Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

[The Main Man]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Fair enough.

 

*Clasps hands, bows head*

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

ha... I messed up.

 

The Damage Cost should look like this:

1 Pt : 1 Pip

2 Pts: 1/2D6-1

3 Pts: 1/2D6

4 Pts: D6-1 (1/2D6+1)

5 Pts: D6

 

The 4 Pt level is either 2-4 or 1-5

 

Well... I certainly opens up all kinds of rather cool options to be fair about it. The granualirty would be pretty cool.

 

hmmm.... if you take every "added Damage Class" from CSLs, Martial Maneuvers, and Velocity and converted it to straight Active Points Added... then added all the APs together and recosted the Attack to adjust for the new APs to Damage Classes. . . you could easily work with that level of differentiation.

 

It would work the same regardless of Advantages (though Advantages increase the specific cost of 1 Damage Class).

 

huh. neat.

[Hugh Neilson]

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.

 

This depends a lot on rDEF being about half of total defenses. If rDEF is lower, this is a more effective attack at inflicting STUN, as well as much more effective at inflicting BOD. If rDEF is more than half of total defenses, the KA loses its ability to inflict any damage.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

This depends a lot on rDEF being about half of total defenses. If rDEF is lower' date=' this is a more effective attack at inflicting STUN, as well as much more effective at inflicting BOD. If rDEF is more than half of total defenses, the KA loses its ability to inflict any damage.[/quote']

 

True, but it makes a lot more sense than rDEF+DEF v stun.

 

BTW:

 

Either Hero guns do far too much damage, Hero wood doesn't have enough DEF, we need some way to convert to damage over time, or I'm (as usual) missing the point.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Er, unless it's a huge gun or firing a lot of rounds continuously.

AGAIN - little bullets vs big tree = Real Weapon Limitation. Bullet makes a nice hole possibly....

 

Take the gun that did chop down the tree... how is that usually modeled? Area Of Effect:Line, No Range.

 

Not one bullet at a time.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

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

 

He did? When? Where?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

He announced it in this weeks chat.

[Hierax]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

1/2d6 vs. 1d6-1 doesn't change anything if you already use Standard Effect for StunX (2 either way), but it does improve it if you don't as it makes Killing attacks do more killing damage on average than Normal attacks and Normal attacks do more non-killing attacks (3 vs. 2 STUN).

 

How is this not a good thing? Personally, I think Steve found a great solution to a problem that has too long plagued the Hero System.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

He announced it in this weeks chat.

Damn. That'll teach me to ignore chats.

 

This keeps an element of randomness, but gets rid of the instant-fight-ending x4 and especially x5 Stun Multiplier results. (I assume characters will still be able to buy Increased Stun Multiple.) A good roll can still result in a lot of Stun from the KA, but still on average less than a same-cost normal attack. This is not a perfect solution, but it's a darn good compromise.

 

I can already see this is going to be a very unpopular decision in my gaming group. Everyone but me likes the existing pre-6E version. Me, I've hated the Stun Lottery forever. I suspect ultimately this will reinforce our group's decision to stick with 5ER. Sorry, Steve. Can't win them all.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I can already see this is going to be a very unpopular decision in my gaming group. Everyone but me likes the existing pre-6E version. Me' date=' I've hated the Stun Lottery forever. I suspect ultimately this will reinforce our group's decision to stick with 5ER.[/quote']

 

Then it's time to break out the cheese. 2d6 RKA, +4 STUN multiplier (or +5 if you have a 15DC cap). Yeah, it's unbalanced - which is why Steve is changing the rule.

[Vulcan]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Did Steve announce he was getting rid of the 'Increased Stun Multiple' advatage as well? Otherwise... well, the 1d6 RKA, +4 ISM build is still a pretty potent STUN-damaging build. 5-42 Stun (Average 21) doesn't suck for 30 AP.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Damn. That'll teach me to ignore chats.

