Killing Damage in 6e

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

The problem with both the KA multiplier and the hit location tables is that they do use multipliers' date=' which means you get enormous leaps in the damage. Perhaps we have it all backwards. Perhaps, instead of multiplying damage, the hit location tables should divide defences. That would still give a useful and powerful effect without ending up with silly stun totals.[/quote']

 

The problem with them is that they only stand up if you don't lean on them too hard. So much of the rest of the system is bound up with them that one change has cascading effects -- and we ended up with suggestions like "Stick your hand on a porcupine, however many quills you come away with is the STUN multiple..."

 

I'm joking. Probably.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Before I adopted the 6e d3 Stun Multiplier, I used the Hit Location chart solely to provide a bell-curve for the Stun Multiplier; none of the other effects of hit locations were used (and you couldn't call shots). It worked pretty well.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Reverse?

Gods, I hope my proposal wasn't THAT soundly misunderstood.

 

No' date=' that one was mine. [/quote']

 

Actually, looking back, I was mistaken. I must have thought that one was mine because I liked it and advocated for it.

 

My two suggestions were:

 

1. Roll your Killing Attack BODY, then roll it again and add that to the BODY to determine the STUN. In other words, if you had a 3d6+1 KA, you'd roll 3d6+1 to find the BODY, then roll another 3d6+1, add it to the BODY to find the STUN. You could conceivably end up with an attack that did 19 BODY and 22 STUN -- or 4 BODY and 22 STUN -- or 19 BODY and 38 STUN -- or 4 BODY and 8 STUN.

 

2. Roll your Killing Attack BODY, then roll 3d6, add that to the BODY, and the result is your STUN. On a 1d6 KA you could end up with 1 BODY and 19 STUN, or 6 BODY and 9 STUN. A 4d6 KA could give you 4 BODY and 22 STUN or 24 BODY and 27 STUN.

 

That was a different time, a crazy time. Everyone did things they shouldn't have. There was lot of experimentation.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

I think the problem is that' date=' in Heroic games, you need hit locations to make the game deadly, but in superheroic games, it turns the whole thing into either a lottery or a character creation straight-jacket.[/quote']

 

Assuming a deadly game is what you're after, of course.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

That was a different time, a crazy time. Everyone did things they shouldn't have. There was lot of experimentation.

 

Word

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Before rolling the dice for damage, add enough dice (of a different color) to bring the total number of dice up to the Normal Damage equivalent of your Killing Attack. Roll; your Killing Attack dice tell you the BODY, the total on all of the dice together indicate the STUN. This has the advantage of generating exactly the same range of STUN as a Normal Attack, while requiring no more counting nor additional dice rolls.

 

Roll d66. Consult the "Table Of Methods For Determining Killing Attack Stun..."

 

That's when they said I wasn't to have any more artificial sweeteners.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Before I adopted the 6e d3 Stun Multiplier' date=' I used the Hit Location chart solely to provide a bell-curve for the Stun Multiplier; none of the other effects of hit locations were used (and you couldn't call shots). It worked pretty well.[/quote']

 

yeah, I agree, it does. We did that for a while in our Champions campaign. Just leaving off the Body Multiplier column also works well for a Cinematic/Superheroic feel.

It's hero, people.... I find the defenses discussion kinda funny.... because if you're playing with Hit Locations, then you're also generally playing with Sectional defenses. Motorcyclists wear helmets for a reason, as do city watchmen and Riot cops. Brain buckets are a good investment if you're using hit locations.

IIRC, our PA guy had 1/2 Damage Reduction, Physical only on his head.

Actually, Damage Reduction was a pretty common defense, partially because of the possibility of a massive hit. We used DR as our campaign's version of what is now Combat Luck. Lots of limited DR builds.

We also generally frowned on abusing piles of cheap Targeting Skill levels. The gentleman's agreement was to keep Targeting levels at a max of 4, and get better through CSL's.

Our campaign's Deathstroke analog, Recoil, was employed once or twice to hammer home the message that he who lives by the headshot dies by the headshot

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Assuming a deadly game is what you're after' date=' of course.[/quote']

 

 

True, but whilst you probably do not want characters dropping like flies you generally WILL want a game in which getting stabbed with a sword, or shot with a gun is something you can reasonably expect to be killed or seriously injured by if you do not have armour or some other way of avoiding the damage, otherwise you lose respect for attacks that you feel SHOULD be deadly.

