HA, DC, and END

[Joe Walsh]

As I look back at 4e and what was changed for 5e, I wonder what the effect of making some different design choices would have been.

 

For example, Hand-to-Hand Attack. In 4e, HA cost 3 CP, which misaligned it with the DCs. So in 5e, the choice was made to up the cost to 5 CP, then back it out at the Limitations stage with a required -1/2 Limitation "Hand-to-Hand Attack." An unprecedented move in the design of a Power, AFAIK.

 

Another choice would have been to make the cost 5 CP, but make HA require no END by default. That would have effectively built in a -1/2 Limitation to the previously 3 CP Power, getting us to the 5 CP cost we want so it can align with the DCs but without the awkwardness of a Power having a required Limitation.

 

Is there a strong argument for going with the required Limitation vs. simply making HA a no END cost power to justify the 5 CP cost?

[Hugh Neilson]

Why should HA be a power at all?  Is it really anything other than limited STR?  Make HA STR only for direct damage, -1/2.  Then get rid of MA DC's - instead, STR, only enhances combat effects becomes -1/4.  Losing Lift is not that big a deal.

[Duke Bushido]

I believe the only thing 5e did differently for Hand Attack was to "justify the extant price."  If you weren't already doing it, then it upped the AP officially, in print, instead of leaving you to wonder if you should go ahead and,do it or not. 

 

 

[Grailknight]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Why should HA be a power at all?  Is it really anything other than limited STR?  Make HA STR only for direct damage, -1/2.  Then get rid of MA DC's - instead, STR, only enhances combat effects becomes -1/4.  Losing Lift is not that big a deal.

 

Who are you and what have you done with Hugh Neilson?🙂

[Grailknight]

5 hours ago, GM Joe said:

As I look back at 4e and what was changed for 5e, I wonder what the effect of making some different design choices would have been.

 

For example, Hand-to-Hand Attack. In 4e, HA cost 3 CP, which misaligned it with the DCs. So in 5e, the choice was made to up the cost to 5 CP, then back it out at the Limitations stage with a required -1/2 Limitation "Hand-to-Hand Attack." An unprecedented move in the design of a Power, AFAIK.

 

Another choice would have been to make the cost 5 CP, but make HA require no END by default. That would have effectively built in a -1/2 Limitation to the previously 3 CP Power, getting us to the 5 CP cost we want so it can align with the DCs but without the awkwardness of a Power having a required Limitation.

 

Is there a strong argument for going with the required Limitation vs. simply making HA a no END cost power to justify the 5 CP cost?

 

It is not completely unnecessary as a Power but the costing is problematic.

 

I've long been a believer that HA is best viewed as the No Range, STR adds to damage parallel to Blast which has Range and can be Spread for 5 points per DC. As such it gives use a Power that allows the build of Normal Damage weapons. When it's used to build these, it generally takes a Focus or more rarely a Physical Manifestation Limitation. I also prefer the symmetry of Blast is to HA as RKA is to HKA.

 

While this plugs a hole in the game,  it means you can purchase STR for the same cost though this is not appropriate for every concept.  For my personal use(Champions games almost exclusively), HA is rare enough that I don't have a problem with this admittedly imperfect solution. 

 

Martial Arts DC's are somewhat trickier because they are 0 END and can also add to Martial Flash and Martial NND's. That more than balances the loss of lifting and carrying and I'd price them at 6 points if I was writing a new APG or Rules Edition.

[Joe Walsh]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Why should HA be a power at all? 

 

My current project is to address the few real issues 4e has by making as minimal changes as possible, so I'm not sure I want to go that far right now.

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Is it really anything other than limited STR?  Make HA STR only for direct damage, -1/2.  Then get rid of MA DC's - instead, STR, only enhances combat effects becomes -1/4.  Losing Lift is not that big a deal.

 

That'd be one way to have handled it!

