"Tightening the Curve" on damage

[BNakagawa]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

I don't see standardizing damage to closer to the average as something that should draw some sort of compensation downside.

Let's progress to the degenerate case and assume the existence of a Killing Attack form that delivers exactly the average body on every attack. Granted, for odd numbers of DC, this is impossible so let us imagine that it alternates between 3 and 4 for the odd cases.

 

So now you have a N DC attack that always produces N+ N/6 Body and (7/6N) x the stun multiple die which yields 7/6N stun 1/3 of the time and 14/6N stun 1/6 of the time, 21/6N stun 1/6 of the time, 28/6N stun 1/6 of the time and 35/6N Stun 1/6 of the time.

 

For a 12DC attack, this power will generate 56 or 70 stun one time in 3. That's going to generate a lot of Con Stunned results, more likely against published supervillains than any other 60 AP power I can think of. This strikes me as a little unbalanced.

 

OTOH, if the same normalizing effect was extended to the stun multiple die, then that extreme volatility goes away rather quickly.

[the fox]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

new, partially moderated stun multiple: 1d2+1 with a 6-sided die, -1 on a 1, 2 or 3; +1 on a 4, 5 or 6 gives: 1,1,1,4,4,4. average roll x2.5 stun, instead of x2.667 stun.

because this 'moderates' the stun lotto least (possibly even de-moderating it in a way), I give it the minimal penalty, a -1 on the stun multipliers total. call it "one four".

2,2,2,3,3,3 moderates too well, it's two middle values would make a fine addition to "one four", like so: 1,1,2,3,4,4 average roll x2.5 stun. except this is just the normal stun multipliers with the top result reduced by 1; only shows how close "1,4" is to 1d6-1, minimum 1.

[Tasha]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

Combat Luck was one useful talent for reducing lethality in the Stargate game I played in. In fact it allowed our "Col. O'Neil" to survive a headshot (that and the GM's bad Body roll on the 3d6rka). The randomness of the dice adds fun for the player it allows both incredibly lucky victories (ie rolling 12 on the 2d6 RKA esp with a 5 or a 13 on Hit Location).

 

To fiddle with Lethality one just needs to play with both OCV of the Opposition (Higher OCV = More hits = more PC casualties), Damage of the Opposition (more RKA dice = more body getting though def = more dead PCs). These are the dials that you can set without nerfing the PCs.

 

If you are having issues with extremely lucky Players (ie ones who consistantly roll high to Damage and low to hit), you could mandate that everyone use Casino Dice (real ones). That is the only to have truly random rolls. Dice from other vendors tend to be biased in some way due to the way they are made.

 

To flatten the curve you could always make the pcs roll their KA damage as half dice (ie instead of 2d6 rolling 4d3 (each d6 being counted as 1-3)) that would flatten the bell curve quite a bit. It would also increase lethality a bit as the minimum roll on 4d3 is 4body though the maximum is the same

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

yep, both your suggestions break the spirit of the 'standard effect rule' as I see it, which is to lower the effect/damage slightly in exchange for a more standard effect.

both roll more dice, 'standardizing' the damage without the simple -1/7th penalty.

perhaps your just goofin' on me; after all, adding 'standard' damage to a KA is as simple as +1, +2, +3 or more.

 

I don't see standardizing damage to closer to the average as something that should draw some sort of compensation downside.

 

I agree. In fact, as every point above the target's defenses is one closer to a STUN result, or even a KO, it is generally less beneficial to have standard damage. I see no reason Standard Damage should not be set at the actual average (rounding off any 1/2 points). The fact that one never gets a low roll is offset by never rolling low either.

[Vondy]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

Computer won't let me quote.

 

Remeber if you use the normal dice method, you can make them avld-defense is resistance. This shouldn't affect cost too much, and if the equipment is for free, then its not a problem. I know that this idea has been brought up before, but my search-fu is at white belt.

