Killing Damage & the Stun Lottery

[Azzy]

Okay, for the heck of it I decided to look at and compare DCs between Normal Damage and Killing Damage. 3d6 N is roughly equal to 1d6 K, right? So, on average 3d6 N does 10.5 STUN and 3 BODY. On the other hand, 1d6 K does 3.5 BODY and 7 STUN on average. Okay, it's off by a bit, but no biggie, right? Still, it seems to me that if the Stun Multiplier (not counting Hit Locations) was a static "3" instead of "1d6/2", you'd get a closer (same) average damage with Normal attacks of the same DC. Plus, you'd eliminate an extraneous die roll.

 

Is there any real reason to keep the Stun Lottery when a static multiplier seems both better suit mathematically, easier and less dice intensive?

[Tech]

Some people like some randomness in their damage. As happens in the movies, someone shot (mortally) will die later. Why? They've taken damage enough to put them in the negative Body but not enough to knock them out. Having the possibility of rolling a 1 on the Stun Multiplier allows this possibility to happen.

[Lucius]

Killing Attacks also have an advantage in that the BOD is not stopped by normal Defenses.

 

Certainly what we have now is enormously more balanced than what we used to have.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Won a palindromedary in a STUN Lottery

[Spence]

As Tech said, there is much to be said for the randomness in a cinematic game.

 

I actually still use the ancient (I can't remember which edition 1st, 2nd?) stun multiplier of 1D6-1 (allowing for 0 stun) for my supers or cinematic pulp games. It allows for the titanic knockout blow (x5) to the blow where the super that is hit doesn't feel it. I had an old friend who worked in a trauma room and he had tales people with horrific wounds that didn't realize they were hurt until they came down from the adrenaline/fear reaction and the 1D6-1 lets me get that in my two fisted games.

 

I tend to use the Hit Location chart for more crunchy real'ish settings to determine the stun multiple even if I am not using location themselves. It helps me with the narrative..

 

[bigbywolfe]

As Tech said, there is much to be said for the randomness in a cinematic game.

 

I actually still use the ancient (I can't remember which edition 1st, 2nd?) stun multiplier of 1D6-1 (allowing for 0 stun) for my supers or cinematic pulp games. It allows for the titanic knockout blow (x5) to the blow where the super that is hit doesn't feel it. I had an old friend who worked in a trauma room and he had tales people with horrific wounds that didn't realize they were hurt until they came down from the adrenaline/fear reaction and the 1D6-1 lets me get that in my two fisted games.

 

I tend to use the Hit Location chart for more crunchy real'ish settings to determine the stun multiple even if I am not using location themselves. It helps me with the narrative..

1D6-1 was standard up through 5E, although 1 was considered the minimal multiplier, not 0. Also, you always take minimum Stun equal to the Body taken (at least in the last 2 editions).

[Greywind]

I've also never had a problem at the other end of the spectrum where someone gets hit with a lot of stun and ends up either unconscious or rolling around on the floor screaming like a baby because it HURT.

[Beast]

my only gripe was that nonresistant def counted vs stun

in effect double nerfing KA's

I feel the balance should be 1d6-1 and all def counts vs stun

 

Resistant Def has to be really watched as KA's can be made useless

on Average most characters should go down in about 3 to 4 shots that they can dish out with normal attacks

KA's need 5 hits vs a 10 body and 12 Resistant def just to have them think of retreating

 

Yes Ka's are meant to kill, but the point is that they are not as much a threat vs normal attacks, in how characters react to them

[Azzy]

Some people like some randomness in their damage.

That's all well and good. It's why we roll damage dice in the first place. However, this is like randomness redundancy, it's like... Yo dawg, I hear you like randomness. So I put some randomness in your randomness so you can random while you're randoming. :/

 

As happens in the movies, someone shot (mortally) will die later. Why? They've taken damage enough to put them in the negative Body but not enough to knock them out. Having the possibility of rolling a 1 on the Stun Multiplier allows this possibility to happen.

See, this I can understand this, but I don't see where this is inhibited by a static multiplier as it's really a matter of the character's BODY vs. STUN.

[psyber624]

The problem with that Beast is that if you hit me with Stun damage I get some back post segment 12, and can get more back if I can find a safe spot (or have a high enough SPD) by taking a recovery. OTOH Body damage is effectively "permanent" in regards to a single combat unless you have the right powers to combat it. So 3-4 Normal attacks might knock me out, but you have to do that much before i have a chance to recover it. However ANY BODY damage you do to me will be sticking around for quite a while (unless my concept or a friends is built to combat that). And of course there is a big difference between KO'd and Dead to think about as well.

