Killing Damage in 6e

[Ragitsu]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Throw away our HERO books?

[Greywind]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Throw them hard enough they could be killing attacks.

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

It is worth noting that KAs, even under 6e with 1-3 stun multipliers, are still more likely to obtain stunning results (in the Hero sense) than normal attacks at the same DC: a combination of an above average roll (15+ on 4d6), which occurs about 45% of the time and a 3 multiplier will give an above average stun result for a 12DC normal atatck and the thing I've noticed about probabilities is that they are only useful for predicting stuff from a distance: you can go through as single session where you manage to roll 3 on 3d6 several times. Then you won't do it for agaes, but that is not the point, the point is that it has added significant randomness to the scenario - if those rolls were critical to the outcome of the scenario.

 

What normal attacks do is normalise damage distribution, which is generally a good thing for players and the GM. It is also worth noting that a 12DC normal attack is fatal to most 'normal' humans.

 

It might be worth asking what killing attacks are in the system for, and what we want them to do.

 

I think that what I would like killing attacks to be good at is killing stuff. In almost every case, attacks that kill do so by damaging internal organs: blades and bullets cut blood vessels or damage heart or brain, fire destroys the lungs, and so on. In most cases, killing attacks are things that destroy or disrupt the integrity of flesh. To kill quickly you generally have to damage or destroy a vital organ. Suffocation is a sort of exception: nothing gets destroyed, but the brain runs out of power and stops - similar principle, but a bit of a different approach.

 

 

What this means is that the Hero system of using Body as a measure of how damaged you are and whether you are alive or not is not necessarily terribly accurate. OK, Stun is not terribly accurate but probably does a better job of keeping a tally of consciousness than Body does of aliveness.

 

Moreover, attacks that kill do not need to do a lot of damage to kill - they just need to do a bit in the right place. It is easier to cut through an artery than a finger - so, gain - Body damage does not necessarily do a good job of indicating lethality.

 

Whilst it might well be true that attacks that do a lot of damage have a good chance of killing a target, it is not necessarily true that attacks that have a good chance of killing a target do a lot of damage.

 

This leaves us with issues, given the current framework for purchasing 'damage'.

 

It seems to me that there are a couple of points here:

 

1. How likely it is that the attack is going to be able to damage vital organs - sort of 'penetration', and

2. What effect an attack that has penetrated should have.

 

I agree with these sentiments in general, and have played around with a couple of mechanisms, both of which we've discussed before.

 

The most radical is to dispense with STUN and BOD altogether and simply have an impairing mechanism: the way that would work is that you have three states of injury: Dead, Incapacitated, and Wounded. The basic concept here was actually drawn from an analysis done by a guy from the US army on wounding and death in combat. The idea is that you can be killed just as effectively by a hatpin rammed in through your ear as by a .5 round through your chest ... but that it's a lot harder to kill someone with a hatpin than a .5 browning. In this approach, attacks don't do STUN or BOD just "damage". To avoid rejiggering costs too much, just count your dice total. If a target is hit, it makes a CON roll, at a set minus per amount of damage that leaks through defences (I was considering -1/5points). If you fail your CON roll, you are Wounded (treat like Hero system being stunned) if you fail by 3 or more, you are Incapacitated (Check Hero system impairing tables), if you fail by 5 or more, you are down and dying. You get a CON roll each turn and die when you fail it.

 

This approach has the advantage that it requires little book-keeping, and it's easy to match the degree of lethality to "real-world numbers", but it's such a radical departure from Hero system that I've never taken it further than the thought experiment you see here.

 

The other approach I've played with, is to try and harmonise KA and Blast: you've seen the outcome here. As Hugh pointed out SFX count for a lot. Bullets do little to no STUN, but an axe - which is also a killing attack - is a momentum weapon, which can do a lot of stun. A metal pipe can be defined as a blast or a KA, depending on how you feel. That's pretty messy, considering that currently they use two completely different mechanisms.

 

However, I am still not 100% satisfied with the mechanism I suggested myself. I think it may be marginally better than the current system, but that's about as enthusiastic as I can be

 

So can we brainstorm what we actually want out of physical damage? Here's what I want.

 

1. A similar mechanism. There's been much discussion of volatility and on the whole, I actually don't mind volatility. Real life damage is volatile. What offends me is that one type of damage is more volatile than the other: that's a clear - but difficult to price - advantage. I have toyed with the idea of using "killing attack" style dice for everything - so that all attacks roll BOD and a STUN multiplier, but the mechanism (5 points gets you one DC which is a part of a dice) is a bit clunky. I also played with the idea that 5 points got you a D6 divided by 3 (1-2 BOD, average 1-5) 10 points a d6 divided by 2 (1-3 BOD average 2) and 15 points a d6 (1-6 BOD, average 3.5) ... that's better than what we have now, but it's still a bit clunky. Having similar mechanisms would also make it far easier to deal with the whole "adding a killing attack to a non-killing attack" thing which has always been awkward in Hero System and would mean that they played better with advantages and limitations.

 

2. Killing attacks should be dangerous to soft targets. We do need a reliable mechanism for generating lethality. I don't actually have a problem with KA losing a lot of effectiveness against armoured targets: that reflects reality. Bonus points for a mechanism where killing attacks only do significant STUN if they do BOD (similar to the way that normal attacks currently work with hit locations).

 

3. If killing attacks go against rDEF, there has to be an equally weighty advantage to non-killing attacks.

 

4. The mechanism should work with or without hit locations.

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

I had a chance to run up some spreadsheets in my coffee break. Writing this down, as I did in the post above, has actually helped me think it through. Let's see what you guys think.

 

Sticking with my original idea of making "killing" an advantage on blast, but changing 2 things

 

Right now, blast dice are read:

1 =0 BOD, 2-5 = 1 BOD, 6 = 2 BOD. The STUN is the total on the dice.

 

What if we change this so that killing dice read:

1 =1 BOD, 2-5 = 2 BOD, 6 = 3 BOD. The STUN is the total on the dice.

 

If we make that a +3/4 advantage, we get some interesting math. It means that "killing blast" does the same or marginally more BOD than a normal blast of the same active cost (you get about 1 extra BOD for every 7 DC). It does about 40% less stun for the same cost, but then if it goes against rPD, that means that it'll be less effective against targets with more than 50% rPD and more effective against those with less.

 

Playing round with defences, most plausible combinations of DEF and rDEF indicate that a killing attack will often sneak some STUN through, but it's actually pretty hard to actually stun somebody: it's definitely an attack you'd choose when you want to do BOD.

 

The volatility is exactly the same: all you have done is shifted the curve slightly, in terms of output. The damage output in terms of BOD is about the same, meaning it plays nice with barrier, entangle, etc. The mechanism is exactly the same too: you simply add 1 to the BOD of each dice, for a killing attack, so there no added complexity on actual play: you roll and count the way we always do. And you use the N damage multipliers for damage that goes through defences for both killing and normal blast attacks, if you are using the hit location chart, so both attack forms are equally effective using hit location. Likewise, it plays nice with mixed killing/nonkilling damage: you simply prorate the same way that you would with any other advantage.

 

Anything I've missed here?

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Well, we always have advantage stacking when we take the "killing as an advantage" route. That 12d6 normal attack drops to 9 1/2d6 when we add +1/4 for a small AoE. Our, say, 7d6 Killing Attack drops to 6d6.

 

The 12d6 average of 42/12 now compares to 24.5 STUN and 14 BOD. That's reasonably comparable to the current system (drops the average STUN a bit) without the volatility. If we dropped the advantage to +1/2, we could get 8d6, so 28 STUN (matching the current average). If we make BOD 1-2 = 1, 3-5 = 2 and 6 = 3, we get 14 2/3 BOD, a bit more than the present model. If we bump the advantage to +1, we get 6d6 (21 average STUN) and we'd have to make BOD, say, 1-4 = 2 BOD, 5-6 = 3 BOD, we get that same 14 average.

 

This would have the advantage of allowing 1d6 to cost 10 points, as a separate power, and we eliminate the issue of advantage stacking. 21 - 12 = 9 STUN vs 42 - 24 = 18 STUN, so that's a significant STUN disadvantage for killing attacks. If we want more STUN, we could simply add 1 STUN per 1d6 - that raises the average to 27 - 12 = 15, much closer to the normal attack.

 

I'm probably rambling a bit. I think maintaining the 14 BOD average makes sense, as that's been consistent across the board. My gut feel is that Stun should average less than a normal attack assuming 50% rDEF making the KA a bit worse at Stun based on the typical guidelines.

 

What if we priced KA at 7 points? We would then get 8 1/2d6 for 60 points, averaging 30 STUN (the same 18 past 12 rDEF). 1-3 = 1 BOD; 4-5 = 2 BOD; 6 = 3 BOD gets an average of 13 1/3 for 8d6. If we set 1-3 = 0, 4-5 = 1 and 6 = 2 for a half die, we're at 14 BOD average. That could work.

