Defences against the stun of KAs

[Sean Waters]

Why do the rules allow all defences to be used against killing attacks if you have any resistant defence at all?

 

This has always been the way we have done it, of course, and I can see that it has game balance implications - if we did not do it that way then killing attacks would very often create 'stun' results, unless you either bought limited addional resistant defences (only against stun from KAs - messy) or always bought your resistant defences high (not desperately realistic).

 

So there are clearly solid game balance reasons, but that was back then. Nowadays, Hero is a toolkit, a character modelling system, and I'm coming to the conclusion that rule constraints like this - systems in place to balance the game - have to be looked at to determine if they are still appropriate. Moreover, it simply is not very realistic: if you have 10 pd and you get stabbed for 6 Body, it is not going to hurt signigicantly less than if you had 1 point resistant defences on - 5 Body still get through.

 

If ONLY resistant defences stopped killing attacks, then there would be a clear case for increasing the cost of killing attacks: they would, in effect, be a +1/2 advantage over the equivalent DCs of normal attack, and similarly, a +1/2 advantage on normal defences would make those defences fully resistant to killing attacks (I'd suggest a +1/4 advantage would make normal defences resistant to EITHER the Body or Stun of Killing Attacks).

 

Anyway - any thoughts on this: even if you don't belive any changes should be made it might be useful to discuss all the implications?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

I think this would be necessary to justify increasing the cost of a killing attack. It would also nicely eliminate "AVLD - Resistant Flash Defense". You would pay an extra advantage for your attack to be reduced only by a resistant form of the defense.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

the problem with increasing the cost of KAs is that it makes them ineffective when used to break things like force walls, entangles and foci.

 

The simplest answer is to reduce the amount of stun generated by KAs.

[Kenn]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Killing Attacks are assumed to have some kind of attribute that makes muscle, bone, fat and flesh ineffective as defenses against them. Muscle, bone, fat and flesh can defend against blunt ("normal damage") attacks.

 

The basic assumption is that resistant defenses effectively blunt the stun damage.

 

A bullet that hits me in the chest is going to rip through the muscle, fat, and flesh and maybe hit a lung or my heart. A bullet that hits my flack vest, is very likely to hurt, but the tightly bound kevlar fibres distribute the force over a larger area.

 

A sword to my head is going to cut me open. If I'm wearing a helm, the impact may still make my head ring, but that's from the helmet striking the whole side of my face., not from a cut.

 

A laser will cut right through me. I can run my unshielded hand through an open flame. I put my gauntleted hand in the flame, and if I'm unlucky, the gauntlet will heat up. You shoot a laser at the gauntlet, and the gauntlet heats uo before the laser cuts through.

[Mike W]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Why do the rules allow all defences to be used against killing attacks if you have any resistant defence at all?

 

This has always been the way we have done it, of course, and I can see that it has game balance implications - if we did not do it that way then killing attacks would very often create 'stun' results, unless you either bought limited addional resistant defences (only against stun from KAs - messy) or always bought your resistant defences high (not desperately realistic).

 

So there are clearly solid game balance reasons, but that was back then. Nowadays, Hero is a toolkit, a character modelling system, and I'm coming to the conclusion that rule constraints like this - systems in place to balance the game - have to be looked at to determine if they are still appropriate. Moreover, it simply is not very realistic: if you have 10 pd and you get stabbed for 6 Body, it is not going to hurt signigicantly less than if you had 1 point resistant defences on - 5 Body still get through.

 

If ONLY resistant defences stopped killing attacks, then there would be a clear case for increasing the cost of killing attacks: they would, in effect, be a +1/2 advantage over the equivalent DCs of normal attack, and similarly, a +1/2 advantage on normal defences would make those defences fully resistant to killing attacks (I'd suggest a +1/4 advantage would make normal defences resistant to EITHER the Body or Stun of Killing Attacks).

 

Anyway - any thoughts on this: even if you don't belive any changes should be made it might be useful to discuss all the implications?

 

I think the fact that you if you take BODY damage , you must take an equal amount of STUN damage, regardless of what DEF you have is an important part of the balance.

