KAs vs CvK

[Bobby Walker]

I'm starting a Champions game and I'm concerned about a couple of the players who have built characters that have both Killing Attacks and Codes vs Killing.

 

This is my first Hero campaign, though I've been passingly familiar with the game through most of the editions.

 

Is this something I should be concerned about? Or am I just being too nervous?

 

Thanks in advance for you input!

[Spidey88]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

I've had this conundrum too - in my opinion, it depends entirely on the way said attacks are intended to be used, and context. For example: a cold-manipulator type, a la Iceman, purchases an RKA as part of a multipower (which includes standard energy blasts, entangles, change environments, etc.). Firing ice spears/icicles, IMHO, is thematically part and parcel of this sort of powerset, so it makes some sense to me to include it. As far as using such a power in conjunction with a CVK: KAs are really useful against automatons (robot goons typically take no STUN), can be used with certain ranged martial arts (if you allow things like ranged disarms), and work handily on any number of inanimate objects (including foci). In addition, they're a pretty solid projectile, which may come in handy for certain last-ditch utility needs (hitting the "stop deathtrap" lever, creating a foothold in a wall to climb up it, etc.). Different special effects mean different utility, of course - but most killing attacks don't need to be used to actually kill and still be useful.

 

As another example, a skilled swordsman (a pretty common archetype, even in a superhero campaign), really can't be built without an HKA - no matter how noble he is. It really doesn't make sense to not have it on the sheet, even if he usually uses the flat of the blade against living opponents. You could have an individual who's a skilled fencer, and "pinks" his opponent, but is so precise that he can do that with little fear of doing any lasting damage - this is a tricky line to walk, but do-able.

 

On the other hand, you may need to watch out for the sort of player who intends to use this power as his go-to attack, thinking "I'm fighting supervillains - this won't kill 'em, just slow 'em down and put a few holes in 'em. They can take it." If you've got a CVK, that means that you not only won't kill, but you won't take actions that are even modestly likely to kill someone. You don't get to "accidentally" kill someone, say "oops", and carry on with your day. If this is the player's attitude, honestly, just take an eraser to his disad list and replace CVK with "blithely flings deadly projectiles around."

 

In a nutshell, there's not necessarily any need to be nervous, but you'd better cover all the bases and talk to your players - find out just what they intend to do with their knives, bullets, spears, swords, and icicles!

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

One has to remember, that in character terms, an attack doesn't have to be a Killing Attack to be lethal force. An 8-10d6 normal attack can drop a normal person to dying.

 

The character in question simply needs to use his powers wisely. Using a KA on walls, foci, vehicles, automatons, or villains who can very obviously take it, like Grond or Dr. Destroyer is not a problem. When I played HERO more often, I had characters with KAs and CvK's all the time. It was just a matter of using them judiciously.

 

I also made sure I had a Stun-only Energy Blast for the soft targets, too.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

Even Superman, who arguably has one of the more extreme versions of CvK has a potent killing attack (Heat Vision). But to echo the others, lethal force is still possible with otherwise 'normal' attacks (+8-10DC of Blast or STR).

[Matt Holck]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

it's the classic fool's complex of guilt and remorse

[BNakagawa]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

IMO, this is one of the only times when CVK is really interesting.

 

I've seen people build characters with 20-25 pts of CVK and nothing but NNDs Ego attacks and other powers that never inflict body damage. Boring.

 

Build me a character with nothing but KAs for attack powers and a CVK and now we're talking...

[Maccabe]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

There are all sorts of variations on CODE vs KILLING around, ask the player what they are trying to go for with their character. "Won't use lethal force" even applies to 9d6 Blasts as well as 3d6 RKA.

A police officer type, lets say, will not go out to kill someone normally but WILL use lethal force when faced with same.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

If they have a CvK and a KA is one of their attack powers, that's fine, as discussed above (and maybe even preferable as BNakagawa notes).

 

If they have a CvK and a KA is their only attack, you have a problem (yes, I have seen players do this - usually they will correct this problem when it is pointed out to them).

