HKA and Strength -- pricing issue?

[Grailknight]

I've never insisted that Mental Powers be one shots against credible opponents with normal EGO. Note that this would be more equitable than what we have now and it would also be in genre. Heroes get controlled into attacking their allies all the time. You're the one who keeps asserting this point.

 

I do feel they should have the equal capacity to one shot normals which they expressly can't mechanically. In my 40+ years of comics and movies, I can't recall one instance where a pure Mentalist failed to control a normal target. Nor can I recall any instance in game where a non- Mentalist had to blast or punch a normal more than once unless he wanted to ensure death.

 

On the actual HKA/HA point, you insist that powers should be evaluated on a get what you pay for basis but can only make your point by using a synergy of two powers.

 

Guy with normal STR does pay less than Guy with superhuman STR. He then pays more to have a larger HKA. If both are drained to 0 STR or boosted to 45 STR, normal STR guy has the larger HKA as it should be because he paid more for the HKA power.  

 

Why do you insist that the synergies between two powers be perfectly balanced in all cases?

[Hugh Neilson]

I've never insisted that Mental Powers be one shots against credible opponents with normal EGO. Note that this would be more equitable than what we have now and it would also be in genre. Heroes get controlled into attacking their allies all the time. You're the one who keeps asserting this point.

 

I do feel they should have the equal capacity to one shot normals which they expressly can't mechanically. In my 40+ years of comics and movies, I can't recall one instance where a pure Mentalist failed to control a normal target. Nor can I recall any instance in game where a non- Mentalist had to blast or punch a normal more than once unless he wanted to ensure death.

So what solution do you propose? Does Mind Control become a power that virtually always succeeds against both heroes ("get controlled all the time") and normal ("can't recall one instance")? It certainly can be - allow it to be purchased at much higher DC's. Let's say 12d6, 3 shot Autofire (+1/4), 0 END (+1), Cumulative limit 4x max roll (+3/4)- 180 points. The typical Mentalist will hit most opponents by at least 2, so that's two effect rolls of 42 average = 84, +30 on a 13 Ego with -8 to the Breakout roll, -14 if he hit by 4. Now we have the Mind Controller who pretty much always succeeds. And he also has a lot less points to spend on other abilities, consistent with the source material as well - they never seem to have much in the way of other combat skills, or defenses, right?

 

Much more difficult would be placing Mind Control on a par with other attack powers, so that it can one shot a normal (as above) but requires a few phases to deal with an opponent at the same level as the attacker. I suppose this could be done. Lets give our Hero 35 Mental Defense. Now each hit gets only 7 past his mental defenses, so three hits accumulate 21. It will take three hits to accumulate 63 (13 Ego + 30, with a -4 to the breakout roll). But now every Super needs to come up with 35 points for all that Mental Defense.

 

For higher power characters to be more resistant than normals to Mind Control and other mental attacks, then Mind Control has to act against something that scales up with the heroes' power levels. Do you have a suggestion as to what that should be?

 

On the actual HKA/HA point, you insist that powers should be evaluated on a get what you pay for basis but can only make your point by using a synergy of two powers.

Which other powers synergize to a similar extent? Note that I have no issue with HA enhancing STR or vice versa. HA is just limited STR. Buying some HA to boost a Punch is just buying a partially limited STR characteristic. So it's only HKA, as I see it.

 

Getting more HKA because you bought STR is like getting more RKA because you bought Blast (with the sole exception being that the rules do not permit the latter). If you want more KA, you should buy more KA, not buy more STR. Just like you buy more RKA if you want more RKA.

 

The biggest synergy abilities prior to 6e were figured characteristics. Guess what - they are gone now. So is some free mental defense from Ego if you buy at least one point separately.

 

The only other synergy I can see is buying something like +6d6 Blast, only in powerful electromagnetic field (-2) and Change Environment - create powerful electromagnetic field. We would not allow a limitation on an extra 4d6 Blast in that situation. Why do we allow a massive limitation of "minus infinity" on +2d6 HKA for "only if user has 30 STR" when the user has 30 STR?

 

Guy with normal STR does pay less than Guy with superhuman STR. He then pays more to have a larger HKA. If both are drained to 0 STR or boosted to 45 STR, normal STR guy has the larger HKA as it should be because he paid more for the HKA power.

Guy With High STR is welcome to place "Drained at same rate as STR" on his HKA if he wants. Guy with Low STR can do the same, and even buy extra dice "only if my STR is Aid'ed 5 points per extra DC". And, following the Limited Power rules, we would then set the limitation to reflect how common these two occurrences will be in the game. "Only when I have a 30+ STR" will be pretty common for a guy with a 30+ STR. It will be much less common if he has a 10 STR. If he buys a STR Aid, or his teammate has one, it becomes more common.

 

Why do you insist that the synergies between two powers be perfectly balanced in all cases?

I believe we should be looking to balance the game to the extent possible. This one lonely synergy is a very easy target because of its obviousness. Why do you insist we should only partially fix an obvious imbalance - that is, that it should be maintained only at a doubling level as it was in 5e, and not be unrestricted as it is in 6e? Tp me, that middle point is the least consistent argument. It says "there is an imbalance" and "we should fix only some of the imbalance"

[Chris Goodwin]

I believe we should be looking to balance the game to the extent possible. This one lonely synergy is a very easy target because of its obviousness. Why do you insist we should only partially fix an obvious imbalance - that is, that it should be maintained only at a doubling level as it was in 5e, and not be unrestricted as it is in 6e? Tp me, that middle point is the least consistent argument. It says "there is an imbalance" and "we should fix only some of the imbalance"

 

I still don't see a way to fix it that doesn't break things even more.  

