Jump to content

Do you allow Find Weakness in games using Hit Locations?


Recommended Posts

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

 

Here you go...

 

So in the example we were using at the time, the one where Sectional Man had armor on parts of his body but not his hands and feet, obviously the PC with FW would use FW on either the resistant defenses (the armor) or the normal defenses (the hands and feet). If the PC halved the armor, but then hit the hands, the defense of the hands wouldn't be havled.

 

I think the subsequent example you came up, the helmet with FW, may be flawed. Lack of Weakness's description starts "a character with Lack of Weakness is tough - it's harder for an opponent to find a weakness in his defenses." Buying FW for specific pieces of armor might be taking FW and LoW too far. Finding weaknesses or having a lack of weaknessnes seems to deal in characters total resistant or total normal defenses, not in specific peices of armor. I think I would rule that you couldn't have sections of armor with LoW and others without. PCs either have LoW or they do not. The problems you are having with find weakness now are because you are trying to make LoW only apply to sections of armor, and only with an activation roll. If the character had LoW for all defenses, without an activation roll, there wouldn't be a problem. But that's me. I haven't seen an official ruling on this, so maybe you can have sections of LoW armor.

 

As a quick aside, having full suites of fitted armor have some LoW might be a good way to encourage PCs to not put together piecemeal suits of armor. But that is for another thread...

 

If you can have sectional LoW, then I'm going to agree again with Zanthis and also Dust Raven. I think you make the rolls when the FW is used, and just make a note of it.

Ok, back on resistant vs. non-resistant again...

 

I covered your example with an alternate football helmet example that did NOT provide resistant defenses. Since that didn't help let's assume that both Sectional Man and Activate man also posses FULL Damage Resistance on their normal PD and ED. The armored helmet adds to this but is not a 'different' type of resistant or non-resistant defense. So your flawed argument breaks down even further. Anyway, the solution that you present IS a house rule so you in effect are conceding the point I''ve been making all along.

 

edit..

One additinal point about taking Lack of Weakness too far. If it is legitimate to build Find Weakness as part of a Focus, which there is no rule against, it has to be legal to build the defense into one too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

 

Ok, back on resistant vs. non-resistant again...

 

I covered your example with an alternate football helmet example that did NOT provide resistant defenses. Since that didn't help let's assume that both Sectional Man and Activate man also posses FULL Damage Resistance on their normal PD and ED. The armored helmet adds to this but is not a 'different' type of resistant or non-resistant defense. So your flawed argument breaks down even further. Anyway, the solution that you present IS a house rule so you in effect are conceding the point I''ve been making all along.

 

edit..

One additinal point about taking Lack of Weakness too far. If it is legitimate to build Find Weakness as part of a Focus, which there is no rule against, it has to be legal to build the defense into one too.

 

How does it being a football helmet change anything? All resistant defenses, or all normal defenses, are affected by FW. If it's a football helmet that provides additional normal defenses, then the PC with FW would have to use FW on the normal defenses to halve them. I don't see how that changes anything, much less make my argument "break down."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Armor provides resistant & normal defenses. When you wear a helmet, it protects you from a fist just as easily as it does from a bullet.

 

When you use Find Weakness against, the defense that would apply to the attak you are using would be halved, be that the total of his Armor plus normal, or just his armor. Of course, the FAQ now raises more questions than it answers...

 

If you have to make rolls seperately, does each type of defense count seperately for failing a roll? If I have Find Weakness with Martial Arts and I make a roll versus Resistant Defenses ('cuz I'm using a sword) and fail, can I then start making rolls versus Normal Defenses because they apparently so apparently different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Let's use the same example without using Hit Location rules:

Activate Man's Helmet provides 8 defense hardened and 8 points lack of weakness and ALL OF IT is on an activate roll (8-?, 6-, 5- the number does not matter). Regardless of whether FWman chooses to target resistant or normal defenses, the determinaton of whether my helmet works against his roll can't be determined until MY activate roll is made.

 

 

Yes this sounds clunky but is perfectly legal within current rules...

