Building an All or Nothing Killing Curse

[IndianaJoe3]

11 hours ago, Lucius said:

 

I don't see what purpose the ExtraDimensional Move serves?

 

It is a way to kill characters that does not rely on the game's damage resolution mechanics. A character hit by it is effectively, "dead" (by the way the setting works), even if they would survive the damage from the KA portion. 

[Ninja-Bear]

On 2/28/2019 at 7:40 PM, massey said:

One of the 4th edition books had "all or nothing" as a -2 limitation.

Sounds reasonable.

[Lucius]

53 minutes ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

 

It is a way to kill characters that does not rely on the game's damage resolution mechanics. A character hit by it is effectively, "dead" (by the way the setting works), even if they would survive the damage from the KA portion. 

 

In that case, what purpose does the Killing Attack serve?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

What purpose does this palindromedary tagline serve?

[IndianaJoe3]

5 minutes ago, Lucius said:

 

In that case, what purpose does the Killing Attack serve?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

What purpose does this palindromedary tagline serve?

 

The KA is to provide a mechanical reason for characters (well, players of characters) that would be immune to the EDM to take the attack seriously. Many (if not all) of the PCs would have Combat Luck. If the KA wasn't there, the, "Killing Curse" would be a joke.

 

The palindromedary tagline is to authenticate that a post is by Lucius Alexander.

[Christopher R Taylor]

This just seems like an NND that does body, either it works or it doesn't.  Put enough damage into it that it will kill whoever it works on.

[mallet]

"All or Nothing" is an option with Attack vs Alternate Defense advantage. 

 

Here is an optional build:

 

Death Curse:  RKA 14d6 (standard effect: 42 BODY, 0 STUN), Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4), Attack Versus Alternate Defense (Mystical Charm; All Or Nothing; +1), Does BODY (+1) (682 Active Points); OAF (Focus (Wand); -1), -2 Decreased STUN Multiplier (-1/2), Beam (-1/4), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4), Incantations (-1/4), No Knockback (-1/4)  AC: 195 ; END: 31

[Duke Bushido]

20 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Sounds reasonable.

 

I disagree. 

 

Granted, it's a limitation, sure. 

 

But look at the power builds it gets applied to.  Shrike posted a 30 DC Killing Attack above. 

 

I don't know what the parameters are for the campaign from which that spell is pulled, but I can absolutely _guarantee_ that a 30 DC Killing Attack _will_ kill every living thing in any fantasy campaign I have ever run, including dragons and lesser gods. Given this, I'd have a hard time assigning it much more than a - 1/2 (again, in that particular world). 

 

I am _not_ looking to derail an interesting thread, but it bears mentioning that the book value for limitations is not particularly helpful without a published game world that includes some guidelines, limits, averages, etc. 

 

Otherwise, we are left to extrapolate from the values given.  In the spell Shrike posted, we're looking at a seriously high-powered world where we can expect a 30 DC attack to kill outright only 1/3 of the time. 

[massey]

On 3/2/2019 at 8:33 PM, Duke Bushido said:

 

I disagree. 

 

Granted, it's a limitation, sure. 

 

But look at the power builds it gets applied to.  Shrike posted a 30 DC Killing Attack above. 

 

I don't know what the parameters are for the campaign from which that spell is pulled, but I can absolutely _guarantee_ that a 30 DC Killing Attack _will_ kill every living thing in any fantasy campaign I have ever run, including dragons and lesser gods. Given this, I'd have a hard time assigning it much more than a - 1/2 (again, in that particular world). 

 

I am _  not_ looking to derail an interesting thread, but it bears mentioning that the book value for limitations is not particularly helpful without a published game world that includes some guidelines, limits, averages, etc. 

 

Otherwise, we are left to extrapolate from the values given.  In the spell Shrike posted, we're looking at a seriously high-powered world where we can expect a 30 DC attack to kill outright only 1/3 of the time. 

 

I'll agree, and disagree.

