Powers Issues -- A-E

[GeekySpaz]

The official ruling should be eliminated in favour of the way most people run this. The strongest, toughest character was hit four times in a row with a reasonably sized attack against which he had no defense - why would this NOT result in his being effectively removed from the fight?

I'll assume the STR drain was ranged (45 points) for comparison. A character Sight Flashed four times with a 9d6 Flash loses 36 segments, or 3 turns if they have no defenses. That seems like "ineffectual for the rest of the fight". Four hits with a 4 1/2d6 NND would inflict 64 STUN, which would KO most characters for the rest of the fight. 4 1/2d6 Mind Control, Cumulative, quadrupled maximum with four hits gets a total of 64 points of effect - Ego +30 on an 18 Ego target with -3 to the breakout roll. That stands a fair chance of taking him out. A 3d6 Entangle with 6 Defenses will tie up a character whose main powers require freedom of movement for a good long time.

The character's weakness was exploited. It seems reasonable that would have a significant impact.

Staying with the same character who got hit with the drain if hit with a 64 stun NND attack would be back up and in the fight in a turn mabey two. The drain attack in question is only a 30 active point power. I don't see how 4 hits from a 30 active point power should drop someone more than temporarily unless they specifically took a vulnerability to it. As is he does not have such a vulnerability but simply lacks a specific defense against this attack. If the power in question were a 6d6 EB the same character would most likely not even be hurt by it. So now we have a power, for the same cost, that the character has no defense against and 4 hits can drop him temporarily by the official rules or for the rest of the fight by the more commonly used rules. I think dropping him temporarily is sufficient in this case. Removing him from the fight seems overly harsh in this case.

[Hugh Neilson]

Staying with the same character who got hit with the drain if hit with a 64 stun NND attack would be back up and in the fight in a turn mabey two. The drain attack in question is only a 30 active point power. I don't see how 4 hits from a 30 active point power should drop someone more than temporarily unless they specifically took a vulnerability to it. As is he does not have such a vulnerability but simply lacks a specific defense against this attack. If the power in question were a 6d6 EB the same character would most likely not even be hurt by it. So now we have a power, for the same cost, that the character has no defense against and 4 hits can drop him temporarily by the official rules or for the rest of the fight by the more commonly used rules. I think dropping him temporarily is sufficient in this case. Removing him from the fight seems overly harsh in this case.

OK, 30 AP and real points instead of 45. Let's make it a 6d6 Flash against a target with no flash defense. Not only is he blinded for 2 full turns, the attacker need not approach within HTH range to remove him from the fight for four turns. If he has to approach within HTH range, the flash is no range, so he can get 9d6 for 30 points, so back to 3 turns blind. All the other powers I listed could also be made no range making their real cost (although not AP cost) 30 points.

And once a target is at -1 STUN, damage is doubled, so the fourth hit from that NND may have added an extra 16 STUN. If he was down a turn, maybe two, without that doubling, he's recovering in minutes with it.

The only reason 3d6 Drain has a 30 point AP cost instead of 45 is that it's not ranged by default. For consistency, maybe adjustment powers (all attacks...) should be made ranged by default, with their cost adjusted commensurately. A "no range" Energy Blast or Flash doesn't get its AP reduced.

[PhilFleischmann]

Staying with the same character who got hit with the drain if hit with a 64 stun NND attack would be back up and in the fight in a turn mabey two. The drain attack in question is only a 30 active point power. I don't see how 4 hits from a 30 active point power should drop someone more than temporarily unless they specifically took a vulnerability to it. ....
So it was a no-range Drain. Did he try dodging? Or moving out of HtH range? Did he have any teammates? What were they doing while this was going on?

[Southern Cross]

Actually,a 3d6Drain is supposed to be equivalent to a 3d6No RangeNND,
(both are 6DC's,after all.)

[GeekySpaz]

OK, 30 AP and real points instead of 45. Let's make it a 6d6 Flash against a target with no flash defense. Not only is he blinded for 2 full turns, the attacker need not approach within HTH range to remove him from the fight for four turns. If he has to approach within HTH range, the flash is no range, so he can get 9d6 for 30 points, so back to 3 turns blind. All the other powers I listed could also be made no range making their real cost (although not AP cost) 30 points.

And once a target is at -1 STUN, damage is doubled, so the fourth hit from that NND may have added an extra 16 STUN. If he was down a turn, maybe two, without that doubling, he's recovering in minutes with it.

The only reason 3d6 Drain has a 30 point AP cost instead of 45 is that it's not ranged by default. For consistency, maybe adjustment powers (all attacks...) should be made ranged by default, with their cost adjusted commensurately. A "no range" Energy Blast or Flash doesn't get its AP reduced.

Where do you get 2 full turns for a 6d6 flash? Try 6 segments (1/2 a turn). Even if you hit them with that flash attack 4 times the effects do not stack. In order to blind someone for 2 turns you have to wait till just before the last flash is about to wear off. And the double stun only applies to a hit that hits once the character is already knocked out. Besides being blind for 1/2 a turn at a time is hardly being out of the fight for the duration.

I'll be more specific about the character I'm talking about. He has 53 stun so a 16 pt NND stun attack would drop him to -11 stun on the 4th hit. So even if he had a modest recovery he'd be back up within a turn. First recovery brings him to above -10 stun so he's recovering every phase. A couple of recoveries later he'd be at positive stun.

Further if using the official rule he would have been essentially incapacitated for around 2 turns which puts the drain on par with the flash attack in your example. This seems to me to be about where it should be.

Don't get me wrong it should be a nasty attack and had I been playing with the official rule it would have been a nasty attack. The way I was playing the attack was overly powerful.

[GeekySpaz]

Actually,a 3d6Drain is supposed to be equivalent to a 3d6No RangeNND,
(both are 6DC's,after all.)

I agree with you. Four hits with a 3d6 no range NND would not and should not render the Brick of the party KTFO. Therefore neither should a 3d6 drain.

[Hugh Neilson]

Where do you get 2 full turns for a 6d6 flash? Try 6 segments (1/2 a turn). Even if you hit them with that flash attack 4 times the effects do not stack. In order to blind someone for 2 turns you have to wait till just before the last flash is about to wear off. And the double stun only applies to a hit that hits once the character is already knocked out. Besides being blind for 1/2 a turn at a time is hardly being out of the fight for the duration.

First off, the idea that Flash cannot stack is another official rule that should change. A person dazzled by bright light, pepper spray or tear gas, or deafened by noise, will suffer worse effects from continued exposure.

But event following the official rule, the opponent need merely keep using Flash when the target's sight recovers. He can even Cover the target while his DCV is reduced. He can aso use some intervening phases to take other actions. But with four attacks that hit, the target is out of the battle for two turns. That's long enough, in my experience, for the battle to be pretty much decided.

I'll be more specific about the character I'm talking about. He has 53 stun so a 16 pt NND stun attack would drop him to -11 stun on the 4th hit. So even if he had a modest recovery he'd be back up within a turn. First recovery brings him to above -10 stun so he's recovering every phase. A couple of recoveries later he'd be at positive stun.

First off, nothing stops the villain hitting him a fifth time. Under the official rule, how would that fifth STR drain put Our Hero down for the count? ANSWER: Drains can pretty much never put the target out, because they just keep recovering faster and faster. With the official rule, the best approach is to slap Decreased Recovery Rate on all drains for +1/4 and make it last a full minute. With 2 1/2 d6 per hit, and no recovery at all for five turns, would that Brick have been more effective?

Second, this high STUN character is more resistant than, likely, any teammate to that NND. The Drain circumvents his high STUN, REC and Defenses. Just like an AoE or Mental powers can circumvent high DCV, and Grabbing a target can circumvent their high movement. The fact that a character is tougher against some attacks and weaker against others is, in my view, a strength rather than a weakness.

If the Brick (even at 40 STR) grabs a swordsman and squeezes the life out of him while our low STR swordsman has no chance of escape, is this unfair to the swordsman? He has been taken out by only one successful attack roll. What if that's a 4 DEF, 2 BOD entangle - one hit and our 15 STR Swordsman is trapped. Because Entangle is overpowered? No, because he has no "defense" against an entangle.

Further if using the official rule he would have been essentially incapacitated for around 2 turns which puts the drain on par with the flash attack in your example. This seems to me to be about where it should be.

Don't get me wrong it should be a nasty attack and had I been playing with the official rule it would have been a nasty attack. The way I was playing the attack was overly powerful.

The Drain, unlike the Flash, does not provide an advantage to the Drainer's teamates when they choose to attack the Brick. The attacks are not identical, but they both incapacitate for extended periods of time if the target lacks any defenses against it.

[Hugh Neilson]

From this discussion, I am coming to believe that adjustment powers, and probably virtually all attack powers, should be ranged by default, with their costs increased accordingly. That is, Drain should be ranged by default and cost 15 points per d6 as a consequence. This would increase the AP and DC of 1d6 of Drain without raising the cost of 1d6 Drain with no range.

The status quo artificially reduces the AP and DC of adjustment powers when compared to other ranged attacks, such as Flash. A 9d6 Flash, no range and a 3d6 Drain, no range presently have the same real cost, but the flash has much higher AP and DC's because Flash is ranged by default and Drain isn't.

Make Drain ranged by default, adjusting the cost to 15 per d6, and the comparison becomes much more rational - you buy a 3d6 Drain for 45 points or a 9d6 Flash for 45 points. Both are 45 AP, 9 damage classes and 45 real points. Remove their range and both are still 45 AP, 9 DC and, now, 30 real points.

This would make adjustment powers better compare to the AP and DC's of other attack powers.

This would also be more consistent - what other attack powers are not ranged by default? There's STR, I suppose, but its attack falls out of characteristics, not powers with AP.

There's HKA, which I think SHOULD just be RKA with no Range - you want STR to add, buy a bigger KA or use an MPA. However, even under the status quo, who looks at the AP or DC of a HKA in isolation? I think we all assume that ot will be augmented to the extent the user's STR makes that possible and proceed from there to assess whether it meets AP or DC restrictions.

There's Hand Attack, and that had to be converted into a "ranged by default limited to zero range" construct to balance its AP's and DC's. The same conversion I think the adjustment powers need.

[AnotherSkip]

seems the character should have a backup weapon/attack so he isn't "useless, but not for long"

[schir1964]

From this discussion, I am coming to believe that adjustment powers, and probably virtually all attack powers, should be ranged by default, with their costs increased accordingly. That is, Drain should be ranged by default and cost 15 points per d6 as a consequence. This would increase the AP and DC of 1d6 of Drain without raising the cost of 1d6 Drain with no range.

The status quo artificially reduces the AP and DC of adjustment powers when compared to other ranged attacks, such as Flash. A 9d6 Flash, no range and a 3d6 Drain, no range presently have the same real cost, but the flash has much higher AP and DC's because Flash is ranged by default and Drain isn't.

Make Drain ranged by default, adjusting the cost to 15 per d6, and the comparison becomes much more rational - you buy a 3d6 Drain for 45 points or a 9d6 Flash for 45 points. Both are 45 AP, 9 damage classes and 45 real points. Remove their range and both are still 45 AP, 9 DC and, now, 30 real points.

