Skill Levels

[Grailknight]

On 8/2/2024 at 4:21 PM, unclevlad said:

There's 2 fairly interesting topics here.

 

STR...treating HA as limited STR is the core construction approach in 6E, so from that standpoint, there isn't a problem.  You're suggesting a terminology shift.  My objection would be that the HA weapons like tonfas, staves, batons, or clubs are viewed as "not STR" per se.  There's also this note (6E1 231):

 

 

In a sense, there isn't much real difference between draining STR and draining an HA...they both have the impact of reducing HTH damage.  But there's nuances that don't feel right, and it doesn't feel intuitive.  It's not STR, it's a club.  The problem to me isn't in HA, it's in Hugh's assertion that you can use STR twice in a combined attack.  I'd rather make it explicit that *can't* be done, if it really needs to be.  (By 6E1 231, HA is not an attack on its own, it adds to the damage from STR...see Using HTH Attack.)

 

Hmm, so what you're suggesting is eliminating the 2 killing attacks as standalone powers?  There's a 2-stage first point:  versus rPD or rED is only +1/2, so adding Does BODY makes it +1 1/2, not +2.  That said, you're rolling normal damage dice, so the risk of excessive BODY damage is essentially eliminated.  For 12 DCs, if you allow 5d6 AVAD rPD, Does BODY (technically 12.5 DCs)...more than 7 BODY is seriously unlikely.  The downside is, for cutting through barriers or entangles, you *want* killing damage dice.  Perhaps this could be done with an additional advantage....but...the problem is that advantages only apply to the base power, and the base power here isn't very expensive.  Even a +1 advantage...so it's net +2.5, or 3.5x...12d6 would be 3 1/2 d6 with the advantages.  You're still looking at a LOT of BODY.  And that's giving the advantage to convert to killing damage a fairly hefty cost...it's like buying a Megascale Teleport.  Tacking on Usable Simultaneously is usually cheap because the base teleport is typically cheap.  (You buy higher levels of Megascale to get longer range.)

I thought of maybe making it an *adder* instead...this could work for Blast -> RKA, but it's harder for reworking HKA because STR is a separate component, as is martial arts damage.  These actually work just fine with AVAD Does BODY, altho the math's a tad annoying.

 

Hmm.  Tack AP on top of it?  I'll start with double AP, so the total advantage goes to a simple +2.  So, 12 DCs is 4d6.  4d6 would average 4 BODY and 14 STUN, against 1/4 defenses.  That might work OK.  Against an entangle, it still works;  they're not typically hardened.  It still is probably lacking against a hardened steel plate...I'd still like some form of standalone killing-dice based attack form for water saws, cutting lasers, that sort of thing.  Many of these, at least at first glance, are RKAs...a water saw having Reduced By Range...so adding STR isn't an issue.  

 

Or maybe make killing damage 15 points for 2 DCs as the *base* cost...with rounding *against* the player.  (First DC is 8, second is 7.)  There's precedent for this, there's powers (or maybe adders) that work this way explicitly.  From a price standpoint, it's like a +1/2 advantage...but it's on the base cost, with the higher cost that implies for any other advantages you want to apply.  Even Reduced END.  So...a 1+1 d6K knife is 30 points.  15 STR would add 2 DCs to be 2d6K, for 45 active.  Ehhh...that feels like it's too little.  9d6 normal would do 9 BODY and far more STUN, and 2d6 will only reach or exceed 9 BODY less than 1/3 of the time.

 

Hm.  Not sure there's gonna be a clean solution that won't require pretty serious additional complexity.

 

I was actually keeping HKA and RKA as distinct Powers much like Mental Blast was left in. I'd also prefer keeping the pricing at 15 points per DC although I can easily see the reasoning for 12 points per DC (I really make the case myself.).

 

Killing Attacks are so common in genre that we tend to forget that most objects and creatures really don't have much rDEF relative to the size of KA's. A 2d6 KA is far more likely to do BODY than even a 7d6 Blast or Strike. Some of that is variance in BODY rolled but just having some defenses, especially PD, will by design stop most BODY damage.

 

Also, distinct powers allows for simplicity in building KA's that do go against nonstandard defenses. And it makes a Strike/Blast with does BODY, AVLD into a different category than an HKA/RKA with the same advantages. Again, in my experience with Hero special defenses are more common than in the CU but resistant versions are very rare. I want them priced accordingly and this structure works for me.