Let's also clarify the lack of weakness as being linked to the Armored 'helmet' which is the only power that took the activate roll limitation. The FAQ states that both powers are controlled by the single activate roll. Also, I did not define the special effect of Lack of Weakness in either example as only applying to the defenses of the armor itself. I want the armor to provide its FULL protection to the areas of my character's body that it covers. Am I asking for an effect that is too complicated?? I don't think so but it is in direct conflict with your interpretation of the Sectional Man example.

 

If this is not a clear example of what is redundant about using FW and HL rules together, then it is at least an example of how they are clunkier when used together than when not.

It's not so much a not clear example, as it is an irrelavent one. In a campaign that is not using Hit Locations, sectional defenses aren't usually allowed. What you have here is a perfect example of why. How would I adjucate it? I wouldn't. I wouldn't even allow a character to have the Power. Either buy an entire suit like that or not at all. It's how the system is supposed to work when not using Hit Locations.

 

That being said, we can look at all the Powers in your example as if they don't have SFX. Then it's simple. Just do what the mechanics say. Personally, I'd require the Lack of Weakness and Armor to have seperate activation rolls, because they are used at different times under different circumstances. When the attacker makes his FW roll, theres a chance the target's LoW will apply. Regardless of that outcome, every time an attack hits, there's a chance the target's Armor will apply. If the FW roll was made (with or without the LoW activating), the Armor (if it activates) will be halved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Maybe an example in a campaign using hit locations:

Armor Boy:

PD 2, ED 2

#1 Armor 4rPD/4rED, Activation 15-, OAF: Body Suit

#2 Lack of Weakness -2, OAF: Body Suit (NOT LINKED: Just in same focus)

#3 Armor 12rPD/12rED, Sectional: Protects 10-13, OAF: Breast Plate

#4 Lack of Weakness -3, Linked to above, OAF: Breast Plate

Now, Ninja Boy (who has Find Weakness with his Martial Strike at 11-) decides to teach Armor Boy a lesson and jumps him after school. He begins by using his Find Weakness power. He must now choose which defense he wishes to target with his find weakness: normal, resistant, power defense, etc. He chooses resistant defenses (even though his Martial Strike is just normal damage) figuring that most of Armor Boy's defenses will be resistant.

 

Now, before rolling for Find Weakness, we must total up the LoW present. Power #1 is not LoW so is ignored. Power #2 is LoW and has no activation roll even though it is in the same focus as Power #1 which does have an activation roll. So that's a -2 penalty on the FWeakness roll so far. Next, power #3. Power #3 is not LoW so is ignored. Lastly, Power #4 which is LoW. However, it is Linked to Power #3, so we need to make sure Power #3 applies in this situation. Well, is Power #3 "activated" in this situation? Yes, because it has resistant defenses and that is what Find Weakness is targeting in this case. Since Power #3 is "activated" (or "hit" if you prefer) the Linked LoW (Power #4) applies resulting in an additional -3 LoW for a total of -5 to the roll. If Ninja Boy makes his roll, all Armor Boy's resistant defenses will be halved, ending up at 2rPD/2rED and 6rPD/6rED for Powers #1 and #3 respectively.

 

If Ninja Boy had targeted Normal Defenses instead, only Power #2 would have reduced the Find Weakness roll. While the LoW penalty would be lower, it would only halve Armor Boy's natural PD and ED since those are his only Normal Defenses, resulting in 1 PD and 1 ED.

 

If Power #2 had been Linked to Power #1 instead of just occupying the same focus, an activation roll would have been made on the Armor (Power #1) and if successful would have allowed the LoW (Power #2) to function against the Find Weakness.

 

I hope that makes it clear. I can't think of anything else to try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Maybe an example in a campaign using hit locations:

Armor Boy:

PD 2, ED 2

#1 Armor 4rPD/4rED, Activation 15-, OAF: Body Suit

#2 Lack of Weakness -2, OAF: Body Suit (NOT LINKED: Just in same focus)

#3 Armor 12rPD/12rED, Sectional: Protects 10-13, OAF: Breast Plate

#4 Lack of Weakness -3, Linked to above, OAF: Breast Plate

Now, Ninja Boy (who has Find Weakness with his Martial Strike at 11-) decides to teach Armor Boy a lesson and jumps him after school. He begins by using his Find Weakness power. He must now choose which defense he wishes to target with his find weakness: normal, resistant, power defense, etc. He chooses resistant defenses (even though his Martial Strike is just normal damage) figuring that most of Armor Boy's defenses will be resistant.

