Powers Issues -- F-K [Archive] - HERO Games Discussion Boards

Steve Long

Feb 11th, '08, 04:44 AM

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

Feb 17th, '08, 06:39 PM

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

Feb 17th, '08, 09:41 PM

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

Feb 17th, '08, 10:47 PM

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

Feb 17th, '08, 11:30 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 12:34 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 02:33 AM

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, while it simplifies things for experienced players, people new to the game 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 the above linked posts 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

Feb 18th, '08, 03:00 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 04:35 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 05:05 AM

F G H I

Yes, this is the right thread.

Two Words: Instant Change!

Sean Waters

Feb 18th, '08, 05:09 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 06:38 AM

steamteck

Feb 18th, '08, 07:41 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 08:58 AM

The Main Man

Feb 18th, '08, 09:07 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 09:09 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 09:49 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 09:59 AM

F G H I

F G H I?:confused:

DavidToomey

Feb 18th, '08, 10:04 AM

f-k = fghi...jk

James Gillen

Feb 18th, '08, 10:13 AM

Edsel

Feb 18th, '08, 10:45 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 11:10 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 11:10 AM

Chris Goodwin

Feb 18th, '08, 11:20 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 11:28 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 12:28 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 12:32 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 12:37 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 12:40 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 12:45 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 08:55 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 09:04 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 09:47 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 09:48 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 09:52 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 10:02 PM

James Gillen

Feb 18th, '08, 10:47 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 11:37 PM

Alibear

Feb 19th, '08, 02:16 AM

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

Feb 19th, '08, 06:22 AM

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

Feb 19th, '08, 07:30 AM

SSgt Baloo

Feb 19th, '08, 07:55 AM

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

Feb 19th, '08, 10:48 AM

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

Feb 19th, '08, 11:55 AM

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

Feb 19th, '08, 12:30 PM

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

Feb 19th, '08, 05:09 PM

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

Feb 19th, '08, 05:21 PM

Susano

Feb 19th, '08, 08:53 PM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 12:08 AM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 12:54 AM

GamePhil

Feb 20th, '08, 05:10 AM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 05:41 AM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 11:55 AM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 12:26 PM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 12:33 PM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 12:37 PM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 12:59 PM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 01:11 PM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 01:48 PM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 02:07 PM

Opal

Feb 20th, '08, 02:19 PM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 02:50 PM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 02:59 PM

steamteck

Feb 20th, '08, 05:38 PM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 05:49 PM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 06:02 PM

We found a flat x3 STUN Multiple worked wonders.

braincraft

Feb 20th, '08, 06:52 PM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 08:03 PM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 08:26 PM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 08:35 PM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 08:50 PM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 11:06 PM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 01:36 AM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 06:38 AM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 07:07 AM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 07:27 AM

Ockham's Spoon

Feb 21st, '08, 07:31 AM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 07:51 AM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 07:54 AM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 07:59 AM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 08:11 AM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 08:12 AM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 09:52 AM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 10:01 AM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 10:48 AM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 11:06 AM

Huh?

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

Guys A and C spent 20 points on STR.

Opal

Feb 21st, '08, 11:17 AM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 01:49 PM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 01:55 PM

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 that you can't heal faster than the enemy does damage, but it being cumulative isn't that bad, as long as it's not also constant or anything - unless the genre is gritty enough that the looming fear of death is desireable, of course.

Another way to handle healing, instead of making it cumulative, would be to boost REC instead of healing directly. That helps someone heal faster, but doesn't create the problem of applying a tiny amount repeatedly for a big effect. That kind of healing could very easily be Aid.

Silbeg

Feb 21st, '08, 05:38 PM

Guys A and C spent 20 points on STR.

Ah.. now I get what you are getting at.

d'oh

McCoy

Feb 21st, '08, 05:59 PM

I thought Find Weakness wasn't Useable By Others.....
We need a :shrug: smiley.

HD took it, will admit it didn't occure to me to check the 5RE writeup. Let me get back to you.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 21st, '08, 08:46 PM

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.

That approach works just as well to me.

McCoy

Feb 21st, '08, 10:08 PM

I thought Find Weakness wasn't Useable By Others.....
We did it wrong. 5ER p176 says that it can be useable by others, but each must make their own roll.

Susano

Feb 22nd, '08, 03:33 AM

We did it wrong. 5ER p176 says that it can be useable by others, but each must make their own roll.

Which sort of negates the reason for buying the power with UBO.

rjcurrie

Feb 22nd, '08, 07:40 AM

Susano

Feb 22nd, '08, 08:26 AM

GamePhil

Feb 22nd, '08, 09:02 AM

To me, the way Find Weakness should work is that if you make the roll, you are actually told some appropriate combat weakness of the character you are fighting. "He's vulnerable to cold". "His energy blast drops him to half DCV". "He needs to use gestures to use his powers". Something like that.

Maybe, but that's not how Karnak of the Inhumans worked, and he's the primary person this is based on. He's stand aside and study the target for long periods of time before striking, and then be able to easily penetrate his defenses.

Not saying that one character is a good reason to have it work the way it does, I'd be just as satisfied with him having an NND or AVLD vs. Lack of Weakness that does Body, but there you go.

rjcurrie

Feb 22nd, '08, 10:06 AM

Maybe, but that's not how Karnak of the Inhumans worked, and he's the primary person this is based on. He's stand aside and study the target for long periods of time before striking, and then be able to easily penetrate his defenses.

Not saying that one character is a good reason to have it work the way it does, I'd be just as satisfied with him having an NND or AVLD vs. Lack of Weakness that does Body, but there you go.

Ah. Okay. I'll confess to not being terribly familiar with the Inhumans.That explains a little better why the power works the way it does.

ajackson

Feb 22nd, '08, 10:15 AM

Actually, one way to implement Karnak is that he has a ranged Defense drain with a special requirement that Defense is only reduced against people who know what the weakness is.

Kdansky

Feb 22nd, '08, 10:27 AM

The "Tell the character a weakness" Idea sounds more like a skill than a power to me. I would actually allow a player to buy "Analyze: ..." for that, although I'm unsure what kind of Analyze. Analyze: Weakness? Whatever. Also, I'm hugely in favour of more ways to do "grant my friends something." I tried to do a Power that granted my friends better combat abilities, and the best way to do it was Aid: Dex, which is just extremly... not so cool? Find Weakness UBO would be stylish, but is extremly cumbersome atm, I'd like a change there. Also, it's usually just plain too good. We could also do it as a drain, but then, drain is ridiculously expensive per die (gogo suppress!) and eats up your attack action.

To put it simple: I would like to have more non-attack action options, like the swift actions in DnD.

Healing-Aid: I like healing, it's quite a lot better than the chaotic Aid with half a dozen limitations and advantages, and fits the problem a lot better. Still, Regeneration is terrible, make it a separate power, or a heal-subtype, but not a Healing-Construct with half a dozen limitations and advantages. See what I'm getting at? ;)

Stun lotto: Has to go. Period. KAs are the best Attack to stun people, that's wrong. If you want to kill them, buy KA, NND, Does Body. If you want to stun them, buy HKA plus a bit of strength. Why one would ever want to buy RKA or EB eludes me, except for concept reasons. Stun multiplier of 3 is also a very bad solution, as that makes KA better than EB in absolutely all aspects. Only marginally less reliable (completely irrelevant), slightly better (!) average stun, clearly better average body, decent change of stunning anyone (that's big!), and semi-AVLD to boot. For the same costs. That is soooo wrong.

Chris Goodwin

Feb 22nd, '08, 10:41 AM

Actually, one way to implement Karnak is that he has a ranged Defense drain with a special requirement that Defense is only reduced against people who know what the weakness is.

Sounds more like Suppress to me. But yeah, the general point is good.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 22nd, '08, 11:16 AM

Actually, one way to implement Karnak is that he has a ranged Defense drain with a special requirement that Defense is only reduced against people who know what the weakness is.

But Karnak (or Karate Kid) was never able to tell others how to exploit the weakness. I recall Wolverine's first appearance, where he finds the weak spot on the Hulk, and goes for his throat. A letter writer later said he was surprised Hulk had one weak spot, which Karnak found and attacked his torso some years previous, and two :eek:

The answer was quite logical. The point at which he was weakest to a set of adamantium claws and the point at which inhuman martial arts would be the most effective were different. If we assume it is finding a weakness where MY attack will be most effective, this blunts a lot of the criticism that I can't tell you where YOUR attack will be most effective.

Perhaps we should add an adder for being able to tell where ANY attack (yours or someone else's) will be most effective, but how do you communicate this effectively in the heat of combat? And it may move - that subtle limp that tipped me off a year ago is no longer there because that injury is now fully healed.

The Main Man

Feb 22nd, '08, 02:39 PM

I agree that Find Weakness is better defined as either a skill or an enhanced sense, but why not make it Talent again?

Perhaps the weakness can be communicated for a +1 Power Advantage.

ajackson

Feb 22nd, '08, 02:48 PM

But Karnak (or Karate Kid) was never able to tell others how to exploit the weakness.
Untrue. Karnak has rather routinely shown the weak point to others, most typically Gorgon.

steamteck

Feb 22nd, '08, 03:17 PM

Untrue. Karnak has rather routinely shown the weak point to others, most typically Gorgon.

Or on the Hulk once for Black Bolt after he wasn't strong enough to exploit it.

jimgettman

Feb 23rd, '08, 03:01 AM

...
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...
Netzilla's analysis is must reading. Stun lotto is such an exploited rules crock that the rules are getting more rules to patch the abuse, e.g. "can't use 'Does no BOD' on KA". What about the egregious 1d6 KA with extra stun multiples?

I say eliminate the multipliers altogether, even from the location chart. Instead, use separate STN and BOD dice. (Roll dice in two colors to save time.) STN dice would cost 4 points, and BOD dice would cost 8 with no range or STR add. A package doing 3d STN and 1d BOD would be 16 points, so a 60 AP attack could do 12d STN and 3d BOD, or 1d STN and 7d BOD. This makes weapons easier to design, e.g. a 60 AP attack could actually kill a normal person.

Making range always an advantage means that blasters hovering out of combat would be less effective, like the sissies they really are.

Making does damage a +1/4 advantage on STR also adds granularity, and balances the designs for genres where weapons have STR min.

incrdbil

Feb 23rd, '08, 06:46 AM

Loits of excellent work on the stun multiplier. Other threads examined this in the past, and its been pointed by math, and by play experience.

Thestun multiplier is unbalancing. Especially with the relatively cheap added stun multiplier advantage. Even the 1d3+1 doesn't work, as it still promotes a killing attack as the optimal way to knock out tough targets, and just as good as taking out anyone else.

I know my house rules doesnt work as a standard though. Though multiplying by 2.5 is easy, its predictable, and to many gamers, it foesn't look 'sexy'. It's boring, and its just multiplying. Though I feel the randomness is preserved by the widely varying totals of BODY damage rolled.

Keeping to some type of randon mechanism, and we're tied do d6, makes me think of just using a base d3. This produces pretty miserab;e stun amounts though. I conidered rulign that only resistamt defenses aply against thsi stun, not the normal rule that some resistant defense lets a target use all defense vs the stun of the killing attack as a possibel counter. This is an added consistancy--you only apply resistat defenses to any type of killing damage.

Still, somone might want to run the math on the d3 multiplier and see if its too underperforming. Of course, part of me says thats a prime reason to keep the added stun multiplier advantage around.

This strictly addresses the superheroic range, it seems far fewer complaints exist on the heroic scale, though that might just be my skewed perspective. It may be simpler to list optional stun multiplier systems for genres inthe book, including my standard flat multiplier idea..but 1d3+1 is mechanically too powerful and imbalancing, and pushes the system towards favoring killing damage over normal damage in all circumstances.

Netzilla

Feb 23rd, '08, 11:00 AM

My reasons for wanting to do away with the Stun Multiplier for a Unified Damage Mechanic (UDM) consist of more than just play balance between normal and killing attacks. Here's a quick list:

* A UDM will make it easier to balance the attacks against each other as they'll all be on the same method of resolution.
* One rule takes up less space in the rule book, making it that much shorter.
* One rule is easier for new players to learn than two.
* One rule would simplify the Hit Location chart by removing one of the columns.
* Reduce the number of rolls for Killing Attack damage from two to one.
* The existing Stun Multiplier might, arguably, reflect the wide variance of reactions to lethal attacks in real life, but real life is not "Dramatic Reality", which is one of the stated design goals of 6th edition.
* The existing Stun Multiplier can all too easily ruin the dramatic tention of a big scene. In the final confrontation with the big bad guy, the first shot of with a 2d6 sword has a rougly 0.5% chance of doing 12 body and 60 stun (max damage). The supposedly equally powerful 6d6 club attack has only a 0.002% chance of doing 12/36 damage. That's not only a massive difference of scale, but the killing attack is several orders of magnitude more likely to get that result.

I believe that all forms of a stun multiplier (1d6-1, 1d3+1, 1d3, x2.5, x3 and so on) violate at least half of the above and most violate all.

GloryFox

Feb 23rd, '08, 08:56 PM

posted by incrdbil
Thestun multiplier is unbalancing. Especially with the relatively cheap added stun multiplier advantage. Even the 1d3+1 doesn't work, as it still promotes a killing attack as the optimal way to knock out tough targets, and just as good as taking out anyone else.

The issue is not with "no Body" on KA's as an option or the low cost of stun multipliers, but the cost of KA's overall. The cost is far to low to be justified at 15 points per d6. Increase the cost of KA"s and you will see some of the abuse simply go away.

Shadowsoul

Feb 24th, '08, 04:48 AM

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).

I'm coming in quite late so I hope I haven't missed too much of the arguments on this one but I personally don't like the idea of ignoring the effect of strength. Basically that suggests that the amount of force you hit someone with does not affect how badly you hurt them. That just ain't right because for example mounted knights with lances would be wasting their time if the amount of force they could bring to bear wasn't important, superheroes and giant creatures would not be able to do any more damage with a dagger than a child would.

And if extra strength doesn't increase damage then logically the extra force generated by a move through shouldn't affect damage either, and move throughs are fun, I don't want to get rid of them.

It would also mean in heroic games that equipment would be even more important and would encourage muscular people to just wander around with huge axes or whatever because that is the only way they can bring their superior strength to bear. Points should decide how much carnage you can inflict, not whatever uber-weapons you manage to convince the GM to let you have.

If it hasn't been mentioned already I might suggest that you adapt the Weapon Familiarity rules. You could have cheaper WF's for a working knowledge and slightly more expensive ones to allow you to use your strength to increase damage, (because you know what you are doing). But that could get very clunky and irritating. You could just say that in addition to the unfamiliar weapon -3 OCV Penalty you can't get a Str Damage Bonus with an unfamiliar weapon, (because you are too busy trying to get the thing to go in the right direction anyway).

Scott Destroyer

Feb 24th, '08, 01:57 PM

Hi all,

My thoughts on Steve's list:

Ditch FTL Travel for MegaScale Flight - Keep. Simplicity outweighs consistency in this case for me, and FTL is egregious enough unrealism to me to be worth a special case.
Ditch Find Weakness - Yes, please.
Make Gliding limited Flight - Yes, please.
Growth/Shrinking - They are troublemakers. Size Template thing sounds interesting. Absent that, I'd strongly consider adding extra movement back in with the other bonuses, changing price as needed.
STR Adds Damage Removed from HKA - I expressed my general views on Attack Powers in the A-E thread; in that form, HKA would be +Xd6 Attack Power with Killing Damage Advantage and perhaps give the Killing Damage Advantage to some portion of STR Damage.
Combine HKA and RKA - again, see A-E thread, short sum-up = yes, along with HA and EB.
Change KA STUN Multiplier? - as said in A-E thread, get rid of funky Killing Damage dice-rolling system entirely, and make it a cheap form of AVLD.

On other issues in the thread:

Instant Change - I don't like the Transform thing either, but I also don't think it deserves a full-blown Power. A simple Talent to reduce change from 1 Phase to 0 Phase action (by whatever SFX/reason) seems do-able.
Flash - Seems perhaps a touch weak as is. Between previous editions, it was halved in cost and had its inherent AOE removed, probably just to give some alternative to Transform for poking someone in the eye. To me, though, eye-poking, permanent limb removal, and other such things should be part of a proper hit location and damage system, and not depend on any particular Power.
Healing and its restrictions - I'd like to see Healing as seperate Power gone, period, and a "Healing" (i. e., gained points don't fade below ability's normal level) Advantage available for Absorption/Aid/Transfer, with the default as unlimited healing with no cycling time between healings. This would eliminate the exceptionalism of Regeneration without requiring it once again as a seperate power, and allow things like life-drain spells without all the stupid kludging that is now required. Yes, it's powerful - charge points accordingly, and give it a stop sign, don't just make it ridiculously complicated to construct, like it is now.
Force Wall Change Size Default - Yes, please.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 24th, '08, 02:12 PM

I'm coming in quite late so I hope I haven't missed too much of the arguments on this one but I personally don't like the idea of ignoring the effect of strength. Basically that suggests that the amount of force you hit someone with does not affect how badly you hurt them. That just ain't right because for example mounted knights with lances would be wasting their time if the amount of force they could bring to bear wasn't important, superheroes and giant creatures would not be able to do any more damage with a dagger than a child would.