 

Since 2d6 HKA and 6d6 HA have the same active cost (both are 6DCs at 30AP) it seems like an unfair penalty to require an advantage for the RKA when 1) it is no more effective than it normally would be, and 2) the HA takes a limitation from the outset. I think it would be preferable for the gamemaster to simply implement the alternate dice mechanic as a campaign standard.

[the fox]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

Since normal dice average only 1 BODY damage apiece, I see little problem with 'standardizing' killing attacks this way. Only rarely are you going to do x2 BODY, and this is balanced by the chance of x0 BODY, per die. Multiple 'Normal dice' also run into a bell curve, averaging 1 BOD/ die. No subversion of the standard effect rule; just write 6d6N HKA.

You could even mix and match; ex. 1d6 + 2d6N + 1 HKA.

Just so it doesn't resemble an algebraic equation, limit this to any two methods, exs. 1d6 + 3d6N HKA, 3d6N + 3 HKA. Normal dice in a killing attack IMO is obvious how they work and is balanced, paying that mere -14% penalty for a more 'standard damage' attack.

[Sean Waters]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

I remain convinced that we need a better grip on what damage is in Hero. I do not mean the old saw about whether 'pain' is a proper sfx for stun (answer: it can be - pretty much the same answer you ge for every such example) but what it actually means in system and what that definition can tell us about how we could develop the game.

 

1 BODY, for example, is the smallest unit of damage that the system measures that is capable of making a non-living object non-operational.

 

2 BODY is the smallest unit of damage that the system measures that is capable of killing a living being or destroying a non-living object.

 

3 BODY is the smallest unit of damage that the system measures that is capable of destroying a living being.

 

After that we run into difficulties: everything else stems from that starting point, but becomes more arbitrary.

 

We can define some things that damage is NOT: it is not a measurement of force or energy, no matter how abstract.

 

What we need is some structure upon which to hang further definitions. This often comes down to some sort of argument as to whether damage should be arithmetic or exponential. My personal answer to that is that neither really works without changing other stuff too: an arithmetic progression rapidly requires silly amounts of dice to even do something of the order of a tank shell, whereas a geometric progression is mocked soundly be the application of several small attacks.

 

The thread title reminded me of an idea we kicked around a while back: quite a radically different approach, but it does make damage nicely consistent

 

Thread

[Vondy]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

I remain convinced that we need a better grip on what damage is in Hero. I do not mean the old saw about whether 'pain' is a proper sfx for stun (answer: it can be - pretty much the same answer you ge for every such example) but what it actually means in system and what that definition can tell us about how we could develop the game.

 

1 BODY, for example, is the smallest unit of damage that the system measures that is capable of making a non-living object non-operational.

 

2 BODY is the smallest unit of damage that the system measures that is capable of killing a living being or destroying a non-living object.

 

3 BODY is the smallest unit of damage that the system measures that is capable of destroying a living being.

 

After that we run into difficulties: everything else stems from that starting point, but becomes more arbitrary.

 

We can define some things that damage is NOT: it is not a measurement of force or energy, no matter how abstract.

 

What we need is some structure upon which to hang further definitions. This often comes down to some sort of argument as to whether damage should be arithmetic or exponential. My personal answer to that is that neither really works without changing other stuff too: an arithmetic progression rapidly requires silly amounts of dice to even do something of the order of a tank shell, whereas a geometric progression is mocked soundly be the application of several small attacks.

 

The thread title reminded me of an idea we kicked around a while back: quite a radically different approach, but it does make damage nicely consistent

 

Thread

 

While I prefer the body/stun dichotomy over the traditional "hit point" system, body is, basically, hit points. I continue to use it because its integral to hero, but I much prefer systems with abstracted wound levels. One example would be the DP9 Silhouette engine's, which incorporates system shock to give the system granularity. If it weren't so much work import such a system to hero I'd do so.

[Kristopher]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

My main concern was simply avoiding the random BODY damage lottery of Killing Attacks as they exist now.

[the fox]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

And you can do so, simply and easily, in any amount for a mere 14% penalty.

