HA, DC, and END

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

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

 

I don't even understand what that means.  You can buy "STR adds to damage" on RKA if you want, and make a spear, for example.

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

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?

I’m not sure that I’ve explained myself well because I do agree with point.  So the question is paying for 4pts for Martial DC fair to buying outright strength. I’m saying yes, if one takes into account all the factors into building character to concept. 

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

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. 

 

 

No.  This cannot be reasonable.  This allows STR points to be used twice in the same attack, in a cumulative manner that is not possible any other way.  That's clearly, completely broken.  You can do it in a Multiple Attack or Autofire, yes, but the attacks are different damage packets that get defenses applied individually.

 

I'll grant that the rules don't explicitly disallow this, but that logic alone does.

[Hugh Neilson]

19 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

No.  This cannot be reasonable.  This allows STR points to be used twice in the same attack, in a cumulative manner that is not possible any other way.  That's clearly, completely broken.  You can do it in a Multiple Attack or Autofire, yes, but the attacks are different damage packets that get defenses applied individually.

 

The KA and the HTH Strike also apply damage separately.  Recall that, in earlier editions, there was a huge debate over whether two attack powers (e.g. a Blast and a Flash) could be used as a single attack.  Many felt that this could not be reasonable either.  The only reason that STR is "used in a cumulative manner that is not possible any other way" is because only the HKA may be augmented by STR.  That orphan mechanic again.

 

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I don't even understand what that means.  You can buy "STR adds to damage" on RKA if you want, and make a spear, for example.

 

If it's OK to pay +1/2 on a KA to add my STR damage, why is it not OK to pay +1/2 on my RKA to add my Blast to its damage?  If we could apply "other attack adds to damage" universally, then STR adding to an HKA would no longer be an orphan mechanic.

 

Why is it reasonable to apply a +1/2 advantage to a killing attack (but no other form of attack) to be able to boost it with STR (but with no other ability)?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

why is it not OK to pay +1/2 on my RKA to add my Blast to its damage?

 

Why would you when you could just buy blast with linked?  STR adding to KA is how you simulate many different kinds of attacks in the world (swords, claws, bites, etc).  Its not exactly an obscure concept.  In any case, you're not adding your STR attack to the KA.  You're using your STR to increase the HKA effect.  You aren't punching the target and stabbing it, youre stabbing it with increased force because you're stronger.  How is this odd to you?

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I’m not sure that I’ve explained myself well because I do agree with point.  So the question is paying for 4pts for Martial DC fair to buying outright strength. I’m saying yes, if one takes into account all the factors into building character to concept. 

 

And I say no.  It's too cheap.  At lower damage, lower speed, lower points?  It may be a wash, in that the 0 END is less significant, and adding to lifting STR is likely to still be fairly useful.  At higher levels, the END per turn is growing rather high...you're either paying for Reduced END, extra-high REC and END, or planning to take regular extra recoveries, not just post-12's.  None of that matters with MA DCs.  The actual cost of buying it as pure STR is somewhat hidden because it's scattered. 

 

Also, an MA DC is better than buying a plain, physical HA, because the latter costs END.  

 

Building to concept is always ambiguous.  As far as I'm concerned, martial arts simply means formal training.  Footwork, body positioning, body control.  MA DCs aren't just channeling chi;  it's knowing how to punch.  As I've mentioned, IMO lifting STR is ridiculously out of balance with HTH damage.  For me, for every 5 points over 20 STR, I'll add 1d6 either as an HA or MA DC.  I tend to run characters that have been trained, too...so it's usually DCs.  (An exception sometimes is a regular but separate source of STR.  For example...a pretty sick combat build is base STR 25, then:

 

--extra limbs (dirt cheap in 6E)

--STR, only with extra limbs (explicit limitation in HD)

--Stretching...limited body parts (extra limbs), no non-combat stretching.  Believe I bought it to 0 END, but you can get a lot of of not very many points, so the 0 END isn't that much...and gets whacked back down anyway.

--and HTH to match the STR, which can get a Linked to the extra limbs.  Only for -1/4, granted.