 

As an aside, I ran pdfgrep "HA " on *.pdf in my 4e folder and came up with not a whole lot of usage for HA. Then I ran it in my 5e folder and got way more hits. So I guess, at least as far as official publications go, the HA fix in 5e was a big success, despite the controversy.

 

 

[Grailknight]

1 minute ago, GM Joe said:

 

My current project is to address the few real issues 4e has by making as minimal changes as possible, so I'm not sure I want to go that far right now.

 

 

That'd be one way to have handled it!

 

As an aside, I ran pdfgrep "HA " on *.pdf in my 4e folder and came up with not a whole lot of usage for HA. Then I ran it in my 5e folder and got way more hits. So I guess, at least as far as official publications go, the HA fix in 5e was a big success, despite the controversy.

 

 

 

That may just have been the result of all the debates and questions asked about how it worked with Advantages and Doubling.

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, GM Joe said:

 

 

 

That'd be one way to have handled it!

 

 

 

 

That ia my preferred way to handle it, specifically because no one complains when you allow it to be added to the normal STR damage, and because there ia littlw question that it should cost END.  

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I take a different approach.

 

Damage should be Normal Damage and Killing Damage.

Each automatically takes either ranged or STR adds to damage as a default.  Each costs 5 points per DC, regardless of which you pick.  You can take a limitation to remove the range or STR adding.  You choose energy or physical.

 

There's zero justification for the auto limitation on HA.  Its the same as HKA, but for normal damage.  Why does HA get the limitation but HKA does not?  It is a wierd pointless throback to the 3 points per d6 days (oh the fun I had with that and variable advantage).

[Duke Bushido]

Ah...

 

 

Okay folks, let's see if we can get a gasp of exasperation out of Hugh! (Sorry, Hugh, but in fairness, you saw this coming when he opened the door, didn't you?  ).

 

So this would work akin to killing attack at 15 pts, which adds to STR or RKA at 15 pts which adds no STR but does have range.

 

Which suggests that there is a 10-PT base of "Killing Dice," to which we can add ranged or. Strength adds to damage,

Leading us to a 20 point ranged killing attack to which we can add STR.

 

And which, in keeping with the ioening theme of the discussion, screws up the DCs all over again.

 

Semantically, loooking at the 4e 3pt hand attack, to get a DC for 3 pts.  Considering "strength adds to damage' to be its own advantage- and knowing that 'ranged' already _is_ its own  advantage, we have Killing dice doing 3DC for 10 pts.

Weirdly, this almost fixes it (there is that odd little point there- 3/9 vs 3/10, but hey; its closer than what we had before we just assumed "STR: only for damage" or "blast: no range", when we were buying 3 DC for nine points or killing attack as we knew it: that is, ranged and HKA with its 3 DC for 15 points.

 

Of course, this goes back even further, because at 10 points for a base Killing Die, we can also infer that there is a +1 advantage "Killing" that can be applied to a regular die of damage.

 

Granted, that means in 4e terms that you can pay either 15 pts (per RAW) and ads STR, _or_ you can pay 10 pts to get a Killing Die that neither adds STR nor Range.

 

But since 4e did not define _why_ Hand attack was 3 pts, but left it as a complete power, I could _instead_ put the +1 Killing on _that_ die, giving me a 6-PT die that ignores non-resistant DEF and has no range and doesnt take an STR bonus.

 

And the very idea of most of what I said rankles a lot of folks, in spite od the fact that I could build the same thing from the as-is powers and appropriate limitations and get to the exacr same place.  Regardless, "Killing" as an advantage, or a 10 it Killing Die as the root of both veraions of Killing are things that, to quote Word, "we so not speak of it."

 

 

Now to be fair, I don't care (nothing like full disclosure), and the newer and more complex and hyper-specific the rules set, the less I care about the "official rulings" on anything.  I am going to do my thing my way and no one here will ever know it, which males the consternation about this concept little more than a source of amusement for me (though having been through other conversations about it, I know that it kind of bugs a lot of people; I only called Hugh by name because he is, by long-established history, a very good sport about a little good-natured ribbing. 

