The great debate, this time with Java!

[Opal]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

There's no question that KAs can have some whacky results, and that they are a better (if risky) bet when the DCs of the attack don't quite measure up to the defenses of the target. But, I think it helps to look at what effects of the mechanics involved are desireable - across how many genres - and which aren't:

 

 

Killing Attacks:

 

1) can do lots of BOD to normal characters: apropriate and desireable in virtually all genres.

 

2) do slightly more BOD to objects: generally OK, but unrealistic in some cases (you can bash down a door a lot more easily than shoot it to pieces).

 

3) do fairly random amounts of BOD to normal character: desireable in some genres: a gun can kill, or barely injure with a single shot, that's actually somewhat realistic. It's less desireable when you want a fantasy barbarian or badass merc to mow through mooks.

 

4) do wildly random amounts of STN to normal characters: desireable and suprisingly realistic, gunshot wounds that do little physical harm can result in unconsiousness, while lethal ones can fail to be immediately incapcitating. You can even take a life threatening bullet wound and barely feel it. Again, less desireable in genres where gun or sword-armed heros are supposed to cut down enemies very consistently.

 

5) are more likely to do a little body to tougher (resistant def) characters: desireable in most genres, moderately realistic.

 

6) do no BOD to sufficiently tough ('invulnerable') characters: highly desireable in supers genre, somewhat unrealistic.

 

7) occassionally do massive STN damage to invulnerable characters that they can't inflict BOD on at all: Highly undesireable in supers genre.

 

 

 

Some genres institute optional rules to address 3 and 4, making it easier to drop mooks in spite of the inconsistency of KA damage.

 

 

To address 7 in a supers game, you could do away with the STN lotto - but, you loose the possibility of a non-invulnerable charcter being mortally wounded but still able to act (very dramatic), or KO'd but not that badlly injured (occassionally helpful to the story). My solution to 7 is to aply the STN multiplier only to the BOD that gets through resistant defenses. This makes 'invulnerable' characters genuinely invulnerable to low-dice, non-AB/Find-Weakness-enhanced KAs - a tremendous boon when simulating the supers genre - without sacrificing any of the unpredictiability of KAs when used against normals or non-invulnerable supers.

 

 

I find this rule not only restores the valildity of the achetypal 'invulnerability' power, but also reduces the problem of KAs 'outperforming' normal attacks. Instead, KAs are balanced more by the prevelence of resistant defense - highly (if somewhat unpredictably) effective against normal targets, effective, but unpredictable against modestly armored targets, and ineffective against 'invulnerable' ones. But, I think it'd be cool to see what your Java aplet has to say on the matter...

[pawsplay]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

7) occassionally do massive STN damage to invulnerable characters that they can't inflict BOD on at all: Highly undesireable in supers genre.

 

I don't get this. It seems to me that Superman getting taken out by cruise missile occasionally--but not severely wounded at all--is perfectly in genre.

[Maur]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

The great debate' date=' finally with unrefutable math*.[/quote']

 

Don't forget that the actual true % of Stunned results is the Hit % times the >Con %.

[Opal]

The problem isn't cruise missles (which may well have enough dice or AP to do BOD, or include a huge normal explosion component, like the old TOW write up - heck it could be a normal damage but very high damage explosion), it's much more mundane than that.

 

Light machine gun or assault rifle, for instance, is going to do at least 2d KA. Heck, some pistols do 2d KA. That's a potential for 60 STN, and STN over 30 is not usual (over one time in 5). You'd need a PDr of 12, and total PD over 30, 60 to be completely immune. To an ordinary firearm. To be immune to 6 DC of normal damage you need 36 defense. Yet, 'invulnerble' superbeings are often completely immune to gunfire, but clearly take STN from being knocked around by other invulnerable types (and martial artists, and energy blasts and the like).

 

The mechanics are completely upside down from the genre convention of 'invulnerability.'

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

Perhaps, though, what we really need is more destruction: roll all damage as killing, reduce the cost of 1DC to 10 and have a set stun multiple of 2 (or 1/2d6 maybe). 60 points gets you 6d6, averaging 21 Body and 42 stun. Roll both KA and normal atatcks the same way but only apply defences if you have some resDEF. Lovely.

 

Yes, I like that - it makes the world a more fragile place

 

Funny... I suggested a similar thing during an earlier iteration of this debate a while back.

 

As I said then...I don't see the problem being with KA's for being too variable... I see the problem with Normal Attacks because there are too many dice...it tends to average out the bell curve and remove most of the potential high and low rolls, making them far too predictable

[archermoo]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

Don't forget that the actual true % of Stunned results is the Hit % times the >Con %.

