The cost of killing damage

[jtelson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

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.

 

Yes but do I know the dice value difference between a knife wielded by a guy who can throw a motorcycle at me and an ice cream truck being wielded like a club? In a superhero world, even with analyze skills, the GM particularly needs to be careful about how his NPC's make decisions.

 

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).

 

That presumes that all participants view reducing uncertainty as the surest means to maximizing utility. Since we really should be talking about the players, yourself included, rather than the characters this presumption is, I hope, unlikely. In an RPG increasing enjoyment (Yours and Other Participants) should be the surest means to maximizing utility. One way to increase enjoyment is good roleplaying, one aspect of good roleplaying is understanding that characters (Player and non) are going to have different views on maximising utility. Reducing uncertainty is one, sure. Increasing reward, delaying or preventing punishment, delaying/denying another participant's reward, assisting other participants are all common methods of maximizing utility particularly since we are playing non-zero sum games.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Sorry' date=' 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.[/quote']

That's fine. I was just clarifying to be precise.

 

As far as I know' date=' no one was “harmed” by playing the original first edition D&D.[/quote']

Haven't you ever seen "Mazes and Monsters"?

[jtelson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

That's fine. I was just clarifying to be precise.

 

And rightly so, when I re-read my original post it confused me.

[Comic]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Yes but do I know the dice value difference between a knife wielded by a guy who can throw a motorcycle at me and an ice cream truck being wielded like a club? In a superhero world' date=' even with analyze skills, the GM particularly needs to be careful about how his NPC's make decisions.[/quote']

Parsing for your intention, if you're arguing that the GM should deny characters the stated benefits of their skills (ie, for Analyze, to compare a power to his own; for Tactics, how to fight effectively and efficiently) because you're worried there might be metagaming, then.. I have no answer for that. You either trust GMs and players to be playing to have fun, or you don't. And.. completely irrelevant to and separate from this topic.

That presumes that all participants view reducing uncertainty as the surest means to maximizing utility.

No. Only the rational ones will do this. I can't really discuss irrational tactics using logic, insofar as .. oh. Wait. I can. Since I go by the name 'Comic' here, not the name 'Sensible.'

Since we really should be talking about the players, yourself included, rather than the characters this presumption is, I hope, unlikely. In an RPG increasing enjoyment (Yours and Other Participants) should be the surest means to maximizing utility. One way to increase enjoyment is good roleplaying, one aspect of good roleplaying is understanding that characters (Player and non) are going to have different views on maximising utility. Reducing uncertainty is one, sure. Increasing reward, delaying or preventing punishment, delaying/denying another participant's reward, assisting other participants are all common methods of maximizing utility particularly since we are playing non-zero sum games.

These are all valid points.. that have nothing to do with the tactical decision to select targets by NPCs who have the presumed usual goal of victory.

 

Players can maximize uncertainty all they like, of course, if victory isn't their goal. A GM could construct no end of scenarios where victory is a lesser goal of the bad guys, or even where victory conflicts with the bad guy's goals.

 

In my experience, however, playing against suicidal NPCs gets boring fast, and too frequent combats where the bad guy cackles gleefully, "Sure, you beat me, I knew you would, but I've --insert insidious, nonsensical objective that ruins the PC's life here-- and I take that to my grave with me! Muahaha!" just lead to the players re-evaluating their choice of GM.

 

But yes, if you really want it, every now and again, treat your KA's like they were revered by the villains, and their wielders would never be attacked by the bad guys unless all the other good guys are down first. It's not a rational choice for victory, but it's a perfectly valid scenario. It happens IRL all the time -- suicide bombers, terrorists, and the insane tend to behave this way.

[jtelson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

No. Only the rational ones will do this. I can't really discuss irrational tactics using logic' date=' insofar as .. oh. Wait. I can. Since I go by the name 'Comic' here, not the name 'Sensible.'

 

To presume that reducing uncertainty is the rational road to victory is irrational. Mathmatically, you're better off removing consistant damage from a situation than random damage particularly since killing attacks average less stun per DC than normal ones.