 

The obvious way is to remove HKA from the system and use Killing Attack, No Range, with no STR adding.  But there are a lot of folks out there who already ask about the system, "You have to pay for this and that and the other thing?"  Like, if you have a flame blast and want the ability to melt metal, you have to buy Transform: Metal to Molten Metal.  

 

I predict that very nearly everyone who encounters the hypothetical removal of Strength-added Killing Attacks would hate it, with the possible exception of you.  It would be a mental obstacle to getting into the HERO System; it's heavily ingrained enough into the conscious and unconscious thought processes of gamers that Strength adds to hand-to-hand killing type attacks that removing it would cause cognitive dissonance and give HERO System haters another thing to point at.  

 

I agree with you on principle that it's an imbalance, but I don't believe it's a problem that needs to be solved.  I'm willing to accept that adding to HKAs is one of the fundamental functions of Strength, in the same way that lifting weight and doing Normal Damage are.  

[Hugh Neilson]

Chris, the cognitive dissonance is definitely a concern - if not THE concern. But then, STR does not help me hit in melee, DEX does not help me hit at range/at all, or make me harder to hit, my CON doesn't make me last longer or recover faster, nor augment my "hit points" (STUN or BOD), et al. Or my favorite, why can't I buy a HTH weapon I can throw to do the same damage (STR added and all) at range?

 

If the difference between adders in other games and lack thereof in Hero is going to give a player a reason not to play, then they already have many such reasons.

 

[Oh, and enough BOD to the metal turns it to molten metal - like it can turn a person into a Charred Corpse]

 

The issue also started with people NOT wanting STR to add as much as it can to KA's.  How many other RPG's put a cap on that bonus damage from STR? Not the typical d20 gateway.  Daggers do 1d4 +15 if you have a 40 STR, and longswords do 1d8 + that same 15. But the Greatsword gets a 50% greater bonus - why does it get no greater bonus in Hero?  HULLOOOOO - two hands = more muscle backing it - cognitive dissonance.

 

If it's not a problem that needs to be solved, why all the whining about a 5 point HKA giving a 5d6 HKA to a 70 STR Brick? Apparently, there is a problem.

 

Take the lemons and make lemonade. It's cognitive dissonance? No, the build of a melee weapon with extra DC's, only to the extent the wielder has, and applies, STR over a minimum is a complex power construct that demonstrates partially limited powers as well as Reasoning from Effect - STR should make the sword hit harder, so here is how we build that.  And it's baked right in for those Normal Weapons.

 

Or take it the other way.  How do we let EGO boost mental attacks?  What is the limitation for STR that does NOT add to a KA?

[Lucius]

I still don't see a way to fix it that doesn't break things even more.

Drop Killing Attacks.

 

Use Attack vs Alternate Defense applied to Normal Attacks such as Blast or STR. A melee weapon can be a Naked Advantage applied to STR.

 

Or, expand the Penetrating Advantage to allow some BOD as well as STUN to penetrate. Again, a weapon is a Naked Advantage applied to STR.

 

 

Want attacks that are better at killing or better at knocking out? Use extra dice with Limitation: STUN only or BOD only, or a Limitation: Does Half STUN or Does Half BOD.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Naked Advantage applied to Palindromedary

[dmjalund]

here's a possibility:

 

if the HKA is part of you, you can add as much STR to it as you can.

 

if it is a focus (like a dagger) if you try to do more STR than the HKA, you start to damage the focus

[Grailknight]

Chris, the cognitive dissonance is definitely a concern - if not THE concern. But then, STR does not help me hit in melee, DEX does not help me hit at range/at all, or make me harder to hit, my CON doesn't make me last longer or recover faster, nor augment my "hit points" (STUN or BOD), et al. Or my favorite, why can't I buy a HTH weapon I can throw to do the same damage (STR added and all) at range?

 

I feel the cognitive dissonance is the main concern here. It was also the strongest argument for retaining figured characteristics which addresses all your points save the last, the one we're debating.

 

 

If the difference between adders in other games and lack thereof in Hero is going to give a player a reason not to play, then they already have many such reasons.

 

[Oh, and enough BOD to the metal turns it to molten metal - like it can turn a person into a Charred Corpse]

 

The issue also started with people NOT wanting STR to add as much as it can to KA's.  How many other RPG's put a cap on that bonus damage from STR? Not the typical d20 gateway.  Daggers do 1d4 +15 if you have a 40 STR, and longswords do 1d8 + that same 15. But the Greatsword gets a 50% greater bonus - why does it get no greater bonus in Hero?  HULLOOOOO - two hands = more muscle backing it - cognitive dissonance.

 

 Except that's not why the two are different.

 

In d20, the dagger and longsword are both 1-h HTH weapons. They can be used with 2-weapon combat or with a shield and the 2 options are considered a balanced trade-off of DPS vs AC. The 2-h greatsword doesn't get either of those options and got the +50% STR to compensate.Play balance is the over-riding factor here.

 

In Hero, 2-weapon, 1-h+shield and 2-h are more balanced because attacks per round are limited. Further balance is added to real weapons as STR minimums. Extra STR above the STR minimum applies equally to all weapons until we reach double the weapon's DCs so any character of a given STR gets equal utility from any weapon.

