The cost of killing damage

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

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' date=' 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. [/quoTE']

 

Let's try a little experiment. I'll trust you to be honest and let me know how accurate my assessment is. I think that your game(s) in which you drew the conclusion KA's are overpowered would have the following characteristics:

 

- Hit locations were not used [WHY? Because this balances out KA's by adding extra damage to normal attacks with good locations]

 

- Average defenses were well over double average DC of attacks. I'll suggest they were 2.5 to 3 times average DC's [WHY? KA's average more STUN past defenses at a bit over 2x DC's in average defenses, and that spread widens the higher defenses get]

 

- Combats in your game(s) were fairly long, well over a turn and more often 2 to 3 turns [WHY? Partly due to the DC to Defense ratio; also, this gives KA's time to average out their low and high rolls.]

 

- Ignoring KA's, STUNning was rare [again, high defense to DC ratio, and this exacerbates the occasional massive STUN from a KA]

 

In a game using hit locations (such that a head hit doing 5x STUN will also increase normal stun inflicted), with lower defenses (such that the KA's lower average stun roll starts to mean more, and its volatility less), KA's have a much reduced, if not eliminated, advantage.

 

Detractors of KA's tend to post in the Champions boards. Fantasy Hero players rarely complain that KA's are overpowered.

[eternal_sage]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

having just finished my first Fantasy HERO one shot, i agree whole heartedly. i expected combat to be extremely lethal (most weapons are KA, after all) but found, to my dilight, that not only was that not the case, but only the samurai with several kendo manuvers was able to one shot anyone, and then only an unarmored opponent with a groin shot (ouch!).

 

and a Katana is 1 1/2 d6 HKA, she had +1 DC from STR and anywhere from +2 to +4 DC with Kendo. and defenses were around 6 or so on average. the Wu Jen (who has mostly EB spells) was keeping up right along side her, getting approximately the same number of kills, maybe a few less, but still doing much better than anticipated. in fact, overall, i'd say the set up worked far better than i thought it would.

 

now, in my Champions setting, one character had a RKA and he was demolishing the opposition, left and right, while EB guys were having a bit of trouble keeping up. thats my experience, at any rate.

[ghost-angel]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Detractors of KA's tend to post in the Champions boards. Fantasy Hero players rarely complain that KA's are overpowered.

 

Being one whose fave genre is Fantasy... I wouldn't say they're overpowered, but are definitely Very Powerful.

 

I too tend to see this trend, those who play Heroic Games tend into the KAs are very powerful attacks camp, because Defenses (especially Resistant) tend to be low - or MUCH lower than when Superheroic games are played.

 

Superheroic Gamers with the much higher DCs and Defenses don't see this nearly as often.

[Comic]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

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

A useful quality of restating some understanding in other words is that it reveals where there is a misunderstanding.

 

It appears I am misunderstood.

 

Whether the KA is worse, better, or equal in some mathematical sense is irrelevant to Game Theory in this case.

 

In Game Theory, because the standard deviation of the KA is so much higher, the KA wielder should tactically be painted as the target.

 

That the KA might be marginally better for the points one pays remains completely irrelevant.

 

Even if the KA were somehow weakened in some inherently obvious way, but still had the same qualities of peak damage and standard deviation compared to a Normal attack, it would still paint the user as the primary target, to a good tactician.

 

To that tactician, their own peak attacks, even the ones that they can only use at great cost to themselves or with infrequency (high END multiple or limited uses), will be focused on the KA user, because this level of deviation from an average means they will treat the KA user as if their average were equal to their maximum possible roll.

 

Sure, in the game universe, the villains won't know that mechanically the hero has a '4d6 KA' or that that maximum roll is 24 Body, 120 Stun, 21" Knocbkack.

 

The villains are allowed to know, however, that the hero has an attack that fits a profile they may rationally respond to, compared to the different profile of the Normal attack -- though they don't know the other heroes have 12d6 EB's doing 42 Stun and 12 Body on average with 5" Knockback.

 

The villains are still allowed (in particular if they take Tactics, KS: Superhumans, or similar skills) to make rational decisions based on effects and outcomes, if they take even minimal time to recognize the nature of the attacks being used against them.

 

And at the same time, by the magic of Game Theory logic, when in a group, the controlling mind behind the group ought to direct their actions as if the KA would on any one attack do the minimum damage to expendible agents, for similar reasons.