 

OTOH lots of people still play DnD, and why not?

[Lucius]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Which is, IMO, a good thing.

The nerfing of KA's in Standard Superheroic games really, really feels, to me, like a significant step backwards in the Universal Toolkit nature of the system, entrenching Silver Age Cinematic reality as the default "Basic" combat system. Without hit locations, Killing damage weapons no longer seem to have any close parallels, effects'-wise, to their real world counterparts. The benchmarks no longer seem to match experiential data, so Heroic level games that don't use Hit Locations become like Sunday Morning Cartoons or the A Team.

 

I really think 6th tipped the scales too far, but that is admittedly my opinion.

 

I agree with your point about liking the volatility of the old way; it was more realistic.

 

The problem was, it wasn't balanced. 1d6 Killing was more effective than 3d6 Normal but cost the same.

 

I'm sure a great many options were considered for addressing the problem, but they would have to boil down to four options:

 

1. Raise the cost of Killing Attacks

2. Lower the cost of Normal Attacks

3. Increase the effectiveness of Normal Attacks

4. Reduce the effectiveness of Killing Attacks

 

 

But if you want Killing Attacks to do more STUN, you can just buy them with a higher STUN multiple. If you want them to be as volatile as the previous editions, buy a higher STUN multiple and then use a Limitation to randomize it. They haven't taken the tool out of the toolkit - it just requires some assembly.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

One (1) palindromedary tagline, some assembly required

[Istaran]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

I think the problem is that' date=' in Heroic games, you need hit locations to make the game deadly, but in superheroic games, it turns the whole thing into either a lottery or a character creation straight-jacket.[/quote']

 

I recall reading around these parts suggestions along the lines of:

for every DC in typical attacks in the campaign, a character should have (about):

1 rPD/rED

1 additional PD/ED

5 STUN

 

I don't think BODY was mentioned, and I don't recall what the suggested CON to back that was, and I'm not sure I remember the numbers perfectly accurately. But certainly you could derive such numbers for CON and BODY, and then tweak up and down for the level of deadliness desired and apply it.

It pretty much scales all the way up and down, except for some quirkily high volatility at the bottom end (i.e. when 3 DC is the norm, 1d6 KA is rediculously volatile compared to 3d6 normal).

The thing is, if you've got proportionate defenses and STUN/BODY/CON versus the attacks you're throwing, scaling the points higher (and thus the number of dice and the pull of the bell curve) should be making it less of a lottery than before.

Maybe part of the issue is the free 10 points of BODY/CON doesn't always get scaled.. Default Normals are soaking 2 DC punches with their 10 BODY/CON. They basically need a head shot to even risk stunning each other in a brawl. Are your supers packing 5 BODY/CON per DC? probably not (well maybe a brick?). Maybe that lack of scaling is what makes the hit locations seem necessary in heroic but excessive in superheroic? But I always figured it was more just a feel thing. "Heroic" feel is intended to be more of a lottery.. one solid head-shot from a sword or arrow could lay you out and maybe even put you under in heroic type stories, but not in superhero stories. Mooks might get wiped out easily, but superheros and supervillains are never put down by a single lucky shot.

 

In other words, hit locations increases volatility in both KA and normal in 6e. In 5e the KA got to keep that volatility even when hit locations weren't used (due to the 1d6-1 STUNx), but in 6e it's more balanced between the two. Because of the damage subtraction of PD/ED and the damage threshhold of CON the volatility is a powerful advantage. The free BODY/CON/STUN baseline tends to make those numbers higher proportionate to DCs in heroic games, so that they can absorb the volatility a little easier, and genre conventions make the volatility more desirable but ultimately it makes for a deadlier game (but also one in which more hits "bounce", due to the low damage on hand/feet/etc). If superheros have BODY/CON/STUN proportionate to the DCs (along with PD/ED/etc) then they should be slightly less volatile with hit locations than heroic games due to the bell curve effect, but still much more volatile than the genre implies.

 

Does that all sound right?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

I recall reading around these parts suggestions along the lines of:

for every DC in typical attacks in the campaign, a character should have (about):

1 rPD/rED

1 additional PD/ED

5 STUN

 

Well, this would see a 12d6 Normal attack average 18 STUN, so CON of 20 - 23 would limit the likelihood of being Stunned. If Stunning is intended to be a factor, you need enough CON that the typical attack doesn't Stun the target, but not so much that it's pretty much certain he'll never be Stunned. With 60 STUN, 4 hits will KO.