 

To be able to play the game, we have to accept standardized limitation costs.  If you wanted to get limitation values perfect, you'd have to vary them by campaign.  You may even have to determine value as specifically as by character, and maybe even by story arc.  "Okay Iron Man, the next couple months I don't really intend to have your Secret ID come up much, so you'll basically always be in the suit.  That OIF limitation isn't going to come into play, so you'll need to refigure your cost and find some powers you aren't going to use during this time."

 

Obviously that's crazy, and no one is suggesting we do that.  But we accept a certain amount of inaccuracy with our limitation values -- we don't really have any choice.

 

When you're talking about non-standard "custom" limitations you've got to be careful.  And you should always be particularly careful when you're talking about a -2.  I agree that "all or nothing" may really only be worth -1/2 on a particular character, in a particular campaign.  But I'll object to the notion that it has to be effective only 1/3 the time to be worth the -2. 

 

A 4D6 RKA with all or nothing is almost worthless for combat.  Even against guys with straight 8s, it usually won't work.  And how often are you going to be fighting those?  As you go up in D6, it becomes more effective, but your opposition increases in power as well.  A 10D6 RKA sounds really nasty, but remember that somebody with 15 rDef will have about a 50/50 shot of surviving.  It would be a great mook killer, but it'll fail quite a bit against anybody tough.  It's still not going to work against master villains.

[John Desmarais]

Ok, having read through the various ideas and, taking the originally stated source material (Potter) in account, here's my suggestion:  

 

Don't bother writing it up at all.  

 

Honestly, in the Potter books it's just a plot device.  For one reason or another, it never actually effects the heroes (PCs); and it would inappropriate for one of them to actually use it  - it just hangs out there as the ultimate magical plot threat where if it hits you die.  Other than as a mental exercise, I can't think of a reason to actually stat the thing up.

[Christopher]

On 3/2/2019 at 6:12 PM, IndianaJoe3 said:

The KA is to provide a mechanical reason for characters (well, players of characters) that would be immune to the EDM to take the attack seriously. Many (if not all) of the PCs would have Combat Luck. If the KA wasn't there, the, "Killing Curse" would be a joke. 

A KA is always taken seriously. No extra EDM is nesseary.

 

3 hours ago, John Desmarais said:

Don't bother writing it up at all.  

 

Honestly, in the Potter books it's just a plot device.  For one reason or another, it never actually effects the heroes (PCs); and it would inappropriate for one of them to actually use it  - it just hangs out there as the ultimate magical plot threat where if it hits you die.  Other than as a mental exercise, I can't think of a reason to actually stat the thing up. 

The more I read it, the more it sounds like simply a early "Magic Gun".

 

Any early gun could be:
Dodged.

Penetrated most armor of the time.

Even if the hit was not terminal, treatment for it was limited. So you were likely to die.

The Heroes would not use it, because it is to evil/dishonorable

Usually it would kill nobody important in any story. Dumbledore let himself be shoot and then fell to his death. While Harry jumped into the Bullets path, only to get better.

 

Maxim 24: "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from a big gun."

[PamelaIsley]

10 hours ago, John Desmarais said:

For one reason or another, it never actually effects the heroes (PCs); and it would inappropriate for one of them to actually use it  - it just hangs out there as the ultimate magical plot threat where if it hits you die.  .

 

I just don't agree with this.  But others do.  It's simply a major divergence in opinion.

 

I'm going to go with just a very powerful killing curse that isn't all or nothing.  Whatever would be needed in an HP campaign is different from what I think a supermage would need to just evoke it.

[Killer Shrike]

On 3/2/2019 at 6:33 PM, Duke Bushido said:

I disagree. 

 

Granted, it's a limitation, sure. 

 

But look at the power builds it gets applied to.  Shrike posted a 30 DC Killing Attack above. 

 

I don't know what the parameters are for the campaign from which that spell is pulled, but I can absolutely _guarantee_ that a 30 DC Killing Attack _will_ kill every living thing in any fantasy campaign I have ever run, including dragons and lesser gods. Given this, I'd have a hard time assigning it much more than a - 1/2 (again, in that particular world). 

