Argument Concerning Desolification

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Opal said:

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 problem then becomes why anyone would buy 1d6 HA (add a die of normal damage to STR) rather than +5 STR (get that 1d6 normal damage, Grab, Escape, Lift, Carry, Throw...). Hand Attack, at least in my view, is limited STR.

 

Why couldn't your STR be STUN only?  That's a -0 limitation.  Switching from PD to ED is a +0 advantage. STR can be double END or half END - advantages and limitations are fair game.

 

3 hours ago, Opal said:

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.😕

 

There's a "chicken and egg" issue there.  In 1e, many, if not most, published Bricks had 1d6 HKA.  That was the minimum you could buy.  And why not?  Tack on your 60 STR and you had a 5d6 HKA.  That was "free KA" and the doubling rule in 2e limited it.  Many Enemies 1 characters got no re-write and had 1d6 HKA (2d6 with STR).  That was fine for Armadillo who relied on his STR and Powered Armor.  Not so much for the 60 STR Monster who was supposed to rely on his HKA.

 

But let's assume we are not building a Brick.  We''re building "the shrimp with the AP Killing attack".  By concept, he's not extraordinarily strong, so we buy him a 19 STR to get +1d6 AP HKA.  Then he buys a 3d6 AP HKA for 56 points and does 4d6 AP HKA.  He has spent 65 points, 9 on STR and 56 on his AP HKA, and is in concept.

 

But if he had a 38 STR (28 points; +2d6 AP HKA) he could buy a 2d6 AP HKA for 37 points.  He has an extra 19 STR.  What did he pay for it?  Nothing - the same 65 points were spent.  So I would call that 19 free STR.

 

If we remove STR adders at all, then he has to make a choice.  He could certainly choose to have a 19 STR (9 points) and a 4d6 KA, No Range, AP (50 points) (which costs 6 points less than his original build AND avoids any reduction to KA if his STR is drained, yet gives him all the same mechanical advantages). If he wants a 38 STR instead of 19 STR, he has to pay the extra 19 points.  He can't get them for free by reducing his HKA and getting a higher addition for STR. Or he could put some extra STR and some extra KA in a Multipower, just like the Blaster has an RKA and a Blast she can switch between.

Oh, and @Duke Bushido, I was curious whether you were reading as we both write and read pretty long posts.  Your views on the underlying issue are known, so I see why you would not revisit them here.  Only so many hours in the day!

[Opal]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

1e, many, if not most, published Bricks had 1d6 HKA.  That was the minimum you could buy.  And why not?  Tack on your 60 STR and you had a 5d6 HKA.  That was "free KA"

🤔 15 pts was 1/4 the Apts of a 60 STR, 1/5 that of a 5d KA.

Multipower slots were 1/5th the Apts of the powers in them, 1/10th for an ultra. (And it was unclear how limitations interacted with that. Iirc)

 

By the rough, not exactly vigilant for optimization shinnanigans, standards of the day (with the figured char loopholes wide open), doesn't sound insane.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

But if he had a 38 STR (28 points; +2d6 AP HKA) he could buy a 2d6 AP HKA for 37 points.  He has an extra 19 STR.  What did he pay for it?  Nothing - the same 65 points were spent.  So I would call that 19 free STR

So that's 6th, which 🤷‍♂️ idk?

But say in an ed I do know, you had a character in a 60apt limit game, with 10 STR and 3d+1 hka vs one with 30 STR and a 2d hka? 20 pts free STR?

Say they both want an EBe?

HKA goes in a multipower,  10d Ebe for the first character, 6d for the second.  

Now, the second character could just pump up the slot, by 20 pts.

If they want a third power, the higher STR character could pump up the reserve, instead, but the campaign limit caps the KA.

STR has efficiencies, multipower has different ones.

 

Or, consider the first character just takes a 4d RKA, no range. There's 20 points "free" to spend on anything.

 

"Free" is never really free, cost breaks always had strings.

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Opal

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Opal said:

🤔 15 pts was 1/4 the Apts of a 60 STR, 1/5 that of a 5d KA.

Multipower slots were 1/5th the Apts of the powers in them, 1/10th for an ultra. (And it was unclear how limitations interacted with that. Iirc)

 

By the rough, not exactly vigilant for optimization shinnanigans, standards of the day (with the figured char loopholes wide open), doesn't sound insane.

 

So that's 6th, which 🤷‍♂️ idk?

But say in an ed I do know, you had a character in a 60apt limit game, with 10 STR and 3d+1 hka vs one with 30 STR and a 2d hka? 20 pts free STR.

 

The only thing specifically 6e was armor piercing at +1/4.  Your example illustrates the 20 points of free STR exactly the same way.

 

As you note, for some it is better to buy an RKA, No Range (or an HKA, no STR adds).  If all the characters end up with the same STR and the same 4d6 non-ranged killing attack, why should the costs be different?

 

A Multipower is an option available for all characters. It would not allow the HKA Brick to use STR and KA at the same time, just as the Blaster can't use the Energy Blast and RKA slots at the same time.  That becomes more relevant with the advent of combined attacks - nothing in the rules prevents that 30 STR character with a 2d6 HKA from Combining 4d6 HKA damage with a 6d6 Strike, although in most cases the Strike will do little past standard defenses.  Another chance for Knockdown, though.

[Gauntlet]

7 hours ago, Opal said:

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?

 

It definitely is a case of what you want to do. If you are going for unconscious, go for normal damage, if you want them dead, go for killing damage.

22 hours 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?

 

So what you are saying is that the person who is small and has trouble picking up a plastic stool will do as much damage with a sword as that giant that can throw cars at you?

[Grailknight]

You can do the amorphous body with Shape Shift as long as you don't want to go through a solid object. It even has an example of going flat to go under a door.

[Doc Democracy]

1 hour ago, Gauntlet said:

So what you are saying is that the person who is small and has trouble picking up a plastic stool will do as much damage with a sword as that giant that can throw cars at you?

 

He is saying that is not the way the system works.  You do not look back at SFX like "really strong" and enhance their abilities for free.  If that is what you want, you pay the points for it.

 

Should high school jock, who can barely manage a coherent conversation (Ego 10), do as much damage with the Helm of ego whip (5D6 Mental blast), as the adept who has spent decades honing his mental power (EGO 25)?

 

It's the same question but I doubt you're giving the adept free dice of mental blast.

 

If your concept is that the giant is so strong, he gets more value using weapons, buy +HKA, only to add to weapons based on HKA.  Otherwise the giant combines his STR damage with the HKA, delivering more damage in that attack.

Edited September 23, 2023 by Doc Democracy

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

So what you are saying is that the person who is small and has trouble picking up a plastic stool will do as much damage with a sword as that giant that can throw cars at you?

 

Doc covers a lot of this above.

 

The game already says that a skilled warrior with a 23 STR and a Martial Strike with his sword does the same damage as an 80 STR Giant. Your example is one of scale.

 

"Who should do more damage" is a question of spending points, not granting freebies.  If a character can comfortably fly through the depths of space and the heart of the sun, I'd expect him to have more than 2 ED against fire and cold attacks. But I expect him to pay for it - it's not free because he bought life support.

