The cost of killing damage

[casualplayer]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

I can't imagine anyone using a 2 1/2d6 KA in preference to a 12d6 normal attack with no other changes' date=' so I think +1/2 is vastly overpriced. If the change also accompanied making Stun and BOD damage reduced only by rDEF [b']and[/b] 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.]

 

That's why I said probably +1/2. In my ideal HERO world "Killling" would probably be a + 0.2-0.3 advantage, but that's a whole 'nuther can of worms. I would then put the mentioned advantage BODY and STUN damage only defended by resistant defenses at + 0.5.

[Mike W]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

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.

 

 

 

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.]

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

The Standard Effect x3 multiplier smooths it somewhat but you still much more variation. Mainly, it caps the high end at something that is equal to what a comparable Normal Damage attack could do. If you have a normal 12D6 attack, then the damage range is 12-72 but most rolls will be mid-30s to high 40s. If you have a 4D6 KA and play the STUN lottery, the range of STUN possible is 4-120 and will vary wildly from one hit to the next. If you apply the X3 Standard Effect, then you get the same 12-72 range of possibilities, which I think makes sense. You will, however, still hit the high and low ends more often. It's much easier to drop a 7 on 4 dice and get only 21 STUN, something you'd hardly ever see with 12D6. On the other hand, it's also easier to end up with 20 BODY and 60 STUN. The KA is still very volatile, but it is now volatile within the same range as a comparable Normal Damage attack.

[BNakagawa]

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' 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']

 

Still, your 20/60 Killing attack:

 

Injures and one-shots Defender (7 body remaining, -5 stun)

CON Stuns Ironclad (30 stun remaining)

Seriously injures and one-shots Nighthawk (5 body remaining, -7 stun)

Severely injures and one-shots Sapphire (2 body remaining, -4 stun)

Greviously injures and one-shots Witchcraft. (0 body remaining, -16 stun)

 

I've rolled 20 or more on 4d6, but I've never rolled as much as 60 on 12.

[Comic]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Maximum Stun multiplier (in increments of 1/4) that you can apply as 'standard' for a KA and still not mathematically do more Stun in the long run than rolling randomly is 2.25.

 

If you have a Stun multiplier of 2.5 or higher, you're making your KA better than if you leave it to chance.

 

Not going to show the math, because it's long, painful, and people pretty much have to work it out for themselves when shown because it's so counterintuitive.

 

If you really want to have a better 'standard' Stun multiplier, roll 1d6. On 1-4, make the multiplier 2. On 5-6, make it 3. This will result in a 'standard' effect that is not better than long run random rolls.

 

I don't personally believe there's a need for this, myself.

 

And sure, KA's do let you on about 1/3rd of all shots do some pretty impressive Stun damage to the toughest villains. In this sense, having KA's can be a substitute for superior tactics, working out how to exploit the villain's weaknesses, or smart teamwork.

[Kdansky]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

1: 1

2: 1

3: 2

4: 3

5: 4

6: 5

 

1/6 (1+1+2+3+4+5) = 2.66~

 

As I said. That is the average Multiplier you will get on 1d6-1 (0 := 1). This means the multiplier of 3 is (also/again) favouring the KA against the EB. I'm actually not sure which version would be better in practice. What's better? An Attack which does 10% more damage or an attack which does double damage on a 10% chance? Clearly the second, as you get a probability to stun/KO/break through defenses. So having a bit less overall damage might still make the second version better. I personally feel that 1d6-1 is better than fixed 3, and fixed 3 is way better than EB.

 

We once tried to use 2d6/2 -1, (x.5 values get used as is and not rounded) which gives similar results, a way better curve an slightly lower average of about 2.46. Quite a bit better, but still annoying one-shot kills (altough rare they can srew up gameplay, believe me when I tell you I nearly one-shotted something along the lines of a dragon on 3d6-1 (KA + Str + going all out in heroic)). Also, very complicated to calculate (17 * 2.5 is how much again?).

 

And third: If the multiplier is 2.5 (lower than current 2.66) then it's still vastly better than EB, due to the very advantageous broad range.