If the superhero wants to do more damage withthe dagger, he should pay more points to be able to do more damage. Just like any other focus a Super buys. A giant-size ray gun that does more damage buys more damage classes. So should a KA that is backed up by superhuman STR. That dagger already does the same amount of damage whether wielded by a 20 STR Super or a 75 STR Super.

To the giant, assuming it's in a heroic game, I would presume the dagger (and any other HTH weapon) would buy limited KA that requires STR above its STR minimum to access. When equipment is purchased with money rather than points, the build matters very little.

And if extra strength doesn't increase damage then logically the extra force generated by a move through shouldn't affect damage either, and move throughs are fun, I don't want to get rid of them.

That's a separate combat maneuver, and the added velocity damage comes with a cost of reduced OCV.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 24th, '08, 02:15 PM

Flash - Seems perhaps a touch weak as is. Between previous editions, it was halved in cost and had its inherent AOE removed, probably just to give some alternative to Transform for poking someone in the eye. To me, though, eye-poking, permanent limb removal, and other such things should be part of a proper hit location and damage system, and not depend on any particular Power.
Healing and its restrictions - I'd like to see Healing as seperate Power gone, period, and a "Healing" (i. e., gained points don't fade below ability's normal level) Advantage available for Absorption/Aid/Transfer, with the default as unlimited healing with no cycling time between healings. This would eliminate the exceptionalism of Regeneration without requiring it once again as a seperate power, and allow things like life-drain spells without all the stupid kludging that is now required. Yes, it's powerful - charge points accordingly, and give it a stop sign, don't just make it ridiculously complicated to construct, like it is now.

I don't find Flash weak. Being blinded for a turn by a 12d6 Flash seems quite adequately powered, and I find a small Flash carried on another attack with an MPA makes for a very effective attack power.

I do like the change to 5/die and lasting in segments, rather than 10/die and lasting for phases. It makes 10 points of flash defense less of an invulnerability.

I also see little problem with the current Healing construct. You want to use it more often? Buy down the re-use duration. I would like to see that reduced reuse time incorporated into regeneration - if that advantage had existed from the start, it likely would have been built that way.

I would, however, like to see an ability to have a power which both Heals and Aids, not only for a straight Aid/Heal combination, but also for use with Absorbtion and Transform.

James Gillen

Feb 24th, '08, 11:37 PM

To me, the way Find Weakness should work is that if you make the roll, you are actually told some appropriate combat weakness of the character you are fighting. "He's vulnerable to cold". "His energy blast drops him to half DCV". "He needs to use gestures to use his powers". Something like that.

You can do that already. Buy Enhanced Sense: Detect Target Weakness for at least 5 points, add Range, Discriminatory, and so forth. Of course if I were GM I'd wonder what magic or technobabble explanation would explain how you would know Target A is Susceptible to Kryptonite, Target B loses her superstrength if chained by a man, Target C is Dependent on water, etc.

JG

Shadowsoul

Feb 25th, '08, 04:32 AM

If the superhero wants to do more damage withthe dagger, he should pay more points to be able to do more damage. Just like any other focus a Super buys. A giant-size ray gun that does more damage buys more damage classes. So should a KA that is backed up by superhuman STR. That dagger already does the same amount of damage whether wielded by a 20 STR Super or a 75 STR Super.

To the giant, assuming it's in a heroic game, I would presume the dagger (and any other HTH weapon) would buy limited KA that requires STR above its STR minimum to access. When equipment is purchased with money rather than points, the build matters very little.

That's a separate combat maneuver, and the added velocity damage comes with a cost of reduced OCV.

We've crossed wires there I think.

Forgetting 'gaming logic' for a moment both Str Damage Bonus and Move Through Damage Bonus are based on the idea that if you hit something with more force, effectively if you apply more kinetic energy to it, then you are potentially going to do more damage. I'm no physicist but I'm pretty sure that that's why bullets cause so much damage, why lance charges work and why it's worth having as many soldiers as possible using a battering ram.

Now I know that a game can't be expected to mirror life perfectly but that's a pretty big thing to ignore.

However, in terms of game balance I can accept that Superheroes in particular should be made to pay for the privilege of using their extra strength to inflict more damage. Skill levels to apply Str Damage bonus perhaps, or possibly your Str based killing attack.

Alternatively, you could just make Str more expensive ...

Hugh Neilson

Feb 25th, '08, 06:12 AM

Now I know that a game can't be expected to mirror life perfectly but that's a pretty big thing to ignore.

If we can have STR Adds on a KA, why not also on an eye gouge (Flash), "a wrap the target in materials at hand" entangle (I can use tougher materials) or a Bruising punch (PD Drain)? Instead, we say, "buy a bigger Flash". I say "buy a bigger KA" to reflect the extra punch you can put behind it.

And you already have the realty disconnext. Grond is no more effective pushing that dagger through tank armor than a 20 STR Super.

However, in terms of game balance I can accept that Superheroes in particular should be made to pay for the privilege of using their extra strength to inflict more damage. Skill levels to apply Str Damage bonus perhaps, or possibly your Str based killing attack.

Alternatively, you could just make Str more expensive ...

Why should a character with no killing attacks pay extra to have the unused ability to enhance killing attack damage? This, to me, is the problem with "STR Adds". It is not properly an advantage on the killing attack, as it varies with the STR of the user. It is not properly an advantage on the STR, as it varies with the KA level, and even whether the character has a KA.

BobGreenwade

Feb 25th, '08, 08:32 AM

Vondy

Feb 25th, '08, 11:01 AM

Untrue. Karnak has rather routinely shown the weak point to others, most typically Gorgon.

I was of the opinion the magnificent carnac did this with his rapier like wit...

SAVeira

Feb 25th, '08, 04:38 PM

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

No. However, I believe the cost should be in line with or close that of MegaScaled Flight.

Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?

No. It could be changed, but it is a classic superpower, also seen in various other forms in other genre.

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?

No idea. However, if some of the changes are done to the Characteristics happens, these powers must be revised.

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

Maybe.

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

Only if the "STR adds damage" feature is removed from HKA.

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

No. Never had a problem with the STUN Multiplier.

nexus

Feb 25th, '08, 04:49 PM

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

No. That is just too nonintuitive and, IMO, an unnecessary complication. I think I understand the reasoning (nothing is free) but Strength should provide some benefit to killing damage. It's "logical" and could provide a stumbling block, particularly to new players by adding a nonintuitive step to, for example, buying sword.

Personal opinion: Making Killing Damage an Advantage could solve this. Get HTH with Killing and if you wanted and add your Strength like any other Advantaged HTH attack

nexus

Feb 25th, '08, 04:51 PM

No. That is just too nonintuitive and, IMO, an unnecessary complication. I think I understand the reasoning (nothing is free) but Strength should provide some benefit to killing damage. It's "logical" and could provide a stumbling block, particularly to new players by adding a nonintuitive step to, for example, buying sword.

Personal opinion: Making Killing Damage an Advantage could solve this. Get HTH with Killing and if you wanted and add your Strength like any other Advantaged HTH attack

Alternate idea: Strength Adds Damage could be turned into an Advantage as well.

ajackson

Feb 25th, '08, 05:17 PM

Alternate idea: Strength Adds Damage could be turned into an Advantage as well.
Should probably be an adder, actually, as the value of being able to add strength varies extensively based on how much strength you have, and how much strength you can add. Probably about +1 point per 5 points of Str you can add, that being comparable in cost to multipowering your Str.

dsatow

Feb 25th, '08, 06:24 PM

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

No, its simple and easy to use. Why complicate.

Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?

Personally I like Find Weakness and in play it works for a character that studies a target before attacking. However, its a pain to use since 5e, requiring a roll against normal def and resistant def, there are issues of power made halving, there are confusions about how to implement. I'd rather see Find Weakness work as the very late piercing power. Basically roll to take off points of def.

EX: I make a find weakness roll of 14- and roll a 10. This means I pierce 4 points of defense for that attack.

I also think you should only find weakness versus a catergory type and not vs normal and resistant. Thus you should find weakness against PD or ED or Mental or Power or etc.

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

I do too. I think gliding as it is right now is too cheap as far as movement powers go. I think all movement powers should be 1" for 2 points. For tunneling it should be 1" for 2 points, 1 Def for 3 points.

Q: Should Growth and Shrinking be done differently?

I think they are fine the way it is now except I'd take out the size changing punch. If players want to do that, they should buy HA with that special effect.

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

I think I am kind of partial to making a generic RKA and adding an advantage adds Strength for +1/2. Thus a spear is a RKA with range and with add str. The problem I have is the HKA always tends to unbalance multipowers/ECs with power levels. This would remove that.

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

See above, but I think so.

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

The problem here is the stun lottery. Lets take two equal attacks. A 9d6 EB and a 3d6 RKA. Which would players in general think is the better attack. You'd normally think, they are equal but the distribution of amount of stun begs to differ. On the average, the RKA will do more stun. One method which seems to fix this is leveling the stun mod in super games to a set number. In supers without hit locations a 3 stun mod works well.
1) It prevents people from playing the stun lottery (Ex: on a 2d6 KA, the 1 in 4 chance you will roll 14+).
2) In a supers game, you can actually make people bullet proof to small arms fire(up to 2d6K +0 stun) by buying ~36 points of PD! With the lottery, you need to buy 60 points.
3) It relates to the chest of a target, the same as a EB does in damage. EB gets short changed because by design it always targets the chest and never the head in normal combat, whiel the stun mode simulates hitting the head when you roll a 6 on the stun mod.

Scott Destroyer

Feb 26th, '08, 05:24 AM

Hi again,

Originally Posted by Hugh Neilson:
I don't find Flash weak. Being blinded for a turn by a 12d6 Flash seems quite adequately powered, and I find a small Flash carried on another attack with an MPA makes for a very effective attack power.

Perhaps, but I seldom see straight-up 12d6 Flashes built. Usually it's either direct eye attacks with martial arts/pepper spray/what-have you, which I think should be handled by the hit location system, or flash bombs/flare spells with AoE or Explosion and often affecting Hearing Group as well, which cuts down dice to between 4 and 8. That'll cost a typical SPD 5 supervillain with no Flash Defense two or three blind Phases, and there are enough villains with Flash Defense or exotic targeting senses that it hardly seems worth it, even as a low-Charges slot in a Multipower.

Originally Posted by Hugh Neilson:
I also see little problem with the current Healing construct. You want to use it more often? Buy down the re-use duration. I would like to see that reduced reuse time incorporated into regeneration - if that advantage had existed from the start, it likely would have been built that way.
I have no real problem with the cost structure of the current Healing construct, except for the inability to buy truly unlimited Healing. My problem is that default Healing is now cheap with a built-in Limitation, where, to me, it should be expensive (it is a powerful ability) with any Limitations chosen by GM's and players. I'd be happy to see Healing as a +2 or higher Advantage for Absorption/Aid/Transfer, if it meant building proper vampirism or soul-draining runeswords without a web of Links and Triggers between Healing and Transfer.

Originally Posted by James Gillen:
Of course if I were GM I'd wonder what magic or technobabble explanation would explain how you would know Target A is Susceptible to Kryptonite, Target B loses her superstrength if chained by a man, Target C is Dependent on water, etc.
Some form of psychic or mystic seer who can receive visions of how the target has been defeated in the past, or will be in the future. If the PER Roll is failed, you only saw fights he won, or saw him beaten down by raw force... :)

Originally Posted by Hugh Neilson:
If we can have STR Adds on a KA, why not also on an eye gouge (Flash), "a wrap the target in materials at hand" entangle (I can use tougher materials) or a Bruising punch (PD Drain)?
And people wonder why I want eye gouging to be handled in the damage system, rather than with specific Powers. ;) Most "materials at hand" Entangles I've seen actually do include a "DEF/BODY of Entangle depends on strength of materials used" Limitation; I doubt many GM's would allow a character to buy more Active Points of such an Entangle than the character had of STR unless some other SFX were added into the mix. The "bruising punch as PD Drain" is new to me, but a GM requiring consistency in SFX would make it scale to STR somehow; the HKA is considered already to have "paid" for such scaling by its lack of range. You may be unhappy with how properly-balanced that is, but that's the logic behind it.

Originally Posted by Hugh Neilson:
And you already have the realty disconnext. Grond is no more effective pushing that dagger through tank armor than a 20 STR Super.

I'd beg to differ - though it might not look much like a dagger after it was done going through... :D

Originally Posted by Hugh Neilson:
Originally Posted by Scott Destroyer

Uh, I don't think I was the one who posted that thing about making superheroes pay to use STR they've already paid for, or making STR more expensive.

Originally Posted by Hugh Neilson:
Why should a character with no killing attacks pay extra to have the unused ability to enhance killing attack damage? This, to me, is the problem with "STR Adds". It is not properly an advantage on the killing attack, as it varies with the STR of the user. It is not properly an advantage on the STR, as it varies with the KA level, and even whether the character has a KA.

It is properly an Advantage (currently, a built-in one) on the Killing Attack. The fact that it varies with STR changes the usefulness of the advantage for some characters of different STRs; you seem to think that the cost of the Advantage should change along with this. That makes as little sense to me as changing the cost of the Armor Piercing Advantage to a character depending on the defenses of the Enemies he takes, or changing the cost of Life Support (Water Breathing) depending on how many inches of Swimming a character buys. If you think it's useful, you'll keep the STR damage, if you don't you'll take the No STR Damage Limitation, just like in my example, if you think Armor Piercing's useful, you'll buy it, and if you don't, you won't.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 26th, '08, 06:01 AM

Perhaps, but I seldom see straight-up 12d6 Flashes built. Usually it's either direct eye attacks with martial arts/pepper spray/what-have you, which I think should be handled by the hit location system, or flash bombs/flare spells with AoE or Explosion and often affecting Hearing Group as well, which cuts down dice to between 4 and 8. That'll cost a typical SPD 5 supervillain with no Flash Defense two or three blind Phases, and there are enough villains with Flash Defense or exotic targeting senses that it hardly seems worth it, even as a low-Charges slot in a Multipower.

An 8d6 explosive Flash or 6d6 AoE flash hits automatically and blinds a group for half a turn or so (no flash def), or a segment or three (5 flash def). I consider that sufficiently powerful. If, in your game, flash defense (and/or enhanced senses replacing sight) is universal or nearly so, then it is your allowing this exotic defense to virtually everyone which causes the issue, not the nature of Flash itself. In my games, these FlashBusters are far from universal, and Flash works fine as is.

Now, the better question at this point is which gaming style is more common - if most games find Flash underpowered, as it appears to be in your games, it should be revised. If most games are closer to my experience, where Flash is adequately powerful, it should not be revised. If, in most games, Flash is overpowered (I haven't seen anyone suggest this...yet) then it should be revised to reduce its impact.

I have no real problem with the cost structure of the current Healing construct, except for the inability to buy truly unlimited Healing. My problem is that default Healing is now cheap with a built-in Limitation, where, to me, it should be expensive (it is a powerful ability) with any Limitations chosen by GM's and players. I'd be happy to see Healing as a +2 or higher Advantage for Absorption/Aid/Transfer, if it meant building proper vampirism or soul-draining runeswords without a web of Links and Triggers between Healing and Transfer.

To make truly unlimited healing, simply buy re-use down to once per phase. If that's not an option, clearly it should be. But that should not be the default, because the default is quite overpowered and should be annotated for GM monitoring (ie Stop SIgn). To me this would be like costing Desolid at 120+ points with a built-in "affects solid world" advantage on all attack powers - setting the baseline on "maximum power" and limiting it back to "reasonable power level".

And people wonder why I want eye gouging to be handled in the damage system, rather than with specific Powers. ;) Most "materials at hand" Entangles I've seen actually do include a "DEF/BODY of Entangle depends on strength of materials used" Limitation; I doubt many GM's would allow a character to buy more Active Points of such an Entangle than the character had of STR unless some other SFX were added into the mix. The "bruising punch as PD Drain" is new to me, but a GM requiring consistency in SFX would make it scale to STR somehow; the HKA is considered already to have "paid" for such scaling by its lack of range. You may be unhappy with how properly-balanced that is, but that's the logic behind it.

But none of these other powers receive by default, or can purchase for an advantage, the ability to be increased by the user's STR. Would you allow a no range entangle or flash to be enhanced by STR? Both examples above imply they have no range. Can I pay 15 points per die for my Drain and have it augmented by STR?

Simply rmeoving HKA still provides for HKA's - you buy an RKA and make it "no range". That doesn't seem hugely difficult.

It is properly an Advantage (currently, a built-in one) on the Killing Attack. The fact that it varies with STR changes the usefulness of the advantage for some characters of different STRs; you seem to think that the cost of the Advantage should change along with this. That makes as little sense to me as changing the cost of the Armor Piercing Advantage to a character depending on the defenses of the Enemies he takes, or changing the cost of Life Support (Water Breathing) depending on how many inches of Swimming a character buys. If you think it's useful, you'll keep the STR damage, if you don't you'll take the No STR Damage Limitation, just like in my example, if you think Armor Piercing's useful, you'll buy it, and if you don't, you won't.