 

Which makes for very bloody fights, focused on doing as much damage to the KA-wielder as possible and as early as they can manage.

 

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….

 

Range is free, though, isn't it? 1d6 HKA (No Range) = 15 AP = 1d6 RKA (Has Range).

 

This conclusion, as fruit of a misunderstanding, really impossible to refute since the conclusion's basis was faulty.

[BNakagawa]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

A thought experiment

 

Would you allow your players to have a power that acted thusly:

 

For every 15 AP, roll 1d6 of normal damage and multiply it by 1d6-1 (minimum 1). Roll an extra die when calculating KB.

 

For +1/4 advantage, add +1 to the multiplier die.

 

It will clearly average less stun than a regular EB. It will average less body than a regular EB.

 

Is it balanced?

[Sean Waters]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

What we have with KA is something that does not work the same way as normal damage attacks: the utility is situational.

 

Although we shouldn't really worry about power labels, it IS called 'killing attack' and it seems to me that one of the biggest problems with it is that it can substantially exceed the stun you could roll on that one time in your life when you get a maximum damage roll with a normal attack.

 

Hit locations don't solve the problem: the KA can still do more even witht he normal stun multipliers (OK - THEROETICALLY - a normal attack doubled can do more - but probability is so much against you getting an extreme damage roll with 12d6, it is not worth considering)

 

If it doesn't bother you, it doesn't bother you.

 

I can understand why games at heroic level where resistant defences are limited and unreliable, killign attacks don't feel wrong - because they are dishing out some kill damage, you can 'understand' the stun/pain.

 

In superheroic games, however, they suck. they rarely if ever cause Body and can stun even Grond on a lucky roll. So wrong.

 

In addition, ignoring everything else, we still have the point that you NEED resistant defences, which cost more than normal defences, to deal with killing attacks, but there is no differentiation in costs. This is a bit obfusticated by the rule that ANY rsistant defences give you full defence against killing stun - that makes comparisons more difficult.

 

We can deal with this. There are a number of ways of creating 'deadly' attacks that don't use the stun lotto mechanic which. If we had options in the core system, this argument would go away.

 

AP is often overlooked. Whilst it won;t necessarily increase the Body done to characters in a supers game, it certainly makes atatcks a lot more destructive. We could even come up with a new version: AP against Body +1/4 (BAP)

 

Normally AP is a +1/2, so in a 12DC game, you could get 10d6 BAP for 62 points, which you could probably swing. That makes attacks generally more destructive without penalising the overall utility too much.

 

We could just say that you can DEFINE a normal attack as killing: roll normally, but apply defences as if it were a killing. Of course that FEELS unfair because we have a far more straightforward basis of comparison.

 

We could overthrow all reason and say that killing is a +1/2 advantage, but ONLY resitant defences stop it so none of this 'full non-resistant defence if you have any resistant defence' mularkey. Of course, because objects tend to have resistant DEF by default that makes killing attacks far les destructive to the environment generally.

 

I'm not saying I have the answer, but this is not a bad starting point.

 

What I am saying (a popular refrain at present) is that we should have options to customise the game to what we want. Maybe you can make everyone happy all of the time.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

A thought experiment

 

Would you allow your players to have a power that acted thusly:

 

For every 15 AP, roll 1d6 of normal damage and multiply it by 1d6-1 (minimum 1). Roll an extra die when calculating KB.

 

For +1/4 advantage, add +1 to the multiplier die.

 

It will clearly average less stun than a regular EB. It will average less body than a regular EB.

 

Is it balanced?

 

For my part, I wouldn't allow it, because while you're right about the average, the result of the 1d6-1 roll wouldn't be the average most of the time.

 

Like I said earlier on the thread, there have been many "fixes" proposed. As long as the subject's come up, I might as well mention my own. The first fix is I tried is fairly easy to implement and doesn't change the way Killing Damage works in the game: for the Stun Multiplier I roll 3d6 instead of 1d6, divide by 3 (I made a small chart with all the results for easy reference), then subtract 1. The bell-curve starts to appear by rolling three dice, and because of the subtraction the results tend to group toward the lower end of the range. I end up with a Killing Attack that pretty consistently does more BODY but less STUN than Normal Damage attacks (which is supposed to be the distinction between them), but still has some randomness in the result.

