Powers Issues -- General Questions [Archive] - Page 3

Klaus Mogensen

Jun 11th, '08, 03:42 AM

What stops the Claymore wielder also having a knife or two so as to enjoy the same advantages as the knife specialist AND higher damage?
What stops the knife specialist from also carrying a Claymore?
Presumably specialists in one weapon or another have specialized skill levels and/or weapon familiarities. And levels in Knife could well include both hth and thrown attacks.

Skill levels do not add to base damage. A rule that they do, but only for some weapons, is far more a kludge than Deadly Blow.
Nor did I suggest that the rule should only count for some weapons. Consider:

Claymore: 1d6+1 HKA, STR min 10, STR 20 = 2d6 HKA. Add four skill levels for +2 DC base = 2½d6 HKA

Knife: ½D6 HKA, STR min 5, STR 20 = 1d6+1 HKA (because STR can't more than double KA). Add four skill levels for +2 DC base, which allows adding +10 STR, = 2½d6 HKA

With enough skill, the knife wielder becomes as effective as the Claymore wielder, without having to introduce kludgy rules like Deadly Blow.

- Klaus

Klaus Mogensen

Jun 11th, '08, 03:44 AM

It sounds like what is being said is that cinematic characters such as Rittick (remember him? Killed a necromonger with a stab to the heart THROUGH his plate armor?) don't belong in their campaigns.
Find Weakness. Hit location: Vitals. Also see my simple fix above.

- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Jun 11th, '08, 05:55 AM

What stops the knife specialist from also carrying a Claymore?

Presumably specialists in one weapon or another have specialized skill levels and/or weapon familiarities. And levels in Knife could well include both hth and thrown attacks.

What stops both? Concept. Penalize a concept, and watch how fast it disappears from view. Levels with only a claymore (that starts at 1d6+1 KA [? seems light for the claymores I've seen] and goes up) are no more expensive than levels with that Knife (that starts at 1/2 d6 and caps at 1d6+1).

Nothing prevents the Claymore wielder buying the naked advantage "Ranged; Range based on STR" to apply to his Claymore. Look, now it's easy to throw. Very similar to the Deadly Blow "naked adder" the knife specialist wants to buy to bump up his damage.

Can't carry it in a city? Buy a Perk - Soldier. Can carry his sword in the city.

Nor did I suggest that the rule should only count for some weapons. Consider:

Claymore: 1d6+1 HKA, STR min 10, STR 20 = 2d6 HKA. Add four skill levels for +2 DC base = 2½d6 HKA

Knife: ½D6 HKA, STR min 5, STR 20 = 1d6+1 HKA (because STR can't more than double KA). Add four skill levels for +2 DC base, which allows adding +10 STR, = 2½d6 HKA

With enough skill, the knife wielder becomes as effective as the Claymore wielder, without having to introduce kludgy rules like Deadly Blow.

Now add in a Priest who blesses both characters to have +10 STR and watch our Claymore wielder pull into the lead once more. And we also need to decide whether extra damage classes from Martial Arts work like skill levels (base damage) or STR (added damage).

Markdoc

Jun 11th, '08, 07:03 AM

So "all" he has to do is sacrifice 100% of the benefits that all the other characters get from free equipment. Sounds like an expensive concept - probably best to stick to the guy who gets his attack powers for free and only pays points to augment them, not to buy them in the first place.

Shrug. My players are fairly cautious with their points expenditure, but I have had players buy exactly this. Yes, it means you are spending points to get an attack of a similar size to that which another player can get for free. But you are also playing to essentially be able to carry a two-handed sword that you can tuck into your sock and use one-handed.

You pay something ..... and you get extra utility. Sounds like Hero system to me.

Again, in Susano's Kazei5 game, my character bought power armour even though regular body armour could be got for free. So I was spending points for better armour. Was it worth it? Oh god, yes. Despite paying points to get what others got for free, the advantage of being to go beyond what they had access to, made him one of the most effective PCs in the group. Another character paid points to have a specialty handgun that had a limited number of shots but did mondo damage. In heroic games, where standard defences and attacks on free equipment are set, being able to go over those limits is pure gold.

cheers, Mark

Markdoc

Jun 11th, '08, 11:33 AM

Knife: ½D6 HKA, STR min 5, STR 20 = 1d6+1 HKA (because STR can't more than double KA). Add four skill levels for +2 DC base, which allows adding +10 STR, = 2½d6 HKA

Skill levels do not to base (thank god) so Knife: ½D6 HKA, STR min 5, STR 20 = 1d6+1 HKA (because STR can't more than double KA). Add four skill levels for 1d6+1 HKA (because STR can't more than double KA).

There is an easy fix: as suggested, allow the PC to buy HKA. It's rules-legal, it allows the PC to come up to a similar damage level(without having to have huge STR) and the cost is only marginally different.

To me, this discussion sounds like "personally, I don't like this application of the rules, so people should do it another way". The fact that you boost damage with a knife is purely a special effect. The fact that it's achieved via an HKA vs skill levels (or aid or succor) is totally and utterly irrelevant. Reason from effect.

In Hero system, there are often multiple ways to achieve similar effects: I don't think we need to add kludges to achieve effects which are easily doable under the rules as written.

cheers, Mark

Klaus Mogensen

Jun 11th, '08, 11:43 AM

1d6+1 KA [? seems light for the claymores I've seen]
I didn't have the book with me at work. A Great Sword is 2d6 KA with a STR min of 17, so with STR 20, that will still be 2d6, and four skill levels can raise that to 2½d6. Same end result.

Nothing prevents the Claymore wielder buying the naked advantage "Ranged; Range based on STR" to apply to his Claymore. Look, now it's easy to throw.
Can't carry it in a city? Buy a Perk - Soldier. Can carry his sword in the city.
So the Claymore wielder has to pay points to get what the knife wielder gets for free. I would say that counterbalances his getting more damage for free.

Big swords, small knifes; different 'perks' for free. Neither choice of weapon is inherently worse than the other (just different), even without adding complexities like naked advantages.

- Klaus

Paragon

Jun 11th, '08, 12:14 PM

Shrug. My players are fairly cautious with their points expenditure, but I have had players buy exactly this. Yes, it means you are spending points to get an attack of a similar size to that which another player can get for free. But you are also playing to essentially be able to carry a two-handed sword that you can tuck into your sock and use one-handed.

You pay something ..... and you get extra utility. Sounds like Hero system to me.

Paying quite a bit to get a small amount of extra utility doesn't, however. I fail to see why it should cost the full cost to get 4 DC if someone can get 3 DC for free. That doesn't mean I think the current Deadly Strike numbers are good, but I consider buying the whole damage with a flaw just as bad a solution.

And I can almost guarentee that in the majority of cases, people will not spend that much for a marginal benefit, or if they do they'll end up feeling stupid for doing so. In the end, that's why Champions proper ended up charging point for all significant equipment.

Markdoc

Jun 11th, '08, 12:57 PM

Paying quite a bit to get a small amount of extra utility doesn't, however. I fail to see why it should cost the full cost to get 4 DC if someone can get 3 DC for free. That doesn't mean I think the current Deadly Strike numbers are good, but I consider buying the whole damage with a flaw just as bad a solution.

The reason it's a good deal is because any damage over and above the DEF granted by free equipment is essentially NND, does BOD. just gaining 1 or 2 DC is often enough to make the difference between an attack that rarely does BOD and rarely stuns to one that often does BOD and often stuns. You need to look at the effects in context.

And I can almost guarentee that in the majority of cases, people will not spend that much for a marginal benefit, or if they do they'll end up feeling stupid for doing so. In the end, that's why Champions proper ended up charging point for all significant equipment.

You lose :D

In real life, it's actually quite common, in my experience. In both of Susano's games I played in (Kazei5 and Attacked Mystification Police) you had very experienced hero gamers doing exactly that. In my own games, the last 5 campaigns have all had different players and mostly different settings (Sengoku I, Sengoku II, Colonel Carruther's Colonial Company, Inquisitor and the current Seven Kingdoms). In every case, those games had players who bought powers that duplicated (and exceeded) those granted by free equipment and in Sengoku I, (probably the most Hero experienced group I've had in years) those players were the majority (as they are in 7K). I don't recall any of those players expressing regret - many of them, in contrast actually ended up spending more points on similar "feats".

7 different (if occasionally overlapping) groups, 7 different settings, 2 different GMs, games ranging from 100 points to 350 points in starting values and yet each one with players who did what you think players would never do? That tells me it's not a rare situation at all (nor indeed, is that the only time I have seen it: you can add every game where players buy combat luck, for example, duplicating the functionality they could get from armor - even in those games where it doesn't add).

Why? Because as noted, it's a way of getting powers that you cannot get with free equipment or avoiding the limitations inherent in free equipment. So buying 1d6 HKA (weapon of opportunity, real weapon) costs you 9 points and gives you a 2d6 attack that someone else can get for free, with some in-game limitations. In many cases (not all) that might not be worth while. Buying it area affect, nonselective, however, costs you 13 points and can give you the ability to make 1.5 d6 attacks against up to 6 enemies in a single phase: that's priceless. :D

Utility and cost-effectiveness. They are not always the same.

cheers, Mark

Paragon

Jun 11th, '08, 01:08 PM

The reason it's a good deal is because any damage over and above the DEF granted by free equipment is essentially NND, does BOD. just gaining 1 or 2 DC is often enough to make the difference between an attack that rarely does BOD and rarely stuns to one that often does BOD and often stuns. You need to look at the effects in context.

Except that there's no guarentee you'll do that, since the ability to pump up DEF in the system is already easier anyway, as Defenses stack intrinsically in the system; and if that is the primary issue, there are usually better ways to do it independently such as Find Weakness.

You lose :D

You're apparently didn't read my statement closely enough. Since I have little reason to believe many, if any of the participants here have had more encounters with Hero groups over the years than I've had, I stand by my statement and its going to need far more than one or two counters to change my opinion there, which is that for the majority of players its not worth it.

7 different (if occasionally overlapping) groups, 7 different settings, 2 different GMs, games ranging from 100 points to 350 points in starting values and yet each one with players who did what you think players would never do? That tells me it's not a rare situation at all (nor indeed, is that the only time I have seen it: you can add every game where players buy combat luck, for example, duplicating the functionality they could get from armor - even in those games where it doesn't add).

And in every game I've seen over the years, someone would find a better way to produce the same effective result either by hit location manipulation, doing things like linked Drains on Defenses, Find Weakness or others. Again, I'm unconvinced. I'm sorry if that's arrogant on my part, but there it is.

Hugh Neilson

Jun 11th, '08, 02:04 PM

So the Claymore wielder has to pay points to get what the knife wielder gets for free. I would say that counterbalances his getting more damage for free.

No one is arguing that the knife should jump up to 2d6 base damage for free either. The question is how it should be built up, and what the cost should be. In a game where the opposition can stand up to 2 1/2d6 damage inflicted by the claymore, will the knife wielder have any opportunity to feel useful with his maximum damage of 1d6+1, or does "knife specialist" get tossed on the "interesting concept but useless in play" heap?

