Post "gotchas" here

[etherio]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Well' date=' in 6E Hand-to-Hand Attack does [i']not[/i] state that it is limited Strength. It states that it adds to your damage from Str, and how much it costs.

 

The cost structure is based on STR, but I think that this distinction is made so that players don't confuse HA with STR in gameplay. Otherwise, complex arguments about things like whether or not the HA damage should be halved when performing a Move Through would result.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I just noticed this last night. (We have only played supers since I got the pdfs for 6e.) It seems like an oversight to me. It makes KAs that use the hit location chart more powerful than those that don't. I'm gonna do some numbers crunching and see how they compare' date=' but I'm kind of disappointed by it that particular choice so far.[/quote']

 

Whether or not to use the Hit Location Chart should be a decision made by the GM at the campaign level. I think that if some Killing Attacks use the chart and some don't, the ones that do are more powerful and should cost more.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I just noticed this last night. (We have only played supers since I got the pdfs for 6e.) It seems like an oversight to me. It makes KAs that use the hit location chart more powerful than those that don't. I'm gonna do some numbers crunching and see how they compare' date=' but I'm kind of disappointed by it that particular choice so far.[/quote']

 

It's not an oversight. It was left that way on purpose.

 

If you're using the Hit Location Chart you don't use the Stun Multiple Die. If you're using the Stun Multiple Die you are, by definition, not using the Hit Location Chart. That's a Campaign Decision as Chris noted. No campaign should randomly use both at once.

 

If you're making Called Shots - you can get a greater Stun Multiple at the cost of an OCV Penalty. That's also on purpose.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

No campaign should randomly use both at once.

 

Hmm. I don't entirely agree. Some campaigns might use the default Stun Multiplier die unless a called shot is made, in which case they use the Hit Locations chart. Also, in a game that uses Hit Locations, the GM might have some forms of attack/damage (e.g. Area of Effect attacks, falling, Str-based Move Throughs, whatever) use a random Stun Multiplier die instead of rolling a Hit Location.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Called Shots are not the same thing as randomly using the Hit Location Chart - I should have been more explicit I suppose.

 

You either use the Stun Multiplier and Called Shots or you use the Hit Location Chart and Called Shots.

 

I guess you have a point on the AoE - but I've always simply use the Chest/Stomach StunX there.

[etherio]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

It's not an oversight. It was left that way on purpose.

 

If you're using the Hit Location Chart you don't use the Stun Multiple Die. If you're using the Stun Multiple Die you are, by definition, not using the Hit Location Chart. .

 

I doubt anyone here was confused about that. The question at hand is, 'Are they reasonably equivalent?' I, and some others, think that they aren't.

 

That's a Campaign Decision as Chris noted. No campaign should randomly use both at once.

 

If you're making Called Shots - you can get a greater Stun Multiple at the cost of an OCV Penalty. That's also on purpose.

 

I never suggested that a campaign would "randomly" use both at once. That would be ridiculous. You've got an interesting predilection for making straw-man arguments.

 

I suggested...perfectly reasonably, IMHO...that both could appear in a campaign. There is even a limitation 'Cannot Use Targeting' for that express purpose. If they can both reasonably appear in a campaign, then they should be reasonably equivalent. I realize that one could argue that the limitation value might compensate for the decrease in STUN damage, but I'm guessing that it was designed to reflect the inability to get other benefits from targeting. The limitation did, after all, exist before 6e, and it's applicable to Normal attacks as well, which don't suffer from reduced damage from it in the same way that KAs do.

 

I did an analysis of the mean damage multipliers when using the hit location chart, and they reveal a disparity. I attached a graphic for those of you who'd like to see my data and methods.

 

For a 3d6 roll on the Hit Location table:

 

• Mean STUN X = 2.87
  
• Mean BODY X = .99
  
• Mean Normal STUN X= 1.00
  

 

For a 2d6+1 (High Shot) roll on the Hit Location table-

 

• Mean STUN X = 2.89
  
• Mean BODY X = .99
  
• Mean Normal STUN X= 1.00
  

 

 

 

These numbers always seemed to be adequately equivalent to the numbers you'd get when not using the chart. They're both very close to 1 on BODY and N STUN, and they are pretty close to the mean STUN X on a 1d6-1...which is 2.5. Additionally, the STUN X range is the same on the chart as it is on a 1d6-1 roll...1 to 5.

