Argument Concerning Desolification

[Grailknight]

14 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Over time, the "power adds to other powers" mechanics have been removed.  At one time, you added extra mental defense from Ego, if you paid for some mental defense. Many powers had an "add HTH damage" mechanic bolted on.

 

In genre, creatures that live in molton magma or the heart of a star are not injured by heat and fire. In Hero, you pay for what you get and you get what you pay for.  For Fantasy games, I would modify the build for those "buy with cash" weapons to include an STR add.   But maybe it would not double for every weapon.  Perhaps some would have higher maximum adds and others would be lower. Perhaps some would be enhanced by DEX instead of STR and others would go the other way.  That would be more familiar to current d20 players.  Maybe some would be better targeted intelligently, so INT could add, and mental attacks could be enhanced by EGO.

 

I have absolutely no objection to such powers being added but I see that you do not absolutely object to a limit on how much damage can be added. Sounds like a good rules project.

 

14 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

As well, with the advent of combined attacks, a high STR character can hit harder with no KA adder.  If I have a 30 STR and a 2d6 HKA, cite the rule that precludes me from doing 4d6 HKA damage + 6d6 STR strike.  There is none.  Remove the adder and it becomes even more clear that I can combine an STR Strike with a no range KA.  Just like a character with a 6d6 Blast and a 2d6 RKA can use both at once as a combined attack, but can't add to the RKA using that Blast.  Now, they can build for the same effect - they can have a Blast and an RKA in a Multipower and trade off.  They could buy some RKA that is Unified with their Blast (we need a one-way Unified Power for this).  And that clawed character could put KA in a Multipower with STR, or with Hand Attack, or with Drain PD (bruising punch). Hearing Flash (ThunderClap) or Explosion Double Knockback Shockwave.

 

What do Combined Attacks have to do with doubling?  I have no issues with this but it distracts from the conversation.

 

14 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

To me, this says STR increasing HKA falls outside the normal rules.  It's not that HKA doesn't add to STR.  It's that no other attack power can be enhanced by another ability - only HKA can be enhanced and only STR can enhance it.  The doubling rule just caps the free HKA you can have if you have purchased STR.  You don't get the extra HKA unless you also pay for STR, and you only get this benefit from your STR if you buy enough HKA.  Most of these synergies have been removed. HKA/STR has not. Is it balanced?  How often do you see a 15 STR character with a 3d6 HKA or a 60 STR character with a 1d6 HKA?  I saw a lot of the latter in 2e - because in 1e the Bricks normally bought a 1d6 HKA to benefit from the STR adder "for free" with the minimum HKA at that time, and that 1d6 KA was not modified when the first Enemies book was updated to 2e.  This was most obvious for the Monster, who supposedly relied on that KA - but it became a 2d6 KA in second edition.

 

Is it perfectly balanced? No. Did doubling fix the problem from 2nd through 5th edition? Yes. A compromise solution was arrived at where you had to buy at least 1/2 your HKA as HKA directly and it worked for decades.

 

14 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Years ago, I questioned those vilifying the Stun Lotto.  It had never been an issue in my games.  Lucius, IIRC, pushed me to look at the math.  I did.  The math was clear - the KA was more effective at passing STUN past defenses. Our groups had a four colour approach and didn't use KAs against living targets, just as a matter of course, so it never became visible. Meanwhile, I realized that I was gravitating to KAs for agents precisely because it stood a better chance of passing some STUN through to the Supers.  But we had cruised on just fine with the Stun Lotto since 1e, right?

 

Virtually every change has had its critics and detractors.  STR adding to KAs is no different from DEX adding to SPD and/or CV, Growth or Stretching momentum boosting HTH (but not HKAs) or CON providing more stamina in the form of REC or END.

 

No, we didn't all cruise along ignoring the STUN Lotto. Some of us cut our GM teeth teaching engineers and programmers not to power game a ruleset that is a power gamers dream. It was kept under control by GM supervision in various campaigns I've been involved in. Obviously, your experience was different, but you found yourself taking advantage of it. I had no problem with this change to the ruleset. But STR adding to HKA wasn't game breaking with doubling, so no change was necessary.

 

14 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Bingo.  In some games, especially old, rules-lawyer/character advocacy games, maximizing the value of abilities by creative use and interpretation was part of the game.  "Where does it say my Magic Missiles can't target eyebals?"  "I Create Water in his lungs." Hero's "pay for the mechanics" model was very different. If it is logical that your other abilities and SFX should allow you do this other thing, and it has a significant in-game effect, then that logic justifies paying points for that other ability, not getting that other ability for free.  Except for HKAs.

 

Here we disagree. Why remove a rule(doubling) to make an extremely common power into a more complicated build that does the same thing? What will your write-up for a HKA that is not purchased with money but with points look like for a mage who summons swords look like? I'll bet it'll be longer than HKA-x DC's.

 

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

We're at 6e v2 p 99, for anyone trying to follow along.

 

First off, that sidebar suggests inability to

 

 

Taken exactly as written, that would include combat skill levels (the basis for Deadly Blow et al.), combat maneuvers (martial and otherwise - so much for all those extra Martial Arts DCs) and movement (that would hurt a lot of speedsters).  I note that

 

 so any cold feet on removing the doubling rule got even colder when considering the doubling rule as a general principal.

 

As you yourself quoted, Martial Arts and Move-by/through have to be exempted by the GM. That's because of the language of the optional rule for 6th is all inclusive. That wasn't necessary in 2nd through 5th because doubling only applied to HKA.

 

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

As well,

 

 

Further support for HA being limited STR.
 

So we need some more exceptions to the optional rules tacked on to what was a change endeavouring to simplify the "adding damage" rules.  I note that it is also suggested for "heroic campaigns" and real weapons paid for with cash rather than CP, although the example is clearly a Super.  Let's look at that example:

 

 

so...the first 12 points of STR were useless, and cause no balance issue by a freebie KA adder, but the next 3 STR (if he had a 15 STR), and every point thereafter (if it's higher), were much more useful and can't add to that KA for free without unbalancing the game.  What limitation could Matterhorn take on his +50 STR if it "does not increase HKAs"?

 

How is his STR limited? He can still use it fully for all other purposes.  Doubling is not a rule to limit STR, it limits HKA's.

 

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

In that example, Matterhorn invested 56 points, 50 for STR and 6 for that dagger.  Let's strip out the Focus limitation - it's 1/2d6 AP HKA, sharp fingernails, 12 points, so a total of 62.   Will you let him combine that 1d6+1 AP HKA with a 12d6 STR strike as a Combined Attack?  If not, why not?  A character with a 12d6 Blast and a 1d6+1 AP RKA could make a combined attack.  If he buys a 1d6+1 AP RKA, No Range (a bit pricier at 17 points), now can he use a combined attack?  What about a 1d6+1 AP HKA, No STR Adds (exactly the same mechanical result - how is it "balanced" for these to cost 5 more points than using an HKA with STR adders?  Especially if we "need" the doubling rule for balance.)