Paying quite a bit to get a small amount of extra utility doesn't, however. I fail to see why it should cost the full cost to get 4 DC if someone can get 3 DC for free. That doesn't mean I think the current Deadly Strike numbers are good, but I consider buying the whole damage with a flaw just as bad a solution.

And I can almost guarentee that in the majority of cases, people will not spend that much for a marginal benefit, or if they do they'll end up feeling stupid for doing so. In the end, that's why Champions proper ended up charging point for all significant equipment.

This is the root of the problem. I do, however, agree with Markdoc that the present "buy an extra 1d6 KA to add to the knife" Deadly Blow is not the only solution. Aid or Succor might well be a more appropriate base for the talent. [All these posts keep coming up while I'm at work without my books - anyone want to try statting out the Talent using Aid or Succor, instead of +1d6 KA?]

Skill levels do not to base (thank god) so Knife: ½D6 HKA, STR min 5, STR 20 = 1d6+1 HKA (because STR can't more than double KA). Add four skill levels for 1d6+1 HKA (because STR can't more than double KA).

In fairness, Klaus has acknowledged he is suggesting a change to the rules in this regard.

There is an easy fix: as suggested, allow the PC to buy HKA. It's rules-legal, it allows the PC to come up to a similar damage level(without having to have huge STR) and the cost is only marginally different.

Please don't defend it with "rules-legal". Deadly Blow comes from a rule book written by the author of the rules.

It may be an equivalent (or not much different) cost to bump the knife up to sword damage. How does it work for Dan Dragonslayer, who wields his 2 handed sword (2d6 base damage) and wants to add a single DC (2d6+1 base damage) when using his sword against dragons? He pays 35 points (reduced by limitations) to add 1 BOD to his KA? So that's, what, 2d6+1 HKA, OIF Weapon of Opportunity (-1/2), can't exceed base damage of weapon used (-1/2), must apply STR min of weapon used (-1/2?), only versus dragons (-1, say - actual depends on frequency in each game) for 10 points.

Meanwhile Mac the Mage buys a 7d6 Sight Flash, Spell (-1/2), Gestures and Incantations (-1/2), OIF Spell Component Pouch (-1/2), only versus dragons (-1) [sub in whatever your favorite limitations for spells are - I picked some pretty generic crap] for the same 10 points, and runs up and hacks at the blinded beast with his own 2d6 HKA Greatsword.

I wonder who got the best use of his 10 points, huh?

To me, this discussion sounds like "personally, I don't like this application of the rules, so people should do it another way". The fact that you boost damage with a knife is purely a special effect. The fact that it's achieved via an HKA vs skill levels (or aid or succor) is totally and utterly irrelevant. Reason from effect.

In Hero system, there are often multiple ways to achieve similar effects: I don't think we need to add kludges to achieve effects which are easily doable under the rules as written.

While I don't agree with "buy the full KA again", I am open to being persuaded that the Succor/Aid approach is superior.

I have yet to see a rules book cited that indicates clearly that a character may not spend points to add to the power of free equipment directly. Nor, however, have I seen a citation of the rule that says they may.

In respect of the forum and thread topic - the 6e rules - I would like to see this issue specifically stated, one way or the other, in the rule book. If this IS legal, Deadly Blow is fine as is. So are other constructs that add to point-free equipment. If not, it should be reworked using some other book-legal approach which would be equally legitimate to enhance the DCV provided by a shield, the defenses provided by armor, the NND provided by a ZapGun, the defenses provided by a Force Screen Projector and the light provided by a flashlight.

To me, buying "naked increases" to the free equipment is not materially different from buying naked advantages which can be applied to the same equipment. With this in mind, I lean to having the rule book explicitly state that a power which adds to the same power on free equipment is legal.

Vulcan

Jun 11th, '08, 05:29 PM

What stops the knife specialist from also carrying a Claymore?
Presumably specialists in one weapon or another have specialized skill levels and/or weapon familiarities. And levels in Knife could well include both hth and thrown attacks.

Nor did I suggest that the rule should only count for some weapons. Consider:

Claymore: 1d6+1 HKA, STR min 10, STR 20 = 2d6 HKA. Add four skill levels for +2 DC base = 2½d6 HKA

Knife: ½D6 HKA, STR min 5, STR 20 = 1d6+1 HKA (because STR can't more than double KA). Add four skill levels for +2 DC base, which allows adding +10 STR, = 2½d6 HKA

With enough skill, the knife wielder becomes as effective as the Claymore wielder, without having to introduce kludgy rules like Deadly Blow.

- Klaus

Skill levels don't add to base damage.

Quote from 5E p.35, section on Combat Skill Levels:

3) Damage, Heroic Campaigns: Heroic characters can use two CSL's to increase the damage done by a HTH or ranged attack by one Damage Class (up to a maximum of twice its original DC's) (see p. 270 for more information).

Quote from 5E p.270, section on adding damage (at the bottom of the page):

Doubling Damage
You must always follow a basic rule when increasing damage: you cannot more than double the Damage Classes of the base attack, no matter how many different methods you use to add damage.

I agree that Deadly Strike as-is is broken, now that I've looked at it. It should be signifigantly more expensive. That's why in my original example, I didn't buy +1d6 Deadly Strike, I bought 2d6 HKA, 0END, OIF dagger of opportunity. The FX is that he is that darn good with daggers.

Vulcan

Jun 11th, '08, 05:39 PM

<snip>

I have yet to see a rules book cited that indicates clearly that a character may not spend points to add to the power of free equipment directly. Nor, however, have I seen a citation of the rule that says they may.

<snip>

A few pages back, Nexus posted a link to to Steve Long's answer to the question of "can Deadly Strike add to (point-cost) free equipment." The gist of his answer was "Yes - unless the GM rules otherwise." Not terribly helpful for what you're asking.

Markdoc

Jun 11th, '08, 06:33 PM

Please don't defend it with "rules-legal". Deadly Blow comes from a rule book written by the author of the rules.

Yes, but it's a stop sign suggested talent in a genre book. That - to me at least - is quite different from a hero system rule, just as the Turakian age "divide real cost by three for powers with a certain special effect" is. If someone suggested using the "divide by three" paradigm anywhere else, I'd be just as dismissive.

It may be an equivalent (or not much different) cost to bump the knife up to sword damage. How does it work for Dan Dragonslayer, who wields his 2 handed sword (2d6 base damage) and wants to add a single DC (2d6+1 base damage) when using his sword against dragons? He pays 35 points (reduced by limitations) to add 1 BOD to his KA? So that's, what, 2d6+1 HKA, OIF Weapon of Opportunity (-1/2), can't exceed base damage of weapon used (-1/2), must apply STR min of weapon used (-1/2?), only versus dragons (-1, say - actual depends on frequency in each game) for 10 points.

Ah, but here you have stumbled across one of the reasons I do it like this in my games. It's a little cheaper than you suggest (since there is no need for Dan to buy STR min if he doesn't want) but the basic point is still valid. It is expensive to buy a really large attack - which is all to the good, in most cases. Where the "knife expert doing 2d6 HKA, which cannot be further boosted" is unlikely to be unbalancing in an fantasy game, Dan the dragonslayer paying the same cost to do 3d6+1 HKA (which can be further increaesd by haymakers or levels) is unbalancing.

Now Dan can still get his extra damage by other means (for example, the Aid/succour approach, by buying extra STR with limitations, etc). All of these have a definable cost and definable limitations in use, which tends to balance off the damage.

I can't remember how many times I've stated this, but one more time: there are multiple ways to boost damage, in accordance with the existing rules, all with specific differences. Buying extra levels against hit location is one. Buying the HKA straight is another. Buying extra, limited STR is a third, and Aid/succor is a fourth. Buying find weakness is a suitable alternative. I honestly don't see any reason to insist that a player must use one of these and insisting that the others may not be used.

So, for the knife fighter often used as an example, buying the HKA straight is a cost competitive, simple approach. For Dan the Dragonslayer, there are better options - that doesn't mean the first option is suddenly invalid.

I have yet to see a rules book cited that indicates clearly that a character may not spend points to add to the power of free equipment directly. Nor, however, have I seen a citation of the rule that says they may.

There's nothing in the rules themselves to suggest that you may add attacks. There is one example in the genre books which imply you may - deadly blow itself. But if you accept that you may add attacks together (even if you assume you must pay for one of them), then you open a new and even uglier can of worms: if a character has a magic sword (for which he paid points) then it implies that he can add that to a free sword he picks up, to make it even deadlier. If not (and I agree, it's a dumb idea) then you are explicitly saying that "this HKA may be added to other HKAs and this HKA may not - but they cost exactly the same".

In respect of the forum and thread topic - the 6e rules - I would like to see this issue specifically stated, one way or the other, in the rule book. If this IS legal, Deadly Blow is fine as is. So are other constructs that add to point-free equipment. If not, it should be reworked using some other book-legal approach which would be equally legitimate to enhance the DCV provided by a shield, the defenses provided by armor, the NND provided by a ZapGun, the defenses provided by a Force Screen Projector and the light provided by a flashlight.

To me, buying "naked increases" to the free equipment is not materially different from buying naked advantages which can be applied to the same equipment. With this in mind, I lean to having the rule book explicitly state that a power which adds to the same power on free equipment is legal.

I agree with the sentiment that this should be spelled out and would argue very strongly that it should explicitly state that one may NOT be able to leverage the points provided by "free stuff". Use it, yes. Take the points for your own, no. As has been pointed out repeatedly, there are numerous ways to do this already in the rules. I don't see any need to open an ugly balance issue for .... for .... well, for nothing, really.

cheers, Mark

Markdoc

Jun 11th, '08, 06:50 PM

You're apparently didn't read my statement closely enough. Since I have little reason to believe many, if any of the participants here have had more encounters with Hero groups over the years than I've had, I stand by my statement and its going to need far more than one or two counters to change my opinion there, which is that for the majority of players its not worth it.

No, I read it closely enough. You "almost guaranteed" that it wouldn't happen. In fact it does happen, no question at all about that, because we can without problem cite multiple games where it has happened. One cannot prove a negative, but it is easily disproved. That's not to say that every player will choose this route, or even that every game will have players that choose that route, or even that they should.

But quite a few do, and that cannot be denied.

It's been many years since I've played in a game that had a mentalist - but I would not dream of stating that "No player would ever choose a mentalist!" still less suggesting that a rule-legal mentalist build is somehow invalid. I - and my current flock of players - apparently don't care for that power suite, that's all that means. There are quite possibly games where it's common.

And in every game I've seen over the years, someone would find a better way to produce the same effective result either by hit location manipulation, doing things like linked Drains on Defenses, Find Weakness or others. Again, I'm unconvinced. I'm sorry if that's arrogant on my part, but there it is.

