Rules intention question

[hammersickle59]

When not using the optional hit location table, you're supposed to use 1/2 D6 to determine a killing attacks stun multiplier.

 

Do you guys consider this variability in the stun multiplier as the HERO system intending to imply different hit locations? Does rolling high mean you hit somewhere vulnerable? Or is it simply that killing attacks do a more varied amount of stun damage by their nature.

 

If a robot has the "no hit locations" power. You still use the stun multiplier of 1/2 D6. Yes?

 

I know, this seems like weird questions....and I already know the answers as far as how the actual rules work, but a player of mine who disagree's insists that I post this question.

 

Dean

[ghost-angel]

Re: Rules intention question

 

I've always Assumed it was just representing the variabilty and chaos inherent in hitting something... The world is a fun weird place where all kinds of unpredictable things happen.

 

On a more meta- note: it provides a similar form of random Body & Stun damage that Normal Attackschave, just counted differently.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Rules intention question

 

It should be noted that KAs were nerfed a bit in 6e. In previous editions, the default STUN Multiplier was 1d6-1. While this did reflect the extreme variance shown in real-world situations, it also made KAs very effective at doing STUN damage.

[dmjalund]

Re: Rules intention question

 

I guess the question is: Why didn't they modify the multiples in Hit Locations to match?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Rules intention question

 

Penalty for called shots gets a better prize if you hit, would be part of it I'd wager.

[StGrimblefig]

Re: Rules intention question

 

because nobody complained about the hit location stun modifiers?

[Tasha]

Re: Rules intention question

 

I guess the question is: Why didn't they modify the multiples in Hit Locations to match?

 

Because the hitlocation chart works VERY well for Heroic games. The 1d6-1 multiplier was an "issue" with Superheroic games mostly. Going to the lower multiplier does as nasty number on Heroic games that rely on the old numbers. It would make those games much more lethal thereby changing the feel for too many campaigns. In superheroic games HA's are a bit more rare or at least not relied on as much as a primary source of damage, so nerfing the stun mult in those games has a lower impact.

[dmjalund]

Re: Rules intention question

 

then shouldn't we limit the new 1/2d6 multiple to Superheroic campaigns?

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Rules intention question

 

then shouldn't we limit the new 1/2d6 multiple to Superheroic campaigns?

How many Heroic campaigns don't use the Hit Location Chart? I've never personally encountered a single one...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Rules intention question

 

I don't think the difference is in "heroic" vs "superheroic", but in the hit location chart itself. The hit location chart is now more volatile for killing attacks than the stun multiple. However, it was always more volatile for KA BOD damage, and for normal attacks. The Stun Multiple was the odd man out. You could get a 5x Stun Mult in a Supers game with a KA, but not a 2x Normal Stun result. On the hit location chart, a head hit gets both, so either type of attack has the potential to get a significant damage enhancement from a lucky shot.

 

That meant the KA didn't enjoy the same advantage of the occasional heavy hit when the hit location chart was in use that it enjoyed with the Stun Multiple and no other damage multiples in play.

[Tasha]

Re: Rules intention question

 

I don't think the difference is in "heroic" vs "superheroic", but in the hit location chart itself. The hit location chart is now more volatile for killing attacks than the stun multiple. However, it was always more volatile for KA BOD damage, and for normal attacks. The Stun Multiple was the odd man out. You could get a 5x Stun Mult in a Supers game with a KA, but not a 2x Normal Stun result. On the hit location chart, a head hit gets both, so either type of attack has the potential to get a significant damage enhancement from a lucky shot.

 

That meant the KA didn't enjoy the same advantage of the occasional heavy hit when the hit location chart was in use that it enjoyed with the Stun Multiple and no other damage multiples in play.

 

Normal attacks really get hosed by the Hit location chart. That x2 multiplier looks great, but that is offset by most of the chart being 1/2 stun/body for Normal attack. You hit those locations so often that you end up not wanting to use normal attacks when the hit location chart is used. IMHO Hit Location works best with Killing attacks.

 

I am currently playing in a game that isn't using the Hit Location charts, though we are using a fixed x3 multiplier which makes it work decent. I think that if we had used the cruddy 1/2d6 mult that all of the fighters would be using quarterstaves and Clubs instead of Axes and swords.

 

Of course I was one of those that never had a problem with the original 1d6-1Stun Multiplier in any genre. I always had players who rolled 1x and 2x often enough that the occasional x5 never mattered. Though your experience may vary.