 

 

If it's not a problem that needs to be solved, why all the whining about a 5 point HKA giving a 5d6 HKA to a 70 STR Brick? Apparently, there is a problem.

 

Take the lemons and make lemonade. It's cognitive dissonance? No, the build of a melee weapon with extra DC's, only to the extent the wielder has, and applies, STR over a minimum is a complex power construct that demonstrates partially limited powers as well as Reasoning from Effect - STR should make the sword hit harder, so here is how we build that.  And it's baked right in for those Normal Weapons.

 

Or take it the other way.  How do we let EGO boost mental attacks?  What is the limitation for STR that does NOT add to a KA?

 

And here's where we differ. It is a problem because the character with the 5 pt HKA  and high STR didn't pay the points for the utility with the HKA.

 

Let's go back to our examples, fixing the problem with doubling

 

A- Has 15 STR and 3d6 HKA claws. He's built on the concept of big claws. He doesn't have the STR of the others but retains more damage in the event that STR is drained or suppressed. Because he spent more on his claws he gets more HKA if STR is aided or boosted

 

B- Has 30 STR and 2d6 HKA claws. He built toward optimum balance from the beginning but is dependent on his claws against most opponents. Aiding or boosting STR has no effect on his claws but drain and suppress hurt.

 

C- Has 55 STR and 1pip HKA claws. He's the case that doubling was made for. The HKA is clearly an afterthought because you would never consider it as a main attack but does add flavor on occasion. He uses STR and is vulnerable to drain/suppress and helped by aid/boost.

 

All the characters are viable but A has less universal utility while C has one less DC. But each character does have utility with HKA based on points spent on HKA and STR utility lines up with the points spent on STR.

 

If you use the 6E rules,

 

C is clearly superior to the extreme that A and B are relegated to concepts.

 

I am satisfied with the fix that doubling gives. We may have to agree to disagree at this point.

[Hugh Neilson]

To the Figured's issue, I can also add why Stretching characters can't Stretch their legs out and run faster, why a Lightning Blast can't Blind my target momentarily, why my immunity to cold that allows me to stand unharmed on the moon is of no assistance at all when I am hit with a freon blast or why I can't buy a War Hammer as a Hand Attack with Range.

 

I feel the cognitive dissonance is the main concern here. It was also the strongest argument for retaining figured characteristics which addresses all your points save the last, the one we're debating.

 

 

 

 Except that's not why the two are different.

 

In d20, the dagger and longsword are both 1-h HTH weapons. They can be used with 2-weapon combat or with a shield and the 2 options are considered a balanced trade-off of DPS vs AC. The 2-h greatsword doesn't get either of those options and got the +50% STR to compensate.Play balance is the over-riding factor here.

 

In Hero, 2-weapon, 1-h+shield and 2-h are more balanced because attacks per round are limited. Further balance is added to real weapons as STR minimums. Extra STR above the STR minimum applies equally to all weapons until we reach double the weapon's DCs so any character of a given STR gets equal utility from any weapon.

 

So, in short, the play balance in each game is different so the damage adding rules in each game are different.  

 

But you're telling me that we can't, for play balance reasons, require characters to pay for the killing attack DC's they want to be able to inflict. But they can only get half of their killing DC's from STR and any more is unbalanced.  I find that inconsistent.  EIther it IS unbalanced that STR grants free HKA DC's (in which case doubling still allows the unbalance, only restricting it) or it IS NOT unbalanced, so it is OK for the 55 STR character to buy a 1 DC HKA and get the same KA as a 15 STR character with a 9 DC KA, or a 30 STR character with a 6 DC HKA.

 

And here's where we differ. It is a problem because the character with the 5 pt HKA  and high STR didn't pay the points for the utility with the HKA.

 

Let's go back to our examples, fixing the problem with doubling

 

A- Has 15 STR and 3d6 HKA claws. He's built on the concept of big claws. He doesn't have the STR of the others but retains more damage in the event that STR is drained or suppressed. Because he spent more on his claws he gets more HKA if STR is aided or boosted

 

B- Has 30 STR and 2d6 HKA claws. He built toward optimum balance from the beginning but is dependent on his claws against most opponents. Aiding or boosting STR has no effect on his claws but drain and suppress hurt.

 

C- Has 55 STR and 1pip HKA claws. He's the case that doubling was made for. The HKA is clearly an afterthought because you would never consider it as a main attack but does add flavor on occasion. He uses STR and is vulnerable to drain/suppress and helped by aid/boost.

 

All the characters are viable but A has less universal utility while C has one less DC. But each character does have utility with HKA based on points spent on HKA and STR utility lines up with the points spent on STR.

 

If you use the 6E rules,

 

C is clearly superior to the extreme that A and B are relegated to concepts.

 

I am satisfied with the fix that doubling gives. We may have to agree to disagree at this point.

 

 

The character with the 30 STR  ALSO didn't pay the points for the utility with HKA.  It is the exact same issue other than the size of the imbalance. I can get behind Chris' point - it is an imbalance we are prepared to live with in the interests of "game harmony".  But doubling is simply an arbitrary line drawn that we will accept this much imbalance, and no more.

 

B is clearly superior to A.  In Supers games, I rarely, if ever, see an HKA based character who has STR providing less than half of his HKA damage, nor do I often see such a character have STR in excess of what he can use to double his HKA.  So A has also been relegated to "concept".  Those Aids and Drains are just  not that common.

