Killing Attacks in 6th Edition

[phoenix240]

How do the rules changes work in play? It seems like it makes Killing Attacks much weaker almost to the level of being pointless which is fine for Four Color supers but might be be inappropriate for other genres.

[psyber624]

I thought the only difference was the STUNx multiplier was changed to 1-3 (bringing the power in line with NonKilling attacks as far as STUN goes)? Don't have 5e so not sure tho..

[shuddemell]

I would suggest, that if you want killing attacks to have the impact they should on 'real' people, you should use the optional hit locations, incapacitation rules, et. al.

[phoenix240]

I thought the only difference was the STUNx multiplier was changed to 1-3 (bringing the power in line with NonKilling attacks as far as STUN goes)? Don't have 5e so not sure tho..

 

Doesn't resistant and non resistant defenses effect the Stun for killing attacks regardless of regardless of whether or not the target has Resistant Defense or not?

[phoenix240]

I would suggest, that if you want killing attacks to have the impact they should on 'real' people, you should use the optional hit locations, incapacitation rules, et. al.

Those rules aren't appropriate for all campaigns and settings. Among other things it adds an additional roll to combat and the potential complication of sectional armor. I'm not worried about realism so much as game and cost balance.

[phoenix240]

I've toyed with the idea of dropping the concept of Killing Attack all together and just treating them as a form of Attack vs Alternate Defense: Resistant

[shuddemell]

It is true that the options I mentioned aren't necessarily appropriate to all campaigns, however they work for those wanting KA's to feel more realistic. I have considered the same options for supers and the like, and it seems quite workable using only regular attacks with a resistant limitation.

[phoenix240]

It is true that the options I mentioned aren't necessarily appropriate to all campaigns' date=' however they work for those wanting KA's to feel more realistic. I have considered the same options for supers and the like, and it seems quite workable using only regular attacks with a resistant limitation.[/quote']

 

I'll keep it in mind. Thanks.

[docdoom77]

I've toyed with the idea of dropping the concept of Killing Attack all together and just treating them as a form of Attack vs Alternate Defense: Resistant

That's a pretty cool idea AND it allows you to roll buckets of damage dice on KAs... always fun. ;D

[psyber624]

Doesn't resistant and non resistant defenses effect the Stun for killing attacks regardless of regardless of whether or not the target has Resistant Defense or not?

 

Yes, I wasn't aware that was new to 6e, but again it is in keeping with the idea that Killing Attacks should be intended to produce BODY damage, not as a cheaper way to achieve STUN damage than normal attacks (which was the case in 5e, that much I know). Without that change (if it is one) Killing Attacks could still easily be better at doing STUN damage than normal attacks (at the same AP) if the STUN only applied to resistant defenses which would make normal attacks (Blast, HA) almost completely pointless from a cost perspective.

 

[NuSoardGraphite]

Doesn't resistant and non resistant defenses effect the Stun for killing attacks regardless of regardless of whether or not the target has Resistant Defense or not?

 

Yes, I wasn't aware that was new to 6e, but again it is in keeping with the idea that Killing Attacks should be intended to produce BODY damage, not as a cheaper way to achieve STUN damage than normal attacks (which was the case in 5e, that much I know). Without that change (if it is one) Killing Attacks could still easily be better at doing STUN damage than normal attacks (at the same AP) if the STUN only applied to resistant defenses which would make normal attacks (Blast, HA) almost completely pointless from a cost perspective.

As far as I know, that is a new change, however I have always run my games as non-resistant defenses protecting against the Stun of Killing damage regardless of if the target has resistant defenses or not. I saw that as a potential balance issue right away and that simple fix restores that balance.

[Stevemc]

The new rule seems to take the teeth out of the killing attack unless you reduce resistant defenses.

[Christopher]

How do the rules changes work in play? It seems like it makes Killing Attacks much weaker almost to the level of being pointless which is fine for Four Color supers but might be be inappropriate for other genres.

First you need to differentiate between the two general Directions of gameplay: Superheroic and Heroic.

 

In Superhoic games Killing attacks are generally not supposed to be used against enemies in the first place (even withotu explicitc CvK). They are not supposed to be effective either. Thier role is more or less: Breaking Entangles, Barriers, Foci. And the ocassional Robot/Zombie/Demon agaisnt wich Code vs Killing does not apply (and wich might have "No STUN" Power). If it is killing damage in Supers, it is mostly because the Special Effect did not seem to allow Normal Damage to be used.

