Killing attack musings

[Duke Bushido]

Ah; I see.

 

Thanks for the clarification, Hugh. I misunderstood the direction you were going there. It hasn't been an issue (for us, of course) but I can easily see how it could become one very quickly. For us, it was a method of discouraging KA as the character's primary attack (the Stun Lottery thing), and it's worked very well for that.

 

Though regardless of the point cost or the AP, doesn't the same issue apply to a traditionally-priced 6d6 Killing Attack?

[Grailknight]

1-Why not? You get 1d6 of HTH damage (priced at 3 points) plus the ability to lift, carry, throw, grab, break free from grapples, etc. etc.

 

 

2-And when a 20 STR opponent Grabs him and immobilizes the point of origin of his Hand Attack, he will realize that the 20 points he saved (since he would add this HA to the 2 free dice from his STR) mean he lacks some abilities the fellow who paid for STR possesses.

 

 

3-If we start at 3 points per DC, then this must be the cost. 3 1/3 points per DC grates. Of course, Blast also gives the option of Spreading the attack, which we are not considering, but perhaps that becomes a function of range for simplicity.

 

 

4-Assuming you want all the other abilities of STR to be half END. We could allow the advantage to be placed on the damaging aspect only, of course. And we would not want the STR user to have to apply Armor Piercing, or other such advantages, to the cost of STR over and above Hand Attack.

 

 

5-Why? Most movement powers are not purchased primarily to enhance damage. If you want Move By's bumped up by 1d6 per 6 meters of movement, buy some Linked Hand Attack.

 

 

6-Improvised weapons are too generous now. I think that STR for Throwing remains in the 2 points per, but "automatic AoE" disappears, and a revisitation of the penalties for improvised weapons would be in order. Under standard Hero rules, Spiderman should have been SpiderSplat since the first time the Hulk lobbed a bus at him.

 

 

7-If, by that, you mean it addresses the fact that 5 points spent on STR gets you 1d6 of Hand attack plus a bunch of other benefits, then I suppose it does. That's the kind of perception that comes when you roll half or less of what you need to succeed on your PER roll, so I guess it is "perceived". It is accurately perceived.

 

 

8-So what? They can apply the same limitations to a Blast and save the same points, effectively getting a Hand Attack with range. How many Powered Armor characters buy Hand Attack instead of STR with the powered armor limitation? I'd guess none - if I get no discount, why should I not take the benefits of Strength.

 

9-As far as Growth goes, it`s changed in pretty much every edition, so it clearly has issues. But since it includes STR, you can`t really fix it if STR is not also fixed

 

10-SORRY DOC! We have drifted your KA thread into an HA thread...

1-If that's the case then STR and HA don't need to be separate powers. You just need to find the right Limitation value to make HA. Oh wait, we already have that.

 

2-I thought that intellectual exercise divorced STR from HA. So B can just attack with the HA and use some of the points he saved to buy levels to use while Grabbed. But what if STR and HA aren't divorced fully? Even better because B now has +2 DC from his base STR for free! And since "a Grabbed character can always use his own raw STR to try and break free or hurt the Grabber"(CC, page 150), I guess B would have to attack with his 14 DC attack, 

 

3-Spreading has always been part of all Ranged Attack powers. It's part of the balance for that extra stuff STR does. I do agree on no fractional costs.

 

4-How would you price this? We'd need to get a consensus on the cost of STR without the extras and if it's the same as the cost of HA then what was the point? And however you price it, adding the same Advantages will favor the power with the lower base cost.

 

5 and 6- Ok, I can get behind these. points conceded.

 

7- I guess we agree here too.

 

8- I'm confused here. If the base power is 3 points and we add Range or STR extras as advantages(wow deja vu) then how does adding Limitations make them interchangeable. If you want the STR in your concept then you'll buy it otherwise why would a conce.pt that doesn't have STR not buy HA?

 

9- Time better spent.

 

10- I also apologize Doc, I got carried away

[Doc Democracy]

 

10- I also apologize Doc, I got carried away

 

Wish more people would get carried away more often - would make the boards much more lively...  :-)

[Hugh Neilson]

Ah; I see.

 

Thanks for the clarification, Hugh. I misunderstood the direction you were going there. It hasn't been an issue (for us, of course) but I can easily see how it could become one very quickly. For us, it was a method of discouraging KA as the character's primary attack (the Stun Lottery thing), and it's worked very well for that.

 

Though regardless of the point cost or the AP, doesn't the same issue apply to a traditionally-priced 6d6 Killing Attack?

