I wonder how many have stopped using Champions/HERO for similar reasons to this?

[Ninja-Bear]

Actually Tasha I've used the optional average sectional defense rule which I found in Fantasy hero fourth. In this you list what is covered with what value. Then you add together altogether and then divide by 16 to get a final DEF value.  It eliminates activation rolls.  Its works fine. Now I get by what you mean by deadly game but its the style that we like to play with.  However, I do allow role-playing so as to not have just hack and slash. Last game I Had a bunch of brigands attack the PCs. When the last one was left I had him make a EGO roll to see if he would continue the fight.  He begged for mercy and the Tiefling gave a speech and a presence attack to scare him away.

[Ninja-Bear]

Some genres work best with hit locations and other optional rules.  Others don't.  Superhero games for instance are best without the bleeding and hit locations.  A gritty game set in WWI would be wrong without them and impairing, etc.  So whe people say "need" they mean "your genre won't be very well represented without them" rather than "you're compelled to use this by the might of Thor."

 

I agree that rules can help enforce a genre. However, from my experience as both GM and player, there are more considerations than just genre. Why introduce a rule that the players don't care or be bothered about? Do you have time for the additional rules, rolls and paper tracking? And since you brought up genre, how close do you want to follow genre conventions? When I look at a rule, I try to see if using it would add to the game without being an undo burden.  This can fluctuate between groups/players. Last question for you Christopher is it better to have an accurate genre simulation that bores people and chases them away or less accurate but a fun game (by the particular players)?

[Hugh Neilson]

except that for most Heroic Level games, Killing attack weapons are the norm. I can't see playing Fantasy Hero without Swords, Axes, Daggers etc. or Modern Adventures or Pulp Adventures without guns. All of those are Killing Attacks. 

 

I also can’t imagine Fantasy without staves, clubs, etc.  so normal attacks are also in there.  Pulp is the original Two Fisted Tales.  It’s about finding balance between them. The 1d6-1 Stun Multiple loses that balance with a possibility of a KA inflicting massive STUN which is not  attainable with a Normal attack.

 

Using hit locations, the KA has a chance at a big STUN boost with a good hit location roll, but so does the Normal attack – Hit Locations make both types of attack more volatile, so they keep the playing field more level, as well as making the KA viable for inflicting STUN.

 

One SETAC discussion revolved around options for a less volatile KA and a more volatile normal attack, but both were on the cumbersome side.

 

I favour the “low lethality four colour Supers makes the KA low utility” approach taken, but I’m in full agreement with using Hit Locations in a Heroic game to bring those KA’s into their own – but also add the potential for that Normal attack getting a damage boost so they stay viable.

 

Having the Killing Attack as the superior option for inflicting STUN against high defense targets means there is never a reason to use a normal attack so they fall by the wayside.  Hit locations give both forms of attack access to higher damage hits, so the system is back to functionality.  To me, that’s largely why the issue was perceived as so prevalent in Supers games (pretty much never use hit locations) but the issue was not perceived in Heroic games (where Hit Locations maintained a better balance).

[Ninja-Bear]

Oh and for hit locations on the humorous side. I ran a fantasy with hit locations. A player rolled an 18. I said if you roll a one on a D6 you hit yourself. He did. I had him roll hit location-13 vitals. So hit lcations can be a pain to the players.

[Balabanto]

Oh, one more addendum. If you believe getting hit in the back all the time is a problem, put your back to a wall, where they can't attack via rear hex facing unless they have a ton of extra points over their opponents.

[Tasha]

 

I also can’t imagine Fantasy without staves, clubs, etc.  so normal attacks are also in there.  Pulp is the original Two Fisted Tales.  It’s about finding balance between them. The 1d6-1 Stun Multiple loses that balance with a possibility of a KA inflicting massive STUN which is not  attainable with a Normal attack.

 

Using hit locations, the KA has a chance at a big STUN boost with a good hit location roll, but so does the Normal attack – Hit Locations make both types of attack more volatile, so they keep the playing field more level, as well as making the KA viable for inflicting STUN.

 

One SETAC discussion revolved around options for a less volatile KA and a more volatile normal attack, but both were on the cumbersome side.

 

I favour the “low lethality four colour Supers makes the KA low utility” approach taken, but I’m in full agreement with using Hit Locations in a Heroic game to bring those KA’s into their own – but also add the potential for that Normal attack getting a damage boost so they stay viable.

 

Having the Killing Attack as the superior option for inflicting STUN against high defense targets means there is never a reason to use a normal attack so they fall by the wayside.  Hit locations give both forms of attack access to higher damage hits, so the system is back to functionality.  To me, that’s largely why the issue was perceived as so prevalent in Supers games (pretty much never use hit locations) but the issue was not perceived in Heroic games (where Hit Locations maintained a better balance).

 

 

But Hit Location totally borks Normal Attacks. Like half of the locations on the chart half the stun damage of a Normal attack. Hit Location will DRIVE players using normal attacks to pick up killing attacks just so they can roll decent stun damage.

 

I always though that the Hit location chart should show all 15 locations, it should also be redone to place the best and worst locations near the top and bottom of the charts respectfully. With the average locations like chest being in the middle.

[Tasha]

Oh and for hit locations on the humorous side. I ran a fantasy with hit locations. A player rolled an 18. I said if you roll a one on a D6 you hit yourself. He did. I had him roll hit location-13 vitals. So hit lcations can be a pain to the players.

