Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

[SteveZilla]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

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

 

That's not using the knife to generate damage -- that would be something like a Mechanics (or maybe remotely a Demolitions) roll. Which is oranges to apples.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Best way to get rid of the Stun Lotto is to just use Normal damage, IMO. If you want more lethal attacks, buy more dice of damage. =P

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

That doesn't help in games with Active Point or Damage Class Caps.

[The Main Man]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Best way to get rid of the Stun Lotto is to just use Normal damage' date=' IMO. If you want more lethal attacks, buy more dice of damage. =P[/quote']

 

I'd have to agree with ghost-angel.But if one would like normal and killing attacks to identically function, I posted a suggestion that simply makes "Killing" a +0 Advantage and it's damage, while rolled like normal damage, it functions as killing damage.Resistant defenses would be unchanged because the overall defenses are still cheaper than the attack.But now that Mr. Long has made the Stunx a 1/2d6, the "Stun Lotto" looks pretty much fixed.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

That doesn't help in games with Active Point or Damage Class Caps.

 

Raise the caps. =)

 

Or create an advantage to increase the Body of the normal dice.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

IBut now that Mr. Long has made the Stunx a 1/2d6' date=' the "Stun Lotto" looks pretty much fixed.[/quote']

 

That sounds interesting. I'm guessing he's confirmed that change is in for 6th? Wouldn't that make for a much lower average Stun though?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Very little is confirmed for 6th, and even if it is, it has not been published yet, indeed, as far as I know, it is not written yet, so nothing is confirmed until you get your brand spanking hot off the press copy

 

...and I do not see how 1/2d6 would sort out the stun lotto - it simply reduces the stun. The problem is not how much stun it does, at least not directly, the problem is the volatility of the roll and the disconnect between stun and body.

[The Main Man]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Well... with 1/2d6 Stunx you can do 1-3 x BODY in STUN, which puts it on par with Normal attacks and it eliminates that pesky "minimum of x1" problem that 1d6-1 presents.

 

For example, if I have 1d6K, I can roll 1-6 BODY and thusly I can have 1-18 STUN.

 

What that does is make Normal attacks slightly better at doing STUN damage because they have a higher minimum.

 

This has always been true, however, but now neither has the advantage in doing BODY nor STUN, since they share the same maximum rolls.

 

Killing attacks, OTOH, still require Resistant defense to defend against, which would be their niche.

 

I do however find them to be rather interchangeable under such a change and hope that the Advanced Player's Guide would include rules for capitalizing upon that for any game.

[Kenn]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

And reducing the number of possible stun multipliers (3 instead of 5) would reduce the volatility.

 

Instead of the possible distinct stun results for, say, 1d6 killing being 15 (1,2,3,4,5,6,8,10,12,9,15,18,16,20,25,30) the possible stun results are now 11 (losing 16,20,25,30).

 

Fewer possibilities and smaller range (1-18 vs 1-30). Looks like Killing Attacks would be very effectively nerfed by the change.

[The Main Man]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Exactly.

 

Killing attacks would now have a leash and be no more or less effective than Normal attacks, but at the same time they would retain separate functions.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I'm a lawyer, not a mathematician, dammit, but surely it is reducing the range but not the volatility? I mean, it is still a multiple of a single dice result.

 

That change means that the majority (2/3) of attacks will have x1 or x2 stun multiples, making he absolute maximum damage 24x3 = 72 points once in 7776 hits, but the vast majority of hits (83%) will be below average in Bod or stun multiple.

 

Compared to a normal attack, the chances of getting above average stun are 1 in 6 rather than 1 in 2, and whilst the range may be greater, and I'm down with the kids on how effective STUN results can be, it simply is not worth it: most Hero characters go unconscious anyway after 2-4 hits. Waiting for an extreme stun result is silly when it only happens 1 in 6 times.

 

Ye gods, I hope that isn't the 'solution'. It is the worst of both worlds; you retain the volatility of Body damage (reducing the effectiveness of a number of other powers and the environment in general) but swap 'too much stun' for 'too little stun'.

