SteveZilla

Re: I am hot! (They have medication for that, y'know)

Exactly!

But some of the powers will will be active like her voice. Though I am not sure I am going to make it area effect or not. Though her looks are passive.

 

This is such a fun character to build, I just know it will be even better to play. It might even be fun to make it into a halloween costume & then wear it to the next comic convention. You get in free if you are in costume ;-)

Hi there, Siren!

Take a look at these Disadvantages and see if any or all will help flesh out your character:

(People Who Are Attracted To The Character) Fall All Over (Him/Her)

Sex Object

Stunningly Beautiful

The Master Lists are a great resource for Disadvantages (I should know -- I'm the webmaster for the site they're on )!

Re: The probability and predictability of dice.

I had a set of those' date=' but they kept sticking to my hand. Too light to fall off properly. (I should probably point out I live in Phoenix, AZ... sweaty hands are a part of daily life during the summer. On the upside, I can sometimes stack my rolls by placing all the dice I roll with the numbers I want face up in my hand, then roll on a paper surface.)[/quote']

 

Try putting them in a 25 count clear card box, like here.

 

Just shake the box to roll the dice! And if you put in the proper mix of various colors, it will take care of just about all of your die rolling needs in Hero System.

Re: The probability and predictability of dice.

While you are at it. How many people take into account rough probability of making a roll before they actually try it?

In Battletech, which uses 2d6 for to-hit rolls, I *always* take it into account on which target (if I have a choice) I shoot at. The only exception is if I'm really trying to take down an already badly damaged mech. Then I'll target it to just about the exclusion of all else.

In Hero System, it has made a difference on which target I shoot at (the speedster/martial artist vs the brick/mentalist/energy projetor).

Re: The probability and predictability of dice.

For example I would not be terrible surprised if someone came on the board and said they rolled 4 straight 18s' date=' they would be increadibly unlucky but surely we are as Herodom collected approaching 2 billion rolls it will happen sooner or later. But if you told me you started the night with 4 straight and ended with 4 straight with other results inbetween, I wouldn't believe you.[/quote']

 

I have rolled damage on a d10 and gotten a 10 five times in a row. While the odds of that happening by itself is 1 in 100,000, it's vastly diluted by the sheet number of other results I've gotten with that character. So, my average damage roll wasn't affected all that much by that string of good luck.

 

Oh, and there were 4 other witnesses.

Re: The probability and predictability of dice.

?

 

Not nearly enough samples? Go ahead and work out a couple more examples for yourself then. I guarantee you that they all fit materially within a normal distrbution. The reason that I did 2d6 as the example is that it is the furthest away from a zero-tolerance normal distribution.

 

By the way the odds of rolling 18 four times in a row on 3d6 are 1 in 2,176,782,336. Despite somewhat robust HERO play I don't think I have come anywhere near 2 billion rolls.

Which is the same odds as rolling either a 12 or a 72 on 12d6.

If someone games for 72 years, for 23 hours each day, and rolls once every second, they will just make it. Jolt Cola, anyone?

Re: The probability and predictability of dice.

I believe these are all fair definitions:

 

An average is when you add up all the numbers and then divide the sum by the number of members. If there are 6 numbers you add them all up and divide by 6.

 

A mean is the statistical center. If you have 5 numbers the mean is the 3rd (the one in the middle). If you have an off number of members it's real easy, just pick the middle one. If you have an even number of members, the mean is halfway between the middle two (eg if you have 6 numbers, add 3 and 4 and divide by the number 2). You could say if you have an even number of values average the two middles for the mean.

So, if the number one is adding up are consecutive integers (like the possible results from a group of dice), their average will be their mean, right?

The Law of Large Numbers' date=' and this gets kind of non-laymen, is that if you have a whole series of values and randomly pick out a group of of them. The average for those numbers you picked out will be very close to the mean of the entire list (including the ones you removed).[/quote']

 

So, if:

 

"a whole series of values" = all possible results from a group of dice

 

and...

 

"randomly pick out a group of them" = roll the group of dice several times

 

Then The Law of Large Numbers seems to be saying that the average of the random picks (dice rolls) will be very close to the mean of the "whole series of values"? That seems significantly different than saying that TLoLN says that any particular roll will be close to the mean.

