The cost of killing damage

[GeekySpaz]

I was wondering if anyone can clarify something for me. Generally speaking normal damage and killing damage cost the same amount (5 pts/damage class). It seems to me that killing damage has a distinct advantage over normal damage in that it ignores non-resistant defense. Is there a corresponding disadvantage to killing damage that justifies normal damage and killing damage costing the same? If so what is it? If not why do they cost the same? Am I missing something?

[ghost-angel]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Is it that time again?

 

Generally speaking, 15pts for 1D6 vs 5pts for 1D6 is what evens the odds.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

On an average roll, Killing Attacks do more BODY, but less STUN. That's the theory, anyway.

 

Also, in certain genres, KAs can be very hazardous. If you miss, you're more likely to kill an innocent bystander outright, than giving him an injury from which he can recover fairly easily. And often in those same genres, killing your enemy, even by accident or underestimating what he can take, can get you in a lot of trouble. And sometimes, you want them alive to question.

[Vorsch]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Killing damage is over effective,

 

but does your hero want to kill people?

 

Just call it a ecentricity from the Champions era

 

Actually it does way more stun, on the roll of one dice, god bless the lottery (as its called )

[GeekySpaz]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Is it that time again?

 

Generally speaking, 15pts for 1D6 vs 5pts for 1D6 is what evens the odds.

 

Your comparing apples to oranges there. 1d6 of killing damage is 3 damage classes and 1d6 of normal damage is 1 damage class. So the cost per damage class is the same.

[GeekySpaz]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Killing damage is over effective,

 

but does your hero want to kill people?

 

Just call it a ecentricity from the Champions era

 

Actually it does way more stun, on the roll of one dice, god bless the lottery (as its called )

 

However in fantasy or dark champions a hero might not have the same reluctance to kill his/her enemies and therefore its more cost effective to buy killing damage.

[ghost-angel]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Your comparing apples to oranges there. 1d6 of killing damage is 3 damage classes and 1d6 of normal damage is 1 damage class. So the cost per damage class is the same.

 

I am, and I'm not.

 

For the ability to affect Resistant Defenses you can only do 1 Body with that first Damage Class. For 3pts you can completely ignore the Body Damage, and quite possibly the Stun Damage as well (remember Resistant + NonResistant Defenses add up to block Killing Stun).

 

They may be equal in Damage Classes, but 5pts does not make them equal in Effect.

[McCoy]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

On an average roll' date=' Killing Attacks do more BODY, but less STUN. [/quote']

What he said.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

"More BODY, less STUN on average" for Killing Attacks is the theory behind mechanical parity between the two attack forms, and over a large sampling of attack results that's essentially true. The glitch in practice is that, while most HERO damage results follow a bell-curve for results due to multiple dice being rolled, the STUN Multiplier is rolled on a single die, so results from individual rolls can vary wildly (hence the aforementioned nickname, "STUN Lottery"). These forums are riddled with discussions of various "fixes" for this problem, at least by those who consider it a problem.

 

It's true that facing legal/social consequences for using lethal force against your opponents as another balancing factor is a holdover from the system's roots as a more-or-less "four-color" superhero game.

 

Note that before Fifth Edition there were other minor mechanical differences between Energy Blast and Ranged Killing Attack that favored the former. For example, an EB could be Spread while a RKA couldn't. Under 5E any attack form can be Spread if the SFX justify it.

[Alibear]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Point of order Lord - Any attack which does body is lethal force.

[Outsider]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

The advantage of KA over NA isnt just the stun lotto. There is also the damage lotto. Even if we eliminate the stun lotto by having a straight 3x multiple, one's odds of getting a high roll on the BODY of the KA (and thus getting a high stun total via the 3x multiplier) are much higher too. A 1D6K (fixed SM) attack does 18 STUN 1/6th of the time, which is 36 times more likely than a 3d6N attack doing 18 STUN. Sure, the 1D6K (fixed) is also 36 times as likely to do 3 STUN, but the low end really doesnt matter in a world where targets have PD. 3 STUN is the same as 6 STUN against a target with 6 Defense.