 

That also limits volatility. Less dice means more volatile than a normal attack, but this at least keeps the dice pretty close. Max BOD is 26, pretty close to the 24 max from 12d6 normal.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

I’d just like to say that it is a joy debating rules and mechanics with you guys.

 

 

I like the idea of Killing damage being based on normal dice, even if those dice are read slightly differently. You will still get more volatility from killing attacks because you are going to be rolling fewer dice at the same DC, and if you WANT more volatility then a hit location/critical system can provide that.

 

 

Assuming that we are not going to simply change everything, one option might be to leave Blast as it is, and provide advantages for increasing the amount of Stun or Body the attack does, much as you can with ‘increased Stun multiple’ for Killing attacks...which is what markdoc was advocating.

 

 

Adding +1 Body per die doubles the average Body, so our starting point would be that is a +1 advantage, but of course that inevitably reduces the number of dice rolled and the Stun so is clearly worth less than that.

A 12DC Blast does 42/12 on average. If ‘Increased Body’ was +1 it would do 21/12. Let us look at other numbers (all assume an attack at 60 active point or close to):

 

 

[TABLE=class: MsoTableGrid]

[TR]

[TD] +3/4[/TD]

[TD=width: 123] 35 (61)/7 dice[/TD]

[TD=width: 76] 14/25[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 83] +1/2[/TD]

[TD=width: 123] 40(60)/8 dice[/TD]

[TD=width: 76] 16/28[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 83] +1/4[/TD]

[TD=width: 123] 48 (60)/9 ½ dice[/TD]

[TD=width: 76] 18/33[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

OK, so let us rule out +1/4 as TOO effective (it exceeds both current Stun and Body averages) – that leaves us with +3/4, which matches the average Body of a current killing attack but does less Stun and +1/2, which matches the current Stun of a killing attack but does more Body. I’m not TOO worried about the extra Body because the result is less volatile, and so you can more easily build a character to cope with it. I’m included to go with +1/2.

 

 

For a ‘real’ killing attack, combine that with AVAD (Resistant defences) for +1 and you get 12/21 against resistant defences only. You could further combine that with AP and go against half your resistant defences and get a 5d6 AVAD AP Increased Body attack for 62 points.

 

 

Or you could stack increased Body : 6d6 Increased Body *2 gives you 18/21, or *4 gives you 20/14. I probably would not bother capping the stacking, just stick a STOP sign on it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

...of course my analysis is a bit skewed because I am assuming that you don't change the defences the attack works against unless you add AVAD. To an extent that deals with the issue of advantage stacking a bit, but for a 'true' killing atatck (i.e. Increased Body + AVAD) you do 21/12 for 60 points against rDEF: for a 'standard 24/12 defence package' that would be 9/0 through defences, which compares to a current average KA doing 4/2 through defences, but you have more options.

 

A nasty build would be 2*Body^ (+1) plus AVAD Plus AP: that would give you 12/14 against 6rDEF, for 6/8 through defences. Actually that is pretty nasty, but, again, I don't mind that too much because it is not highly volatile, so uyou can build against that eventuality if you want to sacrifice lower overall defences (or something else) for higher rDEF; it only costs 6 points to make an extra 12 PD resistant. I would expect atatcks like that to be rare anyway. Sure you'll get munchkins packing them into MPs, but so what? I'd rather have a system that can be abused but really can build anything than one with too many safeties in place.

 

Anyway, someone handing out high levels of Body in a superhero game is going to become the target of a coordinated attack pretty swiftly, so it is all sort of self regulating, in the game, if not the rule system.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

OK' date=' so let us rule out +1/4 as TOO effective (it exceeds both current Stun and Body averages) – that leaves us with +3/4, which matches the average Body of a current killing attack but does less Stun and +1/2, which matches the current Stun of a killing attack but does more Body. I’m not TOO worried about the extra Body because the result is less volatile, and so you can more easily build a character to cope with it. I’m included to go with +1/2.[/quote']

 

When we consider adding BOD, the impact of targets who don't take STUN must also be considered. Slap that "average 16 BOD" attack in a Multipower and pull it out only to target entangles, barriers, objects and automatons, and it becomes very effective (or those items need to be bumped up to the point normal attacks become pretty ineffectual against them). Allow multiple purchases and it becomes even more problematic. 6d6 averaging 18 BOD, 4d6 averaging 20 BOD. Buy 1d6 with +11 and do 23 BOD per shot. 12 DC entangles don't stand much chance, and any Automaton who can stand up to this will be immune to same DC normal attacks.

 

 

For a ‘real’ killing attack, combine that with AVAD (Resistant defences) for +1 and you get 12/21 against resistant defences only. You could further combine that with AP and go against half your resistant defences and get a 5d6 AVAD AP Increased Body attack for 62 points.

 

 

Or you could stack increased Body : 6d6 Increased Body *2 gives you 18/21, or *4 gives you 20/14. I probably would not bother capping the stacking, just stick a STOP sign on it.

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Well' date=' we always have advantage stacking when we take the "killing as an advantage" route. That 12d6 normal attack drops to 9 1/2d6 when we add +1/4 for a small AoE. Our, say, 7d6 Killing Attack drops to 6d6[/quote']

 

Yeah, but leaves you doing 9 BOD/33 Stun with the AoE Blast vs 9 BOD /21 stun with the killing Blast, which seems to me to be reasonable. I played around with AP, AoE and AF and the numbers look OK. You can get slightly wacky results when you have an AoE, 0 END, AP killing Blast, but although stacking up huge amounts of advantages is sometimes problematic, in the case of conventional attacks, it doesn't seem so. Probably because in this case, quantity has a quality all of its own - as the number of dice decreases, you lose significant utility. Advantage stacking is usually only a problem for attacks that don't go up against conventional defences.

 

The 12d6 average of 42/12 now compares to 24.5 STUN and 14 BOD. That's reasonably comparable to the current system (drops the average STUN a bit) without the volatility. If we dropped the advantage to +1/2' date=' we could get 8d6, so 28 STUN (matching the current average). If we make BOD 1-2 = 1, 3-5 = 2 and 6 = 3, we get 14 2/3 BOD, a bit more than the present model. If we bump the advantage to +1, we get 6d6 (21 average STUN) and we'd have to make BOD, say, 1-4 = 2 BOD, 5-6 = 3 BOD, we get that same 14 average. [/quote']

 

Yeah., I played around with similar numbers. In general though, I'd like to keep the 1, 2-5, 6 structure if I could, for three reasons. First it allows some variability without extreme variability, second, it's easier to teach the game if you have a single mechanic, and three, it's easier to assess relative effect if the probability curves are the same shape, which makes the GM's job easier once you start moving to differently advantaged attacks.

 

This would have the advantage of allowing 1d6 to cost 10 points' date=' as a separate power, and we eliminate the issue of advantage stacking. 21 - 12 = 9 STUN vs 42 - 24 = 18 STUN, so that's a significant STUN disadvantage for killing attacks. If we want more STUN, we could simply add 1 STUN per 1d6 - that raises the average to 27 - 12 = 15, much closer to the normal attack.[/quote']

 

Again, with the goal of simplifying in mind, I like the idea of killing attacks going against rDEF, not BOD against rDEF and STUN vs Total DEF. So in that regard having significantly lower STUN is a bonus, to my mind.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Again' date=' with the goal of simplifying in mind, I like the idea of killing attacks going against rDEF, not BOD against rDEF and STUN vs Total DEF. So in that regard having significantly lower STUN is a bonus, to my mind.[/quote']

 

In isolation, I like the idea of KA's going against rDEF consistently. But that means characters are going to want enough rDEF that the STUN is controlled, comparable to a normal attack. That means BOD will not be getting through. That's a design choice - whether it's "right" or "wrong" is a value judgement.

 

Simplicity keeping 1=1, 2-5 = 2, 6=3 means we average 2 BOD per die, so I'd like to see 7d6 for 60 AP. Tough math. Your +3/4 advantage is pretty close, but I'd like to mitigate advantage stacking by making KA its own power. At 7 points, we get 8 1/2d6 for 60 points and, I assume, 1 - 2 BOD (since a half die normal is 0 or 1 BOD). That will average 17 BOD - way too high.

 

Make KA 8 points and we get 7 1/2d6, so 15 BOD (and 26.5 stun) on average, a bit higher than the current model. Punches 14.5 Stun past 24/12

 

At 9 points per d6, we get 6 1/2d6 (13 BOD, 23 STUN). That still seems a little light, especially on the Stun side. Punches 11 STUN through.

 

What if we went 9 points per 1d6, we could set the rule as "Killing attacks roll damage identically to normal attacks, then add 1 STUN and 1 BOD per 1d6". That keeps the mechanics even more consistent.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Querysphinx came up with an interesting way of handling Killing Attacks (and Defenses) in his current game.

 

Reduce Defenses to Stun Defense (cost 1:1) and Body Defense (cost 2:1).

 

All attacks act like Normal Attacks do now (total = Stun, count Body as 1=0, 2-5=1, 6=2).

 

Killing becomes a +1/4 Advantage, what it does is all damage past your Body Defense is doubled.

