New advantage "Scour"

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: New advantage "Scour"

 

Off hand I think this is an answer to the question no one ever asked. Except those who lost control of what is and is not allowed in their game in the first place.

 

For a HERO design philosophy it comes across even worse. If you want to do an attack with two very different affects- linked and combo powers are the means to do it- not a new advantage that breaks new ground.

 

Wow...

I'm frankly amazed to hear that from you. We may have butted foreheads occasionaly, but with your dedication to combat realism I expected that you would see the value in an attack that has a collateral, burn through effect on defences that is directly tied to the amount of body inflicted.

Not intended as a jibe, BTW... I am honestly really just suprised.

[prestidigitator]

Re: New advantage "Scour"

 

I had another idea. You could use a Find Weakness that is Usable by Others and has a reasonably high roll (say 18-). Then make it usable to the number of people who could reasonably attack the target at any point in time, give it Ranged, and be done. Instead of buying up the number of users, you could give the roll another +10 and just call it an, "Extraordinary Effect."

 

Now apply Gradual Effect to the Find Weakness (maybe a minute), and add a Limitation, "Duration of Gradual Effect Only Elapses When Linked Power Hits (-1)." It may be slightly funky mechanic-wise, but it is an interesting idea.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: New advantage "Scour"

 

I had another idea. You could use a Find Weakness that is Usable by Others and has a reasonably high roll (say 18-). Then make it usable to the number of people who could reasonably attack the target at any point in time, give it Ranged, and be done. Instead of buying up the number of users, you could give the roll another +10 and just call it an, "Extraordinary Effect."

 

Now apply Gradual Effect to the Find Weakness (maybe a minute), and add a Limitation, "Duration of Gradual Effect Only Elapses When Linked Power Hits (-1)." It may be slightly funky mechanic-wise, but it is an interesting idea.

The fools call me mad, but I'll show them! I'll show them ALL!!!!

Muwahahahahahahah.

Congradulations Dr Frankenstein, uh, Presitdigitaor on the creation of your monster, uh... new construct

That is far and away one of the most sideways ideas I've seen in forever.

Bloody amazing peice of Rules-jitsu

[prestidigitator]

Re: New advantage "Scour"

 

The fools call me mad, but I'll show them! I'll show them ALL!!!!

Muwahahahahahahah.

Congradulations Dr Frankenstein, uh, Presitdigitaor on the creation of your monster, uh... new construct

That is far and away one of the most sideways ideas I've seen in forever.

Bloody amazing peice of Rules-jitsu

Aww, shucks. T'weren't nothin', really. I don't think no ways but sideways, really. Well, maybe upside-down now and then. It's awful tricky keeping the ol' ticker working while on yer feet ya know.

[Dust Raven]

Re: New advantage "Scour"

 

Off hand I think this is an answer to the question no one ever asked. Except those who lost control of what is and is not allowed in their game in the first place.

 

For a HERO design philosophy it comes across even worse. If you want to do an attack with two very different affects- linked and combo powers are the means to do it- not a new advantage that breaks new ground.

 

Who are you and what have you done with Fox1?

 

I whole heartedly agree, things like this should normally just use the existing mechanics of the rules and leave it at that. In the case of a highly specific genre, which is the only place this modifier is to be used and to a limited degree at that, why not save some ink?

 

Not to be an ass or anything, but as sane as this suggestion of your is, it seems strange coming from someone who's all but completely rewritten the rules for weapons and armed combat.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: New advantage "Scour"

 

I'll have to suggest scour and play around with it abit, but i'd say +1, only to a specific hit location (Because we use sectional armor and hit locations) and goes up to +1 1/2 if applied with autofire because that can get really dangerous really fast

 

"ok guys you hold him, i'll hit him with the scour bullets"

 

again this should be one of those things where you need more lvls of scour than they have hardend

 

I think that the way i'd run it with FF and FW, is that you could have scour effect one of those, built when you make the char, so i could have 2 lvls of scour, one on armor and one on FF, and then if i hit someone with a hardened armor but not FF i still hurt the FF, but it's really really expensive to do so (which it should be)

