Ranged OK for HKA, not for HA

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Ranged OK for HKA, not for HA

 

To summarise: it doesn't make sense' date=' but you have to live with it.[/quote']

I agree with the first part, but not the second. I DO NOT have to live with it, nor do you or anyone else.

 

Archer: Thank you for your well reasoned thoughts. I agree that this is probably a good chunk of why. Having said that I would still like to have a consistant method...

It seems nobody wants to acknowledge the elephant in the room. You want a consistant method? Make STR cost 2 points per point. Then HA costs 5/d6 (Active and Real), and works analogously and consistantly with HKA, EB, and RKA. This is what I do. It took me a long time to come to this conclusion. I used to be very much opposed to increasing the cost of STR, but I can no longer deny that it is the inevitable conclusion to which logic leads me. And I have found that Bricks are still quite viable in play, so no harm done. It works. Because it is logical and consistant.

 

I realize this is too radical a solution for some (as it once was for me). As an alternative, try Normal Characteristic Maxima - perhaps only applying to STR - that way STR above 20 costs 2/1, with HA continuing to cost 5/d6 regardless of how much you buy.

[JmOz]

Re: Ranged OK for HKA, not for HA

 

I agree with the first part, but not the second. I DO NOT have to live with it, nor do you or anyone else.

 

 

It seems nobody wants to acknowledge the elephant in the room. You want a consistant method? Make STR cost 2 points per point. Then HA costs 5/d6 (Active and Real), and works analogously and consistantly with HKA, EB, and RKA. This is what I do. It took me a long time to come to this conclusion. I used to be very much opposed to increasing the cost of STR, but I can no longer deny that it is the inevitable conclusion to which logic leads me. And I have found that Bricks are still quite viable in play, so no harm done. It works. Because it is logical and consistant.

 

I realize this is too radical a solution for some (as it once was for me). As an alternative, try Normal Characteristic Maxima - perhaps only applying to STR - that way STR above 20 costs 2/1, with HA continuing to cost 5/d6 regardless of how much you buy.

 

That sir, is a misunderstanding of my point. Even if they did the above, it would not fix the issue of one set of rules for HA and another for HKA

[Lightray]

The elephant in the room seems to be the unwritten assumptions people have about how the Hero system "should" be built:

 

1. HA and [Energy Blast] should behave analogously to HKA and RKA.

 

2. 1 DC of damage should cost 5 pts.

 

However, neither one were the route Steve has chosen. #1 is obviously not the case per the rules. #2 has all sorts of exceptions -- HKA and HA add DC from STR so they're more efficient than they should be, TK gets less than 1 DC per 5 pts.

 

Passionate arguements for or against either rationale probably aren't going to get the rules changed. So if we have other ideas on how things should work, we're just going to have to impliment it in our own campaigns.

[Blue Jogger]

Re: Ranged OK for HKA, not for HA

 

[whine]But if Strength is 2 points per 1 than TK will be too cheap.[/whine]

 

Scrawny mentalists will total trash the everloving bricks!

 

Ha! Your 80 STR costs 140 points, but my 80 STR Telekinesis cost me 160 points with the 0 END cost advantage.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Ranged OK for HKA, not for HA

 

My take is that strength costs very little for what it does: adds to secondary characteristics, lets you lift and throw stuff, causes damage in combat, whatever.

 

Now, I know what FRED says (hey, Steve, can we have a pet name for 5ER too? Huh?) but you're better off thinking of HA as EB less range (-1/2) with the advantage Adds Strength (+1/2). Which means that the cost is wrong, but there is no problem adding range to throw a concussive weapon. EB and HA should both be 5 points per 1d6, just like RKA and HKA are 15 points per 1d6.

 

HKA vs RKA is ranged vs Adds Strength. HA vs EB should be exactly the same, and if you can make it illegal in the rules to add range to strength, you can make it illegal to buy strength just to add (direct) damage - strength is already useful enough as it is (I'd probably still allow you to buy strength to use in grabs and escapes - there is no other mechanism to do it - but NOT to cause damage directly). Do damage with a power that is designed to do damage. That's a fix I'd like to see.