[LoneWolf]

If you go by the average damage instead of the max, you still see a similar result.   The average damage for a 60 STR is 12 BODY and 42 STUN, for a 4d6+1 KA the average damage is 15 BODY and 30 STUN.  The normal STR damage still does more STUN than the KA.  The KA does more BODY but less STUN.   While the killing attack still has a greater chance to do more than average damage, it also has a greater chance to do significantly less damage.  This is due to the fact that few dice have a greater chance of rolling farther from the average.   The 4d6+1 KA is also technically 1 DC higher than the 60 STR.  Under 6th edition KA now have a better chance to do BODY, but they do significantly less STUN.  This turns them into an attack that is designed primarily to seriously injure or even kill instead of an attack used as a hail marry to take down something really tough.   

 

I had previously stated that a campaign using hit location would change this, but I forgot to factor in the increased damage from the hit location on normal attacks.  When you do that the stun damage from the normal attack is even greater than an equivalent KA.  Using the hit location chart the STUN damage from a head shot is effectively multiplied by 1.666…, where the STUN damage on a normal attack is double.   
 

[unclevlad]

If normal dice are always used, and if "killing" is turned into, for argument, a +1/2, then this might work:

 

a)  resistant is treated as a special defense, a la power, mental, or flash.  (Whether there should be resistant forms of power/mental/flash is debatable.  I think the ONLY!!! reason the rules have them is so they can be standard powers, while leaving the regular versions as special powers...*specifically* so they can't be purchased in frameworks.)

 

b)  the STUN of the "killing attack" is only resisted by resistant defenses.  This has the beneficial effect of treating all the attacks and defenses the same.

 

There's still issues with entangles and objects, but if attacks using killing dice are really expensive...and remember, for killing damage, 3 DCs == 1d6, so 15 points per DC is extreme...this might be fine.  In many cases, an attack meant to break a shackle or disable a lock, might not be that good against a person.  (High velocity AP small rounds aren't great at taking a person down;  the rounds often literally just pass through.)

 

58 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

If you go by the average damage instead of the max, you still see a similar result.   The average damage for a 60 STR is 12 BODY and 42 STUN, for a 4d6+1 KA the average damage is 15 BODY and 30 STUN.  The normal STR damage still does more STUN than the KA.  The KA does more BODY but less STUN.   While the killing attack still has a greater chance to do more than average damage, it also has a greater chance to do significantly less damage.  This is due to the fact that few dice have a greater chance of rolling farther from the average.   The 4d6+1 KA is also technically 1 DC higher than the 60 STR.  Under 6th edition KA now have a better chance to do BODY, but they do significantly less STUN.  This turns them into an attack that is designed primarily to seriously injure or even kill instead of an attack used as a hail marry to take down something really tough.   

 

 

Average is NOT important overall;  lumping everything together is what's grossly misleading.  Normal damage is going to be...normally distributed.  That is, the majority of rolls will fall near the mean, and the mean is a good indication of the overall nature.  Killing damage...the BODY is normal, but with a very much higher variance relative to the mean.  The variance on 4d6 is about 3.4, with a mean of 14...4:1.  The variance on 12d6 is about 6, with a mean of 42...7:1.

 

And of course, the STUN is worse, because it's a single, uniformly distributed die.  On 4d6+1, 24 or less STUN comes from

a)  any time you roll a 1 STUN mult (1/3)

b)  12 or less BODY and a 2 STUN mult (about 8%)

c)  8 or less BODY and a 3 STUN mult (only about 1%)

 

But let's also now start talking defenses and impactful strikes.  For 12d6, the 10% mark is 49-50 STUN.  Let's put total defenses then, at 28.  Then:

 

--per RAW, there's no difference between 5 STUN and 28 STUN...they're bounced.  Turns out that 28 is actually basically the median on 4d6+1...28 or less STUN will happen *just* under half the time.  On 12d6, it's rare...about 1%.  This will broadly hold for minor stun getting through.  But the high stun is much higher.  Here, the numbers are total STUN, number of ways it can happen, and the percent chance of that exact STUN.