 

I think that giving people "full DEF" versus the STUN of killing attacks does two things that are imporant to play. First, it keeps the casualties down. It's not just the fact that only allowing resistant DEF to reduce the STUN damage would result in more people getting stunned. It would also result in more people getting killed, especially PCs since any nasty bad guy who just stunned you with a KA would likely try to finish you off with the next shot.

 

Second, there are cinematic reasons.

 

In a gun battle, can you imagine how important it would be to get the first the shot in? Similarly, how can you have long sword fights?

[Kdansky]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

That is how I would want to have Killing Attacks redefined in 6th. Only resistant defenses work, and KAs are more expensive. We can then also go and roll them the same way as EB. The only sad thing about it. I like to have choices which are different, and this one is not so much.

[braincraft]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

The obvious solution is to build humans with limited DEF.

 

-1/4, not against lethal attacks, anyone?

[Qelan]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

The obvious solution is to build humans with limited DEF.

 

-1/4, not against lethal attacks, anyone?

 

I am with braincraft.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

The obvious solution is to build humans with limited DEF.

 

-1/4, not against lethal attacks, anyone?

 

I am with braincraft.

 

If 90% of the abilities uses require a limitation, I'd rather build in the limitation and make that the standard. Which is the present structure.

 

[besides, it's only lethal if it kills me and it doesn't kill me if my defenses apply - paradox]

[Tech]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

If 90% of the abilities uses require a limitation' date=' I'd rather build in the limitation and make that the standard. Which is the present structure.[/quote']

 

Agreed.

 

 

Although in the campaign I'm in, the houserule we use it that if you have resistant defenses, you get to use up to twice the resistant defense to defend agaisnst the Stun damage, up to your maximum defense.

 

EX. Ironclad has a PD of 20 with 10 Armor for a power. He's hit for a KA sword for 10 Body and 30 Stun. The 10 Body doesn't get through the armor. For the stun damage, Ironclad gets to subtract 20 PD from the Stun (10 Armor resistant defense x2 = 20) and thus, takes 10 Stun.

 

This houserule prevents the abuse of people taking only 1 or 2 pts of Resistant Defense knowing they will get their full PD or ED against the Stun... doesn't do much against the Body damage though.

[Markdoc]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

the problem with increasing the cost of KAs is that it makes them ineffective when used to break things like force walls, entangles and foci.

 

The simplest answer is to reduce the amount of stun generated by KAs.

 

I agree. Killing attacks that don't penetrate defences should do little if any stun. That solves several problems with one hit.

 

First, it eliminates the much hated stun-lottery (personally it doesn't bother me that much, but I acknowledge that many people do hate it.)

Second, it provides a simple way to build the bullet-resistant Brick comic in comic books: if you have decent rPD, you need fear no ordinary bullets

Third, it actually gives you a reason to use EB such as the energy blaster used by some super agents: if bullets won't stop him, at least the blaster might hurt him...

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Perhaps the humble KA is not there to damage material objects, but to damage the living. A 60 point KA averages 14 points of Body and has a pretty good chance of exceeding that by a good few points. An entangle with 60 points spent on it usually has 6/6 DEF/BODY but can get up to 8/4 DEF/Body at a push. A Force Wall averages 12/12 DEF but can theoretically get up to 24/0 (a stupid idea, because any energy attack will take it down completely) or, if transparent, get up to 16/0: again pretty daft as a general defence although it might be OK for certain types of build.

That means that killing attacks, especially, undermine the effect of other powers - making them far less useful. Also they tend to take down the world around them pretty effectively (although nowhere near as effectively as I personally powerful attacks ought to - I tend to seriously reduce the higher end of 'real world' DEF though rather than increase Body damage).

IMO, KAs already do too much Body (despte what I said above): Hero allows very cheap KAs - either as slots in MPs or as HKAs to which you can add your strength damage, so, in effect, further undermining the effect of defensive powers and entangle.