 

Also, I *do* remember that one cannot make accurate conclusions from an inadequately small sampling. For instance, if I roll 12d6 only two times (two random samples of the series) and get 12 and 38, I might inaccurately conclude that the mean should be (12+38)/2=25.

 

IIRC (and it's been a little while) it's the Law of Large Numbers that is the basis of Probability Theory. If you roll 1000d6 (odd number of items so its easy to find the median) and write all the numbers down in order of value (all the 1s go first). You will find the median (average of 500 and 501) should be about 3.5 (sound like a familiar value?). Now' date=' if you pull out any truly random sampling and average them the result should be near 3.5.[/quote']

 

Presuming you have a large enough sampling. The larger the sampling, the greater the accuracy of the average. But I don't understand where you got the numbers 500 and 501 from.

 

Predictable is just what you think it means. Predictable means that at some point you can guess (eg predict) what is going to happen with a certain degree of certainty (no wild guesses).

 

There is a 1 in 6 chances of rolling any value on a d6.

 

Which is the same as saying "there is a 16.66666... percent chance of rolling any number on a d6". But what kind of predictions are we talking about? To me, the "predictability" of a group of dice is essentially the average of each results' chance of being rolled. Is there a better way of quantifying the predictability of a group of dice?

 

Normal distribution is a term to say that if you roll 6000d6' date=' you would have about 1000 1s, 1000 2s, 1000 3s etc. That would be a normal distribution.[/quote']

 

Okay, I can see that, and it makes logical sense to me. But almost no roll is going to come out exactly like that. There is always going to be some variation. But I think that's not what we're discussing.

 

If one of your dice was off and tended to have odd results and you rolled 737 1s' date=' 645 2s, 997 3s, 756 4s, 2859 5s...that would NOT be a normal result.[/quote']

 

I agree that it wouldn't be a "normal distribution" of the dice faces showing, yet their total (737*1, 645*2, 997*3, 756*4, 2859*5, 6*6 = 22,373) is relatively close to the mean of 21,000. Yes, it's a far 1,373 points away in absolute terms, but relatively close (I think) in terms of standard deviation.

 

So while the faces that are showing are way off of the "norm" (only six 6s), the roll itself isn't that far off of the norm. I'm not quite sure what this means/implies. Though in games, it's usually the total and not the distribution of die faces that matter. I don't often see a graph of face distributions.

Re: The probability and predictability of dice.

Mean is one of several methods of averaging (others are median and mode' date=' there may be more but these are the main three). All of these are often referred to as the average of a set of numbers. Mean is the method of summing all of the members of the set and dividing the sum by the number of members. So the mean of 2, 5 , 8, 10 is 6.25.[/quote']

 

That's the exact method I was thinking whenever I said "average". So, if we add up all the possible results of a group of dice (Xd6), and divide that total by the number of results possible we derive the mean of that group's bell curve.

 

So:

Xd6 has a range of X to 6*X, and a total number of possible results of 5X+1, and a mean result of mumblemumblemathI'mtoolazytowriteoutmumble, which simplifies down to 7*X/2, or 3.5*X, for those who don't like fractions.

 

 

The law of large numbers is' date=' in layman's terms (which is all I really know), as more possible results are added the less effect each result has on the whole. A couple of common examples are batting averages and grade point averages. In the first month of a season, a batter's average can vary wildly, going up and down 100 points or more in a single game. By the end of the season, a single game will only cause a change of less than 5 points, if that. The reason is that each result is much more important to the whole when there are few of them. If I have 3 hits in 10 at bats (a .300 batting average) and go 3 for 3 in a game my average goes to .461. If I have 90 hits in 300 at bats (again .300) and go 3 for 3 in a game my average goes to .306. So in the terms of dice rolling, each additional dice has a much smaller affect on the likely outcome than any of the previous dice rolled, so extreme results (all 6s or all 1s or even anything approaching those results) become less and less likely as the number of dice rolled becomes large.[/quote']

 

The term "Grand Average" springs to mind. A Grand Total divided by The Total Number of Items in that total.

