Killing Attacks in 6th Edition

[bigbywolfe]

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.

And here you repeat the 15 vs 5 thing. Do you have a firm grasp of how Damage works in Hero? No one is saying 1dK equals 1d Normal, yet that is what you are arguing is "a big deal". 15 points gets you 3 Damage Classes of Killing Damage OR 3 Damage Classes of Normal Damage.

[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.

I've been playing Hero System since 4th Edition so I do have a grasp of damage works. But what I'm talking is how its worked out in play for me and the groups I've played with. Killing Attacks just have not been worth it for the 15 points (No one ever got Killing Damage in less a multiple of 15). You were better off going for Normal for 5 points unless you counting on what were effectively once a blue moon fluke rolls to damage. Killing Damage usually bounced doing absolutely nothing, not even knockback and hitting the Stun Lotto usually just netted you about the damage for slightly above average roll on a Normal Attack of the same damage class. YMMV.

[BNakagawa]

Under the old "Stun Lottery" rules, the KA was the superior attack against high DEF targets because of its volatility. To demonstrate the danger that the Stun Lottery presented, let's do a little thought experiment.

 

Imagine an attack power that cost 5 points per DC. When you hit with this power, you roll just one die for damage and multiplied the result by the number of DC. Now, this power has exactly the same minimum, maximum and average damage as an equivalent EB of the same active points, so this new power has to be balanced, right?

 

Of course not. This power would be a terrible idea. Pay no attention to the averages and look at the actual results. Your average PC has a 33 -50% chance of getting stunned with any 12 DC hit from this power. Think about what that does to the game.

 

The new KA rules are fine. As long as you use KAs for the type of thing it is designed for: breaking force walls, barriers (ugh), machines, constructs, vehicles, and occasionally killing things. If you're trying to stun things into unconsciousness, use something else.

 

 

[psyber624]

5 points of normal damage is practically incapable of outperforming 15 points of killing damage. The average damage from 5 points of normal damage is 3.5 STUN, 1 BODY. The average (in 6e) for Killing damage of 15 points of Killing Damage is 7 Stun, 3.5 Body (ignores non-resistant Defenses). At NO time is buying 5 points worth of Normal Damage "Better" than buying 15 points of Killing Damage (unless for some reason you only have 5 points to spend.) That's what your posts don't seem to understand.

 

unless you counting on what were effectively once a blue moon fluke rolls to damage.

This, if you are comparing 5 points of normal vs 15 points of killing, seems to indicate that in some fashion you do not understand how Normal damage and Killing damage work. In fact is is a "blue moon fluke" of a roll for the Normal damage to even come CLOSE to the killing damage in that scenario. And if the killing damage "bounced" then there is no way in HELL the normal damage equivalent would have gotten through.

 

I would hazard a guess, based upon your comments here and what I have picked up from previous posts (that you are a well informed player) that you are likely only applying the StunX to the BODY that gets past resistant defenses. If that is what you are doing it would explain your statements because many Supers are designed to not take any Body (or very little) from Killing Attacks in their weight class. That would result in very low Stun damage as well. However, by RAW, you apply the StunX to the Body damage BEFORE any defenses are applied. IF you do that then in no way can 5 points of normal compete with 15 points of Killing (in 5e with the higher StunX 15 points of normal couldn't compete with 15 points of Killing).

 

If you disagree with this can you please indicate with an example how your statement could be true so that we can understand the thought process behind it?

[bigbywolfe]

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.

So you are saying that in your average games 1d of normal damage will do more damage than 1d of Killing damage? How is that even possible?

[Lucius]

I run heroic fantasy, using Hit Locations. Almost everything is a Killing Attack.

 

My combat wombat player happily one-shot kills Stone Giants with a Killing Attack when he gets lucky enough to hit the Vitals. He also beheads things every chance he can get.