This is not a smart decsion. Armor provides resistant and normal defenses. If the attack you use with Find Weakness if a normal damage strike, you will still reduce the targets total defenses (normal plus resistant), though he'll still have his full resistant defenses if you switch attacks (to a martial killing strike, for example). What's more, because the attack you are making isn't applied to resistant defenses, the target will have his full defense against your normal damage attack, regardless of what your Find Weakness roll is.

Now, before rolling for Find Weakness, we must total up the LoW present. Power #1 is not LoW so is ignored. Power #2 is LoW and has no activation roll even though it is in the same focus as Power #1 which does have an activation roll. So that's a -2 penalty on the FWeakness roll so far. Next, power #3. Power #3 is not LoW so is ignored. Lastly, Power #4 which is LoW. However, it is Linked to Power #3, so we need to make sure Power #3 applies in this situation. Well, is Power #3 "activated" in this situation? Yes, because it has resistant defenses and that is what Find Weakness is targeting in this case. Since Power #3 is "activated" (or "hit" if you prefer) the Linked LoW (Power #4) applies resulting in an additional -3 LoW for a total of -5 to the roll. If Ninja Boy makes his roll, all Armor Boy's resistant defenses will be halved, ending up at 2rPD/2rED and 6rPD/6rED for Powers #1 and #3 respectively.

As I said in a previously, you need only apply the "linked" LoW retroactively. If the ninja fails the roll completely, there's nothing to worry about. If he succeeds past all possibly penalties, there is also no problem. If he makes it by just enough to secceed normally, but not enough to make it past the linked LoW, you can just say all the defenses besides those are halved, and let the player know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Maybe an example in a campaign using hit locations:

Armor Boy:

PD 2, ED 2

#1 Armor 4rPD/4rED, Activation 15-, OAF: Body Suit

#2 Lack of Weakness -2, OAF: Body Suit (NOT LINKED: Just in same focus)

#3 Armor 12rPD/12rED, Sectional: Protects 10-13, OAF: Breast Plate

#4 Lack of Weakness -3, Linked to above, OAF: Breast Plate

LOL!! Your example is hillariously flawed!

 

Look in FREd on page 181 in the first paragraph desccribing Activate Rolls:

"... Examples include Armor which covers only part of the body,..."

So Armor Boy has a dual personality :Activate Boy AND Sectional Boy??

 

OAF: Body Suit with an activate roll defined with Armor as the special effect must be tranlated to a hit location coverage for every instance of Armor if you are going to use the same special effect for 2 instances of Armor in a game that uses Hit Locations.

 

 

 

Back to FW vs normal or resistant ONE MORE TIME....

 

on page 113 of FRED in the first paragraph of the writeup it states:

 

...a character with this Power may reduce his target's appropriate defense by half....

Let's take a character who has a normal 8PD and wears Armor that provides 8rPD. Typical Agent from several Champions suppliments. If I want to attack him with a punch the appropriate defense total is 16. If I decide to use Find Weakness vs. his normal defenses this is the Defense that is potentially going to be halved, NOT just his base 8PD. The FAQ spells this out as clear as day:

 

1. The target’s Normal Defenses (PD or ED,
including Damage Resistance).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Let's step away from the point vs. counter-point debate for one sec...

 

If a GM chooses to use the Hit Location Rules in Addition to the Find Weakness rules it seems very very very likely that he is making this decision to add an additional layer of realism to his game.