[Sean Waters]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

The cost/utility of killing atatcks against normal attacks is a debate with a long and not always honourable tradition. Welcome, indeed, to the boards, GeekySpaz; why not start with a biggie.

 

If I might sum up the debate, with my own opinions clearly on show:

 

Killing attacks are designed* to do more stun than normal attacks, after you take into account defences. Although their average stun is lower than an equivalent DC normal attack, because of the wild fluctuations that can occur in the damage because a smaller number of dice are being rolled, and a single die multiplier used, you get some absolutely stonking results which pull the damage AFTER DEFENCES right up.

 

Killing attacks are also designed to do more killing damage, which they do both on average and after defences.

 

Killing attacks are also only stopped or reduced if you have resistant defences which cost more than normal defences.

 

Very small attacks notwithstanding, if you buy your attacks in batches of 3DCs at a time, the cost of normal and killing attacks is the same for the same number of DCs: 15 points gets you 1d6 ranged killing attack or 3d6 energy blast, and all the above comments are true - killing atatcks, certainly over time, are far more effective than the same DCs in normal attacks.

 

Killing attacks have been with us forever, and noone is about to change them now.

 

There are two arguments in favour of killing attacks that I'm aware of: purists may find more, but I think it boils down to:

 

1. Killing attacks are not as reliable: if I 12d6 EB the sucker, I can be pretty sure of 42 stun, or thereabouts. If I 4d6 RKA the sucker, it might bounce right off without him noticing, and the KB will ALWAYS be less.

 

This is true, and on a single attack comparison might hold water, but over time, the advantages of KAs really overweigh the 'disadvantages'.

 

2. A far more convincing argument, to my mind, has nothing to do with game balance, but game play - damage should be potentially quite extreme - it prevents the game becoming boring and predictable, and more accurately reflects reality - a bullet might pass right through a body and do comparatively little damage, or it might be a kill shot.

 

That is a strong argument for having a killing attack mechanic, but doesn't really address the cost/utility thing - other than to point out that increasing the cost of KAs would make them very unattractive.

 

It is not an easy debate. My personal preference is for game balance in cost, and I would change the KA mechanic substantially, but I can see the arguments (or some of them) for having it in the system.

 

What I'd REALLY like to see is an alternative (or more than one alternative) KA mechanic in-system so that we have the choice of which one to adopt in any given game.

 

 

*OK maybe not designed, but that is the actual effect.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Every time this debate comes up I'm just amazed. I guess I'm like the fellow over at the other thread in which all the mages kept getting stomped in all the campaigns he played but everyone else's ( including mine) were the opposite.. In Heroic games deadly force is deadly force I suppose but even in our Scifi games a stunner is built on the same points seems to consistently take down foes more quickly than a RKA blaster. Of course, the blaster sometimes makes them stay down forever. In my superhero campaign even ruthless PC supers tend to not get killing attacks much because they've proven somewhere between unreliable and ineffective. Everyone seems to obsess on the high end of the stun lotto but tends to forget the low end is just as likely to occur.

[Outsider]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

It really depends on how much defenses the tagets have.

 

If the target has low to middling defenses, Normal Attack reliably does enough damage to do the job.

 

If the target has higher defenses, then the variability of KA rules the roost.

 

Most heroic games I've encountered have lower defenses relative to attacks than do most supers games I've encountered.

[Comic]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

The math of KA's vs. other attacks (the most common comparison is with Normal damage, but NND, Adjustment powers, and so on shouldn't be ignored) is not as easy as most think.

 

The distribution of KA Stun damage is much wider than Normal, but is skewed heavily in frequency toward the low end of that scale, as has been pointed out.

 

This means that on average it will take more attacks with the KA than the Normal attack to generate the same amount of damage after defenses, for campaigns where defenses are built intelligently. (Remembering that you should be building your defenses based on the sorts of attacks you expect to encounter and hope to defeat.)