 

My exotic ninjoid weapon loving player happily one-shot knocks out various beasts with a Killing Attack with extra STUN multiples.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

My palindromedary decides to invest heavily in Defense

 

 

 

[phoenix240]

5 points of normal damage is practically incapable of outperforming 15 points of killing damage. The average damage from 5 points of normal damage is 3.5 STUN, 1 BODY. The average (in 6e) for Killing damage of 15 points of Killing Damage is 7 Stun, 3.5 Body (ignores non-resistant Defenses). At NO time is buying 5 points worth of Normal Damage "Better" than buying 15 points of Killing Damage (unless for some reason you only have 5 points to spend.) That's what your posts don't seem to understand. This, if you are comparing 5 points of normal vs 15 points of killing, seems to indicate that in some fashion you do not understand how Normal damage and Killing damage work. In fact is is a "blue moon fluke" of a roll for the Normal damage to even come CLOSE to the killing damage in that scenario. And if the killing damage "bounced" then there is no way in HELL the normal damage equivalent would have gotten through. I would hazard a guess, based upon your comments here and what I have picked up from previous posts (that you are a well informed player) that you are likely only applying the StunX to the BODY that gets past resistant defenses. If that is what you are doing it would explain your statements because many Supers are designed to not take any Body (or very little) from Killing Attacks in their weight class. That would result in very low Stun damage as well. However, by RAW, you apply the StunX to the Body damage BEFORE any defenses are applied. IF you do that then in no way can 5 points of normal compete with 15 points of Killing (in 5e with the higher StunX 15 points of normal couldn't compete with 15 points of Killing). If you disagree with this can you please indicate with an example how your statement could be true so that we can understand the thought process behind it?

 

Assuming a Superhero campaign (No Hit Locations)

 

Killing Attacks: Roll the listed dice for the Attack. The face value of the dice are the amount of Body Damage. Stun is determined by rolling a 1d6, subtracting 1 (Barring no increased Stun Multiple Advantage) and applying the result as multiple to the face value of the dice rolls. Both values are applied verses the target's applicable resistant defense.

 

1d6 Killing: roll of a 3. Stun Multiple roll(3-1) of a 2. Result 6 Stun and 3 Body applied against Resistant Defense.

 

Normal Damage: Roll the attack's listed damage dice. The face value of the dice is the Stun total. Body is determined as follows; Every 1 is 0 Body, Every 2-5 is 1, Each 6 is two Body. Apply these totals against the applicable defense usually non resistant and resistant barring Powers like Damage Resistance.

 

3d6 Killing Damage: Roll of 11 (1, 4, 6) Total: 3 Body, 11 Stun applied vs total Defense (except Powers like Damage Resistance)

 

Like I said I've been playing the game for quite some time. And, IME, Killing attacks are pretty ineffective at inflicting Stun or Body. You can hit a really good (high face value and high stun mult, the so called "Stun Lotto") but its very very very rare when I've played. Most of the time you get a low/average result for the Body and meager Stun which both end up bouncing off all but weakly defended characters. Normal Damage provides much more reliable (stun) Damage (body almost always bounces not that important if you're playing classic four color). The problem has been so persistent we've ended up changing the rules in most of the groups I've played with. Weird outliers? Entirely possible but its been repetitive enough to make me wonder but I don't think we're doing it wrong or have been sharing a decades long hallucination with a few different groups of people.

 

But that's really a slightly different topic. I was asking about the 6th Edition changes to KAs and how they worked in play. What have players experiences been with them?

[Tom Cowan]

I still like my Killing Attack - Ranged 2d6, +8 Increased STUN Multiplier (+2) (90 Active Points) GM test from 5th ed.  If the Gm does not see that as a problem the GM may need a clue.

[psyber624]

Seems like we are on the same page finally phoenix. Normal Damage DOES provide more reliable Stun damage. I totally agree. Since that's what it is SUPPOSED to do I don't see what the problem is. KA's are better at getting STUN through high def targets and at Stunning others but that is, as you say, when you roll high (and its better at that than Normal Damage do to higher variance from rolling fewer dice), but that is a byproduct of the way they roll damage and likely NOT an intentional result.