 

50: exactly 1  (0.025)

51: exactly 125 (3.24)

54: exactly 104 (5.92)

57: exactly 80  (7.97)

60: exactly 56  (9.41)

63: exactly 35  (10.31)

66: exactly 20  (10.83)

 

Anything higher is too unusual to plan for...but it's still multiple orders of magnitude more likely than on 12d6.  51+ STUN on 12d6 is 7.6%...close to knockout.  Frequent enough that with 28 DEF, 23 CON is probably in order, IMO.  52+  STUN is down to 5%.  With 4d6+1, 51+ STUN is almost 11%...absolutely needs to be considered.  54+ is hovering at that 7.6% borderline...and now you need 30 DEF and a 24 CON to avoid getting stunned.

 

The averages tell you only a small part.  For me, a bigger key is the threshold event...how often will you get stunned?  

 

You worry about average STUN, and the frequency your attack will do nothing notable, when considering a KA from the attacker's perspective...but you have to worry about the risk it'll clean your clock from a *defensive* perspective.  

 

 

[Gauntlet]

The other thing you have to factor in is the fact that not all of the character's defense works against the damage of the KA. Should they have no resistant defense, which costs 33% more, then they have no defense. The normal defense only acts against the STUN damage of the Attack and only if there is Resistant Defense available. I will agree that in a Superheroic based game, the chances of doing damage with a KA are far less, but when it comes to Heroic came it truly becomes an issue. So I have to agree in the limiting of HKA to being double maximum, otherwise that could mean that a HKA could become a death to all attack, especially if you are utilizing Hit Locations.

Edited August 5 by Gauntlet

[Doc Democracy]

3 hours ago, unclevlad said:

The averages tell you only a small part.  For me, a bigger key is the threshold event...how often will you get stunned?  

 

I think this is a great focus to have.  But I think, in a points based system, we too often seek to minimise the dramatic results, tending to a safer paradigm.  I think part of that is vestigial memories of killer GMs that exploit such situations to kill player characters.

 

The genre is full of heroes going down and the authors using such situations to create interesting narratives.  Villains should not fight to win, they fight to escape with the loot or carry out villainous deeds, the GM should be using events like this to heighten the drama.

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

I do wonder whether we should replace the all or nothing stunned with a more interesting combat advantage, you have struck a telling blow and you gain some kind of advantage, not necessarily one that is all about pounding your opponent into the ground

[Grailknight]

5 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

I think this is a great focus to have.  But I think, in a points based system, we too often seek to minimise the dramatic results, tending to a safer paradigm.  I think part of that is vestigial memories of killer GMs that exploit such situations to kill player characters.

 

The genre is full of heroes going down and the authors using such situations to create interesting narratives.  Villains should not fight to win, they fight to escape with the loot or carry out villainous deeds, the GM should be using events like this to heighten the drama.

 

Doc

 

All too often, winning the fight is the only way to accomplish those objectives though. Players who don't perceive a situation as a threat will keep pushing the envelope, raising the stakes for both sides.

[Hugh Neilson]

17 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

The rules for equipment in 6th edition still limit the weapon to doing no more than double the base DC of the weapon.  But at the GM’s option it can do more, but doing so causes the weapon to take the full amount of damage it does to the target.  In most cases this will cause the weapon to break, unless it is an unbreakable focus.  This rule is listed in the STR minimum section so might only apply to the extra damage from STR.

 

In the X-men comic book Wolverine’s claws are indestructible and the only limit to the damage they can do is how much force he can apply to them.  This was explicitly stated in the books marvel published detailing the powers of the characters.  

 

When you compare the damage of a KA boosted by STR to the damage a high STR character does with his STR it is not really that much more.  Take a character with 60 STR and a 1 pip KA.  Using his regular STR he does a maximum of 24 BODY and 72 STUN using STR.   Using the 1 pip KA he does 25 BODY and 75 STUN.  The increased damage from the killing attack is largely an illusion due to the changes in how killing attacks work in 6th edition.  If a campaign is using hit locations that is going to increase the damage the KA does, but in a standard super heroic game KA are no longer the effective way to take down a target they were under previous editions.   Buying up your STR is far more effective in dealing damage than purchasing a low point HKA.  

 

The variability is the significant issue.  That 12d6 normal attack won't deviate far from its average of 42 STUN and 12 BOD.  A 4d6+1 KA will average 15 and 30 (but a 13 DC normal attack will average 45 and 13; if he doesn't buy a 1 DC KA, our STR character has 5 points left to spend), but as UncleVlad notes below, it will significantly beat that average a lot more often.