 

In these circumstances, someone with a KA will face up to one, two or three extra phases of doing little or no Stun ('plinking') against their opponents for every phase where they do big damage (Stun Lotto).

 

But yes, overall a KA will usually be more effective overall. It can be unreliable, which will get the character in trouble at inconvenient times.

 

If your character with a KA is built to endure those 1-3 extra phases while pumping away waiting for Stun Lotto, they're generally going to do quite well.

 

But there are more ways to build characters than straight-on, and more tactical options than to go toe-to-toe.

 

In Game Theory terms, a smart defender treats the KA as if every attack from it will do maximum damage, and every attack from a Normal power as if it will do the average, in combat, for the purposes of choosing who to remove from combat first. At the same time, in Game Theory terms, the defender will treat the KA as if it will do minimum damage when determining what risky maneuvers to use against the KA'er. Which means the tactical defender will target the opponent with the KA as their highest priority, and use their most powerful methods.

 

Painting yourself as the primary target of the most potent attacks of the bad guys is the biggest disadvantage of having a KA.

 

Since not all GMs and players know Game Theory, KA users sometimes benefit from suboptimal decisions by their opponents. Which is hardly the fault of the KA.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Point of order Lord - Any attack which does body is lethal force.

 

Ditto. I'm always amazed by the belief a 1/2d6 KA Batarang is lethal force, but using a 15d6 Lightning Bolt against an unknown target is fine for a character with an absolute code vs killing.

 

It really depends on how much defenses the tagets have.

 

If the target has low to middling defenses, Normal Attack reliably does enough damage to do the job.

 

If the target has higher defenses, then the variability of KA rules the roost.

 

Most heroic games I've encountered have lower defenses relative to attacks than do most supers games I've encountered.

 

This is where the averaging rules fall down. A 12d6 EB averages 42 STUN. A 4d6 KA averages 37.33 Stun (and less knockback). But the average rolled isn't as important as the average STUN after defenses. If defenses are above roughly twice the Damage Classes, the KA achieves superior STUN after defenses, on average. It also has a better chance of Stunning the target.

 

The best solution I've seen suggested is to make KA's:

 

- 1d6 per 5 points

- BOD vs rDEF, Stun vs all Def if the target has any rDEF

- 3d6 for Knockback

- add the total on the dice and subtract half the number of dice for STUN [on 12 DC this will average 36]

- On each die, a 1 is 0 BOD, 2-4 is 1 BOD and 5-6 are 2 BOD [or 1-5 is 1 BOD and 6 is 2 BOD]

 

This gives the same average BOD, marginally reduced average Stun, and much reduced volatility, so a KA is more effective at inflicting BOD and less effective at inflicting STUN.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

It really depends on how much defenses the tagets have.

 

If the target has low to middling defenses, Normal Attack reliably does enough damage to do the job.

 

If the target has higher defenses, then the variability of KA rules the roost.

 

Most heroic games I've encountered have lower defenses relative to attacks than do most supers games I've encountered.

 

Another change between Heroic and Superheroic I see in practice is that Heroic games use hit locations. While KA's can still get that head hit and a 5x Stun multiple, a normal attack with the same hit location also gets enhanced Stun damage, so normal attacks are exposed to benefits of a Stun lotto keeping them more level with killing attacks.

[Outsider]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

I used to have a graph comparing in detail of 12D6 Normal vs 4D6 Killing STUN outputs, though I dont know where it is now. I will have to look in my old papers to see if I still have it.

 

As I recall, the Normal attack did more STUN 2/3 of the time (often significantly more stun), but significantly less STUN the other 1/3 of the time.

 

Against 30 defense, the Normal attack could count on doing 10-15 Stun, but really never any more. Typically not enough to do anything but wear away at the opponent's STUN total. The Killing attack, on the other hand, often didnt do any STUN after defenses, but when it did, it not only made up for lost ground vs the NA, but did enough STUN in a blow to get secondary effects, ie to stun the target.

