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

[rayoman]

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

 

See. I equate hurt to body.

[prestidigitator]

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

 

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' date=' though.[/quote']

 

I personally don't often use Hit Locations for heroic games except in situations where I feel it is especially interesting/important in a dramatic sense. And most of my games are heroic fantasy and sci-fi. I think in general I like the change for those games, because I find it more in-genre to fight things out rather than people being Stunned and KOed left and right (and then returning to the fight quite often unless the GM steps in and uses "mook" rules or whatever, which I tend to do, but...).

 

I've been considering using a full 1d6 for the Stun Multiple when the roll to hit succeeds by 5 or more. That'll put the average Stun Multiplier at about 2.2 for evenly matched opponents (in terms of CV), 2.6 if there's a CV difference of +3, and anywhere from 2 to 3.5 depending on how you are outclassed or outclass your opponent, respectively. That might do a fair job of compensating people for not making called shots on top of restoring some of the lost effectiveness of KAs.

 

Now, to figure out how to fix Normal Attacks (and especially Martial Arts) for heroic games. Seriously.

[Bloodstone]

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

 

See. I equate hurt to body.

 

I hurt people all the time in martial arts, but I'd be a real jerk if I kept injuring my classmates.

 

See, I tend to think of Injury as Body. It tends to be long term and takes a while to recover from. Hurt/Pain is Stun. It usually fades quickly, unless there's a long term injury involved.

 

So, MAYBE you could have a system where a certain amount of Stun doesn't recover until the Body it's associated with does?

 

Shouldn't be to much of a problem to keep track of (you already have the Body damage written down somewhere), but it means long term injuries would then raise your chance of being put down in a fight.

 

But that may be a bad idea. I'm thinking outloud while sick... rarely a good combo...

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

I personally don't often use Hit Locations for heroic games except in situations where I feel it is especially interesting/important in a dramatic sense. And most of my games are heroic fantasy and sci-fi. I think in general I like the change for those games' date=' because I find it more in-genre to fight things out rather than people being Stunned and KOed left and right (and then returning to the fight quite often unless the GM steps in and uses "mook" rules or whatever, which I tend to do, but...).[/quote']

 

I don't like taking away any character's recoveries, PC or NPC. If you won't get them, sell REC back, or give the character points back for not recovering at 0 or less STUN.

 

But I do look at mooks and say "OK, he got one punched. He's recovered consciousness and can stagger to his feet. What will he do?" The answer is typically not "Go take another shot on the guy who just clocked him". Often, it is "flee" or "slink away". This "unconscious or in combat" mentality ignores the fact that other choices exist, and that most non-heroes will likely seek to escape, not pursue a Victory or Death strategy.

 

See. I equate hurt to body.

 

This would imply no one can ever be put down by a killing attack without being dead (note that "below 0 BOD" does not mean "unconscious"). I find that lacking in true realism, dramatic realism and playability, so I would not apply that approach.

[prestidigitator]

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

 

I don't like taking away any character's recoveries, PC or NPC. If you won't get them, sell REC back, or give the character points back for not recovering at 0 or less STUN.

 

But I do look at mooks and say "OK, he got one punched. He's recovered consciousness and can stagger to his feet. What will he do?" The answer is typically not "Go take another shot on the guy who just clocked him". Often, it is "flee" or "slink away". This "unconscious or in combat" mentality ignores the fact that other choices exist, and that most non-heroes will likely seek to escape, not pursue a Victory or Death strategy.

 

Oh definitely. Unfortunately the players' approach tends to be to not let anyone escape in such "heroic" games. It's amazing how vindictive (or at least "cold blooded") they can be when they've got moving targets. Maybe that's my experience with a limited player population though. LOL.

[Zephrosyne]

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

 

Earlier in another thread, I did comment that there was nothing about 6th edition that I disliked. I have to take that back. I'm not really fond of the 1/2d6 Stun Multiplier. The few times I ran Hero System, I did use a flat times 3 multiplier (saves a little time as well) and will do so the next time. Yeah, it does make Killing Attacks a little more effective than Normal Attacks since the Killing Attacks match the Normal Attacks' Stun and do a bit more Body but that isn't a big deal to me. In all honesty, barring certain Advantages, most super powered beings weren't taking a lot of Body from Killing Attacks (in my games), partly because I am not particularly strict with a Normal Defenses vs Resistant Defenses ratio. I think the fact that you are less likely to kill someone with a Normal Damage attack does even it out. I feel that has to count for something. In a lot of games I run, killing someone does come with consequences, be it either the law or someone looking for vengeance.