The cost of AP does depend on the magnitude of the base power it is applied to. The ability to add STR is not properly an advantage on the KA - its value varies with STR. Neither is it properly an advantage on STR - it varies with the KA. It is properly extra KA with the special effects (and, perhaps, some limitations) that it is augmented by STR.

To take an extreme, can I just buy "STR adds" on my STR to bump up my HTH damage? Why can't I buy "STR adds" more than once to simulate an attack where STR augments on a more than 1:1 basis? I suggest that any reason (other than 'cuz that's what the rules say') is equally applicable to STR enhancing a killing attack.

The Main Man

Feb 26th, '08, 07:54 AM

Maybe "Strength Adds to Damage" can be an incremental Power Advantage similar to Difficult to Dispel or Cumulative.

It would be based on the DC's of the attack; perhaps +1/4 per d6 in the attack or +1/4 per additional d6 that can be added to the attack up to double?

dsatow

Feb 26th, '08, 09:25 AM

Healing needs to be fixed

IMHO, healing broke in 5e. I understand why they changed the rules in 5e for healing as the previous rules weren't much better.

Problem: Healing is a key power used in many games. Unfortunately, unrestricted healing tends to unbalance adventurers and adds unrealism to some play.

How they solved it in 5e and why I don't like it:They introduced a maximum roll to healing requiring people to record the amount of healing rolled, a recharge time for healing, etc. This to me feels like a kludge. It requires more housekeeping. You have different "recharge" rates for healing (if I buy it up to 1/minute instead of 1/day how will that affect the guy who buys it at 1/hour or 1/turn). People circumvent the use of the power by buying Aid instead especially for STUN (aid for STUN being easier to use and keep track of and for a 1/4 advantage on the time chart works outs just like healing)

Way I would tackle the problem: Change Healing to 1d6 per 10 points and cap the maximum healing like all the other adjustment powers (+2 per 1 point). Since healing doesn't fade, heal points stay until recovered normally. All healing uses the same mechanism so healed points counter each other.

Ex: A is wounded. B and C heal A. B has a 3d6 healing. C has a 2d6 healing with a max of 30 points. B heals A for 10 points of stun. C heals A for 7 points of stun. A has been healed for a total of 17 stun this turn. If B heals A, B will max out at 1 Stun while C can continue healing until A has healed to a total of 30 Stun. A takes a recovery and recovers normally 10 Stun. B can heal A again if the amount of healing done to him is less than or equal to 10.

Stun and End would be the fastest "healings" but the cap should limit real abuse. Active wise, a 60 active heal would heal a max of 36 points which is about two hits from a 12d6 EB after average def.

Opal

Feb 26th, '08, 09:46 AM

The ability to add STR is not properly an advantage on the KA - its value varies with STR. Neither is it properly an advantage on STR - it varies with the KA. It is properly extra KA with the special effects (and, perhaps, some limitations) that it is augmented by STR.I agree that a 'STR adds' advantage isn't really apropriate It's true that the benefit derived from choosing an HKA over a no-range RKA (which is pretty close to a 'STR adds' advantage), is variable based on the amount of STR relative to the KA. But, that's often the case - the benefit recieved from AP depends on the defense of the target, 0 END is more beneficial to a low REC/END charcter, Invisible Power effects attacks are more beneficial to characters who can turn invisible, themselves. It is always possible to come up with more or less efficient combinations of abilities.

Because STR only up to doubles an HKA, the 'efficiency' involved is never that unreasonable. If you buy an HKA with half the DCs you can do with your STR, you've effectively bought a +1/2 'can do killing damage' naked power advantage on your STR. If you buy more, you're just buying up the killing damage without buying up the option to do the same amount of normal damage.

If your HKA is the same DCs as your STR, you've gotten about as much as you can out of 'STR adds,' you have a KA as your primary attack that builds directly on the 10 starting points of STR and save on the figured characteristics corresponding to the STR you bought. Which is nice. If you buy an RKA with no range, you also save some points due to the limitation.

Yes, if your HKA is more than double your STR, you'd be better off in terms of point-efficiency buying a no-range RKA. For instance, in a 12 DC campaign, you'd be better off buying a 4d RKA (no range), that doesn't stack with your 15 STR, for 40 pts than buying a 3d HKA to stack with your 15 STR, for a total of 4d, for 45 points. 5 points better off, on a 12 DC power, less than you'd save for a 1/4 limitation, but still, slightly better off.

The Main Man

Feb 26th, '08, 09:59 AM

I agree that a 'STR adds' advantage isn't really apropriate It's true that the benefit derived from choosing an HKA over a no-range RKA (which is pretty close to a 'STR adds' advantage), is variable based on the amount of STR relative to the KA. But, that's often the case - the benefit recieved from AP depends on the defense of the target, 0 END is more beneficial to a low REC/END charcter, Invisible Power effects attacks are more beneficial to characters who can turn invisible, themselves. It is always possible to come up with more or less efficient combinations of abilities.

Because STR only up to doubles an HKA, the 'efficiency' involved is never that unreasonable. If you buy an HKA with half the DCs you can do with your STR, you've effectively bought a +1/2 'can do killing damage' naked power advantage on your STR. If you buy more, you're just buying up the killing damage without buying up the option to do the same amount of normal damage.

If your HKA is the same DCs as your STR, you've gotten about as much as you can out of 'STR adds,' you have a KA as your primary attack that builds directly on the 10 starting points of STR and save on the figured characteristics corresponding to the STR you bought. Which is nice. If you buy an RKA with no range, you also save some points due to the limitation.

Yes, if your HKA is more than double your STR, you'd be better off in terms of point-efficiency buying a no-range RKA. For instance, in a 12 DC campaign, you'd be better off buying a 4d RKA (no range), that doesn't stack with your 15 STR, for 40 pts than buying a 3d HKA to stack with your 15 STR, for a total of 4d, for 45 points. 5 points better off, on a 12 DC power, less than you'd save for a 1/4 limitation, but still, slightly better off.

OTOH, Ranged gets better in proportion to Active Points.

Sean Waters

Feb 26th, '08, 10:39 AM

Couple of things I'd like to see:

1. The ability to buy BODY for Force Walls, perhaps at between 2 and 5 points per Body.

2. Proper rules for force wall stacking: at present you could have 10 seperate force walls switched on at once, but if they were one behind the other they would not provide additonal protection from a single attack, but if they were next to each other would provide their DEF value against up to 10 seperate atatcks. Default should be you can only have one FW active at once, but for a +1/2 you can have twice as many.

3. A 'fine manipluation' adder or advantage allowing Force Walls to be shaped very delicately to, for instance, make something that looks like a gun, or a wall that can form a complex shape.

4. Consideration being given to amalgamating FW and Entangle into a single power. An adder or advantage 'Englobed target immobilised' would make FW functionally identical to entangle, if you buy the END cost down and make it persistent.

Opal

Feb 26th, '08, 12:20 PM

OTOH, Ranged gets better in proportion to Active Points.Sure, DC and range both go up as you increase the Apts in a ranged attack. Of course, whether you ever attack anything at 300" after buying your ranged attack from 50 to 60 Apts is another question.

In general, anything gets better in proportion to it's active points. An HKA, for instance, does more damage, and lets you add more STR (since it's up to double). Whether or not you have the STR is another issue, of course.

The Main Man

Feb 26th, '08, 12:27 PM

Sure, DC and range both go up as you increase the Apts in a ranged attack. Of course, whether you ever attack anything at 300" after buying your ranged attack from 50 to 60 Apts is another question.

In general, anything gets better in proportion to it's active points. An HKA, for instance, does more damage, and lets you add more STR (since it's up to double). Whether or not you have the STR is another issue, of course.
Add to that the fact that you can increase the range of a power for a +1/4 value could be implemented for characters with better strength or better damage classes.

The base value could be +1/2, which could cover up to the full value of the DC's of the attack. To go further than that with CSL's, Maneuvers, Velocity, or STR, you would need to increase that value by +1/4 per additional DC or die.

ideasmith

Feb 26th, '08, 06:59 PM

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

Well, I don't want 'standard' gliding to suddenly sprout an END cost. Nor do I want it to be any more expensive (in real cost) than flight. Whith those caveats: Sure, why not?

....

I would like an 'official' way to get a Transform-like effect with a Flash-like duration. Possibly something like:

Flash:
New modifier: Causes Unusual Disability: Flash with this modifier does
not disable senses, instead causing disadvantages for specified duration.
This modifier also includes the effects of NND. With the GM's permission,
this modifier may instead add to or provide abilities.

Pts. Disads. ...........Multiplier
1-5 ......................-1
6-10 ....................-0.5
11-15 ..................-0
16-20 ..................+0.5
21-25 ..................+1
26-30 ..................+1.5
31-35 ..................+2
36-40 ..................+2.5
41-45 ..................+3
46-50 ..................+3.5

Edit: Corrected typo.

James Gillen

Feb 26th, '08, 10:34 PM

I was of the opinion the magnificent carnac did this with his rapier like wit...

"May a dyspeptic camel leave an offering in your tent."

Sean Waters

Feb 27th, '08, 03:46 AM

Well, I don't want 'standard' gliding to suddenly sprout an END cost. Nor do I want it to be any more expensive (in real cost) than flight. Whith those caveats: Sure, why not?

Hmm. Could we build gliding in the same way as a talent?

Gliding: Flight 10", Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (30 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Must lose height at least 1" per phase to maintain velocity; -1)

AP 30, RP 15 (or 1.5 CPs per 1" of gliding)

Starlight

Feb 27th, '08, 08:25 AM

Gliding, being a zero endurance power, is intrinsically the recipient of IPE. It's the stealth version of Flight. Folding Gliding into Flight has to take account of that aspect of the power. Which starts making Gliding as a limited form of Flight a rather messy collection of advantages and limitations. Just make Gliding cost 2pts per 1" and the AP problem is solved. A simple solution.

Kdansky

Feb 27th, '08, 10:08 AM

And/or rework which powers cost end and which don't?

Aid vs Transfer vs Absorb vs Healing. Gah, none in this bracket?!

Gliding too! *saved*!

Sean Waters

Feb 27th, '08, 10:30 AM

It seems to me that the really BIG problem here is that 'Costs END' = Can be seen, and IPE is so blasted expensive.

A lot of problems could be solved by making IPE a lot cheaper for non-attack powers. Alternatively we assume that every power, whether it uses END or not is (depending on where we want to start) visible OR not visible.

That reduces consistency problems a lot.

It is just about possible that gliding has always been too cheap and we are just noticing now...

ajackson

Feb 27th, '08, 10:31 AM

Gliding, being a zero endurance power, is intrinsically the recipient of IPE.
IPE rarely makes sense on movement powers; it's usually pretty obvious that the person using a movement power is, in fact, moving.

Starlight

Feb 27th, '08, 11:04 AM

ajackson wrote:
IPE rarely makes sense on movement powers; it's usually pretty obvious that the person using a movement power is, in fact, moving. IPE isn't about the effect of the power, in this case a character moving from A to B, being invisible. It's about the power itself being invisible. There's a world of difference in dropping out of the night sky onto the enemy's base silently and stealthily beneath a parachute and coming down onto that same camp trailing flames from a howling turbofan jetpack.

BobGreenwade

Feb 27th, '08, 11:11 AM

IPE rarely makes sense on movement powers; it's usually pretty obvious that the person using a movement power is, in fact, moving.Good of you to qualify that with "rarely" and "usually." I've used IPE on movement to simulate "super-stealth," as well as "leaving and/or arriving without being seen" -- though of course your general point is quite correct.

ajackson

Feb 27th, '08, 12:00 PM

IPE isn't about the effect of the power, in this case a character moving from A to B, being invisible. It's about the power itself being invisible.
IPE means that the source or effect of a power is inobvious. There is nothing that says you cannot use stealth while flying.

Starlight

Feb 27th, '08, 02:40 PM

The use of IPE to make a power effect unobvious is a GM optional rule. Therefore it cannot be relied upon for when considering a general core rule. The stealth skill can indeed be used while flying. The skill description specifically states at all forms of movement are equal in that regard. But that is irrelevant to the original question, should gliding be ‘folded’ into flight?

My answer is no, it should not. To emulate gliding as a form of flight would require both limitations on the gaining of altitude, and that would have to allow for climbing in thermal updrafts, etc., and advantages such as zero endurance and some form of IPE. If one of the intentions of 6th edition is to make the HERO system more accessible to players very common manifestations of a generic power, and gliding is indeed a limited form of flight, should be split apart from the base generic power and have their own power description.

Experienced players will be able to build their own variations of flight and gliding using advantages and limitations if they wish. Newbie players shouldn’t be forced to deal with the underlying building blocks. They should just see Gliding, cost 2pts per 1” and with near enough the current description.

Sean Waters

Feb 28th, '08, 09:14 AM

IPE means that the source or effect of a power is inobvious. There is nothing that says you cannot use stealth while flying.

Just as there is nothing to prevent you hiding in the cellar whilst carrying a burning torch. Doesn't mean it would work.

Sean Waters

Feb 28th, '08, 09:20 AM

The visibility of powers needs to be looked at, I reckon.

I've suggested previously that visible powers are considered to be +2 on an opponent's PER check to notice you (which also makes it harder, but not impossible, to use stealth with a visible power active.

Visible attack powers are +4.

IPE for non-attack powers is at half cost.

Noisy powers double the PER penalty (which also, in effect, doubles the range non combat powers can be perceived at or quadruples the range atatck powers can be perceived at).

Another approach is to relate visibilty to active points: firing a 2d6 EB will attract less attention than a 12d6 EB. Running at 1" per phase will attract less attention than running at 20" per phase.

ajackson

Feb 28th, '08, 09:30 AM

Just as there is nothing to prevent you hiding in the cellar whilst carrying a burning torch. Doesn't mean it would work.
Okay, let me put this another way: Running also has an END cost. Therefore, if you can be stealthy while walking, you can be equally stealthy while flying.

Susano

Feb 28th, '08, 09:31 AM

Okay, let me put this another way: Running also has an END cost. Therefore, if you can be stealthy while walking, you can be equally stealthy while flying.

Yeah, y'know... fly causal.

BobGreenwade

Feb 28th, '08, 10:28 AM

Okay, let me put this another way: Running also has an END cost. Therefore, if you can be stealthy while walking, you can be equally stealthy while flying.

Yeah, y'know... fly causal.

Fly quietly, stick to the shadows, and don't disturb anything as you go by.

nexus

Feb 28th, '08, 10:40 AM

Suggestions for Flash and Darkness

Flash: Sense Disruption
Darkness: Sense Cloak

rjcurrie

Feb 28th, '08, 03:49 PM

In thinking about Killing Attacks, I'd tend to leave the basics the same but change how the STUN multiplier is calculated -- 15 pts per d6 and determine the STUN multiplier by rolling 1d6 and on a 1-3, use a STUN multiplier of 2 and on 4-6. use a STUN multiplier of 3.

Pteryx

Feb 28th, '08, 04:13 PM

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

I think this is an excellent idea.

Q: Should Growth and Shrinking be done differently?

Going hand in hand with my strong approval of a SIZ characteristic, yes! First off, implement SIZ. Then combine these two powers into an "Alter Size" or "Size Change" power. You can put on the Limitation "Not Above/Below Original SIZ" to make it specifically Growth or Shrinking.

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

I would say no -- that's some of the point of specifically having HKA to begin with. OTOH...

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 would not cry if you did this, so long as you did keep the "range or STR" choice.

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

As things currently stand, a Killing Attack with a high STUN Multiplier can be considerably more attractive than an EB or HA for... well, stunning people. The best use for a KA should be to kill. Your proposed approach to changing it would help, though.

Powers not listed:

Healing: Healing, as it currently stands, seems to be put together on the assumption that it's the most ridiculously abusive power in the whole game. It has a lot of special-case baggage that says "deep-seated fear" to me. You may want to step back, look things over, and consider that maybe, just maybe, Cure Light Wounds isn't as overpowered as you think.

Split Regeneration off again. While you're at it, an approach to auto-resurrection other than the current described Regeneration-based build would be nice too -- I can think of two effects I didn't define right off the top of my head that "wait out the Regeneration" really doesn't model well. This is one place where Tri-Stat looks a lot better than HERO to me. -- Pteryx

ajackson

Feb 28th, '08, 04:19 PM

I would actually be tempted to invert things, bring back regeneration, and toss Healing. Healing, depending on the effect, is usually either Recovery (affects others) or Regeneration (Affects Others).

Sean Waters

Feb 28th, '08, 05:30 PM

Okay, let me put this another way: Running also has an END cost. Therefore, if you can be stealthy while walking, you can be equally stealthy while flying.

...and this is part of the disconnect between the theory fo visible power effects and the practice - all powers are not created equal, or if they are we don't apply the rules equally. Running should be as visible as any other power (or every other power should be as 'invisible' as running) but because we KNOW people down glow and howl while they are running we tend not to require that in game. Very senisbly, I might add.

