Jump to content

Killing attack musings


Doc Democracy

Recommended Posts

The discussion on the cost of HA is interesting and I did not want to derail it but Hugh's post set me thinking...

 

Actually, I will suggest that the real fix is a 15 point per 1d6 KA which is Ranged by default, and does not add STR. No other attack (once we accept Hand Attack is just limited STR) can be increased by another ability.I want my Wolverine clone to add 1d6 AP HKA with his 20 STR? Buy +1d6 HKA, and Limit it to be subject to reduction on the same basis as STR. Those Claws are already going to be Limited to have No Range (just like a 3 Stooges Eyepoke Flash). Given Unified Power is -1/4, perhaps we establish that "drained right along with something else" without the reciprocal effect of UP is +0, but also lets positive adjustment powers enhance the ability.That 1d6+1 Sword in a fantasy game should add STR? No sweat - +1d6+1 HKA, requires the user exert 5 STR over STR min for each added DC. What is that limitation worth? Who cares? We don't buy equipment with points. What limitation would you award Grond for 3d6 Flash Eyepoke, only usable if he has at least 15 STR? That's how the limitation should be determined for any character wanting to buy equipment, or other powers, that can be augmented in this manner.Perhaps it would be fair to call this a -1/4 limitation which prevents that STR being used to do damage with any other attack at the same time (a form of Lockout). At present, a Combined Attack of Dagger and Punch seems perfectly legal, even if the dagger damage is being enhanced by the wielder's STR.

I have read LOTS of threads like this in the past but am unsure whether this particular idea had been discussed.

 

Killing attack has several problems that we have struggled with in the past, not least the whole division between ranged and HTH, how it relates to HA etc and not forgetting the STUN lottery. It also adds a completely different damage mechanic in a system not short of complexity to the newcomer.

 

My thought was that killing damage be an advantage on HA. Nothing new in that, but what it does is flip the damage type, so pips equal BODY and the usual BODY damage equal STUN. Obviously the damage is killing (for defence purposes).

 

This maintains the damage mechanic, focuses on doing BODY rather than STUN, and ties everything into the HA system.

 

This is obviously a wild thought on the train to work but it seems a workable one.

 

Was this part of SETAC discussions Hugh? I can't remember it mentioned on 6th edition threads...

 

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean this to be disrespected, but I honestly think that we spend too much time overthinking this (and HA) in an attempt to find some sort of mechanical balance. If Killing Attack and HA are bought by all players the same, then the rules for them have an internal consistency.

 

For simplicity, were I to change the rules I would rename the Power to Damage at 3 points per 1d6. No range, no adding to Strength. Making that Killing would be a +2 Advantage. Adding Ranged and/or Strength Adds Damage are +1/2 Advantages each. Get rid of the narrative that HA is limited Strength and make it part of Damage. Sure, there is no mathematical advantage to buying 1d6 Normal Damage Str Adds Damage, over Strength, but it does allow for weapon builds.

 

My biggest goal, were I to change anything, would just be to streamline the process. I'm not sure that anything really needs changing though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we looked at KA from a lot of angles. One approach I recall was making KA 5 points per d6, but changing the STUN/BOD ratio a bit (eg. 1-5 = 1 BOD, 6 = 2 BOD - average 3.5 BOD per 15 points, and -1 to the total on the dice per some number of dice - it wasn't as simple as each die being 1d6-1 because the model was looking to keep average STUN/BOD close to the 5e ratios). That came coupled with the possibility of a "Volatile" attack (the 5e Stun Multiple for KA's, and a variant with a bit lower BOD, and a higher STUN, for normal attacks).

 

The issue with KA had largely been how effective it was, mathematically, at passing STUN past high defenses (one reason why it always seems to crop up in Supers more than Heroic games, which I believe is one reason the Hit Location multiples were not changed).

 

To the logic of "internal consistency", we could price STR at 5 points without changing anything else and all players would buy it, and Blast, the same. How many Bricks would players build?

 

The ultimate decision was to nerf the Stun Multiple so KAs are about killing, not doing STUN. I find the 6e KA is very much a niche power in Supers, but that doesn't seem problematic as it SHOULD be a niche power in a four colour Supers game where death is rare. It serves a purpose - it's more effective against entangles, barriers, automatons and anything else that much be destroyed, not KOd - but it is no longer (mathematically) the go to attack against every target with high defenses.

