Combat Issues

[GeekySpaz]

I know I said I was done but then I thought some more about it.

How bout this.

I build a reasonable STR melee fighter with a HKA. We’ll say STR 15, HKA 1d6. I’ve spent 20 points (5 for STR 15 for the HKA). I do 2d6.

You build an average hero (STR 10) with a 2d6 HKA. You’ve spent 30 points and are doing 2½d6. But you don’t want to spend that many points and you really only need to do 2d6. So you take No STR Bonus (-1/2) and have now spent 20 points for the same 2d6 that I have. But then you decide that only a person of at least average STR should be able to wield an attack like yours so you take STR minimum 10 (-1/2). So now you have spent 15 points on your 2d6 HKA. Then you decide that you really want an even stronger character so you buy STR 15. You have now spent 20 points have a STR 15 and a 2d6 HKA.

Your character and mine are exactly equal in all ways but have taken different routes to get there. I believe we have a term for that. It’s called game balance. And in this case it didn’t require any changes to the system to achieve that balance.

But wait there's more. I have a 15 STR so why don't I say my attack requires a greater than average STR to wield. So you increase the STR minimum to a 15. So now you've spent 18 points to my 20 and have exactly the same capability as me. So now is it the guy who's adding his STR to his damage who's unbalanced or the guy who isn't adding STR to damage?

[Hugh Neilson]

It would seem to me the club should be built exactly the same way as your hypothetical mace, substituting Normal Damage for Killing Damage.

That's certainly another alternative, although I favour Vulcan's interpretation.

All characters with a positive STR can do normal damage proportional to their STR. 1d6 HA therefore becomes '5 STR, only to do damage, restrainable'. Given the extreme utility of STR (figured characteristics, leaping, & lifting, on top of doing damage), that's pretty darn limited for only a 1/2 limitation.

Long and short: you can add extra dice onto something you can already do. Everyone can do normal damage. HA fits as-is.

On the flip side: you can add extra dice onto something you can already do. NO ONE has the automatic ability to do killing damage without spending points. KA should not add to an existing ability to do normal damage just because it has no range.

Quoted for flow.

Technically, it's not adding to your existing ability to do normal damage, it's a feature of the Power that it does bonus damage based on the user's STR.

A feature shared by no other power, which I feel should therefore be removed to make it more consistent.

I know I said I was done but then I thought some more about it.

No harm in more input.

[and some of us are in no position to throw stones anyway.] ;)

How bout this.

I build a reasonable STR melee fighter with a HKA. We’ll say STR 15, HKA 1d6. I’ve spent 20 points (5 for STR 15 for the HKA). I do 2d6.

Let's compare another power level...

I build a high STR melee fighter Super with a HKA. We’ll say STR 30, HKA 2d6. I’ve spent 50 points (20 for STR 30 for the HKA). I do 4d6.

You build an average hero (STR 10) with a 2d6 HKA. You’ve spent 30 points and are doing 2½d6. But you don’t want to spend that many points and you really only need to do 2d6. So you take No STR Bonus (-1/2) and have now spent 20 points for the same 2d6 that I have. But then you decide that only a person of at least average STR should be able to wield an attack like yours so you take STR minimum 10 (-1/2). So now you have spent 15 points on your 2d6 HKA. Then you decide that you really want an even stronger character so you buy STR 15. You have now spent 20 points have a STR 15 and a 2d6 HKA.

You build an average hero (STR 10) with a 4d6 HKA. You’ve spent 60 points and are doing 4½d6. But you don’t want to spend that many points and your GM will only let you do 4d6. So you take No STR Bonus (-1/2) and have now spent 40 points for the same 4d6 that I have. But then you decide that only a person of at least average STR should be able to wield an attack like yours so you take STR minimum 10 (-1/2). So now you have spent 30 points on your 4d6 HKA [is that STR Min really 10 at -1/2 on a 4d6 KA?]. Then you decide that you really want an even stronger character so you buy STR 30. You have now spent 50 points have a STR 30 and a 4d6 HKA.

Same result, so it works.

Now, how many GM's out there will let you take "STR does not add" and "STR Minimum well under my STR" on an HKA to cut the cost in half? And is that the correct STR Min for a -1/2 limitation (I don't have the books with me and I don't recall the rules for determining the limitation).

But wait there's more. I have a 15 STR so why don't I say my attack requires a greater than average STR to wield. So you increase the STR minimum to a 15. So now you've spent 18 points to my 20 and have exactly the same capability as me. So now is it the guy who's adding his STR to his damage who's unbalanced or the guy who isn't adding STR to damage?

I see...so it's STILL unbalanced, you just got there a different way. That's called further support for removing the STR addition from HKA's.

[Talon]

I've been looking through the book for examples, and the best one I've come up with is in the Super Skills section of Dark Champions. There they define a super-persuasion skill as 'Mind control xd6 (and a bunch of limitations), + Mind Control 6d6 (all the same limitations), Only to make target think his actions were natural.

The importance of the construct is this: You can clearly add extra dice to an ability you already have. This is noted separately for ease of bookeeping, but fuctionally it is all done in one roll.

This is called a "Partially Limited Power"...it is one power with different limitations applied to different parts of it. Not the same thing.

[GeekySpaz]

Now, how many GM's out there will let you take "STR does not add" and "STR Minimum well under my STR" on an HKA to cut the cost in half?


Any GM who understands the system and wants to keep this particular issue balanced.


And is that the correct STR Min for a -1/2 limitation (I don't have the books with me and I don't recall the rules for determining the limitation).


-1/2 is the correct value for a STR 10. I've checked.


I see...so it's STILL unbalanced, you just got there a different way. That's called further support for removing the STR addition from HKA's.

Wow 2 points. Clearly the system is broken. Seriously though there is no reason to change the rules over a balance issue of a couple of points especially considering that the rule I'm advocating keeping ends up hurting the character concept I'm defending by a couple points.

I've shown that using these two very different methods I can balance these two characters to within 2 points. I'd say that is a pretty balanced game.

Yes your method would balance these two characters by forcing them both to be constructed in the same way (thus reducing the flexibility of the system). However your solution would also make both of these characters more expensive in relation to other characters. I don't think that is necessary.

[Vulcan]

This is called a "Partially Limited Power"...it is one power with different limitations applied to different parts of it. Not the same thing.

Sure. So if in 6E we define 1d6 HA as 5 STR, Restrainable, only to do damage, then it is 'partially limited STR.' And given that Restrainable is a -1/2 limitations, 'only to do damage' on STR seems reasonable for another -1/2. 2.5 points per die. If that's too cheap for everyone, we'll just say '5 STR, Hand Attack Only (-1/2), and be right back where we are now, just with a clearer concept of what's going on.

Where's the problem?

[Vulcan]

As far as STR Minimums are concerned, in my opinion they should only ever be applied in Heroic level games. And at that point, the limitation it gives is kinda irrelevant because Heroic characters generally don't pay points for gear.

A character who takes a STR Minimum on a power who has plenty of spare STR isn't limited. Therefore, no limitation.

If it doesn't limit you, you don't get points back for it. Period.

[Netzilla]

Okay, over in the Powers A-E thread, we got a little side-tracked and started talking about the Stun Lotto (again). Hugh Nelson made some suggestions on how to improve the Stun values for Killing Attacks and Vulcan asked me to do an analysis of these methods

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1655395&postcount=604

...similar to what I had done for Steve Long's and my proposed changes

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1553378#post1553378
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1566275#post1566275
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1566658#post1566658
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1567658#post1567658

So, I ran the test to include Damage Classes 3 to 12. I had planned to go all the way to 18, but as I have to brute force some of the tables, the application was simply taking too long to process the data. Also, a range of 9 DCs should be enough to show us some general trends. Here are the results:

Hugh 1: As per the current Killing Attack rules, but change the Stun Lotto to 2,2,2,3,3,4

Hugh 2: Cost = 5/die. Roll dice as a Normal Attack, but count Body as 1-5 = 1 and 6 = 2; subtract 1/2 #dice rolled from STUN total

Hugh 3: Cost = 5/die. Roll dice as a Normal Attack, but count Body as 1 = 0, 2-4 = 1 and 5-6 = 2; subtract 1/2 #dice rolled from STUN total



Damage Class 3

Normal Hit Locs Hugh1 Hugh2 Hugh3

Min BODY 0 (0.46%) 1 (16.67%) 1 (16.67%) 3 (57.87%) 0 (0.46%)

Mode BODY 3 (40.74%) all all 3 (57.87%) 4 (30.56%)

Max BODY 6 (0.46%) 6 (16.67%) 6 (16.67%) 6 (0.46%) 6 (3.7%)

Mean BODY 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

Min STUN 3 (0.46%) 1 (1.10%) 2 (8.33%) 2 (0.46%) 2 (0.46%)

Mode STUN 10,11 (12.5%) 12 (14.78%) 12 (16.67%) 9,10 (12.5%) 9,10 (12.5%)

Max STUN 18 (0.46%) 30 (0.79%) 24 (2.78%) 17 (0.46%) 17 (0.46%)

Mean STUN 10.5 10.02 9.33 9.5 9.5

Odds for 16.2% 25.79% 19.44% 9.26% 9.26%

14+ STUN

Odds for 0% 9.59% 5.56% 0% 0%

19+ STUN



Damage Class 4

Normal Hit Locs Hugh1 Hugh2 Hugh3

Min BODY 0 (0.08%) 2 (16.67%) 2 (16.67%) 4 (48.23%) 0 (0.08%)

Mode BODY 4 (35.03%) all all 4 (48.23%) 5 (27.78%)

Max BODY 8 (0.08%) 7 (16.67%) 7 (16.67%) 8 (0.08%) 8 (1.23%)

Mean BODY 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.67 4.67

Min STUN 4 (0.08%) 2 (1.10%) 4 (8.33%) 2 (0.08%) 2 (0.08%)

Mode STUN 14 (11.27%) 12 (14.78%) 12 (16.67%) 12 (11.27%) 12 (11.27%)

Max STUN 24 (0.08%) 35 (0.79%) 28 (2.78%) 22 (0.08%) 22 (0.08%)

Mean STUN 14.0 12.88 12.0 12.0 12.0

Odds for 15.9% 25.79% 19.44% 9.72% 9.72%

18+ STUN

Odds for 0% 5.97% 2.78% 0% 0%

25+ STUN



Damage Class 5

Normal Hit Locs Hugh1 Hugh2 Hugh3

Min BODY 0 (0.01%) 2 (5.56%) 2 (5.56%) 5 (40.19%) 0 (0.01%)

Mode BODY 5 (31.17%) 4-7 (16.67%) 4-7 (16.67%) 5,6 (40.19%) 6 (25.33%)

Max BODY 10 (0.01%) 9 (5.56%) 9 (5.56%) 10 (0.01%) 10 (0.41%)

Mean BODY 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.83 5.83

Min STUN 5 (0.01%) 2 (0.37%) 4 (2.78%) 3 (0.01%) 3 (0.01%)

Mode STUN 17,18 (10.03%) 12 (13.57%) 12 (15.74%) 15,16 (10.03%) 15,16 (10.03%)

Max STUN 30 (0.01%) 45 (0.26%) 36 (0.93%) 28 (0.01%) 28 (0.01%)

Mean STUN 17.5 15.75 14.67 15.5 15.5

Odds for 9.8% 19.89% 13.89% 5.88% 5.88%

23+ STUN

Odds for 0% 5.19% 2.78% 0% 0%

31+ STUN



Damage Class 6

Normal Hit Locs Hugh1 Hugh2 Hugh3

Min BODY 0 (0.002%) 2 (2.78%) 2 (2.78%) 6 (33.49%) 0 (0.002%)

