Killing damage (yet again)

[Doc Democracy]

On 5/11/2020 at 1:07 AM, BNakagawa said:

isn't that just 7? (and also not just under 5?)

 

Oh, I get it, you think the average on a d3 is 1.5

 

it's 2.

 

I was weirded out by the numbers in the original post about a d6 of killing damage doing just under 5 stun and couldn't figure out how that would work.

 

7 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

 

I must be missing something here.

 

1d6 averages to 3.5.

1d3 averages to 2

STUN on average would be 7.

 

Magnify my embarrassment why dont you... 

🤕

[Hugh Neilson]

6 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

 

Magnify my embarrassment why dont you... 

🤕

 

Well, it's only a 1d3 multiple in 6e, instead of a d6-1...

[Doc Democracy]

On 5/8/2020 at 5:40 PM, massey said:

I have debated eliminating killing damage completely for 4 color games.  What we consider "killing" attacks might be better represented by either the Armor Piercing advantage, or by 3rd edition's Piercing, which just removed X amount of Def from the target (or both).

 

So let's say Batman has 20 PD.  The Joker grabs a tommy gun, 7D6 Energy Blast, Armor Piercing, 8 points Piercing, Autofire x5.  He shoots at Batman and hits 3 times.  The 8 points Piercing lowers Batman's PD to 12.  Batman isn't hardened, so it's reduced again to 6.  The Joker will inflict about 1 Body and 15 Stun per hit past defenses to the Caped Crusader.  Visually, Batman is grazed by the bullets and it hurts a lot, but he's okay.  His costume is torn and he's bleeding.

 

A normal person hit by such an attack would full damage from each attack.  Even a tough normal person (8 PD) would have all that stripped away.  On the other hand, Superman (40 PD, hardened) gets reduced to 32 PD and the bullets still bounce harmlessly off of him.

 

I have decided that Massey's schema is the one that suits the game I am building.  I will exclude both killing attacks and resistant defence from the game.

 

Done.

[Doc Democracy]

8 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Well, it's only a 1d3 multiple in 6e, instead of a d6-1...

Yeah but ScottishFox was using STUN multiples there...

 

😄

 

 

[ScottishFox]

12 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

Yeah but ScottishFox was using STUN multiples there...

 

😄

 

 

 

I use hit locations too and they strangely did NOT adjust that when they changed from 1d6-1 (average 2.67) to 1d3 (average 2).

 

Hit locations still crunches out to about 2.8 STUN multiplier for killing attacks and there isn't an obvious, elegant solution. 

[Hugh Neilson]

I never found the issue as pronounced in Heroic games, but I've never done a deep dive into why.

 

A few possible reasons. 

 

Lower defense to DC ratios (the stun multiple is more pronounced when high multiples bypass relatively high defenses; I did some math years ago and I think the breakpoint is about the 2 DEF per DC area, so 12 DC and 24 defenses.

 

Far more KAs - the issue exists, but it is the same for most attackers, so there is no actual comparison to normal attacks.  That could also be a genre expectation that the KA will be more effective.

 

Hit locations also apply to normal damage, so having multiples there smooths out some of the rougher edges a bit (not as convinced as I do not recall a lot of HTH fighters or staff wielders).

[ScottishFox]

5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I never found the issue as pronounced in Heroic games, but I've never done a deep dive into why.

 

What I've found as the DC's and armor escalate over the course of a campaign is that the killing attacks get too stunny.

 

Example:  Arden the Witcher is wearing enchanted plate armor that render him nigh invulnerable (12 rPD, 8 PD).

He then takes a shot from a heavy long bow (standard 2d6 RKA) that hits him in the stomach for 10 BOD (4x multiplier).  He takes no BOD damage, but 20 ((10 x 4) - 20) stun get past his defenses and he is stunned.

A similarly damaging normal attack (6d6 Staff attack landing for - let's say... 6,6,6,6,4,3) will result in 0 BOD damage and ((31-20) x 1.5) = 16 stun which is lower, but still quite painful for an attack that is not capable of doing any permanent damage.

 

The more I think about this the more I think the issue is primarily around the lack of scaling of the non-armor PD/ED of the heroes.  In a supers campaign the resistant AND non-resistant defenses would both be going up.

In a heroic campaign the characters get to 6-8 PD/ED and stop.  The armors get better, but their natural defenses don't.  This makes the campaign scaled attacks do disproportionately more STUN as attacks and defenses rank up.

 

Maybe the solution will be something along the lines of having enchanted armors provide both rPD and PD.