 

Tasha

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Rules intention question

 

Of course I was one of those that never had a problem with the original 1d6-1Stun Multiplier in any genre. I always had players who rolled 1x and 2x often enough that the occasional x5 never mattered. Though your experience may vary.

 

Assuming your dice roll in accordance with probability, 1 roll is 6 is a 5x multiple. Given the choice between always rolling, say, 42 on 12d6, or rolling 14 BOD and a spread of stun multiples (14,14,28,42,56,70 STUN), I get 1/3 of attacks that do no damage, 1/6 that plink, 1/6 that matches the 42, and 1/3 that beat it significantly. If the typical target has combined defenses and CON of 55 or less (most characters in a 12 DC game likely do), I get to STUN 1/3 of the time with the KA. In most such games, I average more STUN past defenses, despite averaging a bit less before defenses.

 

Mathematically, the KA is the superior choice. Psychologically, it depends on whether the dismay at plinks hits the player harder than the elation of a big multiple at the right time.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Rules intention question

 

How many Heroic campaigns don't use the Hit Location Chart? I've never personally encountered a single one...

 

Mine typically don't, actually, except for the occasional critical or especially dramatic hit.

 

I've typically found that Normal Attacks are too effective already in heroic games, especially when combined with Martial Arts. The games I've run since picking up 6E really haven't had any Normal Attacks in them so far, but I hesitate to think what the contrast will be now with the 1d3 Stun Multiplier. I'm seriously considering having armor provide as much extra (Non-Resistant) PD as it provides rPD (maybe only against Normal Attacks), but I'm not sure that's the right answer either. Bludgeoning each other into unconsciousness may be more heroic, but it's so anti-genre (especially for fantasy)....

[Tasha]

Re: Rules intention question

 

Assuming your dice roll in accordance with probability, 1 roll is 6 is a 5x multiple. Given the choice between always rolling, say, 42 on 12d6, or rolling 14 BOD and a spread of stun multiples (14,14,28,42,56,70 STUN), I get 1/3 of attacks that do no damage, 1/6 that plink, 1/6 that matches the 42, and 1/3 that beat it significantly. If the typical target has combined defenses and CON of 55 or less (most characters in a 12 DC game likely do), I get to STUN 1/3 of the time with the KA. In most such games, I average more STUN past defenses, despite averaging a bit less before defenses.

 

Mathematically, the KA is the superior choice. Psychologically, it depends on whether the dismay at plinks hits the player harder than the elation of a big multiple at the right time.

 

Also from a genre point of view, Killing attacks are still relatively rare things for most mainstream Comic Characters to have. So unless you are running some rusty iron age darkety dark dark game, most all of your characters shouldn't have one or if they do they should view it as an attack of last resort.

 

So again in the Champions games that I have run I really never had much of an issue with them. We don't play with people who write up Wolverine or Punisher Homages.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Rules intention question

 

A

 

Mathematically, the KA is the superior choice. Psychologically, it depends on whether the dismay at plinks hits the player harder than the elation of a big multiple at the right time.

 

In our games the big multiple rarely if ever made a big difference but the plink has caused the players to be trampled by the charging rhino etc. plenty.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Rules intention question

 

Also from a genre point of view' date=' Killing attacks are still relatively rare things for most mainstream Comic Characters to have. So unless you are running some rusty iron age darkety dark dark game, most all of your characters shouldn't have one or if they do they should view it as an attack of last resort. [/quote']

 

In physical terms, KA's and Normal Attacks are pretty easy to tell apart. You can even run a character with claws and build his claws as an AP advantage for normal hand attacks instead of a KA. Wolverine is pretty obvious. What about Batman ? At various points in his history, Batarangs have apppeared to bludgeon (normal attack) or pierce the target's extremities (killing attack). All those archers have no KA in their quivers?

 

Energy attacks, however, are harder. Fire burns. It kills. Normal people have no real resistance to open flame. Lightning bolts are written up in KA terms, so shouldn't a character who shoots lightning bolts have a killing attack?

 

Powerful characters in the comics routinely think aboout the restraint they must exercise in order NOT to kill people. In most games, the characters never consider this restraint, and their opponents are uniformly built to withstand their normal attacks easily.