 

I will go for fixed multi of 2. And if that results in too less Stun, I am inclined to make it + DC/2, which just favourably moves the curve, but does not change it. Though I think that would result in a pure KA advantage again. 3d6 KA resulting in tops 36 stun (usual relevant hits will be around 20-25, or often irrelevant) is not really big, considering 9d6 averages in 31.5 (but very rarely will reach 40+ if ever). Still, you got the reduced defenses advantage. Sounds like this will make KA a lot like NND. If your enemy has any resistant defenses, it's rather mediocre, if he has a lot of them, it's worse than EB, and if he has none, it's devastating (which is ok). Might make KA + ArmorPiercing/Penetrating interesting.

 

20+ on 4d6 is not easy, but doable btw. That's 5555, 5556 x3, 5566 x6, 5666 x3, 6666 against 1296, that's a good 1% chance. Still *a lot* better than 60+ on 9d6 (that will be around 0.0001% I estimate, though I have not done the maths, three times as many dice means roughly cubed chance for same result).

 

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.

And since you did not read my post, I'll restate it too. What you say is wrong (do the math if you don't believe me). KAs are roughly as effective against a 0 armor target as EBs (slightly (only slightly!) less average stun, bit more killing, ridiculous constun. They are a lot better against armored targets than EB.

 

30 rDef

12d6 EB -> 42 stun -> result 12 stun. 0 body.

4d6 KA -> 14 body -> 14*2.66 = 37.33 -> result 7 stun, 0 body.

 

10 rDef + 10 def

12d6 EB -> 42 stun + 12 body -> result: 22 stun + 2 body.

4d6 KA -> 14 body -> 14*2.66 = 37.33 -> result: 17.33 + 4 body.

 

If you have 10 rDef and 50% DR, you'll take

12d6 EB-> 42 stun -> 32 stun -> 50% only -> result: 16 stun + 1 body on average or

4d6 KA -> 14 body -> 14*2.66 = 37.33 -> 27.333 -> 50% only -> result: 14 stun + 1 body.

 

 

Not really any difference whatsoever. I still got my devastating crits. ( roll 16, roll 6 stun multi, 16*5 = 90 -> 80 stun, 40 taken, you're on the ground). Sure, the really high up rolls will not utterly one-hit you, but they are still much better than the EB. The low rolls now also do a bit of stun, instead of doing zero. Yes, it *is* worse for the KA. But the KA still comes out on top.

Actually, we *gain* in average for the KA against DR, though we lose half our crits (the stun multi = 4 ones are not that bad anymore).

 

After re-reading what I just said, I really think a fixed multi of 2 is a good idea. It makes KAs a bit of a gamble (you lose in average, but you gain crits (I'll call the high rolls that from now on)) which sounds rather cool to me. Some enemies are very susceptible to that (no DR, mediocre armor, low con), others will annoy you because you can only ping them 90% of the time (everytime your rolls are average).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

I've run my analysis based on a 1d6 KA or a 3d6 normal attack. This keeps the numbers manageable. The logic simply extrapolates outwards. I assume everyone has at least 1 rDEF, as that holds true of virtually all serious challenges in pretty much every game I've seen.

 

Against a target with 0 defenses (and who might that be, again?) the KA averages 9 1/3 STUN past defenses, and the normal attack averages 10 1/2 STUN. The normal attack is 12.5% superior.

 

At defenses of 3 (1 DEF per DC - very low defense game), the KA averages 6.5278 STUN through and the normal attack averages 7.5.The normal attack is 14.89% superior. [That confused me for a minute but, at that level, the normal attack only inflicts 0 damage on 1 roll in 216, while the KA is considerably more likely to generate a roll of 3 or less STUN).

 

Ramp those defenses up to 6 (2x DC, which is pretty much what the guidelines in 5er call for) and the KA averages 4.5 STUN past defenses, while the normal attack averages 4.5694 STUN past defenses. The normal attack enjoys a 1.5% advantage on average.

 

Let's have a high defense game (or a high power opponent)where defenses are 9 (3x DC). Now the KA averages 3.1389 past defenses, compared to 2.0833 for the normal attack. The normal attack has less than 2/3 the average STUN of a KA.

