Jump to content
Astromath

KA d6-1 cost in 5th edition

Recommended Posts

This is concerning the "d6-1" cost.  On page 403 DC table in the 5e revised, the cost for 2d6-1 is 25.  However, on page 195 sidebar for the colt M1911A, 2d6-1 costs 27 (I took the active cost [34] and divided by the advantage [+1/4] to get the original cost).  Shouldn't it be 31 (25 x 1.25)?  I'm wondering where the extra 2 points is coming from.  Also, it isn't just here, even in the Equipment Guides, the d6-1 cost is +12 rather than +10.  Which cost is correct???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was a hangover from previous thoughts.  I can see the rationale for 2D6-1 costing more than 1.5D6 and less than 3D6.  The averages are different.

 

1D6      average BODY 3.5  cost 15 points

1D6+1 average BODY 4.5  cost  20 points

1.5D6  average BODY 5.5  cost 25 points

2D6-1  average BODY 6     cost 25 points

2D6     average BODY 7      cost 30 points

 

I can image them sitting in the room deciding that they are only going to have three steps to match each addition of 5 points rather than introducing that fourth 2 point step for 2D6-1.  I might have been persuaded not to allow half dice.  🙂

 

Doc

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, now that I look at it, I think the table on p403 might be slightly misleading - it is there simply to give an indication of Damage Classes, not purchasing costs.  The power description does not mention the cost of 1D6-1.  It is silent on it and the text accompanying the table on p403 says:

Quote

it’s necessary for game purposes to establish a rough comparison between different types of damage

p403 5thRev

 

When it talks on the next page about movement adding to killing damage, it says

 

Quote

For example, if a character with a sword (HKA 1d6+1) did a Move By at 15”, he would add +3 DCs damage from velocity, thus increasing the sword’s damage to 2d6+1. At most, between velocity and other meth-ods, he can increase the sword’s damage to 2½d6

 

There is no mention of adding 2.5D6 or 3D6-1, even if they are the same Damage Class. 

 

I think that there may indeed be an official consideration that 2D6-1 costs 27 points rather than 25.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

Actually, now that I look at it, I think the table on p403 might be slightly misleading - it is there simply to give an indication of Damage Classes, not purchasing costs.  The power description does not mention the cost of 1D6-1.  It is silent on it and the text accompanying the table on p403 says:

p403 5thRev

 

When it talks on the next page about movement adding to killing damage, it says

 

 

There is no mention of adding 2.5D6 or 3D6-1, even if they are the same Damage Class. 

 

I think that there may indeed be an official consideration that 2D6-1 costs 27 points rather than 25.

Wow not sure where you got this from Doc. It’s always been 1/2D6 OR 1D6-1 = 10 pts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Astromath said:

Here's the problem:  The powers that be uses as a cost of 10 for d6-1 in Hero Designer 6.  Looks like it takes the cost from the table on pg 403.

Because that is correct. If you look under weapons tables the pistol also has +1 OCV due to accuracy.  I’m thinking the Side Bar probably forgot your add the +1 OCV. But wait....there’s more! 😁. If you do the math for the +1 OCV the real costs comes up to 2 pts however ACT pts is 5. So still off except..... the Side I think is an example of how to a mundane piece of equipment in a Superheroic game but acts like well normal equipment. So (I believe I’ve seen this before) the +1 OCV is just bought at the 2 pt level and is given no other limitations. And the writer forget to mention it in the text. (Btw back in the weapons table, ACT pt is 39).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Because that is correct. If you look under weapons tables the pistol also has +1 OCV due to accuracy.  I’m thinking the Side Bar probably forgot your add the +1 OCV. But wait....there’s more! 😁. If you do the math for the +1 OCV the real costs comes up to 2 pts however ACT pts is 5. So still off except..... the Side I think is an example of how to a mundane piece of equipment in a Superheroic game but acts like well normal equipment. So (I believe I’ve seen this before) the +1 OCV is just bought at the 2 pt level and is given no other limitations. And the writer forget to mention it in the text. (Btw back in the weapons table, ACT pt is 39).

 

The sidebar I used did not have the +1 OCV.  Here's the whole text from page 195:

Colt M1911A Semiautomatic Handgun: RKA 2d6-1, +1 Increased STUN Multiplier (+¼) (34 Active Points); OAF (-1), STR Minimum (9; STR Minimum Doesn’t Add Damage; -1), Beam (-¼), 2 clips of 7 Charges each (-¼), Real Weapon (-¼). Total cost: 9 points.