This would make adjustment powers better compare to the AP and DC's of other attack powers.

This would also be more consistent - what other attack powers are not ranged by default? There's STR, I suppose, but its attack falls out of characteristics, not powers with AP.

There's HKA, which I think SHOULD just be RKA with no Range - you want STR to add, buy a bigger KA or use an MPA. However, even under the status quo, who looks at the AP or DC of a HKA in isolation? I think we all assume that ot will be augmented to the extent the user's STR makes that possible and proceed from there to assess whether it meets AP or DC restrictions.

There's Hand Attack, and that had to be converted into a "ranged by default limited to zero range" construct to balance its AP's and DC's. The same conversion I think the adjustment powers need.
Repped when able.

- Christopher Mullins

[Markdoc]

There's HKA, which I think SHOULD just be RKA with no Range - you want STR to add, buy a bigger KA or use an MPA. However, even under the status quo, who looks at the AP or DC of a HKA in isolation? I think we all assume that ot will be augmented to the extent the user's STR makes that possible and proceed from there to assess whether it meets AP or DC restrictions.

There's Hand Attack, and that had to be converted into a "ranged by default limited to zero range" construct to balance its AP's and DC's. The same conversion I think the adjustment powers need.

An MPA wouldn't give you a bigger HKA, it'd give an HKA and ... something else, depending on what you MPA'ed it with. Normal d6, I guess if you used STR. Making all KA's ranged by default and then buying more dice of unranged HTH KA would address some of the cost advantages of STR, but play hob with the current rules for muscle-powered weapons. It's also a rather inelegant solution to say that all HTH attacks are actually unranged, ranged attacks.

Personally, I don't see any problem with having ranged and unranged versions of the main attacks, with "adds STR" or "usable at range" as +1/2 advantages. That's essentially what we have now. It would perhaps be more elegant to simply have "attack" to which you could add those options, but that would require messing up the points costs significntly, and I am not sure it'd be worth the loss of backwards compatibility. The HA problem is a different one. It's not that it's EB, unranged by default. It's that it's STR, no Figured CHA, plus limitations that you don't get a point break for, like loss of leaping and lifting capacity.

However, I do like the idea of making adjustment powers ranged by default, though the costs may need to be reviewed.

cheers, Mark

[BobGreenwade]

I agree with the suggestion that Drains (and similar Powers, like Transfer) should be "unified" in their losses, though with the caveat that this only happens if the Special Effect and such match. Thus two magical Drains would fade together, but a magical Drain and a drug-based Drain would not. And two Drains with different fade rates would not fade together. And of course it should be subject to that good old "common and dramatic sense" caveat, and the GM's preference. (If nothing else, this would make for somewhat easier in-game bookkeeping, and whatever happens during character creation we should keep math during combat at a minimum.)

Along similar lines I can go along with making Adjustment Powers Ranged by default, and increasing their costs accordingly (for simplicity, say 5 points for Dispel, 10 points for Succor/Suppress, 15 points for Aid/Drain/Healing, 20 points for Transfer), and for all of the reasons Hugh lists.

[CTaylor]

I think drains probably ought to recover based on your recovery, not on a strict 5 points per time increment. Healthier and more hardy people really ought to recover more quickly than people who are not. At least a clear indication in the rules of how to build this would be proper.

[GeekySpaz]

With the official rule, the best approach is to slap Decreased Recovery Rate on all drains for +1/4 and make it last a full minute. With 2 1/2 d6 per hit, and no recovery at all for five turns,

That reminds me. Does anyone else think delayed return rate is under priced?

[Paragon]

I think drains probably ought to recover based on your recovery, not on a strict 5 points per time increment. Healthier and more hardy people really ought to recover more quickly than people who are not. At least a clear indication in the rules of how to build this would be proper.

The problem with that is that some drains don't represent anything connected with health at all.

[CTaylor]

The problem with that is that some drains don't represent anything connected with health at all.

And some do, which suggests that having both at least presented as possibilities is a reasonable thing for the 6th edition rules to include. I'd guess that most drains are health-related, so that probably should be the default.

[Vulcan]

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say most. Many, certainly, but not necessarily most. Still, I think it's a worthwhile option for a limitation (since most characters will have a REC higher than 5).

[PhilFleischmann]

That reminds me. Does anyone else think delayed return rate is under priced?
Only for the first (and maybe second) level. I mentioned this earlier, somewhere (on this thread, or another one*). I suggested that the first Delayed Return Rate Advantage (the one that takes it from the default 5/turn to 5/minute) should be +1/2, rather than +1/4. And perhaps the next one, to 5/5 minutes, should be another +1/2. But additional steps down the time chart should be +1/4.

(This could also be used to allow for greater granularity. :bounce: For +1/4, you could have, say, 5/2 turns, or 2/turn, or something like that. I love granularity!)

*And again, I wish these boards were organized by power type, rather than by alphabetical order.

[Hugh Neilson]

An MPA wouldn't give you a bigger HKA, it'd give an HKA and ... something else, depending on what you MPA'ed it with. Normal d6, I guess if you used STR. Making all KA's ranged by default and then buying more dice of unranged HTH KA would address some of the cost advantages of STR, but play hob with the current rules for muscle-powered weapons. It's also a rather inelegant solution to say that all HTH attacks are actually unranged, ranged attacks.

Personally, I don't see any problem with having ranged and unranged versions of the main attacks, with "adds STR" or "usable at range" as +1/2 advantages. That's essentially what we have now. It would perhaps be more elegant to simply have "attack" to which you could add those options, but that would require messing up the points costs significntly, and I am not sure it'd be worth the loss of backwards compatibility. The HA problem is a different one. It's not that it's EB, unranged by default. It's that it's STR, no Figured CHA, plus limitations that you don't get a point break for, like loss of leaping and lifting capacity.

We could make all offensive powers Ranged by default, and have a "STR Enhances Damage" advantage that could be purchased on any such power. This bumps the AP of a HKA without changing its real cost [2d6 RKA, STR Adds, No Range] and allows the STR Adds ability to be placed on any power, not just KA.

I'm opposed to this because the value of "STR Adds" scales with STR, not the power on which the advantage would be purchased, but we've already discussed that issue somewhere.

My solution? STR does not add. If you want it to add, reason from effect and buy extra dice that have the Lockout limitation with your STR damage.

[James Gillen]

I think drains probably ought to recover based on your recovery, not on a strict 5 points per time increment. Healthier and more hardy people really ought to recover more quickly than people who are not. At least a clear indication in the rules of how to build this would be proper.


Drain REC comin' up! :D

jg

[schir1964]

We could make all offensive powers Ranged by default, and have a "STR Enhances Damage" advantage that could be purchased on any such power. This bumps the AP of a HKA without changing its real cost [2d6 RKA, STR Adds, No Range] and allows the STR Adds ability to be placed on any power, not just KA.

I'm opposed to this because the value of "STR Adds" scales with STR, not the power on which the advantage would be purchased, but we've already discussed that issue somewhere.

My solution? STR does not add. If you want it to add, reason from effect and buy extra dice that have the Lockout limitation with your STR damage.
Now this is interesting...

Why not have a STR Adds Advantage that applies to STR Characteristic instead of on the powers being affected?
The Advantage would be akin to the way the standard Adjustment Powers Advantages work with expanding the utility of the STR Adding. The more powers your STR can add to, the larger the Advantage.

Or why not split the STR Adds Advantage into two parts so that both STR and the Power being affected have to take an Advantage.
This would be akin to how Linked is split when both Powers are affected.

Just Some Thoughts

- Christopher Mullins

[Klaus Mogensen]

We could make all offensive powers Ranged by default, and have a "STR Enhances Damage" advantage that could be purchased on any such power. This bumps the AP of a HKA without changing its real cost [2d6 RKA, STR Adds, No Range] and allows the STR Adds ability to be placed on any power, not just KA.

I'm opposed to this because the value of "STR Adds" scales with STR, not the power on which the advantage would be purchased, but we've already discussed that issue somewhere.

My solution? STR does not add. If you want it to add, reason from effect and buy extra dice that have the Lockout limitation with your STR damage.
Muscle-Powered weapons use the "STR Adds" advantage. I think it would be unreasonably complex to adapt your solution to Fantasy Hero and other types of campaigns where Powers are uncommon.

However, I can see a point to a more general "Characteristics Adds to Power" advantage. E.g., for an EGO Attack, you could add your EGO to damage. Though I can see a danger if the Characteristic that adds to damage is the same that is used to hit, as this would allow e.g. martial artists to just buy high DEX and then add DEX to damage.

One solution is to designate some Characteristics as Force and others as Finesse or Toughness:

Physical: STR ~ Force, CON/BODY (merged) ~ Toughness, DEX ~ Finesse.

Mental: PRE ~ Force, EGO ~ Toughness, INT ~ Finesse.

Finesse would be used for combat value and initiative, Force to do damage, and Toughness to resist damage, in the physical and mental realms. Force Characteristics could be added to damaging Powers with the "Char Adds" advantage, Toughness could add to defenses (sort of keeping Figured Characteristics as a back-door option), and Finesse could perhaps add to movement or senses.

- Klaus

[Kdansky]

We could make all offensive powers Ranged by default, and have a "STR Enhances Damage" advantage that could be purchased on any such power. This bumps the AP of a HKA without changing its real cost [2d6 RKA, STR Adds, No Range] and allows the STR Adds ability to be placed on any power, not just KA.

I'm opposed to this because the value of "STR Adds" scales with STR, not the power on which the advantage would be purchased, but we've already discussed that issue somewhere.

My solution? STR does not add. If you want it to add, reason from effect and buy extra dice that have the Lockout limitation with your STR damage.

This is very well thought out, but I cannot rep you (still/again!)

If I see a HKA of 3d6, I immediatly think of 6d6, because you know, having 45 STR when 10 str makes your character 1 point cheaper isn't so much of a hindrance.

Make it as follows: Strength never adds. All Attacks are Ranged by default (or nonranged, I don't care, just the same). If you want an Attack that is dependant on strenght, buy it like that. In fantasy hero, weapons have strength minima, problem solved.

[Hugh Neilson]

Muscle-Powered weapons use the "STR Adds" advantage. I think it would be unreasonably complex to adapt your solution to Fantasy Hero and other types of campaigns where Powers are uncommon.

In such campaigns, the weapon builds are buried as characters do not pay for their gear. Rather than a sword being a 1 1/2d6 KA with "STR Adds", it becomes a 1 1/2d6 KA, with +5 DC's available at +1 per 5 STR of the wielder over the STR minimum, "paid for" by the sword. As the purchaser doesn't pay character points for the sword, the actual CP cost of the sword has little relevance. And the actual cost would simply be added to the chart for those times when it becomes relevant.

However, I can see a point to a more general "Characteristics Adds to Power" advantage. E.g., for an EGO Attack, you could add your EGO to damage. Though I can see a danger if the Characteristic that adds to damage is the same that is used to hit, as this would allow e.g. martial artists to just buy high DEX and then add DEX to damage.