 

That being said, my realistic description of Sectional Man's armored helmet is intended to protect the head from any attacks that hit that location. A punch to his head will have his normal defense, say 8PD, plus that of the armor, 8rPD, for a total of 16 defense that will be applied against the damage of my attack. A bullet to the head will have only his 8rPD applied against the damage. If a character attempts to make a Find Weakness roll against normal defenses and no Lack of Weakness is involved he will be attempting to reduce the total defense of 16 down to 8.

 

Additional clarificaton:

Let's assume that there are 2 seperate Lack of Weakness bonuses built into Sectional Man's Helmet. -8 for his normal defenses AND -8 for his resistant defenses.

 

Now if Find Weakness Man makes a FW attempt against Sectional Man how do you resolve roll without using Location first? See if he makes his unmodified roll and then check this against the -8 Lack of Weakness if he hits Sectional Man in the Head??

 

That sounds about as complicated as the Schrodenger's Cat paradox in quantum physics. Player to GM "So, did I make my Find Weakness roll?" GM to player "We won't know until you open the box er.. determine where your attack hits". and this determination does not necessarily take place on the same phase.

 

This clearly makes Find Weakness dependent on the results of the Hit Location resolution.

 

That is of course assuming that the whole reason that you want to use the 2 different mechanics together is to add realism to your game....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Okay, I give up. I just got off work and my eyes hurt, so for now I'm just gonna skip the previous page or so of posts. So here's hoping I don't turn into a donky or something...

 

Here's what I see (not yet looking at the FAQ, which I find confusing): The mechanics of Find Weakness and Hit Locations aren't mutually exclusive. It's only when you start applying SFX to Find Weakness that there seems to be a problem. The problem would be the SFX being used.

 

At this point, it's becomes a matter of reasoning from effect, and the Find Weakness would need to be built differently (either with Modifiers, or with other Powers).

 

As for proving the functionality of combinging Find Weakness with Hit Locations (with or without Sectional Defenses), that's easy. If the attacker makes his roll, the target's defenses are halved. He rolls to hit. If successfull, he rolls hit location, and the defenses of that location are halved. No problem.

 

Unfortunately, I don't have any examples of Find Weakness in a game that used Hit Locations and Sectional Defenses, but I can probably come up with one (I'm co-running such a campaign, all I need to do is add Find Weakness). There is a ninja character in my Champions game with Find Weakness defines as a spell he uses to allow his physical attacks to partially ignore a target's defenses. I suppose this particular SFX wouldn't have any conflict with sectional defenses, but I haven't tested it in such a situation.

 

Now... Have I missed anything? :think:

I think this sums it up well. One important corollary is that the SFX must match the "SFX" of the campaign. If a campaign has an assumption that you don't target locations, FW is then allowed to make its SFX "I find the part of the body it will hurt most in." As has been said, Sectional Defenses mess with this and I get Hyper-man's point, it's a good one. But it really is because SecDefs really do interplay messily with these SFX.

 

Now in a campaign where Hit Locations are normal, the SFX "I find the part of the body" makes no real sense. You must modify that to either "when I hit a part of the body I bring this to bear to find the weakest part within" or move on to other variations.

 

But in any event, the explanation for hitting some Sectional Defense or Hit Location that you wouldn't think an FW as described above would be targetted at seems simple to me. It's such as "He moved at the last minute, you adjusted your shot and did the best you could" or "As you shoot you realize that the area you aimed at wasn't going to get a clear enough shot and you made a last minute change, doing what damage you could" or "You missed but subconsciously your mind adjusted to do as much damage as it could as it realized it was missing." Or other such.

 

This topic is interesting as we just tonight played a game where a character uses FW and Hit Locations are in use. I think it's okay. Naturally it can be devastating but to me it seems it should be, it simulates such fictional occurrences well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

This clearly makes Find Weakness dependent on the results of the Hit Location resolution.

 

That is of course assuming that the whole reason that you want to use the 2 different mechanics together is to add realism to your game....

I'm thinking you're making this more complicated than it has to be, HM. Seriously. Ultimately what you are doing is building a Power that is dependant upon a previous determination that actually has nothing to do with the SFX of the Power. You might as well be writing up a +4 DCV Only Versus Attacks That Hit The Head (and then include the possibility of rolling a 3-5 on the HL chart). Mathematically, you can't do this. It's impossible. The cleanest solution would be to disallow such constructs. But if you want a way to still allow for it, you have to get a little fuzzy on he success/failure of a Find Weakness roll.

