Defences against the stun of KAs

[BNakagawa]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

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.

 

Not necessarily. A 9mm bullet that goes in one side of my arm and out the other is not likely to kill me. Same with my foot, my hand, my leg, and a good percentage of my torso. (major arteries notwithstanding)

 

A 9mm bullet that goes in one side of my brain, heart or spine is much more likely to kill or catastrophically injure me. It's not about penetration, it's about location. One inch one direction or another might make the difference between a week in rehab and DOA.

 

That's one of the principal arguments for the degree of randomness in KA body totals. A knife wound can be superficial or it can be lethal.

 

Hit locations are an optional ruleset, even more complicated than Killing attacks. Also more potentially unbalancing. 8 PSLs vs hit location penalties are worthless to a character with no attacks, but absolutely devastatingly effective to one with good OCV and a powerful attack...

[Maur]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

8 PSLs vs hit location are deadly even with someone with a weak OCV as it means that what few hits that person gets in are far more damaging than another weak OCV character that lacks those PSLs. Gives that character double the body and 5x stun mult for any killing attack that connects. The person with high OCV might not even need those PSLs to do the same thing if the DCV/Defenses of the target are proportionally weaker.

 

I've never played in champions (supers don't interest me at all), so I've only played using the hit locations (no stun lotto) and don't find the variability of KAs to be all that bad vs normal attacks.

 

By the way, you can die from being shot while wearing a bulletproof vest and the bullet not penetrating. Look at the two bank robbers from LA that were wearing full body armor. One was basically pulped internally by the shockwave of all those rounds the cops fired into him, but none got through the armor.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

I'm not sure that's a bug rather than a feature: in gritty games' date=' killing attacks [b']are[/b] 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.

 

He is not, however, basically ineffective against super powered opposition (named characters). The proposed change would mean you are either ineffective or lethal, with no real room in between.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

He is not' date=' however, basically ineffective against super powered opposition (named characters). The proposed change would mean you are either ineffective or lethal, with no real room in between.[/quote']

 

It is all a matter of build. If you are determined to build adamantium claws as a killing attack with no other power possible then that's the way of it. If you want to be a bit more creative in giving them the possibility of being built as added dice to HtH then you will have options...

 

Hero is not as restrictive as you are making out in support of your argument...

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

It is all a matter of build. If you are determined to build adamantium claws as a killing attack with no other power possible then that's the way of it. If you want to be a bit more creative in giving them the possibility of being built as added dice to HtH then you will have options...

 

Hero is not as restrictive as you are making out in support of your argument...

 

There are certainly alternatives to build Wolvie's claws. However, I would rather simply eliminate Killing Attacks entirely then make them a choice between "useless" and "lethal". The proposed change leaves no real room in between.

[Markdoc]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Here's an idea that possibly addresses both of these points and simplifies things slightly from where we are now.

 

1. Leave the mechanisms for KA exactly where they are - in other words, a killing attack costs 15 points per d6 (or 3 DC) and does 1-6 BOD. This answers the problems about balancing killing attacks off against forcewalls, entangles, etc.

 

2. Change the killing attack multiplier to a full d6, but only apply it against BOD that goes through resistant defences. Killing attacks completely ignore nonresistant defences. This means that against unarmoured targets a killing attack is unequivocally superior - it does more BOD (on average) and more STUN - on average. In gritty settings a guy with a sword is far more likely to take you out than a guy with a baseball bat, which seems about right. It is however, much more variable, reflecting the way killing attacks work in real life.

 

What this means is that killing attacks remain the preferred way of doing BOD to a target - across any range of rDEF, they still do more damage than a normal attack of equivalent points. However, their ability to do STUN rapidly degrades, though it remains more variable. And a character with more rDEF than the attack can dish out is essentially immune to it, since 0 BOD will get through to be multiplied.