Mode BODY 6 (28.37%) 7 (16.67%) 7 (16.67%) 7 (40.19%) 7 (23.23%)

Max BODY 12 (0.002%) 12 (2.78%) 12 (2.78%) 12 (0.002%) 12 (0.14%)

Mean BODY 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

Min STUN 6 (0.002%) 2 (0.18%) 4 (1.39%) 3 (0.002%) 3 (0.002%)

Mode STUN 21 (9.29%) 24 (8.81%) 12 (10.65%) 18 (9.29%) 18 (9.29%)

Max STUN 36 (0.002%) 60 (0.13%) 48 (0.46%) 33 (0.002%) 33 (0.002%)

Mean STUN 21.0 20.04 18.67 18.0 18.0

Odds for 9.64% 25.89% 18.98% 6.07% 6.07%

27+ STUN

Odds for 0% 5.58% 2.78% 0% 0%

37+ STUN



Damage Class 7

Normal Hit Locs Hugh1 Hugh2 Hugh3

Min BODY 0 (0.0004%) 3 (2.78%) 3 (2.78%) 7 (27.99%) 0 (0.0004%)

Mode BODY 7 (26.22%) 8 (16.67%) 8 (16.67%) 8 (39.07%) 8 (21.40%)

Max BODY 14 (0.0004%) 13 (2.78%) 13 (2.78%) 14 (0.0004%) 14 (0.46%)

Mean BODY 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.17 8.17

Min STUN 7 (0.0004%) 3 (0.18%) 6 (1.39%) 4 (0.0004%) 4 (0.0004%)

Mode STUN 24,25 (8.58%) 24 (10.06%) 18 (10.65%) 21,22 (8.58%) 21,22 (8.58%)

Max STUN 42 (0.0004%) 65 (0.13%) 52 (0.46%) 39 (0.0004%) 39 (0.0004%)

Mean STUN 24.5 22.91 21.33 21.5 21.5

Odds for 6.12% 21.96% 15.28% 3.79% 3.79%

32+ STUN

Odds for 0% 5.58% 2.78% 0% 0%

42+ STUN



Damage Class 8

Normal Hit Locs Hugh1 Hugh2 Hugh3

Min BODY 0 (0.0001%) 3 (0.93%) 3 (0.93%) 8 (23.26%) 0 (0.0001%)

Mode BODY 8 (24.5%) 9 (14.81%) 9 (14.81%) 9 (37.21%) 9 (19.81%)

Max BODY 16 (0.0001%) 15 (0.93%) 15 (0.93%) 16 (0.0001%) 16 (0.02%)

Mean BODY 8.0 9.0 9.0 9.33 9.33

Min STUN 8 (0.0001%) 3 (0.06%) 6 (0.46%) 4 (0.0001%) 4 (0.0001%)

Mode STUN 28 (8.09%) 24 (9.36%) 18 (10.19%) 24 (8.09%) 24 (8.09%)

Max STUN 48 (0.0001%) 75 (0.04%) 60 (0.15%) 44 (0.0001%) 44 (0.0001%)

Mean STUN 28.0 25.77 24 24.0 24.0

Odds for 6.07% 22.04% 15.43% 3.89% 3.89%

36+ STUN

Odds for 0% 4.02% 1.54% 0% 0%

49+ STUN



Damage Class 9

Normal Hit Locs Hugh1 Hugh2 Hugh3

Min BODY 0 (0.00001%) 3 (0.46%) 3 (0.46%) 9 (19.38%) 0 (0.00001%)

Mode BODY 9 (23.08%) 10,11 (12.5%) 10,11 (12.5%) 10 (34.89%) 11 (18.73%)

Max BODY 18 (0.00001%) 18 (0.46%) 18 (0.46%) 18 (0.00001%) 18 (0.005%)

Mean BODY 9.0 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5

Min STUN 9 (0.00001%) 3 (0.03%) 6 (0.23%) 5 (0.00001%) 5 (0.00001%)

Mode STUN 31,32(7.61%) 24 (8.10%) 24 (9.8%) 27,28 (7.61%) 27,28 (7.61%)

Max STUN 54 (0.00001%) 90 (0.02%) 72 (0.08%) 50 (0.00001%) 50 (0.00001%)

Mean STUN 31.5 30.06 28.0 27.5 27.5

Odds for 3.92% 20.08% 13.73% 2.47% 2.47%

41+ STUN

Odds for 0% 5.87% 2.7% 0% 0%

55+ STUN



Damage Class 12

Normal Hit Locs Hugh1 Hugh2 Hugh3

Min BODY 0 (0.00000005%) 4 (0.08%) 4 (0.08%) 12 (11.22%) 0 (0.00000005%)

Mode BODY 12 (19.97%) 14 (11.27%) 14 (11.27%) 14 (29.61%) 14 (16.59%)

Max BODY 24 (0.00000005%) 24 (0.08%) 24 (0.08%) 24 (0.00000005%) 24 (0.002%)

Mean BODY 12.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0

Min STUN 12 (0.00000005%) 4 (0.01%) 8 (0.04%) 6 (0.00000005%) 6 (0.00000005%)

Mode STUN 42 (6.65%) 36 (6.3%) 30 (7.46%) 36 (6.65%) 36 (6.65%)

Max STUN 72 (0.00000005%) 120 (0.004%) 96 (0.01%) 66 (0.00000005%) 66 (0.00000005%)

Mean STUN 42.0 40.08 37.33 36 36

Odds for 2.54% 21.66% 14.57% 1.66% 1.66%

54+ STUN

Odds for 0% 4.2% 1.62% 0% 0%

73+ STUN

My Observations:

Hugh1 increases the min Stun over the current Hit Loc method, but lowers the average and maximum. It also reduces the chances of a Killing Attack doing 75+% of the Normal Attack's max stun as well as the chance of exceeding the Normal Attack's max stun. However, the chances of both occurring are still far higher than either possibility for the Normal Attack. So, while the gusting would be less frequent with this method, it would still occur.

The main differences between Hugh2 & Hugh3 are the minimum Body done (Hugh2 is higher), how likely you are to achieve max Body (Hugh3 is higher) and the mode Body (Hugh3 is occationaly higher but always less frequent). The Mean & Max Body and all Stun values are equal between Hugh2 and Hugh3.

Hugh1 increases the average Body done (over a Normal Attack) by roughly 14.46% over DCs 3 to 12. The actual percentage change varies by DC between +10% and +16.67%. The average Stun is reduced by an average of 12.79% (-11.10% to -16.17%) and there appears to be no direct corralation between the amount of Body increase and the amount of Stun decrease.

Hugh2 & 3 increase the average Body done by an average of 16.67%, only varying between +16.6% and +16.75%, making the boost much more consistant than Hugh1. Average Stun is decreased by an average of 13.03% and varies from -9.52% to -14.29%; so it's not as consistant in this area. Overall, you gain more Body than you lose Stun by this method. If you subtract 1 per die (one of Hugh's suggested alternatives) rather than 1 per 2 dice, you get an accross-the-board 28.57% reduction in Stun; causing you to lose more Stun than you gain Body.

Finally:

Attached to this method are all of the tables generated by my application should anyone wish to do any further analyses that I didn't think of.

[Vulcan]

Wow. :eek: If you're not a real mathemetician, you'll certainly do until one comes along. :thumbup:

So, long & short (assuming I actually understand all this, no mean assumption):

Flattening the STUN multiple still leaves the max STUN above what a normal attack would do.

Both the other versions consistently less STUN and more BODY than the STUN multiple versions.

The other versions use variations on the normal damage roll.

I think versions 2 or 3 would be the obvious choice, don't you?

[GeekySpaz]

As far as STR Minimums are concerned, in my opinion they should only ever be applied in Heroic level games. And at that point, the limitation it gives is kinda irrelevant because Heroic characters generally don't pay points for gear.

A character who takes a STR Minimum on a power who has plenty of spare STR isn't limited. Therefore, no limitation.

If it doesn't limit you, you don't get points back for it. Period.

I can see how this could be a valid limitation for any game. If you decided to buy an attack with the STR min limitation then you have made yourself additionally vulnerable to a STR drain. Now you can be drained to below your STR minimum and loose the ability to effectively weild your attack power. Thats only one examle. I'm sure there are more. Not every limitation will limit you at all times. Many limitations are only limiting under certain circumstances.

[Talon]

I can see how this could be a valid limitation for any game. If you decided to buy an attack with the STR min limitation then you have made yourself additionally vulnerable to a STR drain. Now you can be drained to below your STR minimum and loose the ability to effectively weild your attack power. Thats only one examle. I'm sure there are more. Not every limitation will limit you at all times. Many limitations are only limiting under certain circumstances.

You don't lose your attack for being under STR Min, you lose DCs and OCV. Thus, what you are buying is a minor, conditional Side Effect. The values for STR Min are well above what you would get for a similar Side Effect.

Under the current rules I could get a -1 Limitation for STR Min 18; if someone happens to Drain me below 18 STR I lose 1 DC and 1 OCV per 5 points Drained. That seems a bit much for a -1.

[Vulcan]

I can see how this could be a valid limitation for any game. If you decided to buy an attack with the STR min limitation then you have made yourself additionally vulnerable to a STR drain. Now you can be drained to below your STR minimum and loose the ability to effectively weild your attack power. Thats only one examle. I'm sure there are more. Not every limitation will limit you at all times. Many limitations are only limiting under certain circumstances.

All right, I can see that. But I'll let you know, if I allowed that on a character, STR drains would start becoming pretty common....;)

But then I'm a b*****d that way.:sneaky:

[Hugh Neilson]

Any GM who understands the system and wants to keep this particular issue balanced.

Um...no. See below. In my view, the STR Min limitations (which, I note, were never intended for Supers) would be hugely unbalanced if applied to actual power purchases.

Wow 2 points. Clearly the system is broken. Seriously though there is no reason to change the rules over a balance issue of a couple of points especially considering that the rule I'm advocating keeping ends up hurting the character concept I'm defending by a couple points.

I've shown that using these two very different methods I can balance these two characters to within 2 points. I'd say that is a pretty balanced game.


Let's take the options further. We started with a 10 STR and a 4d6 KA. Now, we take the following limitations:

- STR Min 18 (-1)
- STR Min cannot add/subtract damage (-1/2)
- two handed (-1/2)

The KA now costs 20 points, but requires an 18 STR to wield effectively, and loses 2 OCV for being used one handed. So I buy my STR up to 18 and buy +2 OCV with the weapon for 4 points. That's a cost of 32 points. I can buy my STR up to 30 for another 12, total 44. I could remove 2 handed, pay 4 more for the weapon and ditch the levels.

Or I can ditch STR Min does not add/subtract damage. I have well over the 21 STR needed to wield this thing one handed, and now I add a DC (two if I use it two handed), so I have the same 30 STR, a higher KA and I pay 44 points instead of 50.

In any case, the consistency issue concerns me at least as much as, if not more than, the balance issue. Make it consistent.

As far as STR Minimums are concerned, in my opinion they should only ever be applied in Heroic level games. And at that point, the limitation it gives is kinda irrelevant because Heroic characters generally don't pay points for gear.

A character who takes a STR Minimum on a power who has plenty of spare STR isn't limited. Therefore, no limitation.

If it doesn't limit you, you don't get points back for it. Period.

BINGO!

I can see how this could be a valid limitation for any game. If you decided to buy an attack with the STR min limitation then you have made yourself additionally vulnerable to a STR drain. Now you can be drained to below your STR minimum and loose the ability to effectively weild your attack power. Thats only one examle. I'm sure there are more. Not every limitation will limit you at all times. Many limitations are only limiting under certain circumstances.

