Parity for EB

[BNakagawa]

Frankly, I find it a little absurd for the text to read "Characters should never buy a Killing Attack simply because they want to obtain high STUN Multiplier rolls."

 

and half an inch lower, it gives the new value for a +1 to the Stun modifier as +1/4

 

So, to level the playing field - I offer this:

 

+1/4 advantage (only for EB) +1 stun/DC

 

Such a structure would allow EB to maintain near-parity to KA for the purpose of generating STUN, ostensibly what normal attacks are supposed to do better than killing attacks, but in reality, they don't.*

 

where the bonus stun/DC helps out most is when you're stacking it with other advantages such as autofire or area effect. An advantage that KA already enjoys and EB lacks.

 

*while it is very easy to simply calculate the average STUN yields for N active points of EB vs KA, remember that once you deduct some reasonable DEF from the totals (let's say N/2)the more linear characteristic of the KA damage means that the average damage through defenses is actually higher than the EB. For defense values higher than N/2 (such as is common for bricks and master villains) the discrepancy gets higher still.

 

An illustration:

 

N = 15, def = 8. Con = 10

 

Normal attack, average stun through def = 2.8333 Chances of stunning target = 1/216 (%0.46)

 

Killing attack, average stun through def = 3.5556 Chances of stunning taget = 6/36 (%16.67)

 

Normal attack 2d6, +2stun/DC (+1/2 advantage)

Average stun through def = 1.556 Chances of stunning target = 0

[Derek Hiemforth]

I don't think the problem is that severe, personally. Let's take a little higher benchmark (15 AP is pretty low) and see what we get.

 

50 Active Point Attack (10d6EB and 3d6+1KA)

25 DEF (assuming some of it is resistant)

18 CON

 

The EB will average 35 STUN, doing 10 STUN per hit. Over the course of six hits, it will never Stun the target, but will pile up 60 STUN after defenses.

 

The KA will average 11 BODY, and assuming average STUNx rolls over the course of six hits, it will do 57 STUN after defenses (0, 0, 0, 8, 19, and 30). It will Stun the target two times in six, but will also do absolutely nothing three times in six.

 

That doesn't seem all that unbalanced to me.

[Gary]

Let's compare 4d6RKA vs 12d6EB. Assume the target has 25 def and 23 con.

 

The 4d6 RKA does 16.3 stun through defenses on average and has a 30.1% chance of con stunning the target.

 

The 12d6 EB does 17.0 stun through defenses and has a 13.8% chance of stunning the target.

 

At 3d6 vs 9d6, it gets even more lopsided.

 

3d6 RKA 8.9 net stun, 15.0% chance of con stunning.

 

9d6 EB 6.7 net stun, 0.02% chance of con stunning.

 

5d6 vs 15d6 is better for EB.

 

5d6 RKA 24.2 net stun, 42% chance of con stunning.

 

15d6 EB 27.5 net stun, 72.6% chance of con stunning.

[Lord Liaden]

The +1 STUN/DC was given as an optional +1/2 Advantage for Normal Damage attacks in Adventurers Club #27, and I've used it since then. With the changeover to +1/4 for Increased Stun Multiplier in 5E, I've debated making this optional Adv. into +1/4 as well. My current thinking is to leave it at +1/2, because with Normal Damage there's no randomness of result as with the KA Stun Multiplier; you're adding +1 for each die of damage you roll, increasing the damage your attack can do by a significant and reliable amount. I'd welcome other opinions on this, though.

 

Mind you, I'm one of those people who has applied a "fix" to the Stun Multiplier for KA: I roll 3D6 rather than 1D6, and divide the result by 3 before subtracting 1to get the result (I have a small chart handy with the roundings for all the possible results). This creates a pronounced bell curve with the average centering around 2.75, with the result that a KA reliably does more Body but less Stun than a normal-damage attack of the same DC, which is supposed to be the difference between them.