 

In making that determination, I would treat the sword as a "real weapon" sword. I would envision those being constructed to similar mechanics to what we have now.

 

If Tom Thumb pays for a 1d6 KA with no range, and that giant spends the same points for the same 1d6 KA with no range, I do not think the giant should get more than he paid for.  Paying for what you get is a core Hero philosophy.

[unclevlad]

 

47 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

"Who should do more damage" is a question of spending points, not granting freebies.  If a character can comfortably fly through the depths of space and the heart of the sun, I'd expect him to have more than 2 ED against fire and cold attacks. But I expect him to pay for it - it's not free because he bought life support.

 

 

That assumes you accept that flying through the heart of the sun is allowed just because you have LS: Heat and presumably LS: High Pressure.  If it can be expressed in 1d6 per PHASE or more?  LS doesn't apply, IMO.  Environmental issues are those that are slow.  Flying through space with LS: Cold and LS: Vacuum and the breathing covered?  Yes, because freezing to death in space IS slow. 

 

Why were HKAs limited in the manner they were, through 5E?

1.  FIGURED CHARACTERISTICS!!!!!  STR is grossly underpriced due to this.

2.  1d-1 STUN multiplier made KAs grossly overpowered...especially when the game isn't supposed to be about killing.  Champions, anyway.  

 

With KAs, you get 1 DC for 5 points.  With STR, you get 1 DC for 5 points...and quite a few other things.  This is bad enough...but that argues for limiting HAs too, right?  That's why HAs get that implicit -1/2 limitation...which basically is equivalent to No Figured Characteristics.  When you couple that with the high frequency of obscene STUN from a KA, tho...it's untenable to add as much STR as you want to a KA.

 

In 6E:  fixing the STUN multiplier was enough to align how HAs and HKAs treat STR.  HKAs no longer have the massive edge.  Removing Figured Characteristics allowed how STR was applied to HA to be normalized;  in 5E, it's handled *bizarrely* IMO.  And very badly.  Oh, and dropping HA to -1/4?  That's because if you don't, you almost never take Blast, No Range.  There's NO reason to, unless the GM disallows HAs vs. ED.  (I have built a notional character where I bought Flash, No Range;  the character could manifest club-like weapons with different effects, and it might make sense to build your entire multipower with e.g. Blast, RKA, and Flash, all No Range, so you can use the Common Modifier.)  

 

Hugh gave this example, so I'm gonna borrow it to illustrate my point:

Quote

But let's assume we are not building a Brick.  We''re building "the shrimp with the AP Killing attack".  By concept, he's not extraordinarily strong, so we buy him a 19 STR to get +1d6 AP HKA.  Then he buys a 3d6 AP HKA for 56 points and does 4d6 AP HKA.  He has spent 65 points, 9 on STR and 56 on his AP HKA, and is in concept.

 

But if he had a 38 STR (28 points; +2d6 AP HKA) he could buy a 2d6 AP HKA for 37 points.  He has an extra 19 STR.  What did he pay for it?  Nothing - the same 65 points were spent.  So I would call that 19 free STR.

 

 

So, our net is a 4d6 AP HKA.  That's 75 total points, however we account for it.

Option 1:  19 STR, the rest HKA.  He also gets 25 STUN, 4 PD, 6 REC, and 3 Leap.

Option 2:  38 STR, 2d6 HKA, the balanced form.  34 STUN, 8 PD, 10 REC, and 7 Leap.

Option 3:  1d6 AP HKA, 56 STR.  Note that he's getting an 11d6 punch, if he can't use the KA...that's not nothing.  11 PD, 13 REC, 43 STUN, and 11 Leap...even if you don't want it, sell some back.

 

If the STR you could apply to a KA wasn't sharply limited, there would simply be no reason to buy them past the bare minimum.  Even if it's a KA on a focus, the cost reduction from the focus doesn't make up for the loss in figureds.  (Remember that the cost break for the focus only applies, for point cost purposes, to the amount OVER the min you bought.  Likewise, the figured characteristics you gain only count the amount from the greater STR...but from that 19 to 38, that's 9 STUN, 4 PD, 4 REC, and 4 Leap.  In 5E, too, the figured stats are seriously overpriced;  you get 25 points' worth.)

[Opal]

9 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Your example illustrates the 20 points of free STR exactly the same way.

Yes, and the example of 4d RKA, no range vs 30 STR +2d HKA, the latter costs 10 more points, that's not getting anything for free, that's spending 10 more points to still do 4dK.

With the campaign limit multipower, the 30 STR+HKA character is spending 19 points more than the RKA/no range character, for the same campaign-limit attack options... he can also do a 6d punch...

 

...but, it's never free, just different, the second character is spending actual points to "save" theoretical points.

 

Like what if the two characters don't just face the same campaign limit, but the same point totals, and they're otherwise topped out buying DEX/SPD, armor, levels, etc?

 

Now the alternative to the 4d RKA no range is 25 STR +2.5dHKA, 3d+1 total. 

 

Cost breaks have never been free points.

[Doc Democracy]

51 minutes ago, Opal said:

With the campaign limit multipower, the 30 STR+HKA character is spending 19 points more than the RKA/no range character, for the same campaign-limit attack options... he can also do a 6d punch...

 

...but, it's never free, just different, the second character is spending actual points to "save" theoretical points.

 

If the idea is to get a 4D6 HKA and for the same or fewer points, you can also get enough STR to lift a car, punch for 6D6, then surely you pick the version with the freebies?  This is not like a limitation or framework where there is a trade-off.

 

In fact the HKA w/STR version is even more resilient, because if you are STR drained you still have the KA and if you are KA drained you still have the STR.

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

(I have built a notional character where I bought Flash, No Range;  the character could manifest club-like weapons with different effects, and it might make sense to build your entire multipower with e.g. Blast, RKA, and Flash, all No Range, so you can use the Common Modifier.)

 

Genuine question, are you going to allow STR to enhance all the effects? 

[Hugh Neilson]

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

That assumes you accept that flying through the heart of the sun is allowed just because you have LS: Heat and presumably LS: High Pressure.  If it can be expressed in 1d6 per PHASE or more?  LS doesn't apply, IMO.  Environmental issues are those that are slow.  Flying through space with LS: Cold and LS: Vacuum and the breathing covered?  Yes, because freezing to death in space IS slow.

 

Yes, it assumes that. It assumes that the characters in the source material who possess these abilities  did  not spend dozens or hundreds of points on the ability to have the artist draw a cool picture of them flying through a star, unharmed. It assumes that the point cost of such an ability would largely align with its utility in game. Perhaps your games differ, and situations set in the heart of a star are frequent, while scenarios set in the depths of space are rare. Regardless, if you prefer to only look to the depths of space, then should that character not have a natural resistance to a 9d6 Arctic Wind Cold Blast?

 

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Why were HKAs limited in the manner they were, through 5E?

1.  FIGURED CHARACTERISTICS!!!!!  STR is grossly underpriced due to this.

2.  1d-1 STUN multiplier made KAs grossly overpowered...especially when the game isn't supposed to be about killing.  Champions, anyway. 

