New STUNx Column for Hit Location Table (Help w/ Math)

[FreeDice]

Alrightay...

 

I noticed that the Hit Location STUNx Column (and possibly the whole table) hadn't been updated from 5th to 6th. But the amount of STUN by a Killing Attack had changed a bit.

 

The average KA in 5th did 2.66 STUN per BODY. (16/6, or 1d6-1, minimum 1)

The average KA in 6th does 2 STUN per BODY. (1/2d6)

 

The average attack using a random roll on the STUNx Column on the Hit Location table does 2.86 STUN per BODY.

 

Math=

 

(.0046 x 5) + (.014 x 5) + (.028 x 5) + (.046 x 1) + (.069 x 2) + (.097 x 2) + (.116 x 3) + (.125 x 3) + (.125 x 3) + (.116 x 4) + (.097 x 4) + (.069 x 2) + (.046 x 2) + (.028 x 2) + (.014 x 1) + (.0046 x 1) = 2.8656

 

That's only a slight increase in 5th (+0.2 STUN per BODY), but almost an extra STUN per BODY in 6th.

 

I was wondering if someone with a better head for probabilities might be able to craft a STUNx Column for the Hit Location table that averaged the STUN a little closer to the non-Hit Location average of 2 STUN per BODY.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: New STUNx Column for Hit Location Table (Help w/ Math)

 

It is my understanding that was by design. The hit location chart was left alone for various reasons.

[Fearghus]

Re: New STUNx Column for Hit Location Table (Help w/ Math)

 

The stun multiplier on the hit location chart and the killing attack stun multiplier have NOTHING to do with each other. Never have. This has been covered several times on these boards.

[FreeDice]

Re: New STUNx Column for Hit Location Table (Help w/ Math)

 

The stun multiplier on the hit location chart and the killing attack stun multiplier have NOTHING to do with each other. Never have. This has been covered several times on these boards.

 

My bad. I tried taking a peak for an answer through some old posts and through Google, but didn't find anything. Would you happen to have a link to something? I'm considering using Hit Location rules for regular combat (instead of called shots) in my next campaign (never have before), and I'm just curious what if any rebalancing I'll need to do from the basic rules (which assume an average of 2x STUN to Killing Attacks) to that optional rule (~3x STUN to Killing Attacks). Thank you!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New STUNx Column for Hit Location Table (Help w/ Math)

 

It is my understanding that was by design. The hit location chart was left alone for various reasons.

 

This is correct, based on comments Steve Long has made.

 

The Stun Multiple was never as big an issue in games using hit locations, likely because normal attacks also get a multiplier effect on good locations.

[prestidigitator]

Re: New STUNx Column for Hit Location Table (Help w/ Math)

 

While it may well have been by design, I see no reason folks couldn't come up with house rules to make random and hit-location multipliers more consistent with each other. And that seemed to be what the OP was about; he simply commented on the changes that had been made, rather than saying it had been overlooked or was broken. So how about we keep the conversation on-topic rather than jumping on a new poster, eh?

 

I've considered making such a change myself, but haven't really invested the time and energy yet. I was thinking about either reducing the spread so that the highest multiplier is x4, or reducing the range of rolled locations so that the higher multipliers come up less often (e.g. maybe making location 3 x5, location 4 x4, and location 5 x3 for what is currently all the "head", or something like that).

[FreeDice]

Re: New STUNx Column for Hit Location Table (Help w/ Math)

 

For those who want to use the Hit Location table for random hits (as opposed to those who want to use it for called shots, although I guess it could be used for that), I've created a new STUNx Column for the Hit Location table, to be used so that characters created for games without Hit Location rules are balanced against characters created for campaign with them.

 

Head (3-5): x3 STUN

Hands (6): x1 STUN

Arms (7-8): x2 STUN

Shoulders (9): x2 STUN

Chest (10-11): x2 STUN

Stomach (13): x2 STUN

Vitals (13): x3 STUN

Thighs (14): x2 STUN

Legs (15-16): x2 STUN

Feet (17-18): x1 STUN

 

If I did my math correctly, this adds up to an average STUN multiplier of 2.07 for a Killing Attack in campaigns using random Hit Locations, which is comparable for the average STUN multiplier for campaigns that are not using them. Suggestions welcome.

[Ice9]

Re: New STUNx Column for Hit Location Table (Help w/ Math)

 

If you're doing that, you should also ignore the NSTUN column. The increased STUNx on some locations is to match the increased NSTUN on those same locations - otherwise, a headshot with a pistol is less effective than a headshot with a club.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New STUNx Column for Hit Location Table (Help w/ Math)

 

For those who want to use the Hit Location table for random hits (as opposed to those who want to use it for called shots, although I guess it could be used for that), I've created a new STUNx Column for the Hit Location table, to be used so that characters created for games without Hit Location rules are balanced against characters created for campaign with them.