 

Why this is a good deal is when it frequently 'works well with others', a long list of the usual suspects; consider each separately and together with Standard damage/ effects;

vs. mooks or other low defenses or vs. vulnerabilities

*wounding w/o killing, intentionally not killing your opponent for both PC's and their opponents, who, for whatever strange reason are perfectly happy wounding and stunning you, but are reluctant to possibly kill you with a 1d6! to 4d6! RKA.*

Affects Desolid- their other defenses may be low.

Area of Effect- multiple low defenses are effected by a 'set' amount.

Explosions- does 5th edition dispense with the 'lose lowest die first' mechanics from earlier editions? Regardless, much like AoE and main attack combined.

Damage Shield- not too lethal, now...

Lack of Personal Immunity- your defenses can be set to reliably defend against your own attacks, since you can more reliably determine the damage.

Side Effects- could you apply this and lower the effect? IMO most GM's would allow it, since it'll effect 'em anyway, just a set amount.

Mental Powers, BOECV, NVLD, NND- attacks vs. little or no defenses.

Mega-Scale and Magical Effects-not just Ritual Magic but wherever you need a set effect w/o another die roll.

Conditional Powers- set effect.

Gradual Effects- a more 'gradual yet inevitable' effect; works well with all of the above, too.

Linked- with a 'proportional' stipulation, you could ask for and receive 1 'pt.', rather than 1/2 DC-Nd=3 or 1 DC-Kd=5, in proportion to the other power.

Reduced Penetration- magnifies effects of limitation- less BODY damage and a more average amount.

[Sean Waters]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

My main concern was simply avoiding the random BODY damage lottery of Killing Attacks as they exist now.

 

 

Against inanimate objects, use Standard effect.

 

Against living beings though, the 'Body Lottery' can be seen as relatively accurate, if you are not using hit locations, as it gives a good spread of effect - the sword could have pierced your hand or your heart, which will have dramatically different effects.

 

If you are using hit locations, go back to standard effect again, or average damage if, like me, you feel that Standard Effect is a con.

[Tom Carman]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

And you can do so, simply and easily, in any amount for a mere 14% penalty.

 

Explosions- does 5th edition dispense with the 'lose lowest die first' mechanics from earlier editions? Regardless, much like AoE and main attack combined.

 

Ummm, got that backwards: Explosion always lost the highest dice first.

[torchwolf]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

I remain convinced that we need a better grip on what damage is in Hero. I do not mean the old saw about whether 'pain' is a proper sfx for stun (answer: it can be - pretty much the same answer you ge for every such example) but what it actually means in system and what that definition can tell us about how we could develop the game.

 

1 BODY, for example, is the smallest unit of damage that the system measures that is capable of making a non-living object non-operational.

 

2 BODY is the smallest unit of damage that the system measures that is capable of killing a living being or destroying a non-living object.

 

3 BODY is the smallest unit of damage that the system measures that is capable of destroying a living being.

 

After that we run into difficulties: everything else stems from that starting point, but becomes more arbitrary.

 

We can define some things that damage is NOT: it is not a measurement of force or energy, no matter how abstract.

 

What we need is some structure upon which to hang further definitions. This often comes down to some sort of argument as to whether damage should be arithmetic or exponential. My personal answer to that is that neither really works without changing other stuff too: an arithmetic progression rapidly requires silly amounts of dice to even do something of the order of a tank shell, whereas a geometric progression is mocked soundly be the application of several small attacks.

 

The thread title reminded me of an idea we kicked around a while back: quite a radically different approach, but it does make damage nicely consistent

 

Thread

Personally, I dodged the issue by relating the severity of a wound to the BODY Char (values rounded to character's benefit):

 

• <[(BODY Char)/4] - insignificant wound (abrasions, incisions, 1st degree burns, etc)
  
• <[(BODY Char)/2] - medium wound (blunt trauma, lacerations, punctures, 2nd degree burns, etc)
  
• <[bODY Char] - serious wound (pulped flesh, broken bones, internal damage, 3rd degree burns, etc)
  
• <[(BODY Char)x2] - fatal wound (extreme versions of serious wounds, "4th degree" burns, etc)
  
• >[(BODY Char)x2] - death
  

Healing times would depend on the nature of the wound. Unfortunately, this causes imbalances between sfx so I dropped the usage of this as I couldn't think of a logical way to resolve that.

