Killing Damage in 6e

[slaughterj]

So now that people have had an opportunity to try out 6e Killing damage (with the lower Stun multplier) versus 5e Killing damage, what are people's thoughts on it? Like it? Feel it's better balanced? Thoughts on frequency of foes being stunned? Feelings on it vary by genre?

 

Also, since Killing damage Stun multiple is 1-3x, why is the hit location chart still as set in 5e, i.e., with a 1-5x Stun multiple? Is that an error? Something forgotten to be updated? Been discussed at all?

[JmOz]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

I have one character with a high KA power, she has not been ridiculous in power, and stun seems a bit below the normal damage, but not much...

[ajackson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Also' date=' since Killing damage Stun multiple is 1-3x, why is the hit location chart still as set in 5e, i.e., with a 1-5x Stun multiple? Is that an error? Something forgotten to be updated? Been discussed at all?[/quote']

I haven't run superhero level since 6e came out, so I can't really comment there, but the reason the hit location chart isn't a problem is that it also applies to normal damage attacks, and in fact you do more damage with normal attacks; 2d6 killing to the head averages 35 (max 60), 6d6 normal to the head averages 42 (max 72).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

To me, the 6e change means killing attacks are used to kill. They are no longer a way to put a lot of STUN onton a high defense target. If the game in question has high rDEF such that killing the target is unlikely at best, a killing attack will no longer be an efficient attack choice.

 

As to the hit location chart, as alluded to above, normal attacks also get damage multples on the hit locations chart, so they remain balanced with killing attacks at 1 - 5. I can say with certainty that Steve was asked about the hit location chart after deciding on the 1 - 3 stun multiplae and made the decision to keep it with a range of 1 to 5.

[Beast]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

GM's now have to really watch how high resistant def is in the game as to keep a balance

 

of course a 1 pip pen knife in the hands of a 60 str brick now does 4d6+1 killing

[The Main Man]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

To me, the Hit Location chart balances out the Stun Multiplier change for Killing Attacks and makes them more genre-appropriate.

 

1/2d6 STUN Multiplier is better for highly romantic (or cinematic if you prefer) games. Superheroes are that little bit more bulletproof, for instance.

 

The Hit Location rules are better for more realistic (or at least gritty) games. A Head shot does more raw damage than a Leg shot in this case.

[Rapier]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Hit Locations have an interesting effect in the game.

 

Last week some of the guards rolled pretty well (in one case even 12 BODY on a 2d6k) but the Location they hit dropped the damage back down pretty far (iirc, it was an arm shot and was 1/2 BODY). For the most part things were pretty even until I rolled 3 hits (with the 2d6k AF5), one of which was a 10 or 11 BODY shot to the head. After the three hits the brick was down to -12 STUN. That's not too bad when you consider there was a total of about 75 STUN done to him that phase.

 

I've always kind of liked Hit Locations. They give a much more realistic bend to the game.

[slaughterj]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

One possible problem I see with the hit location chart not conforming to the default damage rules is that in games that use hit locations, most attacks will get the benefit of hit locations, but area effects generally won't, so effectively they are relatively weakened versus other attacks in games which use hit locations.

 

Similarly, it seems that non-damaging attacks (Drain Stun, etc. etc.) are also relatively weakened versus regular damaging attacks.

[Vondy]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

I run heroic games and use hit locations, so I can't comment on whether the change, which only affects games that don't use hit locations, has been positive, negative, or neutral.

[FreeDice]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

of course a 1 pip pen knife in the hands of a 60 str brick now does 4d6+1 killing

 

Well, only if the GM is a fool. Because if the GM is no fool, then they might limit the damage of a weapon to twice the weapon's damage. ;-)

 

6E2, page 99.

[Netzilla]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

One possible problem I see with the hit location chart not conforming to the default damage rules is that in games that use hit locations' date=' most attacks will get the benefit of hit locations, but area effects generally won't, so effectively they are relatively weakened versus other attacks in games which use hit locations.[/quote']

 

Actually, Area Effect attacks and the like still use the Hit Locations chart if you're using those optional rules. See 6E2 pg 109, bottom of the left-hand column. Not using the Hit Location chart for such attacks is listed as an optional rule. This is the same as in 5E.

 

Similarly, it seems that non-damaging attacks (Drain Stun, etc. etc.) are also relatively weakened versus regular damaging attacks.