Or you simply buy extra dice of mental powers because your high Ego makes them more potent. You allude to the concern above - an imbalance is created where the character is getting more than he pays for. At present, a high STR character effectively gets 2d6 HKA for 15 points, not 1d6, as he can double what he paid for by adding his STR. How many people would allow a 60 STR character to spend 60 points on a 4d6 HKA in a 60 AP game? He hasn't breached the AP cap, but he has acquired a 24 DC, rather than a 12 DC, attack.

One solution is to designate some Characteristics as Force and others as Finesse or Toughness:

Physical: STR ~ Force, CON/BODY (merged) ~ Toughness, DEX ~ Finesse.

Mental: PRE ~ Force, EGO ~ Toughness, INT ~ Finesse.

Finesse would be used for combat value and initiative, Force to do damage, and Toughness to resist damage, in the physical and mental realms. Force Characteristics could be added to damaging Powers with the "Char Adds" advantage, Toughness could add to defenses (sort of keeping Figured Characteristics as a back-door option), and Finesse could perhaps add to movement or senses.

Sounds like DC Heroes, which had nine chartacteristics, 3 Physical, 3 Mental and 3 Spiritual. One determined your changes to hit, the second your damage if you hit and the third your resistance to damage when you were hit.

For this to work effectively, I think there needs to be three separate characteristics for each category. Otherwise, some stats accomplish too much. Of course, then many characters will wish to buy the defensive stat only in those areas where they have no offense anyway. Characters with an array of powers across multiple types will be more expensive, as they need to buy multiple finesse and force stats.

To me, this falls into the "too much change to stay Hero" pool. However, absent some form of radical change, is there really a reason to go to 6e? If Hero wants this to stimulate sales, they probably need to make some radical changes to minimize the "I'll stick with my 5e/4e rules and adopt whatever minor changes I like from 6e" approach. Radical change sells books.

[Hugh Neilson]

From another thread which has spun off to a discussion of Self Only applied to Change Environment.

....which dings another of my bells - defining a power so that it carries advantages. If the area of effect is 'self' then you are in the area. The power is 'reduced PER' not 'reduced PER to see me' - that is like defining an EB as 'only to affect enemies' - it might be PHRASED like a restriction but it really is not.

By making it "self only", it becomes "reduced PER to see me", primarily because "self only" as used in this context is really a completely separate limitation which probably should have been renamed.

Really, this "self only" variant is at least a completely different power modifier, perhaps better represented as a non-area effect version of Change Environment which imposes penalties only in respect of actions taken against its target.

Chameleon Kid would then take this with Self Only and No Range to impose PER penalties when people try to spot him, while Transparency Transformer could keep the Range and not restrict the power to himself, simulating his ability to make anyone transparent.

[Netzilla]

Now this is interesting...

Why not have a STR Adds Advantage that applies to STR Characteristic instead of on the powers being affected?
The Advantage would be akin to the way the standard Adjustment Powers Advantages work with expanding the utility of the STR Adding. The more powers your STR can add to, the larger the Advantage.

Or why not split the STR Adds Advantage into two parts so that both STR and the Power being affected have to take an Advantage.
This would be akin to how Linked is split when both Powers are affected.

Just Some Thoughts

- Christopher Mullins

Another option would be that Strength Adds (+1/2) can only double the base damage. For each +1 to the multiplier, increase the Advantage by +1/4.

So, if a character has 40 STR:
* 1d6 KA, Strength Adds (+1/2, x2 limit) (22 AP), No Range (-1/2) = 15 RC and a max of 2d6 KA damage.
* 1d6 KA, Strength Adds (+3/4, x3 limit) (26 AP), No Range (-1/2) = 17 RC and a max 3d6 KA damage.
* 1d6 KA, Strength Adds (+1, x4 limit) (30 AP), No Range (-1/2) = 20 RC and a max 3 1/2 KA damage. [At this point, you're adding all the STR you have.]
* 1d6+1 KA, STR Adds (+1/2, x2 limit) (30 AP), No Range (-1/2) = 20 RC and a max of 2 1/2 KA damage.
* 1d6+1 KA, STR Adds (+3/4, x3 limit) (35 AP), No Range (-1/2) = 23 RC and a max of 4d6 KA damage. [Adding all your STR.]
* 1 1/2d6 KA, STR Adds (+1/2, x2 limit) (37 AP), No Range (-1/2) = 25 RC and a max of 3d6+1 KA damage.
* 1 1/2d6 KA, STR Adds (+3/4, x3 limit) (44 AP), No Range (-1/2) = 29 RC and a max of 4d6+1 KA damage. [Adding all your STR.]
* 2d6 KA, STR Adds (+1/2, x2 limit) (45 AP), No Range (-1/2) = 30 RC and max 4d6 KA damage.
* 2d6 KA, STR Adds (+3/4, x3 limit) (52 AP), No Range (-1/2) = 35 RC and max 4 1/2d6 KA damage. [Adding all your STR.]
* 2d6+1 KA, STR Adds (+1/2, x2 limit) (52 AP), No Range (-1/2) = 35 RC and a max of 4 1/2d6 KA damage.
* 2d6+1 KA, STR Adds (+1, x3 limit) (61 AP), No Range (-1/2) = 41 RC and a max of 5d6 KA damage. [Adding all your STR.]
* 2 1/2d6 KA, STR Adds (+1/2, x2 limit) (60 AP), No Range (-1/2) = 40 RC and a max of 5d6+1 KA damage. [Adding all your STR.]

This would cause the advantage to (sort of) scale based upon your STR to KA ratio. Real world weapons would generally be built with only 1 level of Strength Adds.

There are a couple "breakpoints" where you get more damage for the same points. Unfortunately, being limited to 1/4 increments with Modifiers makes this impossible to avoid. I tried it with both +1/4 and +1/2 per +1 to the multiplier and +1/2 made it worse. However, I'm not sure what the exact level of Advantage would need to be to eliminate or reduce the breakpoints.

[Sean Waters]

From another thread which has spun off to a discussion of Self Only applied to Change Environment.



By making it "self only", it becomes "reduced PER to see me", primarily because "self only" as used in this context is really a completely separate limitation which probably should have been renamed.

Really, this "self only" variant is at least a completely different power modifier, perhaps better represented as a non-area effect version of Change Environment which imposes penalties only in respect of actions taken against its target.

Chameleon Kid would then take this with Self Only and No Range to impose PER penalties when people try to spot him, while Transparency Transformer could keep the Range and not restrict the power to himself, simulating his ability to make anyone transparent.

My problem is that CE imposes PER penalties on anyone in, or perceiving into the affected area. If the CE was self only then it would work as required for those looking INTO the area - i.e. make the 'self' more difficult to perceive, but the 'self' being int he area would, or should, also receive the penalties - not just for perceiving the self but BECAUSE they are in the area, against everything, as the 'self' is the target of a reduced perception 'attack'.

I do understand that Hero doesn't seem to think of it that way, but as a matter of principle, even a self only CE SHOULD require PI if the 'self' is not to be affected 'generally'. I'd have no objection if the player accepted that they could not percieve as well witht he power up generally, but could see themselves perfectly well - that is within the realm of sfx - but to say that they are impaired in seeing themself, but OK to see everything else is giving too much credence to the (for instance) 'transparent' sfx.

I do not think you should be able to get round it by simply defining the power as only working to conceal the self - that is not the power, and is too much of an advantage to simply be dealt with by sfx, given the existence of a PI advantage. If the sfx was, for instance, that the character is surrounded by a roiling layer of shadows that made them harder to see then it would be pretty obvious they should have difficulty seeing 'out', and sfx should not change teh way you build the power.

Also cross posted.

[Talon]

I prefer to use Images for this...

Geoff

[Hugh Neilson]

My problem is that CE imposes PER penalties on anyone in, or perceiving into the affected area. If the CE was self only then it would work as required for those looking INTO the area - i.e. make the 'self' more difficult to perceive, but the 'self' being int he area would, or should, also receive the penalties - not just for perceiving the self but BECAUSE they are in the area, against everything, as the 'self' is the target of a reduced perception 'attack'.

I'm inclined to think we may need three, rather than two, separate powers here:

- The current change Environment, imposing modifiers on an area. eg. -4 PER rolls to all within this area - it's harder to see through/within the area.

- A version which imposes modifiers on actions taken against a single target, chosen by the user of the power (which could be the power user, and could also be restricted to only being the power user). eg. a -4 to all PER rolls directed against the target - it's harder to see the target.

- A version which imposes modifiers on actions taken by a single target, chosen by the user of the power. eg. a -4 to all PER rolls attempted by the target - it's harder for the target to see.

[Vulcan]

However, absent some form of radical change, is there really a reason to go to 6e? If Hero wants this to stimulate sales, they probably need to make some radical changes to minimize the "I'll stick with my 5e/4e rules and adopt whatever minor changes I like from 6e" approach. Radical change sells books.

I don't know; the 4E to 5E changeover was mostly cosmetic. Our group could have easily gotten by with just one person (the GM) buying the new book and the rest of us borrowing it at need. But the majority of us bought the 5E (or 5ER) book as soon as was finacially feasable.

It was sorta like the changeover from D&D 3E to 3.5; the changes were pretty trivial, but a lot of people bought the new books anyway. 4E, with it's radical changes, seems to be repelling more existing D&D players than it is attracting.

[Vulcan]

As has been mentioned (somewhere), the problem with using STR adds as an advantage to a power is that a character with a higher STR gets more out of it. And given all the arguments in the Characteristics Issues thread that STR is too powerful as it is, this would just make it worse.:rolleyes:

I would propose a sliding scale for the advantage based on the actual STR of the character - say, a +1/4 for every 15 STR (a rough guess). That way the STR 15 guy with a greatsword isn't being point-penalized for what a STR 60 guy could do with the same sword.:nonp:

Or a better alternative would be that each +1/4 allows up to 15 STR to add to it, regardless of the character's actual STR. That way the 'traditional' HKA is easier to model, and GM's can see exactly how nasty the KA can get. It also prevents a brick from borrowing the greatsword and adding his full STR...:eek:

[BobGreenwade]

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say most. Many, certainly, but not necessarily most. Still, I think it's a worthwhile option for a limitation (since most characters will have a REC higher than 5).James' valid point notwithstanding, I tend to agree here. It's much simpler to give a Limitation for Recovery Based On Target's REC than to make that the default and try to give an Advantage or other Modifier to flatten the curve in special cases.

[Hugh Neilson]

As has been mentioned (somewhere), the problem with using STR adds as an advantage to a power is that a character with a higher STR gets more out of it. And given all the arguments in the Characteristics Issues thread that STR is too powerful as it is, this would just make it worse.:rolleyes:

To me, the problem is even more simple - an advantage to one ability should not increase another. You want more HKA, buy more HKA.

A Flash based on eye gouging or a PD Drain based on bruising the target are just as valid to be enhanced by STR, but the answer would be "Buy more Flash/Drain". There is no reason for KA to be any different.