 

I don't think it works that way. I think what he means by hit% is the chance that a hit will actually do damage past defenses.

 

According to my number crunching, a 3d6KA with a normal StunX will Stun someone with 20PD (and at least some resistant) and a 25 CON 17.44% of the time. And do no damage at all 44.29% of the time. And will average 11.57 damage per hit.

 

As opposed to a 9d6 normal attack, which will average 11.50 damage per hit, will do no damage only 1.49% of the time, but will only one shot stun them 0.24% of the time.

 

Go down to 15 PD (again with at least some resistant) and the numbers change. 9d6 NA does 16.5 through defenses on average, wheras the 3d6KA does 14.61. The 9d6NA does no damage only 0.05% of the time, wheras the 3d6KA still does no damage 35.42% of the time. And the 9d6NA Stuns his opponent only 3.92% of the time, while the 3d6KA does so 23.38% of the time.

 

So depending on defenses, one does better than the other. KA does better against higher defenses, while NA does better against lower defenses.

 

*shrug*

[pawsplay]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

Yet, 'invulnerble' superbeings are often completely immune to gunfire, but clearly take STN from being knocked around by other invulnerable types (and martial artists, and energy blasts and the like).

 

The mechanics are completely upside down from the genre convention of 'invulnerability.'

 

 

Missile Deflection. If you want to stand around looking cute like Superman, that's how you do it.

 

I don't think it's clear that "invulnerable" characters take no STUN from bullets, at least, not all of them. Characters who are completely immune, as you say, probably qualify as Very Powerful Superheroes. Martial artists frequently have Find Weakness.

 

Also, comic book writers are often slavish to the phrase "bulletproof." If you want a really genre correct 1960s radior or TV adaptation character, or the Savage Dragon, add some extra PD, "only versus firemarms."

[Opal]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

So depending on defenses' date=' one does better than the other. KA does better against higher defenses, while NA does better against lower defenses. [/quote']So if you're Joe Viper Agent, and trying to decide between the 2d KAp perfectly ordinary assault rifle or the 6d Ne sci-fi tech autoblaster, you should take the blaster to put down the SWAT team, but the off-the-shelf rifle to the super-battle.

[Opal]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

Missile Deflection. If you want to stand around looking cute like Superman' date=' that's how you do it. [/quote'] Hero is designed so that you can do just about anything you want, yes. You can build your bulletproof hero with SPD 8 and enough missle deflection so he can rely on an active defense to bounce dozens of bullets, but then decline to use it when people throw EBs at you. You can build your invulnerable brick with 3/4 STN-only DR 'only vs KAs that fail to do Body damage.'

 

But, those are work-arounds, not solutions. The rules say that enough PD to completely bounce a bullet, is enough PD to completely bounce the punch of a 50 STR brick - 60. Bouncing a 30 pt attack should not be a 90 point power, or even a 66 points power (60 PD, 12 resistant). Bouncing a 3d Ego attack is an 18 pt power, bouncing a 6d EB is 36 points. Why should bouncing a 2d KA be 66 points and shatter any reasonable RoX?

 

Under the variant I use, bouncing a 2d KA is an 18 point power (12 PDr).

 

 

I don't think it's clear that "invulnerable" characters take no STUN from bullets, at least, not all of them. Characters who are completely immune, as you say, probably qualify as Very Powerful Superheroes. Martial artists frequently have Find Weakness.

While Superman certainly qualifies as 'Very Powerful Superhero' and might be given a 60 PD, I doubt that would be reasonable Collossus or The Thing - or the original Superman, for that matter.

 

Fellow bricks typically don't have Find Weakness.

 

For instance, if you statted out a character like The Thing with the PD to bounce bullets and the STR implied by his lifting capacity, he litterally wouldn't be able to do STN to a simillarly statted out villain-brick.

[jtelson]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

Missile Deflection. If you want to stand around looking cute like Superman, that's how you do it.

 

I don't think it's clear that "invulnerable" characters take no STUN from bullets, at least, not all of them. Characters who are completely immune, as you say, probably qualify as Very Powerful Superheroes. Martial artists frequently have Find Weakness.

 

Also, comic book writers are often slavish to the phrase "bulletproof." If you want a really genre correct 1960s radior or TV adaptation character, or the Savage Dragon, add some extra PD, "only versus firemarms."

 

I've always been partial to DCV levels with the special effect Tough.

 

The first time I ran for my current group the Martial Artist moved up to a baddie, swung and told me what DCV he hit.

I described the result as , 'You slam him in the chest and he doesn't flinch.'

'Should I roll Damage?'

'No.'