 

But while the extreme results (defined loosely above) become less likely, they *also* become much further away from the mean. I believe this factor needs to be taken into account. The net effect on the bell curve of probability (not the one of numbers of combinations) as we add dice is that it grows wider (covers a greater range) and flatter (each individual result -- comparing curves peak-to-peak, not # to # -- has a smaller % chance).

 

Normal distribution is a situation where several things are true. The first thing that is true is that there are as many possible results greater than the mean as less than the mean.

 

Which, for a dice roll, means that the bell curve is symmetrical about the mean, right?

 

The second thing that is true is that 68.2% of the possible results fall within one standard deviation of the mean and 95% fall within two standard deviations of the mean and 99% fall within three standard deviations of the mean.

 

I prefer to think of the Bell Curve shape (from dice) as simply resulting from a graph of the Number of Combinations that produces each result.

 

Is there a way to determine how many standard deviations it takes to encompass *all* of the results of a group of dice? Since 99% of them are encompassed by 3 standard deviations, I would expect it to be just a little more than 3 -- like 3.1 or 3.14.

 

By rules of probability I just mean the calculation of possible results and their chance of happening on a given roll.

 

Ah, the chance for any single result of a roll. The Number of Combinations that make that result divided by the Total Number of Combinations, times 100.

 

I find it interesting that if we graph the chance for each number instead of the combinations that make each number, we generate a *hugely* flatter bell curve. And that as we add dice, the graph of the combinations gets taller, but the graph of the number's chances gets shorter.

 

Correct. 2d6 most extreme result ±5 is in absolute terms equal to the standard deviation of (if I remember correctly) 10d6. But 5 is a much more significant number to 2d6 than it is to 10d6 and completely irrelevant to 1Md6.

 

I don't know how to calculate standard deviations, or what purpose standard deviations have in the mix. How are they calculated?

 

The standard deviation gets larger as you add dice but becomes less significant to the total faster.

 

I understand the first part of that statement, but not the last part (the "but become less significant to the total" as well as the "faster" part). No matter how many dice are used (more than one, I'd presume), 3 standard deviations still cover 99% of the results. Both the range of results and the size of the standard deviation seem to be in exact proportion to each other.

 

Plot on a graph the possible results of a throw of xd6 on the x-axis and the number of ways to make a result on the y-axis. The resultant curve is the distribution curve (and happens to be a normal distribution curve).

 

Okay, a graph of the combinations per result of the dice is a "distribution curve". But it's a graph of the combination distribution, right? Doesn't this differ from a graph of the chance of each result? Which could still (AFAIK) be called a distribution graph, just a distribution of %chance?

 

If you define predictability as the likely hood to roll close to mean' date=' 2d6 will be more predictable because the possible variance is small relative to the mean.[/quote']

When you say "more predictable" here' date=' I presume you mean "more predictable than a greater number of dice"?[/quote']

I mistyped' date=' I mean to say 2d6+28[/quote']

 

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that 2d6 will be more predictable than 2d6+28 because 2d6+28 will/can generate a greater possible variance relative to the mean?

 

Defining predictability like you have above, 2d6 and 2d6+28 would seem to be equally predictable. Everything has been "shoved right" on the graph. All the results and also the mean they generate. Rolling 4+5 to get 9, and rolling 4+5+28 to get 37 each have a % chance equal to each other, and both are equally distant from their own means (9 is 2 away from the mean of 7, and 37 is 2 away from the mean of 35). 2d6 can vary at most +/-5 from it's mean, and 2d6+28 can vary at most +/-5 from it's mean.

 

Right' date=' it is a different curve because it is shifted to the right. It doesn't vary in any other way.[/quote']

 

Why would this shifting make it more predictable? I would think that it would be (IMO) more accurate to say "It's the same probability/combinations curve, just shifted right". The chance of rolling 7 on 2D6 is the same as rolling 7+28 on 2d6+28. The same 1:1 relationship can be made for each result. How does the "end result number" affect the whole thing's predictability?

Re: Good-by Speedster

Point... though if your defenses are up to it (and by 'defenses' I mean 'the brick you're standing behind....' )

Actually, I just found out that UAA completely ignores any Non Combat Multiple on a movment power. So buying NCMs and UAA is a waste of points. Better to just use Megascale!