 

If you would not allow this, perhaps Matterhorn should also be no fool.  What if he instead spends his points on:

 

+21 STR (so now he has 31);

A Multipower of two fixed slots, +34 STR and a 2d6 AP HKA.

 

That's 37 for the pool + 3 + 4 for the two slots = 44 points + 21 for STR - 65 points rather than 62.  He can have a 65 STR whenever he wants, 5 more than the non-MP build.  He can have a 3 1/2d6 AP HKA. So he has added +5 STR for only 3 points AND can use that full 3 1/2d6 AP HKA that doubling would cap at 1d6+1.

 

Lots of other + STR/Multipower combos could certainly be envisioned.

 

It's a combined attack and each has defenses applied separately. The multipower build introduces scenarios where he will not have his full STR. It'll rarely come up, but it can happen.

 

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Explain to me how all of this "you can add STR to HKA but only up to doubling it" is creating better balance - and go slowly this time!

 

I don't have to. Steve Long's example said it all. But I'll summarize, it stops abusive builds.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Grailknight

[Hugh Neilson]

4 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

What do Combined Attacks have to do with doubling?  I have no issues with this but it distracts from the conversation.

 

If I have a Blast and an RKA, I can use them as a combined attack. Neither augments the other.

 

If I have STR and an HKA, and we remove "STR Boost HKA", I can still use them as a combined attack and the high STR character still hits harder.

 

Doubling isn't the issue. One ability adding to one other ability is an outlier mechanic that I would remove.

 

4 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

Is it perfectly balanced? No. Did doubling fix the problem from 2nd through 5th edition? Yes. A compromise solution was arrived at where you had to buy at least 1/2 your HKA as HKA directly and it worked for decades.

 

Show me the character creativity it stimulated.  Find me three characters - just 3 - in all of 2e through 5e after the change (not the ones written in 1e) that have a 3d6 HKA and 15 STR, or a 1d6 KA and 45 STR, or any similar build with a 3:1 or greater ratio of STR:HKA or HKA:STR.

 

4 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

No, we didn't all cruise along ignoring the STUN Lotto. Some of us cut our GM teeth teaching engineers and programmers not to power game a ruleset that is a power gamers dream. It was kept under control by GM supervision in various campaigns I've been involved in. Obviously, your experience was different, but you found yourself taking advantage of it. I had no problem with this change to the ruleset. But STR adding to HKA wasn't game breaking with doubling, so no change was necessary.

 

 

A lot of us muddled along with the Stun Multiple for a long time too - one extra edition. It was still a good change, and it was not essential.  Note that it has an optional rule too - adopt hit locations and the multiple returns to 1-5.

 

4 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

Here we disagree. Why remove a rule(doubling) to make an extremely common power into a more complicated build that does the same thing? What will your write-up for a HKA that is not purchased with money but with points look like for a mage who summons swords.

 

Show me that really simple spell in 5e or 6e.  The build is already very complicated.

 

4 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

As you yourself quoted, Martial Arts and Move-by/through have to be exempted by the GM. That's because of the language of the optional rule for 6th is all inclusive. That wasn't necessary in 2nd through 5th because doubling only applied to HKA.

 

So why is it necessary to cap an HKA, but not to cap any other attack?

 

4 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

How is his STR limited? He can still use it fully for all other purposes.  Doubling is not a rule to limit STR, it limits HKA's.

 

It is limited by not adding to HKAs.  Everyone else's STR adds to HKAs.  His does not.  The HKA can still be increased by non-limited STR. It has not been limited.

 

4 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

It's a combined attack and each has defenses applied separately. The multipower build introduces scenarios where he will not have his full STR. It'll rarely come up, but it can happen.

 

 

I don't have to. Steve Long's example said it all. But I'll summarize, it stops abusive builds.

 

Apparently, the only "abuse" is arises in those rare instances when the character will need both his KA and his full STR. That seems very uncommon, and I think accepting those "abuses" is no less reasonable a compromise.

[Grailknight]

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

If I have a Blast and an RKA, I can use them as a combined attack. Neither augments the other.

 

If I have STR and an HKA, and we remove "STR Boost HKA", I can still use them as a combined attack and the high STR character still hits harder.

 

Doubling isn't the issue. One ability adding to one other ability is an outlier mechanic that I would remove.

 

Yet you just said that you'd make weapons that got boosted by DEX or INT for Fantasy. I have no objection to those at all in principle. Which is it?

 

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Show me the character creativity it stimulated.  Find me three characters - just 3 - in all of 2e through 5e after the change (not the ones written in 1e) that have a 3d6 HKA and 15 STR, or a 1d6 KA and 45 STR, or any similar build with a 3:1 or greater ratio of STR:HKA or HKA:STR.

 

That's an entirely different issue from balance. Show me a character that uses Variable Slots in a Multipower. Doubling does stifle those builds that used high STR/ low HKA but again, Steve long's examples gives the reason why this is this way. Characters with an HKA that they don't have the STR to double are pretty common in Fantasy and a concept matter for campaigns. I see them on occasion, but if you don't that's just all your players being efficient.

 

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

 

A lot of us muddled along with the Stun Multiple for a long time too - one extra edition. It was still a good change, and it was not essential.  Note that it has an optional rule too - adopt hit locations and the multiple returns to 1-5.

 

If you don't think it was an essential change, why did you drag it out as an example?

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Show me that really simple spell in 5e or 6e.  The build is already very complicated.

 

Your build will always have at least one more Limitation for No Range and will have to add Linked if you want a version that adds a Characteristic to the damage. Added complexity is added.

 

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

So why is it necessary to cap an HKA, but not to cap any other attack?

 

Refer back to Steve Long's example which you quoted. You won't accept it coming from me.

 

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

It is limited by not adding to HKAs.  Everyone else's STR adds to HKAs.  His does not.  The HKA can still be increased by non-limited STR. It has not been limited.

 

 

????  What makes it work differently for that one example character than for any other character. Again, doubling limits HKA by requiring that added damage from any source cannot exceed the DC of HKA purchased.  Everyone else's STR works the same way. The speedster wouldn't get Limitation on his excess movement and the Skill monkey wouldn't get one on his excess levels. Would you give a retroactive Limitation to a character that bought an HKA with XP?

 

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Apparently, the only "abuse" is arises in those rare instances when the character will need both his KA and his full STR. That seems very uncommon, and I think accepting those "abuses" is no less reasonable a compromise.

 

That's not an abuse, it's a rare situation that might arise in an unscripted and therefore unpredictable scenario. Why do you imply that I would single out my player to take advantage of part of their build that's not a Limitation?

[Gauntlet]

Saying that people would not use HKA with no maximum in 6th edition overpoweringly is crazy. I have seen a ton of people who buy a 5 point HKA (1 Point Body Damage) and then use their 50 STR to make it a 3-1/2d6 HKA which is a devastating attack. Much more devastating than an 11d6 normal attack via STR, and they both cost exactly the same. Doubling means you don't get these point hogs that do things like that, and I have seen a huge number of them, both in house and online. Every 6th edition game I have GMed or played in has had a player do things like that. Every online game, every in-house game, every game at a convention, period end of subject.

