Powers Issues -- F-K

[Steve Long]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about Powers that begin with F-K that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about these Powers that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.


Q: Should FTL Travel be eliminated in favor of MegaScaled Flight?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think so. Admittedly you can build FTL travel capabilities with MegaScaled Flight, but it’s difficult for most people to come up with the exact conversion that way. FTL travel is very common in Science Fiction, and I think providing a simple, easy-to-use way to calculate how fast you can travel relative to the speed of light is worth a column of space in the book. ;)


Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this idea is worth considering. Find Weakness is often a conceptual nightmare, and to a large extent it’s a Power built wholly around a rules-based effect (halve the defense) rather than any typical “special effect.” Since the naked Advantage rules are now sufficiently well-defined for a character to easily build a naked Armor Piercing Advantage for a group of attacks, removing Find Weakness would remove all the questions that it creates (like “Can I halve someone’s defense when I try to run over them with a car? When I plant a land mine and they step on it hours later?”). Of course, if Find Weakness is removed, Lack Of Weakness would be as well.


Q: Should Gliding be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this is a good idea. The rules for Gliding are short and simple enough that it can easily be reconfigured as Limited Flight — which is basically what it is.


Q: Should Growth and Shrinking be done differently?

Steve’s Thoughts: These two Powers are perpetual troublemakers who seem to get a re-do with every edition. ;) I don’t have any serious problems with the way they’re handled now, but of course I’m always on the lookout for ways to do things better.

One thought that has occurred to me is that it might be better to replace the existing Powers with a formalization of the Size Templates currently found in the book. Right now both Powers tend to give you *some* of what you expect from those abilities (especially Growth), but not everything you might want. If we set them out as Templates from which you can pick and choose, that would make customization easier. However, this approach tends to be a bit more complex, esp. if we have to offer both “regular” and “Costs Endurance” versions.

On the other hand, perhaps customizability as a default will be counterintuitive, making it harder for newcomers to the system to build Growing and Shrinking characters. Perhaps there isn’t a problem here that’s severe enough to merit a change.


Q: Should the “STR adds damage” feature be removed from HKA?

Steve’s Thoughts: The answer to this may play into the whole issue of streamlining the Adding Damage rules (see the Combat post). However, I think the idea is worth considering. I can see the “gaming logic” that instituted this rule in the first place, but it doesn’t entirely make sense. Just being stronger doesn’t necessarily mean you can make a knife or axe or whatever do more damage than it’s capable of doing. Additionally, it’s not necessarily consistent — there are lots of attacks with the “I hit them really hard, or in a particular way” special effect, such as eye gouges (Sight Group Flash, No Range), and they don’t get any bonus from STR.

However, if this change is made, it almost certainly means that HKA and RKA should be combined into one Power (see below), and that RKA in effect becomes more expensive. If we just have a “KA” Power, then RKA has to be KA + Ranged (+1/2) or HKA has to be KA + No Range (-1/2). If HKA keeps its “STR adds damage” feature, then a KA Power could be “HTH you get +STR, Ranged you get Range,” both costing 15 points per 1d6 (3 DCs).


Q: Should HKA and RKA be combined into one power?

Steve’s Thoughts: This idea has some merit, I think. The text for the two is virtually identical in many respects. Assuming HKA keeps its “STR adds damage” feature (see above), then a single “KA” Power would simply mean for 15 points a character does 1d6 Killing Damage, and when he buys the Power he has to choose HTH (gets +STR) or Ranged (gets Range). Or perhaps, as outlined above, we choose one and do the other with Power Modifiers.

This makes Killing Attack more consistent with other Powers. The rules don’t, for example, have Drain, Ranged and Drain, HTH — they have Drain, and you buy Ranged as an Advantage if you want it. Nor do they feature Energy Blast, Ranged and Energy Blast, HTH — you buy EB as-is, and apply No Range (-1/2) if desired.


Q: Should the STUN Multiplier for Killing Attacks be changed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think the current STUN Multiplier rules are a problem — or if they are, they’re a problem for the opposite reason most people seem to think. But since they seem to be unpopular, a change might be worth considering. In that case, I think switching to a ½d6+1 STUN Multiplier would be better.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think the current STUN Multiplier rules are a problem — or if they are, they’re a problem for the opposite reason most people seem to think. But since they seem to be unpopular, a change might be worth considering. In that case, I think switching to a ½d6+1 STUN Multiplier would be better.

That is a very interesting statement. Care to elaborate? This new mechanic would make the STUN multiplier a range from 2X-4X instead of 1x-6x as it is now. I'm curious about the rationale.

[braincraft]

As far as Find Weakness - I've already nixed that one in all of my games. As you say, there already exist plenty of ways to simulate that effect; naked advantages, skill levels limited 'only to increase damage vs focused-upon target', extra DCs limited in the same way, various adjustments, and others. Furthermore, Lack of Weakness is a pain in the ass defense. It only protects against one exotic power, but that one exotic power is so deadly (it's not hard to get two successful rolls on a target if you buy up your roll; and for quartering their defenses, who wouldn't?) that those who rely on high defenses really can't afford not to buy it up. Exotic defenses should be minimized whenever possible, and LoW is about as superfluous as they get.

[incrdbil]

Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?

Well, removing Find Weakness is a bit hard to swallow, but then I look at the last few times I've had it in my games, and it often featured the limitation "can only acheive one level'..and so it may as well have been Armor piercing.

Q: Should Growth and Shrinking be done differently?

.Perhaps there isn’t a problem here that’s severe enough to merit a change.

I think you have the right answer there.

Q: Should the “STR adds damage” feature be removed from HKA

If we just have a “KA” Power ..... HKA has to be KA + No Range (-1/2).

That is the answer I prefer. It maintains active point balances between RKA andHKA's, and solves the whole mega advantaged HKA gettign a geat boost from high STr characters problem.



Q: Should the STUN Multiplier for Killing Attacks be changed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think the current STUN Multiplier rules are a problem — or if they are, they’re a problem for the opposite reason most people seem to think. But since they seem to be unpopular, a change might be worth considering. In that case, I think switching to a ½d6+1 STUN Multiplier would be better.

the problem is mostly seen in superheroic games. I hate the stun lottery. Anythign that removes it is a good in my book. I use a fixed multiplier of 2.5 myself, I found the x3 (the average result of the 1/2d6+1 to be a bit too good.

[James Gillen]

Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this idea is worth considering. Find Weakness is often a conceptual nightmare, and to a large extent it’s a Power built wholly around a rules-based effect (halve the defense) rather than any typical “special effect.” Since the naked Advantage rules are now sufficiently well-defined for a character to easily build a naked Armor Piercing Advantage for a group of attacks, removing Find Weakness would remove all the questions that it creates (like “Can I halve someone’s defense when I try to run over them with a car? When I plant a land mine and they step on it hours later?”).

Could I use it in a boat? Could I use it on a goat?

JG

[Enforcer84]

I don't see the issue with HKA and STR damage. Doesn't a stronger guy with a meat cleaver tend to be able to cut through substances better than a guy who can barely lift it?

[Xotl]

Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?

Agreed, for the reasons you've listed, most notably that it duplicates functionality and that it's so very mechanistic.

Q: Should Gliding be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

This makes sense too. Folding one power into another can be tricky because people can start having troubles finding something, but I think everyone will think to check Flight for a gliding variant.

Q: Should HKA and RKA be combined into one power?

At a minimum, I really, really like this idea. 1D6 Kill Attack for 10 pts, with Range and STR Adds each a separate +1/2, would be much better than what we have now.

Even better is using that and also treating kill attacks the same way as regular attacks in terms of calculating BODY, but with the Body dealt only applied vs. Resistant Defenses. Regular and kill damage are thus both rolled the same way, so it's easier to learn, and the broken Stun lotto is dead. This is much smoother than the current method, and seems to be going over well in this thread. I'd love to see this with the above combined attack power, but if for some reason that doesn't make it, changing how kill attacks determine damage can work on its own.

Lastly, most radical, but I think best, is ignoring all the above and checking out Netzilla's Unified Damage Mechanic. It combines regular and killing damage into one mechanic, defeats advantage stacking, eliminates the Stun lotto AND makes killing attacks actually do enough Body vs. Stun to deserve the name "killing" and be markedly distinct from regular attacks. It's also been run through the math wringer and come out solid. As it's worked out over the course of numerous posts, I'll just link to the key posts presenting it: if you prefer you can of course follow its progression as it advances through this thread.

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1549108&postcount=108 - This lays out Netzilla's basic rationale
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1566286&postcount=227 - The end summation of what he and others worked out
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1566283&postcount=225 - How his killing attack bears out against low-level opponents
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1566285&postcount=226 - and against superheroes

The only other thing worked out after this is that the +1/4 Killing Advantage should be treated as an Adder (i.e. calculated into the base cost of the attack, before any other advantages are added in), in order to prevent nasty attack builds utilizing advantage stacking. As everyone using the rules will know how an adder is supposed to be applied this shouldn't be difficult to grasp, and as Netzilla's mechanism unifies the damage mechanic, thus making a big reduction in overall complexity and word count, I think we can spare one little oddity with an Adder, especially since it also kills the existing problem with stacking. Credit to PhilFleischmann on this one.

As an aside, if you're curious about the math surrounding the 5th ed stun lotto:
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1546788&postcount=83 - ajackson's analysis of the stun multiplier and why it sucks :)

[jtelson]

Q: Should Gliding be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this is a good idea. The rules for Gliding are short and simple enough that it can easily be reconfigured as Limited Flight — which is basically what it is.

I agree completely that gliding should be rolled into the flight power, because as stated it is basically limited flight. Now to jump to the S's to suggest the same for swinging.

[JmOz]

RE: Find weakness, what about making it a talent? Build it with armor piercing, RSR, 0 endurance, etc..., charge based on DC...

Just an idea...

[McCoy]

F G H I

Yes, this is the right thread.

Two Words: Instant Change!

[Sean Waters]

Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?



I wouldn't mind seeing this done differently, perhaps as a talent built with 'extra damage, only to eliminate defences' or something like that. I've not been a fan of FW generally because of the conceptual issues with it, although they could be largely removed by requiring that it be based on a sense the character has rather than being a sort of sense in its own right.


Q: Should Gliding be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?



I'd agree with that - makes AP and END issues go away.


Q: Should Growth and Shrinking be done differently?



I'd like to see them done differently, but I'm not sure how. One option would simply be to firm up the templates a bit, and treat growth and shrinking as the sfx of a set of linked powers. You might even want to consider a 'special framework' as, certainly for growth, the combination is not the most efficient for character creation, and the lack of synergy might be worth some sort of discount.

I'd certainly be inclined to remove growth momentum and allow people to buy limtied damage if they want it.

Q: Should the “STR adds damage” feature be removed from HKA?


Q: Should HKA and RKA be combined into one power?



Intruiging thought. Make RKA more expensive, to reflect the advantages it has over normal attacks (in defences if nothing else), and possibly even remove the ability to add damage with strength, but attow HtH KA to take the 'no range' limitaiton. That could fly.

Other thoughts while we are tossing the ball about: ONLY resistant defences stop killing damage (so normal defences won;t stop killing stun even if you have some resistant defences). This would make the cost structure far more transparent: 2DCs of KA should cost 15 points. This would also have the effect of reducing the value of KA you could get under a given AP cap: 60 points would allow 8DCs or 2 1/2 D6.