I would propose a sliding scale for the advantage based on the actual STR of the character - say, a +1/4 for every 15 STR (a rough guess). That way the STR 15 guy with a greatsword isn't being point-penalized for what a STR 60 guy could do with the same sword.:nonp:

Or a better alternative would be that each +1/4 allows up to 15 STR to add to it, regardless of the character's actual STR. That way the 'traditional' HKA is easier to model, and GM's can see exactly how nasty the KA can get. It also prevents a brick from borrowing the greatsword and adding his full STR...:eek:

So the character pays an extra 4 points to be able to add 1d6 to his 1d6 HKA, and an extra 15 points to be able to add 1d6 to his 4dd KA. Seems to me this isn't much better balanced.

[Hugh Neilson]

James' valid point notwithstanding, I tend to agree here. It's much simpler to give a Limitation for Recovery Based On Target's REC than to make that the default and try to give an Advantage or other Modifier to flatten the curve in special cases.

So, how would you price a 4d6 REC Drain, recovery based on Target's REC? I think the REC drain is the issue that really impedes this approach.

And yet, if I accept that one's REC should dictate how fast a drain recovers, I must also accept that a character whose REC is reduced should reasonably recover slower, mustn't I?

[Chris Goodwin]

So, how would you price a 4d6 REC Drain, recovery based on Target's REC? I think the REC drain is the issue that really impedes this approach.

And yet, if I accept that one's REC should dictate how fast a drain recovers, I must also accept that a character whose REC is reduced should reasonably recover slower, mustn't I?

Also note that if that were the case, Adjustment Powers against REC should probably be halved, as for Defenses.

Another note; if REC affects Drains it should probably affect all Adjustment Powers (including Aid).

[BobGreenwade]

So, how would you price a 4d6 REC Drain, recovery based on Target's REC? I think the REC drain is the issue that really impedes this approach.

And yet, if I accept that one's REC should dictate how fast a drain recovers, I must also accept that a character whose REC is reduced should reasonably recover slower, mustn't I?Like I said, James' point was a very valid one. The rules could state that Drain REC always recovers according to the target's base REC, or must be bought with the stated Limitation; Drain REC that works against the target's resulting REC would have to be a "Do Not Enter" ability.Also note that if that were the case, Adjustment Powers against REC should probably be halved, as for Defenses.

Another note; if REC affects Drains it should probably affect all Adjustment Powers (including Aid).I tend to agree with this. Yes, not just for Drain, but for all "recovering" Adjustment Powers.

[GeekySpaz]

Only for the first (and maybe second) level. I mentioned this earlier, somewhere (on this thread, or another one*). I suggested that the first Delayed Return Rate Advantage (the one that takes it from the default 5/turn to 5/minute) should be +1/2, rather than +1/4. And perhaps the next one, to 5/5 minutes, should be another +1/2. But additional steps down the time chart should be +1/4.


I would go even further. The first step should be +1, the second step +1/2 and subsequent steps +1/4. And that would allow even greater granularity at the low end. Say 5/2turns = +1/2.

[CTaylor]

It's much simpler to give a Limitation for Recovery Based On Target's REC than to make that the default and try to give an Advantage or other Modifier to flatten the curve in special cases.

I don't know as I necessarily agree with that, but I wouldn't mind it either: it just should be in the rules in some way.

Regarding drain recovery: in the original Fantasy Hero release that was a possible use of the power. I created a type of Undead based on that concept: people who had their recovery "destroyed" (the old power that was like a drain but the recovery time was like normal Body recovery) to zero and eventually died because of it (no recovery = never get better without outside assistance). In a fantasy setting especially getting healing and cures to that kind of awful attack is not unreasonable - or if it is difficult, the attack is rare and is a horrible sort of curse.

[Vulcan]

So the character pays an extra 4 points to be able to add 1d6 to his 1d6 HKA, and an extra 15 points to be able to add 1d6 to his 4dd KA. Seems to me this isn't much better balanced.

I just threw that out as a suggestion.

There is a long tradition in HEROs that RKA's don't add STR, and HKA's do. Maybe you're right, and it's time for us to break that tradition. Make KA ranged by default, and allow the -1/2 limitation "No range." Of course, a lot of people will also take "Restrainable" as well, but that has it's own price (can't cut out of entagles/grabs).

[Hugh Neilson]

I just threw that out as a suggestion.

There is a long tradition in HEROs that RKA's don't add STR, and HKA's do. Maybe you're right, and it's time for us to break that tradition. Make KA ranged by default, and allow the -1/2 limitation "No range." Of course, a lot of people will also take "Restrainable" as well, but that has it's own price (can't cut out of entagles/grabs).

There's not much point doing a new edition unless there is a willingness to break those traditions. The probelm is that we're all attached to at least some of those old traditions, so breaking them will not be universally well-received.

Sadly, a bad game, or a game with some truly bad rules, has an easier time with a new edition, as fixes for those rules are well received. Of course, there's always the D&D approach that each new edition is more a new game and less a modification to the prior edition, but I don't think that would be well received by any Hero player, myself included.

[CTaylor]

And there's the fact that simply changing things because they are traditional is a fool's game. If it works, there's no reason to change it.

[Hugh Neilson]

And there's the fact that simply changing things because they are traditional is a fool's game. If it works, there's no reason to change it.

Absolutely.

To me, a new edition is the time to assess whether the traditional approach is, in fact, the approach to be preferred. If the result of that assessment is that there's little or nothing that needs changing, there is no point moving forward with a new edition.

[PhilFleischmann]

This gives me the idea (for those who want to change the names of some of the powers), to make the basic attack powers have similar names. EB is a Ranged Normal Attack, and HA is a Hand-to-hand Normal attack. Thus, you'd have:

RNA
HNA
RKA
HKA

[Paragon]

And there's the fact that simply changing things because they are traditional is a fool's game. If it works, there's no reason to change it.

Well, the question always is whether it works well enough; you can have rules that are a poorly designed tool; they get the job done, but suboptimally.

[Vulcan]

I don't advocate change just for the sake of change. However, in this particular case, perhaps the change is needed.

The rule that STR adds extra damage to a HKA is on old on in the HERO System. And it makes a certain amount of sense - a big, brawny guy can swing a sword harder than a wimp.

However, we have come to the point where someone has asked, "Are we making a rule that enforces a special effect on a power?"

I hate to say it, but it looks like we have.

The power is killing attack. We allow someone to add STR to it, using a formula (which can become complex when advantages start getting into the act). But wouldn't it be more straightforward to just buy a bigger killing attack?

If the default KA is ranged, and you build HKA's as 'no range' and either 'OAF' (in the case of weapons) or 'restrainable' (for claws and what-not), the point-savings for the limitations should bring the price down to a reasonable amount...

Example: Currently, a 20 STR character buys a 2d6 HKA, 0 END, OAF, defined as a Greatsword. With a little math we determine he can do 3d6+1 killing damage on a hit. He pays (45/2) = 22 points.

In the proposed rules, he buys a 3d6+1 KA, No range, 0 END, OAF, defined as a greatsword. He pays (75:eek:/2.5) = 30 points.

That's a bit more expensive, sure. But I'm sure a few eyes popped out when they saw the AP cost on the actual damage of the '2d6 0 END Greatsword'. And if this guy had a 30 STR (or 2 DC's from martial maneuvers)...http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/sick.gif So the 'proposed rule' also simplifies the GM's job.

Other disads modify this, of course. If you use STR minimums, then that lowers the cost of the 'existing rules' sword - but at the same time, the 'proposed rules' sword would be buying fewer dice as well...

Play with it a bit, guys. This could work.

[CTaylor]

There's nothing preventing you from taking "Strength does not add damage" on an HKA. It's a binary choice: range or STR adds for 15 points per D6. I considered a system at one point where KA's cost 10 points per D6 and normal attacks cost 3 points per D6, then you could buy range and STR adds damage as 1/2 advantages, but it did funny things to active cost levels and messed things up.

[Paragon]

I don't advocate change just for the sake of change. However, in this particular case, perhaps the change is needed.

The rule that STR adds extra damage to a HKA is on old on in the HERO System. And it makes a certain amount of sense - a big, brawny guy can swing a sword harder than a wimp.

However, we have come to the point where someone has asked, "Are we making a rule that enforces a special effect on a power?"

I hate to say it, but it looks like we have.

The power is killing attack. We allow someone to add STR to it, using a formula (which can become complex when advantages start getting into the act). But wouldn't it be more straightforward to just buy a bigger killing attack?


There's two issues with this.

1. Someone with Strength already has a capability to do damage. Unless you have HKAs interact with that in some fashion, you've decided killing attacks are _so_ much better than normal damage that they the Strength shouldn't interact with it at all.

2. In Heroic scale games (where you normally don't purchase your melee weapon in a way you control its properties), you've decided that Strength is irrelevant, which is so obviously nonsensical it simply fails the sniff test.

I don't think you get to move away from Strength interacting with hand to hand damage in some fasion, normal or killing, without producing results that are simply not going to hold water well.

[schir1964]

However, we have come to the point where someone has asked, "Are we making a rule that enforces a special effect on a power?"

I hate to say it, but it looks like we have.

The power is killing attack. We allow someone to add STR to it, using a formula (which can become complex when advantages start getting into the act). But wouldn't it be more straightforward to just buy a bigger killing attack?
For an interesting read: The Human Template

- Christopher Mullins

[Vulcan]

There's two issues with this.

1. Someone with Strength already has a capability to do damage. Unless you have HKAs interact with that in some fashion, you've decided killing attacks are _so_ much better than normal damage that they the Strength shouldn't interact with it at all.

2. In Heroic scale games (where you normally don't purchase your melee weapon in a way you control its properties), you've decided that Strength is irrelevant, which is so obviously nonsensical it simply fails the sniff test.

Someone already posted a soloution to that. In Heroic scale games, a (for example) greatsword would do 2d6 Killing damage, with an additional 2d6 killing damage proportional to the amount of STR/MA/etc. the character can bring to bear. The precise amout of that limitation is irrelevant because, in heroic games, gear doesn't cost points.

If a character is going to pay points for specific gear, then he has to pay for his max damage.

I don't think you get to move away from Strength interacting with hand to hand damage in some fasion, normal or killing, without producing results that are simply not going to hold water well.

That sort of thing does need to be addressed. However, the 'proposed rule' does have an advantage in that it gets away from the kludgely 'Deadly blow' construct. The maximum damage of a weapon is now defined by what you bought, not by how much STR/MA/Deadly Blow you can add to it.

I would just leave it to the GM and the players to figure out how to deal with it. Give some general guidelines and let them go for it.

[Hugh Neilson]

There's nothing preventing you from taking "Strength does not add damage" on an HKA. It's a binary choice: range or STR adds for 15 points per D6. I considered a system at one point where KA's cost 10 points per D6 and normal attacks cost 3 points per D6, then you could buy range and STR adds damage as 1/2 advantages, but it did funny things to active cost levels and messed things up.

I don't like 1d6 KA having a base cost of 10. That leaves RKA at 15 or with no range having 15 AP and 10 real cost.

Allowing STR to add to any attack provides STR with an added benefit, or alernatively an added benefit to the power itself that varies with the STR of the purchasing character.

Let's look at this from another angle. Gremlin is a tiny little 0 STR critter. But he has HUGE claws - a 5d6 HKA.

