Trebuchet

On 9/11/2017 at 10:40 PM, TheQuestionMan said:

Swap the GM's seat with one of your Player's.

 

Recharges your batteries and makes the appreciate your GMing more.

This is what we do. Seven of our eight players also GM. Not only does it help prevent GM burnout, but it reminds everyone how it works on both sides of the GM's screen. Really keeps the metagaming down. 

Our MidGuard campaign had its 25th anniversary this past summer. Granted, only two of the original characters and three of the original players are still in it, but IMHO that's more than balanced by the fact two of our eight players are the grown sons of one of the original players. 

Our team started as the world's first superheroes at 250 points, and now occupies the Justice League/Avengers rung of the team ladder. There are other teams, both PC and NPC, but MidGuard is the big gun. (Every member of the team but one is now 500+ points, and mine - Sil'f, the only continuously-run character - has reached 638 points.)

It's been fun running characters with such long histories together, and a number of the characters have become close friends "off camera" as well as teammates. Close enough we've been able to design scenarios based on likely reactions by those friends. 

Why not simply eliminate the concept of Killing Attacks entirely and simulate the effects of swords, guns, lasers, etc., with Advantages such as Armor Piercing, Penetrating, Semi-Armor Piercing, and AVLD (Does Body)?

The problem I see with this idea is that is sets up a whole new attack form with its own totally separate defense (resistant in this case). This means if you have only enough rDEF to protect from the RAW KA Body (since you used your non-resistant defense for the STUN) then you suddenly take massive amounts of STUN from KAs since your non-res def no longer helps. It means characters now need to take enough rDEF to reasonably protect from all that KA Stun. But what this does' date=' is make KAs just like normal attacks, in that they now do no Body, since most will buy enough rDEF to keep these KAs from stunning them, but that means no KA Body ever gets through. This totally ruins the point of KAs.[/quote']

 

Actually, it's not as bad as you seem to think - I've run the numbers across a wide range of DEF values with varying percentages of rDEF. In general, if you want to stun somebody, you are usually better off with a normal attack, which generates significantly more STUN to start with.

But let's take the argument in detail.

...since most will buy enough rDEF to keep these KAs from stunning them' date=' but that means no KA Body ever gets through[/quote']

 

But given the way that STUN from killing attacks spike in the current system, a 4d6 KA will relatively frequently generate 54+ stun: do people buy enough DEF to prevent Stunning from a 12 DC KA under the current rules? Answer: no, they do not. Only Bricks routinely approach that level of DEF. Heck, a lot of PCs don't even have enough rDEF to prevent all the BOD that a 12DC killing attack will dish out, and I don't think many people would argue that a 60 active point attack is "over-powered". Indeed, the whole "stun lottery" argument is driven by the fact that killing attacks were (and to some extent, still are) the most effective way to stun high defence targets and that it's really expensive to build a brick who isn't at risk of getting stunned by ordinary gunfire.

 

So why would players suddenly start to design differently from the way they always have in the past? In fact, by lowering the overall BOD output of killing attacks slightly, characters with lower rDEF become more viable. Most non-brick PCs buy enough rDEF to prevent getting smeared by killing attacks - but as noted, it's hard to get enough to protect against stunning.

 

Now you are right that this change does generate a completely new form of attack. Killing as an advantage does work differently from the current KA. But that's intended. Right now, KA does two things: it generates a bit more BOD than regular attacks and (even with a 3x multiplier) it reliably - but intermittently - generates higher STUN output than a normal attack. And it goes partially, but not fully, against a different defence. Killing as an advantage, doesn't do either of those things. Instead, it creates a new kind of attack: one that specifically messes up soft targets. This means that you can generate different kinds of attacks:

1. Normal attacks. Do the most BOD and STUN, but are stopped by most defences. Good for knocking things down and stunning people.