In superhero games KA utility would probably reduce but it would still be very useful for heroic games and the cost would be consistent and appropriate within the system.


Q: Should the STUN Multiplier for Killing Attacks be changed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think the current STUN Multiplier rules are a problem — or if they are, they’re a problem for the opposite reason most people seem to think. But since they seem to be unpopular, a change might be worth considering. In that case, I think switching to a ½d6+1 STUN Multiplier would be better.


I'm not a fan of the stun lottery and would rather see KAs rolled as normal attacks, just applied to different defences. I don't think getting substantial stun through defences that stop all long term damage (i.e. Body) is really realistic or even cinematically realistic. I have seen it used once or twice (hero or villain gets 'killed' then later comes too and reveals their bullet proof vest). We could sort this, rather than a change in rules, by having a limitation for bullet KAs (maximum stun through defences = DC of attack if no body penetrates: -1/2 or whatever).

Personally though I'd rather just see one emchanic for damage in the system rather than two.

[nexus]

F G H I

Yes, this is the right thread.

Two Words: Instant Change!

I'm with McCoy on this one. Instant Change is a small power but different enough that I feel it deserves it's own entry. Stuffing it under Transform requires too much kludging.

[steamteck]

I don't see the issue with HKA and STR damage. Doesn't a stronger guy with a meat cleaver tend to be able to cut through substances better than a guy who can barely lift it?


Man I agree with you a lot. I often use just a little extra HA to represent steel fists or something myself. there's that trying to decouple things that don't need decoupling come again.

I dislike find weakness as is. Maybe do something like you decrease their defenses by the amount you roll under or roll excess ( REX we call it.)


Yes, just roll gliding in as limited flight.

Keep FTL as separate. Its less confusing that way.

I ( gasp) agree with Sean Walters, a killing attack which does no body should do less STUN. AS to the stun lottery never liked it. I use hit location always.
I also like his idea of more complete generic size templates to use in growth/shrinking.

[Susano]

In my opinion, the way Flash works (BODY = Segments) makes most flash attacks useless. You need a lot of Flash to get any significant effect. Making it "Total = Segments" would probably work far better and be far more effective.

[The Main Man]

What if Killing Damage operated like a specific version of AVLD?

Killing Damage (+1) - Normal Defenses do not work on this attack. Roll damage as normal, with the dice total = STUN damage + Normal Damage BODY.

The BODY rolled can not be stopped by Normal Defenses; a character must have Resistant Defense (+1/2) to protect against Killing Damage BODY.

If a character has no Resistant Defense, they take all of the BODY damage dealt by the attack, but their Normal Defenses work normally against the STUN damage.

[Kdansky]

Q: Should FTL Travel be eliminated in favor of MegaScaled Flight?
Your argument makes sense, but ask Sean on that one :)
Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?

I like Find Weakness as a concept, even if it often does not make sense. It's more about diversity of play stiles and choices in combat to make things interesting. I like that. Stupid questions have to be quelled by the GM and/or ruled cleverly in the book. Possibly remove the "any attack" adder? Highest one is "Any Power I have on my sheet"? (Which includes damage from str).

Q: Should Gliding be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?
Yes. Absolutely. Flight (usable as gliding) is a horrible thing (end costs go up, wth?) and is the default for wings. So I'd rather have "Flight (Can be used as gliding)" as the default, and then "Flight (cannot glide)" as the special case. Most non-super-flight-things can actually glide due to having wings (planes, birds, demons? ;)).

Q: Should Growth and Shrinking be done differently?
Yes. Growth is just bad point-value right now (well, that might be a strength problem too), and Shrinking is mainly about DCV. I don't like either much. But then, Density Increase is even worse in that regard. Just plain stats. I think the point relatio between shrink, growth, DI and strength is quite a bit off, see my post in the most recent thread on STR on that point.
I like your suggestion with the complicated tables A LOT! Two Pages with tables, all problems covered.

Q: Should the “STR adds damage” feature be removed from HKA?
I would like to see "str adds damage" as an advantage or limitation, since that's basically how it works. It's "higher theoretical maximum". You buy 3d6 + advantage and get 6d6 (IF you have the str), or you buy 6d6 + the limitation and get 3d6 if you don't have the str. On second thought, I might prefer the second one, even if that makes for very weird weapons. I can now see why you want to get rid of it, it would be way easier.
If you get rid of the "add str" thing, then you solve multiple problems:
- Str is still good, but does not add free damage too.
- HA can be fixed (it's now EB-no range)
- HKA and RKA can be combined, making them essentially working the same, but with EB.

Q: Should HKA and RKA be combined into one power?
Yes. And HA and EB are also the same thing. Either one can be the baseline and the other is either (no range) or (ranged). Could get tricky to figure out which one is the base though, due to advantage stacking.


Q: Should the STUN Multiplier for Killing Attacks be changed?
OMGOMGOMG, you actually ASK this question? :D
As you might have seen, I'm currently writing a simulation tool to figure out KA vs EB, and it largely looks like KA blows EB out of the water. KA is just a weird concept with it's semi-AVLD and explosive stun dice. I would like it to do quite a bit more body, but way less stun, currently, it does nearly no body (vs super targets) and huge amounts of stun irregularly (vs ANYTHING). Did I mention that a 3d6 KA does more than 50 stun 17% of all attacks. That's just ridiculous. But what I would like to see, or what I would think would work well, is some "critical behaviour" for KA. Let's say it like this:

With EB, you get a good damage on every hit, but in exchange, you never get high results either.
With KA, you get below average damage on every hit (currently, you get at least (!) the same average depending on stun multiplier rule used), but you *can* get lucky and do ugly things.

Or the other way around :) So KA would become the attack players chose if they want to gamble, and EB the attack players chose if they want to play it safe. Now the problem is: You cannot just say: "Well, KA does double the damage if you win a coin flip, and half the damage if you lose the coin flip", because that gives you huge chances of stunning and is actually better than EB (same average, extremly high stun chance).

What about this (weird brainstorming): KA is rolled like EB, but you may double all sixes (so a six is 12 stun and 4 body). If you roll good, you get devastating results. But usually, you get less. 1/6 + 2/6 + 3/6 + 4/6 + 5/6 + 12/6 = 27/6 = average of 4.5, so that is a 28% damage increase, so it should cost something along the lines of 35% more. Yep, I just eyeballed that :) But I hope you get my drift.

I also like the "Killing" as an advantage idea a lot. Basically I'm just very unhappy with KA. Most people just got used to how it is currently, but that's not good design now, is it? ;) The complaint threads are huge and often, that tells me a change would make sense. Unlike the WoW-Forums, here 95% (or even a hundred) of the posters think a lot before they post and don't just want to spam/flame/make their own character better.

[The Main Man]

OMGOMGOMG, you actually ASK this question? :D
As you might have seen, I'm currently writing a simulation tool to figure out KA vs EB, and it largely looks like KA blows EB out of the water. KA is just a weird concept with it's semi-AVLD and explosive stun dice. I would like it to do quite a bit more body, but way less stun, currently, it does nearly no body (vs super targets) and huge amounts of stun irregularly (vs ANYTHING). Did I mention that a 3d6 KA does more than 50 stun 17% of all attacks. That's just ridiculous. But what I would like to see, or what I would think would work well, is some "critical behaviour" for KA. Let's say it like this:

With EB, you get a good damage on every hit, but in exchange, you never get high results either.
With KA, you get below average damage on every hit (currently, you get at least (!) the same average depending on stun multiplier rule used), but you *can* get lucky and do ugly things.

Or the other way around :) So KA would become the attack players chose if they want to gamble, and EB the attack players chose if they want to play it safe. Now the problem is: You cannot just say: "Well, KA does double the damage if you win a coin flip, and half the damage if you lose the coin flip", because that gives you huge chances of stunning and is actually better than EB (same average, extremly high stun chance).

What about this (weird brainstorming): KA is rolled like EB, but you may double all sixes (so a six is 12 stun and 4 body). If you roll good, you get devastating results. But usually, you get less. 1/6 + 2/6 + 3/6 + 4/6 + 5/6 + 12/6 = 27/6 = average of 4.5, so that is a 28% damage increase, so it should cost something along the lines of 35% more. Yep, I just eyeballed that :) But I hope you get my drift.

I also like the "Killing" as an advantage idea a lot. Basically I'm just very unhappy with KA. Most people just got used to how it is currently, but that's not good design now, is it? ;) The complaint threads are huge and often, that tells me a change would make sense. Unlike the WoW-Forums, here 95% (or even a hundred) of the posters think a lot before they post and don't just want to spam/flame/make their own character better.
Your idea for Killing Attacks is similar to mine in that it should operate as a stronger EB.

I also agree that all normal and killing attacks should be boiled down to a single power called Attack, with Ranged and Strength Adds to Damage being power advantages.



What if Growth, Density Increase, Shrinking, and the Desolidification variant in TUMm were merged together?

Density Increase and the Desolidification variant would become Density Alteration, which must be designated as positive or negative upon purchase.

Positive Density Alteration would operate exactly the same as Density Increase.

There could be a Cost Multiplier called Growth (x2) which affects positive Density Alteration so that the denser a character gets, their size increases with it. In addition to STR, PD, and ED, the character gains BODY, STUN, and Reach but loses DCV.

Negative Density Alteration would operate the same as the alternative Desolidification, but the important difference is that a character can always purchase more levels of it to penetrate through DEF, but it keeps taking away STR and also decreases any other powers they may have such as EB.

For example, if they have 3 levels of Negative Density Alteration,
They can penetrate through anything 3 DEF or less, but they are at -15 STR to handle things, but they cannot suffer Negative STR this way. They gain PD and ED with each level as they become more difficult to affect.

Another Cost Multiplier called Shrink (x2) would affect negative Density Alteration so that as the character becomes less dense, their size decreases as well. As the character loses Strength, they also lose BODY, STUN, and Reach but gain DCV.

[James Gillen]

F G H I

F G H I?:confused:

[DavidToomey]

f-k = fghi...jk

[James Gillen]

Oh yeah, this hasn't been brought up, but as long as we're mentioning Instant Change, can we also bring back Regeneration as an actual Power and not a variation on Healing? From what I saw of your rationale on Absorption (not being a variant of Aid), it was "if it takes more than an extra page to describe, it should be its own Power" (IIRC). Regeneration is almost the same way, since it doesn't actually use Healing rules (i.e. it can apply over and over again), it uses a different Extra Time modifier, and it's a wonky reverse-engineering of a Power made necessary by the original (simpler) Power being eliminated from the game.

JG

[Edsel]

I printed off all of Steve's original posts in all of the 6th Edition threads and spent hours reading them last night and thinking. It is amazing how little I came up with to respond with though. However the opinions in this post are based only on what Steve has posted in message #1 of this thread, I haven't been influenced by what others have posted subsequently since I haven't read them yet. I will try to keep my comments brief since there is a hellava lot to read in these discussions.
Q: Should FTL Travel be eliminated in favor of MegaScaled Flight?
No, it is too useful in Star Hero games.

Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?
No strong opinion on this issue.

Q: Should Gliding be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?
Yes, makes sense to me.

Q: Should Growth and Shrinking be done differently?
I have no problems with the current rules, but this is a rarely seen power in our group's games so I don't have much useful to say.