 

Decoupling definitely came up in the SETAC threads, but decoupling STR from KA is a real intuitive hurdle, especially for the Fantasy genre. Apparently, we can't fully overcome our D&Disms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the logic of "internal consistency", we could price STR at 5 points without changing anything else and all players would buy it, and Blast, the same. How many Bricks would players build?

 

 

Depends on how many people you play with that play to optimize the rules instead of to play a role or an archetype. I would find it very hard to play with the former type. While I do not represent "players" (being just one) I would still build Bricks at 5 points as opposed to blast. Not that I can honestly say that I play superheroes, but for the purpose of this discussion, sure.

 

Decoupling definitely came up in the SETAC threads, but decoupling STR from KA is a real intuitive hurdle, especially for the Fantasy genre. Apparently, we can't fully overcome our D&Disms. 

 

 

I'm not quite sure where more force applied to a muscle powered attack, thus causing more damage from that attack, is a "D&Dism." That seems like a pretty logical conclusion to me. Obviously there are upper limits, but that is where either campaign limits or the doubling damage rule steps in. I mean, you could really abstract damage a lot, but at what point does the system stop being Hero and starts to be something else. "Something else" is okay. We just have to decide what makes Hero, Hero and what changes we are willing to look at within that context. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure where more force applied to a muscle powered attack, thus causing more damage from that attack, is a "D&Dism." That seems like a pretty logical conclusion to me.

 

And that is the issue, just because something is logical does not mean the system should reflect that, that was the whole figured characteristics debate. Added damage because you can lift more weight is not actually that logical, weight-lifters are not often the best at throwing punches.

 

I understand the desire to link stuff, those items are easier for new folk to understand. The question is where the balance should be. How far do logical extrapolations provide additional functionality?

 

An extreme perspective might remove characteristics completely (apart from the mechanical ones, like BODY, STUN, END etc).

 

I think that the diversity of mechanics is a way that the system shows its age. Modern systems have unifying mechanics and a streamlined approach to how it gets things done. HERO has many. They don't seem complex to those of us that have grown up with the system but to folk that gave grown up with FATE and even D20, it seems abstruse and abstruse to no particular purpose beyond being different.

 

I don't think that thus is a conversation we desperately need to have but I do think it is an interesting one.

 

If HERO gets another edition, then it might be worth considering gameplay and all the ways that we might update a core system that has remained unchanged for over 30 years...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An extreme perspective might remove characteristics completely (apart from the mechanical ones, like BODY, STUN, END etc).

 

Funny you should mention that. I have been inspired by Fate Core (and some of my issues with other Hero aspects) to see how it would work to just pull the six primary characteristics from the game. So far, my notes (not fully fleshed out) seem to bear out that it would work out just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to preface this:

 

I'm having an insomnia jag, and am in no condition to be thinking. I've tried to read the thread, and I may have gotten bit and pieces of it right.

 

 

Our solution for the staggering amount of "Killing" attacks that showed up in Supers campaigns:

 

 

We made "Killing" a +1 Advantage for regular attacks. Yes; that drops the costs per die compared to the current model. It wasn't an issue.

 

Because we also dropped the Stun Multiplier to 1. What Body you rolled was the Stun that you did. There's a long list of justifications for this, but I couldn't discuss them coherently right now if I wanted to.

 

We capped additional Stun Multipliers at 3. Each additional Multiplier was +1/2. If you wanted the whole shebang, you bought a regular attack at +2 for a Killing Attack with a Stun Multiplier of 3.

 

It stopped alleged good guys from buying attacks that cut through defenses and dished out the BODY just in the hopes of doing scads of Stun.

 

We still have separate "Killing Attacks" in our Heroic stuff, but the Multiplier is still defaulted at 1 and capped at 3. If you want to _kill_ it, then buy killing attack. If you want to knock it out cold, then buy something else.

 

 

Yes: I know the point-per-point "value" is whacky. It's not too far off from "Duplication" versus "Summon: Duplicate" in terms of making point-to-point "balance." But it solved a recurring issue, everyone at the table is reasonably happy with it. In the end, that was the important part.

 

I'm off to try jogging again. Y'all have a good evening.

 

 

Duke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drugs Duke. Lots and lots of Drugs. :)

 

Just kidding. I'm an insomniac myself, so I get where you are coming from.