[Hugh Neilson]

Where is that cognitive dissonance?  I find it is mainly centered around Heroic games where weapons are  not purchased with character points.  We have plenty of rules that differ between heroic and superheroic games.  So why not "weapons purchased with gear have a STR min, and can have STR enhance their DC's, and here are the rules for such enhancement.  This rule is not normally applied to abilities purchased with character points".

 

Just like Thor doesn't get to slap a 75 STR MIn on Mjolnir for a huge limitation in Supers games. WolverClone has to pay the freight if he wants a 4d6 HKA.

[Greywind]

Thor has a major advantage on his STR Min for Mjolnir: one must be worthy.

[Hugh Neilson]

I recall an Avengers issue after a battle with the Absorbing Man. Beast thought his ball & chain "would make a fine souvenir", could not budge it, and added "for someone else".  Can he have a limitation for the 50 or 60 STR MIN to wield that heavy weapon? If not, why not?  It's far more limiting than needing a 20 STR!

 

A further thought on cognitive dissonance.  Let's say WolverClone takes a sword instead of claws. Why can't he use Club Weapon to convert his HKA dice to normal damage?  He could in most Fantasy games.  If we allowed that, it would remove some of the inequity between our 15, 30 and 55 STR characters, all with enough HKA to do 12 DC's HKA.  

 

But then, why can't LaserLad fire off a more dispersed version of his RKA to do normal damage (or a more focused version of his Blast to make it a KIlling attack)?The answer for him is "pay more points to add a normal damage option". But for some reason, if the attacks lose their Range, suddenly it's OK to let them mix & match without paying points.  It seems pretty myopic to be unable to see the balance inequity.

[Grailknight]

But you're telling me that we can't, for play balance reasons, require characters to pay for the killing attack DC's they want to be able to inflict. But they can only get half of their killing DC's from STR and any more is unbalanced.  I find that inconsistent.  EIther it IS unbalanced that STR grants free HKA DC's (in which case doubling still allows the unbalance, only restricting it) or it IS NOT unbalanced, so it is OK for the 55 STR character to buy a 1 DC HKA and get the same KA as a 15 STR character with a 9 DC KA, or a 30 STR character with a 6 DC HKA.

 

Yes, it is unbalanced but doubling fixes all the abuses while still allowing sub-optimal build concepts. The other fair option is to sever STR from HTH damage mechanics but this is a step you've said is too radical for you. There, I agree, it would require rewriting most of the system.

 

The character with the 30 STR  ALSO didn't pay the points for the utility with HKA.  It is the exact same issue other than the size of the imbalance. I can get behind Chris' point - it is an imbalance we are prepared to live with in the interests of "game harmony".  But doubling is simply an arbitrary line drawn that we will accept this much imbalance, and no more.

 

 Agreed, I fall in this camp,

 

B is clearly superior to A.  In Supers games, I rarely, if ever, see an HKA based character who has STR providing less than half of his HKA damage, nor do I often see such a character have STR in excess of what he can use to double his HKA.  So A has also been relegated to "concept".  Those Aids and Drains are just  not that common.

 

B is superior to A but, without positing other powers, neither is a credible combatant without their claws.(unlike C) Those Aids and Drains may be rare but they do exist and create scenarios where A can outshine B. For me, that's proof of concept and if the player wants a valid but slightly weaker concept why should we require min-maxing.

 

Where is that cognitive dissonance?  I find it is mainly centered around Heroic games where weapons are  not purchased with character points.  We have plenty of rules that differ between heroic and superheroic games.  So why not "weapons purchased with gear have a STR min, and can have STR enhance their DC's, and here are the rules for such enhancement.  This rule is not normally applied to abilities purchased with character points".

 

No, the dissonance from my point of view is that HTH attacks are directly affected by STR. This should be true across all genres.

 

Heroic games impose the STR minimum to reflect that no one is paying points for the actual weapon. Otherwise, everyone would swing a greatsword in each hand since 10 STR is more than adequate to pick one up. 

 

Powers paid for with points avoid this but should still be subject to doubling. The HKA utility is the limited by points spent on HKA.

 

I recall an Avengers issue after a battle with the Absorbing Man. Beast thought his ball & chain "would make a fine souvenir", could not budge it, and added "for someone else".  Can he have a limitation for the 50 or 60 STR MIN to wield that heavy weapon? If not, why not?  It's far more limiting than needing a 20 STR!

 

I'd be fine with this as a limitation but it doesn't affect your issue with the adding damage rules. It legalizes C and gives a cost break to HKA to the higher STR characters. Player A is much sadder. 

 

A further thought on cognitive dissonance.  Let's say WolverClone takes a sword instead of claws. Why can't he use Club Weapon to convert his HKA dice to normal damage?  He could in most Fantasy games.  If we allowed that, it would remove some of the inequity between our 15, 30 and 55 STR characters, all with enough HKA to do 12 DC's HKA.  

 

Again, I'd be fine with this with the stipulation that doubling still applies. Just like HKA you should pay more for STR for greater STR utility. Yes, this makes A even more inferior but he's inferior by choice. If the player enjoys that build he shouldn't be forced to min-max.

 

But then, why can't LaserLad fire off a more dispersed version of his RKA to do normal damage (or a more focused version of his Blast to make it a KIlling attack)?The answer for him is "pay more points to add a normal damage option". But for some reason, if the attacks lose their Range, suddenly it's OK to let them mix & match without paying points.  It seems pretty myopic to be unable to see the balance inequity.

 

Because he is using a ranged attack which operates under a different mechanic.