Q: Should the “STR adds damage” feature be removed from HKA?

No. This is part of what makes HKAs and RKAs distinctive from one another.

Q: Should HKA and RKA be combined into one power?
No. This would be a move toward being too generic, it would remove too much flavor from the game. I like them as they currently are.

Q: Should the STUN Multiplier for Killing Attacks be changed?
An Emphatic No on this one. If you believe in the fallacy of the STUN Lotto then use Hit Locations. We use Hit Locations for almost all KA regardless of genre. For AE attacks (incl. Explosions) and for characters without Hit Locations we use the standard rule. In the real world results of identical attacks can vary widely so I consider this to be a realistic and good system.

[Chris Goodwin]

F G H I

Yes, this is the right thread.

Two Words: Instant Change!

I'm with McCoy on this one. Instant Change is a small power but different enough that I feel it deserves it's own entry. Stuffing it under Transform requires too much kludging.

Steve has already said no to this. That said, I vote yes. :D At least base it on Shapeshift rather than Transform (or unify Multiform, Shapeshift, and Transform and do it with that).

[Chris Goodwin]

Oh yeah, this hasn't been brought up, but as long as we're mentioning Instant Change, can we also bring back Regeneration as an actual Power and not a variation on Healing? From what I saw of your rationale on Absorption (not being a variant of Aid), it was "if it takes more than an extra page to describe, it should be its own Power" (IIRC). Regeneration is almost the same way, since it doesn't actually use Healing rules (i.e. it can apply over and over again), it uses a different Extra Time modifier, and it's a wonky reverse-engineering of a Power made necessary by the original (simpler) Power being eliminated from the game.

I vote yes on this too. But... I have a feeling we're looking at "Three hundred ayes and one nay... the nays have it!"

[Chris Goodwin]

Here's an idea for killing damage. It would add one way of reading damage while eliminating another way.

Read Killing Attack dice almost the same way as Normal Attack dice. With the following exceptions:

* Killing Attack dice do +2 BODY on a 5 or 6, instead of a 5, and

* Every 6 that comes up on a die does 0 STUN.

Pros: It increases the BODY and reduces the STUN, without actually doing more BODY than a Normal Attack is capable of.

Cons: It's another way of reading the dice, and could easily be confusing.

I haven't played around with the idea, so I don't know its ramifications. But at midnight last night it seemed pretty interesting.

[The Main Man]

I still think that Killing Damage should be lumped together with NND and AVLD in that it alters the original damage but there are still ways to stop it.

What if Normal Damage only does STUN and you have to buy Does BODY (+1) but rename it Killing or Deadly or some other synonym?

This way, you need Resistant Defense against any BODY damage.

[SSgt Baloo]

I'm replying before I read any of the other responses. If some of what follows is redundant (or just not as good as someone else's ideas), then so be it.

Q: Should FTL Travel be eliminated in favor of MegaScaled Flight?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think so. Admittedly you can build FTL travel capabilities with MegaScaled Flight, but it’s difficult for most people to come up with the exact conversion that way. FTL travel is very common in Science Fiction, and I think providing a simple, easy-to-use way to calculate how fast you can travel relative to the speed of light is worth a column of space in the book. ;)

FTL Travel works just fine as-is. While there may be some overlap betwixt Megascale movement and FTL Travel, I can live with it.

Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this idea is worth considering. Find Weakness is often a conceptual nightmare, and to a large extent it’s a Power built wholly around a rules-based effect (halve the defense) rather than any typical “special effect.” Since the naked Advantage rules are now sufficiently well-defined for a character to easily build a naked Armor Piercing Advantage for a group of attacks, removing Find Weakness would remove all the questions that it creates (like “Can I halve someone’s defense when I try to run over them with a car? When I plant a land mine and they step on it hours later?”). Of course, if Find Weakness is removed, Lack Of Weakness would be as well.

Find Weakness is a liability. Ditch it!

Q: Should Gliding be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this is a good idea. The rules for Gliding are short and simple enough that it can easily be reconfigured as Limited Flight — which is basically what it is.

I'm in favor of making Flight and Gliding the same power (at 3 points/inch) and making gliding alone or flight alone a limitation. Something like that. I'm just glad the the Ultimate Speedster gave me a way to combine these two movement modes, since, as an aviation buff, these two "powers" are inextricably linked.

But that's just me.:rolleyes:

Q: Should Growth and Shrinking be done differently?

Steve’s Thoughts: These two Powers are perpetual troublemakers who seem to get a re-do with every edition. ;) I don’t have any serious problems with the way they’re handled now, but of course I’m always on the lookout for ways to do things better.

One thought that has occurred to me is that it might be better to replace the existing Powers with a formalization of the Size Templates currently found in the book. Right now both Powers tend to give you *some* of what you expect from those abilities (especially Growth), but not everything you might want. If we set them out as Templates from which you can pick and choose, that would make customization easier. However, this approach tends to be a bit more complex, esp. if we have to offer both “regular” and “Costs Endurance” versions.

On the other hand, perhaps customizability as a default will be counterintuitive, making it harder for newcomers to the system to build Growing and Shrinking characters. Perhaps there isn’t a problem here that’s severe enough to merit a change.

I think that if you eliminate Growth/Shrinking you really need to provide clear instructions how to simulate it with the powers that remain. I always liked Growth/Shrinking in that you had a clear idea what the "normal" game effects would be for increased or decreased size. I kind of dislike the admonition to not use Growth/Shrinking" with Always On. It's easier to just buy the Growth and/or Shrinking, then use that as the character's baseline.

Q: Should the “STR adds damage” feature be removed from HKA?

Steve’s Thoughts: The answer to this may play into the whole issue of streamlining the Adding Damage rules (see the Combat post). However, I think the idea is worth considering. I can see the “gaming logic” that instituted this rule in the first place, but it doesn’t entirely make sense. Just being stronger doesn’t necessarily mean you can make a knife or axe or whatever do more damage than it’s capable of doing. Additionally, it’s not necessarily consistent — there are lots of attacks with the “I hit them really hard, or in a particular way” special effect, such as eye gouges (Sight Group Flash, No Range), and they don’t get any bonus from STR.

However, if this change is made, it almost certainly means that HKA and RKA should be combined into one Power (see below), and that RKA in effect becomes more expensive. If we just have a “KA” Power, then RKA has to be KA + Ranged (+1/2) or HKA has to be KA + No Range (-1/2). If HKA keeps its “STR adds damage” feature, then a KA Power could be “HTH you get +STR, Ranged you get Range,” both costing 15 points per 1d6 (3 DCs).

Q: Should HKA and RKA be combined into one power?

Steve’s Thoughts: This idea has some merit, I think. The text for the two is virtually identical in many respects. Assuming HKA keeps its “STR adds damage” feature (see above), then a single “KA” Power would simply mean for 15 points a character does 1d6 Killing Damage, and when he buys the Power he has to choose HTH (gets +STR) or Ranged (gets Range). Or perhaps, as outlined above, we choose one and do the other with Power Modifiers.

This makes Killing Attack more consistent with other Powers. The rules don’t, for example, have Drain, Ranged and Drain, HTH — they have Drain, and you buy Ranged as an Advantage if you want it. Nor do they feature Energy Blast, Ranged and Energy Blast, HTH — you buy EB as-is, and apply No Range (-1/2) if desired.

I propose that there should be a base KA which has neither range nor strength adding to damage. It would cost 10 points per D6, and then you could apply the Ranged or STR Adds Damage modifiers as appropriate.

Q: Should the STUN Multiplier for Killing Attacks be changed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think the current STUN Multiplier rules are a problem — or if they are, they’re a problem for the opposite reason most people seem to think. But since they seem to be unpopular, a change might be worth considering. In that case, I think switching to a ½d6+1 STUN Multiplier would be better.

I've never had a problem with KA's Stun Lotto, and would like to see it remain unchanged. The differences between Killing and Normal damage did not result in one or the other being scorned or expoited by the players.

[misterdeath]

Q: Should FTL Travel be eliminated in favor of MegaScaled Flight?

No. Please. It's currently simple.

Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?

Naked Advantage, Armor Piercing for X attack (advantage for multiples), Activation roll, done.

Q: Should Gliding be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

I can live with that.

Q: Should Growth and Shrinking be done differently?

Size Chart. Growth moves you up it, Shrinking down it.

Q: Should the “STR adds damage” feature be removed from HKA?

Q: Should HKA and RKA be combined into one power?

Killing Attack, 10 points. Adds STR (+1/2), Ranged (+1/2).

Q: Should the STUN Multiplier for Killing Attacks be changed?

Stun lotto equal bad. They're too random. Too much randomness works against the players. d3+1 (2-4) should be better.

D

[misterdeath]

F G H I?:confused:

He got to where he needed, he doesn't need to go any further. When you're counting your fingers do you go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 7, 'cause you got to the next hand?

D

[misterdeath]

Steve has already said no to this. That said, I vote yes. :D At least base it on Shapeshift rather than Transform (or unify Multiform, Shapeshift, and Transform and do it with that).


:(

D

[nexus]

Steve has already said no to this. That said, I vote yes. :D At least base it on Shapeshift rather than Transform (or unify Multiform, Shapeshift, and Transform and do it with that).

Or something. Sticking it in Transform is just clunky*. I agree. If you have to fold it into something. Shape Shift makes allot more sense.

[Lord Liaden]

Q: Should the “STR adds damage” feature be removed from HKA?

*SNIP excellent "bonus from strength" points*

However, if this change is made, it almost certainly means that HKA and RKA should be combined into one Power (see below), and that RKA in effect becomes more expensive. If we just have a “KA” Power, then RKA has to be KA + Ranged (+1/2) or HKA has to be KA + No Range (-1/2). If HKA keeps its “STR adds damage” feature, then a KA Power could be “HTH you get +STR, Ranged you get Range,” both costing 15 points per 1d6 (3 DCs).

While that makes a great deal of sense, I would still recommend retaining a -1/2 Limitation for KA that has neither Range nor Strength Adds, and +1/2 Advantage for those which have both, such as a thrown weapon. (Also see below.)


Q: Should HKA and RKA be combined into one power?

Steve’s Thoughts: This idea has some merit, I think. The text for the two is virtually identical in many respects. Assuming HKA keeps its “STR adds damage” feature (see above), then a single “KA” Power would simply mean for 15 points a character does 1d6 Killing Damage, and when he buys the Power he has to choose HTH (gets +STR) or Ranged (gets Range). Or perhaps, as outlined above, we choose one and do the other with Power Modifiers.

This makes Killing Attack more consistent with other Powers. The rules don’t, for example, have Drain, Ranged and Drain, HTH — they have Drain, and you buy Ranged as an Advantage if you want it. Nor do they feature Energy Blast, Ranged and Energy Blast, HTH — you buy EB as-is, and apply No Range (-1/2) if desired.

Emphasis mine, of course.

Steve, given your suggestion regarding how to handle Killing Attacks, I can see the merit of following the same approach with Normal Damage Attacks, i.e. 5 Active Points would buy 1d6 Normal Damage, and the character chooses whether to buy it with Range, like the current Energy Blast, or to add to his Strength Damage. That would eliminate the need for the current, separate Hand-To-Hand Attack.