 

KAs are also much more effective against Entangles, Force Walls, Automatons, etc.  If these were built to withstand KAs, equivalent DC normal attacks would just bounce off.

 

The rDEF for BOD issue is chicken & egg - players (and notable threats to them) will always buy enough rDEF to blunt the KA.  That's a circle game.

 

11 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

This is technically correct and grossly misleading at the same time.

 

I'd define high BODY damage as 1.5 per die of the normal damage dice.  So for 12d6, that'd be 18.  The easiest and most likely way to do this is six 6's, and the other six between 2 and 5...no ones.  This can be done in (12 choose 6) * 4^6 ways.  12C6 is 924;  4^6 is 4096.  So we're talking 4,000,000 or so, out of 6^12, or about 2.2 billion cases.  We're talking roughly 500 to 1 *against* seeing 18 damage.  (Note that seven 6's, one 1, and 4 2-5 has about 1 million cases.)  

 

Now, rolling 4d6+1 killing?  Rolling 17+ on 4d6 happens...24% of the time.  1 in 4.

 

That 17 will do 51 STUN 1/3 of the time.  The 7% highest 12d6 rolls would be what?  Probably not far off that range.  13d6 (the same DCs) is even more likely to hit 51 STUN.  The volatility of the 1d6-1 Stun Multiple made KAs a concern in prior editions- they were really good at knocking targets out, contrary to their name, with a 1/3 chance of significant damage (56 or 70 STUN on an average BOD roll).

 

If we cap HKAs at doubling from STR, why shouldn't I just build a 30 STR Brick with a Multipower of +30 STR and a 2d6+1 HKA?  I get the same choice of 12d6 Normal or 4d6+1 KA, and the incremental cost is 7 points instead of 5.  It will really be 8, though, as I will for sure make that +35 STR for the extra die of normal damage. The cost is still pretty trivial.

 

9 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

If you go by the average damage instead of the max, you still see a similar result.   The average damage for a 60 STR is 12 BODY and 42 STUN, for a 4d6+1 KA the average damage is 15 BODY and 30 STUN.  The normal STR damage still does more STUN than the KA.  The KA does more BODY but less STUN.   While the killing attack still has a greater chance to do more than average damage, it also has a greater chance to do significantly less damage.  This is due to the fact that few dice have a greater chance of rolling farther from the average.   The 4d6+1 KA is also technically 1 DC higher than the 60 STR.  Under 6th edition KA now have a better chance to do BODY, but they do significantly less STUN.  This turns them into an attack that is designed primarily to seriously injure or even kill instead of an attack used as a hail marry to take down something really tough.   

 

I had previously stated that a campaign using hit location would change this, but I forgot to factor in the increased damage from the hit location on normal attacks.  When you do that the stun damage from the normal attack is even greater than an equivalent KA.  Using the hit location chart the STUN damage from a head shot is effectively multiplied by 1.666…, where the STUN damage on a normal attack is double.   
 

 

Doing exactly the target's defenses or doing less than half of the target's defenses both result in no damage done.  If we look at the old 1d6-1, on a roll of 14 against a 30 defense target, I will do no STUN half the time, 12, 26,  or 40 STUN.  That's an average of 13 past defenses, but 1 in 6 will almost certainly stun the target, and the 26 has a shot.  Higher than average BOD markedly increases those odds and the average damage past defenses.  If I roll 18 on 4d6, that's 6, 24, 42 or 60 past defenses, an average of 33. 12d6 doesn't often roll 63 Stun.

 

The 1d3  Stun Multiple reduces the issue a lot.  My 1 in 3,888 chance at 72 STUN is still much better than the 1 in over 2 billion chance of 12d6 normal, but still very unlikely. The KA has a small chance at really impressive STUN, but will not outperform the normal attack over time.

[Doc Democracy]

2 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

All too often, winning the fight is the only way to accomplish those objectives though. Players who don't perceive a situation as a threat will keep pushing the envelope, raising the stakes for both sides.

 

So would higher variability in damage be a better thing?  Add some danger (threat) to combat?

 

I have been trying to change my approach in superhero encounters, instead of the villains using their powers to take down the heroes, it is about creating situations that mean the heroes are blinded/incapacitated/distracted long enough for the key villains to get away.