Gargantua is huge, and has a 30 STR. He has smaller claws which, on him, they look appropriately sized. He has a 3d6 HKA, +2d6 for STR = 5d6 HKA.

Should Gremlin get a 25 point discount on his HKA for placing the limitation "STR does not add" when he has no STR to add anyway? How is that a "limitation"?

But Gargantua and Gremlin have spent exactly the same character points before any limitation. Gremlin spent 75 on KA, -10 for selling back STR = 65 points. Gargantua spent 45 on HKA and 20 on STR = 65 points.

But Gargantua gained much more than Gremlin. Even if we remove figured characteristics, Gargantua still has much more than Gremlin.

This is CLEARLY not balanced. Why not? Because every DC of HKA Garguantua purchases comes with a free exra DC just because he already has STR - an unrelated ability.

There's two issues with this.

1. Someone with Strength already has a capability to do damage. Unless you have HKAs interact with that in some fashion, you've decided killing attacks are _so_ much better than normal damage that they the Strength shouldn't interact with it at all.

An Eye Gouge Flash does not get bonuses from STR. A PD drain that Bruises the target is not enhanced by STR. A Choke Hold applies STR, but gains no damage from that STR. A Nerve Strike applies pressure to key parts of the target's anatomy, yet does not add STR damage. No Cap clone I've ever seen buys his thrown shield as an attack that STR enhances.

All of these would logically be enhanced by STR. As a GM, my answer to that logic is "then buy a bigger attack to reflect this STR augmentation. Maybe you should Limit the increase to be Drained with your STR."

So why should there be exceptions made for HKA? Streamline the system and make it consistent. You want higher HKA because of your massive STR, pay for it. Just like the Human Torch had to buy a Damage Shield so his logically painful flame force field would do damage.

2. In Heroic scale games (where you normally don't purchase your melee weapon in a way you control its properties), you've decided that Strength is irrelevant, which is so obviously nonsensical it simply fails the sniff test.

The solution to that is to buy the extra dice "only if character has STR X+". The limitation makes no difference - the weapons aren't paid for in points anyway.

I don't think you get to move away from Strength interacting with hand to hand damage in some fasion, normal or killing, without producing results that are simply not going to hold water well.

None of the other items above "hold water well" until you realize that, in Hero, you don't get extra abilities because they are logical based on your existing abilities and character concept - you get them because you pay the points for them.

[CTaylor]

It is a fallacy to say that Strength adding damage to HKAs costs no points. It does; it costs the same as the Killing attack having range. The metarules behind killing attacks are what I tried to break it down to above:

This isn't what the rules say, rather it is how they were created and designed; how the base point cost was determined. The reason that HKA and RKA cost 15 points is because they effectively start with a 10 point 1D6 and add either the "ranged" +1/2 advantage or the "Strength adds damage" +1/2 advantage to the base cost. Thus, RKA costs 15 points (10 at a +1/2 for ranged) and HKA costs 15 points (10 at a +1/2 for STR adding damage).

You can add both to an attack (a ranged KA that you add strength to), but you're paying for the damage on a HKA, just like you're paying for the range on an RKA.

[ideasmith]

The solution to that is to buy the extra dice "only if character has STR X+". The limitation makes no difference - the weapons aren't paid for in points anyway.

Whether weapons cost points varies, depending on campaign standards. In a typical superheroic campaign, weapons will cost points, and the value of the Limitation will matter. (And the Strength ratings involved will affect what the value should be.)

[BobGreenwade]

A couple of (I think new) points regarding Enhanced Senses:

Some current Sense Groups are "partially" targeting or "partially" Discriminatory. These "partial" determinations should be codified into the rules.

For Discriminatory, perhaps we could just say that basic Discriminatory can discriminate one stimulus from another, and recognize objects; it could cost 3 points for a single Sense, or 5 points for a Sense Group. What's currently called Discriminatory could be called something else (or these could be called "Basic Discriminatory" and "Full Discriminatory), and cost the same as it does now. This would represent what we can generally do with Hearing, Smell, and Touch.

For Targeting, we could have a subset called Directional, with which the character can tell in general terms where the source of the stimulus is -- with a successful PER Roll, down to its hex (or group of hexes, for a large object). This would represent what we can generally do with Hearing, and some animals can do with Smell.

[Talon]

Some current Sense Groups are "partially" targeting or "partially" Discriminatory. These "partial" determinations should be codified into the rules.

Yes, QFT.

[Hugh Neilson]

Whether weapons cost points varies, depending on campaign standards. In a typical superheroic campaign, weapons will cost points, and the value of the Limitation will matter. (And the Strength ratings involved will affect what the value should be.)
In a typical Supers campaign, there would likely be no limitation as the character is unlikely to purchase KA dice with a limitation that they require more than his own STR to maximize the damage inflicted by them.* +2d6 KA, only if the user has 30 STR is not all that limiting when the purchaser has a 30STR.
I think it may be reasonable to afford a small limitation for the Lockout of STR/KA dice, however.

Weapons are already very different in a supers game as they generally lack STR minima.

[Paragon]

I



An Eye Gouge Flash does not get bonuses from STR. A PD drain that Bruises the target is not enhanced by STR. A Choke Hold applies STR, but gains no damage from that STR. A Nerve Strike applies pressure to key parts of the target's anatomy, yet does not add STR damage. No Cap clone I've ever seen buys his thrown shield as an attack that STR enhances.



Most of those aren't damage. They're exotic effects. Personally, if pro-rated like it is with other things, I think the Nerve Strike and Choke Holds _should_ add Strength (that they don't is an artifact of paranoia about NNDs being overly effective rather than any clear game system logic), but I don't find an argument about the others in the least relevant.

Killing damage is still damage, and accept in a couple specific quirks, is treated like damage; Flashes and Drains aren't.




All of these would logically be enhanced by STR. As a GM, my answer to that



As you can see, I agree with you on some of them; on others I don't.

That doesn't mean I agree with your conclusion on any of them.



So why should there be exceptions made for HKA? Streamline the system and



Because its damage, which you've already purchase the capability to do at melee range when buying Strength.



make it consistent. You want higher HKA because of your massive STR, pay for it. Just like the Human Torch had to buy a Damage Shield so his logically painful flame force field would do damage.



And if the force field already did some damage, I'd expect that to add to it, too.




The solution to that is to buy the extra dice "only if character has STR X+". The limitation makes no difference - the weapons aren't paid for in points anyway.



At which point to me you've added a clumsy extra modifier, that's going to be tricky to price properly anyway since you have to stage it with every damn DC of damage, for no particular useful purpose that I can see.



None of the other items above "hold water well" until you realize that, in Hero, you don't get extra abilities because they are logical based on your existing abilities and character concept - you get them because you pay the points for them.

No. This is an argument whether two sources of damage that you've already purchased should add; you're not getting it free, you're just getting the ability to total them together, and make the small modifications to process that one of the two gets.

As I said, I'm not going to buy a premise that tries to act like there's there's no difference between the distinction between regular and killing and damage and a Flash. Other than being expressed in dice, the latter two are not even vaguely related and the former clearly are.

[CTaylor]

I think the Nerve Strike and Choke Holds _should_ add Strength

They do in my campaign. So does Nerve Punch. If a train hits you in the solar plexus, it hurts really bad.. and crushes you horribly.

Incidentally I agree with the point about senses, that's something that comes up fairly often in discussions during games. Your hearing is discriminatory, but not as good as someone with analyze (I can tell the difference between a piano and a fart, but not between a Steinway and a Gulbransen).

[Hugh Neilson]

Because its damage, which you've already purchase the capability to do at melee range when buying Strength.

Viewed another way, it's killing damage, when you've only purchased the capability to do normal damage at melee range when buying Strength.

Should an Energy Projector's Energy Blast add damage to his RKA? He has already purchased the ability to do damage at range. Similarly, should a Hand Attack add to an HKA? Again, the character has already purchased the ability to do damage at melee range.

Neither one does - only STR is permitted to add. I can live with Hand Attack adding to STR (and I note that this is subtly different from STR adding to Hand Attack) as being a purchase of only the HTH damage component of STR. The others are more distantly related

And if the force field already did some damage, I'd expect that to add to it, too.

Should an RKA Damage Shield get bonus damage from an ordinary RKA or Energy Blast if Torchie wants to pump it up?

At which point to me you've added a clumsy extra modifier, that's going to be tricky to price properly anyway since you have to stage it with every damn DC of damage, for no particular useful purpose that I can see.

To say it again, it's almost never going to need pricing. It only needs pricing if you pay points for the ability and the extra damage requires a STR level the character has difficulty in attaining.

Besides which, pretty much every conditional limitation is as tricky to price properly. Is that a reason to eliminate them? Why isn't "No STR add" similarly tricky to address? If I have a 4d6 KA and a 15 STR, why do I get the same price break as the guy with a 4d6 HKA and a 60 STR? Your "tricky modifier" already exists.

The useful purpose here is putting DC's of killing attack on the same level playing field as every other damage-causing power.

No. This is an argument whether two sources of damage that you've already purchased should add; you're not getting it free, you're just getting the ability to total them together, and make the small modifications to process that one of the two gets.

So why is HKA the only source of damage which can be added to, and STR the only source from which damage can be added? This is the outlier/exception rule. Its elimination makes the system more consistent. So eliminate it.

As I said, I'm not going to buy a premise that tries to act like there's there's no difference between the distinction between regular and killing and damage and a Flash. Other than being expressed in dice, the latter two are not even vaguely related and the former clearly are.

I find a lot more similarity between an eye gouge and a punch than a lightsaber and a punch. Of course, the lightsaber must be purchased as an RKA, no range because STR logically does not enhance its damage.

I come back to the very simple "if you want a bigger KA, pay for a bigger KA" structure. Every other attack in the game requires more points be paid to obtain a larger KA.

[Kdansky]

So because Damage has a slightly different SFX, it should be treated completely differently? Yeah, makes sense to me. (Note: That Was Irony)

There is one real reason why HKA adds Strength: Because it has always been that way. 6th will have changes and I hope this is another one. We've got enough versions of fifth (of which I own one each).


Currently, HKA is incredibly annoying to balance. You cannot say: "Only up to 60 AP", because that leads to 24 DC HKA + STR. Then you say: "Well, only 12 DC", which results in constructs like 2d6 HKA, +1/2 Advantage + 45 Strength (modified by the advantage). Then someone drains Strenght and the game stops due to this player having to recalculate how much damage he can do...
Or whatever. EB is sooo nice in comparison. Either you do have 12DC, or you don't. This game's philosophie is: "if you can do it, you have to pay points for it" Same should go with HKA (which should be eliminated anyway in favour of a Killing-Advantage).

[ideasmith]

To say it again, it's almost never going to need pricing. It only needs pricing if you pay points for the ability and the extra damage requires a STR level the character has difficulty in attaining.


Or if the weapon is bought with Usable By Others, or as a Universal Focus. Either of those modifiers can result in a variety of STR ratings being applicable.

[Hugh Neilson]

Or if the weapon is bought with Usable By Others, or as a Universal Focus. Either of those modifiers can result in a variety of STR ratings being applicable.