 

Back on topic, say that Strength was completely removed from the game. How would you deal with lifting and carrying? Would you keep Strength in the mix solely as a benchmark for how much weight one could lift? I can easily remove every other Primary characteristic and replace them with Skill Levels, but there is the nagging thing of encumbrance and the ability to lift a heavy weight. Encumbrance can be hand-waived with other mechanics or even a bit of common sense, but if you are playing a supers game (for example) and your character needs to lift a car off of a victim, how do you tell if he can do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well.  The most obvious way would be to do it through a power.  You could have all kinds of discussion what to call it but lets just say Strength for the sake of talking about it.

 

The things about Strength, like with senses, is that there are so many different aspects to it.  Is it for lifting and carrying?  Is it for throwing stuff?  Is it for crushing stuff?  Is it for hitting stuff?  You would need to think through what the base strength might be and how you might pare ti down to buying what you need.

 

Of course - this is all much more complex and counter-intuitive than characteristics but it is a much cleaner way to do it.

Personally, I would like Strength to be a power with all the thought and clarity that HERO devotes to powers than to be a muddy, murky old characteristic that can be argued about and which, by its very existence, skews the careful balance that a variety of game designers have tried to draw for the game.

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'm not quite sure where more force applied to a muscle powered attack, thus causing more damage from that attack, is a "D&Dism." That seems like a pretty logical conclusion to me.

 

Well, yes. On the other hand, it's also logical to think that Dexterity - an abstraction of things like balance, reaction speed, and coordination - should have bearing on combat effectiveness, but the current edition de-links DEX and OCV and DCV.

 

it solved a recurring issue, everyone at the table is reasonably happy with it. In the end, that was the important part.

 

 

Duke

 

A point worth making - a rule works if everyone at the table is reasonably happy with it.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says some things bear repeating

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like the idea of HA being 3 pts pre 1d6. Using that as a base. You could just use the existing advantage to allow HA to be vs resistant PD or Resistant ED (I believe that's a +1/4 advantage). Count body as we do now. The ability to add strength would be a +1/2 advantage. The nice thing about this is that Killing attacks become more granular and you kill off all of the issues with Stun Multiplier.

 

RKA's then become Blast with the same Advantage (and the same option of adding strength for the +1/2 advantage).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is the issue, just because something is logical does not mean the system should reflect that, that was the whole figured characteristics debate. Added damage because you can lift more weight is not actually that logical, weight-lifters are not often the best at throwing punches.

I have absolutely nothing to add; I just think that these comments are worth repeating. :)

 

 

 

I understand the desire to link stuff, those items are easier for new folk to understand. The question is where the balance should be. How far do logical extrapolations provide additional functionality?

Rolemaster? Space Opera? Aftermath?

 

The more we reach for some kind of perfect balance or single unifying mechanic, the more we move _away_ from sharing a game with friends to re-living our physics homework.

 

Not that I'm knocking that, mind you. But then again, I thoroughly enjoyed studying physics. :)

 

 

 

 

Modern systems have unifying mechanics and a streamlined approach to how it gets things done.HERO has many. They don't seem complex to those of us that have grown up with the system

That's because they're not. It's not just our familiarity with them; they simply aren't complicated. The problem for some people is the bad rap HERO gets about being "mathy." The math is simple: even third graders can divide and fourth graders do fractions, and most of it is up-front during character gen, and is seldom revisited. Subracting damage can't be held against HERO because all games do it. It's sort of a requirement. Granted, we have more kinds of damage. :D

 

The problem, as you alluded to, for many players isn't the math itself or the mechanical systems, but the fact that there is more than one system. But again, that goes back to the physics homework comment above:

Do you want to be able to accurately recreate almost anything (except gravity)? Or do you want to glib through most of the universe and focus on some player stuff?

 

I have nothing against either; I simply prefer being able to do anything without having to fudge it unless I want to. So for me, HERO was the way to go.

 

I don't think that thus is a conversation we desperately need to have

You're right, of course. I'll shut up about it now. ;)

 

 

 

 

Drugs Duke. Lots and lots of Drugs. :)

Yeah. While I was out jog/walking, I looked around for Dr. Drugs, but had no luck. :( Then I remembered it's because me and friends kicked his butt and sent him off to jail about twenty years ago. :D Seriously though, thanks for understanding.

 

 

Back on topic, say that Strength was completely removed from the game. How would you deal with lifting and carrying?