 

Well, OBVIOUSLY in a campaign where say 10 DC of killing would get the job done, you would build the effect at that level. This is why the word "SCALE" is included in the phrase "power scale".

 

The idea being shown there was not "you need 30 DC to achieve this affect", but rather was "All or Nothing is typically pegged as a -2 Lim, and here's an example of such an effect that I happen to have lying around and easily accessible.".

 

If you are making a power to do something like that in a less high powered setting the # of DC is a VARIABLE. xD6. Adjust the variables to suit your needs. 

 

On 3/2/2019 at 6:33 PM, Duke Bushido said:

I am _not_ looking to derail an interesting thread, but it bears mentioning that the book value for limitations is not particularly helpful without a published game world that includes some guidelines, limits, averages, etc. 

 

While generally speaking modifiers can be tweaked for certain settings, for the most part you should only do that when you have a really good reason...such as a greater than or less than commonality of certain things in a given setting. 

 

On 3/2/2019 at 6:33 PM, Duke Bushido said:

Otherwise, we are left to extrapolate from the values given.  In the spell Shrike posted, we're looking at a seriously high-powered world where we can expect a 30 DC attack to kill outright only 1/3 of the time. 

 

You're being too literal re reducing impact of a lim to a flat fraction. If you want to play that game with a -2 Lim, then lets follow its logical permutations to -1 limits and try that on for size. To wit: does OAF affect a character 1/2 aka 50% percent of the time? In other words, are they deprived of their OAF based abilities half the time? Probably not.  

[Duke Bushido]

3 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

es OAF affect a character 1/2 aka 50% percent of the time? In other words, are they deprived of their OAF based abilities half the time? Probably not.  

 

If they take it at - 1, then yes; of course it does. 

 

As I said, without a straight-up guideline universe amongst the published stuff, all I we have is the rules books and what we can extrapolate from them.  

 

I also allow OAF at lesser value, if the player wants that particular build, but doesn't want it to unavailable roughly half the time.   I tend to have such things because I find that, since their relevance is greatly altered from campaign to campaign, they are pretty VARIABLE and need to be SCALEd accordingly. 

 

 

[Killer Shrike]

51 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

If they take it at - 1, then yes; of course it does.  I also allow OAF at lesser value, if the player wants that particular build, but doesn't want it to unavailable roughly half the time. 

 

Why do you say "of course it does"? It's a GM's prerogative to set Lim values to whatever they want, but I'm curious where are you getting the idea that a -1 limitation should literally be unavailable 50% of the time from?

 

Quote

 I tend to have such things because I find that, since their relevance is greatly altered from campaign to campaign, they are pretty VARIABLE and need to be SCALEd accordingly.  

 

That's your prerogative, of course. I wonder though whether your interpretation of certain things is based upon something concrete in the RAW / RAI or perhaps stems from a more personal perspective.

 

If I were to show up for a HS game and the GM told me that they interpreted limitation values to a direct and literal % of not being effective, such that a -1/4 limitation would literally negate a power 20% of the time, a -1/2 33% of the time, a -3/4 43% of the time, -1 50% of the time, and so on and that they would somehow keep track of this and contrive the emerging story to enforce it, I would have both questions and concerns. 

 

For instance I would worry that they did not understand that some limitations have a quantified impact intrinsically and automatically such as Concentration or Increased END or Charges, vs looser limitations which are circumstantially binary and thus have no impact most of the time but massive impact when they do apply such as "does not work in a vacuum" on a fire based superhero, usually pegged at -1/4 for a typical atmosphere based campaign setting...surely a character taking that limitation would not somehow find themselves in space or a vacuum chamber literally 20% or 1/5th of their screen time? I would worry that this GM did not realize that severity of impact should be considered, not merely frequency of occurrence. I would also worry that this GM would turn out to be strongly gamist rather than simulationist or narrativist, asserting unnecessarily rigid interpretations of rules over cinematic and genre simulation and over allowing what makes sense in the context of the emerging story as players interact with the setting and the plot. 

