Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

[Sean Waters]

So, interested to know how people are finding the new, improved, 6e version of killing attacks with the reduced stun multiplier: has it changed the role of the power in your games? Is it still being used as a main attack at all, or has it been relegated to a MP slot? Is it still too early to tell?

 

I have not started a 6e game yet so I'm not sure how it will pan out, but I'm interested to know how it is working out for when I do.

[Tasha]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

So, interested to know how people are finding the new, improved, 6e version of killing attacks with the reduced stun multiplier: has it changed the role of the power in your games? Is it still being used as a main attack at all, or has it been relegated to a MP slot? Is it still too early to tell?

 

I have not started a 6e game yet so I'm not sure how it will pan out, but I'm interested to know how it is working out for when I do.

 

Turns out it won't affect the Heroic games we tend to play. Those games use Hit Location which didn't recieve the Stun Mod nerf.

 

For my Champions 6e Game,I don't think my PCs have any Killing Attacks. Of course, I haven't gotten all of the characters yet (only have 2 out of the 6 characters)

[Vondy]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

I run heroic games with hit locations. I won't even notice it was changed.

[Ice9]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

We use hit locations (even for Champions), so there hasn't been any change. However, in a game not using hit locations, I certainly wouldn't take one as a primary attack - it does a lot less stun on average, with the same maximum, and has less knockback. Against targets without much resistant defense, it might do body (which isn't even always desirable), but in general it's only good against objects/automatons.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

So...no votes in favour so far...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

We use hit locations (even for Champions)' date=' so there hasn't been any change. ...............[/quote']

 

That is interesting because I've never been happy with how hit locations interact with a 'normal' superhero game (by which I mean '350 points, normalish builds): with hit locations the high OCV character becomes unstoppable.

 

Of course the same is true of heroic games BUT:

 

a) one shotting is far more likely anyway, and

OCV is rarely high enough to guarantee headshotting

 

Do you find traditional (Low DCV) bricks largely redundant?

[Ice9]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

I guess I should clarify - we use Hit Locations (rolled on the chart) for Killing Attacks (and particularly important normal attacks), but we don't use called shots, unless the target is immobile. We've tried using called shots, but indeed it does lead to repeated headshots on bricks.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

I like the new Stun Multiple Rules.

 

Now KAs do what they're supposed to: More Body.

The trade off is less Stun.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

I understand the intention, but I'm interested in the actual impact on games and character design. Obviously the impact will vary between genres, and I mainly play superheroic games.

 

I would imagine it will mean more dead characters in heroic games (they will tend to die from bullet wounds before passing out), and I imagine that it will mean the virtual abandonment of KAs as a main attack in superheroic games (they will become a MP slot Barrier/Focus killer).

 

Everyone so far has said, in effect, they will not be using the new rules.

[jtelson]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

I intend to use the new rules for Killing Attacks but it will likely be 8-12 months before I can give you any feedback as it will be for the arc after the next arc in my Heracles' Children Campaign (Rome). I had originally intended to use 6th for the Mythic China arc but I don't want to put off starting it any longer and even once I have the books it'll take a while to go through them.

[Netzilla]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

We're currently in the middle of a Heroic campaign started in 5E. Until we get to the end of the season (probably another 4-6 months) we won't be switching to 6E and either someone else will be running or I'm going to switch gears to a Champions game.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

Everyone so far has said' date=' in effect, they will not be using the new rules.[/quote']

 

I plan on using the heck out of it first chance I get. It came closest to the solution I pushed for when the topic came up in SETAC - over and over.

 

Bloody KAs.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

I plan on using the heck out of it first chance I get. It came closest to the solution I pushed for when the topic came up in SETAC - over and over.

 

Bloody KAs.

 

Aye

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

I understand the intention, but I'm interested in the actual impact on games and character design. Obviously the impact will vary between genres, and I mainly play superheroic games.

 

I would imagine it will mean more dead characters in heroic games (they will tend to die from bullet wounds before passing out), and I imagine that it will mean the virtual abandonment of KAs as a main attack in superheroic games (they will become a MP slot Barrier/Focus killer).

 

Everyone so far has said, in effect, they will not be using the new rules.

 

I don't think the new rules should impact Heroic games, as these typically use the hit locations chart, which is unchanged. From the discussions I've been involved in, KA's were much less an issue, if at all, in Heroic games. I attribute this to the fact that the hit locations chart provided for enhanced damage from normal attacks in certain hit locations as well. As a result, a head hit was fairly devastating whether it was with a sword or a club. Both types of attacks received the benefits and drawbacks that come with increased volatility.