 

Head (3-5): x4 STUN

Hands (6): x1 STUN

Arms (7-8): x1 STUN

Shoulders (9): x1 STUN

Chest (10-11): x1 STUN

Stomach (13): x3 STUN

Vitals (13): x3 STUN

Thighs (14): x2 STUN

Legs (15-16): x2 STUN

Feet (17-18): x1 STUN

 

If I did my math correctly, this adds up to an average STUN multiplier of 2.07 for a Killing Attack in campaigns using random Hit Locations, which is comparable for the average STUN multiplier for campaigns that are not using them. Suggestions welcome.

 

Actually, multiplying the multiple of each roll (on 3d6) by the related Stun Multiple, I get an average of 1.7083.

 

If I drop Head to x3, bump Arms to x2, Shoulders to x2, Chest to x2, Stomach to x2 and I get an average of 2.0787. That also brings the range to the same 1 - 3, and seems to space out the 2's and 1's better. 3's are great hits (head or stomach) and 1's are bad (hands and feet) with almost all hits getting a x2 multiple. Of course, only Head and Vitals beat 3 in the old chart, and most hits were 2x or 3x. There's only so much you can do if you only have three choices. I suppose we could use halves, but that makes the math more of a nuisance.

 

If you're doing that' date=' you should also ignore the NSTUN column. The increased STUNx on some locations is to match the increased NSTUN on those same locations - otherwise, a headshot with a pistol is less effective than a headshot with a club.[/quote']

 

Agreed - unless the increased volatility of normal stun is removed, reducing the volarility and average of killing STUN puts KA's at a significant disadvanatage.

[FreeDice]

Re: New STUNx Column for Hit Location Table (Help w/ Math)

 

Actually, multiplying the multiple of each roll (on 3d6) by the related Stun Multiple, I get an average of 1.7083.

 

If I drop Head to x3, bump Arms to x2, Shoulders to x2, Chest to x2, Stomach to x2 and I get an average of 2.0787. That also brings the range to the same 1 - 3, and seems to space out the 2's and 1's better. 3's are great hits (head or stomach) and 1's are bad (hands and feet) with almost all hits getting a x2 multiple. Of course, only Head and Vitals beat 3 in the old chart, and most hits were 2x or 3x. There's only so much you can do if you only have three choices. I suppose we could use halves, but that makes the math more of a nuisance.

 

Wonder how I screwed that math up. Thanks!

[Tasha]

Re: New STUNx Column for Hit Location Table (Help w/ Math)

 

For those who want to use the Hit Location table for random hits (as opposed to those who want to use it for called shots, although I guess it could be used for that), I've created a new STUNx Column for the Hit Location table, to be used so that characters created for games without Hit Location rules are balanced against characters created for campaign with them.

 

Head (3-5): x3 STUN

Hands (6): x1 STUN

Arms (7-8): x2 STUN

Shoulders (9): x2 STUN

Chest (10-11): x2 STUN

Stomach (13): x2 STUN

Vitals (13): x3 STUN

Thighs (14): x2 STUN

Legs (15-16): x2 STUN

Feet (17-18): x1 STUN

 

If I did my math correctly, this adds up to an average STUN multiplier of 2.07 for a Killing Attack in campaigns using random Hit Locations, which is comparable for the average STUN multiplier for campaigns that are not using them. Suggestions welcome.

 

Basically that chart is fine and dandy for a Champions campaign where people throw tons of Normal attacks, and having a 16% chance of getting a x5 multiplier was quite unbalanced for some campaigns.

 

In a normals game where you are throwing avg dc 4-7 killing attacks, if you make the average Stun mult x2 it makes the combats longer and MUCH bloodier. I really don't want to go into it again. Just Assume DC3 throws 3.5 body on average and then multiply your stun mults out with rDef values of 3, then again with rDef values of 8.

 

So if the above chart is for Champions, then good for you and have fun with it. If you are going to inflict it on a normals campaign you will find that it is quite broken.

 

Tasha

 

PS This is discussed in old threads talking about what we want to see in 6e powers, and again in one of the many 6e threads that came after 6e shipped. I (and others) explained it in nauseating detail there.

[FreeDice]

Re: New STUNx Column for Hit Location Table (Help w/ Math)

 

Basically that chart is fine and dandy for a Champions campaign where people throw tons of Normal attacks, and having a 16% chance of getting a x5 multiplier was quite unbalanced for some campaigns.

 

In a normals game where you are throwing avg dc 4-7 killing attacks, if you make the average Stun mult x2 it makes the combats longer and MUCH bloodier. I really don't want to go into it again. Just Assume DC3 throws 3.5 body on average and then multiply your stun mults out with rDef values of 3, then again with rDef values of 8.