 

In other words, if every villian has the array of skills you believe them to have, then they will realize that Thugman with his 30 STR is a bigger threat than Stab Guy with his 15 Str and 1d6 HKA. This becomes more true if they beleive they are in the villian game for the long haul.

[Comic]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

To presume that reducing uncertainty is the rational road to victory is irrational. Mathmatically' date=' you're better off removing consistant damage from a situation than random damage particularly since killing attacks average less stun per DC than normal ones. [/quote']

Well, you'd _think_ so, intuitively. However, that's not the way it works out if you sit down and do the math.

 

Mathematically, removing the larger expected damage is the correct action.

 

The expected damage for a Normal attack is its mean value.

 

The expected damage for a Killing attack is far higher than its mean value, because it doesn't follow a Normal curve and has a Standard Deviation that is so high. These two qualities, for the purposes of selecting targets to remove from the opposition, make the expected damage for the Killing attack its maximum.

 

Thus, when deciding who to remove, you compare the average of the Normal attack to the maximum of the Killing attack, and the rational decision is to remove the opponent with the Killing attack first, unless the Normal attack's average damage is higher -- which happens when the Normal attack is much more powerful, or the OCV or SPD of the Normal attacker are much higher.

 

In other words, if every villian has the array of skills you believe them to have, then they will realize that Thugman with his 30 STR is a bigger threat than Stab Guy with his 15 Str and 1d6 HKA. This becomes more true if they beleive they are in the villian game for the long haul.

 

It isn't necessary for every villain to have a vast array of skills to be entitled to make rational combat decisions. Any agent of a large organization will presumably have had some minimal training, instruction, or experience where they've gleaned the fact that opponents with attacks they expect to be more dangerous ought to be removed from combat first.. if they believe they are in the breathing, living agent game for the long haul.

 

It isn't _just_ that the Uncertainty associated with KA's make them attractive for the able tactician to remove from combat, thus allowing them to make use of their tactics (that is, making probabilities meaningful), but also that the perceived danger (expected damage) of KA's is innately higher.

 

Since it comes up often, this Expected damage is no reflection of 'better'. Just that for some purposes, you can't rely on averages, and have to use a substitute for your decision making. Even substantially weaker KAs will have a higher Expected damage.

 

And, on the flip side, KA's will -- despite this higher expected damage -- be a worse, not better, threat for the purposes of intimidation. I'll leave the mathematics of that as an exercise for the reader.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

It isn't necessary for every villain to have a vast array of skills to be entitled to make rational combat decisions. Any agent of a large organization will presumably have had some minimal training, instruction, or experience where they've gleaned the fact that opponents with attacks they expect to be more dangerous ought to be removed from combat first.. if they believe they are in the breathing, living agent game for the long haul.

 

It isn't _just_ that the Uncertainty associated with KA's make them attractive for the able tactician to remove from combat, thus allowing them to make use of their tactics (that is, making probabilities meaningful), but also that the perceived danger (expected damage) of KA's is innately higher.

 

Since it comes up often, this Expected damage is no reflection of 'better'. Just that for some purposes, you can't rely on averages, and have to use a substitute for your decision making. Even substantially weaker KAs will have a higher Expected damage.

 

Cutting through the math, statistics and probabilities, the bottom line is that you are saying any half rational tactician will quickly conclude the character with the killing attack is the most important one to take out quickly because his expected damage is higher. It is damage that removes characters from the fight. Higher expected damage = more effective attack = take this guy down first.

 

If higher expected damage does not equate to a more powerful and effective attack. what does?

 

You can't reasonably say in one breath "the KA has higher expected damage and any sensible opponent will target that attacker first", then contradict this by saying "both attacks are equal". The smart tactical decision is to take out the most dangerous attacker, and (all else being equal), that's the guy with the most powerful attack.

 

There's certainly some variance between groups. A team with no mentalists will focus on an enemy mentalist because they are vulnerable (higher expected damage) to his attacks. Another team, where all members have significant mental defense, will ignore the mentalist because he's no threat (low expected damage).