 

And I don't think you are trying to argue that Killing Attacks are worse at doing Body damage (hopefully). So yes, in a Supers game if you follow the suggested rDEF guidelines Killing Attacks will not be very effective. They are mainly used (as has been suggested previously) for breaking things as they roll higher Body (and "things" don't care about Stun).

 

 

As far as experiences with KA's in 6e my players generally don't use them as a primary attack. If they do have a KA it tends to be an option in a Multipower so that it can be brought out when the need arrives, but isn't the default.

[NuSoardGraphite]

This conversation has convinced me that new hero players need to play low powered gritty heroic campaigns with all the optional damage rules in place before being allowed to play supers. starting playing hero at the superheroic level seems to give one an erroneous perception of how some of the game mechanics interact, and that's a damned shame.

[phoenix240]

Seems like we are on the same page finally phoenix. Normal Damage DOES provide more reliable Stun damage. I totally agree. Since that's what it is SUPPOSED to do I don't see what the problem is. KA's are better at getting STUN through high def targets and at Stunning others but that is, as you say, when you roll high (and its better at that than Normal Damage do to higher variance from rolling fewer dice), but that is a byproduct of the way they roll damage and likely NOT an intentional result.

 

And I don't think you are trying to argue that Killing Attacks are worse at doing Body damage (hopefully). So yes, in a Supers game if you follow the suggested rDEF guidelines Killing Attacks will not be very effective. They are mainly used (as has been suggested previously) for breaking things as they roll higher Body (and "things" don't care about Stun).

 

 

As far as experiences with KA's in 6e my players generally don't use them as a primary attack. If they do have a KA it tends to be an option in a Multipower so that it can be brought out when the need arrives, but isn't the default.

 

Not quite. What I'm saying is that in my play KA are just flat out worse at doing any damage what so ever than equivalent Normal Attacks. They don't do more Body or more Stun. They bounce off Defenses most of the time and end up being basically useless. KAs aren't any better at hurting high defense targets or anything else really. But for the last time I'm not "arguing" it at all. I'm reporting on what my experience has been with the game. You've accused me of not knowing what I'm doing, Hopefully that's been cleared up. But what I've seen happen again and again in play hasn't changed. We've adjusted the rules for Killing Damage for our game and we're mostly happy with the results. That isn't what I created this thread to talk about so if we could please let it go (or you could start a different thread) I'd appreciate it please.

[phoenix240]

This conversation has convinced me that new hero players need to play low powered gritty heroic campaigns with all the optional damage rules in place before being allowed to play supers. starting playing hero at the superheroic level seems to give one an erroneous perception of how some of the game mechanics interact, and that's a damned shame.

I've used Hero System for low end Heroic play as well. I've run several multiple year (real time) spanning campaigns including a swords and Sorcery fantasy and a occult investigation/monster hunter game with a few more shorter games among them. It was the only system I used for awhile but I've recently started using a few others though.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

 

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 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.

 

The answer, to me, is that rDEF in 4 color games is set high enough that KA's will rarely or never do BOD.  They are useful against things that only take BOD, as they average a bit more BOD than a normal attack, but they aren't nearly as useful in getting STUN past defenses as they once were.

 

They were most definitely revised to be good at Kiling and not nearly as good at KOing an opponent. In a four colour game, I'd call them a niche power, useful occasionally (automatons, entangles, objects) but not often.

 

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.

 

 

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.

So you are saying that in your average games 1d of normal damage will do more damage than 1d of Killing damage? How is that even possible?

 

OK, we did the math on this WAAAAYYYY back when I needed to be convinced, but let's take a pretty simple example.

 

12d6 Normal attack averages 12 BOD, 42 STUN

4d6 KA averages 14 BOD x 2.67 = 37.4 STUN

 

Looks reasonable.

 

Now let's give our target, say, 20 defenses.

