Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

[Blue]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

In the original champions book I believe Find Weakness was a skill.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

In the original champions book I believe Find Weakness was a skill.

thank you.

[Zanthis]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

I appreciate the the input.

 

I am totally unfamiliar with the combat system used by Warhammer so I am curious if it is level based like D&D/D20?

LOL...I have a name for the D20 system. I call it addition. Geez, I can't believe they call "d20+x" a system. Anyways, Warhammer uses d6 rolls against target numbers determined by table. The Doom spell I'm referring to made the target "doomed" and caused any attack that hit him to automatically deal damage without having to roll Strength vs Toughness. Since many units had only 1 "hitpoint" (called Wounds) it pretty much meant if he got hit he died, hence Doom. Worked very well with the spell Guide which allowed you to skip the to hit roll. Combined equaled one dead unit instantly, no rolls needed. It was very common at the gaming table to hear the two spells together: "I'll Guide Doom your Wizard and then..."

 

Obviously I made some modifications in my HERO version. But the concept of a curse exploitable only by the person doing the cursing is sound.

 

And does the referenced spell allow multiple applications versus the same target? If not, it could be built using a naked armor piercing advantage instead. I raise this important point since most spell systems using skill rolls to cast spells. If the spell in question were in use you would have a huge number of different rolls to make for an attack with this effect:

 

It was almost never necessary to use Doom twice since most targets died instantly. A second use applied to a second attack, if say you targeted a Hero (IIRC).

 

But in any case, Naked Advantages (either AP or Pen) do not work. They cannot for the simple reason that they can't be attatched to all my offensive abilities. I may attack with Strength, or my EB, or my RKA or HKA or HA. How do you build a naked advantage that can do that? What if I MPA or Sweep with 4 powers at once?! Suppose I use an AE radius power at hit four bad guys, but I've only FWeaknessed one of them? Can AP/Pen do that?

 

Not to mention that AP and Penetrating aren't cumulative. Any power which requires cumulative local defense reduction should generally use Find Weakness. If you don't like it, don't use it. Look at its game effect, not its name though. Otherwise, you'd never allow an EB in realistic 20th Century campaign because we don't have Energy Blasts, even though the mechanic is the correct one to do a lot of different effects.

[Guest Kolava]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

I've heard a lot about "Find Weakness does not have to be precision", but not too many examples of alternatives. I, for one, can't think of too many reasons why someone's attack would work better against someone else's defense that can't be explained by vulnerability, armor piercing, or calling shots. Maybe anaylzing another's defense and understanding how they move...but no, "analyze" already covers that. Maybe picking the least defended spots? You're talking about sectional defense, called shots, or nerve strike.

 

The only two explanations I can think of are the two ones mentioned: FW is a more basic form of hit-locations, or, as BNakagawa implied, it should be called Induce Weakness, and represent the ability to cause an opponent's defense to go away. (which is somehow different from Suppressing their Defense?)

 

It may just be me, but FW seems to fill a niche that doesn't exist. How often in the comics do you have a character who squints at an opponent, then suddenly their thick hide doesn't protect as well? Squint twice more, and it's like they don't have armor at all?

[Old Man]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

Because Armor Piercing and Find Weakness work differently from each other.

 

An Armor Piercing attack is always Armor Piercing regardless of how good the wielder of the sword/gun/claws are.

 

Find Weakness requires a skill roll that allows the user to attack weak spot with possibly any attack.

 

It could be argued that the character is able to know where certain nerve bundles or gaps in armor are located.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

Because Armor Piercing and Find Weakness work differently from each other.

 

An Armor Piercing attack is always Armor Piercing regardless of how good the wielder of the sword/gun/claws are.

 

Find Weakness requires a skill roll that allows the user to attack weak spot with possibly any attack.

 

It could be argued that the character is able to know where certain nerve bundles or gaps in armor are located.

This is circular logic.

 

The very words you are using scream Hit Location and it still breaks down when used with sectional defenses and existing Hit location rules.

 

 

(edit) Let me clarify,

I am not opposed to using Find Weakness in the appropriate game settings. It works great in a 4-Color Champions game or any other genre that does not use Hit Location Rules.