 

The bottom line is to talk to the player and make sure that everyone is on the same page as to how the KA will be handled in context with the CvK so there aren't any unpleasant surprises once the game is going.

[Korvar]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

I specifically made exactly that kind of character - a "Green Arrow" style gadget archer who had a "bodkin" RKA slot in his multipower, and a fairly strict CvK (can't remember if it was 15 or 20 points). The bodkin was specifically for foci, entangles, robots and the like.

[RexMundi]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

Yeah there are more then a few hundred examples one can point at in Comics of a Code vs Killing character, having a Killing Attack as their main or even only ability. The trick is, Not to kill with it.

 

A good example of that, well for me a Good Example, would be The Avenger from the Pulps. Here's a guy, armed with Mike and Ike, two Killing Attacks (a Specialized gun and a knife), Yet, they aren't used to Kill. The Phantom, was very similar as well. So it's not what you got, it's what you do with it.

 

~Rex

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

Don't forget that you can kill, or be killed, with normal attacks. It's just harder.

 

Also don't forget that in 6E, the StunX for Killing Attacks is now 1/2d6. Plus, normal PD and ED protect against the Stun from Killing Attacks. So there's no longer a Stun Lotto, meaning that on average normal attacks are better for doing Stun without killing.

 

If they insist on taking the CVK, make sure they know what they're getting into.

 

Having a CVK means you have to roll your Ego Roll to use Killing Attacks at full power against a target whose defenses you don't know, or to even consider them against targets you know have no Resistant Defenses, or to use them in situations where they could cause unintended harm (into a crowd, say).

 

Having a CVK means, in fact, that a Killing Attack is your last resort, after you've exhausted all of your others. It means you don't go looking for opportunities to kill, or if you do you get docked XP; in fact, if they're looking for ways around it they're not roleplaying it effectively.

 

As GM you're not doing your job if you're not making them make hard choices; put them into situations where killing would be the easy solution and remind them of their CVKs and that they have to roleplay...

 

Also point out that characters in the modern civilized world are socialized against killing and therefore have an "everyman" CVK that requires them to make an Ego Roll to deliberately take an action to kill; not having this is another Complication that is worth points but comes with its own baggage.

 

When they do kill someone, the characters will face:

 

1. Opportunities for roleplaying denial, guilt, and the other stages of grief
   
2. Negative Reputation and press, including loss of cooperation with the cops and prosecutors
   
3. Legal consequences, of which there are many
   
4. Conflicts with other team members
   

 

Number 1 may not be their cup of tea. Who wants to roleplay grief? Your players should, if they want the CVK. If they don't want these sorts of roleplaying opportunities, then tell them to forgo either the Killing Attacks or the CVK (I'd put money on them dropping the CVK).

 

Number 2: there will be lots of "Captain Hero: Threat Or Menace?" type headlines. They'll lose their endorsements. Their fan clubs will turn on them, except for their Internet die-hards. It'll be harder to get information from the cops. The prosecution might be hunting them. Which leads to...

 

Number 3: Lots of room here. A superhero killing a villain in combat would probably be treated by law enforcement in a similar way to cases of private citizens shooting in self defense. When this happens, there's a lot of attention paid to the shooter's life. If there's even a hint that the shooter was in any way looking for trouble, it's not self defense; they'll even look at paper targets the shooter uses for practice, and whether they're even shaped like the silhouette of a human. And note that "looking for trouble" is pretty much the job description of being a superhero. That doesn't even cover civil penalties; how would a superhero like to be the defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the family of the supervillain, who might themselves just be in the right? (If the police come looking for the heroes, the summons won't be delivered by a beat cop in a uniform but by an armored Special Uniformed, Paranormal Enhanced Response (SUPER) squad, possibly accompanied by members of the rival hero teams in town.)

 

Number 4: You said that more than one of them want to take the CVK. Great. Having a CVK means, among other things, you don't look the other way while your teammates kill. You'll say things like "Look, no matter how scummy he is, he deserves a trial. We don't kill; we don't bring ourselves to their level." If they're roleplaying effectively, they'll all be looking askance at one another for bring Killing Attacks into combat.