The one issue with 5E Killing attacks was that they could do more STUN then Normal Damage attack, via the "Stun Lottery". This problem was fixed via reducing the STUN Multiplier. And that non-resistant Defenses always work agaisnt Killing STUN (or rather that tehre is no such thing as "Killing STUN" - Stun from KA is handeled like STUN from normal Damage attacks).

 

In Heroic games KA are usually accepted attack forms, by heroes and villains alike. Here they excell at doing body damage. While a KA can cause STUN (and might even get the target Stunned), this is generally less likely then with normal Damage.

 

There are usually two factors defining how attack powers handle in any game, those are the DC/Defense Ratio and the resistant/total defense Ratio (as defiend by the Caps in the books tables).

In superheroic games DC/defense ratio is 1:1.5 too 1:2.5 with up to 75% Resistant. That generally draws fights out and makes KA next to useless agaisnt foes.

In heroic games DC/defense ratio is about 1:1.25 with up to 50% Resistant (powerfull heroic has a higher Resistant ratio). So not only are fights shorter, people are liable to take BODY from Normal Damage attacks. And KA are very good at thier job.

 

About using Hit Locations:

Generally adding more randomness to fighting will be a disadvantage for the players. It makes combat less interesting/worthwhile.

The simple reason is that PC's will have to roll on that roulette much more often then NPC, wich usually last only one combat.

[phoenix240]

First you need to differentiate between the two general Directions of gameplay: Superheroic and Heroic.

 

In Superhoic games Killing attacks are generally not supposed to be used against enemies in the first place (even withotu explicitc CvK). They are not supposed to be effective either.

 

I take it you're stating an opinion, not a rule or things have really changed in 6th Edition.

[Christopher]

 

I take it you're stating an opinion, not a rule or things have really changed in 6th Edition.

It is the logical assumption based on the caps and example Superheroic Characters I have seen:

400 points (standart superheroic powerlevel) uses 12 DC as the usual power level for attacks

It sugests 12-18 Resistant Defenses (4d6 KA do 14 Body average)

And then most character don't have KA's bigger then 9 DC or no KA at all. Those that have 12 DC KA usually have steep limitations on the usability (and a CvK).

 

I see no other logical explanation then: "In superhoic games with standart Caps KA are not supposed to be used against other characters."

If you want to change that, you should change the defense Caps.

[Uthanar]

 

I take it you're stating an opinion, not a rule or things have really changed in 6th Edition.

It is the logical assumption based on the caps and example Superheroic Characters I have seen:

400 points (standart superheroic powerlevel) uses 12 DC as the usual power level for attacks

It sugests 12-18 Resistant Defenses (4d6 KA do 14 Body average)

And then most character don't have KA's bigger then 9 DC or no KA at all. Those that have 12 DC KA usually have steep limitations on the usability (and a CvK).

 

I see no other logical explanation then: "In superhoic games with standart Caps KA are not supposed to be used against other characters."

If you want to change that, you should change the defense Caps.

Perhaps it is instead just the examples that are provided so that new people do not fall into powers that the see in action and then quickly label 'broken' in some fashion. Just an alternative thought.

[phoenix240]

 

I take it you're stating an opinion, not a rule or things have really changed in 6th Edition.

It is the logical assumption based on the caps and example Superheroic Characters I have seen:

400 points (standart superheroic powerlevel) uses 12 DC as the usual power level for attacks

It sugests 12-18 Resistant Defenses (4d6 KA do 14 Body average)

And then most character don't have KA's bigger then 9 DC or no KA at all. Those that have 12 DC KA usually have steep limitations on the usability (and a CvK).

 

I see no other logical explanation then: "In superhoic games with standart Caps KA are not supposed to be used against other characters."

If you want to change that, you should change the defense Caps.

The guidelines are proposed for the Champions Universe which is Four Color; so are the example characters. 12 DC KAs can still do Body at the suggested Defense ranges. Its just rarer (18 Resistant vs a potential 24 Body Damage) and I've seen several characters 3d6+ KAs. Given the Hero System's intend is to cover practically any genre and comics range in tone from Superfriends to The Authority I think anything like "Killing Attacks are never supposed to be used/be Effective in Superheroic games" would be either counter intuitive or important enough to be explicitly stated as the system claims to be universal.