 

It's pretty simple, pretty easy, and reduces the number of defenses you have to worry about in a game.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

When we consider adding BOD, the impact of targets who don't take STUN must also be considered. Slap that "average 16 BOD" attack in a Multipower and pull it out only to target entangles, barriers, objects and automatons, and it becomes very effective (or those items need to be bumped up to the point normal attacks become pretty ineffectual against them). Allow multiple purchases and it becomes even more problematic. 6d6 averaging 18 BOD, 4d6 averaging 20 BOD. Buy 1d6 with +11 and do 23 BOD per shot. 12 DC entangles don't stand much chance, and any Automaton who can stand up to this will be immune to same DC normal attacks.

 

 

For a ‘real’ killing attack, combine that with AVAD (Resistant defences) for +1 and you get 12/21 against resistant defences only. You could further combine that with AP and go against half your resistant defences and get a 5d6 AVAD AP Increased Body attack for 62 points.

 

 

Or you could stack increased Body : 6d6 Increased Body *2 gives you 18/21, or *4 gives you 20/14. I probably would not bother capping the stacking, just stick a STOP sign on it.

 

I agree, although it is easy enough to put a 9 1/2d6 AP blast in a MP slot and that will take down most structures, automatons, entangles and barriers handily: you do 9 or 10 Body against half their (non-hardened) defences, so that particular danger is sort of already out there, although I suppose there is a KB issue with higher actual Body totals.

 

To an extent though I am not too bothered because I tend to vet obviously abusive uses of frameworks to tone down the liklihood of such abuses. I would rather have the ability to produce effects like this in the system, even if they CAN be abused, on the understanding that they won't be.

 

Another issue - I was talking about AVAD - and AVAD converts everything to STUN. That was not my intent, and I'm not sure you really need the +1 'does BODY' either. Again i tend to be a bit careful with NND type attacks, so I would rather be ABLE to produce the effect and not do so than the other way around.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Querysphinx came up with an interesting way of handling Killing Attacks (and Defenses) in his current game.

 

Reduce Defenses to Stun Defense (cost 1:1) and Body Defense (cost 2:1).

 

All attacks act like Normal Attacks do now (total = Stun, count Body as 1=0, 2-5=1, 6=2).

 

Killing becomes a +1/4 Advantage, what it does is all damage past your Body Defense is doubled.

 

It's pretty simple, pretty easy, and reduces the number of defenses you have to worry about in a game.

 

My first thought is 'don't like multipliers', but let us see how this works: a 'close to 60 AP' attack could do (say) 9d6 'killing', which produces 31 or 32 stun on average. Against 'current' average resistant defence of 12 (for a 12DC game), that would be 19 or 20 stun through defence and that doubles to 38 to 40, which seems high. If, however, if the Stun works against normal defences (as at present) then your 9d6 will work against 24 defence, and 7 or 8 will get through, giving you 14 or 15 Stun damage - but on either analysis you will be doing less Body, which seems odd for a 'killing' attack.

 

In fact I like the idea of using damage through defences to determine results but I'm not sure this works. An idea we have kicked around in the past:

 

Break attacks into 'Penetration' and 'Damage'. Penetration dice costs 3 points per die and Damage costs 5. You roll the penetration dice for a Body Result and, if the total equals or exceeds the rDEF, then you roll the Damage dice and apply the result without defences (well, you still get Damage Reduction, possibly). That means that you could build an attack that does (say) 15 penetration and 3d6 damage, which delivers (on average) 10.5 stun and 3 Body through rDEF of less than 16, or a 5d6 penetration/9d6 Damage attack that delivers 31/9 through defences of less than 6 (on average) - it allows you to make attacks that are very deadly against unarmoured opponents (or lightly armoured ones) but that bounce off heavily armoured targets or attacks that will damage most opponents, but only a little.

 

 

Highly abuseable in a framework, but I'm fine with taking the safeties off, so long as everyone is aware of the potential problems.

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Assuming that we are not going to simply change everything' date=' one option might be to leave Blast as it is, and provide advantages for increasing the amount of Stun or Body the attack does, much as you can with ‘increased Stun multiple’ for Killing attacks...which is what markdoc was advocating.[/quote']

 

Right: I've made this suggestion before, and played around with the numbers extensively. I like Hugh's suggestion of making killing a power on its own, but as he's found, it's hard to make the numbers add up, because while advantages can easily do "8.75 per d6" it's hard to sell that as base power cost, and going above or below the factional numbers makes the power significantly stronger or weaker.

 

Here's what I came up with before.

Killing is a simple +1/2 modifier, which lets blast (and for that matter attacks which use the same mechanism (killing and TK) go against resistant defence. You get to go against a lower defence (yes, also for STUN) and yes, people who buy enough rDEF to bounce most or all of the STUN will bounce all the BOD. All that says to me is that people who who want to be bulletproof will buy more rDEF. I can only see this as a good thing! The current paradigm where a little spandex and some buff pec.s makes you as bulletproof as a suit of battle armour makes no sense to me (and it's not well balanced, pointwise, either: people who buy high rDEF to concept get almost no utility for the extra cost).

 

I can't see this as unbalancing, because you'll typically do as well or better with AP. For 12 DC, you get 9d6 AP (9 BOD/32 STUN vs half DEF) vs 8 d6 killing blast (8 BOD/24 STUN vs rDEF). The latter would be better against soft targets, but against our hypothetical hero with 12 DEF/12rDEF the former is better. And even against Batman (16 DEF/6rDEF) the killing blast is better, but not way better: it's getting 2 BOD and 18 STUN through, vs 0 BOD and 16 STUN for the AP blast. That's literally within the margin of error!

 

In short, which attack is better (Blast, killing Blast, AP blast) depends on your target's mix of defences. Each has a distinct advantage - but they are only overwhelmingly better at the extreme ends of their range (no rDEF, rDEF of 20+, etc). Ideal!

 

Buuuuuut ... as noted this decreases the overall BOD damage doable by killing attacks. That's where the damage adders come in.

 

Again, I've done the math against a variety of defences: here's the summary.

 

+1 BOD per d6 for +1/2 advantage.

 

So a 12DC Blast gives you 12 BOD/42 STUN, vs 16/28 for a "Does extra BOD+1" blast. Is a 25% gain in BOD worth a 30% loss in STUN? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's better for making holes in things ... but not more than 9d6 AP, in most cases.

 

What about if we stack it? A 12 DC "Does extra BOD+2" blast nets you 18 BOD/21 stun - a 50% gain in BOD for a 50% loss in STUN. It's good for doing BOD to things - though against tough targets, you'd still be better off with AP - but it's rubbish for stunning things. Stacking further sucks. A "Does extra BOD+3" blast actually does less BOD and less STUN, because now you start to lose too many dice, though if you are stacking it with other advantages, it may still be worthwhile (see below). So there doesn't seem to be a balance issue with stacking: in terms of BOD, +2 is generally as good as it gets.

 

But there's another design wrinkle. One reason I wanted to keep the 1, 2-5, 6 dice reading structure, is because it gives a very flat average: that means it's not efficient to load the dice up with advantages and then hope for a really, really good roll.

 

OK (Drumroll) What if we start mixing it up?

 

12 DC regular attack = 12 BOD/42 STUN vs nDEF

6d6 Killing, "Does extra BOD+1" blast = 12 BOD, 21 STUN vs rDEF. Better than a regular killing attack at doing BOD, worse at doing STUN. That's going to do serious harm to Batman, but it's not even going to stun him.

4d6 Killing "Does extra BOD+3" blast = 16 BOD/ 14 STUN vs rDEF. Ow! That's really going to hurt, if it tags someone - but it's not even going to stun Joe Schmoe if he's wearing a tactical vest. It makes a great killing attack, but not a great attack for putting someone down in a hurry - not even mooks. This is where you see the advantage stacking effect I mentioned above - "Does extra BOD+2" nets you 4 1/2 dice (and 14 BOD/16 STUN): but you can also see the effect is increasingly minimal.

 

Last of all how does this compare to our current approach? Right now 12 DC gets you a 4d6 killing attack that does an average of 14 BOD against rDEF right out of the gate - and more STUN, to boot, albeit against full DEF; plus the potential to make far higher rolls.

I'm not seeing any balance issues here, to be honest, though I'd still flag this advantage with stop sign, for potential lethality.

 

 

OK, onto STUN. Making "Does extra STUN+1" a +1/2 advantage makes it worse than a regular attack under every combination I could come up with. Even +1/4 isn't great. You can squeeze a marginal advantage in STUN out with this (44 vs 42 STUN with a "Does extra STUN+2" at 12 DC, but really I have a hard time seeing why you'd bother, unless you wanted an attack that reliably did a goodly amount of stun. I'd add it in, but only for completeness' sake.

 

 

For a ‘real’ killing attack, combine that with AVAD (Resistant defences) for +1 and you get 12/21 against resistant defences only. You could further combine that with AP and go against half your resistant defences and get a 5d6 AVAD AP Increased Body attack for 62 points.

 

Or you could stack increased Body : 6d6 Increased Body *2 gives you 18/21, or *4 gives you 20/14. I probably would not bother capping the stacking, just stick a STOP sign on it.