Back in the days of FH first edition. We were teaching 4 players how to play this new wonderous game. In the first battle, one of the guys gets hit by a spear doing 2d6KA in the 13 vitals vs 3-4 def. The GM rolls better than average and one shot kills the PC. Needless to say we didn't gain a convert that day... :/ whoops.  Looking back on it the GM should have kept the attacks to DC 4 or so. To use kid gloves toward the PCs.

 

 

[Tasha]

One SETAC discussion revolved around options for a less volatile KA and a more volatile normal attack, but both were on the cumbersome side.

 

I am still wondering if KA's as we know and hate them should just die.

Remove BODY as a 1-20 stat and add something like Hits that bought with the same or similar magnitude as Stun and Endurance. With similar cost to Stun.

 

Killing attacks would resemble Normal attacks. 5 pts per 1d6 vs Resistant Defenses the amount rolled on the Die would be recorded as Hits of Damage. Stun damage would = Half the Hits rolled on the Dice.

Normal Attacks would then be just the opposite.5pts per 1d6 vs regular defenses (PD and ED). like now the damage rolled would be Stun Damage. Half the Stun rolled would be Hits that would be applied toward regular defenses.

 

I figure that most people can halve the amounts that can come up on 10-16 dice.

 

On the bad side you lose the funny way you read dice for BODY, but that's a positive feature as well.

 

A big benefit would be in increased granularity for weapons, which tend to really look alike under the current KA structure. An easy way to add stun damage to a killing attack is to buy a compound power with both Killing and Normal dice you would just add together the stun and hits totals from both kinds of attacks together.

This may be way more complicated than multiplying body totals by 2-4 to get amount of stun done.

[Hugh Neilson]

But Hit Location totally borks Normal Attacks. Like half of the locations on the chart half the stun damage of a Normal attack. Hit Location will DRIVE players using normal attacks to pick up killing attacks just so they can roll decent stun damage.

 

I always though that the Hit location chart should show all 15 locations, it should also be redone to place the best and worst locations near the top and bottom of the charts respectfully. With the average locations like chest being in the middle.

 

Much like KA's, poor and good locations exist.  Those x1/2 Normal locations give the KA x1 or x2 STUN, so it does little or nothing as well.  2d6+1 KA rolls 8 BOD. Target has 6rDEF, and 6 normal DEF. UGH - Arm Hit. 2 BOD gets halved, and 16 - 12 = 4 STUN gets past.  7d6 normal attack rolls 25 damage, -12 = 13 and 6 STUN gets past but no BOD.

 

Had they rolled a Head Shot, 4 BOD and 35-12 = 23 STUN, or 26 STUN. The normal attack is pushing STUN through at about the same pace as the KA.

 

Back in the days of FH first edition. We were teaching 4 players how to play this new wonderous game. In the first battle, one of the guys gets hit by a spear doing 2d6KA in the 13 vitals vs 3-4 def. The GM rolls better than average and one shot kills the PC. Needless to say we didn't gain a convert that day... :/ whoops.  Looking back on it the GM should have kept the attacks to DC 4 or so. To use kid gloves toward the PCs.

 

 

 

I thought you told us Hit Locations make the game less lethal. I think this depends a lot on rDEF to DC ratios.  12 -3 = 9 x 2 =18 - he's not quite dead if he has 10+BOD - even on a maxed out hit.

[Hugh Neilson]

I am still wondering if KA's as we know and hate them should just die.

Remove BODY as a 1-20 stat and add something like Hits that bought with the same or similar magnitude as Stun and Endurance. With similar cost to Stun.

 

Killing attacks would resemble Normal attacks. 5 pts per 1d6 vs Resistant Defenses the amount rolled on the Die would be recorded as Hits of Damage. Stun damage would = Half the Hits rolled on the Dice.

Normal Attacks would then be just the opposite.5pts per 1d6 vs regular defenses (PD and ED). like now the damage rolled would be Stun Damage. Half the Stun rolled would be Hits that would be applied toward regular defenses.

Seems like I need rDEF = DEF and HITS = STUN if 1d6 KA costs the same as 1d6 Blast. Do I get any defense against the STUN of this new KA?

 

As another approach to KA's on 1d6 per 5 points, consider counting BOD like we do now, except that we get 1 BOD on 1-5, 2 on a 6. This averages 3.5 BOD per 3 DC's, just like the current KA model. That's the easy part. We also want to average roughly 9 1/3 STUN on 3d6 if the goal is to match a 5e KA. The average roll will be 10.5, so if we subtracted half the dice rolled, we would get 9.0. What if we added up the dice, but ignored all 2's (they count nothing)? That would average 3.16667, so 3d6 averages 9.5.

 

Now we have a "not so volatile" killing attack that averages a bit more BOD and a bit less STUN. The averages are similar to the 5e KE, but the volatility is reduced to match Normal attacks.

 

But maybe I want those wild swings - combat is risky and uncertain, and one good roll could change everything. OK, so let's keep the existing KA. But let's make the normal attack volatile as well. Give the normal attack the same DC structure as a KA - 15 points buys 1d6. Roll that for BOD. We want that 1d6 to average 3, not 3.5. Simple answer: 6's count as 3's. Now we average 3 BOD per 1d6. We want that to average 10.5 STUN, the same average roll as 3d6. Simple - 1d6 Stun Multiple. Now the normal attack shares the same volatility as a killing attack.