[Hugh Neilson]

23 hours ago, John Desmarais said:

Honestly, in the Potter books it's just a plot device.  For one reason or another, it never actually effects the heroes (PCs); and it would inappropriate for one of them to actually use it  - it just hangs out there as the ultimate magical plot threat where if it hits you die.  Other than as a mental exercise, I can't think of a reason to actually stat the thing up.

 

While I agree with this...

 

12 hours ago, PamelaIsley said:

 

I just don't agree with this.  But others do.  It's simply a major divergence in opinion.

 

I'm going to go with just a very powerful killing curse that isn't all or nothing.  Whatever would be needed in an HP campaign is different from what I think a supermage would need to just evoke it.

 

I could still see writing it up as a powerful, but all or nothing, killing attack if the desire is to have a game where the Killing Curse can mean instant death for all, including major PCs and NPCs.  I would also incorporate this into my campaign parameters.  Specifically:

 

 - is it expected that this Killing Curse will be widely used, or a rare ability, in the campaign?

 - is it open for PCs to learn?

 - are there issues with its use?  e.g. "only a blackhearted fiend would ever use this"; "its use is a criminal offense which campaign authorities will take very seriously"

 - more broadly, is it expected that the campaign will feature instant death lurking around the corner and/or a high PC mortality rate?

 

Christopher's gun analogy is very apt.  This could be much like a Wild West game where KAs are common, armor is not and any gunfight could be followed by creating one or more new PCs to replace those killed in the conflict.

[Hugh Neilson]

7 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

You're being too literal re reducing impact of a lim to a flat fraction. If you want to play that game with a -2 Lim, then lets follow its logical permutations to -1 limits and try that on for size. To wit: does OAF affect a character 1/2 aka 50% percent of the time? In other words, are they deprived of their OAF based abilities half the time? Probably not.  

 

I sometimes compare to Activation.  An 11- activation works 62.5% of the time and halves the cost.  But I don't know which time it will fail to work.  That seems a greater limitation than knowing when it will not work, which permits me to take a different action, or select a different target.

 

That is different from "power is unavailable half of the time", though.  That OAF can be Disarmed - do I choose my targets appropriately, avoid engaging in melee, etc.?  I cannot use it if Grabbed or Entangled, which can happen at any time.  It's tough to slip into a Royal Ball carrying my OAF.  I'd say it can easily be made an issue in 50% of scenarios, even if it does not deprive the character of the ability 50% of the time. 

 

A power that "only affects men" will seldom be used on an invalid target, but it is still limited.

 

I agree that the severity of the limitation also needs to be considered. 

 

For the KA - All or Nothing, it clearly cannot be used to disable a foe ("I will target his legs so he cannot flee; after we capture him, we can question him"), makes a poor choice for defending against a Mind Controlled victim, cannot whittle away at a big Entangle, Automaton or Barrier, etc.  That -2 effectively includes "does no STUN" as the target is either dead or unimpeded.  Does it matter whether it does Knockback if the target is now a corpse?

[Killer Shrike]

Anything can be made an issue by a GM contriving to force that issue. In actual practice however, is a typical OAF literally negated 50% of the time? And if so, is it prorated? Could a character, say, space bank their foci's unavailability ala a timeshare? If an OAF is unavailable for 4 Phases during a fight with a bunch of disposable mooks, is that equivalent to it being unavailable for 4 Phases during a fight against the character's archnemisis or 4 Phases during a fight against the big bad at the end of a story arc?

 

If a session ends up being 50% roleplaying and 50% combat, does the 50% of the time an OAF gun toting character was "on screen" during the roleplaying section of the session count towards the 50% of the time the OAF gun will be unavailable? Or does that count as 0% since the OAF wasn't being used and thus to make up this "50% unavailable" quota it ends up being unavailable for the remainder of the session? Or does only combat time count, such that it's available for 50% of the combat time and thus is really 25% unavailable when considered against the total session time?  

