Ironclad: A Question About his Dorvalan Sword (HKA)

[SteelBraxus]

Just to make sure I'm understanding the rules correctly, I see that Ironclad (from the Champions RPG book) is listed as having an HKA that does 2d6 with the Limitation OAF. This makes sense.

 

However, the part that I don't understand is that it is listed as dealing 4d6 Damage when his STR is added to it. His STR is listed at 70, and according to the rules HKAs deal and extra 1d6 Damage per 15 STR. This should put the total HKA Damage at 6d6, if I'm not mistaken?

[Duke Bushido]

If I recall the newer editions correctly, one cannot add to one's focus STR damage beyond the point of doubling the damage dice.

[tombrown803]

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

If I recall the newer editions correctly, one cannot add to one's focus STR damage beyond the point of doubling the damage dice.

That's true for 4th and 5th editions. In 6th edition it's an optional rule. The 4d6 HKA could be a carry over from the older editions

 

[Khymeria]

7 hours ago, SteelBraxus said:

Just to make sure I'm understanding the rules correctly, I see that Ironclad (from the Champions RPG book) is listed as having an HKA that does 2d6 with the Limitation OAF. This makes sense.

 

However, the part that I don't understand is that it is listed as dealing 4d6 Damage when his STR is added to it. His STR is listed at 70, and according to the rules HKAs deal and extra 1d6 Damage per 15 STR. This should put the total HKA Damage at 6d6, if I'm not mistaken?

I find using the optional rule that STR can't more than double the dice of the HKA keeps things in check. That 70 STR Ironclad with a 1d6 HKA would do 5 1/2 D6 with a 15 point power on a focus even. It is an easy one to exploit but also easy to stop from exploitation. 

[Lord Liaden]

6 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

If I recall the newer editions correctly, one cannot add to one's focus STR damage beyond the point of doubling the damage dice.

 

4 hours ago, tombrown803 said:

That's true for 4th and 5th editions. In 6th edition it's an optional rule. The 4d6 HKA could be a carry over from the older editions

 

 

It's mentioned in 6E II pp. 200-01 applying to weapons with the Strength Minimum or Real Weapon Limitations. Neither is typical in a superheroic genre game, and Ironclad's sword doesn't have either.

 

The maximum doubling of HKA base damage with added STR was the default rule under 4E and 5E, changed for 6E. I agree that it was probably just habit when Steve Long wrote that on Ironclad's character sheet. It's also repeated in his Champions Universe entry.

 

I never noticed that detail on Ironclad's sheets before. Then again, I also never noticed that his CU-entry sheet lists his "Ironclad Perseid Physiognomy" among his Defense Powers.

[Hugh Neilson]

14 hours ago, tombrown803 said:

That's true for 4th and 5th editions. In 6th edition it's an optional rule. The 4d6 HKA could be a carry over from the older editions

 

 

It was added in 2e (and the updated Enemies book had a ton of high STR characters with 1d6 KA (2d6 with STR) as a result.

 

It highlights that the "STR adds to KA" rule is an orphan mechanic and provides something for nothing.  Somehow, it's OK for Ironclad to get +2d6 HKA for free but not more than 2d6.

 

But I could buy a 30 STR character with a Multipower with 3d6 HKA (5d6 with STR) and +45 STR for 54 points, much less expensive than buying a 70 STR (+40 points) and a 2d6 HKA (30 points).I can spend the extra 15 points on STR and end up with a 6d6 HKA and potential 90 STR, instead of a 70 STR and either a 4d6 HKA or a 6 1/2 d6 HKA.

 

Either it is balanced to allow extra HKA for free with STR, or it is not.  Capping the add does not make it balanced, it just creates a cost efficiency breakpoint.

[unclevlad]

The argument for limiting STR, most likely, has figured characteristics at its root.  On the surface, it would appear this should also limit HA bonus damage...as perhaps it should, but the root of HAs was "limited STR."  HKAs have never had that basis. 

 

Your example is...confused.  Keep it to a fixed amount of spending and look at the options.

 

Plus, normal and killing damage are significantly qualitatively different.  I think the rule's in place because the designers wanted to actively, strongly limit killing damage.  Champions was not about killing, so killing attacks needed to be downplayed.  Given that STR is *so* heavily favored...that meant that the HKAs had to be gimped.  It also doesn't help that the STUN multiplier pre-6E was so swingy.  