 

Actually, the free Figured and 10 base STR were the reason EBs got Spreading. An article in Different World (27?  The X-Men one) with the game designers said that flat-out. Spreading was supposed to be in 1e.

 

Neither STR nor stun multiples explain why HKA got a special rule when RKA did not, so the broader questions remain.  Further, even if I accept all of these reasons, they do not explain why "up to but not exceeding doubling" was a balanced freebie. I would say, rather, that 6e recognized that several characteristics, including STR, were grossly underpriced (DEX, not STR, was the worst culprit) due to figured characteristics, in part because many of those figured characteristics were overpriced.  It recognized that the Stun Lotto was unbalancing, at least in superheroic games. These were fixed.

 

From discussions at the time with Steve Long, the fact that HKA/STR provided a freebie was also recognized, but a conscious decision was made not to address it, mainly if not entirely due to the "cognitive dissonance" element.

 

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

With KAs, you get 1 DC for 5 points.  With STR, you get 1 DC for 5 points...and quite a few other things.  This is bad enough...but that argues for limiting HAs too, right?  That's why HAs get that implicit -1/2 limitation...which basically is equivalent to No Figured Characteristics.  When you couple that with the high frequency of obscene STUN from a KA, tho...it's untenable to add as much STR as you want to a KA.

 

For reasons unclear to me, HA was initially based on "Blast, No Range" rather than "STR, remove some effects".  The -1/2 limitation was No Range. Practically, why did anyone buy HA in 4e or 5e?  STR No Figured would provide the same damage bonus, plus bonuses to Grab, Escape, Lift, HKAs and so on. That issue, at least, has been resolved. Now we get to ask why +1d6 normal STR damage that costs END is worth 4 points, and a Martial Arts DC that enhances far more effects and costs no END is also worth 4 points.

 

To be clear, my primary assertion is that STR should not add to HKAs at all, not that it should add to HKAs on an unlimited basis.  So why is it perfectly reasonable for a character  with 30 STR to add 2d6 to a 2d6 HKA, but not reasonable for a character with 45 STR tro add 3d6 to a 2d6 HKA?  Please focus any reasoning on why the former IS reasonable, rather than why the latter is not.

 

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Hugh gave this example, so I'm gonna borrow it to illustrate my point:

 

So, our net is a 4d6 AP HKA.  That's 75 total points, however we account for it.

Option 1:  19 STR, the rest HKA.  He also gets 25 STUN, 4 PD, 6 REC, and 3 Leap.

Option 2:  38 STR, 2d6 HKA, the balanced form.  34 STUN, 8 PD, 10 REC, and 7 Leap.

Option 3:  1d6 AP HKA, 56 STR.  Note that he's getting an 11d6 punch, if he can't use the KA...that's not nothing.  11 PD, 13 REC, 43 STUN, and 11 Leap...even if you don't want it, sell some back.

 

I regret that example at this stage, but only because AP muddies the water.  That flowed from the Matterhorn example.  Your version of the example is not correct as it uses the +1/4 6e version of AP, rather than the +1/2 5e cost, but allows the 5e Figureds.  Let's change the example to carve out some of those issues.

 

So, our net is a 4d6 HKA.  That's 60 total points, however we account for it.  In 5e

 

Option 1:  15 STR, the rest HKA.  He also gets +7.5 STUN, +3 PD, +3 REC, and 3" Leap.

 

Option 2:  30 STR, 2d6 HKA, the balanced form.  Hen also gets (compared to 15 STR) +7.5 STUN, +3 PD, +3 REC, +3" leap, extra Lift and +3d6/3 DC for all STR-related attacks, bracing for knockback, combined attack with the HKA, etc.

 

Option 3:  1 pip HKA, 55 STR.  Note that he's getting an 11d6 punch, if he can't use the KA...that's not nothing.  +8 PD, +8 REC, +20 STUN, and +8" Leap over that 15 STR...even if you don't want it, sell one back.

 

The issue of Figured was always that +15 STUN (15 CP), +6 PD (6 CP) and +6 REC (12 CP) was already 10% more than the 30 points paid for +30 STR. That's why you could only sell back one figured characteristic - otherwise, you could generate infinite points by buying up STR and CON and selling back all of the Figureds.

 

Moving on to 6e, while you don't get the figured characteristics, you get extra lift, HTH damage, Escape, Brace, Grab, etc. for free as long as you can buy extra STR. There is no mechanical reason to ever buy more HKA than your STR can augment - all the extra benefits of STR can be obtained at the low, low cost of making your HKA be Drained with STR.  The advantage was greater with Figured but remains without them.

 

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

If the STR you could apply to a KA wasn't sharply limited, there would simply be no reason to buy them past the bare minimum.  Even if it's a KA on a focus, the cost reduction from the focus doesn't make up for the loss in figureds.  (Remember that the cost break for the focus only applies, for point cost purposes, to the amount OVER the min you bought.  Likewise, the figured characteristics you gain only count the amount from the greater STR...but from that 19 to 38, that's 9 STUN, 4 PD, 4 REC, and 4 Leap.  In 5E, too, the figured stats are seriously overpriced;  you get 25 points' worth.)

 

True.  However, even with the doubling cap, to the extent of STR you could apply to a KA, there is simply no reason to buy more than half of HKA's - the rest is always better purchased indirectly as STR.

 

If you really want to play to concept, either limit the extra HKA dice to "no STR additions" (no more cheesy than putting Limited Range on every ranged attack because I can't hit that far away and even if I could, combat never takes place at those distances) or buy the entire KA as an RKA, No Range.

 

7 hours ago, Opal said:

Yes, and the example of 4d RKA, no range vs 30 STR +2d HKA, the latter costs 10 more points, that's not getting anything for free, that's spending 10 more points to still do 4dK.

With the campaign limit multipower, the 30 STR+HKA character is spending 19 points more than the RKA/no range character, for the same campaign-limit attack options... he can also do a 6d punch...

 

Exactly - there is no reason to use the RKA no Range (or HKA no STR Adds) if you game the system by purchasing half your HKA as STR.

 

If you have 30 STR, the limited KA model costs 10 points to avoid having your KA reduced if your STR is reduced.  Save the 10 points and buy Power Defense.

 

If you have 10 STR, the limited KA model costs 33 and a 3d6+1 HKA costs 50.  Save the 10 points if you aren't going to use the free STR add.  Now, how cheesy is it to just take "No STR Adds" and rub the GM's nose in the fact that you are only doing that because it's cheaper than buying less HKA with a STR adder.  And yet we would NOT suggest that buying the extra 20 STR and a 2d6 HKA is cheesy at all.  Just like we never criticized lumbering rock monster Bricks buying a Legendary 23 DEX to get CV.

[Grailknight]

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

 

I understand actually mostly agree with your stance in principle. But you need to come up with a complete fix before you impose your change. Doubling is a provably workable compromise for STR adds issue not because it is perfectly balanced but because it incorporates the very real fact that STR does enhance HTH weapons and combat while reducing the worst abuses of not having it.

 

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

 

Totally with you on all of these.