 

Seems pretty silly to me. Also it is an interpretation not directly supported by the rules. The RAW does not say "OAF will be unavailable half the time". The RAW in 6e mentions in passing "For example, if you take Focus for a power, you’re telling the GM, “I occasionally want to lose the use of this power because it’s been taken away from me or been broken.” and "Some Limitations (especially Focus) are very effective for the character unless the GM brings the Limitation into play once in a while, so it’s the GM’s  responsibility to make sure the Limitation affects the game, at least occasionally". I don't recall earlier editions indicating an OAF should be unavailable 50% of the time either. 

[Hugh Neilson]

I think it comes from the Limited Power description which suggests a -1 means the power loses about half of its utility.  It seems reasonable that all -1 limitations should reduce utility by a comparable amount, doesn't it?

[Killer Shrike]

Probably. Half utility and 50% unavailability are not the same thing, of course.

[Killer Shrike]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

For the KA - All or Nothing, it clearly cannot be used to disable a foe ("I will target his legs so he cannot flee; after we capture him, we can question him"), makes a poor choice for defending against a Mind Controlled victim, cannot whittle away at a big Entangle, Automaton or Barrier, etc.  That -2 effectively includes "does no STUN" as the target is either dead or unimpeded.  Does it matter whether it does Knockback if the target is now a corpse?

 

Yes.

 

And additionally, as it requires reducing the target to negative their BODY or it does nothing, the DC's of the effect are not as impactful as one might expect; every 6 DC's killing averages to 7 BODY damage...to take a 10 BODY character from 10 to -10 with no resistant def requires 18 DC on average; add in rDEF and it ratchets up from there. If "normal" people are defaulted to 8's instead of 10's you still want at least 14 DC to get the job done on average.

 

Also, successful hits that fail to kill still burn END or Charges unless also bought 0 END.

 

Successful hits that fail to kill still each burn an action, leading to leaky action economy.

 

There is also a more existential consideration. At any given moment, every potential target in the setting can be reduced to those who will be killed by the effect even on minimum roll, those who could be killed by the effect given their current BODY + negative BODY past defenses and what can potentially be rolled for damage, and those who cannot be killed by the effect at all as their current BODY + negative BODY past defenses is higher than what can be generated by the effect. 

 

Lacking any special detection of such, a character with the effect does not know whether a given target falls within the first, second, or third group. If a target is in the second group (could be affected) but the damage generated from an attack using it is insufficient to get the job done, the character with the effect doesn't know if the target is in the second group and thus worth attacking again, or if they are in the third group and further application will have no further effect. The ambiguity of it puts the character with the effect in a difficult decision making situation.

 

It is by definition a high risk high reward ability in the happy path. In other cases where obliterating a target is not the optimal outcome, it is a high risk low to no reward ability. 

 

These all speak to the overall utility of the ability, quantification of which is a more nuanced consideration than merely its effectiveness against a single target in a single resolution, or its availability / applicability expressed reductively as a % of time alone account for. 

 

[massey]

^^^Exactly.

 

You've also lose the option to whittle people down with it.  A 4D6 RKA is generally going to be a lot more effective (against most targets) than a 10D6 RKA all or nothing.  Let's say you roll an average of 14 Body and 28 Stun.  That will nearly kill any normal that it hits (dropping a 10 Body bystander to -4 Body and -8 Stun).  It will drop most agents as well (that Viper agent will be right around 0 Body and 0 Stun, more or less).  Against a low grade superhero, it may put a few Body on them and a nice chunk of Stun.  You can also use it to wreck vehicles and foci.  Against higher tiered characters, it may not do a whole lot, depending on what their defenses are.