I've seen these as well, but "as well as" not "instead of". Find weakness is good, but relatively expensive, slightly unreliable, easily countered and doesn't help for issues like stunning. Drains of defences are more reliable, but require expenditures of extra combat actions. Hit location manipulation is good (and common in my games) but falls down against foes who have no hit locations or "weak spots" (zombies, for example, which are hardly rare in many fantasy games). Sometimes, (often, actually) what you really want is more damage. So why not just buy extra damage?

cheers, Mark

Hugh Neilson

Jun 11th, '08, 07:35 PM

A few pages back, Nexus posted a link to to Steve Long's answer to the question of "can Deadly Strike add to (point-cost) free equipment." The gist of his answer was "Yes - unless the GM rules otherwise." Not terribly helpful for what you're asking.

First, I want it in the rulebook.

Second, I would interpret "Yes - unless the GM rules otherwise." to mean "By the book, you can." The GM is always free to override the by the book rules.

This is consistent with the presentation of Deadly Blow. It is a Stop Sign talent - but unlike, say, the "absolutes" construct or the "desolid as invulnerable still lets your attacks work" construct, both also appearing in FH, it is not noted as a modification to, handwave of, or breach of the standard rules. It is simply a use of the rules which the GM should be careful of, as it could be unbalancing.

I've seen these as well, but "as well as" not "instead of". Find weakness is good, but relatively expensive, slightly unreliable, easily countered and doesn't help for issues like stunning. Drains of defences are more reliable, but require expenditures of extra combat actions. Hit location manipulation is good (and common in my games) but falls down against foes who have no hit locations or "weak spots" (zombies, for example, which are hardly rare in many fantasy games). Sometimes, (often, actually) what you really want is more damage. So why not just buy extra damage?

At its core, that's all Deadly Blow is - +1d6 of extra damage.

You have to choose whether any power acts on its own or blends with another. Pulsar (5er p 282) could have an 8d6 EB and a separate 12d6 EB with varying levels of increased END, or he could have a 20d6 EB, 8d6 at normal END and 12d6 EB with varying levels of increased END. The only additonal wrinkle here is that the base attack is paid for with cash instead of points.

IndianaJoe3

Jun 11th, '08, 07:43 PM

Vulcan

Jun 11th, '08, 07:57 PM

Markdoc

Jun 11th, '08, 08:52 PM

You have to choose whether any power acts on its own or blends with another. Pulsar (5er p 282) could have an 8d6 EB and a separate 12d6 EB with varying levels of increased END, or he could have a 20d6 EB, 8d6 at normal END and 12d6 EB with varying levels of increased END. The only additonal wrinkle here is that the base attack is paid for with cash instead of points.

And that's cool - as long as he buys them one way or the other. They are after all, different things. One is a 60 point power, plus a 40 point power and they can be MPA'ed, have defined (and different) special effects, etc. The other's a 100 point power. It will interact differently with advantages and limitations for cost purposes, and with frameworks or Dispels.

What's not cool is a power that's sometimes a 100 point power and sometimes a 60 point power plus a 40 point power.

It's one or the other.

If you can simply add HKAs together, then this whole discussion becomes moot - the thief can simply buy a 1 pip HKA and then pick up a (free) two handed sword to get his 2d6+1 HKA knife: cheaper than Deadly Blow and more efficient, but using the exact same logic. A wizard would be well advised to pick up a longbow to make his RKA-based spells more efficient, as well. If you say it doesn't work that way, then you're back to saying that some KAs add and other's don't - without a mechanism for identifying which is which.

cheers, Mark

Vulcan

Jun 11th, '08, 09:07 PM

<dryly> Yes. I believe I mentioned that earlier as a weakness in the current system.

ideasmith

Jun 11th, '08, 09:15 PM

Here's my take on adding damage to free attacks:

Adding +1d6 HKA to a 1/2d6 HKA dagger you got free is equivalent adding +15 STR to 10 STR you got free. Since you lose the power if you lose that dagger, you get to apply Focus, or even Independent, depending on how likely you are to lose that dagger/get that dagger back.

However, if you want to add +1d6 HKA to any dagger you pick up, that should require some sort of Power Advantage. If it's a different free dagger, it's a different free HKA. (OTOH, if you are paying points for them, two or more daggers might be part of the same HKA.)

Klaus Mogensen

Jun 12th, '08, 03:18 AM

So how do you determine who moves when, and how much? It can be a bit awkward at times, but I think the system that is in place works reasonable well.

I will listen to suggestions, but I don't think we really need to change this.
I've been suggesting something on similar lines as IndianaJones3. There are several ways of handling this:

Require/suggest that movement/turn to be bought as a multiple of SPD; movement/phase then simply is movement/turn divided by SPD.
Decouple movement from phases and allow continuous movement, X meter per segment for some cost. Characters can move in every segment without spending phases, but maneuvers that require skill or attack rolls still require the use of an action.
The cost of movement/phase is a multiple of SPD (similar to the first suggestion, easier mathematically, but a bit backwards).
- Klaus

Hugh Neilson

Jun 12th, '08, 06:07 AM

And that's cool - as long as he buys them one way or the other. They are after all, different things. One is a 60 point power, plus a 40 point power and they can be MPA'ed, have defined (and different) special effects, etc. The other's a 100 point power. It will interact differently with advantages and limitations for cost purposes, and with frameworks or Dispels.

What's not cool is a power that's sometimes a 100 point power and sometimes a 60 point power plus a 40 point power.

Given the Deadly Blow always requires a weapon to be effective (and I fall into the camp that says it cannot be used with a toothpick, a grain of sand or a handful of moss to get a 1d6 HKA out of a +1d6 HKA), it is always required to add to another power to be effective. It is never a separate 1d6 KA. A 1d6 HKA - Claws would not add to a different KA power (like a sword), but could be used in an MPA.

Your comments bring a further factor to light, however. Like naked advantages, it would seem appropriate that "naked power additions" such as Deadly Blow be prohibited, by default, from being placed in frameworks.

It's one or the other.

It's either additive (deadly blow) or non-additive (claws; I want to say "independent" but that has connotations of its own).

If you can simply add HKAs together, then this whole discussion becomes moot - the thief can simply buy a 1 pip HKA and then pick up a (free) two handed sword to get his 2d6+1 HKA knife: cheaper than Deadly Blow and more efficient, but using the exact same logic.

It IS deadly blow. It's 1 DC instead of 1d6, and it's not limited much. But, in this construct, the thief could not use his 1 pip HKA without a weapon. He has defined it as additive (deadly blow), so it can't be used without something to add it to.

A wizard would be well advised to pick up a longbow to make his RKA-based spells more efficient, as well. If you say it doesn't work that way, then you're back to saying that some KAs add and other's don't - without a mechanism for identifying which is which.

It doesn't seem a major stretch to convert a Deadly Blow construct to an RKA. Some wizards might well have a Mystic Bolt spell - a non-additive RKA. Others might have a Flaming Arrow spell, which isn't of any use without an arrow to Flame and a bow to fire it.

Of course, we still haven't solved the base problem - should the +1 pip HKA "sneak attack" and the +1 pip RKA be available for purchase as an "additive attack power", or should both characters be required to build this using some other construct, most likely some form of Aid or Succor that does not require separate attack actions?

I can live with the "additive power" approach, provided it is applied consistently. If I can buy extra dice to add to weapon damage, I should also be able to buy, say, enhanced defenses (I'm extra-skilled at using armor; my mystic spell fortifies the armor), enhanced movement (my riding skills enable me to spur my mount to greater effort; my magic enhances my mount's speed) and other enhancements to equipment (my spell makes a torch shed light in a broader area; I understand telescopes so well I can further enhance their range).

Perhaps "additive power" should have a series of advantages. At its base, it might be restricted to only one type of equipment (eg. you can enhance knives or chain mail). At various advantage levels, you can broaden the type of equipment (eg. all blades or all metal armor; all HTH weapons or all armor at the extreme). Maybe we set the base at a narrow group and a single item within is a limitation, while a broader group is an advantage. This would not seem unreasonable - the knife fighter pays less because he can only get extra damage from knives, while the demonslayer pays more to add damage to any weapon.

Flip side: if I cannot buy extra dice to add to weapon damage, I should also not be able to buy enhanced defenses, enhanced movement, or other enhancements to equipment. These would be purchased using, for example, the aid/succor model set out previously.

This already has the costs array discussed above. If I can only enhance knives, that's a limitation that will reduce the cost over an Aid/Succor which could enhance any KA. The fact that the Aid/Succor model would vary in cost in this fashion supports, in my view, the need to have the "additive power" model vary in cost based on its breadth.

Hugh Neilson

Jun 12th, '08, 06:13 AM

I've been suggesting something on similar lines as IndianaJones3. There are several ways of handling this:

Require/suggest that movement/turn to be bought as a multiple of SPD; movement/phase then simply is movement/turn divided by SPD.
Decouple movement from phases and allow continuous movement, X meter per segment for some cost. Characters can move in every segment without spending phases, but maneuvers that require skill or attack rolls still require the use of an action.
The cost of movement/phase is a multiple of SPD (similar to the first suggestion, easier mathematically, but a bit backwards).
- Klaus

Overall, it seems a lot of complexity for little net gain. The current system does work, for all its intuitive issues.

I don't like per segment movement because it will slow down the game. Characters have twice as many actions each if they had 6 SPD, and four times as many if they had 3 SPD.

Basing the per phase costs on a multiple of SPD is a problem if characters change SPD. Does a SPD Aid come with a free Movement Aid [it does now, I admit, but under this model, the SPD Aid is adding points to the movement power] or does your per phase move have to be recalculated if your SPD is adjusted? What about limited SPD (I use a construct of activation rolls - roll at PS 12 to determine if your extra SPD activates for the following turn).

Perhaps a better fix might be a greater segregation of "tactical speed" per phase and "travel speed" per turn. That is, your movement is per phase when in combat, but moves to a per turn velocity that is a fixed multiple of your per phase tactical speed once we move to long distance travel. This will have its own logic disconnects, though.

AnotherSkip

Jun 12th, '08, 07:06 AM

Should we decouple Movement Powers from SPD? The simplest way to do it would be to halve the cost of all Movement Powers, but to purchase them on a per-turn basis, instead of per-phase. Purchased movement would be divided up as evenly as possible over a character's phases, with any extra distributed as the GM sees fit. This would combine nicely with the optional rules for segmented movement.

The biggest problem is that movement becomes more expensive - much more, for speedsters. The obvious way to make it cheaper would be to divide the cost of movement by 3, 4, or even 5. However, characters with a SPD lower than the divisor wind up paying less than they would under the original rules.

Well actually a GM of mine tested out (Inches of selected MovementxSpeed)/12. this gave some interesting results everyone moved every phase. thus chases were more interesting in that it wasn't easy to lose or capture anyone based upon speed/intiative/movement alone. Accelleration seemed smoother, and Movement based attacks. The Characters did have to choose to take penalites as either half moving all the time or Full moving all the time whihc did make things like flying dodge and other moving martial arts slightly better.
It also made some of the maps feel too small and others feel too large but then that is probably an illusion.

CTaylor

Jun 12th, '08, 07:54 AM

Segmented movement slows down an already pretty slow combat system in my experience.