The simplest method, I would think, would be with a new stat called "Lifting and Carrying," or for any of you living in my neck of the woods, the even simpler "Tote." Even simpler than that-- though perhaps more controversial, would be to _redefine_ STR so that it only refers to lifting and carrying, and either use HA, HKA, or even a new Characteristic called "Deliver Physical Damage" or some such thing. Or perhaps a power "Give PD Damage." With the Power approach, you can put skill levels directly on it to not only increase your skill at hitting with it or upping the damage, but just to overall model how good you are a dishing it out. This would handily explain why a guy the size of Bruce Lee was able to do however-the-heck you spell "Death Punch" or "Two inch punch" or why a guy my size could be easily dropped by a professional featherweight boxer: as Doc alluded to earlier (I think it was Doc), the ability to pummel is not necessarily related to the size of your frame or the size of your muscles. Isn't that the principle that Find Weakness is built on?

 

"Throwing" could be either a Talent, Power, or Skill, though given the X or less approach of Skills, it might be better represented as either a Skill Level-type build or a graduated Talent: something that represented the idea that, like delivering effective strikes, Throwing is something you have to practice to maximize your range. Say at this level, you can use 1/4 of your STR to determine range and weight; at that level, you can use 1/2. At some other level, you can use 3/4--- whatever works of you, of course. Honestly, you could simply make a separate Characteristic, though if you don't somehow tie it to STR, it's going to feel really GURPSy as soon as the guy with the TOTE: 15 has a throwing range of 400." ;)

 

 

I really like the idea of HA being 3 pts pre 1d6. Using that as a base.

I do, too.

 

Though my reasons seem to differ from the majority opinion:

 

I like it because it's the cost of _both_ "STR: only for adding damage (-1/2) _and_ for "Energy Blast: No Range (-1/2). Which means, to me, that I don't need some silly little published house rule telling me that HA _must_ be used as additional STR damage. I like that the base cost of 3 for what I find to be a _third_ (IE, no STR-based, non-ranged) method of creating attack combines with Trigger (+1/2) or Damage Shield (+1/2) to create a different sort of offensive power.

 

As it is (at least, as of 5e), if I want to do a little extra damage with STR, I can buy more STR or I can buy HA, to which STR must add. If I want to create some other effect (say, electroshock gloves or a taser jacket, I can't because the rules now demand that my jacket (or my joy buzzer glove) does more damage the stronger I am. I find this to be ridiculous.

 

So, the common response goes, you shouldn't use HA anyway. You should use "Ranged Attack; no range."

 

And sure; I can do that.

 

However, the costing is the same. The method and increments of damage are the same. So I have to methods to cobble up the exact same effect. (this is the problem with trying to re-build everything as a modified anything else: you end up with GURPS: This power must be used like this and etc etc).

 

To me, that suggests that perhaps what we actually have here is a unique offensive power: one that _can_ be added to STR_based attacks, or one that _can_ do ED (or EGO, or PRESENCE, or whatever other odd thing you might consider) based damage.

 

My suggestion? And no; I'm not offering this as a perfect solution; I merely think it bears a bit of inspection--

 

my suggestion is simply re-name it. Call it "Close quarters attack" or "melee damage" or something other than HA. Use it something like your Defenses are use-- when you buy armor, you must decide if it's PD, ED, EGO, or what-have-you. When you buy HA, decide if it's PD or ED (or some other odd thing). Decide if it's only to add to STR damage, or if it never adds to STR damage.

 

There you go: Close Quarters Attack: 3pts / D6. Like every other power in the book, the SFX must be defined at the time of purchase.

 

Then it can become the base for things like Damage Shield, Triggered this-and-thats, small explosives (3 pts with range added isn't too far off from ranged attacks with "Range based on STR).

 

 

An extreme perspective might remove characteristics completely (apart from the mechanical ones, like BODY, STUN, END etc).

I have been inspired by Fate Core (and some of my issues with other Hero aspects) to see how it would work to just pull the six primary characteristics from the game.

say that Strength was completely removed from the game.

 

I'm the only guy on the planet that's _adding_ Characteristics, aren't it? :D

 

 

 

 

Duke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny you should mention that. I have been inspired by Fate Core (and some of my issues with other Hero aspects) to see how it would work to just pull the six primary characteristics from the game. So far, my notes (not fully fleshed out) seem to bear out that it would work out just fine.

I have done a lot of work toward that end.

 

With OCV and DCV being separate things you can really kill Dex without much issue. You base the skill rolls on either OCV or DCV. I tend to look at OCV as Hand Eye Coordination, and DCV being moving the body, and you can divide most Dex based skills into one or the other category.

 

OMCV and DMCV are pretty easy to substitute for EGO. Overcoming Psyc Limits, Pushing End (ie active ego use) uses OMCV. DMCV is for defending so Getting out of Mental Abilities, resisting Presence Attacks etc.