 

Bump that up to 12 DEF, and the KA averages 2.08333 compared to 0.5833 for the normal attack.

 

Clearly, the KA is vastly superior at higher defense ranges. The normal attack enjoys an advantage at low defense ranges. At the 5er recommended defense levels, the normal attack is marginally better at getting STUN through, but the KA enjoys that volatility advantage, which allows it to more frequently STUN the target.

 

What if we make the KA a standard 3x multiple?

 

At the same defense levels:

 

0 defenses, both attacks average 10.5 STUN.

 

3 Defenses, both attacks average 7.5 STUN

 

6 Defenses, KA averages 5 and Normal averages 4.569

 

9 Defenses, KA averages 3 and Normal averages 2.083

 

12 Defenses, KA averages 1.5 and Normal averages 0.5833

 

So, if we flatten the curve to 3.0, the KA is ALWAYS superior to the normal attack, although the extremes are curtailed.

 

Let's try that 2.0 multiplier. Now, we get:

 

At the same defense levels:

 

0 defenses, KA averages 7 and Normal averages 10.5. [KA max 12]

 

3 Defenses, KA averages 4.1667 and Normal averages 7.5 [KA max 9]

 

6 Defenses, KA averages 2 and Normal averages 4.569 [KA max 6]

 

9 Defenses, KA averages 0.6667 and Normal averages 2.083 [KA max 3]

 

12 Defenses, KA averages 0.0 (it can't get past 12 STUN) and Normal averages 0.5833

 

Well, that certainly solves KA's being overpowered I can't see why anyone would ever buy one unless resistant defenses are only purchased by 10% of credible opposition. Even a max damage KA doesn't beat the normal attack by enough to offset that huge reduction to the average.

 

What about a 2.5x standard?

 

This splits the difference. Would it balance the attacks? At the same defense levels:

 

0 defenses, KA averages 8.75 and Normal averages 10.5. [KA max 15]

 

3 Defenses, KA averages 5.8333 and Normal averages 7.5 [KA max 12]

 

6 Defenses, KA averages 3.5 and Normal averages 4.569 [KA max 9]

 

9 Defenses, KA averages 1.75 and Normal averages 2.083 [KA max 6]

 

12 Defenses, KA averages 0.5833 and Normal averages 0.5833 [KA max 3]

 

The KA now averages less stun at most defense levels, and creeps up to even at extreme levels. Is the increased possibility of a max damage attack enough to offset the reduced average? I suspect it might be, depending on the mix of opponents faced. At least it makes a KA potentially useful.

[Comic]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Can you two do this math again, factoring in the following:

 

a) Standard Deviation (which doesn't scale up linearly with the 15 pt/3 DC model)

Iterative cycles of Recovery, Knockback and counterattack for comparative pairings?

[Lucius]

Re: 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. 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?

 

You had no idea what you were starting, did you?

 

But what all the math and argument boils down to is, you were right the first time.

 

Killing Attacks are overpowerful, or undercosted, depending on how you look at it.

 

Just now MUCH overpowered, how much things like the difference in knockback should count, and above all, what if anything to do about it - that's where you get the differences of opinion and complicated arguments. Fortunately here on Hero Boards we seem to always stop short of flame war.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders how we do it

[Lucius]

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']

 

Not quite.

 

Then we would have people complaining that it's complicated and confusing.

 

But still, there would probably be less contention than there is now.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary proposes abolishing Normal Attacks. But the palindromedary is an enemy of normality.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Can you two do this math again, factoring in the following:

 

a) Standard Deviation (which doesn't scale up linearly with the 15 pt/3 DC model)

Iterative cycles of Recovery, Knockback and counterattack for comparative pairings?

 

No, actually.

 

Can you?

[jtelson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Can you two do this math again, factoring in the following:

 

a) Standard Deviation (which doesn't scale up linearly with the 15 pt/3 DC model)

Iterative cycles of Recovery, Knockback and counterattack for comparative pairings?

 

a) If you know enough to ak then you know enough to calcuilate it, suffice to say the fewer dice rolled the larger the StdDev.