 

And because this is nothing more than that, I am going to just leave ir alone now.

 

 

 

 

 

[unclevlad]

Well....that was annoying.  Still fairly new Win 11 box blue-screened...2nd time today.  Argh.  And now it's REALLY acting weird.  Warning, folks:  Win 11 is not ready for prime time.

 

I think the fundamental baseline for HA is right in 6E.  Treat as additional STR, with the Limited Power limitation "not for lifting/carrying."  And that only deserves -1/4.  Lifting STR grows exponentially;  damage STR grows linearly.  That's a terrible mismatch, IMO.  But push comes to shove...lifting and carrying STR is much less important than damage, so anything more than -1/4 for HA feels excessive.

 

HKAs:  these are a little different.  Shifting the damage from normal to killing is worth something.  It's not easy to quantify, but it is different.  It allows applications that wouldn't be practical otherwise, because it shifts the emphasis from STUN to BODY.  Something has 10 DEF...doing any notable damage to it with 9d6 normal is not likely, whereas with 3d6 killing, you'll get some.  You can't think just in terms of the DCs.  Yes, I think no price break might be a bit high, particularly with 6E gutting the stun mult...but even -1/4 feels too high.  Doing BODY to break through a defense is too useful.

 

Martial arts DCs:  these are cheap...probably too cheap.  The notion was that, well, you had to buy 10 points in maneuvers...but by and large, there's very few wasted points here, if you're careful with your maneuver selections.  The problem, I think, is that the costs didn't change when figured characteristics disappeared.  (Note that this is a factor in giving HAs a larger limitation in 5E, because now it's saying STR, Does Not Affect Figured Stats.)  I'd also question whether they considered how the increased cost of skill levels (all HTH is 5 points in 5E, and 8 points in 6E, for example) might impact martial arts DCs.  I'm a little less worried about the aspect that they're 0 END implicitly, as everyone learns to manipulate the END breakpoints and the beneficial rounding, but having martial DCs cost at least 5 points per, makes sense.  I might even buy going as high as 6, honestly.  AND potentially rethink the maneuvers themselves. 

 

On the flip side...a nasty complication arises trying to compare the cost of MA DCs to DCs available through converting skill levels into damage.  The issue is:  the cost of those levels is WILDLY variable.  They have to be 3 point levels, sure...but brute types can readily be built with no maneuvers...STR with perhaps a single HA.  Is it better to buy 6 three-point levels, so you get all kinds of flexibility...or go through martial arts?  The former is quite probably cheaper;  it's definitely more flexible.  OTOH, MA DCs can be used in places where skill levels can't...for holding onto, or escaping, a Grab;  and the maneuvers incorporate OCV and DCV bonuses.  Neither approach is universally better than the other;  it comes down to the specific build, and to a degree, one's stylistic preferences, and sometimes the underlying campaign issues.  (When the character's training was formal, with dedicated instructors, I lean to the martial arts route.  More ad hoc, jus the raw skill levels.  That can be, in part, campaign-related.)

 

Last comment...my Win 11 box appears to be behaving after a full shutdown and reboot, I think the problem is either coming out of sleep mode (I've been putting it to sleep at night), OR issues related to graphics mode shifts (which are clearly awkward and slow) running older games.  WIzardry 8 right now.  Generally speaking, the root problem is that the game's point system isn't that fine-grained;  advantages and limitations in particular are very coarsely grained.  So some of this is probably inherent...and some of this may well be unrecognized side effects when some major rules changed between editions.  

[Ninja-Bear]

@unclevlad, you’re not the only person who has suggested that MA Extra DC are cheap. But I got to ask, if you would make Extra MA DC costs 6 pts per die then why wouldn’t I just buy up my Strength-naturally assuming that the GM would allow it? True buying up STR wouldn’t help my Martial Flash or any NND attacks but would still overall help the character in all martial and non martial ways. 
 