[Doc Democracy]

4 hours ago, Grailknight said:

????  What makes it work differently for that one example character than for any other character.

 

I think the point Hugh was making about Matterhorn was, if the player came to you and said, I have a 50 STR character with a variety of different killing attacks.  His STR doesn't add to any of them (or to any random weapon he picks up).  What limitation do I add to my STR?

[Gauntlet]

15 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

I think the point Hugh was making about Matterhorn was, if the player came to you and said, I have a 50 STR character with a variety of different killing attacks.  His STR doesn't add to any of them (or to any random weapon he picks up).  What limitation do I add to my STR?

 

Nothing to his STR. Each HKA would take the limitation No STR Bonus which is a -1/2 limitation.

 

But then I realized you were speaking about a character picking up a HKA that he/she did not purchase with points. I guess then it would be a -1/2 limitation to his STR but I definitely am not sure.

[Doc Democracy]

31 minutes ago, Gauntlet said:

 

Nothing to his STR. Each HKA would take the limitation No STR Bonus which is a -1/2 limitation.

 

But then I realized you were speaking about a character picking up a HKA that he/she did not purchase with points. I guess then it would be a -1/2 limitation to his STR but I definitely am not sure.

I dont think there is  right answer, and the thing is, it is not the HKAs that are limited in his presentation, it is the STR (I guess, if I needed to, I could come up with the reason why) but in either case the character saves a buttload of points.

 

If the character did not buy any HKAs but was similarly unable to add it to any picked up weapons, would it still remain -1/2.  Dunno, but that is because I am not really certain what the extra damage belongs to, the weapon or the STR.  It might feel cleaner to increase HKA damage because of STR but the consequentials muddy the system. 

 

A question would be, why not add in inherent killing damage to STR like inherent normal damage is?  Then you would simply be adding the inherent killing attack to the bought killing attack.  That would also be cleaner and would inevitably mean, IMO, that people would think that STR needed to cost more. 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

5 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

Saying that people would not use HKA with no maximum in 6th edition overpoweringly is crazy. I have seen a ton of people who buy a 5 point HKA (1 Point Body Damage) and then use their 50 STR to make it a 3-1/2d6 HKA which is a devastating attack. Much more devastating than an 11d6 normal attack via STR, and they both cost exactly the same. Doubling means you don't get these point hogs that do things like that, and I have seen a huge number of them, both in house and online. Every 6th edition game I have GMed or played in has had a player do things like that. Every online game, every in-house game, every game at a convention, period end of subject.

 

Of course they would. You are presenting this like the 50 STR and 3 1/2d6 KA is vastly overpowered. Now we are debating the value of killing versus normal damage.  Especially with the 6e stun multiple fix, I don't believe the KA is worth more than normal damage.

 

Now, let's assume I want a cost-effective 50 STR or 3 1/2d6 HKA?  With no doubling, I spend 45 points - you've given us that one. 

 

STR adds to KA with doubling rule?  OK, I'll buy a 25 STR for 15 points and a Multipower of +30 STR and 2d6 KA for 36 points.  I spent 51 points.  I could probably shave that a bit if I worked at it, but I have gained the advantage of +5 STR and it cost me 6 points.  If it is unbalanced to pay 45 points for 50 STR or a 3 1/2d6 HKA, why isn't it unbalanced to pay 51 points for 55 STR or a 3 1/2d6 HKA? 

 

2 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I dont think there is  right answer, and the thing is, it is not the HKAs that are limited in his presentation, it is the STR (I guess, if I needed to, I could come up with the reason why) but in either case the character saves a buttload of points.

 

Thanks for illustrating the mechanical aspects - the System provides options.  We provide SFX.  The character's mother was a While Witch.  The character's father was a brutal, violent beast, from whom the character inherited great strength.  Mom wove a mystic spell causing his great strength to fail should it be used to wield sword or axe.  The spell has the mechanical effect of causing his STR not to add to HKAs.

 

The core issue for me is that the same mechanical results should not come with a trap of cheaper or more expensive ways to buy them, and the same points should not provide objectively more if used in different ways.

 

2d6 HKA + 30 STR is objectively better than 3d6 KA + 15 STR.  They cost exactly the same, and one comes with 15 STR more than the other.  If you buy HKA, you effectively get STR for free, as long as you know to equalize the two.

 

15 STR and a 4d6 HKA can be purchased for 50 points as illustrated above. Or I can buy 15 STR + 4d6 HKA, no STR add (or RKA no range) for 5 + 40 = 45 points.  All the same abilities, 5 points less cost.  What I should buy is 15 STR and 1d6 HKA + 2d6 HKA, no STR adds.  That costs 5 + 15 + 20 = 40 points, a 10 point saving.  Which of the three is the mechanically balanced cost?

[Grailknight]

8 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

I think the point Hugh was making about Matterhorn was, if the player came to you and said, I have a 50 STR character with a variety of different killing attacks.  His STR doesn't add to any of them (or to any random weapon he picks up).  What limitation do I add to my STR?

 

That is an entirely different matter from the doubling rule we were debating.  I've never had such a character suggested or even theorized before.

 

Working on the assumption that 50 STR is an adequate attack in the campaign, I wouldn't give it any Limitation. I would however give one to all of his purchased HKA's and HA's and I'd give him a Physical Complication to reflect his inability to use them or weapons of opportunity properly.

 

Used alone his STR works properly, he can even carry heavy weights in one hand while using the extra attacks in the other. The HKA's and HA's are unable to meld with his STR for some reason though, so they get the Limitation.

 

 

[Grailknight]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Of course they would. You are presenting this like the 50 STR and 3 1/2d6 KA is vastly overpowered. Now we are debating the value of killing versus normal damage.  Especially with the 6e stun multiple fix, I don't believe the KA is worth more than normal damage.

 

Now, let's assume I want a cost-effective 50 STR or 3 1/2d6 HKA?  With no doubling, I spend 45 points - you've given us that one. 

 

STR adds to KA with doubling rule?  OK, I'll buy a 25 STR for 15 points and a Multipower of +30 STR and 2d6 KA for 36 points.  I spent 51 points.  I could probably shave that a bit if I worked at it, but I have gained the advantage of +5 STR and it cost me 6 points.  If it is unbalanced to pay 45 points for 50 STR or a 3 1/2d6 HKA, why isn't it unbalanced to pay 51 points for 55 STR or a 3 1/2d6 HKA? 

 

It's the difference between having STR and an HKA compared to having STR or the HKA. One has both at all times, the other has to make a choice. It may only rarely be an inconvenience, but it can happen.

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Thanks for illustrating the mechanical aspects - the System provides options.  We provide SFX.  The character's mother was a While Witch.  The character's father was a brutal, violent beast, from whom the character inherited great strength.  Mom wove a mystic spell causing his great strength to fail should it be used to wield sword or axe.  The spell has the mechanical effect of causing his STR not to add to HKAs.

