A new approach to Killing Attacks

[prestidigitator]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

Well, the other thought I had was that you could simply build most of your killing attacks in the same way the standard examples of poison are built. Almost but not quite the same. And GM's choice whether to cap the Active Points/DCs of the whole combined attack or each part of it. Heh.

 

EDIT: Sorry. I'm not trying to disparage the original idea. I think it works well for a house rule. But I'm also wondering how the same kind of ideas could eventually be used to improve what we think of as Killing Attacks in the long run, while keeping the same general Hero System feel but allowing more (consistent) options (both more lethal and less, since we have folks with opinions at each end of the spectrum).

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

Well, the other thought I had was that you could simply build most of your killing attacks in the same way the standard examples of poison are built. Almost but not quite the same. And GM's choice whether to cap the Active Points/DCs of the whole combined attack or each part of it. Heh.

 

EDIT: Sorry. I'm not trying to disparage the original idea. I think it works well for a house rule. But I'm also wondering how the same kind of ideas could eventually be used to improve what we think of as Killing Attacks in the long run, while keeping the same general Hero System feel but allowing more (consistent) options (both more lethal and less, since we have folks with opinions at each end of the spectrum).

 

I only post ideas like this to get feedback, and any - positive or negative - is good for refining ideas

 

Slightly off topic, I've often wondered whether we ought to build different sfx in different but 'suggested' ways. For instance, fire and blades have very different effects but we still tend to build them both as '3d6 KA', the only difference mechanically being one applies to PD and one to ED.

 

Fire is horribly painful, blades can often be fatal before the person even nows how badly they are hurt.

 

Back on topic(ish) the problem to my way of thinking with limitations is the point cap. Not everyone sues it but it is implicit that a point cap is a balancing device, and, traditionally, it has always been an active point cap. Even if you ignore point caps, limiting powers can cause problems when building MPs. That's why I suggested a cheaper form for 'extra penetration' or 'extra damage'.

 

On a game philosophy trip - there are (at least) two often competing pressures when looking at power design:

 

1. Game balance - you don't want one power to rule them all

2. Concept realisation - you do want powers to be able to simulate almost any concept.

 

Current KAs make assumptions: that defences reduce damage as well as ward it off.

 

You can build defences like this:

 

12pd/12ed armour 36 points (-3/4) does not reduce damage if penetrated with Body: 21 Active

 

And that sort of does what I was contemplating but still does not really split damage into penetration and damage.

 

You can do THAT with something like this:

 

+2d6 KA (30 points) Only to penetrate defences -3/4 17 real (only operates to reduce defences, never adds to damage. Roll first and reduce effective DEF by the amount of BODY rolled before applying remaining damage dice)

 

OR

 

+2d6 KA (30 points) Only to damage -1/2 20 points (only adds to damage if remainder of KA causes at least 1 BODY damage)

 

You wind up then back with the MP problem. I think it is cleaner to re-examine KAs entirely though. I accept I am biased against them as I do not like them mechanically, and I do not think they provide a good simulation of - well - almost any type of lethal damage except - possibly - for penetrating attacks against unarmoured opponents.

 

I think we can create a system with far more general applicability.

[prestidigitator]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

You wind up then back with the MP problem. I think it is cleaner to re-examine KAs entirely though. I accept I am biased against them as I do not like them mechanically' date=' and I do not think they provide a good simulation of - well - almost any type of lethal damage except - possibly - for penetrating attacks against unarmoured opponents.[/quote']

 

Yeah. That's why I'm (somewhat independently) considering that suggestion I made above about the difference between Killing Attacks and Normal Attacks. Use the same (normal damage) mechanic for rolling the damage, but 1.) only apply Resistant Defences on the Body of the Killing Attacks, and 2.) apply Resistance Defence plus Total Defence to the Stun of Killing Attacks (maybe with small Advantage that can be used to drop the applicable Stun defence back to Total Defence only; say a +1/4 to +1/2 or so).