[Zephrosyne]

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

 

Oh definitely. Unfortunately the players' approach tends to be to not let anyone escape in such "heroic" games. It's amazing how vindictive (or at least "cold blooded") they can be when they've got moving targets. Maybe that's my experience with a limited player population though. LOL.

 

Yeah, I've had a few in the "no lose ends" club in my time. I have never ran a "heroic" game using Hero System (only superheroic). However, in games that would have been heroic (in terms of power level) if I were using Hero System, the players have a tendency to be rather ruthless at times. It is funny how playing a "superhero" seems to trigger a mercy switch in them. It is really odd considering that I have never ran a campaign that I would consider remotely Four Color. Usually, in my games, the consequences of killing are based on the setting and the circumstances, not whether it is heroic or superheroic; yet, the players often behave differently (too many comic books?).

[Sean Waters]

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

 

.................

 

Now, to figure out how to fix Normal Attacks (and especially Martial Arts) for heroic games. Seriously.

 

Tell me what you want them to do and give me 10 minutes

[rayoman]

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

 

This would imply no one can ever be put down by a killing attack without being dead (note that "below 0 BOD" does not mean "unconscious"). I find that lacking in true realism, dramatic realism and playability, so I would not apply that approach.

 

This answers the question I asked earlier which is what I wanted when I posted it. It is the best answer I have seen to it. I think I am ok with the 6E stun multiier but until I can actually play it I won't know for sure.

[OddHat]

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

 

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

 

I will be. It works fine.

 

Now when you make the choice of Hit Locations vs No Hit Locations, you snap very smoothly from Cinematic game play where a fist or improvised weapon is just as good as a knife or gun, to a "grittier" game where the wise man gets his hands on a knife or gun as soon as he can.

 

I always nerfed Real Weapons in Superhero and Kaiju games in one way or another anyway in order to avoid the Stun Lotto or Hit Locations breaking genre conventions. This isn't the nerf I used, but it works well enough.

 

Want a game where your Superman Homage can take a bullet to the eye with only an rPD of 36? Don't use hit locations. Want to force him to use Damage Negation or go up to an rPD of 60 (120 for surprise attacks)? Use Hit Locations. It puts the call more clearly in the GM's court.

[Matt the Bruins]

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

 

Shouldn't be to much of a problem to keep track of (you already have the Body damage written down somewhere), but it means long term injuries would then raise your chance of being put down in a fight.

 

I don't see that as an unrealistic or undesirable result. In fact, effectively making a portion of STUN loss to Killing Attacks the damaging equivalent of losing Long-Term END might nicely offset what some of us see as an unrealistic nerfing of KAs. They'd still do less STUN than Normal Attacks, but because of the lasting nature of the injuries what they do couldn't be laughed off or recovered from as quickly.

[prestidigitator]

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

 

Want a game where your Superman Homage can take a bullet to the eye with only an rPD of 36? Don't use hit locations. Want to force him to use Damage Negation or go up to an rPD of 60 (120 for surprise attacks)? Use Hit Locations. It puts the call more clearly in the GM's court.

 

I don't get it. You certainly shouldn't need 36 rPD unless that's over a 6d6 gun. You'll need quite a bit of normal defense, but even assuming the attacker takes the most powerful handgun on the 6E firearms chart (".50 AE Desert Eagle", 2d6+1) and manages to double its base damage (4.5d6), you'd only need 27 rPD to completely stop all Body damage. Remember that the Body Multiplier from the Hit Location applies after defenses. You'd need a heck of a lot more Non-Resistant defense, but not nearly as much Resistant defense as you claim. Heck, even if it was a shotgun (2.5d6) with base damage doubled (5d6+1) you'd only need 31 rPD.

[Ki-rin]

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']

Did anyone suggest this

 

Normal attacks work as usual.

 

KA are the opposite. You roll BODY and for each 1, 2-5, or 6 you do 0, 1, or 2 STUN respectively.

 

The rationale is that more of the energy is focused into destroying stuff rather than knocking it around.

 

I have not put this to any kind of critical analysis. I'm just suggesting it off the top of my head.

[Netzilla]

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

 

Did anyone suggest this

 

Normal attacks work as usual.

 

KA are the opposite. You roll BODY and for each 1, 2-5, or 6 you do 0, 1, or 2 STUN respectively.

 

The rationale is that more of the energy is focused into destroying stuff rather than knocking it around.

 

I have not put this to any kind of critical analysis. I'm just suggesting it off the top of my head.