 

Same target, a 4d6 KA gets 2 BOD past rDEF on average. Rolling Stun Mult on that 14 BOD, the target takes 0, 0, 4, 18, 32 or 46 STUN past defenses, for an average of 16 2/3 STUN - still KO'd after 4 hits, but not quite as far down. But probably a 1/3 chance of Stunning most targets, so there's that volatility winning out again.

 

I never had a lot of issues with KA's in Supers games, and it was only on the Boards when I ran the actual math and was won over to the belief this was an issue. Why wasn't it an issue in our games? Our players rarely used KA's on living targets, which is basically a self-imposed fix. But, looking back, I can remember deciding agents would have a 2d6 KA rather than an 8d6 Blaster because that KA had a shot at getting damage past Super's defenses. So a lower DC attack was being selected because it would likely be more effective. The problem was there, whether our group noticed it or not.

 

Now, let's take a very well defended opponent with 36 Defenses (3 per DC). Normal attack drops to average of 6 STUN past defenses. KA with average BOD roll gets 0,0,0,6,20,34 for an average of 10 STUN per hit. That's pretty significant, and a 5x multiple still likely Stuns the target.

 

Of course, if we take a low defense target with, say, 12 defenses, the KA gets 2,2,16,30,44,58 for an average of 25 1/3 where the normal attack averages 30. But how many hits from either attack can that target take - and it's less than a 5 point spread.

 

I agree that the volatility in Supers is especially problematic (although subgenre is relevant - it was pretty common for bulletproof Golden Age characters to be KO'd by a blow to the head).

[Istaran]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

Well, this would see a 12d6 Normal attack average 18 STUN, so CON of 20 - 23 would limit the likelihood of being Stunned. If Stunning is intended to be a factor, you need enough CON that the typical attack doesn't Stun the target, but not so much that it's pretty much certain he'll never be Stunned. With 60 STUN, 4 hits will KO.

 

So if we go for heroic instead, it's say..

6d6 Normal or 2d6 KA vs

CON 10-12, 30 STUN, 12 PD/ED (6 resistant). Aside from a little extra volatility due to smaller numbers of dice being rolled, the numbers are basically all just halved and the chance of stunning remains unchanged.

 

Also, if you look at your numbers.. switching to 6e no hit locations, only the low defense guy can even possibly be stunned by the KA on an average BODY roll. But with hit locations, our sample dude gets stunned by a normal attack headshot reliably as well as a KA. For that matter, the x4 locations are x1.5 for normal and will also stun him. (12d6 = 42, -24 PD = 18, x1.5 = 27 STUN through defenses, more than the 20-23 CON you specified.)

[ghost-angel]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

The biggest problem I had with the D6-1 StunX is that it could very quickly take a Player out of the fight, which is just not as much fun for me. It was too volatile. Once I got a few of the groups I play with to switch to a D3 StunX we had more people in the fights a little longer and the players were having a little more fun.

 

Another side effect was a switch in tactics, we stopped going right for the KA to get a high StunX and started to use more and a wider range of powers in a given fight. It stopped being a race to try and one shot the big guns first. Most of the time.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

The biggest problem I had with the D6-1 StunX is that it could very quickly take a Player out of the fight, which is just not as much fun for me. It was too volatile. Once I got a few of the groups I play with to switch to a D3 StunX we had more people in the fights a little longer and the players were having a little more fun.

 

Another side effect was a switch in tactics, we stopped going right for the KA to get a high StunX and started to use more and a wider range of powers in a given fight. It stopped being a race to try and one shot the big guns first. Most of the time.

 

Noted here as well. I recall a lot of battles where tactics were simply not used; PCs simply fired off their big KAs banking on a lucky die roll for a one-hit KO.

 

It reminds(reminded) me a lot of D&D's old save-or-die mechanics; roll one die, and the target either dies or ignores it. I always hated those.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

It has occurred to me, on occasion, to consider re-doing the Hit Location tables with the Stun Mod replaced by Stun X bonuses and penalties, so you'd still use the d3 Stun roll, but with a -1 to +2 depending on the location roll. So a Head hit would give a effective Stun range of 3-5x, f'rex. Probably fiddle with it if I ever really get serious about a 6E game.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

...