A universal focus is advantageous if used by a teammate and detrimental if used by an enemy. And both have issues in the current structure. It's one thing to let Black Knight, with his 15 STR, have a 3dk KA Magic Sword in your 12 DC, 60 AP game. It's quite another when he hands it to his 45 STR teammate...

At the end of the day, we could simply do exactly what KA does now - make "dependent on STR" a -1/2 limitation across the board. A 0 STR character and a 90 STR character both presently pay the same 90 points for a 6d6 HKA, despite the fact that one gets to hit with 6d6 of killing damage and the other with 12d6 of killing damage. If that's not unbalanced, why would providing the same limitation be unbalanced?

[Hugh Neilson]

By the way, heroic equipment needs a fix anyway.

Steve’s Thoughts: We should. Right now, for some reason dating back to the early days of the rules, they seem to be built with some sort of generic “Killing Damage” power that requires the STR Min Does Not Add To Damage Limitation. The rules should say explicitly that they’re built with RKA and thus don’t qualify for that Limitation.

[GeekySpaz]

A universal focus is advantageous if used by a teammate and detrimental if used by an enemy. And both have issues in the current structure. It's one thing to let Black Knight, with his 15 STR, have a 3dk KA Magic Sword in your 12 DC, 60 AP game. It's quite another when he hands it to his 45 STR teammate...

At the end of the day, we could simply do exactly what KA does now - make "dependent on STR" a -1/2 limitation across the board. A 0 STR character and a 90 STR character both presently pay the same 90 points for a 6d6 HKA, despite the fact that one gets to hit with 6d6 of killing damage and the other with 12d6 of killing damage. If that's not unbalanced, why would providing the same limitation be unbalanced?

Of course neglecting entirely the fact that the guy with the 90 STR has paid 80 points for his STR while the person with 0 STR has gotten back 10 points for his reduced STR. So if both characters buy and HKA such that they do 12d6 Killing damage they both spend 170 net points. Now admittedly the guy with the high strength gets some added benefits from the strength but most of those are being currently planned to be eliminated in 6th (specifically Figured Characteristics and Leaping, which I don't agree with but Steve might be able to make it work without breaking the game. We'll see.). However the cost savings from those added benefits can be attributed to the similarity of special effect. This is no different than the cost savings from elemental controls based on a single special effect.

For heroic games it makes even less sense to remove strength from HKA damage. A stronger person wielding a melee weapon does more damage with it than a weaker person. This is dramatically realistic. Remember that HERO is supposed to simulate dramatic realism. The idea that everything must be explicitly paid for and that special effect has absolutely no bearing on the rules used to construct a specific ability can be taken too far and many people on these forums are trying very hard to take it too far.

Points should be paid for that which a character can do that are beyond what everyone else can do. Once you have paid for an ability it should carry with it everything that a person with that ability should be able to do. Therefore if you purchase a high strength it should come with the ability to weild a melee weapon with more force than someone with a lower strength.

BTW doesn't this conversation belong in a different thread? It seems like we've strayed from the Powers A-E thread.

[Hugh Neilson]

Of course neglecting entirely the fact that the guy with the 90 STR has paid 80 points for his STR while the person with 0 STR has gotten back 10 points for his reduced STR. So if both characters buy and HKA such that they do 12d6 Killing damage they both spend 170 net points.

Should the guy who has a 90 STR get a rebate if he doesn't buy an HKA, or should the guy with 0 STR have to pay a penalty for not buying one? One is getting free HKA dice and the other is not.

Now admittedly the guy with the high strength gets some added benefits from the strength but most of those are being currently planned to be eliminated in 6th (specifically Figured Characteristics and Leaping, which I don't agree with but Steve might be able to make it work without breaking the game. We'll see.). However the cost savings from those added benefits can be attributed to the similarity of special effect. This is no different than the cost savings from elemental controls based on a single special effect.

I'm with you on the figured's, ambivalent on leaping. However, the ability to lift, punch, grab, throw and break things like Entangles with casual STR seem like something more than ancillary benefits to me. And nothing prevents that 90 STR character Punching while using his HKA as a Multiple Power Attack to put through an 18 DC attack plus a 36 DC attack.

For heroic games it makes even less sense to remove strength from HKA damage. A stronger person wielding a melee weapon does more damage with it than a weaker person. This is dramatically realistic.

And is easily built in to the construction of the weapon itself - the weapon that characters in heroic games are not required to pay for using points. "+5 DC, maximum 1 DC for every full 5 points of STR in excess of 13 used to wield the weapon" is a 1 1/2d6 KA weapon with a 13 STR minimum. In addition to taking the "STR Minimum" limitation, the weapon's extra DC's take the "restricted by STR" limitation.

Would you let a 75 STR character paying for 2d6 KA sword save points from a limitation on the cost for having a STR minimum of 15? Making these standard limitations in a heroic game, where the range of STR is much more constrained, seems quite workable.

Remember that HERO is supposed to simulate dramatic realism. The idea that everything must be explicitly paid for and that special effect has absolutely no bearing on the rules used to construct a specific ability can be taken too far and many people on these forums are trying very hard to take it too far.

Hero is also supposed to be balanced using points. Offering freebies for certain combos is a hallmark of other games with many more dice facings, and one which I would prefer be minimized in Hero.

Points should be paid for that which a character can do that are beyond what everyone else can do. Once you have paid for an ability it should carry with it everything that a person with that ability should be able to do. Therefore if you purchase a high strength it should come with the ability to weild a melee weapon with more force than someone with a lower strength.

Why does the HKA cap out at twice its base DC's, then? Can't Grond swing that Greatsword with more force than Obsidian can, with both of them applying way more than 30 STR of force?

Shouldn't a hot, burning force field inflict damage on non-fire resistant people touching it? ANSWER: Yes it should - so buy a damage aura. Shouldn't my Martial Artist, with her years of training and discipline, have a strong will? ANSWER: Yes, she should - so buy up your Ego. My answer to "shouldn't my very strong character be able to inflict more damage with his dagger than that wimpy knife fighter is remarkably similar. Yes, he should - so shell out the points.

BTW doesn't this conversation belong in a different thread? It seems like we've strayed from the Powers A-E thread.

Probably - I've been trying without success to recall how it got into A-E in the first place.

[CTaylor]

By the way, heroic equipment needs a fix anyway.

I never worry about the point cost of that stuff, but I can see where there would be a problem.

Why does the HKA cap out at twice its base DC's, then?

In my game, it doesn't. You can keep going higher, it just takes twice as much strength (10 points per DC added until it doubles again, which doubles the cost in STR once more, and so on. Thor can throw a dagger through the Empire State Building.

Of course, since you deal half the damage to the weapon that you're doing with the weapon in my game you'll demolish it with a single swing, but those are the breaks. So to speak.

[Paragon]

Viewed another way, it's killing damage, when you've only purchased the capability to do normal damage at melee range when buying Strength.


Yeah, but I don't buy they're that radically different; killing damage is at most normal damage with an advantage on it to my view, and that isn't a good enough reason to treat them as utterly unrelated.



Should an Energy Projector's Energy Blast add damage to his RKA? He has already purchased the ability to do damage at range. Similarly, should a Hand Attack add to an HKA? Again, the character has already purchased the ability to do damage at melee range.



He also gets a discount on the HA; as to the HKA and EB, if HKAs were formulated right, I'd have no problem with adding them together, but currently they aren't.



Neither one does - only STR is permitted to add. I can live with Hand Attack adding to STR (and I note that this is subtly different from STR adding to Hand Attack) as being a purchase of only the HTH damage component of STR. The others are more distantly related



Not distantly enough to justify making them completey seperate to my view.



Should an RKA Damage Shield get bonus damage from an ordinary RKA or Energy Blast if Torchie wants to pump it up?



If all the above were set up properly, I'd have no problem with that whatsoever. (Note the "if").



To say it again, it's almost never going to need pricing. It only needs pricing if you pay points for the ability and the extra damage requires a STR level the character has difficulty in attaining.



The moment you need to modify the weapon temporarily or permanently it will, and that's not exactly uncommon in some kinds of heroic scale games.



Besides which, pretty much every conditional limitation is as tricky to price properly. Is that a reason to eliminate them? Why isn't "No STR add" similarly



Its a reason to avoid them whenever possible, especially when you have them applying to parts of the ability. I've argued, and still do, that there are already things that are clumsier to construct in the system than they need to be; making currently common and straightforward ones become so is going to need a hell of a lot better reason than I'm seeing here before I'd acknowledge the need.



tricky to address? If I have a 4d6 KA and a 15 STR, why do I get the same price break as the guy with a 4d6 HKA and a 60 STR? Your "tricky modifier" already exists.



You haven't convinced me he shouldn't get the same break. At most I'm willing to acknowledge that KAs aren't priced properly (as they have a small but distinct advantage over normal damage) but once that was accounted for I see no reason not to add them together at all.



The useful purpose here is putting DC's of killing attack on the same level playing field as every other damage-causing power.


And I don't see that as serving a necessary purpose.




So why is HKA the only source of damage which can be added to, and STR the only source from which damage can be added? This is the outlier/exception rule. Its elimination makes the system more consistent. So eliminate it.


Consistency isn't the only virtue, and in this case it does things I consider annoying as hell.


I find a lot more similarity between an eye gouge and a punch than a lightsaber and a punch. Of course, the lightsaber must be purchased as an RKA, no range because STR logically does not enhance its damage.



And it appears from fiction to be one of the exceptions in that regard (and the eyegouge isn't a good example to my view because I don't consider Flash to be a particularly great way to represent that anyway; it just happens to be an easy one. Its much more like an Impair effect in reality).


I come back to the very simple "if you want a bigger KA, pay for a bigger KA" structure. Every other attack in the game requires more points be paid to obtain a larger KA.

And the damage component of Strength exists to add to melee attacks. Unless you can show one is somehow more important than the other, I don't think a simple argument from consistency demonstrates anything.

[Paragon]

Why does the HKA cap out at twice its base DC's, then? Can't Grond swing that Greatsword with more force than Obsidian can, with both of them applying way more than 30 STR of force?



Because killing damage is underpriced in the first place; if it was treaded as an Advantage on normal damage, you could easily pro-rate Strength like you do with other damage with advantages, and I don't see there's be any appreciable balance issues needing special capping, at least in superheroic games (heroic games have some other issues involved, but they don't have anything to do with game balance per se).

[GeekySpaz]

Should the guy who has a 90 STR get a rebate if he doesn't buy an HKA, or should the guy with 0 STR have to pay a penalty for not buying one? One is getting free HKA dice and the other is not.


Not following what your saying here


I'm with you on the figured's, ambivalent on leaping. However, the ability to lift, punch, grab, throw and break things like Entangles with casual STR seem like something more than ancillary benefits to me. And nothing prevents that 90 STR character Punching while using his HKA as a Multiple Power Attack to put through an 18 DC attack plus a 36 DC attack.


Don't forget that unless you take the appropriate limitations with a HKA those can be used to break free of entangles also. If your strength is high enough to use casual STR to break free then the equivalent HKA will easily break through that same entangle. It may still cost you an action but your freedom is a forgone conclusion. And in combat the I would say that the ability to lift things IS an ancillary benefit, unless you plan on throwing what your lifting at someone. But lifting and throwing something like that would require a full phase and not allow any kind of multipower attack involving STR.