 

Something else struck me when I read your response. What about a Limitation like this?

 

Body Blocked Entirely By X Defence (-0 to -2)

This attack does absolutely no Body damage to someone with a certain level of defence. The amount of defence must be chosen when the power is constructed, and a comparison between the amount of defence and the DCs of the attack determines the value of the Limitation. If the amount of defence is half the DCs of the attack or less, this limitation is worth -2. If the amount of defence is more than half the DCs but not more than 3/4 of the DCs of the attack, the Limitation is worth -1. If the amount of defence is more than 3/4 of the DCs of the attack but not more than the number of DCs in the attack, the Limitation is worth -1/2. If the amount of defence is greater than the number of DCs in the attack but not more than 3/2 of the DCs in the attack, the Limitation is worth -1/4. If the amount of the defence is greater than 3/2 of the DCs in the attack, the Limitation is worth -0. (The idea being that the limitation comes into play only when the attack would normally exceed the value of the defence, so when the probability of the attack exceeding the defence is large, the limitation is worth a lot, but when the probability that the attack would exceed the defence is miniscule anyway, the limitation isn't worth squat.)

 

In summary:

 

DEF <= 1/2 DCs (-2)

1/2 DCs < DEF <= 3/4 DCs (-1)

3/4 DCs < DEF <= DCs (-1/2)

DCs < DEF <= 3/2 DCs (-1/4)

3/2 DCs < DEF (-0)

 

If the attack is one to which Str can be added, the character's full Str may be used to determine the DCs to which to compare the chosen defence level (for pre-built weapons in heroic campaigns which have a Str Min, do not add any Str DCs). If the attack is Armor Piercing, compare the DCs to only half the value of the defence that will stop the attack (do not round). This Limitation cannot be applied to NND or Penetrating attacks, but may apply to AVLD attacks (possibly with lesser value) with permission from the GM (STOP SIGN).

 

Examples

EB 5d6; Body Blocked Entirely by 6 PD (-1/4)

EB 5d6; Body Blocked Entirely by 5 PD (-1/2)

EB 5d6; Body Blocked Entirely by 2 PD (-2)

HA 5d6 (+20 Str); Body Blocked Entirely by 5 PD (-1)

RKA 3d6; Body Blocked Entirely by 9 rPD (-1/2)

RKA 3d6; Armor Piercing; Body Blocked Entirely by 9 rPD (-2)

RKA 3d6; Armor Piercing; Body Blocked Entirely by 18 rPD (-1/2)

HKA 2d6 (+10 Str); Body Blocked by 8 rPD (-1/2)

HKA 2d6 (+10 Str); Body Blocked by 12 PD (-1/4)

HKA 2d6 (+10 Str); Body Blocked by 13 PD (-0)

 

(EDIT: As mentioned in later posts, I had the values of the Limitation reversed. Maybe this will look semi-reasonable now.)

 

I'm not sure about the actual values. I'll have to work out the likely probabilities and maybe adjust a little. Those values feel about right to me, but I have to the statistician in me do his work too. You get the idea though, I'm sure.

 

The reason I like Limitations rather than reducing the actual Active Points in the power is that the whole system is setup to compare what powers can do compared to each other under the assumption that defences do subtract from damage. That's our basis. If you really want things to be deadlier than that, they should have a higher number of APs. That's the measure of how powerful they are. You're free, as the GM, to allow Killing Attacks a higher AP limit than Normal Attacks (maybe under the conditions that such-and-such Limitations are applied) if that's really the way you want your game to be. Deciding Killing Attacks should be more powerful/deadly for the same APs just because you want them to be deadly strikes me as just invalidating the AP measure we have.

[prestidigitator]

Re: A new approach to Killing Attacks

 

LOL. Okay. I had this idea in mind, but then I actually did it completely in reverse above. Don't know what I was thinking at the time. I'm going to edit and reverse the values; maybe it'll actually look sane. (EDIT: Okay. Fixed. With a note on the philosophy behind it added.)