[Grailknight]

STR still costs END, Martial Arts DC's do not.

 

But ask yourself, are you changing your character concept because STR fits better or because it's just fractionally cheaper?

[Hugh Neilson]

This becomes a complex area with many moving parts.  My "limited STR" model would see an extra DC from STR cost 4 points (+5 STR with a -1/4 limitation) - including Grab, Hold, Escape, Shove, etc.  At -1/2, it would only add to damage done, the present Hand Attack.  Both cost END, so if you believe "only for Martial Arts" is at least a further -1/2, then we can buy +10 STR, 0 END  (15 AP), only damage (-1/4), only martial arts (-1/2) for just over 8.5 and 4 points per DC is in the ballpark.

 

On the KA subject, I will ask the heretical question "why do we have an orphan mechanic allowing STR to enhance an HKA?"  Why can't I put "STR adds" on a no-range eyepoke Flash, or a Bruising Drain or a joint-locking no range entangle, or a nerve strike no range NND?

 

Would you allow a Brick character with no KA to limit his STR "does not add to HKA"?

 

IMO, there should be a single 15 points for 1d6 Killing Attack, which is Ranged by default.  Want Claws?  Make it "no range".  Want +2d6 because you have a 30 STR?  Buy another 2d6, perhaps with a Limitation that it locks out 30 STR, or gets Drained with your STR.  A core precept of Hero is that you get what you pay for and pay for what you get.  STR boosting HKA violates that core precept.

 

but but but...logically a sword does more damage if swung with higher STR.

 

Sure.  And a fellow who can survive in the vacuum of space or the heart of the sun should have more than 2 ED.  But he has to pay for any added ED.

 

In a Fantasy game, equipment can have added dice of HKA with an STR lockout.  Yes, those builds will be very complex.  Who cares? The characters buy gear with money, not points.

 

A further question - what stops that mighty Barbarian swinging his Greatsword (2d6 HKA + 2d6 for his Legendary 30 STR) as a Combined Attack with a 6d6 Normal STR attack?  ANSWER:  Absolutely nothing by RAW.  This resolves the "Grond with a hatpin" argument as well. He can do a 1 pip Hatpin HKA + 18d6 STR punch as a combined attack.

 

@Duke Bushido, how's that for "things we don't talk about"?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Martial arts DCs:  these are cheap...probably too cheap. 

 

Ii believe so as well.  In fact, I think Martial Arts needs a very close look over and reworking so that we can build a larger new power framework that they fit in and other concepts can as well.

[unclevlad]

7 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

@unclevlad, you’re not the only person who has suggested that MA Extra DC are cheap. But I got to ask, if you would make Extra MA DC costs 6 pts per die then why wouldn’t I just buy up my Strength-naturally assuming that the GM would allow it? True buying up STR wouldn’t help my Martial Flash or any NND attacks but would still overall help the character in all martial and non martial ways. 
 

 

MA DCs are damage at 0 END.  It's quite possible 6 is too high, I'll grant;  this isn't an exact science.  But also figure:  take a 4d6 HA at 0 END.  It's 24 points...6 per die.  Same argument...why not just buy up STR?  

 

For me, part of the answer is, I don't want the CRAZY high lift capability.  If you want a 12d6 punch, purely from STR, that's a 60, and lifting 100 tons.  And other than the damage, where does the increased STR help, when there are no figured characteristics?  

 

5 per MA DC might be the practical sweet spot, as the 0 END in a case like this isn't *that* much better than 1/2 END.