 

So...  Neilson's Gnarly Nettle Coat could be 5 rPD (compared to say 3rPD for non-magical heavy leather) and also provide a +4 bonus to PD/ED.  The secondary bonus would have to go up faster since stun escalates faster than BOD.

 

If I use the roughly +4 rPD Plate from earlier than the nigh invulnerable Witcher is taking 12 or 5 stun from the hit instead of 20 or 16.

 

Hmm...  Time to tinker!

 

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

It also depends whether you want defeat to mean death or KO.  One of the strengths I saw in Hero early on was a defeated Conan waking up hours later.  That does not happen in D&D.

 

If the character is basically immune to long-term damage, a short-term KO is the only way they will be taken down.

[dsatow]

This idea was suggested a long time back when I think 5th was about to come out.  I kind of agree with Duke's idea and I can sort of see Hugh's point.

 

1) The cost change of 1d6 killing from 15pts to 10pts, severely changes the effectiveness of point cost on the killing attack.  A 60 active point attack would be an average of 6d6 killing or 21 Body, 42 Stun.  Currently, a 60 active point killing attack would do an average of 4d6 killing or 14 Body and 28 Stun.  That's a big jump in power. (unless you are talking about treating a killing attack as calculating as a normal attack, if so, I apologize and please correct me as I scanned this quickly while on slack at work)

2) We get very kludgy with advantages and limitations as Duke noted.  This applies here or there but not here or there.  It would be better to simplify it.

 

My suggestion would be to do the following.  (note this idea has not been thought through)

1) Get rid of HA and HtHKA.

2) Have the advantage +1/2 to add a stat to a power.  Have a -1/2 to make a ranged power no range.

 

This would alleviate the possible point cost effectiveness of the changing killing to 10 pts per die while adding possibilities with the +1/2 advantage to add a stat to a power (though that advantage would be extremely abusable so probably a GM warning).

 

The +1/2 adv. to add a stat would make interesting builds, such as EGO powering a killing attack.  Another interesting build would be if it was powered by END or STUN, the power would quickly diminish as the character used the power or was beaten up in combat.

[Duke Bushido]

Thanks, D; 

 

I appreciate that.  I let the idea drop, however, because Hugh stated clearly that he doesn't like the idea, so I didn't think the discussing it with him would be as fun as discussing things with him usually is.    

 

Though to be fair, I assume the KA to cost 10/d, and to have _neither_ range nor "can add STR damage."  Either of these is a +1/2.  It's not something that's really spec'ed out, simply because every player (with only the rarest exception) tends to pick one or the other-- bringing him right back to 15 pt / die.   

 

The whole thing came up at our table years and years ago-- more accurately measured in decades, really.

 

Player wanted to have "time powers."  One of his powers was the ability to accelerate the effects of time with just his touch-- you know the cliche: the item (or person) begins to patina, then rust, then decay, then crumble in a matter of seconds.....

 

KA seemed the most obvious: lots of BODY damage required to reduce something to its component molecules, after all!    But he specified _touch_, and clearly the effect didn't really seem right to add STR.

 

And it was in that instant, given that "Ranged" for a non-ranged power was a +1/2, that we just sort of saw it:  Killing Attack, at its base, is ten points a die.  

 

 

That's where that came from   

 

As far as "can add STR," we never required that to make an HtH attack ala "6d6 Energy blast, PD, no range" being added to STR damage; it was just grandfathered in.  "Can add STR" has seen _some_ use, but only for some really odd builds:  Stretchy Man creates and entangle from his elongated fingers-- can add STR.   Swimming: can add STR (don't ask).   

 

In short, if you opt to grandfather your favorite "add HtH damage" build, this Advantage won't see a lot of use.  Worse, if you use it for your favorite HtH additional damage build, you're paying extra to suck.    That is, the modern version is, I believe "+x STR, only for damage (or something like that), valued at...  what?  -1 to get it from 5 pts to 3 pts?.  Try it with out grandfathering "can add STR, though:  you add "can add STR" and you're going from 5 pts to 7.5 pts / die; divide in your limitation and you're back at 5 pts /die.  .  So for exactly  the same price as complete STR, you don't get complete STR.  :/  This, more than anything, I suspect, is why "limited STR" was the chose build as the game progressed, and why we never questioned being able to add STR to STR for free.  It works fine, until you start to question the actual lost utility of STR (less loss in 6e, but it's still worth thinking about, and it's much uglier in earlier editions)

 

"But," you say, "I don't need to use "can add STR" when I am buying it as additional STR."   You'd be right, of course (at least as far as I care), but again: that was the example using the modern build.   Also, why would you assume you can automatically add STR the Characteristic to STR the Power?   (I kid; I was just pointing out something that we take for granted in one instance and forbid in a lot of others:  I can't add two guns together, for example.  HOWEVER---:  I was quite serious about not really caring, though: you have fun your way, and it's all cool, right?     )

 

So go back to the old style "Energy Blast, PD, No Range," also a -1/2 or so,  (which seems right, since adding range to something not-ranged is +1/2 ), yielding roughly 3  pt / die.