 

If the defense levels are above about 2x the DC's, the KA has higher expected damage and is more powerful. Factoring in the impact of hit locations on normal attacks, I suspect that expected damage spread changes markedly, mitigating or eliminating the advantage of the KA.

[Comic]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Cutting through the math' date=' statistics and probabilities, the bottom line is that you are saying any half rational tactician will quickly conclude the character with the killing attack is the most important one to take out quickly because his expected damage is higher. It is damage that removes characters from the fight. Higher expected damage = more effective attack = take this guy down first.[/quote']

Statistical modelling of incommensurable distributions sucks, doesn't it?

This is one of those things that looks like a paradox, but isn't.

Higher expected damage _for limited purposes when making decisions_ can still overall be less effective.

In this case, the expected damage is maximum (for KA's) when deciding who to target. The expected damage when assigning minions is the minimum (for KA's) for similar reasons. The expected damage a minion reckons on when making the decision alone of how to distribute OCV and DCV is the Mean for defense, and the maximum for priority of target.

I'm making these rather bald short-hand assertions because the reasoning behind them takes a long, long time, and I'm late.

If higher expected damage does not equate to a more powerful and effective attack. what does?

There's no real answer to that, is there? I mean, the best thing to have is Darkness or Invisibility, and an effective attack, unless the other guy has special senses, right?

You can't reasonably say in one breath "the KA has higher expected damage and any sensible opponent will target that attacker first", then contradict this by saying "both attacks are equal". The smart tactical decision is to take out the most dangerous attacker, and (all else being equal), that's the guy with the most powerful attack.

See above.

There's certainly some variance between groups. A team with no mentalists will focus on an enemy mentalist because they are vulnerable (higher expected damage) to his attacks. Another team, where all members have significant mental defense, will ignore the mentalist because he's no threat (low expected damage).

With some quibbles over details, sure. But maybe not. Mentalists are worth 1.5x their effect.. KA's are worth 3x.

If the defense levels are above about 2x the DC's, the KA has higher expected damage and is more powerful. Factoring in the impact of hit locations on normal attacks, I suspect that expected damage spread changes markedly, mitigating or eliminating the advantage of the KA.

Can't do the math for hit locations.. as.. running late.

[jtelson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Well, you'd _think_ so, intuitively. However, that's not the way it works out if you sit down and do the math.

 

Mathematically, removing the larger expected damage is the correct action.

 

The expected damage for a Normal attack is its mean value.

 

The expected damage for a Killing attack is far higher than its mean value, because it doesn't follow a Normal curve and has a Standard Deviation that is so high. These two qualities, for the purposes of selecting targets to remove from the opposition, make the expected damage for the Killing attack its maximum.

 

Thus, when deciding who to remove, you compare the average of the Normal attack to the maximum of the Killing attack, and the rational decision is to remove the opponent with the Killing attack first, unless the Normal attack's average damage is higher -- which happens when the Normal attack is much more powerful, or the OCV or SPD of the Normal attacker are much higher.

 

 

 

It isn't necessary for every villain to have a vast array of skills to be entitled to make rational combat decisions. Any agent of a large organization will presumably have had some minimal training, instruction, or experience where they've gleaned the fact that opponents with attacks they expect to be more dangerous ought to be removed from combat first.. if they believe they are in the breathing, living agent game for the long haul.

 

It isn't _just_ that the Uncertainty associated with KA's make them attractive for the able tactician to remove from combat, thus allowing them to make use of their tactics (that is, making probabilities meaningful), but also that the perceived danger (expected damage) of KA's is innately higher.

 

Since it comes up often, this Expected damage is no reflection of 'better'. Just that for some purposes, you can't rely on averages, and have to use a substitute for your decision making. Even substantially weaker KAs will have a higher Expected damage.

 

And, on the flip side, KA's will -- despite this higher expected damage -- be a worse, not better, threat for the purposes of intimidation. I'll leave the mathematics of that as an exercise for the reader.