Boooiiiinnggg!!!: Leaping 10" + UAA(+1), Ranged(+1/2) + Megascale(1"=10KM; +1/4)

27 Active & Real Points. Target leaps 100 KM horizontally, or 50 KM straight up.

Unless there's some ruling about UAA Megascale I am unaware of.

Re: The probability and predictability of dice.

There is no set definition for' date=' "average." There are several things that are used for averaging, the most common one being the mean. The mean is the value for which the probability of the value falling below (or on) the mean is one half, and the probability of the the value falling above (or on) the mean is one half (or at least the two are equal for a discrete distribution). In the case of a symmetric probability density function, the mean coincides with the point of symmetry. So for a normal distribution: yes, the mean is located at the peak.[/quote']

 

Which is what I would call average, given that the bell curve is symetrical. Which also makes it (or the nearest two values in case of a '.5') the most likely result/ I.e., the % chance of rolling that number (or either of the two closest numbers) is greater than any other single number.

 

Which is a roundabout say of saying "the peak of the bell curve".

Re: The probability and predictability of dice.

Yep they are offical. The stamp out means that they can no longer be used in that casino.

 

Casino dice are only used so many times, then stamped out and disguaded or sold.

Cool. I've thought about getting some, but the larger size tends to put me off. It'd be kinda hard to use them to roll an 18d6 pushed haymaker.

Re: Good-by Speedster

i know alot may have changed from 4th to 5th rev but i thought that a change environment was only a change of environment and nothing else.

Change Environment can do a good amount more in 5th ed. Or, one could possibly say that the 'effects' of what it could always do is now clearly defined.

Example variable power pool speed effects only no skill roll instant change say 20 points worth ( change environment ) move thing around' date=' take things apart only, ( or if you are a stickler for the rules AE teleport usable on others to move stuff around, or a transform to go from put together to taken apart ( non-living only of course ) . While not doing damage per se all you would be doing is moving things around in the area of the change environment.[/quote']

 

To just move stuff around (like cleaning a dirty room) can, since it involves no combat effects, is perfect for Change Environment. To take things apart (in a combat-relevant way) takes either Dispel or Transformation Attack. Putting it back together takes Transformation Attack (and likely some skill/knowledge on *how* to put it back together).

 

When did they change the YOU CANT DO DAMAGE with a change environment rule?

 

It changed with Fifth Edition. Though it's expensive per point (5 pts per single point), and carries the "GM must approve type of damage" warning. And also "Change Environment should not be as effective at causing damage or creating other effects as other Powers."

 

My old DM in 4th just used villains with tons of autofire and tons of +hit with that attack. BAM stunned speedster goes into building at mach 4 . HUGE hospital bill not to mention the getting sued part ....

 

IMO that sounds kinda munchkiny. It should be noted that the damage from separate shots from the same Autofire attack do not and cannot coordinate with each other to improve the chance of stunning the target. Each single autofire shot can still stun them if it does over their CON, of course.

 

Every good speedster i have every seen has had a variable power pool speed effects only.

 

Define "good", please.

 

And this presumes the GM allows the use of a VPP -- not all do. I believe a quite effective Speedster can be built with Multipowers and Elemental Controls -- no VPP needed. Admittedly, a VPP does make them more flexible. But VPPs have that effect for nearly any character.

 

oh and a damage reduction with disad moveby/movethrough only.

 

The limited Damage Reduction has to fit the rest of the character's F/X, of course.

Re: Good-by Speedster

What Goes Up: 7" Teleport x8 NCM' date=' Usable As Attack (not vs characters with Teleport), Ranged (+1 1/2, total) 60 AP. Total potential range: 56" straight up.[/quote']

 

I'm fairly sure that UAA doesn't negate the mechanics of using a Non-Combat Multiple of a Movement Power. Namely, being at 0 OCV, 1/2 DCV, and in the case of Teleport, the attack taking an extra Phase. You *really* don't want to be at 1/2 DCV and not be able to do anything for a Phase when facing a speedster.

 

That would work. Just that' date=' for many characters, it wouldn't be nearly as easy to explain as a Teleport or Flight UAA. As an aside, if your GM doesn't want you using Flight UAA, then Telekinesis can do a remarkable job with most Speedsters, since they typically only [/quote']

 

Only... what? If I deduce correctly, you were going to point out that speedsters often don't have extra Strength. Making them easy to hold onto with TK (presuming you hit in the first place ).