[Clonus]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

I'm starting a Champions game and I'm concerned about a couple of the players who have built characters that have both Killing Attacks and Codes vs Killing.

 

This is my first Hero campaign, though I've been passingly familiar with the game through most of the editions.

 

Is this something I should be concerned about? Or am I just being too nervous?

 

Thanks in advance for you input!

 

Killing attacks are useful for destroying inanimate objects so they have a legitimate place in the arsenal of a CVK character. Just make it clear to the players that using them on people is not very consistent with a CvK.

[Greywind]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

IMO, this is one of the only times when CVK is really interesting.

 

I've seen people build characters with 20-25 pts of CVK and nothing but NNDs Ego attacks and other powers that never inflict body damage. Boring.

 

Build me a character with nothing but KAs for attack powers and a CVK and now we're talking...

Really? That same character would turn on, and probably kick the ass of the Wolverine clone that was going to use his HKA. There's more to the Psych than "I won't kill".

[Korvar]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

Don't forget that you can kill, or be killed, with normal attacks. It's just harder.

1. Opportunities for roleplaying denial, guilt, and the other stages of grief
   
2. Negative Reputation and press, including loss of cooperation with the cops and prosecutors
   
3. Legal consequences, of which there are many
   
4. Conflicts with other team members
   

 

5. Become GrimDark and '90's. May be drawn by Rob Liefeld. Nobody wants that.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

Yeah there are more then a few hundred examples one can point at in Comics of a Code vs Killing character, having a Killing Attack as their main or even only ability. The trick is, Not to kill with it.

 

A good example of that, well for me a Good Example, would be The Avenger from the Pulps. Here's a guy, armed with Mike and Ike, two Killing Attacks (a Specialized gun and a knife), Yet, they aren't used to Kill. The Phantom, was very similar as well. So it's not what you got, it's what you do with it.

 

~Rex

 

I agree with you theoretically, and if you have a gun you will probably buy a KA to represent it. But when the Phantom doesn't kill with the gun, he is doing stuff like disarming people with an amazingly well-aimed shot. But in game mechanics, that isn't a KA, that is more like a TK only useable for disarming or knocking things over. So when you build a gun-bunny with a CvK, you have to buy some multipower slots or something that aren't KAs because otherwise the only thing the character can do, from mechanical standpoint, is kill (or maim maybe).

[Utech]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

You are certainly within your rights to rule that in your game Killing Attacks and CvK are incompatible. I find this works especially well if you buff the power of Killing Attacks (or nerf defenses against it) and simultaneously make them rare in your game.

 

I'm partial to giving a 2 x BODY Vulnerability to Killing Attacks (for no points) to nearly all living things and doubling the defenses of non-living things against Killing Attacks. This makes Killing Attacks much more "killy" and less "breaky".

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

You are certainly within your rights to rule that in your game Killing Attacks and CvK are incompatible. I find this works especially well if you buff the power of Killing Attacks (or nerf defenses against it) and simultaneously make them rare in your game.

 

I'm partial to giving a 2 x BODY Vulnerability to Killing Attacks (for no points) to nearly all living things and doubling the defenses of non-living things against Killing Attacks. This makes Killing Attacks much more "killy" and less "breaky".

 

That is going to make guns really deadly, but then again, most guns in the Hero system have cinematically low damage compared to their real-world counterparts, so if you like the gritty feel that works well. It also makes KA a really cheap way to kill, so if you have a Wolverine sort who doesn't have the CvK, he is going to be inordinately effective at taking enemies out for the price he paid for his claws.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

My beef with the whole theme of discussions like this is the belief that the mechanic "killing attack" is somehow lethal.

 

Player: BatClone tosses a 1/2d6 RKA at the thug to discourage him.

GM: WHAT?!?? You have a Code vs Killing and you're using a KILLING ATTACK??!!??

Player: Oh, right...BatClone closes to HTH and uses his 18d6 Offensive Strike instead.