 

So, it IS about balance...just from a higher-level POV.  There's NOTHING wrong with adding STR to an HKA.  NO, it doesn't provide something for nothing.  You paid for the STR.  The problems are linked to other aspects of the older editions.

[Doc Democracy]

44 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

NO, it doesn't provide something for nothing.  You paid for the STR. 

 

But it IS something for nothing.  KineticBlastGuy doesn't get to add his STR to his Kinetic Energy Blast, or his blast to his punch, even though he paid for his STR and his Blast and they work versus the same defence.

 

It feels common sense that the stronger guy does more damage with his axe/sword/pencil, but it deviates from the core principle of the system that you get what you pay for.

 

Doc

Edited August 16, 2023 by Doc Democracy

[unclevlad]

Forget it.  We've had this argument and it's pointless to rehash it.

[Lord Liaden]

58 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

But it IS something for nothing.  KineticBlastGuy doesn't get to add his STR to his Kinetic Energy Blast, or his blast to his punch, even though he paid for his STR and his Blast and they work versus the same defence.

 

It feels common sense that the stronger guy does more damage with his axe/sword/pencil, but it deviates from the core principle of the system that you get what you pay for.

 

Doc

 

FWIW I did offer an option to address that point.

[Hugh Neilson]

15 hours ago, unclevlad said:

The argument for limiting STR, most likely, has figured characteristics at its root.  On the surface, it would appear this should also limit HA bonus damage...as perhaps it should, but the root of HAs was "limited STR."  HKAs have never had that basis. 

 

Your example is...confused.  Keep it to a fixed amount of spending and look at the options.

 

OK.  The I can spend 60 points to have a 70 STR and 15 points to have a 1d6 HKA.  That's 75 points spent.  I can punch for 14d6, Grab with 70 STR, lift with 70 STR and do either 2d6 HKA (if we limit the addition) or 5 1/2d6 HKA (if we do not).  That's option 1.

 

Or I can buy +10 STR (10 points) and a 55 point Multipower pool (55 points), a fixed slot of +55 STR (5 points) and a fixed slot of 3 1/2d6 HKA (5 points).  Same 75 points spent. Now I can punch for 15d6, Grab with 75 STR, lift with 75 STR and do a 5d6 HKA.  That's option 2. My STR is higher under both options. If we don't limit STR adds, I've lost 1/2d6 of KA damage.  If we do, I've gained 3d6 of KA damage.

 

How balanced does that seem?

 

Or I could have just bought +75 STR and had an 85 STR with no KA. Oh wait - what limitation will you give my STR for "does not enhance the HKA that I did not buy, but maybe I might buy later"?

 

Let's look at another equal price option, with the halving rule in place.

 

I can buy a 15 STR (5 points) and a 3d6 KA (45 points) for a total spend of 60 points.  I can do 3 DCs of normal HTH damage/effects, or a 4d6 HKA.

 

I can buy 30 STR (20 points) and a 2d6 HKA (30 points) for a total spend of 60 points.  I can do 6 DCs of normal HTH damage/effects, or a 4d6 HKA.  That feels like getting +15 STR for free from where I sit. IOW, getting something for nothing.

 

I can buy 45 STR (35 points) and a 1d6 HKA (15 points) for a total spend of 60 points.  I can do 9 DCs of normal HTH damage/effects, or a 2d6 HKA. 

 

So it was balanced to get +15 STR for free, but it's not balanced to get more than +15 STR for free?  That makes pretty much no sense to me.

 

Which of the above three options (HKA bigger than STR could augment; HKA at the exact limit STR could augment; HKA smaller than STR could augment) did you see most often?  I known what I saw - and it made it clear that no one considered the rules change when Enemies was updated to 2e.

 

15 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Plus, normal and killing damage are significantly qualitatively different.  I think the rule's in place because the designers wanted to actively, strongly limit killing damage.  Champions was not about killing, so killing attacks needed to be downplayed.  Given that STR is *so* heavily favored...that meant that the HKAs had to be gimped.  It also doesn't help that the STUN multiplier pre-6E was so swingy.  