 

I also believe we are likely to see KA's become far less common in Superheroic games because, as you note, their only advantage is a small increase in BOD damage, useful against barriers, entangles and automatons, but not in most combat situations. Multipower slots seem likely, but as a main attack? Seems unlikely.

 

12DC of normal attack averages 42 STUN and 12DC of KA will now average 28. A difference that significant, with no offset (the KA will get that same 42 n an average BOD roll one time in three, and will never exceed it), makes the KA a poor choice of attacks unless the plan is to inflict enough BOD to kill the target. Given the rDEF levels in a typical Supers game, that's not a practical approach.

 

I plan on using the heck out of it first chance I get. It came closest to the solution I pushed for when the topic came up in SETAC - over and over.

 

On the one hand, the philosophical point that a killing attack should be effective at killing, and not at knocking its targets out, appeals to me. On the other hand, I think it renders the KA virtually useless in the typical Supers game.

 

I'll be interested to hear your experiences in this regard. However, if the result is "virtually no one takes a killing attack", that is not using the rule, in my opinion. It is, instead, eliminating an option. It's too early to draw any real conclusions, but I fear the 1-3 Stun Multiple has swung the pendulum too far the other way, making the killing attack a virtually useless power in a superheroic game.

[Vondy]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

In my games (heroic) I have a drama rule that only named characters (usu. protagonists, significant henchmen, and big bads) can make called shots. In general, its usu. only protagonists who make routine attempts at it - often as a mook busting tool. I usu. just assume Loc 11-13 (which is where most characters have the heaviest protection) for mook-attacks. For other baddies, I use them sparingly with an eye to whether or not blowing out the protagonists is a likely result, esp. with killing attacks. It might come up at a critical moment, or be used if the players are so hot they're walking over the significant henchment as a means of ensuring they don't go down in history as total wussies, but as a rule I skip it.... though, in the climactic battle, the big bad generally takes the kid gloves off and "goes for broke."

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

In my games (heroic) I have a drama rule that only named characters (usu. protagonists' date=' significant henchmen, and big bads) can make called shots. In general, its usu. only protagonists who make routine attempts at it - often as a mook busting tool. I usu. just assume Loc 11-13 (which is where most characters have the heaviest protection) for mook-attacks. For other baddies, I use them sparingly with an eye to whether or not blowing out the protagonists is a likely result, esp. with killing attacks. It might come up at a critical moment, or be used if the players are so hot they're walking over the significant henchment as a means of ensuring they don't go down in history as total wussies, but as a rule I skip it.... though, in the climactic battle, the big bad generally takes the kid gloves off and "goes for broke."[/quote']

 

EDIT: My intent in my comments below is to discuss the broader impact of a fixed 3x Stun multiple. I see a lot of benefits to a flat 3x multiple in the right circumstances, and it clearly works for your games.

 

This still gives mooks a better result than the 1-3 stun multiple rolled in 6e. A straight 3x multiple was bandied about, but the problem with that is that the KA now averages the same STUN as a normal attack, and retains greater volatility due to the lower number of dice rolled to determine BOD. Although nothing would stop one from rolling 1/3 the dice for normal attacks, adding the STUN and BOD normally, and then multiplying those by 3 to add the same volatility to a normal attack.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

I'll be interested to hear your experiences in this regard. However' date=' if the result is "virtually no one takes a killing attack", that is not using the rule, in my opinion. It is, instead, eliminating an option. It's too early to draw any real conclusions, but I fear the 1-3 Stun Multiple has swung the pendulum too far the other way, making the killing attack a virtually useless power in a superheroic game.[/quote']

 

I'll be interested as well. Currently the only 6E campaign I'm in is a Heroic Star Hero game, using the Hit Location Chart.

 

I think it'll be a good six months before serious and meaningful (or enough) experiences come through to give us any idea if the change is good or not.

 

To be honest, as I look at it in retrospect, perhaps a 1d3+1 StunX might work? That's an average of 3. And I've been using a Flat 3 to good balanced effect for years. Dunno. We'll see, hopefully a 6E Superheroic Campaign will be underway by December, or so.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

I'll be interested as well. Currently the only 6E campaign I'm in is a Heroic Star Hero game, using the Hit Location Chart.

 

I think it'll be a good six months before serious and meaningful (or enough) experiences come through to give us any idea if the change is good or not.

 

To be honest, as I look at it in retrospect, perhaps a 1d3+1 StunX might work? That's an average of 3. And I've been using a Flat 3 to good balanced effect for years. Dunno. We'll see, hopefully a 6E Superheroic Campaign will be underway by December, or so.