Now if KAs worked as a +1/2 advantage you'd only manage 8 Body from a 60 point attack. As has been pointed out this quite seriously undermines the ability of KAs to damage things, which seems counterintuitive , but probably isn't: KAs are designed to kill, not necessarily to damage to physical objects: a bullet, whilst it may well do quite a bit of damage to a person, is unlikely to do much damage to a concrete wall.

That would mean that the EB, or equivalent normal attack, would be king for damaging undifferentiated/homogenous stuff, or perhaps the AP EB would. However, for damaging living objects, the Killing Attack would come into its own.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

I like the idea that all of the defense applies against the KA's Stun Damage if you have some Resistant Defense against the KA. IMO it is a good model for the effect of wearing a Bullet-Proof Vest. The vest is enough Resistant Defense to stop the Body of the KA, and as someone else upthread observed, it "blunts" the Stun of the attack, allowing the full defense to be used against the Stun damage. The "tougher" the cop wearing the vest, the less they will be seriously affected by the Stun of the KA that gets through the BP Vest.

 

About the Stun Lotto: How about taking 2d6, divide by 2, round down, subtract 1 (minimum of 1, of course)?

 

xResult	% Chance
1	29.62962963
2	25.92592593
3	22.22222222
4	18.51851852
5	3.703703704

 

Here's another idea for Killing Attacks to reduce the Stun they do. Each d6 of a killing attack comes with two more d6 that adds to the Stun Damage. No Multiple, so no Stun Lotto. 1d6 KA = 1d6, count fully as STUN and BODY damage, +2d6 that count fully as STUN damage.

 

A 1d6 KA with this method maxes out at 6 BODY, 18 STUN. Since this significantly drops the potential Stun damage a KA can do, I would think it would go with any change that the KA Stun is only stopped by the resistant def.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

I like the idea that all of the defense applies against the KA's Stun Damage if you have some Resistant Defense against the KA. IMO it is a good model for the effect of wearing a Bullet-Proof Vest. The vest is enough Resistant Defense to stop the Body of the KA' date=' and as someone else upthread observed, it "blunts" the Stun of the attack, allowing the full defense to be used against the Stun damage. The "tougher" the cop wearing the vest, the less they will be seriously affected by the Stun of the KA that gets through the BP Vest.[/quote']

 

That works if the vest actually stops the Body of the attack or at least a significant part of it (so you can explain the bleedthrough of Body damage as bruising and broken ribs, perhaps, but it is no model at all when the vest is insufficient to stop the bullet penetrating. Almost all of the stun will be as a result of the internal damage. Moreover, if the vest incorporates plating, not just kevlar, very little stun is ever likely to get through. A bullet simply is not heavy enough to do much impact damage: it hurts because it deforms and tears flesh.

 

You could define a vest with a new type of defence: conversion defences. A conversion defence would convert DCs of killing damage into DCs of normal damage.

 

Say you buy 1 DC of physical conversion for 1 point. When the vest is hit, you look at the total conversion defence and subtract that from the total DC of the charcter, and apply the remainder as a killing attack and the converted part as a normal attack, so:

 

2d6 KA (6 DCs) hits a vest with 4 Conversion Defence. The attack is 'split' into a 4DC normal attack (which does e.g. 4 Body, 14 stun) and a 2DC KA (which does e.g. 2 Body and 6 stun. If the character has any resistant defences, apply them first to the KA damage. Let us say this one doesn't - that would mean teh character takes the 2 Body and 6 stun from the KA. the damage from the 'converted' normal part of the attack applies to defences normally.

 

That seems to me to be quite a nice model: the tougher cop gets to apply his higher normal defences to the converted part of the damage, but not to any actual KA that penetrates - which is probably quite realistic.

 

It does involve a little more calculation but most refinements do.

 

About the Stun Lotto: How about taking 2d6, divide by 2, round down, subtract 1 (minimum of 1, of course)?

 

xResult    % Chance
1    29.62962963
2    25.92592593
3    22.22222222
4    18.51851852
5    3.703703704

 

Here's another idea for Killing Attacks to reduce the Stun they do. Each d6 of a killing attack comes with two more d6 that adds to the Stun Damage. No Multiple, so no Stun Lotto. 1d6 KA = 1d6, count fully as STUN and BODY damage, +2d6 that count fully as STUN damage.