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

This becomes a complex area with many moving parts.  My "limited STR" model would see an extra DC from STR cost 4 points (+5 STR with a -1/4 limitation) - including Grab, Hold, Escape, Shove, etc.  At -1/2, it would only add to damage done, the present Hand Attack.  Both cost END, so if you believe "only for Martial Arts" is at least a further -1/2, then we can buy +10 STR, 0 END  (15 AP), only damage (-1/4), only martial arts (-1/2) for just over 8.5 and 4 points per DC is in the ballpark.

 

IMO, "only to do damage" is no more than -1/4, and "only for Martial Arts" is worth nothing.  If you have martial arts, that's going to be your attack mode.  Also, "only for damage" and "only with martial arts" have massive overlap, so there's no way I'd allow them together.  OK, if we rework martial maneuvers?  Then maybe I'd change this.  

 

Not sure about the rest of your comments...it is definitely complex.  I'd argue that, for example, allowing a Combined Attack where both involve STR is NOT legal.  You can't make a Combined Attack by combining the same power multiple times;  they must be separate powers.  The STR added to the HKA *is* a power...and therefore can't be used to make the normal-damage strike.  For the rest......some of the issue might be trying to make STR do (at least) double duty, with the lifting aspect and damage.  The absolutely WORST route, as the rules are now, is to build a Blast or RKA with "no range."  It's not HTH, you can't use maneuvers or broader HTH levels, you can't add STR.  So, what if we made STR a lot closer to a skill stat, where its role is lifting only?  And maybe allow it to increase Leaping?  Damage is separate;  STR is a justification.  One problem is...ok, this is the systems guy's approach, but it's unnatural and would be very jarring to players.  Or, go another route, as you note...damage powers are either:

 

a)  ranged

b) allow STR to be used in a Combined Attack.  So they don't add together to target a single defense, unless the attack is physical.  Should a 5d6 cold-based attack go to 11d6 because of STR...or remain 5d6 vs. ED, and 6d6 vs. PD?  If the attack targets ED...well, yeah, it's plausible that sometimes STR should stack, and sometimes not.  With attacks against, say, Power Def?  IMO it generally doesn't make sense.  I like the dangerous, combat healer...the power that patches you up, can also HURT you.  But a normal punch should not, IMO, add to this.  Note that martial arts makes this explicit:  NNDs gain nothing from STR.

[Duke Bushido]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 "why do we have an orphan mechanic allowing STR to enhance an HKA?" 

 

 

We don't have to assume that it is an orphan.  (Great.  My autocorrect knows racist slurs in multiple languages (not proud of that; it has demonstrated this to me), but _not_ the word "orphan."  Nice.)

 

We can just as easily assume that it is an unstated advantage "STR adds."  We have built HKAs with limitations "STR doesn't add," and we have gotten used to it, but that doesn't mean we sisnt overlook some underlying commonality to "Killing Dice."

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Why can't I put "STR adds" on a no-range eyepoke Flash, or a Bruising Drain or a joint-locking no range entangle, or a nerve strike no range NND?

 

If you accept that it is a +1/2 Advantage, you _can_.  You can do all of those things.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Would you allow a Brick character with no KA to limit his STR "does not add to HKA"?

 

Which I find (yes; it is an opinion, and I am not pretending anything else.  All I am really doing it demonstrating get another reason I don't post builds) rather _supports_ the idea that there is something about HKA that supports the idea that it features a specific item that allows STR to add in.  Given that the cost is _identical_ to an RKA, which we know has the plus 1/2 advantage "range" built in, I out forth that there is clearly an advantage to HKA that makes the price equal to differently-advantaged power, and that this element is "STR adds to damage."

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

IMO, there should be a single 15 points for 1d6 Killing Attack, which is Ranged by default.  Want Claws?  Make it "no range". 

 

We do that now for thinga that we son't want to be ranged or imoroved by STR.  And the price drops down to what I suggest is unadvantaged Kilking Damage.

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 A core precept of Hero is that you get what you pay for and pay for what you get.  STR boosting HKA violates that core precept.

 

Getting the vakue of your advantage, however, does not. 