2. Killing attacks. Do less BOD and STUN, but are very effective against unarmoured or lightly armoured targets.

3. Penetrating attacks. Do much less BOD and STUN, but are effective at breaking things, and injuring people (without stunning them)

4. AP attacks. Do less STUN and BOD, but are effective at getting damage through very high defences.

 

They way they work now' date=' only the Body of KAs use a special defense (rDEF) and the Stun still uses the universal defense. This means you can have lower rDEF and thus suffer Body from KA (their whole point) but not worry about being stunned out by them since Stun still works off the universal defense of non-resistant.[/quote']

 

And what this means in practice, is that killing attacks are the preferred approach to targets with low defences .... and also the preferred attack for targets with high defences. I'm not sure that's actually what we want. I know it's not actually what I want. That whole "All attacks work with defences this way, except for this one particular attack that works another way ..." is something I'd like to ditch. The reason the AVAD advantage is such a wall of text is precisely because it needs to weasel around the fact that killing attacks are already a sort-of-but-not-really AVAD.

 

My idea was to keep the feel of KAs as focused on doing Body' date=' but to deal with the Stun they do by disconnecting it from the universal defense and tying it directly to the Body they end up doing (since Body damage is their whole point). My idea allows rDEF to remain as they are in all the RAW builds (no need to recalc them) and just allows KAs to only consider rDEF, for the Body, then the Stun takes whatever Body gets through and multiplies it by 1d3 for the Stun. Simple, makes KAs still focus on Body, and makes the only defense against them truly be rDEF (as they ignore normal defense) which seems to be the flavor intended. But it does all this without unbalancing the rest of the RAW characters out there already made and without requiring rebuilding and recalculating them.[/quote']

 

The problem with your idea is that it likely won't work the way you think it will. Most PC's already buy enough rDEF to bounce most of the BOD from the killing attacks they routinely expect to meet: which makes sense - people don't like getting their PCs killed by some thug with a gat. So in your case, a killing attack which does no BOD does no damage at all. So 7 rDEF renders most handguns entirely useless. 12 rDEF renders almost all small arms entirely useless. These are not outrageous levels of DEF. If anything, this approach would encourage people to buy more rDEF, not less, because for only a small investment, you gain near immunity to killing attacks. Heck, I'd certainly do it. So your approach ensures that killing attacks won't be used to generate BOD - because they won't be much good for anything. I doubt people would bother using them, except in edge cases. It also - by generating a new mechanism - increases complexity. What is the cost of the advantage "Damage calculated off how much BOD goes through"? What happens when you start building killing attacks that work against different defences? etc.

 

I should point out that I don't think it's a bad idea. In some ways it actually models how killing attacks work. Just that it's not likely to work the way you think it would, in-game, and it adds another layer of "special rules just for KA"

 

I think it's also questionable as to whether the point of KAs is to do BOD. That's how we think of them, because the current mechanism makes KA good at doing BOD (as well as STUN). In real life though, many of the things we define as killing attacks are really bad at doing BOD. If you want to break down a door, you're better off with a club than a pistol or a sword, even though a pistol or a sword is clearly more lethal when it comes to squishy targets like people. The simple idea "killing attacks do more damage" doesn't hold up. Now I accept that we're abstracting damage, so I'm not trying to suggest we want to model damage precisely (even if we could). I'm just pointing out that in reality, what we define as killing attacks are typically good at hurting lightly armoured targets, but not great at doing a lot of BOD. We can model that relatively easily.

 

And making killing an advantage would not necessitate rewriting characters wholesale. In fact, virtually no changes would be needed. Every dice of killing attack (current rules) would become 2d6 of blast (killing). You don't need to change DEF at all. The reduced DEF you'd get against STUN is, to a very large extent, compensated for by the fact that STUN damage is reduced compared to KA under the current rules. Right now, each dice of KA generates (on average) 3.5 BOD and 7 STUN, with surges of up to 6 BOD and 18 STUN, about 8% of the time. In contrast, the same cost of "killing blast" would generate (on average) 2 BOD and 7 stun and surges of up to 4 BOD and 11 stun 8% of the time. What that means in practice is that compared to current rules, characters with low rDEF are at less risk of dying, but more risk of being incapacitated. Characters with medium rDEF are at less risk of dying and less risk of being incapacitated, and characters with high rDEF are at much less risk of dying and much less risk of being incapacitated.

 

It still means that killing attacks are dangerous to low rDEF characters: just that the risk is more that they will be incapacitated than killed outright, which is not necessarily a bad thing for cinematic games.

