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

[Sean Waters]

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

 

:(Get well soon, Vondy:)

[Netzilla]

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

One of the main reasons the Hit Location chart didn't change was because it effects Normal and Killing attacks both. Every place that a KA gets x5, the NA gets x2 and every place the KA gets x4, the NA gets x1.5. Conversely, every place the KA gets x1, the NA gets x1/2. So, the balance between the two is maintained.

 

With the old Stun Lotto system, Normal Attacks didn't get any multipliers and so KAs had far higher volatility and greater range. A simple 1d3 wasn't my ideal solution, but at least it's not ignoring the issue. It's just hard to come up with a good die mechanic that averages a 2.66 multiplier without generating a max above x3. The closest I could ever come was 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3; which averages 2.5.

[ghost-angel]

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

 

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

 

Bloody KAs.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

I'm sorry if I came off as somewhat harif. I am sick.

 

Not a problem. Based on my experiences on the Boards, you're way more tactful than I am!

 

Its no excuse' date=' 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 agree with you. Setting a fixed stun multiple can introduce balance problems.[/quote']

 

That's probably the one thing I like about the KA "solutions" in 6e. There was a problem in many Supers games that did not exist in Heroic games, largely due to the hit locations rules, and the "cash rather than points purchase" of equipment. A "fix" that changed the rules for Heroic games wasn't warranted - they were working.

 

And the fix applied was aimed only at Supers games, leaving the hit locations chart, and by extension the heroic games that typically use it, alone.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

One of the main reasons the Hit Location chart didn't change was because it effects Normal and Killing attacks both. Every place that a KA gets x5' date=' the NA gets x2 and every place the KA gets x4, the NA gets x1.5. Conversely, every place the KA gets x1, the NA gets x1/2. So, the balance between the two is maintained.[/quote']

 

That's my feeling as well. The Location Chart makes both attack types more volatile, so it balances out. The Stun Multiple (at d6-1) made KA's much more volatile, so that was where the problem rested.

 

With the old Stun Lotto system' date=' Normal Attacks didn't get any multipliers and so KAs had far higher volatility and greater range. A simple 1d3 wasn't my ideal solution, but at least it's not ignoring the issue. It's just hard to come up with a good die mechanic that averages a 2.66 multiplier without generating a max above x3. The closest I could ever come was 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3; which averages 2.5.[/quote']

 

2,2,3,3,3,4 gets 2.66 average, but a max of x4, giving the KA a shot at higher damage numbers.

 

2,2,3,3,3,3 would get 2.66 and avoid the extremes on both sides.

[Bloodstone]

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

 

HKAs may require just a bit more policing. I know I have several characters that are going slightly over the game's damage caps if I do a direct conversion of them...

[prestidigitator]

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

 

I know it's a shame to step away from anything that can't be rolled using a d6, but if 1d3 seems to small for you and you don't want to move up to an average of 3 because it rivals Normal Attacks, consider using 1d4 (an average roll of 2.5).

[Max Callahan]

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

 

I like that the old stun lotto is gone, but i really don't like the new stun multiplier, I hit that point in the pdf and had to stop and do all sorts of OCDish math. I did come up with a sort of statement of principle, killing attacks and normal attacks are both 5 points per dc, so they should be similar in effectiveness. Old killing attacks blew that since a 5x stun mult pretty much clobbered the target, but I think the new 1d3 stun mult goes way to far in the other direction. 62% of the time a killing attack with a 1d3 multiplier will put 0 stun past defenses of 2.5 X the dcs of the attack.

After much poking at numbers I've come to believe that a flat multiplier of 2.5 hits the stun results I'd like to see (less stun than a normal attack, enough stun to do some past the defenses I expect, and no "whoops they just oneshot the bad guy"), but as a play mechanism I'm hesitant to go with 2.5x, as it feels kind of bland, and multiplying by x and a half is slightly annoying. My other though is a stun mult of 1d{1,2,2,3,3,4} which also has a nice curve (ok a nice scatter graph), but calls for some custom dice.

[Netzilla]

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

 

I can't remember if I raised this idea with SETAC or not, but one thing that occurred to me regarding fixing the Stun Lotto was to approach the problem from the other angle. Rather than reducing the effect/votility of Killing Attacks, increase them for Normal Attacks. Toward that end, I had the idea of rolling a 1dBody and counting 0 as 1/2. This is your Stun Multiplier for Normal Attacks. So, just like the KA Stun Lotto has the same range of StunX as the Hit Location Chart, so does the NA Stun Lotto. That should put the two on relatively even footing again.

[ghost-angel]

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

 

I remember seeing something like during the discussions as they orbited around. I can't remember what the counter points were .... I think my eyes started to glaze over at that point when the letters KA passed in front of them. . .

[BNakagawa]

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

 

My favorite tweak to the KA stun lotto is to roll 2d6 and take the lower result.

 

It grants the possibility of a 6 result, but only 1/36 of the time.

 

The average is 2.528

[Sean Waters]

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

 

Why do we have KAs?