 

I could do the math for this (or more accurately what you want rather than what you're asking) but that kind of modeling is expensive and time consuming out here in the real world.

[Comic]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

No, actually.

 

Can you?

 

Ayup.

 

Been almost a decade since last I did it.

 

As has been pointed out, can get pricey if you don't have access to statistical simulation software and the knowhow to design valid parameter sets..

 

And anyone who claims that their 'b)' is the definitive, final-word, last say on the topic is blowing smoke since so many things change from gaming group to gaming group and the actual events modeled are never as simple as the models.. So I'm not going to try to claim the final say.

 

But overall, all other things being equal.. KA's can be made to suck when compared to normal attacks of the same DC level, if defenders are making no other accommodation than intelligently choosing their defenses. With tactics, maneuvers, teamwork, and so on, any efficiency difference in favor of or against KA's will quickly fall to negligible levels.

 

This whole debate doesn't matter one way or the other, unless the only attacks people use are KA's and Normal attacks, and the only actions they take are straight up attacks in plain view.

 

To put it another way, it's about as useful to debate if Ego Attack is too powerful compared to Suppress Stun.

[ghost-angel]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Here's why I like the x3 STUNx. . .

 

It's nothing to do with comparison charts of effectiveness....

 

It's because in every game I've been in, and run, Defenses were controlled. Resistant Defenses tended to be 50% of or less than Normal Defenses. The Killing Attacks were in all respects More Lethal - and treated as such within the context of the game.

 

Which is the really important part. Mechanics can exist in a vacuum, but they aren't useful to us in a vacuum. Once you put them into the context of the Game then comparison becomes useful - KAs are more "useful" at the cost of having more "disastrous" consequences, on average.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

1. Since you are rolling fewer dice' date=' it is more eccentric. That is, you have more very high and very low rolls.[/quote']

Actually, what makes KA mote eccentric is the fact that you're *multiplying* those few dice by another, randomly rolled, die (or even by a fixed number, in the case of those who like to go with a straight 3 [or some other] STUNx).

 

I know we've had bitter arguments on this in the past, and I don't want to start one again, but if you aren't multiplying the raw pips by anything, 4d6 will be less "eccentric" than 12d6. Whereas 4d6 x 3 or 4d6 x d6 will be more eccentric than 12d6.

 

a) If you know enough to ak then you know enough to calcuilate it' date=' suffice to say the fewer dice rolled the larger the StdDev.[/quote']

I assume comic was just kidding when he said that, based on his previous post(s). In any event, the standard deviation doesn't matter in this case, since Hugh's calculations already took into account the entire range of rolls.

 

But you got it backwards (perhaps you simply mistyped): the *more* dice you roll, the *higher* the StdDev.

 

In case anyone is interested, the Standard Deviation on the total of N dice is SQRT(35N/12). That is "the square root of 35/12 times N." I'll try to write it graphically here:

 

   ______
 / 35xN
/ ------
V    12

 

The larger N is, the larger this value will be.

[Comic]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Oh. Uhm. Sorry. Wasn't paying attention.

 

Yes. Standard Deviation (I'll use 's' going forward) for a 3 DC KA (a largely meaningless figure, since the KA doesn't have a Normal distribution) is just under 7.5, with a mean damage of 9.33ish.

 

For a 3 DC Normal attack (which means 68% of damage falls within 1 s, and 95% of damage falls within 2 s) s is just under 3, with a mean damage of 10.5.

 

And while it's true s grows as number of dice grows, it tends to fall toward a fixed ratio of the Mean for a normal distribution, meaning predictions about outcomes are fairly reliable for Normal attacks.

 

Not so for Killing attacks. They don't have a Normal distribution, and they produce a wonky s value which while it remains a large fraction of the Mean damage even for high numbers of killing dice (because of the multiplier), is especially dramatic for small numbers of dice (say under 10 dice). So, no predictability, no reliability. Outcomes are uncertain.

 

The optimal strategy when defending against uncertainty is to treat the worst outcome as the expected (which contrasts with predictable circumstances, where the average outcome is the one that should be anticipated). In the case of 4d6 KA vs 12d6 Normal, if you're defending from both, you ought to regard the 4d6 KA as if it will always almost triple the damage as the 12d6 Normal.