 

You don't make a FW roll for each attack. You don't even half to attack after making one, no matter if you succeed or fail. The FW roll has absolutely nothing to do with actually attacking. It might affect the results of how much damage the target takes, but that's it. And once you make a roll, the effects of that roll last the entire combat, not just for the next attack.

 

Just assume the LoW penalties don't apply until the attack hits, and then apply them retroactively if the attack hits the affected location (and be fair by still halving defenses in other locations and letting the attacker know the head wasn't halved). It's really the only solve you're gonna find that actually works besides disallowing sectional LoW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

...cliped....

Just assume the LoW penalties don't apply until the attack hits, and then apply them retroactively if the attack hits the affected location (and be fair by still halving defenses in other locations and letting the attacker know the head wasn't halved). It's really the only solve you're gonna find that actually works besides disallowing sectional LoW.

Ok, I admit I am making this complicated and I am sorry If I am beating a dead horse.

 

.....let the beating begin... :doi:

 

Your solution works if only One attempt is made to Find Weakness against Sectional Man.

 

But If you don't apply the penalties until the attack hits and location is determined how do you determine if a Second Find Weakness attempt (at -2) is even possible? Like the Block and Multiple Move By maneuvers Find Weakness can be attempted multiple times until you fail a roll versus that target during that combat. Treating his helmet as a separate target seems to violate the spirit of those rules.

 

Also, this problem does not come up vs. Activate Man's helmet in the Non Hit Location Universe since the activate roll is made as soon as Find Weakness is attempted.

 

If Activate Man's helmet fails to activate vs. the Find Weakness attempt AND the attempt to Find Weakness succeeds, any subsequent hits against Activate Man do not have to make another activate roll for the armor since the linked nature of the Lack of Weakness and Armor means that you have found a weak spot somewhere on Activate Man besides that protected by the helmet and can target that spot until the combat is over.

 

A second Find Weakness attempt would trigger the Activate roll on the Lack of Weakness again but even if the activate roll is sucessful AND the second Find Weakness attempt fails, Find Weakness Man's attacks still apply vs. no more than half of Activate Man's defenses other than those provided by his helmet. If the second Find Weakness roll is successful when the helmet's Lack of Weakness did activate then Find Weakness Man could choose between 1/2 of Activate Man's non-helmet defenses or 1/4 of his defenses including his helmet's armor. (at this point the applied defense would be 4PD in either case based on 8PD and 8rPD for the armor). There are several different ways this can map out but the main distinction is that it happens instantaneously and in your method of dealing with Sectional Man in the Hit Location Universe does not which causes the problem.

 

I admit this problem can easily be fixed by house ruling that states that Lack of Weakness cannot be put into a focus or have and activate roll but then your have to make an equivalent ruling vs. Find Weakness. That rule appears to be more arbritary than disallowing Find Weakness with Hit Locations since special Senses can normally be made as part of a Focus. And it also feels less realistic IMO.

 

But truth be told, that is all irrelevant with regard to my original intent when starting this thread: to discuss the NON-house rule interractions of FW + HL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

[/indent]LOL!! Your example is hillariously flawed!

So let me get this straight. You completely missed the entire point of an example of the difference between Sectional and an Activation roll? I'm sorry you couldn't let the example help you. At this point, I can only assume you have no interest in seeing how Find Weakness works with Hit Locations. You've made up your mind. I'd recommend you just don't use the two together.

 

The FAQ spells this out as clear as day:

 

1. The target’s Normal Defenses (PD or ED,
including Damage Resistance).

Too bad you didn't quote #2, here let me do it for you:

2. The target’s Resistant Defenses (such as
Armor
or Force Field). However, Find Weakness has no effect on Damage Reduction unless the GM specifically permits this.

