Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

If it hurts proportionally to the injury wouldn't the Flat Stun X be advantageous? small injury less pain.

 

We're never going to simulate "reality" where a bra manages to stop a bullet but a well connected but not overly hard smack to the temple causes shock and death... at least not well. So - honestly - it's stupid to try.

 

Well you could do that with an open ended system for damage. I'm going to amend my original suggestion:

 

Killing attacks are rolled as equivalent DC normal attacks but are only stopped by rDEF (for Body) and 2xrDEF (for stun).

 

When rolling damage, every roll of '1' doesn't count toward damage AND removes a die from the remaining 'pool' (highest die first).

 

Every roll of '6' counts toward damage AND rolls again.

 

If a '6' is cancelled by a '1', the die is removed without counting BUT you still roll again.

 

Re-rolled dice can also cancel/roll again i.e. the system is open ended BUT you only cancel dice in the current round of rolling: if you re-roll a single 6 and it comes up '1', it cancels itself, not the '6' you rolled to gain the re-roll.

 

Technically this means any given shot can do no damage or extreme damage - but the most likely result is an average roll.

 

OK, let's try that (these are actual dice rolls not made up):

 

I'm rolling 8d6

 

6,6,4,4,3,3,2,2 = 30 stun and 10 Body

 

Roll the '6's again: 3,2 = +5 stun and +2 Body

 

Total = 35 stun and 12 Body - not bad for 8d6

 

Again:

 

6,6,6,5,3,2,2,2 (I'm on form today!) = 32 stun, 11 Body

 

Roll the '6's again: 3,2,1 - so the '1' cancels the '3' and we ass +2 stun +1 Body

 

Total = 34 stun, 12 Body

 

One more:

 

6,6,5,5,5,4,2,2 = 35 stun, 10 Body

 

Roll '6's again: 6,5 (+11 stun +3 Body)

 

Roll '6' again: 1 (no adds and nothing to cancel)

 

Total = 46 stun and 13 body!

 

OK, that is probably a little more volatile than I'd expected, but it is simple enough, many people like that sort of open ended roll, and it means you can simulate your 'reality': a 2d6 punch that manages double 6, is on the way toward potentially lethal damage: it can cause 10 Body 1 hit in 1024 (enough to kill an 8 Body normal), and a 4d6 attack (that would be the normal dice equivalent of a 1d6+1 KA - a reasonably normal bullet) does NO damage 1 hit in 1024 (i.e. it bounced off a bra strap).

 

Those numbers are far too common for actual reality but serve game reality OK. I'd probably rule that open ended damage only applies to 'living' targets: targets where which bit you hit matters - so a lucky punch from a normal is never ever going to go through a bank vault door. By 'living' I mean 'characters' even if they are supposed to be robots or undead. I might include a power to curb open ended damage, say as a type of Life Support, for 10 points.

 

Now someone better at maths than me is going to have to work out if that affects the average damage at all.

 

Thoughts:

 

1. we could roll normal damage normally and killing damage open ended.

 

2. If we do that it might be possible to 'charge' +1/4 (say) for killing attacks

 

3. One punch kills then revert to hitting your head on the way down on something that converts 1"of falling damage to a KA - and you have to be very unlucky with the damage rolls

 

I might post this idea as a new thread

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Exactly - it depends on the game.

 

All this "but the math says" whining kind of annoys me when two people use the same thing and get completely different results.

 

Obviously there is more going on than Math and that can't be used as the only argument - which is essentially what's happening from many people.

 

The difference is that everyone's anecdotes about their game is context sensitive and there isn't enough time to detail enough about them to make these things meaningful to anyone but one person.

 

Math is not context sensitive and the statistics are the same for everyone.

 

The math crosses all game groups. I would say it depends less on the game than the gamers. After much discussion of this topic some years back, I recognized the reason I've never had a problem with KA's in my games is two fold.