You're in good company. The 6e solution was to keep KA at 15 points per 1d6, but drop the Stun Multiple to 1d3, without changing the Hit Location chart. The exact same logic applies - KAs are for doing BOD, not STUN. The issue never seems to arise if Hit Locations are in play, largely because that also has normal damage multipliers.

 

A traditionally priced killing attack averages 14 BOD for a 12 DC attack, where a normal attack averages 12. It is a bit better at pushing BOD through to break things, damage automatons and break entangles. At 10 points per 1d6, I can get 6d6, average 21 BOD, for the same AP. So, under RAW, a 10 DEF Automaton will take 2 BOD from a 12 DC normal attack and 4 from a 12 DC KA, and be whittled down by either, albeit faster by the KA. Under your model, the KA is putting 11 BOD through, so the Normal attacker might as well just Dodge and wait for the KA to demolish the Automaton. Or we have to pump the Automaton's defenses up to, say, 16 so it takes 4 average hits from a KA to remove its 20 BOD. Now it's functionally invulnerable to the normal attacker.

[Nolgroth]

Well, yes. On the other hand, it's also logical to think that Dexterity - an abstraction of things like balance, reaction speed, and coordination - should have bearing on combat effectiveness, but the current edition de-links DEX and OCV and DCV.

 

Valid point.

[Nolgroth]

Why are there “obviously” upper limits? Why doesn’t wearing bladed gloves convert all of Grond’s STR into killing damage, when it would inflict much less damage worn by Aunt May? Why is the ratio always +1DC/5 STR/ Why aren’t some weapons more efficient, and others less so, at converting raw muscle mass to enhanced damage? Why don’t some more effectively convert high OCV to greater damage through a precision strike? Why do they all cap at twice base damage (if, and only if, we apply that OPTIONAL rule)? Why don’t some cap out lower, and others higher? There is no logical reason.

 

I don’t think “STR adds to HKA” is a core concept in Hero. If it is, I suppose we should ditch that Doubling rule entirely – that’s how it was in 1e, and it’s concepts that ran from 1e to present day that I would suggest are “the core of Hero”. I would even go so far as to suggest that getting what you pay for is at the core of Hero, and the “HKA augmented by STR” rule violates that core concept. 6e removed a lot of these violators - no more growth or stretching momentum damage, bye bye figureds; STR does not boost leaping and Ego does not boost mental defense. But the link between STR and HTH Killing Damage was just too intuitive to let go.

 

We can certainly have a killing attack augmented by STR. Link the extra damage to the wielder’s STR. You can buy a Blast which is Linked to STR, or an RKA linked to STR (“this bow can do up to 3d6 RKA damage, but requires 5 STR of Pull for every 1 DC it inflicts”). It just requires approaching the build from a new perspective.

 

If you are looking for something that is perfectly logical, please let me know when you find it. Every game has its logical flaws. I love the Hero system but there are parts of it that drive my "logical" brain crazy. Almost all of those are done for arbitrary reasons or perhaps for the smoothness of play. The reason those decisions were baked into the system are something that only the authors can tell you, but they are there for some reason, even if you or I don't necessarily grasp it. I am more than willing to look at how to change the rules but I have to ask myself when do these changes make the game I am playing no longer Hero? I'm okay with playing "Not Hero" too. 

 

Specific issues mentioned:

Upper Limits: You have just explained why I like Campaign Limits as opposed to the Doubling Rule.

DC to AP Ratio: Because that's part of the baked in design. Sure, we can change that but that goes back to my when does it become "Not Hero" point.

Bow Strength: I really like your alternative max damage potential depending on Strength model. Makes sense to me.

[Hugh Neilson]

OK, let's try that again...

Wish more people would get carried away more often - would make the boards much more lively... :-)

Seconded. If we were derailing the thread, a new one would definitely be in order. If we don’t assess and challenge the analysis, we don’t build a solid structure.

 

1-If that's the case then STR and HA don't need to be separate powers. You just need to find the right Limitation value to make HA. Oh wait, we already have that.

I don’t think dropping the base down to 3 is essential, but your own “I just charge them the full 5 points for a 1d6 HA” comment indicates we do not have consensus we have the appropriate limitation. Is it -0 (your “charge the same 5 points”), -1/4 (the 6e model) or -1/2 (5e). Or should it be 3 points (the 4e pricing) which is effectively a -2/3 limitation, so perhaps -1/2 or -3/4.

 

We also have those Martial Arts DC’s, which allow you to pay 4 points for what equates to +5 STR, only to enhance the effect of martial maneuvers. Hand attack does not boost Grab, Disarm or Escape, for example, but MA DC’s do. Is it appropriate they should have the same limitation?