[Mentor]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

Find weakness and hit locations both rarely come up in our campaign, mostly for called shots for the latter. I can see a number of explanations other than hit location for find weakness, however.

 

Here are a few other things find weakness might simulate;

 

1. How hard to hit a given opponent.

 

2. The ability to distract them from being able to completely defend themselves.

 

3. What kind of attack; ie. open hand, closed fist, elbow smash, etc.

 

4. Catching the opponent slightly overconfident.

 

5. Timing the shot or strike just right.

 

While all of these might be simulated by other game play rules and mechanisms, having a catch all attack advantage controlled by the player seems to me to preclude any one, such as hit location, being the only definition. Just my 2 cents.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

Find weakness and hit locations both rarely come up in our campaign, mostly for called shots for the latter. I can see a number of explanations other than hit location for find weakness, however.

 

Here are a few other things find weakness might simulate;

 

1. How hard to hit a given opponent.

 

2. The ability to distract them from being able to completely defend themselves.

 

3. What kind of attack; ie. open hand, closed fist, elbow smash, etc.

 

4. Catching the opponent slightly overconfident.

 

5. Timing the shot or strike just right.

 

While all of these might be simulated by other game play rules and mechanisms, having a catch all attack advantage controlled by the player seems to me to preclude any one, such as hit location, being the only definition. Just my 2 cents.

I appreciate the input.

 

But...

1. This sounds like analyze style which in turn gives a bonus to OCV or DCV. This works fine if Hit Locations are not being used.

2. This sounds more like a combat manuever, not a power.

3. Ditto.

4. Analyze style again.

5. Ditto.

 

Using Find Weakness as a catch all for all of these sounds like a pretty good description of a Super Skill and works fine as long as you don't use Hit Locations at the same time. Using it with Hit Location rules is double dipping for the same special effect and in turn puts a higher burden on the defender by forcing a Brick concept character to defend with 3 different types of specialized defenses above and beyond resistant defense: hardened, lack of weakness AND hit location.

 

Give me a martial artist with basic strike 2dc lower than the campaign limit, +8 penalty levels for hit location and Find Weakness on a 14- and I can take down nearly any non-flying brick with a little patience.

[That Masked Man]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

There are times when reducing defense makes more sense than multiplying the damage or adding to OCV. Consider the following:

 

Armored Guy is in a full suit of plate armor (DEF 8). His gnome opponent is armed only with a dagger (1d6-1 damage). Using analyze style and hit locations, the gnome would never be able to do any BODY with his dagger, regardless of his skill. But, using Find Weakness, our gnomish hero slips his dagger through joints and between plates. And with enough skill (2 or more successes at Find Weakness) manages to do BODY to Armored Guy on an average roll.

[M-3]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

In a campaign with hit locations, I'd require it to be taken with the "Limitation" Must Target Specific Hit Location (-0), and the benefit would then apply only for hits against which the character has already found a weakness. The reason I'm making it worth -0 is that it's also advantageous as I'd allow the character to attempt a different location as a new "target" if he fails.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

There are times when reducing defense makes more sense than multiplying the damage or adding to OCV. Consider the following:

 

Armored Guy is in a full suit of plate armor (DEF 8). His gnome opponent is armed only with a dagger (1d6-1 damage). Using analyze style and hit locations, the gnome would never be able to do any BODY with his dagger, regardless of his skill. But, using Find Weakness, our gnomish hero slips his dagger through joints and between plates. And with enough skill (2 or more successes at Find Weakness) manages to do BODY to Armored Guy on an average roll.

I am assuming that your gnome has only the minimum (6) STR for his dagger. If he had an (11) or (16) and 2-4 levels or martial manuevers to add in he could do the maximum damage for the weapon which is 1d6+1, if this is done vs. the head it then does x2 damage for an average of 9 and a maximum of 14 which does indeed get past the knights 8 resistant defense.

 

Yes this requires a lot of work on the part of your little gnome as it should. The gnome can hit the armored knight anytime he wants but he has to put effort into making the hit do damage each and every time.

 

Your method does not enforce this. If he makes his Find Weakness roll he can just swing away with no concern of where he hits even though by your very description it is assumed that he is wedging the blade into the cracks of the armor.