 

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

 

I ultimately came around to removing Figured Characteristics and COM. It took a few weeks of remaking NPC's to show me the benefits in character creation an to accept the reduced costs. I would have reduced the 5x and 4x STUN modifiers on the Hit Location chart by 1 but I agree with the change for Supers. I would not have removed Negative Characteristics. The current penalty for going from 1 to 0 is too harsh and makes Adjustment Powers too effective vs PRE and INT.

 

Most pertinent to this and some of our past discussions is that I would have made HA into the HTH counterpart to Blast and completely separate from the idea that it should be limited STR. I'm fully invested in keeping the cost of a DC at 5 points across the entire game and would raise the cost of Density Increase and Martial Arts DC to keep them consistent.

 

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

 

But I need it to work better for everyone but especially new GM's and players. Without doubling or a completed version of your substitution, tiny HKA and massive STR is not only RAW but the best build by far. The only argument otherwise for high HKA and low STR or even balanced HKA and STR is concept. Doubling keeps those builds in shouting distance on both the points and the concept fronts so i can accept the imperfect balance.

 

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

 

Because it's unnecessary to a build.  If your character concept is an HKA that cannot be boosted with STR. buy an RKA with No Range. I realize that this doesn't fix your issue with the rules, but you've got to find a way to bridge that disconnect before the change is better.

 

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

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.

 

So why would I ever buy 6th edition Growth or Shrinking then? I can get the same results for less points by buying the Characteristics as Powers with Non-Persistent or Costs End Only to Activate.

 

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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

 

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.

 

Or keep doubling and the 50 STR, 1 pip HKA option is now not possible. Balance of outcomes if not perfect balance of points is maintained.

 

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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

 

I debate you accepting your rules changes, you debate me without accepting mine. To me, HA is a unique power that is not associated with STR in any way.

 

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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.

 

The disconnect is the main issue. If you can't justify it in an appealing way, how will you get acceptance from your current audience or appeal to new GM's and players? Leave your option to an Advanced Player or GM guide until then.

 

On 9/22/2023 at 10:56 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

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! 

 

 

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.

 

The part I saw as a near personal attack was " Find a semi-literate GM". There are better ways to make your point than an implied insult. Like bolding.

 

If you see my use of "disingenuous" as an attack on you personally then I hereby apologize. It was not intentional, and I will refrain from further use of the word.

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Grailknight

[Duke Bushido]

Apologies, Hugh:

 

I sat down and logged on with the intent of making an effort to review the offered maths and enjoy the conversation, having finally xome as close as I am going to get with "terms" over my recent loss.

 

Alas, we have reached page 5 on a "points must balance" discussion, and I have found that historically- no matter how civil the discussion might remain--  it tends to get a bit eclesiastic after page 5, and honestly, it is not a religion to which I subscribe.

 

I have enjoyed what has gone on thus far, however, and hope to some more interesting thoughts before the thread is abandoned or degrades.

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

21 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Apologies, Hugh:

 

I sat down and logged on with the intent of making an effort to review the offered maths and enjoy the conversation, having finally xome as close as I am going to get with "terms" over my recent loss.

 

Alas, we have reached page 5 on a "points must balance" discussion, and I have found that historically- no matter how civil the discussion might remain--  it tends to get a bit eclesiastic after page 5, and honestly, it is not a religion to which I subscribe.

 

I have enjoyed what has gone on thus far, however, and hope to some more interesting thoughts before the thread is abandoned or degrades.

 

 

 

No issue, @Duke Bushido - I was only surprised to see your reply pop up as I was typing one where I wondered whether anyone else was reading the Text Walls - I thought of you because we both post lengthy commentary, but I did not expect you would weigh in on a "points balance and changes from 5e to 6e" discussion, for reasons obvious to anyone familiar with your game or your style.

[Grailknight]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Yes, it assumes that. It assumes that the characters in the source material who possess these abilities  did  not spend dozens or hundreds of points on the ability to have the artist draw a cool picture of them flying through a star, unharmed. It assumes that the point cost of such an ability would largely align with its utility in game. Perhaps your games differ, and situations set in the heart of a star are frequent, while scenarios set in the depths of space are rare. Regardless, if you prefer to only look to the depths of space, then should that character not have a natural resistance to a 9d6 Arctic Wind Cold Blast?

 

Yes, in a choice between game balance and game utility, game balance should always be given higher priority. And you're ignoring the fact that the example characters you're using that fly through stars and across space all would laugh at that 9d6 Blast anyway.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Actually, the free Figured and 10 base STR were the reason EBs got Spreading. An article in Different World (27?  The X-Men one) with the game designers said that flat-out. Spreading was supposed to be in 1e.

 

Neither STR nor stun multiples explain why HKA got a special rule when RKA did not, so the broader questions remain.  Further, even if I accept all of these reasons, they do not explain why "up to but not exceeding doubling" was a balanced freebie. I would say, rather, that 6e recognized that several characteristics, including STR, were grossly underpriced (DEX, not STR, was the worst culprit) due to figured characteristics, in part because many of those figured characteristics were overpriced.  It recognized that the Stun Lotto was unbalancing, at least in superheroic games. These were fixed.

 

From discussions at the time with Steve Long, the fact that HKA/STR provided a freebie was also recognized, but a conscious decision was made not to address it, mainly if not entirely due to the "cognitive dissonance" element.

 

And if you can address that dissonance, your stance would have much greater support, including mine.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

For reasons unclear to me, HA was initially based on "Blast, No Range" rather than "STR, remove some effects".  The -1/2 limitation was No Range. Practically, why did anyone buy HA in 4e or 5e?  STR No Figured would provide the same damage bonus, plus bonuses to Grab, Escape, Lift, HKAs and so on. That issue, at least, has been resolved. Now we get to ask why +1d6 normal STR damage that costs END is worth 4 points, and a Martial Arts DC that enhances far more effects and costs no END is also worth 4 points.

 

I would guess that they wanted it to not initially be another form of STR. They wanted something to simulate Normal damage weapons but couldn't decide how to make the new power. At 5 points per DC, it's a niche power for Supers as buying more STR is just better. But it filled a large hole in the powerset for Heroic level campaigns.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

To be clear, my primary assertion is that STR should not add to HKAs at all, not that it should add to HKAs on an unlimited basis.  So why is it perfectly reasonable for a character  with 30 STR to add 2d6 to a 2d6 HKA, but not reasonable for a character with 45 STR tro add 3d6 to a 2d6 HKA?  Please focus any reasoning on why the former IS reasonable, rather than why the latter is not.

 

 

I regret that example at this stage, but only because AP muddies the water.  That flowed from the Matterhorn example.  Your version of the example is not correct as it uses the +1/4 6e version of AP, rather than the +1/2 5e cost, but allows the 5e Figureds.  Let's change the example to carve out some of those issues.

 

So, our net is a 4d6 HKA.  That's 60 total points, however we account for it.  In 5e

 

Option 1:  15 STR, the rest HKA.  He also gets +7.5 STUN, +3 PD, +3 REC, and 3" Leap.

 

Option 2:  30 STR, 2d6 HKA, the balanced form.  Hen also gets (compared to 15 STR) +7.5 STUN, +3 PD, +3 REC, +3" leap, extra Lift and +3d6/3 DC for all STR-related attacks, bracing for knockback, combined attack with the HKA, etc.