However, the second sugegstion deals with this to a large degree - base the amount of visibility on the amount of active points being used. Very slow movement will then be less likely to attract attention than faster movement, which is as it should be. Attacks, which tend to be some of the biggest AP hogs in the game and almost always used at full power, will tend to attract the most attention of all.

ajackson

Feb 28th, '08, 05:39 PM

...and this is part of the disconnect between the theory fo visible power effects and the practice - all powers are not created equal, or if they are we don't apply the rules equally. Running should be as visible as any other power (or every other power should be as 'invisible' as running) but because we KNOW people down glow and howl while they are running we tend not to require that in game. Very senisbly, I might add.
No, running is as visible as any other power. Power visibility doesn't give you any penalties to stealth, it just means that someone who sees you can tell you're using a power.

IndianaJoe3

Feb 28th, '08, 06:01 PM

Let's think outside the box on Hand Attack - in fact, get rid of it completely. In its place, let characters buy Extra DC with the set of standard combat maneuvers.

Opal

Feb 28th, '08, 06:07 PM

Way, waaaaay, back when I was creating 1st Ed characters for fun because I couldn't even find anyone else who played Champions!, I had an idea for a micro-brick who made up for his not-quite-super-class STR with a pair of energized gloves. The idea was he'd punch people for energy damage. I discarded the idea when I quickly realized that, though you could add STR to an HKAe, you couldn't add it to a normal energy attack of any kind.

That idea /still/ doesn't work well, 25 years later. You can buy a no-Range EB and MPA with it and your punch, for instance, but it's baroque and inefficient compared to a lazersword or or other HKAe.

HA should exist, and it should be just like HKA.

Sean Waters

Feb 28th, '08, 06:13 PM

No, running is as visible as any other power. Power visibility doesn't give you any penalties to stealth, it just means that someone who sees you can tell you're using a power.

If we assume running is a baseline then, presumably, you can use stealth whilst discharging your thunderbolt attack. If anyone does notice you they will realise you are using a power, but it is no more likely that you will be noticed than if you were not blowing the landscape into new and interesting shapes.

The problem is it doesn't make sense, and it could, oh so easily.

IndianaJoe3

Feb 28th, '08, 06:28 PM

I discarded the idea when I quickly realized that, though you could add STR to an HKAe, you couldn't add it to a normal energy attack of any kind.
You can have an HA going against ED (with GM permission). I have a character who has an, "energy mace" built that way.

SAVeira

Feb 28th, '08, 06:28 PM

Suggestions for Flash and Darkness

Flash: Sense Disruption
Darkness: Sense Cloak
I like where the idea of Sense Disruption is going, but might I suggest Sensory instead of Sense, so you get Sensory Disruption.

Not so sure about Sense Cloak as that makes me think of invisibility more. How about Sensory Obscurement or Sensory Obscuring.

IndianaJoe3

Feb 28th, '08, 06:33 PM

I have to get this off my chest. "Images, only to create light (-1)" is a horrible kludge. You're not creating an image of anything. You're only illuminating what's already there.

ajackson

Feb 28th, '08, 06:42 PM

If we assume running is a baseline then, presumably, you can use stealth whilst discharging your thunderbolt attack.
Running is a baseline movement power, not an attack power. A baseline ranged attack would be firing a strength-powered weapon. Unless you're going to require an archer to have IPE for his bow, blast attacks don't have to be exceptionally loud, though they should be obvious to anyone who makes a Per roll.

Sean Waters

Feb 28th, '08, 06:50 PM

Running is a baseline movement power, not an attack power. A baseline ranged attack would be firing a strength-powered weapon. Unless you're going to require an archer to have IPE for his bow, blast attacks don't have to be exceptionally loud, though they should be obvious to anyone who makes a Per roll.

I think we might well both be making up our own rules. A machine gun is certainly loud enough to attarct all sorts of attention but is not built in Hero as any more visible than any other attack.

The system needs to define the baseline and if there are different rules for different types of power. that can cause confusion though: would, for example, flight become more visible if it was useable as an attack (well obviously to the person attacked...)

Opal

Feb 28th, '08, 06:52 PM

You can have an HA going against ED (with GM permission). I have a character who has an, "energy mace" built that way.Is that actually spelled out in Revised? (that'd be a small step in the right direction) Or were you just pointing out that anything's possible with GM permission? I've talked more than one GM into letting me take an "EB: 'no range/stacks with STR' -0."

I have to get this off my chest. "Images, only to create light (-1)" is a horrible kludge. You're not creating an image of anything. You're only illuminating what's already there. You could be creating an image of a flashlight or torch or glowy ball floating behind your left shoulder or something. But, yeah, I agree, it is odd. CE would seem perfectly reasonable, giving you bonuses to your sight PER if it provides better light, or penalties if it makes the area 'shadowy.'

Ironically, D&D 3.5 now defines the spell formerly known as Continual Light as an illusion of a torch. So Steve wasn't the only one that thought it sounded like a good idea.

BobGreenwade

Feb 28th, '08, 08:48 PM

I have to get this off my chest. "Images, only to create light (-1)" is a horrible kludge. You're not creating an image of anything. You're only illuminating what's already there.I definitely agree -- especially since CE is practically built tp suit for this kind of effect.

ajackson

Feb 28th, '08, 08:49 PM

I think we might well both be making up our own rules. A machine gun is certainly loud enough to attarct all sorts of attention but is not built in Hero as any more visible than any other attack.
Honestly, I think the degree of visibility is supposed to be below the resolution of the system. IPE is supposed to be for cases where you expect observers to not notice that you're doing something, and, well, observers will usually know if you're flying.

nexus

Feb 28th, '08, 09:34 PM

I definitely agree -- especially since CE is practically built tp suit for this kind of effect.

I was confused about that too. The only reason I can think of (and this might be horribly misreading the rules) is that Images bonuses to Perception are specifically to see the "Image" created. In this case, bright light. If CE provides a bonus to perception it would provide an overall bonus to those inside it's AE but not one to anyone outside. The bright light wouldn't be "bright" (as in easier to see from a distance though obscuring condition, etc) and it would actually make everything easier to perceive inside the AE.

Edit: Come to think of it, can CE provide bonuses to rolls at all?

Sean Waters

Feb 29th, '08, 12:50 AM

Honestly, I think the degree of visibility is supposed to be below the resolution of the system. IPE is supposed to be for cases where you expect observers to not notice that you're doing something, and, well, observers will usually know if you're flying.

We can quote counter examples all we like, and I do understand your position, but it doesn't reflect soem of the ways in which the system is used: should someone running at sprint speed be able to be as stealthy as someone moving slowly? Guns are nor bought as 'noisy' - should they not generally be noticed when discharged?

You may well be absolutely right about visibility and sfx, looking just at those sections, and interpreting as written, but look at page 353 - it defines the PER modifiers for weapons. If those PER modifiers are going to exist would it not be better to codify them? Where do those penalties come from? Presumably common sense and real world experience. If that is the case, flight sfx: crackling flames, should also be pretty noticeable, not just as a power in use, but to actually attract attention. The system needs to define what happens when you use an attack power: do people looking at you realise you are using a power, or does everyone in the shopping mall scream and dive for cover?

Given how expensive IPE is, it has to be worth quite a lot of utility.

Markdoc

Feb 29th, '08, 06:23 AM

I have to get this off my chest. "Images, only to create light (-1)" is a horrible kludge. You're not creating an image of anything. You're only illuminating what's already there.

Agreed - a simpler - and more logical approach is change environment to cancel darkness perception penalties - that's what light does, after all.

cheers, Mark

SAVeira

Feb 29th, '08, 07:24 AM

Agreed - a simpler - and more logical approach is change environment to cancel darkness perception penalties - that's what light does, after all.

cheers, Mark
Agree as well. I only allow Change Environment, not Images for that effect in my campaigns.

IndianaJoe3

Feb 29th, '08, 07:33 AM

Is that actually spelled out in Revised? (that'd be a small step in the right direction)
It's actually in 5e. (I don't have 5er.)

IndianaJoe3

Feb 29th, '08, 07:40 AM

Edit: Come to think of it, can CE provide bonuses to rolls at all?
Not as currently written. It does provide for buying levels of penalties, so it's easy enough to change it to apply to bonuses as well.

pinecone

Mar 1st, '08, 02:15 PM

I don't want Find weakness to go away....but I do not like the interaction it has to Lack of weakness....as is the only way I can punch through Lack of weak is to buy my roll up to a insane level, meaning I totally hose anyone without it.....I've expiremented with PSL's to counter Lack of weak, and they seem to be "OK" it lets "Batclone guy" do his thang without having a FW(23) that messes up everthing else...

I don't see Grow/shrink as big problems, but for New players, having Growth and Shrink Templates might be much easier. And let you model "Tiny, but weak" without big Kludges...
(and ofcourse "Tiny, but Strong" as well)

Then when I build a "Shrink ray" I can transform :Person with "Tiny template:Weak" and move on, without too much math butting in...

CTaylor

Mar 2nd, '08, 09:21 AM

INSTANT CHANGE: put this back in the game and dump the clumsy transform build

CTaylor

Mar 3rd, '08, 02:49 PM

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

I like this idea. Makes more sense than a power that almost never is bought or even makes sense for a game.

Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?

I wouldn't particularly care either way.

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

I'm with you, it's flight with limitations, put "gliding" as a build in the sidebar. Pointless power, all it does is give a really cheap way to buy some cheesy abilities.

Q: Should Growth and Shrinking be done differently?

Yes, but only this way: shrinking should be halved in cost, and halved in benefit (+1 DCV and -1 PER to be seen). Otherwise, they're fine. I know you don't care for these powers but they're good and they fit the game well.

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

I understand why it's there but I'd still rather see "normal attack" costing 3 points to which you add either strength or range.

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

Someone suggested the option of having a flat +3 modifier to KA for stun and I could live with that, but otherwise it's fine as is. I know some people hate the stun lotto, but it's tolerable.

Netzilla

Mar 3rd, '08, 06:07 PM

Radical Change to Power Defense and Flash Defense

This is actually not my idea but rather the idea of one of the other players in my group. I'm not entirely sure I'm convinced of the idea myself but he does present some very compelling arguments. He doesn't normally post here, so I thought I'd write it up and give Steve Long and others the chance to look it over.

First off, the problem is that currently you can buy Flash Defense and Power Defense with no limitations on special effect. As a result, a welder's mask is just as effective against Spider Man's web-based Flash as it is against Iceman's snoballs and a more traditional light-based flash. Similar problems happen with Power Defense working equally well against poison, being spun rapidly and increased gravity.

His solution to this problem is to chuck Flash Defense and Power Defense out the window entirely. Instead you add in Poison Defense (I'd rather call it Toxin Defense so you could use the initials TD) with normal humans starting at a 0. Then any Flash or Adjustment attack must be defined as working against one of PD, ED, MD or TD. Thus a martial arts fingerpoke Flash would work against PD, a flash bulb would work against ED, mentally scrambling opitic nerve goes against MD and pepper spray is stopped by TD. I'm sure you can think of similar scenarios involving Adjustment powers.

That's the gist of his idea. The rest that follows is all mine.

The main problem I see here is that this also requires changes to Flash and Adjustment Powers. Flash Dice would have to be a straight total rather than a Body total or else it will never get past PD or ED. Likewise, Adjustment Power costs must be lowered. Unfortunately, this would likely make these powers over-powered against those lacking the appropriate defense. One way around this overpowering is to require these attacks to buy BOECV to work against MD and to buy NND/AVLD to work against TD.

ajackson

Mar 3rd, '08, 07:01 PM

I would probably call it something like 'stamina defense', as there are a wide variety of non-poison attacks that wouldn't be poisons but would have less effect vs tougher targets. It's basically what d20 calls your Fortitude save.

CTaylor

Mar 4th, '08, 08:10 AM

You don't need to negate the darkness penalties with Change Environment, you just need to create "light" in the area. The reason the penalties are there is because there's no light, once you add any light, the penalties go away in that area, it's an absence not a presence of anything. Like adding rain to an area with Change Environment, you don't need to incrementally shift the weather with little steps. Making light is a pretty cheap power.

BobGreenwade

Mar 4th, '08, 06:40 PM

You don't need to negate the darkness penalties with Change Environment, you just need to create "light" in the area. The reason the penalties are there is because there's no light, once you add any light, the penalties go away in that area, it's an absence not a presence of anything.And so, reasoning from effect, the effect of creating light is to negate darkness penalties, so building the creation of light (whether using Images or CE) would be built that way.

CTaylor

Mar 4th, '08, 08:28 PM

No, the reasoning would go like this: light is the default for characters (I can see and act in the game world) and making people not see costs extra points to achieve (darkness as a power to blind people, images to make it look like something else).

Change Environment: light makes the area lit up and visible, the perception modifier of darkness is just to simulate the lack thereof, not to model the default that you have to defeat with light.

Chris Goodwin

Mar 5th, '08, 10:47 PM

Another idea for Killing Attacks and the "STUN lotto":

When rolling Killing Attacks, add enough dice to bring the total number of dice rolled to 1 per DC in the attack. These additional dice should be of a different color. When determining the BODY damage of the attack, just count the initial Killing Attack dice (at 1 BODY per pip rolled on the dice). Count the total on all of the dice for STUN.

This could result in some oddities, namely a wider variance in the BODY to STUN ratio (it would in theory be possible for a DC 10 Killing Attack to do 4 BODY and 45 STUN!) but I bet you'll see that less often. But it would bring the potential STUN exactly in line with the potential STUN of a normal attack of the same DC.

You do run into the problem, though, of what to do with STUN multiples? A potential answer: the total STUN is equal to 3d6 per 3 DC in the attack. Assume this is based on a STUN multiple of 3; therefore a STUN multiple of 3 yields 3d6 per 3 DC in the attack. Every +1 to STUN Multiple would add +1d6 per 3 DC in the attack, and every -1 would subtract 1d6 per 3 DC. For example, for a DC 6 Killing Attack with +1 STUN Multiple you'd roll a total of eight dice; you'd count the total of two of them for the BODY, and all of them for the STUN.

jimgettman

Mar 6th, '08, 12:18 AM

...I personally don't like the idea of ignoring the effect of strength. Basically that suggests that the amount of force you hit someone with does not affect how badly you hurt them. That just ain't right because for example mounted knights with lances would be wasting their time if the amount of force they could bring to bear wasn't important, superheroes and giant creatures would not be able to do any more damage with a dagger than a child would...

Your examples are valid, but incomplete. A poison or acid touch, comical lick of death, etc, all are not STR based. The general rule that ranged attacks don't adapt to strength also has contrary examples. I need Champions to simulate the drama for all these, in a way that is granular and simple to implement. To me, it is simpler to buy STR for lifting and HTH, etc. for damage. YMMV.

BobGreenwade

Mar 6th, '08, 05:51 AM

Hugh Neilson

Mar 6th, '08, 06:06 AM

I think someone did mention this already, but I want to make sure it's pointed out clearly.

The "STR Adds" aspect of HKA balances the "Range" aspect of RKA. At least, that's the intent; whether it does it or not is a matter of judgement. I believe it does, though others may disagree. However, to make it less dependent on STR (and thus remove at least a little fuel from the "you get to much for STR" fire), perhaps some option could be added wherein some other Power or ability can add to HKA at no additional cost or penalty. For an obvious example, a telekinetic character using his power to "hold" a sword could use his TK STR to add to it. There should be clear ways of adding to HKA damage from velocity and Martial Arts that's more efficient than STR, balancing the fact that HKA cannot be more than doubled by these means, and an explicit statement that this is part of the reason they're more efficient.

Can I then buy "EB adds to KA" for a +1/2 advantage on my RKA? The HTH guy can put range on his HKA for +1/2. The end result of this, I think, becomes "all, or virtually all, KA's can be doubled in power for a +1/2 advantage".

Why restrict it to killing attacks? Maybe we should let any attack power be increased to up to double its effect by any other attack powers for a +1/2 advantage. So you can have Telekinesis with the +1/2 "STR Adds" advantage, for example.

Let's take it further. Maybe we should just have a +1/2 advantage for all attack powers (or maybe all abilities in general) to double their power.

Maybe we can make that accumulate - you don't pay 60 points for a 12d6 energy blast. Just buy a 1d6 EB, and four doublings, and get a 16d6 EB for 20 points. OK, obviously that takes it too far :)

But why should HKA be the only attack power that can be doubled in effectiveness for a +1/2 advantage, even if that dohbling works only for characters with certain other abilities?

BobGreenwade

Mar 6th, '08, 06:54 AM

Can I then buy "EB adds to KA" for a +1/2 advantage on my RKA? The HTH guy can put range on his HKA for +1/2. The end result of this, I think, becomes "all, or virtually all, KA's can be doubled in power for a +1/2 advantage".

Why restrict it to killing attacks? Maybe we should let any attack power be increased to up to double its effect by any other attack powers for a +1/2 advantage. So you can have Telekinesis with the +1/2 "STR Adds" advantage, for example.

Let's take it further. Maybe we should just have a +1/2 advantage for all attack powers (or maybe all abilities in general) to double their power.