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: New advantage "Scour"

 

I'll have to suggest scour and play around with it abit, but i'd say +1, only to a specific hit location (Because we use sectional armor and hit locations) and goes up to +1 1/2 if applied with autofire because that can get really dangerous really fast

 

"ok guys you hold him, i'll hit him with the scour bullets"

 

again this should be one of those things where you need more lvls of scour than they have hardend

 

I think that the way i'd run it with FF and FW, is that you could have scour effect one of those, built when you make the char, so i could have 2 lvls of scour, one on armor and one on FF, and then if i hit someone with a hardened armor but not FF i still hurt the FF, but it's really really expensive to do so (which it should be)

 

I like that idea a lot. Thanks Roy.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: New advantage "Scour"

 

oh i forgot, this is best in a heroic game so that players can buy new equipment as bullets shredd it, beware in superheroic!

[Fox1]

Re: New advantage "Scour"

 

Not to be an ass or anything' date=' but as sane as this suggestion of your is, it seems strange coming from someone who's all but completely rewritten the rules for weapons and armed combat. [/quote']

 

From a construction rule PoV, the only change I made for weapons and armed combat was the addition of a more detailed armor effect limit. One that HERO almost had at one time itself.

 

Other than that, I use the same powers and same construction rules. Only the DCs have changed.

 

Compared to 'Scour', it's far less involved and not a new direction. More of a new standard.

[zornwil]

Re: New advantage "Scour"

 

Very nice idea, I like it a lot! I just want to back up the comment on defenses - in designing Cyber Ninja Pirates, I found this to be an issue, and it even came up immediately in play-test, and especially because I forgot one of the basic rules I had put into my notes but not in the first draft - all defenses (except innate character DEF, which is ultimately limited) are essentially ablative, and I do it simply as indicating that 1/3 of the attack damage reduces the DEF directly (e.g., a 30 point damage takes away 10 from DEF). Bear in mind this game is very very genre/setting-specific and all attacks are basically Killing in HERO terms. I am not recommending this as an approach, but rather backing up that I have seen the same issue.

 

Bravo to Prestidigitator as well for his suggestion, and DR for excellent work on fleshing out the model. ANB (if I may call you that), have you edited the first post to include all the input you saw worthy of being included?

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: New advantage "Scour"

 

Very nice idea, I like it a lot! I just want to back up the comment on defenses - in designing Cyber Ninja Pirates, I found this to be an issue, and it even came up immediately in play-test, and especially because I forgot one of the basic rules I had put into my notes but not in the first draft - all defenses (except innate character DEF, which is ultimately limited) are essentially ablative, and I do it simply as indicating that 1/3 of the attack damage reduces the DEF directly (e.g., a 30 point damage takes away 10 from DEF). Bear in mind this game is very very genre/setting-specific and all attacks are basically Killing in HERO terms. I am not recommending this as an approach, but rather backing up that I have seen the same issue.

 

Bravo to Prestidigitator as well for his suggestion, and DR for excellent work on fleshing out the model. ANB (if I may call you that), have you edited the first post to include all the input you saw worthy of being included?

 

Why, thank you kindly Zorn. ANB is fine, or Amadan, or AnB or whatever...I've heard 'em all before. I'm of the philosophy that editing the original post might cause confusion amongst thread Necromancers and searchers, but I will probably go through and compile the thoughts into another post soon. As soon as I get motivated to do so, that is... too many irons in the fire, ya know.

[zornwil]

Re: New advantage "Scour"

 

Looking forward to seeing it as revised. Know what you mean about irons in the fire!

[Vondy]

Re: New advantage "Scour"

 

There are rules for damaging breakable foci (including foci that provide defenses) on page 294 of 5ER. It seems most non-superheroic armor would be defined as a breakable durable focus, which means to would take body every time the wearer took body. It would be destroyed after taking the twice the number of body as the defense it provides. The rules also mention that some foci may lose powers as their body marches towards 0 (destruction). By that same token - it seems fair for armor to accept some sort of activation roll as its body marches towards zero. As a result there are rules (usually ignored for expedience sake) already in place to handle most of the situations where this advantage would be used.