It took me a few minutes to realise he was trying to figure out how to ask if I understood how the game worked (More likely how to ask if I was insane). Once I did, I of course explained it to them.

[jtelson]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

So if you're Joe Viper Agent' date=' and trying to decide between the 2d KAp perfectly ordinary assault rifle or the 6d Ne sci-fi tech autoblaster, you should take the blaster to put down the SWAT team, but the off-the-shelf rifle to the super-battle.[/quote']

 

Depends on how good you are at math, I suppose.

[Paragon]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

7) occassionally do massive STN damage to invulnerable characters that they can't inflict BOD on at all: Highly undesireable in supers genre.

 

I don't get this. It seems to me that Superman getting taken out by cruise missile occasionally--but not severely wounded at all--is perfectly in genre.

 

The problem is it seems, if anything, the inverse of the genre; people who in the comics ignore conventional weapons but will care about agent blasters and the attacks of others supers often do the inverse.

 

That was always the big pain of the killing attack; you'd see people take it, not because it was a good way to kill people (which at least would be consistent with its apparent purpose) but because it was a good way to get a gusting massive stun result on otherwise next to impossible to stun targets. When you're taking the Killing Attack to do Stun--well, something's backwards conceptually, and probably in process, too.

[Opal]

Correct me if I get any of these wrong due to my versionitis flaring up, but, here are how many active points of defense it takes to completely negate 30 Apts of various types of attacks:

 

Normal Attacks: 36 (36 PD or ED)

 

KA: 66 (60 PD, 12r)

Ego attack: 18 (18 ego def)

Drain: 18 (18 POW DEF)

Really Old Flash: 6 (6 Flash Defense)

Old Flash: 12 (12 flash defense)

New Flash (iirc): 36 (36 Flash Defense) (???).

 

NND: it depends, maybe a lot, maybe nothing

AVLD: it depends on the defense, but ~12-18.

 

 

What this tells me: Normal attacks stack up pretty well against most others, presumably because /everybody/ can make and defend against normal attacks. Most other attacks are cheaper to stop completely because many characters don't have them and/or don't have any defense against them at all.

 

The anomallies are KA, Really Old Flash, and New Flash. Really Old Flash is too cheap to stop completely, even for a power that some characters have no defense against. KA and New Flash are too expensive to stop for attacks that some characters have no defense against at all - KA absurdly so.

[KA.]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

I just want to say thanks for all the nice things people are saying about me.

KA.

[pawsplay]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

But' date=' those are work-arounds, not solutions. The rules say that enough PD to completely bounce a bullet, is enough PD to completely bounce the punch of a 50 STR brick - 60. [/quote']

 

As I said, you can blame comic book writers. It's not a problem with the HERO system that comic book writers trivialize bullets while letting karate chops, explosive arrows, and super punches destroy metal robots.

 

How much energy would it take a brick to throw a bullet through someone's skull?

[Paragon]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

As I said, you can blame comic book writers. It's not a problem with the HERO system that comic book writers trivialize bullets while letting karate chops, explosive arrows, and super punches destroy metal robots.

 

 

I'd say it _is_ a problem when Champions won't properly match these, unless you don't view the function of a genre game to at least vaguely match the genre, conventions and all. Now of course you can note that the modern Hero System is designed to deal with more than just superheroes, but since most of this involves stun gusting, and the focus on stun in the system is a carry-over from its superhero roots anyway, I think that's not as relevant as it could be.

[Kdansky]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

Don't forget that the actual true % of Stunned results is the Hit % times the >Con %.

Nope, these are two separate numbers, completely unrelated. >Con% is a subset of Hit%.

 

I have not yet found the mistake, but I'm quite sure it is relevant. See that fixed stun multiplier and 1d6-1 has different body damage numbers? That does not make sense, because these body values should be the same if you only chance stun. But I'm confident that the mistake is in the fixed multipliers, not in the 1d6-1.

Well, I just got up.

 

I will also upload the file more practically, bear with me for rapidshare :/

http://rapidshare.com/files/91650804/KAvsN_by_kdansky_v1.zip.html

 

still the version with the bug.

[pawsplay]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

I'd say it _is_ a problem when Champions won't properly match these' date=' unless you don't view the function of a genre game to at least vaguely match the genre, conventions and all. Now of course you can note that the modern Hero System is designed to deal with more than just superheroes, but since most of this involves stun gusting, and the focus on stun in the system is a carry-over from its superhero roots anyway, I think that's not as relevant as it could be.[/quote']

 

Since it's something that only pertains to supertough characters, I'd say it is something you would address at the character level.