 

This keeps an element of randomness, but gets rid of the instant-fight-ending x4 and especially x5 Stun Multiplier results. (I assume characters will still be able to buy Increased Stun Multiple.) A good roll can still result in a lot of Stun from the KA, but still on average less than a same-cost normal attack. This is not a perfect solution, but it's a darn good compromise.

 

I can already see this is going to be a very unpopular decision in my gaming group. Everyone but me likes the existing pre-6E version. Me, I've hated the Stun Lottery forever. I suspect ultimately this will reinforce our group's decision to stick with 5ER. Sorry, Steve. Can't win them all.

 

Weird, isn't it.

 

I've seen hundreds of posts over the years, possibly thousands, addressing the problems with killing attacks and the stun multiple, and I do not recall one that suggested 1/2d6 stun multiplier as a solution.

 

OK, I didn't hang out much on the 6th ed threads, so maybe it was in there, but I'm having my first real concern about 6th if this is Steve 'listening'. I don't know what I was hoping for, but this seems seems like 'solving' the problem by going too far the other way.

 

No one is likely to buy KA hoping for the big score on stun, like they did (you can probably get outside the normal attack bell curve, but not often enough to make it worth it), but we stick with the high but volatile Body roll which, to my mind, causes an awful lot of systemic problems in Hero.

 

You can't judge it until you see the whole thing - that is why leaking stuff piecemeal is a bad idea, but, well, it was leaked/released, and we don't see the big picture yet - it is going to cause concern.

 

Maybe it will all work out OK. I hope so.

[Vulcan]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Going off the subject....

 

One of my big worries for 6E was that Figured characteristics would be decoupled (making characteristic-dependant concepts even more expensive) while leaving Elemental Controls alone (which provide the biggest benefits for concepts with lots of points in powers... which charcteristic-dependant concepts do not have). That would have (in my opinion) lead to a total unbalancing of the character archetypes.

 

The Unified Power limitation, on the other hand, can benefit even characteristic-dependant concepts quite considerably. Not to mention getting away from the limitations inherent in Elemental Contols.

 

(I just hope I didn't argue against it in the 6E forums, looking back it really was a pretty good idea. )

[Trebuchet]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Weird, isn't it.

 

I've seen hundreds of posts over the years, possibly thousands, addressing the problems with killing attacks and the stun multiple, and I do not recall one that suggested 1/2d6 stun multiplier as a solution.

 

OK, I didn't hang out much on the 6th ed threads, so maybe it was in there, but I'm having my first real concern about 6th if this is Steve 'listening'. I don't know what I was hoping for, but this seems seems like 'solving' the problem by going too far the other way.

 

No one is likely to buy KA hoping for the big score on stun, like they did (you can probably get outside the normal attack bell curve, but not often enough to make it worth it), but we stick with the high but volatile Body roll which, to my mind, causes an awful lot of systemic problems in Hero.

 

You can't judge it until you see the whole thing - that is why leaking stuff piecemeal is a bad idea, but, well, it was leaked/released, and we don't see the big picture yet - it is going to cause concern.

 

Maybe it will all work out OK. I hope so.

To me the thing that's really weird is that you and I both disliked the old Killing Attacks method but for very different reasons. You clearly dislike the highly variable amount of BODY generated; I absolutely despised the Stun Lottery but had no problem with the BODY damage. Others in my group think the Lotto is the single best feature of KA's. To me this just illustrates that there is no "correct" answer on this issue, but merely more or less tolerable compromises.

 

I'll be interested in seeing the entire package Steve puts together on what has clearly proven to be one of the Hero system's most volatile issues. There's almost no chance our group will adopt 6E when it comes out but there's also no doubt several of us will buy copies of it, if only for academic purposes. I know I'll be ordering my copy of 6E ASAA (As Soon As Available).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Er, unless it's a huge gun or firing a lot of rounds continuously.

AGAIN - little bullets vs big tree = Real Weapon Limitation. Bullet makes a nice hole possibly....

 

Take the gun that did chop down the tree... how is that usually modeled? Area Of Effect:Line, No Range.

 

Not one bullet at a time.

