Spreading strength in 5e

[g3taso]

In one of killer shrike's posts elsewhere he makes a reference to spreading with strength. I am unfamiliar with this and was wondering if someone could explain it to me and perhaps give me a reference

[Killer Shrike]

See Ultimate Brick (5e) pg 89 under the subheader "Spreading An Attack".

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I want to go on record opposing the very idea of "spreading" an attack. It kind of made sense in 1st edition with so few modifiers and ways to build attacks but now its just nonsense

[unclevlad]

I love spreading.

 

Cuz then I can take Beam to say "no spreading" for almost every any single-target ranged attack.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah that's just one of the many problems it causes.

[dmjalund]

makes more sense to have the default be single target and have a Spreadable advantage

 

useful for a character called Margarine Man

[Killer Shrike]

Spreading an attack is a useful capability of the system, IMO.

 

It is an optional rule, so if you are the GM and don't like it, you are well within GM discretion to not allow it. 

 

I never had any problem with it, personally. Other people's mileage may vary, obviously.

[Tech]

12 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

Spreading an attack is a useful capability of the system, IMO.

 

It is an optional rule, so if you are the GM and don't like it, you are well within GM discretion to not allow it. 

 

I never had any problem with it, personally. Other people's mileage may vary, obviously.

 

I like it and also haven't had any problems with it ever. As KS said, it's optional.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The problems have less to do with game play than rules design.  One of them, Unclevlad pointed out.  It has ripples that go through the system that influenced design in what I consider negative ways.

[Hugh Neilson]

If you don't think "can't spread" has enough negative impact to justify the -1/4 limitation, deny the limitation.  I find Spreading adds a useful tactical option, both in its "mini-AoE" model and its "enhance OCV at the cost of damage" option.

 

I recall a suggestion (maybe a rule) that Beam also meant you just punched a tiny hope in a wall, etc., rather than knocking it down.  That would make Beams much less useful against barriers and Entangles.

[unclevlad]

If we started saying "no" to limitations that have little negative impact, we'd likely need to rewrite the rules.  Also note that I can use levels to do the same thing, AND get the price break.  If I don't need the extra +2 OCV, I get another DC.  If I have a problem hitting, I take the OCV.  And get more for it.  And with martial maneuvers I can do similar things...more efficiently.  Fast Strike is +2 OCV AND +2 DCs for 4 points.  For Ranged, I can get +2 OCV for 4 points, or +1 OCV and 2 points of range mod offset, with no loss of damage.  Now, granted, using the spread as a mini-AoE to hit multiple targets can't be duplicated, but that's very situational.  And I think CRT's issue is, it just increases the complexities in a system that has too many of them anyway.

 

Beam doesn't necessarily punch a small hole;  that can be rather contextual.  A 600 Nitro Express fits the sensible criteria for a beam attack...it can't be spread (solid projectile) and only rarely might be bounced...it'd need a pretty high grazing angle and a hard surface.  But it ain't punching a small hole.  Sure, small hole kinda fits the notion of a lot of energy beams, altho not necessarily all.  I think the bigger problem is thinking you take out lots of wall with most attacks.  The NE would actually do a lot more than many non-beam attacks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think Spreading was a mechanic that filled gaps in the original rules that other rules and options subsequently filled in.  Its been grandfathered into later editions not out of necessity but affection and nostalgia more than anything.  And it is part of the justification for things like Combined attacks which are sketchy to begin with.  

[unclevlad]

Yeah, I've got the Champions 3rd Ed PDF open.  Skills are...scant.  Skill levels are a) expensive, and b) *limited* in use.  CV is tied to DEX;  neither OCV nor DCV are characteristics.  Single-maneuver skill levels are 3 points;   group levels are 5.  And there's no conversion to damage.  Martial arts is completely simplified...and VERY expensive.  Bouncing was a standard maneuver...that required skill levels.  So, sort of a bonus to offset the high cost, I suspect.  Yeah, your options are quite limited.

 

And this is as late as 3rd edition, so your contention that bouncing and spreading just got grandfathered in, is quite plausible.  But the system bears *very* little resemblance to 5E, and almost none, really, to 6E...too many details change.  So completely eliminating spreading or bouncing...or, if you really want them, redefining them as a form of power trick or skill application (Captain America and Batman have used bounces) rather than combat maneuvers.

 

Then you throw Beam out the window, and all my energy projectors cry....