 

The idea behind the STUN lottery is that you really shouldn't be using KA's to try and do STUN. If you make KA's a flat x3 modifier then they are basically ALWAYS more effective than Normal attacks. The x3 modifier would ensure that they did the same amount of STUN as a normal attack of the same AP cost, and then they get the extra BODY and the ability to have the BODY ignore non-resistant defenses. So why buy normal attacks? they would have NO benefit over KA's.

 

You might be able to argue a set x2 Multiplier, or even a x1 (making KA's basically useless for STUN damage) but a set x3 is basically broken.

[Azzy]

Thank you. That was a really insightful answer. I can dig that.

[TheRealDeal]

One idea you could work with is to have Killing Attacks do a flat x2 STUN, but only for that BODY that gets through to the target (so you multiply by x2 AFTER Resistant Defenses have been applied). This STUN would not be further reduced (in this rule the Normal Defenses are totally ignored by Killing Attacks, adding IMO a neat flavor to the game). This makes Killing Attacks deal less STUN than Normal Attacks, but more BODY as intended. If you have no Resistant Defense at all, then yes, in that case, Killing Attacks are better than Normal, but only in that case, which I think is as it should be. It also means if your Resistant Defense totally negates the Killing BODY damage, you suffer no STUN at all (it bounces off). So it makes Killing Attacks really feel different than Normal ones. If you want a chance for some STUN to be done without BODY for Killing Attacks (which IMO kind of distorts their flavor), just say you use x2 STUN as per RAW or this new method STUN, whichever is more. Most of the time if you deal no BODY you will still deal no STUN even under RAW, since I think most targets have less Resistance Defense than Normal Defense, meaning x2 STUN would also be blocked as long as the Normal Defense was equal to or higher than the Resistant one.

 

(Note: you could still use this system by rolling the 1d6/2 for the Stun multiplier, just apply that to the Body that gets through as above)

 

Examples:

​Defenses (10 PD and 0 rPD)

 

DC 6 (6d6 N, 2d6 K) -> Avg: 21 Stun N / 7 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 11 Stun

Killing Attack - 7 Body & 14 Stun

 

DC 12 (12d6 N, 4d6 K) -> Avg: 42 Stun N / 14 Body K

Normal Attack - 2 Body & 32 Stun

Killing Attack - 14 Body & 28 Stun

 

​DC 24 (24d6 N, 8d6 K) -> Avg: 84 Stun N / 28 Body K

Normal Attack - 14 Body & 74 Stun

Killing Attack - 28 Body & 56 Stun

 

Defenses (10 PD and 5 rPD)

 

DC 6 (6d6 N, 2d6 K) -> Avg: 21 Stun N / 7 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 6 Stun

Killing Attack - 2 Body & 4 Stun

 

DC 12 (12d6 N, 4d6 K) -> Avg: 42 Stun N / 14 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 27 Stun

Killing Attack - 9 Body & 18 Stun

 

DC 24 (24d6 N, 8d6 K) -> Avg: 84 Stun N / 28 Body K

Normal Attack - 9 Body & 69 Stun

Killing Attack - 23 Body & 46 Stun

 

Defenses (10 PD and 10 rPD)

 

DC 6 (6d6 N, 2d6 K) -> Avg: 21 Stun N / 7 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 1 Stun

Killing Attack - 0 Body & 0 Stun

 

DC 12 (12d6 N, 4d6 K) -> Avg: 42 Stun N / 14 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 22 Stun

Killing Attack - 4 Body & 8 Stun

 

​DC 24 (24d6 N, 8d6 K) -> Avg: 84 Stun N / 28 Body K

Normal Attack - 4 Body & 64 Stun

Killing Attack - 18 Body & 36 Stun

 

This decreases the utility of Killing Attacks for dealing Stun damage, but if you face foes with high Normal Defense but much lower (or no) Resistant Defenses, KA becomes better. It makes KA superior against automations and objects, but if your goal is to KO a foe, Normal Attacks are usually better.

 

If you want to represent a Killing Attack that does a lot of Stun also, you can just give it Increased Stun Multiplier, and the above system handles it just fine, making Killing Attacks with that advantage deal basically equal Stun to Normal Attacks provided the target's ratio of defenses is 2/1 Normal/Resistant. So you can tweak it that way.

 

It becomes a nice way for Villains to damage Heroes in a more Lasting way (since Body does not recover like Stun does), but not threaten to Stun them with the attacks quite as much. This may lead to Heroes deciding to retreat due to the threat of being killed by Body damage, and not being Stunned out so they can actually make good on that retreat.