Notice how in point #1 it says Damage Resistance, which is a power, a power that Armor Boy doesn't happen to have btw. And how in point #2 contains a power that Armor Boy most certainly does have, called Armor. Maybe the FAQ just confusing on this point. I could be wrong.

 

Enjoy your gaming, no hard feelings, have fun! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

This is a fairly reasonable way to handle it, but I still think it is worse than a -0.

 

OTOH, I have for a long time wanted to make a character whose attacks are only moderate, but he has find weakness, only versus metallic defenses or not versus organic defenses. . He can perceive the structure of metals. A similar one could be done for any other kind, of course. He doesn't do too well against unarmored people, animals, trees, etc. But robots he shreds, People in metallic armor fear him. Buildings are more easily leveled.

 

In a campaign with hit locations' date=' 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.[/quote']
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

JMO

 

I'm not sure you can match the effect. with limits on increasing damage classes due to levels, strength, etc, If you are targetting a true brick, you may just NOT be able to affect them unless you have find weakness. WITH Find weakness, you can make a character who CAN hurt anyone, eventually. I suppose you could give them a Suppress defenses power, but since defenses resist at double value...

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

IMO each of those limits should be more like a -1.

 

On the drain, only versus me, it reminds me of the time MANY years ago that the Black Enchantress or some such villainess drained my characters Ego to ZERO Only versus her, then mind controlled me to be in love with her. Old rules, what can you do with INFINITE multiples?

 

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

But If you don't apply the penalties until the attack hits and location is determined how do you determine if a Second Find Weakness attempt (at -2) is even possible? Like the Block and Multiple Move By maneuvers Find Weakness can be attempted multiple times until you fail a roll versus that target during that combat. Treating his helmet as a separate target seems to violate the spirit of those rules.

I tend to think that your construct violates the spirit of the rules. What you are effectively doing, in all your examples, is applying LoW as if it were a defense, which it is not.

 

But the book says...

...so what? LoW is not a defense. It doesn't work like a defense. Every other Defense Power subtracts it's value from an effect roll. LoW adds it's value as a penalty to a Skill Roll. It's nothing more than glorified Negative Skill Levels. The only reason LoW is listed with Defense Powers is to group it with those things that take half effect from Adjustment Powers (the same applies to Missile Deflection for the same reasons). It's not designed to be used with sectional defenses, and if you want to use it that way, you might as well bend the spirit of the rules as long as you're giving it a little twist.

 

Sorry if I'm sounding harsh, I'm supposed to be on your side, especialle because I think you're right. I'm just trying to make sure we got the mechanics down (rather than the terminology) before this dead horse get's pissed and eats our souls (wi-i-i-il-ber).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Ok, I admit I am making this complicated and I am sorry If I am beating a dead horse.

 

.....let the beating begin... :doi:

 

Your solution works if only One attempt is made to Find Weakness against Sectional Man.

 

But If you don't apply the penalties until the attack hits and location is determined how do you determine if a Second Find Weakness attempt (at -2) is even possible? Like the Block and Multiple Move By maneuvers Find Weakness can be attempted multiple times until you fail a roll versus that target during that combat. Treating his helmet as a separate target seems to violate the spirit of those rules.

 

Also, this problem does not come up vs. Activate Man's helmet in the Non Hit Location Universe since the activate roll is made as soon as Find Weakness is attempted.

 

If Activate Man's helmet fails to activate vs. the Find Weakness attempt AND the attempt to Find Weakness succeeds, any subsequent hits against Activate Man do not have to make another activate roll for the armor since the linked nature of the Lack of Weakness and Armor means that you have found a weak spot somewhere on Activate Man besides that protected by the helmet and can target that spot until the combat is over.

 

A second Find Weakness attempt would trigger the Activate roll on the Lack of Weakness again but even if the activate roll is sucessful AND the second Find Weakness attempt fails, Find Weakness Man's attacks still apply vs. no more than half of Activate Man's defenses other than those provided by his helmet. If the second Find Weakness roll is successful when the helmet's Lack of Weakness did activate then Find Weakness Man could choose between 1/2 of Activate Man's non-helmet defenses or 1/4 of his defenses including his helmet's armor. (at this point the applied defense would be 4PD in either case based on 8PD and 8rPD for the armor). There are several different ways this can map out but the main distinction is that it happens instantaneously and in your method of dealing with Sectional Man in the Hit Location Universe does not which causes the problem.