 

Curse of the Wandering Spirit' date=' Improved: [/i']1d6 Major Transform (Target into Target with Desolidification, 0 END, Always On, with Phys Lim: No Physical Body, All the Time, Greatly Debilitating, Healed by Satisfying Mage that Offense is Repaired). Must act against BODY +4 (-0), Uncontrollable (+1/2, Optional Advantage), Continuous (+1), Based on Ego Combat Value (+1), Only Usable on those who have offended the Mage (-0), Incantations (-1/4), Gestures (-1/4) Active Cost 52, Real Cost 35 (presumably lower as part of a Magical Multipower).

 

If BoECV is stripped out, you can bring it up to 1d6+1 without breaking standard AP limitations.

 

Nice. I've never seen "Optional Advantage" before -- what's that mean? And for such a low level of dice, I'd personally add Penetrating, and still come in at 60 AP.

 

That'd work rather nicely too' date=' though you could probably up the drain to SPD and drop the DEX drain for greater ultimate effect. High DCV, granted, but if he only acts on Phase 12, well.... [/quote']

 

Don't forget that, if reduced to Zero Speed (or less), a character cannot move, is at DCV 0, has Hit Location mods for placed shots halved, can only take PP12 recoveries, drops all but his Persistent powers!

Steve, does applying Useable As Attack to a Movement Power have any affect on the use of that Movement Power's NCM in the attack?

For ex:

1. Teleportation + UAA. A normal NCM Teleport means the character is at 0 OCV and 1/2 DCV, and it takes a full extra Phase (going off on the character's DEX, I presume). Would a NCM Teleport UAA have the attacker suffering these 'penalties'? And the target, if successfully hit, only suffers the movement of the teleport, and nothing else?

2. Leaping + UAA. Leaping NCM takes the character more than one phase, during which he's 0 OCV and 1/2 DCV, and can take no other actions. Would a NCM Leaping UAA have the attacker suffering these 'penalties' (meaning that, along with the CV mods, the attack takes two or more Phases)? And the target, if successfully hit, only suffers the movement of the teleport, and nothing else?

Related Question, if Yes to either 1 or 2:

3. Would an attacker using a Movement Power, UAA, Megascaled suffer the same "Non Combat Movement" penalties as he would if it wasn't Megascaled?

Thanks!

PS: If I had to guess, I'd say it would be "yes" to all three -- letting UAA negate the NCM mechanics just seems wrong to me.

Steve, if a character has either Teleportation + UAA or Desolidification + UAA, and in using it causes the target to materialize inside a solid object, who takes the materialization damage (5re, p367) -- the target, the attacker using the power, or both?

Thanks!

Re: The probability and predictability of dice.

No' date=' no, no. You've gone all sideways on me.[/quote']

 

I looked only at the data you provieded and made logical, step-by-step conclusions from them.

 

2d6 is going to give a less predictible result than 10d6 will. We know' date=' because of the rules of probabilty, normal distribution and the law of large numbers[/quote']

 

I haven't taken any classes in this, or made it a serious intellectual hobby. I don't know the "official" definition of these terms: "predictable", "rules of probabilty", "normal distribution", "the law of large numbers". And is "mean" in this context the same as "average" (i.e., the "peak" or "middle" of the bell curve)?

 

 

...that 10d6 will' date=' over time, present results much closer to the mean result than 2d6 will.[/quote']

 

The only way I can see that being the case is if the definition of "much closer" varies by (is proportional to) the number of dice used. 2D6 may vary "wildly", but "wildly" is going to be no more than +/-5 from the mean/average. But 1,000,000d6 may vary only "slightly", and still be easly more than +/- 20 away from the mean/average. (I'm pulling numbers out of the air for the 1,000,000d6 part).

 

It is, that extent, more predictible. If you change a portion of the 10d6 to a static element and roll the rest you will make it even more predictible.

 

The confusion you have is that 2d6 and 2d6+28 are 2DC and 10DC respectively (Assume an EB if you must).