[Trebuchet]

One idea you could work with is to have Killing Attacks do a flat x2 STUN, but only for that BODY that gets through to the target (so you multiply by x2 AFTER Resistant Defenses have been applied). This STUN would not be further reduced (in this rule the Normal Defenses are totally ignored by Killing Attacks, adding IMO a neat flavor to the game). This makes Killing Attacks deal less STUN than Normal Attacks, but more BODY as intended. If you have no Resistant Defense at all, then yes, in that case, Killing Attacks are better than Normal, but only in that case, which I think is as it should be. It also means if your Resistant Defense totally negates the Killing BODY damage, you suffer no STUN at all (it bounces off). So it makes Killing Attacks really feel different than Normal ones. If you want a chance for some STUN to be done without BODY for Killing Attacks (which IMO kind of distorts their flavor), just say you use x2 STUN as per RAW or this new method STUN, whichever is more. Most of the time if you deal no BODY you will still deal no STUN even under RAW, since I think most targets have less Resistance Defense than Normal Defense, meaning x2 STUN would also be blocked as long as the Normal Defense was equal to or higher than the Resistant one.

 

(Note: you could still use this system by rolling the 1d6/2 for the Stun multiplier, just apply that to the Body that gets through as above)

 

Examples:

​Defenses (10 PD and 0 rPD)

 

DC 6 (6d6 N, 2d6 K) -> Avg: 21 Stun N / 7 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 11 Stun

Killing Attack - 7 Body & 14 Stun

 

DC 12 (12d6 N, 4d6 K) -> Avg: 42 Stun N / 14 Body K

Normal Attack - 2 Body & 32 Stun

Killing Attack - 14 Body & 28 Stun

 

​DC 24 (24d6 N, 8d6 K) -> Avg: 84 Stun N / 28 Body K

Normal Attack - 14 Body & 74 Stun

Killing Attack - 28 Body & 56 Stun

 

Defenses (10 PD and 5 rPD)

 

DC 6 (6d6 N, 2d6 K) -> Avg: 21 Stun N / 7 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 6 Stun

Killing Attack - 2 Body & 4 Stun

 

DC 12 (12d6 N, 4d6 K) -> Avg: 42 Stun N / 14 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 27 Stun

Killing Attack - 9 Body & 18 Stun

 

DC 24 (24d6 N, 8d6 K) -> Avg: 84 Stun N / 28 Body K

Normal Attack - 9 Body & 69 Stun

Killing Attack - 23 Body & 46 Stun

 

Defenses (10 PD and 10 rPD)

 

DC 6 (6d6 N, 2d6 K) -> Avg: 21 Stun N / 7 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 1 Stun

Killing Attack - 0 Body & 0 Stun

 

DC 12 (12d6 N, 4d6 K) -> Avg: 42 Stun N / 14 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 22 Stun

Killing Attack - 4 Body & 8 Stun

 

​DC 24 (24d6 N, 8d6 K) -> Avg: 84 Stun N / 28 Body K

Normal Attack - 4 Body & 64 Stun

Killing Attack - 18 Body & 36 Stun

 

This decreases the utility of Killing Attacks for dealing Stun damage, but if you face foes with high Normal Defense but much lower (or no) Resistant Defenses, KA becomes better. It makes KA superior against automations and objects, but if your goal is to KO a foe, Normal Attacks are usually better.

 

If you want to represent a Killing Attack that does a lot of Stun also, you can just give it Increased Stun Multiplier, and the above system handles it just fine, making Killing Attacks with that advantage deal basically equal Stun to Normal Attacks provided the target's ratio of defenses is 2/1 Normal/Resistant. So you can tweak it that way.

 

It becomes a nice way for Villains to damage Heroes in a more Lasting way (since Body does not recover like Stun does), but not threaten to Stun them with the attacks quite as much. This may lead to Heroes deciding to retreat due to the threat of being killed by Body damage, and not being Stunned out so they can actually make good on that retreat.

Very nicely thought out! Kudos!

[Trebuchet]

One thing I've considered is making Killing Attacks a specialized form of AVLD; one where the limited defense is Resistant defenses. Because Resistant defenses are so common, it should be less expensive than standard AVLD attacks, perhaps only a +1 or even +3/4, and only Resistant defenses would apply against both the BODY and Stun. This would also have the benefit of making KA's an Advantage as opposed to a distinct Power.