 

Remember that AVAD (as written currently) converts all damage into STUN damage, so you'd need a +1 1/2 advantage to make a killing attack that way.

 

Initially, I know I suggested changing AVAD: but that was before I thought we'd go the whole route with BOD and STUN modifiers, as we are doing now. That approach renders messing with AVAD superfluous.

At first glance, it looks like natural fit: we're shifting an attack from nDEF to rDEF. Isn't that what AVAD does?

But when you look at it in more detail, it's not so simple. And when you look at it carefully, the AVAD rules are confusing and contradictory.

 

Killing attack, for a start is an obvious joker. It goes against a common defence (rDEF) ... but only partly. The STUN goes against nDEF. This necessitates a special section just for AVAD and killing attacks, which by itself suggests a mechanics problem. And making things stun only .... Mind Blast is already STUN only, so moving it up to rMental DEF doesn't change it all. Other attacks like Transform and Drain, don't do BOD anyway. Does a transform using AVAD do STUN damage instead of Transform damage? I suspect not

 

Basically AVAD is messed up because it attempted to meld different mechanisms. I'm inclined to leave it alone and treat it as simply expanded NND rules (which is what it really does), not an attempt to rebuild killing attack (which it really doesn't do well).

 

So, here's where I ended up:

 

Killing: +1/2 advantage, allows attack to go against rDEF.

Does Extra BOD: +1/2 for +1 per d6. Stop sign for potential lethality of high multiples and a note that attacks with modified dice totals may not take limitations on the other aspects of the dice. So for example, you can't take "Does extra BOD" and "Does no STUN"

Does Extra Stun: +1/4 for +1 per d6. Exclamation mark and comment about the possibility to get increased stun with high multiples and advantage stacking

 

That's all we need, IMO, and it's not at all complicated. In fact, I'd say it's simpler than the current rules.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

OK, all the arguments I made above are based on spreadsheets and raw numbers.

 

I'm a data guy and I want to make sure the numbers line up before I suggest any change. I usually run 1-20 DC attacks vs defences from 0 to 40 to be sure: in this case I ran those attacks with 0, 5, 10 or 20 nDEF + all combinations of 0, 5, 10, 20 rDEF

 

But it's also nice to look at builds.

 

Here's Pyro's 12 DC Fireblast.

 

Current options:

General purpose: Blast (12 BOD/42 STUN vs ED). Normal BOD range 10-14, Normal STUN range 36-43

To do BOD: Killing attack (14 BOD vs rED/ 28 BOD vs ED). Normal BOD range 11-18, Normal STUN range 11-48

Against Tough Defences: AP blast (9 BOD/32 STUN vs half ED). Normal BOD range 7-11, Normal STUN Range 27-36.

 

Under suggested new rules

General purpose: Blast (12 BOD/42 STUN vs ED). Normal BOD range 10-14, Normal STUN range 36-43

To do BOD: Killing Blast, BOD+3 (16 BOD/14 STUN vs rED). Normal Range 15-17 BOD, Normal STUN Range, 10-18

Against Tough Defences: AP blast, STUN +1 (8 BOD/36 STUN vs half ED) Normal BOD range 7-9, Normal STUN Range 32-40.

 

If you look at these, a couple of interesting points come out.

1. Under current rules, the killing attack and the normal blast overlap in terms of STUN damage. Things are better balanced than in 5E. In the long run, the Blast will do more STUN, but the killing attack will do more STUN on a regular basis. The same is true of BOD damage - again, the ranges overlap - but since the killing attack goes against rDEF, the Normal attack is likely to do more BOD only on rare occasions.

 

2. Equally interestingly, under current rules, the AP and killing attack barely overlap in terms of BOD damage: which attack is better will depend very heavily on the target. The killing attack overlaps AP in terms of STUN - in general the AP attack is likely to be better at putting STUN on the target, though the killing attack is going to get a big hit more frequently than the AP one. Compared with the normal Blast, the AP attack is likely a better bet for putting STUN on most credible foes, even though the normal STUN ranges barely overlap, due to the fact that it halves defences ... until you meet someone with hardened, of course!

 

If we compare current rules with the suggested changes:

 

1. The killing attack (and I have deliberately optimized it, here) will pretty much always do more BOD than the normal blast. Its normal damage range overlaps that of the standard killing attack, so while it will over the long run do more BOD, the current killing attack will do more on semi-regular basis. On the other hand, the STUN range is pathetic: it will essentially never do the amount of STUN that killing attacks are capable of under the current rules. It is going up against rED, not ED, so in a few rare instances it might actually do more STUN than the current rules version of killing attack, but that's pretty unlikely (only happens when your target has very high total DEF and very low rDEF).

 

2. The finely-tuned AP attack, using the suggested changes, shows why I kept the mostly useless STUN+1 modifier: in some cases, it can be useful. Here it lets you eke out an extra 4 STUN average damage in return for an average of -1 BOD damage. OK, not earth-shattering, but hey, sometimes it'd help. Otherwise, it compares to normal blast much as it does under standard rules.

 

But the proposed setup gives Pyro some new options.

 

How about:

Stunning blast: Blast, STUN+4. (6 BOD/45 STUN vs ED) Normal BOD range 6-6, Normal STUN Range 32-48.

Crowd control blast: Blast, STUN+4, AoE, Radius (4 BOD/ 30 STUN). Normal BOD range 4-4, Normal STUN Range 28-32. (by way of comparison, a normal AoE Blast would do 6 BOD (range 7-8) and 21 STUN (range 18-24).

 

OK, not super-effective, but if doing more STUN is your thing, it does let you move the dial up by 3-4 STUN a hit

If you abuse the limitations by stacking them a lot, you can start to see an effect, but not an overwhelming one (a 12 DC AoE accurate Blast would do 9/33, so it's still a more credible threat to a heroic foe than the big AoE I built above) and also that it does let you create effects that were difficult to achieve before.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

And last of all, those were superheroic examples.

 

Lets try some Heroic stuff. We'll make a powerful gun - the .44 Automag, which is 2d6 RKA, +1 STUN Mod. Under current rules, it does an average of 7 BOD/21 STUN, making it a pretty nasty weapon for a handgun

 

That's 37.5 active points, or 7.5 DC

 

I'm going to start of with 2d6 Blast, add killing, BOD+3 and STUN+3. That generates 8 BOD/13 STUN. Still pretty nasty, but a very different balance between BOD and STUN

 

It's going to be a one-shot kill with a hit to vitals or head, whichever build is used. Likewise both builds will stun or KO an unarmoured opponent with a hit anywhere on the torso or head, pretty much all the time. That's good, this is one of the most powerful handguns in the book, so it should be pretty lethal.

 

But now I am going to show why I like the approach I am suggesting. Modern handguns - even powerful ones - do little damage through modern body armour with trauma plates (DEF 9). Youtube is full of videos of dimwits shooting each other at point blank range in armour, and that's mostly civilian grade stuff. If bullets went through them at anything like the rate they do in Hero System teh interwebz would be full of videos of guys being carried away on stretchers after testing out their armour. But these two builds interact with armour very differently. The current killing attack, on a stomach hit will do an average of 17 STUN through the armour+PD, typically stunning a normal wearer, and putting even a tough guy down in two hits. A helmet hit does 22 STUN through the armour+PD, probably putting the user down unconscious ... even though he's taken no physical damage at all.

 

The Killing blast version, in contrast, would put 4 STUN through the armour (increased to 6) on an average stomach hit. The wearer's going to know he's been hit, but he's not going to keel over. A helmet hit? Again 4 through the armour, doubled to 8. On a good roll and a head hit you're going to stun (and injure) your target through good quality armour, but you are never going to achieve the volatility of the current approach. This is how guns actually work in real life.

 

OK, let's get Medieval.

 

Longsword (1d6+1, 20 active points, average damage 4BOD/8 STUN). Turn that into 2d6, killing, BOD+1 (average damage, 4 BOD/7 STUN).

Of course a longsword is only as useful as the muscle on the end of it. Let's give it to a big, strong guy (STR 18). It has a STR min of 12, under current rules, so that's 1 DC, making average damage 5 BOD/10 STUN. Apply those same 6 points of STR you the Killing Blast build gets you a half dice - 5 BOD/9 STUN. Pretty much evens stevens, though the same caveats about hit locations and armour apply: the current HKA build is much more likely to knock an opponent out than the killing blast version.

 

But again, there's a hidden benefit in the new approach. STR minimums have always been a bit contentious, because to be honest, 12 STR to use a longsword (which weights less than 2 kilos) is a bit silly. I've always argued in favour of high STR Min.s in the past not because they are especially realistic (they're not) but because they were needed for balance purposes. If you take them away, that 18 STR guy gets to add another d6 HKA to his Longsword. Now he's doing 2d6+1, (Average 8 BOD/16 STUN) and knocking armoured knights unconscious with ease - but if you are using the hit locations table, his potential upper range has jumped to 26 BOD/65 STUN! On a good roll, he's hacking armoured knights to bits and one-shotting Dragons.