(Don't do it)

Do we have them to model an attack that:

 

1. has a better chance of killing the target

 

2. does more killing (Body) damage (so is generally more destructive)

 

3. provides an alternative resolution method to normal attacks

 

4. gives us a reason for resistant defences to exist

[Phil]

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

 

My preference for 6th would still have been to unify mechanics, so that a Killing Attack would be a Stunning Attack with a different BOD multiple; or maybe Stunning Attack is a Killing Attack with a different STUN multiple. Either way, as Sean suggests, we need to look at why we have KAs - it strikes me too many of the rationales just look on it as an alternative way of calculating the same 2 numbers.

[Netzilla]

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

 

My preference for 6th would still have been to unify mechanics' date=' so that a Killing Attack would be a Stunning Attack with a different BOD multiple; or maybe Stunning Attack is a Killing Attack with a different STUN multiple.[/quote']

 

We kicked around such ideas a LOT in the SETAC discussion. Alas, no one could come up with an elegant way of doing it. I really wish we had, as I also think that such is the ideal solution.

[Chris Goodwin]

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

 

We kicked around such ideas a LOT in the SETAC discussion. Alas' date=' no one could come up with an elegant way of doing it. I really wish we had, as I also think that such is the ideal solution.[/quote']

 

There's a good reason why ghost-angel's tagline is "Bloody KAs!"

[Beast]

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

 

they do the same amount of body as they always have

15 pts =3 damage classes= 1d6 killing damage

 

only the stun got nerfed by both going to a d3 AND non resistant counts also

I would be happy with 1 or the other(the game I play at Caltech we have been using all pd or ed counts and has worked fine for yrs

 

 

I like the new Stun Multiple Rules.

 

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

The trade off is less Stun.

[ghost-angel]

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

 

they do the same amount of body as they always have

15 pts =3 damage classes= 1d6 killing damage

 

only the stun got nerfed by both going to a d3 AND non resistant counts also

I would be happy with 1 or the other(the game I play at Caltech we have been using all pd or ed counts and has worked fine for yrs

 

Damage Class for Damage Class a Killing Attack does more Body and less Stun than a Normal Attack under 6E, on average.

 

Sorry I didn't make that blindly clear for you.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

they do the same amount of body as they always have

15 pts =3 damage classes= 1d6 killing damage

 

only the stun got nerfed by both going to a d3 AND non resistant counts also

I would be happy with 1 or the other(the game I play at Caltech we have been using all pd or ed counts and has worked fine for yrs

 

I'm confused by this comment, and I've seen it before. How many credible opponents actually HAD no resistant defenses whatsoever, so all the STUN from a KA would get through?

 

I would have preferred a mechanic that made KA's 1d6 = 5 points, and counted BOD and STUN similar to normal attacks. The differences would have been:

 

- less knockback (use an extra d6 like current KA's)

 

- rDEF applies (as it does under the current rules - 5e or 6e makes little difference)

 

- BOD is 1-5 1 BOD; 6 2 BOD [or 1 = 0, 2-4 = 1, 5-6 = 2] (which maintains the same average BOD we get now, 3.5 per 3 DC)

 

- STUN counts the points rolled and then subtracts [some amount]. I lean to half the DCs, since that result would get STUN not too far off the pre-6e average.

 

The possibility of higher volatility normal attacks also works. Make normal attacks 15 points per 1d6. Add up the total and subtract half the dice. That's the BOD (so 12DC rolls 4d6 averaging 14 - 2 = 12) and multiply by 1d6 (STUN averages 42).

 

We would then have the choice of old school KA's and new normal attacks (high volatiity), new KA's and old school normal attacks (reduced volatility) or standard effect (exactly average, not 3 per die, for no volatility). Three different dial settings depending on how volatile you want damage to be for this game.

[Beast]

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

 

you made is seem as there was more body being done by KA's in 6th vs 5th

KA's have always done more body vs normal attacks

How much stun done ,has been the only thing changed

 

I could have gone with either as a choice(D3 or full PD or ED)

I feel the scale has over balanced to the other side

 

Damage Class for Damage Class a Killing Attack does more Body and less Stun than a Normal Attack under 6E, on average.

 

Sorry I didn't make that blindly clear for you.

[torchwolf]

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

 

you made is seem as there was more body being done by KA's in 6th vs 5th

KA's have always done more body vs normal attacks

How much stun done ,has been the only thing changed

 

Noone ever said that KAs do more BODY; the discussion has been about the fact that the proportions have changed. As of 6E:

KA does more BODY per DC than Blast (as it was in 5ER and earlier), but less STUN per DC than Blast (in Superheroic campaigns; in Heroic or any other campaigns where the hit Location Table is used, there is no change from 5ER or earlier).

 

I could have gone with either as a choice(D3 or full PD or ED)

I feel the scale has over balanced to the other side

 

This has been discussed extensively.

 

I'm confused by this comment, and I've seen it before. How many credible opponents actually HAD no resistant defenses whatsoever, so all the STUN from a KA would get through?