Markdoc

Jun 12th, '08, 08:05 AM

However, if you want to add +1d6 HKA to any dagger you pick up, that should require some sort of Power Advantage. If it's a different free dagger, it's a different free HKA. (OTOH, if you are paying points for them, two or more daggers might be part of the same HKA.)

I agree: this is already covered in the rules, though. You can either buy:
#1. Two Daggers (2d6 HKA, 30 active points) - this sort of construct pops up from time to time, usually paired with reduced penetration
or
#2. One Dagger (1d6 HKA, 15 active points) plus Another Dagger (1d6HKA, 5 active points)
But you can't currently buy:
#3. Dagger (1d6 HKA, or more dice of HKA if I can get them from somewhere else, 15 active points)

The first two powers obviously act differently in play, and interact differently with the rest of the rules. If you can just add HKAs, then why not go for the second (much cheaper) buy and add them together? The rules imply that you cannot - just as the special rule for adding a power to another power in a slot make it plain that attack powers cannot normally be added together - this is a special exemption that simulates build #1 above

Which brings us (once again) back to where this whole discussion started. If you can simply add two attack powers together, then that greatly changes the dynamics of the game. Usable by others suddenly become huge, because for a +1/4 advantage you can almost double your teammates' attacks - a 10d6 usable by other EB can be given to your team-mate. He adds it to his 12d6 EB and uses the resulting 22d6 EB to hose down the opposition. For a +1/2 you can do that and still use your (admittedly, relatively puny) EB yourself.

A couple of Paladins can buy their deadly blow with usable by others (Smite evil usable 3 times per day, each charge lasts 1 minute usable by up 4 others) and for 10 points amp every party member's attack by +2d6! :eek:

There are better ways to do this than opening a whole new can of worms.

cheers, Mark

Markdoc

Jun 12th, '08, 08:08 AM

So how do you determine who moves when, and how much? It can be a bit awkward at times, but I think the system that is in place works reasonable well.

I will listen to suggestions, but I don't think we really need to change this.

I'd agree. While the "movement by segments" idea has an intellectual appeal, in practice it's a pain in the ***. Old Hero gamers may recall that vehicles used to move like this. They may also recall that most GM's houseruled vehicles onto phased movement, just as they are handled today, because it was such a pig to deal with.

cheers, Mark

BobGreenwade

Jun 12th, '08, 08:10 AM

nexus

Jun 12th, '08, 08:18 AM

I'd agree. While the "movement by segments" idea has an intellectual appeal, in practice it's a pain in the ***. Old Hero gamers may recall that vehicles used to move like this. They may also recall that most GM's houseruled vehicles onto phased movement, just as they are handled today, because it was such a pig to deal with.

cheers, Mark

I'm seriously considering houserules that decouple movement from Speed mainly because it causes me some major headaches when it comes to describing fight scenes in a text format without them reading as really odd and it also lends to that "freeze frame Hero" feeling even in mapped combat. But it's a personal issue not something even I feel is appropriate to include in a core book accept, at best, an example rules modification.

nexus

Jun 12th, '08, 08:25 AM

For any interested, I've started a thread about how to handle segmented movement in Hero

Paragon

Jun 12th, '08, 08:26 AM

No, I read it closely enough. You "almost guaranteed" that it wouldn't happen. In fact it does happen, no

"in the majority of cases" being the important clause. One local group does not define "the majority of cases" because groups, even semi-seperate ones with overlapping membership tend to share game culture.

But quite a few do, and that cannot be denied.

49% could, and I'd still consider it a bad idea as a general solution.

I've seen these as well, but "as well as" not "instead of". Find weakness is good, but relatively expensive, slightly unreliable, easily countered and doesn't help for issues like stunning. Drains of defences are more reliable, but

Well, barring superheroic settings, you don't need a huge damage jump to get stunning out of conventional weapon. A regular damage dagger or other small weapon can get up to 1d6+1, and that's sufficient to stun most targets depending on where it hits. And while Find Weakness is easily countered, its counter is rarely going to be generally present outside of a superhero game or some sorts of martial arts games, and perhaps not even there. It is somewhat pricey, but at 10 points for the minimum, its not going to be any worse than other solutions here, and at least potentially can produce far more value against high defenses.

require expenditures of extra combat actions. Hit location manipulation is good

Not if you link them, or simply buy them seperately and use the multiple powers rules.

(and common in my games) but falls down against foes who have no hit locations or "weak spots" (zombies, for example, which are hardly rare in many fantasy games). Sometimes, (often, actually) what you really want is more damage. So why not just buy extra damage?

But you're not letting them do that. What you're telling them to do is effectively buy a bigger damage seperate attack. At that point, why not just use a bigger weapon in the first place?

nexus

Jun 12th, '08, 08:28 AM

Maybe make what some players have been assuming explicit? Create a "Stackable" Advantage that carries with it the limitation "can't be used independently"?

Paragon

Jun 12th, '08, 08:33 AM

Maybe make what some players have been assuming explicit? Create a "Stackable" Advantage that carries with it the limitation "can't be used independently"?

I'm not sure in practice the latter would mean that much; I mean the moment you apply it to normal damage, anyone with a Strength of 5 or more has something to stack it with anyway.

Or put another way, is this just really another discussion tiptoeing around the question of whether killing damage is too good?

Paragon

Jun 12th, '08, 08:36 AM

I'd agree. While the "movement by segments" idea has an intellectual appeal, in practice it's a pain in the ***. Old Hero gamers may recall that vehicles used to move like this. They may also recall that most GM's houseruled vehicles onto phased movement, just as they are handled today, because it was such a pig to deal with.

cheers, Mark

Well, having some things that did phased movement and some that did segmented was effectively the worst of both worlds, so that didn't help.

But I have to agree I'm not sure segmentizing movement is an improvement; it turns the process into a lot more little niggling management than I'm convinced is justified by the benefit.

Markdoc

Jun 12th, '08, 08:42 AM

I think a lot of the discussion on Deadly Strike reflects something that I've already said (in the Advantages thread) regarding Naked Advantages.

I pointed out that a Naked Advantage costs the same regardless of whether it applies to just one specific Power, any of a particular class of Power, or any Power to which the Advantage is legitimate. It would appear that something similar needs to be applied for "add-on Powers," such as that used to build Deadly Strike -- the basic cost for something like this should cost the basic ability, but the cost should go up when it can apply to more than one thing, in roughly the same manner as what applies to Adjustment Powers.

Again, agreed. I've been pondering this exact idea throughout the thread and it had occurred to me that something similar to "variable advantage" might be in order - but see my reservations below.

I've long thought the same about NPAs - that an advantage to NPAs to control how they are used, might be useful. I've played around a wee bit with numbers, starting from the idea that NPA itself should be an advantage - one applied alongside the assorted advantages to let them float in the first place, and then stepping up in cost depending on how the NPA's applied.

If this were done, both NPA (and other powers, but it would affect primarily attacks and movement) could take an advantage - which would allow you to add a power to the same power with a specific special effect, and - at a higher level - to add it to the same power with a similar special effect. You could use this for a Deadly blow effect.

I have major concerns though (the reason I hadn't mentioned it). One is that this treads very heavily on Aid's ground, rendering Aid largely irrelevant in many cases - why pay for a power that fades when you can just buy a "usable by others, Can Add" power that no longer consumes an attack action to distribute and doesn't fade? In addition, especially for larger powers, it could easily become unbalancing, particularly as a cheap slot in a multipower, or VPP alongside your standard attacks. That'd give - for very little cost - the ability to either make a standard attack of your own or greatly amp a team-mate's attack. Think about it: how much of an advantage should it be to, say, double an attack? A whole heapin' lot is the answer - more or less equivalent to the cost of the power itself, suggesting that "Can Add" should be +1 and scale with the cost of the power being added to. That's an ugly construct.

One of the reasons that D&D 3.5 became so unbalanced was the ability to add attacks, or double (or even triple, or worse) the effect of attacks, which is why the current edition completely dumped that paradigm in favour of "add +1" or "add +2". So while I like the idea at a gut level, game analysis suggests it's actually not a good idea.

It's why I am so opposed to the idea that has evolved out of Deadly Blow that you can add attacks: if that were applied at the system level it would grossly tilt the balance of the game. Imagine if you will, a character with a NPA: usable by others, which he can apply to any of his powers and give those powers to others so that they can add them to their own powers. That'd increase damage output dramatically, for only a few points.

cheers, Mark

Markdoc

Jun 12th, '08, 09:03 AM

"in the majority of cases" being the important clause. One local group does not define "the majority of cases" because groups, even semi-seperate ones with overlapping membership tend to share game culture.

49% could, and I'd still consider it a bad idea as a general solution.

In this case, I was talking about different GMs running different games in different countries - there's some overlap between a couple of those games and zero between others. You are of course perfectly welcome to say "I consider it a bad idea". All GMs have ideas about how they would like PCs to be built: look at Kristopher's post about his Vampire Game - the GM there has a very clear idea of "how PCs should be built" - which doesn't suit all of his players. I was merely pointing out that it's untrue to say that players would almost never do that, because in fact many do: and several of these are published Hero game authors - it's not like a mistake that Hero noobs would make. In some cases, it makes excellent sense

So it's perfectly OK to say "I think it's a bad idea" - I've said that about allowing NPAs in heroic level games. I know several GMs who feel the same - but there are also some on these boards who don't. The same in this case. You might not consider it a good idea - but plenty of people use it anyway. If they want to, where's the problem?

Well, barring superheroic settings, you don't need a huge damage jump to get stunning out of conventional weapon. A regular damage dagger or other small weapon can get up to 1d6+1, and that's sufficient to stun most targets depending on where it hits. And while Find Weakness is easily countered, its counter is rarely going to be generally present outside of a superhero game or some sorts of martial arts games, and perhaps not even there. It is somewhat pricey, but at 10 points for the minimum, its not going to be any worse than other solutions here, and at least potentially can produce far more value against high defenses.

Actually, a 1d6+1 weapon generates an average of 4 BOD and 12 Stun. against even a normal with any sort of armour at all, that's not going to stun. Against a normal with chainmail (hardly extravagant) it will do BOD on one hit in 6 and stun about one time in 6: meaning that our hypothetical knifefighter is likely going to struggle against armoured foes. Realistic, actually, but not terribly heroic.

Now the other options mentioned - I pointed them out myself - can ameliorate that, but they all have some advantages and some limitations compared to just buying a larger HKA. I get that you prefer these options - but you still haven't said anything to suggest why they should be the only options apart from "I don't like the idea of PCs buying HKA"

But you're not letting them do that. What you're telling them to do is effectively buy a bigger damage seperate attack. At that point, why not just use a bigger weapon in the first place?

Because :rolleyes: the players in question wanted a weapon with high damage output that wasn't a two handed sword or a greataxe - that could be smuggled into places where the larger weapons were not an option, or simply because it fitted their character concept. Cost efficiency - in my eyes - is a good thing, and I encourage it. But it is not the be-all and end-all of character design.