 

So if the above chart is for Champions, then good for you and have fun with it. If you are going to inflict it on a normals campaign you will find that it is quite broken.

 

Tasha

 

PS This is discussed in old threads talking about what we want to see in 6e powers, and again in one of the many 6e threads that came after 6e shipped. I (and others) explained it in nauseating detail there.

 

I'd like to see this - I've done searches. Any chance you have a link?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New STUNx Column for Hit Location Table (Help w/ Math)

 

BIn a normals game where you are throwing avg dc 4-7 killing attacks, if you make the average Stun mult x2 it makes the combats longer and MUCH bloodier. I really don't want to go into it again. Just Assume DC3 throws 3.5 body on average and then multiply your stun mults out with rDef values of 3, then again with rDef values of 8.

 

So if the above chart is for Champions, then good for you and have fun with it. If you are going to inflict it on a normals campaign you will find that it is quite broken.

 

Tasha, I question your conclusion it is "broken". I suggest, rather, that it will make the game substantially more lethal - far more characters will run out of BOD in combat well before they run out of STUN. If that's not the game you want to play, it will certainly be broken for your game. If it is the game the OP wants to play, and he is frustrated that combat generally ends with a KO instead of a kill, this change may well be a fix rather than a break for his game. I don't want a more lethal game, so I would not make this change.

 

One fix that would merit consideration would be changing the BOD multiples to be less volatile, as well as changing the STUN multiples. If a head hit did not double the BOD damage, then it would be less lethal, as well as being less likely to KO with a 3x multiple rather than 5x.

 

Since the object was to equate the hit location chart with the non-hit location approach, this approach might reasonably be coupled with the elimination of BOD multiples (which we don't have in the standard system. Perhaps this is replaced with a hit location chart that sets a standard effect for the BOD roll, with poor locations getting 1 BOD on each 1d6, and head shots getting 6 BOD on each d6. That would probably work reasonably well for a heroic game (where there are few enough dice that max damage is not all that uncommon) but work miserably in a Supers game (maybe only 2d6 get Standard Effect and the rest are rolled normally to retain some volatility).

 

We also need to remove the variance in normal damage - in fact, as the chart reduces the volatility of KA stun, we may even need to move normal attacks closer to a "standard effect" result. Maybe instead of x1/2, x1 and x 1/12 or 2 "normal stun" results, we have some or all of the dice get a standard effect of 2, 3 or 4 (maybe 5 at the top end).

 

I think the problem is that the issue was presented in the form of "I want to make the hit location table have the same, or similar, average to the 1d3 roll" rather than "I want the hit location table to result in combat working more like X". What is the desired result in game, rather than the desired math?

[FreeDice]

Re: New STUNx Column for Hit Location Table (Help w/ Math)

 

I think the problem is that the issue was presented in the form of "I want to make the hit location table have the same' date=' or similar, average to the 1d3 roll" rather than "I want the hit location table to result in combat working more like X". What is the desired result in game, rather than the desired math?[/quote']

 

This is the desired result. I'm worried that implementing an optional rule (Hit Locations) into a campaign that has yet to use them will alter the amount of damage characters are doing and is done to them. By bringing hit location more in line with 1d3, it will make the characters equally viable as they were before the implementation.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New STUNx Column for Hit Location Table (Help w/ Math)

 

This is the desired result. I'm worried that implementing an optional rule (Hit Locations) into a campaign that has yet to use them will alter the amount of damage characters are doing and is done to them. By bringing hit location more in line with 1d3' date=' it will make the characters equally viable as they were before the implementation.[/quote']

 

Then you need to look at the entirety of the hit location chart, not just the stun multiple for killing attacks.

 

In prior editions, when the Stun Multiple was 1d6-1, this made killing attacks in games without the hit location chart more volatile than other attacks. In games with the hit location chart, BOD damage became more volatile, STUN damage from non-killing attacks became more volatile, and the volatility of killing attack STUN stayed about the same, so it brought the other attacks into line.

 

If you just drop the KA stun multiples on the hit location chart to 1 through 3, and don't change the multiples for BOD damage and normal attack STUN, I expect you will realize the results Tasha cautions of. Combat will become much more lethal with killing damage weapons, as they will tend to kill the target before knocking them out. KO results with normal attacks will be more likely than with killing attacks, but in many heroic games, normal attacks are pretty rare as compared to killing attacks.

 

I'd start by running some test combats with the standard hit location chart to see if the results are to your liking. If they are not, then make the changes you think best to the hit location chart and run some more sample combats to see if the results are more to your liking. Probably the worst approach is to custom design a chart, then start running it in the game with no testing - it's almost certain there will be a surprise or two along the line where the results don't match your expectations.