Getting a -1 1/2 limitation for taking extra effect from a drain seems like a pretty good cost break to me. I can put the extra points into Power Defense. :sneaky:

[Hugh Neilson]

So, I ran the test to include Damage Classes 3 to 12. I had planned to go all the way to 18, but as I have to brute force some of the tables, the application was simply taking too long to process the data. Also, a range of 9 DCs should be enough to show us some general trends. Here are the results:

Hugh 1: As per the current Killing Attack rules, but change the Stun Lotto to 2,2,2,3,3,4

Hugh 2: Cost = 5/die. Roll dice as a Normal Attack, but count Body as 1-5 = 1 and 6 = 2; subtract 1/2 #dice rolled from STUN total

Hugh 3: Cost = 5/die. Roll dice as a Normal Attack, but count Body as 1 = 0, 2-4 = 1 and 5-6 = 2; subtract 1/2 #dice rolled from STUN total

My Observations:

Hugh1 increases the min Stun over the current Hit Loc method, but lowers the average and maximum. It also reduces the chances of a Killing Attack doing 75+% of the Normal Attack's max stun as well as the chance of exceeding the Normal Attack's max stun. However, the chances of both occurring are still far higher than either possibility for the Normal Attack. So, while the gusting would be less frequent with this method, it would still occur.

The main differences between Hugh2 & Hugh3 are the minimum Body done (Hugh2 is higher) and how likely you are to achieve max Body (Hugh3 is higher). The Mode, Mean and Max Body and all Stun values are equal between Hugh2 and Hugh3.

Hugh1 increases the average Body done (over a Normal Attack) by roughly 14.46% over DCs 3 to 12. The actual percentage change varies by DC between +10% and +16.67%. The average Stun is reduced by an average of 12.14% (-4.57% to -16.17%) and there appears to be no direct corralation between the amount of Body increase and the amount of Stun decrease.

The variance is because KA DC's aren't created equal - +1, +1/2d6, +1d6 isn't a smooth curve.

Hugh2 increases the average Body done by an average of 16.66%, only varying between +16.6% and +16.75%, making the boost much more consistant than Hugh1. Average Stun is decreased by an average of 13.03% and varies from -9.52% to -14.29%; so it's not as consistant in this area. Overall, you gain more Body than you lose Stun by this method. If you subtract 1 per die (one of Hugh's suggested alternatives) rather than 1 per 2 dice, you get an accross-the-board 28.57% reduction in Stun; causing you to lose much more Stun than you gain Body.

Hugh3 showed an average Body increase averaging around 17.11% (+16.6% to +21.18%). Average Stun changes are exactly the same as for Hugh2.

There should be no difference in average BOD between 2 and 3 - both add 1 BOD 1 time in 6.

Flattening the STUN multiple still leaves the max STUN above what a normal attack would do.

Both the other versions consistently less STUN and more BODY than the STUN multiple versions.

The other versions use variations on the normal damage roll.

I think versions 2 or 3 would be the obvious choice, don't you?

I like versions 2 and 3. My preference is 2 (eliminate the 0 and don't change the odds of a 2 BOD roll).

[Netzilla]

The variance is because KA DC's aren't created equal - +1, +1/2d6, +1d6 isn't a smooth curve.


Yep, I that same observation last time this topic came up. However, remember that I was comparing Body change vs Normal Damage Body. So, for Normal Damage, Hugh2 & Hugh3, the comparison is in full 1d6 increments.

There should be no difference in average BOD between 2 and 3 - both add 1 BOD 1 time in 6.

The Mean Body holds the same between the two (and you can see that in the chart) but the Min, Max and Mode values are all different. The Mode is more important than the Mean because the Mode is the single most common occurring die roll in the set. The Mean may very well be impossible to roll.

[Netzilla]

Wow. :eek: If you're not a real mathemetician, you'll certainly do until one comes along. :thumbup:

There's folks much better at match than me who post on the boards. Gary's lurking out there somewhere and from what I've seen Klaus has solid math skills. Someone early on in the General thread went into some solid detail on different die rolling methods. The name of the poster escapes me at the moment.

It was SteveZilla I was thinking of from posts list this (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1552810&postcount=369) and this (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1553309&postcount=382). Sorry Steve.

So, long & short (assuming I actually understand all this, no mean assumption):

Flattening the STUN multiple still leaves the max STUN above what a normal attack would do.

Yep. That will happen any time you use the current rules for rolling Body on a KA and take a multiplier higher than x3. Six DC (6d6) normal attack has a max 36 Stun. Even if you limit Killing Attacks to only a x4 at max, 36/4 = 9, so the Killing Attack would have to be limited to only 9 Body in order to prevent exceeding the Normal Attack's max Stun. Unfortunately, a 6DC Killing Attack has a max 12 Body. If you roll 10 or more, and a x4 multiplier, you'll end up above 36 Stun.

Both the other versions consistently less STUN and more BODY than the STUN multiple versions.

The other versions use variations on the normal damage roll.

Some of the other alternatives suggested also consistently raise the average Body while lowering the average Stun.. Mine averages out to +21% to Body and -21% to Stun:

post1 (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1566658#post1566658)
post2 (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1567658#post1567658)

I think versions 2 or 3 would be the obvious choice, don't you?

The big advantage Hugh's ideas have over mine is when it comes to Advantage Stacking (you see my thoughts on that in post2 (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1567658#post1567658)). I like the symmetry of mine better, but I wouldn't be heartbroken to see Hugh2 or Hugh3 used for 6e. I do think that any sort of multiplier system is likely to be more trouble to balance than it's worth.

[CTaylor]

Once more: KAs doing more stun on average isn't innately a problem; it is only a problem if you presume they should not do more stun. Take an NND attack, it will do more stun on average than a normal attack against defenses past a certain point. Does that mean it's broken? Needs changing? No, it means that's how the power works.

[Kdansky]

Once more: KAs doing more stun on average isn't innately a problem; it is only a problem if you presume they should not do more stun. Take an NND attack, it will do more stun on average than a normal attack against defenses past a certain point. Does that mean it's broken? Needs changing? No, it means that's how the power works.


Hold on a second there. You honestly think that is is fine if a KA does more stun (and obviously more body) AND ignores some sort of defenses while costing the same? Currently, we got a "good attack" and a "bad attack" in the system. True, they are not too far apart and that is the reason there is not even more discussion, but as has been pointed out (very often), KAs are superior for the same points right now. That is a problem. Innately, if you will.

I mean, we do build our defenses (bricks especially) with KA burst in mind, because that is what kills us most often. Sure, there is flash and entangle and transform and mental powers, but these can be shut down easily for a few points. KA? You're going to need DR 75% to get rid of KA burst...

[Vulcan]

I have to agree there. Killing attacks right now, with the STUN lotto, are the best STUN producers in the game - maybe not in frequency, so much as quality.

A 4d6 HKA can do 70 STUN on an average BODY roll, which will stun most begining superheroes (much less heroic types). A 12d6 Punch will do at most 72 STUN, on a maxed-out roll. That is, rolling 12 6's. The HKA gets the same STUN with only a single 6, and average rolls on everything else (somewhat less often if you use hit locations). So a 60 AP KA is 6 to the 11th power times more likely to do massive STUN than the equivalent normal damage roll. (I hope. My math may be incorrect, it's been a while since college... If I'm wrong, tell us!)

And when you factor in that the max STUN damage of the KA is 120 :eek: - 180% of the max STUN damage of the normal roll :nonp: - it becomes obvious that something is up. Now bear in mind, only 5 dice have to come up 6's for this to happen, rather than 12. Which happens 6 to the 7th power more often (same disclaimer on the math).:idjit:

And people still don't think there's a problem?

[Kdansky]

I have to agree there. Killing attacks right now, with the STUN lotto, are the best STUN producers in the game - maybe not in frequency, so much as quality.

A 4d6 HKA can do 70 STUN on an average BODY roll, which will stun most begining superheroes (much less heroic types). A 12d6 Punch will do at most 72 STUN, on a maxed-out roll. That is, rolling 12 6's. The HKA gets the same STUN with only a single 6, and average rolls on everything else (somewhat less often if you use hit locations). So a 60 AP KA is 6 to the 11th power times more likely to do massive STUN than the equivalent normal damage roll. (I hope. My math may be incorrect, it's been a while since college... If I'm wrong, tell us!)

And when you factor in that the max STUN damage of the KA is 120 :eek: - 180% of the max STUN damage of the normal roll :nonp: - it becomes obvious that something is up. Now bear in mind, only 5 dice have to come up 6's for this to happen, rather than 12. Which happens 6 to the 7th power more often (same disclaimer on the math).:idjit:

And people still don't think there's a problem?

Your math is off on the wrong side ;) It's even more likely to get massive stun results, because not only can you roll a 6 on the stunX, but you might actually roll good on the basic body roll too. 17 with 4d6? Comes up all the time. Add x5 stun multiplier for a ridiculous instagib 85 stun, that's about 60 after defenses. More than enough.

[Markdoc]

Sure. So if in 6E we define 1d6 HA as 5 STR, Restrainable, only to do damage, then it is 'partially limited STR.' And given that Restrainable is a -1/2 limitations, 'only to do damage' on STR seems reasonable for another -1/2. 2.5 points per die. If that's too cheap for everyone, we'll just say '5 STR, Hand Attack Only (-1/2), and be right back where we are now, just with a clearer concept of what's going on.

Where's the problem?

Because plenty of people will point out that STR (no Figured), sell back one point of leaping, is less than 2.5 points per die and far more useful than HA, since it adds to lifting capacity and all instances where STR can be used. The problem is, and always has been, that the math simply doesn't add up.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

I do think that any sort of multiplier system is likely to be more trouble to balance than it's worth.

For me, this is the key point. Multipliers are the culprit in damage gusting in multiple systems: they're what led to the most broken exploits in D20 3.5 as well, which is why they were done away with in favour of adding +1, +2, etc. in 4E.

After following this thread (and its various offshoots in other threads) I have reversed my original position that KA was just fine as it is, and think that moving to a single damage method in which killing is an AVLD-like advantage would be a step forward.

cheers, Mark

[AnotherSkip]

Because the ability to add STR to HKA makes that a hugely ineffective construct when compares to 6d6 KA + 90 STR. How often do you see a character who has a significant HKA and a relatively high STR who has significantly more STR than needed to take advantage of the STR add to his KA. The only one who comes to mind is some versions of the Monster, and then only because no one thought to change his KA from his 1e version, when STR adds were unlimited so he added 4d6 from 60 STR to his 1d6 HKA for 5d6 in aggregate.

Actually Armadillo is the textbook example of having more str than his HKA can use, 1d6 HKA, 60(?) Str. He's in the main book that way as an example of just that fer cryin out loud.

[Hugh Neilson]

Yep, I that same observation last time this topic came up. However, remember that I was comparing Body change vs Normal Damage Body. So, for Normal Damage, Hugh2 & Hugh3, the comparison is in full 1d6 increments.

The Mean Body holds the same between the two (and you can see that in the chart) but the Min, Max and Mode values are all different. The Mode is more important than the Mean because the Mode is the single most common occurring die roll in the set. The Mean may very well be impossible to roll.

The Max should not change. Each d6 can inflict, at most, 2 BOD (under H2, it has a 5/6 chance of 1 BOD and a 1/6 chance of 2 BOD; under H3 it has a 1/6 chance of 0 BOD, 3/6 of 1 BOD and 2/6 of 2 BOD), so the max is always 2x # of dice, the same as a normal attack. Average and Mode should be higher than a normal attack by about 1/6.