I used this with a damage sheet (a human silhouette where you wrote the number of BODY done in the location of your wound) which also kept track of STUN and END - saving on the tear of character sheets.

Insignificant wounds used the Minor Wounds optional rules (from 4th ed DC, FH, and NH) for determining healing.

 

The same structure as the chance for devices to malfunction depending on damage, essentially.

 

NOTE: I may be misremembering something about this chart (unable to locate it at present).

[Kristopher]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

Against inanimate objects, use Standard effect.

 

Against living beings though, the 'Body Lottery' can be seen as relatively accurate, if you are not using hit locations, as it gives a good spread of effect - the sword could have pierced your hand or your heart, which will have dramatically different effects.

 

If you are using hit locations, go back to standard effect again, or average damage if, like me, you feel that Standard Effect is a con.

 

I will be using hit locations. However, I don't want zero variation, just less variation -- a smaller range and more results near the average.

[Daltwisney]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

I will be using hit locations. However' date=' I don't want zero variation, just less variation -- a smaller range and more results near the average.[/quote']

 

Another possibility is to roll the dice two (or more) times, and average the results. While this will still allow the same range as the initial roll, it will tend to cluster the results more towards the average.

 

Personally, I think that rolling the "Normal" damage equivalent in DC and applying the "Normal Damage Body" vs resistant Defense is the way I would do it.

[Kristopher]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

Another possibility is to roll the dice two (or more) times, and average the results. While this will still allow the same range as the initial roll, it will tend to cluster the results more towards the average.

 

Personally, I think that rolling the "Normal" damage equivalent in DC and applying the "Normal Damage Body" vs resistant Defense is the way I would do it.

 

That's where I'm headed, I think.

[the fox]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

Average damage is an easy way to show 'more Standard damage' w/o always paying the penalty, but it does when you round down the damage about 50% of the time.

ex. RKA 2 1/2 d6 (5d6+1/2)

average stun, moderating the stun lotto and the attack a bit: RKA 2d6 +2 (stun x 2d6-2/2*). * minimum x1 stun, round down.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

Not been mentioned that I can see so far. You could mix up some average dice (as used by tabletop wargamers) with the normal dice used. If some or all of the dice used produce 2,3,3,4,4,5 then you will get less variation in your BODY damage.

 

This is a reasonable option as you can buy those dice straight out of any decent gaming shop (that still caters to wargamers).

 

Doc

[Kristopher]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

Not been mentioned that I can see so far. You could mix up some average dice (as used by tabletop wargamers) with the normal dice used. If some or all of the dice used produce 2,3,3,4,4,5 then you will get less variation in your BODY damage.

 

This is a reasonable option as you can buy those dice straight out of any decent gaming shop (that still caters to wargamers).

 

I'll take a look at my local shops.

[the fox]

Re: "Tightening the Curve" on damage

 

average dice (2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5) (In some war games, units are identified as regulars or irregulars. Because regulars are more predictable, the strength of a regular unit is multiplied by an average die. For this reason, average dice are jocularly called regular dice.)

If you can't find any, just say "one is three, six is four", roll the dice and they'll catch up.

'Regular dice' produce a 'more standard' effect without paying any penalty, therefore some GM's might 'outlaw' them for damage or effect purposes, given there's easier, 'official' rules for this effect. While some won't see the difference, some will, a nearly 'standard' attack without the slightest penalty, much less 14%.

These same GM's would simply agree to applying this to the Stun Multiplier Die, however.

Why? because there's no simpler way to 'moderate' the Stun Multiplier Die except 2,2,2,3,3,3 and this produces a more 'realistic' range: x1,2,2,3,3,4 that has good 'variance' and clearly shares the top-end penalty of 'more standard' dice.