 

However, for Superheroic games I prefer what I've been doing more recently, which is roll Killing Damage like Normal Damage, i.e. 3d6 Killing becomes 9d6 Normal. However, I subtract 1 STUN from each die rolled (minimum 1 STUN per die), and roll 1d6 more for Knockback as per existing Killing Attacks. STUN Damage rolled on the dice is stopped only by the target's Resistant Defense, not the Total Defense. Each +1 Stun Multiplier adds directly to the dice roll, e.g. base STUN Damage for 9d6 Killing would be 9d6-9 (minimum 9), +1 SM would be 9d6, +2 SM would be 9d6+9, and so on. Incidentally, I allow this same bonus to the Stun Multiplier to be bought for Normal Damage attacks.

 

If you like your Killing Attacks to have a chance to do more BODY than Normal Attacks, add +1 to each die roll for purposes of calculating the BODY rolled. If you do that I recommend subtracting Defenses from STUN Damage as per the normal rules, to maintain balance.

 

I've found Killing Attacks used this way to be more effective than Normal Attacks against unarmored or lightly armored opponents, but less effective against those with high Resistant Defenses. So there's a reason to choose one over the other.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

The cost/effectiveness of KAs (or any other power) cannot be accurately measured "in a vacuum". As other's have pointed out, the relative value of Killing and Normal attacks depends on the typical level of Defenses in the game. When defenses are about 2/DC, KAs and NAs are about the same. Now because defenses are so cheap, there's a strong temptation to buy them up higher than that. Maybe one solution is to increase the price of defenses. Or increase the price of defenses beyond a certain point.

 

But there is yet another factor in evaluating these attacks: the actual STUN/BODY totals of the targets. If you're trying to simply take down your opponent, extra pips of effect beyond his STUN/BODY total don't do you any good. Joe Enemy at -5 STUN is just as defeated as Joe Enemy at -50 STUN. So even if there's a higher maximum possible damage total, damage beyond the point needed to put down the opponent isn't really useful.

[Lucius]

Re: visiting The cost of killing damage

 

Let's try a little experiment. I'll trust you to be honest and let me know how accurate my assessment is. I think that your game(s) in which you drew the conclusion KA's are overpowered would have the following characteristics:

 

- Hit locations were not used [WHY? Because this balances out KA's by adding extra damage to normal attacks with good locations]

 

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But you are right, hit locations do tend to mitigate the advantage of Killing Attacks.

 

- Average defenses were well over double average DC of attacks. I'll suggest they were 2.5 to 3 times average DC's [WHY? KA's average more STUN past defenses at a bit over 2x DC's in average defenses, and that spread widens the higher defenses get]

 

No idea. Haven’t been keeping records of those kind of statistics.

 

- Combats in your game(s) were fairly long, well over a turn and more often 2 to 3 turns [WHY? Partly due to the DC to Defense ratio; also, this gives KA's time to average out their low and high rolls.]

 

Again, I would say sometimes yes, sometimes no. In Superheroic games, lots of combats are over in one turn. In Heroic, combats tend to last a couple of turns or more – people have lower SPDs. But your assumption seems to be based on the idea that “more turns” means “more phases of action” which does not necessarily hold true (due to differences of SPD.)

 

- Ignoring KA's, STUNning was rare [again, high defense to DC ratio, and this exacerbates the occasional massive STUN from a KA]

 

Yes, I’d say so.

 

Of course, in a lot of fantasy games, "ignoring KA's" means ignoring most of the attacks used, period.

 

In a game using hit locations (such that a head hit doing 5x STUN will also increase normal stun inflicted), with lower defenses (such that the KA's lower average stun roll starts to mean more, and its volatility less), KA's have a much reduced, if not eliminated, advantage.

 

Detractors of KA's tend to post in the Champions boards. Fantasy Hero players rarely complain that KA's are overpowered.

 

Fantasy is my favorite genre. But I tend to play a lot of Champions because that is what people want to run.

 

Being one whose fave genre is Fantasy... I wouldn't say they're overpowered, but are definitely Very Powerful.

 

I too tend to see this trend, those who play Heroic Games tend into the KAs are very powerful attacks camp, because Defenses (especially Resistant) tend to be low - or MUCH lower than when Superheroic games are played.

 

Superheroic Gamers with the much higher DCs and Defenses don't see this nearly as often.

 

I don’t think I understand where you are coming from here. Are you contradicting Mr. Neilson’s point – saying that Fantasy gamers are more likely than Champions players to think that Killing Attacks are, as you put it, Very Powerful?