 

So, it IS about balance...just from a higher-level POV.  There's NOTHING wrong with adding STR to an HKA.  NO, it doesn't provide something for nothing.  You paid for the STR.  The problems are linked to other aspects of the older editions.

 

From the evolution of the game, I will disagree.  In 1e, the STR add was unlimited.  This resulted in a lot of Bricks with 1d6 KAs.  Different Worlds published an interview with the designers on the changes from 1e to 2e, and there was no indication that the HKA change had anything to do with wanting to de-emphasize KAs.  The Enemies book was not really updated to reflect the change, with the most striking answer being the Monster - a KA machine in 1e, but they did not reduce his STR and boost his KA with the 2e change, so he ended up a Brick with a 2d6 HKA.

 

The Deathstroke scenario noted that the characters with KAs would only use them against high-defense targets to get some STUN through. The stun lotto made KAs in supers play much more effective at KOing higher defense targets than at killing anyone.

 

15 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

But it IS something for nothing.  KineticBlastGuy doesn't get to add his STR to his Kinetic Energy Blast, or his blast to his punch, even though he paid for his STR and his Blast and they work versus the same defence.

 

It feels common sense that the stronger guy does more damage with his axe/sword/pencil, but it deviates from the core principle of the system that you get what you pay for.

 

Yup.  Common sense also suggests that someone who is immune to radiation does not take damage from a Blast with radiation SFX.  Virtually all "but common sense says my character..." arguments are responded to with "common sense dictates that you should buy that ability for your character".  Except "but I am strong so my claws should slice deeper".

 

14 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Forget it.  We've had this argument and it's pointless to rehash it.

 

Well, at least we can agree on something.  But, as @Duke Bushido is fond of pointing out, it's pointless to argue online about games you will never play with the people you argue with overall.

[Ninja-Bear]

I think the biggest problem with Killing Attack is the HKA with Range, why should I bother with an RKA. Also while not as free points as STR plus HKA, Blast does have the advantage of reducing DCs for OCV.  I think most people can visualize losing damage to Spread your attack and make it easier to hit someone. Why shouldn’t someone in HtH be able to reduce their DC and raise their OCV? The sfx would be, I try to hit as quick as I can but sacrifice power.

[Duke Bushido]

5 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I think the biggest problem with Killing Attack is the HKA with Range, why should I bother with an RKA. 

 

 

Cautionary Disclaimer:

 

Hugh:  don't read any further.  I know this entire line of thought bugs you, and that isn't why I am here, Sir.

 

Carrying on, but be warned that this is ground I have covered before:

 

There are two killing attacks; they each have a specific ability.  One has range; the other increases in power based on the user's STR (or at least how much he wishes to use with the attack).

 

We know the advantage: Range is a +1/2 Advantage.  If we remove the cost of this advantage from Ranged Killing Attack, we end up with a ten-point power that has no range and does not add additional STR-based damage.  We have found the base power:  Killing Damage, and we know it costs 10 points per die. (Sorry, Hugh, but I encouraged you to not read this.)

 

If we pull H-t-H KA down to it's base 10-points of Killing Damage-- which, remember, has no STR bonus and no Range-  we end up discovering a +1/2 Advantage we can call "Stength Adds."   

 

This is _remarkably_ inexpensive, considering we can buy an Energy Blast for 5 points per die.  Put sixty points into it for 12d6.  Add another thirty for a character with 60 STR to effectively double that  into a 24d6 energy blast.

 

Neat!

 

 

Or he can spend 30 points on a 10d6 Hand Attack (from one of the new editions; I have no idea what Hand Attack sells for these days), add 15 points for Strength Adds and another 15 and potentially have a 20d6 energy blast for 60 points or so.

 

Also neat!

 

 

But for whatever reason, that has never been as fascinating to me as the idea that for ten points apiece, I can buy raw Killing Damage.  That is just the most dun for me to contemplate.

 

(Sorry, Hugh)

 

 

I would like to offer an opinion--  be assured that this is not like offering my results, where it is quite popular to tell me that those were in fact _not_ my results---

 

Wait.  I suppose there is nothing to stop someone from declaring that this is not my opinion, either.