 

What you want is the opposite: a reasonably reliable average Body damage with stun proportional to the relationship between body and defence.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Running some quick numbers. a 1/2D6 StunX creates slightly less Stun on Average than Normal Attacks, and slightly more Body on Average than Normal Attacks.

 

Meh, I'd just be happy to see the D6-1 go away.

 

60 AP Attack

 

12D6 Normal = 0-24 Body & 12-72 Stun (Average of 12 & 42)

4D6 Killing = 4-24 Body & 4-72 Stun (Average 14 & 28)

 

Normal has a wider Body range and Killing has a wider Stun range in that specific example. With higher Averages in the narrow range aspect.

 

Personally, since we're trying to create Actual Different Mechanics, I think it's a decent compromise. Since, you know, we want them to be DIFFERENT.

 

As I said though, I'd just be happy to see D6-1 go away.

Defense is a solution to be solved on a case by case basis, game by game, and it would be impossible (and frankly stupid) to try and base the Attack Mechanic over what a Perceived Defense Level could/would/might/possibly be. . . .

[The Main Man]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Yeah, the thing is that while the Stunx has merely had its range cut, that range effectively renders its volatility a moot point since it is now generally balanced against normal damage.

 

I would also say that since a 1/2d6 seems to solve the problem, I think that the pricing of 1d6-1 should have a second look because while it averages out to being equal to a 1/2d6, it has superior range and should thusly be repriced.

 

I'm thinking something like ~4/5 of any damage class cost.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

That just becomes cumbersome in practice, unfortunately. The math may be sound, but it's just too much of a PITA to seriously deal with Mechanically.

 

Since Damage Classes are the currency of Hero Attacks, keeping things as 5 Points per DC is more to the benefit of the system than worrying about a minor glitch. Only Advantages move us off the 5pt/DC Baseline, as they should.

[The Main Man]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

To be fair, I'm talking more about how 1 pip can be bought for 2 CP (5 CP/DC), 3 CP (10 CP/DC), or 5 CP (15 CP/DC), while 1/2d6 can be purchased at 3 CP (5 CP/DC), 5 CP (10 CP/DC), and 10 CP (15 CP/DC).

 

I'm thinking that 1d6-1 could be purchased at 4 CP (5 CP/DC), 8 CP (10 CP/DC), and 12 CP (15 CP/DC).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

That just becomes cumbersome in practice, unfortunately. The math may be sound, but it's just too much of a PITA to seriously deal with Mechanically.

 

Since Damage Classes are the currency of Hero Attacks, keeping things as 5 Points per DC is more to the benefit of the system than worrying about a minor glitch. Only Advantages move us off the 5pt/DC Baseline, as they should.

 

Hallelluja, Brother!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

To be fair, I'm talking more about how 1 pip can be bought for 2 CP (5 CP/DC), 3 CP (10 CP/DC), or 5 CP (15 CP/DC), while 1/2d6 can be purchased at 3 CP (5 CP/DC), 5 CP (10 CP/DC), and 10 CP (15 CP/DC).

 

I'm thinking that 1d6-1 could be purchased at 4 CP (5 CP/DC), 8 CP (10 CP/DC), and 12 CP (15 CP/DC).

 

Are we talking about something different here? This is actual damage rather than multipliers.

 

The progression: 1 pip to 1/2d6 (or 1d6-1) to 1d6 has always been a point of concern. I'm not sure we need 1d6-1 but I think it is already accounted for in some supplements, possibly The Ultimate Energy projector amongst them, and it follows the cost progression you suggest pretty closely, IIRC.

 

My biggest single problem in this area is that there is currently no 'right' way to do 2 points of standard effect damage.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

To be fair, I'm talking more about how 1 pip can be bought for 2 CP (5 CP/DC), 3 CP (10 CP/DC), or 5 CP (15 CP/DC), while 1/2d6 can be purchased at 3 CP (5 CP/DC), 5 CP (10 CP/DC), and 10 CP (15 CP/DC).