 

Realistically, a 12d6 normal attack and a 4d6 killing attack aren't that far apart in terms of lethality when they hit a target with 2 defenses and 8 BOD. Nor are they far apart when the target has 20rDEF. They become indistibuishable in terms of effect. All we see in the source material is effect, not mechanic, so assessing whether the Human Torch is using an EB or a KA becomes a matter of speculation.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Rules intention question

 

In our games the big multiple rarely if ever made a big difference but the plink has caused the players to be trampled by the charging rhino etc. plenty.

 

I recall one instance in a game I was running where a relatively weak RKA one-shotted a PC. That's a bad thing.

[Tasha]

Re: Rules intention question

 

In physical terms, KA's and Normal Attacks are pretty easy to tell apart. You can even run a character with claws and build his claws as an AP advantage for normal hand attacks instead of a KA. Wolverine is pretty obvious. What about Batman ? At various points in his history, Batarangs have apppeared to bludgeon (normal attack) or pierce the target's extremities (killing attack). All those archers have no KA in their quivers?

 

Energy attacks, however, are harder. Fire burns. It kills. Normal people have no real resistance to open flame. Lightning bolts are written up in KA terms, so shouldn't a character who shoots lightning bolts have a killing attack?

 

Powerful characters in the comics routinely think aboout the restraint they must exercise in order NOT to kill people. In most games, the characters never consider this restraint, and their opponents are uniformly built to withstand their normal attacks easily.

 

Realistically, a 12d6 normal attack and a 4d6 killing attack aren't that far apart in terms of lethality when they hit a target with 2 defenses and 8 BOD. Nor are they far apart when the target has 20rDEF. They become indistibuishable in terms of effect. All we see in the source material is effect, not mechanic, so assessing whether the Human Torch is using an EB or a KA becomes a matter of speculation.

 

A number of those archers had no Killing attacks in the quiver for a certain time during their history and used trick arrows so they didn't kill folk. The hunting tips reappeared in the quivers during the iron age reimaging of those characters. Oh and while it does seem that Batarangs have been Killing attacks the people using them either use them to pin people or would hit on the blunt side which would make it like an PD Blast. Batman has very established thoughts against killing and it's been a real source of acrimony between him and Huntress (Main Universe Huntress) since Huntress does sometime use killing attacks with her crossbows.

 

Funny, most of my characters would use a lower power attack or use one of their primary attacks at lower power if they suspect that a target would take lethal damage from a full power attack. When I played bricks they would pull punches on suspected 'crunchy" targets. Many of the games that I have played in the PC's HAVE exercised that restraint. Noone wants to kill anyone and again we don't really have players who like the killer archetype of character.

 

I suspect that most of Johnny Storm's attacks are based on normal attacks. When he has fought characters that I don't think of as having rDef (ie Spiderman) I don't remember Spidey getting burns. I know that Johnny has some "extra push" built when he goes "nova". I am not sure that I would class nova heat as a killing attack or just a handful of extra DC added onto his attacks. I don't doubt that he has a Killing attack that he can use (He is shown to use his flame for welding and he seems to burn right though glass), though I doubt that he actually uses it against people.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Rules intention question

 

I recall one instance in a game I was running where a relatively weak RKA one-shotted a PC. That's a bad thing.

 

I've seen several situation where the mooks are gien KA's instead of equivalent Blasters or other normal attacks because it gives them a shot at getting some STUN through. If a 6DC KA is slected because it has a better shot at sucess than a 6 DC normal attack, that seems to suggest the two are not as equivalent as their costs and DC's suggest.

 

A number of those archers had no Killing attacks in the quiver for a certain time during their history and used trick arrows so they didn't kill folk. The hunting tips reappeared in the quivers during the iron age reimaging of those characters.

 

Or they chose different attacks for different purposes. But running several thousand volts through someone is also potentially fatal. Genre fiction, and games, also ignore the fact that a knockout, and a series of kockouts, also has long-term debilitating effects.

 

Oh and while it does seem that Batarangs have been Killing attacks the people using them either use them to pin people or would hit on the blunt side which would make it like an PD Blast. Batman has very established thoughts against killing and it's been a real source of acrimony between him and Huntress (Main Universe Huntress) since Huntress does sometime use killing attacks with her crossbows.

 

In the period during which the Huntrress has existed in that form (post-Crisis; the initial character was an Earth 2 daughter of Batman), Batman's Batarangs are routinely illustrated buried 1/3 to 1/2 way into some thug's arm, or sticking out the other side of the hand they hit. That seems like a KA to me. The acrimony is not that one uses KA's and the other does not. It is that Batman is thoroughly opposed to killing, and the Huntress is willing to kill, and has done so. Whether she does so with a crossbopw or a baseball bat makes no difference.