 

The core issue for me is that the same mechanical results should not come with a trap of cheaper or more expensive ways to buy them, and the same points should not provide objectively more if used in different ways.

 

2d6 HKA + 30 STR is objectively better than 3d6 KA + 15 STR.  They cost exactly the same, and one comes with 15 STR more than the other.  If you buy HKA, you effectively get STR for free, as long as you know to equalize the two.

 

15 STR and a 4d6 HKA can be purchased for 50 points as illustrated above. Or I can buy 15 STR + 4d6 HKA, no STR add (or RKA no range) for 5 + 40 = 45 points.  All the same abilities, 5 points less cost.  What I should buy is 15 STR and 1d6 HKA + 2d6 HKA, no STR adds.  That costs 5 + 15 + 20 = 40 points, a 10 point saving.  Which of the three is the mechanically balanced cost?

 

Ok, if the mechanical effect is that STR fails when used this way, do all aspects of his STR fail? Can someone with a held action Entangle or Grab him while he has his side weapons out and only have to deal with his low STR? Can he not hold a heavy object in one hand while cutting a rope in the other? Is he like Wonder Woman, so that if I tie him up with a switchblade in his hand, he becomes powerless? If the answer to these is yes, then he gets a Limitation on his STR. 

 

But one special snowflake doesn't invalidate doubling. It was put in to stop the abusive builds that were present in 1st and which are making a comeback in 6th. You shouldn't design a ruleset around edge cases.

 

2d6 HKA+ 30 STR is generally better than 3d6 HKA + 15 STR but neither is as good as 55 STR + 1 pip HKA. The balanced purchase is the most common and effective build with doubling for a character that doesn't have STR but HKA as their main attack. Not having the STR to double the HKA is a less common build, but you're totally ignoring concepts built around movement or skills where it's better when doubling is in effect.

 

The huge STR, tiny HKA build is just an abuse to get the option of a campaign level HKA for low points. If I was going to do your multipower version, I'd go with 55 STR, a 5 point control pool and 2 slots, 1 of +5 STR and 1 of 1 pip HKA. That costs 2 extra points.

 

By the way, any GM I've encountered would tell you that your last build example for 40 points is only going to yield a 3d6 HKA. Combining a limited power with a normal one doesn't work that way.

Edited September 22, 2023 by Grailknight

[Gauntlet]

On 6/24/2023 at 7:48 AM, LoneWolf said:

If a character can stand inside a wall and only expose the hand making the attack, they are getting more benefit than others can get out of the wall.  I can purchase a penetrating sense and take no penalty from being inside the wall.  That character should pay to be able to do that.  The character that can move through barriers that are not solid like the T1000 in T2 can still be attacked when they are desolid.  That character I could see not having to pay extra to do that. 

 

If you can attack you should be able to be attacked back.  A normal character cannot stand behind a 10’ stone wall and fire through it.  They have to be able to fire over or around the wall in order to attack.  A character with desolidification can usually stand behind or in the 10’ stone wall and fire through it.  The wall hinders the first character, but not the second.  

 

A lot of it is going to depend on the special effect of the desolidification and how much protection it gives you.   The character that cannot hide in the wall is not getting as much benefit from the desolidification as the character that can.  The first character has to pay more for the ability to attack his opponents because he can do so from a much more favorable circumstance.   
 

 

First a character with desloid cannot be completely in a wall and attack, he/she still have to see their target. Will the character get some DCV bonuses, yes, but not any more than if he/she were just behind something and using it as cover.

 

Second, just because you are desolid it does not mean that your attacks are. If you want to be able to attack through that wall your attack must have the indirect advantage, and you must be able to see through the wall, XRay perhaps. If your attack is not indirect then the target gets the Defense and BODY of the wall as additional defense.

[Pattern Ghost]

This really seems like one of the edge cases the rules didn't think of. If the only benefit you get from Desolid is the ability to be amorphous enough to ooze through things, then just cost it out as its own thing, using Desolid as a basis. Forcing the system into a universal, catch-all, build anything toolkit breaks down whenever a power provides more than a single benefit, IMO. There's a reason Growth and Shrinking were decoupled from most of their bonuses. This seems like a similar case. If a player just wants to be amorphous, then give them a custom power called  Amorphous, costed as appropriate to your campaign setting. Shouldn't be too expensive, IMO. But you don't get any built in defenses, or any built in weaknesses. It's a problem solved easily by GM fiat.

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:

. If the only benefit you get from Desolid is the ability to be amorphous enough to ooze through things, then just cost it out as its own thing, using Desolid as a basis. 

 

 

Oh no, you don't!

 

That"s how 2/3 of this threas happened!..:lol:

 

 

[Gauntlet]

4 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

Oh no, you don't!

 

That"s how 2/3 of this threas happened!..:lol:

 

 

 

But, but, but... Arguments are fun...

[Hugh Neilson]

On 9/22/2023 at 9:59 AM, Grailknight said:

That is an entirely different matter from the doubling rule we were debating.

 

I'm not certain precisely what you are debating.  My premise, however, is that HKA should not be enhanced by strength or, in other words, STR should not enhance HKA.  They should be two separate mechanics. If they are linked due to special effects, then by all means reflect that with further mechanics. The doubling rule serves only to highlight some of the issues.  If it is balanced to allow 30 STR to add 2d6 to a 2d6 HKA, why is it not appropriate to allow 45 STR to add 3d6 to a 2d6 HKA, or 30 STR to allow 2d6 to a 1d6 HKA?

 

On 9/22/2023 at 9:59 AM, Grailknight said:

 

That is an entirely different matter from the doubling rule we were debating.  I've never had such a character suggested or even theorized before.

 

Working on the assumption that 50 STR is an adequate attack in the campaign, I wouldn't give it any Limitation. I would however give one to all of his purchased HKA's and HA's and I'd give him a Physical Complication to reflect his inability to use them or weapons of opportunity properly.

 

Used alone his STR works properly, he can even carry heavy weights in one hand while using the extra attacks in the other. The HKA's and HA's are unable to meld with his STR for some reason though, so they get the Limitation.

 

 

 

OK. Let's approach this from the other side. He sells his STR back to 1.  He buys a 12d6 Hand Attack, a 10d6 Armor Piercing Hand Attack, a 4d6 HKA and a 2 1/2d6 Penetrating HKA. That would cost 202 points in total.

 

All four of those attacks are then Limited "No STR Adds", reducing the cost to 141 points, a 61 point savings. Maybe he'll use that to buy 60 points of Telekinesis. No Range

 

Fair?  Balanced?  This is the reverse  of your "but the strength is not limited".  Fine - if the inability to add STR to the KA does not limit the STR, let's limit the KA to not be augmented by STR.
 

The problem exists because STR does not provide HKA, HKA does not provide STR, but buying one gets the other for free.