[tesuji]

"). This creates a pronounced bell curve with the average centering around 2.75, with the result that a KA reliably does more Stun but less Body than a normal-damage attack of the same DC, which is supposed to be the difference between them."

 

I think you meant more body but less stun.

[Gary]

It's actually not a big deal to make it a 1/4 advantage for +1 stun/dc, unless you stack other advantages on it.

 

For a 75 pt attack:

 

15d6 EB does 52.5 pts damage on average

12d6 +1 stun/dc does 54 pts damage

10d6 +2 stun/dc does 55 pts damage

 

The last 2 attacks do decreased body and knockback, so the three attacks are essentially equivalent.

[nblade]

You know I've never really seen the Normal vs Killing damage issue come up in play all that much.

 

Most genres tend to use one or the other for the most part. When everyone is using the same type of damage, it doesn't seem to come up. About the only place, I even seen it is in a Champions style game when a Killing attack had a massive stun multiplier built in.

 

Now is there a chance for a really good payoff for a killing attack, yes I think so. Does it come up in play a bunch, not as often as my players would like I'm sure. Of course this item as they say cuts both ways. What works for the players also works against them. Just because its an advantage to the players doesn't mean its also a limitation. Of course should one change the game to suit one's personal perference, sure. After all what the hell is gaming about if you can't do that, we are not drones.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by tesuji

"). This creates a pronounced bell curve with the average centering around 2.75, with the result that a KA reliably does more Stun but less Body than a normal-damage attack of the same DC, which is supposed to be the difference between them."

 

I think you meant more body but less stun.

 

Noted and edited for correction. Thanks.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Gary

It's actually not a big deal to make it a 1/4 advantage for +1 stun/dc, unless you stack other advantages on it.

 

For a 75 pt attack:

 

15d6 EB does 52.5 pts damage on average

12d6 +1 stun/dc does 54 pts damage

10d6 +2 stun/dc does 55 pts damage

 

The last 2 attacks do decreased body and knockback, so the three attacks are essentially equivalent.

 

Fair enough. That's an accurate analysis as far as average damage goes. What I think needs to be considered, though, is what this Advantage does to the minimum and maximum range for damage in each case. To use your example:

 

15D6 EB: Minimum 15, Maximum 90.

12D6 +1 Stun/DC: Minimum 24, Maximum 84.

10D6 +2 Stun/DC: Minimum 30, Maximum 80.

 

Although the upper limit in these three cases is not that different, the lower limit increases rapidly. And because the extra Stun amounts to a set quantity added to each die roll, the range of possible results is actually fewer than with the higher base point Power. That might balance out the difference in Knockback and Body damage done. And I do think that the effect of other Advantages added on to this one needs to be taken into account; that applies to any Advantage IMO.

 

Like I said, though, I appreciate the input, as I still haven't made up my mind.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

Fair enough. That's an accurate analysis as far as average damage goes. What I think needs to be considered, though, is what this Advantage does to the minimum and maximum range for damage in each case. To use your example:

 

15D6 EB: Minimum 15, Maximum 90.

12D6 +1 Stun/DC: Minimum 24, Maximum 84.

10D6 +2 Stun/DC: Minimum 40, Maximum 80.

 

Although the upper limit in these three cases is not that different, the lower limit increases rapidly. And because the extra Stun amounts to a set quantity added to each die roll, the range of possible results is actually fewer than with the higher base point Power. That might balance out the difference in Knockback and Body damage done. And I do think that the effect of other Advantages added on to this one needs to be taken into account; that applies to any Advantage IMO.

 

Like I said, though, I appreciate the input, as I still haven't made up my mind.

 

The third attack should be 30 minimum and 80 maximum.

 

All advantages can easily be abused by stacking enough of them.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Gary

The third attack should be 30 minimum and 80 maximum.

 

All advantages can easily be abused by stacking enough of them.

 

Two for two; ever have one of those days?