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I think Spreading was a mechanic that filled gaps in the original rules that other rules and options subsequently filled in.  Its been grandfathered into later editions not out of necessity but affection and nostalgia more than anything.  And it is part of the justification for things like Combined attacks which are sketchy to begin with.  

 

An interview with the designers when 2e came out indicated that they had intended Spreading from the outset (but "Magneto attacked the disks") to provide some extra benefits to Energy Blasts as compared to STR.

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

If we started saying "no" to limitations that have little negative impact, we'd likely need to rewrite the rules.

 

The rules already say a limitation that does not limit saves no points.

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

Also note that I can use levels to do the same thing, AND get the price break.  If I don't need the extra +2 OCV, I get another DC.  If I have a problem hitting, I take the OCV.  And get more for it.

 

This highlights how valuable skill levels could be.  +4d6 Blast can be +4 OCV, +4d6 or target multiple targets for 20 points.

 

8 3 point skill levels costs 24 points, and I can get +4d6, +8 OCV or +8 DCV - and it costs no END.  Maybe those 3-point skill levels are underpriced.  20 points for +4 levels that can add +4 OCV or DCV, or +2d6 Blast, at zero END, seems a bit more comparable, doesn't it?

 

Leaving aside Martial Arts as their own beast, but I can't buy the bonuses more than once.

 

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Beam doesn't necessarily punch a small hole;  that can be rather contextual.  A 600 Nitro Express fits the sensible criteria for a beam attack...it can't be spread (solid projectile) and only rarely might be bounced...it'd need a pretty high grazing angle and a hard surface.  But it ain't punching a small hole.  Sure, small hole kinda fits the notion of a lot of energy beams, altho not necessarily all.  I think the bigger problem is thinking you take out lots of wall with most attacks.  The NE would actually do a lot more than many non-beam attacks.

 

I don't see that bullet knocking a man-size (or larger) hole in a chain link fence, or a brick wall.  However unrealistic, that's our "comic booky" default.

[unclevlad]

But that was all the way back in 2E.  In terms of concept development, 2E is still at the vacuum tube level.  The rationale simply doesn't carry over.  Some of the argument was that, with figured characteristics, STR was way, way, way too cheap.  Those are gone.  

 

The chain-link fence...that's an SFX argument, much like arrows versus skeletons.  The bullet WILL knock a pretty good-sized hole in a brick wall, thank you.  We're talking rounds about as big as your index finger, with LOTS of powder.  The projectile itself weighs about 2 ounces.  High impact mass, high impact velocity.  The NE 600 was used to hunt elephants and water buffalo.  The brick's natural fragmentation should create the explosive shock wave on impact, fragmenting it...and making a good-sized hole.

Heck, if we wanna push to extremes...depleted uranium APFSDS is a beam attack.  It'll only punch a hole in the chain link;  it won't even notice it was there.  The brick wall might not be a lot better unless it's thick, but the radius of damage should be fairly significant.  These are designed to punch through the main armor on tanks, penetrating through, and making the armor itself fragment into *very* high-powered grenade, basically wiping out the crew.  OK, some of this is these are very, very high DC weapons;  DU APFSDS is nastier than 155mm artillery, and that's rated as 9 dice killing...with a +1 stun mult.  DU APFSDS is probably 8d6, double armor piercing (because modern armor is hardened).  Possibly more.  Equipment Guide has *light* armor piercing sabots.  These are heavy armor piercers.  And if we go into plausible, relatively near-future...the rail gun takes that DU round and kicks it to about Mach 2.5, possibly more.  KE = 1/2 m * v^2.  Hit a 3' thick   stone wall?  Explode it, because the KE will form a *massive* shock wave. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 

An interview with the designers when 2e came out indicated that they had intended Spreading from the outset (but "Magneto attacked the disks") to provide some extra benefits to Energy Blasts as compared to STR.

 

 

I can see that as well, but again, since STR has been depowered and range has its own particular advantages, it doesn't really apply the way it used to, or even at all.  Particularly when its established as per the original question in this post that you can use spreading on STR damage.

[Hugh Neilson]

Maybe my next character will buy an 8d6 Blast and 14 3 point Skill Levels; for a total cost 82 points he can have a 15d6 Blast at his normal OCV and DCV, or 12d6 with +6 OCV or DCV (or mix & match).

 

7 points more than a 15d6 Blast, but he doesn't need as much END since the skill levels have no END cost.

 

I'm not sure Spreading is the issue you perceive it to be, relative to other options.