 

On 9/22/2023 at 10:55 AM, Grailknight said:

 

It's the difference between having STR and an HKA compared to having STR or the HKA. One has both at all times, the other has to make a choice. It may only rarely be an inconvenience, but it can happen.

 

OK, let's start with a 50 STR and a 1 pip AP HKA for 46 points.  No doubling means the character gets a 3d6 AP HKA. Doubling means the character gets a 1/2d6 AP HKA. You (and Steve Long) consider the former horribly unbalanced.

 

The character could instead pay for a 25 STR and a 1 1/2d6 AP HKA (3d6 with STR) for 46. Presumably that is balanced. 

 

Or he can go the Multipower route.  Let's use that same 25 base STR.  The Multipower has +30 STR and 1 1/2d6 AP HKA, for 36 points - total spent 51.  He can have 55 STR or a 3d6 AP HKA and a 25 STR.

 

For the same 5 points, he can have 25 STR and a 1 1/2d6 AP HKA (3d6 with STR - he needs 1 more point to make it 3d6+1).  Are the two functionally equivalent?  I suggest that they are not.

 

Would you have allowed a -5 limitation on +30 STR if KA not used?  That's the same 5 point cost to get to the multipower. Presumably that is also balanced.

 

Because the doubling rule prevented Matterhorn from achieving his STR and KA at the same time, and we needed that to restore the balance set out above.

 

So no, the doubling rule DID NOT achieve balance.

 

What would achieve balance?  "Sorry, Matterhorn, STR is STR and KAs are KAs.  So you can buy a 50 STR for 40 points.  You can buy a 1/2d6 KA, AP, No Range for 8 points.  And you get EXACTLY what you paid for.  Want a bigger KA at the cost of not having extra STR at the same time? Use a Multipower like the Blaster does to trade Blast for KA.  Or we can put a Limitation on your KA that it is reduced if your STR is reduced. But you get what you pay for, and you pay for what you get. You don't get extra KA for free because you bought STR.

 

On 9/22/2023 at 10:55 AM, Grailknight said:

But one special snowflake doesn't invalidate doubling. It was put in to stop the abusive builds that were present in 1st and which are making a comeback in 6th. You shouldn't design a ruleset around edge cases.

 

2d6 HKA+ 30 STR is generally better than 3d6 HKA + 15 STR but neither is as good as 55 STR + 1 pip HKA.

 

The doubling rule LIMITS the abuse. With 5 STR adding 1 DC to an HKA, it is STUPID to buy more KA instead of buying more STR. If I want Wolverine - KA focused, so I want a 4d6 HKA - I am an idiot WITH doubling if I don't buy 30 STR + 2d6 HKA. WITHOUT doubling, I am an idiot if I don't buy a Brick with sharp fingernails - 55 STR and a 1 pip HKA.  The comparison here simply shows that allowing STR to add to HKA provides a significant freebie.

 

On 9/22/2023 at 10:55 AM, Grailknight said:

By the way, any GM I've encountered would tell you that your last build example for 40 points is only going to yield a 3d6 HKA. Combining a limited power with a normal one doesn't work that way.

 

Try encountering a GM who is functionally literate and opens 6e V1 to page 366.

 

EDIT: Replace above with "Try encountering a GM who opens 6e V1 to page 366, reads the rules for partially limited powers and interprets it in a non-disingenuous manner."

 

Quote

A character may have a power that’s only partly restricted — only part of the power operates under the Limitation. The character decides what Limitation to apply to the power, then decides what parts of the power he’ll Limit. The character buys the restricted part of the power with the Limitation and the rest of the power normally.

 

1d6 HKA can be augmented by STR. So that's 2d6 with 15 STR.  +2d6 HKA that cannot be augmented with STR. I take it we can agree that 2 + 2 = 4.  That's 4d6.

 

Or he can sell his STR back to 1 and pay 40 points for a 4d6 HKA, no STR adds. Once again, he is foolish not to buy enough STR to take full advantage of the free extra HKA - that extra STR carries no extra cost.

 

In short, the reality is that enhancing HKA with STR creates free STR once you decide to pay for the HKA. The doubling rule says "well, OK, you can have that free STR, but only up to half of your HKA". Removing the doubling rule just highlights what a freebie this is.

Edited September 24, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[Pattern Ghost]

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

Oh no, you don't!

 

That"s how 2/3 of this threas happened!..:lol:

 

 

 

I'm talking about something much simpler than trying to make a Desolid-based build out of it. Though, that's one way to do it. Just build something close out with RAW, then round the cost. What I'm talking about is simply eyeballing all of the abilities granted by the power -- which is really a compound power, so should probably be built out of other components in the first place, if the system was truly universal -- then guesstimate what it's worth in your campaign to have the part you want.

 

With Desolid, you're tossing out a bunch of useful abilities, some of which are balanced by drawbacks, but all stacked on a 40 point base power. You only want a tiny bit of that 40 point power, right? So, 5 points worth? 10 points worth?  Any way you slice it, you come up with a number. THEN you look around the system and compare that number to other things you can get in the system. The same number of points gets what kind of combat or utility ability in system? If it looks like the things are reasonable -- again, you are eyeballing it, because the system is already filled with inequities anyway -- then you roll with it.

 

So, here's my write up:

Amorphous Body: Movement Power that allows one to ooze through and around obstacles, but not through solid walls. The character an squeeze through a small gap, but can still be contained in a sealed container. Oozing speed is half of the character's movement speed. This power confers no other benefits. This power does not grant any combat, defensive, or movement speed. It can be used with most forms of movement at the GM's discretion, and based on the power's special effects.  10 Active Points. 

 

If you think that's worth more than 10 points, then up the points a bit. I probably wouldn't go lower than 10 points, because it's a pretty useful power.

 

It's sometimes better to simplify and roll on, if the RAW are complicating things too much for your enjoyment. (It's also enjoyable to try to create tricky builds with the RAW.)

[Grailknight]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I'm not certain precisely what you are debating.  My premise, however, is that HKA should not be enhanced by strength or, in other words, STR should not enhance HKA.  They should be two separate mechanics. If they are linked due to special effects, then by all means reflect that with further mechanics. The doubling rule serves only to highlight some of the issues.  If it is balanced to allow 30 STR to add 2d6 to a 2d6 HKA, why is it not appropriate to allow 45 STR to add 3d6 to a 2d6 HKA, or 30 STR to allow 2d6 to a 1d6 HKA?

 

it's called doubling because it limits the addable DC's to the amount already purchased. You quoted Steve Long's example on why more is abusive but don't seem to want to accept that it agrees with my argument. I can understand not accepting it from me but why would you question his opinion?

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

OK. Let's approach this from the other side. He sells his STR back to 1.  He buys a 12d6 Hand Attack, a 10d6 Armor Piercing Hand Attack, a 4d6 HKA and a 2 1/2d6 Penetrating HKA. That would cost 202 points in total.