 

Funny' date=' most of my characters would use a lower power attack or use one of their primary attacks at lower power [b']if they suspect that a target would take lethal damage [/b]from a full power attack. When I played bricks they would pull punches on suspected 'crunchy" targets. Many of the games that I have played in the PC's HAVE exercised that restraint. No one wants to kill anyone and again we don't really have players who like the killer archetype of character.

 

Emphasis added. I find the assumption of most gamers is that the target will be able to take a full power hit. They ratchet power down only when faced with large numbers of clearly less defended foes. But in a one on one fight against an unknown opponent, full power blasts are the opener. In the source material, I far more commonly see "He just shrugged that off - I can use more power", or "These guys are clearly tough, and I don't have to hold back" after the first attack or three fails.

 

Of course, this is because most games enourage the former and penalize the latter. The opponents are ALWAYS tough enough to take that full power shot. And if you hold back on your first few attacks, then your opponent KO's you before you can make up for lost time. So, where the source material has the hero show restraint, restraint which is often justified and rarely results in losing the battle when it was not needed, in the game, such restraint is typically not justified, and commonly means losing.

 

I suspect that most of Johnny Storm's attacks are based on normal attacks. When he has fought characters that I don't think of as having rDef (ie Spiderman) I don't remember Spidey getting burns.

 

I don't recall Spidey being cut numerous times when he crashes through a plate glass window either. Much of the source material tends to ignore the more realistic aspects of the actions taking place.

 

I know that Johnny has some "extra push" built when he goes "nova". I am not sure that I would class nova heat as a killing attack or just a handful of extra DC added onto his attacks. I don't doubt that he has a Killing attack that he can use (He is shown to use his flame for welding and he seems to burn right though glass)' date=' though I doubt that he actually uses it against people.[/quote']

 

And yet, if I describe a character who weilds flame and uses it to light people on fire, is the first thought of a non-gamer likely to be "oh, that's not a lethal attack".

 

To me, the answer for the genre is "Heros don't kill", not "Heros avoid certain mechanics because of the label we place on them in the game rules".

[Chimera 12]

Re: Rules intention question

 

I suspect that most of Johnny Storm's attacks are based on normal attacks. When he has fought characters that I don't think of as having rDef (ie Spiderman) I don't remember Spidey getting burns.

I remember a scene of the X-Men vs. Fantastic Four miniseries/graphic novel in which Johnny did quite by accident burn Storm's arm rather badly (and felt appropriately guilty about it afterwards). Ironically, the person to heal that injury afterwards was Dr. Doom...

 

That said, I'll agree that the simple fact that he did react that strongly suggests that it's not something that usually happens to him in combat. (Of course, I don't immediately recall an instance of him using his flames to blast unprotected people directly on purpose, either. Against 'soft' targets the Johnny Storm I sort of remember would resort to a more indirect approach -- cut off escape routes, slag weapons, gadgets, and vehicles, that sort of thing. So, mileage may vary.)

[Tasha]

Re: Rules intention question

 

I think what it comes down to is that Comic writers don't think of terms like Killing attack and Normal attack like Hero gamers do. Most players have a certain perception of their favorite comic characters and have a feel for whether that character uses killing attacks or Normal attacks.

 

Yes, fire, electricity, hitting someone with a club, freezing someone and a million other attacks can be written up as Killing attacks. They can be just as convincing written up as Blasts (Normal Damage). So with exception of some really obvious characters (Wolverine, Sabertooth, a jillion heroes with a sword, Heroes with "regular" guns, etc) Most people will write up characters as having normal attacks. Now it is possible for those exceptions to also have powers that use those obvious killing attacks to also have a normal attack mode (ie Back of the claws, Flat of the blade, Mercy Bullets etc)

 

About opponents who are can always take DC12 attacks. It's about campaign balance. If I write up a villain that has a truly glass jaw, then that character either ends up hospitilized (which can make a certain point) or KOed before they can do much of anything. This is what happens when you change the media that something is presented in. You always lose and gain stuff to make it work in that genre. ie when Superheroes are presented in movies, they usually move away from the bright spandex as that looks silly in a live action movie. When one uses the Hero System for Superheroes, the GM has committed to making an entertaining night. Villains that go down in a spray of blood at the first attack from the heroes isn't that much fun. Mowing down the opposition gets old after a few combat scenes like that. So Villains tend to have enough defences to actually be able to stand up to the heroes for a few phases possibly as much as a turn or two. Now there's really no guarantee that any villain will have resistant defenses. So I guess you can train your PCs the way we were, buy running into opposition that had little to no rDef.