 

However, with the new 1/2 d6 roll for STUN X (which I wholeheartedly appreciate), the location chart multipliers for STUN are now a bit too different from the die roll. They average almost a full point higher, nearly equivalent to giving every weapon that uses it a +1 STUN Multiplier advantage (or conversely, those that don't a Reduced STUN Multiplier limitation). Additionally, their range is greater...1 to 5 as opposed to 1 to 3 that the die roll can provide.

 

I suggest one of the following (mutually exclusive) house-rule fixes for the sake of game balance:

 

1. Reduce the multipliers across the chart so they have a mean closer to 2
   
2. Allow KAs that 'Cannot Use Targeting' an additional -1/4, 'Uses 1/2 d6 for STUN Multiplier' (equivalent to 'Reduced STUN Multiplier')
   

 

I'm leaning toward the former. I have often felt in the past that STUN Multipliers needed a bit of nerfing. It also keeps the amount of KA STUN damage consistent between campaigns that do and do not use the hit location chart. (We do not use it for supers.)

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I doubt anyone here was confused about that. The question at hand is' date=' 'Are they reasonably equivalent?' I, and some others, think that they aren't. [/quote']

 

They're definitely different. But the difference should be at the campaign level, not attack vs. attack -- in other words, one character isn't going to somehow be able to acquire an advantage over another by using the Hit Location Chart. They either all use the chart or they all use 1/2d6.

 

Also, 1/2d6 is the "highly recommended default option" but room is left for the GM to use other options (1d6-1 is one listed).

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Wasn't really a straw man. So I'll leave you to whatever you think I was trying to say.

 

Have fun doing whatever.

[etherio]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

They're definitely different. But the difference should be at the campaign level, not attack vs. attack -- in other words, one character isn't going to somehow be able to acquire an advantage over another by using the Hit Location Chart. They either all use the chart or they all use 1/2d6.

 

Also, 1/2d6 is the "highly recommended default option" but room is left for the GM to use other options (1d6-1 is one listed).

 

It seems clear to me that changing to a 1/2d6 roll...not to mention the fact that normal defense now protects one from KA STUN... was meant to reduce the STUN for KAs. Keeping the hit location multipliers as they were (which generates STUN amounts equivalent to the old 1d6-1 multiplier) seems strange to me in light of the other changes. One might like the higher numbers, though, or might not have a problem with KAs operating more powerfully in heroic campaigns.

 

However, the issue doesn't end with simply choosing which shall be used in a campaign, because a campaign that uses hit locations can also very reasonably include KAs that do generalized damage instead, as in the case of the aforementioned 'Cannot Use Targeting' limitation, among other examples.

 

In those cases of generalized damage, KAs suffer a significant loss in power compared to equivalent normal attacks. To me, that represents a game-balance issue. My suggestions were meant for those who might agree and want to do more than hand-wave that discrepancy in their own games.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

First - Hit Locations are an Optional Rule, always have been. Within that consideration they aren't weighted the same as Core Rules.

 

Second - a -1/2 Limitation is equivalent to a -2 Stun Multiplier. So if you must you can assume trading a possible 1-5 on KAs with Hit Locations you now have a 1-3 (given a Minimum StunX of 1). Which fits the 1D3 Model. Since you can only use the General Targeting Limitation in a Campaign using an Optional Rule of Hit Locations, I consider that fair.

 

Third - Making a Called Shot let's you attempt to get a higher StunX at the cost of an OCV penalty, another aspect I consider fair.

 

Fourth - This discussion probably could have been avoided entirely had you said "I'm looking for an alternative solution because I see an imbalance" instead of "It seems like an oversight to me" - because it wasn't. Or heck, "I don't like it, let's change it."

 

But your statement was entirely antagonistic in nature IMO. You essentially said "Bah! That has to be wrong! My view is obviously right! This is an oversight!" -

 

If you want an alterantive, drop the Head to x4, the Stomach/Vitals to x3, and possibly even the Shoulders to x1/2. Should even things up, but that's a rough guess and I've not bothered to actually do the math behind it.

[etherio]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

First - Hit Locations are an Optional Rule, always have been. Within that consideration they aren't weighted the same as Core Rules.

 

Second - a -1/2 Limitation is equivalent to a -2 Stun Multiplier. So if you must you can assume trading a possible 1-5 on KAs with Hit Locations you now have a 1-3 (given a Minimum StunX of 1). Which fits the 1D3 Model. Since you can only use the General Targeting Limitation in a Campaign using an Optional Rule of Hit Locations, I consider that fair.

 

Third - Making a Called Shot let's you attempt to get a higher StunX at the cost of an OCV penalty, another aspect I consider fair.