 

No one actually believes that a 4d6 KA really always does triple the damage of a 12d6 Normal attack, but the case also works for a 2d6 KA, which still should be regarded as always doing about 1.5x the damage of a 12d6 Normal attack.

 

So. If you're fighting Dr. Destroyer, and you have a 2d6 HKA, and your teammate has a 60 STR, then Dr. Destroyer's best tactic is to eliminate you first.

 

At the same time, if Dr. Destroyer has fifty minions, for the purpose of efficient allocation of his minions, he should treat you as if you do minimum damage with your unreliable attack for the purposes of the damage you will do to them. Which means his minions ought to be commanded to mob you with their maximum OCV, minimum DCV, maximum damage attacks, as if you couldn't hurt them, while any minions assigned to your 60 STR friend will balance defense against offense.

 

Which is the long way of saying 'drop the knife'.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Without too much cross thread contamination occurring, I'll take this moment to pop in my usual "Hit Locations and by the book Critical Hits even the playing field between Killing and Normal Attacks quite a bit." comment.

 

that 12d6 EB and 4D6 RKA both do 24 body on a crit, after all, and Locations tend to reduce/balance the Lotto, with a different curve and added bonuses for normal attacks lacking in the "base" combat system.

 

 

This has been a Public Service Announcement brought to you by "Fools for More Lethal Combat"

[jtelson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

I assume comic was just kidding when he said that, based on his previous post(s). In any event, the standard deviation doesn't matter in this case, since Hugh's calculations already took into account the entire range of rolls.

 

But you got it backwards (perhaps you simply mistyped): the *more* dice you roll, the *higher* the StdDev.

 

In case anyone is interested, the Standard Deviation on the total of N dice is SQRT(35N/12). That is "the square root of 35/12 times N." I'll try to write it graphically here:

 

   ______
 / 35xN
/ ------
V    12

 

The larger N is, the larger this value will be.

 

 

Sorry, I was including the (1,1,2,3,4,5) multiplier in the fewer dice (aka Killing Attacks) populations. So Fewer dice with the 1d6-1 multiplier will have a higher Standard Deviation than 3x straight dice.

[Kdansky]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

But since you (comic) actually agree that KAs are a bigger threat, why do you defend them as not being better than EBs? I find it striking that you write "The KA is balanced" and two lines later "the BBEG will target you first due to being a bigger threat." That's reminds me of populistic politicians. "We're not rassistic! The immigrants want you to believe that!"

And as stated: As soon as you are not limited to only KAs on a character, the disadvantage is nil. You want to be sure to do 42 stun? Use the EB instead.

 

Also, after

Can you two do this math again, factoring in the following:

a) Standard Deviation (which doesn't scale up linearly with the 15 pt/3 DC model)

Iterative cycles of Recovery, Knockback and counterattack for comparative pairings?

this flame bait, I will not bother discussing this with you any further. If you want to overcomplicate things, then please do so yourself. KA truly does have slightly less KB, but it more than overcompensates with its crits. (again, I refer to the 100+ stun lucky dice rolls with that word).

 

Also, the math (while probably being correct) of Hugh is slightly off. When are you encountering (N)PCs with 12 rDef (or even 9) in a 15 AP limit game? It skewes your results when you put in really wrong numbers. Still, you're right. Assuming everyone has about DC in rDef, KA-stun-multi-2 is worse than EB. If you have less rDef however, you will take some BODY on most attacks, even if you take not much stun.

 

My problem with a fixed multi of 3: It's superior by far to the EB.

My problem with a d6-1 multi: It's superior by far to the EB due to same average and huge crits.

My problem with the fixed multi of 2.5: complicated ro calculate (17 * 2.5?). 17* 3 takes me long enough as is, 2.5 is really annoying.

 

Fixed multi of 2: probably too weak. What about doing the "add half the DC"? That gives way better results, a bit broader distributed than EB, but roughly same average. Only problem: KA is now again superior to EB due to rDef requirements. Your enemy is forced to have the more expensive defense, or else he will be gibbed. Assuming anyone has rDef, it's about the same.