[psyber624]

TheRealDeal: Interesting idea. That would solve a lot of the complaints that I have seen from people who do not like the way KA's currently work. I am afraid, however that the net result would be that more people buy up their Resistant Defenses to combat the extra stun (basically buying their rPD/rED to counter the STUN via countering the BODY) specially Bricks... Also I wonder if that shouldn't modify the cost of Resistant Defenses a bit... but definitely an interesting concept

 

Trebuchet: Hmm, currently you could do the same thing with HA/EB but it would cost +1 1/2 (+1/2 for the AVAD, +1 for DOES BODY on AVAD). You do loose most of the body damage that way tho, unless you are considering making the advantage ALSO change the die roll as well (so that you count normal effect not NDB.) At that point it would be a very scary ability at only +1 or +3/4 (Currently KA's are effectively +2 vs Normal attacks (since they cost 3x as much) and your version would make them even stronger as they now ignore PD/ED for the Stun portion).

[Trebuchet]

Trebuchet: Hmm' date=' currently you could do the same thing with HA/EB but it would cost +1 1/2 (+1/2 for the AVAD, +1 for DOES BODY on AVAD). You lose most of the body damage that way tho, unless you are considering making the advantage ALSO change the die roll as well (so that you count normal effect not NDB.) At that point it would be a very scary ability at only +1 or +3/4 (Currently KA's are effectively +2 vs Normal attacks (since they cost 3x as much) and your version would make them even stronger as they now ignore PD/ED for the Stun portion).[/quote']

 

I see I wasn't clear. What I meant is that Stun damage would apply only if some BODY gets through the defenses; perhaps whatever amount of Body gets through the Resistant defenses could then have a standard Stun Multiplier applied. So if a cop with a 6 PD bullet-proof vest gets hit with a 2d6 RKA from an assault rifle on an average roll of 7 he would take 1 BODY and 1-5 STUN (1d6-1 X); a damage roll of 12 would do 6 BODY and 6 to 30 STUN. By current rules with the same rules he would take 1 BODY and anywhere from 5 to 35 STUN (minus any PD, Resistant or not). I don't see that being vastly more effective. The current rules force characters who want to be immune to bullets to buy their defenses much higher than the might otherwise.

 

I like this option because it means a character with 12 or more rPD can ignore 2d6 or lesser Killing Attacks, meaning a superhero doesn't need to have ludicrous defenses to be immune to ordinary firearms. This approach would allow characters to buy less Resistant Defenses. I think it is ridiculous for a character with 30 or better rPD - according to 5ER the same defenses as an M1A1 Abrams main battle tank - to be bothered by some thug with an assault rifle. (Admittedly I think Hero's stats for an M1A1's defenses are waaay too low, but that's another discussion entirely.) Think of Loki in The Avengers movie: in the opening scene he was hit repeatedly by SHIELD agents firing M4 carbines and the bullets didn't even make him blink.

 

Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud. I'm sure there are aspects of this I'm missing.

[BNakagawa]

The problem with the old stun lottery is that it was far more effective than an equivalent Active point EB at inflicting serious stun damage on high defense targets (typically bricks and master villains)

 

If you look at a high defense, high CON target, (Let's say 32 def, 23 CON) your average 12d6 EB has a chance of stunning them that is probably about 5% or less. A 4d6 KA using the old stun lottery rules can probably stun that target at least 25% or more. (rolling a 5 or 6 stun modifier, yielding 56-70 stun on an average body roll)

 

The high volatility of the stun caused by a KA used to be a real balancing problem. You can see how disrupting it can be by performing a simple thought experiment.

 

What if there was a +0 modifier to energy blast that would allow you to replace a 12d6 EB with a 1d6 roll that you multiplied the result by 12? The minimum, maximum and average damage produced by such a construct is clearly exactly the same as a 12d6 EB, so it can't possibly be unbalancing, right?

 

Of course not. This is a horrible idea. The game would be fundamentally broken by the introduction of such a construct. And yet, in a sense, this is what the old style stun lottery was like.

[Trebuchet]

Agree 100%. The chance of the high multiplier is precisely why many players purchase it, not because it is killing, but because it is a "fight-stopper". With normal attack dice, the more dice you roll the more average the result is likely to be. A 12d6 Normal attack will probably do about 42 Stun. But with so few dice the chances of the roll being average diminishes. An equivalent 4d6 Killing attack, with only average rolls on the BODY of 14, can quite possibly do 70 Stun. A Multiplier roll of 4 does the same 42 Stun on average, 56 with a roll of 5, and 70 with a roll of 6. So a player is gambling on his 50% chance of doing average or better damage, with a good multiplier roll quite possibly ending the fight in one hit.

