Are Normal attacks worth it?

[Gary]

Originally posted by Farkling

MAybe some qizard can run the numbers in aspreadsheet...though I would bet that somewhere Steve and company have one made up already...

 

I got a spreadsheet that did all the analysis already. Where do you think I've been pulling my numbers from?

[Zed-F]

For those concerned about the lack of an equivalent to increased STUN multiple for normal attacks, you might try the following custom advantage, which allows you to trade ability to do less BODY and KB for more STUN.

 

Does +75% STUN is a +1/2 advantage, which can be purchased more than once.

 

This are based off of and operates similarly to the increased STUN multiple for killing attacks, as follows:

+2 STUN multiple = (3+3+4+5+6+7)/6 = 4.67 / 2.67 = 1.749

+4 STUN multiple = (5+5+6+7+8+9)/6 = 6.67 / 2.67 = 2.498

+6 STUN multiple = 8.67 / 2.67 = 3.247

+8 STUN multiple = 10.67 / 2.67 = 3.996

and so on...

 

You could also tone it down somewhat if you wanted based on the fact that normal attacks do more STUN damage to begin with -- say, add 1/3 extra stun damage for a +1/4 advantage.

[Farkling]

12d6 EB + 8d6 EB, STUN Only.

60+40 = 100 Under existing game mechanics...

 

12d6 EB, +75% STUN

60+30 = 90 under your mechanics. Hmmmm.

 

 

8d6 EB + 6d6 EB, STUN only. 40+30 = 70

8d6 EB +75% STUN = 60 under your mechanics.

 

Well....10 points isn't really useful for anything, is it?

[Gary]

Originally posted by Zed-F

For those concerned about the lack of an equivalent to increased STUN multiple for normal attacks, you might try the following custom advantage, which allows you to trade ability to do less BODY and KB for more STUN.

 

Does +75% STUN is a +1/2 advantage, which can be purchased more than once.

 

This are based off of and operates similarly to the increased STUN multiple for killing attacks, as follows:

+2 STUN multiple = (3+3+4+5+6+7)/6 = 4.67 / 2.67 = 1.749

+4 STUN multiple = (5+5+6+7+8+9)/6 = 6.67 / 2.67 = 2.498

+6 STUN multiple = 8.67 / 2.67 = 3.247

+8 STUN multiple = 10.67 / 2.67 = 3.996

and so on...

 

You could also tone it down somewhat if you wanted based on the fact that normal attacks do more STUN damage to begin with -- say, add 1/3 extra stun damage for a +1/4 advantage.

 

+1 stun multiple is a little too efficient an advantage at the +1/4 level, but it's not quite worth a +1/2. The true cost should be +3/4 for +2 stun multiple, or +1/2 for +1 stun multiple. Sorta like how double knockback works. The percentage increase in stun done is significantly greater than +1/4.

 

The balanced solution for normal attacks would be to simply add +1 stun per die for +1/4. This is balanced, since you're getting an extra +1/3.5 stun at the cost of less knockback and body, but pay +1/4 more points.

[Tasha]

Re: no comparison

 

Originally posted by Tech

For my money as a GM, normal attacks are better. I still haven't forgetten the GM'ing nightmare which lasted a little over a year where I kept rolling 1's or 2's (ending up as a 1) on the Stun multiplier. (shivers) Okay, I did roll a few more than a 1 or 2 but I just have to groan when rolling a KA and they know what happened. I even changed a few KA's over to normal attacks because of it.

 

That reminds me of a champions game way back. I was playing the team's brick and she had 15 points of armor as her only resistant defences. She had taken all but about 5 of her body from an attack taken out of hero ID so she was in bad shape. She was left fighting this guy with claws and the GM rolls his biggest attack. I can't believe this attack.. get ready... 10d6HKA. I did the simple math in my head. On an average roll my character was just plain dead. I shook my head and was really annoyed and handed the GM my character sheet. He shook his head and insisted on rolling. He rolled like 25 body and 25 stun. My character took 10 body and 10 stun. All from this fearsome attack. The stun lotto wasn't working for the GM that day. Of course he could never roll well to save his life.