 

I think the answer for the Genre while it lives in the framework of the Hero system rules IS that Heroes avoid killing attacks because those are designed to cause lethal damage.

 

The framework that we set the genre into does have to enter into the mindset of the characters who live in that framework/genre. So my Human Torch homage might have a 12d6 Blast, a 4d6 RKA, a 30str Telekinesis 2m radius, +6d6 Blast x5 end 1/2DCV Concentrate etc. Now my character won't be thinking of 12d6 blast, 4d6RKA, +6d6 extra push, she will be thinking of Fireblast, Needle Flame, Nova Blast (respectfully). She will know that the Blast can hit hard and can hit harder if she goes to nova heat. She knows that her Needle flame can burrow though most armor and barriers and shouldn't be used on people. She knows that the nova blast can kill people, but the needle Flame can do it easier. So she won't use either the Needle Flame or the Nova Blast on most targets, and won't be thinking of the Needle Flame attack as an attack she uses on people.

 

We don't see this detail in the comics, because the little adjustments the characters make in their powers aren't always important to the story. In other words they do what it take to get the job done. The writers only show you the big special attacks (Nova attack and the various blasts where they make a difference in the story). Champions characters always end up being written up to show more minutae than any writer ever bothers. That's because the writer can pull new tricks whenever they need them. A PC in a Champions games only have the tools on the character Sheet and can usually only add powers between adventures (when Exp is spent). That's another way that Comics are different from the Hero System RPG. The funny thing is that if players were nudged to actually think in genre terms and not metagame this whole "issue" with Killing attacks wouldn't have been a real issue.

 

Oh and talking about Batman's killing attacks. Batman uses those as a painful entangle. He would never use those as a main attack to cut someone up and possibly kill them. So yes he has a device that could be used like wolvie's claws, but he uses them in different ways (Sometimes he even just pins their clothing to the wall...) I was aware of Earth 2's Huntress, she's actually a much cooler character than the Earth-1 Huntress I was talking about. The gazillion crisis series has me very confused as a comic consumer and I just wish they would quit mucking with their continuity and get back to writing good superhero stories. They make great characters and then totally screw them up. DC needs to get a heaping helping of clue and some writers who actually like superheroes. /DC rant off

 

So yes the Genre says "Heroes don't Kill", Champions says Heroes don't use killing attacks on anything but inanimate objects.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Rules intention question

 

I remember a scene of the X-Men vs. Fantastic Four miniseries/graphic novel in which Johnny did quite by accident burn Storm's arm rather badly (and felt appropriately guilty about it afterwards). Ironically' date=' the person to heal that injury afterwards was Dr. Doom...[/quote']

 

A very simple example of the basic premise. The attack is precisely as lethal as it needs to be for story purposes. If the writer wants to show off the Torch as heroic, then he surrounds the mugger in a cage of flame, and the mugger surrenders and is hauled off by the cops. If he has a different purpose, then the poor, starving guy who has, in desperation, turned to crime to obtain the funds needed for his little girl's expensive medicine slips trying to stop when surrounded by flames, tumbles into them and ends up in the burn ward with 3rd degree burns.

 

I think what it comes down to is that Comic writers don't think of terms like Killing attack and Normal attack like Hero gamers do. Most players have a certain perception of their favorite comic characters and have a feel for whether that character uses killing attacks or Normal attacks.

 

Yes, fire, electricity, hitting someone with a club, freezing someone and a million other attacks can be written up as Killing attacks. They can be just as convincing written up as Blasts (Normal Damage). So with exception of some really obvious characters (Wolverine, Sabertooth, a jillion heroes with a sword, Heroes with "regular" guns, etc) Most people will write up characters as having normal attacks. Now it is possible for those exceptions to also have powers that use those obvious killing attacks to also have a normal attack mode (ie Back of the claws, Flat of the blade, Mercy Bullets etc)

 

It's also simple to call those claws "AP on STR and Hand Attack" if you want a less lethal Wolverine option for a less lethal game. And he can still have a KA for use against inanimate objects. or he could have Tunnelling with minimal distance and high defenses.