Maybe we can make that accumulate - you don't pay 60 points for a 12d6 energy blast. Just buy a 1d6 EB, and four doublings, and get a 16d6 EB for 20 points. OK, obviously that takes it too far :)

But why should HKA be the only attack power that can be doubled in effectiveness for a +1/2 advantage, even if that dohbling works only for characters with certain other abilities?Well, as you acknowledge, there does have to be some restrictions on it. One of those would be that it can only be done once, where the "up to double" restriction is concerned. Another is that increasing damage requires some effort, from STR, movement, or whatever. All I'm suggesting as a change is relaxing those restrictions ever so slightly.

And HKA isn't the only Power that takes extra effectiveness from elsewhere; HA also works that way.

I could indeed see a "STR Adds" Advantage for +1/2 on other Powers, including RKA and EB, albeit with a Stop sign (or at least a Caution sign) to warn against abuse. After all, while it's a logical construct it can, as you quite correctly point out, potentially unbalancing.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 6th, '08, 06:01 PM

I could indeed see a "STR Adds" Advantage for +1/2 on other Powers, including RKA and EB, albeit with a Stop sign (or at least a Caution sign) to warn against abuse. After all, while it's a logical construct it can, as you quite correctly point out, potentially unbalancing.

Most characters with an HKA have STR, commonly at least enough to double the HKA. Should energy projectors be allowed to buy "EB adds" for +1/2 on their RKA's to double the damage of their RKA's? If not, why should this be different? Both characters are getting enhanced damage for the same extra cost from an ability they paid for separately.

Opal

Mar 6th, '08, 06:22 PM

Every +1 to STUN Multiple would add +1d6 per 3 DC in the attack, and every -1 would subtract 1d6 per 3 DC. For example, for a DC 6 Killing Attack with +1 STUN Multiple you'd roll a total of eight dice; you'd count the total of two of them for the BODY, and all of them for the STUN.Well, this would result in a -1 limitation for a KA that did exactly as much STN as BOD, which is what you get now, IIRC. I think the advantage wouldn't much be worth it, though. You're paying 15 points for 2d of STN-only damage to stack on your KA.

But why should HKA be the only attack power that can be doubled in effectiveness for a +1/2 advantage, even if that dohbling works only for characters with certain other abilities?
In the absence of Frameworks, that idea doesn't work too badly. So you have a power or set of powers that can be up-to-doubled by some other power used at the same time. You're paying an advantage, in effect, to get a discount on a variety of attacks instead of one big one. Not as big a discount as a MP, but it's still a discount.

Really, it'd end up a bit like the cost break for an EC. You buy one power at half the Apt level you want, then 'add' it to others bought to that same level. When the power doing the adding gets drained, all the other powers become less effective. When one of the powers getting added to gets drained, the effect is essentially doubled (because you can't add as much to it).

BobGreenwade

Mar 6th, '08, 07:00 PM

Most characters with an HKA have STR, commonly at least enough to double the HKA. Should energy projectors be allowed to buy "EB adds" for +1/2 on their RKA's to double the damage of their RKA's? If not, why should this be different? Both characters are getting enhanced damage for the same extra cost from an ability they paid for separately.I'd say yes, it should be allowable, subject to Special Effects and GM approval. As I said, probably put a "Stop sign" on it to stave off certain points of excess, but if there's a Special Effect for which this would be the most appropriate build then it should be possible to do.

Chris Goodwin

Mar 6th, '08, 09:27 PM

Well, this would result in a -1 limitation for a KA that did exactly as much STN as BOD, which is what you get now, IIRC. I think the advantage wouldn't much be worth it, though. You're paying 15 points for 2d of STN-only damage to stack on your KA.

...Oh. Ok, there is that. We could always futz with the cost of Extra Stun Multiple.

So, reduced Stun Multiple would be a straight-up Limitation. Additional STUN would be... extra Killing Attack dice, STUN Only? Hmmm, not sure how that works. Still, I think it's a good idea at its core that needs some work done on the implementation.

BNakagawa

Mar 10th, '08, 10:11 AM

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.

Entangles and force walls would become useless. Everyone with an attack multipower (and there are a lot of them) just adds one slot with an unleveraged 6d6 KA and uses it to annihilate entangles and force walls.

Opal

Mar 10th, '08, 04:54 PM

So, reduced Stun Multiple would be a straight-up Limitation. Additional STUN would be... extra Killing Attack dice, STUN Only? Hmmm, not sure how that works. Still, I think it's a good idea at its core that needs some work done on the implementation.I suppose you could just buy "extra STN dice" for 5 points each?

CTaylor

Mar 10th, '08, 06:50 PM

Hugh Neilson

Mar 11th, '08, 07:04 AM

Entangles and force walls would become useless. Everyone with an attack multipower (and there are a lot of them) just adds one slot with an unleveraged 6d6 KA and uses it to annihilate entangles and force walls.

I agree, you can't have just naked 10 point per die "killing attacks" but you could have Killing and Normal damage built that must by the rules take either range or "strength adds to damage" costing 10 and 3 points per D6. So in the end, you'd end up the same but have fewer powers listed.

Or KA's could cost 15 points and be ranged by default. You can drop the cost to 10 points per by making it No range, but it won't increase the dice available for a given AP total.

AnotherSkip

Mar 11th, '08, 07:50 AM

Frankly i have built characters without Instant change they simply had visible powers that effected the "Instant Change" with out needing a point waster.
the powers had OIHID with the note that the Horrific Identity automatically occured when the character decided the powers availible and thus visible.

the characters Were Werewolves without Multiform too... much easier and cheaper buy.

Opal

Mar 11th, '08, 12:27 PM

I agree, you can't have just naked 10 point per die "killing attacks" but you could have Killing and Normal damage built that must by the rules take either range or "strength adds to damage" costing 10 and 3 points per D6. So in the end, you'd end up the same but have fewer powers listed.You could simply have K-damage be 15 pts per die and N-damage 5 pts per die. Then have them 'defined' (at a +0 advantage) as either ranged or 'str adds' just as they're 'defined' as either physical or energy. The Apt cost stays where it should, and there's none of the wierdness of manditory limitation. If you wanted an attack that did neither, you'd take the -1/2 limitation ("no range/str doesn't add") just as you would currently take a RKA or EB as 'no range' -1/2.

Honestly, though, you'd have fewer powers listed, but a more complex explanation of those powers. Not much of a benefit, really.

CTaylor

Mar 11th, '08, 01:09 PM

Sure, either way that works. Range and strength adding to damage could be defined on their own, then these powers would be pretty simple to handle: here's how their damage works.

Mini-Nukette

Mar 12th, '08, 07:26 AM

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 don't find the current rules for such are a problem. For the STUN Multiplier dice on Killing Damage attacks, normally we roll a different colored d6 with the pips on the six side removed (we had a dice with 9 pips a side, so picking out the paint in the pips is easily done and the middle pip filled) to create a quick-read 1d6-1, or a custom dice with x1 x1 x2 x3 x4 x5, which can be cheaply ordered.

PhilFleischmann

Mar 13th, '08, 04:14 PM

Q: Should FTL Travel be eliminated in favor of MegaScaled Flight?
I don't see any reason to. FLT is simple and easy to use. It's generally a good thing to have multiple ways to do something, so you can choose the right way for the particular game/genre. In keeping with the idea of a "toolkit".

Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?
Interesting idea. If you replace it with Armor Piercing with RSR, will there be a way to halve defenses multiple times? Which you can do with FW currently? Not that there necessarily needs to be. It might also be done with some (new) form of Indirect - in that it gets "around" one's defenses.

Q: Should Gliding be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?
Possibly, despite what I said about FTL. Flight and Gliding work pretty much the same way, mechanically. But Flight and FTL have two very different mechanics.

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 agree, but I don't have any better suggestions (and I've tried). I certainly don't envy you the task of trying to get these powers to work right.

Q: Should the “STR adds damage” feature be removed from HKA?
For what price? Characters can buy RKA with No Range already.

More later.

philhall

Mar 14th, '08, 09:21 AM

In your post on the forums the point was raised that maybe killing attack damage
should be removed from the game and have "killing" as an advantage to normal
damage. I have to say, I think that's a pretty nifty idea.

For instance, 1d6 energy blast costs 5 points. It's not an RKA, so no problem;
but if we make "killing" a +2 advantage, then the EB becomes a 1d6 RKA (energy)
and costs 15 points. This is a match with the current rules, and eliminates one
thing--and since the KA rules would still be the same otherwise (i.e.: how dice
are rolled, etc.) we gain more than we really lose.

Starlight

Mar 14th, '08, 02:38 PM

For instance, 1d6 energy blast costs 5 points. It's not an RKA, so no problem;
but if we make "killing" a +2 advantage, then the EB becomes a 1d6 RKA (energy)
and costs 15 points. This is a match with the current rules, and eliminates one
thing--and since the KA rules would still be the same otherwise (i.e.: how dice
are rolled, etc.) we gain more than we really lose.

You may be overlooking the additional effect of changing the base cose. A 4D6 RKA using a +2 'killing' advantage wil cost 60ap - exactly the same as the current build. What about 4D6 RKA Armor Piercing? Under current rules that costs 90ap. Using the +2 'killing' advantage you describe it would cost 70ap. Stacking additional advantages on top, such as Zero End, No Range Modifier, etc, would only further increase the difference.

CTaylor

Mar 14th, '08, 03:20 PM

I could see how such a system would work (I'd just keep the dice the same and treat them as killing damage, so the defenses worked the same) but it would be a problem at higher power and with advantages. As Starlight notes: with advantages the more you stack the cheaper it becomes and the more power you get for your points.

ajackson

Mar 14th, '08, 03:26 PM

If course, if you just make 'killing' a +1/4 advantage and count stun/body just like for a normal attack (i.e. body goes vs resistant defense, stun goes vs non-resistant defense unless target has zero resistant), stacking advantages isn't a big problem, and it eliminates the whole stun lotto issue.

PhilFleischmann

Mar 14th, '08, 03:52 PM

Q: Should HKA and RKA be combined into one power?
I don't see how anything would be gained by this. It's of no benefit to reduce the number of items in the list if those items then become proportionately more complicated.

Q: Should the STUN Multiplier for Killing Attacks be changed?
Maybe, but how 'bout just providing some alternate STUNx methods. GMs could choose the one they prefer. One I recommend is 2d6/2 - 2, and you can keep the minimum of 1, like we do now, thus you get a range of 1-5 (just like we do now), but with less change of the highs and lows. And you can retain the fractions, rather than rounding them off! So you can have STUNx's of 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, ... 4, 4.5, or 5. Hooray for granularity!

I aslo like the ideas some others have suggested on this thread, such as rolling the BODY dice normally, and rolling additional STUN-only dice (though the STUN-only dice would need to be reduced slightly in order to do less STUN than the equivalent Normal Attack - my suggestion would be to subtract 1 from each STUN-only die).

IndianaJoe3

Mar 14th, '08, 08:15 PM

If course, if you just make 'killing' a +1/4 advantage and count stun/body just like for a normal attack
I like this idea, but I think that doing killing damage is worth more than +1/4. I'd be surprised if it was worth less than +1.

Netzilla

Mar 15th, '08, 04:10 AM

I like this idea, but I think that doing killing damage is worth more than +1/4. I'd be surprised if it was worth less than +1.

Not really. A 6 dice normal attack (Body range 0-12) given a +1 Killing advantage becomes a 3 dice attack (Body range 0-6). You're really going to have a hard time getting Body past anyone's resistant defenses that way.

Even making it only a +1/4 Advantage seems to weaken killing attacks too much: 5d6 EB +1/4 Killing = 31 AP. That's a Body range of 0-10, still considerably weaker than the current 2d6 Killing Attack we have now (2-12 Body range).

My suggestion is to make Killing a +1/4 advantage on a normal attack. This increases the body count by 1 per die (thus each die yields 1-3 rather than 0-2 Body) and treats defenses just like current Killing Attacks do. Thus that 5d6 EB with +1/4 Killing has a Body range of 5-15 and a Stun range of 5-30.

You can find a much more detailed analysis of all this here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1553378#post1553378).

CTaylor

Mar 15th, '08, 09:11 AM

Making your attack able to totally bypass defenses unless they are resistant is worth more than a +1/4 advantage, I should think. After all, halving defenses is worth a +1/2.

The other problem with using ordinary blasts as killing is that you don't have the shift from more stunning to more lethal; they're the same, with defenses treated differently.

Netzilla

Mar 15th, '08, 11:04 AM

Making your attack able to totally bypass defenses unless they are resistant is worth more than a +1/4 advantage, I should think. After all, halving defenses is worth a +1/2.

Did you look at the detailed analysis I linked to? Unless the cost of Resistant Defense is upped, even making it a +1/4 advantage to only get the KA defense interaction nerfs KAs way too much. KAs currently work in nearly the same Body range for the points, and I don't see the amount of Body that they do as unbalancing under the current rules:

5pts: 1d6 Normal (0-2; ave 1) 1pip Killing
10pts: 2d6 Normal (0-4; ave 2) 1d3 Killing
15pts: 3d6 Normal (0-6; ave 3) 1d6 Killing
etc.

It's the Stun that ends up being the problem:
5pts: 1-6 Normal vs 1-5 Kiling
10pts: 2-12 Normal vs 1-15 Killing
15pts: 3-18 Normal vs 1-30 Killing

The other problem with using ordinary blasts as killing is that you don't have the shift from more stunning to more lethal; they're the same, with defenses treated differently.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. If you're saying that the +1/4 Advantage I propose does not make Killing Attacks more lethal than Normal Attacks, then you really need to look at the analysis that I linked to. My proposal makes Killing Attacks much more lethal than normal due to doing more Body than an equivalent Normal Attack (they just don't do as much Stun):

1d6 EB, +1/4 Killing (6 pts): 1-6 Stun; 1-3 Body
2d6 EB, +1/4 Killing (12 pts): 2-12 Stun; 2-6 Body
3d6 EB, +1/4 Killing (19 pts): 3-18 Stun; 3-9 Body
etc.

philhall

Mar 15th, '08, 11:16 AM

You may be overlooking the additional effect of changing the base cose. A 4D6 RKA using a +2 'killing' advantage wil cost 60ap - exactly the same as the current build. What about 4D6 RKA Armor Piercing? Under current rules that costs 90ap. Using the +2 'killing' advantage you describe it would cost 70ap. Stacking additional advantages on top, such as Zero End, No Range Modifier, etc, would only further increase the difference.

No, I'm not skipping out on those points you made, as a matter of fact I actually took that into consideration. So it increases the cost significantly, that's not a big deal considering Steve's contemplating making the change to "no figured characteristics", which means more points that a base character is going to need/receive--we're just upping things a bit more.

CTaylor

Mar 15th, '08, 03:22 PM

Did you look at the detailed analysis I linked to?

I think you're missing the point: Energy blast goes against defenses everyone has.
Killing attacks go against defenses only some people who specifically buys them.

Thus, it's too cheap to have a 1/4 advantage avoid people's defenses.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

I mean if you pay an advantage that turns the defenses that energy blast goes against to resistant defenses, you're still doing the same amount and same kind of damage; it's just against different defenses.

60 active points:
4D6 RKA = average stun 35, average body 14. Max stun 120, maximum body 24
12D6 Energy Blast = average stun 42, average body 12. Max stun 72, max body 24

See? Killing attack averages slightly less stun, slightly more body. Energy blast averages more stun, less body. (at the extreme, same body, much more stun from the KA). The two kinds of attacks result in different kinds of damage. If you treat energy blasts as killing attacks, you lose that differential: same stun, same body.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 15th, '08, 04:54 PM

Did you look at the detailed analysis I linked to?

I think you're missing the point: Energy blast goes against defenses everyone has.
Killing attacks go against defenses only some people who specifically buys them.

Thus, it's too cheap to have a 1/4 advantage avoid people's defenses.

Viewed another way, EB goes against defenses a normal human has 2 of and KA goes against defenses a normal human has none of. A serious opponent has significantly more of both, such that making "killing" even a +1/4 advantage in the present character structure vastly overprices it.

I could only see "killing damage" being a real advantage if both the scope and magnitude of resistant defenses were sharply reduced across the board. Reduce the frequency of resistant defenses to that of other exotic defenses and it would be reasonable for "killing" to become a form of AVLD, meaning only rDEF reduces STUN, and the attack requires an extra +1 advantage to even do BOD damage.

However, I doubt it is possible to return the genie to the bottle - Hero gamers are much too use to the concept that every serious character has some resistant defenses.

CTaylor

Mar 15th, '08, 06:27 PM

Interesting perspective, but I would hate to build rules based on "serious opponents."

Hugh Neilson

Mar 16th, '08, 06:09 AM

Interesting perspective, but I would hate to build rules based on "serious opponents."

How often do combats against normals come up in your games?

A 6d6 Energy Blast or a 2d6 Killing Attack will both quickly lay out Joe Normal. Against a target with, say, 5 PD and 5rDEF armor, both attacks seems reasonably competitive. Make the KA more expensive so we're now dealing with a 6d6 EB and a 1d6+1 KA, I'm thinking you get very little use out of your 1d6+1 KA, so why bother taking it instead of the EB?

Building the rules around the opponents one is likely to face seems, to me, eminently reasonable. That's where the abilities will most commonly be used.

