Find Weakness/Lack Of Weakness in 6E

[Astromath]

The following is my versions of Find Weakness & Lack Of Weakness for 6E

 

Find Weakness:  Add Armor Piercing Naked Advantage to an Attack Power.  Then add the modifier Requires A Find Weakness Roll (-1/2).  Under Skills add the skill Power: Find Weakness vs. [defense type] using the INT characteristic.

You should only buy the skill for each damage type.  Example:  For Find Weakness vs Normal PD and vs Normal ED, you would need to purchase the skill twice.

 

Lack Of Weakness:  Add Hardened Naked Advantage to the Defense Power.  Then add the modifier Only Works Against Attack Powers With The Requires A Find Weakness Roll Modifier (-1)

 

Alternative version:

 

Find Weakness:  Add a compound power with the first power being the normal attack and the second would be additional dice with the Requires A Find Weakness Roll limitation.  Skill would still function as above.

 

Lack Of Weakness:  Damage Negation (x levels) with the following two limitations:  First is the same as above.  The second would be Negates Only Up To The DCs Used With A Power With Requires A Find Weakness Roll (-1).

 

Example:

57 Find Weakness: (Total: 60 Active Cost, 57 Real Cost) Blast 10d6 (Real Cost: 50) plus Blast 2d6 (10 Active Points); Requires A Roll (Find Weakness roll; -1/2) (Real Cost: 7)

  8 Lack Of Weakness: Damage Negation (-5 DCs Physical) (25 Active Points); Only Works Against Attack Powers With The Requires A Find Weakness Roll Modifier (-1); Only Works Against Attack Powers With The Requires A Find Weakness Roll Modifier (-1).

 

The character with the Lack Of Weakness power in the example can only negate 2 DCs of the Find Weakness Power, not all 5 DCs.

 

Possible additional limitation for either version the Lack Of Weakness:  All Or Nothing (-2)

 

Opinion:  I prefer the alternative version.

[Lord Liaden]

To be honest, I would just add back Find Weakness and Lack of Weakness as they are. I really like the feel of it, which IMHO well reflects someone with a skill at locating an object's or opponent's vulnerable spots. And it would just be an addition to the 6E rule set, changing nothing else.

 

However, to remain completely book-legal under 6E, Astromath, I would consider your first construct the closest in spirit to the original.

[unclevlad]

Find Weakness

 

I don't think I like making it a form of Advantage, naked or otherwise, because that makes it more subject to manipulation...basically, because any outside damage adders (martial arts maneuvers and DCs, Weaponmaster, STR for HTH) gain the benefit.  If it's an Advantage, then you pay next to nothing on, say, an HA...in a 12 DC campaign, say 25 STR, 2 DC HA, 3 DCs martial arts, and maneuver damage, the Find Weakness is basically no points...the HA is only 10 to start with, and armor piercing is cheap.  (I'll also add that I lean to *always* including HAs or martial DCs with STR > 15, to offset the slow damage increase compared to the exponential lift capacity increase.  So a 30 STR character will likely get a 3d6 HA, or 3 HTH DCs, implicitly.)  

 

One point in favor of making it an advantage...or possibly adder, that's actually simpler to do and fixes much of the scaling issues...is that it's a LOT simpler than if it's a separate power or talent.  Call it a 10 point adder for 11-, +1 to the roll for +2 points.  The power defines the applicable defense.  Note that this works with Variable Special Effects to change the attack type, because as an adder, the Variable Special Effects will be increasing that cost.  BUT, I could also see a GM requiring a very good reason before allowing this combination.

 

It also goes to DC/active point caps...because now the find weakness, which makes an attack more effective, is included in the attack's points directly.  Especially as an adder.

 

The language is an issue.  5E splits defenses very badly, with normal and damage resistance in 1 category, armor and force field in another, in terms of what works for Find Weakness.  