 

I'd suggest this as an approach, with the proviso that the Hand Attack receives the advantages of an EB (aside from range), in addition to STR Add and the advantage issue discussed elsewhere. This would mean that a HA could be spread to enhance OCV. and possibly even to target multiple persons in a hex (or multiple hexes, but starting in a HTH hex). A Hand Attack which cannot be spread would receive a -1/4 limitation, making it a bit cheaper than STR or an EB.

 

I imagine that the reason it is not done this way is because it would then cost as much for +1d6 HA as +1d6 STR' date=' and so everyone would buy the STR as you get more utility from it. Now I'm still naïve enough to think that some people will go for concept over powergaming. I mean, who are we kidding anyway: you want to use strength at range, you pick up a rock and throw it, it does STR damage to what it hits (subject to its DEF+BODY total...).[/quote']

 

By shifting the base for HA to EB (which is logical using your "HTH Attack/Ranged Atack" model), and allowing the HA to do things STR cannot (spread), we at least level the playing field somewhat. Even under the current model, why take HA at all when you could take STR - No Figured for the same -1/2 limitation, and get added damage, added leaping, better lifting, stronger grabs, etc.?

 

Don't get me started on throwing things. Sufice to say that I would generally apply penalties for unbalanced and large objjects, non-aerodynamic objects and, beyond very basic objects (such as a baseball) non-proficiency penalties. You don't have WF: Lamppost? Then you're at -3 OCV!

[GreyGuardian]

Re: Ranged OK for HKA, not for HA

 

Those of you having a difficulty in accepting that the official interpretation of the rules are missing something very critical that is in FRED and probably a lot of the other books in some form.

 

page 348 item 8.

 

"You are not required to obey any rule or guideline in this book if you don't want to. If necessary, change them to suit your ideas of how things should work or to arrange the game so you'll have the most fun with it."

 

Steve provides the official standard rules. If you sit down to play a game with new people or at a convention you should be able to assume that the standard rules are in effect unless told explicitly otherwise. If you are running a game do what you want. If you do alter things it is usually a good idea to write down the alteration and make it available to all your players.

 

Looking at it another way: It's a game. Enjoy it however you best enjoy it. Don't be upset that people you have probably never met play the game in a way that disagrees with how you believe you want the game to be written. If this sort of thing really upsets you it might be prudent to re-examine your priorities. (I'm not trying to be mean or say you are wrong or any of those things I am attempting to give advice that I believe is helpful.)

[Rapier]

Re: Ranged OK for HKA, not for HA

 

Maybe I'm just missing something. WHY does 60 AP of HA have to be equal to 60 AP of HKA? If that were the case, get rid of one of them! Hero is full of similar powers with differing effects:

 

30 AP of PD = 30 PD, 0 END

30 AP of Armour = 20 rPD, 0 END

30 AP of FF = 30 rPD, 3 END

 

Campaign setting aside (Policeman: "Hey you! Yes, you with the big bloody sword...c'mere!") HA, EB, STR and HKA all do different things. Their costs are rougly equal, but there is something unique about each one that makes it different from the rest.

 

15 RP = +5 HA - adds to STR damage, but damage only

15 RP = +15 STR - gives you other things (leaping, lifting and lithmatic) including +3d6 HA

15 RP = 3d6 EB - gives you range (and the possibility of spreading)

15 RP = 1d6 HKA - can dish out some real juicy damage (and can be thrown)

 

I have yet to hear any kind of argument that makes me think the system is broken. All attack powers are roughly analogous (sp?). They cost about the same and do about the same kind of damage. Is there some difference in cost vs damage? Yes, as there should be.

 

If you are still concerned that the various attacks are not equal...then get rid of them. Equalise everything. Of course, then we get down to the old saw about Hero only needs 4 powers (EB, Transform, FF and Running).

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Ranged OK for HKA, not for HA

 

That sir' date=' is a misunderstanding of my point. Even if they did the above, it would not fix the issue of one set of rules for HA and another for HKA[/quote']

You said, "...I would still like to have a consistant method..." How does my solution not provide a consistant method?