[Sean Waters]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

I have not got the patience to do it with 4d6/12d6, but I've just run the numbers on an excel spreadsheet, and for 2d6/6d6, the 'break point' is where defences are 13 or higher - then killing attacks do more stun on average than normal attacks. I can post the spreadsheet but I'd have to zip it first as you can't (I don't think) attach Excel documents to posts. Anyone is really keen, PM me and I'll email it to you.

 

So, utility is not even, it is campaign dependent. Mind you, if you use hit locations a significantly larger proportion of hits do significant damage - again campaign dependent.

 

So killing attacks do more Body to lightly armoured targets and more stun to heavily armoured targets.

[schir1964]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

I have not got the patience to do it with 4d6/12d6' date=' but I've just run the numbers on an excel spreadsheet, and for 2d6/6d6, the 'break point' is where defences are 13 or higher - then killing attacks do more stun on average than normal attacks. I can post the spreadsheet but I'd have to zip it first as you can't (I don't think) attach Excel documents to posts. Anyone is really keen, PM me and I'll email it to you.[/quote']

Export it to a PDF document. You can attach those files to threads.

 

Openoffice (openoffice.org) will let you take different documents and export them to pdf.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Export it to a PDF document. You can attach those files to threads.

 

Openoffice (openoffice.org) will let you take different documents and export them to pdf.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

It is slightly cunning though: you can tell it what the defence you are checking against is and it wil calculate average damage through defences, which I don;t think you can do with a pdf. Nonethelss, here it is (the numbers might be useful to someone)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

I have not got the patience to do it with 4d6/12d6' date=' but I've just run the numbers on an excel spreadsheet, and for 2d6/6d6, the 'break point' is where defences are 13 or higher - then killing attacks do more stun on average than normal attacks. [/quote']

 

I think I did a similar exercise to similar results. At defenses of 2 per DC, the KA was a bit worse at getting STUN through. And that is about the suggested level of defenses in 5er, as I recall.

[Lucius]

The cost of killing damage

 

I was wondering if anyone can clarify something for me. Generally speaking normal damage and killing damage cost the same amount (5 pts/damage class). It seems to me that killing damage has a distinct advantage over normal damage in that it ignores non-resistant defense.

 

And that is not the only advantage a Killing Attack has.

 

Is there a corresponding disadvantage to killing damage that justifies normal damage and killing damage costing the same?

 

No.

 

Is it that time again?

 

Yes. It will always be that time, as long as new players come into the game and discover this glaring discrepancy. The only way it will stop is if we eventually get a new edition that actually addresses and corrects the problem.

 

Generally speaking' date=' 15pts for 1D6 vs 5pts for 1D6 is what evens the odds.[/quote']

 

On the contrary; not only does it not even the odds, it oddens them further.

 

The advantage of KA over NA isnt just the stun lotto. There is also the damage lotto. Even if we eliminate the stun lotto by having a straight 3x multiple' date=' one's odds of getting a high roll on the BODY of the KA (and thus getting a high stun total via the 3x multiplier) are much higher too. A 1D6K (fixed SM) attack does 18 STUN 1/6th of the time, which is 36 times more likely than a 3d6N attack doing 18 STUN. Sure, the 1D6K (fixed) is also 36 times as likely to do 3 STUN, but the low end really doesnt matter in a world where targets have PD. 3 STUN is the same as 6 STUN against a target with 6 Defense.[/quote']

 

In other words, rolling fewer dice leads to more random results; rolling more dice leads to an “averaging” effect making results more predictable.

 

Everyone seems to obsess on the high end of the stun lotto but tends to forget the low end is just as likely to occur.

 

No one has forgotten that fact, steamteck; it is just that, as Outsider pointed out, that fact is usually going to be irrelevant.