 

Secondary issue in making it armor piercing...what if the target has Hardened?  Hardened is also fairly cheap, and useful enough.  How often would someone bother with the "only versus Find Weakness"?  Similarly, are you ever really gonna save that many points in your proposed, first construction?  Armor piercing is +1/4;  on 50 points that's 12.  Half limit cuts it to 8.  BUT the skill's 3.

 

What about Damage Negation?

 

Lack of Weakness

 

This depends on how you want to finally define Find Weakness.  If you go with, say, the adder for Find...10 points for 11-, +1 to the roll for 2 points...then Lack of Weakness is applied to a specific defense.  -1 to the roll for 1 point, per 5E.  Again, it's an adder, so it connects to a specific power and applies only to that power.

 

I gotta say, tho, this is getting seriously messy.  It's throwing on another option for an arms race between the players and GM...AP vs. hardened, Damage Negation vs. Reduced Negation, and now this.  I'm not sure we want another avenue for potential exploitation.

 

 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

Why not Naked AVAD (Half of target's [appropriate defense]) for [your AP here] of Attack Powers, Activation Roll [whatever number you want]-, Extra Time (Half Phase Action, only to Activate)? 

If you want Lack of Weakness too, add Activation Roll Subject to Lack of Weakness.

  

5 hours ago, unclevlad said:

I gotta say, tho, this is getting seriously messy.  It's throwing on another option for an arms race between the players and GM...AP vs. hardened, Damage Negation vs. Reduced Negation, and now this.  I'm not sure we want another avenue for potential exploitation.

I agree.  I don't see what having a billion defenses achieves other than complexity and arms races. 

[unclevlad]

One net effect of this is to push to Damage Reduction, because that can't be bypassed or reduced...well, ok, not talking Drain or Dispel.  That's something entirely separate...and a whole, separate part of the arms race.  As you go up in level...do NNDs become seriously effective...or totally useless, because more and more targets have the defense?  Obviously it'll depend on what you target, but if it's Power Def or Mental Def...it's probably useless.  Comes a point when NOT having at least some leaves you WAY too open.

[Armitage]

If the Find Weakness is dependent on a roll, Lack of Weakness could be built as Change Environment, like using it to make yourself hard to see.  The point cost doesn't come out to a flat amount per -1 though.

 

Change Environment (-1 to Find Weakness PER Rolls), Persistent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (3 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), Self Only (-1/2)

Total cost: 1 point.

 

-2 is 3 points.  -3 is 5 points.  -4 is 7 points.  -5 is 8 points.

[Ockham's Spoon]

13 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Why not Naked AVAD (Half of target's [appropriate defense]) for [your AP here] of Attack Powers, Activation Roll [whatever number you want]-, Extra Time (Half Phase Action, only to Activate)? 

If you want Lack of Weakness too, add Activation Roll Subject to Lack of Weakness.

 

 

One advantage of the AVAD route instead of AP is that you could potentially include in the description of the Defense that it is half with one successful roll, a quarter with 2 successful rolls, etc., which would more closely replicate the original Find Weakness skill.

[Lord Liaden]

A lot of the concern over an "arms race" comes down to good GMing, IMO and IME. If a GM has an NPC use an attack bypassing normal Defenses against their players too often, of course players will want to buy a Defense against it. So, don't use it too often. If players want to buy a Defense against that specific thing, ask them for a rationale as to how their PC would gain it. If they don't have a good one, disallow it. If they want something you think would be too unbalancing to your game, rationale or not, disallow it while explaining that to the player. If a player protests, listen to their counterargument, and if it sounds good change your ruling.

[Greywind]

4 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

A lot of the concern over an "arms race" comes down to good GMing, IMO and IME. If a GM has an NPC use an attack bypassing normal Defenses against their players too often, of course players will want to buy a Defense against it. So, don't use it too often. If players want to buy a Defense against that specific thing, ask them for a rationale as to how their PC would gain it. If they don't have a good one, disallow it. If they want something you think would be too unbalancing to your game, rationale or not, disallow it while explaining that to the player. If a player protests, listen to their counterargument, and if it sounds good change your ruling.