By the way, I should note that this is not MY creation - I first saw it on the boards a few years back, and the poster at that time, IIRC, also indicated it was someone else's idea. I like the approach because it fixes the most significant problem (the volatility of STUN and, to a lesser extent, BOD damage as compared to a normal attack) and brings the power much more in line with the regular damage rolling system. Every attack adds up one or both of all the points on the dice or the BOD mechanic. This just tinkers the two rather than creating a disparate mechanic.

[AnotherSkip]

I like the symmetry of mine better, but I wouldn't be heartbroken to see Hugh2 or Hugh3 used for 6e. I do think that any sort of multiplier system is likely to be more trouble to balance than it's worth.

Wow! Hugh has Duplication!

Go Hugh!:ugly:

[Hugh Neilson]

Actually Armadillo is the textbook example of having more str than his HKA can use, 1d6 HKA, 60(?) Str. He's in the main book that way as an example of just that fer cryin out loud.

That's another one who was first written up for 1e, and had his unlimited STR adds. Future updates never increased his KA base to bring his total dice up to where they once were.

I suspect that first Enemies book provided a fine illustration of why the STR adds should be capped - most high STR villains had a 1d6 HKA, and full STR adds. If they could have bought 5 point increments, they probably would have had 1 point KA's. "Grond: Pointy Fingernails: 1 pip HKA; 6d6+1 w/ STR".

It took very little time to figure out that 15 STR and 4d6 HKA was a far less effective than 60 STR and 1d6 HKA of getting a 5d6 HKA. The problem is reduced now, but not eliminated.

[Netzilla]

Yep, I that same observation last time this topic came up. However, remember that I was comparing Body change vs Normal Damage Body. So, for Normal Damage, Hugh2 & Hugh3, the comparison is in full 1d6 increments.

The Mean Body holds the same between the two (and you can see that in the chart) but the Min, Max and Mode values are all different. The Mode is more important than the Mean because the Mode is the single most common occurring die roll in the set. The Mean may very well be impossible to roll.
The Max should not change. Each d6 can inflict, at most, 2 BOD (under H2, it has a 5/6 chance of 1 BOD and a 1/6 chance of 2 BOD; under H3 it has a 1/6 chance of 0 BOD, 3/6 of 1 BOD and 2/6 of 2 BOD), so the max is always 2x # of dice, the same as a normal attack.

Yeah, I mis-wrote in the above when I stated that the Max varied. You can see in the table that the max doesn't vary between Normal, Hugh2 & Hugh3. What can I say, I was just typing faster than I was thinking. :ugly:

Average and Mode should be higher than a normal attack by about 1/6.

Not always. Since the mode (and especially the frequency of the mode) vary between Normal, Hugh2 & Hugh3 then the level of boost will vary as well. Sometimes the boost is higher than 1/6 (16.67%) and sometimes lower. Overall, it tends to be close (especially for Hugh2).

By the way, I should note that this is not MY creation - I first saw it on the boards a few years back, and the poster at that time, IIRC, also indicated it was someone else's idea. I like the approach because it fixes the most significant problem (the volatility of STUN and, to a lesser extent, BOD damage as compared to a normal attack) and brings the power much more in line with the regular damage rolling system. Every attack adds up one or both of all the points on the dice or the BOD mechanic. This just tinkers the two rather than creating a disparate mechanic.

Yep, I'm all for a more unified damage mechanic for both improving balance and for making the rules more concise. As for what we call the new mechanic, I just used your name for lack of a better idea. If it makes you feel better, I could start naming them for the colors of the rainbow but I suspect that would get kind of confusing:

"Okay, so if you compare the Red attack to the Violet, you'll see that the mode changes by a factor of..." :nonp:

[CTaylor]

Hold on a second there. You honestly think that is is fine if a KA does more stun (and obviously more body) AND ignores some sort of defenses while costing the same?

I'm fine with it having the potential to, yes.

[Paragon]

That depends on how you build the two weapons. Let's assume we want that 1d6 HKA mace to have 1d6 KA, require a STR of 8 to effectively wield (ie a STR Min 8), and to cap out at 2d6 just as it always has.



In which case you aren't really talking about Strength not adding; you're just talking about making HKAs more expensive to compensate for the problem, which would be handled just as easily by making KAs more expensive in the first place and not add nearly the level of complication involved in the construct.


They are different because the club enhances an attack the character already had and the HKA does not.

If you accept the premise that KAs are different in kind than normal damage. I don't see them as any different than a lot of other normal damage with Advantages applying to them; is it your premise Strength shouldn't add to those?

[Paragon]

Once more: KAs doing more stun on average isn't innately a problem; it is only a problem if you presume they should not do more stun. Take an NND attack, it will do more stun on average than a normal attack against defenses past a certain point. Does that mean it's broken? Needs changing? No, it means that's how the power works.

Its a problem on two grounds:

1. It assumes killing attacks stun and knockout more frequently than normal. I'm still far from convinced this shows any resemblence to reality.

2. Its simply unbalanced to let them do so at the same cost; any trade-offs are easily overwhelmed by the benefit.

Even if your position is that 1 is a nonissue, 2 _is_ a problem in any system trying to make cost commensurate with value.

[Netzilla]

Average and Mode should be higher than a normal attack by about 1/6.
Not always. Since the mode (and especially the frequency of the mode) vary between Normal, Hugh2 & Hugh3 then the level of boost will vary as well. Sometimes the boost is higher than 1/6 (16.67%) and sometimes lower. Overall, it tends to be close (especially for Hugh2).

Gah! I'm a doofus. Yes, the average Body and Stun change on both Hugh2 & Hugh3 are the same. The main differences are actually: minimum Body (higher for Hugh2), mode Body (occasionally higher for Hugh3), frequency of mode Body (always lower for Hugh3) and frequency of max Body (higher for Hugh3).

It really helps when you make sure to look at the correct columns when you're writing out an analysis. That's what I get for not double-checking my writing before hitting 'Post'. I'm going back to change the original post as well.

[hangs head in shame :o]

[CTaylor]

2. Its simply unbalanced to let them do so at the same cost; any trade-offs are easily overwhelmed by the benefit.

You have to defend this assertion, I disagree.

I am seeing a very disturbing but all-too-familiar pattern here that I've seen in MMOG message boards before. Someone brings up a point about something that few even noticed or cared about - something that clearly works well enough to not be intrusive - then with passionate argument and many numbers makes the case that this is just terrible, terrible, and unbalanced. More and more people (especially those particularly affected) join in even if they'd not even cared before.

The end result is predictable: if a change is made, the end result is worse than it was before (requiring more "balancing") and if something isn't done, the screams of indignation are constant.

Killing attacks work; the only real problem for more than 25 years of play is the stun lotto, which should be addressed somehow.

[Paragon]

You have to defend this assertion, I disagree.

I am seeing a very disturbing but all-too-familiar pattern here that I've seen in MMOG message boards before. Someone brings up a point about something that few even noticed or cared about - something that clearly works well enough to not be intrusive - then with passionate argument and many numbers makes the case that this is just terrible, terrible, and unbalanced. More and more people (especially those particularly affected) join in even if they'd not even cared before.



I don't know where you've been Chris, but I've been watching people bitching about the Stun lottery for _years_. So I think it behooves _you_ to defend the idea that few "notice or care about" it. All evidence I have is that quite a few do, but many are simply resigned to it, or have house ruled it themselves.

You can make an argument that the Defense difference is a lesser issue, and in Champions I might agree, but to talk as though these two in combination aren't a balance issue is simply nonsensical.


Killing attacks work; the only real problem for more than 25 years of play is the stun lotto, which should be addressed somehow.

I'll agree that's the bigger part of the problem, but if you don't think the difference between resistant and nonresistant defenses being relevant matters, I'd suggest you haven't seen the rules in play in environments that don't support a lot of resistant defense much.

I'd think the problem would be self-evident when defending against a given attack is more expensive than its otherwise equivelent damage, but the attack itself isn't any more expensive; if you don't see why that's a problem at the root, I really don't know what to say.

[Hugh Neilson]

Yeah, I mis-wrote in the above when I stated that the Max varied. You can see in the table that the max doesn't vary between Normal, Hugh2 & Hugh3. What can I say, I was just typing faster than I was thinking. :ugly:

Story of my life there...

Yep, I'm all for a more unified damage mechanic for both improving balance and for making the rules more concise. As for what we call the new mechanic, I just used your name for lack of a better idea. If it makes you feel better, I could start naming them for the colors of the rainbow but I suspect that would get kind of confusing:

The tags are fine - I just feel wrong taking credit for an idea (especially a GOOD idea) that wasn't mine. I;ve disclaimed, so I'm OK now.

Yes, the average Body and Stun change on both Hugh2 & Hugh3 are the same. The main differences are actually: minimum Body (higher for Hugh2), mode Body (occasionally higher for Hugh3), frequency of mode Body (always lower for Hugh3) and frequency of max Body (higher for Hugh3).

It really helps when you make sure to look at the correct columns when you're writing out an analysis. That's what I get for not double-checking my writing before hitting 'Post'. I'm going back to change the original post as well.

[hangs head in shame :o]

It's always easier for someone who didn't do the analysis to review it - once I've seen the same number more than twice, it's an old friend, and the possibility it might be the error just doesn't register.

[Hugh Neilson]

In which case you aren't really talking about Strength not adding; you're just talking about making HKAs more expensive to compensate for the problem, which would be handled just as easily by making KAs more expensive in the first place and not add nearly the level of complication involved in the construct.

I'm talking about statting out Heroic weapons that you don't pay points for anyway, which is not a hugely effective approach. What price would you suggest an HKA be? I'm looking for an approach that lets those who ARE paying points for an HKA get the same damage for the same cost with no additional benefits or drawbacks EVERY TIME regardless of STR.

If you accept the premise that KAs are different in kind than normal damage. I don't see them as any different than a lot of other normal damage with Advantages applying to them; is it your premise Strength shouldn't add to those?

Then we disagree fundamentally on the nature of killing attacks. The same logic should allow a 12d6 Energy Blast to add to a 3D6 RKA, rather than being two separate attacks which, while they could be MPA'd, cannot be used to augment one another.

Its a problem on two grounds:

1. It assumes killing attacks stun and knockout more frequently than normal. I'm still far from convinced this shows any resemblence to reality.

2. Its simply unbalanced to let them do so at the same cost; any trade-offs are easily overwhelmed by the benefit.

Even if your position is that 1 is a nonissue, 2 _is_ a problem in any system trying to make cost commensurate with value.

This is the real issue - if we take a KA and a normal attack having the same cost, and the KA is more effective at inflicting BOD [it is] and more effective at inflicting STUN [it is at higher defense levels; the breakpoint IIRC is about 2 DEF per DC - this is mathematically proven in other threads], and has no offsetting drawbacks, then it is clearly the superior attack at the same price - and that is not balanced.

By the way, IN MY GAMES, I have NOT experienced this issue with KA's because my players do not abuse them. However, I have been shown, mathematically, that the KA DOES average more STUN per attack past defenses where defenses are 2.5 or more per DC of attack, it DOES have a much greater chance of Stunning the target, and these effects are enhanced the higher the defenses per DC rise. My players have simply not tended to use KA's against living targets, so MY experiences are NOT evidence that the KA itself is balanced.

Killing attacks work; the only real problem for more than 25 years of play is the stun lotto, which should be addressed somehow.

The Stun Lotto contributes substantially to the discrepancy in Stun damage. That is the reason it is a major problem. Hit locations are just another form of STUN lotto.

Let's break it down to easier numbers. If you have a choice of two attack powers in a game where defenses are about 25, CON is about 23 and STUN is around 60, which will you choose assuming no other differentiating factors:

Power A which always does 40 points of STUN.