 

There is no honour among thieves, minor thugs and hirelings will be sacrificed to achieve their ends.

 

It means putting a lot more thought into tactics and decisions but it is also more interesting.

 

The players also begin thinking more, focussing their attention better and acting more strategically.

[LoneWolf]

8 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

The other thing you have to factor in is the fact that not all of the character's defense works against the damage of the KA. Should they have no resistant defense, which costs 33% more, then they have no defense. The normal defense only acts against the STUN damage of the Attack and only if there is Resistant Defense available. I will agree that in a Superheroic based game, the chances of doing damage with a KA are far less, but when it comes to Heroic came it truly becomes an issue. So I have to agree in the limiting of HKA to being double maximum, otherwise that could mean that a HKA could become a death to all attack, especially if you are utilizing Hit Locations.

Actually in 6th edition they changed the rule about needing resistant defense for your normal defenses to apply to the stun of the attack. Now all characters apply their normal defense vs the STUN of a killing attack. You still need resistant defense to stop the BODY of a killing attack this along with reducing the stun multiple really changed the nature of killing attack.   Now a killing attack is something to damage or kill your target, not something that will do a lot of STUN.  The chances of doing significant stun with a killing attack are actually pretty low.  Even with hit locations a KA is more likely to kill the target than stun them.   

 

Even with hit location rules normal attack do more stun than a killing attack.  Using the standard rules a 4d6 KA normally does 14 BODY and 28 STUN, with hit locations the stun jumps to 70.  A 12d6 normal attack does 12 BODY and 42 stun without hit location, but the STUN jumps to 84 with hit locations.  

 

While resistant defense is more expensive than normal defenses you only need to have enough to deal with the BODY of the attack. The rest of the defenses can be normal defense. This can allow you to save some point when applying advantages like hardened or impenetrable.  Most PC’s and other important characters have at least some resistant defenses. Quite a few have a significant amount of resistant defense, so most of the characters that are really vulnerable to a killing attack are those the characters are supposed to be protecting.   As to killing attacks being a death attack that is what they are supposed to be.  
 

[Gauntlet]

1 hour ago, LoneWolf said:

Even with hit location rules normal attack do more stun than a killing attack.  Using the standard rules a 4d6 KA normally does 14 BODY and 28 STUN, with hit locations the stun jumps to 70.  A 12d6 normal attack does 12 BODY and 42 stun without hit location, but the STUN jumps to 84 with hit locations.  

 

Yes, but that being the issue, it is much worse to have your character die then be knocked out or stunned. Though I didn't see that your regular defenses do work against the stun of a KA even if you do not have any Resistant Defenses.

 

Question: Should someone set a Killing Attack as an AVAD, say Mental or Power Defense, does the Defense need to be resistant, and if not, what is the point of purchasing resistant Mental or Power Defense?

Edited August 5 by Gauntlet

[LoneWolf]

 Even with killing attacks outright killing even a normal is actually fairly difficult.  The chance of rolling 20 or higher on 4d6 is only about 5%.   Unless you are doing a called shot using hit locations actually does not really increase those odds.  You have more chances to hit a location that reduces damage instead of increasing it.  And if you are doing a called shot to the head with a large dice killing attack it should have a good chance of killing the character. If a character has resistant defense and/or above average BODY the chance of killing them is even less.  

 

There is always the chance that a good roll can put down a character, but even then, there will still probably be a short amount of time where the PC or significant NPC can be saved.  
 

[Grailknight]

6 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

 

Yes, but that being the issue, it is much worse to have your character die then be knocked out or stunned. Though I didn't see that your regular defenses do work against the stun of a KA even if you do not have any Resistant Defenses.

 

Question: Should someone set a Killing Attack as an AVAD, say Mental or Power Defense, does the Defense need to be resistant, and if not, what is the point of purchasing resistant Mental or Power Defense?

 

Yes, defense against an AVAD KA needs to be resistant.

 

4 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

 Even with killing attacks outright killing even a normal is actually fairly difficult.  The chance of rolling 20 or higher on 4d6 is only about 5%.   Unless you are doing a called shot using hit locations actually does not really increase those odds.  You have more chances to hit a location that reduces damage instead of increasing it.  And if you are doing a called shot to the head with a large dice killing attack it should have a good chance of killing the character. If a character has resistant defense and/or above average BODY the chance of killing them is even less.  