 

Can we please leave game-specific designations out of this? They have no bearing on the issue. The probability curve/distribution/whatever for 3d6 or 3D6+Y will be the same in Hero System, in D&D, in GURPS, and any other system that adds the dice together (and also a fixed amount, if present) to get a result.

 

They do not have the same distribution curve or mean.

 

Can you give a definition of "distribution curve", please?

 

If you define predictibility as the likely hood to roll close to mean' date=' 2d6 will be more predictible because the possible variance is small relative to the mean.[/quote']

 

When you say "more predictable" here, I presume you mean "more predictable than a greater number of dice"?

 

The problem is that we never do your statement two. Instead of adding a number to dice' date=' we change dice to a number.[/quote']

 

I think I'm sensing a potato - potato thing here. 2d6 is two dice. 2d6+Y is two dice with Y added to any result. The bell curve for each can easily be calculated. Nobody in their right mind is going to generate a bell curve graph for 2D6+Y the hard way (rolling endlessly).

 

Think of it as a formula with a variable (that is random, but generates some calculable bell curve of probabilities) and also a fixed componenet. It seems quite similar to basic algebra to me. We all know (or can calculate) what shape and size bell curve Xd6 will produce. Adding a fixed number to that doesn't change the shape and size, just the little numbers at the bottom of the graph (using a seperate piece of paper for each graph).

Re: The probability and predictability of dice.

I bought my dice from a Las Vagas Casino. They are stamped out.

I would think they are as good as you get.

If they are "official" dice as opposed to "slightly defective rejects" or "souvenirs", then that's very likely.

But what does "stamped out" mean?

Re: New Player Hates All The Dice

Okay, here's a new thread just for us probability fanatics.

The probability and predictability of dice.

Okay, this thread is for the continuation of a quite lively discussion about dice, probability, predictability, bell curves, and partial standard effect, to name a few. The "old" thread, which was for something different, is located

here.

We'll be leaving that poor, derailed thread to recover and continue on it's merry way.

Re: New Player Hates All The Dice

Well, since I as yet see no new thread ( ), here's a chart of the probability distributions of {2d6-7, 4d6-14, 6d6-21, 8d6-28, 10d6-35}. Take from it what you will.

 

(Click to see larger image)

Geez! Give me a minute. I'm at work here, okay?

Re: New Player Hates All The Dice

Whatever happened to:

-I enter and leave this one on that note.-

Re: Good-by Speedster

Well' date=' the 'teleport up' is still perfectly valid, even under your approach. Or, for flyers, teleported well within turn-mode of a wall.[/quote']

 

Yep. Both work well. Though with most campaign's Active Point limits, we're not going to get a lot of distance out of a UAA Teleport, unless the GM allows it to also be Megascaled (something I'd personally forbid).

 

As for the tunelling/down... yeah' date=' if the GM allows you to use Tunneling against somebody as an attack in a power build, that's your basic effect.[/quote']

 

I see the same problem with the Curse of the Wandering Spirit power. Namely that such a build would also need explicit GM approval.

 

Though' date=' as the GM, I'd want one heck of a justification for that and the other powers in your MPA suggestion.[/quote']

 

"My character is a Self-Willed Earth Elemental. The ground is his to command." Happy?

 

Of course, as long as we're on the topic of ways to neutralize speedsters with UAA powers... or bricks... or just about anybody, really:

 

Curse of the Wandering Spirit: Desolidified, Usable as Attack (+1), 80 Active Points (neutralized by Density Increase or EDM, alternately, Power Defense)

 

I've thought of the same thing. Though it is a no range attack to start. And if the Speedster moves out of line of sight, it shuts off. Not to mention that the character is paying 8 END per phase for this.

 

Or, one could just use (built from memory without a book):

 

Whoa!: 2D6 Drain DEX and SPEED (Two powers simultaneously; +1/2) - Penetrating(+1/2), Zero END(+1/2), Uncontrolled(Lasts 5 Minutes; +1/2) (60 Active Points)

 

And buy about 5-6 2 pt +1 OCV levels with it. Tag them with a few of these, and they're going *nowhere* fast.

Re: peating myself.

Second point:

 

Well, of course, if the person running the game doesn't allow them, there won't be any Killing Attacks.

At least in the hands of trigger-happy PCs, that is. NPCs under the GM's control can easily have them if the GM so desires.

