STUN multipliers in 6e

[prestidigitator]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

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.

 

Hmm. Well, why not use a random Stun Multiplier (1d3) in conjunction with Hit Locations, then just use the Normal Damage STUN multiplier from the chart for both types of attack? A high Stun Multiplier for a Killing Attack could be explained away using justification other than simply the area of the body hit by the attack.

[etherio]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

...why not use a random Stun Multiplier (1d3) in conjunction with Hit Locations' date=' then just use the Normal Damage STUN multiplier from the chart for both types of attack?...[/quote']

 

That is precisely what I was trying to describe. Seems like a no-brainer at this point, doesn't it? No special rules...done just like N STUN and BODY. I'm intrigued...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

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?

 

In most of the source material, the protaganists are seldom killed by attacks, even killing attacks like blaster rifles or swords and axes. They are much more frequently KO'd. So this depends largely on how you are interpreting the source material. "More lethal" for the villains also translates to "more lethal" for the heros.

 

WHo says all those Stormtyroopers are dead, by the way. Luke wasn't trying to conquer the Death Star - he was trying to get out. KO'd or dead, a downed Stormtrooper was no longer an impediment to his goals, so he had no need to cut his head off to have defeated the Trooper.

[archermoo]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

It is strange that they're treated so differently.

 

To each their own. To me it seems strange to assume that the two different things should be treated as if they were the same.

[Tasha]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

Well' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Yeah, but many many Heroic games rely on guns, swords etc for combat. The system works the way it is in 6e. To change it for heroic games will fundamentally change the way those games play and the way characters will be created for those games.

 

I could buy that KA's stun was "broken" for Champions. Heck that genre really doesn't use KA's for much more than bouncing bullets off of Force fields and bricks. It's a genre that uses normal attacks exclusively.

[Tasha]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

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.

 

Funny, i LIKE that stunned and unconscious opponents are sometimes an impediment. That the PC's have to make the right decision is good. I kind of find it frightning that your players are so cold as to kill downed opponents. That doesn't even happen when we play Fantasy. Wow talk about YMMV

 

Besides there are many ways to make hero combat more deadly (ie Bleeding and Imparing rules, limiting resistant defenses).

 

Sorry that you see me as derailing your thread. It may be a cool chart and such, but it fixes something that isn't broken IMHO.

 

@Sean: I find that the hit location chart really doesn't make the game that much more deadly. Though I have to admit that almost all of the PCs are running around with 3pts of Combat Luck and from 3-5 pts of armor. Which blunts most of the smaller wounds. (ie your 1d6 pistol would only do 2 body on a headshot and 20 stun on an average body roll (4))

[Sean Waters]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

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

 

@Sean: I find that the hit location chart really doesn't make the game that much more deadly. Though I have to admit that almost all of the PCs are running around with 3pts of Combat Luck and from 3-5 pts of armor. Which blunts most of the smaller wounds. (ie your 1d6 pistol would only do 2 body on a headshot and 20 stun on an average body roll (4))

 

If they are expecting combat they are probably wearing a helmet...if not they have to rely on combat luck - and that doesn't work in up to a 1/3 of situations (based on the size of limitation 'Luck Based' gets - although I suspect most people do not play it that way).

 

Also 1d6 is the minimum firearm damage - a significant number of handguns do 2d6. I'm not sure I agree with Hero damage progression - but that is a different discussion entirely.

 

I mean, to an extent, any KA should be deadly - at least potentially: if James Bond has his Walther PPK trained on you (a 3DC gun), you shouldn't be thinking, 'Well, if I just attack him anyway it will hurt, but it won't kill me.'

[archermoo]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

Yeah, but many many Heroic games rely on guns, swords etc for combat. The system works the way it is in 6e. To change it for heroic games will fundamentally change the way those games play and the way characters will be created for those games.

 

I could buy that KA's stun was "broken" for Champions. Heck that genre really doesn't use KA's for much more than bouncing bullets off of Force fields and bricks. It's a genre that uses normal attacks exclusively.

 

In SETAC I was arguing against changing the StunX for KAs at all, as I don't think it is broken even in supers games. I lost that one, but since I almost exclusively use the hit location chart even in supers games the fact that it stayed the same means that I don't really care.

[Tasha]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

In SETAC I was arguing against changing the StunX for KAs at all' date=' as I don't think it is broken even in supers games. I lost that one, but since I almost exclusively use the hit location chart even in supers games the fact that [u']it[/u] stayed the same means that I don't really care.

 

Which is exactly the reason that I dropped my passionate arguments in favor of 1d6-1 stun mults (In one of the preview threads) as soon as I saw that the hit location chart on the 6e char sheet was unchanged.

[etherio]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

Which is exactly the reason that I dropped my passionate arguments in favor of 1d6-1 stun mults (In one of the preview threads) as soon as I saw that the hit location chart on the 6e char sheet was unchanged.

