Killing Attack restructure

[Christopher R Taylor]

OK I want to do one final post on this concept and topic for people to examine, discuss, and try to break apart.

 

A while back someone mentioned the idea of removing the current KA structure entirely and building killing attacks instead as an AVAD variant on normal attacks.  In other words, killing and normal attacks would use the same dice structure, just treat defenses differently.

 

Thus, if you wanted to buy a killing attack you would take a Blast and apply an advantage to it (it works out best to be +¼, more on that later) to make it do killing damage.  So now, instead of paying 30 points and rolling 2d6 for a killing attack, you pay 37 points, and roll 6d6.

 

Defenses are treated the same: you only get defense against a KA's body damage if you have resistant defenses.

 

Why on earth do this? Well here are the main reasons:

1. Because it reduces complexity in the game, which is actually an issue for new players: two different damage structures?  Rolling multipliers, how does my STR add to this d6+1 again??
2. Because it gives a better curve.  In almost all Heroic games, and many Superheroic games the most you're going to see is 3d6, usually 1-2d6 for killing attacks in the present system.  As we all know from painful past experience, rolling 1d6 is awful because its so random and often poor in its results.  2d6 really is not much better.  Its too flat.
3. Because rolling more dice feels better.  A character doing a 6d6 attack feels more significant and more fun than a 2d6 attack
4. Because doing this adds greater granularity and flexibility to builds.  At present a 2d6 KA and a 2d6+1 KA are really almost insignificant in their difference.  But 6 and 7d6 actually are fairly notable.
5. Because the Damage Class table and concept is something even very experienced Hero players struggle with
6. As you'll see below, breaking the damage out this way give some other options not presently realistic

 

So, that's the concept: turn KA into a modified Normal attack.  Next: the results of how this looks when applied and why its a +¼ advantage

[Christopher R Taylor]

OK now obviously you're going to get slightly different results from using normal attacks than from using killing attacks as presently in the rules.  HOw different?  Here's what it looks like

 

 

As you can see, the attacks now will do slightly more stun for most die ranges than the old method, roughly the same body, but the cost shifts.  In fact, it shifts enough that at the high end, its quite noticable in its effect because of the advantage.  Here's an adjusted table showing the New method compared to old and normal, but with the active cost being adjusted to be roughly equivalent across the board:

 

As you can see, what was once a 12 damage class KA now is a 15 damage class attack, and it ends up doing less body and stun overall.  For those who don't like lethality and the stun lotto, this is probably a bonus.  For Superheroic games, this change would make killing attacks less potent, possibly a good thing for the genre.  For heroic games, where you rarely have to pay points for anything, its irrelevant how much the active cost is (except for damaging items, I suppose) so its not really significant in those campaigns.  But it is something to consider.

 

A side note: to prevent KA's from doing NO body (a very real possibility using normal dice rules), which would be ridiculous given their purpose, I suggest a rule which is reflected in the table above: Killing Attacks do a minimum of 1d6 for every 3 dice of damage.  So a 3d6 KA does minimum 1 body, a 6d6 does minimum 2 body, and so on.  

 

I didn't do the averages because it was making my headache considerably worse trying to work out what it would be with half dice etc and it looked all wrong so I wanted to avoid having to fix anything.  If someone wants to do that, please do, its more data.

[Christopher R Taylor]

So you can see what the KA change looks like in terms of raw data, but the change does bring up some other issues: how do you do hit locations?  Are stun multipliers even a thing any longer?