 

Range is free, though, isn't it? 1d6 HKA (No Range) = 15 AP = 1d6 RKA (Has Range).

 

No.

 

The Hand to Hand Killing Attack has the advantage of adding STR damage; the Ranged Killing Attack does not add STR, but does have Range. Similarly, the Hand to Hand Attack adds STR damage; Energy Blast does not add STR, but does have Range.

 

Range is not free, it’s a +1/2 Advantage for any power that doesn’t start with it, and a -1/2 Limitation to not have Range for any power that has it by default.

 

If I want a power that does damage and has neither Range nor STR, I buy a normally ranged attack and put a limitation on it.

 

If I want a power that does damage and has BOTH added STR and Range, I buy a Hand to Hand power and add an advantage to it.

 

As for the rest of what you say, since you claim I don’t understand you, I won’t comment on it. Except perhaps that it is ironic for someone who claims that Range is free to accuse someone else of misunderstanding.

 

A thought experiment

 

Would you allow your players to have a power that acted thusly:

 

For every 15 AP, roll 1d6 of normal damage and multiply it by 1d6-1 (minimum 1). Roll an extra die when calculating KB.

 

For +1/4 advantage, add +1 to the multiplier die.

 

It will clearly average less stun than a regular EB. It will average less body than a regular EB.

 

Is it balanced?

 

An interesting experiment. I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but my first reaction is to wonder about the possibility of “advantage stacking.”

 

We could just say that you can DEFINE a normal attack as killing: roll normally, but apply defences as if it were a killing. Of course that FEELS unfair because we have a far more straightforward basis of comparison.

 

 

An excellent way of highlighting one of the two fundamental inequities.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And a No Normal Defense Killing Palindromedary with Increased Stun Multiplier!

[Mike W]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Killing damage has several drawbacks:

 

Mechanical drawbacks:

 

1. Since you are rolling fewer dice, it is more eccentric. That is, you have more very high and very low rolls. Generally, this isn't good. You can accidentally injure someone more than you intend. You can also roll low several times in a row and not do any damage despite consistently hitting. This presents all sorts of problems when it comes to pulling damage and the like as well.

 

2. Killing damage does less knockback. Opponents are less likely to take KB damage. They are also less likely to end up far away from you when you are trying to clear room for yourself or your allies.

 

Roleplaying drawbacks

 

3. Killing damage can have much more serious consequences in some campaigns. Killing people in a 4 color campaign results in all sorts of legal troubles. Even having that potential tends to get you extra attention from law enforcement types.

 

4. People with large amounts of killing damage become big targets for opponents because they are scary. People REALLY don't want to get hit with such lethal force, so opponents tend to gang up on you more and hit you with their biggest shots early to try and drop you quick.

[Comic]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

To simplify, the is generally an indication that the previous statement is intended ironically, humorously, or not to be taken at face value.

 

Also, things appearing above my .sig can generally be taken humorously, ironically, or at considerably less than face value.

 

In case it's been missed, I'm one of the believers that the "KA-is-broken" debate is pointless in and of itself, an exercise in futility and bad math, dubious logic and religious faith in one's own point of view, usually founded on some sort of aesthetic conviction of the "Way Things Should Be."

 

I've never met anyone who has been happier for participating in the debate and trying out the proposed 'fixes' than those I've met who've never been bothered, and carried on using the rules as written for this mechanic.

 

Can anyone really stand up and testify to the world-shaking, life-changing, orgiastic benefits they've experienced from mucking with the KA mechanic?

[Blue Jogger]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Ok, had to share. This should have gone in the "best quote of the week", but it was more appropriate here.

 

Indigo Rhapsody was shaking down a dealer about some super-steroids when some of his clients came to help.

 

Although they were impressive, they weren't hurting him based on his ability to be desolid or dense and 8 normal dice is nothing to him.

 

When the battle was nearly over, he got hit (one gunshot) to his "13" by a passing drive-by and he had to call it a draw.

[casualplayer]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

As anecdotal evidence, in a skirmish against Mechanon he was shrugging off multiple 12-15d6 Normal attacks from my teammates but I rattled his chips with a 4D6+1 HKA (that's including STR) when I rolled high for BODY and hit big on the STUN Lotto. Take 110 STUN, you mechanical monstrosity!