 

Anyway, my opinion, and worth every but you paid for it:

 

"Strength adds to damage" is not an orohan mechanic.  It is a holdover.  It was never a mechanic.  It was a compromise.

 

We all know this game grew from notes and ideas in college, and the playtesters and GMs who would write the first rule book were just winging it.  Once a basic idea was established (say, mivement is broken into types, or all ranged attacks share a mechanic because only damage matters, mechanically- whatever-  then things worked out from there.

 

 

Or maybe it went the other way:  maybe there was a radiation blast power, electric blast power, hydro blast power, and heat ray power and all the playtesting kept refining things and refining things and what we saw in that first edition was what fell out, each edition and supplement tweaking and refining a bit further. (Anyone else remember Penetration Points?.  Been a while since we saw those... Remember when Damage Resistance was an advantage you bought to apply to half of your existing Def?.  Been a while for that, too)

 

Anyway:

 

"I want like a massive super-niva kind of attack that melts bank vaults and sublimates glaciers from ice to hydrogen bombs.  But that's like....   A million points of energy blast!"

 

 

Well, let's play with some ideas.....  How about...

 

Or maybe it was an entirely different root cause:

 

"Okay, roll your 45d6 attack."

 

Okay, just let me....  Wait a minute...  All right, I need-  crap!  They wont all fit in my- hey, Tony, take about ten of these dice and roll them for me--  ah, man!  Where'd they go?!  Half of them are on the floor!

 

Okay, tell you what--  how about you roll fifteen if them and we will multiply the result.  Sound good?

 

Well yeah, but what about Terry?  He has to roll thirty dice for that "Stun Only" attack of his.  Maybe you couod do somerhing dor him, too...?"

 

Look, I dont know.  I wasnt there.  But like everyone else here, I have been involved in lots of brainstroming and lots of testing- at least enough to know that once you have a working model, you start to see why you really dont have a working model, and imorovments and streamlining begin immediately.

 

So my guess has always been that one or the other of the Killing Attacks was hammered out and well-received and loved by the one or two players using them, then the guy playing the brick said "I would love to have one of those killing attack things!  It would be great for busting down walls and ripping Volvos in half!"  (No; I have nothing against America's favorite Grandad-mobile.  In the era this game was created, Volvos were really easy to draw, what with their stack-of-boxes-on-wheels styling aesthetics)

 

"So what does it cost if I take "no range" as a Limitation?"

 

And the testing GM, somewhat on the fly, decided he didnt like giving away that kind of damage potential for only twice the cost of an Energy Blast, and said "fifteen points for a die."

 

"But that's the same,price as he paid to have range!"

 

Well yeah, but you can add some,oomph that he can't.  You can add some,extra damage for your Strength, if you are willing to pay the extra END."

 

Oh!  Okay; cool!  Let's do that!

 

And it never got revisited.  People were okay with it as-is until they began to grumble en masse about the STUN Multiplier and _then_ someone took a look at Killing Attack with an eye toward surgery, but only that bit of it.

 

Happens a lot.  Haymaker wasn't really a mechanic.  It was a confession to bricka and martial artists- some little bit of "evening up" that non-ranged characters got to make sacrificing range a bit more palatable.  At least, up until the ranged attack players "hey!  Why cant we have that?!"

 

Well, it's just a concession- something to make the lack of a ranged attack a bit more tolerable-

 

"No; screw those guys! _I_ want a haymaker!"

 

So punch someone.

 

"No; my punch sucks; I want to haymaker my finger beams!"

 

Look, it's really just a crappier version of Kick--

 

"I dont care!  I paid 5 points for every die of damage in my ranged attack; I should be able to kick someone with it!"

 

Well the brick paid 5 points to buy the Strength that is required to get each die-

 

"Well, that's _his_ problem, isn't it?  I wanna kick with Face Blast!"

 

And we went and studied up on that and debated for a few years and boom- the game evolved a bit more.

 

Then the brick guys were all "hey!  That's our thing!  They took our thing!  Now we are right back to being hosed for a concept that doesnt have a ranged attack!"

 

Well, let's look at what else you get when you buy STR-

 

I don't actually -want- an 80 STR!  I want a 40 STR, but  _want_ a 16d6 punch!

 

Oh.  Okay.