 

Having put some thought into this, I would make these suggestions

 

• Stun multipliers can still be used, with an alternate method.  Increased Stun Multiple is now a +¼ advantage for x1½ stun damage.  So if you roll 12 stun, it now does 18.  This structure makes the stun slightly better than simply buying the dice, but the body significantly less at most die ranges, but again due to math, its not consistent.  For example a 4d6 attack at +¼ costs 25 points, equal to a 5d6 attack.  But the 4d6 with increased stun multiple now does 6-30 stun (average 21) and the 5d6 only does 5-25.. but can do more body.
• Optionally, this system also makes buying increased body multiples possible.  But I'd do them as adders, not multiples: for a +¼ advantage you add half the number of dice you roll to the body total after rolling. So a 4d6 killing attack with this advantage does instead of 1-8 body, 3-10.  Again, the active cost is the same as a 5d6 KA (2-10) but gives a slight advantage at the low end, at the cost of not doing as much stun, since the stun isn't increased.

Now, this is also reflected in hit locations.  I suggest a modified hit location chart in which instead of different multipliers for killing and normal damage, everything does the same kind of multiplier; 2 columns and much simpler.  Also, all damage should be calculated before defenses, rather than some before and some after.

 

For the body multipliers, instead of x2, etc I suggest instead using the adder system above: +½ or +1 (-½ or -1 for low stun areas).  A head shot would add a number of body equal to the dice rolled for example.  This gives roughly the same effect as x2, but flattens it out (you won't get x2 on 2 body per die, for a huge roll, for example).

 

Anyway, that's the system I have in mind, and I haven't had a chance to playtest anything so there may be hidden nasty things or surprises in there I can't see yet.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

In response to your six points: 

1: Partially agreed.  This change would move HERO from two damage rolling systems to one, which is great for complexity.  It wouldn't help with adding STR to damage though, thanks to that damnable +1/4th mucking up the math. 

2: Disagreed, and this is my main objection.  It gives a different curve.  I feel that the current high variance of current KAs is a major component of their danger.  Consider the case of a 2d6 old KA and a 7d6 new KA against PhD Student Destroyer's rPD of 7.  Despite both having the same raw average, the old KA averages 50% more BODY despite being 2/3rds the AP.  This is precisely because the old KA method is swingier. 

3: Complete agreement. But this still leaves KAs rolling fewer dice. 

4: Agreement. 

5: Complete disagreement.  Your statement is factually correct, but dealing with 6.25 AP steps in DC conversion is much worse to do in your head than dealing with 15 AP steps. 

6: I don't know what options you're speaking of so I can't reply meaningfully. 

 

There's also a few pretty nasty quirks of your system. 

A - Any target with fully resistant DEF will take more BODY from a non-Killing attack.  That's backwards. 

B - Advantage stacking makes the math go all weird. 

C - This increases the BODY : STUN ratio of KAs, which may have undesirable effects in KA-centric genres like Fantasy.  Will likely depend on table preference. 

 

Overall it's a very interesting idea directed at solving a very tricky problem that's plagued HERO for a long time.  I'd love to hear how it behaves in playtesting. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 

A - Any target with fully resistant DEF will take more BODY from a non-Killing attack.  That's backwards. 

3 - But this still leaves KAs rolling fewer dice. 

C - This increases the BODY : STUN ratio of KAs, which may have undesirable effects in KA-centric genres like Fantasy.  Will likely depend on table preference. 

 

 

I do not understand how any of this is true.  You're going to have to explain a bit more to help me out.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

3 - A KA costs more AP than a normal attack.  At any given level of AP, a normal attack will thus roll more dice.  A KA therefore rolls fewer dice than a normal attack.  This is true under both the old and new model, though the new model shrinks the gap. 

A - Due to 3, an equivalent AP KA deals less raw BODY than a normal attack.  So if all of the target's DEF applies against the BODY of both attacks, the KA's lower raw BODY means it deals less BODY.  Chronotron comes back in time to kill PhD Student Destroyer before he graduates, becomes Doctor Destroyer, and something something supervillainy. He has a vibroknife and his pneumatic fists, so he can strike Destroyer with a 50AP normal attack or KA. Destroyer has 7 PD, all of which is resistant.  The normal attack will deal over twice the BODY, which is backwards because KAs are supposed to be better at BODY damage.