 

In my experience, the hit locations chart gives both reasonably similar volatility, so the KA does not overshadow the normal attack, but the KA remains more volatile just because it rolls less dice. 2d6 KA gets a max 12 result 1 time in 36. 6d6 Normal maxes out only one time in 46,656. The above approaches give them the same volatility. Both types of attacks keep the averages, more or less, that they had in 5e and prior editions. As they have similar volatility, I don't pick a KA to have that potential for a massive hit that puts serious STUN onto a high defense target. Either all attacks are low-volatility, so no such option exists, or all attacks are high volatility, so we can use a normal attack or a KA to hope for that lucky shot.

 

Hit locations? Both attacks can use them, but we need to add one to all Stun Multiples of 2 or higher, and break the 1's to a selection of 1's and 2's, for normal attacks. If we use low volatility KA's, the Normal Attack multipliers can apply without modification.

 

It feels more complicated, though. I'm not sure it is, or just feels that way because we're used to the current model, but it definitely feels more complicated when I just look at it. SETAC wasn't too supportive of this approach, but I don't think SETAC ever really discussed the 1d3 Stun Multiple approach that got adopted.

[Tasha]

Much like KA's, poor and good locations exist.  Those x1/2 Normal locations give the KA x1 or x2 STUN, so it does little or nothing as well.  2d6+1 KA rolls 8 BOD. Target has 6rDEF, and 6 normal DEF. UGH - Arm Hit. 2 BOD gets halved, and 16 - 12 = 4 STUN gets past.  7d6 normal attack rolls 25 damage, -12 = 13 and 6 STUN gets past but no BOD.

 

Had they rolled a Head Shot, 4 BOD and 35-12 = 23 STUN, or 26 STUN. The normal attack is pushing STUN through at about the same pace as the KA.

 

 

I thought you told us Hit Locations make the game less lethal. I think this depends a lot on rDEF to DC ratios.  12 -3 = 9 x 2 =18 - he's not quite dead if he has 10+BOD - even on a maxed out hit.

Ya, know when you use those gotcha discussion tactics, I really want to beat my head against my desk. If you don't want to talk to my points then don't. Killing attacks in Heroic Level games Do Cause death. Sometimes because of a lucky shot on the hit location chart. Sometimes because you just rolled an incredible amount of body on the dice, and the target has no rDef.

 

Which did happen to a PC of mine, went up against the EHP who had a Force wall spell, my Mage Blew it down with a lightning bolt(straight up 2d6 KA) remainder of the body went to the Vitals. Assuming the EHP had armor or some sort of protection spell, followed up with the same spell (wasn't told that the EHP had taken body from the first attack), got extremely lucky and rolled another 13 on the Hit Location chart. Both spells where above average to nearly maximum body. Took the GM's EHP down before the NPC could actually get off a single spell. would have killed the character either way. the Vitals hit just ensured the death.

 

I don't remember the numbers for a game that happened nearly 30 years ago.

 

Re hit locations and the 2x locations sucking somehow. IMHO most fantasy characters have around 3-6 r def with PD's of around4-6. So with an 8 body hit on a x2 location the target takes 16 stun - 12 total def for 4 stun. vs DC7 Normal attack doing 25 stun x 1/2 - 13 stun which does 1 stun.

 

In play in my experience seeing half the locations totally screw you, tends to make you not take normal attacks. The fix here would be to take location 8 and 15 and turn them into x1 stun locations. The change seems small, but would make normal attacks much more desirable.

 

I have been a heavy FH player since the beginning of the game's existance. This is my impression of how the Hit Location chart feels to both a Brawler Character and my Quarterstaff expert. Also, I didn't much like it when my normal attack spells used the chart.

 

 

[Tasha]

Seems like I need rDEF = DEF and HITS = STUN if 1d6 KA costs the same as 1d6 Blast. Do I get any defense against the STUN of this new KA?

 

As another approach to KA's on 1d6 per 5 points, consider counting BOD like we do now, except that we get 1 BOD on 1-5, 2 on a 6. This averages 3.5 BOD per 3 DC's, just like the current KA model. That's the easy part. We also want to average roughly 9 1/3 STUN on 3d6 if the goal is to match a 5e KA. The average roll will be 10.5, so if we subtracted half the dice rolled, we would get 9.0. What if we added up the dice, but ignored all 2's (they count nothing)? That would average 3.16667, so 3d6 averages 9.5.

 

Now we have a "not so volatile" killing attack that averages a bit more BOD and a bit less STUN. The averages are similar to the 5e KE, but the volatility is reduced to match Normal attacks.

 

But maybe I want those wild swings - combat is risky and uncertain, and one good roll could change everything. OK, so let's keep the existing KA. But let's make the normal attack volatile as well. Give the normal attack the same DC structure as a KA - 15 points buys 1d6. Roll that for BOD. We want that 1d6 to average 3, not 3.5. Simple answer: 6's count as 3's. Now we average 3 BOD per 1d6. We want that to average 10.5 STUN, the same average roll as 3d6. Simple - 1d6 Stun Multiple. Now the normal attack shares the same volatility as a killing attack.