 

You can't discuss the efficacy of Killing Attacks in a vacuum, as has been mentioned before. In Heroic level games where 2d6 Killing is prevalent so are resistant defenses from 6 to 15 with an additional 5-10 defense to help with the STUN, so it's not such a big deal. In Super level games where people are throwing 4-6d6 Killing and an excellent level of resistant defense is 25-35 but that is usually the total defense applicable, too much STUN passes the defense threshhold and makes KAs overly advantageous.

 

What I would love to see is for "Killing" to become an advantage, probably +1/2, to Normal Damage meaning Only Resistant DEF protects versus BODY. I would like to see the whole series of Attack vs. Very Common DEF, Common DEF, Uncommon DEF and Extremely Uncommon DEF turned into a single, incremental, proportional advantage. This would replace Killing, NND and AVLD.

[Outsider]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Another option to remove the lotto aspects of KAs would be to have killing damage and normal damage be rolled exactly the same. 1DCs = 1D6.

 

In order to increase the BODY damage done by killing attacks, all dice do at least 1 BODY (ie 1s rolled do a BODY) and to decrease the STUN damage, have the total STUN read off the dice be reduced by (say) 1/2 the number of dice rolled.

 

The BODY damage of Killing attacks would still be reduced only by resistant defenses, and the STUN damage by all defenses, so long as some resistant defense is present.

 

Thus the up side of KA is that it attacks more expensive defenses, and does slightly more BODY per DC, while the down side is that it does slightly less STUN, and does less knockback.

 

Presto, no more STUN or BODY Lotto.

[Mike W]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

There is already an option to remove the STUN lotto and assign all KAs a STUN multiplier of 3. It's in the rules, and we've been doing it in my group for years. It works well. You can still get some high rolls but the one shot kill is tougher to come by. Rolled all 5s on your 4d6. Great job, but it's still 60 STUN. Impressive, but not so much that a brick is suddenly going down from one hit(a martial artist might).

[Kdansky]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

I find it extremly annoying that people insist on calling the stun lotto "bad" for the attacker. It's NOT. NEVER. EVER. PERIOD.

 

The stun lotto greatly benefits the character as in:

 

- Sometimes, you just get lousy rolls which do zero damage. Does that matter? Your EB would hve done less than 10 stun on a 40% chance too (roll slightly below average) and doing 10 stun or 0 stun is not really a big difference. True, sometimes you cannot IK the mook, but on the other hand, how much of a danger is that mook? Will you get in huge troubles because you take two phases every couple hours? No.

- If you get lucky against a mook, that's no difference.

- If you get unlucky against a BBEG, you'll do 0. If you get unlucky with EB, you'll also do 0 (or nearly 0) damage. The same.

 

- But if you get lucky against the BBEG, where you really are in danger and you can really use the extra help, then you can IK him. 4d6 KA (incl. str), roll 17+ body (only slightly above average (=14)), roll a 6 on stun lotto (great), hit him for over a hundred stun.

 

So when you need it most, the KA shines. When it's not important, it might sometimes fail. You know, OIHI is also only worth -1/4, since that's a very small limitation. "Only works against Enemies about as strong as I am" would be? Probably along -1/4 or -0. That's the KA's "disadvantage".

 

If you use a fixed stun multi of 3, then KA has a higher average than EB (a fixed 2.666 is the same, iirc), higher max and stronger spread. It's just better. I will use a fixed 2 in my next campaign (yes, that *is* low), I let you know how it plays out.

 

And "KA makes you a big target" is like saying: "The guy who has the best attack power for the same points as us is a threat." Yeah, true. Now go and get a KA yourself...

 

-------------------------------

Yes, there are RP-differences, but they should not really give out so many free points. That's SFX. It's kinda convenient (no "and what do we do with this villain now?"-problem) to have a KA, especially if you are not playing 4-colour. It was a swordfight. Nobody is going to blame me afterwards because my opponent unexspectadly died.

[Lucius]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Killing damage has several drawbacks:

 

Mechanical drawbacks:

 

1. Since you are rolling fewer dice, it is more eccentric. That is, you have more very high and very low rolls. Generally, this isn't good. You can accidentally injure someone more than you intend. You can also roll low several times in a row and not do any damage despite consistently hitting. This presents all sorts of problems when it comes to pulling damage and the like as well.

 

This isn’t a drawback. It’s one of the advantages.

 

2. Killing damage does less knockback. Opponents are less likely to take KB damage. They are also less likely to end up far away from you when you are trying to clear room for yourself or your allies.