 

Option 3:  1 pip HKA, 55 STR.  Note that he's getting an 11d6 punch, if he can't use the KA...that's not nothing.  +8 PD, +8 REC, +20 STUN, and +8" Leap over that 15 STR...even if you don't want it, sell one back.

 

The issue of Figured was always that +15 STUN (15 CP), +6 PD (6 CP) and +6 REC (12 CP) was already 10% more than the 30 points paid for +30 STR. That's why you could only sell back one figured characteristic - otherwise, you could generate infinite points by buying up STR and CON and selling back all of the Figureds.

 

Moving on to 6e, while you don't get the figured characteristics, you get extra lift, HTH damage, Escape, Brace, Grab, etc. for free as long as you can buy extra STR. There is no mechanical reason to ever buy more HKA than your STR can augment - all the extra benefits of STR can be obtained at the low, low cost of making your HKA be Drained with STR.  The advantage was greater with Figured but remains without them.

 

Here you are prioritizing cost over balance. Doubling is a compromise awaiting a better solution.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

True.  However, even with the doubling cap, to the extent of STR you could apply to a KA, there is simply no reason to buy more than half of HKA's - the rest is always better purchased indirectly as STR.

 

If you really want to play to concept, either limit the extra HKA dice to "no STR additions" (no more cheesy than putting Limited Range on every ranged attack because I can't hit that far away and even if I could, combat never takes place at those distances) or buy the entire KA as an RKA, No Range.

 

The Limited Range example at least does have some tiny loss of utility, the 1/2 STR added and 1/2 no STR does not. Both of these should be struck down by the GM.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Exactly - there is no reason to use the RKA no Range (or HKA no STR Adds) if you game the system by purchasing half your HKA as STR.

 

If you have 30 STR, the limited KA model costs 10 points to avoid having your KA reduced if your STR is reduced.  Save the 10 points and buy Power Defense.

 

If you have 10 STR, the limited KA model costs 33 and a 3d6+1 HKA costs 50.  Save the 10 points if you aren't going to use the free STR add.  Now, how cheesy is it to just take "No STR Adds" and rub the GM's nose in the fact that you are only doing that because it's cheaper than buying less HKA with a STR adder.  And yet we would NOT suggest that buying the extra 20 STR and a 2d6 HKA is cheesy at all.  Just like we never criticized lumbering rock monster Bricks buying a Legendary 23 DEX to get CV.

 

People tend to ignore the " If there are two valid options to achieve the exact same result then the more expensive option is the valid one" metarule all the time. Under doubling, all the combinations are equal in cost, so equally valid. The proposed versions with No Range violate the metarule when compared with them.

Edited September 24, 2023 by Grailknight

[unclevlad]

To Doc, on the No Range:  No, STR won't enhance ANY of the No Range attacks.  I'm using the -1/2 limit.  Allowing STR to be included goes back to that long, separate discussion we had a few months back.  The implications when considering the broader system are tricky.  For now, for this build?  Keeping it simpler.  

 

Quote

Yes, it assumes that. It assumes that the characters in the source material who possess these abilities  did  not spend dozens or hundreds of points on the ability to have the artist draw a cool picture of them flying through a star, unharmed. It assumes that the point cost of such an ability would largely align with its utility in game. Perhaps your games differ, and situations set in the heart of a star are frequent, while scenarios set in the depths of space are rare. Regardless, if you prefer to only look to the depths of space, then should that character not have a natural resistance to a 9d6 Arctic Wind Cold Blast?

 

They didn't spend points...because they don't HAVE points.  Or, if you prefer, they have as many points as the writers want them to have.  Utility in a game environment?  By that argument, the character can walk on lava, or walk through a burning building.  Aren't those just "hot environments"?  The utility isn't "fly through the sun"...which is also darn near PHYSICALLY impossible, if you know something about stellar physics, as in the inner layers, the density increases to about 150 (8 times more than gold)...the utility you're suggesting is "ignore heat, no matter how intense, whenever it's not defined as an actual attack."  Suddenly, that's a LOT!!! more common.  

 

See, I think you want to try to keep those characters within some semblance of sanity, and NOT have them cost thousands of points, or use a trick like saying Superman has Desolid, Affected by magic or kryptonite only, Selective, not through solids, always on, with some additional language to cover that, yes, you can physically interact with him normally, you just can't hurt him...period.  Heck, push comes to shove, that's just not many points...it's just weird thinking about Superman as desolid.   But that's Hero...separate the effect from the special effect. 

 

I will ALWAYS take rules logic over trying to force an interpretation of source material that can never be supported...because the source material has no connection to rules, to system, or to anything but the caprice of the writers.  I am perfectly willing to try to construct a rules interpretation for those caprices...but with the understanding that The Points Do Not Matter, EVER.  We had this argument with skill rolls...Doc Strange never rolls a magic skill, so obviously his magic VPP has No Skill Roll.  Yeah, well, because he doesn't have to account for the points.  If he comes out at 1500 points, due to the cost of a large Cosmic VPP, so what?  WE have to work within a gaming framework.  Rules logic is more important.  What is the limit of "safe environment"?  The rules state, safe in hot environments does not provide any defense from a heat-based blast...ergo, a decent starting point is, if it does 1d6 in a phase?  It's not environmental any more. 

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

I understand actually mostly agree with your stance in principle. But you need to come up with a complete fix before you impose your change. Doubling is a provably workable compromise for STR adds issue not because it is perfectly balanced but because it incorporates the very real fact that STR does enhance HTH weapons and combat while reducing the worst abuses of not having it.

 

This depends a lot on what one considers a “complete fix” to encompass.  My “complete fix” encompasses only killing attacks.  It would include the following:

 

·         One Killing Attack power, which simply renames “RKA” to “KA”.

 

·         Example powers would include Claws (KA, No Range), “Sword” (1d6 + 1 KA No Range + 1d6 + 1 KA, No Range, STR Minimum).  Maybe even a “Rapier” (1d6 + 1 KA No Range + 1d6 + 1 KA, No Range, DEX minimum). Perhaps a “Cutting Words” spell that has a PRE minimum.

 

·         STR Minimum would become Characteristic Minimum. Let’s break that out below.

 

·         The Weapons Chart would include numerous uses of Characteristic Minimum limited KAs, HAs, etc. It would include some ranged weapons (why do we not shriek about the disconnect of being unable to have a Strength Bow like d20?) and some weapons linked to characteristics other than STR (what?  There’s no Weapon Finesse in Fantasy Hero?).  Genre books could expand on this with weapons like Doc’s Ego Whip, more powerful with EGO or an Illusion spell that becomes more powerful for high INT characters better able to craft a convincing illusion.

 

6e V2 p 199  would form the basis (but it would move to the same place all the other Limitations are presented).  The limitation would apply based on the STR (or other characteristic) required to get the full DCs from the power. For example, my partially limited Sword above is a Champions sword. It would have a 20 STR minimum applied to the limited portion of the power.  For every 5 STR below 20, it would suffer -1 OCV and -1 DC.  This would be a -1 limitation.  That sounds pretty high, unless one considers the alternatives of:

 

·         Current rules – just take more of the characteristic since it’s effectively free.

