[Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

The problem between us here is that you see the killing attack as a necessity' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

I think there is a place for attacks which are bettre at breaking objects and/or inflicting lethal damage. The breakdown (if there is one) of the current KA mechanic is its ability to inflict STUN on really tough villains.

 

Making a sword a limited version of a club seems a poor solution to me.

[bwdemon]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

If a club causes 3d6N and a sword causes 2d6N + 2d6B, then the two are sufficiently different in operation and each has their advantages. Again, whether the "BODY Only" dice are useful in a min/max context depends on whether you're working strictly at maximum AP for the given campaign.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

If a club causes 3d6N and a sword causes 2d6N + 2d6B' date=' then the two are sufficiently different in operation and each has their advantages. Again, whether the "BODY Only" dice are useful in a min/max context depends on whether you're working strictly at maximum AP for the given campaign.[/quote']

 

If you scan the weapons chart as is, I believe you will find a wide range of DC's for both swords and clubs. If the club, at the same DC level, is superior, why would people use swords?

[st barbara]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Sure' date=' we need Killing attacks. Where would all the Wolverine & Punisher clones be?[/quote'] I'm not sure where they would BE , but I can make a suggestion as to where I would like to see them GO !

[Vondy]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

I'm not sure where they would BE ' date=' but I can make a suggestion as to where I would like to see them GO ![/quote']

 

I don't know. Both characters had high points in the 80's. The original Punisher mini-series was very well done, and Wolverine, when he was "the honorable warrior fighting to contain his inner beast," was a strong character who did a lot for the title at the time. I liked him a lot at that point. Going into the 90's they both turned... well, they both should have been canceled while they were ahead. Of course, that was also the "gazillion x-titles" and Image sexpot anti-hero era, which is pretty much when I quit reading (most) comics. I have titles I like, but I'm very picky, and its usually the more hard-boiled, pulpy stuff I'm looking for.

[Spence]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

 

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").

 

Well actually it doesn't. One of the big things KA does is allow for a person to be able to take BDY damage and no STN. This is the gritty real world flavored thing that only KA does. There has been many many recorded occurances where a person takes an extemly damaging wound and doesn't realize they were even hurt.

 

So far, and I must admit I have not read the entire thread indepth, all of the methods so far are to get average BDY/STN totals using regular damage. But none of them address the primary utility of KA, which is to be able to apply a set range of BDY with a very wide range of dependent stun from none to a high max which I consider a key must in Heroic games.

 

But just an opinion since I don't really see Hero as broken at all.

[GAZZA]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Well actually it doesn't. One of the big things KA does is allow for a person to be able to take BDY damage and no STN.

I'm sorry? There's no "0" on the STUN multiplier die, so this is an impossible result.

 

If you mean after defences, well then:

a) My method mimics the STUN multiplier; you still apply defences as normal.

 

It's still an impossible result; the rules say that you always take at least 1 STUN per BODY you receive.

 

This is the gritty real world flavored thing that only KA does. There has been many many recorded occurrences where a person takes an extremely damaging wound and doesn't realize they were even hurt.

Invisible Power Effects is what you're after there, because in Hero you always know. Even if you took no STUN or BODY you still know you've been attacked, and who attacked you - unless you take the "x2" IPE.

 

But none of them address the primary utility of KA, which is to be able to apply a set range of BDY with a very wide range of dependent stun from none to a high max which I consider a key must in Heroic games.

You're simply mistaken that "none" is a possible result. My method above exactly mimics the range of possible STUN and very closely mimics the distribution - it's effectively another way of rolling dice for the same sorts of answers, nothing more or less.

[Captain Xenon]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

no.. you can take body witthout taking stun, IF the body is greater than your rDEF and the stun is less than your DEF. so a guy with a def of 10 and an rDef of 1, gets hit for 3 body, with 9 stun (standard x3 multiplier). 2 body gets past rDEF, and bo stun gets through.

 

looking at it, i think killing attack needs an extra line of text. "stun from a killing attack cannot exceed 6 per DC of the attack". have the +1/4 stun multiplier increase that, and it works fairly well. (so 62.5 points for 10 DCs could do 70 stun max, more comparable to the 72 stun from 12d6 normal).

[Ganesh]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Heh. If you want to be able to take Body without taking Stun...

 

two different colors of dice, one for stun total and one for body total. Don't count body -- the number of pips on the body die is the body damage. No, variation is too large...half the pips on the body dice is body damage.