 

A 1d6 KA with this method maxes out at 6 BODY, 18 STUN. Since this significantly drops the potential Stun damage a KA can do, I would think it would go with any change that the KA Stun is only stopped by the resistant def.

 

I'm not necessarily suggesting that we need to reduce the stun of killing attacks, my point is more that if a killing attack fails in its primary objective, that is doing killing damage to the target, then it si wrong to allow a ludicrous amoutn of stun through.

 

Tghinking about it the way to accomplish that is pretty obvious: roll damage, apply defences to Body damage THEN calculate stun damage depending on how much Body got through:

 

No Body penetration of defences: stun multiplier = 2

Up to half total Body damage penetrates: stun multiplier = 3

More than half total Body damage penetrates: stun multiplier = 4

 

This removes the 1 and 5 results (both of which can be a bit silly) and ties the stun to how effectively the attack penetrated defences, whilst not requiring any additional mechanic or rolls.

 

I quite like your 'roll stun seperately and add' mechanic. I'll have a think about that one

[Kdansky]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

About the Stun Lotto: How about taking 2d6, divide by 2, round down, subtract 1 (minimum of 1, of course)?

 

xResult	% Chance
1	29.62962963
2	25.92592593
3	22.22222222
4	18.51851852
5	3.703703704

 

 

I have tried that for a game. It was horrible. It slows down combat significantly (try to do (9/2 -1) * 17 quickly) and does not alleviate the problem at all. Instead of having a instakill result once every couple phases, you only have about one per turn. Which is still too much.

 

I will try x2 or 1d3 next game. Probably x2 for HKAs improved by strength (because those are always HUGE), and 1d3 for RKAs (since these tend to 20% to 50% smaller).

[SteveZilla]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

I have tried that for a game. It was horrible. It slows down combat significantly (try to do (9/2 -1) * 17 quickly) and does not alleviate the problem at all. Instead of having a instakill result once every couple phases, you only have about one per turn. Which is still too much.

 

I will try x2 or 1d3 next game. Probably x2 for HKAs improved by strength (because those are always HUGE), and 1d3 for RKAs (since these tend to 20% to 50% smaller).

 

Having never tried it in-game, I wasn't sure how easy it would be to do that math. On the surface, it seemed no harder than any other combat rolls & calculations. I am surprised that with a 3.7% chance, a x5 multiple is coming up about once per turn. That tells me an average of about 27 Killing Atacks are being thrown per Turn.

 

Do you have a DC cap for your game? If so, why are RKAs 20-50% below that?

 

=====

 

It seems to me that the main objection to the Stun for Killing Attacks (generated the normal way) is two-fold. That x5 generates too high a STUN value, and that it comes up way too often.

 

I was wondering how many of us think that x5 is too high, but think that x4 would be acceptable as a maximum?

 

As an aside, one of the nice (IMO) things about my idea of using two additional dice (per d6 of KA) to determine the full STUN of the KA is that the STUN results become a smooth "bell curve", loosing the gaps & jumps that using a multiplier causes.

 

Book Method: 1d6 KA => 3.5 Avg/6 Max BODY, 9.333 Avg/30 Max STUN

My Method: 1d6 KA => 3.5 Avg/6 Max BODY, 10.5 Avg/18 Max STUN

 

My Method produces a STUN curve identical to a normal attack of equal DCs, and 0.5 more BODY per 3 DCs (presuming neither are advantaged).

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

I agree. Killing attacks that don't penetrate defences should do little if any stun. That solves several problems with one hit.

 

First, it eliminates the much hated stun-lottery (personally it doesn't bother me that much, but I acknowledge that many people do hate it.)

Second, it provides a simple way to build the bullet-resistant Brick comic in comic books: if you have decent rPD, you need fear no ordinary bullets

Third, it actually gives you a reason to use EB such as the energy blaster used by some super agents: if bullets won't stop him, at least the blaster might hurt him...