 

Now let's look at the 10D6 RKA all or nothing.  Against bystanders, they're dead, killed outright unless you have a really crappy roll.  Against agents, they're probably dead as well.  Instant killed.  Against a low grade superhero, it's a very dangerous power.  Unless they bought up their Body a little bit, or purchased more than 15 points of resistant Def, it has an okay chance of killing them in one shot.  But it's really situational.  If it comes 1 Body short of instant death, it does nothing at all.  As characters go up in power level, it becomes totally useless.  I guess potentially you could roll 60 Body on the attack and instant kill most things, but the likelihood is so rare that it'll probably never happen.

 

So, both attacks are lethal (or close to lethal) against really low powered guys.  But you don't actually gain much from ensuring that mook is really really really dead.  You end up losing the ability to nickel and dime your opponent to death, which is how most combat in Hero is fought.

[Toxxus]

On 3/5/2019 at 9:04 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

Does it matter whether it does Knockback if the target is now a corpse?

 

It does if your villains have savoir faire and want to rain down the chunks of the defeated upon their allies.

 

Dead heroes are boring.  The grief-stricken terror-filled allies stunned into gaping horror by wearing the bits of their friend - exquisite. 

[Christopher]

On 3/5/2019 at 8:53 AM, Killer Shrike said:

While generally speaking modifiers can be tweaked for certain settings, for the most part you should only do that when you have a really good reason...such as a greater than or less than commonality of certain things in a given setting.  

A whole Bunch of Limitations and Rules only exist in Heroic Games. Real Weapon, STR Minimum, NCM, most of the advanced Damage Options.

 

So yes, there is a disconnect between "Book value" and "Average Fantasy Campaign". It is just the nature of things.

[Killer Shrike]

On 3/7/2019 at 9:08 AM, Christopher said:

A whole Bunch of Limitations and Rules only exist in Heroic Games. Real Weapon, STR Minimum, NCM, most of the advanced Damage Options.

 

So yes, there is a disconnect between "Book value" and "Average Fantasy Campaign". It is just the nature of things.

 

He was talking about changing the value of standard lims like the value of OAF per setting. 

 

Further, if using Heroic specific lims for an heroic campaign, such as Real Weapon and STR Min one would usually use them at the value given in the book, rather than alter the values for your campaign. While you could do that, adjust say STR Min to offer a different lim value for different ranges of STR, it generally seems unnecessarily fiddly to me unless something out of the ordinary is in effect.

 

On the other hand certain modifiers such as "Only vs Mutants" can vary widely in a setting based upon how rare or common mutants are in that setting. Or "Cyberkinesis" which is extremely useful in a high tech setting, less useful in a modern setting, much less useful in a pulp setting, and practically useless in a fantasy setting. Or "Doesn't Work In Vacuum" which is only mildly limiting in most settings, but can be quite limiting in a space based setting. Adjusting the lim values away from what is printed in the rules (if they are printed at all) for things like that makes a lot more sense.

[Christopher]

5 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

He was talking about changing the value of standard lims like the value of OAF per setting.  

I am pretty sure we were still discussing the applicability of the "-2 All Or Nothing" Limitation from that 4E supplement someone had brought up.

And how applicatble such a high limitation is, if the attack is so strong it will kill most characters.

 

As well as the general idea of having to tweak the values of Limitations, based on the total situation (specific Game Setting, Power of the attack, Defense of the targets, supporting abilities, possible allies).

 

The text for the generic "Limited Power" Limitation explicitly mentions it:
"For example, suppose a character wants to build a Blast that only works in an intense magnetic field. In a Science Fiction campaign, intense magnetic fields exist in many places where PCs go (meaning the
Limitation is only worth about -¼). On the other hand, a WWII “Golden Age” superhero would almost never encounter an intense magnetic field (so the Limitation’s more like a -2).

To repeat: a Limitation that doesn’t limit a power provides no bonus! [...] Similarly, if a character took the Limitation Only Works In Intense Magnetic Fields on his Blast, and another PC just happens to generate intense magnetic fields as a special effect, he gets no bonus (or a very small one, if they don’t work together all the time)."