 

Con is a bit harder to remove, unless you just assume that any attack that does half the person's end Stuns the opponent.

 

Str could just be a power, but I don't know if that is satisfying. You still need a stat for Lifting,something to denote how much weight a character can carry etc.

 

Body is very baked into the system. The easiest answer is to keep it around. Though replacing it with a Hit Point kind of stat could also be interesting and allow for more granularity. Some of the damage system would have to be changed to accomodate this (the Way Fuzion did this doesn't work well IMHO).

 

Int is another stat that I wouldn't want to remove. I like making players make Int Rolls, Using it for Perception checks etc.

 

Presence Could be removed or expanded. It could become a limited version of Mind Control (it has similar effects if you really look at it). I would love to have an expanded Social "combat"/Mental Combat system that allows for more permanent effects. Though that would turn into another major change to the system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how talking about killing attacks morphed into a conversation about killing off characteristics! :)

 

I think the biggest meta game issue with changing HA to 3 points per 1d6 is how we measure effectiveness. Many, if not most, games eyeball powers by their active points. If HA is 3pts then a 60 active point game allows 20d6 punches but only 12d6 energy blasts.

 

If HA is 5 points with a mandatory 1/2 limitation, then both are limited to 12d6. There is some value in retaining some kind of common reference point with damage inflicting abilities. Either you begin with HA as the core damage power, or you begin with blast. With HA as core, adding range will up the cost and active points of ranged attacks, so an active point limit means ranged attacks will always be that little bit less powerful than HTH ones. With Blast as core, removing range lowers the cost of HTH attacks but leaves them on a level playing field as ranged attacks as far as damage goes. STR skews this fine balance as, logically, you should be able to add STR damage to a no range attack or vice versa.

 

Simply another reason to redefine STR to being about lifting and carrying and as a modifier for your base throwing skill.

 

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on how many people you play with that play to optimize the rules instead of to play a role or an archetype. I would find it very hard to play with the former type. While I do not represent "players" (being just one) I would still build Bricks at 5 points as opposed to blast. Not that I can honestly say that I play superheroes, but for the purpose of this discussion, sure.

I have to admit, I find it tiresome to see the suggestion that everyone who wants their archetype to be competitive with other archetypes is a munckinny min/maxer arise every time there is a discussion about balancing the costing of various abilities. I don’t think there are two kinds of gamer, one seeking to play a role or archetype (with no concern whatsoever to whether his character is even remotely effective in game) and the other who sees his character as solely a list of stats and abilities, chafing at any suggestion of adding even the thinnest veneer of a character beneath the mechanics.

 

I suggest that it is the rare role player who takes selects a character archetype so clearly unbalanced by being too low powered (“unbalanced” is not limited to “excessively powerful” – it is a comparison between power levels) as to be ineffectual comic relief in the game. If we set prices so a Brick can barely afford to have an 8 DC attack and 20 defenses when a Blaster can easily afford a 12 DC attack, 25-30 defenses and a bunch of add-on miscellaneous abilities, I submit the game clearly is unbalanced in respect of the “Brick” archetype.

 

The only real question is how fine do we want to tune it.

 

I'm not quite sure where more force applied to a muscle powered attack, thus causing more damage from that attack, is a "D&Dism." That seems like a pretty logical conclusion to me.

Sure. It also seems logical that a character who can fly through the vacuum of space and the heart of the sun with no discomfort from the temperature extremes would also have some measure of resistance to an 8d6 Cold or Flame blast. I had a player many years ago suggest that his Martial Artist, who spent years honing his physical and mental discipline, would have a strong will. That seems logical, too. Others have noted the logic inherent in figured characteristics.

 

In Hero, we implement such logic by purchasing the logical abilities – defenses, EGO, what have you - with points, not getting the logical result we extrapolate for free. Except for adding damage from STR to HKAs. The one logical conclusion we cannot seem to get over is “strength increases the damage from a sword/claws/etc.” But we can live with a stronger pull having no impact on the damage done by a bow, for some reason.

 

Obviously there are upper limits, but that is where either campaign limits or the doubling damage rule steps in.

Why are there “obviously” upper limits? Why doesn’t wearing bladed gloves convert all of Grond’s STR into killing damage, when it would inflict much less damage worn by Aunt May? Why is the ratio always +1DC/5 STR/ Why aren’t some weapons more efficient, and others less so, at converting raw muscle mass to enhanced damage? Why don’t some more effectively convert high OCV to greater damage through a precision strike? Why do they all cap at twice base damage (if, and only if, we apply that OPTIONAL rule)? Why don’t some cap out lower, and others higher? There is no logical reason.