 

A 60-point 12d6 Killing Attack would average 42 Body and 12 Stun. Seems a bit lop-sided and would make walls, Entangles, Barriers, Vehicles and the like completely superfluous.

 

On the other hand, if you'd meant that Killing Attacks would still be 15 points per die, then a 60 point 4d6 Killing Attack would average 14 Body and 4 Stun and would have a max Stun of 8 with a max Body of 24. At that point, you might as well not bother counting up Stun and rely on the 1 Body automatically does 1 Stun rule.

[Ki-rin]

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

 

A 60-point 12d6 Killing Attack would average 42 Body and 12 Stun. Seems a bit lop-sided and would make walls, Entangles, Barriers, Vehicles and the like completely superfluous.

 

On the other hand, if you'd meant that Killing Attacks would still be 15 points per die, then a 60 point 4d6 Killing Attack would average 14 Body and 4 Stun and would have a max Stun of 8 with a max Body of 24. At that point, you might as well not bother counting up Stun and rely on the 1 Body automatically does 1 Stun rule.

The 2nd is what I meant.

 

But you're right that it doesn't look very good.

 

What about the compromise of making KA cost 2x NA instead of 3x NA.

 

Thus using the suggested mechanic

the 60 AP 12d6 NA does (12,42,72) STUN and (0,12,24) BODY

and the 60 AP 6d6 KA does (6,21,36) BODY and (0,6,12) STUN

 

You are not likely to be STUNned. But you are very likely to be dead.

 

this compares to the 6ed standard of 60 AP 4d6 KA that does (4,14,24) BODY and (4,8,12) STUN

or

(4,14,24) BODY and 12 STUN using the "STUN is 3x KA dice rule" variant.

 

Hmmm.

[Netzilla]

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

 

The 2nd is what I meant.

 

But you're right that it doesn't look very good.

 

What about the compromise of making KA cost 2x NA instead of 3x NA.

 

Thus using the suggested mechanic

the 60 AP 12d6 NA does (12,42,72) STUN and (0,12,24) BODY

and the 60 AP 6d6 KA does (6,21,36) BODY and (0,6,12) STUN

 

You are not likely to be STUNned. But you are very likely to be dead.

 

this compares to the 6ed standard of 60 AP 4d6 KA that does (4,14,24) BODY and (4,8,12) STUN

or

(4,14,24) BODY and 12 STUN using the "STUN is 3x KA dice rule" variant.

 

Hmmm.

 

Even at only 10 points per Die, KA will make Entangle & Barrier comparatively weaker than they are now. When we went over this on the old pre-6E open forum discussions (before Steve Long started writing the book) we concluded that you really can't change the Body range of Killing Attacks without adversely affecting the game. Besides, it's not the Body of Killing Attacks that was the problem. It was the Stun.

 

So, even before SETAC formed, a bunch of us were wracking our brains to find a method that preseved the KA Body range without the potential for massive stun. The methods we came up with that met that criteria were:

 

• 1d3 Stun Multiplier (what is now in 6E)
  
• x2.5 Stun Multiplier
  
• x3 Stun Multiplier
  
• Make Killing a +1/4 Advantage on Normal Attacks that did +1 Body per 2 dice.
  
• Make KA 5 points per die and work like Normal Attacks but count 0 Body Pips as 1 and subtract the number of dice rolled from the Stun total.
  

And maybe one or two others that I'm forgetting right now. My own personal preference was for either of the last two. All of these were discussed even further in SETAC but no new ground was really covered that I recall.

[Jagged]

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

 

If the "problem" under the old system was when you rolled a 6 for the stun multiplier what if you rolled the stun separately?

 

 

It should be possible to come up with some simple rule to decide how many d6 to roll based upon the either the active points or the body done.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

If the "problem" under the old system was when you rolled a 6 for the stun multiplier what if you rolled the stun separately?

 

 

It should be possible to come up with some simple rule to decide how many d6 to roll based upon the either the active points or the body done.

 

The approach I liked was to make a KA 5 points per die, with STUN computed by totaling the dice and subtracting half the DC's, and BOD computed as either 1-5 = 1 BOD, 6 = 2, or 1=0, 2-4=1, 5-6 = 2. The result is the same average BOD we have under 5e (and 6e), a reasonably comparable average STUN to the 5e KA.

[Netzilla]

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

 

If the "problem" under the old system was when you rolled a 6 for the stun multiplier what if you rolled the stun separately?

 

 

It should be possible to come up with some simple rule to decide how many d6 to roll based upon the either the active points or the body done.