 

This is just more failed use of circular logic Dude!

[Guest Kolava]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

Hyper-Man is on the right track there, though I'd just like to focus on one of the things he mentioned: CSLs. Used to increase damage, they can represent finding weakspots. I know it doesn't prove anything conclusively by itself...but for me, it's another addition to an already extensive list of evidence against FW.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think there is anything mechanically unbalanced with FW (I've never used it so don't know for sure), I'm just trying to point out that it doesn't do anything that can't be done better with another power or skill, and keeping it around begs for double dipping.

[Zanthis]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

It's amazing how powerful an effect a name can have. I wonder if there would be an issue if the power had always been called Induce Weakness rather than Find Weakness. That said, Find Weakness isn't for everybody and certainly not every campaign. I agree it should have provisions in the rules for applying it only against specific hit locations rather than an entire target's defenses. However, it is the correct power to use for personal cumulative curses. It also works well on say a phasing creature that has the ability to inflict a partial dephasing on its target thereby allowing it to better penetrate the target's defenses.

 

Actually, the one thing I find most missing in FWeak is the ability to allow it to apply to others. So one character can FWeak a target and his allies can take advantage of the lowered defenses. Granted, it should be at least +1 if not closer to +2, but if I wanted fantasy wraiths with the above mentioned ability to worsen the player's armor while they fight, this would work better than Suppression which would allow orcs in the same battle to take advantage of the lower defenses which I don't want to happen.

[Mentor]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

"snip"

Give me a martial artist with basic strike 2dc lower than the campaign limit, +8 penalty levels for hit location and Find Weakness on a 14- and I can take down nearly any non-flying brick with a little patience.

Good points all, but abuse or overuse of any such power construction would likely result in lots of flyers or lots of Lack of Weakness use in villains. Balance, balance, balance.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

It's amazing how powerful an effect a name can have. I wonder if there would be an issue if the power had always been called Induce Weakness rather than Find Weakness. That said, Find Weakness isn't for everybody and certainly not every campaign. I agree it should have provisions in the rules for applying it only against specific hit locations rather than an entire target's defenses. However, it is the correct power to use for personal cumulative curses. It also works well on say a phasing creature that has the ability to inflict a partial dephasing on its target thereby allowing it to better penetrate the target's defenses.

 

 

Actually, the one thing I find most missing in FWeak is the ability to allow it to apply to others. So one character can FWeak a target and his allies can take advantage of the lowered defenses. Granted, it should be at least +1 if not closer to +2, but if I wanted fantasy wraiths with the above mentioned ability to worsen the player's armor while they fight, this would work better than Suppression which would allow orcs in the same battle to take advantage of the lower defenses which I don't want to happen.

 

By saying that the rules for Find Weakness should be adjusted to account for Hit Locations you are in effect agreeing with my earlier statement in this thread that they are both just 2 different ways of describing the same effect which again is double dipping.

 

With regard to cumulative curses I totally disagree. A Drain or Suppress makes far more sense since a curse implies some type of magic and "magic" effects are usually defended by power defense not lack of weakness. A limitation can be applied to state the effect is only versus the caster of the curse. Remember the first appearance of Find Weakness in the rules was as a Skill, the fact that it is now considered a Power is only a reflection of the desire to build Super-Skills. This is no different than the ability to by 5 point skill levels with limitations.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

Good points all' date=' but abuse or overuse of any such power construction would likely result in lots of flyers or lots of Lack of Weakness use in villains. Balance, balance, balance. [/quote']

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

 

I could design virtually identical concepts for a Martial Artist around Find Weakness OR extreme accuracy with Hit Locations and not be abusive. Allowing both abilities in a game is what makes it abusive and as you pointed out would force everyone with good/high defenses as part of their concept to adjust by purchasing one more defense above and beyond all the other ones already available like resistant, hardened, power, mental etc... .

 

It is for the sake of balance that I have been raising this point from the beginning. I think the distinction of when you design a campaign to allow hit locations vs. Find Weakness is just as important a choice as that between using normal characteristic maxima and free items or forcing characters to pay for everything.