 

All four of those attacks are then Limited "No STR Adds", reducing the cost to 141 points, a 61 point savings. Maybe he'll use that to buy 60 points of Telekinesis. No Range

 

Fair?  Balanced?  This is the reverse  of your "but the strength is not limited".  Fine - if the inability to add STR to the KA does not limit the STR, let's limit the KA to not be augmented by STR.
 

The problem exists because STR does not provide HKA, HKA does not provide STR, but buying one gets the other for free.

 

And you presented that character to me in a 12 DC campaign, I'd hand it back with the limitation valued as -0 and tell you rebalance your point totals. If it was a 15 DC campaign, I'd let you play it after explaining how ineffective and unenjoyable I believe it would be. I'd even urge you to raise your STR to 15 and remove the limitation so you'd have a competitive build.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

OK, let's start with a 50 STR and a 1 pip AP HKA for 46 points.  No doubling means the character gets a 3d6 AP HKA. Doubling means the character gets a 1/2d6 AP HKA. You (and Steve Long) consider the former horribly unbalanced.

 

The character could instead pay for a 25 STR and a 1 1/2d6 AP HKA (3d6 with STR) for 46. Presumably that is balanced. 

 

Or he can go the Multipower route.  Let's use that same 25 base STR.  The Multipower has +30 STR and 1 1/2d6 AP HKA, for 36 points - total spent 51.  He can have 55 STR or a 3d6 AP HKA and a 25 STR.

 

For the same 5 points, he can have 25 STR and a 1 1/2d6 AP HKA (3d6 with STR - he needs 1 more point to make it 3d6+1).  Are the two functionally equivalent?  I suggest that they are not.

 

Would you have allowed a -5 limitation on +30 STR if KA not used?  That's the same 5 point cost to get to the multipower. Presumably that is also balanced.

 

Because the doubling rule prevented Matterhorn from achieving his STR and KA at the same time, and we needed that to restore the balance set out above.

 

So no, the doubling rule DID NOT achieve balance.

 

Yes, it's more balanced. It's an alternate method of getting nearly the same performance for slightly greater points that's not as useful because a rare situation could arise that requires the maximum amount of STR and the HKA.

 

And your 5-point cost difference is disingenuous. In a game with doubling, the AP HKA would cost 31 points. No doubling saves 26 points in a true apple to apple comparison though you would get a slightly higher 3d6+1 ap HKA out of it. That's where the abuse lies.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

What would achieve balance?  "Sorry, Matterhorn, STR is STR and KAs are KAs.  So you can buy a 50 STR for 40 points.  You can buy a 1/2d6 KA, AP, No Range for 8 points.  And you get EXACTLY what you paid for.  Want a bigger KA at the cost of not having extra STR at the same time? Use a Multipower like the Blaster does to trade Blast for KA.  Or we can put a Limitation on your KA that it is reduced if your STR is reduced. But you get what you pay for, and you pay for what you get. You don't get extra KA for free because you bought STR.

 

 

The doubling rule LIMITS the abuse. With 5 STR adding 1 DC to an HKA, it is STUPID to buy more KA instead of buying more STR. If I want Wolverine - KA focused, so I want a 4d6 HKA - I am an idiot WITH doubling if I don't buy 30 STR + 2d6 HKA. WITHOUT doubling, I am an idiot if I don't buy a Brick with sharp fingernails - 55 STR and a 1 pip HKA.  The comparison here simply shows that allowing STR to add to HKA provides a significant freebie.

 

Doubling mitigates it to a level that's been mostly balanced for decades. It's not perfect but keep it until you have a fully fleshed out better option. HKA's are just the most prominent trouble spot but HA's are just as bad.

 

Until you rewrite the entire system to say that HTH combat damage is not augmented by STR and find a way to present it that somehow convinces players that that disconnect makes sense, I can't accept your version.  Give me the text of your change with all of its ramifications and I'll consider it and adopt it if it's an improvement.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Try encountering a GM who is functionally literate and opens 6e V1 to page 366.

 

 

1d6 HKA can be augmented by STR. So that's 2d6 with 15 STR.  +2d6 HKA that cannot be augmented with STR. I take it we can agree that 2 + 2 = 4.  That's 4d6.

 

Or he can sell his STR back to 1 and pay 40 points for a 4d6 HKA, no STR adds. Once again, he is foolish not to buy enough STR to take full advantage of the free extra HKA - that extra STR carries no extra cost.

 

In short, the reality is that enhancing HKA with STR creates free STR once you decide to pay for the HKA. The doubling rule says "well, OK, you can have that free STR, but only up to half of your HKA". Removing the doubling rule just highlights what a freebie this is.

 

That's dangerously close to a personal attack. Let's stay civil.

 

And you're being disingenuous again. That character sheet has 15 STR + 1d6 HKA for the first part of the attack, not 2d6 HKA. Trying to cheese that past me would make me skip the red and yellow caution highlighters and go directly to the black marker of doom.

 

It does not create free STR. You have to choose to buy it up to double. You asked me for an example that buys STR lower than that optimal point, so I present to you, your cheesy example with 15 STR that is attempting to achieve 4d6 HKA in total. Apparently such a concept is not totally foreign to you.

Edited September 23, 2023 by Grailknight

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I'm talking about something much simpler than trying to make a Desolid-based build out of it. Though, that's one way to do it. Just build something close out with RAW, then round the cost.

 

Right.  But do be aware I am using an older pre "fixed" edition of the rules where Desolid _is_ a movement power; it makes it a far bwttwr starting point than then "fixed" version could be.

 

For example: 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

So, here's my write up:

Amorphous Body: Movement Power that allows one to ooze through and around obstacles, but not through solid walls. The character an squeeze through a small gap, but can still be contained in a sealed container. Oozing speed is half of the character's movement speed. This power confers no other benefits. This power does not grant any combat, defensive, or movement speed. It can be used with most forms of movement at the GM's discretion, and based on the power's special effects.  10 Active Points. 

 

 

See, the un-fixed version of Desolid _is_ a movement power.  You quite literally buy the exact amount of movement you want and you are done.

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

it's called doubling because it limits the addable DC's to the amount already purchased.

 

I know what it is and what it does. My point, clearly not clarified appropriately, was that I am not arguing for unlimited adders, but for NO STR adders to HKAs. The doubling rule's allowance of unbalance, but only so much unbalance and no more, illustrates why those adders should be removed. It would be less intuitive, but a lot of "reason from effect" and "pay for what you get" is already very unintuitive.

 

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

You quoted Steve Long's example on why more is abusive but don't seem to want to accept that it agrees with my argument. I can understand not accepting it from me but why would you question his opinion?

 

What makes Steve's opinion any more valid than yours? As author, it was ultimately his decision. That does not make it the right or wrong decision. 

 

Steve solicited a lot of other gamers' opinions, and made an informed decision. I take credit for the explicit statement that something with no game effect costs no points. I recall opining that Transfer was just a linked Aid and Drain, and that we should have normal maneuvers that allowed targets to be tripped, choked, etc. I argued that all powers capable of being used simultaneously should be able to be used in Combined Attacks.