This is, IMO, a matter of special effects and GM interpretation thereof. For example, in my current campaign, one character has a "Phantom Arrow" spell described as an illusory arrow that makes the target think they've taken damage. It's a Mental Attack, which I normally would not have make a Hit Location roll, but due to the SFX involved, someone who's hit in the chest will "perceive" more damage than a hit to the arm. So, I do have her use Hit Locations for that attack.

 

Regardless, since such attacks typically bypass normal defenses, they don't suffer that much even if you don't use the Hit Loc chart for them in my experience.

[slaughterj]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Regardless' date=' since such attacks typically bypass normal defenses, they don't suffer that much even if you don't use the Hit Loc chart for them in my experience.[/quote']

 

But my point was they are relatively weaker in comparison to damaging attacks when you move from no hit locations to using hit locations. E.g., Killing attacks go from 2x stun on average to 3x stun on average, a 50% increase in effectiveness, which means that other attacks are effectively relatively weaker. This creates an inappropriate incentive to use the damaging attacks instead, when there should be no incentive for why type of attack over another in a balanced point-buy system.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Well, only if the GM is a fool. Because if the GM is no fool, then they might limit the damage of a weapon to twice the weapon's damage. ;-)

 

6E2, page 99.

 

This is one of the issues I dislike in 6e. What is the rule? Well, we want to simplify the damage adding rules, so we'll make the rule that damage simply adds. Oh, but that may be unbalancing, so let's throw in an optional rule to put it back to the way it was before.

 

If the damage adding rules are not balanced without the "maximum result is double the base attack DC's" rule, then that should be the rule.

 

The problem is that the doubling limit has been effective in 2e through 5e in removing the incentive for every Brick to take a small killing attack (which they did before the doubling rule existed - in 1e). But it also has a detrimental impact in many heroic games, where there is no point converting skill levels to damage, say, because the character has already mex'ed out with martial arts and strength bonuses. Result: the skilled warrior is motivated to use heavier weapons, so he can get the benefit of his skills. A skilled weilder of a short sword or rapier quickly maxes out his damage and needs another special rule, like the 5e Deadly Blow, to benefit from his skill. [NOTE: 6e Deadly Blow is based on skill levels, so if you're using the "max out at double base" rule, it does not add to base damage.]

[dmjalund]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

My solution has been to have the damage limit unless you buy a +1/2 Advantage "STR adds fully to damage"

[Rapier]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Our current brick has a 30 STR and a 1d6 HKA (for 3d6 Total). I'm ok with it. Yes, he is getting a slightly better bang for the buck, but I don't think it's overpowering. If a player comes to me with a 60 STR and a 1pip HKA and wants 4d6+1k, you can bet he's going to get a boot to the head. In this case his 1d6k Claws are the pointy end and his STR is the oomph behind them.

 

I might not be as forgiving of a weapon with a focus.

 

I think it comes down to a judgment call, "is what the player is asking for overpowering?"

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

I think the change to the STN multiplier was a good change; it keeps players from using it for knockout effects in superheroic games and it makes it more likely to outright kill your foe in heroic level games which means you don't have to worry so much about players debating the slaughter of unconscious goblins or whatever (which may be practical but it is not very noble). So yes, the 6e Killing Attack is definitely better.

 

That said, KAs are still just as volatile when it comes to BDY. Which is fine for most KA builds, and it puts another tool in the toolkit, but it means you still have to be careful with them because they can potentially end a combat quickly (and messily).

[dmjalund]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

You could always buy your HKAs with the Standard effect rule

[casualplayer]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

This is one of the issues I dislike in 6e. What is the rule? Well, we want to simplify the damage adding rules, so we'll make the rule that damage simply adds. Oh, but that may be unbalancing, so let's throw in an optional rule to put it back to the way it was before.

 

If the damage adding rules are not balanced without the "maximum result is double the base attack DC's" rule, then that should be the rule.

 

The problem is that the doubling limit has been effective in 2e through 5e in removing the incentive for every Brick to take a small killing attack (which they did before the doubling rule existed - in 1e). But it also has a detrimental impact in many heroic games, where there is no point converting skill levels to damage, say, because the character has already mex'ed out with martial arts and strength bonuses. Result: the skilled warrior is motivated to use heavier weapons, so he can get the benefit of his skills. A skilled weilder of a short sword or rapier quickly maxes out his damage and needs another special rule, like the 5e Deadly Blow, to benefit from his skill. [NOTE: 6e Deadly Blow is based on skill levels, so if you're using the "max out at double base" rule, it does not add to base damage.]