 

I don’t think “STR adds to HKA” is a core concept in Hero. If it is, I suppose we should ditch that Doubling rule entirely – that’s how it was in 1e, and it’s concepts that ran from 1e to present day that I would suggest are “the core of Hero”. I would even go so far as to suggest that getting what you pay for is at the core of Hero, and the “HKA augmented by STR” rule violates that core concept. 6e removed a lot of these violators - no more growth or stretching momentum damage, bye bye figureds; STR does not boost leaping and Ego does not boost mental defense. But the link between STR and HTH Killing Damage was just too intuitive to let go.

 

We can certainly have a killing attack augmented by STR. Link the extra damage to the wielder’s STR. You can buy a Blast which is Linked to STR, or an RKA linked to STR (“this bow can do up to 3d6 RKA damage, but requires 5 STR of Pull for every 1 DC it inflicts”). It just requires approaching the build from a new perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our solution for the staggering amount of "Killing" attacks that showed up in Supers campaigns:

 

 

We made "Killing" a +1 Advantage for regular attacks. Yes; that drops the costs per die compared to the current model. It wasn't an issue.

 

Because we also dropped the Stun Multiplier to 1. What Body you rolled was the Stun that you did. There's a long list of justifications for this, but I couldn't discuss them coherently right now if I wanted to.

 

We capped additional Stun Multipliers at 3. Each additional Multiplier was +1/2. If you wanted the whole shebang, you bought a regular attack at +2 for a Killing Attack with a Stun Multiplier of 3.

 

It stopped alleged good guys from buying attacks that cut through defenses and dished out the BODY just in the hopes of doing scads of Stun.

Clearly it worked for your group. Mine never really had the KA issue as it was pretty much accepted as an unwritten rule that you didn`t use KAs against living targets. I spotted it more in agent builds (“well, they’ll never get STUN through with a 6d6 EB, but a 2d6 KA has a chance”). This is pretty close to Steve Long`s solution of a 1d3 Stun Multiple, at 15 points per 1d6, and he also left Heroic unchanged via the hit location chart. The problem most definitely was the KA punching too much STUN through relative to its BOD.

 

I envision a lot of players slapping a 6d6 KA (your model) in a Multipower with a 12d6 Blast. Why? Because it will carve through walls, automatons, entangles and other targets that only take BOD. If you beef those things up, probably with defenses, to withstand that average 21 BOD from the KA, you reinforce that everyone needs a KA, as the 12 BOD from a normal attack will be useless against such targets. There`s a lot of behind the scenes balance in Hero, really.

 

I'm off to try jogging again.

“You call it jogging. I call it running around.” :)

 

I think the biggest meta game issue with changing HA to 3 points per 1d6 is how we measure effectiveness. Many, if not most, games eyeball powers by their active points. If HA is 3pts then a 60 active point game allows 20d6 punches but only 12d6 energy blasts.

I agree with the 5 point common reference point. As an intellectual exercise, however...

 

6e added Range to Drains so they would be consistent with most other attacks, a consistency I agree with (especially if one compares a STUN Drain to an AVAD vs Power Defense). But we could have gone the other way. Drop the cost of all attack powers to 1 DC = 3 points (STR stays 5, martial arts is unchanged and Hand Attack is now 3 points per DC), but EVEYTHING has no range by default. You want Range, pay for the advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6e added Range to Drains so they would be consistent with most other attacks, a consistency I agree with (especially if one compares a STUN Drain to an AVAD vs Power Defense). But we could have gone the other way. Drop the cost of all attack powers to 1 DC = 3 points (STR stays 5, martial arts is unchanged and Hand Attack is now 3 points per DC), but EVEYTHING has no range by default. You want Range, pay for the advantage.

 

Yup.  That is also a solution.  As long as we are consistent about things then it works.  I would be content with either - the problems arise when you make a switch for one reason without looking for the unintended consequentials.  :-)

 

The benefit of your solution is that STR stays at 5 (addressing some of the costing issues) and retains the 5 STR = 1D6 damage relationship.

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with the 5 point common reference point. As an intellectual exercise, however...