 

HKA and RKA both do Killing Damage for 15 pts/d6.

HA and EB both do Normal Damage for 5 pts/d6.

HA and HKA both allow you to add your STR.

EB and RKA both work at range.

 

Everything fits together completely consistantly. What inconsistancy do you see?

 

STR costs more (with my [and others'] proposed 2/1 cost), but you get lots of figured characteristics with it and you can do many other things with it as well: grab, disarm, move-by, move-thru, throw stuff, etc.

 

Oh, and I forgot to mention the effect on TK (which we weren't talking about anyway), but if it bothers you that TK at 3/2 is not enough compared to STR at 2/1, despite all the figureds that STR gives you that TK doesn't, then raise the cost of TK to 2/1 also. Thus:

 

STR gives figureds with no range.

TK gives range with no figureds.

 

Is anybody happy now? You don't have to accept these changes in your game, but I at least want you to understand them - why they work and why they are consistant. Likewise, I don't have to accept the written costs in my game, but I do understand why they are the way they are - HA has to be less than STR, and other restrictions (inconsistancies) are placed on the various powers to try to rebalance them.

 

The whole system started with the characteristics. The costs of the powers were based on the costs of STR, etc., and everything was built up from there. The problem is that the cost of STR was never balanced in the first place. It's like trying to build a stable house on an unbalanced foundation. I say, fix the foundation, and everything else falls into place.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Ranged OK for HKA, not for HA

 

Those of you having a difficulty in accepting that the official interpretation of the rules are missing something very critical that is in FRED and probably a lot of the other books in some form.

 

page 348 item 8.

 

"You are not required to obey any rule or guideline in this book if you don't want to. If necessary, change them to suit your ideas of how things should work or to arrange the game so you'll have the most fun with it."

 

Well I'm changing that rule for a start...

[Rapier]

Re: Ranged OK for HKA, not for HA

 

I would have no probs with a non-foci foci (eg the gun with no focus limitation). If they don't want the point break that is fine with me. Heck, I've allowed players to take a OIF Gun, because they didn't want it to get taken away...as often.

 

 

Albeit a non-foci focus is pretty rare. I mean, show me a player that isn't gonna jump at a -1 limitation. Especially when you consider that the highest AP cost is uaually associated with an attack power.

[JmOz]

Re: Ranged OK for HKA, not for HA

 

Phil,

 

Because it does not change the fact that HA & HKA are being treated differently by the rules involving advantages etc...

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Ranged OK for HKA, not for HA

 

So treat them the same. Once they're priced appropriately, they can be treated consistantly without problems. That was my whole point.

[Fitz]

Re: Ranged OK for HKA, not for HA

 

This is an old hobby-horse of mine, but I don't see the need for a separation of HA, HKA, RKA and EB. They could all be easily subsumed under a single power called something blindingly original like "Attack" (or two powers - Physical Attack and Energy Attack, which might be better) which would then be appropriately modified to add STR (or not), be Ranged (or not), do Killing damage (or not). I especially dislike the retaining of the term "Energy Blast" to represent any ranged Normal Damage attack; I feel that it clings too much to Hero's genesis as a Superhero game rather than its present incarnation as a generic all-encompassing system.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Ranged OK for HKA, not for HA

 

I agree Fitz. I think the lables should read:

 

Ranged Attack

Ranged Killing Attack

 

Hand Attack

Hand Killing Attack

 

And I've decided to use Hand Attack as 5pts per D6 with no custom limitation. Stays consistant with the other atttack powers.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Ranged OK for HKA, not for HA

 

I agree Fitz. I think the lables should read:

 

Ranged Attack

Ranged Killing Attack

 

Hand Attack

Hand Killing Attack

 

And I've decided to use Hand Attack as 5pts per D6 with no custom limitation. Stays consistant with the other atttack powers.

 

Yeah, but Bill Hicks would have hated that, so it can't be right. We could call it 'Orange Drink'.