Power B which does 25 STUN half the time and 50 STUN the other half.

The former averages more STUN. But it does 15 points after defenses, never stuns the target and takes 4 hits to KO the target. The latter is ineffective half the time, has lower average STUN, but will STUN its target half the time, costing him half his attacks (even ignoring the prospect he is taken down when STUNNED). Three good hits will put the target down, so 6 on average. Due to the Stunning, the latter power will almost always KO the guy with the former power.

KA and Normal Attacks just add more variance, but the end result is pretty much the same - assuming defense levels more than 2 per DC, but I see few games that have defenses lower than that.

The AVLD/rDEF aspect would also be an issue, except that the game has evolved to ensure that every combat-capable character has rDEF, so they get their defenses against the STUN.

[Vulcan]

I would say, 'every combat-capable character that wants it...' But then, I've specialized in the low DEF, high DCV character for years. It works great until someone chucks a hand grenade in my directionhttp://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/shock.gif.

But I accept that risk as part of the deal.

[Talon]

Killing attacks work; the only real problem for more than 25 years of play is the stun lotto, which should be addressed somehow.

I agree that the Stun lotto is the biggest issue and that addressing it is important (IMO, one of the more important changes that could be made in 6th).

Secondly, I think that unifying how damage is rolled would help the system -- not so much from a perspective of numbers (although the variability of KA BODY is an issue) as from simplicity and ease of learning.

I've seen several ideas which address both these issues and for which the math seems to work out pretty well. Any of these ideas should be playtested heavily, but hopefully that will be the case for 6th Edition in general.

[Paragon]

I'm talking about statting out Heroic weapons that you don't pay points for anyway, which is not a hugely effective approach. What price would you suggest an HKA be? I'm looking for an approach that lets those who ARE paying points for an HKA get the same damage for the same cost with no additional benefits or drawbacks EVERY TIME regardless of STR.



And I'm not convinced you've done a job of indicating this being either necessary or even generically desireable. As I said, I don't see it as fundamentally different than adding Strength to any HA weapon with an Advantage on it, and if you can't do that, I think the system is functionally broken outside of superheroes (and probably even within that).




Then we disagree fundamentally on the nature of killing attacks. The same logic should allow a 12d6 Energy Blast to add to a 3D6 RKA, rather than being two separate attacks which, while they could be MPA'd, cannot be used to augment one another.



And as I've said before, except on logical grounds, if the latter was priced properly and the former pro-rated the way Strength is when dealing with attacks with Advantages, I don't see any game balance problem with that at all. I see some problems on world logic grounds, but since that doesn't seem to be a concern of yours in this anyway there's no point in discussing it.



This is the real issue - if we take a KA and a normal attack having the same cost, and the KA is more effective at inflicting BOD [it is] and more effective at inflicting STUN [it is at higher defense levels; the breakpoint IIRC is about 2 DEF per DC - this is mathematically proven in other threads], and has no offsetting drawbacks, then it is clearly the superior attack at the same price - and that is not balanced.



And you'll note I don't disagree about that at all. I just think the proper fix for this is to either rework killing attacks mechanically, reprice them, or both.



The AVLD/rDEF aspect would also be an issue, except that the game has evolved to ensure that every combat-capable character has rDEF, so they get their defenses against the STUN.

More accurately, its evolved to ensure that in superheroic games; its not a given in Heroic ones, even with the existence of Combat Luck.

[CTaylor]

I don't know where you've been Chris, but I've been watching people bitching about the Stun lottery for _years_

Yes. LIke I said. In the section you quoted next.

Hit locations are just another form of STUN lotto.

I disagree. Stun lotto hurts because it's too random and too incredibly variable without pattern or logic. It tends to be super low (what, I did 18 body to this guy and he only took 18 stun??) then without reason gigantic.

The hit locations make the low and high ends less common and reduce the confusion effect. Sure, it doesn't hurt as bad to be hit in the toe as in the chest, it makes sense that's only x2 stun. Using hit locations flattens out the stun and reduces the arbitrary nature of it. It really does work.

[Hugh Neilson]

And as I've said before, except on logical grounds, if the latter was priced properly and the former pro-rated the way Strength is when dealing with attacks with Advantages, I don't see any game balance problem with that at all. I see some problems on world logic grounds, but since that doesn't seem to be a concern of yours in this anyway there's no point in discussing it.

Although I believe it SHOULD pro rate for advantages, at present it does not. And, at present, HKA is not an advantage, but a separate power. The only separate power which can be augmented by STR (or any other power).

And you'll note I don't disagree about that at all. I just think the proper fix for this is to either rework killing attacks mechanically, reprice them, or both.

Removing the addition for STR is a mechanical reworking. Repricing the HKA does not change the fact that having an equal STR add to your HKA is more cost effective than buying extra dice of KA.

More accurately, its evolved to ensure that in superheroic games; its not a given in Heroic ones, even with the existence of Combat Luck.

In many heroic genres and games, I see most or all characters have rDEF. To me, this was the main driving force behind the creation of Combat Luck.

I disagree. Stun lotto hurts because it's too random and too incredibly variable without pattern or logic. It tends to be super low (what, I did 18 body to this guy and he only took 18 stun??) then without reason gigantic.

The hit locations make the low and high ends less common and reduce the confusion effect. Sure, it doesn't hurt as bad to be hit in the toe as in the chest, it makes sense that's only x2 stun. Using hit locations flattens out the stun and reduces the arbitrary nature of it. It really does work.

It marginaly flattens the curve. It does not remove the lotto. It just changes the odds and provides a reason for them. I could easily roll my Stun multiple and say "oh, a toe hit" whenever I get a 1 or "Head Shot!" when I roll a 6. It doesn't change the lottery effect,

[BobGreenwade]

A combat maneuver I've seen from time to time is to move directly between two opponents with ranged attacks and trick them into shooting each other. I know it happened with Stan Lee's revamp of Catwoman, and it seems to me it happened in one of the earlier Star Wars movies (though I wouldn't swear to it; it could be a false memory). I'd like to see a paragraph or two on how to do this in the book.

[Paragon]

Although I believe it SHOULD pro rate for advantages, at present it does not. And, at present, HKA is not an advantage, but a separate power. The only separate power which can be augmented by STR (or any other power).



It doesn't? Well, damned if you aren't right; I'd misread that section (which is baroque in the extreme and I can't find the logic for) to assume it did. Given that, I'd say that's a bigger problem than anything to do with HKAs (and given my premise is that the difference between an HKA and an HA with an advantage is an artifact of design rather than actually meaning anything, the fact they're currently separate powers doesn't concern me).



Removing the addition for STR is a mechanical reworking. Repricing the HKA does not change the fact that having an equal STR add to your HKA is more cost effective than buying extra dice of KA.



And since I think that's an artifact of mispricing of Strength, I don't find that a problem with Strength adding damage, but Strength only costing what it does while doing so. I know you object to paying for damage you don't want when buying Strength, but as I've said before, with attributes I expect them to have certain basic properties whether the user wants them or not. They're not powers.



In many heroic genres and games, I see most or all characters have rDEF. To me, this was the main driving force behind the creation of Combat Luck.


Of course it is, and does, but its not universal, and its not at all uncommon to not have _enough_ to entirely deal with this issue.

[Vulcan]

A combat maneuver I've seen from time to time is to move directly between two opponents with ranged attacks and trick them into shooting each other. I know it happened with Stan Lee's revamp of Catwoman, and it seems to me it happened in one of the earlier Star Wars movies (though I wouldn't swear to it; it could be a false memory). I'd like to see a paragraph or two on how to do this in the book.

Usually it winds up being a tactic, not a maneuver, and the GM has to wing the odds of hitting 'the other guy.'

To take it out of the GM's control, buy Missile Reflection with a limitation.

[Hugh Neilson]

And since I think that's an artifact of mispricing of Strength, I don't find that a problem with Strength adding damage, but Strength only costing what it does while doing so. I know you object to paying for damage you don't want when buying Strength, but as I've said before, with attributes I expect them to have certain basic properties whether the user wants them or not. They're not powers.

Sure they are. Characteristics with power modifiers added become Powers.

And it's just as easy, philosophically, to view the addition of STR to weapon damage as a feature of the weapon, rather than of STR itself. Ninja used to carry needles in their mouths and spit them at opponents. They would not be effective outside HTH range, so that must be a HKA. Does higher STR make it do more damage?

[IndianaJoe3]

Ninja used to carry needles in their mouths and spit them at opponents. They would not be effective outside HTH range, so that must be a HKA. Does higher STR make it do more damage?
STR would not add to the damage of the needles in your example. It's best purchased as RKA, No Range.

[Hugh Neilson]

STR would not add to the damage of the needles in your example. It's best purchased as RKA, No Range.

If you read my previous comments, you'll find I agree...but that I would carry the theory considerably further.

[Xotl]

If I had to pick one item out of this thread I found the most entertaining, it would be this idea, as hashed out by Markdoc & Hugh Neilson:

Allow all attacks, as a default, to use either ECV or OCV. This is fixed when the power is bought, exactly as we fix EB (useable at range, doesn't add to STR) and HA (not useable at range, adds to STR). BOECV ceases to exist. EGO based attacks are no longer treated differently to regular attacks with regard to range modifiers or invisible power effects.
Comment: the apparent advantage of Egoists being able to use their high ECV for attacking is countered by the fact that having a low DCV is a bit of a liability: Egoists are thus usually faced with buying up both EGO and DEX. And really, a high EGO is essentially equivalent to buying a few 3 point levels....

I think this change makes sense. Realistically, after the SPD Rebate, Ego and DEX cost the same, and I find it hard to credit that most characters get any more value out of Ego than Dex. Most characters get all their CV mileage out of DEX. Why would it be so wrong for egoists to get all their CV from Ego?

I would take this one step further that, at creation, the power defines whether its OCV is based on Ego or Dex, and whether it is avoided by ECV or Dex. A typical EB would be Dex/Dex. A typical mental attack would be Ego/Ego. Telekinetically hurled knives might be Ego/Dex, targeted with my Ego against my target's Dex. A Hypno-Ray Gun would be Dex/Ego.

I think this is a fascinating bit of streamlining, and am curious if anyone else agreed or found any particular problems with it.

[Paragon]

Sure they are. Characteristics with power modifiers added become Powers.



And then they aren't characteristics any more.



And it's just as easy, philosophically, to view the addition of STR to weapon damage as a feature of the weapon, rather than of STR itself. Ninja used to

Yes. Its also, in my opinion, the wrong way to go and produces counterintuitive results to handle issues that can be handled another way.

[Paragon]

damage as a feature of the weapon, rather than of STR itself. Ninja used to carry needles in their mouths and spit them at opponents. They would not be effective outside HTH range, so that must be a HKA. Does higher STR make it do more damage?

And to answer your somewhat rhethorical question, I'd expect that it does; it just happens to be that the rounding value of the damage is so low that the difference is meaningless. But if spat by someone who could bite through steel, yes, I'd expect them to do more damage.

[Hugh Neilson]

And to answer your somewhat rhethorical question, I'd expect that it does; it just happens to be that the rounding value of the damage is so low that the difference is meaningless.* But if spat by someone who could bite through steel, yes, I'd expect them to do more damage.
By the current rules, the guy who bites through steel would do the same damage as anyone 5 or 10 STR over the STR minimum, then stop.

