STUN multipliers in 6e

[etherio]

Moved from another thread.

 

So I noticed that Steve nerfed STUN multipliers quite a bit in 6e, and I heartily approve. They are now a 1d3 (averaging 2, of course). However, he did not change the STUN X column on the optional hit location chart to reflect such. After some discussion on [thread=74928]another thread[/thread], I've concocted a house rule idea or two to (in my opinion) "fix" the problem and make the STUN damage for KAs on the hit location chart equivalent to those that do not use the chart.

 

My explanations and method follow. I'm not posting this for a debate on the merits of the rules as they stand...just sharing.

[etherio]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

The simplest option is to edit the multipliers so that the mean result is closer to 2, which is the mean result for a 1d3. As it stands now, the chart averages at about 2.8, which is too large a dicrepancy for my tastes.

 

Below is an example of the hit location chart with the following edits and my data included:

 

• A STUN multiplier of 4 or 5 is replaced with a 3
  
• A STUN multiplier of 3 is replaced with a 2
  
• A STUN multiplier of 1 or 2 is replaced with a 1
  

 

I weighted for probabilities of the different hit locations on a 3d6 distribution.

 

The mean result is 1.88...much closer to a 2. Additionally, one could diverge from the pattern and give the 'thigh' location a 2, and the mean would be even closer...at about 1.95.

 

Here's my method:

 

[etherio]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

My preferred alternative (albeit slightly more complicated) includes ideas from Sean Waters and Chris Goodwin.

 

In order to maintain the variability of the die roll for the STUN multiplier and the increased damage range that the chart afforded, while keeping the mean STUN X at about 2, I put together the following system:

 

One still rolls the 1d3 STUN multiplier, but also adds a modifier to that roll from the chart. Of course, after any modifiers for Reduced STUN Multiplier, any result of less than 1 is treated as 1.

 

Below is an example of the hit location chart with the following edits and my data included:

 

• A STUN multiplier of 5 is replaced with a +2 mod
  
• A STUN multiplier of 4 is replaced with a +1 mod
  
• A STUN multiplier of 3 is replaced with a +0 mod
  
• A STUN multiplier of 2 is replaced with a -1 mod
  
• A STUN multiplier of 1 is replaced with a -2 mod

 

I weighted for probabilities of the different hit locations on a 3d6 distribution, as before, and I accounted for the minimum result of 1.

 

The mean result is 2.03...better than I had hoped. I think I may include this in my house rule repertoire.

 

Here's my method:

 

[prestidigitator]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

I like the first one. Nice and simple, and in line with the 1d3 standard mutiplier. For the life of me I can't figure out why this wasn't done for 6E.

[Netzilla]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

I like the first one. Nice and simple' date=' and in line with the 1d3 standard mutiplier. For the life of me I can't figure out why this wasn't done for 6E.[/quote']

 

Because Normal Attacks still can hit x2 Stun (assuming you don't change them). So using the first method given, on a Head hit, a 6d6 normal attack has an average 42 Stun and a max of 72 Stun. A 2d6 Killing Attack will average only 21 Stun and max at 36 Stun on the same Head hit.

[etherio]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

Because Normal Attacks still can hit x2 Stun (assuming you don't change them). So using the first method given' date=' on a Head hit, a 6d6 normal attack has an average 42 Stun and a max of 72 Stun. A 2d6 Killing Attack will average only 21 Stun and max at 36 Stun on the same Head hit.[/quote']

 

This is a point worth examining, which is why I prefer the second method that I presented. In that method, the range of STUN multipliers is the same as those on the chart as written. You can still achieve a X5 on the head. It's just not a foregone conclusion. The averages are just brought down a tad to be in line with the mean on a 1d3 roll.

 

On the chart as written, BODY and N STUN multipliers average the same as without the chart...1, in those cases...while the maximum results are doubled. My second system brings the KA STUN multiplier in line with the rest.

 

Also, remember that a multiplier on N STUN has a less-dramatic impact, because of the larger number of dice and resultant narrower distribution. You're much less likely to roll high damage than you are with an equivalent KA.

[Tasha]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

I like the first one. Nice and simple' date=' and in line with the 1d3 standard mutiplier. For the life of me I can't figure out why this wasn't done for 6E.[/quote']

 

Because then all of the Heroic level games become VERY deadly suddenly. By not changing the Stun Mult on the Hit Location chart those old campaigns won't have to change drastically.

 

Basically the Stun Lotto was a huge problem for Champions, and no so much an issue with Heroic games. Of course YMMV.

 

This is a change that I won't ever be using in my games.