 

I'm thinking that 1d6-1 could be purchased at 4 CP (5 CP/DC), 8 CP (10 CP/DC), and 12 CP (15 CP/DC).

 

The problem here is that 1/2 Damage Classes don't actually exist.

 

It is a full on Glitch in the system that Normal Attacks have a 1/2D6 and they only exist because of Strength providing Damage, and as a concession to give some reason to buy Strength in lots other than 5.

 

The 1 Pip Normal Attack for 2 Points is very much Unofficial Rules, Optional at best case scenario.

 

the Adding Damage Rules are very clear - there are no 1/2 Damage Classes and therefor the 1/2D6 Normal Hand Attack is to give STR Differentiation and 1/2D6 Energy Blast exists only because STR is already complicating the problem.

 

In fact - in the Rules they don't even Mention 1/2D6 Normal Attack anywhere BUT the STR Damage Table. Energy Blast doesn't come with the option as RAW (Neither does Hand Attack for that matter). Further pushing the fact that they are merely essentially a universal House Rule, probably just to make us feel better as we go "But +3 STR gives you 1/2D6!" or some other justification.

 

What is 1 Pip Normal Attack? 1/4 Damage Class? 1/3 Damage Class? Neither - total anomoly in the system. It's like that one dead pixel on your otherwise perfectly working laptop screen.

 

 

Either way, they shouldn't become an Official Rule by any stretch of the imagination. The only reason Killing Attacks have them is because 15 Points = 1D6, making Killing Attacks 3 Damage Classes per 1D6, naturally letting us ask "I only want to purchase 1 or 2 Damage Classes" we actually do have to let in the possibility of 1 Pip and 1/2D6.

 

Personally I think the Killing Attack Damage Class Table should be offset, and start at 1/2D6, but I have a feeling that would just cause more issues than it solves.

 

After all - we're really purchasing Damage Classes, not D6s.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

...and I do not see how 1/2d6 would sort out the stun lotto - it simply reduces the stun. The problem is not how much stun it does' date=' at least not directly, the problem is the volatility of the roll and the disconnect between stun and body.[/quote']

 

It depends on what problem one is attempting to solve. It does reduce the volatility of STUN damage - there are now only three possibilities, with a much lower range, so that 4d6 KA that used to get STUN of 14 - 70 on an average BOD roll will now get 14 - 42. There is still a 1 in 3,888 chance of doing 72 damage (4 6's for BOD plus a 5 or 6 for multiple), where a 12d6 normal attack has a 1 in 2,176,782,336 chance of achieving the same result, so the KA remains much more volatile.

 

However, average STUN for the normal attack remains 42, while KA average has fallen to 28 from 37, a significant drop off.

 

Unless the game has typical rDEF so low that the KA can inflict significant BOD on each hit, the KA is no longer a useful attack choice. We'll still see them in Multipowers for the slight average BOD increase against entangles, automatons and walls, but their use as a viable attack form against credible opponents will be genre-dependent. rDEF levels at the current averages will neutralize the KA. Dragons will need to be bludgeoned down with normal attacks due to their traditionally high rDEF.

 

I agree that other solutions would be more viable. My top three choices would be:

 

(a) KA's are 5 points for 1d6, count STUN and BOD as normal attacks except subtract 1/2 the dice from the STUN (average 36 at 12 DC) and count 1's as one BOD (average 14 at 12DC). The averages are close to the status quo, but the volatility becomes comparable with normal attacks.

 

( Hit Locations - these allow for enhancement of damage for normal attacks as well, leveling the playing field by providing increased volatility for normal attacks.