 

I like this one.

 

I think that a killing attack should get its STUN as multiples of BODY done to the target. I'd even be willing to see the multiplier increased for this but if it bounces then it would do no damage.

 

I would allow defences to be bought such that they allowed the STUN to be done through them but I'll bet few people would do that.

 

I think that I'd make the rule something like as follows:

 

0 BODY - 0 STUN

1-3 BODY - 1-3 * 1D6

4-6 BODY - 4-6 * 2D6

 

 

Etc etc

 

 

Now this makes the Killing attack increasingly effective if the damage is getting through but much less effective if it is not.

 

Some people might not like the exponential increase in STUN/BODY ration but I like the fact that a hit that does lots of BODY is almost certain to do lots of STUN.

 

I might even implement this in the next game I run.

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

I like this one.

 

I think that a killing attack should get its STUN as multiples of BODY done to the target. I'd even be willing to see the multiplier increased for this but if it bounces then it would do no damage.

 

I would allow defences to be bought such that they allowed the STUN to be done through them but I'll bet few people would do that.

 

I think that I'd make the rule something like as follows:

 

0 BODY - 0 STUN

1-3 BODY - 1-3 * 1D6

4-6 BODY - 4-6 * 2D6

 

 

Etc etc

 

 

Now this makes the Killing attack increasingly effective if the damage is getting through but much less effective if it is not.

 

Some people might not like the exponential increase in STUN/BODY ration but I like the fact that a hit that does lots of BODY is almost certain to do lots of STUN.

 

I might even implement this in the next game I run.

 

The problem I see with this approach is that the utility of a KA becomes dependent on the attack/defense ratio in the game in question. In a gritty, low rDEF, high DC game, BOD generally gets through, and KA's will be effective.

 

In a higher rDEF game, the utility of KA's decline, and Penetrating or AP become the only way to make a KA effective. Who wants an attack that will get an average of 1-6, or 2-12, STUN through?

 

Move up to a game level where KA's rarely get BOD through, and they become next to useless, outside AP Penetrating attacks designed to guarantee at least some BOD against most characters.

 

If I need to get at least 4 BOD through to stand a chance at inflicting some STUN, then I want the ability to buy my KA to get that kind of BOD through on a reliable basis. If I get 4 BOD through on average, I'll get 28 STUN through on average, which is pretty potent, so I'd probably settle for reliably getting 2 - 5 BOD through on a typical hit in a Supers context. But that's a lot of BOD per hit in a standard Supers game. And if half the characters will be basically immune (bulletproof), I want the other half to be seriously injured to make up for it, or my points are much better spent elsewhere. That's going to add up to a pretty hefty body count.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

The problem I see with this approach is that the utility of a KA becomes dependent on the attack/defense ratio in the game in question. In a gritty' date=' low rDEF, high DC game, BOD generally gets through, and KA's will be effective.[/quote']

 

I guess it all becomes designing the game that you want.

 

In my superheroes I would enforce defences based on whether people expect them to be bulletproof - hard to stop - tough - essentially normal.

 

It is all about feel and this would provide a good way of getting the feel without necessarily losing the ability to chew up the background.

 

If someone feels the need to do damage to characters and KAs are not doing that then they can stick to normal damage, modify the killing attacks or go for some other method of attack.

 

I do not buy into the desire of players to buy killing attacks to get the ability to do lots of STUN damage.

 

I think that the utility of a killing attack should vary dependent upon the game - it does when you switch between genres of fiction as well.

 

In some cowby games one bullet and you are dead. In other thrillers the hero gets shot and is running several scenes later, injury apparently forgotten, fought through, ignored.

 

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Everyone has a different idea about how damage from killing attacks should work.

 

Personally I don't like the two stun lotteries we have at present. Everyone talks about the possibility of a '5' coming up for stun as being the only problem, but it is not: because of the small number of dice we roll for Body damage, you get very variable results there too, so even if you peg the stun multiple at (say) 3, then you can still get results for Body of 17 or more on 4d6 about 1/4 of the time, and that translates to a stun result of 51+, which would be very unlikely on 12d6 (about 7.5% of the time).