So yes, I am letting them do that. They want more damage output, I say (more or less) "Sure, buy as much as you want" secure in the knowledge that the cost will keep them from going hog wild.

cheers, Mark

Paragon

Jun 12th, '08, 09:37 AM

Again, agreed. I've been pondering this exact idea throughout the thread and it had occurred to me that something similar to "variable advantage" might be in order - but see my reservations below.

As I commented when Bob brought this up before, I'm there too; Naked Power Advantages have some uses, but too often they're really used as "Floating Power Advantages", and those don't seem the same thing to me.

I have major concerns though (the reason I hadn't mentioned it). One is that this treads very heavily on Aid's ground, rendering Aid largely irrelevant in many cases - why pay for a power that fades when you can just buy a "usable by others, Can Add" power that no longer consumes an attack action

Well, honestly, if the game had a decent way to add powers to other powers generically, I'm not sure Aid as such would be necessary; its often a bad tool to represent what you're doing anyway; I found I was using Succor more as-is. Alternatively, if there was a way to add Advantages with Aid/Succor, it'd be the general tool for this. (This doesn't solve the problem of Aid not adding to figureds with characteristics, but given some of what seem the trend in Steve's thought, that might be moot anyway).

[/quote]
or VPP alongside your standard attacks. That'd give - for very little cost - the ability to either make a standard attack of your own or greatly amp a team-mate's attack. Think about it: how much of an advantage should it be

[/quote]

Its easy enough for that to be the case to some degree with Aid as-is.

It's why I am so opposed to the idea that has evolved out of Deadly Blow that you can add attacks: if that were applied at the system level it would grossly tilt the balance of the game. Imagine if you will, a character with a NPA: usable by others, which he can apply to any of his powers and give those powers to others so that they can add them to their own powers. That'd increase damage output dramatically, for only a few points.

cheers, Mark

The question is, why is that any worse than the already extent ability to do that with Defenses?

Paragon

Jun 12th, '08, 09:48 AM

In this case, I was talking about different GMs running different games in different countries - there's some overlap between a couple of those games and zero between others. You are of course perfectly welcome to say "I consider it a bad idea". All GMs have ideas about how they would like PCs to be built: look at Kristopher's post about his

And I've seen many where the opposite would occur. This isn't me as a GM talking; its me as pocket game designer. I did say "as a general case". I think my statement about how most players would react is correct in the majority of cases, and little I've seen over the years including the same sorts of things you're talking about tells me I'm wrong.

Vampire Game - the GM there has a very clear idea of "how PCs should be built" - which doesn't suit all of his players. I was merely pointing out that it's untrue to say that players would almost never do that, because in fact many
do: and several of these are published Hero game authors - it's not like a

I'd say they rarely would, and I stand by my opinion I'm afraid. Yours is a set of contrary data points, but I already have quite a few data points, so that isn't enough to change my mind. And I'll note mine includes groups run by the original designers of the game, and other published Hero authors.

So it's perfectly OK to say "I think it's a bad idea" - I've said that about allowing NPAs in heroic level games. I know several GMs who feel the same - but there are also some on these boards who don't. The same in this case. You might not consider it a good idea - but plenty of people use it anyway. If they want to, where's the problem?

Its not if its not the only option. However if it is the only option I think it produces countra-desireable consequences (the same way early experiments with allowing mundane equipment availability for free in superheroic games did, which is why it didn't end up being the default).

Actually, a 1d6+1 weapon generates an average of 4 BOD and 12 Stun. against even a normal with any sort of armour at all, that's not going to stun.

Note however this was in the context of using other methods to make it better; that gusts well enough that if you're, saying peeling off some of the defense, you'll still stun them pretty often. Among other things, for the price of your bought power, you could buy enough levels to aim for a high-shot in locations. Players in heroic scale games without hit locations are, of course, stuck between a rock and a hard place here to some extent.

Against a normal with chainmail (hardly extravagant) it will do BOD on one hit in 6 and stun about one time in 6: meaning that our hypothetical knifefighter is likely going to struggle against armoured foes. Realistic, actually, but not terribly heroic.

That's exactly where the Find Weakness starts to pay for itself pretty well, though.

Now the other options mentioned - I pointed them out myself - can ameliorate that, but they all have some advantages and some limitations compared to just buying a larger HKA. I get that you prefer these options - but you still haven't said anything to suggest why they should be the only options apart from "I don't like the idea of PCs buying HKA"

I don't think they should be the only options. I think they should be able to buy an Aid or (probably better) Succor. I just think the "damage with flaw" method overcharges for the issue in active cost and scales poorly, neither of which is a desireable solution.

So yes, I am letting them do that. They want more damage output, I say (more or less) "Sure, buy as much as you want" secure in the knowledge that the cost will keep them from going hog wild.

cheers, Mark

And in my opinion, in the case of most players it'd simply keep them from doing it at all, which makes it an undesireable approach to my view.

James Gillen

Jun 12th, '08, 10:05 AM

I agree: this is already covered in the rules, though. You can either buy:
#1. Two Daggers (2d6 HKA, 30 active points) - this sort of construct pops up from time to time, usually paired with reduced penetration
or
#2. One Dagger (1d6 HKA, 15 active points) plus Another Dagger (1d6HKA, 5 active points)
But you can't currently buy:
#3. Dagger (1d6 HKA, or more dice of HKA if I can get them from somewhere else, 15 active points)

The first two powers obviously act differently in play, and interact differently with the rest of the rules. If you can just add HKAs, then why not go for the second (much cheaper) buy and add them together? The rules imply that you cannot - just as the special rule for adding a power to another power in a slot make it plain that attack powers cannot normally be added together - this is a special exemption that simulates build #1 above

Which brings us (once again) back to where this whole discussion started. If you can simply add two attack powers together, then that greatly changes the dynamics of the game. Usable by others suddenly become huge, because for a +1/4 advantage you can almost double your teammates' attacks - a 10d6 usable by other EB can be given to your team-mate. He adds it to his 12d6 EB and uses the resulting 22d6 EB to hose down the opposition. For a +1/2 you can do that and still use your (admittedly, relatively puny) EB yourself.

A couple of Paladins can buy their deadly blow with usable by others (Smite evil usable 3 times per day, each charge lasts 1 minute usable by up 4 others) and for 10 points amp every party member's attack by +2d6! :eek:

There are better ways to do this than opening a whole new can of worms.

cheers, Mark
You're the one opening a can of worms. Deadly Blow ISN'T Usable By Others and the GM would have to approve such. And as currently constructed, it's a Talent and thus not usable in a Framework (so I don't know where that idea started either).

jg

Tonio

Jun 12th, '08, 10:30 AM

Markdoc

Jun 12th, '08, 11:12 AM

Its easy enough for that to be the case to some degree with Aid as-is.

There's two major differences. The first is that Aid,by itself is totally useless. You can't do anything with it than increase another power and it's not terribly cost-efficient: you get 6 points of increase for 5 points and two phases - plus the "fade effect". An attack, however is usually useful - and becomes grossly more powerful if, for a small cost, you can near double it by adding it to another attack. That way you have your own small attack for shooting minions and when a larger threat appears several of you team up to shoot one "mega-attack" to take it down. The combination of slower buildup and fade means it's expensive to simulate that degree of utility with Aid alone.

To take an example, Wolveroach has a 3d6 HKA (big pincers), usable by others (56 active). Aidmonster has 6d6 aid to HKA (60 active). Both attempt to help their teammate Captain Wolver, who has a 3d6 HKA (razor-edged shield). Wolverroach can just pass off 3d6, boosting the shield to 6d6 HKA in one hit. As long as he pays the END, that's it: he can continue attacking or doing whatever he wants and it doesn't fade. Aidmonster on the other hand, can boost Captain Wolver's shield by 18.5 points per phase on average - it takes him 2 phases of activity to boost Cap's shield by 2d6+1 HKA and that's the maximum he can deliver, even though he's paid more points. He'd need 8d6 Aid and 3 phases to reach the same degree of potency as Wolveroach - and his Aid fades so he needs to be spending a phase very turn topping it up. His Aid is otherwise useless - all it does is Aid - while Wolveroach can use his HKA for cuttin' stuff up, when he's not helping out - and the "sharable attack" costs less.

I'd be very, very wary indeed about making such a change to the base rules, though I would like to see Aid tweaked to make it a little more useful than it is and to fuse Aid/succor back into a single, simpler power. As a start, keeping Aid at 10 points per dice but letting it add up without limit just as transfer does would be a start - and perhaps allowing you to maintain the "aided" point by paying END - the cost of pushing the fade rate back should keep it balanced.

The question is, why is that any worse than the already extent ability to do that with Defenses?

A character's own defences already stack (to some extent) and are priced to reflect that. Attacks don't stack and are priced to reflect that. Being able to double or near double an attack means two things.
1. PCs will be encouraged to buy such high defences that "undoubled" attacks are completely useless
and/or
2. The game becomes a question of "who shoots first" - because it becomes possible to cheaply and quickly boost an attack for one-shot takedowns.

I don't want either of those things.

cheers, Mark

Markdoc

Jun 12th, '08, 11:31 AM

Mark, please stop mentioning how "two HKA's shouldn't stack, I can't add my 'Firebolts' RKA to my bow, etc.". That's a straw man argument. Nobody's claimed (as far as I can tell) that you can add together two HKAs. The option to buy a power (like HKA, for example) defined as adding to another, rather than being a standalone power, is not the same as the option to add two powers.

Actually that's exactly and precisely the argument that has been made. People have claimed repeatedly that it's OK to add attacks: if it wasn't OK, after all, it would be necessary to admit that Deadly Blow is an odd construct unlike anything else.

Go back and read the thread: the specific statement was that it's perfectly OK, because deadly blow is simply - and I quote "+1d6 HKA, OIF weapon of opportunity". If that's the case, and there is no special rule for "may add to existing attacks but does nothing by itself" (and so far no-one has pointed to anything of the kind: even Deadly Blow's own comments include no such disclaimer) then it implies that you may add attacks. In which case, adding a bow's RKA to your 2d6 RKA spell is exactly the same. You have bought an RKA and you are adding free equipment to it (or vice versa: taking free equipment and adding your RKA to it gives the same effect). For that matter, if Deadly Blow is exactly the same as "+1d6 HKA, OIF weapon of opportunity" then it has the same basic power descriptor as a free shortsword, which is "+1d6 HKA, OIF weapon of opportunity, STR min, Real Weapon". If you can add the first to the second - which is directly what you are stating is OK, isn't it? - can you point me to the rules explaining why you can add the one HKA to the other, but not add two of the second HKAs together?

Moreover, there are no rules as far as I can see limiting this "attack adding" to free weapons, after all, it's just "+1d6 HKA, OIF weapon of opportunity" right? Nor does it apply only to powers that require OIF. It's already been commented that Deadly Blow can apply to barehanded attacks - so logically if you can add attacks to attacks you already have, then yes, adding a longbow to power up your firebolt spell is exactly as legal.

And exactly as dumb.