Or are you arguing that 5 points should add a DC to STR and convert it to killing damage? :nonp:

[abundance of caution]Just on the remote possibility that's under consideration, I'll just remind anyone who might read this that we're not going back to the way things were in any previous edition. STR provided unlimited HKA adds in 1e, so we can't go back to that![/abundance of caution]

[BobGreenwade]

Usually it winds up being a tactic, not a maneuver, and the GM has to wing the odds of hitting 'the other guy.'

To take it out of the GM's control, buy Missile Reflection with a limitation.Possibly, even though I've seen it done with hand-to-hand opponents. In any event I do think there should be something specific in the book, however briefly, addressing this tactic.

[Vulcan]

Agreed. There are a number of superheroes who pull the maneuver off semi-regularly, both HTH and ranged. The Champions sourcebook should address such comic-book tactics.

[Talon]

There is a section on what happens when you miss which covers hitting unintended targets (5Er p.423). Having both fire at once would require some GM handwaving unless you radically alter the system.

[Klaus Mogensen]

There is a section on what happens when you miss which covers hitting unintended targets (5Er p.423). Having both fire at once would require some GM handwaving unless you radically alter the system.
Nah, it just requires the shooters/targets to have the same DEX and SPD - which thugs/agents of the same group tend to have, anyway.

In genre fiction, it is also common for heroes to trick villains into attacking them in a special position, then ducking so that the villain hits a fuse box, self-destruct button, or whatnot. Such a generalized feinting maneuver could be a useful addition. Perhaps it could be something you could spend Dodge skill levels on, similar to how you can bounce EBs with skill levels.

- Klaus

[Vulcan]

That's a pretty good idea there. Blow a DCV level to allow a hit roll on an appropriate target if they miss you... Additional levels add to the roll to hit the other target perhaps?

[AnotherSkip]

that sounds very useful.....

[Talon]

Nah, it just requires the shooters/targets to have the same DEX and SPD - which thugs/agents of the same group tend to have, anyway.

If they have the same DEX/SPD, they rolll 1d6 to determine order (5ER p.356). Thug #1 shoots, misses hero, hits Thug #2, Stuns him. Thug #2 does not get to shoot because he is Stunned.

Unless they are Coordinating or trying to first and make their DEX rolls by the same amount, their actions will not happen at the same time.

Making a general change to this requires making a change to the core of the combat system (people with the same DEX all act at the same time -- do they all declare their actions first? etc.). Having a GM say "it's heroic, they shoot at the same time" is handwaving, but it's reasonable handwaving and doesn't involve a massive rules change.

In genre fiction, it is also common for heroes to trick villains into attacking them in a special position, then ducking so that the villain hits a fuse box, self-destruct button, or whatnot. Such a generalized feinting maneuver could be a useful addition. Perhaps it could be something you could spend Dodge skill levels on, similar to how you can bounce EBs with skill levels.

If this is an instance where you can apply Dodge levels to an external target, I would rather see a general rule covering all such cases than a tiny rule (lots of tiny rules lead to rules bloat) for this one circumstance.

[SCUBA Hero]

I'd handle it by totalling DCV levels and Maneuver bonuses, then apply, say, a -2 penalty to that total (for making yourself a better target, then ducking out of the way), and if the attacker misses due to the DCV modifier, then he hits whatever inanimate object was behind the defender. For two attackers shooting each other, or one attacker shooting a friend, -4 penalty.

[Grail Quest]

I was thinking of how to take out the SPD Chart and go for something more open-ended, AND that simulates comics, TV, movies, etcetera.

(1) Unopposed Actions

Suppose SPD = Number of Unopposed Actions. The Flash, for example, could have an insane SPD and do thousands of actions, like evacuating a building full of people, or searching an entire neighbourhood for bombs in seconds.
The "targets" of his catching actions are not opposing them (mostly due to GM plot advancement hand-waving), so he can do them all in a single Turn or less. If the GM allows, he might even disarm a dozen thugs before they know what's happening. Again, the GM allows this to be unopposed to advance the plot and get to the good stuff, even though the bewildered thugs may look like they are doing something to prevent their toys being taken away.

When the Flash's action is opposed, then we shift gears.

(2) Opposed Actions or Critical Actions

Opposed Actions or Critical Actions are the ones that are focussed on in a comic book frame, that gets played out on TV. Time is no longer absolute, and we switch to "dramatic time", which isn't really measured.
If the Flash is berserk and Wonder Woman is trying to lasso him, then suddenly his light speed is not taken for granted, and he doesn't get a thousand actions before Wonder Woman lassoes him. The rest of the JLA aren't moving like molasses, either, even though they normally would. We are now looking at Critical Action, and although at some level we may rationalize that the Flash ought to be able to slightly outrun Wonder Woman, we don't, because we are in dramatic time, and viewing the action in dramatic mode.
So, we resolve this action using whatever rules we have.
Under this proposed change, combat is dramatic mode, and deals only with dramatic situations.

(3) How many Opposed or Critical Actions?

Here's the tricky part. Should the Flash have more actions than, say, Batman? Theoretically yes, but in play, no. We *do* give the Flash lots of actions if they are unopposed, but when it comes to Critical Actions. they get the same.

At this point, we can further make a distinction between Important Characters and Unimportant Characters. Minions are Unimportant, and have fewer actions. Maybe once every other Turn. PCs and plot-important characters get one action per Turn, because they're in the "starring role", and the focus of the story.
OR, the GM can designate certain minions to be unimportant, and when heroes interact with them, they may do whatever they like, but are treated as not-opposing the hero's actions.

*

Yes, it no longer allows 7 actions per Turn. But you can still run circles around the Brick and hit him a dozen times or so. How? By having lots of movement and having the appropriate FX on your attack (even if the FX has to be declared on the fly).

I think this is pretty easy, but is it too far from the SPD Chart Sacred Cow for anyone to try?

[Vulcan]

I think this is pretty easy, but is it too far from the SPD Chart Sacred Cow for anyone to try?

I hate to say this, but the SPD chart makes HEROs what it is. It's not so much a sacred cow as the whole bloody religion. I don't oppose your proposal as an optional rule, because it does have merit. I just oppose it as THE core mechanic.

[Hugh Neilson]

I agree (and I've said it before). The Speed Chart is a core Hero mechanic. Its removal would hurt far more than it helps. Options like "simplify by making all named characters Speed 4, Agent level characters Speed 3 and everyone else Speed 2" are better than options that remove the Speed chart and try to fill all the holes that leaves behind.

[Tonio]

I hate to say this, but the SPD chart makes HEROs what it is. It's not so much a sacred cow as the whole bloody religion. I don't oppose your proposal as an optional rule, because it does have merit. I just oppose it as THE core mechanic.

I agree (and I've said it before). The Speed Chart is a core Hero mechanic. Its removal would hurt far more than it helps. Options like "simplify by making all named characters Speed 4, Agent level characters Speed 3 and everyone else Speed 2" are better than options that remove the Speed chart and try to fill all the holes that leaves behind.

I dunno... I used to think so, too, but now I think what's more at the core of HERO is the SPD concept, rather than the chart. That is, the concept of having a certain number of more-or-less-equally spaced out actions in a specific amount of time. Subtle difference, but not negligible. A mechanic that allows this without running into the SPD-change problems we have right now would certainly be an improvement.

[nexus]

Put me on the list of those who feel the Spd chart is a core mechanic. Drop that and the game isn't "Hero" anymore. It's something similar but unlike it. Put in option as you desired but the Spd chart should remain.

[Chris Goodwin]

I dunno... I used to think so, too, but now I think what's more at the core of HERO is the SPD concept, rather than the chart. That is, the concept of having a certain number of more-or-less-equally spaced out actions in a specific amount of time. Subtle difference, but not negligible. A mechanic that allows this without running into the SPD-change problems we have right now would certainly be an improvement.

This is precisely correct.

In AD&D first edition (and I assume later ones as well), many higher level characters have multiple attacks per round. If you space them out correctly, you effectively have the SPD chart.

(Basic D&D was even closer; you had 6 second rounds, which meant that a guy with one attack per round was effectively SPD 2; 3 attacks per 2 rounds was 3; 2 attacks per round was 4; etc.)

[James Gillen]

My problems with SPD, again:

1. It increases "move actions" so that the character who never increases his Running still effectively runs faster than most Olympians if he gets a SPD of 4 or more. You're still considered "normal" (for a superhero) at SPD 5 and Batman-level at SPD 6. I don't think even Batman could run at 72" a Turn non-combat.
2. The SPD rating rates how many actions you get in a limited span of time, but since the amount of time it takes to roll an action in the real world game does not change, the higher your SPD, the more actions you get in the same span of time and the longer it takes to resolve the same span of action. Thus, the faster you are, the slower the game is. :D

jg

[CTaylor]

Movement being based on speed isn't a problem with speed, it's a problem of movement, if there's a problem there at all.

[The Main Man]

While we're on movement, here's one:

How many movies have we seen characters shooting while on the run, or leaping through the air, guns blazing?

The system needs its brain checked if those are interpreted as Half-Move + Attack Actions.

The point is this: Move-By (and basically Move-Through) should be usable with Ranged Attacks.

It would be no different than with HTH attacks and characters would still suffer the usual penalties (Velocity, Multiple Move-By's) and possibly more (Range Modifier).

The only adjustment would be that Ranged Attacks don't get extra damage from velocity.



Here's another suggestion: make Rapid Fire and Sweep one Optional Combat Maneuver called Rapid Attack.

There's plenty of instances where the hero might punch one goon and then shoot another in the same fluid action, or similar circumstances.

As for the Skill "Rapid Attack" it could be called "Improved Rapid Attack" or something.

[Vulcan]

My problems with SPD, again:

1. It increases "move actions" so that the character who never increases his Running still effectively runs faster than most Olympians if he gets a SPD of 4 or more. You're still considered "normal" (for a superhero) at SPD 5 and Batman-level at SPD 6. I don't think even Batman could run at 72" a Turn non-combat.
2. The SPD rating rates how many actions you get in a limited span of time, but since the amount of time it takes to roll an action in the real world game does not change, the higher your SPD, the more actions you get in the same span of time and the longer it takes to resolve the same span of action. Thus, the faster you are, the slower the game is. :D

jg

If that's an issue in your games, just declare everyone to be SPD 3 and have done with it. Leave the SPD chart alone for those of us who like it.

[Netzilla]

While we're on movement, here's one:

How many movies have we seen characters shooting while on the run, or leaping through the air, guns blazing?

The system needs its brain checked if those are interpreted as Half-Move + Attack Actions.

The point is this: Move-By (and basically Move-Through) should be usable with Ranged Attacks.

It would be no different than with HTH attacks and characters would still suffer the usual penalties (Velocity, Multiple Move-By's) and possibly more (Range Modifier).

The only adjustment would be that Ranged Attacks don't get extra damage from velocity.


Conceptually I like it. My only worry comes from a game balance standpoint. It's one thing to perform a Move By where you actually have to move into HtH range to make the attack and a different one where you can do so from 20 hexes away. A HtH specialist (bricks & martial artists) can counter the first with held actions but not the second. Also, making a HtH Move By generally means you're going to have to move out of cover to make the attack. A ranged Move By wouldn't have that restriction. I'm not saying it's definitely unbalanced, I just can easily see how it could be. This is another thing that would require heavy playtesting.


Here's another suggestion: make Rapid Fire and Sweep one Optional Combat Maneuver called Rapid Attack.

There's plenty of instances where the hero might punch one goon and then shoot another in the same fluid action, or similar circumstances.

As for the Skill "Rapid Attack" it could be called "Improved Rapid Attack" or something.