 

Correction noted, thanks for the catch.

 

Point taken, although even a simple "Reduced END" Advantage has a different effect on lower base-point Powers with a single other Advantage applied to them. That's one of the things that needs to be considered with Armor Piercing, for example, when comparing it to another unmodified attack of the same Active Points and Damage Class.

[Gary]

Re: Parity for EB

 

Originally posted by BNakagawa

Frankly, I find it a little absurd for the text to read "Characters should never buy a Killing Attack simply because they want to obtain high STUN Multiplier rolls."

 

and half an inch lower, it gives the new value for a +1 to the Stun modifier as +1/4

 

So, to level the playing field - I offer this:

 

+1/4 advantage (only for EB) +1 stun/DC

 

Such a structure would allow EB to maintain near-parity to KA for the purpose of generating STUN, ostensibly what normal attacks are supposed to do better than killing attacks, but in reality, they don't.*

 

where the bonus stun/DC helps out most is when you're stacking it with other advantages such as autofire or area effect. An advantage that KA already enjoys and EB lacks.

 

*while it is very easy to simply calculate the average STUN yields for N active points of EB vs KA, remember that once you deduct some reasonable DEF from the totals (let's say N/2)the more linear characteristic of the KA damage means that the average damage through defenses is actually higher than the EB. For defense values higher than N/2 (such as is common for bricks and master villains) the discrepancy gets higher still.

 

An illustration:

 

N = 15, def = 8. Con = 10

 

Normal attack, average stun through def = 2.8333 Chances of stunning target = 1/216 (%0.46)

 

Killing attack, average stun through def = 3.5556 Chances of stunning taget = 6/36 (%16.67)

 

Normal attack 2d6, +2stun/DC (+1/2 advantage)

Average stun through def = 1.556 Chances of stunning target = 0

 

Actually, not to be too picky or anal (ok, I'm guilty ), but since you need to do greater than the target's con to stun him, the 3d6 eb has 0.00% chance of stunning the def 8 con 10 target, and the 1d6 rka has a 13.89% chance.

[BNakagawa]

Part of the problem is that the average STUN values only tell part of the story.

 

What does more STUN damage on the average:

 

10d6 or 1d6 x 10?

 

Neither, they both average 35 stun.

 

But which one is more likely to Con stun somebody with 25 def, 23 Con?

 

1d6 x 10, obviously. %33.3

 

So, is this balanced? Would you allow a player to replace Nd6 EB with 1d6 x N EB?

[Gary]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

Part of the problem is that the average STUN values only tell part of the story.

 

What does more STUN damage on the average:

 

10d6 or 1d6 x 10?

 

Neither, they both average 35 stun.

 

But which one is more likely to Con stun somebody with 25 def, 23 Con?

 

1d6 x 10, obviously. %33.3

 

So, is this balanced? Would you allow a player to replace Nd6 EB with 1d6 x N EB?

 

I already did the math. 4d6KA vs 12d6 EB does roughly the same stun through defenses vs 25 def 23 con, but has a significantly higher chance of con stunning the target. As def and/or con gets higher, killing attacks do better. If def and/or con get lower, regular attacks do better.

 

I think they're balanced, killing attacks do better vs high def/con, and regular attacks do better vs low def/con.

[BNakagawa]

I notice you didn't bother to answer the question.

 

The implication is that if the Stun Lottery is ok for Killing Attacks, then why is it off limits for EB?

 

Also, neither is as effective as 2d6 KA with +4 Stun Modifier anyway. roughly %38 chance to stun target with 25 def 23 Con.

 

Balanced? Sure. Whatever you say.

 

Oops. Now that I think about it, the best bet is 1d6 KA with +12 to the Stun Modifier which has a %50 chance to stun a target with 25 def and 23 Con.