Of course this approach would perpetuate the unfavorable comparison in point-utility between buying this additional HTH Damage Power, and just buying more STR, which has additional benefits. IMO continuing the current practice of HA not being prorated for Advantages would help balance the two, but of course would also perpetuate one of those "exceptions" in how combat works, which I know you're trying to minimize. OTOH increasing the cost of STR would also help with balance; this comparison is one more argument in favor of making STR more expensive (again IMO).

[Lord Liaden]

I propose that there should be a base KA which has neither range nor strength adding to damage. It would cost 10 points per D6, and then you could apply the Ranged or STR Adds Damage modifiers as appropriate.

Okay, I missed this when I made my earlier post, but IMHO this is brilliant. :thumbup: And it's also an excellent approach to take for Normal Damage the way I described it earlier: 1d6 of Normal Damage would cost 3 points, with Ranged or STR Adds as +1/2 Advantages. Because you're starting out with lower Base Points you get a cost break on subsequent additional Advantages, which gives you a reason to choose this Power for HTH versus more STR.

[James Gillen]

I vote yes on this too. But... I have a feeling we're looking at "Three hundred ayes and one nay... the nays have it!"

Well of course we are. But like I said elsewhere, if Steve is soliciting feedback, I'm providing it.

JG

[James Gillen]

Okay, I missed this when I made my earlier post, but IMHO this is brilliant. :thumbup: And it's also an excellent approach to take for Normal Damage the way I described it earlier: 1d6 of Normal Damage would cost 3 points, with Ranged or STR Adds as +1/2 Advantages. Because you're starting out with lower Base Points you get a cost break on subsequent additional Advantages, which gives you a reason to choose this Power for HTH versus more STR.

Oh. Yeah. That IS brilliant.

JG

[BobGreenwade]

Q: Should FTL Travel be eliminated in favor of MegaScaled Flight?While I understand your logic in keeping this as a separate ability, Steve, I think this move is worth seriously considering. If you're concerned about people not being able to figure out the conversions (and you should be; I'm one of them, and I'm pretty smart), you can provide a table or something with the proper numbers.Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?While your solution to this may seem reasonable, there are some aspects to consider: first, will Armor Piercing stack? (I'll probably address that in the Advantages section if you haven't already.) Second... well, the entire approach to Find Weakness is different from Armor Piercing, even if they do have the same end result: defending by Lack Of Weakness versus Hardened, Skill Roll base versus Power Advantage base, and so forth. I'd be in favor of keeping FW.

For that matter, I think an argument could be made for expanding FW so it can halve other aspects of an opponent's actions: his OCV, his DCV, the damage he does, and so forth. Yes, it could make for some pretty powerful effects, but costed properly it could make for an even more fluid and varied combat system. (That's a good thing, isn't it?)Q: Should Gliding be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?I'd rather see it stay as a separate Power, but I won't complain if you decide to roll it into Flight.Q: Should Growth and Shrinking be done differently?I say yes, but I'd go in the opposite direction from what you propose. I like the basic structures as given in TUMM (intermediate levels and all that), but I'd rather define "constantly large" or "constantly small" characters either with an optional Size Characteristic, or using Growth/Shrinking with the Inherent Advantage (and its prerequisites).Q: Should the “STR adds damage” feature be removed from HKA?

Q: Should HKA and RKA be combined into one power?These two combined kind of address a closely-related issue.

Personally, I'm pretty satisfied with Killing Attacks the way they are, but I can see the logic behind changing the structure. In fact, once upon a time, I defined:

Basic Killing Attack (BKA): 10 pts/1d6, No Range, No STR
Hand Killing Attack (HKA): 15 pts/1d6, No Range, STR Adds
Ranged Killing Attack (RKA): 15 pts/1d6, Range, No STR
Thrown Killing Attack (TKA): 20 pts/1d6, Range, STR Adds

In short, I like the idea of being able to add STR to an attack, either as a natural part of the ability or as the result of an Advantage (probably +1/2). It does simulate how many weapons (both natural and artificial) tend to work in the "source literature."Q: Should the STUN Multiplier for Killing Attacks be changed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think the current STUN Multiplier rules are a problem — or if they are, they’re a problem for the opposite reason most people seem to think. But since they seem to be unpopular, a change might be worth considering. In that case, I think switching to a ½d6+1 STUN Multiplier would be better.I left the Thoughts section in place this time because I think it's very much worth considering. In fact, I'd been about to say that you should leave it alone until I saw this, and it has some appeal to me. It could go a long way toward solving the notorious old "STUN Lottery" problem. Even if you don't make it a default rule, inserting it as an option would be worthwhile.

[Lord Liaden]

If I may, I'd like to raise the issue of 5E Healing.

IMHO the current default restrictions on Healing - when it can be used, how often on one person, how much can be Healed - go against one of the basic tenets of HERO System: giving the decision for how Powers should be tailored to a campaign to the GM. I appreciate that these restrictions were included for game-balance reasons, but there are a number of Powers which are potentially unbalancing, and are noted as such in their descriptions, so that the GM can choose whether including them suits what he wants to create, and whether they should have default Limitations in his game.

If Healing were to be retained as a separate Power, I would prefer that it be much more open in terms of how it can be used, e.g. no maximum cap, or one that can be increased like other Adjustment Powers; no default restrictions on frequency of use on a given person. The Power description could then offer optional Limitations to restrain its uses and fit it to the parameters of a particular campaign.

[James Gillen]

If I may, I'd like to raise the issue of 5E Healing.

IMHO the current default restrictions on Healing - when it can be used, how often on one person, how much can be Healed - go against one of the basic tenets of HERO System: giving the decision for how Powers should be tailored to a campaign to the GM. I appreciate that these restrictions were included for game-balance reasons, but there are a number of Powers which are potentially unbalancing, and are noted as such in their descriptions, so that the GM can choose whether including them suits what he wants to create, and whether they should have default Limitations in his game.

If Healing were to be retained as a separate Power, I would prefer that it be much more open in terms of how it can be used, e.g. no maximum cap, or one that can be increased like other Adjustment Powers; no default restrictions on frequency of use on a given person. The Power description could then offer optional Limitations to restrain its uses and fit it to the parameters of a particular campaign.

On that score, does the game rule allow you to simulate genre- even if "genre" is some other game like D&D or WoW where you're expected to "spam" healing as much as possible to keep a group through a combat? If that's not what you want, the genre rules should eliminate the Healing Power, complicate it (as per the potions rules in The Valdorian Age) or provide low-level alternatives in "realistic" games (like the Dark Champions rules for bandaging and encouraging the Rapid Healing Talent). But if you want it to have the option of being more high-powered, change the rule. I go for "high-powered but realistic" games (if that makes sense) so I can use the Healing as is.

JG

[Enforcer84]

Can I say that perhaps some of this is ...er, overthought? I've never had an issue with Find Weakness as a power or talent (which I think it was in 4th Ed)

I never got why Instant Change and Regeneration had to go, their replacements being needlessly complicated and wordy.

I admire the depths that have been added to my favorite RPG over the years, but some of them have been a little out of nowhere and arbitrary IMO.

[Alibear]

I would make killing attack and advantage of energy blast.

Roll your 10d6 EB (+0.5 KA advantage), count the body and stun as you would a normal attack and then apply the resistant def only work v killing attacks thing as we do now.

Stun lotto is gone. \o/

Simplifies the game as it is now uses the same mechanic as a normal attack.

Simple & neat.

edit: What the main man said on page 1.

[Hugh Neilson]

Q: Should FTL Travel be eliminated in favor of MegaScaled Flight?

No strong feelings. It has its own purpose, so I'd retain it.

Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?

Indifferent again. It has been made very complex with the normal vs resistant defenses issue, so if it is retained, I think it should be streamlined.

Q: Should Gliding be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

Sure - and use it as a sample power.

Q: Should Growth and Shrinking be done differently?

Whatever is done, please don't return us to the days when a character based on such a power was prohibitively expensive. In older editions, Growth and DI tried to cover off much more of what they "should" include, and were excessively expensive as a result.

Q: Should the “STR adds damage” feature be removed from HKA?

YES - absolutely. While logical, the synergy flies in the face of getting what you pay for. A character with 75 STR and a 1d6 KA, or a 5d6 KA and 15 STR, pays the same cost as a character with 45 STR and a 3d6 KA, but gets only 2d6 of KA power versus 6d6.

You want more KA to reflect the STR behind it, buy more KA. Limit it to link to STR and be unable to MPA with STR. Build conventional weaponry with extra dice linked to STR so they don't change.

Now we need only one KA power, ranged by default but you can limit it with No Range if desired. You have a 4d6 No Range KA and 60 STR? You can Multiple Power Attack to do 12d6 normal and 4d6 Killing damage.

Now apply the same approach to Hand Attack. You buy added STR only for damage, and enhance damage. Or you buy an EB with No Range and you can multiple power attack.

Q: Should the STUN Multiplier for Killing Attacks be changed?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think the current STUN Multiplier rules are a problem — or if they are, they’re a problem for the opposite reason most people seem to think. But since they seem to be unpopular, a change might be worth considering. In that case, I think switching to a ½d6+1 STUN Multiplier would be better.

At a minimum, options should be provided. One option I've liked in the past would see KA cost 5 points per DC and work as follows:

- rDEF applies to BOD and all def to STUN
- subtract 3d6 from BOD for knockback
- Total on the dice, minus half the DC's, = STUN [12d6 averages 36]
- Count BOD like a normal attack, but either 1's do 1 BOD, or 5 and 6 do 2 BOD (average from 12d6 = 14)

This gets results similar, on average, to the current KA, but removes the volatility.

IMHO the current default restrictions on Healing - when it can be used, how often on one person, how much can be Healed - go against one of the basic tenets of HERO System: giving the decision for how Powers should be tailored to a campaign to the GM. I appreciate that these restrictions were included for game-balance reasons, but there are a number of Powers which are potentially unbalancing, and are noted as such in their descriptions, so that the GM can choose whether including them suits what he wants to create, and whether they should have default Limitations in his game.

If Healing were to be retained as a separate Power, I would prefer that it be much more open in terms of how it can be used, e.g. no maximum cap, or one that can be increased like other Adjustment Powers; no default restrictions on frequency of use on a given person. The Power description could then offer optional Limitations to restrain its uses and fit it to the parameters of a particular campaign.

We need some default, don't we? If we remove the current limitations, I think the cost needs to be raised.

I would like to see the "reduced re-use time" advantage incorporated into the Regeneration construct for a consistent build. 1d6, standard effect, would then stay as 3 points, with Regen being allowed at 2/3 of 1d6 to build 1 BOD Regen. As indicated by Aid, self only should be a higher limitation, which would rebalance cost somewhat.

On a macro scale, I would like sufficient advantages/limitations to Aid/Healing that each could be built using the other. I would also like to see Absorbtion and Transfer variants which Heal, rather than Aid, the character.

[steamteck]

I propose that there should be a base KA which has neither range nor strength adding to damage. It would cost 10 points per D6, and then you could apply the Ranged or STR Adds Damage modifiers as appropriate.



2nded for brilliance! I like that idea! It could apply to a regular damage power also ( with different cost of course)

[SSgt Baloo]

Gee, thanks for the votes of confidence (at least in that one pronouncement).