It only looks like a strawman argument to a casual glance, because the outcome's so obviously daft. But it isn't a strawman argument: it is in fact, exactly the argument being made. I chose it to make the point that a logical application of that decision to allow attacks to stack is going to lead to daft results.

cheers, Mark

CTaylor

Jun 12th, '08, 12:06 PM

It better be OK to add attacks, that's a pretty standard fantasy source material concept.

Markdoc

Jun 12th, '08, 01:40 PM

It better be OK to add attacks, that's a pretty standard fantasy source material concept.

Actually, I haven't read any fantasy novels where the game mechanics are discussed.

cheers, Mark

Vulcan

Jun 12th, '08, 05:01 PM

I've been suggesting something on similar lines as IndianaJones3. There are several ways of handling this:

Require/suggest that movement/turn to be bought as a multiple of SPD; movement/phase then simply is movement/turn divided by SPD.
Decouple movement from phases and allow continuous movement, X meter per segment for some cost. Characters can move in every segment without spending phases, but maneuvers that require skill or attack rolls still require the use of an action.
The cost of movement/phase is a multiple of SPD (similar to the first suggestion, easier mathematically, but a bit backwards).
- Klaus

Your first suggestion isn't bad, but then you still have movement tied to SPD, even if it isn't bought that way.

Your second suggestion has merit, especially for vehicles. But I can see it getting horribly complicated and slowing an already lengthy combat system down by a signifigant amount. And it makes speedsters more vulnerable to the SPLAT syndrome, when they move a large distance on a segment they don't have a phase in. Sure, it'll be more realistic, but I don't think I've EVER seen the Flash or Quicksilver do a face-plant on a wall because they were running too fast to turn, so is it genre realistic?

Your third suggestion, while interesting, seems to penalize speedster and other high-SPD characters simply for having a high SPD. 10 points per SPD is a lot, and I don't think you should penalize a character for having a high level of something they paid a lot of points for. And I suppose this also holds true for your first suggestion as well.

Vulcan

Jun 12th, '08, 05:07 PM

Vulcan

Jun 12th, '08, 05:11 PM

<snip>

But you're not letting them do that. What you're telling them to do is effectively buy a bigger damage seperate attack. At that point, why not just use a bigger weapon in the first place?

It's called character concept.

Case in point: Rittick wouldn't have been half as impressive if he had shoved a greatsword through the necromonger's heart, now, would he?;)

Vulcan

Jun 12th, '08, 05:14 PM

<snip>

It's why I am so opposed to the idea that has evolved out of Deadly Blow that you can add attacks: if that were applied at the system level it would grossly tilt the balance of the game. Imagine if you will, a character with a NPA: usable by others, which he can apply to any of his powers and give those powers to others so that they can add them to their own powers. That'd increase damage output dramatically, for only a few points.

cheers, Mark

I'd expect, oh, I don't know, perhaps, the GM might say NO to that.

James Gillen

Jun 12th, '08, 05:18 PM

Vulcan

Jun 12th, '08, 05:43 PM

<snip>

To take an example, Wolveroach has a 3d6 HKA (big pincers), usable by others (56 active). Aidmonster has 6d6 aid to HKA (60 active). Both attempt to help their teammate Captain Wolver, who has a 3d6 HKA (razor-edged shield). Wolverroach can just pass off 3d6, boosting the shield to 6d6 HKA in one hit. As long as he pays the END, that's it: he can continue attacking or doing whatever he wants and it doesn't fade. Aidmonster on the other hand, can boost Captain Wolver's shield by 18.5 points per phase on average - it takes him 2 phases of activity to boost Cap's shield by 2d6+1 HKA and that's the maximum he can deliver, even though he's paid more points. He'd need 8d6 Aid and 3 phases to reach the same degree of potency as Wolveroach - and his Aid fades so he needs to be spending a phase very turn topping it up. His Aid is otherwise useless - all it does is Aid - while Wolveroach can use his HKA for cuttin' stuff up, when he's not helping out - and the "sharable attack" costs less.
<snip>

Why do you keep arguing that as soon as someone buys an attack, he's automatically going to add it to all his own weapons and, by the way, buy 'useable by others' so he can add it to his friends weapons too!?

NO GM I HAVE EVER MET will allow the absurdities you are using as your examples. Please stop using them as examples. Sorry for the harshenss, but geez, no one in their right mind would allow someone who has built-in claws to buy 'useable by others' on their HKA, even though by the rules they technically can.

The sidebar on 5E p.336 contains part of '8 PRINCIPLES FOR INTREPRETING AND APPLYING THE HERO SYSTEM RULES' #2 reads, "Any and all rules are subject to change: The GM can change any rule to improve the game. The written rules are just guidelines and suggestions; change them to suit yourself, to make your games more exciting, dramatic, and fun."

If you don't want the PC's in your game to use a Deadly Strike-style construct, then don't let them. Just don't insist that the rest of us also follow what is, after all, your own house rule! I quote 5E p.346. "...it's wrong to remove or change a worthwhile or fun rule just becase some gamer gan exploit or abuse it. That's a disservice to the good gamers who will use the rules as it's intended to be used and have a lot of fun doing so - it penalizes them because other gamers are going to act like jerks and misuse the rule."

Should Deadly strike be fixed in 6E? Yes. I think we pretty much all agree on that. Should the issue of 'naked powers' adding onto other powers be addressed in 6E? Again, I think we all agree that yes, it should. That's pretty much all of this whole discussion so far that has actually been relevent to the point of the forum, which is 'What general changes need to be made to powers in 6E?"

Let's start looking at ideas for how to make the knife-fighter fun, rather than just saying 'he's a knife-figher so he should suck." How do we give him a damage boost without leaving a truck-sized hole for the rules-lawyers to drive through.

Vulcan

Jun 12th, '08, 05:45 PM

He would've been that much better if he'd used a spoon.

jg

Does a teacup count?

And thanks for breaking up my five-post marathon, James.

CTaylor

Jun 12th, '08, 07:12 PM

Actually, I haven't read any fantasy novels where the game mechanics are discussed.

Gee, so you've never read a book or seen any fantasy source material where any mage adds more damage or more power to someone's weapons or attacks? Not read much, I presume.

Hugh Neilson

Jun 12th, '08, 07:56 PM

I have major concerns though (the reason I hadn't mentioned it). One is that this treads very heavily on Aid's ground, rendering Aid largely irrelevant in many cases - why pay for a power that fades when you can just buy a "usable by others, Can Add" power that no longer consumes an attack action to distribute and doesn't fade?

Funny...between 4e and 5e, there was a huge need to reduce the power of Aid. Now, all we hear about is how useless Aid is. Perhaps the pendulum swung too far the other way and Aid needs to be reduced in cost/enhanced in effectiveness in 6e.

We also have the "Aid, Self Only" conundrum where, for 7 points, I can buy a power that will use two attack actions to add 6 points to one stat, which points then fade away. For the same 7 points, I could buy +6 to the stat that always works, never fades, requires no attack actions and costs less.

So "it renders Aid obsolete" is not, in my view, a reason to avoid anything.

In addition, especially for larger powers, it could easily become unbalancing, particularly as a cheap slot in a multipower, or VPP alongside your standard attacks. That'd give - for very little cost - the ability to either make a standard attack of your own or greatly amp a team-mate's attack. Think about it: how much of an advantage should it be to, say, double an attack? A whole heapin' lot is the answer - more or less equivalent to the cost of the power itself, suggesting that "Can Add" should be +1 and scale with the cost of the power being added to. That's an ugly construct

Well, we certainly wouldn't want to introduce a construct which could possibly be abused, would we? There certainly aren't any in the game at this point, right? Or I suppose we could rely on player reasonableness and GM judgement. We could also rule that "naked adder to power" is like "naked power advantage" and cannot be put in a framework.

Hugh Neilson

Jun 12th, '08, 07:59 PM

It's why I am so opposed to the idea that has evolved out of Deadly Blow that you can add attacks: if that were applied at the system level it would grossly tilt the balance of the game. Imagine if you will, a character with a NPA: usable by others, which he can apply to any of his powers and give those powers to others so that they can add them to their own powers. That'd increase damage output dramatically, for only a few points.

Imagine a character with Aid with a long fade rate in a multipower. Hey, they're only MP slots - everyone on the team can have a couple, and we can bump all the stats up for everyone.

We get it, Markdoc. Stackable abilities could be abused. If we remove anything that could be abused from the system, what would be left?

Vulcan

Jun 12th, '08, 08:27 PM

Damn little.

AnotherSkip

Jun 13th, '08, 05:28 AM

He would've been that much better if he'd used a spoon.

jg

especially if he did it so it would hurt more.

I think there is sufficient argument that getting +15 active points of a power costs somewhere on the order to 50 points to do it via aid. I did the math once as an argument for a character of mine to actually buy the thing, rather than do it in a multipower. Sometimes Steve just can't rationalise mechanically speaking his concepts, as we see in 5e talents with edietic memory. He apparently doesn't think that +1d6 HKA should cost 50 points just to make a knife fighter concept worthwhile. While cool, it doesnt help that there is no real reason to deny the Greatsword fighter the same thing.

frankly Deadly blow IMNSHO should be scrapped, if for no other reason than it leads to aggravation in the form of arms races. Simply Ask the Gm for the "free" daggers in your hands to do as much damage as the "free" greatsword for perhaps a few points in price and be done with it and the crazy construction.

Paragon

Jun 13th, '08, 09:32 AM

There's two major differences. The first is that Aid,by itself is totally useless. You can't do anything with it than increase another power and it's not terribly cost-efficient: you get 6 points of increase

I'll note that in practice, with normal damage the first is a difference that makes no difference, as everyone but people with a Strength less than 3 already have that.

The cost issue is different, but then, I've never defended the cost structure; I'm just noting here that there's little practical difference between a power that stacks with another power and Aid as long as they both add to base damage.

usually useful - and becomes grossly more powerful if, for a small cost, you can near double it by adding it to another attack. That way you have your

However, as far as I know, there's nothing about having damage that is simply bought to stack with other damage that says its usable by itself when you do that. The two don't go together in cognitive way (and though I don't like it on cost grounds, my reading of Deadly Blow doesn't seem to suggest it does this).

A character's own defences already stack (to some extent) and are priced to reflect that. Attacks don't stack and are priced to reflect that. Being able to double or near double an attack means two things.

Honestly, I don't think this has a meaingful impact on this; in superheroic games, if the pricing is done correctly you need a secondary limiter on damage or people pump it up anyway (same as with Defenses) and in non-superheroic ones, the only question is whether you have any method of boosting either beyond certain limits.

1. PCs will be encouraged to buy such high defences that "undoubled" attacks are completely useless
and/or
2. The game becomes a question of "who shoots first" - because it becomes possible to cheaply and quickly boost an attack for one-shot takedowns.

Without secondary defense and attack caps, this describes Champions as-is.

Paragon

Jun 13th, '08, 09:36 AM

<snip>

It's called character concept.

Case in point: Rittick wouldn't have been half as impressive if he had shoved a greatsword through the necromonger's heart, now, would he?;)

When people have to evoke character concept because something is otherwise too attractive/unattractive, I consider that an acknowledgement up front that the rules aren't doing what they should; you shouldn't have to chose between game effectiveness and roleplaying concept, or your game system has failed you to the degree you do.