 

 

Okay, I have to run, and I was able to address more angkes than I thought I would have time for, but I still want to thank you foe being a good sPort about this, Sir!

 

.

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

A core precept of Hero is that you get what you pay for and pay for what you get.  STR boosting HKA violates that core precept.

 

You could say the same thing of range.  Hidden behind the scenes, killing and normal attacks are both basically 3 points per d6.  Then you add either "range" or "STR adds to damage" as advantages, choose one or the other as a +½.  Or you can buy them down, buy range off of RKA for a -½ limitation.

 

Which brings me back to the post above where I propose restructuring all four powers.

[Grailknight]

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

This becomes a complex area with many moving parts.  My "limited STR" model would see an extra DC from STR cost 4 points (+5 STR with a -1/4 limitation) - including Grab, Hold, Escape, Shove, etc.  At -1/2, it would only add to damage done, the present Hand Attack.  Both cost END, so if you believe "only for Martial Arts" is at least a further -1/2, then we can buy +10 STR, 0 END  (15 AP), only damage (-1/4), only martial arts (-1/2) for just over 8.5 and 4 points per DC is in the ballpark.

 

I'm going to assume(perhaps wrongly) that you are referring to a modified system where HA and Martial DC's don't exist. Otherwise you're just reinventing the wheel  It's nice to work out the basis for a newer power from it's components but please use the current measurements. Extra STR for damage only is the current HA and that is -1/4.

 

Neither myself nor any other GM I've played with would think to give the -1/2  Limitations you suggest. YMMV.

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

On the KA subject, I will ask the heretical question "why do we have an orphan mechanic allowing STR to enhance an HKA?"  Why can't I put "STR adds" on a no-range eyepoke Flash, or a Bruising Drain or a joint-locking no range entangle, or a nerve strike no range NND?

 

Where do you get that this is an orphan mechanic? STR has added to HKA, Martial Arts and to HA (in the form of normal weapons) since 1st Edition. 

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Would you allow a Brick character with no KA to limit his STR "does not add to HKA"?

 

No, but I assume you meant this rhetorically.

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

IMO, there should be a single 15 points for 1d6 Killing Attack, which is Ranged by default.  Want Claws?  Make it "no range".  Want +2d6 because you have a 30 STR?  Buy another 2d6, perhaps with a Limitation that it locks out 30 STR, or gets Drained with your STR.  A core precept of Hero is that you get what you pay for and pay for what you get.  STR boosting HKA violates that core precept.

 

And this is also accounted for in the rules since 1st Edition. As written they are different powers. HKA falls under the STR-based melee rules and so STR adds DC's. RKA is ranged and therefore can be used at range and can be spread. Aside from the 10 STR all characters get for free, the points are identical. 30 STR and 2d6 HKA are 60 Active Points the same as 4d6 RKA.

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

but but but...logically a sword does more damage if swung with higher STR.

 

Yep, f=ma is still a thing even though we try to minimize real world mechanics and STR provides more acceleration.

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Sure.  And a fellow who can survive in the vacuum of space or the heart of the sun should have more than 2 ED.  But he has to pay for any added ED.

 

Entirely different issues but, while RAW legal on the vacuum, I'll go out on a limb and say that the surface of the sun counts as a hazard and there iare multiple types of KA'S and EB's that will shred that 2 ED.

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

In a Fantasy game, equipment can have added dice of HKA with an STR lockout.  Yes, those builds will be very complex.  Who cares? The characters buy gear with money, not points.

 

So, why bring this up if it doesn't pertain to the discussion?

 

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

A further question - what stops that mighty Barbarian swinging his Greatsword (2d6 HKA + 2d6 for his Legendary 30 STR) as a Combined Attack with a 6d6 Normal STR attack?  ANSWER:  Absolutely nothing by RAW.  This resolves the "Grond with a hatpin" argument as well. He can do a 1 pip Hatpin HKA + 18d6 STR punch as a combined attack.