GM: That's much better!

 

The characters can't see the mechanic, so lethal force with a normal attack should be more a concern than a small damage killing attack, shouldn't it?

 

To using the gun to disarm, this is an option in the rules, and greatly assisted by ranged martial arts, but the Avenger does need an NND to crease the opponent's skull and KO him. A normal attack would also work.

[Alverant]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

One thing I would consider is how the public in your game world deals with killing. Does it matter more if Mr.Strong kills a Viper agent or someone like the Monster? In the real world when a police officer kills a gangbanger it does make the news (sometimes) and but unless innocent people were hurt or there was doubt about the guilt of the gangbanger or something similar, it's quickly forgotten about and things return to normal. Some would even praise the officer for his/her actions. Except for the (pardon the phrase) die-hard anti-death penalty crowd the truth is not many people are upset if the person who died is bad.

 

I would imagine that in a super-powered world, a hero killing a villain in combat (especially a murderous villain) would not be too frowned upon unless innocent people were hurt or it looked like a flat out execution. Killing an villain's agent (being a normal person with a uniform and blaster) would be treated more severely because that would emphasize the fear normals have of the superpowered.

 

I interpreted the CaK to be a measure of how bad things have to get before the character does something that could kill or permanently hurt the target. Keep in mind the superpowered can kill more easily than a normal person so they should have a different scale. It would be easy for a hero to kill a squad of agents and claim he/she was defending others. But that won't stop the public backlash because the public knows the deaths could have been avoid. The hero would be seen as a bully.

 

But is there a difference between a hero who won't kill out of fear of a public outcry and a hero who won't kill because they believe in not killing?

[JmOz]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

You are certainly within your rights to rule that in your game Killing Attacks and CvK are incompatible. I find this works especially well if you buff the power of Killing Attacks (or nerf defenses against it) and simultaneously make them rare in your game.

 

I'm partial to giving a 2 x BODY Vulnerability to Killing Attacks (for no points) to nearly all living things and doubling the defenses of non-living things against Killing Attacks. This makes Killing Attacks much more "killy" and less "breaky".

 

I have long used a rule where "mooks" take x2 killing (Basicaly all non Supers in a champions game, or "civilians" etc...) along with a Healing takes mooks a x2 and Mooks take x2 from energy (Not fire etc,,, just the undefined energy of blasters) created the right feel for my super games

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

I have long used a rule where "mooks" take x2 killing (Basicaly all non Supers in a champions game' date=' or "civilians" etc...) along with a Healing takes mooks a x2 and Mooks take x2 from energy (Not fire etc,,, just the undefined energy of blasters) created the right feel for my super games[/quote']

 

I do something similar, but I only apply it to noncombatants. Cops, villainous agents, firemen, etc. are exempt.

[JmOz]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

I do something similar' date=' but I only apply it to noncombatants. Cops, villainous agents, firemen, etc. are exempt.[/quote']

 

depending on the genre and the needs of the scene I change who is a mook and who is not. The players understand that mook status is something for me to use as I deem appropriate, and that some characters are at times mooks and others not. .

[Cassandra]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

There is no reason why a real life killing attack could not be less lethal. A character could carry a gun, but have it as a EB, the rational is that the character is skilled enough only to wound his target.

 

And a blade would be written up like this . . .

 

7 Multipower (15 Points) OAF: Sword

1 u) HA +3d6, HTH Attack (-1/2)

1 u) HKA 1d6/2d6 w/STR

 

The HA would be striking the target with the flat of the sword.

[Greywind]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

This is true, but what was pointed out, it isn't the game mechanic that kills, but the amount. An EB can kill just as easily as a KA if there is enough force (dice) behind it. The main difference from an in-game perspective, is that a killing attack tends to look like one.

[Cassandra]

Re: KAs vs CvK

 

True, but you don't have to use the full force of any attack, including a killing attack, unless you take the Beam disadvantage. In combat with normals a team leader could order RE (Rules of Engagement )4, which would mean that this group would only use 4d6 strength attacks.