 

Okay, this one IS something that gets overlooked. It is, however, only relevant to games with knockback.

 

 

Roleplaying drawbacks

 

3. Killing damage can have much more serious consequences in some campaigns. Killing people in a 4 color campaign results in all sorts of legal troubles. Even having that potential tends to get you extra attention from law enforcement types.

 

The cops have access to your character sheet? More to the point, they care?

 

“Even having that potential tends to get you extra attention from law enforcement types.”

If you’re playing a superhero in Champions, I can very nearly GUARANTEE that you “have that potential.” Got a 12d6 Energy Blast? A 60 STR? A martial artist with a 12d6 roundhouse kick, or even just 10d6? These are LETHAL ATTACKS. Just try hitting a 2 PD 8 BOD normal with one and then see how far “But it wasn’t a Killing Attack!” gets you.

 

Yes, “Killing people in a 4 color campaign results in all sorts of legal troubles.” Killing them with something that is labeled on the character sheet as a “Killing Attack” should not result in any more – or less – trouble than killing them with your nifty Stellar Photonic Blast or Marvelous Flying Kick of the Celestial Spider Monkey or Ogre Smash Puny Person With Fist.

 

4. People with large amounts of killing damage become big targets for opponents because they are scary. People REALLY don't want to get hit with such lethal force, so opponents tend to gang up on you more and hit you with their biggest shots early to try and drop you quick.

 

That’s already been covered, but apparently I don’t understand it.

 

To simplify, the is generally an indication that the previous statement is intended ironically, humorously, or not to be taken at face value.

 

I apologize; I didn’t really think that you were so confused that you thought Range was free, and I should not have implied that you seriously believed that.

 

Also, things appearing above my .sig can generally be taken humorously, ironically, or at considerably less than face value.

 

Okay, I’ll try to stop taking you seriously.

 

I've never met anyone who has been happier for participating in the debate and trying out the proposed 'fixes' than those I've met who've never been bothered, and carried on using the rules as written for this mechanic.

 

And yet here you are, participating. You must get something out of it.

 

Can anyone really stand up and testify to the world-shaking, life-changing, orgiastic benefits they've experienced from mucking with the KA mechanic?

 

Well, I once started a thread with the title “Killing Epiphany” because I had experienced a truly ecstatic insight into the nature of Resistant Defense. And while it was with some chagrin that I abandoned the position I took in that thread in favor of one proposed by Amadan na Briona, there was again an intellectual pleasure in my appreciation of the elegance of his solution.

 

And of course, I have the hope that, some day, the imbalance will be officially corrected, and we will no longer have threads started by each new player who comes into the game, stumbles across this glaring inconsistency, and asks “Am I missing something?”

 

Wouldn’t you rather have newbies come in and say “Hey this is cool! It looks like everything is balanced perfectly!” (of course it will never be perfect, but I’d rather it take experienced players or dedicated fault-finders like Sean Waters to dig up problems.)

 

Another option to remove the lotto aspects of KAs would be to have killing damage and normal damage be rolled exactly the same. 1DCs = 1D6.

 

In order to increase the BODY damage done by killing attacks, all dice do at least 1 BODY (ie 1s rolled do a BODY) and to decrease the STUN damage, have the total STUN read off the dice be reduced by (say) 1/2 the number of dice rolled.

 

The BODY damage of Killing attacks would still be reduced only by resistant defenses, and the STUN damage by all defenses, so long as some resistant defense is present.

 

Thus the up side of KA is that it attacks more expensive defenses, and does slightly more BODY per DC, while the down side is that it does slightly less STUN, and does less knockback.

 

Presto, no more STUN or BODY Lotto.

 

I’ve seen other similar proposals, and I respect them.

 

But I think I do see a place in the game for the Killing Mechanic. I just think it should be costed according to its utility.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is only in favor of Killing Mechanics if they overcharge outrageously or worse, take the money but fail to fix the car....

[Mike W]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

This isn’t a drawback. It’s one of the advantages.

 

 

 

Okay, this one IS something that gets overlooked. It is, however, only relevant to games with knockback.

 

 

 

The cops have access to your character sheet? More to the point, they care?

 

“Even having that potential tends to get you extra attention from law enforcement types.”

If you’re playing a superhero in Champions, I can very nearly GUARANTEE that you “have that potential.” Got a 12d6 Energy Blast? A 60 STR? A martial artist with a 12d6 roundhouse kick, or even just 10d6? These are LETHAL ATTACKS. Just try hitting a 2 PD 8 BOD normal with one and then see how far “But it wasn’t a Killing Attack!” gets you.