·         Put the characteristic and the power in a Multipower.

·         Current rules – you get the same limitation AND the potential to double the damage output.

 

The characteristic dedicated to the CHAR Min could be applied to only one ability with that limitation per phase.  So, if you have a Rapier in your right hand and a dagger in your left, you need to dedicate STR to both in order to maximize their damage, and that STR cannot also be used for an STR strike.

 

The limitation would be made more granular. It would need a “no OCV penalty” option to simulate the current STR minimum (so most weapons would limit some dice with an OCV penalty and others with none).  It might vary with the characteristic (STR costs 1 point; the limitation could be higher for characteristics that cost 2 points).  It would vary by working in different increments – every 3 STR, or every 7 INT, for example. It could be possible to pick the best of 2 (or more) characteristics, or be stuck with the worst. Some of these could be flagged as “at the GM’s Option” rules.

 

This is a “KA only” fix, except that the “Char Min” could apply to any attack.  It could even apply to a Hand Attack (which is just extra STR with a limitation, so this would likely only be done for weapons purchased for cash instead of CP). GMs could certainly outlaw the limitation in Supers games. It’s intended for games where purchased equipment would often be used by characters lacking the characteristics to maximize the weapon’s DCs.

 

It could be embedded in the weapons without presenting the limitations. It could be “heroic only” – in games where gear is purchased in CP, gear is generally customized for the character, so they would virtually never lack the characteristic required to fully benefit from the gear. This would be no different than the 1 – 3 Stun Multiple that typically applies in Superheroic versus the hit location table that normally applies in Heroic.

 

A significant change? Sure – we have 6 editions and over 40 years of history.  Would it have felt so significant if we had always had one KA power, and adapted to mechanics that enhanced claws and swords for STR in other ways over those years?  Probably not.

 

Removal of COM and Figureds, a 1d3 Stun Multiple, Adjustment Powers becoming ranged by default (and Aid costing END), implementation of the doubling rule way back in 2e (see those Enemies books), streamlining RDEF over the years and the removal of “plus EGO/5” when you bought mental defense felt really significant too.  We take Combat Luck for granted now, but many of us had different fixes to avoid agile, non-bulletproof heroes from dying every time a KA showed up. That was pretty revolutionary, and still attracts its detractors.

 

Part of that challenge is that Hero chose reverse-compatibility over the d20 model of “that was last edition – here is the brand-new game we’re calling X+1 Edition”.

 

If I were trying to fix Hand Attack, it would probably be a Limited STR fix, incorporating Martial Arts DCs, the ability to retain non-direct damage DCs (like Grab and Escape) and maybe even the “floating DCs” conundrum of Deadly Blow and its cousins.  That would be a separate project.

 

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

But I need it to work better for everyone but especially new GM's and players. Without doubling or a completed version of your substitution, tiny HKA and massive STR is not only RAW but the best build by far. The only argument otherwise for high HKA and low STR or even balanced HKA and STR is concept. Doubling keeps those builds in shouting distance on both the points and the concept fronts so i can accept the imperfect balance.

 

Doubling is simply a "abuse is OK but only some abuse is OK". As an alternative, we could have unlimited adders of +1 DC HKA per 10 STR so that not buying the STR to maximize the adder isn't automatically stupid.

 

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

Because it's unnecessary to a build.  If your character concept is an HKA that cannot be boosted with STR. buy an RKA with No Range. I realize that this doesn't fix your issue with the rules, but you've got to find a way to bridge that disconnect before the change is better.

 

"It's not an RKA if it has no range" seems as easy a cognitive disconnect to fall into.  "No STR or Movement Addition" is part of the core rules (6e v1 p 242), with the example of a lightsaber (excuse me, laser sword). Partially limited powers are defined as part of the core rules. If STR did not add to KAs, we would not have the issue at all.

 

Ratcheting my STR up from 10 to 30 (to take advantage of the free STR since I want that 4d6 KA anyway; taking a 4d6 RKA no Range to shave 10 points off the concept; using a multipower to trade off STR and HKA; or partially limiting my HKA to avoid paying for the ability to add STR I don't have (we're not supposed to pay for things with no significant in-game benefit, remember) can all be viewed as cheesy.  The real problem, however, is that various different costs for buying (other than the MP) the exact same game mechanics is a poor approach.  That's why rDEF evolved from different costs to various "1 CP makes 2 defense resistant" models.

 

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

I debate you accepting your rules changes, you debate me without accepting mine. To me, HA is a unique power that is not associated with STR in any way.

 

If it is not associated with STR in any way, why would it enhance, or be enhanced by, STR? Brass knuckles or steel-hard fists add normal damage from STR. They do not provide anything that buying more STR would not provide. That's a Hand Attack.  Conversion of STR to energy damage is a +0 advantage, and making STR 0 BOD is a -0 limitation. Nothing that STR could not have done anyway.  Tacking on advantages makes it a little more challenging, and the system has grappled with various means of addressing that over the years. If you have a more elegant solution than pro rating it down, I'm open to hearing it. But it's not related to the completely separate mechanic of Killing Damage.

 

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

The part I saw as a near personal attack was " Find a semi-literate GM". There are better ways to make your point than an implied insult. Like bolding.

 

If you see my use of "disingenuous" as an attack on you personally then I hereby apologize. It was not intentional, and I will refrain from further use of the word.

 

 

I'm pretty challenging to offend.  Perhaps we simply replace my comment 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."  Now we're both using the same term.

 

56 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

 

Yes, in a choice between game balance and game utility, game balance should always be given higher priority. And you're ignoring the fact that the example characters you're using that fly through stars and across space all would laugh at that 9d6 Blast anyway.

 

The same logic applies if the attack is 15d6.  Let's make it a 2d6 Fire RKA flamethrower - if the "flies  through the blazing sun" character wants any defenses at all against that attack, she needs resistant defenses.  If she bought none, she takes all of the STUN and BOD.  The "Free HKA if you buy STR" (or "may as well take the free STR - I'm buying the campaign limit HKA") model is just as much a sacrifice of balance for "common sense says".

 

56 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

I would guess that they wanted it to not have it initially add to STR. They wanted something to simulate Normal damage weapons but couldn't decide how to make the new power. At 5 points per DC, it's a niche power for Supers as buying more STR is just better. But it filled a large hole in the powerset for Heroic level campaigns.

 

The cynic in me says it was reverse-engineered from weapons purchased with CP instead of STR. It could not be too cheap, and STR no Figured would have already been -1/2. 5 AP with appropriate limitations seems fine from my perspective.  But I would probably use -1/2 for "only normal damage" and -1/4 for "all forms of STR-effect damage" so including disarms, graps, escapes, etc.  MA gets all effects and 0 END for free (or gets -1/2 for "only for MA maneuvers" offsetting 0 END).

 

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

The Limited Range example at least does have some tiny loss of utility, the 1/2 STR added and 1/2 no STR does not. Both of these should be struck down by the GM.

 

First, the easiest way to strike down "no STR adder" (or "does not increase HKA" on STR) is to remove the link between STR and HKA entirely. Second, RKA can be spread (although I see some argument that it is no longer "a ranged power). Third, RAW says that a No Range power need not require the use to touch the target (so that shows aspects of "ranged" remain, supporting the ability to Spread) - it's pretty clear that an HKA needs to touch the target.