 

The advantages of this approach are:

1. Minimal differences from existing rules - therefore remains balanced against other powers

2. Killing attacks are good for killing people, not so good for stunning people

3. Killing attacks are more variable.

4. Slightly simpler math (instead of "count body, multiply by d6-1, subtract rDEF from BOD, subtract rDEF+DEF from STUN" you get "count body, subtract rDEF from BOD, multiply by d6 for STUN")

5. You can now simplify hit locations to use the same multipliers for normal and killing damage.

6. It allows a relatively simple way to build "bullet-proof bricks" and "bullet-proof vehicles" without rendering the target impervious to harm.

 

Conceptually, it also makes sense. Imagine an armoured target like Iron Man taking a hit from a high powered rifle (3d6 RKA). It goes "ping" and at most staggers him a little. Now imagine the same target being hit by a 9d6 punch from (say) another armoured suit. It has even less chance to penetrate his defences than the RKA, but it is very likely to do do knockback, hurling him several metres away. In that case, it's reasonable that more STUN is done as the target is mashed up against the inside of his armour (and his brain is bounced off the inside of his skull).

 

The only disadvantage I can see is that at the heroic level, smaller killing attacks will become ineffective against heavily-armoured foes. That's not actualy unrealistic - late period knights on foot were almost immune to arrow fire, and it would place a premium on the kind of weapons actually used by knights of that era (picks, polearms - any sort of AP weapon). For modern games body armour would be very effective against small arms, but a hit to an unprotected bit would take you out right smart. That's also not unrealistic, but in both cases, it would alter game balance significantly.

 

The cost of STUN multiplier would also need looking at: with this system, it might be better priced at +1/4, but I haven't played around with the numbers enough to say.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

By the way' date=' you can die from being shot while wearing a bulletproof vest and the bullet not penetrating. Look at the two bank robbers from LA that were wearing full body armor. One was basically pulped internally by the shockwave of all those rounds the cops fired into him, but none got through the armor.[/quote']

 

Incorrect.

 

Larry Phillips shot himself in the head, to avoid capture - and he didn't do it through his armour. Emil Matasareanu's armour was penetrated by at least 10 bullets, according to police reports (the coroner's report says 29 injuries, but I guess most of them were superficial) and he later bled to death while awaiting an ambulance.

http://losangeles.broowaha.com/article.php?id=859

In Hero terms, the armour stopped most of the BOD and pretty much all of the STUN, but the 10 or 11 BOD he had taken from the bullets that got through was enough that he bled out on his recoveries.

 

Speaking as a physician who has seen bullet trauma, I'd say it's damn near impossible to do lethal injury with a bullet that doesn't penetrate body armour, no matter how many times you hit it - and Phillips and Matasareanu prove that.

 

cheers, Mark

[Kenn]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

As far as the option Marcdoc put forth a few posts up goes, I think it sounds interesting, and at least worth considering. I do have a question about it.

 

How would one explain why, for example, an armoured medieval knight would be in more pain from someone hitting him with a 5 lb. club than the same someone hitting him with a 5 lb. sword? If the armour is thick enough, he'd possibly take no stun from the sword blow, but the club might still do STUN damage.

[Kenn]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

On a semi-related note, do any of you remember how in some old supplements (most notably Aaron Allston's Strike Force) how there were characters with "bullet proof spandex" bought as Damage Resistance?

 

Granted this was back in the days when Damage Resistance was bought either "half" or "full". I sometime wonder how that compares to Armor for modeling the effects of some types of body armour.

[Mike W]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

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).

 

In some ways a large number of KA doesn't surprise me. If you look through the published characters, especially for 4th edition, it seemed like almost every villain with an energy power had a KA slot. But resistant defenses were less common. That kind of ratio leads to some bloody gaming.

 

As a way to tone down the blood, we basically let anyone buy 8-10 points of resistant defenses as "necessary for survival in a supers game", regardless of anything else. They could buy it natural, call it an armored costume, whatever they wanted. We also used the x3 STUN multiplier and it worked pretty well. The math was a lot easier and having 4D6 for the BODY still left KA with a lot more variable damage than their EB/HA counterparts.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

8 PSLs vs hit location are deadly even with someone with a weak OCV as it means that what few hits that person gets in are far more damaging than another weak OCV character that lacks those PSLs. Gives that character double the body and 5x stun mult for any killing attack that connects. The person with high OCV might not even need those PSLs to do the same thing if the DCV/Defenses of the target are proportionally weaker.