 

Yes, “Killing people in a 4 color campaign results in all sorts of legal troubles.” Killing them with something that is labeled on the character sheet as a “Killing Attack” should not result in any more – or less – trouble than killing them with your nifty Stellar Photonic Blast or Marvelous Flying Kick of the Celestial Spider Monkey or Ogre Smash Puny Person With Fist.

 

 

 

That’s already been covered, but apparently I don’t understand it.

 

 

 

I apologize; I didn’t really think that you were so confused that you thought Range was free, and I should not have implied that you seriously believed that.

 

 

 

Okay, I’ll try to stop taking you seriously.

 

 

 

And yet here you are, participating. You must get something out of it.

 

 

 

Well, I once started a thread with the title “Killing Epiphany” because I had experienced a truly ecstatic insight into the nature of Resistant Defense. And while it was with some chagrin that I abandoned the position I took in that thread in favor of one proposed by Amadan na Briona, there was again an intellectual pleasure in my appreciation of the elegance of his solution.

 

And of course, I have the hope that, some day, the imbalance will be officially corrected, and we will no longer have threads started by each new player who comes into the game, stumbles across this glaring inconsistency, and asks “Am I missing something?”

 

Wouldn’t you rather have newbies come in and say “Hey this is cool! It looks like everything is balanced perfectly!” (of course it will never be perfect, but I’d rather it take experienced players or dedicated fault-finders like Sean Waters to dig up problems.)

 

 

 

I’ve seen other similar proposals, and I respect them.

 

But I think I do see a place in the game for the Killing Mechanic. I just think it should be costed according to its utility.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is only in favor of Killing Mechanics if they overcharge outrageously or worse, take the money but fail to fix the car....

 

To respond to your critique:

 

1. The variability of damage is a drawback in some situations though. Yes, there are times when you are glad you have a KA because it means you might get lucky and get really high damage, but there are times you don't WANT that really high damage but get it anyway. I've accidentally hospitalized supers with a 4D6 KA because I rolled really high. Not good if you need to question them, not to mention the fact that it's bad for your rep. Makes people think you play rough. And a string of low damage rolls is more likely with a KA. So while the variability of damage can be an advantage sometimes, it can also be a big liability too.

 

3. True, but there is still a natural reaction to someone carrying around a big sword or gun, or claws that screams "killing is what I do".

 

4. People, tend to gang up on characters that have large killing attacks and who are known for using them. You learn quick who has them and who doesn't(and vice versa, the villains learn which heroes have and use them). Those big killing attacks have a much greater chance of one scoring one hit knockouts and hospitalizing people, even though they also have a better chance of bouncing. because most of the time people figure it's only a matter of time before the guy with the KA scores a "one shot KO", they tend to gang up on them quickly. That ability to score a one punch knockout, especially if it might do significant BODY or get enough STUN to hospitalize you tends to scare people. They'd rather fight Grond with 90 STR than an assassin with 5D6KA, even though Grond has more damage classes.

[Kdansky]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

I was faster than the palindromedary, but basically we think alike.

 

Also, in my games people are very rule-aware. They are not munchkins per se, as in "they abuse what they find", but they quickly find holes and then build characters which "use" the holes without abusing them. So you won't find any VPP Multiforms, but nearly everyone will have resistant defenses and KAs. And regeneration is very common Also, minor amounts of flight are liked a lot. There's a huge diffence in Flight 1" and not having the power. Much more than having 100 cp's worth of it to having 1". Invisibility was also taken on more than one occasion, since it is just a good deal. NNDs were really not used, entangles are also unliked (mainly because they suck due to campaign setting, which is extremly broad and you never know what you come up against. Having something that does not work against Group X might get very uncool when you only come up against X for a couple battles due to unpredictibale story line).

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

A thought experiment

 

Would you allow your players to have a power that acted thusly:

 

For every 15 AP, roll 1d6 of normal damage and multiply it by 1d6-1 (minimum 1). Roll an extra die when calculating KB.

 

For +1/4 advantage, add +1 to the multiplier die.

 

It will clearly average less stun than a regular EB. It will average less body than a regular EB.

 

Is it balanced?