Beat you to it (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1645371#post1645371). :p

Okay, so it's a juvinile way of saying, "I agree", but it was fun none the less. :D

[nexus]

I've always seen the "run and gun" movie moves as half moves and moves spaced closely with attacks, possibly Rapid Attack (Ranged) being employed. Actions take place in a matter of seconds and the combat rules just organize what's going on, IMO. There isn't a freeze frame effect in the "game reality". In any event they usually don't seem too lower DCV like a Move Thru/By but actually improve it.

To offer a positive, how about allowing the FMove element on Ranged Martial arts?*

*If it isn't all ready.

[Hugh Neilson]

Way back when Hero had a newsletter, they did an article with some optional combat maneuvers (I think some eventually made their way into the rules, but I can't recall which one). However, one of those maneuvers was "Strafe", essentially a move by for ranged attacks.

I think such a maneuver makes sense - the character fires during a move. The differences between this and move by would be pretty substantial. The attack damage should not be halved (bullets don't slow down because I'm firing on the fly), but there should be no movement addition either. There should be OCV and DCV penalties similar to move by.

It simply adds the same tactical options for a high movement character with ranged attacks that a HTH speedster already has. It should be added, and further the Ranged Martial Arts should have enhanced maneuvers which can include a full move.

[Markdoc]

While we're on movement, here's one:

How many movies have we seen characters shooting while on the run, or leaping through the air, guns blazing?

The system needs its brain checked if those are interpreted as Half-Move + Attack Actions.

Actually I have never had a problem with this. Characters don't suddenly move and then stop dead for a second or two. Running and shooting over sveral phases can easily be seen as continuously running and shooting. Running into a room (1/2 move), leaping over the grand piano (1/2 move) shooting 4 mooks (1/2 move and autofire attack) and then dashing into the next room (1/2 move) can easily be done by a SPD 4 character with an autofire weapon in just a few seconds.

Personally I have no problem with letting players use moveby with ranged attacks (not movethrough, though), but it's not necessary for dramatic fast-paced movement and combat.

cheers, Mark

[BobGreenwade]

Move By with ranged attacks sounds fine to me; or perhaps it can became another maneuver, Shoot By. It does only the base damage for the attack (no halving, no velocity damage) and a Multiple Shoot By would probably not be possible, but then the character performing the maneuver doesn't get "feedback" damage either. By defining it as a separate maneuver, the OCV and DCV Modifiers could also be adjusted for balance, if that's deemed necessary.

[Vulcan]

Seconded.

[The Main Man]

I agree that Ranged attacks with Move/Shoot By should not suffer a damage penalty but at the cost of no gain.

Netzilla seems to have had the higher DEX on the other point.

[Netzilla]

Netzilla seems to have had the higher DEX on the other point.

+2 Lighting Reflexes, only for Hero Forum posting. ;)

Perhaps I should have spent my experience points on something useful, or would this be an example of one of those super-low utility no-cost 'flavor' abilities?

[GeekySpaz]

On the issue of the STUN Lotto: I've been playing with a house rule in my champions game that seems to be working well. I think I may have gotten the idea from a post made here but I don't remember where that post was. Its quite simple, replace the 1d6-1 stun multiplier with a 1/2d6+1 stun multiplier.

So far so good with this one in my game.

[Klaus Mogensen]

On the issue of the STUN Lotto: I've been playing with a house rule in my champions game that seems to be working well. I think I may have gotten the idea from a post made here but I don't remember where that post was. Its quite simple, replace the 1d6-1 stun multiplier with a 1/2d6+1 stun multiplier.
Another option worth exploring (also suggested by someone way back) is to replace the multiplier die with a flat x3. This also ties nicely into the hit location chart (i.e., if you don't specify a location, a chest hit is assumed).

A problem with both solutions is that Killing attacks and Normal attacks will do the same average STUN: 1d6 KA ~ 3½x3 STUN, 3d6 NA ~ 3x3½ STUN. KA's should probably be 20 point per die, then, to reflect that they do more BODY and that non-resistent defense doesn't protect against the BODY.

- Klaus

[ghost-angel]

(I have not, nor do I plan on, reading the rest of this thread).

I really think it's a bout time we rewrote the To Hit formula. In all seriousness it is just another type of Skill.

Skills: 9 + CHAR/5 (+ Modifiers) = Skill Roll

To Hit: 11 + DEX/3 (+ Modifiers) = To Hit Roll (or Attack Roll)
The amount you make the To Hit Roll by is the maximum DCV you hit.

It works exactly the same, and the formula is already introduced to the player in the Skills Section of the book - i.e. it's a familiar set up.

We write Acrobatic 12- on our sheets, and then add or subtract Skill Levels and other modifiers and then roll.
We can easily do the same for Attack Rolls. It's just a consistency thing.

[Talon]

With a Ranged Move By, it seems like you would get a lot of situations where a Ranged character would move out from behind over, execute an attack, and move back behind cover.

[Hugh Neilson]

With a Ranged Move By, it seems like you would get a lot of situations where a Ranged character would move out from behind over, execute an attack, and move back behind cover.

Just like a HTH move by character can already do.

[Markdoc]

(I have not, nor do I plan on, reading the rest of this thread).

I really think it's a bout time we rewrote the To Hit formula. In all seriousness it is just another type of Skill.

Skills: 9 + CHAR/5 (+ Modifiers) = Skill Roll

To Hit: 11 + DEX/3 (+ Modifiers) = To Hit Roll (or Attack Roll)
The amount you make the To Hit Roll by is the maximum DCV you hit.

If you made it DEX/5 (and OCV/DCV also DEX/5) it'd not only fit the formula more closely (simplifying things further) but solve the "buy levels versus buy DEX" debate.

cheers, Mark

[The Main Man]

Just like a HTH move by character can already do.

Exactly; there's nothing that a Ranged Move-By does that a HTH Move-By doesn't and vice versa.

The only trade-off is that HTH Move-By gets extra damage while Ranged Move-By is... well, Ranged.:thumbup:

[Klaus Mogensen]

If you made it DEX/5 (and OCV/DCV also DEX/5) it'd not only fit the formula more closely (simplifying things further) but solve the "buy levels versus buy DEX" debate.
However, CHAR/5 gives a very small range of bonuses for normal humans. The difference between CHAR 8 and CHAR 20 (the range you're likely to see for normal characters) is only +2. With CHAR/3, the difference would be +4.

- Klaus

[Markdoc]

However, CHAR/5 gives a very small range of bonuses for normal humans. The difference between CHAR 8 and CHAR 20 (the range you're likely to see for normal characters) is only +2. With CHAR/3, the difference would be +4.

- Klaus

Yeah, I know - but I suspect the actual range in CVs would probably stay where it is: it's just that CSLs would become more prominent. In other words being really dextrous would no longer be the preferred way to get a high CV. It'd still be worthwhile to have a high DEX (you get to go first, you get a CV add and you get SPD) - just not quite as valuable.

cheers, Mark

[The Main Man]

I'm on the fence on this one because I'm so used to DEX/3 and I've only been playing since 5th Edition!

OTOH, EGO should have to follow the same example for consistency.

This might also balance the costs of the respective CHAR, although DEX might deservedly become 2:1 with the subtraction of SPD as a "Figured" CHAR.

Another way to look at this is that the other three CHAR that provide incremental benefits (STR, INT, PRE) are all based on division by five so why not DEX and EGO?

[ghost-angel]

Personally, I've no issue with either method of calculating CV. DEX/3 gives a nicer range and provides more break points for variety. DEX/5 will encourage Skill Levels and not just buying DEX for the CV value. There's good reasons to have either, so I see no particular need to change it.

[nexus]

I wouldn't mind seeing the skill roll calculation changed to give more breakpoints in the human range myself and the CV formula changed to Dex/5...

[The Main Man]

On the other hand, what if instead of CV being changed to DEX/5, what if the rest of the system conformed to the CHAR/3 model?

This might solve some of the cost inflation problems but it might also make PC's a little too good for what they are spending.

[ghost-angel]

That's all a discussion for going under Skills possibly. I just think we need to represent how To Hit is looked at - I know it changes no mechanics, but I have met far far too many new players that take two or three explanations to understand how the books presents it, and one try using the alternate method which I think should be the primary one.

Sometimes it's not WHAT The rule is that's broken, it's HOW the rule is presented that's broken.

--

Separate Issue: Adding Damage (again, have not and will not read rest of thread, this is completely for Steve's benefit).

I think we should just completely remove the "Killing Attacks Can Only Be Doubled" clause.

All damage should be simply additive, any maximums are up to the GM to implement in his game.

This removes the whole Base Damage/Added Damage issue as well, greatly simplifying that aspect as well.

STR should prorate as normal, until you run out of STR to make a whole Damage Class. Yes, there's an abuse potential but I think the GM and Player's should be left to police their own games and not have the system do it for them. I'm tired of the system trying to be my babysitter in some places and not in others.

Related Topic, I think Hand Attack and Killing Attack should default to Hand-To-Hand, make Ranged an Advantage and make STR cost 2pts/+1. This goes towards evening out the whole Brick/Projector thing IMO.

That thought stemmed from a very quick conversation with Steve at GenCon and a comment he made that got me thinking.

[The Main Man]

I agree with the removal of systematically capping Killing attacks because GM's often have Active Point and other such limits of their own to control it.

[PhilFleischmann]

Another granularity idea: When applying combat modifiers (increased or decreased OCV or DCV), instead of applying a modifier directly to the CV, why not apply it to the DEX, if only for purposes of calculating current, effective CV? That way, you can have finer-grained modifiers.

For example, instead of a -1 OCV in a particular circumstance, you'd have a -3 DEX for OCV. A Penalty that should be more than -1 OCV, but less than -2 OCV, could be -4 or -5 DEX for OCV. This not only allows for finer tuning of modifiers, but also gives a reason to take other values of DEX, besides 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, etc.

[Vulcan]

On the other hand, what if instead of CV being changed to DEX/5, what if the rest of the system conformed to the CHAR/3 model?

This might solve some of the cost inflation problems but it might also make PC's a little too good for what they are spending.

Change the base number down. If we want to keep the characteristic roll for a 20 at 13 or less, then the base number would be 6. A characteristic roll for 8-10 normals would be a 9 or less, with 11 giving a 10.

I think I like it a lot. It gives players a real reason to buy characteristics in numbers that end with something other than 3 or 8 for the round-offs.

I'm going to repost this in the skill section for discussion there.

[Markdoc]

Another granularity idea: When applying combat modifiers (increased or decreased OCV or DCV), instead of applying a modifier directly to the CV, why not apply it to the DEX, if only for purposes of calculating current, effective CV? That way, you can have finer-grained modifiers.

For example, instead of a -1 OCV in a particular circumstance, you'd have a -3 DEX for OCV. A Penalty that should be more than -1 OCV, but less than -2 OCV, could be -4 or -5 DEX for OCV. This not only allows for finer tuning of modifiers, but also gives a reason to take other values of DEX, besides 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, etc.

Yeah, but it adds an intermediate step in combat (subtract from DEX, recalculate CV, then add other modifiers) which could change from action to action. Right now the other modifiers change but CV stays constant (at least most of the time). It might be nice from a theoretical point of view but in actual play (which is my primary concern) it sounds like a giant PITA.

cheers, Mark

[Klaus Mogensen]

Some time ago, several alternatives to the 3d6 roll were bandied about, providing a greater range of values in the human range and hence a finer granularity of skill breakpoints. The one I like best is d20+2d6 (or the very similar d6x3+2d6 if d6 purity is required). This has a flat 'table' of 5% increments in the central half of the range, with 'tails' of diminishing increments at either end. The spread is about twice that of 3d6, allowing skill/combat bonuses of CHAR/2.