 

So, even correcting for the stun multiplier, you can get some pretty wild Body results, which that can translate to some pretty wild Stun results - and also has the effect of making the whole world more randomly frangible, as it becomes far more difficult to predict if an object will be damaged by a given attack.

 

Mind you, whilst I can (and have) suggested a number of fixes, from rolling killing attacks like normal attacks to rolling normal attacks like killing attacks and many points in between and, indeed, off to the side, in truth no one solution is going to make everyone happy.

 

To have any hope of seriously improving the overall satisfaction stats you need to represent several different options with a commentary on best use for various genres and feels. The only real guiding principle is that a KA should be no more effective than a normal attack in terms of point utility, so it should not really make a great deal of difference which method any given group choses to use - there would still be a reasonable basis for comparison.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

I have tried that for a game. It was horrible. It slows down combat significantly (try to do (9/2 -1) * 17 quickly) and does not alleviate the problem at all. Instead of having a instakill result once every couple phases, you only have about one per turn. Which is still too much.

 

I will try x2 or 1d3 next game. Probably x2 for HKAs improved by strength (because those are always HUGE), and 1d3 for RKAs (since these tend to 20% to 50% smaller).

 

If that's too much math, then roll two dice for the stun multiple and take the lower roll.

 

This method yields an average of about 2.5 stun multiple.

11x1 30.56%

9x2 25%

7x3 19.44%

5x4 13.89%

3x5 8.33%

1x6 2.78%

[Sean Waters]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

If that's too much math, then roll two dice for the stun multiple and take the lower roll.

 

This method yields an average of about 2.5 stun multiple.

11x1 30.56%

9x2 25%

7x3 19.44%

5x4 13.89%

3x5 8.33%

1x6 2.78%

 

A difficulty is not simply the decision how to apply a stun multiple but also the problem that the Body result is also highly variable.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

A difficulty is not simply the decision how to apply a stun multiple but also the problem that the Body result is also highly variable.

 

True, but it's also part and parcel of the nature of the killing attack as perceived by most.

 

If I tell you somebody got shot by a 9mm automatic pistol, then depending on where they were hit, you'd be asking me when they were due to get out of the hospital or where to send flowers.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

True, but it's also part and parcel of the nature of the killing attack as perceived by most.

 

If I tell you somebody got shot by a 9mm automatic pistol, then depending on where they were hit, you'd be asking me when they were due to get out of the hospital or where to send flowers.

 

That again comes back to penetration: a bullet that doesn't get into you is not likely to send you for a wooden overcoat. My view on that is that we have hit locations to sort all that out, and could ramp up the complexity of hit locations a little to simulate more gritty realities, whislt completely ignoring them for unrealistic worlds.

 

The same could easily be said for normal attacks: a punch to the nose is likely to be far more debilitating than a punch to the shoulder blade, but we don't feel the need to make damage variability a function of normal attacks in the same way.

[Markdoc]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

The problem I see with this approach is that the utility of a KA becomes dependent on the attack/defense ratio in the game in question. In a gritty, low rDEF, high DC game, BOD generally gets through, and KA's will be effective.

 

In a higher rDEF game, the utility of KA's decline, and Penetrating or AP become the only way to make a KA effective. Who wants an attack that will get an average of 1-6, or 2-12, STUN through?

 

Move up to a game level where KA's rarely get BOD through, and they become next to useless, outside AP Penetrating attacks designed to guarantee at least some BOD against most characters.

 

I'm not sure that's a bug rather than a feature: in gritty games, killing attacks are supposed to be dangerous. In high-point supers, they aren't supposed to be dangerous. Look at Wolverine, pretty much the poster boy for "I go stabby". How many times does he actually kill named characters with his "cut through anything" claws? Sure, he chews up the scenery (in both meanings of the phrase), but he rarely kills anything more important than ninjas with his claws, and they die like flies against almost anyone.

 

cheers, Mark