 

Looking at the current power Find Weakness I think I can see where Steve Long is coming from in his ruling that there is no conflict with hit location rules. However, looking back at the history of the old skill Find Weakness and later old talent and reading their descriptions you can see that its origins were an attempt to allow a simplified hit location rule for characters designed to do so.

 

A good example would be Batman, I could easily design a "batman clone" that could mimic his effective use of batterangs (usually to the villians head) either way. If the campaign used hit locations I just buy penalty skill levels versus hit locations and maybe devote a few 3 point skill levels to damage if allowed for range attacks. If hit locations are not used I just use Find Weakness. Notice, It is probably cheaper for me to buy the penalty skill levels which balances out since none of my targets now have to worry about buying the lack of weakness power to offset it either.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

Another thing I dislike about Find weakness. You can never be safe.

 

Sure, the example of the gnome and the guy in platemail seems to justify FW.

 

On the other hand, consider the situation where the gnome is attacking something that does not have any gaps or seams in its armor. A seamless force field, a sphere of solid metal or somesuch. How much lack of weakness do you need to be immune to Find Weakness?

 

Doesn't matter. You can never buy enough LoW to protect yourself from a lucky roll. Justify that.

[Guest Kolava]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

I never much liked LoW either, since it seemed like a difficult thing to have a special effect for (even harder than complete power defense). Well-made armor is one thing, but what about a superhero who is just tough? Can anyone who has a writeup of Superman check to see how much LoW he has? Because if he doesn't has any, then all of his Hardened rPD means nothing if he goes up against our gnome (obviously there are other factors, but you get the point). I've never built a character with LoW before (probably because I've never used FW), and I'm not sure if I know where to start.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

I never much liked LoW either' date=' since it seemed like a difficult thing to have a special effect for (even harder than complete power defense). Well-made armor is one thing, but what about a superhero who is just tough? Can anyone who has a writeup of Superman check to see how much LoW he has? Because if he doesn't has any, then all of his Hardened rPD means nothing if he goes up against our gnome (obviously there are other factors, but you get the point). I've never built a character with LoW before (probably because I've never used FW), and I'm not sure if I know where to start.[/quote']

I would suggest that That Masked Man create a version of "the gnome" for the combat wombat tournament except that I outlawed Find Weakness!

[That Masked Man]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

Thats OK. The idea of a gnome/wombat is just too disturbing.

[Zanthis]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

By saying that the rules for Find Weakness should be adjusted to account for Hit Locations you are in effect agreeing with my earlier statement in this thread that they are both just 2 different ways of describing the same effect which again is double dipping.

I am in effect doing nothing of the sort. Let me explain it more clearly. First of all, I did not say the rules should be adjusted, you did. I said a provision should be added for applying FWeak to only 1 hit location. This means a new limitation available to FWeak. Suppose such a limitation was listed as Only versus one Hit Location, -1/2. If you don't want to allow the full version of FWeak in your campaign, make all FWeak take that limitation at -0 instead of -1/2. There could also be a Not Cumulative -1/2 limitation on FWeak added to the rules. That would be nice too.

 

Hopefully my explanation has illustrated how far I am from agreeing with you that FWeak and Hit Locations are really two different rules for the same effects.

 

With regard to cumulative curses I totally disagree. A Drain or Suppress makes far more sense since a curse implies some type of magic and "magic" effects are usually defended by power defense not lack of weakness. A limitation can be applied to state the effect is only versus the caster of the curse.

I think such a limitation on a Drain or Suppress is very ugly. Drain only applies versus me? How would that work? Suppose I applied such a limitation to a CON Drain. If I drain someone down to 1 CON, but the effects of the drain only apply versus me, what happens if someone else drains them for 1 CON, do the fall unconscious? Or maybe this limitation can only be taken when applied versus PD/ED. Oh, and Armor. And FF. Sorry, too confusing and messy for me. Easier to use FWeak by far than hack together a work around with Drain/Suppress.

 

Remember the first appearance of Find Weakness in the rules was as a Skill, the fact that it is now considered a Power is only a reflection of the desire to build Super-Skills. This is no different than the ability to by 5 point skill levels with limitations.