C - An Old KA uses a strict stun multiplier, meaning the raw STUN is 1d3 times the raw BODY.  That results in an average BODY:STUN ratio of 1:2.  The new KA uses NDB to calculate BODY and raw dice to calculate STUN.  That results in an average BODY:STUN ratio of 1:3.5.  Meaning that a new KA dealing the same average BODY as an old KA will have dramatically superior STUN output to the old KA.  This is very likely to change the tone and flow of combats in KA-centric games. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

A KA costs more AP than a normal attack.  At any given level of AP, a normal attack will thus roll more dice.  A KA therefore rolls fewer dice than a normal attack.  This is true under both the old and new model, though the new model shrinks the gap. 

 

Oh, ok I misunderstood you entirely.  Yes, you're rolling slightly less dice, but significantly more than previously.

 

Quote

Due to 3, an equivalent AP KA deals less raw BODY than a normal attack.  So if all of the target's DEF applies against the BODY of both attacks, the KA's lower raw BODY means it deals less BODY. 

 

Nothing about how defenses are used changes.  Killing attacks have an advantage cost because you only get resistant defenses against the body of the attack, same as now.  Body from normal attacks just go against normal defenses.  Hence; less body damage dealt by normal attacks.  Nothing has changed about how defenses are calculated.

Oh, I should add that the suggested "minimum body rule" also increases average and minimum body done by a KA, so even if the target has resistant defenses, the KA is superior.

  

Quote

An Old KA uses a strict stun multiplier, meaning the raw STUN is 1d3 times the raw BODY.  That results in an average BODY:STUN ratio of 1:2.  The new KA uses NDB to calculate BODY and raw dice to calculate STUN.  That results in an average BODY:STUN ratio of 1:3.5.  Meaning that a new KA dealing the same average BODY as an old KA will have dramatically superior STUN output to the old KA. 

 

The minimum and maximum body for each DC of attack is listed above in the charts; that doesn't look like a dramatically superior output to me except at the very high end.  And, of course, one of the complaints about the existing KA system is the stun lotto which gives HUGE numbers sometimes.  Or terrible ones.

 

Oh, one last bit I missed last time

 

Quote

Complete disagreement.  Your statement is factually correct, but dealing with 6.25 AP steps in DC conversion is much worse to do in your head than dealing with 15 AP steps. 

 

This is in reference to the complexity issue with damage classes.  The main area of complexity for damage classes and KA right now is figuring out what the actual die roll will be with a changed damage class.  OK you went from a 5 DC attack to an 8 DC!  Now what's the roll?  Uh... (looks at chart...).  Now its "you went from 5d6 to 8d6.  Roll.

The cost thing is odd because its not in neat round 5 point increments, but that's also true with any KA now that has any modifier on it at all (reduced END cost, armor piercing, AE, Charges, etc).  So that's kind of a push, it really doesn't add much in terms of complexity.

 

I call that overall a win.

[Lee]

35 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Quote

Due to 3, an equivalent AP KA deals less raw BODY than a normal attack.  So if all of the target's DEF applies against the BODY of both attacks, the KA's lower raw BODY means it deals less BODY. 

 

Nothing about how defenses are used changes.  Killing attacks have an advantage cost because you only get resistant defenses against the body of the attack, same as now.  Body from normal attacks just go against normal defenses.  Hence; less body damage dealt by normal attacks.  Nothing has changed about how defenses are calculated.

I think what he was getting at is that, assuming the target's defense is fully resistant (meaning it counts the same whether it is a KA or not), the KA will deal less BODY than the normal attack (since it uses fewer dice).