Markdoc

Jun 13th, '08, 11:42 AM

I didn't know that vehicles used to use that rule. Well. That settles that, then. Steve's already said he's not going back to any old rules that got taken out.

Actually, all that was in pre-Steve days. :D

It's one of those things that actually makes good sense but is simply a pig to try and deal with - you have players sailing away when they can't actually do anything like everyone was mounted on skateboards.

cheers, Mark

Markdoc

Jun 13th, '08, 11:43 AM

I'd expect, oh, I don't know, perhaps, the GM might say NO to that.

Why introduce a new rule, then, the function of which is mostly to induce the GM to say no? There are very, very few situations where the ability to add attacks together would not be abusive.

cheers, Mark

Markdoc

Jun 13th, '08, 11:45 AM

Gee, so you've never read a book or seen any fantasy source material where any mage adds more damage or more power to someone's weapons or attacks? Not read much, I presume.

I've read a lot - but there are multiple ways of doing that in Hero system, and fanatasy books have never indicated which mechanism is in use. :D

cheers. Mark

Markdoc

Jun 13th, '08, 11:55 AM

Funny...between 4e and 5e, there was a huge need to reduce the power of Aid. Now, all we hear about is how useless Aid is. Perhaps the pendulum swung too far the other way and Aid needs to be reduced in cost/enhanced in effectiveness in 6e.

We also have the "Aid, Self Only" conundrum where, for 7 points, I can buy a power that will use two attack actions to add 6 points to one stat, which points then fade away. For the same 7 points, I could buy +6 to the stat that always works, never fades, requires no attack actions and costs less.

I think this is pretty accurate: Aid could easily be abusive in 4E - but the changes made to it in 5E nerfed it too severely. My suggestion would be to keep the price where it is, but improve the utility slightly and hopefully we'll get it right this time :D

So "it renders Aid obsolete" is not, in my view, a reason to avoid anything.

My preference would be to repair Aid, rather than introduce new constructs to largely duplicate it - particularly if they were far more effective.

Well, we certainly wouldn't want to introduce a construct which could possibly be abused, would we? There certainly aren't any in the game at this point, right? Or I suppose we could rely on player reasonableness and GM judgement. We could also rule that "naked adder to power" is like "naked power advantage" and cannot be put in a framework.

Sure, but to me it's the height of thickheadedness to add a new rule, in the sure knowledge that it is terribly easily abused. Hero is supposed to be a generic rules-set, a toolkit if you like. But most toolkits don't contain a bomb wired to one of the draws on the off-chance that you might want to blow someone up with your toolbox every now and then.

If there was compelling reason for a new, easily abusable rule, I might see the point, but so far no-one has actually floated one. We mostly agree that allowing people to increase attacks is a useful power. There exist many ways to do that (for HKA at least) - why introduce new rule which is hideously easy to abuse, simply to validate a talent in a genre book?

cheers, Mark

Vulcan

Jun 13th, '08, 04:14 PM

I agree. Let's try and come up with a way to do a "Deadly Strike" in 6E that doesn't have the flaws of what has gone before.

Hugh Neilson

Jun 13th, '08, 04:50 PM

I think this is pretty accurate: Aid could easily be abusive in 4E - but the changes made to it in 5E nerfed it too severely. My suggestion would be to keep the price where it is, but improve the utility slightly and hopefully we'll get it right this time :D

The biggest problem with Aid was that it actually combined both Aid and Healing, with no maximum healing. Off the cuff, I'd be inclined to drop the cost of Aid to 5 points per die, return it to costing END by default and otherwise leave it as is.

I wonder if Healing should also have its cost reduced, but I haven't seen evidence that it's nearly as useless, so I'm inclined to leave it as is.

My preference would be to repair Aid, rather than introduce new constructs to largely duplicate it - particularly if they were far more effective.

Here I am inclined to agree. Several of the adjustment powers could stand re-thinking. I find Transfer, in particular, is either overpriced or excessively restricted. Drop the price of Aid and this will be even more pronounced. I'd let Transfer continue to drain even if the enhancement is max'ed. And advantages on Transfer should affect both the Aid and Drain aspects of the power. Alternatively, trash it in favour of an example of a Linked Drain and Aid construct which would have the same effect.

And I have yet to see a mechanic floated to enhance generic equipment only while in the hands of the character using it. Anyone care to make a suggestion?

Vulcan

Jun 13th, '08, 05:37 PM

I would propose a modifier - either a small limitation (possibly even a -0) put on such a power, or maybe a small adder (5 points seems sufficient to me, at most, or maybe a +1/4 advatage) to a HKA (or HA, in the case of normal damage weapons). This would say something like, "Only adds to existing weapon." Requiring it to be bought 0 END wouldn't bother me, although an argument could be made about a 'special technique' that could be fatiguing...

Perhaps it could be a limitation in a superheroic game (akin to OIF weapon of opportunity), and an advantage in heroic games (where everyone has access to weapons 'points-free').

Just an idea.

ideasmith

Jun 13th, '08, 06:55 PM

I agree. Let's try and come up with a way to do a "Deadly Strike" in 6E that doesn't have the flaws of what has gone before.

This would consist of defining a new Power Advantage, 'Adds To Multiple Powers'.

Vulcan

Jun 13th, '08, 07:04 PM

Sounds good. I just want to see something available.

James Gillen

Jun 13th, '08, 07:35 PM

<snip>

<snip>

Why do you keep arguing that as soon as someone buys an attack, he's automatically going to add it to all his own weapons and, by the way, buy 'useable by others' so he can add it to his friends weapons too!?

NO GM I HAVE EVER MET will allow the absurdities you are using as your examples. Please stop using them as examples.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who's noticed this.

JG

Hugh Neilson

Jun 13th, '08, 08:16 PM

This would consist of defining a new Power Advantage, 'Adds To Multiple Powers'.

I think the best mechanic is likely an Aid or Succor which would add to the weapon itself, making such an advantage unnecessary.

Klaus Mogensen

Jun 14th, '08, 04:31 AM

Your third suggestion [cost of movement/phase is a multiple of SPD], while interesting, seems to penalize speedster and other high-SPD characters simply for having a high SPD. 10 points per SPD is a lot, and I don't think you should penalize a character for having a high level of something they paid a lot of points for.
It's not penalizing high-SPD characters, it's stopping penalizing low-SPD characters. :)

I've always found it unfair that a SPD 6 character with 15" Running outruns a SPD 4 character with 20" Running. The SPD-4 character has paid more for his movement - why can't he run faster?

If you argue that greater SPD should allow moving faster, then you have the oddity that movement-based damage for a high-SPD character is less for a certain velocity than for a low-SPD character.

All my suggestions for decoupling movement from SPD has characters paying the same for velocity and movement-based damage, regardless of SPD.

- Klaus

CTaylor

Jun 14th, '08, 09:17 AM

fanatasy books have never indicated which mechanism is in use.

If you read closely you'd notice: neither did I.

However, it's perfectly acceptable in the rules and always has been to build a bare power that stacks on top of similar powers that you have, Aid is a specific sort of way to do that (don't have to maintain it, it goes away on its own) just the bare power is another. I'd hate to see that tool taken away because it confuses or offends a handful of people on a message board.

Markdoc

Jun 14th, '08, 10:14 AM

I agree. Let's try and come up with a way to do a "Deadly Strike" in 6E that doesn't have the flaws of what has gone before.

The simplest way has already been mentioned: persistent, 0 END succour (2d6+3), self only, OIF (weapon X of opportunity). 24 active, 12 real. It's 2 points more than the current construct, works the same way as the current construct, uses standard rules, plays nice with power frameworks, other limitations and advantages and best of all is unambiguous in its usage. There are other ways to get more damage, of course, and as a GM, I'd allow those - they have slightly different mechanics and costs - but this is a simple fix.

cheers, Mark

Markdoc

Jun 14th, '08, 10:25 AM

If you read closely you'd notice: neither did I.

In that case it's merely a argument for allowing an augment (which I have, over and over, stated I favour) and not an argument in favour of Deadly Blow - so it's hard to see the point. Most people on this thread are in favour of allowing attacks to be augmented - but we want a "by the rules" way of doing it.

However, it's perfectly acceptable in the rules and always has been to build a bare power that stacks on top of similar powers that you have, Aid is a specific sort of way to do that (don't have to maintain it, it goes away on its own) just the bare power is another. I'd hate to see that tool taken away because it confuses or offends a handful of people on a message board.

Actually the rules imply strongly that you cannot normally add attacks, to the extent of having two sections with special rules on the two cases where it's permitted (adding STR to HA/HKA and buying dice specifically to add to an existing attack in a framework). Everything else strongly implies you cannot add attacks. If there was a statement anywhere even suggesting that you could, apart from Deadly blow itself, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

cheers, Mark

Hugh Neilson

Jun 14th, '08, 10:42 AM

The simplest way has already been mentioned: persistent, 0 END succour (2d6+3), self only, OIF (weapon X of opportunity). 24 active, 12 real. It's 2 points more than the current construct, works the same way as the current construct, uses standard rules, plays nice with power frameworks, other limitations and advantages and best of all is unambiguous in its usage. There are other ways to get more damage, of course, and as a GM, I'd allow those - they have slightly different mechanics and costs - but this is a simple fix.

It requires an attack roll to start.

It requires, on average, three rolls and thus three attack actions, to build the knife our expert knife fighter just picked up, as it is not Continuous once started.

Self Only? YOU didn't pay points for the dagger - it's Independent - so that Succor will not enhance your dagger. This is the same logic by which you are offended at a character paying points for an attack that adds to a weapon he didn't pay for.

There is no point break if the underlying KA only affects, say, Demons, since that is a limitation on the KA itself, and does not change its 15 active points per die cost. So "+1d6 KA affects everything" and "+1d6 KA affects only fire breathing dragons named George" cost exactly the same.

With that in mind, I will suggest it is neither so simple nor so unambiguous as you seem to think.

Markdoc

Jun 14th, '08, 11:32 AM

It requires an attack roll to start.

It requires, on average, three rolls and thus three attack actions, to build the knife our expert knife fighter just picked up, as it is not Continuous once started.

Correct. Hence "persistent". You can do this when you start the adventure (takes maybe 9-12 seconds) and the power will be active as long as you are. There's no need to wait until combat starts. It can safely be assumed to be active at all time - like any other persistent power. Here's what it says in the rules:
A character does not have to turn on a Persistent Power; it’s assumed to be on at all times, even when the character is unconscious.. So yeah, it functions exactly like Deadly Blow in play.

Self Only? YOU didn't pay points for the dagger - it's Independent - so that Succor will not enhance your dagger. This is the same logic by which you are offended at a character paying points for an attack that adds to a weapon he didn't pay for.