 

I admit this problem can easily be fixed by house ruling that states that Lack of Weakness cannot be put into a focus or have and activate roll but then your have to make an equivalent ruling vs. Find Weakness. That rule appears to be more arbritary than disallowing Find Weakness with Hit Locations since special Senses can normally be made as part of a Focus. And it also feels less realistic IMO.

 

But truth be told, that is all irrelevant with regard to my original intent when starting this thread: to discuss the NON-house rule interractions of FW + HL.

 

Good discussion, and I guess I missed some of the point in my prior post, sorry.

 

As to this point, I think you're bleeding somewhat into the unsteady ground that occurs whenever SFX seem to trump the "generic" game mechanics. If I may...

 

so we're saying Activate Man has a LoW based on his helmet and applicable to that area only, correct?

 

So I use FW and make a shot. First, what is my FW based on? Is it strictly on finding the "right" place to hit, a place with fewer defenses? Meaning then that SFX-wise, I must be locating a spot that I can make my shot on. Now comes another question - is this a placed shot or will it just hit "wherever" after my FW and successful attack roll?

 

If it's a placed shot and if my FW was against that, we might want to presume then that this FW cannot be reused against other parts of the body. That seems to me to fall into what Long discusses where he has often said that SFX trumps rules. Although I wouldn't play it this way, I'd understand a GM who did, though then I'd have to request that my FW gets a small Limitation (-1/4) as it will always be hampered in its use against a character if there are placed shots and if (as implied) this campaign will often have such occurrences.

 

If it's not a placed shot really we can apply the same logic post-hit location determination then but we have a bit of a conundrum as you've implied as to whether the FW must then be executed against the same spot. I'd let the GM decide but if the GM decides this works the same as the placed shot above my reaction would be the same. But the other interpretation may be that the PC simply hit the spot that presented itself with a weakness at that moment in time. Then we have a question as to whether these SFX in a hit locations world really mean that the results of the FW should be able to be repeatable even! After all, if it's THAT specific perhaps the FW should be performed each and every time. And if THAT is the case, it's a clear limitation by the rules since that is not how FW works.

 

Which then returns us to what I think is a central point: if FW will not function as written then it must have a limitation, whether -0 or -1/4 or greater. That means any construct or interpretation such that FW is no longer repeatable against a character as opposed to a location for FW necessarily carries a limitation!

 

However, I think if we're discussing an FW as presented by the rulebook, the power of FW is finding a weakness in the character target not a location. As such, unless my SFX are to the contrary (and then I am implying a limitation really), I'm really finding a weakness in how the target moves/fights/is decked out, not necessarily a singular chink in his armor. In that event location be damned! My first hit happened to hit the head and halve his helmet because I noticed he zigs after he zags and I could hit his head dead-on, reducing how effective his helmet is against the typical not-dead-on blows (for instance). My second hit is no less valid against his foot, wherever I can land my blow I do so with precision.

 

At least that's my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

For those interested, you can find some basic Q&A on Find Weakness with examples answered by Steve himself here. It doesn't go into Activation rolls or sectional defenses because I didn't want to get into the hard stuff if it turned out I was misunderstanding the easy stuff :) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

For those interested' date=' you can find some basic Q&A on Find Weakness with examples answered by Steve himself here. It doesn't go into Activation rolls or sectional defenses because I didn't want to get into the hard stuff if it turned out I was misunderstanding the easy stuff :) .

 

This is good to know. Your examples in the link are how I have been doing FW. There was an example earlier that calculated what and how to halve defenses differently, and it made me doubt my method. Thanks, Zanthis.

 

Now if we could just figure out whether you can have sectional and limited activation roll LoW, we'd be all set. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

For those interested' date=' you can find some basic Q&A on Find Weakness with examples answered by Steve himself here. It doesn't go into Activation rolls or sectional defenses because I didn't want to get into the hard stuff if it turned out I was misunderstanding the easy stuff :) .