 

@Duke Bushido, how's that for "things we don't talk about"?

 

If the Barbarian wants to make a Combined Attack, that's fine except he he can't use his STR twice. Grond is free to do his hatpin with his STR as a Combined Attack also. That example comes from another discussion altogether concerning the Doubling rule and it's exclusion from 6th RAW(except as an optional rule) after it was part of 2nd through 5th but its' cool if he doesn't add any STR yo the HKA.

[Ninja-Bear]

7 hours ago, Grailknight said:

STR still costs END, Martial Arts DC's do not.

 

But ask yourself, are you changing your character concept because STR fits better or because it's just fractionally cheaper?

If you’re asking me, I’m 

coming from a munchkin perspective that I’ve seen around now on the boards. Why should I stay to concept if the concept costs more?

[Grailknight]

Just now, Ninja-Bear said:

If you’re asking me, I’m 

coming from a munchkin perspective that I’ve seen around now on the boards. Why should I stay to concept if the concept costs more?

 

 And that's a fair response. If you and your GM are cool, then it's all good to do it that way.

[Duke Bushido]

Forgive me for not reading anythinf between my llast post and this one, but my time is very limited right now.  I jurist wanted to explain that I am only picking at Hugh with my "ideas" for the Killing Advantage because we have had this xome up before, and I know he doesnt like it.

 

To be honest, I kind of do so far as a unfied mechanic goes, but the pricing is all screwy.  However, you _can't_ point to any one power ir build and say "there it is.'  More STR is 5 pts, and it adds to the STR you already have; it is not even limited by how much or your precious STR you can add.  Start with STR 10?  Spend 5 more points?  It's okay; add thise first ten to those last five; it'll be fine,

 

Blast, like STR l, is 5 pts a die, and comes with Ranged (for "free?"), but you cant add STR.

 

The adding STR for HKA is not a new orphaned mechanic: it is exaclty the very first mechanic of adding strength damage to strength damage; it has just _never_ been discussed,  

 

And of course, we have done KA (both versions) to death.

 

Qe can do what we have done since rhe beginning and "assume' certain advantages and limitations into each normal build that make STR and blast cost the same, and we can assume that they are in KA as well.

But then we wwnt to know what the _root_ power is, and how to cost it.

 

Assumibg a +1/2 "STR adds" advantage for STR and "ranged" for blast, we arrivwle at 3 and 3 for each. Woo-hoo!  Now we jave 3pts /DC and a 10-pt killing die at 10 pts /3 DC, and we can excuse that extra point as rhe cost of being able to tear through Non-rDEF (which creates an adder rhat opens another whole can of worms!  Oops.)

 

So there are a couple of options:

 

Re-cost everythinf by determininf the absolute base cost of an unranged no-STR bonus D and work out from there (and I dont think anyone is up for an even longer seventh edition, at least not right now)

 

Ignore the whole problem and remember that this stuff disnt uswd to bother you and you had a lot more fun then

 

Admit that balancing two disparate thibgs via an expenditure of points is a math-obsessed pipe dream and that any sort of perfect is unattainable (and we all know that very few people are foong to do that).

 

Now, if Hugh (or someone else) hasnt yet explained the fatal flaw of the "killing" advantage, here it is:

 

For 100 pts, I can buy STR50, "Killing."  I dont need to add my STR, because that is all I am using.

 

I have a 10d6 Killing Attack for 100 points _and_ a 50 STR.

 

 

There.   

 

 

There arw other glaring problems (yes, I went into this already knowing them, but I really enjoy it when Hugh goes deeper into the nunbers than I can (I distract myself constantly), and I know the idwa of the Killing advantage bugs him just a little bit.

 

So once again, thanks to Hugh for beinf a good sport about it.

 

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

I’m with @Duke Bushido with the math obsessed pipe dream. And I used to be one in that I believed that if I just copy down recommended guidelines then everything would fall into place. 
 