 

Taking a Limitation on a power subjects you to the bad effect of that Limitation. It never gets to add any benefits that a mechanic it now superficially mimics gets. That requires an Advantage.

 

And adding STR is still a mechanic that only applies to HTH(both STR and HA) and HKA. We use this particular mechanic so often that we forget that Range, Flash, Entangle, Mental and Adjustment powers also have more or less unique mechanics that don't apply to each other. We also under use Martial Arts as the universal adder to all Attack Powers.( The non-Attack powers will have to muddle on with just Pushing and Haymaker)

[Zephrosyne]

Interesting discussion.

[Lucius]

Taking a Limitation on a power subjects you to the bad effect of that Limitation. It never gets to add any benefits that a mechanic it now superficially mimics gets. That requires an Advantage.

Really? So if I put a Power on a Focus, I can't lend it to a friend to use unless I put a Usable By Other Advantage on it?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Usable by Palindromedaries

[Hugh Neilson]

Yes, it is unbalanced but doubling fixes all the abuses while still allowing sub-optimal build concepts. The other fair option is to sever STR from HTH damage mechanics but this is a step you've said is too radical for you. There, I agree, it would require rewriting most of the system.

Again, why should a game which promises you can build any character you can imagine promote the existence of sub-optimal build concepts? There is no reason "low STR big claws" should be sub-optimal. That 15 STR, 4d6 KA character would be better off buying 4d6 HKA, no STR Adds (40 point) and even better off buying 4d6 RKA, no Range (which gets the same damage and can Spread for enhanced OCV, or even hitting multiple melee targets), either of which save 5 points to buy other abilities.

 

B is superior to A but, without positing other powers, neither is a credible combatant without their claws.(unlike C) Those Aids and Drains may be rare but they do exist and create scenarios where A can outshine B. For me, that's proof of concept and if the player wants a valid but slightly weaker concept why should we require min-maxing.

Why should we require any given concept be clearly sub-optimal? Again, the promise that "you can build any character you can imagine" rings less true if we caveat "but yours may be one of the sub-optimal ones, so hopefully you like playing the weaker sidekick".

 

No, the dissonance from my point of view is that HTH attacks are directly affected by STR. This should be true across all genres.

Why should it not be equally true across all attack types, then? "Boxing his ears for a hearing flash", "Wrapping a girder around him to immobilize him" and "hitting him so hard he bruises, losing defenses for future attacks" are all HTH attacks. How can any of them be constructed in a manner that they are directly affected by STR?

 

Heroic games impose the STR minimum to reflect that no one is paying points for the actual weapon. Otherwise, everyone would swing a greatsword in each hand since 10 STR is more than adequate to pick one up.

Well, someone "playing to concept" of a knife fighter would not, would he? And wielding a weapon in each hand doesn't get any more attacks than wielding one two handed, as both require the Multiple Attack maneuver to get a second attack. In fact, one sword would have no off-handed penalties, and be the superior choice.

 

The Great Sword does 2d6 HKA at +1 OCV if you have at least 17 STR, up to 4d6 HKA if you have 47+ STR. Every 5 STR low deducts 1 DC and 1 OCV. ANYONE can swing a Greatsword. It does 1 1/2d6 at base OCV for a wielder with 12 STR. If he has 3 STR, it does 1d6 HKA and strikes at -2 OCV. So we could build this as a 1d6 HKA with -2 OCV as an "always happens" side effect. We then buy +3 OCV, limited to 1 OCV per 5 STR over 2 dedicated to the attack, and +3d6 HKA, limited to 1 DC for ever 5 STR over 2 dedicated to the attack. You need 2 hands to use it properly? Then it is Limited by "Requires 2 hands to use". Why would "needs 2 hands or you lose out on 3 STR" be a -1/2 limitation when "Gestures, 2 hands" is a -1/2 limitation? Seems one is much more limiting than the other.

 

The costing of STR Min, and all its component parts, is rendered irrelevant by the fact that the cost of the build is ultimately irrelevant because we don't pay points for these weapons. They aren't balanced, nor are they intended to be, so we don't let Supers put a huge STR min on a weapon to save significant point costs. If the character wants his weapon to suffer reduced performance if his STR goes down, he Unifies it with his STR for a limitation.

 

Powers paid for with points avoid this but should still be subject to doubling. The HKA utility is the limited by points spent on HKA.

The argument that "the doubling limit is required to ensure the HKA utility is the limited by points spent on HKA" is equally applicable as "STR should not grant extra HKA DC's in order to ensure the HKA utility is the limited by points spent on HKA". The former accepts that you get twice as much bang for your HKA points as long as you have STR at a similar level. The latter says that 4d6 of HKA damage should have the same utility to every character who invests the points to buy it. Or, viewed a different way, that 4d6 HKA damage should have the same cost to all characters.

 

It seems we both agree that the 55 STR character should not be able to pay 5 points to get the same HKA that the 15 STR character pays 45 points (or whatever points) for. But we can't seem to agree that the 30 STR character should not be able to pay 30 points to get the same HKA that the 15 STR character pays 45 points for. Apparently, the maximum HKA discount is 1/3 off, and you get extra STR for free with that.

 

I should not be required to buy HKA to get all the benefits of my STR, and I should not be allowed to get my HKA at a discount because I paid points for, and get the benefits of, STR.

 

And I am still waiting for you to tell me the limitation I can take for "STR - does not enhance HKA's". If enhancing HKA is a function of STR, then removing that function should save me some points.