 

cheers, Mark

The math has been done in several other threads an the average stun for Killing attacks in 6E is lower than Normal attacks' date=' not higher.[/quote']

 

That misses the point of our objections entirely. It's not the AVERAGE Stun of KA's which is the issue, it is the extreme variance and much increased possibility for an instant KO which creates the problem. A high Multiple roll results in Stun out of all proportion to the dice rolled. Is it really reasonable for a mook with a .45 pistol (2d6-1) to potentially do 55 Stun with just 3 6's rolled? A character with a 9d6 Normal attack would have to roll ALL 6's to match that; a character rolling average with a Normal attack would need 15.5d6 to match that. That makes KA's disproportionately effective.

 

It is the possibility of a high Stun Multiple which makes Killing Attacks attractive, especially to powergamers.

 

Why not just have Killing Attacks do the rolled damage just like a Normal attack but only apply Resistant defenses? Simpler, and it eliminates the high variability.

Most types of characters have 10 points in defenses outside of Armor, Force Fields, and Combat Luck. Males are 6 PD 4 ED, Females are 5 PD 5 ED. Most Men are 20 STR 18 DEX 20 CON 12 BODY 11 EGO, while Woman are 15 STR 20 DEX 18 CON 11 BODY 14 EGO. Bricks are 50 STR 25 CON for both Males and Females, but Males have 18 DEX 14 BODY 11 EGO, while Females are 20 DEX 10 BODY 14 EGO.

Assault has my take on Female characters ED advantage right. Woman characters have move DEX EGO and ED then Males' date=' who have More STR CON and PD. It evens out.[/quote']

 

How much more do you typically give each?

Batman

 

Val Char Cost

20 STR 10

18 DEX 24

20 CON 20

12 BODY 4

18 INT 8

11 EGO 2

20 PRE 10

18 COM 4

8 PD 4

6 ED 2

4 SPD 12

8 REC 0

40 END 0

32 STUN 0

Total Characteristics Cost: 100 Points

 

Cost Skills

3 Acrobatics 13-

2 AK: Gotham City 11-

3 Breakfall 13-

6 Combat Luck +3 rPD +3 rED

3 Contortionist 13-

3 Criminology 13-

3 Deduction 13-

3 Disguise 13-

3 Fast Draw 13-

3 Lockpicking 13-

4 Martial Disarm

4 Martial Dodge

4 Martial Strike

1 Navigation [Air] 8-

10 Money: Wealthy

5 Offensive Strike

3 Rep: Crimefighter 14-

3 Security Systems 13-

3 Shadowing 13-

3 Stealth 13-

3 Streetwise 13-

Total Skills Cost: 75 Points

 

Cost Powers

10 Armor +5 rPD +5 rED, OIF: Costume (-1/2)

40 Multipower (60 Points) OIF: Utility Belt (-1/2)

2 u) Darkness AE 4"r, Personal Immunity (+1/4), [12c/Duration 1 Turn] (+1/4), OAF: Smoke Bombs (-1)

2 u) EB 8d6, [16c] (-0), OAF: Batarangs (-1)

2 u) EB 4d6, AE 4"r (+1), NND [LS: Self Contained] (+1), [16c] (-0), OAF: Sleep Gas (-1)

2 u) EB 8d6, Variable Special Effects [Any] (+1/2), [16c] (-0), OAF: Special Weapons (-1)

2 u) Entangle 6d6 DEF 6, [16c] (-0), OAF: Bolas (-1)

1 u) Flight 10", OIF: Batplane (-1/2)

1 u) Flight 8", Megascale 1km (+1/4), OIF: Batplane (-1/2)

1 u) HA +3d6, HTH Attack (-1/2), Affects Desolids (+1/2), No END (+1/2), OIF: Nth Metal Gauntlets (-1/2)

1 u) Running +5", 8x NCM, OIF: Batmobile (-1/2)

1 u) Stretching 4", No END (+1/2), OAF: Batline (-1)

1 u) Swimming +10", 8x NCM, OIF: Batboat (-1/2)

1 u) Swinging 15", 4x NCM, OAF: Swing Line (-1)

3 ES: Nightvision, OIF: Cowl (-1/2)

6 ES: RPT, Gestures (-1/2), IAF: Justice League Communicator (-1/2)

Total Powers Cost: 75 Points

 

Total Cost: 250 Points

 