 

Zanthas, please accept my appologies, :o

 

I finally realized that I was misreading the easy stuff yesterday. The FREd writup of FW stating that a charcter with only Damage Resistance has only "normal" defenses with respect to FW is a bit confusing and almost seems arbritary by the nature of the terminology being used. The fact that the cost of equivalent levels of resistant defense cost the same if bought straight with Armor or Damage Resistance adds to this.

 

To add to this confusion I found a superteam in the UNTIL Defenders of Freedom sourcebook that has one member with Find Weakness and another one with levels only usable for hit locations!

 

one has:

30 Weak Spot Calculation: Find Weakness 15- with Blaster

 

the other one has:

18 Precise Strikes: +6 versus Hit Locations modifiers with All Attacks

 

I still think they are both 2 different expressions of the same special effect in the same way that Images could be used to express a different mechanic for Invisibility. I have not found an example character that had both abilities yet though. So maybe that is the unwritten balancing mechanic that we should all be aware of.

 

Interrestingly,

I also found an example in the playtest doc of Dark Champions of Lack of Weakness OIF (-1) a trenchcoat worn on top of other Armor , the Idea being that the person using Find Weakness has to see the defenses (Armor) that he is attempting to reduce in effectiveness.

 

An interresting point that Zornwil raised made me come up with the following: If you accept the quasi-hit location nature of Find Weakness and then make a comparison to true Hit Location rules it stands out that Find Weakness is almost like putting an Uncontrolled Advantage on the Hit Location Roll. Once you succeed at FW, if you hit the target again you hit the same weak spot every time.

 

Again, I appologize to everyone I may have offended since I did not research this subject anywhere near to the level of detail that I should have before taking such a hard line on flawed interpretation of rules specifics. :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Zanthas, please accept my appologies, :o

 

I finally realized that I was misreading the easy stuff yesterday. The FREd writup of FW stating that a charcter with only Damage Resistance has only "normal" defenses with respect to FW is a bit confusing and almost seems arbritary by the nature of the terminology being used. The fact that the cost of equivalent levels of resistant defense cost the same if bought straight with Armor or Damage Resistance adds to this.

 

To add to this confusion I found a superteam in the UNTIL Defenders of Freedom sourcebook that has one member with Find Weakness and another one with levels only usable for hit locations!

 

one has:

30 Weak Spot Calculation: Find Weakness 15- with Blaster

 

the other one has:

18 Precise Strikes: +6 versus Hit Locations modifiers with All Attacks

 

I still think they are both 2 different expressions of the same special effect in the same way that Images could be used to express a different mechanic for Invisibility. I have not found an example character that had both abilities yet though. So maybe that is the unwritten balancing mechanic that we should all be aware of.

 

Interrestingly,

I also found an example in the playtest doc of Dark Champions of Lack of Weakness OIF (-1) a trenchcoat worn on top of other Armor , the Idea being that the person using Find Weakness has to see the defenses (Armor) that he is attempting to reduce in effectiveness.

 

An interresting point that Zornwil raised made me come up with the following: If you accept the quasi-hit location nature of Find Weakness and then make a comparison to true Hit Location rules it stands out that Find Weakness is almost like putting an Uncontrolled Advantage on the Hit Location Roll. Once you succeed at FW, if you hit the target again you hit the same weak spot every time.

 

Again, I appologize to everyone I may have offended since I did not research this subject anywhere near to the level of detail that I should have before taking such a hard line on flawed interpretation of rules specifics. :eek:

You're too nice, Hyper-Man, no need for such an apology, it's cool. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

For those interested' date=' you can find some basic Q&A on Find Weakness with examples answered by Steve himself here. It doesn't go into Activation rolls or sectional defenses because I didn't want to get into the hard stuff if it turned out I was misunderstanding the easy stuff :) .

Steve's answer confused me, and if I read it correctly it means I've been handling Find Weakness incorrectly from the start and some of my previous posts need ammending. I posted a clarification question that will hopefully clear this up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...