 

Tasha

 

PS I would rather have a Normal attack in most situations. Just think if the attack had been a 30d6 HA 105 stun average with 30 body average. My character would have been in GM's option for awhile.

[JohnOSpencer]

Re: Re: no comparison

 

Originally posted by tomd1969

You've got to remember that due to that little rule concerning the Stun Multiplier, you actually have a 1 in 3 chance of rolling a x1 Stun Multiplier if you're using the 1d6-1 method.

 

Personally, I prefer using the Hit Location chart for the Stun Multiple.

 

I have to agree. I've just started doing this in my superhero game and it works very well. Not only do you get a more reliably average stun multiple, it adds a lot of flavor to combat. That being said, I only use the STUN X part of the hit location chart.

 

John Spencer

[Zed-F]

12d6 EB + 8d6 EB, STUN Only.

60+40 = 100 Under existing game mechanics...

 

12d6 EB, +75% STUN

60+30 = 90 under your mechanics. Hmmmm.

 

 

8d6 EB + 6d6 EB, STUN only. 40+30 = 70

8d6 EB +75% STUN = 60 under your mechanics.

 

Well....10 points isn't really useful for anything, is it?

You might prefer +33% STUN for +1/4 then. It's still better than buying extra dice of STUN only, but buying STUN only dice gives up at least a no KB limitation on those dice without getting points for it. I'd say it balances out ok, especially considering the existing rules for KA STUN multiples.

 

If you really want it to balance out exactly as buying extra STUN dice would, you'd need to set the advantage as +25% STUN for a +1/4 advantage. That won't help matters at all in encouraging normal attacks rather than killing attacks, since the increased STUN multiple on KAs is so much more effective.

 

The balanced solution for normal attacks would be to simply add +1 stun per die for +1/4. This is balanced, since you're getting an extra +1/3.5 stun at the cost of less knockback and body, but pay +1/4 more points.

That's certainly another way to do it, though you're only getting +28% more STUN for a +1/4 advantage. That's considerably less than what you get on killing attacks. Unless you houserule the increased STUN multiple as you described, that may not be enough incentive for people to choose normal over killing attacks. You could also change KA stun multiples so they apply to the rolled dice in the same way (e.g. +3 points of STUN per die), rather than applying to the multiplier itself.

[tomd1969]

Re: Re: Re: no comparison

 

Originally posted by JohnOSpencer

I have to agree. I've just started doing this in my superhero game and it works very well. Not only do you get a more reliably average stun multiple, it adds a lot of flavor to combat. That being said, I only use the STUN X part of the hit location chart.

 

John Spencer

 

Me, too. I just started using it, and you don't get the wide-swinging Stun Multiples as badly as you do with 1d6-1.

 

Again, YMMV.

[Gary]

Hmm, I just modified my spreadsheet to calculate results with hit locations as well as regular stun multiples. Here are some results, assuming a target with 23 con:

 

4d6 KA with regular stun multiple:

 

Def Avg Net Stun Con Stun %

15 22.99 43.24

18 20.77 39.51

21 18.77 35.91

24 16.89 33.33

27 15.11 29.08

30 13.43 25.94

33 11.88 21.69

36 10.44 20.97

39 9.13 17.12

 

4d6 KA with hit locations:

 

Def Avg Net Stun Con Stun %

15 25.26 49.70

18 22.46 43.48

21 19.76 36.93

24 17.19 32.68

27 14.79 26.79

30 12.59 21.55

33 10.63 16.53

36 8.89 14.95

39 7.37 11.21

 

12d6 normal attack:

 

Def Avg Net Stun Con Stun %

15 27.00 72.08

18 24.00 53.33

21 21.00 33.81

24 18.00 17.83

27 15.01 7.60

30 12.04 2.54

33 9.16 0.64

36 6.48 0.11

39 4.16 0.01

 

Hit locations and normal attacks are better with lower defenses. Stun multiple is better with higher defenses.