Arguing from history can sometime be helpful. In this case, I see it more as not putting an official rule in against FWeak+Hit Locations and rather allowing individual GMs to make their own ruling. HEROs does that alot, and I like that aspect. Most of the complaints you have about FWeak are when people abuse it. Seriously, so what if Superman only has -5 LoW. How long is that Gnome going to last fighting Superman? How many FWeak rolls will he actually get off anyway? One, IF he's lucky.

 

Considering how easy it is to abuse defenses in HEROs as is, I don't mind Bricks needing to buy another one, especially a defense that isn't 100% (although -18 LoW means less than a 0.5% chance of a successful FWeak roll against you).

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

I am in effect doing nothing of the sort. Let me explain it more clearly. First of all, I did not say the rules should be adjusted, you did. I said a provision should be added for applying FWeak to only 1 hit location. This means a new limitation available to FWeak. Suppose such a limitation was listed as Only versus one Hit Location, -1/2. If you don't want to allow the full version of FWeak in your campaign, make all FWeak take that limitation at -0 instead of -1/2. There could also be a Not Cumulative -1/2 limitation on FWeak added to the rules. That would be nice too.

 

Hopefully my explanation has illustrated how far I am from agreeing with you that FWeak and Hit Locations are really two different rules for the same effects.

 

 

I think such a limitation on a Drain or Suppress is very ugly. Drain only applies versus me? How would that work? Suppose I applied such a limitation to a CON Drain. If I drain someone down to 1 CON, but the effects of the drain only apply versus me, what happens if someone else drains them for 1 CON, do the fall unconscious? Or maybe this limitation can only be taken when applied versus PD/ED. Oh, and Armor. And FF. Sorry, too confusing and messy for me. Easier to use FWeak by far than hack together a work around with Drain/Suppress.

 

 

Arguing from history can sometime be helpful. In this case, I see it more as not putting an official rule in against FWeak+Hit Locations and rather allowing individual GMs to make their own ruling. HEROs does that alot, and I like that aspect. Most of the complaints you have about FWeak are when people abuse it. Seriously, so what if Superman only has -5 LoW. How long is that Gnome going to last fighting Superman? How many FWeak rolls will he actually get off anyway? One, IF he's lucky.

 

Considering how easy it is to abuse defenses in HEROs as is, I don't mind Bricks needing to buy another one, especially a defense that isn't 100% (although -18 LoW means less than a 0.5% chance of a successful FWeak roll against you).

Your argument against drains or suppress is flawed since Find Weakness does not allow you to affect the CON characteristic. Keeping track of the defense dropped from a drain or suppress will require EXACTLY the same amount of bookeeping as Find Weakness since it also only benifits the character that makes the FW roll.

 

Please read all my posts in this thread. I am not saying that Find Weakness is abusive. In a game that has characters like Superman you will not see Hit Location rules being used as this mechanic is usually considered tedius in combats where high speeds and uniform natural defenses are the norm and not the exception. What I am saying is: that as written in the rules, WITHOUT use of any house rule, the use of Find Weakness AND Hit Locations together is abusive and/or broken.

 

The argument that defenses for bricks is abusive goes against one of the major themes presented in FREd: That defenses should always be cheaper than the effect they defend against. Requiring a 'brick-themed' character to buy lack of weakness in a game that already uses Hit Locations is just as abusive as allowing a NND attack that is only stopped by force fields in a street level heroic game that otherwise only uses 'real' technology like flack jackets and no exotic powers.

 

My argument against using Hit Location rules in conjunction with NON-HOUSERULED Find Weakness boils down to this: No one has yet presented a valid effect that REQUIRES this combination to explain it effectively instead of using other existing power effects like Drains/Suppress or Armor Piercing (possibly as a naked advantage) OR use of existing skill rules like Penalty Skill levels towards Hit Location. Every single effect presented so far on this thread can be and HAS been explained by one of these effects. And EVERY argument presented so far has required a house rule to deal with sectional defenses which makes my case.

[Zanthis]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

Your argument against drains or suppress is flawed since Find Weakness does not allow you to affect the CON characteristic. Keeping track of the defense dropped from a drain or suppress will require EXACTLY the same amount of bookeeping as Find Weakness since it also only benifits the character that makes the FW roll.