 

Normal attack punches 22 STUN past defenses on average.

 

14 BOD will get 0,0,8,22,36,50 STUN past defenses, or an average of 19.33, but will likely stun the target 1 time in 3.  Still reasonably comparable.  Make the target extra-tough - 30 defenses.  Normal attack gets 12 through on average.  KA gets 0,0,0,12,26,40 for an average of 13, stunning at least 1 time in 6, maybe 2.  Let's make him massively tough - 40 defenses.  Now Normal averages 2, KA gets 0,0,0,2,16,30 for an average of 8 - much greater average.

 

This is before factoring in that the KA BOD roll is also volatile - average past defenses is quite a bit better for the KA with its 1d6-1 Multiple than for a normal attack.  Consider that it also gets more BOD past, STUNs much more often, only is stopped by rDEF for BOD and is better for the occasional Entangle, Automaton or Object, and it's a better deal.  Now, it gets less past defenses on low defense targets -  but how often are they hard to hurt, instead of hard to hit?  That drawback tends to have little impact.

[phoenix240]

OK, we did the math on this WAAAAYYYY back when I needed to be convinced, but let's take a pretty simple example.

 

12d6 Normal attack averages 12 BOD, 42 STUN

4d6 KA averages 14 BOD x 2.67 = 37.4 STUN

 

Looks reasonable.

 

Now let's give our target, say, 20 defenses.

 

Normal attack punches 22 STUN past defenses on average.

 

14 BOD will get 0,0,8,22,36,50 STUN past defenses, or an average of 19.33, but will likely stun the target 1 time in 3.  Still reasonably comparable.  Make the target extra-tough - 30 defenses.  Normal attack gets 12 through on average.  KA gets 0,0,0,12,26,40 for an average of 13, stunning at least 1 time in 6, maybe 2.  Let's make him massively tough - 40 defenses.  Now Normal averages 2, KA gets 0,0,0,2,16,30 for an average of 8 - much greater average.

 

This is before factoring in that the KA BOD roll is also volatile - average past defenses is quite a bit better for the KA with its 1d6-1 Multiple than for a normal attack.  Consider that it also gets more BOD past, STUNs much more often, only is stopped by rDEF for BOD and is better for the occasional Entangle, Automaton or Object, and it's a better deal.  Now, it gets less past defenses on low defense targets -  but how often are they hard to hurt, instead of hard to hit?  That drawback tends to have little impact.

 

You've quoted something I said to bigbywolfe, btw. Understandable, I'm still getting use to the new board functions too.

 

 

I've seen the math before but more importantly I've seen what's happened repeatedly in play, in our games at least. Now maybe we're just weird outlier or whatever. But more importantly it not what this thread was started to discuss. I'm not going to change my games based on predictions that haven't worked out before. I'm not telling anyone they should change there's or that Hero System sucks or something. I've played it since 80s.

[phoenix240]

The answer, to me, is that rDEF in 4 color games is set high enough that KA's will rarely or never do BOD.  They are useful against things that only take BOD, as they average a bit more BOD than a normal attack, but they aren't nearly as useful in getting STUN past defenses as they once were.

 

They were most definitely revised to be good at Kiling and not nearly as good at KOing an opponent. In a four colour game, I'd call them a niche power, useful occasionally (automatons, entangles, objects) but not often.

 

 

 

 

OK, we did the math on this WAAAAYYYY back when I needed to be convinced, but let's take a pretty simple example.

 

12d6 Normal attack averages 12 BOD, 42 STUN

4d6 KA averages 14 BOD x 2.67 = 37.4 STUN

 

Looks reasonable.

 

Now let's give our target, say, 20 defenses.

 

Normal attack punches 22 STUN past defenses on average.