 

As noted above, while I think the reduced STUN is excessive at 1 - 3, an average of 3 would make the KA as effective as a normal attack at delivering STUN, which I think is still too good a deal for the KA. I'd prefer to see a system where the KA averages less STUN. The old average worked fine, but the volatility was too great.

 

Unfortunately, any fix adds math steps to the process, or requires a "chart" for the Stun Multiple. Even one as simple as 1-3 is a 2x multiple, 4-5 is 3x and 6 is 4x, which would preserve the old average while smoothing out the volatility.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

It is interesting that the hit location chart didn't change when KAs did: I think the reason that it works OK in heroic games is that people expect hits to hurt, maybe incapacitate, maybe kill AND there is a limit to the OCV spread in most heroic games. Personally I have issues with the hit location chart, but I'm in the minority by a long way there, so I'll not chase that one up at present.

 

In superheroic games the expectatiosn are different: you expect some characters to be able to pretty much ignore bullets and knives - to be uncuttable/unpuncturable, whereas with others you expect them to be relatively hurtable BUT have some other defence - usually getting out of the way. That spread makes getting KAs 'right' very hard.

 

I think whether KAs find a place in superheroic games as a main attack will depend very much on average (by which I probably mean 'mode') resistant defences: 13 or more and they are pretty much pointless as a main attack, 12 or less and they start to become a threat again.

 

Whether KAs find a place in a superheroic game with likely be a matter of overall character design philosophy rather than mechanics: KAs have a 'sweet spot', unlike normal attacks.

 

Looking at the sample superhero characters in 6e, the PD figures are 20/10, 18/8, 20/15 and 23/10. Against those characters, Hardpoint (the 20/15) would have little to fear from 4d6 claws but the rest would: they would average 4-6 BODY through defences, and none of them have regeneration.

 

Also interestingly, whilst 3 of the 4 characters have KAs, they are 2d6, 2 1/2d6 and 3d6, the last being in a MP, so it would not have cost much to rev it up to 4d6 - AND it is the heroes with the KAs, not the villain.

 

Hmm....

[Vondy]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

This still gives mooks a better result than the 1-3 stun multiple rolled in 6e. A straight 3x multiple was bandied about' date=' but the problem with that is that the KA now averages the same STUN as a normal attack, and retains greater volatility due to the lower number of dice rolled to determine BOD. Although nothing would stop one from rolling 1/3 the dice for normal attacks, adding the STUN and BOD normally, and then multiplying those by 3 to add the same volatility to a normal attack.[/quote']

 

And?

 

Its a drama rule.

 

For my games.

 

And it works.

 

It has never been a problem.

 

The mooks still get their backsides handed to them.

 

The stun multiple is only one factor in determining mook effectiveness.

 

Combat Value and DC/DEF ratios, and CON/STUN are also critical parts of the equation.

 

The problem you describe only exists when other factors combine with it.

 

In my games they don't.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

And?

 

Its a drama rule.

 

For my games.

 

And it works.

 

It has never been a problem.

 

The mooks still get their backsides handed to them.

 

The stun multiple is only one factor in determining mook effectiveness.

 

Combat Value and DC/DEF ratios, and CON/STUN are also critical parts of the equation.

 

The problem you describe only exists when other factors combine with it.

 

In my games they don't.

 

I'm not suggesting you change anything in your games. What works, works. I apologize if that wasn't clear - and apparently it wasn't, likely because I quoted your post first. I'll edit my post for that.

 

Dealing with mooks, setting a fixed Stun Multiple has a lot of appeal. It reduces the volatility, so the mooks' effectiveness becomes more predictable. And it's easy enough to drop a DC if the fixed multiple makes them too effective compared to a normal attack. As you note, there are lots of other ways to reduce a mook's combat effectiveness.

 

In fact, in a heroic game where weapons are purchased with cash, it makes very little difference - the characters aren't paying points for their attacks anyway. If the KA is a bit more effective, so what? The characters will gravitate to the more effective attacks, just like they will tend to select the weapon that does 6 DC's rather than the one that does 4 DC's, all other things being equal. If I want characters to choose normal attacks, I can give the normal attack weapons some advantage (higher DC's, CV bonuses, whatever) to encourage that choice. If I'm, playing modern action, the genre suggests the characters carry guns anyway, so why shouldn't the system encourage them to do so?

 

A lot of the issues with killing attacks vs normal attacks go away in the Heroic model.

 

I am, however, suggesting that a blanket 3x multiple for KA's, an approach which has been suggested as a good solution for KA's in general, still leaves the KA superior to a normal attack of the same dice. If a 12 DC normal attack and a 12 DC killing attack carry the same cost, I think it's important that they carry the same effectiveness. That test is not achieved with a fixed 3x multiple, in my view. The Normal Attack averages 42 STUN and 12 BOD. The Killing Attack averages 42 STUN and 14 BOD, and that BOD is harder to defend against. The normal attack carries no advantage.