 

That'd all be well and good if the KA expected damage wasn't 2.67 x number of damage classes

[Maur]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

The expected damage for a Killing attack is far higher than its mean value' date=' because it doesn't follow a Normal curve and has a Standard Deviation that is so high. These two qualities, for the purposes of selecting targets to remove from the opposition, make the expected damage for the Killing attack its maximum.[/quote']

 

Uhh, the only part of a KA that doesn't follow a normal distribution would be the stun if you are using the Stun lotto rather than based on the hit location (standard 3x, more for head/vitals, less for limbs, etc...).

 

1d6 = flat line distribution

2d6 = triangle

3d6 = Gaussian, mean of 10.5 (peak at 10 and 11)

4d6 = Gaussian, mean of 14

5d6 = Gaussian, mean of 17.5 (peat at 17 and 18)

etc...

[jtelson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

That'd all be well and good if the KA expected damage wasn't 2.67 x number of damage classes

 

 

I've got to stop doing this stuff in my head, it's 3.111 x number of damage classes. Doesn't change the point, just makes me seem like a dufus.

[Comic]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Heheh. If I ever worried about seeming like a dufus.. well.. the rest is obvious.

 

Yes, the only part of the KA that doesn't follow a normal distribution is the Stun, and yes, only if you aren't using some Normalizing strategy. Yes, that's what I'm talking about, and yes, everything I say that specifically applies to that specifically doesn't apply to things that have been laboriously arranged to not be like that.

 

But.. most people insert into the discussion that the relatively small number of dice used for KA's makes the distribution less predictable, as you point out. A 1d6 KA doesn't have a Normal distribution, 2d6 = triangle.. and even at 4d6, you're still looking at the Standard Deviation being fairly large compared to the Mean, when you compare the ratio to a normal attack of equal DCs.

 

Not that this is a bad thing. As has been pointed out by jtelson above, there are many cases where someone might want to increase uncertainty, and this mechanism gives that. Especially when the Stun Multiplier is used.

 

However, as to the expected Stun of a KA... Sure, the expected Stun of a KA is not its maximum value for all purposes. But it isn't its Mean value, either, all the time.

 

When comparing a normal attack and a KA, it is a mistake to use the Mean damage for most purposes, in much the same way as it is a mistake to compare apples to apes.

 

If you base all your decisions about KA's on the Mean outcome, you will do worse than someone who bases their decisions on the appropriate expected value for its purposes.

 

Which.. you're free to do. There's a lot of hard math involved in using the appropriate figures for decision making, and it may not be worth the investment.

 

My quibble is when people come out and, based on not making the investment in the appropriate calculations, make pronouncements that are just not factual.

 

Like that there is a universal 'better' choice between KA's or normal attacks, or that KA's are broken, or that there is an inherent mistake in their cost. If these things exist in your campaign -- and they certainly can -- then it's because other circumstances have come together to make it so.

[Lucius]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

That's fine. I was just clarifying to be precise.

 

 

Haven't you ever seen "Mazes and Monsters"?

 

Yes. Also Reefer Madness. I understand there's a Sex Madness or something like that too, but haven't seen it.

 

I've also read "Dark Dungeons." I prefer the "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" parody version, which someone posted not long ago somewhere on this website.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Some things will gag a palindromedary

[Kdansky]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Ok, let me put this in few words. I still have no clue whatsoever why a BBEG should decide that the KA is the bigger threat, if it were exactly as good than the EB. That only leaves me with these conclusions:

 

A: The BBEG is wrong. The KA is not the bigger threat at all, but for some weird reason he is mistaken and has messed up target priorities. Don't they learn too?

B: Although the EB is generally not worse then the KA, in this special case, the KA is better, therefore the BBEG considers it more dangerous.

C: The BBEG is right and the KA is generally better.

 

If I look at the system and compare KAs to EBs, I'm pretty sure that KA outclasses EB in 99% of all situations, and I will have to construct all characters with this in mind. Sure, it's not impossible, but having a broken system and fixing it with campaign rules or character design (everyone has 50% DR, everyone has 10+ rDef) is not a good idea.