 

Does that all sound right?

 

Sounds good...but it is not really the volatility of the Body that concerns me so much as the volatility of the Stun. Hugh has given some examples but never forget that the Body of killing attacks is volatile too: even with the new 3x stun multiplier, an 'average' 4d6KA hit does 14 Body x2 but a decent Body roll (still within 1 standard deviation) of 17 and a 3x multiplier does 51 stun. You will probably be rolling a long time before you get 51 on 12d6...

 

You are multiplying two volatile numbers together, which makes the result even more volatile. All the reduced stun multiple has done is make KAs less attractive by bringing the average stun down, and keeping the stun damage to the same maximum as normal attacks (unless you are using hit locations...).

 

The thing about KAs, if you think about it, is they are not necessarily that volatile. Bullets always deliver the same energy. What matters is where you are hit. A bullet through the muscle of your leg will hurt like hell, but a bullet through your heart will kill you. Of course a bullet in the gut can kill you slowly or quickly and may hurt like hell, or may not - at least at first. By the same token, a bullet that bounces off your skin, probably should not hurt* that much at all: bullets do not carry enormous amounts of energy - the just concentrate it at a point and all the real damage comes from penetration and destruction of internal organs.

 

 

*By 'hurt' I mean 'do Stun/Body': it can still hurt in a pain sense - getting hit by a paintball hurts but you could be hit by dozens and dozens and not pass out or die.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

It has occurred to me' date=' on occasion, to consider re-doing the Hit Location tables with the Stun Mod replaced by Stun X bonuses and penalties, so you'd still use the d3 Stun roll, but with a -1 to +2 depending on the location roll. So a Head hit would give a effective Stun range of 3-5x, f'rex. Probably fiddle with it if I ever really get serious about a 6E game.[/quote']

 

 

I like this idea: I am still not convicnced about the volatility being necessary for stun, but I like this as a mechanic.

[Markdoc]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

It has occurred to me' date=' on occasion, to consider re-doing the Hit Location tables with the Stun Mod replaced by Stun X bonuses and penalties, so you'd still use the d3 Stun roll, but with a -1 to +2 depending on the location roll. So a Head hit would give a effective Stun range of 3-5x, f'rex. Probably fiddle with it if I ever really get serious about a 6E game.[/quote']

 

Actually the hit location table gives decent volatility even for normal attacks - a head hit does 2x, for example. Using all normal attacks, plus hit locations, you could still get a satisfying degree of damage inflicted.

 

cheers, Mark

[dmjalund]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

you could start with a low Stun-X and allow skill levels to increase stunX (say 3 levels = +1 StunX)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

What we are arguing about is how likely you want extreme results to be. 4d6 Killing gives you 72 stun one roll in 3888 (in 6e: it was a lot less in 5e). 12d6 Normal gives you 72 stun one in just over 2 billion.

 

The thing about Hero combat that makes any of this problematic is that we use the "Stunned" mechanic. You can build a Hero that is very unlikely to be stunned by a normal attack, but it is much more difficult to build a Hero character that is unlikely to be stunned by a killing attack, even with the new multiplier, at the same DC: well, certainly much more expensive.

 

You might like the idea of a more random outcome to combat, or you might not. Personally I like some randomness but still like to feel that tactics are more important than dice.

 

Hit Locations are a related but different issue. If the hit location is random, you are back to volatility (only more so it applies to both normal and killing attacks) whereas if you can target hit locations, skill becomes much more impostant than the 'raw' ability to deal damage, or absorb damage.

 

Hero is a toolkit, so this is probably good, but I think that things could be done better.

[Netzilla]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

you could start with a low Stun-X and allow skill levels to increase stunX (say 3 levels = +1 StunX)

 

I haven't run the numbers, but I suspect this would end up being more efficient than using CSLs for extra DC. In fact, I'm certain it would for attacks that start at a higher DC. You would need to make this a lot more expensive.

 

Plus, I shudder to think of this combined with CSLs for countering Hit Location Penalties.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

The problem with damage volatility is that it knocks out players unexpectedly. Whilst it is a bit aggravating for the major end of level monster encounter to be aced with a couple of lucky rolls, as a GM, I can live with that: there are always more monsters.

 

However, if a lucky roll (high body and a head hit) kills a PC, that is killing a lot of investment in the character.