Now, if we were to change the system so that's a 6d6 EB or 4d6, rolled normally, against which the target only gets his resistant defenses vs the BOD or STUN, that might be reasonably competitive. Of course, under my samle defenses that effectively makes the KA the same as an AP attack, so it makes sense that a +1/2 advantage would work out. What's the average percentage of a character's total defense that is resistant in your games?

CTaylor

Mar 16th, '08, 07:38 AM

Netzilla

Mar 16th, '08, 08:26 AM

Did you look at the detailed analysis I linked to?

I think you're missing the point:

That doesn't answer my question. I'm trying to make sure we both understand what the other is talking about. To see my perspective, you have to know where I'm getting my numbers from.

Energy blast goes against defenses everyone has.
Killing attacks go against defenses only some people who specifically buys them.

Thus, it's too cheap to have a 1/4 advantage avoid people's defenses.

Is the current Killing Attack too cheap? After all, if you compare equivalent DC Normal and Killing attacks, you'll see that the Killing Attack:

does slightly more body
is more than 10% likely to do the same DC Normal Attack's max+ Stun
can only be stopped if the target has Resistant defenses

If the target has as little as 3 points of Resistant DEF (boiled leather; less than light kevlar) the KA

is more likely to get a KO than the Normal Attack
is more to get a KO than do an Impairing wound

All too often, Killing Attacks are the superior choice for knocking out an opponent. The analysis (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1553378#post1553378) I linked to goes over all of this.

I mean if you pay an advantage that turns the defenses that energy blast goes against to resistant defenses, you're still doing the same amount and same kind of damage; it's just against different defenses.

No it's not, as I've stated and mathematically shown in several posts now. Did you read the way my +1/4 Advantage works? For the same price it does less Stun and more Body. It is not the same amount and same kind of damage.

60 active points:
4D6 RKA = average stun 35, average body 14. Max stun 120, maximum body 24
12D6 Energy Blast = average stun 42, average body 12. Max stun 72, max body 24

See? Killing attack averages slightly less stun, slightly more body. Energy blast averages more stun, less body. (at the extreme, same body, much more stun from the KA). The two kinds of attacks result in different kinds of damage. If you treat energy blasts as killing attacks, you lose that differential: same stun, same body.

The Killing Attack has a 10+% chance to do 72+ STUN (i.e. 1 attack in 10). Thats as much or more than the Normal Attack maxes at. The Normal Attack's odds of doing it's max of 72 Stun is less than 1 in 1 million.

The +1/4 Advantage as I built it, does slightly more body than the Normal Attack and slightly less Stun, both on average and at max. So, I don't see how you can say that it's doing both the same type and amounts of damage. Please show me how that's the case.

Netzilla

Mar 16th, '08, 08:36 AM

CTaylor

Mar 16th, '08, 09:14 AM

Hugh Neilson

Mar 16th, '08, 10:10 AM

My point was that basing rules on only "serious opponents" means that you create a baseline at which all games must be focused. Build your games differently, the rules don't work. Build your games with different points, the rules don't work. Play a cops and robbers game or a 20's pulp game, or a cowboy game where almost nobody has body armor, and the rules don't work.

That seems like a poor way to design rules.

So is your suggestion to vary the value of the Advantage according to the genre? The Hero System currently does do much of this (except possibly with the Limited Power limitation). I'm all in favor of it going that way myself, but I doubt it will happen.

If we don't do things that way, what kind of campaign do we base the value of Advantages and Limitations? I suspect that more people play Hero for Superheroes than anything else with Fantasy still coming before Pulp and normal cops. Though I admittedly don't have any statistics to back that, the poor sales of Pulp Hero compared to Champions and Fantasy Hero seem to make that suggestion. Even most Dark Champs characters either have body armor or the Combat Luck talent.

No, my suggestion is that the base rules should as much as possible fit every genre. In other words: resistant defenses on the whole are much less common than non-resistant defenses, thus attacks that go against these defenses cost more for the same effect.

I think they do. In 5th Ed, they introduced a little talent called Combat Luck. This allowed people like, oh, [searches for examples]

ah, yes...cops and robbers, 20's pulp characters, or cowboys - characters in game where almost nobody has body armor - to have some resistant defenses. Just like the guys in the genres where body armor (natural or not) is very common.

It seems to me that allowing all genres' characters to access resistant defenses is better than changing the rules to suit some genres (like a cops and robbers game or a 20's pulp game, or a cowboy game where almost nobody has body armor) at the expense of other genres. Or, in other words, making the base rules as much as possible fit every genre.

The whole game is based around a certain series of presumptions. One of them is that characters have rDEF. Look at the standard ranges at various point levels - they ALL have rDEF. If you deviate from those standards, no question you end up with poorly balanced point costs. If the average defense is 1 per average Damage Class, why would anyone buy AP or Penetrating? They're a waste of points. And if you scrap rDEF, or make it vastly less common, the present cost difference between killing and normal attacks becomes unsustainable - a normal attack makes no sense.

But the game has evolved, through five editions, to the point that rDEF is viewed as pretty much universal. To repeat, I don't think that genie's going back in the bottle. And why should it? Leave things as they are, and the genie doesn't cause any real trouble.

Netzilla

Mar 16th, '08, 12:22 PM

No, my suggestion is that the base rules should as much as possible fit every genre. In other words: resistant defenses on the whole are much less common than non-resistant defenses, thus attacks that go against these defenses cost more for the same effect.

That last sentence of yours is where I think our fundamental dissagreement lies. You view Resistant Defenses as being uncommon. I don't. In pretty much any genre, the heroes, villains and many minions have common access to some Resistant Defense. The Combat Luck Talent gives anyone 3 rPD & 3 rED without it looking like they're wearing armor. Unless you specifically disallow it in your campaign, it's available in all genres.

I cannot think of any official Champions, Dark Champs, Star Hero or Fantasy Hero character that doesn't have Resistant Defense of some kind. A quick scan of Post Apoc Hero shows that all of the sample characters but 1 have resistant defenses (either inherent, through worn armor, combat luck or magic) and that 1 has Regenerate from Death. Looking at the sample heroes and villains in Pulp Hero, 5 characters have Resistant defenses and 5 don't. So, even in Pulp Hero the expectation appears to be 50% would have rDEF.

So, upon what do you base the contention that rDEF is much less common that nDEF?

PhilFleischmann

Mar 16th, '08, 04:00 PM

My suggestion is to make Killing a +1/4 advantage on a normal attack. This increases the body count by 1 per die (thus each die yields 1-3 rather than 0-2 Body) and treats defenses just like current Killing Attacks do. Thus that 5d6 EB with +1/4 Killing has a Body range of 5-15 and a Stun range of 5-30.
Interesting. I'm going to use 75 Points since that makes the numbers come out even without rounding errors:

75 points = 15d6 Nomal Attack = avg 15 BODY, 52.5 STUN

75 points = 5d6 Killing Attack = avg 17.5 BODY, 46.667 STUN

75 points = 12d6, with the +1/4 "Killing" Advantage that you propose = avg 24 BODY, 42 STUN

That seems a bit too high on the BODY to me. How 'bout instead of +1 BODY per die, 1-3 pips is 1 BODY, and 4-6 is two BODY, that would give an avg of 18 BODY. Or maybe 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, which would also give an average of 18, but would allow it to vary more widely.

CTaylor

Mar 16th, '08, 05:17 PM

But the game has evolved, through five editions, to the point that rDEF is viewed as pretty much universal.

I can't speak for anyone else's games but the ones I've played and GMed but that's absolutely not true for me. I don't see it being true for Steve Long as a game designer either; the source material has plenty of examples of people with zero resistant defenses, except in genres like Champions where it makes sense that people be bulletproof. I guess other peoples' games may vary

But here's the bottom line: if you are designing a game that is supposed to work in every genre and game type, the basic rules cannot presume something only true in some.

Netzilla

Mar 16th, '08, 05:36 PM

Interesting. I'm going to use 75 Points since that makes the numbers come out even without rounding errors:

75 points = 15d6 Nomal Attack = avg 15 BODY, 52.5 STUN

75 points = 5d6 Killing Attack = avg 17.5 BODY, 46.667 STUN

75 points = 12d6, with the +1/4 "Killing" Advantage that you propose = avg 24 BODY, 42 STUN

That seems a bit too high on the BODY to me. How 'bout instead of +1 BODY per die, 1-3 pips is 1 BODY, and 4-6 is two BODY, that would give an avg of 18 BODY. Or maybe 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, which would also give an average of 18, but would allow it to vary more widely.

Hmm... I hadn't expected the difference to get that large by 15 DC. Part of the reason I picked +1 Body per die was because it's pretty easy to remember and you're still counting body the same way as for a normal attack.

I like your first option better than the second mainly because I don't think a "Killing" attack should have a chance of doing 0 Body to an unarmored target. However, it does have the problem of maxing out at a lower Body count than the same DC Normal Attack, and that's just as counter-intuitive as Killing Attacks being better at doing Stun damage than Normal Attacks.

I'll have to take some time to run a few numbers at the higher DC scale to see if I can come up with something that balances better at the higher end but is still easy to count.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 17th, '08, 06:34 AM

I can't speak for anyone else's games but the ones I've played and GMed but that's absolutely not true for me. I don't see it being true for Steve Long as a game designer either; the source material has plenty of examples of people with zero resistant defenses, except in genres like Champions where it makes sense that people be bulletproof. I guess other peoples' games may vary

But here's the bottom line: if you are designing a game that is supposed to work in every genre and game type, the basic rules cannot presume something only true in some.

The basic rules presume the fact that characters in genres with killing attacks aren't killed rapidly implies that they have resistant defenses of some form, even if they are not readily apparent.

How is it that all those well-trained Stormtroopers can't hit two droids scuttling across the hallway, or a small group of rebels fleeing down a corridor? ANSWER: Mechanically, they hit and the damage was resisted by Combat Luck. SFX, the Combat Luck looks the same as a near miss (or glancing hit). Thus, what you see doesn't look like rDEF, but it is.

Now, under your approach, tell me how you balance the cost of a KA for all genres. Your proposed change presumes a game where rDEF is rare, and works fine in such a game, but will fail in a game where rDEF is common. The examples from the published source material seem pretty clear that "rDEF is common" occurs more frequently than "rDEF is rare" in the eyes of the writers for the system.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 17th, '08, 06:39 AM

Hmm... I hadn't expected the difference to get that large by 15 DC. Part of the reason I picked +1 Body per die was because it's pretty easy to remember and you're still counting body the same way as for a normal attack.

I think it's important to watch the BOD spread. You do too, I believe. I don't want a change to KA's that renders force walls and entangles useless, and a significant increase to average BOD definitely renders them useless.

I remain a fan of linking KA mechanics to the usual damage rolls. I'd go with 1d6 KA does 1 BOD on a 1-5 and 2 on a 6. Count STUN normally, but subtract half the dice. Average from 15d6 is now 17.5 BOD and 45 STUN.

Keep the application of rDEF and reduced knockback rules, and we eliminate the Multiple issues with minimal impact on averages. It does max out at the same level as a normal attack, though. I suppose we could say count BOD as 1=0, 2-5=1 and 6=3 if you wanted a significantly higher potential with no change to the averages.

ajackson

Mar 17th, '08, 12:00 PM

In most genres, normal people do not have visible resistant defenses. On the other hand, in many cinematic genres a bullet has essentially zero chance of getting a significant hit; major characters are grossly unlikely to take anything more than a flesh wound, and at the end of the fight, spend a few frames bandaging and the wound can basically be ignored. That suggests that most 'lethal' damage in cinematic genres is actually stun, it's just stun that looks bloody.

Netzilla

Mar 17th, '08, 12:15 PM

75 points = 12d6, with the +1/4 "Killing" Advantage that you propose = avg 24 BODY, 42 STUN

That seems a bit too high on the BODY to me.

I'll have to take some time to run a few numbers at the higher DC scale to see if I can come up with something that balances better at the higher end but is still easy to count.

I think it's important to watch the BOD spread. You do too, I believe. I don't want a change to KA's that renders force walls and entangles useless, and a significant increase to average BOD definitely renders them useless.

After thinking about this for a bit, I think I've come across a fairly simple solution that is easy to implement and fixes the problem with how much the average Body damage my proposed Killing Advantage (+¼) generates at higher Damage Classes. Instead of adding +1 to the Body count of each die, things seem to work out better if you simply count the Body damage as for a Normal Attack and then add ½ the number of dice rolled. Here's a few quick comparisons:

25 pts
* 5d6 EB: 0min / 5ave / 10max Body; 5min / 17.5ave / 30max Stun
* 1½d6 Current Killing Attack: 2 / 5.5 / 9 Body; 2 / 14.66 / 45 Stun
* 4d6 EB w/ +¼ Killing: 2/6/10 Body; 4/14/24 Stun

50 pts
* 10d6 EB: 0/10/20 Body; 10/35/60 Stun
* 3d6+1 Current Killing: 4/12/19 Body; 4/32/95 Stun
* 8d6 EB w/ + ¼ Killing: 4/12/20 Body; 8/28/48 Stun

75 pts
* 15d6 EB: 0/15/30 Body; 15 / 52.5 / 90 Stun
* 5d6 Current Killing: 5 / 17.5 / 30 Body; 5 / 46.66 / 150 Stun
* 12d6 EB w/ + ¼ Killing: 6/18/30 Body; 12/42/72 Stun

100 pts
* 20d6 EB: 0/20/40 Body; 20/70/120 Stun
* 6½d6 Current Killing: 7/23/39 Body; 7 / 61.33 / 195 Stun
* 16d6 EB w/ + ¼ Killing: 8/24/40 Body; 16/56/96 Stun

150 pts
* 30d6 EB: 0/30/60 Body; 30/105/180 Stun
* 10d6 Current Killing: 10/35/60 Body; 10 / 93.33 / 300 Stun
* 24d6 EB w/ + ¼ Killing: 12/36/60 Body; 24/84/144 Stun

So, the Body range seems to be similar to that of Current Killing Attacks. It maxes the same as the same DC Normal Attack, but has higher minimum and Average Body amounts. Stun levels are less than the same DC Normal Attack, but that should be balanced by the fact that the target must have some Resistant DEF in order to protect against it.

Now the question is: How does this bear out against an actual opponent?

Netzilla

Mar 17th, '08, 12:19 PM

Now the question is: How does this bear out against an actual opponent?

Okay, in order to answer my own question, I'm going to do the same basis analysis I did in my previous breakdown of killing attack options (this post). I'm going to use the same targets as I did in my last detailed analysis:

Mook: 8 CON, 8 BOD, 16 Stun, 2 PD human wearing 2 DEF armor
Average Foe: 13 CON, 13 BOD, 26 Stun, 3 PD, 3 DEF armor
Elite Foe: 15 CON, 15 BOD, 30 Stun, 6 PD, 8 DEF armor

and stick to the 5 DC attacks for comparison.

http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27199&stc=1&d=1206798059
Now, in the above comparison, both types of Killing Attack have higher minimum and average Body damage with lower average & minimum Stun. However the Normal Attack has a higher Body max than the Current Killing Attack. The Proposed Killing Attack does the same max Body as the Normal Attack. The Current Killing Attack has a much higher max Stun and has an 11% chance of doing the Normal Attack's max Stun or better. This is not true of the Proposed Killing Attack.

http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27197&stc=1&d=1206798059
Against the mook, both Killing Attacks are more likely to do an Impairing wound, but only the Proposed Killing Attack has a chance of dropping the mook to 0 Body. The Normal Attack has the best chance of Stunning the mook but the Current Killing Attack actually matches its chance to KO. Also, the odds of getting a KO are nearly the same as for causing an Impairing wound for the Current Killing Attack. Neither of those points are true of the Proposed Killing Attack. All 3 will take an average of 2 hits to KO the mook. All of this makes the Normal Attack the best bet to take out the mook without killing him, however the Proposed Killing Attack is the best choice for killing the mook.

http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27200&stc=1&d=1206798059
None of the attacks are able to cause an Impairing wound, much less drop the target to 0 Body in 1 shot. However, the Proposed Killing Attack has the best chance of doing Body overall and the highest average Body per hit.. The Current Killing Attack has the best odds of pulling off a one-shot KO (which neither the Normal Attack nor the Proposed Killing Attack can do at all) and it equals the Normal Attack's chance to Stun the target. Both the Normal Attack and Current Killing Attack will take an average of 3 hits to KO the target. The Proposed Killing Attack takes the least number of hits to kill the target. This ends up making the Current Killing Attack the best bet for dropping the target while doing minimal Body and the Proposed Killing Attack the best bet for actually killing the foe.

http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27198&stc=1&d=1206798059
Again, none of the attacks can Impair or kill the target in one shot. However, the Current Killing Attack is far and away the clear winner for Stunning or KOing the target. It also does the highest average Body and Stun damage. Thus the Current Killing Attack is the best way to KO the target without doing significant Body.