[Sean Waters]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Here's something I find...problematic...about KAs: enemy agents.

 

Now most enemy agents are outfitted with some sort of gun, and in a superheroic campaign, they probably do about 2d6 RKA. Not a problem, that is only 6DCs: even the martial artists with a flak jacket should be able to shrug that off...but no.

 

What we have is (probably) quite a number of hits on the PCs over the combat because I don't play agents as stupid: they brace and set if they can, they use their levels on OCV, and they try to hit from ambush.

 

I've seen the team brick stunned on more than one occasion by such agents, without even bothering to coordinate: there is a world of difference between statistical probability and what actually comes up when you roll the dice.

 

Sure a KA might not be that much better than an EB, and in a superhero campaign resistant defences are ubiquitous anyway, but it is not just the big, main attacks you need to worry about. The point with agents is that a 6d6 normal or even an 8d6 normal atatck probably won't worry the PCs at all: if they are expecting to take little or no damge the occasional spike from a KA is really very significant indeed.

 

You might think: cool - the PCs need to worry about agents too. Well, that isn't very comic book, is it? What are we trying to accomplish with this?

 

Also I'm not sure what a killing attack mechanic is supposed to actually emulate. I mean, I can understand an attack that actually penetrates (to me, that means 'does body', in context) causing great trauma capable of causing you to pass out, but frankly, I can not see how a killing attack that does not get through defences can cause anything like the stun trauma this mechanic allows.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I've seen someone pass out at the sight of their own blood: we were at school, doing a blood centrifuge, to seperate out the components, and we used medical lancets to prick our fingers. A friend of mine did this, looked at his finger, saw the blood and fainted. He'd taken no body, he'd taken no stun (you can barely FEEL a medical lancet going in), but he was unconscious. That is a mechanic we simply don't have in Hero (and probably don't need, to be honest, in anything but the most grittily realistic of games). What doesn't happen through, apparently, is a bullet being stopped by armour transmitting massive energy to the target anyway, sufficient to take the target down - certainly no more than any other equivalent (ie same DC normal attack) attack.

 

I don't know much about guns, but these guys do:

 

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs3.htm

 

That's just talking about bullets, of course. Mind you, if you get stabbed by a knife and you have armour that prevents penetration, you are not going to take significant stun. Ditto if you are hit with a flamethrower whilst wearing something that prevents the Body damage (at least until you heat up enough for energy to penetrate - different point though).

 

Now there is an argument that damage is too predictable, especialy at higher DCs...but that is a different point entirely. If you want more random damage, we can do that. The point here is that we have a mechanic that does not seem to do anything except on a mechancal level. it does not reflect any reality, even a comic book reality, that I am aware of.

[jtelson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Your point on genre is very well taken. On those rare occasions when I run standard four color-ish supers (To my players that may be reading this, yes it has happened), killing attacks are very rare, most guns are modeled as EB's (Major Mayhem's Luger is a KA, His Agent's rifles are EB's).

[Alibear]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Here's something I find...problematic...about KAs: enemy agents.

 

Now most enemy agents are outfitted with some sort of gun, and in a superheroic campaign, they probably do about 2d6 RKA. Not a problem, that is only 6DCs: even the martial artists with a flak jacket should be able to shrug that off...but no.

 

What we have is (probably) quite a number of hits on the PCs over the combat because I don't play agents as stupid: they brace and set if they can, they use their levels on OCV, and they try to hit from ambush.

 

I've seen the team brick stunned on more than one occasion by such agents, without even bothering to coordinate: there is a world of difference between statistical probability and what actually comes up when you roll the dice.

 

Sure a KA might not be that much better than an EB, and in a superhero campaign resistant defences are ubiquitous anyway, but it is not just the big, main attacks you need to worry about. The point with agents is that a 6d6 normal or even an 8d6 normal atatck probably won't worry the PCs at all: if they are expecting to take little or no damge the occasional spike from a KA is really very significant indeed.

 

You might think: cool - the PCs need to worry about agents too. Well, that isn't very comic book, is it? What are we trying to accomplish with this?