Not really following the rest of what your saying on the multipower attack.


And is easily built in to the construction of the weapon itself - the weapon that characters in heroic games are not required to pay for using points. "+5 DC, maximum 1 DC for every full 5 points of STR in excess of 13 used to wield the weapon" is a 1 1/2d6 KA weapon with a 13 STR minimum. In addition to taking the "STR Minimum" limitation, the weapon's extra DC's take the "restricted by STR" limitation.

Would you let a 75 STR character paying for 2d6 KA sword save points from a limitation on the cost for having a STR minimum of 15? Making these standard limitations in a heroic game, where the range of STR is much more constrained, seems quite workable.


The character has just paid 15 points for a attack that with the 65 points he's paid for STR is doing 4d6. I'm not really seeing a problem with this.


Hero is also supposed to be balanced using points. Offering freebies for certain combos is a hallmark of other games with many more dice facings, and one which I would prefer be minimized in Hero.


So then you would advocate the removal of Elemental Controls and Figured Characteristics too?

If the system were truly balance on points alone there would be no stop signs or exclamation points in the book and the GM would be little more than a referee. Every power built with x points would be exactly equivalent to every other power with x points. Points are the starting point of game balance, not the bottom line. Concept plays a big part too. By eliminating discount that comes from synergy of abilities characters with a highly focused concept are unnecessarily penalized. Yes these cost discounts leave avenues for abuse. There in lies one of the major roles of the GM.


Why does the HKA cap out at twice its base DC's, then? Can't Grond swing that Greatsword with more force than Obsidian can, with both of them applying way more than 30 STR of force?


Because every weapon has a maximum amount of force that it can transfer to the target. I don't care how strong you are you're not cutting someone in half with a dagger in one stroke. But a sword in the hands of a really strong person has more damage potential than in the hands of an average person.


Shouldn't a hot, burning force field inflict damage on non-fire resistant people touching it? ANSWER: Yes it should - so buy a damage aura. Shouldn't my Martial Artist, with her years of training and discipline, have a strong will? ANSWER: Yes, she should - so buy up your Ego. My answer to "shouldn't my very strong character be able to inflict more damage with his dagger than that wimpy knife fighter is remarkably similar. Yes, he should - so shell out the points.

But not all force fields have an aura of flame around them. Not all people who study martial arts have strong will and discipline. Every character who has a high STR is strong. EVERYONE who is strong has more damage dealing potential in hand to hand combat, ALL forms of hand to hand combat. So if a high STR does not automatically include higher HTH damage then all characters with high STR should have to buy additional HTH damage proportionate to their STR which really means that the cost of STR should include this added damage. So if anything the cost of STR may need to be increased. I don't personally think so but it seems more reasonable to me than saying than divorcing STR from additional HKA damage.

I'm copying this message over to the Combat Issues Thread. I think that's where it belongs. We should continue this over there.

[Hugh Neilson]

Yeah, but I don't buy they're that radically different; killing damage is at most normal damage with an advantage on it to my view, and that isn't a good enough reason to treat them as utterly unrelated.

Lots of other attacks, by SFX, inflict damage based on brute force. KA is the only one for which the option to have STR add exists. Why? If the option is a valid one, then it should at least be possible to apply STR to enhance the damage from other powers, where this is appropriate given the concept of the
power. If this is not appropriate, then it is equally inappropriate to killing attacks.

He also gets a discount on the HA; as to the HKA and EB, if HKAs were formulated right, I'd have no problem with adding them together, but currently they aren't.

The HA discount, depending on one's perspective, either removes its Range or removes the other aspects of STR that the Hand Attack would otherwise grant. Extra dice of an EB with some other limitation (say, Reduced by Range) also get a discount because they lose some functionality. Under my model, by the way, he would get a discount on HKA, since it would be purchased as RKA, No Range.

You haven't convinced me he shouldn't get the same break. At most I'm willing to acknowledge that KAs aren't priced properly (as they have a small but distinct advantage over normal damage) but once that was accounted for I see no reason not to add them together at all.

Simplistically, to me, balance requires that paying the same points for the same attack net the same effect. Paying 30 points for a killing attack should not result in the ability to inflict between 2d6 and 4d6 of killing damage, depending on how strong you are. Every character who spends 30 points for a killing attack should do the same amount of damage - whatever that level of damage may appropriately be.

And the damage component of Strength exists to add to melee attacks. Unless you can show one is somehow more important than the other, I don't think a simple argument from consistency demonstrates anything.

Then we disagree. When one character spends 15 points to add 1d6 to his ability to inflict killing damage in melee combat, and another spends 15 points to add the same 1d6, plus the ability to inflict an extra 3d6 of normal damage (at the same time, should he choose to use a Multiple Power Attack, I might add), plus add lifting capacity, the ability to Grab, Hold, throw and carry equipment, I find that an inappropriate result. And it's one with no simplistic fix.

Increase the price of KA? Why should the character lacking the STR to fully benefit from the potential STR add pay extra? Under the current system, assume a 30 STR character buys a 3d6 HKA. Will you allow him to take a limitation of "STR does not add" on the third d6? What value will you set that limitation at?

Increase the price of STR? Why should the character with no HKA pay extra for his STR when he will not benefit from the added functionality? Can he take a "does not enhance killing damage" limitation on his STR? Assume a 60 STR character buys a 2d6 KA - can he limit 30 points of STR to "not add to killing damage"? Can the character with no KA limit all his STR in this fashion? Again, what value should that limitation carry.

Copied to Combat Issues for consistency (Powers - K makes more sense to me, but Equipment is also relevant).

[Paragon]

And I don't find it inappropriate at all, because I few the damage component of Strength as buying the privledge to do X amount of unarmed damage including any coming from other sources. Or put another way, they're both getting what they paid for. The fact ranged doesn't work that way just says two things to me: Ranged doesn't work that way (in other words it has no logical relationship to adding damage) and there are advantages to ranged not entirely reflected in the Ranged Advantage.

[quote]

Increase the price of KA? Why should the character lacking the STR to fully benefit from the potential STR add pay extra? Under the current system,



Because the Killing Attack is better than a normal attack; my issues with its cost have nothing to do with its ability to add with Strength. My comment simply was that some of the constraints on stacking Strength with killing attacks is because killing attacks are currently slightly too good to be freely converted from Strength without some limits, but that's because of the advantages of killing damage, not the fact you can add them together.



assume a 30 STR character buys a 3d6 HKA. Will you allow him to take a limitation of "STR does not add" on the third d6? What value will you set that limitation at?



This is based on the idea that the capping is sensible in my view; as you can see from the above, I don't think it is; its the wrong solution.



Increase the price of STR? Why should the character with no HKA pay extra for his STR when he will not benefit from the added functionality? Can he



Because basic attributes shouldn't care whether you're going to get functionality out of it as a default, any more than any other real-world elements should. We don't care whether someone will every use their ECV on Ego either.

[quote]

take a "does not enhance killing damage" limitation on his STR? Assume a 60 STR character buys a 2d6 KA - can he limit 30 points of STR to "not add to killing damage"? Can the character with no KA limit all his STR in this fashion? Again, what value should that limitation carry.

[quote]

Depends on whether he's in an environment where its ever going to be meaningful, just like every other Limitation.

The bottom line on some of this is that I don't consider the "you only get what you pay for and you never get anything you didn't" a holy grail here to justify throwing out everything else. And I find it less and less so as you approach creating problems in mundane situations. Attributes as basic features of creatures should have certain default values. If those sometimes provide ability you can't use, that's the biz; if its reasonable you limit them, and if its not, change the base cost.

But that's not a good enough reason to me to eliminate adding Strength to melee attacks with weapons, and its not a good enough reason to go through ldesign backflips to emulate the effect at the backend with weapon design. The first is ludicrous, and the second is a potential problem causer far beyond any benefit it provides.

[Vulcan]

Because killing damage is underpriced in the first place; if it was treaded as an Advantage on normal damage, you could easily pro-rate Strength like you do with other damage with advantages, and I don't see there's be any appreciable balance issues needing special capping, at least in superheroic games (heroic games have some other issues involved, but they don't have anything to do with game balance per se).

I don't know if I'd say it's underpriced. Either you roll average or below - and bounce - or you roll well and do a little body. The killer is the STUN lotto. 1-2-3 on the die pretty much bounces, 4 does some damage, 5 does damage comparble to a EB, and 6 is JACKPOT.

2/3 chance of doing less stun gambled against a 1/6 chance of winning the lotto doesn't sound like that good of a deal.

I've used killing and normal attacks on characters, and in general I prefer the consistency of normal attacks. On the occasions character concept demanded killing attacks, I've almost always gone for Increased Stun Multiple (x2) to do more stun, or AP/Pen to do more BODY.

[Paragon]

I don't know if I'd say it's underpriced. Either you roll average or below - and bounce - or you roll well and do a little body. The killer is the STUN lotto. 1-2-3 on the die pretty much bounces, 4 does some damage, 5 does damage comparble to a EB, and 6 is JACKPOT.



Bypassing Normal Defense with the Body should be worth _something_; it may not be typically a big advantage in Champions, where almost all characters have more resistant defense than the Body of Killing Attacks they actually expect to see, but that's anything but a given in Heroic scale games.

And even in Champions, the stun lottery top end is non-trivial; you can go through a whole fight rolling crappy and one 6 on that D6 can do more stun than you'd have done if you were hitting with normal damage every other time depending on the defense of the target (I've seen opponents go from fresh to unconscious that way). And of course even one of those will almost always stun the target, setting him up for everyone else even if your Speed doesn't allow you to take advantage of it.

No, I'm afraid I'm pretty much firmly of the opinion that on the whole killing damage is an Advantage; the only question is how much of one.

[Vulcan]

I can't argue with the Heroic level example. But then, the Heroic level is supposed to be a bit more lethal as well.

Yeah, having the STUN lotto come in is nice. But having to depend on it sucks. In Champions, even a good roll on a KA is unlikely to do BODY. Unless the STUN roll comes up 5 or 6, you're pretty much sucking on the damage potential.

[CTaylor]

I think everyone hates the stun lotto. One way of fixing that would be to use hit locations in superheroic combat too.

[Hugh Neilson]

And I don't find it inappropriate at all, because I few the damage component of Strength as buying the privledge to do X amount of unarmed damage including any coming from other sources. Or put another way, they're both getting what they paid for. The fact ranged doesn't work that way just says two things to me: Ranged doesn't work that way (in other words it has no logical relationship to adding damage) and there are advantages to ranged not entirely reflected in the Ranged Advantage.

An alternative interpretation is that:

The fact killing doesn't work that way just says two things to me: Killing doesn't work that way (in other words it has no logical relationship to adding damage) and there are advantages to killing not entirely reflected in the Killing Attack mechanic.

This is based on the idea that the capping is sensible in my view; as you can see from the above, I don't think it is; its the wrong solution.