We are now at a limited NND for +0. I'm still not entirely happy

[Comic]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Okay, to go over it one more time: KA's are not 'a bigger threat', unless a lot of little complicating factors are applied (DEF, CON, REC, STUN, CV, combat modifiers, etc.) in exactly the way that makes them more dangerous.

 

Most intelligent defenders seek to mitigate the threat of KA's, and can do so in a cost-effective way.

 

KA's should be treated by intelligent defenders (those with knowledge, experience, skills or INT sufficient to understand the difference between 'gambling on the odds' and 'flying blind'), because of their more random nature, as over three times higher in DCs (which clearly they aren't) for the purposes of deciding which threat to target first.

 

In other words, carrying a KA is painting a target on your chest, if no one else on your side has one, when it comes to fighting intelligent opponents. Intelligent opponents will shoot the guy with the 1.5d6 knife before they will attend to the 60 STR Brick, because they would rather gamble on known odds than fly entirely blind, in this model.

 

An attacker who merely puts their KA into a multipower to have a choice of KA vs EB (or whatever), does not remove this target from their chest. If they have a 1.5d6 knife and a 12d6 punch, they're still the primary target because they _could_ choose the knife.

 

This, of course, assumes that the GM accepts this tactical approach as the one the campaign villains will use. Many don't, naturally. In that case, my argument on this point collapses, and the KA loses one of its drawbacks.

 

In my campaigns, if I'm GMing, then I'll use this tactical approach. So, in my campaigns, at least, it's true.

 

None of this weakens the 'too good' argument about KA's that someone else made. It applies when KAs are used, in cases where the KA does that unexpectedly high damage, when the GM deems there's a reason for that unexpectedly high damage to be a bad thing. I don't see any reason that a GM has to let players know about that reason ahead of time, if the players haven't figured it out, so I don't know whether players will always know when to choose not to take a chance on the KA. Also, having that choice will cost 10% of the DCs in a multipower (if the KA was already in a multipower, or 20% if the only reason to have the multipower is to have the choice).

 

I sincerely apologize if anyone feels baited. Not my intention. Not entirely sure how it's seen as flamey, but it's enough that someone feels offended.

 

I can say that this is a topic that does lend itself to hard feelings, for no apparent reason, since A) it's a game, and it's a game, and C) games are about having fun.

 

Rationally, arguments on one side or another usually degenerate into incohesive jumbles of unrelated, irrelevant, or easily refuted claims and arithmetic.

 

I've yet to see a person harmed by using RAW for KA's, and I've yet to meet someone who has had an immensely moving religious epiphany of orgiastic, enlightening, transcendant spiritual proportions for varying from RAW because of math.

[Kdansky]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Sorry to assume you flamebaited, to me it looked like it.

 

But you contradict yourself. Your logic is as follows:

 

1 KAs are not better than EBs.

2 Evil guys assume the worst (reasonably likely) case.

3 KAs can make bigger hits.

4 Therefore the KA is a bigger threat than EB.

 

It's quite obvious. 1 is false, it contradicts 4. Name something that is a bigger threat but a worse power than any other. You won't find it, as "bigger threat" is the same as "more dangerous" which translates to "more powerful/suitable".

Having bigger hits obviously is better, since the defender reasons such. So what's your approach? Rather not use a KA because you might be a target? Use a 40 AP attackpower instead of a 75 AP one to make yourself seem less powerful. Wait, if you do that, you *ARE* less powerful. This result should be the other: If everyone has a KA, everyone is as much of a target as before, but everyones strength increased.

 

So that is not a disadvantage of the KA at all.

[Lucius]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

I sincerely apologize if anyone feels baited. Not my intention. Not entirely sure how it's seen as flamey, but it's enough that someone feels offended.

 

I can say that this is a topic that does lend itself to hard feelings, for no apparent reason,

 

Well, saying, in essence, that “Killing Attacks are not a bigger threat” and going on to say “intelligent defenders will treat Killing Attacks as a bigger threat” may not be trollery or flame baiting or lead to hard feelings, but it does lead to exasperation. Saying that something is not the case, but that intelligent people will think and act as if it is the case, is not quite directly contradicting yourself, but it comes very close.