 

As Hugh says, "credible" opponents already had resistant defenses on a mostly regular basis precisely to avoid getting creamed, so the rDEF rule had already been largely sidestepped. This was as true for supervillains as for agents or FH opponents; Combat Luck was at least partly constructed to avoid the "you've gotta some have armor" situation, especially for non-armored PC concepts.

 

Take the typical non-credible opponent: the semi-amateur burglar/bank robber, who probably had no rDEF, as opposed to the above examples.

Player of superhero in 5ER: "Hmm, I better not use too much of my RKA - sure, I'll have to use at least 6 DCs to be reasonably sure of Stunning them because of the STUN Lotto, but then again, I don't want to kill them, so maybe I'll use, say 5 DCs. That might be more effective than my EB, since they probably have no rPD, right?" GM: "Sigh. Pick one."

Player of superhero in 6E: "Hmm, if I use my RKA, I'll have to use a lot of DCs just to Stun them, since they get to apply their PD to the STUN, and the STUN Lotto was cancelled this season. I don't want to kill them, so my Blast might be more effective if I want to STUN them, right?" GM: "Well, duh. Use your RKA if you want to kill them, and your Blast if you don't."

 

That's the new effect, and g-a's motto: Bloody KAs. I, for one, really like it.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

Take the typical non-credible opponent: the semi-amateur burglar/bank robber, who probably had no rDEF, as opposed to the above examples.

Player of superhero in 5ER: "Hmm, I better not use too much of my RKA - sure, I'll have to use at least 6 DCs to be reasonably sure of Stunning them because of the STUN Lotto, but then again, I don't want to kill them, so maybe I'll use, say 5 DCs. That might be more effective than my EB, since they probably have no rPD, right?" GM: "Sigh. Pick one."

Player of superhero in 6E: "Hmm, if I use my RKA, I'll have to use a lot of DCs just to Stun them, since they get to apply their PD to the STUN, and the STUN Lotto was cancelled this season. I don't want to kill them, so my Blast might be more effective if I want to STUN them, right?" GM: "Well, duh. Use your RKA if you want to kill them, and your Blast if you don't."

 

Player in my games: "He's not going to hurt me anyway." He them makes a soliloquy designed to cause the burglar to throw down his gun and surrender. If it fails, the burglar shoots, probably misses and does no significant damage if he hits. The PC Pulls his Punch with a small attack and that's all for the burglar.

 

Player: "Can we get to the real game now?"

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

To add to the anecdotal "it's not a problem in my games" comments...

 

Killing attacks have never been a problem in my games. I had a tough time grasping their mathematical effectiveness until a debate on these boards made me do the math. It's there. So why didn't I see it in my games?

 

Well, in Heroic games, there's the hit location chart. That levels the field by adding more volatility to normal attacks. That's why the hit location chart didn't change in 6e.

 

In Superheroic games, it's because my players played in genre. Several characters had killing attacks, but they only really used them on barriers, automatons and entangles - not on living targets. So they never got the benefits of the Stun Multiple.

 

Overall, a lot depends on the DC to Defense ratio. Killing attacks really shine against high defense targets. Against lower defenses, they're not as effective from an "average STUN" perspective, although they are more effective at Stunning the target due to their volatility. At the Hero suggested 12 DC's/20 defenses level, average STUN tends to work out. Pump that Master Villain to 30 or 35 defenses, though, and the KA becomes a clearly superior means of getting STUN through.

 

Under the new paradigm, that's not the case. If you want KA's to be a viable attack form in games with fairly high rDEF, then the new rules won't deliver what you want. If you want KA's to be attacks which are useful only if they can do BOD through the target's rDEF, then the new rules are much improved.

 

But the former is typically the case in Supers games. Given that, I see the KA's utility in supers games being reduced to the point of near-uselessness. You can damage objects better with a normal AP attack (thanks for pointing that out, Sean) and against credible opponents, the KA will typically be ineffectual. It's great against bank robbers if you want to leave a trail of dead bodies behind you, but that's not really in genre. What's left?

 

In Heroic games, we're back to having Stun multiples that go up to 5, thanks to the hit location chart. Normal and killing attacks are balanced again, but they are balanced in favour of increased volatility for both types of attacks, and in favour of KO's rather than kills.

 

So the rule change seems best suited to work in a Heroic game that doesn't use hit locations. That's a non-default system setting, though.

[rayoman]

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.

 

I brought this up in another thread. I haven't read this entire thread yet so I don't know if someone else brought it up.

 

QUESTION: Why not remove the stun die all together from KA?

 

For every 1 BODY that gets through defenses does 1 STUN. This ensures there is no stun lottery (which the d3 was supposed to reduce).

[rayoman]

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.

 

This I agree with but let's remove the stun die entirely for the next edition.

[Sean Waters]

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

 

I think you need some degree of 'realism' with killing attacks in regard to stun: something that cuts you badly, or burns you, will hurt, and whilst Stun is not a perfect match for 'hurt' it is close enough. Given that most characters will have 2x-4x as much stun as Body, I think you need a batter way of simulating how much KAs hurt than 1 Body through defences = 1 Stun.