 

Keeping in mind, in the comics, such measures (devices, countermeasures, etc) tend to be a one-time thing. Not a constant added to the character's repertoire.

[dsatow]

To be honest, as a player, I miss find weakness.  As a GM, I do not. 

 

As a GM (4th and 5th), I often see this:

1. If a player has find weakness, then every tank or main villain will start to have lack of weakness and I will begin to hear players saying that all the villains have lack of weakness.  If I don't put find weakness on the villain or tank, I have to put large amounts damage reduction otherwise if the player gets lucky they will thoroughly destroy the tank or major villain.
2. I will start to see the AP/Find Weakness construct which cuts the defense into 1/4 unless I harden the villain also.
3. I have to constantly limit the levels of a character with find weakness otherwise they might be used with the find weakness.  This results in extremely high Dexes for characters who shouldn't move as fast as the Flash.

As a player, I miss Find Weakness because:

1. Its a common trope.  For instance, Karate Kid was able to Find the Weakness in a Force Field which comics wise is just cool.
2. When it works, it feels like getting a crit roll in DnD.

So, I rather PCs simulate the effect either with the AP construct or a Def drain construct in 6th than reintroduce Find Weakness.

[Astromath]

My alternative version gets rid of the AP/Hardened problem.  Only part of the Blast (or what have you) will have the Find Weakness mechanic, and for the Lack Of Weakness defense, Damage Negation only up to the amount of dice used in the Find Weakness.

 

Let's say you have a Blast defined as 6d6 Blast + 6d6 Blast with the Find Weakness.  If you define Damage Negation of -4 DCs with the Lack Of Weakness mechanic, the target will be taking 6d6 + 2d6 points of damage after subtracting 4 DCs.  If you define DN of -10, the target will be taking 6d6 points of damage and none for the additional from the Find Weakness part of the Blast.

 

Don't forget that the rules do allow you to create powers, modifiers, etc.  So, you can still have the old Find Weakness/Lack Of Weakness if you want to.  (I, personally, like my alternative version better.)

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

13 minutes ago, dsatow said:

To be honest, as a player, I miss find weakness.  As a GM, I do not.

I'm with you.  I regret giving it the one PC I made for another player. 

 

My big problem with it is that it's so variable.  I can't just say "Oh, Findo is going to have enemies at 1/2 DEF so he should be capped to 40 AP instead of 60 AP" and wash my hands of the matter. 

He might botch his first roll and be useless unless he has a 60 AP attack to fall back on.  He might slam out a success every round and be facing virtually zero DEF.  He might slam out a success every round but be targeting basic DEF when the opponent only had 6 base DEF and a truckload of Armor so the Find Weaknesses were wasted. 

If Find Weakness were just "Make roll, if successful target has 1/2 DEF against you" it'd be a lot easier to manage.  It's not. 

 

Though half my problem is that the player can't remember how Find Weakness works.  Or how to roll to-hit.  Or how to count BODY.  Or where on their sheet their CV is. 

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

If Find Weakness were just "Make roll, if successful target has 1/2 DEF against you" it'd be a lot easier to manage.  It's not.

 

But saying that it is sounds like a perfectly reasonable house rule to me.

[Astromath]

25 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

But saying that it is sounds like a perfectly reasonable house rule to me.

 

I think someplace in the rules it says that house rules are allowed.  I like the following rule: Have fun!

[LoneWolf]

In all honesty find weakness was completely unbalancing in the older editions.  Removing it from 6th edition was in my opinion a good thing.  It was expensive, but if the target did not have lack of weakness it allowed you to reduce their defenses to next to nothing.  If the target did have lack of weakness it made it useless.  

 

In 6th edition instead of using find weakness you can use skill levels to increase your damage even in a super powered game.  While the mechanics are different the end results are similar.  In both cases the target takes more damage from your attacks.  Using skill levels to increase your damage is better balanced because the amount of damage it is increased is based on how much you paid for skill level.  With find weakness the amount of damage increases is based on how much the target paid.  
 

