etherio

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e Yes, but I assume Sean meant that both could be multiplied BEFORE defenses. I don't necessarily agree that it would be a good idea, but his point remains.

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e 100% agreed. And in any case, why would someone want...in a fantasy or science fiction game for example...their bad guys to get knocked out by guns and swords? That's odd and certainly not in the spirit of cinematic realism. Do you have a big jail where you're keeping all of your stormtroopers?

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e This is actually not true. If you find the mean multiplier, weighted by the probability for each location, the mean multiplier is very, very close to 1.

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e I think you must be missing something. The methods I presented make KAs do less STUN damage...not more. And they have no impact on BODY damage. You might disagree about the need for it or my "fix," but the point you seem to be making is the opposite of the truth.

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e

Re: Project XIII: images from my campaign

Re: Post "gotchas" here I posted my house rule ideas on the STUN multiplier topic on [thread=76404]this thread[/thread]. Sorry for the derailing, Chris!

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e My preferred alternative (albeit slightly more complicated) includes ideas from Sean Waters and Chris Goodwin. In order to maintain the variability of the die roll for the STUN multiplier and the increased damage range that the chart afforded, while keeping the mean STUN X at about 2, I put together the following system: One still rolls the 1d3 STUN multiplier, but also adds a modifier to that roll from the chart. Of course, after any modifiers for Reduced STUN Multiplier, any result of less than 1 is treated as 1. Below is an example of the hit location chart with the following edits and my data included: A STUN multiplier of 5 is replaced with a +2 mod A STUN multiplier of 4 is replaced with a +1 mod A STUN multiplier of 3 is replaced with a +0 mod A STUN multiplier of 2 is replaced with a -1 mod A STUN multiplier of 1 is replaced with a -2 mod I weighted for probabilities of the different hit locations on a 3d6 distribution, as before, and I accounted for the minimum result of 1. The mean result is 2.03...better than I had hoped. I think I may include this in my house rule repertoire. Here's my method:

Re: STUN multipliers in 6e The simplest option is to edit the multipliers so that the mean result is closer to 2, which is the mean result for a 1d3. As it stands now, the chart averages at about 2.8, which is too large a dicrepancy for my tastes. Below is an example of the hit location chart with the following edits and my data included: A STUN multiplier of 4 or 5 is replaced with a 3 A STUN multiplier of 3 is replaced with a 2 A STUN multiplier of 1 or 2 is replaced with a 1 I weighted for probabilities of the different hit locations on a 3d6 distribution. The mean result is 1.88...much closer to a 2. Additionally, one could diverge from the pattern and give the 'thigh' location a 2, and the mean would be even closer...at about 1.95. Here's my method:

Moved from another thread. So I noticed that Steve nerfed STUN multipliers quite a bit in 6e, and I heartily approve. They are now a 1d3 (averaging 2, of course). However, he did not change the STUN X column on the optional hit location chart to reflect such. After some discussion on [thread=74928]another thread[/thread], I've concocted a house rule idea or two to (in my opinion) "fix" the problem and make the STUN damage for KAs on the hit location chart equivalent to those that do not use the chart. My explanations and method follow. I'm not posting this for a debate on the merits of the rules as they stand...just sharing.

Re: Post "gotchas" here

Re: Post "gotchas" here Exactly my point.

Re: Project XIII: images from my campaign

Re: Project XIII: images from my campaign This was destined to happen.

Re: Project XIII: images from my campaign Me and Mancer... I was surprised at how many people (especially Japanese tourists) recognized the Red Skull.

Re: Project XIII: images from my campaign New images and writeups of PCs for our present campaign coming a lil later in the day, but for now... Halloween! We're like kids. Me and the wife...

Re: Post "gotchas" here

Re: Post "gotchas" here

Re: Post "gotchas" here Thank you, Sean. When using the hit location chart, the average multipliers for both the STUN and BODY of normal attacks are very, very close to 1. Normal attacks using the chart do equivalent damage to normal attacks without the chart. KAs, however, do significantly more STUN with the chart than they do without the chart. There are two small game balance issues: KAs using the chart do a lot more stun damage than those that don't use the hit location chart. And yes, the game design anticipates that there will be those attacks that should not use the chart, even when your campaign uses it. Hence, the 'Cannot Use Targeting' limitation. Yes, I know it's a limitation, but it operates differently on KAs than on normal attacks, because... KAs in campaigns that use the chart will do more STUN damage relative to the normal attacks in the campaign, because the multiplier for normal attacks are better designed. KAs in your supers games, for example, will be weaker per DC than those in your heroic games. So it wasn't an oversight. I get that. But that doesn't diminish my point. Because I hold Steve in such high regard as a game designer, I just assumed that he may have overlooked it. Perhaps had he been alerted to this particular point he may have made a different choice...perhaps not. The purposefulness of his choice, though, isn't relevant to my point.