[Tasha]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

This is a point worth examining, which is why I prefer the second method that I presented. In that method, the range of STUN multipliers is the same as those on the chart as written. You can still achieve a X5 on the head. It's just not a foregone conclusion. The averages are just brought down a tad to be in line with the mean on a 1d3 roll.

 

On the chart as written, BODY and N STUN multipliers average the same as without the chart...1, in those cases...while the maximum results are doubled. My second system brings the KA STUN multiplier in line with the rest.

 

Also, remember that a multiplier on N STUN has a less-dramatic impact, because of the larger number of dice and resultant narrower distribution. You're much less likely to roll high damage than you are with an equivalent KA.

 

BTW on the original table the normal attacks stun mult is quite broken. It serves to nerf normal damage by a large amount. The published Hit location chart is like saying to folk who aren't using a KA "ok you have a 50% chance to do half damage and a 2% chance to do double damage. Have fun"

[Sean Waters]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

The hit location chart is a bit odd in that you apply the modifiers to damage in different ways: the stun multiplier for KAs is BEFORE defences, the stun multiplier for normal attacks is AFTER defences. Always seemed an unnecessary complication to me.

 

Using Etherio's second chart, one option would be to apply KA stun multiples as he suggests, but use the same chart for normal attacks - however you take the location multiplier (+2 to -2) and multiply that by the DC of the normal attack. Add that to rolled damage and then subtract defences.

 

It doesn't get you equal stun maxima but it seems to work reasonably well:

 

Example 6DC attack to the head:

 

1. Killing attack - roll Body (average 7, range 2-12) then apply the modified multiplier (average 28, range 6 to 60)

 

2. Normal attack - roll 6d6 (average 21, realistic range 16-26) then ADD 2xDC (12 points) for a total of 33 (average) and a realistic range of 28-38.

 

That way killing attacks have a much greater range or realistic results, but average lower stun - which seems about right to me. In both cases, apply defences AFTER modifying stun total.

 

PLUS you are just using the one table, which seems like a bonus.

[etherio]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

Because then all of the Heroic level games become VERY deadly suddenly. By not changing the Stun Mult on the Hit Location chart those old campaigns won't have to change drastically.

 

Basically the Stun Lotto was a huge problem for Champions, and no so much an issue with Heroic games. Of course YMMV.

 

This is a change that I won't ever be using in my games.

 

I think you must be missing something. The methods I presented make KAs do less STUN damage...not more. And they have no impact on BODY damage. You might disagree about the need for it or my "fix," but the point you seem to be making is the opposite of the truth.

[etherio]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

BTW on the original table the normal attacks stun mult is quite broken. It serves to nerf normal damage by a large amount. The published Hit location chart is like saying to folk who aren't using a KA "ok you have a 50% chance to do half damage and a 2% chance to do double damage. Have fun"

 

This is actually not true. If you find the mean multiplier, weighted by the probability for each location, the mean multiplier is very, very close to 1.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

Because then all of the Heroic level games become VERY deadly suddenly. By not changing the Stun Mult on the Hit Location chart those old campaigns won't have to change drastically.

 

Basically the Stun Lotto was a huge problem for Champions, and no so much an issue with Heroic games. Of course YMMV.

 

This is a change that I won't ever be using in my games.

 

I think you must be missing something. The methods I presented make KAs do less STUN damage...not more. And they have no impact on BODY damage. You might disagree about the need for it or my "fix' date='" but the point you seem to be making is the opposite of the truth.[/quote']

 

I think you are missing something. I believe what Tasha is saying is that reducing the STUN done by killing attacks reduces their ability to KO opponents, which means they succeed only by killing their opponents. Since more combatants end up dead, rather than knocked out, combat is deadlier due to the reduction in the STUN multiple.

 

I also agree with Tasha that the STUN multiple has been a much greater issue in Supers games than in Heroic games. I'm not sure if anyone has experienced a different result in that regard. To some extent, it's because hit locations also enhance the volatility of normal attacks. To some extent, it is because many heroic games have lower Defense to DC ratios, and the KA's average STUN past defenses, compared to that of normal attacks, is better at higher defense to DC ratios than at lower defense to DC ratios.

[Sean Waters]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

I think that the stun multiple is less noticeable in heroic games than supers games, but not less of an issue: if someone takes 9 Body then you probably don't feel so bad that they also took 36 stun, or 45 stun - there is a good chance they are dead anyway.

 

The real issue with stun multiples occurs because of the interaction of damage and defences - and where resistant defence is low or non existent - far more likely in heroic games - that is less likely to be an obvious. It really shows up though in superheroic games where no body gets through but scads of stun do.