 

Fortunately, you have forewarned us not to take your doubletalk seriously.

 

For some reason, however, I can’t seem to resist the temptation to respond to this:

 

I've yet to see a person harmed by using RAW .

 

As far as I know, no one is claiming that anyone has been harmed. Oh, I’m sure CHARACTERS have been harmed by Killing Attacks, but not any of us personally.

 

As far as I know, no one was “harmed” by playing the original first edition D&D. But if everyone had been willing to just play by “Rules As Written” and never considered doing things differently, there would never have been a Hero System. I don’t know if that counts as “harm” but it would definitely be “deprived of a benefit.” I for one am quite glad I am not trying to play 1st edition D&D (have you seen those original first three books? They’re an unplayable mess as far as I could see.) Since (again, as far as I know) you are NOT playing 1st edition D&D and ARE playing Hero System, I can only assume that you do not have some kind of religious obligation to oppose improvement just for the sake of not changing. For that matter, even if you did, it would only apply to those of your faith, not to the rest of us.

 

for KA's' date=' and I've yet to meet someone who has had an immensely moving religious epiphany of orgiastic, enlightening, transcendant spiritual proportions for varying from RAW because of math.[/quote']

 

I wouldn’t call it “religious” but I did start a thread with the title “Killing Epiphany.” Nor do I think that some kind of earthshaking experience is necessary to justify objecting to something that is obviously wrong and unbalanced or to motivate a desire to change it.

 

Sheesh, and I thought _I_ was conservative. I can’t imagine loving the status quo so much that only pain or injury, or clear and present danger, or the promise of some orgasmic pleasure, could be considered a sufficient motive to change something.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Of course there’s a palindromedary tagline. There’s ALWAYS a palindromedary tagline.

 

PPS (Post Palindromedary Stuff) : I swear, Kdanksy posted while I was composing this and I had not seen his message until after I composed my own.

[Comic]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

But you contradict yourself.

Okay, I'm seeing where I appear to be unclear in expressing the rationalization:

Your logic is as follows:

 

1 KAs are not better than EBs.

True, but irrelevant.

2 Evil guys assume the worst (reasonably likely) case.

No. Intelligent opponents, by Game Theory, _ought_ to take out the target with the KA in preference to the target with the Normal attack, so long as the target with the Normal attack doesn't have more than three times the DC's of the KA.

3 KAs can make bigger hits.

 

Well, no, and yes. KA's clearly can generate almost double (5/3rds) the Stun of Normal attacks, and they require more expensive (resistant) defenses for part of their effects (Body). But that's not really the point.

 

KA's have a greater chance of making bigger hits. They also have a doubly greater chance of making smaller hits. They're _uncertain_. There's so little resembling a curve to the distribution of their results that there's no planning, where they're concerned. The observer is forced to rationalize expectations, rather than rely on the much superior tool of 'average outcomes' when planning how to respond.

 

This remains true even for clearly worse attacks. If you have a 4 DC KA, and your teammate has a 12 DC Normal attack, the rational opponent will target you. Once you are out of the fight, the element of uncertainty is removed, and the opponent can begin to plan based on 'unknown' likelihoods, instead of unknowable chance.

 

The real disadvantage comes if there is only one character on a team of five with a KA, facing reasonable odds in a fight. Unless the character with the KA is 1/3rd as powerful as every teammate, then the opposition will focus entirely on taking that one character out, and will use all their best effects to do so, even the ones that are extremely costly.

 

Well, it's a disadvantage to the character with the KA. The rest of the team rarely mind, I expect.

4 Therefore the KA is a bigger threat than EB.

No. The uncertainty is the bigger threat, since it leaves the participants facing a situation they cannot rationally determine the odds on.

It's quite obvious. 1 is false, it contradicts 4. Name something that is a bigger threat but a worse power than any other. You won't find it, as "bigger threat" is the same as "more dangerous" which translates to "more powerful/suitable".

Suicide attacks are one example of bigger threats that are worse. Weapons of mass destruction, which are effective against targets and the rewards sought alike are 'better' and 'worse'. There's all sorts of categories of things that are too effective.. none of which applies to my point, as I hope I've clarified.