 

And we studied some more and complained about cost / benefit ratios and had easily 1/3 of the conversations on this board and all those before it and boom-  hand attack is (or was, maybe?  For a while at least) 3 points a die (unless, it has been folded back into a long hand formula of STR with various modifiers, etc.

 

Now none of this is _bad_, mind you (though the hundred-and-eighty-six-thousandth rehash of "why STR costs too little and here's how to fix it!" does just slide right off of glazed-over eyes, I am afraid).  This is how games-  any concept, really, gets refined and sorted out and changed- sometimes even improved.

 

I say "sometimes" because every once in a while you end up with with things like the current build for Instant Change.  

 

But sticking with "the Killing Mechanic"--  I maintain that it is not an "orphan" mechanic.  Granted, 'additional STR damage'  is dound only in this one power-- _for now_, but that doesn't mean that it can't be pulled out and put other places:

 

Rubber Ralph uses his incredible stretching powers and pliable body to ensure his opponents with his stretch limbs -- Entangle: Strength adds.   (Just a hasty example folks; don't get worked up about it).

 

"Oh, I can get the truth out of him, Boss.  Five me ten minutes alone with him, please."  Mind Control: Strength adds.  (Yeah; as above)

 

Of course, even if we were to all one-percent agree to this idea--   

 

 

yeah, I know; sometimes I crack myself up. 

 

but even if we all agreed to this, there will always be folks claiming it is an orphan mechanic because it hasn't been officially reworked and published into an Advantage or other published powers don't have a similar component--

 

I will always maintain that it is a holdover: something from the earliest days that hasn't had the scrutiny that other parts of the system have had, or because not enough energy projectors have complained that they can't add STR damage to their photon blasts or something-  I don't have a clue.

 

please remember: I opened this by stating it is an opinion piece and admitting that I have no factual information on how this power came to be, and have gone on to admit again, just above, that I have no idea where it came from or why it came to be and even took more time to write this sentence pointing out (and hopefully reinforcing) those admissions--

 

in short:  I have wasted enough time for several people all at once.  There is no need in wasting your own time telling me that I am wrong, or that I have no way of knowing how all this came to be-- etc.

 

at any rate:  this is a _unique_ mechanic that hasn't been meticulously analyzed by anyone in any position to make changes who has found it in need of change.

 

Sometimes, change is good.  But given what has happened to Instant Change, Transformation Attack, and Shape Shift (yes:  it already existed.  It was in Champions III back in the 80s), I simply want to point out that sometimes leaving it alone might be the simplest, cleanest solution.

 

 

Okay.  Now. Go ahead.  The dogpile starts just below. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Duke Bushido
My autocorrect is actively detrimental to communication

[Doc Democracy]

7 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Okay.  Now. Go ahead.  The dogpile starts just below. 

 

Too late, the dog pile started before!  It is good, it is healthy to get things out, say what you mean.  🙂

 

Sometimes we all forget we are just playing elaborate games of let's pretend.  We want some rules around it to help when there are disagreements but if everyone at the table agrees, then no rulebook is going to stop the table having fun.

 

We also get precious about our rules.  We have invested in them and if someone says they are rubbish, and going to use a different ruleset (different edition, different game even) then we feel betrayed or that we are losing.

 

Thing is, nothing has changed.  You can still play the games you want with your friends, in the way you, and they, like playing them.

 

I am a poor rulesmith.  I hate reading rulebooks, I need to use them to comprehend them, I remember what I like and often forget, or ignore, what I don't.  My aim, as a GM, is to make my friends happy and, as a player, to engage with the story and find ways to do cool things from my character sheet.

 

I am a tinkerer though. Nothing is ever perfect.  I never really bought into the universality of the system but I kind of like an underlying system toolkit that allows us to build the games we want to play. The problem is that the system was not written for that purpose, it is an evolution from crashing several related products together. And then streamlining and adapting.

 

I think I am disassociated from the RAW enough that I am always content to consider extreme changes, indeed, I want to see what they might do and whether it enhances or degrades.  I want to see what other people think.  I am kind of interested in what other people feel. Because all that informs the value of potential change.