 

So... same / same, right?

 

Then add "can add STR" for +1/2.   So your base of 5 times 1.5 goes to 7.5 before dividing in your Limitation.  You're "limited" power is now 7.5 / 1.5 or-- wait for it! -- 5 pts /die.

 

The exact same price as the power you could use to attack him from across a room!  Sure, you can add your STR, but let's say you've got STR 15.   Is it worth it?  If you've bought 6 dice of EB then you've paid 30 pts.  If you've bought 3 dice of EB: Can add STR, No Range, then you've paid 15 pts.  You've got a total of 6 dice, so yeah: pretty sweet for a Heroic level character or a low-powered super.  Kind of a Bruce Lee Dragon Kick or something, maybe.

 

But look at higher power levels-- say you pay those 30 pts and get a total of 9 dice.  Still pretty sweet, I think, but your average cost is climbing: 

 

Oh, heck-- you can do math as good as anyone else, and probably better than me.   The point is that this "Advantage" has seriously diminishing returns: the more dice you buy, you pay on each one of them to add the STR, but there is only so much STR available to add.  Eventually, you're paying for utility that you have no hope of actually getting.    When viewed from the vantage point of "Killing Attack has  a base cost of 10, with a mandatory selection of Advantage, the same problem is apparent again: you eventually pay for utility you will _not_ be able to use (baring some issue of your comic book where you get cosmically super-charged for a few pages in one of those "Oh, crap; I've written myself into a corner; how the _hell_ do I fix this?!!" moments)-- so you get diminishing returns as soon as you stop getting a "free" die for every purchased die.

 

 

Now I realize that it sounds like I'm shooting down the idea completely:  I'm not.  I'm _really_ not!  It's just not something I would encourage in a "normal" type "my punch is MIGHTY!" sort of build.  I'd save it for those really _weird_ builds that nothing else really seems _right_ for.  No; they don't happen often, but I've admitted that, too.

 

 

If nothing else, I think we might have a tiny bit of insight into at least one of the reasons Hugh doesn't like it.   We _certainly_ know why we continue to grandfather these other builds.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My long-winded point is that  

[Hugh Neilson]

14 hours ago, dsatow said:

This idea was suggested a long time back when I think 5th was about to come out.  I kind of agree with Duke's idea and I can sort of see Hugh's point.

 

1) The cost change of 1d6 killing from 15pts to 10pts, severely changes the effectiveness of point cost on the killing attack.  A 60 active point attack would be an average of 6d6 killing or 21 Body, 42 Stun.  Currently, a 60 active point killing attack would do an average of 4d6 killing or 14 Body and 28 Stun.  That's a big jump in power. (unless you are talking about treating a killing attack as calculating as a normal attack, if so, I apologize and please correct me as I scanned this quickly while on slack at work)

2) We get very kludgy with advantages and limitations as Duke noted.  This applies here or there but not here or there.  It would be better to simplify it.

 

Emphasis added.  The average on a 12d6 normal attack is 42 STUN, 14 BOD.  Why should anyone ever take a normal attack if they can do more BOD and the same STUN against more limited defenses for the same cost?  This is the baseline at which the system fails, in my opinion.  That massive BOD increase also means we can forget Barriers, Force Walls, Entangles and Automatons.  Either they are no challenge at all to anyone with a KA, or those without a KA are helpless and frustrated.

14 hours ago, dsatow said:

 

My suggestion would be to do the following.  (note this idea has not been thought through)

 

1) Get rid of HA and HtHKA.

2) Have the advantage +1/2 to add a stat to a power.  Have a -1/2 to make a ranged power no range.

 

This would alleviate the possible point cost effectiveness of the changing killing to 10 pts per die while adding possibilities with the +1/2 advantage to add a stat to a power (though that advantage would be extremely abusable so probably a GM warning).

 

The +1/2 adv. to add a stat would make interesting builds, such as EGO powering a killing attack.  Another interesting build would be if it was powered by END or STUN, the power would quickly diminish as the character used the power or was beaten up in combat.

 

I think the HA and the HKA should both go. 