Netzilla

Mar 17th, '08, 12:21 PM

So, what happens at the Superheroic level? For this comparison, I'm going to use the 10 DC attacks and my targets will be:
* The Basic Viper Agent from Champions Universe (13 CON, 12 BOD, 4 PD, 8 rDEF, 30 STUN)
* Defender from Champions (30 CON, 12 BOD, 5 PD, 15 rDEF, 35 STUN)
* Mechanon from CU (40 CON, 20 BOD, 30 rDEF, 90 STUN)

http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27204&stc=1&d=1206798248
From the basic comparison, we can see that both Killing Attacks have higher minimum and average Body values but lower minimum and average Stun values. However, the Current Killing Attack has a much higher (over 50% higher) max Stun than the Normal Attack and again has an 11% chance to do the Normal Attack's max or higher Stun.

http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27201&stc=1&d=1206798248
Both Killing Attacks are more likely to impair the target than the Normal Attack, but only the Proposed Killing Attack has a chance of bringing him to 0 or less Body in one hit. The Normal Attack has the best odds of Stunning the target, but the Current Killing Attack has the best chance to KO him. The Proposed Killing Attack is less likely to Stun or KO the target than the Normal Attack. All 3 attacks take roughly 2 hits to KO the target. Overall, the Normal Attack is the best choice for KOing the target without doing significant Body. The Proposed Killing Attack is the best option for actually killing him.

http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27203&stc=1&d=1206798248
None of the attacks can Impair Defender nor bring him to 0 Body. The Current Killing Attack has far and away the best chance of either Stunning or one-shot KOing Defender, but the Normal Attack still does the highest average Stun per hit. Both the Normal Attack and Current Killing Attack take the same average number of hits to KO Defender. The higher chance of Stunning or one-shotting Defender combined with taking the same number of turns to KO through attrition and the incredibly low odds of doing a single point of Body makes the Current Killing Attack far and away the best bet for KOing Defender.

http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27202&stc=1&d=1206798248
Again, none of the attacks can do real harm to Mechanon. Also, none of them can one-shot KO Mechanon. However, the Current Killing Attack is the only attack that can potentially Stun him, has the highest average Stun per hit and thus takes the least number of hits to achieve a KO through attrition Once again, the Current Killing Attack is the best method to KO this target without doing any Body.

Netzilla

Mar 17th, '08, 12:22 PM

So, overall, the method I'm proposing for handling Killing Attacks (+¼ Advantage; treat defenses as Current Killing Attack mechanics; count Body as for a Normal Attack then add ½ the number of dice rolled) produces minimum and average Body values comparable to that of the Current Killing Attack method, but prevents the scenarios where a Killing Attack is actually the best method for knocking out a foe while doing minimal damage. However, it's possibly underpowered for the Superheroic genre as the Stun values are lower than that of an equivalent Normal Attack, while the Body range remains the same. This makes it much easier for superheroic characters to make themselves “bullet proof” than the current system. Personally, I think that's a good thing but those who prefer a more Iron Age feel might not think so.

Other conclusions I've drawn from all this:
* You really need to be throwing around more than 10DCs if you're going to be taking on Mechanon.
* Defender's a wimp. :)

CTaylor

Mar 17th, '08, 01:35 PM

Your proposed change presumes a game where rDEF is rare, and works fine in such a game, but will fail in a game where rDEF is common.

I don't propose any changes to killing attacks.

That suggests that most 'lethal' damage in cinematic genres is actually stun, it's just stun that looks bloody.

I agree.

Opal

Mar 17th, '08, 02:30 PM

KAs have come up again, I see.

As Netizilla's analysis above illustrates, KAs really aren't too bad when there's little or no resistant defense: they do what they're supposed to, they kill in a somewhat random and unpredictable manner. Some of the time they KO or STN without killing, sometimes they leave a victim mortally wounded but still conscious (as happened, quite dramatically, in the game I ran just yesterday), and sometimes they produce 'just a flesh wound.' All very reasonable.

The problem, ironically, comes when characters are well defended against KAs. If you have enough resistance defense to stop the BOD of a KA, even on a max roll, you can still take significant stun from it about a third of the time, and outrageous amonts of stun on occassion. That's the infamous STN lotto, and while it's OK if you're being hit by an attack that has the potential to kill you outright, it's a little silly when the attack can't even scratch you.

My solution as a GM is simply to aply the STNx after defenses. This makes KAs very efficient and killing those vulnerable to them, but ineffectual against the 'invulnerable' types who can consistently bounce all that BOD. Another good variation on this is to aply an automatic STNx of 2 to a KA that fails to inflict BOD, that way a KA you're only just 'invulnerable' to can still sting a bit. Such a variation retains the randomness of KAs that desireable when modeling such things as the vaugeries of terminal ballistics, but also makes bullet-bouncing 'invulnerable' concepts straightforwardly buildable.

CTaylor

Mar 17th, '08, 02:45 PM

In Champions, at least, the killing attacks that have the same active points as energy blasts will be extraordinarily hard to resist the body from, and the stun will knock you silly.

60 active point game:
Energy Blast 12D6
Killing Attack 4D6.

12D6 energy blast, reasonably common. 4D6 killing attack? Not so much so.

PhilFleischmann

Mar 17th, '08, 03:51 PM

I like your first option better than the second mainly because I don't think a "Killing" attack should have a chance of doing 0 Body to an unarmored target. However, it does have the problem of maxing out at a lower Body count than the same DC Normal Attack, and that's just as counter-intuitive as Killing Attacks being better at doing Stun damage than Normal Attacks.
I wouldn't worry about that too much. Even with a mere 6d6 with the Killing Advantage (37.5 points) the odds of doing 0 BODY is 1 in 46656.

Keep the application of rDEF and reduced knockback rules, and we eliminate the Multiple issues with minimal impact on averages. It does max out at the same level as a normal attack, though. I suppose we could say count BOD as 1=0, 2-5=1 and 6=3 if you wanted a significantly higher potential with no change to the averages.
Or the method I always recommend: 1 = 0, 2-4 = 1, 5-6 = 2.

I don't see it as that big of a deal for KAs to do 0 BODY once in a very great while. That's just called "the target got really lucky" - he lost a bit of his hair, the bullet bounced off the Bible in his breast pocket, a blemish or a hangnail was removed, etc.

As the rules are now, KAs, on average, do 1/6 more BODY and 1/9 less STUN than the Normal Attack of the same active points. That STUN Average is not quite as meaningful due to the STUN Lotto, but assuming we want to retain the same average, that's what the current rules are, and if they are changed in 6th, they should probably remain somewhat close to that. (Though off-hand, I'd prefer the STUN be reduced a bit more than that - say 1/6 more BODY, and 1/6 less STUN.)

Netzilla

Mar 17th, '08, 08:36 PM

I wouldn't worry about that too much. Even with a mere 6d6 with the Killing Advantage (37.5 points) the odds of doing 0 BODY is 1 in 46656.

At that level, I wouldn't worry about it either. It's more that I'd worry about it at the lower end (when you have 3 or few dice to roll; like with a dagger or somesuch).

Or the method I always recommend: 1 = 0, 2-4 = 1, 5-6 = 2.

Also, I'm not a big fan of changing the method by which Body is counted. One of the reasons I push for a Unified Damage Mechanic is to reduce the number of different ways in which Body and Stun are calculated. One rule is simply easier for new players to learn and takes up less space in the rule book. Changing the number of Body pips as you do also means that you invalidate all those cool green and black Hero Dice that were produced. :)

However, your method is definitely better than the current mechanics in my mind. I also think the idea of buying completely separate Body and Stun dice needs to be examined more closely.

As the rules are now, KAs, on average, do 1/6 more BODY and 1/9 less STUN than the Normal Attack of the same active points. That STUN Average is not quite as meaningful due to the STUN Lotto, but assuming we want to retain the same average, that's what the current rules are, and if they are changed in 6th, they should probably remain somewhat close to that. (Though off-hand, I'd prefer the STUN be reduced a bit more than that - say 1/6 more BODY, and 1/6 less STUN.)

Seems like a fair comparison to make. Let's see what we get.

25pts
5d6 Normal Attack / 1 1/2d6 Current Killing / 4d6 Proposed Killing
Average Body: 5 / 5.5 (1/10 increase) / 6 (1/5 increase)
Average Stun: 17.5 / 14.66 (~1/6 decrease) / 14 (1/5 decrease)
Max Body: 10 / 9 (1/10 decrease) / 10 (no change)
Max Stun: 30 / 45 (1/2 increase) / 24 (1/5 decrease)

50 pts
10d6 Normal Attack / 3d6+1 Current Killing / 8d6 Proposed Killing
Average Body: 10 / 11.5 (~1/7 increase) / 12 (1/5 increase)
Average Stun: 35 / 32 (~1/10 decrease) / 28 (1/5 decrease)
Max Body: 20 / 19 (1/20 decrease) / 20 (no change)
Max Stun: 60 / 95 (~58% increase) / 48 (1/5 decrease)

75 pts
15d6 Normal Attack / 5d6 Current Killing / 12d6 Proposed Killing
Average Body: 15 / 17.5 (1/6 increase) / 18 (1/5 increase)
Average Stun: 52.5 / 46.66 (~1/9 decrease) / 42 (1/5 decrease)
Max Body: 30 / 30 (no change) / 30 (no change)
Max Stun: 90 / 150 (~67% increase) / 72 (1/5 decrease)

100 pts
20d6 Normal Attack / 6 1/2d6 Current Killing / 16d6 Proposed Killing
Average Body: 20 / 23 (~1/7 increase) / 24 (1/5 increase)
Average Stun: 70 / 61.33 (~1/8 decrease) / 56 (1/5 decrease)
Max Body: 40 / 39 (1/40 decrease) / 40 (no change)
Max Stun: 120 / 195 (~63% increase) / 96 (1/5 decrease)

150 pts
30d6 Normal Attack / 10d6 Current Killing / 24d6 Proposed Killing
Average Body: 30 / 35 (1/6 increase) / 36 (1/5 increase)
Average Stun: 105 / 93.33 (~1/9 decrease) / 84 (1/5 decrease)
Max Body: 60 / 60 (no change) / 60 (no change)
Max Stun: 180 / 300 (~67% increase) / 144 (1/5 decrease)

The current method for Killing Attacks varies quite a bit on how much average Body increases (from 1/10 to 1/6) and actually does less max Body 2/3 of the time. Average Stun decrease also ranges from 1/10 to 1/6 and in no way coincides with how much the average Body increased. Also, max Stun always increases by 1/2 to 2/3.

The proposed method always increases the average Body by 1/5 and decreases the average Stun by 1/5. It also always matches the max Body exactly and decreases the max Stun by 1/5. This does seem to be a tad more consistent in the trade-off. You get a 1/5 higher average Body and damage that requires Resistant defenses to block in exchange for a 1/5 lower average and max Stun.

MPT

Mar 18th, '08, 06:35 AM

Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?

I agree that removing it as a Power makes sense, however it is such a useful idea that it should still be included in the 6ED rules as an example constructed power.

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

As both give you the same basic effect (you can move in the air) they should both be the same power.

Q: Should the “STR adds damage” feature be removed from HKA?
Q: Should HKA and RKA be combined into one power?

I would go with Killing Attack, 10 points. Adds STR (+1/2), Ranged (+1/2) as posted elsewhere.

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

YES! Whilst the STUN lottery may not be a big problem in Champions where characters have big defences, in Fantasy and Pulp campaigns the d6 means that a roll of 6 can often knock out a character in one hit which removes all the excitement and options of extended combats.

MPT

Mar 18th, '08, 06:47 AM

Flash is a general problem for me (and also Entangle) as both of these can effectively prevent a character doing anything useful during parts of a combat. This causes problems because it also means that the player has very little to do and if they have either a slow SPD character or there are lots of PCs and NPCs then they will have lots of time when they are not involved in the game.

Whilst I am not suggesting that these powers are removed, and feel that the Flash roll = Segments has partially solved the problem, I would like to see some changes to these in 6ED - but am not certain what.

PhilFleischmann

Mar 18th, '08, 04:45 PM

At that level, I wouldn't worry about it either. It's more that I'd worry about it at the lower end (when you have 3 or few dice to roll; like with a dagger or somesuch).
I would have thought 6d6 was already a fairly low level. It's only 37 points. With 3d6 (19 points) the odds of 0 BODY are still only 1 in 216.

Also, I'm not a big fan of changing the method by which Body is counted.
You mean like adding one to each die? :angel:

One of the reasons I push for a Unified Damage Mechanic is to reduce the number of different ways in which Body and Stun are calculated.
Yeah, but different things need to be treated differently. If we want to have an attack that does more BODY for the same points, we have to do something to count the BODY differently.

Changing the number of Body pips as you do also means that you invalidate all those cool green and black Hero Dice that were produced. :)
That is unfortunate, but not that big a deal. We'll just have to pretend they're normal dice, like the ones we used for HERO since 1981. I would have preferred dice that had, say, white pips, a few of which can be colored in red, say, to indicate the BODY done.

Seems like a fair comparison to make. Let's see what we get.
....
The current method for Killing Attacks varies quite a bit on how much average Body increases (from 1/10 to 1/6) and actually does less max Body 2/3 of the time. Average Stun decrease also ranges from 1/10 to 1/6 and in no way coincides with how much the average Body increased.
That variance is only because you used +1 Pips and Half-dice, which brings in a bit of round-off error. +1 pip is not *really* exactly 1/3 of 1d6, and 1/2d6 (1-3) is not *really* 2/3 of a d6. This error gets proportionally smaller the bigger the attack.

The proposed method always increases the average Body by 1/5 and decreases the average Stun by 1/5. It also always matches the max Body exactly and decreases the max Stun by 1/5. This does seem to be a tad more consistent in the trade-off. You get a 1/5 higher average Body and damage that requires Resistant defenses to block in exchange for a 1/5 lower average and max Stun.
I didn't even notice that! It's +1/5 BODY, and -1/5 STUN - how elegant!

The only problem is the fact that it's an Advantage, which means that it becomes proportionally cheaper with Advantage Stacking. This can be fixed by multiplying this particular Advantage separately, befor applying other Advantages (treating the Normal Attack + Killing total as "Base Points"), but that adds another small layer of complexity.

Netzilla

Mar 19th, '08, 07:19 AM

I would have thought 6d6 was already a fairly low level. It's only 37 points. With 3d6 (19 points) the odds of 0 BODY are still only 1 in 216.

Sure, the odds are unlikely but they are there. You'll see a 1 in 216 come up multiple times in a single campaign (occasionally multiple times in a single session). Still, I'm willing to admit that my problem with this is largely ascetic. There's just something conceptually wrong with the idea of a dagger bouncing off of bare skin.

Also, I'm not a big fan of changing the method by which Body is counted.
You mean like adding one to each die? :angel:

One of the reasons I push for a Unified Damage Mechanic is to reduce the number of different ways in which Body and Stun are calculated.
Yeah, but different things need to be treated differently. If we want to have an attack that does more BODY for the same points, we have to do something to count the BODY differently.

It's not quite the same. Your method requires people to remember that 5=2 rather than 1. My method allows you to count the Body the same then add a number afterwards (currently ½ the number of dice rolled). The counting is still the same. Yes, there is a difference, but the degree of difference is smaller with my method (at least IMO).

Changing the number of Body pips as you do also means that you invalidate all those cool green and black Hero Dice that were produced. :)
That is unfortunate, but not that big a deal. We'll just have to pretend they're normal dice, like the ones we used for HERO since 1981. I would have preferred dice that had, say, white pips, a few of which can be colored in red, say, to indicate the BODY done.

I added that for a bit of levity rather than as a serious argument; hence the smiley.

The current method for Killing Attacks varies quite a bit on how much average Body increases (from 1/10 to 1/6) and actually does less max Body 2/3 of the time. Average Stun decrease also ranges from 1/10 to 1/6 and in no way coincides with how much the average Body increased.
That variance is only because you used +1 Pips and Half-dice, which brings in a bit of round-off error. +1 pip is not *really* exactly 1/3 of 1d6, and 1/2d6 (1-3) is not *really* 2/3 of a d6. This error gets proportionally smaller the bigger the attack.

The proposed method always increases the average Body by 1/5 and decreases the average Stun by 1/5. It also always matches the max Body exactly and decreases the max Stun by 1/5. This does seem to be a tad more consistent in the trade-off. You get a 1/5 higher average Body and damage that requires Resistant defenses to block in exchange for a 1/5 lower average and max Stun.
I didn't even notice that! It's +1/5 BODY, and -1/5 STUN - how elegant!

Unfortunately, +1 pip and half-dice are the way killing attacks actually work. Thus they must be taken into account when doing such an analysis. Plus, I did go pretty high up there on the attack (30 DCs).