 

One of the things about 6E that most saddened me was that they didn't correct the KA travesty. The Killing Attack mechanism is broken, and always has been. This isn't Steve Long and DoJ's fault; they inherited it when they bought the game system. It should probably have been eliminated in favor of using Advantages like Piercing, Penetrating, or Armor Piercing to simulate damage from bullets, swords, lasers, and the like.

 

EDIT: I am reminded that 6E has changed the Stun Multiplier to 1-3; which is one of the few changes in 6E I like. I was speaking of 5E and previous versions. I still dislike Killing Attacks and the whole Multiplier method, but the 6E version is at least somewhat better.

[Beast]

The problem with that Beast is that if you hit me with Stun damage I get some back post segment 12, and can get more back if I can find a safe spot (or have a high enough SPD) by taking a recovery. OTOH Body damage is effectively "permanent" in regards to a single combat unless you have the right powers to combat it. So 3-4 Normal attacks might knock me out, but you have to do that much before i have a chance to recover it. However ANY BODY damage you do to me will be sticking around for quite a while (unless my concept or a friends is built to combat that). And of course there is a big difference between KO'd and Dead to think about as well.

 

The idea behind the STUN lottery is that you really shouldn't be using KA's to try and do STUN. If you make KA's a flat x3 modifier then they are basically ALWAYS more effective than Normal attacks. The x3 modifier would ensure that they did the same amount of STUN as a normal attack of the same AP cost, and then they get the extra BODY and the ability to have the BODY ignore non-resistant defenses. So why buy normal attacks? they would have NO benefit over KA's.

 

You might be able to argue a set x2 Multiplier, or even a x1 (making KA's basically useless for STUN damage) but a set x3 is basically broken.

What I was pointing out is that 3 to 4 normal damage hits will put you at the mercy of your foe(not even considering allies,minions,etc ... as your foe can have them too ,to counter yours)

where 3 to 4 KA's have you bloodied but at pretty much full fighting capacity ,unless you use the hit location rules and disabling

then you are using a different stun lotto

[Beast]

One idea you could work with is to have Killing Attacks do a flat x2 STUN, but only for that BODY that gets through to the target (so you multiply by x2 AFTER Resistant Defenses have been applied). This STUN would not be further reduced (in this rule the Normal Defenses are totally ignored by Killing Attacks, adding IMO a neat flavor to the game). This makes Killing Attacks deal less STUN than Normal Attacks, but more BODY as intended. If you have no Resistant Defense at all, then yes, in that case, Killing Attacks are better than Normal, but only in that case, which I think is as it should be. It also means if your Resistant Defense totally negates the Killing BODY damage, you suffer no STUN at all (it bounces off). So it makes Killing Attacks really feel different than Normal ones. If you want a chance for some STUN to be done without BODY for Killing Attacks (which IMO kind of distorts their flavor), just say you use x2 STUN as per RAW or this new method STUN, whichever is more. Most of the time if you deal no BODY you will still deal no STUN even under RAW, since I think most targets have less Resistance Defense than Normal Defense, meaning x2 STUN would also be blocked as long as the Normal Defense was equal to or higher than the Resistant one.

 

(Note: you could still use this system by rolling the 1d6/2 for the Stun multiplier, just apply that to the Body that gets through as above)

 

Examples:

​Defenses (10 PD and 0 rPD)

 

DC 6 (6d6 N, 2d6 K) -> Avg: 21 Stun N / 7 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 11 Stun

Killing Attack - 7 Body & 14 Stun

 

DC 12 (12d6 N, 4d6 K) -> Avg: 42 Stun N / 14 Body K

Normal Attack - 2 Body & 32 Stun

Killing Attack - 14 Body & 28 Stun

 

​DC 24 (24d6 N, 8d6 K) -> Avg: 84 Stun N / 28 Body K

Normal Attack - 14 Body & 74 Stun

Killing Attack - 28 Body & 56 Stun

 

Defenses (10 PD and 5 rPD)

 

DC 6 (6d6 N, 2d6 K) -> Avg: 21 Stun N / 7 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 6 Stun

Killing Attack - 2 Body & 4 Stun

 

DC 12 (12d6 N, 4d6 K) -> Avg: 42 Stun N / 14 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 27 Stun

Killing Attack - 9 Body & 18 Stun

 

DC 24 (24d6 N, 8d6 K) -> Avg: 84 Stun N / 28 Body K

Normal Attack - 9 Body & 69 Stun

Killing Attack - 23 Body & 46 Stun

 

Defenses (10 PD and 10 rPD)

 