[Paragon]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

Since it's something that only pertains to supertough characters' date=' I'd say it is something you would address at the character level.[/quote']

 

But there's no good way to address it, unless you suddenly attach "only versus killing stun" to a bunch of PD on every superhero with a defensive power.

 

Honestly, the frequency of gusting looks wrong even away from superheroes; there's still something wrong when guns KO people more consistently than a blunt object of similar power. If you're using the hit location system it isn't too bad because the high stun swing results aren't that common, but 1 in 6?

[Kdansky]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

Def: 20 rDef: 10 CON: 25 DC: 9
NORMAL ATTACK:
Hits : 98.5 % hit ratio
Stun / hit: 11.6
Stun / atk: 11.5
>Con / atk: 0.2 %
KLLING ATTACK
StunRule used: fixed x2
Hits : 50.0 % hit ratio
Stun / hit: 5.83
Stun / atk: 2.91
>Con / atk: 0.0 %
Body / atk: 1.45
KLLING ATTACK
StunRule used: 1d6 -1
Hits : 44.32 % hit ratio
Stun / hit: 28.26
Stun / atk: 12.52
>Con / atk: 20.36 %
Body / atk: 1.45
KLLING ATTACK
StunRule used: fixed x2.5
Hits : 74.07 % hit ratio
Stun / hit: 9.26
Stun / atk: 6.86
>Con / atk: 0.0 %
Body / atk: 1.45
KLLING ATTACK
StunRule used: fixed x3
Hits : 90.74 % hit ratio
Stun / hit: 13.1
Stun / atk: 11.89
>Con / atk: 4.62 %
Body / atk: 1.45

Also added one digit of precision.

 

Ok, updated numbers with less errors. I mainly reported body damage wrong because I counted the number of attacks incorrectly. Not so much different. I also sometimes added a damage class due to bad rounding on my part (10 DC became 11, but 9 stayed 9). Stupid 3d6-1 KA that is bonus complication!

 

Next thing to come is hit locations, but that might take a moment, these are awfully complicated and I need to restructure my code for that.

I also want to be able to do more than 10 DC, but currently I'm capped there because I get stack overflows when trying to recursively going through 11 dice I might just allocate more ram, that would help. Java has a rather low default, and my machine has rather a lot RAM

 

http://rapidshare.com/files/91656497/KAvsN_by_Kdansky_v2.zip.html second version.

[Opal]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

Honestly' date=' the frequency of gusting looks wrong even away from superheroes; there's still something wrong when guns KO people more consistently than a blunt object of similar power.[/quote']Once you get away from supers, defenses and CON/STN go way down, so a normal attack probably is pretty consistent an KOing people, and KAs better at killing them (as it should be). A low-dice KA, like 1d+1 or 1 1/2d (like a handgun) against a normal could do as little as 2 BOD and 2 STN - and will do less than 10 STN more than a third of the time. A comparable 5dN attack will pretty consistently do 17 STN or so, that'll Stun a normal person with room to spare, and do 3 BOD to him. Two hits are a virtually gauranteed KO, and 4 puts the beat-down in fatal territory. Though, of course, if you push resistant defenses to better than the DCs of the attack, and total defense to double that, you're back to the same effects you see in Kdansky's analysis. If you want guns (or swords) to kill people, though, you won't do that.

 

 

And, yes, hit locations go a ways towards resolving it for non-supers genres. They reduce the 'stun gusting' of KAs, and introduce some to normal attacks.

[Opal]

Kdansky: any chance you could run your magic with the "Aply STNx only to BOD that gets through" fix? Normal defense becomes a non-issue....

 

 

edit: the use of 'hit' is really counter intuitive. Couldn't we have a 'bounce' percentage (reciprocal of the hit percentage) it'd make more sense, to my little brain at any rate. Anyone else find it wierd? Similarly, damage/hit seems a deceptive statistic compared to damage/attack.

[Comic]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

My personal preference is the term *plink* for an attack that does no damage after defenses.

[Comic]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

Btw, I want to thank kdansky for making his code available.

 

While I disagree with his conclusions, I admire anyone willing to work to resolve their questions for themselves, and this definitely shows work.

[pawsplay]

Re: The great debate, this time with Java!

 

there's still something wrong when guns KO people more consistently than a blunt object of similar power.

 

That's a values statement. Unfortunately, in HERO, we have to accept a certain level of consistency. It may simply be that a lot of comic book characters we wouldn't think of as Very Powerful simply are, and that comic book martial arts DCs tend to be very high. I know that unarmored supers definitely don't like to get shot by guns. I don't find this issue convincing as a problem in genre emulation. It seems to me to be purely a pet peeve from a gaming standpoint.