 

Fourth - This discussion probably could have been avoided entirely had you said "I'm looking for an alternative solution because I see an imbalance" instead of "It seems like an oversight to me" - because it wasn't. Or heck, "I don't like it, let's change it."

 

But your statement was entirely antagonistic in nature IMO. You essentially said "Bah! That has to be wrong! My view is obviously right! This is an oversight!" -

 

If you want an alterantive, drop the Head to x4, the Stomach/Vitals to x3, and possibly even the Shoulders to x1/2. Should even things up, but that's a rough guess and I've not bothered to actually do the math behind it.

 

If you honestly think that the phrase "seems like an oversight" is antagonistic, then you might want to switch to decaf.

 

For the record, my original statement was not meant antagonistically, nor was it meant to imply that my opinion is superior. It meant exactly what I said- that I thought it was an oversight...as in a very human mistake.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Fair Enough then.

[Netzilla]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Called Shots are not the same thing as randomly using the Hit Location Chart - I should have been more explicit I suppose.

 

You either use the Stun Multiplier and Called Shots or you use the Hit Location Chart and Called Shots.

 

I guess you have a point on the AoE - but I've always simply use the Chest/Stomach StunX there.

 

The official rule is that if you're using the HL Chart, you continue using it even for Area Effect attacks and the like.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

If you honestly think that the phrase "seems like an oversight" is antagonistic, then you might want to switch to decaf.

 

For the record, my original statement was not meant antagonistically, nor was it meant to imply that my opinion is superior. It meant exactly what I said- that I thought it was an oversight...as in a very human mistake.

 

No, it was definitely not an oversight.

[Netzilla]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

It seems clear to me that changing to a 1/2d6 roll...not to mention the fact that normal defense now protects one from KA STUN... was meant to reduce the STUN for KAs. Keeping the hit location multipliers as they were (which generates STUN amounts equivalent to the old 1d6-1 multiplier) seems strange to me in light of the other changes. One might like the higher numbers' date=' though, or might not have a problem with KAs operating more powerfully in heroic campaigns. [/quote']

 

Don't forget that Normal Attacks also operate more powerfully in campaigns with the Hit Locations chart as they can get a x2 Stun and Body multiplier that they can't get in campaigns without the HL chart.

 

However, the issue doesn't end with simply choosing which shall be used in a campaign, because a campaign that uses hit locations can also very reasonably include KAs that do generalized damage instead, as in the case of the aforementioned 'Cannot Use Targeting' limitation, among other examples.

You can apply the same Limitation to Normal attacks as well.

 

In those cases of generalized damage, KAs suffer a significant loss in power compared to equivalent normal attacks. To me, that represents a game-balance issue. My suggestions were meant for those who might agree and want to do more than hand-wave that discrepancy in their own games.

I think that so long as one consistently applies the use of the Hit Locations chart, then parity between Normal and Killing attacks is pretty much maintained.

 

In a non Hit Locations game:

* Normal Attacks get no multpliers

* Killing Attacks have a 1-3 multiplier averaging 2.

* As a result, they have the same max Stun but lower min and average comparied to Normal Attacks, but they have higher average Body.

 

In a Hit Locations game:

* Normal Attacks get 1/2 to 2 multipliers for Stun and Body, averaging 1.

* Killing Attacks get 1/2 to 2 multipliers for Body, averaging 1, and 1-5 multipliers for Stun, averaging 2.87.

* The average, min and max Stun for Killing Attacks is lower than they are for Normal Attacks but the average Body is still higher.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

The official rule is that if you're using the HL Chart' date=' you continue using it even for Area Effect attacks and the like.[/quote']

 

Yeah. but that always seemed silly to me. I've a blatant disregard for official rules sometimes. Definite House Rule.

[etherio]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Don't forget that Normal Attacks also operate more powerfully in campaigns with the Hit Locations chart as they can get a x2 Stun and Body multiplier that they can't get in campaigns without the HL chart.

 

You can apply the same Limitation to Normal attacks as well.

 

I think that so long as one consistently applies the use of the Hit Locations chart, then parity between Normal and Killing attacks is pretty much maintained.

 

In a non Hit Locations game:

* Normal Attacks get no multpliers

* Killing Attacks have a 1-3 multiplier averaging 2.

* As a result, they have the same max Stun but lower min and average comparied to Normal Attacks, but they have higher average Body.

 

In a Hit Locations game:

* Normal Attacks get 1/2 to 2 multipliers for Stun and Body, averaging 1.

* Killing Attacks get 1/2 to 2 multipliers for Body, averaging 1, and 1-5 multipliers for Stun, averaging 2.87.