[zornwil]

Re: New advantage "Scour"

 

There are rules for damaging breakable foci (including foci that provide defenses) on page 294 of 5ER. It seems most non-superheroic armor would be defined as a breakable durable focus' date=' which means to would take body every time the wearer took body. It would be destroyed after taking the twice the number of body as the defense it provides. The rules also mention that some foci may lose powers as their body marches towards 0 (destruction). By that same token - it seems fair for armor to accept some sort of activation roll as its body marches towards zero. As a result there are rules (usually ignored for expedience sake) already in place to handle most of the situations where this advantage would be used.[/quote']

Hmmm...killjoy!

 

Just kidding. Good point. Then the main "modification" (and it isn't really one) would be for any heroic games where this a GM desires that this come into play to declare that, aside from unusual defenses with GM permission, any foci/armor or the like is considered breakable durable. I would point out that as the discussion you cite is specifically under the Focus Limitation, it begs a GM really calling it out and applying it where most players probably don't presume it would come into play - specifically such as Armor with no Focus explicit Limitation.

 

PS - I reread the original post in this light; actually, I think ANB still has it correct in what he's saying here, fundamentally, because his intent is to cause damage to the armor and such WITHOUT having to get at the possessor. The complaint/issue is that high defenses are still hard to get at with this rule. His system allows you to do the damage without exceeding DEF, which is a problem I have seen for sci-fi. But I may be misreading what you cited, so please clarify. I don't advocate adding Scour as a core rule, but I think it is a useful house rule that does what the system does not. I welcome being corrected, though.

[Vondy]

Re: New advantage "Scour"

 

Hmmm...killjoy!

 

Just kidding. Good point. Then the main "modification" (and it isn't really one) would be for any heroic games where this a GM desires that this come into play to declare that, aside from unusual defenses with GM permission, any foci/armor or the like is considered breakable durable. I would point out that as the discussion you cite is specifically under the Focus Limitation, it begs a GM really calling it out and applying it where most players probably don't presume it would come into play - specifically such as Armor with no Focus explicit Limitation.

 

In my game all weapons and armor are assumed to be breakable durable unless the player specifically defines it differently. However, I only bring into into play when there's an SFX or plot reason to do so. As for your latter scenario, I understand what your saying and agree that would work, but would also point out that a player who doesn't take the focus limitation (for instance, power armor OHID) is by definition someone who doesn't lose their focus (this is mentioned both in the Focus explanation and OHID explanation) and shouldn't therefore be subject to losing it unless an actual adjustment power is used. It doesn't mean it doesn't make internal senses to have their not-focus be affected, but there is a question of fairness in terms of getting what you pay for. I would only feel comfortable damaging their not-focus if the player was cool with it, and would probably force them to take the focus lim if I was inclined to pursue this course of action.

 

PS - I reread the original post in this light; actually' date=' I think ANB still has it correct in what he's saying here, fundamentally, because his intent is to cause damage to the armor and such WITHOUT having to get at the possessor. The complaint/issue is that high defenses are still hard to get at with this rule. His system allows you to do the damage without exceeding DEF, which is a problem I have seen for sci-fi. But I may be misreading what you cited, so please clarify. I don't advocate adding Scour as a core rule, but I think it is a useful house rule that does what the system does not. I welcome being corrected, though.[/quote']

 

You can specifically target a focus, and foci that provide defenses are automatically hit if the target or covered location is hit. As a result, you can simply define the attack as Affects Armor First -0. Or you could use the penetrating advantage, which would do body to the target, and by system default, the armor at the same time. I think penetrating costs the same as Scour as well. The only rules mod you need is defining how much effectiveness the armor loses before being totally destroyed.