 

7 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

The KA and the HTH Strike also apply damage separately.  Recall that, in earlier editions, there was a huge debate over whether two attack powers (e.g. a Blast and a Flash) could be used as a single attack.  Many felt that this could not be reasonable either.  The only reason that STR is "used in a cumulative manner that is not possible any other way" is because only the HKA may be augmented by STR.  That orphan mechanic again.

 

 

OK, then I see where you're coming from...but I still don't allow it.  STR is a power.  You can't use it twice in a Combined Attack.  Your interpretation means the brute/brick never has to bother with Multiple Attack, with the penalties involved, and that's trying to get something for nothing.  He can buy his STR, and (just to keep things clean) a pair of small HAs, applying full STR to each, and with no penalties?  No.  

GAHH...nightmare scenario.  Let's take your position further.  We'll build 4 separate attacks, each is 1 DC.  HAs or HKAs, whichever fits into your rationale for doing the Combined Attack.  By your argument, they're ALL usable...with no penalties whatsoever, with no additional cost.  Unlike autofire, when it does hit, all 4 attacks hit, every time.  

 

Your interpretation makes a mockery of too much else.

 

On the "orphan mechanic"...you're splitting hairs between how HAs (and for that matter martial maneuvers) works, and HKAs.  It's a distinction no one else recognizes.  The rules are simply not close to being precise enough to support it.

 

Lemme go back to a point a bit earlier:

 

Quote

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?

 

Because everything you're suggesting is a myth, to some degree.  The system *tries* to be SFX agnostic, but we've had that argument...and people *do* bring SFX into play.  The goal is to get what you pay for, and pay for what you get...but there's always gray areas.  Far as I'm concerned, using STR in a combined attack is one such.  There's others.  There's quite a bit of shaky costing here and there...it can't be helped.

 

But...take build concept A, and build concept B.  The intent is they'll have the same in-game effects and capabilities.  At point level X, power level Y...maybe they achieve that.  Like Ninja-Bear's point about STR vs. MA DCs.  At Heroic levels...well, until you consider exceeding NCMs...it may well be a wash.  With 500, maybe 600 point supers?  Totally different story.  Secondary:  what manipulations are plausible between the 2 builds?  By-the-book HAs have a mild weakness...they have a built-in -1/4 limitation.  That means any more limitations you might want to include, are somewhat damped.  OTOH, of course, martial DCs are rarely allowed to have any limitations.  MAs can be used in some ways that STR can't...are you using them?  The costs of A and B are subject to different manipulations, or support other, low-cost, extensions, so their point costs or in-game effects are not going to remain the same.  And, some limitations (OIAID, sometimes Linked, limited range for attack powers, beam for many attack powers but especially AVAD/NNDs) really don't hurt.

 

 

[Joe Walsh]

15 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

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

 

Yup. Forty years ago, I didn't know about game design issues. We just played games and if they were fun we kept playing them.

 

Thirty years ago, I'd fiddle with any issues I found and try to fix everything. I considered it part of the hobby. But only rarely was a game design and its flaws amenable to fixing one thing without breaking one or more others or doing a total redesign...that would have its own issues.

 

These days, I try to run as close to RAW as practical, only applying fixes to issues that have a negative effect on our actual gameplay, and even then only when there's a simple fix that doesn't break anything else.

 

I can applaud the folks still trying to comprehensively fix RPGs that were designed in the paleolithic era, and I can even empathize with them and cheer their successes, but in the end I want a fun game at the table, and all my favorites provided that back before I knew how to recognize game design issues.

 

[Hugh Neilson]

9 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Why would you when you could just buy blast with linked?  STR adding to KA is how you simulate many different kinds of attacks in the world (swords, claws, bites, etc).  Its not exactly an obscure concept.  In any case, you're not adding your STR attack to the KA.  You're using your STR to increase the HKA effect.  You aren't punching the target and stabbing it, youre stabbing it with increased force because you're stronger.  How is this odd to you?