 

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

People tend to ignore the " If there are two valid options to achieve the exact same result then the more expensive option is the valid one" metarule all the time. Under doubling, all the combinations are equal in cost, so equally valid. The proposed versions with No Range violate the metarule when compared with them.

 

Buying 4d6 HKA, no STR Add and buying 2d6 HKA to allow your 30 STR to add 2d6 are both valid options to achieve the exact same result.  Buying 4d6 RKA no range is almost the exact same result.  When the system presents three mechanical ways to get the exact same result, it suggests that all three are valid.  The Laser Sword example does not mention tying the option to the character's STR.  Voltaic Touch (6e v1 p 389) does not suggest this option be denied to a character with low STR.

 

[Hugh Neilson]

36 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

They didn't spend points...because they don't HAVE points.  Or, if you prefer, they have as many points as the writers want them to have.

 

The objective of the game is to simulate the source material. If a character who can fly through a star needs to spend 1,000 points, the character who cannot fly through the heart of a star becomes WAY more powerful.

 

36 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

Utility in a game environment?  By that argument, the character can walk on lava, or walk through a burning building.  Aren't those just "hot environments"?  The utility isn't "fly through the sun"...which is also darn near PHYSICALLY impossible, if you know something about stellar physics, as in the inner layers, the density increases to about 150 (8 times more than gold)...the utility you're suggesting is "ignore heat, no matter how intense, whenever it's not defined as an actual attack."  Suddenly, that's a LOT!!! more common. 

*******

What is the limit of "safe environment"?  The rules state, safe in hot environments does not provide any defense from a heat-based blast...ergo, a decent starting point is, if it does 1d6 in a phase?  It's not environmental any more.

 

Starting to justify paying points for it, anyway.  While Life Support indicates molton lava is out, V2 p 151 states that the extreme heat of a fire does not damage a character with Life Support: Extreme Heat.  That's typically a lot more than 1 DC in a phase.

 

If we apply physics, at even a basic level, most cinematic source material fails.  People do not get knocked out repeatedly with no long-term damage. Near-death injuries leave lasting disabilities. I don't recommend crashing through a plate glass window either.  And these are things we expect "heroic normal human" action heroes to achieve.

 

36 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

I will ALWAYS take rules logic over trying to force an interpretation of source material that can never be supported...because the source material has no connection to rules, to system, or to anything but the caprice of the writers.  I am perfectly willing to try to construct a rules interpretation for those caprices...but with the understanding that The Points Do Not Matter, EVER.  We had this argument with skill rolls...Doc Strange never rolls a magic skill, so obviously his magic VPP has No Skill Roll.  Yeah, well, because he doesn't have to account for the points.  If he comes out at 1500 points, due to the cost of a large Cosmic VPP, so what?  WE have to work within a gaming framework.  Rules logic is more important.

 

So...you are arguing for the application of real-world scientific principals to the cinematic gaming rules set, and your example is the Master of the Mystic Arts and Sorcerer Supreme. 

 

Maybe Doc does have a skill roll. He's just that good that he never fails it. Maybe he's so good that he doesn't need a skill roll.  I am unfamiliar with the research in the area of whether casting magic spells, so I can;t really engage from an informed perspective. Once we get into discussing "realistic magic", I have trouble seeing the connections.

 

I don't want a rules set that accurately mimics real life. I see enough of that outside my gaming, and frankly the real world is too variable to accurately simulate anyway. People fall out of an airplane and survive, only to slip on their sidewalk and die from that fall.  I can only assume it is magic, I suppose.

 

In fairness, different people can suspend disbelief to different levels in different ways. I have a fairly decent example what would happen at my workplace if I disappeared for a few weeks to fight the alien forces massing at the orbit of Pluto, but I accept that, somehow, Clark Kent can still hold a job.

Edited September 24, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[Opal]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Exactly - there is no reason to use the RKA no Range (or HKA no STR Adds) if you game the system by purchasing half your HKA as STR.

4d RKA no range is 40 pts.

 

30 STR + 2d HKA is 50 pts.

 

Now, if your character design calls for more pd,rec,&STN, instead of more attack powers, STR is the more efficient way to go, if the reverse, RKA is. 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Opal

[Hugh Neilson]

2 minutes ago, Opal said:

4d RKA no range is 40 pts.

 

30 STR + 2d HKA is 50 pts.

 

 

 

4d6 RKA no Range (or 4d6 HKA, no STR add) is 40 points.

 

30 STR + 2d6 HKA  is 50 points.

 

10 STR + 3d6+1 HKA is 50 points.

 

Which one should we pick?

 

Well, that depends - do you want the STR?  Were you buying it anyway?  If I am a 60 STR Brick, an RKA, no Range is pretty stupid.

 

If I'm taking a 4d6 RKA, No Range, I can sell back STR as well. If I'm a 5 STR elderly fellow with sharp claws and pointy fangs, that RKA No Range is looking pretty good.

 

If I already have a 60 STR, I can get a 4d6 HKA for 30 points, and make a Combined Attack of 12d6 Strike and 4d6 HKA..

 

Why can't I add a 2d6 RKA on to my Blaster with a 12d6 FireBlast and get 4d6, instead of 2d6, RKA?

[Opal]

32 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Why can't I add a 2d6 RKA on to my Blaster with a 12d6 FireBlast and get 4d6, instead of 2d6, RKA?

You can put them in a multipower and add a 4d RKA, for 12 pts instead of 30 :shrug:

 

 

32 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I can get a 4d6 HKA for 30 points, and make a Combined Attack of 12d6 Strike and 4d6 HKA..

 

Combined attack is after my time, I guess, but, if you can apply your STR twice in a combined attack, does that mean you can do 12d twice? If not, why can you apply it to both the strike and the hka?

 

I suppose that's rhetorical.  

I'm trying to remember the great linked debate, now (which I don't appreciate), because it seems like combined attack may have been rooted in it.

 

Back in the day, it was (debatably) only possible to combine two attacks if they were Linked (and it was only  worth it if one went vs no defense the target had, and each did different sorts of damage - otherwise more dice of the larger power was generally much better... thus, perhaps, the limitation.)

 

Combined Attack invites you to take the same deal for no limitation. 🤷‍♂️

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Opal

[unclevlad]

I'm willing to compromise on the limits of safe environment...but not indefinitely.  If molten lava, which is around 700 to 1200 C, is out...then 5000 C, which is the surface temp of the sun, is totally out.  I'm also willing to say that if you have enough DEF to bounce the BODY, then the LS lets you completely ignore the secondary issues.  I think that's what the text (on 150, in my PDF) is driving at...safe environment deals with the slow effects, not the fast ones.  That respects the boundaries of each.

 

Quote

So...you are arguing for the application of real-world scientific principals to the cinematic gaming rules set, and your example is the Master of the Mystic Arts and Sorcerer Supreme. 

 

Maybe Doc does have a skill roll. He's just that good that he never fails it. Maybe he's so good that he doesn't need a skill roll.  I am unfamiliar with the research in the area of whether casting magic spells, so I can;t really engage from an informed perspective. Once we get into discussing "realistic magic", I have trouble seeing the connections.