- Klaus

[PhilFleischmann]

Yeah, but it adds an intermediate step in combat (subtract from DEX, recalculate CV, then add other modifiers) which could change from action to action. Right now the other modifiers change but CV stays constant (at least most of the time). It might be nice from a theoretical point of view but in actual play (which is my primary concern) it sounds like a giant PITA.
Well, maybe your A is more sensitive then mine. :snicker: Yes, it requires a tad more bookkeeping. Would you buy a small PITA?

Here's one way to reduce it: Keep track of fractional CV, based on DEX. For example, if a character has 26 DEX, he has 8 2/3 written on his character sheet for OCV and DCV. Or better yet, just write 9 as normal and include (8 2/3) in parentheses.

Then when this character is affected by something that halves his DCV, instead of getting 9/2 = 4.5, rounding in the character's favor to 5; he has 8 2/3 / 2 (or 26/3/2) = 4 1/3, which rounds to 4. So he only has 4 DCV when his DCV is halved. If he had bought 27 DEX, his DCV when halved would be 27/3/2 = 4.5, rounding to 5 - he'd actually get something useful for that otherwise, not very useful extra point of DEX.

[The Main Man]

Change the base number down. If we want to keep the characteristic roll for a 20 at 13 or less, then the base number would be 6. A characteristic roll for 8-10 normals would be a 9 or less, with 11 giving a 10.

I think I like it a lot. It gives players a real reason to buy characteristics in numbers that end with something other than 3 or 8 for the round-offs.

I'm going to repost this in the skill section for discussion there.

Good call on making "6" the base. :thumbup:

[Markdoc]

Well, maybe your A is more sensitive then mine. :snicker: Yes, it requires a tad more bookkeeping. Would you buy a small PITA?.

I appreciate the effort :), but I tend to run games with a largish groups of players (we are currently 8) and I also tend to run fights in "interesting settings" - on a rope bridge, the rigging of a ship, up a winding staircase, in a cramped cellar, over the tabletops of a bar - so I award bonuses/penalties liberally. Adding another calculation when I am already tracking 8 PCs and 20+ NPCs, when the only benefit I can see is "it's more granular" ..... it's not gonna fly.

Granularity is nice, but not at the cost of adding more to track in combat

cheers, Mark

[Vulcan]

It's a nice idea, but I have to agree with Markdoc on this one. Besides, the trend for 6E seems to be toward simplifying things, not adding more granularity. <sigh>

[Markdoc]

It's a nice idea, but I have to agree with Markdoc on this one. Besides, the trend for 6E seems to be toward simplifying things, not adding more granularity. <sigh>

Oh, I think granularity is good, but not at the cost of adding more widgets in play. Where granularity can be added up front during CharGen, I'm all for it.

cheers, Mark

[James Gillen]

It's a nice idea, but I have to agree with Markdoc on this one. Besides, the trend for 6E seems to be toward simplifying things, not adding more granularity. <sigh>

I should hope.

jg

[Hugh Neilson]

Oh, I think granularity is good, but not at the cost of adding more widgets in play. Where granularity can be added up front during CharGen, I'm all for it.

cheers, Mark

Well said - add granularity where it does not slow down the gameplay.

[The Main Man]

Well said - add granularity where it does not slow down the gameplay.
Exactly.

[Chris Goodwin]

Consolidating Skill and Combat

Based on the Cotu! and Not So Crunchy Hero threads, plus some thoughts I've been having lately, I came up with this notion.

Combat Value and skill bonus are based on one value (probably CHA/5 for reasonable compatibility and because that value is used in other places, such as for STR Damage)

Each stat has its Characteristic Modifier (MOD), which is equal to CHA/5. (Optionally there's a 1/2MOD column, which is equal to CHA/10.)

Stat Block would look thusly (stat block for a sample character; Primary Characteristics only):


CHA VAL MOD xPTS COST
STR 10 2 1 0
DEX 18 4 3 24
CON 15 3 2 10
BODY 13 3 2 6
INT 23 5 1 13
EGO 20 4 2 20
PRE 25 5 1 15


If Figured Characteristics are kept, they should all be based on VAL and MOD (or, if used, 1/2MOD). If that means reworking point costs, so be it. (STUN could be BODY + SMOD + CMOD, for example; SPD would be 1/2DMOD+1, where SMOD = STR MOD, CMOD = CON MOD, DMOD = DEX MOD)

Skill Rolls and Familiarity:

The basic resolution mechanic: Roll 3d6. 10+ is success.

If you ever have to "make a Characteristic Roll" you roll 3d6 plus your MOD for the appropriate Characteristic.

For Skill usage:

If you have no Skill at all: no MOD.
If you have Familiarity: +MOD
Buying the full Skill is 3 points for MOD+2, +2 points per +1.

These values add to either the 3d6 roll (for the attacker or the active participant in a Skill vs. Skill contest) or 10 (for the defender or other participant).

Skills are denoted in +'s. So, instead of Computer Programming 14-, you'd have Computer Programming +6. Always include the appropriate MOD when you're buying the Skill (I don't like the idea of skill bonuses that add to different Characteristics depending on the situation.)

This applies whether you're the attacker or defender; if you're the attacker, this adds to your 3d6 roll; if you're the defender, it adds to 10. ("Attacker" and "defender" also apply to noncombat Skill use; it's whether you're the "doer" or the "do-ee".)

Using, for instance, Stealth would be a straight Stealth roll vs. 10 + the target's Perception MOD.

If there's some question about who's doing what to whom, it defaults to the player rolling. There are occasional exceptions; for example, if the GM is secretly rolling an NPC's Stealth vs. a PC, he'd roll.

New Skill:

Combat: Gives you the basic combat ability plus ability to use one weapon, and means you're effectively Familiar rather than Unskilled in other weapons that fall under the same Combat Skill. Additional weapons are bought as Weapon Familiarities, as normal.

Combat Skill Types:

Defensive
Hand-to-hand (maybe, maybe not)
Melee
Missile
Small Arms
Energy Small Arms
???

Basically, Combat Skill plus the various Weapon Familiarities act exactly analogously to Combat Driver or Combat Pilot and the various Transport Familiarities. Each Combat Skill type is a separate 3-point Skill, +1 per 2 points.

Everyone is assumed to have Familiarity with Defensive Combat. Defensive Combat is the basic "get out of the way of the attack" Skill and doesn't provide any weapon usage. Yes, this can be bought up. It can be used in conjunction with Dodge, which just grants a straight +3 to your Defensive MOD.

Skill Levels would pretty much work the way they do now. Probably costs 1 1/2 points for +1 to one weapon type (such as Pistols), 2 points for +1 to Combat Skill of one type.

Luck and Unluck: These are straight bonuses. These apply instead of Skill or Characteristic MOD, in situations in which luck is a factor. Luck is a bonus, and Unluck is a penalty. You don't get to apply Skill Levels, Extra Time bonuses, etc. to Luck. If you have both Luck and Unluck, you roll 3d6 + Luck >= 10 + Unluck. It's possible to buy both Luck and Unluck as situational. If you're using a Skill, you don't get Luck. (Possible exception for Gambling, but possibly not, because if you're a skilled poker player, you're not relying on Luck.)

(crossposted to 6e Skill Issues)

[Markdoc]

This sounds pretty good, with the exception that I'd move the basic roll up so that unskilled people are not succeeding on a 10+.

I understand that you want to keep the 10 number for combat maths reasons, so perhaps you could change the system to 10+ is a success, unskilled attempts are at -3, a Fam removes the penalty (giving you a base roll with no mods) and a skill gives you the Mod as a plus (which you can then buy up, normally).

cheers, Mark

[Chris Goodwin]

This sounds pretty good, with the exception that I'd move the basic roll up so that unskilled people are not succeeding on a 10+.

Yeah. I need to do more work on it before it's in a final state.

I understand that you want to keep the 10 number for combat maths reasons, so perhaps you could change the system to 10+ is a success, unskilled attempts are at -3, a Fam removes the penalty (giving you a base roll with no mods) and a skill gives you the Mod as a plus (which you can then buy up, normally).

Yeah, it needs a small amount of work, mainly to get the approximate chances to line up correctly when the target numbers are "flipped" from low to high, allowing for the differences in scale between CHA/5 and CHA/3 (for combat), and the penalties for unskilled weapon usage vs. familiarity, or for noncombat Skills, Familiarity vs. the full Skill.

[ajackson]

Yeah, it needs a small amount of work, mainly to get the approximate chances to line up correctly when the target numbers are "flipped" from low to high, allowing for the differences in scale between CHA/5 and CHA/3 (for combat).
Or you can just eliminate the different scales and use CHA/5 (or CHA/3) for everything. It has pricing implications, but it's not like the price of Dex isn't questionable to start with.

[Chris Goodwin]

Or you can just eliminate the different scales and use CHA/5 (or CHA/3) for everything. It has pricing implications, but it's not like the price of Dex isn't questionable to start with.

Well, yeah, that is the point. :D It's getting combat at 11 + OCV - DCV to sync up with Skills and Characteristic Rolls at 9 + CHA/5 while simultaneously flipping them from "roll low" to "roll high". It's certainly not impossible, but at the moment I'm kind of busy. :)

[Klaus Mogensen]

On the one hand I do like the idea of dividing everything by 5: Damage is STR/5 d6, PRE Attacks is PRE/5 d6, Skills are CHAR/5 + base. Add CV = DEX/5, and we're more or less set, especially if the roundings go the same way (right now, you round down for dice and off for skills).

On the other hand, however, it makes characteristics very grainy at the heroic level.

Another option is to get +2 Skill/Combat bonus per +5, rounded down, with intermediate values at 3, 8, 13, etc. (just like the +½d6 you get for STR 3, 8, 13, etc.). That isn't far from the Char/3 for CV, but it will double characteristic bonuses to skills. Increasing the cost of skill characteristics can compensate for that.

CH SK D6
03 +1 ½
05 +2 1
08 +3 1½
10 +4 2
13 +5 2½
15 +6 3
18 +7 3½
20 +8 4

This could be taken a step further by dividing characteristic values by 2½. Normal human range would be 1-8 (like the skill bonuses in the table above), and skill/combat bonuses would simply be equal to characteristic value. Not unlike (dare I say it?) Fuzion...

- Klaus

[ajackson]

On the other hand, however, it makes characteristics very grainy at the heroic level.
Which it already is, other than combat. In any case, if you want to reduce the graininess, you can also use stat/3 for everything, and probably bump the cost of a few stats. Or you can go whole-hog and renormalize stats so +1 stat -> +1 skill (requires multiplying cost by 5-ish), which conveniently gets rid of all roundoff issues (and resembles, well, Fuzion).

[Talon]

I don't think having +1 stat = +1 skill is what people objected to in Fuzion. :) However, there are other issues like using DEX for initiative, CON for STUN threshold, etc.

I suspect this surpasses the change threshold for 6th Edition (just my personal hunch)...which is too bad, because I think it would be a good change.

(As an aside, DEX / 5 for CV makes 3 point CSLs really efficient, so CSLs have to be recosted.)

[ajackson]

(As an aside, DEX / 5 for CV makes 3 point CSLs really efficient, so CSLs have to be recosted.)
Well, there's something to be said for recosting CSLs anyway, but if you leave in figured stats, +5 DEX has a net cost of 10 points (after subtracting SPD) and gives +1 OCV, +1 DCV, and +1 to Dex rolls, which is not obviously a worse deal than 3 points for +1 to 3 maneuvers.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I don't think having +1 stat = +1 skill is what people objected to in Fuzion. :) However, there are other issues like using DEX for initiative, CON for STUN threshold, etc.
Not to mention BODY hit points...

I suppose Stun Threshold and Body could be figured characteristics of a ne