150+ Disadvantages

5 DNPC: Alfred Pennyworth (Useful Normal) 8-

10 DNPC: James Gordon (Unaware Useful Normal) 8-

5 Hunted: Catwoman (As Powerful/Mild) 8-

10 Hunted: Joker (As Powerful) 8-

20 Normal Characteristics Maxima

20 PsyL: Code Versus Killing (Common/Total)

20 PsyL: Protective Of Innocents (Very Common/Strong)

10 SocL: Secret Identity [bruce Wayne] (Occasionally/Major)

Total Disadvantages Cost: 250 Points

 

I know you are using templates for these builds, but must every character have an 20 STR, 18 DEX, 20 CON, and 18 COM?

Regarding the KA Stun Multiplier in RAW 6E' date=' it is only 1d3 (1d6/2) for attacks that Do Not Use the Hit Location Chart. If you still want to use the Hit Location chart, nothing has changed from 5E. If you want to keep the KA Stun low for Hit Locations, you need to impose a mandatory Limitation on all KA's something like Decreased Stun Multiplier, so at least the Hit Location StunX will be more in line with 1d3.[/quote']

 

Yes, I understood that to be the case, but having found little of value in 6E for our particular campaigns we have elected to stick with 5ER. Our Champions campaign (and I suspect most others) does not use Hit Locations. (Our related Pulp Hero campaign does.) We occasionally use Hit Locations in Champions optionally to provide color or in rare instances to target an opponent's limb holding a hostage or the like.

 

As a general rule, when I GM and design opponents with Killing Attacks I almost always use Reduced Stun Multiplier as a Limitation, especially if those opponents are using military-grade weaponry. Only one PC in our Champions campaign (an MA with a legendary sword) even has a Killing Attack, and he almost never uses it, much preferring to use his sticks or three-section-staff.

 

That's a good point about the Flash's ED. Women have greater defenses against Energy Attacks.

Huh? How do you figure that?

That's a good point about the Flash's ED. Women have greater defenses against Energy Attacks.

Huh? How do you figure that?

Wait until you see the 250 Points Batman I'm working.

Why? Will he be tougher than Supergirl too?

Agree 100%. The chance of the high multiplier is precisely why many players purchase it, not because it is killing, but because it is a "fight-stopper". With normal attack dice, the more dice you roll the more average the result is likely to be. A 12d6 Normal attack will probably do about 42 Stun. But with so few dice the chances of the roll being average diminishes. An equivalent 4d6 Killing attack, with only average rolls on the BODY of 14, can quite possibly do 70 Stun. A Multiplier roll of 4 does the same 42 Stun on average, 56 with a roll of 5, and 70 with a roll of 6. So a player is gambling on his 50% chance of doing average or better damage, with a good multiplier roll quite possibly ending the fight in one hit.

One of the things about 6E that most saddened me was that they didn't correct the KA travesty. The Killing Attack mechanism is broken, and always has been. This isn't Steve Long and DoJ's fault; they inherited it when they bought the game system. It should probably have been eliminated in favor of using Advantages like Piercing, Penetrating, or Armor Piercing to simulate damage from bullets, swords, lasers, and the like.

EDIT: I am reminded that 6E has changed the Stun Multiplier to 1-3; which is one of the few changes in 6E I like. I was speaking of 5E and previous versions. I still dislike Killing Attacks and the whole Multiplier method, but the 6E version is at least somewhat better.

Trebuchet: Hmm' date=' currently you could do the same thing with HA/EB but it would cost +1 1/2 (+1/2 for the AVAD, +1 for DOES BODY on AVAD). You lose most of the body damage that way tho, unless you are considering making the advantage ALSO change the die roll as well (so that you count normal effect not NDB.) At that point it would be a very scary ability at only +1 or +3/4 (Currently KA's are effectively +2 vs Normal attacks (since they cost 3x as much) and your version would make them even stronger as they now ignore PD/ED for the Stun portion).[/quote']

 

I see I wasn't clear. What I meant is that Stun damage would apply only if some BODY gets through the defenses; perhaps whatever amount of Body gets through the Resistant defenses could then have a standard Stun Multiplier applied. So if a cop with a 6 PD bullet-proof vest gets hit with a 2d6 RKA from an assault rifle on an average roll of 7 he would take 1 BODY and 1-5 STUN (1d6-1 X); a damage roll of 12 would do 6 BODY and 6 to 30 STUN. By current rules with the same rules he would take 1 BODY and anywhere from 5 to 35 STUN (minus any PD, Resistant or not). I don't see that being vastly more effective. The current rules force characters who want to be immune to bullets to buy their defenses much higher than the might otherwise.