 

Hence my remarks that you (and archermoo) obviously like things the way the have always been. Some of us don't and are disappointed that the hit location chart wasn't adjusted along with the STUN die roll.

[etherio]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

...I kind of find it frightning that your players are so cold as to kill downed opponents. That doesn't even happen when we play Fantasy. Wow talk about YMMV :P/...

 

Now you're being melodramatic. I never suggested that my players were inclined to do any such thing. Adventure fiction in films and such usually intentionally avoids the more realistic scenario of dying or injured villains, so that the story can progress. My comment that you're referring to was lifted straight from 5er page 382...

 

7. Ignore STUN Damage:

For some genres, such as Fantasy, you can ignore STUN damage from ordinary attacks without negatively affecting the game. If an attacker wants to Stun (instead of kill) his target, or uses an attack that only does STUN, keep track of STUN damage, but otherwise don’t bother. This also saves the characters from having to engage in the highly unheroic act of administering a coup de grace to every unconscious opponent when the fight ends.

 

Clearly there are others wh feel the same way.

 

 

...Besides there are many ways to make hero combat more deadly (ie Bleeding and Imparing rules' date=' limiting resistant defenses)...[/quote']

 

I never said that I wanted hero combat to be more deadly. I think it's lame that characters (PCs and NPCs alike) get knocked out by killing attacks so easily.

 

...Sorry that you see me as derailing your thread...

 

Your actions belie your words.

[etherio]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

In most of the source material' date=' the protaganists are seldom killed by attacks, even killing attacks like blaster rifles or swords and axes. They are much more frequently KO'd...[/quote']

 

To which source material are you referring? I can't remember the last time I saw someone in a film or movie get knocked out by a bullet or sword, unless it was a plot device.

 

..."More lethal" for the villains also translates to "more lethal" for the heros...

 

My intention was never to make damage more lethal. My intention was to reduce the STUN damage from KAs to make it more consistent with the KA STUN damage that occurs in a campaign that doesn't use the hit location chart.

 

The option I presented makes combat LESS lethal, in fact, for PCs. In the rules as written, a PC is more likely to be knocked out by any given attack...and villains aren't terribly prone to rendering first aid to the heroes and putting them in a holding cell.

 

...WHo says all those Stormtyroopers are dead' date=' by the way. Luke wasn't trying to conquer the Death Star - he was trying to get out. KO'd or dead, a downed Stormtrooper was no longer an impediment to his goals, so he had no need to cut his head off to have defeated the Trooper.[/quote']

 

No...he wouldn't have needed to cut off their heads. But I'm sure he didn't care, either. You're generalizing with a scenario where the hero simply has to get past his opponents to escape. Who says the Stormtroopers were dead? I bet if you were able to ask George Lucas, he wouldn't say that he imagined them to be knocked out.

 

What about when Luke was slashing people to bits on Jabba's skiff and then intentionally directed turret fire at the deck to blow up the whole thing so they couldn't pursue him? Perhaps he was trying to knock them out. When Obi Won cut some dude's arm off for threatening Luke, maybe the camera cut away while he rendered first aid to his unconscious opponent...so we could watch Han knock Greedo for a loop with a blaster shot under the table. Don't worry...they're heroes, and heroes don't kill on purpose. Chewie has some smelling salts in his bandolier!

[archermoo]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

To which source material are you referring? I can't remember the last time I saw someone in a film or movie get knocked out by a bullet or sword, unless it was a plot device.

 

Well, that isn't particularly surprising since everything that happens in a movie is a plot device. No one dies or gets knocked out in movies except by plot device.

[SteveZilla]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

Well' date=' that isn't particularly surprising since everything that happens in a movie is a plot device. No one dies or gets knocked out in movies except by plot device.[/quote']

 

I think that is an overly broad definition of "plot device". IMO a plot device is usually not a common thing or occurrence -- it is something uncommon/rare, and often improbable.

 

Otherwise, every syllable of every word in a movie/book is a "plot device".

[archermoo]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

I think that is an overly broad definition of "plot device". IMO a plot device is usually not a common thing or occurrence -- it is something uncommon/rare, and often improbable.

 

Otherwise, every syllable of every word in a movie/book is a "plot device".

 

Which was my point. Arguments like "that only happens in the source as a plot device" are generally pretty specious. The "plot device" label is frequently applied to the stuff that doesn't match with what you are interested in. To me at least "guns and swords only don't kill people in movies as a plot device" means "since I'm saying that guns and swords only kill people in movies the times where that isn't true don't really count".

 

The plot devices are what differentiates the real world from heroic fiction.

[etherio]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

Well' date=' that isn't particularly surprising since everything that happens in a movie is a plot device. No one dies or gets knocked out in movies except by plot device.[/quote']

 

Actually, not true. A plot device is an occurence written into a story solely to advance the plot. Not every bullet that's fired or bad-guy that falls off of a roof is a plot device. Many individual occurences in a story could be removed without affecting the plot.