At a minimum, options should be provided. One option I've liked in the past would see KA cost 5 points per DC and work as follows:

- rDEF applies to BOD and all def to STUN
- subtract 3d6 from BOD for knockback
- Total on the dice, minus half the DC's, = STUN [12d6 averages 36]
- Count BOD like a normal attack, but either 1's do 1 BOD, or 5 and 6 do 2 BOD (average from 12d6 = 14)

This gets results similar, on average, to the current KA, but removes the volatility.

I second the above and suggest that KA be an adder or advantage on normal damage.

[JohnTaber]

Suggestion = Make the default operation of Force Wall be that the size can be adjusted. You have 4" you can create. You can decide how these are deployed when the power is used (i.e. 4" long and 1" high, 2" long and 2" high, etc).

Reasoning = I think Force Wall would be more intuitive this way. I also think that it is currently priced too high. With this implementation it would be a limitation (-1/4 or something) if the size was NOT alterable.

FYI. I think Entangle should also work in a similar way but that is kind already built into that rule. Hec...ditch Force Wall and call it Entangle as a wall...you could do that too...another topic though... :)

[Opal]

Q: Should FTL Travel be eliminated in favor of MegaScaled Flight?Not really. I find myself wondering if GMs really worry about exact distances in interstellar settings, anyway. It seems like plot drives starships, not FTL. :shrug:



Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?I'd rather see naked power advantages go. Find Weakness was great as a skill, frankly. Something a non-powered concept could use to make non-powered attacks effective in a supers arena.

Q: Should Gliding be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?No reason not to.

Q: Should Growth and Shrinking be done differently?Growth and Shrinking are fine the way the are - to a point. That point is around the one where the shrinking character gets much smaller than the fist that you're swinging at it (you should it's DCV keep going up? It's not any harder to hit a ant with a flyswatter than a cockroach.) Similarly, for growth, if you go much above Growth that would give you campaign max STR, it becomes pointless.

For more extreme forms of these powers, I'd like to see some sort of 'Scale Change' power. Characters at different scales wouldn't be able to directly affect eachother, but changing scale wouldn't have to be enormously expensive. As it stands now, it's easy enough to use X-D move to model extreme shrinking, and Megascale works on /powers/, just not on creatures (that I'm aware of...).

Q: Should the “STR adds damage” feature be removed from HKA?Definitely not. While some HKA (or even STR) concepts may call for STR not adding, some certainly could. A no-Range RKA models the former.

Q: Should HKA and RKA be combined into one power?

The rules /do/ have both EB and HA which /should/ corresponde to HKA and RKA but with normal damage.

While you could have 'Killing Attack' and 'Normal Attack' as powers and then simply choose either a 'HTH' (str adds) or 'ranged' (has range) option, that's not combining them into one power, so much as combining them into one entry. It would make the game more generic, which might please some purists, but it would also make it less concrete to those aproaching it for the first time.

Anyway, 'combining' HKA & RKA should only be done if EB and Hand Attack are likewise so combined.

Q: Should the STUN Multiplier for Killing Attacks be changed?Yes and no. The very random STN of KAs does model the way such attacks (like guns) work both IRL, and in fiction. The way low-dice KAs can stun or KO even very high-DEF characters, though is at odds with certain genres to which Hero owes a certain debt.

There are numerous options to reign in the perception of 'overpoweredness' that the infamous "Stun LOTTO" causes. You could increase the cost of KA to 20 per die (DCs would be: 1pip, 1/2 d, 1d-1 (min 1), 1d ). You could reduce the stun multiple to d3. You could aply a fixed stun multiple of 2, overriding the usual stun multiplier, when the target bounces all the BOD of the KA.

Personally, I aply the STNx of KAs /only/ to the BOD that penetrates the target's defenses, then use limmitation on any defenses (like most 'real armor') that I don't want to work that way.

[GloryFox]

Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?

Absolutely not! Find Weakness provides a game effect / power that is different from Armor Piercing. Although they are similar as they both can reduce the Armor of a Target by half they are different as they come from various sources. Finding the weakness of a Target is an active ability something you must try and do, there is skill involved. Armor Piercing is by its very nature is passive requiring no skill. Both require a different defenses thus having one does not eliminate the other. I’ll use my wife’s character as an example:

Praying Mantis has Find Weakness 20 or less on her Martial Arts Super HERO. She uses her ability to punch through Walls, knife hand through steel cables; hit nerve endings on brick supers with ease. Thus character must role-play touching her target to find a vulnerable spot then striking that spot, and what balances it out is that fact that it does not always work. In game play it’s an actual use of a skill or power as she senses the weakness of the object by use of her chi. Then she has her “questionite” bladed Kamas’s that have Armor Piercing. Anything she hit’s with those Kamas's are being Armored Pierced passively by one level. With her Find Weakness there is an actual skill, power, observation or role-play involved with her Kamas’s there is none. I’m not even sure you can RSR with Armor Piercing, but if you take away the power you take away some simple dynamics of the game. You also make the character creation more complicated if you have to add Armor Piercing with every attack skill, maneuver, you have. Lets not get over complicated here by reducing role play though simplicity of game mechanics. The game mechanics are simple enough.

Q: Should Gliding be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

I’m going to disagree with you on this as well. Gliding has provided some interesting role-play aspects that could not have been done with flight. It’s the role-play favor I’m trying to keep here.

Q: Should the “STR adds damage” feature be removed from HKA?

No it adds an aspect of flavor to the system. For instance can the Wolverine do more or less damage with his claws if the Wolverine was drained of STR? I would say the blades do the base damage and more when the Wolverine is up to his normal abilities.

Q: Should HKA and RKA be combined into one power?

No, once again it’s a flavor issue. Yeah the hard-core rules junky can justify almost anything here but hey, separating the two just adds an aspect of pure flavor nothing more and nothing less.



Now that your questions have been asked here is something else to consider.

Killing Attack costs for the amount of damage done.

The costs of killing Attacks are to low IMO. I would like to see a cost at 20 per full D6. I would also like to see the following format for Killing attack DC’s. +1,
½ d6-1,
½ d6,
½ d6+1,
1 d6-1,
and 1 d6
each at a cost of 4 or even 5 points each since they bypass normal defenses.

Compare the following since we are discussing costs.

a) 3 d6 Normal damage (cost 15 active points) 3 BODY 9 STUN normal PD or ED + resistant defenses applies.

b) 1 d6 Killing damage (cost 15 points) 3 BODY 9 STUN only resistant defenses applies to BODY but both resistant + normal defenses applies to STUN. The cost IMO is incompatible for the amount of damage you end up doing.

I'm not trying to force my way here just an observation on relative costs. These powers should be leveled out somewhat especially since the cost and effect may go into area's such as creating Fantasy HERO Spells.

[Adventus]

I have always have had a problem with this power. It is an enhanced sense that cuts your opponents defense in half multiple times. However you can not tell anybody else what the weakness is!! Even though you know exactly where it is located. And it doesn't follow the rules of enhanced senses.

I would prefer an enhanced sense, following all the enhanced sense rules, used as a RSR for an stackable armor piercing advantage. This would make more sense in a SFX way as well. Lack of weakness then would become part of the invisibility rules. This would remove the large amount of kludgey rules that find weakness has. And you could tell your associates where the Big Bad's weakness is located. The best example of this is in Star Trek First Contact. Picard performs a Find Weakness on the Borg Ship. He then has all the Ships target that location, blowing up the Borg ship. Yes. I have just given you new and better way to use Find weakness. Because it IS a sense, you can do more with it.

IF you want to be unable to tell someone else what the weakness is, don't buy discriminatory and analyze with it, or it could just be a limitation. It would also explain why Mechanon and other Big Bads get tougher. They use find weakness on themselves from their recordings of the battle. WHAT? You really think Dr. Destroyer ISN'T recording every battle you have with him?:eg:

So, a character with invisibility to find weakness sense with fringe could still be possibly affected by it and with no fringe, tough luck to find weakness guy. Of course, this type of invisiblity should be rare. Unless you are playing in a wild martial arts campaign! :D

[BobGreenwade]

I have always have had a problem with this power. It is an enhanced sense that cuts your opponents defense in half multiple times. However you can not tell anybody else what the weakness is!! Even though you know exactly where it is located. And it doesn't follow the rules of enhanced senses. While I don't completely agree with the solution, I do agree that this is a problem in logic that should be addressed.

[Susano]

While I don't completely agree with the solution, I do agree that this is a problem in logic that should be addressed.

I agree. I've sen this used in fiction. Scan the target, find the weak point tell the attacker "hit it here!"

[James Gillen]

Can I say that perhaps some of this is ...er, overthought? I've never had an issue with Find Weakness as a power or talent (which I think it was in 4th Ed)

I never got why Instant Change and Regeneration had to go, their replacements being needlessly complicated and wordy.

I admire the depths that have been added to my favorite RPG over the years, but some of them have been a little out of nowhere and arbitrary IMO.

I agree. Although I might ditch Find Weakness if I had the choice. Glory Fox's testimonial notwithstanding, it just proves that FW is a "wild card" in a GM's assessment of whether an attack goes over Damage cap limits; it's one thing for it to be Armor Piercing, but Armor Piercing WITH Find Weakness is a lot more effective. Of course, if that's what the player and GM want, ok.

JG

[Enforcer84]

I have always have had a problem with this power. It is an enhanced sense that cuts your opponents defense in half multiple times. However you can not tell anybody else what the weakness is!! Even though you know exactly where it is located. And it doesn't follow the rules of enhanced senses.


While I don't completely agree with the solution, I do agree that this is a problem in logic that should be addressed.

I agree. I've sen this used in fiction. Scan the target, find the weak point tell the attacker "hit it here!"

I've always wondered how it works multiple times.
Perhaps it could be adjusted so that the target's defenses are reduced only by the amount you beat the roll by. And then this info could be shared, no one gets as high a bonus but everyone gets one?

[GamePhil]

Q: Should FTL Travel be eliminated in favor of MegaScaled Flight?
Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?
Q: Should Gliding be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?


Well, I'm all for reducing the number of Powers and rolling them into others if done right, and all of your suggestions on these are how I would do them. I am very much in favor of Gliding as Flight and have been for some time, slightly less so for Find Weakness, and less than that for FTL, but I wouldn't be bothered if any of them were eliminated as separate Powers.

Q: Should Growth and Shrinking be done differently?


Probably, but first the answer to the question "Should Size be a characteristic?" needs to be solidified. They work fine as they are, but other changes may affect this one.


Q: Should the “STR adds damage” feature be removed from HKA?


Depends on final answers to other questions.


Q: Should HKA and RKA be combined into one power?


Probably. If you do, you might consider adding a "Can Add STR" Advantage that could be applied to various attacks rather than limiting it to KAs and HAs.

Or, characters that want to convert their STR into other forms of attack might just take a Multipower, with one slot being STR, especially if you eliminate Figured Characteristics. But that's more complex than an Advantage, so I'm not sure.


Q: Should the STUN Multiplier for Killing Attacks be changed?


Eh. I think a longer discussion on how Killing Attacks can affect a game or a character would suffice, with some possible examples of how to negate issues that might come up. The amount of variance can kill drama both by having no effect at all and having far too much effect, though in my experience it's the latter that causes the most trouble. At the same time, if that kind of wild exploding roll actually adds to the game, it should obviously be used, so the existence of the classic Stun Lotto should be left in the game somewhere, even if it's as an optional rule.

I would like to bring up two more subjects, but not the way people might think of them.