 

First, in genres where KA's were used considerably (fantasy, for example), hit locations were also used. The ability to get double STUN with a quarterstaff or martial strike goes a long way to leveling the playing field against KA's that can get a 5x Stun Multiple.

 

Second, in other genres (Supers, primarily) my players tended to use KA's only against inaimate objects, automatons and the like, rarely or never using them against living targets.

 

However, we did note that it was much more common for small fry to have KA's because, with considerably lower DC's, this still gave them a shot at getting some STUN through against their vastly superior opponents, where an equal DC normal attack would have been useless. Only the fact that the players played by unwritten rules against using KA's against the high defense opposition prevented the same result for the PC's against high powered opponents.

 

Given that, I favour a change that retains killing attacks but removes their volatility (5 points for 1d6, 1-5 is 1 BOD, 6 is 2 BOD; add total and subtract half the dice = STUN would be my favoured aproach).

 

Alternatively, make that the base for KA, keep the base for normal attacks and allow:

 

- standard effect always gets exactly the average (which is 3.5 on the die, and 1 BOD)

- volatile effect returns the KA to its current structure, and converts a normal attack to 1d6 = 3 DC; add the dice and subtract 1/2 the dice = BOD; multiply by 1d6 to get the STUN

 

Now everyone can choose between normal and killing damage, and between no volatility, standard volatility and high volatility damage.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

That tells us that no matter how the specific Math plays out - it's how you utilize the Power that has more impact than the statistics.

 

Which is the ultimate test.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I am really not in favor of an open-ended damage system. I can safely say there is no chance of a normal person wielding a normal steak knife being able to destroy a normal aircraft carrier.

 

I am also really not in favor of some dice "canceling" other dice. It's one of the top things I didn't like about the system from WoD. It strikes me as a complication for complication's sake.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I am really not in favor of an open-ended damage system. I can safely say there is no chance of a normal person wielding a normal steak knife being able to destroy a normal aircraft carrier.

 

Yes, well, that is why i suggested the open ended system only be used against living or complex targets that have critical bits.

 

Having said that, you probably COULD destroy an aircraft carrier with a steak knife if you put it in the right place, like into the Captain during a combat engagement.

 

I am also really not in favor of some dice "canceling" other dice. It's one of the top things I didn't like about the system from WoD. It strikes me as a complication for complication's sake.

 

Actually cancelling simplifies rather than complicates - it is the sixes that complicate

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

That tells us that no matter how the specific Math plays out - it's how you utilize the Power that has more impact than the statistics.

 

Which is the ultimate test.

 

It also tells us that a lot of people who don't have a problem with Killing Attack don''t have that problem because they are avoiding or ignoring the RAW version, or using an alternate rule to avoid the silliness.

 

One point on hit locations: they modify both Body and stun proportionally - when you use hit locations you don't the stun lottery effect: big stun and big Body go hand in hand.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I am really not in favor of an open-ended damage system. I can safely say there is no chance of a normal person wielding a normal steak knife being able to destroy a normal aircraft carrier.

 

I am also really not in favor of some dice "canceling" other dice. It's one of the top things I didn't like about the system from WoD. It strikes me as a complication for complication's sake.

 

If the Steak Knife is modeled correctly is has the Real Weapon Limitation.

 

That says it just ain't gonna go. No matter how many dice you roll up.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

It also tells us that a lot of people who don't have a problem with Killing Attack don''t have that problem because they are avoiding or ignoring the RAW version, or using an alternate rule to avoid the silliness.

 

One point on hit locations: they modify both Body and stun proportionally - when you use hit locations you don't the stun lottery effect: big stun and big Body go hand in hand.

 

I consider optional written rules in the book to be RAW. x3 Stun Multiple is therefore RAW. Hit Locations are RAW.