 

One interpretation.  For a different viewpoint,

 

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

OK, then I see where you're coming from...but I still don't allow it.  STR is a power.  You can't use it twice in a Combined Attack.  Your interpretation means the brute/brick never has to bother with Multiple Attack, with the penalties involved, and that's trying to get something for nothing.  He can buy his STR, and (just to keep things clean) a pair of small HAs, applying full STR to each, and with no penalties?  No. 

 

So, in one view, the STR is a separate power, used with the HKA, and in the other it is not.

 

Now, let's go back

 

9 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Why would you when you could just buy blast with linked?  STR adding to KA is how you simulate many different kinds of attacks in the world (swords, claws, bites, etc).  Its not exactly an obscure concept.  In any case, you're not adding your STR attack to the KA.  You're using your STR to increase the HKA effect.  You aren't punching the target and stabbing it, youre stabbing it with increased force because you're stronger.  How is this odd to you?

 

Blast with Linked is like a 2d6 HKA being augmented by 30 STR as a combined attack - 2d6 HKA, then 6d6 Normal.  With an HKA, I can use the STR to attack for 4d6 HKA.  Why can't I add a +1/2 advantage to my 2d6 RKA and have my 6d6 Blast bump it up to 4d6?  I'm using the flames of my Blast to make the flames of my KA hotter and more damaging, just as I am using my STR to claw or stab harder.

 

It is not odd to me that stabbing with increased force because you are stronger does more damage.  It is odd to me that this is pretty much the only place in the Hero system that this logical result is received for free, rather than being the SFX of an ability for which the character must pay points.

 

if I want a 4d6 RKA, I pay 60 points.  If I want a 4d6 HKA, I can buy a 4d6 HKA, STR does not add (40 point), or a 3d6+1 HKA (+2 DC for 10 STR = 4d6; cost 50 points) or a 2d6 HKA and +20 STR (the same 50 points, and I get to add all the benefits of 30 STR instead of 10 for no cost).  And we accepted that as OK from 2e to 5e.  Then 6e comes along and says "let's go back to 1e - STR enhanced HKA, no limits".   NOOOOOO - how can you let this guy pay 10 points for a 1/2d6 HKA and add in his 50 STR to get a 4d6 HKA??

 

He is paying the EXACT SAME 50 point cost as a 2d6 HKA + 30 STR or a 3d6+1 HKA + 10 STR.  All three get a 4d6 HKA and varying degrees of STR for exactly the same cost.  Why is the discount for one OK and the other unbalanced?

 

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

GAHH...nightmare scenario.  Let's take your position further.  We'll build 4 separate attacks, each is 1 DC.  HAs or HKAs, whichever fits into your rationale for doing the Combined Attack.  By your argument, they're ALL usable...with no penalties whatsoever, with no additional cost.  Unlike autofire, when it does hit, all 4 attacks hit, every time.  

 

Your interpretation makes a mockery of too much else.

 

I have seen builds leveraging exactly this. Is it the right result?  No.  But it is the result of a rule that allows STR to augment a power.  A lot of things we can do that are book-legal need to be GM'd away, so there is no reason this would be markedly different.

 

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

On the "orphan mechanic"...you're splitting hairs between how HAs (and for that matter martial maneuvers) works, and HKAs.  It's a distinction no one else recognizes.  The rules are simply not close to being precise enough to support it.

 

HAs add normal damage to normal damage. MA DCs are priced based on limited skill levels (which cost no END), not increased STR, another example of different price points to do the same thing different ways.  Maneuvers are separate animals entirely - and note that most could be used only with STR in past editions, but were opened up to being usable with all attacks.

 

Can we make point balance perfect?  Probably not.  Is there a balance concern where two concepts that achieve the exact same game results carry markedly different costs?  I would say "yes". 

[Ninja-Bear]

@GM Joe, I’m with you now. I don’t play really often. So I play (and build) as RAW as possible unless something really irks me. (I’m looking at you, can’t grab and throw a person into another person in the same phase). And I also look to sfx (as in have I seen this before and liked it). Because I will allow sfx to trump the rules in most cases.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

One interpretation.

 

That's not an "interpretation" that's how the rules work.