 

I like this option because it means a character with 12 or more rPD can ignore 2d6 or lesser Killing Attacks, meaning a superhero doesn't need to have ludicrous defenses to be immune to ordinary firearms. This approach would allow characters to buy less Resistant Defenses. I think it is ridiculous for a character with 30 or better rPD - according to 5ER the same defenses as an M1A1 Abrams main battle tank - to be bothered by some thug with an assault rifle. (Admittedly I think Hero's stats for an M1A1's defenses are waaay too low, but that's another discussion entirely.) Think of Loki in The Avengers movie: in the opening scene he was hit repeatedly by SHIELD agents firing M4 carbines and the bullets didn't even make him blink.

 

Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud. I'm sure there are aspects of this I'm missing.

Comparing the defenses of two characters with different STUN totals is an apples to oranges argument. Combat Luck is as much an ever-present 'dodge' sfx as it is an actual defense. As has already been pointed out' date=' he's essentially a normal guy when Stunned. The same argument would apply to Green Lantern. My 6e 400 point version of GL only has about 32 STUN but he can probably achieve higher defenses than Superman. Those defenses will cost END though. The number that really matters is how many 'average' hits can the characters take and still stay in the fight. That's not a single stat, rather it's a combination of STUN & Defenses.[/quote']

 

All valid points. In fact I would add CON in there too. My objection here comes largely from the lack of granularity within Cassandra's builds. Supergirl should be both far less dextrous and far tougher than Flash, instead they are roughly comparable. Flash in fact would be more dangerous as his 50% higher SPD with six 10d6 attacks per Turn compared to Supergirl's four 12d6 ones. IOW, her Flash build would have an excellent chance of defeating her Supergirl in combat; a result which is nearly inconceivable in the source material.

 

I appreciate what she's trying to do here; I just think it's a fool's errand to think every iconic character can be built on the same number of character points when the power level differences are so extreme in the source material. Not every character can be done with an arbitrarily selected number.

Supergirl's 20 PD is always on, even when she's exposed to Red Solar Radiation. All she loses then is her Resistant Defense, which is why she has Regeneration (which also is handy to repair damage from Kryptonite. My premise for her retaining her characteristics is that they are based on Earth having lower gravity then Krypton, giving her great strength and physical toughness. During Red Solar Radiation exposure her STR goes from 60 to 50, resulting in a 75% loss in lifting power.

 

The Flash has a basic PD of 6. His FF and Combat Luck are only effective when he is conscious. He would lose both when stunned, and the latter when surprised.

 

Any move-throughs or move-bys can still be accomplished using his SPD 6 and Surface Contact Flight. He's still faster then most characters including Supergirl.

I still think Flash's standing defenses are much too good compared to Supergirl's, but that's your call. Don't forget that Flash will also lose any protection from the Combat Luck during Move-Throughs and Move-Bys.

I only see a higher Body for Flash?!

Flash has PD 6, 3 points of Combat Luck, and a 12 PD Force Field for 21 PD total. Supergirl has 20 PD.

Supergirl

 

Val Char Cost

50 STR 40

18 DEX 24

25 CON 30

10 BODY 0

13 INT 3

11 EGO 2

20 PRE 10

18 COM 4

20 PD 10

20 ED 15

4 SPD 12

15 REC 0

50 END 0

48 STUN 0

Total Characteristics Cost: 150 Points

 

Cost Skills

2 AK: Smallville 11-

1 AK: Metropolis 8-

4 Lang: Native English [Kryptonian Native]

1 Navigation [Air] 8-

2 Rep: Superhero 11-

Total Skills Cost: 10 Points

 