 

I'd be fine with this as a limitation but it doesn't affect your issue with the adding damage rules. It legalizes C and gives a cost break to HKA to the higher STR characters. Player A is much sadder.

If STR Min is a real limitation, then it can be applied to abilities other than HKA. It is commonly applied to normal damage attacks, so presumably, HammerMan can buy 14d6 Blast (Hammer) for 20 points (STR Min 19 or higher is -1, STR does not add is a further -1/2, and STR Min goes up 3 using 1 hand instead of 2 is -1). If he only wanted to use it in HTH, he could make it No Range, but why trade away Range for 2 or 3 points? And he gets to Spread the HammerBlast to trade damage for OCV "cannot spread" saves pretty much nothing).

 

My 60 STR Brick with a +2d6 HA Hammer must be a suboptimal character chosen solely for concept - he paid way more points and doesn't get Range, or Spreading. I guess that's the price he pays for selecting a sub-optimal concept, right?

 

And if it's a limitation, why can't LaserLad, who has a 15 STR anyway, apply the -1 1/4 version (15 STR Min, cannot add damage) to all his powers? He can spend some of the (well over 30 points) he saves on his Multipower of 12 DC attacks on Power Defense so he doesn't have to worry about STR drains (or any other attacks that affect power defense).

 

Again, I'd be fine with this with the stipulation that doubling still applies. Just like HKA you should pay more for STR for greater STR utility. Yes, this makes A even more inferior but he's inferior by choice. If the player enjoys that build he shouldn't be forced to min-max.

Doubling doesn't apply to a 20 STR character swinging his Great Sword one handed and using Club Weapon. He gets a 6d6 Normal Attack or a 2d6 HKA at his sole discretion. Why are we now applying Doubling to other uses of "Club HKA"?

 

I suggest the reason that the STR additions, club weapons, etc., do not result in a marked imbalance in Heroic games is that characters in such games do not get to optimize the combination of their STR and the weapon, nor do they save points by limiting the weapon to only work for someone with stats similar to their own. I further suggest the limitations in the "Equipment" section, which are not used to build anything characters actually pay points for, are untested and unbalanced - but it doesn't matter, since computing point costs no one ever pays is of little practical utility.

 

Because he is using a ranged attack which operates under a different mechanic.

So is the fellow with a Longbow. Why can't I buy a Longbow with an exceptional pull lacking the extra -1/2 for "STR adds no damage"? A number of the weapons for which Club Weapon can be used are able to be thrown - aren't those also Ranged Attacks?

 

Taking a Limitation on a power subjects you to the bad effect of that Limitation. It never gets to add any benefits that a mechanic it now superficially mimics gets. That requires an Advantage.

Killing Attack gets to choose between Range and No Range. If No Range, it saves no points but gets STR Adds for free. This is not consistent with your statement above, and your defense of that inconsistency has run several pages already. If Hand to Hand Attack is based on Blast (I consider it based on limited STR, but you and the RAW consider it based n Blast), then it also violates this rule, as limiting it to "no range" allows STR to enhance its damage.

 

The HTH Attack issues across the editions highlight the inconsistencies that the insistence of "STR can add" imposes. If I want to add STR to a Killing Attack, I lose range and gain STR Adds. This implies "STR Adds Damage" is a +1/2 advantage, although this is never stated, nor am I able to buy "STR Adds Damage" for any other attack. I can add it to an RKA - buy an HKA and add "Ranged".

 

But this would suggest that a Blast to which STR Adds should have no range, and cost 5 points per 1d6. It doesn't - it either costs 3 1/3 points (5e), 3 points (4e) or 4 points (6e). It must be worth less than 5 points - it does not do everything +5 STR would do.

 

In any case, putting "no range" (or HTH Attack) limitation on my Blast allows STR to add. Thus, the Limitation adds a benefit, contrary to your statement above.

 

As well, getting that -1/4 limit for HTH attacks seems to also remove the doubling restriction, which applied to HKA pre-6e, but has never applied to a plain vanilla HTH attack. Maybe a higher limitation should apply to HTH Attacks to which the doubling rule applies. So if I have a 40 STR an +4d6 HTH Attack, I use the -1/4 limitation, but if I have a 20 STR and an 8d6 HTH Attack, I'll use the higher one.

 

Now, if we make HTH Attack "STR with a limitation" and we remove the ability to trade "Range" for "STR Adds" (whether or not limited to doubling) from HKA, your statement becomes true across the board, and the rules match your expectations. If we keep HTH Attack based on Blast and the current model of HKA, your statement is not universally true and we have these "orphan mechanics".

 

And adding STR is still a mechanic that only applies to HTH(both STR and HA) and HKA. We use this particular mechanic so often that we forget that Range, Flash, Entangle, Mental and Adjustment powers also have more or less unique mechanics that don't apply to each other. We also under use Martial Arts as the universal adder to all Attack Powers.( The non-Attack powers will have to muddle on with just Pushing and Haymaker)

You forgot skill levels again, by the way.

 

"Adding" is not a mechanic which applies to STR. That's just buying more of the same power.

 

It is arguably not a mechanic which applies to HA, which is much more easily envisioned as extra STR with a limitation than Blast with a limitation. 6e is quite ambiguous on what it is based on. To me, it would work much more consistently if we applied a -1/2 limitation to "STR - only for damage" and a -1/4 limitation for "STR - only for one set of maneuvers" which could be Martial (the present 4 point MA DC) or Normal (so a lower limitation for SR that enhances Grabs and Disarms, not just adds to Strikes and other damaging attacks). Accepting these are based on STR (or, in the case of ranged MA's, based on the ranged power) means that this is more of one ability, not two abilities, one adding to the other.