 

Conceptually I actually do favor this kind of approach (i.e. not using the Normal Dice mechanic for Normal attacks any more, but rather shifting them all to the KA mechanic) and a check of some of the old threads on this topic should reveal my thoughts on the matter, as the extreme end of my viewpoint mentioned by Lucius above.

[Sean Waters]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

So, if we had multiple ways of mechanically 'doing' killing attacks - actually in the rules - everyone would be happy, neh?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

As anecdotal evidence' date=' in a skirmish against Mechanon he was shrugging off multiple 12-15d6 Normal attacks from my teammates but I rattled his chips with a 4D6+1 HKA (that's including STR) when I rolled high for BODY and hit big on the STUN Lotto. Take 110 STUN, you mechanical monstrosity![/quote']

 

To say it again, against opponents with high defenses, KA's are very effective at inflicting STUN. Drop the target's defenses by half and give him 50% or 75% damage reduction instead, and that occasional high STUN hit means a lot less, and the regular attacks mean a lot more. But it is definitely games where defenses are high that allow KA's to shine.

 

What I would love to see is for "Killing" to become an advantage' date=' probably +1/2, to Normal Damage meaning Only Resistant DEF protects versus BODY. I would like to see the whole series of Attack vs. Very Common DEF, Common DEF, Uncommon DEF and Extremely Uncommon DEF turned into a single, incremental, proportional advantage. This would replace Killing, NND and AVLD.[/quote']

 

I can't imagine anyone using a 2 1/2d6 KA in preference to a 12d6 normal attack with no other changes, so I think +1/2 is vastly overpriced. If the change also accompanied making Stun and BOD damage reduced only by rDEF and a change in the game assumptions to reduce the universality of resistant defenses, then I can see this being a viable option. [And let's be realistic - the universality of rDEF evolved primarily due to the frequency and effectiveness of killing attacks.]

 

Another option to remove the lotto aspects of KAs would be to have killing damage and normal damage be rolled exactly the same. 1DCs = 1D6.

 

In order to increase the BODY damage done by killing attacks, all dice do at least 1 BODY (ie 1s rolled do a BODY) and to decrease the STUN damage, have the total STUN read off the dice be reduced by (say) 1/2 the number of dice rolled.

 

The BODY damage of Killing attacks would still be reduced only by resistant defenses, and the STUN damage by all defenses, so long as some resistant defense is present.

 

I think I said this already, but I do think it's a good fix to the lotto.

 

There is already an option to remove the STUN lotto and assign all KAs a STUN multiplier of 3. It's in the rules' date=' and we've been doing it in my group for years. It works well. You can still get some high rolls but the one shot kill is tougher to come by. Rolled all 5s on your 4d6. Great job, but it's still 60 STUN. Impressive, but not so much that a brick is suddenly going down from one hit(a martial artist might).[/quote']

 

I dislike this because it makes a KA's average STUN equal to a normal attack's average STUN. It smooths the volatility, but raises the average STUN so normal attacks lose whatever advantage they had in that regard.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

So' date=' if we had multiple ways of mechanically 'doing' killing attacks - actually in the rules - everyone would be happy, neh?[/quote']

 

If everyone was happy, they would have nothing to complain about. People with nothing to complain about just aren't happy.

[schir1964]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

1. The variability of damage is a drawback in some situations though. Yes' date=' there are times when you are glad you have a KA because it means you might get lucky and get really high damage, but there are times you don't WANT that really high damage but get it anyway. I've accidentally hospitalized supers with a 4D6 KA because I rolled really high. Not good if you need to question them, not to mention the fact that it's bad for your rep. Makes people think you play rough. And a string of low damage rolls is more likely with a KA. So while the variability of damage can be an advantage sometimes, it can also be a big liability too.[/quote']

I think the missing piece that isn't getting said on this is a matter of control.

 

The only time rolling low or high with a Killing Attack where it becomes a disadvantage is when the character has no control.

 

This means the character is somehow placed in circumstance where they must make an attack and the only attack they can make is a killing attack.

 

How often do such situations come up for the character?

 

Otherwise, the character will choose to use a non-killing attack (less chance of rolling low or high) or simply make no attack at all and focus on defense if necessary.

 

That is why I think many have the opinion that the variability of Killing Attacks does not count as much as a disadvantage since most characters aren't limited to just having Killing Attacks for offense.

 

Obviously the GM and Campaign will determine just how much the variability of Killing Attacks affects the games play.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Comic]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Some people can't be happy unless they're miserable.