DC 6 (6d6 N, 2d6 K) -> Avg: 21 Stun N / 7 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 1 Stun

Killing Attack - 0 Body & 0 Stun

 

DC 12 (12d6 N, 4d6 K) -> Avg: 42 Stun N / 14 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 22 Stun

Killing Attack - 4 Body & 8 Stun

 

​DC 24 (24d6 N, 8d6 K) -> Avg: 84 Stun N / 28 Body K

Normal Attack - 4 Body & 64 Stun

Killing Attack - 18 Body & 36 Stun

 

This decreases the utility of Killing Attacks for dealing Stun damage, but if you face foes with high Normal Defense but much lower (or no) Resistant Defenses, KA becomes better. It makes KA superior against automations and objects, but if your goal is to KO a foe, Normal Attacks are usually better.

 

If you want to represent a Killing Attack that does a lot of Stun also, you can just give it Increased Stun Multiplier, and the above system handles it just fine, making Killing Attacks with that advantage deal basically equal Stun to Normal Attacks provided the target's ratio of defenses is 2/1 Normal/Resistant. So you can tweak it that way.

 

It becomes a nice way for Villains to damage Heroes in a more Lasting way (since Body does not recover like Stun does), but not threaten to Stun them with the attacks quite as much. This may lead to Heroes deciding to retreat due to the threat of being killed by Body damage, and not being Stunned out so they can actually make good on that retreat.

I like this method very much

[psyber624]

Trebuchet: Hmm' date=' currently you could do the same thing with HA/EB but it would cost +1 1/2 (+1/2 for the AVAD, +1 for DOES BODY on AVAD). You lose most of the body damage that way tho, unless you are considering making the advantage ALSO change the die roll as well (so that you count normal effect not NDB.) At that point it would be a very scary ability at only +1 or +3/4 (Currently KA's are effectively +2 vs Normal attacks (since they cost 3x as much) and your version would make them even stronger as they now ignore PD/ED for the Stun portion).[/quote']

 

I see I wasn't clear. What I meant is that Stun damage would apply only if some BODY gets through the defenses; perhaps whatever amount of Body gets through the Resistant defenses could then have a standard Stun Multiplier applied. So if a cop with a 6 PD bullet-proof vest gets hit with a 2d6 RKA from an assault rifle on an average roll of 7 he would take 1 BODY and 1-5 STUN (1d6-1 X); a damage roll of 12 would do 6 BODY and 6 to 30 STUN. By current rules with the same rules he would take 1 BODY and anywhere from 5 to 35 STUN (minus any PD, Resistant or not). I don't see that being vastly more effective. The current rules force characters who want to be immune to bullets to buy their defenses much higher than the might otherwise.

 

I like this option because it means a character with 12 or more rPD can ignore 2d6 or lesser Killing Attacks, meaning a superhero doesn't need to have ludicrous defenses to be immune to ordinary firearms. This approach would allow characters to buy less Resistant Defenses. I think it is ridiculous for a character with 30 or better rPD - according to 5ER the same defenses as an M1A1 Abrams main battle tank - to be bothered by some thug with an assault rifle. (Admittedly I think Hero's stats for an M1A1's defenses are waaay too low, but that's another discussion entirely.) Think of Loki in The Avengers movie: in the opening scene he was hit repeatedly by SHIELD agents firing M4 carbines and the bullets didn't even make him blink.

 

Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud. I'm sure there are aspects of this I'm missing.

Hmm, not sure how that fits in with your idea of KA becoming an advantage. If its an advantage then it has to modify a different power (I was assuming a normal HA/EB when I discussed it). That was where my considerations where based. In that situation you still roll NDB so a 4d6 EB KA would still only do around 4 BODY unless you rolled high. If it then only applied to Resistant Defenses you would actually DO the 4 BODY damage against someone with no Resistant Defenses but unless this advantage also totally changed the way the power fundamentally worked (basically making it work like KA currently does) then you really nerf the body damage potential.

 

If you did change the roll to being BODY instead of STUN what you have basically done is created an advantage, which you are proposing at a +1 value, that turns a standard EB/HA into the Current KA. So a 4d6 EB (KA +1) would cost 40 points but essentially be almost as effective as a 4d6 KA is currently (which costs 60 points) at least in regards to the Body damage done.

 

Actually the rest of your post seems more in line with TheRealDeal's idea of how to figure STUN damage on KA's, and I was addressing the Advantage idea you presented, not the STUN potential.