 

I get that you want everything to fit into a certain kind of box but rules aren't just to be mechanically comfortable to you, they are meant to help a game simulate its genre and how things work.  If you are stronger, you hit harder.  That's just how it works.  I am truly baffled this is a problem for you.

[Duke Bushido]

For what it's worth, the option to admit that chasing a perfect equality is pointless, ignore so od this, and have fun like you used to has never once in 40 years left the table.

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

9 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

That's not an "interpretation" that's how the rules work.

 

I get that you want everything to fit into a certain kind of box but rules aren't just to be mechanically comfortable to you, they are meant to help a game simulate its genre and how things work.  If you are stronger, you hit harder.  That's just how it works.  I am truly baffled this is a problem for you.

 

If you are so resistant to cold temperatures that you can survive without clothing in the arctic, or so resistant to heat and fire that you can stand in a raging inferno, unharmed, how is it that you still take full damage from an ice beam or a flamethrower?

 

"If you are stronger, you hit harder" is met with adding normal damage for each increment of STR.  If you have claws, and you feel that your massive STR should make your claws cut deeper, bu more KA with the SFX that, with your might, your claws cut deeper.  Or, if you prefer, do a Combined Attack of your claws (KA) and your brute force STR (normal attack).  You could even limit your STR that, while you use those extra KA dice, you can't use that STR for other purposes.

 

When you say "if you are stronger, you hit harder", I assume you include "your 15 STR adds a full 1d6 to a 1d6 HKA".  Does it also include "your 45 STR adds 3d6" or "your 90 STR adds 7d6"?  Both are logical extensions of hitting harder because you are stronger.

 

And what are we "simulating"?  1d6 KA + 6d6 KA for 90 STR or 1d6 KA + 18d6 normal for 90 STR will leave a normal human a bloody pulp after a single hit either way.  "Realistically simulating" a human being who can soak up that kind of damage and still be breathing, much less conscious, is starting from an unrealistic thing we are simulating anyway.

[Grailknight]

18 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

If you are so resistant to cold temperatures that you can survive without clothing in the arctic, or so resistant to heat and fire that you can stand in a raging inferno, unharmed, how is it that you still take full damage from an ice beam or a flamethrower?

 

Because even if you can survive in artic cold or extreme heat, that doesn't mean you can ignore being doused with liquid nitrogen or molten steel. The RAW explicitly states this as a distinction between the environment and attacks.  Likewise there are examples that can shrug off falling from 50,000 ft. or being doused in lava that can still be drowned or poisoned by radiation..

 

18 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

"If you are stronger, you hit harder" is met with adding normal damage for each increment of STR.  If you have claws, and you feel that your massive STR should make your claws cut deeper, bu more KA with the SFX that, with your might, your claws cut deeper.  Or, if you prefer, do a Combined Attack of your claws (KA) and your brute force STR (normal attack).  You could even limit your STR that, while you use those extra KA dice, you can't use that STR for other purposes.

 

When you say "if you are stronger, you hit harder", I assume you include "your 15 STR adds a full 1d6 to a 1d6 HKA".  Does it also include "your 45 STR adds 3d6" or "your 90 STR adds 7d6"?  Both are logical extensions of hitting harder because you are stronger.

 

We do it that way admittedly because of RAW and tradition.  Guess what? If your method was what was used as the example since 1st Edition, we'd probably be doing it that way.

 

But I want to focus on this idea that RKA should be the only Power with No Range used to simulate HKA. Do you realize the inconsistency you're introducing here? If HKA is derived from RKA in that way, then STR should also be a Limited Blast, perhaps with two levels:-1/4 if it allows lifting and -1/2 for Damage only. It does work out logically but requires a total rewrite of the RAW.

 

I prefer to just change the cost of HA and then leave everything else unchanged. It accomplishes the same thing, it just comes at it from the opposite angle.

 

18 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

And what are we "simulating"?  1d6 KA + 6d6 KA for 90 STR or 1d6 KA + 18d6 normal for 90 STR will leave a normal human a bloody pulp after a single hit either way.  "Realistically simulating" a human being who can soak up that kind of damage and still be breathing, much less conscious, is starting from an unrealistic thing we are simulating anyway.