 

How much effectiveness armor loses as it loses body isn't formalized in 5ER (though some loss of effectiveness is strongly implied by the text), but could be done in two (or more) ways:

 

1) Based on % of body taken, the armor obtains an activation roll (shredded armor)

 

2) Based on % of body taken, the armor loses effectiveness expressed by points of defense. For instance, when have of its body is lost, armor is reduced to half its defense total, etc. (weakened armor)

[zornwil]

Re: New advantage "Scour"

 

In my game all weapons and armor are assumed to be breakable durable unless the player specifically defines it differently. However, I only bring into into play when there's an SFX or plot reason to do so. As for your latter scenario, I understand what your saying and agree that would work, but would also point out that a player who doesn't take the focus limitation (for instance, power armor OHID) is by definition someone who doesn't lose their focus (this is mentioned both in the Focus explanation and OHID explanation) and shouldn't therefore be subject to losing it unless an actual adjustment power is used. It doesn't mean it doesn't make internal senses to have their not-focus be affected, but there is a question of fairness in terms of getting what you pay for. I would only feel comfortable damaging their not-focus if the player was cool with it, and would probably force them to take the focus lim if I was inclined to pursue this course of action.

 

 

 

You can specifically target a focus, and foci that provide defenses are automatically hit if the target or covered location is hit. As a result, you can simply define the attack as Affects Armor First -0. Or you could use the penetrating advantage, which would do body to the target, and by system default, the armor at the same time. I think penetrating costs the same as Scour as well. The only rules mod you need is defining how much effectiveness the armor loses before being totally destroyed.

 

How much effectiveness armor loses as it loses body isn't formalized in 5ER (though some loss of effectiveness is strongly implied by the text), but could be done in two (or more) ways:

 

1) Based on % of body taken, the armor obtains an activation roll (shredded armor)

 

2) Based on % of body taken, the armor loses effectiveness expressed by points of defense. For instance, when have of its body is lost, armor is reduced to half its defense total, etc. (weakened armor)

Fair enough points. Would you suggest, then, to flesh it out a bit more, that an in-rules alternative to ANB's Scour would be a Linked Attack to Armor Directly? I think that's most directly analagous, since I believe he wanted to prevent directly linking BODY damage to armor damage, and among your suggestions this does that best.

[Vondy]

Re: New advantage "Scour"

 

Fair enough points. Would you suggest' date=' then, to flesh it out a bit more, that an in-rules alternative to ANB's Scour would be a Linked Attack to Armor Directly? I think that's most directly analagous, since I believe he wanted to prevent directly linking BODY damage to armor damage, and among your suggestions this does that best.[/quote']

 

I would suggest a "compound power," though that's more of a hero-designer concept than an official rules concept (I maintain it should be an official concept) - I use them a lot. As such, yes, an attack defined as directly targeting the armor is the simplest and most "rules-proper" way to simulate this. And from a second look at the Foci rules, armor does not have exotic defenses unless they are specifically purchased for the armor, not the wearer, as a (-2) limitation. This means a relatively small exotic attack that does body can be a killer for armor given enough time, or with enough quick hits in a short time. A linked power is also an option.

 

Javelin Class 18MM Auto Guass Pistol with Dragons Breath Anti Armor Acid Rounds:

 

Cost	Power	END
23	18MM Round: Killing Attack - Ranged 2d6+1, 4 clips of 15 Charges (+1/4), Autofire (3 shots; +1/4); OAF (-1), Reduced Penetration (-1/4)	[15]
12	Acid Resevoir: Killing Attack - Ranged 1 point, 4 clips of 15 Continuing Charges lasting 1 Turn each (+3/4), No Normal Defense ([standard]; +1), Does BODY (+1), Continuous (+1), Autofire (3 shots; +1 1/4); OAF (-1), Linked (18MM Round; -1/2)	[15 cc]

Powers Cost: 35

 

Power Description:

 

Lets say I have a a 18MM Fully Auto Magnetic Accelerator Pistol loaded with Dragon's Breath Anti-Armor Acid Rounds - hows that for a patent? Now, the bullets are 18MM, but pistol sized. Still, they should do an impressive amount of damage so I can them a 2d6+1. And I may want a hail of bullets, so I have single shot and 3 round burst selection (AF3). And its got an extendo clip that holds 15 of these bad 18MM mothers; and I've got 4 clips because I expect to be pulling the Chow Yun Fat maneuver. The bullet is assumed to do damage normally, meaning, if it does damage to the target it does damage to the armor. If not, not.