 

About opponents who are can always take DC12 attacks. It's about campaign balance. If I write up a villain that has a truly glass jaw' date=' then that character either ends up hospitilized (which can make a certain point) or KOed before they can do much of anything. This is what happens when you change the media that something is presented in.[/quote']

 

The game would also function if some opponents can be taken out quickly, but will be injured or killed with full power, and others can take it. Now the characters need to make more difficult choices than "He's wearing a costume - apply full power!"

 

When one uses the Hero System for Superheroes' date=' the GM has committed to making an entertaining night. Villains that go down in a spray of blood at the first attack from the heroes isn't that much fun. Mowing down the opposition gets old after a few combat scenes like that. So Villains tend to have enough defences to actually be able to stand up to the heroes for a few phases possibly as much as a turn or two. Now there's really no guarantee that any villain will have resistant defenses. So I guess you can train your PCs the way we were, buy running into opposition that had little to no rDef.[/quote']

 

Is it any more entertaining if villains hit with the first killing attack go down in a spray of blood? You can run a game where no character is guaranteed to have high defenses at all. You can run a game where it is tacitly accepted every opponent will have enough defenses, including rDEF, that full power attacks, killing or normal, are never going to result in death or severe injury. Or you can have a game that allows normal attacks to always be safe to use, but not killing attacks. When you break the unwritten rule and the target is seriously injured or killed by a single hit that, normally, it would be acceptable or even standard for the hero to open up with, it becomes a "gotcha". Notwithstanding Wolverine's "lethal" claws, I don't recall a lot of dead villains in his X-Men appearances. Mooks yes. Named villains no. Even Harry leland, who had no apparent resistant defenses and reflexively uses his mass increasing powers as Wolvie dives down on him, turns up alive and healed later.

 

I think the answer for the Genre while it lives in the framework of the Hero system rules IS that Heroes avoid killing attacks because those are designed to cause lethal damage.

 

I think a 1/2d6 KA is less lethal than a 15d6 Energy Blast. Unless you make specific design choices which make the killing attack "more lethal". I have rarely, if ever, seen a serious Champions villain lacking resistant defenses in some form. The rarities either have spectactular DCV's and low defenses across the board, or regenerate from death.

 

The framework that we set the genre into does have to enter into the mindset of the characters who live in that framework/genre. So my Human Torch homage might have a 12d6 Blast' date=' a 4d6 RKA, a 30str Telekinesis 2m radius, +6d6 Blast x5 end 1/2DCV Concentrate etc. Now my character won't be thinking of 12d6 blast, 4d6RKA, +6d6 extra push, she will be thinking of Fireblast, Needle Flame, Nova Blast (respectfully). She will know that the Blast can hit hard and can hit harder if she goes to nova heat. She knows that her Needle flame can burrow though most armor and barriers and shouldn't be used on people. She knows that the nova blast can kill people, but the needle Flame can do it easier. So she won't use either the Needle Flame or the Nova Blast on most targets, and won't be thinking of the Needle Flame attack as an attack she uses on people. [/quote']

 

How does she know this? Did her flame powers come with an operating manual? Has she experimented on a busload of convicted criminals to scientifically assess the lethality of her abilities? What I know is that fire burns, hurts, injures and kills.

 

We don't see this detail in the comics, because the little adjustments the characters make in their powers aren't always important to the story. In other words they do what it take to get the job done. The writers only show you the big special attacks (Nova attack and the various blasts where they make a difference in the story). Champions characters always end up being written up to show more minutae than any writer ever bothers. That's because the writer can pull new tricks whenever they need them. A PC in a Champions games only have the tools on the character Sheet and can usually only add powers between adventures (when Exp is spent). That's another way that Comics are different from the Hero System RPG. The funny thing is that if players were nudged to actually think in genre terms and not metagame this whole "issue" with Killing attacks wouldn't have been a real issue.

 

Oh and talking about Batman's killing attacks. Batman uses those as a painful entangle. He would never use those as a main attack to cut someone up and possibly kill them. So yes he has a device that could be used like wolvie's claws, but he uses them in different ways (Sometimes he even just pins their clothing to the wall...) I was aware of Earth 2's Huntress, she's actually a much cooler character than the Earth-1 Huntress I was talking about. The gazillion crisis series has me very confused as a comic consumer and I just wish they would quit mucking with their continuity and get back to writing good superhero stories. They make great characters and then totally screw them up. DC needs to get a heaping helping of clue and some writers who actually like superheroes. /DC rant off

 

So yes the Genre says "Heroes don't Kill", Champions says Heroes don't use killing attacks on anything but inanimate objects.