 

So for normal EB, you get 1 body die for every 2 stun dice (+1 pip of body, if there are an odd number of DCs). 60AP EB? that's 12 dice of Stun...and you roll 6 body dice (average 21/2 = 11, maximum 36/2=18, minimum 6/2=3). Haymakering? Add four stun dice -- and two more body dice. Want to make an attack more or less lethal? Add (or remove) more body dice. Have an NND? If it doesn't do body, leave the body dice alone.

 

If you want, you can use d3s instead. A little more body, then -- the above example averages 12 body, even. But it might be nicer to do away with half-dice entirely, and make everything just d6s.

 

If you want more variability, have an advantage that "doubles body" -- body dice aren't halved. Now that's a killing attack!

[GAZZA]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

no.. you can take body witthout taking stun' date=' IF the body is greater than your rDEF and the stun is less than your DEF. so a guy with a def of 10 and an rDef of 1, gets hit for 3 body, with 9 stun (standard x3 multiplier). 2 body gets past rDEF, and bo stun gets through. [/quote']

5ER pp 410:

 

"Regardless of whether an attack does Normal Damage or Killing Damage, a character automatically takes 1 STUN for every 1 point of BODY that gets through his defences".

[Vondy]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

The more I look at the romantic super-heroic and pulp genres, the more I think all attacks should use the normal damage mechanic, but with killing attack body only being stopped by resistant defenses. How exactly you cost that is another question. I might consider just making killing a +1/2 advantage due to the lovely cheapness of resistant defenses. This doesn't work for grittier genres, or lower level heroic games, but for supers it could make for a pretty good simulation. Oh, and 4,000.

[Spence]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

I'm sorry? There's no "0" on the STUN multiplier die' date=' so this is an impossible result. [/quote']

 

Sorry house rule bleed over.

 

We (the original crew I learned to play with back in 82) had done away with the x1 minimum so that we could get the 0 result with BDY damage and simulate the real world "taking damage without realizing it" thing. It has become so automatic that I sometimes completely forget it isn't "standard".

 

 

Please disregard

[Spence]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

5ER pp 410:

 

"Regardless of whether an attack does Normal Damage or Killing Damage, a character automatically takes 1 STUN for every 1 point of BODY that gets through his defences".

 

Ignored that one too

[GAZZA]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

 

I get caught like that all the time (most recently: just noticed that you can't buy Teleport floating locations in a framework. Blissfully unaware).

[Spence]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

 

I get caught like that all the time (most recently: just noticed that you can't buy Teleport floating locations in a framework. Blissfully unaware).

 

 

I know you don't like the KA mechanic, but try it with 0 STN possible. It changes the dynamic a bit. I think it is worth the change.

[GAZZA]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

There isn't really a lot of point in my case. x0 and x1 would both yield the exact same result: no BODY and no STUN done (I only use Hero for Champions, and barring Penetrating attacks and the like KAs don't do BODY any more than normal attacks do).

[Markdoc]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

I think there is a place for attacks which are bettre at breaking objects and/or inflicting lethal damage. The breakdown (if there is one) of the current KA mechanic is its ability to inflict STUN on really tough villains.

 

Which I have always fixed with Damage Reduction. Once that's done, it's hard to see what the fuss is about.

 

I see the aesthetic complaints ("It's different from the mechanism used for regular damage!") but given that Transfer also differs from the way we do regular attacks (as does Mental Illusions and multiple other powers) that doesn't really move me.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Which I have always fixed with Damage Reduction. Once that's done' date=' it's hard to see what the fuss is about.[/quote']

 

Damage Reduction can work as a good fix. In particular, one could buy 25% Reduction (only vs KA's with 3+ Stun Multiples), 50% Reduction (only vs KA's with 4+ Stun Multiples) and 75% Reduction (only vs KA's with 5+ Stun Multiples). That 4d6 KA, even rolling 24 BOD, against a target with 25 Defenses now inflicts 0, 0, 23, 35, 36 or 24 Stun. Still a good chance of inflicting considerable Stun, but it was an excellent roll. Nowhere near the extremes of 0, 0, 23, 47, 71 or 95 STUN.

 

While this is a fix, I have some sympathy with the view that an attack designed to be lethal should not need a significant fix for its ability to KO the target rather than kill it.

 

One easy solution is to create, as a campaign ground rule, a requirement that all KA's take -1, or even -2, Stun Multiples. That takes the higher damage potential off the boards, leaves the slightly greater BOD average of the KA available, and provides a cost reduction without reducing AP and creating a much higher BOD potential.

 

This doesn't create a more lethal attack, only a less prone to KO killing attack. However, if you create a KA that cranks up the BOD, in my view this only leads to players buying up their rDEF (no one wants a dead character), so this approach is generally most lethal to entangles, force walls and automatons - as they become useless.