Instant Change: I actually like the direction you were going with this one, but I think you could go further or use a different Power for it. Shapechange, Multiform, and Transform being rolled into a single Power has been mentioned as an option, which I'm not sure I would go with, but it's the right general direction for me. I also like the idea for Instant Change to create a new Power for reducing the time actions take, since that's really what this is allowing you to do: change clothes more quickly than the 1 Phase it normally takes in a Champions game.

Healing: I think you could fold this into Aid by creating a Permanent Effect Advantage, which might apply to a few other things (Change Environment already has something like it, for instance). I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on it removed or re-defined, as they make it more complex than it may need to be for (admittedly few) works of fiction to be simulated, aside from all the games where you can heal over and over again (which I don't believe is by itself a good argument). It would also allow Regeneration to be based on Healing without being an exception to the rules, which I'm always for (although I actually favor using a generic "reducing time" Power or Advantage and applying that to Recovery). Some form of restriction should be recommended, but that could be a Limitation on the Power rather than hard-wired in.

[Hugh Neilson]

To the issue of STR adding:

Probably. If you do, you might consider adding a "Can Add STR" Advantage that could be applied to various attacks rather than limiting it to KAs and HAs.

Or, characters that want to convert their STR into other forms of attack might just take a Multipower, with one slot being STR, especially if you eliminate Figured Characteristics. But that's more complex than an Advantage, so I'm not sure.

I dislike STR adds for two reasons. One you summarize above - why is this only available for some attack powers? Why can't my Eye Gouge Flash be enhanced by STR? Why can't my PD Drain: Bruise? An advantage would solve this.

But this advantage has variable benefit. If you have a 3d6 KA and 45 STR, you double your KA. If you have 3d6 KA and 15 STR, you get a 1/3 increase. The advantage will be on the 45 KA points, so adding 1d6 and adding 3d6 cost the same.

I would rather see the KA, or the eye gouge or bruise, add some dice that are limited by their link to your STR and, presumably, by NO Range on the base attack and added dice. Then, you get what you pay for. You want a 1d6 Claw that is enhanced to 6d6 by your massive 75 STR? OK - buy +5d6, appropriately limited. Can't do this in the current model - you cap at 2d6. You want to add 1d6 to your 5d6 KA for your more modest 15 STR? Also fine - you bought less additional dice, so STR Adds Dice costs you less.

[Opal]

Attacks like KA that STR up to doubles in effect transform STR damage. If you have a 60 STR, buying a 2d HKA is like buying a 1/2 advantage on your STR: can do Killing Damage.


But, I agree that 'STR adds' shouldn't be an advantage. "STR doesn't add" is fine as a limitation - the same -1/2 as putting 'no range' on an RKA. In fact, it doesn't even need to exist, as you could model a non-ranged KA that STR doesn't add with a no-range RKA, anyway. It's a cute theory, that STR adds is equivalent to a +1/2 advantage, since an RKA with a 1/2 limitation is equivalen to an HKA that STR doesn't add to, but it really doesn't pan out. HKA is well worth it's full cost to a character who's STR can double it, or even increase it by 50%. For those to who can't, it may not be worth it: if it's not worth it, don't take, go ahead and take the no range RKA, instead.

[GamePhil]

But, I agree that 'STR adds' shouldn't be an advantage. "STR doesn't add" is fine as a limitation - the same -1/2 as putting 'no range' on an RKA. In fact, it doesn't even need to exist, as you could model a non-ranged KA that STR doesn't add with a no-range RKA, anyway. It's a cute theory, that STR adds is equivalent to a +1/2 advantage, since an RKA with a 1/2 limitation is equivalen to an HKA that STR doesn't add to, but it really doesn't pan out. HKA is well worth it's full cost to a character who's STR can double it, or even increase it by 50%. For those to who can't, it may not be worth it: if it's not worth it, don't take, go ahead and take the no range RKA, instead.

I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this, since what we're discussing is the possibility of eliminating HKA as a separate Power, which makes most or all of this paragraph seem irrelevant to me. If at that point it is desirable to allow STR to add to damage for anything, the logical way would be to apply an Advantage at that point, and it would apply to all forms of attack, not to STR. If it's not desirable, then a Multipower works fine for me.

On that point, if HKA is eliminated, should HA be eliminated, too?

[GamePhil]

I would rather see the KA, or the eye gouge or bruise, add some dice that are limited by their link to your STR and, presumably, by NO Range on the base attack and added dice. Then, you get what you pay for. You want a 1d6 Claw that is enhanced to 6d6 by your massive 75 STR? OK - buy +5d6, appropriately limited. Can't do this in the current model - you cap at 2d6. You want to add 1d6 to your 5d6 KA for your more modest 15 STR? Also fine - you bought less additional dice, so STR Adds Dice costs you less.

Easy enough, just buy our theoretical KA (formerly RKA) with No Range and the Limitation: Drained On A 1:X Ratio With STR. Such a Limitation would also allow you to have EGO Based Killing Attacks or INT based Drains and so on in much the same manner. It just means you must have a certain level of STR to use it, and if you have less you must use less.

It's not really Linked at that point because you don't need to use STR, and it's somewhat different from STR Minimum, too, which is why I propose something a little different.

[Chris Goodwin]

Easy enough, just buy our theoretical KA (formerly RKA) with No Range and the Limitation: Drained On A 1:X Ratio With STR. Such a Limitation would also allow you to have EGO Based Killing Attacks or INT based Drains and so on in much the same manner. It just means you must have a certain level of STR to use it, and if you have less you must use less.

Interesting idea. This could also work on not-Figured Characteristics....

Ego-based Mental Powers!

I'd rep you if I could. Edit: Never mind, I did. :D

[Opal]

If at that point it is desirable to allow STR to add to damage for anything, the logical way would be to apply an Advantage at that point, and it would apply to all forms of attack, not to STR. I'd say it's not desireable to have 'STR adds' as an advantage. It /is/ disireable, though, to have powers like HA or HKA - or perhaps others - that transform STR damage by allowing STR to up to double them, and adhere to the 5pt/DC standard. If 'STR adds' is an advantage, you'd have to set the base power at /aproximately/ 3Apt/DC, which isn't a great idea (one reason it wasn't used for HA).

If you, instead, had all powers start out ranged, and used 'no range' & 'STR adds,' to make HTH versions, you'd have the opposite Apt power - they'd 'take up too much room' in Frameworks, and mute the effect of further limitations. Though, of course, you could introduce a mechanic - as certain brilliant persons have suggested in the past - to re-set Apts in apropriate cases.


I honestly think the only way to keep Apts rational with attacks is to have the sepparate HTH and Ranged versions. Or, you could have a single power, and, as with defining it eitehr physical or energy, make 'ranged' or STR adds a +/-0 modifier that you define when you buy it. "Neither" might then be a -1/2, but at least the Apts would remain OK.

[Chris Goodwin]

HKA has been.... flat out wrong, all these years.

Guy A spends 20 points on STR. He has 30 STR.

Guy B spends 60 points on RKA. He has 4d6 RKA.

Guy C spends 20 points on STR, and 30 points on HKA. He now has 4d6 HKA. Either he's spent 50 points on his 4d6 HKA, and gotten +20 STR for free, or he's spent 7.5 points per d6 on his HKA. Either way, something ain't right.

So, I fully agree with and endorse what GamePhil and Hugh Neilson have said.

[Opal]

Guy B has a /ranged/ KA, guy C has spent 10 points less, but his RKA isn't ranged, making it ranged would cost 15 points, and reduce it to 3d+1. No range on a 60 pt RKA saves you 20 points. Either way, Buy B has purchased a 12 DC ranged attack for 60 points, and Guy C has purchased a 12 DC HTH attack for 50 points (on top of the 10 STR everyone starts with).

[Chris Goodwin]

Guy B has a /ranged/ KA, guy C has spent 10 points less, but his RKA isn't ranged, making it ranged would cost 15 points, and reduce it to 3d+1. No range on a 60 pt RKA saves you 20 points. Either way, Buy B has purchased a 12 DC ranged attack for 60 points, and Guy C has purchased a 12 DC HTH attack for 50 points (on top of the 10 STR everyone starts with).

Guy C has either gotten 20 STR for free, or paid 30 points for his attack.

[Opal]

If you value a 4d KA without range at 40 rpts (RKA at a -1/2 lim), guy C has spent 50 points for a 40 pt power and +20 points of STR, and 'saved' 10 points one way or another. Of course, if you're attacking with STR, you're always going to save 10 points compared to the guy who throws the same number of DCs at range. So all the objection really can be is to those first 10 points of STR.

OTOH, if guy B decides he wants another attack, say an EB, he plops it in a multipower with his RKA, and has a 12d EB for 12 points (two six-point ultra slots), while if guy C decides he wants a 12d EB, it'd cost him 39 points to convert his HKA into a multipower big enough to hold one. Those 10 (or, if you insist, 20) points he 'saved' are gone with interest.


I think what you're driving at is that you want a fool-proof point buy system in which 10 points of anything always gets you exactly the same utility as 10 points of anything else?

[Ockham's Spoon]

Healing:
I completely do not understand why this isn't just Aid with the advantage "restored points don't fade" and the limitation "only to restore lost points". (Maybe when I read the Aid thread I will find out, but I skipped here first). Because quite frankly I had more than one 4th Ed. character with an Aid that would heal and boost his powers simultaneously, which was really convenient (mostly creatures of pure energy and such, but I could see other applications). Save space in 6E and roll Healing into Aid.

Killing Attacks:
I don't like they way the damage from a KA is calculated so differently from normal attacks. I really, really don't like the STN lotto. At minimum I would go with the STN Multiplier at ½d6+1, but really I think "Killing" should be an advantage on normal attacks. That seems more consistent with Armor Piercing and AVLD and such.

[Opal]

While the STN lotto sucks in supers games, it's really very apropriate outside that genre. And, the general randomness of low-die KAs (and guns should be low-die KAs) really represents the chaotic science of terminal ballistics rather apropriately, I think.

I'd like to see the basic cost and dice-rolling convention of KAs remain. But, there should be more practical ways for supers to 'bullet proof' themselves.

[steamteck]

While the STN lotto sucks in supers games, it's really very apropriate outside that genre. And, the general randomness of low-die KAs (and guns should be low-die KAs) really represents the chaotic science of terminal ballistics rather apropriately, I think.

I'd like to see the basic cost and dice-rolling convention of KAs remain. But, there should be more practical ways for supers to 'bullet proof' themselves.


Stop that! I can only rep you so often! That makes lots of sense there are ways to bullet stunproof your supers now but an official easy recommended way might be nice.even just some thoughts on it mentioned.

[Opal]

I'd really like something that could, at least in supers games, make high-end superhero level resistant defense consistently ping at least handguns.

An optional rule for supers or other lethality-discouraging genres might be to limit the amount of stun a KA can do when it fails to inflict BOD. Personally, I go overboard on this and just aply the STNx to the BOD that gets through. But a fixed x2 STN multiplier when the BOD bounces might be quite adequate.

[Susano]

We found a flat x3 STUN Multiple worked wonders.

[braincraft]

I would rather see the KA, or the eye gouge or bruise, add some dice that are limited by their link to your STR

That's actually an elegant and simple solution that respects AP caps.

Rep for j00z!