 

Lee

[Guest Usagi]

STR Over Minimum	+0	+1/4
0 - 2	+0d6	+0d6
3	+½d6	+0d6
4	+½d6	+½d6
5	+1d6	+½d6
6 - 7	+1d6	+1d6
8 - 9	+1½d6	+1d6
10 - 11	+2d6	+1½d6
12	+2d6	+2d6
13 - 14	+2½d6	+2d6
15	+3d6	+2d6
16 - 17	+3d6	+2½d6
18	+3½d6	+2½d6
19	+3½d6	+3d6
20 - 21	+4d6	+3d6
22	+4d6	+3½d6
23 - 24	+4½d6	+3½d6
25	+5d6	+4d6

 

I have to say, I like this idea a lot.  I made try it out in my next game.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

20 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

A side note: to prevent KA's from doing NO body (a very real possibility using normal dice rules), which would be ridiculous given their purpose, I suggest a rule which is reflected in the table above: Killing Attacks do a minimum of 1d6 for every 3 dice of damage.  So a 3d6 KA does minimum 1 body, a 6d6 does minimum 2 body, and so on. 

I didn't realize this was intended to be minimum after Resistant Defenses.  How would a defender prevent this "Semi-Penetrating" BODY damage?  It makes no sense for Made Of Titanium Man to take damage from some random thug with a knife. 

[Hugh Neilson]

At the same AP level, the KA now does less BOD and less STUN than a normal attack.  The BOD is only blocked by rDEF, but how much rDEF is needed?  At 60 AP, it will manage 3 - 20 BOD, but the odds of 20 BOD is 1 in 60,466,176.  A 60 AP Supers game typically features characters with 20 - 25 defenses, half or more of which are resistant.  A little BOD may slip through, but the Normal attacks will pretty much always be superior.

 

Against Entangles, Automatons, etc., the KA will also be inferior as the Normal attack will do more BOD.

 

So why would I buy a KA? 

 

At 6 DC, a suit of Chain Mail or a 6/6 Force Field will mean no BOD from a typical KA, so it won't be better in Fantasy.

 

If that AVAD meant only rDEF blocks STUN as well, the KA might have an advantage against some opponents, but we would be back to the "use a KA to get more STUN damage" issue.

 

Practically, if you put no advantage on a KA at all, made it 5 points per 1d6, and set each d6 to do 1 BOD on 1 - 5, 2 on a 6 (rDEF only), and subtracted the number of dice from the total Stun (all DEF counts), I think the two would be more competitive.

21 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Why on earth do this? Well here are the main reasons:

1. Because it reduces complexity in the game, which is actually an issue for new players: two different damage structures?  Rolling multipliers, how does my STR add to this d6+1 again??
2. Because it gives a better curve.  In almost all Heroic games, and many Superheroic games the most you're going to see is 3d6, usually 1-2d6 for killing attacks in the present system.  As we all know from painful past experience, rolling 1d6 is awful because its so random and often poor in its results.  2d6 really is not much better.  Its too flat.
3. Because rolling more dice feels better.  A character doing a 6d6 attack feels more significant and more fun than a 2d6 attack
4. Because doing this adds greater granularity and flexibility to builds.  At present a 2d6 KA and a 2d6+1 KA are really almost insignificant in their difference.  But 6 and 7d6 actually are fairly notable.
5. Because the Damage Class table and concept is something even very experienced Hero players struggle with
6. As you'll see below, breaking the damage out this way give some other options not presently realistic 

 

1. Both add damage at the same rate.

2.  The curve is better.

3.  You get more dice.

4.  You get more granularity.

5.   One less DC issue to worry about - 1d6 for both is 1 DC for both.

6.  Not seeing any new options this can't handle.

 

Multiples become the same for normal and killing attacks.  Stun Multiples go away otherwise - you can't increase the multiple of a normal attack now.

[Christougher]

Pardon the snark..

 

If the point is to simplify the system, why have Killing Attacks at all?  

 

Ok sure, Defenses would have to adjust.  Or would they?  For a Convention game aimed at non-Hero players, I changed the definition of Resistant to mean that it could stop Body damage.  none-resistant defenses were stun-only.  Worked fairly well and simply.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

So I ran some numbers. 

 

ASSUMPTION: The "Semi-Penetrating" quality of new KA is blocked by Hardened defenses.  If this assumption is incorrect, costs will vary . 