 

Also I'm not sure what a killing attack mechanic is supposed to actually emulate. I mean, I can understand an attack that actually penetrates (to me, that means 'does body', in context) causing great trauma capable of causing you to pass out, but frankly, I can not see how a killing attack that does not get through defences can cause anything like the stun trauma this mechanic allows.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I've seen someone pass out at the sight of their own blood: we were at school, doing a blood centrifuge, to seperate out the components, and we used medical lancets to prick our fingers. A friend of mine did this, looked at his finger, saw the blood and fainted. He'd taken no body, he'd taken no stun (you can barely FEEL a medical lancet going in), but he was unconscious. That is a mechanic we simply don't have in Hero (and probably don't need, to be honest, in anything but the most grittily realistic of games). What doesn't happen through, apparently, is a bullet being stopped by armour transmitting massive energy to the target anyway, sufficient to take the target down - certainly no more than any other equivalent (ie same DC normal attack) attack.

 

I don't know much about guns, but these guys do:

 

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs3.htm

 

That's just talking about bullets, of course. Mind you, if you get stabbed by a knife and you have armour that prevents penetration, you are not going to take significant stun. Ditto if you are hit with a flamethrower whilst wearing something that prevents the Body damage (at least until you heat up enough for energy to penetrate - different point though).

 

Now there is an argument that damage is too predictable, especialy at higher DCs...but that is a different point entirely. If you want more random damage, we can do that. The point here is that we have a mechanic that does not seem to do anything except on a mechancal level. it does not reflect any reality, even a comic book reality, that I am aware of.

 

 

Surely knowing all that, all we have to do is redisgn our bricks. If we want him to be able to shrug of small arms fire, we can buy defences to simulate that.

 

Perhaps - PD Damage reduction, Stun only, only v weapons with 'real limitation' -1.

 

I would rather go that way than take the teeth from weapons as bricks get a good enough deal with Str and Con already.

[Lucius]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

We have had that discussion before, and players with much more experience with lethal violence than I have (thankfully) agree that the mechanic simulates nicely a real world in which they have seen people pass out from minor stab wounds (high STUN, low BOD) and stay conscious and fully mobile, albeit terrified, while very rapidly bleeding to death from mortal gunshot wounds (low STUN, high BOD.)

 

As I've already said, I don't object to the mechanic per se (although I can see a problem with it in a comic book game) - I just think it should be costed in an appropriate, balanced manner.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary fears the crab cannon

[Kdansky]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

As usual, I agree with Sean. I think we'd be very bored alone together, as there's no-one to argue with at all.

Surely knowing all that, all we have to do is redisgn our bricks.

So, because the KA has a messed up mechanic with unwanted results, we redesign our PCs? That is the perfect example of curing the symptoms, not the sickness. I'm still going for stun x2, may be a bit weak, but works well simulation-wise. 2d6 does a maximum of 24 stun, any Super will just shrug that off, but it will still kill any normal in two shots. Probably not even KOing him in the process, only kiling.

[Sean Waters]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

We have had that discussion before, and players with much more experience with lethal violence than I have (thankfully) agree that the mechanic simulates nicely a real world in which they have seen people pass out from minor stab wounds (high STUN, low BOD) and stay conscious and fully mobile, albeit terrified, while very rapidly bleeding to death from mortal gunshot wounds (low STUN, high BOD.)

 

As I've already said, I don't object to the mechanic per se (although I can see a problem with it in a comic book game) - I just think it should be costed in an appropriate, balanced manner.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary fears the crab cannon

 

 

Arguably all violence is lethal, hence my comment that damage might be too predictable anyway - 'normal' attacks - a punch, for instance can KO someone in one hit, or take many hits without causing significant impairment - punches can kill too, although that is rare.

 

Personally (hence the anecdote about my mate fainting) I suspect that very often people who do pass out from relatively minor wounds are not doing so as a tresult of the trauma, but as a result of the shock at becoming aware of the trauma. You could be hit, run around, notice the wound and THEN faint.