Cost Powers

12 Damage Resistance 20 rPD 10 rED, Does Not Work During Red Solar Radiation Exposure (-1/4)

12 EC [Yellow Sun Energy]-15 Points, Does Not Work During Res Solar Radiation Exposure (-1/4)

20 1) EB 8d6, Variable Special Effects [Heat/Cold] (+1/4), 2x END (-1/2)

10 2) Flight 10", Variable Advantages (+1/2), [Megascale 1km, 1/2 END, or Use Underwater Only (-1/4)]

10 ES: N-Ray Sight [Not Through Lead], PER +1, Does Not Work During Red Solar Radiation Exposure (-1/4)

6 ES: RPT, Gestures (-1/4), IAF: Justice League Communicator (-1/2)

6 Healing: Regeneration 1 BODY/Turn, Does Not Work During Red Solar Radiation Exposure (-1/4)

8 LS: Extended Breathing [1 END/Turn], High Pressure, High Radiation, Intense Cold, Intense Heat, Low Pressure/Vacuum,

Does Not Work During Red Solar Radiation Exposure (-1/4)

6 STR +10, No Figured Characteristics (-1/2), Does Not Work During Red Solar Radiation Exposure (-1/4)

Total Powers Cost: 90 Points

 

Total Cost: 250 Points

 

150+ Disadvantages

10 DNPC: Lena Thorful (Unaware Slightly Less Powerful) 8-

10 Hunted: Brainiac (As Powerful) 8-

5 PhyL: Undergoes Random Mental Or Physical Change Lasting 24 Hours After Exposure To Red Kryptonite (Infrequently/Slightly)

20 PsyL: Code Of The Hero (Very Common/Strong)

10 PsyL: Must Live Up To Family Reputation For Achievement (Uncommon/Strong)

20 PsyL: Code Versus Killing (Common/Total)

10 SocL: Secret Identity [Kara Zor-El/Kara Kent] (Occasionally/Major)

5 Suscept: Green Kryptonite Radiation, 1d6 STUN/Minute (Uncommon)

10 Vuln: Magic, 1 1/2x STUN (Common)

Total Disadvantages Cost: 250 Points

So it seems Impermiable is the way to go and it is a +0 Adder' date=' so that is a wash. Would the fact that the suit would also count as both "rigid" and "insulated" for NNDs (two defenses often applied to pressure point and other physical or to electric NNDs) be worth anything or is that also a zero point gain?[/quote']

 

I'm not terribly familiar with Mr. Freeze, is his suit rigid and insulated against electricity? His suit always struck me as fairly thick cloth or rubberized cloth rather than rigid like Iron Man's armor. A Thermos vacuum container is insulated against cold and heat, but I wouldn't presume it would be proof against electrocution.

 

If it is insulated in those ways, then I'd say yes, it would provide defense against NND's of the appropriate type at no cost.

Hey' date=' Tre, would you have had a problem if I said I was creating the DC Animated Universe's Superman on 250 Points?[/quote']

 

As long as it doesn't involve Multiform, have at it.

 

It'll still be a neat trick, but I think it can be done reasonably.

One thing I've considered is making Killing Attacks a specialized form of AVLD; one where the limited defense is Resistant defenses. Because Resistant defenses are so common, it should be less expensive than standard AVLD attacks, perhaps only a +1 or even +3/4, and only Resistant defenses would apply against both the BODY and Stun. This would also have the benefit of making KA's an Advantage as opposed to a distinct Power.

One idea you could work with is to have Killing Attacks do a flat x2 STUN, but only for that BODY that gets through to the target (so you multiply by x2 AFTER Resistant Defenses have been applied). This STUN would not be further reduced (in this rule the Normal Defenses are totally ignored by Killing Attacks, adding IMO a neat flavor to the game). This makes Killing Attacks deal less STUN than Normal Attacks, but more BODY as intended. If you have no Resistant Defense at all, then yes, in that case, Killing Attacks are better than Normal, but only in that case, which I think is as it should be. It also means if your Resistant Defense totally negates the Killing BODY damage, you suffer no STUN at all (it bounces off). So it makes Killing Attacks really feel different than Normal ones. If you want a chance for some STUN to be done without BODY for Killing Attacks (which IMO kind of distorts their flavor), just say you use x2 STUN as per RAW or this new method STUN, whichever is more. Most of the time if you deal no BODY you will still deal no STUN even under RAW, since I think most targets have less Resistance Defense than Normal Defense, meaning x2 STUN would also be blocked as long as the Normal Defense was equal to or higher than the Resistant one.