 

What I never understand is folk getting annoyed in such discussions.  I miss having a place to go.  when I was young White Dwarf was my broad gaming community.  when I got older, the UseNET and then these boards were my community.  There is nowhere now that has the level of activity and engagement I want. I will back out of interesting discussions here when they get fractious because I value the space more than "winning". 

 

I am here to chat to folk that share an interest in the mechanics I most enjoy tinkering with.  There are already too few of us here, I would rather not lose the remnants of that community by falling out. I am not perfect, I too get drawn into arguments, feel heated and get stroppy.  I left the boards because I felt disrespected and unvalued (how ridiculous!  I pulled on my big boy pants, gave myself a talking to and came back with an ambition to be more dignified).

 

Anyway.  @Duke Bushido as usual, I loved everything you said.  How it can come from a 2nd edition hold-out, I will never understand!!  😉

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

@Doc Democracy, your ideas on GMing are like mine. What I’ve notice on the boards here and there and other games is that people can’t fathom that what works for me may not work for you but that is fine. 

[Tech]

4 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

@Doc Democracy, your ideas on GMing are like mine. What I’ve notice on the boards here and there and other games is that people can’t fathom that what works for me may not work for you but that is fine. 

 

I've run into that too many times on these boards. This is why I'm not looking at these forums too much anymore. We can do whatever we want with our games.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Tech

[Ninja-Bear]

I’m just going to add that I don’t mind if someone points outs if a rule is RAW or not. I just recently asked a question about RAW in 4th because I wanted to know how it was supposed to be. And every one was helpful. It’s the I’m doing it homebrew and someone then insists it wrong. 

[Hugh Neilson]

20 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I think the biggest problem with Killing Attack is the HKA with Range, why should I bother with an RKA. Also while not as free points as STR plus HKA, Blast does have the advantage of reducing DCs for OCV.  I think most people can visualize losing damage to Spread your attack and make it easier to hit someone. Why shouldn’t someone in HtH be able to reduce their DC and raise their OCV? The sfx would be, I try to hit as quick as I can but sacrifice power.

 

The HKA with Range is just another points illustration.  If I have a 15 STR, a 3d6 HKA with Range will set me back 67 points.  A 4d6 RKA will only cost 60 points.  If I buy another 15 STR and spend 45 on a 2d6 HKA with Range, I still get 4d6 KA, but I also get another 15 STR.

 

Spreading was explained in a designer interview with Different Worlds as "something we lost for 1e when Magneto attacked our floppy discs", and was intended to compensate for Bricks getting 10 base STR, Grabs, Throws, Lift, Leaping, Figureds, etc.

 

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Cautionary Disclaimer:

 

Hugh:  don't read any further.  I know this entire line of thought bugs you, and that isn't why I am here, Sir.

 

Be it known that I was duly cautioned and chose, fully informed and of my own volition, to proceed. I hereby absolve @Duke Bushido from any and all liability in respect of the consequences of my choice to participate in this potentially hazardous activity

 

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

There are two killing attacks; they each have a specific ability.  One has range; the other increases in power based on the user's STR (or at least how much he wishes to use with the attack).

 

We know the advantage: Range is a +1/2 Advantage.  If we remove the cost of this advantage from Ranged Killing Attack, we end up with a ten-point power that has no range and does not add additional STR-based damage.  We have found the base power:  Killing Damage, and we know it costs 10 points per die. (Sorry, Hugh, but I encouraged you to not read this.)

 

If we pull H-t-H KA down to it's base 10-points of Killing Damage-- which, remember, has no STR bonus and no Range-  we end up discovering a +1/2 Advantage we can call "Stength Adds."  

 

An analysis which has been done before (which could describe the entire discussion of HKAs, of course). It is the basis for my consistent question, which you address further down, why I can't use the same +1/2 advantage to add STR to other attacks, or even to add other stats to attacks.

 

In 4e, we received the "Hand Attack" power - for 3 CB, you got +1d6 to HTH damage.  So we got 60 point Multipowers including a +20d6 HA slot ("but it's legal and costs the same as my other 60 point slots"). Then we got 5e, and HA became a 5 AP ability with a limitation, returning us to +1 DC = +5 AP.