 

I've never played in champions (supers don't interest me at all), so I've only played using the hit locations (no stun lotto) and don't find the variability of KAs to be all that bad vs normal attacks.

 

By the way, you can die from being shot while wearing a bulletproof vest and the bullet not penetrating. Look at the two bank robbers from LA that were wearing full body armor. One was basically pulped internally by the shockwave of all those rounds the cops fired into him, but none got through the armor.

 

I bow to markdoc on this one. I daresay that if you spent enough time shooting someone in a bulletproof vest then you could do some quite serious, but superficial, damage even if the bullets did not penetrate, but then you could do the same if you punched them enough. If a bullet does not penetrate armour then the only damage it does is through momentum, and the punch probably beats it there, given the difference in mass between a properly swung fist and a bullet.

 

As for the PSLs I think they fit awkwardly into Hero: we specifically do not have a damage system that relates to how well you hit someone. I've never seen a non-super (or non-magic) explanation for someone being able to shoot the head every time they hit.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Not necessarily. A 9mm bullet that goes in one side of my arm and out the other is not likely to kill me. Same with my foot, my hand, my leg, and a good percentage of my torso. (major arteries notwithstanding)

 

A 9mm bullet that goes in one side of my brain, heart or spine is much more likely to kill or catastrophically injure me. It's not about penetration, it's about location. One inch one direction or another might make the difference between a week in rehab and DOA.

 

That's one of the principal arguments for the degree of randomness in KA body totals. A knife wound can be superficial or it can be lethal.

 

Hit locations are an optional ruleset, even more complicated than Killing attacks. Also more potentially unbalancing. 8 PSLs vs hit location penalties are worthless to a character with no attacks, but absolutely devastatingly effective to one with good OCV and a powerful attack...

 

The problem I have is that the variability of Body does not work well with defences.

 

If a target is not armoured at all then you can simulate the variability of Body damage with a wide range random damage roll - just like we have at present.

 

However, if a character is armoured, the same logic makes much less sense: if a bullet can't penetrate a 4mm sheet of metal (for example) it won't penetrate it no matter where it is on the body. The great variability makes building armour which is basically bulletproof quite difficult.

 

That is compounded when you add in stun multiples: a bullet that bounces off a helmet will not do 5 times as much stun as a bullet that bounces off a glove.

 

I agree that the location of a hit that gets Body through is a vital component of the formula for calculating effect, but I don't think that it should only be a factor, not the whole of the consideration.

 

The problem is even clearer with inanimate objects: If you fire a bullet at a sheet of steel it will go through or it won't and, if you fire another, unless you change the range or angle of attack, that will do the same thing: the results will be consistent. Killing damage in Hero is anything but consistent.

 

Of course I appreciate that, in combat, there are randomising factors: range and angle of attack do change, often all the time, but that still does not really explain the difference to my mind.

 

A system where the damage done by killing attacks was more consistent and the randomisation of damage was done by a hit location system that was genre specific we might have a better model all round.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Complete aside but I think that Body damage, whilst realistic in terms of the time it takes to heal (generally) is so debilitating that it can spoil an adventure.

 

I think that an intermediate step between stun and Body might be a nice idea. The trouble is the extra book keeping that 'long term stun' entails.

 

One way around this is to make certain assumptions about Body damage. the first point of Body damage from any attack is mainly shock - it can be fatal, but doesn't last that long: if you survive the battle, it goes away.

 

The second point of Body damage from any attack causes bruising and contusion which lasts a day (or maybe less if you want a more heroic feel).

 

Any additional Body damage is 'normal' and heals as per the rules.

 

This means that characters can often take a reasonable amount of Body without having to rush off home to take to their beds immediately after every combat.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

 

As for the PSLs I think they fit awkwardly into Hero: we specifically do not have a damage system that relates to how well you hit someone. I've never seen a non-super (or non-magic) explanation for someone being able to shoot the head every time they hit.