 

It is inelegant and just a beacon for abuse. I can only imagine how many Convention characters are going to show up with this kind of Power Penknife construct.

 

What 6th should have done is turn Killing into a Naked Advantage on STR/Blast that allowed the character to use the alternate Killing Damage rules for damage dealing. I'm thinking +1/4. Want to be able to use all of your STR as Killing, then advantage the whole total. Want to only be able to use partial, then it's a partial advantage.

 

Penknife- Naked Advantage: Killing Damage for up to 10 STR, OAF: Fragile (3 Actual, 1 real)

 

There's also the other portion of HKAs (and HAs and Martial Arts,) damage stacking, which could have also been turned into an Advantage Aggregate or Conjoined. Cumulative is already taken. Something that works like Teamwork with yourself or an MPA Only against a Single Target and only requiring a single roll to hit. Something that turns multiple sources of damage into a before-defenses combining and application rather than afterwards. I'm thinking +1/4 again but with all components of the combination having to have the Advantage.

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

But my point was they are relatively weaker in comparison to damaging attacks when you move from no hit locations to using hit locations. E.g.' date=' Killing attacks go from 2x stun on average to 3x stun on average, a 50% increase in effectiveness, which means that other attacks are effectively relatively weaker. This creates an inappropriate incentive to use the damaging attacks instead, when there should be no incentive for why type of attack over another in a balanced point-buy system.[/quote']I'd just assume those 'no hit location' attacks automatically hit the Chest for x3 STUN. If you want more variation, then use a normal hit location roll.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

My solution has been to have the damage limit unless you buy a +1/2 Advantage "STR adds fully to damage"

 

My preferred solution, from the perspective of system purity, would be to eliminate STR adds entirely. Hand Attacks become + X STR, only for direct damage (-1/2) or + X STR, only to increase effects from combat maneuvers (-1/4).

 

You want a higher KA because you are strong? Buy a bigger KA.

 

You want those extra STR dice to be effective only if you power them with STR? Limit your extra KA that it is only effective if you have at least X STR to back it up, and you can't use your STR for anything else at the same time. And we can define weapons in heroic games as having +X Killing DC's wih these same limitations.

 

You want Grond to have a pen knife? Given him a 1 pip HKA and he can do a multiple power attack for a 1 pip HKA + 18d6 normal damage.

[dmjalund]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

My preferred solution, from the perspective of system purity, would be to eliminate STR adds entirely. Hand Attacks become + X STR, only for direct damage (-1/2) or + X STR, only to increase effects from combat maneuvers (-1/4).

 

You want a higher KA because you are strong? Buy a bigger KA.

 

You want those extra STR dice to be effective only if you power them with STR? Limit your extra KA that it is only effective if you have at least X STR to back it up, and you can't use your STR for anything else at the same time. And we can define weapons in heroic games as having +X Killing DC's wih these same limitations.

 

You want Grond to have a pen knife? Given him a 1 pip HKA and he can do a multiple power attack for a 1 pip HKA + 18d6 normal damage.

so how would you balance this with Heroic level where you don't pay points for your HKA?

[Beast]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

the point is that all strength now can stack on a HKA

to limit is now an option instead of the other way around

IMHO the rule should have stood as it was and not changed

 

Well, only if the GM is a fool. Because if the GM is no fool, then they might limit the damage of a weapon to twice the weapon's damage. ;-)

 

6E2, page 99.

[Beast]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

I would be OK with the d3 for stun multiplier

BUT you now get all your non-resistant def(pd or ed)to go against the stun also, is way to big of a nerf on KA's

 

I think the change to the STN multiplier was a good change; it keeps players from using it for knockout effects in superheroic games and it makes it more likely to outright kill your foe in heroic level games which means you don't have to worry so much about players debating the slaughter of unconscious goblins or whatever (which may be practical but it is not very noble). So yes, the 6e Killing Attack is definitely better.

 

That said, KAs are still just as volatile when it comes to BDY. Which is fine for most KA builds, and it puts another tool in the toolkit, but it means you still have to be careful with them because they can potentially end a combat quickly (and messily).

[prestidigitator]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

I would be OK with the d3 for stun multiplier

BUT you now get all your non-resistant def(pd or ed)to go against the stun also, is way to big of a nerf on KA's

You did in 5E too, so long as you had a single point of applicable Resistant Defense.

[Hrimhari]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

You did in 5E too' date=' so long as you had a single point of applicable Resistant Defense.[/quote']

It's the funny thing about 6e; finding out about all the 5e rules that you never knew existed.