Jump to content

Christopher R Taylor

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    8,552
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

Christopher R Taylor last won the day on August 21

Christopher R Taylor had the most liked content!

6 Followers

About Christopher R Taylor

  • Rank
    Hoopty Dude
  • Birthday 12/09/1965

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://alphawolf10.wix.com/kestrelarts2

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Salem, Oregon
  • Interests
    Gaming, Theology, History, Music, Outdoors, Automotive and Airplane technology, Art
  • Occupation
    Author and illustrator

Recent Profile Visitors

2,300 profile views
  1. I kind of agree, even before everyone always had rPD it wasn't that significant a deal. Its worth something, but its not worth a lot. It does, but even if it didn't "vs resistant PD"isn't worth a +½ advantage anyway
  2. Yeah there needs to be some four color stuff put out, fun campaign cities for fun campaigns that don't feel so Image/Iron Age
  3. I honesty don't see how that's any different than the present system. I already buy a KA in multipowers just to break out of entangles to simulate someone who can shrug that stuff off easier. My concern is that it makes KAs excessively lethal, boosting them too much, and adding increased complexity when part of the motivation is to reduce it. Another possible idea is to instead reduce body that normal attacks do. For example, no 2 Body with any roll, its just 0-1. You roll a 6, its still 1. That, plus making KAs do 1-2 body, no 0, shifts things slightly in the direction of killing attacks dealing more body. CONS: increases complexity slightly by having two methods of calculating body in an attack reduces lethality of normal attacks slightly; you can actually beat someone to death with your fists or a club, but this makes that outcome much less likely You still do slightly less stun with KAs of the same active points ("Damage class") than you do with normal attacks, which might be a feature rather than a bug? PROS: Increases distinction between KA and normal attacks in a simple manner Makes normal attacks less accidentally spikey and dangerous in games like Champions where you try not to murder people because the dice went wonky on you I'm not trying to be snarky here, my proposed system also reduces the stun damage of KAs as compared to normal attacks. But it seems like the only reason your suggestion does so is to make the cost of killing attacks balanced without an advantage, rather than it making any real world or simulated genre sense in any source material. That's a personal peeve, contrivances just to make something fit a desire effect. But as I said, its also a concern with what I proposed. I think it would be ideal to make KA's not require an advantage, but I can't think of any way to do so without excessive handwaving and complexity. The reduced knockback is one area that makes KA's balanced against normal attacks, in superheroic games at least (and that's the main genre where the active cost even matters). Perhaps more along those lines would be useful; rule effects that make killing attacks limited compared to normal attacks? I should add here that by Hoyle, according to the rules, this construct should cost +1½ which illustrates a bit of a problem with the current AVAD system. Someone, I do not remember who, suggested a while back that AVAD should have two layers: you can buy it for the stun or the body of an attack, rather than both (so you buy blast AVAD vs Body and the stun works normally against the defenses) and greatly reduce its advantage total. This would create significantly more flexible and interesting builds while negating the "its gonna cost you +1 just to do BOD" rule used right now. But that's another discussion. I think you may have been the original source for the idea, for me at least. I don't remember as well as I once did.
  4. 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"?
  5. I am stalled on this because I cannot figure out how to use the new Heromaker Having to paint one eye at a time is very inconsistently working, it randomly just decides I meant to erase the other eye, etc.
  6. Microfilm Madness was included in the box set with the 3 little dice, the street map, and Champions Rules as I recall.
  7. 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. Sadly no, I haven't had a chance. I never get to play any more these days No, its before defenses. You just can't roll 0 body on an attack, basically. 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). No, just resistant defenses. As in the way Killing attacks have always worked. Nothing has changed about how defenses are applied.
  8. Microfilm Madness, it was reprinted and bundled with an expanded adventure in Champions 3 as well. Its a pretty good starting game
  9. It just does not take any special coordination or working together in order for a mob of people to hit someone easier because there's lots of them. That's a ridiculous rule. Its just a matter of only being able to dodge and even be aware of so many attacks at once (unless very well trained) let alone have the facing to deal with them. That's not because these people are so very well trained or are working together well. Its just a matter of numbers and natural limitations. If it cost 3 points it would be fine. If it cost 5 points it would be fine. 10 points is too much for something that honestly doesn't come up much in a game.
  10. Oh, ok I misunderstood you entirely. Yes, you're rolling slightly less dice, but significantly more than previously. 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. 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 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.
  11. I do not understand how any of this is true. You're going to have to explain a bit more to help me out.
  12. Yeah I do the same thing. You can't use any maneuvers or skill levels, but you can abort to attack someone running around right past you. And like Duke, I have the same kind of turning and facing rule (I vaguely remember something like that actually being presumed in the rules, actually).
  13. I have not run a game, but my suspicions run very strongly along the lines Duke outlines here. That is precisely what I expect to see in a supervillain game and recommend against it unless you want infighting, betrayal, and your game to go completely off the rails. People have a very dark side in them and when able to let that loose without consequences or real-life application it can get very ugly, very fast.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...