 

An example of a plot device would be the hero getting shot in the head and appearing dead...but miraculously being alive but unconscious, so that he can later surprise the villain in his lair.

 

What is up with this discussion anyway? Enjoy your games as you wish. You're not going to convince me that this discussion is moot. I already have my opinion on the whole KA STUN thing. This thread is a discussion about options to house-rule something that some of us think needs a fix. Why do some of you feel compelled to challenge that?

[etherio]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

Which was my point. Arguments like "that only happens in the source as a plot device" are generally pretty specious. The "plot device" label is frequently applied to the stuff that doesn't match with what you are interested in. To me at least "guns and swords only don't kill people in movies as a plot device" means "since I'm saying that guns and swords only kill people in movies the times where that isn't true don't really count"...

 

I never said that guns and swords only don't kill people in movies as a plot device. I said that it rarely comes up in a story as anything other than a plot device. Which I believe is absolutely true.

 

The plot devices are what differentiates the real world from heroic fiction.

 

No...suspension of disbelief defines heroic fiction. Plot devices are a literary means to accomplish a particular advancement in a plot...whatever the genre.

[archermoo]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

What is up with this discussion anyway? Enjoy your games as you wish. You're not going to convince me that this discussion is moot. I already have my opinion on the whole KA STUN thing. This thread is a discussion about options to house-rule something that some of us think needs a fix. Why do some of you feel compelled to challenge that?

 

I respond to posts that I feel need a response.

[etherio]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

I respond to posts that I feel need a response.

 

Even on the internet it is possible to be rude, my friend.

[archermoo]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

I never said that guns and swords only don't kill people in movies as a plot device. I said that it rarely comes up in a story as anything other than a plot device. Which I believe is absolutely true.

 

Okay fine, "guns and swords rarely only knock people out in movies except as a plot device" means "since I'm saying that guns and swords almost always kill people in movies, most of the evidence to the contrary is a plot device". It is an argument designed to allow you to handwave away any evidence that contradicts your stated position.

 

No...suspension of disbelief defines heroic fiction. Plot devices are a literary means to accomplish a particular advancement in a plot...whatever the genre.

 

And suspension of disbelief is required to accept a good number of plot devices.

[archermoo]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

Even on the internet it is possible to be rude' date=' my friend.[/quote']

 

Indeed it is. In that vein: the sky is blue.

 

The Hero boards are a public system. If you wish to have a private conversation PMs or other means of private communication would make much more sense. But if you publicly discuss a topic it is almost a certainty that someone who disagrees with you will end up commenting on it. That is the nature of public communications.

[etherio]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

Okay fine, "guns and swords rarely only knock people out in movies except as a plot device" means "since I'm saying that guns and swords almost always kill people in movies, most of the evidence to the contrary is a plot device". It is an argument designed to allow you to handwave away any evidence that contradicts your stated position.

 

 

 

And suspension of disbelief is required to accept a good number of plot devices.

 

You obviously have not understood anything that I've said regarding the whole plot device discussion. I'm honestly weary of you crashing this conversation.

 

Do me a favor and find someone else to heckle.

[etherio]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

I posted this remark in the thread starter for a very specific reason:

 

Moved from another thread...I'm not posting this for a debate on the merits of the rules as they stand...just sharing.

 

That is...I wanted to have a discussion with like-minded people. The whole debate about the need for a house-rule is purely opinion. Our opinions differ.

 

There is nothing wrong with defining a topic for a thread. It's common practice to do so, and it's common courtesy to stay within the topic of a given forum...both on the internet and in real life...especially when the person hosting the conversation asks you to do so. Hence my moving this discussion here to be polite to Chris Goodwin. Have your own debates on other topics elsewhere.

 

You are being very rude.

[archermoo]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

You obviously have not understood anything that I've said regarding the whole plot device discussion. I'm honestly weary of you crashing this conversation.

 

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I don't understand you. It just means I don't think you are right.

 

Do me a favor and find someone else to heckle.

 

If you aren't interested in discussing it with me, there is an easy solution. Don't respond to me.

[archermoo]

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

 

I posted this remark in the thread starter for a very specific reason:

 

 

 

That is...I wanted to have a discussion with like-minded people. The whole debate about the need for a house-rule is purely opinion. Our opinions differ.

 

There is nothing wrong with defining a topic for a thread. It's common practice to do so, and it's common courtesy to stay within the topic of a given forum...both on the internet and in real life...especially when the person hosting the conversation asks you to do so. Hence my moving this discussion here to be polite to Chris Goodwin. Have your own debates on other topics elsewhere.

 

You are being very rude.

 

Of note: You aren't hosting the conversation. The nice folx at Hero Games are hosting the conversation. You provided a starting point for this one.

 

None of my posts have been anything other than responses to things that other people have posted. I haven't introduced any deviations from the topic, I've simply commented on/responded to existing ones.