 

There is always the chance that a good roll can put down a character, but even then, there will still probably be a short amount of time where the PC or significant NPC can be saved.  
 

 

In 6th, Normals only have 8's in all their primary characteristics, including BODY, so a 4d6 KA is much likelier to be deadly, especially when KB still has to be accounted for.

[Gauntlet]

4 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

 Even with killing attacks outright killing even a normal is actually fairly difficult.  The chance of rolling 20 or higher on 4d6 is only about 5%.   Unless you are doing a called shot using hit locations actually does not really increase those odds.  You have more chances to hit a location that reduces damage instead of increasing it.  And if you are doing a called shot to the head with a large dice killing attack it should have a good chance of killing the character. If a character has resistant defense and/or above average BODY the chance of killing them is even less.  

 

There is always the chance that a good roll can put down a character, but even then, there will still probably be a short amount of time where the PC or significant NPC can be saved.  
 

 

Not completely, depending on the hit locations, and if you are using some of the sub-rules, when hit in a very vital (such as head or vitals) area with BODY enough to either Impair or Disable, you may have them make a CON roll to see if the damage causes death. Once again, it depends on the type of game, a Superheroic game, definitely not, but for a hard-core Heroic game, or even a Dark Champions game, you may have this come into effect. I have played in post holocaust games where this definitely come into effect.

[LoneWolf]

The probability of a 4d6 KA outright killing a character with 8 BODY is still only 34% if they have no resistant defense.  The 8 BODY character represents the typical non-combat NPC.   Even the non-combat NPC will on the average require two hits from a M60 to kill outright.  I am not saying that you cannot kill someone with a KA, that is what they are designed to do, but it is harder than it appears.  The game has to balance the chance of killing a PC vs realism and is weighted in favor of the PC’s survivability.   The 4d6 KA is something like a bazooka or a S.A.M, not a normal weapon.  In the real world what chance do you think anyone has to survive a hit by a bazooka?  

 

By definition killing attacks is supposed to be dangerous but are more of a threat vs NPC’s than they are vs a PC.  There are rules that are designed to increase the lethality of the game, but if you are using those rules, it is because that is what the group wants. 
 

[Grailknight]

True, but the difference between being killed instantly and dying from lack of medical attention in 24-36 seconds is negligible.  That normal is still dead. Despite its original super heroic focus, Hero is pretty lethal when all the optional rules are in play

[Gauntlet]

But being able to survive even by very nasty weapons is part of gaming. The 10th level fighter in D&D can take a long time to kill even with a two-handed sword. That's just part of the game. A lot of the reasoning is that the character knows how to avoid much of the hit so that it doesn't do as much damage to that 10th level fighter as it does to the 1st level fighter, or 3rd level fighter, or even the 8th level fighter. This also can be the same for Hero. One with higher BODY may just not be being hit as hard, so that attack that automatically kills a normal does not kill the Hero as in game terms it actually didn't hit that Hero as badly as it did the normal person.

[Gauntlet]

Another option for Max HTH attacks with Foci could also be that if you do more than maximum damage you have a 14- for the weapon break and then a -1 to that roll for each damage class above that. So if you are using a 1d6 Short Blade and you do a 2d6+1 damage with STR then it has a 14- chance of breaking, should you do 2 1/2d6 then it is a 13- chance, should you do 3d6 then a 12- chance, and it continues the more damage you have the weapon do.

[Steve]

10 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

Another option for Max HTH attacks with Foci could also be that if you do more than maximum damage you have a 14- for the weapon break and then a -1 to that roll for each damage class above that. So if you are using a 1d6 Short Blade and you do a 2d6+1 damage with STR then it has a 14- chance of breaking, should you do 2 1/2d6 then it is a 13- chance, should you do 3d6 then a 12- chance, and it continues the more damage you have the weapon do.

Maybe this could just be part of the Real Weapon Limitation?

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, Steve said:

Maybe this could just be part of the Real Weapon Limitation?

Capping the damage at double the base DCs could also be considered part of that limitation.  It's not like it's often applied outside of real weapons purchased with in-game cash rather than metagame character points.

[unclevlad]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Capping the damage at double the base DCs could also be considered part of that limitation.  It's not like it's often applied outside of real weapons purchased with in-game cash rather than metagame character points.

 

And it's a WHOLE lot simpler.