 

14 BOD will get 0,0,8,22,36,50 STUN past defenses, or an average of 19.33, but will likely stun the target 1 time in 3.  Still reasonably comparable.  Make the target extra-tough - 30 defenses.  Normal attack gets 12 through on average.  KA gets 0,0,0,12,26,40 for an average of 13, stunning at least 1 time in 6, maybe 2.  Let's make him massively tough - 40 defenses.  Now Normal averages 2, KA gets 0,0,0,2,16,30 for an average of 8 - much greater average.

 

This is before factoring in that the KA BOD roll is also volatile - average past defenses is quite a bit better for the KA with its 1d6-1 Multiple than for a normal attack.  Consider that it also gets more BOD past, STUNs much more often, only is stopped by rDEF for BOD and is better for the occasional Entangle, Automaton or Object, and it's a better deal.  Now, it gets less past defenses on low defense targets -  but how often are they hard to hurt, instead of hard to hit?  That drawback tends to have little impact.

 

You've quoted something I said to bigbywolfe, btw. Understandable, I'm still getting use to the new board functions too.

 

 

I've seen the math before but more importantly I've seen what's happened repeatedly in play, in our games at least. Now maybe we're just weird outlier or whatever. But more importantly it not what this thread was started to discuss. I'm not going to change my games based on predictions that haven't worked out before. I'm not telling anyone they should change there's or that Hero System sucks or something. I've played it since 80s.

[Hugh Neilson]

I had to be persuaded by the math, actually. Our group never had much of an issue with KA's, largely because the players treated them as lethal and tended to avoid using them on most living targets, saving them for automatons, etc.

 

However, I did notice as a GM using KA's instead of normal attacks for mook attacks so there was a chance of getting some STUN through to a Super.  That highlights the issue for me.

 

I think the 6e solution is a good one. It makes the KA a niche power in a four colour game, but I'm OK with that, since 4 colour games don't see death in many combats.  Attacks meant to kill should not be great choices in such a game.

 

For an Iron Age game, where Supers often do inflict BOD, and even kill one another, KA's are more relevant and rDEF should be more restricted. In fact, I'd focus a lot more on Damage Negation than defenses, making the Supers immune to lower level attacks, but start taking some BOD pretty quick as the attacks ramp up.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Under the old "Stun Lottery" rules, the KA was the superior attack against high DEF targets because of its volatility. To demonstrate the danger that the Stun Lottery presented, let's do a little thought experiment.Imagine an attack power that cost 5 points per DC. When you hit with this power, you roll just one die for damage and multiplied the result by the number of DC. Now, this power has exactly the same minimum, maximum and average damage as an equivalent EB of the same active points, so this new power has to be balanced, right?Of course not. This power would be a terrible idea. Pay no attention to the averages and look at the actual results. Your average PC has a 33 -50% chance of getting stunned with any 12 DC hit from this power. Think about what that does to the game.The new KA rules are fine. As long as you use KAs for the type of thing it is designed for: breaking force walls, barriers (ugh), machines, constructs, vehicles, and occasionally killing things. If you're trying to stun things into unconsciousness, use something else.

Or build your killing attack power so it does more stun damage, like buying a +2 to the stun multiplier, which then creates a killing attack with a x3-x5 stun multiplier which makes them extremely efficient at doing stun damage.

 

In the 6th, is +1 stun multiplier a +1/4 advantage or +1/2? (Dont have my book handy)

[Derek Hiemforth]

+1/4

[Hugh Neilson]

Let's assume we move the KA to a 3-5 Stun multiple.  For the same 12 DC's, we now have a 2 1/2d6 KA, so an average of 9 BOD x 3-5 so 27 - 45 STUN.  The Normal Attack averaged 42 STUN.

 

The KA will be more volatile - its odds of maximum damage (15 BOD x 5 Multiple = 75 STUN ) is 1 chance in 324.  However, an average of 36 STUN vs 42 STUN from the normal attack isn't too favourable.  Looking at the comparison I used for the old KA:

 

Now let's give our target, say, 20 defenses.

 

Normal attack punches 22 STUN past defenses on average.