 

Knockback is Optional and everyone considers that RAW after all

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

It also tells us that a lot of people who don't have a problem with Killing Attack don''t have that problem because they are avoiding or ignoring the RAW version' date=' or using an alternate rule to avoid the silliness.[/quote']

 

Yup. We've done the exercise of pricing out an Ego Attack built rom an EB many times. It's vastly more expensive. Yet ego attacks don't dominate the game. Why not?

 

I suggest it is because the player is not permitted to use the IPE and LOS advantages. The most significant benefit of these is, or should be, the ability to stand on the sidelines, blending with background scenery, crowds of NPC's or what have you, and attack without fear of retaliation. But we don't allow Mentalist Snipers, so the advantages are of very limited utility and the price of Ego Attack recognizes that, although we claim the powers have these benefits, we will never allow them to be used, so the advantages don't really exist.

 

From a game philosophy perspective, I'd prefer to see the powers priced accurately (remove the things we won't allow to actually work as advertised from the base power, ideally, rather than charging full freight for them) rather than rely on the players and the GM nerfing those advantages to bring value back into line with cost.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Yup. We've done the exercise of pricing out an Ego Attack built rom an EB many times. It's vastly more expensive. Yet ego attacks don't dominate the game. Why not?

 

I suggest it is because the player is not permitted to use the IPE and LOS advantages. The most significant benefit of these is, or should be, the ability to stand on the sidelines, blending with background scenery, crowds of NPC's or what have you, and attack without fear of retaliation. But we don't allow Mentalist Snipers, so the advantages are of very limited utility and the price of Ego Attack recognizes that, although we claim the powers have these benefits, we will never allow them to be used, so the advantages don't really exist.

 

Huh. I've actually always used a mechanism that balances that out automatically. If you're hit with the power, you know who attacked you, and have a good idea where they are. If they are close, you can look straight at them. If you're a ways away, you know their direction, and as you get closer you'll be able to pinpoint them; even recognize them if you see them.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Huh. I've actually always used a mechanism that balances that out automatically. If you're hit with the power' date=' you [i']know[/i] who attacked you, and have a good idea where they are. If they are close, you can look straight at them. If you're a ways away, you know their direction, and as you get closer you'll be able to pinpoint them; even recognize them if you see them.

 

One issue to consider is the cost of IPE: +1 to have the power be invisible - that is a lot of extra cost for a power modifier that does not directly affect damage, like NND does.

 

For +1 I would expect a LOT of utility to replace losing half my attack power.

 

I think IPE could do with being recosted OR made more useful, as it doesn't seem well balanced to me at present.

 

Mental powers are also indirect int hat they can ignore intervening barriers so long as you can draw a LOS through them. One more thing that is often forgotten - be very afraid if you see a mentalist with N-Ray vision

[schir1964]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

It also tells us that a lot of people who don't have a problem with Killing Attack don''t have that problem because they are avoiding or ignoring the RAW version' date=' or using an alternate rule to avoid the silliness.[/quote']

I suggest it is because the player is not permitted to use the IPE and LOS advantages. The most significant benefit of these is, or should be, the ability to stand on the sidelines, blending with background scenery, crowds of NPC's or what have you, and attack without fear of retaliation. But we don't allow Mentalist Snipers, so the advantages are of very limited utility and the price of Ego Attack recognizes that, although we claim the powers have these benefits, we will never allow them to be used, so the advantages don't really exist.

 

From a game philosophy perspective, I'd prefer to see the powers priced accurately (remove the things we won't allow to actually work as advertised from the base power, ideally, rather than charging full freight for them) rather than rely on the players and the GM nerfing those advantages to bring value back into line with cost.

Ditto.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Huh. I've actually always used a mechanism that balances that out automatically. If you're hit with the power' date=' you [i']know[/i] who attacked you, and have a good idea where they are. If they are close, you can look straight at them. If you're a ways away, you know their direction, and as you get closer you'll be able to pinpoint them; even recognize them if you see them.