 

Real weapon gets horribly overused: I'm sure if it restricts things that much it ought to be worth more than -1/4. DEF and damage seem arbitrarily set to me.

 

AoE Line won't take a minute to cut a tree down: it will either do it or not. You might need a couple of goes to get a decent Body roll, but that's it. Here's what I'm thinking, as a house rule: if you attack a target continuously, you can add +1 to the Body the attack does per move up the time chart. That simulates chipping away reasonably well. A minute is +2 Body. That may well get swamped by the volatility of killing attacks, but if you are dealing with something at the top end of the damage curve, it could work quite nicely, allowing you to damage with a hundred blows something that is impervious to two or three.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Real weapon gets horribly overused: I'm sure if it restricts things that much it ought to be worth more than -1/4. DEF and damage seem arbitrarily set to me.

 

AoE Line won't take a minute to cut a tree down: it will either do it or not. You might need a couple of goes to get a decent Body roll, but that's it. Here's what I'm thinking, as a house rule: if you attack a target continuously, you can add +1 to the Body the attack does per move up the time chart. That simulates chipping away reasonably well. A minute is +2 Body. That may well get swamped by the volatility of killing attacks, but if you are dealing with something at the top end of the damage curve, it could work quite nicely, allowing you to damage with a hundred blows something that is impervious to two or three.

I remember watching the Mythbusters chop down a foot-thick tree with a .30 caliber minigun. It can be done, but it took hundreds of rounds to do it. I think your method would simulate that rather nicely.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

To me the thing that's really weird is that you and I both disliked the old Killing Attacks method but for very different reasons. You clearly dislike the highly variable amount of BODY generated; I absolutely despised the Stun Lottery but had no problem with the BODY damage. Others in my group think the Lotto is the single best feature of KA's. To me this just illustrates that there is no "correct" answer on this issue, but merely more or less tolerable compromises.

 

I'll be interested in seeing the entire package Steve puts together on what has clearly proven to be one of the Hero system's most volatile issues. There's almost no chance our group will adopt 6E when it comes out but there's also no doubt several of us will buy copies of it, if only for academic purposes. I know I'll be ordering my copy of 6E ASAA (As Soon As Available).

 

 

I'd noticed that too But for the record, I'm also against the stun lotto - I just can't see what it is designed to accomplish for simulation purposes and I don't like the effect it has on combat, especially in superheroic games. It's just that I also don't like the Body lotto.

 

Steve has a difficult job, but I think there is an easy answer. Lots of people do not like killing attacks, but their reasons vary enormously. If I had to address that sort of dillema I'd give multiple options, all of which are 'core' (as opposed to a 'right way' and some other ways if you don't like that). He doesn't need to do that for all the powers, but KA causes more debate than almost anything else.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I'd noticed that too But for the record' date=' I'm also against the stun lotto - I just can't see what it is designed to accomplish for simulation purposes and I don't like the effect it has on combat, especially in superheroic games. It's just that I [i']also [/i]don't like the Body lotto.

 

Steve has a difficult job, but I think there is an easy answer. Lots of people do not like killing attacks, but their reasons vary enormously. If I had to address that sort of dillema I'd give multiple options, all of which are 'core' (as opposed to a 'right way' and some other ways if you don't like that). He doesn't need to do that for all the powers, but KA causes more debate than almost anything else.

Yes, a list of several "official" options for Killing Attacks might be the best approach. I'd be surprised if this hasn't already occurred to Steve even it's not how he ultimately went (which we don't know yet). We don't know which arguments (and his own extensive experience playing Hero) carried the most weight with Steve.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Yes' date=' a list of several "official" options for Killing Attacks might be the best approach. I'd be surprised if this hasn't already occurred to Steve even it's not how he ultimately went (which we don't know yet). We don't know which arguments (and his own extensive experience playing Hero) carried the most weight with Steve.[/quote']

 

The agonies of uncertainty, eh? Maybe he's even winding us up about the 1/2d6

 

Probably best not to worry about it. I'll be buying it too, when it comes out, in a spirit of open minded optimism. Assuming I can get my mind open...