 

Actually, as I recall, one of the original suggestions I made was to basically what you suggest above. Instead of counting both Stun and Body on the same dice, you instead buy Stun Dice and Body Dice. An attack is then made of a combination of Stun and Body dice. The problem is how to cost the different dice fairly.

 

Another idea someone floated at one point as that you paid 5 points per die for a Killing Attack, counted the total rolled as Stun and counted the total on 1/3 of the dice rolled (round down) as both Stun and Body. Obviously, this would require rolling different colored dice. However, you end up with the exact same Stun as a Normal Attack but higher average Body, making KAs more effective. If you didn't count the Body dice for Stun it might work. A 12 DC Killing Attack would roll 4d6 Body (min 4, aveage 14, max 24) plus 8d6 Stun (min 8, average 28, max 48). This happens to give a worse stun range to the 6E method, 4d6 x 1d3 (min 4b/4s, average 14b/28s, max 24b/72s).

 

If you're really interested in seeing what was discussed by the community already, I suggest searching these threads for messages about "killing attacks":

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63249

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63242

 

because all we're really doing right now is re-treading old ground. Since 6E is already released, the best you'll get out of such a discussion is a new house rule.

[Markdoc]

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. 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.[/quote']

 

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']

 

I suggested this (not on SETAC, though).

 

Essentially use a single d6 mechanic, base cost of 5, as we have now and then let people buy up either the amount of BOD or the amount of STUN done per d6.

 

Very simple, very robust, very tunable. And gives quite similar average results to the 5E system, without the volatility.

 

cheers, Mark

[Ninja-Bear]

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

 

Now, to figure out how to fix Normal Attacks (and especially Martial Arts) for heroic games. Seriously.

 

Not to detrail but I'm curious if you have the same problem as me.

 

On topic though, how to balance KA with non-armored concept PC. My first character is (surprise) a ninja. Had to by armor because of KA. Not my concept though. Gm always gives me a had time because I Hold then Dodge. Been playing with the concept of just using AVLD. Sean I know you mentioned sometime back about using that approach. Or possible just making HKA take the mandatory no str bonus. And it is with my understanding that you can still add MA bonus as normal to the KA. At least I would allow it.

 

Plus the other problem with KA is the 15pts do not reflect their actual cost. Most Heros in a super campaign have STR scores at least at 15 which means the character actually gets another 3DC of killing attacks for free. It does make it hard to balance I think in Martial Art style campaigns.

[Netzilla]

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

 

I suggested this (not on SETAC, though).

 

Essentially use a single d6 mechanic, base cost of 5, as we have now and then let people buy up either the amount of BOD or the amount of STUN done per d6.

 

Very simple, very robust, very tunable. And gives quite similar average results to the 5E system, without the volatility.

 

cheers, Mark

 

You'd still make it pretty easy to build an Entangle/Barrier killer by buying 60 points worth of No STUN dice (26.5), giving an average of 26.5 Body per attack. Obviously it's a cheezed-out build but its one of the same weaknesses I found with doing separate Body and Stun dice before.

[director13]

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

 

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

 

 

I like it, and I'll be using it (although not until January or so, I had to promise my players a rules freeze). I play in a Heroic scale game with Hit Locations, but I use the STUN Multiplier for AoE attacks, which comes out to be Grenades, Flamethrowers, and various post apocalyptic mutations. The lower STUN Multiplier means I get to use even *more* of these on my players (and vice-versa, I suppose).

 

Hmmmmmmn. Smells like... victory.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

You'd still make it pretty easy to build an Entangle/Barrier killer by buying 60 points worth of No STUN dice (26.5)' date=' giving an average of 26.5 Body per attack. Obviously it's a cheezed-out build but its one of the same weaknesses I found with doing separate Body and Stun dice before.[/quote']

 

A lot of Multipowers with "BOD only" and "STUN only" attacks seems the likely result of any division of BOD dice and STUN dice (or damage) purchased independently.

 

I suppose we could have a restriction on the spread between the two, much like Entangles restrict the spread between BOD dice and defenses.

[Chris Goodwin]

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

 

Did anyone suggest this

 

Normal attacks work as usual.

 

KA are the opposite. You roll BODY and for each 1, 2-5, or 6 you do 0, 1, or 2 STUN respectively.

 

The rationale is that more of the energy is focused into destroying stuff rather than knocking it around.

 

I have not put this to any kind of critical analysis. I'm just suggesting it off the top of my head.

 

I'm sure somebody did. On SETAC I suggested doing the reverse; making Normal and Killing attacks work using Killing style dice, with a higher Stun Multiple for Normal attacks. Didn't go over too well.