 

In contrast, dropping STR Min for the killing blast approach means that 18 STR adds 1 1/2 d6, raising average damage to 3 1/2 d6 (Average damage 7 BOD/12 STUN). Using Hit locations, his upper end for damage is 18 BOD/42 STUN (Still pretty bodacious!) but 1) he's far, far less likely to roll that sort of damage (about 1 in 1200 vs 1 in 36 for RKA max damage) and 2) rDEF reduces his maximum via hit locations dramatically. That's not the case for HKA.

 

So you can streamline the rules yet further. The special rules that were introduced because of the way Killing attack works (can't do more than double weapons damage, STR Min) cease to be necessary if we move to damage based on "normal dice". That also means that mighty Conan with 25 STR is finally more dangerous with a knife than wibbly Wobert (STR 10) wif' 'is wittle shortsword.

 

OK, hope that was helpful!

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Clipping the quotes to keep this shorter - hopefully, I don't cut anything crucial. I think the human nature/gamist aspect comes into play. Once STUN or BOD is "pathetic" (ie unlikely to have any impact on the fight), what drawback is there to maxing out the advantage stacking to, say, 1d6 Killing, +11 enhanced BOD, to "roll" 22 - 24 BOD per hit? Sure, it's doing negligible STUN, but the goal is to kill, not stun. And once BOD is no longer a factor, even squeezing out an extra 6 - 8 STUN (guesstimated at double your examples for pushing as far as we can without reduced dice offsetting the enhanced STUN) will mean way more STUN results in many games, and force the balanced "no stun or BOD advantaged" attack out of the running for STUN results in others, as player adjust DEF/CON to compensate.

 

Here's Pyro's 12 DC Fireblast.

 

Current options:

General purpose: Blast (12 BOD/42 STUN vs ED). Normal BOD range 10-14, Normal STUN range 36-43

To do BOD: Killing attack (14 BOD vs rED/ 28 BOD vs ED). Normal BOD range 11-18, Normal STUN range 11-48

Against Tough Defences: AP blast (9 BOD/32 STUN vs half ED). Normal BOD range 7-11, Normal STUN Range 27-36.

 

One problem that often arises with AP is that the character designer is thinking "well nigh invulnerable", so they slap Hardened on to be safe. The lower defense characters Harden much less often, but then halving their defenses removes little anyway. 32 STUN vs half ED is more effective than 42 STUN vs ED only on targets with more than 21 ED that isn't hardened. At the lower end, BOD also comes in. 9 BOD AP is better than 12 BOD normal at defense levels of 8 - 16, so AP becomes better at killing, but worse at stunning, at those levels.

 

Under suggested new rules

General purpose: Blast (12 BOD/42 STUN vs ED). Normal BOD range 10-14, Normal STUN range 36-43

To do BOD: Killing Blast, BOD+3 (16 BOD/14 STUN vs rED). Normal Range 15-17 BOD, Normal STUN Range, 10-18

Against Tough Defences: AP blast, STUN +1 (8 BOD/36 STUN vs half ED) Normal BOD range 7-9, Normal STUN Range 32-40.

 

So 4d6 "Extra BOD" 3 times vs rDEF. If I want my characters to live, better buy more rDEF. 3d6 Extra BOD x5 would be 11.5 STUN, average 18 BOD against rDEF. No STUN, but that 12 rDEF Super won't live that long. 2d6 Extra BOD x 9 Killing gets me 20 BOD and 7 STUN (I'm not doing STUN anyway - who cares?) and the ultimate extreme of 1d6, x 21 Extra BOD means 21 - 23 BOD, against rDEF. How many hits can that 12 rDEF target take? Now, we can always restrict the iterations, but the point is that most characters with versatility will want a "max BOD" attack taken to that limit. And the first time someone uses that 21 - 23 BOD attack, everyone wants more rDEF.

 

Actually, maybe 1d6 Killing, x20 Extra BOD, x2 AP means I get 20 - 22 BOD, often against half rDEF. Two shots and what portion of Supers are deceased?

 

If you look at these, a couple of interesting points come out.

1. Under current rules, the killing attack and the normal blast overlap in terms of STUN damage. Things are better balanced than in 5E. In the long run, the Blast will do more STUN, but the killing attack will do more STUN on a regular basis. The same is true of BOD damage - again, the ranges overlap - but since the killing attack goes against rDEF, the Normal attack is likely to do more BOD only on rare occasions.

 

I like that, and it's nice to see the math works it out.

 

2. Equally interestingly' date=' under current rules, the AP and killing attack barely overlap in terms of BOD damage: which attack is better will depend very heavily on the target. The killing attack overlaps AP in terms of STUN - in general the AP attack is likely to be better at putting STUN on the target, though the killing attack is going to get a big hit more frequently than the AP one. Compared with the normal Blast, the AP attack is likely a better bet for putting STUN on most credible foes, even though the normal STUN ranges barely overlap, due to the fact that it halves defences ... until you meet someone with hardened, of course![/quote']

 

Hardened makes this the real wild card - and there's no guidance for how common that is, so it will vary even more from game to game. And, as noted above, Hardened tends to be applied to the targets AP would otherwise be best at dealing with. A different issue than KA vs Normal, of course.

 

1. The killing attack (and I have deliberately optimized it' date=' here) will pretty much always do more BOD than the normal blast. Its normal damage range overlaps that of the standard killing attack, so while it will over the long run do more BOD, the current killing attack will do more on semi-regular basis. On the other hand, the STUN range is pathetic: it will essentially never do the amount of STUN that killing attacks are capable of under the current rules. It is going up against rED, not ED, so in a few rare instances it might actually do more STUN than the current rules version of killing attack, but that's pretty unlikely (only happens when your target has very high total DEF and very low rDEF).[/quote']

 

But it's not optimized. Optimized is 1d6 with as much bonus BOD as possible. +1 to each die means every +1 advantage adds 2d6 of BOD damage, albeit at standard effect. It comes at a heavy cost for STUN, but if my goal is a dead target, that's not really costing me. Once we get to the point that rDEF is low enough that STUN matters, that target's probably dead anyway.

 

2. The finely-tuned AP attack' date=' using the suggested changes, shows why I kept the mostly useless STUN+1 modifier: in some cases, it can be useful. Here it lets you eke out an extra 4 STUN average damage in return for an average of -1 BOD damage. OK, not earth-shattering, but hey, sometimes it'd help. Otherwise, it compares to normal blast much as it does under standard rules.[/quote']

 

Extra STUN seems a lot like standard effect, although eking out a bit of extra STUN. I add +4 STUN per d6 at the cost of a +1 advantage, so I can take a 1d6 with Extra STUN 44 times and average 47.5 STUN - way better than 36 Standard Effect and a bit better than the 42 average STUN. It doesn't even get up to 4 per d6 on a standard 12d6 attack. Again, though, 1d6, Extra STUN 42 times and double AP for 43 - 48 STUN against half defenses seems like a good deal. And I only have to lose 1 STUN to slap on another AP. Make it 40 times and I do 41 - 46 against half defenses unless you shelled out for quadruple hardened.

 

How about:

Stunning blast: Blast, STUN+4. (6 BOD/45 STUN vs ED) Normal BOD range 6-6, Normal STUN Range 32-48.

Crowd control blast: Blast, STUN+4, AoE, Radius (4 BOD/ 30 STUN). Normal BOD range 4-4, Normal STUN Range 28-32. (by way of comparison, a normal AoE Blast would do 6 BOD (range 7-8) and 21 STUN (range 18-24).

 

Why not 1d6, extra STUN +10 (so 40 times), Radius +1 for 41-46 STUN? It's for crowd control and mooks, so I don't want to do BOD anyway, and losing maybe 4 meters knockback isn't the end of the world. Or drop 4 STUN to make it NND. How many targets have either 35+ CON or the "reasonably common" defense? Everyone else is Stunned. Mooks are KO'd. That's pretty effective abuse, IMO. For another 6 STUN, we can make it 0 END Autofire and hit multiple times with a 30+ STUN NND.

 

While I agree with Sean to some extent that GM control and player maturity controls abuses, I'm not convinced the extra things I can do with this model are all that worthwhile.

 

Under the present model, and assuming your +1/2 "Killing" advantage replaces the KA model, we could spend 60 points on a 14d6 Killing Blast, Does no STUN. Or a 21d6 normal blast that does no STUN - 21 BOD against all defenses should take those constructs down very effectively, despite not slaughtering living targets as effectively (normals are dead, though). Current model, we can have a 7d6 KA that does no STUN and inflict 24.5 average BOD against rDEF.

 

That ignores AP limits, but surely a mature group can waive AP limits where it's appropriate. Of course, we now have a 60 AP KA that does no BOD, with less volatility than the current KA model. We don't get a huge increase in BOD damage if we want rDEF under your model - we can with the current model, but we have the higher AP warning light. I'm OK with that lethality leaving, as I don't want that level of lethality, but if we want options, they certainly exist. Gradation's not as fine, but reduced STUN Multiple provides a bit of granularity, if you want an attack that does some sucky STUN without maxing BOD.