 

PS I wish I knew how to format this $#@%@ thing!

[tomd1969]

Originally posted by Gary

Hmm, I just modified my spreadsheet to calculate results with hit locations as well as regular stun multiples. Here are some results, assuming a target with 23 con:

4d6 KA with regular stun multiple:

Def          Avg Net Stun          Con Stun %
15            22.99                     43.24
18            20.77                     39.51
21            18.77                     35.91
24            16.89                     33.33
27            15.11                     29.08
30            13.43                     25.94
33            11.88                     21.69
36            10.44                     20.97
39            9.13                      17.12

4d6 KA with hit locations:

Def          Avg Net Stun          Con Stun %
15            25.26                     49.70
18            22.46                     43.48
21            19.76                     36.93
24            17.19                     32.68
27            14.79                     26.79
30            12.59                     21.55
33            10.63                     16.53
36            8.89                      14.95
39            7.37                      11.21

12d6 normal attack:

Def          Avg Net Stun          Con Stun %
15            27.00                     72.08
18            24.00                     53.33
21            21.00                     33.81
24            18.00                     17.83
27            15.01                     7.60
30            12.04                     2.54
33            9.16                      0.64
36            6.48                      0.11
39            4.16                      0.01

Hit locations and normal attacks are better with lower defenses. Stun multiple is better with higher defenses.

 

PS I wish I knew how to format this $#@%@ thing!

 

By using "code" before the formatted block, and "/code" after the block (replacing the quotes for square brackets), as I have done above, is probably the easiest way to do it. It turns the block into a mono-space font.

[Vondy]

Averaged out over time the normal attack will have a better stun quotient than the killing attack. Killing attacks do have a better body quotient, but in most superheroic games the characters will be able to soak it up without injury unless its a really big one, or a really good roll. You'll get a big stun hit of a killing attack every so often (just often enough that brick players want to push the envelope on their defenses "'cause woosy bullets shouldn't hurt them").

 

I don't like the stun lottery, myself. It makes it hard to predict outcomes, which is great for roll playing, but not for role playing. And I understand the brick or powered armor players complaint when a character who can withstand a stinger rocket hit without taking any body gets ko'd by a .44 magnum (rare, but possible. To this end I've implemented a house rule: killing attacks built with the "real weapon" limitation take a stun multiplier of 2.5. All other killing attacks roll as normal.

[Gary]

Originally posted by tomd1969

By using "code" before the formatted block, and "/code" after the block (replacing the quotes for square brackets), as I have done above, is probably the easiest way to do it. It turns the block into a mono-space font.

 

Thanks!

[Farkling]

I'll have to toy with that flat multiplier for "real weapons"

That has some possibilities for streamlining combat.

 

I think I'd use 3 myself...

[Zed-F]

Since the average of the stun multiple is 2.67, that's a bit of a bonus. Ok so long as you are aware of it and accept it for your game.

[Farkling]

The only ones in the group who could multiply by 2.5 with little thought (delay) put into it would be me, and the mathematically inept fella witht he calculator...

[BNakagawa]

So make it 2, then. Most of the people who would be affected by this are agents and thugs and cops.

[Zed-F]

Originally posted by Farkling

The only ones in the group who could multiply by 2.5 with little thought (delay) put into it would be me, and the mathematically inept fella witht he calculator...

 

What's so hard about 5/2? or add a zero & divide by 4, if that's easier.

[Farkling]

Thank you both, but I think I'll leave it 3 for the real weapons. Their weapons really aren't much of a threat to the average superhero anyway.

 

And if I use it for the superspies in that fashion...well...everybody's weapons will be on the same footing, won't they?

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Zed-F

What's so hard about 5/2? or add a zero & divide by 4, if that's easier.