Even a substantially worse KA will be the focus of elimination by the tactical opponent, so long as its maximum damage exceeds the average damage of the comparable Normal attack.

Having bigger hits obviously is better, since the defender reasons such.

There's a huge branch of Game Theory dedicated to how to use defenders' reasoning. There is even one that allows a party to employ a defender's inferior decision (in this case inferior because of the Uncertainty they face and wish to eliminate) to one's advantage. But it isn't particularly applicable here.

So what's your approach? Rather not use a KA because you might be a target?

My approach? It varies. If I have a KA, I do my utmost to be a sneaky lowdown coward who strikes from cover, concealment, surprise and invisibility every time, and withdraw with great speed if I haven't achieved a one-shot kill. Usually.

Use a 40 AP attackpower instead of a 75 AP one to make yourself seem less powerful. Wait, if you do that, you *ARE* less powerful. This result should be the other: If everyone has a KA, everyone is as much of a target as before, but everyones strength increased.

Circular logic built on a faulty set of assumptions. Not really easy to respond to. Oh.. and was there sarcasm there?

So that is not a disadvantage of the KA at all.

You're free to believe so. It's your game. Enjoy it.

[Comic]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Actually.. I should amend.

 

The special case where an entire team all have KA's would, of course, be completely unpredictable for opponents, and for allies alike.

 

It certainly would eliminate the lone gunman feeling like he's painted with a target. And if everyone's a willing KA carrier of equal known ability and proclivity, does make for a different sort of fight.

 

In any round where everyone is conscious and unstunned, the odds of each person hitting should be about 50% (give or take), where distance, circumstances and maneuvers are taken into account. The odds of any hit plinking are roughly 50%, so you expect one to two opponents to take a significant strike per round, and every fourth round, you expect the Stun Lotto to have kicked in on someone, if all attackers stay up.

 

For the Normal side, same odds of hitting, there is no expectation of plinking, so there is a significant hit on 2-3 targets. Four rounds of this means on average 2 Normals and 3 Killers are down, for campaigns that follow the guidelines for DEF and Characteristics. At that point, 3 Normals against 2 Killers, the odds favor the Normals. In round figures, that may or may not apply, depending on how people fight.

 

Also, KA's are uncertain, and no one ever behaves as they should, so experiences are bound to vary widely from these expectations.

[jtelson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

No. Intelligent opponents' date=' by Game Theory, _ought_ to take out the target with the KA in preference to the target with the Normal attack, so long as the target with the Normal attack doesn't have more than three times the DC's of the KA.[/quote']

 

The obvious Meta Game concerns aside (How would a villain know if Brick A's HtH attack is 2.5 times vs. 3.5 times larger than Brick B's HKA? etc) this presumes that uncertainty is directly related to the utility of target selection and so the less you know about a target the higher level of threat you assume they present.

"We've never seen this guy before, DOGPILE!"

[Comic]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

The obvious Meta Game concerns aside (How would a villain know if Brick A's HtH attack is 2.5 times vs. 3.5 times larger than Brick B's HKA? etc)

Metagaming removed by appropriate skills. Analyze Powers, Analyze Martial Arts, both of these give metagamey information, even if put into non-game terms.

Assuming that the powers are meant to model actual things, those classes of actual things are understandable by people experienced at dealing with their general type. So anyone with tactics, KS: Supers, KS: Powers, etc., would be able to know these things. Or, put another way, do you in the real world know the difference between a knife and a fist?

Removing metagameyness also works against the KA-wielder's interests. As a crude approximation without detailed game knowledge, the broad generalization will go: people with the more lethal and unpredictable attacks always get targetted first.

this presumes that uncertainty is directly related to the utility of target selection and so the less you know about a target the higher level of threat you assume they present.

"We've never seen this guy before, DOGPILE!"

Well.. yes.

Only it would be, "We've never seen anything _like_ this guy before.."

If the guy presents the generic appearance of someone predictable, then he's less of an uncertainty, but this is a common social effect, aggression towards strangers (xenophobia).