 

We're simulating action movies and comics.  Yes, either of those attacks are going to be fatal but many of us have been reading and later watching comics that are just like that. Unless you want to posit that Invincible or The Boys are some other genre.

 

HERO has been a brutal environment for Normals since it beginning. We're simulating the stars of the show, not the extras. 

[Hugh Neilson]

7 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

Because even if you can survive in artic cold or extreme heat, that doesn't mean you can ignore being doused with liquid nitrogen or molten steel. The RAW explicitly states this as a distinction between the environment and attacks.  Likewise there are examples that can shrug off falling from 50,000 ft. or being doused in lava that can still be drowned or poisoned by radiation. 

 

So having LS: Vacuum and Extreme Cold does NOT mean you can survive in the depths of space, which is cold like liquid nitrogen?  Or does it mean that the character takes more damage from a brief exposure to liquid nitrogen (a single attack action) than from taking a relaxing bath in liquid nitrogen?

 

Obviously, we can't maintain game balance if characters can buy immunity to attack types for a couple of points, so the differentiation is necessary.  It is, however, a differentiation which creates as significant a cognitive dissonance as a high STR character having to pay points to have a higher damage HKA.

 

7 hours ago, Grailknight said:

But I want to focus on this idea that RKA should be the only Power with No Range used to simulate HKA. Do you realize the inconsistency you're introducing here? If HKA is derived from RKA in that way, then STR should also be a Limited Blast, perhaps with two levels:-1/4 if it allows lifting and -1/2 for Damage only. It does work out logically but requires a total rewrite of the RAW.

 

STR includes a No Range Blast equivalent.  It's a Blast that can't be Spread, though. Setting limitations for "no lifting" and "only for normal direct damage" strikes me as very little change as compared to Hand Attack as Blast, No Range.

 

7 hours ago, Grailknight said:

We're simulating action movies and comics.  Yes, either of those attacks are going to be fatal but many of us have been reading and later watching comics that are just like that. Unless you want to posit that Invincible or The Boys are some other genre.

 

HERO has been a brutal environment for Normals since it beginning. We're simulating the stars of the show, not the extras. 

 

None of which makes a 1d6 HKA + 6d6 from STR = 7d6 HKA any more or less "realistic" than a 1d6 HKA + 18d6 Normal Damage.

 

[Grailknight]

3 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

So having LS: Vacuum and Extreme Cold does NOT mean you can survive in the depths of space, which is cold like liquid nitrogen?  Or does it mean that the character takes more damage from a brief exposure to liquid nitrogen (a single attack action) than from taking a relaxing bath in liquid nitrogen?

 

Obviously, we can't maintain game balance if characters can buy immunity to attack types for a couple of points, so the differentiation is necessary.  It is, however, a differentiation which creates as significant a cognitive dissonance as a high STR character having to pay points to have a higher damage HKA.

 

Environmental cold is caused by heat loss to the surroundings. It's a phenomenon with a time element. LS: Cold would mean that the possessor can regulate his heat loss to the environment. The liquid nitrogen bath is an attack, not natural temperature loss.

[Hugh Neilson]

12 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

Environmental cold is caused by heat loss to the surroundings. It's a phenomenon with a time element. LS: Cold would mean that the possessor can regulate his heat loss to the environment. The liquid nitrogen bath is an attack, not natural temperature loss.

That rationalization in no way removes the inconsistency.  Whether the character is wading through liquid nitrogen (environmental), attacked with a liquid nitrogen "freezethrower" (attack), flying through the depths of space (environmental) or struck by a Frostbite Beam (attack), the loss of heat causes any damage.

 

For game balance reasons, immunity to extreme cold does not provide any defenses against attacks which do damage by extreme cold.  Rather, the character concept of being resistant to extreme cold both suggests and justifies an investment of CP into defenses against attacks which do damage by extreme cold.