This is very odd logic. If a character has bought a power with the limitation "independant" you're saying he can't use it, because it's no longer his? How strange.
No, my problem is not with treating free items as "independant" - that is exactly how I treat them. My problem is with adding an attack power - any attack power, independant or not - to another, unrelated attack power. So yes, I would assume "self only" applies to a character's foci, independant or not. Likewise it wouldn't apply to any of a character's powers, foci or not, independant or not, if that power was for some reason unavailable. So if you give away your focus - independant or not - "self only" isn't going to apply.

I have to ask, was this a serious argument, or were you just trying it on for amusement?:think:

There is no point break if the underlying KA only affects, say, Demons, since that is a limitation on the KA itself, and does not change its 15 active points per die cost. So "+1d6 KA affects everything" and "+1d6 KA affects only fire breathing dragons named George" cost exactly the same.

Actually this is correct - and it's also how Deadly Blow is currently supposed to work. You are paying for the ability to boost the points in an attack, not the attack itself (one of the many reasons deadly blow is so odd: it's an attack power which is not supposed to be an attack). If the attack itself is limited, so will your use of it be. However if you specifically only want to be able to add damage to a sword when attacking "only fire breathing dragons named George" then of course you can limit it - and gain the cost break.

With that in mind, I will suggest it is neither so simple nor so unambiguous as you seem to think.

Actually, if those arguments are the best that can be bough to bear, it suggests that it really is as simple and unambiguous as it appears.

Cheers, Mark

Paragon

Jun 14th, '08, 11:40 AM

The biggest problem with Aid was that it actually combined both Aid and Healing, with no maximum healing. Off the cuff, I'd be inclined to drop the cost of Aid to 5 points per die, return it to costing END by default and otherwise leave it as is.

Actually, I'd argue that the biggest problems with Aid were (and to a lesser extent still are) not with the core power, but with the ability to extend its maximum and duration. And Duration was the worst of the two, as it made it far too easy to cheaply pump up people in non-tactical time in a fundamentally painless way.

What the current cost does is keep some of that behavior down to a dull roar, as long as you don't also increase the maximum.

Paragon

Jun 14th, '08, 11:41 AM

I think the best mechanic is likely an Aid or Succor which would add to the weapon itself, making such an advantage unnecessary.

That's currently how I handle the spells in my FH campaign that do that. I'm not entirely sure that it doesn't charge too much in active points to do it, but its hard to figure the value of adding to base damage.

Vulcan

Jun 14th, '08, 11:47 AM

It's not penalizing high-SPD characters, it's stopping penalizing low-SPD characters. :)

I've always found it unfair that a SPD 6 character with 15" Running outruns a SPD 4 character with 20" Running. The SPD-4 character has paid more for his movement - why can't he run faster?

If you argue that greater SPD should allow moving faster, then you have the oddity that movement-based damage for a high-SPD character is less for a certain velocity than for a low-SPD character.

All my suggestions for decoupling movement from SPD has characters paying the same for velocity and movement-based damage, regardless of SPD.

- Klaus

... :nonp:

I hadn't noticed that discrepency between 'overall movement' and movement-based damage... <smacks own wrist> Bad God of the Forge!

But as for your first point, has the 4 SPD/20" character really paid more than the 6 SPD/15" one? Assuming both have a 20 DEX, then:

The 4 SPD character has paid 10 points for SPD, and 40 for movement (assuming running or flying), for a total of 50 points. Over the course of a turn he will travel 80" at combat speed, and thus getting 1.6" movement per point spent (or .625 points per inch).

The 6 SPD character has paid 30 points for SPD, and 30 for movement (same assumption), for a total of 60 points. He will cover 90" at combat speed, and getting 1.5" movement per point spent (or .667 points per inch).

So, on a 'per inch' basis AND on an 'total point' basis, the 4 SPD/20" character has actually spent less. These points he has doubtless spent on other things to even the balance between the characters.

Sure, the 6 SPD character acts more often, but he also surrenders a die in move-bys (and 2 dice in move-throughs) to the 4 SPD character. He will also pay 18 END for his movement, as opposed to the 4 SPD's 16 END.

If the discrepency in damage bugs you, you could insist the high-speed character buy some HA to make up the difference...

But instead I think you make an excellent argument for changing movement-based damage in 6E. :) Perhaps basing it on combat movement per turn instead of per phase... and bringing with it new rules for velocity and accelleration to reflect that.

Vulcan

Jun 14th, '08, 11:55 AM

The simplest way has already been mentioned: persistent, 0 END succour (2d6+3), self only, OIF (weapon X of opportunity). 24 active, 12 real. It's 2 points more than the current construct, works the same way as the current construct, uses standard rules, plays nice with power frameworks, other limitations and advantages and best of all is unambiguous in its usage. There are other ways to get more damage, of course, and as a GM, I'd allow those - they have slightly different mechanics and costs - but this is a simple fix.

cheers, Mark

All you have to do is find a GM who is more comfortable with that build. My GM would prefer us to buy extra dice; he balks at us putting 0END on a power that 'only remains ineffect as long as the character pays END.'

Don't ask me to justify his opinion, by the same logic he shouldn't allow FF at 0END either, but there you go and there you are. :rolleyes:

Having multiple ways to do something gives GM's the ability to use the mechanic they prefer. Mine prefers just adding the dice, you prefer to use Succor. It's all good.:D

Hugh Neilson

Jun 14th, '08, 02:37 PM

Correct. Hence "persistent". You can do this when you wake up (takes maybe 9-12 seconds) and the power will be active as long as you are. There's no need to wait until combat starts. It can safely be assumed to be active at all time - like any other persistent power. The only time you would lose it is when you're KO'ed, in which case you'd need to use 2-3 actions to bring it back to full effect. Apart from this one aspect, it acts like Deadly Blow.

You are assuming the character is holding the weapon which has the KA in his hand when he wakes up. There is no reason our skilled knife fighter should require several phases to "reactivate" his skills:

- when he awakens to an intruder in his room at the inn

- when he escapes from prison and wrestles a knife away from a guard

This is very odd logic. If a character has bought a power with the limitation "independant" you're saying he can't use it, because it's no longer his? How strange.

No, I am saying that "self only" means he can only enhance his own powers. The knife is not "his own power" - it is a piece of equipment which carried no point cost, and is not part of the "self" which is the "only" thing he can succor.

No, my problem is not with treating free items as "independant" - that is exactly how I treat them. My problem is with adding an attack power - any attack power, independant or not - to another, unrelated attack power.

Succor "self only" that works on things that aren't part of the character's "self" seems no more appropriate than the ability to purchase extra dice for a power that is not part of the character's "self". I'm not saying it's any more a handwave, a kludge or a potential problem. But it doesn't occupy higher philosophical ground either.

So yes, I would assume "self only" applies to a character's foci, independant or not. Likewise it wouldn't apply to any of a character's powers, foci or not, independant or not, if that power was for some reason unavailable. So if you give away your focus - independant or not - "self only" isn't going to apply.

But this isn't the knife fighter's Independent focus. The knife fighter paid no points for it. It is an Independent focus that someone else paid points for (if we assume somewhere down the line, independent foci were created by someone). If the knife fighter's wizard colleague pays 15 points for a 4d6 HKA - Life Stealing Dagger, OAF (-1), Independent (-2), are you OK with him handing it to the skilled knife fighter, who adds another die to it? This isn't really different from your "1d6 HKA - UBO" concern.

I have to ask, was this a serious argument, or were you just trying it on for amusement?:think:

I'm looking at your construct from the same vantage point you were using to examine the Deadly Blow construct. Your construct doesn't do the job (due to the attack rolls issue - he has to "turn on" his skills??) and it requires as much or more handwaving as Deadly Blow. All that changes is the cost.

Actually this is correct - and it's also how Deadly Blow is currently supposed to work. You are paying for the ability to boost the points in an attack, not the attack itself (one of the many reasons deadly blow is so odd: it's an attack power which is not supposed to be an attack). If the attack itself is limited, so will your use of it be. However if you specifically only want to be able to add damage to a sword when attacking "only fire breathing dragons named George" then of course you can limit it - and gain the cost break.

No, you cannot. You are paying for Succor, which adds AP to the power it affects. 1d6 KA costs 15 Active Points, whether that 1d6 KA has no limitations, Only Works on Reptiles, or Only Works on Evil Dragons Named George. Of course, you could handwave this and allow the Succor to take a limitation for the limitation on the applicability of the enhancement of the power it is enhancing - but that's yet another handwave to replace a construct you dislike because, in your eyes (not the writer of the rules' eyes - he's already weighed in on this) it requires handwaving the rules.

Actually, if those arguments are the best that can be bough to bear, it suggests that it really is as simple and unambiguous as it appears.

If yiour solution is the best that can be devised, then Deadly Blow is no more a kludge or a handwave than the alternatives.

nexus

Jun 14th, '08, 02:45 PM

All you have to do is find a GM who is more comfortable with that build. My GM would prefer us to buy extra dice; he balks at us putting 0END on a power that 'only remains in effect as long as the character pays END.'

I admit I can see where his concern could be merited in this case. It does set a precedent ir you're concerned about that. OTOH, didn't someone mention that Deadly Blow in it original form does cost Endurance?

Markdoc

Jun 14th, '08, 03:08 PM

All you have to do is find a GM who is more comfortable with that build. My GM would prefer us to buy extra dice; he balks at us putting 0END on a power that 'only remains ineffect as long as the character pays END.'

I don't really care about what other people do in their games: there will always be some variation and that's fine. GM's can and should do what they want to get the desired feel for their games. I'm not arguing that my house rules should be adopted, either. They're my house rules, and may change from genre to genre, game to gamer: I've already said that I don't allow NPAs on free equipment, but that that's clearly a house rule - I haven't been arguing for a rule change in that regard because the rules are unambiguous.

The point of this thread (at least for me) is to get Deadly blow fixed in 6E: it's led to the idea that you can simply "add attacks" even though the rules state (p405):
You must always follow a basic rule when increasing damage: a character cannot more than double the Damage Classes of his base attack, no matter how many different methods he uses to add damage.
Base damage is defined on the same page:
In most cases, the base damage done by an attack is obvious — it’s what the character paid Character Points for.Note: "an attack". Not "attacks".
The rules go on to discuss the "in most cases" part - there are only three exceptions allowed to this. They are:
1. Normal Damage Weapons In Superheroic Campaigns.
2. Extra Damage Classes For Unarmed Martial Maneuvers
3. Movement Bonuses To Normal Damage

Adding attacks together is not one of them - and none of them allow increasing killing attacks - the rules are quite specific about this point. The closest we can come is adding martial arts damage classes, but to build Deadly Blow that way would cost 24 active points, 16 real - and the rules specifically state that you cannot add DCs to increase the base of armed damage, to wit Extra DCs used to add damage to armed Martial Maneuvers are considered to be added damage, not an increase to the base DCs. (page 406)

Finally, the rules are quite clear that two powers of the same kind (EB, HA, HKA etc) cannot be used together in the same phase - even in an MPA (page 359) - it requires two seperate attacks.

So we're left with the salient point: as it stands, you simply cannot build Deadly Blow using the core rules. I'd like to see that fixed - rules fixes are what this thread is supposed to be about.

cheers, Mark