 

75 AP attack.  This is 15d6 normal, 5d6 old KA, or 12d6 new KA. 

Negating the "Semi-Penetrating" quality of new KA costs 3 AP, since 4 points of RDEF must be made Hardened. 

Damage thresholds are generated with https://anydice.com/program/18987

The table below indicates the AP cost needed to take no BODY from such an attack a given percentage of the time.  The "Normal" row indicates the cost of doing so with non-resistant defenses.  The "Normal (RDEF)" row indicates the cost of doing so with resistant defenses. 

		AP of defenses required to negate all BODY damage a given percent of the time
TYPE		50%		75%		90%		100%
Normal		30 AP		32 AP		36 AP		60 AP
Normal (RDEF)	45 AP		48 AP		54 AP		90 AP
Old KA		51 AP		60 AP		66 AP		90 AP
New KA		39 AP		42 AP		48 AP		75 AP

 

Conclusion: If using RDEF to protect from BODY damage, the new KA paradigm means a defender must pay less to be safe a given percentage of the time.  Both when comparing normal attacks to new KAs and when comparing old KAs to new KAs. 

[BNakagawa]

Has this approach been playtested? Against/among existing characters/villains?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Practically, if you put no advantage on a KA at all, made it 5 points per 1d6, and set each d6 to do 1 BOD on 1 - 5, 2 on a 6 (rDEF only), and subtracted the number of dice from the total Stun (all DEF counts), I think the two would be more competitive.

 

Maybe, but while reducing the STUN damage does offset the advantage of buying a killing attack slightly but does it make sense to do less stun damage with a pistol than a fist?  It seems like the proper approach would be to boost body damage done or affect defenses differently for body, if the goal is to do better body damage with KA's than with normal attacks.

 

But how would you do this in a way that doesn't increase complexity and create more work for one kind of attack in the game?  The priority here was to simplify KAs and make them behave more like a normal attack, the minimum body rule is already an added complexity :/

One old school possible suggestion to set apart KA's is to go back to the original Hero concept of having NO defenses against KA unless you have some resistant.  So you take full stun and body without resistant defenses.  That's a pretty new change, only in 6th was that altered, as an attempt to reduce the stun lotto (and because as of 5th characters all now had resistant defenses anyway even if it made no sense at all for them to).  That wouldn't increase body damage, but it would make killing attacks significantly nastier against unarmored targets.

 

Quote

Has this approach been playtested? Against/among existing characters/villains?

 

Sadly no, I haven't had a chance.  I never get to play any more these days

 

Quote

I didn't realize this was intended to be minimum after Resistant Defenses. 

 

No, its before defenses.  You just can't roll 0 body on an attack, basically.

 

Quote

If the point is to simplify the system, why have Killing Attacks at all?

 

Well if that was the exclusive goal, that would make sense.  But killing attacks vs normal attacks is very useful for building various weapon and attack effects and is a part of Hero I really like.  The concept is to keep them, but reduce the complexity that the present system allows (plus all the other bonuses listed in the first post).

 

Quote

ASSUMPTION: The "Semi-Penetrating" quality of new KA is blocked by Hardened defenses.  If this assumption is incorrect, costs will vary . 

 

No, just resistant defenses.  As in the way Killing attacks have always worked.  Nothing has changed about how defenses are applied.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

On 11/15/2019 at 9:00 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

does it make sense to do less stun damage with a pistol than a fist?

I imagine a pistol has a lot more DCs than a fist. 

 

On 11/15/2019 at 9:00 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

But how would you do this in a way that doesn't increase complexity and create more work for one kind of attack in the game?

Right, so here's my crazy idea.

"Any attack which deals both BODY and STUN damage may be designated a Killing Attack as a +0 Adder.  As normal for the old style of Killing Attack, BODY damage from a Killing Attack can only be prevented by Resistant defenses and an additional d6 is subtracted from Knockback if Knockback is being used. 