 

That leaves the HKA. The one and only attack which can be increased by another ability rather than by paying for more of this ability.

 

To me, it's a lot harder to reconcile all the various exceptions and discrepancies of HTH attack and HKA than it is to accept that "Where the SFX of a killing attack (or any attack) suggest that its damage is, in whole or in part, linked to the user's strength, buy more dice of the attack in question, and Limit them by requiring the user apply STR to the attack. EXAMPLE: Ninja has 20 STR and a HKA Sword. He buys a 3d6+1 HKA, Limiting 2d6 with OAF - Sword (a -1 limitation, so this costs 30/2 = 15) and the remaining 1d6+1 with OAF - Sword and a -1/4 Limited Power "Drained with STR" (so this costs 20/2 1/4 = 9 points). The entire Sword costs 24 points. Normally, Ninja will do 3d6+1 HKA with his Sword, but if his STR were suppressed, drained or otherwise reduced, he would reduce his Sword power by an equal number of Active points, so if his STR has been Drained to 5, his Sword would be Drained 15 AP and now be limited to a 2d6+1 HKA. The Weapons Chart reflects much more detailed structures of this nature, however as characters do not typically pay points for such items, the more complex build structure does not need to be costed out. Characters purchasing gear will typically use simpler builds."

 

Now the cognitive dissonance of "you get what you pay for, except when you don't get what you pay for" is reduced by taking HKA's out of the equation. Like every other ability, significant implications of SFX are purchased as Powers, Adders and Advantages.

[Hugh Neilson]

Really? So if I put a Power on a Focus, I can't lend it to a friend to use unless I put a Usable By Other Advantage on it?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Usable by Palindromedaries

That is a GREAT example. P 380 of 6er discusses, at some length, "applicability" of a focus (whether usable by anyone or only the guy who paid points), so clearly you CAN lend it under RAW.

 

And if we want to discuss cognitive dissonance, why can't I keep that focus forever? Why can't Lucius' character choose to pass it on to my character when his retires? Why can't I loot his character's body when he dies? We beat the villains - why can't we keep all their foci for future use? I can do that in other games - why can't I beat the villains and take their stuff? That's the whole point of an RPG! Or at least it seems as universal as STR enhancing all HTH attacks - well, except for the ones it doesn't.

 

My character is a MULTI-TRILLIONAIRE - why can't we have Team Attack Helicopters? He has more than enough cash to buy a few hundred a month, and it's no secret that he backs our SuperTeam financially - he needs the tax writeoff.

 

Like most genre fiction, most game rules don't stand up perfectly (or even close) under cold, logical scrutiny. In other words, if you are trying to justify a desired result as avoiding cognitive dissonance, you can probably build an argument somehow.

 

BTW, Charges gives you 0 END for free (I'd change that, but I'd probably put two charts for the value, one where END is eliminated and one where it is not, for simplicity), and Continuing Charges make a power Persistent. Both are limitations. Boostable Charges can't be readily simulated with any power or advantage. A lot of limitations have options, or automatics, that add minor benefits - just like special effects add minor, but not major, enhancements. "My claws can open a letter or be used as an improvised lockpick" seems like a minor SFX which Fists of Flame would lack. "My claws can do double damage because my character has a good STR" does not.

[Grailknight]

 Okay, this part is so jarring, I need to address it on its own.

 

Again, why should a game which promises you can build any character you can imagine promote the existence of sub-optimal build concepts? There is no reason "low STR big claws" should be sub-optimal. That 15 STR, 4d6 KA character would be better off buying 4d6 HKA, no STR Adds (40 point) and even better off buying 4d6 RKA, no Range (which gets the same damage and can Spread for enhanced OCV, or even hitting multiple melee targets), either of which save 5 points to buy other abilities.


Why should we require any given concept be clearly sub-optimal? Again, the promise that "you can build any character you can imagine" rings less true if we caveat "but yours may be one of the sub-optimal ones, so hopefully you like playing the weaker sidekick".
 

 

So you forbid the player from playing the PC he conceived and wanted because you feel he can't have fun with it?

 

How is that allowing any build he imagines?  Do you know he won't be happy with being the sidekick?

 

Obviously you've never encountered that class of gamer who chooses weaker concepts just to prove they are viable.

[Lucius]

 

Quoting this because I feel the same way....

 

Okay, this part is so jarring, I need to address it on its own.

...but I feel that way about what you, Grailknight, just said.

 

 

So you forbid the player from playing the PC he conceived and wanted because you feel he can't have fun with it?

I find this jarring because I can't understand how you can take what Hugh Neilson said, and twist it into what you're saying that he said. I can certainly take issue with what he said, or at least with how forcefully he says it - I don't think the imbalance he's addressing necessarily relegates the "sub-optimal" build to being a sidekick - but for you to say

How is that allowing any build he imagines?

as if Mr. Neilson were trying to restrict or forbid certain concepts, when it's obvious to me that what he's trying to do is to encourage as much variety as possible by removing barriers that hold back certain concepts, makes me wonder if you just don't get what he's saying.

 

What he's doing is practically the opposite of what you accuse him of.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that Lucius Alexander is no stranger to playing the sidekick.

[Hugh Neilson]

Lucius covers it better than I could. There is a big difference between a player choosing to play a less powerful character, or a sidekick and having the "weaker character/sidekick" role forced on him because the game relegates the concept he envisions to that role.