 

I put forward revised Figured with reduced costs for END, STUN and REC.  However, I agreed with his point that, if the pricing was fixed, there was no need for figured at all. I argued for not pushing every 1d6 to divide evenly by 5, and to make Range a standard (for Drains, for example). I argued for retaining COM, but Steve persuaded me with his assessment that COM was the only "characteristic" that did nothing but modify things we do with other characteristics.

 

I had some alternative thoughts on stun multiples, but I think Steve's decision was much more playable. I felt, and still feel, that DEX, PRE and INT should be priced the same. However, since 6e was released, I have shifted from the belief they should all be 1 point to the belief they should all be 2 points.  I questioned whether HKA should not be augmented by STR, and alternatively why doubling was a magic result.

 

Plenty of others contributed their ideas as well. Some I agreed with, some I disagreed with and some were way better than mine.

 

One thing Steve did not change - the rules are what he thinks work, but if you think something else works better, use that. So he even opined that his opinion had no special privilege.

 

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

And you presented that character to me in a 12 DC campaign, I'd hand it back with the limitation valued as -0 and tell you rebalance your point totals. If it was a 15 DC campaign, I'd let you play it after explaining how ineffective and unenjoyable I believe it would be. I'd even urge you to raise your STR to 15 and remove the limitation so you'd have a competitive build.

 

So even the RAW limitation doesn't work for you? If I was going to raise my STR, I would raise it to exactly equal the KA.  Here again, however, the fact that the limitation is not nearly as limiting on a high HKA/low STR build as it is on a higher STR build highlights how the "STR augments KA" model fails the balance test.  Assume a less egregious example - the character retains a 10 STR, and buys a suite of RKAs with no Range (same cost as HKAs with no STR addition), maybe tossing in some No Range drains, flashes, etc. Perhaps a No Range blast as well.

 

Why should there be any "uncompetitive" builds? Hero is about building the character you want.  To me, mechanically being able to do 4d6 killing damage at no range should have one constant cost.  The ability to create multiple different costs for the same mechanic, or to get added freebies at no extra cost by modifying the build, is a flaw in the system.

 

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

Yes, it's more balanced. It's an alternate method of getting nearly the same performance for slightly greater points that's not as useful because a rare situation could arise that requires the maximum amount of STR and the HKA.

 

To the extent that it is "more balanced", it is only because the unbalance is more limited, not because the core mechanics are balanced.

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

Yes, it's more balanced. It's an alternate method of getting nearly the same performance for slightly greater points that's not as useful because a rare situation could arise that requires the maximum amount of STR and the HKA.

 

And your 5-point cost difference is disingenuous. In a game with doubling, the AP HKA would cost 31 points. No doubling saves 26 points in a true apple to apple comparison though you would get a slightly higher 3d6+1 ap HKA out of it. That's where the abuse lies.

 

I see my typo now - I referred to a 25 STR, rather than 30.

 

The character can have a 31 STR (21 CP). He can have a 1 1/2d6 AP HKA for 31 points.  Adding the 31 STR pops him up to 3d6+1 AP HKA.  That cost 52 points.

 

Or he can go the Multipower route.  He can have 25 STR.  He can have a Multipower with a 31 point pool and two slots - +30 STR and 1 1/2d6 AP HKA - for 6 points - total spent 52. 

 

The first character gets 1 extra BOD from his KA, and never has to lower his STR to 25. The second can have a 55 STR or a KA that does one less BOD than the first character. The second character will be far more useful. Could a situation arise when that extra 5 STR is needed at the same time as the KA? Sure.  Will it happen with close to the frequency with which a 55 STR and no KA will be more useful than a 30 STR and the KA? I very much doubt it.

 

Remove STR adding to KAs and the issue vanishes.

 

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

Doubling mitigates it to a level that's been mostly balanced for decades. It's not perfect but keep it until you have a fully fleshed out better option. HKA's are just the most prominent trouble spot but HA's are just as bad.

 

An HA is just limited STR. An HKA is a completely separate attack power.

 

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

Until you rewrite the entire system to say that HTH combat damage is not augmented by STR and find a way to present it that somehow convinces players that that disconnect makes sense, I can't accept your version.  Give me the text of your change with all of its ramifications and I'll consider it and adopt it if it's an improvement.

 

Removing HKA and renaming RKA "Killing Attack" is pretty easy.  A couple of example builds with "Claws: 2d6 KA, No Range + 2d6 KA, No Range (Drained with STR)" gets me right back to that 30 STR character with a 2d6 HKA.  But now I can have "Claws: 3d6 KA, No Range + 1d6 KA, No Range (Drained with STR)" or even "Sharp Fingernails: 1 pip KA, No Range + 4d6 KA, No Range (Drained with STR)" and the characters all pay points commensurate with their abilities.

 

The disconnect is the only real issue. If it helps, that was the only reason Steve stated for retaining the HKA augmented by STR. My simple answer is that this is a core principal of Hero.  Logically, Ability A's special effect should provide Mechanical Benefit X justifies paying the points for Mechanical Benefit X.  "I am immune to the depths of space and the fire of the hottest stars, so I should be resistant to heat and cold damage!"  Agreed - you should buy defense powers that protect you from heat and cold.  "My flaming shield should burn someone who hits or grabs me."  Agreed - you should buy a Damage Shield.  "My high Ego should make my Mind Control more likely to hit and more likely to succeed." Agreed. You should buy Mocv and more Mind Control dice.  Only "I am really strong so my claws should slice deeper." seems too challenging to implement.  It's not. If we had simply started 1e with Killing Attack and a clawed guy with KA: No Range, we would not be having this discussion now.

 

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

That's dangerously close to a personal attack. Let's stay civil.

 

I an be a serious jerk if I put in a little effort, and dense as to how others interpret what I say pretty effortlessly.  The bolded statement In short, the reality is that enhancing HKA with STR creates free STR once you decide to pay for the HKA. The doubling rule says "well, OK, you can have that free STR, but only up to half of your HKA". Removing the doubling rule just highlights what a freebie this is. was, and is, simply a summary of my premise. I bolded it so it would stand out at the bottom of a wall of text, and not get lost for anyone still brave enough to read all this.  If you would like to tell me where you perceive a personal attack, I will take you at your word that this is how it reads and attempt to modify it accordingly.

 

**man - I was just thinking I should type "you out there, @Duke Bushido?" and who shows up with a reply while I'm finishing the post! 

 

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

And you're being disingenuous again. That character sheet has 15 STR + 1d6 HKA for the first part of the attack, not 2d6 HKA. Trying to cheese that past me would make me skip the red and yellow caution highlighters and go directly to the black marker of doom.

 

You know, for a guy who throws around accusations of "a personal attack" and seems quite offended by that possibility, you seem quite eager to accuse  me of being disingenuous.  Should I take that personally?  This is hardly the first time. I'll also share that I have thought "is he really missing the point or is he just being disingenuous" at least a couple of times in this discussion, but I afford the benefit of the doubt.