 

Sure it is realistic for deadly weapons to be deadly, but we are not after reality, even the most grittily realistic of us, we are after a decent game play experience. I never understood why people liked fumble and critical rules because there will always be more enemies rolling the dice than PCs, so all it does - in exchange for the occasional boasting rights on beheading an ogre - is tip the odds against the PCs.

[Istaran]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

The problem with damage volatility is that it knocks out players unexpectedly. Whilst it is a bit aggravating for the major end of level monster encounter to be aced with a couple of lucky rolls, as a GM, I can live with that: there are always more monsters.

 

However, if a lucky roll (high body and a head hit) kills a PC, that is killing a lot of investment in the character.

 

Sure it is realistic for deadly weapons to be deadly, but we are not after reality, even the most grittily realistic of us, we are after a decent game play experience. I never understood why people liked fumble and critical rules because there will always be more enemies rolling the dice than PCs, so all it does - in exchange for the occasional boasting rights on beheading an ogre - is tip the odds against the PCs.

 

I strongly agree with you.

However, I also am aware that there is a vocal contingent of gamers who prefer their RPGs include occasional, random, semi-unavoidable PC death such that there is a noticeable PC turnover rate. I am not such a person, so I can only speculate as to their motives. I personally prefer to invest heavily in a single character, build them up over time and grow more depth and breadth to the character and I find it jarring to lose such a character unexpectedly and have to start over from scratch. If a game seems to make that a likely/common outcome then I personally have a hard time investing in characterization, and will instead make statblocks combined with hollow cliches as a way to protect myself from caring.

 

One of the things I like about the HERO STUN/BODY version of HP is that it can make KOs plausible (even fairly likely) while keeping actual deaths very uncommon (while possible enough to keep it on people's radar). (I find 4e D&D achieves the same ends, but earlier D&D does not. Just one of those things that tends to split people between liking 4e or liking previous additions.)

[Istaran]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

What we are arguing about is how likely you want extreme results to be. 4d6 Killing gives you 72 stun one roll in 3888 (in 6e: it was a lot less in 5e). 12d6 Normal gives you 72 stun one in just over 2 billion.

 

The thing about Hero combat that makes any of this problematic is that we use the "Stunned" mechanic. You can build a Hero that is very unlikely to be stunned by a normal attack, but it is much more difficult to build a Hero character that is unlikely to be stunned by a killing attack, even with the new multiplier, at the same DC: well, certainly much more expensive.

 

You might like the idea of a more random outcome to combat, or you might not. Personally I like some randomness but still like to feel that tactics are more important than dice.

 

Hit Locations are a related but different issue. If the hit location is random, you are back to volatility (only more so it applies to both normal and killing attacks) whereas if you can target hit locations, skill becomes much more impostant than the 'raw' ability to deal damage, or absorb damage.

 

Hero is a toolkit, so this is probably good, but I think that things could be done better.

 

Hmm.

Hit locations gives normal attacks the volatility to get the extra OOMPH to stun targets more easily, plus allows for tactics to play an additional role in damage per hit (by allowing you to use reduced DCV situations to target vulnerable locations and aim for the jackpot rather than just lucking into it). However, you probably need to limit or ban PSLs for targetting hit locations to make sure it can't become trivial (maybe 4 as a hard cap? Or limit their use to halving the penalty? Then few would take more than 2, and there would be no point to more than 4).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

 

The other issue, especially with superheroic games, as defences are higher is that normal and killing attacks work differently on the hit location table.

 

Take an average 12DC attack against 24 defence*, and work out a head hit. We will just worry about Stun for the moment.

 

1. Normal attacks: 42 damage v 24 defence = 18 through defences and that doubles (for the head hit) to 36.

2. Killing attacks: 14 Bodyx5 = 70 Stun-24 = 46

 

That is a big difference, and substantially favours killing attacks, certainly for head hits...let's see...1.5x multiples for normal are x4 for killing so (using the same figures:

 

1. Normal attacks: 42 damage v 24 defence = 18 through defences and x1.5 = 27.

2. Killing attacks: 14 Bodyx4 = 56 Stun-24 = 32

 

Low multiplier areas, normal atatcks do better, but KAs have a real advantage for the bits anyone is ever going to actually aim at. Again, it seems that what killing attacks are really good at is causing lots of stun damage.

 

That just makes me feel dirty.

 

 

*Not universal but I think 2xDC is a reasonable level for defences