 

You know that face recognition software used in casinos (and other places) to scan for crooks/card counters etc?

 

That + a laser = a production line for headshots.

[Markdoc]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

As far as the option Marcdoc put forth a few posts up goes, I think it sounds interesting, and at least worth considering. I do have a question about it.

 

How would one explain why, for example, an armoured medieval knight would be in more pain from someone hitting him with a 5 lb. club than the same someone hitting him with a 5 lb. sword? If the armour is thick enough, he'd possibly take no stun from the sword blow, but the club might still do STUN damage.

 

Remember that a club also has to take into account nonresistant DEF so at the low end of the scale, a light club is unlikely to do much. But in general, clubs (and similar impact weapons) are heavier than swords or pointy weapons, so they will pack more momentum - which translates to stun. So a 1+1d6 HKA will likely weigh 3 lbs, versus 5 lbs for a 4DC club. That's where your extra stun comes in.

 

cheers, Mark

[Maur]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Incorrect.

 

Larry Phillips shot himself in the head, to avoid capture - and he didn't do it through his armour. Emil Matasareanu's armour was penetrated by at least 10 bullets, according to police reports (the coroner's report says 29 injuries, but I guess most of them were superficial) and he later bled to death while awaiting an ambulance.

http://losangeles.broowaha.com/article.php?id=859

In Hero terms, the armour stopped most of the BOD and pretty much all of the STUN, but the 10 or 11 BOD he had taken from the bullets that got through was enough that he bled out on his recoveries.

 

Speaking as a physician who has seen bullet trauma, I'd say it's damn near impossible to do lethal injury with a bullet that doesn't penetrate body armour, no matter how many times you hit it - and Phillips and Matasareanu prove that.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Hmm, thought I'd read about their autopsy which talked about the internal injuries sustained but can't find the article any more (my google fu is failing me as usual).

[SteveZilla]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

The problem is even clearer with inanimate objects: If you fire a bullet at a sheet of steel it will go through or it won't and' date=' if you fire another, unless you change the range or angle of attack, that will do the same thing: the results will be consistent. Killing damage in Hero is anything but consistent.[/quote']

 

The dice of an attack are there to represent (IMO) the dynamics of a combat, not a bench test for a gun. By clamping the gun down so it's aimed at exactly the same spot on a target round after round, and also clamping the target down so it doesn't move is, IMO, trading in the dice for Standard Effect.

 

Of course I appreciate that' date=' in combat, there are randomizing factors: range and angle of attack do change, often all the time, but that still does not really explain the difference to my mind.[/quote']

 

I think it is a sufficient explanation for most genres/flavors.

 

A system where the damage done by killing attacks was more consistent and the randomization of damage was done by a hit location system that was genre specific we might have a better model all round.

 

That IMO mixes the genre-specific rules that are usually limited to genre books with the general-use rules found in the core book(s). Also, what about those GMs who don't want to fuss with Hit Locations? There needs to be a way to determine results without involving Hit Locations.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

The dice of an attack are there to represent (IMO) the dynamics of a combat' date=' not a bench test for a gun. By clamping the gun down so it's aimed at exactly the same spot on a target round after round, and also clamping the target down so it doesn't move is, IMO, trading in the dice for Standard Effect.[/quote']

 

This is really getting away from the reason for the thread (mea culpa), but the point is that the explanation given for the Body of killing attacks being so variable against a living target (that hit location really is critical - a hit in the heart of brain will kill you) do not apply to the inanimate, or at least that sector of the inanimate that doesn't include objects with compartmentalised critical systems. The damage a killing attack does against a wall should be far more predictable than the damage it does against a person.

 

 

 

I think it is a sufficient explanation for most genres/flavors.

 

However the exact same factors apply in equal measure to normal attacks - if range and angle of attack are the explanation for the variability in damage then the same ranges and distributions should be found in normal and killing attacks.