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Did Steve announce he was getting rid of the 'Increased Stun Multiple' advatage as well? Otherwise... well' date=' the 1d6 RKA, +4 ISM build is still a pretty potent STUN-damaging build. 5-42 Stun (Average 21) doesn't suck for 30 AP.[/quote']

 

Yes - but that's a Power Build the GM can arbitrate and not a Rule built into the System.

[Vulcan]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Yes - but that's a Power Build the GM can arbitrate and not a Rule built into the System.

 

True.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Damn. That'll teach me to ignore chats.

 

This keeps an element of randomness, but gets rid of the instant-fight-ending x4 and especially x5 Stun Multiplier results. (I assume characters will still be able to buy Increased Stun Multiple.) A good roll can still result in a lot of Stun from the KA, but still on average less than a same-cost normal attack. This is not a perfect solution, but it's a darn good compromise.

 

I can already see this is going to be a very unpopular decision in my gaming group. Everyone but me likes the existing pre-6E version. Me, I've hated the Stun Lottery forever. I suspect ultimately this will reinforce our group's decision to stick with 5ER. Sorry, Steve. Can't win them all.

 

You could still purchase 6e and house-rule that one thing...

 

While the volitality of the BODY of a KA is greater than an equal normal attack, I think the limited number of dice in any KA limits the detrimental effects of this volitility. So I'm not too concerned with BODY volitility, especially considering that it would take 20 BODY after defenses to kill a normal (un-bought-up BODY) character.

 

I might try a house rule to the 1/2 D6 for StunX. Roll and count the KA BODY normally, then roll an equal number of dice and total both groups to determine STUN. Increased STUN Multple would just add more dice to the second (STUN) part of the roll.

 

So a 4d6 KA would be rolled with 4d6 to detrmine BODY like:

 

4, 2, 5, 4 = 15 BODY,

 

Then 4 more dice would be rolled to get total STUN like:

 

3, 2, 6, 5 = 16. 16 + 15 = 31 STUN.

 

The number of dice to add to get the total STUN (prior to any ISMs) can also be fine-tuned depending upon how "Stunning" killing attacks should be in the game world.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I do worry about Body volatility - sometimes lying awake all night*.

 

My problem is this: I think that Body damage should interact differently with defences and Body. I don't mind the volatility in respect to Body, but I don't like it in respect of DEF - whether you are CAPABLE of consistently damaging an object should be almost binary - whereas what damage you actually do can be quite variable. I'm writing up a house rule to address that at present, which I'll post on another thread at some point.

 

Also I think that volatility should be less for undifferentiated targets: you hit a concrete block with a sledgehammer, you get reasonably predictable results, no matter where you hit. You hit The Human Target with a sledgehammer and it makes a big difference if you are aiming for her hand or her head.

 

 

 

*Not really

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

Make some objects DEF Non-Resistant?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Attacks vs Stun Lottery

 

I do worry about Body volatility - sometimes lying awake all night*.

 

My problem is this: I think that Body damage should interact differently with defences and Body. I don't mind the volatility in respect to Body, but I don't like it in respect of DEF - whether you are CAPABLE of consistently damaging an object should be almost binary - whereas what damage you actually do can be quite variable. I'm writing up a house rule to address that at present, which I'll post on another thread at some point.

 

Well, given the bell curve makes whether or not something is accomplished pretty predictable, perhaps we need a 3d6 roll of Damage Classes vs Defense Classes to determine whether the attack actually penetrates to do damage, followed by a more volatile damage roll to determine how much damage is actually inflicted.

 

That adds another roll to every attack, though, so we probably want to avoid that.

 

Maybe we can integrate it with the OCV/DCV roll that determines whether you hit at all (whether or not it has any effect). It doesn't matter that much whether you did no damage because you missed, or because you couldn't get past the target's defenses, so we just merge "Did it hit or did he dodge" with "Did it do damage or bounce off his defenses".

 

I wonder if there are any games out there that thought of this remarkable abstraction to make a single roll to see whether your attack both hit and does damage...