[LoneWolf]

The beam limitation in both 5th and 6th edition has 3 parts.  The first part states it cannot be spread, the second part states must be used at full power, and the last is that it explicitly states that it only creates a small hole in the character or object.  Most people only pay attention to the first part, but if your attack can do the second or third thing, it does not qualify for the beam limitation

 

When you take a limitation on a power it is affected by all things the limitation covers.  If it is able to ignore any aspect of what is listed on the limitation you cannot take it but may be able to create a similar limitation for a lesser amount.  Considering Beam is a -1/4 limitation that means an attack that cannot be spread but can be used at less than full power, and or creates more than a small hole gets a -0 limitation
 
If you took beam on all your ranged attacks you may want to reconsider it.  Having it on all your ranged attacks is actually quite limiting.   Not being able to reduce the damage when shooting at a target without a lot of defenses is going to make it difficult to take down a target without severely injuring or killing them.  Using a 12d blast on normal with only 2 DEF is going to put them in the hospital on the first shot and may cripple them. If you are using the disabling and impairing rules you have a very good chance of causing a permanent injury.  You are also going to be unable to bring down a barrier or blast open a door.  

[IndianaJoe3]

1 hour ago, LoneWolf said:

If you took beam on all your ranged attacks you may want to reconsider it.  Having it on all your ranged attacks is actually quite limiting.   Not being able to reduce the damage when shooting at a target without a lot of defenses is going to make it difficult to take down a target without severely injuring or killing them.  Using a 12d blast on normal with only 2 DEF is going to put them in the hospital on the first shot and may cripple them. If you are using the disabling and impairing rules you have a very good chance of causing a permanent injury.  You are also going to be unable to bring down a barrier or blast open a door.  

 

FWIW, I will sometimes give large creatures a, "Size Matters" power that reduces the damage they take from attacks scaled to affect normal humans. The lowest level reduces the effect from Beam attacks but not others.

[Killer Shrike]

6 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

The beam limitation in both 5th and 6th edition has 3 parts.  The first part states it cannot be spread, the second part states must be used at full power, and the last is that it explicitly states that it only creates a small hole in the character or object.  Most people only pay attention to the first part, but if your attack can do the second or third thing, it does not qualify for the beam limitation

Indeed; I was coming on to post about exactly this. Beam isn't just "no spreading", in fact it obviously wouldn't make sense for a standard limitation to have no purpose other than to negate an optional rule.

 

Here is Beam, rules as written:

 

 

The inability to "pull" a Beam attack to do less damage and the reduction in effect vs objects are the more significant considerations.

 

Citing the existence of the Beam limitation (which is good at modelling exactly what it indicates it is for, puncturing projectiles and focused emissions) as an argument that the spreading rules are somehow mechanically harmful seems like a rather anemic argument to me. 

 

The main thing however is, if a GM doesn't like spreading they don't have to provide a reason. Just toggle that option to off in your campaigns and it's all good. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Citing the existence of the Beam limitation (which is good at modelling exactly what it indicates it is for, puncturing projectiles and focused emissions) as an argument that the spreading rules are somehow mechanically harmful seems like a rather anemic argument to me. 

 

perhaps, but its part of a larger argument, one example of a problem followed by several others, for a pretty strong argument.

[Killer Shrike]

4 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

perhaps, but its part of a larger argument, one example of a problem followed by several others, for a pretty strong argument.

 

Generally speaking, including a weak assertion which is easily picked apart or shown to be spurious, irrelevant, or poorly reasoned as part of a larger argument only serves to weaken the larger argument and undermine your general position. 

[Hugh Neilson]

39 minutes ago, Killer Shrike said:

 

Generally speaking, including a weak assertion which is easily picked apart or shown to be spurious, irrelevant, or poorly reasoned as part of a larger argument only serves to weaken the larger argument and undermine your general position. 

 

Especially when no other aspect of that larger argument is presented.

[dmjalund]

Why must Beam be used at full strength? It seems to me that a different effect has been folded into the Limitation needlessly.

[LoneWolf]

Small is a relative term. Keep in mind that an attack without the beam limitation exceeds the DEF and Body of a barrier it creates a 2m wide by 2m high by 2m deep hole in the barrier.   Basically, it creates a hole large enough for a normal sized person to walk through.  An attack with the beam limitation could create a hole in the barrier that was several inches wide, maybe even a foot wide and still be considered “small”.

 

 

The beam limitation was created to simulate a specific type of attack.   It is not and never has been just about not being able to be spread.  That Limitation would be a -0 limitation.