 

I'm a bit of a broken record, as I see the potential for "lots of BOD and no STUN" to be extremely problematic.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

My first thought is 'don't like multipliers', but let us see how this works: a 'close to 60 AP' attack could do (say) 9d6 'killing', which produces 31 or 32 stun on average. Against 'current' average resistant defence of 12 (for a 12DC game), that would be 19 or 20 stun through defence and that doubles to 38 to 40, which seems high. If, however, if the Stun works against normal defences (as at present) then your 9d6 will work against 24 defence, and 7 or 8 will get through, giving you 14 or 15 Stun damage - but on either analysis you will be doing less Body, which seems odd for a 'killing' attack.

 

In fact I like the idea of using damage through defences to determine results but I'm not sure this works. An idea we have kicked around in the past:

 

Break attacks into 'Penetration' and 'Damage'. Penetration dice costs 3 points per die and Damage costs 5. You roll the penetration dice for a Body Result and, if the total equals or exceeds the rDEF, then you roll the Damage dice and apply the result without defences (well, you still get Damage Reduction, possibly). That means that you could build an attack that does (say) 15 penetration and 3d6 damage, which delivers (on average) 10.5 stun and 3 Body through rDEF of less than 16, or a 5d6 penetration/9d6 Damage attack that delivers 31/9 through defences of less than 6 (on average) - it allows you to make attacks that are very deadly against unarmoured opponents (or lightly armoured ones) but that bounce off heavily armoured targets or attacks that will damage most opponents, but only a little.

 

Highly abuseable in a framework, but I'm fine with taking the safeties off, so long as everyone is aware of the potential problems.

 

In the scenario there is no "resistant defense" there is only Stun Defense (Stun damage is not doubled w/ a Killing Advantage) and Body Defense (Body Damage past defenses is doubled w/ a Killing Advantage).

 

So far, it's working out pretty well, I haven't done a really in depth work up of the numbers scaling back and forth, but one's defenses do need to be rethought (as you no longer have four 'primary' defense types). And yes, it does make a "Killing + Penetration" Advantaged Attack pretty deadly to deal with. Querysphinx also has a number of other Modifiers he created, one of which is an Advantage on your Body that will prevent that 'doubling' to occur.

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Clipping the quotes to keep this shorter - hopefully' date=' I don't cut anything crucial. I think the human nature/gamist aspect comes into play. Once STUN or BOD is "pathetic" (ie unlikely to have any impact on the fight), what drawback is there to maxing out the advantage stacking to, say, 1d6 Killing, +11 enhanced BOD, to "roll" 22 - 24 BOD per hit? Sure, it's doing negligible STUN, but the goal is to kill, not stun. And once BOD is no longer a factor, even squeezing out an extra 6 - 8 STUN (guesstimated at double your examples for pushing as far as we can without reduced dice offsetting the enhanced STUN) will mean way more STUN results in many games, and force the balanced "no stun or BOD advantaged" attack out of the running for STUN results in others, as player adjust DEF/CON to compensate.[/quote']

 

Heh. I think any GM who lets +5.5 in Stop Signed advantages get by without comment should go back to a less demanding hobby! Yes, you can push the system far enough that it breaks (though in this case, since it's not killing, most Heroes would take little, if any BOD: you'd kill people faster with an RKA NND, does BOD (and if you took Does no Stun, it'd be almost half the price, too!).

 

I agree there would likely be some small changes in how people balance their defences with the rules I suggest, but to be honest, I think such a change is way overdue.

 

One problem that often arises with AP is that the character designer is thinking "well nigh invulnerable"' date=' so they slap Hardened on to be safe. The lower defense characters Harden much less often, but then halving their defenses removes little anyway. 32 STUN vs half ED is more effective than 42 STUN vs ED only on targets with more than 21 ED that isn't hardened. At the lower end, BOD also comes in. 9 BOD AP is better than 12 BOD normal at defense levels of 8 - 16, so AP becomes better at killing, but worse at stunning, at those levels.[/quote']

 

I see that as a feature, rather than a bug. I'd like to see a wider range of defence options.

 

So 4d6 "Extra BOD" 3 times vs rDEF. If I want my characters to live, better buy more rDEF. 3d6 Extra BOD x5 would be 11.5 STUN, average 18 BOD against rDEF. No STUN, but that 12 rDEF Super won't live that long. 2d6 Extra BOD x 9 Killing gets me 20 BOD and 7 STUN (I'm not doing STUN anyway - who cares?) and the ultimate extreme of 1d6, x 21 Extra BOD means 21 - 23 BOD, against rDEF. How many hits can that 12 rDEF target take? Now, we can always restrict the iterations, but the point is that most characters with versatility will want a "max BOD" attack taken to that limit. And the first time someone uses that 21 - 23 BOD attack, everyone wants more rDEF.

 

Actually, maybe 1d6 Killing, x20 Extra BOD, x2 AP means I get 20 - 22 BOD, often against half rDEF. Two shots and what portion of Supers are deceased?

 

This was your response last time as I recall, and my answer hasn't altered. As a general rule, if you have to stack an advantage to +12, that's a fairly good sign that it's balanced under actual play conditions! The rules already allow us to buy 1 shot kill powers, but most GMs are loath to approve them. As for the comment "If I want my characters to live, better buy more rDEF" it applies equally to the existing rules: current killing attacks will frequently do BOD damage at the same level and reasonably often significantly more. So to be honest, I can't buy that argument.

 

But it's not optimized. Optimized is 1d6 with as much bonus BOD as possible. +1 to each die means every +1 advantage adds 2d6 of BOD damage' date=' albeit at standard effect. It comes at a heavy cost for STUN, but if my goal is a dead target, that's not really costing me. Once we get to the point that rDEF is low enough that STUN matters, that target's probably dead anyway.[/quote']

 

Perhaps I should have said "reasonably optimised". You could after all, buy 2d6 Blast, double KNB 11x, to punt your opponents 4 km away, doing well over 2000 d6 in damage on the way. But seriously, do you really think there are GM's moronic (or perhaps naive) enough to allow that? As an aside, the 2000+ BOD you would likely inflict makes the 21 you get via your approach seem a trifle weak If you want to ceratin, I guess you could trade out one doubling of knockback for indirect, only from above and simply crush them into the Earth for 1000 BOD and 3500 STUN.

 

The rules recognise this, stating "At the GM’s option, characters can buy this Advantage multiple times, with each +1⁄2 purchase doubling the BODY for purposes of determining Knockback. For example, for a +11⁄2 Advantage a character would multiply the BODY by 8 to calculate Knockback. This should be considered a “Stop Sign” option." We could always add similar language, I suppose.

 

Under the present model, and assuming your +1/2 "Killing" advantage replaces the KA model, we could spend 60 points on a 14d6 Killing Blast, Does no STUN. Or a 21d6 normal blast that does no STUN - 21 BOD against all defenses should take those constructs down very effectively, despite not slaughtering living targets as effectively (normals are dead, though). Current model, we can have a 7d6 KA that does no STUN and inflict 24.5 average BOD against rDEF.

 

That ignores AP limits, but surely a mature group can waive AP limits where it's appropriate. Of course, we now have a 60 AP KA that does no BOD, with less volatility than the current KA model. We don't get a huge increase in BOD damage if we want rDEF under your model - we can with the current model, but we have the higher AP warning light. I'm OK with that lethality leaving, as I don't want that level of lethality, but if we want options, they certainly exist. Gradation's not as fine, but reduced STUN Multiple provides a bit of granularity, if you want an attack that does some sucky STUN without maxing BOD.

 

I'm a bit of a broken record, as I see the potential for "lots of BOD and no STUN" to be extremely problematic.

 

I'd agree: but as you point out we already have that problem - the 7d6 KA that does no STUN you posited does much more BOD on average (and has the potential to do way more BOD) than the 14d6 Killing Blast, Does no STUN or the 21d6 normal blast that does no STUN, that you seem to consider problematic. Aside from, the "stack the advantage to ridiculous levels" argument, I'm not seeing any potential problems here.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Heh. I think any GM who lets +5.5 in Stop Signed advantages get by without comment should go back to a less demanding hobby! Yes' date=' you can push the system far enough that it breaks (though in this case, since it's not killing, most Heroes would take little, if any BOD: you'd kill people faster with an RKA NND, does BOD (and if you took Does no Stun, it'd be almost half the price, too!).[/quote']

 

2d6+1 RKA, NND (+1), Does BOD (+1) = 105 AP; No STUN (-3/4) = 60 RP will average 8 BOD and cap out at 13. 20 - 22 BOD double AP vs rDEF consistently passes 14 - 16 BOD past halved rDEF of 12, more than the 1 in 36 chance of the NND getting 13 BOD. And few people would accept "double hardened defenses" as a reasonably common NND defense.