 

If you notice, the active point cost is 34 points after applying the (+¼) advantage.  The only way to get the 34 active points is if 2d6-1 is 27 points.  I'm not sure where you're getting the +1 OCV.  Also, if you backwards calculate all weapons with d6-1 from any source they will be +12 points.  This is why I'm confused.  Nowhere does it state in 5e revised that d6-1 is +12 points.  But it does state on page 403 that it is +10 points, same as 1/2d6 and that is what Hero Designer uses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Astronaut, I thought I said that the 1 OCV is from the back table where it lists several example ranged weapons. And I noted that the sidebar did not include the OCV. I’m wondering is that is an error. Yes your math is correct as stated. If you take 25 pts and and the advantage it comes out to 31 pts. If you add the OCV it still doesn’t come out right. The difference would be 3 pts - 1 CSL with tight group. Again I’ve seen builds where they just assign a OCV for an accurate weapon but don’t put all the limitations on it.  Really I’m guessing as to why the numbers are off. The main one would be someone put the wrong ACT point cost in the side bar. You are correct though that 1D6-1 is worth 10 pts. Sorry if I caused any confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Wow not sure where you got this from Doc. It’s always been 1/2D6 OR 1D6-1 = 10 pts. 

 

I thought I explained where I got it from. 🙂

 

It kind of goes against the core principle of getting what you pay for.  Why would anyone choose to take a half dice rather than a D6-1??

 

Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

I thought I explained where I got it from. 🙂

 

It kind of goes against the core principle of getting what you pay for.  Why would anyone choose to take a half dice rather than a D6-1??

 

Doc

I have a friend who I could make swear off d6-1 just by making him roll the d6-1 in a different color and pointing out "That's a zero" every time the die came up '1'.  The half-point average difference is "who cares" for many people while the possibility of it not contributing can be a big psychological deal. 

 

The player might also have a good reason to want low results to be less likely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

The player might also have a good reason to want low results to be less likely.

 

I guess it depends on what you call low results...

 

1D3:    1 - 33.3%  2 - 33.3%  3 - 33.3%   I have to presume by low you mean less than 2, so 33.3% chance of 1.  Zero chance or 0 and zero chance of more than 3.

 

1D6-1:   0 - 16.7% 1 - 16.7% 2 - 16.7%  3 - 16.7% 4 - 16.7%  5 - 16.7%    Here you also have a 33.3% chance of 1 (or less).  16.7% chance of 0 and 33.3% chance of more than 3.

 

I KNOW that folks dice preferences are not dictated by logic, almost 50 years of gaming has shown me that if nothing else.  I fully accept the driving fear of getting zero, even if it is slightly irrational.  I would also accept if they wanted to keep damage low (unlikely as that might seem to me) but definitely not that they want low results to be LESS likely. 

 

Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Wow not sure where you got this from Doc. It’s always been 1/2D6 OR 1D6-1 = 10 pts. 

 

As he said, he saw it from the inability to move to "d6-1" instead of 1/2d6 when adding DCs from STR, velocity, etc., and not from pricing.

 

I've considered a 3 point scale like

 

+1/2D6-1                           average BODY 0.5  cost 3 points

+1 BOD (or +1/2d6-1)     average BODY 1  cost  6 points

+1/2d6                               average BODY 2 cost 9 points

1D6-1                                 average BODY 2.5  cost 12 points

1D6                                     average BODY 3.5      cost 15 points

 

Two increments of +1 BOD and 3 of 0.5 - still not perfect, but it removes the "may as well go d6-1" element.

 

As to the "it may add nothing", I think we have to price to objective math.  Pre-6e KAs may roll a low stun multiple and do no damage, but the potential of a huge hit past defenses made them mathematically better at passing STUN through to targets with higher defenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

As to the "it may add nothing", I think we have to price to objective math.  Pre-6e KAs may roll a low stun multiple and do no damage, but the potential of a huge hit past defenses made them mathematically better at passing STUN through to targets with higher defenses.

That's a problem with using a multiplier, not a problem with the dice used to determine BODY.  The possibility of an x5 result is bad for the game regardless of the last BODY die being 1/2 or -1. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

That's a problem with using a multiplier, not a problem with the dice used to determine BODY.  The possibility of an x5 result is bad for the game regardless of the last BODY die being 1/2 or -1. 

Bad? In your opinion. In our games it was a feature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer to say "more volatile".  If that is the desired result, then it is not "bad" per se.  If you want no volatility, pick Standard Effect for 3/die.  No one does, because the average both before and after defenses is lower, but that is another tradeoff for lower volatility.

 

One suggestion I once made for the "stun multiple" was to allow for both:

 

 - lower volatility KAs where 5 points = 1d6; STUN is the roll on the dice less 1/2 of the dice (so -6 for a 12 DC KA) and BOD was 1 on a 1-5 and 2 on a 6; 12d6 averages 30 STUN and 14 BOD vs the normal average of 14 BOD x 2.67 = 33 STUN; and

 

 - higher volatility normal attacks where 15 points = 1d6; BOD is roll -1 (minimum 1/die, so 2.67 average BOD per d6) and STUN is BOD x 1d6, so 12 DC would average 11 BOD and 37.33 STUN (but that average BOD could work out to 66 STUN on a high multiple).

Share this post


Link to post
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
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...