 

In my experience, the hit locations chart gives both reasonably similar volatility, so the KA does not overshadow the normal attack, but the KA remains more volatile just because it rolls less dice. 2d6 KA gets a max 12 result 1 time in 36. 6d6 Normal maxes out only one time in 46,656. The above approaches give them the same volatility. Both types of attacks keep the averages, more or less, that they had in 5e and prior editions. As they have similar volatility, I don't pick a KA to have that potential for a massive hit that puts serious STUN onto a high defense target. Either all attacks are low-volatility, so no such option exists, or all attacks are high volatility, so we can use a normal attack or a KA to hope for that lucky shot.

 

Hit locations? Both attacks can use them, but we need to add one to all Stun Multiples of 2 or higher, and break the 1's to a selection of 1's and 2's, for normal attacks. If we use low volatility KA's, the Normal Attack multipliers can apply without modification.

 

It feels more complicated, though. I'm not sure it is, or just feels that way because we're used to the current model, but it definitely feels more complicated when I just look at it. SETAC wasn't too supportive of this approach, but I don't think SETAC ever really discussed the 1d3 Stun Multiple approach that got adopted.

Yes you would get your full defenses vs the stun of the new Killing attack. Keeping the mechanics similarish to current RAW would be key to make the change easier to sell.

 

IT really comes down to a game feel choice. If you go with the nerfed Stun Mods of 6e then your PC's will tend to body NPC's out and nearly never KO them unless they use Normal Attacks. Which makes for a different feel than earlier editions that used the earlier stun Mod mechanic. The Group could also choose to use Hit Locations which generate More stun than 6e stun mult die. Which means that on average the PC's will KO and be KOed more often than they are killed

[Christopher R Taylor]

From my study and information on trauma, weapon damage, and wounding, having attacks do significantly more stun than body is more realistic, as far as the game goes.  Its extremely rare that someone just outright dies from a hit unless its incredibly catastrophic like falling out of orbit or being hit by a butane bomb.  Usually people take a significant injury to an area, are knocked unconscious and die from blood loss or trauma over a period of time either short or long.

 

However, in fantasy games people are so used to fiction and D&D where you hit creatures until they fall down dead, fighting to the last hit point, so the stun system in Hero confuses some, I think.

[Hugh Neilson]

Ya, know when you use those gotcha discussion tactics, I really want to beat my head against my desk. If you don't want to talk to my points then don't. Killing attacks in Heroic Level games Do Cause death. Sometimes because of a lucky shot on the hit location chart. Sometimes because you just rolled an incredible amount of body on the dice, and the target has no rDef.

Not searching for "gotchas", but your actual experience anecdote directly contradicted your general comments on KA's making the heroic game less lethal. I'm not ignoring that apparent contradiction either.

 

The prospect for doubling the BOD done after defenses, in my view, makes the KA more lethal. Your EHP example reflects the BOD being doubled twice in a row, which would not happen if the non-hit location rules were used in either 5e or 6e. Your actual experience bears that out anecdotally, but I do accept the potential for those anecdotes to be the exception. In fact, the simple fact they are memorable after a lot of years, in itself, supports the view these are unusual occurrences.

 

Fair?

 

Re hit locations and the 2x locations sucking somehow. IMHO most fantasy characters have around 3-6 r def with PD's of around4-6. So with an 8 body hit on a x2 location the target takes 16 stun - 12 total def for 4 stun. vs DC7 Normal attack doing 25 stun x 1/2 - 13 stun which does 1 stun.

I don't see 4 STUN and 1 STUN being all that remarkably different. That Normal Attack never gets a 1x multiple that means no damage at all, although again, 0 and 1 aren't much different.

 

So let's assume the 6rDEF, 6 normal DEF you use in your example, and 7 DC example.

 

A KA will inflict 2 BOD past 6 rDEF on average, so that's 1 to 4 BOD depending on the hit location. A head shot will get 28 STUN past defenses. Stomach or Vitals will get 20 STUN past defenses. Shoulders/Chest gets 12 past, we've established the other locations get 4 or nothing.

 

Normal attack gets 26 STUN on a head shot (25 - 12 = 13 x 2), 19 on vitals or stomach (rounded down since we rounded the average roll up) and 13 on the shoulders/chest. All other locations - 1 STUN.

 

Applied to the odds of each hit location, the KA gets an average of 11.19 STUN past defenses. The normal attack manages 11.21.

 

Contrast with a d6-1 multiple and no modifiers to a normal attack, The normal attack always gets 13. The KA gets 0, 0, 4, 12, 20, 28 for an average of 10.67.

 

Looking at the math, I like the KA better. With hit locations, the normal attack at least stands a shot of getting a big hit, and Stunning the target. The slightly higher STUN damage if we go to "No Hit Locations" is not offset by the KA inflicting BOD as well, plus getting those big hits that Stun the target. With that in mind, I prefer the Hit Location chart for normal attacks as well, but the KA is superior for either type of damage.

 

In play in my experience seeing half the locations totally screw you, tends to make you not take normal attacks. The fix here would be to take location 8 and 15 and turn them into x1 stun locations. The change seems small, but would make normal attacks much more desirable.

This would drop average KA damage to 10.61, so the KA gets a bit less STUN than the normal attack on average - about 0.5 STUN. Better, I suppose. Still favouring the KA, though.

 

So what does all the math mean?