[phoenix240]

 

I take it you're stating an opinion, not a rule or things have really changed in 6th Edition.

It is the logical assumption based on the caps and example Superheroic Characters I have seen:

400 points (standart superheroic powerlevel) uses 12 DC as the usual power level for attacks

It sugests 12-18 Resistant Defenses (4d6 KA do 14 Body average)

And then most character don't have KA's bigger then 9 DC or no KA at all. Those that have 12 DC KA usually have steep limitations on the usability (and a CvK).

 

I see no other logical explanation then: "In superhoic games with standart Caps KA are not supposed to be used against other characters."

If you want to change that, you should change the defense Caps.

tl;dr version: Killing Attacks aren't intended to be extremely effective in four color comic book settings but Superheroic isn't synonymous with Superheroic in Hero System terms.

[bigbywolfe]

First you need to differentiate between the two general Directions of gameplay: Superheroic and Heroic.

 

In Superhoic games Killing attacks are generally not supposed to be used against enemies in the first place (even withotu explicitc CvK). They are not supposed to be effective either.

 

I take it you're stating an opinion, not a rule or things have really changed in 6th Edition.

You are correct. While commonly held, it is very much an opinion and not anywhere near universal.

[psyber624]

If you want Killing Attacks to be effective in your Superheroic games all you have to do is put more limits on Resistant Defenses. Simple enough. The suggested ranges given in the books are just that, a suggestion.

 

The new rule seems to take the teeth out of the killing attack unless you reduce resistant defenses.

In what way? As far as I know NOTHING was changed about the way Killing Attacks do Body Damage, which is where their teeth should be. All of the changes to Killing Attacks reduced their STUN damage so that they were not always without a doubt better than normal attacks. If you want to do Body Damage Killing Attacks always have been the better option and they still are. That is what they are SUPPOSED to be used for. All that has changed is that they are now not also the kings of STUN damage. How effective Killing Attacks are at actually doing Body damage has always been in the hands of the GM (who sets the caps and guidelines for his campaign) and that hasn't changed either.

[phoenix240]

The new rule seems to take the teeth out of the killing attack unless you reduce resistant defenses.

 

The reduced Stun Multiplier and the increased Defenses together seem like over compensation for the problem. Killing Attacks shouldn't be significantly better at inflicting Stun but I don't think they should necessarily be seriously inferior at either. Killing Damage is expensive 15 points vs 5. I think one or the other would have done the trick. Or maybe reworking how Killing Damage worked over all.

[Tasha]

The problem for superheroic games was due to the Stun Lottery. In earlier editions in Superheroic games many players figured out that hitting a x4 or x5 stun multiplier (a 50% chance) gave them a huge amount of stun. If the attack had a +1 stun Multipler the problem would be even worse. So a typical min maxer tactic was to use a Hero's Killing Attack power against everything hoping to hit that high stun multiplier. Which is incredibly genre breaking and game breaking. So in 6e they made the decision to make it clear that KA's did more body and Normal Attacks did more stun.

 

This was not a real issue for Heroic games since most heroic games use the Hit Location tables which kept their x1 - x5 multiplier. BTW Hit location is just about as easy to roll as a KA stun multiplier. Also you don't have to use sectional armor to make use of it.

 

The idea that you could make a KA by adding an advantage to Blast is interesting, But you end up with an attack that does even LESS body than a Normal attack of the same amount of points. So it's not a really good idea. We saw the Game designers struggle with this issue when they created Fuzion. The use of "Hits" as a new secondary stat was interesting, but also very klunky esp as they kept BODY as a stat. Another fix that might work ok would be to have everything work like blast. There would be Blast that you could define as "Normal" or Killing (where the body was vs rDef) same points. Unfortunatly there's no reason to take Normal attacks.