 

There is no reason that attacks which cut or slash must be augmented by STR, rather that taking the similar approach that a 60 STR character with claws would logically do more damage with his claws that one with a 15 STR, so the higher STR character should buy a higher HKA (perhaps tied to his STR in some way, such as a Unified Power or lockout limitation).

 

If anything, this can be rationalized by the logic that, regardless of how strong the character is, those claws are only so big, so long and so sharp (the exact same logic which was applied by RAW to cap the added HKA DCs in Editions 2 through 5, justifying the change from 1e's full addition of STR to HKA damage, and commonly used to support retention of the doubling cap in 6e.

[redsash]

I present the Marvel MCU Daredevil's billy clubs:

 

10    21-point reserve, all slots OAF modular billy club with retractable cable (-1)                         

2v    Stretching 12m, Variable SFX (bouncy throws and grapple line; +1/4), (0 END; +1/2)                AP 21

1v    +10 STR (0 END; +1/2)                                                                                                                      AP 15

1f     Swinging 23m, Usable as Leaping (+1/4), (0 END; +1/2)                                                               AP 21

1f     Deflection                                                                                                                                          AP 20

 

5      Another billy club (x2 Items for +5pts)

 

I put no limitations on the STR because he uses the combined club for leverage as well as striking, and sometimes the grapple line helps with lifting thugs off the ground, etc. Also it wouldn't save any points. Limitations are limiting.

 

So he uses the Stretching (again no limiting limitation limits) and extra strength with his martial arts (having purchased the chain and rope/club elements) to simulate thrown clubs that bounce back to him and often seem to come out of nowhere off the bounce (watch the hallway fight from She Hulk. Hilarious), as well as snagging crooks with the grapple line from a distance, or just firing one half of the joined club down a hall and then retracting the cable. When the clubs are combined into a long cane for +20 STR, he still has enough points left in the 21-point reserve for 1 or 2m of Reach, or a bit more to simulate extended nunchaku (watch the Daredevil Season 2 rooftop ninja climax fight).

 

Long range throws do less damage as he has to allocate more points to Stretching. Sweet!

 

The swinging is actually not used that much in the MCU version. I bought it "useable as leaping" so he can bug out straight up (snag a roof girder then jump as the cable retracts; more of a Batman move really) or use the grapple line to mitigate a fall.

 

Deflection is kind of optional in these enlightened times, but I put it in because reasons. Theoretically he could Martial Block anything within his 12m Reach. Optionally, take that out and increase the STR to 14 and make that slot variable. (TV Hornhead is 5'10 and clearly around 15 STR, but the comic version is Batman-sized and canonically has 20, so I was thinking of increasing this character to 18 for the better roll, but I hate half dice: the extra few points would mitigate that)

 

Originally I bought this using Hand Attacks and some other variations, but this build is so elegant! And it costs EXACTLY as much as an extra 20 STR, while greatly extending the functionality. Very Daredevil I think.

 

I want to buy all my HA this way. (You mean you CAN'T lift and throw with your staff? You should practice more.)

[BNakagawa]

6e screwed up a number of things beyond giving the Hulk a penknife problem.

 

For my money, the costing of Barrier of 1 AP per Body is one of the worst violators of the 5AP/DC guideline ever introduced.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

For my money, the costing of Barrier of 1 AP per Body is one of the worst violators of the 5AP/DC guideline ever introduced.

 

It costs 5 points to get 1 body, 1 PD and 1 ED of barrier over a 2m area.  That's the cost point you're looking for, the 5 points per DC

 

I'm not convinced Barrier is well designed, but that isn't a valid complaint.

[Hugh Neilson]

Quote

3 Character Points for a 1m long, 1m tall, ½m thick barrier with 0 BODY and 0 PD/0 ED; 1 Character Point per +1m of length or height or +½m  of thickness; 1 Character Point per +1 BODY; 3 Character Points per +2 points of Resistant Defense

 

From 6e P1 p169.  So +1 BOD, PD and ED costs 4 points (but the coverage also carries a cost).  By contrast, an Entangle costs 10 points for 1d6 (so 1 BOD on average) and 1 Defense, which requires 2 DCs to break on an average roll.