[GamePhil]

I'd say it's not desireable to have 'STR adds' as an advantage. It /is/ disireable, though, to have powers like HA or HKA - or perhaps others - that transform STR damage by allowing STR to up to double them, and adhere to the 5pt/DC standard. If 'STR adds' is an advantage, you'd have to set the base power at /aproximately/ 3Apt/DC, which isn't a great idea (one reason it wasn't used for HA).


I actually believe that neither one is desirable. It is a simple enough matter to put your STR in a Multipower with a KA, especially if Figured Characteristics are eliminated, and I see little advantage to allowing STR to be transformed into something else. If it *can* be so transformed, I see no reason it must be limited to KA and would like a system whereby it can be applied to other attacks. Not only that, if it can be transformed I see no reason to limit such transformations to STR. Ultimately, I'm not sure I see the benefit of such transformations, but we already have something similar with Movement Powers and I don't expect that to go away, so maybe we'll have something like this.

But, *if* HKA is eliminated, and *if* adding STR is still desirable, *then* an Advantage may be an appropriate route. If either of those is not true, then it isn't, and honestly, I don't see how the second could be desirable if the first isn't, but I'm brainstorming.

[Chris Goodwin]

Healing:
I completely do not understand why this isn't just Aid with the advantage "restored points don't fade" and the limitation "only to restore lost points". (Maybe when I read the Aid thread I will find out, but I skipped here first). Because quite frankly I had more than one 4th Ed. character with an Aid that would heal and boost his powers simultaneously, which was really convenient (mostly creatures of pure energy and such, but I could see other applications). Save space in 6E and roll Healing into Aid.

Because, honestly, it sucked. Bad. I saw how bad it could be abused. Everyone in the party got an 8d6 Healing Aid, Trigger. And then he shifted his points out of the Multipower slot, and the Healing Aid Triggers all stuck around.

[Chris Goodwin]

Easy enough, just buy our theoretical KA (formerly RKA) with No Range and the Limitation: Drained On A 1:X Ratio With STR. Such a Limitation would also allow you to have EGO Based Killing Attacks or INT based Drains and so on in much the same manner. It just means you must have a certain level of STR to use it, and if you have less you must use less.

It's not really Linked at that point because you don't need to use STR, and it's somewhat different from STR Minimum, too, which is why I propose something a little different.

I wanted to come back to this. There ought to be a way to do this, maybe with a Framework. Maybe an EC, maybe a modified form of it. Bears more thought.

[SSgt Baloo]

I dislike STR adds for two reasons. One you summarize above - why is this only available for some attack powers? Why can't my Eye Gouge Flash be enhanced by STR? Why can't my PD Drain: Bruise? An advantage would solve this.

But this advantage has variable benefit. If you have a 3d6 KA and 45 STR, you double your KA. If you have 3d6 KA and 15 STR, you get a 1/3 increase. The advantage will be on the 45 KA points, so adding 1d6 and adding 3d6 cost the same.

I would rather see the KA, or the eye gouge or bruise, add some dice that are limited by their link to your STR and, presumably, by NO Range on the base attack and added dice. Then, you get what you pay for. You want a 1d6 Claw that is enhanced to 6d6 by your massive 75 STR? OK - buy +5d6, appropriately limited. Can't do this in the current model - you cap at 2d6. You want to add 1d6 to your 5d6 KA for your more modest 15 STR? Also fine - you bought less additional dice, so STR Adds Dice costs you less.

It seems to me that "STR adds damage to (this attack)" should be applied to the STR rather than the attack. Would that fix the problem?

[GamePhil]

I wanted to come back to this. There ought to be a way to do this, maybe with a Framework. Maybe an EC, maybe a modified form of it. Bears more thought.

I'm thinking of a modified form of STR Minimum, so that you have something like: Requires X STR For Every DC Of Attack. In that case, there's also no reason it couldn't be Characteristic Minimum, so you could have Requires X EGO For Every DC Of Attack, or whatever.

[rjcurrie]

I think leaving Gliding as a separate Power is perfectly fine. It doesn't take up that much space and I'm leery of turning too many existing Powers into other Powers with Limitations. There's a certain point where you begin to lose usability because finding the Power you want can get difficult when they're buried under other Powers.

[Silbeg]

In my opinion, the way Flash works (BODY = Segments) makes most flash attacks useless. You need a lot of Flash to get any significant effect. Making it "Total = Segments" would probably work far better and be far more effective.

That's interesting, because in my experience the 5E way of doing flash is perhaps the best I have seen so far in all versions of HERO. It balances far better with the defense (previously, it was Flash DEF was insanely effective, for 5AP you could nullify a 50AP attack). Now, even with the typical 5 points of Flash DEF, you are going to be flashed for an average of 5 segments (2-3 phases) when hit with such an attack. This isn't to say your experiences might be different... but in my games probably 50% or more of targets have no Flash DEF, or if they do, it is only Flash DEF 5.

In many ways, a 10d6 Flash is more devastating to a combatant than a 10d6 EB (we are talking Superheroic levels here, but...)

What I don't like about flash is the inexpensiveness of adding senses. With a simple +5 adder you can add an additional sense, or +10 for a group. So, instead of going with a 10d6 Sight Group Flash, it is even more efficient to go with an 8d6 Sight and Hearing Group Flash (a "flashbang"), which will take out the primary targeting sense, as well as the primary non-targeting sense.

For play balance purposes, this has proved to be way too efficient. I think I would propose that you would need to pay for the flash separately for each sense group.

So, for about the same active points, you could get a 6d6 Sight Group + 6d6 Hearing Group Flash. This would still be very effective in most cases, but really has the feel of being at a more balanced price.

[Silbeg]

Oh yeah, this hasn't been brought up, but as long as we're mentioning Instant Change, can we also bring back Regeneration as an actual Power and not a variation on Healing? From what I saw of your rationale on Absorption (not being a variant of Aid), it was "if it takes more than an extra page to describe, it should be its own Power" (IIRC). Regeneration is almost the same way, since it doesn't actually use Healing rules (i.e. it can apply over and over again), it uses a different Extra Time modifier, and it's a wonky reverse-engineering of a Power made necessary by the original (simpler) Power being eliminated from the game.

JG

I definitely agree on splitting Regeneration out of Healing. Yes, they have something in common, but the 5E/5ER way of doing it is so complicated that people are more likely to get it wrong than right, and for all the reasons that James states above. Especially wonky is the special Regen-only extra-time chart.

But, of course, we could take advantage of it being outside of the realm of normal healing, and allow such things as allowing Regen to work on other effects... Perhaps a power/talent like "Stable Form" would allow Regen to work against Transforms, or something like that.


But, if we aren't going to break it back out, then Regeneration as an effect should be built "correctly". So that we don't have to deal with the hand-waving over max effect, etc., and all of that, it probably should be build with the Trigger advantages, and increase re-use rate. I think if done correctly, it will end up costing about the same, though the additional stacking of Advantages and Disadvantages may make this hard to tell.

[rjcurrie]

Q: Should FTL Travel be eliminated in favor of MegaScaled Flight?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think so. Admittedly you can build FTL travel capabilities with MegaScaled Flight, but it’s difficult for most people to come up with the exact conversion that way. FTL travel is very common in Science Fiction, and I think providing a simple, easy-to-use way to calculate how fast you can travel relative to the speed of light is worth a column of space in the book. ;)

I agree. Sometimes simpler is better.

Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this idea is worth considering. Find Weakness is often a conceptual nightmare, and to a large extent it’s a Power built wholly around a rules-based effect (halve the defense) rather than any typical “special effect.” Since the naked Advantage rules are now sufficiently well-defined for a character to easily build a naked Armor Piercing Advantage for a group of attacks, removing Find Weakness would remove all the questions that it creates (like “Can I halve someone’s defense when I try to run over them with a car? When I plant a land mine and they step on it hours later?”). Of course, if Find Weakness is removed, Lack Of Weakness would be as well.

I'm undecided about this. I would suggest losing it altogether and not suggesting any alternatives directly in the main book, but possibly including a few variations of building it in either Champions genre book or whatever replaces the USPD in 6E or both.


Q: Should Gliding be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think this is a good idea. The rules for Gliding are short and simple enough that it can easily be reconfigured as Limited Flight — which is basically what it is.

I gave my answer to this elsewhere.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Because, honestly, it sucked. Bad. I saw how bad it could be abused. Everyone in the party got an 8d6 Healing Aid, Trigger. And then he shifted his points out of the Multipower slot, and the Healing Aid Triggers all stuck around.

Well you have a point there, but (and not to sound too much like Ann Landers here) that kind of abuse only happens when the GM lets it happen. Put a STOP sign above the power and alert people to the trouble that may arise, but I don't see where this is any worse than other legal but potentially abusive powers (X-D Transport, Useable as Attack for instance).

My problem is if I have a legitimate reason to be able to heal and boost power in one action (say a Plasmoid-like creature sucks down a tank of hydrogen that heals him and then makes him more energetic) I should be able to do it. I believe you were the one with the excellent post earlier that stated absolutes should be allow in the game because the rules shouldn't restrict what you can imagine. (Okay, to be fair, I could model this effect with a combo Aid/Heal power, but it worked so well in 4E and so clunkily in 5E)

[Chris Goodwin]

Well you have a point there, but (and not to sound too much like Ann Landers here) that kind of abuse only happens when the GM lets it happen. Put a STOP sign above the power and alert people to the trouble that may arise, but I don't see where this is any worse than other legal but potentially abusive powers (X-D Transport, Useable as Attack for instance).

Going back to the 4e way of doing Healing in Aid is a huge step backward. While there are things that are worth going back to the 4e way, Healing is not one of them.

My problem is if I have a legitimate reason to be able to heal and boost power in one action (say a Plasmoid-like creature sucks down a tank of hydrogen that heals him and then makes him more energetic) I should be able to do it. I believe you were the one with the excellent post earlier that stated absolutes should be allow in the game because the rules shouldn't restrict what you can imagine. (Okay, to be fair, I could model this effect with a combo Aid/Heal power, but it worked so well in 4E and so clunkily in 5E)

Correct. But (a) we're not talking about an absolute, and (b) I've found myself having an issue with the way 5e Healing works at emulating certain constructs, namely D&D style healing effects. Which, speaking of, now might be a good time to talk about it.

In D&D, all healing is cumulative. All healing is also a limited resource to be shepherded wisely. Healing potions, clerical healing spells, paladin's laying on of hands... these are all things that can be used up, in one of the cases permanently. This has led me to the conclusion that cumulative Healing probably won't be unbalancing if you stack Limitations on it. In other words, a 4d6 Cumulative Healing that you can only use three times a day, has Extra Time: 5 Minutes, and an Expendable Focus.... doesn't fall under the "300d6 per hour" problem I've brought up on the boards.

That might be something to think about for 6e.

[Chris Goodwin]

On the subject of killing attacks... I recall we talked on these boards sometime a few months or a year ago about making Killing Damage a combat maneuver. So, check this out. All attacks are bought as Normal attacks. You can switch to the Killing mechanic at any time.... but there are some restrictions on it. Perhaps it takes a full Phase, perhaps it has an OCV penalty, perhaps it requires a target at half DCV or otherwise less or non-resistant. Killing someone is a decision that the character (or the player) has to make. In most instances, it should probably require an Ego roll, due to the "everyman" Code vs. Killing we all seem to have.

Comments?