[Comic]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

How much of an advantage, if it's a workable mechanic at all, would 'Reduced Penetration' be on a defensive power? E.g. Force Field, Reduces Penetration (each attack compared to DEF in two halves, and the amount that gets past is totalled)?

 

If we're looking for new mechanics to reduce Stun Lotto's impact?

 

Not that I approve of fixes like this, but everyone likes to tinker.

[BNakagawa]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

How much of an advantage, if it's a workable mechanic at all, would 'Reduced Penetration' be on a defensive power? E.g. Force Field, Reduces Penetration (each attack compared to DEF in two halves, and the amount that gets past is totalled)?

 

If we're looking for new mechanics to reduce Stun Lotto's impact?

 

Not that I approve of fixes like this, but everyone likes to tinker.

 

Let me see if I understand your proposal.

 

You are proposing a power advantage on defenses that causes any attack that hits them to be treated as if the attack had 'reduced penetration' on it?

 

So if 20 def with this power advantage got hit with 42 stun, the 42 stun would be converted into 2 21 stun attacks, subtract 20 from each and add the results back to end up with 2 stun inflicted...

 

seems pretty unbalanced. +1 at least.

[GAZZA]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Well, except for the fact that STUN doesn't get divided for Reduced Penetration...

 

Comic's idea seems functionally identical to buying extra defences "vs BODY only (-1 1/2)". A lot less than a +1 if you want to do it with advantages.

 

For example: let's say you have 20 PD/20 ED Armour (60 Active Points). To do it "the limitation way" costs an extra 24 points, so anything more than +1/2 looks suspect.

[Comic]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Well, I did mean an advantage against Stun, of course.

 

You could even further limit it to be against KA Stun only.

 

Though a more directly mechanically applicable power would be Suppress KA, only for Stun, only to defend against KA. That way, you can represent someone whose physiology is so resistant to trauma as to actively counter the shock of intentional killing effects. Not sure how to build this one, exactly, either.

[GAZZA]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Well' date=' I did mean an advantage against Stun, of course.[/quote']

 

Well, in a supers game I would probably rate "STUN only" on defences as a -0 limitation. So if you wanted to do it via advantage (ie double your defences against STUN), I'd probably go with about +1 to +1 1/4.

 

Though a more directly mechanically applicable power would be Suppress KA, only for Stun, only to defend against KA. That way, you can represent someone whose physiology is so resistant to trauma as to actively counter the shock of intentional killing effects. Not sure how to build this one, exactly, either.

Interesting idea. But as a general rule I think it's probably easier to do this from the perspective of the target rather than the aggressor - just buying extra defences with a limitation that they only work against KA Stun seems a simpler way to go about it (or just get Damage Reduction, which is pretty much tailor made to kill the STUN lotto).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

Well' date=' in a supers game I would probably rate "STUN only" on defences as a -0 limitation. So if you wanted to do it via advantage (ie double your defences against STUN), I'd probably go with about +1 to +1 1/4.[/quote']

 

So you'd charge a player 10 points for +8 PD only vs STUN? I could see making "Only vs Stun" a -0 limitation assuming the character already had enough defenses to be secure from BOD damage (ie buying another 10 PD on top of your existing 20 isn't very limited by being not vs BOD in a game that caps at 12 DC attacks anyway), but that would set the maximum at +1.

 

With that in mind, however, I would say it's more appropriate to just buy the extra defenses with the limitation "not vs BOD damage".

[GAZZA]

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

 

So you'd charge a player 10 points for +8 PD only vs STUN? I could see making "Only vs Stun" a -0 limitation assuming the character already had enough defenses to be secure from BOD damage (ie buying another 10 PD on top of your existing 20 isn't very limited by being not vs BOD in a game that caps at 12 DC attacks anyway)' date=' but that would set the maximum at +1.[/quote']

My feeling was that if you charge only +1, you have to consider that it makes Hardened defences proportionally cheaper. For example, let's say you have 20 PD/20 ED Armour, Hardened [75 Active Points]. To buy another +20/+20 vs STUN only "the limitation way" (assuming -0 is reasonable) costs another 75 points; to do it "the advantage way" with a +1 nets it for only another 60 points - your basic "advantage stacking". I'm not sure that it would be a problem, but it occurred to me that it might be, so I figured it might go as high as +1 1/4.

 

With that in mind, however, I would say it's more appropriate to just buy the extra defenses with the limitation "not vs BOD damage".

No disagreement from me there.