 

So, while a 3x multiple may be a good approach in many games, I don't see it as an overall solution to balancing KA's against normal attacks. Unfortunately, I don't see a 1d3 Multiple providing that balance either.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

As I've said many times - we've been using a Flat3 for literally years without any problems people predict in these threads. Normal Attacks and Killing Attacks are still both used, there isn't a clear advantage to either one, KAs are reserved for killing things.

 

Maybe it's because we self police the amount of resistant defenses anyone has, I couldnt' say. But our Actual Experience does not match the Math Based Predictions bantied about. *shrug*

[Sean Waters]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

As noted above, while I think the reduced STUN is excessive at 1 - 3, an average of 3 would make the KA as effective as a normal attack at delivering STUN, which I think is still too good a deal for the KA. I'd prefer to see a system where the KA averages less STUN. The old average worked fine, but the volatility was too great.

 

Unfortunately, any fix adds math steps to the process, or requires a "chart" for the Stun Multiple. Even one as simple as 1-3 is a 2x multiple, 4-5 is 3x and 6 is 4x, which would preserve the old average while smoothing out the volatility.

 

IMO, and this is all I'm saying, the problem is not getting the Stun multiple right, it is the whole mechanism for KAs - you multiply two volatile values, you get an even more volatile result. I KNOW that some people think a volatile result is realistic - and I can appreciate that PoV, but there are better ways of accomplishing it. Still, we've 'done' that topic, and there's probably no point in a re-hash until we approach 7th

[Vondy]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

I'm not suggesting you change anything in your games. What works, works. I apologize if that wasn't clear - and apparently it wasn't, likely because I quoted your post first. I'll edit my post for that.

 

Dealing with mooks, setting a fixed Stun Multiple has a lot of appeal. It reduces the volatility, so the mooks' effectiveness becomes more predictable. And it's easy enough to drop a DC if the fixed multiple makes them too effective compared to a normal attack. As you note, there are lots of other ways to reduce a mook's combat effectiveness.

 

In fact, in a heroic game where weapons are purchased with cash, it makes very little difference - the characters aren't paying points for their attacks anyway. If the KA is a bit more effective, so what? The characters will gravitate to the more effective attacks, just like they will tend to select the weapon that does 6 DC's rather than the one that does 4 DC's, all other things being equal. If I want characters to choose normal attacks, I can give the normal attack weapons some advantage (higher DC's, CV bonuses, whatever) to encourage that choice. If I'm, playing modern action, the genre suggests the characters carry guns anyway, so why shouldn't the system encourage them to do so?

 

A lot of the issues with killing attacks vs normal attacks go away in the Heroic model.

 

I am, however, suggesting that a blanket 3x multiple for KA's, an approach which has been suggested as a good solution for KA's in general, still leaves the KA superior to a normal attack of the same dice. If a 12 DC normal attack and a 12 DC killing attack carry the same cost, I think it's important that they carry the same effectiveness. That test is not achieved with a fixed 3x multiple, in my view. The Normal Attack averages 42 STUN and 12 BOD. The Killing Attack averages 42 STUN and 14 BOD, and that BOD is harder to defend against. The normal attack carries no advantage.

 

So, while a 3x multiple may be a good approach in many games, I don't see it as an overall solution to balancing KA's against normal attacks. Unfortunately, I don't see a 1d3 Multiple providing that balance either.

 

I'm sorry if I came off as somewhat harif. I am sick. Its no excuse, really, but it seemed like you were outlining a problem that is primarily geared towards superheroic games as heroic games, as you note, have a different set of sensibilities, priorities, and issues. Its one of my board peeves: superheroic genreism. Often the percieved problems and suggested fixes I see are genre specific (often superheroic genre specific), not system wide, or applicable to every genre. I don't normally get very worked up over it. I'm just feeling crotchety. In terms of superheroic games I tend agree with you. Setting a fixed stun multiple can introduce balance problems.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

 

As I've said many times - we've been using a Flat3 for literally years without any problems people predict in these threads. Normal Attacks and Killing Attacks are still both used, there isn't a clear advantage to either one, KAs are reserved for killing things.

 

Maybe it's because we self police the amount of resistant defenses anyone has, I couldnt' say. But our Actual Experience does not match the Math Based Predictions bantied about. *shrug*

 

....must....not.....get.....drawn.....into.....discussion.....about.....KAs.....