You can see a somewhat similar effect with my proposal, by the way, at certain values. For example:

30 pts
6d6 EB / 2d6 Killing Attack / 4½d6 EB, Killing (+¼) (29 AP)
Average Body: 6 / 7 (~17% increase) / 8 (~33 increase)
Average Stun: 21 / 18.62 (~11% decrease / 16 (~24% decrease)
Max Body: 12 / 12 / 12 (no change)
Max Stun: 36 / 60 (~67% increase) / 27 (25% decrease)

35 pts
7d6 EB / 2d6+1 Killing / 5½d6, Killing (+¼) (35 AP)
Average Body: 7 / 8 (~14% increase) / 9 (~29% increase)
Average Stun: 24.5 / 21.28 (~13% decrease) / 19.5 (~20% decrease)
Max Body: 14 / 13 (~7% decrease) / 14 (no change)
Max Stun: 42 / 65 (~55% increase) / 33 (~21% decrease)

40 pts
8d6 EB / 2½d6 Killing / 6d6 EB, Killing (+¼) (37.5 AP)
Average Body: 8 / 9 (12.5% increase) / 9 (12.5% increase)
Average Stun: 28 / 21.28 (24% decrease) / 21 (25% decrease)
Max Body: 16 / 15 (6.25% decrease) / 15 (6.25% decrease)
Max Stun: 48 / 75 (~56% increase) / 36 (25% decrease)

However a 6d6 EB w/ Killing (+¼) is closer to 7½d6 EB in Active Points (38)

38 pts (no match with current Killing Attack
7½d6 EB / 6d6 EB, Killing (+¼) (37.5 AP)
Average Body: 8 / 9 (12.5% increase)
Average Stun: 26.5 / 21 (~21% decrease)
Max Body: 15 / 15 (same)
Max Stun: 45 / 36 (~21% decrease)

So, you're still going to get some odd cases.

However, if you average the results over the 25-40 point range (including the 38 point case), you get the current method averaging
* ~13% increase in average Body
* ~16% decrease in average Stun
* ~6% average decrease in max Body
* ~57% average increase in max Stun

With the proposed method,
* ~21% (21.381%) increase in average Body
* ~21% (21.2398%) decrease in average Stun
* 1.25% decrease in max Body
* ~22% (22.2857%) decrease in max Stun

So, on average, the proposed method seems to more consistently balance its Body bonus with its Stun penalty over the current method.

The only problem is the fact that it's an Advantage, which means that it becomes proportionally cheaper with Advantage Stacking. This can be fixed by multiplying this particular Advantage separately, befor applying other Advantages (treating the Normal Attack + Killing total as "Base Points"), but that adds another small layer of complexity.

I assume you're talking about this kind of case:

3d6+1 Killing Attack (50 BP), +½ Armor Piercing, +¼ Half END (88 AP), -1 OAF (44 RP)
10d6 EB (50 BP), +½ Armor Piercing, +¼ Half END (88 AP), -1 OAF (44 RP)
8d6 EB (40 BP), +¼ Killing, +½ Armor Piercing, +¼ Half END (80 AP), -1 OAF (40 RP)

The lower you go, the less significant the points difference is but it gets larger the higher you go. However, I'm not sure how many campaigns have DC caps in excess of 12 or so. It would definitely make a difference on the build of military vehicle weapons, though.

I can see how one would view this as a problem, especially when considering the interaction with Multipower Pools, but I'm not sure it's that bad. Remember that you no longer have the massive Stun potential with the proposed version. So, if you have an 60 AP (12 DC) Multipower, you'd have the choice of:

12d6 EB (60 BP) (60 AP): 0/12/24 Body, 12/42/72 Stun
4d6 KA (60 BP) (60 AP): 4/14/24 Body, 4/37.24/120 Stun
9½d6 EB (48 BP), +¼ Killing (60 AP): 5/15/24 Body, 10/33.5/57 Stun
6½ d6 EB (33 BP), +½ Armor Piercing, +¼ Half END (58 AP): 0/7/13 Body, 7/23/39 Stun
2d6 KA (30 BP), +½ Armor Piercing, +¼ Half END (53 AP): 2/7/12 Body, 2/d18.62/60 Stun
6d6 EB (30 BP), +¼ Killing, +½ Armor Piercing, +¼ Half END (60 AP): 3/9/15 Body, 6/21/36 Stun

The non-killing EBs still seem to be the best choice for doing Stun damage. There is a slight increase in the amount of Body damage that can be done over the current KAs offered, but it doesn't seem that much and you don't have the massive Stun potential. I think you'd have to be hitting either a pretty high DC cap (such as for Galactic Champs) or pumping on a lot of Advantages (yellow flag in and of itself) before you might see problems.

I suppose you could just make it a separate power rather than an Advantage and just give it a base cost of 6 or 7 points per Die.

For 60 AP you can get:
12d6 EB: 0/12/24 Body, 12/42/72 Stun
6½ d6 EB, +½ Armor Piercing, +¼ Half END (58 AP): 0/7/13 Body, 7/23/39 Stun

At 6 per, for Killing:
10d6 Killing: 5/15/25 Body, 10/35/60 Stun (+25% Body, -17% Stun)
5½d6 Killing, +½ Armor Piercing, +¼ Half END (58 AP): 3/8/14 Body, 6/19.5/33 Stun (+14% Body, -15% Stun)

At 7 per:
8½d6 Killing (59 AP): 5/14/22 Body, 9/30/51 Stun (+17% Body, -29% Stun)
4½d6 Killing, +½ Armor Piercing, +¼ Half END (54 AP): 3/8/12 Body, 5/16/27 Stun (+14% Body, -31% Stun)

You might lose the elegance of balancing your Body increase with an equivalent Stun decrease but I'd have to average the difference out over a range of results to know for certain.

PhilFleischmann

Mar 19th, '08, 02:43 PM

I assume you're talking about this kind of case:

3d6+1 Killing Attack (50 BP), +½ Armor Piercing, +¼ Half END (88 AP), -1 OAF (44 RP)
10d6 EB (50 BP), +½ Armor Piercing, +¼ Half END (88 AP), -1 OAF (44 RP)
8d6 EB (40 BP), +¼ Killing, +½ Armor Piercing, +¼ Half END (80 AP), -1 OAF (40 RP)
Yes, or worse, this kind of case:
3d6+1 KA (50 BP), NND (+1), Does BODY (+1), 150 Active
8d6 EB (40 BP), +1/4 Killing, NND, Does BODY, 130 Active

Or even:
1.5d6 KA (25 BP), NND, Does BODY, AE Radius = 100 Active
4d6 EB (20 BP), +1/4 Killing, NND, Does BODY, AE Radius = 85 Active

I suppose you could just make it a separate power rather than an Advantage and just give it a base cost of 6 or 7 points per Die.
Which throws off the costs a bit, which causes its own problems. Don't get me wrong: I like your solution. It works perfectly, except for the Advantage stacking issue. That's why I proposed making the Killing Advantage separate - don't add it in with all the other Advantages - and then the points all come out right, at the cost of one additional calculation.

Netzilla

Mar 20th, '08, 03:10 AM

BTW PF, thanks for the help with fleshing this idea out. Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to give you rep right now.

casualplayer

Mar 21st, '08, 03:25 PM

As a well-known and outspoken antagonist against any halving, quartering, doubling and tripling effect, kick Find Weakness to the curb! Send Armor Piercing stumbling after! The point of both is to increase the amount of damage that gets past defenses so address it in one of two ways: Suppress the target's defenses so that all attackers will inflict relatively more damage or have additional conditional DCs so that your personal attacks will cause more damage.

palaskar

Mar 23rd, '08, 03:34 PM

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: Keep as is, to model warp/hyperspace drive versus normal drive. Besides, now you have reasons to do that funky stuff like Interdictor Cruisers, “you’re going to warp INSIDE A SYSTEM?”, the “Picard Maneuver” (short range warp that leaves an image of the ship behind, because light hasn’t reached the other ship yet)…all of these can be put as modifiers, Power Tricks, or linked powers for FTL.

Q: Should Find Weakness be eliminated as a Power?

Although my inner sniper says no, my rational self says yes. It’s way too easy to be effective (multiple rolls for multiple halves) but way too easy to defend against – 3 points or so will kill most attacks.

AP more closely resembles Karnak’s (the king of Find Weakness) power anyway – he can use it all the time, without testing the material first. People like Remo Williams and Chuin who have to “tap” the material to get the advantage should just take Extra Time and Gestures (and maybe Concentration.)

Karnak had to study his opponents for long periods of time? I didn’t read that on the current Marvel site…it said, “This ability is always in effect, allowing Karnak…to shatter even mild steel.” Wish I had the http, though. ☹

Find Weakness as a Sense, though…that seems to make sense to me (pardon the pun.) It would be great for a leader type, like old Cap – combo attacks on that “indestructible” block of ice that holds the frozen Thor (from the 616 continuum, I believe.)

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

Again, my heart says no, but my brain says yes. Gliding screams for those Batman types, “Here! Use me!” and hiding it in flight might be bad. But it’s simply more comprehensive to make it Limited Flight. Just be sure you add the “does not leave tracks” from Ultimate Martial Artist in there. And maybe “water walking.”

Q: Should Growth and Shrinking be done differently?

I’d like a way to model “the squish effect” – the area STR very large characters get. Once you reach this level, the cost of Growth radically increases, because you have to pay the area effect on top of STR. Plus there’s the armor effect (large characters seem to take less damage than they ought to from attacks – look any kaiju) and the increased movement (which I always handled as NC multipliers to Running and Swimming.)

About hitting the minimum of DCV 0…I’d image area attacks would do more damage in this case, adding logarhythmically. 1 extra hex == +1d6 EB (or whatever); 2 extra hexes == +2d6, 4 hexes == +3d6, and so on.

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

No. MSH tried this, and it failed “The Kitty Pride test,” where she can pass through any material that isn’t specially engineered to block her. Same with the Vision.

I can see merge Growth, Shrinking and Density Increase, though. But that still won’t stop the problems with Growth above.

Templates are a good idea, if a little complex. They do allow you to do Tiny Template:Weak, which is just a horror to model otherwise via Drains and whatnot. (You could always use Transform, but I think that’s just a cop-out; Drain already does the job of reducing powers and whatnot.)

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

Hmm, you give good reasons for it (because now you can combine HKA and RKA.) STR adds damage can be modeled with AP – that’s how I’d handle giant-size claws…you know, the guy who wants to take Growth and then have his HKA increase along with Growth STR to do sick amounts of KA…

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

Yes, your reasonings are good. I like the KA HTH or Ranged idea myself.

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.

They should be absolutely changed. The STUN Lotto is terribly random…there’s the case of Richard Allen “The Unkillable Man,” with oh, somewhere between 40-80 BODY, 75% Damage Reduction, a smidge of Armor, and massive regeneration. Said “Unkillable Man” is targeted on by a planet-busting starship. It hits. He doesn’t die. And thanks to a STUN multiplier of x2, he’s not even stunned!

On the other end is the Harbinger of Justice taking a called shot to Superman’s head with his 4d6 RKA sniper gun…Supes is going to feel that in the morning.

It’s even worse when people can’t agree on write-ups for weapons. How much KA does a .45 do? A Desert Eagle? A sniper rifle? A 120mm tank gun? A howitzer? A 1,000 pound bomb? A nuke?

There are wildly different opinions on this. If a .45 does 2d6 KA, then a Desert Eagle does 3d6KA, a sniper rifle 4d6KA, and so on.

But then you have to contend with nukes. IMHO, you should add the damage from 1kg of TNT, and multiply it by x1000,000 for a 1-kiloton nuke (1000 kilotons, or 1,000,0000 kg.) I would rate this as 5d6 for the kg of TNT, then +20d6 for the x1000,000 multiplier. 25d6 EB. But there are writeups with howitzers doing 8d6 KA or so!

If you want to go the latter route, then a flat x2 STUN multiplier is absolutely essential for supers to emulate the comic books. If the former, probably not.

Really, I think this is a conflict of Heroic and Superheroic levels crashing – a gun that is normally supposed to kill a Heroic level character scales up to a tank gun that would kill a Superheroic character, which (for Bricks, obviously) is usually wrong.

If you want to simulate called shots, or random hits, roll 1d6 for the STUN multiplier, and consult a hit locations chart. Frex, x1 would be, say, arm, while x6 would be head. Called shots work the same, roll under -8 (or whatever) to get the appropriate STUN multiplier.

I’m not even going to touch BODY multipliers here.

Instant Change: No, keep it under Transform. It doesn’t take up a lot of points anyway, merges two powers into one, and avoids snarky beginners who want to Instant Change into their power armor, or Instant Change away somebody else’s because they don’t understand the power fully. (Like Flight, UAO. There’s no warning about it under “Flight” – it’s under UAO.)

Then there’s the problem with Instant Change UAO disintegrating some or all of the targets clothes…but again, that’s probably a Stop Sign. :)

Merging Multiform, Shapechange AND Transform? Sounds really complicated. Tell me how it works. Until then, I’m withholding judgement.

Flash: Flash BODY=Segments seems to work fine until you count in Flash Defense. Solution: Make Flash Defense more costly, at least x2 more, or even x3.

This also takes care of the +5 and +10 adders for other senses problem, where adding extra senses is too easy.

Netzilla’s ideas for what are, essentially, NND defenses for Flash make a lot of sense, but are also open for abuse. There’s always a chance that your Master Villian will not have the proper defense (justified by character concept, anyway) versus some weird Flash – like “eyeball control”: “Makes eyeballs roll up until the target cannot see. Defense: No eyeballs or ability to control eyeballs.”

Healing: Makes more sense as just Aid with the advantage "restored points don't fade" and the limitation "only to restore lost points.” Perfect for those “comeback characters” who get up stronger after you think you’ve knocked them down.

Ick. Healing Aids with Trigger. Didn’t see that coming. The only way to really model Highlander-style immortals or the Timelords of Doctor Who, though, if we keep Healing under Aid.

Maybe Healing under Aid with a Stop Sign?

Force Walls:

1. The ability to buy BODY for Force Walls, perhaps at between 2 and 5 points per Body. – Definitely.

2. Proper rules for force wall stacking: at present you could have 10 seperate force walls switched on at once, but if they were one behind the other they would not provide additonal protection from a single attack, but if they were next to each other would provide their DEF value against up to 10 seperate atatcks. Default should be you can only have one FW active at once, but for a +1/2 you can have twice as many. – No, IMHO force walls should stack their BODY like Autofire Entangles.

3. A 'fine manipluation' adder or advantage allowing Force Walls to be shaped very delicately to, for instance, make something that looks like a gun, or a wall that can form a complex shape. – We should probably create a “Create Object” Power to handle this. Frex, what if we want to make objects that hang around? (Iceman’s ice…well, everything, come to mind.)

4. Consideration being given to amalgamating FW and Entangle into a single power. An adder or advantage 'Englobed target immobilised' would make FW functionally identical to entangle, if you buy the END cost down and make it persistent. – Yes. After all, a completely Force Walled character is effectively Entangled.

Hand Attack as Extra DCs: Makes so much sense that I wonder why we didn’t do this sooner. After all, why can’t I add my 4d6HA baton to my Escrima MA without paying for +4 DCs with it? One less complication done away with.

HA too weak? Cap DCs +STR at normal campaign maximums.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 26th, '08, 04:48 AM

I think Flight is underpriced. It seems to me that any character in a supers campaign tries to find some excuse to have Flight.

This is because Flight is about much more than moving fast. Flight protects you from falling, and it allows HTH attacks against flying opponents.

It is also the most versatile type of movement. There's nowhere you can't go with Flight that you could go with Running, Swinging or Superleap, and Running must even be combined with Clinging to move to roofs without taking the stairs. The increased turn mode of Flight rarely seems to be a problem.

Correcting this could be done by simply increasing the cost-per-inch of Flight. I suggest another approach, however, which will also add to the flexibility of the power:

Basic Flight doesn't allow you to hover. If you drop below 5"/phase, you will stall and start dropping. The stalling speed is increased for larger vehichles/characters; +5" for each level of Growth or similar size. Being able to hover costs +10 points [+2 per level of Growth?]. Hovering can be bought by itself; this would allow you to hover in place or drop slowly, but not move forward or up.
Basic Flight is reaction-based. It works by pushing air or reaction mass backwards. This means (a) that you cause a backdraft when flying and (b) that you can't lift a closed object (car, falling elevator, etc.) from the inside. Reaction-less Flight costs +10 points.

Note: If Gliding is Limited Flight, then parachuting can be bought as Limited Hovering.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 26th, '08, 05:34 AM

As Netizilla's analysis above illustrates, KAs really aren't too bad when there's little or no resistant defense [...]
The problem, ironically, comes when characters are well defended against KAs. If you have enough resistance defense to stop the BOD of a KA, even on a max roll, you can still take significant stun from it about a third of the time, and outrageous amonts of stun on occassion.
I have done an analysis here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1550789#post1550789) which shows that KAs on the average do more Stun through common levels of (even resistant) defenses than do NAs of the same DC.

KAs are severely underpriced: For doing Body, they are better than NAs; for doing Stun through defenses, they are better than NAs.

I support the idea of having Killing be an advantage on NAs. But should the advantage be just +¼? Resistant defense is +½, and by the Hero philosophy that defenses should be at least as cheap as attacks, either Killing should be +½, or Resistant should be +¼. Or both; compare Armor Piercing (+½) vs. Hardened (+¼).

Another option would be to entirely drop the distinction between resistant and non-resistant defense and simply let "Killing" be a +¼ advantage: Defenses are 1/4 value vs. Body in this attack. Hardened defenses would protect against this as well as against armor-piercing attacks.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Netzilla

Mar 26th, '08, 05:53 AM