 

In these circumstances, someone with a KA will face up to one, two or three extra phases of doing little or no Stun ('plinking') against their opponents for every phase where they do big damage (Stun Lotto).

 

But yes, overall a KA will usually be more effective overall. It can be unreliable, which will get the character in trouble at inconvenient times.

 

If your character with a KA is built to endure those 1-3 extra phases while pumping away waiting for Stun Lotto, they're generally going to do quite well. .

 

Which overlooks the fact that if you built a character with Normal Attacks rather than Killing Attacks you have nearly the exact same challenge; you’re not going to be one-shotting the opponent either, so you need to be able to endure those 1-3 extra phases of gradually whittling down their STUN total. In fact, if anything, it’s probably going to take longer for you to take down your opponent than it will your teammate with a Killing Attack to take down an identical opponent.

 

In Game Theory terms, a smart defender treats the KA as if every attack from it will do maximum damage, and every attack from a Normal power as if it will do the average, in combat, for the purposes of choosing who to remove from combat first. At the same time, in Game Theory terms, the defender will treat the KA as if it will do minimum damage when determining what risky maneuvers to use against the KA'er. Which means the tactical defender will target the opponent with the KA as their highest priority, and use their most powerful methods.

 

Painting yourself as the primary target of the most potent attacks of the bad guys is the biggest disadvantage of having a KA.

 

In other words, the drawback to having the more effective attack is that everyone knows (somehow) that you have the more effective attack….

 

Nope, not buying it. By that logic, for example, Range should be free, because it’s also a common tactic to try first to eliminate opposition with ranged attacks….

 

Killing damage is over effective,

 

but does your hero want to kill people?

 

Point of order Lord - Any attack which does body is lethal force.

 

Exactly.

 

A Killing Attack that does no BOD (such as a No Normal Defense) will not kill anyone.

A Killing Attack that does do BOD may kill someone.

A Killing Attack that does LOTS of BOD is likely to kill someone.

 

A Normal Attack that does no BOD (such as a No Normal Defense) will not kill anyone.

A Normal Attack that does do BOD may kill someone.

A Normal Attack that does LOTS of BOD is likely to kill someone.

 

 

For the most part, I am in complete agreement with Sean Waters on this issue and approve of most of what he said; however,

 

Killing attacks have been with us forever, and noone is about to change them now.

 

is too defeatist in my opinion. I see a couple of hopeful signs in the way the system has evolved, and would like to think we may eventually resolve this issue. Granted, I expect it to take years…..

 

 

I have changed my opinion on how to fix the problem over the years; one of the solutions you will find floating around is one I originated myself, but at this time I think the best solution is the one proposed by Amadan na Briona:

 

Take the half-fix that’s already in the system (that mandatory ½ Limitation for Hand to Hand Normal Attacks and makes them cheaper than Hand to Hand Killing Attacks) and extend it to Energy Blast. Then Ranged Normal Attacks are also cheaper than Ranged Killing Attacks.

 

For greater granularity, make it a – ¼ Limitation to eliminate the limited “Attack VS Limited Defense” aspect (i.e. the fact that the Defense against Killing Attacks costs 50% more than Normal) and a – ¼ Limitation to eliminate the advantageous dice rolling mechanic. Or possibly it should be – ½ for each, and -1 for both; I am not certain, although the general rule that “defense should be cheaper than attack” suggests to me that the current Limitation is too small.

 

This also has the advantage of addressing (if only very partially) the argument that STR is too cheap.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And the inevitable palindromedary tagline

[Guest steamteck]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

But the random low results are NOT irrelevant. They are sooo relevant to my group at least that no one whats to use killing attacks much. I really don't think outsiders comment addressed that at all. killing attacks work just fine for my group. they are lethal but enough underpowered vs. regular attacks to not become the attack of choice. But obviously you guys get waaay different milage so carry on.

[ghost-angel]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

On the contrary; not only does it not even the odds' date=' it oddens them further.[/quote']

 

My game experience says otherwise.