 

With 6e, a lot of attack powers got range added by default.  By extension, I would see a solid case for changing RKA and HKA to "Killing Attack: 1d6 per 15 points, ranged".  "But my claws have no range!!"  So slap "no range" on the KA, like you would on pretty much every other attack power that you want to be limited to HTH. We'll leave out options for simulating how your high STR makes your claws more effective. It's a special effect for having more KA, no range dice.

 

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Or he can spend 30 points on a 10d6 Hand Attack (from one of the new editions; I have no idea what Hand Attack sells for these days), add 15 points for Strength Adds and another 15 and potentially have a 20d6 energy blast for 60 points or so.

 

Also neat!

 

 

As noted above, it was 3 points HA in 4th.  It became 5 points and a -1/2 limitation in 5th.  I think it's -1/4 in 6th, which I find odd when I can buy +1 MA DC for 4 points and enhance far more maneuvers at no END cost. But my preference would be -1/4 STR that doesn't lift (so it would increase Grabs, for example) and -1/2 to only do normal damage.

 

But for some reason, HA was based on Blast (that's not stated in 6e - it's noted as derived from STR).  Shouldn't Blast, No Range, STR Adds cost 5 points per d6?  That "+1/2 for STR adds" isn't consistently applied, is it?

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Anyway, my opinion, and worth every but you paid for it:

 

"Strength adds to damage" is not an orohan mechanic.  It is a holdover.  It was never a mechanic.  It was a compromise.

 

We all know this game grew from notes and ideas in college, and the playtesters and GMs who would write the first rule book were just winging it.  Once a basic idea was established (say, mivement is broken into types, or all ranged attacks share a mechanic because only damage matters, mechanically- whatever-  then things worked out from there.

 

I'd charge fair value for my opinions, but I'm not willing to write all those cheques, so I set a minimum of zero.

 

Most games have been refined over the years, if they continued at all.  I call STR adds to damage an orphan mechanic because it is applied in only a single, specific circumstance.  Having HKA and RKA, and HKA's augmented by STR, are certainly a holdover.  Like many things in Hero, what we call it isn't really all that important.

 

I lost your comment on Damage Resistance somehow, but that's another example of evolving to a consistent model.  Back in 1e, we had Armor (3 resistant defence for 5 points), Damage Resistance (full defenses against KA stun and half against KA BOD for 15 points, or pay 30 and get full defenses against BOD as well) and Force Field (1 rDEF per 1 point, but it costs END).  Over the years, that became a consistent +1 point to make 2 Defenses resistant.

 

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

But sticking with "the Killing Mechanic"--  I maintain that it is not an "orphan" mechanic.  Granted, 'additional STR damage'  is dound only in this one power-- _for now_, but that doesn't mean that it can't be pulled out and put other places:

 

Rubber Ralph uses his incredible stretching powers and pliable body to ensure his opponents with his stretch limbs -- Entangle: Strength adds.   (Just a hasty example folks; don't get worked up about it).

 

"Oh, I can get the truth out of him, Boss.  Five me ten minutes alone with him, please."  Mind Control: Strength adds.  (Yeah; as above)

 

Of course, even if we were to all one-percent agree to this idea--   

 

 

yeah, I know; sometimes I crack myself up. 

 

 

I interpret the historic reluctance to extend the concept to a basic grasp that it;s not really that great a concept.  You want extra Entangle, or Mind Control, or Sight Flash (eye poke) or Hearing Fash Explosion (thundrous handclap) because you have a high STR, buy more of the attack and limit it with something like "unified power - STR" or "locks out STR" or whatever. Oh, but not if it's a KA with no range! That's somehow completely different!!!

 

6 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

Sometimes we all forget we are just playing elaborate games of let's pretend.  We want some rules around it to help when there are disagreements but if everyone at the table agrees, then no rulebook is going to stop the table having fun.

 

I remain convinced that RPG rules evolved to resolve sandbox play as 4 year olds.  "Bang - I shot you; fall down" "No, you missed"

 

All those combat rules exist to referee those inner 4 year olds.

 

6 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I think I am disassociated from the RAW enough that I am always content to consider extreme changes, indeed, I want to see what they might do and whether it enhances or degrades.  I want to see what other people think.  I am kind of interested in what other people feel. Because all that informs the value of potential change.