 

This has been 'fixed' in 6e with a low multiple - but I would say that the problem still very much exists in heroic games: it is just that Body damage tends to overshadow stun damage concerns.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

We've been playing with a reduction to the Hit Location chart multipliers of -1. So, head is x4, vitals/stomach x3, chest/shoulders x2, all others x1. That's been working quite well. I really wouldn't want to reduce it more.

[etherio]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

I think that the stun multiple is less noticeable in heroic games than supers games, but not less of an issue: if someone takes 9 Body then you probably don't feel so bad that they also took 36 stun, or 45 stun - there is a good chance they are dead anyway.

 

The real issue with stun multiples occurs because of the interaction of damage and defences - and where resistant defence is low or non existent - far more likely in heroic games - that is less likely to be an obvious. It really shows up though in superheroic games where no body gets through but scads of stun do.

 

This has been 'fixed' in 6e with a low multiple - but I would say that the problem still very much exists in heroic games: it is just that Body damage tends to overshadow stun damage concerns.

 

100% agreed.

 

And in any case, why would someone want...in a fantasy or science fiction game for example...their bad guys to get knocked out by guns and swords? That's odd and certainly not in the spirit of cinematic realism. Do you have a big jail where you're keeping all of your stormtroopers?

[archermoo]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

The hit location chart is a bit odd in that you apply the modifiers to damage in different ways: the stun multiplier for KAs is BEFORE defences, the stun multiplier for normal attacks is AFTER defences. Always seemed an unnecessary complication to me.

 

It isn't a complication. The modifiers on the chart are used in different ways because it is used for multiple different things. For killing attacks it is used to determine the base amount of Stun damage done by the attack. For a normal attack it is used to modify the already determined base amount of Stun damage done by the attack. It can't be done after defenses for KAs because before you apply the multiplier there isn't an amount of Stun damage to apply the defenses to.

[etherio]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

It isn't a complication. The modifiers on the chart are used in different ways because it is used for multiple different things. For killing attacks it is used to determine the base amount of Stun damage done by the attack. For a normal attack it is used to modify the already determined base amount of Stun damage done by the attack. It can't be done after defenses for KAs because before you apply the multiplier there isn't an amount of Stun damage to apply the defenses to.

 

Yes, but I assume Sean meant that both could be multiplied BEFORE defenses. I don't necessarily agree that it would be a good idea, but his point remains.

[Sean Waters]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

I concur: that was almost certainly my point

 

To example:

 

6DC attack, 12 Defence (6 resistant), head hit:

 

 

 

KA: (roll Body): 7 points (average)

 

Multiply Stun by 5 then subtract defences: 35-D = 23 through defences

 

NA: (roll Stun): 21 points (average)

 

after (as is) - Calculate damage through defences: 21-D = 9 then multiply by 2 for 18 stun

 

before - Double rolled stun: 2x21 = 42 THEN subtract defences: 42-12 = 30

 

So you either nerf normal attacks on the hit location table, or you make them more effective at doing stun - that may seem unfair to KAs, but roll just 2 points over average body and they are doing more stun than normal attacks again.

 

Plus it would be easier to remember

[Tasha]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

I think you must be missing something. The methods I presented make KAs do less STUN damage...not more. And they have no impact on BODY damage. You might disagree about the need for it or my "fix' date='" but the point you seem to be making is the opposite of the truth.[/quote']

 

What I am saying is that with higher stun multiples, opponents in heroic games tend to knocked unconscious. With a chart that halves stun multiples will cause people to fire more rounds into their opponents. Thereby causing more BODY damage in the combat and causing more deaths as a result.

[archermoo]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

Yes' date=' but I assume Sean meant that both could be multiplied BEFORE defenses. I don't necessarily agree that it would be a good idea, but his point remains.[/quote']

 

Possibly so (or now that it is confirmed by him, certainly so). But the fact remains that they are intended to do different things. So I don't see that there is any particular reason for two different processes to be carried out in the same fashion. One of them determines base damage, the other modifies base damage. So it makes sense to me that one of them is figured at one point and the other is figured at a different point.

[archermoo]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

What I am saying is that with higher stun multiples' date=' opponents in heroic games tend to knocked unconscious. With a chart that halves stun multiples will cause people to fire more rounds into their opponents. Thereby causing more BODY damage in the combat and causing more deaths as a result.[/quote']

 

Well, the idea is in theory that KAs are supposed to be the go-to attack for doing Body damage, while normal attacks are the go-to for doing Stun damage.