 

In any case, the character sheet will present the power any way I want to present it. 35 CP 1d6 HKA (+1d6 STR) + 2d6 HKA (no STR add; -1/2) - 4d6 HKA; 6 END (as I won't take two round-downs for that one attack) is probably how I would present it.  If someone would like to run it through Hero Designer and see what it says, that would be great.  It will certainly provide Active Points, at a minimum.

 

Is it cheesy?  Maybe. But I can also see the view that, since the STR adder is not being used, we should apply the maxim that "an ability that has no significant effect on game play" should cost no points (6e v1 p 10). Anyway, the character is sacrificing the benefit if, at some rare time in the game, I should receive a STR Aid.  Is it cheesy to pay 40 points for a 4d6 RKA, No Range instead of 45 for a 3d6 HKA, +1d6 for my 15 STR?

 

You know what's REALLY cheesy? Three different ways to get the exact same game mechanic, each with a different cost.  Let's look at 6e V1 p 10 again where we will find that

 

Quote

One of the most important general principles underlying the HERO System is you get what you pay for. That’s a shorthand way of saying several things.

 

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

It does not create free STR. You have to choose to buy it up to double. You asked me for an example that buys STR lower than that optimal point, so I present to you, your cheesy example with 15 STR that is attempting to achieve 4d6 HKA in total. Apparently such a concept is not totally foreign to you.

 

I stand by the statement that it creates free STR. If I want my character to have a 4d6 HKA, I can buy 3d6+1 HKA (50 points) or I can buy +20 STR (20 points) and 2d6 HKA (30 points).  Same 50 points spent. Same 4d6 HKA. 20 STR for free.

 

Remove doubling and it gets exacerbates.  +45 STR (45 points) and +1 pip HKA (5 points)  +45 STR for free. 

 

That starts from the perspective that I want the KA and the STR falls out of it. That character design interpretation is no more, and no less, valid than 55 STR + 1 pip HKA granting 3 1/2d6 extra KA for free.

 

Quote

One of the most important general principles underlying the HERO System is you get what you pay for. That’s a shorthand way of saying several things.

 

Steve's opinion.  I wholeheartedly agree.

[Duke Bushido]

Yes, Sir; I am still here.

 

I havent posted much since we switched to damage / STR adds / points balance partly because I really have not had the time  or mindset to digest the numbers you guys are throwing around (I am dealing with an unfortunate event, and staying out of jail is a high priority for me right now), and partly because-

 

Offered as a statement of fact without malice or derision to anyone-  as you and the other long-timers are already well aware, I think "points equals balance" is a "Scientology is a real religion"-level load of crap and attempts to enforce it are, in my own opinion, the biggest problem creators of subsequent editions.

 

Still, the discussions _are_ interesting enough to partake now and again; I have just had a _lot_ on mind the last couple of days.  Do carey on, though; I will find the time to catch up. 

 

 

 

[Pattern Ghost]

20 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

See, the un-fixed version of Desolid _is_ a movement power.  You quite literally buy the exact amount of movement you want and you are done.

 

 

I was going off 4th Edition for the sake of the conversation. Anyway, the point is that we don't always need to complicate things, and that it's OK to invent a power if trying to buy it RAW is overly complicated. 

 

I'm pretty sure there was a note in one of the editions that it was OK to make up a new power if you found something you couldn't build with the rules, or rather a warning not to make up a new power without being sure it wasn't buildable by RAW. It's also possible I imagined that. 

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I was going off 4th Edition for the sake of the conversation. Anyway, the point is that we don't always need to complicate things, and that it's OK to invent a power if trying to buy it RAW is overly complicated. 

 

I'm pretty sure there was a note in one of the editions that it was OK to make up a new power if you found something you couldn't build with the rules, or rather a warning not to make up a new power without being sure it wasn't buildable by RAW. It's also possible I imagined that. 

 

 

 

 

I cant say dor certain, becauae I am not sure which veraion if it you may have read, but I beliwve the eule you are referring to is the expamairion that a power with modifiers is not a power plus (or minus) its modifiers, but is in fact an entirely,new power, that works in the new way created by the modifiers and how they affect the power, and how the special effect brings that to pass.

 

I r reference this one _a lot_ because it seems to be the single-most forgotten rule when power builda start bwinf tossed around.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

8 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I was going off 4th Edition for the sake of the conversation. Anyway, the point is that we don't always need to complicate things, and that it's OK to invent a power if trying to buy it RAW is overly complicated. 

 

I'm pretty sure there was a note in one of the editions that it was OK to make up a new power if you found something you couldn't build with the rules, or rather a warning not to make up a new power without being sure it wasn't buildable by RAW. It's also possible I imagined that. 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure 6e includes something along the lines of "these are the rules we thought worked the best, but if you're happier with other rules, go ahead and change them".

 

The "amorphous body" has no real perfect build at present.  I've seen suggestions for using Tunnelling (issue:  maximum defenses); Desolid (issue: Affects Solid World), Stretching (changing dimensions of the body), Teleport (you start on one side of the barrier and end up on the other - but a long, narrow pipe doesn't work right) and Shrinking (pass through barriers as long as something this tiny could make it through) among others.  The problem is that they all require stripping out most of the core ability used as a starting point, and many require far too much of the starting power to be reasonable from a cost perspective.

 

Desolid is closest.  Losing the ability to pass through solid objects and the invulnerability aspect are massive losses to utility, so huge limitations.  I would probably waive ASW if the character foregoes the damaging aspect.  I'd roughly price out the Desolid build and either use that with a ruling that the combined limitations and SFX just mean it works that way (handwave the minor remaining issues) or just call it a "new power" as you propose.

 

10 points feels reasonable. It's certainly no more than 20!

 

Of course, there's always EDM to a dimension adjacent to our own, so close that people in either can affect the other, except that being in the SquishyVerse allows you to slip through tiny spaces.  Or Change Environment (add in doublings of the size of small openings; IPE; Self Only).  There's likely a Transform in there somewhere - a vastly overpriced one. Massive Contortionist bonuses?  We can probably get even more ludicrous if we try.

[Opal]

I never saw why HA & EB shouldn't both be 5pts/die, when HKA & RKA are both 15pts/die.  Of course, I'd also expect to be able to do energy or stun-only with an HA and add STR to it, so I may just be weird 

 

The debate on the "doubling rule" confuses me.  Especially characterizing converting STR's normal damage to killing damage as "free STR?"  Isn't it "free" KA? And how is it free, when you've paid for both the STR and the HKA?

It's like complaining the second slot in a multipower gives you the first slot free.😕

Edited September 23, 2023 by Opal

[Opal]

On 9/21/2023 at 11:14 PM, Gauntlet said:

3-1/2d6 HKA which is a devastating attack. Much more devastating than an 11d6 normal attack

I think that's a different problem.  11 DC should be equally devastating.  11 DC, normal or killing, is going to be attempted murder when applied to 2 Def normal, for instance... 

...and I thought 6th fixed the StunLOTTO?