 

6e added Range to Drains so they would be consistent with most other attacks, a consistency I agree with (especially if one compares a STUN Drain to an AVAD vs Power Defense). But we could have gone the other way. Drop the cost of all attack powers to 1 DC = 3 points (STR stays 5, martial arts is unchanged and Hand Attack is now 3 points per DC), but EVEYTHING has no range by default. You want Range, pay for the advantage.

 

 

Yup.  That is also a solution.  As long as we are consistent about things then it works.  I would be content with either - the problems arise when you make a switch for one reason without looking for the unintended consequentials.  :-)

 

The benefit of your solution is that STR stays at 5 (addressing some of the costing issues) and retains the 5 STR = 1D6 damage relationship.

 

Doc

 

The only problem with that is that STR can't remain at 5 points per DC and be considered a viable option

 

Under the proposed system we get:

 

12 DC STR character A, he pays 50 points for his attack(assuming 10 STR free)

 

12 DC HA character B, he pays 36 points for his.

 

and lastly 12 DC  Range character C, he pays 54 points(assuming Range is still +1/2 in this system)

 

A is at a slight to B and they both are looking up at B. Now lets add something common, say Reduced END to each.

 

Now A has spent 62 points, B has spent 45 and C has spent 63. A and C probably starting to question the viability of their concepts. It gets worse if you want to add more advantages, B gets farther and farther ahead.

 

You'll also have to revamp the Movement Powers so that the meters to DC ratio is correct. And you can't let A throw things anymore or C will be very,very sad. I'm sure I can think of more later but this is just at the top of my head.

 

All this system does is invert the (perceived) problem of STR being better than HA  by changing the costs around. I think HA is fine at 5 points per die. Every Character I've seen who uses it, takes it with some type of Limitation that doesn't apply to their STR or Martial Arts.

 

Save yourselves by not fixing the functional and work on something truly broken like Growth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly it worked for your group. Mine never really had the KA issue as it was pretty much accepted as an unwritten rule that you didn`t use KAs against living targets.

 

Yep. The issue we had was more for the Stun Lotto: 4D6 KA, Does no BODY-- that sort of thing. The first effort to slow it down was "Well, since STUN is a multiple of BODY with a KA, then this attack does nothing. Try something else."

 

I'm sure you're familiar with the various creative things players will try to do for a cheap leg-up. ;)

 

 

I envision a lot of players slapping a 6d6 KA (your model) in a Multipower with a 12d6 Blast. Why? Because it will carve through walls, automatons, entangles and other targets that only take BOD.

 

You know the weird thing? Multipowers are _extremely_ rare in our games-- even the Supers game. Now you can't swing a cat without finding an Elemental Control, but Multipowers just don't appeal to my players much. If I had to guess, I'd say it was the additional calculations when setting them up or even when buying them, but for whatever reason (and most of them simply say that EC "feels more right," and I'm fine with that), they just don't pop up for us very much.

 

 

 

I also need to clarify. Forgive me; I really shouldnt have posted as sleep deprived as I was, but I made an error of omission while typing up our treatment of "Killing." As stated, the default Stun Multiplier is 1. An additional multiplier is +1, with an additional cumulative +1/2 for each additional multiplier. Thus, a x3 multiplier is bought thusly: +1 (+1.5).

 

I know; it gets expensive. However, it wasn't banned outright (though we cap it at x3 for Supers), yet it's expensive enough that "Killing" attacks are still common, but not used for Stunning: they are used for destroying things, as many of the long-term players (and myself) have always thought they should be. To use your examples, slicing up walls and automatons and things.

 

The idea wasn't to eliminate Killing Attacks as much as to drive home the point that "good guys" shouldn't be using them on living people. Your unwritten rule is similar to our own ideals, but too often those ideals get swept aside as players come in wanting to break my only (seriously: I only have one) hard and fast rule of supers: if you want me to run, there are no anti-heroes, no Punisher clones, no solo warriors. In short, I'll run for good guys and team players. I'm not creating a universe for a jerk. ;)

 

And since I'm in charge of the villains, living beings are often tackled with "normal" attacks-- often quite powerful ones-- but KAs against lving people, even from the villains, aren't generally large enough to cripple a hero with a hit or two.

 

 

“You call it jogging. I call it running around.” :)

 

Well, I call it jogging because "wandering around the neighborhood aimlessly with a cane" until I'm too exhausted to not sleep for at least a minute" takes way to long to type, and too often invites explanations. :)

 

 

I agree with the 5 point common reference point. As an intellectual exercise, however...