 

I'm not saying we need to go to that level with simulation, but it is worth thinking about.

 

Moreover, there';s a real difference between minor bullet damage and bullets stopped by armour. Potentially a bleeding wound could cause a drop in blood pressure resulting in quickly passing out - when thre is no penetration, such results are extremely unlikely indeed - and killing attacks with Body stopped by armour can still, in game, cause very significant stun - which is not realistic, as far as I am aware - except in very rare instances (a bullet to the temple that is stopepd by a helmet might still have sufficient impact to render a victim unconscious. Maybe.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Here's something I find...problematic...about KAs: enemy agents.

 

Now most enemy agents are outfitted with some sort of gun, and in a superheroic campaign, they probably do about 2d6 RKA. Not a problem, that is only 6DCs: even the martial artists with a flak jacket should be able to shrug that off...but no.

 

This is where the KA shines compared to the normal attack. The agent has 6 DC's and is going up against opponents with 20 to 30 defenses, well above 2x his DC's. The KA will be markedly more effective at getting STUN through due to its wild volatility. Assuming opponents with, say, 25 defenses, half resistant, getting any STUN at all through with a 6d6 EB will be uncommon, and what does get through will be minimal. We have a 1 in 46,656 chance of getting 11 points through, and it drops from there.

 

With a 2d6 KA, we have a 1 in 216 chance of inflicting 35 Stun, and a lot of high rolls (above average on 2d6 + a 4 or 5 Stun Multiple) which will get way more than 11 STUN through. Yes, we have a lot of rolls that will fall below 25 STUN by a large margin, but whether you rolled 25 STUN or 2 STUN, nothing got through, so how far we drop below that level is irrelevant.

 

Now, if we look at the Big Bad who employs the henchmen, and we give him 18 DC's to select from, he can either pick his normal attack and routinely get 38 STUN past defenses. Choosing a 6d6 KA averaging 21 BOD means lowering that average. Sure, he might get a huge hit that blows the target away, but he stands a much greater chance of a negligible attack that gets a 1 STUN multiplier, and having the attack do no STUN at all. It is much more likely to do BOD, so it's the attack of choice if that's the intention, but assuming sufficient rDEF that the BOD is blunted, a KA at DC's well over half the defenses targeting will not be nearly as effective at getting KO's as a normal attack.

 

Funny that the breakpoint is about 2 DEF per DC, and that 5e reduced recommended defenses to about that level. Maybe we should have taken a closer look before complaining about how much more stun the average attack would get through if we lowered defenses that far...

 

This has been acknowledged for many years. The old 2e Deathstroke module suggests the villains won't use their killing attacks unless the target's defenses are so high it's the only way they have a shot at laying down serious STUN.

[Comic]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

I have to agree with Kdansky's solution of a 2x Stun Multiplier, without endorsing all the reasoning behind it. If someone feels that KA's are broken in some way this is, of the fixed Stun Multiplier approaches, vastly superior to 2.5x or 3x, in that it neither removes plinking nor skews the outcomes toward a higher ratio of high Stun hits. A 2.25 Stun multiplier would also work as well, IMO. But I'd prefer to use a rolled Stun Multiplier, and examine the reasons that make someone feel the mechanic is not working for them.

 

The relatively minor problems with applying the FTI 'mythbusting' article to KAs are apparent on their face. There's a lot of room for interpretation between what the author is saying and how we see the mechanic as working. For one, when I read the article, it looked to me like he was describing something that the KA mechanic models pretty well, so far as a game can.

 

(The most glaring exception being that IRL, even 'small' bullets -- 1d6 KA or less? -- can be lethal within seconds.)

 

Also, I can't agree with all of the author's conclusions, because it is apparent he's pushing an agenda, and although he praises and talks about scientific studies and methods, he doesn't closely correlate the studies themselves with his assertions, which seems like an attempt to paint his opinion with a veneer of scientific rigor and rationality that it lacks. He _might_ be right. I just don't see it supported by more than a few cherry-picked stories and some bald assertions not supported by cites. (He sounds like me.)