* The average, min and max Stun for Killing Attacks is lower than they are for Normal Attacks but the average Body is still higher.

 

Your analysis isn't accurate. I included a graphic with my methodology for analyzing the multipliers in a previous post. Using the hit location chart, normal attacks have a mean multiplier for both STUN and BODY damage that are almost exactly 1. Their effectiveness, outside of the ability to taget a location, is equivalent for both hit-location-using and non-hit-location-using attacks. KAs are different. Their average STUN multiplier is larger with the hit location chart than it is with the 1/2 d6 roll. My entire point is predicated on that fact. Some boards members here are okay with that in their games. I'd rather change it for my house rules. The numbers don't lie. The only relevant difference here is our levels of comfort with the disparity.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

The official rule is that if you're using the HL Chart' date=' you continue using it even for Area Effect attacks and the like.[/quote']

 

Mostly official.

 

Attacks that have the Area Of Effect Advantage' date=' or that otherwise affect an entire Area, use the standard Hit Location rules — the character rolls a Hit Location, and the GM applies the damage accordingly. The roll indicates the part of the target’s body that’s the most directly affected by the blast. Alternately, the GM can dispense with the Hit Location rules for Area-affecting attacks and just apply the damage generally with a rolled STUN Multiplier.[/quote']

[Netzilla]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Your analysis isn't accurate. I included a graphic with my methodology for analyzing the multipliers in a previous post. Using the hit location chart' date=' normal attacks have a mean multiplier for both STUN and BODY damage that are almost exactly 1. Their effectiveness, outside of the ability to taget a location, is equivalent for both hit-location-using and non-hit-location-using attacks. [/quote']

 

Yes, the mean damage is the same. I never indicated any different. However, even with a random roll, Normal Attacks can damage things using the Hit Locations chart that they could not possibly damage without it. Therefore, their effectiveness is increased.

 

KAs are different. Their average STUN multiplier is larger with the hit location chart than it is with the 1/2 d6 roll. My entire point is predicated on that fact. Some boards members here are okay with that in their games. I'd rather change it for my house rules. The numbers don't lie. The only relevant difference here is our levels of comfort with the disparity.

I understand that. However, your analysis so far seemed to ignore the effects of the HL chart on Normal Attacks. If you change the HL multipliers for Killing Attacks, you'll also want to change them for Normal Attacks in order to maintain parity. Allowing a 6d6 Normal Attacks to potentially max at 72 Stun when a 2d6 Killing Attack can only reach 36 Stun introduces a whole new level of disparity that you probably don't want.

[Netzilla]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Mostly official.

 

Sure, there's an optional rule to change that. That doesn't make the default (using the HL chart) any less official and folks were talking about dispensing with the HL chart for more than just AE attacks. I don't disagree with doing that, but when talking about what is/is not an oversight or why a rule was written a certain way, they've generally been balanced against the official core rules rather than optional rules. So, the assumption when the HL chart was written was that it would be treated as a binary campaign-level decision.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I just noticed this last night. (We have only played supers since I got the pdfs for 6e.) It seems like an oversight to me. It makes KAs that use the hit location chart more powerful than those that don't. I'm gonna do some numbers crunching and see how they compare' date=' but I'm kind of disappointed by it that particular choice so far.[/quote']

 

To echo GA, it was definitely not an oversight. When Steve made the decision to switch to 1d3, someone in SETAC asked about the hit location chart, and the answer was that it would likely be unchanged. I think that was one of the least discussed issues related to KA's - I don't recall any significant disagreement.

 

Why? Well, Netzilla beat me to it...

 

Don't forget that Normal Attacks also operate more powerfully in campaigns with the Hit Locations chart as they can get a x2 Stun and Body multiplier that they can't get in campaigns without the HL chart.

 

If you use Hit Locations, both normal and killing attacks become more volatile, so they both benefit similarly. If you use the Stun Multiple, and allow Called Shots, then both normal and killing attacks should be able to benefit from called shots.

 

This matches my experience that KA's are much more problematic in Supers games (where our group uses neither hit locations nor called shot damage modifiers) than in Fantasy games (where our group always used hit locations). The added volatility appplies to all attacks, so the field is levelled, but combat in general is more volatile.

 

12DC attack that hits the head? KA averages 14 BOD, 70 STUN. Normal attack averages 84 STUN if you use hit locations. But if you don't use hit locations:

 

- 5e KA averages 14 BOD and 14 - 70 STUN, and normal attack averages 42 STUN

- 6e KA averages 14 BOD and 14 - 42 STUN and normal attack averages 42 STUN

 

Decoupling STR from HKA damage in this way feels to me like oversimplification for the sake of an intellectual exercise.