 

Also not sure if you were talking 5E or not but in 6E/CC KA Stun is a 1/2 die roll (1-3), not 1d6-1 (which is much nastier) meaning in your example a Cop with 6 Body would currently take 1 BODY and around 1-15 Stun minus any normal PD as well (default is 2 so 0-13 unless he had other abilities). Any Brick with rPD 30 can barely be scratched by a 2d6 KA (Max 12 Body and 36 Stun so even with a full damage roll he only takes 6 STUN minus any non-resistant defenses he has).

 

If you were discussing 5E then my comments aren't as relative (I don't have 5E so I don't know exactly what changed.)

[TheRealDeal]

Regarding the KA Stun Multiplier in RAW 6E, it is only 1d3 (1d6/2) for attacks that Do Not Use the Hit Location Chart. If you still want to use the Hit Location chart, nothing has changed from 5E. If you want to keep the KA Stun low for Hit Locations, you need to impose a mandatory Limitation on all KA's something like Decreased Stun Multiplier, so at least the Hit Location StunX will be more in line with 1d3.

[Trebuchet]

Regarding the KA Stun Multiplier in RAW 6E' date=' it is only 1d3 (1d6/2) for attacks that Do Not Use the Hit Location Chart. If you still want to use the Hit Location chart, nothing has changed from 5E. If you want to keep the KA Stun low for Hit Locations, you need to impose a mandatory Limitation on all KA's something like Decreased Stun Multiplier, so at least the Hit Location StunX will be more in line with 1d3.[/quote']

 

Yes, I understood that to be the case, but having found little of value in 6E for our particular campaigns we have elected to stick with 5ER. Our Champions campaign (and I suspect most others) does not use Hit Locations. (Our related Pulp Hero campaign does.) We occasionally use Hit Locations in Champions optionally to provide color or in rare instances to target an opponent's limb holding a hostage or the like.

 

As a general rule, when I GM and design opponents with Killing Attacks I almost always use Reduced Stun Multiplier as a Limitation, especially if those opponents are using military-grade weaponry. Only one PC in our Champions campaign (an MA with a legendary sword) even has a Killing Attack, and he almost never uses it, much preferring to use his sticks or three-section-staff.

 

[bigbywolfe]

Regarding the KA Stun Multiplier in RAW 6E' date=' it is only 1d3 (1d6/2) for attacks that Do Not Use the Hit Location Chart. If you still want to use the Hit Location chart, nothing has changed from 5E. If you want to keep the KA Stun low for Hit Locations, you need to impose a mandatory Limitation on all KA's something like Decreased Stun Multiplier, so at least the Hit Location StunX will be more in line with 1d3.[/quote']

You are ignoring the fact that Hit Locations that give more than a x3 to Killing Attacks also give a bonus to Normal Damage equalizing them just as much as if you were not using Hit Locations. A limitation on all KAs would be nerfing them to ensure they were worse than Normal Attacks for no reason.

[TheRealDeal]

You are ignoring the fact that Hit Locations that give more than a x3 to Killing Attacks also give a bonus to Normal Damage equalizing them just as much as if you were not using Hit Locations. A limitation on all KAs would be nerfing them to ensure they were worse than Normal Attacks for no reason.

True, but if you are in the camp that thinks an average of x3 STUN for KAs is too much, and like the 1d3 which gives a x2 STUN average, then using Hit Locations gives an average x2.87 for KA (assuming the standard humanoid chart), so to bring that down I was suggesting the -X1 STUN Multiplier.

 

Normal Attacks get a XNSTUN it is true, but this averages out to exactly X1. So it is not biased against not using the chart. But for KAs, not using the Chart gives you an average of x2 (1d3) and using the Chart makes it an average of x2.87. So it means KAs are better when using a location chart in this case. Thus a full -1 to the STUN Multiplier for KAs (and I would give them the -1/4 limitation for it as well, just make it mandatory if the attack uses a hit location chart) would drop this to a x1.93 (not x1.87 since the areas already at X1 (hands and feet) stay at X1 as the -1 cannot drop them below X1). So it is a little worse than X2, but it does allow for head shots to still give a X4 which is not possible with a 1d3 roll.

[Markdoc]

Treb.s' suggestion of simply making "killing" a modifier on normal attacks similar to AVAD (and rolling normal d6's) has a lot of merit, I think.

I (and others in the past) floated it back in the pre-6E threads, but it's solidified due to changes made in 6E, and I am going to play test it in my next campaign: we're moving from 5E to 6E, so one more small change won't make much difference.

 

Here's the plan.

 

1. Drop "killing attack" as a seperate power. "Killing attack" simply becomes "applies vs resistant defence" - which is already covered by the advantage AVAD.