 

Not even a 6d6 NND stuns people that reliably. (not people with a 23 Con, anyway)

[Talon]

Personally, I'd rather go the other route (surprise!) and de-randomize KAs; x3 fixed STUN multiple or something similar.

[Gary]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

I notice you didn't bother to answer the question.

 

The implication is that if the Stun Lottery is ok for Killing Attacks, then why is it off limits for EB?

 

Also, neither is as effective as 2d6 KA with +4 Stun Modifier anyway. roughly %38 chance to stun target with 25 def 23 Con.

 

Balanced? Sure. Whatever you say.

 

Oops. Now that I think about it, the best bet is 1d6 KA with +12 to the Stun Modifier which has a %50 chance to stun a target with 25 def and 23 Con.

 

Not even a 6d6 NND stuns people that reliably. (not people with a 23 Con, anyway)

 

If you had read my post, I was comparing basic EB to basic KA. They're reasonably balanced. The 4d6 KA does more net stun at above 27 def, and the 12d6 EB does more net stun below 27 def. The 4d6 KA has a better chance of con stunning at above 44 def+con, and the 12d6 EB has a better chance of con stunning below 44 def+con. Seems reasonable to me.

 

Of course stacking advantages can be abusive. You can easily have a 1d6 EB nnd (+1) area effect(+1) X256 area (+2) 0 end (+1) autofire (+1.5) 2560 shots (+4.5) for the same price as the 1d6 RKA +12 stun multiple, and it'll take out unprotected targets 100% of the time. It's a problem with the game system itself. The only fix would be to make each advantage multiplicative rather than additive. Not a good option considering the amount of math that would need to be done.

 

Incidentally, the 2d6+4 stun multiple has a 41.7% chance of con stunning, the 1d6+12 has a 52.8% chance, and the 6d6 nnd has a 27.9% chance.

[Chaosliege]

So long as it lets me make a damage shield that will actually do damage, I'm fine with it.

 

60

Killing Attack 1d6 +1 (vs. ED), Reduced Endurance Half END; +1/4), Damage Shield (+1/2), +4 STUN Multiplier (+1), Continuous (+1) (75 Active Points); No Knockback (-1/4)

Min dam 10

Max dam 70

average 33.75

 

66

Energy Blast 6d6 (vs. ED), Reduced Endurance (Half END; +1/4), Damage Shield (+1/2), Continuous (+1) (82 Active Points); No Knockback (-1/4)

Min dam 6

Max dam 36

average 21

 

Note: The regular EB is higher active points.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Chaosliege

So long as it lets me make a damage shield that will actually do damage, I'm fine with it.

 

60

Killing Attack 1d6 +1 (vs. ED), Reduced Endurance Half END; +1/4), Damage Shield (+1/2), +4 STUN Multiplier (+1), Continuous (+1) (75 Active Points); No Knockback (-1/4)

Min dam 10

Max dam 70

average 33.75

 

66

Energy Blast 6d6 (vs. ED), Reduced Endurance (Half END; +1/4), Damage Shield (+1/2), Continuous (+1) (82 Active Points); No Knockback (-1/4)

Min dam 6

Max dam 36

average 21

 

Note: The regular EB is higher active points.

 

If you just want an effective damage shield, why not just make the EB an NND? For 75 pts, you'll get 4d6 nnd which will do more net stun against super level defenses on average than the 1d6+1 +4 stun multiple damage shield. I'm sure you'll agree that 4d6 nnd is a lot better than 6d6 normal.

[BNakagawa]

The point still remains.

 

THere is a +1/4 advantage for Killing Attacks that gives you on the average, +1 STUN/DC (+1, +1 or +1.167 for 1 pip, 1/2 die or full die of KA)

 

There is no corresponding +1/4 advantage for Normal Attacks.

 

This makes the Killing attack the superior construct for inflicting stun. Certainly there's no better way of Con Stunning people. (people with significant defenses, anyway)

 

If anything, there should be a +1/4 advantage for adding BODY to killing attacks, but there isn't.