 

Perhaps I should have said "reasonably optimised". You could after all' date=' buy 2d6 Blast, double KNB 11x, to punt your opponents 4 km away, doing well over 2000 d6 in damage on the way. But seriously, do you really think there are GM's moronic (or perhaps naive) enough to allow that? As an aside, the 2000+ BOD you would likely inflict makes the 21 you get via your approach seem a trifle weak If you want to ceratin, I guess you could trade out one doubling of knockback for indirect, only from above and simply crush them into the Earth for 1000 BOD and 3500 STUN. [/quote']

 

True (we can "only" get 10 iterations for a +5 advantage to stay at 60 AP, but that changes little). But you're intending multiple purchases of "increased BOD", aren't you?

 

I'd agree: but as you point out we already have that problem - the 7d6 KA that does no STUN you posited does much more BOD on average (and has the potential to do way more BOD) than the 14d6 Killing Blast' date=' Does no STUN or the 21d6 normal blast that does no STUN, that you seem to consider problematic. Aside from, the "stack the advantage to ridiculous levels" argument, I'm not seeing any potential problems here.[/quote']

 

Sure can - and all three are admittedly faced with very high AP. And my preference is for changes that solve problems, not maintain them. I can also avoid that "my those AP are high" scrutiny with 1d6, 22 BOD increases (or a few less BOD and some other enhancements). We could mitigate the Knockback issue by ruling +1/2 adds to, rather than doubling, the multiplier.

 

ASIDE: want to bet someone would assert your rule is an orphan mechanic because it adds multiples rather than doublings?

 

Anyway, my paranoia is on record. I suspect the rule will work in your games because you and your players will moderate it, and because it will be swiftly changed should it fail to have the desired effects.

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

2d6+1 RKA' date=' NND (+1), Does BOD (+1) = 105 AP; No STUN (-3/4) = 60 RP will average 8 BOD and cap out at 13. 20 - 22 BOD double AP vs rDEF consistently passes 14 - 16 BOD past halved rDEF of 12, more than the 1 in 36 chance of the NND getting 13 BOD. And few people would accept "double hardened defenses" as a reasonably common NND defense.[/quote']

 

Actually I am pretty sure that any GM who'd let a stop sign advantage stack 11x would have no problem defining "double hardened defenses" as a reasonably common NND defense. In an anything goes game like that, plenty of PCs probably would have lots of double hardened defences!

 

Edit: I actually played a character with 20 rPD/ED double hardened defences, once. And I had "Takes no STUN as well" Very satisfying when another player shot me with an 18d6 AP attack: the player's eyes almost bugged out when the GM calmly announced "Doesn't even look like it scratched him". Sad to say, my indestructible robot fell to some guy with a cut-through-anything sword, who in turn was put down by MicroSniper (who had, I think 14 levels of shrinking? He was damn near impossible to find, let alone hit). IIRC, the ultimate victor in that punch-up was a mind-controling tunneling slug. Ah, good times, good times.

 

True (we can "only" get 10 iterations for a +5 advantage to stay at 60 AP' date=' but that changes little). But you're intending multiple purchases of "increased BOD", aren't you?[/quote']

 

Yes. Just as is noted for increased KB, buying more than one iteration should probably be at GM's option, and as with increased KB, while low multiples can create interesting and useful effect. You can break the system if you push it to absurd levels, but running the math, you can stack 4-5 times without it being problematic (though as GM, I'd scrutinise anything more than 2-3 very carefully for damage output vs defences). Even boring old blast can be game-breaking if you allow the player to buy a huge amount of dice and them limit it down so that they only get to splat 1-3 people per day.

 

Sure can - and all three are admittedly faced with very high AP. And my preference is for changes that solve problems' date=' not maintain them. I can also avoid that "my those AP are high" scrutiny with 1d6, 22 BOD increases (or a few less BOD and some other enhancements). We could mitigate the Knockback issue by ruling +1/2 adds to, rather than doubling, the multiplier. [/quote']

 

We could, but that's not how it works now. Even though it's a far more powerful effect than the one I am proposing - and far more broken, if you screw the stacking up to "ridiculous" - I've never heard people complaining that double knockback broke the game. Teleport usable as an attack, the acid attack that combines RKA and Drain vs rDEF,a one-hour charge of 0 END Flight usable as attack and so on: we have lots of options to build one-shot kill attacks, if we want heave common sense out the window. As you say, any of those builds should set up munchkin alerts in any semi-competent GM.

 

ASIDE: want to bet someone would assert your rule is an orphan mechanic because it adds multiples rather than doublings?

 

No. Because it's the same as the existing "Increased Stun Multiplier" advantage for killing attack, which also adds +1 to the dice: that's actually where the idea came from in the first place. That too can be problematic, if you buy a lot (especially with the Hit Locations chart), and that too has never raised any problems that I've heard of.

 

Anyway' date=' my paranoia is on record. I suspect the rule will work in your games because you and your players will moderate it, and because it will be swiftly changed should it fail to have the desired effects.[/quote']

 

True enough. I'm not concerned about abuse, Not just because I am GM, but because as noted, a single sentence about stacking is enough to cap that issue pretty thoroughly and there are already worse things out there that add to the game rather than detract from it. I'm more worried about how it will actually work in play. Will decreased volatility be an issue? Could it give rise to increased lethality? etc.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

We could, but that's not how it works now. Even though it's a far more powerful effect than the one I am proposing - and far more broken, if you screw the stacking up to "ridiculous" - I've never heard people complaining that double knockback broke the game. Teleport usable as an attack, the acid attack that combines RKA and Drain vs rDEF,a one-hour charge of 0 END Flight usable as attack and so on: we have lots of options to build one-shot kill attacks, if we want heave common sense out the window. As you say, any of those builds should set up munchkin alerts in any semi-competent GM.

 

No. Because it's the same as the existing "Increased Stun Multiplier" advantage for killing attack, which also adds +1 to the dice: that's actually where the idea came from in the first place. That too can be problematic, if you buy a lot (especially with the Hit Locations chart), and that too has never raised any problems that I've heard of.

 

I see one difference between all of the "take it multiple times" advantages you point to, and the "increased STUN/Increased BOD" advantages you propose. Those in the existing rules are all quite clear they are intended to be taken once, but the GM might consider allowing multiple purchases in isolated instances. Most (all?) the example builds you have provided rely on taking the advantage several times (three being the norm), so we set a precedent right off the bat that this particular advantage is designed and intended primarily for multiple purchases. So the proposed single sentence about stacking seems disingenuous "well, every sample build stacks this advantage several times, but more than 6 or 8 is probably too much". Double knockback tells us "Characters can only buy Double Knockback once for any given power.", but then addresses the GM option/stop sign multiple purchase.

 

Increased stun mult is softer, but still "must have the GM's permission to buy it more than once". Do any example builds in the core rules use it more than once? Any such uses in published characters? 1d6 KA, +20 Stun Mult will manage some pretty substantial STUN (UGH - I hadn't really looked at that being +1/4 now). However, I'd look a bit up the page to the statement that "Remember, a Killing Attack is just that — a killing attack. It’s used to kill or maim other characters (in game terms, to do BODY damage to them). Characters who don’t want to seriously injure or incapacitate their opponents should choose another Power to build their attacks with." That makes it pretty clear my 1 - 6 BOD, 73.5 - 91 average STUN (using hit locations) is not the intent of the rules.

 

I agree that +1/4 increased STUN multiple has the exact same issue. Although 3d6+1, +1 Stun multiple (62 AP) seems fairly reasonable (average roll of 25, 37.5 or 50 STUN), adding more at the same cost gets ugly fast. But 2 1/2 d6 (60 AP at a +1/2 advantage) with +1 Multiple (18, 27 or 36 STUN instead of 14, 28 or 42 with a 4d6 KA) sucks on ice, so +1/2 is too expensive. Just like ramping an attack from 12 to 14 average BOD, with lower STUN, seems pretty innocuous until we use multiple iterations to ramp it up much higher at the "cost" of doing no STUN.

 

I'm more worried about how it will actually work in play. Will decreased volatility be an issue? Could it give rise to increased lethality? etc.

 

This depends hugely on play style. Decreased volatility could be a flaw or a feature depending on your preferences. There were a lot of issues with volatility under the old structure, which the 1d3 multiple was intended to mitigate, so a further reduction may take it too far for some (as 1d3 already has for others) and be a plus for other groups who consider the current structure to still be too volatile.

 

If you can get higher BOD, increased lethality is an issue. However, if the players ramp up rDEF due to STUN concerns, that will mitigate the issue, or even reduce lethality if characters are buying extra rDEF to deal with the (advantaged) Stun from KA's once it only goes against rDEF. Someone on the Boards recently referred to Hero as a "high character investment game", a very apt term. The game evolved to have every character with some rDEF to deal with KA's, to the point rDEF for nonbulletproof unarmored characters was enshrined in Combat Luck in 4e. If character death is made more likely by this change in isolation, I suspect it will soon be made less likely as build standards adjust to compensate.

 

Like many Hero rules, especially optional, caution, stop sign and GM option rules, the results in play are likely to vary widely by group.