My point was, Drains/Suppress can apply to things other than defenses. The proposed limitation: Effects Only Apply Against Me (-X/X) would be okay as long as no one wanted to use it for something other than defenses. However, putting that type of restriction on a limitation is a little out of character for HEROs and it would have to be done in the official rules and not via house rules to avoid the situation I described. Messy, yucky, and all around kludge for the effect intended. Sure, you can remove any power from HEROs and someone will find a way to duplicate its effect with other powers. Doesn't mean you should.

 

What I am saying is: that as written in the rules, WITHOUT use of any house rule, the use of Find Weakness AND Hit Locations together is abusive and/or broken.

Depends on the GM, just like everything else. If you let someone abuse it, then yes. It may be easier to abuse "out of the box" than pentrating or HA, but you wouldn't allow a 1pip RKA, Autofire, 4xPenetrating, AE:One Hex, OAF gun with a +5pts for second equipment so a player could MPA everything to death either.

 

Personally, I see Area Effect:One hex cause more harm than FWeak. It makes OCV and DCV nearly pointless, from the first attack, no skill roll needed and there is no simple defense.

 

The argument that defenses for bricks is abusive goes against one of the major themes presented in FREd: That defenses should always be cheaper than the effect they defend against.

Which I agree with. However, the only reason this does not generate invulnerable defenses are there are too many defenses to max them all. But you'd rather remove LoW. Not that LoW is really that big a point hog, but it is still one extra defense. As is, barring GM fiat, in most games using AP caps becoming nearly invulnerable isn't too hard. Only if you deliberately cap defensive power APs lower than offensive, or don't include manuevers in attack APs, is this not true. I'm skipping your example because I didn't find the comparison at all equivalent.

 

My argument against using Hit Location rules in conjunction with NON-HOUSERULED Find Weakness boils down to this: No one has yet presented a valid effect that REQUIRES this combination to explain it effectively instead of using other existing power effects like Drains/Suppress or Armor Piercing (possibly as a naked advantage) OR use of existing skill rules like Penalty Skill levels towards Hit Location. Every single effect presented so far on this thread can be and HAS been explained by one of these effects. And EVERY argument presented so far has required a house rule to deal with sectional defenses which makes my case.

I can tell from this, and your other posts, that you don't like FWeak in Hit Location games. Fine, don't use it. That's a very simple house rule. Very similar to not allowing EDM. If you are campaigning to get FWeak removed, then I'll thank you to pick something else to campaign on, since I rather like FWeak and don't see a need to have official rules changed to fit your personal house rules, especially when the house rules you need to "fix" this problem are "no FWeakness" and the rules I'd need to fix removal of this power are "Convert FWeakness to a Drain, or Suppress, somehow, that only benefits you...and has a skill roll...plus a few other details I haven't really had a chance to think through yet".

 

Ugh, I feel like I'm trying to build an Astral Form here!

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

My point was, Drains/Suppress can apply to things other than defenses. The proposed limitation: Effects Only Apply Against Me (-X/X) would be okay as long as no one wanted to use it for something other than defenses. However, putting that type of restriction on a limitation is a little out of character for HEROs and it would have to be done in the official rules and not via house rules to avoid the situation I described. Messy, yucky, and all around kludge for the effect intended. Sure, you can remove any power from HEROs and someone will find a way to duplicate its effect with other powers. Doesn't mean you should.

 

 

Depends on the GM, just like everything else. If you let someone abuse it, then yes. It may be easier to abuse "out of the box" than pentrating or HA, but you wouldn't allow a 1pip RKA, Autofire, 4xPenetrating, AE:One Hex, OAF gun with a +5pts for second equipment so a player could MPA everything to death either.

 

Personally, I see Area Effect:One hex cause more harm than FWeak. It makes OCV and DCV nearly pointless, from the first attack, no skill roll needed and there is no simple defense.

 

 

Which I agree with. However, the only reason this does not generate invulnerable defenses are there are too many defenses to max them all. But you'd rather remove LoW. Not that LoW is really that big a point hog, but it is still one extra defense. As is, barring GM fiat, in most games using AP caps becoming nearly invulnerable isn't too hard. Only if you deliberately cap defensive power APs lower than offensive, or don't include manuevers in attack APs, is this not true. I'm skipping your example because I didn't find the comparison at all equivalent.