[Silbeg]

Or something. Sticking it in Transform is just clunky*. I agree. If you have to fold it into something. Shape Shift makes allot more sense.

Heck, make it a Talent, and then just say it works.
Then we don't really have to care about the build, or what Power it is being based on.

Thus:
Instant Change: 5
This talent allows the character to change into another costume from whatever he or she is wearing. For a +5 Adder, he can change back into any "normal" clothing.


Or something like that.

[McCoy]

I have always have had a problem with this power. It is an enhanced sense that cuts your opponents defense in half multiple times. However you can not tell anybody else what the weakness is!!

While I don't completely agree with the solution, I do agree that this is a problem in logic that should be addressed.

I agree. I've sen this used in fiction. Scan the target, find the weak point tell the attacker "hit it here!"
Number Two Son had a character that could do that.
Find Weakness 11- with All Attacks
for up to 30 Active Points of Find Weakness, Usable Simultaneously (up to 8 people at once; +1) (0 Active Points); OAF (Focus, paintball gun; -1)
Reserve, and when that character fired a paintball, make that your point of aim. :D

[Netzilla]

Q: Should FTL Travel be eliminated in favor of MegaScaled Flight?

Actually, I think FTL works well as is. There's enough differences between that and MegaScaled flight as to make re-building it using flight would potentially be over-complicated (trying to get the exact right level of MegScale, Only outside of Atmosphere, 0 END, etc).

Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?

I think it should be replaced with Armor Piercing, Requires a Skill Roll.

Q: Should Gliding be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

Flight, 0 END, Loses Altitude seems a simple enough write-up, so sure.

Q: Should Growth and Shrinking be done differently?

I think they work okay as they are. One thing I would like to see changed, however, is the DCV modifier. It seems silly to me that it's just as easy to hit an Aircraft Carrier (0 DCV) as it is to hit a parked car (0 DCV). Either DCV scores need to be allowed to drop below 0 (which causes a lot of problems with ½ and 0 DCV situations) or the modifier needs to be made an adder to the attacker's OCV. After all, you're already applying a modifier to other characters' Perception Rolls, so doing the same to their OCV seems to follow right along with it.

Another thing that might be worth considering is building in certain other “common” Growth advantages into the power, such as Area Effect ands and feet. This would simplify the common 'Giant Man' build, but the cost structure would need to be re-evaluated, so I'm not sure if it's worth it.

Q: Should the “STR adds damage” feature be removed from HKA?

I think that the STR adding makes for a effective counter-balance to the loss of range over RKA (I'd also make this argument for Hand Attack as well). So I think that STR adding damage should be the default. I agree with the logic behind folding HKA and RKA into a single Killing Attack power that has a Ranged or Hand to Hand switch. The same should be done with Energy Blast, IMO.

Q: Should the STUN Multiplier for Killing Attacks be changed?

Personally, I think the existing 1d6-1 is just too random and I'm not sure that 1d3+1 would fix that.

Normal attacks average out at 3.5 Stun per DC and max at 6 per DC. Killing attacks are a little more complicated, but effectively are 9.3 per 3DC (3.1 per DC) on average but max at 30 per 3DC (10 per DC). It's not only unbalanced but counterintuitive that Killing attacks are better at stunning than Normal attacks are.

Switching to a 1d3+1 changes your average Stun Multiplier form 2.66 to 3. That's an average of 3 Stun per DC and a max (6 * 4 / 3) of 8 Stun per DC, so you still have a higher Stun max than a Normal attack does. By going to a smaller die, you're increasing the odds of rolling that max stun multiplier, which is where the real problem with the current Stun Lotto lies. It's not just that your max Stun is higher, but you hit your max Stun more often with a Killing attack than with a normal. Making that happen even more often is exacerbating the problem, even if the multiplier is lower.

Personally, I think that we need a unified damage mechanic. Currently we have two methods:
* Roll the dice, total for Stun, then count 1, 2-5, and 6s for Body.
* Roll the dice, total for Body, then roll a Stun Multiplier.

One possibility is to make Killing a +1/4 advantage that increases be Body count by 1 per die (so instead of a Normal attack's 0,1,2 you'd have 1,2,3) or a +1/2 that “doubles” the Body count per die (1, 2, 4). You'd also be able to simplify the Hit Locations chart as you'd no longer need separate columns for Killing and Normal Stun Multipliers.

A quick comparison of the possible outcomes for each method:
* 12 DC Normal Attack: 12/42/72 min/average/max Stun, 0/12/24 min/average/max Body.
* Current 4d6 Killing: 0/27/120 Stun, 4/14/24 Body.
* Steve's 4d6 Killing: 8/42/96 Stun, 4/14/24 Body
* 12 DC Killing at +1/4 = 9.5 dice: 10/33/57 Stun, 10/19/28 Body.
* 12 DC Killing at +1/2 = 8 dice: 8/28/48 Stun, 8/16/32 Body.

[ajackson]

Some statistics for killing vs normal, showing why the stun multiplier is bad. The table below shows average stun vs defense for 3-12 DC and 4-40 defense. As you can see, at high defense, killing attacks consistently average more stun, often by a large margin. This is backwards; killing attacks should be the optimal way to kill people, not the optimal way to knock them out. Using the proposed 1/2d6+1 stun modifier, the effect is less severe at the high end, but more than makes up for it by never averaging less stun than a normal dice attack.

DC 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
3N 6.5 4.6 2.8 1.5 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3K 5.8 4.5 3.6 2.8 2.1 1.6 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4N 10 8.0 6.0 4.2 2.6 1.4 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4K 8.2 6.6 5.4 4.4 3.5 2.8 2.1 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5N 14 12 9.5 7.5 5.6 3.9 2.4 1.3 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5K 11 9.0 7.6 6.4 5.4 4.4 3.6 2.9 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
6N 17 15 13 11 9.0 7.1 5.2 3.6 2.2 1.2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6K 15 13 11 9.8 8.6 7.5 6.5 5.6 4.7 4.0 3.4 2.8 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.5
7N 20 18 17 15 13 11 8.5 6.6 4.9 3.3 2.1 1.2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7K 17 15 14 12 11 9.6 8.4 7.4 6.4 5.6 4.8 4.1 3.4 2.9 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.0
8N 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8.1 6.2 4.6 3.1 1.9 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0
8K 20 18 16 15 13 12 11 9.4 8.4 7.4 6.5 5.7 4.9 4.2 3.6 3.1 2.6 2.2 1.8
9N 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 9.6 7.7 5.9 4.3 2.9 1.8 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1
9K 24 22 20 18 17 15 14 13 12 10 9.4 8.5 7.6 6.7 6.0 5.3 4.6 4.0 3.5
10N 31 29 27 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 9.1 7.2 5.5 4.0 2.7 1.7 1.0 0.5
10K 27 25 23 21 19 18 16 15 14 13 11 10 9.4 8.4 7.6 6.8 6.0 5.3 4.7
11N 34 32 30 28 27 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 8.7 6.8 5.2 3.7 2.5 1.6
11K 29 27 25 23 22 20 19 17 16 15 14 12 11 10 9.4 8.5 7.7 6.9 6.2
12N 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8.2 6.5 4.9 3.5
12K 33 31 29 27 26 24 22 21 19 18 17 16 15 13 12 11 10 9.6 8.7

[Susano]

Number Two Son had a character that could do that.

Reserve, and when that character fired a paintball, make that your point of aim. :D

I thought Find Weakness wasn't Useable By Others.....

[Silbeg]

HKA has been.... flat out wrong, all these years.

Guy A spends 20 points on STR. He has 30 STR.

Guy B spends 60 points on RKA. He has 4d6 RKA.

Guy C spends 20 points on STR, and 30 points on HKA. He now has 4d6 HKA. Either he's spent 50 points on his 4d6 HKA, and gotten +20 STR for free, or he's spent 7.5 points per d6 on his HKA. Either way, something ain't right.


Huh?

20 STR + 2d6 KA would give 3d6+1 (20STR gives 4DC, not 6DC)

[Chris Goodwin]

Huh?

20 STR + 2d6 KA would give 3d6+1 (20STR gives 4DC, not 6DC)

Guys A and C spent 20 points on STR.

[Opal]

20 STR + 2d6 KA would give 3d6+1 (20STR gives 4DC, not 6DC)+20 STR, for a total of 30. The heart of the objection here is twofold: 1) you start with a 10 STR. 2) When you add STR to an HKA, it transforms from normal to killing damage 'for free.'

The answer to the objection is: 1) so does everyone else. 2) You pay as much for an HKA as for an RKA of the same dice, that's not free.

30 STR + 2d HKA = 4d HKA, for 60 points - 50 of which you pay out of your total, 10 of which you 'spend' by not selling back your base 10 STR.

4d of RKA, no range, gives you exactly the same attack ability, for 40 pts. And, you can sell back your 10 STR without reducing the effectivenes of that attack - if you really wanted to. So, really, you could have it for 30pts, net - you punch for no damage, start with a 0 PD, and can only lift 25kg, but none of that stopps you from smacking people for a 4d KA. If you wanted a 30 STR to go with it (just to be like the HKA guy above), you could pay 20 points for it. You've paid out 10 more points than the HKA guy, but, then again, when you're both STR drained, your KA is still 4d, while his goes down. For that matter, when your KAs are both drained, HKA guy's goes down twice as fast (because his STR can only double it).

[Ockham's Spoon]

Going back to the 4e way of doing Healing in Aid is a huge step backward. While there are things that are worth going back to the 4e way, Healing is not one of them.

Well I am just going to have to respectfully disagree with you that this would be a step backwards. Not that 4E Aid didn't have some problems, but I don't think splitting out Healing was the solution.

Correct. But (a) we're not talking about an absolute, and (b) I've found myself having an issue with the way 5e Healing works at emulating certain constructs, namely D&D style healing effects. Which, speaking of, now might be a good time to talk about it.

Oh, I didn't mean that this was an absolute, but that the system had a constraint on what I could reasonably imagine. (Actually I didn't care for the idea of absolutes in Hero until you made this point. I am still lukewarm on them, but I think you are right that they should be included because if I have a story that needs them there should be an easy way to do it.)

In D&D, all healing is cumulative. All healing is also a limited resource to be shepherded wisely. Healing potions, clerical healing spells, paladin's laying on of hands... these are all things that can be used up, in one of the cases permanently. This has led me to the conclusion that cumulative Healing probably won't be unbalancing if you stack Limitations on it. In other words, a 4d6 Cumulative Healing that you can only use three times a day, has Extra Time: 5 Minutes, and an Expendable Focus.... doesn't fall under the "300d6 per hour" problem I've brought up on the boards.

That might be something to think about for 6e.

The key here is what limitations you put on it to make it work (in D&D it was limited charges obviously). And if all the healing in your campaign had limited charges, cumulative would be fine. Our house rule on this is that cumulative is allowed, but only up to the max you could roll on the dice. No increase in the max is allowed unless you buy more dice. Which, honestly, is how I think Aid should work too, but then I would roll Healing into Aid again wouldn't I?

[Opal]

The key here is what limitations you put on it to make it work (in D&D it was limited charges obviously). Actually, out of the lowest levels, D&D healing is really only limitted in combat. It quickly becomes a trivial resource expenditure to heal between combats. In combat, healing takes an action, and that's fairly signficant in Hero. Healing should be fairly pricey, in terms of Apts, so