 

HECK NO, that's NOT my point.  It has NOTHING to do with "real-world science."  It's about interpreting the characters we see in the source material, within the context of the game system, with its limitations.

 

You're also making things completely binary...either go with "real world science" all the time, or never.  That's ludicrous.  

 

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Opal said:

Combined attack is after my time, I guess, but, if you can apply your STR twice in a combined attack, does that mean you can do 12d twice? If not, why can you apply it to both the strike and the hka?

 

I suppose that's rhetorical.  

I'm trying to remember the great linked debate, now (which I don't appreciate), because it seems like combined attack may have been rooted in it.

 

Simple summary - if you have multiple attack powers which could be used at the same time, you can combine them into a single attack against a single target as a single attack. So, if they are in a Multipower, you would need enough reserve for both attacks at the same time.  You can't use multiple combat maneuvers, nor can the same attack be used more than once in a combined attack.  So, if you pay for both attacks separately, there is at least some benefit in doing so.

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

I'm willing to compromise on the limits of safe environment...but not indefinitely.  If molten lava, which is around 700 to 1200 C, is out...then 5000 C, which is the surface temp of the sun, is totally out.  I'm also willing to say that if you have enough DEF to bounce the BODY, then the LS lets you completely ignore the secondary issues.  I think that's what the text (on 150, in my PDF) is driving at...safe environment deals with the slow effects, not the fast ones.  That respects the boundaries of each.

 

 

HECK NO, that's NOT my point.  It has NOTHING to do with "real-world science."  It's about interpreting the characters we see in the source material, within the context of the game system, with its limitations.

 

You're also making things completely binary...either go with "real world science" all the time, or never.  That's ludicrous.  

 

 

By RAW, the lava is out.  For me, the "environmental effect" descriptor is sufficient to allow Life Support to work, just like it does on the per-phase damage of heat from a fire. Maybe my campaigns over the years have been weird, but I have not found either molten lava or the interior (or even surface) of a star to be sufficiently common locations to worry about the massive imbalance of allowing Life Support - Safe Environment to protect against them.  How much effort I want to expend on applying real-world science in-game is proportional to how often I expect the issue to be game-relevant.

 

OK, just a note here - you're OK with a really cheap way to prevent all falling damage (you and I are both posting there) because it's not all that frequent, but a low-cost ability to avoid damage from lava or fly through a star is problematic for you.

Edited September 24, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[unclevlad]

Because I don't have to invent anything .  No Relative Velocity is well defined.  I suspect it's pretty cheap for a few reasons...it's not common, and as a 10 point adder, its cost relative to a baseline teleport is frequently high.  As an adder, it's more expensive than an advantage, because it becomes part of the adjusted base cost, when applying advantages.  

 

The point you consistently miss is what the limits of "safe environment" should be.  You go "well no one's ever gonna be expected to fly through a star" and then use that totally circular argument to say that it should be cheap to do so.  No one even considers passing through a star in any sane, even gaming, context, because we realize the defenses you need are literally astronomical.  You cite characters...but how many of them are have insane defenses or something seriously special to let them?  Those characters DON'T HAVE POINTS...so if we want them to have 200/200 rDEF and 75% DR, FINE.  You even concede that lava is OUT...but the sun's heat is MUCH, MUCH higher, and you allow that.  Lava's only out because it's explicit?  How about examining WHY it's out, and using that to define what "safe environment" means *in game terms*?  I'm not demanding real-world science, I'm using it in conjunction with the rules language to understand how to properly apply the rules.  

 

You also refuse to go the other way:  If the character takes no damage from the photosphere of the sun, then what does it take to actually do damage?  The statement that someone can tap dance on the photosphere logically has implications *within the context of the game.*  Because that much heat has a massive damage rating.  A blast furnace is given 6d6 K;  they're listed as maxing out at around 4000 F.  Not even half.  "Safe in extreme heat" just does not cover it by itself.

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

The point you consistently miss is what the limits of "safe environment" should be.  You go "well no one's ever gonna be expected to fly through a star" and then use that totally circular argument to say that it should be cheap to do so.  No one even considers passing through a star in any sane, even gaming, context, because we realize the defenses you need are literally astronomical. 

 

Not "it never happens" whether in source material or in games, but "it never actually matters" because either all involved have this life support or nothing happens inside the star, to take the most extreme example. In order to fly into a star, one already needs protection from the vacuum, cold and lack of air in space. How much more should it cost to survive in the heat of a star? The whole point of Life Support is that the defenses needed for complete immunity from the damage these environments would cause are far too high to be realistically paid, or realistically allowed, in virtually any game, but we see it in the source material.

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

You cite characters...but how many of them are have insane defenses or something seriously special to let them?  Those characters DON'T HAVE POINTS...so if we want them to have 200/200 rDEF and 75% DR, FINE.  You even concede that lava is OUT...but the sun's heat is MUCH, MUCH higher, and you allow that. 

 

Many characters to which we pay homage in-game.  Superman, the Silver Surfer and Firelord (and Terrax and Gabriel the Air Walker) all come to mind.  Superman interacts with other supers and, while high-powered, is competitive to high-powered Supers, not utterly overwhelming.  The Surfer is staggered by the Human Torch. Does he burn as hot as the sun? Should he, in-game?  Do we need Hero Supers to have attacks that can get past 200 defenses and 75% DR so we can emulate the source material? Or do we accept that "safe environments" are not "safe from damage by attacks with similar SFX"?  Because having Firelord put "only for flying through stars" on his extra ED doesn't seem to require any less suspension of disbelief - it only changes the cost of an ability that will rarely have any significant in-game effect.

 

Lava is out by RAW.  For my games, it is right back in.  But can you move in molten rock?  Its not like running in air or swimming in water. Presumably you don't need to breathe and have some enhanced senses to get around.

 

Similarly, I would use Life Support for a Fantasy Hero spell enabling survival on the Elemental Plane of Fire.

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

Lava's only out because it's explicit?  How about examining WHY it's out, and using that to define what "safe environment" means *in game terms*?  I'm not demanding real-world science, I'm using it in conjunction with the rules language to understand how to properly apply the rules.  

 

You also refuse to go the other way:  If the character takes no damage from the photosphere of the sun, then what does it take to actually do damage?  The statement that someone can tap dance on the photosphere logically has implications *within the context of the game.*  Because that much heat has a massive damage rating.  A blast furnace is given 6d6 K;  they're listed as maxing out at around 4000 F.  Not even half.  "Safe in extreme heat" just does not cover it by itself.

 

My simple litmus test would be "environmental damage" and "environmental effect".  A fire does 1 pip to 3d6 KA. Ambient heat does a portion of this damage - for every meter passed through, in both cases.  So a fire that does 1/2d6 KA would generate considerably less damage than the ambient heat from a 3d6 KA fire when one passes through that area. Which effects will Life Support resist?  "All environmental damage" carries the game-simplicity result of "all of it", albeit requiring the suspension of disbelief when the character unharmed by passing through the molten rock is nonetheless subject to damage from the FireBlaster's Blast.