 

Given that every option favours the killing attack, I suggest it means that some nerfing of the KA, or beefing up of the normal attack, is mandated. I am assuming that we want your brawler, staff fighter and normal damage spells to be viable, of course, but I think 5 points for 1 DC means that normal and killing DCs should have comparable value. How do we get there?

 

Well, a Stun Multiple of 1 - 3 makes the KA clearly inferior at inflicting STUN damage. Its best hope is about the same STUN the normal attack averages (8 x 3 = 24 vs 24.5), and it will average 16, or only 4 STUN past the defenses of our hypothetical opponent. It will get BOD through - an average of 2 per hit. The killing attack seems geared towards killing - it is a lethal attack. It seems likely the typical opponent will run out of STUN before they're dead, but hitting 0 BOD before being KO'd seems a lot more likely - how many characters have more than half their STUN in BOD?

 

Maybe that's OK - its a KILLING attack and it KILLS opponents. But from a game perspective, that may not be what we want. But upping the ante to, say, 1d3+1 SM means the KA again does the same STUN as the normal attack, more BOD and a better chance of a well above average STUN hit. So where's the 'sweet spot' where the KA does less STUN and more BOD than the Normal attack, rather than rendering the normal attack inferior on all fronts?

 

With hit locations, I suspect we could get there pretty easily. If we make Vitals 2x normal STUN, then the normal attack averages 12.02, nearly 1 STUN more than the KA. Make the stomach shot x2 as well and the normal attack averages 12.7, close to the spread without hit locations AND with the chance of a big stunning hit (a bit more chance than the KA since all the big locations double the STUN. That seems like it could be enough to make the staff fighter or brawler, or normal damage spellcaster, more competitive.

 

We could mix & match, maybe combining your change to KA's (so 10.61 average STUN) and only double STUN on the vitals (so 12.02 average). Lots of potential.

 

However, I consider the biggest leveler to be the chance of a big STUN hit for the normal attack, not only for the KA.

 

Yes you would get your full defenses vs the stun of the new Killing attack. Keeping the mechanics similarish to current RAW would be key to make the change easier to sell.

Agreed - the less that has to change, the easier the change is to implement.

 

IT really comes down to a game feel choice. If you go with the nerfed Stun Mods of 6e then your PC's will tend to body NPC's out and nearly never KO them unless they use Normal Attacks. Which makes for a different feel than earlier editions that used the earlier stun Mod mechanic. The Group could also choose to use Hit Locations which generate More stun than 6e stun mult die. Which means that on average the PC's will KO and be KOed more often than they are killed.

I definitely agree the 1-3 Stun Multiple makes for a much deadlier game where KA's are the norm. I'm not convinced it makes the KA balanced, rather than swinging it too far the other way, and the lack of any change to the hit location chart indicates I'm probably not the only one who sees it that way.

 

In Supers games, I have a simple solution - don't buy KA's. I replaced them largely with Armor Piercing attacks. Wolverine's claws are supposed to leave a trail of bodies in his wake? OK, let them be killing attacks, and the enemy has limited rDEF. We want those typical Supers defense levels that result in virtually no BOD ever being inflicted, so the KA is useless (can't KO or kill)? OK, then Wolvie's claws are, we know, good in combat, so reasoning from that effect, they can't be useless KA's. AP, on the other hand, is viable now that it's +1/4. Slap it in a MP with a KA (or even AP KA) and Wolvie can use higher BOD attacks when they are most useful.

 

In Heroic games, the KA is much more appropriate, and it can (and should) do BOD. The Hit Location chart makes that work, but we also have to make normal attacks a viable choice. In game, I've seen them as viable, but the math bears out that they are still lower powered (just not as much, thanks to hit locations), so beefing them up a little more merits consideration. They don't need a lot, though, at least in my opinion, and based on our pretty limited examples where rDEF is just a bit lower than 1/DC, and total defense a bit less than double DC.

 

I approach this from the perspective that I don't want that much more lethal game, so the KA has to have better STUN potential, but I also don't want KA's to be the clear and obvious choice, and normal attacks something we use only if we have no other option. So that means normal attacks need some beefing up. Hit locations go a long way to leveling a normal attack with a 1-5 stun multiple, but the math shows it does not go far enough.

 

 

From my study and information on trauma, weapon damage, and wounding, having attacks do significantly more stun than body is more realistic, as far as the game goes.  Its extremely rare that someone just outright dies from a hit unless its incredibly catastrophic like falling out of orbit or being hit by a butane bomb.  Usually people take a significant injury to an area, are knocked unconscious and die from blood loss or trauma over a period of time either short or long.

 

However, in fantasy games people are so used to fiction and D&D where you hit creatures until they fall down dead, fighting to the last hit point, so the stun system in Hero confuses some, I think.

Well, I think the fiction has a lot more KO's than we credit it with. Conan does not win every encounter, but he's still around. Now, under the 1-3 SM approach, that target taking about 2 BOD and about 4 STUN a hit seems like he will run out of BOD (maybe he has 15 BOD, so 8 hits) before he runs out of STUN (probably has 30 or so, and he recovered some in the course of taking 8 hits), but won't be dead before he's KO'd. He will be bleeding to death, so it looks like we've achieved that historical accuracy. But we don't have a cinematic, larger than life hero any more. We have realism instead. To me, that's not the best game. It's definitely not the cinematic reality Hero strives for, so we need to get the BOD damage to STUN damage ratio back down, as Tasha notes.