 

Or I can interpret +1 MA DC as 2 skill levels with Martial Arts (5 points each), which can only boost damage (not OCV, DCV or any other uses of levels), implicitly priced at -1 1/2 to reduce the 10 point AP to a 4 point real cost.

 

That suggests 2 levels with Strike (3 points, and I should get two more maneuvers), only to add damage, would cost 6 points/2.5 = 2.4 points, quite a bit cheaper than any iteration of Hand Attack.

 

A compromise would be STR, only for effects of HTH maneuvers, being -1/4. That would replace MA DC’s with HTH DCs (but how often does the Martial Artist use non-martial maneuvers?). STR only for direct damage, the present HA, is more limited, so I’m back to -1/2.

 

Or we price them at 5,4,3.

 

Although I like the intellectual exercise of starting at 3 points and building up from there, I do not see it as a head and shoulders improvement over the current model of 5 points for “a DC plus some other benefits” that we have now, other than needing to price the limitations if we strip away those other benefits appropriately.

 

 

 

2-I thought that intellectual exercise divorced STR from HA. So B can just attack with the HA and use some of the points he saved to buy levels to use while Grabbed. But what if STR and HA aren't divorced fully? Even better because B now has +2 DC from his base STR for free! And since "a Grabbed character can always use his own raw STR to try and break free or hurt the Grabber"(CC, page 150), I guess B would have to attack with his 14 DC attack,

6e V2 p 66 for those of us looking at that version has similar wording. It also notes you need an appropriate limb free, are at OCV penalties and that the sorts of attacks possible should be adjudicated based on special effects, common sense, dramatic sense and the circumstances. To be on the safe side, I guess Rubbery Roy the Elastic Boy should buy some extra defensive powers to fend off attacks from targets he Grabs 

 

He can use his full STR to break free – that is 10 points, if he buys 12d6 HA and leaves STR at 10. Assuming 14 DC is acceptable in game, he could buy a 70 STR and break out or inflict damage at the 14d6 level.

 

I think either approach could be adopted, but if we fully divorce HA from STR, the cost of STR probably drops off. I was envisioning HA more like Lightning Reflexes, purchasing only part of the mechanical benefits of a characteristic.

 

 

 

3-Spreading has always been part of all Ranged Attack powers. It's part of the balance for that extra stuff STR does. I do agree on no fractional costs.

As a strict point of order, Spreading did not exist at all in 1e (an article around the time 2e was released indicated it was lost when Magneto attacked the disks holding the 1e manuscript), and in 2e, pretty sure 3e, and I think 4e, applied only to (Energy) Blast, not to, say, RKAs. Under the “HA as limited Blast”, I don’t recall a definitive answer to whether one could Spread an HA (at least to boost OCV).

 

 

 

4-How would you price this? We'd need to get a consensus on the cost of STR without the extras and if it's the same as the cost of HA then what was the point? And however you price it, adding the same Advantages will favor the power with the lower base cost.

What’s the point of Lightning Reflexes? Why does reduced END on Telekinesis cost more than it does on STR? The cost of the HA component of STR would, to my mind, be the same cost as the HA itself, much as nonresistant protection is the same cost as PD and ED. However, the added complexity is one very good reason to stick with “STR with a limitation” rather than “Hand Attack as a separate power”.

 

 

 

8- I'm confused here. If the base power is 3 points and we add Range or STR extras as advantages(wow deja vu) then how does adding Limitations make them interchangeable. If you want the STR in your concept then you'll buy it otherwise why would a conce.pt that doesn't have STR not buy HA?

My comment was in response to your statement that HA was fine at 5 points per d6. Pricing “a portion of the benefits of STR” equal to “all the benefits of STR” is not appropriate, in my view. Perhaps I misread your comments, but the sense I got was that you would either buy +30 STR or +6d6 Hand Attack for 30 points, and any limitation would be applied to the same 30 points.

 

5 active points for +5 STR, with a limitation for the removal of the effects of STR not shared by HA, is my preferred approach, but reducing the basic damage component to a building block makes an interesting comparison. If we can derive the same/similar pricing from two very different models, that seems to support the validity of both models.

 

Moving to a “damage” power at 3 points (or any cost) per 1d6, then adding other aspects like Range, Spreading, maybe the other benefits of STR (such as DCs with other combat maneuvers)., etc. as advantages has way more ripple effects than pricing out a limitation for STR that only enhances DCs, whether overall or with only specific maneuvers.

 

Or maybe HA and Martial Arts DC’s should be limited skill levels to add damage, like the Weapon Master build. That requires assessing the appropriate limit for “can only increase damage/effect”, as pricing +1 DC at more than +1d6 Blast is bizarre.

[Hugh Neilson]

NOTE: The bizarre "quotes within quotes" format seems to come from having an "end quote" field more than once at the end of a quote.