 

Sean Water's logic is sound about fainting as a delayed effect after a few seconds of action.. interesting, but probably not usually worth the bookkeeping.

 

As for Bricks who are so feeble that one hit in 216 from a 2d6 RKA will Stun them.. Let's evaluate that sentence. 2d6 RKA is HUGE. That should be the level of the best, most advanced, most impressive conventional firearms. Things bigger than this ought to be considered in the same category as anti-tank weapons.

 

And our Bricks, like all our characters, are modeled for play, not for scaling up to epic comicbook levels. Our Bricks can't lift planets or swim in the sun, either. Our mentalists can't mind control whole nations. Our martial artists can't throw punches that make the target's ancestors stand up in their graves and die all over again. (Sorry, that last one isn't from the comic books, I was thinking of Chuck Norris). So yes, Bricks ought to be scaled to take some damage in situations Superman or the Hulk won't.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

As for Bricks who are so feeble that one hit in 216 from a 2d6 RKA will Stun them.. Let's evaluate that sentence. 2d6 RKA is HUGE. That should be the level of the best' date=' most advanced, most impressive conventional firearms. Things bigger than this ought to be considered in the same category as anti-tank weapons.[/quote']

 

Except that this is not the level at which such weapons are written up in Hero. And I have a tough time seeing a 6d6 Energy Blast as equivalent to an anti-tank weapon, at least without seriously watering down the tanks.

[Comic]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

Yeah. Tanks have gotten a lot tougher since the good old days.

 

Yes, equipment guides have presented personal firearms beyond the level of 2d6 KA -- although generally only for rifles, submachine guns, and a handful of nigh-legendary handguns. A .50 Desert Eagle is the highest handgun listed in 5ER, the only handgun built at 2d6+1, and the vast majority of examples are below that.

 

So, sure.. there's a 1/216 chance for any shot by an agent carrying a 2-handed firearm of Stunning the Brick. And if there are 6 agents for every Brick, that's going to happen one phase in six, if all of them hit all the time. Which one would only anticipate for a poorly built, or tactically deficient, Brick.

 

Stun of 35 or less with DEF of 25 or less is a poor Brick, in my books. The inability to recognize an ambush by a significant number of agents carrying really big, obvious weapons is appropriate to an inexperienced Brick who better learn to be more observant if he wants to become an experienced Brick. There are tons of ways to build Bricks who would easily wade through the scenario of large numbers of agents with 2d6 KA's.

[Kdansky]

Re: The cost of killing damage

 

I can agree to that. Also, I'm not sure if *2 is the best possible number. I might like to use something between 2 and 2.5, but these numbers are highly impractical to calculate during battle. So I would go for a *2 + y approach, where y is dependend on DCs, and you can calculate it in advance. But as I briefly demonstrated before: If y is only DC/2, KAs again become at least as good as EBs in any situation.

 

12d6 EB averages at 42 stun, probably varying from about 36 to 48, not much less/more.

A: 4d6 KA with fixed *2 is at 28 stun, but going rather wildly from about 20 to 36 (rolling 18+ on 4d6 is not uncommon). Still, a *lot* less in average. Only rDef against Body though.

 

B: 4d6 KA with fixed *2 + DC adds another 12 stun on all results, resulting in 40 average, but easily getting to 48 too, 1% chance of getting 52+ stun. (rolling 20+ on 4d6 is a good 1%)

 

C: 4d6 KA with fixed *2 + DC/2 adds only 6 stun, average 34, quite a bit lower than the EB, but you get the NND effect of body only vs rDef. Often seen would be the 18+ roll of 42 stun, which is the average of the EB.

 

I see all solutions A, B and C as viable, a bit depending on how common rDef is. I will not go for B, but I might use A or C, middle ground.

 

As said before, we used another approach 2d6/2 (round to .5) -1, which averages 2.5 multiplier, and it was similar to 1d6-1. You still roll a lucky 10+ every couple attacks and get your *4 multiplier, which in turn makes your 3d6 churn out an easy 44+ stun on an average damage roll, devastating nearly anthing at 45 AP.