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

I see one difference between all of the "take it multiple times" advantages you point to, and the "increased STUN/Increased BOD" advantages you propose. Those in the existing rules are all quite clear they are intended to be taken once, but the GM might consider allowing multiple purchases in isolated instances. Most (all?) the example builds you have provided rely on taking the advantage several times (three being the norm), so we set a precedent right off the bat that this particular advantage is designed and intended primarily for multiple purchases. So the proposed single sentence about stacking seems disingenuous "well, every sample build stacks this advantage several times, but more than 6 or 8 is probably too much". Double knockback tells us "Characters can only buy Double Knockback once for any given power.", but then addresses the GM option/stop sign multiple purchase.

 

Increased stun mult is softer, but still "must have the GM's permission to buy it more than once". Do any example builds in the core rules use it more than once? Any such uses in published characters? 1d6 KA, +20 Stun Mult will manage some pretty substantial STUN (UGH - I hadn't really looked at that being +1/4 now). However, I'd look a bit up the page to the statement that "Remember, a Killing Attack is just that — a killing attack. It’s used to kill or maim other characters (in game terms, to do BODY damage to them). Characters who don’t want to seriously injure or incapacitate their opponents should choose another Power to build their attacks with." That makes it pretty clear my 1 - 6 BOD, 73.5 - 91 average STUN (using hit locations) is not the intent of the rules.

 

I agree that +1/4 increased STUN multiple has the exact same issue. Although 3d6+1, +1 Stun multiple (62 AP) seems fairly reasonable (average roll of 25, 37.5 or 50 STUN), adding more at the same cost gets ugly fast. But 2 1/2 d6 (60 AP at a +1/2 advantage) with +1 Multiple (18, 27 or 36 STUN instead of 14, 28 or 42 with a 4d6 KA) sucks on ice, so +1/2 is too expensive. Just like ramping an attack from 12 to 14 average BOD, with lower STUN, seems pretty innocuous until we use multiple iterations to ramp it up much higher at the "cost" of doing no STUN.

 

Actually, I chose 3x for my examples specifically to make the point that even multiples were not problematic - as long as you don't go overboard. As you note, it's exactly the same issue with +1/4 increased STUN multiple, or +1/2 increased KNB. One, two, or in some circumstances, even three is OK. More than that can be problematic ... but is not necessarily. Using the mechanism I suggested, a blast with +6 BOD (a +3 advantage!) does 21 BOD/11 STUN vs 12 BOD/42 STUN for a regular blast. That's a pretty big difference: but in a game where many or most Heroes are sporting the 24 total/12 rDEF level defences we had discussed previously, it'd be more or less useless, rarely if ever doing body and never doing STUN. Essentially you are paying +3 for a slightly inferior version of increased KNB. OTOH, if everyone is sporting 12 total DEF, then it becomes monstrously lethal. The same is true of killing attacks (regardless of how you model them) - if you have no rDEF, even 30 points invested in a killing attack is pretty scary.

 

You need to look at the options in the context of the campaign: what works one place won't work another. In our first Champions Campaign some of the bricks were sporting 30+ rDEF and even the martial artist had 15. In that campaign, an attack that does an average of 18 Killing BOD per hit would be considered nasty, but not lethal.

 

So I left the option of more multiples on the table (albeit with a stopsign). I honestly don't see it as any different to increased STUN multiple or increased KNB.

 

But if you look at the weapons builds I presented, I tried to highlight why I think that's important. Guns in Hero system don't actually simulate guns in real life that well: a solid hit is more likely to kill you than knock you unconscious, particularly if you are unarmoured. A blow to the head or stomach with a club might kill you, but it's actually more likely to knock you unconscious - or at least incapacitate you briefly. Being able to scale the BOD multiple there lets you build exactly those effects: something we can't easily do right now (you can do it by mixing dice of killing with and without "does no stun" but that's a bit klunky, especially at the lower end).

 

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

ABut if you look at the weapons builds I presented' date=' I tried to highlight why I think that's important. Guns in Hero system don't actually simulate guns in real life that well: a solid hit is more likely to kill you than knock you unconscious, particularly if you are unarmoured. A blow to the head or stomach with a club might kill you, but it's actually more likely to knock you unconscious - or at least incapacitate you briefly. Being able to scale the BOD multiple there lets you build exactly those effects: something we can't easily do right now (you can do it by mixing dice of killing with and without "does no stun" but that's a bit klunky, especially at the lower end).[/quote']

 

"Realistic damage" has two factors against it. First, the real world isn't very realistic. Occasionally, someone falls from a plane and survives with limited injury. Then someone slips, falls and dies. Less extreme, a drop of 15 - 18" results in a broken foot, while a fellow falls off the roof, gets up and dusts himself off, maybe with a bruise or two.

 

Second, "real world" damage is pretty inconsistent with the source material. Of course, the source material's not all that internally consistent. "Gunshot - someone is dead" mixes with "hail of bullets; hero is hospitalized; next day, he's back in action feeling fine". Hero leans to a high character survival rate, and "realistic" injury probably means a lot more character deaths, and a lot less predictability of lethality.

 

If I want my character to have decent survival odds, and I know there will be attacks out there doing 21+ BOD, I probably want 20+ defenses to make my character survivable. If those will be KA's, now I want 20+ rDEF. So now I have 30 defense, 20 rDEF, and I'm hard to put stun on. So attacks get bigger. But now those bigger attacks mean 26+ BOD instead of 21+ BOD, so I need more defense to enhance my character's survival odds. And so on.

 

It seems like this approach reduces the volatility of individual attacks, but enhances the volatility of damage the character can expect to face on a recurring basis. Instead of the prospect of 24 BOD coming up 1 time in 1,296, and my 12 rDEF character taking serious BOD, but very low likelihood of two of these in a short timeframe, I'm faced with 21 BOD being predictably and routinely delivered by some opponents. My 12 rDEF character can't take the 27 BOD 9 hits will do, so he needs higher rDEF.

 

And he needs higher defenses against STUN, if these Stun-focused attacks will do markedly more STUN.

 

Pretty soon, only the focused attacks are effective, as an attack balanced between Stun and BOD bounces off defenses designed to make the character competitive against all BOD or all STUN attacks. That 42/12 Blast isn't very effective against a character designed to stand up to hits that do 21 BOD or 56 STUN hits, is it?

 

So everyone's defenses go up, most characters take a BOD and STUN attack, some choose only one.

 

And with all that advantage stacking, we may as well make them all Killing and avoid normal defenses entirely, so they're virtually always useless and characters buy everything resistant. We get an AP/Hardened arms race.

 

Basically, we make it that much harder for the GM to assess, set and run under guidelines that work to allow characters effective baseline abilities, plus some distinctive, often more esoteric, abilities. The effort to allow more options risks reduction in variability.

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

"Realistic damage" has two factors against it. First, the real world isn't very realistic. Occasionally, someone falls from a plane and survives with limited injury. Then someone slips, falls and dies. Less extreme, a drop of 15 - 18" results in a broken foot, while a fellow falls off the roof, gets up and dusts himself off, maybe with a bruise or two.

 

Second, "real world" damage is pretty inconsistent with the source material. Of course, the source material's not all that internally consistent. "Gunshot - someone is dead" mixes with "hail of bullets; hero is hospitalized; next day, he's back in action feeling fine". Hero leans to a high character survival rate, and "realistic" injury probably means a lot more character deaths, and a lot less predictability of lethality.

 

If I want my character to have decent survival odds, and I know there will be attacks out there doing 21+ BOD, I probably want 20+ defenses to make my character survivable. If those will be KA's, now I want 20+ rDEF. So now I have 30 defense, 20 rDEF, and I'm hard to put stun on. So attacks get bigger. But now those bigger attacks mean 26+ BOD instead of 21+ BOD, so I need more defense to enhance my character's survival odds. And so on.

 

It seems like this approach reduces the volatility of individual attacks, but enhances the volatility of damage the character can expect to face on a recurring basis. Instead of the prospect of 24 BOD coming up 1 time in 1,296, and my 12 rDEF character taking serious BOD, but very low likelihood of two of these in a short timeframe, I'm faced with 21 BOD being predictably and routinely delivered by some opponents. My 12 rDEF character can't take the 27 BOD 9 hits will do, so he needs higher rDEF.

 

And he needs higher defenses against STUN, if these Stun-focused attacks will do markedly more STUN.

 

Pretty soon, only the focused attacks are effective, as an attack balanced between Stun and BOD bounces off defenses designed to make the character competitive against all BOD or all STUN attacks. That 42/12 Blast isn't very effective against a character designed to stand up to hits that do 21 BOD or 56 STUN hits, is it?

 

So everyone's defenses go up, most characters take a BOD and STUN attack, some choose only one.

 

And with all that advantage stacking, we may as well make them all Killing and avoid normal defenses entirely, so they're virtually always useless and characters buy everything resistant. We get an AP/Hardened arms race.

 

Basically, we make it that much harder for the GM to assess, set and run under guidelines that work to allow characters effective baseline abilities, plus some distinctive, often more esoteric, abilities. The effort to allow more options risks reduction in variability.

 

To be honest, I can't see a viable way of any of that happening at all. YMMV, of course.

 

cheers, Mark