 

What I never understand is folk getting annoyed in such discussions.  I miss having a place to go.  when I was young White Dwarf was my broad gaming community.  when I got older, the UseNET and then these boards were my community.  There is nowhere now that has the level of activity and engagement I want. I will back out of interesting discussions here when they get fractious because I value the space more than "winning". 

 

I am here to chat to folk that share an interest in the mechanics I most enjoy tinkering with.  There are already too few of us here, I would rather not lose the remnants of that community by falling out. I am not perfect, I too get drawn into arguments, feel heated and get stroppy.  I left the boards because I felt disrespected and unvalued (how ridiculous!  I pulled on my big boy pants, gave myself a talking to and came back with an ambition to be more dignified).

 

Anyway.  @Duke Bushido as usual, I loved everything you said.

 

Emphasis of key point (to me) added.  Preach it!

[Hugh Neilson]

32 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I’m just going to add that I don’t mind if someone points outs if a rule is RAW or not. I just recently asked a question about RAW in 4th because I wanted to know how it was supposed to be. And every one was helpful. It’s the I’m doing it homebrew and someone then insists it wrong. 

 

Point out to those who say it's wrong that they are violating the RAW of 6e!  Specifically, see v1, p 11:

 

Quote

The intent there is to bring to the reader’s specific attention one of the key philosophies of the HERO System, which is that the GM can change any rule as he sees fit. He can make a rule work differently, get rid of it, replace it with a variant rule, or whatever else he wants to do. Just like HERO relies on the players to create their characters with responsibility and maturity, it relies on the GM to adapt the rules to suit the setting he’s created and the type of campaign he wants to run. While we think you’ll enjoy the game the most as it’s written in this book, ultimately the written rules are just guidelines and suggestions. Change them to suit yourself — to
make your games more exciting, dramatic, and fun.

 

and

 

Quote

 

First, just because something isn’t explicitly forbidden doesn’t mean it’s allowed.

*********************************************************************************************************

Second, just because something is explicitly forbidden doesn’t mean you can’t do it (with the GM’s permission).

 

Your ability to change the RAW is explicitly provided right there in the RAW!

 

BTW, @Duke Bushido, technically that means that playing by the 2e rules is following 6e RAW.

[Ninja-Bear]

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

BTW, @Duke Bushido, technically that means that playing by the 2e rules is following 6e RAW.

Wait! Is that a Paradox somewhere? 😱😂😜

[Duke Bushido]

9 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

BTW, @Duke Bushido, technically that means that playing by the 2e rules is following 6e RAW.

 

 

And before it was cool, too!  

 

:rofl:

 

But yes; with the "any rules changes you want are okay" clause, technically, I can play Fantasy HERO by weaving between the dashed center lines on my morning commute (so long as everyone playing .... At your table....?  In your car?  Agrees with you that this is the way to do it.  I havent written any house documents like that myself, but still find it fun for other reasons. 

 

Though-- and feel free to fact check me if I am in error- just a paragraph or two after the one you quoted, is there an inclusion to the effect of "it would be better if you don't change what I already changed"?

 

To be fair, that can be ignored (and should be, if you want to change somethinf the author changed: change it back, or into something completely new that you and your friends and that one strange guy your friend found and insists really doesn't give off that vibe after you get to know him a bit better all prefer.

 

And while the caae can be made that "just because it isnt specifically forbidden doesn't mean it's allowed" most certainly _can_ be made, an equally strong case that "this exactly _is_ what it means" can also be made, given that

 

1) there exists no real rule to establish that all things not forbidden by name also forbidden-- or, probably better said: "all things not listed as expressly permissible are forbidden," though I caution that this line of thinking leads to the oft-revisited discussion about whether or not it is possible to knock someone down without buying a martial maneuver that specifically includes "target falls."

 

and

 

2) the existence of the "change any rule you want"  rule makes such a rule easy enough to invalidate anyway.  That may be why such a rule does not exist in the first place; I cannot say.  Or it may be that the change any rule rule exists to allow the GM to tell the martial artist "he hit him with a 74 Oldsmobile.  _Of course_ he falls down!"

 

Again, I can't say.  I am going to stick with my 80-page rule book and be happy.  If we need another rule, we will make it go when we genuinely need It.  It has worked so far.