 

Which brings the power more into balance by removing its IPE and providing a Detect to the target as a side effect.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Huh. I've actually always used a mechanism that balances that out automatically. If you're hit with the power' date=' you [i']know[/i] who attacked you, and have a good idea where they are. If they are close, you can look straight at them. If you're a ways away, you know their direction, and as you get closer you'll be able to pinpoint them; even recognize them if you see them.

 

 

Not a really big jump since the RAW already says you can recognize the power you were attacked with and its source. basically in those words.

[Patriot]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

If the Steak Knife is modeled correctly is has the Real Weapon Limitation.

 

That says it just ain't gonna go. No matter how many dice you roll up.

 

One steak Knife well placed into the nuclear generator....for all practical purposes no more ship.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

At that point you're acting as much on a Physical Limitation of the ship (explody power supply) as you are the attack.

 

A knife still isn't going to cut through the hull and scuttle the thing.

 

You KNOW what I meant. Thank you very much.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

At that point you're acting as much on a Physical Limitation of the ship (explody power supply) as you are the attack.

 

A knife still isn't going to cut through the hull and scuttle the thing.

 

You KNOW what I meant. Thank you very much.

 

Indeed: I think there should be some differentiation between the ability to penetrate a target and the damage you manage if you do. If the thing you penetrate has important bits inside, hitting one does disproportionate damage. However, I don't think that the amount of damage you apply to defences should necessarily vary much.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Not a really big jump since the RAW already says you can recognize the power you were attacked with and its source. basically in those words.

 

Yep. Agreed. That's why I often get a bit puzzled when people have a fit over mental powers, though I'll admit that some of it is my interpretation rather than solid, official game mechanics. Now Mind Scan can present some problems, but I don't really consider the normal LOS one a big deal.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

You can recognize what the Power did (and a Player can then deduce what the Power is). But you do NOT automatically know you were attacked with "ego blast" or "killing attack" or "darkess" as Powers.

 

You get the Special Effect and the Result. deduction at that point is a Character/Player exercise.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

You can recognize what the Power did (and a Player can then deduce what the Power is). But you do NOT automatically know you were attacked with "ego blast" or "killing attack" or "darkess" as Powers.

 

You get the Special Effect and the Result. deduction at that point is a Character/Player exercise.

 

 

You also get "the source". My copy of FRED on page 80 says " The target of the attack will know the source of the attack and will know what power he was attacked with."

 

Now I'll give you "source" is open to interpretation but it specifically says he knows it. That could be interpreted as anything form the direction it came from to " Fred blasted me" or both or somewhere between.

 

Personally I go for direction with some feel for the attacker's personality but that's my own twisted interpretation.

[Greywind]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

"Use the Source, Luke..."

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

You also get "the source". My copy of FRED on page 80 says " The target of the attack will know the source of the attack and will know what power he was attacked with."

 

Now I'll give you "source" is open to interpretation but it specifically says he knows it. That could be interpreted as anything form the direction it came from to " Fred blasted me" or both or somewhere between.

 

Personally I go for direction with some feel for the attacker's personality but that's my own twisted interpretation.

 

I wasn't addressing the source -but yes you know who attacked you.

 

And your page Quote - that's specifically addressing Mental Powers. Not Powers in general. nice try though.

 

Which are covered in greater detail, see p98 of 5ER (or p71 of 5E). which says no such nonsense.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I wasn't addressing the source -but yes you know who attacked you.

 

And your page Quote - that's specifically addressing Mental Powers. Not Powers in general.

 

Which are covered in greater detail, see p98 of 5ER (or p71 of 5E). which says no such nonsense.

 

 

Oh, I thought we were just talking about mental powers when you answered

prestidigitator. MY mistake if that's not what you meant.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Actually, upon rereading the discussion, you may be right.

 

In which case - My Bad.

 

How we veered this far off of KAs I've no idea at all...

[Greywind]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

...left turn at Albuquerque...