 

 

 

That IMO mixes the genre-specific rules that are usually limited to genre books with the general-use rules found in the core book(s). Also' date=' what about those GMs who don't want to fuss with Hit Locations? There needs to be a way to determine results without involving Hit Locations.[/quote']

 

Core Hero already contains genre specific rules like hit locations. Hit locations and other rules (like impairing/disabling, bleeding etc) are there because it is impossible to put a handgun bullet in a normal unwounded and unenhanced hero (10 Body) and kill them. Put a heavy handgun against someone's temple and pull the trigger and, even on a maximum damage roll you won't kill them. They won't even eventually die. Much as we would like to seperate out the genre specific rules, I can't see that happening unless we are willing to sacrifice a lot of credibility.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

You know that face recognition software used in casinos (and other places) to scan for crooks/card counters etc?

 

That + a laser = a production line for headshots.

 

Heh. Nice. Doesn't explain the majority of characters who take PSLs to hit locations, but it is certainly a plausable explanation.

[Markdoc]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Hmm' date=' thought I'd read about their autopsy which talked about the internal injuries sustained but can't find the article any more (my google fu is failing me as usual).[/quote']

 

I've read the coroner's report, though it's no longer accessible because the LA time article that linked to it is gone. There were internal injuries, but they were from the bullets which ether penetrated his armor or went through gaps. For example, you can see in the video that he was limping badly towards the end, - that's because he took a bullet in the foot through a gap in his armour, not from shock through the armour. Phillips was bleeding heavily from a wound he took to his neck - which also went through a gap in his armour, and so on.

 

Practically speaking, human tissue (apart from a few vital organs) is highly flexible and can easily be highly distorted and then move back into place with little or no serious damage. It's why the whole idea of "hydrostatic shock" and "temporary cavitation" that used to be all the rage is now though to be so much hooey: in real life situations, it doesn't seem to do anything.

 

cheers, Mark

[Kdansky]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

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?

 

 

No, it's not like that. The thing is: You do not need to roll a x5 (or rather: 6+6 in this case), it's often enough to roll a x4 (or even x4.5 if you accept half numbers). So it comes up way more often than only in the x5 case. Even x3 might be very big (4d6 -> 20 body -> 60 stun, try to roll 60+ on 12d6, that will take you a couple minutes of constant rolling).

 

So yes and no, it's mainly the maximum height, and not how often it comes up. Even if that's rare, it sucks each and every time.

[Tech]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

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

 

Fortunately, I haven't ever run into this problem. Even if I did, however, I wouldn't worry about it: for whatever reason, the Stun multiplier of killing attacks are very frequently low. If you want to do alot of stun damage in the campaign I'm in, don't pick KA.

[Kenn]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

I've not seen a problem with it either. In fact there was a player in one game I was in who got frustrated because he was playing this clawed demon brick, and he always went to the claws (HKA) first and several phases would finally give in and punch.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

Far be it for me to repeat the maths of lots of people in previous threads.

 

The problem with killing attacks are the extreme high results, they come up too often.

 

in a 60 point game you get 12D6 or 4D6K.

 

Maximum STUN/BODY of the normal attack is 72 STUN 24 BODY which comes up a vanishingly small number of times, the but, on average, the killing attack will achieve in the region of 70 STUN every six hits (when the average BODY gets the maximum multiplier).

 

If average defences are 30 PD - giving the 12D6 12 STUN on average hit, then the killing attack will do 40 STUN every sixth hit or so - resulting almost inevitably in a stunned opponent - ripe for a finishing off attack. The normal attack will almost never do the damage to achieve a stun effect if average CON is around 28.

 

If I am metagaming then give me killing attacks every time - me and my buddy will win....

 

 

Doc

[Kenn]

Re: Defences against the stun of KAs

 

That's a statistic, as in the third type of untruth after "lies" and "damned lies".

 

If I roll 1 die 5 times, and get 1 on the first roll, 2 on the second, 3 on the third, 4 on the 4th, and 5 on the fifth. On the sixth roll, what is the likelihood that a 6 will come up.

 

1 in 6. A die has no memory.