[psyber624]

Killing Damage is only 15 points for a full die of killing damage, and for those 15 points you get MORE Body damage than 15 points worth of Normal Attacks (Blast, STR, HA, whatever) and compareable Stun Damage (a 15 point Blast does, on average, 10.5 Stun 3 Body. A 15 point RKA does, on average, 3.5 Body (which is only resisted by Resistant Defenses) and 7 Body Damage). The numbers are compareable with Blast being the clear winner at Stun (on average) and KA being the clear winner on Body (on average). But that is only part of the picture. A 15 point Blast does MAX 6 Body, MAX 18 Stun, but rarely ever reaches those heights. A 15 point RKA does MAX 6 Body (only resisted by Resistant Defenses) and MAX 18 Stun, same as a 15 point Blast. The actual theoretical amount of Stun damage is IDENTICAL between the two, and due to the bell curve nature of multiple dice the KA is MUCH more likely to deal the Max Stun/Body than the Blast is!. Due to the nature of the way defenses work in the game (as a reduction in the amount of damage) there is actually a mathematically provable "sweetspot" in defenses vs DC's due to the nature of the bell curve where KA's are actually STILL better at dealing Stun damage than Normal attacks (due to the higher possibility of higher results) and likewise a greater potential for stunning using them.

 

In this case the cost of the ability does match the utility of the power. If anything KA's are STILL slightly overpowered/underpriced (and this has been mathematically proven on numerous posts here in the past), however the difference is much narrower now than it used to be (in 5th Ed).

 

Of course its your game. If you don't like it go back to the old way. Just expect to never see Blast/HA from anyone who understands the system at all, they are a waste of points.

[phoenix240]

Killing Damage is only 15 points for a full die of killing damage, and for those 15 points you get MORE Body damage than 15 points worth of Normal Attacks (Blast, STR, HA, whatever) and comparable Stun Damage (a 15 point Blast does, on average, 10.5 Stun 3 Body. A 15 point RKA does, on average, 3.5 Body (which is only resisted by Resistant Defenses) and 7 Body Damage). The numbers are comparable with Blast being the clear winner at Stun (on average) and KA being the clear winner on Body (on average). But that is only part of the picture. A 15 point Blast does MAX 6 Body, MAX 18 Stun, but rarely ever reaches those heights. A 15 point RKA does MAX 6 Body (only resisted by Resistant Defenses) and MAX 18 Stun, same as a 15 point Blast. The actual theoretical amount of Stun damage is IDENTICAL between the two, and due to the bell curve nature of multiple dice the KA is MUCH more likely to deal the Max Stun/Body than the Blast is!. Due to the nature of the way defenses work in the game (as a reduction in the amount of damage) there is actually a mathematically provable "sweet spot" in defenses vs DC's due to the nature of the bell curve where KA's are actually STILL better at dealing Stun damage than Normal attacks (due to the higher possibility of higher results) and likewise a greater potential for stunning using them.

 

In this case the cost of the ability does match the utility of the power. If anything KA's are STILL slightly overpowered/underpriced (and this has been mathematically proven on numerous posts here in the past), however the difference is much narrower now than it used to be (in 5th Ed).

 

Of course its your game. If you don't like it go back to the old way. Just expect to never see Blast/HA from anyone who understands the system at all, they are a waste of points.

 

No need to excited.

 

15 points vs 5 is a big deal in my games.

 

. When I was using the old system I never had a problem with people using EBs and Hand to Hand attack they were the most common attack power. The Stun Lotto screwed you more often than it rewarded the character, IME. The only saving grace was that sometimes the target had lower Resistant defence vs the smaller about of Stun. From trail runs I'd probably see Killing attacks become non existent if I instituted the 6th edition changes. Previously KAs were generally worthless for doing Stun or Body barring some very extreme rolls which came up less frequently that freakish rolls for Normal Attacks, IME. YMMV, of course.

 

I ended up giving Killing Attack a fixed Stun Multiple of 3 (and nixing the Increased Stun Mult advantage). That worked out better but I'm still not entirely happy with the how it works out play.

 

[bigbywolfe]

The new rule seems to take the teeth out of the killing attack unless you reduce resistant defenses.

 

The reduced Stun Multiplier and the increased Defenses together seem like over compensation for the problem. Killing Attacks shouldn't be significantly better at inflicting Stun but I don't think they should necessarily be seriously inferior at either. Killing Damage is expensive 15 points vs 5. I think one or the other would have done the trick. Or maybe reworking how Killing Damage worked over all.

Um, no, it's not 15 points vs 5. 1 DC of Killing Damage is 5 points. 1 DICE of Killing Damage is 3 DC/15 Points and is roughly equivalent to 3 dice (3 DC) of Normal Damage which is also 15 points. In fact, you are much more likely to get max damage with the Killing attack.