 

6e added Range to Drains so they would be consistent with most other attacks, a consistency I agree with (especially if one compares a STUN Drain to an AVAD vs Power Defense). But we could have gone the other way. Drop the cost of all attack powers to 1 DC = 3 points (STR stays 5, martial arts is unchanged and Hand Attack is now 3 points per DC), but EVEYTHING has no range by default. You want Range, pay for the advantage.

 

While it's an unpopular opinion, I _like_ the 3-pt HA without turning it into a build of "this with a limitation." My own intellectual exercise has been to consider each die of 3pt HA as 5AP. Sure: not including some sort of Limitation is just semantics, but when your base system says "pay for the game effect and define the SFX with words," semantics _are_ the feel of the power.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only problem with that is that STR can't remain at 5 points per DC and be considered a viable option

Why not? You get 1d6 of HTH damage (priced at 3 points) plus the ability to lift, carry, throw, grab, break free from grapples, etc. etc.

 

12 DC STR character A, he pays 50 points for his attack(assuming 10 STR free)

 

12 DC HA character B, he pays 36 points for his.

And when a 20 STR opponent Grabs him and immobilizes the point of origin of his Hand Attack, he will realize that the 20 points he saved (since he would add this HA to the 2 free dice from his STR) mean he lacks some abilities the fellow who paid for STR possesses.

 

and lastly 12 DC  Range character C, he pays 54 points(assuming Range is still +1/2 in this system)

If we start at 3 points per DC, then this must be the cost. 3 1/3 points per DC grates. Of course, Blast also gives the option of Spreading the attack, which we are not considering, but perhaps that becomes a function of range for simplicity.

 

Now A has spent 62 points, B has spent 45 and C has spent 63. A and C probably starting to question the viability of their concepts. It gets worse if you want to add more advantages, B gets farther and farther ahead.

Assuming you want all the other abilities of STR to be half END. We could allow the advantage to be placed on the damaging aspect only, of course. And we would not want the STR user to have to apply Armor Piercing, or other such advantages, to the cost of STR over and above Hand Attack.

 

You'll also have to revamp the Movement Powers so that the meters to DC ratio is correct.

Why? Most movement powers are not purchased primarily to enhance damage. If you want Move By's bumped up by 1d6 per 6 meters of movement, buy some Linked Hand Attack.

 

And you can't let A throw things anymore or C will be very,very sad. I'm sure I can think of more later but this is just at the top of my head.

Improvised weapons are too generous now. I think that STR for Throwing remains in the 2 points per, but "automatic AoE" disappears, and a revisitation of the penalties for improvised weapons would be in order. Under standard Hero rules, Spiderman should have been SpiderSplat since the first time the Hulk lobbed a bus at him.

 

All this system does is invert the (perceived) problem of STR being better than HA  by changing the costs around.

If, by that, you mean it addresses the fact that 5 points spent on STR gets you 1d6 of Hand attack plus a bunch of other benefits, then I suppose it does. That's the kind of perception that comes when you roll half or less of what you need to succeed on your PER roll, so I guess it is "perceived". It is accurately perceived.

 

I think HA is fine at 5 points per die. Every Character I've seen who uses it, takes it with some type of Limitation that doesn't apply to their STR or Martial Arts.

So what? They can apply the same limitations to a Blast and save the same points, effectively getting a Hand Attack with range. How many Powered Armor characters buy Hand Attack instead of STR with the powered armor limitation? I'd guess none - if I get no discount, why should I not take the benefits of Strength.

 

As far as Growth goes, it`s changed in pretty much every edition, so it clearly has issues. But since it includes STR, you can`t really fix it if STR is not also fixed :)

 

SORRY DOC! We have drifted your KA thread into an HA thread...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is all related.  We have a bit of a mix and match mess with damage related powers/characteristics etc.

 

:-)

 

All interesting to read...and I guess I started it - I said that if you bought 1d6 HA then you should have an advantage that caused the STUN rolled to be killing BODY dmage and the BODY damage to be killing STUN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Growth, it's was probably as good at it got in 5e. It's just that all of us fans, disliked losing all of the Stats and benefits from 4e and earlier. So Steve caved into our desires and added them back in and made the power cost enough to cover the extra stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke, my issue would be that the Killing Attack (6d6 at 60 AP) makes the Entangle obsolete (6 BOD and 6 DEF? HA! No one with a normal attack can break a wall or bank vault (or KAs shred them). Automatons are either shattered by KAs or immune to normal attacks. I don`t like the ripple effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...