 

2. Rejig the costs of AVAD, so that they actually reflect utility, and simplify the rules. Many of the odd things in the way AVAD works are due to the need to deal with the fact that killing attacks are already a "sort of, but not quite AVAD": if you remove KA as a separate power, AVAD suddenly gets much simpler.

The numbers I have played around with are:

 

Move up one step on the table: +1/2

Move up two steps on the table: +1

Move three steps up on the table: +2

 

NND goes back to being a special advantage: +1, all or nothing, does stun only. It was always an awkward fit in AVAD, anyway, since it often applies to "defences" that are not actually defences ... which was kind of the point of NND

 

All of the "special rules" about how AVAD attacks become stun only, that killing attacks don't follow the AVAD rule exactly, etc, ... go away.

AVAD attacks don't become STUN only, and they apply both STUN and BOD vs their chosen defence.

 

So a "killing attack" simply applies against a resistant form of the same defence (a +1/2 advantage). I've run the math with attacks of up to 100 active points, vs defences from 0-20 non-resistant, + 0-20 resistant. If we look at blast, "killing" attacks since they now use the "roll a d6, total is stun, 1 is 0 BOD, 2-5 is 1, 6 is 2" always do less STUN and less BOD in total than a normal attack of the same active points. They are exactly as volatile as normal attacks (because they are normal attacks). That doesn't sound like a winner. However, when you run the math, the results are interesting. When the ratio of resistant to non-resistant defences is low, "killing" blast usually does more BOD through defences than a normal blast, and sometimes more STUN, but as resistant defences increase normal is better at getting stun through. Basically, if you make "killing" a +1/2 advantage, it comes to the same cost as AP, and performs similarly.

 

But how about other attacks than just blast?

Well, STR costs the same and works against the same defences as Blast, so no problems there. HA and TK also work against the same defences, so again, the outcome will be the same.

Mental blast is not the same - it does no BOD and it already acts against an uncommon defence. So this change does not affect it.

 

All the other attack powers either don't work against defences at all (Change environment, Entangle, etc) or work against uncommon defences and don't in any case do BOD damage. It would cost (for example) the same for Flash attack to go up against resistant Flash Defence than against Flash Defence to an unusual sense group, and frankly, that's not a significant change in my opinion.

 

Finally what about moving a normal blast to work against uncommon or rare defence? That would cost +2 for for a rare defence, but under my suggestion, it does BOD. So compared to current rules, it would be slightly more expensive than to do STUN damage, and slightly cheaper to do BOD damage. However, if doing BOD to your target is the goal, it's exactly the same price as adding penetrating under the current rules. That just by itself, seems to suggest we are in the right ballpark. Since Penetrating killing attacks have not been a problem in most games, it also suggests to me that it's not unbalanced. With regard to moving Blast to working against Mental Defence, that would be +1, making the basic cost the same as Mental Blast. Unlike Mental blast, it does BOD, which seems like a clear advantage, but also unlike mental blast, it works against DCV (a limitation) and doesn't get the no range and partially indirect advantages. It seems reasonably balanced.

 

In short, this approach offers several advantages (from my point of view).

1. It removes the problem of killing attacks being best if you want to stun the target. With this approach, it's mostly good for attacking targets with less resistant defence and doing BOD to them: ie: for killing.

2. It simplifies the whole adding KA to normal attacks thing: now they use the same mechanism - you treat "killing" like any other advantage. You can pro-rate damage, you can have attacks which mix killing and normal damage.

3. It simplifies the system as a whole: there's no need to have two completely different mechanisms for "I hit him with a club".

and

4. Especially for Hugh - it offers the flexibility to do something he asked about a while back - to be able to convert a single power between normal and killing damage. With this approach, a simple variable special effect would do it.

 

The one potential negative that I can see is that it becomes slightly easier to bypass high PD/ED and inflict BOD damage via this approach with a few dice of attack vs an uncommon defence. I don't see that as outweighing the advantages for the following reasons:

 

a: It compensates somewhat for removing the ability to do more BOD via the volatile killing mechanism - I've seen a 9DC KA roll 16 or more BOD plenty of times. I've never seen anyone roll 16 BOD on a 9DC normal attack.

b: It's relatively cheap to counter powers using AVAD to deliver BOD: 5 points of non-resistant mental defence would largely eliminate the BOD from a 50-point Blast vs mental defence. My suggested change might lead to a few more PCs having a few points in Mental defence and Power defence, though.

c: AVAD is already an exclamation point power - I'd watch out for any powers using it just as carefully as I already do.

 

So, what do you think? Is there anything I've missed?

 

cheers, Mark