[Tasha]

Re: Rules intention question

 

I would assume that our Torch Homage would have tested her powers on inanimate objects and also observed how her powers affect others in combat. She might have even started with just the fire blast and her extra push (nova). Perhaps figuring out the other "power" when she was using her powers to cut the metal she uses for her Sculptures. Learning to focus her flames like a cutting torch, heck she may not even realize that she could use that power in combat. It may just be part of her repertoire when she doing metalwork in her spare time. I assume that most Superheroes are going to spend time figuring what they can do with their powers and what their power do in their raw form. Also if she really wants to assess the lethality of her powers, there's always the old thing of trying them on Ballistic gelatin or getting Pig Carcasses and trying stuff on those. That's assuming that she hasn't run into other supers who have cool things like a Danger Room and Lab facilities that can assess powers and what they can do. Frankly for me, I can't imagine having superpowers and NOT experimenting with them to find out what they can and cant do. If I was also fighting other supers in a regular basis, I would defiantly practice and find the strengths and weaknesses of my powers.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Rules intention question

 

I would assume that our Torch Homage would have tested her powers on inanimate objects and also observed how her powers affect others in combat.

 

That sounds like using the killing attack on living targets in combat.

 

She might have even started with just the fire blast and her extra push (nova). Perhaps figuring out the other "power" when she was using her powers to cut the metal she uses for her Sculptures. Learning to focus her flames like a cutting torch' date=' heck she may not even realize that she could use that power in combat. It may just be part of her repertoire when she doing metalwork in her spare time. I assume that most Superheroes are going to spend time figuring what they can do with their powers and what their power do in their raw form.[/quote']

 

Seems to me the raw form of fire ignites flammable objects and burns human beings. Something that doesn't cause serious injury would seem to take more work to pull off.

 

Also if she really wants to assess the lethality of her powers' date=' there's always the old thing of trying them on Ballistic gelatin or getting Pig Carcasses and trying stuff on those.[/quote']

 

Depends on the type of game you want, but I'm not a fan of assuming things that "every" super does. I wouldn't know where to run out to buy ballistic gelatin or pig carcasses. Much less explain why I need them when some investigative reporter accesses my credit card statements. Sounds more like something showing up in a supers pastiche slapstick than an actual Supers scenario.

 

That's assuming that she hasn't run into other supers who have cool things like a Danger Room and Lab facilities that can assess powers and what they can do. Frankly for me' date=' I can't imagine having superpowers and NOT experimenting with them to find out what they can and cant do. If I was also fighting other supers in a regular basis, I would defiantly practice and find the strengths and weaknesses of my powers.[/quote']

 

Once we get to analyzing, I don't see too much source material analyzing whether an attack is a killing attack or not. Rather, they seem to discuss things like energy output.

[Tasha]

Re: Rules intention question

 

Ya know, I really don't know what the heck your point is. It's starting to feel like we are arguing just to argue. Either that or we are talking past one another.

 

Yeah you can build powers very differently depending on your conception and the campaign guidelines. There are cases where you could probably argue that an AP attack might resemble a KA from the character's point of view. Then again, there may be cases where the character knows that a certain power causes more permanent damage than others. Are you arguing that it's not permissible for an elemental based energy projector to have different powers that simulate different "powerlevels" and different concentrations of their power? Are you arguing that Supers are stupid and cannot figure out ways to test their powers without hurting people? Do you assume that a hero testing their powers would automatically try our potentially dangerous abilities on people who might not be able to take the brunt of such powers without grave injuries.

 

Please enlighten me as to what we are arguing about.

 

Some of what we are talking about doesn't make as much sense when there isn't a campaign framework to hang it off of. The assumptions that I have for my version of the Superhero universe might well be different than yours.

 

Honestly I like my games flavored like the early Iron age. Middle to late 80's Marvel Comics. Post X-men graphic novel God Loves/Man Kills. I like my Supers to be heroic, not barely contained psychotic killing machines. Heroes don't kill, they do their best to prevent innocents getting injured and allow the bad guys to live in prison.

 

You haven't addressed my metagame arguments which I believe are very important to the discussion.