 

One obvious reason that this would be a bad move is that if your claw-wielding character's STR were affected (by a Drain or Aid, for example) then the KA would be unchanged. Common sense, dramatic realism, and special effect would all suggest otherwise.

 

And yet, if that attack is a powerful punch which bruises the target, reducing his PD, draining STR has no effect whatsoever. Unless, of course, I Limit the power to be Drained if STR is Drained. But I can also do that with a KA, can't I?

 

I can also build killing attacks to include "+X DC, requires Y STR and locks out that STR". That seems a lot more realistic than, say, Striking with my 2d6 HKA, +2d6 from STR, and I'll Multiple Power Attack that with 12d6 Normal Damage from my punch, since nothing prevents me using STR for multiple purposes.

 

What seems wrong to me is looking at three characters:

 

- MuscleBoy buys a 2d6 HKA for 30 points and 30 STR for 20 points. For 50 points, he does a 4d6 HKA and gets all the benefits of an extra 20 STR.

 

- FitKid buys a 3d6 HKA for 45 points and +5 STR for 5 points. He spends the same 50 points, does the same 4d6 HKA, but lacks the benefit of 15 extra STR.

 

- ScrawnyLad buys a 4d6 HKA and sells back his 10 STR. Same 50 points, same HKA, but no STR benefits at all. Arguably he could buy his KA "STR does not add" and get down to a 30 point cost - but how is that limitation Limiting when you have no STR to add anyway?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Normal attacks still average the same - pretty much - if you are using hit locations though - you just get more extreme results. KAs average very differently.

[Netzilla]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Normal attacks still average the same - pretty much - if you are using hit locations though - you just get more extreme results. KAs average very differently.

 

Yes, the average stun from a KA goes up (a 4d6 KA goes from doing an average of 28 Stun to about 40). However, that's compairing HL KAs to non-HL KAs which should pretty much never come up within a campaign. If you do use a Stun Lotto for Area Effects and the like, I'd recommend using the 1d6-1 Lotto rather than the 1d3 Lotto in order to keep pairity (see below for why).

 

The real question when House Ruling, in my mind, is how do KAs stack up against same DC normal attacks? If you're not using Hit Locs, then KAs do (a lot) less Stun on average but more Body. If you are using Hit Locs then KAs do less Stun on average but more Body. The roles of the two powers remains the same (you want to do Stun use a NA; you want to do Body use a KA).

 

If you do decide to modify the Stun Multipliers for KAs on the Hit Locs table, you'll also need to modify them (or eleminate them) for Normal Attacks. Seems like a lot of work to me. However, if you're really interested, you might find the attached spread sheet handy.

[etherio]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Normal attacks still average the same - pretty much - if you are using hit locations though - you just get more extreme results. KAs average very differently.

 

 

Thank you, Sean. When using the hit location chart, the average multipliers for both the STUN and BODY of normal attacks are very, very close to 1. Normal attacks using the chart do equivalent damage to normal attacks without the chart. KAs, however, do significantly more STUN with the chart than they do without the chart.

 

There are two small game balance issues:

 

1. KAs using the chart do a lot more stun damage than those that don't use the hit location chart. And yes, the game design anticipates that there will be those attacks that should not use the chart, even when your campaign uses it. Hence, the 'Cannot Use Targeting' limitation. Yes, I know it's a limitation, but it operates differently on KAs than on normal attacks, because...
   
2. KAs in campaigns that use the chart will do more STUN damage relative to the normal attacks in the campaign, because the multiplier for normal attacks are better designed. KAs in your supers games, for example, will be weaker per DC than those in your heroic games.
   

 

So it wasn't an oversight. I get that. But that doesn't diminish my point. Because I hold Steve in such high regard as a game designer, I just assumed that he may have overlooked it. Perhaps had he been alerted to this particular point he may have made a different choice...perhaps not. The purposefulness of his choice, though, isn't relevant to my point.

[etherio]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

...The real question when House Ruling' date=' in my mind, is how do KAs stack up against same DC normal attacks? If you're not using Hit Locs, then KAs do (a lot) less Stun on average but more Body. If you are using Hit Locs then KAs do less Stun on average but more Body. The roles of the two powers remains the same (you want to do Stun use a NA; you want to do Body use a KA)...[/quote']

 

You demonstrate how the two powers are relatively differnt, and then state that they remain relatively the same.