 

9 BOD will get 7,16,25 STUN past defenses, or an average of 16, but perhaps can stun the target 1 time in 3.  

 

Make the target extra-tough - 30 defenses.  Normal attack gets 12 through on average.  KA gets 0,6,15 for an average of 7, no stunning.  Advantage:  Normal attack.  Let's make him massively tough - 40 defenses.  Now Normal averages 2, KA gets 0,0,5 for an average of 1 2/3 - finally getting comparable. 

 

Of course, the normal attack averages 12 BOD instead of 9, and will do much more knockback as well.

 

What if we only had 10 defenses?  Normal attack averages 32 past defenses.  KA averages 17, 26, 35 so 26 on average.

 

The goal was to make KA's the choice attack to do BOD, not STUN.  This seems to bear it out.

 

What if we went with a +4 SM, so 2d6 KA, 7 average BOD, x 5 - 7, so 35, 42, 49 rolled STUN?  84 STUN maximum 1 time in 108 - that's pretty volatile.

 

Now let's give our target, say, 20 defenses.

 

Normal attack punches 22 STUN past defenses on average.

 

7 BOD will get 15,22,29 STUN past defenses, or an average of 22, just like the normal attack, but can likely stun the target 1 time in 3.  

 

Make the target extra-tough - 30 defenses.  Normal attack gets 12 through on average.  KA gets 5,12,19 for an average of 12, no stunning.  Same STUN, less BOD, less knockback.  Let's make him massively tough - 40 defenses.  Now Normal averages 2, KA gets 0,2,9 for an average of 5.5 - now the KA is getting more STUN through. 

 

Of course, if the GM is expecting KA's to do BOD, +4 Stun Multiple may not pass inspection, but even here the advantage is not huge.  The volatility of the KA will definitely up the average past very high defenses, though, so a partial return to the Stun Lottery.

[Vondy]

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.

No set of rules is appropriate for all campaigns and all settings. Hence, "options" you can use or not as needed. However, if you really like the "old style" killing attacks you should house-rule them back in. After all, its a tool kit. You can tinker.

[BNakagawa]

Or build your killing attack power so it does more stun damage, like buying a +2 to the stun multiplier, which then creates a killing attack with a x3-x5 stun multiplier which makes them extremely efficient at doing stun damage.

 

In the 6th, is +1 stun multiplier a +1/4 advantage or +1/2? (Dont have my book handy)

It's already possible. With the disastrous decision to make the +1 Stun Multiple cost only +1/4, you could simply buy a 1d6 KA with +12 Stun Mod, which does, on the average MORE Stun damage than 12d6 EB.

Or worse, a 1 pip KA with a +42 Stun Mod, AoE 1 hex. Now it does more average STUN than 12d6 EB and it never misses.

 

That first attack, the one that bears an uncanny resemblance to the imaginary horrible power in my first post? It averages 22 stun past 30 defenses. It averages over 15 stun past 40 defenses.

 

buh-roken.

[Derek Hiemforth]

It's already possible. With the disastrous decision to make the +1 Stun Multiple cost only +1/4, you could simply buy a 1d6 KA with +12 Stun Mod

Unless, of course, you have a GM...

[Chris Goodwin]

1d6 KA with Standard Effect (3 BODY, 2x STUN) with +12 STUN Multiple would do 3 BODY and 42 STUN per shot.  No lotto needed.

[bigbywolfe]

There are warnings about unbalanced powers being created by Advantage stacking.  +12 Stun Mod is not an issue with the +1/4 price of the Advantage or an issue with how Killing Attacks work; it is an issue of a munchkin power build, nothing more, nothing less.

[BNakagawa]

There are warnings about unbalanced powers being created by Advantage stacking.  +12 Stun Mod is not an issue with the +1/4 price of the Advantage or an issue with how Killing Attacks work; it is an issue of a munchkin power build, nothing more, nothing less.

then why not leave the +1 stun mod at +1/2, as originally designed? If the point of the KA was to generate body, not stun, this should not have happened.