Additionally, after rolling STUN and calculating BODY, subtract an amount of STUN equal to 1 per 2 dice and add 1 BODY per 3 dice.  This conversion of STUN to BODY does not affect the Normal Damage BODY rolled and does not occur against any target incapable of suffering STUN.  . 

Notes: Coupling the Killing Attack Adder with the Does Body Advantage is unadvised, and GM discretion is recommended.  GMs should consider altering the scaling of the STUN to BODY conversion to suit their games.  A "gritty and lethal" game might add 1 BODY per 2 dice, for example. 

EDIT: Made bonus BODY damage not apply against any target immune to STUN.

DOUBLEEDIT: Changed scaling, reworked wording"

Remembering static bonuses and penalties is a lot easier on a player than remembering an entirely different rolling system, and this has the additional advantage of playing exceptionally nice with the DC table. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I imagine a pistol has a lot more DCs than a fist. 

 

In a game system that can have people punching for 15d6 or more, this is a real question: why would a killing attack do less stun damage than a normal one, other that "so my construct works"?

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

other that "so my construct works"?

Please elaborate. 

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Maybe, but while reducing the STUN damage does offset the advantage of buying a killing attack slightly but does it make sense to do less stun damage with a pistol than a fist?  It seems like the proper approach would be to boost body damage done or affect defenses differently for body, if the goal is to do better body damage with KA's than with normal attacks.

 

If the pistol does more BOD and the same STUN, why would anyone use a fist?  At the same AP, if the KA is going to do more BOD, it needs to do less STUN (or have some other drawback to balance it).  There is also "only rDEF reduces BOD".

 

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

One old school possible suggestion to set apart KA's is to go back to the original Hero concept of having NO defenses against KA unless you have some resistant.  So you take full stun and body without resistant defenses.  That's a pretty new change, only in 6th was that altered, as an attempt to reduce the stun lotto (and because as of 5th characters all now had resistant defenses anyway even if it made no sense at all for them to).  That wouldn't increase body damage, but it would make killing attacks significantly nastier against unarmored targets

 

All it really did is forced any viable character to have at least 1 rDEF.

 

2 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Right, so here's my crazy idea.

"Any attack which deals both BODY and STUN damage may be designated a Killing Attack as a +0 Adder.  A Killing Attack deals additional BODY damage, at the rate of +1 BODY per two dice in the attack.  This additional BODY does not count as Normal Body Damage, such as for Advantages such as Penetrating or for the purposes of Knockback.  Additionally, the BODY damage from a Killing Attack can only be prevented by Resistant defenses.  However, Killing Attacks are less effective at inflicting STUN damage and suffer an equal penalty to their STUN damage.  Likewise, a Killing Attack subtracts an additional 1d6 Knockback. 

At the GM's option, the bonus BODY and STUN penalty for a particular Killing Attack may be adjusted to anywhere between 1/3rd and 2/3rds per die without significant issue. 

Note: Coupling the Killing Attack Adder with the Does Body Advantage is unadvised, and GM discretion is recommended. "

Remembering static bonuses and penalties is a lot easier on a player than remembering an entirely different rolling system, and this has the additional advantage of playing exceptionally nice with the DC table. 

 

So a 12d6 KA will average 18 BOD.  OK - I'll toss one in my Multipower so I can blow away Barriers, Entangles and Automatons.  If the spread between Normal and KA Bod widens materially, we either have KAs that blow through these constructs, or we have to beef them up so only KAs can be effective and normal attacks can't damage them.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

8 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

So a 12d6 KA will average 18 BOD.  OK - I'll toss one in my Multipower so I can blow away Barriers, Entangles and Automatons.  If the spread between Normal and KA Bod widens materially, we either have KAs that blow through these constructs, or we have to beef them up so only KAs can be effective and normal attacks can't damage them.