[Tasha]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

I think that the stun multiple is less noticeable in heroic games than supers games, but not less of an issue: if someone takes 9 Body then you probably don't feel so bad that they also took 36 stun, or 45 stun - there is a good chance they are dead anyway.

 

The real issue with stun multiples occurs because of the interaction of damage and defences - and where resistant defence is low or non existent - far more likely in heroic games - that is less likely to be an obvious. It really shows up though in superheroic games where no body gets through but scads of stun do.

 

This has been 'fixed' in 6e with a low multiple - but I would say that the problem still very much exists in heroic games: it is just that Body damage tends to overshadow stun damage concerns.

 

I think that you are assuming that an issue exists in heroic games' stun multiples that really isn't an issue. It's more of a feature than a bug. I actually like the fact that heroic characters will knock opponents unconscious more often than out and out killing them.

 

One of the biggest features of the Hero System is the fact that combat tends to be less lethal than in other systems. Again less stun output out of killing attacks will increase body counts in many campaigns. I am glad that Steve realized this and left the hit location chart the heck alone.

[Sean Waters]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

I think that you are assuming that an issue exists in heroic games' stun multiples that really isn't an issue. It's more of a feature than a bug. I actually like the fact that heroic characters will knock opponents unconscious more often than out and out killing them.

 

One of the biggest features of the Hero System is the fact that combat tends to be less lethal than in other systems. Again less stun output out of killing attacks will increase body counts in many campaigns. I am glad that Steve realized this and left the hit location chart the heck alone.

 

 

Weeeelllll.....I'm not sure how 'less lethal' it really is if you use are using the hit location chart: one hit to an unarmoured head from a 1d6 pistol - which is pretty wimpy - and, unless you've bought up your Body, you're dying 1 hit in 3. That's without drafting in the optional bleeding and impairment rules. Sure you're probably also unconscious, having just taken 25-30 stun, but that just means you can't stabilise yourself.

 

One of the reasons I've always been wary of hit location charts in Hero is because I agree with you - I generally prefer players to make it through the first combat alive.

[etherio]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

What I am saying is that with higher stun multiples' date=' opponents in heroic games tend to knocked unconscious. With a chart that halves stun multiples will cause people to fire more rounds into their opponents. Thereby causing more BODY damage in the combat and causing more deaths as a result.[/quote']

 

Which is exactly in line with "cinematic realism" and is exactly what I'm trying to achieve. I have seen many players bemoan the fact that KAs tend to knock out their opponents in heroic scale campaigns rather than kill them. It creates a need to take prisoners in most battles (who may require medical attention) or to unheroically administer a coup de grace to unconscious or stunned opponents. Either case is awkward and inconvenient to a storyline. There are mentions in the rules books, in fact, as to how one might 'hand-wave' this away and consider such opponents killed to avoid that awkwardness. You're on the other side of that opinion. I get it. I'm not confused about your point. I understand what you're saying, game-mechanic-wise; I just don't identify with the sentiment behind your point.

 

In my opinion...in my campaign vision...it boils down to this: If you don't want to kill people, use non-lethal attacks. Like, for example, not shooting them with bullets...not stabbing them with swords.

 

As to a specific point you made: My chart doesn't halve STUN multipliers. It reduces the mean multiplier from a 2.8 to a 2.0...and maintains the same range and the same maximum results.

 

In any case, it's clear that you appreciate KAs doing more STUN in heroic games than in supers games...so enjoy the system as-is. I moved my topic and posted my ideas here intentionally for analysis, constructive criticism, and refinement by...or just to see the alternate ideas of...those who are interested in exploring ideas for house-ruling STUN damage for KAs to be more equivalent in hit-location and non-hit-location campaigns. I did so to stop derailing another person's chosen topic. If you'd like to debate that point, I suggest creating a thread to share your arguments on that topic.

[etherio]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

...One of them determines base damage' date=' the other modifies base damage...[/quote']

 

This is an excellent observation. It is strange that they're treated so differently. It probably would have been simpler and more intuitive from the get-go if KA STUN damage was 'determined' normally with a die roll before applying defenses and then applying a hit location multiple...just like all other kinds of damage. There would probably be no need for two STUN X columns and sets of modifiers.

 

Like Sean, I have always thought that things seemed a bit arbitrary in this regard. Why wasn't the whole thing always just a simple matter of determining damage as usual, applying defenses, and then just tacking on multiples from the hit location struck, if you choose to use it in your campaign. That is exactly how N STUN and BODY are treated...why not KA STUN?

 

I'm going to explore this a bit.