 

© Volatility options for all attacks. Use KA's as (a), above, and leave normal attacks. These are Standard Volatility attacks. If you wish, you can remove all volatility and always have an average roll (note that this is a higher roll than the present "standard effect" as it would not round down to 3/die). Or you may make your attack High Volatility. In this case, KA's operate under their current 5e model, and normal attacks roll 1/3 the dice, add the total and subtract half the dice to determine BOD and roll a 1d6 Stun Multiple. Under this model, a High Volatility Normal Attack of 12 DC rolls 4d6 for BOD = 14. Subtract half the dice (2) = 12 BOD. Roll 1d6 and multiply for an average of 42 STUN and a range of 12 - 72.

 

I kind of like ©, as it provides the greatest range of options. Depending on desired campaign feel, the GM could mandate only one volatility level is permitted, or allow choice of two or all three, or even set the volatility level for normal and killing attacks at different levels.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

My top option would probably be this:

 

1. Roll damage as a normal attack for the appropriate number of DC.

2. Subtract rDEF from Body damage.

3. Subtract 2xrDEF from Stun damage.

4. Against living/complex targets, if not using a hit location system AND there is Body through defences, roll 1d6. On a 1, you halve the Body and stun through defences. On a 2-5 it stays the same. On a 6 you double both.

5. You can buy a form of Life Support (LS:undifferentiated body/backup organs) for 10 points that prevents step 4 happening.

 

That does what I want:

 

a) it doesn't increase the ability of the attack to destroy stuff unless it can penetrate the defences of the target anyway

it keeps stun and Body closely related without keeping them in lockstep

c) it remains damn scary in a heroic game if you have no resistant defence

d) it allows you to build 'bulletproof' characters at a reasonable cost in superheroic games (i.e. characters who don't have to worry too much about normal small arms fire - NOT characters who do not have to worry about killing attacks)

e) it allows you to build characters that don't have vital organs that cause extreme damage if hit.

 

Of course everyone is likely to want something different

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

The problem here is that 1/2 Damage Classes don't actually exist.

 

It is a full on Glitch in the system that Normal Attacks have a 1/2D6 and they only exist because of Strength providing Damage, and as a concession to give some reason to buy Strength in lots other than 5.

 

The 1 Pip Normal Attack for 2 Points is very much Unofficial Rules, Optional at best case scenario.

 

the Adding Damage Rules are very clear - there are no 1/2 Damage Classes and therefor the 1/2D6 Normal Hand Attack is to give STR Differentiation and 1/2D6 Energy Blast exists only because STR is already complicating the problem.

 

In fact - in the Rules they don't even Mention 1/2D6 Normal Attack anywhere BUT the STR Damage Table. Energy Blast doesn't come with the option as RAW (Neither does Hand Attack for that matter). Further pushing the fact that they are merely essentially a universal House Rule, probably just to make us feel better as we go "But +3 STR gives you 1/2D6!" or some other justification.

 

What is 1 Pip Normal Attack? 1/4 Damage Class? 1/3 Damage Class? Neither - total anomoly in the system. It's like that one dead pixel on your otherwise perfectly working laptop screen.

 

 

Either way, they shouldn't become an Official Rule by any stretch of the imagination. The only reason Killing Attacks have them is because 15 Points = 1D6, making Killing Attacks 3 Damage Classes per 1D6, naturally letting us ask "I only want to purchase 1 or 2 Damage Classes" we actually do have to let in the possibility of 1 Pip and 1/2D6.

 

Personally I think the Killing Attack Damage Class Table should be offset, and start at 1/2D6, but I have a feeling that would just cause more issues than it solves.

 

After all - we're really purchasing Damage Classes, not D6s.

 

Agreed, but I think that the half die is really only a problem when computing BDY damage, because there is no issue for a 3½d6 NND or EGO attack; you just divide the STN on the last die in half.

 

Has anyone given thought to using the half die not for damage in itself, but as an option to reroll one of the other dice? And how about using such a system for Killing attacks, where the extra pip isn't extra damage but an option to reroll a low number. I can see where that would be more advantageous for low DC attacks where there are few dice to begin with, but it might be something worth considering.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

My top option would probably be this:

 

1. Roll damage as a normal attack for the appropriate number of DC.

2. Subtract rDEF from Body damage.

3. Subtract 2xrDEF from Stun damage.

4. Against living/complex targets, if not using a hit location system AND there is Body through defences, roll 1d6. On a 1, you halve the Body and stun through defences. On a 2-5 it stays the same. On a 6 you double both.