[Christopher R Taylor]

OK, well this is probably a good point to drop in the concept discussed here months back of dropping "killing attack" as a power entirely and treating it as an AVAD normal attack.

 

Its kind of like what Duke Bushido did with their group but it works like this:

 

Killing attacks are Blast with AVAD (vs resistant defenses), does body.  That ends up a +1 1/2 advantage (so a d6 costs 12.5 points) and a limitation.  You treat the damage exactly the same as a normal attack, you count the dice, add 1 for each 6 and take away 1 for each 1; there's your body damage.  It acts like a KA in terms of defenses, but doesn't have a special damage multiplier roll.

 

To make it act just like KA, a limitation that makes the stun defended by normal defenses is useful as well.

 

A few tweaks are necessary to make this work best.  For example, hit locations would not be multipliers like they are now, but instead probably should be additional dice; the KA to the head gives you +4d6 like a haymaker, for instance.  And increased stun multiple would be more dice, that only do stun, not a multiple.

 

This system has a slight drawback of some increased complexity in the build but significantly more simplicity in play.  Further, it streamlines combat so there's only one kind of damage, Rather than two different systems.  It makes "damage class" effects much easier to figure out; martial arts would just be dice added, for example.

 

If you couple this with a system that Tasha mentioned, where damage is 3 points per d6 with a mandatory "ranged" or "adds to strength" modifier (so its roughly 5 points per d6) then the system becomes even more compact and doesn't require two powers for normal damage.  This creates some odd looking builds where the power is built with "ranged" advanage and then "no range" as a limitation (or "strength adds damage" advantage and "strength does not add damage") but it does make for a more streamlined set of rules.

[Hugh Neilson]

Killing attacks are Blast with AVAD (vs resistant defenses), does body.  That ends up a +1 1/2 advantage (so a d6 costs 12.5 points) and a limitation.  You treat the damage exactly the same as a normal attack, you count the dice, add 1 for each 6 and take away 1 for each 1; there's your body damage.  It acts like a KA in terms of defenses, but doesn't have a special damage multiplier roll.

Are rDEF so exotic that "does BOD" must be added on? 5d6 (as close as we get to 12 DCs) seems pretty useless in a Supers world with 12 DC the norm. Move that to a Fantasy Hero game, and a 1d6 KA Sword becomes 3d6 x 12.5 = 37.5 AP? I'd rather add 7d6 to my 15 STR with a staff than get this 4d6 with STR attack for the same about 50 AP.

 

A few tweaks are necessary to make this work best.  For example, hit locations would not be multipliers like they are now, but instead probably should be additional dice; the KA to the head gives you +4d6 like a haymaker, for instance.  And increased stun multiple would be more dice, that only do stun, not a multiple.

This is a continuation of evolution in one sense. Haymaker started out as +1 1/2 damage, and most maneuvers, especially martial arts, were STR multipliers as well, until 4e moved them all (did it move Haymaker at the same time?) to added dice.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Are rDEF so exotic that "does BOD" must be added on?

 

Well, its required for using an AVAD, as the rules are written.  

 

Because of some of the price changes, and how normal defenses apply against KA, its probably more valid to just treat the body damage as AVAD, which would negate the need for the "does body" part -- it necessarily does body.  That would just add +1/2 to the cost, making each die 7.5 points, which is closer to the cost of killing damage.  Still more, making that 1d6 KA sword now 22 points.

 

Another option would be to handwave the AVAD avantage and just treat KAs as if they had it but without the build or cost.  You just declare it a killing attack, now it costs the same as a blast, but acts differently.

 

The problem with this approach is that now you have two kinds of damage that cost the same, but one of them has body damage that ignores normal defenses...

[Hugh Neilson]

The one that does BOD damage that bypasses normal defense also does less Knockback, but I agree there is an issue. It's been mitigated over the years by the near-universality of resistant defenses.

 

Does BOD is clearly the rule - the sidebar Corrosive Acid power shows it. The result is silly. I could instead have 1d6+1 KA, Constant with the same limitations, and average 4.5 BOD (vs rPD) and 9 STUN (vs all PD) instead of averaging 7 STUN (albeit vs only rPD) and 2 BOD (vs rPD).

[Christopher R Taylor]

Does BOD is clearly the rule - the sidebar Corrosive Acid power shows it. The result is silly. 

 

I agree, vs resistant defenses is really kind of broken when it comes to AVAD and normal attacks.  Basically simulating killing attacks costs many times as much as the KA its self.  Which means the rule doesn't work.  Probably making it a +1/4 and not require buying "Does body" for normal attacks would work best.