But semi-seriously how many points on average do you guys spend on martial arts? (I would assume more at Heroic level do to W.F.’s) I buy roughly 5 maneuvers which averages out to 20 points. Now factor other skills, around another 20 pts. 

[Duke Bushido]

I cant hand you a trophy (I sm all,out, it seems), but thsnk you, N-B.  From you, that means a lot. 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

5 hours ago, unclevlad said:

MA DCs are damage at 0 END.  It's quite possible 6 is too high, I'll grant;  this isn't an exact science.  But also figure:  take a 4d6 HA at 0 END.  It's 24 points...6 per die.  Same argument...why not just buy up STR?

 

MA DCs add to other uses of STR (and even those MA NNDs).  Hand Attack does not improve Grabs, Shoves, Escapes or Trips.

 

5 hours ago, unclevlad said:

IMO, "only to do damage" is no more than -1/4, and "only for Martial Arts" is worth nothing.  If you have martial arts, that's going to be your attack mode.  Also, "only for damage" and "only with martial arts" have massive overlap, so there's no way I'd allow them together.  OK, if we rework martial maneuvers?  Then maybe I'd change this. 

 

Under current pricing, "only for MA including all types of DCs" is clearly applied as a much greater limitation than "Damage Only".

 

5 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 I'd argue that, for example, allowing a Combined Attack where both involve STR is NOT legal.  You can't make a Combined Attack by combining the same power multiple times;  they must be separate powers.  The STR added to the HKA *is* a power...and therefore can't be used to make the normal-damage strike. 

 

An HKA is an attack augmented by STR, not the STR itself.  While I consider your approach a reasonable rule, an HA, an HKA and STR itself are separate "powers" with which one can attack. 

 

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

You could say the same thing of range.  Hidden behind the scenes, killing and normal attacks are both basically 3 points per d6.  Then you add either "range" or "STR adds to damage" as advantages, choose one or the other as a +½.  Or you can buy them down, buy range off of RKA for a -½ limitation.

 

Which brings me back to the post above where I propose restructuring all four powers.

 

So why can't we, say, pay +1/2 on an RKA for "Blast Adds?

 

2 hours ago, Grailknight said:

Where do you get that this is an orphan mechanic? STR has added to HKA, Martial Arts and to HA (in the form of normal weapons) since 1st Edition.

 

It is an orphan mechanic , and has been since 1e (when, by the way, there was no doubling cap either) because no other power adds to a second power.  The only other exception, now removed, was getting base Mental Defense from Ego.

 

2 hours ago, Grailknight said:

No, but I assume you meant this rhetorically.

 

I have removed something my KA could otherwise do.  Would you be as unwilling to allow my 15 STR character to buy a 5d6 HKA, STR does not Add (50 points), instead of a 4d6 HKA (60 points)?

 

2 hours ago, Grailknight said:

And this is also accounted for in the rules since 1st Edition. As written they are different powers. HKA falls under the STR-based melee rules and so STR adds DC's. RKA is ranged and therefore can be used at range and can be spread. Aside from the 10 STR all characters get for free, the points are identical. 30 STR and 2d6 HKA are 60 Active Points the same as 4d6 RKA.

 

Actually, Spreading was introduced in 2e, and applied only to (energy) blasts for several editions thereafter.

 

2 hours ago, Grailknight said:

So, why bring this up if it doesn't pertain to the discussion?

 

"Not having STR add to swords would confuse the player base" is a commonly provided reason why we simply can't divorce HKA from STR.

 

2 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

If you’re asking me, I’m coming from a munchkin perspective that I’ve seen around now on the boards. Why should I stay to concept if the concept costs more?

 

Let me rephrase this question:  in a game that prizes itself on a point system under which you get what you pay for, and pay for what you get, and which is SFX agnostic, why should one concept cost more than another if they both achieve the same in-game effect?