 

That said, I have not seen a lot of players suggest they want to play a character who is ancillary to the main characters - less useful across the board. I have seen plenty of situations where the player has selected a concept which will be less useful in one area of the game and more useful in another, expecting to shine with similar frequency in different areas. a few examples:

 

- the character who doesn't do much damage, but plays a support role (I ran a character a while back who rarely or never did damage - he used a lot of Combined Attacks with a Flash and a small Drain, making it a lot easier for his teammates to take out the enemy;

 

- the character who is of lesser, or even no, use in combat, but thrives in investigation, interaction, or other out of combat arenas (sometimes frustrated if the game focuses on his areas of weakness and rarely lets his strengths shine);

 

- lower damage, but more/more accurate attacks

 

- less defenses but more abilities to avoid being hit;

 

- less power and more versatility (which is the crux of the 5 point KA, 55 STR complaint - he gets the same raw power in DC's but greater versatility since he gets the benefit of a much higher STR).

 

A reverse example is the negativity often associated with D&D's Cleric class - I don't want to play the guy who puts band-aids on the REAL heroes after the battle. Later editions have worked hard to allow the Cleric to contribute meaningfully outside the stereotypical role of "the healer" precisely because people don't generally want to play "the sidekick".

 

The examples we have discussed feature three characters who all have 12 DC HKA's. If someone was looking to play a deliberately weaker character, why would he buy the same attacks as everyone else? If I wanted to play a sidekick, I wouldn't be trying to match the main hero in most, or any, areas. I might not spend all my points, specifically to show I am less powerful. Deliberately being sub-optimal is quite easy, so I don't see a need for the rules to create a series of sub-optimal choices to make such a character possible.

 

If, instead, I am looking to play the out of combat expert, I'd much more likely be taking a 9 or 10 DC attack to free points up for my other abilities. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions on this thread, the 55 STR, 30 STR and 15 STR character all invest the same total points to have a 4d6 HKA. Their utility runs highest to lowest in the order noted. None of them has any points left over to invest in shining somewhere else (unless my 15 STR friend uses a 4d6 RKS, no range, can't spread, or a 4d6 HKA, STR Does Not Add to shave a few points off).

 

Nor do I think it any more likely that "Low STR and Big Claws" envisions his concept as a sidekick than that "55 STR and a pocketknife" does. I would not want to prohibit certain concepts being the sidekick, if that is the desired role, than I would want the system to relegate certain concepts to the role of sidekick when this is not desired. Both reduce the ability to "build the character you want to play".

[Deadman]

Well that was an interesting albeit long read. I have to say that most of the points made, while interesting, come down to one control factor. The GM dictates what works in his game and what doesn't. If he feels letting the Brick with the boxcutter overshadow Wolverclone then in my opinion his game may not last long. I feel that it just makes good sense to let characters have their niche. This is true of any storytelling and aren't RPGs just a shared storytelling experience?

 

As for balance of the actual points, it is true that by not limiting the amount of STR you can apply to an HKA it leaves room for abuse. The Hero System allows for a lot of customization and with that comes the potential for such abuse. Creative munchkins can always come up with a way. Think back to the time before they actually had to say that you couldn't sell off more than one figured characteristic. I had one guy show up to a game with a character that had a 50,000 STR. My response, um....sorry, No. The system is just a toolkit and it is up to the GM to weed out the abuses. I now tell my players that I reserve the right to amend their characters at any time if I find that they are unbalancing. I don't normally have to use it because I screen the characters carefully before we play or work with them to construct them in the first place. I feel this is how the game is intended. It is supposed to be a guideline rather than a strict set of absolutes.

 

I liken it somewhat to my AD&D days when we would just invite a bunch of guys over and tell them to bring characters. Even in a first level game you would inevitably see the fighter with an 18(00) STR, 18 CON and 18 DEX and the player would swear he rolled them "legit". We ended up having to resort to pre-gens.

 

I think the system being a guideline applies to all of the topics that came up in this thread. Indirect may not be the best expenditure of points but it does give you a way to construct some interesting powers. My take on mental powers is that they are for "experienced" players only. One good example in a past tournament game where two different players played the same pre-gen Mentalist at different times. The first player, trying to stop the Brick villain, simply mind controlled him to "Stop". Well his effect roll wasn't enough to get the 30+ level and the Brick just kept going. He ended up using "Ego Attack" most of the night because he didn't get anywhere with Mind Control. The second player was far more experienced and in nearly the exact same scenario told the Brick, "Your mother had a heart attack, you need to get to her right away." I thought that was a very creative way of dispatching one of the combatants and the Brick leapt off (I gave him an Ego+20 level for his wording).

 

At any rate I really like the granularity of the Hero System and while I am, admittedly, not a huge fan of 6E I appreciate Steve and company trying to balance it for us as much as possible.

 

Just my $.02,

[Lucius]

 

I was reminded of this issue again recently when the guy running the Monster Hunter International game suggested my character, a 30 STR Troll, should get a Killing Attack to leverage that STR.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary points out that my character has been carrying sharp stake but just not using it.

[NuSoardGraphite]

I believe this was an attempt to simply the 5e rule, which was that you couldn't more than double the base damage. Unfortunately, there were enough exceptions and edge cases to make calculating damage extremely complicated.

This is why for Heroic level games (the majority I played) I ignored those edge cases and went with a straight +5 STR = +1DC. I never had any issues with that house rule (I always observe X2 base DC rule. Keeps damage reasonable)