But I think the existence of Combat Luck in Fifth Edition speaks for itself.

That’s your opinion. I have a different one.

Third point:

 

Batman and Wonder Woman are characters in comic books; they aren't characters in a game of Champions. If they were, I wouldn't be surprised if their players got Killing Attacks (assuming they don't have a Game Operations Director who's forbidden Killing Attacks.)

THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS BESIDES HAVING RAMPANT KILLING ATTACKS AND NO KILLING ATTACKS.

A GM can discourage a player of a heroic PC (note I didn't say SUPER-heroic. After all, Hero System is more than just Champions) from having one without forbidding them outright.

For that matter' date=' isn't Batman's Batarang considered a Killing Attack? As I recall, the DC Heros game classified it as such. Even if they didn't classify guns that way.[/quote']

 

Considered by whom? And even if it is, how often has he embedded one into someone's chest? And I might point out that the Batarang is just one thing out of many in his Utility Belt. The vast majority of his equipment is of a "non-lethal" (not based upon RKA or HKA) variety.

 

They didn't classify guns as killing attacks? Now that is just stupid of them.

 

Fourth point:

 

There is a difference between a Killing Attack and a "killing attack." A 10d6 Energy Blast is a "killing attack" in the sense it could kill somebody;

 

Well, by that definition, even a 3D6 attack could be considered a "killing attack". It just takes a little longer. Or a Change Environment that does damage could be a "killing attack".

 

a No Normal Defense Ranged Killing Attack that does STUN only is not a "killing attack" in that it's not going to kill anyone.

 

And if a cop tasers a person with a weak heart and they die, was that a "killing attack"? It resulted in a death, so it must have been.

 

Just as a Flash VS Hearing isn't very bright' date=' and a character with Invisibility to Scent is clearly apparent if you look at him, even if he's standing in a field of Darkness to Sound.[/quote']

 

And does a tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear it make a sound? You lost me on this part's relevance.

 

Fifth point:

 

Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot of the time?

 

Perhaps because some people just don't agree with your conclusions about Killing Attacks? I know I don't, and that's because of personal experience.

 

The palindromedary suggests that maybe people don't listen the first time.

 

I suggest that maybe the palindromedary is making a bloody mountain out of a molehill. Perhaps some didn't listen. But perhaps, just perhaps, some people are fallible, or are reading while at work, and thus aren't able to *quite* give it 100% of their attention. So "the palindromedary" can kindly go fly a kite.

Re: Did the palindromedary eat the title?

A standard human has base stats of 8' date=' not 10. My Thug is base level - 8 BOD and 16 STUN.[/quote']

 

Oops. You're right on that. Must be that old Pentium math error.

Re: New Player Hates All The Dice

Guys, I'm wondering (perhaps a bit belatedly) if we should create a new thread just for this discussion, and leave this (somewhat derailed) thread to it's original intent.

Yes? No?

Re: Did the palindromedary eat the title?

Even if you DO assume your opponents have some Resistant Defense' date=' the fact remains that Killing Attacks are superior to Normal Attacks of the same point value; [/quote']

 

Superior for doing Body. The EB got through more Stun, so for that purpose, it was the superior attack (in the examples).

 

this eventually leads to the ubiquity of Killing Attacks' date=' [/quote']

 

I disagree somewhat on that point. I think that KAs become ubiquitous only if the GM allows them and doesn't restrict the Hero's use of them. Batman doesn't go around shooting people and throwing grenades. Wonder Woman doesn't carry a knife or bow.

 

I'm sure Green Lantern could, instead of creating a blunt "force shot" (I don't know the actual name for his non-lethal attack) could create a hyper-sharp one (RKA+AP+PEN?). But if he does make it, I'm pretty sure it's really, really... really rare for him to use it on something other than an object.

 

And that’s assuming he had 10 BOD. Although 10 is the starting point for characters' date=' I believe it’s stated that the average normal person is assumed to have 8 in primary characteristics.[/quote']

 

I went with what the previous examples used. True, an "Average Person" (5re, p345) only has 8 Body. But he is *also* 30 points underbuilt! Even the "Noteworthy Normal" (who has 10 Body) comes in at 3 points under cost.