5. You can buy a form of Life Support (LS:undifferentiated body/backup organs) for 10 points that prevents step 4 happening.

 

That does what I want:

 

a) it doesn't increase the ability of the attack to destroy stuff unless it can penetrate the defences of the target anyway

it keeps stun and Body closely related without keeping them in lockstep

c) it remains damn scary in a heroic game if you have no resistant defence

d) it allows you to build 'bulletproof' characters at a reasonable cost in superheroic games (i.e. characters who don't have to worry too much about normal small arms fire - NOT characters who do not have to worry about killing attacks)

e) it allows you to build characters that don't have vital organs that cause extreme damage if hit.

 

Of course everyone is likely to want something different

 

I like it. That even feels very consistent with the current Hit Locations system.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Agreed, but I think that the half die is really only a problem when computing BDY damage, because there is no issue for a 3½d6 NND or EGO attack; you just divide the STN on the last die in half.

 

Has anyone given thought to using the half die not for damage in itself, but as an option to reroll one of the other dice? And how about using such a system for Killing attacks, where the extra pip isn't extra damage but an option to reroll a low number. I can see where that would be more advantageous for low DC attacks where there are few dice to begin with, but it might be something worth considering.

 

In regards to EGO Attack, which costs 10 Points per 1D6. a 1/2D6 EGO Attack is 1 Damage Class. Perfectly normal there.

 

It's the 1/2D6 Normal Attack that is the odd man out - it literally is a 1/2 Damage Class and therefore has no place in the system thematically.

 

Again - the system is Not counted in D6s, but DCs. If we set 1DC = 5 Points and No 1/2 DCs you cannot actually have a 1/2D6 Normal Attack if they are 1D6 = 1DC. That we do have one is a problem in itself.

[The Main Man]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I don't see the 1/2d6 N (or 1 pip N or 1d6-1 N) as a "glitch" but a logical extension that provides more options to players.

 

I personally think that the "no partial Damage Classes" rule should be a guideline, not an immutable law.

 

After all, the mere existence of the increased granularity in STR dice is either an admittance to that or else it makes the system hypocritical and close-minded.

 

And for the record, I know that HD is not an official interpretation of the rules as it says so itself.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Within regards to increased differentiation to STR - I agree, it's a good thing. I like the options.

 

You just have to realize it brings with it an added issue of 1/2 and 1/3 Damage Classes that can make life more of a headache than needed.

 

After all - if 2 Combat Skill Levels adds 1 Damage Class; 1 CSL should logically add 1/2 Damage Class and how CSLs add 1 Pip Normal Attack? See where that gets us? Makes Adding Damage even More complicated than it already is.

 

If we really broke it down it could look something like this mess:

1 Pt : 1 Pip (1 Damage)

2 Pts : 1/2D6-1 (1-2 Damage)

4 Pts : 1/2D6 (or D6-1) (1-3 Damage OR 1-5 Damage)

5 pts : D6 (1-6 Damage)

 

Now we see that we actually have 6 Options across a D6 range Option 4 gives us a possible two ranges, one of which is clearly superior in usage with a large range (though more volatile).

 

But how do we now look into Adding Damage? Are we counting 20% Damage Classes?

It's a freaking headache.

 

The increased granularity looks awesome on paper. But we'd practically have to restructure how we think of Damage Classes and how they fit together to work with them from multiple sources. Especially when we get into Advantages. I have enough STR to add +1DC plus a little left over, can I use it to add 40% of a DC (1/2D6-1) to the attack? Or 60% of a DC (1/2D6 or D6-1)?

 

Personally... that way lies madness and it's neat as a STR granularity trick, but a mess outside that specific arena.