 

 

I can tell from this, and your other posts, that you don't like FWeak in Hit Location games. Fine, don't use it. That's a very simple house rule. Very similar to not allowing EDM. If you are campaigning to get FWeak removed, then I'll thank you to pick something else to campaign on, since I rather like FWeak and don't see a need to have official rules changed to fit your personal house rules, especially when the house rules you need to "fix" this problem are "no FWeakness" and the rules I'd need to fix removal of this power are "Convert FWeakness to a Drain, or Suppress, somehow, that only benefits you...and has a skill roll...plus a few other details I haven't really had a chance to think through yet".

 

Ugh, I feel like I'm trying to build an Astral Form here!

I find it amusing the way you say that you disagree with me but still have not presented an alternative that does not require house-rules to handle FW+HL+sectional defenses. There is no official rule on this so any change you advocate to handle this is in effect asking for the official rules to be changed as well.

 

I also disagree with your reasoning on the history of FW in the game system as a skill->talent->power when other 'old original' powers have been eliminated do to redundancy in the rules already (regeneration, instant change).

 

Lack of Weakness is cheap but it is all or nothing, either you have some or you don't. Conversly, everything about the description of Find Weakness screams combat manuever. It takes time and has an 'activate roll' built in. No other 'powers' (besides movement) has a minimum time to use or roll to activate in its core descripion like this which further supports the argument that it is not a core 'power' but is instead a construct like a talent or superskill. It was changed from a Talent to Power because it was recognized as being too 'powerfull' for just anyone to get. It was deceivingly powerfull because GM's did not compare it to having at least +8 penalty skill levels vs. hit locations. Most GM's at first glance would probably refuse the +8 vs HL before they disallow Find Weakness even though the first example is 4 points cheaper!

 

Let me repeat one more time, I am not opposed to the use of Find Weakness as a simplified replacement for Hit Location rules. As current rules stand it is a "?" power though so it does require as much consideration by a GM as the alternate constructs that I have already suggested. Imagine if it didn't even have the "?":

Find Weakness is considered a power so it might be argued by a player that he should be able to spend up to the active point cap of the game. 60 points worth of FW in a 350 campaign is a 19- roll which is probably at least a 50/50 shot against anyone short of Dr. Destroyer! Just 2 lucky rolls against him and you have potential for a really wacked combat!

 

If Find Weakness is allowed in a game that already uses Hit Locations it at least demands "stop sign" status and rigorous house rules. But of course, there is nothing "oficial" to this effect yet. Hopefully 6th ed. will address this in a few years.

[sbarron]

Re: Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?

 

I guess what I am really asking is what special effect would explain the effectiveness of a character making his Find Weakness roll vs. a target with sectional defefenses that do not cover hands' date=' head or feet.[/i'] He hits and then makes a location roll for the feet doing 1/2 damage? Conversly, say the attacker misses his Find Weakness roll, hits the target and makes the location roll for the head and does x2 damage?

 

I think you should keep halving armor from FW and modified damage from hit locations seperate. Combining them as you have here is confusing the issue.

 

As others in this thread have pointed out, Find Weakness is not any one thing. One player could make his FW roll to notice gaps in armor plating against one character, fluctuating weak spots in a force field against another, and determining the pace of a third character, allowing the player to time his shot just right for better damage. Actually hitting a weak spot in armor, which seems to be the way you think of FW, is only one possible option. Remember, this is Find Weakness, which isn't necessarily the same as find gaps in armor, or find weak spots in force field. Though it could be, depending on the FX of the defender...

 

Since you asked for an example...

 

An attacker with a bow and FW makes his FW roll. He notices a tendency in the way his opponent with sectional defenses moves in combat, and can take advantage of this fact with his bow. So he attacks and hits his opponent with sectional defenses just as the opponent is moving towards the attack. This increases the amount of energy in the attack and decreases the effectivness of any armor against the attack. So even if the attacker hits the toe or finger, the movement towards the attack still causes any armor to be less effective.