[Tasha]

I was talking about the normal attacks part of the chart, NOT the KA Stun multiple part of the chart.
So making the NORMAL Stun of Pos 8 and Pos 15 a x1 and not a x1/2 would make the Hit Location chart far better for Normal attacks.

IMHO the KA's are handled very well by the Hit Location Chart.

Talking about change. Another Change that would be beneficial to the chart and end the Loc 13 being a common hit issue. It might be better to go to a chart that is based on damage outcome probabilities instead of the head to toe naturalistic model the chart currently has.

ie Place the best locations at the 3-6 locations, Decent locations (stomach) at 7, 8-14 being the X3 x2 locations with x1 Body, then pile the undesirable locations like Arms, legs, Hands feet at the bottom of the chart 15-18.
(I pulled the actual locations out of my head, someone would want to actually use some math to make sure that the bad was just as likely to happen as the good and there was a good wide swath of "good enough" in the middle)

It takes away from the naturalistic feel of the chart, but it aligns the chart with the bell curve and the feel that to hits give of Very low is great, very high is very bad, Middle works ok.
 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I still use average defense for AE attacks on characters.  Its a little work to get figured out but its handy in heroic games.

[Tasha]

In Heroic Level games. I use Hit Location for Killing attacks (ex AOE) only. Works pretty well.

[Ninja-Bear]

Hugh for the last wolverine clones I've built for players have used the normal dice with AP. And it has been rather sucessful.

[esampson]

I was talking about the normal attacks part of the chart, NOT the KA Stun multiple part of the chart.

So making the NORMAL Stun of Pos 8 and Pos 15 a x1 and not a x1/2 would make the Hit Location chart far better for Normal attacks.

 

IMHO the KA's are handled very well by the Hit Location Chart.

 

Talking about change. Another Change that would be beneficial to the chart and end the Loc 13 being a common hit issue. It might be better to go to a chart that is based on damage outcome probabilities instead of the head to toe naturalistic model the chart currently has.

 

ie Place the best locations at the 3-6 locations, Decent locations (stomach) at 7, 8-14 being the X3 x2 locations with x1 Body, then pile the undesirable locations like Arms, legs, Hands feet at the bottom of the chart 15-18.

(I pulled the actual locations out of my head, someone would want to actually use some math to make sure that the bad was just as likely to happen as the good and there was a good wide swath of "good enough" in the middle)

 

It takes away from the naturalistic feel of the chart, but it aligns the chart with the bell curve and the feel that to hits give of Very low is great, very high is very bad, Middle works ok.

 

You could do that, but really you would probably lose more than you would gain.

 

In theory the chart should do three things (at least IMO).

 

The first is that it should provide somewhat accurate percentages to hit various locations. As the chart currently stands there odds for different body parts are as follows. Head: 4.6%, Hands: 4.6%, Arms: 16.7%, Shoulders: 11.6%, Chest: 25%, Stomach: 11.6%, Vitals: 9.7%, Thigh: 6.9%, Legs: 7.4%, Feet: 1.9%. Are these odds close enough to provide a reasonable simulation? Honestly, I'd probably like to see some adjustments but let's leave that for now. Unfortunately using a 3D6 system you are going to be pretty constrained to how close you can get (although I suspect with a bit of mathematical modeling I could get a lot closer).

 

The second thing the chart should do is not be a detriment or an advantage over not using the chart, damage wise. A lot of people are complaining that there are too many x1/2 areas that you end up doing less damage using this chart. If you take the odds of hitting each location, multiply it by the stun modifier, and then total them up you will get 99.95%. The missing .05% is actually a rounding error and the truth of the matter is that the total is exactly 100%. I've got no idea how they were able to work that out so precisely. I think it is probably a combination of luck and probably one of the reasons that the odds of hitting a given location are a bit skewed. If I were to rework things into a more 'correct' model for probability I doubt I could hit exactly 100% like they originally did here.

 

The last thing that the hit location chart needs to do is cluster appropriate body parts together. This way if someone is standing behind a low wall when they get hit you can roll 2d6+1 instead of 3d6 and avoid hit locations that shouldn't happen since they were covered (incidentally, it should be noted that when you roll 2d6+1 for hit location, a free option when you are using a short weapon,  the damage is also 100%). Unfortunately any kind of modification to the chart to put the 'bad locations' at one end and the 'good locations' at the other would destroy this.

[Greywind]

Or you can roll the full locations with the cover taking the hit if required.

[Chris Goodwin]

I am still wondering if KA's as we know and hate them should just die.

 

My thought during SETAC was to remove Killing Attack as a Power but keep it as a mechanic.  Like, all attacks do Normal Damage.  If you want to do Killing Damage to someone you'd have to use a Kill maneuver.  It might be, say, -2 OCV, 1/2 DCV, and represents you making a conscious decision to end someone's life; using this maneuver would mean you'd roll Killing Damage instead of Normal Damage.  There'd be an everyman Code Vs. Killing that goes along with it, which would apply specifically unless you've taken some other Complication that applies instead (Casual Killer, Pacifist, etc.) so that you'd need to make an EGO Roll to do it.  