 

The Barrier can cover more space (for a higher point cost) and can be walked around or over.  IOW, the two are so different that comparisons are challenging.  A 6d6, 6 DEF entangle costs 60 AP.  For the same 50 AP, a character could have a 4 meter barrier (6 points; minimum to englobe a human-size target) with 8 PD and ED (24 points) and 30 BOD.  That does seem considerably more powerful, doesn't it?

[Christopher R Taylor]

I mean, Barrier has its drawbacks; the englobed person can still use their foci and is in no way restrained plus it does not block any of their senses, for example.  But yeah both it and Damage Negation need a bit more examination and playtesting to get right. 

[BNakagawa]

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

It costs 5 points to get 1 body, 1 PD and 1 ED of barrier over a 2m area.  That's the cost point you're looking for, the 5 points per DC

 

I'm not convinced Barrier is well designed, but that isn't a valid complaint.

It isn't a valid comparison because buying defenses for barrier is OPTIONAL. For 60AP you could just as soon buy a barrier with 60 body, which will take a bog standard 60 AP attack power several phases of work to blow through, which is fundamentally unbalanced.

 

(then add the kicker, which is: for a fixed amount of points, a barrier can double in depth, so you need to punch through it multiple times to penetrate it.)

 

I swear, it's like they didn't playtest barrier AT ALL.

[Hugh Neilson]

9 hours ago, BNakagawa said:

It isn't a valid comparison because buying defenses for barrier is OPTIONAL. For 60AP you could just as soon buy a barrier with 60 body, which will take a bog standard 60 AP attack power several phases of work to blow through, which is fundamentally unbalanced.

 

(then add the kicker, which is: for a fixed amount of points, a barrier can double in depth, so you need to punch through it multiple times to penetrate it.)

 

I swear, it's like they didn't playtest barrier AT ALL.

 

Let's start with the nitpick.  60 AP does not pay for a 60 BOD barrier.  You have to buy the barrier first.  For 3 CP, it is 1m long, 1m high and 0.5m thick.  That leaves 57 point you could spend on BOD, but blocking a 1m x 1m space does not seem overly useful.  Olympic hurdles are higher than that, so not very hard for someone to clear. 

 

I don't know where you see a cost to double the depth.  I see 1 CP for each additional 0.5m thickness.  Doing the Barrier's BOD destroys a 2m x 2m x 2m barrier, so you need to invest at least a few points if you want it to be thicker.

 

While your opponent cannot attack you through the barrier, you also cannot attack him.  What a lovely opportunity to take a few recoveries or use other abilities that are typically not combat-viable. It's +1/4 to block Teleportation, or to counter Indirect.  If you want to use it for personal defense, either your attacks need Indirect or the Barrier needs One-Way Transparent (+1/2 or +1), and also needs Non-Anchored (+1/4) and Mobile (+1/2) if you want to be able to move.  Even then, having it move with you is a GM Option rule; the default is that it can move 12m (doubled for +1/4), and having it do so is an attack action.

 

While the rules require at least 4m in either height or width to englobe, I'm unclear on how 4m wide x 1m high englobes a typical human being. I'd probably require at least 4x2, but that's only one more point.  Of greater relevance, barriers cannot be created in mid-air without a 10 point adder, so your "max BOD" barrier can't target a flying character.

 

I will suggest it could only have been playtested if it was used in a Hero staffer's home games (most likely Steve Long's).  Hero certainly did not have the budget for formal playtesting of 6e, nor was there enough time between announcement and publication for such playtesting.

 

Have you actually seen issues arise in play, or are your criticisms also lacking any playtesting?  Can you post a specific power build from a game, and the strategies used with it that have caused problems?

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

It isn't a valid comparison because buying defenses for barrier is OPTIONAL.

 

Sure, buying Body for the barrier is optional as well.  Barrier is just area, you make it as tough as you want, or not.  Like you can buy defenses for your entangle or not.

[dmjalund]

I feel it was not correctly translated from inched (2 meter blocks) to meters