 

HA is "extra STR with a limitation".  That has been made a lot more viable in 6e, where this does not require sacrificing figured characteristics.  The option, which was bandied about at the time, was to fix the price of figured characteristics, then boost the price of STR, CON, DEX and maybe one or two others to reflect the value of figureds they provided, and set a fair "no figured" limitation for each of those.  But, if the pricing was fixed, why did we need Figured at all?

 

Set "only direct damage" at -1/2 and we have 10 points for +3d6.  That is still 15 AP, and still 3 damage classes.  It's the same price as a no range Blast.  That seems reasonable.

 

For -1/4, it can enhance other damage effects - oh, look, that's the price of a Martial DC.  How often do you see a Martial Artist use a non-martial maneuver?

 

Now, we have Killing Attack.  Like every other attack power, it is Ranged by default.  It costs 15 points for 3 DCs.

 

As Duke says, I (and my buddy, elementary mathematics) do not support "add something to something else, +1/2".

 

You have 30 points in Attack 1, and one stat of 30.  You want 60 AP of Attack 1.  Should you buy up Attack 1, spending 30 more points, or just add +1/2 "my stat I already paid for boosts it" and only pay 15 points? 

 

But perhaps your character concept is not stat-heavy, so you have no stats over 15.  Or you want to build a concept, not design a concept that has a more efficient build, so the appropriate stat(s) aren't that high.  Guess you have to pay the full 30 points.  You should have picked a concept the system favours.  Or you can just pick a stat to bump up from 15 to 30 for free.  Maybe INT should make your PrecisionBeam more damaging, so instead of spending 60 points on your 12d6 PrecisionBeam, you spend 30, +1/2 to add INT, and another 15 raising your INT to 30 from 15.  That's +3 to all PER and INT rolls for free.

 

What it really is, is a way to make characteristics a better investment than other abilities because they will provide something for nothing.  Building to the concept and mechanics that get you the most freebies is not, in my view, consistent with the Hero System philosophy.  Reasoning from effect and paying for the result is the Hero System philosophy.  Your PrecisionBeam should do more damage due to your high INT?  Buy more PrecisionBeam damage due to your high INT.  Your Claws should cut deeper due to your high STR?  Buy more KA, No Range, due to your high STR.  Make them Unified Powers since an INT/STR drain will also drain your KA.

 

It does, however, make the build behind muscle-powered weapons way more complex.  So what?  That can fall behind the scenes in a Heroic game, where equipment is not purchased with points.

[Ninja-Bear]

Duke fwiw in 5th )& I haven’t gotten a chance to check in 6th) you could for Heroic level only put Ranged on HA.

 

I think they never should’ve allowed Ranged to be added on HKA that made HKA and RKA weirder. 

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

 

I think they never should’ve allowed Ranged to be added on HKA that made HKA and RKA weirder. 

 

 

Agreed, at least to a point.  The idea was, if I recall, for throw weapons: add STR to your RKA; Steve just built it the other way around. 

[Ninja-Bear]

Duke I believe the first time I saw HKA plus Range was 4th ed  Big Blue Book.

[BNakagawa]

The fundamental problem with KA is the fact that it produces erratic results. If you took a 1d6 KA and added a bunch of +1 stun multiple advantages to it, you would have a power that pretty much maxes out as often as it does minimum damage and both of those would be roughly 1/6 of the time, what with the stun multiple being flattened out by the amount of bonuses. (If your stun mod is d3+12, it doesn't really matter what you roll)

 

Just as a little thought experiment, would you allow an energy blast based power that rolled just one die for damage and multiplied the result by the number of Damage Classes? The minimum, maximum and average amount of damage produced by this power is exactly the same as any vanilla EB. But is it fair? Is it balanced? Is it good game design?

[dsatow]

1 hour ago, BNakagawa said:

The fundamental problem with KA is the fact that it produces erratic results. If you took a 1d6 KA and added a bunch of +1 stun multiple advantages to it, you would have a power that pretty much maxes out as often as it does minimum damage and both of those would be roughly 1/6 of the time, what with the stun multiple being flattened out by the amount of bonuses. (If your stun mod is d3+12, it doesn't really matter what you roll)

 

Just as a little thought experiment, would you allow an energy blast based power that rolled just one die for damage and multiplied the result by the number of Damage Classes? The minimum, maximum and average amount of damage produced by this power is exactly the same as any vanilla EB. But is it fair? Is it balanced? Is it good game design?

 

That depends on GM and players.  If you remember, the original Marvel Superhero game had effectively static damage.  A Good attack did 10 points of damage effectively but gamers wanted variance based on the hit so they housed ruled variant damage.  Amber did away with numerical damage, but you had to really trust the GM and I found if you weren't the top or near the top in stats, your value really didn't matter so long as you had an amber level ability.