[Tasha]

My thought during SETAC was to remove Killing Attack as a Power but keep it as a mechanic.  Like, all attacks do Normal Damage.  If you want to do Killing Damage to someone you'd have to use a Kill maneuver.  It might be, say, -2 OCV, 1/2 DCV, and represents you making a conscious decision to end someone's life; using this maneuver would mean you'd roll Killing Damage instead of Normal Damage.  There'd be an everyman Code Vs. Killing that goes along with it, which would apply specifically unless you've taken some other Complication that applies instead (Casual Killer, Pacifist, etc.) so that you'd need to make an EGO Roll to do it.  

 

That would be a change that would benefit Superheroes, but really frack up Heroic level play. It would not model how Guns, bows work at all.

 

One reason that I came up with the solution I did was to unify mechanics a bit. Which IMHO is always a good thing for a game to do. The real test would be to Playtest the variant system and see if it actually worked well or had unforseen problems or if predicted issues really arose. My current group are Hero Novices so they are still getting their heads around the basic system (Champions, No Killing Attacks), So testing new mechanics would not be a good fit.

[Tasha]

You could do that, but really you would probably lose more than you would gain.

 

In theory the chart should do three things (at least IMO).

 

The first is that it should provide somewhat accurate percentages to hit various locations. As the chart currently stands there odds for different body parts are as follows. Head: 4.6%, Hands: 4.6%, Arms: 16.7%, Shoulders: 11.6%, Chest: 25%, Stomach: 11.6%, Vitals: 9.7%, Thigh: 6.9%, Legs: 7.4%, Feet: 1.9%. Are these odds close enough to provide a reasonable simulation? Honestly, I'd probably like to see some adjustments but let's leave that for now. Unfortunately using a 3D6 system you are going to be pretty constrained to how close you can get (although I suspect with a bit of mathematical modeling I could get a lot closer).

 

The second thing the chart should do is not be a detriment or an advantage over not using the chart, damage wise. A lot of people are complaining that there are too many x1/2 areas that you end up doing less damage using this chart. If you take the odds of hitting each location, multiply it by the stun modifier, and then total them up you will get 99.95%. The missing .05% is actually a rounding error and the truth of the matter is that the total is exactly 100%. I've got no idea how they were able to work that out so precisely. I think it is probably a combination of luck and probably one of the reasons that the odds of hitting a given location are a bit skewed. If I were to rework things into a more 'correct' model for probability I doubt I could hit exactly 100% like they originally did here.

 

The last thing that the hit location chart needs to do is cluster appropriate body parts together. This way if someone is standing behind a low wall when they get hit you can roll 2d6+1 instead of 3d6 and avoid hit locations that shouldn't happen since they were covered (incidentally, it should be noted that when you roll 2d6+1 for hit location, a free option when you are using a short weapon,  the damage is also 100%). Unfortunately any kind of modification to the chart to put the 'bad locations' at one end and the 'good locations' at the other would destroy this.

That all sounds great but 2d6+1 is a bad deal for the person using that small weapon. Most of your hits land on the 7-9 Hands, arms and Shoulder. Only the shoulder does ok damage. It wouldn't be too hard to have charts for high shots, low shots.

 

Heck, the "Head Shot" 1d6+3 clusters also around the Hands and arms.

 

Both of those optional Targeting shots are really a foolish waste of time. A person is much better making a -3 OCV Called shot to the chest. It consistantly feeds x3 Stun Mult and is a X1 Body and X1 NStun location.

 

People use those targeting shots hoping to win the lottery by rolling a head shot that they DO have an increased chance to hit, but it's still a pretty low chance even with the Head Shot -4OCV called shot. on 1d6 +4 they have a 12.5% chance of hitting the head (they can only hit 5).

 

So the Naturalistic Chart seems to work "Good enough" I still think that NStun should be changed to x1for Locations 8 and 15. NStun is normally biased toward doing a very set amount of damage. The hit Location chart should IMHO reflect that better.

 

I am just tossing ideas out there. I wonder how good/bad it would be to Widen the chest location to 10-12 Lets look at this:

3-4 Head

5 Hands

6-7 Arms

8 Vitals (has the chest bracked with "Good Locations", also removes the idea that Vitals is a Genitals shot)

9 Shoulder

10-12 Chest

13 Stomach

14 Thighs

etc...

 

Head shots happen a lot less with this model. You could probably even leave the nStun multipliers alone with this one. Vitals become more clearly about hitting the Heart or Lungs. Stomach shots happen a bit more often and perhaps will seem less like an after thought on the chart. Head then becomes Lower Head, Upper Head(it has to be backward or sectional armor plays weird),

[esampson]

That all sounds great but 2d6+1 is a bad deal for the person using that small weapon. Most of your hits land on the 7-9 Hands, arms and Shoulder. Only the shoulder does ok damage. It wouldn't be too hard to have charts for high shots, low shots.

 

Heck, the "Head Shot" 1d6+3 clusters also around the Hands and arms.

 

Both of those optional Targeting shots are really a foolish waste of time. A person is much better making a -3 OCV Called shot to the chest. It consistantly feeds x3 Stun Mult and is a X1 Body and X1 NStun location.

 

People use those targeting shots hoping to win the lottery by rolling a head shot that they DO have an increased chance to hit, but it's still a pretty low chance even with the Head Shot -4OCV called shot. on 1d6 +4 they have a 12.5% chance of hitting the head (they can only hit 5).