Good point, scaling could use some work.  1//6 is needed to get the same mean as old KAs, but that makes the distinction pretty marginal.  1//4 with a double STUN penalty might be vaguely right?  I'll have to run the numbers tomorrow or Sunday.  The big impact will be on how the curves compare.  4d6 is very different from 12d{0,1,1,1,1,2}. 

E: Maybe just declare the bonus BODY doesn't affect anything not subject to STUN?  Thinking "in genre" it doesn't feel like a super-gun should be more destructive than super-strength, just more injurious. 

[Doc Democracy]

Hmm.  Would the idea behind this be better if, as well as applying the damage against resistant defences, you also bump BODY damage by the number of dice and reduce STUN by the same, so for 6D6 killing attack, you count BODY normally then add 6, count STUN normally and subtract 6.

 

This ensures slightly weaker defences versus increased BODY damage which is the whole purpose of a killing attack.

 

Doc

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

22 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

Hmm.  Would the idea behind this be better if, as well as applying the damage against resistant defences, you also bump BODY damage by the number of dice and reduce STUN by the same, so for 6D6 killing attack, you count BODY normally then add 6, count STUN normally and subtract 6.

 

This ensures slightly weaker defences versus increased BODY damage which is the whole purpose of a killing attack.

 

Doc

See two posts above yours.  Causes problems with Entangles, Foci, Automatons, etc. 

 

Unrelated, but I was playing with dice and found that "2s don't count BODY, 5's count 2 BODY, 6's count 3 BODY" turns 12d6 Normal into almost exactly the same curve as 4d6.  Not remotely practical, but fun to know. 

[Doc Democracy]

52 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

So a 12d6 KA will average 18 BOD.  OK - I'll toss one in my Multipower so I can blow away Barriers, Entangles and Automatons. 

 

Is that a terrible thing?  It would be for this reason I think it warrants an advantage but you are now in a position where one kind of attack reliably delivers more BODY per DC. 

 

If the only drawback is that it might be another blade for the multipower Swiss army knife then I don't see that as anything different from the current position where a player puts in NND, AP, affect desolid, etc attacks.  It simply provides another option.

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

9 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

See two posts above yours.  Causes problems with Entangles, Foci, Automatons, etc. 

 

Unrelated, but I was playing with dice and found that "2s don't count BODY, 5's count 2 BODY, 6's count 3 BODY" turns 12d6 Normal into almost exactly the same curve as 4d6.  Not remotely practical, but fun to know. 

 

As I note above, I don't think that is as much a problem as a feature.  I WOULD make killing an advantage like other things and it would deliver advantageous results under the right circumstances.

 

Doc

[mallet]

No math to back this up. No deep thought to it. Just off the top of my head reading through this thread. 

 

How about a system where Killing Attacks do no stun, and can only be added to an existing Normal Attack. Characters STR adds to the Normal Damage as normal, but doesn't add to the KA. Would make all the calculations a lot easier and make things simpler. 

 

For example, Clubber Langley has a club he likes to hit people with it does 5d6 Normal Damage (all damage calculated as normal per the current rules (so 5-25 STUN, 0-10 BODY (average of 18 STUN and 5 BODY)) later on he adds some spikes to it and buys 1d6 KA to the club (Sort of like buying Deadly Blow, but only can be added to an existing Normal Attack). So the Club now does 5d6 ND +1d6  KA (no extra stun) so it now does 5-25 STUN and 1-16 BODY with an average of 18 STUN and 8 BODY.

 

A sword might be built as 2d6 ND + 2D6 KA for a range of 2-12 STUN and 2-12 BODY and an Average of 6 STUN and 8 BODY. A character with 10 STR over the min of the weapon would do 4d6 ND + 2d6 KA for an average attack of 14 STUN and 10 BODY.

 

So all attacks are ND attacks and KA are just bonus d6 Body damage dice bought as extras to the attack that only do BODY damage. I guess the cost of 1d6 KA would drop a bit since they won't do any stun damage, so maybe they only would cost 10 pts per 1d6. Or something like that. 

 

Anyway, just an idea off the top of my head.