[Ninja-Bear]

On 7/16/2020 at 8:53 AM, Armitage said:

If the Find Weakness is dependent on a roll, Lack of Weakness could be built as Change Environment, like using it to make yourself hard to see.  The point cost doesn't come out to a flat amount per -1 though.

 

Change Environment (-1 to Find Weakness PER Rolls), Persistent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (3 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), Self Only (-1/2)

Total cost: 1 point.

 

-2 is 3 points.  -3 is 5 points.  -4 is 7 points.  -5 is 8 points.

Great! I have thought of the same thing! 

[Pattern Ghost]

You know, Karnak and Karate Kid are the two poster children in comics for Find Weakness.

 

Does anyone know if they've ever failed to Find Weakness after studying an opponent?

 

If not, then the opponent can't resist them, so no defensive side to worry about. You could just add damage dice with activation rolls, with a custom advantage that I'll just call Cascading for the heck of it.

 

Cascading: If this activation roll fails, no further Cascading activation rolls permitted.

 

So, you could have +2 DCs of damage on a 14-, +2 more DCs of damage on an 11-, and +2 more DCs on an 8-. If you make the first roll, you get +2DCs, then roll the second roll. If you pass that roll, you're up to +4DCs but if you fail it, you only get the +2DCs, etc. If you blow the first roll, you're out of luck. The numbers were randomly selected. You could do increasing DCs as the activation rolls decrease, pick different activation roll cut offs, such as starting higher or lower and changing up increments, etc.

 

This isn't going to work out mathematically equal to Find Weakness, but some tweaking of the numbers involved based on campaign limits could make it feel pretty close, I think. It's essentially an easily-pushed power. Which is what it is in the comics in practice.

 

 

[Amorkca]

What if we change the focus of Find Weakness  completely from what it used to be in earlier versions of Hero?

 

What if Find Weakness now reveals the limitations that players have taken on their powers? It would become more useful to the Master Villain who learns what can cause the heroes' power to fail.

 

For example; we know that Human Torch cannot maintain his fire form without oxygen; so the villain can prepare traps to deal with that weakness (or limitation) of the Hero.

 

Just a different tactic to consider.

[Ockham's Spoon]

1 hour ago, Amorkca said:

What if we change the focus of Find Weakness was completely from what it used to be in earlier versions of Hero?

 

What if Find Weakness now reveals the limitations that players have taken on their powers? It would become more useful to the Master Villain who learns what can cause the heroes' power to fail.

 

For example; we know that Human Torch cannot maintain his fire form without oxygen; so the villain can prepare traps to deal with that weakness (or limitation) of the Hero.

 

Just a different tactic to consider.

 

I had a psychic character with this ability.  She (and the rest of her team) were basically normals with a few interesting powers, and her Find Weakness gave the heroes a way to defeat the villains by exploiting their Complications and Limitations so they could take on villains that would otherwise be out of their league.  It gave the group a nice David vs. Goliath feel, and created some suspense because if their plans didn't work out there was no way they could defeat the villain in a straight up fight.

 

Of course, I also had a player who wanted a character with this ability, paired with a Variable Power Pool.  That was a hard "No".

[unclevlad]

16 hours ago, Ockham's Spoon said:

 

 

Of course, I also had a player who wanted a character with this ability, paired with a Variable Power Pool.  That was a hard "No".

 

For that matter...Blast with Variable Special Effect.  This can make for very high versatility, relatively cheaply.  Not *as* good but also nowhere near as expensive or complex.  A VSE Blast with, say, -1/2 Variable Limitations AND Requires a Skill Roll (-1 per 20 points) can be a character's sole attack power, yet allow major versatility, at reasonable cost.  I say the easier skill roll because there's already -1/4 from the variable limitations, so the net is -1/2.  You won't get that many more points if it's -3/4, but crunch the numbers and go with what works.

 

And clearly, we could theoretically make this RKA instead of Blast.....