 

So the Naturalistic Chart seems to work "Good enough" I still think that NStun should be changed to x1for Locations 8 and 15. NStun is normally biased toward doing a very set amount of damage. The hit Location chart should IMHO reflect that better.

 

I am just tossing ideas out there. I wonder how good/bad it would be to Widen the chest location to 10-12 Lets look at this:

3-4 Head

5 Hands

6-7 Arms

8 Vitals (has the chest bracked with "Good Locations", also removes the idea that Vitals is a Genitals shot)

9 Shoulder

10-12 Chest

13 Stomach

14 Thighs

etc...

 

Head shots happen a lot less with this model. You could probably even leave the nStun multipliers alone with this one. Vitals become more clearly about hitting the Heart or Lungs. Stomach shots happen a bit more often and perhaps will seem less like an after thought on the chart. Head then becomes Lower Head, Upper Head(it has to be backward or sectional armor plays weird),

Actually, the killing attack stun modifier is one area that the hit location chart 'breaks down', but it doesn't do it in the way that you think.

 

When you roll 3d6 your average stun multipler is 2.87 (when you account for the differing probabilities for various locations). This is in contrast to the 2.67 that you would normally get using the older 1d6-1 method or the 2 you would get using the newer 1/2d6 method.. That's about a 7% improvement in stun over the old method and a 44% improvement over the new 1/2d6 method.

 

On the other hand when you are using a 'high shot' the average damage is 3.53, a 32% improvement over the old method, 77% improvement over the new method, and a 23% improvement over the 3d6 hit location chart.

 

So yes, you are playing a little bit of a lottery when you make high shots with a short weapon but it is definitely one that pays off. Yes, you will hit hands and arms a lot while you are doing that which wouldn't make sense if the person was simply standing there but in a fight people tend to raise their hands up. Depending on what's being done the hands are usually at a level between the bottoms of the ribs and the face and typically out in front of the body, so I don't think all those hits on the hands are that unexpected. Sure, there are plenty of stances that will not put the hands and arms in those positions but the majority will and unless you want to add to the complication of the system by creating different hit location charts based on stances I think this is about the best we can hope for.

[Hugh Neilson]

That all sounds great but 2d6+1 is a bad deal for the person using that small weapon. Most of your hits land on the 7-9 Hands, arms and Shoulder. Only the shoulder does ok damage. It wouldn't be too hard to have charts for high shots, low shots.

 

Heck, the "Head Shot" 1d6+3 clusters also around the Hands and arms.

 

Both of those optional Targeting shots are really a foolish waste of time. A person is much better making a -3 OCV Called shot to the chest. It consistantly feeds x3 Stun Mult and is a X1 Body and X1 NStun location.

 

People use those targeting shots hoping to win the lottery by rolling a head shot that they DO have an increased chance to hit, but it's still a pretty low chance even with the Head Shot -4OCV called shot. on 1d6 +4 they have a 12.5% chance of hitting the head (they can only hit 5).

 

So the Naturalistic Chart seems to work "Good enough" I still think that NStun should be changed to x1for Locations 8 and 15. NStun is normally biased toward doing a very set amount of damage. The hit Location chart should IMHO reflect that better.

 

I am just tossing ideas out there. I wonder how good/bad it would be to Widen the chest location to 10-12 Lets look at this:

3-4 Head

5 Hands

6-7 Arms

8 Vitals (has the chest bracked with "Good Locations", also removes the idea that Vitals is a Genitals shot)

9 Shoulder

10-12 Chest

13 Stomach

14 Thighs

etc...

 

Head shots happen a lot less with this model. You could probably even leave the nStun multipliers alone with this one. Vitals become more clearly about hitting the Heart or Lungs. Stomach shots happen a bit more often and perhaps will seem less like an after thought on the chart. Head then becomes Lower Head, Upper Head(it has to be backward or sectional armor plays weird),

 

esampson has covered off a lot of the math. I ran a supernatural character with 4 levels against called shots who defaulted to that 1d6+3, and he was devestatingly effective. Average SM is 3, but 2 out of 6 double the BOD and get a 5x STUN multiple.  Half get a one or 2x multiple. So what?  37.5% of shots with the normal 3-18 get a 1 or a 2, and it's half the shots with 1d6-1.  A third get a 5x multiple. Only 26.97% get a 4 or a 5 on the 3d6 chart - less than 5% are head shots.  

 

5x Stun Mult generally means Stunned if not KO'd.  That's huge.  5x the 8 we're working with in that Heroic game is 40 less 12 defenses is 28 STUN - not a lot of heroic characters have 28 CON.  32 gets us to 20 - a lot more Heroics in that range, although still a likely STUN result.  That head shot massively improves my odds.  Your steady chest shot gets a bit of damage every time - no plinks, but no STUN/KO either.

 

 You do 12 STUN reliably - pretty safe 3 shots will KO (but only just). I average the same 12 STUN (6 shots - 0,0,4,12,28, 28) and I average the same 3 hits to a win - but I have 1 chance in 3 to win on the first shot. Why don't you Hold your action to see if I STUN him?  You won't!

 

I'm not commenting on your normal stun right now - my charts are on the other computer and I don't want to rewrite them.  I suspect the result will still be "Normal does similar or a bit more STUN, but not enough to offset the KA doing BOD and having a chance at an instant win".