So you would also eliminate the cap. OK, now we have the 85 STR Brick buying a 1 DC killing attack to convert all his STR to a 6d6 killing damage, while the second Brick, who decided not to carry a thumb tack, doesn't get to convert his 85 STR into killing damage as a consequence. To me, the logical extrapolation of this approach is to allow STR to shift between killing and normal damage at the discretion of the user.

Depends on whether he's in an environment where its ever going to be meaningful, just like every other Limitation.

This comes back to one of my pet peeves:

:eek:You can't get points for a limitation/disadvantage that don't limit/disadvantage you!:eek:

:sneaky:You still have to pay the full cost even if you won't get any benefits from it. :sneaky:

To me, failure to correct that discrepancy is the single biggest error 6e can make. If it is useful, pay for it. If not, it should be free. Just as a non-limiting Limitation saves no points, a non-advantageous Advantage or a useless skill is worth no point cost.

If the GM allows a limitation/disadvantage, that is a contract with the player that these issues will come up to the detriment of the character. And if the GM allows points to be paid for an ability, that is a contract with the player that these issues will come up to the benefit of the character. Both with a frequency determined by the magnitude of the points saved or spent.

[Vulcan]

I think everyone hates the stun lotto. One way of fixing that would be to use hit locations in superheroic combat too.

There's a reason hit locations are not used in superheroes. Because once you have hit locations, you get people wanting to make called shots. And then you start running into this:

8 PSL, to offset called shot penalties, 16 to 24 points.

We had that on a charcter in a superhero game with hit locations. Deadly as sin. That makes KA really overpowered.:eek:

On a 2d6 KA, it's not so bad. But on a 4d6 KA it's death itself. And that's before adding 'Increased Stun Multiple' as well...http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/sick.gif

Even if you don't allow the PSL, a stunned target will draw a bunch of called shots to the head.:help: Only one has to connect to take the target to 'GM's optionland.':idjit:

Needless to day, we don't use hit locations or called shots anymore.

[tesuji]

An alternative interpretation is that:


This comes back to one of my pet peeves:

:eek:You can't get points for a limitation/disadvantage that don't limit/disadvantage you!:eek:

:sneaky:You still have to pay the full cost even if you won't get any benefits from it. :sneaky:


well FWIW i think i saw steve l in one of his openings, maybe to skills, saying he was thinking/planning of stressing that you dont have to pay for stuff that doesn't benefit... i think he mentioned something like a obscure knowledge skill at 17- being free if the gm doesnt think it should be worthwhile in the campaign but is a character bit.

so it sounds like the "pay for all" is going by the wayside for 6e.

[tesuji]

Extra limbs - the mechanic for "tail is weaker or less deatrous than the whole body" should be to apply a limit to the extra limbs cost and NOT BE the way it is now which is to apply a limit on the strength/dex. Allowing the 5 pt extra limb to create a -1/4 on str/dex allows a buy little to save big accounting error where a guy with a weak/clumsy tail is CHEAPER than the same guy with no tail at all.

[Southern Cross]

True enough....
As for the STUN lotto,I have the following suggestions:
(1) Have the STUN Multiplier be dependent upon the roll for damage -a roll of 1 would result in a Multiplier of 1,a roll of 2-5 would result in a Multiplier of 2,and a roll of 6 would result in a Multiplier of 3.
(2) Only resistant defenses apply to the STUN & BODY of Killing Attacks.

[Hugh Neilson]

Even if you don't allow the PSL, a stunned target will draw a bunch of called shots to the head.:help: Only one has to connect to take the target to 'GM's optionland.':idjit:

Needless to day, we don't use hit locations or called shots anymore.

The CV spread tends to be much broader in Supers as well, leaving Martial Artists free to consistently take head shots on Bricks. When +8 OCV effectively doubles your damage by allowing constant head shots (and they're pretty useful for doing regular damage against hard to hit targets as well), OCV becomes king.

[PhilFleischmann]

There's a reason hit locations are not used in superheroes. Because once you have hit locations, you get people wanting to make called shots.
Nothing says that if you use Hit Locations that you must also allow called shots.

[CTaylor]

Right, you could just have them for the stun multiple rather than using the stun lotto. The reason the stun multiple on KAs is such a pain is because it's 1D6, and the one die effect comes into play: any 1 side of that die will come up exactly as often as any other, there's zero bell curve and no average. The hit location chart turns that into a 3D6 roll and you'll tend to get center mass (x3 stun). The chances of a big hit or a tiny hit are pretty low.

[James Gillen]

I think everyone hates the stun lotto. One way of fixing that would be to use hit locations in superheroic combat too.

We do. :eg:

jg

[AnotherSkip]

I don't know if I'd say it's underpriced. Either you roll average or below - and bounce - or you roll well and do a little body. The killer is the STUN lotto. 1-2-3 on the die pretty much bounces, 4 does some damage, 5 does damage comparble to a EB, and 6 is JACKPOT.

2/3 chance of doing less stun gambled against a 1/6 chance of winning the lotto doesn't sound like that good of a deal.


The problem comes in when a player takes six shots at an opponent, 1 in 6 will k.o. just about any oppt. So 6 out of 12 seconds and at least one opponent drops.

[Kdansky]

As I argued before: It is not so much about the frequency, it's about it being there alltogether (altough one could argue that a 1 in 216 chance or similar would be irrelevant). The extreme outcome is very rarely interesting. Either a PC goes down (not interesting to at least one player, risks a TPK with an unprepared GM, but does not make the fight more interesting (hell, I *plan* my fights so that some PCs will hopefully go KO)), or an NPC goes down (with a Thug, that is completely irrelevant, but with a major NPC, it just kills tension). Think of how often it's good to have and how often it is not good to have random one-shot kills.

Hit locations don't help. I have proved that countless times, refer to my KA threads. They decrease the stun lotto from a 15% instakill chance down to a 10% instakill chance. Which is basically the same. You still got a good chance of doing massive stun. I will either use flat x2 or 1,2: x1; 3,4: x2; 5,6: x3. After all, if you have x3 in average, it's like EB, except it ignores quite a bit of defenses AND you can still get "crits" (I'm talking about x2, x3, x4 solutions which *sometimes* give you 33% more stun than the equal EB, but the same average).

[CTaylor]

Incidentally if you use the hit locations in superheroic combat to replace the stun lotto, I would strongly advise against using the body modifiers. Just use the stun, and only for killing attacks (not normal attacks).

You still got a good chance of doing massive stun.

If your problem is "killing attacks do too much stun" I'd think you are probably in the minority, most people just hate the gross variations and tendency to get very low numbers. Your issue would be a different situation to deal with.

[Paragon]

I can't argue with the Heroic level example. But then, the Heroic level is supposed to be a bit more lethal as well.

Yeah, having the STUN lotto come in is nice. But having to depend on it sucks. In Champions, even a good roll on a KA is unlikely to do BODY. Unless the STUN roll comes up 5 or 6, you're pretty much sucking on the damage potential.

Except, as I said, over the course of a fight you expect to come out ahead on the deal, and this becomes more and more true as the defenses go up.

[Paragon]

An alternative interpretation is that:

The fact killing doesn't work that way just says two things to me: Killing doesn't work that way (in other words it has no logical relationship to adding damage) and there are advantages to killing not entirely reflected in the Killing Attack mechanic.



I agree with that currently too, which is why I think KA are underprices.




So you would also eliminate the cap. OK, now we have the 85 STR Brick



You did bother to read my saying that this only works when you treat killing damage as an Advantage and pro-rate strength like you do with any other damage on the base Hand to Hand Attack, right? Because I wouldn't want to assume you were ignoring that just to make a rhethorical point.



buying a 1 DC killing attack to convert all his STR to a 6d6 killing damage, while the second Brick, who decided not to carry a thumb tack, doesn't get to convert his 85 STR into killing damage as a consequence. To me, the logical extrapolation of this approach is to allow STR to shift between killing and normal damage at the discretion of the user.



If my method is used, its pretty much tantamount to what already happens with normal damage, when buying the normal damage HA with an Advantage allows you to do just what I said. Its a cheap way to vary your advantages available, but I don't find that a particularly problematic price to having the relationship maintained.



This comes back to one of my pet peeves:

:eek:You can't get points for a limitation/disadvantage that don't limit/disadvantage you!:eek:

:sneaky:You still have to pay the full cost even if you won't get any benefits from it. :sneaky:



While I agree there's some assymetry there, the difference is that people will often find way to get benefit from things they aren't theoretically going to, but its pretty rare for them to actually have problems with problems they're set up to avoid, so the process isn't really symmetrical in the first place.



To me, failure to correct that discrepancy is the single biggest error 6e can make. If it is useful, pay for it. If not, it should be free. Just as a non-limiting Limitation saves no points, a non-advantageous Advantage or a useless skill is worth no point cost.



And with powers where they're genuinely non-Advantageous, I agree; I just think that's an important pair of caveats in my sentence. I don't hold attributes to the same standard (and don't think generally they should be so held) and think a lot of theoretically non-advantageous Advantages if they're even available at all, will be used.



If the GM allows a limitation/disadvantage, that is a contract with the player that these issues will come up to the detriment of the character. And if the GM allows points to be paid for an ability, that is a contract with the player that these issues will come up to the benefit of the character. Both with a frequency determined by the magnitude of the points saved or spent.

And when players feel the same obligation to hold themselves to such contracts as GMs, I'll buy that; I have little evidence that's even routinely the case except in the most egregious examples.

[Paragon]

well FWIW i think i saw steve l in one of his openings, maybe to skills, saying he was thinking/planning of stressing that you dont have to pay for stuff that doesn't benefit... i think he mentioned something like a obscure knowledge skill at 17- being free if the gm doesnt think it should be worthwhile in the campaign but is a character bit.

so it sounds like the "pay for all" is going by the wayside for 6e.

Its somewhat easier to do that with certain sorts of Knowledges because utility of knowledges is _so_ much at the mercy of the GM; there are other classes of ability where the ability of the player to sidestep the things that theoretically make them useless is much harder to avoid.

As another example, defenses against attack forms that are incredibly rarer should either be very cheap or free, because honestly, the player has no control over that every being useful. Its much harder for this to be reliably the case with offensive abilities (though some certainly possible; Affects Desolid in a campaign where the GM is never or incredibly rarely planning to use anything Desolid, and when he does the hole will be a common attack form, is almost certainly overpriced).

[Paragon]

Incidentally if you use the hit locations in superheroic combat to replace the stun lotto, I would strongly advise against using the body modifiers. Just use the stun, and only for killing attacks (not normal attacks).



Given Body is multiplied after defense, it shouldn't make a huge difference one way or the other.



If your problem is "killing attacks do too much stun" I'd think you are probably in the minority, most people just hate the gross variations and tendency to get very low numbers. Your issue would be a different situation to deal with.

I kind of have a problem with both, though as Kdansky says, you still get a lot of gusting even with hit location; the combination of the Head and Vitals locations is still pretty likely to come up, just not quite as much so.

[Kdansky]

Yes, as paragon clarifies: It's not the amount (well, that too, but that's another discussion entirely: "Why does KA give you AVLD properties and cost the same?" Let us ignore that for a moment).

It does not really matter if the gush