 

But, my gun exists in a world where the is armor tech is rapidly advancing and 18MM by itself won't cut it. The new Hoplite armor may even defeat 18 MM AP rounds its so tough! So I've got some really killer Anti-Armor Acid Rounds designed to defeat this Hoplite uber-tech armor. The bullets are designed to break on impact with a rigid surface (resistant defense) with the armor and release a fast burning acid. The acid resevior in the bullet is fairly small, but it burns for several seconds (1 Pip RKA, AF3, NND, Does Body, Continuous, Same Number of Charges and Clips, but purchased as Continuing Charges of 1 Turn). Its a part of the bullet, so its either a compound power or linked. The acid is assumed to target the armor first.

 

The Opposition: Hoplite Mark-III Bioplastic Armor.

 

15PD/15ED Armor, Hardened + 50% Resistant PD Damage Reduction, Stun Only. It is defined as a breakable durable universal focus. It will be destroyed if it takes 30 Body, but it gets its own DEF against that attack.

 

Now, how does this play out? The bullet hits and fragments without damaging the target - at least not at first. But the acid starts doing a point of body to the armor on each of my phases for a turn. And I may get multiple hits, meaning the armor is taking several body per phase for a turn. And I may get hits beyond the first phase, so the number of body damage to the armor increases. But wait. The armor is soon weakned to the point where my bullets are blowing through, either because the armor is now useless (reduced to 0 Body) or because the GM has formalized a system for reducing the armors effectiveness in proportion to the damage to the armor (which seems logical based on the text in 5ER). Lets examine the effects of each:

 

Armor Rendered Useless (0 Body): now that the target who has no resistant defense, he takes full body from the bullet itself, and has acid burning inside his meat-sack form. Ew....

 

Armor Has Progressive Activation Roll: If the roll is missed, the target takes damage as above. If the roll is made, we continue the break and burn routine until the armor is destroyed, or the bullets get through the broken parts of the armor and kill the wearer.

 

Armor Has Progressively Reduced Defenses: We proceed as normal, but some body damage may begin to get through from the main attack (also damaging the armor) as the armor provides less and less protection.

 

And God help you if I have accurate sprayfire and use the rapid fire manuever with ooodles of skill levels... lets assume I don't use rapid fire and accurate sprayfire, but instead have +4 PSLs verses AF Pens and some ranged skill levels and get my hits in. I'm speed four and optimistic:

 

Phase 1: 3 Hits, Armor takes 3 Body.

Phase 2: 3 Hits, Armor takes 6 Body. (9 Total)

Phase 3: 3 Hits, Armor takes 9 Body. (18 Total)

Phase 4: 3 Hits, Armor takes 12 Body. (30 Total, Armor Destroyed).

 

A few thoughts:

 

One: even if I don't get all my hits in the armors life expectancy is probably no more than two turns. Which means, once its gone, the wearer is Dragons Breath Bait and will take an average 8 Body + 1 Body (per phase for a turn) for a total of 13 Body per hit.

 

Two: If the GM assigns a proportional activation roll to the damage of the armor (using the numbers above), after my second phase the armor should be at 13 or 14- (so some rounds might start to get through (ew...), and after by the end of my third phase it should be down to 10 or 11-. It should be useless at the end of phase four. Now, if I don't get my hits in the effectiveness reduction will take a little longer, but only a little, and some rounds may get through well before the armor is dead.

 

Three: If the defenses are merely reduced I'm more likely to take them down due to stun than body, but as the armor approaches its death some of the rounds will blow through (injure the target) even though the armor is not completely destroyed.

[zornwil]

Re: New advantage "Scour"

 

I think that compound power is an implicit concept in HERO already, but I agree it should be made explicit. I should have said such, as Linked indicates the ability to separate out, so good point.

 

And that was a bit of work, well done!