, there would be no min/max reason to have max-AP "BODY Only" or max-AP "STUN Only." There is no reason to have anything other than max-AP normal. However, I refuse to put min/max reasons ahead of modeling in any game. Real cost will balance effectiveness. PCs using cheaper modeling for more-accurate simulation will benefit by having more points left over for other things.

 

(For ease of reference, I'll use "B" to describe Body Only damage, "S" to describe STUN Only damage, and "N" to describe normal damage)

 

Under my proposed system, I could make a knife as +2d6N. I don't like this, because I don't feel it reflects what the knife really does. Instead, I might choose +2d6B and +1d6N as the mechanic. This knife offers increased lethality over the +2d6N version, but not the same ability to knock an opponent out, which I believe is a reasonably accurate interpretation.

[Vondy]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

 

Under my proposed system, I could make a knife as +2d6N. I don't like this, because I don't feel it reflects what the knife really does. Instead, I might choose +2d6B and +1d6N as the mechanic. This knife offers increased lethality over the +2d6N version, but not the same ability to knock an opponent out, which I believe is a reasonably accurate interpretation.

 

This may be more balanced (haven't bothered with the math), but the primary problem I see is that it will turn into a run-time problem in terms of tallying up different kinds of dice and applying the results. It introduces things to keep track of, and I suspect it will slow play. In my last group I can think of at least two players this would have been a problem with.

[Funksaw]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

I think the analysis is correct but it misses the point. I honestly believe that killing attacks are a different way to roll damage... a way that depends less on the SFX and more on the genre.

 

For example, fantasy heroes are more likely to use blades and maces and other nasty things designed to kill. So are their enemies - so killing damage is appropriate there. Same with post-apocolyptic settings, or war settings, etc. I like having killing damage as a seperate damage mechanic because even though it's "redundant," when you go from one genre to the next, one or the other might give you a better "feel."

[bwdemon]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

This may be more balanced (haven't bothered with the math)' date=' but the primary problem I see is that it will turn into a run-time problem in terms of tallying up different kinds of dice and applying the results. It introduces things to keep track of, and I suspect it will slow play. In my last group I can think of at least two players this would have been a problem with.[/quote']

 

It's no more of a worry than using different color/sized dice for different parts of the roll, which most people do when rolling KAs and STUN Multipliers now.

[Vondy]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Insofar as we're being radical, what about a universal mechanic for most things? Keep speed, add wound levels, and have characteristics, skills, and powers all based on the 3d6 Roll under mechanic. The results (critical failure, failure, success, critical success) can be compared on a result chart to determine the level of effect. The only issue would be defenses and how they worked into it. One option would be for damage and defense to be static numbers, with the quality of the attack roll determining the damage multiple that you compare to the wound level chart for the character.

[GAZZA]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Here's something for interest's sake that seems most appropriate to this thread: can we build a Killing Attack without the KA mechanic? Yes we can!

 

Let's ignore BODY for the moment. Then we can build the equivalent of a 4d6 RKA as follows:

 

4d6 Energy Blast, x3 END (-1) [20 Active/10 Real]

A) +4d6 Energy Blast, 0 END (+1/2), Activation 11- (-1) [30 Active/15 Real]

+4d6 Energy Blast, 0 END (+1/2), linked to A (-1/2), Activation 12- (-3/4) [30 Active/13 Real]

C) +4d6 Energy Blast, 0 END (+1/2), linked to B (-1/2), Activation 11- (-1) [30 Active/12 Real]

+4d6 Energy Blast, 0 END (+1/2), linked to C (-1/2), Activation 10- (-1 1/4) [30 Active/11 Real]

 

Total cost: 61 Real Points (compare to 60 points for 4d6 RKA).

 

Basically: you always do 4d6 STUN, and you always pay 6 END. You roll to see if slot A activates; if it does, you add 4d6 and roll for B, and so on.

 

It works out pretty close to the "STUN Lotto" effect - it gives you exactly the same range of STUN (4-120), pretty near the same average, and more or less the same distribution (I'll leave off the math for that because I don't want to turn anyone off, but it's not particularly complex for anyone familiar with probability - drop me a PM if you want to see "behind the scenes").

 

BODY wise it is completely different to a 4d6 RKA. However, it is worth noting that the "wildly varying STUN" that is sometimes noted as a virtue of the standard mechanic is here for BODY as well - granted, the average BODY is a lot less than 14 (which it would be for a 4d6 RKA), but you can possibly do as much as 40 BODY (more than the 24 possible normally). And coincidentally, cost wise it's basically identical to what a 4d6 RKA costs.

 

I don't think this supports either the "it's broken" or "it's fine" side, by the way - I just thought that since the thread title is "Do we need Killing Attacks" that a post demonstrating how to mimic the effect without the multiplier die might be of interest.

[Captain Xenon]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

interesting idea there gazza

 

i think Killing is a modifier +2. you pay 3 times as much, and in exchange you roll the body, and multiple by that for stun. and its like an AVLD: resistant defense only(pd/ed) +3/4. so killing is actualy +3/4, +1/2 does body, with a AVLD (rDEF) tacked onto it.

 

OTOH... killing +1 1/2, +1/2 does body, +3/4 AVLD extra, -1/4 decrease stun multiplier. 5*3.75/1.25= 15. its a key difference, and could be either way depending on what the 'killing' adder actualy does. i find the +2 to be more likely.

 

so you could then get 'killing' that is stopped by non-resistant defenses for the same 15 pts, without the stun decrease. The mechanic looks like 'only roll the potential body damage, or 1d6 per 3 DCs. next, multiply stun by X (average of 3)'

 

Killing is basicly like a normal attack done backwards. body primary, stun figured from that. it throws off the damage bellcurve.

 

12d6 can do 24 body and 72 stun max, 12 dice for probability. a standard killing atatck of 4d6 can do the same body (24), and up to 120 stun (166%). how big of an advantage is a stun multiplier, if you get a range of 33% to 166%? and the bottom end is more likely? as an adder onto a normal attack, you get less stun for the body you deal. aparently its +2.

(1/3rd chance of 33%, 1/6th 66%, 1/6th 100%, 1/6th 133%, 1/6th 166%. and its +1/4 adder to get a higher max with better odds.)

 

I think the easy way to fix the killing attack problem, is to replace the 1d6-1 multiplier with a 1/2d6 multiplier. less stun lotto, and you need a higher active point cost to get higher stun results which is closer to actual costs for normal attack stun (but still higher).

[Comic]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

You don't mind if I check your math on that? I'll get back to you on the weekend - it's not that I don't trust you' date=' I just want to make sure I understand your point.[/quote']

 

Object?

 

Any time I can get someone to check my back-of-the-matchbook-cover figures generated in the middle of the night, I'm always tickled.

 

Sadly, the assumptions of my examples are by the limits of this sort of discussion so narrow and arbitrary as to make the actual math of no general use, even if it's approximately right for the values selected.

 

The precise level at which a fixed multiple starts to become more efficient than the standard attack is specific to the situation.

 

The point I was trying to make was that just using damage averages to assess play balance leaves off significant other factors.

 

(Like moral taint. And aesthetics. And that time the GM's favorite PC took 60 Stun from KA's three times in a row.)

 

Have as much fun with the math as you like, and I'm only too pleased to continue to discuss it.

 

Sadly, I lack access to Simula these days, so I can't as easily take the discussion to the large dataset modelling stage, where many hypotheses die crushed under the stress of being tested.