 

Even if you fix the Stun Multiple at 3, the 1d6 KA with the +12 Stun Multiple (60AP) has a %50 chance to stun a target with Def 25, Con 23.

 

Even if you fix the Stun Multiple at 2, it's still %50.

 

And frankly, I'd rather see NND and Ego Attack returned to 10 AP/Die to reduce their ability to stack them with Area effects, Continuous Uncontrolled, Autofire, etc.

[feywulf]

Re: Parity for EB

 

Originally posted by BNakagawa

Frankly, I find it a little absurd for the text to read "Characters should never buy a Killing Attack simply because they want to obtain high STUN Multiplier rolls."

 

and half an inch lower, it gives the new value for a +1 to the Stun modifier as +1/4

 

So, to level the playing field - I offer this:

 

+1/4 advantage (only for EB) +1 stun/DC

 

Such a structure would allow EB to maintain near-parity to KA for the purpose of generating STUN, ostensibly what normal attacks are supposed to do better than killing attacks, but in reality, they don't.*

 

You could always convert normal dice into the equivalent number of killing dice and roll body damage with a stun multiplier, to determine the ammount of stun and body dealt. It would still be normal damage, just rolled a different way.

 

Or you could go the other way and roll killing dice with the equivalent number of normal dice.

 

I'm not sure what affect either of those solutions would have on game balance. It is a question of what ammount of variability you want the dice to have when it comes to stun and body rolled. There is already the standard effect option when buying a power which alters the ammount of randomness involved in the dice, so i don't think that this optional idea would be too unbalancing.

[Gary]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

The point still remains.

 

THere is a +1/4 advantage for Killing Attacks that gives you on the average, +1 STUN/DC (+1, +1 or +1.167 for 1 pip, 1/2 die or full die of KA)

 

There is no corresponding +1/4 advantage for Normal Attacks.

 

This makes the Killing attack the superior construct for inflicting stun. Certainly there's no better way of Con Stunning people. (people with significant defenses, anyway)

 

If anything, there should be a +1/4 advantage for adding BODY to killing attacks, but there isn't.

 

Even if you fix the Stun Multiple at 3, the 1d6 KA with the +12 Stun Multiple (60AP) has a %50 chance to stun a target with Def 25, Con 23.

 

Even if you fix the Stun Multiple at 2, it's still %50.

 

And frankly, I'd rather see NND and Ego Attack returned to 10 AP/Die to reduce their ability to stack them with Area effects, Continuous Uncontrolled, Autofire, etc.

 

EB is better than KA if the target has low def/con, or if you want to take the target down in 3 phases rather than 1. An EB that reliably does 15-20 net stun will put down the target after 2-3 hits, whereas a KA has a much higher probability of crapping out even with 3 hits.

 

The biggest danger of +1 stun multiple in your mind seems to be the effect of multiple stackings. If that's what you're worried about, then just limit it to 1 or 2 stun multiples maximum. The GM should look closely anytime a player tries to stack lots of advantages on a small power anyway. A suggestion might be to scale it like double knockback and charge +1/2 for +1 multiple, and +3/4 for +2 multiples.

[Chaosliege]

Originally posted by Gary

If you just want an effective damage shield, why not just make the EB an NND? For 75 pts, you'll get 4d6 nnd which will do more net stun against super level defenses on average than the 1d6+1 +4 stun multiple damage shield. I'm sure you'll agree that 4d6 nnd is a lot better than 6d6 normal.

 

I understand I could do that, but it doesn't fit the feel of the character. The guy I have is bathed in flames. Fire hurts, a lot.. So an RKA DS seemed to fit the bill.. By the same point, it's not very heroic to kill people, therefor it seemed natural for me to build the power the way I did. This way I can have only a little body and a lot of stun(potentialy) and still be true to my vision of how the power should work. I'm not saying that's the answer for evryone, but it is for me..