Re: Post "gotchas" here Your analysis isn't accurate. I included a graphic with my methodology for analyzing the multipliers in a previous post. Using the hit location chart, normal attacks have a mean multiplier for both STUN and BODY damage that are almost exactly 1. Their effectiveness, outside of the ability to taget a location, is equivalent for both hit-location-using and non-hit-location-using attacks. KAs are different. Their average STUN multiplier is larger with the hit location chart than it is with the 1/2 d6 roll. My entire point is predicated on that fact. Some boards members here are okay with that in their games. I'd rather change it for my house rules. The numbers don't lie. The only relevant difference here is our levels of comfort with the disparity.

Re: Post "gotchas" here If you honestly think that the phrase "seems like an oversight" is antagonistic, then you might want to switch to decaf. For the record, my original statement was not meant antagonistically, nor was it meant to imply that my opinion is superior. It meant exactly what I said- that I thought it was an oversight...as in a very human mistake.

Re: Post "gotchas" here It seems clear to me that changing to a 1/2d6 roll...not to mention the fact that normal defense now protects one from KA STUN... was meant to reduce the STUN for KAs. Keeping the hit location multipliers as they were (which generates STUN amounts equivalent to the old 1d6-1 multiplier) seems strange to me in light of the other changes. One might like the higher numbers, though, or might not have a problem with KAs operating more powerfully in heroic campaigns. However, the issue doesn't end with simply choosing which shall be used in a campaign, because a campaign that uses hit locations can also very reasonably include KAs that do generalized damage instead, as in the case of the aforementioned 'Cannot Use Targeting' limitation, among other examples. In those cases of generalized damage, KAs suffer a significant loss in power compared to equivalent normal attacks. To me, that represents a game-balance issue. My suggestions were meant for those who might agree and want to do more than hand-wave that discrepancy in their own games.

Re: Post "gotchas" here I doubt anyone here was confused about that. The question at hand is, 'Are they reasonably equivalent?' I, and some others, think that they aren't. I never suggested that a campaign would "randomly" use both at once. That would be ridiculous. You've got an interesting predilection for making straw-man arguments. I suggested...perfectly reasonably, IMHO...that both could appear in a campaign. There is even a limitation 'Cannot Use Targeting' for that express purpose. If they can both reasonably appear in a campaign, then they should be reasonably equivalent. I realize that one could argue that the limitation value might compensate for the decrease in STUN damage, but I'm guessing that it was designed to reflect the inability to get other benefits from targeting. The limitation did, after all, exist before 6e, and it's applicable to Normal attacks as well, which don't suffer from reduced damage from it in the same way that KAs do. I did an analysis of the mean damage multipliers when using the hit location chart, and they reveal a disparity. I attached a graphic for those of you who'd like to see my data and methods. For a 3d6 roll on the Hit Location table: Mean STUN X = 2.87 Mean BODY X = .99 Mean Normal STUN X= 1.00 For a 2d6+1 (High Shot) roll on the Hit Location table- Mean STUN X = 2.89 Mean BODY X = .99 Mean Normal STUN X= 1.00 These numbers always seemed to be adequately equivalent to the numbers you'd get when not using the chart. They're both very close to 1 on BODY and N STUN, and they are pretty close to the mean STUN X on a 1d6-1...which is 2.5. Additionally, the STUN X range is the same on the chart as it is on a 1d6-1 roll...1 to 5. However, with the new 1/2 d6 roll for STUN X (which I wholeheartedly appreciate), the location chart multipliers for STUN are now a bit too different from the die roll. They average almost a full point higher, nearly equivalent to giving every weapon that uses it a +1 STUN Multiplier advantage (or conversely, those that don't a Reduced STUN Multiplier limitation). Additionally, their range is greater...1 to 5 as opposed to 1 to 3 that the die roll can provide. I suggest one of the following (mutually exclusive) house-rule fixes for the sake of game balance: Reduce the multipliers across the chart so they have a mean closer to 2 Allow KAs that 'Cannot Use Targeting' an additional -1/4, 'Uses 1/2 d6 for STUN Multiplier' (equivalent to 'Reduced STUN Multiplier') I'm leaning toward the former. I have often felt in the past that STUN Multipliers needed a bit of nerfing. It also keeps the amount of KA STUN damage consistent between campaigns that do and do not use the hit location chart. (We do not use it for supers.)