 

Some adults find multiplication akin to set theory in complexity. Frightening, but true. We must be patient. In a culture that lauds relativism as the pinnacle of human thought, the simple beauty of concrete reality is generally regarded as taboo, and as such, mathematics, is often shunned. The idea that there is a singular answer to a question which is easily derived is anathema in our society, a heresy of relatavist thinking. Math, a sterling example of singular reality and concrete facts is therefore regarded as the mystic sorcery of the rational mind in a very irrational world. Its unpopular.

 

With that said: we don't even do 'in game math' for KA stun in my game because it slows things down. I can do it in my head without missing a beat, but spitting out the answer while your player is still counting up the body (and God help them with a multiple 2.5) makes them feel bad. With the "standard effect" (-0) in place for stun and a fixed multiplier (-0) the Average Body X Fixed Stun Multiplier is written down next to the attack before play. They just roll to see how much body it does. Another option would be a 3X5 card with the multiples written down on it. Both are quick solutions for the math impaired.

[Gary]

Results for a flat stun multiple of 3, assuming a target with 23 con:

 

4d6 KA:

Def          Avg Net Stun          Con Stun %
15            27.00                     66.44
18            24.01                     55.63
21            21.05                     44.37
24            18.13                     33.56
27            15.29                     23.92
30            12.58                     15.90
33            10.06                      9.72
36             7.78                      5.40
39             5.78                      2.70

 

[Gary]

This is for a more realistic 2d6 RKA for assault rifles, assuming a target with 23 con. D6-1 vs a flat 3:

 

2d6 KA with regular stun multiple:

Def          Avg Net Stun          Con Stun %
15             6.98                      9.72
18             5.56                      6.02
21             4.36                      5.09
24             3.35                      3.24
27             2.54                      1.39
30             1.86                      1.39
33             1.34                      0.46
36             0.93                      0.46
39             0.63                      0.00

2d6 KA with flat stun multiple of 3:

Def          Avg Net Stun          Con Stun %
15             6.83                     0
18             4.67                     0
21             2.92                     0
24             1.67                     0
27             0.83                     0
30             0.33                     0
33             0.08                     0
36             0.00                     0

[Victor]

Originally posted by Gary

This is for a more realistic 2d6 RKA for assault rifles, assuming a target with 23 con. D6-1 vs a flat 3:

 

A good argument against the flat model (IMO), unless an alternate method is developed for determining if the target is con stunned.

[Lord Liaden]

Phew! This is more math than I normally like to bring into the gaming process. (Does that make me a bad HERO gamer?)

 

Everyone has their own favorite "fix" to the Stun Multiplier issue, except for those who actually enjoy the Stun Lotto. For my part, I roll 3d6 for the Stun Multiplier rather than one, divide by three (I have a small chart with roundoffs already calculated), then subtract one. This gives a solid bell-curve with the average Stun Multiplier at 2.666 etc. Net result is pretty consistently higher Body but lower Stun damage than comparable Normal attacks, which is supposed to be the difference between them and Killing Attacks.

 

For weapons built with the "Real Weapon" Limitation (which includes all the pre-generated ones in FREd), I rule that if the maximum Body damage that the weapon could roll can't penetrate the Defenses of the target, then the weapon does no Stun damage to him or her either. That allows for the "brick waltzing through a hail of bullets" scenario.

 

FWIW, YMMV etc.

[zornwil]

Stun Lottery RULES!

 

Just throwing in a little passion...

[Farkling]

Hey....don't get me wrong...I LIKE the STUN lotto...

 

Though usage varies...which is more valuable?

(90) (4d6 RKA) (+2x to STUN Multiple)

(90) (4d6 RKA) (AP)

(90) (12d6 EB) (AP)

Where's Spreadsheet guy?

 

The other advantage that EB's USED to have was the old spreading rules of +1 per die , but thoswe are gone...I know the spread rules say DC now.