 

(Note: you could still use this system by rolling the 1d6/2 for the Stun multiplier, just apply that to the Body that gets through as above)

 

Examples:

​Defenses (10 PD and 0 rPD)

 

DC 6 (6d6 N, 2d6 K) -> Avg: 21 Stun N / 7 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 11 Stun

Killing Attack - 7 Body & 14 Stun

 

DC 12 (12d6 N, 4d6 K) -> Avg: 42 Stun N / 14 Body K

Normal Attack - 2 Body & 32 Stun

Killing Attack - 14 Body & 28 Stun

 

​DC 24 (24d6 N, 8d6 K) -> Avg: 84 Stun N / 28 Body K

Normal Attack - 14 Body & 74 Stun

Killing Attack - 28 Body & 56 Stun

 

Defenses (10 PD and 5 rPD)

 

DC 6 (6d6 N, 2d6 K) -> Avg: 21 Stun N / 7 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 6 Stun

Killing Attack - 2 Body & 4 Stun

 

DC 12 (12d6 N, 4d6 K) -> Avg: 42 Stun N / 14 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 27 Stun

Killing Attack - 9 Body & 18 Stun

 

DC 24 (24d6 N, 8d6 K) -> Avg: 84 Stun N / 28 Body K

Normal Attack - 9 Body & 69 Stun

Killing Attack - 23 Body & 46 Stun

 

Defenses (10 PD and 10 rPD)

 

DC 6 (6d6 N, 2d6 K) -> Avg: 21 Stun N / 7 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 1 Stun

Killing Attack - 0 Body & 0 Stun

 

DC 12 (12d6 N, 4d6 K) -> Avg: 42 Stun N / 14 Body K

Normal Attack - No Body & 22 Stun

Killing Attack - 4 Body & 8 Stun

 

​DC 24 (24d6 N, 8d6 K) -> Avg: 84 Stun N / 28 Body K

Normal Attack - 4 Body & 64 Stun

Killing Attack - 18 Body & 36 Stun

 

This decreases the utility of Killing Attacks for dealing Stun damage, but if you face foes with high Normal Defense but much lower (or no) Resistant Defenses, KA becomes better. It makes KA superior against automations and objects, but if your goal is to KO a foe, Normal Attacks are usually better.

 

If you want to represent a Killing Attack that does a lot of Stun also, you can just give it Increased Stun Multiplier, and the above system handles it just fine, making Killing Attacks with that advantage deal basically equal Stun to Normal Attacks provided the target's ratio of defenses is 2/1 Normal/Resistant. So you can tweak it that way.

 

It becomes a nice way for Villains to damage Heroes in a more Lasting way (since Body does not recover like Stun does), but not threaten to Stun them with the attacks quite as much. This may lead to Heroes deciding to retreat due to the threat of being killed by Body damage, and not being Stunned out so they can actually make good on that retreat.

I don't mind comments' date=' but I exercise the right to ignore them.[/quote']

 

As is your absolute right.

I'm saying that any post that goes "you should have done this" or "why this way" is automatically off on a tangent' date=' because, quite simply, she chose not to do so.[/quote']

 

I disagree. This isn't a warehouse for Cassandra's builds, it's a showcase. I generally presume, unless specifically stated otherwise, that any character posted here on the boards is intended for commentary and/or suggestions. Certainly my own few builds posted here over the years have received similar commentary. True, some of the comments are less than helpful or snarky, but others have given me good ideas or made me question my own design decisions. A second opinion is almost always useful. Character design is an art, not a science.

Right. Or we could do Banner when he was the Hulk and couldn't change at all and had Banner's brain and most of the Hulk's strength.

Sure, but it's pretty obvious that's not the version of the Hulk Cassandra is building, so why go off on that tangent?

Depends on what you expect from Banner. He's been shown to have superhuman strength without turning green.

Well, I suppose that if for 99% of the Hulk's 51 year career Bruce Banner displayed all the physical prowess of a couch potato, then of course it's only logical we should build him to reflect the 1% of his career where he didn't.

Politics has nothing on the rationalization displayed by some role-players.